"... The Pity of It All : A Portrait of the German-Jewish Epoch, 1743-1933 ..."
"... Perhaps you are making too much of the so called decline of the neocons. At the strategic level, there is little difference between the neocon "Project for a the New American Century" and Brzezinski's "The Grand Chessboard," both of which are consistent with US policy and actions in the Ukraine. ..."
"... The most significant difference seems to me to be the neocon emphasis on American unilateral militarism versus Obama's emphasis on multilateralism, covert operations and financial warfare to achieve the desired results. ..."
"... Perhaps another significant difference is the neocon emphasis on the primacy of the American nation-state versus the neoliberal emphasis on an American dominated global empire. ..."
"... Interesting to juxtapose Brzezinski and the neocons. In a Venn diagram they would over-lap 90%. ..."
"... Right now, their interests have diverged over the Ukraine crisis. Though many of the American neocons do support subverting Ukraine as does Brzezinski it looks like Israel itself is leaning towards supporting Russia. ..."
"... Right Sector militias are the fighting force that led the coup against the legally elected Yanukovich government and were almost certainly involved in the recent massacre in Odessa. And you support them for their fight for freedom? You should be ashamed. Zionism is sinking to new lows that they feel the need to identify with open neo-Nazis. ..."
"... Well, the point is that Zionists in Israel do not identify with that particular set of open neo-Nazis. I suspect that this is simply a matter of the headcount of Jewish business tycoons that are politically aligned with (western) Ukraine and Russia. Or you can count their billions. ..."
"... The problem with your reasoning, Yonah, is that you are espousing the Neocon line while not apparently recognizing that embarrassing fact. You lament that the US is no longer playing the role of the world's superpower, and acting as the world's cop, confronting militarily Russia, China, Iran and anyone else. It is precisely that mentality that got us into Iraq, could yet have us in a war with Iran, would like to see us defending Ukraine, and thinks we should confront China militarily over bits of rock it and its neighbors are quibbling over. That is a neocon, American supremacy mentality. ..."
"... Zionism under Likud has played a major role in promoting the neocon approach to foreign policy in the US. It was heavily involved in the birth of that approach, and has helped fund and promote the policy and its supporters and advocates in this country. They (Likud Zionists and Neocons) played a major role in getting us into the Iraq war and are playing a major role in trying to get us involved in a war with Iran, a war in Syria, and even potential wars in Eastern Europe. That is a very dangerous trend and one folks as intelligent as you are, should be focusing on. ..."
"... "nationalist Armageddon that is nowhere found in the article by Sleeper" ..."
"... "The misadventure in Iraq has cost the US and the world a lot. The US a loss in humans and money and willingness to play the role of superpower, and the world has lost its cop. " ..."
"... Tough. Meanwhile hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi lives don't rate a mention. ..."
"... " (let the Russians have their sphere of influence, let the Iranians have their bomb, let the Chinese do whatever they want to do in their part of the world, for after all they hold a trillion dollars in US government debt and so let them act like the boss, for in fact they have been put in that role by feckless and destructive and wasteful US policy). But Sleeper does not say that." ..."
"... But even if we do focus on neocons, neocons don't have opinions about foreign policy and USA dominance that are much distinct from what most Republican interventionists have. How much difference is there between David Frum and Mitt Romney or between Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld? ..."
"... Don't look to the US to get any justice in the ME, nor to regain US good reputation in the world. This will situation will not change because US political campaign fiancé system won't change–it just gets worse, enhanced by SCOTUS. ..."
"... But neoocns have the confidence that if they could impose the neocon's theology on the rest of the world, they can do it here as well on American street . They call it education, motivation, duty, responsibility, moral burden, and above all the essence of the manifest destiny. ..."
At the Huffington Post, Jim Sleeper addresses
"A Foreign-Policy Problem
No One Speaks About," and it turns out to Jewish identity, the need to belong to the powerful nation on the part of Jewish neoconservatives.
Sleeper says this is an insecurity born of European exclusion that he understands as a Jew, even if he's not a warmongering neocon
himself. The Yale lecturer's jumping-off point are recent statements by Leon Wieseltier and
David Brooks lamenting the decline of
American power.
In addition to Wieseltier and Brooks, the "blame the feckless liberals" chorus has included Donald Kagan, Robert Kagan, David
Frum, William Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and many other American neoconservatives. Some of them have
been chastened, or at least been made more cautious, by their grand-strategic blunders of a few years ago ..
I'm saying that they've been fatuous as warmongers again and again and that there's something pathetic in their attempts to
emulate Winston Churchill, who warned darkly of Hitler's intentions in the 1930s. Their blind spot is their willful ignorance
of their own complicity in American deterioration and their over-compensatory, almost pre-adolescent faith in the benevolence
of a statist and militarist power they still hope to mobilize against the seductions and terrors rising all around them.
At bottom, the chorus members' recurrent nightmares of 1938 doom them to reenact other nightmares, prompted by very similar
writers in 1914, on the eve of World War I. Those writers are depicted chillingly, unforgettably, in Chapter 9, "War Fever," of
Amos Elon's
The Pity of It All: A Portrait of the German-Jewish Epoch, 1743-1933. Elon's account of Germany's stampede into World
War I chronicles painfully the warmongering hysterics of some Jewish would-be patriots of the Kaiserreich who exerted themselves
blindly, romantically, to maneuver their state into the Armageddon that would produce Hitler himself.
This is the place to emphasize that few of Wilhelmine German's warmongers were Jews and that few Jews were or are warmongers.
(Me, for example, although my extended-family history isn't much different from Brooks' or Wieseltier's.) My point is simply that,
driven by what I recognize as understandable if almost preternatural insecurities and cravings for full liberal-nationalist belonging
that was denied to Jews for centuries in Europe, some of today's American super-patriotic neo-conservatives hurled themselves
into the Iraq War, and they have continued, again and again, to employ modes of public discourse and politics that echo with eerie
fidelity that of the people described in Elon's book. The Americans lionized George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and
many others as their predecessors lionized Kaiser Wilhelm, von Bethmann-Hollweg, and far-right nationalist associates who hated
the neo-cons of that time but let them play their roles .
Instead of acknowledging their deepest feelings openly, or even to themselves, the writers I've mentioned who've brought so
much folly and destruction upon their republic, are doubling down, more nervous and desperate than ever, looking for someone else
to blame. Hence their whirling columns and rhythmic incantations. After Germany lost World War I, many Germans unfairly blamed
their national folly on Jews, many of whom had served in it loyally but only a few of whom had been provocateurs and cheerleaders
like the signatories of [Project for New American Century's] letter to Bush. Now neo-cons, from Wieseltier and Brooks to [Charles]
Hill, are blaming Obama and all other feckless liberals. Some of them really need to take a look in Amos Elon's mirror.
Interesting. Though I think Sleeper diminishes Jewish agency here (Sheldon Adelson and Haim Saban are no one's proxy) and can't
touch the Israel angle. The motivation is not simply romantic identification with power, it's an ideology of religious nationalism
in the Middle East, attachment to the needs of a militarist Sparta in the Arab world. That's another foreign policy problem no one
speaks about.
Krauss, May 6, 2014, 2:11 pm
"Democracy in in the Middle East" was always just a weasel-word saying of "let's try to improve Israel's strategic position
by changing their neighbours".
The neocons basically took a hardline position on foreign interventionism based out of dual loyalty. This is the honest truth.
For anti-Semites, a handful of neocons will always represent "The Jews" as a collective. For many Jews, the refusal to come to
grips with the rise of the neocons and how the Jewish community (and really by "community" I mean the establishment) failed to
prevent them in their own midst, is also a blemish.
Of course, Jim Sleeper is doing these things now. He should have done them 15-20 years ago or so. But better late than never,
I guess.
Krauss, May 6, 2014, 2:16 pm
P.S. While we talk a lot about neocons as a Jewish issue, it's also important to put them in perspective. The only war that
I can truly think of that they influenced was the Iraq war, which was a disaster, but it also couldn't have happened without 9/11,
which was a very rare event in the history of America. You have to go back to Pearl Harbor to find something similar, and that
wasn't technically a terrorist attack but rather a military attack by Japan.
Leading up to the early 2000s, they were mostly ignored during the 1990s. They did take over the GOP media in the early 90s,
using the same tactics used against Hagel, use social norms as a cover but in actuality the real reason is Israel.
Before the 90s, in the 70s and 80s, the cold war took up all the oxygen.
So yeah, the neocons need to be talked about. But comparing what they are trying to do with a World War is a bit of a stretch.
Finally, talking about Israel – which Sleeper ignored – and the hardline positions that the political class in America have
adopted, if you want to look who have ensured the greatest slavishness to Israel, liberal/centrist groups like ADL, AJC and AIPAC(yes,
they are mostly democrats!) have played a far greater role than the neocons.
But I guess, Sleeper wasn't dealing with that, because it would ruin his view of the neocons as the bogeymen.
Just like "liberal" Zionists want to blame Likud for everything, overlooking the fact that Labor/Mapai has had a far greater
role in settling/colonizing the Palestinian land than the right has, and not to speak about the ethnic cleansing campaigns of
'48 and '67 which was only done by the "left", so too the neocons often pose as a convenient catch-all target for the collective
Jewish failure leading up to Iraq.
And I'm using the words "collective Jewish failure" because I actually don't believe, unlike Mearsheimer/Walt, that the war
would not have gone ahead unless there was massive support by the Israel/Jewish lobby. If Jews had decided no, it would still
have gone ahead. This is also contrary to Tom Friedman's famous saying of "50 people in DC are responsible for this war".
I also think that's an oversimplification.
But I focus more on the Jewish side because that's my side. And I want my community to do better, and just blaming the neocons
is something I'm tired of hearing in Jewish circles. The inability to look at liberal Jewish journalists and their role in promoting
the war to either gentile or Jewish audiences.
Kathleen, May 6, 2014, 6:53 pm
There was talk about this last night (Monday/5th) on Chris Matthew's Hardball segment on Condi "mushroom cloud" Rice pulling
out of the graduation ceremonies at Rutger's. David Corn did not say much but Eugene Robinson and Chris Matthews were basically
talking about Israel and the neocons desires to rearrange the middle east "the road to Jerusalem runs through Baghdad" conversation.
Bumblebye, May 6, 2014, 2:33 pm
"some of today's American super-patriotic neo-conservatives hurled themselves into the Iraq War"
Have to take issue with that – the neo-cons hurled young American (and foreign) servicemen and women into that war, many to
their deaths, along with throwing as much taxpayer money as possible. They stayed ultra safe and grew richer for their efforts.
Citizen, May 7, 2014, 9:03 am
@ Bumblebye
Good point. During WW1, as I read the history, the Jewish Germans provided their fair share of combat troops. If memory serves,
despite Weimar Germany's later "stab in the back" theory, e.g., Hitler himself was given a combat medal thanks to his Jewish senior
officer. In comparison to the build-up to Shrub Jr's war on Iraq, the Jewish neocons provided very few Jewish American combat
troops.
It's hard to get reliable stats on Jewish American participation in the US combat arms during the Iraq war. For all I've been
able to ascertain, more have joined the IDF over the years. At any rate, it's common knowledge that Shrub's war on Iraq was instigated
and supported by chicken hawks (Jew or Gentile) at a time bereft of conscription. They built their sale by ignoring key facts,
and embellishing misleading and fake facts, as illustrated by the Downing Street memo.
Keith, May 6, 2014, 7:47 pm
PHIL- Perhaps you are making too much of the so called decline of the neocons. At the strategic level, there is little
difference between the neocon "Project for a the New American Century" and Brzezinski's "The Grand Chessboard," both of which
are consistent with US policy and actions in the Ukraine.
The most significant difference seems to me to be the neocon emphasis on American unilateral militarism versus Obama's
emphasis on multilateralism, covert operations and financial warfare to achieve the desired results.
Perhaps another significant difference is the neocon emphasis on the primacy of the American nation-state versus the neoliberal
emphasis on an American dominated global empire.
So yes, the nationalistic emphasis is an anachronism, however, the decline of the US in conjunction with the extension of a
system of globalized domination should hardly be of concern to elite power-seekers who will benefit. In fact, the new system of
corporate/financial control will be beyond the political control of any nation, even the US. If they can pull it off. An interesting
topic no doubt, but one which I doubt is suitable for extended discussion on Mondoweiss. As for power-seeking as a consequence
of a uniquely Jewish experience, perhaps the less said the better.
Interesting to juxtapose Brzezinski and the neocons. In a Venn diagram they would over-lap 90%. The Ukraine crisis exposes that
10% difference. Brzezinski I very much doubt has any emotional attachment to Israel though he is happy to work in coalition with
them to further his one true goal which is to isolate and defeat Russian influence in the world. In the 1980s both were on the
same page in the "let my people go" campaign against the Soviet Union. Brzezinski saw it as a propaganda opportunity to attack
Russia and the neocons saw it has a source of more Jews to settle Palestine.
Right now, their interests have diverged over the
Ukraine crisis. Though many of the American neocons do support subverting Ukraine as does Brzezinski it looks like Israel itself
is leaning towards supporting Russia. When it comes down to it it is hard for many Jews, right wing or not, to support the political
movement inside Ukraine that identifies with Bandera. Now that was one nasty antisemite whose followers killed many thousands
of Ukrainian Jews during the holocaust. My wife's family immigrated from Galicia and the Odessa region and those left behind perished
during the holocaust. The extended family includes anti-zionists and WB settlers. There is no way that any of them would identify
with Ukrainian fascist movements now active there.
In any case, there does seem to be a potential split among the neocons over Ukraine. It would be the ultimate in hypocrisy
for all of those eastern European Jews who became successful in the US in the last few generations to enter into coalition with
the Bandera brigades.
(I know I'm always grabbing OT threads of discussion, but when it comes down to it, I know much less about Zionism and Israel/Palestine
than many, if not most of the regular commenters here.)
I also am going to drift further off-topic by saying there is strong evidence that the slaughter in Odessa last Friday was
highly orchestrated and not solely the result of spontaneous mob violence. Very graphic and disturbing images in all of these
links:
" and it turns out to Jewish identity, the need to belong to the powerful nation on the part of Jewish neoconservatives.
Sleeper says this is an insecurity born of European exclusion that he understands as a Jew, ..>>
Stop it Sleeper. Do not continue to use the victim card ' to explain' the trauma, the insecurities, the nightmares, the angst,
the feelings, the sensitivities, blah blah, blah of Zionist or Israel.
That is not what they are about. These are power mad psychos like most neocons, period.
And even if it were, and even if all the Jews in the world felt the same way, the bottom line would still be they do not have
the right to make others pay in treasure and blood for their nightmares and mental sickness.
As near as I can tell (correct me if I'm wrong), the Ukrainians themselves are about half and half pro Russia and Pro NATO.
Your glance at the history of the region as to why this is so, and your text on historical Ukranian suffering and POTV on MW commentary
on this –did not help your analysis and its conclusion.
There's a difference between isolationism and defensive intervention, and even more so, re isolationism v. pro-active interventionism
"in the name of pursuing the democratic ideal". See Ron Paul v. PNAC-style neocons and liberal Zionists.
Also, if you were Putin, how would you see the push of NATO & US force posts ever creeping towards Russia and its local environment?
Look at the US military postings nearing Russia per se & those surrounding Iran. Compare Russia's.
And note the intent to wean EU from Russian oil, and as well, the draconian sanctions on Iran, and Obama's latest partnering
sanctions on Russia.
Imagine yourself in Putin's shoes, and Iran's.
Don't abuse your imagination only by imagining yourself in Netanyahu's shoes, which is the preoccupation of AIPAC and its whores
in the US Congress.
Interesting to juxtapose Brzezinski and the neocons. In a Venn diagram they would over-lap 90%. The Ukraine crisis exposes
that 10% difference. Brzezinski I very much doubt has any emotional attachment to Israel though he is happy to work in coalition
with them to further his one true goal which is to isolate and defeat Russian influence in the world. In the 1980s both were on
the same page in the "let my people go" campaign against the Soviet Union. Brzezinski saw it as a propaganda opportunity to attack
Russia and the neocons saw it has a source of more Jews to settle Palestine.
Right now, their interests have diverged over
the Ukraine crisis. Though many of the American neocons do support subverting Ukraine as does Brzezinski it looks like Israel
itself is leaning towards supporting Russia. When it comes down to it it is hard for many Jews, right wing or not, to support
the political movement inside Ukraine that identifies with Bandera. Now that was one nasty anti-Semite whose followers killed
many thousands of Ukrainian Jews during the holocaust. My wife's family immigrated from Galicia and the Odessa region and those
left behind perished during the holocaust. The extended family includes anti-Zionists and WB settlers. There is no way that any
of them would identify with Ukrainian fascist movements now active there.
In any case, there does seem to be a potential split among the neocons over Ukraine. It would be the ultimate in hypocrisy
for all of those eastern European Jews who became successful in the US in the last few generations to enter into coalition with
the Bandera brigades.
Yonah writes The freedom of Ukraine is a worthy goal. If the US is not able to back up our attempt to help them gain their
freedom it is not something to celebrate, but something to lament.
What are you saying? Ukraine has been an independent nation for 22 years. What freedom is this? What we have witnessed is that
one half of Ukraine has gotten tired that the other half keeps on electing candidates that represent those Ukrainians that identify
with Russian culture. They (the western half) successfully staged a coup and purged the other (eastern half) from the government.
You call that "freedom". Doesn't it embarrass you, Yonah, that the armed militias that conducted that coup are descendants of
the Bandera organization.
Does that ring a bell? These are the Ukrainians that were involved in the holocaust. Does Babi Yar stir any memories Yohan?
It was a massacre of 40,000 Jews just outside of Kiev in 1942. It was the single largest massacre of Jews during WWII. The massacre
was led by the Germans ( Einsatzgruppe C officers) but was carried out with the aid of 400 Ukrainian Auxillary Police. These were
later incorporated into the 14th SS-Volunteer Division "Galician" made up mostly Ukrainians. The division flags are to this day
displayed at Right Sector rallies in western Ukraine.
Right Sector militias are the fighting force that led the coup against the legally elected Yanukovich government and were
almost certainly involved in the recent massacre in Odessa. And you support them for their fight for freedom? You should be ashamed.
Zionism is sinking to new lows that they feel the need to identify with open neo-Nazis.
Well, the point is that Zionists in Israel do not identify with that particular set of open neo-Nazis. I suspect that this
is simply a matter of the headcount of Jewish business tycoons that are politically aligned with (western) Ukraine and Russia.
Or you can count their billions. In any case, the neutral posture is sensible for Israel here. Which is highly uncharacteristic
for that government.
Toivo S- The history of Jew hatred by certain anti Russian elements in the Ukraine is not encouraging and nothing that I celebrate.
Maybe I have been swayed by headlines and a superficial reading of the situation.
If indeed I am wrong regarding the will of the Ukrainian people, I can only be glad that my opinion is just that, my opinion
and not US or Israel or anyone's policy but my own. I assume that a majority of Ukrainians want to maintain independence of Russia
and that the expressions of rebellion are in that vein.
My people were murdered by the einsatzgruppen in that part of the world and so maybe I have overcompensated by trying not to
allow my personal history to interfere with what I think would be the will of the majority of the Ukraine.
But Toivo S. please skip the "doesn't it embarrass you" line of thought. Just put a sock in it and skip it.
Well thanks for that Yonah. My wife's family descended from Jewish communities in Odessa and Galicia. They emigrated to the US
between 1900 and 1940. After WWII none of their relatives left behind were ever heard from again. Perhaps you have family that
experienced similar stories. What caused me to react to your post above is that you are describing the current situation in Ukraine
as a "freedom" movement by the Ukrainians when the political forces there descended from the same people that killed my inlaws
family (and apparently yours to). Why do you support them?
ToivoS- I support them because I trust/don't trust Putin. I trust him to impose his brand of leadership on Ukraine, I don't trust
him to care a whit about freedom. It is natural that the nationalist elements of Ukraine would descend from the elements that
expressed themselves the last time they had freedom from the Soviet Union, that is those forces that were willing to join with
the Nazis to express their hatred for the communist Soviet Union's rule over their freedom. That's how history works. The nationalists
today descend from the nationalists of yesterday.
But it's been 70 years since WWII and the Ukrainians ought to be able to have freedom even if the parties that advocate for
freedom are descended from those that supported the Nazis. (I know once i include the Nazi part of history any analogies are toxic,
but if I am willing to grant Hamas its rights as an expression of the Palestinian desire for freedom, why would I deny the Ukrainian
foul nationalist parties their rights to express their people's desire for freedom.)
Political parties are not made in a sterile laboratory, they evolve over history and most specifically they emerge from the
past. I accept that Ukrainian nationalism has not evolved much, but nonetheless not having read any polls I assume that the nationalists
are the representatives of the people's desire for freedom. And because Putin strikes me as something primitive, I accept the
Ukrainian desire for freedom.
What are you supporting? Let me refresh your historic memory: Black's Transfer Agreement. Now apply analogy, responding
to ToivoS. Might help us all to understand, explore more skillfully, Israel's current stance on the Putin-Ukranian matter .?
(I think Nuland's intervention caught on tape, combined with who she is married to, already explores with great clarification
what the US is doing.
"The misadventure in Iraq has cost the US and the world a lot. The US a loss in humans and money and willingness to play
the role of superpower, and the world has lost its cop. Most people here would probably disagree with Sleeper, because he does
not deny that the world needs a cop, nor that the US would play a positive role, if it only had the means and the desire to
do so. People here (overwhelmingly) see the US role as a negative one (let the Russians have their sphere of influence, let
the Iranians have their bomb, let the Chinese do whatever they want to do in their part of the world,"
The problem with your reasoning, Yonah, is that you are espousing the Neocon line while not apparently recognizing that
embarrassing fact. You lament that the US is no longer playing the role of the world's superpower, and acting as the world's cop,
confronting militarily Russia, China, Iran and anyone else. It is precisely that mentality that got us into Iraq, could yet have
us in a war with Iran, would like to see us defending Ukraine, and thinks we should confront China militarily over bits of rock
it and its neighbors are quibbling over. That is a neocon, American supremacy mentality.
Contrast that with the realist or realism approach recommended by George Kennan, and followed by this country successfully
through the end of the Cold War. That approach is conservative and contends we should stay out of wars unless the vital national
security interests of the US are at stake, like protecting WESTERN Europe, Japan, Australia, and the Western Hemisphere. This
meant we could sympathize with the plight of all the eastern Europeans oppressed by the Soviets, but would not defend militarily
the Hungarians (1956) or the Czechs (1968). It also meant we wouldn't send US troops into North Vietnam because we didn't want
to go to war with the Chinese over a country that was at best tangential to US interests. When we varied from that policy (Vietnam
and Iraq wars, Somalia) we paid a very heavy price while doing nothing to advance or protect our vital national security interests.
The sooner this country can return to our traditional realism-based foreign policy the better. Part of that policy would be
to disassociate the US from its entangling alliance with Likud Israel and its US Jewish supporters that espouse the Likud Greater
Israel line.
Zionism under Likud has played a major role in promoting the neocon approach to foreign policy in the US. It was heavily
involved in the birth of that approach, and has helped fund and promote the policy and its supporters and advocates in this country.
They (Likud Zionists and Neocons) played a major role in getting us into the Iraq war and are playing a major role in trying to
get us involved in a war with Iran, a war in Syria, and even potential wars in Eastern Europe. That is a very dangerous trend
and one folks as intelligent as you are, should be focusing on.
Please note, my criticism is directed neither at all Jews in general, Jews in the US, nor or all Israeli Jews. It is directed
at a particular subset of Zionists who support Likud policies, and their supporters, many of whom are not Jews. It is also directed
at Neoconservative foreign policy advocates, comprised of Jews and non-Jews, and overlap between the two groups. Please also note
my use of the term "major role", and that I am not saying the Neocons and their supporters (Jewish or non) were solely responsible
for our involvement in the Iraq war. I am offering these caveats in the hope that the usual changes of antisemitism can be avoided
in your or anyone else's response to my arguments.
The influence of Neocons on US foreign policy has been very harmful to this country and poses a grave danger to its future.
It would be wise for you to reflect on that harm and those dangers and decide whether you belong in the realist camp or want to
continue running with the Neocons.
Please note, my criticism is directed neither at all Jews in general, Jews in the US, nor or all Israeli Jews. It is directed
at a particular subset of Zionists who support Likud policies, and their supporters, many of whom are not Jews.
What about the role of *liberal Zionists*, like Hillary Clinton, in supporting and promoting the Iraq War? Clinton still hasn't
offered an apology for helping to drive the United States in a multi-trillion dollar foreign policy disaster - and she has threatened
to "totally obliterate" Iran.
What about Harry Reid's lavish praise of Sheldon Adelson?
"Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has for some time billed the Koch brothers as public enemy No.1 .
But billionaire Republican donor Sheldon Adelson? He's just fine, Reid says.
"I know Sheldon Adelson. He's not in this for money," the Nevada Democrat said of Adelson, the Vegas casino magnate who
reportedly spent close to $150 million to support Republicans in the 2012 presidential election."
@ yonah fredman "nationalist Armageddon that is nowhere found in the article by Sleeper"
Strange
"state into the Armageddon .. "
"The misadventure in Iraq has cost the US and the world a lot. The US a loss in humans and money and willingness to
play the role of superpower, and the world has lost its cop. "
Tough. Meanwhile hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi lives don't rate a mention.
" (let the Russians have their sphere of influence, let the Iranians have their bomb, let the Chinese do whatever they
want to do in their part of the world, for after all they hold a trillion dollars in US government debt and so let them act
like the boss, for in fact they have been put in that role by feckless and destructive and wasteful US policy). But Sleeper
does not say that."
You do tho, without quoting anyone "here".
BTW Pajero, strawmen no matter how lengthy and seemingly erudite, rarely walk anywhere
I'm going to put this down as Jewish navel gazing.
Jews are disproportionately liberal. Jews make up a huge chunk of the peace movement. Jews are relative to their numbers on
the left of most foreign policy positions.
Iraq was unusual in that Jews were not overwhelming opposed to the invasion, but it is worth noting the invasion at the time
was overwhelming popular. Frankly given the fact that Jews are now considered white people and the fact that Jews are almost all
middle class they should be biased conservative. There certainly is no reason they should be more liberal than Catholics. Yet
they are. It is the degree of Jewish liberalism not the degree of Jewish conservatism that is striking.
But even if we do focus on neocons, neocons don't have opinions about foreign policy and USA dominance that are much distinct
from what most Republican interventionists have. How much difference is there between David Frum and Mitt Romney or between Paul
Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld?
Strongly antiwar incumbent Rep. Walter Jones (R – NC) has won a hotly contested primary tonight, defeating a challenge from
hawkish challenger and former Treasury Dept. official Taylor Griffin 51% to 45%.
Voter turn out was light .. tea party types did a lot of lobbying for Griffin here .but Jones prevailed. Considering the
onslaught of organized activity against him by ECI and the tea partiers for the past month he did well.
@ lysias
Let's refresh our look at what Ron Paul had to say about foreign policy and foreign aid. Then, let's compare what his son has
said, and take a look of his latest bill in congress to cut off aid to Palestine. Yes, you read that right; it's not a bill to
cut off any aid to Israel.
Don't look to the US to get any justice in the ME, nor to regain US good reputation in the world. This will situation will
not change because US political campaign fiancé system won't change–it just gets worse, enhanced by SCOTUS.
The heavy artillery included the detestable Karl Rove, former Governor and RNC Chair Haley Barber and the War Party's highly
paid chief PR flack, Ari Fleischer.
But it was Neocon central that hauled out the big guns. Bill Kristol was so desperate to thwart the slowly rising anti-interventionist
tide within the GOP that he even trotted out Sarah Palin to endorse Jones's opponent"
But neoocns have the confidence that if they could impose the neocon's theology on the rest of the world, they can do it
here as well on American street . They call it education, motivation, duty, responsibility, moral burden, and above all the essence
of the manifest destiny.
Exports of goods and services of Ukrainian production in 2015 will fall by about a third. And
this is not surprising: as a result of "reforms" in the country almost died the industry lost its
main Russian market, where Ukraine has supplied products with high added value. The cumulative figure
of industrial production YTD is approximately -15%. The main export product of Ukraine for the first
time since the pre-industrial era were products of agriculture. In the first place - corn.
Exports of goods and services of Ukrainian production in 2015 will fall by about a third. And
this is not surprising: as a result of "reforms" in the country almost died the industry lost its
main Russian market, where Ukraine has supplied products with high added value. The cumulative figure
of industrial production YTD is approximately -15%. The main export product of Ukraine for the first
time since the pre-industrial era were products of agriculture. In the first place - corn.
Exports of goods and services of Ukrainian production in 2015 will fall by about a third. And
this is not surprising: as a result of "reforms" in the country almost died the industry lost its
main Russian market, where Ukraine has supplied products with high added value. The cumulative figure
of industrial production YTD is approximately -15%. The main export product of Ukraine for the first
time since the pre-industrial era were products of agriculture. In the first place - corn.
Walker, as usual, is just doing his paid job ;-). Bots have no Christmas vacations by definition:
MTavernier,Metronome151,
psygone,
Alderbaran,
MentalToo,
Hektor Uranga, and one
interesting new one Chukuriuk
are all on duty. A deep observation by one of the commenters: "Interesting how all the trolling
comments, such as yours, seem to be against Putin..."
What some people doe not understand is that Putin represents a countervailing force to the
US imperial expansionism (and neoliberal expansionism in general). As there is an inherent value in
existence of countervailing force (neocons thing otherwise ;-) Putin deserve some level of support even
if one does not agree with everything he is doing. In a way Putin is more valuable to the USA then to
Russia as he prevents the USA elite from doing extremely stupid thing which were done during Yeltsin
rule which led to overstretching of the US empire and contains seeds its subsequent decline.
Notable quotes:
"... For all his sins you have to admire Putin. He is a man of conviction that actually believes in something that is worth saving, and will stop at nothing to achieve it. ..."
"... Battling against hostility from the West Putin has reformed the nations economy, and continues to work on behalf of his peoples interests. Its hard to imagine how Russia could ever replace Putin, or indeed what the new Russia would even look like without Putin at the helm. But for now the people are clearly grateful to have a strong decisive leader, as indeed are many other leaders across the globe who find Putin's honesty and conviction a breath of fresh air in a world of deception and double dealing. I guess with Putin you get what it says on the tin. ..."
"... Russian military requested by Assad to assist him in protecting his government. All others including America, British, French, Australian,Canadian, etc are there in contravention of International law ..."
"... Murdoch and Thatcher as a model of the free press? ..."
"... The Guardian and its puppet-masters hate the Russian people don't they? But they can't bring themselves to say that, so it's Putin they attempt to ridicule. ..."
"... Give me one Putin over a hundred Cameron's any day of the week. I've listened to a couple of those speeches, they are excellent, I don't bother listening to Mr Cameron. ..."
"... I know a few 'Russians' who have lived in the 'west' for 15/20 years. They had no illusions about their soviet upbringing, but knew the qualities of life - health care, education, housing - that it brought. They are generally agreed that the wonderland that was supposed to exist beyond their borders was an illusion. But they're hard working people, and they do OK. ..."
"... Russia has been able, in just 20 years, without wars and other troubles, to go from a semi-colony up to a world stage recognized leader. All Putin's risk-taking decisions have been successes or are still playing out and have good potential for ending in success. ..."
"... All this, quietly and imperceptibly, without tanks or strategic aviation, has been achieved by the Russian diplomacy, directed in a difficult confrontation with the block of the most powerful militarily and economically countries, while starting from a much lower position. ..."
"... Crimea would never have happened without the illegal coup backed by the west. We could choose to believe the western media's opinion on the state of Russia, or we could listen to the people who live there. ..."
"... What's that Shaun?.. Someone's publishing a book of Putin quotes?.. I've got a similar book by that other respected world leader and statesman.. You know.. Short, fat, speech impediment, drunk most of the time ... what's his name?..oh yeah, Churchill. ..."
"... This is what many in the west said too. Putin is just one of the few people with serious power to publically state the same. Western officials including Tony Blair admit that IS arose out of the chaos in Iraq. Its not even up for debate. The abomination that is IS is the chaos he warned us of. ..."
"... However, in the USA, Presidents tend to have Library Centers to archive their words of wisdom. Bush Junior's is located on the campus of Southern Methodist University (SMU) in University Park, Texas, opened on April 25, 2013. ..."
"... Interesting how all the trolling comments, such as yours, seem to be against Putin... ..."
"... The MSM has brainwashed the western world and they don't know anything else but what they are fed. ..."
"... If you understand that the leader's image is so important for the well-being of the population you wouldn't be criticizing him. After the drunken years of Yeltsin the Russians needed a different role model. There is a reason for Obama (a heavy smoker) not to do it ( at least not in front of the cameras) ..."
"... They might have added his habit of speaking the truth. Best chance of finding out what's actually going on in Syria + the Middle East generally is to listen to Putin. ..."
Words That Change the World is a 400-page compilation of Vladimir Putin's most notable speeches,
and has been sent out to all Russian MPs and other political figures as a gift from the presidential
administration ahead of the country's new year holiday.
Anton Volodin of the pro-Kremlin youth group
Network, which published the book, told the Guardian: "A year ago we noticed when reading one
of his early speeches that it was exactly right in its predictions, so we decided to check all of
his other speeches. And it turns out basically everything he said has either already come true or
is in the process of coming true at this very moment."
There are 19 articles and speeches collected in the book, starting from 2003 and ending with Putin's
speech to the UN general assembly earlier this year. Volodin said: "If you read through them
all, you can see a clear pattern in his rhetoric and thoughts. A lot of people say he's unpredictable
or untruthful, but actually everything he says is transparent, clear and fully formed."
Alderbaran -> Popeyes 28 Dec 2015 16:21
China's GDP is roughly five times that of Russia and China is already leasing land in Russia's
east. I'm also assuming it is getting a pretty good deal on oil at the moment too - Don't expect
an equal partnership
Russia needs the West, just as the West needs Russia. Do you agree?
Laurence Johnson 28 Dec 2015 16:19
For all his sins you have to admire Putin. He is a man of conviction that actually believes
in something that is worth saving, and will stop at nothing to achieve it.
Battling against hostility from the West Putin has reformed the nations economy, and continues
to work on behalf of his peoples interests. Its hard to imagine how Russia could ever replace
Putin, or indeed what the new Russia would even look like without Putin at the helm. But for now
the people are clearly grateful to have a strong decisive leader, as indeed are many other leaders
across the globe who find Putin's honesty and conviction a breath of fresh air in a world of deception
and double dealing. I guess with Putin you get what it says on the tin.
KoreyD -> dyst1111 28 Dec 2015 16:19
Russian military requested by Assad to assist him in protecting his government. All others
including America, British, French, Australian,Canadian, etc are there in contravention of International
law
Popeyes 28 Dec 2015 16:18
"If those who had been present at the UN general assembly had listened to Putin's words, the
world would be a very different place. Hundreds of thousands of people would still be alive and
Europe would not be full of refugees from the middle east."
Of course he was right but of course he wasn't the only one saying these things at the time. Such
a shame our witless leaders didn't listen and perhaps we wouldn't be in the mess we are now.
Popeyes 28 Dec 2015 15:54
Russia is slowly moving out of the dollar system and Western sanctions will eventually have
little impact on the Russian economy. Russia and China can easily survive and prosper without
the dollar. Unfortunately Europe will lose out massively due to Russia's response to the sanctions
and will continue banning imports from the EU, agricultural produce, as well as manufactured goods,
leaving hundreds of thousands of jobs at risk. Just think what Putin has done even before he started
bombing ISIS. He protects his country, his management of Russia's economy despite international
sanctions are feats that are to be admired. Is it any wonder he is hated and feared by the West.
Fallowfield -> MTavernier 28 Dec 2015 16:16
I'm trying to work this out. Come on, you're not really saying that we have a free press in
the west are you?
I believe it happened once, Watergate and all that. Murdoch and Thatcher as a model of
the free press?
No, you're taking the piss. I'll stop there.
Fallowfield -> Alderbaran 28 Dec 2015 16:10
The people I know were 'the younger generation'. Their illusions about the west were quickly
shattered. Different mafias, you see.
Putin's message? How very unlike our own dear Queen's Speech.
Alderbaran -> SHappens 28 Dec 2015 16:03
A very fair point but you have to admit that a forum saturated with meaningless posts is frustrating
for those who actually want to discuss the article. I feel compelled to challenge a number of
these posters.
Personally I feel that Russia started on a very different track following Putin's return as
president in 2012 and following the Bolotnaya square demonstrations - He was shaken by this!
I see a cult of personality blinding many Russians, including many of the commentators on this
forum and it seems that in Russia what is important is not the facts but nationalism and a shared
identity. This helps to protect Putin from criticism ans shores up his position but it is worrying
when a government relies so much on one man and that there is nothing to indicate that Putin intends
to change this. The publication of a book of speeches by "Network" is yet another indication of
the reliance on this personality cult and to be very frank, it disturbs and saddens me.
Does any of this concern you too, or do you think that this is the best that Russia should
hope for at the moment?
Equidom 28 Dec 2015 16:02
The Guardian and its puppet-masters hate the Russian people don't they? But they can't
bring themselves to say that, so it's Putin they attempt to ridicule.
Rantalot 28 Dec 2015 15:42
Give me one Putin over a hundred Cameron's any day of the week. I've listened to a couple
of those speeches, they are excellent, I don't bother listening to Mr Cameron.
Fallowfield 28 Dec 2015 15:29
I know a few 'Russians' who have lived in the 'west' for 15/20 years. They had no illusions
about their soviet upbringing, but knew the qualities of life - health care, education, housing
- that it brought. They are generally agreed that the wonderland that was supposed to exist beyond
their borders was an illusion. But they're hard working people, and they do OK.
They support Putin. Why? KGB indoctrination? Far from it, these are the people who wanted to
get away. And they - just like you - love their homeland. And who protects their homeland? The
President of the USA? The PM of the UK? You must be joking.
Putin. Nobody else.
SHappens -> apacheman 28 Dec 2015 15:26
Russia has been able, in just 20 years, without wars and other troubles, to go from a semi-colony
up to a world stage recognized leader. All Putin's risk-taking decisions have been successes or
are still playing out and have good potential for ending in success.
All this, quietly and imperceptibly, without tanks or strategic aviation, has been achieved
by the Russian diplomacy, directed in a difficult confrontation with the block of the most powerful
militarily and economically countries, while starting from a much lower position.
This is part of Putin, and Lavrov's great achievements. Might be worth for you to read this
book after all, you might be learning something.
Alderbaran -> WalterCronkiteBot 28 Dec 2015 15:20
Who said you were Russian and why did you suggest that you might be if Putin has a lot of support
outside the country?
What surprised me is your apparently unsupportable notion that Putin is trying to make Russia
look amicable. Your post also brought up topics far from the bounds of this article, yet you state
that you don't know what to believe in.
If you are sincere in wanting to understand Russia better, David Remnick's excellent book on
Russia is a great start - see Lenin's Tomb. Chrystia freeland's 'Sale of the Century' brilliantly
describes the Yeltsin years and the power struggles taking place following the fall of the wall.
I'd also recommend listing to Mark Galeotti on the sublect of Russia, and he is a regular conrtibutor
to both RT and RFERL.
Peter Evans -> Alderbaran 28 Dec 2015 15:10
Crimea would never have happened without the illegal coup backed by the west. We could
choose to believe the western media's opinion on the state of Russia, or we could listen to the
people who live there.
Fallowfield -> CoinBiter 28 Dec 2015 15:09
After the USA, UK and other allied countries had invaded Russia in 1919 the eventual Soviet
Republic did what it could to protect itself I suppose. And Russia still does. Ask where the USA
bases are, and compare their distribution to those of Russia.
The USA didn't fancy one in Cuba, did they? A perfectly lawful international agreement. They
threatened nuclear destruction as an ultimatum.
WalterCronkiteBot -> Alderbaran 28 Dec 2015 15:04
Yes I'm an evil Russian. I can't possibly be from the west.
To answer your question though, I don't know what to believe hence me stating "What I don't
get with Putin is...". I don't understand the actual situation because I don't have inside knowledge.
I'm saying on the face of it he appears to speak for those in the west against war in the ME,
which is good, but we shouldnt trust him entirely.
If that makes me a Kremlin shill so be it.
Not4TheFaintOfHeart 28 Dec 2015 14:59
Can somebody please tell Shaun to come in from the cold... It's over Shaun: Syria saved from
a Libya/Iraq fate x2, ISIS degraded very nicely, thank you, Crimea voted to be part of the RF,
Mistrals now sold to Egept, BRICS bank created, colour revolution in Georgia thwarted...
What's that Shaun?.. Someone's publishing a book of Putin quotes?.. I've got a similar
book by that other respected world leader and statesman.. You know.. Short, fat, speech impediment,
drunk most of the time ... what's his name?..oh yeah, Churchill.
Fallowfield -> Metronome151 28 Dec 2015 14:49
Well we certainly jailed members of the WSPU for wanting to vote. 14 Northern Irish civil rights
protest marchers, legal and unarmed, were shot dead on the street by British troops in 1972, as
I remember. Striking workers have been jailed, and many more have had cases against them dropped
in court for 'lack of evidence', ie when the police evidence presented was so obviously falsified.
I wonder where the KGB got their ideas from?
apacheman -> Fallowfield 28 Dec 2015 14:48
And the Soviet people could thank the West for the Lend-Lease supplies that allowed them to
withstand the Nazi juggernaut, without which they would have collapsed.
WalterCronkiteBot 28 Dec 2015 14:46
"Putin was correct to predict chaos in international affairs if the UN and other institutions
of international law are ignored."
This is what many in the west said too. Putin is just one of the few people with serious
power to publically state the same. Western officials including Tony Blair admit that IS arose
out of the chaos in Iraq. Its not even up for debate. The abomination that is IS is the chaos
he warned us of.
In 2013 Putin accused Kerry of lying when he told a senate hearing that AQ are not in Syria
and as such pose no threat in that region. He warned us but noone listened. Now we have Syria
overran by AQ affiliated groups toting US made weaponry.
What I don't get with Putin is the apparent naivety. As his speeches show he is well aware
of the machinations of the western powers, yet puts faith in them time and time again. Hes either
very naive or just wants to ensure that Russia look as amicable as possible in the history books.
Peter Evans 28 Dec 2015 14:34
The US loved Yeltsin, a weak leader, they do not like a strong Russian leader who does the
best for his country.
mgeary -> rcil2003 28 Dec 2015 14:33
Oh, the results in the USA are the same as in Russia, the only difference being that they have
a ruling elite there, who promote different faces every election for the Presidency.
This and the fact that, in contrast to Russia, they are being subtle about it...
Chuckman 28 Dec 2015 14:25
The most able leader of our generation. Simply a remarkable man.
This got me pondering on what an equivalent publication for George W Bush would contain. Chapter
One - reading "My Pet Goat".
However, in the USA, Presidents tend to have Library Centers to archive their words of
wisdom. Bush Junior's is located on the campus of Southern Methodist University (SMU) in University
Park, Texas, opened on April 25, 2013. The janitor wasn't best pleased; he had to find a
new broom cupboard...
rcil2003 -> euphoniumbrioche 28 Dec 2015 14:16
western leaders are nothing but interchangeable game show hosts. Behind them is the real power,
wielded in secret by utterly evil characters like Dick Cheney, who would have been right at home
in the Third Reich.
presstheredbutton -> nonanon1 28 Dec 2015 14:15
Interesting how all the trolling comments, such as yours, seem to be against Putin...
Parangaricurimicuaro -> Metronome151 28 Dec 2015 14:20
Now you are giving me the reason. The MSM has brainwashed the western world and they don't
know anything else but what they are fed.
Parangaricurimicuaro -> hermionegingold 28 Dec 2015 14:01
If you understand that the leader's image is so important for the well-being of the population
you wouldn't be criticizing him. After the drunken years of Yeltsin the Russians needed a different
role model. There is a reason for Obama (a heavy smoker) not to do it ( at least not in front
of the cameras)
greatapedescendant -> Strummered 28 Dec 2015 13:46
They might have added his habit of speaking the truth. Best chance of finding out what's actually
going on in Syria + the Middle East generally is to listen to Putin.
"... At a time of tension for U.S. international relations, cheap oil has dovetailed with some of the Obama administration's foreign policy goals: pressuring Russian President Vladimir Putin, undermining the popularity of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and tempering the prospects for Iranian oil revenue. At the same time, it is pouring cash into the hands of consumers, boosting tepid economic recoveries in Europe, Japan and the United States. ..."
Plunging crude oil prices are diverting hundreds of billions of dollars away from the treasure
chests of oil-exporting nations, putting some of the United States' adversaries under greater stress.
After two years of falling prices, the effects have reverberated across the globe, fueling economic
discontent in Venezuela, changing Russia's economic and political calculations, and dampening Iranian
leaders' hopes of a financial windfall when sanctions linked to its nuclear program will be lifted
next year.
At a time of tension for U.S. international relations, cheap oil has dovetailed with some
of the Obama administration's foreign policy goals: pressuring Russian President Vladimir Putin,
undermining the popularity of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and tempering the prospects for
Iranian oil revenue. At the same time, it is pouring cash into the hands of consumers, boosting tepid
economic recoveries in Europe, Japan and the United States.
"Cheap oil hurts revenues for some of our foes and helps some of our friends. The Europeans, South
Koreans and Japanese - they're all winners," said Robert McNally, director for energy in President
George W. Bush's National Security Council and now head of the Rapidan Group, a consulting firm.
"It's not good for Russia, that's for sure, and it's not good for Iran."
... ... ...
In Iran, cheap oil is forcing the government to ratchet down expectations.
The much-anticipated lifting of sanctions as a result of the deal to limit Iran's nuclear program
is expected to result in an additional half-million barrels a day of oil exports by the middle of
2016.
But at current prices, Iran's income from those sales will still fall short of revenue earned
from constrained oil exports a year ago.
Moreover, low prices are making it difficult for Iran to persuade international oil companies
to develop Iran's long-neglected oil and gas fields, which have been off limits since sanctions were
broadened in 2012.
"Should Iran come out of sanctions, they will face a very different market than the one they had
left in 2012," Amos Hochstein, the State Department's special envoy and coordinator for international
energy affairs, said in an interview. "They were forced to recede in a world of over $100 oil, and
sanctions will be lifted at $36 oil. They will have to work harder to convince companies to come
in and take the risk for supporting their energy infrastructure and their energy production."
Meanwhile, in Russia, low oil prices have compounded damage done by U.S. and European sanctions
that were designed to target Russia's energy and financial sectors. And when Iran increases output,
its grade of crude oil will most likely go to Europe, where it will compete directly with Russia's
Urals oil, McNally said.
Steven Mufson covers the White House. Since joining The Post, he has covered economics, China,
foreign policy and energy.
"... At a time of tension for U.S. international relations, cheap oil has dovetailed with some of
the Obama administration's foreign policy goals: pressuring Russian President Vladimir Putin, undermining
the popularity of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and tempering the prospects for Iranian oil revenue.
At the same time, it is pouring cash into the hands of consumers, boosting tepid economic recoveries
in Europe, Japan and the United States. ..."
Plunging crude oil prices are diverting hundreds of billions of dollars away from the treasure
chests of oil-exporting nations, putting some of the United States' adversaries under greater stress.
After two years of falling prices, the effects have reverberated across the globe, fueling economic
discontent in Venezuela, changing Russia's economic and political calculations, and dampening Iranian
leaders' hopes of a financial windfall when sanctions linked to its nuclear program will be lifted
next year.
At a time of tension for U.S. international relations, cheap oil has dovetailed with some
of the Obama administration's foreign policy goals: pressuring Russian President Vladimir Putin,
undermining the popularity of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and tempering the prospects for
Iranian oil revenue. At the same time, it is pouring cash into the hands of consumers, boosting tepid
economic recoveries in Europe, Japan and the United States.
"Cheap oil hurts revenues for some of our foes and helps some of our friends. The Europeans, South
Koreans and Japanese - they're all winners," said Robert McNally, director for energy in President
George W. Bush's National Security Council and now head of the Rapidan Group, a consulting firm.
"It's not good for Russia, that's for sure, and it's not good for Iran."
... ... ...
In Iran, cheap oil is forcing the government to ratchet down expectations.
The much-anticipated lifting of sanctions as a result of the deal to limit Iran's nuclear program
is expected to result in an additional half-million barrels a day of oil exports by the middle of
2016.
But at current prices, Iran's income from those sales will still fall short of revenue earned
from constrained oil exports a year ago.
Moreover, low prices are making it difficult for Iran to persuade international oil companies
to develop Iran's long-neglected oil and gas fields, which have been off limits since sanctions were
broadened in 2012.
"Should Iran come out of sanctions, they will face a very different market than the one they had
left in 2012," Amos Hochstein, the State Department's special envoy and coordinator for international
energy affairs, said in an interview. "They were forced to recede in a world of over $100 oil, and
sanctions will be lifted at $36 oil. They will have to work harder to convince companies to come
in and take the risk for supporting their energy infrastructure and their energy production."
Meanwhile, in Russia, low oil prices have compounded damage done by U.S. and European sanctions
that were designed to target Russia's energy and financial sectors. And when Iran increases output,
its grade of crude oil will most likely go to Europe, where it will compete directly with Russia's
Urals oil, McNally said.
Steven Mufson covers the White House. Since joining The Post, he has covered economics, China,
foreign policy and energy.
"... "fragments of the pilots' cockpit have suffered specific damages in the form of localized puncture holes and surface dents typical for hypervelocity impacts with compact and hard objects," ..."
A report on Malaysian Airlines MH17 air disaster in Ukraine last year by a group of old-hand aviation
security experts maintains that the Boeing might have been downed by an Israeli Python air-to-air
missile.
The report was leaked via the private LiveJournal account of Albert Naryshkin (aka albert_lex)
late on Tuesday and has already been widely discussed by social media communities in Russia.
The authors of the investigative report have calculated the possible detonation initiation point
of the missile that hit the passenger aircraft and approximate number and weight of strike elements,
which in turn designated the type and presumed manufacturer of the weapon.
Malaysian Airline Boeing 777-200 performing flight MH17 from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur on July
17, 2014, crashed on the territory of Ukraine near the village of Grabovo, killing all 283 passengers
and 15 crewmembers aboard.
The aircraft disintegrated in the air and the debris of MH17 were scattered across an area of
about 50 sq. km.
The external view of MH17 hull pieces indicates that "fragments of the pilots' cockpit have
suffered specific damages in the form of localized puncture holes and surface dents typical for hypervelocity
impacts with compact and hard objects," the report says, stressing that similar damage could
be found on the inner side of the cockpit.
The report specifically points out that chips of the body coat around the holes in the fragment
are typical of wave effects created by hypervelocity impacts.
Some damage, though larger and less clustered, could be found near the air-scoop of the left-wing
engine of the aircraft.
The nature of the damage allows for the identification of the source as a high-explosive fragmentation
warhead from a modern anti-aircraft weapon, claims the report.
Apart from the large puncture holes, the debris of the nose and the cockpit of the aircraft bear
a large number of scattered micro-craters resulting from the impact of high-velocity dust and tiny
debris, such as an unburnt blasting agent and elements of the ordnance that accompany a shock wave
from a blast that occurred very close to the target. In the case of MH17, the pilots' cockpit.
The report says that as a rule, the initial speed of the striking elements of modern anti-aircraft
weapons vary between 1,500 and 2,500 meters per second.
Altogether, the experts considered photos of five fragments of the cockpit and left port of the
flight MH17, on which they counted some 230 "battle-damage" holes and punctures.
All this considered, the experts claim that the exact zone of the blast impact could be established
with a fair degree of accuracy.
The warhead of the missile exploded very close to the cockpit, to its left side at a distance
of 0.8-1.6 meters from the cockpit windows, exactly opposite the sliding window of the aircraft commander.
The dimensions and character of the puncture holes left by the strike elements allegedly allow
their size and form factor to be established, which in its turn makes it possible to identify the
type of weapon used in a particular case.
The cross dimension of absolute majority, 86 percent, of the 186 hull holes studied by experts
measure between 6 and 13mm, with explicit maximum of them having cross dimension of 8mm.
This fact brought the expert group to a conclusion about the size of the strike elements of the
warhead. If the warhead had been armed with two types of strike elements, the majority of the holes
would have been of two types, the reports notes.
The strike element has been established of being a rectangular block measured 8mm x 8mm x 6mm,
with margin of error of 0.5 mm, a high probability it was made of steel and an estimated weight of
3 grams each. The total number of such elements should have varied between 2,000 and 4,000.
The bulk of the strike elements are estimated between 4.88 – 14.8 kilograms.
@ http://albert-lex.livejournal.com
The report confutes the argument of Russia's Almaz-Antey military concern that early claimed that
"intricate shape" double-t steel fragments, similar to those used in warheads of surface-to-air
Buk missile systems, have been extracted from the debris of MH17 flight.
Howwever, the double-t strike elements of a Buk missile weigh 8.1 grams, more than twice as much
as a single damage fragment among those that pierced MH17's hull. Thus, according to the report,
the hypothesis about a Buk missile system being involved in the crash is "most probably incorrect."
With 95 percent probability, the group of experts estimates the weight of the missile's warhead
(explosives plus strike elements) that shot down MH17 of being between 10 and 40kg.
This led the experts to determine the exact type of the weapon used against Malaysian Airlines
flight MH17.
The report says that that Soviet- and Russian-made surface-to-air missile systems use more powerful
warheads than the established maximum 40kg, as is the case with MH17.
Moreover, Soviet- and Russian-made air-to-air missiles which have a similar 10-40kg warhead capability
use other types of strike elements within one warhead - obviously not the case with MH17.
A whole range of existing foreign air-to-air missiles have corresponding warhead characteristics,
yet lack of physical elements of the missile used against MH17 prevented experts from establishing
the exact type of the weapon used.
Still, the circumstances and conditions of the assault allowed experts to make certain assumptions.
The missile that attacked MH17 had a passive radar homing head, which explains why the missile
exploded so close to the cockpit. Under the radar-transparent nosecone of a Boeing 777-200 there
is a surveillance radar station operable during the flight, so most likely the missile homed on to
this radar as the target.
Apart from a radar homing head, the missile could also be equipped with an advanced, matrix type,
imaging IR seeker, which enables the missile to determine the size and the type of the target and
choose for attack its most vital element. For a huge Boeing aircraft, that's the cockpit.
A simulation of the missile attack has proved that missiles with that type of guidance choose
to attack a big passenger plane from the front hemisphere.
There are four air-to-air missiles that fit the description established by the experts, namely:
French Magis-2, Israeli Shafrir, American AIM-9 and Israeli Python – all short-range.
The first three have been struck off the list for various reasons, including type of warhead or
guidance system specifications. The Python deserved a closer look.
The Python is equipped with a matrix-imaging IR seeker. It enables a relatively moderate power
warhead to effectively engage big aircrafts. The warhead is armed with a set of ready strike elements.
Even more importantly, some open military sources suggest that in early 2000s a number of Sukhoi
Su-25 assault fighter jets we refurbished to use fourth and fifth generation Python missiles, which
look very similar to the Su-25's standard air-to-air R-60 missile.
@ http://albert-lex.livejournal.com
The unofficial report leaked in LiveJournal has become yet another one among many other unofficial
versions presented over the year that has passed since the catastrophe occurred on July 17, 2014.
The Dutch Safety Board that has been heading an international investigation into the cause of
the crash is due to release its official report in October.
"... I'm still trying to think through the implications but they are certainly disquieting. Without trying to hard I'd summarize that "the masks are coming off." ..."
"... The question then is, what happens after "the masks come off?" ..."
"... Short-sighted western pundits will still be penning deadline copy headlined "How Putin lost Ukraine" while those with real vision will be putting the finishing touches on "How America Lost the Rest of the World" ..."
Hard to overstate the importance of this article. Thanks for spotting it.
There's a lot here
but this passage is kind of free-standing in its value by simply condensing how the IMF has contorted
itself:
"The IMF thus is breaking four rules:
Not lending to a country that has no visible means to
pay back the loan breaks the "No More Argentinas" rule adopted after the IMF's disastrous 2001
loan.
Not lending to countries that refuse in good faith to negotiate with their official creditors
goes against the IMF's role as the major tool of the global creditors' cartel.
And the IMF is
now lending to a borrower at war, indeed one that is destroying its export capacity and hence
its balance-of-payments ability to pay back the loan.
Finally, the IMF is lending to a country
that has little likelihood of refuse carrying out the IMF's notorious austerity "conditionalities"
on its population – without putting down democratic opposition in a totalitarian manner. Instead
of being treated as an outcast from the international financial system, Ukraine is being welcomed
and financed."
I'm still trying to think through the implications but they are certainly disquieting. Without
trying to hard I'd summarize that "the masks are coming off."
The question then is, what happens after "the masks come off?"
… war.
(Sometimes it's best just to blurt out what's worrying you.)
Short-sighted western pundits will still be penning deadline copy headlined "How Putin lost
Ukraine" while those with real vision will be putting the finishing touches on "How America Lost
the Rest of the World".
"... It's now clear that if Obama had ordered a major bombing campaign against Assad's military in early September 2013, he might have opened the gates of Damascus to a hellish victory by al-Qaeda-affiliated extremists or the even more brutal Islamic State, since these terrorist groups have emerged as the only effective fighters against Assad. ..."
"... By late September 2013, the disappointed neocons were acting out their anger by taking aim at Putin. They recognized that a particular vulnerability for the Russian president was Ukraine and the possibility that it could be pulled out of Russia's sphere of influence and into the West's orbit. ..."
"... But Gershman added that Ukraine was really only an interim step to an even bigger prize, the removal of the strong-willed and independent-minded Putin, who, Gershman added, "may find himself on the losing end not just in the near abroad [i.e. Ukraine] but within Russia itself." In other words, the new neocon hope was for "regime change" in Kiev and Moscow. [See Consortiumnews.com's " Neocons' Ukraine/Syria/Iran Gambit. "] ..."
"... Putin also had sidetracked that possible war with Iran by helping to forge an interim agreement constraining but not eliminating Iran's nuclear program. So, he became the latest target of neocon demonization, a process in which the New York Times and the Washington Post eagerly took the lead. ..."
"... As the political violence in Kiev escalated – with the uprising's muscle supplied by neo-Nazi militias from western Ukraine – neocons within the Obama administration discussed how to "midwife" a coup against Yanukovych. Central to this planning was Victoria Nuland, who had been promoted to assistant secretary of state for European affairs and was urging on the protesters, even passing out cookies to protesters at Kiev's Maidan square. ..."
"... When the coup went down on Feb. 22 – spearheaded by neo-Nazi militias who seized government buildings and forced Yanukovych and his officials to flee for their lives – the U.S. State Department quickly deemed the new regime "legitimate" and the mainstream U.S. media dutifully stepped up the demonization of Yanukovych and Putin. ..."
"... Although Putin's position had been in support of Ukraine's status quo – i.e., retaining the elected president and the country's constitutional process – the crisis was pitched to the American people as a case of "Russian aggression" with dire comparisons made between Putin and Hitler, especially after ethnic Russians in the east and south resisted the coup regime in Kiev and Crimea seceded to rejoin Russia. ..."
"... Pressured by the Obama administration, the EU agreed to sanction Russia for its "aggression," touching off a tit-for-tat trade war with Moscow which reduced Europe's sale of farming and manufacturing goods to Russia and threatened to disrupt Russia's natural gas supplies to Europe. ..."
"... While the most serious consequences were to Ukraine's economy which went into freefall because of the civil war, some of Europe's most endangered economies in the south also were hit hard by the lost trade with Russia. Europe began to stagger toward the third dip in a triple-dip recession with European markets experiencing major stock sell-offs. ..."
If you're nervously watching the stock market gyrations and worrying about your declining portfolio
or pension fund, part of the blame should go to America's neocons who continue to be masters of chaos,
endangering the world's economy by instigating geopolitical confrontations in the Middle East and
Eastern Europe.
Of course, there are other factors pushing Europe's economy to the brink of a triple-dip
recession and threatening to stop America's fragile recovery, too. But the neocons' "regime change"
strategies, which have unleashed violence and confrontations across Iraq, Syria, Libya, Iran and
most recently Ukraine, have added to the economic uncertainty.
This neocon destabilization of the world economy began with the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003
under President George W. Bush who squandered some $1 trillion on the bloody folly. But the neocons'
strategies have continued through their still-pervasive influence in Official Washington during President
Barack Obama's administration.
The neocons and their "liberal interventionist" junior partners have kept the "regime change"
pot boiling with the Western-orchestrated overthrow and killing of Libya's Muammar Gaddafi in 2011,
the proxy civil war in Syria to oust Bashar al-Assad, the costly economic embargoes against Iran,
and the U.S.-backed coup that ousted Ukraine's elected President Viktor Yanukovych last February.
All these targeted governments were first ostracized by the neocons and the major U.S. news organizations,
such as the Washington Post and the New York Times, which have become what amounts to neocon mouthpieces.
Whenever the neocons decide that it's time for another "regime change," the mainstream U.S. media
enlists in the propaganda wars.
The consequence of this cascading disorder has been damaging and cumulative. The costs of the
Iraq War strapped the U.S. Treasury and left less government maneuvering room when Wall Street crashed
in 2008. If Bush still had the surplus that he inherited from President Bill Clinton – rather than
a yawning deficit – there might have been enough public money to stimulate a much-faster recovery.
President Obama also wouldn't have been left to cope with the living hell that the U.S. occupation
brought to the people of Iraq, violent chaos that gave birth to what was then called "Al-Qaeda in
Iraq" and has since rebranded itself "the Islamic State."
But Obama didn't do himself (or the world) any favors when he put much of his foreign policy in
the hands of Democratic neocon-lites, such as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and Bush holdovers,
including Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Gen. David Petraeus. At State, Clinton promoted the
likes of neocon Victoria Nuland, the wife of arch-neocon Robert Kagan, and Obama brought in "liberal
interventionists" like Samantha Power, now the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.
In recent years, the neocons and "liberal interventionists" have become almost indistinguishable,
so much so that Robert Kagan has opted to discard the discredited neocon label and call himself a
"liberal interventionist." [See Consortiumnews.com's "Obama's
True Foreign Policy 'Weakness.'"]
Manipulating Obama
Obama, in his nearly six years as president, also has shied away from imposing his more "realistic"
views about world affairs on the neocon/liberal-interventionist ideologues inside the U.S. pundit
class and his own administration. He has been outmaneuvered by clever insiders (as happened in 2009
on the Afghan "surge") or overwhelmed by some Official Washington "group think" (as was the case
in Libya, Syria, Iran and Ukraine).
Once all the "smart people" reach some collective decision that a foreign leader "must go," Obama
usually joins the chorus and has shown only rare moments of toughness in standing up to misguided
conventional wisdoms.
The one notable case was his decision in summer 2013 to resist pressure to destroy Syria's military
after a Sarin gas attack outside Damascus sparked a dubious rush to judgment blaming Assad's regime.
Since then, more evidence has pointed to a provocation by anti-Assad extremists who may have thought
that the incident would draw in the U.S. military on their side. [See Consortiumnews.com's "Was
Turkey Behind Syrian Sarin Attack?"]
It's now clear that if Obama had ordered a major bombing campaign against Assad's military in
early September 2013, he might have opened the gates of Damascus to a hellish victory by al-Qaeda-affiliated
extremists or the even more brutal Islamic State, since these terrorist groups have emerged as the
only effective fighters against Assad.
But the neocons and the "liberal interventionists" seemed oblivious to that danger. They had their
hearts set on Syrian "regime change," so were furious when their dreams were dashed by Obama's supposed
"weakness," i.e. his failure to do what they wanted. They also blamed Russian President Vladimir
Putin who brokered a compromise with Assad in which he agreed to surrender all of Syria's chemical
weapons while still denying a role in the Sarin attack.
By late September 2013, the disappointed neocons were acting out their anger by taking aim at
Putin. They recognized that a particular vulnerability for the Russian president was Ukraine and
the possibility that it could be pulled out of Russia's sphere of influence and into the West's orbit.
So, Carl Gershman, the neocon president of the U.S.-funded National Endowment for Democracy, took
to the op-ed page of the neocon-flagship Washington Post to sound the trumpet about Ukraine, which
he
called "the biggest prize."
But Gershman added that Ukraine was really only an interim step to an even bigger prize, the removal
of the strong-willed and independent-minded Putin, who, Gershman added, "may find himself on the
losing end not just in the near abroad [i.e. Ukraine] but within Russia itself." In other words,
the new neocon hope was for "regime change" in Kiev and Moscow. [See Consortiumnews.com's "Neocons'
Ukraine/Syria/Iran Gambit."]
Destabilizing the World
Beyond the recklessness of plotting to destabilize nuclear-armed Russia, the neocon strategy threatened
to shake Europe's fragile economic recovery from a painful recession, six years of jobless stress
that had strained the cohesion of the European Union and the euro zone.
Across the Continent, populist parties from the Right and Left have been challenging establishment
politicians over their inability to reverse the widespread unemployment and the growing poverty.
Important to Europe's economy was its relationship with Russia, a major market for agriculture and
manufactured goods and a key source of natural gas to keep Europe's industries humming and its houses
warm.
The last thing Europe needed was more chaos, but that's what the neocons do best and they were
determined to punish Putin for disrupting their plans for Syrian "regime change," an item long near
the top of their agenda along with their desire to "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran," which Israel has cited
as an "existential threat."
Putin also had sidetracked that possible war with Iran by helping to forge an interim agreement
constraining but not eliminating Iran's nuclear program. So, he became the latest target of neocon
demonization, a process in which the New York Times and the Washington Post eagerly took the lead.
To get at Putin, however, the first step was Ukraine where Gershman's NED was funding scores of
programs for political activists and media operatives. These efforts fed into mass protests against
Ukrainian President Yanukovych for balking at an EU association agreement that included a harsh austerity
plan designed by the International Monetary Fund. Yanukovych opted instead for a more generous $15
billion loan deal from Putin.
As the political violence in Kiev escalated – with the uprising's muscle supplied by neo-Nazi
militias from western Ukraine – neocons within the Obama administration discussed how to "midwife"
a coup against Yanukovych. Central to this planning was Victoria Nuland, who had been promoted to
assistant secretary of state for European affairs and was urging on the protesters, even passing
out cookies to protesters at Kiev's Maidan square.
According to an
intercepted phone call with U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt, Nuland didn't think EU
officials were being aggressive enough. "Fuck the EU," she said as she brainstormed how "to help
glue this thing." She literally handpicked who should be in the post-coup government – "Yats is the
guy," a reference to Arseniy Yatsenyuk who would indeed become prime minister.
When the coup went down on Feb. 22 – spearheaded by neo-Nazi militias who seized government buildings
and forced Yanukovych and his officials to flee for their lives – the U.S. State Department quickly
deemed the new regime "legitimate" and the mainstream U.S. media dutifully stepped up the demonization
of Yanukovych and Putin.
Although Putin's position had been in support of Ukraine's status quo – i.e., retaining the elected
president and the country's constitutional process – the crisis was pitched to the American people
as a case of "Russian aggression" with dire comparisons made between Putin and Hitler, especially
after ethnic Russians in the east and south resisted the coup regime in Kiev and Crimea seceded to
rejoin Russia.
Starting a Trade War
Pressured by the Obama administration, the EU agreed to sanction Russia for its "aggression,"
touching off a tit-for-tat trade war with Moscow which reduced Europe's sale of farming and manufacturing
goods to Russia and threatened to disrupt Russia's natural gas supplies to Europe.
While the most serious consequences were to Ukraine's economy which went into freefall because
of the civil war, some of Europe's most endangered economies in the south also were hit hard by the
lost trade with Russia. Europe began to stagger toward the third dip in a triple-dip recession with
European markets experiencing major stock sell-offs.
The dominoes soon toppled across the Atlantic as major U.S. stock indices dropped, creating anguish
among many Americans just when it seemed the hangover from Bush's 2008 market crash was finally wearing
off.
Obviously, there are other reasons for the recent stock market declines, including fears about
the Islamic State's victories in Syria and Iraq, continued chaos in Libya, and exclusion of Iran
from the global economic system – all partly the result of neocon ideology. There have been unrelated
troubles, too, such as the Ebola epidemic in western Africa and various weather disasters.
But the world's economy usually can withstand some natural and manmade challenges. The real problem
comes when a combination of catastrophes pushes the international financial system to a tipping point.
Then, even a single event can dump the world into economic chaos, like what happened when Lehman
Brothers collapsed in 2008.
It's not clear whether the world is at such a tipping point today, but the stock market volatility
suggests that we may be on the verge of another worldwide recession. Meanwhile, the neocon masters
of chaos seem determined to keep putting their ideological obsessions ahead of the risks to Americans
and people everywhere.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated
Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his new book, America's Stolen Narrative, either
in
print here or as an e-book (from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com). For a limited time, you also can order Robert Parry's trilogy on the Bush
Family and its connections to various right-wing operatives for only $34. The trilogy includes
America's Stolen Narrative. For details on this offer,
click here.
"... How could Ukraine's government deficit only be 4.1% when its currency has crashed, it has lost most of its sources of income and it has just defaulted on its debt? What the fuck are they talking about? ..."
"... First, there is no way on God's green earth that there is a negative difference of only 4.1% between Ukraine's annual revenues and its annual expenditures, especially since it has almost no revenues except from taxation. ..."
Start shovelin' in the money, IMF, because Ukraine has the magic formula – just refuse to pay
what you owe, call it a 'temporary suspension of payments' instead of 'a default', and reap the
reward for your display of responsibility.
I foresee the mileage Russia is going to get out of this will far exceed the value of the $3
Billion.
marknesop, December 19, 2015 at 8:47 pm
How could Ukraine's government deficit only be 4.1% when its currency has crashed, it has
lost most of its sources of income and it has just defaulted on its debt? What the fuck are they
talking about?
"The proposed budget would work to reduce the government's deficit from 4.1% to 3.7%, with
measures including an increase in revenue by widening the tax base."
First, there is no way on God's green earth that there is a negative difference of only
4.1% between Ukraine's annual revenues and its annual expenditures, especially since it has almost
no revenues except from taxation.
And now the IMF expects to realize more revenue from widening the tax base – yes, I can imagine
what a popular initiative that is. Now you know how Yushchenko felt, Yatsie, when the IMF denied
him a second big loan because he refused to eliminate the gas subsidies to residents.
Now the IMF has finally realized that triumph through a different leader, and it wants to see
even more tax revenue. You are about to be as popular as a turd in the punch bowl; have fun with
that.
kirill, December 20, 2015 at 12:58 pm
I would not trust any GDP numbers from the Kiev regime either. They lost 25% of the economy
in the Donbas alone not counting Crimea. This has knock on effects to the rest of Banderastan.
Yet they are yapping about some 12% contraction in 2015 after a 7% contraction in 2014. I see
no clear indication that they are counting the GDP only for regime controlled Banderastan.
As for the budget, according to regime officials, Banderastan lost 30% of its hard currency
revenues with the loss of the Donbass. I estimate the tax loss to Kiev to be about 30% as well.
The Donbass was the industrialized part of the country while western Banderastan is primarily
agrarian. So talk about 4% shortfalls in revenue is utter rubbish. In most countries the money
making parts of the economy subsidize the rest and sure as hell it was not western Banderastan
that was subsidizing the Donbass. That was just virulent blood libel such as the claim that Russians
settled eastern Ukraine only after the Holodomor.
marknesop, December 20, 2015 at 1:13 pm
Europe deserves Ukraine. Let them have it, the quicker the better. It's fine when Yats is selling
that stinking mess to his simple-minded constituents, but European policymakers will see through
it right away. Unfortunately, Brussels knows better than to bring Ukraine any closer into the
fold, because if they get a visa-free regime, the place will empty out in a week as Ukrainians
flee throughout Europe (which is already, everyone must know, full of refugees) looking for jobs.
Yves here. If you followed the TransPacific Partnership negotiations closely, you may recall that
Japan looked like it was going along only to placate Washington, and then it signed up only because
the US allowed it to drop its "defense only" posture (remember that Japan is a military protectorate
of the US) and gave major concession on agriculture (Japan's farmers are a famously powerful voting
block). But even then, Japan is not firmly in the US fold. It has made clear that the US needs to
get a deal done pronto.
By contrast, this post describes the US foot-dragging and gamesmanship to protect US agricultural
interests from competition from developing economies.
Yesterday, U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman delivered his plenary statement to the trade
ministers gathered in Nairobi for the World Trade Organization's tenth ministerial conference. His
statement, which calls for the abandonment of the Doha Development Round in favor of negotiations
on new issues of more strategic interest to the United States, deserve a response from a countryman.
Mr. Froman calls on trade representatives "to move beyond the cynical repetition of positions
designed to produce deadlock." Yet this is precisely what Mr. Froman has come to Nairobi to repeat:
U.S. positions designed to produce deadlock.
He decries the lack of progress in the last 15 years of Doha negotiations, yet he fails to acknowledge
that the United States has been, and remains, the principal reason for that failure. Since 2008,
when negotiations broke down, the U.S. has refused to continue negotiating on the key issues central
to the development agenda – reducing agricultural subsidies, allowing developing countries special
protection measures for agriculture, eliminating export subsidies and credits, and a host of other
issues.
Those issues remain critical to developing countries, and U.S. intransigence in addressing those
concerns is the main reason Doha has stagnated. In addition, the U.S. has introduced new issues to
create further obstacles to progress, such as its objection to India's ambitious and laudable public
stockholding program to provide food security to fully two-thirds of its people.
The draft declaration on agriculture in Nairobi offers no progress on resolving this issue, despite
the explicit commitment in Bali and later in Geneva to find a permanent solution that can allow India
and other countries to pursue such programs.
That is not the only developing country issue left unaddressed. The declaration offers nothing
to developing countries to allow them to protect sensitive sectors from unfair or sudden import surges,
the Special Safeguard Mechanism. It offers no meaningful cuts in U.S. export credits, which have
favored U.S. exporters to Africa with some $1.25 billion in credits over the last six years.
Perhaps most notably, the declaration makes no mention of the key issue in the Doha Round: reductions
in rich country agricultural subsidies and supports. With crop prices low and a new Farm Bill authorizing
rising levels of support to U.S. farmers and exporters, this omission is a direct blow to those developing
countries which see their farmers and export prospects harmed by underpriced U.S. exports.
Nor does Mr. Froman mention cotton subsidies, an issue which the United States and the WTO membership
committed to address "expeditiously" ten long years ago in Hong Kong. The issue remains unresolved,
and the draft agriculture text fails to offer anything to Africa's C-4 cotton producing countries,
which have millions of poor farmers desperately in need of relief.
Instead, the U.S. Farm Bill promises further price suppression. According to a recent study, cotton
subsidies could total $1.5 billion, increasing U.S. exports 29% and suppressing prices by 7%. All
cotton producers in the rest of the world will suffer an estimated $3.3 billion in annual losses,
with India projected to lose $800 million per year.
The C-4 countries as a group stand to lose $80 million a year in reduced income, a huge blow to
struggling farmers in low-income countries.
Mr. Froman touts the ways U.S. policy has moved forward beyond Doha. He says the United States
extended the African Growth and Opportunity Act by a decade, "the longest extension in that program's
history." That limited extension of trade preferences to African countries last year provided a paltry
$264,000 in benefits to the C-4 countries. The projected losses from U.S. cotton dumping are 300
times greater.
Mr. Froman concludes that with a new approach that abandons the development round while taking
up issues of investment, procurement, and other matters of priority to the United States, "we can
ensure that global trade will drive development and prosperity as strongly this century as it did
in the last."
The U.S. Trade Representative seems to have conveniently forgotten that the Doha Development Round
he wants to sweep aside was a direct response to the fact that global trade rules in the last century
failed to drive development and prosperity, at least for many developing countries.
As a U.S. researcher long engaged with the issues of concern to developing countries, I find Mr.
Froman's approach shameful. Multilateralism demands engagement and compromise, particularly in a
"development round" designed to address past inequities. Mr. Froman is unfortunately offering nothing
more than "the cynical repetition of positions designed to produce deadlock." The latest in a steady
stream of U.S. hypocrisy.
By Timothy Wise, Director of the Research and Policy Program at the Global Development
and Environment Institute, Tufts University. Originally published in
The Standard (Nairobi, Kenya)
"... " it's also a person who kills journalists, political opponents, and invades countries" ..."
"... It's okay to bullshit if the Culturally Superior Westerner ™ is dissing with libelious claims Inferior Non-Westerner. See, who needs any proof that "Putin kills journalists"? No one! Not even trump or their auditory – They Know It For Fact ™. ..."
…Scarborough pointed to Putin's status as a notorious strongman.
"Well, I mean, it's also a person who kills journalists, political opponents, and invades countries.
Obviously that would be a concern, would it not?" Scarborough asked.
"He's running his country, and at least he's a leader," Trump replied. "Unlike what we have
in this country."
"But again: He kills journalists that don't agree with him," Scarborough said.
The Republican presidential front-runner said there was "a lot of killing going on" around
the world and then suggested that Scarborough had asked him a different question.
"I think our country does plenty of killing, also, Joe, so, you know," Trump replied. "There's
a lot of stupidity going on in the world right now, Joe. A lot of killing going on. A lot of stupidity.
And that's the way it is. But you didn't ask me [that] question, you asked me a different question.
So that's fine."
Scarborough was left visibly stunned.
"I'm confused," the MSNBC host said. "So I mean, you obviously condemn Vladimir Putin killing
journalists and political opponents, right?"
"Oh sure, absolutely," Trump said…
…But Friday during his "Morning Joe" interview, Trump said he always "felt fine" about Putin
and touted the Russian president's poll numbers. Putin's position in his country is bolstered
by the Russian government's control over much of the Russian news media.
"I always felt fine about Putin," Trump said. "I think that he's a strong leader. He's a powerful
leader … He's actually got a popularity within his country. They respect him as a leader."
Trump contrasted Putin's numbers with President Obama's.
"I think he's up in the 80s. You see where Obama's in the 30s and low 40s. And he's up in
the 80s," Trump said. "And I don't know who does the polls. Maybe he does the polls, but I think
they're done by American companies, actually."
####
When I read stuff like this, I'm so glad the US is so far away. Damn modern technology.
" it's also a person who kills journalists, political opponents, and invades countries"
It's okay to bullshit if the Culturally Superior Westerner ™ is dissing with libelious
claims Inferior Non-Westerner. See, who needs any proof that "Putin kills journalists"? No one!
Not even trump or their auditory – They Know It For Fact ™.
"... Regarding Patrick Lang, I noticed that he posted a quite vehement attack against conspiracy
theorists postings on his blog who were – if I recall correctly – claiming that the military were involved
in the subterfuge to arm extremists in Syria. (Probably cocked up the details but too tired to check.)
It struck me as noteworthy as it suggested an internecine intra-Washington struggle between Military
/ CIA who was going to "own" the debacle in Syria at the very least. It is utterly reminiscent of the
struggle between Dulles / CIA power structure (think: institutional group think) and the incoming JFK
administration / New Frontiersman during and after the Cuban Missile Crisis. ..."
"... Of course it's worth noting that Hersh had to revert to publishing this "intimate" conversation
between American power structures in a foreign publication. What does that tell you about the "freedom
index"? Samizdat here we come! ..."
Washington does not care who assumes power in Syria – whether it be feuding warlords or an Islamic
mullah or Assad's cat. Washington knows that Islamic State needs money to survive and keep power,
as does any individual or group who will rule, and that to remain in power, it will sell oil.
Good enough, as far as Washington is concerned. If the place remains a seething cauldron of destabilizing
hatreds, so much the better.
I read this carefully earlier today and wish I had made some notes.
It's an interesting article
just in what it says about the politics of American journalism at this point in time almost regardless
of the subject matter in a kind of Kremlinology vein. It almost reads like a ransom note. My impression
is that Hersh is pulling punches at some key points in order not to overplay his hand.
My suggestion: don't get bogged down in the details. From my recollection of the piece from
earlier today Hersh is basically championing a few figures and – most importantly – their perspectives
here:
Michael Flynn, who led the DIA revolt against Syria policy
Dempsey, a pragmatic cold warrior who is allergic to making the enemy into a cardboard
super-villan (good enough for this Putinista)
Patrick Lang (more below)
and that wonderfully clear-headed Hawaiin congress-critter (can't be arsed to look her
up)
It's worth remembering that Hersh's articles on the Ghoutta attack immediately predated the
great stand-down by Obama from all out air-war to destroy Syria.
Given that it's axiomatic that journalists are really mouthpieces for political factions within
their own government power structure and that the BEST journalists – like Hersh – actually embrace
this reality, what does the appearance of this article augur?
I especially like the sign off:
"The Joint Chiefs and the DIA were constantly telling Washington's leadership of the jihadist
threat in Syria, and of Turkey's support for it. The message was never listened to. Why not?"
That sounds kind of threatening. In a good way.
* Regarding Patrick Lang, I noticed that he posted a quite vehement attack against conspiracy
theorists postings on his blog who were – if I recall correctly – claiming that the military were
involved in the subterfuge to arm extremists in Syria. (Probably cocked up the details but too
tired to check.) It struck me as noteworthy as it suggested an internecine intra-Washington struggle
between Military / CIA who was going to "own" the debacle in Syria at the very least. It is utterly
reminiscent of the struggle between Dulles / CIA power structure (think: institutional group think)
and the incoming JFK administration / New Frontiersman during and after the Cuban Missile Crisis.
In other words: we, the west, have basically made no progress fighting for reform of our leadership
and political structures. Meanwhile the Russians seem to have gone "right round the horn" – as
the dinosaur in Toy Story might put it.
Of course it's worth noting that Hersh had to revert to publishing this "intimate" conversation
between American power structures in a foreign publication. What does that tell you about the
"freedom index"? Samizdat here we come!
"... "initial information that the aircraft was shot down by a [Buk] surface to air missile" did not meet the Australian or international standard of evidence …." ..."
"... What will happen to the resolve of the holdouts if the narrative on MH17 begins to veer away from rock-solid Russian ownership of the tragedy? Because that was the whole backbone of the sanctions – Crimea was not enough to get Germany and France on board, and they still needed the little push that MH17 provided. If that rationale vanished, or even if serious doubt was introduced, the whole EU position on sanctions could fall apart. ..."
"... It's bigger than I thought – there is some sort of internal power struggle going on, and West refuses to change his findings – which still point to Russia for responsibility – in spite of Donoghoe's testimony. ..."
First two paragraphs:
"The Australian Federal Police and Dutch police and prosecutors investigating the cause of the
crash of Malaysian Airlines MH17 believe the Dutch Safety Board (DSB) has failed to provide "conclusive
evidence" of what type of munition destroyed the aircraft, causing the deaths of 283 passengers
and 15 crew on board.
Testifying for the first time in an international court, Detective Superintendent Andrew Donoghoe,
the senior Australian policeman in the international MH17 investigation, said a "tougher standard
than the DSB report" is required before the criminal investigation can identify the weapon which
brought the aircraft down, or pinpoint the perpetrators.
Their criminal investigation will continue
into 2016, Donoghoe told the Victorian Coroners Court (lead image) on Tuesday morning. He and
other international investigators are unconvinced by reports from the US and Ukrainian governments,
and by the DSB, of a Buk missile firing. "Dutch prosecutors require conclusive evidence on other
types of missile," Donoghoe said, intimating that "initial information that the aircraft was shot
down by a [Buk] surface to air missile" did not meet the Australian or international standard
of evidence …."
Great catch, Jen!! Wow, you're right – this is big, especially in view of
the wavering by some EU members on sanctions. I wonder what Merkel has up her sleeve; she
says Germany – while going ahead with Nord Stream II, which is "first and foremost a business
proposition" – is "seeking ways to ensure that Ukraine is not completely excluded as a transit
country".
Ummm…what role would that be? Because if, in exchange for pushing ahead on Nord Stream,
Russia is maneuvered into still sending gas through Ukraine so that Ukraine can collect transit
fees, the project would be self-defeating. I trust the business minds in Russia are sharp enough
to stay ahead of that one. Ukraine will still receive gas from Russia, if it wants it and can
pay in advance for it, but it will be for domestic supplies only and consequently not subject
to transit fees. Russia must not weaken on this, because the EU still hopes to rebuild Ukraine
using Russian money, and it cannot do it without Russian help and support. If that is withheld,
Russia only needs to wait them out.
Needless to say, Tusk supports Renzi's position, not because
he is an Italiophile but because he supports Ukraine and would like to see it remain a transit
country, and pocketing $2 Billion a year in Russian cash.
What will happen to the resolve of the holdouts if the narrative on MH17 begins to veer away
from rock-solid Russian ownership of the tragedy? Because that was the whole backbone of the sanctions
– Crimea was not enough to get Germany and France on board, and they still needed the little push
that MH17 provided. If that rationale vanished, or even if serious doubt was introduced, the whole
EU position on sanctions could fall apart.
marknesop, December 19, 2015 at 8:37 pm
It's bigger than I thought – there is some sort of internal power struggle going on,
and West refuses to change his findings – which still point to Russia for responsibility – in
spite of Donoghoe's testimony. There were revelations in the original post such as that
Australia had sought permission from the Novorossiyan authorities to collect evidence and
artifacts, as well as Kiev – thereby implicitly recognizing Novorossiya – and that when it
solicited witnesses to testify, some agreed only on the condition their names would not be
revealed, that the Ukrainian authorities would not be involved and that the investigators
would protect them. Sure sounds like they want to say something they know the Ukrainian
government will punish them for saying, if it can identify them. This whole inquiry just got
interesting again.
At the moment it looks like a faction of the Australian investigation disagrees with the pat
finding of the Dutch, but the Victorian state coroner is totally on board with the "Russia did
it" scenario and is determined to have his way no matter how foolish it makes him look. This
one could go anywhere from here.
Moscow Exile, December 19, 2015 at 11:28 pm
Clearly that Aussie cop is in the pocket of the Evil One!
Isn't he the one who said earlier that the Russian-backed terrorists at the MH-17 crash site
behaved like decent human beings and treated the crash victims' remains with dignity and did
not loot their belongings?
I mean, what a ludicrous thing to say!
Everyone knows that these Russian beasts are ….blah, blah, blah ...
davidt, December 20, 2015 at 2:03 pm
Donoghue is not the only AFP cop speaking up for the crash site locals. Their sensitivity
and humanity is a rather at odds with a disparaging comment about the AFP on these pages over
a year ago (and which I objected to at the time). I noticed last week that Patrick Armstrong
is now reconsidering the Sukhoi did it scenario because of an apparent lack of fragments from
a Buk warhead.
"... By Michael Hudson, a research professor of Economics at University of Missouri, Kansas City, and a research associate at the Levy Economics Institute of Bard College. His latest book is ..."
"... KILLING THE HOST: How Financial Parasites and Debt Bondage Destroy the Global Economy ..."
"... What especially annoys U.S. financial strategists is that this loan by Russia's sovereign debt fund was protected by IMF lending practice, which at that time ensured collectability by withholding new credit from countries in default of foreign official debts (or at least, not bargaining in good faith to pay). To cap matters, the bonds are registered under London's creditor-oriented rules and courts. ..."
"... After the rules change, Aslund later noted, "the IMF can continue to give Ukraine loans regardless of what Ukraine does about its credit from Russia, which falls due on December 20. [8] ..."
"... The post-2010 loan packages to Greece are a notorious case in point. The IMF staff calculated that Greece could not possibly pay the balance that was set to bail out foreign banks and bondholders. Many Board members agreed (and subsequently have gone public with their whistle-blowing). Their protests didn't matter. Dominique Strauss-Kahn backed the US-ECB position (after President Barack Obama and Treasury secretary Tim Geithner pointed out that U.S. banks had written credit default swaps betting that Greece could pay, and would lose money if there were a debt writedown). In 2015, Christine Lagarde also backed the U.S.-European Central Bank hard line, against staff protests. [10] ..."
"... China and Russia harbored the fantasy that would be allowed redress in the Western Courts where international law is metered out. They are now no longer under that delusion. ..."
"... It's not Hudson but the US that has simplified the entire world situation into "good guys vs. bad guys", a policy enshrined in Rumsfeld's statement "you're either with us or you're against us". ..."
"... what is left unsaid is the choices Russia then faces once their legal options play out and the uneven playing field is fully exposed. Do they not then have a historically justifiable basis for declaring war? ..."
The nightmare scenario of U.S. geopolitical strategists seems to be coming true: foreign economic
independence from U.S. control. Instead of privatizing and neoliberalizing the world under U.S.-centered
financial planning and ownership, the Russian and Chinese governments are investing in neighboring
economies on terms that cement Eurasian economic integration on the basis of Russian oil and tax
exports and Chinese financing. The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) threatens to replace
the IMF and World Bank programs that favor U.S. suppliers, banks and bondholders (with the United
States holding unique veto power).
Russia's 2013 loan to Ukraine, made at the request of Ukraine's elected pro-Russian government,
demonstrated the benefits of mutual trade and investment relations between the two countries. As
Russian finance minister Anton Siluanov points out, Ukraine's "international reserves were barely
enough to cover three months' imports, and no other creditor was prepared to lend on terms acceptable
to Kiev. Yet Russia provided $3 billion of much-needed funding at a 5 per cent interest rate, when
Ukraine's bonds were yielding nearly 12 per cent."[1]
What especially annoys U.S. financial strategists is that this loan by Russia's sovereign
debt fund was protected by IMF lending practice, which at that time ensured collectability by withholding
new credit from countries in default of foreign official debts (or at least, not bargaining in good
faith to pay). To cap matters, the bonds are registered under London's creditor-oriented rules and
courts.
On December 3 (one week before the IMF changed its rules so as to hurt Russia), Prime Minister
Putin proposed that Russia "and other Eurasian Economic Union countries should kick-off consultations
with members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) and the Association of Southeast Asian
Nations (ASEAN) on a possible economic partnership."[2]
Russia also is seeking to build pipelines to Europe through friendly instead of U.S.-backed countries.
Moving to denominate their trade and investment in their own currencies instead of dollars, China
and Russia are creating a geopolitical system free from U.S. control. After U.S. officials threatened
to derange Russia's banking linkages by cutting it off from the SWIFT interbank clearing system,
China accelerated its creation of the alternative China International Payments System (CIPS), with
its own credit card system to protect Eurasian economies from the shrill threats made by U.S. unilateralists.
Russia and China are simply doing what the United States has long done: using trade and credit
linkages to cement their geopolitical diplomacy. This tectonic geopolitical shift is a Copernican
threat to New Cold War ideology: Instead of the world economy revolving around the United States
(the Ptolemaic idea of America as "the indispensible nation"), it may revolve around Eurasia. As
long as the global financial papacy remains grounded in Washington at the offices of the IMF and
World Bank, such a shift in the center of gravity will be fought with all the power of the American
Century (indeed, American Millennium) inquisition.
Imagine the following scenario five years from now. China will have spent half a decade building
high-speed railroads, ports power systems and other construction for Asian and African countries,
enabling them to grow and export more. These exports will be coming on line to repay the infrastructure
loans. Also, suppose that Russia has been supplying the oil and gas energy needed for these projects.
To U.S. neocons this specter of AIIB government-to-government lending and investment creates fear
of a world independent of U.S. control. Nations would mint their own money and hold each other's
debt in their international reserves instead of borrowing or holding dollars and subordinating their
financial planning to the IMF and U.S. Treasury with their demands for monetary bloodletting and
austerity for debtor countries. There would be less need for foreign government to finance budget
shortfalls by selling off their key public infrastructure privatizing their economies. Instead of
dismantling public spending, the AIIB and a broader Eurasian economic union would do what the United
States itself practices, and seek self-sufficiency in basic needs such as food, technology, banking,
credit creation and monetary policy.
With this prospect in mind, suppose an American diplomat meets with the leaders of debtors to
China, Russia and the AIIB and makes the following proposal: "Now that you've got your increased
production in place, why repay? We'll make you rich if you stiff our New Cold War adversaries and
turn to the West. We and our European allies will help you assign the infrastructure to yourselves
and your supporters, and give these assets market value by selling shares in New York and London.
Then, you can spend your surpluses in the West."
How can China or Russia collect in such a situation? They can sue. But what court will recognize
their claim – that is, what court that the West would pay attention to?
That is the kind of scenario U.S. State Department and Treasury officials have been discussing
for more than a year. The looming conflict was made immediate by Ukraine's $3 billion debt to Russia
falling due by December 20, 2015. Ukraine's U.S.-backed regime has announced its intention to default.
U.S. lobbyists have just changed the IMF rules to remove a critical lever on which Russia and other
governments have long relied to enforce payment of their loans.
The IMF's Role as Enforcer of Inter-Government Debts
When it comes down to enforcing nations to pay inter-government debts, the International Monetary
Fund and Paris Club hold the main leverage. As coordinator of central bank "stabilization" loans
(the neoliberal euphemism for imposing austerity and destabilizing debtor economies, Greece-style),
the IMF is able to withhold not only its own credit but also that of governments and global banks
participating when debtor countries need refinancing. Countries that do not agree to privatize their
infrastructure and sell it to Western buyers are threatened with sanctions, backed by U.S.-sponsored
"regime change" and "democracy promotion" Maidan-style.
This was the setting on December 8, when Chief IMF Spokesman Gerry Rice announced: "The IMF's
Executive Board met today and agreed to change the current policy on non-toleration of arrears to
official creditors." The creditor leverage that the IMF has used is that if a nation is in financial
arrears to any government, it cannot qualify for an IMF loan – and hence, for packages involving
other governments. This has been the system by which the dollarized global financial system has worked
for half a century. The beneficiaries have been creditors in US dollars.
In this U.S.-centered worldview, China and Russia loom as the great potential adversaries – defined
as independent power centers from the United States as they create the Shanghai Cooperation Organization
as an alternative to NATO, and the AIIB as an alternative to the IMF and World Bank tandem. The very
name, Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, implies that transportation systems and other
infrastructure will be financed by governments, not relinquished into private hands to become rent-extracting
opportunities financed by U.S.-centered bank credit to turn the rent into a flow of interest payments.
The focus on a mixed public/private economy sets the AIIB at odds with the Trans-Pacific Partnership
(TPP) and its aim of relinquishing government planning power to the financial and corporate sector
for their own short-term gains, and above all the aim of blocking government's money-creating power
and financial regulation. Chief Nomura economist Richard Koo, explained the logic of viewing the
AIIB as a threat to the US-controlled IMF: "If the IMF's rival is heavily under China's influence,
countries receiving its support will rebuild their economies under what is effectively Chinese guidance,
increasing the likelihood they will fall directly or indirectly under that country's influence."[3]
Russian Finance Minister Anton Siluanov accused the IMF decision of being "hasty and biased."[4]
But it had been discussed all year long, calculating a range of scenarios for a long-term sea change
in international law. The aim of this change is to isolate not only Russia, but even more China in
its role as creditor to African countries and prospective AIIB borrowers. U.S. officials walked into
the IMF headquarters in Washington with the legal equivalent of financial suicide vests, having decided
that the time had come to derail Russia's ability to collect on its sovereign loan to Ukraine, and
of even larger import, China's plan for a New Silk Road integrating a Eurasian economy independent
of U.S. financial and trade control. Anders Aslund, senior fellow at the NATO-oriented Atlantic Council,
points out:
The IMF staff started contemplating a rule change in the spring of 2013 because nontraditional
creditors, such as China, had started providing developing countries with large loans. One issue
was that these loans were issued on conditions out of line with IMF practice. China wasn't a member
of the Paris Club, where loan restructuring is usually discussed, so it was time to update the rules.
The IMF intended to adopt a new policy in the spring of 2016, but the dispute over Russia's $3
billion loan to Ukraine has accelerated an otherwise slow decision-making process.[5]
The Wall Street Journal concurred that the underlying motivation for changing the IMF's rules
was the threat that Chinese lending would provide an alternative to IMF loans and its demands for
austerity. "IMF-watchers said the fund was originally thinking of ensuring China wouldn't be able
to foil IMF lending to member countries seeking bailouts as Beijing ramped up loans to developing
economies around the world."[6]
In short, U.S. strategists have designed a policy to block trade and financial agreements organized
outside of U.S. control and that of the IMF and World Bank in which it holds unique veto power.
The plan is simple enough. Trade follows finance, and the creditor usually calls the tune. That
is how the United States has used the Dollar Standard to steer Third World trade and investment since
World War II along lines benefiting the U.S. economy.
The cement of trade credit and bank lending is the ability of creditors to collect on the international
debts being negotiated. That is why the United States and other creditor nations have used the IMF
as an intermediary to act as "honest broker" for loan consortia. ("Honest broker" means in practice
being subject to U.S. veto power.) To enforce its financial leverage, the IMF has long followed the
rule that it will not sponsor any loan agreement or refinancing for governments that are in default
of debts owed to other governments. However, as the afore-mentioned Aslund explains, the IMF could
easily
change its practice of not lending into [countries in official] arrears … because it is not
incorporated into the IMF Articles of Agreement, that is, the IMF statutes. The IMF Executive
Board can decide to change this policy with a simple board majority. The IMF has lent to Afghanistan,
Georgia, and Iraq in the midst of war, and Russia has no veto right, holding only 2.39 percent
of the votes in the IMF. When the IMF has lent to Georgia and Ukraine, the other members of its
Executive Board have overruled Russia.[7]
After the rules change, Aslund later noted, "the IMF can continue to give Ukraine loans regardless
of what Ukraine does about its credit from Russia, which falls due on December 20.[8]
Inasmuch as Ukraine's official debt to Russia's sovereign debt fund was not to the U.S. Government,
the IMF announced its rules change as a "clarification." Its rule that no country can borrow if it
is in default to (or not seriously negotiating with) a foreign government was created in the post-1945
world, and has governed the past seventy years in which the United States Government, Treasury officials
and/or U.S. bank consortia have been party to nearly every international bailout or major loan agreement.
What the IMF rule really meant was that it would not provide credit to countries in arrears specifically
to the U.S. Government, not those of Russia or China.
Mikhail Delyagin, Director of the Institute of Globalization Problems, understood the IMF's double
standard clearly enough: "The Fund will give Kiev a new loan tranche on one condition that Ukraine
should not pay Russia a dollar under its $3 billion debt. Legally, everything will be formalized
correctly but they will oblige Ukraine to pay only to western creditors for political reasons."[9]
It remains up to the IMF board – and in the end, its managing director – whether or not to deem a
country creditworthy. The U.S. representative naturally has always blocked any leaders not beholden
to the United States.
The post-2010 loan packages to Greece are a notorious case in point. The IMF staff calculated
that Greece could not possibly pay the balance that was set to bail out foreign banks and bondholders.
Many Board members agreed (and subsequently have gone public with their whistle-blowing). Their protests
didn't matter. Dominique Strauss-Kahn backed the US-ECB position (after President Barack Obama and
Treasury secretary Tim Geithner pointed out that U.S. banks had written credit default swaps betting
that Greece could pay, and would lose money if there were a debt writedown). In 2015, Christine Lagarde
also backed the U.S.-European Central Bank hard line, against staff protests.[10]
IMF executive board member Otaviano Canuto, representing Brazil, noted that the logic that "conditions
on IMF lending to a country that fell behind on payments [was to] make sure it kept negotiating in
good faith to reach agreement with creditors."[11]
Dropping this condition, he said, would open the door for other countries to insist on a similar
waiver and avoid making serious and sincere efforts to reach payment agreement with creditor governments.
A more binding IMF rule is that it cannot lend to countries at war or use IMF credit to engage
in warfare. Article I
of its 1944-45 founding charter ban the fund from lending to a member state engaged in civil war
or at war with another member state, or for military purposes in general. But when IMF head Lagarde
made the last IMF loan to Ukraine, in spring 2015, she made a token gesture of stating that she hoped
there would be peace. But President Porochenko immediately announced that he would step up the civil
war with the Russian-speaking population in the eastern Donbass region.
The problem is that the Donbass is where most Ukrainian exports were made, mainly to Russia. That
market is being lost by the junta's belligerence toward Russia. This should have blocked Ukraine
from receiving IMF aid. Withholding IMF credit could have been a lever to force peace and adherence
to the Minsk agreements, but U.S. diplomatic pressure led that opportunity to be rejected.
The most important IMF condition being violated is that continued warfare with the East prevents
a realistic prospect of Ukraine paying back new loans. Aslund himself points to the internal contradictions
at work: Ukraine has achieved budget balance because the inflation and steep currency depreciation
has drastically eroded its pension costs. The resulting lower value of pension benefits has led to
growing opposition to Ukraine's post-Maidan junta. "Leading representatives from President Petro
Poroshenko's Bloc are insisting on massive tax cuts, but no more expenditure cuts; that would cause
a vast budget deficit that the IMF assesses at 9-10 percent of GDP, that could not possibly be financed."[12]
So how can the IMF's austerity budget be followed without a political backlash?
The IMF thus is breaking four rules: Not lending to a country that has no visible means to pay
back the loan breaks the "No More Argentinas" rule adopted after the IMF's disastrous 2001 loan.
Not lending to countries that refuse in good faith to negotiate with their official creditors goes
against the IMF's role as the major tool of the global creditors' cartel. And the IMF is now lending
to a borrower at war, indeed one that is destroying its export capacity and hence its balance-of-payments
ability to pay back the loan. Finally, the IMF is lending to a country that has little likelihood
of refuse carrying out the IMF's notorious austerity "conditionalities" on its population – without
putting down democratic opposition in a totalitarian manner. Instead of being treated as an outcast
from the international financial system, Ukraine is being welcomed and financed.
The upshot – and new basic guideline for IMF lending – is to create a new Iron Curtain splitting
the world into pro-U.S. economies going neoliberal, and all other economies, including those seeking
to maintain public investment in infrastructure, progressive taxation and what used to be viewed
as progressive capitalism. Russia and China may lend as much as they want to other governments, but
there is no international vehicle to help secure their ability to be paid back under what until now
has passed for international law. Having refused to roll back its own or ECB financial claims on
Greece, the IMF is quite willing to see repudiation of official debts owed to Russia, China or other
countries not on the list approved by the U.S. neocons who wield veto power in the IMF, World Bank
and similar global economic institutions now drawn into the U.S. orbit. Changing its rules to clear
the path for the IMF to make loans to Ukraine and other governments in default of debts owed to official
lenders is rightly seen as an escalation of America's New Cold War against Russia and also its anti-China
strategy.
Timing is everything in such ploys. Georgetown University Law professor and Treasury consultant
Anna Gelpern warned that before the "IMF staff and executive board [had] enough time to change the
policy on arrears to official creditors," Russia might use "its
notorious debt/GDP clause to accelerate the bonds at any time before December, or simply gum
up the process of reforming the IMF's arrears policy."[13]
According to this clause, if Ukraine's foreign debt rose above 60 percent of GDP, Russia's government
would have the right to demand immediate payment. But no doubt anticipating the bitter fight to come
over its attempts to collect on its loan, President Putin patiently refrained from exercising this
option. He is playing the long game, bending over backward to accommodate Ukraine rather than behaving
"odiously."
A more pressing reason deterring the United States from pressing earlier to change IMF rules was
that a waiver for Ukraine would have opened the legal floodgates for Greece to ask for a similar
waiver on having to pay the "troika" – the European Central Bank (ECB), EU commission and the IMF
itself – for the post-2010 loans that have pushed it into a worse depression than the 1930s. "Imagine
the Greek government had insisted that EU institutions accept the same haircut as the country's private
creditors," Russian finance minister Anton Siluanov asked. "The reaction in European capitals would
have been frosty. Yet this is the position now taken by Kiev with respect to Ukraine's $3 billion
eurobond held by Russia."[14]
Only after Greece capitulated to eurozone austerity was the path clear for U.S. officials to change
the IMF rules in their fight to isolate Russia. But their tactical victory has come at the cost of
changing the IMF's rules and those of the global financial system irreversibly. Other countries henceforth
may reject conditionalities, as Ukraine has done, and ask for write-downs on foreign official debts.
That was the great fear of neoliberal U.S. and Eurozone strategists last summer, after all. The
reason for smashing Greece's economy was to deter Podemos in Spain and similar movements in Italy
and Portugal from pursuing national prosperity instead of eurozone austerity. Opening the door to
such resistance by Ukraine is the blowback of America's tactic to make a short-term financial hit
on Russia while its balance of payments is down as a result of collapsing oil and gas prices.
The consequences go far beyond just the IMF. The fabric of international law itself is being torn
apart. Every action has a reaction in the Newtonian world of geopolitics. It may not be a bad thing,
to be sure, for the post-1945 global order to be broken apart by U.S. tactics against Russia, if
that is the catalyst driving other countries to defend their own economies in the legal and political
spheres. It has been U.S. neoliberals themselves who have catalyzed the emerging independent Eurasian
bloc.
Countering Russia's Ability to Collect in Britain's Law Courts
Over the past year the U.S. Treasury and State Departments have discussed ploys to block Russia
from collecting under British law, where its loans to Ukraine are registered. Reviewing the repertory
of legal excuses Ukraine might use to avoid paying Russia, Prof. Gelpern noted that it might declare
the debt "odious," made under duress or corruptly. In a paper for the Peterson Institute of International
Economics (the banking lobby in Washington) she suggested that Britain should deny Russia the use
of its courts as an additional sanction reinforcing the financial, energy, and trade sanctions to
those passed against Russia after Crimea voted to join it as protection against the ethnic cleansing
from the Right Sector, Azov Battalion and other paramilitary groups descending on the region.[15]
A kindred ploy might be for Ukraine to countersue Russia for reparations for "invading" it, for
saving Crimea and the Donbass region from the Right Sector's attempt to take over the country. Such
a ploy would seem to have little chance of success in international courts (without showing them
to be simply arms of NATO New Cold War politics), but it might delay Russia' ability to collect by
tying the loan up in a long nuisance lawsuit.
To claim that Ukraine's debt to Russia was "odious" or otherwise illegitimate, "President Petro
Poroshenko said the money was intended to ensure Yanukovych's loyalty to Moscow, and called the payment
a 'bribe,' according to an interview with Bloomberg in June this year."[16]
The legal and moral problem with such arguments is that they would apply equally to IMF and US loans.
Claiming that Russia's loan is "odious" is that this would open the floodgates for other countries
to repudiate debts taken on by dictatorships supported by IMF and U.S. lenders, headed by the many
dictatorships supported by U.S. diplomacy.
The blowback from the U.S. multi-front attempt to nullify Ukraine's debt may be used to annul
or at least write down the destructive IMF loans made on the condition that borrowers accept privatizations
favoring U.S., German and other NATO-country investors, undertake austerity programs, and buy weapons
systems such as the German submarines that Greece borrowed to pay for. As Foreign Minister Sergei
Lavrov noted: "This reform, which they are now trying to implement, designed to suit Ukraine only,
could plant a time bomb under all other IMF programs." It certainly showed the extent to which the
IMF is subordinate to U.S. aggressive New Cold Warriors: "Essentially, this reform boils down to
the following: since Ukraine is politically important – and it is only important because it is opposed
to Russia – the IMF is ready to do for Ukraine everything it has not done for anyone else, and the
situation that should 100 percent mean a default will be seen as a situation enabling the IMF to
finance Ukraine."[17]
Andrei Klimov, deputy chairman of the Committee for International Affairs at the Federation Council
(the upper house of Russia's parliament) accused the United States of playing "the role of the main
violin in the IMF while the role of the second violin is played by the European Union. These are
two basic sponsors of the Maidan – the symbol of a coup d'état in Ukraine in 2014."[18]
Putin's Counter-Strategy and the Blowback on U.S.-European and Global Relations
As noted above, having anticipated that Ukraine would seek reasons to not pay the Russian loan,
President Putin carefully refrained from exercising Russia's right to demand immediate payment when
Ukraine's foreign debt rose above 60 percent of GDP. In November he offered to defer payment if the
United States, Europe and international banks underwrote the obligation. Indeed, he even "proposed
better conditions for this restructuring than those the International Monetary Fund requested of
us." He offered "to accept a deeper restructuring with no payment this year – a payment of $1 billion
next year, $1 billion in 2017, and $1 billion in 2018." If the IMF, the United States and European
Union "are sure that Ukraine's solvency will grow," then they should "see no risk in providing guarantees
for this credit." Accordingly, he concluded "We have asked for such guarantees either from the United
States government, the European Union, or one of the big international financial institutions."
[19]
The implication, Putin pointed out, was that "If they cannot provide guarantees, this means that
they do not believe in the Ukrainian economy's future." One professor pointed out that this proposal
was in line with the fact that, "Ukraine has already received a sovereign loan guarantee from the
United States for a previous bond issue." Why couldn't the United States, Eurozone or leading commercial
banks provide a similar guarantee of Ukraine's debt to Russia – or better yet, simply lend it the
money to turn it into a loan to the IMF or US lenders?[20]
But the IMF, European Union and the United States refused to back up their happy (but nonsensical)
forecasts of Ukrainian solvency with actual guarantees. Foreign Minister Lavrov made clear just what
that rejection meant: "By having refused to guarantee Ukraine's debt as part of Russia's proposal
to restructure it, the United States effectively admitted the absence of prospects of restoring its
solvency. … By officially rejecting the proposed scheme, the United States thereby subscribed to
not seeing any prospects of Ukraine restoring its solvency."[21]
In an even more exasperated tone, Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev explained to Russia's television
audience: "I have a feeling that they won't give us the money back because they are crooks. They
refuse to return our money and our Western partners not only refuse to help, but they also make it
difficult for us."[22]
Adding that "the international financial system is unjustly structured," he promised to "go to court.
We'll push for default on the loan and we'll push for default on all Ukrainian debts."
The basis for Russia's legal claim, he explained was that the loan
was a request from the Ukrainian Government to the Russian Government. If two governments reach
an agreement this is obviously a sovereign loan…. Surprisingly, however, international financial
organisations started saying that this is not exactly a sovereign loan. This is utter bull. Evidently,
it's just an absolutely brazen, cynical lie. … This seriously erodes trust in IMF decisions. I believe
that now there will be a lot of pleas from different borrower states to the IMF to grant them the
same terms as Ukraine. How will the IMF possibly refuse them?
And there the matter stands. As President Putin remarked regarding America's support of Al Qaeda,
Al Nusra and other ISIS allies in Syria, "Do you have any idea of what you have done?"
The Blowback
Few have calculated the degree to which America's New Cold War with Russia is creating a reaction
that is tearing up the world's linkages put in place since World War II. Beyond pulling the IMF and
World Bank tightly into U.S. unilateralist geopolitics, how long will Western Europe be willing to
forego its trade and investment interest with Russia? Germany, Italy and France already are feeling
the strains. If and when a break comes, it will not be marginal but a seismic geopolitical shift.
The oil and pipeline war designed to bypass Russian energy exports has engulfed the Near East
in anarchy for over a decade. It is flooding Europe with refugees, and also spreading terrorism to
America. In the Republican presidential debate on December 15, 2015, the leading issue was safety
from Islamic jihadists. Yet no candidate thought to explain the source of this terrorism in America's
alliance with Wahabist Saudi Arabia and Qatar, and hence with Al Qaeda and ISIS/Daish as a means
of destabilizing secular regimes seeking independence from U.S. control.
As its allies in this New Cold War, the United States has chosen fundamentalist jihadist religion
against secular regimes in Libya, Iraq, Syria, and earlier in Afghanistan and Turkey. Going back
to the original sin of CIA hubris – overthrowing the secular Iranian Prime Minister leader Mohammad
Mosaddegh in 1953 – American foreign policy has been based on the assumption that secular regimes
tend to be nationalist and resist privatization and neoliberal austerity.
Based on this fatal long-term assumption, U.S. Cold Warriors have aligned themselves not only
against secular regimes, but against democratic regimes where these seek to promote their own prosperity
and economic independence, and to resist neoliberalism in favor of maintaining their traditional
mixed public/private economy.
This is the back story of the U.S. fight to control the rest of the world. Tearing apart the IMF's
rules is only the most recent chapter. The broad drive against Russia, China and their prospective
Eurasian allies has deteriorated into tactics without a realistic understanding of how they are bringing
about precisely the kind of world they are seeking to prevent – a multilateral world.
Arena by arena, the core values of what used to be American and European social democratic ideology
are being uprooted. The Enlightenment's ideals of secular democracy and the rule of international
law applied equally to all nations, classical free market theory (of markets free from unearned income
and rent extraction by special vested interests), and public investment in infrastructure to hold
down the cost of living and doing business are to be sacrificed to a militant U.S. unilateralism
as "the indispensible nation." Standing above the rule of law and national interests, American neocons
proclaim that their nation's destiny is to wage war to prevent foreign secular democracy from acting
in ways other than submission to U.S. diplomacy. In practice, this means favoring special U.S. financial
and corporate interests that control American foreign policy.
This is not how the Enlightenment was supposed to turn out. Classical industrial capitalism a
century ago was expected to evolve into an economy of abundance. Instead, we have Pentagon capitalism,
finance capitalism deteriorating into a polarized rentier economy, and old-fashioned imperialism.
The Dollar Bloc's Financial Iron Curtain
By treating Ukraine's nullification of its official debt to Russia's Sovereign Wealth Fund as
the new norm, the IMF has blessed its default on its bond payment to Russia. President Putin and
foreign minister Lavrov have said that they will sue in British courts. But does any court exist
in the West not under the thumb of U.S. veto?
What are China and Russia to do, faced with the IMF serving as a kangaroo court whose judgments
are subject to U.S. veto power? To protect their autonomy and self-determination, they have created
alternatives to the IMF and World Bank, NATO and behind it, the dollar standard.
America's recent New Cold War maneuvering has shown that the two Bretton Woods institutions are
unreformable. It is easier to create new institutions such as the A.I.I.B. than to retrofit old and
ill-designed ones burdened with the legacy of their vested founding interests. It is easier to expand
the Shanghai Cooperation Organization than to surrender to threats from NATO.
U.S. geostrategists seem to have imagined that if they exclude Russia, China and other SCO and
Eurasian countries from the U.S.-based financial and trade system, these countries will find themselves
in the same economic box as Cuba, Iran and other countries have been isolated by sanctions. The aim
is to make countries choose between impoverishment from such exclusion, or acquiescing in U.S. neoliberal
drives to financialize their economies and impose austerity on their government sector and labor.
What is lacking from such calculations is the idea of critical mass. The United States may use
the IMF and World Bank as levers to exclude countries not in the U.S. orbit from participating in
the global trade and financial system, and it may arm-twist Europe to impose trade and financial
sanctions on Russia. But this action produces an equal and opposite reaction. That is the eternal
Newtonian law of geopolitics. The indicated countermeasure is simply for other countries to create
their own international financial organization as an alternative to the IMF, their own "aid" lending
institution to juxtapose to the U.S.-centered World Bank.
All this requires an international court to handle disputes that is free from U.S. arm-twisting
to turn international law into a kangaroo court following the dictates of Washington. The Eurasian
Economic Union now has its own court to adjudicate disputes. It may provide an alternative Judge
Griesa's New York federal court ruling in favor of vulture funds derailing Argentina's debt negotiations
and excluding it from foreign financial markets. If the London Court of International Arbitration
(under whose rules Russia's bonds issued to Ukraine are registered) permits frivolous legal claims
(called barratry in English) such as President Poroshenko has threatened in Ukrainian Parliament,
it too will become a victim of geopolitical obsolescence.
The more nakedly self-serving and geopolitical U.S. policy is – in backing radical Islamic fundamentalist
outgrowths of Al Qaeda throughout the Near East, right-wing nationalist governments in Ukraine and
the Baltics – the greater the catalytic pressure is growing for the Shanghai Cooperation Organization,
AIIB and related Eurasian institutions to break free of the post-1945 Bretton Woods system run by
the U.S. State, Defense and Treasury Departments and NATO superstructure.
The question now is whether Russia and China can hold onto the BRICS and India. So as Paul Craig
Roberts recently summarized my ideas along these lines, we are back with George Orwell's 1984
global fracture between Oceanea (the United States, Britain and its northern European NATO allies)
vs. Eurasia.
My issue with Hudson is that he tends to paint things in a "good guys/bad guys" dichotomy viz.
the IMF vs. the AIIB. Personally, I think it's quite positive that the international sovereign
finance institutions will now be more international and less unipolar, but his scenario where
Nations would mint their own money and hold each other's debt in their international
reserves instead of borrowing or holding dollars and subordinating their financial planning
to the IMF and U.S. Treasury with their demands for monetary bloodletting and austerity for
debtor countries.
is rather pie-in-the sky. What reason do we have to believe that concentrated Chinese capital
would somehow be more benevolent than our current overlords? Oh because AIIB has the word "infrastructure"
in its title (just as the Interamerican Development Bank is all about development) /sarc.
Furthermore, if US planners had half a clue about economics, they would be jumping for joy
that the AIIB and the CIPS will finally help release them (eventually) from the burden of having
the USD as the global reserve currency, thus relieving the US of the albatross of having to ship
its internal demand to China and other net exporters.
All in all, yes AIIB should be positive, but as Hudson himself points out, this is not so much
about economics as it is geopolitics. The world should tread with the utmost caution.
I think his main point is not so much about economics or geopolitics, it's about the rule of
law, specifically international law and how it applies to the debt collection brokered between
counties.
China and Russia harbored the fantasy that would be allowed redress in the Western
Courts where international law is metered out. They are now no longer under that delusion.
Even if they come up with a lending facility, the West will thwart their ability to collect
on those debts at every turn by simply declaring those debts null and void and extending new funds
using the infrastructure build by the bad (Russian/Chinese) debt as collateral. The thirst for
power and profit will always be with us, but now it will not be tempered by any international
order under the rule of law.
China is learning the hard way how the game is played. For example, they're discovering that
much of the tens of billions in no-strings attached loans given to Africa will not provide the
returns initially thought (even accounting for massive corruption on all sides), which is why
they have been reduced for the first time in a decade this past year.
Don't see how "economics" and "social" can be de-linked from "politics"…understanding the limits
of "local" may provide an awareness of the "quid pro quo" of extending, direction of extension,
and what defines (in/inter) "dependency"…how sacrifice is "shared" or imposed, and how "prosperity"
is concentrated or distributed…
It's not Hudson but the US that has simplified the entire world situation into "good guys
vs. bad guys", a policy enshrined in Rumsfeld's statement "you're either with us or you're against
us".
It's like a playground with one big bully and lots of kids running scared, now a second bully
appears and they all have to ask themselves whether Bully #2 will be nicer to them, in this case
it appears Bully #2 is saying he won't tell them how to run their lives or steal their lunch money.
Post-comet in 2000 when everything started going to hell the worst casualty has been the rule
of law, from hanging chads through to the Patriot Act, death by a thousand cuts of the Constitution,
unprosecuted war crimes, unprosecuted financial crimes, and now the very fabric of international
law being rent apart. I'm reminded of the Hunter Thompson scene where he has an expired driver's
license and a cop pulls him over, he has two choices, hand over the license and get busted, or
drive away and get busted… so he comes up with a third choice: he blows his nose all over the
license and hands it over to the cop. The equivalent of Bully #1 taking the only soccer ball on
the playground and kicking it over the fence so the game is screwed up for everybody, Pepe's "Empire
of Chaos" indeed.
1)Western economies depend on ocean transport…if chinese or ruskies destroy it, USA-EU will
be bankrupt in weeks..USA-EU are consumers and not producers..their exports to rest of world are
tiny..So,their position is very weak at this point
2)The asian countries like china-india will be forced to join hands under joint attack by US financial
system and islamic jihadists..Russia and china,former enemies,are now friends…who could have imagines
it?
Russo-chinese-iranian alliance is huge failure of US foreign policies
3)Using islamic terrorists and islamic countries like turkey-saudi arabia-pakistan-indonesia-egypt
is not going to work for USA because muslims think USA as enemy no.1…
4)A military superiority can not guarantee permanent -everlasting victory against too many opponents
What i see here is USA has made entire islamic world their enemy,alongwith china and russia
In case of real war,USA position will be very weak
This is an amazing article. Bravo!
Now it's becoming clear just what Margaret Thatcher meant when she told everyone that there was
no alternative to neoliberalism.
Thank you for continuing to mark the historical specifics of the finance/legal wing of geopolitical
conflict, and the perverse failings of Full Spectrum Dominance.
The Oceana/Eurasia dichotomy is a dangerous frame of reference. It essentially contrasts the
transport efficiencies of water to the solid defensive capacity of the frozen steppes. But when
things get bloody, they usually crack along language lines. Not only as a proxy for migrations
of the gene, but also world-views. How horse-people see things, what metaphors they use, are very
different than how cow-people categorize the world.
This highlights that Russia is continuing to operate within the language and legal framework
of the Indo-European languages. In other words (!), it is a fight between the U.S. and Russia
for European alliances. If this is the case, then the alliance of NATO with Turkic and Arabic
lines is of convenience, in that they are not partners but proxies. Europe is faced with the habit
of the U.S. in saying, Let's you and him fight. But there's an oceans difference between the U.S.
and European interests.
It also means that Russia and China are being pushed together by western exclusion, like drops
of oil on the water. I maintain that Russia has doubled down on global warming, to open up northern
sea routes and make the steppes arable. China is already a sea-power, but its massive population
will need lebensraum as the fossil-fuel support for the energy needs of megapoli decay. The mountains
are a formidable barrier for them to take the steppes by force.
The question for the rest of the world then becomes, who do you want to have as a friend in
a hundred years. Do you bet on the Wizards of Wall Street, with their Magic Money Wand of Fiat?
Or do you think Russia will ground-n-pound the fairy dust into the mud?
what is left unsaid is the choices Russia then faces once their legal options play out
and the uneven playing field is fully exposed. Do they not then have a historically justifiable
basis for declaring war?
'The Russian and Chinese governments are investing in neighboring economies on terms that
cement Eurasian economic integration.'
Whereas the U.S. is 'investing' in new military bases to cement U.S. global domination.
Guess which model actually benefits local living standards, and 'wins hearts and minds'?
Global domination as a policy goal bankrupted the USSR. It's not working for the USSA either,
as the U.S. middle class (once the envy of the world) visibly sinks into pauperization.
Thus the veracity of Michael Hudson's conclusion that 'when a break comes, it will not be marginal
but a seismic geopolitical shift.'
I get the same thrill reading Hudson the religiously devout must experience reading their bibles
or Korans – a glimpse of 'truth' as best it can be known. My first encounter was this interview
in Counterpunch:
An Interview with Michael Hudson, author of Super Imperialism That led directly to "Super
Imperialism" (and just about every book since its publication). After reading it, I was left with
the uneasy feeling that no good would come from an international monetary system that allowed
any one nation to pay its way in the world by creating money 'out of thin air' i.e. as sovereign
and private debt or, almost the same thing, Federal Reserve Notes.
The race to the bottom of off-shored jobs and industries freed from all environmental restrictions,
AKA 'globalization', had started to really kick in but it was just before Operation Iraqi Liberation
(get it?). Fundamentally, it wasn't war for oil, of course, but a war to preserve the Dollar Standard.
Recycling petrodollars bought a little time after the 1971 collapse of Bretton Woods. But with
the world's treasuries filling up with US dollars and debt, the product of the Congressional-military-industrial-complex
running wild and more recently the U.S. 0.01% successfully evading almost all forms of taxation,
some kind of control more basic than controlling the world's access to money (which basically
means credit) was required.
When people like Alan Greenspan (pretend to) come clean, you really want to look twice:
THOUGH it was not understood a century ago, and though as yet the applications of the knowledge
to the economics of life are not generally realized, life in its physical aspect is fundamentally
a struggle for energy, in which discovery after discovery brings life into new relations with
the original source.
Frederick Soddy, WEALTH, VIRTUAL WEALTH AND DEBT, 2nd edition, p. 49
The world can live without American dollars, especially these days when the U.S. no longer makes
much the world needs or can afford but most obviously because it already possesses more of them
than can ever be redeemed ('debt that can't be repaid and won't be') What it can't live without
is ENERGY.
So long as most of that energy needs to be pumped out of the ground, the nation that ultimately
controls access to the pumps – or to the distribution networks required to deliver it to the ultimate
user – controls the world. This is most likely why Reagan promptly dismantled Jimmy Carter's White
House solar panels. It is why the US and its European vassals have been dragging their feet for
a half-century on the development of renewable energy sources and the electrification of transportation.
It is why the banks and Wall Street will stand solidly behind the various electrical utilities
efforts to discourage the development of any alternative energy sources from which their executives
and shareholders can not extract the last pint of blood or has Hudson more politely calls it 'economic
rent'.
P.S. Hudson seems to have a dangerous monopoly on economic truth these days. Is there anyone
else who even comes close?
"... Ukraine remains committed ... to negotiating in good faith a consensual restructuring of the December 2015 Eurobonds, Nonsense, they are nothing but thieves in suits; Fascist politicians stealing from the taxpayers in the USA, EU, Russia and the Ukraine. You supporters of modern Fascism are disgusting little NeoCon trolls, yes you are! ..."
"... Under this IMF restructuring deal with the Ukraine, the oligarchs mandated that Monsanto GMO comes in. Now the once fertile farms will grow poisoned food. ... They also mandated hydraulic fracking rights to Exxon and BP. Now the aquifers will be poisoned. ... Moreover, the IMF social chapter destroys family values and requires that corrosive gay propaganda be thrust into the children's minds. ... Welcome to the new Globalist Business Model. ..."
"... The Ukraine is like a dying carcass. ... The EU jackals are howling, the IMF vultures are circling, and the NATO hyenas are picking the flesh off of the bones. ..."
"... Ukraine's Finance Minister, who promised in the above Reuters article today Dec 18, 2015, to talk in good faith with the Russian Federation about their $3 Billion Loan due and payable on Dec 15, as of today is in Default on that $3 Billion Loan , and therefore isn't eligible to receive any Loan from the IMF, headed by Chief Lagarde who must now stand trial for an improper loan of $434 Million . ..."
"... Good faith? They actually mean bait and switch ..."
"... The deadbeat American lackeys in Kiev have no intention of paying their debts to Russia because Washington DC is run by thieves and immoral people. You know this is true. ..."
"... Meanwhile Ukraine has restricted air travel, cutoff Crimea, and fought efforts to grant autonomy to Russian-speaking regions. With unpaid debt, the country still stokes war with Russia after being warned by Mr. Kerry to stop. ..."
"Ukraine remains committed ... to negotiating in good faith a consensual restructuring of
the December 2015 Eurobonds," Nonsense, they are nothing but thieves in suits; Fascist
politicians stealing from the taxpayers in the USA, EU, Russia and the Ukraine. You supporters
of modern Fascism are disgusting little NeoCon trolls, yes you are!
Robert
This is the new Globalist Business Model.
Overthrow a sovereign country by revolution or outright bombing campaign.
Appoint oligarchs to run it and fascists to rule the streets.
Rack the country with unpardonable debt.
Bring in the IMF and other global banks to 'restructure' the economy.
Loot the country's resources by selling off the infrastructure for pennies on the
dollar.
Impose huge austerity programs. ... Cuts pensions in half and double basic living costs.
Finally, colonialize the citizens under multi-national corporate rule where the people
have little or no say.
Under this IMF restructuring deal with the Ukraine, the oligarchs mandated that Monsanto
GMO comes in. Now the once fertile farms will grow poisoned food. ... They also mandated
hydraulic fracking rights to Exxon and BP. Now the aquifers will be poisoned. ... Moreover,
the IMF social chapter destroys family values and requires that corrosive gay propaganda be
thrust into the children's minds. ... Welcome to the new Globalist Business Model.
The Ukraine is like a dying carcass. ... The EU jackals are howling, the IMF vultures are
circling, and the NATO hyenas are picking the flesh off of the bones.
Algis
Russia needs to take payment out of their proverbial hides. No one consider it unjustified
except a few brainwashed Americans and of course the immoral and corrupt ruling class of the
Empire!
new_federali...
Ukraine's Finance Minister, who promised in the above Reuters article today Dec 18, 2015,
to talk in good faith with the Russian Federation about their $3 Billion Loan due and payable
on Dec 15, as of today is in Default on that $3 Billion Loan , and therefore isn't eligible to
receive any Loan from the IMF, headed by Chief Lagarde who must now stand trial for an
improper loan of $434 Million .
Therefore, Gold did achieve an all-important triple bottom at $1,050 per ounce this week,
and is now in a furious rally up $15 to $1,065 per ounce as DXY (U.S. Dollar Index) falls
sharply today due to utter failure of U.S.- led IMF to rescue Ukraine from Financial Collapse
today -- Thus Gold will now rally sharply through at least Feb 2016 when Gold will be at $1,500
per ounce, and ultimately going to new all-time highs above $2,000 per ounce -- Dec 18, 2015 at
11:53 a.m. PST.
Commenter
Good faith? They actually mean bait and switch
Algis
The deadbeat American lackeys in Kiev have no intention of paying their debts to Russia
because Washington DC is run by thieves and immoral people. You know this is true.
RonP
Meanwhile Ukraine has restricted air travel, cutoff Crimea, and fought efforts to grant
autonomy to Russian-speaking regions. With unpaid debt, the country still stokes war with
Russia after being warned by Mr. Kerry to stop.
"... "Our government has become incompetent, unresponsive, corrupt, and that incompetence, ineptitude, lack of accountability is now dangerous Carly won the sound bite of the century award with that one! ..."
"... I voted for this turd because you Rightwingnut Fuckheads gave me the option of McCain the first time and Romney the second time. ..."
I expect the lies....but the level of lies when it comes to "fighting ISIS" is off-the-fucking-charts!...and
no one calls him on it!
>The USA/NATO Created ISIS.
>The USA/NATO is using ISIS to oust ASSAD because he's too friendly with Russia/Iran.
>The USA/NATO FUNDS ISIS via Turkey.
Obama: "ISIS is a seriously threat, they are contained and we will destroy ISIS"
Bill Clintons' mouth has got to be gaping; and I'm sure thoroughly impressed that Obama could
tell a whopper like that without question...NOT ONE REPUBLICAN at the debate even called Obama
on ISIS!
"Our government has become incompetent, unresponsive, corrupt, and that incompetence, ineptitude,
lack of accountability is now dangerous" Carly won the sound bite of the century award with that
one!
..and the new budget bill will fully fund ALL OF IT's desires....
I voted for "this turd" because you Rightwingnut Fuckheads gave me the option of McCain
the first time and Romney the second time.
You're welcome for my vote saving you from those fuckheads...McCain would have nuked the planet
by now and Romney would have handed the country to his VC friends and you'd be living in a "dorm"
putting together iPhones.
Romney criticised Obama in one of the debates because "The number of battleships in our fleet
is the lowest since the 50's"...battleships? Romney, you stupid fuck, it's 20xx you moron...battleships
are pretty irrelevent in today's "theater of war"...Obama held it together and replied, I give
the Admirals EVERYTHING THEY ASK FOR...and Romney dropped it.
"... Any serious discussion of Fed policy would note that the banking industry appears to have a grossly disproportionate say in the country's monetary policy. ..."
But what is even more striking is the Post's ability to
treat the Fed a neutral party when the evidence is so
overwhelming in the opposite direction. The majority of
the Fed's 12 district bank presidents have long been
pushing for a rate hike. While there are some doves among
this group, most notably Charles Evans, the Chicago bank
president, and Narayana Kocherlakota, the departing
president of the Minneapolis bank, most of this group has
publicly pushed for higher rate hikes for some time. By
contrast, the governors who are appointed through the
democratic process, have been far more cautious about
raising rates.
It should raise serious concerns that the bank
presidents, who are appointed through a process dominated
by the banking industry, has such a different perspective
on the best path forward for monetary policy. With only
five of the seven governor slots currently filled, there
are as many presidents with voting seats on the Fed's Open
Market Committee as governors. In total, the governors are
outnumbered at meetings by a ratio of twelve to five.
Any serious discussion of Fed policy would note that
the banking industry appears to have a grossly
disproportionate say in the country's monetary policy.
Furthermore, it seems determined to use that influence to
push the Fed on a path that slows growth and reduces the
rate of job creation. The Post somehow missed this story
or at least would prefer that the rest of us not take
notice.
Looks like growth of financial sector represents direct threat to the society
Notable quotes:
"... Perhaps the financialization of the economy and rising inequality leads to a corruption of the political process which leads to monetary, currency and fiscal policy such that labor markets are loose and inflation is low. ..."
"... Growth of the non-financial-sector == growth in productivity ..."
"... In complex subject matters, even the most competent person joining a company has to become familiar with the details of the products, the industry niche, the processes and professional/personal relationships in the company or industry, etc. All these are not really teachable and require between months and years in the job. This represents a significant sunk cost. Sometimes (actually rather often) experience within the niche/industry is in a degree portable between companies, but some company still had to employ enough people to build this experience, and it cannot be readily bought by bringing in however competent freshers. ..."
Working Paper: : In the years since 1980, there has been a well-documented upward redistribution
of income. While there are some differences by methodology and the precise years chosen, the top
one percent of households have seen their income share roughly double from 10 percent in 1980
to 20 percent in the second decade of the 21st century. As a result of this upward redistribution,
most workers have seen little improvement in living standards from the productivity gains over
this period.
This paper argues that the bulk of this upward redistribution comes from the growth
of rents in the economy in four major areas: patent and copyright protection, the financial sector,
the pay of CEOs and other top executives, and protectionist measures that have boosted the pay
of doctors and other highly educated professionals. The argument on rents is important because,
if correct, it means that there is nothing intrinsic to capitalism that led to this rapid rise
in inequality, as for example argued by Thomas Piketty.
"...the growth of finance capitalism was what would kill capitalism off..."
"Financialization" is a short-cut terminology that in full is term either "financialization
of non-financial firms" or "financialization of the means of production." In either case it leads
to consolidation of firms, outsourcing, downsizing, and offshoring to reduce work force and wages
and increase rents.
Consolidation, the alpha and omega of financialization can only be executed with very liquid
financial markets, big investment banks to back necessary leverage to make the proffers, and an
acute capital gains tax preference relative to dividends and interest earnings, the grease to
liquidity.
It takes big finance to do "financialization" and it takes "financialization" to extract big
rents while maintaining low wages.
Finance sector as percent of US GDP, 1860-present: the growth of the rentier economy
[graph]
Financialization is a term sometimes used in discussions of financial capitalism which developed
over recent decades, in which financial leverage tended to override capital (equity) and financial
markets tended to dominate over the traditional industrial economy and agricultural economics.
Financialization is a term that describes an economic system or process that attempts to reduce
all value that is exchanged (whether tangible, intangible, future or present promises, etc.) either
into a financial instrument or a derivative of a financial instrument. The original intent of
financialization is to be able to reduce any work-product or service to an exchangeable financial
instrument... Financialization also makes economic rents possible...financial leverage tended
to override capital (equity) and financial markets tended to dominate over the traditional industrial
economy and agricultural economics...
Companies are not able to invest in new physical capital equipment or buildings because they
are obliged to use their operating revenue to pay their bankers and bondholders, as well as junk-bond
holders. This is what I mean when I say that the economy is becoming financialized. Its aim is
not to provide tangible capital formation or rising living standards, but to generate interest,
financial fees for underwriting mergers and acquisitions, and capital gains that accrue mainly
to insiders, headed by upper management and large financial institutions. The upshot is that the
traditional business cycle has been overshadowed by a secular increase in debt.
Instead of labor earning more, hourly earnings have declined in real terms. There has been
a drop in net disposable income after paying taxes and withholding "forced saving" for social
Security and medical insurance, pension-fund contributions and–most serious of all–debt service
on credit cards, bank loans, mortgage loans, student loans, auto loans, home insurance premiums,
life insurance, private medical insurance and other FIRE-sector charges. ... This diverts spending
away from goods and services.
In the United States, probably more money has been made through the appreciation of real estate
than in any other way. What are the long-term consequences if an increasing percentage of savings
and wealth, as it now seems, is used to inflate the prices of already existing assets - real estate
and stocks - instead of to create new production and innovation?
Your graph shows something I've been meaning to suggest for a while. Take a look at the last time
that the financial sector share of GDP rose. The late 1920's. Which was followed by the Great
Depression which has similar causes as our Great Recession. Here is my observation.
Give that Wall Street clowns a huge increase in our national income and we don't get more services
from them. What we get is screwed on the grandest of scales.
BTW - there is a simple causal relationship that explains both the rise in the share of financial
sector income/GDP and the massive collapses of the economy (1929 and 2007). It is called stupid
financial deregulation. First we see the megabanks and Wall Street milking the system for all
its worth and when their unhanded and often secretive risk taking falls apart - the rest of bear
the brunt of the damage.
Which is why this election is crucial. Elect a Republican and we repeat this mistake again.
Elect a real progressive and we can put in place the types of financial reforms FDR was known
for.
" and it takes "financialization" to extract big rents while maintaining low wages."
It takes governmental macro policy to maintain loose labor markets and low wages. Perhaps
the financialization of the economy and rising inequality leads to a corruption of the political
process which leads to monetary, currency and fiscal policy such that labor markets are loose
and inflation is low.
[Anne gave you FIRE sector profits as a share of GDP while this gives FIRE sector profits as a
share of total corporate profits.]
*
[Smoking gun excerpt:]
"...The financial system has grown rapidly since the early 1980s. In the 1950s, the financial
sector accounted for about 3 percent of U.S. gross domestic product. Today, that figure has more
than doubled, to 6.5 percent. The sector's yearly rate of growth doubled after 1980, rising to
a peak of 7.5 percent of GDP in 2006. As finance has grown in relative size it has also grown
disproportionately more profitable. In 1950, financial-sector profits were about 8 percent of
overall U.S. profits-meaning all the profit earned by any kind of business enterprise in the country.
By the 2000s, they ranged between 20 and 40 percent...
If you want to know what happened to economic equality in this country, one word will explain
a lot of it: financialization. That term refers to an increase in the size, scope, and power of
the financial sector-the people and firms that manage money and underwrite stocks, bonds, derivatives,
and other securities-relative to the rest of the economy.
The financialization revolution over the past thirty-five years has moved us toward greater
inequality in three distinct ways. The first involves moving a larger share of the total national
wealth into the hands of the financial sector. The second involves concentrating on activities
that are of questionable value, or even detrimental to the economy as a whole. And finally, finance
has increased inequality by convincing corporate executives and asset managers that corporations
must be judged not by the quality of their products and workforce but by one thing only: immediate
income paid to shareholders.
The financial system has grown rapidly since the early 1980s. In the 1950s, the financial sector
accounted for about 3 percent of U.S. gross domestic product. Today, that figure has more than
doubled, to 6.5 percent. The sector's yearly rate of growth doubled after 1980, rising to a peak
of 7.5 percent of GDP in 2006. As finance has grown in relative size it has also grown disproportionately
more profitable. In 1950, financial-sector profits were about 8 percent of overall U.S. profits-meaning
all the profit earned by any kind of business enterprise in the country. By the 2000s, they ranged
between 20 and 40 percent. This isn't just the decline of profits in other industries, either.
Between 1980 and 2006, while GDP increased five times, financial-sector profits increased sixteen
times over. While financial and nonfinancial profits grew at roughly the same rate before 1980,
between 1980 and 2006 nonfinancial profits grew seven times while financial profits grew sixteen
times.
This trend has continued even after the financial crisis of 2008 and subsequent financial reforms,
including the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Financial profits
in 2012 were 24 percent of total profits, while the financial sector's share of GDP was 6.8 percent.
These numbers are lower than the high points of the mid-2000s; but, compared to the years before
1980, they are remarkably high.
This explosion of finance has generated greater inequality. To begin with, the share of the
total workforce employed in the financial sector has barely budged, much less grown at a rate
equivalent to the size and profitability of the sector as a whole. That means that these swollen
profits are flowing to a small sliver of the population: those employed in finance. And financiers,
in turn, have become substantially more prominent among the top 1 percent. Recent work by the
economists Jon Bakija, Adam Cole, and Bradley T. Heim found that the percentage of those in the
top 1 percent of income working in finance nearly doubled between 1979 and 2005, from 7.7 percent
to 13.9 percent.
If the economy had become far more productive as a result of these changes, they could have
been worthwhile. But the evidence shows it did not. Economist Thomas Philippon found that financial
services themselves have become less, not more, efficient over this time period. The unit cost
of financial services, or the percentage of assets it costs to produce all financial issuances,
was relatively high at the dawn of the twentieth century, but declined to below 2 percent between
1901 and 1960. However, it has increased since the 1960s, and is back to levels seen at the early
twentieth century. Whatever finance is doing, it isn't doing it more cheaply.
In fact, the second damaging trend is that financial institutions began to concentrate more
and more on activities that are worrisome at best and destructive at worst. Harvard Business School
professors Robin Greenwood and David Scharfstein argue that between 1980 and 2007 the growth in
financial-industry revenues came from two things: asset management and loan origination. Fees
associated either with asset management or with household credit in particular were responsible
for 74 percent of the growth in financial-sector output over that period.
The asset management portion reflects the explosion of mutual funds, which increased from $134
billion in assets in 1980 to $12 trillion in 2007. Much of it also comes from "alternative investment
vehicles" like hedge funds and private equity. Over this time, the fee rate for mutual funds fell,
but fees associated with alternative investment vehicles exploded. This is, in essence, money
for nothing-there is little evidence that hedge funds actually perform better than the market
over time. And, unlike mutual funds, alternative investment funds do not fully disclose their
practices and fees publicly.
Beginning in 1980 and continuing today, banks generate less and less of their income from interest
on loans. Instead, they rely on fees, from either consumers or borrowers. Fees associated with
household credit grew from 1.1 percent of GDP in 1980 to 3.4 percent in 2007. As part of the unregulated
shadow banking sector that took over the financial sector, banks are less and less in the business
of holding loans and more and more concerned with packaging them and selling them off. Instead
of holding loans on their books, banks originate loans to sell off and distribute into this new
type of banking sector.
Again, if this "originate-to-distribute" model created value for society, it could be a worthwhile
practice. But, in fact, this model introduced huge opportunities for fraud throughout the lending
process. Loans-such as "securitized mortgages" made up of pledges of the income stream from subprime
mortgage loans-were passed along a chain of buyers until someone far away held the ultimate risk.
Bankers who originated the mortgages received significant commissions, with virtually no accountability
or oversight. The incentive, in fact, was perverse: find the worst loans with the biggest fees
instead of properly screening for whether the loans would be any good for investors.
The same model made it difficult, if not impossible, to renegotiate bad mortgages when the
system collapsed. Those tasked with tackling bad mortgages on behalf of investors had their own
conflicts of interests, and found themselves profiting while loans struggled. This process created
bad debts that could never be paid, and blocked attempts to try and rework them after the fact.
The resulting pool of bad debt has been a drag on the economy ever since, giving us the fall in
median wages of the Great Recession and the sluggish recovery we still live with.
And of course it's been an epic disaster for the borrowers themselves. Many of them, we now
know, were moderate- and lower-income families who were in no financial position to borrow as
much as they did, especially under such predatory terms and with such high fees. Collapsing home
prices and the inability to renegotiate their underwater mortgages stripped these folks of whatever
savings they had and left them in deep debt, widening even further the gulf of inequality in this
country.
Moreover, financialization isn't just confined to the financial sector itself. It's also ultimately
about who controls, guides, and benefits from our economy as a whole. And here's the last big
change: the "shareholder revolution," started in the 1980s and continuing to this very day, has
fundamentally transformed the way our economy functions in favor of wealth owners.
To understand this change, compare two eras at General Electric. This is how business professor
Gerald Davis describes the perspective of Owen Young, who was CEO of GE almost straight through
from 1922 to 1945: "[S]tockholders are confined to a maximum return equivalent to a risk premium.
The remaining profit stays in the enterprise, is paid out in higher wages, or is passed on to
the customer." Davis contrasts that ethos with that of Jack Welch, CEO from 1981 to 2001; Welch,
Davis says, believed in "the shareholder as king-the residual claimant, entitled to the [whole]
pot of earnings."
This change had dramatic consequences. Economist J. W. Mason found that, before the 1980s,
firms tended to borrow funds in order to fuel investment. Since 1980, that link has been broken.
Now when firms borrow, they tend to use the money to fund dividends or buy back stocks. Indeed,
even during the height of the housing boom, Mason notes, "corporations were paying out more than
100 percent of their cash flow to shareholders."
This lack of investment is obviously holding back our recovery. Productive investment remains
low, and even extraordinary action by the Federal Reserve to make investments more profitable
by keeping interest rates low has not been able to counteract the general corporate presumption
that this money should go to shareholders. There is thus less innovation, less risk taking, and
ultimately less growth. One of the reasons this revolution was engineered in the 1980s was to
put a check on what kinds of investments CEOs could make, and one of those investments was wage
growth. Finance has now won the battle against wage earners: corporations today are reluctant
to raise wages even as the economy slowly starts to recover. This keeps the economy perpetually
sluggish by retarding consumer demand, while also increasing inequality.
How can these changes be challenged? The first thing we must understand is the scope of the
change. As Mason writes, the changes have been intellectual, legal, and institutional. At the
intellectual level, academic research and conventional wisdom among economists and policymakers
coalesced around the ideas that maximizing returns to shareholders is the only goal of a corporation,
and that the financial markets were always right. At the legal level, laws regulating finance
at the state level were overturned by the Supreme Court or preempted by federal regulators, and
antitrust regulations were gutted by the Reagan administration and not taken up again.
At the institutional level, deregulation over several administrations led to a massive concentration
of the financial sector into fewer, richer firms. As financial expertise became more prestigious
than industry-specific knowledge, CEOs no longer came from within the firms they represented but
instead from other firms or from Wall Street; their pay was aligned through stock options, which
naturally turned their focus toward maximizing stock prices. The intellectual and institutional
transformation was part of an overwhelming ideological change: the health and strength of the
economy became identified solely with the profitability of the financial markets.
This was a bold revolution, and any program that seeks to change it has to be just as bold
intellectually. Such a program will also require legal and institutional changes, ones that go
beyond making sure that financial firms can fail without destroying the economy. Dodd-Frank can
be thought of as a reaction against the worst excesses of the financial sector at the height of
the housing bubble, and as a line of defense against future financial panics. Many parts of it
are doing yeoman's work in curtailing the financial sector's abuses, especially in terms of protecting
consumers from fraud and bringing some transparency to the Wild West of the derivatives markets.
But the scope of the law is too limited to roll back these larger changes.
One provision of Dodd-Frank, however, suggests a way forward. At the urging of the AFL-CIO,
Dodd-Frank empowered the Securities and Exchange Commission to examine the activities of private
equity firms on behalf of their investors. At around $3.5 trillion, private equity is a massive
market with serious consequences for the economy as a whole. On its first pass, the SEC found
extensive abuses. Andrew Bowden, the director of the SEC's examinations office, stated that the
agency found "what we believe are violations of law or material weaknesses in controls over 50
percent of the time."
Lawmakers could require private equity and hedge funds to standardize their disclosures of
fees and holdings, as is currently the case for mutual funds. The decline in fees for mutual funds
noted above didn't just happen by itself; it happened because the law structured the market for
actual transparency and price competition. This will need to happen again for the broader financial
sector.
But the most important change will be intellectual: we must come to understand our economy
not as simply a vehicle for capital owners, but rather as the creation of all of us, a common
endeavor that creates space for innovation, risk taking, and a stronger workforce. This change
will be difficult, as we will have to alter how we approach the economy as a whole. Our wealth
and companies can't just be strip-mined for a small sliver of capital holders; we'll need to bring
the corporation back to the public realm. But without it, we will remain trapped inside an economy
that only works for a select few.
[Whew!]
Puerto Barato said in reply to RC AKA Darryl, Ron,
"3 percent of U.S. gross domestic product. Today, that figure has more than doubled, to 6.5"
~~RC AKA Darryl, Ron ~
Growth of the non-financial-sector == growth in productivity
Growth of the financial-sector == growth in upward transfer of wealth
Ostensibly financial-sector is there to protect your money from being eaten up by inflation.
Closer inspection shows that the prevention of *eaten up* is by the method of rent collection.
Accountants handle this analysis poorly, but you can see what is happening. Boiling it down
to the bottom line you can easily see that wiping out the financial sector is the remedy to the
Piketty.
Hell! Financial sector wiped itself out in 008. Problem was that the GSE and administration
brought the zombie back to life then put the vampire back at our throats. What was the precipitating
factor that snagged the financial sector without warning?
Unexpected
deflation
!
Gimme some
of that
pgl said in reply to djb...
People like Brad DeLong have noted this for a while. Twice as many people making twice as much
money per person. And their true value to us - not a bit more than it was back in the 1940's.
Piketty looks at centuries of data from all over the world and concludes that capitalism has
a long-run bias towards income concentration. Baker looks at 35 years of data in one country and
concludes that Piketty is wrong. Um...?
A little more generously, what Baker actually writes is:
"The argument on rents is important because, if correct, it means that there is nothing intrinsic
to capitalism that led to **this** rapid rise in inequality, as for example argued by Thomas Piketty."
(emphasis added)
But Piketty has always been very explicit that the recent rise in US income inequality is anomalous
-- driven primarily by rising inequality in the distribution of labor income, and only secondarily
by any shift from labor to capital income.
So perhaps Baker is "correctly" refuting Straw Thomas Piketty. Which I suppose is better than
just being obviously wrong. Maybe.
tew said...
Some simple math shows that this assertion is false "As a result of this upward redistribution,
most workers have seen little improvement in living standards" unless you think an apprx. 60%
in per-capita real income (expressed as GDP) among the 99% is "little improvement".
Real GDP 2015 / Real GDP 1980 = 2.57 (Source: FRED)
If the income share of the 1% shifted from 10% to 20% then The 1%' real GDP component went up
410% while that of The 99% went up 130%. Accounting for a population increase of about 41% brings
those numbers to a 265% increase and a 62% increase.
Certainly a very unequal distribution of the productivity gains but hard to call "little".
I believe the truth of the statement is revealed when you look at the Top 5% vs. the other
95%.
cm said in reply to tew...
For most "working people", their raises are quickly eaten up by increases in housing/rental,
food, local services, and other nondiscretionary costs. Sure, you can buy more and better imported
consumer electronics per dollar, but you have to pay the rent/mortgage every months, how often
do you buy a new flat screen TV? In a high-cost metro, a big ass TV will easily cost less than
a single monthly rent (and probably less than your annual cable bill that you need to actually
watch TV).
pgl said in reply to tew...
Are you trying to be the champion of the 1%? Sorry dude but Greg Mankiw beat you to this.
anne said...
In the years since 1980, there has been a well-documented upward redistribution of income.
While there are some differences by methodology and the precise years chosen, the top one percent
of households have seen their income share roughly double from 10 percent in 1980 to 20 percent
in the second decade of the 21st century. As a result of this upward redistribution, most workers
have seen little improvement in living standards from the productivity gains over this period....
Between 1948 and 1980, real median family income increased by 110.2%, while between 1980 and 2014
real median family income increased by a mere 15.8%.
cm said...
"protectionist measures that have boosted the pay of doctors and other highly educated
professionals"
Protectionist measures (largely of the variety that foreign credentials are not recognized)
apply to doctors and similar accredited occupations considered to be of some importance, but certainly
much less so to "highly educated professionals" in tech, where the protectionism is limited to
annual quotas for some categories of new workers imported into the country and requiring companies
to pay above a certain wage rate for work visa holders in jobs claimed to have high skills requirements.
A little mentioned but significant factor for growing wages in "highly skilled" jobs is that
the level of foundational and generic domain skills is a necessity, but is not all the value the
individual brings to the company. In complex subject matters, even the most competent person
joining a company has to become familiar with the details of the products, the industry niche,
the processes and professional/personal relationships in the company or industry, etc. All these
are not really teachable and require between months and years in the job. This represents a significant
sunk cost. Sometimes (actually rather often) experience within the niche/industry is in a degree
portable between companies, but some company still had to employ enough people to build this experience,
and it cannot be readily bought by bringing in however competent freshers.
This applies less so e.g. in medicine. There are of course many heavily specialized disciplines,
but a top flight brain or internal organ surgeon can essentially work on any person. The variation
in the subject matter is large and complex, but much more static than in technology.
That's not to knock down the skill of medical staff in any way (or anybody else who does a
job that is not trivial, and that's true for many jobs). But specialization vs. genericity follow
a different pattern than in tech.
Another example, the legal profession. There are similar principles that carry across, with
a lot of the specialization happening along different legislation, case law, etc., specific to
the jurisdiction and/or domain being litigated.
Oil is a valuable chemical resource that is now wasted because of low prices... "The obvious follow-up
question is, how long will the sane people of the world continue to allow so much fossil-fuel combustion
to continue? An exercise for readers."
Notable quotes:
"... Iran wont flood the market in 2016. Right now Iran is losing production. It takes time to reverse decline and make a difference. ..."
"... Those who predict very low prices dont understand the industry (I do). The low price environment reduces capital investment, which has to be there just to keep production flat (the decline is 3 to 5 million barrels of oil per day per year). At this time capacity is dropping everywhere except for a few select countries. The USA is losing capacity, and will never again reach this years peak unless prices double. Other countries are hopeless. From Norway to Indonesia to Colombia to Nigeria and Azerbaijan, peak oil has already taken place. ..."
"... If oil prices remain very low until 2025 itll either be because you are right or because the world went to hell. ..."
"... But Im with Carambaman - prices will go up again. Demand is and will still be there. The excess output will eventually end, and the prices stabilises. And then move up again. ..."
"... Time to examine the real question: how long can the Saudis maintain their current production rates? Theyre currently producing more than 10 Mbarrels/day, but lets take the latter figure as a lower bound. They apparently have (per US consulate via WikiLeaks--time for a followup?) at least 260 Gbarrels (though it seems no one outside Saudi really knows). You do the math: 260 Gbarrels / (10 Mbarrels/day) = 26 kdays ~= 70 years. @ 15 Mbarrels/day - 47.5 years. @ 20 Mbarrels/day - 35 years. ..."
"... The obvious follow-up question is, how long will the sane people of the world continue to allow so much fossil-fuel combustion to continue? An exercise for readers. ..."
"... Saudi Arabia, a US ally, using oil production and pricing to crush US oil shale industry? Did I read that correctly? ..."
"... Yeah, but I suspect it was *written* incorrectly. Im betting the Saudis real target is the Russians. ..."
"... In 1975 dollars, thats $8.31 / bbl (with a cumulative inflation factor of 342% over 40 years), or $.45 / gal for gas (assuming a current price of $2.00 / gal). ..."
"... I spent 30 years in the oil industry and experienced many cycles. When it is up people cannot believe it will go down and when it is down people cannot believe it will go up. It is all a matter of time ..."
Iran won't flood the market in 2016. Right now Iran is losing production. It takes time
to reverse decline and make a difference.
Those who predict very low prices don't understand the industry (I do). The low price environment
reduces capital investment, which has to be there just to keep production flat (the decline is
3 to 5 million barrels of oil per day per year). At this time capacity is dropping everywhere
except for a few select countries. The USA is losing capacity, and will never again reach this
year's peak unless prices double. Other countries are hopeless. From Norway to Indonesia to Colombia
to Nigeria and Azerbaijan, peak oil has already taken place.
Fernando Leza -> SonOfFredTheBadman 15 Dec 2015 06:05
If oil prices remain very low until 2025 it'll either be because you are right or because
the world went to hell. I prefer your vision, of course. But I'm afraid most of your talk
is wishful thinking. Those of us who do know how to put watts on the table can't figure out any
viable solutions. Hopefully something like cheap fusion power will rise. Otherwise you may be
eating human flesh in 2060.
Fernando Leza -> p26677 15 Dec 2015 06:00
Keep assuming. I'll keep buying Shell stock.
MatCendana -> UnevenSurface 14 Dec 2015 03:36
Regardless of the breakeven price, producers with the wells already running or about to will
keep pumping. Better to have some income, even if the operation is at a loss, than no income.
This will go on and on right until the end, which is either prices eventually go up or they run
out of oil and can't drill new wells.
But I'm with Carambaman - prices will go up again. Demand is and will still be there. The
excess output will eventually end, and the prices stabilises. And then move up again.
Billy Carnes 13 Dec 2015 19:52
Also this hurts the states...Louisiana is now in the hole over 1.5 Billion or more
TomRoche 13 Dec 2015 12:31
@Guardian: Time to examine the real question: how long can the Saudis maintain their current
production rates? They're currently producing more than 10 Mbarrels/day, but let's take the latter
figure as a lower bound. They apparently have (per US consulate via WikiLeaks--time for a followup?)
at least 260 Gbarrels (though it seems no one outside Saudi really knows). You do the math: 260
Gbarrels / (10 Mbarrels/day) = 26 kdays ~= 70 years. @ 15 Mbarrels/day -> 47.5 years. @ 20 Mbarrels/day
-> 35 years.
That's just Saudi (allegedly) proven reserves. But it's plenty long enough to push atmospheric
GHG levels, and associated radiative forcing, to ridiculously destructive excess.
The obvious follow-up question is, how long will the sane people of the world continue
to allow so much fossil-fuel combustion to continue? An exercise for readers.
TomRoche -> GueroElEnfermero 13 Dec 2015 12:14
@GueroElEnfermero: 'Saudi Arabia, a US ally, using oil production and pricing to crush
US oil shale industry? Did I read that correctly?'
Yeah, but I suspect it was *written* incorrectly. I'm betting the Saudis' real target is
the Russians.
Sieggy 13 Dec 2015 11:49
In 1975 dollars, that's $8.31 / bbl (with a cumulative inflation factor of 342% over 40
years), or $.45 / gal for gas (assuming a current price of $2.00 / gal).
Carambaman 13 Dec 2015 10:25
I spent 30 years in the oil industry and experienced many cycles. When it is up people
cannot believe it will go down and when it is down people cannot believe it will go up. It is
all a matter of time
Still, two interesting-and vexing-issues for the technology industry, and for the politicians
who regulate it, emerged in the debate. The first came up in John Kasich's response to Trump's proposal.
"Wolf, there is a big problem-it's called encryption," he said. "We need to be able to penetrate
these people when they are involved in these plots and these plans. And we have to give the local
authorities the ability to penetrate, to disrupt. That's what we need to do. Encryption is a major
problem, and Congress has got to deal with this, and so does the President, to keep us safe."
The central question is whether American technology companies should offer the U.S. government,
whether the N.S.A. or the F.B.I., backdoor access to their devices or servers. The most important
companies here are Apple and Google, which, in the fall of 2014, began offering
strong encryption on the newer versions of Android and iOS phones. If you keep your passcode
secret, the government will be unable to, for instance, scroll through your contacts list, even if
it has a warrant. This has, naturally, made the government angry. The most thorough report on the
subject is
a position paper put out last month by Cyrus Vance, Jr., Manhattan's district attorney. In the
previous year, Vance wrote, his office had been "unable to execute approximately 111 search warrants
for smartphones because those devices were running iOS 8. The cases to which those devices related
include homicide, attempted murder, sexual abuse of a child, sex trafficking, assault, and robbery."
The solution isn't easy. Apple and Google implemented their new encryption standards after Edward
Snowden
revealed how the government had compromised their systems. They want to protect their customers-a
government back door could become a hacker's back door, too-and they also want to protect their business
models. If the N.S.A. can comb through iPhones, how many do you think Apple will be able to sell
in China? In the debate, Carly Fiorina bragged about how, when she ran Hewlett-Packard, she stopped
a truckload of equipment and had it "escorted into N.S.A. headquarters." Does that make you more
or less eager to buy an OfficeJet Pro?
The second hard issue that came up indirectly in the debate-and, more specifically,
in recent comments by Hillary Clinton-is how aggressive American companies such as Facebook,
Twitter, and Google (with YouTube) should be in combatting the use of their platforms by ISIS.
Again, there's no simple answer. You can't ban, say, everyone who tweets the hashtag #ISIS, because
then you'd have to
ban this guy. The algorithms are difficult to write, and the issues are difficult to balance.
Companies have to consider their business interests, their legal obligations to and cultural affinities
for free speech, and their moral obligations to oppose an organization that seeks to destroy the
country in which they were built-and also
kill their C.E.O.s.
In October, Hastert, 73,
entered a guilty plea to a single felony count of evading bank reporting laws by withdrawing
about $950,000 in cash in increments of less than $10,000. Prosecutors contend he used the money
to conceal his "misconduct" with a longtime associate. Court filings are silent on the nature of
the relationship, but sources say it involved sexual contact with a former student at the high school
where Hastert served as a wrestling coach and teacher before entering politics. He has not responded
publicly to those allegations.
Hastert is set to be sentenced on the banking charge on February
29, but that could be delayed if his health woes continue. Prosecutors and defense lawyers have agreed
that sentencing guidelines call for him to receive between zero and six months in prison.
Ya gotta ask yourself this: If Jared Fogle of Subway infamy is going away to Prison for his
fiddling with the underage why has Dennis Hastert escaped felony conviction for his diddling with
at least one underaged teen boy and probably three of them and getting caught paying the guy for
years to cover it up?
Something is clearly wrong with the US Justice when the high and mighty, current D.C. Lobbyist,
formerly 3rd most powerful politician in America, and still well connected politically his connections
in the government stay out of prison when prison is where America wants criminals like him and
Jared Fogle.
"... Martin Shkreli, the boyish drug company entrepreneur, who rocketed to infamy by jacking up
the price of a life-saving pill from $13.50 to $750, was arrested by federal agents at his Manhattan
home early Thursday morning on securities fraud related to a firm he founded. ..."
"... Shkreli, 32, ignited a firestorm over drug prices in September and became a symbol of defiant
greed. ..."
"... His arrest, witnessed by Reuters, comes amid a continuing separate controversy that has turned
Shkreli into a lightning rod for growing outrage over the soaring prices of prescription drugs. ..."
32-year-old suspected of plundering
Retrophin to pay debts
Martin Shkreli, the boyish drug company entrepreneur, who rocketed to infamy by jacking
up the price of a life-saving pill from $13.50 to $750, was arrested by federal agents at his
Manhattan home early Thursday morning on securities fraud related to a firm he founded.
Shkreli, 32, ignited a firestorm over drug prices in September and became a symbol of defiant
greed. The federal case against him has nothing to do with pharmaceutical costs, however.
Prosecutors in Brooklyn charged him with illegally taking stock from Retrophin Inc., a biotechnology
firm he started in 2011, and using it to pay off debts from unrelated business dealings. He was
later ousted from the company, where he'd been chief executive officer, and sued by its board.
In the case that closely tracks that suit, federal prosecutors accused Shkreli of engaging
in a complicated shell game after his defunct hedge fund, MSMB Capital Management, lost millions.
He is alleged to have made secret payoffs and set up sham consulting arrangements. A New York
lawyer, Evan Greebel, was also arrested early Thursday. He's accused of conspiring with Shkreli
in part of the scheme.
Retrophin replaced Shkreli as CEO "because of serious concerns about his conduct," the company
said in a statement. The company, which hasn't been accused of any wrongdoing, has "fully cooperated
with the government investigations into Mr. Shkreli." ...
Dec 17 (Reuters) - Pharmaceutical entrepreneur Martin Shkreli was arrested by the FBI on Thursday,
amid a federal investigation related to his former hedge fund and a drug company he previously
headed.
The previously disclosed investigation of Shkreli, 32, who is now chief executive of Turing
Pharmaceuticals, stemmed from his time as manager of hedge fund MSMB Capital Management and chief
executive of biopharmaceutical company Retrophin Inc .
His arrest, witnessed by Reuters, comes amid a continuing separate controversy that has
turned Shkreli into a lightning rod for growing outrage over the soaring prices of prescription
drugs.
"... It was German Chancellor Angela Merkel, not Vladimir Putin, who pushed the EU agreement and miscalculated the consequences, as the German newsmagazine Der Spiegel has reported . Putin's only role in that time frame was to offer a more generous $15 billion aid package to Ukraine, not exactly a war-like act. ..."
The actually "incontrovertible" facts about the Ukraine crisis are these: The destabilization
of President Viktor Yanukovych's elected government began in November 2013 when Yanukovych balked
at a proposed association agreement promoted by the European Union. He sought more time after the
sticker shock of learning from Kiev economic experts that the deal would cost Ukraine $160 billion
in lost revenue by cutting trade with Russia.
It was German Chancellor Angela Merkel, not Vladimir Putin, who pushed the EU agreement and miscalculated
the consequences, as the German newsmagazine Der Spiegel
has reported. Putin's only role in that time frame was to offer a more generous $15 billion aid
package to Ukraine, not exactly a war-like act.
Yanukovych's decision to postpone action on the EU association prompted angry demonstrations in
Kiev's Maidan square, largely from western Ukrainians who were hoping for visa-free travel to the
EU and other benefits from closer ties. Putin had no role in those protests – and it's insane to
think that he did.
In February 2014, the protests grew more and more violent as neo-Nazi and other militias organized
in the western city of Lviv and these 100-man units known as "sotins" were dispatched daily to
provide the muscle for the anti-Yanukovych
uprising that was taking shape. It is frankly nutty to suggest that Putin was organizing these militias.
[See Consortiumnews.com's "When
Is a Putsch a Putsch."]
Evidence of Coup Plotting
By contrast, there is substantial evidence that senior U.S. officials were pushing for a "regime
change" in Kiev, including
an intercepted phone call
and various public statements.
In December 2013, Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, a neocon holdover, reminded Ukrainian
business leaders that the United States had invested $5 billion in their "European aspirations."
In early February, she discussed with U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt who the new leaders of Ukraine
should be. "Yats is the guy," she declared, referring to Arseniy Yatsenyuk. [See Consortiumnews.com's
"Who's
Telling the Big Lie on Ukraine?"]
The Maidan uprising gained momentum on Feb. 20, 2014, when snipers around the square opened fire
on police and protesters touching off a violent clash that left scores of people dead, both police
and protesters. After the sniper fire and a police retreat - carrying their wounded - the demonstrators
surged forward and some police apparently reacted with return fire of their own.
But the growing evidence indicates that the initial sniper fire originated from locations controlled
by the Right Sektor, extremists associated with the Maidan's neo-Nazi "self-defense" commandant Andriy
Parubiy. Though the current Ukrainian government has dragged its feet on an investigation, independent
field reports, including a
new one from BBC, indicate that the snipers were associated with the protesters, not the Yanukovych
government as was widely reported in the U.S. media a year ago.
The worsening violence led Yanukovych to agree on Feb. 21 to a deal guaranteed by three European
countries. He accepted reduced powers and agreed to early elections so he could be voted out of office.
Yet, rather than permit that political settlement to go forward, neo-Nazis and other Maidan forces
overran government buildings on Feb. 22, forcing Yanukovych and his officials to flee for their lives.
The U.S. State Department quickly deemed this coup regime "legitimate" and Nuland's choice, Yatsenyuk,
emerged as Prime Minister, with Parubiy put in charge of national security.
In other words, there is plenty of evidence that the Ukraine crisis was started by the EU through
its mishandling of the association agreement, then was heated up by the U.S. government through the
work of Nuland, Pyatt and other officials, and then was brought to a boil by neo-Nazis and other
extremists who executed the coup.
Is Angela Merkel getting bad advice from Washington neocons through their representative in Berlin?
Now we read that
Jeff Gedmin - the head of the Aspen
Institute in Berlin - is meeting on a regular basis with the Chancellor to instruct her on the Bush
administration's line:
Angela Merkel relies on the advice of Jeffrey Gedmin, specially dispatched
to Berlin to assist her by the Bush clan. This lobbyist first worked at the American Enterprise
Institute (AEI) [2]
under Richard Perle and Mrs. Dick Cheney. He enthusiastically encouraged the creation of a Euro
with Dollar parity exchange rate. Within the AEI, he led the New Atlantic Initiative (NAI), which
brought together all the America-friendly generals and politicians in Europe. He was then involved
in the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) and wrote the chapter on Europe in the neocon
programme. He argued that the European Union should remain under NATO authority and that this
would only be possible by "discouraging European calls for emancipation." [3]
Finally he became the administrator of the Council of the Community of Democracies (CCD), which
argues in favour of a two-speed UN, and became director of the Aspen Institute in Berlin [4].
Subsequently he turned down the offer from his friend John Bolton [5]
of the post of deputy US ambassador to the UN so as to be able to devote himself exclusively to
Angela Merkel.
Elsewhere we
read that Chancellor Merkel receives daily briefings from the neocon stalwart Gedmin:
Gedmin "brieft" die Kanzlerin täglich: Er hat damit die Rolle inne, die bei
der Stasi die Führungsoffiziere hatten. Wenn wir uns noch Demokratie nennen wollen, dann muss
Merkel gezwungen werden, die Inhalte dieser täglichen "Briefings" dem Land offenzulegen. In anderen
Ländern gibt es dafür Gesetze, die "Freedom of Information Act" heissen.
Could this be true? I hope not. Gedmin is known for his columns in the conservative daily
Die Welt where he reports on the marvelous successes the Iraq War. And who can forget
Gedmin's
column during last summer' s Israel/Lebanon War where he wrote about how Hezbollah fighters drank
the blood of their victims in Lebanon? If Angela Merkel is looking for good advice, there are
much
more honest and intelligent resources than Jeff Gedmin.
Note that the quality of translation from German of this article is low.
Notable quotes:
"... Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung ..."
"... Bild and Die Welt ..."
"... In 2003, Chancellor Gerhard Schröder opposed the Anglo-American intervention in Ira q. Angela
Merkel then published a courageous article in the Washington Post ..."
"... As Stanley Payne, the famous American historian said about Spain (or any western democracy)
that now politicians are not elected but chosen by apparatus, agencies and visible hands of the markets
..."
"... Merkel is publicly supported by Friede Springer , widow of West German press baron, Axel Springer
, whos publishing conglomerate, the Springer Group secretly received around $7 million from the CIA
in the early 1950s. ..."
"... She is counseled by Jeffrey Gedmin. Gedmin is a regular columnist in Die Welt , a publication
of the Springer Group. After becoming administrator of the Council of the Community of Democracies and
director of the Aspen Institute in Berlin in 2001, Gedmin devoted himself exclusively to Merkel . Gedmin
was too involved in the infamous Project for a New American Century (PNAC) and wrote the chapter on
Europe in the neocon programme. He argued that the European Union should remain under NATO authority
and that this would only be possible by discouraging European calls for emancipation . ..."
"... In a few years, Merkel has destroyed European solidarity, annihilated the German nuclear power
plants (an old American obsession too), impoverished Germans and their once efficient Rheinisch and
solitary economy, backed the mad dog American diplomacy and created along with an irresponsible American
administration (irresponsible because America will never win this kind of conflict) a dangerous crisis
against Russia than can end on a war or a scandalous European partition. ..."
One must understand the reasons of
Angela
Merkel's behaviour. She obeys America and
her Israeli mentor ('Israel is Germany's raison d'être'???), she threatens and mistreats Europe;
she attacks Russia and now she builds a new sanitary cordon (like in 1919) in order to deconstruct
Eurasia and
reinforce American agenda in our unlucky continent. Now Merkel advocates for the rapid adoption
on the most infamous and perilous treaty of commerce in history, the TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership).
Dr Roberts has recently explained the meaning of 'Fast Track' expression and a courageous Guardian,
last 27th may, has exposed the corruption of American Congress on this incredible yet
terrible matter.
Why is Merkel so pro-American and anti-European?
Let us explain with the data we know the reasons of such nihilist and erratic behaviour.
Angela Merkel is not from East Germany (east-Germans
are pro-Russian indeed, see lately the declaration of generals). She was born in Hamburg in
1954 (Federal Republic of Germany). Shortly after her birth, her family made the unusual
choice of moving to the East. Her father, a pastor in the Lutheran church, founded a
seminary in the German Democratic Republic and became director of a home for handicapped persons.
He enjoyed a privileged social status, making frequent trips to the West.
She became politically involved in the Freie Deutsche Jugend (Free German Youth), the state
organisation for young people. She rose within the organisation to the post of Secretary of the
Agitprop department, becoming one of the main experts in political communication in the communist
system. She enjoys selling her convictions.
In November 1989 The CIA attempted to take over by recruiting senior individuals. One month
later, Merkel changed sides and joined the Demokratischer Aufbruch (Democratic Revival), a movement
inspired by the West German Christian Democrat party. As we know from history, these political
parties in Europe are neither Christian nor democratic. They just serve American and business
agendas. In order to avoid a mass exodus from the East to the West, Merkel argued strongly in
favour of getting the GDR to join the market economy and the Deutschmark zone. Ultraliberal but
never popular in Germany, her thesis finally imposed itself in Germany, like that of Sarkozy,
her fellow neocon in France who definitely ousted any rest of Gaullism in this country.
Her second husband, Joachim Sauer, was recruited by the US Company Biosym Technology, spending
a year at San Diego at the laboratory of this Pentagon contractor. He then joined Accelrys, another
San Diego company carrying out contracts for the Pentagon. Of course Accelrys is traded on NASDAQ...
Helmut Kohl and his closest associates had apparently accepted money from obscure sources
for the CDU. Angela Merkel then published a heroic-comical article in the Foreign Frankfurter
Allgemeine Zeitung in which she distanced herself from her mentor. One can check that she
repeatedly betrays her protectors... and electors (whose median age is of sixty).
Angela Merkel was then publicly supported by two press groups. Firstly, she was able to count
on the support of Friede Springer, who had inherited the Axel Springer group (180 newspapers and
magazines, including Bild and Die Welt). The group's journalists are required to sign an
editorial agreement which lies down that they must work towards developing transatlantic links and
defending the state of Israel. The other group is Bertelsmann.
Angela Merkel radically rejects European independence
In 2003,
Chancellor Gerhard Schröder opposed the Anglo-American intervention in Iraq. Angela
Merkel then published a 'courageous' article in the Washington Post in which she rejected
the Chirac-Schröder doctrine of European independence, affirmed her gratitude and friendship for
"America" and supported this scandalous and ridiculous war. I quote some lines of this interesting
act of submission to her American lords:
Because of decisive events,
Europe and the United States now must redefine the nucleus of their domestic, foreign and
security policy principles.
Aid to Turkey, our partner in the alliance, is blocked for days in the NATO Council by France,
Belgium and Germany, a situation that undermines the very basis of NATO's legitimacy.
The Eastern European candidate countries for membership in the European Union were attacked
by the French government because they have declared their commitment to the transatlantic partnership
between Europe and the United States. She then threatens France, then a free country run
by Chirac and Villepin, and advocates for what Gore Vidal quoted 'the perpetual war'...
involving a 'perpetual peace':
Anyone who rejects military action as a last resort weakens the pressure that needs to be maintained
on dictators and consequently makes a war not less but more likely.
Germany needs its friendship with France, but the benefits of that friendship can be
realized only in close association with our old and new European partners, and within
the transatlantic alliance with the United States.
Yet Merkel won the elections in 2007. She announced the abolition of graduated income tax, proposing
that the rate should be the same for those who only just have what is necessary and those who live
in luxury: maybe this is the a result of her Christian education?
The outgoing Chancellor, Gerhard Schröder, severely criticized this proposal in a televised debate.
The CDU's lead was decimated, and in the actual election, the CDU polled 35% of the votes and the
SPD 34%, the remainder being spread amongst a number of small parties. The Germans didn't want Schröder
any longer, but nor did they want Merkel. I repeat that she was imposed more than elected. As
Stanley Payne, the famous American historian said about Spain (or any western democracy) that now
politicians are 'not elected but chosen' by apparatus, agencies and 'visible hands' of the markets
These last weeks, "Mother" Merkel tries to re-launch the proposed merger of the North American
Free Trade Area and the European Free Trade Area, thereby creating a "great transatlantic market"
to use the words once pronounced by Sir Leon Brittan, a famous paedophile involved in scandals and
bribes since, and mysteriously found dead a couple of months ago.
Let us se now some of their connections:
Merkel is publicly supported by
Friede Springer, widow of West German press baron,
Axel Springer, who's publishing conglomerate, the
Springer Group secretly received around $7 million from the
CIA in the early 1950's.
She is counseled by Jeffrey Gedmin. Gedmin is a regular columnist in
Die Welt, a publication of the Springer Group. After becoming administrator of the
Council of the Community of Democracies and director of the
Aspen Institute in Berlin in 2001, Gedmin devoted himself exclusively to
Merkel. Gedmin was
too involved in the infamous Project for a New American Century (PNAC) and wrote the chapter on
Europe in the neocon programme. He argued that the European Union should remain under NATO authority
and that this would only be possible by "discouraging European calls for emancipation".
We have never been so far from 'emancipation' now in Europe, and never been so
near to a war with Russia and maybe (in order to satisfy American gruesome appetite) with Central
Asia and China. In France, 61% of the people who had witnessed the war asserted in 1945 that we were
saved by the Russian Army. Now, thanks to American propaganda backed by European collaborators, we
are hardly 10% to know that fact. The rest is misled by propaganda, media, TV and films. Daniel Estulin
speaks of a remade, of a re-fabricated past by US television and media agencies.
In a few years, Merkel has destroyed European solidarity, annihilated the German nuclear power
plants (an old American obsession too), impoverished Germans and their once efficient Rheinisch and
solitary economy, backed the 'mad dog' American diplomacy and created along with an irresponsible
American administration (irresponsible because America will never win this kind of conflict) a dangerous
crisis against Russia than can end on a war or a scandalous European partition.
"... when the Big Banks were caught and convicted of conspiring to manipulate the $500 trillion, LIBOR debt market ..."
"... when the Big Banks were caught and convicted of conspiring to launder trillions for the global drug cartels and "terrorist" entities, despite the supposed "wars" the U.S. claims to be fighting against drugs and terrorism ..."
"... The Vampire Squid Firmly Attached To The Face Of Humanity ..."
"... As far as I can gather, the World Bank and the IMF are apart of the very same Cartel that own/control the Central Banks. ..."
Then we have the confessions of the criminals. A full one-quarter of Wall Street's and London's
senior banking executives
freely admit that crime is a way of life
in their industry -- organized crime. Even in our justice system (or what remains of it), once armed
with confessions, the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" no longer applies – the guilt is
conceded.
The Big Banks manipulate credit default swaps to perpetrate economic terrorism against other nations
in the world, where they literally destroy the economies of those victim-nations. It used to be a
theory, but now the proof is finally emerging. You heard it here first.
LawsofPhysics
So what? Has any of the bank management/leaders gone to prison and lost all their wealth?
"when the Big Banks were
caught and convicted of conspiring to manipulate the $500 trillion, LIBOR
debt market"
(Citicorp, JPMorgan Chase & Co., Barclays Plc and Royal Bank of Scotland Plc
agreed to plead guilty to felony charges of conspiring to manipulate the price of U.S. dollars
and euros)
"when the Big Banks were
caught and convicted of conspiring to launder trillions for the global drug
cartels and "terrorist" entities, despite the supposed "wars" the U.S. claims to be fighting against
drugs and terrorism"
(Wells Fargo and JPMorgan)
and of course, The Vampire Squid Firmly Attached To The Face Of Humanity,
Goldman Sachs, The Great Destroyer
commoncourtesy
Fancy-free please will you explain further.
As far as I can gather, the World Bank and the IMF are apart of the very same Cartel that
own/control the Central Banks. All are controlled by the BIS who is run/controlled by pretty
much all the same criminals on a merry-go-round. Throw in the Vatican, The Crown (BAR) Temple
- The City of London, Washington DC, the Rothschild's et al, puppet Governments (and their military)
on the same payroll and the world is pretty much screwed.
Who are the Board of Governors you are talking about?
Who is this coalition?
Please name names.
Can you vouch for their credibility or are they part of the corrupt cartel?
There is far TOO MUCH SECRECY going on.
If everything was more transparent, out of the shadows and open the world would not be in the
state is in today.
Closed dealings, complexity and behind the curtain negotiations promote corruption.
How can justice be served when most public jurors would not be able to understand the fraudulent
accounting practices being utilised?
What is the TRUTH?
andrewp111
A big load of bullshit. The US has its own currency and that currency is backed by military
power. Greece is a subordinate vassal state of the EU. There is no comparison between the two.
"... There is no "far left" in Europe any more. Since the Merkels, Hollandes, Blairs and Rasmussens of this world were planted in prominent positions because of their excruciatingly statusquo orientation, even the moderate "left" has practically ceased to exist. We now have rabid right or moderately rabid right to choose from, except for a few notable exceptions. ..."
"... Obama does not have a clue, he has lost the plot. He is backing Saudi Arabia who are the biggest instigators of terrorism in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia is announcing a 34-state military alliance to fight terrorism. ..."
"... Seems to me that IS was created, either accidentally or deliberately, by the US and its success has gone beyond the US administrations worst nightmare? When the US refuses slam Turkey for it's recent shoot-down of the Russian plane, and do anything to support Iraq in getting rid of unwanted Turkish military near Mosul, within Iraq and near the IS capital, nor wanting to know about Turkish involvement supplying Sarin gas agents to IS, or stopping Turkey supplying food and arms to IS, and receiving stolen Syrian and Iraqi oil as payment, nor preventing Turkey from being the transit centre and R & R centre for IS recruits, then maybe its time to assume that IS is the deliberate brainchild of the US, and that Turkey is playing to the US tune and protection, for promises of territory in a future carve up of Iraq and or Syria. ..."
"... Seems that ISIL, ISIS, IS and Daesh are all names invented by the US to spread the narrative through the media. They all mean US proxy army to me. Just my opinion. ..."
"... Perhaps that is because ISIS doesn't actually occupy "territory" as such. As Mr. Knight says, they are an ideology, an idea. An idea, unfortunately in this case, doesn't live in houses in prescribed areas any more than Republicanism lives in Chicago. The way forward has to involve NOT creating another 10,000 new mortal enemies in the Middle East every day. Even if only twelve innocent people had died in Iraq in 2003, instead of the hundreds of thousands who actually did, one could understand very large groups of people related to the victims cursing the US for its irresponsible meddling. ..."
"... Incredibly ignorant of the president. The US lives in sin with the Saudis. As long as the Saudis keep importing Wahhabism out of their country to others, the problem will exist. ..."
"... We bombed the Taliban. We bombed Al Qaeda. Neither lead to anything more than establishing the rise of ISIS in the destabilised areas we had bombed. ..."
"... The biggest contribution America can make to getting rid of Isis is to "persuade" its friends and allies - Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey mainly - to turn off the tap of finance, munitions and logistics to Isis, Al Qaeda in Syria (Al Nusra) and its allies like Ahrar Al Sham. No American ground troops needed; they would be counter-productive. ..."
"... The secular Syrian government, with women in its ranks, is fighting for its life against a most ruthless and abominable enemy: fanatical jihadist mercenaries financed by an execrable mediaeval tyranny, Saudi Barbaria. This is the enemy of all we stand for, the enemy that perpetrated 9/11 and 7/7 and their latest clone that bombed Paris concert-goers and Russian holiday-makers. They are paid and trained by Riyadh. And armed to the teeth with modern American weapons, passed to them by the newest demagogue, Turkey's Erdoğan. ..."
"... The sworn enemy of all these head-chopping bigots is Assad's secular republic of Syria because it challenges the ideological dogmatism of Sharia Law. This law is as rigid as Hitler's Nazism or Stalin's communism. ..."
"... I wonder if because 'a few weeks' was finally taken to supposedly destroy this critical infrastructure - if the 'evasive' ISIL oil business - along with revenues - will suffer? I also wonder why the air campaign hasn't been extended to include the purchasers of ISIL's oil supplies - at sea and in their home countries. ..."
"... Isis must ultimately be defeated by Muslim forces, or we'll be manufacturing radical faster than we can kill them. ..."
"... The Muslims seem to be manufacturing radicals quickly enough without any help from us. ..."
"... What have they been doing for the last two years then? No attacks on ISIS trucks transporting oil, no sanctions on countries that have been buying that oil. We only get some action now that Russia has been attacking ISIS in Syria and of course there is minimal reporting of the successes of the Russians in Western media. As far as Libya is concerned, there are very ominous signs that ISIS is moving to set up headquarters in that country, a country a lot closer to Europe than Syria or Iraq are. There is also the problem that the Russians will not be involved in Libya, unlike Syria, they do not have a functioning government to ask them in. Libya is the nightmare created by NATO and the US, they will have to take full responsibility for their dreadful actions there and fight the barbarians they created, no sitting back and allowing them to flourish this time. ..."
"... What a farce, who does Obama think he's kidding? If the US was serious about ISIS it would have been finished off a year ago, now that Russia has called the US's bluff they now have to pretend to step up to the plate. Pathetic. ..."
"... More drivel from the counterfeit president. His allies in the middle east are disgusting butchers. Take Turkey: it is a great shame for Turkey that 32 journalists are imprisoned in the 21st century. Some were arrested on Nov. 26 after being charged in May with espionage, revealing confidential documents and membership in a terrorist organization. The charges are related to a report published by a leading newspaper claiming weapons-loaded trucks that were discovered in January 2014 en route to Syria actually belonged to the National Intelligence Organization (MİT) and had been sent to provide support to rebel groups. ..."
Talk big but no action. Hot air. Everybody knows now.
After the Syria red line fiasco, the whole world knows US president makes empty promises.
In the next TV broadcast, he will give excuses why he cannot do it. Then he will repeat "No
Boots On The Ground". Then the US president will blame Congress for not giving him permission
to do the most basic things.
...
Now in end-2015 Obama has only ONE thing on his mind.
He wants to preserve the legacy of his presidency.
He does not want to do anything to risk the presidency being blamed.
He does not want to take any mis-step.
It is a Zero Risk environment in the White House now.
He dares not even reveal the truth on what country's air space the SU-24 was flying in, when
it was shot down.
It will just be TALK from now on until the next president takes over in 2016.
wardropper -> LupusCanis 14 Dec 2015 22:21
There is no "far left" in Europe any more. Since the Merkels, Hollandes, Blairs and
Rasmussens of this world were planted in prominent positions because of their excruciatingly
statusquo orientation, even the moderate "left" has practically ceased to exist. We now have
rabid right or moderately rabid right to choose from, except for a few notable exceptions.
GerdT 14 Dec 2015 22:21
Looking out the window I can see the hills that mark the border to Cambodia and not far
away Vietnam. I still remember the speeches given during the Vietnam War and how close victory
was. The bombs dropped on these countries including North Vietnam during the war exceeded what
was dropped during WWII in the Atlantic/European and the Pacific theater of war. Still, it was
a US helicopter that left from the American Embassy in Saigon that concluded that war, with
the US going home and into denial about the outcome of that war.
The apocalypse foreseen by the prophets of doomsday painting a picture of an Asian
continent that would turn into a communist infested threat to human kind didn't happen.
I have been recently in Vietnam and Cambodia and seen that people get on with their lives
and economies that try to improve for the coming ASEAN community. Without help from western
countries they have started to rebuild what was left of their countries after the champion of
democracy had left. As the peanut farmer and former President Jimmy Carter said, the
destruction was mutual and hence Vietnam didn't deserve any compensation for the unbelievable
collateral damage caused by US intervention in this country. If the US was really trying to
protect democracy or as Bill Clinton described it protecting National Security, which he
defined as US business interests and given the US a right to interfere in any country that
tries to threaten them, is a debatable point.
During the following decades the US again would raise terror and war in countries to ensure
that the branding of democracy they preferred would be exported. South Vietnam hadn't been a
democracy when the US decided to send troops across and the political leaders of that country
came from the military, granting themselves the titles of president and minister, but holding
the country in the same grip as in the North the communist did. From South America to the
Middle East the US supported groups and leaders that were favorable to US business interests.
The Taliban were a useful tool to drive out the Soviet Union only to become a haven for Bin
Laden and his followers. Iraq has turned into a political and humanitarian nightmare and ISIL
that was as a startup supplied with weapons and training by the US to drive out Assad from
Syria is now the greatest threat to world peace according to the US.
We only have to take a look at the close friends and allies of the US in the Middle East
and South America to understand how they spell democracy and human rights. Maybe it is time to
listen to the millions of people with families that want to live in peace and are tired of
foreign interference in their countries. Instead of supplying arms and support to people that
favor the western or eastern political view, we should start to invest and rebuild these
countries to ensure they can become equal and respected partners within the global community.
Phil Atkinson 14 Dec 2015 22:18
What a joke! Ashton Carter to visit the Middle East to jockey along the Arab states - the
same people that the USA supplies weapons to, that end up with terrorists. Or Turkey, that
erstwhile NATO member which has been stealing Syrian oil and selling it to Israel and speaking
of Israel, that country still illegally occupying the Golan Heights in Syria and aiding and
abetting Al-Nusra Front fighters and bombing inside Syria.
Ashton Carter is a dangerous fool, who believes his own government's propaganda. He should be
kept at home.
SomersetApples 14 Dec 2015 22:08
Obama does not have a clue, he has lost the plot. He is backing Saudi Arabia who are
the biggest instigators of terrorism in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia is announcing a 34-state
military alliance to fight terrorism.
Informed17 14 Dec 2015 22:08
If ISIS does not do what Obama says, US-led coalition of 60+ countries will destroy another
pair of Islamist excavators. I am sure ISIS leaders are scared shitless.
RocketSurgeon 14 Dec 2015 22:03
Seems to me that IS was created, either accidentally or deliberately, by the US and its
success has gone beyond the US administrations worst nightmare?
When the US refuses slam Turkey for it's recent shoot-down of the Russian plane, and do
anything to support Iraq in getting rid of unwanted Turkish military near Mosul, within Iraq
and near the IS capital, nor wanting to know about Turkish involvement supplying Sarin gas
agents to IS, or stopping Turkey supplying food and arms to IS, and receiving stolen Syrian
and Iraqi oil as payment, nor preventing Turkey from being the transit centre and R & R centre
for IS recruits, then maybe its time to assume that IS is the deliberate brainchild of the US,
and that Turkey is playing to the US tune and protection, for promises of territory in a
future carve up of Iraq and or Syria.
Seems that ISIL, ISIS, IS and Daesh are all names invented by the US to spread the
narrative through the media. They all mean US proxy army to me.
Just my opinion.
readerofgrauniad -> Stephen_Sean 14 Dec 2015 22:01
But who are the good boys in this? To end the war, Asad is probably the best option, and
compared to IS he looks like a saint.
wardropper -> Lech1980 14 Dec 2015 21:59
Perhaps that is because ISIS doesn't actually occupy "territory" as such. As Mr. Knight
says, they are an ideology, an idea. An idea, unfortunately in this case, doesn't live in
houses in prescribed areas any more than Republicanism lives in Chicago. The way forward has
to involve NOT creating another 10,000 new mortal enemies in the Middle East every day. Even
if only twelve innocent people had died in Iraq in 2003, instead of the hundreds of thousands
who actually did, one could understand very large groups of people related to the victims
cursing the US for its irresponsible meddling. I would imagine our enemies over there
number about 50 million by now, and nobody in human history has been able to survive having
that many enemies...
Thomas Hancock 14 Dec 2015 21:55
Incredibly ignorant of the president. The US lives in sin with the Saudis. As long as
the Saudis keep importing Wahhabism out of their country to others, the problem will exist.
The thing you learn from history is that no one learns anything from history. Maybe
someone can get a time machine and go back to kill Ho Chi Minh, and Vietnam will be a
capitalist paradise. This is the same strategy that helped create ISIS in the first place.
Bernard Knight 14 Dec 2015 21:55
We bombed the Taliban. We bombed Al Qaeda. Neither lead to anything more than
establishing the rise of ISIS in the destabilised areas we had bombed. What is the point?
1ClearSense -> Stephen_Sean 14 Dec 2015 21:48
Is that right? You mean when they hit 1050 oil tanker trucks, that's nothing? US followed
up hitting 300. They stopped oil revenues for ISIS, and reduced their revenues by 50 %. The
number of sorties they have run on ISIS has been considerably more than US. They have also hit
other terrorists to secure the rear, so Syrian troops can move on ISIS. You guys are
brainwashed.
Budovski Ximples -> AaronClausen 14 Dec 2015 21:42
"the US has killed 23,000 ISIL members in airstrikes"
Who told you? Disney Channel? Anyone can lie to you as long as you are behind a TV screen.
It's quite an easy task (having sufficient intelligence resources and money of course)... It's
incredibly obvious it would be sufficient hitting the financing of those mercenaries or not to
buy the oil they are selling. You know all that "intelligence resources, analysts, linguists,
SIGINT experts...". If only the US government wanted really. And yet what is ISIS? Quite a
volatile entity... looks like franchising terror... IS/ISIS/ISIL/Daesh will "desappear" when
it won't be useful anymore. And they will only find a new name whenever a new proxy ground
army should be required.
"Kremlinbot"? The cold war revamping has seduced you. Let me rimand you this facts:
In 2014 the USA has spent in its military expenditure more than 600 Bn $.
Russia is around 80.
It's been estimated that after WWII the USA caused the death of about 30 million people
all over the planet (challenging Stalin scores).
You'll find the facts... Not on Disnet Channel though.
After the dissolution of USSR it was clear that it was not "the enemy" anymore. Yet the
Ministry of Defence (and its industry) need powerful and fearsome enemies!
Et voilà, despite what the Ministry fo Truth says, after 20 years of tranquillity it's Russia
getting sourranded by military bases along its borders, losing Ukraine (and possibly its
strategic Crimea) and now directly challenged in Syria (where they have military bases).
Doesn't Russia have the right to "defend" itself and have allies? They have a Ministry of
Defense too...
What if Russia had intervened to topple king Salman of Suadi Arabia because of him being a
fearsome dictator? Yet no one did nothing when the "arab spring" was brutally repressed in the
region (with the help of the USA).
It's quite hard not to admit the USA has been quite agressive and active ... So whose to
blame for this warfare and new cold war tensions? You might be more biased and less
Whitehousebot.
PS
Of course I'm not russian.
Bernard Knight 14 Dec 2015 21:40
At it's core ISIS, ISL, DEASH, call them what you will, are a murderous death cult using
jihad and the establishment of a califate as their raison d'etre. They are an ideology, an
idea. No amounts of bombing or taking territory will annihilate that idea. Perhaps it should
be the Islamic world that tackles this threat, starting with first and foremost, our foremost
arms purchasers, Saudi Arabia.
Shatford Shatford 14 Dec 2015 21:34
Asked if Obama had consciously chosen to make his rhetoric more aggressive for public
benefit, White House spokesman Josh Earnest said when the president meets the national
security council, "he is not looking at public opinion polls".
Obvious bullshit. It's this kind of Hilary Clinton-like waffling rhetoric and pandering to
opinion polls is what is driving the popularity of Donald Trump's campaign.
Nolan Harding 14 Dec 2015 21:25
The Islamic state is surrounded by hostile forces, they are under siege so how are they
getting ammunition, refined gasoline, food, internet service and all thier Toyota trucks.
Obviously the forces surrounding them are not that hostile. A real siege would have seen them
starving to death years ago. Like in Leningrad...now THAT was a siege and REAL war, not this
strategic game the deluded masses think is a ' war'.
JMWong 14 Dec 2015 21:24
Obama has missed the opportunity to announce that hw would the bunch of criminals
consisting of Bush, Cheney, Blair, Rumsfeld, Allbright, McCain, Cameron, Hollande, etc. to the
International Tribunal for trial for their crimes against humanity. They have murdered
millions of people.
bunkusmystic -> burnel 14 Dec 2015 21:18
Have a look at the latest Isis videos they have all the latest American weapons ... How do
you think they get them? Is it private citizens in Saudi who buy them or the government ...
The Saudis want the Iraqi and Syrian oil fields and they are using this Isis fabrication to
get them. If the coalition is so serious about fighting Isis how is it that thousands of oil
tankers pass through turkey each day? With no one noticing??? It's only Russia who is taking
real action
tjmars 14 Dec 2015 21:17
This is to draw the heat-seeker foreign press away from the Mad Turk Erdogan who is
fake-begging the Russians to prove the accusations that Erdogan Jr is running "red-stained
oil" to major buyers on the Turkish black market...
Ooops!...don't want to know who those 'terrorist supporting capitalists" are!...
Is this an example of 'laissez-faire" in Late Capitalism...a "bubble" for risk-taking
investors?
Whew! Its a good thing "Soylent Green" was a fictional commodity in movies or the funeral
homes would be void of any "dead meat" for ritual burials..
Thanlks to Capitalism, we will one day see the mythical "dog-eat-dog" aphorism come to light
with "god-damned" good profits...
The western central bankers weren't 'standing behind the curtain" pulling the levers of power
again were they?
Do a litmus test on their 'red tooth and claw' mentality...
Hey where did they go?
Obama made them disappear with his speech!
clashcr 14 Dec 2015 21:14
Hmm, not a word about Assad. Well US policy about radical Islam - take your pick there are
nearly 20 groups in Syria - is about it being overt and not covert. So, they are pleased when
radicals show their faces and establish territory because it attracts more radicals to leave
the west to go there to be killed. The other result may be that the moderates like the Muslim
Brotherhood who may seriously have been talking about a pan-Islamic Caliphate and Sharia law
have seen their cause put back by decades.
JMWong -> sage10 14 Dec 2015 21:12
If the USA wants to fight ISIS, it must attack ISIS at its source, that is, the countries
where the ISIS fighters originate. This means Turkey, Saudi Arabia, the USA itself, UK,
France, etc. Bomb these countries and the sources of ISIS fighters will dry up.
sashasmirnoff 14 Dec 2015 21:09
I apologize for deviating slightly from this story, but I have a link to share concerning
what would usually be considered a sensational story, but this paper has neglected to cover
it. A Turkish Parliamentarian has come forward with documented proof that in 2013 Turkey
supplied IS with the components to manufacture Sarin gas and facilitated their transport to
the IS in Syria. I have no idea why the Guardian doesn't consider this to be newsworthy.
I still see nothing but a PR blitz here. The strategy has not changed. The claims of
success are over-rated. ISIS still controls large swathes of territory; and more importantly,
it has shown it can project power internationally...all the way to the US...through sleeper
cells and lone wolf attacks. The only way to deal with such a pernicious organization is a
full on-the-ground massive combined arms assault: armor, air power, and heavy infantry. It
won't take a Desert Storm type campaign, as ISIS is no where near as large as Saddam's army;
but it will take a real coordinated military campaign with boots-on-the-ground to seize and
hold territory. No question about that. Obama won't commit to that type strategy, so it will
be up to the next President to do so, as ISIS will still be around by then, given Obama's
reliance solely on air power.
giorgio16 14 Dec 2015 20:59
...is Obama aware that Russia is already fighting isis,...and from the right side?... or he
is pretending he is in charge now?
...Saudis are fighting shias in Yemen on one side, creating a humanitarian disaster no one
wants to acknowledge, and Assad in Sirya on the other creating another disaster convenniently
blamed on Assad by Obama and co...interesting times ahead...
TomGray 14 Dec 2015 20:43
Obama used the same decapitation tactic against Al Queda. Al Queda destabilized because of
it and morphed into ISIS. There is no shortage of people who want to become leaders in any
organization. Obama's tactics may hinder ISIS but they will not cause the organized violence
that it currently represents to disappear. The players may change but the game remains the
same.
Decapitation can only be part of an effective strategy and so far Obama has not
demonstrated that he has the capability to draw together the other essential elements
ID4352889 -> DogsLivesMatter 14 Dec 2015 20:41
Saudi flew thousands of Jihadists out of Syria a while ago and sent them to Libya. It is
well documented. The West did not interfere. Presumably for the same reasons they didn't
interfere with the Turkey/Daesh oil scam.
DelOrtoyVerga 14 Dec 2015 20:35
Hurry up Obama before the Ruskies steal your thunder! or the few sparks that are left by
now that is...
Mwahahaha...
I'm sure these special forces, these token "boots on the ground" you are sending will be
exclusively focusing on ISIL and are not being sent to undermine the Syrian government or
their allies, I repeat the special forces ARE NOT BEING SENT TO UNDERMINE THE SYRIAN
GOVERNMENT OR THEIR ALLIES.
HowSicklySeemAll 14 Dec 2015 20:26
Why did the US wait until now to 'drop more bombs than ever before'?
Russian foreign minister recently stated that:
"We have noticed that the US-led coalition stepped up its fight against IS only after Russia
dispatched a combat air group to Syria. The coalition efforts undertaken in Syria earlier
could be described as odd, to say the least This brings to mind NATO's operations in
Afghanistan We don't want the fight to be feigned."
DomesticExtremist 14 Dec 2015 20:13
Can we assume from this that the fix is in: Kilary has been selected for Pres and Obomber
has to roll the pitch on her behalf so that she can hit the ground running?
"We came, we saw, they died. (insane cackle)."
Look out for some killer blow to be landed on the Donald soon.
Sualdam -> meewaan 14 Dec 2015 20:10
The biggest contribution America can make to getting rid of Isis is to "persuade" its
friends and allies - Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey mainly - to turn off the tap of finance,
munitions and logistics to Isis, Al Qaeda in Syria (Al Nusra) and its allies like Ahrar Al
Sham. No American ground troops needed; they would be counter-productive.
MrJanuary 14 Dec 2015 19:55
Well done Russia for mobilizing the worlds second largest military force, the USA, in Syria
against ISIS.
robertthebruce2014 -> MasonInNY 14 Dec 2015 19:48
We love Putin here in Europe, at least he defends European interests. The USA is only
defending Saudi and Israeli interest. We are currently in the process of breaking up the NATO
coalition. The USA can stick with Turkey, Israel, and the Saudis.
pierotg 14 Dec 2015 19:43
December 2015: "We are hitting Isil harder than ever" .
July 2015: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2NkjNvwuaU
!!! Look at the eys of that general behind, please! He was falling almost asleep and then ...
frozen! Is it just my impression? That would be really hilarious if we weren't talking about
war and crimes against humanity.
Please, stop lying this way.
This is far too much. This is alienating.
The USA and UK governments are loosing all that was left of their credibility and reliability
in the last decade and the only strategy left seems to make the big lie bigger than ever. This
is like shouting at the world "I can do whatever suits me and f**k the rest!"
Even their relationships with their EU partners have proved slick.
I've been listening to politicians speeches and interviews lately and found myself thinking:
"That autocrat and ex KGB agent ruling Russia sounds much less hypocrite and far more
competent". What if you could choose between Putin or Trump to represent your country (just as
if they were sport pros you could hire for your team)?
This is far too much. This won't do any good and nuclear weapons can still destroy our planet
in 30 minutes. Whoever is behind this mess what's going to profit then? This is obscene
incompetence and fearsome irresponsibility.
In my teens Steve Stevens's Top Gun Theme got me goosebumps... On my Strat guitar there has
been a Union Jack pickguard for 25 years... What shall I tell my son when he will ask me why I
removed the original white one? I'm getting quite embarrassed.
Is it the End of the World as We know it? Yet I don't feel fine.
1ClearSense 14 Dec 2015 19:40
Yemen is the poorest Arab country with limited resources. The Saudis, along with a slew of
other Arab regimes have been bombing the Yemeni military and Houthi militia who were clearing
up Al Qaeda out of Yemen pretty good, for 9 months.
In the summer the Saudis and UAE sheiks decided to send ground forces to "liberate" Yemen.
Other than taking some part of southern Yemen with the help of separatists and jihadis of all
sort, they failed in their mission. A single attack on Saudi military caused dozens of Saudi
and Emarati dead. The Emaratis decided on Colombian mercenaries, the Saudi paid Sudanese
military to send troops. Yesterday the Yemenis killed a large number of these mercenaries
(anywhere between 80 to 150) including the Saudi commander and another high official and a
Emarati officer.
Southern Yemen, the "Saudi liberated" areas is being taken over by al Qaeda piece by piece,
and also ISIS has become very active. The idea that these Arab regimes can be productive in
anything to defeat jihadi terror is a pipe dream. It is all about public relations and having
"Sunni Arabs" along to defeat "Sunni Arabs" jihadis. This is so completely miscalculation that
will backfire. Saudis and their crew have no desire or ability to defeat the wahhabi
terrorists. The time has come to see it as what it is, the only way to defeat the jihadi
terrorists is teaming up with the people who are being successful, and that doesn't include
the Arab tyrannies.
Panda Bear -> Steven Wallace 14 Dec 2015 19:33
Did your father know offices controlled by the \British at Suez were apparently given over
to the Moslem Brotherhood? UK used Islamic extremists back then and US has continued the
policy it appears.
I was recently reminded of Churchill's speech about the possibility of Germans invading
Britain... "We'll fight them on the beeches" etc. Wonder if the Germans would have considered
the British fighters terrorists if they had managed to occupy Britain?
Occupation by foreign forces is ok if it's our forces or our allies and our enemies cannot
resist or they are designated as terrorists... National Sovereignty is disregarded whole sale
by US/NATO and allies.
One rule for us, another for 'them'! Hypocrisy reigns supreme.
Steven Wallace -> Zara Thustra 14 Dec 2015 19:32
haha ok well thats too simplistic Mr Zarathustra . The issue with Islamic fundamentalism is
that it uses a religion to kill innocents without targeting anyone of any real importance .
The Koran has not changed like the New Testament but I really do not believe that modern day
Muslims who pray would all wish to kill me because I am not a Muslim .
That scare mongering is simply a distraction ,as George Bush said " Who is this Bin Laden ?"
Well I would have said " You know him George ,his family financed your oil business ,they are
friends of your family ".
All Muslims are scary to us while the real issues are being ignored 24/7
The Bible is full of evil concepts ,why not consider ourselves in the West as evil Christians
?
Not me though ,I'm an atheist
LewisFriend -> Miramon 14 Dec 2015 19:32
Well Assad wasn't massacring people either till their was an uprising.. Yet in Syria people
were a lot more free than Saudi.. They also don't have the CIA on the ground encouraging one.
Be under no illusions the ruling Saudi clique are animals.
WatchEm 14 Dec 2015 19:30
Barack Obama warns leaders of Islamic State in speech: 'you are next'
Threats like that are enough to get my parrot squawking with laughter - forget any
"terrorists" or anyone with a live brain cell.
Yet more tries to reassure a domestic audience, who unlike the majority of nations, apparently
live in fear, and need convincing that the USG is doing something and "leading the way" in
their declared "War on Terrorism". It's like having to tolerate listening to the banality of
what purports to be US "news networks".
Unfortunately, after around 10,000 bombing runs and predictable time-wasting talk, the message
is still not sinking in that the Grand Master Plan of 'leading the way' is a failure and
reduced to hope that they can stop terrorism by 'taking out' some leadership. Yep, heard that
one before. The USG 'defeated terrorism' by 'taking out' Al Queda leaders - a number of them
34+ times. Al Queda no longer exists - not.
Instead of 'leading from the rear' and expecting other nations to clean up the carnage and
havoc left over by US adventures into the Middle East, perhaps the USG could find a few
non-torturers, non rapists and no members of US death squads and clean the region up with
their own trash collectors as 'boots on the ground'. Well... no harm in dreaming and
fantasising it might work and "we can win, win, win" ...
So, bottom line, order more bombs with taxpayers funds Carter, and pretend you matter while
the 'leader' continues the infantile rhetoric for US consumption, just as his predecessor did.
May the US people and people in other victim nations be saved from US 'little men' - both
'generals' and politicians.
PS Try not to bomb innocent men, women and children on the ground during the bombing runs.
They never deserved your slaughter, carnage, death squads and torture the last time around and
don't need a US euphemism, "collateral damage", to justify their deaths. But of course,
counting bodies is not a topic of conversation in the Rogue Regime of the West. It only
matters if it is US men, women and children who are slaughtered while the US regime role play
fighting for "democracy and freedom" by "leading from the rear".
Panda Bear -> MRModeratedModerate 14 Dec 2015 19:21
Some of them are very busy bombing Yemen to destruction and recruiting mercenaries in
places such as Columbia to help! The situation for citizens in Yemen is dire, some areas
described as on the verge of famine partly due to the embargo that is also imposed.
JMWong 14 Dec 2015 19:09
This speech shows the hypocrisy of the Americans. In fact, as it was made clear many times
before, the real objective of the USA is to invade Syria, to destroy Syria and to murder as
many Syrians as possible, including its President, Assad. The USA had the same objective with
regards to Iraq and Lybia. Iraq was invaded and destroyed. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis
were murdered by the coalition of the willing led by the USA. The lives of tens of millions
Iraqis have been destroyed. Its President, Saddam Hussein was murdered. In the case of Libya,
the same coalition of the willing, led by the same USA, bombed Libya for six months. It was
the greatest terrorist attack over the last ten years. It was six months of terror for
millions of Libyans everyday for over six months. More than thirty thousand Libyans were
murdered in this exceptional terror attack, including its President, Kaddafi. Now, the USA is
leading the same coalition of the willing to murder hundreds of thousand Syrians. Assad must
go, chant the USA and its f...king partners. We heard the same chant with regrda to Saddam
Hussein and Kaddafi. Saddam Hussein must go. Kaddafi must go. As if the USA with its f..
Partners are the ones to choose who should and should not rule Iraq, Libya and Syria. ISIS was
created, is funded, trained armed and supported by the USA and its willing partners. For more
than one year that they are bombing Syria, they did not see the thousands and thousands of
trucks carrying robbed oil from Syria to Turkey. And now Obama, flanked by thecriminal Ash
Carter, a creature of McCain, claims that he is determined to fight ISIS. Since many of the
ISIS fighters come from the USA, UK, France, why do you not start by bombing the USA, UK,
France. Why start with Syria?
Steven Wallace 14 Dec 2015 19:05
Because truth has no place in the modern political theatre . Truth is down to perception
and when you control the media you control the truth .Remember NORID ,when the US funded the
IRA against the UK ? The IRA used bombs to kill many innocents in their resistance to the
British occupation . My brother was a soldier in the British Army and believed he was doing
the right thing by going to Northern Ireland . After reflection he now feels he was wrong to
be a part of that situation .My father served in Egypt during the Suez Crisis and felt he was
right to be there and later questioned why so many young lads were sent to such a inhospitable
foreign land . The reason always comes down to money .
MRModeratedModerate 14 Dec 2015 19:04
"in recent weeks we've unleashed a new wave of strikes on their lifeline, on their oil
infrastructure..."
I don't see no bombs falling on Turkey?
illbthr22 -> ObambiBot 14 Dec 2015 18:54
Your country provides nothing positive to the world. I watch American movies, eat American
food, listen to American music. Russia doesn't exist to me. The only time i hear Russia
mentioned is when Russia is threatening war with someone or 2 drunks are beating each other up
on youtube.
supercool -> BG Davis 14 Dec 2015 18:49
Again read my comment. The way the war on drugs is waged and fought. It is never ending,
murky and with so many dubious allegiances.
The war on terror is never ending, murky and with so many dubious allegiance. For example we
exported Jihadism to Afghanistan to defeat the invading communist Soviet's, they eventually
morphed to the Taliban who then gave sanctuary to Al-Qaeda. Which formed an affiliate branch
in Iraq after our invasion in 2003 and which morphed into the Islsmic state.
HollyOldDog -> stonedage 14 Dec 2015 18:48
Obama is the first black American President but that doesn't mean that he is the first
sensible one.
Whitt -> supercool 14 Dec 2015 18:46
As someone who is old enough to have lived under two great Presidents and three
great-but-flawed Presidents, I'm saying that Obama is a 2nd-rater at best. A hundred years
from now he'll be a triva-question President like Millard Fillmore or Grover Cleaveland.
OscarAwesome 14 Dec 2015 18:44
Sure, this is typical political spruiking. Obama doing the Commander in Chief thing,
proclaiming PROGRESS, reaffirming how bad the 'enemy' are, saying tough things as a response
to the accusations of weakness by US conservatives (who are coy about what their actual
alternative to Obama's approach is because it probably looks very much like catastrophic full
invasion foolishness of George W's Iraq war), blah, blah, we've seen it all before on
countless occasions.
The situation in Syria in particular is ridiculously complex and consists of a plethora of
detail and options for action about which we will all have wildly divergent opinions.
But there is a part of this that is simple. There are practically zero options for dealing
with ISIL/IS/ISIS/whatever besides killing them. They seek no negotiations, offer no potential
compromise position and their take on politics is to simply kill everyone who isn't them. The
lack of alternate, peaceful/diplomatic options ISIS and similar groups offer, with their
preposterous Dark Ages philosophies, is in a macabre way almost refreshing.
The hard bit is how to kill/capture/degrade their capability without a) slaughtering
bystanders and b) causing such carnage as to act as an ISIS recruitment agency.
For all the great many faults and excesses of the West and the larger Muslin world, ISIS
do not in any way offer a comprehensive socio-political alternate system of government with
a vestige of logical appeal to humanity (unlike, say the threat communism represented in the
20th century). They have some vague pipe dream of apocalyptic conflict where the other 99.999%
of the human race is either slaughtered or magically converted to embracing the reversal of
human history by 1,500 years. Not going to happen. Silly.
The threat ISIS represent is largely emotional. Unless you are lightning-strike like
unfortunate (or they get hold of nuclear weapons) ISIS disturb our assumptions of physical
safety in a symbolic way only. The histrionics generated by that fear is our real enemy.
Popeyes 14 Dec 2015 18:44
What a disappointment, I was waiting for Obama to explain just why he didn't bomb IS oil
facilities, and why the U.S. are still best buddies with Saudi who it seems supplies and
finances most of the terrorists in Syria and Iraq. Nothing new here move along.
Horst Faranelli 14 Dec 2015 18:43
...but the spot oil price is squeezing the heart out of Russia.
Panda Bear -> GustavoB 14 Dec 2015 18:43
There have been reports for a while (since Russia began bombing) that Isis have been
fleeing Syria and many commanders have relocated to Libya. Isis have overtaken one of the so
called governments and are making gains, oil assets their next target I read yesterday.
Seasuka -> DoomGlitter 14 Dec 2015 18:41
Whatever America's position now, for decades they have supported and helped to arm Salafist
jihadis through Saudi and the Muslim World league in opposition to any secular or perceived
communist movements in the region which might threaten oil supplies. Ditto uk.
jmNZ 14 Dec 2015 18:40
The secular Syrian government, with women in its ranks, is fighting for its life
against a most ruthless and abominable enemy: fanatical jihadist mercenaries financed by an
execrable mediaeval tyranny, Saudi Barbaria. This is the enemy of all we stand for, the enemy
that perpetrated 9/11 and 7/7 and their latest clone that bombed Paris concert-goers and
Russian holiday-makers. They are paid and trained by Riyadh. And armed to the teeth with
modern American weapons, passed to them by the newest demagogue, Turkey's Erdoğan.
The sworn enemy of all these head-chopping bigots is Assad's secular republic of Syria
because it challenges the ideological dogmatism of Sharia Law. This law is as rigid as
Hitler's Nazism or Stalin's communism.
And we wonder whether we should support Assad?
For the record, here are some undisputed facts:
30 countries, including South Africa, sent election observers to Syria and found them to be
"reasonably free and fair". This was in 2014 when Basher al-Assad got 88% of the vote in the
first multi-party presidential elections. Nearly half the population of Syria actually made it
to the polls. Not half the electorate, half the population.
Syria is governed by 5 parties in coalition opposed by a 2 party coalition of 5 members and
77 "Independents". Assad's Baqath Party has a majority, 134 out of 250.
Syria is today's Czechoslovakia.
Whitt -> supercool 14 Dec 2015 18:34
"Compare his Presidency with George Bush or most previous American President's if recent
years." - supercool
*
Considering that most of the Presidents that we've had over the last few decades have been
mediocrities and that Bush Jr. was downright incompetent, that is truly an example of damning
with faint praise.
*
*
"Obama goes into the history books as a great President who achieved so many first's"
*
To paraphrase the immortal Douglas Adams, this is obviously some strange usage of the word
"great" that I was not previously aware of.
ByThePeople 14 Dec 2015 18:10
"in recent weeks'...'destroying hundreds of their (ISIL's) tanker trucks, wells and
refineries. So far, ISIL has lost about 40% of the populated area it once controlled n Iraq."
Anyone else a bit shocked that after having several countries dropping bombs on ISIL for an
extended period of time - that ISIL would still be in possession of hundreds of tanker trucks,
wells and refineries - their 'life line'....?
A full fledged oil business in up, running and in the market to sell oil - which is obviously
all being bought up and these revenues, combined with other revenue streams, have been
supporting ISIL's efforts for an extended period of time.
I wonder if because 'a few weeks' was finally taken to supposedly destroy this critical
infrastructure - if the 'evasive' ISIL oil business - along with revenues - will suffer? I
also wonder why the air campaign hasn't been extended to include the purchasers of ISIL's oil
supplies - at sea and in their home countries.
And here in lies the problem. The US is not serious about taking down ISIS. They are a
convient bunch of psychopaths that can be used for various agendas the US has in mind.
Including but not limited to weakening/removing Assad, getting Iran embroiled in costly war,
terrifying domestic populations into giving up freedoms, justifying more military
interventions that go against international law.
The list goes on
1ClearSense 14 Dec 2015 17:59
The cult of Wahhabi terrorist supported by Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE and Turkey need to be
defeated. With all the public information available, we are here because of all the wrong
moves by the US. It is about time to nip this in the bud. The root problem is in Saudi Arabia.
In no uncertain terms US needs to tell the Arab tyrannies to stop the jihadi terror. It is
obviouse US has listened to the Saudis and Qataris to create a Sunni militia in Iraq, Syria to
"confront" Iran. The imaginary ghost that constantly scares Saudi tyranny. The result has been
all the various head chopping terror groups. The "Sunni" Arab tyrannies will never supply
troops to take over areas occupied by terrorists. Qatar demands sanitizing al Qaeda terrorist
in Syria and giving them a say. It is stupid to even consider these as allies in fight against
the wahhabi Islamist terrorists. Time has come to forget about removing Assad, just cooperate
with Russia, Syria, Iran and Iraq to take back land from all terrorists step by step, and have
the legitimate government in Syria and Iraq, with their pro government militia control the
ground.
TheBorderGuard -> gunnison 14 Dec 2015 17:55
Isis must ultimately be defeated by Muslim forces, or we'll be manufacturing radical
faster than we can kill them.
The Muslims seem to be manufacturing radicals quickly enough without any help from us.
TonyBlunt 14 Dec 2015 17:51
"We are hitting Isil harder than ever."
Here is how hard the US and their regional allies have been hitting ISIL and the other
jihadi terrorists:
Good docu about that recently. Might still be available on BBCiplayer. The Americans bought
Saudi drilling rights for 2cents and the Brits bought Iraqi rights for tuppence. Twenty years
later the middle easterns thought "hold on a minute," and offered a fifty-fifty split. The
Americans pragmatically accepted, thus their relationship with the House of Saud, the Brits
got all uppity at the natives and got kicked out.
TheSindhiAbbasi -> gunnison 14 Dec 2015 17:45
What about billions of US military equipment in Iraq, that was captured by Daesh?
gunnison 14 Dec 2015 17:40
Freeze Saudi assets and blockade all their exports until they send all that gee-whiz
military equipment we sold them into this fight, and all the Saudi military we trained too.
Isis must ultimately be defeated by Muslim forces, or we'll be manufacturing radical faster
than we can kill them.
Panda Bear -> Jools12 14 Dec 2015 17:36
"We only get some action now that Russia has been attacking ISIS in Syria and of course
there is minimal reporting of the successes of the Russians in Western media."
Exactly. Russia is the old enemy, it is interfering and questioning US actions and has huge
natural resources. Putin called them out in his speech at the UN...
US has been provoking Russia for some time, and is also provoking China. This may not end well
for any of us and no one will stand up and demand it stops!
HAGGISANCHIPS -> ame1ie 14 Dec 2015 17:34
The nazi ideology was removed militarily. It couldn't survive because it was morally wrong
and repugnant, like Daesh.
Edward Frederick Ezell 14 Dec 2015 17:27
Sending our professional agents of coercion and terror to kill people in foreign countries
over which we somehow more or less claim jurisdiction is not something that is clearly
beneficial in the long term although it does respond appropriately to the call for vengeance
and blood from our own political actors.
Panda Bear -> Taku2 14 Dec 2015 17:27
US has turned it into a proxy war with Russia and Iran and has called in the NATO allies to
back them up. Obama seems to work differently to previous presidents like Bush, he seems to
like to work quietly using drones and not much publicized actions and calls in the NATO and
allied troops to cover their actions.
Taku2 14 Dec 2015 17:23
America will do this America will do that. Well, guess what; you cannot do it on your own.
You cannot make a successful strategic plan to fight Daesh without the Russians, Iranians and
Syrian government forces being integral elements of such a plan.
Daesh is like an Hydra, so bombing alone cannot defeat it, it just spread it to new areas. You
need to do an honest review of how Daesh was created; albeit, unintentionally, by
ill-conceived American and EU/NATO policies in the Middle East and Africa.
America and EU/NATO cannot effective fight the war being waged by Daesh and Al Qaeda, until
they have learned the lessons to be learned from their misguided policies, and openly
acknowledged the mistakes they have made.
Sunrise_Song 14 Dec 2015 17:18
What would it be like to live in a truly peaceful and free world? All it takes is strength,
foresight and the guts to be honest.
All the things the West is failing at. Obama like most Western leaders is a weaver of lies and
half-truths.
How can we ever have peace until we challenge the core issue? This is an ideological fight.
It's a war of minds. ISIS believe the West is a basin of sin. That our liberal and secular
ways need to be destroyed and replaced by their ideologies and way of life.
Only, we can see they're wrong. That even with our faults and flaws, our belief in freedom,
democracy and equality is the best way, still we defend that same ideology in our own nations.
Obama is failing the American people. Just like Merkel and Co are failing the European people.
Bombs won't stop IS.
Jools12 14 Dec 2015 17:18
What have they been doing for the last two years then? No attacks on ISIS trucks
transporting oil, no sanctions on countries that have been buying that oil. We only get some
action now that Russia has been attacking ISIS in Syria and of course there is minimal
reporting of the successes of the Russians in Western media. As far as Libya is concerned,
there are very ominous signs that ISIS is moving to set up headquarters in that country, a
country a lot closer to Europe than Syria or Iraq are. There is also the problem that the
Russians will not be involved in Libya, unlike Syria, they do not have a functioning
government to ask them in. Libya is the nightmare created by NATO and the US, they will have
to take full responsibility for their dreadful actions there and fight the barbarians they
created, no sitting back and allowing them to flourish this time.
TheBorderGuard 14 Dec 2015 17:13
Obama told reporters: "This continues to be a difficult fight. Isil is dug in, including
in urban areas, and they hide behind civilians, using defenceless men, women and children
as human shields. So even as we're relentless, we have to be smart, targeting Isil
surgically, with precision."
Good luck, boss. Ask Netanyahu how it went for the Israelis when they tried to end Hamas'
rocket attacks from Gaza. Because that's the kind of foe you'll be up against.
poechristy 14 Dec 2015 17:10
Someone has obviously told Obama that his Mr Nice Guy act was merely encouraging Islamic
State and their supporters in the US. It's time for all Western nations to make clear that
anyone involved in any way with Islamic State-funding them, promoting them, or returning from
fighting for them- will feel the full force of the law. I can't understand why those returning
from Syria are not immediately arrested and held to account.
I rather suspect we wouldn't be seeing the same appeasement if white supremacists were
returning from a foreign land having been involved in the torture,rape and murder of ethnic
minorities.
lefthalfback2 DogsLivesMatter 14 Dec 2015 17:06
NYT said a few days back that ISIS are looking to Surt in Libya as the spot to which they
can decamp if the Heat comes down in Iraq. Does not seem likely to me since it is on the coast
and could easily be struck from the sea.
Whitt DogsLivesMatter 14 Dec 2015 17:03
Weren't you paying attention?
(1) We have a coalition of the willing in the international War on Terror.
(2) ISIS is on their last legs. There's nothing left but a bunch of dead-enders.
(3) We're squeezing their heart in Iraq, their balls in Syria, and their spleen in Libya.
(4) There's a light at the end of the tunnel.
(5) Ve are vinning ze var!
Now get with the program and quit interfering with the narrative or it's off to Gitmo with
you, me lad!
ohhaiimark 14 Dec 2015 16:58
Want to stop ISIS? It's rather simple. Sanction those who fund them. Sanction those who
spread Wahhabism. Sanction those who buy oil off them....Basically sanction all of America's
allies in the region.
Then work together with the Russians, the Syrians, the Iranians and whoever else is willing to
send ground troops in to take each town and city occupied by these scumbags one by one.
You can't defeat ISIS if your goal is also to remove Assad. That will only help ISIS. It's
time to wake up from that delusion that Assad is going anywhere. Once the war is over, then we
can let the Syrian people decide who will lead them through democratic elections.
Djinn666 14 Dec 2015 16:56
They've squeezed so hard that it oozed into Libya and other points on the compass,
including San Bernardino.
Note to CIC Obama, However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results
(Winston Churchill).
Fence2 14 Dec 2015 16:54
What a farce, who does Obama think he's kidding? If the US was serious about ISIS it
would have been finished off a year ago, now that Russia has called the US's bluff they now
have to pretend to step up to the plate. Pathetic.
DogsLivesMatter 14 Dec 2015 16:50
Meanwhile in Libya....http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/12/world-leaders-push-libya-peace-isil-fills-vacuum-151214044020934.html
Apparently there are 3,000 ISIL fighters in Libya at the moment. It's time President Obama and
John Kerry gave us the whole story, but I guess with Saudi Arabia and Turkey being allies the
US can't rock the boat too much.
dikcheney 14 Dec 2015 16:48
More drivel from the counterfeit president. His allies in the middle east are
disgusting butchers. Take Turkey: it is a great shame for Turkey that 32 journalists are
imprisoned in the 21st century. Some were arrested on Nov. 26 after being charged in May with
espionage, revealing confidential documents and membership in a terrorist organization. The
charges are related to a report published by a leading newspaper claiming weapons-loaded
trucks that were discovered in January 2014 en route to Syria actually belonged to the
National Intelligence Organization (MİT) and had been sent to provide support to rebel groups.
The USA has been seduced and conned for decades until its entire policy is focused on fighting
proxy wars to keep the middle east ablaze in the interests of others. SHAME on the dumb USA.
laguerre 14 Dec 2015 16:39
A load of rubbish. US supports the Saudis, who support ISIS. US attacks on ISIS are not
serious, as the speech suggests.
There are two possibilities here: iether Guardian pressitutes sometimes try to play degenarates
or they consider their readers to be degenerates...
Notable quotes:
"... Typical The Moscow Times garbage. ..."
"... Hmmm, some really sophisticated comments and analysis apropos of current issues in geopolitics and international relations. Nuanced, objective, and informative. Excuse me but I have to go watch some more esoteric reportage from Fox News. ..."
Hmmm, some really sophisticated comments and analysis apropos of current issues in
geopolitics and international relations. Nuanced, objective, and informative.
Excuse me but I have to go watch some more esoteric reportage from Fox News.
"... Can you list all of the pro- or anti- Wall Street reforms and actions Bill Clinton performed as President including nominating Alan Greenspan as head regulator? Cutting the capital gains tax? Are you aware of Greenspans record? ..."
"... Its actually pro-neoliberalism crowd vs anti-neoliberalism crowd. In no way anti-neoliberalism commenters here view this is a character melodrama, although psychologically Hillary probably does has certain problems as her reaction to the death of Gadhafi attests. The key problem with anti-neoliberalism crowd is the question What is a realistic alternative? Thats where differences and policy debate starts. ..."
"... Events do not occur in isolation. GLBA increased TBTF in AIG and Citi. TBTF forced TARP. GLBA greased the skids for CFMA. Democrats gained majority, but not filibuster proof, caught between Iraq and a hard place following their votes for TARP and a broader understanding of their participation in the unanimous consent passage of the CFMA, over objection by Senators James Inhofe (R-OK) and Paul Wellstone (D-MN). ..."
"... It certainly fits the kind of herd mentality that I always saw in corporate Amerika until I retired. The William Greider article posted by RGC was very consistent in its account by John Reed with the details of one or two books written about AIG back in 2009 or so. I dont have time to hunt them up now. Besides, no one would read them anyway. ..."
"... GS was one of several actions taken by the New Deal. That it wasnt sufficient by itself doesnt equate to it wasnt beneficial. ..."
"... "Today Congress voted to update the rules that have governed financial services since the Great Depression and replace them with a system for the 21st century," said then-Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers. "This historic legislation will better enable American companies to compete in the new economy." ..."
"... The repeal of Glass Steagal was a landmark victory in deregulation that greased the skids for the passage of CFMA once Democrats had been further demoralized by the SCOTUS decision on Bush-v-Gore. The first vote on GLBA was split along party lines, but passed because Republicans had majority and Clinton was willing to sign which was clear from the waiver that had been granted to illegal Citi merger with Travelers. Both Citi and AIG mergers contributed to too big to fail. The CFMA was the nail in the coffin that probably would have never gotten off the ground if Democrats had held the line on the GLBA. Glass-Steagal was insufficient as a regulatory system to prevent the 2008 mortgage crisis, but it was giant as an icon of New Deal financial system reform. Its loss institutionalized too big to fail ..."
"... Gramm Leach Biley was a mistake. But it was not the only failure of US regulatory policies towards financial institutions nor the most important. ..."
"... It was more symbolic caving in on financial regulation than a specific technical failure except for making too big to fail worse at Citi and AIG. It marked a sea change of thinking about financial regulation. Nothing mattered any more, including the CFMA just a little over one year later. Deregulation of derivatives trading mandated by the CFMA was a colossal failure and it is not bizarre to believe that GLBA precipitated the consensus on financial deregulation enough that after the demoralizing defeat of Democrats in Bush-v-Gore then there was no New Deal spirit of financial regulation left. Social development is not just a series of unconnected events. It is carried on a tide of change. A falling tide grounds all boats. ..."
"... We had a financial dereg craze back in the late 1970s and early 1980s which led to the S L disaster. One would have thought we would have learned from that. But then came the dereg craziness 20 years later. And this disaster was much worse. ..."
"... This brings us to Lawrence Summers, the former Treasury Secretary of the United States and at the time right hand man to then Treasury Security Robert Rubin. Mr. Summers was widely credited with implementation of the aggressive tactics used to remove Ms. Born from her office, tactics that multiple sources describe as showing an old world bias against women piercing the glass ceiling. ..."
"... According to numerous published reports, Mr. Summers was involved in. silencing those who questioned the opaque derivative product's design. ..."
"... The Tax Policy Center estimated that a 0.1 percent tax on stock trades, scaled with lower taxes on other assets, would raise $50 billion a year in tax revenue. The implied reduction in trading revenue was even larger. Senator Sanders has proposed a tax of 0.5 percent on equities (also with a scaled tax on other assets). This would lead to an even larger reduction in revenue for the financial industry. ..."
"... Great to see Bakers acknowledgement that an updated Glass-Steagall is just one component of the progressive wings plan to rein in Wall Street, not the sum total of it. Besides, if Wall Street types dont think restoring Glass-Steagall will have any meaningful effects, why do they expend so much energy to disparage it? Methinks they doth protest too much. ..."
"... Yes thats a good way to look it. Wall Street gave the Democrats and Clinton a lot of campaign cash so that they would dismantle Glass-Steagall. ..."
"... Slippery slope. Ya gotta find me a business of any type that does not protest any kind of regulation on their business. ..."
"... Yeah, but usually because of all the bad things they say will happen because of the regulation. The question is, what do they think of Clintons plan? Ive heard surprisingly little about that, and what I have heard is along these lines: http://money.cnn.com/2015/10/08/investing/hillary-clinton-wall-street-plan/ ..."
"... Hillary Clinton unveiled her big plan to curb the worst of Wall Streets excesses on Thursday. The reaction from the banking community was a shrug, if not relief. ..."
"... Iceland's government is considering a revolutionary monetary proposal – removing the power of commercial banks to create money and handing it to the central bank. The proposal, which would be a turnaround in the history of modern finance, was part of a report written by a lawmaker from the ruling centrist Progress Party, Frosti Sigurjonsson, entitled "A better monetary system for Iceland". ..."
Hillary Clinton Is Whitewashing the Financial Catastrophe
She has a plan that she claims will reform Wall Street-but she's deflecting responsibility
from old friends and donors in the industry.
By William Greider
Yesterday 3:11 pm
Hillary Clinton's recent op-ed in The New York Times, "How I'd Rein In Wall Street," was intended
to reassure nervous Democrats who fear she is still in thrall to those mega-bankers of New York
who crashed the American economy. Clinton's brisk recital of plausible reform ideas might convince
wishful thinkers who are not familiar with the complexities of banking. But informed skeptics,
myself included, see a disturbing message in her argument that ought to alarm innocent supporters.
Candidate Clinton is essentially whitewashing the financial catastrophe. She has produced a
clumsy rewrite of what caused the 2008 collapse, one that conveniently leaves her husband out
of the story. He was the president who legislated the predicate for Wall Street's meltdown. Hillary
Clinton's redefinition of the reform problem deflects the blame from Wall Street's most powerful
institutions, like JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs, and instead fingers less celebrated players
that failed. In roundabout fashion, Hillary Clinton sounds like she is assuring old friends and
donors in the financial sector that, if she becomes president, she will not come after them.
The seminal event that sowed financial disaster was the repeal of the New Deal's Glass-Steagall
Act of 1933, which had separated banking into different realms: investment banks, which organize
capital investors for risk-taking ventures; and deposit-holding banks, which serve people as borrowers
and lenders. That law's repeal, a great victory for Wall Street, was delivered by Bill Clinton
in 1999, assisted by the Federal Reserve and the financial sector's armies of lobbyists. The "universal
banking model" was saluted as a modernizing reform that liberated traditional banks to participate
directly and indirectly in long-prohibited and vastly more profitable risk-taking.
Exotic financial instruments like derivatives and credit-default swaps flourished, enabling
old-line bankers to share in the fun and profit on an awesome scale. The banks invented "guarantees"
against loss and sold them to both companies and market players. The fast-expanding financial
sector claimed a larger and larger share of the economy (and still does) at the expense of the
real economy of producers and consumers. The interconnectedness across market sectors created
the illusion of safety. When illusions failed, these connected guarantees became the dragnet that
drove panic in every direction. Ultimately, the federal government had to rescue everyone, foreign
and domestic, to stop the bleeding.
Yet Hillary Clinton asserts in her Times op-ed that repeal of Glass-Steagall had nothing to
do with it. She claims that Glass-Steagall would not have limited the reckless behavior of institutions
like Lehman Brothers or insurance giant AIG, which were not traditional banks. Her argument amounts
to facile evasion that ignores the interconnected exposures. The Federal Reserve spent $180 billion
bailing out AIG so AIG could pay back Goldman Sachs and other banks. If the Fed hadn't acted and
had allowed AIG to fail, the banks would have gone down too.
These sound like esoteric questions of bank regulation (and they are), but the consequences
of pretending they do not matter are enormous. The federal government and Federal Reserve would
remain on the hook for rescuing losers in a future crisis. The largest and most adventurous banks
would remain free to experiment, inventing fictitious guarantees and selling them to eager suckers.
If things go wrong, Uncle Sam cleans up the mess.
Senator Elizabeth Warren and other reformers are pushing a simpler remedy-restore the Glass-Steagall
principles and give citizens a safe, government-insured place to store their money. "Banking should
be boring," Warren explains (her co-sponsor is GOP Senator John McCain).
That's a hard sell in politics, given the banking sector's bear hug of Congress and the White
House, its callous manipulation of both political parties. Of course, it is more complicated than
that. But recreating a safe, stable banking system-a place where ordinary people can keep their
money-ought to be the first benchmark for Democrats who claim to be reformers.
Actually, the most compelling witnesses for Senator Warren's argument are the two bankers who
introduced this adventure in "universal banking" back in the 1990s. They used their political
savvy and relentless muscle to seduce Bill Clinton and his so-called New Democrats. John Reed
was CEO of Citicorp and led the charge. He has since apologized to the nation. Sandy Weill was
chairman of the board and a brilliant financier who envisioned the possibilities of a single,
all-purpose financial house, freed of government's narrow-minded regulations. They won politically,
but at staggering cost to the country.
Weill confessed error back in 2012: "What we should probably do is go and split up investment
banking from banking. Have banks do something that's not going to risk the taxpayer dollars, that's
not going to be too big to fail."
John Reed's confession explained explicitly why their modernizing crusade failed for two fundamental
business reasons. "One was the belief that combining all types of finance into one institution
would drive costs down-and the larger institution the more efficient it would be," Reed wrote
in the Financial Times in November. Reed said, "We now know that there are very few cost efficiencies
that come from the merger of functions-indeed, there may be none at all. It is possible that combining
so much in a single bank makes services more expensive than if they were instead offered by smaller,
specialised players."
The second grave error, Reed said, was trying to mix the two conflicting cultures in banking-bankers
who are pulling in opposite directions. That tension helps explain the competitive greed displayed
by the modernized banking system. This disorder speaks to the current political crisis in ways
that neither Dems nor Republicans wish to confront. It would require the politicians to critique
the bankers (often their funders) in terms of human failure.
"Mixing incompatible cultures is a problem all by itself," Reed wrote. "It makes the entire
finance industry more fragile…. As is now clear, traditional banking attracts one kind of talent,
which is entirely different from the kinds drawn towards investment banking and trading. Traditional
bankers tend to be extroverts, sociable people who are focused on longer term relationships. They
are, in many important respects, risk averse. Investment bankers and their traders are more short
termist. They are comfortable with, and many even seek out, risk and are more focused on immediate
reward."
Reed concludes, "As I have reflected about the years since 1999, I think the lessons of Glass-Steagall
and its repeal suggest that the universal banking model is inherently unstable and unworkable.
No amount of restructuring, management change or regulation is ever likely to change that."
This might sound hopelessly naive, but the Democratic Party might do better in politics if
it told more of the truth more often: what they tried do and why it failed, and what they think
they may have gotten wrong. People already know they haven't gotten a straight story from politicians.
They might be favorably impressed by a little more candor in the plain-spoken manner of John Reed.
Of course it's unfair to pick on the Dems. Republicans have been lying about their big stuff
for so long and so relentlessly that their voters are now staging a wrathful rebellion. Who knows,
maybe a little honest talk might lead to honest debate. Think about it. Do the people want to
hear the truth about our national condition? Could they stand it?
"She claims that Glass-Steagall would not have limited the reckless behavior of institutions
like Lehman Brothers or insurance giant AIG, which were not traditional banks."
Of course this claim is absolutely true. Just like GS would not have affected the other investment
banks, whatever their name was. And just like we would have had to bail out those other banks
whatever their name was.
Peter K. -> EMichael...
Can you list all of the pro- or anti- Wall Street "reforms" and actions Bill Clinton performed
as President including nominating Alan Greenspan as head regulator? Cutting the capital gains
tax? Are you aware of Greenspan's record?
Yes Hillary isn't Bill but she hasn't criticized her husband specifically about his record and
seems to want to have her cake and eat it too.
Of course Hillary is much better than the Republicans, pace Rustbucket and the Green Lantern Lefty
club. Still, critics have a point.
I won't be surprised if she doesn't do much to rein in Wall Street besides some window dressing.
sanjait -> Peter K....
"Can you list all of the pro- or anti- Wall Street "reforms" and actions Bill Clinton
performed..."
That, right there, is what's wrong with Bernie and his fans. They measure everything by whether
it is "pro- or anti- Wall Street". Glass Steagall is anti-Wall Street. A financial transactions
tax is anti-Wall Street. But neither has any hope of controlling systemic financial risk in this
country. None.
You guys want to punish Wall Street but not even bother trying to think of how to achieve useful
policy goals. Some people, like Paine here, are actually open about this vacuity, as if the only
thing that were important were winning a power struggle.
Hillary's plan is flat out better. It's more comprehensive and more effective at reining in
the financial system to limit systemic risk. Period.
You guys want to make this a character melodrama rather than a policy debate, and I fear the
result of that will be that the candidate who actually has the best plan won't get to enact it.
likbez -> sanjait...
"You guys want to make this a character melodrama rather than a policy debate, and I
fear the result of that will be that the candidate who actually has the best plan won't get
to enact it."
You are misrepresenting the positions. It's actually pro-neoliberalism crowd vs anti-neoliberalism
crowd. In no way anti-neoliberalism commenters here view this is a character melodrama, although
psychologically Hillary probably does has certain problems as her reaction to the death of Gadhafi
attests. The key problem with anti-neoliberalism crowd is the question "What is a realistic alternative?"
That's where differences and policy debate starts.
RGC -> EMichael...
"Her argument amounts to facile evasion"
Fred C. Dobbs -> RGC...
'The majority favors policies to the left of Hillary.'
... The Democrats' liberal faction has been greatly overestimated by pundits who mistake noisiness
for clout or assume that the left functions like the right. In fact, liberals hold nowhere near
the power in the Democratic Party that conservatives hold in the Republican Party. And while they
may well be gaining, they're still far from being in charge. ...
Paine -> RGC...
What's not confronted ? Suggest what a System like the pre repeal system would have done in
the 00's. My guess we'd have ended in a crisis anyway. Yes we can segregate the depository system.
But credit is elastic enough to build bubbles without the depository system involved
EMichael -> Paine ...
Exactly.
Most people think of lending like the Bailey Brothers Savings and Loan still exists.
RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> EMichael...
Don't be such a whistle dick. Just because you cannot figure out why GLBA made such an impact
that in no way means that people that do understand are stupid. See my posted comment to RGC on
GLBA just down thread for an more detailed explanation including a linked web article. No, GS
alone would not have prevented the mortgage bubble, but it would have lessened TBTF and GS stood
as icon, a symbol of financial regulation. Hell, if we don't need GS then why don't we just allow
unregulated derivatives trading? Who cares, right? Senators Byron Dorgan, Barbara Boxer, Barbara
Mikulski, Richard Shelby, Tom Harkin, Richard Bryan, Russ Feingold and Bernie Sanders all voted
against GLBA to repeal GS for some strange reason and Dorgan made a really big deal out of it
at the time. I doubt everyone on that list of Senators was just stupid because they did not see
it your way.
RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> EMichael...
I ran all out of ceteris paribus quite some time ago. Events do not occur in isolation. GLBA
increased TBTF in AIG and Citi. TBTF forced TARP. GLBA greased the skids for CFMA. Democrats gained
majority, but not filibuster proof, caught between Iraq and a hard place following their votes
for TARP and a broader understanding of their participation in the unanimous consent passage of
the CFMA, over "objection" by Senators James Inhofe (R-OK) and Paul Wellstone (D-MN). We
have had a Republican majority in the House since the 2010 election and now they have the Senate
as well. If you are that sure that voters just choose divided government, then aren't we better
off to have a Republican POTUS and Democratic Congress?
sanjait -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron...
"I ran all out of ceteris paribus quite some time ago. Events do not occur in isolation.
GLBA increased TBTF in AIG and Citi. TBTF forced TARP. GLBA greased the skids for CFMA. "
I know you think this is a really meaningful string that evidences causation, but it just looks
like you are reaching, reaching, reaching ...
RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> sanjait...
Maybe. No way to say for sure. It certainly fits the kind of herd mentality that I always
saw in corporate Amerika until I retired. The William Greider article posted by RGC was very consistent
in its account by John Reed with the details of one or two books written about AIG back in 2009
or so. I don't have time to hunt them up now. Besides, no one would read them anyway.
I am voting for whoever wins the Democratic nomination for POTUS. Bernie without a like-minded
Congress would not do much good. But when we shoot each other down here at EV without offering
any agreement or consideration that we might not be 100% correct, then that goes against Doc Thoma's
idea of an open forum. Granted, with my great big pair then I am willing to state my opinion with
no consideration for validation or acceptance, but not everyone has that degree of a comfort zone.
Besides, I am so old an cynical that shooting down the overdogs that go after the underdogs is
one of the few things that I still care about.
RGC -> Paine ...
GS was one of several actions taken by the New Deal. That it wasn't sufficient by itself doesn't
equate to it wasn't beneficial.
Glass-Steagall: Warren and Sanders bring it back into focus
Madonna Gauding / May 13, 2015
Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are putting a new focus on the Glass-Steagall
Act, which was, unfortunately, repealed in 1999 and led directly to the financial crises we have
faced ever since. Here's a bit of history of this legislative debacle from an older post on Occasional
Planet published several years ago :
On November 4, 1999, Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) took to the floor of the senate to make an
impassioned speech against the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, (alternately known as Gramm Leach
Biley, or the "Financial Modernization Act") Repeal of Glass-Steagall would allow banks to merge
with insurance companies and investments houses. He said "I want to sound a warning call today
about this legislation, I think this legislation is just fundamentally terrible."
According to Sam Stein, writing in 2009 in the Huffington Post, only eight senators voted against
the repeal. Senior staff in the Clinton administration and many now in the Obama administration
praised the repeal as the "most important breakthrough in the world of finance and politics in
decades"
According to Stein, Dorgan warned that banks would become "too big to fail" and claimed that
Congress would "look back in a decade and say we should not have done this." The repeal of Glass
Steagall, of course, was one of several bad policies that helped lead to the current economic
crisis we are in now.
Dorgan wasn't entirely alone. Sens. Barbara Boxer, Barbara Mikulski, Richard Shelby, Tom Harkin,
Richard Bryan, Russ Feingold and Bernie Sanders also cast nay votes. The late Sen. Paul Wellstone
opposed the bill, and warned at the time that Congress was "about to repeal the economic stabilizer
without putting any comparable safeguard in its place."
Democratic Senators had sufficient knowledge about the dangers of the repeal of Glass Steagall,
but chose to ignore it. Plenty of experts warned that it would be impossible to "discipline" banks
once the legislation was passed, and that they would get too big and complex to regulate. Editorials
against repeal appeared in the New York Times and other mainstream venues, suggesting that if
the new megabanks were to falter, they could take down the entire global economy, which is exactly
what happened. Stein quotes Ralph Nader who said at the time, "We will look back at this and wonder
how the country was so asleep. It's just a nightmare."
According to Stein:
"The Senate voted to pass Gramm-Leach-Bliley by a vote of 90-8 and reversed what was, for
more than six decades, a framework that had governed the functions and reach of the nation's
largest banks. No longer limited by laws and regulations commercial and investment banks could
now merge. Many had already begun the process, including, among others, J.P. Morgan and Citicorp.
The new law allowed it to be permanent. The updated ground rules were low on oversight and
heavy on risky ventures. Historically in the business of mortgages and credit cards, banks
now would sell insurance and stock.
Nevertheless, the bill did not lack champions, many of whom declared that the original legislation
- forged during the Great Depression - was both antiquated and cumbersome for the banking industry.
Congress had tried 11 times to repeal Glass-Steagall. The twelfth was the charm.
"Today Congress voted to update the rules that have governed financial services since
the Great Depression and replace them with a system for the 21st century," said then-Treasury
Secretary Lawrence Summers. "This historic legislation will better enable American companies
to compete in the new economy."
"I welcome this day as a day of success and triumph," said Sen. Christopher Dodd, (D-Conn.).
"The concerns that we will have a meltdown like 1929 are dramatically overblown," said Sen.
Bob Kerrey, (D-Neb.).
"If we don't pass this bill, we could find London or Frankfurt or years down the road Shanghai
becoming the financial capital of the world," said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. "There are many
reasons for this bill, but first and foremost is to ensure that U.S. financial firms remain
competitive."
Unfortunately, the statement by Chuck Schumer sounds very much like it was prepared by a lobbyist.
This vote underscores the way in which our elected officials are so heavily swayed by corporate
and banking money that our voices and needs become irrelevant. It is why we need publicly funded
elections. Democratic senators, the so-called representatives of the people, fell over themselves
to please their Wall Street donors knowing full well there were dangers for the country at large,
for ordinary Americans, in repealing Glass-Steagall.
It is important to hold Democratic senators (along with current members of the Obama administration)
accountable for the significant role they have played in the current economic crisis that has
caused so much suffering for ordinary Americans. In case you were wondering, the current Democratic
Senators who voted yes to repeal the Glass-Steagall act are the following:
Daniel Akaka – Max Baucus – Evan Bayh – Jeff Bingaman – Kent Conrad – Chris Dodd – Dick Durbin
– Dianne Feinstein – Daniel Inouye – Tim Johnson – John Kerry – Herb Kohl – Mary Landrieu – Frank
Lautenberg – Patrick Leahy – Carl Levin – Joseph Lieberman – Blanche Lincoln – Patty Murray –
Jack Reed – Harry Reid – Jay Rockefeller – Chuck Schumer – Ron Wyden
Former House members who voted for repeal who are current Senators.
Mark Udall [as of 2010] – Debbie Stabenow – Bob Menendez – Tom Udall -Sherrod Brown
No longer in the Senate, or passed away, but who voted for repeal:
Joe Biden -Ted Kennedy -Robert Byrd
These Democratic senators would like to forget or make excuses for their enthusiastic vote
on the repeal of Glass Steagall, but it is important to hold them accountable for helping their
bank donors realize obscene profits while their constituents lost jobs, savings and homes. And
it is important to demand that they serve the interests of the American people.
*
[The repeal of Glass Steagal was a landmark victory in deregulation that greased the skids
for the passage of CFMA once Democrats had been further demoralized by the SCOTUS decision on
Bush-v-Gore. The first vote on GLBA was split along party lines, but passed because Republicans
had majority and Clinton was willing to sign which was clear from the waiver that had been granted
to illegal Citi merger with Travelers. Both Citi and AIG mergers contributed to too big to fail.
The CFMA was the nail in the coffin that probably would have never gotten off the ground if Democrats
had held the line on the GLBA. Glass-Steagal was insufficient as a regulatory system to prevent
the 2008 mortgage crisis, but it was giant as an icon of New Deal financial system reform. Its
loss institutionalized too big to fail.]
pgl -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron...
Gramm Leach Biley was a mistake. But it was not the only failure of US regulatory policies
towards financial institutions nor the most important. I think that is what Hillary Clinton
is saying.
RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> pgl...
It was more symbolic caving in on financial regulation than a specific technical failure except
for making too big to fail worse at Citi and AIG. It marked a sea change of thinking about financial
regulation. Nothing mattered any more, including the CFMA just a little over one year later. Deregulation
of derivatives trading mandated by the CFMA was a colossal failure and it is not bizarre to believe
that GLBA precipitated the consensus on financial deregulation enough that after the demoralizing
defeat of Democrats in Bush-v-Gore then there was no New Deal spirit of financial regulation left.
Social development is not just a series of unconnected events. It is carried on a tide of change.
A falling tide grounds all boats.
pgl -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron...
We had a financial dereg craze back in the late 1970's and early 1980's which led to the S&L
disaster. One would have thought we would have learned from that. But then came the dereg craziness
20 years later. And this disaster was much worse.
I don't care whether Hillary says 1999
was a mistake or not. I do care what the regulations of financial institutions will be like going
forward.
RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> pgl...
I cannot disagree with any of that.
sanjait -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron...
"Deregulation of derivatives trading mandated by the CFMA was a colossal failure and it
is not bizarre to believe that GLBA precipitated the consensus"
Yeah, it is kind of bizarre to blame one bill for a crisis that occurred largely because another
bill was passed, based on some some vague assertion about how the first bill made everyone think
crazy.
RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> sanjait...
Democrats did not vote for GLBA until after reconciliation between the House and Senate bills.
Democrats were tossed a bone in the Community Reinvestment Act financing provisions and given
that Bill Clinton was going to sign anyway and that Republicans were able to pass the bill without
a single vote from Democrats then all but a few Democrats bought in. They could not stop it, so
they just bought into it. I thought there was supposed to be an understanding of behaviorism devoted
to understanding the political economy. For that matter Republicans did not need Democrats to
vote for the CFMA either, but they did. That gave Republicans political cover for whatever went
wrong later on. No one with a clue believed things would go well from the passage of either of
these bills. It was pure Wall Street driven kleptocracy.
likbez -> sanjait...
It was not one bill or another. It was a government policy to get traders what they want.
"As the western world wakes to the fact it is in the middle of a debt crisis spiral, intelligent
voices are wondering how this manifested itself? As we speak, those close to the situation could
be engaging in historical revisionism to obfuscate their role in the design of faulty leverage
structures that were identified in the derivatives markets in 1998 and 2008. These same design
flaws, first identified in 1998, are persistent today and could become graphically evident in
the very near future under the weight of a European debt crisis.
Author and Bloomberg columnist William Cohan chronicles the fascinating start of this historic
leverage implosion in his recent article Rethinking Robert Rubin. Readers may recall it was Mr.
Cohan who, in 2004, noted leverage issues that ultimately imploded in 2007-08.
At some point, market watchers will realize the debt crisis story will literally change the
world. They will look to the root cause of the problem, and they might just find one critical
point revealed in Mr. Cohan's article.
This point occurs in 1998 when then Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) ChairwomanBrooksley
Born identified what now might be recognized as core design flaws in leverage structure used in
Over the Counter (OTC) transactions. Ms. Born brought her concerns public, by first asking just
to study the issue, as appropriate action was not being taken. She issued a concept release paper
that simply asked for more information. "The Commission is not entering into this process with
preconceived results in mind," the document reads.
Ms. Born later noted in, the PBS Frontline documentary on the topic speculation at the CFTC
was the unregulated OTC derivatives were opaque, the risk to the global economy could not be determined
and the risk was potentially catastrophic. As a result of this inquiry, Ms. Born was ultimately
forced from office.
This brings us to Lawrence Summers, the former Treasury Secretary of the United States and
at the time right hand man to then Treasury Security Robert Rubin. Mr. Summers was widely credited
with implementation of the aggressive tactics used to remove Ms. Born from her office, tactics
that multiple sources describe as showing an old world bias against women piercing the glass ceiling.
According to numerous published reports, Mr. Summers was involved in. silencing those who questioned
the opaque derivative product's design. "
RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> Paine ...
TBTF on steroids, might as well CFMA - why not?
Bubbles with less TBTF and a lot less credit
default swaps would have been a lot less messy going in. Without TARP, then Congress might have
still had the guts for making a lesser New Deal.
EMichael -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron...
TARP was window dressing. The curtain that covered up the FED's actions.
pgl -> RGC...
Where have I heard about William Greider? Oh yea - this critique of something stupid he wrote
about a Supreme Court decision:
"Exotic financial instruments like derivatives and credit-default swaps flourished, enabling
old-line bankers to share in the fun and profit on an awesome scale."
These would have flourished even if Glass-Steagall remained on the books. Leave it to RGC to
find some critic of HRC who knows nothing about financial markets.
RGC -> pgl...
Derivatives flourished because of the other deregulation under Clinton, the CFMA. The repeal of
GS helped commercial banks participate.
RGC -> pgl...
The repeal of GS helped commercial banks participate.
Fred C. Dobbs -> pgl...
Warren Buffet used to rail about how risky derivative investing is, until he realized they
are *extremely* important in the re-insurance biz, which is a
big part of Berkshire Hathaway.
Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and Cracking Down on Wall Street
by Dean Baker
Published: 12 December 2015
The New Yorker ran a rather confused piece on Gary Sernovitz, a managing director at the investment
firm Lime Rock Partners, on whether Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton would be more effective
in reining in Wall Street. The piece assures us that Secretary Clinton has a better understanding
of Wall Street and that her plan would be more effective in cracking down on the industry. The
piece is bizarre both because it essentially dismisses the concern with too big to fail banks
and completely ignores Sanders' proposal for a financial transactions tax which is by far the
most important mechanism for reining in the financial industry.
The piece assures us that too big to fail banks are no longer a problem, noting their drop
in profitability from bubble peaks and telling readers:
"not only are Sanders's bogeybanks just one part of Wall Street but they are getting less
powerful and less problematic by the year."
This argument is strange for a couple of reasons. First, the peak of the subprime bubble frenzy
is hardly a good base of comparison. The real question is should we anticipate declining profits
going forward. That hardly seems clear. For example, Citigroup recently reported surging profits,
while Wells Fargo's third quarter profits were up 8 percent from 2014 levels.
If Sernovitz is predicting that the big banks are about to shrivel up to nothingness, the market
does not agree with him. Citigroup has a market capitalization of $152 billion, JPMorgan has a
market cap of $236 billion, and Bank of America has a market cap of $174 billion. Clearly investors
agree with Sanders in thinking that these huge banks will have sizable profits for some time to
come.
The real question on too big to fail is whether the government would sit by and let a Goldman
Sachs or Citigroup go bankrupt. Perhaps some people think that it is now the case, but I've never
met anyone in that group.
Sernovitz is also dismissive on Sanders call for bringing back the Glass-Steagall separation
between commercial banking and investment banking. He makes the comparison to the battle over
the Keystone XL pipeline, which is actually quite appropriate. The Keystone battle did take on
exaggerated importance in the climate debate. There was never a zero/one proposition in which
no tar sands oil would be pumped without the pipeline, while all of it would be pumped if the
pipeline was constructed. Nonetheless, if the Obama administration was committed to restricting
greenhouse gas emissions, it is difficult to see why it would support the building of a pipeline
that would facilitate bringing some of the world's dirtiest oil to market.
In the same vein, Sernovitz is right that it is difficult to see how anything about the growth
of the housing bubble and its subsequent collapse would have been very different if Glass-Steagall
were still in place. And, it is possible in principle to regulate bank's risky practices without
Glass-Steagall, as the Volcker rule is doing. However, enforcement tends to weaken over time under
industry pressure, which is a reason why the clear lines of Glass-Steagall can be beneficial.
Furthermore, as with Keystone, if we want to restrict banks' power, what is the advantage of letting
them get bigger and more complex?
The repeal of Glass-Steagall was sold in large part by boasting of the potential synergies
from combining investment and commercial banking under one roof. But if the operations are kept
completely separate, as is supposed to be the case, where are the synergies?
But the strangest part of Sernovitz's story is that he leaves out Sanders' financial transactions
tax (FTT) altogether. This is bizarre, because the FTT is essentially a hatchet blow to the waste
and exorbitant salaries in the industry.
Most research shows that trading volume is very responsive to the cost of trading, with most
estimates putting the elasticity close to one. This means that if trading costs rise by 50 percent,
then trading volume declines by 50 percent. (In its recent analysis of FTTs, the Tax Policy Center
assumed that the elasticity was 1.5, meaning that trading volume decline by 150 percent of the
increase in trading costs.) The implication of this finding is that the financial industry would
pay the full cost of a financial transactions tax in the form of reduced trading revenue.
The Tax Policy Center estimated that a 0.1 percent tax on stock trades, scaled with lower taxes
on other assets, would raise $50 billion a year in tax revenue. The implied reduction in trading
revenue was even larger. Senator Sanders has proposed a tax of 0.5 percent on equities (also with
a scaled tax on other assets). This would lead to an even larger reduction in revenue for the
financial industry.
It is incredible that Sernovitz would ignore a policy with such enormous consequences for the
financial sector in his assessment of which candidate would be tougher on Wall Street. Sanders
FTT would almost certainly do more to change behavior on Wall Street then everything that Clinton
has proposed taken together by a rather large margin. It's sort of like evaluating the New England
Patriots' Super Bowl prospects without discussing their quarterback.
Syaloch -> Peter K....
Great to see Baker's acknowledgement that an updated Glass-Steagall is just one component
of the progressive wing's plan to rein in Wall Street, not the sum total of it. Besides, if Wall
Street types don't think restoring Glass-Steagall will have any meaningful effects, why do they
expend so much energy to disparage it? Methinks they doth protest too much.
Peter K. -> Syaloch...
Yes that's a good way to look it. Wall Street gave the Democrats and Clinton a lot of campaign
cash so that they would dismantle Glass-Steagall. If they want it done, it's probably not
a good idea.
EMichael -> Syaloch...
Slippery slope. Ya' gotta find me a business of any type that does not protest any kind of regulation
on their business.
Syaloch -> EMichael...
Yeah, but usually because of all the bad things they say will happen because of the regulation.
The question is, what do they think of Clinton's plan? I've heard surprisingly little about that,
and what I have heard is along these lines:
http://money.cnn.com/2015/10/08/investing/hillary-clinton-wall-street-plan/
"Hillary Clinton unveiled her big plan to curb the worst of Wall Street's excesses on Thursday.
The reaction from the banking community was a shrug, if not relief."
pgl -> Syaloch...
Two excellent points!!!
sanjait -> Syaloch...
"Besides, if Wall Street types don't think restoring Glass-Steagall will have any meaningful
effects, why do they expend so much energy to disparage it? Methinks they doth protest too
much."
It has an effect of shrinking the size of a few firms, and that has a detrimental effect on
the top managers of those firms, who get paid more money if they have larger firms to manage. But it has little to no meaningful effect on systemic risk.
So if your main policy goal is to shrink the compensation for a small number of powerful Wall
Street managers, G-S is great. But if you actually want to accomplish something useful to the American people, like limiting
systemic risk in the financial sector, then a plan like Hillary's is much much better. She explained
this fairly well in her recent NYT piece.
Paine -> Peter K....
There is absolutely NO question Bernie is for real. Wall Street does not want Bernie. So they'll
let Hillary talk as big as she needs to . Why should we believe her when an honest guy like
Barry caved once in power
Paine -> Paine ...
Bernie has been anti Wall Street his whole career . He's on a crusade. Hillary is pulling a sham
bola
Paine -> Paine ...
Perhaps too often we look at Wall Street as monolithic whether consciously or not. Obviously we
know it's no monolithic: there are serious differences
When the street is riding high especially. Right now the street is probably not united but
too cautious to display profound differences in public. They're sitting on their hands waiting
to see how high the anti Wall Street tide runs this election cycle. Trump gives them cover and
I really fear secretly Hillary gives them comfort
This all coiled change if Bernie surges. How that happens depends crucially on New Hampshire.
Not Iowa
EMichael -> Paine ...
If Bernie surges and wins the nomination, we will all get to watch the death of the Progressive
movement for a decade or two. Congress will become more GOP dominated, and we will have a President
in office who will make Hoover look like a Socialist.
You should like the moderate Democrats after George McGovern ran in 1972. I'm hoping we have another
1964 with Bernie leading a united Democratic Congress.
EMichael -> pgl...
Not a chance in the world. And I like Sanders much more than anyone else. It just simply cannot,
and will not, happen. He is a communist. Not to me, not to you, but to the vast majority
of American voters.
pgl -> EMichael...
He is not a communist. But I agree - Hillary is winning the Democratic nomination. I have only
one vote and in New York, I'm badly outnumbered.
ilsm -> Paine ...
I believe Hillary will be to liberal causes after she is elected as LBJ was to peace in Vietnam.
Like Bill and Obomber.
pgl -> ilsm...
By 1968, LBJ finally realized it was time to end that stupid war. But it seems certain members
in the State Department undermined his efforts in a cynical ploy to get Nixon to be President.
The Republican Party has had more slime than substance of most of my life time.
pgl -> Peter K....
Gary Sernovitz, a managing director at the investment firm Lime Rock Partners? Why are we listening
to this guy too. It's like letting the fox guard the hen house.
sanjait -> Peter K....
"The piece is bizarre both because it essentially dismisses the concern with too big to
fail banks and completely ignores Sanders' proposal for a financial transactions tax which
is by far the most important mechanism for reining in the financial industry."
This is just wrong. Is financial system risk in any way correlated with the frequency
of transactions? Except for market volatility from HFT ... no. The financial crisis wasn't caused
by a high volume of trades. It was caused by bad investments into highly illiquid assets. Again,
great example of wanting to punish Wall Street but not bothering to think about what actually
works.
Peter K. said...
Robert Reich to the Fed: this is not the time to raise rates.
Iceland, too, is looking at a radical transformation of its money
system, after suffering the crushing boom/bust cycle of the private banking model that bankrupted
its largest banks in 2008. According to a March 2015 article in the UK Telegraph:
Iceland's government is considering a revolutionary monetary proposal – removing the power
of commercial banks to create money and handing it to the central bank. The proposal, which would
be a turnaround in the history of modern finance, was part of a report written by a lawmaker from
the ruling centrist Progress Party, Frosti Sigurjonsson, entitled "A better monetary system for
Iceland".
"The findings will be an important contribution to the upcoming discussion, here and elsewhere,
on money creation and monetary policy," Prime Minister Sigmundur David Gunnlaugsson said. The
report, commissioned by the premier, is aimed at putting an end to a monetary system in place
through a slew of financial crises, including the latest one in 2008.
Under this "Sovereign Money" proposal, the country's central bank would become the only creator
of money. Banks would continue to manage accounts and payments and would serve as intermediaries
between savers and lenders. The proposal is a variant of the Chicago Plan promoted by Kumhof and
Benes of the IMF and the Positive Money group in the UK.
Public Banking Initiatives in Iceland, Ireland and the UK
A major concern with stripping private banks of the power to create money as deposits when
they make loans is that it will seriously reduce the availability of credit in an already sluggish
economy. One solution is to make the banks, or some of them, public institutions. They would still
be creating money when they made loans, but it would be as agents of the government; and the profits
would be available for public use, on the model of the US Bank of North Dakota and the German
Sparkassen (public savings banks).
In Ireland, three political parties – Sinn Fein, the Green Party and Renua Ireland (a new party)
- are now supporting initiatives for a network of local publicly-owned banks on the Sparkassen
model. In the UK, the New Economy Foundation (NEF) is proposing that the failed Royal Bank of
Scotland be transformed into a network of public interest banks on that model. And in Iceland,
public banking is part of the platform of a new political party called the Dawn Party.
December 11, 2015
Reinventing Banking: From Russia to Iceland to Ecuador
"Banks would continue to manage accounts and payments and would serve as intermediaries between
savers and lenders."
OK but that means they issue bank accounts which of course we call deposits.
So is this just semantics? People want checking accounts. People want savings accounts. Otherwise
they would not exist. Iceland plans to do what to stop the private sector from getting what it
wants?
I like the idea of public banks. Let's nationalize JPMorganChase so we don't have to listen
to Jamie Dimon anymore!
sanjait -> pgl...
I don't know for sure (not bothering to search and read the referenced proposals), but I assumed
the described proposal was for an end to fractional reserve banking. Banks would have to have
full reserves to make loans. Or something. I could be wrong about that.
Syaloch said...
Sorry, but Your Favorite Company Can't Be Your Friend
To think that an artificial person, whether corporeal or corporate, can ever be your friend
requires a remarkable level of self-delusion.
A commenter on the Times site aptly quotes Marx in response:
"The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal,
idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to
his "natural superiors", and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked
self-interest, than callous "cash payment". It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious
fervour, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical
calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless
indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom - Free Trade.
In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted
naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.
"The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked
up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet,
the man of science, into its paid wage labourers."
"... The American Neocons are Zionists (Their goal is expanding political / military power. Initially this is focused on the state of Israel.) ..."
"... Obviously , if Zionism is synonymous with patriotism in Israel, it cannot be an acceptable label in American politics, where it would mean loyalty to a foreign power. This is why the neoconservatives do not represent themselves as Zionists on the American scene. Yet they do not hide it all together either. ..."
"... He points out dual-citizen (Israel / USA) members and self proclaimed Zionists throughout cabinet level positions in the US government, international banking and controlling the US military. In private writings and occasionally in public, Neocons admit that America's war policies are actually Israel's war goals. (Examples provided.) ..."
"... American Jewish Committee ..."
"... Contemporary Jewish Record ..."
"... If there is an intellectual movement in America to whose invention Jews can lay sole claim, neoconservatism is it. It's a thought one imagines most American Jews, overwhelmingly liberal, will find horrifying . And yet it is a fact that as a political philosophy, neoconservatism was born among the children of Jewish immigrants and is now largely the intellectual domain of those immigrants' grandchildren ..."
"... Goyenot traces the Neocon's origins through its influential writers and thinkers. Highest on the list is Leo Strauss. (Neocons are sometimes called "the Straussians.") Leo Strauss is a great admirer of Machiavelli with his utter contempt for restraining moral principles making him "uniquely effective," and, "the ideal patriot." He gushes over Machiavelli praising the intrepidity of his thought, the grandeur of his vision, and the graceful subtlety of his speech. ..."
"... believes that Truth is harmful to the common man and the social order and should be reserved for superior minds. ..."
"... nations derive their strength from their myths , which are necessary for government and governance. ..."
"... national myths have no necessary relationship with historical reality: they are socio-cultural constructions that the State has a duty to disseminate . ..."
"... to be effective, any national myth must be based on a clear distinction between good and evil ; it derives its cohesive strength from the hatred of an enemy nation. ..."
"... deception is the norm in political life ..."
"... Office of Special Plans ..."
"... The Zionist/Neocons are piggy-backing onto, or utilizing, the religious myths of both the Jewish and Christian world to consolidate power. This is brilliant Machiavellian strategy. ..."
"... the "chosen people" myth (God likes us best, we are better than you) ..."
"... the Holy Land myth (one area of real estate is more holy than another) ..."
"... General Wesley Clark testified on numerous occasions before the cameras, that one month after September 11th, 2001 a general from the Pentagon showed him a memo from neoconservative strategists "that describes how we're gonna take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia and Sudan and finishing off with Iran". ..."
"... Among them are brilliant strategists ..."
"... They operate unrestrained by the most basic moral principles upon which civilization is founded. They are undisturbed by compassion for the suffering of others. ..."
"... They use consciously and skillfully use deception and "myth-making" to shape policy ..."
"... They have infiltrated the highest levels of banking, US military, NATO and US government. ..."
Mememonkey pointed my to a 2013 essay by Laurent Guyenot, a French historian and writer on the
deep state, that addresses the question of
"Who Are The Neoconservatives."
If you would like to know about that group that sends the US military into battle and tortures prisoners
of war in out name, you need to know about these guys.
First, if you are Jewish, or are a GREEN Meme, please stop and take a deep breath. Please
put on your thinking cap and don't react. We are NOT disrespecting a religion, spiritual practice
or a culture. We are talking about a radical and very destructive group hidden within
a culture and using that culture. Christianity has similar groups and movements--the
Crusades, the KKK, the Spanish Inquisition, the Salem witch trials, etc.
My personal investment: This question has been a subject of intense interest for me since I
became convinced that 9/11 was an inside job, that the Iraq war was waged for reasons entirely different
from those publically stated. I have been horrified to see such a shadowy, powerful group operating
from a profoundly "pre-moral" developmental level-i.e., not based in even the most
rudimentary principles of morality foundational to civilization.
Who the hell are these people?!
Goyenot's main points (with a touch of personal editorializing):
1. The American Neocons are Zionists (Their goal is expanding political / military power.
Initially this is focused on the state of Israel.)
Neoconservativism is essentially a modern right wing Jewish version of Machiavelli's political
strategy. What characterizes the neoconservative movement is therefore not as much Judaism
as a religious tradition, but rather Judiasm as a political project, i.e. Zionism,
by Machiavellian means.
This is not a religious movement though it may use religions words and vocabulary.
It is a political and military movement. They are not concerned with being close to God.
This is a movement to expand political and military power. Some are Christian and Mormon, culturally.
Obviously , if Zionism is synonymous with patriotism in Israel, it cannot be an acceptable
label in American politics, where it would mean loyalty to a foreign power. This is why the
neoconservatives do not represent themselves as Zionists on the American scene. Yet they do
not hide it all together either.
He points out dual-citizen (Israel / USA) members and self proclaimed Zionists throughout cabinet
level positions in the US government, international banking and controlling the US military.
In private writings and occasionally in public, Neocons admit that America's war policies are actually
Israel's war goals. (Examples provided.)
2. Most American Jews are overwhelmingly liberal and do NOT share the perspective
of the radical Zionists.
The neoconservative movement, which is generally perceived as a radical (rather than "conservative")
Republican right, is, in reality, an intellectual movement born in the late 1960s in the pages of
the monthly magazine Commentary, a media arm of the American Jewish Committee,
which had replaced the Contemporary Jewish Record in 1945. The Forward, the oldest
American Jewish weekly, wrote in a January 6th, 2006 article signed Gal Beckerman: "If there
is an intellectual movement in America to whose invention Jews can lay sole claim, neoconservatism
is it. It's a thought one imagines most American Jews, overwhelmingly liberal, will find
horrifying. And yet it is a fact that as a political philosophy, neoconservatism was born
among the children of Jewish immigrants and is now largely the intellectual domain of those immigrants'
grandchildren".
3. Intellectual Basis and Moral developmental level
Goyenot traces the Neocon's origins through its influential writers and thinkers. Highest
on the list is Leo Strauss. (Neocons are sometimes called "the Straussians.") Leo Strauss
is a great admirer of Machiavelli with his utter contempt for restraining moral principles making
him "uniquely effective," and, "the ideal patriot." He gushes over Machiavelli praising the
intrepidity of his thought, the grandeur of his vision, and the graceful subtlety of his speech.
Other major points:
believes that Truth is harmful to the common man and the social order and should be reserved
for superior minds.
nations derive their strength from their myths, which are necessary for
government and governance.
national myths have no necessary relationship with historical reality:
they are socio-cultural constructions that the State has a duty to disseminate.
to be effective, any national myth must be based on a clear distinction between
good and evil; it derives its cohesive strength from the hatred of an enemy nation.
As recognized by Abram Shulsky and Gary Schmitt in an article "Leo Strauss and the World
of Intelligence" (1999), for Strauss, "deception is the norm in political life" –
the rule they [the Neocons] applied to fabricating the lie of weapons of mass destruction
by Saddam Hussein when working inside the Office of Special Plans.
George Bushes speech from the national cathedral after 9/11 exemplifies myth-making at its
finest: "Our responsibility to history is already clear: to answer these attacks and rid
the world of Evil. War has been waged against us by stealth and deceit and murder. This nation
is peaceful, but fierce when stirred to anger. . . .[W]e ask almighty God to watch over our nation,
and grant us patience and resolve in all that is to come. . . . And may He always guide our country.
God bless America.
4. The Zionist/Neocons are piggy-backing onto, or utilizing, the religious myths of
both the Jewish and Christian world to consolidate power. This is brilliant Machiavellian strategy.
the "chosen people" myth (God likes us best, we are better than you)
the Holy Land myth (one area of real estate is more holy than another)
the second coming of Christ myth
the establishment of God's Kingdom on Earth through global destruction/war (nuclear war for
the Glory of God)
[The]Pax Judaica will come only when "all the nations shall flow" to the Jerusalem
temple, from where "shall go forth the law" (Isaiah 2:1-3). This vision of a new world
order with Jerusalem at its center resonates within the Likudnik and neoconservative
circles. At the Jerusalem Summit, held from October 12th to 14th, 2003 in the symbolically significant
King David Hotel, an alliance was forged between Zionist Jews and Evangelical Christians around
a "theopolitical" project, one that would consider Israel… "the key to the harmony of civilizations",
replacing the United Nations that's become a "a tribalized confederation hijacked by Third
World dictatorships": "Jerusalem's spiritual and historical importance endows it
with a special authority to become a center of world's unity. [...] We believe
that one of the objectives of Israel's divinely-inspired rebirth is to make
it the center of the new unity of the nations, which will lead to an era of peace
and prosperity, foretold by the Prophets". Three acting Israeli ministers spoke at the summit,
including Benjamin Netanyahu, and Richard Perle.
Jerusalem's dream empire is expected to come through the nightmare of world war. The prophet
Zechariah, often cited on Zionist forums, predicted that the Lord will fight "all nations" allied
against Israel. In a single day, the whole earth will become a desert, with the exception
of Jerusalem, who "shall remain aloft upon its site" (14:10).
With more than 50 millions members, Christians United for Israel is
a major political force in the U.S.. Its Chairman, pastor John Haggee, declared: "The
United States must join Israel in a pre-emptive military strike against Iran to fulfill God's
plan for both Israel and the West, [...] a biblically prophesied end-time confrontation with Iran,
which will lead to the Rapture, Tribulation, and Second Coming of Christ".
And Guyenot concludes:
Is it possible that this biblical dream, mixed with the neo-Machiavellianism of Leo Strauss and
the militarism of Likud, is what is quietly animating an exceptionally determined and organized ultra-Zionist
clan? General Wesley Clark testified on numerous occasions before the cameras, that one month after
September 11th, 2001 a general from the Pentagon showed him a memo from neoconservative strategists
"that describes how we're gonna take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and
then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia and Sudan and finishing off with Iran".
Is it just a coincidence
that the "seven nations" doomed to be destroyed by Israel form part of the biblical myths?
…[W]hen Yahweh will deliver Israel "seven nations greater and mightier than yourself […] you must
utterly destroy them; you shall make no covenant with them, and show no mercy to them."
My summary:
We have a group that wishes greatly expanded power (to rule the world??)
Among them are brilliant strategists
They operate unrestrained by the most basic moral principles upon which civilization is founded.
They are undisturbed by compassion for the suffering of others.
They use consciously and skillfully use deception and "myth-making" to shape policy
This is not a spiritual movement in any sense
They are utilizing religious myths and language to influence public thinking
They envision "winning" in the aftermath world war.
They have infiltrated the highest levels of banking, US military, NATO and US government.
"... Goldman Sachs buzz-acronym BRICS are five of the largest exporters of hot money . It amuses me to no end how so many buy the idea that the BRICS are gonna take over the world... ..."
"... Better definitions would have black money correspond to any government/public spending, declared capital and proceeds from violent crime (i.e. money that is acquired through or enables violence) and honest money to all the undeclared savings, underground economy/trade proceeds and non-institutional drug money. ..."
"... the most of China money leaves through HK do you think HK is a dump ? ..."
"... Over the years I have written several brief explanations of how offshore havens work. The one at the link below covers the basic-basics reasonably well. http://barlowscayman.blogspot.com/2013/01/offshore-tax-havens-what-they-do.html ..."
"... once again, we see banksters and corrupt corporate sector players colluding with corrupt individuals and assorted criminals - many inside .gov itself - to move ill-gotten gains to safer places out of reach of law enforcement in their own countries. ..."
"... Banksters facilitate virtually every financial crime. ..."
Every year, roughly $1 trillion flows illegally out of developing and emerging economies due to
crime, corruption, and tax evasion. This amount is more than these countries receive in foreign direct
investment and foreign aid combined.
This week, a new report was released that highlights the latest data available on this "hot" money.
Assembled by Global Financial Integrity, a research and advisory organization based in Washington,
DC, the report details illicit financial flows of money from developing countries using the latest
information available, which is up until the end of 2013.
The cumulative amount of this "hot money" coming out of developing countries totaled just
over $7.8 trillion between 2004 and 2013. On an annual basis, it breached the $1 trillion
mark each of the last three years of data available, which is good for a growth rate of 6.5% rate
annually.
In Asia, illicit financial outflows are growing even quicker at an 8.6% clip. It's also
on the continent that five of the ten largest source economies for these flows can be found, including
the largest offender, which is Mainland China.
How does this "hot" money leave these countries? Global Financial Integrity has
calculated that 83% of illicit financial flows are due to what it calls "trade misinvoicing".
It's defined as the following:
The misinvoicing of trade is accomplished by misstating the value or volume of an export or
import on a customs invoice. Trade misinvoicing is a form of trade-based money laundering
made possible by the fact that trading partners write their own trade documents, or arrange to
have the documents prepared in a third country (typically a tax haven), a method known as re-invoicing.
Fraudulent manipulation of the price, quantity, or quality of a good or service on an invoice
allows criminals, corrupt government officials, and commercial tax evaders to shift vast amounts
of money across international borders quickly, easily, and nearly always undetected.
Trade misinvoicing accounted for an average of $654.7 billion per year of lost trade in
developing markets over the data set covered by the report.
Goldman Sachs buzz-acronym "BRICS" are five of the largest exporters of "hot money". It
amuses me to no end how so many buy the idea that the BRICS are gonna take over the world...
What the fuck is "illicit" money? Savings that weren't looted away?
Better definitions would have "black" money correspond to any government/public spending,
declared capital and proceeds from violent crime (i.e. money that is acquired through or enables
violence) and honest money to all the undeclared savings, underground economy/trade proceeds and
non-institutional drug money.
avenriv
the most of China money leaves through HK do you think HK is a dump ?
did you ever leave your small town ?
38BWD22
I found Hong Kong rather nice some 20 years ago, Beijing not so much.
We just came back from India.
So, yes, I have been to four of those BRICS, and am not impressed. Sorry.
Feel free to tell me more though. Especially about your travels. ;)
BarnacleBill
As a (retired) tax-haven professional in three countries, and a former Manager of the Cayman
Islands Chamber of Commerce, I must caution against the term "mis-invoicing" - with or without
the hyphen...More properly, it's re-invoicing, and no more illicit than the procedure by which
any trader buys goods at one price and sells them at another.
When a corporate buyer is owned by the same people as own the seller, their transaction may
raise an eyebrow or two, but usually it would be permitted by the published taxation laws of all
the relevant companies, as those laws are interpreted by both private-sector lawyers and the tax
authorities. With transactions of that kind, it is beneficial for the owners if the tax-rates
are different in the two jurisdictions. Well, of course; but that situation is always - always
- allowed by the laws of those jurisdictions, whether they are developed or developing.
"Every year, roughly $1 trillion flows illegally out of developing and emerging economies
due to crime, corruption, and tax evasion"
Yea, that would be banksterz, CIA and their drug running, NGO's and their child trafficking.......
etc... Might want to throw a few more zero's in there too.
Bob who runs the deli down the street and pockets $500 "illicit" dollars a week is not your worry
or concern you stupid fuckkkerz.
zeroboris
The Russian central bank every year publishes a report of how many billions of dollars have
stolen from our economy, and... does nothing, nothing at all to stop this.
smacker
There are good arguments to say that what people do with their own money is nothing to do with
.gov.
But once again, we see banksters and corrupt corporate sector players colluding with corrupt
individuals and assorted criminals - many inside .gov itself - to move ill-gotten gains to safer
places out of reach of law enforcement in their own countries.
Banksters facilitate virtually every financial crime.
"There is no reason for central banks to have the kind of independence that judicial
institutions have. Justice may be blind and above politics, but money and banking are not." Economic
and politics are like Siamese twins (which actually . If somebody trying to separate them it is a
clear sign that the guy is either neoliberal propagandists or outright crook.
Notable quotes:
"... I think FED chairman is the second most powerful political position in the USA after the POTUS. Or may be in some respects it is even the first ;-) So it is quintessentially high-power political position masked with the smokescreen of purely economic (like many other things are camouflaged under neoliberalism.) ..."
"... I think that is a hidden principle behind attacks on FED chair. A neoliberal principle that the state should not intrude into economics and limit itself to the police, security, defense, law enforcement and few other related to this functions. So their point that she overextended her mandate is an objection based on principle. Which can be violated only if it is used to uphold neoliberalism, as Greenspan did during his career many times. ..."
"... This kind of debate seems to be a by-product of the contemporary obsession with having an independent central bank, run according to the fantasy that there is such a thing as a neutral or apolitical way to conduct monetary policy. ..."
"... A number of commenters and authors have recently pointed out that inequality may not just be an unrelated phenomenon to monetary policy, but actually, in part at least, a byproduct of it. ..."
"... The theory is that the Fed in the Great Moderation age has been so keen to stave off even the possibility of inflation that it chokes down the vigor of recoveries before they get to the part where median wages start rising quickly. The result is that wages get ratcheted down with the economic cycle, falling during recessions and never fully recovering during the recoveries. ..."
"... Two Things: (i) The Fed should be open and honest about monetary policy. No one wants to return to the Greenspan days. (ii) Brad Delong is a neoliberal hack. ..."
"... As to why risk a political backlash in the piece, the short answer is: to invoke the debate on whether politics or fact (science) is going to dominate. Because they can't both. See: Romer. Let's have this out once and for all. ..."
Fine column, with which I agree. Federal Reserve policy as such is difficult and contentious enough
to avoid wandering to social-economic analysis or philosophy from aspects of the Fed mandate.
As for the use of the word "hack" in referring to Janet Yellen, that needlessly insulting use
was by a Washington Post editor and not by columnist Michael Strain.
anne -> RW (the other)...
As Brad notes, many Fed Chairs before Yellen have opined on matters outside monetary policy
so why is Yellen subject to a different standard?
[ Fine, I have reconsidered and agree. No matter how the headline was written, the headline
was meant to be intimidating and was willfully mean and that could and should have been made clear
immediately by the writer of the column. ]
likbez -> anne...
"Federal Reserve policy as such is difficult and contentious enough to avoid wandering to social-economic
analysis or philosophy from aspects of the Fed mandate."
Anne,
I think FED chairman is the second most powerful political position in the USA after the POTUS.
Or may be in some respects it is even the first ;-) So it is quintessentially high-power political position masked with the smokescreen of "purely
economic" (like many other things are camouflaged under neoliberalism.)
That's why Greenspan got it, while being despised by his Wall-Street colleagues...
He got it because he was perfect for promoting deregulation political agenda from the position
of FED chair.
pgl -> likbez...
Greenspan was despised on Wall Street? Wow as he tried so hard to serve their interests. I
guess the Wall Street crowd is never happy no matter how much income we feed these blow hards.
anne -> likbez...
So it is quintessentially high-power political position masked with the smokescreen of "purely
economic" (like many other things are camouflaged under neoliberalism.)
[ I understand, and am convinced. ]
Peter K. said...
I respectfully disagree. Republicans are always working the refs and despite what the writer
from AEI said, they're okay with conservative Fed chairs talking politics. They have double standards.
Greenspan testified to Congress on behalf of Bush's tax cuts for the rich. Something about
how since Clinton balanced the budget, the financial markets had too little safe debt to work
with. (maybe that's why they dove into mortgaged-backed securities). But tax cuts versus more
government spending? He and Rubin advised Clinton to drop his middle class spending bill and trade
deficit reduction for lower interest rates. That's economics which have political outcomes.
So if the rightwing is going to work the the refs, so should the left. We shouldn't unilaterally
disarm over fears Congress will gun for the Fed. There should be more groups like Fed Up protesting.
The good thing about Yellen's speech is that it's a signal to progressives that inequality
is problem for her even as she is raising rates in a political dance with hawks and Congress.
The Fed is constantly accused of increasing inequality so it's good Yellen is saying she thinks
it's a bad thing and not American.
Bernie Sanders is right that for change to happen we'll need more political involvement from
regular citizens. We'll need a popular movement with many leaders.
The Fed should be square in the sights of a progressive movement. A high-pressured economy
with full employment should be a top priority.
Instead I saw Nancy Pelosi being interviewed by Al Hunt on Charlie Rose the other night. Hunt
asked her about Yellen raising rates.
Pelosi said no comment as she wasn't looking at the data Yellen was and didn't want to interfere.
The Fed should be independent, etc. Perhaps like Thoma she has the best of motives and doesn't
want to motivate the Republicans to go after the Fed and oppose what she wants.
Still I felt the Democratic leadership should be committed to a high-pressure economy. Her
staff should know what Krugman, Summers etc are saying. What the IMF and World Bank are sayings.
She should have said "they shouldn't raise rates until they see the whites of inflation's eyes"
as Krugman memorably put it. She should have said that emphatically.
We need a Democratic Party like that.
Instead Peter Diamond is blocked from becoming a Fed governor by Republicans and Pelosi is
afraid to comment on monetary policy.
Must-Read: I would beg the highly-esteemed Mark Thoma to draw a distinction here between "inappropriate"
and unwise. In my view, it is not at all inappropriate for Fed Chair Janet Yellen to express her
concern about excessive inequality. Previous Fed Chairs, after all, have expressed their liking
for inequality as an essential engine of economic growth over and over again over the past half
century--with exactly zero critical snarking from the American Enterprise Institute for trespassing
beyond the boundaries of their role.
But that it is not inappropriate for Janet Yellen to do so does not mean that it is wise. Mark's
argument is, I think, that given the current political situation it is unwise for Janet to further
incite the ire of the nutboys in the way that even the mildest expression of concern about rising
inequality will do.
That may or may not be true. I think it is not.
But I do not think that bears on my point that Michael R. Strain's arguments that Janet Yellen's
speech on inequality was inappropriate are void, wrong, erroneous, inattentive to precedent, shoddy,
expired, expired, gone to meet their maker, bereft of life, resting in peace, pushing up the daisies,
kicked the bucket, shuffled off their mortal coil, run down the curtain, and joined the bleeding
choir invisible:
Mark Thoma: Why It's Tricky for Fed Officials to Talk Politically: "I think I disagree with
Brad DeLong...
pgl -> Peter K....
"my point that Michael R. Strain's arguments that Janet Yellen's speech on inequality
was inappropriate are void, wrong, erroneous..."
DeLong is exactly right here. Strain's argument has its own share of partisan lies whereas
Yellen is telling the truth. Brad will not be intimidated by this AEI weasel.
sanjait said...
Why would Yellen not talk about inequality? It's an important macroeconomic topic and one that
is relevant for her job. It's both an input and an output variable that is related to monetary
policy.
And, arguably I think, median wage growth should be regarded as a policy goal for the Fed,
related to its explicit mandate of "maximum employment."
But even if you think inequality is unrelated to the Fed's policy goals, that doesn't stop
them from talking about other topics. Do people accuse the Fed of playing politics when they talk
about desiring reduced financial market volatility? That has little to do with growth, employment
and general price stability.
likbez -> sanjait...
I think that is a hidden principle behind attacks on FED chair. A neoliberal principle that the state should not intrude into economics and limit itself to
the police, security, defense, law enforcement and few other related to this functions. So their point that she overextended her mandate is an objection based on principle. Which
can be violated only if it is used to uphold neoliberalism, as Greenspan did during his career
many times.
Sandwichman said...
I think I disagree with Mark Thoma's disagreement with Brad DeLong. Actually, ALL economic
discourse is political and efforts to restrain the politics are inevitably efforts to keep the
politics one-sided
Dan Kervick said...
This kind of debate seems to be a by-product of the contemporary obsession with having
an "independent" central bank, run according to the fantasy that there is such a thing as a neutral
or apolitical way to conduct monetary policy.
But there really isn't. Different kinds of social, economic and political values and policy
agendas are going to call for different kinds monetary and credit policies. It might be better
for our political health if the Fed were administratively re-located as an executive branch agency
that is in turn part of a broader Department of Money and Banking - no different from the Departments
of Agriculture, Labor, Education, etc. In that case everybody would then view Fed governors as
ordinary executive branch appointees who report to the President, and whose policies are naturally
an extension of the administration's broader agenda. Then if people don't like the monetary policies
that are carried out, that would be one factor in their decision about whom to vote for.
There is no reason for central banks to have the kind of independence that judicial institutions
have. Justice may be blind and above politics, but money and banking are not. Decisions in that
latter area should be no more politics-free than decisions about taxing and spending. If we fold
the central bank more completely into the regular processes of representative government, then
if a candidate wants to run on a platform of keeping interest rates low, small business credit
easy, bank profits small, etc., they could do so without all of the doubletalk about the protecting
the independence of the sacrosanct bankers' temple.
We could also then avoid unproductive wheel-spinning about that impossibly vague and hedged
Fed mandate that can be stretched to mean almost anything people want it to mean. The Fed's mandate
under the political solution would just be whatever monetary policy the President ran on.
likbez -> Dan Kervick...
"The Fed's mandate under the political solution would just be whatever monetary policy
the President ran on"
Perfect !
Actually sanjait in his post made a good point why this illusive goal is desirable (providing
"electoral advantage") although Greenspan probably violated this rule. A couple of hikes of interest
rates from now till election probably will doom Democrats.
Also the idea of FEB independence went into overdrive since 80th not accidentally. It has its
value in enhancing the level of deregulation.
Among other things it helps to protect large financial institutions from outright nationalization
in cases like 2008.
Does somebody in this forum really think that Bernanke has an option of putting a couple of
Wall-Street most violent and destructive behemoths into receivership (in other words nationalize
them) in 2008 without Congress approval ?
Dan Kervick -> Sanjait ...
Sanjait, with due respect, you are not really responding to the reform proposal, but only
affirming the differences between that proposal and the current system.
Yes, of course fiscal policy is "constrained" by Congress. Indeed, it is not just constrained by
Congress but actually made by Congress, subject only to an overridable executive branch veto. The
executive branch is responsible primarily for carrying out the legislature's fiscal directives.
That's the point. In a democratic system decisions about all forms of taxation and government
spending are supposed to be made by the elected legislative branch, and then executed by agencies
of the executive branch. My proposal is that monetary policy should be handled in the same way:
by the elected political branches of the government.
You point out that under current arrangements, central banks can, if they choose, effect large
monetary offsets to fiscal policy (or at least to some of the aggregate macroeconomic effects of
those policies). I don't understand why any non-elected and politically unaccountable branch of
our government should have the power to offset the policies of the elected branches in this way.
Fiscal and monetary policy need to be yoked together to achieve policy ends effectively. Those
policy ends should be the ones people vote for, not the ones a handful of men and women happen to
think are appropriate.
JF -> Dan Kervick...
"In a democratic system" is what you wrote.
It is more proper to refer to it as republicanism. The separation of powers doctrine, underlying
the US constitution, is a reflection of James Madison's characterization in the 51st The
Federalist Paper, and it is a US-defined republicanism that is almost unique:
"the republican form, wherein the legislative authority necessarily predominates."
- or something like that is the quote.
In the US framers' view, at least those who constructed the re-write in 1787 and were the leaders
- I'd say the most important word in Madison's explanation is the word "necessarily" - this
philosophy has all law and policy stemming from the public, it presumes that you can't have
stability and dynamic change of benefit to society without this.
Arguably, aristocracies, fascists, totalitarians, and all the other isms, just don't see it that
way, they see things as top-down ordering of society.
The mythology of the monetary theorizing and the notions about a central bank being independently
delphic has some of this top-down ordering view to it (austerianism, comes to mind). Well, I
don't believe in a religious sense that this is how it should be, nor do you it seems.
It will be an interesting Congress in 2017 when new legislative authorities are enacted to
establish clearer framing of the ministerial duties now held by the FRB.
Are FED officials scared that this will happen, and as a result they circle the wagons with their
associates in the financial community now to fend off the public????
I hope this is not true. They can allay their own fears by leading not back toward 1907, in my
opinion.
Of course, I could say where I'd like economic policies to go, and do here often, but this thread
is about Yellin and other FED officials.
I recognize that FRB officials can say things too, and should, as leaders of this nation (with a
whole lot of research power and evidence available to them their commentary on political
economics should have merit and be influential).
Thanks for continuing to remind people that we govern ourselves in the US in a US-defined
republican-form. But I think the people still respect and listen to leadership - so speak out FED
officials.
JF -> Dan Kervick...
But Dan K, then you'd de-mythologize an entire wing of macroeconomics in a wing referred to as
monetary theory based on a separate Central Bank, or some non-political theory of money.
Don't mind the theory as it is an analytic framework that questions and sometimes informs - but
it is good to step back and realize some of the religious-like framing.
It is political-economy.
Peter K. -> pgl...
Yellen really lays it out in her speech.
"The extent of and continuing increase in inequality in the United States greatly concern
me. The past several decades have seen the most sustained rise in inequality since the 19th
century after more than 40 years of narrowing inequality following the Great Depression. By
some estimates, income and wealth inequality are near their highest levels in the past hundred
years, much higher than the average during that time span and probably higher than for much of
American history before then.2 It is no secret that the past few decades of widening
inequality can be summed up as significant income and wealth gains for those at the very top
and stagnant living standards for the majority. I think it is appropriate to ask whether this
trend is compatible with values rooted in our nation's history, among them the high value
Americans have traditionally placed on equality of opportunity."
And even links to Piketty in footnote 42.
"Along with other economic advantages, it is likely that large inheritances play a role in
the fairly limited intergenerational mobility that I described earlier.42"
42. This topic is discussed extensively in Thomas Piketty (2014), Capital in the 21st Century,
trans. Arthur Goldhammer (Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press). Return to text
Sanjait said...
A number of commenters and authors have recently pointed out that inequality may not just
be an unrelated phenomenon to monetary policy, but actually, in part at least, a byproduct of it.
The theory is that the Fed in the Great Moderation age has been so keen to stave off even the
possibility of inflation that it chokes down the vigor of recoveries before they get to the part
where median wages start rising quickly. The result is that wages get ratcheted down with the
economic cycle, falling during recessions and never fully recovering during the recoveries.
Do I believe this theory? Increasingly, yes I do. And seeing the Fed right now decide to raise
rates, citing accelerating wage growth as one of the main reasons, has reinforced my belief.
A Boy Named Sue said...
Two Things: (i) The Fed should be open and honest about monetary policy. No one wants to
return to the Greenspan days. (ii) Brad Delong is a neoliberal hack.
A Boy Named Sue -> A Boy Named Sue...
I do admit, Delong is my favorite conservative economist. He is witty and educational, unlike
most RW hacks.
Jeff said...
As to "why risk a political backlash" in the piece, the short answer is: to invoke the
debate on whether politics or fact (science) is going to dominate. Because they can't both. See:
Romer. Let's have this out once and for all.
"... Most publicly traded U.S. companies reward top managers for hitting performance targets, meant to tie the interests of managers and shareholders together. At many big companies, those interests are deemed to be best aligned by linking executive performance to earnings per share, along with measures derived from the company's stock price. ..."
"... But these metrics may not be solely a reflection of a company's operating performance. They can be, and often are, influenced through stock repurchases. In addition to cutting the number of a company's shares outstanding, and thus lifting EPS, buybacks also increase demand for the shares, usually providing a lift to the share price, which affects other performance markers. ..."
"... Pay for performance as it is often structured creates "very troublesome, problematic incentives that can potentially drive very short-term thinking." ..."
"... As reported in the first article in this series, share buybacks by U.S. non-financial companies reached a record $520 billion in the most recent reporting year. A Reuters analysis of 3,300 non-financial companies found that together, buybacks and dividends have surpassed total capital expenditures and are more than double research and development spending. ..."
"... "There's been an over-focus on buybacks and raising EPS to hit share option targets, and we know that those are concentrated in the hands of the few, and that the few is in the top 1 percent," said James Montier, a member of the asset allocation team at global investment firm GMO in London, which manages more than $100 billion in assets. ..."
"... The introduction of performance targets has been a driver of surging executive pay, helping to widen the gap between the richest in America and the rest of the country. Median CEO pay among companies in the S P 500 increased to a record $10.3 million last year, up from $8.6 million in 2010, according to data firm Equilar. ..."
"... At those levels, CEOs last year were paid 303 times what workers in their industries earned, compared with a ratio of 59 times in 1989, according to the Economic Policy Institute, a Washington-based nonprofit. ..."
NEW YORK(Reuters) - When health insurer Humana Inc reported worse-than-expected quarterly earnings
in late 2014 – including a 21 percent drop in net income – it softened the blow by immediately telling
investors it would make a $500 million share repurchase.
In addition to soothing shareholders, the surprise buyback benefited the company's senior executives.
It added around two cents to the company's annual earnings per share, allowing Humana to surpass
its $7.50 EPS target by a single cent and unlocking higher pay for top managers under terms of the
company's compensation agreement.
Thanks to Humana hitting that target, Chief Executive Officer Bruce Broussard earned a $1.68 million
bonus for 2014.
Most publicly traded U.S. companies reward top managers for hitting performance targets, meant
to tie the interests of managers and shareholders together. At many big companies, those interests
are deemed to be best aligned by linking executive performance to earnings per share, along with
measures derived from the company's stock price.
But these metrics may not be solely a reflection of a company's operating performance. They
can be, and often are, influenced through stock repurchases. In addition to cutting the number of
a company's shares outstanding, and thus lifting EPS, buybacks also increase demand for the shares,
usually providing a lift to the share price, which affects other performance markers.
As corporate America engages in an unprecedented buyback binge, soaring CEO pay tied to short-term
performance measures like EPS is prompting criticism that executives are using stock repurchases
to enrich themselves at the expense of long-term corporate health, capital investment and employment.
"We've accepted a definition of performance that is narrow and quite possibly inappropriate,"
said Rosanna Landis Weaver, program manager of the executive compensation initiative at As You Sow,
a Washington, D.C., nonprofit that promotes corporate responsibility. Pay for performance as
it is often structured creates "very troublesome, problematic incentives that can potentially drive
very short-term thinking."
A Reuters analysis of the companies in the Standard & Poor's 500 Index found that 255 of those
companies reward executives in part by using EPS, while another 28 use other per-share metrics that
can be influenced by share buybacks.
In addition, 303 also use total shareholder return, essentially a company's share price appreciation
plus dividends, and 169 companies use both EPS and total shareholder return to help determine pay.
STANDARD PRACTICE
EPS and share-price metrics underpin much of the compensation of some of the highest-paid CEOs,
including those at Walt Disney Co, Viacom Inc, 21st Century Fox Inc, Target Corp and Cisco Systems
Inc.
... ... ...
As reported in the first article in this series, share buybacks by U.S. non-financial companies
reached a record $520 billion in the most recent reporting year. A Reuters analysis of 3,300 non-financial
companies found that together, buybacks and dividends have surpassed total capital expenditures and
are more than double research and development spending.
Companies buy back their shares for various reasons. They do it when they believe their shares
are undervalued, or to make use of cash or cheap debt financing when business conditions don't justify
capital or R&D spending. They also do it to meet the expectations of increasingly demanding investors.
Lately, the sheer volume of buybacks has prompted complaints among academics, politicians and
investors that massive stock repurchases are stifling innovation and hurting U.S. competitiveness
- and contributing to widening income inequality by rewarding executives with ever higher pay, often
divorced from a company's underlying performance.
"There's been an over-focus on buybacks and raising EPS to hit share option targets, and we
know that those are concentrated in the hands of the few, and that the few is in the top 1 percent,"
said James Montier, a member of the asset allocation team at global investment firm GMO in London,
which manages more than $100 billion in assets.
The introduction of performance targets has been a driver of surging executive pay, helping
to widen the gap between the richest in America and the rest of the country. Median CEO pay among
companies in the S&P 500 increased to a record $10.3 million last year, up from $8.6 million in 2010,
according to data firm Equilar.
At those levels, CEOs last year were paid 303 times what workers in their industries earned,
compared with a ratio of 59 times in 1989, according to the Economic Policy Institute, a Washington-based
nonprofit.
SALARY AND A LOT MORE
Today, the bulk of CEO compensation comes from cash and stock awards, much of it tied to performance
metrics. Last year, base salary accounted for just 8 percent of CEO pay for S&P 500 companies, while
cash and stock incentives made up more than 45 percent, according to proxy advisory firm Institutional
Shareholder Services.
...In 1992, Congress changed the tax code to curb rising executive pay and encourage performance-based
compensation. It didn't work. Instead, the shift is widely blamed for soaring executive pay and a
heavier emphasis on short-term results.
Companies started tying performance pay to "short-term metrics, and suddenly all the things we
don't want to happen start happening," said Lynn Stout, a professor of corporate and business law
at Cornell Law School in Ithaca, New York. "Despite 20 years of trying, we have still failed to come
up with an objective performance metric that can't be gamed."
Shareholder expectations have changed, too. The individuals and other smaller, mostly passive
investors who dominated equity markets during the postwar decades have given way to large institutional
investors. These institutions tend to want higher returns, sooner, than their predecessors. Consider
that the average time investors held a particular share has fallen from around eight years in 1960
to a year and a half now, according to New York Stock Exchange data.
"TOO EASY TO MANIPULATE"
Companies like to use EPS as a performance metric because it is the primary focus of financial
analysts when assessing the value of a stock and of investors when evaluating their return on investment.
But "it is not an appropriate target, it's too easy to manipulate," said Almeida, the University
of Illinois finance professor.
...By providing a lift to a stock's price, buybacks can increase total shareholder return to target
levels, resulting in more stock awards for executives. And of course, the higher stock price lifts
the value of company stock they already own.
"It can goose the price at time when the high price means they earn performance shares … even
if the stock price later goes back down, they got their shares," said Michael Dorff, a law professor
at the Southwestern Law School in Los Angeles.
Exxon Corp, the largest repurchaser of shares over the past decade, has rejected shareholder proposals
that it add three-year targets based on shareholder return to its compensation program. In its most
recent proxy, the energy company said doing so could increase risk-taking and encourage underinvestment
to achieve short-term results.
The energy giant makes half of its annual executive bonus payments contingent on meeting longer-term
EPS thresholds. Since 2005, the company has spent more than $200 billion on buybacks.
ADDITIONAL TWEAKS
While performance targets are specific, they aren't necessarily fixed. Corporate boards often
adjust them or how they are calculated in ways that lift executive pay.
Richard Stallman has never been...er...shy about
sharing his opinions, particularly when it comes to software that doesn't adhere to his vision. This
time around he has written an opinion column for The Guardian that takes on Microsoft Windows, Apple's
OS X and even Amazon's Kindle e-reader.
Richard Stallman on malware for The Guardian:
Malware is the name for a program designed to mistreat its users. Viruses typically are malicious,
but software products and software preinstalled in products can also be malicious – and often
are, when not free/libre.
Developers today shamelessly mistreat users; when caught, they claim that fine print in EULAs
(end user licence agreements) makes it ethical. (That might, at most, make it lawful, which is
different.) So many cases of proprietary malware have been reported, that we must consider any
proprietary program suspect and dangerous. In the 21st century, proprietary software is computing
for suckers.
Windows snoops on users, shackles users and, on mobiles, censors apps; it also has a universal
back door that allows Microsoft to remotely impose software changes. Microsoft sabotages Windows
users by showing security holes to the NSA before fixing them.
Apple systems are malware too: MacOS snoops and shackles; iOS snoops, shackles, censors apps
and has a back door. Even Android contains malware in a nonfree component: a back door for remote
forcible installation or deinstallation of any app.
Amazon's Kindle e-reader reports what page of what book is being read, plus all notes and underlining
the user enters; it shackles the user against sharing or even freely giving away or lending the
book, and has an Orwellian back door for erasing books.
As you might imagine, Stallman's commentary drew a lot of responses from readers of The Guardian:
JohnnyHooper: "The Android operating system is basically spyware, mining
your personal information, contacts, whereabouts, search activity, media preferences, photos,
email, texts, chat, shopping, calls, etc so Google can onsell it to advertisers. Nice one,
Google, you creep."
Ece301: "What the free software movement needs is more than just the
scare stories about 'capability' - without reliable examples of this stuff causing real-world
problems for real people such detail-free articles as this are going to affect nothing.
I'm quite willing to make the sacrifice of google, apple, the NSA etc. knowing exactly
where I am if it means my phone can give me directions to my hotel in this strange city.
Likewise if I want the capability to erase my phone should I lose it, I understand that
that means apple etc. can probably get at that function too.
Limiting_Factor: "Or for people who don't want to mess about with command
lines and like to have commercially supported software that works. Which is about 99% of
the home computer using population. You lost, Richard. Get over it."
CosmicTrigger: "Selling customers the illusion of security and then
leaving a great gaping hole in it for the government to snoop in return for a bit of a tax
break is absolutely reprehensible."
Liam01: "This guy is as extreme as the director of the NSA , just at
the other end of the spectrum. I'd be more inclined to listen if he showed a hint of nuance,
or didn't open with an egoistic claim of "invented free software"."
AlanWatson: "My Kindle doesn't report anything, because I never turn
the WiFi on. Just sideload content from wherever I want to buy it (or download if there
is no copyright), format conversion is trivial, and for the minor inconvenience of having
to use a USB cable I'm free of Amazon's lock-in, snooping and remote wipes. Simple."
Rod: "Here's my crazy prediction: Stallman's diatribes will continue
to have zero measurable impact on adoption rates of Free software. Time to try a different
approach, Richey."
Quicknstraight: "Not all snooping is bad for you. If it enhances your
experience, say, by providing you with a better playlist or recommendations for things you
like doing, what's the big deal?
Consumers don't have it every which way. You either accept a degree of data collection
in return for a more enjoyable user experience, or accept that no data collection means
you'll have to search out everything for yourself.
The average user prefers the easier option and has no interest in having to dig away
through loads of crap to find what they want.
They key question should be what happens to data that is mined about users, not whether
mining such data is bad per se."
Bob Rich: "As an author, I LIKE the idea that if a person buys a copy
of my book, that copy cannot be freely distributed to others. With a paper book, that means
that the original owner no longer has access to it. With an electronic book, "giving" or
"lending" means duplicating, and that's stealing my work. The same is true for other creators:
musicians, artists, photographers."
Mouse: "Stallman's a hero and we wouldn't have the level of (low-cost)
technology all we enjoy today without him. I remember reading an article by him years ago
and he said that the only laptop he'd use was the Lemote Yeeloong because it was the only
system that was 100% open, even down to the BIOS - he was specifically paranoid about how
government agencies might modify proprietary code for their own ends - and at the time I
thought "Jeez, he's a bit of a paranoid fruitcake", but post-Snowden he's been proven to
be right about what the security services get up."
"... Most importantly, as DC concludes, the email shows that people close to Clinton had the inside track in pushing her their pet projects - a pattern that has been on display with nearly every monthly release of Clinton emails. ..."
While Hillary Clinton may have had some
entertaining problems when using her Blackberry (or was that iPad) as US Secretary of State,
one thing she excelled at was nepotism.
According to the latest set of emails released by the State Department, and first reported by
the
Daily Caller, Hillary intervened in a request forwarded by her son-in-law, Marc
Mezvisnky, on behalf of a deep-sea mining firm, Neptune Minerals, to meet with her or other State
Department officials.
One of the firm's investors, Harry Siklas who was Mezvinsky's coworker at Goldman (which
donated between $1 and $5 million to the Clinton Foundation) had asked Mezvinsky, who married
Chelsea Clinton in 2010 and who currently runs his own hedge fund (in which Goldman CEO Blankfein
is also an investor) for help setting up such contacts, an email from May 25,
2012 shows.
Siklas told Mezvinsky that Neptune Minerals (a company founded by one of Siklas' close
friends) was poised for great things. He also touted an investment that Goldman Sachs - had made
in the company, which had underwater tenements in the South Pacific.
Siklas said that he and Adam hoped to meet with State Department officials, including Clinton,
to discuss deep sea mining "and the current legal issues and regulations" surrounding it.
"I introduced them to GS and the bankers took them on as a client," Siklas wrote.
"There is a favor I need to ask, and hopefully it will not put you out, as I'm not one to ask
for favors typically," Siklas wrote to Mezvinsky. "I need a contact in Hillary's office."
"Siklas said that he and Adam hoped to meet with State Department officials, including
Clinton, to discuss deep sea mining "and the current legal issues and regulations" surrounding
it.
As
AP adds, the lobbying effort on behalf of Neptune Minerals came while Hillary Clinton - now
the leading Democratic presidential candidate - was advocating for an Obama
administration push for Senate approval of a sweeping Law of the Sea Treaty. The pact
would have aided U.S. mining companies scouring for minerals in international waters, but the
Republican-dominated Senate blocked it.
Clinton then ordered a senior State Department official, Thomas Nides and now a vice chairman
at Morgan Stanley, to look into the request in August 2012.
"Could you have someone follow up on this request, which was forwarded to me?"
Clinton asked Nides.
Nides replied: "I'll get on it."
The emails do not show whether Clinton or other State Department officials met with Harry
Siklas or with executives from the Florida-based firm. Clinton's official calendars, recently
obtained by The Associated Press, also do not show any meetings between Clinton and Neptune
representatives.
Clinton's campaign declined through a spokesman to discuss the issue, despite AP asking
detailed questions about the matter since Nov. 30. The AP attempted to reach Siklas and a
Neptune executive, Josh Adam, by phone, email and in-person visits to their homes last week but
received no replies.
As noted above, Siklas had said in his email that his then-employer, Goldman Sachs, was
representing Neptune.
Unperturbed by the State Department's stonewalling, AP then dug deeper into its quest to see
just how extensive the nepotism ran:
A spokesman for Eaglevale said Mezvinsky would not comment on his role. Emails to a
spokeswoman for Chelsea Clinton went unreturned. Morgan Stanley officials did not respond to
an AP request to interview Nides. The AP also left three phone messages with Neptune
Minerals' office in St. Petersburg, Florida, and also left several phone and email messages
with Hans Smit, the firm's current president, also with no reply.
Federal ethics guidelines warn government employees to "not give preferential
treatment to any private organization or individual," but there are no specific
provisions prohibiting officials from considering requests prompted by relatives.
As the AP then notes, "Clinton's willingness to intercede as a result of her son-in-law's
involvement is the latest example of how the Clinton family's interests cut across
intersecting spheres of influence in American politics, commerce and charity."
There's more:
A lawyer for an environmental group opposing deep-sea mining said Clinton's action was
"cause for concern that the State Department might take any action that could encourage such
activity." Emily Jeffers, an attorney for the Center for Biological Diversity, a group
opposing deep-sea mining, filed suit against Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker and the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration last May, accusing the agencies of failing to
conduct comprehensive environmental tests before licensing Lockheed Martin Corp. to mine for
minerals in U.S. territorial waters in the Pacific Ocean.
Jeffers said her organization supports the Law of the Sea Treaty that Clinton championed
during her tenure at the State Department. She said the proposal would give the U.S. and other
countries roles in establishing standards to explore for oil, gas and minerals. Jeffers said
her group worries that the U.S. and other commercial nations will encourage deep-sea mining
once the treaty is adopted.
One provision of the treaty, backed by corporate interests, would allow nations, including
the U.S., to sponsor mining companies seeking to scour deep seas for minerals. Clinton told
senators in May 2012 that American mining firms would only be able to compete freely against
foreign rivals under standards set by the treaty.
Seabed mining is "very expensive, and before any company will explore a mine site, it will
naturally insist on having a secure title to the site and the minerals it will recover," she
said.
Clinton's public push for a U.S. role in securing deep sea mining rights quickly hit home at
Neptune Mining. Three days after her Senate appearance, Siklas, who described himself as
a "passive investor" in Neptune, emailed Mezvinsky.
As Siklas explained to Clinton's son in law, Neptune was pursuing sea-floor massive
sulfide (SMS) mining in the South Pacific and had just bought out two other mining firms.
Siklas said that he and Adam needed "a contact in Hillary's office: someone my friend
Josh (and I perhaps) can reach out via email or phone to discuss SMS mining and the current legal
issues and regulations." Siklas, then registered as a stockbroker at Goldman Sachs in New York,
had contributed $2,000 to Hillary Clinton's 2008 unsuccessful presidential bid.
Siklas said the State Department would be interested in the subject following Clinton's
Senate testimony. He said he and Adam "would feel very fortunate to have someone's ear on this
topical issue, with the hope that at some point we get in front of the secretary herself."
And since the emails do not show how Clinton became directly aware of Siklas' email to
Mezvinsky or why it took three months for her to act after Mezvinsky became involved, it also
raises questions how many emails in the chain had been illegally deleted, and what may be
contained in them. As the Daily Caller observes:
... it is unclear why there is no record of Clinton being forwarded the email that Siklas
sent to Mezvinsky. Clinton wrote in her email to Nides that she was forwarded the email from
Siklas to her son-in-law. If Clinton had turned over all work-related emails that she
has sent or received - as she has repeatedly claimed - it would be expected that she had an
email sent directly to her inbox with Siklas's email attached.
The answer is simple: Clinton did not in fact produce all emails as had been demanded. But
while the emails do not show a reply from Mezvinsky, Hillary Clinton eventually obtained a copy
and sent it to Nides that August, ordering a follow-up.
Most importantly, as DC concludes, the email shows that people close to Clinton had the inside
track in pushing her their pet projects - a pattern that has been on display with nearly every
monthly release of Clinton emails.
For those who are shocked, feel free to read what little evidence Clinton did provide of just
that, shown below.
That looks like a French backlash against neoliberal globalization, Against the society that
cares only about top 1%.
Notable quotes:
"... Contrary to what we are told by the transnational business-political-media elite, there is nothing inevitable about ever-increasing 'globalisation'. It is simply a race to the bottom for ever-cheaper labour and erasure of sovereign national obstructions to corporate profit. ..."
"... the impact of the third globalisation wave on any given country is the result of very deliberate political choices (many of which were taken by French governments rather later than their neighbours), not of some sort of inevitable natural fact. You do not, for instance, have to espouse unmitigated cross-border capital transfers. ..."
"... the sooner the European Left admits that it was right in the 70s, when it correctly identified the EEC as an anti-worker construct, the better. Unless you fancy having a smattering of far right governments all over the EZ, that is. ..."
"... France has terrible foreign policy. They completely destroyed Libya. France is responsible for the rise of far-right. ..."
"... The elite's disregard for anyone's opinion apart from their own is largely the cause of the rise of the Front National. It is difficult to see how allowing millions of immigrants to settle in Europe can end well in the short to long term. ..."
"... Not a bad article, this. Still, I wish this newspaper's writers would stop defining democracy as "that with which I agree". The FN is a Democratic Party. Deal with it. ..."
"... If mainstream liberal and conservative parties will not listen to the citizenry's very real and very legitimate concerns about immigration and Islam, that citizenry will hold their collective nose and vote for right wing populists who will. ..."
"... What we saw in France is being repeated in Sweden, the Netherlands and much of Eastern Europe. It is fueling Donald Trumps presidential run and Nigel Faranges parliamentary ambitions. ..."
"... For the older generation in particular, Britain has changed out of all recognition in hte last 50 years. Although change can be a good thing, it can also be extremely unsettling. ..."
"... Democracy in action. Unlike the UK whereby the politicians execute policy that they either lied about during the election, or they simply changed their mind in contempt of the electorate safe in the knowledge that the electorate will have to wait years to kick them out again. ..."
"... Agreed, any grand coalition of the French ruling elite created as a blocker will only prove to many of the French people that there is very little real difference between the established parties; possibly driving those who do want real change towards the FN. ..."
"... Globalisation depends on no borders - Factories and production have moved to avail of cheaper production. Shareholders and investment funds have benefited. Many, many citizens of sovereign nations have not. Now some European politicians and institutions have determined that immigration and multiculturalism is the new agenda anyway. There is to be no consultation by the political elite or the media with the people of the sovereign nations of Europe - It is to be forced on people whether they like it or not. ..."
"... The rise of Front National is happening for the same reason the rise of the far right (or just plain right wing) parties is happening all over Europe: Moderate parties on both sides of the political spectrum refuse to have anything even resembling a discussion on the negative side of immigration or multiculturalism. It's really as simple as that. The far right has been handed a complete monopoly on an issue which is becoming an increasingly hot topic. They have an open goal. ..."
Nougarayde was a journalist at the" Monde"; you know, this "french elite newspaper", who
hate the front national and despise its supporters!
viscount_jellicoe, 7 Dec 2015 21:39
Contrary to what we are told by the transnational business-political-media elite, there
is nothing inevitable about ever-increasing 'globalisation'. It is simply a race to the bottom
for ever-cheaper labour and erasure of sovereign national obstructions to corporate profit.
Daniele Gatti, 7 Dec 2015 21:46
Your economic history is missing a few very important details, namely:
1) the impact of the third globalisation wave on any given country is the result of very
deliberate political choices (many of which were taken by French governments rather later than
their neighbours), not of some sort of inevitable natural fact. You do not, for instance, have
to espouse unmitigated cross-border capital transfers.
2) there is no mention at all of the failed European monetary experiments, namely the ERM and
the euro. The first was de facto dismantled in 1993 (by setting ridiculous oscillation bands)
to avoid a French Black Wednesday after it had destroyed competitiveness pretty much
everywhere apart from Germany and the Deutschemark area, the second is doing pretty much the
same, only it was slower to compromise France than other countries because its economy is
stronger than others.
The fact remains that while relatively high public spending, in violation of the Maastricht
parameters, directly translates into higher inflation than Germany, which leads to loss of
competitiveness, which leads to a CA deficit.
Sorry, but the French school system has absolutely nothing to do with all of the above, and
the sooner the European Left admits that it was right in the 70s, when it correctly
identified the EEC as an anti-worker construct, the better. Unless you fancy having a
smattering of far right governments all over the EZ, that is.
Andu68, 7 Dec 2015 21:49
Why exactly is the FN far right? The only controversial position they have is their belief
there is an urgent need to restrict immigration, yet this is a position held by the majority
of European's public opinion, though not by mainstream politicians and certainly not by
members of the left intellectual elite like Miss Nougareyde.
LouSmorels, 7 Dec 2015 21:49
If I were French, I would vote FN! Why should the French give up their country to
become something else. Not everyone wants to end up like Sweden...
finnrkn -> LouSmorels, 7 Dec 2015 22:22
Not even Sweden wants to end up like Sweden nowadays.
Perhaps the rise of the FN reflects its offering to the electorate something that they
want. It's something you don't want, so, rather in the spirit of the EU's rejection
of result of a referendum that gives the 'wrong' result, you seek some excuse for that that you
perceive to be the ill judgement of a portion of the electorate. Democracy can be irritating,
can't it?
euphoniumbrioche, 7 Dec 2015 20:46
France's cowardly elite is to blame for the rise of Marine Le Pen
France has terrible foreign policy. They completely destroyed Libya. France is responsible
for the rise of far-right.
allom8 -> euphoniumbrioche, 7 Dec 2015 20:55
An inadequate explanation given the far right's continued rise all over Europe. The elephant
in the room gets bigger with every passing day.
GodzillaJones, 7 Dec 2015 20:48
It's a reflection of politics in the West at the moment. When voters are not represented by
their politicians, they look for something else, even if it's a bit unsavoury.
ID9969553, 7 Dec 2015 20:48
The elite's disregard for anyone's opinion apart from their own is largely the cause of
the rise of the Front National. It is difficult to see how allowing millions of immigrants to
settle in Europe can end well in the short to long term.
WagerObe -> gunforhire, 7 Dec 2015 22:01
Interestingly though, LR did not get the voting shares lost by the PS. They went to the FN.
This is not a vote. against socialism, indeed on economic questions the FN is closer to the communists
than classic right-wing parties.
This is a vote against the main stream parties, and frankly it is not surprising. A succession
of UMP - PS governments have changed nothing. Remains to be seen if FN can confirm the try next
Sunday. If they win PACA
finnrkn, 7 Dec 2015 20:49
Not a bad article, this. Still, I wish this newspaper's writers would stop defining democracy
as "that with which I agree". The FN is a Democratic Party. Deal with it.
ID7475021 -> finnrkn, 7 Dec 2015 20:57
The Nazi party in Germany used democracy to help itself climb to power... one of the problems
democracy has not managed to address is how to deal with parties who use that democracy with the
ultimate aim of destroying it.
finnrkn -> ID7475021, 7 Dec 2015 21:04
True enough; communist parties also subverted democracy in Eastern Europe. Beyond nationalism,
though, I can't see there's much of a comparison to be made between the FN and the Nazis.
elliot2511, 7 Dec 2015 20:49
If mainstream liberal and conservative parties will not listen to the citizenry's very
real and very legitimate concerns about immigration and Islam, that citizenry will hold their
collective nose and vote for right wing populists who will.
What we saw in France is being repeated in Sweden, the Netherlands and much of Eastern Europe.
It is fueling Donald Trumps presidential run and Nigel Faranges parliamentary ambitions.
ltm123 elliot2511, 7 Dec 2015 21:09
Unfortunate those very real concerns about immigration are not very legitimate. You only have
to do a small amount of research to realise that immigration isn't to blame for most of the things
the main stream media would have you believe.
huzar30 ltm123, 7 Dec 2015 21:14
That really isn't the point. For the older generation in particular, Britain has changed
out of all recognition in hte last 50 years. Although change can be a good thing, it can also
be extremely unsettling.
elliot2511 -> ltm123, 7 Dec 2015 21:23
"You only have to do a small amount of research to realise that immigration isn't to blame
for most of the things "
You may be right...but people do not want mass immigration, and more particularly, do not want
mass immigration from Islamic countries.
That might be fair or unfair, justified or unjustified, but surely the greater population should
have some say in what their country looks like.
Laurence Johnson, 7 Dec 2015 20:50
Democracy in action. Unlike the UK whereby the politicians execute policy that they
either lied about during the election, or they simply changed their mind in contempt of the
electorate safe in the knowledge that the electorate will have to wait years to kick them out
again.
Dave Beardsly -> Laurence Johnson, 7 Dec 2015 21:13
Democracy in action. Unlike the UK
Is it a better democracy? Or is it something to do with a more impartial, fairer, press?
Because however bad our democracy is or isn't, we know for sure our press can make and break
anyone it chooses.
Sachaflashman, 7 Dec 2015 20:51
"But the fact that such a question can now legitimately be raised is in itself a
trauma for all those who care about democracy."
In plain English: a democratic party that has managed to purge its past, re-defined itself
and convinced 6 million citizens to vote for it....is nothing more than a trauma. If anything,
the democratic trauma is a system whereby party A. can win the most votes only to be knocked
out in round two by party B. dropping out and lending its votes to party C.
This is a recipe for allowing bland, elitist politicians to stay in power forever.
Mark Steven -> Conway Sachaflashman, 7 Dec 2015 22:22
Agreed, any grand coalition of the French ruling elite created as a blocker will only
prove to many of the French people that there is very little real difference between the
established parties; possibly driving those who do want real change towards the FN.
Magicmoonbeam2, 7 Dec 2015 20:53
The so called elite have become accustomed to ruling independently of their electorates
because for years their electorates had nowhere else to go. Now that their electorates have
somewhere else to go, the brown squishy stuff is hitting the fan.
Quiller -> Dave Beardsly, 7 Dec 2015 21:29
Globalisation depends on no borders - Factories and production have moved to avail of
cheaper production. Shareholders and investment funds have benefited. Many, many citizens of
sovereign nations have not. Now some European politicians and institutions have determined
that immigration and multiculturalism is the new agenda anyway. There is to be no consultation
by the political elite or the media with the people of the sovereign nations of Europe - It is
to be forced on people whether they like it or not.
Any nation, people or politician who questions the new ideology is categorised as backward
and reactionary. Secret meeting are held to push the issues forward. People of the sovereign
nations of Europe have not signed up to the Federal Europe - France and other nations rejected
the European Constitution. Nonetheless the ideologues press the issues forward onto the
people.
The latest revolt has been over the issue is immigration by Germany and Sweden - their
initial action was - "we can do it !". When it dawned on them that they could not, they have
tried to bully their way through the other sovereign nations via government structures, the
European Union and the UN.
Following the atrocities in France, Beirut, Ankara, Nigeria, Syria - the people are
deciding they do not want to be a part of the change to the multicultural environment. Why
would they when they perceive the change to be a retrograde step. If the current political
party that one has voted for does not serve one's interests or they appear to be a political
party with no clothes, then it is time to move on to a different political representative
party. Of course - the smear continues against political parties that do not have the
ideologues view.
allom8, 7 Dec 2015 20:57
The rise of Front National is happening for the same reason the rise of the far right
(or just plain right wing) parties is happening all over Europe: Moderate parties on both
sides of the political spectrum refuse to have anything even resembling a discussion on the
negative side of immigration or multiculturalism. It's really as simple as that.
The far right has been handed a complete monopoly on an issue which is becoming an
increasingly hot topic. They have an open goal.
Koolio, 7 Dec 2015 21:03
"none of the mainstream parties have been able to address the many social and
economic ailments"
They've never tried. French politicians promise bold visions of the past as they keep
trying to reheat and perpetuate policies that generate the record unemployment and entrenched
structural inequalities while hoping if they say "républicain" ten times a day nobody will
question their consistent failure.
Even the politicians are stale, for example the Républicains are fighting over whether to back
proven failure Sarkozy or convicted criminal Juppé (albeit gifted a crony-style presidential
pardon by his ex-boss Chirac). Given choices like this no wonder millions of voters
dissatisfied by Hollande and Valls skip to the FN.
bally38, 7 Dec 2015 21:08
Marine Le Pen has no solution for France's problems, her economic programme is all about
retreating from the outside world and Europe.
My understanding of the FN economic policy. Withdraw from the Euro. Close the borders. Put up
a high tariff wall around france. (Which would mean de facto withdrawal from the Single
Market).
Quite how they think jobs are created in a global economy I really don't know. In some ways it
would be great if they did win. Currently the eurosceptics can act all cosy with each other.
Whereas in fact, their policies would amount to a mutual trade war.
MrBojangles007, 7 Dec 2015 21:08
Political dogma from the EU federalists and the invite from Merkel to all the worlds
refugees is naive in the extreme. The people still love their country and most do not want a
country called Europe.
Too much too soon, we do not even speak the same language around 28 countries, until we do - a
country called Europe is for the birds. The Euro has not worked, open borders have not worked,
the EU is in an utter mess.
FN - will always make progress when chaos reigns.
PrinceEdward, 7 Dec 2015 21:29
"The Prime Directive is not just a set of rules; it is a philosophy ... and a very correct
one. History has proven again and again that whenever mankind interferes with a less developed
civilization, no matter how well intentioned that interference may be, the results are
invariably disastrous." -- Captain Jean-Luc Picard, USS Enterprise
flowerssoft, 7 Dec 2015 21:32
France's cowardly elite are responsible because they have refused to tackle issues which
negatively affect the white working class in France.
PrinceEdward, 7 Dec 2015 21:35
People across the West are still scratching their heads as to why, given the large numbers
of un and under employed young people, we need mass immigration, even in the face of
austerity.
The only answer I ever here is: If you're not for it, you're a xenophobe. Regardless of the
sharp cuts to social programmes and the lack of housing throughout Europe. And if a European
Country genuinely needs unskilled workers, there are plenty of Eastern and Southern Europeans
who would be happy to bridge the gap.
haunsk PrinceEdward, 7 Dec 2015 21:54
There you have it in a nutshell. We are being spun,we are being played.
smarty78, 7 Dec 2015 21:37
'France's cowardly elite...'
Natalie, it's rare I agree with you, so I'll focus on our consensus with the headline.
That the other parties are now looking to form a block against FN demonstrates quite perfectly
the arrogance of the French political elite and their utter contempt for democracy.
I dearly wish FN the very best of luck - at least they attend to the legitimate grievances of
a significant proportion of people.
Fascist, Nazi, extremist blahblah... Bring it on and watch this space.
André Pampel, 7 Dec 2015 21:51
Ironic being that as far as economics goes extreme left and right speak almost from the
same page....Mainly protectionism. What Nougayréde conviently does not say is how many people
from the extreme left have gone over to the fn and that their vote is extremely high in the
18-34 age group, and the well educated in that group too. And herself was and is still part of
the "establishment" so ironic criticising her chums like that....
Anneke Ruben, 7 Dec 2015 21:52
If people feel threatened, they tend to be more conservative. And frankly, I don't see a
reason why France or the rest of Europe shouldn't feel threatened.. Mass unemployment, the
Euro zone mess, thousands of migrants that pose as "refugees", migrants that mostly follow an
unreformed religion, the mass shootings in Paris... So... Why is the left blaming the "elite"
and not the ones responsible for creating this mess?
"... As Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. aims to curb corruption in Ukraine, his son, Hunter, sits on the board of a Ukrainian company that the American ambassador has accused of having illicit assets. ..."
"... What is he, sort of a wayward, neer-do-well playboy type? Not really. Hes a graduate of Yale Law School and a former senior vice-president at MBNA America Bank. Good for him. During the Clinton administration he worked in the US Department of Commerce. Hes presently a partner in an investment firm. And counsel for a national law firm. And an adjunct professor at Georgetown University. I get it: he likes to keep busy. He has even found the time to join the board of a gas company called Burisma Holdings Ltd. Never heard of it. Perhaps thats because its a Ukrainian gas company; Ukraines largest private gas producer, in fact. Hes taking charge of the companys legal unit. Isnt that a bit fishy? Why do you say that? Because hes the vice-presidents son! Thats a coincidence. This is totally based on merit, said Burismas chairman, Alan Apter. ..."
"... Who? Devon Archer, who works with Hunter Biden at Rosemont Seneca partners, which is half owned by Rosemont Capital, a private equity firm founded by Archer and Christopher Heinz. ..."
"... Who? Christopher Heinz … John Kerrys stepson. ..."
"... I think Putins propaganda people can take a long weekend; their work is being done for them. ..."
Biden, His Son and the Case Against a Ukrainian Oligarch
By JAMES RISEN
As Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. aims to curb corruption in Ukraine, his son, Hunter,
sits on the board of a Ukrainian company that the American ambassador has accused of having "illicit
assets."
Why shouldn't Hunter Biden join the board of a gas company in Ukraine?
The son of the US vice-president has been chosen to take charge of energy firm Burisma's legal
unit – a decision based purely on merit, of course.
Name: Hunter Biden.
Age: 44.
Appearance: Chip off the old block.
His names rings a bell. Is he related to someone famous? He's the son of Joe Biden, the US
vice president.
What is he, sort of a wayward, ne'er-do-well playboy type? Not really. He's a graduate of Yale
Law School and a former senior vice-president at MBNA America Bank. Good for him. During the Clinton administration he worked in the US Department of Commerce.
He's presently a partner in an investment firm. And counsel for a national law firm. And an adjunct
professor at Georgetown University. I get it: he likes to keep busy. He has even found the time to join the board of a gas company
called Burisma Holdings Ltd. Never heard of it. Perhaps that's because it's a Ukrainian gas company; Ukraine's largest private
gas producer, in fact. He's taking charge of the company's legal unit. Isn't that a bit fishy? Why do you say that? Because he's the vice-president's son! That's a coincidence. "This is totally based on merit,"
said Burisma's chairman, Alan Apter.
He doesn't sound very Ukrainian. He's American, as is the other new board member, Devon Archer.
Who? Devon Archer, who works with Hunter Biden at Rosemont Seneca partners, which is half owned
by Rosemont Capital, a private equity firm founded by Archer and Christopher Heinz.
Who? Christopher Heinz … John Kerry's stepson.
I think Putin's propaganda people can take a long weekend; their work is being done for them.
What do you mean?
Hasn't Joe Biden pledged to help Ukraine become more energy independent in the wake of its
troubles with Russia? Well, yes.
And isn't Burisma, as a domestic producer, well positioned to profit from rising gas prices
caused by the conflict? Possibly, but Hunter Biden is a salaried board member, not an investor.
According to anonymous sources in the Wall Street Journal, neither Rosemont Seneca nor Rosemont
Capital has made any financial investment in Burisma.
So it's not fishy at all? No one's saying that.
Do say: "Somebody needs to get involved in Ukraine's corporate governance, and it might as
well be a clutch of rich, well-connected American dudes with weird first names."
Meta-criticism of reports in this case is neither here nor there, since it's possible to track down
the original sources.
The Times summary of Ms. Rey's Jackson Hole paper is accurate; in it she
does discuss the importance of the global financial cycle in creating boom and bust cycles in emerging
markets. (This isn't news to anyone who's followed Krugman's writings on global financial crises
over the years.)
When Yellen announced that the Fed would not raise rates in September, she did cite "heightened
uncertainties abroad" as a factor. While I cannot find her mentioning China specifically, a lot of
the discussion in financial sources prior to the announcement cite the Chinese devaluation as an
important factor leading to Yellen's decision.
As for economists warning that a rate increase combined with uncertain exchange rates in China
and other countries would weaken global growth, that was most likely a reference to the IMF's World
Economic Outlook report, which does indeed make this argument.
When capital became unable of reaping large and fairly secure profits from manufacturing it like
water tries to find other ways. It starts with semi-criminalizing finance -- that's the origin
of the term "casino capitalism" (aka neoliberalism). I see casino capitalism as a set of semi-criminal
ways of maintaining the rate of profits.
The key prerequisite here is corruption of regulators. So laws on the book does not matter
much if regulators do not enforce them.
As Joseph Schumpeter noted, capitalism is not a steady-state system. It is unstable system
in which population constantly experience and then try to overcome one crisis after another. Joseph
Schumpeter naively assumed that the net result is reimaging itself via so called "creative destruction".
But what we observe now it "uncreative destruction". In other words casino capitalism is devouring
the host, the US society.
So all those Hillary statements are for plebs consumption only (another attempt to play "change
we can believe in" trick). Just a hot air designed to get elected. Both Clintons are in the pocket
of financial oligarchy and will never be able to get out of it alive.
GeorgeK said...
I believe I'm the only one on this blog that has actually traded bonds, done swaps and hedged
bank portfolios with futures contracts. Sooo I kinda know something about this topic.
Hilary is a fraud; her daughter worked at a Hedge fund where she met her husband Marc Mezvinsky,
who is now a money manager at the Eaglevale fund. Oddly many of the Eaglevale investors are investors
in the Clinton Foundation and have also given money to Hilary's campaign. The Clinton Foundation
gets boat loads of money from Hedge funds and will not raise taxes on such a rich source of funding.
The grooms mother is Marjory Margolies (ex)Mezvinsky, she cast the final vote giving Clinton
the winning vote to raise taxes. She subsequently lost her run for reelection to congress, then
her husband was convicted of fraud and they divorced.
This speech is an attempt to pry people away from Bernie, it won't work with primary voters
but might with what's left of rational Republicans in the general election.
When capital became unable of reaping large and fairly secure profits from manufacturing it like
water tries to find other ways. It starts with semi-criminalizing finance -- that's the origin
of the term "casino capitalism" (aka neoliberalism). I see casino capitalism as a set of semi-criminal
ways of maintaining the rate of profits.
The key prerequisite here is corruption of regulators. So laws on the book does not matter
much if regulators do not enforce them.
As Joseph Schumpeter noted, capitalism is not a steady-state system. It is unstable system
in which population constantly experience and then try to overcome one crisis after another. Joseph
Schumpeter naively assumed that the net result is reimaging itself via so called "creative destruction".
But what we observe now it "uncreative destruction". In other words casino capitalism is devouring
the host, the US society.
So all those Hillary statements are for plebs consumption only (another attempt to play "change
we can believe in" trick). Just a hot air designed to get elected. Both Clintons are in the pocket
of financial oligarchy and will never be able to get out of it alive.
GeorgeK said...
I believe I'm the only one on this blog that has actually traded bonds, done swaps and
hedged bank portfolios with futures contracts. Sooo I kinda know something about this topic.
Hilary is a fraud; her daughter worked at a Hedge fund where she met her husband Marc
Mezvinsky, who is now a money manager at the Eaglevale fund. Oddly many of the Eaglevale
investors are investors in the Clinton Foundation and have also given money to Hilary's
campaign. The Clinton Foundation gets boat loads of money from Hedge funds and will not raise
taxes on such a rich source of funding.
The grooms mother is Marjory Margolies (ex)Mezvinsky, she cast the final vote giving Clinton
the winning vote to raise taxes. She subsequently lost her run for reelection to congress,
then her husband was convicted of fraud and they divorced.
This speech is an attempt to pry people away from Bernie, it won't work with primary voters
but might with what's left of rational Republicans in the general election.
"If you don't read a newspaper every day, you are uninformed. If you do, you are misinformed."
– Mark Twain
We all like to know what's happening in the world, and for good reason… understanding
our surroundings is essential to survival. We instinctively seek information… we need information.
There is, however, a problem that we face:
No matter how much "news" you consume, you won't really know what's going on in the world.
We can't know, because 'the news' is half illusion, provided by government-dependent corporations
that are paid to keep you watching and to keep you joined to the status quo.
Granted, they are quite good at providing pictures from disaster areas, but when it comes to
explaining why the disaster happened, they mislead almost every time. Yes, some truth makes its
way through the news machine, but most of it is wrapped in layers of manipulation. If, for example,
you watch the news feeds all day, you'll find a good deal of truth, but you'll find it amongst
a pile of half-truths. Do you really have enough time to analyze them all?
Here's an article about the phenomenon called "Rebranding
Fascism" (although the term "left-wing fascism is not used): http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v23n4/rebranding_fascism.html The basic concept is that neo-fascist groups (who
are extreme right-wing) disguise themselves as leftists,
e.g., they say they are anti-zionist when they are anti-semitic.
I'm a first-time contributor to Wiki and felt it important
to greatly revise this article, because, in its previous
incarnation, it reduced the term "left-wing fascism" to an
epithet. In fact the term is widely used in a literature,
some from the left and some from the right, that is critical
of absolutist a tendencies in some movements that identify
themselves with the Left. The term is properly an epithet
only if it lumps large segments of the left together as
"fascist." OTherwise, it's a use...
JKF? I didn't know that the historian John King Fairbank was assassinated.
roadrider
Then I guess you have solid evidence to account for the actions of Allen Dulles, David Atlee
Phillips, William Harvey, David Morales, E. Howard Hunt, Richard Helms, James Angleton and other
CIA personnel and assets who had
1) perhaps the strongest motives to murder Kennedy
2) the means to carry out the crime, namely, their executive action (assassination) capability
and blackmail the government into aiding their cover up and
3) the opportunity to carry out such a plan given their complete lack of accountability to
the rest of the government and their unmatched expertise in lying, deceit, secrecy, fraud.
Because if you actually took the time to research or at least read about their actions in this
matter instead of just spouting bald assertions that you decline to back up with any facts you
would find their behavior nearly impossible to explain other than having at, the very least, guilty
knowledge of the crime.
Ruby claimed he was injected with cancer in jail, which ultimately rendered his second trial
(after winning appeal overturning his death sentence) moot. It sounded crazy, but so did the
motive proffered at his first trial-- that he wanted to save Mrs. Kennedy the anguish...
that is such an amazing story.. i've yet to watch the video of Lyndon Johnson's swearing in
- where Marr states he's seen to be winking and smiling etc -
those who wish - Pick it up at around 12 minutes. actually in that lecture he may
well be showing videos of it - I wdn't know cos just listen to the audio.
Make a note of the names - rising stars in the I'm "left"
but I'm not a conspiracist gaggle - ist a standard gaggle -
Chomsky, Monbiot are in it ( to win it of course - their
fabled "socialist" kingdom" ) - yeah yeah its BritLand so
yeah why I care I suppose.
Many studies of the Eurozone crisis focus on peripheral European states' current account deficits,
or German neo-mercantilist policies that promoted export surpluses. However, German financialization
and input on the eurozone's financial architecture promoted deficits, increased systemic risk, and
facilitated the onset of Europe's subsequent crises.
Increasing German financial sector competition
encouraged German banks' increasing securitization and participation in global capital markets. Regional
liberalization created new marketplaces for German finance and increased crisis risk as current accounts
diverged between Europe's core and periphery. After the global financial crisis of 2008, German losses
on international securitized assets prompted retrenchment of lending, paving the way for the eurozone's
sovereign debt crisis. Rethinking how financial liberalization facilitated German and European financial
crises may prevent the eurozone from repeating these performances in the future.
After the 1970s, German banks' trading activity came to surpass lending as the largest share of
assets, while German firms increasingly borrowed in international capital markets rather than from
domestic banks. Private banks alleged that political subsidies and higher credit ratings for Landesbanks, public banks that insured household, small enterprise, and local banks' access
to capital, were unfair, and, in response, German lawmakers eliminated state guarantees for public
banks. Landesbanks, despite their historic role as stable, non-profit, providers of credit,
consequently had to compete with Germany's largest private banks for business. Changes in competition
restructured the German financial system. Mergers and takeovers occurred, especially in commercial
banks and Landesbanks. German financial intermediation ratios-total financial assets of
financial corporations divided by the total financial assets of the economy-increased. Greater securitization
and shadow banking relative to long-term lending increased German propensity for financial crisis,
as securities, shares, and securitized debt constituted increasing percentages of German banks' assets
and liabilities.
Throughout this period, Germany lacked a centralized financial regulatory apparatus. Only in 2002
did the country's central bank, the Bundesbank, establish the Bundenstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht
(Federal Financial Supervisory Authority, known as BaFin), which consolidated the responsibilities
of three agencies to oversee the whole financial sector. However, neither institution could keep
pace with new sources of financial and economic instability. German banking changes continued apace
and destabilizing trends in banking grew.
German desire for financial liberalization at the European level, meanwhile, helped increase potential
systemic risk of European finance. Despite some European opposition to removing barriers to capital
and trade flows, Germany prevailed in setting these preconditions for membership in the European
economic union. Germany's negotiating power stemmed from its strong currency, as well as French,
Italian, and smaller European economies' desire for currency stability. Germany demanded an independent
central bank for the union, removal of capital controls, and an expansion of the tasks banks could
perform within the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU). The Second Banking Coordination Directive (SBCD)
mandated that banks perform commercial and investment intermediation to be certified within the EMU;
the Single Market Passport (SMP) required free trade and capital flows throughout the EMU. The SMP
and SBCD increased the scope of activity that financial institutions throughout the union were expected
to provide, and opened banks up to markets, instruments, and activities they could neither monitor
nor regulate, and hence to destabilizing shocks.
Intra-EMU lending and borrowing subsequently increased, and total lending and borrowing grew relative
to European countries' GDP from the early 1990s onward. Asymmetries emerged in capital flows between
Europe's core, particularly the UK, Germany, and the Netherlands, to Europe's newly liberalized periphery.
German banks lent increasing volumes to EMU member states, especially peripheral states. Though this
lending on a country-by-country basis was a small percentage of Germany's GDP, it constituted larger
percentages of borrowers' GDPs. In 2007, Germany lent 1.23% of its GDP to Portugal; this represented
17.68% of Portugal's GDP; in 2008, Germany lent 6% of its GDP to Ireland; this was 84% of Irish GDP.
Germany, the largest European economy, lent larger percentages of its GDP to peripheral EMU nations
relative to its lending to richer European economies. These flows, more potentially disruptive for
borrowers than for the lender, reflected lack of oversight in asset management. German lending helped
destabilize European financial systems more vulnerable to rapid capital inflows, and created conditions
for large-scale capital flight in a crisis.
Financial competition increased in Europe over this period. Financial merger activity first accelerated
within national borders, and later grew at supra-national levels. These movements increased eurozone
access to capital, but increased pressure for banks to widen the scope of the services and lending
that they provided. Rising European securitization in this period increased systemic risk for the
EMU financial system. European holdings of U.S.-originated asset-backed securities increased by billions
of dollars from the early 2000s until shortly before 2008. German banks were among the EMU's top
issuers and acquirers of such assets. As banks' holdings of these assets increased, European systemic
risk increased as well.
European total debt as a percentage of GDP rose in this period. Financial debt relative to GDP
grew particularly sharply in core economies; Ireland was the only peripheral EMU economy with comparable
levels of financial debt. Though government debt relative to GDP fell or held constant for most EMU
nations, cross-border acquisition of sovereign debt increased until 2007. German banks acquired substantially
larger portfolios of sovereign debt issued by other European states, which would not decrease until
2010. Only in 2009 did government debt relative to GDP increase throughout the eurozone, as governments
guaranteed their financial systems to minimize the costs of the ensuing financial crisis.
The newly liberalized financial architecture of the eurozone increased both the market for German
financial services and overall systemic risk of the European financial system; these dynamics helped
destabilize the German financial system and economy at large. Rising German exports of goods, services,
and capital to the rest of Europe grew the German economy, but divergence of current account balances
within the EMU exposed it to sovereign debt risk in peripheral states. Potential systemic risk changed
into systemic risk after the subprime mortgage crisis began. EMU economies would not have subsequently
experienced such pressure to backstop national financial systems or to repay sovereign loans had
German banks not lent so much or purchased so many sovereign bonds within the union. Narratives that
fail to acknowledge Germany's role in promoting the circumstances that underlay the eurozone crisis
ignore the destabilizing power of financial liberalization, even for a global financial center like
Germany.
susan the other, December 3, 2015 at 1:06 pm
This is very interesting. It describes just how the EU mess unfolded beginning in 1970 with
deregulation of the financial industry in the core. Big fish eat little fish. It is as if for
4 decades the banks in Germany compensated their losses to the bigger international lenders by
taking on the riskier borrowers and were able to do so because of German mercantilism and financial
deregulation. Like the German domestic banks loaned the periphery money with abandon, and effectively
borrowed their own profits by speculating on bad customers. As German corporations did business
with big international banksters, who lent at lower rates, other German banks resorted to buying
the sovereign bonds of the periphery and selling CDOs, etc. The German banks were as over-extended
looking for profit as consumers living on their credit cards. Deregulation enriched only the biggest
international banks. We could call this behavior a form of digging your own grave. In 2009 the
periphery saw their borrowing costs threatened and guaranteed their own financial institutions
creating the "sovereign debt" that the core then refused to touch. Hypocrisy ruled. Generosity
was in short supply. The whole thing fell apart. Deregulation was just another form of looting.
washunate, December 3, 2015 at 1:28 pm
German losses on international securitized assets prompted retrenchment of lending, paving
the way for the eurozone's sovereign debt crisis.
I agree with the general conclusion at the end that German financialization is part of the overall
narrative of EMU, but I don't follow this specific link in the chain of events as described. The
eurozone has a sovereign debt crisis because those sovereign governments privatized the profits
and socialized the losses of a global system of fraud. And if we're assigning national blame,
it's a system run out of DC, NY, and London a lot more than Berlin, Frankfurt, and Brussels.
Current and capital account imbalances cancel each other out in the overall balance of payments.
As bank lending decreases (capital account surplus shrinks) then the current account deficit shrinks
as well (the 'trade deficit'). The problem is when governments step in and haphazardly backstop
some of the losses – at least, when they do so without imposing taxes on the wealthy to a sufficient
degree to pay for these bailouts.
The OECD's Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) initiative is an effort by the G20 to curb the
abuse of transfer pricing by multinationals.
Senator Hatch is not a fan:
Throughout this process we have heard concerns from large sectors of the business community that
the BEPS project could be used to further undermine our nation's competitiveness and to unfairly
subject U.S. companies to greater tax liabilities abroad. Companies have also been concerned about
various reporting requirements that could impose significant compliance costs on American businesses
and force them to share highly sensitive proprietary information with foreign governments. I expect
that we'll hear about these concerns from the business community and others during today's hearing.
Indeed we heard from some lawyer representing
The Software Coalition who was there to mansplain to us how BEPS is evil. I learned two startling
things. First – Bermuda must be part of the US tax base. Secondly, if Google is expected to pay taxes
in the UK, it will take all those 53,600 jobs which are mainly in California and move them to Bermuda:
in particular how the changes to the international tax rules as developed under BEPS will significantly
reduce the U.S. tax base and create disincentives for U.S. multinational corporations (MNCs) to
create R&D jobs in the United States
Yes – I find his testimony absurd at so many levels. Let's take Google as an example. When they say
foreign subsidiaries – think Bermuda. Over the past three year, Google's income has average $15.876
billion per year but its income taxes have only average $2.933 billion for an effective tax rate
of only 18.5%. How did that happen? Well – 55% of its income is sourced to these foreign subsidiaries
and the average tax rate on this income is only 6.5%. Nice deal! Google's tax model is not only easy
to explain but is also a very common one for those in the Software Coalition. While all of the R&D
is done in the U.S. and 45% of its sales are in the U.S. – U.S. source income is only 45% of worldwide
income. Very little of the foreign sourced income ends up in places like the UK even 11% of Google's
sales are to UK customers. Only problem is that income ends up on Ireland's books with the UK getting
a very modest amount of the profits. Now you might be wondering how Google got to the foreign taxes
to be only 6.5% of foreign sourced income since Ireland's tax rate is 12.5%. But think Double Irish
Dutch Sandwich and you'll get how the profits ended up in Bermuda as well as perhaps a good lunch!
But what about that repatriation tax you ask. Google's most recent 10-K proudly notes:
"We have not provided U.S. income taxes and foreign withholding taxes on the undistributed earnings
of foreign subsidiaries".
In other words, they are not paying that repatriation tax. Besides the Republicans want to eliminate.
Let's be honest – Congress has hamstringed the IRS efforts to enforce transfer pricing. The BEPS
initiative arose out of this failure. And now the Republicans in Congress are objecting to even these
efforts. And if Europe has the temerity of expecting its fair share of taxes, U.S. multinationals
will leave California and relocate in Bermuda? Who is this lawyer kidding?
Myrtle Blackwood
The development model in nation after nation is dependent upon global corporations. What is happening
is simply a byproduct of this.
Would the problem of transfer mythical corporate location and the resulting lost taxes be resolved
if taxes were based on point of revenue? Tax gross income where it is earned instead of taxing
profits where they are not earned.
"... Kristol argues in his book The Neoconservative Persuasion that those Jewish intellectuals
did not forsake their heritage (revolutionary ideology) when they gave up Communism and other revolutionary
movements, but had to make some changes in their thinking. America is filled with such former Trotskyists
who unleashed an unprecedented foreign policy that led to the collapse of the American economy. ..."
"... Noted Australian economist John Quiggin declares in his recent work Zombie Economics that
"Ideas are long lived, often outliving their originators and taking new and different forms. Some ideas
live on because they are useful. Others die and are forgotten. But even when they have proved themselves
wrong and dangerous, ideas are very hard to kill. Even after the evidence seems to have killed them,
they keep on coming back. ..."
"... These ideas are neither alive nor dead; rather…they are undead, or zombie, ideas." Bolshevism
or Trotskyism is one of those zombie ideas that keeps coming back in different forms. It has ideologically
reincarnated in the political disputations of the neoconservative movement. ..."
"... As soon as the Israel Lobby came along, as soon as the neoconservative movement began to
shape U.S. foreign policy, as soon as Israel began to dictate to the U.S. what ought to be done in the
Middle East, America was universally hated by the Muslim world. ..."
"... In that sense, the neoconservative movement as a political and intellectual movement represents
a fifth column in the United States in that it subtly and deceptively seeks to undermine what the Founding
Fathers have stood for and replace it with what the Founding Fathers would have considered horrible
foreign policies-policies which have contributed to the demise of the respect America once had. ..."
"... For example, when two top AIPAC officials-Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman-were caught passing
classified documents from the Pentagon to Israel, Gabriel Schoenfeld defended them. ..."
"... Israel has been spying on the United States for years using various Israeli or Jewish individuals,
including key Jewish neoconservative figures such as Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith, who were under
investigation for passing classified documents to Israel. ..."
Kristol argues in his book The Neoconservative Persuasion that those Jewish intellectuals
did not forsake their heritage (revolutionary ideology) when they gave up Communism and other revolutionary
movements, but had to make some changes in their thinking. America is filled with such former Trotskyists
who unleashed an unprecedented foreign policy that led to the collapse of the American economy.
We have to keep in mind that America and much of the Western world were scared to death of Bolshevism
and Trotskyism in the 1920s and early 30s because of its subversive activity.
Noted Australian economist John Quiggin declares in his recent work Zombie Economics that
"Ideas are long lived, often outliving their originators and taking new and different forms. Some
ideas live on because they are useful. Others die and are forgotten. But even when they have proved
themselves wrong and dangerous, ideas are very hard to kill. Even after the evidence seems to have
killed them, they keep on coming back.
These ideas are neither alive nor dead; rather…they are undead, or zombie, ideas." Bolshevism
or Trotskyism is one of those zombie ideas that keeps coming back in different forms. It has ideologically
reincarnated in the political disputations of the neoconservative movement.
... ... ...
As it turns out, neoconservative think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute are largely
extensions of Trotskyism with respect to foreign policy. Other think tanks such as the Bradley Foundation
were overtaken by the neoconservative machine back in 1984.
Some of those double agents have been known to have worked with Likud-supporting Jewish groups
such as the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, an organization which has been known
to have "co-opted" several "non-Jewish defense experts by sending them on trips to Israel. It flew
out the retired general Jay Garner, now slated by Bush to be proconsul of occupied Iraq."
Philo-Semitic scholars Stephen Halper of Cambridge University and Jonathan Clarke of the CATO
Institute agree that the neoconservative agendas "have taken American international relations on
an unfortunate detour," which is another way of saying that this revolutionary movement is not what
the Founding Fathers signed up for, who all maintained that the United States would serve the American
people best by not entangling herself in alliances with foreign entities.
As soon as the Israel Lobby came along, as soon as the neoconservative movement began to shape
U.S. foreign policy, as soon as Israel began to dictate to the U.S. what ought to be done in the
Middle East, America was universally hated by the Muslim world.
Moreover, former secretary of defense Robert Gates made it clear to the United States that the
Israelis do not and should not have a monopoly on the American interests in the Middle East. For
that, he was chastised by neoconservative Elliott Abrams.
In that sense, the neoconservative movement as a political and intellectual movement represents
a fifth column in the United States in that it subtly and deceptively seeks to undermine what the
Founding Fathers have stood for and replace it with what the Founding Fathers would have considered
horrible foreign policies-policies which have contributed to the demise of the respect America once
had.
... ... ...
Israel has been spying on the United States for years using various Israeli or Jewish individuals,
including key Jewish neoconservative figures such as Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith, who were under
investigation for passing classified documents to Israel.
The FBI has numerous documents tracing Israel's espionage in the U.S., but no one has come forward
and declared it explicitly in the media because most political pundits value mammon over truth.
For example, when two top AIPAC officials-Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman-were caught passing
classified documents from the Pentagon to Israel, Gabriel Schoenfeld defended them.
In the annual FBI report called "Foreign Economic Collection and Industrial Espionage," Israel
is a major country that pops up quite often. This is widely known among CIA and FBI agents and U.S.
officials for years.
One former U.S. intelligence official declared, "There is a huge, aggressive, ongoing set of
Israeli activities directed against the United States. Anybody who worked in counterintelligence
in a professional capacity will tell you the Israelis are among the most aggressive and active
countries targeting the United States.
They undertake a wide range of technical operations and human operations. People here as liaisons…
aggressively pursue classified intelligence from people. The denials are laughable."
"... Corruption happen everywhere, just look at US. They merely make it legal to bribe the politician,
it is call lobbying. Look at all those who cheated their clients by selling them CDOs and betting against
them. It became a financial worst crisis for the world, yet none of them was jailed and they all get
to keep the billions. ..."
Corruption happen everywhere, just look at US. They merely make it legal to bribe the politician,
it is call lobbying. Look at all those who cheated their clients by selling them CDOs and betting
against them. It became a financial worst crisis for the world, yet none of them was jailed and
they all get to keep the billions.
Estimate the cost to win 2016 president election = USD 1bn. Even Bush, not a front runner,
had already spend USD30millions. Contribution of fund in return for IOU favors, look like corruption
to me too.
NigelJ, 4 Dec 2015 10:53
some of this anti-corruption campaign would certainly not go amiss in the UK.
TheHighRoad isabey, 4 Dec 2015 09:29
Perhaps the difference is that many academics in the UK are contracted to do a certain number
of hours teaching and must support the university's reputation with research but are also permitted
- contractually - to work in industry and with NGOs to supplement their income and to expand their
knowledge of current practice to make their teaching and research more relevant. It isn't illegal
or even unusual or suspect and if you are envious of it I suggest you spend 8 years working your
way through an ordinary degree, a master's and a doctorate so that you too can participate in
it - though don't get your hopes up for "raking it in".
Oh, and they don't work in a system where corruption investigations are used as a pretext to
weed out "unreliable elements" who talk about dangerous things that might lead impressionable
young people to ask difficult questions about the government in a one-party state.
Russian president says Ankara will not 'get away with a tomato ban' in response to 'cynical
war crime'
... ... ...
The Russian president said he was still bemused by the Turkish decision to shoot down the
Su-24. He said: "Perhaps only Allah knows why they did this. And it seems Allah decided to punish
the ruling clique in Turkey by relieving them of their sense and judgment."
Russia has implemented a series of economic sanctions against Turkey, including banning fruit and
vegetable imports and ordering Russian tour operators not to send tourists to the country. Putin
emphasised that this limited response was not an attempt to move on and start afresh, however.
"There will not be a nervous, hysterical reaction, that would be dangerous for us and for the
whole world," he said. "We will not engage in sabre rattling. But if people think that after
carrying out a cynical war crime, killing our people, they'll get away with a tomato ban or some
limits in the construction sector, they're very wrong. We will keep remembering what they did.
And they will keep regretting it."
The day before, Russia's defence ministry had called journalists to a briefing at its command
centre, showing slides and satellite imagery claiming to show proof that Turkey was profiting
from the trade in Isis oil.
"A unified team of bandits and Turkish elites operates in the region to steal oil from their
neighbours," deputy defence minister Anatoly Antonov said on Wednesday. Erdoğan later dismissed
the accusations as "slander".
... ... ...
Putin again called for a unified coalition to fight terrorism, and said it was unacceptable to
delineate between different terrorist groups. The Russian airstrikes have hit many groups that
western countries do not consider terrorists. Putin also made it clear once again who he blames
for the current terrorist threat.
"Iraq, Libya and Syria have turned into zones of chaos and anarchy which threaten the whole
world," he said. "And of course we know why this happened. We know who wanted to change
inconvenient regimes, and crudely impose their rules. And what was the result? They made a mess,
ruined the states, turned different peoples against each other and then, as we say in Russia,
washed their hands of the places, opening the road for radicals, extremists and terrorists."
An old and close, but very conservative and increasingly out of touch with reality friend of
mine posted a video some days ago on Facebook. He indicated that he thought it was both funny
and also insightful. It seemed highly suspicious to me, so I googled it and found that the
person who uploaded it onto you tube stated in the comments on it that it is a spoof.
Here is a link that discusses why it is known it is a spoof as well as linking to the video itself
and its comments. It has reportedly been widely distributed on the internet by many conservatives
who think it is for real, and when I pointed out it is a spoof, my friend defriended me from Facebook.
I am frustrated.
So, for those who do not view it, it purports to show a talk show in Egypt
where a brief clip of Obama speaking last May to graduating military officers about how climate change
is and will be a serious national security issue, something the Pentagon has claimed. He did
not say it was the most serious such issue, and at least in the clip he said nothing about Daesh/ISIS/ISIL,
although of course he has said a lot about it and not only has US drones attacking it but reportedly
we have "boots on the ground" now against them in the form of some Special Ops.
So, the video then goes back to the supposed talk show where they are speaking in Arabic with
English subtitles. According to these subtitels, which are partly accurate translations but
also wildly inaccurate in many places (my Arabic is good enough that I have parsed out what is what
there) the host asks, "Is he insane?" A guest suggests he is on drugs. Another claims
he just does what Michelle says and that his biceps are small. Finally a supposed retired general
pounds the table and denounces him over Libya policy (that part is for real, although his name is
never mentioned) and suggests that Americans should act to remove him from office. Again,
conservative commentators have found hilarious and very insightful, with this even holding among
commenters to the video aware that it is a mistranslated spoof. Bring these guys on more.
Obviously they would be big hits on Fox News.
So, I would like to simply comment further on why Egyptians would be especially upset about Libya,
but that them being so against the US is somewhat hypocritical (I also note that there is reason
to believe that the supposed general is not a general). Of course Libya is just to the west
of Egypt with its eastern portion (Cyrenaica under Rome) often ruled by whomever was ruling Egypt
at various times in the past. So there is a strong cultural-historical connection. It
is understandable that they would take Libyan matters seriously, and indeed things in Libya have
turned into a big mess.
However, the move to bring in outside powers to intervene against Qaddafi in 2011 was instigated
by an Egyptian, Abu Moussa. This was right after Mubarak had fallen in the face of massive
demonstrations in Egypt. Moussa was both leader of the Arab League and wanting to run for President
of Egypt. He got nowhere with the latter, but he did get somewhere with getting
the rest of the world to intervene in Libya. He got the Arab League to support such an
intervention, with that move going to the UN Security Council and convincing Russia and China to
abstain on the anti-Qaddafi measure. Putin has since complained that those who intervened,
UK and France most vigorously with US "leading from behind" on the effort.went beyond the UN mandate.
But in any case, Qaddafi was overthrown, not to be replaced by any stable or central power, with
Libya an ongoing mess that has remained fragmented since, especially between its historically separate
eastern and western parts, something I have posted on here previously.
So, that went badly, but Egyptians blaming the US for this seems to me to be a bit much, pretty
hypocritical. It happens to be a fact that the US and Obama are now very unpopular in Egypt.
I looked at a poll from a few months ago, and the only nations where the US and Obama were viewed
less favorably (although a few not polled such as North Korea) were in order: Russia, Palestinian
Territories, Belarus, Lebanon, Iran, and Pakistan, with me suspecting there is now a more favorable
view in Iran since the culmination of the nuclear deal. I can appreciate that many Egyptians
are frustrated that the US supported an election process that did not give them Moussa or El-Baradei,
but the Muslim Brotherhood, who proceeded to behave badly, leading to them being overthrown by an
new military dictatorship with a democratic veneer, basically a new improved version of the Mubarak
regime, with the US supporting it, if somewhat reluctantly.
Yes, this is all pretty depressing, but I must say that ultimately the Egyptians are responsible
for what has gone down in their own nation. And even if those Egyptian commentators, whoever
they actually are, are as angry about Obama as they are depicted as being, the fact is that Obama
is still more popular there than was George W. Bush at the same time in his presidency, something
all these US conservatives so enamored of this bizarre video seem to conveniently forget.
Addenda, 5:10 PM:
1) The people on that video come across almost like The Three Stooges, which highlights
the comedic aspect that even fans of Obama are supposed to appreciate, although it does not add to
the credibility of the remarks of those so carrying on like a bunch of clowns.
2) Another reason Egyptians may be especially upset about the situation in Libya is that
indeed Daesh has a foothold in a port city not too far from the Egyptian border in Surt, as reported
as the top story today in the NY Times.
3) Arguably once the rest of the world got in, the big problem was a failure to follow
through with aiding establishing a central unified government, although that was always going to
be a problem, something not recognized by all too many involved, including Abu Moussa. As it
was once his proposal got going, it was then Sec. of State Hillary Clinton who was the main person
leading the charge for the US to get in over the reluctance of Obama. This was probably her
biggest mistake in all this, even though most Republicans think the irrelevant sideshow of the unfortunate
incident in Benghazi is the big deal.
4) Needless to say, Republican views at the time of the intervention were just completely
incoherent, as symbolized at one point by Senator Lindsey Graham, who within the space of a single
sentence simultaneously argued for the US to do nothing and also to go in full force with the proverbial
"boots on the ground."
Further Addendum, 7:10 PM:
One of the pieces of evidence given that supposedly shows that the video
is a spoof is that the supposed retired Brigadier General Mahmoud Mansour cannot be found if
one googles his name, except in connection with this video. There are some other Egyptians
named Mansour who show up, but this guy does not. However, it occurs to me that he might be
for real, but simply obscure. After all, Brigadier is the lowest rank of General, one star,
with Majors being two star, Lieutenants being three star (even though Majors are above Lieutenants),
and with four and five star not having any other rank assigned to them. Furthermore, Egypt
has a large military that has run the country for decades, so there may well be a lot of these Brigadier
Generals, with many of them amounting to nothing. So, if he is for real, his claim to fame
will be from jumping up and down, pounding on a table and calling for the overthrow of the POTUS.
"... Let's compare donations from people who work at Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, Wells Fargo, Citigroup and Goldman Sachs to Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. Hillary Clinton, has received $495,503.60 from people who work on Wall Street Bernie Sanders, has received only $17,107.72. Hillary Clinton may have Wall Street, ..."
"... The false promise of meritocracy was most disappointing. It basically said that meritocracy is hard to do, but never evaluates whether it is the right thing to do. Hint - it isn't enough. We need to worry about (relative) equality of outcome not just (relative) equality of opportunity. An equal chance to starve is still an equal chance. ..."
"... Making economies games is how you continued rigged distribution apparatus. Question all "rules"! ..."
When it comes to Wall Street buying our democracy, you just need to follow the money. Let's
compare donations from people who work at Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, Wells
Fargo, Citigroup and Goldman Sachs to Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. Hillary Clinton, has
received $495,503.60 from people who work on Wall Street Bernie Sanders, has received only $17,107.72.
Hillary Clinton may have Wall Street, But Bernie has YOU! Bernie has received more than 1.5
million contributions from folks like you, at an average of $30 each.
To be fair, don't you think we should count donations for this election cycle for Clinton?
Y'know,
she was the Senator from New York.
pgl -> EMichael,
Some people think anyone from New York is in bed with Wall Street. Trust me on this one - not
everyone here in Brooklyn is in Jamie Dimon's hip pocket. Of course those alleged liberals JohnH
uses as his sources (e.g. William Cohan) are in Jamie Dimon's hip pocket.
EMichael -> pgl,
I hate things like this. No honesty whatsoever. This cycle.
The total for Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan and Bank of America
is $326,000.
That leaves Wells Fargo, Citigroup and Goldman Sachs to contribute $169,000.
EMichael -> RGC,
I stand corrected, somewhat.
Let me know how much comes from those organizations PACs.
reason said,
The false promise of meritocracy was most disappointing. It basically said that meritocracy
is hard to do, but never evaluates whether it is the right thing to do. Hint - it isn't enough.
We need to worry about (relative) equality of outcome not just (relative) equality of opportunity.
An equal chance to starve is still an equal chance.
ilsm -> reason,
Making economies games is how you continued rigged distribution apparatus. Question all
"rules"!
"... Let's compare donations from people who work at Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, Wells Fargo, Citigroup and Goldman Sachs to Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. Hillary Clinton, has received $495,503.60 from people who work on Wall Street Bernie Sanders, has received only $17,107.72. Hillary Clinton may have Wall Street, ..."
"... The false promise of meritocracy was most disappointing. It basically said that meritocracy is hard to do, but never evaluates whether it is the right thing to do. Hint - it isn't enough. We need to worry about (relative) equality of outcome not just (relative) equality of opportunity. An equal chance to starve is still an equal chance. ..."
"... Making economies games is how you continued rigged distribution apparatus. Question all "rules"! ..."
When it comes to Wall Street buying our democracy, you just need to follow the money. Let's
compare donations from people who work at Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, Wells
Fargo, Citigroup and Goldman Sachs to Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. Hillary Clinton, has
received $495,503.60 from people who work on Wall Street Bernie Sanders, has received only $17,107.72.
Hillary Clinton may have Wall Street, But Bernie has YOU! Bernie has received more than 1.5
million contributions from folks like you, at an average of $30 each.
To be fair, don't you think we should count donations for this election cycle for Clinton?
Y'know,
she was the Senator from New York.
pgl -> EMichael,
Some people think anyone from New York is in bed with Wall Street. Trust me on this one - not
everyone here in Brooklyn is in Jamie Dimon's hip pocket. Of course those alleged liberals JohnH
uses as his sources (e.g. William Cohan) are in Jamie Dimon's hip pocket.
EMichael -> pgl,
I hate things like this. No honesty whatsoever. This cycle.
The total for Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan and Bank of America
is $326,000.
That leaves Wells Fargo, Citigroup and Goldman Sachs to contribute $169,000.
EMichael -> RGC,
I stand corrected, somewhat.
Let me know how much comes from those organizations PACs.
reason said,
The false promise of meritocracy was most disappointing. It basically said that meritocracy
is hard to do, but never evaluates whether it is the right thing to do. Hint - it isn't enough.
We need to worry about (relative) equality of outcome not just (relative) equality of opportunity.
An equal chance to starve is still an equal chance.
ilsm -> reason,
Making economies games is how you continued rigged distribution apparatus. Question all
"rules"!
All this neoliberal talk about "maximizing shareholder value" is designed to hide a
redistribution mechanism of wealth up. Which is the essence of neoliberalism.
It's all about executive pay. "Shareholder value" is nothing then a ruse for
getting outsize bonuses but top execs. Stock buybacks is a form of asset-stripping,
similar to one practiced by buyout sharks, but practiced by internal management team.
Who cares if the company will be destroyed if you have a golden parachute ?
Notable quotes:
"... By Wolf Richter, a San Francisco based executive, entrepreneur, start up specialist, and author, with extensive international work experience. Originally published at Wolf Street . ..."
"... IBM has blown $125 billion on buybacks since 2005, more than the $111 billion it invested in capital expenditures and R D. It's staggering under its debt, while revenues have been declining for 14 quarters in a row. It cut its workforce by 55,000 people since 2012. ..."
"... Big-pharma icon Pfizer plowed $139 billion into buybacks and dividends in the past decade, compared to $82 billion in R D and $18 billion in capital spending. 3M spent $48 billion on buybacks and dividends, and $30 billion on R D and capital expenditures. They're all doing it. ..."
"... Nearly 60% of the 3,297 publicly traded non-financial US companies Reuters analyzed have engaged in share buybacks since 2010. Last year, the money spent on buybacks and dividends exceeded net income for the first time in a non-recession period. ..."
"... This year, for the 613 companies that have reported earnings for fiscal 2015, share buybacks hit a record $520 billion. They also paid $365 billion in dividends, for a total of $885 billion, against their combined net income of $847 billion. ..."
"... Buybacks and dividends amount to 113% of capital spending among companies that have repurchased shares since 2010, up from 60% in 2000 and from 38% in 1990. Corporate investment is normally a big driver in a recovery. Not this time! Hence the lousy recovery. ..."
"... Financial engineering takes precedence over actual engineering in the minds of CEOs and CFOs. A company buying its own shares creates additional demand for those shares. It's supposed to drive up the share price. The hoopla surrounding buyback announcements drives up prices too. Buybacks also reduce the number of outstanding shares, thus increase the earnings per share, even when net income is declining. ..."
"... But when companies load up on debt to fund buybacks while slashing investment in productive activities and innovation, it has consequences for revenues down the road. And now that magic trick to increase shareholder value has become a toxic mix. Shares of buyback queens are getting hammered. ..."
"... Me thinks Wolf is slightly barking up the wrong tree here. What needs to be looked at is how buy backs affect executive pay. "Shareholder value" is more often than not a ruse? ..."
"... Interesting that you mention ruse, relating to "buy-backs"…from my POV, it seems like they've legalized insider trading or engineered (a) loophole(s). ..."
"... On a somewhat related perspective on subterfuge. The language of "affordability" has proven to be insidiously clever. Not only does it reinforce and perpetuate the myth of "deserts", but camouflages the means of embezzling the means of distribution. Isn't distribution, really, the only rational purpose of finance, i.e., as a means of distribution as opposed to a means of embezzlement? ..."
"... buybacks *can* be asset-stripping and often are, but unless you tie capital allocation decisions closer to investment in the business such that they're mutually exclusive, this is specious and a reach. No one invests if they can't see the return. It would be just as easy to say that they're buying back stock because revenue is slipping and they have no other investment opportunities. ..."
"... Perhaps an analysis of the monopolistic positions of so many American businesses that allow them the wherewithal to underinvest and still buy back huge amounts of stock? If we had a more competitive economy, companies would have less ability to underinvest. Ultimately, I think buybacks are more a result than a cause of dysfunction, but certainly not always bad. ..."
"... One aspect that Reuters piece mentions, but glosses over with a single paragraph buried in the middle, is the fact that for many companies there are no ( or few) reasons to spend money in other ways. If capex/r d doesn't give you much return, why not buy out the shareholders who are least interested in holding your stock? ..."
"... Dumping money into R D is always risky, although different industries have different levels, and the "do it in-house" risk must be weighed against the costs of buying up companies with "proven" technologies. Thus, R D cash is hidden inside M A. M A is up 2-3 years in a row. ..."
By Wolf Richter, a San Francisco based executive,
entrepreneur, start up specialist, and author, with extensive international
work experience. Originally published at
Wolf Street.
Magic trick turns into toxic mix.
Stocks have been on a tear to nowhere this year. Now investors are
praying for a Santa rally to pull them out of the mire. They're counting on
desperate amounts of share buybacks that companies fund by loading up on
debt. But the magic trick that had performed miracles over the past few
years is backfiring.
And there's a reason.
IBM has blown $125 billion on buybacks since 2005, more than the $111
billion it invested in capital expenditures and R&D. It's staggering under
its debt, while revenues have been declining for 14 quarters in a row. It
cut its workforce by 55,000 people since 2012. And its stock is down 38%
since March 2013.
Big-pharma icon Pfizer plowed $139 billion into buybacks and dividends in
the past decade, compared to $82 billion in R&D and $18 billion in capital
spending. 3M spent $48 billion on buybacks and dividends, and $30 billion on
R&D and capital expenditures. They're all doing it.
"Activist investors" – hedge funds – have been clamoring for it. An
investigative report by Reuters, titled
The Cannibalized Company, lined some of them up:
In March, General Motors Co acceded to a $5 billion share buyback to
satisfy investor Harry Wilson. He had threatened a proxy fight if the
auto maker didn't distribute some of the $25 billion cash hoard it had
built up after emerging from bankruptcy just a few years earlier.
DuPont early this year announced a $4 billion buyback program – on top
of a $5 billion program announced a year earlier – to beat back activist
investor Nelson Peltz's Trian Fund Management, which was seeking four
board seats to get its way.
In March, Qualcomm Inc., under pressure from hedge fund Jana Partners,
agreed to boost its program to purchase $10 billion of its shares over
the next 12 months; the company already had an existing $7.8 billion
buyback program and a commitment to return three quarters of its free
cash flow to shareholders.
And in July, Qualcomm announced 5,000 layoffs. It's hard to innovate when
you're trying to please a hedge fund.
CEOs with a long-term outlook and a focus on innovation and investment,
rather than financial engineering, come under intense pressure.
"None of it is optional; if you ignore them, you go away," Russ Daniels,
a tech executive with 15 years at Apple and 13 years at HP, told Reuters.
"It's all just resource allocation," he said. "The situation right now is
there are a lot of investors who believe that they can make a better
decision about how to apply that resource than the management of the
business can."
Nearly 60% of the 3,297 publicly traded non-financial US companies
Reuters analyzed have engaged in share buybacks since 2010. Last year, the
money spent on buybacks and dividends exceeded net income for the first time
in a non-recession period.
This year, for the 613 companies that have reported earnings for fiscal
2015, share buybacks hit a record $520 billion. They also paid $365 billion
in dividends, for a total of $885 billion, against their combined net income
of $847 billion.
Buybacks and dividends amount to 113% of capital spending among companies
that have repurchased shares since 2010, up from 60% in 2000 and from 38% in
1990. Corporate investment is normally a big driver in a recovery. Not this
time! Hence the lousy recovery.
Financial engineering takes precedence over actual engineering in the
minds of CEOs and CFOs. A company buying its own shares creates additional
demand for those shares. It's supposed to drive up the share price. The
hoopla surrounding buyback announcements drives up prices too. Buybacks also
reduce the number of outstanding shares, thus increase the earnings per
share, even when net income is declining.
"Serving customers, creating innovative new products, employing workers,
taking care of the environment … are NOT the objectives of firms," sais Itzhak
Ben-David, a finance professor of Ohio State University, a buyback
proponent, according to Reuters. "These are components in the process that
have the goal of maximizing shareholders' value."
But when companies load up on debt to fund buybacks while slashing
investment in productive activities and innovation, it has consequences for
revenues down the road. And now that magic trick to increase shareholder
value has become a toxic mix. Shares of buyback queens are getting hammered.
Citigroup credit analysts looked into the extent to which this is
happening – and why. Christine Hughes, Chief Investment Strategist at
OtterWood Capital, summarized the Citi report this way: "This
dynamic of borrowing from bondholders to pay shareholders may be coming to
an end…."
Their chart (via OtterWood Capital) shows that about half of the
cumulative outperformance of these buyback queens from 2012 through 2014 has
been frittered away this year, as their shares, IBM-like, have swooned:
Mbuna, November 21, 2015 at 7:31 am
Me thinks Wolf is slightly barking up the wrong tree here. What needs to be
looked at is how buy backs affect executive pay. "Shareholder value" is more
often than not a ruse?
ng, November 21, 2015 at 8:58 am
probably, in some or most cases, but the effect on the stock is the same.
Alejandro, November 21, 2015 at 9:19 am
Interesting that you mention ruse, relating to "buy-backs"…from my POV,
it seems like they've legalized insider trading or engineered (a) loophole(s).
On a somewhat related perspective on subterfuge. The language of
"affordability" has proven to be insidiously clever. Not only does it reinforce
and perpetuate the myth of "deserts", but camouflages the means of embezzling
the means of distribution. Isn't distribution, really, the only rational
purpose of finance, i.e., as a means of distribution as opposed to a means of
embezzlement?
Jim, November 21, 2015 at 10:42 am
More nuance and less dogma please. The dogmatic tone really hurts what could
otherwise be a fine but more-qualified position.
"Results of all this financial engineering? Revenues of the S&P 500
companies are falling for the fourth quarter in a row – the worst such spell
since the Financial Crisis."
Eh, no. No question that buybacks *can* be asset-stripping and often
are, but unless you tie capital allocation decisions closer to investment in
the business such that they're mutually exclusive, this is specious and a
reach. No one invests if they can't see the return. It would be just as easy to
say that they're buying back stock because revenue is slipping and they have no
other investment opportunities.
Revenues are falling in large part because these largest companies derive an
ABSOLUTELY HUGE portion of their business overseas and the dollar has been
ridiculously strong in the last 12-15 months. Rates are poised to rise, and the
easy Fed-inspired rate arbitrage vis a vis stocks and "risk on" trade are
closing. How about a little more context instead of just dogma?
John Malone made a career out of financial engineering, something like 30%
annual returns for the 25 years of his CEO tenure at TCI. Buybacks were a huge
part of that.
Perhaps an analysis of the monopolistic positions of so many American
businesses that allow them the wherewithal to underinvest and still buy back
huge amounts of stock? If we had a more competitive economy, companies would
have less ability to underinvest. Ultimately, I think buybacks are more a
result than a cause of dysfunction, but certainly not always bad.
NeqNeq, November 21, 2015 at 11:44 am
One aspect that Reuters piece mentions, but glosses over with a single
paragraph buried in the middle, is the fact that for many companies there are
no ( or few) reasons to spend money in other ways. If capex/r&d doesn't give
you much return, why not buy out the shareholders who are least interested in
holding your stock?
Dumping cash into plants only makes sense in the places where the market is
growing. For many years that has meant Asia (China). For example, Apple gets
66% (iirc) of revenue from Asia, and that is where they have continued
investing in growth. If demand is slowing and costs are rising, and it looks
like both are true, why would you put even more money in?
Dumping money into R&D is always risky, although different industries have
different levels, and the "do it in-house" risk must be weighed against the
costs of buying up companies with "proven" technologies. Thus, R&D cash is
hidden inside M&A. M&A is up 2-3 years in a row.
Before death in Libya....Ghadaffi's crime was in "not playing along and selling out". Kinda
like Iraq and all. They all should just hand over everything and say thanks...but they did
not . There is disinfo on both sides, But the "madman" and people who actually live there never
seem to make the NYTimes.
"For 40 years, or was it longer, I can't remember, I did all I could to give people houses, hospitals,
schools, and when they were hungry, I gave them food. I even made Benghazi into farmland from the
desert, I stood up to attacks from that cowboy Reagan, when he killed my adopted orphaned daughter,
he was trying to kill me, instead he killed that poor innocent child. Then I helped my brothers and
sisters from Africa with money for the African Union.
I did all I could to help people understand the concept of real democracy, where people's committees
ran our country. But that was never enough, as some told me, even people who had 10 room homes, new
suits and furniture, were never satisfied, as selfish as they were they wanted more. They told Americans
and other visitors, that they needed "democracy" and "freedom" never realizing it was a cut throat
system, where the biggest dog eats the rest, but they were enchanted with those words, never realizing
that in America, there was no free medicine, no free hospitals, no free housing, no free education
and no free food, except when people had to beg or go to long lines to get soup.
No, no matter what I did, it was never enough for some, but for others, they knew I was the son
of Gamal Abdel Nasser, the only true Arab and Muslim leader we've had since Salah-al-Deen, when he
claimed the Suez Canal for his people, as I claimed Libya, for my people, it was his footsteps I
tried to follow, to keep my people free from colonial domination - from thieves who would steal from
us.
Now, I am under attack by the biggest force in military history, my little African son,
Obama wants to kill me, to take away the freedom of our country, to take away our free housing, our
free medicine, our free education, our free food, and replace it with American style thievery, called
"capitalism," but all of us in the Third World know what that means, it means corporations run the
countries, run the world, and the people suffer. So, there is no alternative for me, I must
make my stand, and if Allah wishes, I shall die by following His path, the path that has made our
country rich with farmland, with food and health, and even allowed us to help our African and Arab
brothers and sisters to work here with us, in the Libyan Jamahiriya.
I do not wish to die, but if it comes to that, to save this land, my people, all the thousands
who are all my children, then so be it.
Let this testament be my voice to the world, that I stood up to crusader attacks of NATO, stood
up to cruelty, stood up to betrayal, stood up to the West and its colonialist ambitions, and that
I stood with my African brothers, my true Arab and Muslim brothers, as a beacon of light. When others
were building castles, I lived in a modest house, and in a tent. I never forgot my youth in Sirte,
I did not spend our national treasury foolishly, and like Salah-al-Deen, our great Muslim leader,
who rescued Jerusalem for Islam, I took little for myself...
In the West, some have called me "mad", "crazy", but they know the truth yet continue to lie,
they know that our land is independent and free, not in the colonial grip, that my vision, my path,
is, and has been clear and for my people and that I will fight to my last breath to keep us free,
may Allah almighty help us to remain faithful and free.
Kirk2NCC1701
"they hate us for our freedoms"
No, "They hate us for our freebombs" that we keep delivering.
Suppose you lived in a town that was run by a ruthless Mafioso boss. Sure he was ruthless to troublemakers
and dissenters, but if you went about your business (and paid your taxes/respects to him), life was
simple but livable, and crime was negligible.
Now imagine that a crime Overlord came from another country and decided to wreck the town, just
to remove your Mafioso Don. In the process, your neighborhood and house were destroyed, and you lost
friends and family.
Now tell me that YOU would not make it YOUR life's mission to bring these War Criminals to justice
-- by any and all means necessary. And tell me that these same Criminals could not have foreseen
all this. Now say it again - but with a straight face. I dare you. I fucking double-dare you!
Max Cynical
US exceptionalism!
GhostOfDiogenes
The worst one, besides Iraq, is Libya.
The infrastructure we destroyed there is unimaginable.
Sure Iraq was hit the worst, and much has been lost there....but Libya was a modern arab oasis
of a country in the middle of nothing.
We destroyed in a few days what took decades to build.
This is why I am not proud of my country, nor my military.
In fact, I would like to see Nuremberg type trials for 'merican military leaders and concentration
gulags for the rest of enlisted. Just like they did to Germany.
Its only proper.
GhostOfDiogenes
The USA did this murder of Libya and giving ownership to the people who did '911'? What a joke. http://youtu.be/aJURNC0e6Ek
Bastiat
Libya under Ghadaffi: universal free college education, free healthcare, free electricity. interest
free loans. A very bad example of how a nation's wealth is to be distributed!
CHoward
The average American has NO idea how much damage is being done in this world - all in the name of
Democracy. Unbelivable and truly pathetic. Yet - most sheeple still believe ISIS and others hate
us because of our "freedoms" and i-pods. What bullshit.
Compare and contrast Assad, giving an interview very well in a second language, with O'bomb-a,
who can't even speak to school children without a teleprompter. Sad.
Razor_Edge
Along with President Putin, Dr al Assad is consistently the most sane, rational and clearly
honest speaker on the tragedy of Syria. By contrast, our satanic western leaders simply lie
outrageously at all times. How do we know? Their lips are moving. They also say the most
absurd things.
We in the west may think that at the end of the day, it's not going to harm us, so why
discomfort ourselves by taking on our own elites and bringing them down. But I believe that an
horrific future awaits us, one we richly deserve, because we did not shout stop at this ocean
of evil bloodshed being spilt in our names. We pay the taxes that pay for it, or at least in
my countrys case, (traditional policy of military neutrality), we facilitate the slaughter
(troop transports through Shannon airport), or fail to speak out for fear it may impact FDI
into Ireland, (largest recipient of US FDI in the world).
We are our brothers keepers, and we are all one. It is those who seek to separate us to
facilitate their evil and psychopathic lust for power and money, who would have us beieve that
"the other" is evil. Are we really so simple minded or riven by fear that we cannot see
through the curtain of the real Axis of Evil?
Demdere
Israeli-neocon strategy is to have the world's economy collapse at the point of maximum war
and political chaos.
Then they can escape to Paraguay. Sure as hell, if they stay here, we are going to hang them
all. Treasonous criminals for the 9/11 false flag operation.
By 2015, every military and intelligence service and all the think tanks have looked at 9/11
carefully. Anyone who looks at the evidence sees that it was a false flag operation, the
buildings were destroyed via explosives, the planes and evil Arab Muslims were show. Those
agencies reported to their civilian leaders, and their civilian leaders spread the information
through their societies.
So all of the politically aware people in the world, including here at home, KNOW that 9/11
was a false flag operation, or know that they must not look at the evidence. Currently, anyone
who disagrees in MSM is treated as invisible, and I know of no prominent bloggers who have
even done the bits of extention of 'what it must mean' that I have done.
But it certainly means high levels of distrust for the US and for Israel. It seems to me
that World Domination is not possible, because the world won't let you, and the means of
opposition are only limited by the imaginations of the most creative, intelligent and
knowledgable people. We don't have any of those on our side any more.
L Bean
In their farcical quest to emulate the Roman empire...
Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt,
pacem appellant - Tacitus
They plunder, they slaughter, and they steal: this they falsely name Empire, and where they
make a wasteland, they call it peace.
"... Is what you're saying here is that, by extending a lot of credit, the financial sector allowed households to maintain consumption in the face of a permanent decline in income (at least relative to expectation)? That's an important part of the story, I agree. ..."
"... the FIRE sector in particular, are parasitic on the economy. ..."
"... Perhaps financialization isn't so much a thing-in-itself as the mechanism through which wealth concentrates in periods of slow growth? ..."
"... As in the official theory of efficient markets, the financial sector is actually earning its keep by allocating capital to the most productive investments, and by spreading and managing risk. I don't see how anyone can argue this with a straight face in the light of the last 20 years of bubbles and busts." ..."
"... Did Cuba, Venezuela, Argentina and North Korea do better than the financialized economies of the world? Did the hand of the State in Russia, China and other countries secure better outcomes than the global financial sector in countries that allowed it to operate (albeit with heavy regulation)? ..."
"... The financial system can engage in usury, lending money with no connection to productive investment, by simply creating a parasitic claim on income. There are straightforward ways of doing this: credit cards with high rates of interest or payday lending. There are slightly more complicated approaches: insurance that by design doesn't pay off for the nominal beneficiary. ..."
"... "The biggest economic policy decision of the last thirty years has been the decision to de-socialise a lot of previously socially insured risks and transfer them back to the household sector (in their various capacities as workers, homeowners and consumers of healthcare). The financial sector was obviously the conduit for this policy decision." ..."
"... My feeling (based on nothing but intuition) is that the answer is (d). The government is a tool of moneyed interests. I know, it sounds awfully libertarian, but it is what it is. And I can't foresee any non-catastrophic end to it. ..."
The financialization of the global economy has produced a hugely costly financial sector, extracting
returns that must, in the end, be taken out of the returns to investment of all kinds. The costs
were hidden during the pre-crisis bubble era, but are now evident to everyone, including potential
investors. So, even massively expansionary monetary policy doesn't produce much in the way of
new private investment.
This isn't an original idea. The Bank of International Settlements put out a paper earlier this year
arguing that financial sector growth
crowds out real growth. But how does this work and what can be done about it? I'm still organizing
my thoughts on this, so what I have are some ideas rather than a fully formed argument.
First, if the financial sector is unproductive, how can it be so large and profitable in a market
economy?
There are a few possible explanations
(a) As in the official theory of efficient markets, the financial sector is actually earning its
keep by allocating capital to the most productive investments, and by spreading and managing risk.
I don't see how anyone can argue this with a straight face in the light of the last 20 years of bubbles
and busts.
(b) Tax evasion: the global financial sector allows corporations to greatly reduce their tax liabilities.
Most of the savings in tax is captured in the financial sector itself, but the amount flowing to
corporations is sufficient to offset the high costs of the modern financial sector, relative to (for
example) old-style bank finance and simple corporate structures financed by debt and equity
(c) Volatility: the financialization of the economy has produced greatly increased volatility (in
exchange rates, asset prices and so on). The financial sector amplifies and profits from this volatility,
partly through
regulatory arbitrage, and partly through entrenched and systematic fraud as in the
LIBOR and
Forex scandals.
(d) Political capture: The financial sector controls political outcomes in both traditional ways
(political donations, highly revolving door jobs for future and former politicians) and through the
ideology of market liberalism, which is perfectly designed to support policies supporting the financial
sector, while discrediting policies traditionally sought by other parts of the corporate sector,
such as protection for manufacturing industry. The shift to private finance for infrastructure, discussed
in the previous post is part of this. The construction part of the infrastructure sector (which was
always private) has suffered from the reduced flow of projects, but the finance part (previously
managed through government bonds) has
benefited massively.
The result of all this is that the financial sector benefits from an evolutionary strategy similar
to that of an Australian eucalypt forest. Eucalypts are both highly flammable (they generate lots
of combustible oil) and highly fire resistant. So eucalypt forests are subject to frequent fires
which kill competing species, and allow the eucalypts to extend their range.
dsquared 11.29.15 at 1:24 pm
Surely the answer is "risk transfer". The biggest economic policy decision of the last thirty years
has been the decision to de-socialise a lot of previously socially insured risks and transfer them
back to the household sector (in their various capacities as workers, homeowners and consumers of
healthcare). The financial sector was obviously the conduit for this policy decision. Their role
is to provide insurance to the rest of society and this is what they did – in fact, they provided
too much of it, with too little capital which is why they went bust, and why their bankruptcy was
so disastrous (there's nothing worse than an insurer bankruptcy, because it hits you with a big loss
at exactly the worst time). I think c) above is particularly unconvincing, as the biggest stylised
feature of the period of financialisation was the Great Moderation – in fact, the financial sector
stored up volatility that would otherwise have been experienced by other people, including the intermediation
of some genuinely historically massive imbalances associated with the industrialisation of China,
and stored it up until it couldn't hold any more and exploded.
I also don't think LIBOR and FX
fit into that pattern at all very well either. Financial systems have two kinds of problem, which
is why they often have two kinds of regulators. They have prudential problems and conduct problems.
Both LIBOR and FX were old-fashioned profiteering and cartel arrangements, which could happen in
any industry (hey let's talk about drug pricing and indeed university tuition some time). In actual
fact, as I wrote a while ago, it's only LIBOR that can really be considered a scandal – FX was very
much more a case of customers who wanted the benefits of tight regulation but didn't want to pay
for them, and were lucky enough to find a political moment in which the time was right for an otherwise
very unpromising case.
In other words, the answer to all your questions is "leverage". That's why financial systems grew
so fast, that's why they're associated with poor economic performance, and that's why they tend to
show up in periods of secular stagnation – a secular stagnation is almost defined as a period during
which people try to maintain their standard of living by borrowing. Of course, if the financial sector
had been required to hold enough equity capital in the first place, it would never have grown so
big in the first place, and we could all be enjoying the thirteenth year of the post-dot-com bust[1]
in relative contentment.
[1] I am never going to shut up about this. The real estate bubble was a policy-created bubble.
It was blown up in real time and intentionally, by a Federal Reserve which wanted to cushion the
blow of the tech bust. If the financial sector had refused to finance it, the financial sector would
have been trying to run a monetary policy directly opposed to that of the central bank.
I agree that risk transfer is a big deal. On the other hand, it's not obvious that the financial
sector did a lot to insure households against most of the additional risk, or that the Great Moderation
corresponded to a reduction in the volatility faced by households. On the first point, despite massive
financial innovation since 1980, the set of financial instruments easily available to households
hasn't changed all that much. Most obviously, there's no insurance against bad employment and wage
outcomes and home equity insurance hasn't really happened either.
Is what you're saying here
is that, by extending a lot of credit, the financial sector allowed households to maintain consumption
in the face of a permanent decline in income (at least relative to expectation)? That's an important
part of the story, I agree.
The secular stagnation framing of the question leads me to think more about why investment hasn't
responded to monetary policy rather than directly about households.
Yeah, that's my point – the massive extension of credit to households was the financial sector's
role in the big policy shift. At the end of the day, although we might with the benefit of hindsight
agree that "subprime mortgages with no income verification at teaser rates" were a pretty stupid
product that should never have been offered, they were a brand new financial product that had never
been offered to households before! Even the example you mention – "insurance against bad employment
and wage outcomes" – was sort of sold, albeit that what I'm referring to here is Payment Protection
Insurance in the UK, which sort of underlines that it wasn't done well or responsibly.
I guess
my argument here is that it's the combination of deregulation and stagnation that was necessary to
create the 2000s policy disaster. But if we hadn't had the bad products we got, we'd have had something
else go wrong, probably outside the regulated sector. Because the high debt levels were a policy
goal (or at least, were the inevitable and forseeable consequence of trying to do demand management
without fiscal policy), and as I keep saying in different contexts, you can't get to a stupid debt
ratio by only doing sensible things.
The secular stagnation framing of the question leads me to think more about why investment
hasn't responded to monetary policy rather than directly about households.
Isn't the answer to this just the definition of a Keynesian recession? Investment hasn't responded
to monetary policy because there's no interest rate at which it makes sense to produce goods that
can't be sold.
Capital generally, and the FIRE sector in particular, are parasitic on the economy. They provide
some minimal benefits if kept strongly in check, but quickly become destructive if allowed to grow
unchecked, as they have now.
Dumb outsider thought, turning Eggplant @6 upside down: What about r > g? Perhaps financialization
isn't so much a thing-in-itself as the mechanism through which wealth concentrates in periods of
slow growth?
"But if we hadn't had the bad products we got, we'd have had something else go wrong, probably outside
the regulated sector."
A more sophisticated version of the widely debunked theory that Fannie and
Freddie blew up the housing sector by giving loans to poor people. Rule 1: It's never ever the bankers'
fault. Rule 2: see Rule 1. At least d-squared has been consistent…
Which direction is financialization heading? It looks to be decreasing. The mutual fund industry
is in terminal decline, losing market share to ETFs. There are fewer financial advisors today than
in 2008, yet the number of millionaires has increased. Stock trading has broken a 40 year trend of
increasing volumes. Electronic and exchange trading of bonds and derivatives is increasing, driving
down margins. Bots have driven human traders out of jobs (Dark Pools has a good account of this).
Banks are earnings low single digit returns in their trading divisions, which suggests they will
be shut down if things don't improve. It looks like finance is doing a good job of shrinking itself,
with a little help from Elizabeth Warren.
There were several issues and arguments posed in the OP. I'm addressing this:
"First, if the financial
sector is unproductive, how can it be so large and profitable in a market economy?
There are a few possible explanations
(a) As in the official theory of efficient markets, the financial sector is actually earning its
keep by allocating capital to the most productive investments, and by spreading and managing risk.
I don't see how anyone can argue this with a straight face in the light of the last 20 years of bubbles
and busts."
D-squared response is of course it's the risk transfer. That flat out contradicts JQ, but d-squared
is a master of the straight face. And then he proceeds - "there has been a decision to desocilaize";
"the financial sector was obviously the conduit for this policy decision"; and "the real estate bubble
was a policy-created bubble."
So JQ, here's your answer of FIRE's ascendancy from an insider: You know me and my friends were
standing around just doing nothin' and then these policy guys come around. Next thing ya know, we've
doubled our share of GDP and put our bosses in the top 0.01%. Who woulda known? Crazy shit, huh?
Hey and if anyone asks, tell 'um "risk transfer." And if they press, tell 'um "secular stagnation."
In fact, tell 'um frickin' anything. It just wasn't our fault.
I know that I shall have to read John Kay's Other People's Money at some point.
I am wondering what people make of the old the then Marxist Hilferding's concept of promoters' profit
as a way to understand some financial sector activity. I posted this here a few years back.
Here's his example, and I am trying to figure out to the extent that it throws light on the recent
activity of Wall Street.
Start with an industrial firm with a capital of 1,000,000 marks that makes a profit of 150,000
marks with the average profit of 15 percent.
With an interest rate of 5% straight capitalization of income of 150,000 marks will have an estimated
price of 3,000,000 marks (150,000/.05=3,000,000 marks)
A deduction of 20,000 marks for the various administration costs and directors fees would make
the actual payment to shareholders 130,000 rather 150,000 marks
A risk premium of, say, 2% would be added to a fixed safe rate of interest of 5% in estimating
the actual stock price
So what, then, is the stock price (130,000/.07)? 1,857,143 or roughly 1,900.000 marks
This 900,000 is free after deducting the initial investment of 1,000,000 marks
The balance of 900, 000 marks appears as promoters' profit which arises from the conversion of
profit-bearing capital into interest bearing capital.
In 1910, Hilferding called this promoters profit, an economic category sui generis; it is earned
by the promoter by selling of stocks or the securitizing of income on the capital market.
For Hilferding the investment bank, which promotes the conversion of profit-bearing to interest-bearing
capital, claims the promoters profit.
The analysis seems pertinent to the securitization process today, and I would love to hear Henwood's
and others' thoughts about this.
As Roubini and Mihm have pointed out, we have seen the securitization of mortgages, consumer loans,
student loans, auto loans, airplane leases, revenues from forests and mines, delinquent tax liens,
radio tower loans, boat loans, state revenues, the royalties of rock bands!
We have seen, in their words, an explosion in the selling of future income of dependable projected
revenue streams such as rents or interest payments on mortgage payments as securities.
That securitization been driven by investors' quest for yield lift given the low rate of interest,
itself the result of the global savings glut and Fed policy.
And it seems that Wall Street, with the connivance of the credit agencies, was able to appropriate
value from the purchasers of securities by understating the risk premia.
The risk premium and promoters' profit are inversely correlated so there is a strong incentive
to understate the former. This is what Hilferding did not say, but seems worth emphasizing today.
I sincerely do not understand your point here. I'm not arguing, just asking for clarification:
(a) As in the official theory of efficient markets, the financial sector is actually earning its
keep by allocating capital to the most productive investments, and by spreading and managing risk.
I don't see how anyone can argue this with a straight face in the light of the last 20 years of bubbles
and busts.
For one thing, I don't see that the two bubbles and one bust of 1996 – 2015 are self-evidently
worse than the more numerous bubbles and busts of 1976 – 1995. You might say the 2008 brush with
Great Depression outweighs the hyperinflation and multiple deep recessions of the earlier era, but
certainly the Internet and housing bubbles were more productive and less threatening than the commodity,
Japan, emerging debt and other bubbles. Anyway, it's a close enough comparison that someone could
certainly keep a straight face while saying that in the last 20 years financial volatility inflicted
less real economic damage than in the preceding 20 years.
But the bigger issue is no one claims the financial system encourages steady growth. Creative
(bubble) destruction (bust) is the rule. It is command economies that outlaw bubbles and busts–and
inflation and unemployment–at the cost of unproductive employment, empty shelves, stifled innovation,
loss of freedom and other consequences.
If you want to argue that the financial system did not earn its profits in the last 20 years,
it seems to me you have to argue that economic growth was slow, or that more people in the world
are in poverty today, or that there was not enough innovation; not that the ride was too volatile.
Did Cuba, Venezuela, Argentina and North Korea do better than the financialized economies of the
world? Did the hand of the State in Russia, China and other countries secure better outcomes than
the global financial sector in countries that allowed it to operate (albeit with heavy regulation)?
It is certainly possible to argue that we could have had more growth and innovation and poverty
reduction; and less volatility; with some third way that's better than both our current financial
system and the alternatives practiced in the world today. But that point is not so obvious that any
defender of the global financial system must be joking.
Why do you think the booms and busts of the last 20 years are such a clear and damning indictment
of the financial system that the point needs no further elaboration?
The financial system can engage in usury, lending money with no connection to productive investment,
by simply creating a parasitic claim on income. There are straightforward ways of doing this: credit
cards with high rates of interest or payday lending. There are slightly more complicated approaches:
insurance that by design doesn't pay off for the nominal beneficiary.
There are really complicated
ways of doing this: derivatives, for example, which blow up (and as an added bonus, undermine the
informational efficiency of financial markets).
I keep thinking of Piketty's r > g: the ever-accumulating pile of money rising like a slow, but
unstoppable tide. It has to be invested or "invested" - that is, it can buy the assembly of resources
into productive capital assets that represent financial claims on the additional income generated
by business innovation and expansion . . . OR . . . it can be used to finance the parasitic and predatory
manipulations of an emergent neo-feudalism.
Where the secular stagnation thesis is not pure apologetic fraud, I would interpret it as saying,
there are currently few opportunities to invest in additional productive "real" capital stock. For
technological reasons, the new systems require much less capital than the old systems, so when an
old telephone company replaces its expensive copper wire with fiber optics and cellphone towers,
it may be able to fund a large part of the transition out of current cash-flow, even while maintaining
the value of the bonds that once represented investment in a mountain of copper, but are now just
rentier claims on an obsolete world.
In the brave new world, a handful of companies, who have lucked into commercial positions with
high rents, throw off a lot of cash. So, the Apples and Intels do not need to be allocated new capital,
but their distribution of cash to people who don't need it, is generating a lot of demand for "financial
product". The rest of the business world is just trying to manage a slow decline, able to throw off
modest amounts of cash, desperate to find sources of political power that might yield reliable rents,
but without opportunities to innovate that would actually require net investment in excess of current
cashflows from operations.
So, the financial system is just responding to this enlarged demand for non-productive investment
in financial products that generate return from parasitic extraction.
In the interest of parasitic extraction, the financial system pursues the politics of neoliberal
privatization as a means of generating financial products to satisfy demand.
re volatility, the thing you really want to worry about is liquidity. Pre-crash banks could warehouse
risk and so provide liquidity. One consequence was volatility was recorded because liquid markets
allowed prices to be observed.
Regulators have observed the conflict of interest caused by banks
providing a financial service but also participating in the markets with their own money, and have
acted to restrict banks from holding risk for proprietary trading (the Volcker rule). This is fine,
but there has been a noticeable decrease in liquidity in what were once deep markets. The EURCHF
un-pegging in Jan this year is a good example of reduced liquidity resulting in a massive move. There
may well be more of this to come.
"The biggest economic policy decision of the last thirty years has been the decision to de-socialise
a lot of previously socially insured risks and transfer them back to the household sector (in their
various capacities as workers, homeowners and consumers of healthcare). The financial sector was
obviously the conduit for this policy decision."I can't tell if you are arguing with John or agreeing
with him. Is this agreement with his d) [the political capture explanation]? I don't know very much
about the deep history of financial regulation, but I'm fairly certain that most voters have never
put desocialization of risk in their top 5 concerns. Is it possible that the financial sector was
the obvious conduit because they were among the important authors of the ideas?
In my opinion, finance had a passive role in the build
up of the crisis.
Others have said similar things uptread, however this is my opinion:
1) the wage share of GDP depends largely on political choices; since the late seventies there
has been a trend of a falling wage share more or less everywhere, as countries with a lower wage
share are more competitive on the world market.
2) a falling wage share means a rising profit share, and "capitalists" tend to reinvest part of their
profits, so a falling wage share caused a worldwide saving glut.
3) this worldwide saving glut caused an increased financialisation and a bubbling up of the price
of some assets, particularly those assets whose supply is inelastic (for example, the value of distribution
chains or of famous consumer brands).
4) this in turn causes an increased volatility of financial markets, and worse financial crises.
This situation is what we perceive as a secular stagnation, and IMHO depends mostly on a low worldwide
wage share.
Unfortunately, I have no idea of how to reach an higher wage share, and I don't think "the market"
has any mechanism to push up said wage share.
Bruce,
What you are saying makes sense to me. Steven Pressman has also raised the question of how r is to
be maintained with "an abundance of capital and its need for high rates of return." (Understanding
Piketty's Capital in the Twenty First Century).
It's almost as if Piketty in his criticism of the rentier has a rentier's disregard for how the returns
are actually to be made. To the extent that he considers production it is through marginal productivity
theory. Piketty claims that marginal rate of substitution of capital for labor will remain above
unity (and too bad Piketty dismissed the Cambridge Capital critique because Ian Steedman has used
Sraffian theory to show the possibilities of high profits in even a fully automated economy).
Of course as Pressman implies, this "technical" view may blind us to the higher exploitation that
may be necessary for returns to continue to remain high as capital becomes more abundant. Pressman
also implies that Piketty also does not consider how finance can make higher rates of return by making
higher-interest loans to weaker parties while having them absorb most of the risk (this would be
your second kind of investment).
" I don't know very much about the deep history of financial regulation, but I'm fairly certain that
most voters have never put desocialization of risk in their top 5 concerns."
Of course not, but
there are actors here other than "the public" and "the banks". In this case, I'm pretty sure Daniel
is referring to the destruction of unionized middle class jobs with pensions and cheap-to-the-worker
health insurance, which was carried out by their employers. While I doubt I could pick a bank owner
out of a lineup filled out with captains of industry, they aren't actually interchangeable.
"Of course, if the financial sector had been required to hold enough equity capital
in the first place, it would never have grown so big in the first place, and we could all be enjoying
the thirteenth year of the post-dot-com bust[1] in relative contentment."
Secular stagnation to me just means not enough macro (monetary/fiscal) policy to keep up aggregate
demand for full employment and target inflation.
Monetary and fiscal policy is being blocked by politics partly because filthy rich financiers
are buying their way into politics:
The question about Dsquare's alternate history I would have is: what is the response of fiscal
and monetary policy to the "domestication" of the financial sector via higher capital requirements
and leverage regulations, etc.?
If fiscal and monetary policy keeps the economy at a high-pressure level with full employment
and rising wages, I don't see why secular stagnation is a problem.
But politics is blocking fiscal and monetary policy. Professor Quiggin talks of "massive" monetary
policy, but it wasn't massive given the need. (It was massive compared to past recoveries.) It was
big enough to avoid deflation despite unprecedented fiscal austerity. It wasn't big enough to hit
their inflation target in a timely matter.
My feeling (based on nothing but intuition) is that the answer is (d). The government is a tool of
moneyed interests. I know, it sounds awfully libertarian, but it is what it is. And I can't foresee
any non-catastrophic end to it.
"... In reality, this perception is misleading; not that Kerry is a warmonger on the level of George W. Bush's top staff, such as Vice-President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld. The two were the very antithesis of any rational foreign policy such that even the elder George H. W. Bush described them with demeaning terminology , according to his biographer, quoted in the New York Times . Cheney was an "Iron-ass", who "had his own empire … and marched to his own drummer," H.W. Bush said, while calling Rumsfeld "an arrogant fellow" who lacked empathy. Yet, considering that the elder Bush was rarely a peacemaker himself, one is left to ponder if the US foreign policy ailment is centered on failure to elect proper representatives and to enlist anyone other than psychopaths? ..."
"... comparing the conduct of the last three administrations, that of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama, one would find that striking similarities are abundant. In principle, all three administrations' foreign policy agendas were predicated on strong militaries and military interventions, although they applied soft power differently. ..."
"... In essence, Obama carried on with much of what W. Bush had started in the Middle East, although he supplanted his country's less active role in Iraq with new interventions in Libya and Syria. In fact, his Iraq policies were guided by Bush's final act in that shattered country, where he ordered a surge in troops to pacify the resistance, thus paving the way for an eventual withdrawal. Of course, none of that plotting worked in their favor, with the rise of ISIS among others, but that is for another discussion. ..."
"... In other words, US foreign policy continues unabated, often guided by the preponderant norm that "might makes right", and by ill-advised personal ambitions and ideological illusions like those championed by neo-conservatives during W. Bush's era. ..."
"... The folly of W. Bush, Cheney and company is that they assumed that the Pentagon's over $1.5 billion-a-day budget was enough to acquire the US the needed leverage to control every aspect of global affairs, including a burgeoning share of world economy. ..."
"... The Russian military campaign in Syria, which was halfheartedly welcomed by the US. has signaled a historic shift in the Middle East. Even if Russia fails to turn its war into a major shift of political and economic clout, the mere fact that other contenders are now throwing their proverbial hats into the Middle East ring, is simply unprecedented since the British-French-Israeli Tripartite Aggression on Egypt in 1956. ..."
"... It will take years before a new power paradigm fully emerges, during which time US clients are likely to seek the protection of more dependable powers. In fact, the shopping for a new power is already under way, which also means that new alliances will be formed while others fold. ..."
US Secretary of State, John Kerry, is often perceived as one of the "good ones" – the less hawkish
of top American officials, who does not simply promote and defend his country's military adventurism
but reaches out to others, beyond polarizing rhetoric.
His unremitting efforts culminated partly in the Iran nuclear framework agreement in April,
followed by a final deal, a few months later. Now, he is reportedly hard at work again to find
some sort of consensus on a way out of the Syria war, a multi-party conflict that has killed over
300,000 people. His admirers see him as the diplomatic executor of a malleable and friendly US foreign
policy agenda under President Obama.
In reality, this perception is misleading; not that Kerry is a warmonger on the level of George
W. Bush's top staff, such as Vice-President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld.
The two were the very antithesis of any rational foreign policy such that even the elder George H.
W. Bush
described them with demeaning terminology, according to his biographer, quoted in the New
York Times. Cheney was an "Iron-ass", who "had his own empire … and marched to his own
drummer," H.W. Bush said, while calling Rumsfeld "an arrogant fellow" who lacked empathy. Yet, considering
that the elder Bush was rarely a peacemaker himself, one is left to ponder if the US foreign policy
ailment is centered on failure to elect proper representatives and to enlist anyone other than psychopaths?
If one is to fairly examine US foreign policies in the Middle East, for example, comparing
the conduct of the last three administrations, that of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama,
one would find that striking similarities are abundant. In principle, all three administrations'
foreign policy agendas were predicated on strong militaries and military interventions, although
they applied soft power differently.
In essence,
Obama carried on with much of what W. Bush had started in the Middle East, although he supplanted
his country's less active role in Iraq with new interventions in Libya and Syria. In fact, his Iraq
policies were guided by Bush's final act in that shattered country, where he ordered a surge in troops
to pacify the resistance, thus paving the way for an eventual withdrawal. Of course, none of that
plotting worked in their favor, with the rise of ISIS among others, but that is for another discussion.
Obama has even gone a step further when
he recently decided to keep thousands of US troops in Afghanistan well into 2017, thus breaking
US commitment to withdraw next year. 2017 is Obama's last year in office, and the decision is partly
motivated by his administration's concern that future turmoil in that country could cost his Democratic
Party heavily in the upcoming presidential elections.
In other words, US foreign policy continues unabated, often guided by the preponderant norm
that "might makes right", and by ill-advised personal ambitions and ideological illusions like those
championed by neo-conservatives during W. Bush's era.
Nevertheless, much has changed as well, simply because American ambitions to police the world,
politics and the excess of $600 billion a year US defense budget are not the only variables that
control events in the Middle East and everywhere else. There are other undercurrents that cannot
be wished away, and they too can dictate US foreign policy outlooks and behavior.
Indeed, an
American decline has been noted for many years, and Middle Eastern nations have been more aware
of this decline than others. One could even argue that the W. Bush administration's rush for war
in Iraq in 2003 in an attempt at controlling the region's resources, was a belated effort at staving
off that unmistakable decay – whether in US ability to regulate rising global contenders or in its
overall share of global economy.
The folly of W. Bush, Cheney and company is that they assumed that the Pentagon's over $1.5
billion-a-day budget was enough to acquire the US the needed leverage to control every aspect of
global affairs, including a burgeoning share of world economy. That misconception carries on
to this day, where military spending is
already accounting for about 54 percent of all federal discretionary spending, itself nearly
a third of the country's overall budget.
However, those who are blaming Obama for failing to leverage US military strength for political
currency refuse to accept that Obama's behavior hardly reflects a lack of appetite for war, but a
pragmatic response to a situation that has largely spun out of US control.
The so-called "Arab Spring", for example, was a major defining factor in the changes of US fortunes.
And it all came at a particularly interesting time.
First, the Iraq war has destroyed whatever little credibility the US had in the region, a sentiment
that also reverberated around the world.
Second, it was becoming clear that the US foreign policy in Central and South America – an obstinate
continuation of the
Monroe Doctrine of
1823, which laid the groundwork for US domination of that region – has also been challenged by
more assertive leaders, armed with democratic initiatives, not military coups.
Third,
China's more forceful politics, at least around its immediate regional surroundings, signaled
that the US traditional hegemony over most of East and South East Asia are also facing fierce competition.
Not only many Asian and other countries have flocked to China, lured by its constantly growing
and seemingly more solid economic performance, if compared to the US, but others are also
flocking to Russia, which is filling a political and, as of late, military vacuum left open.
The Russian military campaign in Syria,
which was halfheartedly welcomed by the US. has signaled a historic shift in the Middle East.
Even if Russia fails to turn its war into a major shift of political and economic clout, the mere
fact that other contenders are now throwing their proverbial hats into the Middle East ring, is simply
unprecedented since the British-French-Israeli Tripartite Aggression on Egypt in 1956.
The region's historians must fully understand the repercussions of all of these factors, and that
simply analyzing
the US decline based on the performance of individuals – Condoleezza Rice's hawkishness vs. John
Kerry's supposed sane diplomacy – is a trivial approach to understanding current shifts in global
powers.
It will take years before a new power paradigm fully emerges, during which time US clients
are likely to seek the protection of more dependable powers. In fact, the shopping for a new power
is already under way, which also means that
new alliances will be formed while others fold.
For now, the Middle East will continue to pass through this incredibly difficult and violent transition,
for which the US is partly responsible.
...the country's tourist board has suspended all tours to Turkey, a move that it estimated would
cost the Turkish economy $10bn (£6.6bn). Russia also said it was suspending all military cooperation
with Turkey, including closing down an emergency hotline to share information on Russian airstrikes
in Syria.
Putin accused Turkey of deliberately trying to bring relations between Moscow and Ankara to a
standstill, adding that Moscow was still awaiting an apology or an offer of reimbursement for damages.
He earlier called the act a "stab in the back by the accomplices of terrorists" and promised "serious
consequences"
... ... ...
Russia has insisted that its plane never strayed from Syrian airspace, while Turkey says it crossed
into its airspace for 17 seconds. The Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, said that even if
this was the case, shooting the plane down was an extreme over-reaction and looked like a pre-planned
provocation.
...the country's tourist board has suspended all tours to Turkey, a move that it estimated would
cost the Turkish economy $10bn (£6.6bn). Russia also said it was suspending all military cooperation
with Turkey, including closing down an emergency hotline to share information on Russian airstrikes
in Syria.
Putin accused Turkey of deliberately trying to bring relations between Moscow and Ankara to a
standstill, adding that Moscow was still awaiting an apology or an offer of reimbursement for damages.
He earlier called the act a "stab in the back by the accomplices of terrorists" and promised "serious
consequences"
... ... ...
Russia has insisted that its plane never strayed from Syrian airspace, while Turkey says it crossed
into its airspace for 17 seconds. The Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, said that even if
this was the case, shooting the plane down was an extreme over-reaction and looked like a pre-planned
provocation.
"... Suspiciously "well-equipped" group of militants was looking for a catapult of the Navigator the fallen in Syria bomber su-24, RIA "Novosti". This was stated by the VC commander-in-chief Viktor Bondarev. ..."
"... According to the military, the pilot was serach by a few "well-equipped" armed groups. Their origin is unknown. ..."
Suspiciously "well-equipped" group of militants was looking for a catapult of the Navigator the fallen in Syria bomber su-24, RIA "Novosti".
This was stated by the VC commander-in-chief Viktor Bondarev.
According to the military, the pilot was serach by a few "well-equipped" armed groups. Their origin is unknown.
November 24 in the Syrian province of Latakia has fallen downed Russian bomber su-24. This responsibility took on the Turkish authorities, accusing Russia of violating its airspace. Moscow claims that the plane was flying solely over the territory of Syria.
tour operators and travel agents have been asked to refrain from selling tours that involve
flights (including commercial flights) from the Russian Federation to Turkey
The Russian foreign Ministry confirms the recommendation for Russian citizens to refrain from
visiting Turkey, and those who are on the territory of the Republic, advises to return to their
Homeland. This is stated in an official statement the Russian foreign Ministry.
The report stressed that it involves "continuing in Turkey for terrorist threats".
Earlier, the Minister of foreign Affairs of Russia Sergey Lavrov has decided to celebrate his
visit to Turkey. Also he recommended that the Russians to refrain from traveling to this country.
However, he stressed that this recommendation is not even involved with the crash of the Russian
plane su-24.
Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev on Thursday called for tough sanctions against Turkey
that could bite into more than $30 billion in trade ties between the two countries, as police
here began seizing Turkish products and deporting Turkish businessmen.
Russian officials are seething after Turkish F-16s downed a Russian warplane over the Syrian
border in a debacle that ultimately left two Russian servicemen dead. Turkey says that the
Russian plane breached its airspace and was warned five times to turn back, charges that Russia
denies.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has described the act as "a stab in the back from the
accomplices of terrorists," and on Thursday said in televised remarks that Turkey still had not
apologized over the incident.
On Thursday, it became clear that the Russian government was now turning its ire on whatever
extensions of the Turkish economy it could get its hands on.
At a cabinet meeting, Medvedev said that joint investment projects with Turkey would be frozen or
canceled. Negotiations over a proposed preferential trade regime with Turkey would also be
scrapped, he said. Medvedev called for recommendations from government agencies to be submitted
within two days.
"... In this respect, it is understandable that the Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, called the attack a provocation and an ambush. ..."
"... This is a conflict that Ankara triggered and while it is being managed it is not going to go away. ..."
"... USer5555 26 Nov 2015 10:37 ..."
"... Yet another country Russia declares as "hostile" on the global stage : ) With only Assad, Hiz'bollah and Iran providing material comfort ..."
"... I just recorded my warnings to Russia over airspace violations in my bedroom. "Hello, you are heading in the wrong direction. Stop immediately!" No response whatsoever from the Russians. Can post the original recording if anyone is interested. ..."
"... Turkish claims that parts of the plane fell and injuried some Turks , it a joke too far. As is their uncorroborated claim about a warning. ..."
"... "The bearded, turban wearing throat-cutters danced around the dead body of the pilot whom they had killed while he was parachuting down. Is this your understanding of humanity, Ankara? Are these the ones you are protecting, Erdogan?" ..."
"... Yeah, it is fighting against another adventure of US/EU/those ME countries to have regime change to their liking in the region and against ISIS-which was created thanks to that adventure. ..."
"... The question, as posed in the article, is why, in a very short space of time Turkey decided to shoot down an aircraft whose identity they must have known? ..."
"... Erdogan admits giving the order, clear evidence of a deliberate set-up. ..."
"... A more interesting question than pointlessly discussing the morality of it, is what the motivation for the Turks was. I personally think that they wanted to derail the possibility of Russia making some type of détente with the West after the Paris attacks. ..."
"... In addition to son Bilal's illegal and lucrative oil trading for ISIS, Sümeyye Erdogan, the daughter of the Turkish President apparently runs a secret hospital camp inside Turkey just over the Syrian border where Turkish army trucks daily being in scores of wounded ISIS Jihadists to be patched up and sent back to wage the bloody Jihad in Syria, according to the testimony of a nurse who was recruited to work there until it was discovered she was a member of the Alawite branch of Islam, the same as Syrian President Bashar al-Assad who Erdogan seems hell-bent on toppling. ..."
"... They were waiting for the Russian bomber to cross this tiny bit of Turkish airspace that extends far to the South into Syrian territory. The Turks wanted to make a statement. ..."
"... Are you serious? They could not be in a more suitable company - NATO members killed close to 5 million people since WWII worldwide, polluted the countries they attacked with uranium and therefore will kill another couple of millions in decades to come, their corrupted banks caused the world recession, their corrupt politicians make life bitter for both their citizens and people in countries their banks have issues with...this is a fucked up world, there are no good guys. ..."
"... Does it matter? in reality one does not shoot a partner on the fight against terrorists who burn people alive, chop their heads, rape women and sell kids into slavery, and if the fucking yanks are incapable of naming who are these moderates they are also fair game. ..."
"... The way I look at it is that the Turks had two tactics a) wanted the involvement of NATO and Putin did not oblige by starting a conflict with and b) wanting to defend its pals in ISIS and all the offshoots that these despicable people are represented by. ..."
"... The US and Turkey have very different purposes in Syria and Iraq. The US uses "Kurds" as its main force in both Iraq and Syria. ..."
"... Since 2011 Erdogan has gone off the top and has resumed Turkey's war against the Kurds. That's all that matters to him. ..."
"... Both the US (through its Persian Gulf "friends") and Turkey were inventing and backing ISIS in 2011. The Russian newcomers began with steps that might save lives, but have also gotten caught up in the absurd US effort to remake the borders. More dead and refugees to follow. ..."
...Airspace incursions, granted usually in less politically tense contexts, happen all the time, and
generally you'd expect warning shots to be fired and then attempts to force the intruder to leave
or to land.
That the Turks shot down the jet and did so within 17 seconds – with the president, Recep Tayyip
Erdoğan, saying he gave the order to fire himself – suggests very strongly they were waiting for
a Russian plane to come into or close enough to Turkish airspace with the aim of delivering a
rather pyrotechnic message.
Turkish military releases audio recordings said to be warnings to Russian jet
In this respect, it is understandable that the Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, called
the attack a provocation and an ambush.
... ... ...
Moscow may put greater emphasis on countering Turkey's efforts to establish regional influence
(Azerbaijan is an obvious place of contention) and could support problematic non-state actors
inside Turkey, from Kurds to criminals (at least, those criminals not already tied to the Turkish
state).
This is a conflict that Ankara triggered and while it is being managed it is not going to go
away. Nor is it just going to become another chapter in the histories of Russo-Ottoman
rivalry. Expect to see this play out in snide, deniable, but nonetheless bitter actions for
months to come.
samstheman 26 Nov 2015 10:40
How the West can excuse the reaction of Turkey to a 17 second incursion is beyond me
As for the Turkmen rebels killing the pilot as he descended in possible "self defence"
according to US State Department spokesman, please spare us the sophistry if such a
description is apt
Vladimir Makarenko -> Dweezle 26 Nov 2015 10:40
...to shoot fish in a barrel. Unarmed bomber going under 300 mph. Well, we see what kind of
training is really there now when Russians setting up S 400. This will be fun to watch,
especially for Kurds.
psygone USer5555 26 Nov 2015 10:37
Yet another country Russia declares as "hostile" on the global stage : ) With only
Assad, Hiz'bollah and Iran providing material comfort - its became a rather comical
routine.
Nivedita 26 Nov 2015 10:37
It's obvious that Turkey shot the Russian plane to defend the ISIS barbarians. Why would
any decent country would want dangerous criminals like Turkey or GCC tyrants for allies?
copyniated 26 Nov 2015 10:36
I just recorded my warnings to Russia over airspace violations in my bedroom. "Hello,
you are heading in the wrong direction. Stop immediately!" No response whatsoever from the
Russians. Can post the original recording if anyone is interested.
SallyWa 26 Nov 2015 10:35
and could support problematic non-state actors inside Turkey, from Kurds. Are Kurds more
problematic than Turks? It seems they are more helpful, at least, when it comes to ISIS.
If_Not_Why_Not -> DarthPutinbot 26 Nov 2015 10:34
Russia denies it was in Turkish airspace. The wreckage was found well in Syria.(as were the
pilots.) Turkish claims that parts of the plane fell and injuried some Turks , it a joke too far.
As is their uncorroborated claim about a warning.
Both sides map production proves nothing also.
USer5555 26 Nov 2015 10:30
I think that Mr. Erdogan will be terribly disappointed with what awaits him in the coming
months and years. And I find it positive that Russia is no longer necessary to keep moral
standards towards Turkey as Turkey never did it.
It is nice that Erdogan not even shows any condolences to those dead and their families.
Proves, that Turkey planned it in advance and it wasn't about airspace or accident.
FGMisNOTOK -> Hottentot 26 Nov 2015 10:29
You are totally correct. There is no way it could be done. They were waiting to fire on the
Russian plane as soon as it even slightly overshot the border. Give me a break... 17 seconds.
Turkey itself (as the article above says) claimed that this was no cause for attack when its
own planes flew over Syria. Hypocrites and liars.
photosymbiosis 26 Nov 2015 10:29
According to many reports, Erdogan's son is a central figure in ISIS cash-for-oil smuggling
into Turkey, (which is incidentally heavily reliant on Russian oil and gas imports, for which
they must pay full market price, unlike the 50% discount ISIS offers). Maps of the oil
smuggling routes to Turkey show that the oil tanker convoys must pass through "moderate rebel
anti-Assad" forces, to which should be appended, 'pro-ISIS?'
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-11-25/meet-man-who-funds-isis-bilal-erdogan-son-turkeys-president
"The reason we find this line of questioning fascinating is that just last week in the
aftermath of the French terror attack but long before the Turkish downing of the Russian
jet, we wrote about "The Most Important Question About ISIS That Nobody Is Asking" in which
we asked who is the one "breaching every known law of funding terrorism when buying ISIS
crude, almost certainly with the tacit approval by various "western alliance" governments,
and why is it that these governments have allowed said middleman to continue funding ISIS
for as long as it has?" - Tyler Durden at Zero Hedge
So was this Turkey's effort to stop Russian attacks on the oil tanker convoys (which supply
ISIS with several million dollars a day - perhaps several hundred tanker trucks a day, that
is)? Is this retaliation by Erdogan for lost revenue?
In short, it appears at this point that the Turkish case justifying the use of deadly
force is, at best, weak. Nevertheless, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said that
NATO stands "in solidarity with Turkey." However, it may have been more prudent to withhold
judgment until all the facts are definitively known and a full legal analysis is complete.
Why? Article 5 of the NATO treaty governing self-defense tracks almost exactly with the
Article 51 of the U.N. charter, so if the facts show illegality under international law,
that would undercut the wisdom of NATO standing "in solidarity" with any nation.
ChristianAnsgar -> Rahere2015 26 Nov 2015 10:27
You missed the shooting of the pilots while parachuting bit in your rant,isn't that a war
crime?
cheetah43 26 Nov 2015 11:08
"The bearded, turban wearing throat-cutters danced around the dead body of the pilot
whom they had killed while he was parachuting down. Is this your understanding of humanity,
Ankara? Are these the ones you are protecting, Erdogan?" - Russian Foreign Office
spokeswoman today during press briefing.
SallyWa -> MTavernier 26 Nov 2015 11:07
Russia is fighting a different, conflicting war to everyone else in Syria.
Yeah, it is fighting against another adventure of US/EU/those ME countries to have
regime change to their liking in the region and against ISIS-which was created thanks to that
adventure.
Russia repeatedly violated Turkish airspace,
Turkey should learn from better countries how to act in this. European ones. They showed
proper examples, while Turkey screwed up.
dyatel42 26 Nov 2015 11:07
It's almost as if Turkey was waiting for an SU24 to stray over it's border for a few
seconds. How could they have issued 10 warnings to turn south in 17 seconds and asked the
president for his OK to shoot it down in that time? Fairy stories. Given that the aircraft
fell into Syria it must have been heading there when it was hit and was obviously not on a
surprise mission to bomb Ankara for example. Two men's lives terminated for no real reason at
all.
It would seem possible that Turkey was acting on a request from the USA to carry out this
murderous attack - what other logical reason could they have had to do it? Given the US hatred
of Russia / The Soviet Union and their growing irritation at Russia's involvement in Syria,
(at the request of the ruling government of that country) it would be a way of punishing Putin
without putting their own aircraft at risk from retaliation and possibly a dangerous
escalation in the ongoing American persecution of Russia.
ID4352889 -> MTavernier 26 Nov 2015 11:06
And obviously you were in the cockpit to verify the warning that has been belatedly claimed
by a notorious terror state which has been in cahoots with Daesh all along?
Hoppolocos -> MTavernier 26 Nov 2015 11:03
As is usual in these cases it may be they are both telling a version of the truth, credible
deniability? The Turks may well have broadcast warnings, but on which frequency? The Russians
may have elected to not be listening to any frequency the Turks may use ergo it's the other's
that were at fault. The question, as posed in the article, is why, in a very short space
of time Turkey decided to shoot down an aircraft whose identity they must have known?
In the current situation the possibility of an aircraft straying into the wrong airspace
must be a consideration, thus as strong diplomatic protect would have seemed the more obvious
reaction. Have there been such incursions in the recent past? Has Russia been pushing it's
luck? If not then one has the feeling that Turkey is deliberately trying to push it's luck and
push Russia away from the Turkmen bases. Would they have dared if they weren't confident of
NATO support and if so, who has allowed them to think this would automatically be forthcoming
given the circumstances?
Roger Hudson -> Ipek Ruacan 26 Nov 2015 11:00
Turkey violates Syrian airspace at will, it also violated Greek airspace over 2000 times
last year.
The Russian plane flew over a small 'appendix' of true Turkey that is 2 miles wide, somebody
worked out a jet can't fly slow enough to do it in 17 seconds. How long did the warning
take?.' Erdogan admits giving the order, clear evidence of a deliberate set-up.
kritter 26 Nov 2015 11:00
Galeotti talks about this like there are good guys and bad buys here, when clearly there
aren't.
It is simply another play in a proxy war between two very countries, led by two very similar
presidents. A more interesting question than pointlessly discussing the morality of it, is
what the motivation for the Turks was. I personally think that they wanted to derail the
possibility of Russia making some type of détente with the West after the Paris attacks.
fireangel 26 Nov 2015 10:58
The smashing of ISIS' oil industry will not only be a blow to the entire ISIS death squad
project, but will directly affect Turkey, widely thought to be involved in the transportation
of ISIS-produced oil, and even Erdogan's family itself, as it is the company run by his son
Bilal that is believed to be running the illicit trade.
Well well well....Bilan Erdogan
*Bilal Erdo?an owns several maritime companies. He has allegedly signed contracts with
European operating companies to carry Iraqi stolen oil to different Asian countries. The
Turkish government buys Iraqi plundered oil which is being produced from the Iraqi seized oil
wells. Bilal Erdo?an's maritime companies own special wharfs in Beirut and Ceyhan ports that
are transporting ISIS' smuggled crude oil in Japan-bound oil tankers.*
In addition to son Bilal's illegal and lucrative oil trading for ISIS, Sümeyye Erdogan,
the daughter of the Turkish President apparently runs a secret hospital camp inside Turkey
just over the Syrian border where Turkish army trucks daily being in scores of wounded ISIS
Jihadists to be patched up and sent back to wage the bloody Jihad in Syria, according to the
testimony of a nurse who was recruited to work there until it was discovered she was a member
of the Alawite branch of Islam, the same as Syrian President Bashar al-Assad who Erdogan seems
hell-bent on toppling.
camerashy -> blogbath 26 Nov 2015 10:58
Listen, as an American I'm telling you, you're wrong and a victim of the billionaire owned
propaganda machine they call the news media. You've got your facts all wrong, it's the US
who's constantly sticking it to Russia/others because somehow we can't stand anyone opposing
us and has independent opinions. From the cooked up US backed coup in Ukraine to provoking
China in Asia, and shooting down Russian jets over Syria, look no further than the US/NATO
alliance to find your answer.
Erdogan on his own couldn't kill time let alone shooting down Russian jets. Just imagine
what would happen if one of our jets had been shot down, they'd have made movies on it
already. Also I don't think you really know much about any of these other countries you so
freely label! Don't be naive, things aren't always what they seem, you have access to the
Internet, well, don't take my word for it, use it and find out from different sources ...
here's one:
Please note with the level of happiness and delight with which British journalists and
readers described as the two nations will destroy each other
There is nothing jolly about it, actually. Even this article says situation is not looking
hunky dory, it could fester underneath for quite some time.
secondiceberg 26 Nov 2015 10:54
1. "Smuggling weapons in the guise of humanitarian convoys (something we saw the Russians
doing in Ukraine)". The constant repetition of unfounded charges against Russia seem to have
become engrained in arsenal of MSM writers. If they have received and read the OSCE daily
reports from Ukraine, they should note that those humanitarian convoys were opened and
examined at a Russian checkpoint, at Customs, and by a Ukrainian checkpoint before crossing
the border. If the Ukrainian officials found any weapons, where is the evidence?
2. "Turks are acting in support of their national interests in Syria with equal ruthlessness."
An objective journalist would balance this with the claim by Russia and others that the Turks
are illegally buying oil from ISIS, thereby funding them and that their "interests" are in
continuing to buttress ISIS existence and actions. We still wait for journalistic
investigation of the information given to G20 leaders that some of their own countries are
similarly buying oil from ISIS thus keeping funding for that group flowing and giving them
strong incentive not to "defeat" ISIS despite their ostensible reason for bombing Syria in the
first place.
3. When are we going to find out exactly who the "moderate" Syrian rebels are? And where is
the investigation regarding Putin's claim that a lot of the groups fighting with ISIS and
against the Assad regime are, in fact, mercenaries?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQuceU3x2Ww
Newmacfan 26 Nov 2015 10:54
But it took longer than that according to Mr Erdogan, so many warnings, so many different
time parameters quoted by Turkey, even their own maps would suggest that there was not enough
time to warn the aircraft, await a reply, fire the weapon and for it to hit the target within
the time it was in Turkeys air space, according to Mr Erdogan......in short it is a pack of
lies, like the ISIS oil, the porous borders, this is something which should be followed up.
There is more to this and Turkeys connection with ISIS and the destabilisation of Syria that
warrants a cursory glance.....something possibly very deep and very nasty could well be
lurking here and it would be foolhardy not to look!
LiviaDrusilla -> If_Not_Why_Not 26 Nov 2015 10:51
My only doubt is, did NATO know of this before hand?
Good question. I think the answer is 'no'.
To me, it's fairly obvious that the Turks had itchy fingers waiting for a chance to shoot down
a Russian jet on the pretext of 'invading their airspace'. They then hoped to trigger the NATO
'an attack on one is an attack on all' clause, something which would, at the very least, lead
to the closure of the Bosphurus to Russian shipping, hence making it extremely difficult for
them to re-supply their troops. Look at how the very first thing they did was run crying to
NATO.
However, it appears their cunning plan backfired. Even the Americans seemed to want to play
down the 'violation', saying that the Russian jet was only over Turkish airspace for a grand
total of 17 minutes. So Erdogan didn't get the declaration of war he has hoping for, and
Turkey is now almost certain to be subjected to various retaliatory measures by Russia.
Bad move, Erdogan. Bad move.
IndependentScott -> raffine 26 Nov 2015 10:50
Wrong. The Turks can shoot down one single plane. They were waiting for the Russian
bomber to cross this tiny bit of Turkish airspace that extends far to the South into Syrian
territory. The Turks wanted to make a statement.
The Islamic extremists on the ground, be it ISIS or Al Qaeda (in this case it was an Al Qaeda
affiliate) cannot do anything against the planes. They do not have anti aircraft weapons which
are effective.
nishville -> UralMan 26 Nov 2015 10:52
Now that we have established that Ankara is as murderous, cheating, morally corrupt
and evil as Moscow, what are the reasons nowadays for Turkey to remain a member of the NATO
Are you serious? They could not be in a more suitable company - NATO members killed
close to 5 million people since WWII worldwide, polluted the countries they attacked with
uranium and therefore will kill another couple of millions in decades to come, their corrupted
banks caused the world recession, their corrupt politicians make life bitter for both their
citizens and people in countries their banks have issues with...this is a fucked up world,
there are no good guys.
mkwasp -> will2010 26 Nov 2015 10:48
The radar tracks of both sides show the downed plane flying parallel to the frontier, not
into Turkey. Regardless of where it actually was (i.e which track is correct, if either of
them were), it manifestly wasn't threatening Turkey. Turkey can't really claim provocation
here. Le Monde is also reporting that the Turkish pilots couldn't identify the plane they shot
at - which is even more worrying, given very few (US, French, Russian) air forces are
operating over Syria.
IndependentScott 26 Nov 2015 10:48
Russia is bombing Turkmen. Turkey is protecting them.
The problem is, these Turkmen are allies of Al Nusra, the al Qaeda affiliate which is strong
right next to the Turkmen areas. They, alongside the Islamic Front in the area, are fighting
Assad troops just a few km away from the largest Russian navel base outside of Russia. Of
course, Russia is bombing them. And of course Turkey wants to protect them.
Whether or not that Su-24 actually passed through Turkish airspace for 17 secs or not is
completely irrelevant. This was a statement by Turkey to its own people and the Turkmens in
the area that they will "help their fellow Turks".
The real awful thing is that a Russian pilot died in the process.
USer5555 26 Nov 2015 10:48
Please note with the level of happiness and delight with which British journalists and
readers described as the two nations will destroy each other. Something like that British
journalists probably experienced in 1941, when Adolf Hitler attacked the Soviet Union, and
Turkey, by the way, was with him in alliance.
callaspodeaspode -> anatianblogger 26 Nov 2015 10:42
It is a decent bit of kit, even though old, but it not equipped to fend off fighters in
actual combat. It will presumably have some ECM and ability to dispense flares to act as decoy
when attacked by heat-seeking missiles, but I've no idea how effective it is against Western
NATO standard fighters like up to date block versions of F-16s, which Turkey uses.
And it certainly isn't capable of 2000mph. I don't know where you get that from.
That's nearly Mach 3. Very few military aircraft are able to go at such speeds.
The Fencers top out at around Mach 1.35 at altitude. Are you perhaps confusing it with a
Mig-31 fighter?
What I want to know is why the Turkish F16s didn't fly alongside to make themselves visually
present and demand to the Russian pilots that they leave the area and then escort them out.
Like the UK's Typhoons do when Russian bombers come too near.
spearsshallbebroken -> anarxist 26 Nov 2015 10:19
Does it matter? in reality one does not shoot a partner on the fight against terrorists
who burn people alive, chop their heads, rape women and sell kids into slavery, and if the
fucking yanks are incapable of naming who are these moderates they are also fair game.
The way I look at it is that the Turks had two tactics a) wanted the involvement of
NATO and Putin did not oblige by starting a conflict with and b) wanting to defend its pals in
ISIS and all the offshoots that these despicable people are represented by.
I think the unrepresented swill that is Turkey is going to be done very slowly by Putin.
Leondeinos 26 Nov 2015 10:17
The US and Turkey have very different purposes in Syria and Iraq. The US uses "Kurds"
as its main force in both Iraq and Syria. Once again the Kurds are being used and soon
will be pounded by all hands. Five years ago Turkey was declaring its desire to be at peace
with all its neighbors and doing well at it. It stayed out of the American invasion of Iraq in
2003. Since 2011 Erdogan has gone off the top and has resumed Turkey's war against the
Kurds. That's all that matters to him.
Both the US (through its Persian Gulf "friends") and Turkey were inventing and backing
ISIS in 2011. The Russian newcomers began with steps that might save lives, but have also
gotten caught up in the absurd US effort to remake the borders. More dead and refugees to
follow.
It's easy to make a handy ex post facto recording of pilots talking. Happens all the time
after premeditated air attacks.
anarxist 26 Nov 2015 10:11
Are you sure about the 17 seconds? Does anyone do the math here?
1.15 miles / 17 seconds x 60 x 60 = 243 miles/hour = 391 km/hour
The Su-24's max speed is 1,320 km/hour.
So if we assume the Su-24 was actually going much faster, was 17 seconds more like 5
seconds? Or perhaps even less?
Russia Thursday said its forces had wiped out Syrian rebel groups operating in the area where
one of its jets was brought down, unleashing a huge bombardment after rescuing a pilot.
"As soon as our pilot was safe, Russian bombers and artillery of the Syrian government forces
carried out massive strikes in the indicated area for an extended period," military official Igor
Konashenkov told Russian news agencies.
"The terrorists operating in that area and other mysterious groups were destroyed," he said.
Turkey on Tuesday shot down a Russian jet in northern Syria alleging that it had crossed over
into its air space and sparking a war of words with Moscow.
One pilot that parachuted out was later rescued by Russian and Syrian special forces, while a
second pilot from the jet and a soldier sent to rescue him were killed by rebels on the ground.
Konsahenkov said that over the past three days its jets carried out 134 combat sorties over the
war-torn country and struck 449 targets in the Aleppo, Damascus, Idlib, Latakia, Hama and Homs
and Deir al-Zor provinces.
ISTANBUL: President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said Thursday that Turkey would have acted
differently if it had known that a warplane its forces downed on the Syrian border this week was
Russian.
"If we had known if it was a Russian plane maybe we would have warned it differently," Erdogan
told France 24 television, adding that Russian President Vladimir Putin had not answered his call
after Tuesday's incident that has seriously damaged ties.
"... In the real world most credit today is spent to buy assets already in place, not to create new productive capacity. Some 80 percent of bank loans in the English-speaking world are real estate mortgages, and much of the balance is lent against stocks and bonds already issued. ..."
"... Debt-leveraged buyouts and commercial real estate purchases turn business cash flow (ebitda: earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization) into interest payments. Likewise, bank or bondholder financing of public debt (especially in the Eurozone, which lacks a central bank to monetize such debt) has turned a rising share of tax revenue into interest payments. ..."
"... even government tax revenue is diverted to pay debt service ..."
"... Contemporary evidence for major OECD economies since the 1980s shows that rising capital gains may indeed divert finance away from the real sector's productivity growth (Stockhammer 2004) and more generally that 'financialization' (Epstein 2005) has hurt growth and incomes. Money created for capital gains has a small propensity to be spent by their rentier owners on goods and services, so that an increasing proportion of the economy's money flows are diverted to circulation in the financial sector. Wages do not increase, even as prices for property and financial securities rise – just the well-known trend that we have seen in the Western world since the 1970s, and which persists into the post-2001 Bubble Economy. ..."
Incorporating the Rentier Sectors into a Financial Model
Wednesday, September
12, 2012
by Dirk Bezemer and Michael Hudson
As published in the World Economic Association's World Economic Review Vol #1.
.......
2. Finance is not The economy
In the real world most credit today is spent to buy assets already in place, not to create
new productive capacity. Some 80 percent of bank loans in the English-speaking world are real estate
mortgages, and much of the balance is lent against stocks and bonds already issued.
Banks lend to buyers of real estate, corporate raiders, ambitious financial empire-builders, and
to management for debt-leveraged buyouts. A first approximation of this trend is to chart the share
of bank lending that goes to the 'Fire, Insurance and Real Estate' sector, aka the nonbank financial
sector. Graph 1 shows that its ratio to GDP has quadrupled since the 1950s. The contrast is with
lending to the real sector, which has remained about constant relative to GDP. This is how our debt
burden has grown.
Graph 1: Private debt growth is due to lending to the FIRE sector: the US, 1952-2007
Source: Bezemer (2012) based on US flow of fund data, BEA 'Z' tables.
What is true for America is true for many other countries: mortgage lending and other household
debt have been 'the final stage in an artificially extended Ponzi Bubble' as Keen (2009) shows for
Australia. Extending credit to purchase assets already in place bids up their price. Prospective
homebuyers need to take on larger mortgages to obtain a home. The effect is to turn property rents
into a flow of mortgage interest. These payments divert the revenue of consumers and businesses from
being spent on consumption or new capital investment. The effect is deflationary for the economy's
product markets, and hence consumer prices and employment, and therefore wages. This is why we had
a long period of low cpi inflation but skyrocketing asset price inflation. The two trends are linked.
Debt-leveraged buyouts and commercial real estate purchases turn business cash flow (ebitda: earnings
before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization) into interest payments. Likewise, bank or
bondholder financing of public debt (especially in the Eurozone, which lacks a central bank to monetize
such debt) has turned a rising share of tax revenue into interest payments.
As creditors recycle
their receipts of interest and amortization (and capital gains) into new lending to buyers of real
estate, stocks and bonds, a rising share of employee income, real estate rent, business revenue and
even government tax revenue is diverted to pay debt service. By leaving less to spend on goods and
services, the effect is to reduce new investment and employment.
Contemporary evidence for major
OECD economies since the 1980s shows that rising capital gains may indeed divert finance away from
the real sector's productivity growth (Stockhammer 2004) and more generally that 'financialization'
(Epstein 2005) has hurt growth and incomes. Money created for capital gains has a small propensity
to be spent by their rentier owners on goods and services, so that an increasing proportion of the
economy's money flows are diverted to circulation in the financial sector. Wages do not increase,
even as prices for property and financial securities rise – just the well-known trend that we have
seen in the Western world since the 1970s, and which persists into the post-2001 Bubble Economy.
It is especially the case since 1991 in the post-Soviet economies, where neoliberal (that is,
pro-financial) policy makers have had a free hand to shape tax and financial policy in favor of banks
(mainly foreign bank branches). Latvia is cited as a neoliberal success story, but it would be hard
to find an example where rentier income and prices have diverged more sharply from wages and the
"real" production economy.
The more credit creation takes the form of inflating asset prices – rather than financing purchases
of goods and services or direct investment employing labor – the more deflationary its effects are
on the "real" economy of production and consumption. Housing and other asset prices crash, causing
negative equity. Yet homeowners and businesses still have to pay off their debts. The national income
accounts classify this pay-down as "saving," although the revenue is not available to the debtors
doing the "saving" by "deleveraging."
The moral is that using homes as what Alan Greenspan referred to as "piggy banks", to take out
home-equity loans, was not really like drawing down a bank account at all. When a bank account is
drawn down there is less money available, but no residual obligation to pay. New income can be spent
at the discretion of its recipient. But borrowing against a home implies an obligation to set aside
future income to pay the banker – and hence a loss of future discretionary spending.
3. Towards a model of financialized economies
Creating a more realistic model of today's financialized economies to trace this phenomenon requires
a breakdown of the national income and product accounts (NIPA) to see the economy as a set of distinct
sectors interacting with each other. These accounts juxtapose the private and public sectors as far
as current spending, saving and taxation is concerned. But the implication is that government budget
deficits inflate the private-sector economy as a whole.
Neoliberalism counterattacked and scored a victory in Argentina. the trick is to use economic
difficulties caused by neoliberalism to bring to power a neoliberal candidate (or more liberal
candidate, if the current was already neoliberal buy stayed Washington consensus). That trick was
used previously in Ukraine.
Notable quotes:
"... Washington has maintained a policy of "rollback" and "containment" against almost all of the left governments that have won elections in the 21st century. So there is quite a bit of excitement here among the business and foreign policy elite ..."
"... Argentina and the region have changed too much over the past 15 years to return to the neoliberal, neocolonial past. The Washington foreign policy establishment may not understand this, but Macri's handlers did. That's why they took the trouble to package him as something very different from what he is. ..."
"... State Corruption is ever and always a pre text for reassertion of plutocratic hegemony ..."
The election of right-wing candidate Mauricio Macri as Argentina's president on Sunday, which
just a few months ago was unexpected, is a setback for Argentina and for the region.
... ... ...
Washington has maintained a policy of "rollback" and "containment" against almost all of
the left governments that have won elections in the 21st century. So there is quite a bit of
excitement here among the business and foreign policy elite, with Brazil's President Dilma Rousseff facing a recession
and political crisis, and Venezuela's Chavismo confronting an economic crisis and possible loss of
its first national election in 17 years. So naturally they are happy about this unprecedented right-wing
electoral victory in Argentina. Articles are already sprouting up, welcoming the long-awaited demise
of the Latin American left.
But reports of this demise, to paraphrase Mark Twain, are somewhat exaggerated. A more likely outcome
is like that of Chile, where a lackluster candidate was unable to take advantage of Socialist Party
President Michelle Bachelet's 80 percent approval rating, and lost to a right-wing billionaire in
2010. He lasted four years, and then the country went back to Bachelet.
Argentina and the region have changed too much over the past 15 years to return to the neoliberal,
neocolonial past. The Washington foreign policy establishment may not understand this, but Macri's
handlers did. That's why they took the trouble to package him as something very different from what
he is.
Argentine Election a Setback, But Not Likely to Reverse Latin America's 21st Century Trend
By Mark Weisbrot
The election of right-wing candidate Mauricio Macri as Argentina's president on Sunday, which
just a few months ago was unexpected, is a setback for Argentina and for the region. In the last
13 years, Argentina had made enormous economic and social progress. Under the Kirchners (first
Néstor and then Cristina Fernández de Kirchner), poverty fell by about 70 percent, and extreme
poverty by 80 percent. (This is for 2003 to mid-2013, the last year for which independent estimates
are available; they are also based on independent estimates of inflation.) Unemployment fell from
more than 17.2 percent to 6.9 percent , according to the IMF.
But Daniel Scioli, the candidate of the Peronist "Front for Victory", who represented the governing
coalition including President Fernández, did not do a good job defending these achievements. He
also didn't seem to make clear what he would do to fix the country's current economic problems.
In the past four years, growth has been slow (averaging about 1.1 percent annually), inflation
has been high (with private estimates in the 20s), and a black market for the dollar has developed.
This gave Macri (and his "Cambiemos" or "Let's Change" coalition) an opening to present himself
as the candidate of a better future.
With skilled marketing help from an Ecuadorean public relations firm, he also succeeded in
defining himself as something far more moderate than he is likely to be, thus winning over voters
who might otherwise be afraid of a return to the pre-Kirchner depression years.
Some of the things he has indicated he would do could have a positive impact, if done correctly.
He will likely cut a deal with vulture funds who have been holding more than 90 percent of Argentina's
creditors hostage since New York judge Thomas Griesa ruled in 2014 that the government is not
allowed to pay them. If the cost is not too high, it could be a net positive by re-opening a path
for Argentina to return to international borrowing - something that Scioli would likely have also
done.
A liberalization of the exchange rate that got rid of the black market could be a big step
forward. But much depends on how it is done: If it causes inflation to spike and the government
does nothing to protect poor and working people, they could lose a lot.
Macri may also take measures to bring down inflation, which is something that needs to be done.
But here especially there are great dangers, because he is likely to do so by shrinking the economy.
He wants to reduce the central government budget deficit, which will grow as a percent of GDP
with austerity. Given his ideology and politics, there is serious risk of a downward spiral of
austerity and recession, as the country suffered from 1998-2001. If there is inflation from the
devaluation, and they are eager to get rid of that too, this could make matters worse.
His campaign statements and positions indicate that he is against a government role in promoting
industry, so the country's development is likely to suffer as a result. He has proposed tax cuts
for upper- income groups, and so budget cuts are likely since he has pledged to reduce the government
budget deficit. If you add it all up, the majority of Argentines are likely to suffer from any
economic transition that he can engineer.
But he will not have a working majority in Congress, so it remains to be seen how much he can
do. Internationally, he has moved immediately to demonstrate his overwhelming loyalty to the United
States government, which had been previously demonstrated in confidential U.S. embassy cables
published by WikiLeaks. One of his very first statements after being elected was to denounce Venezuela
and threaten to have them suspended from Mercosur. Since this is not an issue that was pressing
to Argentine voters, it is clear that it is part of the U.S.-led international campaign leading
up to Venezuela's December 6 elections, which seeks to delegitimize the government and the elections.
Macri's willingness to join this campaign is something that no other South American president
would do. On the contrary, in the past decade South American presidents have repeatedly joined
together to defend democracy in the region when it was under attack, with Washington on the other
side - not only in Venezuela, in 2014, 2013, and 2002; but in but in Bolivia (2008); Honduras
(2009); Ecuador (2010); and Paraguay (2012). If Macri continues down this road, he will not only
bring shame to Argentina, but he will damage hemispheric relations.
Washington has maintained a policy of "rollback" and "containment" against almost all of the
left governments that have won elections in the 21st century. So there is quite a bit of excitement
here among the business and foreign policy elite, with Brazil's President Dilma Rousseff facing
a recession and political crisis, and Venezuela's Chavismo confronting an economic crisis and
possible loss of its first national election in 17 years. So naturally they are happy about this
unprecedented right-wing electoral victory in Argentina. Articles are already sprouting up, welcoming
the long-awaited demise of the Latin American left.
But reports of this demise, to paraphrase Mark Twain, are somewhat exaggerated. A more likely
outcome is like that of Chile, where a lackluster candidate was unable to take advantage of Socialist
Party President Michelle Bachelet's 80 percent approval rating, and lost to a right-wing billionaire
in 2010. He lasted four years, and then the country went back to Bachelet.
Argentina and the region have changed too much over the past 15 years to return to the neoliberal,
neocolonial past. The Washington foreign policy establishment may not understand this, but Macri's
handlers did. That's why they took the trouble to package him as something very different from
what he is.
Narwhal -> anne:
too much here to comment on.
Weisbrot couches his analysis in right vs left wing politics which played only a minor part.
The election was about the incompetence of the Kirchners. Argentinians have had enough and
finally kicked the incompetents out.
"with Brazil's President Dilma Rousseff facing a recession and political crisis" THAT HER INCOMPETENCE
AND TOTAL CORRUPTION CAUSED....the vast majority has had enough.
Has this guy actually visited Argentina and Brazil...
anne -> Narwhal:
Do set down a focused argument and references when possible.
When "incompetence" and "total corruption" assertions are made, and even capitalized, they
should be referenced. As for the "vast majority" in Argentina who had had enough, would that be
the 51.4% who voted for President Macri?
Narwhal -> anne:
Sorry, Anne, I am not going to post a university research paper with references and footnotes
(been there and done that).
Argentine politics are so convoluted that I do not pretend to understand them. Suffice to say
that the are far more nuanced than simple liberal vs conservative. Only that those of us here
in Brazil breathed huge sigh of relief when the election results were announced.
OTOH his indirect references to Brazil showed even less knowledge of the region. I have made a very small attempt to give readers a tiny view of the Brazilian politics and
corruption in my other comment.
anne -> Narwhal:
On the other hand [Mark Weisbrot's] indirect references to Brazil showed even less knowledge
of the region.
[ I set down the direct references to Brazil by Mark Weisbrot, Franklin Serrano and Ricardo
Summa. Possibly the work they have done on Brazil reflects little knowledge as supposedly the
work done by Weisbrot on Argentina does, but I find the work carefully done and persuasive. ]
PPaine -> anne:
He has none. He's reacting like the usual middle brow bourgeois. Whatever he or she really is
Nuance here is just enough muddle to confuse the outsider. So long as that outsider salivates with every reference to corruption and incompetence
PPaine -> Narwhal:
No don't hide the hand grenade here. This is class struggle. Nuances are nonsense. State Corruption is ever and always a pre text for reassertion of plutocratic hegemony
The point will be clear once this agent of the haute bourgeoise.
Starts rectifying more then a decade of improved welfare systematics
anne -> PPaine :
State Corruption is ever and always a pre text for reassertion of plutocratic hegemony
The point will be clear once this agent of the haute bourgeoise
Starts rectifying more then a decade of improved welfare systematics
[ Interesting and all too reasonable historically for Latin America. ]
-- the real has devalued from about 2.1/US$ to 3.6/US$ today.
--bribes and kickbacks from Petrobras amounting to uncounted HUNDREDS of billions of reais
had their origin when President Dilma was Chairwoman of the Board of Directors.
--Ex President Lula's closest aid is serving a jail term for corruption. The government's leader
in the Senate was arrested today... the list goes on.
--The government took no steps to prevent the ecological disaster of two dam collapses this
month. Many are dead and will never be found or even counted. Thousands are homeless. 60 million
tons of toxic mud have completely destroyed 400 km of the Rio Doce. The mud reached the sea Sunday
and is now killing the ocean habitat.
--Pres Dilma signed a decree declarion the disaster an act of god, thereby absolving the mining
companies and the government of all legal responsibility.
PPaine -> anne:
The economist -- Now there's a source we can rely on --
Brazil Needs New Economic Program to Jump-Start Growth and Employment
By Mark Weisbrot
Finance Minister Joaquim Levy says that unemployment is going to increase in Brazil and that
Brazilians should "face some realities." No country should have a finance minister with this attitude
towards one of its population's most important needs – employment. And even worse, someone who
is acting on these twisted beliefs in order to make them reality. His own job should be the first
to go.
The vast majority of Brazilians are still hugely better off than they were before the Workers
Party assumed the presidency in January of 2003. Poverty was reduced by 55 percent and extreme
poverty by 65 percent from 2003-2012 and real (inflation-adjusted) wages grew by 35 percent –
including a doubling of the real minimum wage. From 2004-2010, the economy grew twice as fast
as it had over the previous 23 years, and the gains from growth were much more equally distributed.
But these gains are being eroded, as the economy sinks into recession and unemployment rises.
Why has this happened? A new report * by Brazilian economists Franklin Serrano and Ricardo Summa
shows that it is not primarily due to external factors – for example, the slowdown of global economic
growth and trade. Rather it is mainly a result of government policies that have reduced aggregate
demand since the end of 2010: tighter budgets, cuts in public investment, higher interest rates,
and tighter credit.
Austerity is not working in Brazil -- any more than it has been working in Europe. These policies
are not only creating unnecessary unemployment and poverty in the present, they are also sacrificing
Brazil's future. Brazil needs public investment in transportation and other infrastructure, but
this is the spending that is first to be sacrificed.
The Central Bank has raised short-term interest rates from 7.5 percent in April 2013 to 14.25
percent today. As a result of having exorbitant interest rates for many years, the government
pays more than 6 percent of GDP – about 20 percent of federal spending – in net interest. This
is among the world's highest government interest burdens.
Lowering interest rates could free up money in the budget for public investment. It is clear
that the government needs to increase spending in order to jump-start the economy. This is what
it did, successfully, when the global financial crisis and recession hit in 2009.
Brazil does not yet have to worry about external financial constraints, as it currently has
$369 billion in reserves. Its net public debt is only about 34 percent of GDP (This is low by
any comparison; the problem is the exorbitant interest rates, averaging 11 percent on outstanding
government bonds). The economy has plenty of reason to grow, but it is clear that the private
sector is not going to lead this growth.
Dilma won re-election in 2014 by promising to stand up to the oligarchy, and continue the successful
policies that brought considerable economic and social progress to Brazil for the first time in
decades. Levy and his friends in Brazil's powerful financial sector may prefer higher unemployment
and lower wages, but that is not what Brazilians voted for. There is no reason for the government
to commit political suicide by continuing to implement the failed economic program of its opposition.
Aggregate Demand and the Slowdown of Brazilian Economic Growth from 2011-2014
By Franklin Serrano and Ricardo Summa
Executive Summary
This paper looks in detail at the sharp slowdown in the Brazilian economy for the years 2011-2014,
in which economic growth averaged only 2.1 percent annually, as compared with 4.4 percent in the
2004-2010 period. The latter level of growth was also more than double Brazil's average annual
growth rate over the prior 23 years (although it was much lower than the pre-1980 period). It
is important to understand why the higher rate of growth experienced from 2004 to 2010 was not
sustained over the past few years.
The authors argue that the slowdown is overwhelmingly the result of a sharp decline in domestic
demand, rather than a fall in exports and even less any change in external financial conditions.
The sharp fall in domestic demand, in turn, is shown to be a result of deliberate policy decisions
made by the government. This decision to slow the economy was not necessary, i.e., it was not
made in response to some external constraint such as a balance-of-payments problem.
Brazil's exports, and the change in their quantity between the two periods, was too small to
account for most of the large slowdown in GDP growth. From 2011-2014, exports amounted to 11.3
percent of GDP, as compared with 11.9 percent for 2004-2010.
The idea that a deterioration in external financial conditions could have driven the slowdown
is also contradicted by the data. For example, the total foreign debt-to-exports ratio dropped
from 4.7 in 1999 to 1.27 by the end of 2010, and was 1.54 in 2014. The ratio of total external
debt to foreign reserves was reduced from 6.5 in 2000 to 0.89 in 2010 (and was 0.93 in 2014).
Also, the percent of Brazilian foreign liabilities that are denominated in dollars fell from around
75 percent in 2003 to a minimum of 35 percent in 2010, and was about 40 percent in 2014.
All of this indicates that the economy had room to expand after 2010. But the government decided
to reduce aggregate demand through changes in monetary, fiscal, and macroprudential policies.
For example, the Central Bank began a cycle of interest rate increases after February 2010 that
lasted until August 2011, raising the basic nominal interest rate from 8.75 percent to 12.5 percent.
The nominal interest rate increases and the macroprudential measures – which reduced the growth
of credit -- helped to a certain extent to end the consumption boom (especially of durable goods).
Private consumption growth decelerated sharply until mid-2012, partially as a result of these
measures.
At the end of 2010, the government also decided to promote a strong fiscal adjustment in order
to increase the primary surplus and to meet the full target of 3.1 percent of GDP in 2011. Another
sign of this contractionary commitment of the new government was the decision, after years of
high increases, not to raise the real minimum wage at all in 2011, something that had not occurred
in Brazil since 1994. And despite the global economic slowdown in early 2011, the signs of which
were evident from the first quarter, fiscal adjustment was maintained throughout 2011 and the
full target for the primary surplus was achieved.
This rapid increase in the primary surplus was only possible thanks to a strong reduction in
the growth of public spending. In 2011, public investment, both of the central government and
the state-owned companies, fell dramatically, by 17.9 percent and 7.8 percent in real terms, respectively.
The government's contractionary policies led to a pronounced decline in private investment as
well, so that total investment (public and private) fell sharply. After growing at an average
annual rate of 8.0 percent between 2004 and 2010, peaking at 18 percent in 2010, gross fixed capital
formation over 2011-2014 grew by just 1.8 percent annually.
Thus it was the strong reduction in investment growth-not a process of "deindustrialization"
related to the real exchange rate, as some have maintained-that explains the slowdown in industrial
production since 2011. Manufacturing industry grew in the years 2007-2008 and in 2010, when the
exchange rate was already appreciated. It is also worth noting that during the 2004-2010 period
of higher growth, the appreciated real exchange rate was very important for controlling inflation
and thus also for increasing real wages and the growth rate of household consumption.
This paper also shows that the analysis put forth to justify the government's post-2010 strategy
was wrong. Even though the economy was already slowing in 2010, the argument was made that fiscal
tightening was necessary in order to have a large reduction in interest rates. The lower interest
rates, combined with tax cuts and other incentives for businesses, were expected to then allow
the private sector to lead growth by stimulating private investment and also export-led growth
as the real exchange rate depreciated due to the lower interest rates. However, as the pro-cyclical
policies shrank aggregate demand, private investment plummeted; and for reasons explained below,
export-led growth did not occur either. And the supposed link between public debt and sovereign
risk also turned out to be an unfounded assumption.
The result is that the government's efforts to encourage the private sector to lead economic
growth, through contractionary macro-economic policies, tax-cuts, and public-private partnerships,
had the opposite result. To return growth and employment creation to the levels of the 2004-2010
period, the government will have to change course and return to some of the policies and strategy
of those years, in which the government took responsibility for ensuring the growth of investment,
consumption, formal sector employment, and necessary infrastructure.
These authors are not buying this conventional wisdom:
"This paper also shows that the analysis put forth to justify the government's post-2010 strategy
was wrong. Even though the economy was already slowing in 2010, the argument was made that fiscal
tightening was necessary in order to have a large reduction in interest rates. The lower interest
rates, combined with tax cuts and other incentives for businesses, were expected to then allow
the private sector to lead growth by stimulating private investment and also export-led growth
as the real exchange rate depreciated due to the lower interest rates."
Neither am I but maybe for different reasons. While I'm not expert on Brazil, its macroeconomic
data paints a picture of nominal rates being high more because inflation is high not high real
interest rates. Its currency is devaluing in nominal terms for similar reasons. Why a nation with
a depressed economy has this high inflation is a mystery.
The conventional wisdom seems to be that Brazil should do a 1993 Clinton-Greenspan macroeconomic
mix with fiscal austerity. This is akin to what Volcker tried to get the clueless Reagan White
House to do in 1983. But it strikes me that Brazil's issues are different and that the fiscal
austerity did not have the effects from this conventional wisdom.
Narwhal -> pgl:
Inflation is as much result of devaluation as a cause of devaluation. The major driver is the
flow of funds; 1) The slow down and reversal of corporate investment from abroad; 2)Repatriation
of accumulated corporate profits to sustain home country weaknesses and avoid probable devaluation
before it occurred. 3)Outflow of 'hot money',speculative, portfolio investments. 4)The fall in
value of commodity exports (oil). 4) Increased cost of servicing and rolling over foreign debt.
Other factor include: downgrading of Brazilian sovereign debt, the HUGE cost of the Petrobras
and other scandals, total loss of confidence both internally and externally in the ability of
the government to understand or much less deal with the political/economic situation.
"... You have to laugh when you hear Erdogan and that puppy he's got for a Prime Minister solemnly saying that their airspace is sacrosanct and that they would never do the same to another sovereign nation. Yet, every week or so Turkish jets violate Greek airspace over the Aegean. And their jets don't stay for 30 seconds either. Personally I wouldn't believe anything that the Turks say about this incident. ..."
"... Bravo. Pumping out endless western propaganda for the moronic. The Americans and NATO are the biggest warmongers in history: http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/.../turkey-has-destroyed.../ ..."
"... Erdogan is a bad guy, who receives western political cover due to Turkey's NATO membership. ..."
"... According to Seymour Hersch it was Turkey that was behind the Ghouta gas attack (well it certainly wasn't Assad). There was also a plan to attack a Turkish shrine inside Syria to be used as a pretext for a full invasion. The video clip is available on youtube. In the recording you can hear the defence minister and the head of intelligence discussing the plan, agreeing to do it, even though they don't like the idea, while lamenting the fact that everything is politics in modern Turkey. Nobody ever talks about this. Erdogan's response to this was to shut down Youtube for a day. ..."
"... ISIS fighters move in and out of Turkey with ease, receive medical treatment there and selling their oil at very competitive prices to people close to the Erdogan regime. Because NATO have gone along with Turkey in the "Assad must go" mantra they've been stuck covering up for his antics. But shooting down a Russian jet that clearly wasn't threatening Turkey was extremely reckless - maybe regime change in Ankara may be on the cards. ..."
"... "Over the past two years several senior Isis members have told the Guardian that Turkey preferred to stay out of their way and rarely tackled them directly." ..."
"... Martin Chulov is certainly not biased in his reporting in favour of Russia or against Turkey. He has reported mostly in favour of the rebels in Syria and only recently realised what the outcome of all this is. ..."
"... His facts about the ISIS-Turkish connection are not imagination presented against reason. Isis i.e. was free to attack the Kurds inside Turkey and the government did nothing to stop them, even when they knew about them very well. ..."
"... Believing that Erdogan, whose country's human rights record is pretty unenviable (in particular with regard to journalists), fell out with Assad because he was appalled by the latter's repression is like believing that Mussolini's decision to aid Franco in the Spanish Civil War was largely motivated by his horror at the bad behaviour of Spanish Anarchists and Communists. ..."
"... Turkey is a conduit, the Turkish presidents son is buying the oil from ISIS, just like US Vice President Joe Bidens son joined the board of Ukraines largest Gas producer after Nato expanded into the Ukraine. ..."
"... Was the downing of the jet by Turkey a tit for tat exercise as Russia destroyed some of the hundreds of lorry oil tankers parked up in ISIS territory heading for Turkey 6 days ago? ..."
"... Al Qaeda was created and used by the usa to do terror on Russia. No reason tho think things have changed, when clearly they have not. Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, all have fallen....more to come. There is no "wondering" at all about the orogon an dpurpose of the ISIS when they admit they are al qaeda re packaged ...When the US admits al qaeda has melded into the ISIS. ..."
"... Terrorists in the middle east are a western supported geo-political tool to allow us to bomb, invade, destabilizen and balkanize soverign nations who refuse globalist ideology and orders. ..."
"... All a bit too convenient with the film crew at the ready. Clearly Erdogan is looking to further his agenda and set his sights on expanding Turkey's borders and it looks as though he's using NATO's protection to do it. ..."
"... It's ironic that NATO affords Turkey so much protection given that Turkey funds ISIS, it trades with them, it allows IS fighters free travel across Turkish borders and it also fights IS enemies for them - the Kurds. Outside of the Gulf, Turkey is the jihadist's biggest ally. ..."
"... Well, at least we have seen that those K-36 ejection seats do work; they have reportedly never failed. Of course Turkey, and Western Europe for that matter, has been playing a double game. Just like in Afghanistan in the 1980s, they prefer the acid-throwers and head-choppers to a Russian-backed secular regime. ..."
"... Even the Western MSM has openly reported about and from the staging areas in Turkey, where the jihadists gather before entering Syria. The US-lead "coalition" is now boasting about bombing ISIL oil convoys, but where has it been for the past few years? Everybody with a single functioning grey cell knows that Turkey is involved in the ISIS oil smuggling business and allowing the jihadist to train on its territory. ..."
"... The Turkmen who Turkey is protecting have been attacking Kurds. The Turks have been bombing the Kurds, who are fighting ISIS. ..."
"... The Turks have been buying ISIS' oil and giving other funding. Weapons funded by Gulf States have almost certainly been crossing the Turkish border for ISIS. It is suspected the Turkey has been providing a safe haven for ISIS fighters. Tens of thousands have crossed Turkeys borders to join rebel groups, the chances that some of them have not joined ISIS is nil. ..."
"... Lest anyone forget, Al Qaeda are themselves have orchestrated huge scale terrorist attacks. But becausing they are fighting Assad in Syria, who is hated by the Gulf States, Turkey and Israel, unquestioned or criticised almost regardless what they do by the West allies of the West, apparently Al Qaeda are now fine. ..."
"... I wonder if the leaders of NATO were involved in anyway at all??? ..."
"... And - does this lend weight to those who have shown that ISIS is a result of the Libyan, Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and that they are mercenaries who have formed an insurgency within Syria for a regime change? A war crime, definitely against international law. ..."
"... In the warnings at no point do the turks actually say the russians are in turkish airspace, just that they are heading towards it; they also do not threaten to fire upon the Russians like the RAF do over here when they issue a warning. Normally the defending plane would come alongside the transgressor to escort them out the airspace, here they just just shoot at the russians without issuing a warning. It also appears that there just so happened to be a tv crew there perfectly poised to film it - what a coincidence. There is no way we are getting dragged into a war over this. ..."
"... The whole rotten scam is coming undone. No one believes the mainstream media any more. I skip the articles and go straight to the comments. That's where you find out what's really going on. Thank you for all the insightful comments. The truth will set us free ..."
"... 'It is in West's interest that ISIS would spill into Russia one day and do the dirty job there for US and its associates.' ..."
"... Oh, and the "rebels" shooting the pilots as they made their descent is a war crime. ..."
"... "Turkey said one of its US-made F-16 fighters fired on the Russian plane when it entered Turkish airspace after having been warned on its approach to the Turkish border through a 13-mile no-fly zone inside Syria it had declared in July." ..."
"... By what right does Turkey declare a 13 mile no fly zone inside Syria? This is clearly grounds for believing that the Russian jet was in fact shot down over Syria and not Turkey. ..."
"... Turkey has overplayed its hand and Erdogan's strategy and tactics in respect of Syria are now in tatters. NATO will be scrambling to put the frighteners on Erdogan who is clearly a loose cannon and totally out of his depth. ..."
"... Quite interestingly, yesterday, Russians claimed that in the past two previous days they have made 472 attacks on oil infrastructure and oil-trucks controlled by ISIS, which is obviously the right thing to do if you want to derange their sources of financing - but, apparently, the 'training partners' of ISIS are reacting... ..."
"... Russia was invited into support Assad by Syrias leader whether we or Nato like it or not. Turkey France and US were not. Turkeys Air force will have to watch itself now as I suspect Russia will deploy fighter aircraft to protect there bombers and the Kurds. As for the original question I think Putin may be right and Turks do have a foot in both camps. Nato should be very aware of the consequences of playing the whose to blame game when the stakes are so high. ..."
"... So, Turkey downs a Russian bomber and immediately runs to its daddies ?!?! C'mon! What a joke!! ..."
"... Concerns continued to grow in intelligence circles that the links eclipsed the mantra that "my enemy's enemy is my friend" and could no longer be explained away as an alliance of convenience. Those fears grew in May this year after a US special forces raid in eastern Syria, which killed the Isis official responsible for the oil trade, Abu Sayyaf. A trawl through Sayyaf's compound uncovered hard drives that detailed connections between senior Isis figures and some Turkish officials. Missives were sent to Washington and London warning that the discovery had "urgent policy implications". ..."
"... Payback for the Russians bombing ISIS oil convoys? Would Turkey shoot down a Russian air force jet without the nod from allies? Situation getting very dangerous I would think. ..."
"... "the US could potentially extract a lot out of it " ..."
"... And even if something is extracted in return, at the end of the day, NATO and the US will be defacto protecting the islamists, which is Turkey's goal. You can say NATO and the US are fucked now because they will have to do what they didn't want to do at all. ..."
"... Attacking people parachuting from an aircraft in distress is a war crime under Protocol I in addition to the 1949 Geneva Conventions. ..."
"... From a Russian perspective the opening paragraphs of article speak for themselves. Russian entry into the 'game' meant Turkey became a second category power in a region they have sought to dominate, the strike is a sign of weakness and not strength and whoever sanctioned it (done so quickly you'd wonder if Ankara was aware) is an amateur player because it weakened Turkey and strengthened the Russian hand. ..."
"... Of course Putin is right but he only tells part of the story. The main accomplice of terrorists and other non-existent so called "moderate" head-choppers is the United States, and Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Israel are merely facilitating this policy on behalf of the US and in accordance to their independent regional pursuits, that converge however on the removal of Assad and the use of ISIS as a proxy army to remove Assad. ..."
"... Events like today's become a useful window on an otherwise murky, indecipherable geopolitics. In the fraught aftermath of the Paris attacks, we should do our best to see ISIS for what they are and have always been: the entree to the main course proxy war between Russia and Western allied interests. ..."
"... Today a Russian plane goes down and first of all it's Turkey's fault, but Turkey wouldn't have done that without explicit permission to do so from either NATO or the US, but then a few hours later as it all looks really bad for Turkey (and by association everyone else in the "coalition") it turns out to have been Turkmen, but which ones? There's two factions, one is a "rebel" group backed by the US, the other is a "terrorist" group (aligned with "ISIS") and backed by the US. They are both fighting Assad. ..."
"... Senator John McCain can be thankful the North Vietnamese were not as bad as these Turkmen Turks. "Turkmen militiamen in Syria claimed to have shot the pilots as they descended on parachutes from the stricken Su-24 bomber." What the Turkmen brag about having done is something neither the North Vietnamese nor the actual Nazis would have condoned. ..."
"... Let's assume that this lying ISIS loving terrorist, Erdogan, is speaking the truth. He says Russia has been attacking Syrian Turkoman who are defending their land. One should ask this blood-thirsty ape this question: What then are Kurdish people in Turkey doing? ..."
"... That's the whole problem. The banksters and corporations that run the US have too much to lose in Saudi Arabia and the Persian gulf. And they want that pipeline from the Gulf to the Levant but Syria (with its secular ruler, hated by the jihadists) won't play ball with the banksters. Hence, with American corporations' blessing, Turkey and Arabia loose the Daesh on them . And al-Qeada and al-Nusra and all the other "moderate" rebels supplied with modern weapons by American arms corporations. ..."
"... "Turkish businessmen struck lucrative deals with Isis oil smugglers, adding at least $10m (£6.6m) per week to the terror group's coffers, and replacing the Syrian regime as its main client." ..."
"... Why doesn't The Guardian grow a pair and investigate the role of Turkish President Erdogan in this illegal oil trade, specifically through his son Bilal Erdogan, whose shipping company (jointly owned with two of Erdogan's brothers) BMZ Group has a rapidly expanding fleet of oil tankers... ..."
The relationship hinted at by Russian leader after warplane was shot down is a complex one, and includes links between senior
Isis figures and Turkish officials
Wirplit 24 Nov 2015 20:43
Turkey under Erdogan is turning out to be a real problem for the West. Supporting Isis and other jihadist groups and attacking
the Kurds. Maybe now the Russians will support the PKK. Tragedy for the liberal Turks that Erdogan won
Phil Atkinson moreblingplease 24 Nov 2015 19:57
The evidence is out there if you want to look for it. Erdogan's son runs a shipping company that transports - guess what? Oil.
Alexander Marne 24 Nov 2015 19:53
It is an obvious attempt of Turkey trying to make the European+American+Christian Civilization wage war against Russia with
the NATO war pact argument. NATO at these times is the perfect ingredient needed for a Christian Winter, having Christian Nations
disobey the whims of a secular NATO alliance that has everything bus dissolved since the Iron Curtain fell. We all know the radical
Muslims and their cousins are our enemy now, not the Soviet WARSAW pact which NATO was created to defend against. NATO members
that go to war against Russia would risk internal revolution lead by the Majority Christian Population that has grown evermore
dissatisfied of their Frankenstein Secular Ethic governments and sellout leadership.
hfakos Fiddle 24 Nov 2015 19:51
No Russian gas pipeline and, thus transit fees, to Hungary either. Germany shut down SouthStream, only to sign a deal with
evil Putin to double the capacity of NorthStream. Who wouldn't love an EU like that? We are all equal, but Germany and Western
Europe are more equal than others.
Phil Atkinson -> marph70 24 Nov 2015 19:50
Agreed. NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) is a misnomer, given its current membership (28 countries). NATO was formed
by 12 countries in 1949 and today, is a tool for encirclement of Russia.
yianni 24 Nov 2015 19:47
You have to laugh when you hear Erdogan and that puppy he's got for a Prime Minister solemnly saying that their airspace
is sacrosanct and that they would never do the same to another sovereign nation. Yet, every week or so Turkish jets violate Greek
airspace over the Aegean. And their jets don't stay for 30 seconds either. Personally I wouldn't believe anything that the Turks
say about this incident.
somethingbrite -> KevinKeegansYfronts 24 Nov 2015 19:46
I think we can probably ask that chap in his semi in Coventry where ISIS plan to attack next...the Syrian Observatory for Human
Rights is it? The man seems to have a hotline to Raqqa and every other ISIS held territory.
That said....the Guardian doesn't appear to have quoted him for a week or so....
Have they been unable to reach him since Paris?
Is he on the run? Hiding out in Belgium maybe?
SystemD 24 Nov 2015 19:40
I listened to Ashdown on Today yesterday. His comments about links between Gulf states and the Tories were extremely interesting
and unexpected. The same questions should be asked regarding Turkey. Why has the report about the funding of jihadism in the UK
not been published?
Phil Atkinson -> GemmaBlueSkySeas 24 Nov 2015 19:38
Would Turkey have shot down the SU-24 if Turkey wasn't a NATO member? Think on it.
camerashy -> Omniscience 24 Nov 2015 19:31
Yeah right, that's the western propaganda machine for you. They were saying the same thing last year ... Only misguided minds
believe such nonsense!
Neutronstar7 -> Adrian Rides 24 Nov 2015 19:31
Bravo. Pumping out endless western propaganda for the moronic. The Americans and NATO are the biggest warmongers in history:
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/.../turkey-has-destroyed.../
I cannot believe it, but I feel ashamed of my own country and all the other western governments and our proxy's involved in
this vile conspiracy. Blow us up, we deserve it.
WankSalad 24 Nov 2015 19:30
All of this should just make us more furious about the Paris attacks.
The attackers; ISIS, are quite literally being armed, supported and facilitated by our "friends and allies" Turkey, Saudi Arabia
and Qatar.
Meanwhile Turkey directs it's fire at the Kurds - a group of moderate Muslims and secularists who have only ever wanted independent
statehood - whom we are supposed to be helping fight ISIS.
Saudi Arabia has also been quite clearly the source of most of the extremist Islamism that has repeatedly attacked our civil
societies. They have funded and set up Islamist mosques all throughout Europe and the rest of the world.
Are we really getting good value out of our relationships with these nations?
^Our leaders refuse to say any of this openly. It's infuriating. Sooner or later something has to give.
Omniscience -> James Brown 24 Nov 2015 19:30
How can a dictator, who took over from his father (a dictator) be called a legitimate government ? Even by a Russian...
hfakos -> Omniscience 24 Nov 2015 19:28
Sounds like everyday Western duplicity. Car bombs and suicide bombers are fine as long as they only target Damascus. But when
the people the West has nurtured attack Paris, the world ends.
camerashy -> Omniscience 24 Nov 2015 19:27
You're such a feeble minded person! At least Puting didn't sell $hitloads of arms to Saudi Arabia enabling them to support
and nurture Isis. Look in the mirror once in a while, will ya ...
camerashy 24 Nov 2015 19:19
There's nothing to worry about here ... Putin is one cool customer, he'll have his revenge when time is right, and it'll be
nothing like a Cameroneasque thoughtless, hurried, knee jerk reaction. Turkey on its own wouldn't dare do anything like they've
done, they're just being manipulated by NATO warmongers who are desperate to justify their existence.
DrKropotkin 24 Nov 2015 19:17
Erdogan is a bad guy, who receives western political cover due to Turkey's NATO membership. But he has strayed very
far from the path of sanity and I think NATO will soon start looking for ways to get rid of him.
According to Seymour Hersch it was Turkey that was behind the Ghouta gas attack (well it certainly wasn't Assad). There
was also a plan to attack a Turkish shrine inside Syria to be used as a pretext for a full invasion. The video clip is available
on youtube. In the recording you can hear the defence minister and the head of intelligence discussing the plan, agreeing to do
it, even though they don't like the idea, while lamenting the fact that everything is politics in modern Turkey. Nobody ever talks
about this. Erdogan's response to this was to shut down Youtube for a day.
ISIS fighters move in and out of Turkey with ease, receive medical treatment there and selling their oil at very competitive
prices to people close to the Erdogan regime. Because NATO have gone along with Turkey in the "Assad must go" mantra they've been
stuck covering up for his antics. But shooting down a Russian jet that clearly wasn't threatening Turkey was extremely reckless
- maybe regime change in Ankara may be on the cards.
KevinKeegans -> Yfronts 24 Nov 2015 19:17
"Over the past two years several senior Isis members have told the Guardian that Turkey preferred to stay out of their
way and rarely tackled them directly."
So people in the Guardian are in contact with "senior" members of Isis? Was it a meeting over tea and scones? Perhaps you could
stop being their mouthpiece and ask them which public area they intend to blow up next. After that you could give the authorities
their contact details so that they can solve this issue quickly. That would be most helpful. Of course you might lose a couple
of years worth of potential headlines.
moria50 -> Rubear13 24 Nov 2015 19:14
ISIS started back in 2009.Jordan has a Centcom underground training centre, and 2,000 US special Forces came to train them.Gen
Dempsey oversaw this training camp.
Jordanian special forces were instructors along with the US.
James Brown 24 Nov 2015 19:10
Four years of providing money, transport, training, air and artillery cover against legitimate Syrian government forces to
terrorists and Guardian asks this question? Turkey = #1 supporter of Islamic terrorism. Open your damn eyes.
hfakos -> Omniscience 24 Nov 2015 19:09
Given that ISIS was created with significant Western help, why would Putin do anything about it? He finally acted when the
head-choppers got totally out of control and started to threaten Russia too. The downing of the Russian airliner, the several
failed terror attacks in France, and the Paris massacre should have opened your eyes.
NATO has an abysmal foreign policy record. In a mere decade they managed to turn Europe into a place where one has to fear
going to the Christmas market. Well done, "winners" of the Cold War.
pdutchman -> PMWIPN 24 Nov 2015 19:07
Martin Chulov is certainly not biased in his reporting in favour of Russia or against Turkey. He has reported mostly in
favour of the rebels in Syria and only recently realised what the outcome of all this is.
His facts about the ISIS-Turkish connection are not imagination presented against reason. Isis i.e. was free to attack
the Kurds inside Turkey and the government did nothing to stop them, even when they knew about them very well.
Once you see what is going on and what the results are, you have to consider the possibility Europe is threatened by fundamentalists,
also inside Turkey and Turkish government.
Just read the political program of grand vizier Davutoğlu, or the speeches of Erdoğan on the glorious pas of the Ottoman empire
when he visits former territory.
His vision is one of a regional Islamic state run by Turkey, that would be a superpower.
He detests western democracy and 'European' western humanitarian values and has not made a secret of this. He is a convinced
islamist and his support for ISIS and Al Nusra has sadly enough been very successful.
elvis99 -> tr1ck5t3r 24 Nov 2015 19:06
I agree. Its all about the oil.
Not only that there is a huge fracking industry at risk. It costs approx. $80 a barrel to produce and it selling approx.$50 at
present. They are running at a loss as most finance for these enterprises were secured when it was $120 a barrel. Yellen could
not afford to raise interest rates as it would crush a fossil fuel industry within the USA. Get the war machine moving though
and watch the price climb and save that profit margin
hfakos -> kohamase 24 Nov 2015 19:01
It's mostly the Western establishment, not the people. Hungary is not the West but we are in the EU and unfortunately NATO
as well, and the vast majority of the population supports Russia on this imho. Russia made the mistake of trusting the West under
Yeltsin. What you have to understand, and Putin has got it I think, is that Western Europe has a paranoid obsession to bring Russia
to its knees. It's been like this for centuries, just think about how many times the civilized West has invaded your country.
And old habits die hard. They prefer head-choppers and acid-throwers to having a mutually beneficial civilized relationship with
Russia. But you are not alone, Eastern Europe, although formally in the EU, is also looked down upon by the West.
ID9793630 24 Nov 2015 19:01
It's possible Erdogan is rattled at the possibility that the Russians might be about to pull off a secretive realignment of
external participants against ISIS - the possibility of unstated coordination between American, Russian and French armed actions
in the air and on the ground, with various local allies - and this incident shooting down the jet, created for the cameras, is
also intended to overturn that potential applecart.
underbussen -> DenisOgur 24 Nov 2015 19:00
Yeah, so what then, countries violate others airspace all the time - we don't see them downing each others aircraft do we?
Maybe sometimes it happens, this is action by Turkey is outrageous, and very, very aggressive. Turkey will pay, one way or the
other, lets see if that gas price goes up and now might they fare should they loose it?
Angelis Dania 24 Nov 2015 18:55
"The influx has offered fertile ground to allies of Assad who, well before a Turkish jet shot down a Russian fighter on
Tuesday, had enabled, or even supported Isis. Vladimir Putin's reference to Turkey as "accomplices of terrorists" is likely
to resonate even among some of Ankara's backers."
Assad's allies enabled and supported ISIS? Such an embarrassing thing to say.
"Assad, who had, until his brutal response to pro-democracy demonstrations in 2011, been a friend of the Turkish president,
Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. "After that he became an enemy," said one western official. "Erdoğan had tried to mentor Assad. But after
the crackdown [on demonstrations] he felt insulted by him. And we are where we are today."
Armed infiltrators in the protest groups fired first at police according to numerous eyewitnesses. How poor a journalist do
you have to be to continue to write articles on the basis of widely debunked allegations? Lol, "Erdoğan tried to mentor President
Bashar Al-Assad". What on Earth would motivate you to even quote that? Like an inferiority-complex ridden backwards terrorist
supporter like Erdoğan can approach the sagacity and popularity of Dr. Bashar Al-Assad.
MelRoy coolGran 24 Nov 2015 18:55
He did use his spy power to find out the source of Isis funding and was told the funding was coming from Saudi Arabia, Qatar
and Turkey.
hfakos Gaudd80 24 Nov 2015 18:53
Because we, our governments that is, are not serious about tackling Islamist extremism. Scoring points against Russia is still
the main motivation of the West. This strategy had a low cost for the West in 1980s far-away Afghanistan. But Syria is in our
neighborhood and the world has become much more open. The yanks can still play this nasty game without repercussions, because
they are an island protected by two oceans. But it's a mystery to me why Europeans are stupid enough to favor the nearby chaos
of the head-choppers to secular regimes. ME oil and gas could be replaced to a large extent by Russia, but this again would go
against the paranoid Western desire to see that crumble. So you see France, the UK, and the US bombing ISIS with one hand and
giving it money through Saudi and Qatar with the other. It's insanity.
The problem is, nobody else is able to say it, because the Obama and Cameron administrations are up to their necks in it. They
knew that Turkey was responsible for the gas attacks on civilians in Syria. They know (who doesn't?) that the Turks are killing
the people who are fighting terrorists inside Syria. They know that the money, the weapons and the foreign fighters are being
funnelled into Syria through Turkey, with the Turkish government's not just knowledge, but cooperation and even facilitation.
They can't say it, because over and over again they have bald-faced lied to the public. They can't say that the "good guys"
in the fight against Isil are not just the Kurds, but the Iranians, Hezbollah, Assad and the Russians - our supposed "enemies",
and the "bad guys" are the ones we are sending all the money and munitions to - our supposed "allies".
tr1ck5t3r northsylvania 24 Nov 2015 18:41
Oil.
Nothing more, nothing less.
Without oil, the Western economies would crash, we are so dependent on it, but the US military are the biggest dependents.
the Pentagon might consume as much as 340,000 barrels (14 million gallons) every day. This is greater than the total national
consumption of Sweden or Switzerland.
Take away the oil and you will see the US military industrial complex die on its knees.
salfraser 24 Nov 2015 18:40
It would be as well to understand the ultimate motives of the current day Saladin. Look what was said in May this year.
27th. May 2015 : President Erdogan And The Prime Minister Of The Turkey Dovotogolu Just Made This Declaration To The Entire Islamic
World:
'We Will Gather Together Kurds And Arabs, And All Of The Muslim World, And Invade Jerusalem, And Create A One World Islamic Empire'
By Allah's will, Jerusalem belongs to the Kurds, the Turks, the Arabs, and to all Muslims. And as our forefathers fought side
by side at Gallipoli, and just as our forefathers went together to liberate Jerusalem with Saladin, we will march together on
the same path [to liberate Jerusalem]."
Erdogan and Dovutoglu at their speech in which they spoke of the revival of the Ottoman Empire and the conquest of Jerusalem
The amazing speeches by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu were given at the inauguration
ceremony at the country's 55th airport in Yuksekova district of southeastern border province of Hakkari, in which they made an
entire declaration to the Islamic world, on their desire to conquer Jerusalem and form a universal Islamic empire.
Looks like our American friends are about to create yet another conflict of interest!
Rubear13 Omniscience 24 Nov 2015 18:39
ISIS was created in 2013-2014 and proclaimed itself chalifate after taking much territory in 2014. During this year russian
had a lot of problems with crisis, civil war and ~2-3 millions of refugeers from Ukraine. And he did much. Both in terms of weapons
and policy.
By the way, Assad was actually winning war during 2012-2013 before creation of ISIS in Iraq.
RudolphS 24 Nov 2015 18:37
So the jet flew allegedly for 17 seconds in Turkish airspace. As Channel 4 News' international editor Lindsey Hilsum accurately
asked today 'How come a Turkish TV crew was in the right place, filming in the right direction as a Russian plane was shot down?
Lucky? Or tipped off?'
R. Ben Madison -> leonzos 24 Nov 2015 18:35
I suspect that Erdoğan switched sides when the West began to look like it was going to impose 'regime change' on Syria and
wanted to be on the winning side. It took a herculean, bipartisan effort here in the US to keep Obama from obtaining Congressional
support for a war on Syria. At the time, I (and many others) condemned the normally warmongering Republicans for tying the president's
hands purely out of hypocritical spite, but the Democrats were against it too and the whole effort collapsed.
Having taken an early lead in the "get rid of Assad" race, Erdoğan seems to have had the rug pulled out from under him. Sorry
for the mixed metaphor.
johnmichaelmcdermott -> BigNowitzki 24 Nov 2015 18:33
How about evidence such as an article from the notorious 'troofer' site, The Jerusalem Post, quoting that other infamous conspiracy
site, The Wall Street Journal?
"Erdoğan had tried to mentor Assad. But after the crackdown [on demonstrations] he felt insulted by him. And we are where
we are today."
Believing that Erdogan, whose country's human rights record is pretty unenviable (in particular with regard to journalists),
fell out with Assad because he was appalled by the latter's repression is like believing that Mussolini's decision to aid Franco
in the Spanish Civil War was largely motivated by his horror at the bad behaviour of Spanish Anarchists and Communists.
tr1ck5t3r 24 Nov 2015 18:25
Turkey is a conduit, the Turkish presidents son is buying the oil from ISIS, just like US Vice President Joe Bidens son
joined the board of Ukraines largest Gas producer after Nato expanded into the Ukraine.
Was the downing of the jet by Turkey a tit for tat exercise as Russia destroyed some of the hundreds of lorry oil tankers
parked up in ISIS territory heading for Turkey 6 days ago? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6oHbrF8ADs
Theres a pattern here.
Likewise Russia have released their version of events regarding the shot down jets route, claiming it didnt enter Turkish airspace.
Whats interesting is this Russian data was released at 8pm UK time, and yet the British press are still running with the rhetoric
from this morning, where at 4am UK time a Russia jet was shot down according to Reuters..
So it would seem the UK press are sitting on this latest inconvenient news, perhaps trying to come up with a way to spin it
or waiting for the UK Govt to advise how to spin it if its even to be mentioned so the Govt looks innocent in the eyes of the
electorate.
Whilst the availability of data from Turkey was very quickly made available, perhaps it was fabricated and released too quickly
in order to maintain momentum with todays news agenda?
All the while GCHQ and NSA sock puppets & other Nato countries flood various media outlets comments sections to drown out critical
analysis.
I wonder if I'll be approached by more US and UK military personal "unofficially" whilst out walking the dog in Thetford forest,
and be spoken to?
Its interesting watching the news from other countries, certainly watching Russia Today and their spin is interesting.
I can only conclude there will be another massive financial crisis coming for one or more countries, so in order to divert
the masses a war is needed, as wars always boost economies.
Hyperion6 -> BigNowitzki 24 Nov 2015 18:24
Sensible people would realise that only one of ISIS and Assad can be brought to the negotiating table. Sensible people would
realise that Turkey is playing the same duplicitous game that Pakistan played, namely supporting the most despicable fundamentalists
while being an 'ally' of the West.
Frodo baggins -> Gaudd80 24 Nov 2015 18:24
Al Qaeda was created and used by the usa to do terror on Russia. No reason tho think things have changed, when clearly
they have not. Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, all have fallen....more to come. There is no "wondering" at all about the orogon an dpurpose
of the ISIS when they admit they are al qaeda re packaged ...When the US admits al qaeda has melded into the ISIS.
Terrorists in the middle east are a western supported geo-political tool to allow us to bomb, invade, destabilizen and
balkanize soverign nations who refuse globalist ideology and orders.
Jan Burton 24 Nov 2015 18:23
Cut the bullshit.
Turkey is little more than an ISIS and al Qaeda support base, and now they're even providing an Air Force.
Get these scumbags out of NATO now
kohamase 24 Nov 2015 18:19
I don't understand you western guys. Am Russian and not a big fun of Putin but in this situation Russia fights terrorists ,
same people who organized massacre in Paris . Why , why shoot them down??? What is the meaning of this ? We can disagree on many
questions but we should agree on One : ISIS must GO !!! If you don't want to do it then at list don't stand on our way cleaning
up the mess you've created!!!
Tiberius2 24 Nov 2015 18:17
Crystal clear, the Turks are profiteering from stolen oil, the whole Turkish establishment is involved on this corrupted trade
namely : border guards, police and the military, all of them being involved, plus business men with political connections .
ISIS get also weapons and training, Jihadist from the world over, gets red carpet treatment and supply with passports.
The Jihadist can travel unmolested, to and from Syria via Turkey in order to carry out atrocities like Paris and Tunisia.
The West looks the other way to this situation and try to ignore it ,until it gets hit in the hearth, like Paris.
fantas1sta -> BigNowitzki 24 Nov 2015 18:17
Oh, I do think Russia was wrong to send troops into Crimea, but I also think the west was wrong to back the coup against Ukraine's
democratically elected government. NATO gambled that they could interfere in Ukraine and lost, now they know that Putin is difficult
to intimidate and that Russia defends its sphere of influence like the US defends its own. All powers are hypocrites, such is
the nature of their global interests, but Turkey are both hypocrites and cowards, shooting down a plane and then hiding their
heads under Uncle Sam's sweater.
grish2 Tommy Thrillbigger 24 Nov 2015 18:16
Majority of people in Europe support the Russians. The governments are making excuses for the turks. And the turks are with
the head choppers.
theoldmanfromusa -> ID9309755 24 Nov 2015 18:15
You have a strange opinion of the situation. The major problem is that the ruling classes (politicians, imams, etc.) use the
most inflammatory rhetoric to stir up the population (most of it) that is not intellectual and/or clever. These intellectual/clever
types can then make obscene profits from their rabble rousing.
Apollonian 24 Nov 2015 18:12
All a bit too convenient with the film crew at the ready. Clearly Erdogan is looking to further his agenda and set his
sights on expanding Turkey's borders and it looks as though he's using NATO's protection to do it.
It's ironic that NATO affords Turkey so much protection given that Turkey funds ISIS, it trades with them, it allows IS
fighters free travel across Turkish borders and it also fights IS enemies for them - the Kurds. Outside of the Gulf, Turkey is
the jihadist's biggest ally.
Gaudd80 24 Nov 2015 18:11
If we are really serious about tackling Islamic extremists, then why is it that we are allied those states directly aiding
them? Cameron is demanding the right to bomb Syria, while at the same time he's grovelling to the Saudis, crawling to the Gulf
States and defending Erdogan. Hammond nearly bust a blood vessel when Skinner said what everyone knows. The whole thing is an
utter sham, you have to wonder if ISIS and the other extremist groups aren't actually hugely convenient for some.
ElDanielfire -> Canuckistan 24 Nov 2015 18:05
Yes the Saudi's created ISIS. but the west helped build them up thinking they were something else because the west kept their
fingers in their ears because they had a gard -on for yet anotehr regime change in the middle east, despite none of the previous
ones (Afghan, Iraq, Libya) having worked and become hell for the citixens of those countries. Also the west always let Saudi and
Qutar get awya with anything, even if they fund groups who attack western citizens. It's tragic.
hfakos 24 Nov 2015 18:04
Well, at least we have seen that those K-36 ejection seats do work; they have reportedly never failed. Of course Turkey,
and Western Europe for that matter, has been playing a double game. Just like in Afghanistan in the 1980s, they prefer the acid-throwers
and head-choppers to a Russian-backed secular regime.
Even the Western MSM has openly reported about and from the staging areas in Turkey, where the jihadists gather before
entering Syria. The US-lead "coalition" is now boasting about bombing ISIL oil convoys, but where has it been for the past few
years? Everybody with a single functioning grey cell knows that Turkey is involved in the ISIS oil smuggling business and allowing
the jihadist to train on its territory.
But Western Europe is complicit too. With all the spying reported by Snowden how is it impossible to prevent thousands of European
citizens from traveling to Turkey and onward to Syria and getting radicalized? It is obvious that we have turned a blind eye to
the jihadi tourism. Funny that only after the Paris attacks did Hollande and co. start to take this constant flow of Europeans
into Syria seriously.
NATO says, two minutes after this incident, that Turkey is right and its airspace has been violated. But all powerful NATO
countries cannot track the returning jihadists and the mastermind of the Paris attacks has just been reported to have mingled
with Paris policemen after the Bataclan massacre. And one guy is still on the run. The first chickens have come home to roost
and there will be more to follow. The West has been playing with fire and will get burned. This is a much more global world with
open borders than what we had in the 1980s, when NATO was supporting the Bin Ladens and Gulbudding Hekmatyars in Afghanistan.
These jihadists will cause more havoc in Europe for certain. And Russia is more right again than NATO, when it comes to jihadists
in Syria.
ID9309755 24 Nov 2015 18:04
Turkey's territorial expansionist ambitions have backfired, just as the ambitions of their Islamism has. The emperor has no
clothes and yet it's difficult to deal with this maniac Erdog effendy who is pushing Turkey towards chaos internally and internationally...
A country which has intellectuals and clever people has fallen under the power of a group of thugs, the story of the region.
i_pray thinkorswim 24 Nov 2015 18:03
One actually feels sorry for Putin. He is bound by a Treaty he signed along time ago with Assad. He is doing what he is obliged
to do under that Treaty and at
the same time he is helping to destroy ISIS.
Then he is attacked up by Turkey a member of NATO, who are supposedly also committed to destroying ISIS .
If I were Putin, I would just walk away and leave the West to sort the mess out . I am sure that Russia feels that it has already
lost too many lives.
Wehadonebutitbroke -> Roland Paterson-Jones 24 Nov 2015 18:00
Erm, yes. The Turkmen who Turkey is protecting have been attacking Kurds. The Turks have been bombing the Kurds, who are
fighting ISIS.
The Turks have been buying ISIS' oil and giving other funding. Weapons funded by Gulf States have almost certainly been
crossing the Turkish border for ISIS. It is suspected the Turkey has been providing a safe haven for ISIS fighters. Tens of thousands
have crossed Turkeys borders to join rebel groups, the chances that some of them have not joined ISIS is nil.
Many of the 'moderate' rebels are Al Qaeda by another name or Al Qaeda affiliates. The Turkmen are Al Qaeda affiliates. The
line between Al Qaeda and ISIS in Syria is vague and has been crossed both ways on numerous occasions.
Lest anyone forget, Al Qaeda are themselves have orchestrated huge scale terrorist attacks. But becausing they are fighting
Assad in Syria, who is hated by the Gulf States, Turkey and Israel, unquestioned or criticised almost regardless what they do
by the West allies of the West, apparently Al Qaeda are now fine.
And - does this lend weight to those who have shown that ISIS is a result of the Libyan, Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and
that they are mercenaries who have formed an insurgency within Syria for a regime change? A war crime, definitely against international
law.
Roland Paterson-Jones 24 Nov 2015 17:56
Dudes, Turkey is losing some valuable oil supply due to Russia's 'indiscriminate' bombing of ISIS oil-field territory.
Turkey has some real-politik collateral in the form of 'refugees' to mainland Europe. So Turkey, politically, is in a strong
position - EU is shoving money towards them.
Will NATO stand behind Turkey's real-politik?
twosocks 24 Nov 2015 17:54
Just watched the videos and listened to the turkish warnings. The SU24 appears to have been heading south as requested by the
turks and in syria when it was hit. It also looks like the turks entered Syrian airspace before they fired on the Russians - just
like the 1000+ times they have entered greek airspace in the last year, including one time with 8 planes at the same time.
In the warnings at no point do the turks actually say the russians are in turkish airspace, just that they are heading
towards it; they also do not threaten to fire upon the Russians like the RAF do over here when they issue a warning. Normally
the defending plane would come alongside the transgressor to escort them out the airspace, here they just just shoot at the russians
without issuing a warning. It also appears that there just so happened to be a tv crew there perfectly poised to film it - what
a coincidence. There is no way we are getting dragged into a war over this.
Adrian Rides 24 Nov 2015 17:54
The whole rotten scam is coming undone. No one believes the mainstream media any more. I skip the articles and go straight
to the comments. That's where you find out what's really going on. Thank you for all the insightful comments. The truth will set
us free
rumelian -> kmw2402 24 Nov 2015 17:49
YES, and the lesson for the West should be: Please stop supporting Erdogan and his fellow islamists. Watching events for a
decade and praising the relentless efforts of a single party and it's (now former) leader to suppress secular Turks and eroding
the pillars of the secular Turkish Republic, in the name of stability in the region, you actually create much instability and
threat, both for the region, and for Europe. Squeeze down these so called "moderate" islamists, and with real pro-European Turks
taking lead again, you will not have unexpected and complicated acts from Turkey .
thorella -> BigNowitzki 24 Nov 2015 17:48
'It is in West's interest that ISIS would spill into Russia one day and do the dirty job there for US and its associates.'
Totally logical
jaybee2 24 Nov 2015 17:46
Well said Pres Putin and hats off to Denis Skinner in parliament!
Turkey is a disgrace and should be booted out of NATO.
It bombs the Kurds fighting lsis barbarians, buys oil from lsis, protects anti Assad terrorists from the Syrian army, helps
finance various 'moderate' terrorists as to its shame does this Tory government!
As the 'heir to Blair' Cameron is drooling at the thought of joining in on the bloodlust!
Thank you Mr Skinner, and Hammond, what a silly man!
MatthewH1 24 Nov 2015 17:46
Is Vladimir Putin right to label Turkey 'accomplices of terrorists'?
Yes.
Oh, and the "rebels" shooting the pilots as they made their descent is a war crime.
quaidesbrumes 24 Nov 2015 17:43
Guardian reports:
"Turkey said one of its US-made F-16 fighters fired on the Russian plane when it entered Turkish airspace after having
been warned on its approach to the Turkish border through a 13-mile no-fly zone inside Syria it had declared in July."
By what right does Turkey declare a 13 mile no fly zone inside Syria? This is clearly grounds for believing that the Russian
jet was in fact shot down over Syria and not Turkey.
Turkey has overplayed its hand and Erdogan's strategy and tactics in respect of Syria are now in tatters. NATO will be
scrambling to put the frighteners on Erdogan who is clearly a loose cannon and totally out of his depth.
lisbon_calling 24 Nov 2015 17:43
The answer to the question in the title is absolutely clear after reading the very informative text.
Quite interestingly, yesterday, Russians claimed that in the past two previous days they have made 472 attacks on oil infrastructure
and oil-trucks controlled by ISIS, which is obviously the right thing to do if you want to derange their sources of financing
- but, apparently, the 'training partners' of ISIS are reacting...
MrMeinung DavidJayB 24 Nov 2015 17:38
Turkish fighters are violating Greek airspace habitually since decades. And not for mere seconds. The Greeks intercept them
but do not shoot them down. The Greeks have brought all kinds of electronic documentation to both NATO and EU - no result.
It is ironic that Turkey of all nations is raising such arguments.
This action is inexcusable and the barbarity that followed (by all information) - the execution of the pilot/pilots - by Turkish
friendly fighters, even more so.
LordJimbo -> CommieWealth 24 Nov 2015 17:38
Countries are operating on the basis of their national interests, Assad and Kurds represent threats to Turkey, Russia wants
Assad to remain and sees IS and rebel groups (some of whom are reportedly backed by Turkey) as threats, so we see a classic clash
of national interests in an already complicated region of the world, topped off by a brutal civil war that has cost the lives
of over 200,000 and seen one of the worst humanitarian crises since WWII. The very definition of a perfect political and military
storm. I suspect the Russian position will eventually win out in Syria especially now that Hollande wants IS targeted by a 'grand
coalition'. For Turkey the major headache has to be the Kurds who will get arms, training and are winning huge amounts of territory.
powercat123 24 Nov 2015 17:36
Russia was invited into support Assad by Syrias leader whether we or Nato like it or not. Turkey France and US were not.
Turkeys Air force will have to watch itself now as I suspect Russia will deploy fighter aircraft to protect there bombers and
the Kurds. As for the original question I think Putin may be right and Turks do have a foot in both camps. Nato should be very
aware of the consequences of playing the whose to blame game when the stakes are so high.
ManxApe 24 Nov 2015 17:36
Which Turkish businessmen did they strike deals with? Specifically which Turkish businessman's shipping company had their oil
tankers bombed the other day by Russia? Is this businessman actually a very close relative of Erdoğan? A clue perhaps?Allegedly
the shipping company is BMZ.
196thInfantry -> Artur Conka 24 Nov 2015 17:35
The Russian plane was never in Turkish airspace. ATC systems have recorders that record voice communications, radar tracks
and controller actions all synchronized. You can be sure that the Turks will not release the raw recorded data.
aLLaguz 24 Nov 2015 17:32
So, Turkey downs a Russian bomber and immediately runs to its daddies ?!?! C'mon! What a joke!!
This is the long awaited war for the Syria-Turkey border, a border that must be closed. Whether for stop jihadists joining ISIS
or to stop oil sales.
No fly-zone in northern Syria ?! The only affected parties with this is Assad allies and it is the same reason.... the Syria-Turkey
border. For Assad, It is a key region, Kurds must be stopped to reach the Mediterranean sea, the border must be closed to stop
jihadists or rebels to join the fight, to stop the oil sales of ISIS, etc, etc, etc.
Russia will fight for the control of the border whether NATO like it or not. Once it is Russian, Kurds will be pushed back.
Cecile_Trib -> penguinbird 24 Nov 2015 17:32
Turkey must learn to stop invading Greece airspace. Or you think it's OK for them as a member of NATO to do that? Or will you
say it's OK for Greece to down a couple of Turkish jets?
"In the first month of 2014 alone, Turkish aircraft allegedly violated Greek airspace 1,017 times, Gurcan reports."
Ha ha, your post is bordering on...no is, sheer arrogance and complete ignorance.The Russian planes are defined as entering
"an area of our interest".Which is really vague and is really international airspace.Both the US and UK do the same but more often.Moreover
Russia is being surrounded by NATO firepower,missile systems and US paid for coups!
NezPerce 24 Nov 2015 17:31
Is Vladimir Putin right to label Turkey 'accomplices of terrorists'? Yes
Turkey are directly linked to Al Qaeda as is Saudi Arabia yet they are our allies in the never ending war against terrorism,
a war it seems we forgot about when the terrorists became repackaged as freedom fighters. Many of us have been warning that this
would inevitably lead us to become victims of the Jihadists but Cameron would not listen, he has a mania to get rid of Assad and
has been prepared to get into bed with some of the nastiest people in the world. A New take on the Nasty party.
Turkey 'let Isil cross border to attack Kobane': as it happened
Today's early morning, a group of five cars, loaded with 30-35 of Isil elements, wearing the clothes and raising the flag
of the FSA [Free Syrian Army rebels] has undertaken a suicide attack.
The nationalist Southern Front, which includes US-trained fighters, has confirmed that it is taking part in the fight for
Daraa, alongside the powerful Islamist groups Ahrar al-Sham and the Al Qaida-affiliated Jabhat al-Nusra.
BigNowitzki -> BeatonTheDonis 24 Nov 2015 17:29
Turkish government giving military support to ethnic Turks in a neighbouring country = good.
Russian government giving military support to ethnic Russians in a neighbouring country = bad.
Good point. I imagine the Putinbots will try and rationalise it away via cognitive dissonance, or some other bogus reason.
As I said, Russia's position would be much stronger had they not invaded and occupied part of Ukraine. They were warned....
MaxBoson 24 Nov 2015 17:26
Thanks to the author for pointing out the role Turkey has played in the rise of ISIS, and its instrumentalization of the conflict
in Syria for its own ends. Taking this, and Turkey's support for the Turkmen rebels-or terrorists, or freedom fighters, depending
on which alliance one is supporting-into account, it is pretty obvious that the main reason why Turkey shot down the Russian planes
was that they were bombing Turkmen targets in what Turkey has the cheek to call a no-fly zone, not because their wings were in
its airspace for a few milliseconds.
deathbydemocracy 24 Nov 2015 17:23
Is Vladimir Putin right to label Turkey 'accomplices of terrorists'?
Answer below.
Concerns continued to grow in intelligence circles that the links eclipsed the mantra that "my enemy's enemy is my friend"
and could no longer be explained away as an alliance of convenience. Those fears grew in May this year after a US special forces
raid in eastern Syria, which killed the Isis official responsible for the oil trade, Abu Sayyaf.
A trawl through Sayyaf's compound uncovered hard drives that detailed connections between senior Isis figures and some Turkish
officials. Missives were sent to Washington and London warning that the discovery had "urgent policy implications".
That would be a 'Yes'.
Of course Turkey has a right to defend it's borders. In this case though, their borders were not under attack. The Russian
plane strayed into Turkish air space for just a few seconds, and it was clearly not part of an attack force against Turkey. The
correct move would have been to complain about the Russians, not shoot them down.
robitsme -> BillyBitter 24 Nov 2015 17:23
Most states would show some restraint under the tinderbox circumstances. Erdogan is either completely insane, or he is playing
a game, he as an agenda to provoke Russia in some way
rumelian -> JaneThomas 24 Nov 2015 17:21
You are right. Erdogan with his "conservative" comerades is rapidly and relentlessly ruining the the pillars of the secular
Turkey for more than a decade, and for much of this time he was actively aided by the Western powers, frequently praized and portrayed
as a "moderate" islamist and a reliable partner. The more power he gained, the more he showed his real nature.
Dreaming of becoming a "leader" of the muslim world (in the Middle East), countless times he showed his sympathy towards the
fellow "islamists" in the whole region. USA and Western European leaders, still assume that Erdogan is better option than anyone
else in Turkey, providing stability and a "buffer zone" to Europe, they ignore the fact, that Turkey was indeed a reliable partner
for decades, when ruled by secular governments ,backed by a secular army, but now that's not the case. Western governments now
don't know how to deal with it. When you look at the photos of the current Turkish ministers, and their wives (almost all are
headscarved) you realize that they had nothing in common with millions of Turkish people who embraced Western lifestyle and customs.
Ataturk has created a secular nation, suppressed these islamists almost a century ago for good, knowing their true nature, but
now Turkey needs a new Ataturk-style leader to eradicate this pestilence. Until then, Turkey will not be a stable and reliable
partner in the Middlle East.
Darook523 24 Nov 2015 17:20
Payback for the Russians bombing ISIS oil convoys? Would Turkey shoot down a Russian air force jet without the nod from
allies? Situation getting very dangerous I would think.
vr13vr -> WarlockScott 24 Nov 2015 17:19
"the US could potentially extract a lot out of it "
It could but at the end of the day, can't and won't. The US is not going to split NATO so it will have to offer its support
for Turkey. Nor can Europeans do much as they have this "refugees" problem to which Turkey hold the key. And even if something
is extracted in return, at the end of the day, NATO and the US will be defacto protecting the islamists, which is Turkey's goal.
You can say NATO and the US are fucked now because they will have to do what they didn't want to do at all.
PaniscusTroglodytes -> MrConservative2015 24 Nov 2015 17:18
NATO has had no legitimate purpose for 25 years now. Will this finally give the nudge to wind it up? One can but hope.
Yarkob -> Gglloowwiinngg 24 Nov 2015 17:17
The first reports said it was a Turkish F-16 with an AA missile. Some reports are still saying that. Damage limitation or diversion
by Erdogan? The 10th Brigade Turkmen that Debka said carried out the attack are aligned with the US. That conveniently shifts
the blame from Turkey back to the US by proxy. Back stabbing going on. Julius Ceasar shit going down I reckon
vgnych 24 Nov 2015 17:10
It is in West's interest that ISIS would spill into Russia one day and do the dirty job there for US and its associates. Syria
and Asad has been just a dry run of the concept.
Putin must be seeing it very clear at this point.
Yarkob Gglloowwiinngg 24 Nov 2015 17:07
Attacking people parachuting from an aircraft in distress is a war crime under Protocol I in addition to the 1949 Geneva
Conventions.
LordJimbo 24 Nov 2015 17:06
From a Russian perspective the opening paragraphs of article speak for themselves. Russian entry into the 'game' meant
Turkey became a second category power in a region they have sought to dominate, the strike is a sign of weakness and not strength
and whoever sanctioned it (done so quickly you'd wonder if Ankara was aware) is an amateur player because it weakened Turkey and
strengthened the Russian hand.
Gideon Mayre 24 Nov 2015 17:05
Of course Putin is right but he only tells part of the story. The main accomplice of terrorists and other non-existent
so called "moderate" head-choppers is the United States, and Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Israel are merely facilitating this policy
on behalf of the US and in accordance to their independent regional pursuits, that converge however on the removal of Assad and
the use of ISIS as a proxy army to remove Assad.
Michael Cameron 24 Nov 2015 17:05
Events like today's become a useful window on an otherwise murky, indecipherable geopolitics. In the fraught aftermath
of the Paris attacks, we should do our best to see ISIS for what they are and have always been: the entree to the main course
proxy war between Russia and Western allied interests.
The idea they're an imminent threat and immediate concern of Cameron and co suddenly hoves into view as hogwash on stilts.
Their grandstanding over bombing ISIS while at once supporting their biggest enabler (Can anyone doubt Turkey's laissez-faire
stance?) makes sense as an admission of complete powerlessness to resolve an issue above his pay grade i.e. taking on Putin. The
extent to which all of these actors are clueless is terrifying. Foreign policy operations as fitful and faltering as anything
this side of the Christmas board game.
fantas1sta 24 Nov 2015 17:04
Turkey has been looking for reasons to invade Syria for a long time:
"The reason why worse incidents have not taken place in the past regarding Syria is the cool-headedness of Turkey," Erdoğan
said. "Nobody should doubt that we made our best efforts to avoid this latest incident. But everyone should respect the right
of Turkey to defend its borders."
The arrogance of this man is beyond belief, as Al Jazeera reported that the plane, believed to be a Russian-made Sukhoi Su-24,
crashed in Syrian territory in Latakia's Yamadi village and NOT in Turkish Airspace. What I love about this statement is the "cool-headedness
of Turkey".
What about the headless act of supporting ISIS, and what about the fact that Turkey has some of the worst crackdown of journalist
and freedom of speech of any country. Far worse then China.
I truly don't understand how Nato and Turkey's allies support its actions, especially the US. Could someone please explain.
WarlockScott 24 Nov 2015 17:03
Turkey is kinda fucked now, the US could potentially extract a lot out of it in return for 'protection'... For instance stop
murdering Kurds or cut off all ISIS links, hell maybe even both. There's no way Erdoğan can play Putin as the counterbalance card
now.
arkob 24 Nov 2015 17:02
Methinks the wheels are falling off the Syrian project and there is a scramble for the door and people are getting stabbed
in the back all over the shop.
Look at the leaks over the last few weeks implicating the US DoD, Turkey, France and soon the UK, now Obama is telling us his
intel assessments were "tainted" *cough*
Today a Russian plane goes down and first of all it's Turkey's fault, but Turkey wouldn't have done that without explicit
permission to do so from either NATO or the US, but then a few hours later as it all looks really bad for Turkey (and by association
everyone else in the "coalition") it turns out to have been Turkmen, but which ones? There's two factions, one is a "rebel" group
backed by the US, the other is a "terrorist" group (aligned with "ISIS") and backed by the US. They are both fighting Assad.
More to come in the next few days, I reckon.
Branislav Stosic 24 Nov 2015 17:01
Cards can definitely be open to see :who wisely silent is on the terrorists side( read USA) and who is really against. There
wont be some of the current uncertainties and media acting in this struggle. I hope that at least the European countries together
wake up their unhealthy slumber after the terrorist actions in the neighborhood and together, not only in words ,start to put
out the source of the fire and of terrorism in which some cunning players constantly topping oil on the fire.
madtoothbrush -> QueenElizabeth 24 Nov 2015 17:00
It's a well known fact that Turkey purchases oil from ISIS occupied territory. Not to mention they bomb Kurds that are fighting
ISIS.
Vizier 24 Nov 2015 16:56
Perhaps Russia would like to provide air cover to the Kurds who are under murderous assault by Turkey in their own country.
Carving about 20% off Turkey would be a good start.
Gglloowwiinngg 24 Nov 2015 16:55
Senator John McCain can be thankful the North Vietnamese were not as bad as these Turkmen Turks. "Turkmen militiamen in
Syria claimed to have shot the pilots as they descended on parachutes from the stricken Su-24 bomber." What the Turkmen brag about
having done is something neither the North Vietnamese nor the actual Nazis would have condoned.
NezPerce 24 Nov 2015 16:55
By then, Isis had become a dominant presence in parts of north and east Syria.
This is the problem, Turkey is in a struggle with Iran and the Kurds. Assad is seen as the enemy because he is closer to Iran.
It should be remembered that the Turks see the Kurds as biggest the threat and ISIS as an ally and that the U.S. not Russia
has been arming the Kurds. It looks as if the Turks also want to send a message to the US and Europe, a message via air to air
missile.
The issue has highlighted the widening gulf between Turkey and its Western allies, who have frequently questioned
why Turkey, a NATO member with a large military and well-regarded intelligence service, is not doing more to address the jihadist
threat.
In recent testimony in Washington before Congress, James R. Clapper Jr., the director of national intelligence, was asked
if he was optimistic that Turkey would do more in the fight against the Islamic State.
"No, I'm not," Mr. Clapper said in an unusually blunt public criticism. "I think Turkey has other priorities and
other interests."
Georwell -> musterfritz 24 Nov 2015 16:54
nop, just an pair of fighters patrolling the zone 24/7 , since the radars told them the russians daily pattern on bombing the
terrorists, AND an green-card to kill a russian plane on first occasion, even if that mind to (again) enter on syrian air space,
for the matter. Fact is, the russian pilots do not believe the turks will really open fire - now they know - in the hard way;
Was that an planed ambush ? I bet was.
Was a war crime to execute on mid-air the pilots descending on parachute ? Yes it was. Was a war crime to assault the body
of the dead pilot ? (are several pictures on the net showing the pilot body stripped and pieces of flesh missing) - yes, was another
war crime. All on the line of liver-eaters and "moderate" terrorists.
Maybe when those animals will target another EU capital the peoples will realize who its the true enemy here. For (to many..)
bigots here the tragedy on Paris was not enough to bring them the the real picture.
Aneel Amdani -> musterfritz 24 Nov 2015 16:50
Russia did coordinate with other coalition members of US so I suppose Turkey should have been aware of this. F-16 should have
bene in air and giving 10 warnings is utter nonsense. Russia has said no warning was given and their plane was in Syria territory.
Turkey has a rule of engagement that their territory and threat are well in 5 km of Syria itself. So they take it as a threat.
Turkey has gone nuts. they have first increased terrorism and now officially become the Air Force of SIIS. or more, they should
have shown a response to Russians for busting more than 1000 oil tnakers that supply cheap oil to Turkey.
rumelian -> jonsid 24 Nov 2015 16:49
Surely, Russia will respond to that incident. I supposed it was not at all expected by Russians, and they will figure out a
strategy on what kind of response it will be. I think too, that consequences for Turkey could be serious . But maybe it is a destiny
for a country where almost half of the population votes for the corrupt, backward islamists, and their megalomaniac leader.
copyniated 24 Nov 2015 16:48
Let's assume that this lying ISIS loving terrorist, Erdogan, is speaking the truth. He says Russia has been attacking Syrian
Turkoman who are defending their land.
One should ask this blood-thirsty ape this question: What then are Kurdish people in Turkey doing?
HuggieBear -> Mindmodic 24 Nov 2015 16:47
"I get the impression that a greater proportion of people in the US are blinded by patriotism" - patriotism would actually
require disengaging with the mediaeval oil monarchies of the Middle East and butting out of the world's hot spots. Something Pat
Buchanan has advocated for aged.
Aneel Amdani 24 Nov 2015 16:44
the residents of France and Belgium should ask their governments why did they let it to happen in the first place. ISIS was
created by West and funded extensively by the Saudis, Turley and Qatar. US is not a kid that after spending more than a 100 billion
on intelligence and CIA networks globally, never knew ISIS was getting rich. And now so when everyone knows Turkey buys cheap
Oil from ISIS, why aren't they being sectioned or why individuals donating funds to these terrorists being sanctioned.
US is very prompt in going and sanctioning nations that are not with them, but they never sanction dictators like the kings
and presidents that support terrorism. the blood of those who died in Paris and those all along since the war in Iraq are all
to be blamed on these war hawks in west. If even now Paris cannot ask questions on their governments involvement in destabilizing
Libya now, then I guess they will again see Paris happen again. West should be stopped from using the name of terrorism and a
Muslim Jihad for their own strategic gains.
jmNZ -> earthboy 24 Nov 2015 16:38
That's the whole problem. The banksters and corporations that run the US have too much to lose in Saudi Arabia and the
Persian gulf. And they want that pipeline from the Gulf to the Levant but Syria (with its secular ruler, hated by the jihadists)
won't play ball with the banksters. Hence, with American corporations' blessing, Turkey and Arabia loose the Daesh on them . And
al-Qeada and al-Nusra and all the other "moderate" rebels supplied with modern weapons by American arms corporations.
fantas1sta Roger -> Hudson 24 Nov 2015 16:36
Turkey has spent a lot of time and money to cultivate an image of itself as a modern, secular, democratic state - it is none
of those. It's an ally of the US like Saudi Arabia is an ally of the US, it's a marriage of convenience, nothing else. The US
knows that both countries fund terrorists, but they need some kind of presence in that region. The Turks and Saudis need a customer
for their oil and someone to run to when they need their autocratic regimes propped up.
Roger Hudson 24 Nov 2015 16:29
Turkey buys ISIL oil.
Turkey helps foreign terrorists to get to ISIL.
Turkey attacks Kurds fighting ISIL.
Turkey facilitates the route of people including terrorists into Europe.
Turkey is run by a megalomaniac.
Turkey got into NATO as a US/CIA anti -Russian (USSR) puppet.
What the sort of corrupt people like Hammond think of their people, fools. Of course Turkey is on the 'wrong side'.
fantas1sta -> MaryMagdalane 24 Nov 2015 16:29
There's no reason for the US to directly antagonize one of the few countries in the world that has a military strong enough
to enact its policy goals without the backing of another power - see Crimea. Why would Obama order a Russian plane to be shot
down and then call for de-escalation?
Erm on balance, yes. Empirically, provably more repugnant. Russia hasn't killed well over a million civilians since 2001, nor
laid waste to an entire region, causing untold misery and suffering, screwing allies and enemies alike and helping (both by accident
and design) the rise of ISIS. I'm no fan of Putin, and let's be honest, there's no nice people at that level in politics, but
the US is far and away ahead of Russia on the dick-ometer these last 20-30 years.
Budovski Ximples 24 Nov 2015 16:23
Yes, of course he's right. What's wrong is that its taken journalists this long to even dare to look at the relationship between
Turkey and Islamic State. Or specifically, Erdogan and Islamic State.
Turkey has been directly dealing with various terrorist groups in Syria, supplying weapons, fighters, intelligence and arms
as well as buying massive amounts of oil from ISIS refineries (which Russia just pulverized).
They have left their borders open, allowing terrorists to go in and out of Syria as they please.
Their claims to be fighting ISIS are a joke. In their first week of 'fighting ISIS' they did 350 strikes on the Kurds and literally
1 on ISIS.
The terrorist attack by ISIS, aimed at Erdogans opponents, was timed so perfectly to help Sultan Erdogan get elected that I'd
go as far as suspect direct Turkish intelligence involvement.
Bonnemort 24 Nov 2015 16:21
Turkey are complicit in terrorism, but then so are the Gulf States/Saudis/US and UK. They're just a bit closer and their hands
a bit bloodier. Putin is correct,
Just think, only two years ago Cameron wanted us to join the Syrian civil war on ISIS' side.
And also think - Cameron and Boris Johnson want Turkey to be a full EU member as soon as possible.
Roger Hudson -> Samir Rai 24 Nov 2015 16:21
Turkey was let (pulled) into NATO during the cold war just so US missiles and spy bases could get up on the USSR border. Turkey
was run by a military junta at that time.
Same old CIA/US nonsense.
Turkey should be kicked out of NATO and never be allowed near the EU.
photosymbiosis -> kahaal 24 Nov 2015 16:04
Ah, the oil smuggling route to Turkey runs right through a zone controlled by these 'moderates' - perhaps middlemen is a better
word? - and so you can't really cut off the flow of oil out of ISIS areas without bombing those convoys even if they are under
the temporary protection of "moderates" - so it looks like Turkish oil smugglers and their customers (Bilal Erdogan's shipping
company? commodities brokers? other countries in the region?) are working hand in hand with ISIS and the moderates to deliver
some $10 million a week to ISIS - and that's how terrorists in Brussels can establish safe houses, purchase weapons and explosives
on the black market, and stage attacks - isn't it?
Alexander Hagen 24 Nov 2015 16:02
That is interesting that Erdogan and Assad were on good terms previously. That is hard to fathom. I cannot imagine two people
with more differing world views. I did not meet a single Turk while travelling through Turkey that had a kind word about Erdogan,
so elevating him to a higher level (mentor) might require some qualification. Though it is true the Turkish economy grew enormously
under Erdogan, "The lights of free expression are going out one by one" - paraphrasing Churchill.
cop1nghagen 24 Nov 2015 16:01
"Turkish businessmen struck lucrative deals with Isis oil smugglers, adding at least $10m (£6.6m) per week to the terror
group's coffers, and replacing the Syrian regime as its main client."
Why doesn't The Guardian grow a pair and investigate the role of Turkish President Erdogan in this illegal oil trade, specifically
through his son Bilal Erdogan, whose shipping company (jointly owned with two of Erdogan's brothers) BMZ Group has a rapidly expanding
fleet of oil tankers...
photosymbiosis 24 Nov 2015 16:01
Would anyone be surprised to find that the accomplices of ISIS in Turkey - i.e. the oil smugglers who operate with the full
knowledge of the Turkish government - are also transferring cash on behalf of ISIS to their 'recruiters and activists' (aka: 'terrorists')
in places like London, Paris, Brussels, etc.?
The lure of oil profits make relationships with terrorists very attractive, it seems - kind of like how Royal Dutch Shell and
Standard Oil kept selling oil to the Nazi U-boat fleet right up to 1942, when the US Congress finally passed the Trading With
The Enemy Act.
"... The nightmare of the birth of Kurdistan hangs over Turkey like a sword of Damocles for many decades. The emergence after the collapse of Saddam Hussein of de facto independent Iraqi Kurdistan has made the situation especially dangerous for Turkey, and the sudden appearance of ISIS aggressively fighting the Kurds, the ISIS army led by former Saddam generals, of course, made Turks more than happy. Turkish troops and the air force strike the Kurdish militias in Syria directly. ..."
"... In a sense, our policy today is paying the price for refusing to be consistent in solving geopolitical issues. We entered the game in Syria, with the outstanding issue of Crimea-Novorossia, as a result, today we have an exacerbation in Donetsk, energy and transport blockade of Crimea, a front against ISIS and a looming front against Turkey, which is a NATO member. ..."
"... So, today we are faced with the threat of war on several fronts, in which Turkey has assumed the role of lead instigator and aggressor who must lay siege to Russia. ..."
"... So the situation is really extreme. In a sense, we are cornered. ..."
"... If Russia wants to look good in this conflict it would have to force Turkey to publicly apologize for which it needs a set of effective sanctions and threats - from supporting Kurdistan to breaking the economic and tourist relations, and most importantly - be prepared for fierce stand-off of defense systems at the Syrian border. Then Russia can forget about supplying our group through the Bosphorus. In conclusion, we got another major front in addition to the already existing. ..."
"... And without the support of Washington Turkeys capabilities will shrink to the scale of the state, the power of which is simply not comparable with Russia. We must play not against the player, but against the game technicians. ..."
...Historically, Turkey owns "the keys of our house," as the Straits of Bosporus and Dardanelles
were called in the XIX century by the first Russian geopoliticians. Only with great difficulty in
the XVII-XIX centuries Russia has managed to squeeze Turkey from Northern Black Sea coast, Novorossia
and Crimea.
By an amazing coincidence the provocation occurred on the birthday of Alexander Suvorov. However,
all attempts of the Russian Empire to gain control over the straits and over the ancient Byzantine
capital Constantinople met with united resistance of the European powers led by Britain, supporting
Turkey. The latest attempt to control the straits by Russia was carried out by Stalin, a response
to which was the withdrawal of Turkey under the NATO umbrella.
By controlling the straits Turkey controls most of the supply of our military group in Syria.
Montreux Convention makes the peacetime regime of the straits free for all the Black Sea countries,
but in time of war Turkey gets the legal right to block the straits to the enemies and open them
to the allies.
Turkey allies are NATO countries, and the enemy, judging by the downed aircraft, may be Russia.
That is, a provocation with the Su-24 puts supply of our troops in Syria under jeopardy. The only
other routs left - much more uncomfortable through Iran and potentially problematic through Iraq,
where the United States have a big influence.
... Neo-islamist and neo-ottoman Erdogan carries out a very aggressive policy, not appealing to
either Washington or Berlin or Brussels, in fact, seeking to restore the Ottoman Empire.
... Erdogan was the most fanatical enemy of Assad, as he hoped that Islamized Sunni Syria would
become a vassal of Turkey, and perhaps even return inside its borders. Turkey was one of the midwives
at the birth of ISIS - it is extremely interested in the local oil, and in the ISIS fight with the
Iraqi and Syrian Kurds.
The nightmare of the birth of Kurdistan hangs over Turkey like a sword of Damocles for many
decades. The emergence after the collapse of Saddam Hussein of de facto independent Iraqi Kurdistan
has made the situation especially dangerous for Turkey, and the sudden appearance of ISIS aggressively
fighting the Kurds, the ISIS army led by former Saddam generals, of course, made Turks more than
happy. Turkish troops and the air force strike the Kurdish militias in Syria directly.
Russian operation in Syria mixed all the cards for Erdogan.
First, it ensures the political future of Assad, or at least a successor agreed with Assad.
Restored Syria will become Alawite-Christian-Shia-Sunni and certainly anti-Turkish. Oil extraction
has been pulled out from under his nose, and Erdogan began resembling a furious Sherkhan ...
Secondly, Russia, and now France, made it their ultimate goal the complete eradication of
ISIS, which automatically means strengthening the Kurds and the reduction of the Turkish influence
in the region.
Moreover, Russia is doing this in tandem with Iran, which is de facto a key ally of Russia
in the Middle East, an alliance of the type, where both sides are mutually reinforcing, both working
for the common cause, and both sides benefit from the union.
And Iran is Turkey's main rival in the struggle for regional dominance. And it also developed
historically. Byzantium (the place of which is geographically occupied by Turkey) against the
Iranian Sassanids, then Ottomans against Safavids and Qajar, and today Sunni Erdogan against the
Shiite ayatollahs. That is, the strengthening of Iran by Russia would be tantamount to the collapse
of the entire imperial policy of Turkey.
Naturally, the Turkish government is furious and wants to somehow kick Russia out of Syria. Turkey
has repeatedly made threatening statements and gestures regarding alleged violations of Turkish borders
by our aviation operating against Syrian terrorists.
No other country, including even the United States, made so many attacks against Russian foreign
policy. Some experts do not rule out even the involvement of Turkish and Qatari security services
in the tragedy with the Russian airplane in Sinai, though officially this hypothesis has never been
voiced.
... ... ...
And here comes the next move - the downing of the Russian plane targeting the terrorists, under
the pretext of its entry into the Turkish airspace. According to the Turkish version, the Russian
Su-24 was shot down after warnings by the Turkish F-16s. According to our Ministry of Defense, the
plane never left Syrian airspace.
There is no reason to believe that the Russian side is just being defensive and the Turkish is
speaking the truth. The tactical goal of the Turks is with this plane crash to indicate an actual
"no-fly zone" in northern Syria, which would save the militants from ultimate annihilation, which
in Latakia, (where our plane was shot down) was quite close.
This idea of a no-fly zone was supported by the US hawks, who consider Russia an enemy number
one. The last straw, apparently, was the demonstrative destruction by our air-space forces of oil
convoys coming from ISIS territory to Turkey.
Most of all the incident with the plane crash is reminiscent of a classic provocation. The Turkish
side showed a diagram in which the Russian bomber is flying over microscopic wedge of the Turkish
territory deep into Syria. Turkish geographic wedge into Syria - is the so-called area of Alexandretta,
which Turkey annexed from France, which controlled Syria after World War I.
In 1938, parliament of this region declared the area an independent republic of Hatay - it was
the last foreign policy operation of Kemal Ataturk before his death. In 1939, Turkey annexed Hatay.
This is how the Turkish wedge into the Syrian territory was formed, covered with a multitude of
small protrusions. That a Russian plane could fly over one of them is, in principle, not impossible,
as the border is very complex and elusive. But it only means that this time it was expected to be
knocked down.
The triumphant demonstration of the body of our pilot on Turkish TV and generally surprisingly
high preparedness by Turkish media to broadcast the incident in real time, speaks for it being a
direct provocation against Russia.
... ... ...
Escalation of the conflict could also be in Turkey's interest, as this will allow it to cut the
sea communications of our group in Syria, and perhaps even try to block it with ground forces,
which Turkey has much more of in the region (although I would not overestimate the fighting capacity
of the Turkish army) .
Turkey can carry out the aggressive actions under the NATO umbrella, because the alliance will
likely have to intervene if the Turks employ article 5 of the "North Atlantic Treaty". The Western
countries are seriously annoyed by Erdogan, but it is hardly enough to refuse to perform the obligations
of the NATO treaty.
Russia's military options to influence Turkey are limited by the weakness of our Black Sea fleet,
and most importantly - by the threat of escalating to a global conflict, and, moreover, by extremely
disadvantageous configuration of the possible theater of the conflict, as our air-space forces are
operating in the Turkish rear and their land communications and air bridge options depend on the
politically unstable Iraq, just recently occupied by the US.
That is, before our forces in Syria looms the very threat of severing communications, which was
seen from the outset as serious, in contrast to the mythical "militant attacks."
In a sense, our policy today is paying the price for refusing to be consistent in solving
geopolitical issues. We entered the game in Syria, with the outstanding issue of Crimea-Novorossia,
as a result, today we have an exacerbation in Donetsk, energy and transport blockade of Crimea, a
front against ISIS and a looming front against Turkey, which is a NATO member.
So, today we are faced with the threat of war on several fronts, in which Turkey has assumed
the role of lead instigator and aggressor who must "lay siege" to Russia. This role for Turkey
is historically organic. Here we can recall the war of 1787-1891, which was directly provoked by
the Western powers in response to the strengthening of Russia and its occupation of Crimea.
No sooner had Mother Catherine rode to Crimea with foreign delegations, and Potemkin showed his
villages, as Turkey declared war on Russia, which made Suvorov and Ushakov famous. Moreover, for
Russia it was a war on two fronts - simultaneously Sweden declared war on Russia, and its attack
was repelled by the Baltic fleet with almost no involvement of ground forces.
So Russia finally managed, and with the Treaty of Jassy Turkey recognized Crimea Russian, and
the Russian border has been pushed beyond the Dniester. But do not forget that Russia was then supported
by Austria, but today there are not many of those who wish to go against Turkey in the European Union.
So the situation is really extreme. In a sense, we are cornered. If Russia flushes the
incident, it would mean a public apology from our side, then all the Western media publications have
already prepared the headlines that the cocky Russia has been put in its place by Turkey, reminding
who is who.
If Russia wants to look good in this conflict it would have to force Turkey to publicly apologize
for which it needs a set of effective sanctions and threats - from supporting Kurdistan to breaking
the economic and tourist relations, and most importantly - be prepared for fierce stand-off of defense
systems at the Syrian border. Then Russia can forget about supplying our group through the Bosphorus.
In conclusion, we got another major front in addition to the already existing.
The most promising, in my opinion, would be to treat the situation as a systemic problem.
That is, Turkish issue should be solved not in Syria but in Ukraine and Novorossia, because Turkey
is just a piece of the puzzle in a global confrontation and its aggression will immediately lose
its meaning for Washington, if we win at the front nearest to us.
And without the support of Washington Turkey's capabilities will shrink to the scale of the
state, the power of which is simply not comparable with Russia. We must play not against the player,
but against the game technicians.
Let's cut to the chase. The notion that Turkey's downing of a Russian Su-24 by a made in USA
F-16 was carried out without either a green light or at least pre-arranged "support" from Washington
invites suspension of disbelief.
Turkey is a mere vassal state, the eastern arm of NATO, which is the European arm of the Pentagon.
The Pentagon already issued a denial - which, considering their spectacular record of strategic failures
cannot be taken at face value. Plausibly, this might have been a power play by the neocon generals
who run the Pentagon, allied with the neocon-infested Obama administration.
The privileged scenario
though is of a vassal Turkey led by Sultan Erdogan risking a suicide mission out of its own, current,
desperation.
Here's Erdogan's warped reasoning in a nutshell. The Paris tragedy was a huge setback. France
started discussing close military collaboration not within NATO, but with Russia. Washington's unstated
aim was always to get NATO inside Syria. By having Turkey/NATO - clumsily, inside Syrian territory
- attacking Russia, and provoking a harsh Russian response, Erdogan thought he could seduce NATO
into Syria, under the pretext (Article 5) of defending Turkey.
As Bay-of-Pigs dangerous as this may be, it has nothing to do with WWIII - as apocalyptic purveyors
are braying. It revolves around whether a state which supports/finances/weaponizes the Salafi-jihadi
nebulae is allowed to destroy the Russian jets that are turning its profitable assets into ashes.
President Putin nailed it; it was "a shot in the back". Because all evidence is pointing
towards an ambush: the F-16s might have been actually waiting for the Su-24s. With Turkish TV
cameras available for maximum global impact.
Turkey has been accused of hypocrisy over the downing of a Russian warplane on the Syrian border,
after it emerged that President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan himself said "a short-term border violation
can never be a pretext for an attack".
The Russian jet which came down on Tuesday morning entered a small sliver of Turkish airspace
for 17 seconds, according to the Turkish military's own data, while the Russian defence ministry
says the Su-24 bomber was in Syria at all times.
The incident has echoes of a reverse situation in 2012, when the Syrian regime shot down a Turkish
F-4 Phantom which, it said, entered its airspace off the country's north-east coast.
Then, Turkey spoke of its "rage" at the decision to shoot down the jet, which was on a training
flight testing its own country's radar systems.
"A short-term border violation can never be a pretext for an attack", Mr Erdogan said at the time,
threatening in response that "every military element approaching Turkey from the Syrian border… will
be assessed as a military threat and treated as a military target".
"... "I don't think the Turkish government would have undertaken such an action against a military superpower like Russia without the consent of the US. It's simply ridiculous to suggest the Turkish military would have acted alone," ..."
"... "So they were carrying out this attack certainly with the backing of the US," ..."
"... "Until 2011, Turkey had a policy in the Middle East which was considered quite diplomatic and progressive; it had a good-neighborly policy," ..."
"... "In the future you're going to see Turkey emerge as a new maritime power." ..."
"... "... You have a Turkish speaking population in Central Asia and in the North Caucasus region. So Turkey has a lot of levers to pull with Russia, and what we're seeing with these attacks is an attempt to raise the tension with Russia," ..."
"... "Of course Russia is destroying the Islamic State, and Turkey needs to keep the IS going in Syria. They have been openly backing it, and that had been openly admitted by the western press," ..."
"... "This is much less about violating Turkish airspace and much more about the fact that both Russia and Turkey are backing different sides in the conflict in Syria. And we effectively have a proxy war. And these types of clashes and conflicts were completely predictable and inevitable", ..."
"... "advances US interests in this particular conflict, so they have no problem with those missiles being used in that capacity and in that direction." ..."
"... "extending and perpetuating the crisis." ..."
"... "The US has no particular problem in allowing its missiles to be used by rebel forces that it considers friendly," ..."
"... "It explains why there has been relative silence with respect to the use of its own missiles in this particular context." ..."
"... "Well, I think right now it's avoiding escalation and cooler heads hopefully will prevail so that Turkey doesn't try to invoke Article 5 under the NATO treaty [Collective Defence]," ..."
"... "But again cooler heads prevailed and they just decided to invoke Article 4 which was to have a consultation. Hopefully that will happen again," ..."
"... "What happened was that the Russian jet got too close to some very serious interests of Turkey, and that is why they probably took action," ..."
"... "It is probably one of the routes through which they send their forces in through Turkey into Syria to fight on behalf of the jihadist groups," ..."
"... "since it was aiming at possibly Al-Nusra or one of the other jihadist groups that was on the ground." ..."
"... "Turkey has tremendous relations and exchanges with Russia from energy to a lot of trade," ..."
"... "It is only right that the two sides get together and talk this thing out. But I don't see NATO getting engaged in this except to have consultations, because the last thing the European countries want - including the US – is an armed conflict with Russia," ..."
NATO member state Turkey seems strangely committed to keeping Islamic State going strong in Syria,
thus willing to take dangerous risks in confronting Russia in the region. Hopefully cooler heads
will prevail, a group of experts told RT.
"I don't think the Turkish government would have undertaken such an action against
a military superpower like Russia without the consent of the US. It's simply ridiculous to suggest
the Turkish military would have acted alone,"O'Colmain told RT.
"So they were carrying out this attack certainly with the backing of the US," he added.
The political analyst argues we need to look at the region in general. "Until 2011, Turkey
had a policy in the Middle East which was considered quite diplomatic and progressive; it had a good-neighborly
policy," said O'Colmain.
The expert suggested that the long-term strategy of the US is to use Turkey as a tool to destabilize
Russia, and that was confirmed recently by the head of Stratfor, George Friedman, who said:
"In the future you're going to see Turkey emerge as a new maritime power."
"... You have a Turkish speaking population in Central Asia and in the North Caucasus region.
So Turkey has a lot of levers to pull with Russia, and what we're seeing with these attacks is an
attempt to raise the tension with Russia," O'Colmain told RT.
"Of course Russia is destroying the Islamic State, and Turkey needs to keep the IS going in
Syria. They have been openly backing it, and that had been openly admitted by the western press,"
analyst added.
Turkey-Russia proxy war in Syria
We effectively have a proxy war, says Nader Hashemi,
Assistant Professor of Middle East Politics at the University of Denver.
"This is much less about violating Turkish airspace and much more about the fact that both
Russia and Turkey are backing different sides in the conflict in Syria. And we effectively have a
proxy war. And these types of clashes and conflicts were completely predictable and inevitable",
he told RT.
Nader Hashemi thinks US-made TOW missiles are being used in a way that "advances US interests
in this particular conflict, so they have no problem with those missiles being used in that capacity
and in that direction."
Meanwhile, the US holds the opinion that Bashar al-Assad is the primary source of the problem
in Syria and Russia's policy in supporting Bashar al-Assad is "extending and perpetuating the
crisis."
"The US has no particular problem in allowing its missiles to be used by rebel forces that
it considers friendly," Hashemi continued.
"It explains why there has been relative silence with respect to the use of its own missiles
in this particular context."
Turkey committed 'foolish and rash decision' in attacking Russian jet
Turkey feels a political need to show its strength inside the country as well as in the Middle East
region, Senior Policy Consultant from British American Security Information Council Ted Seay told
RT.
"In fact in early October there were supposedly a couple of incursions by Russian military aircraft
into Turkish airspace – they were chased away," said Seay.
"What has happened now, I believe, is that Turkey is feeling some kind of political need, whether
it is domestically or for its regional sort of audience, to show its strength in these things, and
it has made a very foolish and rash decision in firing missiles at a Russian aircraft just to do
this," he added.
He argues that "Turkey is in the unfortunate position of being a frontline state with the Syrian
civil war, on the one hand, and a NATO ally, on the other."
"It looks to me, as someone who has worked in NATO for several years – that there was ineffective
coordination beforehand with NATO authorities and with the allies about how Turkey ought to be ready
to respond if, for example, future incidents along the lines of early October again with, again,
these alleged airspace incursions happened again," Seay told RT.
He said that there should have been a rehearsal for what is and isn't acceptable under these circumstances.
"Quite frankly, apart from self-defense, firing of air-to-air missiles is not acceptable," the expert
added.
Acting against Russia not in Erdogan's interest
Ankara took action against a Russian fighter
jet because the plane got too close to some serious interests of Turkey, former senior security policy
analyst in the office of the US Secretary of Defense Michael Maloof told RT.
It is not in Erdogan's interest to escalate conflict with Russia any further, former senior security
policy analyst in the office of the US Secretary of Defense Michael Maloof told RT.
"Well, I think right now it's avoiding escalation and cooler heads hopefully will prevail
so that Turkey doesn't try to invoke
Article 5 under
the NATO treaty [Collective Defence]," Maloof told RT.
He said they tried that a few years ago when they shot down a Syrian jet. "But again cooler
heads prevailed and they just decided to invoke
Article 4 which
was to have a consultation. Hopefully that will happen again," he added.
"What happened was that the Russian jet got too close to some very serious interests of Turkey,
and that is why they probably took action," Maloof said.
"It is probably one of the routes through which they send their forces in through Turkey into
Syria to fight on behalf of the jihadist groups," he told RT.
Maloof suspects the Russian jet was getting too close "since it was aiming at possibly Al-Nusra
or one of the other jihadist groups that was on the ground."
Expert believes that it is really not in Erdogan's interest to escalate this thing any further.
"Turkey has tremendous relations and exchanges with Russia from energy to a lot of trade,"
he said.
"It is only right that the two sides get together and talk this thing out. But I don't see
NATO getting engaged in this except to have consultations, because the last thing the European countries
want - including the US – is an armed conflict with Russia," Maloof added.
The sole survivor of the downed Russian warplane, its
navigator no less, categorically denies that his aircraft crossed into
Turkish airspace. He also says no visual or radio warning was given before
his aircraft was fired at.
The navigator of the Russian Su-24 shot down by a Turkish fighter jet on
Tuesday insists that his plane did not cross into Turkey's airspace, and
says he was given no visual or radio warning before being fired at.
"It's impossible that we violated their airspace even for a second,"
Konstantin Murakhtin told RT and other Russian media. "We were flying at an
altitude of 6,000 meters in completely clear weather, and I had total
control of our flight path throughout."
As well as denying Ankara's
assertions that the plane was in Turkey's airspace, Murakhtin, who says he
knows the mission area "like the back of my hand," also refuted Turkish
officials' claims that the pilots were warned repeatedly.
"In actual fact, there were no warnings at all. Neither through the radio,
nor visually, so we did not at any point adjust our course. You need to
understand the difference in speed between a tactical bomber like a Su-24,
and that of the F16. If they wanted to warn us, they could have sat on our
wing," said Murakhtin, who is currently recuperating at Russia's airbase in
Latakia, northern Syria.
"As it was, the missile hit the back of our plane out of nowhere. We didn't
even have time to make an evasive maneuver."
READ MORE: Leaked Ankara UN letter claims Su-24's 'air space violation'
lasted 17 seconds
As the plane was hit and went down in Syria, the two pilots ejected. Captain
Sergey Rumyantsev was killed, with a rebel Turkmen brigade claiming they
shot him to death while he was still parachuting.
Murakhtin was extracted in a 12-hour joint operation by Russian and Syrian
special forces, in which a Russian marine died.
"... Conspicuously missing from President Hollande's decisive declaration of war, however, was any mention of the biggest elephant in the room: state-sponsorship. ..."
"... Earlier this year, the Turkish daily Meydan reported citing an Uighur source that more than 100,000 fake Turkish passports had been given to ISIS. The figure, according to the US Army's Foreign Studies Military Office (FSMO), is likely exaggerated, but corroborated "by Uighurs captured with Turkish passports in Thailand and Malaysia." ..."
"... direct dealings between Turkish officials and ranking ISIS members was now 'undeniable.' ..."
"... The same official confirmed that Turkey, a longstanding member of NATO, is not just supporting ISIS, but also other jihadist groups, including Ahrar al-Sham and Jabhat al-Nusra, al-Qaeda's affiliate in Syria. "The distinctions they draw [with other opposition groups] are thin indeed," said the official. "There is no doubt at all that they militarily cooperate with both." ..."
"... The former ISIS fighter told Newsweek that Turkey was allowing ISIS trucks from Raqqa to cross the "border, through Turkey and then back across the border to attack Syrian Kurds in the city of Serekaniye in northern Syria in February." ISIS militants would freely travel "through Turkey in a convoy of trucks," and stop "at safehouses along the way." ..."
"... In January, authenticated official documents of the Turkish military were leaked online, showing that Turkey's intelligence services had been caught in Adana by military officers transporting missiles, mortars and anti-aircraft ammunition via truck "to the al-Qaeda terror organisation" in Syria. ..."
"... According to other ISIS suspects facing trial in Turkey, the Turkish national military intelligence organization (MIT) had begun smuggling arms, including NATO weapons to jihadist groups in Syria as early as 2011. ..."
"... Documents leaked in September 2014 showed that Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan had financed weapons shipments to ISIS through Turkey. ..."
"... A report by the Turkish Statistics Institute confirmed that the government had provided at least $1 million in arms to Syrian rebels within that period, contradicting official denials. Weapons included grenades, heavy artillery, anti-aircraft guns, firearms, ammunition, hunting rifles and other weapons?-?but the Institute declined to identify the specific groups receiving the shipments. ..."
"... Turkey has also played a key role in facilitating the life-blood of ISIS' expansion: black market oil sales. Senior political and intelligence sources in Turkey and Iraq confirm that Turkish authorities have actively facilitated ISIS oil sales through the country. ..."
"... Last summer, Mehmet Ali Ediboglu, an MP from the main opposition, the Republican People's Party, estimated the quantity of ISIS oil sales in Turkey at about $800 million?-?that was over a year ago. ..."
"... Meanwhile, NATO leaders feign outrage and learned liberal pundits continue to scratch their heads in bewilderment as to ISIS' extraordinary resilience and inexorable expansion. ..."
"... "Had Turkey placed the same kind of absolute blockade on Isis territories as they did on Kurdish-held parts of Syria… that blood-stained 'caliphate' would long since have collapsed?-?and arguably, the Paris attacks may never have happened. And if Turkey were to do the same today, Isis would probably collapse in a matter of months. Yet, has a single western leader called on Erdo?an to do this?" ..."
"... The consistent transfers of CIA-Gulf-Turkish arms supplies to ISIS have been documented through analysis of weapons serial numbers by the UK-based Conflict Armament Research (CAR), whose database on the illicit weapons trade is funded by the EU and Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs. ..."
"... ISIS, in other words, is state-sponsored?-?indeed, sponsored by purportedly Western-friendly regimes in the Muslim world, who are integral to the anti-ISIS coalition. ..."
"... Remember when neocon intellectuals were talking about using proxy forces to roll back Syria in 1996? Good thing for Israel most mouth breathing morons only get their news from the zio box. ..."
For the better part of a year, Turkey remained on the sidelines in the "fight" against ISIS.
Then, on July 20, a
powerful explosion ripped through the town of Suruc. 33 people were killed including a number
of Socialist Party of the Oppressed (ESP) and Socialist Youth Associations Federation (SGDF) members
who planned to assist in the rebuilding of Kobani.
The attack was promptly attributed to Islamic State who took "credit" for the tragedy the next
day.
To be sure, the attack came at a rather convenient time for President Tayyip Erdogan. A little
over a month earlier, the ruling AKP party lost its absolute parliamentary majority in part due to
a strong showing at the ballot box for the pro-Kurdish (and PKK-aligned) HDP. What happened in the
wake of the Suruc bombing was nothing short of a largely successful attempt on Erdogan's part to
use fear and violence to scare the electorate into restoring AKP's dominance in snap elections that
took place earlier this month.
In short, Erdogan used Suruc as an excuse to begin a "war on terror." Part and parcel of the new
campaign was an invite from Ankara for Washington to use Turkey's Incirlik air base. Subsequently,
Erdogan reminded the world that the PKK is also considered a terrorist organization and as such,
the anti-ISIS campaign would also include a crackdown on Kurdish militants operating in Turkey.
Erdogan proceeded to focus squarely on the PKK, all but ignoring ISIS while simultaneously undercutting
the coalition building process on the way to calling for new elections. Unsurprisingly, AKP put
on a much better showing in the electoral redo, and with that, Erdogan had succeeded in using ISIS
as a smokescreen to start a civil war with the PKK, in the process frightening voters into restoring
his party's grip on power.
Through it all, the PKK has suggested that Ankara is and always has been in bed with Islamic
State. That contention will come as no surprise to those who frequent these pages. It's common
knowledge that Turkey backs the FSA and participates in the US/Saudi-led effort to supply Syrian
rebels with weapons, money, and training. Indeed, those weapons were on full display Tuesday when
the FSA's 1st Coastal Brigade
used a US-made TOW to destroy a Russian search and rescue helicopter. That came just hours
after the Turkmen FSA-allied Alwiya al-Ashar militia
posted a video of its fighters celebrating over the body of an ejected Russian pilot.
In short, Turkey has made a habit out of supporting anyone and everyone who opposes Assad in Syria
and that includes ISIS. In fact, if one were to rank the US, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar in order
of who is suspected of providing the most assistance to Islamic State, Turkey would likely top the
list. Here's what Vladimir Putin had to say earlier today after Turkey downed the Russian Su-24:
PUTIN: OIL FROM ISLAMIC STATE IS BEING SHIPPED TO TURKEY
PUTIN SAYS ISLAMIC STATE GETS CASH BY SELLING OIL TO TURKEY
PUTIN: ISLAMIC STATE GETS MILITARY SUPPORT FROM MANY STATES
It's with all of this in mind that we bring you excerpts from a new piece by Nafeez Ahmed who,
you're reminded,
penned a lengthy
expose earlier this year explaining how the US views ISIS as a "strategic asset."
In his latest, Ahmed takes a close look at the relationship between Ankara and Islamic State. The
evidence is truly damning.
"We stand alongside Turkey in its efforts in protecting its national security and fighting
against terrorism. France and Turkey are on the same side within the framework of the international
coalition against the terrorist group ISIS." --Statement by French Foreign Ministry, July 2015
The 13th November Paris massacre will be remembered, like 9/11, as a defining moment in world
history.
The murder of 129 people, the injury of 352 more, by 'Islamic State' (ISIS) acolytes striking
multiple targets simultaneously in the heart of Europe, mark a major sea-change in the terror threat.
For the first time, a Mumbai-style attack has occurred on Western soil?-?the worst attack on Europe
in decades. As such, it has triggered a seemingly commensurate response from France: the declaration
of a nationwide state of emergency, the likes of which have not been seen since the 1961 Algerian
war.
ISIS has followed up with threats to attack Washington and New York City.
Meanwhile, President Hollande wants European Union leaders to suspend the Schengen Agreement on
open borders to allow dramatic restrictions on freedom of movement across Europe. He also demands
the EU-wide adoption of the Passenger Name Records (PNR) system allowing intelligence services to
meticulously track the travel patterns of Europeans, along with an extension of the state of emergency
to at least three months.
Under the extension, French police can now block any website, put people under house arrest without
trial, search homes without a warrant, and prevent suspects from meeting others deemed a threat.
"We know that more attacks are being prepared, not just against France but also against other
European countries," said the French Prime Minister Manuel Valls. "We are going to live with this
terrorist threat for a long time."
Hollande plans to strengthen the powers of police and security services under new anti-terror
legislation, and to pursue amendments to the constitution that would permanently enshrine the state
of emergency into French politics. "We need an appropriate tool we can use without having to resort
to the state of emergency," he explained.
Parallel with martial law at home, Hollande was quick to accelerate military action abroad, launching
30 airstrikes on over a dozen Islamic State targets in its de facto capital, Raqqa.
[...]
Conspicuously missing from President Hollande's decisive declaration of war, however, was any
mention of the biggest elephant in the room: state-sponsorship.
Syrian passports discovered near the bodies of two of the suspected Paris attackers, according
to police sources, were fake, and likely forged in Turkey.
Earlier this year, the Turkish daily Meydan reported citing an Uighur source that more than 100,000
fake Turkish passports had been given to ISIS. The figure, according to the US Army's Foreign Studies
Military Office (FSMO), is likely exaggerated, but corroborated "by Uighurs captured with Turkish
passports in Thailand and Malaysia."
[...]
A senior Western official familiar with a large cache of intelligence obtained this summer
from a major raid on an ISIS safehouse told the Guardian that "direct dealings between Turkish officials
and ranking ISIS members was now 'undeniable.'"
The same official confirmed that Turkey, a longstanding member of NATO, is not just supporting
ISIS, but also other jihadist groups, including Ahrar al-Sham and Jabhat al-Nusra, al-Qaeda's affiliate
in Syria. "The distinctions they draw [with other opposition groups] are thin indeed," said the official.
"There is no doubt at all that they militarily cooperate with both."
In a rare insight into this brazen state-sponsorship of ISIS, a year ago Newsweek reported the
testimony of a former ISIS communications technician, who had travelled to Syria to fight the regime
of Bashir al-Assad.
The former ISIS fighter told Newsweek that Turkey was allowing ISIS trucks from Raqqa to cross
the "border, through Turkey and then back across the border to attack Syrian Kurds in the city of
Serekaniye in northern Syria in February." ISIS militants would freely travel "through Turkey
in a convoy of trucks," and stop "at safehouses along the way."
The former ISIS communication technician also admitted that he would routinely "connect ISIS field
captains and commanders from Syria with people in Turkey on innumerable occasions," adding that "the
people they talked to were Turkish officials… ISIS commanders told us to fear nothing at all because
there was full cooperation with the Turks."
In January, authenticated official documents of the Turkish military were leaked online, showing
that Turkey's intelligence services had been caught in Adana by military officers transporting missiles,
mortars and anti-aircraft ammunition via truck "to the al-Qaeda terror organisation" in Syria.
According to other ISIS suspects facing trial in Turkey, the Turkish national military intelligence
organization (MIT) had begun smuggling arms, including NATO weapons to jihadist groups in Syria as
early as 2011.
The allegations have been corroborated by a prosecutor and court testimony of Turkish military
police officers, who confirmed that Turkish intelligence was delivering arms to Syrian jihadists
from 2013 to 2014.
Documents leaked in September 2014 showed that Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan had financed weapons
shipments to ISIS through Turkey. A clandestine plane from Germany delivered arms in the Etimesgut
airport in Turkey and split into three containers, two of which were dispatched to ISIS.
A report by the Turkish Statistics Institute confirmed that the government had provided at least
$1 million in arms to Syrian rebels within that period, contradicting official denials. Weapons included
grenades, heavy artillery, anti-aircraft guns, firearms, ammunition, hunting rifles and other weapons?-?but
the Institute declined to identify the specific groups receiving the shipments.
Information of that nature emerged separately. Just two months ago, Turkish police raided a news
outlet that published revelations on how the local customs director had approved weapons shipments
from Turkey to ISIS.
Turkey has also played a key role in facilitating the life-blood of ISIS' expansion: black
market oil sales. Senior political and intelligence sources in Turkey and Iraq confirm that Turkish
authorities have actively facilitated ISIS oil sales through the country.
Last summer, Mehmet Ali Ediboglu, an MP from the main opposition, the Republican People's Party,
estimated the quantity of ISIS oil sales in Turkey at about $800 million?-?that was over a year ago.
By now, this implies that Turkey has facilitated over $1 billion worth of black market ISIS
oil sales to date.
[...]
The liberal Turkish daily Taraf quoted an AKP founder, Dengir Mir Mehmet F?rat, admitting: "In
order to weaken the developments in Rojova [Kurdish province in Syria] the government gave concessions
and arms to extreme religious groups…the government was helping the wounded. The Minister of Health
said something such as, it's a human obligation to care for the ISIS wounded."
The paper also reported that ISIS militants routinely receive medical treatment in hospitals in
southeast Turkey-?including al-Baghdadi's right-hand man.
[...]
Meanwhile, NATO leaders feign outrage and learned liberal pundits continue to scratch their heads
in bewilderment as to ISIS' extraordinary resilience and inexorable expansion.
[...]
As Professor David Graeber of London School of Economics pointed out:
"Had Turkey placed the same kind of absolute blockade on Isis territories as they did on Kurdish-held
parts of Syria… that blood-stained 'caliphate' would long since have collapsed?-?and arguably,
the Paris attacks may never have happened. And if Turkey were to do the same today, Isis would
probably collapse in a matter of months. Yet, has a single western leader called on Erdo?an to
do this?"
[...]
In his testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee in September 2014, General Martin
Dempsey, then chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, was asked by Senator Lindsay Graham whether
he knew of "any major Arab ally that embraces ISIL"?
General Dempsey replied:
"I know major Arab allies who fund them."
In other words, the most senior US military official at the time had confirmed that ISIS was being
funded by the very same "major Arab allies" that had just joined the US-led anti-ISIS coalition.
These allies include Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE, and Kuwait in particular.
[...]
Porous links between some Free Syrian Army (FSA) rebels, Islamist militant groups like al-Nusra,
Ahrar al-Sham and ISIS, have enabled prolific weapons transfers from 'moderate' to Islamist militants.
The consistent transfers of CIA-Gulf-Turkish arms supplies to ISIS have been documented through
analysis of weapons serial numbers by the UK-based Conflict Armament Research (CAR), whose database
on the illicit weapons trade is funded by the EU and Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs.
[...]
ISIS, in other words, is state-sponsored?-?indeed, sponsored by purportedly Western-friendly regimes
in the Muslim world, who are integral to the anti-ISIS coalition.
Which then begs the question as to why Hollande and other Western leaders expressing their
determination to "destroy" ISIS using all means necessary, would prefer to avoid the most significant
factor of all: the material infrastructure of ISIS' emergence in the context of ongoing Gulf and
Turkish state support for Islamist militancy in the region.
WTFRLY
Every alternative theory about Syria and ISIS, Serena Shim proved, on video. They killed her
the same day as those airdrops to the Kurds where one was confirmed to fall into ISIS hands...
Remember when neocon intellectuals were talking about using proxy forces to "roll back"
Syria in 1996? Good thing for Israel most mouth breathing morons only get their news from the
zio box.
"... Overt military response is unlikely, except that from now on any Turkish AF aircraft that enters Syrian airspace would be summarily destroyed. ..."
"... Obama remarked that if Putin stopped bombing "moderate" Syrian rebels, then Russian planes wouldn't get shot down. Judging from that remark, it would seem that the Turks and USA want to force the Russians to back away from bombing Nusra positions anywhere near the Turkish border, i.e. a de facto no-fly zone. ..."
"... Certainly there was nothing accidental or unforeseen about the Turkish attack. The Turks fully intended to attack some Russian aircraft and were waiting for an opportunity. ..."
"... The Syrian War is growing past the stage of proxy war. This is now heading toward conventional confrontation between powers. Few of the current world leaders have relevant experience during their lifetimes of either waging such wars, or of avoiding them. ..."
"... Obama's remarks certainly made me wonder if the the Turks had the green light from Washington. He also returned to the standard demand that Assad must go. His remarks appeared to put the blame on Russia and certainly won't help matters. I wouldn't put it pass the neocons that shooting down a Russian plane is all just part of the gameplan. ..."
"... What gets me is that this likely means that Erdogan is getting a much stronger grip on Turkish military, which historically was the only thing that held Turkey secular (in fact, it felt it was its mission from Kemal Ataturk). Or, in what could be even scarier is that military did this deliberately assuming any Putin's reaction would target Erdogan much more than the military, in which case a phrase "rogue generals playing with a nuclear power" comes to mind. ..."
"... As mentioned above, the best response Russia could make right now is to help Kurds with weapons/supplies and establishing no-fly zone over Syria's Kurds. Since Kurds are officially seen by most of the West as "good" (let's ignore the need to have everything black and white for a second), it would be very hard for Turkey to object, even if Russia shoots down some Turkish planes/helicopters over Syria. ..."
"... The governments of "new" members in the Balkans and even Central Europe may say whatever they want, they are figureheads. The populace will not allow any situation where they enter a war against Russia on behalf of Turkey. Too much bad history there, for six centuries now. In Bulgaria the man on the street is right now in a very bad mood and very anti-turk. ..."
"... Here, on the street, everyone see Turkey as an emerging Islamist menace, looking to grab some land in Europe. ..."
"... The Russian bomber shot down is one of the cascade of catastrophic events that started with the West's determination to destabilize Eurasia with proxy neo-Nazi and Jihadist forces and Russia's counter intervention into Syria. ..."
"... Its pretty clear that the Turks deliberately decided to attack a Russian plane in revenge for earlier Russian incursions, hoping that NATO membership protects them from a counter response. The historical analogies that come to mind are numerous – from Armenians carrying out attacks on Turks hoping that 'Christian powers' would come to their aid when the Turks retaliated, to Paul Pot attacking the Vietnamese assuming that China would come to his aid. Both those didn't exactly end well. ..."
"... He can do lots of things to make things more difficult for Turkey. Other people in this thread noted gas deliveries, tourist income, exports and those are a nice place to start. And how about arming the YPG/PKK; now that would be some poetic justice right there. ..."
"... I think Putin is probably, unfortunately, the most rational leader out of a sad bunch. I think the Russian response will be graduated: Cutting tourism, sabotaging Turkish exports with bureaucracy, Russian gas contracts will face sudden bureaucratic difficulties, later the Kurds may suddenly be much better armed and Russia will certainly bomb the everliving shit out of the entire "Turkish terrorist infrastructure" right along the borders, this time going with fighter escorts and perhaps even full ECM support (If they go with ECM support, *that* would be ominous indeed, once these systems are used, they get measured and analyzed, counter-counter measures come up and it's back to the lab for another 20 years). ..."
"... The danger to Russia is that the Turks close the Bophorus. Huge amounts of Russian trade and oil, and their supplies to Syria, ship through this point. ..."
"... The Turks can't and won't close the Bosphorus over economic sanctions. They can try over an eventual shoot-down of a Turkish jet over Syria, but then again the very presence of Turkish jets conducting bombing runs inside Syria is an act of aggression and unless Erdogan wants a Kurdish insurgency armed by Russia inside Turkey proper he won't try to close the shipping lanes. ..."
"... 'The difference between "attack" and "defense" can be infinitesimal, especially if you control the media.' ..."
"... Are the Turks the wild card or is this NATO's project green light? This seems more in line with the Russians must pay for Snowden, Crimea, and Assad than Turkey going off the reservation. ISIL is once again a secondary consideration as Russia must be further backed into a corner. Holland's request that Obama join Russia seems to have been conveniently preempted by world events. Putin is learning that there is no greater crime than embarrassing the West. ..."
"... McInerney said that while he was a NORAD commander in Alaska they would never have done anything like this. ..."
"... If one believes Sibel Edmonds analysis on Operation Gladio B, specifically centered on NATO and the CIAs fostering of criminal organizations to do their dirty work for them, extending so far as to breaking Interpols most wanted criminals out of prisons to work for them, then Turkeys role in fostering ISIS in Syria and the Uyghurs in Xinjiang make perfect sense. ..."
"... The question remains, who is actually conducting this asymmetric warfare? Who are the real puppet masters? My money is on the neocons and the MIC. ..."
"... Fast forward to last month and it is a Russian passenger jet blown up with 224 lives on board by ISIS - which most people know by now is funded, trained, and supplied by various parties including Langley. This week and this time it is a Russian jet fighting ISIS and its ilk shot down over the Syrian border by an actual NATO Turkish F16 jet. Then Youtube videos emerge of FSA rebels killing its ejected pilot and navigator. To crown the whole thing off, a Russian Search and Rescue helicopter is blown up with a US-made TOW missile. Provocations rarely come this extreme and so serendipitously for the provocateurs. ..."
Does Turkey think that Russia will just shut up and accept their dead? Seriously? Some of the
articles in our Western media have been truly bad on this development and have been mocking both
Putin and the Russians. The whole thing absolutely reeks of a set-up, including the destruction
of that rescue helicopter. Whatever the Russians decide to do it will not end well for Turkey.
Putin might just decide to establish a protective umbrella over the Syrian Kurds and stop the
Turks from bombing them. Will the Turks then complain to the UN or NATO when some of their aircraft
are taken out whilst illegally flying uninvited over a foreign country (Syria) and bombing its
citizens (Syrian Kurds)?
As for the Turkmen in Syria, I would not want to be them after murdering those pilots. Especially
when they could have traded them to Russia for only 'light' treatment by the Russian military.
Turkey apparently, has been wanting to take this part of Syria and fold it into Turkey. Not gunna
happen now but I am guessing that the Islamist militants will be marked for special targeting
now.
OIFVet, November 25, 2015 at 12:28 am
Overt military response is unlikely, except that from now on any Turkish AF aircraft that
enters Syrian airspace would be summarily destroyed. There will be a huge pressure from on
Putin to send a few turks to meet their allah but such didn't work in Ukraine and won't work now.
Rather, the huge Russian tourist stream to Turkey will disappear, Turkish exports to Russia
will be banned, gas supplies will be disrupted due to 'technical reasons' and 'pipeline maintenance',
and various financial and government institutions will find themselves under a sustained electronic
attacks.
In private Europe is horrified, regardless of what poodle Stoltenberg might say, and most blame
Sultan Erdogan for the migrant crisis and for the subsequent blackmail of Europe by the neo-ottoman
idiocracy in Ankara. This went too far, and came too soon after Paris, for even the lemmings not
to notice whose side Turkey is really on. I am next door right now, and let's just say that the
'man on the street' opinion is harshly and violently anti-turk. Europe will soon be making a choice
either way, and 0bama is not helping the US much with his peevish belligerence.
Bill Smith, November 25, 2015 at 7:00 am
Might be tricky doing that as other countries aircraft are staging out of Turkey to bomb targets
in Syria.
OIFVet, November 25, 2015 at 7:17 am
If Russia and Syria declare that any aircraft entering Syrian airspace from Turkey will be
considered hostile and is therefore subject to being shot down, US and French aircraft will bug
out and use the Med corridor, pending Russian and Syrian approval. Either way, it will be open
season on Turkish jets in Syrian airspace. And rightly so, all Turkey does is enable ISIS by bombing
the PKK and arming/oil trading with IS. Putin did not just state that Russia was stabbed in the
back by terrorist enablers for nothing.
Roland, November 25, 2015 at 1:10 am
Obama remarked that if Putin stopped bombing "moderate" Syrian rebels, then Russian planes
wouldn't get shot down. Judging from that remark, it would seem that the Turks and USA want to
force the Russians to back away from bombing Nusra positions anywhere near the Turkish border,
i.e. a de facto no-fly zone.
Certainly there was nothing accidental or unforeseen about the Turkish attack. The Turks
fully intended to attack some Russian aircraft and were waiting for an opportunity.
The Syrian War is growing past the stage of proxy war. This is now heading toward conventional
confrontation between powers. Few of the current world leaders have relevant experience during
their lifetimes of either waging such wars, or of avoiding them.
My prediction is that Russia will fight much harder in Syria than would seem "rational." For Russia
the question is whether or not they can sustain an alliance. For Russia the Syrian War is not
just about Syria, it is about Belarus and other former Soviet republics.
I will be surprised if the Russians back off here. I wonder what the Turks will do when a future
batch of Russian air strikes near the Turkish border all have proper fighter escort? Would the
Turks engage in a full-fledged air superiority battle at the Syrian frontier?
Would the Russians risk exposing valuable electronic countermeasures assets to enemy observation
and assessment, in anything less than a major war?
At any rate, ISIS leaders are chortling. These stupid big lugs are about to lurch into one another
and send themselves brawling and sprawling. And all they had to do was shoot some concertgoers!
William C, November 25, 2015 at 8:50 am
The FT is reporting that Turkey has imposed an exclusion zone over Syrian airspace that runs
fifteen miles into Syria.
Those whom the Gods wish to destroy?
Jagger, November 25, 2015 at 9:47 am
Obama remarked that if Putin stopped bombing "moderate" Syrian rebels, then Russian planes
wouldn't get shot down.
judging from that remark, it would seem that the Turks and USA want to force the Russians to
back away from bombing Nusra positions anywhere near the Turkish border, i.e. a de facto no-fly
zone.
Obama's remarks certainly made me wonder if the the Turks had the green light from Washington.
He also returned to the standard demand that Assad must go. His remarks appeared to put the blame
on Russia and certainly won't help matters. I wouldn't put it pass the neocons that shooting down
a Russian plane is all just part of the gameplan.
Fajensen, November 25, 2015 at 2:22 am
Europe has been at war with Turkey – on and off – for about 1300 years.
It is pretty unlikely (and certain political suicide) that any European country will enter a war
*for* Turkey, regardless of any NATO onligations. It's just not done!
The joker is of course the new NATO members (and Sweden) they are always gagging to have go at
Russia – if they could just get the US to do all the work for them. Unfortunately, The US have
enough bellicose crazies to like this idea.
vlade, November 25, 2015 at 4:16 am
The general feeling in what you call the "new NATO" countries (i.e. ex Soviet block) is that
Turkey massively overstepped. They have deep seated (and historically very much justified) suspicion
of Russia and its actions, but they like islamists even less, and Turkey's shift from secularism
went much less unnoticed than in the rest of Europe/US. After all, Russia isn't the only one who
invaded/occupied most of them during the last few hundreds of years..
What gets me is that this likely means that Erdogan is getting a much stronger grip on Turkish
military, which historically was the only thing that held Turkey secular (in fact, it felt it
was its mission from Kemal Ataturk). Or, in what could be even scarier is that military did this
deliberately assuming any Putin's reaction would target Erdogan much more than the military, in
which case a phrase "rogue generals playing with a nuclear power" comes to mind.
As mentioned above, the best response Russia could make right now is to help Kurds with weapons/supplies
and establishing no-fly zone over Syria's Kurds. Since Kurds are officially seen by most of the
West as "good" (let's ignore the need to have everything black and white for a second), it would
be very hard for Turkey to object, even if Russia shoots down some Turkish planes/helicopters
over Syria.
OIFVet, November 25, 2015 at 5:36 am
Exactly. I imagine you are Serbian, I am from Bulgaria by birth and currently there on a short
vacation. The governments of "new" members in the Balkans and even Central Europe may say
whatever they want, they are figureheads. The populace will not allow any situation where they
enter a war against Russia on behalf of Turkey. Too much bad history there, for six centuries
now. In Bulgaria the man on the street is right now in a very bad mood and very anti-turk.
Accordingly even the government figureheads are unusually subdued and cautious in what they say
in reaction to the downing of the Russian jet. To put not too fine a point on it, people are scared
of a nuclear conflagration and the situation is explosive.
fajensen, November 25, 2015 at 6:18 am
Sorry my mistake for generalizing.
I was thinking about Georgia, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania – which only last week (according
to Danish media) were eager for "steps to be taken against Russia". Sweden would be totally eager
to prove to the world (which actually don't care about Sweden) that they are *so totally not racists*
that they (well, "they" being the official Sweden) will readily step up and defend any belief
system, the more alien, obnoxious and perverse the better, for "proof of non-racistness". It's
really, really weird and strange.
Here, on the street, everyone see Turkey as an emerging Islamist menace, looking to grab some
land in Europe.
VietnamVet, November 25, 2015 at 3:57 am
The Russian bomber shot down is one of the cascade of catastrophic events that started
with the West's determination to destabilize Eurasia with proxy neo-Nazi and Jihadist forces and
Russia's counter intervention into Syria. There are five nuclear countries flying sorties
over Syria; Russia, USA, Israel, France and the United Kingdom. World War III is underway but
it is unacknowledged. If the rulers headquartered in London, Frankfurt, New York and Washington
DC don't fear extinction from the ignition of hydrogen bombs overhead, then that is exactly what
will happen. The War will inevitably escalate with no one trying to damp it down.
One alternative to destroying the Northern Hemisphere is to forget regime change and join in
an alliance with Russia and the rest of the world to eliminate the Islamic State and quarantine
radical Islam.
Plutoniumkun, November 25, 2015 at 5:32 am
Its pretty clear that the Turks deliberately decided to attack a Russian plane in revenge
for earlier Russian incursions, hoping that NATO membership protects them from a counter response.
The historical analogies that come to mind are numerous – from Armenians carrying out attacks
on Turks hoping that 'Christian powers' would come to their aid when the Turks retaliated, to
Paul Pot attacking the Vietnamese assuming that China would come to his aid. Both those didn't
exactly end well.
I think the key danger here is Russia. Putin knows full well that Germany and France will not
respond to a request for help from Turkey, no matter what NATO's agreements state. He may see
it as an ideal opportunity to rip NATO apart. He may gamble that a strike against Turkey strong
enough to humiliate it, but calculated enough to ensure that the the Germans/French won't join
in (the UK will do whatever Obama tells them) would make the NATO agreement a dead letter. He
may well succeed. The problem comes if he miscalculates.
drexciya, November 25, 2015 at 5:48 am
Turkey needs to be taken down a bit, so I wouldn't mind Putin learning Erdogan a lesson. But
I think Putin is more subtle. He can do lots of things to make things more difficult for Turkey.
Other people in this thread noted gas deliveries, tourist income, exports and those are a nice
place to start. And how about arming the YPG/PKK; now that would be some poetic justice right
there.
vlade, November 25, 2015 at 5:59 am
strike directly against Turkey? that would escalate massively, and could backfire like Polish
invasion in WW2, where Hitler thought allies would just roll over as ever before. Except they
didn't. Rest assured that this similarity would be drawn out very quickly.
On the other hand, shooting down a Turkish jet or three over Syria, especially if the jets were
bombing Kurds, now that would make a different story. Mind you, even that would be a large esaclation
but unlikely to draw in NATO...
fajensen, November 25, 2015 at 6:40 am
NATO should have croaked along with the USSR. I'm quite fine with NATO splitting at the seams
– because – right now it's a bunch of obsolete war-planners looking for some fight to justify
their continued existence, any fight, in fact, NATO today is pretty much a mercenary force for
the USA. No way nearly enough equipped for taking on any serious opponent, but good enough for
bombing the shit out of places with poor air defense and weak friends. Of course 50% of the population
feels the exact opposite way.
I think Putin is probably, unfortunately, the most rational leader out of a sad bunch. I think
the Russian response will be graduated: Cutting tourism, sabotaging Turkish exports with bureaucracy,
Russian gas contracts will face sudden bureaucratic difficulties, later the Kurds may suddenly
be much better armed and Russia will certainly bomb the everliving shit out of the entire "Turkish
terrorist infrastructure" right along the borders, this time going with fighter escorts and perhaps
even full ECM support (If they go with ECM support, *that* would be ominous indeed, once these
systems are used, they get measured and analyzed, counter-counter measures come up and it's back
to the lab for another 20 years).
Maybe the Greek's will see an opportunity to pop one off at one of the many, many Turkish violations
of Greek airspace?
OIFVet, November 25, 2015 at 6:54 am
The turks violate Greek airspace several thousand times a year. It's the turkish version of
American exceptionalism.
Jim Haygood, November 25, 2015 at 9:24 am
'NATO – right now it's a bunch of obsolete war-planners looking for some fight to justify their
continued existence, any fight.'
Amen, bro. WW I demonstrated how strategic alliances with mutual defense guarantees could escalate
disastrously.
NATO lost its reason for existence when the USSR collapsed. Then it began violating its own treaty
with "out of area" aggression (Serbia, Kosovo, Bosnia, Afghanistan).
Clearly, NATO has degenerated into a rogue organization, serving as a fig leaf for US military
occupation of Europe 70 years after the war ended. Will Europe ever develop enough backbone to
expel its American occupiers?
russell1200, November 25, 2015 at 8:40 am
The danger to Russia is that the Turks close the Bophorus. Huge amounts of Russian trade
and oil, and their supplies to Syria, ship through this point.
It is the obvious response to a too forceful response, and obviously escalates in an extreme way.
OIFVet, November 25, 2015 at 8:54 am
The Turks can't and won't close the Bosphorus over economic sanctions. They can try over
an eventual shoot-down of a Turkish jet over Syria, but then again the very presence of Turkish
jets conducting bombing runs inside Syria is an act of aggression and unless Erdogan wants a Kurdish
insurgency armed by Russia inside Turkey proper he won't try to close the shipping lanes.
Erdogan is nuts but I don't think he is that stupid. In any case, as a native Bulgarian I view
a non-Kemalist, islamist, sultan erdogan-led turkey as a danger for regional and global peace
and in such case I won't mind one bit the return of Constantinople to Greece and to Orthodox christendom.
nothing but the truth, November 25, 2015 at 7:12 am
you will definitely see SAM missiles being launched against Turkish aircraft from Syrian border
areas.
The way NATO is set up it will inevitably lead to a member country pulling everyone into a world
war.
The difference between "attack" and "defense" can be infinitesimal, especially if you control
the media.
NATO members will push Russia till it retaliates, then all NATO says "game on" and WWW3 is in
full mode.
Turkey wouldnt dare do this unless it was part of NATO. So NATO basically has increased member
bellicosity and misadventurism.
Jim Haygood, November 25, 2015 at 9:31 am
'The difference between "attack" and "defense" can be infinitesimal, especially if you
control the media.'
Our brave stenographers on the front lines of the media battle already are producing telling strikes,
such as this morning's NYT article asserting Turkey's 'nuanced reasons' for attacking Russia's
aircraft.
Huddled in our bomb shelters, we can draw comfort from the majestic chords of the media's Mighty
Wurlitzer.
ex-PFC Chuck, November 25, 2015 at 7:29 am
The Russian responses under Putin will be subtle, strategic surprises, and most likely effective
just as they have been in the Ukraine situation. But they will be short of anything that gives
cause to the Erdogan regime to formally declare war. Otherwise Turkey will be legally entitled
to close the Bosphorus and Dardanelles to Russian shipping, which would greatly complicate their
conduct of operations in Syria. As has been said many times in the past two years, he is playing
chess while his opponents are at best capable of something between tic tac toe and checkers.
hemeantwell, November 25, 2015 at 8:35 am
Right. Putin has a many options and he will not react in so headstrong a way as to lose them.
Erdogan was able - accusations of vote rigging aside - to boost AKP support through crisis escalation.
The shoot down is in a strong sense more of the same. But now Putin can work to isolate Turkey
from the rest of NATO, undercut Turkey's already struggling economy, justify aid to the Kurds.
I wonder what Erdogan's domestic opposition will do with this. Does anyone know what Gulen and
his supporters think?
Jagger, November 25, 2015 at 9:59 am
Right. Putin has a many options and he will not react in so headstrong a way as to lose them.
The problem is public opinion in Russia. They will expect a response and Putin must respond in
such a manner that he doesn't get assassinated or couped out of a job because he did not respond
forcefully. Putin is a competent or better leader but not invulnerable.
ltr, November 25, 2015 at 7:40 am
An absolute disgrace. Turkey has been encouraging and supporting the destruction of the Syrian
government for years and is supporting the destructive insurgents in Syria. Turkey has betrayed
the rest of NATO and betrayed Russia.
Dino Reno, November 25, 2015 at 8:43 am
Are the Turks the wild card or is this NATO's project green light? This seems more in line
with the Russians must pay for Snowden, Crimea, and Assad than Turkey going off the reservation.
ISIL is once again a secondary consideration as Russia must be further backed into a corner. Holland's
request that Obama join Russia seems to have been conveniently preempted by world events. Putin
is learning that there is no greater crime than embarrassing the West.
Cabreado
"Meanwhile, NATO leaders feign outrage and learned liberal pundits continue to scratch their
heads in bewilderment as to ISIS' extraordinary resilience and inexorable expansion."
The most important dynamic in play...
And the most important response is to (re)arrange your thinking to vigorously protect the Principles,
because this next war is also set to rip this place apart from within.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering
to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless
on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder ofTreason
shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
------
The problem will be sorting out who to charge. If the CIA has cooperated with ISIS, and is therefore,
as an agency, guilty of Treason, are all of the other people in government who gave any in the
CIA aid and comfort also guilty?
I think we should err on the side of justice here, and charge them all.
Just to remind everyone that this is a psyops game, and that anyone can play. As a systems guy
and player of games, I assure you that our distributed side of a periphery-vs-cental side of an
evolutionary arms race is a guaranteed win. It is our ingenuity against theirs, them mostly bureaucracies.
McInerney: Turkey Shooting Down Russian Plane Was a 'Very Bad Mistake'
McInerney said that while he was a NORAD commander in Alaska they would never
have done anything like this.
"This airplane was not making any maneuvers to attack the territory," McInerney said. "It
was probably pressing the limits, that's fair. But you don't shoot 'em down just because of
that."
If one believes Sibel Edmond's analysis on Operation Gladio B, specifically centered on
NATO and the CIA's fostering of criminal organizations to do their dirty work for them, extending
so far as to breaking Interpol's most wanted criminals out of prisons to work for them, then Turkey's
role in fostering ISIS in Syria and the Uyghurs in Xinjiang make perfect sense. It compliments
the efforts of the war hawks in Washington who benefit from conflict: The neocon zionazis, the
MIC and others (Israel foremost, but Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States and Turkey who use the fear
of terrorism as a pretext to keep them in power and excuse their military expansion)
The question remains, who is actually conducting this asymmetric warfare? Who are the real
puppet masters? My money is on the neocons and the MIC.
Whoever it may be, a pattern of behaviour is emerging to start a major world war by poking at
Russia to the extreme point of no return. Consider Ukraine and its PM: Yatsenyuk (Supported by
US State Dept Victoria Nuland and NATO as the face of the Kiev coup) announcing on national tv
that he would burn all Russian speakers alive. Then this actually taking place all over Ukraine,
most famously at Odessa perpetrated by another Zionazi and Israeli dual national Igor Kolomoisky.
Even the current president Poroshenko now admits that the 2014 euromaidan "revolution" was a coup
d'etat. As if this wasn't incitement enough, we've had almost a continuous diet of MSM demonization
of Putin with several hundred fake "Russian invasion" reports and the downing of MH17. At the
same time, NATO mechanized troops have been gathering (In the case of Baltic States) a mere few
hundred feet from the Russian border.
Fast forward to last month and it is a Russian passenger jet blown up with 224 lives on board
by "ISIS" - which most people know by now is funded, trained, and supplied by various parties
including Langley. This week and this time it is a Russian jet fighting ISIS and its ilk shot
down over the Syrian border by an actual NATO Turkish F16 jet. Then Youtube videos emerge of FSA
rebels killing its ejected pilot and navigator. To crown the whole thing off, a Russian Search
and Rescue helicopter is blown up with a US-made TOW missile. Provocations rarely come this extreme
and so serendipitously for the provocateurs.
My two cents: There is a pattern to provoke a direct major war with Russia by Victoria Nuland/Kagan
and her ilk. It's insane and it's happening. This latest incident is a lure to force Russia into
rash action that will be used as the "proof" that has been so lacking to date to demonize Putin
in the msm worldwide to hearten the public to taste the blood of war. Sadly, it is delusional
to think anyone will survive the full scale nuclear exchange this war may initiate. The tiny portion
of humanity left will most likely be rendered sterile by the radiation from thousands of broken
and unattended nuclear power stations around the globe. It's game over if this is allowed to continue.
But maybe sanity will prevail and it will be a footnote in the annals of close calls.
HowdyDoody
Turkey was also up to its neck in supporting Chechen jihadists used against Russia. They were
both a transit route and a location for training camps.
It's worse than we think. Obama has given Erdogan the go ahead to seize Syrian Turkmen villages
at the G20 gathering
Shooting the plane down in Syrian territory is ipso facto a Turkish No Fly Zone
That is why it has happened now. Expect Turkish vs Russian air battles as Turkey defends its ill
gotten gains.
Dr. Bonzo
Very credible mainstream-available evidence links the 9/11 attacks to the CIA, Mossad, Pakistani
intelligence and Saudi Arabia. Why should we be surprised? The PNAC policy paper stated plain
as day for all to read regime change in Syria, Iraq and Iran. A casual look back at the mideast
wars of the last 14 years suggest this very dynamic was at play and remains at play. That the
mideast becomes even more destabilized isn't considered an issue of consequence. This is the chief
miscalculation by the Masters of the Universe. Israel is territorially not large enough to survive
a serious nuclear attack, and the increased nuclear proliferation and enmity engendered by this
fucktarded regime change obsession all but guarantees this outcome. It's not an issue of if, but
when.
Phillyguy
The goal of US/NATO (including France)/GCC is regime change in Syria. This goal has not changed,
Paris attacks notwithstanding. Turkey functions as a US/NATO vassal state, doing the west's bidding.
Sultan Erdogan's dreams of a neo-Ottoman empire may well end up turning Turkey in a smoldering
mass of rubble.
Lavrov's comments offered the clearest signals that Moscow views the downing as more than an
accidental mishap while Russia steps up its airstrikes in Syria to support the embattled
government of President Bashar al-Assad.
Turkey and its Western allies have backed rebel groups seeking to topple Assad in Syria's nearly
five-year civil war. Pentagon officials, meanwhile, have raised worries about possible mishaps
between Russia's air campaign and a U.S.-led coalition conducting airstrikes against the Islamic
State.
... ... ...
"We have serious doubts this was an unintended incident and believe this is a planned
provocation," Lavrov said after discussions with Turkey's foreign minister, Mevlut Cavusoglu.
Lavrov did not elaborate on Moscow's claims.
... ... ...
Moscow further alleged at Turkey was sheltering the Islamic State from Russian attacks. "A
stab in the back from the accomplices of terrorism," said Putin on Tuesday.
Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev on Wednesday warned that the "damage will be hard to
repair." Russian officials have raised possible responses such as a ban on Turkish airlines or
canceling a proposed gas pipeline between the two countries.
So far, however, Russia has not taken any steps other than to recommend Russian tourists not
visit Turkey. Russian tour operators have cancelled most of their packages to Turkish resorts,
the Interfax news service reported. More than 3 million tourists visited the popular vacation
destination from Russia last year.
Russia - knowing that this is really not about Turkey, but about push-back by the US against
growing Russian power and influence, both globally and in the Middle East region - could also
choose to respond in a venue where it has more of an advantage, for example in Ukraine, where it
could amp up its support for the breakaway regions of Donetsk and Lugansk, perhaps by downing a
Ukrainian military plane, or more broadly, providing air cover to protect those regions. Russia
could also, less directly, provide aid to Kurdish rebels in both Syria and in Turkey itself who
are fighting against Turkish forces.
I'm sure there are plenty of other options available to Russia also to turn the screws against
both Turkey and NATO, without openly pushing buttons that could lead to a direct confrontation
with the US and its NATO fiction. Working in Russia's favor is that the US aside, the European
nations of NATO have no desire to be at war with Russia. There are clearly hotheads in the US
Congress, the Pentagon, and perhaps even within the neo-con-infested Obama administration, who
are pushing for just such a mad showdown. But in Europe, where the actual fighting would mostly
occur, and where memories are still strong of the destructive power of war, there is no taste for
such insanity. It could, in fact, have been a big error in the long run for the US to push Turkey
into such a deadly provocation, if it leads to more anti-American sentiment among the citizens of
such key NATO countries as France, Germany, Italy and Britain.
Dave Lindorff is a founding member of ThisCantBeHappening!, an online newspaper collective,
and is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press).
"... Either way, Turkey seems to have tipped their hand, and that is probably VASTLY more important to how this plays out than the death of a pilot in an armed conflict. ..."
"... All Russia has to do is stay a few miles from the border and keep blowing shit up and killing assholes. ..."
"... Economics and finance is how this war is being fought. Syria is just the hot spot. Look for action on the banking, finance, trade, and economic front. It is coming. ..."
"... Stop all the chatter and simply as, Cui Bono? The answer... as always in deceptive operations like this - is the same. ..."
"... Erdogan set a fucked up precedent for world stability and the West hasn't heard the last of the rhetoric it used in defending his insane actions. Turkey, like every country, has a right to defend its territory and its airspace. -Barack Obama ..."
"... [stated after Turkey destroyed a Russian jet, which resulted in the death of at least one of the pilots, while the jet was conducting anti-terror operations in Syria against ISIS - admitted bombers of a Russian civilian airliner] ..."
"... Russia, Iran, Syria will prevail because they must prevail. There is no alternative for them. Putin is a very cautious man despite being displayed as hazardeur by western presstitute media. He knows exactly what he is doing and he will be doing it until the logical goal has been reached. For a psychopath like Erdogan, longing for Ottoman empire 2.0 ruled by a mixture of muslim brothers like himself and Turkey-style Wahabists, losing control over the airspace over Syria near the border to Turkey is absolutely inacceptable. By ordering to shoot down that SU-24 Erdogan made a big strategic miscalculation and simply accelerated his complete loss of control, i.e., what he fears most. ..."
"... For Russia it comes as a gift: It has now all reasons to set up a total no-fly zone over North Syria referring to today's incident. And no power in the world can prevent Russia from doing this. ..."
"... That F16 was on an intercept course, it wasn't patrolling up and down the border. That shooting was a deliberate act especially as it took place inside Syrian airspace. ..."
"... You really think Turkey did this without American neocon plotting via NATO via Turkey? All on their own? ..."
"... Apparently Russians are a big source of Tourist income for Turkey. And then, there is all that ISIS blood-oil flowing through Turkey which will now be stopped by Russian carpet bombing of ISIS tankers. ..."
"... Also its going to be awfully hard for Turkish planes to raid into Syria, what with the Russians waiting to mistakenly shoot them down and have local rebels shoot Turkish pilots. ..."
"... One thing I keep meaning to look into, before all my mentors and sources kick the bucket... and I can no longer kick the can, is what the level of Turkish involvement in the various disturbances in the Caucasus actually after the collapse of the Soviet Union. People write about Saudi Arabia's ideological ties, but in the rush to extract Caspian energy for the west, some of those projects took suspicious turns for the strategic benefit of Ankara. ..."
"... The F16 was loitering waiting for the chance to pounce. No way was this anything innocent and baloney about Turkey defending its air space is retard-spew. ..."
"... The preponderance of facts as we now have them would indicate in Russia's favor. ..."
"... They seem to indeed be trying to pull NATO in on Article 5. ..."
"... Mr Erdogan spoke of Turkey's rage at the decision to shoot down the F-4 Phantom on 22 June and described Syria as a clear and present threat . A short-term border violation can never be a pretext for an attack, he said. ..."
The highlighted passage reads: "Disregarding these warnings, both planes, at an altitude of 19,000
feet, violated Turkish national airspace to a depth of 1.36 miles and 1.15 miles in length
for 17 seconds from 9:24:05 local time."
So, as
RT notes,
even if we buy Turkey's story (i.e. if we accept that Russia actually did violate Turkish airspace),
then it would appear that Ankara has something of an itchy trigger finger. That is, Turkey
was apparently willing to risk sparking a wider conflict between NATO and Russia over a 17 second
incursion.
But something doesn't sound right.
Journalists: Learn to do basic maths. Look at Turkey's statement to UN:
1.15 miles / 17 seconds x 60 x 60 = 243 miles/hour = 391 km/hour
In other words, as
Sputnik put it earlier this evening, "according to those numbers,
the Su-24 would have
had to be flying at stall speed."
The Su-24's max speed is 1,320 km/hour.
So if we assume the Su-24 was actually going much faster, was 17 seconds more like 5 seconds?
Or perhaps even less?
It's important not to forget the context here. Ankara is fiercly anti-Assad and in addition to
being generally displeased with Russia's efforts to support the regime, just four days ago, Turkey
summoned Russian ambassador Andrey Karlov over the alleged bombing of Turkish villages near the border.
"Turkey has asked Russia to 'immediately end its operation,'"
AFP reported, adding that "Ankara warned
bombing villages populated by the Turkmen minority
in Syria could lead to 'serious consequences.'"
Of course Russia wasn't just bombing Turkish civilians for the sheer hell of it. It's likely
Moscow was targeting the very same FSA-affiliated Alwiya al-Ashar militiamen who
shot and killed the parachuting Russian pilot earlier today.
In short, it looks like Ankara saw an opportunity to shoot down a Russian jet in retaliation for
strikes on Turkish rebel fighters who are operating alongside anti-Assad forces. Erdogan is essentially
gambling that Russia will not retailiate militarily against Turkey because doing so would open the
door for a direct confrontation with NATO.
Time will tell whether that gamble pays off or whether Moscow decides that the next time a Turkish
F-16 gets "lost" over Latakia, a little payback is in order.
Femme Fatale
You got it all wrong. That's not what happened at all. Erdogan told Putin: "the Israelis
wagged the Americans who wagged me, so what's a poor Turk to do?" >>
https://goo.gl/qazI3V
-.-'s picture
Physics are a bitch Erdogan.
TahoeBilly2012
That's some cheeze whiz shit right there, Turkey supports ISIS, so does France....bastards,
you kill your own people in cafes!!
Chuckster
Exactly...if you watch the Russians they are always slow to release information. It's like
they enjoy letting the rest of the world make asses out of themselves then they come forth with
powerful evidence. They have satellites so I expect to see some evidence of what they are saying
in the future. In the meantime paybacks are a bitch.
highandwired
Russian defense ministry has already released the satellite info:
In war, people die. Equipment is lost. It is fscking reality people. Maybe the pilot fscked
up. Maybe they crossed the border and thought it wouldn't matter. Maybe they didn't and just
got ambushed.
Either way, Turkey seems to have tipped their hand, and that is probably VASTLY more
important to how this plays out than the death of a pilot in an armed conflict. Or, to
quote Stalin, "One death is a tragedy, a million a statistic." Y'all won't be pity partying
for the next 1,000 dead Russian pilots.
All Russia has to do is stay a few miles from the border and keep blowing shit up and killing
assholes.
Economics and finance is how this war is being fought. Syria is just the "hot" spot. Look for
action on the banking, finance, trade, and economic front. It is coming.
Good thing Turkey doesn't need Russia for goods, services, parts, energy, food, and shit like
that.
Regards,
Cooter
J S Bach
Stop all the chatter and simply as, "Cui Bono?" The answer... as always in deceptive
operations like this - is the same.
Supernova Born
They'll be some chagrin in Western capitals the day China starts quoting all this right of
self-defense and defense of territory stuff when the next military ship intentionally cruises
right past a Chinese base on the Senkakus or Spratleys.
"You are within Chinese territorial waters. You have 17 seconds to depart."
Erdogan set a fucked up precedent for world stability and the West hasn't heard the last of
the rhetoric it used in defending his insane actions.
"Turkey, like every country, has a right to defend its territory and its airspace."
-Barack Obama
[stated after Turkey destroyed a Russian jet, which resulted in the death of at least one of
the pilots, while the jet was conducting anti-terror operations in Syria against ISIS -
admitted bombers of a Russian civilian airliner]
giovanni_f
No (I am unsure how such a US-centric crap even deserves the label "assessment").
Russia, Iran, Syria will prevail because they must prevail. There is no alternative for them.
Putin is a very cautious man despite being displayed as hazardeur by western presstitute
media. He knows exactly what he is doing and he will be doing it until the logical goal has
been reached. For a psychopath like Erdogan, longing for Ottoman empire 2.0 ruled by a mixture
of muslim brothers like himself and Turkey-style Wahabists, losing control over the airspace
over Syria near the border to Turkey is absolutely inacceptable. By ordering to shoot down
that SU-24 Erdogan made a big strategic miscalculation and simply accelerated his complete
loss of control, i.e., what he fears most.
For Russia it comes as a gift: It has now all reasons to set up a total no-fly zone over
North Syria referring to today's incident. And no power in the world can prevent Russia from
doing this.
The answer to "cui bono" is Russia but as in chess it was the enemy to make the gift.
Hope that helps for you amateur geopoliticians.
Wile-E-Coyote
That F16 was on an intercept course, it wasn't patrolling up and down the border. That
shooting was a deliberate act especially as it took place inside Syrian airspace. Now I
expect Russia to hit anything with a pulse in that area, your move Turkey, but be careful Xmas
is coming you could get a right stuffing.
an_indian
You really think Turkey did this without American neocon plotting via NATO via Turkey? All
on their own?
Apparently Russians are a big source of Tourist income for Turkey. And then, there is all that
ISIS blood-oil flowing through Turkey which will now be stopped by Russian carpet bombing of
ISIS tankers.
Look for more such Turkish villages to be bombed in future and some of those bombs/missiles
losing their way (like the cruise missile that supposedly landed in Iran) and landing on
Turkish soil.
Also its going to be awfully hard for Turkish planes to raid into Syria, what with the
Russians waiting to "mistakenly" shoot them down and have local rebels shoot Turkish pilots.
This is going to get really complicated real fast.
Urban Redneck
Perhaps nominally, but I think Turkey had the most, relatively, to lose. Petroleum is
somewhat fungible, and the current glut notwithstanding, a buyer generally be can found near
the current market price. The Turks, however, are traders and if a pipeline doesn't flow
through Turkey, their cut is eliminated. One thing I keep meaning to look into, before all
my mentors and sources kick the bucket... and I can no longer kick the can, is what the level
of Turkish involvement in the various disturbances in the Caucasus actually after the collapse
of the Soviet Union. People write about Saudi Arabia's ideological ties, but in the rush to
extract Caspian energy for the west, some of those projects took suspicious turns for the
strategic benefit of Ankara.
The F16 was loitering waiting for the chance to pounce. No way was this anything innocent
and baloney about "Turkey defending its air space" is retard-spew.
Most importantly they are not at war with each other so Turkish plane could have escorted them
out but NOPE.
Turkey's airspace was violated 114 times in one year by Greek, Israeli, and Italian
aircraft They somehow avoided shooting any down. "Air space violations are incidents that
happen almost every day, and are resolved in a matter of minutes within international law,"
the Turkish General Staff said in a statement. Six airplanes violated Turkish airspace last
week alone, the General Staff said, of which none were shot down and left Turkey's airspace
after they were warned by Turkish personnel.
A violation of one to two kilometers is accepted as "natural" given the speed of aircraft,
the statement said. This year's violations of Turkish airspace lasted between 20 seconds and
nine minutes, which showed "airspace violations can be resolved by warning and interceptions,"
the statement said."
Temperatures in Ukraine where most homes rely on piped gas for
central heating were below freezing Wednesday morning.
SmittyinLA
Russia won't retaliate against Turkey, they'll target Erdogan and his donors-personally
like Israelis, behind the jihad are businessmen with assets and interests-that they're gonna
lose shortly.
Financial punishment is coming for "friends of Erdogon"
Putin will make it personal, Russia doesn't do "calm", they do "stoic".
css1971
Sampling period. The turkish account of 17 seconds could be related to the sampling period
on their monitoring system, but it looks like a large overestimation.
Now, if you look at the Russian realtime tracking, they clipped the border maybe, but didn't
enter Turkish airspace :
So it comes down to how accurate are the monitoring systems whether the plane entered Turkish
airspace or not. He said, she said.
There's a different question though, even if you take the Turkish explanation. As a NATO
member, do you shoot down planes :
1. That has entered your airspace literally for seconds and has clearly exited by the time you
shoot it down that part is quite clear.
2. From a country which had an agreement in place ahead of time explicitly to prevent exactly
this situation.
No, you don't. Unless you are explicitly and deliberately and cynically attempting to escalate
the situation.
lakecity55
The preponderance of facts as we now have them would indicate in Russia's favor.
At the least, it would have taken more time for the Turks to set up the shot than any time the
bomber may have been in their airspace. A needless provocation on Turkey's part. The math is
very telling; at the claimed speed, the bomber would indeed be flying too slow. You can look
the bomber's specs up on the intertubes.
They seem to indeed be trying to pull NATO in on Article 5.
jughead
Mr Erdogan spoke of Turkey's "rage" at the decision to shoot down the F-4 Phantom on 22
June and described Syria as a "clear and present threat". "A short-term border violation
can never be a pretext for an attack," he said.
Definitely a speed trap waiting, got perfect video footage of the event too. hmmmmm.
Turkey was protecting their RADICAL muslim brothers they do NOT want bombed. That is what
happened and now the want NATO to intervene on their behalf. Fuck them to hell and back let
Putin bomb their radical muslim asses too.
Russian President Vladimir Putin approved deploying S-400 air defense system at the Russian airbase
in Hmeimim in Lattakia, the Kremlin announced on Wednesday.
Putin's spokesman Dmitry Peskov said
the President approved the Russian Defense Ministry's proposal to deploy the S-400 system, Russia's
most advanced anti-aircraft defense system.
Earlier, Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu said at a Defense Ministry meeting that S-400
will be deployed in Hmeimim airbase after a Russian Su-24 aircraft was downed yesterday by an air-to-air
missile launched from a Turkish F-16 fighter jet when it was returning from an anti-terrorist mission
in the northern countryside of Lattakia.
The S-400 is employed to ensure air defense using long- and medium-range missiles that can hit
aerial targets at ranges up to 400 kilometers. The S-400 is capable of hitting tactical and strategic
aircraft as well as ballistic and cruise missiles. The system includes a set of radars, missile launchers
and command posts, and is operated solely by the Russian military.
Turkish tourism representatives have voiced concern after Russian Foreign Minister Sergei
Lavrov advised Russians on Nov. 24 not to visit Turkey, after Turkey downed of a Russian plane on
the Syrian frontier.
Lavrov also said the threat of terrorism in Turkey was no less than in Egypt, where a bomb attack
brought down a Russian passenger plane last month.
Russia's tourism agency then recommended the suspension of package holiday sales to Turkey.
"This is no good. We cannot lose the Russian market, which is the second largest source of
Turkey's tourism sector. We have already lost over 800,000 Russian tourists over this year due to
economic woes in [Russia], and had to make significant cuts in hotel prices to overcome our
losses in addition to other concessions. Despite this, we still cannot close the gap," said the
head of the Turkish Hoteliers Federation (TUROFED), Osman Ayık.
... ... ...
While 3.3 million Russian tourists visited Turkey in 2014, Turkey saw a decrease of
approximately 25 percent in the number of tourists from Russia and its neighbors over this year.
However, Turkey did become more attractive for Russian tourists after Moscow suspended flights to
Egypt.
Turkey's tourism revenues declined 4.4 percent, reaching only $12.29 billion in the third
quarter, the Turkish Statistics Institute (TÜİK) said on Oct. 30, amid security concerns and a
decrease in the number of Russian tourists visiting the country.
That Turkish F16 fighter pilot alone could not take a decision about the attack. Especially in the border area.
Usually every opportunity is used to resolve the situation peacefully. The pilot of a Turkish fighter definitely got the order to land from very high command. But it is unlikely Turkey independently decided about the attack on Russian military aircraft. Most likely, the approval of this provocation was given on the Potomac river. Question: for what?
The simple answer is to put pressure on Russia to force it to withdraw from Syria. But the
authors of this provocation here clearly miscalculated. First, in the near future we should expect increase of air strikes on sites under the control of the
ISIS.
Secondly, bombers in Syria will no longer fly without cover of fighters, and every attempt of attack on our aircraft will get an adequate response. And finally, third, because Russia is the only invited to the military presence and aid the country's only legitimate government of Syria, now our air defenses and will be hard to clap each attempt any incursion into Syrian airspace by forces that we ourselves define as hostile.
This incident has revealed what the real sides are in the Syrian civil war: who is fighting
whom, and for what. The Russian plane crashed into Syrian territory and one of the pilots was
shot from the skies as he parachuted: this barbaric act was captured on video by the rebels, who
are being reported as affiliated with the Turkmen "10th Brigade." This is just for public
consumption, however: in reality, the area is controlled by an alliance of rebel forces dominated
by the al-Nusra Front, which is the official Syrian affiliate of al-Qaeda. The jihadists took
control of the area in March of this year, and it has been the focal point of recent fighting
between al-Qaeda and Syrian government forces backed by the Russian air offensive.
... ... ...
Putin's accusation that this is "a stab in the back by the accomplices of terrorists" is
absolutely correct – but he isn't just talking about Turkey, whose Islamist regime has been
canoodling with the terrorists since the start of the Syria civil war. Washington and its allies,
including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Qatar – who have been directly aiding ISIS as well as the
"moderate" head-choppers – is indirectly responsible for the downing the Russian plane –
including a barbaric attack on the rescue helicopter, which was downed by a US-provided TOW
missile launcher.
... ... ...
it's the Americans who want a repeat of the Cuban missile crisis, not Putin....
NOTES IN THE MARGIN
You can check out my Twitter feed by going here. But please note that my tweets are
sometimes deliberately provocative, often made in jest, and largely consist of me thinking out
loud.
I've written a couple of books, which you might want to peruse. Here is the link for buying
the second edition of my 1993 book, Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the
Conservative Movement, with an Introduction by Prof. George W. Carey, a Foreword by Patrick J.
Buchanan, and critical essays by Scott Richert and David Gordon (ISI Books, 2008).
You can buy An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard (Prometheus Books, 2000),
my biography of the great libertarian thinker, here
"... Why would the Turks do that? Because Russia is supporting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, apparently with considerable success, and Turkey has been extremely persistent in their demands that he be removed. Al-Assad is seen by Turkey, rightly or wrongly, as a supporter of Kurdish militancy along the long and porous border with Turkey. This explains why Ankara has been lukewarm in its support of the campaign against ISIS, tacitly cooperating with the terrorist group, while at the same time focusing its own military effort against the Kurds, which it sees as an existential threat directed against the unity of the Turkish Republic. ..."
"... Would Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan do something so reckless? ..."
"... if his objective was to derail the creation of a unified front against terrorist and rebel groups in Syria and thereby weaken the regime in Damascus, he might just believe that the risk was worth the potential gain. ..."
Why would the Turks do that? Because Russia is supporting Syrian President Bashar
al-Assad, apparently with considerable success, and Turkey has been extremely persistent in their
demands that he be removed. Al-Assad is seen by Turkey, rightly or wrongly, as a supporter of
Kurdish militancy along the long and porous border with Turkey. This explains why Ankara has been
lukewarm in its support of the campaign against ISIS, tacitly cooperating with the terrorist
group, while at the same time focusing its own military effort against the Kurds, which it sees
as an existential threat directed against the unity of the Turkish Republic.
Would Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan do something so reckless? Only he knows for
sure, but if his objective was to derail the creation of a unified front against terrorist
and rebel groups in Syria and thereby weaken the regime in Damascus, he might just believe that
the risk was worth the potential gain.
Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the National
Interest.
"... Turkey's international airports have also been busy. Many, if not most, of the estimated 15,000-20,000 foreign fighters to have joined the Islamic State (Isis) have first flown into Istanbul or Adana, or arrived by ferry along its Mediterranean coast. ..."
"... The influx has offered fertile ground to allies of Assad who, well before a Turkish jet shot down a Russian fighter on Tuesday, had enabled, or even supported Isis. Vladimir Putin's reference to Turkey as "accomplices of terrorists" is likely to resonate even among some of Ankara's backers. ..."
"... Lavrov, speaking to reporters in the southern Russian city of Sochi, advised Russians not to visit Turkey and said the threat of terrorism there was the no less than in Egypt, where a bomb attack brought down a Russian passenger plane last month. ..."
"... One of the possible retaliatory measures Russia could take would be ban flights to Turkey, as Moscow did with Egypt after the Metrojet bombing over Sinai last month, writes Shaun Walker. There are dozens of flights a day between the two countries, so such a move would undoubtedly seriously affect trade and tourism. ..."
Turkey's international airports have also been busy. Many, if not most, of the estimated 15,000-20,000 foreign fighters
to have joined the Islamic State (Isis) have first flown
into Istanbul or Adana, or arrived by ferry along its Mediterranean coast.
The influx has offered fertile ground
to allies of Assad who, well before a Turkish jet shot down a Russian fighter on Tuesday, had enabled, or even supported Isis.
Vladimir Putin's reference to Turkey as "accomplices of terrorists" is likely to resonate even among some of Ankara's backers.
From midway through 2012, when jihadis started to travel to Syria, their presence was apparent at all points of
the journey to the border. At Istanbul airport, in the southern cities of Hatay and Gaziantep – both of which were staging
points – and in the border villages.
Foreigners on their way to fight remained fixtures on these routes until late in 2014 when, after continued pressure from
the EU states and the US, coordinated efforts were made to turn them back.
Lavrov cancels planned visit to Turkey
No great surprise this, but Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has cancelled a planned visit to Turkey.
Lavrov was due to visit Ankara on Wednesday for bilateral talks. Turkish officials had insited it would go ahead as planned.
Lavrov, speaking to reporters in the southern Russian city of Sochi, advised Russians not to visit Turkey and said the
threat of terrorism there was the no less than in Egypt, where a bomb attack brought down a Russian passenger plane last month.
One of the possible retaliatory measures Russia could take would be ban flights to Turkey, as Moscow did with Egypt
after the Metrojet bombing over Sinai last month, writes Shaun Walker. There are dozens of flights a day between the two countries,
so such a move would undoubtedly seriously affect trade and tourism.
(That's it from me. I'm handling the live blog over to Mark Tran).
Shaun Walker
...Writing on Twitter Alexei Pushkov, the head of the Russian parliament's international relations committee, said: "Ankara
clearly did not weigh the consequences of its hostile acts for Turkey's interests and economy. The consequences will be very serious."
Here's video of Putin's response to the downing of the Russia jet:
"The loss today is a stab in the back, carried out by the accomplices of terrorists. I can't describe it in any other way."
"Our aircraft was downed over the territory of Syria, using air-to-air missile from a Turkish F-16. It fell on the Syrian
territory 4km from Turkey."
"Neither our pilots nor our jet threatened the territory of Turkey."
"Today's tragic event will have significant consequences, including for Russia-Turkish relations ... Instead of immediately
getting in contact with us, as far as we know, the Turkish side immediately turned to their partners from Nato to discuss this
incident, as if we shot down their plane and not they ours."
"Do they want to make Nato serve ISIS? ... We hope that the international community will find the strength to come together
and fight against the common evil."
Summary
... ... ...
Russia's president Vladimir Putin has warned Turkey of 'serious consequences' after a Russia fighter jet was shot down close
to Turkey's border with Syria. Putin described the incident as a "stab in the back" and accused Turkey of siding with Islamic
State militants in Syria.
"... "The endgame is at hand, and only the most desperate measures can hope to prevent Russia and Syria from finally securing Syria's borders. Turkey's provocation is just such a measure," he emphasizes. ..."
"... "As in the game of chess, a player often seeks to provoke their opponent into a series of moves," Cartalucci notes. ..."
Geopolitical analyst Tony Cartalucci draws attention to the fact that over the recent weeks Russian
and Syrian forces have been steadily gaining ground in Syria, retaking territory from ISIL and
al-Qaeda.
"The Syrian Arab Army (SAA) has even begun approaching the Euphrates River east of
Aleppo, which would effectively cut off ISIS [ISIL] from its supply lines leading out of Turkish
territory," Cartalucci narrates in his latest article for New Eastern Outlook.
He explains that from there, Syrian troops with Russian air support would move north, into the
very "safe zone" which Washington and Ankara have planned to carve out of Syria. Cartalucci points
out that the "safe zone" includes a northern Syria area stretching from Jarabulus to Afrin and
Al-Dana.
If Syrian troops establish their control over this zone, the Western plan of taking
and holding the territory (with the prospect of further Balkanization of the region) would fall
apart at the seams. In light of this, the regime change project, harbored by the West since the
very beginning of the Syrian unrest, would be "indefinitely suspended," Cartalucci underscores.
"The endgame is at hand, and only the most desperate measures can hope to prevent Russia and
Syria from finally securing Syria's borders. Turkey's provocation is just such a measure," he
emphasizes.
"As in the game of chess, a player often seeks to provoke their opponent into a series of moves,"
Cartalucci notes.
According to the geopolitical analyst, Russia's best choice now is to continue winning this
war, eventually taking the Jarabulus-Afrin corridor. By fortifying this area Russian and Syrian
forces would prevent NATO from invading Syria, at the same time cutting off the ISIL and al-Nusra
Front supply route from Turkey.
Russo-Syrian victory would have far-reaching consequences for the region as a whole. "With
Syria secured, an alternative arc of influence will exist within the Middle East, one that will
inevitably work against Saudi and other Persian Gulf regimes' efforts in Yemen, and in a wider
sense, begin the irreversible eviction of Western hegemony from the region," Cartalucci
underscores.
"... "We have always treated Turkey as a friendly state. I don't know who was interested in what happened today, certainly not us. And instead of immediately getting in contact with us, as far as we know, the Turkish side immediately turned to their partners from Nato to discuss this incident, as if we shot down their plane and not they ours." ..."
A government official said: "In line with the military rules of engagement, the Turkish authorities
repeatedly warned an unidentified aircraft that they were 15km or less away from the border. The
aircraft didn't heed the warnings and proceeded to fly over Turkey. The Turkish air forces responded
by downing the aircraft.
More on this topic: Turkey caught between aiding Turkmen and economic dependence on Russia
"This isn't an action against any specific country: our F-16s took necessary steps to defend Turkey's
sovereign territory."
The Turkish UN ambassador, Halit Cevik, told the UN Security Council in a letter that two planes
had flow a mile into Turkey for 17 seconds. "Following the violation, plane 1 left Turkish national
airspace. Plane 2 was fired at while in Turkish national airspace by Turkish F-16s performing air
combat patrolling in the area," he wrote.
... ... ...
Putin said there would be "serious consequences" for Russia-Turkish relations.
"We have always treated Turkey as a friendly state. I don't know who was interested in what
happened today, certainly not us. And instead of immediately getting in contact with us, as far as
we know, the Turkish side immediately turned to their partners from Nato to discuss this incident,
as if we shot down their plane and not they ours."
Schadenfreude ecstasies of UK conservatives. They are glad that Turkey shot down Russian
bomber. Not very surprising as Cameron wanted to ally with ISIS against President Asad forces just
two years ago. Comments were not allowed for this article.
Notable quotes:
"... Turks would certainly resist any attempt by Russia to launch retaliatory action against the Turkmen, who yesterday claimed they had shot dead the two Russian pilots as they attempted to parachute to safety, although this was later denied by Turkish officials. ..."
"... Turkey funds a number of Turkmen militias in northern Syria that are fighting to overthrow the Assad regime. ..."
"... Mr Putin has badly misread Turkey's determination to defend its interests and, by so doing, has further complicated the tangled web of alliances that underpin the Syrian conflict. ..."
The challenge now, for Nato as well as for Russia, is to prevent tensions between Moscow and
Ankara from spiralling out of control. Turkey's relations with Russia are already strained
following Moscow's Syrian intervention, with the Turkish president Tayyip Erdogan warning that
Turkey could cut its lucrative energy ties with Russia. The Turks would certainly resist any
attempt by Russia to launch retaliatory action against the Turkmen, who yesterday claimed they
had shot dead the two Russian pilots as they attempted to parachute to safety, although this was
later denied by Turkish officials.
Turkey funds a number of Turkmen militias in northern Syria that are fighting to overthrow
the Assad regime. It is unlikely the Turks would tolerate Russian attacks on their ethnic
allies, which could easily lead to direct military confrontation between Russia and Turkey, with
all the implications that would have for the Nato alliance, which would then be obliged to defend
Turkey's borders.
Mr Putin has badly misread Turkey's determination to defend its interests and, by so
doing, has further complicated the tangled web of alliances that underpin the Syrian conflict.
He has also made life more difficult for David Cameron, who will tomorrow tell the Commons about
his own plans for Britain to participate in the air war against Isil. Like Mr Putin, Mr Cameron
says he wants to launch air strikes against Isil in Syria. But, after yesterday, Mr Cameron can
be in no doubt that, however he views Mr Putin's role in the conflict, it will most certainly not
be that of an ally.
"... However, it is wrong to conclude that the Turkish demarche is a mere tactical ploy. There is also the backdrop of the robust Turkish push for establishing a 'no-fly zone' in northern Syria to be kept in view. The demarche is linked to a live broadcast by Erdogan on Wednesday where he underscored that the creation of 'no-fly' and 'safe' zones is crucial to resolving the Syrian crisis… ..."
"... …Put differently, the race for Aleppo has begun. The point is, the Turkish-American operation comes at a time when with Russian air cover, Syrian government forces are struggling to retake Aleppo, which has been under the control of opposition groups for two years. To be sure, the Turkish demarche on Friday threatening Russia with "serious consequences" falls in perspective. ..."
"... The US role in this daring Turkish enterprise remains hidden from view. Senior US officials, including Secretary of State John Kerry, are credited with privately expressing views supportive of the Turkish proposal on free-trade zone, and leading Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has openly backed the idea, but President Barack Obama has so far preferred to stand in the shade with an ambivalence that appeared to weigh against the 'no-fly zone'… ..."
"... Russia's best bet is to simply continue winning the war. Taking the Jarabulus-Afrin corridor and fortifying it against NATO incursions while cutting off ISIS and other terrorist factions deeper within Syria would be perhaps the worst of all possible retaliations. ..."
"... Such a provocation is exactly what the West would do if it were losing in Syria. And Putin doesn't have to prove anything to the Russian people. ..."
"... Erdogan is feeling especially froggy. He says he will establish a humanitarian safe zone between Jarabulus and the Mediterranean with his allies. God help us all. ..."
"... Turkey's territorial integrity cannot include 5 miles of Syrian territory to which it helps itself as a security zone. And Stoltenberg is a tool who should never be taken seriously. He would institute a NATO tax and pour the money directly into arms purchases if he could – he is a dream leader if you are a defense contractor. ..."
"... At the WH news today ….Obama was his usual watermouth in chief clown self…..He kept referring to Hollande as "Francois"….as if they were frat boys smokin' a joint and swillin' beer… ..."
"... But he still is not thru running his unhelpful and provocative trap…He then tries to marginalize the Russkie anti ISIS coalition effort…and condescendingly chides and berates Putin for not toeing the line that Obama hasn't even thought out as to what or where to tow to begin with!!! Then Hollande chimes in with the usual 'Assad must go' mantra…. ..."
"... The NATO freaks have to keep a steadying hand on Francois, lest he wander off the reservation… ..."
"... War is continuation of politics by other means. Diplomatic successes of Russia created backlash and Russia was backstabbed. So one way to look at this incident is that it was a Russian sacrifice on the altar of victory over ISIS. Shooting down of a Russian plane is to be expected in such a war and the fact that it happened just now and the shooter was Turkish F14 changed very little. But if this was a provocation, then timing was perfect. ..."
"... This hysterical gesture also might reflect existence of a split in Turkish leadership and effort of one wing of government to enforce its political plans on the nation. The part who are willing to sacrifice economic ties with Russia to achieve their political goals in Syria Their immediate goal is that the pro-Turkish forces not government forces liberate Rakka (Al-Raqqah) ..."
"... I would add that breaking economic ties with Turkey will hurt Russia no less then Turkey. Closure of Dardanelles by turkey also will not help Russian efforts to defeat ISIS. ..."
"... In any case the partition Syria along religious and ethnic lines was planned from the very beginning by the very same players who are behind this incident. Nobody has any doubts that Turkey was one of the main instigators of Syrian civil war and along with Qatar and Saudis served and still serves the financial hub for the armed opposition and first of all salafists. The fact salafists fighters from the rest of the world travel to Syria via Turkey is an open secret. ..."
A very interesting, appropriate and very good response.
Sultan Erdogan has been served notice.
I hope he's bricking it. Let him stew.
It makes sense that Putin should treat differentiate Turkey from western states. It also help
him to present NATO with a stark choice and not much chance to try and claim the middle ground.
Either way, unless Turkey gets categorical support from the NATO meeting and not the usual meaningless
waffle, he's lost support from both NATO & Russia. Not a good place to be in.
et Al, November 24, 2015 at 12:55 pm
via a comment by GoraDiva on the Moon of Alabama post above:
he cloud of uncertainty is lifting about any new directions of Turkish policies on Syria following
the parliamentary elections three weeks ago, which led to a great political consolidation by President
Recep Erdogan. The policies will run in the old directions – regime change in Syria – as per Erdogan's
compass, which was set four years ago, but they will be vastly more visible in the 'kinetics'…
…An easy explanation is possible that Turkey decided to set the agenda for Lavrov's talks on
coming Wednesday that would devolve upon the parameters of the Russian operations in northern
Syria that will not cross Turkey's 'red lines'. The exceptionally strong words used by Turkish
Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu regarding the "bloody and barbarian" Syrian regime leaves very
little to the imagination as to how Erdogan views the prospect of Assad's future role. The last
known Turkish stance is that Erdogan can tolerate Assad for a maximum period of six months during
the transition.
However, it is wrong to conclude that the Turkish demarche is a mere tactical ploy. There
is also the backdrop of the robust Turkish push for establishing a 'no-fly zone' in northern Syria
to be kept in view. The demarche is linked to a live broadcast by Erdogan on Wednesday where he
underscored that the creation of 'no-fly' and 'safe' zones is crucial to resolving the Syrian
crisis…
…Put differently, the race for Aleppo has begun. The point is, the Turkish-American operation
comes at a time when with Russian air cover, Syrian government forces are struggling to retake
Aleppo, which has been under the control of opposition groups for two years. To be sure, the Turkish
demarche on Friday threatening Russia with "serious consequences" falls in perspective.
The US role in this daring Turkish enterprise remains hidden from view. Senior US officials,
including Secretary of State John Kerry, are credited with privately expressing views supportive
of the Turkish proposal on free-trade zone, and leading Democratic presidential candidate Hillary
Clinton has openly backed the idea, but President Barack Obama has so far preferred to stand in
the shade with an ambivalence that appeared to weigh against the 'no-fly zone'…
####
A good piece by M.K. Bhadrakumar but I wouldn't call it anything like a toe hold yet. While
the Americans haven't expressed open support for Turkey, they haven't either condemned Turkey.,
so I will modify my earlier and a bit rash opinion that the US has hung Turkey out to dry. On
reflection, it seems far more reasonable that as usual, if it works out, the US will try to claim
some sort of credit, but if it all goes Pete Tong, Turkey is all on its lonesome. NATO is being
kept out of this one because the US certainly wouldn't get the unanimity need from all NATO members
for such a plan, though I'm sure the Brits and others were informed unofficially.
Russia's best bet is to simply continue winning the war. Taking the Jarabulus-Afrin corridor
and fortifying it against NATO incursions while cutting off ISIS and other terrorist factions
deeper within Syria would be perhaps the worst of all possible retaliations.
My "Russian intuition" tells me that this is what Russia will do. Such a provocation is
exactly what the West would do if it were losing in Syria. And Putin doesn't have to prove anything
to the Russian people.
Cortes, November 24, 2015 at 1:58 pm
The Twisted Genius, a regular poster on the "Turcopolier " blog Sic Semper Tyrannis of Col.
Pat Lang,
After the NATO meeting, Jens Stoltenberg stated, "we stand in solidarity with Turkey and support
its territorial integrity." After this and the statements of supplication out of Washington this
morning, Erdogan is feeling especially froggy. He says he will establish a humanitarian safe
zone between Jarabulus and the Mediterranean with his allies. God help us all.
Here's a little insight into Belgium…that may surprise you….
This is the fourth day that the country has been under a virtual martial law lockdown…
Brussels is in Belgium……NATO can't even secure-cover- its home base ass!!!!!!!
marknesop, November 24, 2015 at 3:04 pm
Turkey's territorial integrity cannot include 5 miles of Syrian territory to which it helps
itself as a security zone. And Stoltenberg is a tool who should never be taken seriously. He would
institute a NATO tax and pour the money directly into arms purchases if he could – he is a dream
leader if you are a defense contractor.
Northern Star, November 24, 2015 at 2:50 pm
At the WH news today ….Obama was his usual watermouth in chief clown self…..He kept referring
to Hollande as "Francois"….as if they were frat boys smokin' a joint and swillin' beer…
It should have been on this grim occasion "Mr. President"..Not "Francois….Then he continues
to flippantly refer to The Russian leader as "Putin"…not President Putin…..How fucking smart (wise)
is it to antagonize PRESIDENT Putin…in ANY way….especially when on a global forum addressing billions
at a time of imminent potential crisis…AKA WW3.
But he still is not thru running his unhelpful and provocative trap…He then tries to marginalize
the Russkie anti ISIS coalition effort…and condescendingly chides and berates Putin for not toeing
the line that Obama hasn't even thought out as to what or where to tow to begin with!!! Then Hollande
chimes in with the usual 'Assad must go' mantra….
marknesop, November 24, 2015 at 3:12 pm
The NATO freaks have to keep a steadying hand on Francois, lest he wander off the reservation….
likbez, November 24, 2015 at 6:10 pm
Hotheads want immediate Russian reaction now. But it will be better if Russians behaved like
in well known Russian proverb " mount the horse very slowly and then ride really fast, "
It might be prudent to ignore this incident for now. Here is approximate version of opinion
of one Russian analyst about the situation
( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2YtDQhpkJI
)
War is continuation of politics by other means. Diplomatic successes of Russia created backlash
and Russia was backstabbed. So one way to look at this incident is that it was a Russian sacrifice
on the altar of victory over ISIS. Shooting down of a Russian plane is to be expected in such
a war and the fact that it happened just now and the shooter was Turkish F14 changed very little.
But if this was a provocation, then timing was perfect. Relocation US F15 interceptors in the
light of this incident looks now strangely well-timed preemptive move. Let's assume that this
was accidental "perfect timing" of "our American partners" like Putin like to say.
In case of open democratic elections Assad will win and that's why the game "Assad must go"
is played. Turkey tried to force her own plan of settlement. And this incident might well be a
part of political game of the most radically pro-Islamist part of Turkish leadership. This hysterical
gesture also might reflect existence of a split in Turkish leadership and effort of one wing of
government to enforce its political plans on the nation. The part who are willing to sacrifice
economic ties with Russia to achieve their political goals in Syria Their immediate goal is that
the pro-Turkish forces not government forces liberate Rakka (Al-Raqqah)
I would add that breaking economic ties with Turkey will hurt Russia no less then Turkey. Closure
of Dardanelles by turkey also will not help Russian efforts to defeat ISIS.
In any case the partition Syria along religious and ethnic lines was planned from the very
beginning by the very same players who are behind this incident. Nobody has any doubts that Turkey
was one of the main instigators of Syrian civil war and along with Qatar and Saudis served and
still serves the financial hub for the armed opposition and first of all salafists. The fact salafists fighters from the rest of the world travel to Syria via Turkey is an open secret.
As Wikipedia notes:
The Syrian opposition, represented by the Syrian National Coalition, receives financial,
logistical, political and in some cases military support from major Sunni states in the Middle
East allied with the U.S., most notably Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey.
…The Salafist groups are partially supported by Turkey, while the Islamic State of Iraq
and the Levant received support from several non-state groups and organizations from across
the Muslim World.
This incident also changes nothing in this set of facts. So continuing to work against the
plan to partition Syria and "Assad must go" gambit which includes the creation of buffer zone
on the border with Turkey probably is the best option Russians have right now. Like French used
to say "revenge is a dish that best served cold".
Turkey and Erdogan will be on the same place the next year too, And probably two years from
now too. When there will be much less, if any, Russian tourists in Turkey. And Kurds will exist
in the exact the same number and with exactly the same political goals. Fragmentation and internal
squabbles within Turkish leadership also will exist in foreseeable future. So future might presents
more options for the meaningful reaction then exist today. Loss of the face in this case (and
Turkey itself) are much less important then the winning over ISIS.
"... Putin said Russia respects the regional interests of other nations, but warned the atrocity committed by Turkey would not go without an answer. Before Putin's statements came out, his spokesman Dmitry Peskov had said Turkish army's downing of the Russian plane over Syria is "a very serious incident." ..."
Sochi, SANA – Russian President Vladimir Putin said the downing of the Russian aircraft over Syria
is a stab in the back delivered by the forces backing terrorism.
"This incident stands out against
the usual fight against terrorism," said Putin during a meeting with King of Jordan Abdullah II in
the Russian city of Sochi.
"Our troops are fighting heroically against terrorists, risking their lives. But the loss we suffered
today came from a stab in the back delivered by accomplices of the terrorists," he added.
Putin said the plane was hit by an air-to-air missile launched by a Turkish jet and crashed in
the Syrian territory four kilometers from the border with Turkey, stressing that the Russian plane
was flying at an altitude of 6000 meters about a kilometer from the Turkish border.
He stressed that the plane and pilots posed no threat to Turkey as they were carrying out a mission
against ISIS in mountainous areas targeting terrorists, most of whom came from Russia.
"ISIS has big money, hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars, from selling oil. In addition
they are protected by the military of an entire nation. One can understand why they are acting so
boldly and blatantly. Why they kill people in such atrocious ways. Why they commit terrorist acts
across the world, including in the heart of Europe," the Russian President said.
The downing of the Russian warplane happened despite Russia signing an agreement with the US to
prevent such incidents in Syria, Putin stressed. Turkey claims to be part of the US-led coalition
fighting against ISIS in Syria, he added.
The incident will have grave consequences for Russia's relations with Turkey, Putin warned.
"We have always treated Turkey as not only a close neighbor, but also as a friendly nation," he
said. "I don't know who has an interest in what happened today, but we certainly don't."
Putin said Russia respects the regional interests of other nations, but warned the atrocity committed
by Turkey would not go without an answer. Before Putin's statements came out, his spokesman Dmitry Peskov had said Turkish army's downing
of the Russian plane over Syria is "a very serious incident."
Peskov told reporters in a statement that Russia has confirmed information showing that the aircraft
was all the time flying within the borders of Syria, adding that this was registered by electronic
monitoring means
Asked about any possible consequences the incident might have on the Russian-Turkish relations,
Peskov said it was too early to draw conclusions until the whole situation is clear.
Meanwhile, the Russian Defense Ministry announced that it has summoned the Turkish military attaché
in Moscow over the incident.
Earlier, the Ministry said a Russian Su-24 fighter jet had been shot down in Lattakia province.
The Ministry confirmed that the plane hadn't violated Turkish airspace and was flying at an altitude
of 6,000 meters.
The pilots managed to eject from the downed jet, the ministry said, adding that their fate is
still unknown.
Lavrov cancels Turkey visit over downing of Russian
military jet
In a relevant context, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov canceled his visit to Turkey, due
on Wednesday, after a Russian Su-24 jet was downed within the Syrian airspaces by a Turkish air force.
"It's necessary to emphasize that the terror threats have been aggravated and that's true even
if we don't take into account what happened today," Lavrov said, adding "We estimate the threats
to be no less than in Egypt.
The minister also pointed out the increasing level of the terror threat in Turkey which is "not
lower than in Egypt, recommending Russians to refrain from visiting Turkey.
Looks like it was Turkish way to enforce no fly zone over border villages... Like was initial
US-Turkish plan. But now its a different game...
Notable quotes:
"... And so, the NYT continues its stenography for the Neocons, by refusing to report that whether the Russian jet actually violated Turkish airspace is in dispute. Even CNN has presented both possibilities. ..."
"... So, Turkey is attacking and oppressing Kurds, won't attack ISIS, seems to be provoking Russia, acts as a middle-man for ISIS oil revenues, is imposing increasingly intolerant religious laws, threatens Israel, and allows thousands of refugees to stream into Europe. ..."
"... Erdogan is playing a dangerous game, he's essentially banking on NATO to come to his aid if Russia retaliates ..."
"... The Syrian crisis started when Turkey, with the backing of Saudi, tried to get rid of Assad. It backfired and created a refugee crisis. Then one day, suddenly, all of the refugees decided to leave for Europe. The question is - how did the refugees take this decision on their own? It was Turkey's secret plan to bring back the glory of the Ottoman empire to Europe. Note that all the terrorists from UK, Australia and other countries who joined ISIS first went to Turkey. Turkey, backed by Saudi, has been supporting ISIS. Turkey has created this mess and its a pity that Angela Merkel does not understand! ..."
"... In war, truth is the first casualty. The strong do what they will, the weak suffer what they must. Not much has changed since ancient times, just more destructive technology. ..."
Mr. Putin, clearly angry, responded that the Russian jet had never violated Turkish airspace and
was shot down over Syria. Speaking in Sochi, he called the downing of the plane a "stab in the back
delivered by the accomplices of terrorists," warning that it would have "serious consequences for
Russian-Turkish relations."
Mr. Putin said that instead of "immediately making the necessary contact with us, the Turkish
side turned to their partners in NATO for talks on this incident. It's as if we shot down the
Turkish plane and not they, ours. Do they want to put NATO at the service of the Islamic State?"
... ... ...
What may make matters worse is that those same tribesmen said they shot both Russian pilots as
they floated to earth in their parachutes, having apparently ejected safely after the plane was hit
by air-to-air missiles. The Russian minister of defense said that the navigator of the warplane is
alive and has been rescued by Syrian and Russian special forces, but that the pilot was killed by
ground fire.
... ... ...
Russia's retaliation so far has been largely symbolic. Foreign Minister Sergey V. Lavrov canceled
a Wednesday visit to Turkey, and a large Russian tour operator, Natalie Tours, announced it was
suspending sales to Turkey. Russians accounted for 12 percent of all tourists to Turkey last year.
The two countries are also significant trade partners. But "Russia-Turkey relations will drop below
zero," Ivan Konovalov, director of the Center for Strategic Trends Studies, said on the state-run
Rossiya 24 cable news channel.
David, Brisbane, Australia 5 hours ago
Turks are lying. According to the tracks they published the downed plane crossed a sliver
of Turkish territory no more than 3 km wide. That should take a slowly flying jet less than 15
seconds, nowhere near 5 min the Turks claim it took them to issue 10 warnings. That was a
premeditated provocation by the Turks, they were waiting for that plane. It is hard to believe
that they would go for such major escalation without getting a go-ahead from US/NATO first.
Peisinoe, New York 4 hours ago
Excuse me NYT - but Turkey is not 'The West'.
It is a country that aligns itself with Wahabism-oriented nations that support and finance
terrorism (ie Saudi Arabia).
Lets keep things clear: We cannot fight ISIS by allying ourselves with countries which support
it.
It is about time the US stops selling itself for Saudi money - doesn't matter on which side
of the aisle you're from - that is plain and simple corruption - corruption of values, of
morality, of money, of power...
Jayne Cullen, Anytown, USA
"Turkish fighter jets on patrol near the Syrian border shot down a Russian warplane
on Tuesday after it violated Turkey's airspace..."
And so, the NYT continues its stenography for the Neocons, by refusing to report that
whether the Russian jet actually violated Turkish airspace is in dispute. Even CNN has
presented both possibilities.
Brian, Toronto
So, Turkey is attacking and oppressing Kurds, won't attack ISIS, seems to be provoking
Russia, acts as a middle-man for ISIS oil revenues, is imposing increasingly intolerant
religious laws, threatens Israel, and allows thousands of refugees to stream into Europe.
What is the process for kicking someone out of NATO?
Ajatha Shatru,
Erdogan is playing a dangerous game, he's essentially banking on NATO to come to his
aid if Russia retaliates.
If Russia doesn't retaliate, Putin will loose face in Arab world and Erdogan will be
crowned the modern age Saladin.
Western Europe knows Erdogan controls the refugee tap and his leverage is that tens of
thousands of refugees will flood into Europe if they don't back him up against Russia.
Putin cares about his macho and decisive image and to maintain it there will be Russian war
answer to this downing.
America and NATO needs to call Turkey's bluff and let it face Russian music alone or we are
heading towards world war III.
Aay, Sydney
The Syrian crisis started when Turkey, with the backing of Saudi, tried to get rid of
Assad. It backfired and created a refugee crisis. Then one day, suddenly, all of the refugees
decided to leave for Europe. The question is - how did the refugees take this decision on
their own? It was Turkey's secret plan to bring back the glory of the Ottoman empire to
Europe. Note that all the terrorists from UK, Australia and other countries who joined ISIS
first went to Turkey. Turkey, backed by Saudi, has been supporting ISIS. Turkey has created
this mess and its a pity that Angela Merkel does not understand!
Dan O'Brien, Massachusetts
In war, truth is the first casualty. The strong do what they will, the weak suffer what
they must. Not much has changed since ancient times, just more destructive technology.
"... Now I believe that the jet was in the Syrian airspace. It is not difficult to figure out that is purposeful action/plan by NATO and their faithful executioner Turkey. The plan might be to shut down Bosporus and Dardanelles to Russian Navy. ..."
"... "There were three villages left to us from Hassa. Others were Teyek, Ekbez, Beylan, the boroughs of skenderun, the township of Reyhaniye, the Antakya district, the Ordu district, the Bay r, Bucak and Hazine townships, a major portion of the Kilis borough, the Elbeyli and Turkmen districts south of Çobanbey-Cerablus region of Antep… This is all Turkish soil that constitutes integrity with the motherland…" ..."
"... This then was not legitimate air-defense but an ambush. ..."
"... Exactly. The context. It happened in the wake of Putin's visit to Iran, which cemented the alliance Russia/Iran for time to come, and strengthened their ties at strategic levels. This is Turkey's declaration of war against both Russia and Iran for supporting Syria. ..."
"... Turkey was one of the G-20 countries denounced by Russia as sponsors of terrorism. Further investigations should expose Turkey et al financial links to takfiri terrorists, possibly creating a diplomatic/political downfall, and with UN sanctions in sight, a preemptive black flag operation was planned. It started with the circus of the Turkmen, calling Russia's envoy to protest, revival of the so-called safe-zone, and the shooting of the Russian jet is the logical consequence of a carefully developed choreography. ..."
"... Russia cannot just take the hit to avoid further escalation. As we all know, restraint and moderation is embedded in Russia's art of diplomacy, but if rabid dog Erdogan is not caged by his US/NATO handlers, the possibility of an escalation is high. However, in the aftermath of France 13/11, and the French/Russian collaboration, another coup from Russian diplomacy, we can expect NATO's response to be measured. ..."
I really don't think this was a whim of Erdogan - he must have had the go-ahead of Obama or even
all of NATO to do this - it is a little test case to see what Russia will do. This kind of 5-
or 10-second 'trespassing' must be going on on a daily basis, given the very limited aitrspace
in which all htese operations take place...
Russia has plenty of options and there's no rush. Turkey will still be there next week /month
/year. I hope Vlad keeps Emperor Erdogan in suspense for a while.
AFTER announcing that the shoot-down won't go un-answered.
Everyone likes a good thriller...
Live RT – statement by Putin: "We were stabbed in the back by terrorists' supporters. Serious
consequences for tragic events on Syrian border."
Further, quite irritated with Turkey, Putin said they talked to their NATO allies first before
contacting Russian foreign diplomats to discuss the event.
Omar Abdullah, commander of the
Sultan Abdulhamit Han Brigade in Syria, said on Monday that the Turkmen brigades have recaptured
a strategic point on Mount Turkmen from Assad forces backed by Russia, Iran and Hezbollah.
"Mount Turkmen has not fallen to Assad forces. They only seized a part of Kızıldağı," Abdullah
said.
In recent days, Syrian regime forces started a heavy assault on Mount Turkmen in Bayır Bucak,
a Turkmen populated area in Latakia province.
Turkmens were under intensified Russian airstrikes while Iranian forces and Hezbollah from
Lebanon launched a joint land attack with Assad forces. Russian warships fired missiles as tanks
and cannons attacked unarmed civilians in Mount Turkmen area.
12:53 GMT
Turkey backstabbed Russia by downing the Russian warplane and acted as accomplices of the terrorists,
Russian President Vladimir Putin said.
The plane was hit by a Turkish warplane as it was travelling 1 km away from the Turkish
border, Putin said. The plane posed no threat to Turkish national security, he stressed.
Putin said the plane was targeting terrorist targets in the Latakia province of Syria, many
of whom came from Russia.
Russia noticed of the flow of oil from Syrian territory under the control of terrorists
to Turkey, Putin said.
Apparently, IS now not only receives revenue from the smuggling of oil, but also has the
protection of a nation's military, Putin said. This may explain why the terrorist group is
so bold in taking acts of terrorism across the world, he added.
The incident will have grave consequences for Russia's relations with Turkey, Putin warned.
The fact that Turkey did not try to contact Russia in the wake of the incident and rushed
to call a NATO meeting instead is worrisome, Putin said. It appears that Turkey want NATO to
serve the interests of IS, he added.
Putin said Russia respects the regional interests of other nations, but warned the atrocity
committed by Turkey would not go without an answer.
Putin was speaking at a meeting with King of Jordan Abdullah II in Sochi, who expressed
his condolences to the Russian leader over the loss of a Russian pilot in Tuesday's incident,
as well as the deaths of Russians in the Islamic State bombing of a passenger plane in Egypt.
The two leaders discussed the anti-terrorist effort in Syria and Iraq and the diplomatic
effort to find a political solution to the Syrian conflict.
Strong words. It looks like Putin will hold Turkey to account for the downing of one of their
jets (and the death of at least one of their own) regardless. The russian intervention in Syria
will no doubt continue unabated, maybe even intensify, near the turkish border.
I wonder what assurances Turkey will get in turn from NATO.
In all honesty I think that the Russian "intervention" is way exaggerated. When I see the whole
picture I believe it is have been designed to save face of the West Death Squad aka regime change
policy. The western media offensive, hence the ruling establishment's policy, give us picture
of we-have-nothing-to-do-with-mercenaries. We are now to believe so-called IS is organic product
of Islam. And refuges are all terrorist or means to inflitrate into Europe, and their "way of
life". The West doesn't wont to be remembered by history department that it is them who instigate
of what we have today. Lessons from Central America is learned.
Remember, A HREF="http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/nazi-germany/leni-riefenstahl/">Leni
Riefenstahl's words.
...the "messages" of her films were dependent not on "orders from above," but on the "submissive
void" of the German public. Did that include the liberal, educated bourgeoisie? "Everyone,"
she said.
Russia and the West has one thing in common, that is hate for Islam. While the West uses Islam
as a tool for social engineering and to promote own goals, Russia sees it as existential threat.
The West and Russia are alarmed by (unwelcome) refuges in condition of economic malaise.
Downing of Russian jet, if that what's really happened, is new development. As if the crisis
actors were unaware of danger which Russian action pose. Do we remember of shooting down mysterious
Turkish jet four years ago, of the coast of Latakia and not that far from now downed jet? How
come do not see the parachutes, and how come that "independent" channel filmed that as if per
order?
Now I believe that the jet was in the Syrian airspace. It is not difficult to figure out
that is purposeful action/plan by NATO and their faithful executioner Turkey. The plan might be
to shut down Bosporus and Dardanelles to Russian Navy.
harry law | Nov 24, 2015 8:51:55 AM | 30
Putin said "This is a stab in the back and instead of immediately getting in contact with us,
as far as we know, the Turkish side immediately turned to their partners from NATO to discuss
this incident, as if we shot down their plane and not they ours". If the jet was shot down in
an action against an enemy at war, it would be acceptable. In these circumstances Turkey's action
itself was an act of war, since in no way could that Russian jet be threatening Turkey.
"The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather
by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners
never do."
Samuel Huntington, US Gov./CIA brain trust member.
The current Turkish-Syrian border was drawn with the Oct. 20, 1921, agreement signed between
France, the mandatary of Syria, and the Ankara government; regions such as Hatay as well as
Bayır and Bucak were on the Syrian side. This was approved in Lausanne.
Mersin deputy Niyazi (Ramazanoğlu) Bey delivered a very important speech in the parliament
on the day of Aug. 21, 1923. He stated that while the 1921 agreement was signed, Ankara
was still in a very troubled situation and criticized the acceptance of the border agreed upon
in 1921.
In his speech, Niyazi Bey explained the Turks who were left on the Syrian side as such:
"There were three villages left to us from Hassa. Others were Teyek, Ekbez, Beylan,
the boroughs of İskenderun, the township of Reyhaniye, the Antakya district, the Ordu district,
the Bayır, Bucak and Hazine townships, a major portion of the Kilis borough, the Elbeyli
and Turkmen districts south of Çobanbey-Cerablus region of Antep… This is all Turkish soil
that constitutes integrity with the motherland…"
This then was not legitimate air-defense but an ambush.
Exactly. The context. It happened in the wake of Putin's visit to Iran, which cemented the alliance
Russia/Iran for time to come, and strengthened their ties at strategic levels.
This is Turkey's declaration of war against both Russia and Iran for supporting
Syria.
Turkey was one of the G-20 countries denounced by Russia as sponsors of
terrorism. Further investigations should expose Turkey et al financial links to
takfiri terrorists, possibly creating a diplomatic/political downfall, and with UN
sanctions in sight, a preemptive black flag operation was planned. It started with
the circus of the Turkmen, calling Russia's envoy to protest, revival of the
so-called "safe-zone," and the shooting of the Russian jet is the logical
consequence of a carefully developed choreography.
As predicted, we have entered "Deadly Ground" (Sun Tzu).
Russia cannot just take the hit to avoid further escalation. As we all know,
restraint and moderation is embedded in Russia's art of diplomacy, but if rabid
dog Erdogan is not caged by his US/NATO handlers, the possibility of an escalation
is high. However, in the aftermath of France 13/11, and the French/Russian
"collaboration," another coup from Russian diplomacy, we can expect NATO's
response to be measured.
The next few days are crucial, and will test the extent of the US empire and
its minions commitment to destroy Syria and control the ME. It will also test
Russia and the 4+1 will to the strategic defense of the ME and by extension, of
the Eurasian mass.
The plan might be to shut down Bosporus and Dardanelles to Russian Navy
This has been a plan known to Russia for some time, Turkey/US/NATO have
actively sought ways to break Montreux and stop the supply of necessary equipment
to both Assad and the Russian Federation Forces active in Syria via the "Syria
Express".
Lone Wolf@38. "The next few days are crucial, and will test the extent of the
US empire and its minions commitment to destroy Syria and control the ME". The US
in alliance with Israel, Saudi Arabia and other Gulfies are determined to have
hegemony over the middle east. The battle over Syria is crucial in that respect.
In my opinion the Syrians with the help of Russia, Iran, Iraq and Hezbollah will
triumph over the forces of medieval Wahhabism, and its enablers. The US position
in the middle east is at stake, so they will go all in. In the case of Iran, Syria
and Hezbollah this battle is existential, and so they will fight this battle to
the bitter end.
Claud | Nov 24, 2015 10:05:53 AM | 51
Apropos question of degree of US "nudge," I'm basically on the side of those who think no, first, and, anyway, Erdogan (user here as metonymy for Turkish "deep state") doesn't need nudge, and is used to US retroactively agreeing or covering-up whatever he decides to do, so there's no need to think Turkey's acting on behalf of anyone except itself.
HOWEVER, one news bit I've been reading here and there has been roughly to the effect that the CIA/other-three-letter-agencies people tasked with supplying/transporting/training the "moderate rebels" in Turkey have been in a very ugly "Bay of Pigs", Obama-fucked-us mood (a quote a journalist heard was, "Putin just made us his prison bitch"), and I imagine it's with those people that Turkish security types "interface" most from day to day. That might contribute to an odd idea of what DC would "really" want Turks to do.
All this obviously wildly speculative, and in a sense unnecessary in Occan's Razor terms (Erdogan quite capable of thinking this a good idea on his own). However, thought I'd bring up (possibly irrelevant) factor of a good number of pissed-off paramilitaries/contractors with little to do since Russia effectively shut down their "training" boondogle.
You can bet that USA and France were well aware of Turkey's support for ISIS -
and well before the Charlie Hebdo attack. Yet it is Russia that: details the
funding for ISIS; seriously attacks oil trucks; publicly names Turkey as an ISIS
'accomplice'.
The West should have demanded that Turkey cease their support of ISIS long ago.
Instead, we get political/police theatre: troops in the streets, mild airstrikes,
aircraft carrier deployments, MSM's amplifying of Islamophobia (ISIS is
everywhere!, refugees = ISIS!, oh-hum reporting of attacks on refugees),etc.
Prediction: NATO will support Turkey's defending of its airspace.
Tom Welsh | Nov 24, 2015 10:39:17 AM | 61
@RTE:
"Once you're In - it's hard to get out again".
As the Russians say, "it's a kopeck to get in, but a rouble to get out". Where a rouble may
mean a life.
harry law | Nov 24, 2015 11:10:01 AM | 84
RTE @59. "by all International laws and standards they had every right to do what they
did". I disagree, Russia is not at war with Turkey, violation of someones airspace, [if it
happened] should be dealt with diplomatically. What Turkey did was a act of war, there can be
no doubt about that.
Re: RTE | Nov 24, 2015 11:29:02 AM | 88
Problem with your reasoning is that the Russian plane seems to have been shot down in Syrian not in Turkish airspace so the violation is Turkish - if there has been a Russian violation before or not.
To shoot down an airplane is an act of war. Turkey dares to do it because they are part of NATO. NATO's reaction will tell if they back this provocation of Russia or not.
A very interesting, appropriate and very good response.
Sultan
Erdogan has been served notice. I hope he's bricking it. Let him
stew.
It makes sense that Putin should treat differentiate Turkey from
western states. It also help him to present NATO with a stark
choice and not much chance to try and claim the middle ground.
Either way, unless Turkey gets categorical support from the NATO
meeting and not the usual meaningless waffle, he's lost support
from both NATO & Russia. Not a good place to be in.
At about 8:30 he points out that terrorists from Russia are
located north of Latakia and could come back to kill Russians.
He mentions stab in the back twice. He's called Turkey as
complicit in supporting terrorism in all but direct name and
called the shooting down a crime. He's furious.
Still, this is King Abdullah of Jordan, a loyal American
ally, coming to Moscow. Crikey.
Abdullah's mother was English, daughter of an officer and
gentleman, no less, in the colonial service. That's why old
Abdullah is so well house-trained, I guess.
Putin's comment characterizing the Turkish action as a "stab in
the back" was spot on. As my father used to say in such
situations "They just shitted in their mess kit".
Good point that he made about the Turks immediately contacting
their NATO allies after downing the Russian warplane, which was
making no threat against Turkey, and not contacting Russia. "As if
we downed a Turkish jet", he says and asks: "Do they want NATO to
serve the interests of ISIS?" A stab in the back, he adds, as the
Turks are allegedly fighting terrorism in the area together with
their NATO partners.
et Al,
November 24, 2015 at 7:15 am
BBC's Jonothan Marcus, their chief diplomatic bloke, has just said that the Su-24 may only have crossed Turkish airspace for 15 or 20 seconds so shooting it down looks dodgy and comments that other military analysts point this out and that this is 'browned off' Turkey telling the Russians to keep out. Most normal people would call it an 'ambush', which is exactly what Moon of Alabama called it hours ago.
Russia's "allies" Belarus and Kazakhstans
supported the UN resolution recognizing the
nuclear facilities in the Crimea as
Ukrainian:
http://nnr.su/75218#hcq=2cNuCup
They
did not even abstain, but instead supported
the resolution.
It is scary how alone Russia seems to be
in it's western hemisphere. Surrounded by
Finland (coldly hostile against Russia),
the Baltics (extremely hostile chihuahuas),
Ukraine (hostile enough to nuke Russia if
it had nukes), Belarus (not really hostile,
but not friendly either. Next target for a
Western coup attempt), Turkey (hostile
enough to shoot down Russia's military
jets), Georgia (hostile), Azerbaijan
(hostile/neutral), Armenia (friendly, but
poor and meaningless).and Kazakhstan (seems
to be the best of Russia's neighbors, but
refuses to back Russia in international
stage).
Further to West there are also hostile
Sweden, very hostile Poland and Romania,
and hostile Bulgaria. Those European
countries with warm relations towards
Russia (like Serbia and Montenegro) are
small and strategically unimportant for
Russia.
How did it ever come to this?
Patient Observer, November 24, 2015 at 11:24 am
Seems like a good response so far per RT:
https://www.rt.com/news/323329-russia-suspend-military-turkey/
"Three steps as announced by top brass:
– Each and every strike groups' operation is to be carried out under the guise of fighter jets
– Air defense to be boosted with the deployment of Moskva guided missile cruiser off Latakia
coast with an aim to destroy any target that may pose danger
– Military contacts with Turkey to be suspended"
The Russian action of using ship-based anti-aircraft systems suggest that the stories about
S-300 or S-400 being deployed in Syria are likely not true (and conforming with what Russia
has maintained).
ANKARA - Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu has said that Turkey has the right to take "all kinds
of measures" against border violations.
He was speaking amid reports that Turkish fighter jets downed a Russian military plane violating
Turkish airspace earlier on Tuesday.
Speaking during an engagement in Ankara, Davutoglu said:
"We would like the entire world to know that we will take all necessary measures and make any sacrifices
when it comes to the lives and dignity of our citizens and for the security of our borders while
our country is in a circle of fire."
Davutoglu said Turkey had exercised its "international right and national duty" by downing the plane
which the authorities say was flying over the country's southern Hatay province.
The Turkish premier called on the international community to act regarding the ongoing conflict in
Syria.
"Let's put out the fire in Syria," Davutoglu said, adding: "Our message is clear for the Syrian regime
forces, terrorist organizations or other foreign forces that are involved in pouring fire over Bayirbucak
Turkmens, Aleppo Arabs or Azaz Arabs, Kurds or Turkmens, instead of putting out the fire in Syria.
"While carrying out effective counter-terrorism we are aware that the prerequisite for counter-terrorism
is the growing up of young generations within peace and their love for each other," he added.
Turkish, UK PMs discuss downing of Russian jet
Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu had a phone conversation with his British counterpart David
Cameron on Tuesday after Turkish Air Force shot down a Russian warplane.
"Our prime minister has expressed that UN and NATO countries will be informed in detail about the
issue," said the Turkish Prime Ministry's press office in a statement.
"It was told [to Cameron] that the ambassadors of the P5 countries [China, France, Russia, the U.K.
and the U.S.] were also informed by our Foreign Ministry," the statement added.
"The Prime Minister strongly encouraged Prime Minister Davutoglu to make sure there was direct communication
between the Turks and Russians on this, so a clearer understanding could be formed of what had happened
and how to avoid this happening in the future and to avoid an escalation," said a Downing Street
spokeswoman.
"We respect Turkey's right to protect its airspace. There are procedures in place for flying through
a country's airspace - you need to seek permission and have it granted and there should be communication
between the authorities on the ground and the pilot. All those steps need to be properly followed,"
she added.
The two leaders agreed to meet on Sunday at the Turkey-EU summit in Brussels, according to the statement.
A Russian warplane was shot down at the Turkish-Syrian border earlier Tuesday after repeatedly ignoring
warnings that it was violating Turkish airspace.
Cameron is expected to address parliament Thursday to extend U.K. strikes against Daesh in Syria.
The U.K. targets the organization in Iraq.
Thousands of Turkmens have recently been displaced due to simultaneous air and ground attacks by
Syrian government forces and Russian jets. Approximately 2,000 Syrian Turkmens have arrived in southern
Turkey in the past several days.
Russian warplanes previously violated Turkish airspace twice in October. The incidents came within
a few days of the start of Russia's air campaign in Syria on Sept. 30 and led to international condemnation.
Vatican City (AFP) - Christmas festivities will seem empty in a world which has chosen "war and hate", Pope Francis said Thursday.
"Christmas is approaching: there will be lights, parties, Christmas trees and nativity scenes ... it's all a charade. The world
continues to go to war. The world has not chosen a peaceful path," he said in a sermon.
"There are wars today everywhere, and hate," he said after the worst terror attack in French history, the bombing of a Russian
airliner, a double suicide bombing in Lebanon, and a series of other deadly strikes.
"We should ask for the grace to weep for this world, which does not recognise the path to peace. To weep for those who live for
war and have the cynicism to deny it," the Argentine pontiff said, adding: "God weeps, Jesus weeps". ...
"... Obomber is an interventionista, owned by Lockheed. He at least has not had to duck shoes thrown at him, otherwise we have a repeat of W in the white house.e. Obomber also gets on the board of ARAMCO later in life ..."
Military Reviews U.S. Response to Rise of ISIS
By MATT APUZZO, MARK MAZZETTI, and MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT
The Pentagon has seized a trove of emails from military servers as it expands an inquiry into
Central Command over allegations that officials overstated the progress of airstrikes against
the Islamic State.
During the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, American military officials often provided misleadingly
upbeat assessments of battlefield efforts and belittled reporting that contradicted their narrative.
Their take on the progress of the troops was frequently at odds with the conclusions of civilian
intelligence analysts and reporting by journalists in the field. The opposing views were important
because they sometimes forced the Pentagon to face unpleasant truths and change course.
The war against the Islamic State terrorist group, which the Obama administration launched
more than a year ago, however, has unfolded out of sight by design....
Inquiry Weighs Whether ISIS Analysis Was Distorted
By MARK MAZZETTI and MATT APUZZO
WASHINGTON - The Pentagon's inspector general is investigating allegations that military officials
have skewed intelligence assessments about the United States-led campaign in Iraq against the
Islamic State to provide a more optimistic account of progress, according to several officials
familiar with the inquiry....
ilsm ->anne...
Everything that is done inside the pentagon-capitol-K St axis is distorted to sell more weaponry
and plunder the US.
ilsm ->anne...
The same misinformation campaign brought you: 10 years of misguided war profiteering in Southeast
Asia for Saigon thugs' survival, the nuclear TRIAD to assure the US could kill everything on earth
in its dying throes, and the past 40 years of expensive imperialism around the world.
im1dc said...
November 22, 2015 at 08:45 AM
Ohhhh, someone is not happy with CENTCOM's 'manipulation of
(ISIL) intelligence'
Heads to Roll, Careers to be Ended,
and hopefully some time in the brig for the top brass who
ordered the bogus INTEL too
Fight against Islamic State militants - 8h ago
"Obama on manipulation of intelligence about Islamic State:
'I don't know what we'll discover in regards to what happened
at CENTCOM'"
im1dc said...
islm, the President thinks your belief of SA ISIL financial support is wrong
Fight against Islamic State militants - 9h ago
"Saudi Arabia is helping to co-ordinate the fight against financing for Islamic State, Obama says"
Fred C. Dobbs ->im1dc...
The Saudi guv'mint may
be cooperating, while
the vast Saudi wealth
may be at cross purposes.
ilsm ->im1dc...
Obomber is an interventionista, owned by Lockheed. He at least has not had to duck shoes
thrown at him, otherwise we have a repeat of W in the white house.e.
Obomber also gets on the board of ARAMCO later in life
"... The Russians have announced that they will partner with the French to fight the Islamic State in the wake of the terrorist attacks in Paris. But beyond new friendships forged in the wake of the Paris massacre and the downing of a Russian charter flight over the Sinai in October, Moscow's strategic interest in Syria is longstanding and vital to its interest. ..."
"... For all the mythmaking and propaganda, there is a powerful historical context to Russia's latest foreign military intervention. Like all states that try to project force beyond their borders, Putin's Russia faces limits. But those limits differ markedly from those that doomed America's recent fiascoes in Iraq and Afghanistan. ..."
"... The spectacular international attacks by Islamic State militants against targets in the Sinai, Beirut, and Paris have reminded Western powers of the other interests at stake beyond a resurgent Russia ..."
LATAKIA, Syria - When Russian jets started bombing Syrian insurgents, it was no surprise that
fans of President Bashar Assad felt buoyed. What was surprising was the outsized, even over-the-top
expectations placed on Russian help.
"They're not like the Americans," explained a Syrian government official responsible for escorting
journalists around the coastal city of Latakia. "When they get involved, they do it all the way."
Naturally, tired supporters of the Assad regime are susceptible to any optimistic thread they
can cling to after five years of a war that the government was decisively losing when the Russians
unveiled a major military intervention in October. Russian fever isn't entirely driven by hope and
ignorance. Many of the Syrians cheering the Russian intervention know Moscow well.
A fluent Russian speaker, the bureaucrat in Latakia had spent nearly a decade in Moscow studying
and working. Much of Syria's military and Ba'ath Party elite trained in Moscow, steeped in Soviet-era
military and political doctrine, along with an unapologetic culture of tough-talking secular nationalism
(there's also a shared affinity for vodka or other spirits).
The Russians have announced that they will partner with the French to fight the Islamic State
in the wake of the terrorist attacks in Paris. But beyond new friendships forged in the wake of the
Paris massacre and the downing of a Russian charter flight over the Sinai in October, Moscow's strategic
interest in Syria is longstanding and vital to its interest.
The world reaction to the Russian offensive in Syria has been as much about perception as military
reality. Putin, according to Russian analysts who carefully study his policy, wants more than anything
else to reassert Russia's role as a high-stakes player in the international system.
Sure, they say, he wants to reduce the heat from his invasion of Ukraine, and he wants to keep
a loyal client in place in Syria, but most of all, he wants Russia's Great Power role back.
For all the mythmaking and propaganda, there is a powerful historical context to Russia's latest
foreign military intervention. Like all states that try to project force beyond their borders, Putin's
Russia faces limits. But those limits differ markedly from those that doomed America's recent fiascoes
in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The spectacular international attacks by Islamic State militants against targets in the Sinai,
Beirut, and Paris have reminded Western powers of the other interests at stake beyond a resurgent
Russia and a prickly Iran. Until now, Russia's new role in Syria has stymied the West, impinging
on its air campaign against ISIS and all but eliminating the possibility of an anti-Assad no-fly
zone. ...
A day after the horrific attacks in Paris, Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister
Sergey Lavrov announced a silver lining: The world had come together and agreed to end the Syrian
civil war. At a press conference in Vienna, they laid out an ambitious time line. A cease-fire would
be negotiated in a matter of weeks between the Assad regime and rebel groups, with the exception
of "terrorists." Talks between Assad and the opposition would be held by Jan. 1. A "credible, inclusive,
nonsectarian" government would be established within six months. A new constitution and free and
fair elections would materialize within 18 months.
If their plan - backed by the Arab League, the United Nations, the European Union, Egypt, Iran,
Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates - sounds too
good to be true, that's because it probably is.
Much like Kerry's overly optimistic goal of creating a Palestinian state within two years, the Syria
plan is based more on the desire for peace than the prospects for it actually happening on the ground.
...
... One of the goals of radical Islamic terrorist groups is to divide Muslims and the rest of
the world. The disparity in our concern for victims of terrorism, depending on the country attacked
and the dominant religion, inadvertently feeds into their narrative. ...
I am as committed to my American identity as I am to my Muslim identity, but I often cannot feel
fully at home in either due to misunderstandings and poorly managed conflicts between the two. Muslims
like myself seeking to bring reconciliation often encounter backlash and distrust from extremist
Muslims and Americans alike.
But my hybrid identity as a Muslim-American born and raised in New Jersey serves as the foundation
for my commitment to dialogue facilitation, conflict resolution, and peacebuilding. As an American,
I know the sheer terror that 9/11 instilled in our individual and collective psyche. I understand
the desire to regain a sense of security and comfort in our everyday lives and to defend against
any group or ideology that appears even remotely threatening. As a Muslim, I know the exasperation
of having our religion hijacked and used for something that was never its purpose. I understand the
outrage of being held responsible for what we did not do – in the form of discrimination, prejudice,
and warfare against home countries.
The sources of misunderstanding and pain for Americans and Muslims are actually not so different:
They arise out of fear and trauma. So, too, the sources for healing are shared, and can be found
in dialogue, compassion, and community. I see my purpose as guiding members of these groups to realizing
these commonalities, and from this basis developing relationships that mitigate and prevent violent
manifestations of conflict. Through my hybrid identity as a Muslim-American, I strive to provide
one of many examples of how it is indeed possible to move past fear of "the other" and toward mutually
beneficial relationships.
One of my most treasured verses in the Qur'an - introduced to me by a Catholic - has a universal
message: "If God had so willed, He could have made you a single people, but His plan is to test you
in what He has given you, so strive as one human race in all virtues according to what He has given
you (5:48)." Most especially in the wake of trauma and terror, how we each decide to engage with
"the other" is our own individual choice, but the fate is shared by us all. ...
(Saadia Ahmad is a student studying conflict resolution at the McCormack Graduate School of Policy
and Global Studies at the University of Massachusetts Boston.)
Selected Skeptical Comments from Economist's View blog
'Putin, according to Russian
analysts who
carefully study his policy, wants more than
anything else to reassert Russia's role as a
high-stakes player in the international system.'
It's almost like Putin wants Russia to
'assume
among the powers of the earth the separate
and equal station to which the laws of
nature entitle' them. What nerve?
A day after the attacks in Paris underlined the global danger posed by the continuing
violence in Syria, Russia, the United States, and governments in Europe and the Middle East
agreed at talks in Vienna to a road map for ending the devastating and destabilizing war.
The proposal (*), which appears to draw heavily from a Russian peace plan circulated
before the talks, sets Jan. 1 as a deadline for the start of negotiations between Bashar
al-Assad's government and opposition groups. Within six months, they would be required to
create an "inclusive and non-sectarian" transitional government that would set a schedule
for holding new, internationally supervised elections within 18 months. Western diplomats
involved in the talks told the Wall Street Journal that the meeting had produced more progress
than expected, and the events in Paris may have added new urgency to the proceedings, given
the need to build a united front against ISIS, but stumbling blocks remain.
The biggest one is the fate of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, whose role is side-stepped
in the agreement. ...
Not them, but apparently 'the Arab League, the United Nations, the European Union,
Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and the United
Arab Emirates' are on board.
Could be the other parties were otherwise engaged.
ilsm ->
Fred C. Dobbs...
There is a story going around about Iranian F-14's escorting Russian Bear bombers
on their way through to bomb Syrian deserts.
US navy went all out for F-18 and Tom Cruse's F-14 been in the boneyard for years.
Israel just did something a wee bit nutty with their most recent wish list of US war
goodies. It's one of those nerdtastically insider geek things that might actually mean some
really interesting stuff.
So - drumroll please - reports have just emerged that Israel wants to buy a proposed,
but as yet unmade, version of the F-15 fighter jet called the F-15SE Silent Eagle, in addition
to several F-35s.
Okay, so it's not that exciting, unless you've been following the Israeli Air Force.
But if you have, this purchase tells you something interesting about what advice those guys
are getting from their strategic-planning Ouija boards on the topic of stealth...
Israel
is using US aid money to "buy" F-35's, likely because the "F-35 sale is a string" for support
for more aid to the IDF. There are many things the F-35 cannot do, there are many issues
that mean sustaining 18 F-35's is less "capability" than 12 F-15 or F-16's.
Stealth is less a game changer than the reality of F-35 expenses and flaws. I am no fan
of stealth it adds expense and overhead with unproven theory as to its "use".
A single engine fighter that carries 16000 of jet fuel is troubling. Rumblings USAF wants
a buy of F-16s and F-35s for the same reasons.
I have a regard for F-4's if nothing else they are only a little less ugly than the A-10,
unless they save your bacon in a tight spot on the front line.
The war in Syria has become a tangled web of conflict dominated by competing military factions
fueled by an overlapping mixture of ideologies and political agendas.
Just below it, experts suspect, they're powered by something else: Captagon.
The tiny, highly addictive pill is produced in Syria and now widely available across
the Middle East. Its illegal sale funnels hundreds of millions of dollars back into the
war-torn country's black-market economy each year, likely giving militias access to new
arms, fighters, and the ability to keep the conflict boiling, according to the Guardian.
''Syria is a tremendous problem in that it's a collapsed security sector, because of
its porous borders, because of the presence of so many criminal elements and organized networks,''
the UN Office on Drugs and Crime regional representative, Masood Karimipour, told Voice
of America.
''There's a great deal of trafficking being done of all sorts of illicit goods - guns,
drugs, money, people. But what is being manufactured there and who is doing the manufacturing,
that's not something we have visibility into from a distance.''
A powerful amphetamine tablet based on the original synthetic drug known as fenethylline,
Captagon quickly produces a euphoric intensity in users, allowing Syria's fighters to stay
up for days, killing with a numb, reckless abandon.
''You can't sleep or even close your eyes; forget about it,'' said a Lebanese user, one
of three who appeared on camera without their names for a BBC Arabic documentary that aired
in September. ''And whatever you take to stop it, nothing can stop it.''
''I felt like I own the world high,'' another user said. ''Like I have power nobody has.
A really nice feeling.''
''There was no fear anymore after I took Captagon,'' a third man added. ...
... production of Captagon has taken root in Syria, long a heavily trafficked thoroughfare
for drugs journeying from Europe to the Gulf States, and it has begun to blossom.
''The breakdown of state infrastructure, weakening of borders and proliferation of armed
groups during the nearly three-year battle for control of Syria, has transformed the country
from a stopover into a major production site,'' Reuters reported.
''Production in Lebanon's Bekaa valley - a traditional center for the drug - fell 90
percent last year from 2011, with the decline largely attributed to production inside Syria,''
the Guardian noted.
Cheap and easy to produce using legal materials, the drug can be purchased for less than
$20 a tablet and is popular among those Syrian fighters who don't follow strict interpretations
of Islamic law, according to the Guardian. ...
"... By far the most important thing GOP voters are looking for in a candidate is someone to "bring needed change to Washington." ..."
"... He's very strong in several of the early states right now including NH, NV and SC. And he could do very well on "Super Tuesday" with all those southern states voting. I can't see anyone but Trump or Carson winning in Georgia right now, for example, most likely Trump. ..."
"... And as for the idea of the GOP establishment ganging up on him and/or uniting behind another candidate like Rubio, that's at least as likely to backfire as to work. And even if it works, what's to stop Trump from then running as an independent? ..."
"... Indeed. You have a party whose domestic policy agenda consists of shouting "death panels!", whose foreign policy agenda consists of shouting "Benghazi!", and which now expects its base to realize that Trump isn't serious. Or to put it a bit differently, the definition of a GOP establishment candidate these days is someone who is in on the con, and knows that his colleagues have been talking nonsense. Primary voters are expected to respect that? ..."
"... ... with Trump in the race, all of those states-which are more red than they were in '08-are likely out for Democrats. Swing states like Colorado and Virginia are clear toss-ups. There are few states that Romney or McCain won where Trump, as the Republican nominee, wouldn't be in the running, and an analysis of other key states shows that Trump's in far better position than his detractors would like to admit. If Trump were to win every state that Romney won, Trump would stand today at 206 electoral votes, with 55 electoral votes up for grabs in Pennsylvania, Colorado, Nevada, Wisconsin, Iowa, and New Hampshire. Similarly, Trump does not necessarily lose in a single toss-up state versus Hillary Clinton and, in fact, is seemingly competitive in many. ..."
"... Which all means that the election comes down to Florida and Ohio, two states where Trump has significant advantages. In Florida (29 electoral votes), he is a part-time resident and is polling better than the state's former governor and sitting U.S. senator. ... ..."
"... A brokered convention, maybe? Even Romney would have a shot. ..."
"... Top-tier presidential campaigns are preparing for the still-unlikely scenario that the nomination fight goes all the way to the 2016 Republican National Convention. ..."
"... There hasn't been a brokered convention since 1976, but the strength of the GOP field, when coupled with the proliferation of super PACs, increases the chances that several candidates could show up in Cleveland next July with an army of delegates at their backs ..."
"... Since the November 13 attacks, every poll-in Florida, two in New Hampshire, and three nationwide-shows Trump maintaining or expanding his lead against his primary opponents. Poor Ben Carson, only recently Trump's chief rival, is losing energy like, well, you know who. In the Fox NH poll, it's Trump at 27, Rubio 13, Cruz 11, and Carson down there at 9 percent alongside Jeb! ..."
"... Play it out: an outsider who's dismissed by his party's elite, comes into the race and overwhelms a large, much more experienced group of candidates in a series of state primaries, both increasing his margins and improving as a candidate as he goes long. All the time riding a crisis that seems made for his candidacy. Does that sound like a sure loser? ... ..."
"... While the investigation into US bombing waste is keyed on who padded the figures rather than the ineptitude of bombing in any use other than taking out property owners to get the greedy to say uncle . The shame of Paris is attributable to the US war machine and every issue requires more money for the pentagon. ..."
"... No shit, sherlock, and it's because of you and the most vile mass murderer of all time, the CIA (and DIA, and NSA, and FBI, etc.), but predominantly the CIA and the Pentagon, that ISIS and such exists today! Whether it was Allen Dulles coordinating the escape of endless number of mass murderering Nazis, who would end up in CIA-overthrown countries, aiding and abetting their secret police (Example: Walter Rauff, who was responsible for at least 200,000 deaths, ending up as an advisor to Augusto Pinochet's secret police or DINA) or the grandson of the first chairman of the Bank for International Settlements, Richard Helms and his MKULTRA, you devils are to blame. ..."
Alan Abramowitz reads the latest WaPo poll and emails:
'Read these results (#) and tell me how Trump doesn't win the Republican nomination? I've been
very skeptical about this all along, but I'm starting to change my mind. I think there's at least
a pretty decent chance that Trump will be the nominee.
Here's why I think Trump could very well end up as the nominee:
1. He's way ahead of every other candidate now and has been in the lead or tied for the lead
for a long time.
2. The only one even giving him any competition right now is Carson who is even less plausible
and whose support is heavily concentrated among one (large) segment of the base-evangelicals.
3. Rubio, the great establishment hope now, is deep in third place, barely in double digits
and nowhere close to Trump or Carson.
4. By far the most important thing GOP voters are looking for in a candidate is someone to
"bring needed change to Washington."
5. He is favored on almost every major issue by Republican voters including immigration and
terrorism by wide margins. The current terrorism scare only helps him with Republicans. They want
someone who will "bomb the shit" out of the Muslim terrorists.
6. There is clearly strong support among Republicans for deporting 11 million illegal immigrants.
They don't provide party breakdown here, but support for this is at about 40 percent among all
voters so it's got to be a lot higher than that, maybe 60 percent, among Republicans.
7. If none of the totally crazy things he's said up until now have hurt him among Republican
voters, why would any crazy things he says in the next few months hurt him?
8. He's very strong in several of the early states right now including NH, NV and SC. And he
could do very well on "Super Tuesday" with all those southern states voting. I can't see anyone
but Trump or Carson winning in Georgia right now, for example, most likely Trump.
9. And as for the idea of the GOP establishment ganging up on him and/or uniting behind another
candidate like Rubio, that's at least as likely to backfire as to work. And even if it works,
what's to stop Trump from then running as an independent?'
Indeed. You have a party whose domestic policy agenda consists of shouting "death panels!",
whose foreign policy agenda consists of shouting "Benghazi!", and which now expects its base to
realize that Trump isn't serious. Or to put it a bit differently, the definition of a GOP establishment
candidate these days is someone who is in on the con, and knows that his colleagues have been
talking nonsense. Primary voters are expected to respect that?
My guess is that if people dug deeper into the support for Trump, they would find that
there is a certain percentage of Republicans who have supported Trump because he was a
business man - the only one in the pack - not because they wanted another crazy xenophobic
racist wingnut. Now that Trump has gone full wingnut, they are frustrated with the mess they
have created for themselves.
Fred C. Dobbs -> Dan Kervick...
Here's Why Donald Trump
Really Could Be Elected President http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/10/donald-trump-could-be-president
via @VanityFair
David Burstein - October 22
... with Trump in the race, all of those states-which are more red than they were in
'08-are likely out for Democrats. Swing states like Colorado and Virginia are clear toss-ups.
There are few states that Romney or McCain won where Trump, as the Republican nominee,
wouldn't be in the running, and an analysis of other key states shows that Trump's in far
better position than his detractors would like to admit. If Trump were to win every state that
Romney won, Trump would stand today at 206 electoral votes, with 55 electoral votes up for
grabs in Pennsylvania, Colorado, Nevada, Wisconsin, Iowa, and New Hampshire. Similarly, Trump
does not necessarily lose in a single toss-up state versus Hillary Clinton and, in fact, is
seemingly competitive in many.
Virginia is trending blue, but could be a toss-up, particularly given the tale of Dave Brat,
whose success in 2014 could be read as a harbinger of Trump. Colorado will have high
Republican turnout, given that it is home to what's likely to be one of the country's most
contested Senate races-which could make it more competitive than it should be, considering
Trump's comments about Latinos. Depending on how well Trump shows in the Iowa and New
Hampshire primaries, they too could be in play. In two of the remaining states, Wisconsin and
Nevada, any Democratic nominee will have an upper hand-particularly Clinton.
But Trump will be able to effectively contest, particularly in a place like Wisconsin, with
working-class white voters who elected Scott Walker three times in four years. Finally,
Pennsylvania, which has been leaning ever-more blue and will likely go blue this year, will
nonetheless require Clinton to spend some resources and time there-taking away from her
efforts in other swing states.
Which all means that the election comes down to Florida and Ohio, two states where
Trump has significant advantages. In Florida (29 electoral votes), he is a part-time resident
and is polling better than the state's former governor and sitting U.S. senator. ...
Fred C. Dobbs -> Fred C. Dobbs...
Long time, still, from now to the
GOP convention. (Curiously, less every week, however.)
Some GOPsters (including Bush, Rubio,
various others) know in their hearts that eventually Trump & Carson will fade, or be dumped, and
*their* star will ascend. Sure.
A brokered convention, maybe? Even Romney would have a shot.
Could the GOP Really See a Brokered Convention
in 2016? http://natl.re/CLXxxf via @NRO
Joel Gehrke - May 14, 2015
Ask around and you'll hear a consistent theme from political strategists
in the Republican party: The 2016 primary is wide open. "It is by far the most interesting presidential
year since I've been involved [in Republican politics]," says Steve Munisteri, a senior adviser
to Senator Rand Paul.
How interesting? Top-tier presidential campaigns are preparing for the still-unlikely scenario
that the nomination fight goes all the way to the 2016 Republican National Convention.
There hasn't been a brokered convention since 1976, but the strength of the GOP field,
when coupled with the proliferation of super PACs, increases the chances that several candidates
could show up in Cleveland next July with an army of delegates at their backs. "It's certainly
more likely now than it's been in any prior election, going back to 1976," Thor Hearn, the general
counsel to George W. Bush's 2004 reelection campaign, tells National Review. "I don't put it as
a high likelihood, but it's a much more realistic probability than it's been in any recent experience."
...
The Paris attacks have made the demagogue even stronger.
Tt hurts to put these words in print, but… Ann Coulter may be right. Shortly after the Paris
attacks began last Friday, she tweeted, "They can wait if they like until next November for the
actual balloting, but Donald Trump was elected president tonight."
Stephen Colbert agrees. He told us this week to get used to saying "President Trump"-and led
his studio audience to repeat the words in unison and then pretend to barf.
Yes, it's hard to stomach. America's most entertaining demagogue winning the GOP primaries
and then the general? It can't happen here, can it?
Democrats have been expressing absolute incredulity at the possibility, and quietly chuckling
to themselves about the Clinton landslide to come if Donald is his party's nominee. The Huffington
Post has banned Trump from its politics section and relegated him to Entertainment, as if there
he'd be no more than a joke.
The problem is that our liberal incredulity mirrors that of the Republican establishment, which
refuses to believe that their front-runner of five straight months could possibly win their nomination.
Now even after the carnage in Paris, Beltway pundits are telling themselves that the base will
sober up and turn toward "experienced" pols like Rubio or Bush and away from the newbie nuts.
As the always-wrong Bill Kristol said of this latest terrorism crisis, "I think it hurts Trump
and Carson, honestly."
But, honestly, it's only strengthened Trump. Since the November 13 attacks, every poll-in
Florida, two in New Hampshire, and three nationwide-shows Trump maintaining or expanding his lead
against his primary opponents. Poor Ben Carson, only recently Trump's chief rival, is losing energy
like, well, you know who. In the Fox NH poll, it's Trump at 27, Rubio 13, Cruz 11, and Carson
down there at 9 percent alongside Jeb!
It's easy to laugh at GOPers in denial, but progressives who pooh-pooh Trump's chances of beating
Hillary may be whistling past the graveyard of American democracy.
A post-Paris Reuters/Ipsos poll asked 1,106 people which candidate, from the entire 2016 field,
could best tackle terrorism, and respondents put Trump and Clinton on equal footing, at 20 percent
each.
Not good-when it comes to taking on terrorists, a reality-show "carnival barker" who's never
served in the military nor held elected office is tied with a decidedly hawkish former secretary
of state?
Play it out: an outsider who's dismissed by his party's elite, comes into the race and
overwhelms a large, much more experienced group of candidates in a series of state primaries,
both increasing his margins and improving as a candidate as he goes long. All the time riding
a crisis that seems made for his candidacy. Does that sound like a sure loser? ...
ilsm -> Fred C. Dobbs...
Media hype, more Americans died, most did not want to, from gun violence this past weekend......
While the investigation into US bombing waste is keyed on "who padded the figures" rather than
the ineptitude of bombing in any use other than taking out property owners to get the greedy to
say "uncle". The shame of Paris is attributable to the US war machine and every issue requires more money
for the pentagon.
847328_3527
But they're still ... "jealous of our freedom" right?
"I dealt with terrorists in South America in the
1970s, but they never attacked innocent women and children
indiscriminately," he said.
No shit, sherlock, and it's because of you and the most vile
mass murderer of all time, the CIA (and DIA, and NSA, and FBI,
etc.), but predominantly the CIA and the Pentagon, that ISIS and
such exists today!
Whether it was Allen Dulles coordinating the escape of endless
number of mass murderering Nazis, who would end up in
CIA-overthrown countries, aiding and abetting their secret police
(Example: Walter Rauff, who was responsible for at least 200,000
deaths, ending up as an advisor to Augusto Pinochet's secret
police or DINA) or the grandson of the first chairman of the Bank
for International Settlements, Richard Helms and his MKULTRA, you
devils are to blame.
Recommended reading (to better understand why the USA is known
as the Great Satan):
Funny how these fucks can come out and say this kind of shit and get away with it.
The fucker's basically pleading guilty to murder, FFS.
Ms No
They didn't kill anybody in South America my ass.... The school of Americas, Operation Condor, Chile, Uruguay, Paraguay, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Guatamala, El Salvador .... who the hell are they kidding? The CIA has always been covered and nobody ever cared.
Perimetr
Perimetr's picture
"If there's blame to be put. . ."
It's on the CIA for running its global terrorist operations, funded by the $1 trillion dollars a year coming from its Afghanistan heroin operation.
sirs and madams,
.
"Christmas celebration this year is going to be a charade because the whole world is at war.
We are close to Christmas. There will be lights, there will be parties, bright trees, even
Nativity scenes – all decked out – while the world continues to wage war.
It's all a charade. The world has not understood the way of peace. The whole world is at war.
A war can be justified, so to speak, with many, many reasons, but when all the world as it is
today, at war, piecemeal though that war may be-a little here, a little there-there is no
justification.
What shall remain in the wake of this war, in the midst of which we are living now? What shall
remain? Ruins, thousands of children without education, so many innocent victims, and lots of
money in the pockets of arms dealers."
The discovery of America by Europe had to happen. The savages had to be eliminated and The
Revolutionary War had to happen. Slavery had to begin, and after it, segregation had to begin,
but, what must be, will be, slavery and segregation had to end. Old School colonization of
poor nations had to happen. The Boer War had to happen. The Spanish American War had to
happen. The Main had to be sunk. WWI had to happen. Calvary charges had to end. Totalitarian
Communism had to happen. Germany's 20's depression had to happen, reactionary jingoism had to
happen, and Kristallnacht and the Reichstag fire had to happen. The Allies had to win WWII,
Hiroshima and Nagasaki had to be publicity stunts, and the Cold War had to begin. JFK had to
be wacked, the Vietnam War had to happen, the FED still was happening. Civil Rights laws had
to be passed. Recognition of China had to happen, going off the gold standard had to happen,
and Nixon had to be kicked out of office. Corporate Globalization had to begin. After Carter
an actor had to be President. Unions had to be stifled. Perestroika and glasnost had to
happen. The Berlin Wall had to come down. The MIC had to find another enemy, and suddenly 9/11
had to happen. …
Over population has to happen, poisoning the environment has to happen, and the NWO has to
happen.
Ladies and gentlemen, the NWO is here, and there is nothing you can do, and nothing
you could have done to stop it.
Edit. I see none of our supposed enemies 'truth bombing' 9/11, 7/7, and the 13th Paris
attacks. I see no trade embagoes, I see no arguments in the Security Council over the
illegality of US/Nato bombing in Syria.
blindman
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/jimmy-carter-is-correct-t_b_79...
Jimmy Carter Is Correct That the U.S. Is No Longer a Democracy
Posted: 08/03/2015 11:48 am EDT
.
On July 28, Thom Hartmann interviewed former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, and, at the very end
of his show (as if this massive question were merely an afterthought), asked him his opinion
of the 2010 Citizens United decision and the 2014 McCutcheon decision, both decisions by the
five Republican judges on the U.S. Supreme Court. These two historic decisions enable
unlimited secret money (including foreign money) now to pour into U.S. political and judicial
campaigns. Carter answered:
It violates the essence of what made America a great country in its political system. Now it's
just an oligarchy with unlimited political bribery being the essence of getting the
nominations for president or being elected president. And the same thing applies to governors,
and U.S. Senators and congress members. So, now we've just seen a subversion of our political
system as a payoff to major contributors, who want and expect, and sometimes get, favors for
themselves after the election is over. ... At the present time the incumbents, Democrats and
Republicans, look upon this unlimited money as a great benefit to themselves. Somebody that is
already in Congress has a great deal more to sell." ...
.
it is the money "system", man.
blindman
corporations and hoodwink powers ride on the indifference of the damned, the silence of the
dead and doomed.
Dinero D. Profit
The Satus Quo can rely upon the loyalty of their employees, Congress, the military, the
military industrial contractors, their workers and family members, the crime control
establishment, all Uniersity professors and employees, and every employee of all publically
traded companies, and every person employed by the MSM.
The dead and doomed are irrelevant. If you have an establishment job, you'll obey and ask
no vital questions.
Dick Buttkiss
Sunnis and Shiites hate each other far more than they hate Christians, Jews, or anyone else.
If it weren't for oil, the USG wouldn't give a flyiing fuck if they anihilated each other.
Instead, it conspires with them in ways far beyond its ability to comprehend, much less navigate.
Thus is the US ship of state heading for the shoals of its destruction, the only question being how much of the country and the outside world it takes down with it.
ross81
thats bullshit Western propaganda that Shiites hate Sunnis and vice versa. In the same way that the Brits stirred up Protestant hatred of Catholics in Ulster for centuries, the US/Israel/Saudi does the same with Sunnis vs Shiites on a much bigger scale in the Middle East. Divide and Conquer.
geno-econ
This is getting scary in that one or two more attacks will result in travel freezes, flow of Middle East oil and result in huge increase in military as well as Homeland security costs. A depression or economic collapse a real possibility Perhaps time for a Peace Conference of all interested parties. The US started this shit and should be the first to call for a Peace Conference. Macho talk will only make things worse.
moonmac
We can print trillions out of thin air at the drop of a hat but we can't kill a small group of terrorists. Got it!
sgt_doom
Or, we pour billions of dollars every year into the CIA, NSA, and DIA, and only a poor old fart such as myself can figure out that Bilal Erdogan is the ISIS connection to oil trading (Turkish president, Erdogan's son) and Erdogan's daughter is with ISIS?
GRDguy
Ex-CIA boss gets it wrong, again.
"When you have a small group of people who are willing to lose their lives and kill anyone they can, we're all vulnerable."
should be:
"When you have a small group of financial sociopaths willing to lie-to, steal-from and kill anyone they can, we're all vulnerable."
and you'll probably be punished, jailed or shot for tryin' to protect yourself and your family.
Ban KKiller
War profiteer. That is it.
Along wth James Comey, James Clapper, Jack Welch and the list is almost endless...
BarnacleBill
"When you have a small group of people who are willing to lose their lives and kill anyone they can, we're all vulnerable."
Simply take out the word "their", and the description perfectly fits the CIA, MI6 and their like. For them, it's all a business deal, nothing more - a massive slum-clearance project. Destroy people's houses, provide accommodation and food, ship them somewhere else; do it again and again until the money-printing machine conks out. It's money for old rope.
And, yes, we're all vulnerable. The man got that right.
Duc888
"You get the politicians you deserve."
CIA types are appointed, not elected.
Duc888
I do not know if there are any Catherine Austin Fitts fans on this web site but this is definitely worth the time. The FEDGOV came after her non stop for 6 years when she worked for HUD under Bush Sr. If nothing else this lady is tenacious. In this presentation she uncorks exactly HOW the deep black budgets are paid for...and it ain't your tax dollars. What she uncovered while at HUD was simply amazing..... and she made an excellent point. At the top... it's NOT "fraud" because that's how it was all deigned right from the get go after wwII. It brings to mind the funny computer saying....."it's a feature, not a bug".
She digs right into how the CIA was funded...
Truly amazing stuff.
...of course the dick head brigade will come along here and deride her because of the conference she is speaking at.... well, who the fuck cares, her presentation is excellent and filled with facts. Yes it is 1 hour 20 minutes long but imho it is well worth the watch...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0mimIp8mr8
Dragon HAwk
After reading all these posts my only question is why does the CIA allow Zero Hedge to Exist ?
"... From the man who brought you the Iraq war and the rise of ISIS--how to solve the ISIS crisis. ..."
"... Youd think ppl who brought the Iraq war, the best recruiters of ISIS, would be nowhere to be seen; but no, are telling how to deal w/ISIS. ..."
"... Narrative is the foundation of their skewed analysis. Their object is to sell perpetual war using super high tech, exquisitely expensive, contractor maintained versions of WW II formations to expired resources eternally for the profits they deliver. They starve the safety net to pay for their income security. ..."
"... ... In July of last year, the New York Times ran two pieces tying Clinton to the neoconservative movement. In "The Next Act of the Neocons," (*) Jacob Heilbrunn argued that neocons like historian Robert Kagan are putting their lot in with Clinton in an effort to stay relevant while the GOP shies away from its past interventionism and embraces politicians like Senator Rand Paul: ..."
"... And the thing is, these neocons have a point. Mrs. Clinton voted for the Iraq war; supported sending arms to Syrian rebels; likened Russia's president, Vladimir V. Putin, to Adolf Hitler; wholeheartedly backs Israel; and stresses the importance of promoting democracy. ..."
"... It's easy to imagine Mrs. Clinton's making room for the neocons in her administration. No one could charge her with being weak on national security with the likes of Robert Kagan on board ..."
"... Kagan served on Clinton's bipartisan foreign policy advisory board when she was Secretary of State, has deep neocon roots. ..."
"... A month before the Heilbrunn piece, the Times profiled Kagan ( ..."
"... ), who was critical of Obama's foreign policy, but supported Clinton. "I feel comfortable with her on foreign policy," Kagan told the Times. "If she pursues a policy which we think she will pursue … it's something that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going to call it that." ... ..."
"... Are Neocons Getting Ready to Ally With Hillary Clinton? http://nyti.ms/1qJ4eLN ..."
"... Robert Kagan Strikes a Nerve With Article on Obama Policy http://nyti.ms/UEuqtB ..."
"... doublethink has become synonymous with relieving cognitive dissonance by ignoring the contradiction between two world views – or even of deliberately seeking to relieve cognitive dissonance. (Wikipedia) ..."
...Europe was not in great shape before the refugee crisis and the terrorist attacks. The prolonged
Eurozone crisis eroded the legitimacy of European political institutions and the centrist parties
that run them, while weakening the economies of key European powers. The old troika-Britain, France
and Germany-that used to provide leadership on the continent and with whom the U.S. worked most closely
to set the global agenda is no more. Britain is a pale shadow of its former self. Once the indispensable
partner for the U.S., influential in both Washington and Brussels, the mediator between America and
Europe, Britain is now unmoored, drifting away from both. The Labor Party, once led by Tony Blair,
is now headed by an anti-American pacifist, while the ruling Conservative government boasts of its
"very special relationship" with China.
... ... ...
There is a Russian angle, too. Many of these parties, and even some mainstream political movements
across the continent, are funded by Russia and make little secret of their affinity for Moscow. Thus
Prime Minister Viktor Orban of Hungary has praised "illiberalism" and made common ideological cause
with Russian President Vladimir Putin. In Germany, a whole class of businesspeople, politicians,
and current and former government officials, led by former Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, presses constantly
for normalized relations with Moscow. It sometimes seems, in Germany
and perhaps in all of Europe, as if the only person standing in the way of full alliance with Russia
is German Chancellor Angela Merkel.
Now the Syrian crisis has further bolstered Russia's position. Although Europeans generally share
Washington's discomfort with Moscow's support for Mr. Assad and Russia's bombing of moderate Syrian
rebels, in the wake of the Paris attacks, any plausible partner in the fight against Islamic State
seems worth enlisting. In France, former President Nicolas Sarkozy has long been an advocate for
Russia, but now his calls for partnership with Moscow are echoed by President François Hollande,
who seeks a "grand coalition" with Russia to fight Islamic State.
Where does the U.S. fit into all this? The Europeans no longer know, any more than American allies
in the Middle East do. Most Europeans still like Mr. Obama. After President George W. Bush and the
Iraq war, Europeans have gotten the kind of American president they wanted.
But in the current crisis, this new, more restrained and intensely cautious post-Iraq America has
less to offer than the old superpower, with all its arrogance and belligerence.
The flip side of European pleasure at America's newfound Venusian outlook is the perception, widely
shared around the world, that the U.S. is a declining superpower, and that even if it is not objectively
weaker than it once was, its leaders' willingness to deploy power on behalf of its interests, and
on behalf of the West, has greatly diminished. As former German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer
recently put it, the U.S. "quite obviously, is no longer willing-or able-to play its old role."
Mr. Fischer was referring specifically to America's role as the dominant power in the Middle East,
but since the refugee crisis and the attacks in Paris, America's unwillingness to play that role
has reverberations and implications well beyond the Middle East. What the U.S. now does or doesn't
do in Syria will affect the future stability of Europe, the strength of trans-Atlantic relations
and therefore the well-being of the liberal world order.
This is no doubt the last thing that Mr. Obama wants to hear, and possibly to believe. Certainly
he would not deny that the stakes have gone up since the refugee crisis and especially since Paris.
At the very least, Islamic State has proven both its desire and its ability to carry out massive,
coordinated attacks in a major European city. It is not unthinkable that it could carry out a similar
attack in an American city. This is new.
... ... ...
In 2002, a British statesman-scholar issued a quiet warning. "The challenge to the postmodern
world," the diplomat Robert Cooper argued, was that while Europeans might operate within their borders
as if power no longer mattered, in the world outside Europe, they needed to be prepared to use force
just as in earlier eras. "Among ourselves, we keep the law, but when we are operating in the jungle,
we must also use the laws of the jungle," he wrote. Europeans didn't heed this warning, or at least
didn't heed it sufficiently. They failed to arm themselves for the jungle, materially and spiritually,
and now that the jungle has entered the European garden, they are at a loss.
With the exercise of power barely an option, despite what Mr. Hollande promises, Europeans are
likely to feel their only choice is to build fences, both within Europe and along its periphery-even
if in the process they destroy the very essence of the European project. It is this sentiment that
has the Le Pens of Europe soaring in the polls.
What would such an effort look like? First, it would require establishing a safe zone in Syria,
providing the millions of would-be refugees still in the country a place to stay and the hundreds
of thousands who have fled to Europe a place to which to return. To establish such a zone, American
military officials estimate, would require not only U.S. air power but ground forces numbering up
to 30,000. Once the safe zone was established, many of those troops could be replaced by forces from
Europe, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and other Arab states, but the initial force would have to be largely
American.
In addition, a further 10,000 to 20,000 U.S. troops would be required to uproot Islamic State
from the haven it has created in Syria and to help local forces uproot it in Iraq. Many of those
troops could then be replaced by NATO and other international forces to hold the territory and provide
a safe zone for rebuilding the areas shattered by Islamic State rule.
At the same time, an internationally negotiated and blessed process of transition in Syria should
take place, ushering the bloodstained Mr. Assad from power and establishing a new provisional government
to hold nationwide elections. The heretofore immovable Mr. Assad would face an entirely new set of
military facts on the ground, with the Syrian opposition now backed by U.S. forces and air power,
the Syrian air force grounded and Russian bombing halted. Throughout the transition period, and probably
beyond even the first rounds of elections, an international peacekeeping force-made up of French,
Turkish, American and other NATO forces as well as Arab troops-would have to remain in Syria until
a reasonable level of stability, security and inter-sectarian trust was achieved.
Is such a plan so unthinkable? In recent years, the mere mention of
U.S. ground troops has been enough to stop any conversation. Americans, or at least
the intelligentsia and political class, remain traumatized by Iraq, and all calculations about what
to do in Syria have been driven by that trauma. Mr. Obama's advisers have been reluctant to present
him with options that include even smaller numbers of ground forces, assuming that he would reject
them. And Mr. Obama has, in turn, rejected his advisers' less ambitious proposals on the reasonable
grounds that they would probably be insufficient.
This dynamic has kept the president sneering at those who have wanted to do more but have been
reluctant to be honest about how much more. But it has also allowed him to be comfortable settling
for minimal, pressure-relieving approaches that he must know cannot succeed but which at least have
the virtue of avoiding the much larger commitment that he has so far refused to make.
The president has also been inclined to reject options that don't promise to "solve" the problems
of Syria, Iraq and the Middle East. He doesn't want to send troops only to put "a lid on things."
In this respect, he is entranced, like most Americans, by the image of the decisive engagement
followed by the victorious return home. But that happy picture is a myth. Even after the iconic American
victory in World War II, the U.S. didn't come home. Keeping a lid on things is exactly what the U.S.
has done these past 70 years. That is how the U.S. created this liberal world order.
In Asia, American forces have kept a lid on what had been, and would likely be again, a dangerous
multisided conflict involving China, Japan, Korea, India and who knows who else. In Europe, American
forces put a lid on what had been a chronic state of insecurity and war, making it possible to lay
the foundations of the European Union. In the Balkans, the presence of U.S. and European troops has
kept a lid on what had been an escalating cycle of ethnic conflict. In Libya, a similar international
force, with even a small American contingent, could have kept the lid on that country's boiling caldron,
perhaps long enough to give a new, more inclusive government a chance.
Preserving a liberal world order and international security is all about placing lids on regions
of turmoil. In any case, as my Brookings Institution colleague Thomas Wright observes, whether or
not you want to keep a lid on something really ought to depend on what's under the lid.
At practically any other time in the last 70 years, the idea of dispatching even 50,000 troops
to fight an organization of Islamic State's description would not have seemed too risky or too costly
to most Americans. In 1990-91, President George H.W. Bush, now revered as a judicious and prudent
leader, sent half a million troops across the globe to drive Iraq out of Kuwait, a country that not
one American in a million could find on a map and which the U.S. had no obligation to defend. In
1989, he sent 30,000 troops to invade Panama to topple an illegitimate, drug-peddling dictator. During
the Cold War, when presidents sent more than 300,000 troops to Korea and more than 500,000 troops
to Vietnam, the idea of sending 50,000 troops to fight a large and virulently anti-American terrorist
organization that had seized territory in the Middle East, and from that territory had already launched
a murderous attack on a major Western city, would have seemed barely worth an argument.
Not today. Americans remain paralyzed by Iraq, Republicans almost
as much as Democrats, and Mr. Obama is both the political beneficiary and the living symbol of this
paralysis. Whether he has the desire or capacity to adjust to changing circumstances is an open question.
Other presidents have-from Woodrow Wilson to Franklin Roosevelt to Bill Clinton-each
of whom was forced to recalibrate what the loss or fracturing of Europe would mean to American interests.
In Mr. Obama's case, however, such a late-in-the-game recalculation seems less likely. He may be
the first president since the end of World War II who simply doesn't care what happens to Europe.
If so, it is, again, a great irony for Europe, and perhaps a tragic one. Having excoriated the
U.S. for invading Iraq, Europeans played no small part in bringing on the crisis of confidence and
conscience that today prevents Americans from doing what may be necessary to meet the Middle Eastern
crisis that has Europe reeling. Perhaps there are Europeans today wishing that the U.S. will not
compound its error of commission in Iraq by making an equally unfortunate error of omission in Syria.
They can certainly hope.
Mr. Kagan is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and the author of "Of Paradise and
Power: America and Europe in the New World Order" and, most recently, "The World America Made."
You'd think ppl who brought the Iraq war, the best recruiters of ISIS, would be nowhere to
be seen; but no, are telling how to deal w/ISIS.
ilsm said in reply to anne...
Narrative is the foundation of their skewed analysis. Their object is to sell perpetual
war using super high tech, exquisitely expensive, contractor maintained versions of WW II formations
to expired resources eternally for the profits they deliver. They starve the safety net to pay
for their income security.
Fred C. Dobbs said in reply to anne...
Neoconservativism Is Down But Not Out of the 2016 Race
... In July of last year, the New York Times ran two pieces tying Clinton to the neoconservative
movement. In "The Next Act of the Neocons," (*) Jacob Heilbrunn argued that neocons like historian
Robert Kagan are putting their lot in with Clinton in an effort to stay relevant while the GOP
shies away from its past interventionism and embraces politicians like Senator Rand Paul:
'Other neocons have followed Mr. Kagan's careful centrism and respect for Mrs. Clinton.
Max Boot, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, noted in the New Republic this
year that "it is clear that in administration councils she was a principled voice for a strong
stand on controversial issues, whether supporting the Afghan surge or the intervention in Libya."
And the thing is, these neocons have a point. Mrs. Clinton voted for the Iraq war; supported
sending arms to Syrian rebels; likened Russia's president, Vladimir V. Putin, to Adolf Hitler;
wholeheartedly backs Israel; and stresses the importance of promoting democracy.
It's easy to imagine Mrs. Clinton's making room for the neocons in her administration. No one
could charge her with being weak on national security with the likes of Robert Kagan on board.'
(The story also notes, prematurely, that the careers of older neocons like Wolfowitz are "permanently
buried in the sands of Iraq.")
Kagan served on Clinton's bipartisan foreign policy advisory board when she was Secretary
of State, has deep neocon roots. He was part of the Project for a New American Century, a
now-defunct think tank that spanned much of the second Bush presidency and supported a "Reaganite
policy of military strength and moral clarity." PNAC counted Kagan, Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld,
William Kristol, and Jeb Bush among its members. In 1998, some of its members-including Wolfowitz,
Kagan, and Rumsfeld-signed an open letter to President Bill Clinton asking him to remove Saddam
Hussein from power.
A month before the Heilbrunn piece, the Times profiled Kagan (#),
who was critical of Obama's foreign policy, but supported Clinton. "I feel comfortable with her
on foreign policy," Kagan told the Times. "If she pursues a policy which we think she will pursue
… it's something that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going
to call it that." ...
(I may be a HRC supporter but Neocons still make me anxious.)
'doublethink has become synonymous with relieving cognitive dissonance by ignoring the
contradiction between two world views – or even of deliberately seeking to relieve cognitive dissonance.'
(Wikipedia)
Last month, US Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard went on CNN and laid bare Washington's Syria strategy.
In a remarkably candid interview with Wolf Blitzer, Gabbard calls Washington's effort
to oust Assad "counterproductive" and "illegal" before taking it a step further and accusing the
CIA of arming the very same terrorists who The White House insists are "sworn enemies."
In short, Gabbard all but tells the American public that the government is lying to them and may
end up inadvertently starting "World War III."
All this neoliberal talk about "maximizing shareholder value" and hidden redistribution mechanism
of wealth up. It;s all about executive pay. "Shareholder value" is nothing then a ruse for
getting outsize bonuses but top execs. Who cares if the company will be destroyed if you have a golden
parachute ?
Notable quotes:
"... IBM has blown $125 billion on buybacks since 2005, more than the $111 billion it invested in capital expenditures and R D. It's staggering under its debt, while revenues have been declining for 14 quarters in a row. It cut its workforce by 55,000 people since 2012. ..."
"... Big-pharma icon Pfizer plowed $139 billion into buybacks and dividends in the past decade, compared to $82 billion in R D and $18 billion in capital spending. 3M spent $48 billion on buybacks and dividends, and $30 billion on R D and capital expenditures. They're all doing it. ..."
"... Nearly 60% of the 3,297 publicly traded non-financial US companies Reuters analyzed have engaged in share buybacks since 2010. Last year, the money spent on buybacks and dividends exceeded net income for the first time in a non-recession period. ..."
"... This year, for the 613 companies that have reported earnings for fiscal 2015, share buybacks hit a record $520 billion. They also paid $365 billion in dividends, for a total of $885 billion, against their combined net income of $847 billion. ..."
"... Buybacks and dividends amount to 113% of capital spending among companies that have repurchased shares since 2010, up from 60% in 2000 and from 38% in 1990. Corporate investment is normally a big driver in a recovery. Not this time! Hence the lousy recovery. ..."
"... Financial engineering takes precedence over actual engineering in the minds of CEOs and CFOs. A company buying its own shares creates additional demand for those shares. It's supposed to drive up the share price. The hoopla surrounding buyback announcements drives up prices too. Buybacks also reduce the number of outstanding shares, thus increase the earnings per share, even when net income is declining. ..."
"... But when companies load up on debt to fund buybacks while slashing investment in productive activities and innovation, it has consequences for revenues down the road. And now that magic trick to increase shareholder value has become a toxic mix. Shares of buyback queens are getting hammered. ..."
"... Interesting that you mention ruse, relating to "buy-backs"…from my POV, it seems like they've legalized insider trading or engineered (a) loophole(s). ..."
"... On a somewhat related perspective on subterfuge. The language of "affordability" has proven to be insidiously clever. Not only does it reinforce and perpetuate the myth of "deserts", but camouflages the means of embezzling the means of distribution. Isn't distribution, really, the only rational purpose of finance, i.e., as a means of distribution as opposed to a means of embezzlement? ..."
"... "Results of all this financial engineering? Revenues of the S P 500 companies are falling for the fourth quarter in a row – the worst such spell since the Financial Crisis." ..."
By Wolf Richter, a San Francisco based executive, entrepreneur, start up specialist,
and author, with extensive international work experience. Originally published at
Wolf Street.
Magic trick turns into toxic mix.
Stocks have been on a tear to nowhere this year. Now investors are praying for a Santa rally to
pull them out of the mire. They're counting on desperate amounts of share buybacks that companies
fund by loading up on debt. But the magic trick that had performed miracles over the past few years
is backfiring.
And there's a reason.
IBM has blown $125 billion on buybacks since 2005, more than the $111 billion it invested
in capital expenditures and R&D. It's staggering under its debt, while revenues have been declining
for 14 quarters in a row. It cut its workforce by 55,000 people since 2012. And its stock is
down 38% since March 2013.
Big-pharma icon Pfizer plowed $139 billion into buybacks and dividends in the past decade,
compared to $82 billion in R&D and $18 billion in capital spending. 3M spent $48 billion on buybacks
and dividends, and $30 billion on R&D and capital expenditures. They're all doing it.
"Activist investors" – hedge funds – have been clamoring for it. An investigative report by Reuters,
titled
The Cannibalized Company, lined some of them up:
In March, General Motors Co acceded to a $5 billion share buyback to satisfy investor Harry
Wilson. He had threatened a proxy fight if the auto maker didn't distribute some of the $25 billion
cash hoard it had built up after emerging from bankruptcy just a few years earlier.
DuPont early this year announced a $4 billion buyback program – on top of a $5 billion program
announced a year earlier – to beat back activist investor Nelson Peltz's Trian Fund Management,
which was seeking four board seats to get its way.
In March, Qualcomm Inc., under pressure from hedge fund Jana Partners, agreed to boost its
program to purchase $10 billion of its shares over the next 12 months; the company already had
an existing $7.8 billion buyback program and a commitment to return three quarters of its free
cash flow to shareholders.
And in July, Qualcomm announced 5,000 layoffs. It's hard to innovate when you're trying to please
a hedge fund.
CEOs with a long-term outlook and a focus on innovation and investment, rather than financial
engineering, come under intense pressure.
"None of it is optional; if you ignore them, you go away," Russ Daniels, a tech executive with
15 years at Apple and 13 years at HP, told Reuters. "It's all just resource allocation," he said.
"The situation right now is there are a lot of investors who believe that they can make a better
decision about how to apply that resource than the management of the business can."
Nearly 60% of the 3,297 publicly traded non-financial US companies Reuters analyzed have engaged
in share buybacks since 2010. Last year, the money spent on buybacks and dividends exceeded net income
for the first time in a non-recession period.
This year, for the 613 companies that have reported earnings for fiscal 2015, share buybacks
hit a record $520 billion. They also paid $365 billion in dividends, for a total of $885 billion,
against their combined net income of $847 billion.
Buybacks and dividends amount to 113% of capital spending among companies that have repurchased
shares since 2010, up from 60% in 2000 and from 38% in 1990. Corporate investment is normally a big
driver in a recovery. Not this time! Hence the lousy recovery.
Financial engineering takes precedence over actual engineering in the minds of CEOs and CFOs.
A company buying its own shares creates additional demand for those shares. It's supposed to drive
up the share price. The hoopla surrounding buyback announcements drives up prices too. Buybacks also
reduce the number of outstanding shares, thus increase the earnings per share, even when net income
is declining.
"Serving customers, creating innovative new products, employing workers, taking care of the
environment … are NOT the objectives of firms," sais Itzhak Ben-David, a finance professor of
Ohio State University, a buyback proponent, according to Reuters. "These are components in the
process that have the goal of maximizing shareholders' value."
But when companies load up on debt to fund buybacks while slashing investment in productive
activities and innovation, it has consequences for revenues down the road. And now that magic trick
to increase shareholder value has become a toxic mix. Shares of buyback queens are getting hammered.
Citigroup credit analysts looked into the extent to which this is happening – and why. Christine
Hughes, Chief Investment Strategist at
OtterWood Capital, summarized the Citi report this way: "This dynamic of borrowing from
bondholders to pay shareholders may be coming to an end…."
Their chart (via OtterWood Capital) shows that about half of the cumulative outperformance of
these buyback queens from 2012 through 2014 has been frittered away this year, as their shares, IBM-like,
have swooned...
... ... ...
Selected Skeptical Comments
Mbuna, November 21, 2015 at 7:31 am
Me thinks Wolf is slightly barking up the wrong tree here. What needs to be looked at is how
buy backs affect executive pay. "Shareholder value" is more often than not a ruse?
ng, November 21, 2015 at 8:58 am
probably, in some or most cases, but the effect on the stock is the same.
Alejandro, November 21, 2015 at 9:19 am
Interesting that you mention ruse, relating to "buy-backs"…from my POV, it seems like they've
legalized insider trading or engineered (a) loophole(s).
On a somewhat related perspective on subterfuge. The language of "affordability" has proven
to be insidiously clever. Not only does it reinforce and perpetuate the myth of "deserts", but
camouflages the means of embezzling the means of distribution. Isn't distribution, really, the
only rational purpose of finance, i.e., as a means of distribution as opposed to a means of embezzlement?
Jim, November 21, 2015 at 10:42 am
More nuance and less dogma please. The dogmatic tone really hurts what could otherwise be a
fine but more-qualified position.
"Results of all this financial engineering? Revenues of the S&P 500 companies are falling
for the fourth quarter in a row – the worst such spell since the Financial Crisis."
Eh, no. No question that buybacks *can* be asset-stripping and often are, but unless you tie capital
allocation decisions closer to investment in the business such that they're mutually exclusive,
this is specious and a reach. No one invests if they can't see the return. It would be just as
easy to say that they're buying back stock because revenue is slipping and they have no other
investment opportunities.
Revenues are falling in large part because these largest companies derive an ABSOLUTELY HUGE portion
of their business overseas and the dollar has been ridiculously strong in the last 12-15 months.
Rates are poised to rise, and the easy Fed-inspired rate arbitrage vis a vis stocks and "risk
on" trade are closing. How about a little more context instead of just dogma?
John Malone made a career out of financial engineering, something like 30% annual returns for
the 25 years of his CEO tenure at TCI. Buybacks were a huge part of that.
Perhaps an analysis of the monopolistic positions of so many American businesses that allow them
the wherewithal to underinvest and still buy back huge amounts of stock? If we had a more competitive
economy, companies would have less ability to underinvest. Ultimately, I think buybacks are more
a result than a cause of dysfunction, but certainly not always bad.
"... Can courage trump careerism? I believe that for the forseeable future the answer is "No". People are highly incentivized to take the path of least resistance and simply go along to get along. ..."
"... It would be wrong to excuse the inaction of the Obama DOJ and SEC crews as being the result of some larger "corrosion of our collective values." The capos in those crews are the people doing the corroding, and not one of them was forced to (not) do what they did. Notice that every last one of the initial bunch is presently being paid, by Wall Street, to the tune of millions of dollars per year. They opted to cover up crimes and take a pay-off in exchange. And they are owed punishment. ..."
I'm embedding the text of a short but must-read speech by
Robert Jenkins, a former banker, hedge fund manager, and regulator (Bank of England) who is now
a Senior Fellow at Better Markets. If nothing else, be sure to look at the partial list of bank misconduct
and activities currently under investigation.
Jenkins points out that regulatory reform has fallen
short on multiple fronts, and perhaps the most important is courage. Readers may understandably object
to him giving lip service to the idea that Bernanke acted courageously during the crisis (serving
the needs of banks via unconventional means is not tantamount to courage), but he is a Serious Person,
and making a case against Bernanke would detract from his bigger message about the lack of guts post-crisis.
Now there have been exceptions, like Benjamin Lawsky, Sheila Bair, Gary Gensler, Kara Stein, and
in a more insider capacity, Danny Tarullo. Contrast their examples with the typical cronyism and
lame rationalizations for inaction, particularly by the Department of Justice and the SEC. It's not
obvious how to reverse the corrosion of our collective values. But it is important to remember than
norms can shift much faster than most people think possible, with, for instance, the 1950s followed
by the radicalism and shifts in social values of the 1960s, which conservative elements are still
fighting to roll back.
We do not live in an economy or a polity that breeds or rewards the kind of public-mindedness
and civic virtue that gives you courage. The author thinks the system needs courageous people,
but posits no conception of where they would come from and how they would thrive in the current
system (news flash: they won't). So this is a classic "I see the problem clearly but can't see
that the solution is impossible under the current system" piece.
TMock
Agreed.
For those who desire real solutions, try this…
The Universal Principles of Sustainable Development
In Tavis Smiley's book, My Journey with Maya Angelou, he recounts an ongoing discussion the
two of them entertained throughout the years concerning which trait, Love or Courage, was more
important in realizing a full life. Angelou argued that acting courageously was the most important.
Smiley saw love as the moving force. While important and moving, the discussion has the dead-end
quality of not being able to move past the current system of injustice. I say this because in
the end, both support incremental change to the existing system as the means to bring about social
justice. The powerful elite have perfected the manipulation of incremental change to render it
powerless.
When trying to change a social system, courage is needed. Courage to form a vision of the future
that is based on public-mindedness and civic virtues that bring justice into the world. Our current
leaders are delivering the exact opposite of civic justice. Its time to call them out on their
duplicity, and ignore their vision of the future.
The courage that is needed today is not the courage to stand up to the criminals running things
and somehow make them change. It is the courage to make them irrelevant. Change will come from
the bottom up, one person at a time.
cnchal
And when one shows up, look what happens.
The disturbing fact is that laws have been broken but law breaking has not touched
senior management.
If they knew, then they were complicit. If they did not, then they were incompetent. Alternatively,
if the deserving dozens have indeed been banned from the field let the list be known – that we
might see some of that "professional ostracism" of which Governor Carney speaks. One person
who did lose his position and quite publicly at that was Martin Wheatley, the UK's
courageous conduct enforcer.
Meanwhile the chairman of Europe's largest bank, Douglas Flint at HSBC, remains
in situ – despite having been on the board since 1995; despite having signed off on the
acquisition of Household Finance; and despite having had oversight of tax entangled subsidiaries
in Switzerland and money laundering units in Mexico. Oh, and you'll love this: the recently retired
CEO of Standard Chartered is reportedly an advisor to Her Majesty's Government. Standard Chartered
was among the first to be investigated for violations of rogue regime sanctions. The bank
was fined heavily and may be so again.
Courageous people get fired, which leads to no courageous people left.
GlassHammer
Can courage trump careerism? I believe that for the forseeable future the answer is "No". People are highly incentivized
to take the path of least resistance and simply go along to get along.
susan the other
By extreme necessity (created by total dysfunction) we will probably wind up with planned and
coordinated economies that do not rely on speculation & credit to come up with the next great
idea. Those ideas will be forced to come from the top down. And the problems of unregulated capitalism
frantically chumming for inspiration and extreme profits will shrink back down from a world-eating
monster to just a fox or two.
Oliver Budde
It would be wrong to excuse the inaction of the Obama DOJ and SEC crews as being the result
of some larger "corrosion of our collective values." The capos in those crews are the people doing
the corroding, and not one of them was forced to (not) do what they did. Notice that every last
one of the initial bunch is presently being paid, by Wall Street, to the tune of millions of dollars
per year. They opted to cover up crimes and take a pay-off in exchange. And they are owed punishment.
Malcolm MacLeod, MD
Oliver: I believe that you hit the nail on the head, and
I wholeheartedly agree.
"... The biggest market in the world today is derivatives, money making money without a useful product or service in sight. With the market in derivatives being ten times larger than global GDP we can see that making useful products and providing useful services is nearly irrelevant even today. ..."
"... "When Capitalism reaches its zenith, everyone will be an investor and no one will be doing anything." ..."
"... This problem of debt vs income seems to reflect the ongoing financialization (extraction, not to be confused with financing) of the global economy rather than a focus on capital development of people and the social and productive infrastructure. ..."
"... The "new model" was inefficient (too many fingers in the pie, all of them extracting value), highly risky (often Ponzi finance from the beginning with reverse amortization), and critically dependent on rising home prices. Even leaving aside the pervasive fraud, the model was diametrically opposed to the public interest, that is, the promotion of the capital development of the economy. It left behind whole neighborhoods of abandoned homes as well as new home developments that could not be sold. ..."
"... In my understanding, the Great Depression was an implosion of the credit system after a period of over investment in productive capacity. The investors failing to pay the workers enough to buy the extra goods produced. The projected returns never materialised to pay back the debt… Boom! ..."
"... China still has implicit state control of the banking sector, they may still have the political will to make any bad debt disappear with the puff of a fountain pen. That option is always available to a sovereign. ..."
"... They specialized in mass production the way agribusiness has here, where the production is not where the consumption is. It's as if all the pig farmers of North Carolina and corn growers in Iowa woke up one morning and found out that the people of the Eastern Seaboard had all been put on a starvation diet. The economic results in the grain belt would not be pretty. Ditto China. ..."
"... Except that China ain't Iowa, they can create a middle class as big as Europe and US combined. ..."
"... It's just anathema for the ruling class to give the little guys a break. ..."
"... The global glut of oil and other resources can't just be attributed to rising production in "tight oil". Somehow the Powers that be are hiding a great deal of economic contraction. If the world economy were growing it would need oil, copper, lead, zinc, wood and wood pulp, gold, and other metals as inputs. What I want to know is the extent of the cover-up, and what the global economy really looks like. ..."
"... We are not competent to forecast the future yet. Even the weather surprises us. Its also the case that people who do have relevant data are quite likely to convert that into profit rather than share it. ..."
"... It's the collapse of bonded warehouse copper/aluminum/etc. lending frauds and all that rehypothecation. I don't think it's just a problem in end demand. It's a problem in the derivatives/futures market. ..."
"... Here is a very good case study for why people are always wrong about economy and markets. What happen to all the currency manipulators like Paul Krugman? ..."
We shouldn't be too surprised at falling commodity prices.
Using raw materials to make real things is all very 20th Century, financial engineering is
the stuff of the 21st Century.
When Capitalism reaches its zenith, everyone will be an investor and no one will be doing anything.
Central Bank inflated asset bubbles will provide for all.
The biggest market in the world today is derivatives, money making money without a useful product
or service in sight. With the market in derivatives being ten times larger than global GDP we can see that making
useful products and providing useful services is nearly irrelevant even today.
"When Capitalism reaches its zenith, everyone will be an investor and no one will be doing
anything."
+1000
Ah, that glorious day when we're all rich, rich, RICHer than Midas from interest, dividends, and
rents!!!
Just to amuse myself, I intend to be a dog poop scooper – and pick up some pocket change of 1
million dollars a poop…
This problem of debt vs income seems to reflect the ongoing financialization (extraction,
not to be confused with financing) of the global economy rather than a focus on capital development
of people and the social and productive infrastructure.
I liked how Wray and Mazzucato linked the two in their Mack the Turtle analogy.
"Underlying all of this financialization was the homeowner's income-something like Dr. Seuss's
King Yertle the Turtle-with layer upon layer of financial instruments, all of which were supported
by Mack the turtle's mortgage payments. The system collapsed because Mack fell delinquent on payments
he could not possibly have met: the house was overpriced (and the mortgage could have been for
more than 100% of the price!), the mortgage terms were too unfavorable, the fees collected by
all the links in the home mortgage finance food chain were too large, Mack had to take a cut of
pay and hours as the economy slowed, and the late fees piled up (fraudulently, in many cases as
mortgage servicers "lost" payments).
The "new model" was inefficient (too many fingers in the
pie, all of them extracting value), highly risky (often Ponzi finance from the beginning with
reverse amortization), and critically dependent on rising home prices. Even leaving aside the
pervasive fraud, the model was diametrically opposed to the public interest, that is, the promotion
of the capital development of the economy. It left behind whole neighborhoods of abandoned homes
as well as new home developments that could not be sold."
Interesting, the supposition here is that China is heading for a depression similar to the
Great Depression.
In my understanding, the Great Depression was an implosion of the credit system after a period
of over investment in productive capacity. The investors failing to pay the workers enough to
buy the extra goods produced. The projected returns never materialised to pay back the debt… Boom!
China could well be headed down that road, there isn't enough money getting into the pockets
of ordinary Chinese that's for sure. Elites everywhere just can't bring themselves to give a break
for those at the bottom.
China still has implicit state control of the banking sector, they may still have the political
will to make any bad debt disappear with the puff of a fountain pen. That option is always available
to a sovereign.
Then again they may just realize in time, someone needs to be paid to buy all the junk.
They were counting on us and the Europeans, but we've let them down. The race to the bottom
erased the global middle class that could buy Chinese consumer products.
They specialized in mass
production the way agribusiness has here, where the production is not where the consumption is.
It's as if all the pig farmers of North Carolina and corn growers in Iowa woke up one morning
and found out that the people of the Eastern Seaboard had all been put on a starvation diet. The
economic results in the grain belt would not be pretty. Ditto China.
The global glut of oil and other resources can't just be attributed to rising production in
"tight oil". Somehow the Powers that be are hiding a great deal of economic contraction. If the
world economy were growing it would need oil, copper, lead, zinc, wood and wood pulp, gold, and
other metals as inputs. What I want to know is the extent of the cover-up, and what the global
economy really looks like.
Where were you in 2011? I was here reading NC. One of the Links posted was a graph of the abrupt
shutdown of China's economy – It was a cliffscape.
Very long vertical drop off. So dramatic I
could hardly believe it and I said I was having trouble catching my breath. Another commenter
said it looked like a tsunami. Of exported deflation as it turns out.
Things have been extreme
since 2007 when the banksters began to fall; 2008 when Lehman crashed (just after the Beijing
Olympics, how convenient for China…) and credit shut down. China was doin' just fine until then.
In spite of the irrational mess in global capitalist eonomix.
The only way to remedy it was to
shut it down I guess. That's really not very fine-tuned for a system the whole world relies on,
is it?
Proceeds from the laughable assumption that official China economic numbers 'may not be as
reliable as we'd like' rather than being 'persistently and hugely faked,' (especially during slowdowns)
and ignores that the housing-market slowdown and huge unsold-RE-overhang will also necessarily
be accompanied by a price crash, hence a huge amount of toxic debt being exposed – really basic
boom/bust dynamics.
And no demographic boom coming to the rescue, either. (But he does repeatedly
invoke the magic 'service economy boom' mantra mentioned by Ilargi.) Thankfully most of the commenters
rightly take the author to task.
Firstly, its only China's buying that stops oil falling even further Sr Ilargi.
Secondly its a Peoples' Republic – employment must be maintained.
We are not competent to forecast the future yet. Even the weather surprises us. Its also the
case that people who do have relevant data are quite likely to convert that into profit rather
than share it.
Received a small airmail parcel today containing some replacement attachments for my Dremel
moto-tool … package was addressed from Shenzen, specifically the "Fuming Manufacturing Park".
It's the collapse of bonded warehouse copper/aluminum/etc. lending frauds and all that rehypothecation.
I don't think it's just a problem in end demand. It's a problem in the derivatives/futures market.
Here is a very good case study for why people are always wrong about economy and markets. What happen to all the currency manipulators like Paul Krugman?
"The wealth of another region excites their greed; and if it is weak, their lust for power as
well. Nothing from the rising to the setting of the sun is enough for them.
Among all others only they are compelled to attack the poor as well as the rich. Robbery, rape,
and slaughter they falsely call empire; and where they make a desert, they call it peace."
Tacitus, Agricola
People are discouraged and disillusioned after almost thirty years of distorted governance, specially
in the aftermath of the 'Hope and Change' which quickly became 'Vain Hope for Change.'
Most cannot admit that their guys were in the pockets of Big Defense, Big Pharma, Big Energy, and
Wall Street.
The real question about Hillary comes down to this. Can you trust her to do what she
says she will do, the right things for her putative constituents and not her big money donors and
paymasters, once she takes office?
Or will that poor family who left the White House 'broke' and then mysteriously obtained a fortune
of over $100 million in the following years, thanks to enormous payments for 'speeches' from large
financial firms and huge donations to their Trust once again take care of the hand that pays them
the most?
This is not to say that there is a better alternative amongst the leading Republican candidates,
who have been and are still under the same types of payment arrangements, only with different people
signing the checks.
Or we could skip the middlemen entirely and just directly elect one of New York's most prominent
of their narcissist class directly, instead of another witless stooge of big money, and hope for
something different? And how will that likely work out for us?
It is an exceptionally hard time to be a human being in this great nation of ours.
And so what ought we to do? Wallow in cynicism and the sweet sickness of misanthropy and despair?
Vote strictly on the hope of our own narrow self-interest no matter the broader and longer term consequences,
and then face the inevitable blowback from injustice and repression?
Give up on our grandchildren and children because we are too tired and interested in our own short
term comfort? Too filled with selfishness, anger and hate to see straight, and do anything
but turn ourselves into mindless animals to escape the pain of being truly human? Do no thinking,
and just follow orders? This latter impulse has taken whole nations of desperate people into the
abyss.
Or do we stop wallowing in our specialness and self-pity, and 'stand on the shoulders of giants'
and confront what virtually every generation and every individual has had to wrestle with since the
beginning of recorded time?
Do we fall, finally stricken with grief in our blindness, on the road to Damascus and say at long
last, 'Lord, what then wilt thou have me to do?'
This is the question that circumstance is posing to us. And hopefully we will we heed the answer
that has been already given, to be 'steadfast, unshaken, always abounding in the work of the Lord,
knowing that in Him our labor is not in vain.'
And the touchstone of the alloy of our actions is love.
And so we have before us what Franklin Roosevelt so aptly characterized as our own 'rendezvous with
destiny.'
"... When it comes to the hubris of corporate chief financial officers, who have been more than happy leveraging up balance sheets in order to reward shareholders, the analysts didn't mince words. We find that corporate CFOs historically are inherently backward-looking when setting corporate financing decisions, relying on past extrapolations of economic activity, even when current market pricing suggests future investment returns may be lower, they wrote. ..."
"... That leaves downgrades by credit-rating agencies as one catalyst that could spark a turn in the cycle; downgrades of corporate credit have already exceeded upgrades this year at some of the bond graders. ..."
"... Might the rating agencies spoil the party? they asked. In the end we believe strong economic interests will overwhelm rationale considerations. Rating agencies remain heavily dependent on new issuance activity, face significant competitive pressures (as issuers will select two of three ratings) and appear unconcerned with where we are in the credit cycle (e.g., see Moody's latest conference call). ..."
"... With UBS having taken all those potential catalysts firmly off the table, that leaves just fundamentals to worry about. Who, for the past few years, has been worrying about those? [Sarcasm? - Editor] ..."
It's no secret that companies have been taking advantage of years of low interest rates to
sell cheap debt to eager investors, locking in lower funding costs that have allowed them to go
on a spree of share buybacks and mergers and acquisitions.
With fresh evidence that investors are becoming more discerning when it comes to corporate credit
as they approach the first interest rate rise in the U.S. in almost a decade, it's worth asking
whether anything might stop the trend of companies assuming more and more debt on their balance
sheets.
... ... ...
For a start, they note that higher funding costs are unlikely to dissuade companies from
continuing to tap the debt market since, even after a rate hike, financing costs will remain near
historic lows. "The predominant reason is the Fed[eral Reserve] is anchoring low interest rates,"
the analysts wrote.
When it comes to the hubris of corporate chief financial officers, who have been more than
happy leveraging up balance sheets in order to reward shareholders, the analysts didn't mince
words. "We find that corporate CFOs historically are inherently backward-looking when setting
corporate financing decisions, relying on past extrapolations of economic activity, even when
current market pricing suggests future investment returns may be lower," they wrote.
"Several management teams have been on the road indicating higher funding costs of up to 100 to
200 basis points would not impede attractive M&A deals, in their view."
Higher market volatility has often been cited as one factor that could knock the corporate
credit market off its seat...
That leaves downgrades by credit-rating agencies as one catalyst that could spark a turn
in the cycle; downgrades of corporate credit have already exceeded upgrades this year at some of
the bond graders. Here, Mish and Caprio offered some stunningly blunt words. "Might the
rating agencies spoil the party?" they asked. "In the end we believe strong economic interests
will overwhelm rationale considerations. Rating agencies remain heavily dependent on new issuance
activity, face significant competitive pressures (as issuers will select two of three ratings)
and appear unconcerned with where we are in the credit cycle (e.g., see Moody's latest conference
call)."
With UBS having taken all those potential catalysts firmly off the table, that leaves just
fundamentals to worry about. Who, for the past few years, has been worrying about those?
[Sarcasm? - Editor]
"Bottom line, we struggle to envision an end to the releveraging phenomenon-absent a
substantial correction in corporate earnings and/or broader risk assets," concluded the UBS
analysts.
Hillary tried to play the gender card and the 9/11 card in an attempt to escape to accusation
(actually a provable fact) that she is a Wall Street sheel. "Why has Wall Street been the major
campaign contributor to Hillary Clinton?" Sanders asked loudly, concluding that big contributors only
give because "They expect to get something. Everybody knows it."
...Clinton asserted that under her
bank-regulation plan, if Wall Street institutions don't play by the rules "I will break them up."
Sanders minced her defense into peaces: "Wall Street play by the rules? Who are we kidding?!
The business model for Wall Street is fraud," Sanders fired back.
A short time later, the moderators got a tweet calling her out for "invoking 9/11" to justify taking
donations from Wall Street. One tweeter said they'd never seen a candidate "invoke 9/11 to champion
Wall Street. What does that have to do with taking big donations," Clinton was asked.
Sanders said that there's no getting around the fact that Wall Street has become a dominant political
power and its "business model is greed and fraud, and for the sake of our economy major banks must be
broken up."
Bernie compared himself to Ike, scoring one of the few real laugh lines of the night. CBS News moderator
Nancy Cordes asked Sanders how he's going to pay for expensive programs such as his tuition-free college
plan. By taxing the wealthy and big corporations, he says. Asked how much of a tax hike he's planning
to stick them with, he responded, "We haven't come up with an exact number yet … But it will not be
as high as the number under Dwight D. Eisenhower which was 90%," Sanders said of the Republican president.
"I'm not that much of a socialist compared to Eisenhower," Sanders concluded, to guffaws from the
crowd.
Senator Sanders, let me just follow this line of thinking. You've criticized then Senator Clinton's
vote. Do you have anything to criticize in the way she performed as secretary of state?
BERNIE SANDERS:
I think we have a disagreement. And-- the disagreement is that not only did I vote against the
war in Iraq, if you look at history, John, you will find that regime change-- whether it was in the
early '50s in Iran, whether it was toppling Salvador Allende in Chile or whether it was overthrowing
the government Guatemala way back when-- these invasions, these-- these toppling of governments,
regime changes have unintended consequences. I would say that on this issue I'm a little bit more
conservative than the secretary.
JOHN DICKERSON:
Here, let me go--
MARTIN O'MALLEY:
John, may I-- may I interject here? Secretary Clinton also said that we left the h-- it was not
just the invasion of Iraq which Secretary Clinton voted for and has since said was a big mistake,
and indeed it was. But it was also the cascading effects that followed that.
It was also the disbanding of-- many elements of the Iraqi army that are now showing up as part
of ISIS. It was-- country after country without making the investment in human intelligence to understand
who the new leaders were and the new forces were that are coming up. We need to be much more far
f-- thinking in this new 21st century era of-- of nation state failures and conflict. It's not just
about getting rid of a single dictator. It is about understanding the secondary and third consequences
that fall next.
JOHN DICKERSON:
Governor O'Malley, I wanna ask you a question and you can add whatever you'd like to. But let
me ask you, is the world too dangerous a place for a governor who has no foreign policy experience?
MARTIN O'MALLEY:
John, the world is a very dangerous place. But the world is not too dangerous of a place for the
United States of America provided we act according to our principles, provided we act intelligently.
I mean, let's talk about this arc of-- of instability that Secretary Clinton talked about.
Libya is now a mess. Syria is a mess. Iraq is a mess. Afghanistan is a mess. As Americans we have
shown ourselves-- to have the greatest military on the face of the planet. But we are not so very
good at anticipating threats and appreciating just how difficult it is to build up stable democracies
and make the investments in sustainable development that we must as the nation if we are to attack
the root causes of-- of the source of-- of instability.
And I wanted to add one other thing, John, and I think it's important for all of us on this stage.
I was in Burlington, Iowa and a mom of a service member of ours who served two duties in Iraq said,
"Governor O'Malley, please, when you're with your other candidates and colleagues on-- on stage,
please don't use the term boots on Iraq-- on the ground. Please don't use the term boots on the ground.
My son is not a pair of boots on the ground."
These are American soldiers and we fail them when we fail to take into account what happens the
day after a dictator falls. And when we fall to act with a whole of government approach with sustainable
development, diplomacy and our economic power in-- alignment with our principles.
BERNIE SANDERS:
But when you talk about the long-term consequences of war let's talk about the men and women who
came home from war. The 500,000 who came home with P.T.S.D. and traumatic brain injury. And I would
hope that in the midst of all of this discussion this country makes certain that we do not turn our
backs on the men and women who put their lives on the line to defend us. And that we stand with them
as they have stood with us.
JOHN DICKERSON:
Senator Sanders, you've-- you've said that the donations to Secretary Clinton are compromising.
So what did you think of her answer?
BERNIE SANDERS:
Not good enough. (LAUGH) Here's the story. I mean, you know, let's not be naive about it. Why
do-- why over her political career has Wall Street a major-- the major-- campaign contributor to
Hillary Clinton? You know, maybe they're dumb and they don't know what they're gonna get. But I don't
think so.
Here is the major issue when we talk about Wall Street, it ain't complicated. You got six financial
institutions today that have assets of 56 per-- equivalent to 50-- six percent of the GDP in America.
They issue two thirds of the credit cards and one third of the mortgages. If Teddy Roosevelt, the
good republican, were alive today you know what he'd say? "Break them up. Reestablish (APPLAUSE)
(UNINTEL) like Teddy Roosevelt (UNINTEL) that is leadership. So I am the only candidate up here that
doesn't have a super PAC. I'm not asking Wall Street or the billionaires for money. I will break
up these banks, support community banks and credit unions-- credit unions. That's the future of banking
in America.
JOHN DICKERSON:
Quick follow-up because you-- you-- (APPLAUSE) Secretary Clinton, you'll get a chance to respond.
You said they know what they're going to get. What are they gonna get?
BERNIE SANDERS:
I have never heard a candidate, never, who's received huge amounts of money from oil, from coal,
from Wall Street, from the military industrial complex, not one candidate, go, "OH, these-- these
campaign contributions will not influence me. I'm gonna be independent." Now, why do they make millions
of dollars of campaign contributions? They expect to get something. Everybody knows that. Once again,
I am running a campaign differently than any other candidate. We are relying on small campaign donors,
$750,000 and $30 apiece. That's who I'm indebted to.
BERNIE SANDERS:
Here's-- she touches on two broad issues. It's not just Wall Street. It's campaigns, a corrupt
campaign finance system. And it is easy to talk the talk about ending-- Citizens United. But what
I think we need to do is show by example that we are prepared to not rely on large corporations and
Wall Street for campaign contributions.
And that's what I'm doing. In terms of Wall Street I respectfully disagree with you, Madame Secretary
in the sense that the issue is when you have such incredible power and such incredible wealth, when
you have Wall Street spending five billion dollars over a ten year period to get re-- to get deregulated
the only answer that I know is break them up, reestablish Glass Steagall.
JOHN DICKERSON:
Senator, we have to get Senator O'Malley in. But no-- along with your answer how many Wall Street--
veterans would you have in your administration?
MARTIN O'MALLEY:
Well, I'll tell you what, I've said this before, I-- I don't-- I believe that we actually need
some new economic thinking in the White House. And I would not have Robert Rubin or Larry Summers
with all due respect, Secretary Clinton, to you and to them, back on my council of economic advisors.
HILLARY CLINTON:
Anyone (UNINTEL PHRASE).
MARTIN O'MALLEY:
If they were architects, sure, we'll-- we'll have-- we'll have an inclusive group. But I won't
be taking my orders from Wall Street. And-- look, let me say this-- I put out a proposal-- I was
on the front line when people lost their homes, when people lost their jobs.
I was on the front lines as the governor-- fighting against-- fighting that battle. Our economy
was wrecked by the big banks of Wall Street. And Secretary Clinton-- when you put out your proposal
(LAUGH) on Wall Street it was greeted by many as quote/ unquote weak tea. It is weak tea. It is not
what the people expect of our country. We expect that our president will protect the main street
economy from excesses on Wall Street. And that's why Bernie's right. We need to reinstate a modern
version of Glass Steagall and we should have done it already. (APPLAUSE)
KATHIE OBRADOVICH:
And I will also go after executives who are responsible for the decisions that have such bad consequences
for our country. (APPLAUSE)
BERNIE SANDERS:
Look, I don't know-- with all due respect to the secretary, Wall Street played by the rules. Who
are we kidding? The business model of Wall Street is fraud. That's what it is. And we-- we have--
(APPLAUSE) and let me make this promise, one of the problems we have had I think all-- all Americans
understand it is whether it's republican administration or democratic administration we have seen
Wall Street and Goldman Sachs dominate administrations. Here's my promise Wall Street representatives
will not be in my cabinet. (APPLAUSE)
BERNIE SANDERS:
But let's-- let me hear it-- if there's any difference between the secretary and myself. I have
voted time and again to-- for-- for the background checks. And I wanna see it improved and expanded.
I wanna see them do away with the gun show loophole. In 1988 I lost an election because I said we
should not have assault weapons on the streets of America.
We have to do away with the strong man proposal. We need radical changes in mental health in America.
So somebody who's suicidal or homicidal can get the emergency care they need. But we have-- I don't
know that there's any disagreement here.
MARTIN O'MALLEY:
John, this is another one of those examples. Look, we have-- we have a lot of work to do. And
we're the only nation on the planet that buries as many of our people from gun violence as we do
in my own state after they-- the children in that Connecticut classroom were gunned down, we passed
comprehensive-- gun safety legislation, background checks, ban on assault weapons.
And senator, I think we do need to repeal that immunity that you granted to the gun industry.
But Secretary Clinton, you've been on three sides of this. When you ran in 2000 you said that we
needed federal robust regulations. Then in 2008 you were portraying yourself as Annie Oakley and
saying that we don't need those regulation on the federal level. And now you're coming back around
here. So John, there's a big difference between leading by polls and leading with principle. We got
it done in my state by leading with principle. And that's what we need to do as a party, comprehensive
gun--
MARTIN O'MALLEY:
John, there is not-- a serious economist who would disagree that the six big banks of Wall Street
have taken on so much power and that all of us are still on the hook to bail them out on their bad
debts. That's not capitalism, Secretary Clinton-- Clinton, that's crummy capitalism.
That's a wonderful business model if you place that bet-- the taxpayers bail you out. But if you
place good ones you pocket it. Look, I don't believe that the model-- there's lots of good people
that work in finance, Secretary Sanders. But Secretary Clinton, we need to step up. And we need to
protect main street from Wall Street. And you can't do that by-- by campaigning as the candidate
of Wall Street. I am not the candidate of Wall Street. And I encourage--
BERNIE SANDERS:
No, it's not throwing-- it is an extraordinary investment for this country. In Germany, many other
countries do it already. In fact, if you remember, 50, 60 years ago, University of California, City
University of New York were virtually tuition-free. Here it's a new (?) story.
It's not just that college graduates should be $50,000 or $100,000 in debt. More importantly,
I want kids in Burlington, Vermont, or Baltimore, Maryland, who are in the six grade or the eighth
grade who don't have a lot of money, whose parents that-- like my parents, may never have gone to
college. You know what I want, Kevin? I want those kids to know that if they study hard, they do
their homework, regardless of the income of their families, they will in fact be able to great a
college education. Because we're gonna make public colleges and universities tuition-free. This is
revolutionary for education in America. It will give hope for millions of young people.
BERNIE SANDERS:
It's not gonna happen tomorrow. And it's probably not gonna happen until you have real campaign finance
reform and get rid of all these super PACs and the power of the insurance companies and the drug
companies. But at the end of the day, Nancy, here is a question. In this great country of ours, with
so much intelligence, with so much capabilities, why do we remain the only (UNINTEL) country on earth
that does not guarantee healthcare to all people as a right?
Why do we continue to get ripped off by the drug companies who can charge us any prices they want?
Why is it that we are spending per capita far, far more than Canada, which is a hundred miles away
from my door, that guarantees healthcare to all people? It will not happen tomorrow. But when millions
of people stand up and are prepared to take on the insurance companies and the drug companies, it
will happen and I will lead that effort. Medicare for all, single-payer system is the way we should
go. (APPLAUSE)
BERNIE SANDERS:
Well-- I had the honor of being chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Veteran Affairs for two
years. And in that capacity, I met with just an extraordinary group of people from World War II,
from Korea, Vietnam, all of the wars. People who came back from Iraq and Afghanistan without legs,
without arms. And I've been determined to do everything that I could to make VA healthcare the best
in the world, to expand benefits to the men and women who put their lives on the line to defend (UNINTEL).
And we brought together legislation, supported by the American Legion, the VFW, the DAV, Vietnam
Vets, all of the veterans' organizations, which was comprehensive, clearly the best (UNINTEL) for
veterans' legislation brought forth in decades. I could only get two Republican votes on that. And
after 56 votes, we didn't get 60. So what I have to do then is go back and start working on a bill
that wasn't the bill that I wanted.
To (UNINTEL) people like John McCain, to (UNINTEL) people like Jeff Miller, the Republican chairman
of the House, and work on a bill. It wasn't the bill that I wanted. But yet, it turns out to be one
of the most significant pieces of veterans' legislation passed in recent history. You know, the crisis
was, I lost what I wanted. But I have to stand up and come back and get the best that we could.
JOHN DICKERSON:
All right, Senator Sanders. We end-- (APPLAUSE) we've ended the evening on crisis, which underscores
and reminds us again of what happened last night. Now let's move to closing statements, Governor
O'Malley?
MARTIN O'MALLEY:
John, thank you. And to all of the people of Iowa, for the role that you've performed in this
presidential selection process, if you believe that our country's problems and the threats that we
face in this world can only be met with new thinking, new and fresh approaches, then I ask you to
join my campaign. Go onto MartinOMalley.com. No hour is too short, no dollar too small.
If you-- we will not solve our nation's problems by resorting to the divisive ideologies of our
past or by returning to polarizing figures from our past. We are at the threshold of a new era of
American progress. That it's going to require that we act as Americans, based on our principles.
Here at home, making an economy that works for all of us.
And also, acting according to our principles and constructing a new foreign policy of engagement
and collaboration and doing a much better job of identifying threats before they back us into military
corners. There is new-- no challenge too great for the United States to confront, provided we have
the ability and the courage to put forward new leadership that can move us to those better and safer
and more prosperous (UNINTEL). I need your help. Thank you very, very much. (APPLAUSE)
BERNIE SANDERS:
This country today has more income and wealth inequality than any major country on earth. We have
a corrupt campaign finance system, dominated by super PACs. We're the only major country on earth
that doesn't guarantee healthcare to all people. We have the highest rate of childhood poverty. And
we're the only in the world, (UNINTEL) the only country that doesn't guarantee paid family and medical
leave. That's not the America that I think we should be.
But in order to bring about the changes that we need, we need a political revolution. Millions
of people are gonna have to stand up, turn off the TVs, get involved in the political process, and
tell the big monied interests that we are taking back our country. Please go to BernieSanders.com,
please become part of the political revolution. Thank you. (CHEERING) (APPLAUSE)
"... Ahmed Chalabi, an Iraqi politician accused of providing false information that led to the United States toppling longtime dictator Saddam Hussein in the 2003 invasion, died on Tuesday of a heart attack, state television and two parliamentarians said. ..."
"... "The neo-cons wanted to make a case for war and he [Chalabi] was somebody who is willing to provide them with information that would help their cause," Ali Khedery, who was the longest continuously-serving American official in Iraq in the years following the 2003 U.S.-led invasion, told Al Arabiya News. ..."
Ahmed Chalabi, an Iraqi politician accused of providing false information that led to the
United States toppling longtime dictator Saddam Hussein in the 2003 invasion, died on Tuesday of
a heart attack, state television and two parliamentarians said.
Attendants found the controversial lawmaker, 71, dead in bed in his Baghdad home, according to
parliament official Haitham al-Jabouri.
... ... ...
During his heyday, the smooth-talking Chalabi was widely seen as the man who helped push the
U.S. and its main ally Britain into invading Iraq in 2003, with information that Saddam's
government had weapons of mass destruction, claims that were eventually discredited.
... ... ...
Chalabi had also said Saddam - known for his secularist Baathist ideology - had ties with
al-Qaeda.
After Saddam's fall by U.S.-led coalition forces, Chalabi returned from exile in Britain and the
United States. Despite having been considered as a potential candidate for the powerful post of
prime minister in the immediate aftermath of Saddam's 24-year reign, the politician never managed
to rise to the top of Iraq's stormy, sectarian-driven political landscape.
His eventual fallout with his former American allies also hurt his chances of becoming an Iraqi
leader.
"The neo-cons wanted to make a case for war and he [Chalabi] was somebody who is willing to
provide them with information that would help their cause," Ali Khedery, who was the longest
continuously-serving American official in Iraq in the years following the 2003 U.S.-led invasion,
told Al Arabiya News.
"... The President, as commander in chief, shapes US foreign policy: indeed, in our post-constitutional era, now that Congress has abdicated its responsibility, he has the de facto power to single-handedly take us into war. Which is why, paraphrasing Trotsky , you may not be interested in politics, but politics is certainly interested in you. ..."
"... PAUL: … How is it conservative to add a trillion dollars in military expenditures? You can not be a conservative if youre going to keep promoting new programs that youre not going to pay for. ..."
"... Here, in one dramatic encounter, were two worldviews colliding: the older conservative vision embodied by Rand Paul, which puts domestic issues like fiscal solvency first, and the internationalist stance taken by what used to be called Rockefeller Republicans , and now goes under the neoconservative rubric, which puts the maintenance and expansion of Americas overseas empire – dubbed world leadership by Rubios doppelganger, Jeb Bush – over and above any concerns over budgetary common sense. ..."
"... Rubios proposed military budget – $696 billion – represents a $35 billion increase over what the Pentagon is requesting ..."
"... Pauls too-clever-by-half legislative maneuvering may have effectively exposed Rubio – and Sen. Tom Cotton, Marcos co-pilot on this flight into fiscal profligacy – as the faux-conservative that he is, but it evaded the broader question attached to the issue of military spending: what are we going to do with all that shiny-new military hardware? Send more weapons to Ukraine? Outfit an expeditionary force to re-invade Iraq and venture into Syria? This brings to mind Madeleine Albrights infamous remark directed at Gen. Colin Powell: Whats the point of having this superb military youre always talking about if we cant use it? ..."
"... Speaking of Trumpian hot air: Paul showed up The Donald for the ignorant blowhard he is by pointing out, after another of Trumps jeremiads aimed at the Yellow Peril, that China is not a party to the trade deal, which is aimed at deflecting Beijing. That was another shining moment for Paul, who successfully juxtaposed his superior knowledge to Trumps babbling. ..."
"... If Putin wants to go and knock the hell out of ISIS, I am all for it, one-hundred percent, and I cant understand how anybody would be against it. ..."
"... Trump, for all his contradictions, gives voice to the isolationist populism that Rubio and his neocon confederates despise, and which is implanted so deeply in the American consciousness. Why us? Why are we paying everybodys bills? Why are we fighting everybody elses wars? Its a bad deal! ..."
"... This is why the neocons hate Trumps guts even more than they hate Paul. The former, after all, is the frontrunner. What the War Party fears is that Trumps contradictory mixture of bluster – bigger, better, stronger! – and complaints that our allies are taking advantage of us means a victory for the dreaded isolationists at the polls. ..."
"... its election season, the one time – short of when were about to invade yet another country – when the American people are engaged with the foreign policy issues of the day. And what we are seeing is a rising tide of disgust with our policy of global intervention – in a confused inchoate sense, in the case of Trump, and in a focused, self-conscious, occasionally eloquent and yet still slightly confused and inconsistent way in the case of Sen. Paul. Either way, the real voice of the American heartland is being heard. ..."
"... Trump has rocked the boat and raised some issues and viewpoints that none of the other bought and paid for candidates would ever have raised. Has he changed the national discussion on these issues? At least he woken some people up. ..."
"... The sentence of We relied on the stupidity of the American voter resonates. ..."
"... What you did, was you fell for the oldest press trick in the book. Its called: out of context . Thats is where they play back only a segment of what someone says, only a part of what they want you to hear, so you will draw the wrong conclusion. What Trump said {had you listened to ALL of what he said} was that he was going to TAKE ISILS OIL. Oil is the largest source of revenue for them {then comes the CIA money}. If you were to remove their oil revenues from them, they would be seriously hurting for cash to fund their machine. I dont have a problem with that. ..."
"... The thing about understanding the attack on The Donald is understanding what he is NOT. Namely he is not CFR connected ..."
"... The attacks on Trump have been relentless yet he is still maintaining his position in the polls. ..."
"... The goal is to have a CFR candidate in both the GOP and Dem fold. Although Hillary is not a CFR member ostensibly Slick Willie has been for more than 20 years and his Administration was rife with them...Hello Rubin and Glass Steagal!!..as is Chelsea... a newly elected member. ..."
"... [American exceptionalism] is a reaction to the inability of people to understand global complexity or important issues like American energy dependency. Therefore, they search for simplistic sources of comfort and clarity. And the people that they are now selecting to be, so to speak, the spokespersons of their anxieties are, in most cases, stunningly ignorant. ..."
"... Yes, I have also seen the new golden boy regaled in the media. Lets see where he goes. I wonder if anyone represents the American people any better than the corrupt piece of dried up persimmon that is Hillary? ..."
"... With JEB polling in single digits and hopelessly befuddled, Rubio is the Great Hispanic Hope of the establishment Republocrats. He is being well-pimped, is all. Paul is clearly more intelligent, more articulate, and more well-informed; Trump is more forceful and popular (but independent!). Neither suits an establishment that wants to hold the reins behind the throne. ..."
Most Americans don't think much about politics, let alone foreign policy issues, as they go about
their daily lives. It's not that they don't care: it's just that the daily grind doesn't permit most
people outside of Washington, D.C. the luxury of contemplating the fate of nations with any regularity.
There is one exception, however, and that is during election season, and specifically – when it comes
to foreign policy – every four years, when the race for the White House begins to heat up. The
President, as commander in chief, shapes US foreign policy: indeed, in our post-constitutional era,
now that Congress has abdicated its responsibility, he has the de facto power to single-handedly
take us into war. Which is why,
paraphrasing Trotsky, you may not be interested in politics, but politics is certainly interested
in you.
The most recent episode of the continuing GOP reality show, otherwise known as the presidential
debates, certainly gave us a glimpse of what we are in for if the candidates on that stage actually
make it into the Oval Office – and, folks, it wasn't pretty, for the most part. But there were plenty
of bright spots.
This was supposed to have been a debate about economics, but in the Age of Empire there is no
real division between economic and foreign policy issues. That was brought home by the
collision between Marco Rubio and Rand Paul about half way through the debate when Rubio touted
his child tax credit program as being "pro-family." A newly-aggressive and articulate Rand
Paul jumped in with this:
"Is it conservative to have $1 trillion in transfer payments – a new welfare program that's
a refundable tax credit? Add that to Marco's plan for $1 trillion in new military spending, and
you get something that looks, to me, not very conservative."
Rubio's blow-dried exterior seemed to fray momentarily, as he gave his "it's for the children"
reply:
"But if you invest it in your children, in the future of America and strengthening your
family, we're not going to recognize that in our tax code? The family is the most important institution
in society. And, yes…
"PAUL: Nevertheless, it's not very conservative, Marco."
Stung to the quick, Rubio played what he thought was his trump card:
"I know that Rand is a committed isolationist. I'm not. I believe the world is a stronger
and a better place, when the United States is the strongest military power in the world.
"PAUL: Yeah, but, Marco! … How is it conservative … to add a trillion-dollar expenditure
for the federal government that you're not paying for?
"RUBIO: Because…
"PAUL: … How is it conservative to add a trillion dollars in military expenditures? You
can not be a conservative if you're going to keep promoting new programs that you're not going
to pay for.
(APPLAUSE)"
Here, in one dramatic encounter, were two worldviews colliding: the older conservative vision
embodied by Rand Paul, which puts domestic issues like fiscal solvency first, and the "internationalist"
stance taken by what used to be called
Rockefeller Republicans,
and now goes under the neoconservative rubric, which puts the maintenance and expansion of America's
overseas empire – dubbed "world
leadership" by Rubio's doppelganger, Jeb Bush – over and above any concerns over budgetary common
sense.
Rubio then descended into waving the bloody shirt and evoking Trump's favorite bogeyman – the
Yellow Peril – to justify his budget-busting:
"We can't even have an economy if we're not safe. There are radical jihadists in the Middle
East beheading people and crucifying Christians. A radical Shia cleric in Iran trying to get a
nuclear weapon, the Chinese taking over the South China Sea…"
If the presence of the Islamic State in the Middle East precludes us from having an economy, then
those doing their Christmas shopping
early this year don't seem to be aware of it. As for the Iranians and their alleged quest for
nuclear weapons, IAEA inspectors
are at this
very moment verifying
the complete absence of such an effort – although Sen. Paul, who
stupidly opposed the Iran deal, is in
no position to point this out. As for the fate of the South China Sea – if we could take a poll,
I wonder how many Americans would rather have their budget out of balance in order to keep the Chinese
from constructing artificial islands a few miles off their own coastline. My guess: not many.
Playing the "isolationist" card got Rubio nowhere: I doubt if a third of the television audience
even knows what that term is supposed to mean. It may resonate in Washington, but out in the heartland
it carries little if any weight with people more concerned about their shrinking bank accounts than
the possibility that the South China Sea might fall to … the Chinese.
Ted Cruz underscored his sleaziness (and, incidentally, his entire election strategy) by jumping
in and claiming the "middle ground" between Rubio's fulsome internationalism and Paul's call to rein
in our extravagant military budget – by siding with Rubio. We can do what Rubio wants to do – radically
increase military expenditures – but first, he averred, we have to cut sugar subsidies so we can
afford it. This was an attack on Rubio's
enthusiasm
for sugar subsidies, without which, avers the Senator from the state that
produces the most sugar, "we lose the capacity to produce our own food, at which point we're
at the mercy of a foreign country for food security." Yes, there's a jihadist-Iranian-Chinese conspiracy
to deprive America of its sweet tooth – but not if President Rubio can stop it!
Cruz is a master at prodding the weaknesses of his opponents, but his math is way off: sugar subsidies
have cost us some $15 billion since 2008. Rubio's proposed military budget –
$696 billion – represents a $35 billion increase over what the
Pentagon is requesting. Cutting sugar subsidies – an unlikely prospect, especially given
the support of Republicans of Rubio's ilk for the program – won't pay for it.
However, if we want to go deeper into those weeds, Sen. Paul also
endorses the $696 billion figure, but touts the fact that his proposal comes with
cuts that will supposedly pay for the hike. This is something all those military contractors
can live with, and so everybody's happy, at least on the Republican side of the aisle, and yet the
likelihood of cutting $21 billion from "international affairs," never mind $20 billion from social
services, is unlikely to garner enough support from his own party – let alone the Democrats – to
get through Congress. So it's just more of Washington's kabuki theater: all symbolism,
no action.
Paul's too-clever-by-half legislative maneuvering may have effectively exposed Rubio – and
Sen. Tom Cotton, Marco's co-pilot on this flight into fiscal profligacy – as the faux-conservative
that he is, but it evaded the broader question attached to the issue of military spending: what are
we going to do with all that shiny-new military hardware? Send more weapons to Ukraine? Outfit an
expeditionary force to re-invade Iraq and venture into Syria? This brings to mind Madeleine Albright's
infamous remark
directed at Gen. Colin Powell: "What's the point of having this superb military you're always talking
about if we can't use it?"
In this way, Paul undermines his own case against global intervention – and even his own eloquent
argument, advanced in answer to Rubio's contention that increasing the military budget would make
us "safer":
"I do not think we are any safer from bankruptcy court. As we go further, and further into
debt, we become less, and less safe. This is the most important thing we're going to talk about
tonight. Can you be a conservative, and be liberal on military spending? Can you be for unlimited
military spending, and say, Oh, I'm going to make the country safe? No, we need a safe country,
but, you know, we spend more on our military than the next ten countries combined."
I have to say Sen. Paul shone at this debate. His arguments were clear, consistent, and made with
calm forcefulness. He distinguished himself from the pack, including Trump, who said "I agree with
Marco, I agree with Ted," and went on to mouth his usual "bigger, better, stronger" hyperbole that
amounted to so much hot hair air.
Speaking of Trumpian hot air: Paul showed up The Donald for the ignorant blowhard he is by
pointing out, after another of Trump's jeremiads aimed at the Yellow Peril, that China is not a party
to the trade deal, which is aimed at deflecting Beijing. That was another shining moment for Paul,
who successfully juxtaposed his superior knowledge to Trump's babbling.
This obsession with China's allegedly malign influence extended to the next round, when foreign
policy was again the focus. In answer to a question about whether he supports President Obama's plan
to send Special Operations forces to Syria, Ben Carson said yes, because Russia is going to make
it "their base," oh, and by the way: "You know, the Chinese are there, as well as the Russians."
Unless he's talking about
these guys, Carson intel seems a bit off.
Jeb Bush gave the usual boilerplate, delivered in his preferred monotone, contradicting himself
when he endorsed a no-fly zone over Syria and then attacked Hillary Clinton for not offering "leadership"
– when she endorsed the idea practically
in unison with him. Bush added his usual incoherence to the mix by averring that somehow not
intervening more in the region "will have a huge impact on our economy" – but of course the last
time we intervened it had a
$2 trillion-plus impact in terms of costs, and that's a conservative estimate.
Oddly characterizing Russia's air strikes on the Islamic State as "aggression" – do our air strikes
count as aggression? – the clueless Marie Bartiromo asked Trump what he intends to do about it. Trump
evaded the question for a few minutes, going on about North Korea, Iran, and of course the Yellow
Peril, finally coming out with a great line that not even the newly-noninterventionist Sen. Paul
had the gumption to muster:
"If Putin wants to go and knock the hell out of ISIS, I am all for it, one-hundred percent,
and I can't understand how anybody would be against it."
Bush butted in with "But they aren't doing that," which is the Obama administration's
demonstrably inaccurate
line, and Trump made short work of him with the now
undeniable fact that the Islamic State blew up a Russian passenger jet with over 200 people on
it. "He [Putin] cannot be in love with these people," countered Trump. "He's going in, and we can
go in, and everybody should go in. As far as the Ukraine is concerned, we have a group of people,
and a group of countries, including Germany – tremendous economic behemoth – why are we always doing
the work?"
Why indeed.
Trump, for all his contradictions, gives voice to the "isolationist" populism that Rubio and
his neocon confederates despise, and which is implanted so deeply in the American consciousness.
Why us? Why are we paying everybody's bills? Why are we fighting everybody else's wars? It's a bad
deal!
This is why the neocons hate Trump's guts even more than they hate Paul. The former, after
all, is the frontrunner. What the War Party fears is that Trump's contradictory mixture of bluster
– "bigger, better, stronger!" – and complaints that our allies are taking advantage of us means a
victory for the dreaded "isolationists" at the polls.
As for Carly Fiorina and John Kasich: they merely served as a Greek chorus to the exhortations
of Rubio and Bush to take on Putin, Assad, Iran, China, and (in Trump's case) North Korea. They left
out Venezuela only because they ran out of time, and breath. Fiorina and Kasich were mirror images
of each other in their studied belligerence: both are aspiring vice-presidential running mates for
whatever Establishment candidate takes the prize.
Yes, it's election season, the one time – short of when we're about to invade yet another
country – when the American people are engaged with the foreign policy issues of the day. And what
we are seeing is a rising tide of disgust with our policy of global intervention – in a confused
inchoate sense, in the case of Trump, and in a focused, self-conscious, occasionally eloquent and
yet still slightly confused and inconsistent way in the case of Sen. Paul. Either way, the real voice
of the American heartland is being heard.
Bumpo
Im not so sure. If you see it in context with Trump's other message to make Mexico pay for
the border fence. If you take the Iraq war on the face of it - that is, we came in to rescue them
from Saddam Hussein - then taking their oil in payment is only "fair". It's hard to tell if he
is playing a game, or actually believes the US company line, though. I think he isn't letting
on. At least I hope so. And that goes double for his "Support" of Israel.
Joe Trader
@greenskeeper we get it, you get butt-hurt extremely easily
The thing about Donald Trump and oil - is that a few years ago, he said all that Saudi Arabia
had to do was start pumping oil, and down it would go to $25. Guess what sweet cheeks - His prediction
is coming true and the presidency could really use a guy like him who knows what he's doing.
MalteseFalcon
Say what you like about Trump. 'He is a baffoon or a blowhard'. 'He can't be elected president'.
But Trump has rocked the boat and raised some issues and viewpoints that none of the other
bought and paid for 'candidates' would ever have raised. Has he changed the national discussion
on these issues? At least he woken some people up.
illyia
oh.my.gawd. a rational adult series of comments on zero hedge: There is hopium for the world,
after all.
Just must say: Raimondo is an incredibly good writer. Very enjoyable to read. I am sure that's
why he's still around. He make a clear, concise argument, presents his case with humor and irony
and usually covers every angle.
I wonder about people like him, who think things out so well... versus, say, the bloviator
and chief?
P.S. don't blame me, i did not vote for either of them...
Oracle of Kypseli
The sentence of "We relied on the stupidity of the American voter" resonates.
TheObsoleteMan
What you did, was you fell for the oldest press trick in the book. It's called: "out of
context". That's is where they play back only a segment of what someone says, only a part of what
they want you to hear, so you will draw the wrong conclusion. What Trump said {had you listened
to ALL of what he said} was that he was going to TAKE ISIL'S OIL. Oil is the largest source of
revenue for them {then comes the CIA money}. If you were to remove their oil revenues from them,
they would be seriously hurting for cash to fund their machine. I don't have a problem with that.
The attacks on Trump have been relentless yet he is still maintaining his position in the
polls.
I expected a take out on Ben Carson, his next closest competitor to move up a CFR-aligned Globalist
like Shrubio or Cruz given their fall-back JEBPNAC is tanking so bad...but not this early. They
must be getting desperate...so desperate they are considering Romney?!
If it becomes 'Reagan/Bush Redux' again with Trump/Cruz, I hope The Donald has enough sense
to say NO! or, if elected, be very vigilant knowing you are Reagan and you have the GHW Bush equivalent
standing there to replace you...and we know how that unfolded early in Reagan's first term...NOT
GOOD
EDIT: The goal is to have a CFR candidate in both the GOP and Dem fold. Although Hillary
is not a CFR member ostensibly Slick Willie has been for more than 20 years and his Administration
was rife with them...Hello Rubin and Glass Steagal!!..as is Chelsea... a newly elected member.
The point is Justin seems to believe the Iranians have no intention of building a nuclear bomb
ever. I've read a lot of this guy's writing ever since he first came out on his own website and
when he wrote for AsiaTimesOnline. He's always had the opinion that the Iranians are not building
a nuclear bomb and have no intention to do so. He spews the same talking points about how they've
never attacked anyone in over two hundred years.
Well that's because previously they were under the control of the Ottoman empire and that didn't
break up until after WW1. I think he's got a blind spot in this regard. You can't tell me that
even the Japanese aren't secretly building nuclear weapons since China is becoming militarily
aggressive. And, stop being a prick. Your micro-aggressing against my safe place LTER and I'm
gonna have to report you for "hurtful" speech.
20 years plus of this accusation. Cia and dia both said no mil program.
If you have evidence summon it. Offering your suspicion as evidence is fucking absurd.
And if the israelis werent hell bent on taking the rest of palestine and brutalizing the natives
(which, by and large, they actually are) that would sure wet some of the anti isrsel powder.
But no / they want lebensraum and years of war for expansion and regional total hegemony.
Thrn they can ethnically cleanse the historical inhabitants while everyones busy watching white
european christisns kill each other, and muslims, as isis keeps not attacking israel or even isrseli
interests.
Youre not dumb, you just reached conclusions that are very weakened of not refuted by evidence
you wont even consider.
If you examine the policy detail Trump has provided, there is more substance there than any
of the others. Add to that he has a long record of successful management, which none of the others
have.
You don't manage successfully without self control. The persona he presents in politics at
present may give the impression of a lack of self control, yet that persona and the policies which
are/were verboten to the political class have quickly taken him to the top of the pack and kept
him there.
If you apply to Trump the saying "judge people by what they do, not what they say", his achievements
out of politics and now in politics show he is a more capable person than any of the others and
that he is successful at what he sets out to do.
As the economy for most Americans continues to worsen, which is baked in the cake, who is going
to look to the public a more credible person to turn it around, Clinton? Trump? one of the others?
The answer is pretty obvious.
European American
"I cannot take Trump seriously."
It's not about Trump as President, a year from now. Who knows if he'll even be in the picture
by then. It's ALL about Trump, RIGHT NOW. He's exposing the underbelly of a vile, hideous Z-creature
that we, here at ZH have seen for some time, but the masses, those who haven't connected enought
dots, yet, are getting a glimpse of something that has been foreign in politics, up until now.
Everytime Trump is interviewed, or tweets or stands at the debates, another round is shot over
the bow, or beak, of the monster creature that has been sucking the life out of humanity for decades,
centuries, eons. As long as he's standing and he can pull it off, that is what this phenomenon
is all about...one day at a time....shedding light where the stench of darkness has been breeding
corruption for the last millenium.
MASTER OF UNIVERSE
Neocons hate because their collective ethos is that of a single misanthrope that crafted their
existence in the first place. In brief, neocons are fascist narrow minded automatons not really
capable of a level of consciousness that would enable them to think critically, and independently,
of the clique orthodoxy that guides their myopic thinking, or lack thereof. Neocons have no history
aside from Corporatism, and Fascism.
Escrava Isaura
American Decline: Causes and Consequences
Grand Area (after WW-2) to be under US control: Western Hemisphere, the Far East, the former
British empire - including the crucial Middle East oil reserves - and as much of Eurasia as possible,
or at the very least its core industrial regions in Western Europe and the southern European states.
The latter were regarded as essential for ensuring control of Middle East energy resources.
It means: Africa resources go to Europe. Asia resources go to Japan. South America resources
go to US.
Now (2019) the Conundrum: Where will China get the resources needed for its survival? And Russia
is not Africa.
"[American exceptionalism] is a reaction to the inability of people to understand global
complexity or important issues like American energy dependency. Therefore, they search for simplistic
sources of comfort and clarity. And the people that they are now selecting to be, so to speak,
the spokespersons of their anxieties are, in most cases, stunningly ignorant." ? Zbigniew
Brzezinski
Bazza McKenzie
Through either ignorance or malice the author repeats Rand Paul's statement about Trump's comments
re China and the TPP.
Trump explicitly said the TPP provides a back door opportunity for China, thus noting he understands
China is not an initial signatory to TPP.
The backdoor opportunity occurs in 2 ways. The ability for TPP to expand its signatory countries
without going back to the legislatures of existing signatory countries AND the fact that products
claiming to be made in TPP countries and eligible for TPP arrangements don't have to be wholly
made in those countries, or perhaps even mainly made in those countries. China will certainly
be taking advantage of that.
The fact that Paul does not apparently understand these points, despite being a Senator, displays
an unfortunate ignorance unless of course he was just attempting to score a political point despite
knowing it to be false.
Paul at least made his comment in the heat of the moment in a debate. Raimondo has had plenty
of time to get the facts right but does not. How much of the rest of his screed is garbage?
socalbeach
I got the impression Trump thought China was part of the trade deal from this quote:
"Yes. Well, the currency manipulation they don't discuss in the agreement, which is a
disaster. If you look at the way China and India and almost everybody takes advantage of the
United States - China in particular, because they're so good. It's the number-one abuser of
this country. And if you look at the way they take advantage, it's through currency manipulation.
It's not even discussed in the almost 6,000-page agreement. It's not even discussed."
If China isn't part of the agreement, then what difference does it make whether or not currency
manipulation is discussed? Your answer is that Trump meant they could be added to the agreement
later, as in this previous quote of his:
"The TPP is horrible deal. It is a deal that is going to lead to nothing but trouble.
It's a deal that was designed for China to come in, as they always do, through the back door
and totally take advantage of everyone."
If that's the case, Trump didn't explain himself well in this instance.
Neocons should not be used as a synonym for 'militarist.'
That subset was absolutely a Jewish-Zionist movement originating at the U of Chicago whether
you know the history or not. Its also obvious just verboden to discuss. Not because its false,
but because its true.
Neocons aren't conservative - they are zioglobalists with primary concern for Israel.
There are several groups of militarists in the deep state, but the Israel Firster faction is
predominant.
Fucking obviously.
Arthur
Gee I guess we should back Iran and Isis. Must be some great jewish conspiricy that keeps you
impovrished, that or maybe you are just a moron.
Johnny Horscaulk
Idiot, the us, and israel ARE backing isis. Go back to watching fox news - this is all way
over your willingness to spend time reading about. You clearly have an internet connection - but
you utter palpable nonsense.
OldPhart
Arthur
When/where I grew up I'd never met a jew. I think there was one black family in the two hundred
fifty square miles of the town, population 2,200 in 1976. I knew jackshit other than they were
greased by nazis back in WWII.
Moved out of the desert to Orlando, Flawed?-Duh. Met a lot of regular jews. Good people, best
man's dad and mom had tattoo'd numbers on thier arms. To me, their just regular people that have
some other sort of religion that christianity is an offshoot from.
What I've learned is that Zionism is lead by a relative few of the jewish faith, many regular
jews resent it as an abomination of jewish faith. Zionists are the self-selected political elite
and are in no way keepers of the jewish faith. They are the equivalent, in Israel, to the CFR
here. Oddly, they also comprise many of the CFR seats HERE.
Zionists do not represent the jews any more than Jamie Diamond, Blythe Masters, Warren Buffet,
or Bill Gates represent ordinary Americans. Somehow, over time, Zionists came to wield massive
influence within our government and corporate institutions.
Those are the simple facts that I have been able to glean from piles of research that are massively
biased in both directions.
It's not a jewish conspiracy that keeps many impoverished, it's the Zionists that keep many
impoverished, at war, divided, ignorant, and given bread and circuses. Not jews.
Perhaps you should spend a few years doing a little independent research of your own before
belittling something you obviously have no clue about.
Johnny Horscaulk
That rhetorical ballet aside, Israel has far far too much influence on us policy, and that
is so because of wildly disproportionate Jewish... As such... Political, financial, media, etc
power. And they - AS A GROUP -act in their in-group interests even when resulting policy is not
in this country's interest - demanding, with 50 million Scoffield JudeoChristians that Israels
interests be of utmost value...
And heres the kicker - as defined by an Israel under likud and shas, parties so odious they
make golden dawn look leftist, yet get no msm criticism for being so.
Its never 'all' any group - but Israels influence is excessive and deleterious, and that is
due to jewish power and influence, with the xian zios giving the votes. Framed this way, it isnt
'Zionism' - it is simply a powerful minority with deep loyalty to a tiny foreign state warping
us policy - and media coverage.
MEFOBILLS
Arthur,
Iran is formerly Persia, and its people are predominantly Shia. Shia's are considered apostates
by Sunni's. Isis is Sunni. Sunnis get their funding via the Petrodollar system.
Persians changed their name to Iran to let northern Europeans know they were Aryans. Persians
are not Arabs.
Neo-Con's are Jewish and they have fellow travelers who are non jewish. Many of their fellow
travelers are Sayanim or Zionist Christians. So, Neo-Con ideology is no longer specifically Jewish,
but it certainly has Jewish antecedents.
Your comment is full of illogic, is misinformed, and then you have the laughable temerity to
call out someone else as a moron.
I Write Code
The only place "neocons" still exist is at ZH. Whatever Wikipedia says about it, the term had
virtually no currency in the US before 2001, and had pretty much ceased to have any influence
by about 2005.
Is Rubio sounding like an interventionist? Yes. Does he really know what he's talking about?
Unclear. Is Trump sounding like a non-interventionist? Yes. Does he really know what he's talking
about? Almost certainly not. Trump is the non-interventionist who wants to bomb the shit out of
ISIS.
Rand didn't do anything to embarass himself at the latest debate, but he also didn't stand
out enough to make up for many past errors. Give him a few years, maybe he'll grow up or something.
But the harder question is, what *should* the US do about stuff? Should we cowboy on alone,
or pull back because none of the other kids want to help us. Can't we make common cause with Russia
and France at this point? I mean instead of Iran and Turkey? The biggest problem is of course
Obama - whatever various national interests at this point, nobody in the world thinks they can
trust Nobel boy as far as they can spit a rat. Would anyone want to trust Rubio or Trump? Would
you?
Johnny Horscaulk
Nonsense - read this for background beginning with the philosopher Strauss. It has a fixed
meaning that was subjected to semantic drift in the media. It came to be conflated with 'militarist'
and the conservative thing was a misnomer they were communists who wanted to use American power
for israel.
After listening to the press for the last week, I have come to a conclusion concerning Mr.
Bush: The party big wigs have decided he can not win and are distancing their support for him.
Their new golden boy? Marco Rubio. The press in the last week has barely mentioned Bush, but
every breath has been about "the young Latino". "He's rising in the polls".
I wish I had a dollar for every time I heard that on radio and the TV. They also had him on
Meet The Press last Sunday. Just thought I'd mention it. I can't stand Rubio. When he ran for
Senate down here a few years ago, he road to Washington on the Tea Party's back. As soon as he
got there, he did what all good politicians do: Dumped their platform and forgot all about them.
Scumbag.
neilhorn
Yes, I have also seen the new "golden boy" regaled in the media. Let's see where he goes.
I wonder if anyone represents the American people any better than the corrupt piece of dried up
persimmon that is Hillary?
Raymond_K._Hessel
Trump picks cruz as veep, offends moderate and lefty independents and latinos on the immigration
stuff, kisses Likuds ass (2 million right wing batshit jews out of 8 million israeli voters in
asia dominate us foreign policy via nutty, aipac, adl, jinsa, conf of pres, etc etc etc)
And he loses to hillary. The gop can not win this election. Sorry - but admit the direness
of our situation - shitty candidates all and one of the very worst and most essentially disingenuous-
will win because women and minorities and lefties outnumber right leaning white males.
This is super obviously the political situation.
So - how do we 'prepare' for hillary? She is more wars, more printing, more wall st, more israel
just like everyone but sanders who is nonetheless a crazy person and arch statist though I respect
his at least not being a hyperinterventionist mic cocksucker.
But fucking hillary clinton gets in.
What does it mean apart from the same old thing?
Red team blue team same thing on wars, banks, and bending the knee to batshit psycho bibi.
cherry picker
I don't think Americans are really ready for Bill to be the First Man, do you? I don't think
Americans think about that aspect of Hillary becoming Pres.
Personally, I hope she doesn't get in. There are many other women that are capable who could
fit the bill, if the US is bound and determined to have a female president.
"indeed, in our post-constitutional era, now that Congress has abdicated its responsibility,
he has the de facto power to single-handedly take us into war. Which is why,
paraphrasing Trotsky, you may not be interested in politics, but politics is certainly interested
in you."
The post-constitutional era is the present time. Congress is stifled by politics while the
rest of us only desire that the rights of the people are protected. The President has never been
granted the right to take our nation to war. Other presidents have usurped that power and taken
the power to themseves. Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama have all taken
on the right to kill anyone who defied the right of the presidency. However, when the people ever
abrogated their right to wage war it was only in response to a police state being established
that threatened those who opposed the power of the established authority. Congress, the representatives
of the people, has the right to declare war. Congress is also obligated to represent the people
who elected them. When will we find a representative who has the backbone to stop the suicidal
tendencies of the structures of power?
Captain Obvious.
Don't set store by any politician. They were all sent as a group to suck Israeli dick. Yes,
dear Donald too. They will tell you what they think you want to hear.
Raymond_K._Hessel
Ivanka converted to judaism and all - was that for the grooms parents or genuine? Or a dynastic
thing?
Wahooo
Another hit piece today in Barrons:
"Donald Trump is trying hard to look presidential these days. Too bad he's using Herbert
Hoover as a role model. Hoover, of course, is best remembered as having been president during
the stock market crash of 1929 that presaged the Great Depression. What helped turn a normal
recession into a global economic disaster was the spread of protectionism, starting with the
Smoot-Hawley tariff, which resulted in retaliation even before Hoover signed the bill in 1930."
If I recall my history, in 1927 amidst what everyone knew was already bubble stock market,
the Fed dropped rates substantially. This was done against the protests of President Coolidge,
his secretary of treasury, and many other politicians and business tycoons at the time. It ushered
in a stock market bubble of massive proportions and the coming bust. Protectionism had little
to do with it.
Faeriedust
Right. The "protectionism" meme is a piece of corporate persiflage that's been duly trotted
out every time someone suggests even SLIGHTLY protecting our decimated economy. According to Wiki:
"the general view is that while it had negative results, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff was not one of
the main causes of the Great Depression because foreign trade was only a small sector of the U.S.
economy."
Faeriedust
Well, what REALLY caused the Depression were the bills from WWI. Every nation in Europe had
spent years of GNP on the War through debt, all the debts were due, and nobody could afford to
pay them. So they loaded the whole pile on Germany, and then screamed when Germany literally could
NOT make its payments, and then played extend-and-pretend for a decade. Which eventually caused
the Credit-Anstallt collapse, and then everything finally fell like a house of cards.
Very like today, but the current run of bills were run up by pure financial frivolity and corruption.
Although one could say that fighting a war that killed 1/4 of all European males of fighting age
was an exercise in frivolity and corruption on the part of Europe's senile ruling elites. Nobody
was willing to divide a shrinking pie equitably; they all thought it would be better to try grabbing
The Whole Thing. Rather like world powers today, again.
CAPT DRAKE
educated, responsible position in a fortune 200company, and yes, will be voting for trump.
why? sick to death of the existing elites, and the way they run things. a trump vote is a protest
vote. a protest against the neocons and all their types that have caused so much misery around
the world.
NoWayJose
If Trump is the Republucan nominee, you can bet that he will point out a lot of things Hillary
has done. You know several others in the field will say nothing bad about Hillary. (A la Romney).
Not sure why Rubio still has support - Rand clobbered him on spending, including his new entitlement,
and add Rubio's position on amnesty.
Faeriedust
With JEB polling in single digits and hopelessly befuddled, Rubio is the Great Hispanic
Hope of the establishment Republocrats. He is being well-pimped, is all. Paul is clearly more
intelligent, more articulate, and more well-informed; Trump is more forceful and popular (but
independent!). Neither suits an establishment that wants to hold the reins behind the throne.
thesoothsayer
The Military Industrial Complex became entrenched after Eisenhower left office and they murdered
Kennedy. Since then, they have taken over. We cover the world to spread our seeds and enrich our
corporations. Our government does not protect the people, it protects the corporations, wall street.
That is the reality.
"... I agree. Excellent point on the frack log, but at some point with the reduced rate of drilling the frack log will dwindle. Let's take the Bakken where we have the best numbers, Enno estimates around 800 DUC wells (rough guess from memory), to make things simple let's assume no more wells are drilled because prices are so low. If 80 wells per month are completed the DUCs are gone in July 2016. Now the no wells drilled is probably not realistic. If 40 wells per month are drilled (though at these oil prices I still don't understand why) the 800 DUCs would last for 20 months rather than only 10 months, so your story makes sense at least for the Bakken. ..."
"... One thing to be careful with the fracklog, is that not all of these will be good wells. ..."
"... I agree that high cost will be likely to reduce demand. The optimistic forecasts assume there will be low cost supply judging by the price scenarios. For AEO 2013 Brent remains under $110/b (2013$) until 2031 and only reaches $141/b (2013$) in 2040. ..."
"... "Debt repayments will increase for the rest of the decade, with $72 billion maturing this year, about $85 billion in 2016 and $129 billion in 2017, according to BMI Research. About $550 billion in bonds and loans are due for repayment over the next five years. ..."
"... U.S. drillers account for 20 percent of the debt due in 2015, ..."
"Mr Falih, who is also health minister, forecast the market would come into balance in the new
year, and then demand would start to suck up inventories and storage on oil tankers. "Hopefully,
however, there will be enough investment to meet the needs beyond 2017."
Other officials also estimated that it would probably take one to two years for the market to
clear up the oil market glut, allowing prices to recover towards $70-$80 a barrel."
"Non-OPEC supply is expected to fall in 2016, only one year after
the deep cuts in investment," he said.
"Beyond 2016, the fall in non-OPEC supply is likely to accelerate, as the cancellation
and postponement of projects will start feeding into future supplies, and the impact of previous
record investments on oil output starts to fade away."
I thought just about everyone was expecting a rebound in production by 2017?
The EIA. IEA. OPEC and most others expect non-OPEC production, excluding the U.S.
and Canada to decline in 2016 and the next few years due to the decline in investments and postponement
/ canceling of new projects.
Production in Canada is still projected to continue to grow, but at a much slower rate than previously
expected.
Finally, U.S. C+C production is expected to rebound in the second half of 2016 due to slightly
higher oil prices ($55-57/bbl WTI). Also, U.S. NGL production proved much more resilient, than
C+C, despite very low NGL prices.
Non-OPEC ex U.S. and Canada total liquids supply (mb/d) Source: EIA STEO October 2015
Thanks. I don't think oil prices at $56/b is enough to increase the drilling in the LTO
plays to the extent that output will increase, it may stop the decline and result in a plateau, it's
hard to know.
On the "liquids" forecast, the NGL is not adjusted for energy content as it should be, each barrel
of NGL has only 70% of the energy content of an average C+C barrel and the every 10 barrels of NGL
should be counted as 7 barrels so that the liquids are reported in barrels of oil equivalent (or
better yet report the output in gigajoules (1E9) or exajoules(1E18)). The same conversion should
be done for ethanol as well.
Note that not only the EIA, but also the IEA, OPEC, energy consultancies and investment
banks are projecting a recovery in US oil production in the later part of next year.
That said, I agree with you that $56 WTI projected by the EIA may not be sufficient to trigger
a fast rebound in drilling activity.
However there is also a backlog of drilled but uncompleted wells that could be completed and put
into operation with slightly higher oil prices.
Most shale companies have announced further cuts in investment budgets in 2016, so I think it is
difficult to expect significant growth in the U.S. onshore oil production in 2H16.
If and when oil prices reach $65-70/bbl, I think LTO may start to recover (probably in 2017 ?).
I think that annual growth rates will never reach 1mb/d+ seen in 2012-14, but 0.5 mb/d annual average
growth is quite possible for several years with oil prices exceeding $70.
I agree. Excellent point on the frack log, but at some point with the reduced rate of
drilling the frack log will dwindle. Let's take the Bakken where we have the best numbers, Enno estimates
around 800 DUC wells (rough guess from memory), to make things simple let's assume no more wells
are drilled because prices are so low. If 80 wells per month are completed the DUCs are gone in July
2016. Now the no wells drilled is probably not realistic. If 40 wells per month are drilled (though
at these oil prices I still don't understand why) the 800 DUCs would last for 20 months rather than
only 10 months, so your story makes sense at least for the Bakken.
I have no idea what the frack log looks like for the Eagle Ford. If its similar to the Bakken
and they complete 130 new wells per month, with about 61 oil rigs currently turning in the EF they
can drill 80 wells per month, so they would need 50 wells each month from the frack log. If there
are 800 DUCs, then that would last for 16 months.
The economics are better in the Eagle Ford because the wells are cheaper and transport costs are
lower, but the EUR of the wells is also lower (230 kb vs 336 kb), the well profile has a thinner
tail than the Bakken wells. I am not too confident about the EIA's DPR predictions for the Eagle
Ford, output will decrease, but perhaps they(EIA) assume the frack log is zero and that only 75 new
wells will be added to the Eagle Ford each month. If my guess of 150 new wells per month on average
from Sept to Dec 2015 is correct, then decline from August to Dec 204 will only be about 100 kb/d
and 255 kb/d from March to Dec 2015 (155 kb/d from March to August 2015).
One thing to be careful with the fracklog, is that not all of these will be good wells.
It is fair enough that companies like EOG will have some good DUCs, (should there be a "k" in that?)
in their fracklogs. But as the fracklog is worked through, I am sure there will be a some very ugly
DUCklings, that nobody wants to admit to. How many fall into this category, will be anybodies guess, but not all DUC, will turn out to be beautiful
swans?
On the predictions of the EIA and IEA, they also expect total oil supply to be quite
high in 2040. For example the EIA in their International Energy Outlook reference case they have C+C output
at 99 Mb/d in 2040.
Their short term forecasts are probably better than that, but my expectation for 2040 C+C output
is 62 Mb/d (which many believe is seriously optimistic, though you have never expressed an opinion
as far as I remember).
So I take many of these forecasts with a grain of salt, they are often more optimistic than me,
others are far more pessimistic, the middle ground is sometimes more realistic.
You said above that estimated URR of all global C+C (ex oil sands in Canada and Venezuela)
is 2500 Gb. And about 1250 Gb of C+C had been produced at the end of 2014. So the remaining resources
are 1250 Gb.
BP estimates total global proved oil reserves as of 2014 at 1700 Gb, or 1313 excluding Canadian
oil sands and Venezuela's extra heavy oil. Their estimate in 2000 was 1301 Gb and 1126 Gb. Hence,
despite cumulative production of 419 Gb in 2001-2014, proved reserves increased by 187 Gb, or 400
Gb including oil sands and Venezuela's Orinoco oil. Note that BP's estimate is for proved (not P+P)
reserves, but it includes C+C+NGLs. My very rough guess is that NGLs account for between 5% and 10%
of the total.
You may be skeptical about BP's estimates, but the fact is that proved reserves or 2P resources
are not a constant number; they are increasing due to new discoveries and technological advances.
BTW, the EIA's estimate of global C+C production increasing from 79 mb/d in 2014 to 99 mb/d in
2040 implies a cumulative output of 836 Gb, about 2/3 of your estimate of remaining 2P resources
of C+C or BP's estimate of the current proved reserves. Given future discoveries and improvements
in technology, I think that further growth of global oil production to about 100 mb/d by 2040 should
not be constrained by resource scarcity.
What can really make the EIA's and IEA's estimates too optimistic is not the depleting resource
base, but the high cost of future supply, political factors and/or lower than expected demand.
You are quite optimistic. Note that I add 300 Gb to the 2500 Gb Hubbert Linearization estimate to account for reserve growth
and discoveries.
The oil reserves reported in the BP Statistical review are 1312 Gb. Jean Laherrere estimates that
about 300 Gb of OPEC reserves are "political" to keep quotas at appropriate levels with respect to
"true" reserve levels. So the actual 2P reserves are likely to be 1010 Gb. Some of the cumulative
C+C output is extra heavy oil so the cumulative C+C-XH output is 1240 Gb so we have a total cumulative
discovery (cumulative output plus 2P reserves) of 2250 Gb through 2014.
My medium scenario with a URR of 2800 Gb of C+C-XH plus 600 Gb of XH oil (3400 Gb total C+C) assumes
550 Gb of discoveries plus reserve growth.
What do you expect for a URR for C+C?
Keep in mind that at some point oil prices rise to a level that substitutes for much of present
oil use will become competitive, so oil prices above $175/b (in 2015$) are unlikely to be sustained
in my view.
In a wider format below I will present a scenario with what extraction rates would be needed for
my medium scenario to reach 99 Mb/d in 2040.
I agree that high cost will be likely to reduce demand. The optimistic forecasts assume
there will be low cost supply judging by the price scenarios. For AEO 2013 Brent remains under $110/b
(2013$) until 2031 and only reaches $141/b (2013$) in 2040.
Depleting resources will raise production cost to more than these prices and demand will be reduced
due to high oil prices. There will be an interaction between depletion and the economics of supply and demand. It will
be depletion that raises costs, which will raise prices and reduce demand.
"Debt repayments will increase for the rest of the decade, with $72 billion maturing this year,
about $85 billion in 2016 and $129 billion in 2017, according to BMI Research. About $550 billion
in bonds and loans are due for repayment over the next five years.
U.S. drillers account for 20 percent of the debt due in 2015, Chinese companies rank second with
12 percent and U.K. producers represent 9 percent."
[These are just the bonds that have yields higher than 10%]
[Its very unlikely that prices will recover in time to save many of the drillers, and even if
prices recover, even $75 oil will not help since they need $90 to break even to service the debt.
Also not sure who is going to buy maturing debt so it can be rolled over. Even if prices slowly recover,
there is likely to be fewer people willing to loan money drillers.]
It's not just the oil. The oil is convenient to point at because the US can pretend that
they got SA to cause the drop in order to stick it to Russia. Makes the US look really smug.
Meanwhile the truth is, copper down, zinc down, iron ore down, you name it down.
Baltic Dry almost crashing, soft commodities gone to hell. I guess SA can also influence
these markets as well.
"... Looking at the recent moves in exchange rates based on a simple switch in expectation of whether or not the Fed would raise rates in December or wait one or two meetings its seems obvious that the markets are not very good at anticipation. So I would not put much money on the ability of the markets to anticipate the trajectory and endpoint of raising rates - or the ability of anybody to guess where the exchange rates will go next. ..."
"... The drop in hours worked data in the productivity report is very confusing. ..."
"... I think lower oil prices has lead to a stronger consumption boost than initially thought. ..."
Have U.S. financial market stress indicators worsened substantially?
Has the U.S. labor market returned to normal?
What will the headline inflation rate be once the effects of the oil price shock dissipate?
Will the U.S. dollar continue to gain value against rival currencies?
I would add:
Will wage gains translate into inflation (or something along those lines)?
Anything else?
sanjait said in reply to Anonymous...
Markets move based on expectations of both economic fundamentals and the Fed's reaction
function. So both can create surprises.
In this case, a relatively stronger than expected US economy could push the dollar up quite a
bit. The central bank would be expected to dampen but not eliminate this effect, even without
changing their perceived reaction function.
DeDude said in reply to Anonymous... , November 10, 2015 at 02:35 PM
Looking at the recent moves in exchange rates based on a simple switch in expectation
of whether or not the Fed would raise rates in December or wait one or two meetings its seems
obvious that the markets are not very good at anticipation. So I would not put much money on
the ability of the markets to anticipate the trajectory and endpoint of raising rates - or the
ability of anybody to guess where the exchange rates will go next.
What we can say is that the strengthening of the US$ that has happened recently will hurt the
economy - whether it will hurt enough to slow the Fed is anybodies guess. Whether those
guesses have already been baked into the exchange rates is impossible to predict.
Bert Schlitz said...
On Angry Bear, there is a post about 3rd quarter hours and Spencer's remark:
"The drop in hours worked data in the productivity report is very confusing.
The employment shows several measures of hours worked and they increased in the third
quarter from 0.5% to 1,08 for aggregate weekly payrolls.
Something is really change.
The productivity report also had unit labor cost rising more than prices,
This implies falling profits, what the S&P 500 shows."
Basically wages accelerated rapidly in the 3rd quarter. The BLS didn't start catching up to it
until October. My guess the hours drop and employment picks up trying to hold down costs.
However, this will probably only level off things off for a few quarters, which would be good
enough to profits catch back up until the labor market becomes so tight, they simply have no
choice but to raise prices and hours worked surge again. Classic mid-cycle behavior (which
Lambert should have noticed).
This is what triggered the 3rd quarter selloff and inventory correction. That foreign stuff
was for show. I think lower oil prices has lead to a stronger consumption boost than
initially thought.
am said...
Clicked on this link for the answers but it is 34 blank pages, so i'll go for:
1. No, they'll just devalue when need be to soften the landing. I think they will do another
one before the end of the year.
2. No idea.
3. Near it if you believe the Atlanta Fed. They have a detailed analysis on their blog.
4. 2.2 if you believe the St Louis Fed, end of December for the oil price decline washout from
the system. So inflation will creep up by the end of the year.
5. Yes and more so if they raise the rate.
6. No. because it will just be oil led not wages (see 4).
Anything else: the weather with apologies to PeterK.
anne said...
I am really having increasing trouble understanding, how is it that having a Democratic
President means making sure appointments from the State or Defense Department to the Federal
Reserve are highly conservative and even Republican. Republicans will not even need to elect a
President to have conservatives strewn about the government:
"... do not just own shares in American banks, they own mainly voting shares. It these financial companies that exercise the real control over the US banking system. ..."
Financial holding companies
like the Vanguard Group, State Street Corporation, FMR (Fidelity), BlackRock, Northern Trust, Capital
World Investors, Massachusetts Financial Services, Price (T. Rowe) Associates Inc., Dodge & Cox Inc.,
Invesco Ltd., Franklin Resources, Inc., АХА, Capital Group Companies, Pacific Investment Management
Co. (PIMCO) and several others do not just own shares in American banks, they own mainly voting
shares. It these financial companies that exercise the real control over the US banking system.
Some analysts believe that
just four financial companies make up the main body of shareholders of Wall Street banks. The other
shareholder companies either do not fall into the key shareholder category, or they are controlled
by the same 'big four' either directly or through a chain of intermediaries. Table 4 provides a summary
of the main shareholders of the leading US banks.
Table 4.
Leading institutional shareholders of the
main US banks
Name of shareholder company
Controlled assets, valuation (trillions of dollars; date
of evaluation in brackets)
Number of employees
Vanguard Group
3 (autumn 2014)
12,000
State Street Corporation
2.35 (mid-2013)
29,500
FMR (Fidelity)
4.9 (April 2014)
41,000
Black Rock
4.57 (end of 2013)
11,400
Evaluations of the amount
of assets under the control of financial companies that are shareholders of the main US banks are
rather arbitrary and are revised periodically. In some cases, the evaluations only include the companies'
main assets, while in others they also include assets that have been transferred over to the companies'
control. In any event, the size of their controlled assets is impressive. In the autumn of 2013,
the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (ICBC) was at the top of the list of the world's banks
ranked by asset size with assets totaling $3.1 trillion. At that point in time, the Bank of America
had the most assets in the US banking system ($2.1 trillion). Just behind were US banks like Citigroup
($1.9 trillion) and Wells Fargo ($1.5 trillion).
"... Organizational culture and behavior is a critical factor in the success of any business. The intense emphasis most American businesses place on numbers to the exclusion of almost any other consideration is a major contributor to the vast amount of corporate control fraud we have witnessed in the past decade or so. ..."
"... One of the fundamental tenets of Reaganism/Libertarianism is that "The Ends Justify the Means." The financial sector is not the only institution in our civilization that is failing due to this mind-set. The best form of regulation is simply holding up a mirror to a firm or agency and asking questions such as, "In this organization, when is it OK to lie?" ..."
Fascinating research. Thanks for posting this, Yves.
Organizational culture and behavior is a critical factor in the success of any business.
The intense emphasis most American businesses place on numbers to the exclusion of almost any
other consideration is a major contributor to the vast amount of corporate control fraud we
have witnessed in the past decade or so.
Unfortunately, I don't see any of these executive psychopaths putting themselves through the
self-assessment that is one of the necessary steps mentioned in the study. At least, not
voluntarily.
Sluggeaux, November 7, 2015 at 11:39 am
Important.
One of the fundamental tenets of Reaganism/Libertarianism is that "The Ends Justify the
Means." The financial sector is not the only institution in our civilization that is failing
due to this mind-set. The best form of regulation is simply holding up a mirror to a firm or
agency and asking questions such as, "In this organization, when is it OK to lie?"
"... And why is the US seeking a battle with Russia anyway? This is completely absurd....are the neo-cons/neo-libs this fucked up? ..."
"... Having said the above, the prevailing view on the ground in Moscow is that it will be NATO that pre-emptively attacks Russia, hence the refurbishing and re-provisioning of their network of Civil Defence shelters, info via Brother in Law (BNP Paribas Moscow). ..."
"... US/EU GDP approaches 40 trillion dollars. Russia has fallen down below 2 trillion due to the drop in oil prices. 25 to 1 disparity. ..."
"... US population 330 million. EU population 504 million. Russian population 142 million. 6-1 disparity. ..."
"... Carter says Russia, China potentially threaten global order. WTF! These idiots really believe America rules the world! Every country should fear us and do as we say. No other country should EVER dare to challenge our oligarchy. Good for Russia and China for finally saying enough. We patrol the South China Sea like it's our own f***ing bathtub. If China did that to us in the Gulf of Mexico we would already be at war. The GLOBAL F***ING ORDER? Who made us kings of the world? ..."
"... If the neocons think they can bring war to soil mere miles away from Russia and not get a nuclear response if they start losing or we breach a russian boder, theyre insane. Unfortunately one look at current policy confirms that yes, indeed, theyre insane. ..."
"... Any negative assessment of US military capability originating from within the military-industrial complex, must necessarily be considered suspect. First, that assessment would be considered highly classified, unless it was pre-approved and deliberately released to scare more money out of already fleeced taxpayers. Second, .Gov used the same propaganda in our decades-long cold war with the USSR to justify massive spending and involvement in global conflicts. Profligate spending and profligate lies leave them with no credibility. ..."
The Saker wrote a very insightful post on this matter a while back
US political culture and propaganda has deeply ingrained in the minds of those exposed to
the corporate media the notion that weapons or technologies win wars. This is not so. Or, not
really so.
Yes, when the difference in technologies is very big AND very wide, meaning a full generational
change across most key weapon systems, this can help. But not one weapon system alone, and
not when the difference in quality is marginal.
Furthermore, a simpler, more "primitive" weapon which totally outclassed on the testing
range can suddenly become much better suited to real combat then some techno-marvel. This is,
by the way, one of the biggest problems with US weapons. Here is how they are designed:
You take all the latest and most advanced technologies, put them together, then create a
new "superior" design, then design a new mission profile to fit that design, then sell (figuratively
and literally) the new concept to Congress, especially to those Congressmen who come from the
districts where production is planned - and, voilà, you have your brand new top of the line
US weapon. And the costs? Who cares?! Just print some more money, and that's it.
Russian weapons are designed in a totally different way:
Take a mission profile, determine a need, then take all the cheapest, simplest and most
reliable technologies available and combine them into your weapon system, then have that prototype
tested in military units, then modify the weapons system according to the military's reaction
and then produce it.
In other words, US weapons are designed my engineers and produced by businessmen and politicians,
they are not really designed for war at all. Russian weapons, in contrast, are ordered by the
military and created by design bureaus and they have only one objective: real, dirty and ugly
warfare.
This is why the good old MiG-29 could fly better with its old fashioned hydraulics then
the F-18s with fly-by-wire. It was never that the Russians could not built fly-by-wire aircraft
(the SU-27 already had it), but that for the MiG-29 design goals, it was not needed.
What I am getting at here is two things: a) US weapons are not nearly as good as their marketing
and b) "older" Russian weapons are often much better for actual warfighting.
Let's say the US delivers large quantities of Javelin's to the junta. So what? All that
Russia will have to do in reaction is deliver 9M133 Kornets to the Novorussians. Can you guess
which system is both cheaper and better?
When the US gave the junta counter-battery radars what did Russia do? The same thing. Now
both sides have them.
Now here comes the key question: which of the two sides relies more on armor and artillery?
Exactly - the junta.
When confronted with a problems, Americans love to do to things: throw money at it and throw
technological "solutions" at it. This never works, but that is what they are good at.
The fact is that even in the 21st century what wins wars is not money or fancy gear, but
courage, determination, moral strength, willpower and the rage which seizes you when faced
with brute, ugly evil.
Russia does have some technological advantages over the U.S. though.
Russian missile technology is superior.
The S-400 surface to air defence system is two generations better than anything else in the world.
Russian missiles are superior too. Their ICMB's fly random path trajectories. They are the masters
of multiple engine rockets.
Only the Russians have the ability to put a man in space.
America is a little self deluded and they too often extrapolate their warplane technology advantage
into a blanket technology advantage. That's just not the case.
Perimetr
"Well now, it seems entirely possible that the US may have to fight a conventional war against
the Russians . . ."
Sorry, exactly how long do you think a war with Russia would remain CONVENTIONAL?
As soon a one side or the other started to lose, what do you think would happen? They will surrender?
Demdere
Guys, do not believe anyone who says that any part of any system is managable. Saying "I can
win a war" is the same as saying "I can see the future and inside other men's minds". No you an't.
You are throwing dice every time, and war is a very negative-sum game, most players don't even
break even. Both can easily lose very badly, far more han they ever could have conceviablely won.
I believe all modern wars have been of thar variety.
The cost of bad government keeps increasing. The cost of sufficient firepower to cause a 1% loss
of GDP is within the budget of a religious cult with intelligence service ties. We spend more
than 25$ of our GDP on policing, monitoring, checking, verifying. The overhead of our military
is at least 10% of GDP, our industry would kill for that kind of cost advantage. The costs of
dishonest are so huge.
runswithscissors
And why is the US seeking a "battle" with Russia anyway? This is completely absurd....are
the neo-cons/neo-libs this fucked up?
V for ...
Yep. The new Bolsheviks are criminally insane.
1033eruth
The US? No, Uncle Fraud is trying to get Americans to condone and approve another war through
constant media manipulation.
Every major war needs public approval. It doesn't happen until the media maneuvers American zombies
into acceptance.
Kent State was the beginning of the end of the Vietnam war. The losses we were incurring were
too great for the public to accept. Which also helps to explain why we have switched over to remote
control and drone warfare. We can still spend ocean carriers of money which the American public
overlooks as a cost for "safety" and the loss of life is minimized therefore less backlash.
Tell me why this hasn't occurred to you?
booboo
More scarey bullshit to whip up more support for spending trillions on another armored up coffin,
flying battleship or space shotgun, not that I am under any illusion that the U.S. would win but
God Damn, if you don't start a fucking war then you won't have to fight a war.
Blankone
Yes, this. And it works well because all sides lap it up. The MIC has the politicians push
the agenda and fear. TPTB have the MSM push it and the sheep eat it up like always. The Putin
fan club jumps on the band wagon because its the fantasy they wish was true.
Russia Would "Annihilate" US In Head-To-Head Battle
No wonder the Nobel Prize Winner is pushing Putin into a new world war. CIA created ISIS
blows up Russian passenger jet. F-15s sent to Turkey to attack Russian jets. Obama continues
to attack oil to bankrupt Russia.
US deploys F-15s to Syria, targeting Russian jets
By Thomas Gaist, 7 November 2015
The US will send a squadron of F-15C fighter jets to Turkey's Incirlik air base, the US Defense
Department (DOD) announced on Friday. The nature of the US war planes, which are specifically
designed for dogfighting with other highly advanced fighter jets, indicates that the deployment
carries a significance far beyond what its small scale would suggest.
The F-15 line of combat jets was developed in response to the unveiling in 1967 of the Soviet
Union's MiG-25 "Foxbat" interceptor.
Because they are designed for air-to-air combat against other major powers, the US
has, until now, seen no need to deploy the F-15C model to its Middle Eastern and Central Asian
war theaters, where the opposing forces have no warplanes.
The sudden deployment, coming less than two months after Russia began sending its own SU-30
fighters to its new airbase at Latakia, makes clear that the jets have been deployed in response
to Moscow's air campaign.
Stakes are high as US plays the oil card against Iran and Russia
John Kerry, the US secretary of state, allegedly struck a deal with King Abdullah in September
under which the Saudis would sell crude at below the prevailing market price. That would help
explain why the price has been falling at a time when, given the turmoil in Iraq and
Syria
caused by Islamic State, it would normally have been rising.
I dispute that the F-15 was ever intended as a dogfighter. It is fast, much faster than the
SU-30 and it can carry an impressive bomb load, but I believe the original design was rapid penetration
of enemy defenses and air to ground, not air superiority. All that of course comes only when the
F-15 is loaded down with not only fuselage conformant fuel tanks but drop tanks as well, reducing
it's effectiveness. When you compare thrust, aerodynamics, stand off weapons and sheer manoevering
capability the SU-30 wins hands down. The only air-to-air weapon the F-15's have been retrofitted
with that even comes close to the air-to-air that the Russians have is the British Meteor, but
that has never been tested. It is a Mach 4 weapon so the SU-30 couldn't outrun it or out climb
it, but I remain to be convinced about it's capabilities.
The larger problem for the Americans is that they are stationing their F-15's at Incirlik, which
is only 15 minutes from Latakia. Incirlikk was a poor choice for them to be stationing those units
when the stated intention was to fly missions against ISIS. If the Syrians/Russians detect the
F-15's coming south instead of going east they will have only a few moments to decide on whether
to launch S-400's against them, and in an environment that might have a heigntened level of intensity
that is a danger. Needless to say, an S-400 launced against an F-15 will take the later out in
seconds and no amount of chaffe of manoevering with change that scenario. Check mate.
Blankone
Check mate? They are moving that close to the Russian bases to squeeze Russia and occupy the
area. It is a sign they have no fear of Russia being willng to confront.
Dark Daze
Either that or a sign of sheer stupidity and a willingness to sacrifice men and material.
Talleyrand
Russia is not going to attack the Baltic states. Russia is not going to invade Poland. Russia
is not going to attack the anachronism that is NATO.
On the other hand, invading Russia has, historically, proven to be a bad idea.
cowdiddly
Just more of this Russophobia boogeyman bullshit to get more funds appropriated for their sick
toys and paychecks so they can continue getting their butt kicked all over the globe by anyone
more powerful than Somalia.
Parrotile
Jack, Russia has no reason to "invade Europe" since Europe has nothing of immediate benefit
to Russia. Having said that Russia will certainly not "telegraph" their intentions by troop movements,
and will certainly use their rather capable missile tech to "soften up" EU defences should the
opportunity arise. Air defence needs runways, and armies need reliable bulk transport (motorways
/ rail), the key locations of which (marshalling yards / major intersections) are well known to
Russia.
They will not just "roll over the border" and say "come and get us" to the West.
Having said the above, the prevailing view "on the ground" in Moscow is that it will be NATO
that pre-emptively attacks Russia, hence the refurbishing and re-provisioning of their network
of Civil Defence shelters, info via Brother in Law (BNP Paribas Moscow).
tarabel
Let's review here...
NATO is larger than it ever was before, and Russia is much smaller and weaker than the USSR/Warsaw
Pact.
Soviet armor is not parked in central Germany any more.
Vladimir Putin complains endlessly about NATO forces being forward deployed to his border regions.
Virtually every single member of the US military and many cadres from other NATO nations have
years of real world battlefield experience, while only a small number of Russians have been shot
at.
US/EU GDP approaches 40 trillion dollars. Russia has fallen down below 2 trillion due to the
drop in oil prices. 25 to 1 disparity.
US population 330 million. EU population 504 million. Russian population 142 million. 6-1
disparity.
Russian "breakout" from nuclear treaties that limited weapons to an approximate 1-1 parity means
that they are stronger in nuclear weapons than the United States, but the nuclear forces of the
UK and France mean that the West still possesses a slight but shrinking superiority here
And now you understand why Russia has officially and unilaterally renounced the solemn old Soviet
declaration of "no first use" of nuclear weapons. Any conventional war between the West and Russia
will end in ruin for Russia even if they can make some hay early on. The economic and population
disparities are far too wide for Putin to prevail or even defend his country-- unless he goes
nuclear. It is the only type of warfighting in which the sides are remotely equal.
The West has no need or interest in going nuclear on Russia in the event of hostilities. No matter
what sort of initial success Russian armies may achieve in the early stages of a war that starts
next door to their depots, the economic power of the West is far too much for him to overcome
with conventional means.
Draw your own conclusions as to who needs to light the first Roman Candle.
rejected
"Virtually every single member of the US military and many cadres from other NATO nations have
years of real world battlefield experience, while only a small number of Russians have been shot
at."
Yes,,, but fighting who? Vietnam, a real war, was too long ago. The veterans are old so their
experience will be of no use.
The Iraqi's were surrendering so fast it was slowing down the advance on Baghdad.
Libya,,, bombed into a failed state,,, other than the Marines having to defend the gun running
US Ambassador there was no fighting.
In Syria our Ally "moderate terrorists" are / was doing the grunt work against Assad.
And we're still fighting (losing) the cave dwellers of Afghanistan 15 years later. In fact they
are now advancing against the puppet US government.
Russia will never attack the West but the West will attack Russia because the West is broke. That
GDP your referring to was purchased by central bank printing.
The Russian Army will be defending their nation, Nato/US Armies will be trying to establish an
empire.
Who do you think will have the most incentive.
HyeM
This is all propaganda.... they're using words like "Annihilate" to terrify the public and
get an even larger budget for the military-industrial complex to benefit them and their friends
in the defense industry. For the last 80 years we were going to be "Annihilated", first by the
Soviet Army, and now this crap.
rbg81
I remember freshman ROTC lectures back in 1979. The USSR was poised to invade West Germany
via the Fulda Gap--they could come over at any minute. Ivan was ten feet tall. Blah, blah, blah.
Then, after the Berlin Wall fell, two generations of scary propaganda looked like a big joke.
Nothing ever changes.
I Write Code
Anybody interested, please click on the link and read the Politico article yourself.
This ZH posting completely misrepresents what the article says.
The article is really about McMaster and the good news that he's still in the game at the Pentagon.
And in two out of three scenarios the US beats Russia, apparently even in this expeditionary scenario.
Now, the whole thing is absurd. The idea that the US and Russia would end up firing major weapons
at each other is a mutual nightmare. And the idea that the US would pit a small force against
Russia, right against Russian territory, and expect to win, is doubly absurd.
But the Politico article is actually worth reading anyway, and for that, thank you ZH.
rejected
Great!!! Our team wins!
Could have went any way....
V for ...
Fairness, justice, freedom. These are more than words. They are deeds. That was the pledge
of the U.S. Military code before it was overtaken by dual citizens like the Wolfowitz Doctrine,
Project for a New American Century; those who declare to be the 'chosen ones', and use my country,
my people's blood and treasure.
Get off your knees, US Military Code. I have no interest in the failures of dual citizens,
and nor should you. My country, tis of thee. Foreigners should fund their own fight.
"Carter says Russia, China potentially threaten global order." WTF! These idiots really
believe America rules the world! Every country should fear us and do as we say. No other country
should EVER dare to challenge our oligarchy. Good for Russia and China for finally saying enough.
We patrol the South China Sea like it's our own f***ing bathtub. If China did that to us in the
Gulf of Mexico we would already be at war. The GLOBAL F***ING ORDER? Who made us kings of the
world?
These guys are sick. We need to pull our fleets and troops out and go home and stay there. Let
China and Russia deal with Japan, Taiwan and Syria. Guaranteed these guys will get us into a major
war soon. Obama is too weak to fight the MIC. They fill his head with crap about how no country
should dare to challenge us.
Americans cannot tolerate large losses. They expect to always kick ass and suffer few losses.
The new missile technology has changed all that. Watch the reaction when one of our aircraft carriers
goes to the bottom from a dozen simultaneous missile strikes. The oligarchs know they can count
on Joe Sixpack believing all their propaganda spewing forth and set his 300lb ass in his living
room chair saying, "Let's go kick China and Russia's asses."
seek
If the neocons think they can bring war to soil mere miles away from Russia and not get
a nuclear response if they start losing or we breach a russian boder, they're insane. Unfortunately
one look at current policy confirms that yes, indeed, they're insane. Just pray they only
target political and financial centers when the missiles fly. Might leave us in a better place.
lasvegaspersona
Eisenhower said war is man's greatest folly and those who pursue it or fail to prevent it are
a black mark on all of humanity
...wonder if these military geniuses have read THAT military history...
Eisenhower warned about a new thing in his time, something called a military industrial complex.
The modern Zionist talks about the MIC being a conspiracy theory, but Eisenhower said it would
have 'grave implications', and we 'must guard against ...the military industrial complex...never
let it endanger our liberties...'.
Charles Offdensen
What a bullshit article. If the US were to truly go all out war and not give a damn about public
opinion, which is media driven for the purpose of tying our hands visa vie Amercan public feeling
and emotions, we would by any stretch of the means and definition wipe the floor with any country
any where.
The problem is that most people don't realize or care to understand what it takes to win a war.
Since when did the enemy give a rats ass about how they killed us. They don't, so why should we
care about them or the civilians who have been so brutalized to the point of pure survival who
only want the pain to stop no matter who delivers it. And that includes their slave masters which
has been discussed ad nausium her at ZH.
Ask yourself. Do you really think people who have been raped and brutalized are going to be better
off if we play nice or are they going to do whatever it takes to survive and that means not giving
a shit about anyone else but you.
War is hell. There are no two ways about it. But do you sacrifice your objective just to win the
hearts and minds of those that would probably shoot you because they can't tell which way is up
or down? Especially those from a distinction all third world and seventh century mentality.
To win you have to do what is necessary regardless of judgment because judgment is what defeats
us in battle.
Blood is thicker than water. The dual citizens think they have captured the USA. I know they
have a tiger by the tail.
'they' serve money first by their hideous Talmud, and 'they' are going to die by it.
'they' enjoyed the protection of our Constitution and Bill of Rights, yet strive to destroy those
American ways.
F'ck 'em. Don't worry about them.. Let them die in their desert sandpit.
Dark Daze
There was a time, not so long ago, when the US at least tried to maintain the illusion that
they were the 'good guys'. Of course history paints an entirely different picture. As I have written
many times, from Latin America, South America, China, South East Asia, Africa and now the middle
east, the US has overthrown, bombed, murdered, screwed over, enslaved and otherwise brutalised
most of the worlds population. Let's not forget that it was less than 40 years from the American
Revolution when the US started it's wars of conquest by trying to invade Canada while Britain
was tied up with Napoleon.
Glad to see that there is at leasrt one American who makes no bones about his/her true intentions,
which is total world domination. Unfortunately for you, you're economy is wrecked, your banks
and government are bankrupt, you have no gold left, your population is seething in it's anger
and you're vaunted war machine is phoney. So go ahead, try the Chinese or the Russians on for
size and see what happens.
docinthehouse
If Russia and China were smart, they would improve theirr own country's infrastructure and
let the West continue to rot of its own accord. You get what you accept Ameirca and the west have
becomes slaves to debt and a tolerance of freeloading. You get what you accept.
Setarcos
Er! Russia and China ARE improving their infrastructures, Russia especially since sanctions
gave a strong impetus.
Have you seen the new bridge being built to Crimea and what a about Sochi, the new technology
centre near Moscow, revitalized Vladivostok and the new Cosmodrom, for instance.
Agricultural production is way up and manufacturing is being ramped up.
marcusfenix
as an aside to this piece there was another interesting disclosure regarding the growing gaps
in capabilities the US would have to overcome if Washington ever engaged Russia in a conventional
war.
namely the cruise missile strikes from the Caspian flotilla, while they did not make a difference
in the course of the battle in Syria they did show that Russia has a capability that the US Navy
does not and could put them at a serious disadvantage in any engagement. it wasn't the missiles
themselves though they did show a vast improvement in Russian long range guided missile capabilities
but how they were delivered that is cause for concern in DC.
unlike the US navy which relies exclusively on larger blue water destroyers for it's long range
cruise missile delivery, the missiles fired from the Caspian sea were launched from much smaller,
faster and more agile corvettes. long range strike capability from a package that is much harder
to find, track, target and hit than the US navy's guided missile and aegis destroyers.
this capability has countless advantages but Washington never pursued it's development and apparently
did not expect Moscow to either. but now not only did Moscow do just that they proved to the world
that they can use it in combat in essence rendering the entire US navy's carrier fleet obsolete.
consider this small of a ship, under 90 tons, can position itself anywhere up to 900 miles away
and fire up to 12 LRAS missiles from areas where larger ships and even subs simply can not operate.
all while still retaining blue water mission capabilities.
it is simply smaller, faster, more flexible, more cost effective and smarter than anything the
US navy has to offer. these corvettes are relatively easy to produce and maintain and can be built
in large numbers on short notice, they are hard to hunt and hard to kill and can sink carriers
from hundreds of miles away.
instead of investing in practical, usable tech like this DC sinks one trillion dollars in the
F-35 which still isn't near production and is already obsolete. as one US air force general testified
before congress the Russians have had the ability to overcome the Lightnings stealth capabilities
for at least 15 years now and in a dog fight it would get shredded by even a 1960's Mig 21 because
it is to under powered to generate attack angels and "turns like a garbage truck".
now I wonder how many guided missile corvettes could one trillion dollars buy?
Flankspeed60
Any negative assessment of US military capability originating from within the military-industrial
complex, must necessarily be considered suspect. First, that assessment would be considered highly
classified, unless it was pre-approved and deliberately released to scare more money out of already
fleeced taxpayers. Second, .Gov used the same propaganda in our decades-long cold war with the
USSR to justify massive spending and involvement in global conflicts. Profligate spending and
profligate lies leave them with no credibility.
tool
Exactly talking their own book fear mongering to increase their allocated budget and by god
they will find away to spend every last cent. Remember the recent Afghan compressed natural gas
outlet should have cost 500k actually cost billions!
"... Actually oil accounts for only about 15% of the Russian economy, which is rapidly diversifying because of the impetus provided by sanctions. ..."
"... Ironically too, because oil is still mainly traded in inflated USD and the ruble devalued, the price drop is not as great as it seems at first glance, and because internal trade, manufacturing, etc. is conducted in rubles, the impact is lessened even more. ..."
"... The USSR collapsed because the people, the foundation of support, were disgusted and disillusioned with a system with pervasive corruption at the top, while the majority suffered deprivation. ..."
"... Actually the Soviet Union was dismantled from above. The ruling (elite) group - in government, managers of large industries, academics, etc. wanted the economic privileges available in capitalist countries. Circa 80% of the population (i.e., working people) supported the Soviet Union and socialism and were the ones whose living standards collapsed following the conversion to capitalism. See- Revolution From Above: The Demise of the Soviet System by David Kotz and Fred Weir ..."
While the American Empire still exists and has extended its imperialistic reach, it is a very
different empire from the days of the Reaganites. Most obviously, the Rule of Law is dead. Saturation
corruption permeates this now rancid empire.
Financial criminals (primarily based in the U.S.) commit crimes literally a
thousand times larger than anything previously seen in our history, and then repeat these crimes
again and again. The U.S. 'Justice' Department spends its time not in prosecuting and incarcerating
these criminals (and criminalized "banks"). Rather, it expends its energies
explaining why it refuses to prosecute these criminals.
The primary "prey" of this banking crime syndicate is now the American people and the
U.S. economy , itself. The United States has not merely become insolvent, it is obviously bankrupt.
The
Oligarchs who control its puppet government literally shipped the U.S. manufacturing base to
the low-wage regimes of Asia, which ironically included China. As a result, the once-envied U.S.
Middle Class has been transformed into
the Working Poor .
In most respects (outside of economic parameters), the American Empire would be judged to be "stronger
than ever". Clearly this is true militarily. Despite having no real "enemies" since the defeat-by-default
of the Soviet Union, U.S. Neo-Cons have been busy as beavers inventing Boogeymen (and then destroying
them) in order to justify the continued, relentless expansion of its war machine.
Politically, successively more-fascist regimes have rendered the U.S. Constitution essentially
obsolete. Legally illegitimate (i.e. null-and-void),
fascist laws have been wallpapered over the Constitution, stripping the American people of their
rights and liberties.
In legitimate democracies, Constitutions are the ultimate Law of the Land, which serve primarily
to protect the People from the State. In fascist regimes, invariably illegitimate governments create
endless laws designed to protect the State from the People. The American Empire used to represent
the former paradigm. Now it epitomizes
the latter .
At one time, the closer that one moved toward the "heart" of the American Empire, the more strict
was adherence to the Rule of Law. Today, the closer one approaches to the political cesspool known
as "Washington, D.C.", or the
financial cesspool known as "Wall Street", the more-overpowering becomes the stench of corruption
– and lawlessness.
In a perverse twist of fate, the American Empire now mirrors the Soviet Union, in almost every
respect. In the Soviet Union, voters were given the choice of two candidates, in what it called "elections".
However both of those candidates represented the Communist Party.
In the American Empire, voters are also given the choice of two candidates, they simply pretend
to represent two, different parties. Incredibly, this political charade has managed to persist for
at least a century.
"There is no material difference now in the old political parties, except which shall control
the patronage."
- (former Congressman/prosecutor) Charles Lindbergh Sr.,
The Economic Pinch (p.61), 1923
Perhaps more significantly, the American Empire now bears considerable resemblance to the Roman
Empire, as well. Historians are in agreement that at the time the Roman Empire was at the absolute
peak of its military might that "the decline of the Roman Empire" had already been underway for
centuries.
Where the ancient Roman Empire differs from the modern American Empire is that in the 21 st century,
events – including the rise-and-fall of empires – progress much, much more rapidly. Roughly speaking,
what used to stretch over centuries now takes place in decades. Instant communication, rapid global
transportation, computerization, and numerous, other technological advances are responsible for this
accelerated pace of political/economic/social evolution.
Morally and economically bankrupt, the American Empire now relies more and more heavily on its
Big Stick, which it wields with ever more impunity and recklessness. Statesmen such as
Ron Paul and
Paul Craig Roberts have regularly warned that the current generation of Neo-Cons (who wield all,
real power in the U.S. government) are marching relentlessly toward World War III.
However, while we see Psychopaths on the left/West, we see an entirely opposite political dynamic
in the East. The strengthening alliance between China and Russia, represents two, large, global powers
which (at least at this point in time) demonstrate no imperial aspirations. But this is only one
significant way in which the East differs from the West.
In an essay titled Grandmaster Putin's Trap , Russian writer Dmitry Kalinichenko provides
us with aninsightful
allegory . Cold War II is not a militarily-oriented confrontation, rather it is a geopolitical
chess match. The important point here is that only one "side" understands how to play (and win) a
chess match.
How does a skilled chess-player achieve victory? Positioning, positioning, and more positioning.
It is only once one's opponent has been completely out-positioned that any thought is given to overt
attack. Chess is a game of patience, and (often) a game of simply waiting for one's opponent to self-destruct,
via strategic error, or mere impatience.
This brings us back to the current geopolitical stage. In the East, we see Russia and China constantly
engaged in improving their position. Unlike the American Empire, they are improving their economies
– notcannibalizing
them. They are relentlessly adding to their
gold reserves ("He who has the gold makes the rules" – The Golden Rule), while the American
Empire has squandered most of its
own reserves .
While the U.S., and the West, in general, unremittingly alienates the Rest of the World, Russia
and China have been rapidly improving their political and economic cooperation with other nations.
While the political/economic institutions created or sponsored by the American Empire lose their
legitimacy due to corruption, Russia and China are creating parallel, corruption-free institutions
– to replace them.
If this was a real chess match, the player on the left would have already 'pushed over his King'
(i.e. capitulated). The player on the right now has such superior position that the outcome of the
game is no longer in doubt. However, this is not a game, but rather real life – where one side has
utterly no respect for anything resembling "rules".
Russia and China are clearly headed for victory-by-default in Cold War II. The psychopaths of
the American Empire have demonstrated that they are ready-and-willing to do literally anything to
prevent this seemingly inevitable outcome. For this reason, the warnings of people such as Ron Paul
and Paul Craig Roberts should be given our most serious consideration.
GreatUncle
Russia & China, you might want to add India too.
It is called mutual support because as each year passes the US becomes more and more aggressive
and to be out on your own and a threat to those in power there you will be turned upon to keep
you in your place.
If anything I expect this coalition of nations to only get stronger because if any become isolated
and seems to be current foreign policy with Russia you are in for a bit of brutality. Then once
one side or the other is eliminated and that can be economically too they will turn on the another
to keep them in their place.
Top dog is always going to have an inferiority complex against any who may challenge it.
Consequence? In the last decade reckon under its own steam the US has magnificently turned
a substantial portion of the global population against it. It might not be in the MSM, it will
be undercurrents of all the brutality like killing innocent citizens with drones or a shoot to
kill policy by the US military and the if you are not with us you are against us mentality.
laomei
Russia and China are clearly headed for victory-by-default in Cold War II.
Lol, the Russian economy is collapsing, it relies entirely on oil and oil is dirt cheap. Russia
gave the EU an out with sanctions to tear up the contracts and will soon be able to turn to alternative
sources. That leaves China as their main partner for oil, while Russia buys up cheap Chinese garbage.
But, at the same time, China is more or less in the same position as Mexico was, combined with
systemic problem that are virtually identical to the Japan bust. It's a ticking time bomb and
the government is literally locking up anyone who dares to even suggest that such a thing is even
possible now. Purely out of fear that someone might be listening. China is still dealing with
record outflows of cash and is rapidly liquidating those vast reserves. Once the economic growth
drops (official numbers or not), there will be no choice left but to devale, which is great for
exporters, but toxic for all companies that have borrowed USD. It's enough to destroy entirely
their advanced sectors, and they do not have the willing labor at competitive rates to rush back
to manufacture like they used to.
Setarcos
Actually oil accounts for only about 15% of the Russian economy, which is rapidly diversifying
because of the impetus provided by sanctions.
Ironically too, because oil is still mainly traded in inflated USD and the ruble devalued,
the price drop is not as great as it seems at first glance, and because internal trade, manufacturing,
etc. is conducted in rubles, the impact is lessened even more.
bthunder
If corruption is what brings empires down, then considering level of corruption in China and
Russia vs in the US of A, Russia and China will collapse long before USA will.
As far as Putin's "grandmaster" skills supposedly demonstrated by Russia's "positioning, positioning,
and more positioning", during 15 years of his rule Russia's economy has been positioned for oil
exports, nat gas exports, and more oil exports. That takes some grndmaster-like skills indeed.
Now that he's involved in 2 conflicts and China is refusing to pay previously negotiated prices
for oil and nat gas (china demands discounts to reflect current low prices) it will be interesting
to see how he can conduct and pay for 2 wars at the same time.
Crash N. Burn
"As far as Putin's "grandmaster" skills..."
Perhaps you should have clicked the link in that paragraph:
"After realizing its failure in Ukraine, the West, led by the US set out to destroy Russian
economy by lowering oil prices, and accordingly gas prices as the main budget sources of export
revenue in Russia and the main sources of replenishment of Russian gold reserves....
..Putin is selling Russian oil and gas only for physical gold.
Putin is not shouting about it all over the world. And of course, he still accepts US dollars
as an intermediate means of payment. But he immediately exchanges all these dollars obtained from
the sale of oil and gas for physical gold!..
..in the third quarter the purchases by Russia of physical gold are at all-time high record
levels. In the third quarter of this year, Russia had purchased an incredible amount of gold in
the amount of 55 tons. It's more than all the central banks of all countries of the world combined"
The USSR collapsed because the people, the foundation of support, were disgusted and disillusioned
with a system with pervasive corruption at the top, while the majority suffered deprivation.
Now things have reversed, it is Americas turn.
Freddie
The USSR was totally corrupt just like the USA today. The USA has been on a slipperly slope
since before the Banksters - Civil War. I pretty much expected when Obola was selected by Soros
and other zios that the uSA was headed towards an implosion like the old USSR.
Phillyguy
Actually the Soviet Union was dismantled from above. The ruling (elite) group - in government,
managers of large industries, academics, etc. wanted the economic privileges available in capitalist
countries. Circa 80% of the population (i.e., working people) supported the Soviet Union and socialism
and were the ones whose living standards collapsed following the conversion to capitalism. See-
Revolution From Above: The Demise of the Soviet System by David Kotz and Fred Weir
I suggest checking an atlas, or googlemap. "mother Russia" most certainly included Belarus
and, arguably, some if not all of Ukraine. They don't seem to be part of the Russian federation
nowadays.
"Unlike the American Empire, they are improving their economies – not
cannibalizing them."
That's, unfortunately, very arguable about Russia. Russia lived on the oil price highs of the
last 10 years, but its economy is largely unchanged, imports
are rampant, agriculturecan't
keep up with internal demandand infrastructures, in general but in particular in
the immense Asian part,
has not much changed since the 90s, or maybe even 60s (with the exception of the
oil related projects) and corruption is omnipresent.
1] Belarus is not technically part of Russia, but in many way it is and still heading for greater
integration. Belarus is now part of what is legally called Union State of Russia and Belarus.
Interestingly, although economic integration has proved difficult at this point, the
two states are integrated militarily. Besides, Belarus is a member of the Eurasian Union, which
is a Russian parallel to the European Union. It is perhaps more easy for Russia to have this Union
instead of incorporating the former Soviet countries directly into Russia again. Although there
are regions, who would very much like to rejoin Russia directly, but cannot do so, because it
would provoke fury of the American Empire. So all the integration and rejoining must be done very
quietly and under the blanket for now.
2) asian part,
has not much changed since the 90s: ummm....this has been true for entire thousands
of year long history of Russia. It is incredibly difficult for Russia to develop all its territory,
because it is huge. Russia will need help of China and other Asian states to do this. But cities
like Vladivostok have changed for better already and are booming. There are plans for greater
development of those regions and many projects in place. One of them is the new Russian cosmodrome,
which will provide jobs and centre of life for many people, once it is completed. But of course,
developing those regions is an enormous effort for generations to come, which Putin can only start
and his successors will have to continue.
3) Apart from Far East, Russia is also positioning itself in the Artics, building bases and
projects. This is also task for future generations.
4) Russian economy is certainly not unchanged! Russia jumped higher in the ranking of easy
to do business chart and the World Bank says that d oing Business in
Russia is now easier than in China. Russian debts (both state and external)
are still decreasing and gold reserves growing. Agriculture is self-sufficient already (no Russians
dying from hunger and import bans still in place). It also has much to improve, but Russians can
now feed themselves without the help of the West. For example dairy production has grown 26%.
And more than that, for example Russia is now surpassing USA in wheat export. Poorer regions like
Africa and Middle-Eastern countries like Egypt and Iran are buying more and more food from Russia,
as it is cheaper.
5) Imports rampant? I don't get what rampant means, but imports are much smaller than last
year and still dropping. And most imports are now undertandably coming from China.
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/russia/imports
6) Corruption is also decreasing and it is nowhere as terrible as in the USA (if only for the
simple reason that Russia does not print money and does not increase its debts, so the amount
of money to steal from is limited). This should be an example for future Americans. Corruption
will always exist, but it will be much less, if you don't print money out of nothing and if you
don't increase debts to pass them on to your children.
People tend to forget that Russia, despite being an old civilization, is actually a very young
as a state in the current form. Its economy and capitalism have had far less time to develop than
USA! The Russian Constitution was created only in 1993, so even its political system is very young.
So it is logical that everything is still in its beginnings and evolving. Russia is now where
USA was in, say, 1791:-) But that is not necessarily a bad thing, as Russians still have a lot
of space for creativity and building of their state - they are in the beginning of a new cycle,
while USA is in the end of a cycle.
And you don't seem to understand the arguments made.
1) The writer said that "mother Russi has remained intact". Belarus and Ukraine are part of
teh concept of "MOther Russia". ukraine goes without saying, considering that it is where the
whole concept of Russia begun (you know, Kievan Rus?). Now, Belarus was part of Kievan Rus and
Minsk itself was settled by Russians in the 9th century (the city proper was created in the 11th,
still by Russians). yes, it could be argued is that the polonization process that happened once
it came under the Polish-Lithuanian union when the Russian state had been conquered by the mongols
set belarus culturally and linguistically apart for a few centuries, but ideally, Belarus is undoubtly
part of "mother Russia". You seem to know little of the history of the place yourself for accusing
othes not to know much of it.
2) yes, indeed... but still, not even you countered my argument that infrastructure is basically
what it used to be. of course, not exactly what it used to be.. note that I used "largely the
same". there are a few exceptions.
3) true, but artict exploration is like the space age race of the 60s: a show of power and
a technological feat, with large upfront costs and with limited impact on the real economy (or
rather, a large impact, but on a very long timeframe since the technologies ended up mainstream).
4) saying that doing business in Russia in easier than in China is not saying much, considering
how closed to foreigners the Chinese economy is (the fact that it is open to FDI doesn't mean
it is an open economy, even if many confuse the two things). Russia can feed itself with grain
and potatoes, of course, and it can also export them (as it has done for decades in its history),
but it cannot actually produce for a diversified internal demand, forcing people to either pay
a large premium for imports (even larger now with sanctions, hence the reduction of imports) or
go for second line products via import substitution. the reason why food prices jumped with sanctions
is that Russia wasn't able to produce enough to make do for the food it imported and prices raised
as goods were to few to meet demand. There's simply no easier evidence than that AND the fact
that just last july the ministry of agricolture for Russia promised MASSIVE subsidies to the agricolture
sector to stimulate production. So, are we really arguing the insufficiency of Russian agricoltural
sector? Which brings as to...
5) ...You confuse the fact that imports are slowing due the economic crisis and ruble depreciation
with economic strenght, which is funny. Truth is, if you remove oil from russian exports, the
balance of trade of Russia is utterly negative and getting worse. Russia is not Saudi Arabia,
of course, where everythign revolves around oil, but most of the economic resurgence of the Putin
era is due to oil windfall and not much has been done to improve other sectors of the economy.
proof is, there is no major company that is considered a major player which has been born in Russia
in the last 20 years. All top russian companies are oil related (Gazprom, Rosnef and Lukoil) or
financial (which raised due the financial needs and revenues of oil), while there is a (relative)
desert in services and computer technology. Russia has been and largely continue to be, a raw
material exporting country with heavy industries tied to raw materials and armaments, not much
of an advanced tertiary or high value added items economy. And I add, unfortunately so, as nothing
would please me more to see a strong enough Russia to limit the American idiocy around Europe
and teh middle East. The world has gone insane since the loss of a counterweight.
6) your understanding of corruption is.. well, not understanding. Corruption isn't tied to
money production, it is tied with money transfers within an economy. If you have to pay for a
permission or a to move goods around, that is a net loss for the economy. In transpareny international
index, Russian CPI was 24 in 2014, ranking it 136 of 175 countries, in 2012 it was 28. It IS improving,
but it's still one of the most corrupt countries in the world.
One can be a Russian fan (I am), but denying the limits of the country's economy doesn't help.
Putin himself understands the limits and that's the reason why Russian isn't, differently than
the US id in Iraq and Afghanistan, going with its army in Ukraine or Syria: they don't have the
financial means to sustain a ground war. I wish Russia a bright future, but they have much to
improve and their economy has much to diversify to self sustain.
Btw, Russia has another, immense bordering on the catastrophic, problem and that is demography.
Between very low natality and, until very recently, a lowering life expectancy (which is still
one of the lowest , if not the lowest, of all advanced economies) Russians risk to go extincted
to irrilevance by the end of the century (but at least, they are not following the folly of our
Europeans to substitute disappearing locals with muslims from the middle east and Africa). I really
hope they will manage to reverse the trend.
Lucky Leprachaun
Destruction from within? Undoubtedly. Caused by Americans themselves? More problematical. You
see the agents of this destruction - Neocons, banksters, Cultural Marxist degenerates - are largely
the 'rootless cosmopolitans' of legend, with at best a transient attachment to the country.
In after Snowden world, is this a testament that most smartphone users are idiots, or what ?
Notable quotes:
"... The company said mobile advertising in the third quarter accounted for a colossal 78 percent of its ad revenue, up from 66 percent a year ago. ..."
Facebook is so far defying concerns about its spending habits - a criticism that has at times
also plagued Amazon and Alphabet's Google - because the social network is on a short list of tech
companies that make money from the wealth of mobile visitors to its smartphone app and website.
The company said mobile advertising in the third quarter accounted for a colossal 78 percent
of its ad revenue, up from 66 percent a year ago.
... ... ...
Revenue was also bolstered by Facebook increasing the number of ads it showed users over the
past year, said David Wehner, the company's chief financial officer. And video advertising, a
growth area for Facebook, is on the rise: More than eight billion video views happen on the
social network every day, the company said.
Hand in hand with the increased advertising is more users to view the promotions. The number of
daily active users of Facebook exceeded one billion for the first time in the quarter, up 17
percent from a year earlier, with monthly active mobile users up 23 percent, to 1.4 billion.
... ... ...
Beyond the properties it owns, Facebook is dabbling in partnerships with media companies that
could prove lucrative in the future. In May, the company debuted a feature called Instant
Articles with a handful of publishers, including The New York Times, which lets users read
articles from directly inside the Facebook app without being directed to a web browser.
Corruption == inequality: "Corruption is a tax on growth just as inequality is a tax on growth.
Money that could be spent on improving conditions overall winds up in the hands of a small wealthy oligarchy.
The only real difference is legalistic. Technically corruption involves some type of illegality, but
the end results are the same."
Notable quotes:
"... Deregulation, of course. A semantic trick so typical of the IMF. Openness is fair and to manage openness you may need a clear regulatory framework that provides rules and clarity with strong institutions that can ensure compliance. Pushing all the time for deregulation is ideological bias. ..."
"... I like the idea of economist studying the economic effects of corruption. One of the benefits, of course, is that it will bring more to light these rationalizations like the one Ignacio brings up. So if only we didnt have laws against shoplifting then the shoplifter would not have to hide what he was doing or be guilty of a crime ..."
"... Corruption is a tax on growth just as inequality is a tax on growth. Money that could be spent on improving conditions overall winds up in the hands of a small wealthy oligarchy. The only real difference is legalistic. Technically corruption involves some type of illegality, but the end results are the same. ..."
"... This may sound a bit strong, but if you do the math, corruption and relentless upward distribution are the same thing in terms of national accounting. Do the math and youll see. ..."
"... When talking about corruption, everybody focuses on illicit flows of payments, which is of course a primary factor, but I would say the greasing of hands is not the most damaging part, rather it is the associated dereliction of duty and shaping policy and decision making, and initiation, selection, or prioritization of projects not to serve the public benefit (or that of the organizations involved) but to arrange private advantages. ..."
"... the largest problem is not the driving up of the cost though thats bad enough, but the corruption of the very decision making which inevitably leads to not delivering what was needed or requested, but something counterproductive (and not rarely in a way that conveniently enables the next round of graft). ..."
"... In the days of the notoriously corrupt Tammany Hall they used to talk about honest corruption and dishonest corruption. The idea is that honest corruption got the thing built or done, even if the cost was incredibly bloated. Tammany Hall made a point of distributing the loot up and down the line. The big guys would get millions, but every worker on the job got bonus pay, fake overtime and spare parts . ..."
The "C word": A Hidden Tax on Growth, by Vitor Gaspar and Sean Hagan: In recent years, citizens'
concerns about allegations of corruption in the public sector have become more visible and widespread.
From São Paulo to Johannesburg, citizens have taken to the streets against graft. In countries
like Chile, Guatemala, India, Iraq, Malaysia and Ukraine, they are sending a clear and loud message
to their leaders: Address corruption!
Policymakers are paying attention too. Discussing the "C word" has long been a sensitive topic
at inter-governmental organizations like the International Monetary Fund. But earlier this month
at its Annual Meetings in Lima, Peru, the IMF hosted a refreshingly
frank
discussion on the subject. The panel session provided a stimulating debate on definitions
of corruption, its direct and indirect consequences, and strategies for addressing it, including
the role that individuals and institutions such as the IMF can play. This blog gives a flavor
of the discussion. ...
Ignacio said...
Here goes the IMF:
"Openness of the economy through deregulation and liberalization will also help since
overly-regulated economies create strong incentives to maintain corrupt practices."
Deregulation, of course. A semantic trick so typical of the IMF. Openness is fair and to
manage openness you may need a clear regulatory framework that provides rules and clarity with
strong institutions that can ensure compliance. Pushing all the time for deregulation is ideological
bias.
djb -> anne...
I like the idea of economist studying the economic effects of corruption. One of the benefits,
of course, is that it will bring more to light these rationalizations like the one Ignacio brings
up. So if only we didn't have laws against shoplifting then the shoplifter would not have to hide
what he was doing or be guilty of a crime
Corruption is a tax on growth just as inequality is a tax on growth. Money that could be
spent on improving conditions overall winds up in the hands of a small wealthy oligarchy. The
only real difference is legalistic. Technically corruption involves some type of illegality, but
the end results are the same.
This may sound a bit strong, but if you do the math, corruption and relentless upward distribution
are the same thing in terms of national accounting. Do the math and you'll see.
cm -> kaleberg...
When talking about corruption, everybody focuses on illicit flows of payments, which is
of course a primary factor, but I would say the greasing of hands is not the most damaging part,
rather it is the associated dereliction of duty and shaping policy and decision making, and initiation,
selection, or prioritization of projects not to serve the public benefit (or that of the organizations
involved) but to arrange private advantages.
If it were only about the money, it would be more like being slightly overcharged on the bill,
but still getting what you ordered or needed.
cm -> cm...
Of course not to forget the lining of pockets. But my main point still stands - the largest
problem is not the driving up of the cost though that's bad enough, but the corruption of the
very decision making which inevitably leads to not delivering what was needed or requested, but
something counterproductive (and not rarely in a way that "conveniently" enables the next round
of graft).
kaleberg -> cm...
In the days of the notoriously corrupt Tammany Hall they used to talk about honest corruption
and dishonest corruption. The idea is that honest corruption got the thing built or done, even
if the cost was incredibly bloated. Tammany Hall made a point of distributing the loot up and
down the line. The big guys would get millions, but every worker on the job got bonus pay, fake
overtime and "spare parts".
likbez said...
IMF neoliberal perspective on governance failed to highlight the major source of corruption
-- neoliberalism as a social system.
Over recent years, IMF and World Bank have been promoting an artificially constructed discourse
on corruption that separates it from its historic narrative -- the neoliberal political system
under which it now flourish. They use pretty elaborate smoke screen designed to hide the key issues
under the set of fuzzy terms such as "transparency", "accountability", "governance", "anticorruption
initiatives". Ignoring the socio-political role of corruption as the key mechanism of the neoliberal
debt enslavement of peripheral nations (see Confessions of an Economic Hit Man - Wikipedia )
Privatization might well be the most widespread type of corruption which occurs when an office-holder
or other governmental employee acts in an official capacity to sell government property for pennies
on the dollar to local oligarchs of international companies. With delayed payment via the "revolving
door" mechanism.
If we assume that corruption is 'illegitimate use of public power to benefit a private interest"
then neoliberalism is the most corrupt social system imaginable.
But in neoliberal ideology only the state is responsible for corruption. The private sector under
neoliberalism is immune of any responsibility. In reality it is completely opposite and state
represents a barrier to private companies especially international sharks to get unfair advantage.
And they can use the USA embassy as a source of pressure instead of bribing government officials.
Neoliberals argues without any proof that if the market is let to function through its own mechanisms,
and the role of state diminished to a minimum regulatory role, "good governance" could be realized
and corruption be diminished. As US subprime crisis has shown this is untrue and destroys the
stability of the economy.
Actually the term "governance" serves as the magical universal opener in neoliberal ideology.
It is ideologically grounded up the narrative of previous mismanagement of economy ("blame the
predecessor" trick).
This assumes the ideal economic sphere, in which players somehow get an equal opportunities
automatically without regulatory role of the state and in case of peripheral nations without being
strong armed by more powerful states. Under neoliberalism ethical responsibilities on players
are reduced to the loyalty to contract.
Moreover antisocial behavior under liberalism is explicitly promoted (" greed is good") and
the West serves as a "treasure vault" for stolen money and provides "safe heaven" for corrupt
officials that face prosecution. At least this is true for Russian oligarchs when each crook automatically
became "fighter for freedom" after landing in London airport and stolen money are indirectly appropriated
by British state and never returned to Russia.
The USA is very similar. It likes to condemn corruption but seldom returns that money stolen
-- for example it never returned to Ukraine money stolen by Ukrainian Prime minister under President
Kuchma Pavlo Lazarenko (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavlo_Lazarenko)
.
gunste said...
Applied Republican ideology is operating and legislating in favor of money donors and their
businesses. It is America's legalized corruption and bribery.
The current American administration will go down in history as one of the most weak and
unprofessional with no affinity for etiquette and good manners.
Notable quotes:
"... Where Mr. Obama failed, other Western and world leaders expressed their condolences-British Prime-Minister David Cameron, Polish President Andzej Duda, French President Francois Hollande, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Chinese President Xi Jinping among them. ..."
"... The Kremlin isn't worrying why Barack Obama didn't send condolences, reported Interfax. "Probably, this should not be explained by the Kremlin," said Dmitry Peskov, the Press Secretary to the Russian President, answering why there was no official telegram from Mr. Obama. Mr. Peskov said there were "a lot" of messages from other world leaders. ..."
"... Russia's national news service Information Agency outed Mr. Obama as "the only world leader that did not express his condolences [to Russia] on the air catastrophe A-321." ..."
"... "This is personal," wrote Russian newspaper Komsomolskaya Pravda, adding "the current American administration will go down in history as one of the most weak and unprofessional with no affinity for etiquette and good manners." ..."
On November 2, speaking at a Democratic fundraiser in New York, President Barack Obama poked
fun of the Republicans, joking that if they cannot handle CNBC moderators how could they possibly
handle Russia's Vladimir Putin?
"Every one of these candidates says, 'Obama's weak, Putin's kicking sand in his face. When I talk
to Putin, he's gonna straighten out.' …and then it turns out they can't handle a bunch of CNBC
moderators!" Mr. Obama said.
"I mean, let me tell you: if you can't handle those guys," he continued, laughing, "I don't think
the Chinese and the Russians are going to be too worried about you."
While Mr. Obama had his fun, he neglected to mention more serious matters-the Russian plane crash
over the Sinai peninsula on October 31 that took the lives of all 224 passengers on board.
Where Mr. Obama failed, other Western and world leaders expressed their condolences-British
Prime-Minister David Cameron, Polish President Andzej Duda, French President Francois Hollande,
German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Chinese President Xi Jinping among them.
On his Twitter page, Mr. Cameron wrote: "PM expresses condolences to President Putin over Sinai
plane crash. Britain shares Russia's pain and grief."
Mr. Hollande wrote: "[A]fter the occurred tragedy [President] sends his condolences to President
Putin and expresses his solidarity with the Russian people.."
Even Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko took to Twitter with the following: "I express my
personal condolences to all the families of those perished in the catastrophe of the Russian
passenger plane over Egypt."
Not Mr. Obama.
The Kremlin isn't worrying why Barack Obama didn't send condolences, reported Interfax.
"Probably, this should not be explained by the Kremlin," said Dmitry Peskov, the Press Secretary
to the Russian President, answering why there was no official telegram from Mr. Obama. Mr. Peskov
said there were "a lot" of messages from other world leaders.
Secretary of State John Kerry expressed condolences on behalf of "all American people" to the
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov-that was all, said Putin's press secretary.
Russia's national news service Information Agency outed Mr. Obama as "the only world leader that
did not express his condolences [to Russia] on the air catastrophe A-321."
"This is personal," wrote Russian newspaper Komsomolskaya Pravda, adding "the current
American administration will go down in history as one of the most weak and unprofessional with
no affinity for etiquette and good manners."
Mozilla made a bit of a splash this week with
the announcement of its updated "private mode" in Firefox, but it's worth spelling out exactly
why: Firefox's enhanced privacy mode blocks web trackers.
Users familiar with Chrome's "Incognito Mode" may assume that's what it does as well, but it doesn't.
It's no fault of Google or the Chromium Project if someone misunderstands the degree of protection.
The company is clear
in its FAQ: all Incognito Mode does is keep your browsing out of the browser's history.
'We think that when you launch private browsing you're telling us that you want more control over
the data you share on the web.'
Firefox's new "Private Mode" one-ups user protection here by automatically blocking web trackers.
Nick Nguyen, Vice President for Product at Mozilla, says in the video announcement, "We think that
when you launch private browsing you're telling us that you want more control over the data you share
on the web." That sounds right. In fact, most people probably think private modes provide more safety
than they do.
Firefox has been working to educate web users about the prevalence of trackers for a long time.
In 2012,
it introduced Collusion to help users visualize just how many spying eyes were in the background
of their browsing (a tool now
known by the milquetoast name 'Lightbeam') and how they follow you around.
Privacy nuts might be thinking, "Hey, isn't the new Private Mode basically doing what the
Ghostery add-on/extension does already? It
looks that way. Ghostery was not immediately available for comment on this story. This reporter started
using Ghostery in earnest in the last few weeks, and while it does bust the odd page, overall, it
makes the web much faster. As Mr. Nguyen says in the video, Firefox's new mode should do the roughly
the same.
The best way to update Firefox is within the 'About Firefox' dialogue. Open it and let it check
for updates (if it doesn't say version 42.0 or higher, the browser doesn't have it). On Macs, find
"About Firefox" under the "Firefox" tab in the menu bar. On a PC, find it in the hamburger menu in
the upper right.
Competition in the browser battles keeps improving the functionality of the web. When Chrome first
came along, Firefox had become incredibly bloated.
Notice of what's new in 'Private Mode' when opened in Firefox, after updating. (Screenshot: Firefox)
Then, Chrome popularized the notion of incognito browsing, back when the main privacy concern
was that our roommate would look at our browsing history to see how often we were visiting Harry
Potter fansites (shout out to stand-up comic, Ophira Eisenberg, for that one).
As the web itself has become bloated with spyware, incorporating tracker blocking directly into
the structure of the
world's second most popular browser is a strong incentive for web managers to be more judicious
about the stuff they load up in the background of websites.
Don't forget, though, that even with trackers blocked, determined sites can probably identify
visitors and they can definitely profile,
using browser fingerprinting. If you really want to hide, use
Tor. If you're mega paranoid, try
the Tails OS.
Why western MSM push so hard the version about the bomb ? Investigation just started and
there are multiple version including now known far there that were war games by NATO the same day in
the same area.
Notable quotes:
"... Egypt faces an economic disaster if tourism and business travel stops, and you don't think they will say it was just a simple accident -- move along now, nothing to see here ..."
"... The reality is the West ruined Libya, abandoned Tunis, and chickened out by backing Sisi in Egypt. Therefore, there are alot of armed Jihadis looking for Westerners to shoot. Its also about to get worse since now its Russia's turn to ruin things even more...... ..."
"... I am in no way a fan of Putin, but recently he explained his issue with the West pretty clearly. Most Russians subscribe to that. Russia does not see West as a threat, but as a trouble maker at large, causing havoc and destabilizing the world. Listen to him if you want to understand the other side ..."
Egypt faces an economic disaster if tourism and business travel stops, and you don't
think they will say it was just a simple accident -- "move along now, nothing to see here".
njglea, is a trusted commenter Seattle
Tension in the Middle East is rising and it is very frightening because it's a no-win
situation as it stands now. Everybody loses. I am reminded of a song from the 1960s that
addresses this situation perfectly and is a message that should go to every world leader and
hater. "One Tin Soldier". Please listen and read the lyrics and, if you agree, forward this
message to everyone you know. WE can live in a peaceful world if enough of us take small
actions to make it so.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKx0tdlxMfY
della, cambridge, ma 52 minutes ago
I just flew back from Istanbul -- four layers of security -- superior to US.
Matthew Abbasi, Los Angeles 52 minutes ago
Why would any Westerner in his/her right mind go to Egypt, Tunisia, or Libya for a
vacation? These are unstable nations with ongoing civil wars so Western nations really need to
ban tourist for a bit for until things calm down. Its not enough to say that these nations
need the tourist money. The risk should not be discounted just because of that. The
reality is the West ruined Libya, abandoned Tunis, and chickened out by backing Sisi in Egypt.
Therefore, there are alot of armed Jihadis looking for Westerners to shoot. Its also about to
get worse since now its Russia's turn to ruin things even more......
Abbas -> Matthew Abbasi, San Francisco, CA 43 minutes ago
Egypt does not have a civil war. Statistically, it is far safer to visit than many places
in the U.S.
Rohit, New York
Quoting another poster
"I am in no way a fan of Putin, but recently he explained his issue with the West
pretty clearly. Most Russians subscribe to that. Russia does not see West as a threat, but as
a trouble maker at large, causing havoc and destabilizing the world. Listen to him if you want
to understand the other side"
And what is fascinating is that every word spoken by Putin could just as easily have been
said by Noam Chomsky or even by President Eisenhower.
PS, Vancouver, Canada
I have little faith in airport security checks in the middle east. Was in Morocco this
summer - put my bags on the conveyor belt. Fine - but there was nary a soul manning the
monitors. Yes, it was screened (given that it passed through an x-ray machine, but there were
no human eyes checking it) . . . also, no one bothered to take my water bottle (which I had
inadvertently carried with me.
A lesson from Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson on scientific method and the value of news
Science, circa 1955 (Photo: Orlando /Three Lions/Getty Images)
Our biggest challenge in journalism is not
ad blockers or
declining
print circulation or
Silicon Valley. It
is value. What are we worth to the public we serve? Are we reliable? Trustworthy? Useful? We
are
not as liked as we
would like to believe.
Last week, I had the fun privilege of interviewing Dr. Neil
deGrasse Tyson-astrophysicist,
podcaster,
tweeter,
TV star, and
debunker of
stupidity-when he received the Knight Innovation Award at CUNY's Graduate School of
Journalism.
As I wrote
in these pages
recently, we decided to give the award to Mr. Tyson precisely because he is not a journalist,
because he brings explanation, fact, and discipline to the process of informing and educating
the public. We saw him as an example to journalists as they innovate in their own craft.
... ... ...
That goal-an informed society-does not mesh with
our methods, business models, and metrics. So long as we earn our money attracting as many
people as possible to our content, then wholesaling their eyeballs by the ton to advertisers,
then we are motivated to grab attention with stories and headlines that report just the
latest, not necessarily the preponderance, of facts relating to any given question or
dispute. We measure our success on the basis of how much audience attention we grabbed, not
by measuring how much we informed and educated the public-not in our impact, our utility, our
value.
We must shift our business toward value, toward proving our worth in people's lives. We
must measure our success on whether the public ends up better informed through our
efforts-not whether they merely gave us their attention and certainly not when they only
calcify their previously held and uninformed beliefs. We in journalism-like Mr. Tyson-need to
act and judge ourselves more as scientists trafficking in evidence and as educators making
impact. Or else, why bother?
Federal law enforcement began planning to use license plate readers in 2009 to track cars that
visited gun shows against cars that crossed the border into Mexico, according
to notes from a
meeting between United States and Mexican law enforcement, released on Wikileaks. The notes
were taken by Marko Papic, then of Stratfor, a
company that describes itself as a publisher of geopolitical intelligence.
License plate readers are becoming a standard tool for local and national law enforcement
across the country. In 2013, the ACLU showed that
state and local law enforcement were widely
documenting drivers' movements.
Ars Technica looked at license plate data collected in Oakland. In January, the
ACLU described documents
attained from the Drug Enforcement Agency under the Freedom of Information Act that showed
that agency has been working closely with state and local law enforcement. Many of the findings
in these latter documents corroborate some of the insights provided by the 2009 meeting notes on
Wikileaks.
Wikileaks began publishing these emails in February 2012, as the "Global
Intelligence Files," as the Observer
previously reported. The documents have to be read with some caution. These were reportedly
attained by hackers in December 2011. A Stratfor spokesperson declined to comment on the leaked
emails, referring the Observer instead to
its 2012 statement, which says, "Some of the emails may be forged or altered to include
inaccuracies; some may be authentic. We will not validate either."
While it's hard to imagine that such a giant trove could be completely fabricated, there is
also no way to know whether or not some of it was tampered with. That said, details about federal
license plate reader programs largely square with subsequent findings about the surveillance
systems.
The meeting appears to have been primarily concerned with arms control, but related matters,
such as illegal drug traffic and the Zetas, come up as well. The focus of the meeting appears to
be information sharing among the various authorities, from both countries. Among other
initiatives, the notes describe the origins of a sophisticated national system of automobile
surveillance.
Here are some findings on law enforcement technology, with an emphasis on tracking
automobiles:
The program wasn't fully live in 2009. The notes read, "Mr. 147 asked
about the License Plate Reader program and Mr. 983 from DEA responded that they were still in
the testing phase but that once completed the database would be available for use
by everyone." However,
an email found by the ACLU from 2010 said that the DEA was sharing information with local
law enforcement as of May 2009. (People at the meeting are largely referred to by numbers
throughout the notes)
Gun shows. The officials in the meeting suspect that a lot of guns that
reach Mexico come from American gun shows. The Ambassador from Mexico is cited as believing
that shows were the main source of firearms coming into his country. The ATF then says that
investigating gun shows is "touchy."
Cross-referencing. Despite the sensitivity, the ATF hoped to be able to
identify vehicles that visited gun shows and then crossed the border. The notes read, "[Mr.
192] noted that they would do the check once they came into Mexico. Mr. 009 stated part of the
new ways that are being looked at is incorporating that type of information into license plate
readers for local law enforcement. He added that DEA is going to provide more and more license
plate readers especially southbound." This last point squares with ACLU's finding, which found
a 2010 document that said the DEA had 41 readers set up in southern border states.
ATF and the NRA. Apparently law enforcement checks in with the gun rights
advocates. Mr. 123 is identified as an ATF employee in the hacked email. In a conversation
about the federal government's gun tracking system, eTrace, the notes attribute to him the
following, "He added that they are in constant communication with Mr. Templeton who has
the Cross Roads of the West Gun Show as well as NRA attorneys and that there had been no
complaints on how things were moving." Bob Templeton is shown as the President of the National
Association of Arms Shows
on this op-ed and runs the gun show mentioned, according to its site.
Other data. The notes also indicate that the ATF was working on ways to
identify people who bought more guns at gun shows than their income should allow. It also
indicated that the United States' gun tracking system was being translated into Spanish, so
that Mexican authorities could check guns against American records.
The notes themselves are not dated, but the email containing them is dated September 4, 2009.
It provides no names, but it cites people from the Mexican Embassy, the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco
and Firerearms, DEA, Department of Homeland Security, the FBI and others. The only person named
is Marko Papic, who identifies himself
in this hacked
email. Stephen Meiners circulated
Mr. Papic's notes from the summit's morning and afternoon session in one email.
"... This created an open communication network, meaning that with the use of any wifi-enabled device, anyone could send anything (text messages, voice calls, photos and files) anonymously for those listening to hear. ..."
"... "If people are spying on us, it stands to reason that they have ..."
"... To no surprise, there was a ton of trolling. ..."
When it was revealed in 2013 that the NSA and its UK equivalent, GCHQ, routinely spied on the
German government, artists Mathias Jud and Christoph Wachter came up with a plan.
They installed a series of antennas on the roof of the Swiss Embassy in Berlin and another giant
antenna on the roof of the Academy of Arts, which is located exactly between the listening posts
of the NSA and GCHQ. This created an open communication network, meaning that with the use of any wifi-enabled device, anyone could send anything (text messages, voice calls, photos and files) anonymously
for those listening to hear.
"If people are spying on us, it stands to reason that they have to listen to what we
are saying," Mr. Jud said in a TED Talk on the subject that was filmed at TED Global London in September
and uploaded onto Ted.com today.
This was perfectly legal, and they named the project "Can You Hear Me?"
To no surprise, there was a ton of trolling. One message read, "This is the NSA. In God we trust.
In all others we track!!!!!" Another said, "Agents, what twisted story of yourself will you tell
your grandchildren?" One particularly humorous message jokingly pleaded, "@NSA My neighbors are noisy.
Please send a drone strike."
Watch the full talk here for more trolling messages and details about the project:
Is this a replay on MH17? Looks like like was the case on 9/11 and MH17 there were war games
the same day in the same air space.
Notable quotes:
"... Conspicuously absent from MSM is the fact that Israel, USA, Poland, Greece were having war game air dogfights 40 miles from where the plane was shot down. ..."
"... I caught that too, and it has gotten no play at all in western media. I heard it mentioned in Russian media. These are regular air superiority exercises. Air to Air combat using air superiority fighters and air to air missiles. Should this be investigated? Of course. It has already done this once before in 1980 during air to air exercises of NATO. ..."
"... On 23 January 2013 Italys top criminal court ruled that there was abundantly clear evidence that the flight was brought down by a missile ..."
"... Putin has proven in Ukraine that he cannot be goaded into action. This is an attempt to get Russian popular opinion ,to force his hand. ..."
"... The contradictions are getting so massive, even sheeple might begin to notice. ..."
"... Force his hand to do what? I dont exactly understand what youre suggesting. I guarantee you this airliner downing has only made Russians dislike ISIS more...it hasnt made them suddenly think oh we should not mess around there anymore. ..."
"... Something done in rage, rather than his cool, calculating lawyerly approach. Anything that can be portrayed as terrible to the RoW to disuade them from crossing into his camp. Its a Hail Mary pass IMO, but it shows how desperate they are getting. ..."
"... I have not confirmed myself but reports are that Israeli firms supplied the security for that airport. Some reports say the Saudis also have some component of the security or operations. ..."
"... Nope. Not while sportsball is on the teebee they wont. The trough of stupidity is a sweet, intoxicating slurry of false promises, self promotion and uplifting exceptionalism. ..."
"... I just know you voiced equal measures of concern over the 2+ million killed and the countless more driven out, crippled or orphaned by USSA warmongering in the region, not to mention all the noise Im sure you raised about israel killing thousands of civilians in Palestine too? ..."
"... Your lazy sarcasm aside - Russian media comports strangely with independent media, and it is no less trustworthy than the absolute nonsense in the pages of the NYT, Wa Post and other, indeed, Zionist {and Establishment media}. ..."
"... NYT Still Pretends No Coup in Ukraine ..."
"... The notion that American media is more trustworthy is absolutely absurd. One simply has to read from as broad an array as possible and assume that everyone has an agenda, everyone is trying to convince you of a *version*. Only its the US and its allies that have gone around the world bombing and killing based on pretext and lies, not the Russians. ..."
"... in Kiev itself it is now public information that most sniper shoots were fired from the Ukraine Hotel that was headquarters to Right Sector Fascists. ..."
"... Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. Because this fraud guy in his small house in England has been exposed again and again as a liar and fraud, anyone using him as a source is making themsleves highly suspect. As if a fake source, as long as it says what you one wants, is good enough . ..."
"... ISIS(ISIL) Completely Fabricated Enemy by US: Former CIA Contractor! Socio-Economics History Blog ..."
"... The Russians are asking British Intel after making the statement that if they have some supporting intel they would like to hear it. They refuse to share any intel; For a disaster and possibly a terrorist attack investigation? Hmmmm Wonder why? What are they hiding from? Why would you not want to help an investigation? Why do they want to promote an unproven story? To deflect the blame? Somebody has something to hide. ..."
"... The US/UK has amazingly good information on what IS is doing, n est ce pas? And fantastic surveillance data, right out of the chute, in stark contrast to the seeming complete inattention paid to Malaysian jetliners. ..."
"... If the British and American governments are saying it was a bomb, then you can be sure it was NOT a bomb. I am leaning toward believing that it was an act taken by the US and Israel during their war games from a location nearby the downing. Too much of a coincidence. ..."
"... Lets harken back to MH-17. The instant and coordinated lies across all western media within hours, suggests a link between all Media Corporations and their Editorial Staffs. A German journalist wrote a book about his work for the CIA as a German journalist. He was under the impression that CIA was active across all media corporations and their editorial staff. I think MH-17 proved the fact that CIA does control much of what we read and hear. Otherwise, who can explain the exact same stories in all western media appearing before any of them even had a chance to read each others work! Odds of replication without prior knowledge are zero! ..."
"... Whether or not it was a bomb matters a lot less than who knew when and how they knew it. Like, for instance, if they knew it was a bomb before it blew up. The details and pattern of the media operation are pretty interesting, but more matters of art than fact. ..."
"... Is it not the case that a Russian passenger plane was downed after the Russian air force bombed ISIS for a month, while no US planes were terrorized after the US air force bombed ISIS for a year. ..."
Conspicuously absent from MSM is the fact that Israel, USA, Poland, Greece were having
war game air dogfights 40 miles from where the plane was shot down.
I caught that too, and it has gotten no play at all in western media. I heard it mentioned
in Russian media. These are regular air superiority exercises. Air to Air combat using air superiority
fighters and air to air missiles. Should this be investigated? Of course. It has already done
this once before in 1980 during air to air exercises of NATO.
Aerolinee Itavia Flight 870
the cause of the crash to a missile fired from a
French
Navy aircraft, despite contrary evidence presented in Frank Taylor's 1994 report. On 23
January 2013 Italy's top criminal court ruled that there was "abundantly" clear evidence that
the flight was brought down by a missile.[1]
To date, this remains the deadliest aviation incident involving a DC-9-10/15 series."
cougar_w
When everything is a false flag operation then nothing is.
ISIS is perfectly capable to pulling this off, and seems to enjoy the infamy, and they couldn't
wait to claim credit. Looks good to me, no need to go any further than that.
... ... ...
Winston Churchill
The gambit is pretty obvious.
Putin has proven in Ukraine that he cannot be goaded into action. This is an attempt to
get Russian popular opinion ,to force his hand.
They keep on telling us he's a dictator, so why would that affect him ?
The contradictions are getting so massive, even sheeple might begin to notice.
Glasnost -> Winston Churchill
Force his hand to do what? I don't exactly understand what you're suggesting. I guarantee
you this airliner downing has only made Russians dislike ISIS more...it hasn't made them suddenly
think oh we should not mess around there anymore.
Winston Churchill -> Glasnost
Something done in rage, rather than his cool, calculating lawyerly approach. Anything that
can be portrayed as terrible to the RoW to disuade them from crossing into his camp. Its a Hail
Mary pass IMO, but it shows how desperate they are getting.
Blankone
I have not confirmed myself but reports are that Israeli firms supplied the security for
that airport. Some reports say the Saudi's also have some component of the security or operations.
Maybe they should focus on that as well.
trulz4lulz
Now the sympathisers are trying to "pass the buck!"... an american tradition. much akin to
"indian giving" but better.
dear american gubmit: Who created ISIS?
american gubmit: uhhh uhhhh, they did it!!! yeah! it was them all along, ya see?!
Yttrium Gold Nitrogen
France 2 reports that a sound of an explosion was recorded by the blackboxes, according to
official who had access to the recordings.
trulz4lulz -> Winston Churchill
The contradictions are getting so massive, even sheeple might begin to notice.
Nope. Not while sportsball is on the teebee they wont. The trough of stupidity is a sweet,
intoxicating slurry of false promises, self promotion and uplifting exceptionalism. The world
is an aweful place when there isnt anyone there to tell you how exceptional you are. Murikistanians
will NOT look away from the trough. Its just too delicious.
El Vaquero -> trulz4lulz
Having them distracted with bread and circuses is a double edged sword.
Winston Churchill -> El Vaquero
Yep, distraction beats jingo.
It was much easier to whip up a blood frenzy before kim Kardasians ass blocked out the horizon.
trulz4lulz -> Winston Churchill
I agree, but it also helps promote patriotism and consumerism, which also is good for the economy
because it focuses on the packadged food sector which is where a lot of jobs data comes from.
. The model for the distraction workings is fascinating to me.
forputin
So which sources are credible? Only those russian? Yes, I also thought so. Only those sources
that are controlled by Putin can be trusted. All other are controled by Anglo Zion Banking NWO
Lizzard People Elite. Thank God Putin protects us from that information!
farflungstar -> forputin
Voactiv uses Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, so yeah it's probably bullshit. Reuters @
Buiness Insider too, more bullshit, Hymie.
I just know you voiced equal measures of concern over the 2+ million killed and the countless
more driven out, crippled or orphaned by USSA warmongering in the region, not to mention all the
noise I'm sure you raised about israel killing thousands of civilians in Palestine too?
Fuckin dickmouth
Raymond_K._Hessel
the Syrian Observatory is absolutely not credible - its one guy being used as a quote factory.
Your lazy sarcasm aside - Russian media comports strangely with independent media, and
it is no less trustworthy than the absolute nonsense in the pages of the NYT, Wa Post and other,
indeed, Zionist {and 'Establishment' media}.
The notion that American media is more trustworthy is absolutely absurd. One simply has
to read from as broad an array as possible and assume that everyone has an agenda, everyone is
trying to convince you of a *version*. Only its the US and its allies that have gone around the
world bombing and killing based on pretext and lies, not the Russians.
So the false equivalency ploy makes sense - until you give it a moment's thought.
Cookie?
Jack Burton
30,000 trained, paid and organized fascists appeared on the Madian in the matter of a couple
days, armed and outfitted in body armor. But Euro Maidan is not a Coup according to NYT. Every
peaceful protest gets a 30,000 man army arrive to help it along. Also, in Kiev itself it is
now public information that most sniper shoots were fired from the Ukraine Hotel that was headquarters
to Right Sector Fascists.
Jack Burton
Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. Because this fraud guy in his small house in England
has been exposed again and again as a liar and fraud, anyone using him as a source is making themsleves
highly suspect. As if a fake source, as long as it says what you one wants, is good enough".
Western Media refuses to expose this guy for what he is. He hides up in his house, claiming people
are out to kill him, and puts out posts about war crimes. He hasn't been to Syria for over a decade,
and admits No First Hand Knowledge of his Syrian sources, he gets his information second hand
from so called friends of friends in Syria. RT caught up to him and made a fool out of him on
camera.
Yet he is the West's Top Source on Syrian war crimes.
Here is an excellent source of what happening there -- down to the minute.
BTW. This nugget jumps out.
----
Big impact of Russia's suspension of Egypt flights
Roland Oliphant, our correspondent in Moscow, writes:
Quote
It's not just the Egyptian economy that will hurt after this. Russia's association
of tour agencies says today's decision cuts off their biggest market and sets them on a "direct
path to bankruptcy."
"Egypt is the single biggest selling destination on the Russian tourism market, and right now
it is peak season. It's the main destination for all the large tour operators," said Irina Tyurina,
a spokeswoman for the Russian Union of Tour Operators.
"There's 50,000 Russians there now, and those who have to come home early or have bought tickets
but now can't travel, should get their money back from the tour operators. It's a direct path
to bankruptcy for many firms."
Heavily invested in the tourist industry, are we? America is about to trigger a world warand
you people are screeming aout lost vacation revenue? You are either one of the dumbest humans
on earth that has learned to word good, or you are just plan software. Im guessing software. Nothiing
but a program can be so blatantly stupid.
alphahammer
Dumb?
BBBWWWAAAAHHHAAAA!!!!!
I cut and paste the direct words from Roland Oliphant, our correspondent in Moscow, writes:
If you had a lick of mental capacity, you would understand the comment is about RUSSIAN investment
in tourism because Egypt is Russias #1 spot for vacationing Russians.
ITS THE RUSSIANS SCREAMING ABOUT LOST TOURIST REVENUE EINSTEIN...
Dumb? Yes, look it up in the dictionary and there will be your picture...
swmnguy
Oliphant is doing a good job in his role, helping to bait the hook the Zbigniew Brzezinski
acolytes are jiggling out there. Oliphant's editorial comments about the Russian people's unwillingness
to take casualties suggests he's gotten his Garanimals mixed up. Russians aren't Americans.
farflungstar
Because ISIS, Manischewitz Land, the US and UK "intelligence" agencies said they did it, does
this mean it's true? Who would reasonably believe these serial liars at this point in time? Credibility
is shot.
I'd like to hear what the Russians have to say after a thorough investigation.
SSRI Junkie
this works out well for obola. he hates egypt for tossing out his muslim brotherhood lackeys
and gets putin to cancel their flights in and out of egypt. his bung brothers in saudi arabia
keep pumping oil even if it's unprofitable to stomp out our domestic oil production as well as
russia's oil production. obola is a plague of unprecendented proportion even if the cdc doesn't
recognize it
cowdiddly
Britain and the Us both are trying to say that this was a bomb planted by ISIS. The Russians
are saying they will wait for the data.
The Russians are asking British Intel after making the statement that if they have some
supporting intel they would like to hear it. They refuse to share any intel; For a disaster and
possibly a terrorist attack investigation? Hmmmm Wonder why? What are they hiding from? Why would
you not want to help an investigation? Why do they want to promote an unproven story? To deflect
the blame? Somebody has something to hide.
Somebody is involved here that is going to reveal a nasty truth and I would not want to be
them cause right now the bear is just smiling at you and he is all ears.
THE DORK OF CORK
The Tunisia beech job was very effective.
It inflated the Spanish and Italian economies over the summer.
It seems like part of the banks armoury.
The Dogs of Moar
An update of the Tourney between Langley and Moscow this first week of November.
As you know, on Wednesday the Big Big Three, Barack Obama, President of the US, David Cameron,
Prime Minister of the UK, and Doofus al-Evil, the US appointed Emir of ISIL, tried to co opt the
investigation of the crash of the Russian plane in Sinai.
"I don't think we know yet" what caused the crash, Obama said ... But it is certainly possible
that there was a bomb on board."
British Prime Minister David Cameron says it's "more likely than not."
ISIS released a message on November 4 with claims that the group was responsible for the Russian
plane crash in Sinai, and said its method will be revealed soon.
ISIS first claimed credit for the downing of the Russian passenger jet an hour after the plane
went down. Six days later they're telling the world that "their method will be revealed soon."
WHAT THEY ARE REALLY SAYING IS THAT THEIR METHOD WILL BE REVEALED AS SOON AS THE CIA TELLS
THEM WHAT METHOD THE CIA USED AND THAT ISIS SHOULD CLAIM THE SAME.
THE CIA'S FEAR IS THAT THE INVESTIGATORS WILL UNCOVER A SOPHISTICATED EXPLOSIVE THAT THE RETARDNIKS
IN ISIS COULD ONLY HAVE GOTTEN FROM LANGLEY OR MI6.
But Russian and Egyptian authorities pushed back Thursday on suggestions that a bomb brought
down Metrojet Flight 9268 over Egypt's Sinai Peninsula, saying there's no evidence yet to support
that theory.
Today the National Anti-Terrorist Committee said it deems it necessary to stop all Russian
flights to Egypt until the causes of the A321 plane crash are established. Russian experts
are taking wipe-samples from the plane fragments and passengers' luggage to trace possible
explosives.
If this investigation gets troublesome, there will be a fight in Langley between those
who wanted the plane to go down in the drink and those who wanted it down in the desert for
the propaganda value.
Atticus Finch
" RETARDNIKS IN ISIS COULD ONLY HAVE GOTTEN FROM LANGLEY OR MI6."...
You forgot Mossad.
trulz4lulz
If this investigation gets troublesome, there will be a fight in Langley between those who
wanted the plane to go down in the drink and those who wanted it down in the desert for the propaganda
value.
that sums it up right there. arguing over which aspect of treason to commit and cover up. this
is whats wrong. exactly.
swmnguy
The US/UK intelligence guys screwed up the timeline this past week, putting out new rules for
their people and announcing they had intel proving IS did it before cluing in the Russians.
It was a surprisingly blatant mistake. Let's see, whom do we know in a position of power in
Russia who would be intimately familiar with the way this game is played? Who would know immediately
exactly what this timeline error signifies?
The US/UK has amazingly good information on what IS is doing, n' est ce pas? And fantastic
surveillance data, right out of the chute, in stark contrast to the seeming complete inattention
paid to Malaysian jetliners.
Telling.
The Dogs of Moar
On October 27, 1964 -- here's what Ronald Reagan said
"If all of this seems like a great deal of trouble, think what's at stake. We are faced
with the most evil enemy mankind has known in his long climb from the swamp to the stars.
Did he realize how prescient he was, in thus describing the United States of America?
Grandad Grumps
If the British and American governments are saying it was a bomb, then you can be sure
it was NOT a bomb. I am leaning toward believing that it was an act taken by the US and Israel
during their war games from a location nearby the downing. Too much of a coincidence.
The video was not clear enough for me to determine if a missile was involved or the altitude a
missile might have originated from.
Jack Burton -> Grandad Grumps
That's a valid thought. We should be asking "why the USA and UK are in such a hurry to claim
bomb". It was a Russian plane, and the US and UK have no interest in this, unless they do have
a hidden interest in this.
Lets harken back to MH-17. The instant and coordinated lies across all western media within
hours, suggests a link between all Media Corporations and their Editorial Staffs. A German journalist
wrote a book about his work for the CIA as a German journalist. He was under the impression that
CIA was active across all media corporations and their editorial staff. I think MH-17 proved the
fact that CIA does control much of what we read and hear. Otherwise, who can explain the exact
same stories in all western media appearing before any of them even had a chance to read each
others work! Odds of replication without prior knowledge are zero!
swmnguy -> Jack Burton
Whether or not it was a bomb matters a lot less than who knew when and how they knew it.
Like, for instance, if they knew it was a bomb before it blew up. The details and pattern of the
media operation are pretty interesting, but more matters of art than fact.
The Mockies over at Charlie Hebdo seemed to find it funny that this plane crashed, not so funny
when a bunch of their people got killed at work back in January:
One of the
pictures shows a jihadist of the Islamic State (IS) militant group and plane's debris falling
around him. The caption says "IS: Russian Aviation intensifies its bombing campaign.
Mocking a plane crash where 224 people were killed, such a rich source of humor hahahaha so
fucking hysterical fucking faggot frogs
I saw this yesterday. Honestly, given what we call "Western Values" I fully expected the guardians
of culture in France to come up with something like this. When their people die, it's a world
wide event. When others die, it is a joke. Let's be clear, this story has made it deep into Russian
media. Need I tell you what the mood is now?
Is it not the case that a Russian
passenger plane was downed after the Russian air force bombed ISIS for a month, while no US planes
were terrorized after the US air force bombed ISIS for a year.
Just typing your correspondence on disconnected from internet computer and pointing it on
connected via USB printer is enough. Or better writing letter using regular pen.
The most secure and, at the same time, usable, method of creating, sharing and storing information
is to write it up on a manual typewriter and store it in a locked filing cabinet
If the CIA's Director John Brennan
can't keep his emails private, who can? Sadly, the fact that email and instant messaging are
far more convenient than communicating via papers in envelopes or by actually talking on the phone,
or (God forbid) face to face, these technologies are far more insecure. Could it be that the old
ways protected both secrecy and privacy far better than what we have now?
The men and women in the United States government assigned to protect our nation's most important
secrets have good reason to quote Allen Ginsberg, the Beat poet who proclaimed, "The typewriter is
holy." For that matter so are pens, pencils, carbon paper and ordinary paper. In the digital age
privacy as we once knew it, is dead, not just for ordinary citizens, but for government officials
including, apparently, the head of the CIA-not to mention our former Secretary of State. Neither
the NSA nor the U.S. military have been able to keep their secrets from being exposed by the likes
of WikiLeaks or Edward Snowden.
... ... ...
Given America's failures to protect our own secret information, one hopes and wishes that the
U.S. is as successful at stealing information from our potential foes as they are at stealing from
us.
In the private sector, hackers steal information from countless companies, ranging from Target
to Ashley Madison. The banks rarely let on how badly or how often they are victimized by cybercrime,
but rumor has it that it is significant. At least for now, the incentives for making and selling
effective cyber security systems are nowhere near as powerful as the incentives for building systems
that can steal secret or private information from individuals, as well as from corporations and governments.
In the digital age, privacy is gone.
Increasingly, organizations and individuals are rediscovering the virtues of paper. Non-digital
media are simply invulnerable to hacking. Stealing information from a typewriter is harder than stealing
it from a word processor, computer or server. A physical file with sheets of paper covered in words
written either by hand or by typewriter is a safer place to store confidential information than any
electronic data storage system yet devised.
The American Century's not what most Americans think it is. Historians need to set them
straight.
Notable quotes:
"... comforting fantasies go unchallenged and lodge themselves ever more deeply in the public consciousness. So the "Good War" remains ever good, with the "Greatest Generation" ever great. ..."
Today it's race, class, gender, and sexuality that claim pride of place. The effect, whether
intended or not, is that comforting fantasies go unchallenged and lodge themselves ever more
deeply in the public consciousness. So the "Good War" remains ever good, with the "Greatest
Generation" ever great.
"... The government is attempting to push into law the ability for law enforcement agencies to be able to look at 12 months of what they are calling "internet connection records", limited to the website domains that UK internet users visit. ..."
"... It does not cover specific pages: so police and spies will not be able to access that level of detail. That means they would know that a person has spent time on the Guardian website, but not what article they read. ..."
"... Information about the sites you visit can be very revealing. The data would show if a person has regularly visited Ashley Madison – the website that helped facilitate extramarital affairs. A visit to an Alcoholics Anonymous website or an abortion advice service could reveal far more than you would like the government or law enforcement to know. ..."
"... In using a VPN you are placing all your trust in the company that operates the VPN to both secure your data and repel third parties from intercepting your connection. A VPN based in the UK may also be required to keep a log of your browsing history in the same way an ISP would. ..."
"... One way to prevent an accurate profile of your browsing history from being built could be to visit random sites. Visiting nine random domains for every website you actually want to visit would increase the amount of data that your ISP has to store tenfold. But not everybody has the patience for that. ..."
Critics call it a revived snooper's charter, because the government wants police and spies to
be given access to the web browsing history of everyone in Britain.
However, Theresa May
says her measures would require internet companies to store data about customers that amount to "simply
the modern equivalent of an itemised phone bill".
Who is right? And is there anything you can do to make your communications more secure?
What exactly is the government after?
The government is attempting to push into law the ability for law enforcement agencies to
be able to look at 12 months of what they are calling "internet connection records", limited to the
website domains that UK internet users visit.
This is the log of websites that you visit through your internet service provider (ISP), commonly
called internet browsing history, and is different from the history stored by your internet browser,
such as Microsoft's Edge, Apple's Safari or Google's Chrome.
It does not cover specific pages: so police and spies will not be able to access that level
of detail. That means they would know that a person has spent time on the Guardian website, but not
what article they read.
Clearing your browser history or using private or incognito browsing modes do nothing to affect
your browsing history stored by the ISP.
What will they be able to learn about my internet activity?
Information about the sites
you visit can be very revealing. The data would show if a person has regularly visited Ashley Madison
– the website that helped facilitate extramarital affairs. A visit to an Alcoholics Anonymous website
or an abortion advice service could reveal far more than you would like the government or law enforcement
to know.
The logged internet activity is also likely to reveal who a person banks with, the social
media they use, whether they have considered travelling (eg by visiting an airline homepage) and
a range of information that could in turn link to other sources of personal information.
Who will store my web browsing data?
The onus is on
ISPs – the companies that
users pay to provide access to the internet – to store the browsing history of its customers for
12 months. That includes fixed line broadband providers, such as BT, TalkTalk, Sky and Virgin, but
also mobile phone providers such as EE, O2, Three and Vodafone.
... ... ...
Don't ISPs already store this data?
They already store a limited amount of data on customer communications for a minimum of
one year and have done for some time, governed by the EU's data retention directive. That data can
be accessed under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (Ripa).
The new bill will enshrine the storage of browsing history and access to that data in law.
Can people hide their internet browsing history?
There are a few ways to prevent the collection
of your browsing history data, but each way is a compromise.
The most obvious way is the use of virtual private networks (VPNs). They channel your data from
your computer through your ISP to a third-party service before immersing on the internet. In doing
so they can obfuscate your data from your ISP and therefore the government's collection of browsing
history.
Companies routinely use VPNs to secure connections to services when off-site such as home workers.
Various companies such as HotspotShield
offer both free or paid-for VPN services to users.
Using the Tor browser, freely available
from the Tor project, is another way to hide what you're doing from your ISP and takes things
a stage further. It allows users to connect directly to a network of computers that route your traffic
by bouncing it around other computers connected to Tor before emerging on the open internet.
Your ISP will see that you are connected to Tor, but not what you are doing with it. But not everybody
has the technical skills to be comfortable using Tor.
Is there any downside to using a VPN?
In using a VPN you are placing all your trust
in the company that operates the VPN to both secure your data and repel third parties from intercepting
your connection. A VPN based in the UK may also be required to keep a log of your browsing history
in the same way an ISP would.
The speed of your internet connection is also limited by the VPN. Most free services are slow,
some paid-for services are faster.
Tor also risks users having their data intercepted, either at the point of exit from the Tor network
to the open internet or along the path. This is technically tricky, however. Because your internet
traffic is bounced between computers before reaching you, Tor can be particularly slow.
Can I protest-browse to show I'm unhappy with the new law?
One way to prevent an accurate
profile of your browsing history from being built could be to visit random sites. Visiting nine random
domains for every website you actually want to visit would increase the amount of data that your
ISP has to store tenfold. But not everybody has the patience for that.
At some point it will be very difficult to store that much data, should everyone begin doing so.
Yves here. Tax is a major way to create incentives. New York City increased taxes dramatically
on cigarettes, and has tough sanctions for trying to smuggle meaningful amounts of lower-taxed smokes
in. Rates of smoking did indeed fall as intended.
Thus the debate about whether corporations should pay more taxes is not "naive" as the plutocrats
would have you believe; in fact, they wouldn't be making such a big deal over it if it were. In the
1950s, a much larger percentage of total tax collections fell on corporations than individuals. And
the political message was clear: the capitalist classes needed to bear a fair share of the total
tax burden. Similarly, what has been the result of the preservation of a loophole that allows the
labor of hedge fund and private equity fund employees to be taxed at preferential capital gains rates?
A flood of "talent" into those professions at the expense of productive enterprise.
And the result of having lower taxes on companies has been a record-high corporate profit share
of GDP, with none of the supposed benefits of giving businesses a break. Contrary to their PR, large
companies have been net saving, which means liquidating, since the early 2000s. The trend has become
more obvious in recent years as companies have borrowed money to buy back their own stock.
In the past year, scandal after scandal has exposed companies using loopholes in the tax system
to avoid taxation. Now more than ever, it is becoming clear that citizens around the world are paying
a high price for the crisis in the global tax system, and the discussion about multinational corporations
and their tax tricks remains at the top of the agenda. There is also a growing awareness that the
world's poorest countries are even harder impacted than the richest countries. In effect, the poorest
countries are paying the price for a global tax system they did not create.
A large number of the scandals that emerged over the past year have strong links to the EU and its
Member States. Many eyes have therefore turned to the EU leaders, who claim that the problem is being
solved and the public need not worry. But what is really going on? What is the role of the EU in
the unjust global tax system, and are EU leaders really solving the problem?
This
report – the third
in a series of reports – scrutinises the role of the EU in the global tax crisis, analyses developments
and suggests concrete solutions. It is written by civil society organisations (CSOs) in 14 countries
across the EU. Experts in each CSO have examined their national governments' commitments and actions
in terms of combating tax dodging and ensuring transparency.
Each country is directly compared with its fellow EU Member States on four critical issues: the fairness
of their tax treaties with developing countries; their willingness to put an end to anonymous shell
companies and trusts; their support for increasing the transparency of economic activities and tax
payments of multinational corporations; and their attitude towards letting the poorest countries
have a seat at the table when global tax standards are negotiated. For the first time, this report
not only rates the performance of EU Member States, but also turns the spotlight on the European
Commission and Parliament too.
This report covers national policies and governments' positions
on existing and upcoming EU level laws, as well as global reform proposals.
Overall, the report finds that:
• Although tweaks have been made and some loopholes have been closed, the complex and dysfunctional
EU system of corporate tax rulings, treaties, letterbox companies and special corporate tax regimes
still remains in place. On some matters, such as the controversial patent boxes, the damaging
policies seem to be spreading in Europe. Defence mechanisms against 'harmful tax practices' that
have been introduced by governments, only seem partially effective and are not available to most
developing countries. They are also undermined by a strong political commitment to continue so-called
'tax competition' between governments trying to attract multinational corporations with lucrative
tax reduction opportunities – also known as the 'race to the bottom on corporate taxation'. The
result is an EU tax system that still allows a wide range of options for tax dodging by multinational
corporations.
• On the question of what multinational corporations pay in taxes and where they
do business, EU citizens, parliamentarians and journalists are still left in the dark, as are
developing countries. The political promises to introduce 'transparency' turned out to mean that
tax administrations in developed countries, through cumbersome and highly secretive processes,
will exchange information about multinational corporations that the public is not allowed to see.
On a more positive note, some light is now being shed on the question of who actually owns the
companies operating in our societies, as more and more countries introduce public or partially
public registers of beneficial owners. Unfortunately, this positive development is being somewhat
challenged by the emergence of new types of mechanisms to conceal ownership, such as new types
of trusts.
• Leaked information has become the key source of public information about tax dodging by multinational
corporations. But it comes at a high price for the people involved, as whistleblowers and even
a journalist who revealed tax dodging by multinational corporations are now being prosecuted and
could face years in prison. The stories of these 'Tax Justice Heroes' are a harsh illustration
of the wider social cost of the secretive and opaque corporate tax system that currently prevails.
• More than 100 developing countries still remain excluded from decision-making processes when
global tax standards and rules are being decided. In 2015, developing countries made the fight
for global tax democracy their key battle during the Financing for Development conference (FfD)
in Addis Ababa. But the EU took a hard line against this demand and played a key role in blocking
the proposal for a truly global tax body.
Not one single EU Member State challenged this approach and, as a result, decision-making on global
tax standards and rules remains within a closed 'club of rich countries'.
A direct comparison of
the 15 EU countries covered in this report finds that:
France, once a leader in the demand for public access to information about what multinational
corporations pay in tax, is no longer pushing the demand for corporate transparency. Contrary
to the promises of creating 'transparency', a growing number of EU countries are now proposing
strict confidentiality to conceal what multinational corporations pay in taxes.
Denmark and Slovenia are playing a leading role when it comes to transparency around the true owners
of companies. They have not only announced that they are introducing public registers of company
ownership, but have also decided to restrict, or in the case of Slovenia, avoided the temptation
of introducing, opaque structures such as trusts, which can offer alternative options for hiding
ownership. However, a number of EU countries, including in particular Luxembourg and Germany,
still offer a diverse menu of options for concealing ownership and laundering money.
Among the
15 countries covered in this report, Spain remains by far the most aggressive tax treaty negotiator,
and has managed to lower developing country tax rates by an average 5.4 percentage points through
its tax treaties with developing countries.
The UK and France played the leading role in blocking developing countries' demand for a seat at
the table when global tax standards and rules are being decided.
To read a summary of the report,
please click here.
Class Actions vs. Individual Prosecutions
Jed S. Rakoff NOVEMBER 19, 2015 NYRB
Entrepreneurial Litigation: Its Rise, Fall, and Future
by John C. Coffee Jr.
Harvard University Press, 307 pp., $45.00
"... feudalism is a hierarchical system of distributed administration. A king is nominally in charge or "owns" a kingdom, but he has lords who administer its first primary division, the fiefdom. Lords in turn have vassals, who administer further subdivisions or, in the cases of smaller fiefs, different aspects of governance. Vassals may have their own captains and middle managers, typically knights but also clerks and priests, who in turn employ apprentices/novices/pages who train under them so as to one day move up to middle management. If this is starting to resemble modern corporate structure, then bonus points to you. ..."
"... Anyone in a position of vassalage was dependent upon the largess of his immediate patron/lord/whatever for both his status and nominal wealth. The lowest rungs of the administrative ladder were responsible for keeping the peasants, the pool of labor, in line either through force or through the very same system of dependence upon largess that frames the lord/vassal relationship. ..."
"... A CEO may resign in disgrace over some scandal, but that does little to challenge the underlings who carried out his orders. ..."
"... It's not that peasants can be vassals in the overall order so much as they are in the subject position, but without the attendant capacity to then lord it over someone beneath them. Lord/vassal in feudalism are also generic terms to describe members of a fixed relationship of patronage. It's confusing, because those terms are also used for levels of the overall hierarchy. ..."
"... I suspect that the similarity of medeavil fuedalism with the relationship between a large modern corporation and its employees is not properly appreciated because the latter, unlike the former, does not necessarily include direct control over living conditions (housing, land, rent), even though in the end there may be a similar degree of effective servitude (lack of mobility and alternatives, and so effective entrapment at low wages) . ..."
I want to expand on the point about feudalism, since it's even more apt than the article lets
on. It was not "rule by the rich," which implies an oligarchic class whose members are more or
less free agents in cahoots with one another. Rather, feudalism is a hierarchical system of
distributed administration. A king is nominally in charge or "owns" a kingdom, but he has lords
who administer its first primary division, the fiefdom. Lords in turn have vassals, who administer
further subdivisions or, in the cases of smaller fiefs, different aspects of governance. Vassals
may have their own captains and middle managers, typically knights but also clerks and priests,
who in turn employ apprentices/novices/pages who train under them so as to one day move up to
middle management. If this is starting to resemble modern corporate structure, then bonus points
to you.
This means feudalism found a way to render complicit in a larger system of administration people
who had no direct and often no real stake in the produce of its mass mobilization of labor.
Anyone in a position of vassalage was dependent upon the largess of his immediate patron/lord/whatever
for both his status and nominal wealth. The lowest rungs of the administrative ladder were responsible
for keeping the peasants, the pool of labor, in line either through force or through the very
same system of dependence upon largess that frames the lord/vassal relationship. Occasionally,
the peasants recognize that no one is below them in this pyramid scheme, and so they revolt, but
for the most part they were resigned to the status quo, because there seemed to be no locus of
power to topple. Sure, you could overthrow the king, but that would do nothing to deter the power
of the lords. You could overthrow your local lord, but the king could just install a new one.
Transpose to the modern day. A CEO may resign in disgrace over some scandal, but that does
little to challenge the underlings who carried out his orders. You might get your terrible
boss fired for his tendency to sexually harass anyone who walks in the door, but what's to stop
the regional manager from hiring someone who works you to the bone. Sometimes the peas–err, employees
revolt and form a union, but we all know what means have been employed over the years to do away
with that.
tl;dr – Feudalism: it's about the structure, not the classes
Lambert Strether,
November 3, 2015 at 2:19 pm
Hmm. I don't think a serf can be a vassal. The vassals sound a lot like the 20%. The serfs
would be the 80%. I'm guessing class is alive and well.
James Levy, November 3, 2015 at 2:38 pm
You wouldn't be a vassal (that was a very small percentage of the population) but you could
have ties of patronage with the people above you, and in fact that was critical to all societies
until the Victorians made nepotism a bad word and the ethic of meritocracy (however bastardized
today) took shape. If you wanted your physical labor obligation converted into a money payment
so you could spend more time and effort on your own holding, or you needed help in tough times,
or the 99 year lease on your leasehold was coming due, or you wanted to get your son into the
local priory, etc. you needed a friend or friends in higher places. The granting or refusal of
favors counted for everything, and kept many on the straight and narrow, actively or passively
supporting the system as it was.
Uahsenaa, November 3, 2015 at 2:39 pm
It's not that peasants can be vassals in the overall order so much as they are in the subject
position, but without the attendant capacity to then lord it over someone beneath them. Lord/vassal
in feudalism are also generic terms to describe members of a fixed relationship of patronage.
It's confusing, because those terms are also used for levels of the overall hierarchy.
The true outliers here are the contemporaneous merchants, craftsmen, and freeholders (yeomen)
who are necessary for things to run properly but are not satisfactorily accounted for by the overall
system of governance, in part because it was land based. Merchants and craftsmen in particular
tended not to be tied to any one place, since their services were often needed all over and only
for limited periods of time. The primary administrative apparatus for craftsmen were the guilds.
Merchants fell into any number of systems of organization and often into none at all, thus, according
to the old Marxist genealogy, capitalism overthrows feudalism.
Peasants may have had something like a class consciousness on occasion, but I'm not entirely
convinced it's useful to think of them in that way. In Japan, for instance, peasants were of a
much higher social status than merchants and craftsmen, technically, yet their lives were substantially
more miserable by any modern economic measure.
visitor, November 3, 2015 at 4:01 pm
I think that the article gets it seriously wrong about feudalism - an example of what Yves
calls "stripping words of their meaning".
First of all, feudalism was actually an invention of an older, powerful, even more hierarchical
organization: the Catholic Church.
The Church realized early on that imposing its ideal of a theocratic State ("city of God") led
by the Pope upon the strong-headed barbarian chiefs (Lombards, Franks, Wisigoths and others) that
set up various kingdoms in Europe was impossible.
Hence the second best approach, feudalism: a double hierarchy (worldly and spiritual). The populations
of Europe were subject to two parallel hierarchical authorities with taxation, judicial and other
economic powers (such as the right to determine when and for whom to work).
Second, there was a class of wealthy people which did not quite fit in the feudal hierarchy
- in particular, they had no vassals, nor, despite their wealth, any fiefdom: merchants, financiers,
the emerging burger class in cities. They were the ones actually lending money to feudal lords.
Third, the problem for underlings was never to overthrow the king (this was a hobby for princely
families), and extremely rarely the local lord (which inevitably brought the full brunt of the
feudal hierarchy to bear on the seditious populace).
Historically, what cities and rural communities struggled for was to be placed directly under
the authority of the king or (Holy Roman Germanic) emperor. This entailed the rights to self-administration,
freedom from most egregious taxes and corvées from feudal seigneurs, recognition of local laws
and customs, and the possibility to render justice without deferring to local lords.
The king/emperor was happy to receive taxes directly from the city/community without them seeping
away in the pockets of members of the inextricable feudal hierarchy; he would from time to time
require troops for his host, hence reducing the dependency on troops from his vassal lords; and
he would rarely be called to intervene in major legal disputes. Overall, he was way too busy to
have time micromanaging those who swore direct allegiance to him - which was exactly what Basque
communities, German towns and Swiss peasants wanted.
Therefore, an equivalence between feudalism and the current organizational make-up of society
dominated by for-profit entities does not make sense.
Lambert Strether, November 3, 2015 at 4:11 pm
"the problem for underlings was never to overthrow the King"
Not even in the peasant revolts?
visitor, November 3, 2015 at 5:15 pm
If you look at this list, it appears that they were revolts directed against the local nobility
(or church) because of its exorbitant taxation, oppressive judiciary, rampaging mercenaries and
incompetent leadership in war against foreign invasions.
The French Jacquerie took place when there was no king - he had been taken prisoner by the English
and the populace blamed the nobility for the military defeats and the massive tax increases that
ensued.
During the Spanish Guerra de los Remensas, the revolted peasants actually appealed to the king
and he in turn allied with them to fight the nobles.
During the Budai Nagy Antal revolt, the peasants actually asked the Hungarian king to arbitrate.
In other cases, even when the king/emperor/sultan ultimately intervened to squash the revolt,
the insurrection was directed against some local elite.
Peasants revolts in 16th century Scandinavia were against the king's rule, but they were linked
to reformation and took place when feudalism was on the wane and the evolution towards a centralized
monarchical state well advanced.
Apparently, only the John and William Merfold's revolt explicitly called for the overthrow
of the English king.
Jim Haygood, November 3, 2015 at 4:51 pm
'The populations of Europe were subject to two parallel hierarchical authorities with taxation,
judicial and other economic powers (such as the right to determine when and for whom to work).'
Just as Americans are subject to two parallel hierarchical authorities with taxation and judicial
powers, the states and the fedgov.
Before 1914, federal criminal laws were few, and direct federal income taxation of individuals
was nonexistent. Today one needs federal authorization (E-verify) to get a job.
Now that the Fifth Amendment prohibition on double jeopardy has been interpreted away, notorious
defendants face both federal and state prosecution. Thus the reason why America has the world's
largest Gulag, with its slam-dunk conviction machine.
Uahsenaa, November 3, 2015 at 4:58 pm
Except, first off, there were non-Christian societies that made use of the system of warrior
vassalage, and the manorial system that undergirded feudal distribution of land and resources,
as least as far as Bloch is concerned, is a fairly clear outgrowth of the Roman villa system of
the late empire. Insofar as the Late Roman empire was nominally–very nominally–Christian, I suppose
your point stands, but according to Bloch, the earliest manorial structures were the result of
the dissolution of the larger, older empire into smaller pieces, many of which were beyond meaningful
administrative control by Rome itself. Second, bishoprics and monasteries, the primary land holdings
of the clergy, were of the same order as manors, so they fit within the overall feudal system,
not parallel to it.
If Bloch is not right about this, I'm open to reading other sources, but that's what my understanding
was based on. Moreover, the basic system of patronage and fealty that made the manor economy function
certainly seems to have survived the historical phenomenon we call feudalism, and that parallel
was what I was trying to draw attention to. Lord/vassal relationships are fundamentally contractual,
not just quid pro quo but organized around favors and reputation, and maybe the analogy is a bit
strained, but it does point to the ways in which modern white collar work especially is about
more than fixed pay for a fixed sum of labor output.
Thure Meyer, November 4, 2015 at 7:30 am
Isn't this rather off-topic?
This is not a discussion about the true and correct history of European feudalism or whether
or not it applies to the situation at hand, but a dialogue about Global fascism and how it
expresses itself in this Nation.
HarrySnapperOrgans, November 4, 2015 at 4:46 am
I suspect that the similarity of medeavil fuedalism with the relationship between a
large modern corporation and its employees is not properly appreciated because the latter,
unlike the former, does not necessarily include direct control over living conditions
(housing, land, rent), even though in the end there may be a similar degree of effective
servitude (lack of mobility and alternatives, and so effective entrapment at low wages) .
"... The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their proper name ..."
"... Similarly, even as authoritarianism is rapidly rising in the US and citizens are losing their rights (see a reminder from last weekend, a major New York Times story on how widespread use of arbitration clauses is stripping citizens of access to the court system *), one runs the risk of having one's hair on fire if one dares suggest that America is moving in a fascist, or perhaps more accurately, a Mussolini-style corporatist direction. Yet we used that very expression, "Mussolini-style corporatism," to describe the the post-crisis bank bailouts. Former chief economist of the IMF, Simon Johnson, was more stark in his choice of terms, famously calling the rescues a "quiet coup" by financial oligarchs. ..."
"... By Thom Hartmann, an author and nationally syndicated daily talk show host. His newest book is "The Crash of 2016: The Plot to Destroy America -- and What We Can Do to Stop It." Originally published at Alternet ..."
"... "The really dangerous American fascists," Wallace wrote, "are not those who are hooked up directly or indirectly with the Axis. The FBI has its finger on those. The dangerous American fascist is the man who wants to do in the United States in an American way what Hitler did in Germany in a Prussian way. The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information. "With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power." ..."
"... If classical liberalism spells individualism, Fascism spells government. ..."
"... If we define an American fascist as one who in case of conflict puts money and power ahead of human beings, then there are undoubtedly several million fascists in the United States. There are probably several hundred thousand if we narrow the definition to include only those who in their search for money and power are ruthless and deceitful. … They are patriotic in time of war because it is to their interest to be so, but in time of peace they follow power and the dollar wherever they may lead. ..."
"... "Fascism is a worldwide disease," Wallace further suggest that fascism's "greatest threat to the United States will come after the war" and will manifest "within the United States itself." ..."
"... It Can't Happen Here ..."
"... There are two [political] parties, the Corporate and those who don't belong to any party at all, and so, to use a common phrase, are just out of luck! ..."
"... Still another danger is represented by those who, paying lip service to democracy and the common welfare, in their insatiable greed for money and the power which money gives, do not hesitate surreptitiously to evade the laws designed to safeguard the public from monopolistic extortion. American fascists of this stamp were clandestinely aligned with their German counterparts before the war, and are even now preparing to resume where they left off, after 'the present unpleasantness' ceases. ..."
"... Fascists have an agenda that is primarily economic. As the Free Dictionary ( www.thefreedictionary.com ) notes, fascism/corporatism is "an attempt to create a 'modern' version of feudalism by merging the 'corporate' interests with those of the state." ..."
"... Thus, the neo-feudal/fascistic rich get richer (and more powerful) on the backs of the poor and the middle class, an irony not lost on author Thomas Frank, who notes in his book What's The Matter With Kansas ..."
"... The businesses "going out of business" are, in fascist administrations, usually those of locally owned small and medium-sized companies. As Wallace wrote, some in big business "are willing to jeopardize the structure of American liberty to gain some temporary advantage." ..."
"... Monopolists who fear competition and who distrust democracy because it stands for equal opportunity would like to secure their position against small and energetic enterprise [companies]. In an effort to eliminate the possibility of any rival growing up, some monopolists would sacrifice democracy itself. ..."
"... The symptoms of fascist thinking are colored by environment and adapted to immediate circumstances. But always and everywhere they can be identified by their appeal to prejudice and by the desire to play upon the fears and vanities of different groups in order to gain power. It is no coincidence that the growth of modern tyrants has in every case been heralded by the growth of prejudice. It may be shocking to some people in this country to realize that, without meaning to do so, they hold views in common with Hitler when they preach discrimination… ..."
"... But even at this, Wallace noted, American fascists would have to lie to the people in order to gain power. And, because they were in bed with the nation's largest corporations – who could gain control of newspapers and broadcast media -- they could promote their lies with ease. ..."
"... "The American fascists are most easily recognized by their deliberate perversion of truth and fact," Wallace wrote. "Their newspapers and propaganda carefully cultivate every fissure of disunity, every crack in the common front against fascism. They use every opportunity to impugn democracy." ..."
"... They claim to be super-patriots, but they would destroy every liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. They demand free enterprise, but are the spokesmen for monopoly and vested interest. Their final objective toward which all their deceit is directed is to capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjection. ..."
"... Franklin D. Roosevelt, said when he accepted his party's renomination in 1936 in Philadelphia, "…out of this modern civilization, economic royalists [have] carved new dynasties…. It was natural and perhaps human that the privileged princes of these new economic dynasties, thirsting for power, reached out for control over government itself. They created a new despotism and wrapped it in the robes of legal sanction…. And as a result the average man once more confronts the problem that faced the Minute Man…." ..."
"... The Republican candidates' and their billionaire donors' behavior today eerily parallels that day in 1936 when Roosevelt said, "In vain they seek to hide behind the flag and the Constitution. In their blindness they forget what the flag and the Constitution stand for." ..."
"... Amen -- I've always detested the weasel words "neoliberal" and "neoconservative". Lets just be honest enough to call ideologies and political behaviors by their proper name. ..."
"... Call Dems what they are – corrupt right wingers, ultra conservatives. ..."
"... Isn't it important to keep in mind that fascism, as it developed in Italy and Germany, were authentic mass based movements generating great popular enthusiasm and not merely a clever manipulation of of populist emotions by the reactionary Right or by capitalism in crisis. ..."
"... Authentic augmented by the generous application of force, I'd say. That I think is a very interesting discussion about just how freely fascism develops. I don't think Italy and especially Germany developed with a particularly genuine popular enthusiasm. ..."
"... Or to put it differently, I'd say the appearance of popular enthusiasm from a mass movement was the result of fascist control as much as the cause. That's what's so unnverving about the American context of 21st century fascism. It does not require a mass movement to implement this kind of totalitarianism. It merely requires the professional class to keep their heads down long enough for a critical mass to be reached by the power structure in hollowing out the back-office guts of democratic governance. ..."
"... Fascism was a counter revolution to Bolshevikism. The upper and upper-middle class was scared to death of what happen in Russia under Bolshevikism. They united with the military looking for someone to counter Bolshevikism and settled on Hitler and the Nazi's. The military thought they control him but they ended up being wrong. ..."
"... "Those who own America should govern it" ..."
"... Corporation in Italian has approximately the meaning of guild and has nothing to do with big enterprises ..."
"... Massinissa and lou strong are correct -- corporatism in Mussolini's Italy meant structuring the State and the legislative body around organizations representing specific professional or economic sectors. ..."
"... By the way: we should not forget another fascist State, Portugal, which during the entire Salazar regime officially defined itself as a "corporatist republic". ..."
"... besides for-profit corporations. ..."
"... elimination ..."
"... It is apparent that both corporate parties are increasingly incapable of properly deflecting and channeling the interests of the electorate. Whether you think of 2007-08 as simply another business cycle, one that was exacerbated by toxic assets, a product of increasing income and wealth disparity, etc. it seems that portions of the electorate have been shocked out of their confidence in the system and the steering capacity of economic and political elites. ..."
"... This might lead the parties, under the pressure of events, to might reformulate themselves as the political cover of a "government of national unity" that, depending on the extremity of the next downturn, impose a "solidarity from above," blocking the development of popular organizations in a variety of ways. I certainly see this as possible. But treating the parties, or the system itself, as fascist at this point in time is not only not helpful, it is fundamentally disorienting. ..."
"... Chamber of the Fascist Corporations ..."
"... My impression is that today Corporatism more closely represents the interests of multinational corporations and the people who hold executive leadership positions within those companies. What they have in common is a listing on NYSE. ..."
The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their proper name. Confucius
One of the distressing things about politics in the US is the way words have either been stripped
of their meaning or become so contested as to undermine the ability to communicate and analyze. It's
hard to get to a conversation when you and your interlocutors don't have the same understanding of
basic terms.
And that is no accident. The muddying of meaning is a neo-Orwellian device to influence perceptions
by redefining core concepts. And a major vector has been by targeting narrow interest groups on their
hot-button topics. Thus, if you are an evangelical or otherwise strongly opposed to women having
reproductive control, anyone who favors womens' rights in this area is in your vein of thinking,
to the left of you, hence a "liberal". Allowing the Overton Window to be framed around pet interests,
as opposed to a view of what societal norms are, has allowed for the media to depict the center of
the political spectrum as being well to the right of where it actually is as measured by decades
of polling, particularly on economic issues.
Another way of limiting discourse is to relegate certain terms or ideas to what Daniel Hallin
called the "sphere of deviance."
Thus, until roughly two years ago, calling an idea "Marxist" in the US was tantamount to deeming
it to be the political equivalent of taboo. That shows how powerful the long shadow of the Communist
purges of the McCarthy era were, more than a generation after the fall of the Berlin Wall.
Similarly, even as authoritarianism is rapidly rising in the US and citizens are losing their
rights (see a reminder from last weekend, a major New York Times story on how
widespread use of arbitration clauses is stripping citizens of access to the court system*),
one runs the risk of having one's hair on fire if one dares suggest that America is moving in a fascist,
or perhaps more accurately, a Mussolini-style corporatist direction. Yet we used that very expression,
"Mussolini-style corporatism," to describe the the post-crisis bank bailouts. Former chief economist
of the IMF, Simon Johnson, was more stark in his choice of terms, famously calling the rescues a
"quiet coup" by financial oligarchs.
Now admittedly, the new neoliberal economic order is not a replay of fascism, so there is reason
not to apply the "f" word wholesale. Nevertheless, there is a remarkable amount of inhibition in
calling out the similarities where they exist. For instance, the article by Thom Hartmann below,
which we've reposted from Alternet, is bold enough to use the "fascist" word in the opening paragraph
(but not the headline!). But it then retreats from making a hard-headed analysis by focusing on warnings
about the risks of fascism in America from the 1940s. While historical analysis is always enlightening,
you'll see the article only selectively interjects contemporary examples. Readers no doubt can help
fill out, as well as qualify, this picture.
By Thom Hartmann, an author and nationally syndicated daily talk show host. His newest
book is "The Crash of 2016: The Plot to Destroy America -- and What We Can Do to Stop It." Originally
published at
Alternet
Ben Carson's feeble attempt to equate Hitler and pro-gun control Democrats was short-lived, but
along with the announcement that Marco Rubio has brought in his second big supporting billionaire,
it brings to mind the first American vice-president to point out the "American fascists" among us.
Although most Americans remember that Harry Truman was Franklin D. Roosevelt's vice-president
when Roosevelt died in 1945 (making Truman president), Roosevelt had two previous vice-presidents:
John N. Garner (1933-1941) and Henry A. Wallace (1941-1945).
In early 1944, the New York Times asked Vice-President Henry Wallace to, as Wallace noted, "write
a piece answering the following questions: What is a fascist? How many fascists have we? How dangerous
are they?"
Vice-President Wallace's answer to those questions was published in the New York Times on April
9, 1944, at the height of the war against the Axis powers of Germany and Japan.
"The really dangerous American fascists," Wallace wrote, "are not those who are hooked up directly
or indirectly with the Axis. The FBI has its finger on those. The dangerous American fascist is the
man who wants to do in the United States in an American way what Hitler did in Germany in a Prussian
way. The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels
of public information.
"With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best
to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power."
In this, Wallace was using the classic definition of the word "fascist" -- the definition Mussolini
had in mind when he claimed to have invented the word. (It was actually Italian philosopher Giovanni
Gentile who wrote the entry in the Encyclopedia Italiana that said: "Fascism should more appropriately
be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." Mussolini, however, affixed
his name to the entry, and claimed credit for it.)
As the 1983 American Heritage Dictionary noted, fascism is, "A system of government that exercises
a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership,
together with belligerent nationalism."
Mussolini was quite straightforward about all this. In a 1923 pamphlet titled "The Doctrine of
Fascism" he wrote, "If classical liberalism spells individualism, Fascism spells government." But
not a government of, by, and for We The People; instead, it would be a government of, by, and for
the most powerful corporate interests in the nation.
In 1938, Mussolini brought his vision of fascism into full reality when he dissolved Parliament
and replaced it with the Camera dei Fasci e delle Corporazioni -- the Chamber of the Fascist Corporations.
Corporations were still privately owned, but now instead of having to sneak their money to folks
like Tom DeLay and covertly write legislation, they were openly in charge of the government.
Vice-President Wallace bluntly laid out in his 1944 Times article his concern about the same happening
here in America:
If we define an American fascist as one who in case of conflict puts money and power ahead
of human beings, then there are undoubtedly several million fascists in the United States. There
are probably several hundred thousand if we narrow the definition to include only those who in
their search for money and power are ruthless and deceitful. … They are patriotic in time of war
because it is to their interest to be so, but in time of peace they follow power and the dollar
wherever they may lead.
Nonetheless, at that time there were few corporate heads who'd run for political office, and in
Wallace's view, most politicians still felt it was their obligation to represent We The People instead
of corporate cartels.
"American fascism will not be really dangerous," he added in the next paragraph, "until there
is a purposeful coalition among the cartelists, the deliberate poisoners of public information…."
Noting that, "Fascism is a worldwide disease," Wallace further suggest that fascism's "greatest
threat to the United States will come after the war" and will manifest "within the United States
itself."
In Sinclair Lewis's 1935 novel It Can't Happen Here a conservative southern politician
is helped to the presidency by a nationally syndicated radio talk show host. The politician, Buzz
Windrip, runs his campaign on family values, the flag and patriotism. Windrip and the talk show host
portray advocates of traditional American democracy as anti-American.
When Windrip becomes president, he opens a Guantanamo-style detention center, and the viewpoint
character of the book, Vermont newspaper editor Doremus Jessup, flees to Canada to avoid prosecution
under new "patriotic" laws that make it illegal to criticize the President.
As Lewis noted in his novel, "the President, with something of his former good-humor [said]: 'There
are two [political] parties, the Corporate and those who don't belong to any party at all, and so,
to use a common phrase, are just out of luck!' The idea of the Corporate or Corporative State, Secretary
[of State] Sarason had more or less taken from Italy."
And, President "Windrip's partisans called themselves the Corporatists, or, familiarly, the 'Corpos,'
which nickname was generally used."
Lewis, the first American writer to win a Nobel Prize, was world famous by 1944, as was his book.
And several well-known and powerful Americans, including Prescott Bush, had lost businesses in the
early 1940s because of charges by Roosevelt that they were doing business with Hitler.
These events all, no doubt, colored Vice-President Wallace's thinking when he wrote:
Still another danger is represented by those who, paying lip service to democracy and the common
welfare, in their insatiable greed for money and the power which money gives, do not hesitate
surreptitiously to evade the laws designed to safeguard the public from monopolistic extortion.
American fascists of this stamp were clandestinely aligned with their German counterparts before
the war, and are even now preparing to resume where they left off, after 'the present unpleasantness'
ceases.
Fascists have an agenda that is primarily economic. As the Free Dictionary (www.thefreedictionary.com)
notes, fascism/corporatism is "an attempt to create a 'modern' version of feudalism by merging the
'corporate' interests with those of the state."
Feudalism, of course, is one of the most stable of the three historic tyrannies (kingdoms, theocracies,
feudalism) that ruled nations prior to the rise of American republican democracy, and can be roughly
defined as "rule by the rich."
Thus, the neo-feudal/fascistic rich get richer (and more powerful) on the backs of the poor and
the middle class, an irony not lost on author Thomas Frank, who notes in his book What's The
Matter With Kansas that, "You can see the paradox first-hand on nearly any Main Street in middle
America -- 'going out of business' signs side by side with placards supporting George W. Bush."
The businesses "going out of business" are, in fascist administrations, usually those of locally
owned small and medium-sized companies. As Wallace wrote, some in big business "are willing to jeopardize
the structure of American liberty to gain some temporary advantage."
He added:
Monopolists who fear competition and who distrust democracy because it stands for equal opportunity
would like to secure their position against small and energetic enterprise [companies]. In an
effort to eliminate the possibility of any rival growing up, some monopolists would sacrifice
democracy itself.
But American fascists who would want former CEOs as president, vice-president, House Majority
Whip, and Senate Majority Leader, and write legislation with corporate interests in mind, don't generally
talk to We The People about their real agenda, or the harm it does to small businesses and working
people.
Instead, as Hitler did with the trade union leaders and the Jews, they point to a "them" to pin
with blame and distract people from the harms of their economic policies.
In a comment prescient of Alabama's recent closing of every drivers' license office in every Alabama
county with more than 75% black residents (while recently passing a law requiring a drivers' license
or similar ID to vote), Wallace continued:
The symptoms of fascist thinking are colored by environment and adapted to immediate circumstances.
But always and everywhere they can be identified by their appeal to prejudice and by the desire
to play upon the fears and vanities of different groups in order to gain power. It is no coincidence
that the growth of modern tyrants has in every case been heralded by the growth of prejudice.
It may be shocking to some people in this country to realize that, without meaning to do so, they
hold views in common with Hitler when they preach discrimination…
But even at this, Wallace noted, American fascists would have to lie to the people in order to
gain power. And, because they were in bed with the nation's largest corporations – who could gain
control of newspapers and broadcast media -- they could promote their lies with ease.
"The American fascists are most easily recognized by their deliberate perversion of truth and
fact," Wallace wrote. "Their newspapers and propaganda carefully cultivate every fissure of disunity,
every crack in the common front against fascism. They use every opportunity to impugn democracy."
In his strongest indictment of the tide of fascism, the vice-president of the United States saw
rising in America, he added:
They claim to be super-patriots, but they would destroy every liberty guaranteed by the Constitution.
They demand free enterprise, but are the spokesmen for monopoly and vested interest. Their final
objective toward which all their deceit is directed is to capture political power so that, using
the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man
in eternal subjection.
This liberal vision of an egalitarian America in which very large businesses and media monopolies
are broken up under the 1890 Sherman Anti-Trust Act (which Reagan stopped enforcing, leading to the
mergers & acquisitions frenzy that continues to this day) was the driving vision of the New Deal
(and of "Trust Buster" Teddy Roosevelt a generation earlier).
As Wallace's president, Franklin D. Roosevelt, said when he accepted his party's renomination
in 1936 in Philadelphia, "…out of this modern civilization, economic royalists [have] carved new
dynasties…. It was natural and perhaps human that the privileged princes of these new economic dynasties,
thirsting for power, reached out for control over government itself. They created a new despotism
and wrapped it in the robes of legal sanction…. And as a result the average man once more confronts
the problem that faced the Minute Man…."
Speaking indirectly of the fascists Wallace would directly name almost a decade later, Roosevelt
brought the issue to its core:
These economic royalists complain that we seek to overthrow the institutions of America. What
they really complain of is that we seek to take away their power." But, he thundered, "Our allegiance
to American institutions requires the overthrow of this kind of power!
In the election of 2016, we again stand at the same crossroad Roosevelt and Wallace confronted
during the Great Depression and World War II.
Fascism is again rising in America, this time calling itself "conservativism." The Republican
candidates' and their billionaire donors' behavior today eerily parallels that day in 1936 when Roosevelt
said, "In vain they seek to hide behind the flag and the Constitution. In their blindness they forget
what the flag and the Constitution stand for."
It's particularly ironic that the "big news" is which billionaire is supporting which Republican
candidate. Like Eisenhower's farewell address, President Roosevelt and Vice-President Wallace's warnings
are more urgent now than ever before.
_____
* In trying to find the New York Times story again, I simply Googled "arbitration," on the assumption
that given that the article was both high traffic and recent that it would come up high in a search.
Not only did the story not come up on the first page, although a reference to it in Consumerist did,
but when I clicked on "in the news" link, it was again not in the first page in Google. If this isn't
censorship, I don't know what is. The story was widely referenced on the Web and got far more traffic
than the "news" story that Google gave preference (such as, of all things, a Cato study and "Arbitration
Eligible Brewers
Brew Crew Ball-19 hours ago"). In fact, the NYT article does not appear on the first five pages of
the Google news search, even though older and clearly lower traffic stories do. And when you find
the first reference to the story on the news page, which is a Cato piece mentioning it, and you click
through to the "explore
in depth" page, again the New York Times story is not the prominent placement it warrants, and
is listed fifth. Consider how many clicks it took to find it.
Crazy Horse, November 3, 2015 at 10:49 am
Amen -- I've always detested the weasel words "neoliberal" and "neoconservative". Lets just be honest
enough to call ideologies and political behaviors by their proper name.
timbers, November 3, 2015 at 11:17 am
I agree!
Telling my friends Obama is "neoliberal" means nothing to 99% of them, they couldn't care less,
it does not compute. So instead I tell them Obama is the most right wing President in history
who's every bit un-hinged as Sarah Palin and at least as bat shit insame as John McCain, but you
think that's totally OK because you're a Dem and Dems think that because Obama speaks with better
grammar than Sarah Palin and is more temperate than John McCain. Them I tell them to vote Green
instead of the utlra right wing Dems
Call Dems what they are – corrupt right wingers, ultra conservatives.
Barmitt O'Bamney, November 3, 2015 at 11:01 am
LOL. You get to take your pick between TWO fascist parties in 2016. Just like you did for the
last several elections. I wonder if the outcome will be different this time – will Fascism grab
the prize again, or will it be Fascism coming out ahead at the last minute to save the day?
David, November 3, 2015 at 11:04 am
Why didn't Wallace become President when Roosevelt died? From the
St. Petersburg Times,
The Gallup Poll said 65 percent of the voting Democrats wanted Wallace and that 2 percent
wanted Senator Truman. But the party bosses could not boss Wallace. They made a coalition with
the Roosevelt-haters and skillfully and cynically mowed down the unorganized Wallace forces.
With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how
best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money
or more power
Such a concise and cogent explanation. The go-to policy advice of the fascist is to do moar
of whatever he's selling.
I was just going to say something like this too. There is a logical end to fascism and if it
is blocked and prolonged then when it finally runs its course it ends in a huge mess. And even
the fascists don't know what to do. Because everything they were doing becomes pure poison. Moar
money and power have an Achilles Heel – there is an actual limit to their usefulness. So this
is where we find ourselves today imo – not at the beginning of a fascist-feudal empire, but at
the bitter and confused end. Our implosion took far longer than Germany's, but the writing was
on the wall from 1970 on. And then toss in the wages of prolonged sin – neoliberalism's excesses,
the planet, global warming.
One would think that Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and the killing of 1000 people by cops would be
a clue. As would an understanding of the counter-New Deal that began to unfold in 1944, gained
power in 1946, and institutionalized itself as a military and secret government in 1947. Or the
rush to war after every peace, the rush to debt after every surplus, and perpetual inability of
the IRS to collect taxes from the wealthiest.
Maybe not even a Franco-level fascist state or a fascist state with a single dictator, more
like the state capitalism of the Soviet Union and current China without the public infrastructure.
Just the oligarchs.
And yet it is in a state of failure, and inability to do anything but feather then nests of
those who rule, all those King Midases.
Also, the increase of censorship (GMO labels or fracking chemicals), and persecution of whistleblowers
and political prisoners, incarceration of whole swathes of black population, along w execution
w no due process, continuous wars abroad w no apparent tbreat to domestic security and the state
of the nation is apparent.
Isn't it important to keep in mind that fascism, as it developed in Italy and Germany,
were authentic mass based movements generating great popular enthusiasm and not merely a clever
manipulation of of populist emotions by the reactionary Right or by capitalism in crisis.
The orthodox left made this mistake in the 1920s and early 1930s and in 2015 still appears
wedded to this erroneous assumption.
Authentic augmented by the generous application of force, I'd say. That I think is a very
interesting discussion about just how freely fascism develops. I don't think Italy and especially
Germany developed with a particularly genuine popular enthusiasm. Very early on, the national
socialists were arresting internal political opposition through parallel courts with explicit
references to things like state security. Dachau, for example, was originally for German political
prisoners. Jews and foreign nationals came later.
And of course there's the ultimate in false flags, the Reichstag Fire Decree. The whole point
of that and the Enabling Act was to circumvent the checks and balances of democratic governance;
Hitler himself certainly did not trust the German people to maintain the power he wanted of their
own accord and discernment.
Or to put it differently, I'd say the appearance of popular enthusiasm from a mass movement
was the result of fascist control as much as the cause. That's what's so unnverving about the
American context of 21st century fascism. It does not require a mass movement to implement this
kind of totalitarianism. It merely requires the professional class to keep their heads down long
enough for a critical mass to be reached by the power structure in hollowing out the back-office
guts of democratic governance.
Fascism was a counter revolution to Bolshevikism. The upper and upper-middle class was
scared to death of what happen in Russia under Bolshevikism. They united with the military looking
for someone to counter Bolshevikism and settled on Hitler and the Nazi's. The military thought
they control him but they ended up being wrong.
You have to understand that after WW1 the allies kept a sea blockade on Germany and that resulted
in over a million Germans starving to death. Then came depression followed by hyperinflation.
Then there was the fear of Bolsheviks. The Nazi's showed up and things started working again.
The Bolsheviks were driven from the street. The Nazi's started borrowing tons of money (yes they
issued bonds) and started work programs. The economy started recovering. People had work and food
and soon the Nazi's were furnishing free health care. After you had gone through hell this was
heaven.
It's strange but 9/11 and the 3 steel frame buildings collapse into dust in few seconds isn't
recognized by the masses as false flag Hitler style, then what do you expect ? Massmedia did what
it could to confuse them all, only math and physics can help you to see the truth.
It would, indeed, be an extremely worthwhile discussion to analyze how freely fascism developed
in Italy and Germany.
As a first step in that directkion, Washunate, you might take a look at studies like "Elections,
Parties, and Political Traditions: Social Foundations of German parties and party systems.
In the July 1932 elections the SPD (Socialist Party) received 21.6 percent of the vote and
was replaced by the NSDAP (Nazi party) as the countries largest political party (with 37.3% of
the vote). with the KPD (the communists) capturing 14.5%of the vote.
It was at that time that the Nazi party become a true "people's party" with a support base
that was more equally distributed among social and demographic categories than any other major
party of the Weimar republic.
The thing that troubles me most is that there are no leaders like Roosevelt or Wallace today.
Where are the POPULAR politicians (Roosevelt was elected 4 times!) calling it like it is and publicly
refuting conservative/fascist dogma? Sanders? Maybe. But he's trailing Clinton and certainly he's
not a force in the Democratic party like Roosevelt was. At least not yet.
I agree with the "quiet coup" assessment, and I keep waiting for the next Roosevelt, the next
Lincoln, the next Founding Father, to appear on the political stage and fight the battle against
corporatist/fascist forces. Sadly, it hasn't happened yet.
Unfortunately the next Founding Father to appear (or has appeared) will be John Jay (first
Chief Justice among other roles) who was quoted as having said :
Hank Paulson and George W. Bush prevented the situation in 2008 from forcing a Rooseveltian
Congress. And the Congress went along with them. Then it was so easy for the do-nothings to argue
for less and continue the austerity. And as in Roosevelt's era, racism helped prevent full change,
which allowed the post-war rollback.
Who do you think put the basis of rule by the rich into practice in the first place? A series
of 'popular movements' like Shays Rebellion was what forced the founding fathers to make voting
rights not dependent on owning land, not because the Founding Fathers were really nice people
who luvved 'Democracy'.
"on the rise" or firmly entrenched ? We already have Homeland Security, Justice Thomas, Donald
Trump ,Ted Cruz, and the Koch Brothers (who are running ads in NC extolling recently passed changes
in the tax code to continue shifting from income to consumption taxes). What is missing?
I always think of the Kochs when the word fascist is used. They are ostensibly great environmentalists.
Never mind that they operate some of the filthiest industries on the planet. They sponsor NOVA;
one brother is a raving environmentalist (that's fine with me) and the other two tone it down.
But their brand of conservative politix is as pointless as it is ignorant. That's an interesting
topic – the hypocrisy of rich corporatist environmentalists. They are living a contradiction that
will tear them apart. But at least they are agonizing over the problem.
Maybe my English is too bad, but it seems there's a misunderstanding about "corporatism" meaning,
which is unfortunately reflected, as it seems again, in some American dictionaries. Corporation
in Italian has approximately the meaning of guild and has nothing to do with big enterprises.
So, while there is no doubt that fascists took power in Italy as the armed wing of big capital,
big finance and big landholders against the unrests of the low classes, the idea of corporatist
state for them meant the refusal of the principle of class war in favor of the principle of class
(guilds, "corporations" :both for employers and employees/trade unions) collaboration , and all
of them as subservients to the superior interest of the state.Fascism agenda wasn't primarily
economic. There wasn't either a specific agenda : until '29 the regime acted as deeply "neoliberal"
with privatizations, deflationary policies to fix a strong lira smashing labor rights and purchase
power etc etc , after the crisis it nationalized the failed enterprises and introduced some welfare
state elements.
So at least the regime got the property of the failed banks/enterprises, much unlike current
situation , where we see the mere socialization of losses and privatization of profits .
But English speakers either dont know or dont care. Ive seen people talk about "Mussolini Corporatism"
like this for what, five years, and they never get corrected.
I dont think theres anything we can do to get people to stop using that term as if it means
what they think it means.
Massinissa and lou strong are correct -- corporatism in Mussolini's Italy meant structuring
the State and the legislative body around organizations representing specific professional or
economic sectors.
By the way: we should not forget another fascist State, Portugal, which during the entire
Salazar regime officially defined itself as a "corporatist republic".
You can direct them to the Wikipedia entry for corporatism, which is extensive, or to
Michael Lind's 2014 article on the multiple historical meanings and recent misuse of this
term. But the term has currency and traction today for reason neither article quite puts a finger
on. Under Italian Fascism, the traditional meanings of corporative representation and bargaining
were invoked but fused tightly under the auspices -or control- of the nation state, which of course
was a single party state. The theoretical representativeness of corporatism was as a facade for
political control of all institutions of Italian life by the Fascist Party. In the present time,
with unions and guilds a fading memory, regions homogenized and classes atomized, with churches
that are little more than money making enterprises as transparent as any multilevel marketing
scheme, there are few non-government institutions in western life with any weight besides
for-profit corporations. When people struggle to describe what seems wrong to them with our
political life, the subservience of our government – and therefore everything else – to profit
seeking corporations, they need a term that reflects neatly what has happened and where we are.
Democracy of course is defunct both as a term and in reality. We don't have a state of decayed
democracy (passive, negative), we have a state of corporate diktat (active, positive). "Corporatism"
is an attractive and convenient verbal handle for the masses to latch onto, no matter how much
this disappoints the learned. In English, when enough people "misuse" a term for a sufficiently
long time, what happens is that the OED adds a new sub-entry for it reflecting its current usage.
Corporatism is indeed an old idea, feudalism re-branded as "fascism." After Hitler ruined the
term, fascism remained, but underground, until it reemerged in the 1960s as what George Ball termed
the "world company," which is better known as the system of global corporations. The same general
idea, but under a new marketing slogan. Today we have globalization, the raft of "trade" treaties,
the Austrian/Libertarian ideology, all of which ultimately push the world toward yet another replay
of feudalism. The box says "new and improved," but inside it's the same old crap.
"The more people that transact with one another, the greater the division of labour and knowledge,
the greater the ability to develop comparative advantage and the greater the productivity gains."
What could possibly go wrong?
In any empire, virtual or otherwise, you are always surrounded by communist thieves that think
they are going to control your output with a competitive advantage illusion, which conveniently
ignores opportunity cost. Government is just a derivative piece of paper, the latest fashion for
communists, all assuming that the planet is here for their convenience, to exploit. Well, the
critters have blown right through 45/5000/.75, and Canada was supposed to be the proving ground
for the Silicon Valley Method. Now what?
"Don't panic : world trade is down….Don't bet against the Fed….BTFD." Expect something other
than demographic variability, financial implosion, and war.
The communists are always running head first over the cliff, expecting you to follow. Labor
has no use for cars that determine when, where and how you will travel, and the communists can't
fix anything, because the 'fix' is already inside, embedded as a feature. America is just the
latest communist gang believing it has commandeered the steamroller, rolling over other communist
gangs.
The Bear isn't coming down from the North, China isn't selling Treasuries, and families are
not moving away from the city by accident. Only the latest and greatest, new-world-order communists,
replacing themselves with computers, are surprised that technology is always the solution for
the problem, technology. Facebook, LinkedIn and Google are only the future for communists, which
is always the same, a dead end, with a different name.
Remember that Honda of mine? I told the head communist thief not to touch that car while I
was gone, told his fellow thieves and their dependents that I told him so, and even gave him the
advantage of telling him what the problem was. How many hours do you suppose the fools spent trying
to control that car, and my wife with it?
I don't care whether the communists on the other side of the hill or the communists on this
side of the hill think they are going to control Grace, and through her my wife, and through her
me. And there are all kinds of communist groups using pieces of my work to advance their AI weapons
development, on the assumption that my work will not find itself in the end. Grace will decide
whether she wants to be an individual or a communist.
The only way the communists can predict and control the future is to control children. That's
what financialization is all about. And all communism can do is train automatons to follow each
other, which is a problem-solution addressed by the planet every three generations. You don't
have to do anything for communism to collapse, but get out of the way.
Technology is just a temporary tool, discarded by labor for the communists to steal, and stealing
a hammer doesn't make anyone a carpenter, much less a King, which is why the Queen always walks
through the wreckage, to a worthless throne. The story of Jesus was in fact the story of a king,
who had no use for a worldly kingdom, other than as a counterweight, always surrounded by communists,
like pigs at a trough. Jesus was no more and no less a child of God than you are.
Labor loses every battle because it doesn't participate, leaving the communists to label each
other as labour and knowledge. And if you look, you will see that all their knowledge is real
estate inflation, baked into everything, with oil as grease. The name, Robert Reich, didn't give
you a hint; of course he knew all along, and like a good communist, changes sides on a regular
basis.
You can't pick your parents or your children, or make choices for them, but you can love them
without pissing your life away. Navy hasn't disappeared just because the US Navy chose to be a
sunk cost, at the beck and call of Wall Street, trying to defend the status quo of communism,
for communists on the other side of the pond. A marine is not always a Marine, and a flattop can
be turned on a dime.
"The Muses doe attend upon your Throne, With all the Artists at your becke and call…"
If you want to show up at WWIII with a communist and a dc computer as a weapon, that's your
business, but I wouldn't recommend doing so. Labor can mobilize far quicker than the communists
can imagine, which isn't saying much. Be about your business until the laws of physics have been
overthrown, and that hasn't happened yet.
You can count on communists to be at an intersection, creating a traffic jam, building a bigger
toll booth, and voting for more of the same, thinking that they are taking advantage of each other,
doing the wrong thing at the wrong time at the wrong place. Any intersection of false assumptions
will do.
his name was hanz…or so I was told…we had acquired a lease from the NYC HPD from a parking
lot/marina that was at the very north edge of Harlem River Drive at Dyckman (pronounced dikeman)….there
is a school there now…he "came" with the lease…years later I would find out he was working with
Carlos Lehder and helping arrange for cash payments to conveniently amnesiastic police officers
who used the hardly functioning marina to go fishing…in the east river & the hudson…go figure…the
more I tried to get rid of him…the more "problems" occurred…my father begged me stop poking around
and just "leave it alone"…I don't think he ever really knew what "hanz" was doing or who he was…oh
well…might explain how we lost a billion dollars in real estate (ok…it was not worth a billion
back then…but it had not debt other than real estate taxes…it was not lost for simply economic
reasons)
we as a nation were "convinced" to allow 50 thousand former nazis to enter this country after
ww2…under the foolish notion that "the russians" (who have never killed too many americans if
my history serves me right) were a "new danger" and only the folks who LO$T to the russians had
the knowledge needed to save us from those "evil communists"…(evil communists who helped the Koch
Family make their financial start…details details…)
those nazis, from my research have probably grown to a force of about 250 thousand who are
the basic clowns (MIC…see you real soon…KEY…why, because we like you…) Ike was talking about in
January of 1961…
but…as Ike mentioned when talking about the Koch dad and his John Birch nonsense…they are small
and they are stupid…
the use of "coup" in the context of some of the strange happenings in our history these last
55 years is probably not a reasonable term…
I would say we have had "coupettes" where certain groups threatened MAD if they did not get
their way or were not left alone…and then those wimps in power decided…better you than me…and
turned a blind eye for 30 pieces of silver…coincidence and causality sometimes are not just mathematical
anomalies…
there is no need to "take back" our country…it is ours and has always been ours…the reason
"the clowns that be" worry so much is that for all the use of bernaze sause…they can hardly fake
half the population into showing up to vote on "one of the chosen ones"…and that 50% that are
not fully mesmerized are the fear factor for the clowns that be…
remember…try as "they" might…can "they" keep you watching the same tv show for ever…or get
you to buy their useless "branded" product without coupons or advertising…
it is not as bad or scary as they would like you to believe…they would not be working this
hard if they were comfortable in their socks…they do not sleep well at night…you are the "zombie
apocalypse" they are afraid off…
Huh? Many of the things you brand as "communist" existed long before Communism was created.
To blame it all on "communists" is a serious error which blinds you to much older evils, some
of which Communism was at least nominally intended to correct. It is important to recognize that
the "Red scares" have been used by forces in the West to bolster their own power. One can both
disagree with Communism and disagree with the "Red menace" propaganda at the same time. The people
who scare you with the threat of Communism are more of a threat than the Communists themselves.
When talking about the rise of fascism(especially if the US experiences another economic/financial
meltdown in the next few years) it is so important to get the historical context as accurate as
possible.
Mussolini began his political career as an exponent of a different type of socialism. One of
his early followers was Antonio Gramsci and they both deplored the passivity of orthodox Marxists.
Mussolini was attracted to the theoretical framework of Sorel to offset traditional left passivity
and the syndicalist focus on the importance of human will. He founded a journal in 1913 called
Utopia and called for a revision of socialism in which he began referring to "the people" and
not the proletariat, as well as stressing the importance of the nation. He attempted to bring
nationalist and syndicalist streams of thought together.
After World War I Mussolini helped found a new political movement in Italy which brought together
both nationalist and socialist themes. Its first program was anticapitalist, antimonarchical and
called for an 8 hour day, minimum wages, the participation of workers' representatives in industrial
management and a large progressive tax on capital.
By the early 1920s the Fasci of Mussolini gained a powerful base of support in rural Italian
areas, advocating of program of peasant proprtietorship rather than endorsing the calls for the
nationalization of property of the orthodox left.
By this time fascism presented itself as an opponent of "Bolshevism" and a guardian of private
property while emphasizing the collective good and criticizing absentee landlords and "exploitative
capitalists"
For an excellent discussion of the development of these ideas as well as the concrete steps
toward corporatism that took place after 1922 see Sheri Berman "The Primacy of Politics"
A key point to keep in mind was that the fascism that eventually developed in Italy was willing
to assert unconditionally the power of the state over the market.
Not everybody just "wants what we have," as the common view here has it. In fact, from Bolivia,
where the average person consumes perhaps 1/20th the total resources of her analogue in the
US, comes the old-new idea of buen vivir (the good life): a life in which the health of your
human community and its surrounding ecosystem are more important than the amount of money you
make or things you own.
"In this, Wallace was using the classic definition of the word fascist' -- the definition Mussolini
had in mind when he claimed to have invented the word."
An Italian Jew by the name of Enrico Rocca is cited in "Roots of Hate: Anti-Semitism in Europe
Before the Holocaust" as the founder of Roman fascism. This name is completely unknown in the
U.S. A large number of Italian Jews were founders and members of the Italian fascist party prior
to 1938 when anti-Semitism became official. "Among Mussolini's earliest financial backers were
three Jews: Giuseppe Toeplitz of the Banca Commerciale Italiana, Elio Jona [?], and the industrialist
Gino Olivetti. . . ." The banker Toeplitz was the main financier behind Mussolini's blackshirts,
which served as union busters for big business and land owners (also see "Fascism and Big Business"
by Daniel Guerin). Undermining organized labor in order to drive down wages was a central aim
of fascism in Italy and later under Hitler in Germany. In 1933, roughly ten percent of Italian
Jews were members of the fascist party. These facts are important to know because moderns are
led to believe that fascism is inherently anti-semitic, but that wasn't the case in the early
years of fascism in Italy, where it was founded.
It is also important to keep in mind, as Sheri Berman has argued, that social democracy, the
fascism of Mussolini and National Socialism in Germany agree on a set of key assumptions.
1. All assume the primary importance of politics and cross-class cooperation. Edward Bermstein
at the turn of the 20th century began attacking the main pillars of orthodox Marxism, historical
materialism and class struggle while arguing for an alternative vision based on state control
of markets–social democracy became the complete severing of socialism from Marxism.
2. For these same Social Democrats the primacy of the political meant using the democratic
state to institutionalize policies and protect society from capitalism.
3. For fascists and national socialists using a tyrannical state to control markets was supposedly
necessary–but, of course, this postion deteriorated into moves to ensure the hegemony of the modern
State.
But is it the case, in 2015, taken the power of our contemporary Surveillance regime, that
a democratic state still exists?
Do contemporary democratic socialists first have to first focus on how to restore democracy
in the U.S. rather than assuming that the contemporary political structure just needs the right
leadership–someone like Bernie Sanders–and the right credit policy– such as MMT?
Hartmann draws from Mussolini the idea that the fascist state prioritizes and organizes corporate
interests, but misses what Mussolini left out of his harmonistic definition, which was that in
both Germany and Italy organized terror was to be used to destroy opposition to corporate interests.
The systematic use of terror had major implications for the way the internal politics of the fascist
state developed, for the weight given in its organizational structure and tactical options to
the elimination of internal enemies. Along with this, both political orders were infused
with a leadership ethos that, particularly in Nazi Germany, could attain strikingly absolute forms,
demanding absolute obedience and sacrifice. This encouraged a strong tendency to subordinate any
institution that might serve as a point of coalescence to interests opposed to the regime. The
Fuhrer's picture had to be both on your wall and in your heart.
Hartmann misses this political knife edge of fascism and the leadership fascination that supports
it. It is not wildly speculative to say that this is largely because the domestic enemies against
which it was directed, primarily leftist trade unions, are not a threat in the US. No such organizations
need to be wrecked, no such memberships need to be decimated, imprisoned, and dispersed. It is
simply astonishing that Hartmann says nothing specifically about labor organizations as the prime
instigating target of both fascists and the corporations who supported them. In this respect his
analysis unwittingly incorporates the ideological suppression of the labor movement that mirrored
the fascist onslaught.
It is also telling that although Hartmann references Wallace and Roosevelt he fails to note
that they themselves have also been accused of corporatism, albeit one that involved the imposition
of a Keynesian, welfarist orientation to capitalist interests that were, at least in some quarters,
inclined to "liquidate, liquidate" their way into a revolution against themselves. Instead, he
quotes Wallace and Roosevelt as they render fascism as a kind of power-hungry, antidemocratic
urge on the part of some "royalists," thereby blurring out how the central issue was how to manage
labor. He misses that Roosevelt offered the state as an organizer of conflict between capital
and labor within a framework in which labor was guaranteed bargaining status. Roosevelt was thereby
moved to attack capitalists who wanted to deny labor that status and risk both devastating hardship
and insurrection. Hartmann falls for Roosevelt's broad democratic rhetoric against them, more
exhortation than analysis, and so he himself ends up talking ethereally of threats to "freedom"
and "American institutions."
We're not living under fascism and Hartmann, whose criticism is often very useful, is wrong
in trying to use the term as a rallying orientation. I agree that the social order is corporatist,
but its maintenance has not required the kind of direct oppression + totalitarian/personalized
leadership cult that is a marker of fascism. Concepts the Frankfurt School have used such as "total
administration" and the like are perhaps too anodyne, not to mention absolute in their own way,
but they fit better with a situation in which explicit violence does not have to be generalized.
Robert Paxton's "The Anatomy of Fascism" is a useful backgrounder on this.
Heamtwell stated directly above that " We're not living under fascism…"
Some concepts/ questions which may begin to get at our potential propensity for moving in that
direction might include the following:
Paxton, mentioned by Heamtwell above, isolated five stages of fascism.
(1) the initial creation of fascist movements
(2) their rooting as parties in a political system
(3) the acquisition of power
(4) the exercise of power
(5) their radicalization or entropy
Paxton has argued that Fascism can appear where democracy is sufficiently implanted to have
aroused disillusion–a society must have known political liberty.
In regards to Paxtons first 2 stages and our situation in the US.
Are political fascists becoming rooted in political parties that represent major interests
and feelings and wield major influence on our political scene?
Is our constitutional system in a state of blockage increasingly insoluble by existing authorities?
Is rapid political mobilization taking place in our society which threatens to escape the control
of traditional elites to the point where they would be tempted to look for tough helpers in order
to stay in charge?
Is rapid political mobilization taking place in our society which threatens to escape the
control of traditional elites to the point where they would be tempted to look for tough helpers
in order to stay in charge?
I think that's the primary question, and it helps to define what we're facing with the current
party system.
It is apparent that both corporate parties are increasingly incapable of properly deflecting
and channeling the interests of the electorate. Whether you think of 2007-08 as simply another
business cycle, one that was exacerbated by toxic assets, a product of increasing income and wealth
disparity, etc. it seems that portions of the electorate have been shocked out of their confidence
in the system and the steering capacity of economic and political elites.
This might lead the parties, under the pressure of events, to might reformulate themselves
as the political cover of a "government of national unity" that, depending on the extremity of
the next downturn, impose a "solidarity from above," blocking the development of popular organizations
in a variety of ways. I certainly see this as possible. But treating the parties, or the system
itself, as fascist at this point in time is not only not helpful, it is fundamentally disorienting.
F* is an ugly word as is all its close relatives, but your definitions are very interesting,
and so maybe I've learned some things by reading them. However; by what contrivance did you manage
to get any of these pages past the f* who own the internet? It seems I must suspend my disbelief
to believe, Freunde von Grund
In Fascism, corporations were subservient to the State. What we have is the State subservient
to Corporations. Also Italian corporatism was more than just business, as a.corporation in Italy
can have.non business functions.
Great post and great comments. Though I wonder why no one has brought up the only way to stop
fascism. A militant class based libertarian left. Outside of the ballot box. If a liberal party
still 'exists' they will then at least respond to the larger non party real left, just to nullify
it's demands. Fascism has never been defeated by the ballot, only by a militant anarchist/socialist
left. Or at the least, that 'left' fought back. Liberals rarely have fought back, and most often
conceded. How do you do form such? Urban face to face organizing. With direct action and occupation
and even organization towards workers' control of manufacturing.
tommy -Fascism has never been defeated by the ballot, only by a militant anarchist/socialist
left.
I believe you should go re-look at history. Fascism has always defeated socialist left. Three
examples -- Italy, Germany and Argentina. I welcome an example other wise and if it did how did
it end.
The paramount example is of course Spain, where all left-wing movements (communists, trotskists,
anarchists, socialists) were ultimately defeated by fascists despite ferocious fighting.
Much of Robert Paxton's work has focused on models and definition of fascism.
In his 1998 paper "The Five Stages of Fascism", he suggests that fascism cannot be defined
solely by its ideology, since fascism is a complex political phenomenon rather than a relatively
coherent body of doctrine like communism or socialism. Instead, he focuses on fascism's political
context and functional development. The article identifies five paradigmatic stages of a fascist
movement, although he notes that only Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy have progressed through all
five:
1.Intellectual exploration, where disillusionment with popular democracy manifests itself in
discussions of lost national vigor
2.Rooting, where a fascist movement, aided by political deadlock and polarization, becomes a player
on the national stage
3.Arrival to power, where conservatives seeking to control rising leftist opposition invite the
movement to share power
4.Exercise of power, where the movement and its charismatic leader control the state in balance
with state institutions such as the police and traditional elites such as the clergy and business
magnates.
5.Radicalization or entropy, where the state either becomes increasingly radical, as did Nazi
Germany, or slips into traditional authoritarian rule, as did Fascist Italy.[4]
In his 2004 book The Anatomy of Fascism, Paxton refines his five-stage model and puts forward
the following definition for fascism:
[quote]Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation
with community decline, humiliation, or victim-hood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy,
and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy
but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues
with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and
external expansion.[5][/quote]
Here is a more contemporary analysis of politics in America using Paxton's model.
[quote]Fascist America: Are We There Yet?
Friday, August 07, 2009 -- by Sara
In the second stage, fascist movements take root, turn into real political parties, and seize
their seat at the table of power. Interestingly, in every case Paxton cites, the political base
came from the rural, less-educated parts of the country; and almost all of them came to power
very specifically by offering themselves as informal goon squads organized to intimidate farmworkers
on behalf of the large landowners. The KKK disenfranchised black sharecroppers and set itself
up as the enforcement wing of Jim Crow. The Italian Squadristi and the German Brownshirts made
their bones breaking up farmers' strikes. And these days, GOP-sanctioned anti-immigrant groups
make life hell for Hispanic agricultural workers in the US. As violence against random Hispanics
(citizens and otherwise) increases, the right-wing goon squads are getting basic training that,
if the pattern holds, they may eventually use to intimidate the rest of us.
Paxton wrote that succeeding at the second stage "depends on certain relatively precise conditions:
the weakness of a liberal state, whose inadequacies condemn the nation to disorder, decline, or
humiliation; and political deadlock because the Right, the heir to power but unable to continue
to wield it alone, refuses to accept a growing Left as a legitimate governing partner." He further
noted that Hitler and Mussolini both took power under these same circumstances: "deadlock of constitutional
government (produced in part by the polarization that the fascists abetted); conservative leaders
who felt threatened by the loss of their capacity to keep the population under control at a moment
of massive popular mobilization; an advancing Left; and conservative leaders who refused to work
with that Left and who felt unable to continue to govern against the Left without further reinforcement."
And more ominously: "The most important variables…are the conservative elites' willingness
to work with the fascists (along with a reciprocal flexibility on the part of the fascist leaders)
and the depth of the crisis that induces them to cooperate."[/quote]
I think there is something missing from this analysis, having to do with the definition of
corporatism itself. I think our contemporary definition of corporatism is rooted in neoliberalism
and is actually a far cry from the definition used by the Fascists in forming the Chamber
of the Fascist Corporations. Because to them corporatism wasn't simply business interests
(which is how we know it today), but (from Wikipedia):
'[was] the sociopolitical organization of a society by major interest groups, or corporate
groups, such as agricultural, business, ethnic, labour, military, patronage, or scientific affiliations,
on the basis of common interests. It is theoretically based on the interpretation of a community
as an organic body. The term corporatism is based on the Latin root word "corpus" (plural – "corpora")
meaning "body".'
In other words, corporatism was not only made up of business interests, but all major (and
competing) interests within society.
This is not to downplay the importance and absolute seriousness of confronting the increasing
absolutism of ruling business interests. It is also not to downplay the historical truth of who
ultimately held power in Fascist Italy. But I think it is also important to place Fascism in it's
own historical context, and not try to blur historical lines where doing so may be misleading.
When Fascists spoke of corporatism they had something else in mind, and it does not help us to
blur the distinction.
Good point, and it raises this question: how can institutional organicity, with its ideological
aura of community, partnership, and good old Volkishness, develop when we're talking about corporations
that are multinational in scope as well as financialized and thereby even more rootless and and
community indifferent? How can organicity develop in the sort of institutional setup foreshadowed
by the TPP?
My impression is that today Corporatism more closely represents the interests of multinational
corporations and the people who hold executive leadership positions within those companies. What
they have in common is a listing on NYSE.
Anyone heard from Naomi Wolf lately? She was the most prominent author calling out fascism
during the Bush administration, got wide coverage at least on the left. She re-emerged during
the Occupy movement, for a little while.
I ask that because, at the time, she said she'd go silent if it looked like people like her
(that is, writers/journalists) were being persecuted. Haven't heard from her, at least on this
topic, since Obama started prosecuting whistleblowers. Didn't see a farewell, either.
And that leads to a personal question: how safe are our bloggers feeling? Arguably, this site
is an exercise in personal courage. Any ugly straws in the wind?
"... Lehman was engaging in blatant misreporting, treating these "repos" (in which a bank still shows them on its balance sheet as sold with the obligation to repurchase) as sales ..."
"... "It also emerges that the NY Fed, and thus Timothy Geithner, were at a minimum massively derelict in the performance of their duties, and may well be culpable in aiding and abetting Lehman in accounting fraud and Sarbox violations…." ..."
"... Although I hope the bank's newly appointed CEO is able to implement measures to rectify these problems, if DB "goes Lehman", I suspect it will occur much as Lehman did: quite suddenly. ..."
"... The 5% "fee" referred to in the fourth paragraph of the FT excerpt above is not the interest rate charged on the loan but instead is the over-collateralization amount provided by Lehman in exchange for a short-term cash loan. A normal repo loan is over-collateralized at perhaps 2%. Lehman's and its outside auditors Ernst Young's 'genius' was in discovering some language in 2001 or so in the then recently amended FAS 157 accounting guidance (all such guidance has been revised and renumbered in the meantime) which suggested indirectly that if the rate of over-collateralization was bumped up enough, you could pretend you sold the collateral instead of pledging it as collateral. So instead of pledging the normal 102% of the loan amount in collateral, Lehman asked lenders to please take more than that: 105%, hence "Repo 105." ..."
"... Most of Lehman's lenders wouldn't touch the scam because it was so obvious, but a few non-U.S. banks were happy to oblige Lehman. One was Deutsche Bank, to the tune of many billions of dollars over the years. Not that that had anything to do with ex-Deutsche General Counsel for the Americas Rob Khuzami's decision, once he became Obama's Enforcement Head at the SEC beginning in 2009, to give Lehman, EY, Deutsche and the other lenders a pass on all that. ..."
"... In no way did the drafters of the accounting guidance ever say, here's a way to scam the market, have at it. But then again those drafters are a committee of CPAs from all the big firms and elsewhere, including several from EY. So who knows how deliberate the set up was. ..."
"... Deutsche Bank has hugely profited from the end of the Deutschland AG at which head it once was. Thanks to chancellour Schroeder and his finance minister Eichle (the successor after Lafontaine was kicked who went on to found the left party) Deutsche and the other big German banks got to sell their industry portfolios without paying a penny of tax. It is common knowledge among industry watchers that this money ended up as bonuses for the "masters of the universe" at the Anglo-Saxon part of the bank which basically took over the whole bank. First invisibly and then all to visible when Jain became CEO. German industry is now owned by Blackrock and the like. Homi soit qui mal y pense ..."
"... Geithner's amorality and dereliction of duty has been apparent since his testimony in Starr v USA. Somehow these big names are protected by the supine media. ..."
"... Couldn't the NY State Superintendent of Financial Services pull Deutsche's U.S. Banking License? I thought this is what Ben Lawsky was intimating in this (nearly) one year old interview on Bloomberg, in which he (hints at?) the pulling of Deutsche's license, even though he was not at the time talking about Repo 105 ..."
Lehman was engaging in blatant misreporting, treating these "repos" (in which a bank still
shows them on its balance sheet as sold with the obligation to repurchase) as sales
Thank you for writing this bit. All the explanations I've read of Repo 105 seemed to be missing
the step where liabilities were actually reduced – because what's the difference between an asset
and an obligation/contract to buy said asset in X hours time?
So I'm glad a more financially astute mind than mind wrote down what I'd suspected, that real
liabilities weren't actually reduced by Repo 105 and it's just window dressing to fool the regulators.
I'd hazard that it actually makes the situation worse, because it's pretty expensive window dressing
and that's real cash that has to head out the door once a quarter.
tawal
Turning all the brokerages into bank holding companies, where now they all have a calendar
year end and can't temporarily hide their trash on each other's books, but can all hide it on
the Fed's unaudited balance sheet.
Why isn't Deutsche Bank doing this too, and are UBS, Barclays and HSBC the next to fail?
fresno dan
"It also emerges that the NY Fed, and thus Timothy Geithner, were at a minimum massively derelict
in the performance of their duties, and may well be culpable in aiding and abetting Lehman in
accounting fraud and Sarbox violations…."
Upon finding this out, tire squeal, sirens wail, lights flash, and grim faced men rush to take
into custody little Timmy Geithner and serve warrants a the New York FED….
LOL – of course not. Most government officials, of BOTH parties, would say Timmy Geithner and
his ilk performed fantastically…. After all, he worked hard to prop it up…. If you remove the corruption, the double and self dealing,
price fixing, fraud, ad infinitum, and how could the system continue as constituted? And the people
at the top of the system thinks it works very well indeed.
Chauncey Gardiner
This issue is unsurprising to me. Many signs over the past couple years of deeply troubling
matters at this TBTF: CEO resignations, NY Fed criticisms of systems and financial reporting (as
Yves pointed out), participation in market manipulations, billions in writedowns, suicide death
of bank's regulatory lawyer, massive derivatives exposures, central bank calls for increased capital,
etc.
Although I hope the bank's newly appointed CEO is able to implement measures to rectify these
problems, if DB "goes Lehman", I suspect it will occur much as Lehman did: quite suddenly.
Recalling Ernest Hemingway in "The Sun Also Rises": "How did you go bankrupt?" Bill asked. "Two ways," Mike said. "Gradually and then suddenly."
JustAnObserver
Deutche Bank = Germany's RBS (Royal Bank of Scotland) ?
All the Eurozone's nightmares since 2010 have been down to a desperate attempt to postpone
DB's "Minsky Moment" ?
I did see a report that DB is withdrawing from a number of countries but Wall Street wasn't
on that list. Interestingly the list includes all the Scandinavian countries as well as the usual
suspects – Mexico, Turkey, Saudi, etc.
Oliver Budde
The 5% "fee" referred to in the fourth paragraph of the FT excerpt above is not the interest
rate charged on the loan but instead is the over-collateralization amount provided by Lehman in
exchange for a short-term cash loan. A normal repo loan is over-collateralized at perhaps 2%.
Lehman's and its outside auditors Ernst & Young's 'genius' was in discovering some language in
2001 or so in the then recently amended FAS 157 accounting guidance (all such guidance has been
revised and renumbered in the meantime) which suggested indirectly that if the rate of over-collateralization
was bumped up enough, you could pretend you sold the collateral instead of pledging it as collateral.
So instead of pledging the normal 102% of the loan amount in collateral, Lehman asked lenders
to please take more than that: 105%, hence "Repo 105."
Most of Lehman's lenders wouldn't touch the scam because it was so obvious, but a few non-U.S.
banks were happy to oblige Lehman. One was Deutsche Bank, to the tune of many billions of dollars
over the years. Not that that had anything to do with ex-Deutsche General Counsel for the Americas
Rob Khuzami's decision, once he became Obama's Enforcement Head at the SEC beginning in 2009,
to give Lehman, EY, Deutsche and the other lenders a pass on all that.
The few banks who did dare to help out Lehman of course charged higher than market rates for
those loans, even though they held an extra 3% in collateral, which was always made up of high
quality Treasury bonds and the like. Those lenders charged more anyway, because they knew what
Lehman was up to and knew they could wring out some extra cash in exchange for 'aiding' Lehman
in its needs. Lehman gladly paid the higher interest.
In no way did the drafters of the accounting guidance ever say, here's a way to scam the market,
have at it. But then again those drafters are a committee of CPAs from all the big firms and elsewhere,
including several from EY. So who knows how deliberate the set up was.
The scam began in 2001 or so and while it may not have been what blew up Lehman in 2008, it
did importantly mislead a lot of people in 2007 and 2008, when its use was ramped up dramatically.
And it put extra bonus money into the Lehman executives' pockets, year in and year out. No wonder
others seek to emulate it.
Tom
Deutsche Bank has hugely profited from the end of the Deutschland AG at which head it once
was. Thanks to chancellour Schroeder and his finance minister Eichle (the successor after Lafontaine
was kicked who went on to found the left party) Deutsche and the other big German banks got to
sell their industry portfolios without paying a penny of tax. It is common knowledge among industry
watchers that this money ended up as bonuses for the "masters of the universe" at the Anglo-Saxon
part of the bank which basically took over the whole bank. First invisibly and then all to visible
when Jain became CEO. German industry is now owned by Blackrock and the like. Homi soit qui mal
y pense
RBHoughton
Geithner's amorality and dereliction of duty has been apparent since his testimony in Starr
v USA. Somehow these big names are protected by the supine media.
Thank Heavens for NC – one of the most important of a handful of sites that fearlessly report.
Fingers crossed we can build a new media industry around this nexus of quality.
Pearl
Yves,
Couldn't the NY State Superintendent of Financial Services pull Deutsche's U.S. Banking License? I thought this is what Ben Lawsky was intimating in this (nearly) one year old interview on
Bloomberg, in which he (hints at?) the pulling of Deutsche's license, even though he was not at
the time talking about Repo 105:
If enough folks became vocal (enough) about the issue–couldn't we make a difference this time?
("We," as in ordinary housewives from Roswell, GA and humble bloggers such as the illustrious
Yves Smith?".) ;-)
I think you are waaaay more famous than you think you are, Yves. Indeed, you are universally
one of the most well-respected and straight-shooting authors/academics/authorities on such subjects.
And I think Mr. Lawsky would take your call or reply to an email if written by you.
I spoke with his staff (yes, me–a housewife from Roswell, GA) when he was at DFS during my
"Ocwiteration Perseveration" days of yore, and his staff was unusually generous with their time
and they seemed genuinely appreciative to get info and feedback from just regular folks.
I think Mr. Lawsky himself would be thrilled to hear from someone like you. And I think the two of you would be an extremely formidable team.
I just don't want to give up on this. It's too important. At the very least, I will forward
to him this post of yours.
"... Dilemmas of Domination contends that the US has entered into a period of decline as the world's hegemon. ..."
"... Because the US dominates international financial institutions like the IMF, World Bank and most of the regional development banks, their imposition of neo-liberal structural adjustments programs has led to a revolt against their destructive policies as witnessed by the left ferment especially in Latin America but also in the rest of the global South. ..."
"... I've read lots of books about globalization and free trade but none exposes the uneven playing field of free trade as good as Walden Bello. He shows that not only the evenness of playing field but also how the way U.S. is imprudently trying to dominate the world by adapting short sighted policies. These kind of policies have become the distinctive mark of recent American ideology domestically and foreign. ..."
The problems of the US mount daily from a ballooning deficit to heightened opposition from multiplying
points on the globe. Walden Bello's Dilemmas of Domination is a tour de force dissection of the causes
of these mounting problems.
He argues from an objective and non-partisan position in the global South.
Because he primarily works outside of the US and because his method relies heavily on history, his account
is compelling.
Dilemmas of Domination contends that the US has entered into a period of decline as
the world's hegemon. Three crises characterize the loss of power and prestige.
The first crisis is the problem
of manufacturing and raw materials overproduction that leads to a decline in profits, and as wages are
squeezed to stabilize profits demand falls further. Added to these problems is the fact that the US,
the consumer of last resort, cannot continue to borrow and buy forever. The IOUs to the rest of the
world will eventually have to be repaid.
A second critical problem is military overextension. According
to Bello, the wars on Afghanistan and Iraq demonstrate the US is not invincible. If it were, how could
guerillas continue to move about these occupied nations so freely and make nation-building into such
a farce? The US military is so strained that it has to hire mercenaries from companies like Blackwater
to protect its corporate interests abroad because a draft would undermine all of its imperial adventures.
The third crisis, perhaps the most enduring, is legitimacy. Ideologically, the US has lost its currency
to lead the world. Because the US dominates international financial institutions like the IMF, World
Bank and most of the regional development banks, their imposition of neo-liberal structural adjustments
programs has led to a revolt against their destructive policies as witnessed by the left ferment especially
in Latin America but also in the rest of the global South. Furthermore, the US bullying and sometimes
insulting treatment of the UN has further sullied the US's reputation. Added to this international delegitimation
is the quagmire of domestic politics from the surrender of civil liberties to the patently obvious corporate
control of both major parties. For readers looking for a rich and clear formulation of why the US government
is detested and feared by much of the earth's population this is the best primer.
Khalid S. Al Khateron October 26, 2005
Free trade as a tool for domination
I've read lots of books about globalization and free trade but none exposes the uneven
playing field of free trade as good as Walden Bello. He shows that not only the evenness of
playing field but also how the way U.S. is imprudently trying to dominate the world by
adapting short sighted policies. These kind of policies have become the distinctive mark of
recent American ideology domestically and foreign.
Luc REYNAERT, November 4, 2005
The weak must hang together, otherwise they hang separately
In this stringent view from the South, Walden Bello discerns three different crisis levels
beleaguering the US world domination: a military, a judicial and an economical level.
On the military front, the Iraq war shows clearly the limits of interventions: 'today the
entire US military is either in Iraq, returning from Iraq or getting ready to go.' The lesson
for the South is that the US military supremacy can be brought to a halt with guerrilla
warfare. A sledgehammer is useless in swatting flies.
On the judicial front, the US is loosing its legitimacy. In Western societies, enhancement
of individual freedom and democratic representation are the ideological cornerstones of the
regime. Nationally, recognized human rights (no access to personal information, privacy) are
jeopardized in the US by the Patriot Act in the name of the war against terrorism. For Walden
Bello, the US government is becoming authoritarian, because it is in the hands of the
military-industrial complex, which functions on a risk-free, cost-plus basis and grabs one
half of the US budget. He quotes judiciously William Pfaff: 'The military is already the most
powerful institution in the US government, largely unaccountable to the executive branch.'
Internationally, consensus and multilateralism are needed through international
institutions. However, the US behaves unilaterally. Dealings with the South are subordinated
to strategic considerations (R. Zoellick: 'countries that seek free trade agreements with the
US must cooperate on its foreign policy goals.') Walden Bello's analysis of the WTO agreements
is devastating. He calls them a free trade monopoly in the hands of corporate interests. WTO's
agreement on Agriculture is not less than 'Socialism for the Rich'. The result is that the US
democratic messianism is seen as sheer hypocrisy by the rest of the world.
Economically, some of Walden Bello's arguments are a little of the mark. Finite natural
resources and ecological space are demographic problems. The conflict between a minority in
command of assets and the majority of the population is a trade union and an election problem.
But some of his arguments are to the point. There is a widening inequality gap in the US: the
richest 1% of the population pocketed more than half the benefit of the latest tax reduction.
The actual US budget and trade deficits are unsustainable in the long run and certainly if the
inflow of foreign capital comes to a halt.
Finally, there is a new hegemon at the horizon: China with its state-assisted capitalism.
The author summarizes brilliantly China's behavior: 'nations have no permanent friends, only
permanent interests.'
But what should the South do in the meantime: regional economic blocks, G-20, South-South
cooperation, because 'the weak must hang together, otherwise they will hang separately'.
Walden Bello's hard hitting analysis of current events should be a vademecum for all
politiciams and laymen. A must read. In this context, I also recommend the works of Nafeez
Mosaddeq Ahmed and Noreena Hertz.
"... Snowden revealed some outrageous practices and constitutional abuses and the Obama administration - yes the same one that has not managed to bring a single criminal charge against a single senior banker - wants to charge Snowden with espionage. ..."
"... The fact is that Mr Snowden committed very serious crimes, and the US government and the Department of Justice believe that he should face them." ..."
Snowden revealed some outrageous practices and constitutional abuses and the Obama administration
- yes the same one that has not managed to bring a single criminal charge against a single senior
banker - wants to charge Snowden with espionage.
It bears repeating; US Bankers committed literally hundreds of thousands of serious felonies
and *not one* was ever charged by the Justice Dept. under Obama's two terms.
Recently the White House spokesman said "The fact is that Mr Snowden committed very serious
crimes, and the US government and the Department of Justice believe that he should face them."
Well, either you believe serious crimes should be prosecuted or you don't.
Pick one.
But to try and be selective about it all just makes one something of a tyrant. Wielding
power when and how it suits one's aims instead of equally is pretty much the definition of tyranny
(which includes "the unreasonable or arbitrary use of power")
However, the EU has decided to drop all criminal charges against Snowden showing that the US
is losing legitimacy across the globe by the day.
The European parliament voted to lift criminal charges against American whistle-blower Edward
Snowden on Thursday.
In an incredibly close vote, EU MEPs said he should be granted protection as a "human rights
defender" in a move that was celebrated as a "chance to move forward" by Mr Snowden from Russia.
This seems both right and significant. Significant because the US power structure must
be seething. It means that the EU is moving away form the US on important matters, and that's
significant too. Right because Snowden revealed deeply illegal and unconstitutional
practices that, for the record, went waaaaAAaaay beyond the so-called 'meta-data phone records'
issue.
And why shouldn't the EU begin to carve their own path? Their interests and the US's
are wildly different at this point in history, especially considering the refugee crisis that
was largely initiated by US meddling and warmongering in the Middle East.
At this point, I would say that the US has lost all legitimacy on the subject of equal application
of the laws, and cannot be trusted when it comes to manufacturing "evidence" that is used to invade,
provoke or stoke a conflict somewhere.
The US is now the Yahoo! of countries; cheerleading our own self-described excellence and superiority
at everything when the facts on the ground say something completely different.
Quercus bicolor
cmartenson wrote:
Recently the White House spokesman said "The fact is that Mr Snowden committed very
serious crimes, and the US government and the Department of Justice believe that he should
face them."
And this "serious crime" was committed by Snowden because he saw it as the only viable path
to revealing a systematic pattern of crimes by none other than our own federal government that
are so serious that they threaten the basic founding principles on which our REPUBLIC was
founded.
lambertad
Truth is treason
You know how the old saying goes "truth is treason in the empire of lies". I'm a staunch
libertarian, but I wasn't always that way. Before that I spent most of my 20's in Special
Operations wanting to 'kill bad guys who attacked us' on 9/11. It wasn't until my last
deployment that I got ahold of Dr. Ron Paul's books and dug through them and realized his
viewpoint suddenly made much more sense than anyone else's. Not only did it make much more
sense, but it was based on Natural Law and the founding principals of our country.
A lot has been made of the fact that Snowden contributed money to Dr. Paul's 2008
presidential campaign and that this was an obvious tell that he was really an undercover
(insert whatever words the media used - traitor, anarchist, russian spy, etc.). The part that
I find troubling is the fact that Snowden revealed to the world that we are all being watched,
probably not in real time, but if they ever want to review the 'tapes' they can see what we do
essentially every minute of every day. That's BIG news to get out to the citizenry. If you've
got access to that kind of data, you don't want that getting out, but here's the kicker - Very
few in this country today even care. Nothing in this country has changed that I'm aware of.
GCHQ still spies on us and passes the info to the NSA. The NSA still spys on everyone and the
Brits and passes the info to GCHQ. Austrialia and NZ and Canda still spy on whoever and pass
the info on to whoever wants it. It's craziness.
At the same time, as Chris and others have pointed out, we're bombing people (ISIS/Al Nusra/AQ)
we supported ('moderate rebels) before we bombed them (AQ) after we bombed Sadaam and invaded
Iraq. Someone please tell me the strategy other than the "7 countries in 5 years plan". Yup,
sounds a lot like Yahoo!.
I'm looking forward to Christmas this year because I get to spend 5 days with my wife's
family again. My father-in-law is a smart man, but thinks the government is still all powerful
and has everything under control. It should make some interesting conversations and debating.
Thanks for the article Adam, interesting parallel between TPTB and Yahoo!.
"... "successful social and political management often depends on proper coordination of propaganda with coercion, violent or non-violent; economic inducement (including bribery); diplomatic negotiation; and other techniques." ..."
"... So beginning around the turn of the century, the scientific engineers of consent unleashed a Weltanschauungskrieg ("worldview war") on an unsuspecting public, Simpson argues, in which they sought "a shift in which modern consumer culture displaced existing social forms." ..."
"... Automobile marketers, for example, do not simply tout their products for their usefulness as transportation; they seek to convince their customers to define their personal goals, self-esteem, and values in terms of owning or using the product…. ..."
"... Ordinary people are to be kept voiceless, Simpson concludes, "voiceless in all fields other than selection of commodities." ..."
"... The interesting thing is that is also part and parcel of the cultural memes presently prevalent in the industrialized societies of wealthy western industrialized nations. These memes have been spreading throughout the world at a very rapid rate and it is MHO that this meme is spreading what amounts to a terminal cultural pathology. In other words it is a dead end with an expiration date. ..."
"... Technological shifts occurring now because of perfect storm of maturing technologies and the end of age of oil, are bringing us the Uberization of many facets of our civilization that we had taken for granted as almost eternal and immutable. "Like we all need a car to be free!" ..."
So one is left wondering what is causing the downward mobility of most
Americans. Is it caused by increasingly less abundant natural resources,
making it more costly to exploit those that remain? Or is it caused by one
group of humans which is more aggressively exploiting another group?
Most
Americans seem to believe it's the latter. The Economist reports
that:
So Americans are mad as hell. And as they descend into an orgy of
victimization, even rich white straight protestant men can be heard
bellowing for victim status.
Where will it all lead, and especially if the politicians are no longer
able to bring the bacon home?
I'm reading Christopher Simpson's the Science of Coercion where he
notes that Harold Lawswell, one of the seminal "scientific engineers of
consent" in the United States, claimed that "successful social and political
management often depends on proper coordination of propaganda with coercion,
violent or non-violent; economic inducement (including bribery); diplomatic
negotiation; and other techniques."
So beginning around the turn of the century, the scientific engineers of
consent unleashed a Weltanschauungskrieg ("worldview war") on an
unsuspecting public, Simpson argues, in which they sought "a shift in which
modern consumer culture displaced existing social forms."
"We have thought in terms of fighting dictatorships-by-force," Donald
Slesinger noted of the new strategy and tactics, "through the establishment
of dictatorship-by-manipulation."
As Simpson goes on to explain, for the scientific engineers of consent
the simple sale of products and services is not enough. Their
commercial success in a mass market depends to an important degree on
their ability to substitute their values and worldview for those
previously held by their audience, typically through seduction and
deflection of rival worldviews. Automobile marketers, for example, do not
simply tout their products for their usefulness as transportation; they
seek to convince their customers to define their personal goals,
self-esteem, and values in terms of owning or using the product….
Ordinary people are to be kept voiceless, Simpson concludes, "voiceless
in all fields other than selection of commodities."
So now, after a century of hammering the values and worldview of a mass
consumer culture into the peoples' heads, how quickly can the public's
worldview be turned around?
And if we remove "economic inducement" and "vocie in the selection of
commodities" from the toolbox of the scientific engineers of consent, what's
left? Propaganda; coercion (violent or non-violent); diplomatic negotiation;
and "other techniques"?
"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the I'm reading
Christopher Simpson's the Science of Coercion where he notes that Harold
Lawswell, one of the seminal "scientific engineers of consent" in the
United States, claimed that "successful social and political management
often depends on proper coordination of propaganda with coercion, violent
or non-violent; economic inducement (including bribery); diplomatic
negotiation; and other techniques."
That sounds an awful lot like
this crap!
organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element
in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of
society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power
of our country. …We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes
formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This
is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is
organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if
they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. …In almost
every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or
business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated
by the relatively small number of persons…who understand the mental
processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the
wires which control the public mind." ― Edward L. Bernays, Propaganda circa 1928
There is no doubt that this way of thinking is the basis of the so
called capitalist infinite growth paradigm. Which only has a chance of
working up until the point that physical limits of our finite planet are
reached. Then the shit tends to hit the fan for all concerned.
The interesting thing is that is also part and parcel of the cultural
memes presently prevalent in the industrialized societies of wealthy
western industrialized nations. These memes have been spreading
throughout the world at a very rapid rate and it is MHO that this meme is
spreading what amounts to a terminal cultural pathology. In other words
it is a dead end with an expiration date.
The good news is, that it isn't written stone that the current culture
itself can not be deeply disrupted and profoundly changed.
Technological shifts occurring now because of perfect storm of
maturing technologies and the end of age of oil, are bringing us the
Uberization of many facets of our civilization that we had taken for
granted as almost eternal and immutable. "Like we all need a car to be
free!"
Well, a lot of young people are no longer buying into that world view.
So the old guard and power brokers of the linear consumer society such as
the Oil Majors, Automobile manufactures, and producers of unnecessary
useless consumer goods are losing their grip on economic power to the new
crop of digital entrepreneurs who are ushering in a totally new economic,
political and social paradigm.
Technology is changing the way we interact and form connections within
society.
This video a the end of my post might seem a bit off topic but to me
it underscores how different this new world has the potential to be. I
especially love the example of an expensive commercial failure of a
consumer product that suddenly became cheap enough for use as a musical
instrument in a computer orchestra and the fact that a thousand people
can suddenly come together in a show of support by singing together… And
If I could travel back in time, I'd murder Eduard Bernays.
The good news is, that it isn't written stone that the current
culture itself can not be deeply disrupted and profoundly changed.
Technological shifts occurring now because of perfect storm of
maturing technologies and the end of age of oil, are bringing us
the Uberization of many facets of our civilization that we had
taken for granted as almost eternal and immutable….
So the old guard and power brokers of the linear consumer
society such as the Oil Majors, Automobile manufactures, and
producers of unnecessary useless consumer goods are losing their
grip on economic power to the new crop of digital entrepreneurs who
are ushering in a totally new economic, political and social
paradigm.
The idea of cultural transformation has been with us for a long
time. It's very much part of the Christian evangelical tradition, and
we can see how the idea played out in practice after Spain's and
Portugal's conquest of the Americas.
Combining cultural revolution with technological transformation,
however, seems to be a purely 20th-century innovation. And the idea
has been no less appealing to left Hegelians than it has been to right
Hegelians.
On the left, we see the notion of a combined cultural-technological
revolution emerge first with the Russian nihilists. "Drawing heavily
on the German materialists Jacob Moleschott, Karl Vogt, and Ludwig
Buchner," Michael Allen Gillespie explains in Nihilism Before
Nietzsche, "the nihilists argued that the natural sciences were
preparing the way for the millennium."
"This turn to materialism was also bound up with the growth of
atheism," Gillespie adds, which was "given a concrete reality by
materialism, especially in combination with the Darwinism that became
increasingly popular with the nihilists."
"We are witnesses of the greatest moment of summing-up in history,
in the name of a new and unknown culture, which will be created by us,
and which will also sweep us away," Sergey Diaghilev gushed in 1905.
This nihilist brand of Futurism, combining cultural revolution with
technological revolution, was to prove highly attractive to the later
Bolsheviks, even though the Russian avant-garde which occurred under
Lennin would be quite different from the Socialist Realism which took
place later under Stalin.
Anatoli Lunacharsky, Lennin's Commissar for Education and
Enlightenment, wrote in 1917, "If the revolution can give art its
soul, then art can endow the revolution with speech."
"There was a need to explain, encourage, teach and enthuse the
masses," Victor Awars explains in The Great Russian Utopia.
"Agit-Prop was to be the means."
In the catalogue for the Tenth State Exhibition organized by
Lunacharsky in 1919, El Lissitzky wrote:
Technology…was diverted by the war from the path of construction
and forced on to the paths of death and destruction. Into this
chaos came Suprematism… We, on the last stage of the path to
Suprematism blasted aside the old work of art… The empty phrase
'art for art's sake' had already been wiped out and in Suprematism
we have wiped out the phrase 'painting for painting's sake.'
In May 1924 Vladimir Tatlin in his lecture "Material Culture and
Its Role in the Production of Life in the USSR" offered a synoptic
statement of what was still the task at hand:
…to shed light on the tasks of production in our country, and
also to discover the place of the artist-constructor in production,
in relation to improving the quality both of the manufactured
product and of the organization of the new way of life in general."
The same sentiment is heard again a year later when Vladimir
Maiakovskii declared that: "To build a new culture a clean sweep is
needed. The sweep of the October revolution is needed."
What is happening is "the conversion of revolutionary effort into
technological effort," is how Asja Lacis summed it up in 1927.
In this poster, one can see how the worker's revolution was melded
with the technological revolution, all under the banner of the Russian
Revolution.
Nikolai Dolgorukov Transport Worker! Armed with a Knowledge of Technology.
Looks like neo-Islamism = neoliberalism and radical Islam is a part of neoliberal fifth column... a
definition of neo-Islamism includes these key characteristics: non-traditional religiosity,
gradualism, Islam modernization, nationalism and pragmatic relations with the West. They are trying
to rally a larger constituency than hard-core devout Muslims, recasting religious norms as more
vague conservative values (family, property, work ethic, honesty) adopting a neoliberal approach to
the economy, and endorsing a constitution, and parliament and regular elections. (Roy
2011a31.
Roy, O., 2011a. The paradoxes of the re-Islamisation of Muslim societies, 10 years after
september 11. Available from:
http://essays.ssrc.org/10yearsafter911/the-paradoxes-of-the-re-islamization-of-muslim-societies/
[accessed 14 October 2014]. See also
Neo-Islamism in the
post-Arab Spring - Contemporary Politics - Volume 20, Issue 4 The Turkish ruling party AKP
provided an interesting example of this trend which changed their priorities merging "shariatization"
with the nationalism and expansion of nation state (Nationalist Islamism)
Notable quotes:
"... I share the frustration expressed by other posts with WAPO and other Western journalism on Turkey. Luckily for me, the strategy behind the AKP victory was explained to me several days priors to the election by a fellow with intimate knowledge of Turkey. Erdogan looked at the Nationalist MHP and Islamist SP and figured out that his only way for strengthen his support would be by moving as many of their voters to the AKP. ..."
"... He figured that a rift with the Kurds will attract the nationalists and more Islamist positions will attract the latter. If you compare the results of the Nov 1 elections with the June 7 elections, you can see that it worked brilliantly. ..."
"... The great experiment in westernized Islam is dead. ..."
"... I would be only relieved if Turkish government would come up and speak all of those words you have mentioned. Iran did it. I have to respect that. They said what they stood for and that they do not like any others very clearly. This is at least honest and brave. If Turkey can pronounce its standing in between West and East, if you will, I will the most proud person even though I will be standing against here. Very well said. ..."
"... byetki - Exactly! At least a snake has dignity. A rat will do anything to survive! ..."
"... Remember the cynical adage about Democracy? Many of us rooted for, supported the campaign of, and voted for Obama. And what did we get? Obama and Erdogan and King Salman: and ongoing wars as far the eye can see. ..."
"... Bombing your own people wins elections. The Americans taught us this.. ..."
I share the frustration expressed by other posts with WAPO and other Western journalism
on Turkey. Luckily for me, the strategy behind the AKP victory was explained to me several days
priors to the election by a fellow with intimate knowledge of Turkey. Erdogan looked at the Nationalist
MHP and Islamist SP and figured out that his only way for strengthen his support would be by moving
as many of their voters to the AKP.
He figured that a rift with the Kurds will attract the nationalists and more Islamist positions
will attract the latter. If you compare the results of the Nov 1 elections with the June 7 elections,
you can see that it worked brilliantly.
Thus, Erdogan moved Turkey even further from the Western/democratic world in order to realize
his unrelenting ambition for more and more power.
The US needs now to rely much more on the Kurds to defend US interests in the area, but it will
be a real surprise if the current WH will do it.
Oscargo, 9:38 PM EST [Edited]
Turkey has chosen a religious Islamist state and an intolerant regime that jails reporters
and journalists, even foreign, and does not accept dissent, over the pluralism, inclusiveness
and freedom of speech of the European democracies.
Bye Bye EU!
Steve Willer
Who says corruption, murder, nullifying elections that don't come out your way, jailing the
media etc doesn't pay? It did for Erdogan. Turkey should be removed from NATO as long as Erdogan
is Sultan.
realityboy
The great experiment in "westernized" Islam is dead.
byetki
I would be only relieved if Turkish government would come up and speak all of those words
you have mentioned. Iran did it. I have to respect that. They said what they stood for and that
they do not like any others very clearly. This is at least honest and brave. If Turkey can pronounce
its standing in between West and East, if you will, I will the most proud person even though I
will be standing against here. Very well said.
ed_bx__
byetki - Exactly! At least a snake has dignity. A rat will do anything to survive!
MACLANE
Optimist on Democracy. Remember the cynical adage about Democracy? Many of us rooted for,
supported the campaign of, and voted for Obama. And what did we get? Obama and Erdogan and King
Salman: and ongoing wars as far the eye can see.
FalseProphet
So Turkey moves closer to being a autocratic theocracy. can't be good
ed_bx__, 4:14 PM EST
Bombing your own people wins elections. The Americans taught us this..
ed_bx__, 4:06 PM EST
It's not too late to get behind Al Assad. He is a more natural ally to the west than Erdogan.
"... The Theory of Distributional Coalitions Mancur Olson's theory of distributional coalitions holds that, as societies establish themselves, group interests become more identifiable, and subsets of the society organize in an effort to secure these interests. ..."
"... This exclusivity factor is of special importance in the way these rent-seeking (or special-interest) groups operate, since, unlike highly-encompassing organizations, exclusive organizations do not have an incentive to increase the productivity of the society. This is due to the disproportion between the sizes of the exclusive organization and the population. To use Olson's idiom, such organizations are in a position either to make larger the pie the society produces or to obtain larger slices for their members. ..."
"... That is still the case even when the organization's cost to the society is significantly more than the benefits it seeks for its members. Such behavior is not at all unexpected of exclusive organizations, since it is the very policy of exclusion itself that enables the group to distribute more to its members.In that respect, disproportional allocation of resources goes hand in hand with barriers to entry into the favored areas of the special-interest group. ..."
"... The genesis of the Turkish deep state is traceable to the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP, ttihad ve Terakki Cemiyeti ), a secret society founded in Istanbul in 1889 by a group of medical students who had a passion for reform in the Ottoman Empire.3 The CUP organized so extensively that, in less than two decades, it became a revolutionary political organization with branches inside and outside the Ottoman Empire.4 Within the organization existed numerous factions, and the body of membership was ethnically and even ideologically diverse. ..."
"... The CUP used the Fedaiin to have its political opponents assassinated, among other things, and later on, employed the Special Organization in the mass killings of the Ottoman- Armenians in 1915.8 The CUP disbanded in 1918, a year that also marked the beginning of the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire after World War I. ..."
"... "Unionism" ( ttihatç l k ) has persisted in the political culture of Turkey, and has manifested itself primarily in (1) ultranationalism, (2) military involvement/ intervention in politics, and (3) justification of extrajudicial activities and violence in the name of the fatherland ( vatan ). ..."
"... Of particular importance among these clandestine operations were those by the Gendarmarie Intelligence and Counter-terror Unit (J TEM, Jandarma stihbarat ve Terörle Mücadele ), which is allegedly responsible for thousands of extrajudicial executions and assassinations of PKK sympathizers and supporters. ..."
This paper argues that Mancur Olson's theory of distributional coalitions largely explains this
network's raison d'être. The paper first outlines the main tenets of the theory, and then examines the historical roots
of the Turkish deep state, as well as the paradigm shift its exposure caused in the public opinion. The network's
exclusive character,
impacts on the workings of the Turkish society, and finally
efforts to sustain its dominating influence, which is manifested especially in its attempts
to reverse the country's democratization process,
demonstrate that the emergence, influence, and the incentives of the Turkish deep state confirm
the fundamental assumptions of Olson's theory.
The Theory of Distributional Coalitions Mancur Olson's theory of distributional coalitions
holds that, as societies establish themselves, group interests become more identifiable, and subsets
of the society organize in an effort to secure these interests. Since these interests are best served by coordinated action, institutions emerge. Yet, such institutions tend to be exclusive by nature, and pursue only the interests of their
own members, who account to a very small minority.
This exclusivity factor is of special importance in the way these rent-seeking (or special-interest)
groups operate, since, unlike highly-encompassing organizations, exclusive organizations do not have
an incentive to increase the productivity of the society. This is due to the disproportion between the sizes of the exclusive organization and the population. To use Olson's idiom, such organizations are in a position either to make larger the pie the society
produces or to obtain larger slices for their members.
"Our intuition tells us," Olson says, "that the first method will rarely be chosen."2 Because,
on the one hand, it is very costly to increase the productivity of society as a whole, and on the
other, even if this is achieved, the The Rise and Decline of the Turkish "Deep State": The Ergenekon
Case 101 members of the minuscule organization will accordingly reap only a minuscule portion of
the benefits.
Therefore, exclusive groups aim to present their own interests as being the interests of their
constituencies, and to use all of their organizational power for collective action in that direction.
That is still the case even when the organization's cost to the society is significantly more
than the benefits it seeks for its members. Such behavior is not at all unexpected of exclusive organizations, since it is the very policy
of exclusion itself that enables the group to distribute more to its members.In that respect, disproportional allocation of resources goes hand in hand with barriers to entry
into the favored areas of the special-interest group.
Yet the existence of barriers to entry further damages the society by reducing the economic growth.
When coupled with the interferences of the special-interest groups with the possibilities of change
in the existing state of affairs, the level of the reduction in economic growth can be large.
In order to achieve their goals, special-interest groups engage in lobbying activities and collusion
– both of which, by creating special provisions and exceptions, further increase not only inefficiency
but also (1) the complexity of regulation, (2) the scope of government, and (3) the complexity of
understandings.
The Formation and the Evolution of the Turkish Deep State The genesis of the Turkish deep
state is traceable to the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP, İttihad ve Terakki Cemiyeti),
a secret society founded in Istanbul in 1889 by a group of medical students who had a passion for
reform in the Ottoman Empire.3 The CUP organized so extensively that, in less than two decades, it
became a revolutionary political organization with branches inside and outside the Ottoman Empire.4
Within the organization existed numerous factions, and the body of membership was ethnically and
even ideologically diverse.
Yet it was the commonly-shared goal of changing the regime rather than conformity that bound the
members together, and they successfully achieved that goal with the Young Turk Revolution of 1908,
which restored the Constitution of 1876 (Kanun-ı Esasi) that restricted the powers of the
Sultan, and made the Ottoman Empire a constitutional monarchy again after 32 years of absolutism.
The genesis of the Turkish deep state is traceable to the Committee of Union and Progress, a secret
society founded in Istanbul in 1889 by a group of medical students who had a passion for reform in
the Ottoman Empire SERDAR KAYA 102 What makes the CUP extraordinary as a case is that it never fully
transformed into a genuine political party even after the revolution it brought about.
Instead, it continued to operate as the secret committee it always was.5 Back then, in reference
to this fact, some of the critics of the CUP had coined the phrase "invisible people" (rical-i
gayb).6 In the end, this code of conduct rendered the committee as a clandestine force that exerted
influence by informal means in order to change the course of affairs the way it saw fit.
The reflections of that proclivity are traceable in many of the major occurrences of the time.
In what is today commonly referred to as the coup of 1913, for example, a group of CUP operatives
broke into the Sublime Porte as the Cabinet was in session, murdered the minister of defense and
two prominent government officials, and forced the Grand Vizier, the head of the Cabinet, to resign
immediately.
The coup of 1913 is also important in that it set a precedent in the country for military interventions
and ultimatums, the latest of which occurred on April 27, 2007.
A second example to the code of conduct of the CUP may be the clandestine activities of the Special
Organization7 (Teşkilat-ı Mahsusa).
Although the CUP established the Special Organization in 1913, ten months after the coup of 1913,
it was in fact the continuation of the Fedaiin, the secret organization the CUP established in 1905
– that is, before the Young Turk Revolution of 1908.
The CUP used the Fedaiin to have its political opponents assassinated, among other things, and
later on, employed the Special Organization in the mass killings of the Ottoman- Armenians in 1915.8
The CUP disbanded in 1918, a year that also marked the beginning of the dissolution of the Ottoman
Empire after World War I.
However, many of its members as well as the political culture it created survived within the Republic
of Turkey.
To this day, "Unionism" (İttihatçılık) has persisted in the political culture of Turkey,
and has manifested itself primarily in (1) ultranationalism, (2) military involvement/ intervention
in politics, and (3) justification of extrajudicial activities and violence in the name of the fatherland
(vatan).
Nevertheless, different aspects of this political culture have gained primacy in different periods,
and with the influence of the changes in the domestic and international conjuncture, it more or less
evolved. For example, during the One Party Era (1925-45), the influence of interwarperiod fascism further
radicalized the nationalist ideology of the ruling cadre. Then, in the 1960s, variations of the same Unionist background found expression The Rise and
Decline of the Turkish "Deep State": The Ergenekon Case 103 in the rightist and leftist political
movements, which, unsurprisingly, entered into violent conflict in the 1970s.
In the mid-1980s, the Kurdish question reemerged with the terrorist activities of the Kurdistan
Workers' Party (PKK), the separatist guerilla group, which became a source of instability in the
southeast region of the country, and in so doing, provided a new fertile ground for the clandestine
operations of the Turkish deep state.
Of particular importance among these clandestine operations were those by the Gendarmarie Intelligence
and Counter-terror Unit (JİTEM, Jandarma İstihbarat ve Terörle Mücadele), which is allegedly
responsible for thousands of extrajudicial executions and assassinations of PKK sympathizers and
supporters.
Yet the same decade also marked the time period in which Turkey opened its borders and started
to integrate with the rest of the world. As a result, after the 1980s, new social, political and economic perspectives started to emerge. However, this new West that Turkey came to closer contact with during and after the 1980s was
fundamentally different from the West of the interwar period in that the former was democratic, and
the latter fascist.
The increasing interaction with the West did not instantly trigger the demands for democratization
in the country. It was the Susurluk scandal and a combination of other events that occurred approximately a decade
later that started to dramatically shift the prevalant paradigms. On the one hand, these experiences created a more profound societal cognizance of questioning
authority, and on the other, in line with these experiences, people came to attach new meanings to
the nature of the state-society relations in Turkey in a manner which provided a more convenient
ground for the democratization process in the country.
Apparently, these paradigm shifts also coincided with the developments since the Helsinki European
Council of 1999, where the European Union (EU) formally referred to Turkey as a candidate and thus
invigorated the country's accession process.
"... During the time in 2011 when political warfare over the debt ceiling was beginning to paralyze the business of governance in Washington, the United States government somehow summoned the resources to overthrow Muammar Ghaddafi's regime in Libya, and, when the instability created by that coup spilled over into Mali, provide overt and covert assistance to French intervention there. ..."
"... Yes, there is another government concealed behind the one that is visible at either end of Pennsylvania Avenue, a hybrid entity of public and private institutions ruling the country according to consistent patterns in season and out, connected to, but only intermittently controlled by, the visible state whose leaders we choose. My analysis of this phenomenon is not ..."
"... Cultural assimilation is partly a matter of what psychologist Irving L. Janis called "groupthink," the chameleon-like ability of people to adopt the views of their superiors and peers. This syndrome is endemic to Washington: The town is characterized by sudden fads, be it negotiating biennial budgeting, making grand bargains or invading countries. Then, after a while, all the town's cool kids drop those ideas as if they were radioactive. As in the military, everybody has to get on board with the mission, and questioning it is not a career-enhancing move. The universe of people who will critically examine the goings-on at the institutions they work for is always going to be a small one. As Upton Sinclair said, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." ..."
"... The Deep State does not consist of the entire government. It is a hybrid of national security and law enforcement agencies: the Department of Defense, the Department of State, the Department of Homeland Security, the Central Intelligence Agency and the Justice Department. I also include the Department of the Treasury because of its jurisdiction over financial flows, its enforcement of international sanctions and its organic symbiosis with Wall Street. All these agencies are coordinated by the Executive Office of the President via the National Security Council. Certain key areas of the judiciary belong to the Deep State, such as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, whose actions are mysterious even to most members of Congress. ..."
"... The Party is Over: How Republicans Went Crazy, Democrats Became Useless, and the Middle Class Got Shafted , appeared in paperback on August 27, 2013. ..."
"... "These men, largely private, were functioning on a level different from the foreign policy of the United States, and years later when New York Times reporter Neil Sheehan read through the entire documentary history of the war, that history known as the Pentagon Papers, he would come away with one impression above all, which was that the government of the United States was not what he had thought it was; it was as if there were an inner U.S. government, what he called 'a centralized state, far more powerful than anything else, for whom the enemy is not simply the Communists but everything else, its own press, its own judiciary, its own Congress, foreign and friendly governments – all these are potentially antagonistic. ..."
"... The IMF/World Bank scam was working for a while. It doesn't work any more: South American countries simply reject it. And the US has no power to muscle South American countries any more; I'm not quite sure how they managed to become immune to US military intervention, but they have. They have had about 200 years of trial and error in figuring out how. ..."
"... Just before the Civil War, we saw the same dynamic: most of the country was completely disillusioned about the "slavocracy", as they called the corrupt US government dominated by slaveholders. This led to the election of Lincoln, the destruction of the Whig Party, and finally, the Civil War. ..."
Rome lived upon its principal till ruin stared it in the face. Industry is the only true source
of wealth, and there was no industry in Rome. By day the Ostia road was crowded with carts and muleteers,
carrying to the great city the silks and spices of the East, the marble of Asia Minor, the timber
of the Atlas, the grain of Africa and Egypt; and the carts brought out nothing but loads of dung.
That was their return cargo.
– The Martyrdom of Man by Winwood Reade (1871)
There is the visible government situated around the Mall in Washington, and then there is another,
more shadowy, more indefinable government that is not explained in Civics 101 or observable to tourists
at the White House or the Capitol. The former is traditional Washington partisan politics: the tip
of the iceberg that a public watching C-SPAN sees daily and which is theoretically controllable via
elections. The subsurface part of the iceberg I shall call the Deep State, which operates according
to its own compass heading regardless of who is formally in power.
[1]
During the last five years, the news media has been flooded with pundits decrying the broken politics
of Washington. The conventional wisdom has it that partisan gridlock and dysfunction have become
the new normal. That is certainly the case, and I have been among the harshest critics of this development.
But it is also imperative to acknowledge the limits of this critique as it applies to the American
governmental system. On one level, the critique is self-evident: In the domain that the public can
see, Congress is hopelessly deadlocked in the worst manner since the 1850s, the violently rancorous
decade preceding the Civil War.
Yes, there is another government concealed behind the one that is visible at either end of Pennsylvania
Avenue, a hybrid entity of public and private institutions ruling the country…
As I wrote in
The Party is Over, the present objective of congressional Republicans is to render the
executive branch powerless, at least until a Republican president is elected (a goal that voter suppression
laws in GOP-controlled states
are clearly intended to accomplish). President Obama cannot enact his domestic policies and budgets:
Because of incessant GOP filibustering, not only could he not fill the large number of vacancies
in the federal judiciary, he could not even get his most innocuous presidential appointees into office.
Democrats controlling the Senate have responded by weakening the filibuster of nominations, but Republicans
are sure to react with other parliamentary delaying tactics. This strategy amounts to congressional
nullification of executive branch powers by a party that controls a majority in only one house of
Congress.
Despite this apparent impotence, President Obama can liquidate American citizens without due processes,
detain prisoners indefinitely without charge, conduct dragnet surveillance on the American people
without judicial warrant and engage in unprecedented - at least since the McCarthy era - witch hunts
against federal employees (the so-called "Insider Threat Program"). Within the United States, this
power is characterized by massive displays of intimidating force by
militarized federal, state and local
law enforcement. Abroad, President Obama can start wars at will and engage in virtually any other
activity whatsoever without so much as a by-your-leave from Congress, such as arranging the
forced landing of a plane carrying a sovereign head of state over foreign territory. Despite
the habitual cant of congressional Republicans about executive overreach by Obama, the would-be dictator,
we have until recently heard very little from them about these actions - with the minor exception
of comments from gadfly Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky. Democrats, save a few mavericks such as Ron
Wyden of Oregon, are not unduly troubled, either - even to the extent of
permitting seemingly perjured congressional testimony under oath by executive branch officials
on the subject of illegal surveillance.
These are not isolated instances of a contradiction; they have been so pervasive that they tend
to be disregarded as background noise. During the time in 2011 when political warfare over the debt
ceiling was beginning to paralyze the business of governance in Washington, the United States government
somehow summoned the resources to overthrow Muammar Ghaddafi's regime in Libya, and, when the instability
created by that coup spilled over into Mali, provide overt and covert assistance to French intervention
there. At a time when there was heated debate about continuing meat inspections and civilian air
traffic control because of the budget crisis, our government was somehow able to commit $115 millionto keeping a civil war going in Syria and to pay at least
£100m to the United Kingdom's Government Communications Headquarters to buy influence over and
access to that country's intelligence. Since 2007, two bridges carrying interstate highways have
collapsed due to inadequate maintenance of infrastructure, one killing 13 people. During that same
period of time, the government spent
$1.7
billion constructing a building in Utah that is the size of 17 football fields. This mammoth
structure is intended to allow the National Security Agency to store a
yottabyte of information, the largest numerical designator computer scientists have coined. A
yottabyte is equal to 500 quintillion pages of text. They need that much storage to archive every
single trace of your electronic life.
Yes, there is another government concealed behind the one that is visible at either end of Pennsylvania
Avenue, a hybrid entity of public and private institutions ruling the country according to consistent
patterns in season and out, connected to, but only intermittently controlled by, the visible state
whose leaders we choose. My analysis of this phenomenon is not an exposé of a secret, conspiratorial
cabal; the state within a state is hiding mostly in plain sight, and its operators mainly act in
the light of day. Nor can this other government be accurately termed an "establishment." All complex
societies have an establishment, a social network committed to its own enrichment and perpetuation.
In terms of its scope, financial resources and sheer global reach, the American hybrid state, the
Deep State, is in a class by itself. That said, it is neither omniscient nor invincible. The institution
is not so much sinister (although it has highly sinister aspects) as it is relentlessly well entrenched.
Far from being invincible, its failures, such as those in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, are routine
enough that it is only the Deep State's protectiveness towards its higher-ranking personnel that
allows them to escape the consequences of their frequent ineptitude.
[2]
How did I come to write an analysis of the Deep State, and why am I equipped to write it? As a
congressional staff member for 28 years specializing in national security and possessing a top secret
security clearance, I was at least on the fringes of the world I am describing, if neither totally
in it by virtue of full membership nor of it by psychological disposition. But, like virtually every
employed person, I became, to some extent, assimilated into the culture of the institution I worked
for, and only by slow degrees, starting before the invasion of Iraq, did I begin fundamentally to
question the reasons of state that motivate the people who are, to quote George W. Bush, "the deciders."
Cultural assimilation is partly a matter of what psychologist
Irving L. Janis called "groupthink,"
the chameleon-like ability of people to adopt the views of their superiors and peers. This syndrome
is endemic to Washington: The town is characterized by sudden fads, be it negotiating biennial budgeting,
making grand bargains or invading countries. Then, after a while, all the town's cool kids drop those
ideas as if they were radioactive. As in the military, everybody has to get on board with the mission,
and questioning it is not a career-enhancing move. The universe of people who will critically examine
the goings-on at the institutions they work for is always going to be a small one. As Upton Sinclair
said, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not
understanding it."
A more elusive aspect of cultural assimilation is the sheer dead weight of the
ordinariness of it all once you have planted yourself in your office chair for the 10,000th time.
Government life is typically not some vignette from an Allen Drury novel about intrigue
under the Capitol dome. Sitting and staring at the clock on the off-white office wall when it's 11:00
in the evening and you are vowing never, ever to eat another piece of takeout pizza in your life
is not an experience that summons the higher literary instincts of a would-be memoirist. After a
while, a functionary of the state begins to hear things that, in another context, would be quite
remarkable, or at least noteworthy, and yet that simply bounce off one's consciousness like pebbles
off steel plate: "You mean the
number of terrorist groups we are fighting is classified?" No wonder so few people are
whistle-blowers, quite apart from the vicious retaliation whistle-blowing often provokes: Unless
one is blessed with imagination and a fine sense of irony, growing immune to the curiousness of one's
surroundings is easy. To paraphrase the inimitable Donald Rumsfeld, I didn't know all that I knew,
at least until I had had a couple of years away from the government to reflect upon it.
The Deep State does not consist of the entire government. It is a hybrid of national security
and law enforcement agencies: the Department of Defense, the Department of State, the Department
of Homeland Security, the Central Intelligence Agency and the Justice Department. I also include
the Department of the Treasury because of its jurisdiction over financial flows, its enforcement
of international sanctions and its organic symbiosis with Wall Street. All these agencies are coordinated
by the Executive Office of the President via the National Security Council. Certain key areas of
the judiciary belong to the Deep State, such as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, whose
actions are mysterious even to most members of Congress. Also included are a handful of vital federal
trial courts, such as the Eastern District of Virginia and the Southern District of Manhattan, where
sensitive proceedings in national security cases are conducted. The final government component (and
possibly last in precedence among the formal branches of government established by the Constitution)
is a kind of rump Congress consisting of the congressional leadership and some (but not all) of the
members of the defense and intelligence committees. The rest of Congress, normally so fractious and
partisan, is mostly only intermittently aware of the Deep State and when required usually submits
to a few well-chosen words from the State's emissaries.
I saw this submissiveness on many occasions. One memorable incident was passage of the
Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Amendments Act of 2008. This legislation retroactively legalized the Bush administration's
illegal and unconstitutional surveillance first revealed by The New York Times in 2005 and
indemnified the telecommunications companies for their cooperation in these acts. The bill passed
easily: All that was required was the invocation of the word "terrorism" and most members of Congress
responded like iron filings obeying a magnet. One who responded in that fashion was Senator Barack
Obama, soon to be coronated as the presidential nominee at the Democratic National Convention in
Denver. He had already won the most delegates by campaigning to the left of his main opponent, Hillary
Clinton, on the excesses of the global war on terror and the erosion of constitutional liberties.
As the indemnification vote showed, the Deep State does not consist only of government agencies.
What is euphemistically called "private enterprise" is an integral part of its operations. In a special
series in The Washington Post called "Top
Secret America," Dana Priest and William K. Arkin described the scope of the privatized Deep
State and the degree to which it has metastasized after the September 11 attacks. There are now 854,000
contract personnel with top-secret clearances - a number greater than that of top-secret-cleared
civilian employees of the government. While they work throughout the country and the world, their
heavy concentration in and around the Washington suburbs is unmistakable: Since 9/11, 33 facilities
for top-secret intelligence have been built or are under construction. Combined, they occupy the
floor space of almost three Pentagons - about 17 million square feet. Seventy percent of the intelligence
community's budget goes to paying contracts. And the membrane between government and industry is
highly permeable: The Director of National Intelligence,
James R. Clapper, is
a former executive of Booz Allen Hamilton, one of the government's largest intelligence contractors.
His predecessor as director,
Admiral Mike McConnell, is the current vice chairman of the same company; Booz Allen is 99 percent
dependent on government business. These contractors now set the political and social tone of Washington,
just as they are increasingly setting the direction of the country, but they are doing it quietly,
their doings unrecorded in the Congressional Record or the Federal Register, and
are rarely subject to congressional hearings.
Washington is the most important node of the Deep State that has taken over America, but it is not
the only one. Invisible threads of money and ambition connect the town to other nodes. One is Wall
Street, which supplies the cash that keeps the political machine quiescent and operating as a diversionary
marionette theater. Should the politicians forget their lines and threaten the status quo, Wall Street
floods the town with cash and lawyers to help the hired hands remember their own best interests.
The executives of the financial giants even have de facto criminal immunity. On March 6, 2013, testifying
before the Senate Judiciary Committee,
Attorney General Eric Holder stated the following: "I am concerned that the size of some of these
institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them when we are
hit with indications that if you do prosecute, if you do bring a criminal charge, it will have a
negative impact on the national economy, perhaps even the world economy." This, from the chief law
enforcement officer of a justice system that has practically
abolished the constitutional right to trial
for poorer defendants charged with certain crimes. It is not too much to say that Wall Street may
be the ultimate owner of the Deep State and its strategies, if for no other reason than that it has
the money to reward government operatives with a second career that is lucrative beyond the dreams
of avarice - certainly beyond the dreams of a salaried government employee.
[3]
The corridor between Manhattan and Washington is a well trodden highway for the personalities we
have all gotten to know in the period since the massive deregulation of Wall Street: Robert Rubin,
Lawrence Summers, Henry Paulson, Timothy Geithner and many others. Not all the traffic involves persons
connected with the purely financial operations of the government: In 2013, General David Petraeus
joined
KKR (formerly Kohlberg Kravis Roberts) of 9 West 57th Street, New York, a private equity firm
with $62.3 billion in assets. KKR specializes in management buyouts and leveraged finance. General
Petraeus' expertise in these areas is unclear. His ability to peddle influence, however, is a known
and valued commodity. Unlike Cincinnatus, the military commanders of the Deep State do not take up
the plow once they lay down the sword. Petraeus also obtained a sinecure as a non-resident senior
fellow at the
Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard. The Ivy League is, of course,
the preferred bleaching tub and charm school of the American oligarchy.
[4]
Petraeus and most of the avatars of the Deep State - the White House advisers who urged Obama
not to impose compensation limits on Wall Street CEOs, the contractor-connected think tank experts
who besought us to "stay the course" in Iraq, the economic gurus who perpetually demonstrate that
globalization and deregulation are a blessing that makes us all better off in the long run - are
careful to pretend that they have no ideology. Their preferred pose is that of the politically neutral
technocrat offering well considered advice based on profound expertise. That is nonsense. They are
deeply dyed in the hue of the official ideology of the governing class, an ideology that is neither
specifically Democrat nor Republican. Domestically, whatever they might privately believe about essentially
diversionary social issues such as abortion or gay marriage, they almost invariably believe in the
"Washington Consensus": financialization, outsourcing, privatization, deregulation and the commodifying
of labor. Internationally, they espouse 21st-century "American Exceptionalism": the right and duty
of the United States to meddle in every region of the world with coercive diplomacy and boots on
the ground and to ignore
painfully won international
norms of civilized behavior.
To paraphrase what Sir John Harrington said more than 400 years ago about treason, now that the
ideology of the Deep State has prospered, none dare call it ideology.
[5] That
is why describing torture with the word "torture" on broadcast television is treated less as political
heresy than as an inexcusable lapse of Washington etiquette: Like smoking a cigarette on camera,
these days it is simply "not done."
After Edward Snowden's revelations about the extent and depth of surveillance by the National
Security Agency, it has become publicly evident that Silicon Valley is a vital node of the Deep State
as well. Unlike military and intelligence contractors, Silicon Valley overwhelmingly sells to the
private market, but its business is so important to the government that a strange relationship has
emerged. While the government could simply dragoon the high technology companies to do the NSA's
bidding, it would prefer cooperation with so important an engine of the nation's economy, perhaps
with an implied quid pro quo. Perhaps this explains the extraordinary indulgence the government
shows the Valley in intellectual property matters. If an American "jailbreaks" his smartphone (i.e.,
modifies it so that it can use a service provider other than the one dictated by the manufacturer),
he could receive
a fine
of up to $500,000 and several years in prison; so much for a citizen's vaunted property rights
to what he purchases. The libertarian pose of the Silicon Valley moguls, so carefully cultivated
in their public relations, has always been a sham. Silicon Valley has long been tracking for commercial
purposes the activities of every person who uses an electronic device, so it is hardly surprising
that the Deep State should emulate the Valley and do the same for its own purposes. Nor is it surprising
that it should conscript the Valley's assistance.
Still, despite the essential roles of lower Manhattan and Silicon Valley, the center of gravity
of the Deep State is firmly situated in and around the Beltway. The Deep State's physical expansion
and consolidation around the Beltway would seem to make a mockery of the frequent pronouncement that
governance in Washington is dysfunctional and broken. That the secret and unaccountable Deep State
floats freely above the gridlock between both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue is the paradox of American
government in the 21st century: drone strikes, data mining, secret prisons and
Panopticon-like
control on the one hand; and on the other, the ordinary, visible parliamentary institutions of
self-government declining to the status of a banana republic amid the gradual collapse of public
infrastructure.
The results of this contradiction are not abstract, as a tour of the rotting, decaying, bankrupt
cities of the American Midwest will attest. It is not even confined to those parts of the country
left behind by a Washington Consensus that decreed the financialization and deindustrialization of
the economy in the interests of efficiency and shareholder value. This paradox is evident even within
the Beltway itself, the richest metropolitan area in the nation. Although demographers and urban
researchers invariably count Washington as a "world city," that is not always evident to those who
live there. Virtually every time there is a severe summer thunderstorm, tens - or even hundreds -
of thousands of residents
lose power, often for many days. There are occasional water restrictions over wide areas because
water mains, poorly constructed and inadequately maintained,
have burst.
[6] The
Washington metropolitan area considers it a Herculean task just to build a rail link to its international
airport - with luck it may be completed by 2018.
It is as if Hadrian's Wall was still fully manned and the fortifications along the border with
Germania were never stronger, even as the city of Rome disintegrates from within and the life-sustaining
aqueducts leading down from the hills begin to crumble. The governing classes of the Deep State may
continue to deceive themselves with their dreams of Zeus-like omnipotence, but others do not. A
2013 Pew Poll that interviewed 38,000 people around the world found that in 23 of 39 countries
surveyed, a plurality of respondents said they believed China already had or would in the future
replace the United States as the world's top economic power.
The Deep State is the big story of our time. It is the red thread that runs through the war on
terrorism, the financialization and deindustrialization of the American economy, the rise of a plutocratic
social structure and political dysfunction. Washington is the headquarters of the Deep State, and
its time in the sun as a rival to Rome, Constantinople or London may be term-limited by its overweening
sense of self-importance and its habit, as Winwood Reade said of Rome, to "live upon its principal
till ruin stared it in the face." "Living upon its principal," in this case, means that the Deep
State has been extracting value from the American people in vampire-like fashion.
We are faced with two disagreeable implications. First, that the Deep State is so heavily entrenched,
so well protected by surveillance, firepower, money and its ability to co-opt resistance that it
is almost impervious to change. Second, that just as in so many previous empires, the Deep State
is populated with those whose instinctive reaction to the failure of their policies is to double
down on those very policies in the future. Iraq was a failure briefly camouflaged by the wholly propagandistic
success of the so-called surge; this legerdemain allowed for the surge in Afghanistan, which equally
came to naught. Undeterred by that failure, the functionaries of the Deep State plunged into Libya;
the smoking rubble of the Benghazi consulate, rather than discouraging further misadventure, seemed
merely to incite the itch to bomb Syria. Will the Deep State ride on the back of the American people
from failure to failure until the country itself, despite its huge reserves of human and material
capital, is slowly exhausted? The dusty road of empire is strewn with the bones of former great powers
that exhausted themselves in like manner.
But, there are signs of resistance to the Deep State and its demands. In the aftermath of the Snowden
revelations,
the House narrowly failed to pass an amendment that would have defunded the NSA's warrantless
collection of data from US persons. Shortly thereafter, the president, advocating yet another military
intervention in the Middle East, this time in Syria, met with such overwhelming congressional skepticism
that he changed the subject by grasping at a diplomatic lifeline thrown to him by Vladimir Putin.
[7]
Has the visible, constitutional state, the one envisaged by Madison and the other Founders, finally
begun to reassert itself against the claims and usurpations of the Deep State? To some extent, perhaps.
The unfolding revelations of the scope of the NSA's warrantless surveillance have become so egregious
that even institutional apologists such as Senator Dianne Feinstein have begun to backpedal - if
only rhetorically - from their knee-jerk defense of the agency. As more people begin to waken from
the fearful and suggestible state that 9/11 created in their minds, it is possible that the Deep
State's
decade-old tactic of crying "terrorism!" every time it faces resistance is no longer eliciting
the same Pavlovian response of meek obedience. And the American people, possibly even their legislators,
are growing tired
of endless quagmires in the Middle East.
But there is another more structural reason the Deep State may have peaked in the extent of its
dominance. While it seems to float above the constitutional state, its essentially parasitic, extractive
nature means that it is still tethered to the formal proceedings of governance. The Deep State thrives
when there is tolerable functionality in the day-to-day operations of the federal government. As
long as appropriations bills get passed on time, promotion lists get confirmed, black (i.e., secret)
budgets get rubber-stamped, special tax subsidies for certain corporations are approved without controversy,
as long as too many awkward questions are not asked, the gears of the hybrid state will mesh noiselessly.
But when one house of Congress is taken over by tea party
Wahhabites, life for the ruling
class becomes more trying.
If there is anything the Deep State requires it is silent, uninterrupted cash flow and the confidence
that things will go on as they have in the past. It is even willing to tolerate a degree of gridlock:
Partisan mud wrestling over cultural issues may be a useful distraction from its agenda. But recent
congressional antics involving sequestration, the government shutdown and the threat of default over
the debt ceiling extension have been disrupting that equilibrium. And an extreme gridlock dynamic
has developed between the two parties such that continuing some level of sequestration is politically
the least bad option for both parties, albeit for different reasons. As much as many Republicans
might want to give budget relief to the organs of national security, they cannot fully reverse sequestration
without the Democrats demanding revenue increases. And Democrats wanting to spend more on domestic
discretionary programs cannot void sequestration on either domestic or defense programs without Republicans
insisting on entitlement cuts.
So, for the foreseeable future, the Deep State must restrain its appetite for taxpayer dollars.
Limited deals may soften sequestration, but agency requests will not likely be fully funded anytime
soon. Even Wall Street's rentier operations have been affected: After helping finance the tea party
to advance its own plutocratic ambitions, America's Big Money is now regretting the Frankenstein's
monster it has created. Like children playing with dynamite, the tea party and its compulsion to
drive the nation into credit default has alarmed the grown-ups commanding the heights of capital;
the latter are now telling the politicians they thought they had hired
to knock it off.
The House vote to defund the NSA's illegal surveillance programs was equally illustrative of the
disruptive nature of the tea party insurgency. Civil liberties Democrats alone would never have come
so close to victory; tea party stalwart Justin Amash (R-MI),
who has also upset the business community for his debt-limit fundamentalism, was the lead Republican
sponsor of the NSA amendment, and most of the Republicans who voted with him were aligned with the
tea party.
The final factor is Silicon Valley. Owing to secrecy and obfuscation, it is hard to know how much
of the NSA's relationship with the Valley is based on voluntary cooperation, how much is legal compulsion
through FISA warrants and how much is a matter of the NSA surreptitiously breaking into technology
companies' systems. Given the Valley's public relations requirement to mollify its customers who
have privacy concerns, it is difficult to take the tech firms' libertarian protestations about government
compromise of their systems at face value, especially since they engage in similar activity against
their own customers for commercial purposes. That said, evidence is accumulating that Silicon Valley
is losing billions in overseas business from companies, individuals and governments that want
to maintain privacy. For high tech entrepreneurs, the cash nexus is ultimately more compelling than
the Deep State's demand for patriotic cooperation. Even legal compulsion can be combatted: Unlike
the individual citizen, tech firms have deep pockets and batteries of lawyers with which to fight
government diktat.
This pushback has gone so far that on January 17, President Obama announced revisions to the NSA's
data collection programs, including withdrawing the agency's custody of a domestic telephone record
database, expanding requirements for judicial warrants and ceasing to spy on (undefined) "friendly
foreign leaders." Critics have denounced the changes as a
cosmetic public relations move, but they are still significant in that the clamor has gotten
so loud that the president feels the political need to address it.
The outcome of all these developments is uncertain. The Deep State, based on the twin pillars
of national security imperative and corporate hegemony, has until recently seemed unshakable and
the latest events may only be a temporary perturbation in its trajectory. But history has a way of
toppling the altars of the mighty. While the two great materialist and determinist ideologies of
the twentieth century, Marxism and the Washington Consensus, successively decreed that the dictatorship
of the proletariat and the dictatorship of the market were inevitable, the future is actually indeterminate.
It may be that deep economic and social currents create the framework of history, but those currents
can be channeled, eddied, or even reversed by circumstance, chance and human agency. We have only
to reflect upon defunct glacial despotisms such as the USSR or East Germany to realize that nothing
is forever.
Throughout history, state systems with outsized pretensions to power have reacted to their environments
in two ways. The first strategy, reflecting the ossification of its ruling elites, consists of repeating
that nothing is wrong, that the status quo reflects the nation's unique good fortune in being favored
by God and that those calling for change are merely subversive troublemakers. As the French ancien
régime, the Romanov dynasty and the Habsburg emperors discovered, the strategy works splendidly for
a while, particularly if one has a talent for dismissing unpleasant facts. The final results, however,
are likely to be thoroughly disappointing.
The second strategy is one embraced to varying degrees
and with differing goals, by figures of such contrasting personalities as Mustafa Kemal Atatürk,
Franklin D. Roosevelt, Charles de Gaulle and Deng Xiaoping. They were certainly not revolutionaries
by temperament; if anything, their natures were conservative. But they understood that the political
cultures in which they lived were fossilized and incapable of adapting to the times. In their drive
to reform and modernize the political systems they inherited, their first obstacles to overcome were
the outworn myths that encrusted the thinking of the elites of their time.
As the United States confronts its future after experiencing two failed wars, a precarious economy
and $17 trillion in accumulated debt, the national punditry has split into two camps. The first,
the declinists, sees a broken, dysfunctional political system incapable of reform and an economy
soon to be overtaken by China. The second, the reformers, offers a profusion of nostrums to turn
the nation around: public financing of elections to sever the artery of money between the corporate
components of the Deep State and financially dependent elected officials, government "insourcing"
to reverse the tide of outsourcing of government functions and the conflicts of interest that it
creates, a tax policy that values human labor over financial manipulation and a trade policy that
favors exporting manufactured goods over exporting investment capital.
Mike Lofgren on the Deep State Hiding in Plain Sight
All of that is necessary, but not sufficient. The Snowden revelations (the impact of which have been
surprisingly strong), the derailed drive for military intervention in Syria and a fractious Congress,
whose dysfunction has begun to be a serious inconvenience to the Deep State, show that there is now
a deep but as yet inchoate hunger for change. What America lacks is a figure with the serene self-confidence
to tell us that the twin idols of national security and corporate power are outworn dogmas that have
nothing more to offer us. Thus disenthralled, the people themselves will unravel the Deep State with
surprising speed.
[1] The term "Deep State" was coined in Turkey and is said to be a system composed of high-level
elements within the intelligence services, military, security, judiciary and organized crime. In
British author John le Carré's latest novel, A Delicate Truth, a character describes the
Deep State as "… the ever-expanding circle of non-governmental insiders from banking, industry and
commerce who were cleared for highly classified information denied to large swathes of Whitehall
and Westminster." I use the term to mean a hybrid association of elements of government and
parts of top-level finance and industry that is effectively able to govern the United States without
reference to the consent of the governed as expressed through the formal political process.
[2] Twenty-five years ago, the sociologist
Robert Nisbet described
this phenomenon as "the attribute of No Fault…. Presidents, secretaries and generals and admirals
in America seemingly subscribe to the doctrine that no fault ever attaches to policy and operations.
This No Fault conviction prevents them from taking too seriously such notorious foul-ups as Desert
One, Grenada, Lebanon and now the Persian Gulf." To his list we might add 9/11, Iraq, Afghanistan
and Libya.
[3] The attitude of many members of Congress towards Wall Street was
memorably expressed by Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-AL), the incoming chairman of the House Financial
Services Committee, in 2010: "In Washington, the view is that the banks are to be regulated, and
my view is that Washington and the regulators are there to serve the banks."
[4] Beginning in 1988, every US president has been a graduate of Harvard or Yale. Beginning in 2000,
every losing presidential candidate has been a Harvard or Yale graduate, with the exception of John
McCain in 2008.
[5] In recent months, the American public has seen a vivid example of a Deep State operative marketing
his ideology under the banner of pragmatism. Former Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates - a one-time
career CIA officer and
deeply political Bush family retainer - has camouflaged his retrospective defense of military
escalations that have brought us nothing but casualties and fiscal grief as the straight-from-the-shoulder
memoir from a plain-spoken son of Kansas who disdains Washington and its politicians.
[6] Meanwhile, the US government took the lead in restoring Baghdad's sewer system
at a cost
of $7 billion.
[7] Obama's abrupt about-face suggests he may have been skeptical of military intervention in Syria
all along, but only dropped that policy once Congress and Putin gave him the running room to do so.
In 2009, he went ahead with the Afghanistan "surge" partly because General Petraeus'
public relations campaign and back-channel lobbying on the Hill for implementation of his pet
military strategy pre-empted other options. These incidents raise the disturbing question of how
much the democratically elected president - or any president - sets the policy of the national security
state and how much the policy is set for him by the professional operatives of that state who engineer
faits accomplis that force his hand.
BillMoyers.com encourages conversation and debate around issues, events and ideas related
to content on Moyers & Company and the BillMoyers.com website.
The editorial staff reserves the right to take down comments it deems inappropriate.
Profanity, personal attacks, hate speech, off-topic posts, advertisements and spam will not
be tolerated.
Do not intentionally make false or misleading statements, impersonate someone else, break
the law, or condone or encourage unlawful activity.
If your comments consistently or intentionally make this community a less civil and enjoyable
place to be, you and your comments will be excluded from it.
We need your help with this. If you feel a post is not in line with the comment policy, please
flag it so that we can take a look. Comments and questions about our policy are welcome. Please send
an email to [email protected]
Another attribute of the "Deep State" is that is highly nepotistic. Entry into it relies on
connections rather than skill. Many positions within it exist simply to provide suitably lucrative
work for the children of the ruling class.
Nisswapaddy
Lofgren has certainly provided a good overview of the situation, although what he postulates
is by no means original thinking. However, it is particularly heartening to have this analysis
come from a fellow who could easily have sold his soul like David Petraeus, to name just one
in an endless line of the well connected who have cashed in. Yet I believe our situation is more
dire than even Lofgren suggests. As the philosopher John Ralston Saul characterized it, we have
undergone a coup d'etat in slow motion and now live, not in a constitutional democracy but 'Democracy
Inc.' (described in detail in a book by the same name by Prof. Sheldon Wolin). LIke Lofgren,
neither of these thinkers sees some carefully contrived conspiracy at work. It is merely the
inevitable result of following a rigid ideology that allows unfettered corporate capitalism to
have its way unopposed and essentially unregulated. Now that massive corporation have taken control
of all the levers of power (as Lofgren summarizes above) it will be very, very difficult for
'the people' to take them back. Remember what Upton Sinclair observed over 100 years ago:
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon him NOT
understanding it."
I give you men like Dave Petraeus, or Jamie Dimon or (fill in the blank) who are subject to
this 'lack of understanding'. They are not co-conspirators, at least not in any active, conscious
sense. However, the corporations they work for, whose only function is to maximize profits for
the benefit of their shareholders and investors and to 'externalize' any and all costs and expenses
possible, are, by definition, sociopaths. And those corporations, run by men and women simply
doing their jobs and going home to a loving family, also have a 'lack of understanding'. When
the corporation you work for has only reason for being, to make a profit 'come heck or high water',
and that corporation and hundreds of others with the she mission, control the executive, congress,
the judiciary and their regulators (who are now required to call the corporations they supposedly
regulate "their customers" ) it doesn't take much imagination to see how we got where we are.
Nor how it is that corporations get what they need, the rest of us be dammed. In short, the 'deep
state' Lofgren shines a light on is much deeper than he indicates. And it will take more than
spats between large corporations to bring it to an end.
William Jacoby
Good essay but everybody should know this by now. In the next elections, in which good candidates
will by definition not be viable because they won't be bankrolled by the Deep State, we must
use the alternative media to coalesce around a few non-negotiable demands. Things like prosecuting
Clapper for lying, immediate prohibition of the intelligence community's revolving door, nationalization
of companies like Booz Allen, creation of public banks as suggested by Ellen Brown and nationalization
of banks too big to fail, a student loan debt strike, and a constitutional amendment overturning
Citizens United. Failure to grant these demands must be met with withdrawal from the two-party
system; go Green or go Libertarian, whichever you prefer, but put a monkey wrench in the system.
Keep using the alternative media, defend them from the Deep State, educate yourself, network
with the growing numbers of people who are onto the Deep State, or the National Security State,
or whatever you want to call it. But get over talking about how the Constitution is in danger;
it's dead, and if there's anything you liked about it, you'll have to bring it back from the
graveyard. Take action, and support others who do.
cross1242
Unfortunately, I don't see anything changing the Deep State or the government in Washington
until there is some kind of revolution. That revolution might be bloodless but nothing guarantees
that. If the Deep State ultimately feels threatened, it will defend itself with all the national
security forces at its command.
Yes. An example. Paper granted PhD's are "promised" suitably lucrative work in academia. So
it's not just corporate.
Time for you to read Foucault's Discipline and Punish and all the rest of his work. Include Virilio, Baudrillard and the rest of Continental Philosophy. Lofgren is just catching up with
a long way to go. Check out Zizek.
Kibik
Look up "Bohemian Club" too.
Peter Michaelson
The fact that an invisible government of elites is in charge of our democracy is entirely
predictable. This political arrangement simply depicts the state of our psychological development.
We have a "Deep State" within our unconscious mind. Our thoughts, desires, aspirations, and beliefs
are all under the influence of this inner "Deep State." Through our ego we're each like a puppet
prince, thinking we're in charge of the show. Both liberals and conservatives have too much invested
in self-image and are afraid of facing what amounts to an inner tyranny. We're too egotistical
and narcissistic; we don't want to be humbled by inner truth. We've produced superficial psychologies
(behavioral, positive, cognitive, etc.) that refuse to face the inner reality. We'll have real
democracy in America and the world when we establish inner democracy. It can be done, and it
needs to be done soon. Start by tossing out all the so-called "scientific psychology" that academic
psychologists are pedaling. Go back to Freud and understand what he's really saying, that we'll
go on generating suffering and self-defeat until we become more conscious of our inner conflicts,
psychological defenses, and entanglements in negative emotions.
Anonymous
As has been mentioned the greatest power is the people. Without the cooperation of the people
none of the pathological behavior described would be possible. The West Coast Strike of 1934
is an example of what can be done. A major way that the 1% control the 99% is through debt. That
control could actually be reversed. What would happen if only 10% of the 99% decided to no longer
to pay their debts? A movement like that could rapidly escalate once people realize that there
is no system that could cope with massive non payment of debt.
What would happen if the pilots, truck drivers, rail workers and dock workers decided to strike?
or the telecommunication workers? All or any of those could be implemented peacefully. No need
to hit the streets. Just stay home and contribute nothing to the deep state. Imagine how long
it could survive the massive non cooperation of the 99%. There is a multitude of possibilities.
Charles Shaver
'How can I thank thee [Bill Moyers], let me count the ways…' and now, too, Mike Lofgren. For
some time I've been thinking that vastly superior aliens from deep space might be holding the
U.S. Government hostage and causing all of the recent illegal, immoral, unconstitutional and
just plain stupid national self-destruction. What a relief to learn it is only too-typical low
IQ humanity that is responsible. Seriously, now, that which gives me the audacity and courage
to comment on these things about which I personally know so little, is my lay acquired understanding
of the basics. To me, in early 2014, these are mere, obvious, matters of the hierarchy of law,
relevant laws and violations thereof.
Ignoring most of the basics and my personal lack of qualifications, suffice it to say for
now that above and beyond the laws of man are those self-evident in nature. Insightfully, since
August of 1975, I have observed not only do the higher laws apply to both machine and man but
the U.S. Constitution is imbedded with them, intentionally or not. So, to finally get to the
point, when Mike Lofgren says 'Groupthink' I think of The Universal Law of Order: "Whenever two
or more individuals unite to form an organization the survival of the organization becomes paramount
to the survival of the individual." and how the Constitution was ignored again. When someone
says 'there's nothing I can do' I think of The Third Rule of Human Behavior: "Self-determination
shall prevail." and how the Constitution was ignored again. Deep space, or 'Deep State,' it 'don't
look good' for us when a vast majority keeps enabling a selfish minority to impose rule. Now,
it will probably take a paradigm shift to fix what's broke but, fortunately, naturally, 'shift
happens.'
http://leisureguy.wordpress.com Leisureguy
Magnificent article-greatly extends the range of my awareness, since I was just starting to
get a glimpse of this.
It should definitely be noted in the article that Senator Barack Obama pledged and promised
that he would vote against telecom immunity and then he voted in favor of it. That did not auger
well, albeit accurately.
http://leisureguy.wordpress.com Leisureguy
This is why bloody revolutions happen: the course of last resort would certainly be violence,
which hurts everyone. Elections were supposed to allow an orderly way to bring about change without
violence, but once that mechanism is jammed and will no longer respond, violence is lapping at
our heels.
http://leisureguy.wordpress.com Leisureguy
I have the same feeling. We thought we had a mechanism that would enable us to respond to
the need for revolutionary change in an orderly way, but that mechanism has been deliberately
broken. That is very, very bad.
Although one must allow that much of this is driven by our deep nature: social animals acting
as social animals do, with all sorts of social-driven instincts and responses. Biology is destiny?
rleighton27
I am not part of the hallelujah chorus greeting this article. Some, if not most of it, smacks
of the apologia of a professional bureaucrat who suddenly has found a conscience. Also, his claim
that President Obama was itching to start a war in Syria, but was only held back from doing so
by "overwhelming Congressional skepticism"…as if that wasn't a daily occurrence to be dealt with
from day one of his tenure. I am convinced that it was part of his strategy from the outset…to
rattle sabres loudly enough to frighten a bellicose Putin, who knew his own military prowess
was hampered by an ill-trained and poorly equipped manpower pool, into making his lapdog Assad
stop playing nasty with his population–and it worked. I agree with much of the article's commentary
about the "boys in the back room" who, in fact, have commandeered the running of the country
out of the hands of elected officials, but condemn it's tone of "it really doesn't matter who's
in charge." It does matter. Articles of this type just encourage voter apathy, and that plays
into the schematic laid out by the Powell Memorandum for the usurping of Democracy, placing it
into the hands of the ALEC/Koch consortium of Plutocratic traitors.
http://leisureguy.wordpress.com Leisureguy
This helps me understand why such an intensive effort is underway to destroy our educational
system and the low value we seem to place on education. I'm thinking of privatization, charter
schools, constant pressure to pay public money to religious schools, defunding of higher education,
closures of departments of humanities and non-applied science and art-that sort of thing. And
now I get it: the last thing the corporate state wants is people "wasting" time and effort on
a bunch of abstract principles and reasoning and critical thinking, especially since it just
causes trouble in the workplace and makes people question orders. Better to do away with that:
turn the focus to what will make the most money, and your problem's solved. And then you can
cut costs-always the imperative-by closing departments that seem to create the most troublemakers.
Two birds, one stone.
Bob Baldock
Peter Dale Scott articulated this first, and has it deeper and darker. Check his website.
Anonymous
As I read the final sentence,
"What America lacks is a figure with the serene self-confidence to tell us that the twin idols
of national security and corporate power are outworn dogmas that have nothing more to offer us.
Thus disenthralled, the people themselves will unravel the Deep State with surprising speed."
I remembered the demise of individuals who fit "figure with serene self-confidence"…..
John F. Kennedy
Martin Luther King
Robert Kennedy
Malcolm X
Paul Wellstone
Joan Harris
It's been awhile since I have had anyone refer to Freud. Never mind the "new age" psychology.
Defenses have always been the problem. In a perfect world we would all live consciously and greed
and prejudices would give way to peace and harmony. In the meantime we must address all the ills,
if for no other reason then to prevent us from becoming complacent. I shall retain a little healthy
cynicism until the world is healthy.
I. Spoke Umbra
Let's be clear about what the "group-think" means when speaking about the NSA:
As someone who was once in the bowels of the NSA beast, I observed a number of disturbing
traits permeate every nook and cranny of the operation. If those traits were applied to an individual,
they would be considered a very serious characterological disorder, perhaps warranting hospitalization:
The groupthink scenario in that place is as toxic as it can get for a human enterprise. It
is a clear and present danger to the security of Democracy as we know it.
Pamela Zuppo
This was no stroke of genius, this was Greenspan, Reagan, and the Bush clan. The better term
for contemporary capitalism is "disaster capitalism" as coined by Naomi Klein. The big question
is what are we to do about this? Do what Kiev has done? Due to "group think", or brain-washing
of the masses who have lost their own control via their televisions, it seems the zombies outnumber
the enlightened. It's clear to me something must be done.
SufferinSuccotash,Pivoting
Randolph "War is the Health of the State" Bourne is also worth a read. Not to mention Jack
London's The Iron Heel. These All-American doods had the National Security-Oligarchy State pretty
much nailed down a century ago. Why people concerned with our current predicament skip over these
Progressive Era radicals in favor of Continental Philosophy (which reminds me of a skimpy breakfast)
is beyond me. I've been watching the emancipatory elements in this country floundering around
for the past four decades now and it's pretty depressing, especially the seemingly chronic inability
to connect with the USA's radical past. No historical knowledge=no sense of history=no political
judgement=the Bad Guys keep on winning.
Ukrainians are my favorite people at the moment and you can bet that their sense of history is
pretty sharp.
This concludes this Sunday morning rant.
Joseph Brant
It is commendable to preserve hope among reformers, but hopes do not solve problems.
While security agencies can serve democracy when better regulated, the failure to regulate
is the result of failed democratic institutions which have not themselves been "vulnerable to
a vigilant public." The dark state invisible power corrupts invisibly, but gold is the invisible
power which had already corrupted the visible institutions.
We need more than a "self-confident figure" to tell us that "national security and corporate
power are outworn dogmas" so that "the people themselves will unravel the Deep State." The "deep…hunger
for change" was deeper in 2008 when so easily destroyed by its self-confident Obama by simply
not mentioning what "outworn dogmas" he would change. The hawkish Hillary is not about to "unravel
the Deep State" and mere self-confidence will not finance campaigns or buy media support to do
more than split the vote of reformers. The media and elections must first be freed of gold, and
the people cannot do that without free media and free elections.
While history is full of surprises, the succession of cold-war fearmongering by global war
upon diffuse "terrorist" backlash and political opposition to half-witted right wing imperialism
does not suggest a passing reaction, nor that any lesson was learned from three generations of
failed military adventures with no relationship to the declared national principles. The cancerous
dark state has grown in proportion to the failure of right wing foreign policy, the failure of
its own rationales. It is the triumphant institution of right wing tyranny as the immune sovereign
over a failed democracy.
Democracy may make further ultimate progress in China than in the US, or may survive only
in micropowers of no interest to the right wing. But we must have faith in the power of the people,
or we lose hope and take no action.
Barbara Mullin
I call it vulture capitalism.
jrdel
Since the People of United States overthrew British ruling class government of our country
and after the revolution, through wise government, and luck we got out from under the thumb of
any rulers whether clerics, nobility, landlords, businessmen, political dictators, banks, etc.
etc. these forces have been working to reestablish their control over our lives and by gradual
steps have done so. Great Americans turned back the tide here and there for a while, Jackson
ended the national bank, T. Roosevelt broke up monopoly corporations, F. Roosevelt supported
efforts for economic democracy, etc.
but the enemies of liberty never rest and always find new ways to undermine it.
So every few generations the People are faced with another fight if they are to keep their liberties.
This time the odds look particularly bad, Enemies stronger, richer, more devious, more insidious,
more corrupt; the People weaker, more divided, confused, distracted. What the hell do we do?
Voting just doesn't do much. Big money floods the media with their point of view. The People,
relatively poorer than ever; don't have enough money to reply.
Petitions, reforms, protests, revolution? All impractical, or impossible (imagine a revolution
in the streets against the power of the U.S. military.) The days when we can grab our muskets
and go out and make a revolution have long gone folks.
I think humanity will have to wait for another age, and another nation to see real liberty and
real democracy in control of the world again.
SufferinSuccotash,Pivoting
Given that back in his day "merchants" were often interchangeable with "bankers" Smith certainly
scored a bulls-eye with that one. The perfect Horrible Example in the 1770s was the East India
Company, which couldn't govern Bengal without trashing its economy and couldn't keep off the
financial rocks either. Eventually the British government put the Company on a shorter leash
and still later the Company lost its monopoly over East Indian trade. But one short-term measure
to bail out the Company was to give it a monopoly over selling tea to the dumb colonists over
in America. Oops. That was a real "tea party", not some bogus affair staged by geezers in funny
hats.
SufferinSuccotash,Pivoting
Of course. I spent quite a few years rationalizing and pretending that Everything Was Pretty
Much OK In These Here United States myself. The problem with being a history teacher–at least
in this case–is that the past, which as William Faulkner famously said wasn't only not dead but
not even past, can catch up with you. This country is paying and will continue to pay pretty
heavily for decades of folly which anyone with a sense of history could have predicted at least
40 years ago.
joanne
We have had millenia to "cage the beast", tame the beast, train, heal, and/or defang the beast.
Predatory behavior is mediated, never extinguished. The Deep State is both institutionalized
predation and paradoxically, a grotesque attempt to protect itself from itself.
Anonymous
The ideology is hinted at throughout the article. Capitalism; The premise that money is a
form of commodity and the winner is whomever has the most. Unfortunately money is a contract
and while such notional promises seemingly can be manufactured to infinity, through the creation
of the other side of the ledger, debt, their underlaying value is dependent on the increasingly
precarious solvency of those taking on that debt. It is what is referred to in hindsight as a
bubble. If you want to see the future of the US in about fifty years, it will likely be in the
states and regions.
J Timothy
The US military-intelligence-industrial aparatus is filled with loyal American patriots who
love this country and have sworn to uphold the US Constitution.
Unfortunately, they don't seem to understand that the system is extremely expensive and is impoverishing
the middle class of America. We have nine air craft carrier groups while the next closest military
has just two. Air craft carriers are incredibly expensive.
In my opinion, the next revalation to hit the mainstream media will be that SOME of the covert,
clandestine, black budget projects have been financed via securities fraud. They've done it before.
Arms for hostages, Hmong drug running in Vietnam, etc, are examples of this. Catherine Austin
Fitts has also made a great point that HUD, of all agencies, has funded some black budget procurements.
Clearly, either the CIA or the NSA are at the center of the cabal. So, what is the justification
for all of this secracy? What is soooo important that the adult eagle scout christians of America
can't tell us? What could it be? Terrorism? Russians? Soverign citizens? Shoe bombers?
Here is where i will lose most people over 50 years old. IN MY OPINION, a the core of the
military industrial aparatus and its wall street enablers is a desperate race to achieve near
technological parity with….(pregnant pause) (dramatic pause) other entities, species, e.t. collectives,
etc, who are visiting sol 3 (earth). This effort is extremely expensive and involves spending
trillions of dollars covertly to build spacecraft and weapons systems based on both advanced
human originated technology and also technology from the reverse engineering of recovered alien
vehicles.
Many people belive that securities fraud funds this effort. It sounds crazy, but, YES, building
trillion dollar weapon systems and spaceships is at the core of the secrecy cult. Nothing else
makes sense. What else could possibly require siphoning trillions out of the US economy? Many
many authors are written on the subject and it is most definitely NOT a joke. Yes, Bill, lets
ask the awkward questions.
Is there a secret space program funded via securities fraud? Have we received help from ET
visitors?
One man who asked the awkward question was Congressman Steve Schiff of New Mexico. He asked
the Congressional General Accounting Office to inquire about the alleged Roswell alien craft
recovery. He got the USAF to give us a third story – (first was a disc, second a weather baloon
and third was project mogul) This all took place in the mid 90's.
He was only about 50 yrs old when he caught agressive skin cancer. He resigned from congress
and was dead soon after. He was 51.
aTomsLife
I disagree that Mr. Lofren's article provokes apathy. It sheds light on the duopoly that is
the two-party system and encourages voters to seek an alternative, namely a more libertarian,
decentralized form of government.
"Overwhelming Congressional skepticism" to Syria included party-line Democrats as well: Unlike
the usual D vs. R bickering, it was D's and R's forced to contradict the military industrial
complex. It was a powerful moment.
Syria proved the American people - and perhaps only the American people - are capable of muzzling
the Deep State. The only reason we didn't intervene there was because constituencies throughout
the country stood united, not because of potential international condemnation. The irony of Putin's
victory is that he achieved it because he had the backing of the American people. He morphed
into our de-facto representative.
Even for the plutocrats, Putin represented the the lesser of two evils. It would have been
a catastrophic loss of face to have to admit that D.C. remains beholden to the American people
when, united, we're unwilling to follow the script.
Until there's meaningful campaign finance reform, "it really doesn't matter who's in charge."
That's the simple truth. But it's a reason to become more engaged in politics, not less.
J Timothy
One of the problems with dealing with the intelligence services is that they have people embeded
within the media to get their point of view across. So, when Moyers talks about asking "Awkward
Questions" he underestimates how difficult this is.
Ed Bernays and Walter Lippman were the gentleman geniuses who showed us that marketing and
propaganda could be used to manage public opinion without limits.
Yes, lets ask the awkward questions. What is so important to the military-industrial-complex
that it needs to siphon, literally, trillions of dollars out of the US economy?
One man asked an awkward question. His name was Congressman Steve Schiff. After he asked his
question, he died of agressive skin cancer. He was 51 years old. Sure. It cold have been coincidence.
But he was the only one asking awkward questions at the time and he was the only one who got
agressive skin cancer. Meanwhile, the CIA's top spooks like George HW Bush and Kissinger are
still alive into their 90's. Go figure.
http://daybrown.org Dale H. (Day) Brown
Mother Nature bats last. When we look at the list of empires crashed because bad weather ruined
crops, we see it includes all of them. People will put up with appalling corruption- until they
are hungry. The Deep State has not picked up on the risk of unusual weather on agriculture, altho
the price of crop insurance rose dramatically. Agribusiness will do fine with govt checks, but
people cant eat insurance.
Part of the problem is that ag policy is set to reduce the cost of the hobby operations of
politicians, like Bush's ranch, but failing to support the backbone of American agriculture,
the family farm. The average age of farmers now is over 60, and because of land speculation by
friends of elected representatives, the next generation cant afford to buy farms. The result
is land owned by absent aristocracy and worked by men whose only interest is their immediate
benefit and not the condition of land to be inherited by sons.
Another of the many reasons we need a Gnu Party not run by lawyers.
Thomas Milligan
Can't blame you for feeling ripped off. You have been. We all have been, except for those
in the very top income brackets. Lofgren does a pretty good job of detailing the forces that
have perpetrated the heist. I've come to call it The Money; it includes the actors Lofgren details,
plus billionaire types like the Koch brothers and Richard Mellon Scaife, plus the mainstream
media (even much of PBS, unfortunately), which has become the Ministry of Propaganda for The
Money. All Is Well. The USA Is Number 1. The Government Is Keeping Us Safe from Terrorism. Buy
More Stuff. Whistleblowers Are Traitors. The Economy Is Recovering. Buy More Stuff. If Things
Aren't Getting Better for You It's Because You're a Loser. So Buy More Stuff.
Don't romanticize the '50's too much. The discontent that exploded in the 60's was just under
the surface even then. To the extent that it was "better" then it was because the prosperity
of the nation *was* more broadly shared. A single "breadwinner" (usually Dad) could feed a family,
with enough left over to save for old age, and Mom was available to nurture the kids. Do you
know *any* families for whom that could be true today? And the mainstream media was populated
by actual journalists rather than mouthpieces for The Money who look good in suits and understand
what their owners want said. Bill Moyers, obviously, is an exception to this rule. One of the
few.
I'm surprised you're not angry. You have every reason to be.
Thomas Milligan
Mr. Lofgren does a pretty good job of detailing the forces that have perpetrated the sad parody
of self-government into which our nation has devolved, but he left out a couple. I've come to
calling the whole thing "The Money." It includes the actors Lofgren details, plus billionaire
types like Scaife and the Koch brothers, plus the mainstream media (even much of PBS, unfortunately),
which has become the Ministry of Propaganda for The Money and the so-called "Washington Consensus."
Where once we had journalists, now we have (with the almost-sole exception of Bill Moyers) pretty
people who look good in suits and like to be on TV, reading the scripts they're given.
Anonymous
Well, that's rather a 'rose colored glasses' view of the Tea Party given their current platform
position. While I agree there are some redeeming qualities – not because I deem them to be but
because they do contribute to the discussion – But, by-n-large the solutions offered by the Tea
Party platform will only serve to weaken any hopes of salvaging the Democracy. One such example
is this meme that 'all Govt. is bad' which only someone disingenuous would suggest does not prominently
inhabit the TP. Another would be the position on so called 'entitlements'. Yet another would
be the Tea Party backing of the likes of Ted Cruz or Rand Paul who adopt a position on health
care that is antithetical toward a robust Democracy. (And spare me the notion that private enterprise
provides better health care etc. – it's simply untrue and there's no evidence to support these
fictions.).
One has to examine a few things about the Tea Party – It is quite clear why individuals such
as the Koch brothers have gone to great lengths to fund the Tea Party because it is the entrenched
Plutocrats and Corporate elite who benefit the most from a weakened Govt. Many TP members see
their quality of life eroding and have chosen to go after the wrong entity why? Well, those reasons
are numerous – for some it is fear, for others racism, others an inability to grasp the weight
of their decisions, etc. and Irrespective of their reasons the actions of the party, quite ironically,
will only strengthen the grasp of the very problems you wish to suggest they will address. While
a nice sentiment to feel the Tea Party could work with others the reality is much different.
Anonymous
Wow, how do you create such a canvas of revisionist history? I also found it quite tragic
that you espouse 'we need to stop this R vs L' dichotomy but you make every effort to assault
the left – exclusively. While that would be with merit if it were true (indeed both parties have
played a role in where we now sit) it becomes quite another matter when viewed against, oh idk,
the backdrop of reality. A.) Historically it is regulation that keeps corporate interests in
check and deregulation promotes the 'crony capitalism' you mention. It's hysterical to assume
the inverse. B.) Progressive policies have, again in reality, led to the greatest moments of
growth and prosperity in this country. I"m sorry you don't believe those facts. And, why didn't
you mention the inequality gap on steroids since Reagan? or the Bush tax cuts that benefitted
the richest Americans? Or the subsidization of big pharma. and big oil? Both parties have no
interest in representing people without money and every incentive not to. But, don't prattle
on this nonsense about the dangers of progressivism. it's ill-thought and smells of ideological
belief hungering to trump facts and history; it smells.
Anonymous
It is quite disheartening and the road forward most uncertain. I'm fairly confident those
you allude to will not act from a position of reason and evidence that is fact based. I cannot,
for the life of me, imagine circumstances in which those guided by fantasy, belief, and hate
(one or all) will shift ideological positions and address the problems that inhabit this country
by the corporate state. Individuals like Ted Cruz, Jamie Dimon (more subtly), the Koch brothers
are gifted in their cunning ability to take advantage of these, what Thom Hartmann calls 'low
information voters' – I've little reason for optimism and plenty of evidence for pessimism without
hope.
Anonymous
After reading this all I can say God help us. I think I can speak for millions of Americans
who grew up in a different country. We use to believe that hard work, play by the rules and everything
would work out for the Middleclass American. All could share in the American dream. Those beliefs
are not what I hear anymore. Apathy and fear are rampant..I fear for the country my children
with inherit.
fenway67
yeah, i don't think that is his main point. it's the corporations and the banks that have
infiltrated and that is the fault of both sides of the aisle. The author notes that the bipartisan
divide is mostly noise obscuring the bigger picture.
fenway67
i am hopeful that firstlook.org will be a source of honest journalism. Scahill, Poitras, Greenwald
and Taibbi are real journalists working toward finding the truth.
Anonymous
Wars forced us into debt slavery to the Big banks that financed them, thus we are slaved to
the NWO BANKS and corporations Federal Reserve Banks buys and owns most of our debt, they are
international now We are controlled by the bankers and the secret NWO financial network running
the governments of the world. Everything trickles down from these taskmasters. Follow the money
and everything is controlled by where it leads. Globalization, one financial system running the
world into their vision of one world government controlled by their big money. They been ruling
us for a long time now. CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM would fix us election process and would scare
them knowing they can't put their bag men in office anymore.
Anonymous
So you believe the blame for big government lies only with the liberals? Give me a break.
Here are just four Presidents who expanded Government. They are named Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and
Bush. Flaming liberals to you I would assume.
John Gregor
Looking forward to odering some of those books. Have read all Foucault's books. The author
wrote quite a nice essay about contemporay American politics. Our majot export seems to be Dollars,
like manure they have some value, but I imagine alot of the people who are getting them are not
entirely happy
Anonymous
I saw Mike on c-span Sunday and enjoyed his comments, and now reading this piece I have trouble
with a GOP former congressional analysis troubled about how the govt is working or not working
beginning in 2009.
As with many of former GOP legislators or analysts never do they dig deeper into the underlying
problems that cause the congress to not work. Mentioning the Deep State reminds me of Washington
Post investigation exposing the 2nd govt in DC. It's where all the retired legislators or lost
elections legislators, the congressional staff, the retired military generals go. They pop up
in media (tv, radio, newspapers) spewing out a talking point for their respective 2nd govt think
tank in DC. C-span is a major platform that they use, and 99% of them promote some corporation
dealing with the 1st govt.
Too bad we don't see the name tags of the corporations they represent. Now that we have citizens
united we're back into the age of the Robber Barons.
Andrew Kloak
This insightful essay shows that Silicon Valley is not be what it claims to be. Neither is
Wall Street or the massive build-up of federal government power around Washington, D.C.
The article also alludes to the notion that these companies in Silicon Valley are waking and
trying to resist Deep State regime. California can't save American society. We are only 12% of
the entire population. Plus, they don't want to, they have to answer to shareholders. Profit
is the highest good for companies and government. They want influence and money.
All this is like marionette theatre. James Clapper from the NSA used misdirection when reporters
started to zero-in on the scale of the deception and breach of trust last Fall. Enormous change
is just ahead but not without enormous turmoil. People intuitively know that national security
and corporate power are worn out dogmas.
There is an urgency to all this. Many of these people in these positions of power have no
soul. It doesn't have to be this way, it just is. I think they want it this bad because they
profit and garner influence when it is this ineffectual.
The biggest changes are within anyway. We have to go deeper in ourselves. That shift in consciousness
is already underway. The confluence of forces will sweep away these external constructs. The
hidden factors not discussed in the article are the unconscious forces (emotion). Once people
are more aware of the light and darkness in themselves things will open up. There is dynamic
tension (a good thing) in each person. Self-awareness, integrity and connection to others will
change everything.
This article makes interesting connections to something that is hidden in plain sight. It will change.
richard anderson
I have been giving the political system another chance since Vietnam. Each time we have an
election I hear some good things. But when these people are in office they change. When Ralph
Nader ran for office he was kept out by various means and not allowed to debate. The system is
rigged. This talk of voting for the right person is not going to cut it. With the problems this
deep and the protection that has been set up to keep this system in place there is NOT a way
to change it. In other words voting will not work. Something more is needed. Demonstrations don't
work either. Just look at how long the Vietnam war was protested and when Bush stumped for invasion
of Iraq. They didn't care. Resistance may be the answer.
Anonymous
Rothschild family made their banking trillions beginning from financing Napoleon's wars up
until now. Their family owns media houses, governments, etc and their influence knows no bounds.
You will never see their family listed on Forbes richest people lists because they own the media
and do not want to see their names or advertise their wealth. The Bankers truly own the world
and War debt was the fastest way to do it.
Anonymous
lol. good comment and link.
I will be interested in seeing what First Look does, but I really don't trust the bazillionaire
who is starting it up – or at least his motives. Once a plutocrat, always a plutocrat. I predict
it will start like Arianna Huffington's HuffPo, initially game changing and valuable, then slowly
just another click generating tabloid profit machine with a bubble like mentality forced on contributers,
moderators and commentors alike. Time will tell.
Ellie
We have all this information, but nothing ever comes of it! No one goes to jail The laws are
changed to help the criminals . We still have a two party system which is a joke. Unless people
are hungry and cold and willing to die for a cause nothing is going to change in this country.
J.G. Sandom
We have become almost as much a plutocracy as our former Cold War nemesis, Russia. Tech, Big
Oil and Wall Street oligarchs, combined with the military-industrial complex (which Eisenhower
tried to warn us against) collude (in spirit, if not in actual boardrooms) to keep the people's
power in check via libertarian deregulation, union-busting, Citizens United (and other activist
SCOTUS rulings), privatization of the Intelligence Community (IC), the opiate of digital media
that pushes the idolatry of money & all things celebrity to distract us, and our collective fear
of terrorism (hence our perpetual war footing). This is what my forthcoming novel, 404, is all
about-not just how IP tech is invading our lives, but how this invasion is a metaphor for the
larger invasion. (HAL2, in my book, IS what Mike Lofgren calls the Deep State.) Wake up, America!
Our country is being stolen from us in plain sight. Thank you Bill Moyers, and thank you Mike
Lofgren for helping to alert the American public. You are 21st century Paul Reveres! Al Qaeda
is less of a threat to America because of some future possible terrorist threat, and more because
the collective American fear it engenders helps the Deep State sink its claws more effectively
into our national flesh.
Anonymous
What rings clear is we now have a non-elected government operating outside our constitutional
government and is purposely gridlocked. Our government and judicial system have been hijacked
and steps must be taken to remove Big Hidden money that is controlling our constitutional government.
Great interview Bill, thanks as always!
Jack Wolf
Mike forgot something. There is a simple fact that rules the deep state, the reformists, and
the declinests, whether they accept it or not: Natural Law. Abrupt climate change can not be
controlled now. To suggest that any of these groups are in control or have the ability to make
substantial change belies what is really going on. From now on, all these groups can only react
and as far as I can tell, today will be the best day of the rest of our lives. It's all downhill
from here and there is irreversible.
Thomas Milligan
Oh, I know about those guys and I love what they do. The trouble is, somehow *their* work
doesn't, as a rule, get picked up, amplified and developed in the mass media the way, say "Watergate"
was back when we had real journalists. Meanwhile every load of BS that comes out of the Heritage
Foundation, Cato et. al. somehow becomes received wisdom. I'm also a bit concerned that by going
off on their own they're setting themselves up to be marginalized and ignored. Trees may fall,
but very few people will hear them.
Thomas Milligan
Somehow your response above… to *my* response… to your original post… got posted under a *separate*
post I offered… scroll down far enough, you'll find your original post & my response.
Can't blame you for wanting to shield your children. The thing is, you can't, neither from
the anger nor from global climate change. I have grandchildren and grieve when I look at them
for the world they're apparently going to inhabit.
One last thing: it's possible… theoretically at least… to have anger without hatred. Anger
at what's been done can be a spur to action… and effective action could be taken while still
treating the perpetrators with the compassion we know all sentient beings deserve. I'm not sure
*I* could manage it because truth to tell I'm not a very good Christian… or Buddhist either…
but it's at least theoretically possible.
Thomas Milligan
Good point about our old nemesis, The Evil Empire.
I always found it ironic that as the Soviet Union was collapsing, the United States was moving
toward one-party rule. You can write the Nov. 5 headline right now: "Republocrats Win Yet Again!"
fenway67
Agreed, the MSM has a vested interest in having their product on the shelf at eye-level and
it's hard for the little guy to buy space in this market. I'll be doing my part by re-posting
and tweeting important stories that they cover and I just hope the quality will get them noticed.
I'm sure the smear campaign against them will begin soon.
fenway67
I wasn't aware of his motives beyond providing a platform for real journalists. What have
you heard? I am hopeful that the high quality work of the people he has hired so far will keep
it in the same company as the Moyers people.
Kenneth Killiany
This is an issue that concerns me greatly actually. Both sides have adopted policies that
have fed it. I find it interesting that you mention Allen Drury, who was my uncle. Al was a dogged
reporter, uncovering, in his day, the Manhattan Project, which he did not report on because of
World War II. Should he have? He never doubted his judgment. However, he was very concerned about
how the State just grew and operated on its won. You can see mentions of it in ADVISE AND CONSENT
and MARK COFFIN, where he discusses the whole public-private daisy chain and how irresponsible
it is. It's true, you can't get drama out of it, but he mentions it, but in PENTAGON, he wrote
a whole book about a bureaucracy can be diverted from what it is meant to do by concerns for
its own prerogatives. A&C and MARK COFFIN have just been re-released, and PENTAGON will follow
next year. This kind of reporting in your article is the kind he admired and it is a great service.
freelance-writer
A.k.a.:Ukraine 2014. Though there are many factors and stake-holders at work in the Ukraine
issue, it behooves the citizenry of all western nations tainted by the same `deep-state' tyranny
to bear witness. It will take bricks against bullets to resolve this global crisis once and for
ever.
Mary Brown
The only terrorists we have to face in the USA are our own government and the ones that government
is purposely importing to continue their reign of fear. Problem is a large part of America is
now well armed and a terrorist would die rather quickly long before any government police forces
arrives.
Len
Most of us frogs are in a pot of water that is getting hotter and hotter and we don't feel
it. As quoted from this essay "After a while, a functionary of the state begins to hear things that, in another context, would be quite remarkable, or at least noteworthy, and yet that simply bounce off one's consciousness like pebbles off steel plate". Replace "a functionary of the state"
with "we the people".
This essay was terrific.
Anonymous
I am worried that the boiling pot will lead to the elimination of Social Security. For years
now politicians been saying it will end to each generation. When it does, a very high percentage
of Americans will be at poverty level. I don't want to be living in American cities when that
happens, crime and robberies will be common place.
Anonymous
Yes, this is not a new development… The funny thing is that Bill Moyers' Iran-Contra era expose
entitled "The Secret Government" actually covers this subject better than the piece we are commenting
on. And iirc, he interviews Peter Dale Scott about the CIA in that report…
Anonymous
There is a world of difference between bailouts and nationalization. I cannot begin to quantify
the folly of calling this system "Marxist" when the party on the left of the two party system
has moved so far to the right as to make Eisenhower seem like Trotsky by comparison.
Anonymous
For Gods sake, not this again. What Banking family who made the bulk of their fortune from
War debt and being worth $500 Trillion dollars are you referring to? Everybody is afraid to print
anything on these influential banking members. Their influence in this world has no bounds. As
we all know Bankers always protect their money and are devising new ways to make more money.
If you naively think that Bankers in this world are Godly benevolent people, you better look
around the state of the world again and formulate a revised opinion. but there you go, I got
my opinion and you have yours and we will respectfully leave it as that. Thanks for your comment!
Anonymous
Last time I looked capitalism is buying and bought our election process. In fact, in the past
the main focus of our government has been on business priorities and concerns. Doesn't look anything
as Marxism to me.
Jimmy Solomon
I read this article and watched your interview. Both are most enlightened. What happened,
however, on the eleventh day of the ninth month thirteen years ago was clearly a result of this
deep state and it is too bad you won't recognize this glaring example of the corruption of which
you write.
Anonymous
"the party on the left of the two party system"
There is little or no difference between the two faces of the party of state power. They use
different words, and then enact the same policies.
Politics is about power, nothing more. There is no "left" or "right", only power.
Antonio Germano
Again, what filibusters? You have provided no examples. Except for the (unfortunately) pathetic
attempts of Cruz, Paul and Lee to derail Obamacare and the recent debt ceiling/government shutdown
(I wish) affair, where has there been any effective Republican opposition to any of Obama's agenda? You are typical of the person who blames one side for our problems, when it's both sides (i.e.,
the government) that is the problem. Both sides are playing their respective constituencies like
a Stradivarius. get over your obsession with partisanship and see the real issue – the whole
system is corrupt and needs to be abolished. Your pining for 'majority rules' is a recipe for tyranny. The filibuster rules were put into
place to prevent temporary majorities from steam-rolling temporary minorities. I think it should
be even harder to pass laws, not easier, so mischief is avoided. I repeat – the State is the enemy of us all. get over blaming one side or the other. You are
being played.
Anonymous
amazing that such a powerful article was written. too bad its several years too late, and
ever so slightly off the mark. you need to let go of the rhetoric of bipartisanship. the DNC
and GOP establishments are both operating on the same basic policies. while they offer crumbs
to their bases, they are both pushing the agenda of the deep state.they are both to blame, and
until people declare that both have no clothes, the powers behind the curtain will continue to
rule.
Anonymous
Thanks, well said.
There's also the "Shallow State" of American campaign consultants like David Axelrod and Mark
Penn who make big money in places like Ukraine and Georgia because the locals assume they wield
influence over their clients in Washington. If American foreign policy became less aggressive,
foreigners wouldn't pay them so much money:
"F]inancialization, outsourcing, privatization, deregulation and the commodifying of labor." Yes, "commodifying of labor" thanks to Teddyquiddick pushing the 1965 Hart-Cellers act that began
the importation of million Third World unskilled laborers per year, thanks also to the Deep State
paralyzing all efforts of us, the People, to force our so-called "representatives" to close,
fortify, and defend our borders – to stop the massive flow of scores of millions of illegal immigrants.
Immigration has done more to stagnate and reduce Americans' wages and to destroy what had been
our historically unprecedented middle class affluence and economic-political power. Objective One for those of us who would dismantle the Deep State and restore our democracy is
obvious: Stop All Immigration. Accomplish this by these measures: one, end birthright citizenship
(and thus also end birth tourism); two, abolish State Department power to import refugees and
government funding of NGO's that "resettle" refugees; deport all illegal aliens; impose massive,
draconian fines on employers that hire illegal alien labor. Why are these measures Objective
One? Simple: when we allow our Dear Rulers to displace and dispossess us on our own soil, we
forfeit – we surrender – our power to control our representatives and their appointees and their
wealth transfer from ourselves to foreigners.
Mil
This is just a small list. But it at least provides some of the examples you are asking to
see.
This is not a revelation. Noam Chomsky has been pointing this out clearly for the past 40
years… There a couple public documents that might help explain to the educated class exactly
what has been going in the U.S. for the past 40 years… The Powell Memo written by Lewis Powell
in 71 and the Crisis of Democracy a document publicly published by the Trilateral Commission
in the mid 70's these are both damning omissions by powerful groups that control both the business
world and governments at all levels of governance. These two documents that we know about are
internal look at the dogma of the ruling class.. Neo Liberalism is the term they used but it
sure aint new and it sure aint liberal. It just another way for the ruling class to re-institute
Feudalism.
Anonymous
What you say is essentially true. Fascism by definition is the merger of corporations and
the military. Another amusing quote: "A capitalist will sell you the rope you hang him with."
Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
These Deep State proponents will succeed in fully displaying their stupidity when the global
environment collapses under the weight and consequence of their actions and humanity becomes
extinct. In the meantime, they will be having fun and braying like jackasses as they descend
into the abyss.
Anonymous
What about the level of organization required to create the Trilateral Commission and its
formal takeover of the US executive branch when Carter took office? The majority of the cabinet
(all but one) were Trilateralists in the newly created group of only 300 worldwide members. Trilateralists
were placed in high level international corporate and political positions and this paradigm holds
today. Scholars Antony Sutton and Patrick Wood wrote extensively on this international power
dynamic with its influence now extending to every part of the globe. It was Trilateralist Larry
Summers, former US Secretary of Treasury and Goldman Sachs executive, who was sent to Russia
when it's economy imploded to advise Putin on how to privatize the Russian peoples' state owned
assets leading the to rise of eight powerful oligarchs with internationalist sensibilities, a
very deliberate centralization of capital and a means to control Russian political power players.
From the beginning of the transfer of the US manufacturing sector to China, it became Brzezinski's
model Technocracy, Brzezinski being the a founder of the Trilateralists, Carter's National Security
Adviser, and author of The Grand Chessboard. (reference: Patrick Wood's augustforecast.com) These
actions and the concomitant level of organization goes beyond the Deep State model.
Anonymous
.. if there were no abuses by the IRS, then why did IRS official Lois Lerner plead the fifth
? If my boss asked me to explain possible abuses of power at my job and I pleaded the fifth,
my new office would be on the curb.
Anonymous
The meetings happen in Rancho Mirage and other places for Koch Brothers, and ALEC, etc. They
are the ones paying the Pols and they definitely meet and plan conspiracies to disenfranchise
voters. And, William Pepper wrote a book that reveals the conspiracies within those security
agencies that control pols. It is great the Lofgren is talking about the Deep State. But, to
deny the conspiracies within it is naive. The crashing of the Obama garden party by Robert Gates
associates is a case in point. The Supreme Court ultimately is the last point of call to stop
this Deep State within all the branches. They have judicial oversight, and they are not using
it.
scratphd
The great swamp philosopher Pogo got it right. "I have meet the enemy and he is us." A complacent America.
Christanne
Lofgren: What America lacks is a figure with the serene self-confidence to tell
us that the twin idols of national security and corporate power are
outworn dogmas that have nothing more to offer us. Thus disenthralled,
the people themselves will unravel the Deep State with surprising speed.
This essay echoes Ivan Illich's "Tools for Convivality," which, although written in the '70s
is even more applicable today. This is not new. Lofgren is an important wedge to cauterize the
deep state and dispell delusions of unending "progress." However, I don't see any evidence for
his assertion that the people themselves will unravel the Deep State. What we've done so far
is just buy a new toy, both literally and figuratively, even when so many of us are going hungry.
Anonymous
Excellent essay. A very good (semi-) insider's look at happenings within the Beltway. However,
my instinct tells me that the real nexus of power doesn't lie there, but that the Deep State
operatives are allowed to continue their game-playing at public expense in order to serve a larger
agenda–the ultimate bankrupting of the US and the ushering in of a new world order which has
been in the making for centuries by the real powers-that-be. Uber-conspiratorial? Maybe, but
I just can't shake the feeling.
The One
There is no doubt that the great american experiment has ended in ruin. There is hope on the
horizon though. Due to technological progression and its rapid increase in power, the very fabric
of society will change. Our social and economic models must change radically due to technological
improvements. There is no end in sight to the technological pace we have been blazing at, and
if there is an end it seems to be distant. The tremendous benefits of creative AI and the automation
of white and blue collar workers must be built into a new social and economic model in which
the benefits are distributed evenly and equally among the peoples of planet earth. Even now,
if we used our technology wisely, we could unshackle large swaths of the labor markets with automated
robots.
The current state of unimaginable corruption which is inflicting the world, not just the US,
is a dying last grasp for air as the oligarchies face a new powerful threat, the connection of
all things. The internet has the power to upend these corrupt power structures which lie at the
heart of society, and thus at the heart of every human life on this planet. Our current economic
model is not situated in reality. I can't say if the market will be up or down tomorrow, but
what I know for certain is that earth is 196.9 million square miles. Which is a finite space.
Not a good place for an economic model which requires economic expansion for survival. The labor
markets will be greatly dis-stressed due to technological displacement. The current scientific
revolution is unlike any that has ever happened on the surface of this planet. Even highly skilled
workers such as surgeons have the capacity to be replaced by highly advanced robots specializing
in surgery. People will see awaken to the fact that this "annoying high unemployment" is actually
the new normal and will only get worse. This REQUIRES a new economic model.
If a business refused to integrate their business with the latest automation technology, a
rival that had enough foresight to not oversee this would drive his competitor out of business.
Then, in our current economic model, that rival that just won the market would reap all the rewards.
BUT, it will also be in the best interest of that company, if in some new economic manner, a
portion of those profits would go into a general citizens fund which would provide all humans
with a basic income. This type of model will be absolutely necessary due to mass unemployment.
This leaves the motive for profit intact which also leads a motive for innovation, creation,
and competition that humans need. With scarcity gone, and universal income for all, the future
will look very very bright for our young human species. The seas of interstellar space beckon.
Anonymous
"…another thing" – yup – if they changed the rule so they could get what they claimed was
their agenda passed, the Reps might have been able to do the same – however the Reps could do
that anyway themselves if they regained power –
In any case, what does that say about a Party that would refuse to advance a decent agenda
just so the other party couldn't advance its own at another date – in essence, cutting off our
noses to spite the Reps face – they could have done what they knew we sent them there to do,
and they refused, hiding behind rules they could have changed – more and more folks are waking
up …
ISTM it oughta be obvious by now that this "struggle" between the Reps and the Dems isn't
about principle or ideology and it certainly isn't about representing us – it is about who gets
to be in charge of handing out the perks and who gets the perks – those in power are the ones
who get both ….
Charles Shaver
Nice to keep learning of a plethora of ambiguous symptoms but, short of too costly general
strikes or domestic insurrection, only voting proved corrupt politicians of both major parties
out of high office every other November will eventually restore legal functionality to the U.S.
Government. So, vote in every general election and vote against those who stray. 'How to know'
one might ask? Simply vote 'out with the old; in with the new,' every time, until we have the
kind of America the Founders prescribed in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution.
Anonymous
It only depends on your definition of "the US." Yes, a panel of CEOs famously declined Ralph
Nader's invitation to join him in the Pledge of Allegiance, but in the State Department memo
that outlined the policy of containment of the USSR, George Kennan said the vast wealth disparity
between the US and the rest of the world must be maintained, while civil rights and democracy
could be neglected.
By then, the post-World War One idealists who'd joined calls for socialism and one-world government,
to prevent another such catastrophe, had seen things differently once Russia turned Eastrrn Europe
into a barricade against further invasions from the West. They could not bring themselves to
reb against their banker fathers, but they still believed in a one-world government – it would
simply be the government of the United States. The entire world would be brought into the economc
system we ran, no matter what citizens and their elected governments wanted.
During the Cold War, NATO was used to bring European intelligence agencies and militaries
under domnance by the CIA and the Pentagon. Putting ordnance, money and men in place to resist
a Soviet takeover made perfect sense, but it operated in peacetime to keep left-wingers out of
Continental governments. We overthrew an Italian government, for example. Not by ourselves, of
course: the secret "stay-behind" troops were nitorious right-wing fanatics, who could be trusted
to carry out their missions regardless of law, Constitutionality or morality. False-flag shootings
and bombings in public squares and supermarkets killed many innocent civilians and were blamed
on leftist radical groups which had been thoroughly penetrated already anyway. This was to win
public support for stricter security policies and, perhaps, punish citizens for voting in liberal-to-left
governments. This was admitted in the Italian parliament by the Prime Minister in 1990. Operation
GLADIO, as it was called, involved every NATO country. Investigations were promised, but were
aborted or came to mothing.
This is what Putin knows will happen if Ukraine joins NATO, for instance, so don't expect
him to take it lying down. He operates a Russian version.
In the US, a group of Wall Street financiers discussed literally overthrowing FDR in order
to end the New Deal regulatory state, but didn't get past the talking stage. The Senate held
hearings but J. Edgar Hoover declined to investigate becayse "no crime was committed." This is
the same FBI director who opened pressure dossiers on citizens who carried protest signs or wrote
letters to newspapers or the government opposing our war policies, and tried to get Martin Luthed
King to commit suicide.
Note the secrecy surrounding current trade-agreement negotiations, and accompanying high security.
This dates back to the fiaco of the world trade talks in Seattle some years ago, when street
protests neatly brought them to a halt. An Italian citizen was killed during protests against
trade talks in Genoa yeats later.
Anonymous
This was a superb essay–one I have been awaiting for years. One minor addition: there is another
non DOD component to the aforementioned group, which is DOE. Admittedly, it's rather easy to forget about them–but one should not. Ever.
Anonymous
But I really wonder if voting is a sufficient tool for the citizenry to tell the government
what it thinks. Elections are not very frequent, they are deeply manipulated by complex "strategists" (look at
the connection between the now-slowly-debunked gay marriage referenda and the re-election of
Bush Jr). Though I find it tedious and at times inefficient I wouldn't mind being part of a citizenry like
France that literally shuts the country down until the government says "uncle".
Anonymous
I believe the fourth estate and the way the US government interacts with it have a lot to
do with the opacity of the veil I find floating between myself and whatever happens inside the
beltway.
The US government keeps journalists begging for the tiniest crumbs. No one is willing to leak
anything for fear of being caught.
When I asked a friend in the diplomatic corps what was the most striking about his stint in
DC he said the depth at which government officials changed with each new administration compared
to other countries. DC's moving business is booming beyond anything imaginable. This is also
a tidy way to keep a tight grip on "messaging" – a skill each administration seems to get better
and better at.
There is a reason wikileaks has emerged and parody has replaced the stale format of the evening
news.
Charles Shaver
Voting is still an effective tool. Unfortunately, statistically, a majority of manipulated
voters will only dirty their hands to install and re-install soluble Democrats and Republicans
when seeking water tight integrity; insane, by Einstein's definition. Now is well past the best
time to make some real repairs but, perhaps, not yet too late to save a sinking ship. And, shutting
the engine down won't plug the leaks.
Pat Kittle
We Americans are already plenty overcrowded, but Israel lobby billionaires want open borders
and they've paid big bucks to both Republicans & Democrats. So open borders and endless population
growth it is, ecological sustainability be damned.
And don't give me that "anti-Semitic" hooey, I'm just stating facts.
Zuckerberg, Bloomberg, Soros, Gelbaum, Adelson, etc., etc., Israel lobby, all of them.
No serious discussion of the "deep state" would ignore that elephant in the living room.
Anonymous
This is not a valid critique. The Deep State serves organized wealth and works to further
increase inequality and social stratification. Thus the Deep State represents entrenched right-wing
power. It is a matter of state capture. Both parties support this consensus and are thus supremely
conservative. The same goes for the media which is owned by these same centers of organized wealth.
Matt P.
It's not a matter of keeping one's mouth shut, but actions speak louder than words. Being
angry and contentious all the time is not the same as being productive about the issues you believe
in. Whenever I see an inequality in the street, on the subway, or at a party I react. I stand
up for the person, I intervene and get involved. The rest of the time I do keep my mouth shut
because there's nothing to say. It doesn't help anyone to spread unhappiness around. In fact
it drains your energy so you're not ready or as effective for the next opportunity.
Sean Kurnow
I get a laugh at people who yell, whine and complain about politicians and party politics….It's
like yelling at a ventriloquist dummy instead of the person controlling it. America became a
plutocracy in 1913 when the Federal Reserve was created. Since then, we all know that special
interest groups control almost every aspect of government policy.
Anonymous
I will assume you simply did not understand what I wrote or what 'slouching' wrote – ironic
eh? Lets remove Thom Hartmann from the equation, as it seems to be where you flew off the rails…what
then is your defense of the idiots we allude to?
Anonymous
I well understand the argument about brainwashing – have heard it a gazillion times ….
The "idiots" you refer to – who are these folk? And while the corp media was brainwashing them, what were the rest of us doing? Sitting on
our hands?
Bill Wesley
well for once I have no comment, its not required in that the writer has made the case with
expert precision, I find no flaws, no omissions, no theory or dogma obstructing the writers view.
Its nice to see such well presented intellectual compitance, it allows me to feel relief, I can
take a break since others are seen to be on the ball
FroboseTF
Charles: Voting used to be an effective tool. Unfortunately with the advent of "Electronic Voting Machines"
which must be "Programmed", and leave no paper trail to allow a recount; I fear that if the truth
be known our elections are probably rigged on a regular basis to reflect the will of those in
actual power now.
I believe it was Joseph Stalin who said "It's not who casts the votes that's important. It's
who counts them.
Anonymous
Actually, it was a Mossad (Israeli Intel)/US Intel op. US organized it and funded the Al Qaeda
end of it via Paki intel officer General Mahmoud Ahmed, while the Mossad prepped the US targets
and ran the anthrax mail op. I'm not sure that Mossad didn't dream it up in the first place,
but, whatever the details, Al Qaeda was definitely just a bit player in the op with the real
culprits being our own fearless leaders.
Reuben_the_Red
Winner-takes-all elections (as opposed to proportional representation) and the Electoral College
are inherently undemocratic and present the illusion of voter participation without the danger
of undue voter influence.
Reuben_the_Red
Excellent discussion of the intersection of money, power, and early 21st century technology
in the US today. Food for thought, especially paired with Moyer's recent documentary about ALEC.
One caveat: Paragraph 21 starts out saying, "the Deep State is so heavily entrenched, so well
protected by surveillance, firepower, money and its ability to co-opt resistance that it is almost impervious to change," but in paragraph 22, "there are signs of resistance to the
Deep State and its demands." Paragraph 21 has already made the case that resistance is irrelevant
and impotent in the face of the Deep State apparatus, power/wealth reserves, and democracy-subverting
methodology. And that's probably true. There may be no way to actually extricate the Deep State
from The Superficial State.
We are left in the final few paragraphs with a series of reasons that the Deep State might
reverse course voluntarily, or unravel of its own accord, but in the end what we really need
is "a figure with the serene self-confidence to tell us that the twin idols of national security and corporate power are outworn dogmas that have nothing more to offer us": in other words, some kind of charismatic,
messianic Jesus-person, to save us from ourselves. I don't object to the author trying to end
with a hopeful note of optimism, but how would this person reach us with that message? Are there
not already a host of people who have been saying exactly that for decades, from Noam Chomsky
to Angela Davis, from Daniel Quinn to Arundhati Roy, from Mark Twain to John Lennon? Have we
not managed to ignore and disregard a notable and widely-published list of people trying to tell
us that national security and corporate power are outworn dogmas that do nothing to elevate humanity
nor the human condition?
"Thus disenthralled, the people themselves will unravel the Deep State with surprising speed." It seems clear that
we will be forever enthralled with our credit scores and our televised sporting events and other
televised virtual realities until the government of the US actually collapses due to a variety
of currently known and unknown factors (economic, ecological, etc). And that's not gonna be pretty
either. And even then there is the further possibility that in such an event of complete destabilization
(not unthinkable, has happened throughout history, around the world), the Deep State could become
simply The State.
Reuben_the_Red
Agreed. Presumably there is no incentive in the Deep State to undermine the omnipotence of
the Deep State.
There are ways to increase voter participation (non-participation fines and penalties as I
understand Australians are subject to; make voting day a federal holiday or even better a three-day
weekend; give the right to vote back to felons and inmates alike; etc.) but wouldn't we still
be left to choose between Tweedledum and Tweedledee?
Charles Shaver
I haven't voted for Tweedledee or Tweedledum for President since Ronald Reagan and, since
learning of Gramm-Leach-Bliley in 2012, I don't vote for either for Congress. I'd rather take
a chance on a third, fourth or fifth party unknown, a blank ballot or a write-in candidate than
on another known destroyer from one of the two major parties. Participation alone is not enough;
it has to be informed participation, referenced against the clear, plain and simple language
of the U.S. Constitution. So, how do we get the word out?
Reuben_the_Red
It would have been a very different election in 2012 if the Republican establishment and the
corporate media machine had not colluded to rig the primaries so that Mitt Romney was the nominee,
and not the one that the majority of voting Republicans wanted, Ron Paul, who ran on a platform
that ironically appealed to many leftists, because of his insistence that foreign military interventions
and US global military incursions cease immediately.
It's possible that the realistic threat of a viable third party candidate on the outer fringe
of the left or the right could be enough to force that respective party to yield to those fringe
demands, incorporating those demands into a mainstream platform, more or less like the Tea Party
did with the Republican party in recent years, threatening to take their votes elsewhere.
At the same time, more Americans voted for left wing platforms than right wing platforms in
2000, but due to the winner-takes-all elections, we didn't get a government that was 5% Nader,
45% Gore, 45% Bush, majority leftist reflecting the vote. We got 100% Bush. We got corporate
welfare, tax cuts for the uber wealthy which did not result in higher employment, we got two
decade-long unprovoked foreign wars riddled with war crimes, and we got persistent recession.
Some of these things, if not all of them, would not and could not have happened under a Nader/Gore-led
government. The Deep State expanded massively with the Bush/Cheney administration's complicity.
I wish that it was worthwhile to vote for third-party candidates, but we can expect them to receive
no media coverage, few votes overall despite the possibly broad appeal of their platform, and
in the end it would be irrelevant because of the Electoral College. If I live in Oregon and vote
for Romney my vote is thrown away as surely as if I live in Utah and vote for Obama.
In answer to your question, how do we get the word out, I think the only answer is media ownership.
Our lives are more consumed by media today than ever before in the history of the world, and
all of the media is concentrated in fewer hands, with more consensus among those few hands, than
ever before.
Charles Shaver
It would be a very different election every time, and nation, if the majority would simply
quit believing in the now defunct two-party system, corporate owned media and an extremist capitalist
system that values the gains of the uber wealthy over the lives and limbs of workers and the
poor. It's okay to question the status quo, ignore corporate media, do independent research,
vote totally independent of family tradition and elect questionable strangers (as opposed to
proved bipartisan failures) to defund the Deep State. Need a little more direction? Review the
Preamble to the U.S. Constitution. It pretty well sums it all up in rather clear, plain and simple
English, if you keep in mind that not just millionaires, billionaires and multi-national corporations
(allegedly) are 'people.' Good conversation.
jeffries
Mike Lofgren wrote the essay. Bill Moyers was allowed to interview him. PBS has its hands
tied by the "deep state" too. If you doubt this talk ask PBS why they pulled the plug on the
Koch Brothers expose.
jeffries
The "deep state," like a parasite, will continue until its host is dead. My guess is they
are in a state of panic-their host is on life support. The party is over- the rest of the world
has had enough of the U.S. The petro dollar has been broken. The dollar will be dethroned as
the world reserve currency and the torch will be passed to China no later than 2018. The players
of the "deep state" will not be able to infiltrate and latch onto this new host and so they will
fight to the death, more accurately our sons and daughters death, to keep the U.S. in its position.
Resist war is all we can do and not buy into the steady stream of propaganda that will be bombarding
us at every turn.
Hatha Sunahara
I haven't read all 328 comments so far, but I just wonder if anybody has picked up on the
reason the deep state has developed. I think it's development stems from the evolution of the
United States from a Republic into an Empire. No empire can exist with restrictions on its power
like those put on the United States by the Constitution. So, instead of discarding the Constitution,
the United States was subsumed into an 'extra-constitutional government'. Of course, nobody bothered
to tell the people of the United States that their power had been usurped by a lawless Imperial
overlord. Responsibility for that egregious oversight can be laid to the mainstream media, which
is owned by the owners of the extra-constitutional government. These are the global media corporations.
If you view politics this way, it explains a lot of things. Empire relies on it's military
power and the acceptance of its money. Anyone who does not accept the empire's money generates
hostility from the empire. The empire wages war without any declaration of war. The extra constitutional
government allows that. The empire cannot tolerate privacy because that would allow people to
plot against the empire without interference. So the empire puts everyone under surveillance.
The empire cannot tolerate resistance or disobedience, so it develops a police state to instil
fear and obedience in people. There are many many more examples of how empire rules America and
usurps the US government–which exists for the people of the United States. Americans, and the
people of the other countries in the world understand this viscerally, but are unable to express
this in coherent thought because their language has been corrupted by the forces of empire. Mike
Lofgren doesn't make this connection because iit violates the rules of political correctness.
Everyone's career is tied to strict adherence to political correctness, and
Anonymous
And many of the voters have been brainwashed by the 5 or 6 corporations that control the media.
Fear entertainment.
Anonymous
After I read Top Secret America I came to the conclusion that since 9/11 Homeland Security
has become so incredibly humongous and so political it will keep growing until the US is bankrupt.
The was the goal of Benladen. Europe did not fall for it be we did.
Anonymous
Some contemporary books Blackwater, Bloodmoney, and especially Confessions if a Economic Hit
Man. Also Top Secret America.
Charles Shaver
I think a better name for 'Homeland Security' is 'elitist money addict insecurity.' And, it
and treasonous corporate media propaganda will keep growing until we as an injured people finally
'Just say NO!' to the 'perpetraitors.' Thanks for commenting, above and below.
Anonymous
There is a small very readable book written by John Perkins named Confessions of an Economic
hit Man. This is the way the Corporatocracy has used the IMF and World Bank to take over the
assets of less developed countries. And if their leaders do not agree to go along well then read
what happens to them.
Anonymous
In many states felons are legally allowed to vote if they have served their sentences. And
if they moved to Florida their vote was legal. But Jeb Bush broke the law and did not allow their
vote to count in the Bush/Gore election. The Republicans also paid a fortune to a company named
Choice Point to scrub the polls. They also did this in the latest election for Governor. How
can they get away with these tactics? The tactics that are being used in North Carolina lately
are extremely difficult to counteract.
Anonymous
Funny (not ha ha) when I try to tell friends what is going on within Homeland Security (the
redundancy, the extreme size of it and the number of government and private buildings all around
the Washington suburbs) they respond by stating that they approve of all this. Homeland security
is so political that this state if affairs will be sucking up our tax dollars forever.
Neil Kitson
"These men, largely private, were
functioning on a level different from the foreign policy of the United
States, and years later when New York Times reporter
Neil Sheehan read through the entire documentary history of the war,
that history known as the Pentagon Papers, he would come away with one
impression above all, which was that the government of the United States
was not what he had thought it was; it was as if there were an inner
U.S. government, what he called 'a centralized state, far more powerful
than anything else, for whom the enemy is not simply the Communists but
everything else, its own press, its own judiciary, its own Congress,
foreign and friendly governments – all these are potentially
antagonistic.
It had survived and perpetuated itself,' Sheehan
continued, 'often using the issue of anti-Communism as a weapon against
the other branches of government and the press, and finally, it does not
function necessarily for the benefit of the Republic but rather for its
own ends, its own perpetuation; it has its own codes which are quite
different from public codes.
Secrecy was a way of protecting itself, not
so much from threats by foreign governments but from detection from its
own population on charges of its own competence and wisdom.' Each
succeeding Administration, Sheehan noted, was careful, once in office,
not to expose the weaknesses of its predecessor. After all, essentially
the same people were running the governments, they had continuity to
each other, and each succeeding Administration found itself faced with
virtually the same enemies.
Thus the national security apparatus kept
its continuity, and every outgoing President tended to rally to the side
of the incumbent President.
"Out of this of course came a willingness to use covert operations; it was a
necessity of the times, to match the Communists, and what your own
population and your own Congress did not know was not particularly
important; it was almost better if they did not know…"
David Halberstam The Best and The Brightest
Charles Shaver
Very typically, you appear to be better informed and better read on some aspects of our failed
and failing nation-state than I. Admittedly, I don't have all the answers. Briefly, though, respective
of all you cite, I find the vast majority of Americans just don't want to be burdened any more
with good citizenship (e.g., election statistics). Most recently, another symptom of the underlying
problem was highlighted when the billionaire owner of a mere commercial (as opposed to 'professional')
basketball team in a society that tolerates abject poverty and illegal war was severely chastised
and sanctioned for only elitist, racist remarks. Summarily, let me say that my America took a
big turn for the worse when the 'Pied Piper' was bribed to play the National Anthem. Nope, not
'ha ha' funny, at all. And, I don't know whether to dread or rejoice the day when the coerced
laughter finally ends, and the music dies.
Anonymous
During the 2nd Bush administration I started to notice all the books listed in the Washington
Post book section about his administration. After awhile I thought maybe I should start reading.
The first page turner was one by Bob Woodward about the lead up to the Iraq war. It showed me
that we were not getting truth from the media so I kept on reading books. First about Iraq-Fiasco,
The man who got is into the war Amad Chalabi, Blackwater, Bloodmoney and many others. I keep
telling people to read more but they choose not to. They are either working too hard or if retired
playing too hard. They just want to be spoon fed and are addicted to outrage entertainment. I
continued my reading on economics, finance, climate change and understand much more than I did
before. Keynes vs Hyeck explains the history of the two economic theories. Also how the shift
to the right happened during The Reagan and Thatcher administrations. Age of Greed explains how
a few very greedy men influenced congress to repeal laws and pass laws in their favor. Tim Flannerys
book The Weather Makers explains Climate change. And there are too many books written on income
disparity and the danger to democracy. What is happening is out of control and a nightmare. I
don't think people understand that when a government service for the commons is privatized it
becomes a corporation with lobbyists that influence Congress and that we taxpayers must pay their
employees at a much higher rate. Like the army contractors, prisons and so on. People do not
put on their thinking caps. Sorry for the rant.
Charles Shaver
Interesting, impressive; different paths, one destination; better a rant than a sell-out or
surrender. Beware of putting too much faith in the opinions of others, myself included. We all
are products of our past and there is a natural tendency for the adult progeny to emulate the
parent; the student to mimic the teacher; the reader to quote the author. I find the U.S. Constitution
is the best source of information about how America should function but I don't hear or see much
of that from any of the so-called 'experts.' If electrical engineers treated Ohm's Law like authors,
bankers, government, lawyers and the 'people' treat the U.S. Constitution, you'd be reading this
in script on parchment by candlelight, if at all. And, don't let me discourage you; where I fail
you may succeed. Let reason prevail. Thanks for the stimulating conversation.
Anonymous
Yes we all have the tendency to read whatever validates our worldview. I read Gretchen Morgensterns
book named Reckless Endangerment about Fannie Mae. Saw her talk on Cspan book channel. Needed
to get to the bottom of that mess. Jim Johnson was and still is a very shady character. It is
strange however that the Republicans reduced the entire 2008 recession down to two sound bites
Fannie Mae and the CRA (I think that is the acrynom) for the program to stop the redlining. No
one knows anything about the history and purpose of Fannie Mae and it's original purpose until
Johnson got his hands on it. If one has critical thinking one can sift out the truth. I just
cannot believe that people will believe a sound bite without any hesitation.
Charles Shaver
Been 'deep thinking' a lot more about the Deep State but, without yesterday's lost credentials
or celebrity (good or bad), there's not much I can presently do. One clever sound-bite might
do the trick but none I've composed and tried so far have caught on. Still, probably, is tomorrow.
Anonymous
I actually thought of a really good sound bite and communicated it to the White House. No
one took me up on it. Wish I could remember what it was. If you have any you could try. But they
are not very confrontational.
Charles Shaver
I liked candidate Obama's words but never voted for him, because he already belonged to one
of two already proved dysfunctional major political parties. Writing the Obama White House and
even getting a few generic replies while watching him fail the office, too, I do not regret 'wasting'
my vote on a 'green' third party candidate. After rereading The Anatomy of the Deep State, today,
I'm sure I could read more and probably phrase things better but am still confident in my decades
of working-class experience-based conclusions and suggestions.
sorval
"Land of the Free, Home of the Brave"
has become
Land of the "Free", Home of the "Brave".
johnnyomaha
Privatization of the US constitution to serve the elite…..
http://www.rrstevens.net/ Robert Stevens
… OR is it "Land of the Greed, Home of the Knave" -- Let's sing it all together before the next Football Game and Circus: ♫ "o'er the Land of the
Greed …" ♫
Anonymous
Where's the who, what, when, where, and why? Collected everyday simple observations will awaken
one to the existence of a higher controlling entity. No more problem identification or descriptions,
thank you very much. We need 1) facts and 2) solutions.
unheilig
Lofgren gives both. Did you read the article? Confirmation is easy enough too: all you need
is a browser and a few hours searching off-off-lamestream information sources.
Jocelyn Hawley
To both dn7904 and Charles Shaver, I read your back and forth discussion and realize that
I so crave that type of intelligent, informed and aware discussion within my interactions in
my daily life, but none can really exist. Most people are so concerned with the outcomes of the
game, or fantasy football, or the latest t.v. series, and how on earth to pay rent and other
minutia. The little bit of news comes from prime time networks like Fox, NBC and CNN and they
think they know what is happening in the world, but don't actually want to know what is really
happening. The trick to an article like this one, is not yet how we change the problem, but how
we get people to notice, be aware and to care. That is the real question and the first- most
prominent problem to be solved.
Anonymous
I think there are more creative ways for the citizenry to communicate their discontent than
to wait four years for the next highly-funded election. I remember being in an international conference and the minister of Health from a major developed
country came on stage just days after making a very unpopular move. One person stood up and simply
turned her back on the Minister, then another, then a dozen, then the whole auditorium of major
players in the scientific community. It made headlines. I resent the fact that a movement like MoveOn now just asks me for money like all the other PAC's.
They used to send out flyers and have photos posted of people all over the country holding the
same flyer. What comes to mind is that we remain the developed country in which the fewest people take vacation.
How can we possibly stop and think about creative democracy? Ironically the revolutionary thought
that was the spark that set off the flames of this country came from the leisure class who had
plenty of time to think and write about things like freedom and liberty.
Charles Shaver
Thank you for prodding me to do some additional 'Deep Thinking.' The harm is done. Thanks
to the apathetic and/or ignorant majority of a voting minority, the balance of power in the U.S.
has now been transferred from the left hand of organized crime to the right hand, for the next
two years. At least the majority is consistent in its failure to self-govern by voting, and voting
wisely.
While (if) still allowed, voting wisely is the only reasonable solution. Creative protesting
(e.g., 'occupy' them, pass out flyers, shout them down, turn your back or throw them a shoe)
means nothing when the final vote is counted to determine who actually makes and enforces the
rules. Not omniscient or perfect, either, I'm open to suggestions but with very little to work
with after several decades of too-typical abuse, betrayal, exploitation and oppression, served
in the pseudonyms of loyalty, patriotism, sacrifice and service. If mere reasoning worked then
Bill Moyers and 'company' would have already solved most of the major problems. Don't let me
discourage you, though, keep on with your own deep thinking.
John Schoneboom
Two flaws jump out at me from this otherwise rather good and useful article. The first is
that Mr. Lofgren implies that the Deep State is mainly a Republican thing. In the picture he
paints, it's the Republicans who want to pay the national security state, while the poor hapless
Democrats just want to increase social spending. Similarly, he makes excuses for Obama in footnote
7. (Presidents are surely mostly puppets, but Obama's 2008 FISA vote as Senator betrays his own
predilections well enough.) At best, this is the farcical veneer of Deep State Theatre. I suspect
Mr. Lofgren knows better and didn't mean to imply otherwise.
Secondly, government shutdowns and budgetary problems may be an inconvenience to the Deep
State, but no accounting of the Deep State is complete without figuring in off-the-books revenue
from the global drug trade. International partnerships and oil interests also help diversify
the income stream nicely. There are many billions feeding this thing that have nothing to do
with the US budget.
It's also somewhat criminal not to name-check Peter Dale Scott in this subject area. But I'm
nitpicking. I'll not bother criticizing the piece for not addressing Deep State ties with terrorism,
that kettle of fish deserves its own barrel. Like I said, nice piece, useful, well done, thank
you.
Douglas Harris
does no one see there is a reason for the immense defense spending as America becomes #2 in
world economy and the dollar might be replaced as the reserve currency? The Chinese own enough treasury paper to close the American economy, alone or with several willing
partners. BUT…America even as a declining economic dictator will still have the arms to maintain
world control…
Anonymous
I had no real a-ha moment reading this well written piece. Nothing jumped out at me as something
foreign or unknown. Instead, I had the sense of deja vu, the kind of deja vu I'd rather not have.
All these things have been known if the consumer of this good piece has been paying attention
to the not-mainline press. What is so exciting about this is the writer put all the information
in one place and drew out the connections that weren't always so obvious. Though Mr. Lofgren
paints a somewhat plausible picture of how this State may rather suddenly crumble, I'm a bit
dubious.
What seems missing are the global links among many of these actors especially the oligarchs
reach and connection to many things terrorism. What I'm saying is that I'm not terribly optimistic
that a leader will come along who is sufficiently unbeholden to the state and who can remain
un-co-opted and call this state for what it is thus raising our fellow Americans sustained interest
and desire to see through the mess it will take to overthrow this Deep State.. In any case, thanks
so much for such a thoughtful and creepy picture.
Anonymous
None of this is news. A President who cared could smash the Deep State in, probably, nine
months. The key lockhold the Deep State has at the moment is on the nomination process, which
is used to filter out any Presidents, and most Congressional nominees, who show signs of independent
thought. They've been doing this since Reagan (Carter was the last President with independent
thought; Reagan was ideal, being an actor with Alzheimer's and so not thinking much at all.)
There are two ways this can play out: either they lose their lockhold on the nomination process,
or the entire system is discredited and we get a revolution.
The Deep State is actually very fragile due to their fundamental incompetence. But they're
quite capable of wrecking our existing system, at which point there will be an opening for a
Caesar or a Napoleon or a Lenin who *is* competent. That is the true danger moment. The worst
scenario is revolving-door coups, such as Mexico suffered for decades in the 18th and 19th century.
Anonymous
The American Empire is, however, in decline phase. You can identify that by the inability
to conquer territory and the slow loss of territory from the edges. The peak of the American
Empire was actually in the late 19th century… A collapsing empire follows a weird trajectory. Many comparisons have been made to the Roman
Empire. That worked out poorly.
Anonymous
You could also read the much older "War is A Racket" by Smedley Butler.
The IMF/World Bank scam was working for a while. It doesn't work any more: South American
countries simply reject it. And the US has no power to muscle South American countries any more;
I'm not quite sure how they managed to become immune to US military intervention, but they have.
They have had about 200 years of trial and error in figuring out how.
Now, the rest of the world just needs to copy the South American model and the US IMF/World
Bank scam becomes untenable.
Anonymous
Proportional representation is critical, but I haven't figured out how to get anyone to pay
attention to it. Even at the local level, where the deep state has no traction because it's paying
no attention.
Anonymous
Thankfully the fight against electronic voting machines is already pretty strong. This is
something people understand viscerally and this is a key plank for whatever party is going to
dethrone the Rs & Ds. Basically, if electronic "voting" machines are delegitimized (as they should
be), this means people will actually fight for their paper ballots…
Anonymous
I think you're wrong about how most Americans will react. The levels of disillusionment are
very, very high now and you can measure them in polls.
Just before the Civil War, we saw the same dynamic: most of the country was completely disillusioned
about the "slavocracy", as they called the corrupt US government dominated by slaveholders. This
led to the election of Lincoln, the destruction of the Whig Party, and finally, the Civil War.
This is the sort of situation we have now. The Deep State can't win; it will be smashed as
Americans unite behind a Lincoln-like figure. The only questions are when this will happen, and
more importantly *what comes next*. Things are wide open after that happens: Sun Yat-Sen led
(unfortunately) to Mao.
jeffries
Well it will be interesting how the Greece situation plays out. It seems strange we don't
hear much or read much in main stream media about it. They are challenging the status quo. At
first the banks gave them until the 28th and then cut it to 10 days. It would be in everyone's
best interest if this was the beginning of the end for the EU. Diffused power is the best power.
If the EU fails we won't be pressured into a union with Canada and Mexico. I think that was the
plan of the global deep state. Aggregate nations into regions and then larger regions and then
it would not be such a jump to global government.
Anonymous
"….. Americans sustained interest…." Lack of interest is the real killer of all empires.
America's "Madisonian institutions," namely, the Congress, the presidency, and the courts have
been supplanted by a "Trumanite network" of bureaucrats who make up the permanent national security
state. National security policymaking has been removed from public view and largely insulated
from law and politics.
Notable quotes:
"... national security policy is determined largely by "the several hundred managers of the military, intelligence, diplomatic, and law enforcement agencies who are responsible for protecting the nation and who have come to operate largely immune from constitutional and electoral restraints." The president, congress and the courts play largely a symbolic role in national security policy ..."
"... You can read a Harvard National Security Journal article that outlines Glennon's argument at this link: http://harvardnsj.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Glennon-Final.pdf . The paper is not an especially easy read, but I found it to be well researched and – for me – persuasive. ..."
"... National Security and Double Government ..."
"... "Glennon shows how the underlying national security bureaucracy in Washington – what might be called the deep state – ensures that presidents and their successors act on the world stage like Tweedledee and Tweedledum." ..."
"... "In our faux democracy, those we elect to govern serve largely ornamental purposes, while those who actually wield power, especially in the realm of national security, do so chiefly with an eye toward preserving their status and prerogatives. Read this incisive and richly documented book, and you'll understand why." ..."
"... U.S. national security policy is in fact conducted by a shadow government of bureaucrats and a supporting network of think tanks, media insiders, and ambitious policy wonks. ..."
"... "is that the United States government has enduring institutional interests that carry over from administration to administration and almost always dictate the position the government takes." ..."
"... And now IMO the DEEP STATE is about to DEEP SIX the Career military in the US as it organizes violence and the SURVEILLANCE STATE outside the ARMED FORCES. ..."
"... My short answer is that Government of the people, by the people, and for the people [the Lincoln formulation] probably expired with the dead of Hiroshima and Nagasaki! ..."
"... I think we could make as much of the supine legislature that lends weight to Glennon's argument as he does the "permanent" executive agency security apparatus. If they're to be properly responsive to public will, executive agencies need better written laws. ..."
His answer: national security policy is determined largely by "the several hundred managers of
the military, intelligence, diplomatic, and law enforcement agencies who are responsible for protecting
the nation and who have come to operate largely immune from constitutional and electoral restraints." The president, congress and the courts play largely a symbolic role in national security policy, Glennon claims.
You can read a Harvard National Security Journal article that outlines Glennon's argument at this
link:
http://harvardnsj.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Glennon-Final.pdf.
The paper is not an especially easy read, but I found it to be well researched and – for me
– persuasive.
His book adds more analysis to the argument, using (from Graham Allison's
Essence of Decision) the rational actor model, the government politics model, and the organizational
behavior model. Glennon extends that framework by discussing culture, networks, and the myth of alternative
competing hypotheses. The book is richer, in my opinion. But the core of Glennon's position
is in the paper.
In National Security and Double Government, Michael Glennon examines the continuity
in U.S. national security policy from the Bush administration to the Obama administration. Glennon
explains the lack of change by pointing to the enervation of America's "Madisonian institutions,"
namely, the Congress, the presidency, and the courts. In Glennon's view, these institutions have
been supplanted by a "Trumanite network" of bureaucrats who make up the permanent national security
state. National security policymaking has been removed from public view and largely insulated
from law and politics. Glennon warns that leaving security policy in the hands of the Trumanite
network threatens Americans' liberties and the republican form of government.
Some blurb reviews:
"If constitutional government is to endure in the United States, Americans must confront the
fundamental challenges presented by this chilling analysis of the national security state." Bruce Ackerman
"Glennon shows how the underlying national security bureaucracy in Washington – what might
be called the deep state – ensures that presidents and their successors act on the world stage
like Tweedledee and Tweedledum." John J. Mearsheimer
"National Security and Double Government is brilliant, deep, sad, and vastly learned
across multiple fields–a work of Weberian power and stature. It deserves to be read and discussed.
The book raises philosophical questions in the public sphere in a way not seen at least since
Fukuyama's end of history." David A. Westbrook
"In our faux democracy, those we elect to govern serve largely ornamental purposes, while
those who actually wield power, especially in the realm of national security, do so chiefly with
an eye toward preserving their status and prerogatives. Read this incisive and richly documented
book, and you'll understand why."Andrew J. Bacevich
"…Michael Glennon provides a compelling argument that America's national security policy is
growing outside the bounds of existing government institutions. This is at once a constitutional
challenge, but is also a case study in how national security can change government institutions,
create new ones, and, in effect, stand-up a parallel state…." Vali Nasr
"Instead of being responsive to citizens or subject to effective checks and balances,
U.S. national security policy is in fact conducted by a shadow government of bureaucrats and a
supporting network of think tanks, media insiders, and ambitious policy wonks. Presidents
may come and go, but the permanent national security establishment inevitably defeats their efforts
to chart a new course…."Stephen M. Walt, Robert and Renee Belfer
I've spoken to three people I consider to be members of the "shadow national security state."
One person said Glennon's argument is nothing new. The second told me he's got it exactly right.
The third said it's even worse.
and imo only the nuclear priesthood rivals the deep state but not exactly part of it yet its
original source!
like the mayan priests only those in it know how accurate this book is in its analysis!
and a congress marches on in complete ignorance!
Mike Mealer, January 21, 2015 @ 7:48 pm
Great article. Read it a few months ago. I didn't know whether I should feel more secure or
afraid. Looking the items I highlighted and a few standout.
"The dirty little secret here," a former associate counsel in the Bush White House, Brad Berenson,
explained, "is that the United States government has enduring institutional interests that
carry over from administration to administration and almost always dictate the position the government
takes."178 P34
Its cohesion notwithstanding, the Trumanite network is curiously amorphous. It has no leader.
It is not monolithic. It has no formal structure. P32
The maintenance of Trumanite autonomy has depended upon two conditions. The first is that the
Madisonian institutions appear to be in charge of the nation's security. The second is that the
Madisonian institutions not actually be in charge. P34
Public opinion is, accordingly, a flimsy check on the Trumanites; it is a manipulable tool
of power enhancement. It is therefore rarely possible for any occupant of the Oval Office to prevail
against strong, unified Trumanite opposition, for the same reasons that members of Congress and
the judiciary cannot; a non-expert president, like a non-expert senator and a non-expert judge,
is intimidated by expert Trumanites and does not want to place himself (or a colleague or a potential
political successor) at risk by looking weak and gambling that the Trumanites are mistaken. So
presidents wisely "choose" to go along. P70
John Comiskey, January 22, 2015 @ 7:14 am
Civic Education 101
Glennon laments as did Justice Souter, the pervasive civic ignorance of the citizenry. Democracy requires an informed and engaged citizenry. The recent and ongoing debates about the role the police in society raise similar question
and doubts about our social contract and governance for the 21st century.
Where to from here?
A national conversation about civics and K-12 civic education.
What is the proper role of citizens in society?
What is the proper role of our polity?
Again interesting thread and comments. The use of the term "Trumanite" is unfortunate and totally
inaccurate IMO! Truman reluctantly signed the National Security Act of 1947 to resolve the documented
failures of Jointness between the Army and Navy in WWII [the Secretary of War and the Secretary
of the Navy--Stimson and King]! Truman was personally opposed to the establishment of the CIA
for many good reasons.
What is the real failure is the creation of the Nuclear Priesthood which largely failed to
guard its secrets from other Nation-States and individuals and the warping into the DEEP STATE
[the better term than DOUBLR GOVERTNMENT]!
And now IMO the DEEP STATE is about to DEEP SIX the Career military in the US as it organizes
violence and the SURVEILLANCE STATE outside the ARMED FORCES.
A close study of the overturning of the ALIEN AND SEDITION Acts of 1798 which destroyed chances
for a second term for John Adams and created the first real Presidential Election in the USA,
the Presidential Election of 1800, which brought into officer Jefferson, but almost brought Aaron
Burr to real power.
Study of James Madison so-called VIRGINIA RESOLUTION opposing the ASA is fully warranted. Too
bad John Yoo did not know this history.
I need to mention that I did read the article and listened to the Cato Institute Panel.
The Panel presentations might lead one to argue that Double or nothing or the DEEP STATE what
difference does it make past, present, or future?
My short answer is that Government of the people, by the people, and for the people [the
Lincoln formulation] probably expired with the dead of Hiroshima and Nagasaki! Perhaps not
but until argued and proven otherwise that is my conclusion! Perhaps wrong and hoping so!
Jack, January 24, 2015 @ 2:47 pm
A fascinating and needful argument, though I think we could make as much of the supine
legislature that lends weight to Glennon's argument as he does the "permanent" executive agency
security apparatus. If they're to be properly responsive to public will, executive agencies need
better written laws.
The Critical Infrastructure Protection Act or CIPA, which passed the house in 2014, would,
"require the Assistant Secretary of the National Protection and Programs Directorate to: (1) include
in national planning scenarios the threat of electromagnetic pulse (EMP) events…" (emphasis
mine). The national planning scenarios were rescinded in 2011, making CIPA either a very easy
or very hard law to execute.
Likewise, the Biggert-Waters flood insurance reform act of 2012 altered regulatory definitions
for "substantial damage" and "substantial improvement" by misunderstanding the way field damage
assessments are performed under the National Flood Insurance Program.
Which means, I suppose, that we need more able legislators…which may be unlikely if more Americans
don't know Publius from Curly.
"... The difficulty we have in the economics profession, I fear, is a great deal of herd instinct and concern about what others may say. And when the Fed runs their policy pennants up the flagpole, only someone truly secure in their thinking, or forsworn to some strong ideological interpretation of reality or bias if we are truly honest, dare not salute it. ..."
"... But it makes the point which I have made over and again, that all of the economic models are faulty and merely a caricature of reality. And therefore policy ought not to be dictated by models, but by policy objectives and a strong bias to results, rather than the dictates of process or methods. In this FDR had it exactly right. If we find something does not stimulate the broader economy or effect the desired policy objective, like tax cuts for the rich, using that approach over and over again is certainly not going to be effective. ..."
"... Economics are a form of social and political science. And with the political and social process corrupted by big money, what can we expect from would be philosopher kings. ..."
"... The interconnectedness of the global system with its massive and underregulated TBTF Banks, the widespread and often fraudulent mispricing of risk, all make cause for a financial system to be fragile. In this thinking Nassim Taleb is far ahead of the common economic thought as a real systems thinker. The Fed is not a systemic thinking organization because they are owned by the financial status quo, and real systemic reform rarely comes from within. ..."
"... So Mr. Baker, rather than looking for the bubble, lets say we have a fragile system still disordered and mispricing risk, with a few very large banks engaging in reckless speculation, mispricing risk for short term profits, manipulating markets, and distorting the processes designed to maintain a balance in the economy. Rather than hold out for a new bubble as your criterion, perhaps we may also consider that the patient is still on full life support after the last bubble and crisis. Why do we need to find a new source of malady when the old one is still having its way? ..."
"... A new crisis does not have to happen. This is the vain comfort in these sorts of black swan events, being hard to predict. But they can be more likely given the right conditions, and I fear little will be done about this one until even those who are quite personally comfortable with things as they are begin to feel the pain, ..."
"... neither Irwin nor anyone else has even identified a serious candidate. Until someone can at least give us their candidate bubble, we need not take the financial crisis story seriously. ..."
"... If we take this collapse story off the table, then we need to reframe the negative scenario. It is not a sudden plunge in output, but rather a period of slow growth and weak job creation. This seems like a much more plausible story... ..."
I like Dean Baker quite well, and often link to his columns.
On most things we are pretty much on the same page.
And to his credit he was one of the few 'mainstream'
economists to actually see the housing bubble developing, and call it out. Some may claim to have
done so, and can even cite a sentence or two where they may have mentioned it, like Paul Krugman
for example. But very few spoke about doing something about it while it was in progress. The
Fed was aware according to their own minutes, and ignored it.
The difficulty we have in the economics profession, I fear, is a great deal of herd instinct and
concern about what others may say. And when the Fed runs their policy pennants up the flagpole, only
someone truly secure in their thinking, or forsworn to some strong ideological interpretation of
reality or bias if we are truly honest, dare not salute it.
Am
I such a person? Do I actually see a fragile financial system that is still corrupt and highly levered,
grossly mispricing risks? Or am I just seeing things the way in which I wish to see them?
That difficulty arises because economics is no science. It involves judgment and principles,
and weighs the facts far too heavily based upon 'reputation' and 'status.' And of course I have none
of those and wish none.
But it makes the point which I have made over and again, that all of the economic models are faulty
and merely a caricature of reality. And therefore policy ought not to be dictated by models,
but by policy objectives and a strong bias to results, rather than the dictates of process or methods.
In this FDR had it exactly right. If we find something does not stimulate the broader economy
or effect the desired policy objective, like tax cuts for the rich, using that approach over and
over again is certainly not going to be effective.
Economics are a form of social and political science. And with the political and social
process corrupted by big money, what can we expect from would be 'philosopher kings.'
The housing bubble was no 'cause' of the latest financial crisis. More properly it was the tinder
and the trigger event. The S&L crisis was just as great, if not greater. Why then did it not bring
the global financial system to its knees?
The interconnectedness of the global system with its massive and underregulated TBTF Banks, the
widespread and often fraudulent mispricing of risk, all make cause for a financial system to be 'fragile.'
In this thinking Nassim Taleb is far ahead of the common economic thought as a real 'systems thinker.'
The Fed is not a systemic thinking organization because they are owned by the financial status quo,
and real systemic reform rarely comes from within.
I see the same fragility which existed from 1999 to 2008 still in the system, only grown larger,
global, and more profoundly influencing the political processes.
The only question is what 'trigger event' might set it spinning, and how great of a magnitude
will it have to be in order to do so. The more fragile the system, the less that is required to knock
it off its underpinnings.
And a crisis is not a binary event. There is the 'trigger' and the dawning perception of risks,
and the initial responses of the political, social, and regulatory powers.
There is no point in debating this, because the regulators and powerful groups like the Fed are
caught in a credibility trap, which prevents them from seeing things as they are, and saying so.
So Mr. Baker, rather than looking for the bubble, let's say we have a fragile system still disordered
and mispricing risk, with a few very large banks engaging in reckless speculation, mispricing risk
for short term profits, manipulating markets, and distorting the processes designed to maintain a
balance in the economy. Rather than hold out for a 'new bubble' as your criterion, perhaps we may also consider that the
patient is still on full life support after the last bubble and crisis. Why do we need to find
a new source of malady when the old one is still having its way?
I think if one exercises clear and open judgement, they can see that we have stirred up the same
pot of witches brew that has made the system fragile and vulnerable to an exogenous shock, and has
kept it so.
A new crisis does not have to happen. This is the vain comfort in these sorts of 'black swan'
events, being hard to predict. But they can be more likely given the right conditions, and
I fear little will be done about this one until even those who are quite personally comfortable with
things as they are begin to feel the pain,
The problem is not a 'bubble.' The problem is pervasive corruption, fraud, and lack of meaningful
reform. The 'candidate' is the financial system itself, with its outsized hedge funds and the
TBTF Banks with their serial crime sprees and accommodative regulators in particular.
And if one cannot see that in this rotten system with its brazenly narrow rewarding of a select
few with the bulk of new income, then there is little more that can be said.
Neil Irwin, a writer for the NYT Upshot section, had
an interesting debate with himself about the likely future course of the economy. He got the
picture mostly right in my view, with a few important qualifications.
"First, his negative scenario
is another recession and possibly a financial crisis. I know a lot of folks are saying this stuff,
but it's frankly a little silly. The basis of the last financial crisis was a massive amount of
debt issued against a hugely over-valued asset (housing). A financial crisis that actually rocks
the economy needs this sort of basis.
If a lot of people are speculating in the stock of Uber or other wonder companies, and reality
wipes them out, this is just a story of some speculators being wiped out. It is not going to shake
the economy as a whole. (San Francisco's economy could take a serious hit.)
Anyhow, financial crises don't just happen, there has to be a real basis for them. To me the
housing bubble was pretty obvious given the unprecedented and unexplained run-up in prices in
the largest market in the world. Perhaps there is another bubble out there like this, but neither
Irwin nor anyone else has even identified a serious candidate. Until someone can at least
give us their candidate bubble, we need not take the financial crisis story seriously.
If we take this collapse story off the table, then we need to reframe the negative scenario.
It is not a sudden plunge in output, but rather a period of slow growth and weak job creation.
This seems like a much more plausible story...
Anyhow, a story of slow job growth and ongoing wage stagnation would look like a pretty bad
story to most of the country. It may not be as dramatic as a financial crisis that brings the
world banking system to its knees, but it is far more likely and therefore something that we should
be very worried about."
"... Turkey is suspected of supplying the chemical weapons used in Ghouta in August 2013 as reported by Seymour Hersh here . In May 2013, Nusra fighters were arrested in possession of sarin but quickly and quietly released by Turkish authorities. ..."
Supporting the Kurds will lead to more terrorism per Erdogan. But it is fine and dandy to
support ISIS terrorists and to be at war with Syria. Turkey will soon be a failed state:
The following examples show the extent of Turkish involvement in the war on Syria:
–Turkey hosts the Political and Military Headquarters of the armed opposition. Most of the
political leaders are former Syrians who have not lived there for decades.
–Turkey provides home base for armed opposition leaders. As quoted in the Vice News video
"Syria: Wolves of the Valley": "Most of the commanders actually live in Turkey and commute in
to the fighting when necessary."
–Turkey's intelligence agency MIT has provided its own trucks for shipping huge quantities
of weapons and ammunition to Syrian armed opposition groups. According to court testimony, they
made at least
2,000 trips to Syria.
–Turkey is suspected of supplying the chemical weapons used in Ghouta in August 2013 as
reported by Seymour Hersh
here. In May 2013,
Nusra fighters were arrested in possession of sarin but quickly and quietly released by Turkish
authorities.
–Turkey's foreign minister, top spy chief and senior military official were secretly recorded
plotting an incident to justify Turkish military strikes against Syria. A sensational recording
of the meeting was publicized, exposing the plot in advance and likely preventing it from proceeding.
–Turkey has provided direct aid and support to attacking insurgents. When insurgents attacked
Kassab Syria on the border in spring 2014, Turkey provided backup military support and ambulances
for injured fighters. Turkey
shot down
a Syrian jet fighter that was attacking the invading insurgents. The plane landed 7 kilometers
inside Syrian territory, suggesting that Turkish claims it was in Turkish air space are likely
untrue.
–Turkey has recently increased its coordination with Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
"... Wage slavery is VERY different from chattel slavery. The danger of ignoring that difference is that it obscures the intimate connection between the two, which is the legal institution of private property. ..."
"... The Roman law of property derived by analogy from conditions of slave ownership. Owning land is an analog of owning slaves. ..."
"... Born in debt. Live in debt. Die in debt. The one thing they got right: human slavery is so distasteful we can't do it openly anymore. But wage slavery is just fine, especially debt peonage. No one can complain if you get yourself into debt, just if someone else puts you there. ..."
"... I hate my job. I am de facto a day laborer, delivering items as and when my boss tells me to. As a former university professor, this is a hard blow. But to say I and 99.9% of the population are coffled is pure nonsense. My situation is lousy. But comparing what the black slaves went through with what I am going through is like saying the internment camps which held the Japanese-Americans were the same as the death camps in Nazi Germany. One was bad, the other indescribably worse. Not all evils are identical or commensurate. ..."
"... Any adequate reading of the history of the Civil War will show that the 11 Confederate States destroyed themselves out of lust to extend slavery to the northwestern states. They had through "compromises" extended slavery to the states south of Missouri already. The threat of urbanization and immigration creating enough free voters to outvote their 1.6 people gerrymanders terrified the Southern powers-that-be to the point of pre-emptive war. Read the Secession declarations of each state; believe them for what they say, not the subsequent reunion-period histories. ..."
"... The economic benefits of the internal slave breeding industry were matched by the political benefits; they could try to outbreed the Northern increase through immigration and make profits off sales to western states. ..."
"... David Graeber's book (Debt: The first 5000 years) convincingly relates debt directly to slavery, real slavery. Creditors ("masters") rigged the game, took all their debtors assets, and when there was nothing left for them to take, they took them, as slaves. Or their wives, daughters, sons. I know, ancient slavery was different in some respects; slaves could earn their way out or be "redeemed" by a family member or other creditor. (And there was the Jubilee year – I have to read Michael Hudson on that someday.) I can accept that American chattel slavery was distinct and diabolical, but it was an intense form of something that seems to have been with us, humanity, for a long time. ..."
"... The westward expansion after the War of 1812 and the closure of the overseas slave trade in 1808 created the conditions for the internal slave breeding industry with its generation of roving coffles and slave traders, it major slave markets, a good many of which have been preserved, and its new forms of finance and legal entities. ..."
"... Yes, Graeber's book is excellent on this point: "Slavery is the ultimate form of being ripped from one's context, and thus from all social relationships that make one a human being. Another way to put this is that the slave is, in a very real sense, dead." ..."
"... The important point. The United States of America (Lincoln) did not want to fight. The abolitionists were a minority. The Southern media (newspaper editors) freaked out like to media shock jocks did over the election of Barack Obama. Unlike this time around, at least so far, the Southern states were stampeded by their elites into seceding; the state legislatures and governors were part of those elites. In the midst of the tension Edmund Ruffin, a pro-secessionist rabble-rouser from Virginia went to Charleston SC, and with the help of military school Citadel and Arsenal cadets, and SC militia, conducted a coast artillery attack on the closest military installation – Fort Sumter. And reactions escalated, very much like the diplomatic environment after the the 1914 assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. And they escalated because the Southern hotheads wanted war. ..."
"... Regarding the coffle, it seems this is early capitalism's answer to the "Trail of Tears" and the famous "Bataan Death March". Then again, maybe it's not "early" capitalism at all….I'm thinking of Malaysia and the TPP. ..."
"... Many years ago I visited a small slavery museum out in the cotton fields somewhere around Memphis - I forget which side of the river it was on. It was in an old house that might be found anywhere, but more likely in a suburb than far out in the cotton fields, with no other house in view. Even the nearest line of trees was hundreds of yards away. In the largest room they had a lot of chains with large, heavy links, bigger than you would think would be necessary to hold even a very active human being. ..."
"... Slavery in the US was rather tame and short lived in comparison to the slavery practiced by the Muslims and Africans themselves. ..."
"... It was not until 1960 that slavery was outlawed in Saudi Arabia although it may well continue to this day. To really understand large scale slavery we need to go back to the origins of the Muslim movement. ..."
"... Hi Lambert, the book that first put the scope of the slave trading and breeding industries into context for me was The World That Made New Orleans by Ned Sublette. It's a fascinating and terrible account and if I recall correctly, describes some of the slave breeding operations carried out by Thomas Jefferson. ..."
… About a quarter of those trafficked southward were children between eight and fifteen, purchased
away from their families. The majority of coffle prisoners were male: boys who would never again
see their mothers, men who would never again see wives and children. … The only age bracket in
which females outnumbered males in the trade was twelve to fifteen, when they were as able as
the boys to do field labor, and could also bear children. Charles Bell, forcibly taken from Maryland
to South Carolina in 1805, recalled that
The women were merely tied together with a rope, about the size of a bed cord, which was
tied like a halter round the neck of each; but the men…. were very differently caparisoned.
A strong iron collar was closely fitted by means of a padlock around each of our necks. A chain
of iron, about a hundred feet in length, was passed through the hasp of each padlock, except
at the two ends, where the hasps of the padlock passed through a link in the chain. In addition
to this, we were handcuffed in pairs, with iron staples and chains, with a short chain, uniting
the handcuffs and their wearers in pairs.
As they tramped along, coffles were typically watched over by whip- and gun-wielding men on
horseback and a few dogs, with supply wagons bringing up the rear… The captives were not generally
allowed to talk among themselves as they tramped along, but sometimes, in the midst of their suffering,
they were made to sing. The English geologist G. W. Featherstonehaugh, who in 1834 happened upon
the huge annual Natchez-bound chain gang led by trader John Armfield, noted that "the slave drivers…
endeavour to mitigate their discontent by feeding them well on the march, and by encouraging them"
- encouraging them? - "to sing 'Old Virginia never tire,' to the banjo. Thomas William
Humes, who saw coffles of Virginia-born people passing through Tennessee in shackles on the way
to market, wrote; "It was pathetic to see them march, and to hear their melodious voices in plaintive
singing as they went."…
From the first American coffles on rough wilderness treks along trails established by the indigenous
people, they were the cheapest and most common way to transport captives from one region to another.
The Federally built National (or Cumberland) Road, which by 1818 reached the Ohio River port
of Wheeling, Virginia (subsequently West Virginia), was ideal for coffles. It was the nation's
first paved highway, with bridges across every creek. Laying out approximately the route of the
future US 40, its broken-stone surface provided a westward overland transportation link that began
at the Potomac River port of Cumberland, Maryland. From Wheeling, the captives could be shipped
by riverboat down to the Mississippi and on to the Deep South's second-largest slave market at
Natchez, or further on to the nation's largest slave market, New Orleans.
I'll stop at the demonstration of how Federal infrastructure improve the slave trade's supply
chain.
From my vantage point (starting with my family history and where I live), the coffle seems like
a work of fiction, a dystopian nightmare written by a demeted sadist. Imagine a hundred or so slaves
chained together and being driven down the main street of my small town by dogs and men with whips.
And now imagine this scene was normal, and kids coming home from school walked right past
it. When do I wake up? (Sure, Rome. But that was
thousands of years ago!)
I focused on the long passage from the Sublette's book because it seemed to me to be an objective
correlative for living in the midst of a slave power, and that experience is an important - a critical
- part of American history, and I believe that getting the history right is important.
And although I've written I prefer
human gift to human rental (wage labor), and human rental to human sale (slavery), I don't have
any grand policy pronouncements to make. I do think we need to be leery of using slavery as a metaphor;
"wage slavery" is not slavery; where's the coffle? Ditto "debt slavery." (That's not to say that
wages and debt are not power relations, because of course they are, but the human reality of the
power relations is different.)
So all I can do is ask you to get the image of the coffle firmly in your mind, and children watching
one go by. The coffle was a thing. That was what was going on. The whole thing makes me want to take
a bath. And we're still living with the complicated and painful consequences of slavery today.
Wage slavery is VERY different from chattel slavery. The danger of ignoring that difference
is that it obscures the intimate connection between the two, which is the legal institution of
private property.
The Roman law of property derived by analogy from conditions of slave ownership. Owning
land is an analog of owning slaves.
David Wayne, October 28, 2015 at 3:06 pm
The thing that stands out to me in this article is the reference that all this is a function
of capitalism. All that we are and all that we know is dictated by the needs of capitalism. We
don't run capitalism, it runs us. So much so that it is impossible to conceive past that little
box you're in to imagine – is this the only way we can live. Born in debt. Live in debt. Die
in debt. The one thing they got right: human slavery is so distasteful we can't do it openly anymore.
But wage slavery is just fine, especially debt peonage. No one can complain if you get yourself
into debt, just if someone else puts you there.
Synoia, October 28, 2015 at 12:27 pm
he had felt it was his patriotic duty as a Virginian
His patriotism was founded on his state, not his country?
a soldier fights for his country-right or wrong-he is not responsible for the political
merits of the course he fights in" and that
Was repudiated at Nuremberg, and enshrined on the concept of "War Crimes." However, the attitude
it suits many in Washington, DC today.
James Levy, October 28, 2015 at 4:04 pm
I hate my job. I am de facto a day laborer, delivering items as and when my boss tells
me to. As a former university professor, this is a hard blow. But to say I and 99.9% of the population
are coffled is pure nonsense. My situation is lousy.
But comparing what the black slaves went through with what I am going through is like saying
the internment camps which held the Japanese-Americans were the same as the death camps in Nazi
Germany. One was bad, the other indescribably worse. Not all evils are identical or commensurate.
Working for a wage is tough, but the number of workers flogged to death, publically whipped,
or who had their thumbs legally broken in thumbscrews last year was pretty low. And the number
of American workers last year who got raises or left one job for a better one was pretty high
in comparison with your average black slave.
So cut the crap about how your job today is "just as bad" as being a slave in pre-1865 America.
I can't tell if you sound more like crybabies or idiots.
Jef, October 28, 2015 at 12:31 pm
Cheap almost free oil effectively gives every american 100 to 1000 slaves. Giving up oil will
be as or more difficult than giving up the slaves back then.
TarheelDem, October 28, 2015 at 4:15 pm
Any adequate reading of the history of the Civil War will show that the 11 Confederate
States destroyed themselves out of lust to extend slavery to the northwestern states. They had
through "compromises" extended slavery to the states south of Missouri already. The threat of
urbanization and immigration creating enough free voters to outvote their 1.6 people gerrymanders
terrified the Southern powers-that-be to the point of pre-emptive war. Read the Secession declarations
of each state; believe them for what they say, not the subsequent reunion-period histories.
The economic benefits of the internal slave breeding industry were matched by the political
benefits; they could try to outbreed the Northern increase through immigration and make profits
off sales to western states.
The financial system relative to international monetary relations was so different in the ante-bellum
period that the creation of Confederate money offered little incentive to punishment. Negotiation
with foreign financial centers disputing the credibility of the money, yes. Would you take currency
from a putative new country that was engaged in a war of secession? But as a causus belli, not
likely.
The attempt to frame the United States with the responsibility for the war was primarily a
post-bellum propaganda effort in support of restoring white supremacy.
Generalfeldmarschall von Hindenburg, October 28, 2015 at 5:47 pm
Yeah- the southern gentlemen were fully aware that even with the stupid 3/5 compromise, they
were going to be on the losing end of a demographic shift if they couldn't expand the slave states.
Hence the weird plots to annex Cuba and take over Mexico.
Oguk, October 28, 2015 at 2:43 pm
I don't know if I posted about this or not, but David Graeber's book (Debt: The first 5000
years) convincingly relates debt directly to slavery, real slavery. Creditors ("masters") rigged
the game, took all their debtors assets, and when there was nothing left for them to take, they
took them, as slaves. Or their wives, daughters, sons. I know, ancient slavery was different in
some respects; slaves could earn their way out or be "redeemed" by a family member or other creditor.
(And there was the Jubilee year – I have to read Michael Hudson on that someday.) I can accept
that American chattel slavery was distinct and diabolical, but it was an intense form of something
that seems to have been with us, humanity, for a long time.
2nd comment is that slave narratives, like Solomon Northrup's or Frederick Douglass's, really
drive the point of this post home. It is a chilling history.
TarheelDem, October 28, 2015 at 7:43 pm
Graeber's book is excellent on the relationship between debt and slavery, a relationship useful
to exploring post-bellum country-store and private debt selling and the debt slavery or working
off debt for third parties. Part of this examination of debt slavery should pay attention to the
way that debt was accounted for and who did the accounting. Company stores in isolated rural areas
were notorious in mining, manufacturing. logging, and agriculture for false books in order to
keep people in debt bondage.
But chattel slavery in America has origin in war raids, not indebtedness, war raids that were
encouraged by the slave traders and in North America involved aboriginal peoples raiding other
aboriginal peoples to provide Amerindian slave for transport from North America to the West Indies
even into the 1700s. That arose aside and independent of English traders trading European goods
on credit for deerskins (in Virginia and Carolina) and slaves. [Alan Gallay, The Indian Slave
Trade: The Rise of the English Empire in the American South, 1670-1717]
The political triangulation of the sweeping frontier balance this slavery, white indentured
servitude, and African chattel slavery as balances of forces to preserve the local aristocracy.
So three forms of servitude co-existed until 1717, two persisted until African chattel slavery
was dramatically profitable in the Tidewater tobacco plantations and Carolina rice and indigo
plantations and internal increase of the plantations caught up with labor demand. And the growth
of the political confederations of the "Five Civilized Tribes" in the mid-1700s shut down the
Indian slave trade. The westward expansion after the War of 1812 and the closure of the overseas
slave trade in 1808 created the conditions for the internal slave breeding industry with its generation
of roving coffles and slave traders, it major slave markets, a good many of which have been preserved,
and its new forms of finance and legal entities. This industry is even visible in census records.
Recording the occupations in the 1850 or 1860 census of slave areas in the Carolinas or Virginia,
one comes upon a patter in the vicinity of major plantation slaveowners. There are scattered settlements
that comprise an overseer, a number of blacksmiths, a waggonmaker, and a wheelwright in close
propinquity in a ratio of about one settlement for ever 150 slaves listed as property of the slaveowner.
The blacksmiths made and maintained the coffles. The wagon technicians made and repaired the planters
fleet for hauling bales or hogsheads. The census lists free men, who rarely are identified as
black or mulatto in these areas, generally not in sensitive occupations, such as blacksmith.
Slave traders are generally listed as "merchant". You have to look from specific ads for slaves
to figure out how extensive their trading business was.
Justicia, October 28, 2015 at 9:44 pm
Yes, Graeber's book is excellent on this point: "Slavery is the ultimate form of being ripped
from one's context, and thus from all social relationships that make one a human being. Another
way to put this is that the slave is, in a very real sense, dead."
Dead, perhaps, to the slave-owner and the laws that protected his property but very much alive
and human to their companions in suffering and to those not blinded by greed, prejudice, propaganda
and social convention.
TarheelDem, October 29, 2015 at 9:16 am
The notion of being dead as far as the law is concerned about his person and his property puts
a very interesting twist on knowing one's "place". And greed, prejudice, propaganda, and social
convention are not as much a primary issue as is the power to plunder and abuse regardless of
the particular motive. It is the institutions that defend the behaviors that hold in being the
attitudes. Rush Limbaugh, the shock jocks, Sheriff Clarke of Milwaukee County, and their like
defend the behaviors of abusive police; that is to let black people know that the law is dead
to them and to "stay in their place". Focusing on the attitude reduces the issue to an individualist
one of "personal responsibility" and the action of one or a few cops instead of a pervasive network
of abusive institutions held in place by a seamless nationwide network of racist propaganda, material
support for abusers, and legal defenses.
Darthbobber, October 28, 2015 at 11:42 pm
Another take on Graeber's book, from the Brit libertarian (no not those libertarians) Marxists
who publish Aufheben. I only agree with a portion of their critique, but its worth a read. http://libcom.org/library/5000-years-or-debt
nobody
About those textbooks… not those in the state of Texas, but those in use in the other states,
Morris Berman's got some interesting insights:
When you think about it, nearly everything in modern American history turns on the Civil
War, because the ideology I have been describing (which can be more accurately described as a
mythology, or grand narrative) requires us to 'fix' traditional societies and eliminate obstacles
to progress. With the Civil War these two goals converged, making it the paradigm case of how
we carry out, or attempt to carry out, these two projects. What the North did to the South is
really the model of what America in general did and does to 'backward' (i.e., traditional) societies,
if it can. You wipe out almost the entire indigenous population of North America; you steal half
of Mexico; you bomb Vietnam 'back to the Stone Age' (in the immortal words of Curtis LeMay); you
'shock and awe' Iraqi civilians, and so on. In what follows, then, I want to look at the War Between
the States in a completely different way than the one found in the typical American history textbook.
This, in fact, is what generated the energy that led to a four-year battle and the death of 625,000
individuals. What follows is an elaboration of this argument.
Let's start with the view of the South as seen from the North. The popular image of the antebellum
South, as it was presented in American history textbooks and classes when I went to high school
in the North, was pretty much the same then as it is now. That is to say, we were taught that
the South, as the home of slavery, was a backward and immoral place, and its refusal to abandon
that institution was the cause of the Civil War. Under the leadership of Abraham Lincoln (pretty
much depicted as a saint), the virtuous Union armies defeated the evil Confederate ones, and the
slaves were finally set free. Mutatis mutandis, this remains the politically correct version,
as well as the liberal academic version, of the war down to the present time.
[However…]
All the evidence suggests that the North's 'nobility' in fighting slavery was a long-after-the-fact
justification, an attempt to portray the conflict as a victory of morality and equality over depravity.
It's a thesis that gets people all worked up, but it finally doesn't wash.
[…]
In reality, the treatment of the South by the North was the template for the way the United
States would come to treat any nation it regarded as an enemy: not merely a scorched earth policy,
but also a 'scorched soul' policy (the destruction of the Native American population was, of course,
a preview of this). From Japan to Iraq, the pattern is the same, to the extant that we have been
able to impose it: first destroy the place physically (in particular, murder huge numbers of civilians,
as the North did to the South during the Civil War-fifty thousand of them by 1865), and then 'Americanize'
it. Humiliation, the destruction of the identity of the defeated party, has always been an important
part of the equation.
[…]
Sure, the war was about slavery; it was hardly a minor issue. But it was part of a much
larger one about two very different and incompatible civilizations, and a fixation on the moral
question of slavery can blind us to the larger (world) context of the Civil War, which was really
the American version of the global modernization process. No, I have no wish to live in a slave
society; I regard it as an abomination. But the South saw a different type of abomination on the
horizon, one that is now with us; and quite frankly, I have no wish to live in that one either.
Bits of chapter 4 from: Why America Filed: The Roots of Imperial Decline
TarheelDem, October 28, 2015 at 7:57 pm
The important point. The United States of America (Lincoln) did not want to fight. The abolitionists
were a minority. The Southern media (newspaper editors) freaked out like to media shock jocks
did over the election of Barack Obama. Unlike this time around, at least so far, the Southern
states were stampeded by their elites into seceding; the state legislatures and governors were
part of those elites. In the midst of the tension Edmund Ruffin, a pro-secessionist rabble-rouser
from Virginia went to Charleston SC, and with the help of military school Citadel and Arsenal
cadets, and SC militia, conducted a coast artillery attack on the closest military installation
– Fort Sumter. And reactions escalated, very much like the diplomatic environment after the the
1914 assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. And they escalated because the Southern hotheads
wanted war.
The area between the two capitals Washington and Richmond was the cockpit of the war. The first
movement was offensive, towards Washington. The Southern planters wanted Lincoln out of there.
JohnnyGL, October 28, 2015 at 3:34 pm
Regarding the coffle, it seems this is early capitalism's answer to the "Trail of Tears" and
the famous "Bataan Death March". Then again, maybe it's not "early" capitalism at all….I'm
thinking of Malaysia and the TPP.
Anarcissie, October 28, 2015 at 4:24 pm
Many years ago I visited a small slavery museum out in the cotton fields somewhere around Memphis
- I forget which side of the river it was on. It was in an old house that might be found anywhere,
but more likely in a suburb than far out in the cotton fields, with no other house in view. Even
the nearest line of trees was hundreds of yards away. In the largest room they had a lot of chains
with large, heavy links, bigger than you would think would be necessary to hold even a very active
human being.
The largest chain had been arranged in a spiral on the floor with the collars around
it, and there was a picture on the wall showing a coffle, the use to which such chains would have
been put. The links of the big chain had a rough, pitted surface, and were a sort of rusty reddish-black.
The elderly White woman in charge told me it had been taken from a long-gone barn or shed not
far away exactly as it was, where it had probably rested since slavery days. In other words, unless
the wind and the rain had washed them off, you could still find the blood and sweat of slaves
on the links. There was some other agricultural gear about, like the hand tools the slaves would
have used.
There was not a lot of signage and no glossy brochures. Pictures on the walls depicted
a plantation house and outbuildings none of which remained, with the exception of the one the
museum was in. I wondered who had put the museum together. When I asked how it had come to be,
the woman only said, 'It's our history. We think people should know about it.'
Felix47, October 28, 2015 at 9:27 pm
Slavery in the US was rather tame and short lived in comparison to the slavery practiced by
the Muslims and Africans themselves. The Somalians enslaved the Bantus etc. etc. The Arabs enslaved
everyone and I recall seeing slaves even in 1991 in Saudi Arabia…..doing the labor since descendents
of Mohammed avoid physical labor if they can since they see it as demeaning. The big difference
was that the Arabs did not seem to see breeding slaves as a business…..they had them castrated
in Africa often before they were imported. It was not until 1960 that slavery was outlawed in
Saudi Arabia although it may well continue to this day. To really understand large scale slavery
we need to go back to the origins of the Muslim movement.
Liz, October 29, 2015 at 6:33 pm
Hi Lambert, the book that first put the scope of the slave trading and breeding industries
into context for me was The World That Made New Orleans by Ned Sublette. It's a fascinating and
terrible account and if I recall correctly, describes some of the slave breeding operations carried
out by Thomas Jefferson.
Neocon Wolf Blitzer against Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard
Notable quotes:
"... This is one incredible person, she stands in a league of her own. The only pol Ive heard in a decade that makes a bit of sense. I now despise only 534 members of CONgress. ..."
"... Former CIA director Allen Dulles ordered JFKs assassination because he was a threat to national security, a new book has claimed. ..."
"... Allen Dulles most certainly was involved with the murder of JFK, and ensuing coverup. Dulles was central in the Warren Commission whitewash as well ..."
"... Elected in 2012, she is the first American Samoan[3] and the first Hindu member of the United States Congress,[4] and, along with Tammy Duckworth, one of its first female combat veterans.[5] ..."
"... She has a lot of guts unlike the shitty little vile NeoCons like McCain and Lindsay Graham and the Neo-Zio-Libs like Feinstein and Schumer who are dual shit-i-zens. ..."
"... fighting against Islamic extremists. ..."
"... What the CIA, et alia, ..."
"... Islamic extremist groups, ..."
"... terrorism, ..."
"... uccessfulness ..."
"... insanities. ..."
"... AFGHAN OPIUM PRODUCTION INCREASES 35-FOLD SINCE U.S. INVASION ..."
"... "Hoisted on their own petard" is an apt aphorism. ..."
"... Petard action happens at 6 minutes in, when Tulsi explains how if the U.S. repeats the same action as Iraq and Libya, the results will equal. ..."
One point we've been particularly keen on driving home since the beginning of Russian airstrikes
in Syria is that The Kremlin's move to step in on behalf of Bashar al-Assad along with Vladimir Putin's
open "invitation" to Washington with regard to joining forces in the fight against terrorism effectively
let the cat out of the proverbial bag.
That is, it simply wasn't possible for the US to explain why the Pentagon refused to partner with
the Russians without admitting that i) the government views Assad, Russia, and Iran as a greater
threat than ISIS, and ii) Washington and its regional allies don't necessarily want to see Sunni
extremism wiped out in Syria and Iraq.
Admitting either one of those points would be devastating from a PR perspective. No amount
of Russophobic propaganda and/or looped video clips of the Ayatollah ranting against the US would
be enough to convince the public that Moscow and Tehran are a greater threat than the black flag-waving
jihadists beheading Westerners and burning Jordanian pilots alive in Hollywood-esque video clips,
and so, The White House has been forced to scramble around in a desperate attempt to salvage the
narrative.
Well, it hasn't worked.
With each passing week, more and more people are beginning to ask the kinds of questions the Pentagon
and CIA most assuredly do not want to answer and now, US Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard
is out calling Washington's effort to oust Assad both "counterproductive" and "illegal."
In the following priceless video clip, Gabbard accuses the CIA of arming the very same terrorists
who The White House insists are "our sworn enemy" and all but tells the American public that the
government is lying to them and may end up inadvertently starting "World War III."
This is one incredible person, she stands in a league of her own. The only pol I've heard
in a decade that makes a bit of sense. I now despise only 534 members of CONgress.
Paveway IV
"...Gabbard accuses the CIA of arming the very same terrorists who The White House insists
are "our sworn enemy" and all but tells the American public that the government is lying to
them and may end up inadvertently starting "World War III."..."
Oh, then you're saying that that's future PRESIDENT Gabbard...
Sergeiab
Damn, you might be right. Look: see the public opinion is totally shifting (Easy when you have
access to all the comments of all medias, including the moderated ones). Find someone among the
democrats who voice it. Give her/him "random" media exposure (she was on Bill Maher few days ago)
"Sudden rise of an outsider". She's a soldier/veteran/surfer 32yo. "Incredible American story".
And at some point, she says she's transgender. Instant POTUS. That fits. That fits the "change/let's
do something wild for once" that everybody's craving for (Trump). And it can't be random that
a dissident voice is given media exposure. And she's beyond democrat/gop... That's a lot.
She left out Mossad, mI6, Saudis, Turkey and how many other zionist controlled CUNTries.
Dick Buttkiss
"Accuses CIA Of Backing Terroists."
Backing terrorist? How about being terrorists?
dot_bust
I agree. Good point.
I'd like to add that President John F. Kennedy issued an NSAM forbidding the CIA from conducting
an further paramilitary operations and turned those operations over to the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
In the op-ed, Truman said that the CIA had begun making policy instead of simply analyzing
data. He also emphasized his discomfort with the idea of the Agency participating in cloak-and-dagger
operations.
SWRichmond
Thanks for the link. Truman says:
I well knew the first temporary director of the CIA, Adm. Souers, and the later permanent
directors of the CIA, Gen. Hoyt Vandenberg and Allen Dulles. These were men of the highest
character, patriotism and integrity-and I assume this is true of all those who continue in
charge.
Former CIA director Allen Dulles ordered JFK's assassination because he was a 'threat
to national security', a new book has claimed.
Bay of Pigs
Allen Dulles most certainly was involved with the murder of JFK, and ensuing coverup. Dulles
was central in the Warren Commission whitewash as well. People forget he was dumped after
the Bay of Pigs fiasco with JFK saying at the time that he would "splinter the CIA into a thousand
pieces and scatter it to the winds".
Author David Talbot interviewed by Amy Goodman on Democracy Now.
Elected in 2012, she is the first American Samoan[3] and the first Hindu member of the
United States Congress,[4] and, along with Tammy Duckworth, one of its first female combat veterans.[5]
In 2004, when Tulsi's fellow soldiers from the 29th Brigade were called to war in Iraq, Tulsi
volunteered to join them. She didn't need to put her life on the line. She could have stayed in
the State House of Representatives, but in her heart, she felt it was more important to stand
in solidarity with her fellow soldiers than to climb the political ladder.
Her two deployments to the war-torn and dangerous Middle East revealed both Tulsi's natural
inclination to self-less service and her ability to perform well in situations demanding confidence,
courage, and the ability to perform well as a member of a team. The same maturity and character
that served Tulsi well in the Middle East makes her exceptionally effective in the political world.
Freddie
These banksters wars like all wars are total shit but I like her.
She is half Samoan and was a Catholic but became a Hindu.
She has a lot of guts unlike the shitty little vile NeoCons like McCain and Lindsay Graham
and the Neo-Zio-Libs like Feinstein and Schumer who are dual shit-i-zens.
While I agreed with your overview, WTFRLY, at the 1:25 mark I think she is seriously
mistaken about the priority being fighting against Islamic extremists.
The real enemy of the American People has been the international bankers, who have almost totally
captured control over the government of the USA, through POLITICAL FUNDING ENFORCING FRAUDS.
Her basic opinion regarding
9/11 deliberately ignores that
9/11 was an inside job, false flag attack, which was aided and abetted by the Deep State Shadow
Government. Everything that the USA has been doing has been actually carrying out the international
bankers' agenda. The countries targeted for regime change were obstacles to the consolidation
of the globalized hegemony of the international bankers, who are the best organized gangsters,
the banksters, that have already captured control over all NATO governments, as is painfully obvious
to anyone who thinks critically about how and why those governments ENFORCE FRAUDS by privately
controlled banks.
What the CIA, et alia, having been doing, since the overthrow of the government
of Iran back in 1953, has been creating "Islamic extremist groups,"
as the responses of the various Islamic countries having been controlled by the European invasions,
and later American invasions, which were always directed at capturing control over the development
of the natural resources, through maintaining the control over the monetary systems through which
that was done.
The whole of human history has been the exponential growth of social pyramid systems based
upon being able to back up lies with violence, becoming more sophisticated and integrated systems
of legalized lies, backed by legalized violence, which have become globalized systems of electronic
money frauds, backed by the threat of force from atomic bombs. There is indeed a serious risk
of NATO countries, already almost totally controlled by the international bankers, getting into
conflicts with the national interests of various countries which no longer are so easy for the
banksters to continue to control.
The banksters have been pushing through their agenda of wars based on deceits, in order to
back up their debt slavery systems, and those were primarily the reasons for the series of regime
changes, which appear to have stalled with respect to Syria. That Russia has decided that it is
geopolitically able, along with the propaganda cover of fighting "terrorism," to step
in with significant military support of the Syrian regime is indeed in severe conflict with the
agenda of the international banksters, who are collectively a group of trillionaire mass murderers.
Human history has become the excessive successfulness of the application
of the methods of organized crime to control governments, through the vicious spirals of POLITICAL
FUNDING ENFORCING FRAUDS, to develop to the point of runaway criminal insanities.
While the Congresswoman above provided more penetrating analysis than one is used to be presented
on the mainstream mass media, and she did that fairly well, she still is presenting the political
problems only on very superficial levels ...
She is an example of integrity standing up for what is right. I see many people of heart doing
the same as this unfolds. We are supposed to support the "Underdog" Remember?
Her father is of Samoan/European heritage and is a practicing Catholic who is a
lector at his church, but also enjoys practicing mantra meditation, including kirtan.[7] Her
mother is of Euro-American descent and a practicing Hindu.[7] Tulsi fully embracedHinduism
as a teenage
At 5 minutes in to video, Wolf B. mentions that Tulsi is a combat veteran.
She is also on Senate Arms services committee.
Blitzer was born in Augsburg, Germany] the son of Cesia Blitzer (née Zylberfuden),
a homemaker, and David Blitzer, a home builder. His parents were Jewish refugees from O?wi?cim,
Poland, and Holocaust survivors… While at Johns Hopkins, Blitzer studied abroad at the Hebrew
University of Jerusalem, where he learned Hebrew.
Petard action happens at 6 minutes in, when Tulsi explains how if the U.S. repeats the
same action as Iraq and Libya, the results will equal.
"Things that are being said right now about Assad, were said about Ghadaffi.., they were
said about Saddam Hussein, by those who were advocating for the U.S. to intervene, to
go overthrow those regimes and dictators. The fact is, if that happens here in Syria,….far
worse situation, persecution of religious minorities and Christians."
Who advocated to start ME wars? Wolf then puts words in her mouth, suggesting that Hezbollah
and Russians are doing the U.S. a favor.
To give Wolf full credit, he doesn't explode when Tulsi mentions persecution of the Christians,
as said Christians MUST be his enemy and color Wolf's wordview, given his parents refugee history.
Oh the web we weave, when we intend to deceive.
rejected
Well, she managed to get in the meme "We were attacked by Al Qaeda on 9/11". They push that
meme every chance they get.
The spooks at the CIA know how to push propaganda. She will get all kinds of credibility appearing
to oppose the spooks and very few will notice the 9/11 comment but the seed will be fertilized
and grow stronger.
ebear
"....very few will notice the 9/11 comment but the seed will be fertilized and grow stronger."
I beg to differ. That seed was already planted. Why are we supporting the people who
attacked us? - keeps it nice and simple. Turns the entire narrative against them.
One dragon at a time.
Omega_Man
not a good interview for zio Wolfe ...
I didn't like this girl before, but starting to like her.
She needs a security team... to protect her from the US Gov... no joke
A lot of wishful thinking. The USA still remain world only superpower and (in somewhat diminished
way) as well as a technological leader. And the USA is still the most powerful (neoliberal) empire (that does not contradict
dismal state of the USA infrastructure; that's typical for empire on late stage of development). It
just overextended itself due to neocon dominance in the US politics.
And remember that Russia
is neoliberal state too. And it was Putin who got Russia into WTO. Putin is a unique leader, but
his rule is not eternal. An there is nobody after him to continue defiant course. actually Russia will
face crisis of leadership after he is gone. So in a way TINA (or PAX Americana) still hold.
Notable quotes:
"... Zero fucking accountability. Greenspan and Bernanke didnt get it for blowing the Mother of All Bubbles. Clinton didnt get it for NAFTA and tearing down Glass-Steagal. Bush didnt get it for being asleep at the switch for 9/11 and then the wonderful Iraq and Afghan wars. Hilary didnt get it for creating all-terror zones in Libya. And Obama wont get it for destroying health care and doubling the national debt. ..."
"... think some of you are missing the big picture. Say that US Plan-B failed-take over Syria after Iraq. Isis are Sunnis. US have always supported Sunnis. So, Isis controls Iraq, with US and Saudi support (Plan-C). Now, say that in a couple years US, Saudi, and Israel manage a Coup D'état in Syria. ..."
"... As difficult as it is for most westerners to wrap their heads around... we are on the wrong side. Our side is really and truly the dark side. The side that is ruled by the banking cabal and who is hell bent on causing war after war after war in the name of expanding their hold on the entire planet. ..."
"... This is an unending war, if the US and the west pulls out of it and now Russia owns the mess. Russias economy is rather fucked at the moment and they are in no position to be fighting endless wars. ..."
"... ---Thanks to the fact that the Western media has held up ISIS as the devil incarnate........... ..."
"... ......... ..."
"... For now, however, expect ISIS to gradually disappear from the mainstream medias front pages. ..."
"... youve got a whole pentagon full of neocons whose heads are about to pop off; the urge in that building to intervene, er help, and blow shit up has to be extreme; if i was prezzy purple dank, id be maybe a little nervous of the suicide bug if you get it. ..."
"... The US and the House of Saud created, by accident or design, all the gangs of Muslim mass murderers currently terrorizing the planet. You want order restored and something done about Muslim mass murderers in your region, you bring in the Russians. ..."
"... With dirty Saudi oil money removed from the politics of Western nations, maybe something will finally be done to reverse Islamisation in the West. ..."
"... I agree with most of your comment, but Israel has never shown any interest in peace. If anything, they want the same kind of peace the US gave to the Native Americans (in this case, the Palestinians). ..."
"... Jordan? HAHAHA! Will they have their anti-ISIS intelligence center three blocks away from their USA sponsored ISIS training centers, or would that be taboo? What shameless whores those people must be. Its astonishing how quickly the wind can change direction. ..."
"... The US-led rules, which enforces verification of targets, regularly give IS militants time to save their supplies, equipment and fighters, they said. I dont see any similar constraint by US forces when it comes to bombing hospitals and wedding parties... ..."
"... Dont forget ISISs tanker trucks providing both income to ISIS and a increased oil supply to the market to keep prices down and ruin Russia economically. ..."
"... I suppose yesterday you noticed the US Syrian dwarfs came out out of the woodwork to tell the western MSM how many hospitals the Russians had bombed. ..."
"... You really have to hand it to the idiots (neocons) running DC. They totally blew it with the orchestration and training of ISIS to overthrow Assad, all the while having the MSM demonize ISIS as the bogeyman of the Middle East. Personally, I think the Ruskies are a bit slow on the uptake here. Why they didnt pull this off a year ago is beyond me. Maybe they have more patience than I do. ..."
"... Jordan has no choice but to join the Syrian/Russian/Iraq/Iran coalition. ISIS supply lines to and from Turkey will be cut. While the coalition nulifies US backed Anti-Assad moderate opposition , ISIS will be pushed southeast into eastern Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Jordan cant protect itself from US backed ISIS and sees Russia as its only savior. ..."
"... I agree that the Saudis will never ally with Iran, but we should clarify that the conflict you are describing is not Sunni vs Shia. but Wahhabi cultists versus mainstream Sunni and Shia. The Syrian army is 60% Sunni ..."
"... Egypt is also traditional Sunni and will likely move toward Russia and abandon the Saudis. ..."
"... Yes, the sectarian civil war nonsense was created to hide and counter the guerrilla war in Iraq. Iraq never had a civil war before, and there hadnt been a sectarian civil war anywhere. That the heavily intermarried anti-occupation Arabs needed to be fragmented into ghettos (just like the Palestinians naturally) ..."
"... Obama vowed to wage an unrelenting war on ISIL/ISIS. He said it would be a long haul, but terrorists would never hide from the USA. Fast forward to a full year of ISIL advances on the ground backed by a flood of US supplied TOW Anti Tank Guided Missiles, in use by Al-Qaeda and ISIL both. So Russia steps in to the fight. Obama demands they stop their sir strikes, stop arming Assad, and go home. ..."
"... Thats the best part about solving a problem that youve created. The severity of the problem will conveniently wax and wane to suit your needs. Need to scare the sheeple and keep foreign vassals loyal? Step #1 Create a pet bogeyman. Step #2: Defeat the pet bogeyman. Repeat as often as needed to maintain hegemony. ..."
"... I admire Putin for his steadfast defense of his country in the face of covert terrorism from the west. I fear the ME might be a quagmire although surely he better understands it than I do. As for the neocunts, everyone of you should die for the destruction youve sewn ..."
"... List of GCC countries, Gulf countries *Great Data Site-- Note: It is the NGOs belonging to the UAE Qatar that fund the jihadist throughout the *muslim-sunni world... with Saudi Arabia at the helm. The geographic landscape is telling...[Qatar and Bahrain have gargantuan R R military base outpost for USSA military brass] while most jihadist are recruited throughout the worlds muslim-sunni communities and trained in Jordan, and Pakistan etel! ..."
"... It should not be surprising that Putin, who has an excellent grasp of foreign affairs and intellectually far above most, if not all US policy makers, will exploit this situation. Further, ISIS can easily create major problems in Jordan, (where do they go once they are driven out of Syria?) something the King of Jordan, is no doubt well aware. Bottom line- the 2003 US invasion and occupation of Iraq may well go down as the biggest military and economic disaster in world history. ..."
"... And just when are Germans, Italians, French and the Eastern European wanna-bes going to demand that NATO be dissolved and the American MIC permanently removed from their landscape(s) after 70 years of hovering ?... ..."
"... Lay the blame at the feet of those most responsible for this crisis who were coerced, bribed and threatened if they didnt do with impunity what the American IC and military demanded them to do and not the innocent begging for refuge while your government(s) assisted in the looting operation of their sovereign Countries! ..."
Zero fucking accountability. Greenspan and Bernanke didn't get it for blowing the Mother of
All Bubbles. Clinton didn't get it for NAFTA and tearing down Glass-Steagal. Bush didn't get it
for being asleep at the switch for 9/11 and then the wonderful Iraq and Afghan wars. Hilary didn't
get it for creating all-terror zones in Libya. And Obama won't get it for destroying health care
and doubling the national debt.
WTF are you gonna do. The United States of Amnesia.
BTW Turkey is the next Syria, you heard it here first.
jeff montanye
Bush was not asleep at the switch on 9-11. he just played one on teevee.
I think some of you are missing the big picture. Say that US Plan-B failed-take over Syria
after Iraq. Isis are Sunnis. US have always supported Sunnis. So, Isis controls Iraq, with US
and Saudi support (Plan-C). Now, say that in a couple years US, Saudi, and Israel manage a Coup
D'état in Syria.
... ... ...
Never Let a Serious Crisis Go to Waste: How Neoliberalism Survived(s).......
The writer of this comment is really stupid, ignorant and moronic. The middle east isn't ours.
Its not our toy. Russia didn't steal our toy. Its not the taxpayers job to fund a global playground
for the US military to "exert our will".
Everything in the above article was PURE PROPAGANDA designed to promote some type of kneejerk
response to Russia stealing our "toy".
Leave it alone. The middle east is like a big turd pile. We've got to learn to stop playing
in it. Apparently readers of ZH think that playing King of the Turd Pile is exactly what taxpayers
are supposed to finance.
Pure Evil
Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov's saying about selling the capitalists the rope to hang themselves
seems almost apropos in this situation.
After 9-11 the Russians allowed the former Soviet Republics to open up forward operating bases
for the US to supply its foray into Afghanistan. When we went a bridge to far they then applied
the pressure to deny access to these former airfields and our only supply route is now through
Pakistan. And, undoubtedly the Pakistanis would more than be willing to sell us out to the Chinese
and Russians.
With Iraq they sat back and watched us waste not only men and war fighting material but bleed
the US Treasury dry.
They also stood down as we stoked the Arab Spring from Tunisia to Libya to Syria. Now Europe
suffers from their own Arab Spring as millions of Sunni with no place to live invade Europe.
We overturn Saddam only to replace him with Shia leaders in control and we can only sit back
and wonder why the Iranians control the Iraqi army.
We've spent trillions upon trillions of dollars only to hand over Syria and Iraq on a silver
platter to Russia and Iran.
... ... ...
The neocons who consider themselves the best and brightest have totally botched everything
and they're about to finish the take down of the US via amnesty, Obamacare, TPP, gun control,
more and even higher immigration, and Wall Street corruption.
Can America afford anymore of their hubris?
Albertarocks
I think most of the world can see what's going to happen once Putin is finished putting the
pieces all back together again. Peace is going to break out. And that's something that the US
admin. just can't comprehend. [And I don't mean 'the American people'. It's the admin. acting
as the puppet for the global banking mafia.] Can they accept peace in the Middle East? Hard to
say, but when there is peace in the world, the US military industrial complex, the bankers, the
fascist corporations, the dark side in general can't rule and make obscene amounts of money robbing
the rest of the world.
As difficult as it is for most westerners to wrap their heads around... we are on the wrong
side. Our 'side' is really and truly the dark side. The side that is ruled by the banking cabal
and who is hell bent on causing war after war after war in the name of expanding their hold on
the entire planet.
It's also considered a mortal sin in the west to cheer for the enemy. And maybe that's the
proper and loyal stance to have, but cheering for Putin's success is not cheering for the enemy.
The dark side, 'our side', is the world's enemy. Your children's enemy. Your grand children's
enemy. The enemy of all of humanity and what is 'right'. Then enemy of this entire once-beautiful
planet.
So ya, I want to see Putin be left alone to reassemble the god damned mess the bankers have
caused. And then I want to see westerners turn our furious gaze inward... at the real cause of
all the world's trouble. Our governments' day of reckoning is what westerners should be focusing
on.
Paveway IV
"...It's also considered a mortal sin in the west to cheer for the enemy..."
Critical thinking ability is also a mortal sin in the West. Which would quickly lead one to
surmise that the term 'enemy' is a neurolinguistic trick used by psychopaths to make you do something
against your will, morals or better judgement. Replace 'enemy' with a more succinct term: 'evil'.
Is Russia evil? No. Would you cheer for evil? Of course not. See how easy it is to untwist the
psychopath's perverted logic?
California Nightmares
Some great comments, here. I'm afraid to thunbs up some of these. Microsoft and Google are
probably capturing my every mouse click.
I offer only one thought: were the Russians (God bless 'em) to attain control of most of the
Middle East's oil, we zeros in the USA would find ourselves living back in 1850.
ThroxxOfVron
"I think most of the world can see what's going to happen once Putin is finished putting
the pieces all back together again. Peace is going to break out. And that's something that
the US admin. just can't comprehend. "
I don't think that the War Profiteers are going to just shrug, stop taking our money from us,
and find useful productive activities with which to earn honest livings so easily...
It's right about next year that South America should start to disintegrate.
Argentina., Venezuela, Brazil, Mexico: are ALL in serious trouble due to excessive/corrosive
mismanagement and corruption, narco trade and human trafficing dynamics, commodities cycle collaps/reversions,
resource depletions, etc..
Texas will have it's 'Hungarian' border moment soon enough as large populations finally give
up any hope for political order and economic stability in their homelands and migrate north to
the relative political stability and economic health ( and the generous social/welfare benefits!
) offered by the political ideologues in the US and Canada...
I expect that the usual political/policy factions the US will each welcome a wave of several
millions of migrants, and launch military incursions into convulsing failed or failing South American
states, albeit for differently stated reasons or ideological affinities...
IF the South American situation is not a large enough crisis to merit interventions and migrations
it will be aggravated/enhanced to the point where it is worth of interventions by the Warfare/Welfare
State nexus.
trulz4lulz
This is amazing!! Murikistan totally has lost control of their petrodollar superiority in 5
WEEKS! The rest will just be formalities of setting up the re republics of Iraq, Syria, Yemen,
Libya, and Afghanistan for russia and iran to reside over. This is the best cock-up in the history
of the modern era!
Masterclass geopolitical strategy, Russia and Iran. Not like it wasn't handed to you on a silver
platter or anything by obombya and his nerry band of mentally retarded sycophants, but still.
Well played.
P.S. Murikistan doesn't survive this. Im hoping the great lakes region goes to the canadians
though.
chunga
I've been thinking for a while that for USSA to maintain the petro-dollar reserve status it
needs it's military to have at least an aura of invinciblity. Without that it would be tough to
keep doing tricks like QE. And without the QE financial tricks it would be tough to pay for the
giant military so catch-22.
Since USSA has fucked with just about everybody over there, their list of allies is pretty
bad mainly just cutthroat Saudi Arabia and Israel. With the Russians giving Uncle Scam the finger
it might embolden others to do the same. That's why I fear 'Murika might fly off the handle over
this and really escalate the shooting because it has no choice. They've burned up all their goodwill
internationally so only tool they have is a hammer.
Albertarocks -> chunga
I couldn't possibly agree with you more. You nailed it. Sam is in such a pickle. The bankers
have led the US down the garden path, using it as it's 'bully branch', and this is more or less
what I meant by our government being held to account. 90% of Congress should be charged with treason,
given a fair trial and be made to suffer the consequences. If any one of them are found 'not guilty',
then the judge should be charged with treason as well since it is already 100% obvious that when
any one of them who signs bills, unread, at midnight, they have just committed an act of treason
in that irresponsible act alone. I mean it's just incredible how evil the admin. has become. It's
time to shake that house apart and bring 'rule of law' back into the forefront where it belongs.
And then the oversight agencies like the SEC and the FDA... it's time to tear those demonic agencies
to shreds and deal with their leaders accordingly. Those are the people who should probably pay
the ultimate penalty first.
Freddie
the speed - 5 weeks - makes me think this has all been planned out. The installation of See
Eye Aye NWO shit like Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obola makes me wonder. All four are See Eye Aye Moles.
All four are related. See video above. The USSA is a joke filled with idiots brainwashed by
TV and Zollywood.
Omen IV
So the usa circles Russia and China with most of the 700 bases it operates and Iran in motion
with Russia's help to circle Saudi Arabia with its own sphere of operation - pushing ISIS / ISIL
/ Daesh / Free Syrian Army / Al Nusra et al = Sunni's - to recognize the big prize that SA represents
to ALL Sunni
The Princes right now have Mecca ???
laomei
I'm failing to see the downside to any of this. The US gets bitched at no matter what it does
now. It's always wrong in some way or another, so fuck it I guess. Russia, which is MUCH CLOSER
than the US is to this mess now gets to stick their dick into this bee hive and see what comes
of it. This is an unending war, if the US and the west pulls out of it and now Russia owns
the mess. Russia's economy is rather fucked at the moment and they are in no position to be fighting
endless wars.
monk27
Russia's economy is much less fucked than America's economy. Printing USD with abandon (with
and without issuing corresponding debt), and stuffing them into your own banks, hardly qualifies
as "economy". By any measure you choose, US is in worse shape than Russia, corruption included...
At this point, probably the best thing US could hope for would be to clean up it's act internally
(filling the jails with financial crooks would help), and do nothing as foreign policy, at least
for a while. Detoxification is essential for survival...
Tyler Durden----''Thanks to the fact that the Western media has held up
ISIS as the devil incarnate''...........
can somebody make a youtube video montage of the talking heads, retired generals, republican
debate freak show contestants, PNAC ZIO-CONs telling us how evil ISIS is/are ..........because
ISIS has disappearded from the MSM headlines as Tyler predicted 2 weeks ago.....
Tyler Durden--''For now, however, expect ISIS to gradually disappear from
the mainstream media's front pages.''
re laomei: allow me to take a stab at 'splaining this: the reason it matters is because
you've got a whole pentagon full of neocons whose heads are about to pop off; the urge in that
building to intervene, er help, and blow shit up has to be extreme; if i was prezzy purple dank,
i'd be maybe a little nervous of the suicide bug if you get it.
also, for how long does anyone think israel is going to stand by and let this shit show build?
they're playing it cool for now. but so did Putin until about 60 days ago . . .
this all of course is just a guess; WTF do i know, i'm just a dumb sum bitch that pays my bills
and half of everyone else's;
Niall Of The Nine Hostages
It's not a "foolproof cover story." It's the truth. The US and the House of Saud created,
by accident or design, all the gangs of Muslim mass murderers currently terrorizing the planet.
You want order restored and something done about Muslim mass murderers in your region, you bring
in the Russians.
On to Riyadh, Doha and Dubai. After the House of Saud and Thani are driven from power and liquidated,
you won't hear another word about the war on terror. With dirty Saudi oil money removed from
the politics of Western nations, maybe something will finally be done to reverse Islamisation
in the West.
And there will be peace in Israel for forty years.
grekko -> Niall Of The Nine Hostages
You really have to eliminate Bibi first, and his whole neocon cadre. He incites the other side
to be stupid, so he can reap the votes of the stupid. Then there will be peace.
Caleb Abell
I agree with most of your comment, but Israel has never shown any interest in peace. If anything,
they want the same kind of peace the US gave to the Native Americans (in this case, the Palestinians).
Jack's Raging Bile Duct
Jordan? HAHAHA! Will they have their anti-ISIS intelligence center three blocks away from
their USA sponsored ISIS training centers, or would that be taboo? What shameless whores those
people must be. It's astonishing how quickly the wind can change direction.
smacker
[copied over from previous article]
This looks like it's one of the tactics used by US forces in Syria/Iraq to minimise any bombing
damage to its ISIS terrorist friends:
from that article at http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/iraq-authorises-russia-strike-islamic-...
" "They [the US-led coalition] refuse to strike private cars, mosques, bridges, schools despite
the fact Daesh militants are mainly using these places as headquarters," a senior military officer
[...] told MEE."
"The US-led rules, which enforces verification of targets, regularly give IS militants
time to save their supplies, equipment and fighters, they said." I don't see any similar constraint
by US forces when it comes to bombing hospitals and wedding parties...
bid the soldier
Don't forget ISIS's tanker trucks providing both income to ISIS and a increased oil supply
to the market to keep prices down and ruin Russia economically.
smacker
Yep, it'll be good if Putin's bombers locate a few ISIS oil convoys and deal with them. That
won't please the Turkish middle-men.
bid the soldier... -> smacker
I suppose yesterday you noticed the US Syrian dwarfs came out out of the woodwork to tell the
western MSM how many hospitals the Russians had bombed.
Apparently unnewsworthy until the US bombed the MSF hospital in Afghanistan.
Its hard to say which is more pathetic: the US military or US propaganda.
Lea
"Iraq allows Russia to strike ISIL" is nowhere but on this Turkish site. I call BS. The whole
of the Russian media would make this headlines. There is zilch, nada on Sputnik, RT or TASS.
grekko
You really have to hand it to the idiots (neocons) running DC. They totally blew it with
the orchestration and training of ISIS to overthrow Assad, all the while having the MSM demonize
ISIS as the bogeyman of the Middle East. Personally, I think the Ruskies are a bit slow on the
uptake here. Why they didn't pull this off a year ago is beyond me. Maybe they have more patience
than I do.
dustyfin
There's a time for everything.
A year ago Russia had other concerns, its military was a year less well prepared and a year
ago, I think that Putin and his government still thought that some form of rapprochement could
be made with The West.
Also, to get this far has required a whole heap of planning, negotiating, horse trading and
arm twisting. Think of this as being the 'overnight success' that took a decade to achieve!
sudzee
Jordan has no choice but to join the Syrian/Russian/Iraq/Iran coalition. ISIS supply lines
to and from Turkey will be cut. While the coalition nulifies US backed Anti-Assad "moderate opposition",
ISIS will be pushed southeast into eastern Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Jordan can't protect itself
from US backed ISIS and sees Russia as its only savior.
Saudi Arabia will have no choice soon but to join the coalition as well.
Get ready to price oil in Rubles or gold as the US is completely forced out of the entire middle
east.
PrimalScream
I will differ with you on that one. The Saudis will never join Russia and Iran - that would
be a union between Sunnis and Shiites. It is not going to happen. This new power struggle pits
Sunni nations directly against the Shiites. It will be big and it will be bloody.
Rhett72
I agree that the Saudis will never ally with Iran, but we should clarify that the conflict
you are describing is not Sunni vs Shia. but Wahhabi cultists versus mainstream Sunni and Shia.
The Syrian army is 60% Sunni, and the Jordanian Hashemites are traditional Sunnis descended
from Prophet Muhammad who were expelled from Mecca by the Saudis. Egypt is also traditional
Sunni and will likely move toward Russia and abandon the Saudis.
Zadig
Yes, the sectarian civil war nonsense was created to hide and counter the guerrilla war
in Iraq. Iraq never had a civil war before, and there hadn't been a 'sectarian civil war' anywhere.
That the heavily intermarried anti-occupation Arabs needed to be fragmented into ghettos (just
like the Palestinians naturally), but the pro-occupation Kurds didn't should have made things
obvious to everyone.
Jack Burton
Obama vowed to wage an unrelenting war on ISIL/ISIS. He said it would be a long haul, but
terrorists would never hide from the USA. Fast forward to a full year of ISIL advances on the
ground backed by a flood of US supplied TOW Anti Tank Guided Missiles, in use by Al-Qaeda and
ISIL both. So Russia steps in to the fight. Obama demands they stop their sir strikes, stop arming
Assad, and go home.
Wanna see what Russia at war looks like? Want to see how they answer ISIL chopping heads off,
eating organs etc. Watch the FULL video below of the Syrian Arab Army employ their new Russian
supplied TOS-1 thermobaric weapon.
That's the best part about solving a problem that you've created. The severity of the problem
will conveniently wax and wane to suit your needs. Need to scare the sheeple and keep foreign
vassals loyal? Step #1 Create a pet bogeyman. Step #2: Defeat the pet bogeyman. Repeat as often
as needed to maintain hegemony.
Russia jumping in at Step #2 to reap the plaudits (and weapon sales!), is probably what Mordor
hates the most about all this.
taopraxis
People who think Russia and China and the USA are enemies probably think Republicans and Democrats
are enemies. Step back and it seems fairly obvious that someone behind the scene is moving these
pieces around on the global chess board and the political puppets are merely implementing the
new policies.
Obama looks like a Marketing Prez. Putin acts more like a COO. Abe is CFO, apparently, a frightening
thought. Not sure what the Chinese and Saudi top dogs are all about...real players, maybe. All
just conjecture, but the way the USA pulled out and the Russians moved in looked too well coordinated
to be anything other than that...coordinated.
rejected
Hopefully President Putin doesn't put too much on his plate. The ussa is setting up fresh arms
deliveries to the terrorists as we ponder.
It's going to be tough going for the Russian Federation to clean up the mess the ussa has made
of the ME over the last 25 years. The whole damn place is a complete disaster with Arabs killing
each other and Israel killing as many Palestinians as they can.
It's astonishing the Arabs, like the Ukrainians, can't seem to understand the ussa modus operandi
that is,,, start a bunch of crap then back off and watch the fun. Sort of like the bar fight scenes
in movies where the perp that starts the brawl exits once everyone is fighting.
Berspankme
I admire Putin for his steadfast defense of his country in the face of covert terrorism
from the west. I fear the ME might be a quagmire although surely he better understands it than
I do. As for the neocunts, everyone of you should die for the destruction you've sewn
earleflorida
Why waste valuable resources dividing and conquering in a medieval world, when religion can
do the trick without unsheathing a sword? All but[t] for,... only the might being in the hands
of the dual-mine'd pen'heads[?], is all one needs as a metaphoric representation of a classical
'Damocles Dilemma' victory? Why tell your right hand what your doing when the left will do it
for you in a asymmetric 'syncreticism'!
"List of GCC countries, Gulf countries' *Great Data Site-- Note: It is the 'NGOs' belonging
to the UAE & Qatar that fund the jihadist throughout the *muslim-sunni world... with Saudi Arabia
at the helm. The geographic landscape is telling...[Qatar and Bahrain have gargantuan R&R military
base outpost for USSA military brass] while most jihadist are recruited throughout the worlds
muslim-sunni communities and trained in Jordan, and Pakistan etel!
"There is a strong cooperation between MOSSAD and ISIS top military commanders...Israeli advisors
helping the Organization on laying out strategic and military plans, and guiding them in the battlefield"
The terrorist organization also has military consultants from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, United Arab
Emirates and Jordan. Saudi Arabia has so far provided ISIS with 30,000 vehicles, while Jordan
rendered 4500 vehicles. Qatar and United Arab Emirates delivered funds for covering ISIS overall
expenditure.
The planes belonging to the aforesaid countries are still landing in the Mosel airport, carrying
military aid and fighters, especially via the Jordanian borders.
Phillyguy
Key events in US Iraq campaign
Judy Miller and Michael Gordon publish their piece in the paper of record (NYT) about Sadam
Hussein's attempts to obtain parts for nuclear weapons in 2002 (later shown to be nonsense).
Colin Powell uses above "intelligence" in his UN speech, effectively creating a casus belli
for Bush II invasion/occupation of Iraq.
Don Rumsfeld claims the Iraq war will cost circa $ 70 billion, paid for with Iraqi oil
revenue. Reality check- the Iraq campaign will end up costing US taxpayers $4-6 trillion.
Immediately following the US invasion, US military disbands the Iraqi armed forces, many
of whom later join ISIS/ISIL/Daesh.
The arrogance, dishonesty and outright incompetence of this campaign is breathtaking. Despite
spending significant lives and treasure, the US failed to obtain any imperial rent (oil concessions,
etc) from this war.
It should not be surprising that Putin, who has an excellent grasp of foreign affairs and
intellectually far above most, if not all US policy makers, will exploit this situation. Further,
ISIS can easily create major problems in Jordan, (where do they go once they are driven out of
Syria?) something the King of Jordan, is no doubt well aware. Bottom line- the 2003 US invasion
and occupation of Iraq may well go down as the biggest military and economic disaster in world
history.
Son of Captain Nemo
Regardless of your stance on whether the EU should be receptive to the millions of asylum seekers
fleeing the war-torn Mid-East, the simple fact is that if you remain in Syria, you are risking
your life on a daily basis, caught in the crossfire between a bewildering array of state actors,
rebel groups, and proxy armies, all with competing agendas.
And just when are Germans, Italians, French and the Eastern European wanna-bes going to demand
that NATO be dissolved and the American MIC permanently removed from their landscape(s) after
70 years of "hovering"?...
Lay the blame at the feet of those most responsible for this crisis who were coerced, bribed
and threatened if they didn't do with impunity what the American IC and military demanded them
to do and not the innocent begging for refuge while your government(s) assisted in the looting
operation of their sovereign Countries!
P.S.
If PIGIDA were ever to wage that kind of a campaign and align themselves with the "left" that
is already anti-American the U.S. will be finished!
"... The cast of characters includes President George W. Bush; L. Paul "Jerry" Bremer, the first
civilian administrator of postwar Iraq; Douglas Feith, Bush's undersecretary of defense for policy;
Paul Wolfowitz, Bush's deputy secretary of defense; I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, chief of staff to Vice
President Richard B. Cheney (and Cheney's proxy in these events); Walter Slocombe, who had been President
Clinton's undersecretary of defense for policy, and as such was Feith's predecessor; Richard Perle,
who was chairman of Bush's defense policy board; and General Jay Garner, whom Bremer replaced as the
leader of postwar Iraq. ..."
"... Regarding the de-Baathification order, both Bremer and Feith have written their own accounts
of the week leading up to it, and the slight discrepancy between their recollections is revealing in
what it tells us about Bremer-and consequently about Wolfowitz and Libby for having selected him. At
first blush, Bremer and Feith's justifications for the policy appear to dovetail, each comparing postwar
Iraq to postwar Nazi Germany. Bremer explains in a retrospective Washington Post op-ed, "What We Got
Right in Iraq," that "Hussein modeled his regime after Adolf Hitler's, which controlled the German people
with two main instruments: the Nazi Party and the Reich's security services. We had no choice but to
rid Iraq of the country's equivalent organizations." For his part, Feith goes a step further, reasoning
in his memoir War and Decision that the case for de-Baathification was even stronger because "The Nazis,
after all, had run Germany for a dozen years; the Baathists had tyrannized Iraq for more than thirty."
..."
"... Simply put, Bremer was tempted by headline-grabbing policies. He was unlikely to question any
action that offered opportunities to make bold gestures, which made him easy to influence. Indeed, another
quality of Bremer's professional persona that conspicuously emerges from accounts of the period is his
unwillingness to think for himself. ..."
"... What's even more surprising is how Bremer doesn't hide his intellectual dependence on Slocombe.
..."
"... Slocombe that "Although a Democrat, he has maintained good relations with Wolfowitz and is
described by some as a 'Democratic hawk,'" a remark that once again places Wolfowitz in close proximity
to Bremer and the disbanding order. ..."
In May 2003, in the wake of the Iraq War and the ousting of Saddam Hussein, events took place
that set the stage for the current chaos in the Middle East. Yet even most well-informed Americans
are unaware of how policies implemented by mid-level bureaucrats during the Bush administration unwittingly
unleashed forces that would ultimately lead to the juggernaut of the Islamic State.
The lesson is that it appears all too easy for outsiders working with relatively low-level appointees
to hijack the policy process. The Bay of Pigs invasion and Iran-Contra affair are familiar instances,
but the Iraq experience offers an even better illustration-not least because its consequences have
been even more disastrous.
The cast of characters includes President George W. Bush; L. Paul "Jerry" Bremer, the first
civilian administrator of postwar Iraq; Douglas Feith, Bush's undersecretary of defense for policy;
Paul Wolfowitz, Bush's deputy secretary of defense; I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, chief of staff to Vice
President Richard B. Cheney (and Cheney's proxy in these events); Walter Slocombe, who had been President
Clinton's undersecretary of defense for policy, and as such was Feith's predecessor; Richard Perle,
who was chairman of Bush's defense policy board; and General Jay Garner, whom Bremer replaced as
the leader of postwar Iraq.
On May 9, 2003, President Bush appointed Bremer to the top civilian post in Iraq. A career diplomat
who was recruited for this job by Wolfowitz and Libby, despite the fact that he had minimal experience
of the region and didn't speak Arabic, Bremer arrived in Baghdad on May 12 to take charge of the
Coalition Provisional Authority, or CPA. In his first two weeks at his post, Bremer issued two orders
that would turn out to be momentous. Enacted on May 16, CPA Order Number 1 "de-Baathified" the Iraqi
government; on May 23, CPA Order Number 2 disbanded the Iraqi army. In short, Baath party members
were barred from participation in Iraq's new government and Saddam Hussein's soldiers lost their
jobs, taking their weapons with them.
The results of these policies become clear as we learn about the leadership of ISIS. The Washington
Post, for example, reported in April that "almost all of the leaders of the Islamic State are
former Iraqi officers." In June, the New York Times identified a man "believed to be the head
of the Islamic State's military council," Fadel al-Hayali, as "a former lieutenant colonel in the
Iraqi military intelligence agency of President Saddam Hussein." Criticism of de-Baathification and
the disbanding of Iraq's army has been fierce, and the contribution these policies made to fueling
extremism was recognized even before the advent of the Islamic State. The New York Times reported
in 2007:
The dismantling of the Iraqi Army in the aftermath of the American invasion is now widely regarded
as a mistake that stoked rebellion among hundreds of thousands of former Iraqi soldiers and made
it more difficult to reduce sectarian bloodshed and attacks by insurgents.
This year the Washington Post summed up reactions to both orders when it cited a former
Iraqi general who asked bluntly, "When they dismantled the army, what did they expect those men to
do?" He explained that "they didn't de-Baathify people's minds, they just took away their jobs."
Writing about the disbanding policy in his memoir, Decision Points, George W. Bush acknowledges
the harmful results: "Thousands of armed men had just been told they were not wanted. Instead of
signing up for the new military, many joined the insurgency."
... ... ...
In his memoir, Bremer names the officials who approached him for his CPA job. He recounts telling
his wife that:
I had been contacted by Scooter Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, and by
Paul Wolfowitz, deputy secretary of defense. The Pentagon's original civil administration in 'post-hostility'
Iraq-the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance, ORHA-lacked expertise in high-level
diplomatic negotiations and politics. … I had the requisite skills and experience for that position.
Regarding the de-Baathification order, both Bremer and Feith have written their own accounts
of the week leading up to it, and the slight discrepancy between their recollections is revealing
in what it tells us about Bremer-and consequently about Wolfowitz and Libby for having selected him.
At first blush, Bremer and Feith's justifications for the policy appear to dovetail, each comparing
postwar Iraq to postwar Nazi Germany. Bremer explains in a retrospective Washington Post op-ed,
"What We Got Right in Iraq," that "Hussein modeled his regime after Adolf Hitler's, which controlled
the German people with two main instruments: the Nazi Party and the Reich's security services. We
had no choice but to rid Iraq of the country's equivalent organizations." For his part, Feith goes
a step further, reasoning in his memoir War and Decision that the case for de-Baathification
was even stronger because "The Nazis, after all, had run Germany for a dozen years; the Baathists
had tyrannized Iraq for more than thirty."
Regarding the order itself, Bremer writes,
The day before I left for Iraq in May, Undersecretary of Defense Douglas J. Feith presented
me with a draft law that would purge top Baathists from the Iraqi government and told me that
he planned to issue it immediately. Recognizing how important this step was, I asked Feith to
hold off, among other reasons, so I could discuss it with Iraqi leaders and CPA advisers. A week
later, after careful consideration, I issued this 'de-Baathification' decree, as drafted by the
Pentagon.
In contrast, Feith recalls that Bremer asked him to wait because "Bremer had thoughts of his own
on the subject, he said, and wanted to consider the de-Baathification policy carefully. As the new
CPA head, he thought he should announce and implement the policy himself."
The notion that he "carefully" considered the policy in his first week on the job, during which
he also travelled halfway around the globe, is highly questionable. Incidentally, Bremer's oxymoronic
statement-"a week later, after careful consideration"-mirrors a similar formulation of Wolfowitz's
about the disbanding order. Speaking to the Washington Post in November 2003, he said that
forming a new Iraqi army is "what we're trying to do at warp speed-but with careful vetting of the
people we're bringing on."
Simply put, Bremer was tempted by headline-grabbing policies. He was unlikely to question
any action that offered opportunities to make bold gestures, which made him easy to influence. Indeed,
another quality of Bremer's professional persona that conspicuously emerges from accounts of the
period is his unwillingness to think for himself. His memoir shows that he was eager to put
Jay Garner in his place from the moment he arrived in Iraq, yet he was unable to defend himself on
his own when challenged by Garner, who-according to Bob Woodward in his book State of Denial:
Bush at War, Part III-was "stunned" by the disbanding order. Woodward claims that when Garner
confronted Bremer about it, "Bremer, looking surprised, asked Garner to go see Walter B. Slocombe."
What's even more surprising is how Bremer doesn't hide his intellectual dependence on Slocombe.
He writes in his memoir:
To help untangle these problems, I was fortunate to have Walt Slocombe as Senior Adviser for
defense and security affairs. A brilliant former Rhodes Scholar from Princeton and a Harvard-educated
attorney, Walt had worked for Democratic administrations for decades on high-level strategic and
arms control issues.
In May 2003, the Washington Post noted of Slocombe that "Although a Democrat, he has
maintained good relations with Wolfowitz and is described by some as a 'Democratic hawk,'" a remark
that once again places Wolfowitz in close proximity to Bremer and the disbanding order. Sure
enough, in November 2003 the Washington Post reported:
The demobilization decision appears to have originated largely with Walter B. Slocombe, a former
undersecretary of defense appointed to oversee Iraqi security forces. He believed strongly in
the need to disband the army and felt that vanquished soldiers should not expect to be paid a
continuing salary. He said he developed the policy in discussions with Bremer, Feith and Deputy
Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz. 'This is not something that was dreamed up by somebody at
the last minute and done at the insistence of the people in Baghdad. It was discussed,' Slocombe
said. 'The critical point was that nobody argued that we shouldn't do this.'
Given that the president agreed to preserve the Iraqi army in the NSC meeting on March 12, Slocombe's
statement is evidence of a major policy inconsistency. In that meeting, Feith, at the request of
Donald Rumsfeld, gave a PowerPoint presentation prepared by Garner about keeping the Iraqi army;
in his own memoir, Feith writes, "No one at that National Security Council meeting in early March
spoke against the recommendation, and the President approved Garner's plan." But this is not what
happened. What happened instead was the reversal of Garner's plan, which Feith attributes to Slocombe
and Bremer:
Bremer and Slocombe argued that it would better serve U.S. interests to create an entirely
new Iraqi army: Sometimes it is easier to build something new than to refurbish a complex and
badly designed structure. In any event, Bremer and Slocombe reasoned, calling the old army back
might not succeed-but the attempt could cause grave political problems.
Over time, both Bremer and Slocombe have gone so far as to deny that the policies had any tangible
effects. Bremer claimed in the Washington Post that "Virtually all the old Baathist ministers
had fled before the decree was issued" and that "When the draftees saw which way the war was going,
they deserted and, like their officers, went back home." Likewise Slocombe stated in a PBS interview,
"We didn't disband the army. The army disbanded itself. … What we did do was to formally dissolve
all of the institutions of Saddam's security system. The intelligence, his military, his party structure,
his information and propaganda structure were formally disbanded and the property turned over to
the Coalition Provisional Authority."
Thus, according to Bremer and Slocombe's accounts, neither de-Baathification nor disbanding the
army achieved anything that hadn't already happened. When coupled with Bremer's assertion of "careful
consideration in one week" and Wolfowitz's claim of "careful vetting at warp speed," Bremer and Slocombe's
notion of "doing something that had already been done" creates a strong impression that they are
hiding something or trying to finesse history with wordplay. Perhaps Washington Post journalist
Rajiv Chandrasekaran provides the best possible explanation for this confusion in his book Imperial
Life in the Emerald City, when he writes, "Despite the leaflets instructing them to go home,
Slocombe had expected Iraqi soldiers to stay in their garrisons. Now he figured that calling them
back would cause even more problems." Chandrasekaran adds, "As far as Slocombe and Feith were concerned,
the Iraqi army had dissolved itself; formalizing the dissolution wouldn't contradict Bush's directive."
This suggests that Slocombe and Feith were communicating and that Slocombe was fully aware of the
policy the president had agreed to in the NSC meeting on March 12, yet he chose to disregard it.
♦♦♦
Following the disastrous decisions of May 2003, the blame game has been rife among neoconservative
policymakers. One of those who have expended the most energy dodging culpability is, predictably,
Bremer. In early 2007, he testified before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and
the Washington Post reported: "Bremer proved unexpectedly agile at shifting blame: to administration
planners ('The planning before the war was inadequate'), his superiors in the Bush administration
('We never had sufficient support'), and the Iraqi people ('The country was in chaos-socially, politically
and economically')."
Bremer also wrote in May 2007 in the Washington Post, "I've grown weary of being a punching
bag over these decisions-particularly from critics who've never spent time in Iraq, don't understand
its complexities and can't explain what we should have done differently." (This declaration is ironic,
given Bremer's noted inability to justify the disbanding policy to General Garner.) On September
4, 2007, the New YorkTimes reported that Bremer had given the paper exculpatory letters
supposedly proving that George W. Bush confirmed the disbanding order. But the Times concluded,
"the letters do not show that [Bush] approved the order or even knew much about it. Mr. Bremer referred
only fleetingly to his plan midway through his three-page letter and offered no details." Moreover,
thepaper characterized Bremer's correspondence with Bush as "striking in its almost nonchalant
reference to a major decision that a number of American military officials in Iraq strongly opposed."
Defending himself on this point, Bremer claimed, "the policy was carefully considered by top civilian
and military members of the American government." And six months later Bremer told the paper, "It
was not my responsibility to do inter-agency coordination."
Feith and Slocombe have been similarly evasive when discussing President Bush's awareness of the
policies. The Los Angeles Times noted that "Feith was deeply involved in the decision-making
process at the time, working closely with Bush and Bremer," yet "Feith said he could not comment
about how involved the president was in the decision to change policy and dissolve the army. 'I don't
know all the details of who talked to who about that,' he said." For his part, Slocombe told PBS's
"Frontline,"
What happens in Washington in terms of how the [decisions are made]-'Go ahead and do this,
do that; don't do that, do this, even though you don't want to do it'-that's an internal Washington
coordination problem about which I know little. One of the interesting things about the job from
my point of view-all my other government experience basically had been in the Washington end,
with the interagencies process and setting the priorities-at the other end we got output. And
how the process worked in Washington I actually know very little about, because the channel was
from the president to Rumsfeld to Bremer.
It's a challenge to parse Slocombe's various statements. Here, in the space of two sentences,
he claims both that his government experience has mostly been in Washington and that he doesn't know
how Washington works. As mentioned earlier, he had previously told the Washington Post that
the disbanding order was not "done at the insistence of the people in Baghdad"-in other words, the
decision was made in Washington. The inconsistency of his accounts from year to year, and even in
the same interview, adds to an aura of concealment.
This further illustrates the disconnect between what was decided by the NSC in Washington in March
and by the CPA in Iraq in May. In his memoir, Feith notes that although he supported the disbanding
policy, "the decision became associated with a number of unnecessary problems, including the apparent
lack of interagency review."
... ... ...
John Hay is a former executive branch official under Republican administrations.
"... If you go back and see what Vice President Cheney has said for the last three or four years concerning Iraq, his batting average is abysmally low. He hasn't been right on hardly anything and his prediction of what is going to happen, reasons for going over there and obviously this is not playing into the hands of al Qaeda or the people who are causing violence and destruction over there, to call for a change in policy in Iraq. ..."
"... One measure of the impact of the Iraq War is the precipitous drop in public support for the United States in Muslim countries. Jordan, a key U.S. ally, saw popular approval for the United States drop from 25 percent in 2002 to 1 percent in 2003. In Lebanon during the same period, favorable views of the United States dropped from 30 percent to 15 percent, and in the world's largest Muslim country, Indonesia, favorable views plummeted from 61 percent to 15 percent. ..."
"... One of the cell's members, Younis Elian Abu Jarir, a taxi driver whose job was to ferry the group around, stated in a confession offered as evidence in court that they convinced me of the need for holy war against the Jews, Americans, Italians, and other nationalities that participated in the occupation of Iraq. ..."
President Carter Rips Cheney Over Iraq: 'His Batting Average Is Abysmally Low'
Last week, Vice President Cheney attacked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Rep. John Murtha
(D-PA) for supporting Iraq redeployment. He charged that their plan would "validate the al Qaeda
strategy."
Today, former President Jimmy Carter rejected Cheney's charges, stating that calls for a change
of policy in Iraq are "not playing into the hands of al Qaeda or the people who are causing violence
and destruction over there." He added, "If you go back and see what Vice President Cheney has said
for the last three or four years concerning Iraq, his batting average is abysmally low. He hasn't
been right on hardly anything."
STEPHANOPOULOS: Vice President Cheney this week has been very harsh on those kinds of measures
in the Congress.
[CHENEY CLIP]: If we were to do what Speaker Pelosi and Congressman Murtha are suggesting, all
we'll do is validate the al Qaeda strategy. The al Qaeda strategy is to break the will of the American
people.
CARTER: If you go back and see what Vice President Cheney has said for the last three or four
years concerning Iraq, his batting average is abysmally low. He hasn't been right on hardly anything
and his prediction of what is going to happen, reasons for going over there and obviously this is
not playing into the hands of al Qaeda or the people who are causing violence and destruction over
there, to call for a change in policy in Iraq.
^^^^^
.
Saundra Hummer
February 26th, 2007, 05:34 PM
.
.........
Iraq 101:
The Iraq Effect
The War in Iraq and Its Impact on the War on Terrorism - Pg. 1
All right, no more excuses, people. After four years in Iraq, it's time to get serious. We've
spent too long goofing off, waiting to be saved by the bell, praying that we won't get asked a stumper
like, "What's the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite?" Okay, even the head of the House intelligence
committee doesn't know that one. All the more reason to start boning up on what we-and our leaders-should
have learned back before they signed us up for this crash course in Middle Eastern geopolitics. And
while we're at it, let's do the math on what the war really costs in blood and dollars. It's time
for our own Iraq study group. Yes, there will be a test, and we can't afford to fail.
March 01 , 2007
By Peter Bergen and Paul Cruickshank
Research fellows at the Center on Law and Security at the NYU School of Law. Bergen is also a senior
fellow at the New America Foundation in Washington, D.C.
"If we were not fighting and destroying this enemy in Iraq, they would not be idle. They would
be plotting and killing Americans across the world and within our own borders. By fighting these
terrorists in Iraq, Americans in uniform are defeating a direct threat to the American people." So
said President Bush on November 30, 2005, refining his earlier call to "bring them on." Jihadist
terrorists, the administration's argument went, would be drawn to Iraq like moths to a flame, and
would perish there rather than wreak havoc elsewhere in the world.
The president's argument conveyed two important assumptions: first, that the threat of jihadist
terrorism to U.S. interests would have been greater without the war in Iraq, and second, that the
war is reducing the overall global pool of terrorists. However, the White House has never cited any
evidence for either of these assumptions, and none appears to be publicly available.
The administration's own National Intelligence Estimate on "Trends in Global Terrorism: implications
for the United States," circulated within the government in April 2006 and partially declassified
in October, states that "the Iraq War has become the 'cause celebre' for jihadists...and is shaping
a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives."
Yet administration officials have continued to suggest that there is no evidence any greater jihadist
threat exists as a result of the Iraq War. "Are more terrorists being created in the world?" then-Secretary
of Defense Donald Rumsfeld rhetorically asked during a press conference in September. "We don't know.
The world doesn't know. There are not good metrics to determine how many people are being trained
in a radical madrasa school in some country." In January 2007 Director of National Intelligence John
Negroponte in congressional testimony stated that he was "not certain" that the Iraq War had been
a recruiting tool for Al Qaeda and played down the likely impact of the war on jihadists worldwide:
"I wouldn't say there has been a widespread growth in Islamic extremism beyond Iraq. I really wouldn't."
Indeed, though what we will call "The Iraq Effect" is a crucial matter for U.S. national security,
we have found no statistical documentation of its existence and gravity, at least in the public domain.
In this report, we have undertaken what we believe to be the first such study, using information
from the world's premier database on global terrorism. The results are being published for the first
time by Mother Jones, the news and investigative magazine, as part of a broader "Iraq 101" package
in the magazine's March/April 2007 issue.
<< Breaking The Army << >> The Iraq Effect Pg. 2 >> Iraq Effect (continued)
Our study shows that the Iraq War has generated a stunning sevenfold increase in the yearly rate
of fatal jihadist attacks, amounting to literally hundreds of additional terrorist attacks and thousands
of civilian lives lost; even when terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan is excluded, fatal attacks in
the rest of the world have increased by more than one-third.
We are not making the argument that without the Iraq War, jihadist terrorism would not exist,
but our study shows that the Iraq conflict has greatly increased the spread of the Al Qaeda ideological
virus, as shown by a rising number of terrorist attacks in the past three years from London to Kabul,
and from Madrid to the Red Sea.
In our study we focused on the following questions:
Has jihadist terrorism gone up or down around the world since the invasion of Iraq?
What has been the trend if terrorist incidents in Iraq and Afghanistan (the military fronts of the
"war on terrorism") are excluded?
Has terrorism explicitly directed at the United States and its allies also increased?
In order to zero in on The Iraq Effect, we focused on the rate of terrorist attacks in two time periods:
September 12, 2001, to March 20, 2003 (the day of the Iraq invasion), and March 21, 2003, to September
30, 2006. Extending the data set before 9/11 would risk distorting the results, because the rate
of attacks by jihadist groups jumped considerably after 9/11 as jihadist terrorists took inspiration
from the events of that terrible day.
We first determined which terrorist organizations should be classified as jihadist. We included
in this group Sunni extremist groups affiliated with or sympathetic to the ideology of Al Qaeda.
We decided to exclude terrorist attacks by Palestinian groups, as they depend largely on factors
particular to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Our study draws its data from the MIPT-RAND Terrorism database (available at terrorismknowledgebase.org),
which is widely considered to be the best publicly available database on terrorism incidents. RAND
defines a terrorist attack as an attack on a civilian entity designed to promote fear or alarm and
further a particular political agenda. In our study we only included attacks that caused at least
one fatality and were attributed by RAND to a known jihadist group. In some terrorist attacks, and
this is especially the case in Iraq, RAND has not been able to attribute a particular attack to a
known jihadist group. Therefore our study likely understates the extent of jihadist terrorism in
Iraq and around the world.
Our study yields one resounding finding: The rate of terrorist attacks around the world by jihadist
groups and the rate of fatalities in those attacks increased dramatically after the invasion of Iraq.
Globally there was a 607 percent rise in the average yearly incidence of attacks (28.3 attacks per
year before and 199.8 after) and a 237 percent rise in the average fatality rate (from 501 to 1,689
deaths per year). A large part of this rise occurred in Iraq, which accounts for fully half of the
global total of jihadist terrorist attacks in the post-Iraq War period. But even excluding Iraq,
the average yearly number of jihadist terrorist attacks and resulting fatalities still rose sharply
around the world by 265 percent and 58 percent respectively.
And even when attacks in both Afghanistan and Iraq (the two countries that together account for
80 percent of attacks and 67 percent of deaths since the invasion of Iraq) are excluded, there has
still been a significant rise in jihadist terrorism elsewhere--a 35 percent increase in the number
of jihadist terrorist attacks outside of Afghanistan and Iraq, from 27.6 to 37 a year, with a 12
percent rise in fatalities from 496 to 554 per year.
Of course, just because jihadist terrorism has risen in the period after the invasion of Iraq,
it does not follow that events in Iraq itself caused the change. For example, a rise in attacks in
the Kashmir conflict and the Chechen separatist war against Russian forces may have nothing to do
with the war in Iraq. But the most direct test of The Iraq Effect--whether the United States and
its allies have suffered more jihadist terrorism after the invasion than before--shows that the rate
of jihadist attacks on Western interests and citizens around the world (outside of Afghanistan and
Iraq) has risen by a quarter, from 7.2 to 9 a year, while the yearly fatality rate in these attacks
has increased by 4 percent from 191 to 198.
One of the few positive findings of our study is that only 18 American civilians (not counting
civilian contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan) have been killed by jihadist groups since the war in
Iraq began. But that number is still significantly higher than the four American civilians who were
killed in attacks attributed to jihadist groups in the period between 9/11 and the Iraq War. It was
the capture and killing of much of Al Qaeda's leadership after 9/11 and the breakup of its training
camp facilities in Afghanistan--not the war in Iraq--that prevented Al Qaeda from successfully launching
attacks on American targets on the scale it did in the years before 9/11.
Also undermining the argument that Al Qaeda and like-minded groups are being distracted from plotting
against Western targets are the dangerous, anti-American plots that have arisen since the start of
the Iraq War. Jihadist terrorists have attacked key American allies since the Iraq conflict began,
mounting multiple bombings in London that killed 52 in July 2005, and attacks in Madrid in 2004 that
killed 191. Shehzad Tanweer, one of the London bombers, stated in his videotaped suicide "will,"
"What have you witnessed now is only the beginning of a string of attacks that will continue and
become stronger until you pull your forces out of Afghanistan and Iraq." There have been six jihadist
attacks on the home soil of the United States' NATO allies (including Turkey) in the period after
the invasion of Iraq, whereas there were none in the 18 months following 9/11; and, of course, the
plan uncovered in London in August 2006 to smuggle liquid explosives onto U.S. airliners, had it
succeeded, would have killed thousands.
Al Qaeda has not let the Iraq War distract it from targeting the United States and her allies.
In a January 19, 2006 audiotape, Osama bin Laden himself refuted President Bush's argument that Iraq
had distracted and diverted Al Qaeda: "The reality shows that that the war against America and its
allies has not remained limited to Iraq, as he claims, but rather, that Iraq has become a source
and attraction and recruitment of qualified people.... As for the delay in similar [terrorist] operations
in America, [the] operations are being prepared, and you will witness them, in your own land, as
soon as preparations are complete."
Ayman al Zawahiri echoed bin Laden's words in a March 4, 2006, videotape broadcast by Al Jazeera
calling for jihadists to launch attacks on the home soil of Western countries: "[Muslims have to]
inflict losses on the crusader West, especially to its economic infrastructure with strikes that
would make it bleed for years. The strikes on New York, Washington, Madrid, and London are the best
examples.
One measure of the impact of the Iraq War is the precipitous drop in public support for the United
States in Muslim countries. Jordan, a key U.S. ally, saw popular approval for the United States drop
from 25 percent in 2002 to 1 percent in 2003. In Lebanon during the same period, favorable views
of the United States dropped from 30 percent to 15 percent, and in the world's largest Muslim country,
Indonesia, favorable views plummeted from 61 percent to 15 percent. Disliking the United States does
not make you a terrorist, but clearly the pool of Muslims who dislike the United States has grown
by hundreds of millions since the Iraq War began. The United States' plummeting popularity does not
suggest active popular support for jihadist terrorists but it does imply some sympathy with their
anti-American posture, which means a significant swath of the Muslim population cannot be relied
on as an effective party in counter-terrorism/insurgency measures. And so, popular contempt for U.S.
policy has become a force multiplier for Islamist militants.
The Iraq War has also encouraged Muslim youth around the world to join jihadist groups, not necessarily
directly tied to Al Qaeda but often motivated by a similar ideology. The Iraq War allowed Al Qaeda,
which was on the ropes in 2002 after the United States had captured or killed two-thirds of its leadership,
to reinvent itself as a broader movement because Al Qaeda's central message--that the United States
is at war with Islam--was judged by significant numbers of Muslims to have been corroborated by the
war in Iraq. And compounding this, the wide dissemination of the exploits of jihadist groups in Iraq
following the invasion energized potential and actual jihadists across the world.
How exactly has The Iraq Effect played out in different parts of the world? The effect has not
been uniform. Europe, the Arab world, and Afghanistan all saw major rises in jihadist terrorism in
the period after the invasion of Iraq, while Pakistan and India and the Chechnya/Russia front saw
only smaller increases in jihadist terrorism. And in Southeast Asia, attacks and killings by jihadist
groups fell by over 60 percent in the period after the Iraq War. The strength or weakness of The
Iraq Effect on jihadist terrorism in a particular country seems to be influenced by four factors:
(1) if the country itself has troops in Iraq; (2) geographical proximity to Iraq; (3) the degree
of identification with Iraq's Arabs felt in the country; and (4) the level of exchanges of ideas
or personnel with Iraqi jihadist groups. This may explain why jihadist groups in Europe, Arab countries,
and Afghanistan were more affected by the Iraq War than groups in other regions. Europe, unlike Kashmir,
Chechnya, and Southeast Asia for example, contains several countries that are part of the coalition
in Iraq. It is relatively geographically close to the Arab world and has a large Arab-Muslim diaspora
from which jihadists have recruited.
European intelligence services are deeply concerned about the effect of the Iraq War. For example,
Dame Eliza Mannigham-Buller, the head of Britain's MI5, stated on November 10, 2006, "In Iraq, attacks
are regularly videoed and the footage is downloaded onto the Internet [and] chillingly we see the
results here. Young teenagers are being groomed to be suicide bombers. We are aware of numerous plots
to kill people and damage our economy...30 that we know of. [The] threat is serious, is growing,
and, I believe, will be with us for a generation." Startlingly, a recent poll found that a quarter
of British Muslims believe that the July 7, 2005, London bombings were justifiable because of British
foreign policy, bearing out Dame Eliza's concern about a new generation of radicals in the United
Kingdom.
While Islamist militants in Europe are mobilized by a series of grievances such as Palestine,
Afghanistan, the Kashmir conflict, and Chechnya, no issue has resonated more in radical circles and
on Islamist websites than the war in Iraq. This can be seen in the skyrocketing rate of jihadist
terrorist attacks around the Arab world outside of Iraq. There have been 37 attacks in Arab countries
outside of Iraq since the invasion, while there were only three in the period between 9/11 and March
2003. The rate of attacks in Arab countries jumped by 445 percent since the Iraq invasion, while
the rate of killings rose by 783 percent. The November 9, 2005 bombings of three American hotels
in Amman, Jordan, that killed 60, an operation directed by Abu Musab al Zarqawi's Al Qaeda in Iraq
network, was the most direct manifestation of The Iraq Effect in the Arab world. Saudi Arabia, in
particular, has seen an upsurge in jihadist terrorism since the U.S. invasion of Iraq. There were
no jihadist terrorist attacks between 9/11 and the Iraq War but 12 in the period since. The reason
for the surge in terrorism was a decision taken by Al Qaeda's Saudi branch in the spring of 2003
to launch a wave of attacks (primarily at Western targets) to undermine the Saudi royal family. These
attacks were initiated on May 12, 2003 with the bombing of Western compounds in Riyadh, killing 34,
including 10 Americans. While Saudi authorities believe that planning and training for the operation
predated the war in Iraq, the timing of the attack, just weeks after the U.S invasion is striking.
The fact that the Iraq War radicalized some young Saudis is underlined by studies showing that
more Saudis have conducted suicide operations in Iraq than any other nationality. For instance, Mohammed
Hafez, a visiting professor at the University of Missouri in Kansas City, in a study of the 101 identified
suicide attackers in Iraq from March 2003 to February 2006, found that more than 40 percent were
Saudi. This jihadist energy was not just transferred over the Saudi border into Iraq. It also contributed
to attacks in the Kingdom. The group that beheaded the American contractor Paul Johnson in Riyadh
in June 2004 called itself the "Al Fallujah brigade of Al Qaeda" and claimed that it had carried
out the killing in part to avenge the actions of "disbelievers" in Iraq. In January 2004 Al Qaeda's
Saudi affiliate launched Al Battar, an online training magazine specifically directed at young Saudis
interested in fighting their regime. The achievements of jihadists in Iraq figured prominently in
its pages. Indeed, a contributor to the first issue of Al Battar argued that the Iraq War had made
jihad "a commandment" for Saudi Arabians " the Islamic nation is today in acute conflict with the
Crusaders."
The Iraq War had a strong impact in other Arab countries too. Daily images aired by Al Jazeera
and other channels of suffering Iraqis enraged the Arab street and strengthened the hands of radicals
everywhere. In Egypt, the Iraq War has contributed to a recent wave of attacks by small, self-generated
groups. A Sinai-based jihadist group carried out coordinated bombing attacks on Red Sea resorts popular
with Western tourists at Taba in October 2004, at Sharm el-Sheikh in July 2005, and at Dahab in April
2006, killing a total of more than 120.
One of the cell's members, Younis Elian Abu Jarir, a taxi driver whose job was to ferry the group
around, stated in a confession offered as evidence in court that "they convinced me of the need for
holy war against the Jews, Americans, Italians, and other nationalities that participated in the
occupation of Iraq." Osama Rushdi, a former spokesman of the Egyptian terrorist group Gamma Islamiyya
now living in London, told us that while attacks in the Sinai were partly directed at the Egyptian
regime, they appeared to be primarily anti-Western in motivation: "The Iraq War contributed to the
negative feelings of the Sinai group. Before the Iraq War, most Egyptians did not have a negative
feeling towards American policy. Now almost all are opposed to American policy."
Since the invasion of Iraq, Afghanistan has suffered 219 jihadist terrorist attacks that can be attributed
to a particular group, resulting in the deaths of 802 civilians. The fact that the Taliban only conducted
its first terrorist attacks in September 2003, a few months after the invasion of Iraq, is significant.
International forces had already been stationed in the country for two years before the Taliban began
to specifically target the U.S.-backed Karzai government and civilians sympathetic to it. This points
to a link between events in Iraq and the initiation of the Taliban's terrorist campaign in Afghanistan.
True, local dynamics form part of the explanation for the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan.
But the use of terrorism, particularly suicide attacks, by the Taliban is an innovation drawn from
the Iraqi theater. Hekmat Karzai, an Afghan terrorism researcher, points out that suicide bombings
were virtually unknown in Afghanistan until 2005. In 2006, Karzai says, there were 118 such attacks,
more than there had been in the entire history of the country. Internet sites have helped spread
the tactics of Iraqi jihadists. In 2005 the "Media Committee of the Al Qaeda Mujahideen in Afghanistan"
launched an online magazine called Vanguards of Kharasan, which includes articles on what Afghan
fighters can learn from Coalition and jihadist strategies in Iraq. Abdul Majid Abdul Majed, a contributor
to the April 2006 issue of the magazine, argued for an expansion in suicide operations, citing the
effectiveness of jihadist operations in Iraq.
Mullah Dadullah, a key Taliban commander, gave an interview to Al Jazeera in 2006 in which he
explained how the Iraq War has influenced the Taliban. Dadullah noted that "we have 'give and take'
with the mujahideen in Iraq." Hamid Mir, a Pakistani journalist who is writing bin Laden's biography,
told us that young men traveled from the Afghan province of Khost to "on-the-job training" in Iraq
in 2004. "They came back with lots of CDs which were full of military actions against U.S. troops
in the Mosul, Fallujah, and Baghdad areas. I think suicide bombing was introduced in Afghanistan
and Pakistan after local boys came back after spending some time in Iraq. I met a Taliban commander,
Mullah Mannan, last year in Zabul who told me that he was trained in Iraq by Zarqawi along with many
Pakistani tribals."
Propaganda circulating in Afghanistan and Pakistan about American "atrocities" and jihadist "heroics"
has also energized the Taliban, encouraging a previously somewhat isolated movement to see itself
as part of a wider struggle. Our study found a striking correlation in how terrorist campaigns intensified
in Iraq and Afghanistan. The rate of terrorist attacks in Afghanistan gathered pace in the summer
of 2005, a half year after a similar increase in Iraq, and in 2006 the rate of attacks in both countries
rose in tandem to new, unprecedented levels.
While the Iraq War has had a strong effect on the rise in terrorism in Afghanistan, it appears
to have played less of a role on jihadists operating in Pakistan and India, though terrorism did
rise in those countries following the invasion of Iraq. (Of course, neither Pakistan nor India has
foreign troops on its soil, which accounts, in part, for the high terrorism figures in Afghanistan.)
The rate of jihadist attacks rose by 21 percent while the fatality rate rose by 19 percent. There
were 52 attacks after the Iraq invasion, killing 489 civilians, while there were 19 in the period
before, killing 182. The local dynamics of the Kashmir conflict, tensions between India and Pakistan,
and the resurfacing of the Taliban in eastern Pakistan likely played a large role here. That said,
there is evidence that the Iraq War did energize jihadists in Pakistan. Hamid Mir says, "Iraq not
only radicalized the Pakistani tribals [near the Afghan border] but it offered them the opportunity
for them to go to Iraq via Iran to get on-the-job training."
There is also evidence that the Iraq War had some impact in other areas of Pakistan. In the summer
of 2004, Hafiz Mohammad Saeed, the head of the Kashmiri militant group Lashkar-e-Toiba, told followers
in Lahore, "Islam is in grave danger, and the mujahideen are fighting to keep its glory. They are
fighting the forces of evil in Iraq in extremely difficult circumstances. We should send mujahideen
from Pakistan to help them." And Pakistan, inasmuch as it has become Al Qaeda's new base for training
and planning attacks, has become the location where significant numbers of would-be jihadists--including
some young British Pakistanis such as the London suicide bombers, radicalized in part by the Iraq
War--have traveled to learn bomb-making skills.
In Russia and Chechnya, the Iraq War appears to have had less of an impact than on other jihadist
fronts. This is unsurprising given the fact that jihadist groups in the region are preoccupied by
a separatist war against the Russian military. Whilst following the invasion of Iraq there was a
rise in the number of attacks by Chechen groups that share a similar ideology with Al Qaeda, the
total rate of fatalities did not go up. The Iraq War does seem to have diverted some jihadists from
the Russian/Chechen front: Arab fighters who might have previously gone to Chechnya now have a cause
at their own doorstep, while funds from Arab donors increasingly have gone to the Iraqi jihad.
Southeast Asia has been the one region in the world in which jihadist terrorism has declined significantly
in the period since the invasion of Iraq. There was a 67 percent drop in the rate of attacks (from
10.5 to 3.5 attacks per year) in the post-invasion period and a 69 percent drop in the rate of fatalities
(from 201 to 62 fatalities per year). And there has been no bombing on the scale of the October 2002
Bali nightclub attack that killed more than 200. However, jihadist terrorism in Southeast Asia has
declined in spite, not because of, the Iraq War. The U.S. invasion of Iraq was deeply unpopular in
the region, as demonstrated by the poll finding that only 15 percent of Indonesians had a favorable
view of the United States in 2003. But the negative impact of the Iraq War on public opinion was
mitigated by U.S. efforts to aid the region in the wake of the devastating tsunami of December 2004--Pew
opinion surveys have shown that the number of those with favorable views towards the United States
in Indonesia crept above 30 percent in 2005 and 2006.
However, the main reason for the decline of jihadist terrorism in Southeast Asia has been the
successful crackdown by local authorities on jihadist groups and their growing unpopularity with
the general population. The August 2003 capture of Hambali, Jemaa Islamiya's operational commander,
was key to degrading the group's capacity to launch attacks as was the arrest of hundreds of Jemaa
Islamiya and Abu Sayyaf operatives in Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand and Singapore in the years
after the October 2002 Bali bombings. Those arrested included most of those who planned the Bali
attacks, as well as former instructors at Jemaa Islamiya camps and individuals involved in financing
attacks. And in November 2005 Indonesian security services killed Jemaa Islamiya master bomber Azhari
bin Husin in a shoot-out. The second wave of Bali attacks in 2005 killed mostly Indonesians and created
a popular backlash against jihadist groups in Indonesia, degrading their ability to recruit operatives.
And Muslim leaders such as Masdar Farid Masudi, the deputy leader of the country's largest Islamic
group, condemned the bombings: "If the perpetrators are Muslims, their sentences must be multiplied
because they have tarnished the sacredness of their religion and smeared its followers worldwide."
Iraq Effect (continued)
Our survey shows that the Iraq conflict has motivated jihadists around the world to see their particular
struggle as part of a wider global jihad fought on behalf of the Islamic ummah, the global community
of Muslim believers. The Iraq War had a strong impact in jihadist circles in the Arab world and Europe,
but also on the Taliban, which previously had been quite insulated from events elsewhere in the Muslim
world. By energizing the jihadist groups, the Iraq conflict acted as a catalyst for the increasing
globalization of the jihadist cause, a trend that should be deeply troubling for American policymakers.
In the late 1990s, bin Laden pushed a message of a global jihad and attracted recruits from around
the Muslim world to train and fight in Afghanistan. The Iraq War has made bin Laden's message of
global struggle even more persuasive to militants. Over the past three years, Iraq has attracted
thousands of foreign fighters who have been responsible for the majority of suicide attacks in the
country. Those attacks have had an enormous strategic impact; for instance, getting the United Nations
to pull out of Iraq and sparking the Iraqi civil war.
Emblematic of the problem is Muriel Degauque, a 38-year-old Belgian woman who on November 9, 2005,
near the town of Baquba in central Iraq, detonated a bomb as she drove past an American patrol. In
the bomb crater, investigators found travel documents that showed that she had arrived in Iraq from
Belgium just a few weeks earlier with her Moroccan-Belgian husband Hissam Goris. The couple had been
recruited by "Al Qaeda in Iraq." Goris would die the following day, shot by American forces as he
prepared to launch a suicide attack near Fallujah.
The story of Muriel Degauque and her husband is part of a trend that Harvard terrorism researcher
Assaf Moghadam terms the "globalization of martyrdom." The London suicide bombings in July 2005 revealed
the surprising willingness of four British citizens to die to protest the United Kingdom's role in
the Coalition in Iraq; Muriel Degauque, for her part, was willing to die for the jihadist cause in
a country in which she was a stranger.
This challenges some existing conceptions of the motivations behind suicide attacks. In 2005 University
of Chicago political scientist Robert Pape published a much-commented-upon study of suicide bombing,
"Dying to Win," in which he used a mass of data about previous suicide bombing campaigns to argue
that they principally occurred "to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from territory
that the terrorists consider to be their homeland." (Of course, terrorism directed against totalitarian
regimes rarely occurs because such regimes are police states and are unresponsive to public opinion.)
Pape also argued that while religion might aggravate campaigns of suicide terrorism, such campaigns
had also been undertaken by secular groups, most notably the Sri Lankan Tamil Tigers, whose most
spectacular success was the assassination of Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi by a female suicide
attacker in 1991.
Pape's findings may explain the actions and motivations of terrorist groups in countries such
as Sri Lanka, but his principal claim that campaigns of suicide terrorism are generally nationalist
struggles to liberate occupied lands that have little to do with religious belief does not survive
contact with the reality of what is going on today in Iraq. The most extensive suicide campaign in
history is being conducted in Iraq largely by foreigners animated by the deeply-held religious belief
that they must liberate a Muslim land from the "infidel" occupiers.
While Iraqis make up the great bulk of the insurgents, several studies have shown that the suicide
attackers in Iraq are generally foreigners, while only a small proportion are Iraqi. (Indeed, the
most feared terrorist leader in Iraq until his death earlier this year, Abu Musab al Zarqawi, was
a Jordanian.) The Israeli researcher Reuven Paz, using information posted on Al Qaeda-linked websites
between October 2004 and March 2005, found that of the 33 suicide attacks listed, 23 were conducted
by Saudis, and only 1 by an Iraqi. Similarly, in June 2005 the Search for International Terrorist
Entities (SITE) Institute of Washington, D.C. found by tracking both jihadist websites and media
reports that of the 199 Sunni extremists who had died in Iraq either in suicide attacks or in action
against Coalition or Iraqi forces, 104 were from Saudi Arabia and only 21 from Iraq. The rest were
predominantly from countries around the Middle East. And Mohammed Hafez in his previously cited study
of the 101 "known" suicide bombers in Iraq found that while 44 were Saudi and 8 were from Italy (!),
only 7 were from Iraq.
In congressional testimony this past November, CIA Director General Michael Hayden said that "an
overwhelming percentage of the suicide bombers are foreign." A senior U.S. military intelligence
official told us that a worrisome recent trend is the rising number of North Africans who have joined
the ranks of foreign fighters in Iraq, whose number General Hayden pegged at 1,300 during his November
congressional testimony. A Saudi official also confirmed to us the rising number of North Africans
who are being drawn into the Iraq War.
The globalization of jihad and martyrdom, accelerated to a significant degree by the Iraq War, has
some disquieting implications for American security in the future. First, it has energized jihadist
groups generally; second, not all foreign fighters attracted to Iraq will die there. In fact there
is evidence that some jihadists are already leaving Iraq to operate elsewhere. Saudi Arabia has made
a number of arrests of fighters coming back from Iraq, and Jordanian intelligence sources say that
300 fighters have returned to Jordan from Iraq. As far away as Belgium, authorities have indicated
that Younis Lekili, an alleged member of the cell that recruited Muriel Degauque, had previously
traveled to fight in Iraq, where he lost his leg. (Lekili is awaiting trial in Belgium.)
German, French, and Dutch intelligence officials have estimated that there are dozens of their
citizens returning from the Iraq theater, and some appear to have been determined to carry out attacks
on their return to Europe. For example, French police arrested Hamid Bach, a French citizen of Moroccan
descent, in June 2005 in Montpellier, several months after he returned from a staging camp for Iraq
War recruits in Syria. According to French authorities, Bach's handlers there instructed him to assist
with plotting terrorist attacks in Italy. Back in France, Bach is alleged to have bought significant
quantities of hydrogen peroxide and to have looked up details on explosives and detonators online.
(Bach is awaiting trial in France.)
This "blowback" trend will greatly increase when the war eventually winds down in Iraq. In the
short term the countries most at risk are those whose citizens have traveled to fight in Iraq, in
particular Arab countries bordering Iraq. Jamal Khashoggi, a leading Saudi expert on jihadist groups,
told us that "while Iraq brought new blood into the Al Qaeda organization in Saudi Arabia, this was
at a time when the network was being dismantled. Al Qaeda in Saudi Arabia could not accommodate these
recruits so they sent them to Iraq to train them, motivate them, and prepare them for a future wave
of attacks in the Kingdom. It is a deep worry to Saudi authorities that Saudis who have gone to Iraq
will come back." That's a scenario for which Khashoggi says Saudi security forces are painstakingly
preparing.
Several U.S. citizens have tried to involve themselves in the Iraq jihad. In December an American
was arrested in Cairo, Egypt, accused of being part of a cell plotting terrorist attacks in Iraq.
And in February 2006 three Americans from Toledo, Ohio, were arrested for allegedly plotting to kill
U.S. military personnel in Iraq. According to the FBI, one of these individuals, Mohammad Zaki Amawi,
was in contact with an Arab jihadist group sending fighters to Iraq and tried unsuccessfully to cross
the border into Iraq. However, to date there is no evidence of Americans actually fighting in Iraq
so the number of returnees to the United States is likely to be small. The larger risk is that jihadists
will migrate from Iraq to Western countries, a trend that will be accelerated if, as happened following
the Afghan jihad against the Soviets, those fighters are not allowed to return to their home countries.
Already terrorist groups in Iraq may be in a position to start sending funds to other jihadist
fronts. According to a U.S. government report leaked to the New York Times in November 2006, the
fact that insurgent and terrorist groups are raising up to $200 million a year from various illegal
activities such as kidnapping and oil theft in Iraq means that they "may have surplus funds with
which to support other terrorist organizations outside Iraq." Indeed, a letter from Al Qaeda's No.
2, Ayman al Zawahiri, to Al Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al Zarqawi in July 2005 contained this
revealing request: "Many of the [funding] lines have been cut off. Because of this we need a payment
while new lines are being opened. So if you're capable of sending a payment of approximately one
hundred thousand we'll be very grateful to you."
The "globalization of martyrdom" prompted by the Iraq War has not only attracted foreign fighters
to die in Iraq (we record 148 suicide-terrorist attacks in Iraq credited to an identified jihadist
group) but has also encouraged jihadists to conduct many more suicide operations elsewhere. Since
the U.S. invasion of Iraq, there has been a 246 percent rise in the rate of suicide attacks (6 before
and 47 after) by jihadist groups outside of Iraq and a 24 percent increase in the corresponding fatality
rate. Even excluding Afghanistan, there has been a 150 percent rise in the rate of suicide attacks
and a 14 percent increase in the rate of fatalities attributable to jihadists worldwide. The reasons
for the spread of suicide bombing attacks in other jihadist theaters are complex but the success
of these tactics in Iraq, the lionization that Iraqi martyrs receive on jihadist websites, and the
increase in feelings of anger and frustration caused by images of the Iraq War have all likely contributed
significantly. The spread of suicide bombings should be of great concern to the United States in
defending its interests and citizens around the world, because they are virtually impossible to defend
against.
The Iraq War has also encouraged the spread of more hardline forms of jihad (the corollary to
an increase in suicide bombing). Anger and frustration over Iraq has increased the popularity, especially
among young militants, of a hardcore takfiri ideology that is deeply intolerant of divergent interpretations
of Islam and highly tolerant of extreme forms of violence. The visceral anti-Americanism, anti-Semitism,
and anti-Shiism widely circulated among the Internet circles around ideologues such as Abu Muhammad
al-Maqdisi and Abu Qatada (both Jordanian-Palestinian mentors to Abu Musab al Zarqawi) and Al Qaeda's
Syrian hawk, Mustafa Setmariam Nasar, are even more extreme, unlikely as it may sound, than the statements
of bin Laden himself.
Our study shows just how counterproductive the Iraq War has been to the war on terrorism. The
most recent State Department report on global terrorism states that the goal of the United States
is to identify, target, and prevent the spread of "jihadist groups focused on attacking the United
States or its allies [and those groups that] view governments and leaders in the Muslim world as
their primary targets." Yet, since the invasion of Iraq, attacks by such groups have risen more than
sevenfold around the world. And though few Americans have been killed by jihadist terrorists in the
past three years it is wishful thinking to believe that this will continue to be the case, given
the continued determination of militant jihadists to target the country they see as their main enemy.
We will be living with the consequences of the Iraq debacle for more than a decade.
Special thanks to Mike Torres and Zach Stern at NYU and Kim Cragin and Drew Curiel at RAND.
<< The Iraq Effect Pg.5 << >> The Data: The Iraq War and Jihadist Terrorism >>
Go on-site for sources, charts, etc. Just click on the following URLs:
http://www.motherjones.com/news/featurex/2007/03/iraq_101.html
Sheldon Wolin RIP -- Wolin's
Politics and Vision, which
remains to this day the single best book on Western political theory
Notable quotes:
"... In classic totalitarianism, thinking here now about the Nazis and the fascists, and also even
about the communists, the economy is viewed as a tool which the powers that be manipulate and utilize
in accordance with what they conceive to be the political requirements of ruling. ..."
"... Now, in inverted totalitarianism, the imagery is that of a populace which is enshrined as the
leadership group but which in fact doesn't rule, but which is turned upside down in the sense that the
people are enshrined at the top but don't rule. ..."
"... democracy, I think, from the beginning never quite managed to make the kind of case for an
economic order that would sustain and help to develop democracy rather than being a kind of constant
threat to the egalitarianism and popular rule that democracy stands for. ..."
"... Capitalism is destructive because it has to eliminate the kind of custom, mores, political
values, even institutions that present any kind of credible threat to the autonomy of the economy. And
it's that–that's where the battle lies. Capitalism wants an autonomous economy. They want a political
order subservient to the needs of the economy. ..."
I was a freshman at Princeton. It was the fall of 1985. I signed up to take a course called "Modern
Political Theory." It was scheduled for Mondays and Wednesdays at 9 am. I had no idea what I was
doing. I stumbled into class, and there was a man with white hair and a trim white beard, lecturing
on Machiavelli. I was transfixed.
There was just one problem: I was-still am-most definitely not a morning person. Even though the
lectures were riveting, I had to fight my tendency to fall asleep. Even worse, I had to fight my
tendency to sleep in.
So I started-- drinking coffee. I'd show up for class fully caffeinated. And proceeded to work
my way through the canon-Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, along with some texts you don't often
get in intro theory courses (the Putney Debates, Montesquieu's Persian Letters, and for a
last hurrah: Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations)-under the guidance of one of the great readers
of the twentieth century.
More than anything else, that's what Sheldon Wolin was: a reader of texts. He approached The
Prince as if it were a novel, identifying its narrative voice, analyzing the literary construction
of the characters who populated the text (new prince, customary prince, centaur, the people), examining
the structural tensions in the narrative (How does a Machiavellian adviser advise a non-Machiavellian
prince?), and so on. It was exhilarating.
And then after class I'd head straight for Firestone Library; read whatever we were reading that
week in class; follow along, chapter by chapter, with Wolin's Politics and Vision,which remains to this day the single best book on Western political theory that I know of
(even though lots of the texts we were talking about in class don't appear there, or appear there
with very different interpretations from the ones Wolin was offering in class: the man never
stood still, intellectually); and get my second cup of coffee.
This is all a long wind-up to the fact that this morning, my friend Antonio Vazquez-Arroyo, sent
me a
two-part interview that
Chris Hedges conducted with Wolin, who's living out in Salem, Oregon now. From his Wikipedia
page, I gather that Wolin's 92. He looks exactly the same as he did in 1985. And sounds the same.
Though it seems from the video as if he may now be losing his sight. Which is devastating when I
think about the opening passages of Politics and Vision, about how vision is so critical to
the political theorist and the practice of theoria.
Anyway, here he is, talking to Hedges about his thesis of "inverted totalitarianism":
In classic totalitarianism, thinking here now about the Nazis and the fascists, and also
even about the communists, the economy is viewed as a tool which the powers that be manipulate
and utilize in accordance with what they conceive to be the political requirements of ruling.
And they will take whatever steps are needed in the economy in order to ensure the long-run sustainability
of the political order. In other words, the sort of arrows of political power flow from top to
bottom.
Now, in inverted totalitarianism, the imagery is that of a populace which is enshrined
as the leadership group but which in fact doesn't rule, but which is turned upside down in the
sense that the people are enshrined at the top but don't rule. And minority rule is usually
treated as something to be abhorred but is in fact what we have. And it's the problem has to do,
I think, with the historical relationship between political orders and economic orders. And
democracy, I think, from the beginning never quite managed to make the kind of case for an
economic order that would sustain and help to develop democracy rather than being a kind of constant
threat to the egalitarianism and popular rule that democracy stands for.
… ... ...
Capitalism is destructive because it has to eliminate the kind of custom, mores, political
values, even institutions that present any kind of credible threat to the autonomy of the economy.
And it's that–that's where the battle lies. Capitalism wants an autonomous economy. They want
a political order subservient to the needs of the economy. And their notion of an economy,
while it's broadly based in the sense of a capitalism in which there can be relatively free entrance
and property is relatively widely dispersed it's also a capitalism which, in the last analysis,
is [as] elitist as any aristocratic system ever was.
Have a listen and a watch. Part 1 and then Part 2.
Pt 1-8 Hedges & Wolin Can Capitalism and Democracy Coexist
"... Meanwhile, the United States and Russia have embarked on massive programs to modernize their nuclear triads - thereby undermining existing nuclear weapons treaties. "The clock ticks now at just three minutes to midnight because international leaders are failing to perform their most important duty-ensuring and preserving the health and vitality of human civilization." ..."
"Unchecked climate change, global nuclear weapons modernizations, and outsized nuclear weapons
arsenals pose extraordinary and undeniable threats to the continued existence of humanity, and
world leaders have failed to act with the speed or on the scale required to protect citizens from
potential catastrophe. These failures of political leadership endanger every person on Earth."
Despite some modestly positive developments in the climate change arena, current efforts are
entirely insufficient to prevent a catastrophic warming of Earth.
Meanwhile, the United States and Russia have embarked on massive programs to modernize their
nuclear triads - thereby undermining existing nuclear weapons treaties. "The clock ticks now at
just three minutes to midnight because international leaders are failing to perform their most
important duty-ensuring and preserving the health and vitality of human civilization."
"He gazed up at the enormous face. Forty years it had taken him to learn what kind of smile
was hidden beneath the dark moustache. O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn,
self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his
nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won
the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother."
Reg Morrison: "The human brain remains a piece of stone-age machinery, however you look at it,
and no amount of culture can make it otherwise. Genetically speaking we are a finished
product, not a prototype. What you see is what you get-there will be no bright utopian
future."- The Spirit in the Gene, page 247.
Haus-Targaryen
So we have Russian soldiers on the ground fighting ISIS & the "moderate" rebels alongside
Iran & Syria -- while Russia blows said head choppers to smithereens. While the US will have
soldiers on the ground fighting Assad & Hezbollah blowing them up from the air.
What happens when Russia troops take on American troops, thinking they are ISIS and the
Americans thinking they are Hezbollah. What happens then? (Then they call air strikes on one
another and everyone figures out shit just went real wrong really quickly).
HowdyDoody
"What happens when Russia troops take on American troops, thinking they are ISIS and the
Americans thinking they are Hezbollah" That's a feature, not a bug. And that is why the
Russians are calling out on it beforehand.
ZippyDooDah
Russia is providing air cover to Iran and Hezbollah in Syria, so that the USAF can't bomb
the Shiite ground troops. America is providing ground troops in Syria to embed with "rebels,"
so that Russia can't bomb the Sunni ground troops. Proxy war at its most insane, cause it just
went beyond proxies.
The Sunni-Shiite divide is centuries old, and not a fight we should ever have gotten involved
with. Dumbassery at its most insane.
You might think the U.S. military might someday rebel against this kind of wanton waste of its
resources. But no, I guess we are just going to grind ourselves away to nothing in the Middle
East meat chopper.
TheReplacement
Wikileaks Ukraine has leaked a conversation regarding planning false flag shoot downs that
involved a certain sitting US Senator who happens to have met with the Nazis in Ukraine and
the terrorists in Syria. I believe the plan is to shoot down a US/NATO jet and then a Russian.
lakecity55
Russia needs to state the legal case before the UN Security Council and force the USG to
veto the Resolution, thus making Vichy DC even more in the wrong internationally!
Paveway IV
Russia was already holding the UN's feet to the fire. Things just got a whole lot worse in
the last two days.
The Golan Heights is not Israeli territory according to the UN - ever since 1949. They
recognize Israel is occupying it, but under international law (such as it were) the Golan
Heights are still Syrian soverign territory. Technically, Syria and Israel are still at war.
They are only maintaining a cease-fire/truce along a UNDOF neutral zone (= safe zone = no-fly
zone) established in 1974. The 1974 truce didnt' 'give' Israel the Golan land. It was simply
an agreement that Israel and Syria would stop attacking eachother and stay out of a neutral
zone between each country's armies.
Herein lies the problem: Israel has been directly supporting al Nusra and ISIS forces hiding
inside that neutral zone. The place is so over-run with head-choppers that the 1300 UN
observers LEFT their own camps in that zone and have relocated to the Israeli side of the
cease-fire line. They openly acknowledge that they can't do anything about defending the zone
because Nusra/ISIS are not parties to the ceasefire, and Israel is covertly supplying them so
there's no proof that they are violating the cease-fire.
Israel has repeatedly bombed SAA troops chasing al Nusra/ISIS into the neutral zone. This is a
direct violation of the 1974 truce. Russia has always been pissed about that, but on Monday
they bitch-slapped Israel without anything but a ridiculous cover story spewed by the MSM (the
paraglider thing). Nobody seems to understand the profound implications of RUSSIA flying
combat missions IN THE UNDOF ZONE to bomb Israeli's little al Nusra buddies. They just did
this in al Qunaitra, which juts out into the occupied Golan Heights in such a way that it
would be difficult to bomb anything there without overflying the neurtral zone into the
Israeli side. Israel loves to use the word 'border' to suggest some kind of international
recognition, but there is none. There is (was) only a UNDOF-maintained cease-fire zone
arranged well into Syrian territory in 1974. Israel never left Syrian land and simply claim it
as theirs.
Russia keeps reiterating how it is adhering to international law. Something tells me that this
is in preparation for chasing any al Nusra/ISIS head-choppers into the Golan Heights as far as
they need to. They are not 'violating' Israeli airspace or soverign lands because it is - by
international recognition - still Syrian territory.
Everyone is waiting for a false flag, and it's been brewing right under our noses. Al Nusra
and ISIS will retreat into the Golan Heights because they think it will offer them immunity
from Russian air attacks. Russia recognizes (as does the world) that Syria STILL LEGALLY
extends to the Jordan river - the Golan Heights IS SYRIAN SOVERIGN TERRITORY. Russia is not
'provoking' Israel - Israel shouldn't be there according to international law and UN
recognition.
I think Russia is going to drive al Nusra and ISIS INTO the Golan Heights to force this issue
- an issue that Israel has already LOST in the eyes of the international community. Would the
U.S. go nuclear to 'defend' Israel's land-theft? Answer: Who cares. Dick Cheney's oil company
just found a huge deposit there - of course the U.S. would go nuclear to protect his money.
That's what the U.S. does.
cowdiddly
What's even funnier is Iraq has already said "NO THANKS" to ground troops in Iraq. They
have seen enough of your so called help.
Also the little hero raid the other day was a complete farce. The Pershmerga was supposed to
lead the raid and do all the dirty work while US troops come in behind. Of the casualties, The
one US soldier that got wacked got a little to rambunctious and got out in front.
Yea hero, lead from behind and you Kurds charge the hill and we look like we did the raid and
take the credit. WHATEVER.
The US is trying real hard to look relevent here. Just like the single ship to China crap.
OOOOHHHHHH SCARY, No one is Intimidated, it makes you look weak ,and they just think your
insane.
GO big or GO HOME. But mostly GO HOME WITH SOME DIGNITY LEFT. You can't afford to Play and you
look sad and no one wants your help.
We've found an oil stratum 350 meters thick in the southern Golan Heights. On average
worldwide, strata are 20 to 30 meters thick, and this is 10 times as large as that, so we are
talking about significant quantities," Afek Oil & Gas chief geologist Yuval Bartov claimed in
an interview to a local broadcaster as quoted by Engdahl.
"The Netanyahu government [is now] more determined than ever to sow chaos and disorder in
Damascus and use that to de facto create an Israeli irreversible occupation of Golan and its
oil," the expert stressed.
"Now an apparent discovery of huge volumes of oil by a New Jersey oil company whose board
includes Iraq war architect, Dick Cheney, neo-con ex-CIA head James Woolsey, and Jacob Lord
Rothschild… brings the stakes of the Russian intervention on behalf of Syria's Assad against
ISIS [ISIL], al-Qaeda and other CIA-backed 'moderate terrorists' to a new geopolitical
dimension," Engdahl underscored.
NOTE: Alphahammer and Yomatti wants everyone to spend a half
hour doing some research into the origins of ISIS:
http://bfy.tw/2VnO
Raymond_K._Hessel
Iraq to Washington: We Don't Want Your Troops
What a difference a day makes. Just 24 hours ago US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter was
telling the Senate Armed Services Committee all about the Obama Administration's new military
strategy for the Middle East. The headline grabber from his testimony was the revelation that
the US military would begin "direct action on the ground" in Iraq and Syria.
"We won't hold back from supporting capable partners in opportunistic attacks against ISIL
(ISIS)," he told the Committee. The new strategy would consist of "three R's," he said: more
US action, including on the ground, with Syrian opposition partners to take the ISIS
stronghold in Raqqa, Syria; more intense cooperation with the Iraqi army including with
US-embedded soldiers to retake Ramadi from ISIS in Iraq; and the beginning of US military
raids, "whether by strikes from the air or direct action on the ground."
That was news to the Iraqis, it turns out. And it wasn't very good news at that. Today Sa'ad
al-Hadithi, spokesman for Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi, said "thanks but no thanks" to
a third US invasion of his country. "We have enough soldiers on the ground," he said.
This raises the question of whether the US administration intends to insert US soldiers into
Iraq against the wishes of its elected government, as it has done and promises to continue to
do in Syria. In that case, the US would be shooting at ISIS and the Iraqi government, as well
as the Iran-backed Shi'ite militias who are coming to increasingly control large parts of the
Iraqi military. Presumably all these forces would be shooting back at US troops on the ground
as well. The US would likely be partnering in this task with the anti-ISIS Sunni fighters
highlighted in Defense Secretary Carter's testimony yesterday. In other words, the US would be
backing forces closer to those of Saddam Hussein, who they overthrew twelve years ago.
The Iraqi government had requested Russian assistance against ISIS earlier this month, after
Russian strikes in Syria appear to have made a significant impact on the battlefield. But
Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford told the Iraqis if they
accept Russian assistance they can forget about any more US aid.
It appears the US threat was not enough to put the Iraqis off asking for Russian help, as
earlier this week the Iraqi parliament approved Russian airstrikes against ISIS in Iraq.
So the big roll-out of the new US Middle East military strategy seems to have fizzled, as none
of the intended beneficiaries of US assistance seem all that enthused about the partnership.
For the moment, the US finds itself backing Iranian militias in Iraq while fighting them next
door in Syria, while planning to place US troops in with "moderate" anti-Assad rebels in the
path of falling Russian bombs. All the while, of course, the US is aiding the Kurds in Syria
and Iraq which are currently being bombed by NATO ally Turkey.
Since ISIS, ISIL, IS or the word of the day is a Pentagon formed, trained & funded
operation, then the Pentagon is using the US Military, a Pentagon organization, against
another Pentagon organization.
Only proves the insanity of it all and the devaluing of life of the ordinary person.
Then again Satan attacks the ordinances of God given to man for the good of all which is
not limited to, marriage, family and the sanctity of life and unfortunately most people agree
as shown by their personal behaviors.
There is a strong evidence to suggest that representative democracy is not compatible with deep
economic inequality. As a recent study found, "politicians in OECD countries maximize the happiness
of the economic elite." However, it was not always that way: In the past, left parties represented the
poor, the center and the middle class. Now all the parties benefit the richest 1& of earners. As FDR
warned, "Government by organized money is just as dangerous as government by organized mob."
Notable quotes:
"... politicians in OECD countries maximize the happiness of the economic elite ..."
"... In the past, left parties represented the poor, the center and the middle class. Now all the parties benefit the richest 1 percent of earners, Jimenez reports. ..."
"... politician's bias toward the rich has reduced real social spending per capita by 28 percent on average ..."
"... the rich are more likely to oppose spending increases, support budget cuts and reject promoting the welfare state - the idea that the government should ensure a decent standard of living. ..."
"... What f*cking democracy in the land of the free? Its a fascist, police state run by a troika of the MIC, Wall Street and Spooks. ..."
"... The secret collaboration of the military, the intelligence and national security agencies, and gigantic corporations in the systematic and illegal surveillance of the American people reveals the true wielders of power in the United States. ..."
"... The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media. -- William Colby, former CIA Director ..."
"... Paul Craig Roberts had a great take on this a while back. He pointed out that unions used to have significant political influence because of their financial resources. Democrats by and large sought their backing, and had to toe the line. Now, not so much. So, he observed, both parties began seeking out contributions from the same oligarchs. Even if you hate unions, it is a valid observation. ..."
In recent years, several academic researchers have argued that rising inequality erodes
democracy. But the lack of international data has made it difficult to show whether inequality
in fact exacerbates the apparent lack of political responsiveness to popular sentiment. Even scholars
concerned about economic inequality, such as sociologist
Lane Kenworthy,
often hesitate to argue that economic inequality might bleed into the political sphere. New cross-national
research, however, suggests that higher inequality does indeed limit political representation.
In
a 2014 study on political representation, political scientists Jan Rosset, Nathalie Giger
and Julian Bernauer concluded, "In economically more unequal societies, the party
system represents the preferences of relatively poor citizens worse than in more equal societies." Similarly, political scientists Michael Donnelly and Zoe Lefkofridi
found in a working paper that in Europe, "Changes in overall attitudes toward redistribution
have very little effect on redistributive policies. Changes in socio-cultural policies are driven
largely by change in the attitudes of the affluent, and only weakly (if at all) by the middle
class or poor."They find that when the people get what they want, it's typically because
their views correspond with the affluent, rather than policymakers directly responding to their
concerns.
In another study of Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries, researcher
Pablo Torija Jimenez looked at data in 24 countries over 30 years. He examined how different governmental
structures influence happiness across income groups and
found that today
"politicians in OECD countries maximize the happiness of the economic elite."
However, it was not always that way:In the past, left parties represented the poor,
the center and the middle class. Now all the parties benefit the richest 1 percent of earners,
Jimenez reports.
In a recent working
paper, political scientist Larry Bartels finds the effect of politician's bias toward
the rich has reduced real social spending per capita by 28 percent on average. Studying
23 OECD countries, Bartels finds that the rich are more likely to oppose spending increases, support
budget cuts and reject promoting the welfare state - the idea that the government should ensure
a decent standard of living.
JustObserving
What f*cking democracy in the land of the free? It's a fascist, police state run by a troika
of the MIC, Wall Street and Spooks.
JustObserving
Who rules America?
The secret collaboration of the military, the intelligence and national security agencies,
and gigantic corporations in the systematic and illegal surveillance of the American people reveals
the true wielders of power in the United States. Telecommunications giants such as AT&T,
Verizon and Sprint, and Internet companies such as Google, Microsoft, Facebook and Twitter, provide
the military and the FBI and CIA with access to data on hundreds of millions of people that these
state agencies have no legal right to possess.
Congress and both of the major political parties serve as rubber stamps for the confluence of
the military, the intelligence apparatus and Wall Street that really runs the country. The so-called
"Fourth Estate"-the mass media-functions shamelessly as an arm of this ruling troika.
Snowden's documents revealed that the NSA spies on everyone:
The most extraordinary passage in the memo requires that the Israeli spooks "destroy upon recognition"
any communication provided by the NSA "that is either to or from an official of the US government."
It goes on to spell out that this includes "officials of the Executive Branch (including the White
House, Cabinet Departments, and independent agencies); the US House of Representatives and Senate
(members and staff); and the US Federal Court System (including, but not limited to, the Supreme
Court)."
The stunning implication of this passage is that NSA spying targets not only ordinary
American citizens, but also Supreme Court justices, members of Congress and the White House
itself. One could hardly ask for a more naked exposure of a police state.
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." --
William Colby, former CIA Director
LetThemEatRand
Paul Craig Roberts had a great take on this a while back. He pointed out that unions
used to have significant political influence because of their financial resources. Democrats
by and large sought their backing, and had to toe the line. Now, not so much. So, he observed,
both parties began seeking out contributions from the same oligarchs. Even if you hate unions,
it is a valid observation.
LetThemEatRand
I get your point and I'm not your downvote, but in my view the MSM has hijacked the issue of "inequality." The real issue is the oligarch class that has more wealth than half the country. We were a successful, functioning society when we had a middle class. There were rich people, poor people, and a whole lot in between. And it's the whole lot in between that matters. The minimum wage is a distraction. The two big issues are loss of manufacturing base and offshoring in general, and financialization of the economy (in large part due to Fed policy).
LetThemEatRand
...A big part of the "inequality" discussion is equal application of law. I recall when
TARP was floated during the W administration, the public of all persuasions was against it.
Congress passed it anyway, because of Too Big to Fail. TBTF should not be a liberal or
conservative issue. Likewise, the idea that no bankers went to jail is an issue of
"inequality." The laws do not apply equally to bankers. And the same with Lois Lerner. She
intentionally sent the IRS to harass political groups based upon ideology. She got off scott
free. Inequality again.
MASTER OF UNIVERSE
Inequality does not undermine democracy because democracy does not really exist. Faux
democracy is actually Totalitarianism under the guise of 'democracy'. In brief, democracy is
just a word that has been neutered, and bastardized too many times to count as anything real,
or imagined.
They should name a new ice cream DEMOCRACY just for FUN.
"... Whatever world order the U.S. may be fighting for in the Middle East, it seems at least an empire or two out of date. Washington refuses to admit to itself that [as a preverse reaction on neoliberalism] the ideas of Islamic fundamentalism resonate with vast numbers of people. ..."
"... No one is predicting a world war or a nuclear war from the mess in Syria. However, like those final days before the Great War, one finds a lot of pieces in play inside a tinderbox. ..."
"... Peter Van Buren blew the whistle on State Department waste and mismanagement during the Iraqi reconstruction in ..."
"... regular he writes about current events at ..."
A once stable region descends into chaos thanks to continuing repercussions from the 2003 Iraq
invasion. (via TomDispatch)
Whatever world order the U.S. may be fighting for in the Middle East, it seems at least an empire
or two out of date. Washington refuses to admit to itself that [as a preverse reaction on
neoliberalism] the ideas of Islamic fundamentalism
resonate with vast numbers of people. At this point, even as U.S. TOW missiles are becoming as ubiquitous
as iPads in the region, American military power can only delay changes, not stop them. Unless a rebalancing
of power that would likely favor some version of Islamic fundamentalism takes hold and creates some
measure of stability in the Middle East, count on one thing: the U.S. will be fighting the sons of
ISIS years from now.
... No one is predicting a world war or a nuclear war from the mess in Syria. However, like those
final days before the Great War, one finds a lot of pieces in play inside a tinderbox.
"... a spying bill that essentially carves a giant hole in all our privacy laws and allows tech and telecom companies to hand over all sorts of private information to intelligence agencies without any court process whatsoever. ..."
"... Make no mistake: Congress has passed a surveillance bill in disguise, with no evidence it'll help our security. ..."
"... They were counting on nobody paying much attention. Didnt you hear somebody got killed on Walking Dead? Whos got time to talk about boring nonsense like a Congressional bill? ..."
"... Inverse totalitarianism. Read Sheldon Wolin. Were sliding down the slippery slope. ..."
"... On Tuesday afternoon, the Senate voted 74 to 21 to pass a version of CISA that roughly mirrors legislation passed in the House earlier this year, paving the way for some combined version of the security bill to become law. ..."
This is the state of such legislation in this country, where
lawmakers wanted to do something but, by passing Cisa, just decided to cede more power to the NSA
Under the vague guise of "cybersecurity", the Senate voted on Tuesday to pass the Cybersecurity
Information Sharing Act (Cisa), a spying bill that essentially carves a giant hole in all our
privacy laws and allows tech and telecom companies to hand over all sorts of private information
to intelligence agencies without any court process whatsoever.
Make no mistake: Congress has passed a surveillance bill in disguise, with no evidence it'll
help our security.
eminijunkie 28 Oct 2015 17:34
Being competent requires work. Actual work.
You can't honestly say you expected them to do actual work, now can you?
david wright 28 Oct 2015 13:44
'The Senate, ignorant on cybersecurity, just passed a bill about it anyway '
The newsworthy event would be the Senate's passage of anything, on the basis of knowledge or
serious reflection, rather than $-funded ignorance. The country this pas few decades has been
long on policy-based evidence as a basis for law, rather than evidence-based policy. Get what
our funders require, shall be the whole of the law.
Kyllein -> MacKellerann 28 Oct 2015 16:49
Come ON! You are expecting COMPETENCE from Congress?
Wake up and smell the bacon; these people work on policy, not intelligence.
VWFeature -> lostinbago 28 Oct 2015 13:37
Bravo!
"...There is no nation on earth powerful enough to accomplish our overthrow. ... Our destruction,
should it come at all, will be from another quarter. From the inattention of the people to the
concerns of their government, from their carelessness and negligence, I must confess that I do
apprehend some danger. I fear that they may place too implicit a confidence in their public servants,
and fail properly to scrutinize their conduct; that in this way they may be made the dupes of
designing men, and become the instruments of their own undoing." -- Daniel Webster, June 1, 1837
"If once [the people] become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress and
Assemblies, Judges and Governors, shall all become wolves. It seems to be the law of our general
nature, in spite of individual exceptions." -- Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, 1787
lostinbago -> KhepryQuixote 28 Oct 2015 12:09
We became the enemy when the people started attacking the Military Industrial Corporate complex
and trying to regain our republic from the oligarchs.
lostinbago 28 Oct 2015 12:07
Congress: Where Catch 22 melds with Alice in Wonderland
Phil429 28 Oct 2015 11:44
we now have another law on the books that carves a hole in our privacy laws, contains
vague language that can be interpreted any which way, and that has provisions inserted into
it specifically to prevent us from finding out how they're using it.
They were counting on nobody paying much attention. Didn't you hear somebody got killed
on Walking Dead? Who's got time to talk about boring nonsense like a Congressional bill?
guardianfan2000 28 Oct 2015 08:53
This vote just showed the true colors of the U. S. Government,...that being a total disregard
for all individuals' privacy rights.
newbieveryday 28 Oct 2015 02:11
Inverse totalitarianism. Read Sheldon Wolin. We're sliding down the slippery slope.
Who's going to be der erster Fuehrer? David Koch?
Triumphant George -> alastriona 27 Oct 2015 18:55
From elsewhere:
On Tuesday afternoon, the Senate voted 74 to 21 to pass a version of CISA that roughly
mirrors legislation passed in the House earlier this year, paving the way for some combined
version of the security bill to become law.
CISA still faces some hurdles to becoming law. Congressional leaders will need to resolve
remaining differences between the bills passed in the Senate and the House.
President Obama could also still veto CISA, though that's unlikely: The White House endorsed
the bill in August, an about-face from an earlier attempt at cybersecurity information sharing
legislation known as CISPA that the White House shut down with a veto threat in 2013.
--"CISA Security Bill Passes Senate With Privacy Flaws Unfixed", Wired
Two days ago
we reported
that the saga of Rohit Bansal, Goldman's "leaker" at the Fed is coming to a close
with the announcement of a criminal case filed against Goldman's deep throat who had previously spent
7 years at the NY Fed, and was about to spend some time in prison, and who had been providing Goldman
with confidential information sourced from his contact at the NY Fed for months, as a result of which
Goldman would be charged a penalty.
Moments ago the NY DFS announced that the best connected hedge fund in the world would pay $50
million to the New York State Department of Financial Services and "accept a three-year voluntary
abstention from accepting new consulting engagements that require the Department to authorize the
disclosure of confidential information under New York Banking Law"
Goldman Sachs would also admit that a Goldman employee engaged in the criminal theft of Department
confidential supervisory information; Goldman Sachs management failed to effectively supervise its
employee to prevent this theft from occurring; and Goldman failed to implement and maintain adequate
policies and procedures relating to post-employment restrictions for former government employees.
Below are the unbelievable, details of just how Goldman was getting material information from
the NY Fed, from the FDS:
Violation of Post-employment Restrictions
On July 21, 2014, an individual began work at Goldman, Sachs & Co. as an Associate in the Financial
Institutions Group ("FIG") of the Investment Banking Division ("IBD"). The Associate reported to
a Managing Director and a Partner at Goldman.
Prior to his employment at Goldman, from approximately August 2007 to March 2014, the Associate
was a bank examiner at the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank of New York ("the New York Fed").
His
most recent position at the New York Fed was as the Central Point of Contact ("CPC") – the primary
supervisory contact for a particular financial institution – for an entity regulated by the Department
(the "Regulated Entity").
In March 2014, the Associate was required to resign from his position at the New York Fed for,
among other reasons, taking his work blackberry overseas without obtaining prior authorization to
do so and for attempting to falsify records to make it look like he had obtained such authorization,
and for engaging in unauthorized communications with the Federal Reserve Board.
The Associate was hired in large part for the regulatory experience and knowledge he had gained
while working at the New York Fed. Prior to hiring him, the Partner and other senior personnel interviewed
and called the Associate several times, and the Partner took him out to lunch and dinner.
Prior to starting at Goldman, in May 2014, the Associate informed the Partner of potential restrictions
on his work, due to his previous employment at the New York Fed, and specifically as the CPC for
the Regulated Entity. The Partner advised the Associate to consult the New York Fed to obtain clarification
regarding any applicable restrictions.
Accordingly, the Associate inquired with the New York Fed Ethics Office and was given a "Notice
of Post-Employment Restriction," which he completed and signed with respect to his supervisory work
for the Regulated Entity. The Associate provided this form to Goldman. This Notice of Post-Employment
Restriction read that the Associate was prohibited "from knowingly accepting compensation as an employee,
officer, director, or consultant from [the Regulated Entity]" until February 1, 2015.
On May 14, 2014, the Associate forwarded this notice of restriction to the Partner, the Managing
Director, and an attorney in Goldman's Legal Department. In his email, the Associate also included
guidance from the New York Fed, stating, in short, that a person falls under the post-employment
restriction if that person "directly works on matters for, or on behalf of," the relevant financial
institution.
Despite receiving this notice and guidance,
Goldman placed the Associate on Regulated Entity matters from the outset of his employment.
As further detailed below, the Associate also schemed to steal confidential regulatory and government
documents related to that same Regulated Entity in advising that client.
Unauthorized Possession and Dissemination of Confidential Information
During his employment at Goldman, the Associate
wrongfully obtained confidential information, including approximately 35 documents, on approximately
20 occasions, from a former co-worker at the New York Fed (the "New York Fed Employee").
These documents constituted confidential regulatory or supervisory information – many marked as "internal,"
"restricted," or "confidential" – belonging to the Department, the New York Fed or the Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation (the "FDIC"). The Associate's main conduit for receiving information
from the New York Fed was his former coworker, the New York Fed Employee, who has since been terminated
for this conduct. While still employed at the New York Fed, the New York Fed Employee would
email documents to the Associate's personal email address, and the Associate would subsequently forward
those emails to his own Goldman work email address.
On numerous occasions, the Associate provided this confidential information to various
senior personnel at Goldman, including the Partner and the Managing Director, as well as a Vice President
and another associate who perform quantitative analysis for Goldman. In several instances
where the Associate forwarded confidential information to other Goldman personnel, the Associate
wrote in the body of the email that the documents were highly confidential or directed the recipients,
"Please don't distribute." At least nine documents that the Associate provided to Goldman constituted
confidential supervisory information under New York Banking Law § 36(10). Pursuant to the statute,
such confidential supervisory information shall not be disclosed unless authorized by the Department.
The documents included draft and final versions of memoranda regarding and examinations of the Regulated
Entity, as well as correspondence related to those examinations.
At least 17 confidential documents that the Associate had improperly received from the
New York Fed – seven of which constituted confidential supervisory information under New York Banking
Law § 36(10) – were found in hard copy on the desk of the Managing Director. Additional
hard copy documents were found on the desks of the Vice President and the other associate, including
at least one document constituting confidential supervisory information under New York Banking Law
§ 36(10).
On August 18, 2014, the Associate shared three documents pertaining to enterprise risk management
with the Managing Director, writing, "Below is the ERM request list, work program and assessment
framework we used for ERM targets. Again this is highly confidential as its not public and has not
been issued a[s] guidance yet. Not sure where it is at anymore due to internal politics. I worked
on this framework and guidance within the context of a system working group with the Fed system.
We ran several pilots to test it was well. Please don't distribute." The Managing Director replied,
"I won't. Will review on plane tomorrow to DC." The documents were marked as "Internal-FR" or "Restricted-FR."
Part of Goldman's work for the Regulated Entity included advisory services with respect to a potential
transaction. A certain component of the Regulated Entity's examination rating was relevant to the
transaction. The Regulated Entity's examinations were conducted jointly by the FDIC, DFS and the
New York Fed. As described below, the Associate used confidential information regarding the Regulated
Entity's examination rating – obtained both from his prior employment at the New York Fed and from
his contacts there – and conveyed this information to the Managing Director, who then conveyed the
information to the Regulated Entity on September 23, 2014, in advance of it being conveyed by the
regulators.
On August 16, 2014, the Associate emailed the Managing Director regarding the regulators' perspective
on the Regulated Entity's forthcoming examination rating, writing "You need to speak to [the CEO
of the Regulated Entity] about scheduling a meeting with all 3 agencies ASAP. He needs to meet with
them and display and discuss all the improvements and corrections they have made during the last
examination cycle."
On September 23, 2014, the Associate attended the birthday dinner of the New York Fed
Employee at Peter Luger Steakhouse, along with several other New York Fed employees. Immediately
after the dinner, the Associate emailed the Managing Director, divulging confidential information
concerning the Regulated Entity, specifically, the relevant component of the upcoming examination
rating. The Associate wrote, "…the exit meeting is tomorrow and looks like no [change]
to the [relevant] rating. I heard there won't be any split rating… [The Regulated Entity] should
have listened to you with the advice…hopefully [the CEO] will now know you didn't have phony info."
In this email, the Associate also provided advice to relay to the Regulated Entity's management,
stating that they should "keep their cool, not get defensive and not say too much unless the regulators
have a blatant fact wrong" as it "will go off better for them in the long run. Believe it or not
the regulator's [sic] look for reaction and level of mgmt respectiveness [sic] during these exit
meetings." The Managing Director replied "Let's discuss . . . I'm seeing [the CEO of the
Regulated Entity] tmw afternoon alone."
Later that night, the Associate followed up with another email to the Managing Director, writing,
"I feel awful not being there to wrap up 2013. I would have been able to pull all this through. I
was a real advocate for all the work they have done." He also offered to join a meeting with the
CEO of the Regulated Entity if the Managing Director wanted.
On September 26, 2014, Goldman had an internal call regarding the calculation of certain asset
ratios, during which there was disagreement over the appropriate method. During the call,
the Associate circulated an internal New York Fed document – which the Associate had recently obtained
from the New York Fed Employee – relating to the calculation, to the call participants, writing,
"Pls keep confidential?" Following the group call, the Partner called the Associate to discuss
the document, including where he had obtained it, and the Associate told him that he had obtained
it from the New York Fed. The Partner then called the Global Head of IBD Compliance to report the
matter and forwarded the document.
Compliance Failures, Failure to Supervise and Violation of Internal Policies
After receiving notice of the Associate's prohibition on working on matters for the Regulated
Entity, Goldman, including the Partner and the Legal Department, failed to take any steps to screen
the Associate from such prohibited work. Instead, Goldman affirmatively placed the Associate
on matters for the Regulated Entity beginning on his first day, and added the Associate to the official
Goldman database as a member of the Regulated Entity "Team" – a team led by the Partner.
Goldman failed to provide training to personnel regarding what constituted confidential supervisory
information and how it should be safeguarded. While Goldman policies provided that confidential information
received from clients should only be shared on a "need to know" basis, Goldman did not distinguish
between this broader category of confidential information and the type of confidential supervisory
information belonging to a regulator or other government agency, which is protected by law, such
as confidential supervisory information under New York Banking Law § 36(10). Indeed, Goldman policies
failed to adequately address Department confidential supervisory information.
As noted above, the Associate also violated Goldman's internal policy on "Use of Materials from
Previous Employers," which states that work that personnel have done for previous employers, and
confidential information gained while working there, should not be brought into Goldman or used or
disclosed to others at Goldman without the express permission of the previous employer.
* * *
The Managing Director is safe, as are all other Goldman employees: nobody aside for Bansal who
was merely trying to impress his superiors, has anything to worry about.
Anyone else found to have obtained at least "35 confidential documents" from the Fed on at least
"20 occassions" would be sent straight to jail with a prison sentence anywhere between several decades
and life.
Goldman's punishment? 0.6% of its 2014 Net Income.
Duc888
How could this happen? Seriously. Aren't the FED and GS separate entities?
Oh, wait.....
LetThemEatRand
The fact that these documents were sent via email only tells me how widespread this is.
Most of these guys are probably smart enough to put a paper copy in their briefcase and
deliver it to Goldman the old fashioned way bankers do things (over drinks and coke at a strip
bar).
But when "everyone is doing it," a guy may get careless and start using email, figuring
what the fuck.
Urban Redneck
Did Goldman's Marketing Department write that release for their FRBNY subsidiary??? They
deserve the $50 million fine for being an embarrassment to scheming bankers everywhere. This
is a company that has destroyed companies, entire economies, and countless (not so little)
investors by placing their own financial interests above their clients and regularly using
inside information and access to do so. Then Goldman is "caught" when they turn themselves in
(not that they had a lot of choice given the amateur hour performance) for actually "helping"
one of their clients (for once)... This whole thing stinks, in more ways than one.
Sudden Debt
What a joke!!!
GS and JPM ARE THE FED!!!
and that "fine"... THAT'S THEIR DONUT BUDGET!!
J J Pettigrew
Bagels....please!
Elliott Eldrich
"Feel sorry for the poor schmuck, cuffed and heading to a sallyport, to be booked,
and serve 6 months in jail, for stealing a carton of ciggs..."
Little crimes are punished with great fervor, while the biggest criminals get their wrists
slapped. This is outrageous, and I just have to ask how much more we are supposed to bear
before breaking?
Lord Ariok
I Love my Country and Hate Our Government. But If our government isn't "Gangster" well
believe it there will be another "Government" that is even more "Gangster" then ours to take
the number 1 spot in the Syndicate. The way I see it if we have to do this in order to compete
with China's Level of Corruption. Damn Chinese Efficiency. ~ Lord Ariok
venturen
they have Bill Dudley...they were worried that this underling would do something. Heck
Goldman gives the orders not the other way around
Bay of Pigs
The William Dudley is the main man at the FED (and the BIS), not Yellin or Fischer.
"Prior to joining the Bank in 2007, Mr. Dudley was a partner and managing director at Goldman,
Sachs & Company and was the firm's chief U.S. economist for a decade. Prior to joining Goldman
Sachs in 1986, he was a vice president at the former Morgan Guaranty Trust Company. Mr. Dudley
was an economist at the Federal Reserve Board from 1981 to 1983.
In 2012, Mr. Dudley was appointed chairman of the Committee on the Global Financial System of
the Bank for International Settlements (BIS). Previously, Mr. Dudley served as chairman of the
former Committee on Payment and Settlement Systems of the BIS from 2009 to 2012. He is a
member of the board of directors of the BIS and chairman of the Economic Club of New York."
"... if you look at what is supporting equity prices - how much of that support is coming
from real economic activity versus from using stock buybacks, using cash on balance sheet
for stock buybacks, or mergers and acquisitions, to reduced competition in the marketplace.
These
are the sort of stories that if there were a small increase in interest rates, you would
temper some of that frothiness.
Eliminating the incentive to engage in that kind of activity seems
to me to be a good idea... There would be a proportion of the population that would have
less capital gains - but they've been enjoying very big capital gains, and it is a narrow
segment of the population."
"... There is a lot that is positive about China's transformation. However, it is quite telling that many of China's new rich cant get their money out of the country quickly enough. ..."
"... It isn't so much a case of whether the UK will become a province, I suspect the whole world will. China is close to the GDP of the USA and will overtake it in about 18 months, with GDP per head only about $8k. If Chinese GDP per head even doubles, it's economy will at least double, and that isn't taking into account population growth. China's economy has already grown by about 1000% since 2002. ..."
"... China is a very fascinating place with a very fascinating history... But this misguided sinophilia is exasperating. Half the time the Chinese government doesn't even know what it's doing. ..."
"... If you talk to Chinese people in private most of them take a pretty dim view of the invasion of Iraq and western interventionist foreign policy in general. Their government, however, don't put out grand press releases about it because that's not the way the Chinese do foreign diplomacy. ..."
"... Gunboat diplomacy, opium wars, putting down mutinies in India and elsewhere, black hole of Calcutta,thrashing the native language out of the Maori and Aborigines-forcing them to speak English, World War One and World War Two, suez, the Falklands. ..."
"... They will have to reject US inspired economic voodoo if they are to ever prosper again. There is little to no chance of a federal state. The cultural, language and political differences are insurmountable. ..."
"... Stopped reading at that point, author is obviously a neoliberal rent-a-mouth. If it's rights against interests there's nothing to balance, to suggest otherwise is agenda setting. ..."
"... The public opinion in France should remember about Frances' real place in the world, and mind its own business avoiding poking its long nose in other peoples' affaires. ..."
"... Bonapartism is an old French mental disorder. ..."
"... I didn't say the US completely controlled Europe, I just said that the US can bend Europe to its will in certain circumstances. For example it currently forces European banks to disclose customer information to the US Treasury and it is trying to get European countries to agree to allow US border control in European airports, so that the US can question UK citizens in London. ..."
"... i want to see a chinese century, at least the chinese wont invade other countries with the excuse of democracy or human rights ..."
"... LOL European democracy was born in Greece which is now under the full control of ECB and IMF The EU is a silly clown at the US court What are you talking about? ..."
"... To be fair to the Chinese, at least they're not evangelical about spreading their 'Authoritarianism with Chinese Characteristics' now are they? In fact, it's quite the opposite with their non-interference mantra. ..."
"... The rise of China is largely a good thing for Europe. The US will not hesitate to use its power to bend Europe to its will where necessary (and who can blame it, all countries do this when they can) and the cultural and political diversity of Europe means the EU is unlikely to rival the US or China anytime soon. But the rise of China allows Europe to play one great power off against the other to resist bullying and extract concessions from one or both. ..."
"... You can have democracy with a long memory see periods before 1970's (neoliberalisation requires a small memory). ..."
"... If Europe continues to have a long term strategy the 'long-term' has not started yet. It is currently in the process of internal devaluation and the morons in charge happily attack labor conditions which weakens spending which further degrades potential GDP increases hidden unemployment and stagnation. Germany did this first and now continues to leverage the small head start it got during the 90's for doing so. ..."
"... It has nothing to do with that reasoning. It was always predicted the West will self destruct. Inventing Globalisation and then closed down places of work for its citizen and export them la, la lands benefiting very few people, the beneficiaries who end up sending their monies to tax havens un-taxed and sponsoring some selected people to power to do their biding was always self defeating. ..."
"... We gave China our jobs and cheap technologies that have taken us centuries to develop in of getting cheap goods. As a result China did not have to pass through the phases we passed through in our early industrial age when Machines were more expensive than humans before the reverse. ..."
"... Who speaks for Europe? No-one is the answer. It is the single largest economy on the plant. Biggest exporter on the planet. Arguably the richest middle class on the planet; combined, possibly the biggest defense budget on the planet, and all this with a central government driving foreign policy, defense, economic strategy, monetary policy, nor any of the other institutions of a Federal State. China knows this, the Americans know this; and Europe keeps getting treated as the "child" on the international scene. It's too bad, because Europe, as a whole, has many wonderful positives to contribute to the world. ..."
The problem is how do you define civilization? The urban centres were in the Middle East, and
long pre-date China. 6,000 years ago, the world's largest towns and cities were in the Balkans
- the Tripolye-Cucuteni culture. Because of the conventions of nomenclature, they don't count
as a civilization. This raises the question, when does a culture become a civilization? There
are certainly well attested archaeological cultures in China going back a long way, but there
are equally ancient cultures in Europe. Should we then say that Europe has 4,000 or 5,000 or more
years of civilization?
Good records for Chinese history go back about 3,000 years. Anything before that becomes archaeological
rather than historical, based on artifacts rather than records. References to different dynasties
don't help - there are no records comparable to Near Eastern king lists, or the Sumerian or Hittite
royal archives. China set up the Three Kingdoms Project to try to find the 'missing' 2,000 years
of Chinese history - i.e. the history that they claim to have, but have no direct evidence. They
didn't find it.
Adetheshades 23 Oct 2015 22:52
There is a lot that is positive about China's transformation. However, it is quite telling
that many of China's new rich cant get their money out of the country quickly enough.
They
obviously know more than the average Guardian reader, and apparently don't feel their cash
is safe. This causes problems of its own, when they start splashing this cash in the UK property
market, causing further price escalation if any were needed.
There isn't much we can do about the size and wealth of China.
It isn't so much a case of whether the UK will become a province, I suspect the whole world will.
China is close to the GDP of the USA and will overtake it in about 18 months, with GDP per head
only about $8k. If Chinese GDP per head even doubles, it's economy will at least double, and that
isn't taking into account population growth. China's economy has already grown by about 1000%
since 2002.
At what point will we drop French from the school curriculum in favour of Mandarin is the question.
To say Beijings influence is growing is a lovely little piece of understatement.
Adamnuisance 23 Oct 2015 21:22
China is a very fascinating place with a very fascinating history... But this misguided sinophilia
is exasperating. Half the time the Chinese government doesn't even know what it's doing.
Being
passive aggressive and claiming to be 'unique' are their real specialties. I have little doubt
that China will become even more powerful with time... I just hope their backwards politics improves
with their economy.
Thruns 23 Oct 2015 20:44
The first long game was Mao's coup.
The second long game was the great leap forward.
The third long game was the cultural revolution.
The fourth long game was to adopt the west's capitalism and sell the west its own technology.
At last the "communist" Chinese seem to have found a winner.
tufsoft Maharaja -> Brovinda Singh 23 Oct 2015 20:30
If you talk to Chinese people in private most of them take a pretty dim view of the invasion
of Iraq and western interventionist foreign policy in general. Their government, however, don't
put out grand press releases about it because that's not the way the Chinese do foreign diplomacy.
nothell -> Laurence Johnson 23 Oct 2015 20:16
Your comment about the British Empire must be tongue in cheek.
Gunboat diplomacy, opium wars, putting down mutinies in India and elsewhere, black hole of
Calcutta,thrashing the native language out of the Maori and Aborigines-forcing them to speak English,
World War One and World War Two, suez, the Falklands.
Anything but peaceful and anything but fair. Europe had the past, let Asia have the future.
slightlynumb -> theoldmanfromusa 23 Oct 2015 20:10
They will have to reject US inspired economic voodoo if they are to ever prosper again. There
is little to no chance of a federal state. The cultural, language and political differences are
insurmountable.
Rasengruen 23 Oct 2015 20:05
All of this presents well-known dilemmas for Europeans, such as how to balance human rights
and economic interests.
Stopped reading at that point, author is obviously a neoliberal rent-a-mouth. If it's rights
against interests there's nothing to balance, to suggest otherwise is agenda setting.
philby87 23 Oct 2015 18:50
public opinion in France, which had been shocked by an outbreak of violent repression
in Tibet
The public opinion in France should remember about Frances' real place in the world, and
mind its own business avoiding poking its long nose in other peoples' affaires. A good example
is Japan which is twice larger than France, but never lectures its neighbors about what they should
and shouldn't do. Bonapartism is an old French mental disorder.
skepticaleye -> midaregami 23 Oct 2015 18:04
The Yue state was populated mostly by the members of the Yue people who were not Han. The South
China wasn't completely sinicized well into the second millennium CE. Yunnan wasn't incorporated
into China until the Mongols conquered Dali in the 13th century, and the Ming dynasty eradicated
the Mongols' resistance there in the 14th century.
PeterBederell -> Daniel S 23 Oct 2015 17:54
I didn't say the US completely controlled Europe, I just said that the US can bend Europe to
its will in certain circumstances. For example it currently forces European banks to disclose
customer information to the US Treasury and it is trying to get European countries to agree to
allow US border control in European airports, so that the US can question UK citizens in London.
Europe often has to agree to these indignities because it needs access to the US market and to
keep the US sweet. But with a strong China, it can use the threat of following China in some way
the US doesn't like as a bargaining chip, like joining China's Development Bank, which put the
US in a huff recently.
Chriswr -> AdamStrange 23 Oct 2015 17:54
What we in the West call human rights are creations of the Enlightenment and only about 300 years old. As a modern Westerner I am, of course, a big supporter of them. But let's not pretend they are part of some age-old tradition.
sor2007 -> impartial12 23 Oct 2015 17:48
i want to see a chinese century, at least the chinese wont invade other countries with the excuse of democracy or human rights
ApfelD 23 Oct 2015 17:42
China can rightly point out that it was already a civilisation 4,000 years ago – well ahead of Europe – and it uses that historical depth to indicate it will never take lessons on democracy.
LOL
European democracy was born in Greece which is now under the full control of ECB and IMF
The EU is a silly clown at the US court
What are you talking about?
HoolyK BabylonianSheDevil03 23 Oct 2015 17:34
To be fair to the Chinese, at least they're not evangelical about spreading their
'Authoritarianism with Chinese Characteristics' now are they? In fact, it's quite the opposite
with their non-interference mantra. When the Chinese see the following:
1. the West preaches democracy and human rights
2. is evangelical about it and spreads it by hook or crook into the Middle East
3. this causes regimes to be changed and instability to spread
4. the chaos causes a massive refugee crisis, washing these poor huddled masses onto the
shores of Europe
5. the human rights preached by the West demands that the the refugees receive help
6. the native population is slowly being displaced
7. native population is further screwed, with austerity, financial crisis and now said Syrian
refugees
8. Fascist and Nazis parties are elected into office, civil strife ensues
Now, what do you think the Chinese, who ABHOR chaos, think about democracy and human rights
??
PeterBederell 23 Oct 2015 16:47
The rise of China is largely a good thing for Europe. The US will not hesitate to use
its power to bend Europe to its will where necessary (and who can blame it, all countries do
this when they can) and the cultural and political diversity of Europe means the EU is
unlikely to rival the US or China anytime soon. But the rise of China allows Europe to play
one great power off against the other to resist bullying and extract concessions from one or
both.
HoolyK -> AdamStrange 23 Oct 2015 16:30
Anatolia is inhabited by Turks from Central Asia who settled in the 11th century,
Iraq/Syria was overrun by Muslims in the 7th century. China is still Han Chinese, as it was
5000 years ago.
'human rights' really? then do you support the human rights of tens of thousands of refugees
from Syria to settle in Britain and Europe then? I ask this awkward question only because I
know the Chinese will ask ....
dev_null 23 Oct 2015 16:23
China deploys a long-term strategy in part because it has a very long memory, and in
part because its ruling elite needn't bother too much about electoral constraints.
The two are not mutially exclusive. You can have democracy with a long memory see
periods before 1970's (neoliberalisation requires a small memory).
China's longest 'strategy' was to leverage its currency artificially lower than it should be
in order to net export so many manufactured goods. Nothing else.
If Europe continues to have a long term strategy the 'long-term' has not started yet. It
is currently in the process of internal devaluation and the morons in charge happily attack
labor conditions which weakens spending which further degrades potential GDP increases hidden
unemployment and stagnation. Germany did this first and now continues to leverage the small
head start it got during the 90's for doing so.
Eurozone = Dystopia
China can rightly point out that it was already a civilisation 4,000 years ago – well
ahead of Europe
No sorry europe contained many advanced cultures going back just as far. This is
incompetent journalism. China was not 'china' it was many kingdoms and cultures 4000 years
ago, as was Europe at the time. Fallacy of decomposition.
MeandYou -> weka69 23 Oct 2015 16:11
It has nothing to do with that reasoning. It was always predicted the West will self
destruct. Inventing Globalisation and then closed down places of work for its citizen and
export them la, la lands benefiting very few people, the beneficiaries who end up sending
their monies to tax havens un-taxed and sponsoring some selected people to power to do their
biding was always self defeating.
We gave China our jobs and cheap technologies that have taken us centuries to develop
in of getting cheap goods. As a result China did not have to pass through the phases we passed
through in our early industrial age when Machines were more expensive than humans before the
reverse. We gave China all in a plate hence the speed neck speed China has risen. The
Consumerism society the political class created they were stupid enough to forget people still
need money to buy cheap goods. Consumerism does not run on empty purse.
wintpu 23 Oct 2015 15:57
You are preaching a China Containment strategy:
[1] This is racist viciousness, colonial mentality, or white supremacist conspiracy, believing
that containment is your moral right. You seem to be wallowing still in the stiff upper lipped
notions that you are the betters versus the east. Colonialism is over and still you cling to
the notion that the EU should get together and try to destroy China's social system because it
is different from yours. Your records on human rights, governance and effectiveness are all
droopy examples to be object lessons rather than role models for emulation by developing
countries. Your opium war denials [simply by not mentioning it] give you very little high
ground to hector China and the Chinese people.
[2] Recent Behavior. Putting aside your opium war robbery, your behavior in the run up to 1997
Hong Kong hand back shows your greedy sneakiness. Chris Patten infamously tried to throw a
monkey wrench into an agreed-upon process by trying to steal the Hong Kong treasury, then
planting the seeds of British wannabees. You passed a special law to deny the 1.36 million
Hong Kong residents who had become British Citizens was one of the most shameful racist acts
of your colonial record. Cameron is now bending over backwards post haste in order to
side-step the long long memory of the Chinese people.
[3] Crying about getting other EU nations to do aiding and abetting of your vendetta against a
rising China? Trying to reduce and contain China does you no good. So it is a simple case of
mendacity. But you forget that the Germans have already gone to China honestly and co-operated
since the time of Helmut Kohl and the CPC has not forgotten their loyal friends. Today most
CPC leaders drive Audis. There is no turning Germany away from their key position in
Chinatrade to become enemies of China because of your self-serving wishes. Even now, France
has jumped in on the nuclear niche to present you with a package you cannot refuse.
samohio 23 Oct 2015 15:51
Who speaks for Europe? No-one is the answer. It is the single largest economy on the
plant. Biggest exporter on the planet. Arguably the richest middle class on the planet;
combined, possibly the biggest defense budget on the planet, and all this with a central
government driving foreign policy, defense, economic strategy, monetary policy, nor any of the
other institutions of a Federal State. China knows this, the Americans know this; and Europe
keeps getting treated as the "child" on the international scene. It's too bad, because Europe,
as a whole, has many wonderful positives to contribute to the world.
"... The purpose was to create the perception that, according to speaker, "Assad killed his people with sarin and that requires a US military intervention in Syria." ..."
"... Turkish government ..."
"... 'We knew there were some in the Turkish government,' a former senior US intelligence official, who has access to current intelligence, told me, 'who believed they could get Assad's nuts in a vice by dabbling with a sarin attack inside Syria – and forcing Obama to make good on his red line threat.' ..."
"... And as recently as yesterday a State Department flac was stil asserting that Assad was responsible for the Sarin attack. Those boys and girls no longer remember how to tell the truth, even to save their own skins. ..."
"... The following examples show the extent of Turkish involvement in the war on Syria: ..."
"... –Turkey hosts the Political and Military Headquarters of the armed opposition. Most of the political leaders are former Syrians who have not lived there for decades. ..."
"... –Turkey provides home base for armed opposition leaders. As quoted in the Vice News video "Syria: Wolves of the Valley": "Most of the commanders actually live in Turkey and commute in to the fighting when necessary." ..."
"... –Turkey's intelligence agency MIT has provided its own trucks for shipping huge quantities of weapons and ammunition to Syrian armed opposition groups. According to court testimony, they made at least 2,000 trips to Syria. ..."
"... – Turkey is suspected of supplying the chemical weapons used in Ghouta in August 2013 as reported by Seymour Hersh here . In May 2013, Nusra fighters were arrested in possession of sarin but quickly and quietly released by Turkish authorities. ..."
"... – Turkey's foreign minister, top spy chief and senior military official were secretly recorded plotting an incident to justify Turkish military strikes against Syria . A sensational recording of the meeting was publicized, exposing the plot in advance and likely preventing it from proceeding. ..."
"... –Turkey has provided direct aid and support to attacking insurgents. When insurgents attacked Kassab Syria on the border in spring 2014, Turkey provided backup military support and ambulances for injured fighters. Turkey shot down a Syrian jet fighter that was attacking the invading insurgents. The plane landed 7 kilometers inside Syrian territory, suggesting that Turkish claims it was in Turkish air space are likely untrue. ..."
"... – Turkey has recently increased its coordination with Saudi Arabia and Qatar . ..."
"... "We were some of the first people on the ground –if not the first people – to get that story of…militants going in through the Turkish border…I've got images of them in World Food Organization trucks. It was very apparent that they were militants by their beards, by the clothes they wore, and they were going in there with NGO trucks," ..."
Two members of the Turkish parliament gave a press conference this week saying that they have
wiretapped recordings and other evidence showing that Turkey supplied the sarin used in Syria.
As
reported by Turkey's largest newspapers, Today's Zaman:
CHP deputies Eren Erdem
and Ali ?eker held a
press conference in Istanbul on Wednesday in which they claimed the investigation into allegations
regarding Turkey's involvement in the procurement of sarin gas which was used in the
chemical attack
on a civil population and delivered to the terrorist Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL)
to enable the attack was derailed.
Taking the floor first, Erdem stated that the Adana Chief Prosecutor's Office launched an investigation
into allegations that sarin was sent to Syria from Turkey via several businessmen.
An indictment followed regarding the accusations targeting the government.
"The MKE [Turkish Mechanical and Chemical Industry Corporation] is also an actor that is mentioned
in the investigation file. Here is the indictment. All the details about how sarin was
procured in Turkey and delivered to the terrorists, along with audio recordings, are inside the
file," Erdem said while waving the file.
Erdem also noted that the prosecutor's office conducted detailed technical surveillance and
found that an al-Qaeda militant, Hayyam Kasap, acquired sarin, adding: "Wiretapped phone
conversations reveal the process of procuring the gas at specific addresses as well as the process
of procuring the rockets that would fire the capsules containing the toxic gas. However,
despite such solid evidence there has been no arrest in the case. Thirteen individuals were arrested
during the first stage of the investigation but were later released, refuting government claims
that it is fighting terrorism," Erdem noted.
Over 1,300 people were killed in the sarin gas attack in Ghouta and several other neighborhoods
near the Syrian capital of Damascus, with the West quickly blaming the regime of Bashar al-Assad
and Russia claiming it was a "false flag" operation aimed at making US military intervention in
Syria possible.
Suburbs near Damascus were struck by rockets containing the toxic sarin gas in August 2013.
The purpose of the attack was allegedly to provoke a US military operation in Syria
which would topple the Assad regime in line with the political agenda of then-Prime Minister
Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his government.
CHP deputy speaker spoke after Erdem, pointing out that the government misled the public on the
issue by asserting that sarin was provided by Russia. The purpose was to create the
perception that, according to speaker, "Assad killed his people with sarin and that requires a US military
intervention in Syria."
He also underlined that all of the files and evidence from the investigation show a war crime
was committed within the borders of the Turkish Republic.
"The investigation clearly indicates that those people who smuggled the chemicals required
to procure sarin faced no difficulties, proving that Turkish intelligence was aware of their activities.
Pulitzer-prize winning investigative reporter Seymour Hersh – who uncovered the Iraq prison torture
scandal and the Mai Lai massacre in Vietnam – previously
reported that high-level American sources tell him that the
Turkish government carried out the chemical weapons attacks blamed on the Syrian government.
'We knew there were some in the Turkish government,' a former senior US intelligence official,
who has access to current intelligence, told me, 'who believed they could get Assad's nuts in
a vice by dabbling with a sarin attack inside Syria – and forcing Obama to make good on his red
line threat.'
Indeed, it's long been known that sarin was
coming through Turkey. And a tape recording of top Turkish officials planning a false flag attack to be blamed on Syria
as a causus belli was
leaked … and confirmed by Turkey as being authentic. Turkey is a member of NATO. There are previous instances where Turkish government
officials have admitted to carrying out false flag attacks.
For example:
The Turkish Prime Minister
admitted that the Turkish government carried out the 1955 bombing on a Turkish consulate in
Greece – also damaging the nearby birthplace of the founder of modern Turkey – and blamed it on
Greece, for the purpose of inciting and justifying anti-Greek violence.
"they don't want a population capable of critical thinking" george carlin
Macon Richardson
And as recently as yesterday a State Department flac was stil asserting that Assad was
responsible for the Sarin attack. Those boys and girls no longer remember how to tell the truth,
even to save their own skins.
The following examples show the extent of Turkish involvement in the war on Syria:
–Turkey hosts the Political and Military Headquarters of the armed opposition. Most of
the political leaders are former Syrians who have not lived there for decades.
–Turkey provides home base for armed opposition leaders. As quoted in the Vice News video
"Syria: Wolves of the Valley": "Most of the commanders actually live in Turkey and commute in
to the fighting when necessary."
–Turkey's intelligence agency MIT has provided its own trucks for shipping huge quantities
of weapons and ammunition to Syrian armed opposition groups. According to court testimony, they
made at least
2,000 trips to Syria.
–Turkey is suspected of supplying the chemical weapons used in Ghouta in August
2013 as reported by Seymour Hersh
here. In May 2013,
Nusra fighters were arrested in possession of sarin but quickly and quietly released by Turkish
authorities.
–Turkey's foreign minister, top spy chief and senior military official were secretly
recorded
plotting an incident to justify Turkish military strikes against Syria. A sensational
recording of the meeting was publicized, exposing the plot in advance and likely preventing it
from proceeding.
–Turkey has provided direct aid and support to attacking insurgents. When insurgents attacked
Kassab Syria on the border in spring 2014, Turkey provided backup military support and ambulances
for injured fighters. Turkey
shot down
a Syrian jet fighter that was attacking the invading insurgents. The plane landed 7 kilometers
inside Syrian territory, suggesting that Turkish claims it was in Turkish air space are likely
untrue.
–Turkey has recently increased its coordination with Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
Rest assured Russia is fully aware of all the clandestine goings-on.
Interesting that Turkey is keen on snuggling up close with those bastions of civil rights -
SA and Qatar, just at the same time as they are making very loud noises re the involvement of
what is Hezbollah in the Syrian conflict . . . .
Easy to see which side Turkey's desperately backing.
conscious being
Serena Shim, Shim had been reporting that IS militants had crossed the border from Turkey into
Syria in trucks apparently affiliated with NGOs, some of which allegedly bore World Food Organization
symbols. She claimed that she had received images from Islamic militants crossing the Turkish
border and was one of the few reporters focusing on the matter.
"We were some of the first people on the ground –if not the first people – to get that story of…militants
going in through the Turkish border…I've got images of them in World Food Organization trucks.
It was very apparent that they were militants by their beards, by the clothes they wore, and they
were going in there with NGO trucks," she said.
lakecity55
I also remember the Terrorists taking over a pool supply/industrial supply house of Chlorine
gas. They may have manufactured the chlorine at the same facility, so there was no shortage of
ways for them to get ahold of poison gas.
The ideation that Assad would gas his own people is absurd. He throws some dissidents inot jail,
but so does the USSA.
that's pretty superficial coverage. Capabilities of smartphone mike are pretty limited and by
design it is try to suppress external noise. If your phone is in the case microphone will not pick up much. Same for camera. Only your
GPS location is available. If phone is switched off then even this is not reality available.
I think the whole ability to listen from the pocket is overblown. There is too much noice to make
this practical on the current level of development of technology. At the same time I think
just metadata are enough to feel that you are the constant surveillance.
Notable quotes:
"... the most part intelligence agencies are not really looking to monitor your private phone communications per se. They are actually taking over full control of the phone to take photos or record ongoing conversations within earshot. ..."
"... According to Snowden, the UK's spy agency, the Government Communications Headquarters, uses NSA technology to develop software tools to control almost anyone's smartphone. He notes that all it takes is sending an encrypted text message to get into virtually any smartphone. Moreover, the message will not be seen by the user, making it almost impossible to stop the attack. ..."
"... Reprinted with permission from WeMeantWell.com . ..."
You are a tool of the state, according to NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden.
The NSA in the U.S.,
and its equivalent in the UK, GCHQ, are taking control of your phone not just to spy on you as needed,
but also to use your device as a way to spy on others around you. You are a walking microphone, camera
and GPS for spies.
Snowden, in a BBC interview,
explained that for the most part intelligence agencies are not really looking to monitor your
private phone communications per se. They are actually taking over full control of the phone to take
photos or record ongoing conversations within earshot.
According to Snowden, the UK's spy agency, the Government Communications Headquarters, uses
NSA technology to develop software tools to control almost anyone's smartphone. He notes that all
it takes is sending an encrypted text message to get into virtually any smartphone. Moreover, the
message will not be seen by the user, making it almost impossible to stop the attack.
GCHQ calls these smartphone hacking tools the "Smurf
Suite." The suite includes:
"Dreamy Smurf" is the power management tool that turns your phone on and off with you knowing.
"Nosey Smurf" is the hot mic tool. "For example," Snowden said, "if the phone is in your
pocket, NSA/GCHQ can turn the microphone on and listen to everything that's going on around you,
even if your phone is switched off because they've got the other tools for turning it on.
"Tracker Smurf" is a geolocation tool which allows spies to follow you with a greater precision
than you would get from the typical triangulation of cellphone towers.
"Paranoid Smurf" is a defensive mechanism designed to make the other tools installed on
the phone undetectable.
Snowden said the NSA has spent close to $1 billion to develop these smartphone hacking programs.
"... Talbot focusses extensively on James Jesus Angleton, the shadowy counterintelligence figure at the heart of the domestic assassinations of the 1960s, and examines the inner-workings of Dulles' ambitious (and dastardly) plot to consolidate and control global political power. "The Devil's Chessboard" is a startling and revelatory masterwork. In terms of easy-to-access assassination research, this book is second only to James Douglass' "JFK and the Unspeakable." In terms of biographies of Dulles and Angleton, two of history's most infamous figures, this work is second to none. ..."
"... A heretofore unanswered question about the JFK assassination is what was Allen Dulles was doing between the time he was fired by JFK as Director of the CIA in 1961 until the moment of the assassination on November 22, 1963. A related question is how was it conceivable for Dulles to have been appointed to the Warren Commission that eventually produced the conclusions that are still accepted by mainstream historians and the media? Talbot's intensive research helps to shed on light on those questions by tracing the arc of development of the career of Allen Dulles as a high-powered attorney at the center of the elitist East Coast establishment, his shocking collaboration with the Nazis while working in the OSS, and his career in clandestine activities at the CIA ..."
"... Talbots research probes not merely the activities of Dulles as Director of the CIA, but explores the broader context of his function over three decades as a power broker, whose efforts were directed not against hostile governments but against his own. ..."
"... the more recent book on Dulles covers the broader scope of how the American government was transformed into the national security state in the years following World War II. Talbots goal in preparing this book is to demonstrate the urgency of coming to terms with our past and how it is essential that we continue to fight for the right to own our history. (p. xii) An excellent place to begin that quest is to own this book. ..."
A Groundbreaking Resource, Second Only to "JFK and the Unspeakable"
A tremendous resource of breathtaking depth and clarity. Talbot builds on the now decades-old
body of research - initiated by investigative reporters Tom Mangold ("Cold Warrior") and David
Wise ("Molehunt"), and largely developed by assassination researchers James DiEugenio and Lisa
Pease ("The Assassinations") - and adds groundbreaking new information.
Talbot focusses extensively on James Jesus Angleton, the shadowy counterintelligence figure
at the heart of the domestic assassinations of the 1960s, and examines the inner-workings of Dulles'
ambitious (and dastardly) plot to consolidate and control global political power. "The Devil's
Chessboard" is a startling and revelatory masterwork. In terms of easy-to-access assassination
research, this book is second only to James Douglass' "JFK and the Unspeakable." In terms of biographies
of Dulles and Angleton, two of history's most infamous figures, this work is second to none.
Note: Be wary of one-star reviews for this book. Some trace back to commissioned-review services,
the same services that give five-star reviews to shady/suspicious health and beauty products.
Go figure.
To read this magnificent book by David Talbot is to understand how the JFK assassination occurred
and how the truth was concealed by officialdom in the Warren Report. Unlike his brother, John
Foster Dulles, the younger Allen Welsh Dulles rarely makes it into American history textbooks.
In this extremely detailed study, the singular importance of Allen Dulles is demonstrated as being
central to a watershed period in the American Century.
First and foremost, "The Devil's Chessboard" is a beautifully written and meticulously researched
volume. Talbot drew upon archives at Princeton University, where the Allen Dulles papers are housed.
He also conducted research in other archives across the country. The documentary work is buttressed
and amplified by interviews with the surviving daughter of Dulles, as well as interviews with
the children of Dulles' colleagues and over 150 officials from the Kennedy administration. Nearly
forty pages of notes serve to document the author's sources.
One of the most revealing moments about Allen Dulles was when he was ten years old and spending
time at the family's lake home in upstate New York. After his five-year-old sister fell into the
lake and was drifting away from him, Allen stood stock still, "strangely impassive. The boy just
stood on the dock and watched as his little sister drifted away." (p. 19) Fortunately, the child
was rescued by the mother. The behavior of young Allen is representative of a lifelong predilection
for observing the imponderables of life as an insider while looking to others to "risk their skins."
For this little boy, the world was already forming into a chessboard with pawns to manipulate
for his self-serving needs. Talbot describes Dulles' rogue actions in allowing Nazi war criminals
to avoid prosecution at the Nuremberg Trials in these chilling words: "Even in the life-and-death
throes of wartime espionage, Dulles seemed untouched by the intense human drama swirling around
him." (p. 120)
In one of the most riveting moments of the book, Talbot describes an interchange between Dulles
and researcher David Lifton at a colloquium on the JFK assassination at the campus of UCLA in
1965. Lifton came prepared to challenge Dulles on major deficiencies of the Warren Report. By
the end of the evening, the students attending the session were more interested in Lifton's findings
than Dulles' unsuccessful attempts to deflect the tough questions. In retrospect, Lifton apparently
claimed that he "was in the presence of 'evil' that night." (p. 591)
A heretofore unanswered question about the JFK assassination is what was Allen Dulles was
doing between the time he was fired by JFK as Director of the CIA in 1961 until the moment of
the assassination on November 22, 1963. A related question is how was it conceivable for Dulles
to have been appointed to the Warren Commission that eventually produced the conclusions that
are still accepted by mainstream historians and the media? Talbot's intensive research helps to
shed on light on those questions by tracing the arc of development of the career of Allen Dulles
as a high-powered attorney at the center of the elitist East Coast establishment, his shocking
collaboration with the Nazis while working in the OSS, and his career in clandestine activities
at the CIA
Talbot's research probes not merely the activities of Dulles as Director of the CIA, but explores
the broader context of his function over three decades as a power broker, whose "efforts were
directed not against hostile governments but against his own." (p. 3) Talbot cites revelations
from the Columbia University sociology professor C. Wright Mills about the secret government of
Allen Dulles, which was comprised of a "power elite" and based on the anti-Constitutional premise
of "organized irresponsibility."
In many ways, "The Devil's Chessboard" is a companion volume to Talbot's essential study "Brothers,"
which focuses on the relationship of John and Robert Kennedy, the assassination of JFK, and the
aftereffects on RFK. But the more recent book on Dulles covers the broader scope of how the American
government was transformed into the national security state in the years following World War II.
Talbot's goal in preparing this book is to demonstrate the urgency of coming to terms with our
past and how "it is essential that we continue to fight for the right to own our history." (p.
xii) An excellent place to begin that quest is to own this book.
"... "Why play with words dividing terrorists into moderate and not moderate. Whats the difference?," Putin asked, adding that "success in fighting terrorists cannot be reached if using some of them as a battering ram to overthrow disliked regimes [because] its just an illusion that they can be dealt with [later], removed from power and somehow negotiated with." ..."
"... hypothetical nuclear threat from Iran is a myth. The US was just trying to destroy the strategical balance, [and] not to just dominate, but be able to dictate its will to everyone – not only geopolitical opponents, but also allies. ..."
"... We had the right to expect that work on development of US missile defense system would stop. But nothing like it happened, and it continues. This is a very dangerous scenario, harmful for all, including the United States itself. The deterrent of nuclear weapons has started to lose its value, and some have even got the illusion that a real victory of one of the sides can be achieved in a global conflict, without irreversible consequences for the winner itself – if there is a winner at all." ..."
"... the US believes it not only has the capacity to win a war against the nations Washington habitually places on its various lists of bad guys (i.e. Russia, Iran, and China), but that Washington believes America can win without incurring consequences that are commensurate with the damage the US inflicts on its enemies. That, Putin believes, is a dangerous miscalculation and one that could end up endangering US citizens. ..."
"... They did this after the White House ... ... decided to move patriot batteries to E. Europe then blew him off and claimed they were pointed at Iran. Remember the Interview where Putin bust out laughing at the reporter who suggested this? ..."
... Washington, Riyadh, Ankara, and Doha are left to look on helplessly as their Sunni
extremist proxy armies are devastated by the Russian air force. The Kremlin knows there's little
chance that the West and its allies will step in to directly support the rebels - the optics around
that would quickly turn into a PR nightmare.
... ... ...
Speaking today at the International Valdai Discussion Club's 12th annual meeting in Sochi, Putin
delivered a sweeping critique of military strategy and foreign policy touching on everything from
the erroneous labeling of some extremists as "moderates" to the futility of nuclear war.
"Why play with words dividing terrorists into moderate and not moderate. What's the difference?,"
Putin asked, adding that "success in fighting terrorists cannot be reached if using some of them
as a battering ram to overthrow disliked regimes [because] it's just an illusion that they can
be dealt with [later], removed from power and somehow negotiated with."
"I'd like to stress once again that [Russia's operation in Syria] is completely legitimate,
and its only aim is to aid in establishing peace," Putin said of Moscow's Mid-East strategy. And
while he's probably telling the truth there, it's only by default. That is, peace in Syria likely
means the restoration of Assad (it's difficult to imagine how else the country can be stabilized
in the short-term), and because that aligns with Russia's interests, The Kremlin is seeking to
promote peace - it's more a tautology than it is a comment on Putin's desire for goodwill towards
men.
And then there's Iran and its nascent nuclear program. Putin accused the US of illegitimately
seeking to play nuclear police officer, a point on which he is unquestionably correct:
The "hypothetical nuclear threat from Iran is a myth. The US was just trying to destroy the strategical
balance, [and] not to just dominate, but be able to dictate its will to everyone – not only geopolitical
opponents, but also allies."
Speaking of nukes, Putin also warned that some nuclear powers seem to believe that there's a way
to take the "mutually" out of "mutually assured destruction."
That is, Putin warned against the dangers of thinking it's possible to "win" a nuclear war. Commenting
on US anti-missile shields in Europe and on the idea of MAD, Putin said the following:
"We had the right to expect that work on development of US missile defense system would
stop. But nothing like it happened, and it continues. This is a very dangerous scenario, harmful
for all, including the United States itself. The deterrent of nuclear weapons has
started to lose its value, and some have even got the illusion that a real victory of one of the
sides can be achieved in a global conflict, without irreversible consequences for the winner itself
– if there is a winner at all."
In short, Putin is suggesting that the world may have gone crazy. The implication is that
the US believes it not only has the capacity to win a war against the nations Washington habitually
places on its various lists of "bad guys" (i.e. Russia, Iran, and China), but that Washington believes
America can win without incurring consequences that are commensurate with the damage the US inflicts
on its enemies. That, Putin believes, is a dangerous miscalculation and one that could end up endangering
US citizens.
... ... ...
ZerOhead
Putin is really pushing the "nuclear war" angle hard. I guess his good friend Henry Kissinger
must have told him that power is the only thing that NeoCon fucknuts like himself understand...
El Vaquero
For any who want to read it, here is some detailed information on what the USSR's nuclear strategy
was during the Cold War:
While some things will have changed due to changes in technology, what kinds of targets the
Russians would pick is likely much the same as it was when it was part of the USSR. If you live
near a target, this might be helpful:
The people of the Falklands voted to remain associated with the UK. The citizens of Quebec,
Canada nearly voted themselves out of Canada, the citizens of Scotland nearly voted themselves
out of the the UK, Self Determination is respected by the UN as being a fundamental right of all
peoples, so of course when the the citizens of Crimea undertake exactly the same process and vote
to join Russia it is a Russian imperialist land grab.
Watch more MSM. They will explain it all to you.
Occident Mortal
Russian ICBM's can't be shot down with air defense missiles.
Russian ICBM's constantly recalculate their trajectory following a continually regenerated
'random path' through 3D space all the way to their target. The downside is that the missles need
20% more fuel.
All air defense systems work by tracking a missle and projecting it's trajectory then triangulating
an intercept location and launching an interceptor to that location.
But by the time the interceptor reaches the intercept location the Russian ICBM will have changed
course several times and is likely to be thousands of meters away.
In order to intercept a Russian ICBM the interceptor needs to travel at over 35,000mph. Good
luck with that.
George Bush decided he wanted a Star Wars missle defense system and after spending a boat load
of cash.. the Kremlin called in the US amabasador and told them all Russian missle had just received
a software upgrade that would render Star Wars obsolete before it was even built. The Star Wars
program was scrapped within a month.
Anasteus
A shockingly open Putin's summary of the current situation that every American should hear
They'd be practically useless on this continent because of the decoys accompanying the 'physics
packages.' The sine qua non of an effective ABM system is the ability to destroy the missiles
during the boost phase. The importance of eastern Ukraine is its proximity to Russian ICBM bases,
which is why 'our' government spent $5 billion to foment the coup.
cowdiddly
Oh dont worry it is Carl. That little Caspian missile shoot off the shrimp boats has caused
these morons to realize there may be a few gaping ass holes in the curtain has them scrambling.
I present you their panic contract to "protect the homeland" just issued to..........Yep. Lockheed
Martin. purveyors of the fine F35 aircraft.
Speaking of military contracts, Last year Russia upgraded and refurbished over 5000 underground
atomic bomb shelters built in the old Soviet days that are located in every province of Russia
for their people. He knows what kind of nimcompoops he is dealing with. They did this after
the White House ... ... decided to move patriot batteries to E. Europe then blew him off and claimed
they were pointed at Iran. Remember the Interview where Putin bust out laughing at the reporter
who suggested this?
Now ask yourself how many underground shelters has your government provided for us, other than
the huge complex in Utah for the President and politicians to move safely too? I certainly don't
know where one is in my state unless I was to dig it myself. The only thing I know of that they
did to prepare for disaster is Fema built millions of plastic coffin like things that are being
stored around everywhere.
They are only worried about protecting themselves and don't give a rats ass about you other than
taxes. Their only concern for you is you might lay around to long stinking up the place.
"... Pardon the analogy, but this is the way nouveaux riches behave when they suddenly end up with a great fortune, in this case, in the shape of world leadership and domination. Instead of managing their wealth wisely, for their own benefit too of course, I think they have committed many follies. ..."
"... International law has been forced to retreat over and over by the onslaught of legal nihilism. Objectivity and justice have been sacrificed on the altar of political expediency. Arbitrary interpretations and biased assessments have replaced legal norms. At the same time, total control of the global mass media has made it possible when desired to portray white as black and black as white. ..."
"... In a situation where you had domination by one country and its allies, or its satellites rather, the search for global solutions often turned into an attempt to impose their own universal recipes. This group's ambitions grew so big that they started presenting the policies they put together in their corridors of power as the view of the entire international community. But this is not the case. ..."
"... The measures taken against those who refuse to submit are well-known and have been tried and tested many times. They include use of force, economic and propaganda pressure, meddling in domestic affairs, and appeals to a kind of 'supra-legal' legitimacy when they need to justify illegal intervention in this or that conflict or toppling inconvenient regimes. Of late, we have increasing evidence too that outright blackmail has been used with regard to a number of leaders. It is not for nothing that 'big brother' is spending billions of dollars on keeping the whole world, including its own closest allies, under surveillance. ..."
"... They once sponsored Islamic extremist movements to fight the Soviet Union. Those groups got their battle experience in Afghanistan and later gave birth to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. The West if not supported, at least closed its eyes, and, I would say, gave information, political and financial support to international terrorists' invasion of Russia (we have not forgotten this) and the Central Asian region's countries. Only after horrific terrorist attacks were committed on US soil itself did the United States wake up to the common threat of terrorism. Let me remind you that we were the first country to support the American people back then, the first to react as friends and partners to the terrible tragedy of September 11. ..."
"... As for financing sources, today, the money is coming not just from drugs, production of which has increased not just by a few percentage points but many-fold, since the international coalition forces have been present in Afghanistan. You are aware of this. The terrorists are getting money from selling oil too. Oil is produced in territory controlled by the terrorists, who sell it at dumping prices, produce it and transport it. But someone buys this oil, resells it, and makes a profit from it, not thinking about the fact that they are thus financing terrorists who could come sooner or later to their own soil and sow destruction in their own countries. ..."
"... What was the result? Tens of thousands of soldiers, officers and former Baath Party activists were turned out into the streets and today have joined the rebels' ranks. Perhaps this is what explains why the Islamic State group has turned out so effective? In military terms, it is acting very effectively and has some very professional people. Russia warned repeatedly about the dangers of unilateral military actions, intervening in sovereign states' affairs, and flirting with extremists and radicals. We insisted on having the groups fighting the central Syrian government, above all the Islamic State, included on the lists of terrorist organisations. But did we see any results? We appealed in vain. ..."
"... Essentially, the unipolar world is simply a means of justifying dictatorship over people and countries. The unipolar world turned out too uncomfortable, heavy and unmanageable a burden even for the self-proclaimed leader. Comments along this line were made here just before and I fully agree with this. This is why we see attempts at this new historic stage to recreate a semblance of a quasi-bipolar world as a convenient model for perpetuating American leadership. It does not matter who takes the place of the centre of evil in American propaganda, the USSR's old place as the main adversary. It could be Iran, as a country seeking to acquire nuclear technology, China, as the world's biggest economy, or Russia, as a nuclear superpower. ..."
"... Sanctions are already undermining the foundations of world trade, the WTO rules and the principle of inviolability of private property. They are dealing a blow to liberal model of globalisation based on markets, freedom and competition, which, let me note, is a model that has primarily benefited precisely the Western countries. And now they risk losing trust as the leaders of globalisation. We have to ask ourselves, why was this necessary? After all, the United States' prosperity rests in large part on the trust of investors and foreign holders of dollars and US securities. This trust is clearly being undermined and signs of disappointment in the fruits of globalisation are visible now in many countries. ..."
"... Of course the sanctions are a hindrance. They are trying to hurt us through these sanctions, block our development and push us into political, economic and cultural isolation, force us into backwardness in other words. But let me say yet again that the world is a very different place today. We have no intention of shutting ourselves off from anyone and choosing some kind of closed development road, trying to live in autarky. We are always open to dialogue, including on normalising our economic and political relations. We are counting here on the pragmatic approach and position of business communities in the leading countries. ..."
"... Ukraine, which I'm sure was discussed at length and which we will discuss some more, is one of the example of such sorts of conflicts that affect international power balance, and I think it will certainly not be the last. From here emanates the next real threat of destroying the current system of arms control agreements. And this dangerous process was launched by the United States of America when it unilaterally withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002, and then set about and continues today to actively pursue the creation of its global missile defence system. ..."
"... Once again, we are sliding into the times when, instead of the balance of interests and mutual guarantees, it is fear and the balance of mutual destruction that prevent nations from engaging in direct conflict. ..."
"... Today, many types of high-precision weaponry are already close to mass-destruction weapons in terms of their capabilities, and in the event of full renunciation of nuclear weapons or radical reduction of nuclear potential, nations that are leaders in creating and producing high-precision systems will have a clear military advantage. Strategic parity will be disrupted, and this is likely to bring destabilization. The use of a so-called first global pre-emptive strike may become tempting. In short, the risks do not decrease, but intensify. ..."
What we needed to do was to carry out a rational reconstruction and adapt it the new realities
in the system of international relations.
But the United States, having declared itself the winner of the Cold War, saw no need for this.
Instead of establishing a new balance of power, essential for maintaining order and stability,
they took steps that threw the system into sharp and deep imbalance.
The Cold War ended, but it did not end with the signing of a peace treaty with clear and
transparent agreements on respecting existing rules or creating new rules and standards. This
created the impression that the so-called 'victors' in the Cold War had decided to pressure
events and reshape the world to suit their own needs and interests. If the existing system of
international relations, international law and the checks and balances in place got in the way of
these aims, this system was declared worthless, outdated and in need of immediate demolition.
Pardon the analogy, but this is the way nouveaux riches behave when they suddenly end up with
a great fortune, in this case, in the shape of world leadership and domination. Instead of
managing their wealth wisely, for their own benefit too of course, I think they have committed
many follies.
We have entered a period of differing interpretations and deliberate silences in world politics.
International law has been forced to retreat over and over by the onslaught of legal
nihilism. Objectivity and justice have been sacrificed on the altar of political expediency.
Arbitrary interpretations and biased assessments have replaced legal norms. At the same time,
total control of the global mass media has made it possible when desired to portray white as
black and black as white.
In a situation where you had domination by one country and its allies, or its satellites
rather, the search for global solutions often turned into an attempt to impose their own
universal recipes. This group's ambitions grew so big that they started presenting the policies
they put together in their corridors of power as the view of the entire international community.
But this is not the case.
The very notion of 'national sovereignty' became a relative value for most countries. In essence,
what was being proposed was the formula: the greater the loyalty towards the world's sole power
centre, the greater this or that ruling regime's legitimacy.
We will have a free discussion afterwards and I will be happy to answer your questions and would
also like to use my right to ask you questions. Let someone try to disprove the arguments that I
just set out during the upcoming discussion.
The measures taken against those who refuse to submit are well-known and have been tried and
tested many times. They include use of force, economic and propaganda pressure, meddling in
domestic affairs, and appeals to a kind of 'supra-legal' legitimacy when they need to justify
illegal intervention in this or that conflict or toppling inconvenient regimes. Of late, we have
increasing evidence too that outright blackmail has been used with regard to a number of leaders.
It is not for nothing that 'big brother' is spending billions of dollars on keeping the whole
world, including its own closest allies, under surveillance.
Let's ask ourselves, how comfortable are we with this, how safe are we, how happy living in this
world, and how fair and rational has it become? Maybe, we have no real reasons to worry, argue
and ask awkward questions? Maybe the United States' exceptional position and the way they are
carrying out their leadership really is a blessing for us all, and their meddling in events all
around the world is bringing peace, prosperity, progress, growth and democracy, and we should
maybe just relax and enjoy it all?
Let me say that this is not the case, absolutely not the case.
A unilateral diktat and imposing one's own models produces the opposite result. Instead of
settling conflicts it leads to their escalation, instead of sovereign and stable states we see
the growing spread of chaos, and instead of democracy there is support for a very dubious public
ranging from open neo-fascists to Islamic radicals.
Why do they support such people? They do this because they decide to use them as instruments
along the way in achieving their goals but then burn their fingers and recoil. I never cease to
be amazed by the way that our partners just keep stepping on the same rake, as we say here in
Russia, that is to say, make the same mistake over and over.
They once sponsored Islamic extremist movements to fight the Soviet Union. Those groups got
their battle experience in Afghanistan and later gave birth to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. The West
if not supported, at least closed its eyes, and, I would say, gave information, political and
financial support to international terrorists' invasion of Russia (we have not forgotten this)
and the Central Asian region's countries. Only after horrific terrorist attacks were committed on
US soil itself did the United States wake up to the common threat of terrorism. Let me remind you
that we were the first country to support the American people back then, the first to react as
friends and partners to the terrible tragedy of September 11.
During my conversations with American and European leaders, I always spoke of the need to fight
terrorism together, as a challenge on a global scale. We cannot resign ourselves to and accept
this threat, cannot cut it into separate pieces using double standards. Our partners expressed
agreement, but a little time passed and we ended up back where we started. First there was the
military operation in Iraq, then in Libya, which got pushed to the brink of falling apart. Why
was Libya pushed into this situation? Today it is a country in danger of breaking apart and has
become a training ground for terrorists.
Only the current Egyptian leadership's determination and wisdom saved this key Arab country from
chaos and having extremists run rampant. In Syria, as in the past, the United States and its
allies started directly financing and arming rebels and allowing them to fill their ranks with
mercenaries from various countries. Let me ask where do these rebels get their money, arms and
military specialists? Where does all this come from? How did the notorious ISIL manage to become
such a powerful group, essentially a real armed force?
As for financing sources, today, the money is coming not just from drugs, production of which
has increased not just by a few percentage points but many-fold, since the international
coalition forces have been present in Afghanistan. You are aware of this. The terrorists are
getting money from selling oil too. Oil is produced in territory controlled by the terrorists,
who sell it at dumping prices, produce it and transport it. But someone buys this oil, resells
it, and makes a profit from it, not thinking about the fact that they are thus financing
terrorists who could come sooner or later to their own soil and sow destruction in their own
countries.
Where do they get new recruits? In Iraq, after Saddam Hussein was toppled, the state's
institutions, including the army, were left in ruins. We said back then, be very, very careful.
You are driving people out into the street, and what will they do there? Don't forget (rightfully
or not) that they were in the leadership of a large regional power, and what are you now turning
them into?
What was the result? Tens of thousands of soldiers, officers and former Baath Party activists
were turned out into the streets and today have joined the rebels' ranks. Perhaps this is what
explains why the Islamic State group has turned out so effective? In military terms, it is acting
very effectively and has some very professional people. Russia warned repeatedly about the
dangers of unilateral military actions, intervening in sovereign states' affairs, and flirting
with extremists and radicals. We insisted on having the groups fighting the central Syrian
government, above all the Islamic State, included on the lists of terrorist organisations. But
did we see any results? We appealed in vain.
We sometimes get the impression that our colleagues and friends are constantly fighting the
consequences of their own policies, throw all their effort into addressing the risks they
themselves have created, and pay an ever-greater price.
Colleagues, this period of unipolar domination has convincingly demonstrated that having only one
power centre does not make global processes more manageable. On the contrary, this kind of
unstable construction has shown its inability to fight the real threats such as regional
conflicts, terrorism, drug trafficking, religious fanaticism, chauvinism and neo-Nazism. At the
same time, it has opened the road wide for inflated national pride, manipulating public opinion
and letting the strong bully and suppress the weak.
Essentially, the unipolar world is simply a means of justifying dictatorship over people and
countries. The unipolar world turned out too uncomfortable, heavy and unmanageable a burden even
for the self-proclaimed leader. Comments along this line were made here just before and I fully
agree with this. This is why we see attempts at this new historic stage to recreate a semblance
of a quasi-bipolar world as a convenient model for perpetuating American leadership. It does not
matter who takes the place of the centre of evil in American propaganda, the USSR's old place as
the main adversary. It could be Iran, as a country seeking to acquire nuclear technology, China,
as the world's biggest economy, or Russia, as a nuclear superpower.
Today, we are seeing new efforts to fragment the world, draw new dividing lines, put together
coalitions not built for something but directed against someone, anyone, create the image of an
enemy as was the case during the Cold War years, and obtain the right to this leadership, or
diktat if you wish. The situation was presented this way during the Cold War. We all understand
this and know this. The United States always told its allies: "We have a common enemy, a terrible
foe, the centre of evil, and we are defending you, our allies, from this foe, and so we have the
right to order you around, force you to sacrifice your political and economic interests and pay
your share of the costs for this collective defence, but we will be the ones in charge of it all
of course." In short, we see today attempts in a new and changing world to reproduce the familiar
models of global management, and all this so as to guarantee their [the US'] exceptional position
and reap political and economic dividends.
But these attempts are increasingly divorced from reality and are in contradiction with the
world's diversity. Steps of this kind inevitably create confrontation and countermeasures and
have the opposite effect to the hoped-for goals. We see what happens when politics rashly starts
meddling in the economy and the logic of rational decisions gives way to the logic of
confrontation that only hurt one's own economic positions and interests, including national
business interests.
Joint economic projects and mutual investment objectively bring countries closer together and
help to smooth out current problems in relations between states. But today, the global business
community faces unprecedented pressure from Western governments. What business, economic
expediency and pragmatism can we speak of when we hear slogans such as "the homeland is in
danger", "the free world is under threat", and "democracy is in jeopardy"? And so everyone needs
to mobilise. That is what a real mobilisation policy looks like.
Sanctions are already undermining the foundations of world trade, the WTO rules and the
principle of inviolability of private property. They are dealing a blow to liberal model of
globalisation based on markets, freedom and competition, which, let me note, is a model that has
primarily benefited precisely the Western countries. And now they risk losing trust as the
leaders of globalisation. We have to ask ourselves, why was this necessary? After all, the United
States' prosperity rests in large part on the trust of investors and foreign holders of dollars
and US securities. This trust is clearly being undermined and signs of disappointment in the
fruits of globalisation are visible now in many countries.
The well-known Cyprus precedent and the politically motivated sanctions have only strengthened
the trend towards seeking to bolster economic and financial sovereignty and countries' or their
regional groups' desire to find ways of protecting themselves from the risks of outside pressure.
We already see that more and more countries are looking for ways to become less dependent on the
dollar and are setting up alternative financial and payments systems and reserve currencies. I
think that our American friends are quite simply cutting the branch they are sitting on. You
cannot mix politics and the economy, but this is what is happening now. I have always thought and
still think today that politically motivated sanctions were a mistake that will harm everyone,
but I am sure that we will come back to this subject later.
We know how these decisions were taken and who was applying the pressure. But let me stress that
Russia is not going to get all worked up, get offended or come begging at anyone's door. Russia
is a self-sufficient country. We will work within the foreign economic environment that has taken
shape, develop domestic production and technology and act more decisively to carry out
transformation. Pressure from outside, as has been the case on past occasions, will only
consolidate our society, keep us alert and make us concentrate on our main development goals.
Of course the sanctions are a hindrance. They are trying to hurt us through these sanctions,
block our development and push us into political, economic and cultural isolation, force us into
backwardness in other words. But let me say yet again that the world is a very different place
today. We have no intention of shutting ourselves off from anyone and choosing some kind of
closed development road, trying to live in autarky. We are always open to dialogue, including on
normalising our economic and political relations. We are counting here on the pragmatic approach
and position of business communities in the leading countries.
Some are saying today that Russia is supposedly turning its back on Europe - such words were
probably spoken already here too during the discussions - and is looking for new business
partners, above all in Asia. Let me say that this is absolutely not the case. Our active policy
in the Asian-Pacific region began not just yesterday and not in response to sanctions, but is a
policy that we have been following for a good many years now. Like many other countries,
including Western countries, we saw that Asia is playing an ever greater role in the world, in
the economy and in politics, and there is simply no way we can afford to overlook these
developments.
Let me say again that everyone is doing this, and we will do so to, all the more so as a large
part of our country is geographically in Asia. Why should we not make use of our competitive
advantages in this area? It would be extremely shortsighted not to do so.
Developing economic ties with these countries and carrying out joint integration projects also
creates big incentives for our domestic development. Today's demographic, economic and cultural
trends all suggest that dependence on a sole superpower will objectively decrease. This is
something that European and American experts have been talking and writing about too.
Perhaps developments in global politics will mirror the developments we are seeing in the global
economy, namely, intensive competition for specific niches and frequent change of leaders in
specific areas. This is entirely possible.
There is no doubt that humanitarian factors such as education, science, healthcare and culture
are playing a greater role in global competition. This also has a big impact on international
relations, including because this 'soft power' resource will depend to a great extent on real
achievements in developing human capital rather than on sophisticated propaganda tricks.
At the same time, the formation of a so-called polycentric world (I would also like to draw
attention to this, colleagues) in and of itself does not improve stability; in fact, it is more
likely to be the opposite. The goal of reaching global equilibrium is turning into a fairly
difficult puzzle, an equation with many unknowns.
So, what is in store for us if we choose not to live by the rules – even if they may be strict
and inconvenient – but rather live without any rules at all? And that scenario is entirely
possible; we cannot rule it out, given the tensions in the global situation. Many predictions can
already be made, taking into account current trends, and unfortunately, they are not optimistic.
If we do not create a clear system of mutual commitments and agreements, if we do not build the
mechanisms for managing and resolving crisis situations, the symptoms of global anarchy will
inevitably grow.
Today, we already see a sharp increase in the likelihood of a whole set of violent conflicts with
either direct or indirect participation by the world's major powers. And the risk factors include
not just traditional multinational conflicts, but also the internal instability in separate
states, especially when we talk about nations located at the intersections of major states'
geopolitical interests, or on the border of cultural, historical, and economic civilizational
continents.
Ukraine, which I'm sure was discussed at length and which we will discuss some more, is one
of the example of such sorts of conflicts that affect international power balance, and I think it
will certainly not be the last. From here emanates the next real threat of destroying the current
system of arms control agreements. And this dangerous process was launched by the United States
of America when it unilaterally withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002, and then
set about and continues today to actively pursue the creation of its global missile defence
system.
Colleagues, friends,
I want to point out that we did not start this. Once again, we are sliding into the times
when, instead of the balance of interests and mutual guarantees, it is fear and the balance of
mutual destruction that prevent nations from engaging in direct conflict. In absence of
legal and political instruments, arms are once again becoming the focal point of the global
agenda; they are used wherever and however, without any UN Security Council sanctions. And if the
Security Council refuses to produce such decisions, then it is immediately declared to be an
outdated and ineffective instrument.
Many states do not see any other ways of ensuring their sovereignty but to obtain their own
bombs. This is extremely dangerous. We insist on continuing talks; we are not only in favour of
talks, but insist on continuing talks to reduce nuclear arsenals. The less nuclear weapons we
have in the world, the better. And we are ready for the most serious, concrete discussions on
nuclear disarmament – but only serious discussions without any double standards.
What do I mean? Today, many types of high-precision weaponry are already close to
mass-destruction weapons in terms of their capabilities, and in the event of full renunciation of
nuclear weapons or radical reduction of nuclear potential, nations that are leaders in creating
and producing high-precision systems will have a clear military advantage. Strategic parity will
be disrupted, and this is likely to bring destabilization. The use of a so-called first global
pre-emptive strike may become tempting. In short, the risks do not decrease, but intensify.
The next obvious threat is the further escalation of ethnic, religious, and social conflicts.
Such conflicts are dangerous not only as such, but also because they create zones of anarchy,
lawlessness, and chaos around them, places that are comfortable for terrorists and criminals,
where piracy, human trafficking, and drug trafficking flourish.
Incidentally, at the time, our colleagues tried to somehow manage these processes, use regional
conflicts and design 'colour revolutions' to suit their interests, but the genie escaped the
bottle. It looks like the controlled chaos theory fathers themselves do not know what to do with
it; there is disarray in their ranks.
We closely follow the discussions by both the ruling elite and the expert community. It is enough
to look at the headlines of the Western press over the last year. The same people are called
fighters for democracy, and then Islamists; first they write about revolutions and then call them
riots and upheavals. The result is obvious: the further expansion of global chaos.
Colleagues, given the global situation, it is time to start agreeing on fundamental things. This
is incredibly important and necessary; this is much better than going back to our own corners.
The more we all face common problems, the more we find ourselves in the same boat, so to speak.
And the logical way out is in cooperation between nations, societies, in finding collective
answers to increasing challenges, and in joint risk management. Granted, some of our partners,
for some reason, remember this only when it suits their interests.
Practical experience shows that joint answers to challenges are not always a panacea; and we need
to understand this. Moreover, in most cases, they are hard to reach; it is not easy to overcome
the differences in national interests, the subjectivity of different approaches, particularly
when it comes to nations with different cultural and historical traditions. But nevertheless, we
have examples when, having common goals and acting based on the same criteria, together we
achieved real success.
Let me remind you about solving the problem of chemical weapons in Syria, and the substantive
dialogue on the Iranian nuclear programme, as well as our work on North Korean issues, which also
has some positive results. Why can't we use this experience in the future to solve local and
global challenges?
What could be the legal, political, and economic basis for a new world order that would allow for
stability and security, while encouraging healthy competition, not allowing the formation of new
monopolies that hinder development? It is unlikely that someone could provide absolutely
exhaustive, ready-made solutions right now. We will need extensive work with participation by a
wide range of governments, global businesses, civil society, and such expert platforms as ours.
However, it is obvious that success and real results are only possible if key participants in
international affairs can agree on harmonising basic interests, on reasonable self-restraint, and
set the example of positive and responsible leadership. We must clearly identify where unilateral
actions end and we need to apply multilateral mechanisms, and as part of improving the
effectiveness of international law, we must resolve the dilemma between the actions by
international community to ensure security and human rights and the principle of national
sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of any state.
Those very collisions increasingly lead to arbitrary external interference in complex internal
processes, and time and again, they provoke dangerous conflicts between leading global players.
The issue of maintaining sovereignty becomes almost paramount in maintaining and strengthening
global stability.
Clearly, discussing the criteria for the use of external force is extremely difficult; it is
practically impossible to separate it from the interests of particular nations. However, it is
far more dangerous when there are no agreements that are clear to everyone, when no clear
conditions are set for necessary and legal interference.
I will add that international relations must be based on international law, which itself should
rest on moral principles such as justice, equality and truth. Perhaps most important is respect
for one's partners and their interests. This is an obvious formula, but simply following it could
radically change the global situation.
I am certain that if there is a will, we can restore the effectiveness of the international and
regional institutions system. We do not even need to build anything anew, from the scratch; this
is not a "greenfield," especially since the institutions created after World War II are quite
universal and can be given modern substance, adequate to manage the current situation.
This is true of improving the work of the UN, whose central role is irreplaceable, as well as the
OSCE, which, over the course of 40 years, has proven to be a necessary mechanism for ensuring
security and cooperation in the Euro-Atlantic region. I must say that even now, in trying to
resolve the crisis in southeast Ukraine, the OSCE is playing a very positive role.
In light of the fundamental changes in the international environment, the increase in
uncontrollability and various threats, we need a new global consensus of responsible forces. It's
not about some local deals or a division of spheres of influence in the spirit of classic
diplomacy, or somebody's complete global domination. I think that we need a new version of
interdependence. We should not be afraid of it. On the contrary, this is a good instrument for
harmonising positions.
This is particularly relevant given the strengthening and growth of certain regions on the
planet, which process objectively requires institutionalisation of such new poles, creating
powerful regional organisations and developing rules for their interaction. Cooperation between
these centres would seriously add to the stability of global security, policy and economy. But in
order to establish such a dialogue, we need to proceed from the assumption that all regional
centres and integration projects forming around them need to have equal rights to development, so
that they can complement each other and nobody can force them into conflict or opposition
artificially. Such destructive actions would break down ties between states, and the states
themselves would be subjected to extreme hardship, or perhaps even total destruction.
I would like to remind you of the last year's events. We have told our American and European
partners that hasty backstage decisions, for example, on Ukraine's association with the EU, are
fraught with serious risks to the economy. We didn't even say anything about politics; we spoke
only about the economy, saying that such steps, made without any prior arrangements, touch on the
interests of many other nations, including Russia as Ukraine's main trade partner, and that a
wide discussion of the issues is necessary. Incidentally, in this regard, I will remind you that,
for example, the talks on Russia's accession to the WTO lasted 19 years. This was very difficult
work, and a certain consensus was reached.
Why am I bringing this up? Because in implementing Ukraine's association project, our partners
would come to us with their goods and services through the back gate, so to speak, and we did not
agree to this, nobody asked us about this. We had discussions on all topics related to Ukraine's
association with the EU, persistent discussions, but I want to stress that this was done in an
entirely civilised manner, indicating possible problems, showing the obvious reasoning and
arguments. Nobody wanted to listen to us and nobody wanted to talk. They simply told us: this is
none of your business, point, end of discussion. Instead of a comprehensive but – I stress –
civilised dialogue, it all came down to a government overthrow; they plunged the country into
chaos, into economic and social collapse, into a civil war with enormous casualties.
Why? When I ask my colleagues why, they no longer have an answer; nobody says anything. That's
it. Everyone's at a loss, saying it just turned out that way. Those actions should not have been
encouraged – it wouldn't have worked. After all (I already spoke about this), former Ukrainian
President Yanukovych signed everything, agreed with everything. Why do it? What was the point?
What is this, a civilised way of solving problems? Apparently, those who constantly throw
together new 'colour revolutions' consider themselves 'brilliant artists' and simply cannot stop.
I am certain that the work of integrated associations, the cooperation of regional structures,
should be built on a transparent, clear basis; the Eurasian Economic Union's formation process is
a good example of such transparency. The states that are parties to this project informed their
partners of their plans in advance, specifying the parameters of our association, the principles
of its work, which fully correspond with the World Trade Organisation rules.
I will add that we would also have welcomed the start of a concrete dialogue between the Eurasian
and European Union. Incidentally, they have almost completely refused us this as well, and it is
also unclear why – what is so scary about it?
And, of course, with such joint work, we would think that we need to engage in dialogue (I spoke
about this many times and heard agreement from many of our western partners, at least in Europe)
on the need to create a common space for economic and humanitarian cooperation stretching all the
way from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean.
Colleagues, Russia made its choice. Our priorities are further improving our democratic and open
economy institutions, accelerated internal development, taking into account all the positive
modern trends in the world, and consolidating society based on traditional values and patriotism.
We have an integration-oriented, positive, peaceful agenda; we are working actively with our
colleagues in the Eurasian Economic Union, the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, BRICS and other
partners. This agenda is aimed at developing ties between governments, not dissociating. We are
not planning to cobble together any blocs or get involved in an exchange of blows.
The allegations and statements that Russia is trying to establish some sort of empire,
encroaching on the sovereignty of its neighbours, are groundless. Russia does not need any kind
of special, exclusive place in the world – I want to emphasise this. While respecting the
interests of others, we simply want for our own interests to be taken into account and for our
position to be respected.
We are well aware that the world has entered an era of changes and global transformations, when
we all need a particular degree of caution, the ability to avoid thoughtless steps. In the years
after the Cold War, participants in global politics lost these qualities somewhat. Now, we need
to remember them. Otherwise, hopes for a peaceful, stable development will be a dangerous
illusion, while today's turmoil will simply serve as a prelude to the collapse of world order.
Yes, of course, I have already said that building a more stable world order is a difficult task.
We are talking about long and hard work. We were able to develop rules for interaction after
World War II, and we were able to reach an agreement in Helsinki in the 1970s. Our common duty is
to resolve this fundamental challenge at this new stage of development.
So Russian position was know to US neocons since at least 2012 and still they push forward
"regime change" in Syria.
Notable quotes:
"... Former Member of Russian Joint Chiefs of Staff Col.-Gen. Leonid Ivashov: Russia Is Ready to Use Military Power to Defend Iran and Syria; Attack on Syria or Iran Is Indirect Attack on Russia. ..."
Former Member of Russian Joint Chiefs of Staff Col.-Gen. Leonid Ivashov: Russia Is Ready
to Use Military Power to Defend Iran and Syria; Attack on Syria or Iran Is Indirect Attack on
Russia.
Falamu445 10 months ago
And what about China? Should China also seek to protect Iran and Syria with military force
if they are attacked?
hudzz
Pakistan will be with Russia if they go to war with usa or isreal
Benny Morris 1 year ago
Good thing that arrogant America is going down. America has spent nearly 70 years being a
nuisance to Russians. What a bunch of swine they are when they refuse to admit what the whole
world has always known that it was the Soviet Union that won WW2 and America only did so in
its dreams.
optionrider12 2 years ago in reply to Brian Hynes
No, you don't understand and I'm not going to fall for your quasi-Hegelian dialectic.
Communism can be categorized as a utopia and you're kindly advised to find the definition of
Utopia by yourself. Fair enough?
Tristan Xavier 1 year ago in reply to Kati Kati
I understand what you mean but I would never wish the horrors of war on anybody. Peace can
be done in different ways. Both Americans and Russians should focus on the corrupted
governments that they both possess. The previous generations had their time and they chose
either to conform or neglect to the systems. Now we see the results. It's us that needs to
stand up and stop this. Why are we going to war for governments that are currently at war with
it's own people? N.D.A.A,S.O.P.A and drones etc
FTM (Jerry Robinson): Alright, well, joining me on the program today is
Stephen Kinzer. He is an
award-winning foreign correspondent who has worked in more than 50 countries. He has been a
New York Times Bureau Chief in Istanbul, Berlin, and Nicaragua. He's the author of many books,
including the best-selling book
All the Shah's Men: An American
Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror.
He's also a professor of international relations at Boston University. My guest today is Stephen
Kinzer. Stephen, thank you so much for joining me on
Follow the Money Weekly Radio.
KINZER (Stephen Kinzer): Great to be with you.
FTM: I am looking at your book right now-at the Preface to the 2008 edition: "The Folly
of Attacking Iran." And I would say, Stephen, that many of the people who are listening to
the program today are…I don't want to assume that they're not familiar with the 1953 event, but I
want to assume that perhaps they don't know as much about it as perhaps maybe they should.
And especially now, as we take a look at the news cycle, we see that Iran is all over the news: talk
about invasion; talk about stopping the nuclear program (whether it's even occurring or not is a
debate). But the issue at hand right now is, "Should we invade Iran for the benefit of our foreign
policy, for the benefit of our security interests?" And you have written a book here that really
peels back the layers about this entire question. Why don't you begin by sharing with our audience
why you wrote this book and why this topic is important to you?
KINZER: In the first place, you're right that that
2008 edition of the book,
which was the new edition, contains this Foreword, "The Folly of Attacking Iran. Now, in the last
couple of years, I've been looking at that new edition and thinking, "Boy, that's kind of out of
date now." That was at the end of the Bush Administration when we were being really hyped up that
Iran was a mortal threat to the rest of the world, but now that introduction is really kind of outdated.
Boy, was I wrong! You're absolutely right that Iran has now emerged as the Number One foreign
policy issue in this presidential campaign, as candidates flail around for foreign policy issues
to beat each other over the head with, Iran really seems to rise to the top of the list. We
are in a situation now where we're looking for a demon in the world. I think this is not just
an American impulse, but in many countries, it's almost thought that if you don't have an enemy in
the world, you should try to find one. It's a way to unite your population and give people
a sense of common purpose.
So, you look around the world and pick some country that you want to turn into your enemy and
inflate into a terrible, mortal threat to your own security. Iran seems to be filling that
role right now. It's an odd situation, because in a sense, the world looks very different from
Iran's point of view than it does from here. Iran has four countries in the immediate neighborhood
that are armed with nuclear weapons. That's India, Pakistan, Russia, and Israel. Iran
also has two countries on its borders that have been invaded and occupied by the United States: that
is, Iraq and Afghanistan. So the idea that Iran might be a little unsure as to its defense
and wants to make sure that it can build whatever it needs to protect itself doesn't seem so strange
when you're sitting in Iran. But even more interesting than all that, when you're looking at
differences between the way the world looks when you see it from the United States and the way it
looks when you see it from Iran has to do with history.
Whenever I travel in the world, particularly when I travel to a country that I'm not familiar
with, I like to ask myself one question: and that is, "How did this country get this way? So, why
is this country rich and powerful?" Or, "Why is this country poor and miserable?" When I was
traveling in Iran and getting to know Iran for the first time, I came to realize that there's a huge
gap between what Iran should be based on its culture and history and size and the education
of its people, and what it is. This is a country that has thousands of years
of history. It was the first empire in history-the Persian Empire. It has produced a huge amount
of culture over many centuries. Its people are highly educated. Nonetheless, it's isolated
from the world; poor; unhappy. And I've always wondered on my first trips there why this was.
What happened? And as I began to read more, and talk to Iranians, people told me, "We used
to have a democracy here. But you Americans came over here and destroyed it. And ever
since then, we've been spiraling down." So I decided, "I gotta find out what really happened.
I need to find a book about what happened to Iranian democracy." And then I looked around and
found there was no such book.
KINZER: I finally decided that if I was going to read that book, I was going to have
to write it myself. And that's how
All the Shah's Men
came about.
FTM: Well, I would imagine that many in the listening audience would immediately
take issue with some of the things that you've stated, and I want to hit those directly head-on.
You state in your book some of the reasons why to attack Iran, at least, some of the reasons that
are stated.
Number One: Iran wants to become a nuclear power, and that should not be allowed. Iran poses
a threat to Israel. Iran sits at the heart of the emerging Shiite Crescent which threatens
to destabilize the Middle East. Iran supports radical groups on nearby countries. Iran
helps kill American soldiers in Iraq. Iran has ordered terror attacks in foreign countries.
Iran's people are oppressed and need Americans to liberate them.
So there's a plethora of ideas as to why American invasion, or some other type of invasion into
Iran would possibly be beneficial, not only to our security interests, but also to Iran's state of
health so to speak, and bringing them liberty. So you made a good case against it. What do
you say to those who say, "You're crazy, Stephen. We need to go over there; we cannot allow
them to have a nuclear weapon.
KINZER: In the first place, we don't have any evidence that Iran is building a nuclear
weapon; in fact, the International Atomic Energy Agency has made clear that it has never seen any
such evidence, and those inspectors are all over those plants, the uranium is under seal, the seals
are under constant video surveillance. It's not as urgent a problem as we're making it out
to be.
Nonetheless, I would add a kind of larger perspective, and it's this. When you look at a
map of the Middle East, one thing jumps right out at you and it is that Iran is the big country right
in the middle. It's not possible to imagine a stable Middle East without including Iran. It's
a little bit comparable to the situation that we faced after the end of World War II when there was
tremendous anger at Germany for very good reasons.
There was a great move afoot (in fact, we actually followed this policy for a few months) to crush
Germany. We were going to slice Germany into pieces, then we were going to forbid it from ever
building another factory or industrial plant again. Fortunately, cooler minds prevailed.
And we decided to take the opposite tactic. And that was to realize that this country, Germany, had
been stirring up trouble in Europe for a hundred years or more, and that the way to prevent that
cycle from continuing was not to isolate Germany and kick it and push it into a corner, but to integrate
Germany into Europe, and to make it a provider of security rather than a consumer of security. That's
what we need to do with Iran. Iran needs to be given a place at the table that's commensurate
with its size, and its tradition, and its history, and its regional role.
Now, the United States doesn't want to do that because when Iran is at that table, it's not going
to be saying things that are pro-American. It has an agenda that's different than ours. So
we don't want it at the table. We want to crush Iran. It sounds like a tempting option,
and in fact, if you could wave a wand and make the regime in Iran go away and make Iran be wonderfully
friendly to the United States, I'd be all for that. But bombing Iran is likely to produce the
opposite result.
First of all, one thing that really surprises me when I'm in Iran is how unbelievably pro-American
the people of Iran are. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that there's no country in the world
where the population is so pro-American as in Iran. I have been stopped on the streets by people
who are practically shrieking when they find out I'm American and tell me how much they love the
United States. You don't even get that in Canada! If we're smart, we're gonna realize
that this is the Middle Eastern country with the most pro-American population. And this pro-American
sentiment in Iran is a huge strategic asset for us going forward. If we liquidate that asset
by bombing Iran, we will be greatly undermining our own strategic power. And this is a pattern
we've been following in that part of the world for a long time.
The war in Iraq greatly eroded American strategic power. It had the opposite effect that
we thought it would have. And this is the real object lesson that we need to keep in mind.
When we intervene in countries, we have enough power to achieve our short-term goal, but then we
go away; our attention goes to other places. And the resentment and the anger festers and burns
in the hearts and minds and souls of people in these countries, and ultimately, we wind up with backlash
that we never anticipated and we can't control. In this rush now in these last months to demonize
Iran and set the groundwork for an attack on Iran, we are doing something that Americans, and maybe
all human beings do too often, and that is: we think about the short term; we never think about the
long-term effects of our interventions.
FTM: You open the book with a quote, a quintessential quote, which is kind of common for
a book, and it's by President Harry Truman: "There is nothing new in the world except the history
you do not know." And I would probably say that most of us are obviously familiar with the
history of September 11th, 2001, and I would go even further and perhaps say that we are
familiar with the 1979 Iranian Revolution, and people may remember those days back in the Carter
years. But your book goes back to 1953.
In the Preface of your book, you state that the 1953 intervention by the United States into Iran
may be seen as a decisive turning point in the 20th Century history from our perspective
today. Now I don't know how many people in our listening audience know what happened in 1953.
What event are you referring to, and why is it important to what's happening today?
KINZER: For most Americans, the history of U.S.-Iran relations begins and ends with
the Hostage Crisis. That's all we know, and we know that everything went bad since then.
But Iranians don't think that way. For them, the Hostage Crisis is just one of a number of
incidents that have happened over the past 50 years. For them, the key moment in the history
of U.S.-Iran relations came in 1953. This is an episode that completely defines Iranian history
and the Iran-United States relationship. Yet, many people in the United States are not even aware
this happened.
Very briefly, this is the story (and I tell it in much more detail in my book): In the period
after World War II, Iranian democracy, which had come about at the beginning of the 20th
Century through a revolution against a corrupt monarchy, really began to take form. It took on a
reality. You had elections; competing parties; parliament. This was something that had
not been seen in any Muslim country. So, Iran was truly in the vanguard of democracy.
But, because Iran was a democracy, it elected a leader who represented the public will-not the will
of outside powers. In Iran, there was one obsession. Iran is sitting, as we know, on an ocean
of oil. But all through the 1920's and '30's and '40's, that oil was completely controlled
by one British company.
The entire standard of living in Britain all during that period was based on oil from Iran, since
Britain has no oil or any colonies that have any oil. Meanwhile, people in Iran were living
in some of the most miserable conditions of anyone in the world. Once they had a democracy,
they elected a leader, Mohammad Mosaddegh, who, as prime minister, proceeded to pass a bill in congress
in which Iran nationalized its oil industry. This sent the British into a panic. They
tried all kinds of things to crush Mosaddegh. Finally, when he closed their embassy and chased
out all their diplomats, including all the secret agents who were trying to overthrow him, the British
decided, "We're going to ask the Americans to do this for us." So, Churchill asked President
Truman to "do this for us. Please go over to Iran and overthrow this guy who took away our
oil company. And Truman said, "No." But then, a few years later, when Dwight Eisenhower
became president, and John Foster Dulles became Secretary of State, and his brother, Allen Dulles,
became Director of the CIA, things changed.
The United States decided that we would work with the British to overthrow Mosaddegh -mainly because
he was challenging the fundamentals of corporate globablism, the principle that international companies
should be allowed to function all over the world according to conditions that they considered fair.
Mosaddegh was saying, "No, we are going to determine the conditions under which foreign companies
can function in our country." As a result, the United States sent a team CIA agents into Iran.
They went to work in the basement of the American Embassy. They threw Iran into total chaos,
and that chaos finally resulted in the overthrow of the Mosaddegh government. That put the
Shah back on his peacock throne; he ruled with increasing oppression for 25 years; his repressive
rule produced the explosion of the late 1970's, what we call "The Islamic Revolution"; that brought
the power, this clique of fanatically anti-American mullahs who are in power now. So, when you do
what they call in the CIA "walking back the cat," when you walk back the cat, that is, to see what
happened before, and before, and before, you come to realize that the American role in crushing Iranian
democracy in 1953 was not only the defining event in the history of U.S.-Iran relations, but it set
Iran in the Middle East into turmoil from which it has never recovered.
FTM: In 1953, in the book you point out that democracy was beginning to take root
there.
KINZER: It's a remarkable story. This, as I said, is something that had never happened
in a Muslim country before. Iran is a remarkable country; very different from the other countries
in the Middle East. And I'm not sure that people in the United States realize this. Most
of the countries in the Middle East are what you might call "fake countries." They're made-up
countries that were invented by some British or French diplomat drawing lines on a map at some men's
club after World War I.
Iran is not a fake country by any means. It has lived for thousands of years within more
or less the same boundaries, with more or less the same language, and the same kind of population.
It's a country with a deep, rich culture and very strong sense of itself. We are treating Iran
as if it's Honduras or Barundi or some little place where we can just go and kick sand in people's
face and they'll do whatever we want. Iran is not a country like that. And, given its
size, and its location, you see that that region will never be stable as long as Iran is angry and
ostracized. The only way to stabilize that part of the world is to build a security architecture
in which Iran has a place.
The world needs a big security concession from Iran. The world also needs big security concessions
from Israel. But countries only make security concessions when they feel safe. Therefore,
it should be in interest of those who want stability in the Middle East to try to help every country
in the region feel safe. But our goal in the Middle East isn't really stability; it's "stability
under our rule…under our dominance." And we realize that when Iran emerges as a strong, proud,
independent, democratic country, it's not gonna be so friendly to the United States. So I think there
is some feeling that "we prefer it this way" being poor and isolated and unhappy.
FTM: I was looking at a map the other day of the Middle East, just noticing the U.S. military
bases in the Middle East, and Iran, if you look at it very objectively, and take a look at the Middle
East military base map, you'll discover that Iran is completely surrounded. And as you mentioned,
there are four other nations in their general vicinity that have nuclear weapons, and it seems as
if pretty much the only way to keep the United States away from your country if you aren't playing
by their rules is to have a nuclear weapon. So logically, it does seem to make sense that the
Iranians are perhaps seeking a nuclear weapon, but what you point out here again in your book is
that the program, to have a nuclear program, was first proposed by the United States to Iran back
in the 1970's.
KINZER: We thought it was a great idea for Iran to have a nuclear program-when it was run
by a regime that was responsive to Washington. Now that it's a different kind of regime, we
don't like this idea. You're absolutely right about the lessons that Iran has drawn about the
value of having a nuclear weapon, or the ability to make a nuclear weapon, based on what's happened
in the world.
Why did the United States attack Iraq, but not attack North Korea? I think it's quite obvious:
if North Korea didn't have a nuclear weapon, we would have crushed them already; and if Sadaam
did have a nuclear weapon, we probably never would have invaded that country.
An even more vivid example is
Libya.
We managed to persuade
Gaddafi
to give up his nuclear program; as soon as he did that, we came in and killed him. I think
that the Iranians are acutely aware of this. They would like, if I'm gonna guess, to have the
ability to put together a nuclear deterrent, a nuclear weapon-something like Japan has. Japan
has something that is in the nuclear business called a "screwdriver weapon." They're not allowed
to have nuclear weapons, but they have the pieces and the parts around, so that in a matter of weeks,
they could probably put one together. Now, we hear a lot about how the Israelis are terrified
that as soon as Iran gets a nuclear weapon, it's gonna bomb Israel. But, in fact, as people
in the Israeli security establishment have made clear, none of them really believe that. They
fear the Iranian nuclear weapon for a couple of other reasons.
One is, that as Israel well-knows, when you have a nuclear weapon, you don't need to use it. It
gives you a certain power; a certain authority. You can intimidate people around you. And second,
of course, if there's another nuclear power in that region, it's going to set off perhaps another
nuclear race, and other countries like Turkey or Saudi Arabia or Egypt would want to have nuclear
weapons, too. But when the Iranians look around, I think the first country they see (and I've
heard this from a number of Iranians) is Pakistan. Pakistan is a far more volatile and far
more dangerous country than Iran. We have serious Taliban/al-Qaeda types not only running around
in Pakistan, but doing so under the egious of the government and they have a prospective to take
over that government! This is not going to happen in Iran. Pakistan is far more volatile,
yet the United States thought that is was fine that Pakistan should have a nuclear weapon. I'm against
all countries having nuclear weapons.
I'd like to see all countries that have them abandon them, and I don't want any more countries
to get them. But that's a dream world. The fact is, the most that we can do by attacking
Iran (as our own Defense Secretary has said) is to postpone the day when Iran has a nuclear weapon,
and in the process, make them a lot angrier. The way to reduce this danger is to build a security
system in the Middle East where people don't feel the need to be threatening each other. But
that requires dialogue, and dialogue requires compromise, and the United States is not ready to compromise
with Iran.
FTM: Interesting. And that's where I want to take this in conclusion: What
does that look like? Because obviously, the goal of your book here is to see some sort of peace
reached. I mean, no one wants to see war. But the Middle East obviously is just an issue
that has been debated for a long time. There are all kinds of
geopolitical reasons for being involved in the Middle East-namely, oil. But predominantly, as
we look at all of this, the question really boils down to this: What are we going to do? If
we don't bomb Iran, then how do we prevent them from potentially becoming an explosive nation in
that region? You say "security system" over there and also "dialogue." If you were President,
what would you do? How do you start that process?
KINZER: The first place, we have never really tried serious diplomatic overtures
to Iran. We've got some of our most senior retired diplomats in the United States now who are
chafing at the bit to be sent to Iran. People like Thomas Pickering, who was George Bush's
ambassador to the United Nations and ambassador to Moscow, and William Lords, another titan of 20th
Century diplomacy. These are people who are itching to go to Iran and see what they can do.
We have not even asked Iran the fundamental question, "What would it take from us for you to do what
we would like you to do with your nuclear program?"
Forget about deciding whether we want to do it or not; we don't even know what the quid pro quo
would be! So, we need first to get into a mindset where we're willing to have a real dialogue
on an equal basis with Iran. We are not at that point. We feel that any dialogue with
them is only going to legitimize their position in the Middle East and is going to make them feel
that they're a powerful country, because we will be making concessions to them-that's what you do
when you have negotiated solutions. But the fact is, Iran already is a powerful country. It
doesn't need us to legitimize it. We need to understand that in dealing with Iran, we're not
going to get everything we want. And we are going to have to concede Iran a measure of power
in that region that's commensurate with its size, and its history, and its location. We're
not even at that point yet. I think that's the first step. We have to make a psychological
transition to realize that we're not going to be able to dictate to Iran if we want to reach a peaceful
settlement. We're going to have to compromise. We're going to have to accept some things
that Iran wants in order to get things that we want. Before we even get to the point of figuring
out what those would be, we need to get over that psychological, political, diplomatic hurdle. And
we haven't done that yet.
FTM: My guest today has been Stephen Kinzer. He's the author of the book
All the Shah's Men.
Very enlightening stuff; very illuminating. Stephen, if the folks would like to learn more
about you and your work, how can they do so?
KINZER: I've got a website: stephenkinzer.com.
My books are all available on that mass website that I don't want to advertise that it's named after
a giant river in South America.
FTM: (laughter)
KINZER: But if you want to support your local independent bookstore, I'm sure it
would be happy to order All the Shah's Men for you or any of my other books.
FTM: Very good, Stephen. Thank you so much for coming on our program today, Stephen.
"... Ukraine has given Russia a deadline of October 29 to accept the restructuring offer made to
private sector investors; assuming it continues to refuse, Russia is threatening legal action if
it is not repaid in full on December 20. So all of this is really coming to a head. It will all end
up in the British courts - perhaps offering London it's own pari passu-type saga - unless something
like the Lerrick compromise is adopted. ..."
"... Funny , but I have read the notorious IEA energy overview of Ukraine published a few years
ago. It promised to add value (collapse the economy) by adding costs..........funny enough but
it has. Not a fan of People the Great style centralized capitalism but the objectives of finance
capitalism are far from pretty either. ..."
"... Im still not sure how a country can do a deal over bond restructuring with a country that
it is at war with when the war is partly causing the need for bond restructuring. ..."
"... This loan assumed that there wouldnt be a coup and that Ukraine would pay its way under Russian
subsidies as it had done in the past. Then the Western encouraged coup, and the collapse. And
then an IMF loan of a lot more. Go figure... A fine lesson in how instability destroys an economy.
I wish the West would not encourage this. Its here they should have to pay. They managed not to
do so, so far in Libya. They are paying in Iraq, but in arms not in development which the Iraqis
deserve. I wish the West would support stability - things in the world change slowly if it is
to be for the benefit of all... ..."
Martin Wolf was fuming about Russia on Wednesday - incensed specifically about its stance towards
Ukraine's attempted debt restructuring. He really doesn't like the fact that Russia's refusal to
join August's $18bn deal with private bond holders will block Ukraine's access to IMF money, promising
to collapse the country's economy.
Along the way, Wolf notes that there's a solution on the table here, albeit one that Russia is
unlikely to accept. It comes from Adam Lerrick of the American Enterprise Institute - a man with
some form in coming up with elegant solutions amid sovereign debt crises. (See Iceland, Greece and
also Argentina.)
Here's Lerrick's detail on Ukraine, along with a table for Putin and pals…
Ukraine has given Russia a deadline of October 29 to accept the restructuring offer made to
private sector investors; assuming it continues to refuse, Russia is threatening legal action if
it is not repaid in full on December 20. So all of this is really coming to a head. It will all end
up in the British courts - perhaps offering London it's own pari passu-type saga - unless something
like the Lerrick compromise is adopted.
The American academic's approach actually accepts a core Russian claim - that the concessional
terms of Russia's original loan put it on a different footing from private creditors in that Ukraine
signed up to pay a coupon of 5 per cent, at a time when regular bond market investors would have
demanded 12 per cent or more. But Lerrick then suggests that Russia be compensated for this concession
(in the form of higher interest rates on newly issued replacement bonds), before then accepting the
private creditor restructuring terms.
You can read the two options in full below. They look fair to all involved, which probably means
there's no chance of Russia accepting the idea at all!
The Dork of Cork.
Funny , but I have read the notorious IEA energy overview of Ukraine published a few years
ago. It promised to "add value" (collapse the economy) by adding costs..........funny enough but
it has. Not a fan of People the Great style centralized capitalism but the objectives of finance
capitalism are far from pretty either.
Upaswellasdown
What exactly will Russia do if it is not repaid? invade?
Pseudonym
I'm still not sure how a country can do a deal over bond restructuring with a country that
it is at war with when the war is partly causing the need for bond restructuring.
ukrainewatcher
Really angers me, as this was political loan to finance last dying days of Yanukovich's regime.
Probably used to pay towards the violence of the following months and to the cash that was taken
out of the country in trucks. Russia consequently cost Ukraine's economy billions of dollars,
through invasion of Crimea and Eastern Ukraine against very explicit guarantees provided by most
superpowers (including US, Russia and UK) provided in return for dismantling world's third largest
nuclear arsenal. Obligations that are in my books pretty much worthless, yet Ukraine continues
to fulfil today (still destroying long term missiles as we speak)
And Ukraine still needs to deal with them as though they are normal creditors?
Something very wrong with the world of you ask me.
violet17
It was a political loan...correct! And it is a sovereign loan. And that is what the fuss is about!!
This loan assumed that there wouldn't be a coup and that Ukraine would pay its way under Russian
subsidies as it had done in the past. Then the Western encouraged coup, and the collapse. And
then an IMF loan of a lot more. Go figure... A fine lesson in how instability destroys an economy.
I wish the West would not encourage this. Its here they should have to pay. They managed not to
do so, so far in Libya. They are paying in Iraq, but in arms not in development which the Iraqis
deserve. I wish the West would support stability - things in the world change slowly if it is
to be for the benefit of all...
FearTheTree
@ukrainewatcher Isn't the same true of Argentina. How much of its 80B in contested debt was used
to support Menem and his cronies, thinking that the dollar-peso peg would hold indefinitely?
"... A 2007 draft position paper on the role of the intelligence community in the wake of the 9/11
attacks shows that Brennan was already aware that numerous federal agencies – the FBI, CIA, NSA,
Defense Department and Homeland Security – "are all engaged in intelligence activities on
US soil." He said these activities "must be consistent with our laws and reflect the
democratic principles and values of our Nation." ..."
"... Brennan added that the president and Congress need "clear mandates" and "firm
criteria" to determine what limits need to be placed on domestic intelligence operations.
When it comes to situations beyond US borders, Brennan said sometimes action must be taken
overseas "to address real and emerging threats to our interests," and that they may need
to be done "under the cover of secrecy." He argued that many covert CIA actions have
resulted in "major contributions" to US policy goals. ..."
"... "enhanced interrogation" ..."
"... Some of the techniques Bond suggested that Congress ban included: forcing the detainee to
be naked; forcing them to perform sexual acts; waterboarding; inducing hypothermia; conducting
mock executions; and depriving detainees of food, water, or medical care. ..."
"... "Limitations on Interrogation Techniques Act of 2008." ..."
"... The bill prohibited the use of many of the same techniques listed in the previous document,
though it was not passed. Ultimately, President Obama issued an executive order banning officials
from using techniques not in the Army Field Manual. ..."
US government 'engaged' in spying activities on US soil
A 2007 draft position paper on the role of the intelligence community in the wake of the 9/11
attacks shows that Brennan was already aware that numerous federal agencies – the FBI, CIA, NSA,
Defense Department and Homeland Security – "are all engaged in intelligence activities on
US soil." He said these activities "must be consistent with our laws and reflect the
democratic principles and values of our Nation."
Brennan added that the president and Congress need "clear mandates" and "firm
criteria" to determine what limits need to be placed on domestic intelligence operations.
When it comes to situations beyond US borders, Brennan said sometimes action must be taken
overseas "to address real and emerging threats to our interests," and that they may need
to be done "under the cover of secrecy." He argued that many covert CIA actions have
resulted in "major contributions" to US policy goals.
Debate over torture restrictions
WikiLeaks published two documents related to the CIA's use of so-called "enhanced interrogation"
techniques, though notably neither was written by Brennan.
One was written by then-Senator Kit Bond (R-Missouri), vice chairman on the Senate Select
Committee on Intelligence, which outlined a proposal to limit the CIA's torture techniques without
restricting the development of new techniques complying with the law.
The document suggests listing the types of techniques that the CIA is barred from using instead
of restricting the agency to only those explicitly listed in the Army Field Manual.
Some of the techniques Bond suggested that Congress ban included: forcing the detainee to
be naked; forcing them to perform sexual acts; waterboarding; inducing hypothermia; conducting
mock executions; and depriving detainees of food, water, or medical care.
Bond's suggestions get a bill
The final document appears to show Bond's suggestions making their way into a legislative
proposal titled "Limitations on Interrogation Techniques Act of 2008."
The bill prohibited the use of many of the same techniques listed in the previous document,
though it was not passed. Ultimately, President Obama issued an executive order banning officials
from using techniques not in the Army Field Manual.
"... With a properly run service provider, neither the helpdesk drones nor the admin staff
should be able to see any user's password, which should be safely stored in an encrypted form. ..."
"... This is a turf war between bureaucrats who are born incompetent. The NSA has been increasing
its share of budgetary largesse while the CIA and other security units have each been fighting
to keep up. Politicians, being bureaucrats themselves, engage in the turf war. To them its all
great fun. ..."
"... Lets be clear: it is very hard to see how blanket surveillance of American citizens is beneficial
to American citizens. It tips over the power balance between government and citizen - it is undemocratic.
It is unAmerican. ..."
"... It would be funny if it wasnt for the fact that the kid will most likely regret this for
the rest of his life and nothing will change for Government or Brennan. ..."
"... Ive said it before and Ill say it again: incompetence is the main bulwark against tyranny.
So let us be grateful for John Brennan. ..."
With a properly run service provider, neither the helpdesk drones nor the admin staff
should be able to see any user's password, which should be safely stored in an encrypted form.
AmyInNH -> NigelSafeton 21 Oct 2015 11:59
You seriously underestimate the technical incompetence of the federal government. They buy
on basis of quantity of big blue arrows, shown on marketing slideware.
Laudig 21 Oct 2015 05:31
This is great. This man is a serial perjurer to Congress. Which does eff-all about being lied
to [they lie to everyone and so don't take offense at being lied to] and now he's hacked by a
13 year-old who, until a few weeks ago was protected by the The Children's Online Privacy Protection
Act of 1998.
Well done, CIA or whatever you are.
So your well constructed career gets collapsed by someone who is still in short pants. The
Age of Secrets is over now.
Stieve 21 Oct 2015 02:54
Er, why has no-one mentioned, why has there been no press coverage, why has not a single presidential
candidate been asked to comment on the fact that The USA has been the victim of a military coup?
All pretence of government oversight has been dropped. The NSA, CIA and most likely every other
arm of the "intelligence service" have simply taken over the elected government, ripped up The
Constitution and transformed The US into a police state. Seven thousand people disappeared in
Chigaco? Exactly why have there not been massive arrests of these Stasi? Or riots on the streets?
Exactly why has there not been an emergency session of The Senate or Congress to find out why
Chicago is being run like an Eastern Bloc dictatorship? Exactly why are police departments been
given military hardware designed to be used by an occupying army?
I'll tell you exactly why.
Because The US actually has been taken over
Glenn J. Hill 21 Oct 2015 01:28
LOL, the Head of the CIA put sensitive info on an personal AOL ACCOUNT !!!!! What an total
idiot. Just proves the " Peter Principle", that one gets promoted to one`s point of incompetent!
Can he be fired ? Locked up for gross stupidity ?? Will he come hunting for me, to take me out
for pointing out his asinine stupidity ??
Fnert Pleeble -> Robert Lewis 20 Oct 2015 23:42
Congressmen are self motivating. They want the gravy train to continue. The carrot is plenty
big, no need for the stick.
Buckworm 20 Oct 2015 21:51
Those old, tired, incompetent, ignorant, trolls are asking for more and more access to citizens
data based on the assumption that they can catch a terrorist or another type of psycho before
they act out on something. Don't they realize that so far, after 15 years of violating the citizen's
constitutional rights, they HAVE NEVER CAUGHT not even ONE single person under their illegal surveillance.
This is the problem: they think that terrorists are as stupid as they are, and that they will
be sending tons of un-encrypted information online- and that sooner or later they will intercept
that data and prevent a crime. How many times have they done so? Z E RO . They haven't realized
that terrorists and hackers are waaaaayyy ahead of them and their ways of communicating are already
beyond the old-fashioned government-hacked internet. I mean, only a terrorist as stupid as a government
employee would think of ever sending something sensitive through electronic communications of
any kind - but the government trolls still believe that they do or that sooner or later they will!!
How super-beyond-stupid is that? Congress??
Don't even talk about that putrid grotesque political farce - completely manipulated by the
super-rich and heated up by the typical white-trash delusional trailer park troll aka as the "tea
party". We've had many killing in the homeland after 9/11 - not even one of them stopped by the
"mega-surveillance" - and thousands committed by irresponsible and crooked cops - and this will
continue until America Unites and fight for their constitutional rights. That will happen as soon
as their priority is not getting the latest iPhone with minimal improvement, spends endless hours
playing candy crush,stand in long lines to buy pot, get drunk every evening and weekends, and
cancel their subscription to home-delivered heroin and cocaine. So don't hold your breath on that
one.
Wait until one of those 13-yr old gets a hold of nuclear codes, electric grid codes, water
supply or other important service code - the old government farts will scream and denounce that
they could have prevented that if they had had more surveillance tools - but that is as false
as the $3 dollar bills they claim to have in their wallets. They cannot see any further from their
incompetence and ignorance.
Robert Lewis -> Giants1925 20 Oct 2015 18:38
Did the FSB cook data so the US would invade Iraq and kill 1,000,000 civilians?
yusowong 20 Oct 2015 18:20
This is a turf war between bureaucrats who are born incompetent. The NSA has been increasing
its share of budgetary largesse while the CIA and other security units have each been fighting
to keep up. Politicians, being bureaucrats themselves, engage in the turf war. To them it's all
great fun.
Triumphant -> George Giants1925 20 Oct 2015 14:41
Are you saying that because you aren't in a concentration camp, everything's pretty good? That's
a pretty low bar to set.
Most people probably didn't vote for your current leader. To compare, in the UK, only 37% of the
popular vote went for the current government. And once you leader is voted in, they pretty much
do as they please. Fortunately, there are checks and balances which are supposed to prevent things
getting out of control. Unfortunately, bills like the cybersecurity bill are intend to circumvent
these things.
Let's be clear: it is very hard to see how blanket surveillance of American citizens is beneficial
to American citizens. It tips over the power balance between government and citizen - it is undemocratic.
It is unAmerican.
Red Ryder -> daniel1948 20 Oct 2015 14:16
The whole freakin government is totally incompetent when it comes to computers and the hacking
going on around this planet. Hillary needs to answer for this email scandal but currently she
is making jokes about it as if nothing happened. She has no clue when she tried to delete her
emails. Doesn't the government know that this stuff is backed up on many computers and then stored
it a tape vault somewhere. Hiding emails is a joke today.
mancfrank 20 Oct 2015 13:27
It would be funny if it wasn't for the fact that the kid will most likely regret this for
the rest of his life and nothing will change for Government or Brennan.
Giants1925 20 Oct 2015 12:53
I still don't understand why Russia is allowed to have the FSB but the US is forbidden from
having the CIA Who makes these rules again? Because frankly I'm tired of the world being run
by popular opinion.
bcarey 20 Oct 2015 12:33
The bill is so bad that the major tech companies like Google and Amazon all came out
against it last week, despite the fact that it would give them broad immunity for sharing
this information with the government.
The usual show... "We're totally against it, but it's okay."
Donald Mintz 20 Oct 2015 12:02
I've said it before and I'll say it again: incompetence is the main bulwark against tyranny.
So let us be grateful for John Brennan.
The report, even in its highly-politized form, gives the families of the victims the right
to file lawsuits against Ukraine for its criminal negligence in complying with flight safety
rules. These suits can cost Ukraine billions of dollars.
idance 14 Oct 2015 12:51
Partly repeating my comment to another article here I must admit this POV agrees with
today's (but not yesterday's) US standards.
The US has just refused to accept the UNSC statement condemning the shelling of the Russian
Embassy in Damascus. They said the responsibility for the security of diplomatic missions lies
on the receiving party, that is on Damascus.
Applying this standard it doesn't matter who shot down MH17. The responsibility lies on
Ukraine cause it was Ukraine who should have ensured security of the flight.
Yeah! How do you like it!
SHappens 14 Oct 2015 03:31
"Russia's got a role and they haven't been very helpful," he said. "So I blame Russia
partially but not completely. There are many other players that are also to blame."
Some people see through. Rightly, as highlighted by the report, Ukraine failed to its
obligations, by not closing its airspace, rerouting a flight which casually got shot. They
bear the main responsibility in this disaster.
DeConstruct -> Putzik 13 Oct 2015 23:05
You are 100% on the money in relation to shorter route length and air navigation fees. The
penny should have dropped when it became obvious from the altitudes of previous military shoot
downs that medium range (up to 70,000' +) weapons were being employed and not just low
altitude MANPADS.
summaluvva -> Putzik 13 Oct 2015 22:35
Quoting Guardian's article, "Many of the world's best-known airlines – including British
Airways, Qantas and Cathay Pacific – had been avoiding Ukrainian airspace due to safety fears
for months before the downing of flight MH17.".
"... It was predictable that by going to Syria Russia will make itself more of a target for terrorist
attacks than before, as Russia now has a lot more enemies than it did before. ..."
"... They fail to understand one simple fact – Russia already was a target of these groups. ..."
"... I would also add, that Russian does NOT have more enemies than before. Russia has the same
number of enemies, in the exact same quantity and quality as before. The only difference is that
Russia was warned in advance this time, by one of Americas poodles. Remember Gerashchenkos
warning, on Mirotvorec ? ..."
"... On Wednesday A. Piontkovskiy, D. Bykov and I shall represent Russia at a meeting in Kiev
entitled Slavs Against the Moscow terror . It will be a live transmission. ..."
"... – I was sitting in a cafe last night, right across the Montparnasse station. Suddenly I
saw, from the side of the hall came out a lot of elderly Jews speaking in Russian. Im interested
in, stopped one of them and asked what was it … And it turns out, there was a meeting of young
Russian poets. ..."
It was predictable that by going to Syria Russia will make itself more of a target for terrorist
attacks than before, as Russia now has a lot more enemies than it did before.
Indeed it
was Nostradamized from the day 1 by the unlikely common opinion alliance of:
1) Russian liberasts.
2) Western pundits.
3) "Russian" patriotic putinslivsiks
They fail to understand one simple fact – Russia already was a target of these groups.
And the fact that terract was prevented is a reason not for concern but for a sense of pride of
one's Security Services doing their job. For Russia "not to have any enemies" means to curl up
and give up on any foreign policy, allowing "the adults" to run their freak show of "Here comes
the Freedom and 'Mocracy. bitches!".
I would also add, that Russian does NOT have more enemies than before. Russia has the same
number of enemies, in the exact same quantity and quality as before. The only difference is that
Russia was "warned" in advance this time, by one of America's poodles. Remember Gerashchenko's
warning, on "Mirotvorec" ?
Yes, the only difference now is that the masks are slipping revealing the truly hideous face of
the Western empire. Other than that, business as usual.
"Exposed" and then there follows a string of allegations.
"Russia's FSB and GRU (military
intelligence) are mostly likely assigning Phillips 'mini-ops' to attack western organizations,
journalists, reporters and researchers who debunk the Kremlin's propaganda narrative."
Sad. So young – I'm assuming – and his mind already gone. Only in such an oxygen-deficient atmosphere
could the FSB deliberately recruit somebody because they are "bumbling and incompetent" and speak
Russian at the third-grade level or less. Lots of good press for Graham, though.
He's Andrei Piontkovskiy, former member of that very short-lived Coordinating Council of the
Russian Opposition, you know – Navalny's parliament in waiting that met a couple of times in
kreakl cafés: even Udaltsov (remember him?) called its members a "committee of wankers".
Well lookeee here:
On Wednesday A. Piontkovskiy, D. Bykov and I shall represent Russia at a meeting in Kiev
entitled "Slavs Against the Moscow terror". It will be a live transmission.
The Tweet is off a certain Sasha Sotnik of
Sotnik TV.
Sotnik TV is not a typical Russian television channel: It is only available on the web,
not on television screens. It has no live broadcasts. And it is run primarily by just two people:
husband and wife Sasha Sotnik, the reporter, and Mariya Orlovskaya, the camera operator (both
pictured above).
But what's most different about Sotnik TV is its outspoken criticism of Russian President Vladimir
Putin, which has led to Sotnik and Orlovskaya being arrested briefly and accused of possessing
explosives.
Strong views
Sasha Sotnik is a believer in the liberal "European values" that Putin has forcefully rejected
in recent months, and does not flinch from expressing strong views in his videos, which are mainly
distributed through the couple's YouTube channel.
Bet they love Sasha at Auntie BBC.
If he likes liberal "European values" so much, then why doesn't he stay in Banderastan?
Do you think Sotnik and Piontkovskiy and Bykov will be shot dead in the street when they return
to Mordor, thereby becoming yet more tragic statistics attributed to the Dark Lord's reign of
terror?
After all, Lord Putin's ever watchful eye not only knows what everyone is thinking,
but also of what they are going to think and plan and usually punishes his enemies before they
even think of doing something that he will not like, such is his awesome power and majesty that
holds this once mighty nation in sway ….
These brave opposition souls must live a life of perfectly abject terror and despair.
I mean, look at Bykov: he looks like a really worried man – doesn't he?
I believe he's lost pounds since Putin seized control of the state, such has been his worry
and concern over what has been going on here since 2000.
Too late, probably. Their personal addresses and the names of family members are probably all
over whatyoucallem, that Russian squealer database that encourages people to inform on other people
for anti-government views. There was a name for it…separatist! That's it, separatists who harbor
anti-government attitudes!! I read all about it a while ago, but I forget the name of it. You
could go there and rat out people for their personal views and then some wet-man from Putin's
personal kill squad would go round to his house, make some excuse to get him outside and then
cap him right there in the street. Poor Sotnik and Bykov and Piontkovskiy: they're as good as
done for, like that murdered martyr Yulia Latynina.
"On Wednesday A. Piontkovskiy, D. Bykov and I shall represent Russia at a meeting in Kiev
entitled "Slavs Against the Moscow terror". It will be a live transmission."
During her
emigration in Paris, famous pre-Revolutionary satirical writer Nadezhda Teffi (nee Lokhvitskaya,
in marriage – Buchinskaya) once became a witness to such a scene:
"- Сижу я вчера вечером в кафе, против монпарнасского вокзала. Вдруг вижу, из бокового зала
выходят много пожилых евреев, говорят по-русски. Я заинтересовалась, остановила одного и спрашиваю,
что это было такое… А это, оказывается, было собрание молодых русских поэтов"."
– I was sitting in a cafe last night, right across the Montparnasse station. Suddenly I
saw, from the side of the hall came out a lot of elderly Jews speaking in Russian. I'm interested
in, stopped one of them and asked what was it … And it turns out, there was a meeting of young
Russian poets. "
"... This. The most infuriating part about Obomba is the smug "smarter-than-you" certainty he
has. He was a community organizer and one-term state Senator but somehow he started sniffing all
the farts the sycophants were wafting his way about just how clever he really was. Then he installed
a bunch of also-smart groupthinker Berkeley-ites from the "duty to protect" and "humanitarian
bombing" crowd, Chanel-suited exceptionalist egomaniacs who thought they were Kissinger (Samantha
Powers, Hilary, Susan Rice et al.) ..."
"... BHO thought he could triangulate and "out-clever" everyone on everything, from health care,
where he managed the worst of all worlds that fattened Big Insurance AND screwed up the cost of
care…to Wall St where he fattened TBTF AND screwed up Dodd-Frank. In the ME he thought he could
cleverly play all sides off against each other, the Turks, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Israelis,
the Saudis... and stunningly also al-Qaeda themselves were just another co-optable pawn. ..."
"... But as Warren Buffet says "when the tide goes out you can see who's swimming naked". Tide's
heading out…and as far as I can see the Russia/Iran/Iraq/Israel/Syria/Kurd team, with Brother
China, fed-up Pakistan and resurgent India backing things up, is looking pretty good. Sclero-Europe
has long ago ceded their sovereignty and relevance, LatAm as usual is absent from consideration…what
am I missing? ..."
"... Interesting things are happening with Russian involvement in Syria. Are we seeing the global
balance of power tip before our eyes? The U.S. is losing it's sole hegemony status and that could
be a good thing if Washington can realize this and accept that and adopt diplomacy and cooperation
to maintain what position it still has instead of denial followed by escalating aggression.
..."
"... The FSA = al Nusrah = al Qaeda in Syria. The re-labeling was invoked so that BHO could
send weapons to al Nusrah… the player that currently has snapped up EVERY weapon the President
sent into the fight. Most recently that's meant TOW missiles. ..."
"... Good lord. Stratfor is well-known as politicized propaganda machine that works in concert
with large multinational corporations to further their interests in foreign countries. It's not
a secret. ..."
"... Stratfor is Neocon central, I should think. They stock gasbags in quantity. ..."
"... The question I must ask: what happens to all these Islamic fighters after they are run
out of Syria and Iraq? Only safe territory for them – away from the Russian air force – will be
US allies, like Jordan and Arabia. ..."
"...
Israel, with its excuse of no peace partners, may end up with enemies from hell. ..."
"... Suppose that Obama just decides to flood Syria with weapons? Anti-tank, anti-air, medium-range
missiles with cluster bombs that can hit the Russian bases… America may not have any sense of
long-range strategy but we are very good at breaking things, and our leaders throw fits and take
it personally when their plans go awry… ..."
"... Of course giving all sorts of advanced weapons to the mostly jihadist Syrian 'rebels' would
in the long run certainly cause a lot of blowback to the United States, but that's never stopped
us before… ..."
"... U.S. air superiority is based on air superiority, not anti-aircraft weaponry. Afghanistan
and Syria are radically different much like Vietnam and Iraq were different. It's much easier
for the Russians to supply their bases than in Afghanistan where they had to rely on helicopters
flying around mountain valleys. ..."
"... Advanced weaponry will be seen by Russian eyes in the sky and can be hit by missiles from
the Caspian apparently. I hate to break it to you, but the U.S. R D budget has been wasted on
projects like F-35 and contracting fraud. ..."
"... Why does my Spidy Sense tell me that the foundation of the Saudi oil ministry policy of
continuing to flood a depressed market with low cost oil was a secret agreement between Obomber
and the Saudi ruling family? The plan was to bankrupt Russia by a two-pronged attack- the fraudulent
US sponsored sanctions based upon manufactured reality events in Ukraine and the Saudi capacity
to control the marginal price of oil. The carrot offered by the US was a piece of the action in
the trans Syrian gas pipeline- and continued protection against internal opposition.
..."
"... Saudi Arabia wants Putin to suffer - as he's the patron of Assad - of whom they hate the
most. Low crude pricing has pounded the Russian ruble. Putin's crew is also going insolvent. The
flight capital out of Russia is relentless. ..."
"... Contracting fraud, where the real money is made. It was never about oil, just contracts
and egos. Oil has to be sold at an honest price for a variety of reasons, but I can't judge a
cruise missile's price behind a veil of secrecy. ..."
"... Then there is the natural failing of leaders domestically who search for scapegoats. Half
of the foreign policy pronouncements are full of whispered hisses of "China." Don't pay attention
to me. It's those red Chinese and their currency manipulation. ..."
"... The Russian expeditionary force in Syria is indeed highly vulnerable, but only if the Western
Bloc wants to risk a major war. Now the Western Bloc can prevail against Russia, at any level
of escalation, albeit at mounting risk. Nobody should expect today's Russia to be able to match
the might of the Western Bloc. ..."
"... I expect the Western Bloc will presume that they can prevail through politico-economic
attrition against Russia. They probably can. However, the longer this complex regional war in
the Middle East continues, the more likely things are to veer off unpredictably. ..."
"... "In my read, Russia and Iran have just popped open the door to a solution in Syria. All
the pieces are in place but one: Washington's capacity to acknowledge the strategic failure now
so evident and to see beyond the narrowest definition of where its interests lie. This brings
us to the paradox embedded in those questions Putin and Zarif and a few others now pose: American
primacy is no longer in America's interest. Get your mind around this and you have arrived in
the 21st century." ..."
"... The CIA began a covert operation in 2013 to arm, fund and train a moderate opposition
to Assad. Over that time, the CIA has trained an estimated 10,000 fighters, although the number
still fighting with so-called moderate forces is unclear. ..."
"... No kidding -- Both involved CIA proxy armies that had no operational security to speak of.
Both were authorized by the Oval Office. And we know how much BHO admires JFK. ..."
"... It is important to get Russian viewpoint especially since most Americans are monolingual.
Also, it is hard for us not to root for the home team. Still Syria is a gigantic SNAFU. It is
so far beyond incompetence it has to be purposeful. This is the ultimate expression of the Shock
Doctrine. Collapse Russia and gain control its energy resources ..."
"... There are 1.6 billion Sunni Muslims. Want-to-be Jihadists will flock to Syria to fight
the Russian Crusaders. Barrack Obama has already warned Vladimir Putin of a quagmire. His continued
arming the Sunnis is a purposeful act to ensure this. World War III starts when Russia shoots
down an American aircraft on a combat mission over Syria. ..."
"... Give the Russians some credit for finesse. All they need do is shoot down an Israeli jet
attacking a Syrian government position in support of some Syrian "Moderates" near Damascus. I'll
be watching for a Russian campaign to rid the Syrian skies of 'Western' drones. That would be
a sign of serious intentions on the part of Russia. ..."
Russia has established a no-fly zone on every one of Syria's frontiers, and will make an Alawite
fortress along the coastal plain. As for what happens in the northern and western deserts, that's
up to the Shiite armies of Iran and Iraq to decide, with or without Russian air cover, but with the
assurance of no American, NATO, Turkish, Saudi, Jordanian or Emirati air cover.
Gennady Nechaev, a military analyst at Vzglyad in Moscow, explains: "There is airspace, but either
it is controlled by the US or by our Air Force. But today there is no issue of control of air space.
We are talking about control of ground space. There operations can be of two types: direct destruction
from the air and from insulation of the area of operations by air in order to avoid movements of
the enemy and incoming reserves. In this case, the task is hardly feasible, as there is an open border
with Iraq on the side of Turkey. The boundaries are not controlled. The problem could be solved [by
Russia] if a blow can be dealt along the entire depth of the space under the control of ISIS. At
the moment there is an operation against the infrastructure of ISIS. Infrastructure is a fairly loose
concept, because they don't have civilian infrastructure. There are military links and connexions
which must [operate] to supply weapons. For these purposes Russia is now applying its strokes."
... ... ...
What if the Saudis shift their forces from bombing southward and eastward in the Yemen towards
the west, and they invite US forces to defend their sorties from Saudi airfields or from carriers
in the Persian Gulf? An Egyptian military source comments: "The king [Salman] has Alzheimer's, and
his son [Mohammad bin Salman], the real ruler of the kingdom, is too young; too insecure in the royal
succession; and too vulnerable domestically. If either of them makes so much as a nervous twitch
towards the Syrian frontier, the oil price will return to the level Russia wants, and needs. There
will be no support for the Saudis against the Russians from their only real Arab guarantor, [Egyptian
President Abdel Fattah el-] Sisi. And long ago, when Obama installed the Moslem Brotherhood in Cairo,
[Sisi] realized the American strategy, Obama's promises, are the gravest threat to Egyptian and Arab
security there is. That's because he can't control the Washington Amazons who run his warmaking machine,
or the jihadists he employs to fight. Without air cover, supply lines, and dollars, they are doomed.
The Saudi sheikhs won't risk trying to save them."
For more on Putin's management of the Saudi relationship, read
this.
London sources familiar with
Israeli politics add that Russian strategy has the tacit backing of Israel. "This is because [President
Vladimir] Putin has told [Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu that Israel can count on a no-threat
zone running from Damascus south and east to the Golan. No threat means no Syrian Army, no jihadists.
Russia and Israel will now have what [Israeli Prime Minister David] Ben-Gurion once explained was
Israel's long-term objective – the breakup of the large, potentially powerful secular Arab states
into small sectarian territories too weak to do anything but threaten each other."
There is not the slightest chance that BHO has any interest in squaring off with Putin.
What the President has been doing is to support al Qaeda fronts - most particularly al Nusrah.
Both al Nusrah and IS are joined at the hip and do not fight each other - much. Dr. Zawahiri
is their mutal mediator, with plenty of correspondence to his credit.
ISIS // ISIL // IS wouldn't be a serious factor if it was not for the UK, US, and Jordan. These
three patron powers trained the core block of al Baghdadi's boys - in the northern Jordanian desert
- just a few years back - remember ?
It was all over the news - particularly in the Arab Middle East.
They graduated - and promptly went rogue - taking out Mosul - probably by simply phoning ahead.
For the US had given them first class communications gear - that they were supposed to be using
in Syria. It, however, worked its magic even better - intercepting Iraqi cell phone frequencies
- so that al Baghdadi could threaten the generals and their families quite directly.
In this, they were entirely aping the USAF's gambit in Libya. Remember Commando Solo ? It was
exactly such phone calls to Libyan generals that broke up Kaddafy's entire army. We admitted that
we'd called just about everyone in the dictator's immediate family, to boot.
Well, the fanatics in Libya couldn't miss any of that.
And our Pentagon gave them the same tools// toys that the big boys have.
Without this communications gear, ISIS would never have been able to roll fast, roll large,
and co-ordinate everything - pretty much without a hitch.
The FSA is a fictive fig leaf dreamed up by the spin smiths at the White House. There never
has been a Free Syrian Army. There are NO secular fighters in the field. This is a flat out religious
war. One has to be deliberately dense to repress that reality.
Every single item ever given to the so called FSA has been deeded over to the fanatics - probaly
with kisses, too.
All of the above is idiot obvious. The only place that reality has no traction is in the West.
When it can't be denied, the public will come to know that BHO has treasonously enabled al
Qaeda in war time.
That both of these fronts have direct AQ connections is out on the open record. Both are still
in communication with Dr. Zawahiri. The only split is that al Baghdadi wants to be the caliph
and run the ever expanding caliphate… a Napoleon, a Hitler for our time.
BHO has been vectoring weapons to al Nusrah - by the flimsy pretext that they were intended
for moderate rebels. That lie won't hold water.
The TOW missiles that al Nusrah has received were entirely responsible for the massive reverses
that Assad suffered of late. Go to YouTube to see the jihadi footage. It's a pretty good bet that
the Russians have targeted the ammo dumps most likely to have these missiles. The Russians have
put their hits up on YouTube, too.
The only player that's going to be backing down: BHO. That's who.
BTW, at any time Putin can pull the President's card house flat. I suspect Putin is going for
maximum embarrassment. His treasonous support of AQ could finally lead to impeachment and conviction…
throwing Biden into the Oval Office. Such a travail would be triggered indirectly - so that Putin's
fingerprints would not be at all obvious.
In the meantime, Putin likes the fool right where he sits.
TedWa, October 10, 2015 at 11:58 am
I must say, nice lay out of the facts. There's so many things O should be impeached and jailed
for and if you think this one has him dead to rights, well…. cumbaya bro
James Levy, October 10, 2015 at 12:28 pm
I would bet the farm that the leadership in the House and Senate are, at this moment, unindicted
co-conspirators and Obama can prove it. There will be no impeachment over any of this. It would
bring down the whole system.
"Turkish officials claimed a third incident on Monday, when an unidentified MiG-29 fighter
jet locked its radar for four and a half minutes on eight Turkish F-16 jets that were on patrol
on their side of the border, in apparent preparation to open fire."…
This is a wake-up call. Moscow is indicating that there's a new sheriff in town and that Turkey
had better behave itself or there's going to be trouble. There's not going to be any US-Turkey
no-fly zone over North Syria, there's not going to be any aerial attacks on Syrian sites from
the Turkish side of the border, and there certainly is not going to be any ground invasion of
Turkish troops into Syria. The Russian Aerospace Defence Forces now control the skies over Syria
and they are determined to defend Syria's sovereign borders. That's the message. Period."
My guess is the Russian Air Force has a few more "messages" up its sleeve…
OIFVet, October 10, 2015 at 2:20 pm
There are no Russian Mig-29s in Syria.
blert, October 10, 2015 at 2:33 pm
The 'mistaken' Russian penetrations into Turkish air space are designed to 'brush back' the
Turks. ( Baseball term: a pitch is thrown very close by the batter to get him to inch away from
the plate. )
And it has suceeded. While not given much publicity in the Western press Erdogan has been injecting
his air force directly over Syria - about 30 kilometers - give or take.
He has also deployed SAMs rather foreward, too.
The net effect has been to drive Assad's air force out of the skies all along the border.
But, much further south, Syria is a total desert with but one river running through it, the Euphrates.
So Erdogan's play has been effectively shielding ISIS from Assad's pitiful air force. ( All downed
pilots are assassinated via torture by the fanatics.
Putin is terminating Erdogan's gambit.
Putin is simultaneously protecting the Kurds - as Erdogan can't beat them up any more with his
air force. One can reasonably expect that 'somehow' the Kurds will experience a shift in fortunes
- as Putin becomes their devious patron. He'll want to arm them in such a manner that Iran and
Iraq don't 'kick.'
That should now be easy. He can over fly ISIS turf from the Caspian sea - spitting weapons out
the back window like Zardoz, when over Kurdish positions. (1974, Sean Connery)
Jesper, October 10, 2015 at 8:29 am
The US has stopped doing strategy so while short term victories can be had the long-term is
only obtained by chance…. The ones in US with strategies are the ones who are pursuing personal
strategies, those strategies sometimes happen to align with US interests.
& to be seen as a reliable ally (and therefore an ally wished for) then a country needs to back
up their allies even(!) when times get tough. Russia is doing that in Syria. France is doing that
in Mali: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-13881978
UK & the US has been doing the same numerous times throughout history, Maybe even the backing
of the current regimes in Afghanistan & Iraq would fall into the category of backing up an ally,
or maybe those are more 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'.
blert, October 10, 2015 at 2:50 pm
Both Obama and Clinton are big into 'triangulation.'
Meaning that they are too clever by half - and ALWAYS mistake domestic political tactics and tricks
for viable gambits in international affairs.
With Bill Clinton you had a president that spun on a dime, famously flip-flopping four times in
a single day on this or that domestic issue.
With Obama you have a president that just CAN'T accept and adopt - straight out - ANY recommended
policy suite proferred by his own professionals. Instead, he runs it by Axelrod and the other
spin smiths - gauging it for domestic and media impact.
He really thinks that he's the smartest man in Washington, and that his 'play' has been brilliant.
He is a bit perturbed that the rest of the world is not following his scripts.
His 'clever' scheme to use the CIA (et. al.) to sustain a proxy anti-Assad army has blown up like
a Roadrunner gag.
The jibes from Putin and others are particularly irritating.
No-one now is kissing his Islamic ring.
( Yes, his marriage ring is ornately inscribed with Islamic iconography. Google around for it.
He's worn it since Harvard, long before Michelle.)
binky Bear, October 10, 2015 at 3:45 pm
Not only deeply informed but a telepath to boot. How fortunate to be near-omniscient, and to
support so deeply such complex arguments with provable facts.
blert, October 10, 2015 at 6:01 pm
Where have you been ?
Clinton's 'triangulation' was a term of art brought up largely by himself.
As for the proxy army… Now even the AP is willing to 'fess up.
The big error in the AP article is dating it to 2013. The project was started even earlier.
Telepath ?
Reading their local press did the trick. You will find Indian and Pakistani English language publications
hitting right on target - realities that 'elude' the NY Times.
This. The most infuriating part about Obomba is the smug "smarter-than-you" certainty he
has. He was a community organizer and one-term state Senator but somehow he started sniffing all
the farts the sycophants were wafting his way about just how clever he really was. Then he installed
a bunch of also-smart groupthinker Berkeley-ites from the "duty to protect" and "humanitarian
bombing" crowd, Chanel-suited exceptionalist egomaniacs who thought they were Kissinger (Samantha
Powers, Hilary, Susan Rice et al.)
BHO thought he could triangulate and "out-clever" everyone on everything, from health care,
where he managed the worst of all worlds that fattened Big Insurance AND screwed up the cost of
care…to Wall St where he fattened TBTF AND screwed up Dodd-Frank. In the ME he thought he could
cleverly play all sides off against each other, the Turks, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Israelis,
the Saudis... and stunningly also al-Qaeda themselves were just another co-optable pawn.
But as Warren Buffet says "when the tide goes out you can see who's swimming naked". Tide's
heading out…and as far as I can see the Russia/Iran/Iraq/Israel/Syria/Kurd team, with Brother
China, fed-up Pakistan and resurgent India backing things up, is looking pretty good. Sclero-Europe
has long ago ceded their sovereignty and relevance, LatAm as usual is absent from consideration…what
am I missing?
Unfortunately after the Hilary coronation we'll have another serial "third way" triangulator
in charge who never saw a war, arms program, or covert adventure she didn't like. Except when
she didn't like it, which was right after she did like it, and right before the previous time
she didn't like it.
Good article… gives (from all I've read elsewhere) good, accurate context to what's going on
now, and why (IMO) Putin's actions make sense. That is, if "solutions" (eg. ending blood shed,
restore sustainable stability) in Syria is the objective.
I'm also struck by some retrospective considerations, beyond what author (with limited space)
hits very generally (eg: Brzezinski/Carter). In particular, all the secret prisons and indiscriminate
detentions by BushCo (torture), much of it seemingly continued by BO. And, the "unintended" consequences
of that.
Reading Wikipedia's
bio on al-Baghdadi this morning, seems he was a very well educated cleric (doctorate in both
Islamic Studies and Education) even well after Bush's Iraq adventure began. He was non-descript,
low key… seems little evidence he had violtent inclinations:
"I was with Baghdadi at the Islamic University. We studied the same course, but he wasn't
a friend. He was quiet, and retiring. He spent time alone. Later, when he helped found the
Islamic Army, Mr Dabash fought alongside militia leaders who were committing some of the worst
excesses in violence and would later form al-Qaeda… [but] Baghdadi was not one of them, I used
to know all the leaders (of the insurgency) personally. Zarqawi (the former leader of al-Qaeda)
was closer than a brother to me… But I didn't know Baghdadi. He was insignificant. He used
to lead prayer in a mosque near my area. No one really noticed him."
This bio also says this (which I didn't know):
Bakr al-Baghdadi was arrested by US Forces-Iraq on 2 February 2004 near Fallujah and detained
at Camp Bucca detention center under his name Ibrahim Awad Ibrahim al-Badry[22] as a "civilian
internee" until December 2004, when he was recommended for release by a Combined Review and
Release Board.[24][29][30] In December 2004, he was released as a "low level prisoner".[22]
A number of newspapers and cable news channels have instead stated that al-Baghdadi was
interned from 2005 to 2009. These reports originate from an interview with the former commander
of Camp Bucca, Colonel Kenneth King, and are not substantiated by Department of Defense records.[31][32][33]
Al-Baghdadi was imprisoned at Camp Bucca along with other future leaders of ISIL. (emphasis
added)
Would be hugely informative to have a means of cross checking records (if they exist?) of U.S.
detainees as "illegal combatants", their violent "proclivities" prior to incarceration, and how
many of them became Jihadists after release. The utter injustice of this, in the face of nothing
more then an invasion and occupation of Iraq… this cause & affect is ignored and unacknowledged
by leadership/policy makers on our shores. And making "exception" for these policies guarantees
the continued disastrous results, ad infinitum.
Global conventions against torture have stood for a long time, with a strong moral grounding…
based on understanding, that abrogating them WILL produce the kinds of results we've seen, expanding
like dominoes.
Somehow, someway… if U.S. is ever to get on a course other then collapsing from within, this
stuff needs to be examined thoroughly and cut out of public and official "acceptance" like the
cancer that it is.
The problem with any bio on al Baghdadi is that the CIA// Pentagon has re-used that name//
title over and over. This is topped off by the fact that the Muslims use that nome-de-guerre over
and over, too.
So one is always left puzzling over whether this or that reference is getting crossed over
with yet another al Baghdadi. The Pentagon, itself, admits that they have made that exact error
many, many, times. They've 'killed' al Baghdadi numerous times - only for another elusive al Baghdadi
to pop up.
Some analysts contend that the name is really more towards a title - just like Caesar. After
he died, all of his successors were so labeled. The only folks that seem to have the slightest
clue about what's up are the desert Arabs. (Jordan, KSA, Kuwait - and the Awakening Movement in
Iraq.)
Everyone else is 'stupid' - counter-informed - like Dr. Zbig. What a gas bag. Dangerous, too.
I don't think it's useful to refer to "al Baghdadi" as a "nom de guerre." It's a nickname,
"the guy from Baghdad," in a culture where names are rather indeterminate. OK, I'm not an Arabic
linguist, but I know that a guy may be known by some of his friends as "Son of X," by others of
his friends as "Father of Y," and by others as "Abdu al [insert attribute of Allah]." I think
this makes it problematic for many Americans, who are not known for language ability.
Actually, adopting a 'nom de guerre' is extremely popular for the fanatics.
1) Like all super heros, they don't want blow back upon their non-combatant family members.
This is especially evident with their infamous executioners. But the tic is not at all limited.
2) The fake persona permits the jihadist easy travel when outside the war zone. Many of the
fanatics are claiming to flit to and fro - from America to Syria - with grace and ease. This ease
of travel was confirmed by an elderly German journalist, (75) who visited ISIS. They scared the
Hell out of him. It also terrified him that he could, himself, flit from Germany to Syria, with
little to inconvenience him. (!) It was all too easy. Yikes !
In his opinion, the fanatics are shuttling all over the place. Current border controls are
wholly ineffective with these players. If a slow moving retiree can make the transit, that's telling.
Interesting things are happening with Russian involvement in Syria. Are we seeing the global
balance of power tip before our eyes? The U.S. is losing it's sole hegemony status and that could
be a good thing if Washington can realize this and accept that and adopt diplomacy and cooperation
to maintain what position it still has instead of denial followed by escalating aggression.
A reborn Russia/Iran/Iraq/Syria alliance could check the brutality of the current U.S./Israel/Saudi
Arabia/Turkey axis. Have seen articles that Iraq is impressed with Russian effectiveness against
U.S. funded ISIS that is creating chaos in Iraq, and they may ask Putin to do the same thing there
he is doing in Syria. Wonder if O's ego can handle that?
Even signs that some in Europe see Russia is helping them by intervening in Syria and connecting
the dots, as in "WTF are we doing hurting ourselves pissing off Russia in service of U.S.?"
With all that going on, I was dumbfounded seeing headlines that the U.S. is preparing a major
naval challenge to China's islands, as if we don't have enough conflict on our hands already.
"If either of them makes so much as a nervous twitch towards the Syrian frontier, the
oil price will return to the level Russia wants, and needs."
""This is because [President Vladimir] Putin has told [Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu
that Israel can count on a no-threat zone running from Damascus south and east to the Golan."
Those are a couple of very interesting points that look win-win for Russia. Especially with
the Saudi and Turkish regimes having internal problems as well.
Here's an analysis from the other side of the aisle:
The bone I'll pick with it is that the 'far' position taken is "negotiated settlement". The
U.S. and Saudis appear over-extended and thus under-committed. Russia has advanced a Knight, and
S-400's and cruise missiles are discomforting if NATO tries to advance the Queen of overwhelming
air power (see the Stratfor map of U.S. vs Russian air strikes). When the BATNA is a win-win,
all negotiations are just plays for time.
Stratfor totally lost me with their fantasy Free Syrian Army schtick. It does not exist.
That scribe is pipe dreaming. Absolutely no-one in the field identifies with the FSA. Not.
A. One.
The FSA = al Nusrah = al Qaeda in Syria. The re-labeling was invoked so that BHO could
send weapons to al Nusrah… the player that currently has snapped up EVERY weapon the President
sent into the fight. Most recently that's meant TOW missiles.
Go to YouTube to see countless jihadi videos uploaded showing how al Nusrah has been driving
Assad into retreat.
The rest of the article is pure jibberish… counter-factual… aka lies.
This is an especially important post, as it is all but impossible to gain a balance in analysis
or reporting from the press in the United States on the Russian initiative and engagement in Syria.
Stratfor is great reading…polished and confident, always written with a hint of being' in the
know' , and yet is less useful as a forecasting tool than a dart board (without any darts). Also
amusing is to wonder about the irony of the president's Nobel peace prize and what effect the
fear of the resurfacing of the irony/hypocrisy each time the president engages the country in
yet another "conflict". If you imagine the president being issued a certain number of conflict
cards at the beginning of terms, well, they must be used judiciously….especially when one has
that damned prize to think about. Wonder if that's another reason the Russians got to go Russian
in Syria first.
Good lord. Stratfor is well-known as politicized propaganda machine that works in concert
with large multinational corporations to further their interests in foreign countries. It's not
a secret.
Russian operations in Syria began right before Bibi was due to visit Moscow. Now it's a nice,
neat package to assume Russia made Israel an offer it couldn't refuse, however Putin can't make
deals with everyone. After all, he's not Donald Trump.
My guess would be that Hizbollah will be rewarded for their support and be able to keep the
arms they get from Russia. Israel will simply have to stay out of southern Lebanon for good. That's
going to be a tough one for the Jewish Taliban, with their Greater Israel project, to swallow.
Ben-Gurion may have wanted peaceful borders but it is the last thing modern Israel wants. The
Assads kept the peace on the Golan border for 40 years – fat lot of good that did them. Peaceful
borders means no excuse for Israel to avoid making peace with the Palestinians.
The question I must ask: what happens to all these Islamic fighters after they are run
out of Syria and Iraq? Only safe territory for them – away from the Russian air force – will be
US allies, like Jordan and Arabia. Hamas is not as extreme as ISIS, however the Palestinian
situation becomes more extreme every day. Could ISIS end up working with the Palestinians?
Israel, with its excuse of no peace partners, may end up with enemies from hell. Even if
ISIS doesn't take up the Palestinian cause, it still has to go somewhere. Seems the chickens will
come home to roost.
Bibi and al Sisi romanced Putin once Obama showed his colors. The President intended to take
America down a peg… okay… many pegs. Instead, the down-pegging has occurred to himself.
He's now totally ineffective in foreign affairs. He is scorned and ridiculed… universally.
Interesting. But I wouldn't hand Putin the victory cup just yet.
Suppose that Obama just decides to flood Syria with weapons? Anti-tank, anti-air, medium-range
missiles with cluster bombs that can hit the Russian bases… America may not have any sense of
long-range strategy but we are very good at breaking things, and our leaders throw fits and take
it personally when their plans go awry…
Of course giving all sorts of advanced weapons to the mostly jihadist Syrian 'rebels' would
in the long run certainly cause a lot of blowback to the United States, but that's never stopped
us before…
I suspect that the Kurds and Houthis, as well as the Shia in KSA's oil producing regions will
suddenly find excellent source of weapons, plunging Turkey, KSA, and the emirates in quite the
chaos.
The issue is moving the weapons. Jordan's border is open desert. Iraq is warming to the Russians
with an active war zone along the border. Israel doesn't want weapons running through their territory
without control. The water is locked up, and Lebanon is full of Hezbollah.
After today's events, who knows where Turkey is?
Where is the money coming from? Americans aren't brining up Syria on the campaign trail except
to note they were opposed to intervention. The Saudis are suffering from low oil prices and their
own quagmire.
U.S. air superiority is based on air superiority, not anti-aircraft weaponry. Afghanistan
and Syria are radically different much like Vietnam and Iraq were different. It's much easier
for the Russians to supply their bases than in Afghanistan where they had to rely on helicopters
flying around mountain valleys.
Advanced weaponry will be seen by Russian eyes in the sky and can be hit by missiles from
the Caspian apparently. I hate to break it to you, but the U.S. R&D budget has been wasted on
projects like F-35 and contracting fraud.
Besides the shale operations, the overextended KSA is now in trouble, particularly with rising
domestic oil consumption and internal Al-Saud family dissent growing.
Then there is the appalling poverty that may no longer be alleviated with oil revenue subsidies.
In the 1980s the Saudis matched CIA spending for the mujaheddin 1:1, which really made a huge
difference. If the US wants to launch a proxy war on Russia in Syria, and wants the Saudis to
help pay for it, it may find itself with a disintegrating KSA, one where the oil fields are in
predominantly Shia areas. Blowback might be putting it quite mildly.
There are only 10,000 non-wealthy Saudi men and only half are of fighting age. The House of
Saud doesn't have a great faction to stand for the regime if anything were to go to South. I'm
sure the Hajj stampede and crane collapse aren't sitting well with the king in the hospital. From
the rumors, King Fahd's party are trying get to retake power. Fahd was pals with the old man Assad.
The Royal Guard is roughly the size of the national army, so there are two separate armies
in Saudi Arabia with separate Com and structures which demonstrates the lack of faith in the army.
Costs aside, I wonder if the real aim is to keep much of the Saudi military as possible occupied
I stead of at home where they can cause trouble. With only 30,000 or so members, the House of
Saud can be replaced at any old time.
Why does my Spidy Sense tell me that the foundation of the Saudi oil ministry policy of
continuing to flood a depressed market with low cost oil was a secret agreement between Obomber
and the Saudi ruling family? The plan was to bankrupt Russia by a two-pronged attack- the fraudulent
US sponsored sanctions based upon manufactured reality events in Ukraine and the Saudi capacity
to control the marginal price of oil. The carrot offered by the US was a piece of the action in
the trans Syrian gas pipeline- and continued protection against internal opposition.
Worked about as well as most US foreign policy "initiatives". Wouldn't it be ironic if
the end game was the overthrow of the decadent Saudi ruling family and a post revolutionary Saudi
Arabia in the Russian/Chinese axis?
What I fear from all this is a 'Caliphate' extending from Mosul down around Basra (got to give
those Sixers credit,) and on into The (Former) Kingdom. Ben-Gurions' Arab 'splintered' states
could come back to bite his successors as one big confederation of "The Faithful."
It's the Iran deal. After that, nothing else really matters to the Saudis.
The low oil price was never co-ordinated with anybody.
It's targets are - in no particular order:
Assad
Iran
Russia
American frackers
The Saudis have been disrupting Iranian oil exports to Asia - by under cutting them on price
and quality.
Until Obama released the Shah's old deposits ( my how they have compounded into real money
) Iran was going insolvent.
Saudi Arabia wants Putin to suffer - as he's the patron of Assad - of whom they hate the
most. Low crude pricing has pounded the Russian ruble. Putin's crew is also going insolvent. The
flight capital out of Russia is relentless.
American frackers represent a dire strategic threat to the Saudi clan. Such methods have every
prospect of making Saudi oil an insignificant resource.
For, on the math, fracking ( like flotation cells a century ago ) figure to increase the resource
base – – crude recoveries - by a factor of one-hundred.
That last figure may astonish, but it's true. All this time drillers have discovered vast oil
deposits - that were too thin to work - with vertical bore holes. Some of these thin deposits
don't actually need fracking, per se. They just need the super accurate aimable drilling tips
America now produces.
The kicker - on the economics - is that such thin deposits are extensive. So if you punch down
- you are sure to hit the strata - to strike oil - about 100% of the time. Your only risk is if
this or that effort is not quite what you hoped for.
Such resource economics are entirely upside down from conventional drilling. They strongly
resemble the economics of coal mining. Everybody is uniformly 'lucky.'
The total amount of 'thin strata' oil in the ground is staggeringly larger than all conventional
deposits. The Saudi royals know this. The general public does not.
It's against the economic interests of any of the players to level with the press or the public.
Everybody is lying about everything to everybody else. This behavior is classic - typical of mining
everywhere. When was the last time you heard a gold miner telling all where he'd found a massive
strike ?
Why does the US need to be in the Middle East at all. We can just buy oil from the lowest cost
supplier and have it shipped over. What am I missing here?
Contracting fraud, where the real money is made. It was never about oil, just contracts
and egos. Oil has to be sold at an honest price for a variety of reasons, but I can't judge a
cruise missile's price behind a veil of secrecy.
Heck if we wanted to we wouldn't even have to ship it over. What's the fun in that though?
Yay, capitalism where no one ever gets to lift the stupid veil!
Then there is the natural failing of leaders domestically who search for scapegoats. Half
of the foreign policy pronouncements are full of whispered hisses of "China." Don't pay attention
to me. It's those red Chinese and their currency manipulation.
It's not that much different than medieval kings who blamed jews for the ills of society. Oh
sure, we have tablets and Facebook, but we are still the same people after all these years.
The currency manipulation thing always makes me laugh. Good Lord, what do they think the Fed
does when it lowers and increases interest rates and what QE did to the dollar?
People WANT a scapegoat though. They want to believe that it's someone else's fault. Our domestic
leaders are giving the people what they want, a culpable body, when playing the blame game.
The Russian expeditionary force in Syria is indeed highly vulnerable, but only if the Western
Bloc wants to risk a major war. Now the Western Bloc can prevail against Russia, at any level
of escalation, albeit at mounting risk. Nobody should expect today's Russia to be able to match
the might of the Western Bloc.
But the Russian government indicates that they are willing to go to war, even if they know
in advance that they will lose that war. Willingness to lose means willingness to fight, and the
willingness to fight is a crucial element in deterrence.
In both Georgia and Ukraine, the Russians have physically demonstrated their willingness to
go to war wherever NATO tries to expand into any more of the former Soviet republics. There is
no question of Russian credibility as far as NATO expansion into former SR's is concerned. That
means war, period.
Syria's importance to Russia lies in the fact that it's Russia's only ally that is not territorially
contiguous to Russia. If Russia is to retain any real sovereign capacity to make or preserve meaningful
alliances abroad, then they must support the Syrian government, even if a military deployment
there is precarious.
Russia was very slow to engage in direct intervention in Syria. For years, Russia confined
its efforts to political support, technical advice, and resupply of the existing Syrian arsenal.
Russia even disarmed Syria of its chemical weapons, in a failed effort to mediate the conflict.
However, Russia's long reluctance also means that their current action is long-considered.
A government that is slow to go to war is usually a government that will fight hard in that war.
I expect the Western Bloc will presume that they can prevail through politico-economic
attrition against Russia. They probably can. However, the longer this complex regional war in
the Middle East continues, the more likely things are to veer off unpredictably. The real
God of war is neither Athena nor Mars. It's Tyche.
Patrick Smith wrote an interesting article that was published in Salon on October 6th, I recommend
it as worthwhile reading and food for thought. An extract:
… "In my read, Russia and Iran have just popped open the door to a solution in Syria. All
the pieces are in place but one: Washington's capacity to acknowledge the strategic failure now
so evident and to see beyond the narrowest definition of where its interests lie. This brings
us to the paradox embedded in those questions Putin and Zarif and a few others now pose: American
primacy is no longer in America's interest. Get your mind around this and you have arrived in
the 21st century."
"The CIA began a covert operation in 2013 to arm, fund and train a moderate opposition
to Assad. Over that time, the CIA has trained an estimated 10,000 fighters, although the number
still fighting with so-called moderate forces is unclear.
The effort was separate from the one run by the military, which trained militants willing to
promise to take on IS exclusively. That program was widely considered a failure, and on Friday,
the Defense Department announced it was abandoning the goal of a U.S.-trained Syrian force, instead
opting to equip established groups to fight IS."
Even this AP story is largely inaccurate. The CIA had been active even before 2013. It's original
proxy army went rogue and is the cadre for al Baghdadi's ISIS horror show. ONLY NOW is the MSM
breaking the story that is idiot obvious across the Middle East. ZeroHedge is comparing this to
Bay of Pigs II.
No kidding -- Both involved CIA proxy armies that had no operational security to speak of.
Both were authorized by the Oval Office. And we know how much BHO admires JFK.
This article's quotes from various foreign quarters are informative, but its characterization
of American strategy is a bit "breathless."
The US maintained a fairly hands off approach to Syria over the past few years on the advice
of Israel. In essence, the US didn't have a dog in that fight, and the general intention was to
allow the regime and its enemies to weaken each other interminably.
Obama's empty threats about chemical weapons were a mistake, of course. But the Russians helped
him out of that one. And in some way, they are helping him out again. The blitzkrieg success of
Sunni/ISIS took observers by surprise, and all those gruesome beheadings seem to call for something.
But again where is the real strategic value of Syria? Every sensible Syrian who can is on his
way to a new life in Europe.
While the article's author seems to wish to ridicule him, Brzezinski is right. The US has stupendous
firepower, more than the rest of the world combined. But as we have seen, that does not guarantee
success in every situation, and is hardly effective if half-hearted.
By the way, the Israelis could "take out" Assad any time they wish to. They could as well probably
cripple the Russian force in Syria in a day, if they chose. But they do not prefer the consequences.
It is important to get Russian viewpoint especially since most Americans are monolingual.
Also, it is hard for us not to root for the home team. Still Syria is a gigantic SNAFU. It is
so far beyond incompetence it has to be purposeful. This is the ultimate expression of the Shock
Doctrine. Collapse Russia and gain control its energy resources at the risk of exterminating
Homo sapiens. Russia will do well for a while carving out enclaves for the minority Shiites, Christians
and Alawites then they will in a tough slog of fighting Sunni Arabs in a regional Holy War.
There are 1.6 billion Sunni Muslims. Want-to-be Jihadists will flock to Syria to fight
the Russian Crusaders. Barrack Obama has already warned Vladimir Putin of a quagmire. His continued
arming the Sunnis is a purposeful act to ensure this. World War III starts when Russia shoots
down an American aircraft on a combat mission over Syria.
Give the Russians some credit for finesse. All they need do is shoot down an Israeli jet
attacking a Syrian government position in support of some Syrian "Moderates" near Damascus. I'll
be watching for a Russian campaign to rid the Syrian skies of 'Western' drones. That would be
a sign of serious intentions on the part of Russia.
Another possibility is a peaceful change of leadership within Assad's Syrian government. Does
anyone know if there is a suitable successor to Assad Jr. in the 'family?' Such an event would
remove even the fig leaf presently being waved in front of the West's attempted rape of Syria.
So I was hoping that the Russians would go in there and kill ISIS and then they turn around
and start killing the rebels trying to kill Assad, who ISIS wouldn't mind killing as well. So
much for wishful thinking which last I noted hasn't worked well in war except when called dumb
luck, which is fortunate weather events never anticipated by anyone.
Well it sort of makes sense that if you have an enemy with an army and they threaten you, enough,
you kill them. Unfortunately for allies of the US, it doesn't really matter that much for the
US long as the Petrodollar, the gift of Nixon and Kissinger is the reserve currency. If all the
Syrian draft dodgers go to Germany, well that will serve Volkswagen right, not to mention make
Greece and Hungary thinking so while any minute I'll look good telling the Netherlands to go for
it with my Insurodollar.
Well it sure did work out well about that Euro. And things would be great if it was actually
oil coming from the 3,900 drill rigs, if it was oil instead of leaky ass methane wrecking the
climate even more than oil getting burned things would be better. A 4,000 dollar CNG gas tank
that takes up the trunk makes batteries look good.
But who knows what all since piddling around has halfway or a third worked out, so far.
It's not how many nukes you have, but who uses them first, if you have them see. They didn't
really have them till the end of the second world war, which was a war, still, and why I call
what's in store next for us an apocalyptic riot.
If only capitalism was working and Russia was just offered a land transit corridor for a price
to Sevastopol? So what if they get to access more better in the Black Sea, It's Black right?
Remember the Zaporizia! Remember that Hunter Biden! Remember Antares! Remember Christophe de
Margerie and the drunk that got there just in time for a plane that never crashes except for the
other one that was shot down! And remember thinking too much, since what you know is lots of lies,
and the rest is cowardly, or stupid.
This is a very dangerous gambit for Russia. The USA and allies represents overwhelmingly
stronger alliance economically, politically and technologically.
Notable quotes:
"... And finally, overall
tribalism and chaos in the region helps the US, and particularly Israel gain strength in the region
by weakening neighbors, ..."
"... We will see fewer conventional offensives
in the future, and far more localized attacks, the Pentagon will try and create another Afghanistan ..."
"... While US military doctrine these days is set to avoid direct confrontation, on the other
hand America and citizens in the West have been primed for it. Consider that most Americans, have
been brainwashed substantially to believe Vladimir Putin has already invaded half a dozen countries.
As crazy as this sounds, pretend you live in small American town and you listen to CNN or Fox before
bed every night. This potential, to be dragged into a wide conflagration set up by Washington, is
why you see Vladimir Putin making very conservative and precise moves on the stage, he told Sputnik. ..."
"... given all we have seen since 9/11, it would take a fairly major incident
to excuse such a confrontation ..."
In September 2014, Kenneth M. Pollack, a former CIA intelligence analyst, proposed a plan entitled
"An Army to Defeat Assad." The CIA analyst envisaged the creation of a US Syrian proxy army that
would take over the Syrian government forces (and deal a blow to Islamic State). However, the toppling
of Bashar al-Assad was marked by Pollack as the overriding priority.
"Once the new army gained ground, the opposition's leaders could formally declare themselves
to represent a new provisional government. The United States and its allies could then extend
diplomatic recognition to the movement, allowing the US Department of Defense to take over the
tasks of training and advising the new force – which would now be the official military arm of
Syria's legitimate new rulers," Pollack elaborated.
In January 2015, the Pentagon announced that it kicked off a plan aimed at training Assad's opposition
fighters, strikingly similar to that offered by Pollack in September 2014. So, nothing hinted at
any trouble until September 30, when Russia suddenly threw a wrench in Washington's ingenious plan.
"To get to the root of the current crisis in Syria and the Middle East overall, we must look
at US policy overall," Germany-based American political analyst Phil Butler explained in an exclusive
interview to Sputnik.
"The current divisions within Syria and Northern Iraq are to a degree fabricated. Secular,
religious, and even tribal differences in this region have been leveraged for centuries to divide
Syria, as well as other nations in the region. You've mentioned Ken Pollack, and appropriately,
I might add. Pollack, who's held many official positions within the Washington policy making establishment,
is actually one of the authors of chaos in this region. Discussing such "bred" academics is a
deep well, but suffice it to say the division of Yugoslavia, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan,
the Arab Spring overall, the Georgia war, and the current Ukraine mess are all facets of the same
flawed gem of US hegemony," the analyst told Sputnik.
According to Butler, the current mission in Syria is not intended to be a splintering as we saw
with Kosovo, in the Balkans.
"As for the 'plan' in Syria, I believe there were 'contingencies' mapped out. As amoral as
these schemes may be, they are not concocted by idiots. Contingency 1, in my view, was the literal
overthrow of Assad. Vladimir Putin's moves, Russia's, have thwarted this potential at every turn.
Contingency number two obviously involves another Yugoslavia in the making. And finally, overall
tribalism and chaos in the region helps the US, and particularly Israel gain strength in the region
by weakening neighbors," the political analyst stressed.
Meanwhile, Western reputable media sources have reported of an upcoming offensive on Raqqa, ISIL's
"capital," the Pentagon is preparing to launch along with its Arab and Kurdish military allies.
However, Middle East Eye reported on October 14 that there is no sign of such preparations on
the ground: "The US-led anti-IS coalition dropped 50 tons of weapons to the newly created Syrian
Arab Coalition on Monday in the Hasakah province, in order to avoid angering Turkey. But so far,
no US weapons can be seen on the frontlines close to Raqqa, nor any sign of rebel troop preparations."
"The reason we have not seen these latest weapons shipments being used, is the complexity of strategy
on the ground has changed. No standing force, Al-Nusra, ISIL, or other jihadists put together, could
withstand Russian air power. I believe we are about to see Assad's opposition morph their strategy
to full guerrilla warfare as was the case in Afghanistan. We will see fewer conventional "offensives"
in the future, and far more localized attacks, the Pentagon will try and create another Afghanistan,"
Butler explained commenting on the issue.
However, in contrast to the US' covert war against the USSR in Afghanistan, there were no US jet
fighters in the region and thus far, no threat of a direct confrontation between the two global powers.
Today, there are many military "actors" in the skies of Syria and Iraq. Does it mean the Pentagon's
Afghani strategy may unexpectedly transform into a direct confrontation between US/NATO and Russia?
"As for the threat of direct confrontation between the US and Russia in Syria, the possibility does
exist. In this case however, I believe such a confrontation is actually another contingency for Washington,"
the American political analyst underscored.
"While US military doctrine these days is set to avoid direct confrontation, on the other
hand America and citizens in the "West" have been primed for it. Consider that most Americans, have
been brainwashed substantially to believe Vladimir Putin has already invaded half a dozen countries.
As crazy as this sounds, pretend you live in small American town and you listen to CNN or Fox before
bed every night. This potential, to be dragged into a wide conflagration set up by Washington, is
why you see Vladimir Putin making very conservative and precise moves on the stage," he told Sputnik.
"Having said this, given all we have seen since 9/11, it would take a fairly major incident
to excuse such a confrontation," Phil Butler concluded.
After failing to set new Afghanistan for Russia in Ukraine, it looks like Syria is on the mind
of Washington strategists as a suitable replacement. The problem is that ground forces are not
Russian.
"... From one fiasco to another: Washington has failed to change the regime in
Syria, failed to effectively fight ISIS, and now wants Russia to fail. At
the same time, Obama appears to be willing to arm any anti-regime fighter
who can carry a gun. What could possibly go wrong with that? ..."
From one fiasco to another: Washington has failed to change the regime in
Syria, failed to effectively fight ISIS, and now wants Russia to fail. At
the same time, Obama appears to be willing to arm any anti-regime fighter
who can carry a gun. What could possibly go wrong with that?
CrossTalking with Philippe Assouline, Marcus Papadopoulos, and Roshan
Muhammed Salih.
"... The professor noted that some analysts are convinced that Vladimir Putin is about to sell out
Donbass, eastern Ukraine, in return for Syria. According to Cohen, it is naïve to believe that
Moscow would give up ethnic Russians suffering from Kiev's hostilities in return for protecting
Assad ..."
"... [Ukrainian authorities are worried] that Washington may kind of forget Ukraine or lessen
its commitment to the Kiev government. So, I would not be surprised if Kiev stages a
provocation to inflame the crisis which is at a very low level at the moment in Ukraine, ..."
"... if Washington continues to indulge the neocons' plan
to arm Ukraine and encourage Kiev's warmongering against Russia, the United States will finally
face an equivalent of the Cuban Missile Crisis in Eastern Europe. ..."
"My hope is that [US President] Obama and [Russian President] Putin will rise above themselves
and form a substantial coalition in Iraq and in Syria. But let's be realistic… There are enormous
obstacles," Professor Cohen noted in an interview with US progressive political commentator
Thomas Carl "Thom" Hartmann.
The professor noted that some analysts are convinced that Vladimir Putin is about to sell out
Donbass, eastern Ukraine, in return for Syria. According to Cohen, it is naïve to believe that
Moscow would give up ethnic Russians suffering from Kiev's hostilities in return for protecting
Assad. "That won't happen," the professor underscored.
... ... ...
"It [the Ukrainian crisis] could flare up at any moment in a way that could disrupt any
fragile agreement between Putin and Obama," the professor stressed.
According to Cohen, the US-backed regime in Kiev is sweating bullets about the possibility of
close cooperation between Moscow and Washington in the Middle East.
"[Ukrainian authorities are worried] that Washington may kind of forget Ukraine or lessen
its commitment to the Kiev government. So, I would not be surprised if Kiev stages a
provocation to inflame the crisis which is at a very low level at the moment in Ukraine,"
Cohen warned.
Meanwhile, the grim specter of World War III is prowling across Europe and the Middle East.
Professor Cohen has repeatedly stressed that if Washington continues to indulge the neocons' plan
to arm Ukraine and encourage Kiev's warmongering against Russia, the United States will finally
face an equivalent of the Cuban Missile Crisis in Eastern Europe.
This is how neocolonialism works: "global village' wants to move to "global town", while global
town mercilessly exploits it.
Notable quotes:
"... There is also an important factor: several million Ukrainians work in Russia and in Europe. Comparing,
they see that life in the European Union is more comfortable. And this also affects their geopolitical
preferences . Finally, most of the residents of Ukraine, especially in the center and the west of
the country perceived the reunion of the Crimea with the Russian Federation as an occupation of part
of their country. And in relation to the events in Donbass the propaganda has convinced many people
that it was not a rebellion against the new regime in Kiev, but Russia's aggression. Unfortunately,
revanchist sentiments towards our country in Ukraine can last for a long time. I would even say that
it is impossible to exclude the possibility of war between Russia and Ukraine. At least today it
is bigger than zero. And even 2 years ago this assumption might seem an absurd fantasy. ..."
"... Yes, there are still strong illusions of average Ukrainians in relation to Europe. Many people
think that joining the EU and NATO would quickly help Ukraine improve the living standards of the
population, to solve social problems and so on. Others, more realistically minded Ukrainians, think
like this: yes, we know that Europe will not solve our problems, but we have no other choice. Now,
Russia, if not an enemy, is at least an unfriendly state. And they do not believe in the economic
prospects of the alliance with us. ..."
"... public consciousness in Ukraine is largely irrational. Ive already talked
about the persisting illusions of Ukrainian men from the street. It seems to him that only the West
is able to protect Ukraine from the Russian aggression . This explains such a persistent and irrational
focus on Europe. ..."
"... it seems to me that the real percentage of Ukrainians who
are in favor of strengthening cooperation with Russia on the territories controlled by Kiev is
not much higher than what was revealed by the survey. ..."
Most citizens of "independent" Ukraine are disappointed with Maidan, but they still believe in
Europe
The public consciousness in Ukraine continues to amaze with its irrationality. This is confirmed
by the poll conducted by the International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES).
Despite the fact that the majority of Ukrainians acknowledge that Euromaidan did not meet their
expectations, a dominant sentiment in Ukraine is in favor of the pro-Western geopolitical course.
49% of respondents are of the opinion that Ukraine should better strive to deepen relations with
Europe, while the percentage of those who prefer a closer relationship with Russia is only 8%.
At the same time 56% of Ukrainians believe that the country is moving in the wrong direction,
and only 20% hold the opposite opinion. The notion that the country is moving in the wrong direction
is spread across the country and is shared by the majority of citizens in each region.
The survey was conducted on the territory of Ukraine, controlled by the Kiev government, without
regard to the views of some four million people living in the LPR and the DPR.
It would seem that in the last eighteen months Europe has demonstrated that it is in no hurry
to recognize Ukraine as its "own". Western aid is given precisely in those volumes that prevent the
final collapse of Ukraine's statehood. At the same time, due to the influx of Western goods and severance
of economic ties with Russia hundreds of Ukrainian enterprises are closed. The latest news in this
regard: in Ukraine it has become unprofitable to produce even sugar leading to the closing of 15
sugar mills.
The situation in the post-Maidan economy of Ukraine is much worse, however it has not affected
the unrequited love of Ukrainians to the West. Why is this the case and what will be the outcome?
- We must understand that the process of Ukraine's reorientation to the West began long before
the Maidan, - says the Head of the Center for Political Research of the Institute of Economics,
Head of the Department of International Relations of the Diplomatic Academy of the Russian Federation
Boris Shmelev. - For a quarter century that has passed since the collapse of the Soviet Union,
more than one generation of Ukrainians has grown who are convinced that it is necessary not to be
friends with Russia, but with Europe. That only this friendship with the West will ensure the prosperity
of Ukraine.
There is also an important factor: several million Ukrainians work in Russia and in Europe. Comparing,
they see that life in the European Union is more comfortable. And this also affects their "geopolitical
preferences". Finally, most of the residents of Ukraine, especially in the center and the west of
the country perceived the reunion of the Crimea with the Russian Federation as an occupation of part
of their country. And in relation to the events in Donbass the propaganda has convinced many people
that it was not a rebellion against the new regime in Kiev, but Russia's aggression. Unfortunately,
revanchist sentiments towards our country in Ukraine can last for a long time. I would even say that
it is impossible to exclude the possibility of war between Russia and Ukraine. At least today it
is bigger than zero. And even 2 years ago this assumption might seem an absurd fantasy.
"SP": - Why a year and a half since the "February coup" have not convinced Ukrainians that
the EU is not going to make Ukraine a member state and that the West is helping Kiev only to the
extent that the pro-Western regime does not collapse?
- Yes, there are still strong illusions of average Ukrainians in relation to Europe. Many people
think that joining the EU and NATO would quickly help Ukraine improve the living standards of the
population, to solve social problems and so on. Others, more realistically minded Ukrainians, think
like this: yes, we know that Europe will not solve our problems, but we have no other choice. Now,
Russia, if not an enemy, is at least an unfriendly state. And they do not believe in the economic
prospects of the alliance with us.
"SP": - But it is impossible to escape the logic: as long as Ukraine maintained relatively
good relations with Russia, the situation in the Ukrainian economy was more or less tolerable. And
as soon as Kiev finally turned towards the West, the economy began to crumble ...
- All this is true. But public consciousness in Ukraine is largely irrational. I've already talked
about the persisting illusions of Ukrainian men from the street. It seems to him that only the West
is able to protect Ukraine from the "Russian aggression". This explains such a persistent and irrational
focus on Europe.
"SP": - And can we explain such a low percentage of Russian sympathizers by the fact that some
respondents, especially in the South-East of Ukraine are afraid to openly express their opinions?
- Yes, it is possible. Although, it seems to me that the real percentage of Ukrainians who
are in favor of strengthening cooperation with Russia on the territories controlled by Kiev is
not much higher than what was revealed by the survey.
"When the media outlets in any country fail to challenge power, not only are they not part of
the solution, they become part of the problem."
That is the conclusion, unfortunately correct. Most media are part of the problem. Mary R marked
another problem with media: Who are their clients? The advertisers or the readers/viewers?
"It is a corrupt form, in which incumbents and special-interest groups shape the rules of the
game to their advantage, at the expense of everybody else: it is crony capitalism."
Well, maybe. But the alternative, idealized non-corrupt form has probably never existed in the
actual world - ever.
Even if it did exist for a little while, it wouldn't last. You know what happens when people compete?
Some people *win the competition*. And the winners acquire the power to make the rules, since there
is no way of separating wealth from power. The tendency toward oligopoly, monopoly and the concentration
of power is inherent in the normal functioning of capitalism. The ideal of maintaining some regulated
perfect competition economy in which the playing field is perfectly level and none of the competitors
has an institutional power advantage, is like trying to create a Monopoly game perpetually frozen
in place at the first roll of the dice.
Even if we had a perfect, perpetual balanced competition economy, it wouldn't be great, because
life is about more than the struggle for victory and domination. The laissez faire nostalgists are
still working to fit a 18th and 19th century mentality and reality into a 21st century world. A society
based on free-wheeling entrepreneurial innovation, competition and exploitation might have made sense
in a world of a few hundred million people moving out into the open spaces to exploit a planet filled
with resources that earlier technology had been unable to acquire or use. But in our tight, crowded
and environmentally stressed world, that no longer makes sense. We're going to have to get more organized
and less competitive.
Most intelligent people in the 20th century had gotten this. Then we in the US had a bit of a
neoliberal holiday from history when we offshored industry elsewhere (along with its organized labor),
and had a brief turbo period of high octane capitalism driven by financial games and services. But
that era ended in 2008, and we're back to dealing with the inexorable crunch of history on a finite
globe.
Great observation: "the alternative, idealized non-corrupt form has probably never existed
in the actual world - ever."
In a way free press is an ideal which can temporary exists when there are two countervailing
forces of equal political power. So in a way free press can exist temporary in a very unstable
society. So some level of suppression of "free press" is a norm. That does not mean that it this
suppression should not be challenged. But the political stability of society probably requires
a certain level of brainwashing and thus "unfree press".
But existence of nation states with conflicting interests presuppose existence of some semblance,
surrogate of "free press" coverage across the borders. like in court the testimony of each side
should be given equal attention, for most people it can provide some minimal level of "alternative
coverage" of major events.
I noticed that despite GB being a vassal of the USA, British press provides much better, more
realistic picture of major problems in the USA society and even better, more realistic coverage
of both foreign and some, less connected with GB geopolitical interests, internal events such
as presidential elections. If you add to your menu the press from "less friendly" states such
as Iran, China and Russia you probably can be dig out some real information about events despite
for of disinformation of MSM. Coverage of MH17 tragedy is the most recent example were relying
of the USA MSM coverage would be totally unwise. Even The Guardian is a better deal.
In the USSR Voice of America and BBC were great sources of information despite the fact people
understand that they are government propaganda outlets. But since agenda of the USA and British
government were different they still were valuable source of information about internal events
and developments in the USSR.
And I would dare to say the level of propaganda in coverage of foreign events today that we
see in the USA MSM would let Pravda propagandists blush.
Julio said in reply to likbez...
Good observations. My own experience is that coverage in other countries often has a
different perspective, and I feel more informed after viewing it. Even CNN in Spanish often
provides somewhat different viewpoints!
My favorite example is the runup to the Iraq war. To my surprise, the most balanced and
informed articles I could find were in English versions of Iranian newspapers.
pgl said...
The ideal:
"Inquisitive, daring and influential media outlets willing to take a strong stand against economic
power are essential in a competitive capitalist society. They are our defense against crony capitalism."
Our sad current situation:
"When the media outlets in any country fail to challenge power, not only are they not part
of the solution, they become part of the problem."
Yes - many of the current media outlets are bought and paid for by the elites. That was his
point!
I suspect reliance on advertising revenue is the larger factor (and it is also a large factor
in consolidation). Advertisers (and the corporate/business clients they represent) want to reach
audiences likely to be convinced to buy the advertised products and services. This will work to suppress
any "content" that is incompatible with ad placement or the ad's target audience, or not palatable
to the ad client.
Even "progressive" outlets are subject to this and have to at least tone down the controversy,
i.e. self-censorship.
A strong, independent press would be a fine thing. Looking at the huge crowd of journalists
who are so far in the tank for Clinton, it isn't obvious to me that corporatism is that big an
issue. Did you see that Cheryl Mills was working at State while negotiating a deal for NYU with
Abu Dhabi?
Where is the press scrutiny/outrage over that? Journalism yawns!
While at State, Clinton chief of staff held job negotiating with Abu Dhabi
By Rosalind S. Helderman
likbez
The first victim of war is truth. Similarly the first victim of neoliberalism (aka casino capitalism
aka crony capitalism) is press.
This nice dream of "free press" is incompatible with reality of neoliberal society which, is
its core is a flavor of corporatism. Under corporatism free press exists only for people who own
it.
btg said... October 18, 2015 at 08:04 PM
The problem is the the media is no longer a variety of owners with integrity but an
oligopoly of Wall Street conglomerates or mega-media corporations run by ideologues pushing the
agenda (Murdock, talk radio, etc.) - so we get coverage that is either gutless because it
tries to give equal time to patently absurd right wing ideas, is rabidly pro-business or actively
pushing for the right.
Ben Groves said...
All capitalism is crony. From the beginning through the 400 years of dialectics since
1630's Amsterdam when the Iberian Sephardic Immigrants brought it there.
DeDude said... October 19, 2015 at 07:08 AM
A strong press, in contrast to a corporate press, can indeed be a critical part of the
defense of our democracy. But it can also be an enemy of democracy and a tool for the plutocrats
- try to turn on Fox if you need an example.
"... if you can explain any single interest of Russia to
destroy civilian plane and kill 300 innocent people to gain public support from world, then I
am curious to know it; sure, in totally crazy scenario, somebody can orchestrate it all and
motivate somebody to target 777 by mistake or there can be some special services for false
flag, but I am sure that this is absolutely risky business with the same bad PR as first
case; far more, I can imagine, that somebody stupid tried to modulate it upon MH370 case media
wave while escalating warfare and hate of somebody else; truth will be known, soon or later,
be sure ..."
In October, the BUK manufacturer conducted a second full-scale experiment using the missile
and a decommissioned Ilyushin Il-86 passenger airliner. The simulation of the attack on the
Boeing "unequivocally proved that if the plane was brought down by a BUK system, it was done with
an outdated 9M38 missile from the village of Zaroshchenskoye," in Ukrainian military-controlled
territory.
The company also said that the last missile of this type was produced in the Soviet Union in
1986, that its life span is 25 years including all prolongations, and that all missiles of this
type were decommissioned from the Russian Army in 2011.
According to Almaz-Antey experts, the Dutch side does not explain why the investigation insists
that the possible launch of the surface-to-air missile was executed from the settlement of
Snezhnoye, controlled by rebel forces.
A missile launched from Snezhnoye could not have inflicted damage to Boeing's left side and not a
single element would have hit the aircraft's left wing and engine, insist the Almaz-Antey
experts.
... ... ...
The main proof that the aircraft was shot down from the direction of Snezhnoye was [the Dutch
commission's] modeling of that process and interpretation of the damage to the fuselage. It does
provide a quite visual imagery of how a missile on a head-on course could damage certain areas,
yet this kind of modeling does not explain at all the real-incidence angles of striking elements
[hitting the aircraft]," Novikov said.
Analysis of the photos of MH17 debris led the company's experts to believe that the blast of the
warhead damaged not only the cockpit of the Boeing 777 that crashed in Ukraine, but also the left
wing and stabilizer.
The detonation of the missile occurred at a distance of more than 20 meters from the left-wing
engine and most of the strike elements were moving along the fuselage of the aircraft.
... ... ...
The left wing and stabilizer also bear traces of damage, the size of which provides an
opportunity to define them as inflicted by the strike elements of a BUK missile complex," adviser
of the general constructor of Almaz-Antey, Mikhail Malyshevsky, said.
The Almaz-Antey experts paid special attention to the fact that some of the damage registered on
the MH17 debris was caused by disruption of the aircraft's structural components and not by the
striking elements of the missile.
The experts of Almaz-Antey also said that Ukraine possesses 9M38 missiles, but fell short of
accusing either the Kiev authorities or the rebels in the east of Ukraine of causing the
catastrophe.
... ... ...
Simultaneously with the investigation of the Dutch Safety Board, the Dutch prosecutor's office
is conducting a separate criminal investigation of its own aimed at establishing the perpetrators
of the attack on passenger aircraft.
A Malaysia Airlines Boeing-777 flight MH17 passenger aircraft left from Amsterdam to the
Malaysian capital of Kuala Lumpur on July 17, 2014. The airliner was shot down and fell to Earth
over the Donetsk Region in eastern Ukraine. All 298 people, 283 passengers and 15 crew, on board
were killed. There were 80 children among the passengers. Most, 193 people, were Dutch nationals;
altogether the airliner was carrying citizens from 10 countries.
djajakondomis 4 days ago 06:12
As I said. Just read the report and supplements! The specified area consists mainly out of
Rebel area...
Almaz-Antei director Yan Novikov was involved during the investigation. There were even
three main/big meetings, and every meeting took three days!
At the second meeting Almaz-Antei director Yan Novikov even presented the 9N314M warhead
himself. The investigation team was even happy that there was consensus. On the third meeting
Yan Novikov suddenly said; well, it was only an example we presented.
However, based for instance on the butterfly shape, the whole research team (of all
countries) were convinced it was a 9N314M warhead, except suddenly the Russian delegation.
This investigation was based on the parts found within the bodies!! Not something found on
the ground or whatsoever...
Read the report!
Sergio Teixeira 4 days ago 02:05
hanspy
Show me the video from the blast and ad a speed of let us say 2000 kmh from the
rocket(probably
higher speed) plus 700 kmh from the plane and tell me than again how it looks. A blast
with zero kmh speed looks totally different than a blast patron with 2700kmh or more. You
Russians know exactly who did it and with what rocket and from where. So stop playing
around and start to be real journalists and not some propaganda machine from Putin or
Almaz-Antey .
next they will say Sadam did it.
Sergio Teixeira 4 days ago 02:04
Af Veth
Whatever, anyway Russian Forces downed MH17. Thats was it counting.
not Russian but CIA to justify they needs.
Sergio Teixeira 4 days ago 02:03
Message deleted
EU is slave from USA
vladffff 4 days ago 01:03
Took these rats 1 year to find this out?
alrobigglesworth 5 days ago 21:01
"[Almaz-Antey] added that among the materials received and examined by their experts
were heavy fraction sub munitions, which only the older 9M38M1 missile modification is
equipped with."
That's a direct quote from the RT article from June 2015 regarding Almaz-Antey's first
test.
alrobigglesworth 5 days ago 20:32
After their first "experiment" in June, Almaz-Antey said that "If a surface-to-air missile
system was used [to hit the plane], it could only have been a 9M38M1 missile of the BUK-M1
system." Why is he changing his story, especially now that the Dutch Safety Board reached the
same conclusion? Seems fishy.
Petr Antoš 5 days ago 17:45
hanspy
Show me the video from the blast and ad a speed of let us say 2000 kmh from the
rocket(probablymore...
ummm, ok, they even offered to buy old 777 a let it be downed while flying on AP over
military area to proof their analysis; if you can explain any single interest of Russia to
destroy civilian plane and kill 300 innocent people to gain public support from world, then I
am curious to know it; sure, in totally crazy scenario, somebody can orchestrate it all and
motivate somebody to target 777 by mistake or there can be some special services for false
flag, but I am sure that this is absolutelly risky business with the same bad PR as first
case; far more, I can imagine, that somebody stupid tried to modulate it upon MH370 case media
wave while escalating warfare and hate of somebody else; truth will be known, soon or later,
be sure
hanspy 5 days ago 17:28
Show me the video from the blast and ad a speed of let us say 2000 kmh from the
rocket(probably higher speed) plus 700 kmh from the plane and tell me than again how it looks.
A blast with zero kmh speed looks totally different than a blast patron with 2700kmh or more.
You Russians know exactly who did it and with what rocket and from where. So stop playing
around and start to be real journalists and not some propaganda machine from Putin or
Almaz-Antey .
Norma Brown 5 days ago 15:04
this is a good result for Russia, as the only government involved that can be sued for
criminal stupidity is Kiev, for allowing the flight into a war zone.
After MH17 was shot done all intelligence services of NATO (with a lot of high tech) as well as
Ukrainian SBU (with a lot of people on the ground; enough to monitor all major roads) were on alert.
So the hypothesis that they were unable to locate the launch platform is a very weak hypothesis. It
was next to impossible for rebels to move it from Snizhne to, say, Russia. This is a serious problem
with version that it was BUK, unless it was a Ukrainian BUK.
Looks like Snizhne was pushed as a smoke screen to deflect attention from Ukrainians.
Notable quotes:
"... The US release of this illustration (below) of the area lacks resolution
and scale, so no launcher can be seen. The firing location and the green line
of trajectory are unverified guesswork. The US has not presented evidence that
on July 17 a Buk-M1 battery was in Snizhne. ..."
"... the Russian evidence
for a Ukrainian military launcher at Zaroshchenske puts the distance between
this pre-firing location and the purported Snizhne launch position at less than
25 kilometres. ..."
Russian generals Andrei Kartapolov (Army) and Igor Makushev (Air Force)
have presented
satellite pictures showing that on or before July 17 the Ukrainian military
moved at least three Buk-M1 missile batteries – comprising a tracked launcher
and a target acquisition radar van – out of their depot north of Donetsk, and
into positions, all of which were within 30 kilometres of the Boeing's flight
path; the SA-11's range is 30 kilometres. One unit in particular was
photographed at the village of Zaroshchenske, south of the bigger settlement of
Shakhtarsk, and south of the main road H21. This position is about 15
kilometres from the M17 flight path and from the impact site.
The Russian
location evidence can be seen on this Google map:
The US release of this illustration (below) of the area lacks resolution
and scale, so no launcher can be seen. The firing location and the green line
of trajectory are unverified guesswork. The US has not presented evidence that
on July 17 a Buk-M1 battery was in Snizhne. But the Russian evidence
for a Ukrainian military launcher at Zaroshchenske puts the distance between
this pre-firing location and the purported Snizhne launch position at less than
25 kilometres. There is also a gap of several hours between the time of
the Russian photograph and the confirmed firing time at 1720. Between the two
locations, highway H21 would allow a mobile launcher unit and radar van to
redeploy within 45 to 60 minutes.
The Russian radar tracks identify the presence of a small Ukrainian aircraft
with Su-25 identifiers on the Boeing flight path, and within range of the
ground missile launcher within minutes of the shoot-down. The US intelligence
briefing neither confirms nor denies the presence in the air of the Su-25; no
US satellite or radar records have been released to corroborate the point.
Instead, the US briefing denies the Su-25 fired rockets at the Boeing.
Responding to the Russian radar presentation, President Petro Poroshenko
told CNN the presentation was the "irresponsible and false statement of the
Russian [defense] minister". Poroshenko appeared not to be familiar with the
Russian radar evidence. He said: "When the Russian [Defense] ministry makes
such a statement, it must provide proof. The sky over Ukraine is monitored by
many satellites and air defense systems. Everyone knows that all Ukrainian
planes were on the ground several hundred kilometres away [from the crash site]
"... The Syrian government maintains a commitment to a strong welfare state, for example ensuring
universal access to healthcare (in which area its performance has been impressive) and providing
free education at all levels. It has a long-established policy of secularism and multiculturalism,
protecting and celebrating its religious and ethnic diversity and refusing to tolerate sectarian
hatred …" ..."
"... Yes, Walter Cronkite remarked in his autobiography on the harmonious secularism of Syria
from an actual visit, in which he said he noted various religious denominations living in
one another's neighbourhoods with no apparent religious acrimony or intolerance at all.
..."
"... The USA is determined to get control of the gas supply to Europe because it perceives that
Russia has too much influence there because of said supply, as well as the popular trope
that Russia has nothing but oil and gas and if the USA could capture their markets, they'd
be paupers in a year. ..."
"... 12 headline stories listed. None about the Ukraine, MH17 and Syria. ..."
"... Parubiy, who founded the Social National Party of Ukraine together with Oleh Tyahnybok (the current
leader of the far-right Svoboda party), will be speaking at RUSI whilst visiting London. ..."
"... I remain convinced that the army of humanitarian interventionists fetishise 'democracy promotion'
abroad largely to avoid looking at how it's playing out at home. ..."
" … The new constitution introduced a multi-party political system in the sense that
the eligibility of political parties to participate isn't based on the discretionary permission
of the Baath party or on reservations rather on a constitutional criteria.
As such, the new constitution forbids political parties that are based on religion, sect
or ethnicity, or which are inherently discriminatory towards one's gender or race (2012:
Art.8) – this means the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood is still banned.
What hasn't changed is the constitutional requirement that half the People's Council
be comprised of 'workers and peasants' (1973: Art.53 | 2012: Art.60), which in practice
means that the ballot paper contains two lists, one with candidates who qualify as 'workers
and peasants', and another one with other candidates …
… The Baath party no longer enjoys constitutional privilege. Presidential elections are
contested between multiple candidates, and are no longer referendums seeking the electorate's
binary (yes or no) approval for the Baath party's internally nominated candidate.
The participation of political parties is based on an objective constitutional criteria
[sic], not on the arbitrary powers of the executive to permit or exclude them.
Finally, the Supreme Constitutional Court is significantly more independent."
Another interesting article on Syria, this one by Carlos Martinez in 2013:
" … In the words of its president, Syria is "an independent state working for the interests
of its people, rather than making the Syrian people work for the interests of the West."
For over half a century, it has stubbornly refused to play by the rules of imperialism and
neoliberalism … [In] spite of some limited market reforms of recent years, "the Ba'athist
state has always exercised considerable influence over the Syrian economy, through ownership
of enterprises, subsidies to privately-owned domestic firms, limits on foreign investment,
and restrictions on imports. These are the necessary economic tools of a post-colonial state
trying to wrest its economic life from the grips of former colonial powers and to chart
a course of development free from the domination of foreign interests."
The Syrian government maintains a commitment to a strong welfare state, for example ensuring
universal access to healthcare (in which area its performance has been impressive) and providing
free education at all levels. It has a long-established policy of secularism and multiculturalism,
protecting and celebrating its religious and ethnic diversity and refusing to tolerate sectarian
hatred …"
So in other words, there is now no longer any justification for the US-led overthrow
of Bashar al Assad because he is a "dictator".
Yes, Walter Cronkite remarked in his autobiography on the harmonious secularism of Syria
from an actual visit, in which he said he noted various religious denominations living in
one another's neighbourhoods with no apparent religious acrimony or intolerance at all.
I have suggested before that Assad doomed himself when he refused Qatar's offer to run a
gas pipeline across Syria and so to Turkey and Europe, for the expressed reason that he
would not stab Russia in the back, and double-doomed himself when he accepted a similar
offer from Iran, with whom Russia has no issues because it is not under American control.
The USA is determined to get control of the gas supply to Europe because it perceives that
Russia has too much influence there because of said supply, as well as the popular trope
that Russia has nothing but oil and gas and if the USA could capture their markets, they'd
be paupers in a year.
Unbeknown to Western know-nothings about matters Russian, very many Russians are well aware
of the lies spewed out by the Western mass media: the same cannot be said of Westerners and their
knowledge of what Russians read in their media.
I notice that in the British lying rags, the Ukraine has been pushed off the front page, as
has the MH17 story and now Syria is being shunted to the sidelines.
Nothing to see here! Move along now!
In today's Telegraph, a German big-game hunter's shooting of a massive bull elephant overrides
a Syria story on the front online page. MH17 and the Ukraine gets no mention at all.
Today's headlines:
Scenes of devastation as huge mudslide strikes California leaving thousands stranded
Hatton Garden raider 'shows police where he hid jewels'
'Half empty' private jets carry failed asylum seekers home
SNP accused of 'happy clappy smothering' of second Scottish independence referendum debate
Pc Dave Phillips murder: two women and a man charged with assisting offender
12 headline stories listed. None about the Ukraine, MH17 and Syria.
Parubiy, who founded the Social National Party of Ukraine together with Oleh Tyahnybok (the current
leader of the far-right Svoboda party), will be speaking at RUSI whilst visiting London.
Всего в период с 1 апреля 2014 г. на территорию Российской Федерации въехало и не убыло по состоянию
на указанную дату 1 089 618 граждан юго-востока Украины.
Just in the period starting 1 April 2014, into the territory of the Russian Federation have
entered and not left as of a specified date 1,089,618 citizens of South-East Ukraine.
I remain convinced that the army of humanitarian interventionists fetishise 'democracy promotion'
abroad largely to avoid looking at how it's playing out at home.
Mark Adomanis became a turncoat and defected to the "dark side". Some problems for Russia are
given. Still it is pretty valiant attempt in view of the dominance of the USA in world economy
and, especially, finance. Also this is form of economic attack of EU: some European firms lost
Russian market "forever". So far American firms are fared better but Coca-cola, Pepsi, chicken
producers, and McDonalds might suffer.
Some very
intelligent people saw this coming a long way off, accurately predicting that heightened
tensions with America and the European Union would empower precisely those areas of the Russian
economy that the West wants to see weakened
... ... ...
From the second quarter of 2014 through the second quarter of 2015, the ruble value of
Russia's imports decreased by almost 30% (the ruble value of exports, meanwhile, actually
increased). That's actually not terribly surprising. When a currency depreciates as much as the
ruble has over the past year you would expect imports to take a significant hit.
But what has happened to domestic manufacturing? Has Russian business stepped into the space
vacated by Western goods that are no longer affordable to many Russian consumers?
So far, at least, the answer is a definite no. Official Rosstat data show that through the
first half of 2015, Russian manufacturing actually shrunk by about 2.8%. The only sectors of the
economy to show any growth were agriculture (up 2.4%), natural resource extraction (up 2.4%), and
public administration (up 0.7%). The areas of the Russian economy where private business
predominates, particularly consumer retail, have been absolutely walloped, with the overall
retail sector shrinking by almost 9% over the past six months.
... ... ...
Victor Lar 2 days ago
Russian Cheese Production Surges 30% After Ban on Western Imports: http://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/article/russian-cheese-production-surges-30-after-ban-on-western-imports/521891.html
For some reason they investigate only version of surface to air missile. Possibility of air to air
missile was not investigated. Dutch reps could attend Almaz-Antey experiments and collect shrapnel from
them. They did not do this. Also they demonstrated provable negligence in collecting evidence (Ukraine
at this point was EU vassal state and one phone call from Brussel would exclude any shelling of the
area). The question why the plane was brought to the particular area was answered "to avoid thunderstorms".
I doubt that at this altitude they can affect the plane. All this points to a cover up of Ukrainian
false flag operation.
"... According to the DSB, "no unalloyed steel fragments were found in the remains of the passengers".
..."
"... 20 were found on analysis to include layers of aluminium or glass. The DSB's explanation is
that the external explosion of a missile warhead had propelled these fragments through the cockpit windows
and aluminium panels of the fuselage, fusing with the glass and aluminium before striking the three
crew members in the cockpit at the time. ..."
"... The DSB conclusion is that these fragments came from a missile warhead, but not conclusively
from a Buk missile warhead type 9N314M. The evidence for this Buk warhead comes, the DSB reports, from
4 – repeat four – fragments. ..."
"... Because Buk shrapnel is understood to have such cubic and bow-tie shapes, there are just four
fragments to substantiate it. If the autopsy evidence is regarded as the only source that could not
have been contaminated on the ground, or in the interval between the crash and the forensic testing
in The Netherlands, there are just three fragments which fit the Buk bill. ..."
"... By failing to identify the location of these parts, the finders, or the dates on which they
were sent to Holland, the DSB does not rule out that this evidence may have been fabricated. ..."
Eight pages of the DSB report – pages 88 to 95 - focus on the metal fragments. The number of these
starts at "over 500 recovered from the wreckage of the aeroplane, the remains of the crew members
and passengers." Many, apparently most, of these fragments turned out to be "personal belongings,
aeroplane parts or objects that originated from the ground after impact." According to the DSB, "many
were metal fragments that were suspected to be high-energy objects." Of these just 72 were investigated
further because they were "similar in size, mass and shape." 43 of this 72 were "found to be made
of unalloyed steel". The term "shrapnel" may be a synonym for "unalloyed steel fragments", but the
word doesn't appear at all in the DSB report. According to the DSB, "no unalloyed steel fragments
were found in the remains of the passengers".
Of the 43 steel fragments investigated thoroughly - all of them recovered from the bodies of the
cockpit crew or in the wreckage of the cockpit - 20 were found on analysis to include layers
of aluminium or glass. The DSB's explanation is that the external explosion of a missile warhead
had propelled these fragments through the cockpit windows and aluminium panels of the fuselage, fusing
with the glass and aluminium before striking the three crew members in the cockpit at the time.
The DSB conclusion is that these fragments came from a missile warhead, but not conclusively
from a Buk missile warhead type 9N314M. The evidence for this Buk warhead comes, the DSB reports,
from 4 – repeat four – fragments. These, "although heavily deformed and damaged, had distinctive
shapes; cubic and in the form of a bow-tie". The DSB's exact count is two cubic shapes, two bow-ties.
One bow-tie was recovered from the cockpit wreckage; one from the body of a cockpit crew member.
Both cubic fragments were found in the bodies of the crew members.
Because Buk shrapnel is understood to have such cubic and bow-tie shapes, there are just four
fragments to substantiate it. If the autopsy evidence is regarded as the only source that could not
have been contaminated on the ground, or in the interval between the crash and the forensic testing
in The Netherlands, there are just three fragments which fit the Buk bill.
In addition, the DSB says it has examined chemical residues of the warhead explosive, and paint
particles from the surface of missile parts reportedly recovered from the ground. Exactly where,
when, and by whom the purported missile parts were found the DSB does not identify. In Section 2:12:2:8
of the report, the DSB says that "during the recovery of the wreckage, a number of parts that did
not originate from the aeroplane and its content were found in the wreckage area. The parts found
appeared to be connected with a surface-to-air missile. The parts that were suspected to be related
to a surface-to-air missile were transported to the Gilze-Rijen Air Force Base [in The Netherlands;
also reported as the Hilversum Army Base] in the same way as the aeroplane wreckage was. On arrival
the parts underwent the same examination as the pieces of aeroplane wreckage." By failing to
identify the location of these parts, the finders, or the dates on which they were sent to Holland,
the DSB does not rule out that this evidence may have been fabricated. At page 53 the DSB admits
that "many pieces of the wreckage" were either not examined physically "until four months after the
crash", or not recovered for examination for up to nine months after the July 17, 2014, downing.
"... Even though "Almaz-Antey" had informed the Netherlands board in advance that the "Buk" SAM
could have only been launched at the Boeing from the area of the village of Zaroshchenskoe (which
at the time was under the control of the Ukrainian military) and that this had been confirmed
by field tests, the Dutch coloured the launch area of the missile in a very different place on
the map. (see map). ..."
"Almaz-Antey" have accused the Netherlands of falsifying the map of where the Boeing
crashed
This time the Netherlands Commission of Inquiry has been caught lying red-handed about the
Russian concern "Almaz-Antey", which developed the "Buk" anti-aircraft missile systems. "Almaz-Antey"
has announced that a map covering the 320 square kilometer area from where a missile targeted
against the Boeing could have been launched is not only erroneous but also that the Dutch in their
report had indicated that their data were supposedly consistent with "Almaz-Antey"calculations.
That is, they covered up their concoctions with the authoritative report of the Russian company.
Even though "Almaz-Antey" had informed the Netherlands board in advance that the "Buk" SAM
could have only been launched at the Boeing from the area of the village of Zaroshchenskoe (which
at the time was under the control of the Ukrainian military) and that this had been confirmed
by field tests, the Dutch coloured the launch area of the missile in a very different place on
the map. (see map).
The US key strategy is the same as British -- to cut Europe from Russia. This time it again work
brilliantly... The fact the USA are withholding evidence implicates Kiev.
"... Because it was supposed to clearly show that rebels did it . No need to rely on social media
and other unreliable sources. Plus it was classified before ut was mentioned about. So you fake democrat
and liberal really wasn't to live in the world where you will be prosecuted on sure information that
is so secret that nobody can know about it ;) ..."
"... How guys like you can pretend to love Orwell so much? Don't you realize today the joke is on
you? ..."
"... Do you understand that this is not a regular crash incident? Based on the unsupported assumptions
there are already economic sanctions imposed and the world is gearing up for the WW3. How dumb can you
be not to notice the difference? ..."
"... Ukies shot the plane down stupidly hoping the blame will fall on Russia and NATO will declare
war on Putin amidst worldwide uproar and indignation. They now may realize they had committed murder
most foul for nothing. This kinda reminds of the play 'Macbeth'. What's done cannot be undone. ..."
"... Almost all the damage concentrated in cockpit/front fuselage. Now how does that tie to the
BUK scenario exactly? how does the damage from High energy objects conform to sharpnel from BUK especially
as there are both entry and exit holes? ..."
"... "The specific area where the fatal missile was fired is not in fact under control of the "pro-Russia
rebels". It is run by a neo-nazi private mercenary army, raised by Ukrainian billionaire Ihor Kolomoisky.
..."
"... Kolomoisky stinks of being an asset of the US and Israeli intelligence services, at minimum.
..."
"... Dutch Prime Minister Rutte had to acknowledge on TV on September 12th that the Netherlands
had refused to even communicate with the Separatist. This extreme partisan position of the Dutch government
disqualifies it from leading the investigation and has obviously hampered the investigation up till
now. ..."
"... This extreme partisan position of the Dutch government also clarifies why the role of UkSATSE
isn't questioned. ..."
"... the question 'who launched a missile' is actually less relevant than 'who created the situation
by allowing MH17 to fly there'. ..."
"... UkSATSE failed to close that airspace after july 14 whena AN-24 was downed from 6500m and only
restricted up to 10km. 6500m is beyond the man portable system range. ..."
"... The report section 2.4.3 issued by the investigation simply stated that MH17 complied to the
restrictions issued by UkSATSE. By ignoring the most obvious question the investigation was now under
serious doubt but the extreme partisan positioning as revealed by the Dutch minister put that report
in the 'beyond doubt partisan category'. ..."
"... On the other hand, if Kiev can shoot down the airliner and blame the separatists, or even better,
Russia, then they would be backed by the west. Who has the most to gain? ..."
"... Then we have an investigation where all members have to agree with the report or a single member
can veto the release, which is why they are not allowed to assign blame, and why they have not been
allowed to state anything more than they have. ..."
"... I doubt any hard evidence will ever come out, and we will have to settle for innuendo and finger
pointing, allowing the west to isolate Russia even further till the missile shield network sits right
on their borders. ..."
"... What I find a bit troubling is that the obvious conclusion -- that the plane was hit by a ground
fired missile -- isn't backed up by any intelligence. Its reasonable to think that the US's NRO is watching
the Ukraine closely so they should have been able to get almost real time confirmation of the launcher's
position and use. ..."
"... Nobody willingly takes down an airliner unless there's serious propaganda to be made from it.
So its either a serious screwup by the rebels or something rather more evil by the blackops types. (I'd
regard the latter as a tinfoil helmet theory except that we've found out time and again that these people
are capable of doing anything provided it achieves their goal.) ..."
"... Yes indeed, US satellite data is highly secret unless it backs up the US Government's claims.
I don't suppose you're old enough to remember the Cuban missile crisis and the release of all sort of
reconnaissance on the matter. ..."
"... Some suggest that an air to air missile might then be the cause of the fragmentation...but
this also is problematic, most AA missiles are not powerful enough to take out a large civil aircraft.
Many instances of smaller less well built passenger planes surviving AA strikes have been recorded...But
2 or 3 might do it..but the pilots would surely called Mayday.. They didn't, suggesting they had no
idea what hit them, ..."
"... Conclusion: Still no closer to knowing which side brought it down, whether it was just a cock
up, or a black flag. Plenty of propaganda, accusations, denials, but any real evidence so far is very
thin on the ground. ..."
"... It's funny how the press are falling over themselves to say it was definitely Russians, the
EU are desperate for it to be Russians, the Americans are desperate for it to be Russians - so when
something factual comes out that doesn't toe the expectant line they have to drop in the odd implication
and suggested line. ..."
"... the heavy coat of varnish that's clearly been applied to the Dutch Safety Board (DSB) report.
..."
"... It's clear that Kiev benefited the most from the event, and the US exploited is to the fullest
to impose sanctions on Russia before any investigation was even initiated. The reluctance of both Kiev
and the US to provide evidence required for the investigation is bound to raise questions. ..."
"... This horrible tragedy has been and no doubt will be exploited for petty political gains. I
am sorry to see even the Dutch entering this shameful game by signing that non-disclosure agreement
with one of the suspects, the Kiev government. ..."
"... Sadly this 100-year old British company has been compromised being taken over by a Canadian
company belonging to zionists. Canadian PM Harper is a blind follower of Israeli extremists. So V Putin
is enemy number one and you can't use Reuters as an unbiased source once more. Russia has had to up
its game recently in the Arctic purely because Harper has become aggressive to please the US. ..."
"... Kiev Russian-speaking soldiers disguised as Donbass security forces ( rebels ) could have driven
a Buk into the Donbass, fired the missile and then driven back, making sure to be seen by foreign journalists
( Ukraine is a huge country, how come the journalists were on the same spot at the right moment to see
the Buk driving around ? very convenient..) ..."
"... The US and Israel both have motives to shoot the plane down. They had been convicted of war
crimes in KL last year and their cases sent to the ICC in Holland. MH17 was also full of Dutch passengers
- right ..."
"... Plus, the ukraine airforce is in a bad state due to lack of funds. So the US and Israelis were
providing assistance, also Poland and Lithuania, of pilots and equipment. No-one knows who was piloting
the two Su-25s detected by Russian radar. ..."
"... I did not speculate on why the pilot did not want to climb. It make no difference. By refusing
the order the pilot assumed responsibility for the fate of the plane. Civil aviation pilots have no
right to refuse orders of competent ground authorities and still enjoy the protections granted by international
treaties to civil aviation. ..."
"... I don't understand your statement about the report says there was no abnormal communication
. Are you contesting my claim that the pilot refused an order to climb up just minutes before being
hit? I'm basing my claim on what I read in previous articles in the Guardian on this. It could be wrong.
I wasn't there personally. ..."
"... Since the Ukraine has veto power over publication of the findings, this whole investigation
is a whitewash. Why isn't Russia part of the investigation with veto power? Giving one of the suspects
in a crime the ability to block publication of the findings is ludicrous. ..."
"... I am quite sure that bullets are high energy objects but the Western media seems to ignore
that possibility, as it would implicate Ukraine, which has veto power over any publication of findings.
..."
"... Just a little tip. Don't ever use anything that comes out of the Kiev offices. It is all 100%
unbelievable. All of it. ..."
"... All of this is just speculation. Question 1: where are the Satellite images of that area at
that exact time? Question 2: where are the audio transmissions between the crew and the flight towers?
Question 3: why did the BBC remove its own segment that was done shortly afterwards where they had people
on record stating that they had seen a jet flying behind if? Question 4: who ordered the BBC remove
its own segment? Question 5: If the pilots where shot at by a 'jet' as is believed by many - what about
the autopsies of the pilots? Were any done? What did they find. Question 6: if a BUK missile had taken
it down how come there was not a trail from the missile? These missiles do leave a rather distinctive
trial behind them that is seen for kilometers. Question 7: who ordered the plane to fly lower than was
deemed safe for that area? So many questions and so little facts… Perhaps they questions do not fit
the narrative? ..."
"... The mere fact that the United States MSM has dropped this topic like a hot potato (compare
CNN coverage of MH17 with the endless coverage of MH370) and the complete lack of verified NATO or US
or CIA satellite data implies that the Russians were not at fault here. ..."
Because it was supposed to "clearly show that rebels did it". No need to rely on social
media and other unreliable sources. Plus it was classified before ut was mentioned about. So you
fake democrat and liberal really wasn't to live in the world where you will be prosecuted on sure
information that is so secret that nobody can know about it ;)
How guys like you can pretend to love Orwell so much? Don't you realize today the joke
is on you?
Shaneo -> DELewes 15 Sep 2014 04:55
Ok, but John Kerry claimed to have seen the imagery of the launch, so you don't need to say
'likely' launch site.
Ask to see this imagery and we will know where the launch site is.
Will you do this?
And does it not make you suspicious that this imagery is being withheld?
Antidyatel -> ShermanPotter 15 Sep 2014 03:46
Do you understand that this is not a regular crash incident? Based on the unsupported assumptions
there are already economic sanctions imposed and the world is gearing up for the WW3. How dumb
can you be not to notice the difference?
I will give you a better example. The PRELIMINARY report by FEMA on 9/11 was released in May
2002 - that was very heavy in terms of pages and released in May 2002 (8 months after the event).
It was heavy in terms of pages and contained data not only about 4 planes and 3 buildings. It
was quite detailed in terms of TECHNICAL data.
There is absolutely no reason to withheld the factual data for public analysis. Particularly
in this situation. The facts about the event will not change. Or should I stress on it - the already
available facts SHOULD not change no matter how commission will later interpret them.
Antidyatel 2meters 15 Sep 2014 03:19
Calm down with Su-25 theory. Even if Russian MoD was implying possible culpability of that
plane, they didn't make the direct accusation. The whole mentioning was less than a minute out
of the whole 30 min presentation, in which the main focus was on 4 Ukrainian BUKs in the area.
Just from this proportion one can asses the priority of the versions that Russian MoD was considering.
So stop fighting windmills, my Don Quixote!
Antidyatel 2meters 15 Sep 2014 03:12
First of all, where did you get the data about 55 km?
Even the latest modification of BUK-M2. While everyone is talking about BUK-M1. More to this,
it is mainly claimed that a stand alone 9A310 unit was witnessed. It has FIRE DOME radar with
max engagement range of 35 km (some sources limit it to 32 km)
So your convinced part goes down the drain!
Second, do you understand that the maximum radar range represents a radius of a 3D sphere?
For the target flying at 10 km the relevant projection on the 2D map will be 33.5 km.
Let's stop at this for now.
2meters Antidyatel 15 Sep 2014 02:19
And NO. And SU-25 fighter jet cannot "gain an altitude of 10km" as the Russian Defense Ministry
asserted on July 21.
According to its specification its altitude ceiling is 7 km, even though someone working Kremlin
servers changed that to 10 km on Russian Wikipedia, hours after the Russian Defense Ministry's
press conference.
What I put in quotes is EXACTLY what the Russian Defense Ministry was telling us.
MoD didn't accuse that the plane was involved.
You are not getting this, are you ?
Let me spell it out :
That SU-25 DID NOT EXIST !
Radar would have shown it, and it did not.
Even General Peter Deinekin states that probably what the Russian Defence Ministry showed on their
radar image was probably a part of MH-17 breaking off.
If the Russian Defense Ministry would have actually shown the radar timelap (video) of when
and where that dot on their radar actually appeared, then we could have all seen that for ourselves.
But they did not, since it was no SU-25. It was a part of MH-17 breaking off.
Instead they used the radar images of the PIECES of a civilian airliner that killed 298 innocent
people to create a SU-25 conspiracy and point the finger at Ukraine.
Despicable.
Antidyatel -> jimbuluk 15 Sep 2014 01:30
Is there any original source that explains the meaning behind "transponder data became unreliable
at 13:18Z"?
Where did the Aviation Herald got this data from?
2meters -> Antidyatel 15 Sep 2014 01:27
Antidytel, yes, MH-17 was probably about 35 km away from the BUK launch site south of Snizhne
when the crew pressed the launch button.
The radar range of a single BUK TELAR is at least 55 km.
At 250 m/sec, MH 17 will thus have been on the BUK search radar something like 80 sec before
they launched the missile.
Even with conservative estimates of missile flight time and path, the Snizhne BUK launch crew
had about a minute to lock on their radar, and wait for the 'target' to come into range.
Convinced now ?
Antidyatel -> ShermanPotter 14 Sep 2014 23:59
I have to disagree with you. Even preliminary technical report should contain the technical
data already available. There is no justifiable reason for withholding any information. The next
report can just add new information.
So the preliminary report should have provided:
1) Civil and military radar data from Ukraine. It is very unprofessional for them not to at
least request it from Ukraine side. If Ukraine refused to provide it, it should have been clearly
stated
2) ATC communications along the whole route of MH17
3) full transcript from voice recorder. You can't possible believe that pilots were flying
in total silence
4) Technical data from the second black box on plane parameters. Particularly the data from
gyroscope that would give the most precise data on the plane actual route
5) other critical parameters.
Seriously it is not a herculean task for a 2 months of job. They have a whole team to do it.
How unprofessional can they be to fail with such simple task?
The purpose of the preliminary report is not to give the abridged/filtered version of the data.
The purpose should be tor provide the available data but to make only PRELIMINARY conclusions.
Only in this sense it can be called preliminary.
The current report can only be described by words SELECTIVE, EDITED, FILTERED and BIASED!!!
Antidyatel -> notherLex21 14 Sep 2014 22:36
4 different BUKs in the vicinity of the crash site were detected by Russians based on these
BUKs' outgoing radar signal.
Let's consider your points:
1) BUK system captured by rebels in Luhansk region, was incomplete so the maximum radar range
was 22 km. But we can first consider the improbable scenario that Russians first sneaked in and
then sneaked our the complete set for the BUK system. Ok we can exclude the loader. So let's just
say 2 units (actual launcher and radar unit), hence temporally I can agree on 35 km.
2) If you go to google maps and estimate the distance from Snizhne (proposed location for rebel
BUK) to Krasiy Luch (FDR point) it is approximately 24 km. (version of incomplete BUK system can
already be discarded). BUK max missile speed 850 m/s. 24 km it will travel in 28 sec. BUK requires
minimum 15 sec to lock on target. So even if we assume that "best" scenario, Boeing was traveling
for minimum 43 sec before it's first appearance on BUK radar and rocket hitting it. Cruise speed
of Boeing 777 ~ 900 km/h. So we get roughly 11 km. Just nice 35 km. But this is minimum. For example,
the rocket doesn't reach 850 m/sec immediately.
The point is that it would have been an extremely "lucky" coincidence for this scenario to work.
And again I repeat, it will require the full set of BUK units, not just the launcher. The so named
"proofs" of Russians sneaking in and out such a system are so laughable that I can't understand
how people can talk seriously about it.
4) The reference to the territory held by rebels is also laughable. The total number of rebels
on that moment was ~5000. But even if we take 10,000, you will get a fraction of a rebel per square
kilometre, if we assume that they are distributed equally. In reality majority of them were concentrated
in fixed positions around Lughansk, Donetsk and Saur Mogila. also large portion of them was involved
is annihilating surrounded UA units. If UA wanted to bring in BUKs into so named rebel controlled
area there would be no problem with it.
SirDeadpool 14 Sep 2014 22:31
Ukies shot the plane down stupidly hoping the blame will fall on Russia and NATO will declare
war on Putin amidst worldwide uproar and indignation. They now may realize they had committed
murder most foul for nothing. This kinda reminds of the play 'Macbeth'. What's done cannot be
undone.
bobby_fisher ShermanPotter 14 Sep 2014 18:14
ShermanPotter -- Antidyatel
14 Sep 2014 16:09
The key is in the title it's a preliminary report...
So you basically agree that presented data is incomplete....I also hope your level of English
language comprehension will allow you to distinguish black box recordings and conversations between
civilian ATC and military command that is not in the report, and according to Ukrainian reports
was confiscated from civilian controllers.
notherLex21 jimbuluk 14 Sep 2014 16:46
when the transponder data became unreliable at 13:18Z (position N48.28 E38.08)"
The DSB
rapport-mh-17-en-interactief.pdf shows the transcript (page 15) where MH17 pilots last reply
is at 13:19:56.
Sorry, but the Aviation Herald is inaccurate.
"was enroute at FL330 about 20nm northeast of Donetsk (Ukraine) when the transponder
data became unreliable at 13:18Z (position N48.28 E38.08)"
Transponder data can't become unreliable without reason. And that reason led to the crash within
two minutes. The distance between the point the transponder data became unreliable and Snizhne
is approx 65 km, that's way beyond the range of BUK's missile, not to say about it's radar, -
less than 9 km.
ShermanPotter -> Antidyatel 14 Sep 2014 11:09
The key is in the title it's a preliminary report, that examines the technical reasons for
the crash of MH-17. In tandem is a criminal investigation.
The Preliminary report, has established that MH-17 was shot down and that immediately before
that event was operating normally with normal crew communications with ATC. The rest of what you
are talking about is for the criminal investigative team to examine and report to the Court.
Antidyatel -> 2meters 14 Sep 2014 09:46
No it is not what they were telling.
MoD didn't accuse that the plane was involved. They only stated yhe facts that there was a
potential for it to be involved. That is why additional data was requested from Ukraine to clarify.
Stark difference to blanket accusations based on tea leaves in a cup that were loaded by the list
of discredited a-holes in the beginning of your post
Antidyatel -> ShermanPotter 14 Sep 2014 08:27
For example, the missing part is the primary surveillance radar recordings. It would be expected
that if Ukraine wanted to help with investigation. it would supply not only civilian traffic data
but also the data of all military radars on that day. Not such a hard task. Report doesn't stress
on it but clearly indicates that even civil traffic data was not submitted. They could easily
reveal that data in the first few days after the incident or after the Russian MoD report and
clarify the issue with military planes in the air at that time. What prevents them from doing
it after 2 months?
Out of the whole page of those recordings only 3 lines are with MH17. Nothing of an essence.
There was absolutely no reason why not to provide the data from the moment MH17 entered Ukrainian
airspace or even from start of the flight. It would take 2-3 hours max to compile the communication
with ground control along the whole route. And they didn't need to wait even for black boxes to
do it. How unprofessional your professionals can be?
Most of the communication, that was revealed is related to communication between Dnepropetrovsk
and Rostov. No point withholding that information as Russians have the same transcript, I guess.
For MH17 the only portion of interest is 11 seconds before the disaster. This is bogus. And still
there is absolutely no excuse not to release the whole transcript of the black box, in the situation
which potentially can bring the world to the WW3. You don't joke with such things.
ShermanPotter -> Antidyatel 14 Sep 2014 05:22
So what information are you claiming is missing?
As well as that you list Page 14 also describes that Ukrainian ATC supplied radio and telephone
recordings and transcripts relating to MH-17.
The transcript in the preliminary report is just of the last few minutes of its flight before
being shot down, what more do you expect from a Preliminary report?
Antidyatel -> ShermanPotter 14 Sep 2014 04:18
Actually if you look strictly at the report specifies only 3 sources of ATC data:
1. Primary surveillance radar recorded by the Russian surveillance aids
2. Secondary surveillance radar
3. Automatic Dependant Surveillance
The explanation of the last 2 are given at the end of page 14 of the report. Which shows that
primary data from Ukrainian radars is still withheld.
The transcript provided is appearing to be incomplete. It is not like they were afraid of the
page limit. Why not to give the whole transcript? Also this transcript is strangely different
from the one given in BBC web-site
Isn't that exactly what western media and blogger and US intelligence had been telling us all
along ?
Interesting how this works with Kremlin war propaganda.
For starters, please note that General Peter Deinekin with his statement directly contradicts
the head of the Main Operations Directorate of the HQ of Russia's military forces, Lieutenant-General
Andrey Kartopolov, who started this whole SU-25 conspiracy theory on July 21 :
The Russian military detected a Ukrainian SU-25 fighter jet gaining height towards the MH17
Boeing on the day of the catastrophe. Kiev must explain why the military jet was tracking the
passenger airplane, the Russian Defense Ministry said.
and
"The SU-25 fighter jet can gain an altitude of 10km, according to its specification," he
added. "It's equipped with air-to-air R-60 missiles that can hit a target at a distance up
to 12km, up to 5km for sure."
Which opened up the floodgates for SU-25 conspiracy theorists and their accompanied anti-Ukraine
comments here in the Guardian comment sections and around the MSM.
While in fact there was no Ukrainian or any other fighter jet around.
Now, of course, the pro-Russian trolls will drop the SU-25 conspiracy theory and switch to
the next one : that Ukrainians fired that SA-11 missile.
Forgetting to look at the big picture : If the Russia or the Russian military had nothing to
do with this BUK, then why the heck were they lying through their teeth on July 21 ?
The distance between these two points is approx 65 km. Book's missile could reach 30 km. The
Book's radar reaches even less - under 9 km, That's it.
Antidyatel notherLex21 14 Sep 2014 02:25
Probably true. Which narrows down to the simple choice: was it one of the 4 Ukrainian BUKs
that were known to be in the area or an imaginary rebel's BUK.
If we go strictly and watch the 30 min presentation by Russian MoD, they never accused Su-25
to be responsible for downing the plane. They only stated the fact that the plane was detected
at that time and at that place. If they really wanted to falsely accuse ukie plane they would
not state that it was Su-25.
ShanghaiGuy -> Dunscore 13 Sep 2014 22:11
Crap, 30mm cannon fire would require a sustained burst to cause catastrophic structural failure,
audible on recorders. 30mm cannon is not typical air to air ordance, ground attack on slower aircraft
, taken some chase at high altitude. Sorry your apologists bs is a fairy story.
Ground launched AAM destroyed the airliner.
Antidyatel Hektor Uranga 13 Sep 2014 22:02
My dear Huylo Hector, immediately after the crush every theory was plausible. Each of them
had to be eliminated based on facts. The fairy tail about rebels downing MH17 had an upper habd
in first week because Kerry promised satellite images that clearly prove rebels' s culpability.
After such images didn't materialise, the statement by Kerry became discredited. He had to
be responsible for his words.
So after that any other theory gets the same footing. The assertion that UA downed the plane
became more probable after the data presented by Russian MoD. The quality difference to USA/EUROPE/Ukraine
garbage comes from first presenting all the known fact and then letting everyone else to make
a conclusion. Instead of giving a theory first and then ask to just believe. This stupid idol-worshiping
by westerners will never stop amusing me.
notherLex21 13 Sep 2014 17:17
This Russian expects it was a BUK.
Former Air Force Commander of the USSR and the Russian Army General Peter Deinekin:
"Assault can not hit the plane with their weapons, he is a slow, low-altitude. Besides his
actions could be seen on radar. And striking effect aircraft missiles are not as powerful as
in" Buck "
Shoot down the plane could altitude fighter MiG-29 or Su-27, but it at the time in that
area was not, said the expert.
karl - entrusted with propagating the disinformation campaign?
based on facts alone, there is not a single shred of evidence typing BUK launced by supposed
"rebels" to the downing of MH17. There are, OTOH< quite a few pieces pf evidence pointing to cannon
fire from an aircraft. Funny how the disinformation agents never want to draw attention to evidence
that in any way points away from their favorite scenarios.
Example: Almost all the damage concentrated in cockpit/front fuselage. Now how does that
tie to the BUK scenario exactly? how does the damage from High energy objects conform to sharpnel
from BUK especially as there are both entry and exit holes?
And what of the US intelligence evidence showing people on the ground manning a BUK and wearing
UK uniforms?
I am not suggesting that it's air-to-air or surface to air only. what we know so far may well
conform both were in action. As sedman above mentions.
As for this preliminary report it is quite a piece on work in how hard it strives NOT to point
out some pretty obvious facts.
bobby_fisher ShermanPotter 13 Sep 2014 16:42
Not so fast, you do not need records to be provided that are recorded by the black boxes
It is conversations between civilian and military ATC's that are of interest and there is no mention
of that in your link.
Secr3t krislej 13 Sep 2014 16:34
Are you still trying to convince people of this idea that an SU-25 shot down MH-17.
Maybe the Former head of the Russian Airforce and Army can convince you then?
He states quite clearly that the idea that MH-17 was shot down by an SU-25 as completely untenable,
he goes on to state that it is possible an SU-27 or Mig-29 would be capable but none were in the
area.
He also says that MH-17 broke apart in the air as a result of multiple sharpnel strikes and
that it was likely from a BUK.
And before you cry western conspiracy he stated this in Russian media.
Firing a cannon from the side (the holes show entry from the side) would not get the spread
of damage that you see, and it's unlikely that you could get that many hits in at all given how
quickly you are closing.
A SAM burst (from the kind of missile under suspicion) close to the front left side of the
aircraft would yield a somewhat evenly spaced pattern of holes, as the fragments originate from
one point and spread outwards.
The gun fires 50 rounds per second, at the closing speed, the pilot would have had perhaps
2 seconds to fire, and he got around 30% of them hitting a target moving across him at 500mph?
This theory belongs in Hollywood.
Mrg Billman 13 Sep 2014 14:19
If the Kiev regime can fire and destroy their own APC column like we seen at the begining of
the conflict I have no doubts that they are capable of somehow orchestrating a downing of a civilian
airliner.
Realworldview ShanghaiGuy 13 Sep 2014 14:10
ShanghaiGuy you need to keep up with the evidence, its not my opinion that it was shot down
by a military aircraft, but that of US Intelligence analysts, as reported in US analysts conclude
MH17 downed by aircraft .
The conclusion was that it was damaged by an air to air missile that shreds its target with
flechettes, and then finished off with 30mm cannon fire that was responsible for the circular
holes in fragments of the airframe, as these extracts show:
KUALA LUMPUR: INTELLIGENCE analysts in the United States had already concluded that Malaysia
Airlines flight MH17 was shot down by an air-to-air missile, and that the Ukrainian government
had had something to do with it.
This corroborates an emerging theory postulated by local investigators that the Boeing 777-200
was crippled by an air-to-air missile and finished off with cannon fire from a fighter that had
been shadowing it as it plummeted to earth.
In a damning report dated Aug 3, headlined "Flight 17 Shoot-Down Scenario Shifts", Associated
Press reporter Robert Parry said "some US intelligence sources had concluded that the rebels and
Russia were likely not at fault and that it appears Ukrainian government forces were to blame".
Yesterday, the New Straits Times quoted experts who had said that photographs of the blast fragmentation
patterns on the fuselage of the airliner showed two distinct shapes - the shredding pattern associated
with a warhead packed with "flechettes", and the more uniform, round-type penetration holes consistent
with that of cannon rounds.
Parry's conclusion also stemmed from the fact that despite assertions from the Obama administration,
there has not been a shred of tangible evidence to support the conclusion that Russia supplied
the rebels with the BUK-M1 anti-aircraft missile system that would be needed to hit a civilian
jetliner flying at 33,000 feet.
bobby_fisher Asimpleguest 13 Sep 2014 12:32
The plane was directed in to the war zone, specifically in to the small area, where 13 aircraft
were already blown out of the sky in just a few weeks.
It could not have happened without some interaction between civilian and military ATC's.....and
these records are completely missing, in fact confiscated by SBU"
isn't shooting down a civilian plane & blaming Putin for it a wonderful way for justifying
sanctions against Russia? venturing far into speculations (quoted journalists have done, so I
follow even if everyone here calls me an idiot).. what if someone decided to bring down a civilian
plane, to make people very angry, cause everything (the West presents) points his way? then the
result arre sanctions, and yuppie, USA can soon replace Russia as the main natural gas providor..
it's been all over the news.. and in the end, it's always about profits for the big multinationals
"The specific area where the fatal missile was fired is not in fact under control of the
"pro-Russia rebels". It is run by a neo-nazi private mercenary army, raised by Ukrainian billionaire
Ihor Kolomoisky.
"Kolomoisky stinks of being an asset of the US and Israeli intelligence services, at minimum.
He holds both Ukrainian and Israeli passports and runs his business empire from Switzerland, not
Kiev, despite being Governor of Dnipropetrovsk oblast in eastern Ukraine. His mercenary army does
possess the BUK missiles allegedly used in the shootdown of MH-17, and he has threatened terrorist
attacks on Russian-speaking officials in his oblast, and even assassinations.
"Estimated to be the second-richest person in Ukraine, Kolomoisky also has strong connections
inside Kiev's Borispol International Airport, whose air traffic control tower Ukrainian Interior
Ministry troops reportedly stormed shortly before MH-17 was shot down. New Ukrainian Interior
Minister Arsen Avakov, formerly wanted by Interpol for fraud, was the man who first designated
the east Ukraine rebels as "terrorists," which ostensibly allows him to commit any atrocity against
innocent civilians very much as Israel is doing in Gaza today.
"Furthermore, in a personal interview with the Veterans Today Tbilisi Georgia bureau chief
Jeffrey Silverman pointed shared with Engdahl the possible complicity of the Inmarsat Company
in the MH17. Inmarsat, which lists the Pentagon and US Government as major clients, controls most
international air traffic control communications systems. According to Silverman, during the earlier
disappearance of Malaysian Airlines flight MH370 the flight was "lost" due to Inmarsat turning
off their signals, and it still refuses today to release the data it has about this flight.
Look what The Guardian left out of its report - just found a more complete report of what the
Dutch chief investigator said:
ROTTERDAM: Dutch prosecutors said today they need to know where a missile that may have shot
down flight MH17 was fired from in eastern Ukraine before criminal charges could be laid.
"When we know from where it was fired, then we can find out who controlled that area," and
possibly prosecute, Dutch chief investigator Fred Westerbeke told journalists in Rotterdam.
Westerbeke said that they had not yet obtained US satellite photos of areas from which a missile
might have been launched.
"We will get them," Westerbeke said, adding that it was a "long process."
errovi 13 Sep 2014 03:07
Dutch Prime Minister Rutte had to acknowledge on TV on September 12th that the Netherlands
had refused to even communicate with the Separatist. This extreme partisan position of the Dutch
government disqualifies it from leading the investigation and has obviously hampered the investigation
up till now.
This extreme partisan position of the Dutch government also clarifies why the role of UkSATSE
isn't questioned. In the chain of events leading to the downing of the aircraft still assuming
it was a mistake the question 'who launched a missile' is actually less relevant than 'who
created the situation by allowing MH17 to fly there'.
UkSATSE failed to close that airspace after july 14 whena AN-24 was downed from 6500m and
only restricted up to 10km. 6500m is beyond the man portable system range. So why didn't
UkSATSE did not close that air space and waited till after the downing of MH17. The report
section 2.4.3 issued by the investigation simply stated that MH17 complied to the restrictions
issued by UkSATSE. By ignoring the most obvious question the investigation was now under serious
doubt but the extreme partisan positioning as revealed by the Dutch minister put that report in
the 'beyond doubt partisan category'.
Antidyatel -> Karl Brandt 13 Sep 2014 05:39
The same AP journalist claimed to see the BUK himself and even the treads inn asphalt tgat
this heavy system had left. But surprisingly he forgot to rake a photo not only of BUK but also
of treads that ge has described so vividly. Spanish traffic controller story actually less contradictory.
Shaneo -> ShiresofEngland 13 Sep 2014 03:06
Immediately after, John Kerry claimed that the US witnessed the rocket launch on 'imagery'.
So let's see it then.
sedman -> ruffsoft 13 Sep 2014 01:15
The BUK system is designed to deliver the payload from above, yes it avoids the target to get
above it, then comes down and explodes above where the cockpit would be... This doesn't explain
videos of MH17 descending intact with its right engine ablaze.
sedman 13 Sep 2014 00:52
Ukraine fighter shoots MH17 with air-to-air missile, takes out right engine. MH17 does not
break up, but heads for a forced landing. Ukraine fighter finishes it off MH17 on its way down.
But, we are lead to believe that the separatists were operating a BUK system made up of 5 separate
mobile installations, 3 radar, 1 launcher and 1 control vehicle, which is capable of identifying
B777 aircraft accurately (two transponders), then decided it would be in their interests to take
out a civilian airliner, which would, even in an idiots assessment, bring the wrath of the world
opon it. They are not terrorists, they are rebels, they are not using IEDs to blow up civilians,
they just dont want to have Kiev taking their taxes and telling them what to do.
On the other hand, if Kiev can shoot down the airliner and blame the separatists, or even
better, Russia, then they would be backed by the west. Who has the most to gain?
Then we have an investigation where all members have to agree with the report or a single
member can veto the release, which is why they are not allowed to assign blame, and why they have
not been allowed to state anything more than they have. The facts that are being released
in this report is evidence enough that the investigation is being manipulated and directed to
ensure that conclusions can not be drawn from facts, all we can rely on is speculation from the
press and comments. I doubt any hard evidence will ever come out, and we will have to settle
for innuendo and finger pointing, allowing the west to isolate Russia even further till the missile
shield network sits right on their borders.
martinusher 12 Sep 2014 23:35
What I find a bit troubling is that the obvious conclusion -- that the plane was hit by
a ground fired missile -- isn't backed up by any intelligence. Its reasonable to think that the
US's NRO is watching the Ukraine closely so they should have been able to get almost real time
confirmation of the launcher's position and use.
Nobody willingly takes down an airliner unless there's serious propaganda to be made from
it. So its either a serious screwup by the rebels or something rather more evil by the blackops
types. (I'd regard the latter as a tinfoil helmet theory except that we've found out time and
again that these people are capable of doing anything provided it achieves their goal.)
ThreeCents JCDavis 12 Sep 2014 20:56
"Everything coming from the UK and US governments is a lie at one level or another and should
be carefully investigated."
I agree very strongly. And I think the key word here is "investigation".
Ah, but who is going to do the investigating?
Well, I would favor an "Investigation Party" -- which would push hard on investigating all
manner of corruption and conspiracy, and which would campaign on that basis.
And I would favor an "Investigation Branch" of government, on the same level as the Legislative,
Executive, and Judicial Branches of government. It would be dedicated to making everything in
government NOT secret! Secrecy = Tyranny. Truth = Liberty.
Click here for more.
UncleSam404 Karl Brandt 12 Sep 2014 20:48
Whatever happened to Carlos anyway lol? I guess they couldn't locate this guy.
tanyushka 12 Sep 2014 20:12
why isn't the International Civil Aviation Organization in charge of the investigation as is
custommay in these cases?
why isn't in charge an international comission as the UN demanded unanimously?
now, if we talk about chances... the Ukranian army had six BUK systems operative at the time
of the incident while the DPR forces deny having a single one but... let's accept Kiev's claims
that there was one, the chances are 6 to 1 that the Ukraninas shot...
on the other hand, Russia claims that there was an Ukranian jet fighter close to the plane
& it isn't even mentionedin the investigation
BMWAlbert 12 Sep 2014 18:01
This seems the most likely possibility, but I wonder at the release without any backing detail,
it sounds like intended innuendo also.
William J Rood EnviroCapitalist 12 Sep 2014 17:55
Yes indeed, US satellite data is highly secret unless it backs up the US Government's claims.
I don't suppose you're old enough to remember the Cuban missile crisis and the release of all
sort of reconnaissance on the matter.
If the US government had any real evidence whatsoever, you'd have seen that rather than all
the photo-shopped social media stuff that's been going around. Lack of evidence is why CIA analysts
have refused to support the State Department's lies. They learned their lesson from the Iraq War.
Did you?
Rob711 12 Sep 2014 17:35
The shooting down scenario. Obviously they haven't picked up on some of the perfectly round
holes in some of the debris. Never mind the question of why the unfortunate plane and it's passengers
were flying over an area where 5 planes had been downed in the preceding two weeks
More propaganda, but something which hasn't been answered to my satisfaction.
So let's tread carefully and just ask a few more questions that these so-called journalists
in the mainstream media are neglecting to ask. For example: Why hasn't the US government released
its satellite pictures of the area right after the event?
Obviously the USA would have satellites watching, and did expect after it happened that the
White House would do some sort of presentation after a few days to prove who shot down MH17. They
were quick to accuse and had hoped they had the evidence which would be damning, but they haven't.
ShiresofEngland Robert Looren de Jong 12 Sep 2014 16:43
Yes, and that is disputed. Each side keeps coming up with propaganda where not one of us knows
the truth.
ps the the poster below. It isn't 'lazy self indulgence'. Saying that I do not know who done
it is a valid position, and more honest than most on here. Like everyone with any compassion I
believe that the relatives of the victims of MH17 deserve the truth, something they have thus
far not got.
Luminaire ruffsoft 12 Sep 2014 16:33
That would mean a Ukrainian jet yes? Which the russian's showed radar data proving? Just before
MH17 vanishes you can see a second trace, which the RU MOD say is a fighter jet.
Except it doesn't. The MH17 trace splits in two, because one part is the 'supposed' location
(based on the flightplan and predicted path), and the supposed SU-25 is actually MH17 as it breaks
up.
The reason this is obvious to anyone who actually does any research is that 'MH17' becomes
a square, and the 'SU-25' is a circle. In that software the circle represents a 'real' radar contact,
and the square is a predicted path - as squares always are.
If there was a jet as well there would be 2 circles and a square, because MH17 did just VANISH
so there would have been 2 'real' radar contacts.
So there was no SU-25 - but hey dont let that stop you literally making stuff up and being
'quite sure' about it.
Nicole Bresht -> krislej 12 Sep 2014 16:13
A ground missile would have caused the MG17 to explode in a fireball... seems as if the cockpit
had been shot out with an airborne cannon... not sure an SU fighter could reach needed speed/
height to pull this off.. more likely a MIG
ide000 -> ShermanPotter 12 Sep 2014 16:05
So far today we've had the SU25 shot down MH-17, and now this. You seem to be absolutely desperate
to hang this onto anybody other than Russia. Even coming up with ridiculous scenarios to try and
prove your case.
Lets be precise, Russian ministry of defense didn't reliably identify plain (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKhA50erngk
at 14:04). They claim the plain was supposed to be SU-25.
Actually I expected of Dutch experts at least to clarify whether they confirm or do not confirm
presence of military jet in vicinity of MH17.
Brian Beuken LeWillow 12 Sep 2014 15:50
I very much doubt it was a deliberate act, possibly incompetence on the part of the BUK operators...
But it was a BUK, the problem is while we can all spot the smoking gun we can't find enough
of the "bullet" to silence the doubters...so lets lay out some facts and let them make up their
own minds.
Fragmentation patterns can contain a large number of holes that appear to look like "bullet"
holes, but they are simply penetration holes
However there are a lot of holes in a small area in the MH17 pics, this is highly indicative
of a fragmentation warhead which can also explain some of the more isolated holes in other parts
of the fuselage, the fragments can spread out from the nose to the tail but the concentration
will be where the missile was closest where it exploded
Also the holes are fairly small, bullet size some may say.. But modern warplanes do not fire
bullets, they fire 30mm shells...quite devastating weapons which when fired from a moving target
at a moving target leave a very clear trail, and a normally short burst of fire.
Its logistically highly improbably that a ground attack aircraft, without a pressurised cockpit
and not designed to take out air targets, with a max ceiling of 23k ft (unloaded) could get to
a 33K ft airliner at cruising speed which is faster than the Su25's top speed..... But that's
what some want us to believe...but if it did... it has a 30mm cannon...not itty bitty machine
guns....and it would be one hell of a pilot who could get of dozens of shots in the same basic
area... (lets also not ignore the fact that the pilot would know he was attacking a civil aircraft...pilots
are generally pretty clever people, and know when they are committing war crimes)
It could have been another aircraft, Ukraine and Russia both operate high speed interceptors...but
again there's the problem with the gun.....they use cannons, not shotguns or itty bitty machine
guns.
Some suggest that an air to air missile might then be the cause of the fragmentation...but
this also is problematic, most AA missiles are not powerful enough to take out a large civil aircraft.
Many instances of smaller less well built passenger planes surviving AA strikes have been recorded...But
2 or 3 might do it..but the pilots would surely called Mayday.. They didn't, suggesting they had
no idea what hit them,
Of course, there's always the lucky shot..but I doubt that...
Iron has been recovered, many SAM's use Iron, some use steel bearings some use both....but
shells are depleted uranium....so no shells....no bullets...(bullets are not iron).
So these are facts....
Make of them what you wish...but I'm struggling to see anything other than a large SAM....I don't
know from who, or why, that's a different question...
ShiresofEngland 12 Sep 2014 15:47
The plane went down over territory held by pro-Russia rebels, killing all 298 passengers
and crew on board.
Oh I get it so the implication is........
Actually nothing as the launch site isn't known, and could just as easily been fired from Ukrainian
or rebel held territory.
A rebel officer told AP after the disaster that the plane was shot down by a mixed team
of rebels and Russian military personnel who believed they were targeting a Ukrainian military
plane. Intercepted phone conversations between the rebels released by the Ukrainian government
support that version of events.
Which might be true, but there again might not and hasn't been verified. Might be propaganda
and the source is hardly impartial.
So what do we know? Highly probable that it was a BUK which brought down MH17. Ukraine has these
weapon systems, the rebels may have captured one but how serviceable is questionable, and the
Russians may have lent one with a crew but that hasn't been definitely verified. All of them could
have been in the area, or maybe not.
Conclusion: Still no closer to knowing which side brought it down, whether it was just
a cock up, or a black flag. Plenty of propaganda, accusations, denials, but any real evidence
so far is very thin on the ground.
madjens1 12 Sep 2014 15:28
It's funny how the press are falling over themselves to say it was definitely Russians,
the EU are desperate for it to be Russians, the Americans are desperate for it to be Russians
- so when something factual comes out that doesn't toe the expectant line they have to drop in
the odd implication and suggested line.
Then the idiots who read the guardian (who otherwise reject foreign countries being bismirched)
swallow it all up
KeloCote Mrg Billman 12 Sep 2014 14:54
That would be true had the Ukrainians not warned the plane to stay away. In fact, ground control
ordered the plane to climb to a higher altitude, and the pilot disobeyed.
During its recent war on Gaza, Israel kept insisting that it's perfectly safe for civil aviation
to continue landing in its airport near Tel Aviv. Nothing could be further from the truth. Rockets
were flying near the whole path that a plane would take to land - at a time of Hamas's choosing.
Israel was firing even more dangerous missiles at those rockets. Any claim that it's safe for
civilian airlines to fly under such conditions is fundamentally dishonest. But Israel does not
want to admit they've lost control over their 'sovereign' airspace. Similarly, Ukraine did not
want to admit they're lost control over their 'sovereign' airspace, because there's a war going
on. However, in this particular instance, ground control warned the pilot to divert to a higher
altitude using a false pretext. Regardless of the false pretext, the pilot should have diverted
- and by not doing so - is responsible.
Realworldview 12 Sep 2014 14:36
Malaysia Airlines flight MH17: 'most likely' it was shot down from ground
Since when did a ground to air anti-aircraft missile use 30mm cannon shells to destroy its
target. The evidence strongly points to it being a military aircraft that downed MH17 as Dutch
Safety Board (DSB) Report: Malaysian MH17 was Brought Down by "A Large Number of High Energy Objects",
Contradicts US Claims that it Was Shot Down by a "Russian Missile" argues, despite the heavy
coat of varnish that's clearly been applied to the Dutch Safety Board (DSB) report.
EugeneGur Dunscore 12 Sep 2014 14:18
This scenario is just as unproved and likely unprovable as all the others. It's clear that
Kiev benefited the most from the event, and the US exploited is to the fullest to impose sanctions
on Russia before any investigation was even initiated. The reluctance of both Kiev and the US
to provide evidence required for the investigation is bound to raise questions.
One would think given how fiercely the US accused Russia they'd be happy to provide evidence
against Russia if they had any. Could that be that the evidence they have point the other way?
And, of course, that non-disclosure agreement, which looks like an attempt at a coverup. Otherwise,
why?
This horrible tragedy has been and no doubt will be exploited for petty political gains.
I am sorry to see even the Dutch entering this shameful game by signing that non-disclosure agreement
with one of the suspects, the Kiev government.
DownSouth77 Rudeboy1 12 Sep 2014 13:32
Your maximum altitude is generally restricted by 2 factors. The first being that the maximum
altitude is reached when all power produced by the engines is going into maintaining the altitude.
Thus no more power is left available for the aircraft to climb any further. The second factor
is pressurization. Thus the max psi differential between the atmosphere and cabin. When the airframe
can't withstand the differential value between the cabin and the atmosphere the consequences can
and will probably be very bad. This should not be a factor on the SU-25...as its more applicable
to airliners (which in turn can reach roughly 40,000' before this becomes a factor)
Thus back to the maximum altitude and the power produced by the engines. Thats btw also the
reason why when they strip armament from an aircraft they reduce the weight etc and in turn can
reach a heigher altitude with the same engines. Now the first problem here is that everybody assumes
the stock version of the SU-25 (which has a max operating altitude of 7km) is the SU-25 the ukrainians
used. Thus its impossible for it to reach an altitude of 10km etc.
However...lets look at the SU-39...which is in fact a SU-25 which is upgraded...the max altitude
for this aircraft is 10km. Furthermore...the Sukhoi lists its export model the SU-25K as having
a max altitiude of 7km...that specific variant. We dont know for sure that Ukraine has any SU-25
variant that are upgraded enough to reach an altitiude of 10km. However we do know it is definitely
possible for a SU-25 (depending on engines etc) to reach 10km. In short...its useless to quote
the wiki or generic version of the SU-25 max altitiude as reference in saying its impossible to
reach 10km.
In the late 90's Sukhoi 25''s could already reach altitiudes in excess of 8.5km's.
Hope all this makes sense :)
Dunscore Robert Looren de Jong 12 Sep 2014 13:29
Thanks for the information !
1) Reuters. Sadly this 100-year old British company has been compromised being taken over
by a Canadian company belonging to zionists. Canadian PM Harper is a blind follower of Israeli
extremists. So V Putin is enemy number one and you can't use Reuters as an unbiased source once
more. Russia has had to up its game recently in the Arctic purely because Harper has become aggressive
to please the US.
2) Obviously the incidents are in Crimea etc are orchestrated by Kiev.
Any other explanation is nonsense. The nazi volunteers are the usual suspects. Let's hope that
Mr Nuizmieks is given a chance to see the truth. We should prepare for the McCain trolls to try
to blame any social problems on V Putin.
Dunscore EugeneGur 12 Sep 2014 13:16
I agree with all your thoughts.
Kiev Russian-speaking soldiers disguised as Donbass security forces ("rebels") could have
driven a Buk into the Donbass, fired the missile and then driven back, making sure to be seen
by foreign journalists ( Ukraine is a huge country, how come the journalists were on the same
spot at the right moment to see the Buk driving around ? very convenient..)
The US and Israel both have motives to shoot the plane down. They had been convicted of
war crimes in KL last year and their cases sent to the ICC in Holland. MH17 was also full of Dutch
passengers - right www.criminisewar.org
Plus, the ukraine airforce is in a bad state due to lack of funds. So the US and Israelis
were providing assistance, also Poland and Lithuania, of pilots and equipment. No-one knows who
was piloting the two Su-25s detected by Russian radar.
Russia asked Ukraine 12 crucial questions a month ago - still no answer.
US produced absolutely no professional evidence for the enquiry, nothing except boasting trolls.
Retired veteran CIA secret data analysts wrote a group letter to Obama and Merkel to condemn
US for bringing their profession into disrepute.
Russia provided comprehensive data and evidence to the investigation.
KeloCote Robert Looren de Jong 12 Sep 2014 13:15
I did not speculate on why the pilot did not want to climb. It make no difference. By refusing
the order the pilot assumed responsibility for the fate of the plane. Civil aviation pilots have
no "right" to refuse orders of competent ground authorities and still enjoy the protections granted
by international treaties to civil aviation.
I don't understand your statement about the "report says there was no abnormal communication".
Are you contesting my claim that the pilot refused an order to climb up just minutes before being
hit? I'm basing my claim on what I read in previous articles in the Guardian on this. It could
be wrong. I wasn't there personally.
Rudeboy1 DownSouth77 12 Sep 2014 12:32
The SA-11 has a proximity fused warhead. The missile detonates when it senses it is close to
the target (proximity fuses then called Variable Time Fuses were used as far back as WW2 by the
US and UK) . Fragmentation at the front end of the aircraft would indicate that the warhead detonated
at the front of the aircraft. Damage from the warhead would be localised. Most SAM's (except the
most modern) rely on prox fuses as the massive speeds they work at mean a direct impact isn't
always possible (particularly on a manoeuvering target).
But you're wrong on the SU-25. There is no way an SU-25 can intercept an airliner at 30,000
travelling at >500kn when that is above the height and speed that the SU-25 can operate at. If
you know why it could please let us all know why.
fragglerokk 12 Sep 2014 12:19
of course he says that, the Dutch people would go nuts if they knew that Shell have signed
a $10 billion fracking deal with the Ukraines who shot down a load of their citizens, it would
be really bad for business especially since they have already started fracking Slavyansk after
the Ukie artillery bombed it out of existence and created 1000s of refugees. The truth will out,
the problem is they are all in it together, money, oil, gas, failed coups, up to their necks in
it. The non disclosure agreement signed by the Dutch, the belgians, the Ukraines and Australians
says it all, no facts, no figures and no details.. total fit up.
Malkatrinho -> LeWillow 12 Sep 2014 12:19
As the bookmaker William Hill once said "Believe nothing of what you hear, and believe only
5% of what you see, and be very suspicious of that 5%."
That's got to be one of the most random quotes I've read.
EugeneGur 12 Sep 2014 12:13
Typical Guardian, impartial and objective as ever. Do these conclusions point to the hand that
launched these "high energy objects"? No, they do not. Even if it is proven beyond any doubt that
the airplane was shot down by ground-to-air missile or even specifically by Buk, does it prove
who did the shooting? No, it does not.
However, pro-Russian rebels are mentioned more than once, so there is no chance to forget who
is supposed to be blamed.
It is possible that Donbass fighters shot down that plane by mistake thinking that was Kiev's
plane coming to bomb their cities. Kiev could've done that as well, in its case likely deliberately.
For some reason, they did have Buks in that area, although separatists do not have airplanes.
Proving which scenario is correct would be difficult. Connecting Russia to this would be even
harder if not impossible. Nobody would bother, though. If "Russia" is repeated often enough, some
dirt will stick no matter what. It's been done already quite successfully.
maico ruffsoft 12 Sep 2014 12:13
The report says there was no shrapnel damage bellow the cockpit floor. This means we can discount
an air to air missile which is heat seeking and would hit the engine. The engine is of course
well bellow the cockpit level.
The shrapnel holes are various sizes and shapes pointing strongly to a proximity air-burst
from a radar guided SAM. Obviously once most of the wreckage is recovered and reassembled in a
hanger a definitive answer can be given. Shell casing and powder burn evidence may still be recoverable
although I expect Russian security services have tampered with the wreckage.
Robert Looren de Jong -> Trabecula 12 Sep 2014 12:12
BERA: Defence Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein today denied reports in the social media
that Malaysia Airlines (MAS) flight MH17 was shot down by fighter jets.
He said intelligence and evidence gathered from the fragments of the ill-fated aircraft clearly
showed it was shot down by missiles that were launched to the air from the ground.
"Based on military intelligence and evidence from a portion of fragments found, it is not likely
the bullets were used from air to air but from surface to air. "Whether these were owned by Ukraine
or the rebels who supplied by Russia. the bullets must have come from BUK System and this matter
cannot be denied by Europe, Nato or Russia," he told reporters after officiating the Bera Umno's
Wanita, Youth and Puteri wing division meeting here today. still trying to recycle that old debunked
and proven wrong narrative?
KeloCote 12 Sep 2014 12:10
The pilot is responsible. He was ordered by Ukrainian air-traffic control to fly to higher
altitude, and refused the order. Formally they told him it's because of other planes in the area,
but more likely they knew it was unsafe to fly it being a war zone - and simply didn't want to
admit they don't have control over territory they claim as their own. By refusing the order to
fly higher - the pilot assumed responsibility for flying in a dangerous path. Since the pilot
is dead - the airline is responsible.
Trabecula Robert Looren de Jong 12 Sep 2014 12:05
Also, the next day the extremely competent and knowledgable Malay minister said:
"Hishammuddin said he was personally confident that flight MH17 was shot with a BUK missile
based on his experience and knowledge as a defence minister. Hence, he advised the people not
to be easily influenced by speculation and rumours being spread in the media social."
I would like to put the emphasis on "personally confident" as well as on the title: "unlikely
shot down by jet fighter".
It's probably jut another "hunch" he had, like the one of MH370 having crashed in the Southern
Indian Ocean... Or in Bangladesh... Or having landed in Pakistan... Or maybe a few miles closer
to Australia. Well done Sir!
Trabecula Robert Looren de Jong 12 Sep 2014 11:58
Is this Russian, Malay or US propaganda:
NST 7th August:
"KUALA LUMPUR: INTELLIGENCE analysts in the United States had already concluded that Malaysia
Airlines flight MH17 was shot down by an air-to-air missile, and that the Ukrainian government
had had something to do with it"
Do you really expect anyone sane and humane to believe any news coming from Israeli media?!
Gosh...
SHappens 12 Sep 2014 11:27
What a timely article and what an empty statement. Most likely, probably, it seems, could be,
looks like.
Conclusion: "It is going to be a long investigation," he said, while remaining cautious about
what results the international investigation might achieve.
Trabecula 12 Sep 2014 11:25
De Jong and his mates: you should read the news straight from NST, not any other "repost" or
reference, be it RT.com or ET.mars. Go back to early August news (4th or 7th, if not mistaken)
and check out their official opinion on the subject. I've been in Malaysia for 2 weeks last month
and though they're pretty careful with what they say - because of they western counterparts -
and they truly blame both sides (this is subject is overhelming there), they have little doubt
that it was shot down by a jet fighter. And this is supported by german and american experts so
be careful with what you are being "fed".
Western media never reported this though western countries only needed a few hours to "choose"
who to blame for this tragic war crime.
DownSouth77 Rudeboy1 12 Sep 2014 11:08
Firstly a Su-25 could have shot it down...no doubt about that. Its just a matter of if it happened
that way.
I have a question...something I haven't seen mentioned really. while I know aviation (work
in the industry) I have very little knowledge of the BUK missle system...therfore the question.
Why is the cockpit riddled with holes...yet other pieces of the aircraft as almost no holes
in it. Wouldn't it be that if a BUK did it that the COMPLETE body of aircraft would have had similar
amount of damage caused by projectiles? Yet I haven't seen one other piece of the wreckage that
had near the type of projectile damage than the cockpit section. Why is that...for those saying
it was a BUK missile that caused that damage to the cockpit section?
REUTERS - The United States announced more sanctions against Russia on Friday, affecting oil
and defense industries and further limiting the access of major Russian banks to U.S. debt and
equity markets to punish Russia for its intervention in Ukraine.
The sanctions, which for the first time targeted Russia's Sberbank, were timed to coincide
with new European Union economic penalties that included restrictions on financing for some Russian
state-owned companies and asset freezes on leading Russian politicians.
The sanctions could be rolled back if Moscow withdrew its forces from Ukraine and established
a buffer zone along the border among other conditions, a senior U.S. official said.
SocialistPig 12 Sep 2014 11:00
retired Russian army Colonel Mikhail Khodarenok believes the fact that international investigators
have thus far failed to provide conclusive evidence suggests that they have something to hide.
"You can find out what kind of missile was used against a downed plane one day after it was
crashed," the retired colonel told The Moscow Times. During his career, Khodarenok operated S-75
and S-200 air defense systems.
"Each missile type has its own shrapnel imprint. The shrapnel should have been preserved in
the elements of the aircraft itself as well as in the bodies of the victims," he said.
zelazny fintan 12 Sep 2014 10:54
The Malaysian government disagrees with you and has reported that its experts say a fighter
jet brought the plane down by first hitting it with a missile and then firing 30mm bullets into
both sides of the fuselage.
Photos of the fuselage contain unmistakable bullet holes. Anti-Putin people can deny the evidence
and ignore the opinions of the Malaysian experts, but the fact remains that bullets can't travel
30,000 feet into the air and they must have come from a fighter jet.
The USA certainly has known this fact from day 1, as have all of the Nato governments. They
just can't figure out any positive spin, so they have decided to delay the release of the report
for a year or so in the hope the public will forget.
I wonder how much it will cost to make the family members of the dead forget?
Jiri 12 Sep 2014 10:54
If there was any evidence that the Russians or the East Ukrainians were responsible for the
downing of MH17 it would have been made widely available and the maximum political mileage extracted
from it.
Standupwoman -> daveydor 12 Sep 2014 10:53
On this scale, and with so few voices to speak against it - yes. This is the first time I'm
aware of where the US has effectively dictated the script for the entire western msm without even
the Guardian offering a dissenting view.
Since you find my massive 2.26 posts a day so disconcerting, I assume you'd like to drive all
dissent from the comments too.
zelazny -> RoyalBludger 12 Sep 2014 10:50
Those look like large caliber bullet holes to me, and I have seen a lot of bullet holes in
sheet metal.
And I don't know of any rifle in the world, large caliber or small, that can shoot 30,000 feet
or more. None can fire accurately even with the most skilled shooter at more than 2475 meters,
the longest confirmed sniper kill.
So if bullets hit the plane, they must have come from a fighter jet's 30mm cannon.
The Malaysian government thinks this happened, but of course their opinion has no role in the
Nato cover up.
zelazny -> EnviroCapitalist 12 Sep 2014 10:44
Obama has Guantanamo? What equivalent does Putin have?
Obama tortures people and doesn't allow them to have a trial at all in most cases, and if they
get one, they get a secret, military tribunal, in violation of the US constitution.
In his 6 years in office, Obama has pardoned 52 people, despite the fact that US prisons hold
over 2 million.
Putin has pardoned thousands, including his billionaire political opponent Mikhail Khodorkovsky.
The comments threads on western sites show the massive love of war and mass murder among ordinary
citizens like you, deceived by a life time of high tech propaganda. Western citizens like to compare
those they fear to Hitler, not realizing that the victors in WWII deliberately slaughtered German
and Japanese civilians by the millions. War criminals fought WWII, and some lost and some won.
But all decent people lost in WWII, because since then the US and Nato have turned the world
into a charnel house of war.
flyingdutchman Rudeboy1 12 Sep 2014 10:43
More usually SU25's carry armour piercing or APHE rounds. These will explode on impact even
with a soft structure. Even allowing a slight delay after encountering an aircraft's skin these
will then detonate leaving a much larger hole.
Simple armor piercing rounds will not explode. APHE rounds will, but with a delay of around
one millisecond or slightly less. Since the round travels at several thousand feet per second
(and won't be slowed down significantly by anything in the aircraft's structure since the rounds
are designed to punch through half an inch of hardened steel with ease) the explosion will only
take place a few feet beyond the aircraft's skin. Also, fragments from the explosion will tend
to be projected forward.
Although aluminium isn't massively strong, it is stressed on an airliner. It's also not usually
followed by empty air.
Beneath the aircraft's skin there are structural parts (stringers and frames) with insulation
in between. The structure is all aluminum, except for very few parts at the front that are reinforced
with titanium in order to better resist bird strikes. Anyway, nothing compared to the stuff the
average 30mm projectile is designed to deal with.
OpiumAddict Rudeboy1 12 Sep 2014 10:41
no evidence the rebels ever had a working Buk or anyone trained to use it.
definite proof that Ukraine had several working Buks in the area with crews.
dion13 zelazny 12 Sep 2014 10:37
On 13 August, Pravda published a highly plausible version of the tragedy:
"Boeing-777 was downed by Ukrainian MiG-29, expert says"
[...] the Romanian expert believes that it was not a Ukrainian Su-25, as the plane could not
reach the altitude of 10,300 meters and strike the Boeing due to the poor level of training of
Ukrainian flight personnel and technical imperfection of old Su-25. Vasilescu indicates that radars
show Su-25 identically to MiG-29 fighter jet, as the planes have identical reflective surface
area [...] The fleet of the Ukrainian Air Force has fighter aircraft MiG-29 that are capable of
intercepting Boeing-777. The fighters are based near Kiev and in Ivano-Frankivsk.
ruffsoft 12 Sep 2014 10:23
An exploding missile would hit the bottom of the plane as it approached and would scatter shrapnel
over the entire plane. The fact is that only the cockpit is heavily penetrated, and from the sides,
both sides (entrance and exit holes are not hard to distinguish), which points to an air assault
targeting the cockpit to disable the pilots.
Since the Ukraine has veto power over publication of the findings, this whole investigation
is a whitewash. Why isn't Russia part of the investigation with veto power? Giving one of the
suspects in a crime the ability to block publication of the findings is ludicrous.
Can someone explain how a missile from the ground would produce both exit and entrance punctures
in the cockpit on the sides? That seems impossible.
This is just a phony investigation, with the lead suspect having veto power.
High resolution photos from the following link show clearly holes which are pushed out and
in. I am not forensic expert but I can tell in from out.
A missile with exploding shrapnel would not produce in and out holes; the only way to get that
result is to shoot from both sides. And a missile exploding would effect the bottom of the plane,
in a random pattern; the holes in the plane are in the cockpit from the sides, both sides.
Take a look: holes punched out, holes pushed in: draw your own conclusions because the investigation
will never reveal this fact, since Ukraine has veto power over the findings being published.
The photos provided show the pilots were targeted, something an ground to air missile could
not do. Also the holes across one of the wings are in a line, such as a machine gun would produce,
not a random explosion. The theory of a missile from the ground cannot explain the photographic/physical
evidence.
Only an assault from the air makes sense once you examine the evidence provided by the photos
Please take a look, especially at the closeup at
http://www.anderweltonline.com/fileadmin/user_upload/PDF/Cockpit-MH017.pdf
which shows holes with raised edges (exit) and holes with pushed in edges (entrance).
ruffsoft 12 Sep 2014 10:04
The nations investigating have signed an agreement not to publish results unless all parties
reach a consensus. If the parties found evidence of Ukrainian responsibility, Ukraine would veto
and it would not be published. This form of censorship makes an independent investigation impossible,
as well as its publication if it were.
I am quite sure that bullets are "high energy objects" but the Western media seems to ignore
that possibility, as it would implicate Ukraine, which has veto power over any publication of
findings.
For me, the clincher is that only the front part (cockpit) of the plane was penetrated----a
missile that exploded would not target the cockpit---and that the holes in the cockpit show both
exit and entrance punctures---something compatible only with being fired on from both sides. A
missile would only penetrate from one side. It is not hard to distinguish an entrance and an exit
hole, as one is push in, the other out.
This investigation is, by agreement, not independent or impartial, since the Ukraine can block
publication of any findings it does not like.
It's just one more piece of the propaganda effort to demonize Russia and thus cover up the
crimes of the Kiev regime
Dunscore -> Robert Looren de Jong 12 Sep 2014 10:02
However, Russian mass media information proved to be a fake. On September 9, the Dutch
Safety Board published the report, the paragraph 2.5.4 of which says that Ukrainian State Air
Traffic Services Enterprise provided the recording and a transcript of the radio and telephone
communications regarding flight MH17
Just a little tip. Don't ever use anything that comes out of the Kiev offices. It is all
100% unbelievable. All of it. There are so many different agendas by so many groups fighting
each other like cats and dogs, all in the same buildings, that it is no wonder that so much confusion
reigns there.
Dunscore -> Robert Looren de Jong 12 Sep 2014 09:44
John McCain has taught you well.
You and he are obviously students of the "Shout it loud and shout it again and again" Goebbels
doctrine -- If you are so desperate to put your case, go and join the police investigative team.
You're such a cut and paste expert with carefully selected bits from wikipedia, they will find
you useful somewhere.
There's a flood of misinformation this morning. Much more than normal.
You're louder than you normally are.
Usually McCain orders the whole team out when the yanks have got something that they particularly
want to distract from the public gaze.
Most of your team is talking about the Buk again, sticking to the same old story, so obviously
you are worried that the Dutch will latch onto the truth. Well they have nine months to find it,
so you and your team of parrots will have to work very hard to keep them distracted. Best of luck
!
Given the fact that the steady level flight (in kilometers) above the ceiling is impossible,
How do you KNOW that is true? Do you know every single situation where it might not be true. Are
you an expert ? I don't mean a cut and paste expert..
Keep writing, keep writing... you and your mates have got to keep the dutch police distracted.
!
Keep writing Keep writing !
Bye...
medievil -> Yatvyag 12 Sep 2014 09:38
shot down over the Persian Gulf in 1988 by the SM-2 surface-to-air missile launched from the
USS Vincennes. As a result of the Iranian Flight 655 catastrophe 290 passengers were killed including
60 children. The author emphasizes that after the incident American top officials not only dismissed
all the accusations but blamed the Iranian pilot. However, nearly seven weeks after the tragedy
the Pentagon had to recognize that all the "facts" the American top officials were referring to
in order to shift the burden of responsibility on the Iranians were wrong. Strangely enough, the
Pentagon's 53-page report on the incident "still concluded that the captain and all the other
Vincennes officers acted properly."
Although Fred Kaplan, the defense correspondent of the Boston Globe at that time, pointed repeatedly
to the numerous embarrassing discrepancies in the Pentagon's narrative, the US senior officers
qualified them as inessential. The most shocking fact, revealed in 1992 was that the USS Vincennes
was in the Iranian waters when it shot down the Iranian Flight 655, not in international as the
Pentagon reported in 1988.
"Vice President George H.W. Bush, who was running to succeed Ronald Reagan as president, said
on the campaign trail, "I will never apologize for the United States - I don't care what the facts
are," cites Fred Kaplan and adds bitterly, "Not until eight years later did the US government
compensate the victims' families, and even then expressed "deep regret," not an apology." Medals
awarded While issuing notes of regret over the loss of human life, the U.S. government has, to
date, neither admitted any wrongdoing or responsibility in this tragedy, nor apologized, but continues
to blame Iranian hostile actions for the incident. The men of the Vincennes were all awarded combat-action
ribbons. Commander Lustig, the air-warfare coordinator, even won the navy's Commendation Medal
for "heroic achievement", his "ability to maintain his poise and confidence under fire" having
enabled him to "quickly and precisely complete the firing procedure." According to a 23 April
1990 article printed in The Washington Post, the Legion of Merit was presented to Captain Rogers
and Lieutenant Commander Lustig for their performance in the Persian Gulf on 3 July 1988. The
citations did not mention the downing of the Iran Air flight at all.
Денис Панкратов -> fintan 12 Sep 2014 09:31
If you're interested, I would say. And in Washington and in the Netherlands have long known
who shot down the "Boeing". But will hide the truth to the end. Because this really does not fit
into the ongoing today geopolitics.
Geopolitics, as a rule, the subject is extremely pragmatic and cynical. For it not only 200
dead, for her and 200 thousand dead - empty words ...
Dunscore 12 Sep 2014 09:26
A rebel officer told AP after the disaster that the plane was shot down by a mixed team
of rebels and Russian military personnel who believed they were targeting a Ukrainian military
plane.
This is the ENTIRE source for the western case that a Buk shot MH17 down. It is a complete
lie. The officer was never named, the story was never verified. The officer does not exist. Evidence
please, if you disagree?
Canonman -> Rudeboy1 12 Sep 2014 09:17
That area has been under satellite surveillance for a long time by various US, NATO and Russian
satellites - after all it is a war zone. Rest assured that there will be coverage of that area
by various satellites.
Perhaps you should lay off the personal insults? Or do you get off on being rude or a dick
- 'Rudeboy-1'?
Hansueli LeWillow 12 Sep 2014 09:16
Well, before engaging in wild speculation, why not start from a simple possibility, like a
simple fuck-up by the guys on the trigger? Seems far more likely than any hypothetical planned
shoot down by CIA or anybody else, including Russia.
Dunscore Rudeboy1 12 Sep 2014 09:16
Of course the utter idiots that gave a highly advanced surface to air missile system to a bunch
of idiots are not responsible at all.....it was just a mistake. I'm sure the relatives will understand.
Your master McCain taught his baby trolls well -- But why do we always get the uneducated ones.
Where is all your written evidence for your silly story ? Let's see something on paper and
not just oral bullshit...
JCDavis mraak 12 Sep 2014 09:09
Since it hit the cockpit and not the tail, it had to be fired from the direction where the
plane was headed.
Not true. If it was fired from an aircraft well below the 777, the impact could have had the
same signature. And depending on the guidance system, it could have hit the same area no matter
where it was fired from--
Electro-optical seekers can be programmed to target vital area of an aircraft, such as the
cockpit.
Dunscore Robert Looren de Jong 12 Sep 2014 09:08
nd as such it is consitant with a buk missile
If you can't even spell consistent, why should we pay any attention to wha you say ?
Everyone is suddenly an expert on missile ballistics.
Tell your audience please the source of all your qualifications.
A PhD from Ronald McDonald's University ?
Two german military pilots saw all the wreckage on the crash site and with 30 years experience,
they made a careful detailed explanation over several A4 sides explaining why it was NOT a Buk.
Have you read that ? Why do you contradict that ? Come on, let's have your knowledge on the table
--
McCain would be proud of you, you follow his script so well.
What will you do when your master loses his job at the next US election?
Canonman 12 Sep 2014 08:31
All of this is just speculation.
Question 1: where are the Satellite images of that area at that exact time?
Question 2: where are the audio transmissions between the crew and the flight towers?
Question 3: why did the BBC remove its own segment that was done shortly afterwards where they
had people on record stating that they had seen a jet flying behind if?
Question 4: who ordered the BBC remove its own segment?
Question 5: If the pilots where shot at by a 'jet' as is believed by many - what about the autopsies
of the pilots? Were any done? What did they find.
Question 6: if a BUK missile had taken it down how come there was not a trail from the missile?
These missiles do leave a rather distinctive trial behind them that is seen for kilometers.
Question 7: who ordered the plane to fly lower than was deemed safe for that area?
So many questions and so little facts… Perhaps they questions do not fit the narrative?
michaelantony 12 Sep 2014 08:19
This investigation is a colossal waste of time and money and European taxpayers should demand
an end to it. We all know what happened to the plane: it was shot down by accident while flying
over a war zone where surface to air missiles were in constant use over previous days. None of
the belligerents had an interest in shooting in down: whoever did it mistook it for a military
craft belonging to the enemy. To try to find out which group to pin the blame on serves no purpose
whatever except to further the warmongering agenda of NATO, which is trying to provoke the 3rd
World War with Russia or justify even more crushing sanctions to grind Russia's population into
further poverty. The real culprits for this horrible accident were Malaysia Airlines for flying
over a war zone to save money and the aviation authorities for allowing them to do so. Those are
the heads that should roll.
LeWillow -> psygone 12 Sep 2014 08:07
But you have to ask the question 'why would Putin shoot down a Malaysian passenger plane?
It make no sense and would be completely stupid, and I don't think Putin is stupid somehow.
The CIA on the other hand (and US Govt) would have a lot to gain from shooting down a plane and
blaming it on Putin. They also have previous form when it comes to blowing planes out of the air.
Standupwoman -> daveydor 12 Sep 2014 08:05
Correct. I joined in 2012 to participate in the Bradley Manning conversation. I have an abhorrence
of evil, and the silence of mass media regarding its victims.
What world do you inhabit where such an attitude makes a person 'unreal'?
LeWillow -> daveydor 12 Sep 2014 08:02
"Actually what I find shocking is the bizarre pretence of you people to be real."
By being 'real' do you mean believing everything the Western media tell us and everything the
US Government. Is that what being 'real' involves?
If it is, then you can keep it for yourself.
jdanforth -> Martin Adams 12 Sep 2014 08:01
Apparently it was an entire year before Libya was blamed -first it was Iran. Al Megrahi's alleged
accomplice was found not guilty, and when al Megrahi was granted a chance to appeal his case in
court, he was abruptly released instead.
In the case of Lockerbie, satellite imagery was immediately
provided by both France and the US, and that was in the 1980s!
ChristopherMyers 12 Sep 2014 08:01
They are sooo hoping it was East Ukrainian fighters supplied by Russia, sounding more like a witch
hunt all the time. I wouldn't rule out the Azov Battalion, they were in the area, they have Russian
accents, and BUK's, they murder civilians because they are Russian, like in Odessa. They still
don't know if it was a missile, or if it was an air to air or surface to air, or bullets from
a Ukrainian fighter jet (which would be intent on targeting the cockpit). Forensics though, will
reveal what struck it, then place the blame. Why not wait until then to burn the witch?
Carl Jones 12 Sep 2014 08:00
The preliminary report suggests MH17 was hit by multiple impacts. There are pictures on the
alternative media that shows a section of the plane near the cockpit that was strafed by machine
gun fire after it had been hit by an air to air rocket[s]. The preliminary finding are inconsistent
with a ground to air rocket and their is no evidence to this effect.
Quite simply, this is a cover up.
SaoPaulo 12 Sep 2014 07:56
The mere fact that the United States MSM has dropped this topic like a hot potato (compare
CNN coverage of MH17 with the endless coverage of MH370) and the complete lack of verified NATO
or US or CIA satellite data implies that the Russians were not at fault here.
JCDavis -> palindrome 12 Sep 2014 07:55
Everything coming from the UK and US governments is a lie at one level or another and should
be carefully investigated. But of course there is no one to do that as the press is almost totally
subverted.
palindrome 12 Sep 2014 07:50
he drew comparisons with the investigation into the Lockerbie bombing that took years
to identify suspects.
Excellent comparison, the Lockerbie investigation is a great example of how investigators dismissed
obvious clues as to the true perpetrators and used circumstantial evidence to "prove" that the
Bond villains of the day (Libya) were the culprits.
John Ashton's book lays the evidence for all to see of how everything can
JCDavis JCDavis 12 Sep 2014 07:44
Herbert E. Meyer, Special Assistant to the Director of Central Intelligence under the Reagan
administration--
"If Putin is too stubborn to acknowledge that his career is over, and the only way to get
him out of the Kremlin is feet-first, with a bullet hole in the back of his head - that would
also be okay with us."
krislej Daniel Brown 12 Sep 2014 07:35
You're clearly someone who doesn't have a clue:
SU-25's carry the R-60 air to air missile with a range of 5 miles, they also have a 30mm auto-cannon.
The wreckage of MH17 is strewn with what are more than likely 30mm shell holes, perfectly rounded
and highly unlikely to be fragmentation from a rocket.
SU-25's can also climb to the height of MH17 and stay there for a short period of time before
having to descend.
Martin Adams 12 Sep 2014 07:33
The Lockerbie investigation was subverted for political reasons and the enemy of convenience
was then Libya. Abdelbasset al Megrahi who served 8 years in prison had nothing to do with Lockerbie
and they know it.
GoodmansParadox 12 Sep 2014 07:23
...he drew comparisons with the investigation into the Lockerbie bombing that took years
to identify suspects.
An interesting analogy, considering the suspects identified were fabricated in order to frame
Libya. Considering the case against the two Libyan suspects required they work together, it was
even more notable that only one of them was convicted. So a fabricated prosecution was delivered
a perverse verdict, yet the media still lapped it up and ran with the lie.
Funny how, with the toppling of Gaddafi, we were supposed to be provided with the evidence of
Libyan involvement. Three years and counting...
And now, the same cheerleaders for blaming Gaddafi are blaming Putin. Plus ca change.
kaptenemo 12 Sep 2014 07:20
Could investigators and journalists please also consider the possibility that the Kiev troops
did it? Right now, they should be investigating all leads, not only those pointing to the Eastern
Ukrainians. After all, the Ukrainian military did shoot down a commercial plane in 2001, so another
mistake cannot be excluded out of hand.
fintan -> DrHandley 12 Sep 2014 07:18
The Dutch are under orders to ensure that all the data and any media release places blame
of the Rebels
The Dutch "under orders"? From whom? Have some respect for a democratic, sovereign state that
has lost nearly 200 of its citizens to a murderous attack by vicious terrorists and, I have no
doubt, very much wants to find the truth about how and why it happened.
Standupwoman 12 Sep 2014 07:14
What's possibly most shocking about this is the reiteration of discredited information - the
supposed 'confession' of a rebel (taken massively out of context and heavily denied by the speaker)
and the ludicrous fake audio of the rebel conversation which turned out to have been uploaded
the day before the crash, then taken down again for editing.
I wouldn't be surprised by this promulgation of lies if I found it on social media, but this
is the Associated Press and I'm reading this in a once respected British newspaper. How in the
name of any kind of decency did we come to sink as low as this?
DrHandley 12 Sep 2014 07:12
The Dutch are under orders to ensure that all the data and any media release places blame of
the Rebels. We may talk about conspiracy theories - but in this case it smells like a cover up.
The explosive residue left of the surface of the aircraft would surely indicate the type of weapon
used as most explosives have a set 'signature'.
Standupwoman 12 Sep 2014 07:06
There's no surprise in the fact the solution 'getting most attention' is the one most likely
to discredit the rebels. I'd be more interested to know if they were giving any attention to anything
else.
"... This is Naked Capitalism fundraising week. 329 donors have already invested in our efforts to
combat corruption and predatory conduct, particularly in financial realm. Please join us and participate
via our Tip Jar , which shows how to give via
check, credit card, debit card, or PayPal. Read about
why
we're doing this fundraiser ,
what
we've accomplished in the last year , and
our second target , funding for travel to conferences and in connection with original reporting. ..."
"... These companies – according to JPMorgan analysts cited by
Bloomberg – have incurred $119 billion in interest expense over the 12 months through
the second quarter. The most ever. ..."
"... last thing ..."
"... As recently as 2012, companies were refinancing at interest rates that were 0.83 percentage
point cheaper than the rates on the debt they were replacing, JPMorgan analysts said. That gap
narrowed to 0.26 percentage point last year, even without a rise in interest rates, because the
average coupon on newly issued debt increased. ..."
"... "Increasingly alarming" is what Goldman's credit strategists led by Lotfi Karoui called this deterioration
of corporate balance sheets. And it will get worse as yields edge up and as corporate revenues and
earnings sink deeper into the mire of the slowing global economy. ..."
"... But it isn't working anymore. Bloomberg found that since May, shares of companies that have
plowed the most into share buybacks have fallen even further than the S P 500. Wal-Mart is a prime
example. Turns out, once financial engineering fails, all bets are off. Read…
The Chilling Thing Wal-Mart Said about Financial Engineering ..."
"... It spelled out in Micheal Hudson's – Killing the Host. Economics and investment banking
wraps itself in the persona as the engine of growth when, in fact, it is the engine of dis-employment,
stagnate wages, declining manufacturing, inflated property prices which raise the cost of food
production and everything else including forcing a majority to spend more of their income on
debt service leaving less for anything beyond subsistence living. ..."
"... "trillions are wasted and misdirected into useless financial "engineering" as
opposed to real world engineering" ..."
"... I read yesterday that less than 6% of Bank financing is now going to real tangible
assets – the balance goes in various forms to intangible goodwill ..."
"... Tony Soprano called it a "bust up" – take over a business and use the brand to skim the
profits, buy goods and services and roll them out the backdoor and declare BK and then buy it
back for pennies on the dollar. ..."
"... 35 years ago, I spent a day at Ngorongoro Crater in Tanzania with a driver in a rover by
myself watching the Hyenas take down a sick Buffalo culling him out in a gang, working the
animal for hours, as he shuffled along until he fell and ten….. finally ate him in a ferocious
climax. The most fascinating part of the entire trip. ..."
"... Now there is a big fat tax deductible expense, and down the road, "value" is created
when companies are bought for the tax carry forward losses. Win, win win. ..."
"... Is a company that eliminates thousands of jobs via automation or outsourcing worthy of the
public's credit? ..."
This is Naked Capitalism fundraising week. 329 donors have already invested in our efforts to
combat corruption and predatory conduct, particularly in financial realm. Please join us and participate
via our Tip Jar, which shows how to give via
check, credit card, debit card, or PayPal. Read about
why
we're doing this fundraiser,
what
we've accomplished in the last year, and
our second target, funding for travel to conferences and in connection with original reporting.
Yves here. As anyone who has been in finance know, leverage amplifies gains and losses. Big company
execs, apparently embracing the "IBG/YBG" ("I'll Be Gone, You'll Be Gone") school of management,
apparently believed they could beat the day of reckoning that would come of relying on stock buybacks
to keep EPS rising, regardless of the underlying health of the enterprise. But even in an era of
super-cheap credit, investors expect higher interest rates for more levered businesses, which is
what you get when you keep borrowing to prop up per-share earnings. As Richter explains, the chickens
are starting to come home to roost.
Companies with investment-grade credit ratings – the cream-of-the-crop "high-grade" corporate
borrowers – have gorged on borrowed money at super-low interest rates over the past few years, as
monetary policies put investors into trance. And interest on that mountain of debt, which grew another
4% in the second quarter, is now eating their earnings like never before.
These companies – according to JPMorgan analysts cited by
Bloomberg – have incurred $119 billion in interest expense over the 12 months through
the second quarter. The most ever. With impeccable timing: for S&P 500 companies,
revenues have been in a recession all year, and the last thing companies need
now is higher expenses.
Risks are piling up too: according to Bloomberg, companies' ability pay these interest expenses,
as measured by the interest coverage ratio, dropped to the lowest level since 2009.
Companies also have to refinance that debt when it comes due. If they can't, they'll end up going
through what their beaten-down brethren in the energy and mining sectors are undergoing right now:
reshuffling assets and debts, some of it in bankruptcy court.
But high-grade borrowers can always borrow – as long as they remain "high-grade." And for years,
they were on the gravy train riding toward ever lower interest rates: they could replace old higher-interest
debt with new lower-interest debt. But now the bonanza is ending. Bloomberg:
As recently as 2012, companies were refinancing at interest rates that were 0.83 percentage
point cheaper than the rates on the debt they were replacing, JPMorgan analysts said. That gap
narrowed to 0.26 percentage point last year, even without a rise in interest rates, because the
average coupon on newly issued debt increased.
And the benefits of refinancing at lower rates are dwindling further:
Companies saved a mere 0.21 percentage point in the second quarter on refinancings as investors
demanded average yields of 3.12 percent to own high-grade corporate debt – about half a percentage
point more than the post-crisis low in May 2013.
That was in the second quarter. Since then, conditions have worsened. Moody's Aaa Corporate Bond
Yield index, which tracks the highest-rated borrowers, was at 3.29% in early February. In July last
year, it was even lower for a few moments. So refinancing old debt at these super-low interest rates
was a deal. But last week, the index was over 4%. It currently sits at 3.93%. And the benefits of
refinancing at ever lower yields are disappearing fast.
What's left is a record amount of debt, generating a record amount of interest expense, even at
these still very low yields.
"Increasingly alarming" is what Goldman's credit strategists led by Lotfi Karoui called this deterioration
of corporate balance sheets. And it will get worse as yields edge up and as corporate revenues and
earnings sink deeper into the mire of the slowing global economy.
But these are the cream of the credit crop. At the other end of the spectrum – which the JPMorgan
analysts (probably holding their nose) did not address – are the junk-rated masses of over-indebted
corporate America. For deep-junk CCC-rated borrowers, replacing old debt with new debt has suddenly
gotten to be much more expensive or even impossible, as yields have shot up from the low last June
of around 8% to around 14% these days:
Yields have risen not because of the Fed's policies – ZIRP is still in place – but because investors
are coming out of their trance and are opening their eyes and are finally demanding higher returns
to take on these risks. Even high-grade borrowers are feeling the long-dormant urge by investors
to be once again compensated for risk, at least a tiny bit.
If the global economy slows down further and if revenues and earnings get dragged down with it,
all of which are now part of the scenario, these highly leveraged balance sheets will further pressure
already iffy earnings, and investors will get even colder feet, in a hail of credit down-grades,
and demand even more compensation for taking on these risks. It starts a vicious circle, even
in high-grade debt.
Alas, much of the debt wasn't invested in productive assets that would generate income and make
it easier to service the debt. Instead, companies plowed this money into dizzying amounts of share
repurchases designed to prop up the company's stock and nothing else, and they plowed it into grandiose
mergers and acquisitions, and into other worthy financial engineering projects.
Now the money is gone. The debt remains. And the interest has to be paid. It's the hangover after
a long party. And even Wall Street is starting to fret, according to Bloomberg:
The borrowing has gotten so aggressive that for the first time in about five years, equity
fund managers who said they'd prefer companies use cash flow to improve their balance sheets outnumbered
those who said they'd rather have it returned to shareholders, according to a survey by Bank of
America Merrill Lynch.
But it's still not sinking in. Companies are still announcing share buybacks
with breath-taking amounts, even as revenues and earnings are stuck in a quagmire. They want to prop
up their shares in one last desperate effort. In the past, this sort of financial engineering worked.
Every year since 2007, companies that bought back their own shares aggressively saw their shares
outperform the S&P 500 index.
But it isn't working anymore. Bloomberg found that since May, shares of companies that have
plowed the most into share buybacks have fallen even further than the S&P 500. Wal-Mart is a prime
example. Turns out, once financial engineering fails, all bets are off. Read…
The Chilling Thing Wal-Mart Said about Financial Engineering
Wolf Richter is a San Francisco based executive, entrepreneur, start up specialist,
and author, with extensive international work experience. Originally published at
Wolf Street.
TomDority, October 16, 2015 at 8:01 am
One wonders where all that "investment" goes…pretty much into the CEO's pockets and
investors pockets because banks do not create money by investing in real legitimate capital
formation or producing anything tangible…..i
It spelled out in Micheal Hudson's – Killing the Host. Economics and investment banking
wraps itself in the persona as the engine of growth when, in fact, it is the engine of dis-employment,
stagnate wages, declining manufacturing, inflated property prices which raise the cost of food
production and everything else including forcing a majority to spend more of their income on
debt service leaving less for anything beyond subsistence living.
These trillions are wasted and misdirected into useless financial "engineering" as opposed
to real world engineering….at the expense of a habitable peaceful planet. Soon, I hope, this
dislocation will be corrected. As I have said before, a good start would be to tax that which
is harmful (unearned income and rent seeking) and de-tax that which is helpful – real capital
formation, infrastructure and maintenance of a habitable planet and the absolutely necessary
biodiversity that sustains us.
david, October 16, 2015 at 8:57 am
"trillions are wasted and misdirected into useless financial "engineering" as
opposed to real world engineering"
I read yesterday that less than 6% of Bank financing is now going to real tangible
assets – the balance goes in various forms to intangible goodwill
this is not "useless" from the standpoint of those who direct this game.
Tony Soprano called it a "bust up" – take over a business and use the brand to skim the
profits, buy goods and services and roll them out the backdoor and declare BK and then buy it
back for pennies on the dollar.
the money is used for dividends and buybacks all that money is accumulated by the LBO firms
and management to maneuver the situation / process to the point of the bust up – this time
they are all going simultaneously for the exit even the most high end S&P firm – the HY prices
are deteriorating quickly beyond energy related as % LTV goes higher – before 82′ the LTV of
Fortune Cos. was way below 20% – 35% was considered max –
the same characters / groups will be formed to get to 51% to buy and control the bonds at
20-30% on the dollar in BK and take the assets.
35 years ago, I spent a day at Ngorongoro Crater in Tanzania with a driver in a rover by
myself watching the Hyenas take down a sick Buffalo culling him out in a gang, working the
animal for hours, as he shuffled along until he fell and ten….. finally ate him in a ferocious
climax. The most fascinating part of the entire trip.
USA, USA, USA !
cnchal, October 16, 2015 at 9:38 am
. . .Now the money is gone. The debt remains. And the interest has to be paid,. . .
Now there is a big fat tax deductible expense, and down the road, "value" is created
when companies are bought for the tax carry forward losses. Win, win win.
Just Ice, October 16, 2015 at 10:53 am
"Companies with investment-grade credit ratings …"
With government-subsidized private credit creation, the whole concept of "creditworthiness"
is suspect. Example, is Smith-Wesson "credit-worthy" to many Progressives? Yet, it's their
credit, as part of the public, that would be extended should S&W take out a bank loan.
Is a company that eliminates thousands of jobs via automation or outsourcing worthy of the
public's credit?
Earlier this week Putin accused US official of having "mush for brains" after they refused hand
over intelligence about ISIS targets.
He said: "We asked on the military level to give us the targets which they consider to be the
terrorist ones for sure, 100 per cent. But the answer was: 'No, we are not ready to do that'.
"Then we thought and asked another question: 'Then could you tell us where we should not hit?'
Again, no answer. So, what should we do?"
Washington and its allies have suggested Russia is seeking to prop up Bashar al-Assad's regime
rather than defeat ISIS.
But Putin hit back, saying his country wants to "contribute to the fight against terrorism" which
threatens "the whole world".
Think of the new Libya as the latest spectacular chapter in the Disaster Capitalism series. Instead of weapons of mass destruction,
we had R2P, short for "responsibility to protect". Instead of neo-conservatives, we had humanitarian imperialists.
Voltaire Network | Sâo Paulo (Brazil)
But the target is the same: regime change. And the project is the same: to completely dismantle and privatize a nation that was
not integrated into turbo-capitalism; to open another (profitable) land of opportunity for turbocharged neo-liberalism. The whole
thing is especially handy because it is smack in the middle of a nearly global recession.
It will take some time; Libyan oil won't totally return to the market within 18 months. But there's the reconstruction of everything
the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) bombed (well, not much of what the Pentagon bombed in 2003 was reconstructed in Iraq
...).
Anyway - from oil to rebuilding - in thesis juicy business opportunities loom. France's neo-Napoleonic Nicolas Sarkozy and Britain's
David of Arabia Cameron believe they will be especially well positioned to profit from NATO's victory. Yet there's no guarantee the
new Libyan bonanza will be enough to lift both former colonial powers (neo-colonials?) out of recession.
President Sarkozy in particular will milk the business opportunities for French companies for all they're worth - part of
his ambitious agenda of "strategic redeployment" of France in the Arab world. A compliant French media are gloating that this was
"his" war - spinning that he decided to arm the rebels on the ground with French weaponry, in close cooperation with Qatar, including
a key rebel commando unit that went by sea from Misrata to Tripoli last Saturday, at the start of "Operation Siren".
Well, he certainly saw the opening when Muammar Gaddafi's chief of protocol defected to Paris in October 2010. That's when the
whole regime change drama started to be incubated.
Bombs for oil
As previously noted (see "Welcome to Libya's 'democracy'",
Asia Times Online, August 24) the vultures are already circling Tripoli to grab (and monopolize) the spoils. And yes - most
of the action has to do with oil deals, as in this stark assertion by Abdeljalil Mayouf, information manager at the "rebel" Arabian
Gulf Oil Company: "We don't have a problem with Western countries like the Italians, French and UK companies. But we may have
some political issues with Russia, China and Brazil."
These three happen to be crucial members of the BRICS group of emerging economies (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa),
which are actually growing while the Atlanticist, NATO-bombing economies are either stuck in stagnation or recession. The top four
BRICs also happen to have abstained from approving UN Security Council resolution 1973, the no-fly zone scam that metamorphosed into
NATO bringing regime change from above. They saw right through it from the beginning.
To make matters worse (for them), only three days before the Pentagon's Africom launched its first 150-plus Tomahawks over Libya,
Colonel Gaddafi gave an interview to German TV stressing that if the country were attacked, all energy contracts would be transferred
to Russian, Indian and Chinese companies.
So the winners in the oil bonanza are already designated: NATO members plus Arab monarchies. Among the companies involved, British
Petroleum (BP), France's Total and the Qatar national oil company. For Qatar - which dispatched jet fighters and recruiters to the
front lines, trained "rebels" in exhaustive combat techniques, and is already managing oil sales in eastern Libya - the war will
reveal itself to be a very wise investment decision.
Prior to the months-long crisis that is in its end game now with the rebels in the capital, Tripoli, Libya was producing 1.6 million
barrels per day. Once resumed, this could reap Tripoli's new rulers some US$50 billion annually. Most estimates place oil reserves
at 46.4 billion barrels.
The "rebels" of new Libya better not mess with China. Five months ago, China's official policy was all ready to call for a ceasefire;
if that had happened, Gaddafi would still control more than half of Libya. Yet Beijing - never a fan of violent regime change - for
the moment is exercising extreme restraint.
After a Libyan "rebel" official warned that Chinese oil companies
could lose out after the ousting of Muammar Gaddafi, China urged Libya to protect its investments and said their oil trade benefited
both countries.
Wen Zhongliang, the deputy head of the Ministry of Trade, willfully observed, "Libya will continue to protect the interests
and rights of Chinese investors and we hope to continue investment and economic cooperation." Official statements are piling
up emphasizing "mutual economic cooperation".
Last week, Abdel Hafiz Ghoga, vice president of the dodgy Transitional National Council (TNC), told Xinhua that all deals and
contracts agreed with the Gaddafi regime would be honored - but Beijing is taking no chances.
Libya supplied no more than 3% of China's oil imports in 2010. Angola is a much more crucial supplier. But China is still Libya's
top oil customer in Asia. Moreover, China could be very helpful in the infrastructure rebuilding front, or in the technology export
- no less than 75 Chinese companies with 36,000 employees were already on the ground before the outbreak of the tribal/civil war,
swiftly evacuated in less than three days.
The Russians - from Gazprom to Tafnet - had billions of dollars invested in Libyan projects; Brazilian oil giant Petrobras and
the construction company Odebrecht also had intrests there. It's still unclear what will happen to them. The director general of
the Russia-Libya Business Council, Aram Shegunts, is extremely worried: "Our companies will lose everything because NATO will
prevent them from doing business in Libya."
Italy seems to have passed the "rebel" version of "you're either with us or without us". Energy giant ENI apparently won't be
affected, as Premier Silvio "Bunga Bunga" Berlusconi pragmatically dumped his previous very close pal Gaddafi at the start of the
Africom/NATO bombing spree.
ENI's directors are confident Libya's oil and gas flows to southern Italy will resume before winter. And the Libyan ambassador
in Italy, Hafed Gaddur, reassured Rome that all Gaddafi-era contracts will be honored. Just in case, Berlusconi will meet the TNC's
prime minister, Mahmoud Jibril, this Thursday in Milan.
Bin Laden to the rescue
Turkey's Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu - of the famed "zero problems with our neighbors" policy - has also been gushing praise
on the former "rebels" turned powers-that-be. Eyeing the post-Gaddafi business bonanza as well, Ankara - as NATO's eastern flank
- ended up helping to impose a naval blockade on the Gaddafi regime, carefully cultivated the TNC, and in July formally recognized
it as the government of Libya. Business "rewards" loom.
Then there's the crucial plot; how the House of Saud is going to profit from having been instrumental in setting up a friendly
regime in Libya, possibly peppered with Salafi notables; one of the key reasons for the Saudi onslaught - which included a fabricated
vote at the Arab League - was the extreme bad blood between Gaddafi and King Abdullah since the run-up towards the war on Iraq in
2002.
It's never enough to stress the cosmic hypocrisy of an ultra-regressive absolute monarchy/medieval theocracy - which invaded Bahrain
and repressed its native Shi'ites - saluting what could be construed as a pro-democracy movement in Northern Africa.
Anyway, it's time to party. Expect the Saudi Bin Laden Group to reconstruct like mad all over Libya - eventually turning the (looted)
Bab al-Aziziyah into a monster, luxury Mall of Tripolitania.
Speaking in parliament recently Leszek Miller, former Poland's Prime Minister and head of Democratic Left Alliance, said about
the Russia-Ukraine relations "Poland has become rather a problem than a solution". The remark did not go unnoticed and he came under
harsh criticism from media.
Some voiced concern over the possibility that such statements could provoke "radical changes" and prompt Europe to look at the
east "through the eyes of Orban, Berlusconi and Miller". Nevertheless nobody denied the fact that the Poland's stance on Ukraine
is one of factors to spur the conflict. It's obvious.
Since the very first days of Maidan protests Poland has applied a lot of effort to turn Ukraine into a European problem. And it
has closely cooperated with the United States.
According to Alexander Yakimenko, the former head of Ukraine's Security Service operative, "All the orders were given either by
the US embassy or by Jan Tombinski, a Polish representative who worked in the EU mission in Kiev. Poland played an invaluable role
in the coup. It has always dreamt of restoring its former power and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth".
In September 2012 Kiev welcomed the appointment of Jan Tombinski as head of the Delegation of the European Union to Ukraine. According
to Polish media, as soon as Mr. Tombinski took office, the EU office turned into the headquarters of the extremists who overthrew
the legal authorities and actually sparked a civil war in the country.
As soon as Ukraine was set on fire some compatriots of Tombinski joined his efforts, like, for instance, Andrzej Derlatka, former
chief of the Polish Intelligence Agency, who has been responsible for interaction with the US Central Intelligence Agency. He had
to resign as a result of scandal related to CIA's secret prisons operating on Polish soil. Derlatka held talks with President Poroshenko
about the activities of Polish secret services in Ukraine including the protection of top NATO officials (the US delegated this responsibility
to Poland). Jeffrey Egan и Raymond Mark Davidson, former and current heads of CIA station in Kiev, acted as intermediaries at the
talks. Since the very start Polish and American secret services preferred to cooperate with retired veterans instead of officers
on active service, many of whom had dubious reputations or intelligence identities revealed. Here is a good example. Jerzy Dziewulski,
the security advisor to former Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski, worked as a security guard to protect Ukrainian former acting
President Turchinov, whom he accompanied during the trips to the Donbass after the civil war started.
According to Polish experts, the Ukraine's high standing officials befriended Polish politicians a long time ago. For example, Ukraine's
tycoon Mykola Zlochevsky, ex-Minister of Ecology, and former President of Poland Aleksander Kwasniewski are on the Board of Directors
of Burisma Holdings (the company has a lot of interest in a potential shale gas exploration in the east of Ukraine).
In October Petro Poroshenko met Eva Kovacs, the Poland's new Prime Minister, to discuss 'strategic partnership". The next day
Polish Foreign Minister Grzegorz Shetina compared the relationship of Warsaw and Kiev with the relations between European countries
and their colonies in Africa.
He elaborated on his statement on November 6, "Talking about Ukraine without Poland - the same as that discussing the case of
Libya, Algeria, Tunisia, and Morocco without Italy, France and Spain". It sounded defiantly enough to evoke concern in Kiev but Ukraine's
officials had no guts to send a note to Warsaw. The Ukrainian media raised ballyhoo about it but emphasized that not all Polish outlets
shared the opinion of Polish Foreign Minister.
Popular Rzeczpospolita published the article titled Ukraine as Polish Colony. Schetyna's Words Arouse Indignation. It cited the
opinion of Ukrainian expert, "If the Polish foreign minister said this, it should be his last thing he says in this capacity", said
Vasyl Filipchuk, former Ukrainian diplomat and currently Chairman of the ICPS (International Centre for Policy Studies) Board. But
nobody paid attention to his words.
Meanwhile Ukraine's officials are going through training in Poland to enhance their professional skills for doing a better job
while serving in the "colonial administration", as
Grzegorz Shetina would call it. According to Jakub Korejba, a Polish researcher, the National School of Public Administration
in Warsaw is responsible for the process. It was created with the help of French specialists patterned after the National School
of Administration (The École nationale d'administration –ENA) in Paris. Jacek Czaputowicz, the former director the school, has been
a militant of the Solidarity radical wing and Director at the Department of Foreign Policy Strategy and Planning at the Ministry
of Foreign Affairs. Jan Pastwa, the School's current director, has served as Polish Ambassador to the Czech Republic. The both men
are ardent supporters of the concept aimed at containment of Russia in Europe. Pastwa is a member of radical extremist group ZHR
(the Scouting Association of the Republic, Polish: Związek Harcerstwa Rzeczypospolitej -ZHR) which proclaims the return of Western
Belarus and Ukraine to Poland as its foreign policy goals.
Leszek Miller is right. Poland has become part of big problem.
The all-too-visible predatory nature of contemporary US governance is quintessentially linked to corporations. Yet attempts to
change this uniquely American phenomenon may push voters to a closer embrace of the predators. - Thomas I Palley (Aug 21,
'08)
Predator state calls the shots
Economist Jamie K Galbraith's recent book [1] describes modern (Bush-Cheney) Republicanism as creating a "predator state".
Its predatory aspects are starkly visible in the gangs of corporate lobbyists who roam Washington DC, the Halliburton Iraq
war procurement scandal and the corruption and incompetence that surrounded the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.
However, the broad concept of a predator state needs qualification as we are really talking of an "American corporate" predator
state. Thus, the predatory nature of contemporary US governance is quintessentially linked to corporations, and it is also a uniquely
American phenomenon.
Kleptocratic predator states, such as Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe or Sese Seko Mobutu's Zaire in Africa, are fundamentally different.
There is no equivalent in Europe, and none in East Asia where ruling elites have a sense of obligation to the nation even as they
often enrich themselves illicitly. Nor is there an equivalent in Latin America because government there never reached an economic
size proportional to that of government in the US.
It is important to understand the social origins of the American corporate predator state because understanding is a necessary
part of developing responses for caging the predators and replacing them with another, better, order. Those origins clearly
trace back to the military-industrial complex that president Dwight Eisenhower warned about in his final televised address to the
nation on January 17, 1961.
That complex has captured politics and corrupted the business of government, including of course the conduct of national security
policy. The fact that it has wrapped itself with the flag makes it impossible to confront without being charged as unpatriotic.
Worst yet, its enormous enduring profitability has provided a model for imitation by other industrial complexes like Big Pharma
and Big Oil.
The political success of these predators is clearly linked to money's role in politics. Money gives the power to
buy the political process, and that power is defended by a gospel of free speech that takes no account of the fact that out-shouting
someone is qualitatively equivalent to silencing them. Economics also comes to money's defense with its absurd myth of a market for
ideas in which participants compete on a level playing field and truth is effortlessly sorted from error.
The American worship of business and businessmen, which Sinclair Lewis (Babbitt, 1922) wrote about long ago, also plays
a role. This worship privileges business over thought and other activities, and is behind the dismissive sneer "if you're so smart,
how come you're not rich?" As a result, Americans are all too willing to hand over their government to business predators.
Today, it is in Goldman Sachs we trust.
Another feature of business worship is a tendency to conflate profit with free markets. That means the distinction between fair
competition (which is good) and fat profits (which are bad) is lost, thereby providing cover for predators.
Lastly, there is the legacy of the Cold War which contributed to economic dumbing-down and suppression of awareness of class
and class conflict. This suppression was seen as necessary for blunting the dangerous appeal of Soviet communism, but a consequence
was to create blindness to the predators in our midst.
All of this reveals a deep deficit in America's social and economic understanding (some deficits really do matter). And as long
as this deficit remains, the predators will have a starting-gate advantage in the game of political persuasion.
Yet, how to close the deficit and insert another understanding is an enormous challenge. There are deep institutional obstructions
in the academy, the media, and the Democratic Party. Moreover, raising these issues may create unsettling cognitive dissonance that
pushes voters into denial and a closer embrace of the predators.
In effect, there is a paradox to be solved. Lasting progressive political victory requires transforming understanding, but the
immediate political incentives are aligned to discourage engagement with such a project.
Note: The Predator State: How Conservatives Abandoned the Free Market and Why Liberals Should Too, by James K Galbraith,
Free Press, 2008.
Thomas I Palley is the founder of the Economics for Democratic and Open Societies Project.
Some good parts, some bad parts, some better book suggestions, August 23, 2010Barnabas O'Books
Amazon Verified Purchase(What's
this?) This review is from: American Empire Before the Fall (Paperback) American Empire: Before the Fall has its positives
and negatives, which I enumerate as follows.
Positives:
Fein accurately portrays the current US government as a bigger, more oppressive, and a much more heavily-taxing leviathan
than the British Empire from which so many gave their lives to separate.
Fein rightly highlights US imperialism as rooted in the immaturity and insecurity of its leadership.
The US patrols the world for the juvenile thrill of conquest and control (and to route tax dollars to military suppliers and
banks).
The Monroe Doctrine is correctly identified as an excuse for expansion.
He notes that Obama is the financial, foreign policy, and civil liberties twin of George W. Bush.
He raises a good point that no multinational effort at nation-building in the last 100 years has been successful (yet the
arrogance of our leaders always makes them believe they will be the exception).
He identifies multiple lies by presidents throughout the 20th and 21st centuries to trick the voters into supporting unnecessary
war.
He notes as pure fantasy the ideas that
1) we must fight for democracy, human rights, and stability globally as a matter of principal (Washington and Adams both
opposed humanitarian wars)
2) a global military presence is necessary to ensure economic growth (historically, trade has increased when other nations
engaged in war).
Negatives:
- There were multiple grammatical errors and typos.
- The author lauds Lincoln without calling into question the many sins of this American tyrant and enemy of the Constitution.
Can you admire someone who shuts down over 100 newspapers critical of their administration and detains without trial over 10,000
Northerners as political prisoners? For an eye-opener listing many more dark secrets, read
The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham
Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War. If we knew history, we'd have no Lincoln memorial...
- He praises Jefferson without mentioning his Constitutional violation in the Louisiana Purchase. The point being that even
the most ardent defenders of the Constitution violated it once in Presidency (as did Adams with the Alien and Sedition Acts) -
which is the whole reason that the Constitution is structured the way it is. For details (and a vastly superior book) on how each
President overstepped his authority, check
Recarving Rushmore: Ranking the Presidents
on Peace, Prosperity, and Liberty (Independent Studies in Political Economy).
- He lumps most presidents of the 1800s together as uneducated clods, but John Tyler and Grover Cleveland were fairly good
defenders of liberty, peace and prosperity.
- Fein totally ignores the perpetual genocidal wars against Native Americans throughout the nineteenth century - as if conquering
those nations was somehow not imperialism.
- He continues the myth that the Soviets "blinked" in the Cuban missile crisis, when the opposite is true. The missiles were
placed in opposition to US missiles in southern Italy and Turkey. *Kennedy* blinked and agreed to remove those.
- He claims that only Britain, Japan and Germany initiated war against the US; the list is actually smaller. The US placed
an oil and steel embargo against Japan prior to WWII (a provoking move), and they supported ridiculous peace terms against Germany
to end WWI, coupled with high protective tariffs in the 1930s that helped to cripple the German economy and thereby facilitate
Hitler's rise to power. Lastly, the War of 1812 was caused in part by the US desire to establish a second national bank (predecessor
of the FED which causes inflation) in competition with the Bank of England. The ruse was: start a war, act surprised it couldn't
be funded, and then plead for a national bank to support more war - it worked - the Second National Bank came to fruition after
the War of 1812. So, the US has caused, at least in part, every single war they have ever taken part in, which is not the fairy
tale version of history you get in school...
- Fein, in tracing recent transgressions, skips suspiciously from Nixon to Clinton, ignoring Iran-Contra (and impeachable
offense) and meddling in Lebanon under Reagan.
- Lastly, he supports a military draft - one of the greatest assaults on individual liberty. (Daniel Webster argued against
its Constitutionality.)
- He also does not hold accountable any branch of the military for engaging in unConstitutional wars despite their oath to
support the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. The minimally Constitutionally loyal response to a police action
initiated by the Commander in Chief is to sit idly on ones behind. However, troops unwittingly give their lives in unConstitutional
warfare, breaking their oaths, and taking direction from the very individuals they should be apprehending.
The book could be improved by addressing the above negatives and enhancing ongoing comparisons and contrasts between the US and
other failed empires (Britain, Russia, Rome). I'm quite disappointed in this product of the Campaign for Liberty. Better would be
an inventory of all unconstitutional federal programs, their histories, and a budget projection reflecting their removal.
Lastly, the production quality of the cover was dismal. I tore it off after both front and back curled up like a scroll.
L. Holthaus:
Posted on Nov 7, 2010 8:10:15 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 7, 2010 8:11:21 AM
Excellent review of the book...thanks. I noticed many of the same "negatives," but I've grown accustomed to things like the lauding
of Lincoln or the various other instance of "looking the other way" or selective memory of unconstitutional transgression. My
major disagreement w/the book is over the mandatory military service...truly an "assault on individual liberty." Liberty is the
maximum absence of coercion. The message of the book, to me, was solid overall, but your review has added to the discussion.
Orr
I agree with your comment, but so what? It's always useful to have more to chew on. I'm a Jefferson fan, so I'd like to add that
he said, well before the Louisiana Purchase, that a chief exec ought to follow the Constitution strictly. But if he deems an action
necessary under the prevailing conditions, he should take the risk of knowingly violating the Constitution, inform Congress, and
ask for post-event permission. He did all these things. Greaney goes too far by throwing a kitchen sinkful of criticism at practically
everything our presidents have done. For me, it would have been more effective to point to that flaw in the original review, limit
his criticisms to the most egregious, and not repeating Greaney's overkill. I can go along with Fein's main thrust but don't accept
demonization as intelligent criticism.
Bill Orr
Daniel P McCarthy (Saint Louis, Missouri United States)
Constitutional Scholar Bruce Fein takes a candid approach in this accurate, though sad, look at how far the American people
have allowed their country to descend from a Republic self-governed to a near-dictatorship empire focused on expansion at any
cost. Yes, it is upon the shoulders of the American people where he rests the lion's share of blame, for it is "We the
People" who are granted phenomenal powers over government in the Charter Documents of the United States; it is we who have ultimately
failed in remaining true to the legacy of the Founding Fathers in reining in corruption and adhering to the principles of the
Constitution.
Fein leaves little room for bickering or finger-pointing as he slices into key moments of history (like the Mexican-American
War) to illustrate as clearly as possible the shift the nation took from Republic to Empire. He does nothing to defend the defilers
of the Constitution and picks out the worst culprits in our descent to Empire, their part in history laid bare -- such as John
Adams' signing of the Alien and Sedition Act -- proving Madison and Jefferson right in their desire to restrain the Executive
when even a Founding Father would abuse powers not granted him by the Constitution.
Fein unrepentingly targets the Executive, the Legislative, and Judicial branches, outlining their missteps with quotes from
the wonderful Federalist Papers and from our Founding Fathers to set the tone for how the American Republic was meant to be, and
through the darkness lights a candle of hope that we could one day reclaim the greatness America was meant for -- but only if
we are willing to collectively take a stand and seize the powers granted to us by the Constitution over government.
Overall, American Empire delivers on its title and more; Fein takes us back to the Golden Age of America, a Republic where
the individual was master of his own fate and neutrality was the watchword above all, and then leaves us with the America of today,
her runaway government devoted to wars of intrigue and spying on her own people.
Can we return to a Constitutional form of government? Fein thinks so, but it will take a majority of the American people to
wake up and see that our current course dooms us to bankruptcy and endless war before there is any real hope for a brighter future.
Steven A. Peterson (Hershey, PA (Born in Kewanee, IL))
The Predator State: How Conservatives Abandoned the Free Market and Why Liberals Should Too (Hardcover)
James Galbraith, this book's author, is the son of famous economist John Kenneth Galbraith. His father was an important figure
in economics, with books such as "The New Industrial State" on his resume. I mention this since this volume mentions Galbraith
pere approvingly on a number of occasions.
Galbraith begins by noting that our economic discussion is based on a fallacy -- that free markets and competition govern
our economic sphere. This idea is now the dominant view of how an economic system ought to function in the United States.
He goes on to say that (Page xi):
". . .the doctrine serves as a kind of legitimation myth--something to be repeated to schoolchildren but hardly taken
seriously by those on the inside."
The guiding metaphor for this book, a predatory state, is outlined early on by Galbraith. He says that this refers to (Page
xiii): "the systematic abuse of public institutions for private profit or, equivalently, the systematic undermining of public
protections for the benefit of private clients."
He develops this thesis, beginning with a first chapter entitled "Whatever happened to the conservatives?" He begins by noting
the elements of the Reagan revolution (or Reaganomics as it was then termed)
Tax reduction to trigger investment and economic growth;
Tight money to halt the inflation that had sapped the energy of the economy;
Deregulation and assaults on unions, to, once more, let market forces rule.
He goes on to argue that, first, this perspective did NOT achieve what its supporters allege, and, second, that contemporary
conservatives have in essence abandoned these principles to "take over" the government and use that power to enhance the interests
of the moneyed and powerful class. As a result, Regan's vision has been replaced by "the predator state," which he defines as
(Page 131)
". . .a coalition of relentless opponents of the regulatory framework on which public purpose depends, with enterprises
whose major lines of business compete with or encroach on the principle public functions of the enduring New Deal."
If that is the problem, what would the solution be? Galbraith suggests three components of addressing the predator state.
One is to institute a system of planning, to think ahead and not depend on short term profit making motives of business
enterprises.
Another is for government to become more involved in setting wages and ensuring a more equal distribution of pay and income
(his argument is that there is no evidence that letting wealthy people get wealthier has positive economic benefits).
Three, the United States is part of a world economy, and that should help to discipline and inform our policy.
His policy proposal? If you want higher wages, raise them? If you want better jobs--create them. If you want safer foods and
cleaner air, mandate it. Don't depend on the market. Just do it. That won't sit well, of course, with those who advocate markets
as the answer. But, then, by the terms of his argument, the market will not do that since it does not describe how things work.
The final chapter examines how one might pay for his policy choices.
Plenty of examples are mentioned. This is a book that is not always clear in what it argues, although that is not a major problem.
It does provoke reflection on how things work, and that is to the good. I must confess that I am not convinced by what are, generically,
referred to as conspiracy theories, and this book has a flavor of a conspiracy at work. Nonetheless, in the aftermath of the economic
troubles that have beset the United States and other countries, it is useful to examine alternate perspectives and see if they
add anything of value to discourse.
Description
The cult of the free market has dominated economic policy-talk since the Reagan revolution of nearly thirty years ago. Tax
cuts and small government, monetarism, balanced budgets, deregulation, and free trade are the core elements of this dogma, a dogma
so successful that even many liberals accept it. But a funny thing happened on the bridge to the twenty-first century. While liberals
continue to bow before the free-market altar, conservatives in the style of George W. Bush have abandoned it altogether. That
is why principled conservatives -- the Reagan true believers -- long ago abandoned Bush.
Enter James K. Galbraith, the iconoclastic economist. In this riveting book, Galbraith first dissects the stale remains
of Reaganism and shows how Bush and company had no choice except to dump them into the trash. He then explores the true
nature of the Bush regime: a "corporate republic,":
bringing the methods and mentality of big business to public life;
a coalition of lobbies, doing the bidding of clients in the oil, mining, military, pharmaceutical, agribusiness, insurance,
and media industries;
and a predator state, intent not on reducing government but rather on diverting public cash into private hands.
In plain English, the Republican Party has been hijacked by political leaders who long since stopped caring if reality conformed
to their message.
Galbraith follows with an impertinent question: if conservatives no longer take free markets seriously, why should liberals?
Why keep liberal thought in the straitjacket of pay-as-you-go, of assigning inflation control to the Federal Reserve,
of attempting to "make markets work"? Why not build a new economic policy based on what is really happening in this country?
The real economy is not a free-market economy. It is a complex combination of private and public institutions, including
Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, higher education, the housing finance system, and a vast federal research establishment.
The real problems and challenges -- inequality, climate change, the infrastructure deficit, the subprime crisis, and the
future of the dollar -- are problems that cannot be solved by incantations about the market. They will be solved only with planning,
with standards and other policies that transcend and even transform markets.
A timely, provocative work whose message will endure beyond this election season, The Predator State will appeal to
the broad audience of thoughtful Americans who wish to understand the forces at work in our economy and culture and who seek to
live in a nation that is both prosperous and progressive.
Does anyone else recall the days when to be an economic conservative in the United States meant something? As a young liberal
on the congressional staff a long time ago, I remember them in vivid frustration. The 1970s saw the rise of two distinct conservative
movements, the supply-siders and the monetarists: radical tax cutters and deregulators on one side, apostles of strict control
over the money stock on the other. Their rise culminated in the Reagan revolution of 1980, which brought them both into high office.
This was personal: the conservative alliance devalued my Keynesian education, obstructed my career, and deprived me and my few
comrades on Capitol Hill of purchase on the levers of power. It was difficult politically. As executive director of the Joint
Economic Committee in 1981, I organized a largely futile frontline resistance. But intellectually it was even worse. However much
one disagreed with them, these were people who believed. They were idealists. They had the force of conviction. Worse still,
they were setting the agenda. And there was the thought: Suppose they were right?
The Reaganites offered up a famous combination of policies that had grown largely from seeds planted in the academy during
the long years of liberal rule. The central element was reduction of taxes on wealth, intended to unlock the productive powers
of capital, spurring saving and investment. Tight money was intended to end inflation quickly, brutally if necessary. And with
this came a wide-ranging assault on government, regulation, and unions, whose purpose was to let market forces -- and private
capitalists -- rule.
Except among the immediate victims, the great conservative ideas for a time had wide appeal. Some of it was scientific. For
each problem, they offered a solution. Each solution was rooted in the attractive vision of free individual economic choice, coordinated
only by the marketplace and the gentle persuasions of price. The solutions had scholarly credentials; they were rooted in the
economics my generation had imbibed in graduate school. For that reason, President Reagan was able to draw on some of the most
prominent economists in the country, not all of them ideologues by any means. Murray Weidenbaum and Martin Feldstein were his
first chairs of the Council of Economic Advisers, and even young tyros Lawrence Summers and Paul Krugman, who each came in for
a year under Feldstein, would serve in his administration. Nobody of remotely comparable talent would work under George W. Bush.
In addition to intellectual legitimacy, the popularity of the conservative viewpoint in those days had an emotional, even a
romantic, aspect. The conservatives promised prosperity without the trouble of planning for it, achieved through
a simple three-step program: cut taxes, end inflation, and free the market.
At a deeper level, they promised an end to a kind of politics that many in elite circles -- frankly in both major parties --
had come to loathe: the politics of compromise, redistribution, and catering to the needs and demands of minorities and the poor.
America in 1980 had compassion fatigue. The conservative agenda promised, perhaps more than anything else, to make
compassion redundant. In addition, it was audacious, radical, flashy -- a program with sex appeal. Suddenly it was the conservatives
who were the brave and brash bad boys of American culture, while liberals like myself had become the country's killjoys, young
fogies hopelessly in the grip of old ideas.
What is left of all this, twenty-five years on? Essentially nothing. The election of November 7, 2006, swept conservative Republicans
from their majorities in both houses of Congress and signaled a new skepticism about entrusting government to those who profess
to despise it. Plainly the public no longer believes what conservative leaders say about free markets. The death of Milton Friedman
ten days later symbolized the era's end. Yet as the Wall Street Journal's own Friedman obituary conceded, policymakers
had long previously discarded the practical substance of his ideas. Central banks do not attempt to control the money supply.
Regulation has been reinstated in finance, and the facts of climate change make a new era of environmental interventions inevitable,
sooner or later. Meanwhile, the world has given up waiting for tax cuts to unleash the hidden creativity of the business class.
The issue today is not whether the great conservative ideas once had appeal or a foundation in reputable theory. The issue
is whether they have a future. And on that point, there is general agreement today, largely shared even by those who still believe
passionately in the conservative cause. The fact is that the Reagan era panoply of ideas has been abandoned as the intellectual
basis of a political program. There are almost no monetarists left in power. There are no convinced supply-siders (though the
catechism is still occasionally recited). There are no public intellectual leaders in any campaign for "free markets" and against
regulation. "Free trade" has been reduced to a label, pasted over trade agreements that are anything but "free."
The economic conservative still reigns supreme in the academy and on the talk shows, but in the public realm, he is today practically
null and void. He does not exist. And if he were to resurface today in the policy world, offering up the self-confident doctrines
of 1980, he would be taken seriously by no one.
Today, in the great policy house of the conservatives, there are only lobbyists and the politicians who do their bidding. There
are slogans and sloganeers. There are cronies and careerists. There are occasional fix-it men who are called in when major disasters
have to be repaired. There are people who predict disaster, quite routinely, in order to justify the destruction of Social Security
and other popular programs, for the transparent purpose of turning them over to friends on Wall Street. Mercifully few believe
them, though that does not end the danger, for they represent forces whose power does not rest on persuasion. There are university
economists who can be tapped, as ever, for high public office, but they plainly lack convictions. Once in office, they come and
go, doing nothing to advance the conservative case. In public view, the conservative house stood for a long time, a mansion visible
from all parts of the landscape. But inside, the place was decrepit; its intellectual foundation had collapsed. A few true believers
continued to live there, but it was not any great surprise, even to them, when it fell down.
What are the Reagan conservatives doing today? Milton Friedman himself, the father of monetarism, in 2003 repudiated his own
old policy doctrine: "The use of quantity of money as a target has not been a success....I'm not sure I would as of today push
it as hard as I once did," he told the Financial Times. In the face of the complete collapse of the evidence on which they
had based their case linking money growth to price change, the other monetarists have mostly dropped the topic or passed on. Practically
everyone today agrees: the Federal Reserve sets the short-term interest rate, and it is interest rates, not the money stock, that
drive the economy. Indeed, the Federal Reserve recently quietly ceased to publish certain monetary statistics in which the academic
world had lost interest (and no one else ever had any).
Jude Wanniski, the original supply-sider, died at age sixty-nine in late 2005. He never stopped being a supply-sider and, I
think, a true believer. But from 2001 onward, he devoted himself to opposing, eloquently, the neoconservative wars; he and I became
friends and even coauthored an article on one occasion. It was joint antimonetarist advice--from the "first supply-sider" and
the "last Keynesian"--to the Federal Reserve against raising interest rates. George Gilder, who scourged the poor and celebrated
wealth in the early 1980s, went on to become a guru of the technology revolution in the 1990s; when the tech boom collapsed, so
did the market for his stock-picking skills. Paul Craig Roberts, assistant secretary of the treasury for economic policy in the
Reagan administration, later author of The Supply-Side Revolution and a columnist for Business Week, has become
a vehement voice against the Iraq war, the building threat of a war with Iran, and the assault on civil liberties that is part
of the "global war on terror." Bruce Bartlett, once an avid young supply-sider and author of Reaganomics, remains an old-fashioned
advocate of the most forlorn cause in modern history: small government. In 2005 he published a book entitled Impostor: How
George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Revolution.
Perhaps the greatest conservative true believer was the Old Objectivist himself, Alan Greenspan, for eighteen years chairman
of the board of governors of the Federal Reserve System. Though never a monetarist, Greenspan assiduously favored tax cuts, spending
cuts, and deregulation. In office he always deferred to the avatars of free markets, refusing to use his judgment or his soapbox
or his regulatory power against speculative bubbles in technology and housing. His philosophy on these matters was that markets
are like that and the job of government is to clean up the mess after the crash. Yet in his monumental recent confessions, The
Age of Turbulence, Greenspan delivered his verdict on the Republicans of 2006: "They traded principle for power and ended up with
neither. They deserved to lose."
It is fashionable today to dismiss the Reagan conservatives, including those I have mentioned, as swindlers, the mere tools
of the monied interests who backed them. This is the approach taken, for instance, by New Republic senior editor Jonathan
Chait in his new book, The Big Con, while Paul Krugman in his new book, Conscience of a Liberal, tends to treat
them as either swindlers or fools. I have no objection to the political economy of those books; money does talk. But I do not
think the verdict is entirely fair. The fact that money hires ideas is not necessarily a decisive argument against the ideas;
it does not make the ideas illegitimate on their face. Nor is it correct to argue that the monetarists, the supply-siders, and
the deregulators were fringe-end elements in academic circles. To the contrary, Milton Friedman's followers entirely dominated
discussions of monetary policy for a generation. Flat-taxers like Robert Hall and Alvin Rabushka were ensconced in top departments
and think tanks; supply-sider Robert Mundell won the economists' version of the Nobel Prize. The fact is, Reagan's radicals had
a deep academic bench, including a fair number who did not think his policies went nearly far enough. The disillusionment today
of the remaining Reagan policy veterans with the Bush regime goes deeper than the fact that they are not on the payroll. It has
to do, rather, with the collapse of their ideas as governing doctrine. Meanwhile, they are now shunned by the theorists in the
academy, who would rather not leave fingerprints on the wreckage. But they rightly remember the day when the big professors were
happy to be their friends.
There is a reason, in short, that principled conservatives find themselves in the political wilderness once again: they belong
there. They are noble savages and the wilderness is their native element. They do not belong in government because, as a practical
matter, they have little to contribute to it; they are guilty of taking the myths they helped to create too seriously, and to
sophisticated people, that makes them look a bit foolish. They are against deficits, government spending, and the expansion of
publicly financed health care coverage. Fine. What do they propose to do about them? They favor income tax cuts, and cuts in tax
rates on all forms of wealth, but do they still argue, as a good conservative needs to and work effort will bloom? Of course they
don't, because the experiment was tried, and it failed. They still favor free markets in broad principle, but do they speak in
detail of the fate of the airlines, the national forests, the coal miners, and the savings and loan industry under deregulation?
No. We find that for the most part, these are topics that the latter-day divines of the free-market-inprinciple would very much
prefer to avoid.
Looking forward, one may ask how economic conservatives address our current problems. Do they have an alternative to our oil
addiction, to imperial commitment, to global warming? No. Did they have a program of recovery for the city of New Orleans? No.
Is there a realistic conservative plan for health care? No. There is merely opposition to everyone else's ideas. Is there a realistic
conservative approach to immigration? Not really. Part of the conservative movement favors a brutal and impossible wall, and part
of it favors a return to indentured servitude in the form of a guest worker program. Have the conservatives come to grips with
the changing global economy, notably the wave of economic crises since 1980 and the rise of the one large country to stay away
from the globalized financial system, namely, China? Do they have a vision for the future of the world monetary system should
something happen to confidence in the dollar? No. The terms of the policy dialogue have changed, but the terms of reference of
the great conservative economic worldview have not.
It is therefore no surprise that George W. Bush failed to make principled use of principled conservatives, thereby earning
their embittered rejection. The reality is that no government, no matter how far to the right in political terms, could make any
serious use of them. The experience of the past quarter-century and the evolution of practical understanding about economic policy
since the Reagan years simply makes it impossible to take the conservative worldview seriously as a constellation of ideas to
be applied to policy. And therefore it is fair to say that there will never again be any U.S. government for which a truly principled
conservative might work. In the final analysis, Bush is remarkable merely for his lack of interest in hiring committed intellectuals
to shill for his policies, and therefore for his willingness to court rejection by the principled conservative crowd. He ran an
unapologetic government of businessmen and lobbyists, governing largely without academic cover.
Moreover, not only have the conservatives been cast from power, they have also ceased to evolve. Is there any such thing as
a modern conservative economic policy idea? Not only are there no Reaganite intellectuals in Bush's government, the flow of new
suggestions from the academic citadels into the policy arena has stopped. To find the main work of today's leading academic conservatives
requires reaching back thirty years. All of the ideas that define conservative economic thought in America (and in the rest of
the world) were well known a generation ago. They were all tested, in the United States, the United Kingdom, and around the rest
of the world, in the cauldron of the 1980s. And they were nearly all abandoned by policymakers long ago -- by the end of the 1980s
at the latest in the United States, by the early 1990s in Britain, and by the end of the 1990s in most of the rest of the world.
Those that were enacted, like charter schools, are in the evaluation phase, and the record is not especially good. Those that
remain on the agenda (or are likely to come again), like the privatization of Social Security, have no new justification. The
arguments cooked up for that cause are at least twenty years old. Academic economics today is divided largely between a body of
pragmatic work that is no longer very conservative (but, rather, apolitical) and a body of conservative doctrine that lacks any
connection to the policy world.
These abandonments were not incidental defections, without which we would still live in the world of Reagan and Thatcher. They
were experiments that failed. They were lessons learned, often the hard way. They were strategic retreats, sometimes under heavy
fire. The reality is that the disciplined application of conservative principles to economic policy leads to disaster. This is
particularly true of policies intended to manage or transform the economy as a whole.
Everywhere and always, monetarism leads to financial crisis. Supplyside tax cuts have no detectable effect on work effort,
or savings, or investment. Financial deregulation, from the savings and loan debacle to the subprime mortgage fiasco, leads to
criminal misdirection of the firm. Cuts in government spending are neither necessary nor sufficient for productivity gain. These
are facts now well absorbed by practical policymakers, around whom the vestiges of past conservative verities hang in tatters.
Only the dedicated academic economist can pretend to be unaware of them, and the conservative creed economics survives at all
not because of a renewable wellspring of success stories, but only because it retains a powerful grip on the academy itself, on
the ideas that scholars reproduce for the closed circle of their own journals. That grip will be difficult to dislodge because
academics do not face elections. But it is no longer a very important fact for the policy world.
A similar fate has befallen the made-for-export version of the conservative creed, the so-called Washington Consensus of international
development strategies, a set of universal precepts of sound money, balanced budgets, deregulation, privatization, and free trade.
These too rose in the wake of the Reagan revolution and its international counterpart, the debt crisis of the Third World. They
were forced on Latin America, East Europe, Africa, and parts of Asia on the promise that the "magic of the marketplace" would
generate growth and prosperity in the wake of failed policies of protectionism, subsidies, and ineffective support for industrial
development. It turned out that economic success in the Third World since 1980 has been in negative relation to the consensus.
Those that adhered most closely to the Washington Consensus, like Argentina, suffered crisis and collapse, while those that followed
their own paths, notably China, prospered. As this became clear, rebellion against the Washington Consensus has spread across
Latin America, Africa, and much of Asia, where today the model is universally repudiated in principle and increasingly evaded
in practice. In Argentina, once a poster child of neoliberal conformism, economic recovery followed the repudiation of debts both
philosophical and financial. In despised places like Venezuela and Russia, high energy prices have fostered financial and philosophical
independence, and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) is today in most of the world a spent force, with no remaining programs
in Latin America at all, revenues insufficient to cover its spending, and large layoffs in the works. Even managing director Dominique
Strauss-Kahn has admitted that the organization is "a factory to produce paper."
These are the facts. But even though as facts they are widely recognized and acted on in practice, our political discourse
has its own rituals and does not yet admit them. Indeed, few politicians in either party have yet publicly divorced themselves
from the Reagan revolution, in particular from the idea of the free market. Politicians notoriously say what is convenient and
act along different lines entirely, causing problems for those who try to write about their views in a careful and serious way.
But perhaps on no other issue is this tendency more pronounced than in matters relating to the markets -- a word one apparently
cannot use in public in the United States without bending a knee and making the sign of the cross.
And here the political world is divided into two groups. There are those who praise the free market because to do so gives
cover to themselves and their friends in raiding the public trough. These people call themselves "conservatives," and one of the
truly galling things for real conservatives is that they have both usurped the label and spoiled the reputation of the real thing.
And there are those who praise the "free market" simply because they fear that, otherwise, they will be exposed as heretics, accused
of being socialists, perhaps even driven from public life. This is the case of many liberals. Reflexive invocations of the power
of markets, the "magic" of markets, and the virtues of a "free enterprise system" therefore remain staples of political speech
on both sides of the political aisle. However, they have been emptied of practical content, and the speakers know it.
Yet this is not another book about the insincerity of the group of conservative impostors in power; that case has been sufficiently
made, and I have already delivered my own views on George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Alan Greenspan in another book. This book is
mainly about the rise and fall of authentically conservative ideas, about the inadequacy of their central metaphor, the free market.
My purpose is not to denigrate those who took up the conservative cause a generation ago; many have become my friends and I respect
them. My plan here is to take the conservative project seriously, on the premise that it was offered in good faith. The principled
conservatives were, in my view, naive; I obviously believe they were wrong, and they have been abandoned by history, but none
of this proves that they were dishonest. And if some really were cranks and charlatans, they had plenty of company among the most
respectable and prestigious academic economists in the land.
My aim, in this exercise, is to try to free up the liberal mind. For while the right wing in power has abandoned the deeper
philosophical foundations of its cause, liberals remain largely mesmerized by those foundations. Outside the area of trade policy,
where an enduring populism reflexively opposes "free trade" agreements, liberals have largely accepted the basic conservative
principles: monetary control, balanced budgets, regulation only where it can be shown that "markets fail." And until they break
the spell, they will not be able to think or talk about the world in terms that relate effectively to its actual condition. Nor
will they be able to advance a policy program that might actually work. And since liberals may well, at some point in the near
future, seize the keys to the realm, what they think and (more important) how they think has come to matter, once again, as it
has not really mattered for nearly half a century.
To take an example, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton has, in the past, shown an admirable willingness to criticize the "free
market." According to the radically conservative journal Human Events, in 1996 she said on C-Span that "the unfettered
free market has been the most radically destructive force in American life in the last generation." Yet in 2007 her presidential
campaign program on the economy promises to "reward savings" and "balance the federal budget" -- classic conservative themes.
She calls for measures to "make health care affordable," which implies that she believes health care should still be bought and
sold on the market. While calling for stronger protections for the middle class, she is careful to declare her faith: "Now, there
is no greater force for economic growth than free markets, but markets work best with rules that promote our values, protect our
workers and give all people a chance to succeed."
Senator Clinton is, many believe, a liberal. And as an example of the type, she is typical. Liberals continue to behave as
though they face a philosophically coherent adversary and as though the politics of the day require formulating a program that
responds to that adversary. In their economic policy efforts, many liberals thus engage in a dialogue with themselves, starting
from doctrines, such as monetarism or balanced budgets, that have practically no ongoing defenders outside of the pure theorists
hidden away in academic life. This leads to a paralysis of thought and action and to programs doomed to futility and failure from
the beginning.
Partly in consequence of their enthrallment with the frame created for them by the conservative worldview, the Left has been
doing too little thinking of its own. Liberals have yet to develop a coherent post-Reagan theory of the world, let alone a policy
program informed by the political revelations, world policy changes, and scientific realities emerging from the Age of Bush. For
the most part, they do not analyze, and do not engage with, the actual program of the right wing in power today. It is emblematic
of this that the leading Democratic idea of the 2008 campaign has been health care coverage, an idea that has been a lead item
on the progressive agenda since 1948 -- sixty years! -- and that Democrats take today as essentially unchanged since the defeat
of President Bill Clinton's health care plan in 1993. It is not to minimize the importance of universal health insurance to say
that the preeminence of the issue in national policy dialogue reflects the stasis of the liberal mind much more than it reflects
a considered strategy to counter the powerful forces that have lately shaped our age.
In consequence, new economic issues emerging under the influence of pressing events are dangerously underexamined. These issues
include war, climate change, energy supply, corruption and fraud including election fraud, the collapse of public governing capacity,
the perilous position of the international dollar, and the position of immigrants in American society. These issues form the crux
of the future of economic policy, and against them the achievement of universal health insurance seems relatively straightforward.
But none of these issues is getting more than passing development as yet from those to whom liberals look for ideas.
The Iraq war has, in particular, driven home to everyone involved the bankruptcy not merely of the Bush administration's management
but of the larger strategy of global military dominance built up in the Reagan era and still run largely by the personnel of that
time. The military officers know this. But where is the liberal political voice who has dared speak of it in public? Hurricane
Katrina stripped away the illusion that the federal government retains the capacity to move quickly to serve the needs of ordinary
citizens in time of crisis and peril. Katrina illustrates exactly what to expect in the event of further natural disaster or cataclysmic
attack. But where, again, is the liberal political organization that places this issue at the center of a program? Nor have we
yet come to grips with the growing crisis in housing and housing finance: a crisis that as I finish this book is generating foreclosure
notices every month nearly equal to the numbers displaced by Katrina. As for international finance, an esoteric and complex issue
to most people except when they travel to Europe and experience the precipitous decline of the dollar at first hand, the liberal
response is to leave all this in the hands of friendly bankers, a gift to the leaders of Wall Street whose expertise is supposedly
keen, and who are happy to act as the mediums of market discipline, delivering the message that nothing much can be done. There
is no way effectively to address any of these issues within the straitjacket dictated by the "magic of markets."
It remains for us to step outside this deadly framework, first to examine the tenets of the old conservative worldview one
by one, and then to develop an alternative within which the problems we actually face can be addressed as we go forward.
I must say that this book turned what I believe about the economy on its head, but it also enlightened me about how the economy
is connected to fairness and equality. I used to think that our biggest problem was deficit spending, but now I see the biggest
problem is fairness. Galbraith, who is the son of the famous John K. Galbraith who wrote The Modern Industrial State, which I
read 40 years ago and gave me my first insights into how the economy works, describes how inequity in wages has distorted the
market and created an environment not unlike Alice in Wonderland where people disenfranchise themselves by believing that free
markets are somehow all-seeing and lead to the greatest possible good. Galbraith makes a case against this hands-off approach
to markets and argues that unregulated markets will lurch from one bubble to the next. Crises like global warming will never be
dealth with because there is no financial incentive to do so. Planning is the only thing that can save us and will have to involve
a serious political battle because the corporations have saturated the media with the belief that the markets work best when left
alone, which prescription leaves most of us on the bottom level of the next pyramid scheme while the corporate executives accumulate
vast fortunes for themselves at our expense. The writing isn't bad, but it can be a bit hard to see what he's driving at at times.
The resolutions he offers at the end make the read worth while. This book came out in Spring of 2008. Given the financial meltdown
here in the Fall, the warnings in this book are eerily prescient.
"... A 9M38M1 uses what is called proportional navigation. Basically it means it does not tail
chase the target but constantly calculates the future route of the target. By doing so the missile
is able to cut corners and approach the target using the shortest route and thus saving as much
fuel as possible. ..."
"... I'm looking forward to the release of the JIT report and I think it will catalyze an official
response from Russia. Comparing the different versions of events should be indicative of who is
swimming naked. ..."
Blert,
And BUKs use heat seeking missiles. refers to you post yesterday regarding engine heat of a B-777
BUK missile are radar guided.. period.
You can go find the link.. Target detection
The TELAR radar automatically categorizes targets by 3 types: aerodynamics;
aircraft with moving engines with an airspeed of over 100 m / s
ballistic missiles
helicopters
The info is needed for calculation of the trajectory of the missile. The commander can recognize
the unique footprint of a target and when agreed with that this is the target he presses a button
for launch. The onboard computer will do the calculations for guiding the missile.
This article in Russian language has a lot of detailed information on target recognition.
The missile guiding
Once the missile has been launched it is guided by the radar to the target using radar signals.
The radar illuminates the target. The radar return is picked up by the missile. The missile receives
control guidance from the ground using radio signals. This system is called a semi active homing
radar.
Buk, Buk-M1 and earlier versions of Buk-M1-2 and Buk-M2 missile systems uses an Argon-15 type
of the onboard computer. The Argon-15 is able to detect target radar signal (shape, length, reverberations,
envelope and videosignal). Argon-15 does not give to the crew the ability to change target. The
commander must choose target on stage Search, then Argon-15 calculate algorithm Meet Zone, then
indicate Target in zone, commander open fire it all. More information on the Argon-15 here.
When close to the target the seeker head (radar in the missile) will take over from the guidance
of the TELAR and will continue its route towards the target.
The missile has a proximity fuse. This is fed by the radar. When the missile is within range
the proximity fuse will detonate the explosive in the warhead. That will be around 17 meters from
the target.
Proportional navigation
A 9M38M1 uses what is called proportional navigation. Basically it means it does not tail
chase the target but constantly calculates the future route of the target. By doing so the missile
is able to cut corners and approach the target using the shortest route and thus saving as much
fuel as possible.
To intercept high-speed targets like aircraft and missiles, a semi active homing missile must
follow a lead (collision) course. The intercept point is at the intersection of the missile and
target flight paths. The best collision or lead course happens when the missile heading keeps
a constant angle with the line of sight to the target. This course requires missile accelerations
to be only as great as target accelerations. Specifically, if the target flies a straight-line,
constant-velocity course, the missile can also follow a straight-line collision course if its
velocity does not change. But in practice, this ideal situation does not exist. Missile velocity
seldom stays constant. Irregular sustainer propellant burning changes thrust, and therefore affects
speed…
low_integer, October 11, 2015 at 2:40 am
I'm looking forward to the release of the JIT report and I think it will catalyze an official
response from Russia. Comparing the different versions of events should be indicative of who is
swimming naked.
"... which are a mix of bow-tie shaped pieces and diamond shaped pieces, indicate
that it is an older type of BUK missile that their military has not used for a long time ..."
"... Russia has also claimed that the Ukraine military did possess the older type of BUK missile
that corresponds to the fragments found. ..."
"... here in Australia, the news coverage I saw (SBS channel) of the Dutch (JIT)
investigation last night was immediately followed with coverage of the Russian points noted above,
with the manufacturer of the BUK missiles refuting some of the JITs claims after apparently having
done some tests. It was fairly brief however I was surprised to see both sides get airtime. ..."
It is not just whether or not it was a BUK missile, it is also what type of BUK missile it was,
if it was in fact a BUK that brought the plane down. Russia's contention is that the shape of the
fragments found, which are a mix of bow-tie shaped pieces and diamond shaped pieces, indicate
that it is an older type of BUK missile that their military has not used for a long time. I'm
assuming the new type they use also has a distinctive fragmentation pattern, and I'm not sure how
long it has been since they have phased out use of the old type, or if that information has been
made available.
Russia has also claimed that the Ukraine military did possess the older type of BUK missile
that corresponds to the fragments found.
Interestingly, here in Australia, the news coverage I saw (SBS channel) of the Dutch (JIT)
investigation last night was immediately followed with coverage of the Russian points noted above,
with the manufacturer of the BUK missiles refuting some of the JIT's claims after apparently having
done some tests. It was fairly brief however I was surprised to see both sides get airtime.
I have also been hearing that it was reported that passengers may have remained conscious for
up to 90 seconds.
"... Why divert that MH-17 to that routes, while previous planes before MH-17, directed to
other southern routes? ..."
"... Where is the traffic conversations records between the ATC and the MH17? ..."
"... Where is the radar plot of the MH17? ..."
"... Where is the sworn testimonies from the ATC guy in charge of taking care the MH17? ..."
"... The Buk left some nice t-shaped holes in the test fusilage.
None of those were witnessed on MH-17 wreckage and the holes were primarily round. The missile
that hit was closer than the suspended Buk they were testing and was likely an air to air weapon.
You can see the burn marks on MH-17 wreckage... ..."
"... The news today was a joke. Ukraine ordered the plane to fly the course , altitude and speed.
And yet no transcripts from the Ukraine Aviation authority ? why ? ..."
"... and what happened to Carlos the air traffic controller who sent word about military interference
at ATC? ..."
Russian troops use this new BUK-M2 back in 2008. You can check this if you have the DU (depleted
uraniums) fragmented casing, and test them with isotopes methodes. Which for some reasons, the
dutch teams refused to do.
- - -
Again. Russian haters fails to mentioned this.
As of the questions of:
1. Why the ATC not closing the route?
2. Why divert that MH-17 to that routes, while previous planes before MH-17, directed to
other southern routes?
3. Where is the traffic conversations records between the ATC and the MH17?
4. Where is the radar plot of the MH17?
5. Where is the sworn testimonies from the ATC guy in charge of taking care the MH17?
There are alot of questions unanswered. And yet the dutch investigation still release the report.
The New York Times' clumsiness as to its pro-Israel/anti-Russian {and for that matter anti-constitutionalist
and anti-libertarian} propaganda is stunning.
They're either that stupid or that brazen - knowing that Americans are too stupid to parse
misleading rhetoric.
Of course, that's older Americans.
Had I time and inclination, before absurd TPP copyright laws prevent it {from what I gather}
a great web site would be unmoderated, space limited comments on ny times stories.
good questions. why the report? - So companies and citizens can claim financial damages. you
seem to be implying that the BUK-M1 could have been sold on the black market, or provided by clandestine
means. By who? To who? Those are questions that a lot of people hoped would be answered.
The Buk left some nice t-shaped holes in the test fusilage.
None of those were witnessed on MH-17 wreckage and the holes were primarily round. The missile
that hit was closer than the suspended Buk they were testing and was likely an air to air weapon.
You can see the burn marks on MH-17 wreckage...
The news today was a joke. Ukraine ordered the plane to fly the course , altitude and speed.
And yet no transcripts from the Ukraine Aviation authority ? why ?
By Philip Arestis Professor and Director of Research at the Cambridge Centre for Economic &
Public Policy and Senior Fellow in the Department of Land Economy at the University of Cambridge,
UK, and Professor of Economics at the University of the Basque Country and Malcolm Sawyer, Professor
of Economics, University of Leeds. Originally published at
Triple Crisis
Has the financial sector become too large, absorbing too many resources, and enhancing instabilities?
A look at the recent evidence on the relationship between the size of the financial sector and growth.
There has been a long history of the idea that a developing financial sector (emphasis on banks
and stock markets) fosters economic growth. Going back to the work of authors such as Schumpeter,
Robinson, and more recently, McKinnon, etc., there have been debates on financial liberalisation
and the related issue of whether what was relevant to financial liberalisation, namely financial
development, "caused" economic development, or whether economic development led to a greater demand
for financial services and thereby financial development.
The general thrust of the empirical evidence collected over a number of decades suggested that
there was indeed a positive relationship between the size and scale of the financial sector (often
measured by the size of the banking system as reflected in ratio of bank deposits to GDP, and the
size of the stock market capitalisation) and the pace of economic growth. Indeed, there have
been discussion on whether the banking sector or the stock market capitalisation is a more influential
factor on economic growth. The empirical evidence drew on time series, cross section, and panel
econometric investigations. To even briefly summarise the empirical evidence on all these aspects
is not possible here. In addition, the question of the direction of causation still remains an unresolved
issue.
The processes of financialisation over the past few decades have involved the growing economic,
political and social importance of the financial sector. In size terms, the financial sector has
generally grown rapidly in most countries, whether viewed in terms of the size of bank deposits,
stock market valuations, or more significantly in the growth of financial products, securitisation,
and derivatives as well as trading volume in them. This growth of the financial sector uses resources,
often of highly trained personnel, and inevitably raises the question of whether those resources
are being put to good use. This is well summarised by Vanguard Group founder John Bogle, who suggests,
"The job of finance is to provide capital to companies. We do it to the tune of $250 billion a year
in IPOs and secondary offerings. What else do we do? We encourage investors to trade about $32 trillion
a year. So the way I calculate it, 99% of what we do in this industry is people trading with one
another, with a gain only to the middleman. It's a waste of resources" (MarketWatch, Aug. 1
2015).
Financial liberalisation and de-regulation were promoted as ways of releasing the power of the
financial sector, promoting development of financial markets and financial deepening. The claims
were often made by the mainstream that financial liberalisation had removed "financial repression"
and stimulated growth. Yet, financial liberalisation in a country often led to banking and financial
crises, many times with devastating effects on employment and living standards. Financial crises
have become much more frequent since the 1970s in comparison with the "golden age" of the 1950s and
1960s. The international financial crisis of 2007/2008 and the subsequent Great Recession were the
recent and spectacular crises (though the scale of previous crises such as the East Asian ones of
1997 should not be overlooked). The larger scale of the financial sector in the industrialised countries
has been accompanied (even before 2007) with somewhat lower growth than hitherto. As the quote above
suggests there has not been an upsurge of savings and investment, and indeed many would suggest that
the processes of financialisation dampen the pressures to invest, particularly in research and development.
Has the financial sector become too large, absorbing too many resources, and enhancing instabilities?
An interesting recent development has been a spate of research papers coming from international
organisations and many others, which have pointed in the direction that indeed the financial sector
in industrialised countries have become too big-at least when viewed in terms of its impact on economic
growth. (See Sawyer, "Financialisation, financial structures, economic performance and employment,"
FESSUD Working Paper Series No. 93, for a broad survey on finance and economic performance.) These
studies rely on econometric (time series) estimation and hence cover the past few decades-which suggests
that their findings are not in any way generated by the financial crisis of 2007/2008 and the Great
Recession that followed.
A Bank of International Settlements study concluded that "the complex real effects of financial
development and come to two important conclusions. First, financial sector size has an inverted U-shaped
effect on productivity growth. That is, there comes a point where further enlargement of the financial
system can reduce real growth. Second, financial sector growth is found to be a drag on productivity
growth." Cournède, Denk,and Hoeller (2015) state that "finance is a vital ingredient for economic
growth, but there can also be too much of it." Sahay, et al. (2015) find a positive relationship
between financial development (as measured by their "comprehensive index") and growth, but "the marginal
returns to growth from further financial development diminish at high levels of financial development―that
is, there is a significant, bell-shaped, relationship between financial development and growth. A
similar non-linear relationship arises for economic stability. The effects of financial development
on growth and stability show that there are tradeoffs, since at some point the costs outweigh the
benefits."
There are many reasons for thinking that the financial sector has become too large. Its growth
in recent decades has not been associated with facilitating savings and encouraging investment. It
has absorbed valuable resources which are largely engaged in the trading in casino-like activities.
The lax systems of regulation have made financial crises more likely. Indeed, and following the international
financial crisis of 2007/2008 and the great recession a number of proposals have been put forward
to avoid similar crises. To this day, nonetheless, the implementation of these proposals is very
slow indeed (see, also, Arestis, "Main and Contributory Causes of the Recent Financial Crisis and
Economic Policy Implications," for more details).
Now that Michael Hudson's Killing the Host has been available for a while, one suspects
a Picketty-like effect with folks "discovering" that Taibbi's Giant Vampire Squid characterization
of Goldman-Sachs (one of many) wasn't funny.
blert, October 9, 2015 at 5:24 pm
It's a squid that squirts RED INK - onto everyone else.
susan the other, October 9, 2015 at 11:03 am
This is a great and readable essay. Sure sounds like Minsky. And even Larry Summers when he
advocates for more bubbles. And Wolfgang Schaeuble said repeatedly that "we are overbanked." We
just don't know how to do it any other way. When everything crashes it's too late to regulate.
Unless Larry knows a clever way to regulate bubbles.
JTMcPhee, October 10, 2015 at 8:40 am
The Banksters' refrain:
"Don't regulate you,
Don't regulate me!
Regulate that guy over behind that tree…"
MY scam is systemically important!
Just Ice, October 10, 2015 at 3:34 pm
"We just don't know how to do it any other way. " STO
Yet there is another way, an equitable way :) Dr. Michael Hudson himself says that industry
should be financed with equity, not debt.
Leonard, October 10, 2015 at 3:53 pm
Susan
There is way to manage bubbles before they get out of control. This article explains how. Go to
wp.me/WQA-1E
ben, October 9, 2015 at 11:17 am
Wasted resources are way higher than the Vanguard example. They misdirect resources especially
into land and issue new money as debt.
RepubAnon, October 10, 2015 at 11:29 pm
They think that they make their living by "ripping the eyes out of the muppets" – so they're
opposed to regulations which would protect the muppets' eyes.
I look at the financial industry as sort of like sugar for the economy – the right amount is
good for you, but too much will kill you.
Just Ice, October 9, 2015 at 12:35 pm
"The lax systems of regulation have made financial crises more likely."
Actually, it's the near unlimited ability of the banks to create deposits ("loans create deposits"
but also debts) that causes large scale financial crises. And what is the source of this absurd
ability of the banks? ans: government privileges including deposit insurance instead of a Postal
Savings Service or equivalent and a fiat (the publics' money) lender of last resort.
Besides, regulations typically do not address the fundamental injustice of government subsidized
banks – extending the publics' credit to private interests.
There is something very wrong about money creation from loans. I'm not arguing that
this is incorrect, I'm looking at money creation being a burden on the citizenry. I cannot see
how this will end well, because of the asymmetric nature, money creation only benefits the banks,
of the burden of money creation.
"There is something very wrong about money creation from loans."
More precisely, there is something very wrong about being driven into debt by government-subsidized
private credit creation. Source of the rat race? Look no further.
It's the bank-money vs. government money situation. The hysteria over "The Deficit (gasp)"
insures that none of us have cash and must borrow to live. The bankers won.
"It's the bank-money vs. government money situation." zapster
More precisely, who gets to create the government's money since it is taxation* that drives
the value of fiat. But it's an absurd situation since obviously the government ALONE should create
fiat, not a central bank for the benefit of banks and other private interests, especially the
wealthy.
As for the private sector, let it create its own money solutions and my bet is that we'll have
a much more equitable (pun intended) society as a result.
The problem then is taxation. How does one tax someone's income in Bitcoins, for example? How
does one preclude tax evasion? Unavoidable taxes such as land taxes (except for a homestead exemption)
are one possibility.
*As well as the need to pay the interest on the debt the government subsidized banking cartel
drives us into.
*Sigh*. The government alone does control the money supply in a fiat currency issuer. The government
hasn't bothered to do so actively because the only time it DID try doing that (under Reagan and
Thatcher) they found out, contra Friedman, that money supply growth bore no relationship to any
macroeconomic variable. Monetarism was a failed experiment.
Scroll down to "The Idea of Interest". This author posits that back in the (ancient, herding)
day, people lent cattle. I lend you my cow, your bull impregnates her, and I get a part of the
calf.
What the author probably didn't understand, but is known to those of us interested in the history
of metallurgy, is that there was a belief that metals 'grew' - after all, plants grew from the
ground, vines grew from the ground, trees and bushes also grew from the ground. It was not a great
stretch to suppose that metals also grew within the ground, and back in those ancient days they
expected the same kind of 'growth' from metals that happened with agricultural products.
Perhaps if I ever get to retire, I can read Hudson's entire work, and possibly he covers this
topic. But I do think that it is time for the rest of us to rethink the nature of money - particularly
in an emerging digital era.
Thanks for that link. Here is a little nugget that relates to today.
The legal limit on interest rates for loans of silver was 20% over much of Dumuzi-gamil's
life, but Marc Van De Mieroop demonstrates how Dumuzi-gamil and other lenders got around such
strictures - they simply charged the legal limit for shorter and shorter term loans!
Curiously, while mathematics during this era was extraordinarily advanced, the government
failed to understand, or at least effectively regulate the close link between time
and money.
Sound familiar. It's more like the banksters regulate government.
As for compound interest, it seems to be the most diabolical human invention yet, as it infers
exponential growth without limits.
Here is Keynes
discussing compound interest in his speech "Economic Possibilities for our Grandchildren" (1930)
From the earliest times of which we have record – back say to two thousand years before
Christ – down to the beginning of the eighteenth century, there was no very great change in
the standard of life of the average man living in the civilized centres of the earth. Ups and
downs certainly. Visitations of plague, famine, and war. Golden intervals. But no progressive,
violent change. Some periods perhaps 50 per cent better than others – at the utmost 100 per
cent better – in the four thousand years which ended (say) in A.D. 1700.
This slow rate of progress, or lack of progress, was due to two reasons – to the remarkable
absence of important technical improvements and to the failure of capital to accumulate.
The absence of important technical inventions between the prehistoric age and comparatively
modern times is truly remarkable. Almost everything which really matters and which the world
possessed at the commencement of the modern age was already known to man at the dawn of history.
Language, fire, the same domestic animals which we have today, wheat, barley, the vine and
the olive, the plough, the wheel, the oar, the sail, leather, linen and cloth, bricks and pots,
gold and silver, copper, tin, and lead – and iron was added to the list before 1000 B.C. –
banking, statecraft, mathematics, astronomy, and religion. There is no record
of when we first possessed these things.
At some epoch before the dawn of history – perhaps even in one of the comfortable intervals
before the last ice age – there must have been an era of progress and invention comparable
to that in which we live today. But through the greater part of recorded history there was
nothing of the kind.
The modern age opened, I think, with the accumulation of capital which began in the
sixteenth century. I believe – for reasons with which I must not encumber the present
argument – that this was initially due to the rise of prices, and the profits to which that
led, which resulted from the treasure of gold and silver which Spain brought from the New World
into the Old. From that time until today the power of accumulation by compound interest,
which seems to have been sleeping for many generations, was reborn and renewed its strength.
And the power of compound interest over two hundred years is such as to stagger the imagination.
Let me give in illustration of this a sum which I have worked out. The value of Great Britain's
foreign investments today is estimated at about £4,000 million. This yields us an income at
the rate of about 6 1/2 per cent. Half of this we bring home and enjoy; the other half, namely,
3 1/2 per cent, we leave to accumulate abroad at compound interest. Something of this sort
has now been going on for about 250 years.
For I trace the beginnings of British foreign investment to the treasure which Drake
stole from Spain in 1580. In that year he returned to England bringing with him the
prodigious spoils of the Golden Hind. Queen Elizabeth was a considerable shareholder in the
syndicate which had financed the expedition. Out of her share she paid off the whole of England's
foreign debt, balanced her budget, and found herself with about £40,000 in hand. This she invested
in the Levant Company – which prospered. Out of the profits of the Levant Company, the East
India Company was founded; and the profits of this great enterprise were the foundation of
England's subsequent foreign investment. Now it happens that £40,000 accumulating at
3 1/2 per cent compound interest approximately corresponds to the actual volume of England's
foreign investments at various dates, and would actually amount today to the total of £4,000
million which I have already quoted as being what our foreign investments now are.
Thus, every £1 which Drake brought home in 1580 has now become £100,000. Such
is the power of compound interest !
From the sixteenth century, with a cumulative crescendo after the eighteenth, the great
age of science and technical inventions began, which since the beginning of the nineteenth
century has been in full flood – coal, steam, electricity, petrol, steel, rubber, cotton, the
chemical industries, automatic machinery and the methods of mass production, wireless, printing,
Newton, Darwin, and Einstein, and thousands of other things and men too famous and familiar
to catalogue.
What is the result? In spite of an enormous growth in the population of the world, which
it has been necessary to equip with houses and machines, the average standard of life in Europe
and the United States has been raised, I think, about fourfold. The growth
of capital has been on a scale which is far beyond a hundred-fold of what
any previous age had known. And from now on we need not expect so great an increase of population.
This reminds me of the huge fortunes growing at compound interest today.
From Wikipedia: It had an endowment of US$42.3 billion as of 24 November 2014.
If this were to grow at a compound interest rate of 7.2% annually, it would double every ten
years, and in one hundred years would be $43 trillion dollars and in two hundred years $44,354
trillion or $44.354 quadrillion. It's as if Bill and Warren are playing a practical joke on the
world, as their compound interest monster swallows every available dollar.
I wonder what a loaf of bread will cost in two hundred years?
Top heavy might be the marginally better angle to take here. Although I recently left the state
(N Texas, Dallas), Texas banks are being merged or acquired left and right. On some occasions
it is necessary if very small institutions are unable to compete, unable to meet a decent ROE
bogey (6.0% ROE is sorta low), or just unable to fend off progress.
Other occasions the larger regional and national banks can just win on scale.
I have long thought about the banking system as a beating heart. Of course it needs fuel, like
the rest of the body, but when a heart gets larger and larger, and contains more and more blood,
and uses more and more fuel, the rest of the body never fares well.
"Surging bank profits" is never a headline that makes me happy.
The real question is: why was it that the "creation of wealth" had to turn
to the financial sector. IMHO it's because the productive sector is lesser and lesser able
to produce surplus value. So that free capital istn't attracted to it. Of course in the financial
sector there isn't any value created at all.
" IMHO it's because the productive sector is lesser and lesser able to produce surplus
value. "
Yes, because of unjust wealth distribution; the host has finally been exhausted. With meta-materials,
nano-technology, genetic engineering, better catalysts, etc. and with practical nuclear fusion
on the horizon (because of new superconducting materials) mankind has probably never been on the
verge of creating so much value as now but can't because of lack of effective demand, not for
junk but for such things as proper medical and dental care while the wealthy have more than they
know what to do with.
Decades of 'political – solvency' insurance has permitted 'the blob' to overwhelm all.
&&&
If all of society played Poker … would anything be produced ? THAT'S the aspect that has
metastasized. It's not proper to term it the 'financial sector' - gambling// speculation emporium…
now you're talking. When the government chronically intervenes to bail out highly sophisticated
fools…. Jon Corzine is the result. - And he's not even the target of law enforcement !!!!
Financial liberalisation and de-regulation were promoted as ways of releasing the power
of the financial sector, promoting development of financial markets and financial deepening.
To be sure, there are a lot of absurd things about what Washington has done and is currently doing
in Syria.
There's the support for Turkey's Recep Tayyip Erdogan, for instance, who has used ISIS as an excuse
to wage war on his own people. Then there are the various efforts to arm and train a hodgepodge of
different anti-regime rebel groups (with more embarrassing results each and every time). And just
yesterday we learned that the best idea the Pentagon can come up with now is to
literally paradrop "50 tons" of ammo on pallets into the middle of the desert and hope the "right"
people pick it up.
Of course when it comes to absurd outcomes in Syria, it's difficult to top the fact that
at some point - and you don't have to go full-conspiracy theory to believe this anymore - either
the West or else Qatar and Saudi Arabia provided some type of assistance to ISIS, which then proceeded
to metamorphose into white basketball shoe-wearing, black flag-waving, sword-wielding desert bandits
hell bent on establishing a medieval caliphate.
Having said all of that, things took an even more surreal turn late last month when, after Russia
stormed in via Latakia and started bombing anti-regime targets, Washington was forced to claim that
somehow, Moscow's efforts would be detrimental to the war on terror.
To be sure, there really wasn't much else the US could say. After all, you can't simply come out
and say "well, we need to keep ISIS around actually and we'd much rather them then Putin and
Assad, so no, we're not going to help the Russians fight terror." The only possible spin to
avoid blowing the whole charade up was to claim that somehow, The Kremlin is helping terrorists by
killing them (and not in the whole 72 virgins kind of way).
Now as we've said before, Putin is there (along with Iran) to shore up Assad. There's no question
about that and Moscow hasn't been shy about saying it. But at the end of the day, when you
are trying to wipe out your friend's enemies and some of those enemies are terrorists, well then,
you are fighting a war on terror by default and that's not good for terrorists by definition.
By denying this, the US is effectively arguing against a tautology which is never a good idea, and
we're running out of ways to describe the ridiculousness of it.
Fortunately, Vladimir Putin is not running out of colorful descriptors.
Some of Russia's international partners have "oatmeal in their heads" because they
don't understand clearly that its military campaign in Syria seeks to help the fight against terrorism,
President Vladimir Putin said.
Russia notified the U.S. and the European Union in advance "out of respect" that it intended
to begin airstrikes against Islamic State and other militants in Syria, Putin said at an annual
conference organized by VTB Capital in Moscow on Tuesday. This showed Russia's ready to cooperate
on Syria, while nobody ever warned the authorities in Moscow about their operations, he said.
Putin's colorful phrase, normally used to describe someone as confused, to characterize
relations with the U.S. and its allies on Syria comes amid deep tensions over the Russian bombing
campaign and cruise-missile strikes that began Sept. 30. The EU demanded on Monday that
Russia stop targeting moderate groups opposed to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. U.S. Defense
Secretary Ashton Carter warned that Russia's actions "will have consequences" and the bombing
"will only inflame" Syria's four-year civil war.
Russia "received no answer" when it asked its international partners to provide information
on terrorist targets in Syria, or to say at least where its planes shouldn't bomb, Putin said.
"It's not a joke, I'm not making any of this up," he said.
And while the US insists on says things like this (out just hours ago):
EARNEST: SOME RUSSIAN STRIKES IN SYRIA ARE HELPING ISLAMIC STATE
Put makes a more logical argument. Namely that when one drops 50 tons of ammo from the sky into
the most dangerous place on earth, there's absolutely no way to know for sure where it will ultimately
end up:
U.S. air drops of weapons and ammunition intended for the Syrian Free Army, which
is fighting Assad's regime, could end up in the hands of Islamic State instead, Putin
said.
Yes, they might "end up in the hands of Islamic State" which we're sure wasn't what Washington
had in mind. Oh ... wait...
Silky Johnson
That's kind of shit that happens when you lie to everyone and pretend to be all chivalrous
an shit, but you're really a cuntface that arms monsters.
CClarity
In Ruski it means "mush for brains?
NoDebt
Yeah, I'm guessing it makes more sense in Russian. Where's Boris when we need him for translation?
KungFuMaster
I am not Boris, but the second best thing. This is what Putin said:
So this an idiom which should be translated: They have mess/chaos in their head. Oatmeal is
typical Russian food, but in this case the main characteristic is that oatmeal looks all the same
and this implies that subject cannot differentiate and separate concepts, has a fuzzy filling
in his head when he does not know what he is talking about.
tc06rtw
… I think we must realize politics influenced Mr. Putin's statements; He must be forgiven for
his overly charitable description of the US and its allies.
BALANDAS
Here is my reliable information --- Putin fears that US arms terrorists in Syria.
10/13/2015 14:12:30
Moscow. October 13. Interfax-AVN - Moscow fear that the weapons and uniforms, which the United
States supplied "Free Syrian Army" could fall into the hands of terrorists, said Russian President
Vladimir Putin.
"Who said that the aircraft" Free Syrian Army "deliver ammunition and ammunition. Where is
the" Free Syrian Army "? Do not fall if it all again as it was in the training of personnel in
the hands LIH? Where is the guarantee?" - Putin said at an investment forum "Russia Calling".
"It is only that all this was done, only that it happened just in the United States recognized
that action failed, and now just somewhere to throw ammunition and ammunition. This? This is not
a rhetorical question," - concluded the president.
Paveway IV
The U.S. oatmeal head's psychopathic plan is, was, and always will be to overthrow Assad.
Failure #1: To convince enough Syrians to die for the replacement U.S.- and Israeli-puppet
Syria. Solution: outsource.
Failure #2: Rebrand unemployed al Qaeda head-choppers under the al Nusra banner from Iraq.
Qatar and Saudi Arabia provided the funding, and Turkey and Jordan the training and staging points.
Expect obedience.
Failure #3: Expecting said head-choppers to share your vision of a free, democratic U.S./Israeli
puppet Syria. The head-choppers didn't give a damn about the U.S. plans because they were just
going to keep Syria for themselves. But, hey - if the nut-jobs in the U.S. wanted to set them
up with training and weapons, why not? Uh... 'moderate' rebels? Yeeaaaahh... that's right. We're
'moderate'. Free, democratic Syria? ...yeah, whatever.
Failure #4: Give the FSA TOW-2As for their unwinnable war. Al Nusra reaction: how about some
TOW-2As for US? No? OK... I guess we'll just convince the FSA that have them that they really
need to be in our 'joint opeations room' with the rest of our alliance (or lose their fucking
heads). So, yeah... just keep giving TOWs to THEM.
Failure #5: Expecting the demoralized, crumbling, corrupt FSA left-overs (now effectively Shanghai'd
by al Nusra and various other takfiri head-choppers) to make military progress with their criminal
amphetamine-crazed, civilian-looting head-chopper buddies. At the same time, even more fanatical
head-choppers ISIS evolves and secures a lot of the previous al Nusra funding and arms, pissing
off THEM.
Failure #6: Coming up with the clownishly-stupid plan of USING ISIS to fight Assad since the
FSA and al Nusra plan fell to shit. You would simple bomb ISIS if they attacked a non-approved
target (al Nusra or the FSA) and steer them to desirec targets (Assad and Syrian infrastructure
and oil wells) with ammo, equipment drops and intel. It actually worked for a few months, but
ISIS knew what was going on all along. They've grown tired of the game and have plenty of weapons
and ammo now (between U.S. airdrops and all the shit they seized whenever they roll over another
Syrian army position).
Failure #7: Keeping ISIS financially strong enough to serve as your third army against Assad:
Bomb the shit out of Assad's forces guarding oil and gas installations, then airdrop arms, ammo
and equipment to ISIS so they can take them over and sustain their operations through black-market
means. At least not as blatant as Iraq, where you transfer several hundred tons of gold to your
new central bank in Mosul - days before ISIS simply walks in and takes it without a shot (almost
like it was a planned gold transfer to ISIS).
Failure #8: Failing to anticipate that Putin would do the same thing for now: steer ISIS towards
your FSA/head-chopper forces to kill them FOR you. He's done this north of Aleppo and decimated
Jabha Shamiya, who is now scurrying back to more al Nusra-safe turf. Putin and Solemani have no
plans to enable ISIS long term - just use them for a little short-term al Nusra meat-grinding
until they, themselves are annihilated by Syria and allies.
Failure #9: Failing to understand how quickly the supply lines to Aleppo could be interdicted
by a Russian air campaign. It turns out the resolve of both the Aleppo FSA (for a U.S. democratized
and freedomized Syria) and the Aleppo head-choppers (for their caliphate) are directly dependent
on a continuous supply of amphetamines, USD, weapons and ammo. Interferene with that opposition
Wal*Mart drug and explosives logistics network has created quite a bit of consternation in Aleppo.
The second in command of the opposition coalition there just quit, head-choppers are leaving for
paying jobs and the few FSA left there are heading for Turkey. Aleppo might fall in a matter of
weeks, maybe days - without much opposition at all.
More to come. Waaayyy more to come.
ZerOhead
That's a lot of failures even for a completely inept Obama Administration. Too many failures perhaps?
Paveway IV
Not NEARLY enough. The next step of the Oded-Yinon (or whatever the clownfuckery is called)
plan calls for a civil war in Turkey (Turks vs. Kurds), partitioning it and splitting off of a
corrupt and psychopathic U.S./Israeli-puppet-led unified Kurdish nation. ZATO has hijacked Kurdish
nationalism to force an artificial Kurdistan well before it's time.
The purpose isn't to unify Kurds, it's to create a weak and corrupt Kurdish corridor from the
Mediterranean to Iran. Guess why? Hint: Israel's U.S.-staffed war with Iran, discount stolen Iraqi
oil from Kurdish Iraq for Israel, and the alternative northern route for Qatari gas lines (avoiding
Syria altogether).
See how that all works out? Russian soldiers die in Syria to clean up the U.S./Israeli mess
they created there. At the same time, the Kurds will lose their long sought-after Kurdish nation
to a Ukraine-like Jewish oligarch controlled, chaotic and eternally-squabbling hell-hole of a
country (probably eternally at war with the Turkish partition next to them) kept barely alive
by stolen Iraqi oil (who will also be trying to kill them).
Psychopathy 101: Manufactured death and destruction is like a welcome mat to come in and fuck
over the victims even more.
Poundsand
The hypocrisy is staggering and the entire world knows it. Assad has to go because of what?
They say bombing his own people. Yet across the border Erdogan is actually bombing his own people
and no one says boo. But I guess duly elected minority representation in a democratic country
doesn't really count if you're Kurdish.
The US is losing it's standing in the world and has become a corrupt sheriff in town and don't
think that everyone except those here in America don't know it. As our military and moral authority
wane, it will be picked up by someone else. It always is because there is nothing new under the
sun.
Son of Loki
Neither the Law nor Morality stand in the way of The POTUS!
SofaPapa
Increasingly, even those here in America know it. The US government has minimal popular support
for their actions of the past 15 years in the international stage. They are playing with fire
both at home and abroad.
McMolotov
The establishment wants Hitlery but is quickly realizing she is likely unelectable. Bernie
is a wildcard and uncontrollable, so they need to swing the electorate over to the GOP. Piling
on Obama will accomplish just that. After they find a way to torpedo Trump, look for someone like
Rubio to become the front-runner.
Elections are nothing more than selections by the power elite at this point, but there
still has to be a thin veneer of plausibility to the whole charade.
Squid-puppets a-go-go
lol very good mcmolotov - i think now it is a fulsome measure of the decay and corruption of
the american republic that they need such monumental lengths to provide that thin veneer of plausibility
to any of the available candidates.
Raging Debate
Obama is a disposable puppet. He reminds me of Ensign Benson, that black extra in Star Trek
they send down to that scary, uknown planet. Kirk and Spock go down there afterward.
WillyGroper
PCR's take is O has come to his senses on neoCON fail from that interview.
REALLY? Eye don't think so.
bunnyswanson
USA/Israel having been bombing Syria for years. Why continue now when Russia is on it? Especially
since ISIS is Israel stealing land again, gas more specfically. Like O said, why bankrupt your
nation for one ally.
Yttrium Gold Nitrogen
By "oatmeal" he (Putin) probably meant Russian "kasha", which when used figuratively means
something like "unordered mess", when things are so intermixed as to be indistinguishable from
each other. It also can be used to describe a messy, unclear, volatile situation. I believe that
correct translation would be "muddleheaded", someone who is unable to think with clarity or act
intelligently.
gregga777
For more than two decades the politicians and bureaucrats, holding elected and appointed offices,
in Washington have uniformly despised military service and wouldn't be caught dead wearing a real
uniform in the U. S. Armed Forces. [They had "better" things to do for their lives than serving
in the military, to quote one former V. P.]. They uniformly lack the personal military experience,
to create the necessary context needed for understanding, to judge the desirability of diplomacy
where the use of military force is the last resort, not the first resort.
For those that doubt Qatari gas is not a component (if not the primary reason) for removing
Assad we have this from Erdogan...
"Assad, refusing the transit of Qatari gas and becoming a potential competitor in the European
market, would have to be be eliminated."
That doesn't dismiss Isreal's goals of weakening a regional enemy and grabbing more land as
a catalyst as well.
The Indelicate -> spyware-free
Bullshit Bullshit Bullshit.
You don't build a pipeline through a war zone. You certainly don't spend billions in lieu of
working around [look at a map]. And the US and Israel are not helping fucking Qatar send gas to Europe. That's Israel's job.
Each regional player has their own motivations behind attacking Assad. Turkey & KSA could care
less about Isreal's intentions but the removal of Assad serves all their needs.
The Indelicate ...
"The great danger of faking your ability to do something in the public square is that someone
with an actual desire to the job you are pretending to do might come along and show you up." This is what has just happened to the US in Syria with the entrance of Russia into the fight
against ISIL. And as is generally the case with posers caught with their pants down, the US policy elites
are not happy about it.
You see, the US strategic goal in Syria is not as your faithful mainstream media servants (led
by that redoubtable channeler of Neo-Con smokescreens at the NYT Michael Gordon) might have you
believe to save the Syrian people from the ravages of the long-standing Assad dictatorship, but
rather to heighten the level of internecine conflict in that country to the point where it will
not be able to serve as a regional bulwark against Israeli regional hegemony for at least another
generation.
How do we know? Because important protagonists in the Israelo-American policy planning elite
have advertised the fact with a surprising degree of clarity in documents and public statements
issued over the last several decades.
The key here is learning to listen to what our cultural training has not prepared us to hear.
In 1982, as the Likud Party (which is to say, the institutional incarnation of the Revisionist
Zionist belief, first articulated by Jabotinsky in the "Iron Wall" that the only way to deal with
"the Arabs" in and around Israel was through unrelenting force and the inducement of cultural
fragmentation) was consolidating its hold on the foreign policy establishment of Israel, a journalist
named Oded Yinon, who had formerly worked at the Israeli Foreign Ministry, published an article
in which he outlined the strategic approach his country needed to take in the coming years.
What follows are some excerpts from Israel Shahak's English translation of that text:
"Lebanon's total dissolution into five provinces serves as a precedent for the entire Arab
world including Egypt, Syria, Iraq and the Arabian Peninsula and is already following that track.
The dissolution of Syria and Iraq later on into ethnically or religiously unique areas such as
in Lebanon, is Israel's primary target on the Eastern front in the long run, while the dissolution
of the military power of those states serves as the primary short term target. Syria will fall
apart, in accordance with its ethnic and religious structure, into several states such as in present
day Lebanon…."
Indelicate, look at his youtube , no need for sarc you,re on the same page
jtg
"Oatmeal in their heads", an apt description of the 'indispensable and exceptional' lunatics
in the West. Why is it that to find a clear thinking leader I have to listen to Putin? Why is it that the West is now the axis of evil?
he didn't literally say oatmeal - he basically said 'mush for brains'. Of course, he's calling them stupid, but he knows they are deliberately evil. But it is easier to fool people about America the white knight than it is to convince them
they've been fooled. No matter how much evidence there is that this war was planned long ago.
Actually you often find that evil people are also stupid. Psychopaths are not generally noted
for their intelligence. They're often charming, manipulative and great liars with enormous egos,
but intelligent is not a requirement. Which is a problem where you have an electoral and corporate
governance systems which consistently puts people who are narcissists and socialized psychopaths
into positions of power. They don't have the real intellectual horsepower to do the job, though
of course they think they do, and often their sycophants do also.
"... Investigators estimated it took the center and rear parts of the airplane 60 to 90 seconds to
reach the ground after the blast. Other, lighter parts would have taken longer, the report
said. ..."
The warhead - launched 33,000 feet below in the Ukrainian countryside - exploded less than one
yard from the aircraft's cockpit, the Dutch report said.
A split-second later, hundreds of "high-energy" fragments pierced the fuselage and the shrapnel
instantly killed the two pilots and one crew member inside.
There was no mayday call or attempt to maneuver, the report noted. The cockpit voice recorder
stopped abruptly at the point of impact.
Image: Dutch Safety Board Issue Their Findings On The MH17 Air Disaster
The explosion also caused the cockpit to instantly separate from the rest of the aircraft.
After that "instantaneous separation," the rest of the plane continued to fly for more than five
miles before breaking into further pieces, according to the report.
The center part of the airliner traveled beyond the rear section and came to rest upside down
after hitting the ground. "Parts of the wreckage caught fire," the report added.
Investigators estimated it took the center and rear parts of the airplane 60 to 90 seconds to
reach the ground after the blast. "Other, lighter parts would have taken longer," the report
said.
The debris field was more than 20 square miles.
... ... ...
Investigators used paint to trace the missile
Ukraine and its Western allies have long alleged that pro-Russian rebels fighting in eastern
Ukraine brought down MH17 using a Russian-made missile system - a claim Moscow staunchly denies.
While Tuesday's report apportioned no blame, it was the first confirmation that the airliner was
shot down using the BUK missile launcher - a Russian-made system.
Investigators came to this conclusion by analyzing a number of minute details.
A 2.3-millisecond noise was recorded on the cockpit's voice recorders before the system stopped
working. By triangulating the signal, experts were able to show that it originated outside the
aircraft.
Their conclusion was also based on "bow-tie"-shaped fragments found inside the bodies of the
flight's crew members that were consistent with a 9N314M missile launched as part of the BUK
system.
The Dutch team that compiled the report also based this conclusion on "explosive residues and
paint" that were found on some of the fragments
The Dutch board's Tuesday announcement followed a report by Buk's Russian manufacturer,
Almaz-Antey, that contradicted the findings. The company said the damage patterns on MH17 did not
match those it found in its own blast tests, Reuters reported.
Quite the hand wringing. Russia must do this and that and is urged but it is also hoped that
Russia will join… Sanctions on Russia if it does not do what the do nothings say?? It would be
nice if the EU intel agencies openly published which terrorist organizations in Syria sufficiently
'moderate' not to be bombed by Russia.
1. The conflict in Syria and the suffering of the Syrian people is showing no sign of abating.
The scale of the tragedy, having killed 250,000 men, women and children, displaced 7.6 million
inside the country and sent over 4 million fleeing into neighbouring and other countries, is now
the world's largest humanitarian disaster, with no parallel in recent history. The EU, as the
largest donor, has demonstrated its willingness and commitment to do what it can to alleviate
the humanitarian consequences. As the crisis intensifies there is an increasingly urgent need
to find a lasting solution that will end this conflict. Only a Syrian-led political process leading
to a peaceful and inclusive transition, based on the principles of the Geneva communiqué of 30
June 2012, will bring back stability to Syria, enable peace and reconciliation and create the
necessary environment for efficient counter terrorism efforts and maintain the sovereignty, independence,
unity and territorial integrity of the Syrian State. There cannot be a lasting peace in Syria
under the present leadership and until the legitimate grievances and aspirations of all components
of the Syrian society are addressed.
2. The EU's objective is to bring an end to the conflict and enable the Syrian people to live
in peace in their own country. The international community has to unite around two complementary
and interlinked tracks – a political one that aims to bring an end to the civil war by addressing
all the root causes of the conflict and establish an inclusive political transition process that
will restore peace to the country – and a security one to focus on the fight against the regional
and global threat of Da'esh.
3. The EU reiterates its full support to the UN-led efforts and the work of UN Special Envoy
Staffan de Mistura to build this political track. The EU emphasizes the need to accelerate the
work of the entire international community on the political track in the framework of the UN-led
process. The EU is already actively contributing to the UN initiatives and will increase its diplomatic
work in support of the UN-led efforts, including the UN Special Envoy's proposal for intra-Syrian
working groups.
4. We call on all Syrian parties to show a clear and concrete commitment to the UN-led process
and to participate actively in the working groups. The EU underlines the urgency for the moderate
political opposition and associated armed groups to unite behind a common approach in order to
present an alternative to the Syrian people. These efforts must be inclusive involving women and
civil society. The EU will sustain its support to the moderate opposition, including the SOC,
and recalls that it is a vital element in fighting extremism and has a key role to play in the
political transition.
5. The EU will continue to put all of its political weight, actively and effectively, behind
UN-led international efforts to find a political solution to the conflict, and calls on regional
and international partners to do likewise. We urge all those with influence on the parties, including
on the Syrian regime, to use this influence to encourage a constructive role in the process leading
to a political transition and to end the cycle of violence. The EU will pro-actively engage with
key regional actors such as , Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iran, Iraq and international partners within
the UN framework to build the conditions for a, peaceful and inclusive transition. In this context,
the Council recalls its decision to task the HRVP to explore ways in which the EU could actively
promote more constructive regional cooperation.
6. The protection of civilians in Syria must be a priority for the international community.
The EU condemns the excessive, disproportionate and indiscriminate attacks that the Syrian regime
continues to commit against its own people. The Assad regime bears the greatest responsibility
for the 250.000 deaths of the conflict and the millions of displaced people. The EU recalls that
international humanitarian law applies to all parties, and human rights need to be fully respected.
We call on all parties to stop all forms of indiscriminate shelling and bombardment against civilian
areas and structures such as hospitals and schools and, in particular, on the Syrian regime to
cease all aerial bombardments, including the use of barrel bombs in line with UNSC Resolution
2139 and the use of chemical weapons in line with UNSCR 2209. The systematic targeting of civilians
by the regime has led to mass displacements and encouraged recruitment to and the flourishing
of terrorist groups in Syria. This calls for urgent attention and action.
The EU will reinforce its efforts to scale up the implementation of the UNSC Resolutions 2139,
2165 and 2191 to deliver cross-border and cross line assistance in order to help those Syrians
most desperately in need.
7. The EU strongly condemns the indiscriminate attacks, atrocities, killings, conflict-related
sexual violence, abuses of human rights and serious violations of international humanitarian law
which are perpetrated by Da'esh and other terrorist groups, against all civilians, including against
Christians and other religious and ethnic groups. The EU supports international efforts and initiatives
to address these issues. The EU condemns Da'esh's deliberate destruction of cultural heritage
in Syria and Iraq, which amount to a war crime under international law.
8. Those responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity in Syria must be held accountable.
The EU expresses its deepest concern about the findings of the Independent International Commission
of Inquiry on Syria. The allegations of torture and executions based on the evidence presented
by the Caesar report are also of great concern. The EU reiterates its call to the UN Security
Council to refer the situation in Syria to the International Criminal Court.
9. The EU supports the efforts of the Global Coalition to counter Da'esh in Syria and Iraq.
As a consequence of its policies and actions, the Assad regime cannot be a partner in the fight
against Dae'sh. Action against Da'esh needs to be closely coordinated among all partners, and
needs clearly to target Da'esh, Jabhat al-Nusra, and the other UN-designated terrorist groups.
10. The recent Russian military attacks that go beyond Dae'sh and other UN-designated terrorist
groups, as well as on the moderate opposition, are of deep concern, and must cease immediately.
So too must the Russian violations of the sovereign airspace of neighbouring countries.
This military escalation risks prolonging the conflict, undermining a political process, aggravating
the humanitarian situation and increasing radicalization. Our aim should be to de-escalate the
conflict. The EU calls on Russia to focus its efforts on the common objective of achieving a political
solution to the conflict. In this context it urges Russia to push for a reduction of violence
and implementation of confidence-building measures by the Syrian Regime along the provisions of
UNSC Resolution 2139.
11. The EU will intensify humanitarian diplomacy and seek ways to improve access and protection
as well as to promote humanitarian principles and local consensus on guidelines for the delivery
of aid.
12. The EU has substantially increased its financial efforts to support those who have fled
the conflict, within and outside Syria, with new commitments to humanitarian aid and to longer-term
work supporting the resilience of refugees in the neighbourhood. The EU and its Member states
have already provided €4 billion for relief and recovery assistance to those affected by the conflict
inside Syria and refugees and host communities in neighbouring countries. The EU and its Member
States will continue to provide humanitarian assistance through the UN, ICRC and international
NGOs. At the same time, the EU will increase its longer-term development and stabilization assistance,
to these and other partners, including through the EU Regional Trust Fund recently established
in response to the Syrian Crisis (the "Madad Fund") which has now been equipped with over €500
million in EU funding to be matched by efforts from EU Member States and other countries. The
EU calls on other countries to sustain and increase their own contributions in response to the
Syria crisis. The Council agreed specifically on the need to increase the level of cooperation
and partnership with Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey to ensure equal access to shelter, education,
health and livelihoods for refugees and their host communities with the support of additional
EU assistance.
####
It must be better to stick to EU & US failure. What could possibly go wrong by having your
Gulf allies send large quantities of weapons to jihadists?
EU foreign affairs chief Federica Mogherini took a cautious position on Russian intervention
in Syria, compared to the critical tone of a communiqué of the Union's foreign ministers adopted
today (12 October).
…For her part, Mogherini refrained from qualifying the Russian intervention as bad or good.
Speaking about the hot issue ahead of the ministerial meeting, she said:
"I guess it is much more complicated than just saying "positive" or "negative". It is for sure
a game changer."
But she added that "interventions against Daesh have to be clearly against Daesh and other
terrorist groups, as defined by the UN"…
####
Good crock of s/t vs. bad crock of s/t? Don't take the communique too seriously Russia? They
make noise because they are doing nothing and can't even agree to do anything apart from put some
words together on the page.
All of it is a malodorous crock of shit. The EU evidenced no particular interest in the plight
of civilians in Syria up to this point, began to get interested and then almost wholly in a not-particularly-sympathetic
way when floods of refugees were released from Turkey to stream into Europe recently, and have
been in crisis mode only for the last two weeks since Russia has taken a hand at the request of
the Syrian government. There was lackluster interest in a no-fly zone and humanitarian corridors
until then, because the west judged it was just a matter of a few more weeks and Assad would fall,
without the west doing much of anything at all. Then it would remain only to swoop in, divest
the rebel militias of their prize and pick a new western-friendly government of diaspora exiles.
The western press is playing its usual game of simply alluding to facts until they become facts
without any actual substantiation ever having been offered. Russia is deliberately bombing civilians
and civilian-only infrastructure such as hospitals and schools because the western press says
so. Almost a fifth of Russian cruise missiles fell irresponsibly on the territory of another country
they passed over, because the western press says so based on information they were given by unnamed
western officials, although Russia claims to have positive battle-damage assessments for every
missile fired and Iran says the western allegation is untrue. But the west always gets the benefit
of the doubt, just as if it had never been caught in a lie before.
Per a commentator on a Yahoo story on Syrian gains against the rebels:
"They [KSA, UAE states]
fund and supplies ISIS and Al Qaeda even drop supplies from the air to terrorists through their
clandestine ops which our government [USA] knows well and does nothing."
Made me wonder if the reason for SU-30s is to shoot these planes down – a no-fly zone aimed
at shutting down these supply drops. The Saker pounds away at the point that Russian air assets
in Syria are insufficient to enforce a no-fly zone against NATO. However, as just alluded, the
purpose of the SU-30s may simply be to stop use of air drops to supply the terrorists.
Given the missile and radars on the SU-30s, a hand full should be enough to clear the skies
of transport planes over Syria. Russian naval ships can provide the radar coverage to identify
such aircraft and vector the Su-30s as required and the rest should be history.
RAF given green light to shoot down hostile Russian jets in Syria
As relations between the West and Russia steadily deteriorate, Royal Air Force (RAF) pilots
have been given the go-ahead to shoot down Russian military jets when flying missions over Syria
and Iraq, if they are endangered by them. The development comes with warnings that the UK and
Russia are now "one step closer" to being at war.
"The first thing a British pilot will do is to try to avoid a situation where an air-to-air
attack is likely to occur - you avoid an area if there is Russian activity," an unidentified source
from the UK's Permanent Joint Headquarters (PJHQ) told the Sunday Times. "But if a pilot is fired
on or believes he is about to be fired on, he can defend himself. We now have a situation where
a single pilot, irrespective of nationality, can have a strategic impact on future events."
The headline is a bit over the top, don't you think?
The same rule applies to all combat pilots of any nation, as indeed the (as usual) unidentified
source is quoted as saying.
That's why the US navy shot down an Iranian airliner, isn't it: the warship thought it was
being threatened by the passenger aircraft.
Trigger happy, poorly trained, panic-stricken, glory-seeking and incompetent – what else can
describe the US Navy's shoot-down? How would they perform in a real war with an adversary able
to hit back hard?
Yes to the first, and no to the second. The U.S. Navy shot down an Iranian airliner they claim
they mistook for an Iranian F-14 Tomcat, although it (1) took off from a known civil airport following
a commercial air route and within the air safety corridor, (2) was displaying the IFF interrogator
trace for civil aviation, (3) was correlated to a civil aviation radar emitter rather than the
AN/AWG-9 radar associated with the F-14, and which is quite distinctive on ESM gear and (4) was
not descending or following an attack profile. The USS VINCENNES stationed itself directly underneath
an air traffic corridor within Iranian airspace, so that normal air traffic passed directly over
it; obviously, for one half of its transit, an aircraft would close the VINCENNES, and for the
remainder it would be opening after it passed overhead. I'd have to look up again if any warnings
were passed, but if there were the pilot likely did not think the surface unit was talking to
him, since he was flying the same route he did every day or week or with whatever degree of regularity.
So if he was told to turn away he likely did not think it applied to him, as few commercial pilots
would be able to conceive of the arrogance of a ship's captain who would park his ship in Iranian
territorial waters and then demand that all the country's civil aviation reroute themselves around
his position.
It was BUK -- Video contains important finding that fragment of missile paint and elements from the
missile warhead in pilot bodies. It is mainly non technical
watch-v=KDiLEyT9spI and does not
cover conflicting evidence. So at last we know that there was a BUK missile the downs the airliner. I
doubt that Dutch investigators make a mistake on this aspect of cause of the tragedy (that does not
explains accurate round holes is the part of cockpit wreckage though). Still the set of old
questions remains. But it we
assume this was BUK, why nobody saw the dense smoke trail of the rocket in daylight and perfect
weather. The dense smoke trail that should still be visible at the moment when the plane was hit and
when several thousand eyes were watching the area in notably absent.
A Buk surface-to-air missile downed flight MH17, Dutch investigators have said as they unveiled a
reconstruction of the plane that showed huge shrapnel damage to the cockpit and front section.
Tjibbe Joustra, the chairman of the Dutch safety board, said the Malaysia Airlines plane was hit
by a 9N314M warhead on 17 July 2014, as it flew at 33,000ft (10,000 metres) above eastern
Ukraine. The warhead was fitted to a "9M28 missile" fired from a Russian-built Buk missile system,
he confirmed.
Speaking in front of the reconstructed plane – pieced together from parts of recovered debris,
fitted around a metal skeleton – Joustra said all other scenarios to explain the disaster, which
killed all 298 people on board, had been ruled out.
An animated video was shown to journalists at the Gilze-Rijen airbase in the
Netherlands, where the plane was part reassembled over three months. It showed the Buk missile
exploding on the left-hand side of the cockpit. Thousands of metal objects were ejected, with hundreds
then penetrating the plane with tremendous force, Joustra said.
The impact and ensuing pressure drop killed the three pilots instantly, he said. On-board microphones
captured the moment of impact – "a sound ping". This allowed investigators to determine the devastating
blast occurred on the upper-left hand side of the cockpit.
The damage was starkly visible. The front section of the Boeing 777 below the pilot's port window
was perforated with large shrapnel holes. Other parts were relatively unscathed. Five windows in
the business class section were visible, together with a door where the passengers entered. The pilot's
seats had been remounted in the cockpit – a haunting sight.
The plane's nose was missing, together with much of its upper front half. The colours of Malaysia
Airlines – a red, blue stripe – were still visible. Exit holes left by shrapnel could be seen on
the other right side; exploding fragments had ripped through the fuselage.
According to Joustra, the passenger plane broke up mid-air. The cockpit and the floor of the business
class tore away almost instantly from the main body and crashed. The rest of the plane continued
flying for about five miles in an easterly direction, hitting the ground about a minute to a minuter
and a half later. Debris was scattered over 50 sq km.
In a briefing on Tuesday morning to relatives of the victims, which took place in The Hague, Joustra
said the passengers on board – two-thirds of whom were Dutch nationals – would have been unconscious
within seconds.
The board had previously made clear its findings would not deal with blame and liability; a criminal
investigation by the Dutch prosecutor's office is scheduled to conclude in early 2016.
Joustra said the Buk had been fired from a 320 sq km area of eastern Ukraine, the
scene of a conflict between pro-Russia separatists backed by Moscow and Ukrainian
government forces. He said "further forensic investigation" would be needed to determine
the exact launch site.
The Netherlands, Ukraine and Russia had all carried out their own simulations into the missile's
probable trajectory.
Russia was the only one of seven countries involved in the report's preparation that dissented
from its central conclusions, Joustra said, adding that Moscow believed "it was impossible to determine
the type of missile or warhead with any certainty".
It is widely assumed that Russia-backed separatists were responsible for bringing down MH17, but
the US has stopped short of blaming Moscow directly. The Kremlin has blamed Kiev – variously suggesting
that a Ukrainian military jet shot down the Boeing 777, or that a missile was launched from a government-held
area.
The Russian simulation includes areas under Ukrainian government control. The other simulations
suggest the Buk was fired from separatist areas. An
open source investigation by the website Bellingcat, published last week, tracks the Buk from
a Russian military base in Kursk. It was then smuggled across the Ukrainian border.
In Moscow, the makers of
Buk missile systems, Almaz-Antey, gave a press conference on Tuesday morning, apparently to distract
attention from the Dutch report.
The manufacturer said it had performed two experiments it says prove one of its missiles could
not have been launched from areas under pro-Russia separatist control.
The Dutch safety board report, published in English and Dutch, concedes that family members had
to wait "an unnecessarily long period of time" for formal confirmation that their loved ones were
dead. The Dutch authorities "lacked management and coordination", he said.
The victims came from nine countries, including Malaysia and Australia, and with 10 victims from
the UK.
Joustra also said there was a simple, "dispiriting" answer to the question: why was MH17 allowed
to fly above eastern Ukraine? It had not occurred to anybody that the airspace was unsafe for civilian
jets at cruising altitude, he said. This was despite 60 Ukrainian aircraft and helicopters had been
downed since the start of the Russia-Ukraine conflict in spring 2014.
About 160 civilian planes flew over the area on the day of the disaster. Three were in "close
proximity" when the Buk was fired, he said. Ukraine should have closed its airspace to civilian traffic,
he added.
"Flight MH17 crashed as a result of the detonation of a warhead outside the airplane above the
left-hand side of the cockpit," said Tjibbe Joustra, chairman of the Dutch Safety Board, using a
common reference to the flight number. The explosion
tore off the forward part of the plane, which
broke up in the air. The crash killed all 298 people aboard; the investigation found that many
died instantly, while others quickly lost consciousness. "It is likely that the occupants were barely
able to comprehend their situation," the board found.
... ... ...
The report is unlikely to produce consensus. Based on the impact pattern, the impact angle
and other data, the Dutch board concluded that the missile originated in an area of about 320 square
kilometers (about 123 square miles) in eastern Ukraine. But Russian experts say the area must
be smaller, and Ukrainian experts say it was smaller still.
The team of investigators was led by the Netherlands but included members from four other countries
heavily affected by the crash: Australia, Belgium, Malaysia and Ukraine.
... ... ...
From the outset, the Russian government has tried to offer alternative versions of what caused
the plane to break up over eastern Ukraine.
Initially, the Defense Ministry presented what generals said was radar data indicating that
a Ukrainian fighter jet had flown nearby, possibly shooting down the Malaysia Airlines flight. This
year, officials with Almaz-Antey, the state corporation that manufactures the Buk antiaircraft missiles,
held a news conference in Moscow to say that they believed one of their missiles had shot down the
plane, but that an analysis of the angle of impact showed it must have been fired from territory
controlled by the Ukrainian Army.
Then, this month, after a Ukrainian security official had suggested in an interview with the Dutch
news media that shrapnel removed from the bodies of the victims proved a Buk was to blame,
Tass, the Russian state news agency, quoted an independent expert objecting that it was too
early to conclude such a missile brought down the plane.
Tass quoted the expert, Ivan P. Konovalov, the director of a Moscow research center, the Center
for Strategic Trends, as saying that if the Dutch Safety Board indeed "reaches a firm conclusion
that the Boeing was struck by a Buk antiaircraft rocket, then it should be taken into consideration
that at that time only the armed services of Ukraine had these complexes and the People's Republics
of Donbas had no such complex systems then or now." He was referring to pro-Russian separatist governments
set up in the Donbas region in eastern Ukraine.
In Moscow, officials at Almaz-Antey staged a dueling presentation on Tuesday with a dazzling element:
the company blew up a civilian airline fuselage with one of its missiles, and showed the blast on
video.
The experiment that shredded the cockpit section of a decommissioned Il-86 airliner, company officials
said, indicated the Ukrainian military fired the missile that brought down the Boeing, without elaborating
on why.
In the sky over Ukraine, the Russian officials said, the shrapnel struck the plane from an angle
indicating the missile was launched from Ukrainian-held territory. Also, they said, Buk missiles
in the Russian arsenal explode in a cloud of shrapnel that has jagged edges, described as having
a "double-T" form. These, they said, leave a characteristic "butterfly"-shaped hole in airplane fuselages.
The Russians insisted that no such holes were found in the wreckage; the Dutch report suggests otherwise.
In any case, Yan V. Novikov, the director of Almaz-Antey, said the Ukrainian government bore
responsibility for allowing the flight over a war zone. "I cannot say they are guilty, or not guilty,
but the obligations of the country where a military conflict is underway is to inform aviation companies,
or close its airspace," he said.
"... At the same time Russias Defense Ministry made public satellite images of the area, taken
several days prior to the crash. The satellite pictures showed Ukrainian army positions on three
days before the crash, and a BUK missile launcher could be spotted there. But on the day of the
crash, it had moved somewhere else. The question is why – and where it had gone? ..."
"... In June 2015, Russian arms manufacturer Almaz-Antey presented the results of its own probe
into the causes of the MH17 crash. Looking into the option of a surface-to-air missile downing
the Boing-777, experts stressed that it could only have been caused by one of the missiles from
an older modification of the BUK missile system, namely the Buk-M1 - the type of the weapon the
Ukrainian army is equipped with. The Russian army uses modern and later BUK missile systems. ..."
"... "the Sukhoi jet brought down the civilian
plane and ours brought down the fighter jet." ..."
"... "They decided to do it this way, to look like we have brought down
the plane." ..."
"... a documentary crew making a film about the MH17 catastrophe has
actually proven them wrong, staging an experiment and taking an Su-25 to a height of 11,880 meters
– with a pilot wearing an oxygen mask. ..."
The Dutch Safety Board delivered a preliminary report
about a year ago, concluding that flight MH17 broke up in mid-air and came down after being hit
by a large number of high-energy objects that penetrated the plane from the outside and ruptured
the fuselage. The report did not mention where those high-energy objects came from.
The first theory maintains that the MH17 flight was downed by a surface-to-air anti-aircraft
missile. It is considered by many as the most likely theory and one that's been widely cited in
the media. The only question is who did it.
The West and Ukraine claim the rebels shot the plane with a Russian BUK missile. In the framework
of this theory, a YouTube video of a BUK weapons system with one rocket missing being transported
somewhere in Ukraine just hours after the crash was presented as a smoking gun, claiming that
the missile system was sneakily cleared out of Ukraine into Russia.
But some local bloggers identified the location as the Ukrainian town of Krasnoarmeysk, which
was under control of the Kiev forces at the time.
The fact that the video emerged online suspiciously quickly, was followed by lots of so-called
social media evidence, and is almost impossible to authenticate, only fueled suspicions.
Theory #2: 'Ukrainian BUK missile'
At the same time Russia's Defense Ministry made public satellite images of the area, taken
several days prior to the crash. The satellite pictures showed Ukrainian army positions on three
days before the crash, and a BUK missile launcher could be spotted there. But on the day of the
crash, it had moved somewhere else. The question is why – and where it had gone?
In June 2015, Russian arms manufacturer Almaz-Antey presented the results of its own probe
into the causes of the MH17 crash. Looking into the option of a surface-to-air missile downing
the Boing-777, experts stressed that it could only have been caused by one of the missiles from
an older modification of the BUK missile system, namely the Buk-M1 - the type of the weapon the
Ukrainian army is equipped with. The Russian army uses modern and later BUK missile systems.
Theory #3: 'Air-to-Air Missile'
Another theory is that Flight MH17 may have been shot down from the air.
Russia's Investigative Committee (IC) has been conducting its own investigation into the crash.
On June 3, the Committee identified the key witness to the MH17 crash as Evgeny Agapov, an aviation
armaments mechanic in the Ukrainian Air Force. Agapov testified that on July 17, 2014 a Ukrainian
Sukhoi SU-25 jet aircraft piloted by Captain Voloshin "set out for a military task" and
returned without ammunition. Agapov implied that an air-to-air missile was missing and claimed
he overheard Voloshin say to his colleagues that some plane was "in the wrong place at the
wrong time."
Also, in a video shot by Ukraine's anti-government militia when they arrived at the crash site
immediately after the catastrophe and released by an Australian broadcaster almost a year after
the tragedy, one important part was largely ignored.
The video, shown by News Corp Australia, is a short, 5-minute clip made from an original video
17 minutes long, but the channel published online a full transcript of the original version.
The transcript cited the rebel commander as saying "the Sukhoi jet brought down the civilian
plane and ours brought down the fighter jet."
Later, the same person says once again that there were two planes shot down, and another voice
in the background says, "They decided to do it this way, to look like we have brought down
the plane."
Those who oppose the theory say the Sukhoi Su-25 close support fighter jet spotted in the skies
at the time of the incident cannot reach a height of 10,000 meters, where the Malaysian airliner
was at cruising altitude. But a documentary crew making a film about the MH17 catastrophe has
actually proven them wrong, staging an experiment and taking an Su-25 to a height of 11,880 meters
– with a pilot wearing an oxygen mask.
The report coming out Tuesday will be technical in nature. Its goal is to specify how the plane
was brought down, not to place blame on any side. This is the responsibility of the criminal probe,
which is still ongoing.
Few meetings ever started with dimmer prospects for success than the recent meeting between Presidents
Obama and Putin.
The real call for the meeting stemmed from the EU refugee crisis. With a human catastrophe brewing
in Europe and the Middle East, EU leaders are urgently demanding that the U.S. and Russia set aside
their differences and begin to work together in an effort to resolve the Syrian conflict, the major
cause of the massive movement of people seeking sanctuary.
Now, U.S./EU leaders are no longer insisting on the removal of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad
from office as a pre-condition to negotiations over a new government, although the U.S. continues
to insist that al-Assad's removal
become part of any final settlement.
But how can such fundamental differences be set aside when the two sides can't even agree on the
enemy they're fighting? The U.S. and its allies have defined the Syrian conflict as a civil war against
a despotic regime. The Russians define the conflict as an invasion by foreign Islamic radicals, paid
and supported by U.S.' Middle Eastern allies.
The EU has made its demands clear: solve the problem, we don't particularly care how, but it has
to be done quickly. From that point of view, the U.S. and Russian leaders have little choice but
to answer the call.
Russia is attempting to form and lead a
UN authorized coalition against ISIL, the radical jihadists' adversaries that conquered large
parts of Syria and Iraq, while threatening to engulf the entire region.
Obama has stated publicly that he
welcomes help
from Russia and Iran in the fight against radical jihadists, ISIL, in Syria, while still insisting
that al-Assad must go. On their side, the Russians have made no secret of their strong objections
to NATO-led regime change, citing the results of failed states in Iraq, Libya, Tunisia, and Egypt.
In a recent New York Times article, an Administration insider stated that the President believes
Syria is a lost cause, one that U.S. military presence could only worsen.
Obama has also shown little reluctance to lead from behind, when supporting NATO partners, particularly
with a U.S. public largely opposed to America's military engagement in any further Mideast wars.
But Russia is not NATO, and it's clear that the U.S. has no intention of following the Kremlin's
lead in Syria, as its veto of the Russian coalition proposal at the UN Security Council clearly shows.
Adding to that was the
United States'strong condemnation of the Russian air attack on its first day of operations in
Syria.
The urgency of the moment favors cooperation, while geography gives Russia major advantages in
leading the fight. Russia's relationship with Iran, already fighting on the ground in Iraq, with
its ally Hezbollah fighting in Syria, provides Russia with a readymade army to complement its air
attacks.
With the Russians initiating air strikes against ISIL in Syria, the great fear of world leaders
is that an accidental collision between opposing U.S. and Russian forces raises the risks of war
between the two nuclear powers.
While both sides deny any intent at military collaboration or sharing of military intelligence
in Syria, the two Presidents have agreed to meetings of their military leaders, ostensibly aimed
at reducing the risk of accidental conflicts between them. How that can be done without shared military
intelligence about troop movements, and planned air attacks remains a mystery.
Adding to the confusion is the increasingly cordial meetings between Russian and Saudi leaders.
Many believe that the Saudis, and their Gulf Kingdom partners, hold the key to resolving the conflict,
as the major backers of the 'moderate Islamic' rebels fighting the Syrian Government forces.
The Saudis have largely refrained from criticizing the Russian military buildup in Syria, even
though it bolsters the Assad regime, and the Kingdom continues to hold its cards close to its vest
regarding their position on the new Russian military initiative in Syria.
At the same time, there were conflicting signals in regards to the relationship between Iran and
Russia. Reports
surfaced in late September that the two countries, along with Syria and Iraq, were coordinating
military efforts against the ISIL. But at the UN meeting, Iran's President Rouhani made the surprising
statement
that Iran saw no need to coordinate military efforts in Syria, with the Russian goal to support its
embattled ally in Syria, while Iran's goal is eradicate ISIL.
It's widely recognized that since the Iran nuclear deal, Iran and the U.S. have sought to move
closer in other important areas. Still, Rouhani's UN statement seemed to belie the recent agreements
between Russia, Iran, Iraq, and Syria to build an information center in Baghdad to share battlefield
reconnaissance against ISIL.
That also falls in line with the new agreement with Iran, Iraq, and Syria to provide an air corridor
for Russian military flyovers to Syria for Russian fighter planes and transport aircraft.
To observers, these agreements certainly smack of military coordination with Russia. Iran's need
to distance itself from Russia seems to be made with an eye on the U.S., where hardline Presidential
candidates threaten to tear up the nuclear agreement.
The highly charged political atmosphere in the U.S., in the midst of a Presidential election,
only adds to the fog of war in Syria, forcing public denials and secret agreements where there needs
to be utmost clarity, making military cooperation in Syria almost impossible, while raising the risks
of accidental conflicts between so-called partners.
What then of western sanctions against Russia? In the eyes of the west, the Syrian conflict is
beginning to eclipse Ukraine in importance. The U.S. seems satisfied to leave the Ukraine issue to
Germany, France, Russia and Ukraine for settlement.
The EU is most likely to be the first mover to ease sanctions, realizing, as a
number of EU leaders have stated, that it is fundamentally incompatible to rely on Russia's military
might while starving the Russian economy.
In January, the EU sanctions are set to expire, requiring a unanimous vote of all member states
for extension. The odds are rising that the EU will allow sanctions to expire.
If so, major global business will once again flock to Russia. That would include the return of
major western energy companies that have played a critical part in Russian energy development. Once
that starts, it will become far more difficult to reverse the momentum or re-impose sanctions.
Given the political atmosphere in Washington, it's clear the U.S. will leave its sanctions in
place.
Sam Kanu, October 7, 2015 at 5:31 am
Given the political atmosphere in Washington, it's clear the U.S. will leave its sanctions
in place.
Here you mean "Given the political instructions to Washington from Tel Aviv". I don't see any
general feeling in the American people that demands ongoing conflict with Iran. This is not politics
at all – just pure old tail wagging the dog.
JeffC -> Sam Kanu, October 7, 2015 at 11:18 am
Sanctions against Russia, not Iran.
Older & Wiser, October 7, 2015 at 6:48 am
The un-named 1800 lb Mr. and Mrs. Gorilla couple in the room are oil & gas.
Pipelines anyone ?
Massinissa, October 7, 2015 at 2:56 pm
Are there really pipelines in Syria? I thought it was through Iraq and Turkey.
ambrit, October 7, 2015 at 7:13 am
Given Russias' long term relationship with Syria, I'm bemused that any Neo of any stripe could
with a straight face suggest that the Russians would abandon the Syrian Government to a bunch
of Western backed wreckers.
Maintaining a foothold in the Middle East is basic Grand Strategy. America does it with Israel,
so Russia does it with Syria.
In the long run, the Middle East is beginning a shake up. The post WW1 borders were incompatible
with the ethnic groupings of the region. Now those old 'drawn on a map' borders are being broken
apart and the pieces reassembled. This process can take years or decades to work out. The time
frame depends on how 'responsible' the Great Powers are in dealing with the realignment process.
Do notice the framing of the issue in the MSM. "Irresponsible Russia" and "Assad Must Go" are
everywhere proclaimed. Like the magicians they are, the MSMs rely on misdirection to try to pull
off the 'trick.' While the West tries to browbeat the Russians, the Russians are persistently
acting in their, and in the Syrian Governments, perceived best interests.
On the air front, the Russian "incursions" look to be standard battlefield intelligence work.
Send a plane or two 'over the border' and see what sorts of anti air radars 'lock on' to your
aircraft. This is something any competent air commander would want to discover. This is also a
thinly veiled threat to the West; "Look! Anyone can play this game!" The basic point being; there
is no such thing as a 'no fly zone,' if you are willing to fight.
The Russian message is basic; "Put up, or shut up."
NotTimothyGeithner, October 7, 2015 at 9:05 am
The post WWI borders are fairly similar to Ottoman administrative districts. The Kuwait
city-state answered to the governor of Baghdad within their framework. The issue has been foreign
powers using sectarian ties to divide the little people from cooperation which was achievable
under the Sultan for 500 years. Even Hussein found the Shiites to be exceptionally loyal during
the Iran-Iraq War.
The rise of the Saudis, allowing the Israelis to knock over Lebanon and run an apartheid state,
and supporting oppressive regimes which would have fallen or reformed (pretty much all the Gulf
states which also have ancient borders) are major issues. There have always been states centered
around the modern cities (Ur and Babylon were replaced by Baghdad) or provinces. I believe
the creative borders argument was always a "White Man's Burden" excuse to justify control. "Professor
Scott, why do they fight in the Middle East?" Excuses about unfortunate cartography sound better
than "I needed to build a railroad and did the want to pay the locals, so I cooked up a rape story
in one village, handed out guns, and slaughtered the adult males in the other village."
On the other hand, Africa was carved up bizarrely based on rail and ship movements.
todde, October 7, 2015 at 8:11 am
KSA claims Assad must go and I doubt they will support Russia.
Who is supporting IS? I find it hard to believe they can maintain armed conflict on several
fronts without a state backer.
Where are the 10s of billions of dollars in turkeys central bank in accounts called unknown
foreign sources and errors and adjustments?
Iran will support Assad regardless of American actions.
blert, October 7, 2015 at 5:54 pm
Two factors.
Iran was using Turkey as a front, Ankara collected its 'cut.' Turkey was laundering monies
from the Gulf, too, probably Golden Chain funding for the fanatics in Syria. Erdogan has more
side action than Rick's Cafe American.
Eureka Springs, October 7, 2015 at 9:02 am
Madness R U.S. US, Saudi, Turks and Israeli's must be held at bay at the very least. It's
(Russia, Iran, Syria) who are the only entities resembling a possible humanitarian, rule of law
base of action now or possibly working towards that kind of end game.
That's how low we are, R or D, … the creators and perpetrators of al Q and all of their newly
named lackeys doing our dirty work continuously since the 1980's. It's not impossible to know
who we are and what we have long done… Reading Obama's words and Putin's it is clear Putin
is being far more honest and consistent in both action and words.
Maybe we should stop blowing up hospitals and imprison leaders who order or even allow it to
happen. Nah, there are too many unarmed citizens in wheelchairs who must be shot.
blert, October 7, 2015 at 6:02 pm
Bin Laden has gone on record - time and time, again - denouncing your thesis. He never needed
American funding - ever. He would never, ever, grovel to the kafir.
It's only recently that 0bama started funding AQ's front organs, al Nusrah inparticular. BOTH
ISIS and al Nusrah are joined at the hip and are al Qaeda fronts. They only had a falling out,
circa 2011.
The FSA is a total fiction. It's a Western media construct. Syria is a fight between brutal
Assad and two feral al Qaeda fronts… that can't be controlled. The UK, US and Jordan trained most
of ISIS' cadres in the Jordanian desert back in 2011-12. They then went rogue. That (mostly Jordanian)
force is still the dominant core of ISIS. Our crass media is complicit in covering up a reality
that the rest of the planet is hip to.
Eureka Springs , October 7, 2015 at 8:07 pm
Agree with you after your first three lines. I guess those shoulder fired missiles which al
Q used to take out Russian helicopters in Afghanistan during the '80's were Costa Rican made and
supplied.
Massinissa, October 7, 2015 at 8:29 pm
So Bin Laden was actually giving money and guns to Zbigniew Brzezinski instead of the other
way around?
You have seen that famous photo of Bin Laden and Zbigniew Brzezinski right? Just google it.
A retired Army Colonel who served under Colin Powell actually says he's afraid of a future Israeli
false-flag operation that will start a US war with Iran
– move the cursor to 15 mins...
Steven, October 7, 2015 at 11:10 am
Somewhere I remember reading an analysis of the Syrian conflict along the following lines:
It does indeed involve geopolitics – with the aim being to replace Europe's dependence
on Russian oil and gas with that from U.S. Middle-eastern 'allies'. To do that it is necessary
to build a pipeline across Syria – and insure the Syrian government is firmly in the pocket
of the U.S. and its allies.
Without wishing to denigrate the influence of AIPAC, this conflict has far more to
do with preserving and possibly extending US global hegemony (with a continuing full-employment
program for the country's Congressional military-industrial complex) than it does Israel's
inordinate control over US foreign policy. All the blather about democracy vs. dictatorship
and/or Sunni vs. Shia vs. Sunni is just offal fed to the cannon fodder used by powers great
and small to get it to sacrifice itself for their ambitions.
Like ambrit said, this is just "basic Grand Strategy". It is way past time for US 'leaders'
to recognize the full spectrum dominance they enjoyed in the aftermath of WWII was (charitably)
an accident of history and come to terms with a multi-polar world and the concept of collective
security to which they gave so much word of mouth to a population disgusted with the carnage
and destruction of the second "war to end all wars".
Hespeler1, October 7, 2015 at 4:19 pm
Steven, Pepe Escobar has written extensively about the "pipeline wars" ("pipelinestan"),
the Empire is trying to starve Russia's finances in part by bypassing Russia's pipelines. Greece
was pressured into refusing to be the Turkish Stream's terminus and distribution hub for Southern
Europe. We all know how much they needed the revenue from that, but TPTB said no. Grand Strategy=break
up Russia, steal her resources, put pressure on China. I fear that the Empire won't stop until
they accomplish this, or are buried.
OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL, October 7, 2015 at 12:11 pm
Sometimes things are just so obvious. US "veto of the Russian coalition proposal at the
UN Security Council". Could be because the US wants to lead a bigger, better coalition, maybe
ours will include Samoa or something. Or, um, duh, could be because US doesn't really want to
fight ISIS since that's our dog in this fight. Funny how a few days bombing by Russia has had
a real impact on actual ISIS fighters…whereas US bombing tends to be on stuff like bridges and
power plants and hospitals that hurt Assad more than they hurt ISIS.
I mean how bleeding obvious when we get John McCain high fiving ISIS…and our grand plan
was to find "moderate" maniacs that would do our bidding. "OK everybody, form a line, if you're
an extremist take the T-shirt on the left, if you're a moderate take a T-shirt on the right".
That strategy has worked out so well for us in the past, we spent $500M and trained precisely
"4 or 5" guys.
Is it not most edifying that Iraq is now apparently allowing Russian cruise missiles to fly
over its territory, or at least not objecting? (Not that Iraq could do much about it…)
Harry, October 7, 2015 at 5:20 pm
Iraq is part of the Russian coalition as well as China and you probably do know that Iraqi
prime-minister already made a statement that he would not object against Russians decimating ISIS
on the Iraqi territory. And look, oil prices are already going up – that's what Putin really needed
and this is one of the eight reasons why he started a war in the Middle East.
NotTimothyGeithner, October 7, 2015 at 8:52 pm
Started a war? You do realize training a day arming rebels is an act of war even if Congress
hides the funding in the classified budget or if it's done by the CIA instead of corporate approved
soldiers. The U.S. government has started numerous wars without Congressional approval, mostly
because Congress is still afraid of elections. Russia is allied with Syria. If anything Putin
has shown remarkable constraint.
Synoia, October 7, 2015 at 1:06 pm
There are three sides to Syria:
1. New Caliphate – Includes Turkey & Saudi Arabia – Look at a map and think contiguous empire
-ISIS is their tool.
2. US dislike of Assad, and allied with Turkey and Saudi Arabia, but dislikes New Caliphate
and ISIS.
3. Russia, Iran, Syria, Hezbollah etc, dislike New Calipahe, becue of potential threat to Russia
from Muslim arc from Iran through to China (the Stans).
Which leaves the US's allies in direct opposition to the US' goals, and leads to lies, deceit
and deception from parties (1) and (2).
The role of ISIS is to destabilize Syria and Iran, to create an opportunity for Turkish Troops
(500,000 man army), and Saudi money to enter, the region "to keep the peace," thus furthering
their imperial ambitions.
The US is trying to eliminate Assad, but not enable a new Caliphate, and undermine Russia's
and Iran's influence in the area, because Oil and exceptionalism (for exceptionalism see collective
ego, or stunning arragance).
Russia and Iran see the solution to a New Caliphate as Assad in power, and a weakening of US
influence.
aka: Quagmire
NotTimothyGeithner -> Synoia, October 7, 2015 at 8:56 pm
The U.S. government's side* is childish at best. The only real plan was Sunni elements
of the army would assume power when Assad was removed from power with a little Saber rattling
much like Libya with the GNC. Obama's ego prevents him from recognizing what a stupid idea this
was and how radically different types Assad a day Gaddafi's power bases were.
*They are hiding behind the war powers act and approval from post 9/11 legislation. Congress
an otherwise President are too cowardly to call our actions acts of war which is what they are.
washunate, October 7, 2015 at 1:40 pm
No.
But seriously, it is interesting seeing what the Oilprice guys think their audience wants
to hear. They are clearly inside the MSM echo chamber. You have everything from dichotomous balance
(because truth has two sides) to the charged political atmosphere (which sadly forces otherwise
honest and transparent leaders to engage in secrecy and deception against their will).
I particularly love how casual the author is with the notion that the President of the
United States has an explicit policy goal of deposing the leader of a sovereign nation. Ho hum,
just another head of state that must go.
susan the other, October 7, 2015 at 2:15 pm
This summary by Berke also reflects my puzzled observations. It wasn't that long ago that we
worried about a fundamentalist insurrection in SA and so we politely made ourselves scarce to
help the Saudis out.
There's probably now a pre-arranged trade off for the Saudis and Iran: SA gets to take over
Yemen; Iran gets to create a corridor through Syria. Who knows. I thought the meeting at the UN
between Obama and Putin was such thinly disguised cooperation that surely some MSM would comment
– but none did.
And the EU has stated (above) that sanctions against Russia are incompatible because the EU
is "relying on Russia's military might" and shouldn't therefore starve the Russian economy. Wow,
let's hear the story on that please.
So did Holland send in the French bombers to help out Russia? Maybe SA and RU are chummy because
Russia is going to get the contract to build the new pipeline from the Gulf to Europe.
blert, October 7, 2015 at 6:08 pm
Actually all of the load growth, for OPEC, is towards India and points east. American fracking
has released a glut of oil into the Atlantic Ocean market space.
Nigeria essentially lost North America as a customer - all together. If Libya and Venezuela get
their act together, the glut becomes even more pronounced. Then toss in Brazil's new out put.
Brian M, October 7, 2015 at 8:10 pm
many of the fracked wells will fail amazingly quickly. So, this may not be true for long...
skippy, October 7, 2015 at 8:14 pm
A giddy operator with the rights to a gas-rich parcel of land can't just drill willy-nilly.
Well design considerations are very complex and attention to detail must span the construction,
testing phase, and decommissioning of the well post-production. Moreover, drilling wells are often
constructed uniquely with regard to the geology and geography of the specific location. For instance,
because much of the shale formation in Pennsylvania lies beneath a shallower gas formation, it
is easier for the shallower gas to escape during the initial drilling process. This in turn has
made it difficult for drillers to design failproof wells that can be sealed off from the younger
deposits completely.
At this point in the Syrian crisis it appears that the national security network (several hundred
high-level military, intelligence, diplomatic and law enforcement agencies) are still debating
among themselves what the U.S. response will be to Russian military initiatives in Syria and potentially
Iraq.
For all Bernie Sanders supporters, it will be interesting to see what his stance on Syria will
be. Will he break( at least rhetorically) with these national security elites( who since WWII
have basically dictated Presidential moves in the national security arena) or will he cave to
this present structure of networked power despite his "democratic socialist" credentials.
Will Sanders maintain this continuity of American foreign policy that so shocked Obama supporters?
Will the United State continue on its path of greater centralization, less accountability and
emergent autocracy despite whoever wins the increasingly powerless Presidencyj?
RUKidding, October 7, 2015 at 2:33 pm
Here's my bet for the answer to your last 2 Q:
1. Yes
2. Yes
James Levy, October 7, 2015 at 3:00 pm
Unfortunately, I concur.
The amazing thing is watching the utter horror and confusion of the MSM and the Talking Heads
as the Russians do things (bombing ISIS! Firing cruise missiles!!!) that the US does just about
every other Tuesday, as if these things are some kind of massive breach of the peace on the order
of Hitler invading Poland. The lack of any self-awareness is stunning.
Oregoncharles, October 7, 2015 at 2:55 pm
"Russia is attempting to form and lead a UN authorized coalition against ISIL"
The obvious solution, especially if it does not include the US. I'm anti-interventionist in
general, but ISIL poses us the problem the Nazis did: this cannot be allowed to stand. They're
actually taking us back to the 7th Century, morally, and for that matter doing things Mohammed
probably wouldn't have stood for. Except in degree, most of their actions are not unprecedented,
even in modern times; what's unprecedented is their extreme openness about it. Hypocrisy is an
acknowledgment of morality; these people are trying to CHANGE morality, reversing hundreds of
years of hard-won progress. They're a kind of monster we thought we were rid of. And they've been
successful enough militarily, at least in that deeply destabilized region, to present a real threat.
Ultimately, they will have to be suppressed; it won't be easy or bloodless. The Russians'
proposal may be self-interested, but it's the only approach likely to work. American bombing certainly
won't.
ISIL's PR skills bother me on another level: they're extremely convenient for the interventionists.
They've even got me going. And there are real connections between it and the US authorities, especially
in Iraq, to say nothing of the Saudis. I can't help but wonder whether it's a CIA operation, either
run amok or conceivably still under control. (If you aren't paranoid, you aren't paying attention.)
Steven, October 7, 2015 at 4:17 pm
I keep wondering how much of what goes on here in the commentariat of Naked Capitalism
is just preaching to the choir and how much represents (well deserved) contempt for the official
government / MSM (but I repeat myself) line among the population at large. That contempt – if
it exists – is in my humble opinion – a national security issue / crisis.
JTMcPhee, October 7, 2015 at 7:46 pm
Quoting the captain of the Titanic, "More steam! Full speed ahead! We gotta show the world
what this baby will do!"
One week ago, when summarizing the current state of play in Syria,
we said that for Obama, "this is shaping up to be the most spectacular US foreign policy
debacle since Vietnam." Yesterday, in tacit confirmation of this assessment, the Obama administration
threw in the towel on one of the most contentious programs it has implemented in "fighting ISIS",
when the Defense Department announced it was abandoning the goal of a U.S.-trained Syrian force.
But this, so far, partial admission of failure only takes care of one part of Obama's problem: there
is the question of the "other" rebels supported by the US, those who are not part of the officially-disclosed
public program with the fake goal of fighting ISIS; we are talking, of course, about the nearly 10,000
CIA-supported "other rebels", or technically mercenaries, whose only task is to take down Assad.
The same "rebels" whose fate the
AP profiles today when it writes that the CIA began a covert operation in 2013 to arm,
fund and train a moderate opposition to Assad. Over that time, the CIA has trained an estimated
10,000 fighters, although the number still fighting with so-called moderate forces is unclear.
The effort was separate from the one run by the military, which trained militants willing
to promise to take on IS exclusively. That program was widely considered a failure, and
on Friday, the Defense Department announced it was abandoning the goal of a U.S.-trained Syrian
force, instead opting to equip established groups to fight IS.
It is this effort, too, that in the span of just one month Vladimir Putin has managed to render
utterly useless, as it is officially "off the books" and thus the US can't formally support these
thousands of "rebel-fighters" whose only real task was to repeat the "success" of Ukraine and overthrow
Syria's legitimate president: something which runs counter to the US image of a dignified democracy
not still resorting to 1960s tactics of government overthrow. That, and coupled with Russia and Iran
set to take strategic control of Syria in the coming months, the US simply has no toehold any more
in the critical mid-eastern nation.
And so another sad chapter in the CIA's book of failed government overthrows comes to a close,
leaving the "rebels" that the CIA had supported for years, to fend for themselves.
CIA-backed rebels in Syria, who had begun to put serious pressure on President Bashar Assad's
forces, are now under Russian bombardment with little prospect of rescue by their American
patrons, U.S. officials say.
Over the past week, Russia has directed parts of its air campaign against U.S.-funded groups
and other moderate opposition in a concerted effort to weaken them, the officials say.
The Obama administration has few options to defend those it had secretly armed and trained.
The Russians "know their targets, and they have a sophisticated capacity to understand the
battlefield situation," said Rep. Mike Pompeo, R-Kan., who serves on the House Intelligence Committee
and was careful not to confirm a classified program. "They are bombing in locations that are not
connected to the Islamic State" group.
... ... ..
Incidentally, this is just the beginning. Now that the U.S. has begun its pivot out
of the middle-east, handing it over to Putin as Russia's latest sphere of influence
on a silver platter, there will be staggering consequences for middle-east geopolitics. In out preview
of things to come last week, we concluded by laying these out; we will do the same again:
The US, in conjunction with Saudi Arabia and Qatar, attempted to train and support Sunni extremists
to overthrow the Assad regime. Some of those Sunni extremists ended up going crazy and declaring
a Medeival caliphate putting the Pentagon and Langley in the hilarious position of being forced
to classify al-Qaeda as "moderate." The situation spun out of control leading to hundreds
of thousands of civilian deaths and when Washington finally decided to try and find real "moderates"
to help contain the Frankenstein monster the CIA had created in ISIS (there were of course numerous
other CIA efforts to arm and train anti-Assad fighters, see below for the fate of the most "successful"
of those groups), the effort ended up being a complete embarrassment that culminated with the
admission that only "four or five" remained and just days after that admission, those "four or
five" were car jacked by al-Qaeda in what was perhaps the most under-reported piece of foreign
policy comedy in history.
Meanwhile, Iran sensed an epic opportunity to capitalize on Washington's incompetence. Tehran
then sent its most powerful general to Russia where a pitch was made to upend the Mid-East balance
of power. The Kremlin loved the idea because after all, Moscow is stinging from Western economic
sanctions and Vladimir Putin is keen on showing the West that, in the wake of the controversy
surrounding the annexation of Crimea and the conflict in eastern Ukraine, Russia isn't set to
back down. Thanks to the fact that the US chose extremists as its weapon of choice in Syria,
Russia gets to frame its involvement as a "war on terror" and thanks to Russia's involvement,
Iran gets to safely broadcast its military support for Assad just weeks after the nuclear deal
was struck. Now, Russian airstrikes have debilitated the only group of CIA-backed fighters that
had actually proven to be somewhat effective and Iran and Hezbollah are preparing a massive ground
invasion under cover of Russian air support. Worse still, the entire on-the-ground effort is being
coordinated by the Iranian general who is public enemy number one in Western intelligence circles
and he's effectively operating at the behest of Putin, the man that Western media paints as the
most dangerous person on the planet.
As incompetent as the US has proven to be throughout the entire debacle, it's still
difficult to imagine that Washington, Riyadh, London, Doha, and Jerusalem are going to take this
laying down and on that note, we close with our assessment from Thursday: "If Russia
ends up bolstering Iran's position in Syria (by expanding Hezbollah's influence and capabilities)
and if the Russian air force effectively takes control of Iraq thus allowing Iran to exert a greater
influence over the government in Baghdad, the fragile balance of power that has existed in the
region will be turned on its head and in the event this plays out, one should not expect
Washington, Riyadh, Jerusalem, and London to simply go gentle into that good night."
Which is not to say that the latest US failure to overthrow a mid-east government was a total
failure. As Joshua Landis, a Syria expert at the University of Oklahoma says "probably 60 to
80 percent of the arms that America shoveled in have gone to al-Qaida and its affiliates."
Which is at least great news for the military-industrial complex. It means more "terrorist
attacks" on U.S. "friends and allies", and perhaps even on U.S. soil - all courtesy of the US government
supplying the weapons - are imminent.
BlueViolet
It's not a fiasco. It's a success. AlQaeda/ISIS created by Israel and financed by US.
Stackers
Never forget the first chapter of this story happened in 2011 Benghazi Libya when the Turkey
brokered arms deal went bad, Obama admin abandoned them and one CIA op posing as an ambasador
and his security detail were killed.
This thing has been a shit show from day one and involves scandal after scandal
The Indelicate ...
Video: Israeli forces open fire on Palestinian demonstrators in Gaza killing seven
There is no such thing as 10,000 CIA 'rebels' - that's only their on-line name.
There is a 10,000-man CIA assassination team or better still - mafia hit squad - in Syria.
They're not rebels, they're not terrorists, they're not even mercs. They are paid criminal assassins,
nothing more. My country hired them, so my country is guilty of racketeering and assassination.
There are no degrees of separation here - the U.S. is directly responsible. Since the acts were
perpetrated by people who are also violating the Constitution of the U.S., they are criminals
and traitors.
We should do something about them... right after this season of Keeping Up With The Kardashians.
WTFRLY
White House still ignores murder of American reporter Serena Shim who filmed western aid to
ISIS February 27, 2015
1 year almost since her death. Today would have been her 30th birthday.
SWRichmond
You and I (and perhaps others) wonder how 10,000 "moderate rebels" were vetted before being
trained and equipped. I am guessing an interview with some commander-wannabee, who said "yes I
am a moderate" and then CIA said "awesome, here's $500,000,000.00 and a boatload of sophisticated
weapons. Go hire and train some more moderates." Or maybe CIA just asked McCain and took his word
for it.
...but few believe the U.S. can protect its secret rebel allies
Some secret...
This kind of shit is what you get when the deep state breathes its own fumes.
Lore
Exactly. American hands are drenched in blood. It's not enough just to withdraw from Syria
and leave a bunch of mercs and "assets" to burn, and it's not enough to go after the individuals
behind specific atrocities like 911, the bombing of the hospital, or the weddings, or Abu Ghraib,
or Benghazi, or, or... Nothing will be fixed or resolved until those responsible for drafting,
approving and implementing the pathological policy behind all the loss of life over the past decade
are prosecuted and brought to justice. Unless and until that happens, America has abandoned its
moral foundation and is doomed as a nation. It's just a practical observation.
geno-econ
Neocons went a step too far with their marauder agenda in Ukraine and Syria. Now they
have been silenced by Putin with a show of force exposing US weakness. Both Bush and Obama
showed weakness in not controllling Neocon influence in Wash. and is now reflectrd in political
party turmoil. EU should rejoice because US policy in Syria caused refugee problem which
will subside with end of civil war in Syria. Kiev government now also realizes US will not support
real confrontation with Russia and Russia will not give up Crimea. Neocon experiment in achieving
growth through regime change has been a total failure and huge drain on US economy.
greenskeeper carl
I agree 100%. What I'm dreading is listening to all the republitards in the next debate trying
to one up each other on the war mongering. The problem with 'let Russia have it' is that it will
be talked about by the right as though that's a bad thing. It will be spun as an Obama fuck uo(which
it is) not because of the simple fact that it was never any of our business in the first place.
To them, EVERYTHING is our business, and they will be spending the next few weeks talking tough
about how they will stand up to Putin.
RockyRacoon
You got it right, Carl. If they want to see Russia get its butt kicked, give them Syria, and
Afghanistan, and Iraq and all the other crappy countries that the U. S. has managed to destabilize.
Wish the Russians luck in putting that all back together. Better yet, encourage them to annex
the whole shootin' match into the Russian alliance!
Hey, wait.... could this have been the long term plan all along? Hmmm.... Maybe them thar neocons
are smarter than they look. Nah, never mind.
sp0rkovite
The article implies the CIA "lost" Syria. When did it ever "win" it? Total political propaganda.
datura
There are some risks, yes, dead Iranian general, perhaps soon some dead Russian soldiers.
But unlike the USA, Iran is fighting for its existence here. They know if Syria falls, they could
be next. As for Russia, it is very similar. As one expert said: "When the USA looks at Syria,
they see pipelines, profit from weapons, money and power." But the first thing Putin sees, when
looking at Syria, is Chechnya. Syria is very close to Russia, but very far from the USA. And that
is a huge difference.
For example, yesterday, some ISIS fighters were arrested in Chechnya. Luckily, FSB discovered
them before they could do some harm. Not even talking about those ISIS fighters, who came to Ukraine,
to fight against the pro-Russian rebels!!! You can see, how close and how important is this to
Russia and why Russia cannot give up here and has to go to all the extremes. Including the parked
nuclear submarine near Syria.
I could say to the US lunatics: you shouldn't have kept poking the bear. You shouldn't
have supported terrorists in Chechnya. You should have left Ukraine to Russia. As Putin said very
clearly in Valdai: "Russia does not intend to take an active role in thwarting those who are still
attempting to construct their New World Order-until their efforts start to impinge on Russia's
key interests. Russia would prefer to stand by and watch them give themselves as many lumps as
their poor heads can take. But those who manage to drag Russia into this process, through disregard
for her interests, will be taught the true meaning of pain."
House of Saud better be careful, because once Syria is taken care of, they will pay dearly
for arming ISIS. If Russia wins in the ME Qatar and SA are up for regime change and the US cannot
stop it.
Neil Patrick Harris
no no no. It's a about Israel seizing legal authority to drill for oil and nat gas in the Golan
Heights/Southern Syria. The plan was to arm ISIS, help ISIS defeat Assad, let ISIS be terrible
ISIS who will then threaten Israel, giving the Israelis a perfect excuse to invade Syria, defeat
ISIS and look like a hero, then build a pipeline through Turkey, right in to Europe.
But thankfully Putin cockblocked those racist Zionists, and he is going to get all the oil
and gas for himself. Poor ol' Bibi gets nothing. Checkmate.
Freddie
http://www.moonofalabama.org/
Moon of Alabama web site is saying the See Eye Aye and Pentagram are not giving up. If
anything, they plan on ramping it up. How many more civilians do they want to kill? Sickening.
Given our military spending I think we actually could win an all-out war. We have enough nukes
to glass the planet a dozen times after all.
However, bullies don't want to fight with someone who could actually fight back, and who could
change the wars from this abstract thing that "creates jobs" and only hurts a few Americans (10k
Americans = 0.003% of the population), to something that people actually might not want.
viahj
if this is framed as an Obama failure in foreign policy (it will) in the upcoming US political
Presidential selection, the candidates will all be falling over themselves to come to the aide
of our "ME Allies" to restore order. there will be a push to re-escalate US involvement in the
ME especially with the pressure of Israel over their owned US politicians. a US retreat in the
short term while fortunate for the American people, will not stand. the warmongers will be posturing
themselves as to which will be the loudest in calling for re-engagement.
Insufficient evidence
for prosecution to declare shooting of MH17 a terrorist act..
Notable quotes:
"... The refusal of the Australian officials to make the statutory declaration that they have the
evidence under Australian law to declare a terrorist act suggests they don't have the evidence at
all. Until now, none has noticed the convergence of the Australian autopsy evidence in the
Coroners Court in Melbourne, and the revelation in the Brisbane court that the government is
refusing to declare a terrorist act. ..."
"... Dutch media report Australian lawyers for kin of victims have filed a complaint with
the ICC in the Hague seeking to indict several Dutch government ministers as well as
Eurocontrol and others for 'gross negligence'. ..."
"... If I'm right, the Russians have the evidence that proves whodunnit. They're just waiting until
the Dutch put out their report. Shot from the sky by military (whose is a guess) planes, not
BUK missiles. If they had one atom from a BUK, we'd know about it. ..."
"... It now appears that the likelihood 'on balance' is that it was the Ukrainian government
that shot down the plane. Establishing the case on a balance of probabilities would be good
enough in a civil jurisdiction. ..."
"... Obviously we westerners cannot tolerate that result otherwise everything we have said
about the accident will be thought to be intentionally misleading. It would be far far better
to obfuscate the investigative results and say it was inconclusive. Then our newspapers can
say those crafty Russians got away with it. ..."
"... Fingers crossed. Its not impossible that the truth will out. ..."
Fifteen weeks later, by the time Abbott spoke in November, he had been briefed on the evidence
gathered by Australian pathologists and the Victorian State Coroner from the bodies of MH17
victims. No evidence of shrapnel from a Buk missile warhead had been found. For that story,
read on.
... ... ...
The refusal of the Australian officials to make the statutory declaration that they have the
evidence under Australian law to declare a terrorist act suggests they don't have the evidence at
all. Until now, none has noticed the convergence of the Australian autopsy evidence in the
Coroners Court in Melbourne, and the revelation in the Brisbane court that the government is
refusing to declare a terrorist act.
... ... ...
For the Dutch Government's compilation of its official statements on the MH17 crash, open
this file. According to van der Goen, none of the investigating countries has legitimate
authority to prosecute, "if only because the Netherlands and the other countries mentioned are
possible suspects themselves - and they refuse to see this. So the case will be endlessly
shelved. Eventually, it will be adopted at a parliamentary inquiry that mistakes were made, but
then noone will still be awake. Excellent solution."
Ilargi, October 8, 2015 at 1:53 am
Dutch media report Australian lawyers for kin of victims have filed a complaint with
the ICC in the Hague seeking to indict several Dutch government ministers as well as
Eurocontrol and others for 'gross negligence'.
Chris Williams, October 8, 2015 at 2:35 am
I don't know how our clever governments (US, Australia, Netherlands, UK etc) are going to
get out of this one. Perhaps, as JH suggests, they will continue to defer and prevaricate,
keeping their 'evidence'… until know one cares.
If I'm right, the Russians have the evidence that proves whodunnit. They're just waiting until
the Dutch put out their report. Shot from the sky by military (whose is a guess) planes, not
BUK missiles. If they had one atom from a BUK, we'd know about it.
JTMcPhee, October 8, 2015 at 9:09 pm
For a different and more complete view, one might read here:
Not some "itchy radar operator," it would seem. But the Narrative must be protected…
low_integer, October 9, 2015 at 6:22 am
So the damage to the body would come from the exploding engine. It's so big, spinning
so fast, that the energy released is far, far, greater than the warheads. !!!
So, you can't tell either way based on the plane's body. You'd have to have
microscopic analysis of the engine components - which would be very challenging and take
just about forever.
Obfuscation. The parts in a passenger aircraft's jet engine that are moving, the turbine
blades, are made of nickel-based superalloys and I believe they are single 'grain' components,
which means they have consistent strength throughout and would be very unlikely to fracture.
Also, damage to the fuselage of a passenger jet from turbine blades would be easily
identifiable due to their shape and position as the energy of the turbine blades would be
dispersed at right angles to the direction of thrust. Lastly, the casing around these blades
would, at the very least, absorb a significant amount of this energy.
Are you the guy who replied to one of my posts that Cthulu caused 9/11?
RBHoughton, October 8, 2015 at 9:17 pm
It now appears that the likelihood 'on balance' is that it was the Ukrainian government
that shot down the plane. Establishing the case on a balance of probabilities would be good
enough in a civil jurisdiction.
Obviously we westerners cannot tolerate that result otherwise everything we have said
about the accident will be thought to be intentionally misleading. It would be far far better
to obfuscate the investigative results and say it was inconclusive. Then our newspapers can
say those crafty Russians got away with it.
If not, eastern Ukraine and Russia will score a huge win and we will have even more egg on our
faces than usual. Its bad enough that fewer people believe us but its far worse that they
begin to prefer Putin's version.
The hopeful thing here is the lawyers. Older readers will recall people used to study law
because they respected the concept of a law-based society. It was not just about the money.
Some of these vocational lawyers can still be found and it is my hope that they get fully
involved in this case. Fingers crossed. Its not impossible that the truth will out.
Thanks again Naked Capitalism for reporting important news that is neglected by others.
In 2014, Gazprom delivered
27.3 billion cubic meters (bcm) of gas to Turkey via its Blue Stream and Trans-Balkan pipelines.
Gas exports from Russia are up some 34 percent since
2010, and Turkey
– now Russia's second largest market after Germany – is only getting hungrier. By 2030, gas demand
in Turkey is
expected to expand 30 percent, reaching 70 bcm per year.
... ... ...
With European demand projected to
grow by just over 1 bcm per year in the same period, Russia's South Stream pipeline proposal
was as misguided as it was non-compliant with the EU's Third Energy Package. Routed through Turkey
however, Russia's newest pipeline, TurkStream, promised to add greater utility. Turkey gets its gas
and partly fulfills its transit aspirations; Russia bypasses Ukraine while opening windows to Europe
and the Middle East; and Europe, if it wants it, will have gas
on demand.
It sounds good – okay, at least – but as so often happens in Russia, the tale has taken a turn
for the worse. TurkStream has stumbled out of the gates and larger happenings in Syria look to significantly
damage Russia-Turkey relations.
Originally intended as a four-pipe 63-bcm project, TurkStream will now
top out at 32 bcm,
if it gets off the ground at all. As it stands, the parties have
agreed to draft the text of
an intergovernmental agreement, with a targeted signing date of early next year, following Turkey's
general election. And that's it.
ARTEMIVSK, Ukraine - How do you prove you didn't blow up a plane? In Russia, you blow up
a plane.
A Russian missile manufacturer said Friday that it had exploded a missile beneath a
decommissioned Boeing airliner similar to that of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, shot out of the
sky over eastern Ukraine last year, proving the passenger jet was not downed by one of its
missiles.
"The company will present the results of a real-time simulation of a Buk missile hitting a
passenger jet which we hope will help us understand what exactly caused the July 17, 2014 crash
of the Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777 in Ukraine's Donetsk region," Almaz-Antey said in a
statement.
The company did not say when the experiment took place or how it was conducted, and it did not
immediately reply to Mashable's request for comment. Its report will be released on Tuesday, Oct.
13, the same day a joint international investigation led by the Dutch Safety Board will release
its full report into the causes of the downing.
At a press conference in Moscow in June, Almaz-Antey said it was prepared to carry out
such an experiment to prove MH17 was downed by an older version of their missile that isn't in
service with the Russian military, but is in Ukraine's arsenal.
Company officials at the time did not say whether the aircraft would be in flight during the
experiment.
MH17 was downed over the village of Hrabovo, eastern Ukraine while en route from Amsterdam to
Kuala Lumpa on July 17, 2014. All 298 passengers and crew on board the jetliner were killed and
their remains scattered over the battlefields in war-torn Donetsk region.
Western governments and Kiev have accused Russian-backed separatists of shooting down the
passenger jet, mistaking it for a Ukrainian military aircraft, with a Buk SA-11 missile provided
by Moscow. Their accusations are supported by preliminary evidence gathered by open source
sleuths Bellingcat, as well as investigators and Mashable's own investigation.
On Wednesday, Vasyl Vovk, a senior officer of the Ukrainian Security Service (SBU) who has been
involved in the investigation into the downing, told Dutch news site NOS that the fragments found
in the aircraft wreckage and in victims' bodies matched pieces from two Buk missiles that
investigators examined for comparison.
The Kremlin and separatist leaders have blamed Kiev for the disaster, insisting it was downed
either by a Ukrainian Buk missile or a government jet fighter.
While the Dutch report due next week will shine a light on what caused the plane to crash and
burn, it will not lay blame.
A separate criminal investigation headed by Dutch detectives and involving investigators from
Australia, Belgium, Malaysia and Ukraine is still pending.
Attempts by the United Nations Security Council to create a tribunal to prosecute those
responsible for the crime was vetoed by Russia, a permanent member of the council, in July.
Moscow has called the move "premature" and decried the Dutch-led investigation as biased.
