"... the American-led takedown of the post-World War II international system has shattered long-standing rules and norms of behavior. ..."
"... The combination of disorder at home and abroad is spawning changes that are increasingly disadvantageous to the United States. With Congress having essentially walked off the job, there is a need for America's universities to provide the information and analysis of international best practices that the political system does not. ..."
I think this would be very informative for anybody seriously interested in the USA foreign
policy. Listening to him is so sad to realize that instead of person of his caliber we have
Pompous Pompeo, who forever is frozen on the level of a tank repair mechanical engineer, as
the Secretary of State.
Published on Feb 24, 2020
In the United States and other democracies, political and economic systems still work in
theory, but not in practice. Meanwhile, the American-led takedown of the post-World War II
international system has shattered long-standing rules and norms of behavior.
The combination of disorder at home and abroad is spawning changes that are increasingly
disadvantageous to the United States. With Congress having essentially walked off the job,
there is a need for America's universities to provide the information and analysis of
international best practices that the political system does not.
Ambassador Chas W. Freeman, Jr. is a senior fellow at Brown University's Watson
Institute for International and Public Affairs, a former U.S. Assistant Secretary of
Defense, ambassador to Saudi Arabia (during operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm),
acting Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, and Chargé d'affaires at
both Bangkok and Beijing. He began his diplomatic career in India but specialized in
Chinese affairs. (He was the principal American interpreter during President Nixon's visit
to Beijing in 1972.)
Ambassador Freeman is a much sought-after public speaker (see http://chasfreeman.net ) and the author of several
well-received books on statecraft and diplomacy. His most recent book, America's Continuing
Misadventures in the Middle East was published in May 2016. Interesting Times: China,
America, and the Shifting Balance of Prestige, appeared in March 2013. America's
Misadventures in the Middle East came out in 2010, as did the most recent revision of The
Diplomat's Dictionary, the companion volume to Arts of Power: Statecraft and Diplomacy. He
was the editor of the Encyclopedia Britannica entry on "diplomacy."
Chas Freeman studied at the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México and in
Taiwan, and earned an AB magna cum laude from Yale University as well as a JD from the
Harvard Law School.
He chairs Projects International, Inc., a Washington-based firm that for more than three
decades has helped its American and foreign clients create ventures across borders,
facilitating their establishment of new businesses through the design, negotiation,
capitalization, and implementation of greenfield investments, mergers and acquisitions,
joint ventures, franchises, one-off transactions, sales and agencies in other
countries.
He is the author of several books including the most recent
Interesting times: China, America, and the shifting balance of prestige
(2013)
1 The Korean War ends (1953
2 President Kennedy invades South Vietnam (1962)
3 The US overthrows Allende in Chile (1973)
4 The West installs Iranian dictator the Shah (1953)
5 The US-led Iraq invasion (2003)
Many honorable mentions including:
– NATO bombing of Serbia
– Libya
– Afghanistan
– Syria (support of ISIS and its predecessors and spinoffs)
The US body count is simply staggering – many millions killed, millions more wounded
or poisoned (Vietnam – agent orange and other chemical agents) and tens of millions of
lives forever damaged.
USA! USA! USA! (its elites that rule us of course!)
"... Using data compiled by a Geography and Native Studies professor from Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington, the indy100 team created an interactive map of U.S. military incursions outside its own borders from Argentina in 1890 to Syria in 2014. ..."
"... " Deployment of the military to evacuate American citizens, covert military actions by US intelligence, providing military support to an internal opposition group, providing military support in one side of a conflict, use of the army in drug enforcement actions. ..."
Tyler Durden
Aug 26, 2017 9:15 PM 0
SHARES
US has had a military presence across the world
, from almost day one of its independence.
For those who have ever wanted a clearer picture of the true reach of the United States
military - both historically and currently - but shied away due to the sheer volume of research
required to find an answer,
The Anti Media points out
that
a crew at the
Independent
just made things a whole lot simpler.
Using data compiled by a Geography and Native Studies
professor
from Evergreen State College in
Olympia, Washington, the indy100 team
created
an interactive map of U.S. military incursions outside its own borders from
Argentina in 1890 to Syria in 2014.
To avoid confusion, indy100 laid out its prerequisites for what constitutes an invasion:
" Deployment of the military to evacuate American citizens, covert military actions by US
intelligence, providing military support to an internal opposition group, providing military
support in one side of a conflict, use of the army in drug enforcement actions.
But indy100 didn't stop there.
To put all that history into context, using
data
from the Department
of Defense (DOD), the team also put together a map to display all the countries in which nearly
200,000 active members of the U.S. military are now stationed.
"... As for Washington and the proverbially bombastic, failed futurists across the Beltway, do they even know what is the end game of "investing" in two never-ending wars with no visible benefits? ..."
As for Washington and the proverbially bombastic, failed futurists across the Beltway, do they even know what is the
end game of "investing" in two never-ending wars with no visible benefits?
You start by assuming that the absence of war is the ultimate good, but none can say what a world without war would be like,
or how long it would last.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/20/wars-john-gray-conflict-peace
Has the world seen moral progress? The answer should not depend on whether one has a sunny or a morose temperament. Everyone
agrees that life is better than death, health better than sickness, prosperity better than privation, freedom better than tyranny,
peace better than war. All of these can be measured, and the results plotted over time. If they go up, that's progress.
For John Gray, this is a big problem. As a part of his campaign against reason, science and Enlightenment humanism, he insists
that the strivings of humanity over the centuries have left us no better off. This dyspepsia was hard enough to sustain when
Gray first expressed it in the teeth of obvious counterexamples such as the abolition of human sacrifice, chattel slavery and
public torture-executions. But as scholars have increasingly measured human flourishing, they have found that Gray is not just
wrong but howlingly, flat-earth, couldn't-be-more-wrong wrong. The numbers show that after millennia of near-universal poverty
and despotism, a steadily growing proportion of humankind is surviving infancy and childbirth, going to school, voting in democracies,
living free of disease, enjoying the necessities of modern life and surviving to old age.
And more people are living in peace. In the 1980s several military scholars noticed to their astonishment that the most
destructive form of armed conflict – wars among great powers and developed states – had effectively ceased to exist. At the
time this "long peace" could have been dismissed as a random lull, but it has held firm for an additional three decades.
In my opinion Gray, though wrong that violence is not decreasing, is onto something about the future being bleak because of
the rise of meliorist assumptions, because perpetual peace will be humanity's tomb.
While many suggest a danger for our world along the lines of
Brian Cox's explanation for the Fermi Paradox (ie intelligent life forms cross grainedly bring on self-annihilation through
unlimited war) I take a different view.
Given that Pinker appears substantially correct that serious war (ie wars among great powers and developed states) have effectively
ceased to exist, the trend is for peace and cooperation. Martin Nowak in his book The Supercoperators shows cooperation, not fighting,
to be the defining human trait (and indeed the most cooperative groups won their wars in history, whereby nation states
such the US are the result of not just individuals but familial tribal regional , and virtually continental groupings coming together
for mutual advantage and defence .
The future is going to be global integration pursuit of economic objectives, and I think this exponential moral progress bill
begat technological advances beyond imagining.. An escape from the war trap is almost complete and the Singularity becomes. The
most likely culprit in the paradox is a technological black hole event horizon created by unlimited peace and progress.
Cross-grained though it may be to say that the good war hallows every cause, I think it not so bad in comparison with the alternative.
Well put. These people are like the "nobles" of medieval times. They care not a whit about the "peasants" they trample. They
are wealth bigots, compounded by some ethnic bigotry or other, in this case Jewish supremacism. America has an oligarchy problem.
At the center of that oligarchy is a Jewish mafia controlling the banks, and thereby the big corporations, and thereby the media
and the government. This oligarchy sees America as a big, dumb military machine that it can manipulate to generate war profits.
"... There has been a gradual decline in the rationality of UK forces thinking. They insisted on UN legal cover cover the invasion of Iraq but were totally on board with pre-emptive action in Libya, happily training effectively ISIS forces before Gaddafi was removed. They are now training Ukrainian Neo-Nazis and training ISIS/whatever in Syria, effectively invading the country. I guess this may reflect the increasing direct Zionist control of Perfidious Albion with attendant levels of hubris. ..."
The Russians were there in Yugoslavia but they were not following NATO's script. There was an incident where Russian forces
took control of a key airport to the total surprise of NATO. The US overall commander ordered the UK to go in and kick the Russians
out. The UK ground commander wisely said he was not prepared to start WW III over Russian control of an airfield.
There has been a gradual decline in the rationality of UK forces thinking. They insisted on UN legal cover cover the invasion
of Iraq but were totally on board with pre-emptive action in Libya, happily training effectively ISIS forces before Gaddafi was
removed. They are now training Ukrainian Neo-Nazis and training ISIS/whatever in Syria, effectively invading the country. I guess
this may reflect the increasing direct Zionist control of Perfidious Albion with attendant levels of hubris.
"... A lot of art depicts war scenes, and why not? War is incredibly exciting, dynamic, destructive, and otherwise captivating, if often in a horrific way. But I want to consider war and art in a different manner, in an impressionistic one. War, by its nature, is often spectacle; it is also often chaotic; complex; beyond comprehension. Perhaps art theory, and art styles, have something to teach us about war. Ways of representing it and capturing its meaning as well as its horrors. But also ways of misrepresenting it; of fracturing its meaning. Of manipulating it. ..."
"... My point (and I think I have one) is that America's wars are in some sense elaborate productions and representations, at least in the ways in which the government constructs and sells them to the American people. To understand these representations -- the ways in which they are both more than real war and less than it -- art theory, as well as advertising, may have a lot to teach us. ..."
"... Afghanistan as the unfinished masterpiece....most people forget that the government is yet to complete it except when a Marine dies, they think about it for a day and then forget all over again. ..."
Consider this article a work of speculation; a jumble of ideas thrown at a blank canvas.
A lot of art depicts war scenes, and why not? War is incredibly exciting, dynamic, destructive, and otherwise captivating,
if often in a horrific way. But I want to consider war and art in a different manner, in an impressionistic one. War, by its nature,
is often spectacle; it is also often chaotic; complex; beyond comprehension. Perhaps art theory, and art styles, have something to
teach us about war. Ways of representing it and capturing its meaning as well as its horrors. But also ways of misrepresenting it;
of fracturing its meaning. Of manipulating it.
For example, America's overseas wars today are both abstractions and distractions. They're also somewhat surreal to most Americans,
living as we do in comparative safety and material luxury (when compared to most other peoples of the world). Abstraction and surrealism:
two art styles that may say something vital about America's wars.
If some aspects of America's wars are surreal and others abstract, if reports of those wars are often impressionistic and often
blurred beyond recognition, this points to, I think, the highly stylized representations of war that are submitted for our consideration.
What we don't get very often is realism. Recall how the Bush/Cheney administration forbade photos of flag-draped coffins returning
from Iraq and Afghanistan. Think of all the war reporting you've seen on U.S. TV and Cable networks, and ask how many times you saw
severed American limbs and dead bodies on a battlefield. (On occasion, dead bodies of the enemy are shown, usually briefly and abstractly,
with no human backstory.)
Of course, there's no "real" way to showcase the brutal reality of war, short of bringing a person to the front and having them
face fire in combat -- a level of "participatory" art that sane people would likely seek to avoid. What we get, as spectators (which
is what we're told to remain in America), is an impression of combat. Here and there, a surreal report. An abstract news clip. Blown
up buildings become exercises in neo-Cubism; melted buildings and weapons become Daliesque displays. Severed limbs (of the enemy)
are exercises in the grotesque. For the vast majority of Americans, what's lacking is raw immediacy and gut-wrenching reality.
Again, we are spectators, not participants. And our responses are often as stylized and limited as the representations are. As
Rebecca Gordon put it from a different angle at
TomDispatch.com , when it comes to America's wars, are we participating in reality or merely watching reality TV? And why are
so many so prone to confuse or conflate the two?
Art, of course, isn't the only lens through which we can see and interpret America's wars. Advertising, especially hyperbole,
is also quite revealing. Thus the US military has been sold, whether by George W. Bush or Barack Obama, as "the world's finest military
in history" or WFMH, an acronym I just made up, and which should perhaps come with a copyright or trademark symbol after it. It's
classic advertising hyperbole. It's salesmanship in place of reality.
So, when other peoples beat our WFMH, we should do what Americans do best: sue them for copyright infringement. Our legions of
lawyers will most certainly beat their cadres of counsels. After all, under Bush/Cheney, our lawyers tortured logic and the law to
support torture itself. Talk about surrealism!
My point (and I think I have one) is that America's wars are in some sense elaborate productions and representations, at least
in the ways in which the government constructs and sells them to the American people. To understand these representations -- the
ways in which they are both more than real war and less than it -- art theory, as well as advertising, may have a lot to teach us.
As I said, this is me throwing ideas at the canvas of my computer screen. Do they make any sense to you? Feel free to pick up
your own brush and compose away in the comments section.
P.S. Danger, Will Robinson. I've never taken an art theory class or studied advertising closely.
William J. Astore is a retired lieutenant colonel (USAF). He taught history for fifteen years at military and civilian schools
and blogs at Bracing Views . He can be reached at
[email protected] . Reprinted from Bracing
Views with the author's permission.
Afghanistan as the unfinished masterpiece....most people forget that the government is yet to complete it except when a
Marine dies, they think about it for a day and then forget all over again.
Why would you object to government creating more demand for labor? Over time, wages will rise and higher wages will fund more
demand for labor produced goods.
"... Barnett's main thesis in "The Pentagon's New Map" is that the world is composed of two types of states: those that are part of an integrated and connected "Core," which embrace globalization; and states of the "Gap," which are disconnected from the effects of globalization. Barnett proclaims that globalization will move the world into an era of peace and prosperity, but can only do so with the help of an indispensable United States. He writes that America is the lynchpin to the entire process and he believes that the United States should be midwife to a new world that will one day consist of peaceful democratic states and integrated economies. Barnett is proposing no less than a new grand strategy - the historical successor to the Cold War's strategy of containment. His approach to a future world defined by America's "exportation of security" is almost religious in its fervor and messianic in its language. ..."
"... At this point in his book, Barnett also makes bold statements that America is never leaving the Gap and that we are therefore never "bringing our boys home." He believes that there is no exiting the Gap, only shrinking it. These statements have incited some of Barnett's critics to accuse him of fostering and advocating a state of perpetual war. Barnett rebuts these attacks by claiming that, "America's task is not perpetual war, nor the extension of empire. It is merely to serve as globalization's bodyguard wherever and whenever needed throughout the Gap." Barnett claims that the strategy of preemptive war is a "boundable problem," yet his earlier claim that we are never leaving the Gap and that our boys are never coming home does not square with his assertion that there will not be perpetual war. He cannot have it both ways. ..."
"... Barnett therefore undermines his own globalization-based grand strategy by pointing out in detail at least ten things that can go wrong with globalization - the foundation upon which his theory is built. ..."
"... Globalization is likely here to stay, though it may be slowed down or even stopped in some regions of the planet. ..."
"... I would strongly recommend "The Pentagon's New Map" to students who are studying U.S. foreign policy. I would also recommend it to those who are studying the Bush administration as well as the Pentagon. The ideas in the book seem to be popular with the military and many of its ideas can be seen in the current thinking and policy of the Pentagon and State Department. ..."
"... I would only caution the reader that Barnett's theories are heavily dependent upon the continued advancement of globalization, which in turn is dependent upon the continued economic ability of the U.S. to sustain military operations around the world indefinitely. Neither is guaranteed. ..."
"... "Globalization" has turned out to be nothing but the polite PR term to disguise and avoid the truth of using the more accurate name, "Global Empire" --- and there is no doubt that Barnett is more than smart enough to see that this has inexorably happened. ..."
"... Liberty, democracy, justice, and equality Over Violent/'Vichy' Rel 2.0 Empire, ..."
"... We don't MERELY have; a gun/fear problem, or a 'Fiscal Cliff', 'Sequestration', and 'Debt Limit' problem, or an expanding wars problem, or a 'drone assassinations' problem, or a vast income & wealth inequality problem, or a Wall Street 'looting' problem, or a Global Warming and environmental death-spiral problem, or a domestic tyranny NDAA FISA spying problem, or, or, or, or .... ad nauseam --- we have a hidden EMPIRE cancerous tumor which is the prime CAUSE of all these 'symptom problems'. ..."
"... "If your country is treating you like ****, and bombing abroad, look carefully --- because it may not be your country, but a Global Empire only posing as your former country." ..."
Barnett's main thesis in "The Pentagon's New Map" is that the world is composed of two types of states: those that are
part of an integrated and connected "Core," which embrace globalization; and states of the "Gap," which are disconnected from
the effects of globalization. Barnett proclaims that globalization will move the world into an era of peace and prosperity, but
can only do so with the help of an indispensable United States. He writes that America is the lynchpin to the entire process and
he believes that the United States should be midwife to a new world that will one day consist of peaceful democratic states and
integrated economies. Barnett is proposing no less than a new grand strategy - the historical successor to the Cold War's strategy
of containment. His approach to a future world defined by America's "exportation of security" is almost religious in its fervor
and messianic in its language.
The foundation upon which Barnett builds his binary view of the world is heavily dependant upon the continued advancement of
globalization - almost exclusively so. However, advancing globalization is not pre-ordained. Barnett himself makes the case that
globalization is a fragile undertaking similar to an interconnected chain in which any broken link destroys the whole. Globalization
could indeed be like the biblical statue whose feet are made of clay. Globalization, and therefore the integration of the Gap,
may even stop or recede - just as the globalization of the early 20th century ended abruptly with the onset of WW I and a global
depression. Moreover, Barnett's contention that the United States has an exceptional duty and moral responsibility for "remaking
the world in America's image" might be seen by many as misguided and perhaps even dangerous.
The divide between the `Functioning Core' and the `Non-Integrating Gap' differs from the gulf between rich and poor in a subtle
yet direct way. State governments make a conscious decision to become connected vs. disconnected to advancing globalization. States
and their leaders can provide the infrastructure and the opening of large global markets to their citizens in ways that individuals
cannot. An example can serve to illustrate the point: You can be rich and disconnected in Nigeria or poor and disconnected in
North Korea. In each case the country you live in has decided to be disconnected. Citizens in this case have a limited likelihood
of staying rich and unlimited prospects of staying poor. But by becoming part of the functioning Core, the enlightened state allows
all citizens a running start at becoming part of a worldwide economic system and thus provide prospects for a better future because
global jobs and markets are opened up to them. A connected economy such as India's, for example, enables citizens who once had
no prospects for a better life to find well-paying jobs, such as computer-related employment. Prospects for a better Indian life
are directly the result of the Indian government's conscious decision to become connected to the world economy, a.k.a. embracing
globalization.
After placing his theory of the Core/Gap and preemptive war strategy firmly into the church of globalization, Barnett next
places his theory squarely upon the alter of rule sets. Few would argue that the world is an anarchic place and Barnett tells
us that rule sets are needed to define `good' and `evil' behavior of actors in this chaotic international system. An example of
such a rule set is the desire of the Core to keep WMDs out of the hands of terrorist organizations. Other examples are the promulgation
of human rights and the need to stop genocide. Barnett also uses rule sets to define `system' rules that govern and shape the
actions, and even the psychology, of international actors. An example that Barnett gives of a system-wide rule set is the creation
of the `rule' defined by the United States during the Cold War called Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD). Barnett claims that this
rule set effectively ended the possibility of war for all time amongst nuclear-capable great powers. Barnett states that the U.S.
now should export a brand new rule set called `preemptive war,' which aims to fight actors in the lawless Gap in order to end
international terrorism for all time. Barnett makes it clear that the Core's enemy is neither a religion (Islam) nor a place (Middle
East), but a condition (disconnectedness).
Next, Barnett points out that system-wide competition has moved into the economic arena and that military conflict, when it
occurs, has moved away from the system-wide (Cold War), to inter-state war, ending up today with primarily state conflict vs.
individuals (Core vs. bin Laden, Core vs. Kim, etc.). In other words, "we are moving progressively away from warfare against states
or even blocs of states and toward a new era of warfare against individuals." Rephrased, we've moved from confrontations with
evil empires, to evil states, to evil leaders. An example of this phenomenon is the fact that China dropped off the radar of many
government hawks after 9/11 only to be replaced by terrorist groups and other dangerous NGOs "with global reach."
Barnett also points out that the idea of `connectivity' is central to the success of globalization. Without it, everything
else fails. Connectivity is the glue that holds states together and helps prevent war between states. For example, the US is not
likely to start a war with `connected' France, but America could more likely instigate a war with `disconnected' North Korea,
Syria or Iran.
Barnett then examines the dangers associated with his definition of `disconnectedness.' He cleverly describes globalization
as a condition defined by mutually assured dependence (MAD) and advises us that `Big Men', royal families, raw materials, theocracies
and just bad luck can conspire to impede connectedness in the world. This is one of few places in his book that Barnett briefly
discusses impediments to globalization - however, this short list looks at existing roadblocks to connectedness but not to future,
system-wide dangers to globalization.
At this point in his book, Barnett also makes bold statements that America is never leaving the Gap and that we are therefore
never "bringing our boys home." He believes that there is no exiting the Gap, only shrinking it. These statements have incited
some of Barnett's critics to accuse him of fostering and advocating a state of perpetual war. Barnett rebuts these attacks by
claiming that, "America's task is not perpetual war, nor the extension of empire. It is merely to serve as globalization's bodyguard
wherever and whenever needed throughout the Gap." Barnett claims that the strategy of preemptive war is a "boundable problem,"
yet his earlier claim that we are never leaving the Gap and that our boys are never coming home does not square with his assertion
that there will not be perpetual war. He cannot have it both ways.
Barnett then takes us on a pilgrimage to the Ten Commandments of globalization. Tellingly, this list is set up to be more like
links in a chain than commandments. Each item in the list is connected to the next - meaning that each step is dependent upon
its predecessor. If any of the links are broken or incomplete, the whole is destroyed. For example, Barnett warns us that if there
is no security in the Gap, there can be no rules in the Gap. Barnett therefore undermines his own globalization-based grand
strategy by pointing out in detail at least ten things that can go wrong with globalization - the foundation upon which his theory
is built.
What else could kill globalization? Barnett himself tells us: "Labor, energy, money and security all need to flow as freely
as possible from those places in the world where they are plentiful to those regions where they are scarce." Here he is implying
that an interruption of any or all of these basic necessities can doom globalization. Barnett states clearly: "...(these are)
the four massive flows I believe are essential to protect if Globalization III is going to advance." Simply put, any combination
of American isolationism or closing of borders to immigration, a global energy crisis, a global financial crisis or rampant global
insecurity could adversely affect "connectedness," a.k.a. globalization. These plausible future events, unnerving as they are,
leave the inexorable advancement of globalization in doubt and we haven't yet explored other problems with Barnett's reliance
on globalization to make the world peaceful, free and safe for democracy.
Barnett goes on to tell us that Operation Iraqi Freedom was an "overt attempt to create a "System Perturbation" centered in
the Persian Gulf to trigger a Big Bang." His definition of a Big Bang in the Middle East is the democratization of the many totalitarian
states in the region. He also claims that the Big Bang has targeted Iran's "sullen majority."
Barnett claims that our problem with shrinking the Gap is not our "motive or our means, but our inability to describe the enemies
worth killing, the battles worth winning, and the future worth creating." Managing the global campaign to democratize the world
is no easy task. Barnett admits that in a worst-case scenario we may be stuck in the "mother of all intifadas" in Iraq. Critics
claim this is something that we should have planned for - that the insurgency should not have been a surprise, and that it should
have been part of the "peacemaking" planning. Barnett blithely states that things will get better "...when America internationalizes
the occupation." Barnett should not engage in wishful thinking here, as he also does when he predicted that Iraqis would be put
in charge of their own country 18 months after the fall of Baghdad. It would be more accurate if he claimed this would happen
18 months after the cessation of hostilities. Some critics claim that Iraq is an example that we are an "empire in a hurry" (Michael
Ignatieff), which then results in: 1) allocating insufficient resources to non-military aspects of the project and 2) attempting
economic and political transformation in an unrealistically short time frame.
The final basic premise of Barnett's theory of the Core and the Gap is the concept of what he calls the "global transaction
strategy." Barnett explains it best: "America's essential transaction with the outside world is one of our exporting security
in return for the world's financing a lifestyle we could far more readily afford without all that defense spending." Barnett claims
that America pays the most for global stability because we enjoy it the most. But what about the other 80 countries in the Core?
Why is America, like Atlas, bearing the weight of the world's security and stabilization on its shoulders?
Barnett claims that historical analogies are useless today and point us in the wrong direction. I disagree. James Madison cautioned
us not to go abroad to seek monsters to destroy. We can learn from his simple and profound statement that there are simply too
many state (and individual) monsters in today's world for the U.S. to destroy unilaterally or preemptively. We must also avoid
overstretching our resources and power. Thucydides reminds us that the great democracy of Athens was brought to its knees by the
ill-advised Sicilian expedition - which resulted in the destruction of everything the Athenians held dear. Do not ignore history
as Barnett councils; heed it.
Globalization is likely here to stay, though it may be slowed down or even stopped in some regions of the planet.
Therefore, America needs to stay engaged in the affairs of the world, but Barnett has not offered conclusive evidence that the
U.S. needs to become the world's single Leviathan that must extinguish all global hot wars. Barnett also has not proved that America
needs to be, as he writes, "the one willing to rush in when everyone else is running away." People like Barnett in academia and
leaders in government may proclaim and ordain the U.S. to be a global Leviathan, but it is a conscious choice that should be thoroughly
debated by the American people. After all, it is upon the backs of the American people that such a global Leviathan must ride.
Where is the debate? The American people, upon reflection, may decide upon other courses of action.
I would strongly recommend "The Pentagon's New Map" to students who are studying U.S. foreign policy. I would also recommend
it to those who are studying the Bush administration as well as the Pentagon. The ideas in the book seem to be popular with the
military and many of its ideas can be seen in the current thinking and policy of the Pentagon and State Department.
It seems to be well researched - having 35 pages of notes. Many of Barnett's citations come from the Washington Post and the
New York Times, which some may see as a liberal bias, but I see the sources as simply newspapers of record.
I would only caution the reader that Barnett's theories are heavily dependent upon the continued advancement of globalization,
which in turn is dependent upon the continued economic ability of the U.S. to sustain military operations around the world indefinitely.
Neither is guaranteed.
I don't think poorly of Thomas Barnett himself. He's very bright and, I think, good hearted, BUT his well thought-out, well
argued pride and joy (and positive intellectual pursuit) is being badly distorted ---- which happens to all 'tools' that Empire
gets its hands on.
For those who like predictions, I would predict that Barnett will wind up going through an epiphany much like Francis Fukuyama
(but a decade later) and for much the same reason, that his life's work gets misused and abused so greatly that he works to reverse
and correct its misuse. Fukuyama, also brilliant, wrote "The End of History" in 1992 (which was misused by the neocons to engender
war), and now he's working just as hard to reverse a misuse that he may feel some guilt of his work supporting, and is writing
"The Future of History" as a force for good --- and I suspect (and hope) that Barnett will, in even less time, be counter-thinking
and developing the strategy and book to reverse the misuse of his 2004 book before the Global Empire pulls down the curtain.
"Globalization" has turned out to be nothing but the polite PR term to disguise and avoid the truth of using the more accurate
name, "Global Empire" --- and there is no doubt that Barnett is more than smart enough to see that this has inexorably happened.
Best luck and love to the fast expanding 'Occupy the Empire' educational and revolutionary movement against this deceitful,
guileful, disguised EMPIRE, which can't so easily be identified as wearing Red Coats, Red Stars, nor funny looking Nazi helmets
---- quite yet!
Liberty, democracy, justice, and equality Over Violent/'Vichy' Rel 2.0 Empire,
Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine
We don't MERELY have; a gun/fear problem, or a 'Fiscal Cliff', 'Sequestration', and 'Debt Limit' problem, or an expanding
wars problem, or a 'drone assassinations' problem, or a vast income & wealth inequality problem, or a Wall Street 'looting' problem,
or a Global Warming and environmental death-spiral problem, or a domestic tyranny NDAA FISA spying problem, or, or, or, or ....
ad nauseam --- we have a hidden EMPIRE cancerous tumor which is the prime CAUSE of all these 'symptom problems'.
"If your country is treating you like ****, and bombing abroad, look carefully --- because it may not be your country, but
a Global Empire only posing as your former country."
"... Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski has written extensively about the purges of the patriots in the Defense Department that happened in Washington during the lead up and after the commencement of the Iraq war in 2003. ..."
"... If anybody thinks what I have written is an exaggeration, research what the late Admiral Thomas Moorer had to say years ago about the total infiltration of the Defense Department by Israeli agents. ..."
People who seem to think that Trump's generals will somehow go along and support his original vision are sadly mistaken.
Since 2003, Israel has had an increasingly strong hand in the vetting who gets promoted to upper positions in the American
armed forces. All of the generals Trump has at his side went through a vetting procedure which definitely involved a very close
look at their opinions about Israel.
Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski has written extensively about the purges of the patriots in the Defense Department that happened
in Washington during the lead up and after the commencement of the Iraq war in 2003.
Officers who openly oppose the dictates of the Israel Lobby will see their prospects for advancement simply vanish like a whiff
of smoke.. Those who support Israel's machinations are rewarded with promotions, the more fervent the support the more rapid the
promotion especially if this knowledge is made known to their congressman or senator..
Generals who support Israel already know that this support will be heavily rewarded after their retirements by being given
lucrative six figure positions on company boards of directors or positions in equally lucrative think tanks like the American
Enterprise Institution or the Hoover Institute. They will receive hefty speaking fees. as well. They learned early that their
retirements could be truly glorious if they only "went" along with The Lobby. They will be able to then live the good life in
expensive places like Washington, New York or San Francisco, often invited to glitzy parties with unlimited amount of free prawns
"the size of your hand".
On the other hand, upper officers who somehow get then get "bad" reputations for their negative views about Israel ( like Karen
U. Kwiatkowski for instance) will end up, once retired, having to depend on just their often scanty pensions This requires getting
an often demeaning second jobs to get by in some place where "their dollar goes further". No bright lights in big cities for them.
No speaking fees, no college jobs. Once their fate becomes known, their still active duty contemporaries suddenly decide to "go
along".
If anybody thinks what I have written is an exaggeration, research what the late Admiral Thomas Moorer had to say years
ago about the total infiltration of the Defense Department by Israeli agents.
Face it, we live in a country under occupation by a hostile power that we willingly pay large amounts monetary tribute to.
Our government does whatever benefits Israel regardless of how negatively this effects the USA. We are increasing troop strength
in Afghanistan because, somehow, this benefits Israel. If our presence in Afghanistan (or the Mideast in general) didn't benefit
Israel, our troops would simply not be there.
This reincarnation of Madeleine "Not so bright" Albright is capable mostly of imperial bulling. But times changed...
Notable quotes:
"... While you are here For the last 15 years, our magazine has endeavored to be your refuge from the nasty partisan politics and Washington echo chamber with thoughtful, smart conservatism, fresh and challenging writing, and authors who, above all, bravely hew to our most basic tenets: Ideas over ideology, principles over party. Please consider a tax-deductible, year-end contribution so that TAC can make an even bigger difference in 2018! ..."
"... for reasons unknown (other than perhaps her Indian heritage), Donald Trump tapped her to be the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. There, she has performed to perfection, offering a model of the hubris and lack of awareness that consistently characterize U.S. foreign policy. ..."
"... What makes Americ a different from other nations when it comes to foreign policy is the certainty that it is the right -- indeed, the duty -- of Americans to run the world. That means telling everyone everywhere what they should do, not just internationally, but in their own nations, too. ..."
"... U.S. officials believe they know how other societies should organize their governments, who foreign peoples should elect, what economic policies other nations should implement, and what social practices foreigners should encourage and suppress ..."
"... . On Fox News (where else?) she declared: "We have the right to do whatever we want in terms of where we put our embassies." As for foreign criticism: "We don't need other countries telling us what's right and wrong." ..."
"... What could be more obvious? Other governments have no right to make decisions about their own countries, and need to be told what's right and wrong by Washington on any and every subject, day or night, in sunshine, rain, or snow. But another element of American exceptionalism is the fact that the U.S. is exempt from the rules it applies to other nations. Washington gets to lecture, but no one gets to tell Americans what they should do. ..."
"... The sad irony is that the U.S. would have greater credibility if it better practiced what it preached, and didn't attempt social engineering abroad that's routinely failed at home. Especially nice would be a bit more humility and self-awareness by Washington's representatives. But Nikki Haley seems determined to continue as a disciple of the Madeleine Albright school of all-knowing, all-seeing, all-saying diplomacy. As such, she's unlikely to fool anyone other than herself. ..."
Carrying on the tradition of hubris and hypocrisy of every other modern U.N. ambassador.While you are here For the last
15 years, our magazine has endeavored to be your refuge from the nasty partisan politics and Washington echo chamber with thoughtful,
smart conservatism, fresh and challenging writing, and authors who, above all, bravely hew to our most basic tenets: Ideas over ideology,
principles over party. Please consider
a tax-deductible, year-end contribution so that TAC can make an even bigger difference in 2018!
As governor of South Carolina, Nikki Haley didn't have much need to worry about foreign policy. Yet for reasons unknown (other
than perhaps her Indian heritage), Donald Trump tapped her to be the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. There, she has performed
to perfection, offering a model of the hubris and lack of awareness that consistently characterize U.S. foreign policy.
What makes Americ a different from other nations when it comes to foreign policy is the certainty that it is the right --
indeed, the duty -- of Americans to run the world. That means telling everyone everywhere what they should do, not just internationally,
but in their own nations, too.
U.S. officials believe they know how other societies should organize their governments, who foreign peoples should elect,
what economic policies other nations should implement, and what social practices foreigners should encourage and suppress .
There is precedent for Washington as all-seeing and all-knowing. A sparrow cannot "fall to the ground apart from the will of"
God, Jesus explained. So, too, it appears, is such an event impossible in America's view apart from U.S. approval.
Washington officials rarely are so blunt, but their rhetoric is routinely suffused with arrogance. The concept of American exceptionalism
is one example. The country's founding was unique and the U.S. has played an extraordinary role in international affairs, but that
does not sanctify policies that have often been brutal, selfish, incompetent, perverse, and immoral. Sometimes America's actions
share all of those characteristics simultaneously -- such as aiding the royal Saudi dictatorship as it slaughters civilians in Yemen
in an attempt to restore a puppet regime there.
In recent history, Madeleine Albright, both as UN ambassador and secretary of state under Bill Clinton, perhaps came closest to
personifying the clueless American diplomat. As Washington made a hash of the Balkans and Middle East, she explained that "we stand
tall. We see further than other countries in the future." The U.S., of course, was "the indispensable nation." Which presumably is
why she felt entitled to announce that "we think the price is worth it" when asked about the reported deaths of a half million Iraqi
children as a result of sanctions against Baghdad.
And, of course, there was her extraordinary exchange with Colin Powell, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, when she asked,
"What's the point of having this superb military you're always talking about if we can't use it?" Presumably she had no family members
at risk as she planned to wage global crusades with other people's lives.
Albright has large shoes to fill but Haley appears to be well on her way. In a position that theoretically emphasizes diplomacy,
the former South Carolina governor has been cheerleading for war with North Korea. Never mind that a nuke or two landing on Seoul
or Tokyo would wipe out millions of people. No doubt she will cheerfully put a positive spin on disaster if the administration decides
it's time for Armageddon in Northeast Asia.
Haley has also brilliantly played the sycophantic spokeswoman for the Saudi royals. Riyadh's intervention in the unending Yemeni
civil war has killed thousands of civilians, imposed a starvation blockade, and led famine and cholera to sweep through what was
already one of the poorest nations on earth. All of this has been done with U.S. support: supplying munitions, refueling aircraft,
and aiding with targeting.
But when the Yemenis returned fire with a missile, Haley summoned her best sanctimonious demeanor and denounced Iran for allegedly
making this outrageous, shocking attack possible. Apparently the Saudi sense of entitlement goes so far as to believe that Saudi
Arabia's victims aren't even supposed to shoot back.
Yet Haley's finest hubristic moment may have come after the president's decision to move America's embassy to Jerusalem. Israel
treats that city as its capital, of course. But Jerusalem is the holiest land for Jews and Christians, third holiest for Muslims,
and the most emotional point of dispute between Israelis and Palestinians. Indeed, since conquering East Jerusalem in the 1967 war,
the Israeli government has been working assiduously to squeeze Palestinians out of the city.
Congress's approval in 1995 of legislation mandating that the State Department move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem was politics
at its most cynical. Members in the Republican-controlled Congress postured as great friends of Israel while adding a waiver that
they expected presidents to always employ. Everyone did so until Donald Trump. At least his decision ostentatiously puts the lie
to the claim that Washington can play honest broker in promoting a Middle East peace. No sentient Palestinian could have believed
so, but the president finally made it official.
That Haley kept a straight face while explaining how Washington could upset the status quo, outrage Palestinians, undercut Arab
allies, and anger Muslims, yet still bring peace, harmony, and calm to the Middle East was to be expected. "We can see the peace
process really come together," she declared without a hint of irony.
But her finest moment -- almost Churchillian in significance -- was when she responded to criticism of the president's decision,
including by the other 14 members of the UN Security Council. On Fox News (where else?) she declared: "We have the right
to do whatever we want in terms of where we put our embassies." As for foreign criticism: "We don't need other countries telling
us what's right and wrong."
Of course.
What could be more obvious? Other governments have no right to make decisions about their own countries, and need to be told
what's right and wrong by Washington on any and every subject, day or night, in sunshine, rain, or snow. But another element of American
exceptionalism is the fact that the U.S. is exempt from the rules it applies to other nations. Washington gets to lecture, but no
one gets to tell Americans what they should do.
The sad irony is that the U.S. would have greater credibility if it better practiced what it preached, and didn't attempt
social engineering abroad that's routinely failed at home. Especially nice would be a bit more humility and self-awareness by Washington's
representatives. But Nikki Haley seems determined to continue as a disciple of the Madeleine Albright school of all-knowing, all-seeing,
all-saying diplomacy. As such, she's unlikely to fool anyone other than herself.
Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and a former special assistant to President Ronald Reagan. He is the
author of Foreign Follies: America's New Global Empire.
All of us at TAC wish you a Merry Christmas holiday and the best wishes for 2018. Our 501(c)(3) depends on your generosity
to make the biggest impact possible. Please consider your tax deductible donation to our magazine,
here .* Thank you!
*Contribute $250 or more before December 31 and receive an autographed copy of Robert Merry's brand new book, President
McKinley: Architect of a New Century!
"... What will not stop is the full-spectrum demonization of Russia, thus the relationship between the two countries will further deteriorate. Putin's Russia is a kind of Mordor which represents all evil and stands behind all evil. Denouncing and openly hating Russia has now become a form of virtue-signaling. Since the entire US political elites have endorsed this phobia, it is exceedingly unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. ..."
Russia option 1 : rumors that the US would disconnect Russia from SWIFT or steal
(that is politely called "freeze") Russian assets and funds in the US have been going in for a
long time already. And the Russians have been making all sorts of menacing noises about this,
but all of them very vague which tells me that Russia might not have any good retaliatory
options and that this time around the hot air is blowing from Moscow. Of course, Putin is a
unpredictable master strategist and the folks around him are very, very smart. They might hold
something up their sleeve which I am not aware of but I strongly suspect that, unlike me, the
US intelligence community must be fully aware of what this might be. I am not an economist and
there is much I don't know here, I therefore assessed the risk as "unknown" for me.
Russia option 2 : the reaction of Russia to the shooting down by Turkey of a SU-24 in
2015 might well have given the US politicians and commanders a feeling that they could do the
same and get away with it. In truth, they might be right. But they might also be wrong. The big
difference with the case of the SU-24 is that Russia has formidable air-defenses deployed in
Syria which present a major threat for US forces. Furthermore, if a Russian aircraft is under
attack and the Russians reply by firing a volley of ground-to-air missiles, what would the US
do – attack a Russian S-400 battery?
The US is also in a tricky situation in an air-to-air confrontation. While the F-22 is an
excellent air superiority fighter it has one huge weakness: it is designed to engage its
adversaries from a long range and to shoot first, before it is detected (I mention only the
F-22 here because it is the only US aircraft capable of challenging the Su-30SM/Su-35). But if
the rules of engagement say that before firing at a Russian aircraft the F-22 has to issue a
clear warning or if the engagement happens at medium to short range distances, then the F-22 is
at a big disadvantage, especially against a Su-30SM or Su-35.
Another major weakness of the F-22 is that, unlike the Su-30/Su-35, it does not have a real
electronic warfare suite (the F-22's INEWS does not really qualify). In plain English this
means that the F-22 was designed to maximize its low radar cross section but at a cost of all
other aspects of aerial warfare (radar power, hyper maneuverability, electronic warfare,
passive engagement, etc.).
This all gets very technical and complicated very fast, but I think that we can agree that
the Neocons are unlikely to be very impressed by the risks posed by Russian forces in Syria and
that they will likely feel that they can punch the russkies in the nose and that these russkies
will have to take it. Local US commanders might feel otherwise, but that is also entirely
irrelevant. Still, I place the risk here at 'medium' even if, potentially, this could lead to a
catastrophic thermonuclear war because I don't think that the Neocons believe that the Russians
will escalate too much (who starts WWIII over one shot down aircraft anyway, right?!). Think of
it: if you were the commander of the Russian task force in Syria, what would you do if the US
shot down on of your aircraft (remember, you assume that you are a responsible and intelligent
commander, not a flag-waving delusional maniac)?
What will not stop is the full-spectrum demonization of Russia, thus the relationship
between the two countries will further deteriorate. Putin's Russia is a kind of Mordor which represents all evil and
stands behind all evil. Denouncing and openly hating Russia has now become a form of
virtue-signaling. Since the entire US political elites have endorsed this phobia, it is
exceedingly unlikely to change in the foreseeable future.
Donbass : will the Ukronazis finally attack? Well, they have been for many months already!
Not only did they never stop shelling the Donbass, but they have this new "frog-jump" (pseudo)
strategy which consists of moving in military forces in the neutral zone, seize an undefended
town and then declare a major victory against Russia. They have also been re-arming,
re-organizing, re-grouping and otherwise bolstering their forces in the East. As a result, the
Urkonazis have at least 3:1 advantage against the Novorussians. However, we should not look at
this from the Ukronazi or Novorussian point of view. Instead we should look at it from the
Neocon point of view:
Possible outcomes
US reactions
Option one: Ukronazis win
Russia is defeated, US proves its power
Option two: Novorussians win
Russia is accused of invading the Ukraine
Option three: Novorussians lose and Russia openly intervenes
A Neocon dream come true: the NATO has a purpose again:decades of Cold War
v2 in Europe.
The way I see it, in all three cases the AngloZionist prevail though clearly option #2 is
the worst possible outcome and option #3 is the best one. In truth, the AngloZionists have very
little to lose in a Ukronazi attack on Novorussia. Not so the Ukrainian people, of course.
Right now the US and several European countries are shipping various types of weapons to the
Ukronazis. That is really a non-news since they have been doing that for years already.
Furthermore, western made weapons won't make any difference, at least from a military point of
view, if only because it will always be much easier for Russia to send more weapons in any
category.
The real difference is a political one: shipping "lethal weapons" (as if some weapons were
not lethal!) is simply a green light to go on the attack. Let's hope that the Urkonazis will be
busy fighting each other and that their previous humiliating defeat will deter them from trying
again, but I consider a full-scale Urkonazi attack on the Donbass as quite likely.
But it is in the realm of foreign policy where the real perils seem to lie. President Trump
has been persuaded by his national security team to send Javelin anti-tank missiles to Ukraine,
for use against the tanks and armor of pro-Russian rebels in Donetsk and Luhansk.
Should Petro Poroshenko's Kiev regime reignite the war in his breakaway provinces bordering
Russia, Vladimir Putin is less likely to let him crush the rebels than to intervene with
superior forces and rout the Ukrainian army.
Trump's choice then? Accept defeat and humiliation for our "ally" -- or escalate and widen
the conflict with Russia.
Putin's interest in the Donbass, a part of the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union for
centuries, is obvious.
What, exactly, is ours -- to justify a showdown with Moscow?
In this city there is also a powerful propaganda push to have this country tear up the
nuclear deal John Kerry negotiated with Iran, and confront the Iranians in Syria, Iraq, Yemen
and the Persian Gulf.
... ... ...
The Korean War finished Truman. Vietnam finished LBJ. Reagan said putting Marines into
Lebanon was his worst mistake. Iraq cost Bush II both houses of Congress and his party the
presidency in 2008.
Should Trump become a war president, he'll likely become a one-term president.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, "Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That
Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever."
If this is true, then this is definitely a sophisticated false flag operation. Was malware Alperovich people injected specifically
designed to implicate Russians? In other words Crowdstrike=Fancy Bear
Images removed. For full content please thee the original source
One interesting corollary of this analysis is that installing Crowdstrike software is like inviting a wolf to guard your chicken.
If they are so dishonest you take enormous risks. That might be true for some other heavily advertized "intrusion prevention" toolkits.
So those criminals who use mistyped popular addresses or buy Google searches to drive lemmings to their site and then flash the screen
that they detected a virus on your computer a, please call provided number and for a small amount of money your virus will be removed
get a new more sinister life.
"... Disobedient Media outlines the DNC server cover-up evidenced in CrowdStrike malware infusion ..."
"... In the article, they claim to have just been working on eliminating the last of the hackers from the DNC's network during the past weekend (conveniently coinciding with Assange's statement and being an indirect admission that their Falcon software had failed to achieve it's stated capabilities at that time , assuming their statements were accurate) . ..."
"... To date, CrowdStrike has not been able to show how the malware had relayed any emails or accessed any mailboxes. They have also not responded to inquiries specifically asking for details about this. In fact, things have now been discovered that bring some of their malware discoveries into question. ..."
"... there is a reason to think Fancy Bear didn't start some of its activity until CrowdStrike had arrived at the DNC. CrowdStrike, in the indiciators of compromise they reported, identified three pieces of malware relating to Fancy Bear: ..."
"... They found that generally, in a lot of cases, malware developers didn't care to hide the compile times and that while implausible timestamps are used, it's rare that these use dates in the future. It's possible, but unlikely that one sample would have a postdated timestamp to coincide with their visit by mere chance but seems extremely unlikely to happen with two or more samples. Considering the dates of CrowdStrike's activities at the DNC coincide with the compile dates of two out of the three pieces of malware discovered and attributed to APT-28 (the other compiled approximately 2 weeks prior to their visit), the big question is: Did CrowdStrike plant some (or all) of the APT-28 malware? ..."
"... The IP address, according to those articles, was disabled in June 2015, eleven months before the DNC emails were acquired – meaning those IP addresses, in reality, had no involvement in the alleged hacking of the DNC. ..."
"... The fact that two out of three of the Fancy Bear malware samples identified were compiled on dates within the apparent five day period CrowdStrike were apparently at the DNC seems incredibly unlikely to have occurred by mere chance. ..."
"... That all three malware samples were compiled within ten days either side of their visit – makes it clear just how questionable the Fancy Bear malware discoveries were. ..."
Of course the DNC did not want to the FBI to investigate its "hacked servers". The plan was well underway to excuse Hillary's
pathetic election defeat to Trump, and
CrowdStrike would help out by planting evidence to pin on those evil "Russian hackers." Some would call this
entire DNC server hack an
"insurance policy."
Colonel, FYI, our well informed, and, on top of it all, UN ambassador Nikki the bookkeeper,
is hoping for a newly independent island nation of "Binomo" rising from bottom of South China
Sea, and delivered by Santa to her huge Christmas tree in Guatemala. https://www.rt.com/news/414086-prank-nikki-haley-russia-place/
"... After scorning the Russia collusion theories as fiction, Bannon acknowledged the grisly reality that the Russia investigation poses for his former boss. And he blamed it all on Kushner, for having created the appearance that Putin had helped Trump. Dropping Kushner head first into the grinder, Bannon turned the crank. ..."
"... "[Kushner was] taking meetings with Russians to get additional stuff. This tells you everything about Jared," Bannon told the magazine's Gabriel Sherman. "They were looking for the picture of Hillary Clinton taking the bag of cash from Putin. That's his maturity level." ..."
"... Informing Vanity Fair that Kushner's hunt for political smut led him to over-fraternize with the Russians might not be the best way for Bannon to throw special counsel Robert S. Mueller III off the collusion scent. ..."
"... Sherman's piece reveals the cognitive split that evolved between Bannon and others, specifically Trump, on how to handle the mess that had been created. "Goldman Sachs teaches one thing: don't invent shit. Take something that works and make it better," Bannon told Sherman. He said he consulted with Bill Clinton's former lawyer Lanny Davis about how the Clintons responded to Ken Starr's probe. "We were so disciplined. You guys don't have that," Bannon recalls Davis advising him. "That always haunted me when he said that," Bannon told Sherman. Bannon said the investigation was an attempt by the establishment to undo the election, but he took it seriously and warned Trump he was in danger of being impeached. ..."
"... There's even more hot Bannon on Kushner action. Bannon tells of an Oval Office meeting he attended with Trump, Kushner and Kushner's wife Ivanka Trump in which he called Ivanka "the queen of leaks." "You're a fucking liar!" Ivanka allegedly responded. Hard to know how to score this round, but shattering the public image of Ivanka as poised princess must have been satisfying for a guy who called Javanka "the Democrats." ..."
"... Although "people close to Kushner, who decline to be named" told the Times they don't think the Mueller investigation exposes him to legal jeopardy, the young prince isn't taking chances. The Washington Post reports that his lawyer, Abbe Lowell, has been shopping for a "crisis public relations firm" over the past two weeks. (Senator Robert Menendez, the recent beneficiary of a deadlocked corruption trial, is another Lowell client.) ..."
"... Why hire super flacks now? Does Kushner sense disaster? Another Bannon offensive? The Flynn plea bargain exposed him -- according to the press -- as the "very senior member" of the Trump transition team described in court documents who told former national security adviser Michael Flynn to lobby the Russian ambassador about a U.N. resolution on Israeli settlements. Maybe he's just buying reputation insurance. Or maybe he's taken to heart Chris Christie's scathing comments. Christie was squeezed out of the Trump transition early on, some say by Kushner who is said to hold a grudge against Christie who, when he was federal prosecutor, put Kushner's father in jail . This week Christie said that Kushner "deserves the scrutiny" he's been getting. It was almost as if Christie and Bannon were operating a twin-handled grinder, cranking out an extra helping of Kushner's tainted reputation. ..."
"... President Putin and President Trump occupied the same page about the scandal this week in what was either a matter of collusion or of great minds thinking alike. Speaking at a four-hour media event in Moscow, Putin blamed the scandal on the U.S. "deep state" and said, "This is all made up by people who oppose Trump to make his work look illegitimate." According to CNN , Trump took the opportunity this week to call the Russia investigation "bullshit" in private. In public, he told reporters, "There's absolutely no collusion. I didn't make a phone call to Russia. I have nothing to do with Russia. Everybody knows it." ..."
Former Trump chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon milled his former Oval Office colleague Jared Kushner into a bloody chunk of battle
sausage this week and smeared him across the shiny pages of
Vanity Fair . You've got to read Bannon's quote three or four times to fully savor the tang of its malice and cruelty. After scorning the
Russia collusion theories as fiction, Bannon acknowledged the grisly reality that the Russia investigation poses for his former boss.
And he blamed it all on Kushner, for having created the appearance that Putin had helped Trump. Dropping Kushner head first into
the grinder, Bannon turned the crank.
"[Kushner was] taking meetings with Russians to get additional stuff. This tells you everything about Jared," Bannon told the
magazine's Gabriel Sherman. "They were looking for the picture of Hillary Clinton taking the bag of cash from Putin. That's his maturity
level."
Informing Vanity Fair that Kushner's hunt for political smut led him to over-fraternize with the Russians might not be
the best way for Bannon to throw special counsel Robert S. Mueller III off the collusion scent. So what was the big man in the Barbour
coat up to?
That Bannon and Kushner skirmished during their time together in the White House has been long established. Kushner advocated
the sacking FBI Director James B. Comey, for example, and Bannon opposed it. He later
told 60 Minutes that the firing
was maybe the worst mistake in "modern political history" because it precipitated the hiring of the special counsel and had thereby
expanded the investigation.
Sherman's piece reveals the cognitive split that evolved between Bannon and others, specifically Trump, on how to handle the
mess that had been created. "Goldman Sachs teaches one thing: don't invent shit. Take something that works and make it better," Bannon
told Sherman. He said he consulted with Bill Clinton's former lawyer Lanny Davis about how the Clintons responded to Ken Starr's
probe. "We were so disciplined. You guys don't have that," Bannon recalls Davis advising him. "That always haunted me when he said
that," Bannon told Sherman. Bannon said the investigation was an attempt by the establishment to undo the election, but he took it
seriously and warned Trump he was in danger of being impeached.
Bannon's gripe against Kushner in Vanity Fair continues: He claims that Donald Trump's disparaging tweets about Attorney
General Jeff Sessions were designed to provide "cover" for Kushner by steering negative media attention toward Sessions and away
from Kushner as he was scheduled to testify before a Senate committee.
There's even more hot Bannon on Kushner action. Bannon tells of an Oval Office meeting he attended with Trump, Kushner and
Kushner's wife Ivanka Trump in which he called Ivanka "the queen of leaks." "You're a fucking liar!" Ivanka allegedly responded.
Hard to know how to score this round, but shattering the public image of Ivanka as poised princess must have been satisfying for
a guy who called Javanka "the Democrats."
Getting mauled by Steve Bannon might not be the worst thing to happen to the president's son-in-law this week. He and Ivanka
were
sued by a private attorney for failing to disclose assets from 30 investment funds on their federal financial disclosure forms.
Perhaps more ominous for Kushner,
and according
to the New York Times , federal prosecutors in Brooklyn have subpoenaed Deutsche Bank records about Kushner's family's
real estate business. "There is no indication that the subpoena is related to the investigation being conducted by Robert S. Mueller
III," the Times allowed. Yeah, but wouldn't you want to be there when Mueller's team invites Bannon in to talk to him about
the Vanity Fair article, and they ask him, "What did you mean about Jared taking meetings with Russians to get additional
stuff? Like, what stuff?"
Although "people close to Kushner, who decline to be named" told the Times they don't think the Mueller investigation
exposes him to legal jeopardy, the young prince isn't taking chances. The Washington Post
reports that his lawyer, Abbe Lowell, has been shopping for a "crisis public relations firm" over the past two weeks. (Senator
Robert Menendez, the recent beneficiary of a deadlocked corruption trial, is another Lowell client.)
Why hire super flacks now? Does Kushner sense disaster? Another Bannon offensive? The Flynn plea bargain exposed him -- according
to the press -- as the "very senior member" of the Trump transition team described in court documents who told former national security
adviser Michael Flynn to lobby the Russian ambassador about a U.N. resolution on Israeli settlements. Maybe he's just buying reputation
insurance. Or maybe he's taken to heart Chris Christie's scathing comments. Christie was squeezed out of the Trump transition early
on, some say by Kushner who is said to hold a grudge against Christie who, when he was federal prosecutor, put Kushner's father in
jail . This week Christie
said that
Kushner "deserves the scrutiny" he's been getting. It was almost as if Christie and Bannon were operating a twin-handled grinder,
cranking out an extra helping of Kushner's tainted reputation.
President Putin and President Trump occupied the same page about the scandal this week in what was either a matter of collusion
or of great minds thinking alike. Speaking at a four-hour media event in Moscow, Putin
blamed
the scandal on the U.S. "deep state" and said, "This is all made up by people who oppose Trump to make his work look illegitimate."
According to CNN , Trump
took the opportunity this week to call the Russia investigation "bullshit" in private. In public, he told reporters, "There's absolutely
no collusion. I didn't make a phone call to Russia. I have nothing to do with Russia. Everybody knows it."
Everybody, perhaps, except former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. Appearing on
CNN , Clapper used direct language to bind former KGB officer Putin to Trump tighter than a girdle to a paunch. "[Putin] knows
how to handle an asset, and that's what he's doing with the president," Clapper said. "I think some of that experience and instincts
of Putin has come into play here in his managing of a pretty important account for him, if I could use that term, with our president."
Writing in
Newsweek , Jeff Stein collected other tell-tale signs of Trump's cooptation: He refused to take Russian meddling in the election
seriously. He responds favorably to Putin's praise and seems to crave more. He dismisses worries about his circle's connections to
Kremlin agents before the election and during the transition -- and he tried to call off the Flynn investigation.
It's enough to make you wonder why Bannon thinks Kushner is the enemy, not Trump.
******
If you've read this far, you're probably disappointed that more didn't happen in the Trump Tower scandal this week. Sue me
in small claims court via email to [email protected]. My
email alerts
never believed in collusion, my Twitter feed is set to cut a plea
deal with Mueller, and my RSS feed has several crisis PR
firms on retainer.
"Hillary Clinton, following a long tradition of mainstream Democrats, had a grab bag of proposals that, if enacted, would collectively
make a huge difference in the lives of working people. "
I think you are wrong here.
Hillary was/is a neoliberal, and as such is hostile to the interests of working people and middle class in general. Like most
neoliberals she is a Machiavellian elitist. Her election promises are pure demagogy, much like Trump or Obama election promised
(immortalized in the slogan "change we can believe in" which now became the synonym of election fraud)
Also she was/is hell-bent of preserving/expanding the US neoliberal empire and the wars for neoliberal dominance (in ME mainly
for the benefit of Israel and Saudis). War are pretty costly ventures and they are financed at the expense of working class and
lower middle class, never at the expense of "fat cats" from Wall Street.
All-in-all I think the role of POTUS is greatly "misunderestimated" in your line of thinking. As we can see differences between
Trump and Hillary in foreign policy are marginal. Why are you assuming that the differences in domestic economic policies would
be greater ?
In reality there are other powerful factors in play that diminish the importance of POTUS:
The US Presidential Elections are no longer an instrument for change. They are completely corrupted and are mostly of "bread
and circuses" type of events, where two gladiators preselected by financial elite fight for the coveted position, using all kind
of dirty tricks for US public entertainment.
While the appearance of democracy remains, in reality the current system represents that rule of "deep state". In the classic
form of "National security state". In the National Security State, the US people no longer have the any chances to change the
policies.
Political emasculation of US voters has led to frustration, depression and rage. It feeds radical right movement including
neo-fascists, which embrace more extreme remedies to the current problems because they correctly feel that the traditional parties
no longer represent the will of the people.
Insulated and partially degenerated US elite have grown more obtuse and is essentially a hostage for neocons. They chose
to ignore the seething anger that lies just below the surface of brainwashed Us electorate.
The "American Dream" is officially dead. People at a and below lower middle class level see little hope for themselves,
their children or the country. The chasm between top 1% (or let's say top 20%) and the rest continues to fuel populist anger.
While Trump proved to be "yet another turncoat" like Barak Obama (who just got his first silver coin in the form of the
$400K one hour speech) Trump's election signify a broad rejection of the country's neoliberal elite, including neoliberal MSM,
neocon foreign policy as well as neoliberal economic system (and first of all neoliberal globalization).
The country foreign policy remains hijacked by neocons (this time in the form of fiends of Paul Wolfowitz among the military
brass appointed by Trump to top positions in his administration) and that might spell major conflict or even WWIII.
8. We can now talk about the USA as "neocon occupied country" (NOC), because the neocons policies contradict the USA national
interests and put heavy burden of taxpayers, especially in lower income categories. Due to neglect in maintaining infrastructure,
in some areas the USA already looks like third word country. Still we finance Israel and several other countries to the tune of
$40 billion dollars in military aid alone (that that's in case of Israel just the tip of the iceberg; real figure is probably
double of that) https://fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33222.pdf
Since Bill Clinton POTUS is more or less a marionette of financial oligarchy (which Obama -- as a person without the past (or
with a very fuzzy past) - symbolizes all too well).
"... In this case, what Flynn and Kushner were doing was going directly against US foreign policy, because Obama wanted the resolution to pass; He just didn't want to vote for it because that would cross the Israel lobby in the United States. The US finally ended up abstaining on the resolution and it passed 14-0. ..."
"... But before that happened, Flynn went to the Russians and to Egypt, both members of the Security Council, and tried to get the resolution delayed. But all of Israel's machinations to derail this resolution failed and that is what Mueller was investigating, the intervention and disruption of American foreign policy by private citizens who had no official role. ..."
"... While I think Bibi is an idiot, I also think the Logan Act is overinvoked, overstated, probably of dubious legal value and also of dubious constitutional value. ..."
"... In short, especially because Trump had been elected, though not yet inaugurated, I think he is not at all guilty of a Logan Act violation. This is nothing close to Spiro Agnew calling Anna Chenault from the airplane in August 1968. ..."
"... Probably true, although evidence of extreme collusion with Israel eliminates any case against Russia, with whom we have far more reasons for amity. Bringing out the Israel collusion greatly improves public understanding of political corruption. Perhaps it will awaken some to the Agnew-Chennault betrayal of the people of the US. ..."
"... It's ironic that Russia-gate is turning out to be Israel's effort to distract attention from its complete control over the Democratic party in 2016. From Israeli billionaires behind the scenes to Debbie Wasserman-Schultz at the helm. ..."
"... "Whether we like it or not, the former and current administration view Russia is as an enemy state." So that is how it works, the White House says it is an enemy state and therefore it is. The so called declaration is the hammer used for trying to make contact with Russia a criminal offense. We are not at war with Russia although we see our leaders doing their best to provoke Russia into one. ..."
"... The Israel connection disclosed by the malpracticer hack Mueller in the recent Flynn-flam just made Trump bullet-proof (so to speak). ..."
"... So Mueller caught Kushner and Flynn red-handed, sabotaging the Obama administration? What of it? He can't use that evidence, because it would inculpate the Zionist neocons that are orchestrating his farcical, Stalinist witchhunt. And Mueller, being an efficient terminator bot, knows that his target is Russia, not Israel. ..."
"... So Mueller will just have to continue swamp-fishing for potential perjurers ahem witnesses, for the upcoming show trials (to further inflame public opinion against Russia and Russia sympathizers). And continue he will, because (as we all know from Schwarzenegger's flicks), the only way to stop the terminator is to terminate him/it first. ..."
"... Trump and Kushner have nothing to worry about, even if a smoking gun is found that proves their collusion with Israel. That's because the entire political and media establishment will simply ignore the Israeli connection. ..."
"... Journalists and politicians will even continue to present Mike Flynn's contacts as evidence of collusion with Russia. They'll keep on repeating that "Flynn lied about his phone call to the Russian ambassador". But there will be no mention of the fact that the purpose of this contact was to support Israel and not any alleged Russian interference. ..."
"... I think you have it right Brendan. The MSM, Intelligence Community, and Mueller would never go down any path that popularized undue Israeli influence on US foreign policy. "Nothing to see here folks, move along." ..."
"... The Nice Zionists responsible for the thefts and murders for the past 69 years along with the "Jewish Community" in the rest of the world will resolve the matter so as to be fair to both parties. This is mind-boggling fantasy. ..."
"... FFS, Netanyahu aired a political commercial in Florida for Romney saying vote for this guy (against Obama)! I mean, it doesn't get any more overtly manipulative than that. Period. End of story. ..."
"... God, I hate to go all "Israel controls the media" but there it is. Not even a discussion. Just a fact. ..."
"... I also have to point out that he "fist pumped" Hillary Clinton at Mohammed Ali's eulogy. If he's as astute as he purports to be, he has to know that Hillary would have invaded Syria and killed a few hundred thousand more Syrians for the simple act of defiantly preserving their country. By almost any read of Ali's history, he would have been adamantly ("killing brown people") against that. But there was Silverstein using the platform to promote, arguably, perpetual war. ..."
"... Yeah I found a couple of Silverstein's statements to be closer to neocon propaganda than reality: "Because this is Israel and because we have a conflicted relationship with the Israel lobby . . ." "Instead of going directly to the Obama administration, with which they had terrible relations, they went to Trump instead." My impression was that the whole "terrible relationship between Obama and Netanyahu" was manufactured by the Israel lobby to bully Obama. However these are small blips within an otherwise solid critique of the Israel lobby's influence. ..."
The Israel-gate Side of Russia-gate December 23, 2017
While unproven claims of Russian meddling in U.S. politics have whipped Official Washington
into a frenzy, much less attention has been paid to real evidence of Israeli interference in
U.S. politics, as Dennis J Bernstein describes.
By Dennis J Bernstein
In investigating Russia's alleged meddling in U.S. politics, special prosecutor Robert
Mueller uncovered evidence that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pressured the Trump
transition team to undermine President Obama's plans to permit the United Nations to censure
Israel over its illegal settlement building on the Palestinian West Bank, a discovery
referenced in the plea deal with President Trump's first National Security Adviser Michael
Flynn.
President Donald J. Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel at the United
Nations General Assembly (Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead)
At Netanyahu's behest, Flynn and President Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner reportedly took
the lead in the lobbying to derail the U.N. resolution, which Flynn discussed in a phone call
with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak (in which the Russian diplomat rebuffed Flynn's appeal
to block the resolution).
I spoke on Dec, 18 with independent journalist and blogger Richard Silverstein, who writes
on national security and other issues for a number of blogs at Tikun Olam .
Dennis Bernstein: A part of Michael Flynn's plea had to do with some actions he took before
coming to power regarding Israel and the United Nations. Please explain.
Richard Silverstein:
The Obama administration was negotiating in the [UN] Security Council
just before he left office about a resolution that would condemn Israeli settlements.
Obviously, the Israeli government did not want this resolution to be passed. Instead of going
directly to the Obama administration, with which they had terrible relations, they went to
Trump instead. They approached Michael Flynn and Jared Kushner became involved in this. While
they were in the transition and before having any official capacity, they negotiated with
various members of the Security Council to try to quash the settlement resolution.
One of the issues here which is little known is the Logan Act, which was passed at the
foundation of our republic and was designed to prevent private citizens from usurping the
foreign policy prerogatives of the executive. It criminalized any private citizen who attempted
to negotiate with an enemy country over any foreign policy issue.
In this case, what Flynn and Kushner were doing was going directly against US foreign
policy, because Obama wanted the resolution to pass; He just didn't want to vote for it because
that would cross the Israel lobby in the United States. The US finally ended up abstaining on
the resolution and it passed 14-0.
But before that happened, Flynn went to the Russians and to Egypt, both members of the
Security Council, and tried to get the resolution delayed. But all of Israel's machinations to
derail this resolution failed and that is what Mueller was investigating, the intervention and
disruption of American foreign policy by private citizens who had no official role.
This speaks to the power of the Israel lobby and of Israel itself to disrupt our foreign
policy. Very few people have ever been charged with committing an illegal act by advocating on
behalf of Israel. That is one of the reasons why this is such an important development. Until
now, the lobby has really ruled supreme on the issue of Israel and Palestine in US foreign
policy. Now it is possible that a private citizen will actually be made to pay a price for
that.
This is an important development because the lobby till now has run roughshod over our
foreign policy in this area and this may act as a restraining order against blatant disruption
of US foreign policy by people like this.
Bernstein: So this information is a part of Michael Flynn's plea. Anyone studying this would
learn something about Michael Flynn and it would be part of the prosecution's
investigation.
Silverstein:
That's absolutely right. One thing to note here is that it is reporters who
have raised the issue of the Logan Act, not Mueller or Flynn's people or anyone in the Trump
administration. But I do think that Logan is a very important part of this plea deal, even if
it is not mentioned explicitly.
Bernstein: If the special prosecutor had smoking-gun information that the Trump
administration colluded with Russia, in the way they colluded with Israel before coming to
power, this would be a huge revelation. But it is definitely collusion when it comes to
Israel.
Silverstein: Absolutely. If this were Russia, it would be on the front page of every major
newspaper in the United States and the leading story on the TV news. Because this is Israel and
because we have a conflicted relationship with the Israel lobby and they have so much influence
on US policy concerning Israel, it has managed to stay on the back burner. Only two or three
media outlets besides mine have raised this issue of Logan and collusion. Kushner and Flynn may
be the first American citizens charged under the Logan Act for interfering on behalf of Israel
in our foreign policy. This is a huge issue and it has hardly been raised at all.
Bernstein: As you know, Rachel Maddow of MSNBC has made a career out of investigating the
Russia-gate charges. She says that she has read all this material carefully, so she must have
read about Flynn and Israel, but I haven't heard her on this issue at all.
Silverstein:
Even progressive journalists, who you'd think would be going after this with a
vengeance, are frightened off by the fact the lobby really bites back. So, aside from outlets
like the Intercept and the Electronic Intifada, there is a lot of hesitation about going after
the Israel lobby. People are afraid because they know that there is a high price to be paid. It
goes from being purely journalism to being a personal and political vendetta when they get you
in their sights. In fact, one of the reasons I feel my blog is so important is that what I do
is challenge Israeli policy and Israeli intervention in places where it doesn't belong.
Bernstein: Jared Kushner is the point man for the Trump administration on Israel. He has
talked about having a "vision for peace." Do you think it is a problem that this is someone
with a long, close relationship with the prime minister of Israel and, in fact, runs a
foundation that invests in the building of illegal Israeli settlements? Might this be
problematic?
Silverstein:
It is quite nefarious, actually. When Jared Kushner was a teenager, Netanyahu
used to stay at the Kushner family home when he visited the United States. This relationship
with one of the most extreme right political figures in Israel goes back decades. And it is not
just Kushner himself, but all the administration personnel dealing with these so-called peace
negotiations, including Jason Greenblatt and David Friedman, the ambassador. These are all
orthodox Jews who tend to have very nationalist views when it comes to Israel. They all support
settlements financially through foundations. These are not honest brokers.
We could talk at length about the history of US personnel who have been negotiators for
Middle East peace. All of them have been favorable to Israel and answerable to the Israel
lobby, including Dennis Ross and Makovsky, who served in the last administration. These people
are dyed-in-the-wool ultra-nationalist supporters of [Israeli] settlements. They have no
business playing any role in negotiating a peace deal.
My prediction all along has been that these peace negotiations will come to naught, even
though they seem to have bought the cooperation of Saudi Arabia, which is something new in the
process. The Palestinians can never accept a deal that has been negotiated by Kushner and
company because it will be far too favorable to Israel and it will totally neglect the
interests of the Palestinians.
Bernstein: It has been revealed that Kushner supports the building of settlements in the
West Bank. Most people don't understand the politics of what is going on there, but it appears
to be part of an ethnic cleansing.
Silverstein:
The settlements have always been a violation of international law, ever since
Israel conquered the West Bank in 1967. The Geneva Conventions direct an occupying power to
withdraw from territory that was not its own. In 1967 Israel invaded Arab states and conquered
the West Bank and Gaza but this has never been recognized or accepted by any nation until
now.
The fact that Kushner and his family are intimately involved in supporting
settlements–as are David Friedman and Jason Greenblatt–is completely outrageous. No
member of any previous US administration would have been allowed to participate with these
kinds of financial investments in support of settlements. Of course, Trump doesn't understand
the concept of conflict of interest because he is heavily involved in such conflicts himself.
But no party in the Middle East except Israel is going to consider the US an honest broker and
acceptable as a mediator.
When they announce this deal next January, no one in the Arab World is going to accept it,
with the possible exception of Saudi Arabia because they have other fish to fry in terms of
Iran. The next three years are going to be interesting, supposing Trump lasts out his term. My
prediction is that the peace plan will fail and that it will lead to greater violence in the
Middle East. It will not simply lead to a vacuum, it will lead to a deterioration in conditions
there.
Bernstein: The Trump transition team was actually approached directly by the Israeli
government to try to intercede at the United Nations.
Silverstein:
I'm assuming it was Netanyahu who went directly to Kushner and Trump. Now, we
haven't yet found out that Trump directly knew about this but it is very hard to believe
that Trump didn't endorse this. Now that we know that Mueller has access to all of the emails
of the transition team, there is little doubt that they have been able to find their smoking
gun. Flynn's plea meant that they basically had him dead to rights. It remains to be seen what
will happen with Kushner but I would think that this would play some role in either the
prosecution of Kushner or some plea deal.
Bernstein: The other big story, of course, is the decision by the Trump administration to
move the US embassy from Tel-Aviv to Jerusalem. Was there any pre-election collusion in that
regard and what are the implications?
Silverstein:
Well, it's a terrible decision which goes against forty to fifty years of US
foreign policy. It also breaches all international understanding. All of our allies in the
European Union and elsewhere are aghast at this development. There is now a campaign in the
United Nations Security Council to pass a resolution condemning the announcement, which we will
veto, but the next step will be to go to the General Assembly, where such a resolution will
pass easily.
The question is how much anger, violence and disruption this is going to cause around the
world, especially in the Arab and Muslim world. This is a slow-burning fuse. It is not going to
explode right now. The issue of Jerusalem is so vital that this is not something that is simply
going to go away. This is going to be a festering sore in the Muslim world and among
Palestinians. We have already seen attacks on Israeli soldiers and citizens and there will be
many more.
As to collusion in all of this, since Trump always said during the campaign that this was
what he was going to do, it might be difficult to treat this in the same way as the UN
resolution. The UN resolution was never on anybody's radar and nobody knew the role that Trump
was playing behind the scenes with that–as opposed to Trump saying right from the get-go
that Jerusalem was going to be recognized as the capital of Jerusalem.
By doing that, they have completely abrogated any Palestinian interest in Jerusalem. This is
a catastrophic decision that really excludes the United States from being an honest broker here
and shows our true colors in terms of how pro-Israel we are.
As most regular readers of CN already know, some dynamite books on the inordinate amount
of influence pro-Israel zealots have on Washington:
1.) 'The Host and the Parasite' by Greg Felton
2.) 'Power of Israel in the United States' by James Petras
3.) 'They Dare to Speak Out' by Paul Findley
4.) 'The Israel Lobby' by Mearsheimer and Walt
5.) 'Zionism, Militarism and the Decline of U.S. Power' by James Petras
I suggest that anyone relatively knew to this neglected topic peruse a few of the
aforementioned titles. An inevitable backlash by the citizens of the United States is
eventually forthcoming against the Zionist Power Configuration. It's crucial that this
impending backlash remain democratic, non-violent, eschews anti-Semitism, and travels in a
progressive in direction.
Annie , December 23, 2017 at 5:47 pm
Which one would you suggest? I already read "The Israel Lobby."
Sam F , December 23, 2017 at 8:38 pm
Findley and Mearsheimer are certainly worthwhile. I will look for Petras.
Larry Larsen , December 24, 2017 at 6:38 pm
If you haven't already read them, the end/footnotes in "The Israel Lobby" are more
illuminating.
That influence is also shown, of course, by the fact that Obama waited until the midnight
hours of his tenure and after the 2016 election to even start working on this resolution.
While I think Bibi is an idiot, I also think the Logan Act is overinvoked, overstated,
probably of dubious legal value and also of dubious constitutional value.
In short, especially because Trump had been elected, though not yet inaugurated, I think
he is not at all guilty of a Logan Act violation. This is nothing close to Spiro Agnew
calling Anna Chenault from the airplane in August 1968.
Sam F , December 23, 2017 at 8:41 pm
Probably true, although evidence of extreme collusion with Israel eliminates any case
against Russia, with whom we have far more reasons for amity. Bringing out the Israel
collusion greatly improves public understanding of political corruption. Perhaps it will
awaken some to the Agnew-Chennault betrayal of the people of the US.
JWalters , December 24, 2017 at 3:32 am
It's ironic that Russia-gate is turning out to be Israel's effort to distract attention
from its complete control over the Democratic party in 2016. From Israeli billionaires behind
the scenes to Debbie Wasserman-Schultz at the helm.
The leaked emails showed the corruption
plainly, and based on the ACTUAL evidence (recorded download time), most likely came from a
highly disgruntled insider. The picture was starting to spill into public view. I'd estimate
the real huge worry was that if this stuff came out, it could bring out other Israeli
secrets, like their involvement in 9/11. That would mean actual jail time. Might be hard to
buy your way out of that no matter how much money you have.
Annie , December 23, 2017 at 10:48 pm
The Logan act states that anyone who negotiates with an enemy of the US, and Israel is not
defined as an enemy.
Annie , December 23, 2017 at 6:59 pm
The Logan act would not apply here, although I wish it would. I don't think anyone has
been convicted based on this act, and they were part of a transition team not to mention the
Logan act clearly states a private citizen who attempts to negotiate with an enemy state, and
that certainly doesn't apply to Israel. In this administration their bias is so blatant that
they can install Kushner as an honest broker in the Israeli-Palestine peace process while his
family has a close relationship with Netanyahu, and he runs a foundation that invests in the
building of illegal settlements which goes against the Geneva conventions. Hopefully Trump's
blatant siding with Israel will receive a lot of backlash as did his plan to make Jerusalem
the capital of Israel.
I also found that so called progressive internet sites don't cover this the way they
should.
Al Pinto , December 24, 2017 at 9:16 am
@Annie
"The Logan act would not apply here, although I wish it would."
You and me both .
From the point of starting to read this article, it has been in my mind that the Logan act
would not apply here. After reading most of the comments, it became clear that not many
people viewed this as such. Yes, Joe Tedesky did as well
The UN is the "clearing house" for international politics, where countries freely contact
each other's for getting support for their cause behind the scene. The support sought after
could be voting for or against the resolution on hand. At times, as Israel did, countries
reach out to perceived enemies as well, if they could not secure sufficient support for their
cause. This is the normal activity of the UN diplomacy.
Knowing that the outgoing administration would not support its cause, Israel reached out
to the incoming administration to delay the vote on the UN resolution. I fail to see anything
wrong with Israel's action even in this case; Israel is not an enemy state to the US. As
such, there has been no violation of any acts by the incoming administration, even if they
tried to secure veto vote for Israel. I do not like it, but no action by Mueller in this case
is correct.
People, just like the article in itself, implying that the Logan Act applies in this case
are just plain wrong. Not just wrong, but their anti-Israel bias is in plain view.
Whether we like it or not, the former and current administration view Russia is as an
enemy state. Even then, Russia contacting the incoming administration is not a violation of
the Logan Act. That is just normal diplomacy in the background between countries. What would
be a violation is that the contacted official acted on the behalf of Russia and tried to
influence the outgoing administration's decision. That is what the Mueller investigation
tries to prove hopelessly
"Whether we like it or not, the former and current administration view Russia is as an
enemy state." So that is how it works, the White House says it is an enemy state and
therefore it is. The so called declaration is the hammer used for trying to make contact with
Russia a criminal offense. We are not at war with Russia although we see our leaders doing
their best to provoke Russia into one.
Annie , December 24, 2017 at 1:55 pm
Thanks for your reply. When I read the article and it referenced the Logan Act, which I am
familiar with in that I've read about it before, I was surprised that Bernstein and
Silverstein even brought it up because it so obviously does not apply in this case, since
Israel is not considered an enemy state. Many have even referenced it as flimsy when it comes
to convictions against those in Trump's transition team who had contacts with Russia. No one
has ever been convicted under the Logan Act.
Larry Larsen , December 24, 2017 at 6:41 pm
The Logan Act either should apply equally, or not apply at all. This "Russia-gate" hype
seems to apply it selectively.
mrtmbrnmn , December 23, 2017 at 7:36 pm
You guys are blinded by the light. The Israel connection disclosed by the malpracticer
hack Mueller in the recent Flynn-flam just made Trump bullet-proof (so to speak).
There is no doubt that Trump is Bibi's and the Saudi's ventriloquist dummy and Jared has
been an Israel agent of influence since he was 12.
But half the Dementedcrat Sore Loser Brigade will withdraw from the field of battle (not
to mention most of the GOP living dead too) if publically and noisily tying Israel to Trump's
tail becomes the only route to his removal. Which it would have to be, as there is no there
there regarding the yearlong trumped-up PutinPutinPutin waterboarding of Trump.
Immediately (if not sooner) the mighty (pro-Israel) Donor Bank of Singer (Paul), Saban
(Haim), Sachs (Goldman) & Adelson (Sheldon), would change their passwords and leave these
politicians/beggars with empty begging bowls. End of $ordid $tory.
alley cat , December 23, 2017 at 7:45 pm
So Mueller caught Kushner and Flynn red-handed, sabotaging the Obama administration? What
of it? He can't use that evidence, because it would inculpate the Zionist neocons that are
orchestrating his farcical, Stalinist witchhunt. And Mueller, being an efficient terminator
bot, knows that his target is Russia, not Israel.
Mueller can use that evidence of sabotage and/or obstruction of justice to try to coerce
false confessions from Kushner and Flynn. But what are the chances of that, barring short
stayovers for them at some CIA black site?
So Mueller will just have to continue swamp-fishing for potential perjurers ahem
witnesses, for the upcoming show trials (to further inflame public opinion against Russia and
Russia sympathizers). And continue he will, because (as we all know from Schwarzenegger's
flicks), the only way to stop the terminator is to terminate him/it first.
Leslie F. , December 23, 2017 at 8:28 pm
He used it, along with other info, to turn flip Flynn and possibly can use it the same way
again Kusher. Not all evidence has end up in court to be useful.
JWalters , December 23, 2017 at 8:40 pm
This is an extremely important story, excellently reported. All the main "facts" Americans
think they know about Israel are, amazingly, flat-out lies.
1. Israel was NOT victimized by powerful Arab armies. Israel overpowered and victimized a
defenseless, civilian Arab population. Military analysts knew the Arab armies were in poor
shape and would not be able to resist the zionist army.
2. Muslim "citizens" of Israel do NOT have all the same rights as Jews.
3. Israelis are NOT under threat from the indigineous Palestinians, but Palestinians are
under constant threats of theft and death from the Israelis.
4. Israel does NOT share America's most fundamental values, which rest on the principle of
equal human rights for all.
Maintaining such a blanket of major lies for decades requires immense power. And this
power would have to be exercised "under the radar" to be effective. That requires even more
power. Both Congress and the press have to be controlled. How much power does it take to turn
"Progressive Rachel" into "Tel Aviv Rachel"? To turn "It Takes a Village" Hillary into
"Slaughter a Village" Hillary? It takes immense power AND ruthlessness.
War profiteers have exactly this combination of immense war profits and the ruthlessness
to victimize millions of people. "War Profiteers and the Roots of the War on Terror" http://warprofiteerstory.blogspot.com
Vast war profits easily afford to buy the mainstream media. And controlling campaign
contributions for members of Congress is amazingly cheap in the big picture. Such a squalid
sale of souls.
And when simple bribery is not enough, they ruin a person's life through blackmail or
false character assassination. And if those don't work they use death threats, including to
family members, and finally murder. Their ruthlessness is unrestrained. John Perkins has
described these tactics in "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man".
For readers who haven't seen it, here is an excellent riff on the absurdly overwhelming
evidence for Israel's influence compared to that of Russia, at a highly professional news and
analysis website run by Jewish anti-Zionists. "Let's talk about Russian influence" http://mondoweiss.net/2016/08/about-russian-influence/
mike k , December 23, 2017 at 8:44 pm
Hitler and Mussolini, Trump and Netanyahoo – matches made in Hell. These characters
are so obviously, blatantly evil that it is deeply disturbing that people fail to see that,
and instead go to great lengths to find some complicated flaws in these monsters.
mike k , December 23, 2017 at 8:49 pm
Keep it simple folks. No need for complex analyses. Just remember that these characters as
simply as evil as it gets, and proceed from there. These asinine shows that portray mobsters
as complex human beings are dangerously deluding. If you want to be victimized by these
types, this kind of overthinking is just the way to go.
Sam F , December 23, 2017 at 9:00 pm
There is a modern theory of fiction that insists upon the portrayal of inconsistency in
characters, both among the good guys and the bad guys. It is useful to show how those who do
wrongs have made specific kinds of errors that make them abnormal, and that those who do
right are not perfect but nonetheless did the right thing. Instead it is used by commercial
writers to argue that the good are really bad, and the bad are really good, which is of
course the philosophy of oligarchy-controlled mass publishers.
Sam F , December 23, 2017 at 8:54 pm
A very important article by Dennis Bernstein, and it is very appropriate that non-zionist
Jews are active against the extreme zionist corruption of our federal government. I am sure
that they are reviled by the zionists for interfering with the false denunciations of racism
against the opponents of zionism. Indeed critics face a very nearly totalitarian power of
zionism, which in league with MIC/WallSt opportunism has displaced democracy altogether in
the US.
backwardsevolution , December 23, 2017 at 9:18 pm
A nice little set-up by the Obama administration. Perhaps it was entrapment? Who set it
up? Flynn and Kushner should have known better to fall for it. So at the end of his
Presidency, Obama suddenly gets balls and wants to slap down Israel? Yeah, right.
Nice to have leverage over people, though, isn't it? If you're lucky and play your cards
right, you might even be lucky enough to land an impeachment.
Of course, I'm just being cynical. No one would want to overturn democracy, would
they?
Certainly people like Comey, Brenner, Clinton, Clapper, Mueller, Rosenstein wouldn't want
that, would they?
Joe Tedesky , December 23, 2017 at 10:33 pm
I just can't see any special prosecutor investigating Israel-Gate. Between what the
Zionist donors donate to these creepy politicians, too what goods they have on these same
mischievous politicians, I just can't see any investigation into Israel's collusion with the
Trump Administration going anywhere. Netanyahu isn't Putin, and Russia isn't Israel. Plus,
Israel is considered a U.S. ally, while Russia is being marked as a Washington rival. Sorry,
this news regarding Israel isn't going to be ranted on about for the next 18 months, like the
MSM has done with Russia, because our dear old Israel is the only democracy in the Middle
East, or so they tell us. So, don't get your hopes up.
JWalters , December 24, 2017 at 3:33 am
It's true the Israelis have America's politicians by the ears and the balls. But as this
story gets better known, politicians will start getting questions at their town meetings.
Increasingly the politicians will gag on what Israel is force-feeding them, until finally
they reach a critical mass of vomit in Congress.
Joe Tedesky , December 24, 2017 at 11:12 am
I hope you are right JWalters. Although relying on a Zionist controlled MSM doesn't give
hope for the news getting out properly. Again I hope you are right JWalters. Joe
Actually, Netanyahu was so desperate to have the resolution pulled and not voted on that
he reached out to any country that might help him after the foreign minister of New Zealand,
one of its co-sponsors refused to pull the plug after a testy phone exchange with the Israeli
PM ending up threatening an Israeli boycott oturnef the KIwis.
He then turned to his buddy, Vladimir Putin, who owed him a favor for having Israel's UN
delegate absent himself for the UNGA vote on sanctioning Russia after its annexation of
Crimea.
Putin then called Russia's UN Ambassador, Vitaly Churkin, since deceased, and asked him to
get the other UNSC ambassadors to postpone the vote until Trump took over the White House but
the other ambassadors weren't buying it. Given Russia's historic public position regarding
the settlements, Churkin had no choice to vote Yes with the others.
This story was reported in detail in the Israeli press but blacked out in the US which,
due to Zionist influence on the media, does not want the American public to know about the
close ties between Putin and Netanyahu which has led to the Israeli PM making five state
visits there in the last year and a half.
Had Clinton won the White House we can assume that there would have been no US veto. That
Netanyahu apparently knew in advance that the US planned to veto the resolution was, I
suspect, leaked to the Israelis by US delegate Samantha Power, who was clearly unhappy at
having to abstain.
Abe , December 24, 2017 at 12:39 am
The Israeli Prime Minister made five state visits to Russia in the last year and a half to
make sure the Russians don't accidentally on purpose blast Israeli warplanes from the sky
over Syria (like they oughtta). Putin tries not to snicker when Netanyahu bloviates ad
nauseum about the purported "threat" posed by Iran.
He thinks Putin is a RATS ASS like the yankee government
JWalters , December 24, 2017 at 3:34 am
"This story was reported in detail in the Israeli press but blacked out in the
US"
We've just had a whole cluster of big stories involving Israel that have all been
essentially blacked out in the US press. e.g. "Dionne and Shields ignore the Adelson in the room" http://mondoweiss.net/2017/12/jerusalem-israels-capital
This is not due to chance. There is no doubt that the US mainstream media is wholly
controlled by the Israelis.
alley cat , December 24, 2017 at 4:49 am
"He [Netanyahu] then turned to his buddy, Vladimir Putin "
Jeff, that characterization of Putin and Netanyahu's relationship makes no sense, since
the Russians have consistently opposed Zionism and Putin has been no exception, having
spoiled Zionist plans for the destruction of Syria.
"Had Clinton won the White House we can assume that there would have been no US
veto."
Not sure where you're going with that, since the US vote was up to Obama, who wanted to
get some payback for all of Bibi's efforts to sabotage Obama's treaty with Iran.
For the record, Zionism has had no more rabid supporter than the Dragon Lady. If we're
going to make assumptions, we could start by assuming that if she had won the White House
we'd all be dead by now, thanks to her obsession (at the instigation of her Zionist/neocon
sponsors) with declaring no-fly zones in Syria.
Brendan , December 24, 2017 at 6:18 am
Trump and Kushner have nothing to worry about, even if a smoking gun is found that proves
their collusion with Israel. That's because the entire political and media establishment will
simply ignore the Israeli connection.
Journalists and politicians will even continue to present Mike Flynn's contacts as
evidence of collusion with Russia. They'll keep on repeating that "Flynn lied about his phone
call to the Russian ambassador". But there will be no mention of the fact that the purpose of
this contact was to support Israel and not any alleged Russian interference.
Skip Scott , December 24, 2017 at 7:59 am
I think you have it right Brendan. The MSM, Intelligence Community, and Mueller would
never go down any path that popularized undue Israeli influence on US foreign policy.
"Nothing to see here folks, move along."
The zionist will stop at nothing to control the middle east with American taxpayers
money/military equiptment its a win win for the zionist they control America lock stock and
barrel a pity though it is a great country to be led by a jewish entity.
What will Israel-Palestine look like twenty years from now? Will it remain an apartheid
regime, a regime without any Palestinians, or something different. The Trump decision, which
the world rejects, brings the issue of "final" settlement to the fore. In a way we can go
back to the thirties and the British Mandate. Jewish were fleeing Europe, many coming to
Palestine. The British, on behalf of the Zionists, were delaying declaring Palestine a state
with control of its own affairs. Seeing the mass immigration and chafing at British foot
dragging, the Arabs rebelled, What happened then was that the British, responding to numerous
pressures notably war with Germany, acted by granting independence and granting Palestine
control of its borders.
With American pressure and the mass exodus of Jews from Europe, Jews defied the British
resulting in Jewish resistance. What followed then was a UN plan to divide the land with a
Jerusalem an international city administered by the UN. The Arabs rebelled and lost much of
what the UN plan provided and Jerusalem as an international city was scrapped.
Will there be a second serious attempt to settle the issue of the land and the status of
Jerusalem? Will there be a serious move toward a single state? How will the matter of
Jerusalem be resolved. The two state solution has always been a fantasy and acquiescence of
Palestinians to engage in this charade exposes their leaders to charges of posturing for
perks. Imagined options could go on and on but will there be serious options placed before
the world community or will the boots on the ground Israeli policies continue?
As I have commented before, it will most probably be the Jewish community in Israel and
the world that shapes the future and if the matter is to be resolved that is fair to both
parties, it will be they that starts the ball rolling.
Zachary Smith , December 24, 2017 at 1:34 pm
As I have commented before, it will most probably be the Jewish community in Israel and
the world that shapes the future and if the matter is to be resolved that is fair to both
parties, it will be they that starts the ball rolling.
The Nice Zionists responsible for the thefts and murders for the past 69 years along with
the "Jewish Community" in the rest of the world will resolve the matter so as to be fair to
both parties. This is mind-boggling fantasy.
Larry Larsen , December 24, 2017 at 5:56 pm
Truly mind-boggling. Ahistorical, and as you say, fantasy.
Larry Larsen , December 24, 2017 at 5:48 pm
FFS, Netanyahu aired a political commercial in Florida for Romney saying vote for this guy
(against Obama)! I mean, it doesn't get any more overtly manipulative than that. Period. End
of story.
$50K of Facebook ads about puppies pales in comparison to that blatant, prima facia,
public manipulation. God, I hate to go all "Israel controls the media" but there it is. Not even a discussion. Just a fact.
Larry Larsen , December 24, 2017 at 6:11 pm
Just for the record, Richard Silverstein blocked me on Twitter because I pointed out that
he slammed someone who was suggesting that the Assad government was fighting for its
(Syria's) life by fighting terrorists. Actually, more specifically, because of that he read
my "Free Palestine" bio on Twitter and called me a Hamas supporter (no Hamas mentioned) and a
"moron" for some seeming contradiction.
I also have to point out that he "fist pumped" Hillary Clinton at Mohammed Ali's eulogy.
If he's as astute as he purports to be, he has to know that Hillary would have invaded Syria
and killed a few hundred thousand more Syrians for the simple act of defiantly preserving
their country. By almost any read of Ali's history, he would have been adamantly ("killing
brown people") against that. But there was Silverstein using the platform to promote,
arguably, perpetual war.
Silverstein is probably not a good (ie. consistent) arbiter of Israeli impact on US
politics. Just sayin'.
This may be a tad ot but it relates to the alleged hacking of the DNC, the role debbie
wasserman schultz plays in the spy ring (awan bros) in house of rep servers: I have long
suspected that mossad has their fingers in this entire mess. FWIW
Good site, BTW.
Zachary Smith , December 24, 2017 at 7:35 pm
I can't recall why I removed the Tikun Olam site from my bookmarks – it happened
quite a while back. Generally I do that when I feel the blogger crossed some kind of personal
red line. Something Mr. Silverstein wrote put him over that line with me.
In the course of a search I found that at the neocon NYT. Mr. Silverstein claims several
things I find unbelievable, and from that alone I wonder about his ultimate motives. I may be
excessively touchy about this, but that's how it is.
Larry Larsen , December 24, 2017 at 8:51 pm
Yeah Zachary, "wondering about ultimate motives" is probably a good way to put it/his
views. He's obviously conflicted, if not deferential in some aspects of Israeli policy. He
really was a hero of mine, but now I just don't get whether what he says is masking something
or a true belief. He says some good stuff, but, but, but .
P. Michael Garber , December 24, 2017 at 11:54 pm
Yeah I found a couple of Silverstein's statements to be closer to neocon propaganda than
reality: "Because this is Israel and because we have a conflicted relationship with the Israel
lobby . . ." "Instead of going directly to the Obama administration, with which they had terrible
relations, they went to Trump instead." My impression was that the whole "terrible relationship between Obama and Netanyahu" was
manufactured by the Israel lobby to bully Obama. However these are small blips within an otherwise solid critique of the Israel lobby's
influence.
"... In this case, what Flynn and Kushner were doing was going directly against US foreign policy, because Obama wanted the resolution to pass; He just didn't want to vote for it because that would cross the Israel lobby in the United States. The US finally ended up abstaining on the resolution and it passed 14-0. ..."
"... But before that happened, Flynn went to the Russians and to Egypt, both members of the Security Council, and tried to get the resolution delayed. But all of Israel's machinations to derail this resolution failed and that is what Mueller was investigating, the intervention and disruption of American foreign policy by private citizens who had no official role. ..."
"... While I think Bibi is an idiot, I also think the Logan Act is overinvoked, overstated, probably of dubious legal value and also of dubious constitutional value. ..."
"... In short, especially because Trump had been elected, though not yet inaugurated, I think he is not at all guilty of a Logan Act violation. This is nothing close to Spiro Agnew calling Anna Chenault from the airplane in August 1968. ..."
"... Probably true, although evidence of extreme collusion with Israel eliminates any case against Russia, with whom we have far more reasons for amity. Bringing out the Israel collusion greatly improves public understanding of political corruption. Perhaps it will awaken some to the Agnew-Chennault betrayal of the people of the US. ..."
"... It's ironic that Russia-gate is turning out to be Israel's effort to distract attention from its complete control over the Democratic party in 2016. From Israeli billionaires behind the scenes to Debbie Wasserman-Schultz at the helm. ..."
"... "Whether we like it or not, the former and current administration view Russia is as an enemy state." So that is how it works, the White House says it is an enemy state and therefore it is. The so called declaration is the hammer used for trying to make contact with Russia a criminal offense. We are not at war with Russia although we see our leaders doing their best to provoke Russia into one. ..."
"... The Israel connection disclosed by the malpracticer hack Mueller in the recent Flynn-flam just made Trump bullet-proof (so to speak). ..."
"... So Mueller caught Kushner and Flynn red-handed, sabotaging the Obama administration? What of it? He can't use that evidence, because it would inculpate the Zionist neocons that are orchestrating his farcical, Stalinist witchhunt. And Mueller, being an efficient terminator bot, knows that his target is Russia, not Israel. ..."
"... So Mueller will just have to continue swamp-fishing for potential perjurers ahem witnesses, for the upcoming show trials (to further inflame public opinion against Russia and Russia sympathizers). And continue he will, because (as we all know from Schwarzenegger's flicks), the only way to stop the terminator is to terminate him/it first. ..."
"... Trump and Kushner have nothing to worry about, even if a smoking gun is found that proves their collusion with Israel. That's because the entire political and media establishment will simply ignore the Israeli connection. ..."
"... Journalists and politicians will even continue to present Mike Flynn's contacts as evidence of collusion with Russia. They'll keep on repeating that "Flynn lied about his phone call to the Russian ambassador". But there will be no mention of the fact that the purpose of this contact was to support Israel and not any alleged Russian interference. ..."
"... I think you have it right Brendan. The MSM, Intelligence Community, and Mueller would never go down any path that popularized undue Israeli influence on US foreign policy. "Nothing to see here folks, move along." ..."
"... The Nice Zionists responsible for the thefts and murders for the past 69 years along with the "Jewish Community" in the rest of the world will resolve the matter so as to be fair to both parties. This is mind-boggling fantasy. ..."
"... FFS, Netanyahu aired a political commercial in Florida for Romney saying vote for this guy (against Obama)! I mean, it doesn't get any more overtly manipulative than that. Period. End of story. ..."
"... God, I hate to go all "Israel controls the media" but there it is. Not even a discussion. Just a fact. ..."
"... I also have to point out that he "fist pumped" Hillary Clinton at Mohammed Ali's eulogy. If he's as astute as he purports to be, he has to know that Hillary would have invaded Syria and killed a few hundred thousand more Syrians for the simple act of defiantly preserving their country. By almost any read of Ali's history, he would have been adamantly ("killing brown people") against that. But there was Silverstein using the platform to promote, arguably, perpetual war. ..."
"... Yeah I found a couple of Silverstein's statements to be closer to neocon propaganda than reality: "Because this is Israel and because we have a conflicted relationship with the Israel lobby . . ." "Instead of going directly to the Obama administration, with which they had terrible relations, they went to Trump instead." My impression was that the whole "terrible relationship between Obama and Netanyahu" was manufactured by the Israel lobby to bully Obama. However these are small blips within an otherwise solid critique of the Israel lobby's influence. ..."
The Israel-gate Side of Russia-gate December 23, 2017
While unproven claims of Russian meddling in U.S. politics have whipped Official Washington
into a frenzy, much less attention has been paid to real evidence of Israeli interference in
U.S. politics, as Dennis J Bernstein describes.
By Dennis J Bernstein
In investigating Russia's alleged meddling in U.S. politics, special prosecutor Robert
Mueller uncovered evidence that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pressured the Trump
transition team to undermine President Obama's plans to permit the United Nations to censure
Israel over its illegal settlement building on the Palestinian West Bank, a discovery
referenced in the plea deal with President Trump's first National Security Adviser Michael
Flynn.
President Donald J. Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel at the United
Nations General Assembly (Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead)
At Netanyahu's behest, Flynn and President Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner reportedly took
the lead in the lobbying to derail the U.N. resolution, which Flynn discussed in a phone call
with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak (in which the Russian diplomat rebuffed Flynn's appeal
to block the resolution).
I spoke on Dec, 18 with independent journalist and blogger Richard Silverstein, who writes
on national security and other issues for a number of blogs at Tikun Olam .
Dennis Bernstein: A part of Michael Flynn's plea had to do with some actions he took before
coming to power regarding Israel and the United Nations. Please explain.
Richard Silverstein:
The Obama administration was negotiating in the [UN] Security Council
just before he left office about a resolution that would condemn Israeli settlements.
Obviously, the Israeli government did not want this resolution to be passed. Instead of going
directly to the Obama administration, with which they had terrible relations, they went to
Trump instead. They approached Michael Flynn and Jared Kushner became involved in this. While
they were in the transition and before having any official capacity, they negotiated with
various members of the Security Council to try to quash the settlement resolution.
One of the issues here which is little known is the Logan Act, which was passed at the
foundation of our republic and was designed to prevent private citizens from usurping the
foreign policy prerogatives of the executive. It criminalized any private citizen who attempted
to negotiate with an enemy country over any foreign policy issue.
In this case, what Flynn and Kushner were doing was going directly against US foreign
policy, because Obama wanted the resolution to pass; He just didn't want to vote for it because
that would cross the Israel lobby in the United States. The US finally ended up abstaining on
the resolution and it passed 14-0.
But before that happened, Flynn went to the Russians and to Egypt, both members of the
Security Council, and tried to get the resolution delayed. But all of Israel's machinations to
derail this resolution failed and that is what Mueller was investigating, the intervention and
disruption of American foreign policy by private citizens who had no official role.
This speaks to the power of the Israel lobby and of Israel itself to disrupt our foreign
policy. Very few people have ever been charged with committing an illegal act by advocating on
behalf of Israel. That is one of the reasons why this is such an important development. Until
now, the lobby has really ruled supreme on the issue of Israel and Palestine in US foreign
policy. Now it is possible that a private citizen will actually be made to pay a price for
that.
This is an important development because the lobby till now has run roughshod over our
foreign policy in this area and this may act as a restraining order against blatant disruption
of US foreign policy by people like this.
Bernstein: So this information is a part of Michael Flynn's plea. Anyone studying this would
learn something about Michael Flynn and it would be part of the prosecution's
investigation.
Silverstein:
That's absolutely right. One thing to note here is that it is reporters who
have raised the issue of the Logan Act, not Mueller or Flynn's people or anyone in the Trump
administration. But I do think that Logan is a very important part of this plea deal, even if
it is not mentioned explicitly.
Bernstein: If the special prosecutor had smoking-gun information that the Trump
administration colluded with Russia, in the way they colluded with Israel before coming to
power, this would be a huge revelation. But it is definitely collusion when it comes to
Israel.
Silverstein: Absolutely. If this were Russia, it would be on the front page of every major
newspaper in the United States and the leading story on the TV news. Because this is Israel and
because we have a conflicted relationship with the Israel lobby and they have so much influence
on US policy concerning Israel, it has managed to stay on the back burner. Only two or three
media outlets besides mine have raised this issue of Logan and collusion. Kushner and Flynn may
be the first American citizens charged under the Logan Act for interfering on behalf of Israel
in our foreign policy. This is a huge issue and it has hardly been raised at all.
Bernstein: As you know, Rachel Maddow of MSNBC has made a career out of investigating the
Russia-gate charges. She says that she has read all this material carefully, so she must have
read about Flynn and Israel, but I haven't heard her on this issue at all.
Silverstein:
Even progressive journalists, who you'd think would be going after this with a
vengeance, are frightened off by the fact the lobby really bites back. So, aside from outlets
like the Intercept and the Electronic Intifada, there is a lot of hesitation about going after
the Israel lobby. People are afraid because they know that there is a high price to be paid. It
goes from being purely journalism to being a personal and political vendetta when they get you
in their sights. In fact, one of the reasons I feel my blog is so important is that what I do
is challenge Israeli policy and Israeli intervention in places where it doesn't belong.
Bernstein: Jared Kushner is the point man for the Trump administration on Israel. He has
talked about having a "vision for peace." Do you think it is a problem that this is someone
with a long, close relationship with the prime minister of Israel and, in fact, runs a
foundation that invests in the building of illegal Israeli settlements? Might this be
problematic?
Silverstein:
It is quite nefarious, actually. When Jared Kushner was a teenager, Netanyahu
used to stay at the Kushner family home when he visited the United States. This relationship
with one of the most extreme right political figures in Israel goes back decades. And it is not
just Kushner himself, but all the administration personnel dealing with these so-called peace
negotiations, including Jason Greenblatt and David Friedman, the ambassador. These are all
orthodox Jews who tend to have very nationalist views when it comes to Israel. They all support
settlements financially through foundations. These are not honest brokers.
We could talk at length about the history of US personnel who have been negotiators for
Middle East peace. All of them have been favorable to Israel and answerable to the Israel
lobby, including Dennis Ross and Makovsky, who served in the last administration. These people
are dyed-in-the-wool ultra-nationalist supporters of [Israeli] settlements. They have no
business playing any role in negotiating a peace deal.
My prediction all along has been that these peace negotiations will come to naught, even
though they seem to have bought the cooperation of Saudi Arabia, which is something new in the
process. The Palestinians can never accept a deal that has been negotiated by Kushner and
company because it will be far too favorable to Israel and it will totally neglect the
interests of the Palestinians.
Bernstein: It has been revealed that Kushner supports the building of settlements in the
West Bank. Most people don't understand the politics of what is going on there, but it appears
to be part of an ethnic cleansing.
Silverstein:
The settlements have always been a violation of international law, ever since
Israel conquered the West Bank in 1967. The Geneva Conventions direct an occupying power to
withdraw from territory that was not its own. In 1967 Israel invaded Arab states and conquered
the West Bank and Gaza but this has never been recognized or accepted by any nation until
now.
The fact that Kushner and his family are intimately involved in supporting
settlements–as are David Friedman and Jason Greenblatt–is completely outrageous. No
member of any previous US administration would have been allowed to participate with these
kinds of financial investments in support of settlements. Of course, Trump doesn't understand
the concept of conflict of interest because he is heavily involved in such conflicts himself.
But no party in the Middle East except Israel is going to consider the US an honest broker and
acceptable as a mediator.
When they announce this deal next January, no one in the Arab World is going to accept it,
with the possible exception of Saudi Arabia because they have other fish to fry in terms of
Iran. The next three years are going to be interesting, supposing Trump lasts out his term. My
prediction is that the peace plan will fail and that it will lead to greater violence in the
Middle East. It will not simply lead to a vacuum, it will lead to a deterioration in conditions
there.
Bernstein: The Trump transition team was actually approached directly by the Israeli
government to try to intercede at the United Nations.
Silverstein:
I'm assuming it was Netanyahu who went directly to Kushner and Trump. Now, we
haven't yet found out that Trump directly knew about this but it is very hard to believe
that Trump didn't endorse this. Now that we know that Mueller has access to all of the emails
of the transition team, there is little doubt that they have been able to find their smoking
gun. Flynn's plea meant that they basically had him dead to rights. It remains to be seen what
will happen with Kushner but I would think that this would play some role in either the
prosecution of Kushner or some plea deal.
Bernstein: The other big story, of course, is the decision by the Trump administration to
move the US embassy from Tel-Aviv to Jerusalem. Was there any pre-election collusion in that
regard and what are the implications?
Silverstein:
Well, it's a terrible decision which goes against forty to fifty years of US
foreign policy. It also breaches all international understanding. All of our allies in the
European Union and elsewhere are aghast at this development. There is now a campaign in the
United Nations Security Council to pass a resolution condemning the announcement, which we will
veto, but the next step will be to go to the General Assembly, where such a resolution will
pass easily.
The question is how much anger, violence and disruption this is going to cause around the
world, especially in the Arab and Muslim world. This is a slow-burning fuse. It is not going to
explode right now. The issue of Jerusalem is so vital that this is not something that is simply
going to go away. This is going to be a festering sore in the Muslim world and among
Palestinians. We have already seen attacks on Israeli soldiers and citizens and there will be
many more.
As to collusion in all of this, since Trump always said during the campaign that this was
what he was going to do, it might be difficult to treat this in the same way as the UN
resolution. The UN resolution was never on anybody's radar and nobody knew the role that Trump
was playing behind the scenes with that–as opposed to Trump saying right from the get-go
that Jerusalem was going to be recognized as the capital of Jerusalem.
By doing that, they have completely abrogated any Palestinian interest in Jerusalem. This is
a catastrophic decision that really excludes the United States from being an honest broker here
and shows our true colors in terms of how pro-Israel we are.
As most regular readers of CN already know, some dynamite books on the inordinate amount
of influence pro-Israel zealots have on Washington:
1.) 'The Host and the Parasite' by Greg Felton
2.) 'Power of Israel in the United States' by James Petras
3.) 'They Dare to Speak Out' by Paul Findley
4.) 'The Israel Lobby' by Mearsheimer and Walt
5.) 'Zionism, Militarism and the Decline of U.S. Power' by James Petras
I suggest that anyone relatively knew to this neglected topic peruse a few of the
aforementioned titles. An inevitable backlash by the citizens of the United States is
eventually forthcoming against the Zionist Power Configuration. It's crucial that this
impending backlash remain democratic, non-violent, eschews anti-Semitism, and travels in a
progressive in direction.
Annie , December 23, 2017 at 5:47 pm
Which one would you suggest? I already read "The Israel Lobby."
Sam F , December 23, 2017 at 8:38 pm
Findley and Mearsheimer are certainly worthwhile. I will look for Petras.
Larry Larsen , December 24, 2017 at 6:38 pm
If you haven't already read them, the end/footnotes in "The Israel Lobby" are more
illuminating.
That influence is also shown, of course, by the fact that Obama waited until the midnight
hours of his tenure and after the 2016 election to even start working on this resolution.
While I think Bibi is an idiot, I also think the Logan Act is overinvoked, overstated,
probably of dubious legal value and also of dubious constitutional value.
In short, especially because Trump had been elected, though not yet inaugurated, I think
he is not at all guilty of a Logan Act violation. This is nothing close to Spiro Agnew
calling Anna Chenault from the airplane in August 1968.
Sam F , December 23, 2017 at 8:41 pm
Probably true, although evidence of extreme collusion with Israel eliminates any case
against Russia, with whom we have far more reasons for amity. Bringing out the Israel
collusion greatly improves public understanding of political corruption. Perhaps it will
awaken some to the Agnew-Chennault betrayal of the people of the US.
JWalters , December 24, 2017 at 3:32 am
It's ironic that Russia-gate is turning out to be Israel's effort to distract attention
from its complete control over the Democratic party in 2016. From Israeli billionaires behind
the scenes to Debbie Wasserman-Schultz at the helm.
The leaked emails showed the corruption
plainly, and based on the ACTUAL evidence (recorded download time), most likely came from a
highly disgruntled insider. The picture was starting to spill into public view. I'd estimate
the real huge worry was that if this stuff came out, it could bring out other Israeli
secrets, like their involvement in 9/11. That would mean actual jail time. Might be hard to
buy your way out of that no matter how much money you have.
Annie , December 23, 2017 at 10:48 pm
The Logan act states that anyone who negotiates with an enemy of the US, and Israel is not
defined as an enemy.
Annie , December 23, 2017 at 6:59 pm
The Logan act would not apply here, although I wish it would. I don't think anyone has
been convicted based on this act, and they were part of a transition team not to mention the
Logan act clearly states a private citizen who attempts to negotiate with an enemy state, and
that certainly doesn't apply to Israel. In this administration their bias is so blatant that
they can install Kushner as an honest broker in the Israeli-Palestine peace process while his
family has a close relationship with Netanyahu, and he runs a foundation that invests in the
building of illegal settlements which goes against the Geneva conventions. Hopefully Trump's
blatant siding with Israel will receive a lot of backlash as did his plan to make Jerusalem
the capital of Israel.
I also found that so called progressive internet sites don't cover this the way they
should.
Al Pinto , December 24, 2017 at 9:16 am
@Annie
"The Logan act would not apply here, although I wish it would."
You and me both .
From the point of starting to read this article, it has been in my mind that the Logan act
would not apply here. After reading most of the comments, it became clear that not many
people viewed this as such. Yes, Joe Tedesky did as well
The UN is the "clearing house" for international politics, where countries freely contact
each other's for getting support for their cause behind the scene. The support sought after
could be voting for or against the resolution on hand. At times, as Israel did, countries
reach out to perceived enemies as well, if they could not secure sufficient support for their
cause. This is the normal activity of the UN diplomacy.
Knowing that the outgoing administration would not support its cause, Israel reached out
to the incoming administration to delay the vote on the UN resolution. I fail to see anything
wrong with Israel's action even in this case; Israel is not an enemy state to the US. As
such, there has been no violation of any acts by the incoming administration, even if they
tried to secure veto vote for Israel. I do not like it, but no action by Mueller in this case
is correct.
People, just like the article in itself, implying that the Logan Act applies in this case
are just plain wrong. Not just wrong, but their anti-Israel bias is in plain view.
Whether we like it or not, the former and current administration view Russia is as an
enemy state. Even then, Russia contacting the incoming administration is not a violation of
the Logan Act. That is just normal diplomacy in the background between countries. What would
be a violation is that the contacted official acted on the behalf of Russia and tried to
influence the outgoing administration's decision. That is what the Mueller investigation
tries to prove hopelessly
"Whether we like it or not, the former and current administration view Russia is as an
enemy state." So that is how it works, the White House says it is an enemy state and
therefore it is. The so called declaration is the hammer used for trying to make contact with
Russia a criminal offense. We are not at war with Russia although we see our leaders doing
their best to provoke Russia into one.
Annie , December 24, 2017 at 1:55 pm
Thanks for your reply. When I read the article and it referenced the Logan Act, which I am
familiar with in that I've read about it before, I was surprised that Bernstein and
Silverstein even brought it up because it so obviously does not apply in this case, since
Israel is not considered an enemy state. Many have even referenced it as flimsy when it comes
to convictions against those in Trump's transition team who had contacts with Russia. No one
has ever been convicted under the Logan Act.
Larry Larsen , December 24, 2017 at 6:41 pm
The Logan Act either should apply equally, or not apply at all. This "Russia-gate" hype
seems to apply it selectively.
mrtmbrnmn , December 23, 2017 at 7:36 pm
You guys are blinded by the light. The Israel connection disclosed by the malpracticer
hack Mueller in the recent Flynn-flam just made Trump bullet-proof (so to speak).
There is no doubt that Trump is Bibi's and the Saudi's ventriloquist dummy and Jared has
been an Israel agent of influence since he was 12.
But half the Dementedcrat Sore Loser Brigade will withdraw from the field of battle (not
to mention most of the GOP living dead too) if publically and noisily tying Israel to Trump's
tail becomes the only route to his removal. Which it would have to be, as there is no there
there regarding the yearlong trumped-up PutinPutinPutin waterboarding of Trump.
Immediately (if not sooner) the mighty (pro-Israel) Donor Bank of Singer (Paul), Saban
(Haim), Sachs (Goldman) & Adelson (Sheldon), would change their passwords and leave these
politicians/beggars with empty begging bowls. End of $ordid $tory.
alley cat , December 23, 2017 at 7:45 pm
So Mueller caught Kushner and Flynn red-handed, sabotaging the Obama administration? What
of it? He can't use that evidence, because it would inculpate the Zionist neocons that are
orchestrating his farcical, Stalinist witchhunt. And Mueller, being an efficient terminator
bot, knows that his target is Russia, not Israel.
Mueller can use that evidence of sabotage and/or obstruction of justice to try to coerce
false confessions from Kushner and Flynn. But what are the chances of that, barring short
stayovers for them at some CIA black site?
So Mueller will just have to continue swamp-fishing for potential perjurers ahem
witnesses, for the upcoming show trials (to further inflame public opinion against Russia and
Russia sympathizers). And continue he will, because (as we all know from Schwarzenegger's
flicks), the only way to stop the terminator is to terminate him/it first.
Leslie F. , December 23, 2017 at 8:28 pm
He used it, along with other info, to turn flip Flynn and possibly can use it the same way
again Kusher. Not all evidence has end up in court to be useful.
JWalters , December 23, 2017 at 8:40 pm
This is an extremely important story, excellently reported. All the main "facts" Americans
think they know about Israel are, amazingly, flat-out lies.
1. Israel was NOT victimized by powerful Arab armies. Israel overpowered and victimized a
defenseless, civilian Arab population. Military analysts knew the Arab armies were in poor
shape and would not be able to resist the zionist army.
2. Muslim "citizens" of Israel do NOT have all the same rights as Jews.
3. Israelis are NOT under threat from the indigineous Palestinians, but Palestinians are
under constant threats of theft and death from the Israelis.
4. Israel does NOT share America's most fundamental values, which rest on the principle of
equal human rights for all.
Maintaining such a blanket of major lies for decades requires immense power. And this
power would have to be exercised "under the radar" to be effective. That requires even more
power. Both Congress and the press have to be controlled. How much power does it take to turn
"Progressive Rachel" into "Tel Aviv Rachel"? To turn "It Takes a Village" Hillary into
"Slaughter a Village" Hillary? It takes immense power AND ruthlessness.
War profiteers have exactly this combination of immense war profits and the ruthlessness
to victimize millions of people. "War Profiteers and the Roots of the War on Terror" http://warprofiteerstory.blogspot.com
Vast war profits easily afford to buy the mainstream media. And controlling campaign
contributions for members of Congress is amazingly cheap in the big picture. Such a squalid
sale of souls.
And when simple bribery is not enough, they ruin a person's life through blackmail or
false character assassination. And if those don't work they use death threats, including to
family members, and finally murder. Their ruthlessness is unrestrained. John Perkins has
described these tactics in "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man".
For readers who haven't seen it, here is an excellent riff on the absurdly overwhelming
evidence for Israel's influence compared to that of Russia, at a highly professional news and
analysis website run by Jewish anti-Zionists. "Let's talk about Russian influence" http://mondoweiss.net/2016/08/about-russian-influence/
mike k , December 23, 2017 at 8:44 pm
Hitler and Mussolini, Trump and Netanyahoo – matches made in Hell. These characters
are so obviously, blatantly evil that it is deeply disturbing that people fail to see that,
and instead go to great lengths to find some complicated flaws in these monsters.
mike k , December 23, 2017 at 8:49 pm
Keep it simple folks. No need for complex analyses. Just remember that these characters as
simply as evil as it gets, and proceed from there. These asinine shows that portray mobsters
as complex human beings are dangerously deluding. If you want to be victimized by these
types, this kind of overthinking is just the way to go.
Sam F , December 23, 2017 at 9:00 pm
There is a modern theory of fiction that insists upon the portrayal of inconsistency in
characters, both among the good guys and the bad guys. It is useful to show how those who do
wrongs have made specific kinds of errors that make them abnormal, and that those who do
right are not perfect but nonetheless did the right thing. Instead it is used by commercial
writers to argue that the good are really bad, and the bad are really good, which is of
course the philosophy of oligarchy-controlled mass publishers.
Sam F , December 23, 2017 at 8:54 pm
A very important article by Dennis Bernstein, and it is very appropriate that non-zionist
Jews are active against the extreme zionist corruption of our federal government. I am sure
that they are reviled by the zionists for interfering with the false denunciations of racism
against the opponents of zionism. Indeed critics face a very nearly totalitarian power of
zionism, which in league with MIC/WallSt opportunism has displaced democracy altogether in
the US.
backwardsevolution , December 23, 2017 at 9:18 pm
A nice little set-up by the Obama administration. Perhaps it was entrapment? Who set it
up? Flynn and Kushner should have known better to fall for it. So at the end of his
Presidency, Obama suddenly gets balls and wants to slap down Israel? Yeah, right.
Nice to have leverage over people, though, isn't it? If you're lucky and play your cards
right, you might even be lucky enough to land an impeachment.
Of course, I'm just being cynical. No one would want to overturn democracy, would
they?
Certainly people like Comey, Brenner, Clinton, Clapper, Mueller, Rosenstein wouldn't want
that, would they?
Joe Tedesky , December 23, 2017 at 10:33 pm
I just can't see any special prosecutor investigating Israel-Gate. Between what the
Zionist donors donate to these creepy politicians, too what goods they have on these same
mischievous politicians, I just can't see any investigation into Israel's collusion with the
Trump Administration going anywhere. Netanyahu isn't Putin, and Russia isn't Israel. Plus,
Israel is considered a U.S. ally, while Russia is being marked as a Washington rival. Sorry,
this news regarding Israel isn't going to be ranted on about for the next 18 months, like the
MSM has done with Russia, because our dear old Israel is the only democracy in the Middle
East, or so they tell us. So, don't get your hopes up.
JWalters , December 24, 2017 at 3:33 am
It's true the Israelis have America's politicians by the ears and the balls. But as this
story gets better known, politicians will start getting questions at their town meetings.
Increasingly the politicians will gag on what Israel is force-feeding them, until finally
they reach a critical mass of vomit in Congress.
Joe Tedesky , December 24, 2017 at 11:12 am
I hope you are right JWalters. Although relying on a Zionist controlled MSM doesn't give
hope for the news getting out properly. Again I hope you are right JWalters. Joe
Actually, Netanyahu was so desperate to have the resolution pulled and not voted on that
he reached out to any country that might help him after the foreign minister of New Zealand,
one of its co-sponsors refused to pull the plug after a testy phone exchange with the Israeli
PM ending up threatening an Israeli boycott oturnef the KIwis.
He then turned to his buddy, Vladimir Putin, who owed him a favor for having Israel's UN
delegate absent himself for the UNGA vote on sanctioning Russia after its annexation of
Crimea.
Putin then called Russia's UN Ambassador, Vitaly Churkin, since deceased, and asked him to
get the other UNSC ambassadors to postpone the vote until Trump took over the White House but
the other ambassadors weren't buying it. Given Russia's historic public position regarding
the settlements, Churkin had no choice to vote Yes with the others.
This story was reported in detail in the Israeli press but blacked out in the US which,
due to Zionist influence on the media, does not want the American public to know about the
close ties between Putin and Netanyahu which has led to the Israeli PM making five state
visits there in the last year and a half.
Had Clinton won the White House we can assume that there would have been no US veto. That
Netanyahu apparently knew in advance that the US planned to veto the resolution was, I
suspect, leaked to the Israelis by US delegate Samantha Power, who was clearly unhappy at
having to abstain.
Abe , December 24, 2017 at 12:39 am
The Israeli Prime Minister made five state visits to Russia in the last year and a half to
make sure the Russians don't accidentally on purpose blast Israeli warplanes from the sky
over Syria (like they oughtta). Putin tries not to snicker when Netanyahu bloviates ad
nauseum about the purported "threat" posed by Iran.
He thinks Putin is a RATS ASS like the yankee government
JWalters , December 24, 2017 at 3:34 am
"This story was reported in detail in the Israeli press but blacked out in the
US"
We've just had a whole cluster of big stories involving Israel that have all been
essentially blacked out in the US press. e.g. "Dionne and Shields ignore the Adelson in the room" http://mondoweiss.net/2017/12/jerusalem-israels-capital
This is not due to chance. There is no doubt that the US mainstream media is wholly
controlled by the Israelis.
alley cat , December 24, 2017 at 4:49 am
"He [Netanyahu] then turned to his buddy, Vladimir Putin "
Jeff, that characterization of Putin and Netanyahu's relationship makes no sense, since
the Russians have consistently opposed Zionism and Putin has been no exception, having
spoiled Zionist plans for the destruction of Syria.
"Had Clinton won the White House we can assume that there would have been no US
veto."
Not sure where you're going with that, since the US vote was up to Obama, who wanted to
get some payback for all of Bibi's efforts to sabotage Obama's treaty with Iran.
For the record, Zionism has had no more rabid supporter than the Dragon Lady. If we're
going to make assumptions, we could start by assuming that if she had won the White House
we'd all be dead by now, thanks to her obsession (at the instigation of her Zionist/neocon
sponsors) with declaring no-fly zones in Syria.
Brendan , December 24, 2017 at 6:18 am
Trump and Kushner have nothing to worry about, even if a smoking gun is found that proves
their collusion with Israel. That's because the entire political and media establishment will
simply ignore the Israeli connection.
Journalists and politicians will even continue to present Mike Flynn's contacts as
evidence of collusion with Russia. They'll keep on repeating that "Flynn lied about his phone
call to the Russian ambassador". But there will be no mention of the fact that the purpose of
this contact was to support Israel and not any alleged Russian interference.
Skip Scott , December 24, 2017 at 7:59 am
I think you have it right Brendan. The MSM, Intelligence Community, and Mueller would
never go down any path that popularized undue Israeli influence on US foreign policy.
"Nothing to see here folks, move along."
The zionist will stop at nothing to control the middle east with American taxpayers
money/military equiptment its a win win for the zionist they control America lock stock and
barrel a pity though it is a great country to be led by a jewish entity.
What will Israel-Palestine look like twenty years from now? Will it remain an apartheid
regime, a regime without any Palestinians, or something different. The Trump decision, which
the world rejects, brings the issue of "final" settlement to the fore. In a way we can go
back to the thirties and the British Mandate. Jewish were fleeing Europe, many coming to
Palestine. The British, on behalf of the Zionists, were delaying declaring Palestine a state
with control of its own affairs. Seeing the mass immigration and chafing at British foot
dragging, the Arabs rebelled, What happened then was that the British, responding to numerous
pressures notably war with Germany, acted by granting independence and granting Palestine
control of its borders.
With American pressure and the mass exodus of Jews from Europe, Jews defied the British
resulting in Jewish resistance. What followed then was a UN plan to divide the land with a
Jerusalem an international city administered by the UN. The Arabs rebelled and lost much of
what the UN plan provided and Jerusalem as an international city was scrapped.
Will there be a second serious attempt to settle the issue of the land and the status of
Jerusalem? Will there be a serious move toward a single state? How will the matter of
Jerusalem be resolved. The two state solution has always been a fantasy and acquiescence of
Palestinians to engage in this charade exposes their leaders to charges of posturing for
perks. Imagined options could go on and on but will there be serious options placed before
the world community or will the boots on the ground Israeli policies continue?
As I have commented before, it will most probably be the Jewish community in Israel and
the world that shapes the future and if the matter is to be resolved that is fair to both
parties, it will be they that starts the ball rolling.
Zachary Smith , December 24, 2017 at 1:34 pm
As I have commented before, it will most probably be the Jewish community in Israel and
the world that shapes the future and if the matter is to be resolved that is fair to both
parties, it will be they that starts the ball rolling.
The Nice Zionists responsible for the thefts and murders for the past 69 years along with
the "Jewish Community" in the rest of the world will resolve the matter so as to be fair to
both parties. This is mind-boggling fantasy.
Larry Larsen , December 24, 2017 at 5:56 pm
Truly mind-boggling. Ahistorical, and as you say, fantasy.
Larry Larsen , December 24, 2017 at 5:48 pm
FFS, Netanyahu aired a political commercial in Florida for Romney saying vote for this guy
(against Obama)! I mean, it doesn't get any more overtly manipulative than that. Period. End
of story.
$50K of Facebook ads about puppies pales in comparison to that blatant, prima facia,
public manipulation. God, I hate to go all "Israel controls the media" but there it is. Not even a discussion. Just a fact.
Larry Larsen , December 24, 2017 at 6:11 pm
Just for the record, Richard Silverstein blocked me on Twitter because I pointed out that
he slammed someone who was suggesting that the Assad government was fighting for its
(Syria's) life by fighting terrorists. Actually, more specifically, because of that he read
my "Free Palestine" bio on Twitter and called me a Hamas supporter (no Hamas mentioned) and a
"moron" for some seeming contradiction.
I also have to point out that he "fist pumped" Hillary Clinton at Mohammed Ali's eulogy.
If he's as astute as he purports to be, he has to know that Hillary would have invaded Syria
and killed a few hundred thousand more Syrians for the simple act of defiantly preserving
their country. By almost any read of Ali's history, he would have been adamantly ("killing
brown people") against that. But there was Silverstein using the platform to promote,
arguably, perpetual war.
Silverstein is probably not a good (ie. consistent) arbiter of Israeli impact on US
politics. Just sayin'.
This may be a tad ot but it relates to the alleged hacking of the DNC, the role debbie
wasserman schultz plays in the spy ring (awan bros) in house of rep servers: I have long
suspected that mossad has their fingers in this entire mess. FWIW
Good site, BTW.
Zachary Smith , December 24, 2017 at 7:35 pm
I can't recall why I removed the Tikun Olam site from my bookmarks – it happened
quite a while back. Generally I do that when I feel the blogger crossed some kind of personal
red line. Something Mr. Silverstein wrote put him over that line with me.
In the course of a search I found that at the neocon NYT. Mr. Silverstein claims several
things I find unbelievable, and from that alone I wonder about his ultimate motives. I may be
excessively touchy about this, but that's how it is.
Larry Larsen , December 24, 2017 at 8:51 pm
Yeah Zachary, "wondering about ultimate motives" is probably a good way to put it/his
views. He's obviously conflicted, if not deferential in some aspects of Israeli policy. He
really was a hero of mine, but now I just don't get whether what he says is masking something
or a true belief. He says some good stuff, but, but, but .
P. Michael Garber , December 24, 2017 at 11:54 pm
Yeah I found a couple of Silverstein's statements to be closer to neocon propaganda than
reality: "Because this is Israel and because we have a conflicted relationship with the Israel
lobby . . ." "Instead of going directly to the Obama administration, with which they had terrible
relations, they went to Trump instead." My impression was that the whole "terrible relationship between Obama and Netanyahu" was
manufactured by the Israel lobby to bully Obama. However these are small blips within an otherwise solid critique of the Israel lobby's
influence.
The vote came after a redoubling of threats by Nikki Haley, the US ambassador to the UN, who
said that Washington would remember which countries "disrespected" America by voting against
it.
Despite the warning, 128 members voted on Thursday in favour of the resolution supporting
the longstanding international consensus that the status of Jerusalem – which is claimed
as a capital by both Israel and the Palestinians – can only be
settled as an agreed final issue in a peace deal. Countries which voted for the resolution
included major recipients of US aid such as Egypt, Afghanistan and Iraq.
But only nine states – including the United States and Israel –voted against the
resolution. The other countries which supported Washington were Togo, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau,
Marshall Islands, Guatemala and Honduras.
'The United States will remember this day, in which it was singled out for attack in the
General Assembly for the very act of exercising our right as a sovereign nation'
To its shame, the United Nations has long been a hostile place for the state of Israel. Both
the current and the previous Secretary-Generals have objected to the UN's disproportionate
focus on Israel. It's a wrong that undermines the credibility of this institution, and that in
turn is harmful for the entire world.
I've often wondered why, in the face of such hostility, Israel has chosen to remain a member
of this body. And then I remember that Israel has chosen to remain in this institution because
it's important to stand up for yourself. Israel must stand up for its own survival as a nation;
but it also stands up for the ideals of freedom and human dignity that the United Nations is
supposed to be about.
Standing here today, being forced to defend sovereignty and the integrity of my country
– the United States of America – many of the same thoughts have come to mind. The
United States is by far the single largest contributor to the United Nations and its agencies.
We do this, in part, in order to advance our values and our interests. When that happens, our
participation in the UN produces great good for the world. Together we feed, clothe, and
educate desperate people. We nurture and sustain fragile peace in conflict areas throughout the
world. And we hold outlaw regimes accountable. We do this because it represents who we are. It
is our American way.
But we'll be honest with you. When we make generous contributions to the UN, we also have a
legitimate expectation that our good will is recognized and respected. When a nation is singled
out for attack in this organization, that nation is disrespected. What's more, that nation is
asked to pay for the "privilege" of being disrespected.
In the case of the United States, we are asked to pay more than anyone else for that dubious
privilege. Unlike in some UN member countries, the United States government is answerable to
its people. As such, we have an obligation to acknowledge when our political and financial
capital is being poorly spent.
We have an obligation to demand more for our investment. And if our investment fails, we
have an obligation to spend our resources in more productive ways. Those are the thoughts that
come to mind when we consider the resolution before us today.
The arguments about the President's decision to move the American embassy to Jerusalem have
already been made. They are by now well known. The decision was in accordance to U.S. law
dating back to 1995, and it's position has been repeatedly endorsed by the American people ever
since. The decision does not prejudge any final status issues, including Jerusalem's
boundaries. The decision does not preclude a two-state solution, if the parties agree to that.
The decision does nothing to harm peace efforts. Rather, the President's decision reflects the
will of the American people and our right as a nation to choose the location of our embassy.
There is no need to describe it further.
Instead, there is a larger point to make. The United States will remember this day in which
it was singled out for attack in the General Assembly for the very act of exercising our right
as a sovereign nation. We will remember it when we are called upon to once again make the
world's largest contribution to the United Nations. And we will remember it when so many
countries come calling on us, as they so often do, to pay even more and to use our influence
for their benefit.
America will put our embassy in Jerusalem. That is what the American people want us to do,
and it is the right thing to do. No vote in the United Nations will make any difference on
that.
But this vote will make a difference on how Americans look at the UN and on how we look at
countries who disrespect us in the UN. And this vote will be remembered.
Dump Trump, Nikki for President. If we are going to have a bullshi**er for President we might
as well have the best. THe crap she spouted makes Trump sound like a novice.
"Instead, there is a larger point to make. The United States will remember this day in which
it was singled out for attack in the General Assembly for the very act of exercising our
right as a sovereign nation."
I have lost count of how many times the US has destroyed countries, for exercising THEIR
rights as a sovereign nation. Often deceitfully and cynically using the UN as it's
instrument.
The hypocrisy is stunning. Fortunately it seems the rest of the world is coming to realize
that the US is unhinged and that trying to deal rationally with a lunatic is pointless. Watch
China and Russia make great gains globally as former US allies turn away.
I suppose that any Congressional action could be said to be a reflection of "the will" of the
American people since they are elected representatives, but, in reality, how many Americans
were even aware of the 1995 Jerusalem embassy law? How can it be said that such law has been
repeatedly "endorsed" by the American people, presumably by continuing to send people to
Congress or by the re-signing of 6-month waivers to delay sending the embassy to Jerusalem,
which has happened twice a year for over twenty years with absolutely zero discussion or
publicity?
Haley claims to speak for the American people but she is truly speaking for the grossly
powerful Israel lobby which has literally purchased its significant place at the table.
Everyone knows this, so her self-righteous remarks produce scorn and disgust.
"Israel... stands up for the ideals of freedom and human dignity... "
Haley must be talking about a different Israel from the one in the middle east.
As for the United Nations, it's about time the organisation stands up against the tyrants and
starts doing what it was created for, support global cooperation and international laws.
Apply it's rules equally: not just sanction developing countries for saying no to
exploitation by the rich ot for building their own national defense because rich and powerful
countries use aggression to get what they want.
If the United Nations were a just organisation Palestine would have become a sovereign nation
decades ago, global terrorism would not exist and no nation would develop nuclear
weapons.
But, as always, money is the driver and the US/Israel blackmailing may just succeed.
Hey Nikki - most of the world, and many of us here in the U.S. are sick and tired of the
nation's work on behalf of some mythical "values" and those ever-present "interests." We know
who you serve, and it sure as hell ain't the people of any nation. Haley is prepping for a
run at the Senate, and is setting herself up quite nicely for those big checks from Adelson.
When we pay our dues to the UN we expect to be obeyed. "We have an obligation to demand more
for our investment" - thus shrieked the incomparable Nikki Haley. If she had read Lewis
Carrol (which I doubt) she might have shortened her speech by saying "Off with their heads".
If the US thinks it can buy out the world, it is getting truly delusional. BTW, are these
128 countries now going to be sanctioned? And what after that if the world still disobeys the
mighty US?
Watch out for a blast of twitters from the USA's Twitterer-in-Chief. He will drown these 128
countries in venom and fry their Twitter accounts. The lady representing the US at the UN has
carefully prepared a list of these countries - watch out all you 128 countries. Trump and the
lady will go hopping mad - maybe we may get to see that routine - and then just you wait, you
128 countries, for the barrage of twitters that will be let loose upon you. Some day, the US
rep at the UN may even assault the reps of other countries and spit and cuss at them. Now
that would be a show worth watching!
Well that's it but don't blame Trump.
UN member states have come to the conclusion that it's now safe to rebut the United States
.
Trump in his clumsiness has only highlighted what the UN has been and that it is a corrupt
sovereign nation bribing nation states with American aid for their votes.
Reagan did it Clinton did it Bush did it Bush Senior did it and now Trump has done it.
This is Americas international policy wake up call.
Member States do not trust America any more and they could not have expressed their views any
stronger.
The British must take some blame too for riding the Tigers back for the past seventy
years.
Only psychophantics will follow these nations now.
That goes for North Korea too.
Will the UN decide now not to attack North Korea and level it to the ground with horrific
casualties for the second time.
The world has tired of Americas impudence of terror.
They should pull out of their military bases now around the world .
The countries that host them have had enough of their paranoid exceptionalism.
It's time to change direction and to defy US fiat money bribes.
Bizarre, surreal, unbelievable, jaw-dropping, astounding, mind-boggling, incomprehensible?
... Watching Ms. Haley - on behalf of Mr. Trump, Mr. Netanyahu and their bosses - continue
digging in an already deep hole of isolation leads one to ponder if the human language even
provides words sufficient for accurately describing what is occurring.
Jack
Marshall Islands - pop 53,000. In free association with USA Inc.
Nuclear test site. Most bombed country on the planet. Nuked 67 times.
Uses USD for currency.
Bikini Atoll fame. First hydrogen bomb test.
Survives on payments from uncle Sam for genocide of an island population.
Destitute and radiated with Amerikkkan values, happy Hanukka Marshall Islands
After reading the comments on this page I just can't figure out why the American voter is
always voting for the one corporate party dictatorship. Sorry to say I don't see much
difference in republicans and democrats, when it comes to wars, and Israel.
There is a reason much of the world hates Israel.......and now also they hate the US.
Dennis Morrisseau
USArmy Officer [Vietnam era] ANTI-WAR
LIBERTY UNION founder
Lieutenant Morrisseau's Rebellion
FireCongress.org
Second Vermont Republic, VFM
POB 177, W. Pawlet, VT 05775 [email protected]
802 645 9727
"... With over 10,000 dead, the conflict in Ukraine is a humanitarian travesty but of minimal security consequence to America and Europe. Indeed, Kiev's status never was key to Europe's status. An integral part of the Soviet Union and before that the Russian Empire, Ukraine turned into an unexpected bonus for the allies by seceding from the Soviet Union, greatly diminishing the latter's population and territory. Russia's seizure of Crimea and battle in the Donbass destabilized an already semi-failed state, but did not materially alter the European balance of power. Or demonstrate anything other than Moscow's brutal yet limited ambitions. ..."
"... At the same time, transferring lethal arms would divide the U.S. from European nations, many of which oppose further confrontation with Russia, especially over Ukraine. Brussels already bridled at Congress' new sanctions legislation, which passed without consulting the Europeans and targeted European firms. If Moscow responds with escalation, Washington may find no one behind it. ..."
"... Also noteworthy is the fragility of the Ukrainian state. Kiev's self-inflicted wounds are a more important cause than Russian pressure. The government is hobbled by divisions between East and West, violent neo-fascist forces, bitter political factionalism, economic failure, and pervasive corruption. The recent specter of former Georgian President and Ukrainian Governor Mikheil Saakashvili clambering across rooftops, escaping arrest, and railing against President Petro Poroshenko epitomized Ukraine's problems. Kiev, to put it mildly, is not a reliable military partner against its nuclear-armed neighbor. ..."
"... Doug Bandow is a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute and a former Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan. He is the author of Foreign Follies: America's New Global Empire (Xulon). ..."
Most Americans were told Donald Trump won the presidential election last year. But his
policy toward Russia looks suspiciously like what a President Hillary Clinton would have
pursued. Exhibit A is the apparent decision to arm Ukraine against Russia in the proxy conflict
in the Donbass. This dunderheaded move will simply encourage Moscow to retaliate not only in
Ukraine but against U.S. interests elsewhere around the globe.
With over 10,000 dead, the conflict in Ukraine is a humanitarian travesty but of minimal
security consequence to America and Europe. Indeed, Kiev's status never was key to Europe's
status. An integral part of the Soviet Union and before that the Russian Empire, Ukraine turned
into an unexpected bonus for the allies by seceding from the Soviet Union, greatly diminishing
the latter's population and territory. Russia's seizure of Crimea and battle in the Donbass
destabilized an already semi-failed state, but did not materially alter the European balance of
power. Or demonstrate anything other than Moscow's brutal yet limited ambitions.
In fact, present allied policy makes continuation of the current conflict almost inevitable.
Newly released documents demonstrate that Soviet officials reasonably believed that releasing
their Warsaw Pact captives would not lead to NATO's expansion to Russia's border. Well, well.
Look what actually happened -- the very dramatic increase in tensions that George F. Kennan
predicted would occur. For Russia sees geographical space and buffer states as critical for its
security, and none are more important than Ukraine.
Expanding NATO, disregarding Moscow's historic interests in the Balkans, dismantling onetime
Slavic ally Serbia, aiding "color revolutions" that brought anti-Russian governments to power
along its border, announcing the intention of inducting both Georgia and Ukraine into the
alliance created to confront Moscow, and finally ostentatiously backing a street revolution
against a corrupt but elected leader friendly to Russia -- going to far as to discuss who
should rule after his planned ouster -- could not help but be viewed as hostile in Moscow. One
can easily imagine how Washington would react to similar events in Canada or Mexico.
Russia's response was unjustified but efficient and, most important, limited. Moscow grabbed
Crimea, the only part of Ukraine with a majority of Russian-speakers (who probably favored
joining Russia, though the subsequent referendum occurred in what was occupied Crimea). Moscow
further backed separatists in Eastern Ukraine, perhaps in hopes of grabbing territory or merely
bleeding Kiev.
Some Western responses were near hysteria, imagining a blitzkrieg attack on Ukraine,
conquering the country. The Baltic States saw themselves as the next targets. Poland remembered
its twentieth century conflicts with Moscow. At least one observer added Finland to Moscow's
potential target list. Others worried about intimidation of allied states, borders being
withdrawn, and challenges to the European order. Some afflicted with war fever feared an
attempt to reconstitute the Soviet Union and perhaps roll west from there.
None of which happened.
Perhaps President Vladimir Putin secretly was an Adolf Hitler-wannabe but was dissuaded by
the U.S. and NATO response. However, economic sanctions and military deployments were modest.
Assistance to Ukraine did not include lethal military aid. Most likely, Putin never intended to
start World War III.
Instead, he opportunistically took advantage of the opportunity to snatch Crimea, the
territory with the closest identification with Moscow, simultaneously safeguarding the latter's
major Black Sea base, and create a frozen conflict in the Donbass, effectively preventing
Ukraine's entry into NATO. Russia's activity there also gives him an opportunity to create
additional trouble for the U.S.
Moscow's policy is unpleasant for America and Europe, but only prevents the allies from
doing that which is not in their interest: inducting a security black hole into NATO. Even
before 2014, Ukraine was a political and economic mess. While independent it mattered little
for Western security, in NATO it would bring along all of its disputes and potential conflicts
with Russia, a touchy, nationalistic nuclear power.
What State Department called "enhanced defensive capabilities," which require congressional
approval, aren't likely to raise the price of the conflict enough to force Russia to back down.
The Putin regime has far more at stake in preserving its gains than the U.S. does in reversing
them. Moscow also is better able to escalate and is likely to consistently outbid the West:
Putin's advantages include greater interests, geographic closeness, and popular support. For
Ukraine more weapons would at most mean more fighting, with little additional advantage.
Indeed, the plan to arm Kiev with weapons, especially if anti-tank missiles are included, as
news reports indicate, would risk turning the Donbass conflict from cool to warm--and perhaps
more. Ukraine already joins Russia in failing to implement the Minsk Agreement. Kiev would not
only be better armed, but might believe that it enjoyed an implicit guarantee from Washington,
which in turn would have more at stake and thus be less inclined to abandon its new
"investment." Then what if Moscow escalated? In 2014 the Putin government deployed Russian
military units to counter Ukrainian gains. Would Washington do likewise in response to
Moscow?
At the same time, transferring lethal arms would divide the U.S. from European nations,
many of which oppose further confrontation with Russia, especially over Ukraine. Brussels
already bridled at Congress' new sanctions legislation, which passed without consulting the
Europeans and targeted European firms. If Moscow responds with escalation, Washington may find
no one behind it.
Providing lethal weapons would almost certainly encourage the
Ukrainians to press for even heavier arms and escalate the fighting, as well as discourage them
from negotiating a settlement. U.S. officials refer to the weapons as defensive, but their
capabilities are not so easily compartmentalized. Said Gen. Joseph Dunford, chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff said the "ability to stop armored vehicles would be essential for them to
protect themselves." True, but the ability to disable tanks is useful on offense as well as
defense. There has been little movement in the battle line over the last couple of years. New
U.S. weapons aren't necessary to preserve the status quo. Rather, they would most help Ukraine
press harder for a military solution.
Does Kiev want to accept a compromise peace or fight on? Obama Pentagon official Michael
Carpenter said providing weapons "will be a huge boost of support to Ukraine." Moscow is not
concerned about Kiev's military potential. Russia is concerned that the U.S. and Europe say
they intend to induct Ukraine into NATO. The closer the military ties grow between America and
Ukraine, the greater Moscow's incentive to keep the conflict going. Russia also has
opportunities to retaliate against American interests elsewhere. Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey
Ryabkov said: "The United States crossed the line in a sense" and "may lead to new victims in a
country that is neighboring us." America, he added, was an "accomplice in fueling war."
That might be just talk, but Russia can provide aid, sell arms, offer political backing, and
give economic assistance in ways that hamper U.S. activities. Afghanistan, Cuba, Egypt, Iran,
North Korea, Syria, and Venezuela all provide opportunities for Russian mischief. Moscow could
refuse to back additional sanctions on Pyongyang or even provide the latter with S-400
anti-aircraft missiles.
Although limited resources constrain Moscow, politics encourages a tough response. Putin is
running for reelection but has lost support because of the Russian Federation's economic
weakness. Nationalism remains one of his strongest issues; an assault by America on Russian
interests would offer him a means to rally public support.
Also noteworthy is the fragility of the Ukrainian state. Kiev's self-inflicted wounds
are a more important cause than Russian pressure. The government is hobbled by divisions
between East and West, violent neo-fascist forces, bitter political factionalism, economic
failure, and pervasive corruption. The recent specter of former Georgian President and
Ukrainian Governor Mikheil Saakashvili clambering across rooftops, escaping arrest, and railing
against President Petro Poroshenko epitomized Ukraine's problems. Kiev, to put it mildly, is
not a reliable military partner against its nuclear-armed neighbor.
A better approach would be to negotiate for Russian de-escalation by offering to take NATO
membership for Ukraine (and Georgia) off the table. In fact, expanding the alliance is not in
America's interest: the U.S., not, say, Luxembourg, is the country expected to back up NATO's
defense promises. And neither Kiev nor Tbilisi warrants the risk of war with a great power,
especially one armed with nukes. Eliminating that possibility would reduce Moscow's incentive
to maintain a frozen conflict in the Donbass. Backing away also would create the possibility of
reversing military build-ups by both sides elsewhere, especially around Poland and the Baltic
States.
Washington and Moscow have no core security interests in conflict with each other,
especially in Ukraine. Instead of turning a peripheral security issue into a potential military
clash with Moscow, Washington should seek to trade military disengagement from Ukraine for
Russian acceptance of that nation's territorial integrity. Moscow might not agree, but the
Trump administration won't know unless it makes the offer. Right now, it doesn't seem to care
to even try. Quite the contrary.
Doug Bandow is a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute and a former Special Assistant
to President Ronald Reagan. He is the author of Foreign Follies: America's New Global Empire
(Xulon).
"I hope I'm wrong, but there's a war coming," Gen. Robert Neller told the Marines on
Thursday, according to
Military.com . "You're in a fight here, an informational fight, a political fight, by
your presence."
https://www.washingtonpost....
One can only be dumbstruck by the breathtaking arrogance and stupidity of this woman:
"What we witnessed here in the Security Council is an insult. It won't be forgotten,"
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley said after the vote, adding that it was the
first veto cast by the United States in more than six years.
"The fact that this veto is being done in defence of American sovereignty and in
defence of America's role in the Middle East peace process is not a source of embarrassment
for us; it should be an embarrassment to the remainder of the Security Council," Haley
said.
Oh, dear; America is isolated! How did this happen?
The Trump administration must have had a feeling it would go badly, and Haley must have
prepared a response to go with using the American veto; she's just not that good at thinking
on her feet. Politics One-Oh-One: never ask a question to which you do not already know the
answer.
Keep it up, America. You are pissing off Europe to the point it is asking itself, why are
we friends with this jerk? We're not there yet – the USA still has lots of money, and
too many European leaders perceive that the bloc could not survive without lovely American
money. But the progress is incrementally in that direction.
I'm really happy about this. The reason being that the mask is completely off. Nikki Haley is
the most honest UN rep America has had in a long time. Look at the exact words. The clear
meaning is that the UN (and associated international law) is, in the American view, most
emphatically not an association of equal nations bound by common rules. It's a protection
racket where little countries can be bullied by big ones, but big ones (most especially the
US) are accountable to no one. And it's an insult to even suggest that the UN might have
standing to criticize the US the same way it criticizes smaller countries. Everyone knew all
this before, but it's refreshing to see it expressed so honestly.
I absolutely agree, and the more America shits itself right in front of everyone, the better
I like it. Because it is burning all its soft-power bridges; carrots are out and the stick is
in. But quite a few countries don't care for that sort of threatening, and some among those
might even say "Or what? Like, what will you do? Impose sanctions against us? Because you are
running out of trading partners already, fuck-stick, so just keep it up and you won't have
any".
Don't be too quick. Here the OP is happy that US exceptionalism is being forced down the
world's throat. It is clear that the UN and most other "international organizations" such as
WADA, IOP, etc, are US puppets. For some reason, such organizations were trying to act
impartial during the previous cold war. During the current cold war they have no impartiality
whatsoever. So some pancake house waitress can spew all sorts of "refreshing" BS and the
"united nothings" are supposed to eat it with a smile.
I recall lots of wailing in the NATzO media before 1990 how the UN was "ineffective". They
must be all wet with glee that the current UN is nothing more than Washington's tool.
Haley has completed the transformation of diplomacy at the the UN into a farce. Its her party
and she can cry if she wants to.
The 64 nations that voted 'no,' abstained, or were not present during the UN General
Assembly's diplomatic spanking of Washington's Jerusalem move will get a "thank you"
reception from US envoy Nikki Haley.
Perhaps those unwanted miserably losers (e.g. China, Russia, most of Europe, etc.) can
have their version of the deploraball featuring sumptuous Middle East cuisine (no joke, that
would be good eatin').
India was naughty as well and Nimrata Nikki Randhawa Haley ought to have taken the Indian
ambassador's name down as well. Maybe she'll even declare she won't ever set foot in India
again. Her relatives there will breathe sighs of relief!
If you're a liberal, you might think this is great. Instead of the Neoconservatives who have been in power for the last 8 years,
we'll now have neoliberals. You may assume that "neoliberals" are new, smarter liberals -- with liberal social policies, but with
a stronger, more realistic outlook.
Nope.
In reality, neoliberalism is as dissimilar to true progressive liberal politics as neo-conservatism is to true conservative politics
(if you don't know it, most leading neoconservatives
are former followers of Trotsky
communism -- not very conservative, huh?)
For example, did you know that Ronald Reagan was a
leading neoliberal ? In the U.S., of course, he is described as the quintessential conservative. But internationally, people
understand that he really pushed neoliberal economic policies.
As former CIA counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer Philip Giraldi
writes :
Neoconservatives and neoliberals are really quite similar, so it doesn't matter who gets elected in 2008. The American public,
weary of preemptive attacks, democracy-promotion, and nation-building, will still get war either way.
And leading neo-conservative strategist Robert Kagan recently
said :
Until now the liberal West's strategy has been to try to integrate these two powers into the international liberal order, to
tame them and make them safe for liberalism."
So neoconservatives are not really conservative and neoliberals are not really liberal. But neocons and neoliberals are very similar
to each other . Neocons are a lot more similar to neoliberals than to true conservatives; neoliberass are more similar to neocons
than to real liberals.
Do you get it? Both the Republican and Democratic party are now run by people with identical agendas: make the big corporations
richer and expand the American empire.
There is only one party, which simply puts on different faces depending on which "branch" of the party is in power. If its the
Democratic branch, there is a slightly liberal social veneer to the mask: a little more funding for social programs, a little more
nice guy talk, a little more of a laissez faire attitude towards gays and minorities, and a little more patient push towards military
conquest and empire.
If its the Republican branch, there's a little more tough guy talk, quicker moves towards military empire, a little more mention
of religion, and a tad more centralization of power in the president.
But there is only a single face behind both masks: the face of raw corporatism, greed and yearning for power and empire.
Until Americans stop getting distracted by the Republican versus Democratic melodrama, America will move steadily forward towards
war, empire and -- inevitably as with any country which extends too far -- collapse.
Neoliberalism is neither "new" or liberal. Neoconservativism is neither new or conservative. They are just new labels for a very
old agenda: serving the powers-that-be, consolidating power, controlling resources. Whether the iron fist has a velvet glove on it
or not, it is still an iron fist.
A true opposition party is needed to counter the never-changing American agenda for military and corporate empire.
This article does much to confuse and disinform. NeoCons are essential modern day Fascists. If you don't recall your politics,
Fascists are to the right of Conservatives on the political spectrum. They have nothing to do with Communists who are far to the
left. During the 1930s Nazis were the NeoCons. They were Fascists, and they also had the overwhelming support of Muslims, who
are also Fascists. Today's NeoLiberals are basically Right Wing and hardly middle of the fence. There is virtually no politics
to the left of centre and this is the catalyst for massive economic stagnation, economic collapse, rapidly growing global instability,
indemic poverty, and an ongoing threat of pandemic disease and general global conflict. Until we have some form of political balance,
we're on the brink of catastrophe, and will probably end up with an enormous mess to clean up.
Fascism is statism and nothing represents the ultimate power of the state then the liberal. No liberal supports our constitution
or a smaller government . But it's innately typical of a liberal to project their agenda onto others.
Communism and Fascism are one degree apart. In Fascism, instead of the elite being part of the government, they are part of
the private sector. That is the only difference. They are both mainly concerned with consolidation of power and shaping the culture
though control of information. Internationally they operate the same as well, expanding their influence through wars of occupation.
Thank you for this article! As an author you always seem to be one step ahead of me in articles I've been planning to write!
I too have been asserting [in comments mostly at OpedNews] that the economic right political 'values' found in NeoLibs, [short
for both NeoLibertarians and Neoliberals] NeoCons, and TheoCons are predominantly the same for months now ever since these corporate
bailouts started. This author has a firm grasp on political ideologies as evidenced in his other articles correctly identifying
the now $2 trillion in US corporate bailouts as the economic policy of Fascism.
The TheoCons-NeoCons-NeoLibs have taken the country so far to the economic right and up in to an authoritarian level since
2000 that most all in the democratic party, excluding a few like Kucinich and Sanders, have moved from a 'centrist' political
ideology to an authoritarian right and moderate conservative political ideology.
Like Anna here more fully displays, the overwhelming majority of Americans just do not have a realistic grasp on global political
ideologies, much less their own personal political values. Political party indoctrination and mud slinging has the population
wrongly convinced democratic politicians are for the most part 'liberals' when they're economic right NeoLiberals and moderate
conservatives while republicans calling themselves 'conservative' are instead radically authoritarian and economic right TheoCons
and NeoCons.
When Americans don't understand their own political values, much less those of the candidate they vote for, they will continue
to make the wrong choices. This would seem to be exactly what the '1' party corporatist system wants so Americans will only continue
making the wrong choices from choosing between 'moderate conservative' Democrats like Obama-Biden, and NeoCon/TheoCon republicans
like McCain-Palin. Who better to assert this 1 party economic right NeoLiberal reality than one of the most renown liberal authors
and intellectuals than Chomsky in his recent article the Anti-Democratic Nature of US Capitalism is Being Exposed.
Chomsky cites America as a "one-party system, the business party, with two factions, Republicans and Democrats" while putting
the blame on this economic crisis where it belongs on the very people who created it, America's NeoLiberals. Anna, if you need
more proof I suggest you take a trip to the non partisan web site created by a group of doctorate degreed political ideology professors,
political experts and sociologists called Political Compass. I guarantee you these experts are far more learned than you are about
political ideologies and political values not just in the US, but around the globe. It will surely shock you to learn based on
speeches, public statements and most crucially voting records that Obama is firmly in the authoritarian right quadrant as a moderate
conservative.
There you'll see their reasons for this based on his voting record and speeches briefly cited in "While Cynthia McKinney and
Ralph Nader are depicted on the extreme left in an American context, they would simply be mainstream social democrats within the
wider political landscape of Europe.
Similarly, Obama is popularly perceived as a leftist in the United States while elsewhere in the west his record is that of
a moderate conservative. For example, in the case of the death penalty he is not an uncompromising abolitionist, while mainstream
conservatives in all other western democracies are deeply opposed to capital punishment. The Democratic party's presidential candidate
also reneged on his commitment to oppose the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. He sided with the ultra conservative bloc
in the Supreme Court against the Washington DC handgun ban and for capital punishment in child rape cases. He supports President
Bush's faith-based initiatives and is reported in Fortune to have said that NAFTA isn't so bad."A way to realistically determine
if the candidate you vote for actually represents your own political values is to take the political values test found at political
compass here and afterward learn about the inadequacies inherent in the limited age-old traditional left-right economic view of
political ideologies.
Then you Anna, along with a host of others, may actually start voting in support of candidates that factually represent your
own political values. Or you may find you really aren't this liberal you think you are after all. Regardless, only by learning
more about ones' own political values and those of the candidates Americans support will they get the political leaders, type
of leadership, and government they actually want....
Its debatable. Corporations won't be near as interested in a small government that is less willing to do favors for them. What
do you suggest as a solution to stop the advancement of corporatism? If your answer is to tax the rich more and grow the government
you would just get tyranny. Currently with big government we have both tyranny and fascism.
This is just ignorance -- the Republicans and Democrats are the same, but Sunni and Shia Islam are not just arbitrary branches
of some terrorist collective called Islam. I suggest you read more about Islam, it's extraordinarily misunderstood AND--I might
add--misinforming people about Islam is an integral part of the agenda of the corporate GOP-DEM elite. I'm not a Muslim, for the
record.
You are confusing the issue. The work neoliberal applies to an economic philosophy which is also sometimes called the Chicago
School or the Washington Consensus. It is related to what we often call globalization, and it has to to with "liberalization"
of economies, in other words privatization of publicly held industries etc. Liberal in the American political sense it totally
unrelated to neoliberal. Neoconservatism is a political philosophy that espouses vanguardism and militant foreign policy. They
are related in that their goals dove tail, kind of like apples and oranges are similar in that they are both edible.
The formal component of the Israel lobby consists of organized lobby groups , political action committees
(PACs), think tanks and
media watchdog
groups . The Center for Responsive
Politics , which tracks all lobbies and PACs, describes the 'background' of those
'Pro-Israel' as, "A nationwide network of local political action committees, generally named
after the region their donors come from, supplies much of the pro-Israel money in US politics . Additional funds
also come from individuals who bundle contributions to candidates favored by the
PACs. The donors' unified goal is to build stronger US-Israel relations and to support
Israel in its negotiations and armed conflicts with its Arab neighbors." [24]
According to Mitchell Bard, there are, three key formal lobbying groups:
A summary of pro-Israel campaign donations for the period of 1990–2008 collected by
Center
for Responsive Politics indicates current totals and a general increase in proportional
donations to the US
Republican party since 1996. [46]
The Center for Responsive Politics' 1990–2006 data shows that "pro-Israel interests have
contributed $56.8 million in individual, group and soft money donations to federal candidates
and party committees since 1990." [47]
In contrast, Arab-Americans and Muslim PACs contributed slightly less than $800,000
during the same (1990–2006) period. [48]
In 2006, 60% of the Democratic Party 's
fundraising and 25% of that for the Republican Party's fundraising came from Jewish-funded
PACs. According to a Washington Post estimate, Democratic presidential candidates depend on
Jewish sources for as much as 60% of money raised from private sources. [49]
... ... ...
AIPAC does not give donations directly to candidates, but those who donate to AIPAC are
often important political contributors in their own right. In addition, AIPAC helps connect
donors with candidates, especially to the network of pro-Israel political action committees.
AIPAC president Howard Friedman says "AIPAC meets with every candidate running for Congress.
These candidates receive in-depth briefings to help them completely understand the complexities
of Israel's predicament and that of the Middle East as a whole. We even ask each candidate to
author a 'position paper' on their views of the US-Israel relationship – so it's clear
where they stand on the subject."[43]
.... ... ...
Mearsheimer and Walt state that "pro-Israel figures have established a commanding presence
at the American Enterprise Institute, the Center for Security Policy, the Foreign Policy
Research Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Hudson Institute, the Institute for Foreign
Policy Analysis, and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA). These think
tanks are all decidedly pro-Israel and include few, if any, critics of US support for the
Jewish state."[50]
The state Department has approved the delivery to the Ukrainian army of modified 50
calibre Barrett sniper rifles, "Model M107A"
It may be related to the Model 82A1®/M107®, but the M107A1 is far from a simple
evolution. Driven by the demands of combat, every component was re-engineered to be lighter
yet stronger. Designed to be used with a suppressor, this rifle allows you to combine
signature reduction capabilities with the flawless reliability of the original Barrett M107,
but with a weight reduction of 5 pounds. Advanced design and manufacturing make the M107A1
more precise than ever.
"... North Korea's air defenses are so weak that we had to notify them we were flying B1 bombers near their airspace–they didn't even know our aircraft were coming. This reminds me of the "fearsome" Republican Guard that Saddam had in the Persian Gulf. Turns out we had total air superiority and just bombed the crap out of them and they surrendered in droves. ..."
"... We have already seen what happens when an army has huge amounts of outdated Soviet weaponry versus the most technologically advanced force in the world. It's a slaughter. Also, there has to be weaponry up the USA's sleeve that would be used in the event of an attack. Don't forget our cyber warfare abilities that would undoubtedly be implemented as well. This writer seems to always hype Russia's capabilities and denigrate the US's capabilities. Sure, Russia has the capacity to nuke the US into smithereens, and vice versa. But if its a head to head shooting war, the US and NATO would dominate. FACT. ..."
"... Commander's intent: ..."
"... Decapitate the top leadership and remove retaliatory capability. ..."
"... Massive missile/bombing campaign (including carpet) of top leadership locations, tactical missile locations and DMZ artillery belt. Destruction of surface fleet and air force. ..."
"... Advance into DMZ artillery belt up to a range of 240 mm cannon. Not further (local tactical considerations taken into account of course). ..."
"... Phase three: "break the enemy's will to fight" and destroy the "regime support infrastructure" ..."
"... I guess an American attack on North Korea would consist of preemptive strategic nuking to destroy the entire country before it can do anything. Since North Korea itself contributes essentially nothing to the world economy, no one would lose money. ..."
"... These examples perfectly illustrate the kind of mindset induced by what Professor John Marciano called "Empire as a way of life" [1] which is characterized by a set of basic characteristics: ..."
"... there has to be ..."
"... would undoubtedly ..."
"... the act of simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct, often in distinct social contexts ..."
"... A perfect illustration of that is the famous quote " it became necessary to destroy the town to save it ..."
"... I watch CNN, but I'm not sure I can tell you, the difference in Iraq and Iran, but I know Jesus and I talk to God ..."
"... this applies to the vast majority of US politicians, decision-makers and elected officials, hence Putin's remark that " It's difficult to talk with people who confuse Austria and Australia ". ..."
"... As a result, there is no more discernible US diplomacy left: all the State Department does is deliver threats, ultimatums and condemnations. Meaningful *negotiations* have basically been removed form the US foreign policy toolkit. ..."
"... That belief is also the standard cop out in any conversation of morality, ethnics, or even the notions of right and wrong. An anti-religious view par excellence . ..."
"... The US policies towards Russia, China and Iran all have the potential of resulting in a disaster of major magnitude. The world is dealing with situation in which a completely delusional regime is threatening everybody with various degrees of confrontation. This is like being in the same room with a monkey playing with a hand grenade. Except for that hand grenade is nuclear. ..."
"... This situation places a special burden of responsibility on all other nations, especially those currently in Uncle Sam's cross-hairs, to act with restraint and utmost restraint. That is not fair, but life rarely is. It is all very well and easy to declare that force must be met by force and that the Empire interprets restraint as weakness until you realize that any miscalculation can result in the death of millions of people. I am therefore very happy that the DPRK is the only country which chose to resort to a policy of hyperbolic threats while Iran, Russia and China acted, and are still acting, with the utmost restraint. ..."
"... they plan, and Allah plans. And Allah is the best of planners ..."
"... If the U.S. attacks North Korea or Iran we will become a pariah among nations (especially once the pictures start pouring in). We will be loathed. Countries may very well decide that we are not worthy of having the world's reserve currency. In that case the dollar will collapse as will our economy. ..."
"... Maybe it's just me, but it seems that NK is just another tyranny in a long list of tyrannies throughout millennia, and like all of them it will just implode on its own. Therefore, the best thing you can do is simply to ignore it (thus denying the tyrant an external threat to rally the populace) and wait for the NK people to say enough is enough. ..."
"... I agree with the logic that as Americans become dumber the ability to have a powerful military also degrades, however an increasingly declining America also makes it more dangerous. As ever more ideologues rule the corridors of power and the generally stupid population that will consent to everything they are told, America will start involving itself in ever more reckless conflicts. This means they despite being a near idiocracy, the nuclear weapons and military bases all over world make America an ever greater threat for the world ..."
My recent analysis of the potential consequences of a US attack on the DPRK has elicited a wide range of reactions. There is one
type of reaction which I find particularly interesting and most important and I would like to focus on it today: the ones which entirely
dismissed my whole argument. The following is a selection of some of the most telling reactions of this kind:
Example 1:
North Korea's air defenses are so weak that we had to notify them we were flying B1 bombers near their airspace–they didn't
even know our aircraft were coming. This reminds me of the "fearsome" Republican Guard that Saddam had in the Persian Gulf. Turns
out we had total air superiority and just bombed the crap out of them and they surrendered in droves.
We have already seen what happens when an army has huge amounts of outdated Soviet weaponry versus the most technologically
advanced force in the world. It's a slaughter. Also, there has to be weaponry up the USA's sleeve that would be used in the event
of an attack. Don't forget our cyber warfare abilities that would undoubtedly be implemented as well. This writer seems to always
hype Russia's capabilities and denigrate the US's capabilities. Sure, Russia has the capacity to nuke the US into smithereens,
and vice versa. But if its a head to head shooting war, the US and NATO would dominate. FACT.
Example 2:
Commander's intent:
Decapitate the top leadership and remove retaliatory capability.
Execution:
Phase one:
Massive missile/bombing campaign (including carpet) of top leadership locations, tactical missile locations and DMZ artillery
belt. Destruction of surface fleet and air force.
Phase two:
Advance into DMZ artillery belt up to a range of 240 mm cannon. Not further (local tactical considerations taken into account
of course).
Phase three: "break the enemy's will to fight" and destroy the "regime support infrastructure"
Phase four: Regime change.
There you go .
Example 3:
I guess an American attack on North Korea would consist of preemptive strategic nuking to destroy the entire country before
it can do anything. Since North Korea itself contributes essentially nothing to the world economy, no one would lose money.
These examples perfectly illustrate the kind of mindset induced by what
Professor John Marciano called "Empire as a way of life"
[1] which is characterized
by a set of basic characteristics:
First foremost, simple, very simple one-sentence "arguments" . Gone are the days when argument were built in some logical sequence,
when facts were established, then evaluated for their accuracy and relevance, then analyzed and then conclusions presented. Where
in the past one argument per page or paragraph constituted the norm, we now have tweet-like 140 character statements which are more
akin to shouted slogans than to arguments (no wonder that tweeting is something a bird does – hence the expression "bird brain").
You will see that kind of person writing what initially appears to be a paragraph, but when you look closer you realize that the
paragraph is really little more than a sequence of independent statements and not really an argument of any type. A quasi-religious
belief in one's superiority which is accepted as axiomatic .
Nothing new here: the Communists considered themselves as the superior for class reasons, the Nazis by reason of racial superiority,
the US Americans just "because" – no explanation offered (I am not sure that this constitutes of form of progress). In the US case,
that superiority is cultural, political, financial and, sometimes but not always, racial. This superiority is also technological,
hence the " there has to be " or the " would undoubtedly " in the example #1 above. This is pure faith and not
something which can be challenged by fact or logic. Contempt for all others . This really flows from #2 above. Example 3 basically
declares all of North Korea (including its people) as worthless. This is where all the expressions like "sand niggers" "hadjis" and
other "gooks" come from: the dehumanization of the "others" as a preparation for their for mass slaughter. Notice how in the example
#2 the DPRK leaders are assumed to be totally impotent, dull and, above all, passive.
The notion that they might do something unexpected is never even considered (a classical recipe for military disaster, but more
about that later). Contempt for rules, norms and laws . This notion is well expressed by the famous US 19th century slogan of "
my country, right or wrong " but goes far
beyond that as it also includes the belief that the USA has God-given (or equivalent) right to ignore international law, the public
opinion of the rest of the planet or even the values underlying the documents which founded the USA. In fact, in the logic of such
imperial drone the belief in US superiority actually serves as a premise to the conclusion that the USA has a "mission" or a "responsibility"
to rule the world. This is "might makes right" elevated to the rank of dogma and, therefore, never challenged. A very high reliance
on doublethink . Doublethink defined by Wikipedia as " the act of simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs
as correct, often in distinct social contexts ".
A perfect illustration of that is the famous quote " it became necessary
to destroy the town to save it ". Most US Americans are aware of the fact that US policies have resulted in them being hated
worldwide, even amongst putatively allied or "protected" countries such as South Korea, Israel, Germany or Japan. Yet at the very
same time, they continue to think that the USA should "defend" "allies", even if the latter can't wait for Uncle Sam's soldiers to
pack and leave. Doublethink is also what makes it possible for ideological drones to be aware of the fact that the US has become
a subservient Israeli colony while, at the same time, arguing for the support and financing of Israel.
As a result, there is no more discernible US diplomacy left: all the State Department does is deliver threats, ultimatums and
condemnations. Meaningful *negotiations* have basically been removed form the US foreign policy toolkit.
A totally uncritical acceptance
of ideologically correct narratives even when they are self-evidently nonsensical to an even superficial critical analysis. An great
example of this kind of self-evidently stupid stories is all the nonsense about the Russians trying to meddle in US elections or
the latest
hysteria about relatively small-size military exercises in Russia .
The acceptance of the official 9/11 narrative is a perfect
example of that. Something repeated by the "respectable" Ziomedia is accepted as dogma, no matter how self-evidently stupid. A profound
belief that everything is measured in dollars . From this flow a number of corollary beliefs such as "US weapons are most expensive,
they are therefore superior" or "everybody has his price" [aka "whom we can't kill we will simply buy"]. In my experience folks like
these are absolutely unable to even imagine that some people might not motivated by greed or other egoistic interests: ideological
drones project their own primitive motives unto everybody else with total confidence.
That belief is also the standard cop out in
any conversation of morality, ethnics, or even the notions of right and wrong. An anti-religious view par excellence .
Notice the total absence of any more complex consideration which might require some degree of knowledge or expertise: the imperial
mindset is not only ignoramus-compatible, it is ignoramus based . This is what Orwell was referring to in his famous book 1984 with
the slogan "Ignorance is Strength". However, it goes way beyond simple ignorance of facts and includes the ability to "think in slogans"
(example #2 is a prefect example of this).
There are, of course, many more psychological characteristics for the perfect "ideological drone", but the ones above already
paint a pretty decent picture of the kind of person I am sure we all have seen many times over. What is crucial to understand about
them is that even though they are far from being a majority, they compensate for that with a tremendous motivational drive. It might
be due to a need to repeatedly reassert their certitudes or a way to cope with some deep-seated cognitive dissonance, but in my experience
folks like that have energy levels that many sane people would envy. This is absolutely crucial to how the Empire, and any other
oppressive regime, works: by repressing those who can understand a complex argument by means of those who cannot. Let me explain:
Unless there are mechanisms set in to prevent that, in a debate/dispute between an educated and intelligent person and an ideological
drone the latter will always prevail because of the immense advantage the latter has over the former. Indeed, while the educated
and intelligent person will be able to immediately identify numerous factual and logical gaps in his opponent's arguments, he will
always need far more "space" to debunk the nonsense spewed by the drone than the drone who will simply dismiss every argument with
one or several slogans. This is why I personally never debate or even talk with such people: it is utterly pointless.
As a result, a fact-based and logical argument now gets the same consideration and treatment as a collection of nonsensical slogans
(political correctness mercilessly enforces that principle: you can't call an idiot and idiot any more). Falling education standards
have resulted in a dramatic degradation of the public debate: to be well-educated, well-read, well-traveled, to speak several languages
and feel comfortable in different cultures used to be considered a prerequisite to expressing an opinion, now they are all treated
as superfluous and even useless characteristics. Actual, formal, expertise in a topic is now becoming extremely rare. A most interesting
kind of illustration of this point can be found in this truly amazing video posted by Peter Schiff:
One could be tempted to conclude that this kind of 'debating' is a Black issue. It is not. The three quotes given at the beginning
of this article are a good reminder of this (unless, of course, they were all written by Blacks, which we have no reason to believe).
Twitter might have done to minds what MTV has done to rock music: laid total waste to it.
Consequences:
There are a number of important consequences from the presence of such ideological drones in any society. The first one is that
any ideology-based regime will always and easily find numerous spontaneous supporters who willingly collaborate with it. Combined
with a completely subservient media, such drones form the rontline force of any ideological debate. For instance, a journalist can
always be certain to easily find a done to interview, just as a politician can count on them to support him during a public speech
or debate. The truth is that, unfortunately, we live in a society that places much more emphasis on the right to have an opinion
than on the actual ability to form one .
By the way, the intellectually challenged always find a natural ally in the coward and the "follower" (as opposed to "leader types")
because it is always much easier and safer to follow the herd and support the regime in power than to oppose it. You will always
see "stupid drones" backed by "coward drones". As for the politicians , they naturally cater to all types of drones since they always
provide a much bigger "bang for the buck" than those inclined to critical thinking whose loyalty to whatever "cause" is always dubious.
The drone-type of mindset also comes with some major weaknesses including a very high degree of predictability, an inability to
learn from past mistakes, an inability to imagine somebody operating with a completely different set of motives and many others.
One of the most interesting ones for those who actively resist the AngloZionist Empire is that the ideological drone has very little
staying power because as soon as the real world, in all its beauty and complexity, comes crashing through the door of the drone's
delusional and narrow imagination his cocky arrogance is almost instantaneously replaced by a total sense of panic and despair. I
have had the chance to speak Russian officers who were present during the initial interrogation of US POWs in Iraq and they were
absolutely amazed at how terrified and broken the US POWs immediately became (even though they were not mistreated in any way). It
was as if they had no sense of risk at all, until it was too late and they were captured, at which point they inner strength instantly
gave way abject terror. This is one of the reasons that the Empire cannot afford a protracted war: not because of casualty aversion
as some suggest, but to keep the imperial delusions/illusions unchallenged by reality . As long as the defeat can be hidden or explained
away, the Empire can fight on, but as soon as it becomes impossible to obfuscate the disaster the Empire has to simply declare victory
and leave.
Thus we have a paradox here: the US military is superbly skilled at killing people in large numbers, but but not at winning wars
. And yet, because this latter fact is easily dismissed on grounds #2 #5 and #7 above (all of them, really), failing to actually
win wars does not really affect the US determination to initiate new wars, even potentially very dangerous ones. I would even argue
that each defeat even strengthens the Empire's desire to show it power by hoping to finally identify one victim small enough to be
convincingly defeated. The perfect example of that was Ronald Reagan's decision to invade Grenada right after the US Marines barracks
bombing in Beirut. The fact that the invasion of Grenada was one of the worst military operations in world history did not prevent
the US government from handing out more medals for it than the total number of people involved – such is the power of the drone-mindset!
We have another paradox here: history shows that if the US gets entangled in a military conflict it is most likely to end up defeated
(if "not winning" is accepted as a euphemism for "losing"). And yet, the United States are also extremely hard to deter. This is
not just a case of " Fools rush
in where angels fear to tread " but the direct result of a form of conditioning which begins in grade schools. From the point
of view of an empire, repeated but successfully concealed defeats are much preferable to the kind of mental paralysis induced in
drone populations, at least temporarily, by well-publicized defeats . Likewise, when the loss of face is seen as a calamity much
worse than body bags, lessons from the past are learned by academics and specialists, but not by the nation as a whole (there are
numerous US academics and officers who have always known all of what I describe above, in fact – they were the ones who first taught
me about it!).
If this was only limited to low-IQ drones this would not be as dangerous, but the problem is that words have their own power and
that politicians and ideological drones jointly form a self-feeding positive feedback loop when the former lie to the latter only
to then be bound by what they said which, in turn, brings them to join the ideological drones in a self-enclosed pseudo-reality of
their own.
What all this means for North Korea and the rest of us
I hate to admit it, but I have to concede that there is a good argument to be made that all the over-the-top grandstanding and
threatening by the North Koreans does make sense, at least to some degree. While for an educated and intelligent person threatening
the continental United States with nuclear strikes might appear as the epitome of irresponsibility, this might well be the only way
to warn the ideological drone types of the potential consequences of a US attack on the DPRK. Think of it: if you had to deter somebody
with the set of beliefs outlined in #1 through #8 above, would you rather explain that a war on the Korean Peninsula would immediately
involve the entire region or simple say "them crazy gook guys might just nuke the shit out of you!"? I think that the North Koreans
might be forgiven for thinking that an ideological drone can only be deterred by primitive and vastly exaggerated threats.
Still, my strictly personal conclusion is that ideological drones are pretty much "argument proof" and that they cannot be swayed
neither by primitive nor by sophisticated arguments. This is why I personally never directly engage them. But this is hardly an option
for a country desperate to avoid a devastating war (the North Koreans have no illusions on that account as they, unlike most US Americans,
remember the previous war in Korea).
But here is the worst aspect of it all: this is not only a North Korean problem
The US policies towards Russia, China and Iran all have the potential of resulting in a disaster of major magnitude. The world
is dealing with situation in which a completely delusional regime is threatening everybody with various degrees of confrontation.
This is like being in the same room with a monkey playing with a hand grenade. Except for that hand grenade is nuclear.
This situation places a special burden of responsibility on all other nations, especially those currently in Uncle Sam's cross-hairs,
to act with restraint and utmost restraint. That is not fair, but life rarely is. It is all very well and easy to declare that force
must be met by force and that the Empire interprets restraint as weakness until you realize that any miscalculation can result in
the death of millions of people. I am therefore very happy that the DPRK is the only country which chose to resort to a policy of
hyperbolic threats while Iran, Russia and China acted, and are still acting, with the utmost restraint.
In practical terms, there is no way for the rest of the planet to disarm the monkey. The only option is therefore to incapacitate
the monkey itself or, alternatively, to create the conditions in which the monkey will be too busy with something else to pay attention
to his grenade. An internal political crisis triggered by an external military defeat remains, I believe, the most likely and desirable
scenario (see here if that
topic is of interest to you). Still, the future is impossible to predict and, as the Quran says, " they plan, and Allah plans.
And Allah is the best of planners ". All we can do is try to mitigate the impact of the ideological drones on our society as
much as we can, primarily by *not* engaging them and limiting our interaction with those still capable of critical thought. It is
by excluding ideological drones from the debate about the future of our world that we can create a better environment for those truly
seeking solutions to our current predicament.
-- -- -
1. If you have not listened to his lectures on this topic, which I highly recommend, you can find them here:
If the U.S. attacks North Korea or Iran we will become a pariah among nations (especially once the pictures start pouring in).
We will be loathed. Countries may very well decide that we are not worthy of having the world's reserve currency. In that case
the dollar will collapse as will our economy.
North Korea is a nationalistic country that traces their race back to antiquity. America on the other hand is a degenerated country
that is ruled over by Jews. The flag waving American s may call the Koreans gooks but if we apply the American racial ideology
on themselves, the Americans are the the 56percent Untermensch. While the north Koreans are superior for having rejected modern
degeneracy.
A key point, which signifies a serious cultural degeneration from values of chivalry and honoring the opposite side to a very
Asiatic MO which absolutely rules current US establishment. This, and, of course, complete detachment from the realities of the
warfare.
It is all talk, because China makes them invulnerable to sanctions and NK has nukes. The US will have to go to China to deal with
NK and China will want to continue economically raping the US in exchange. That is why China gave NK an H bomb and ICBM tech (
it's known to have gave those same things to Pakistan). The real action will be in the Middle East. The Saudi are counting on
the US giving them CO2 fracking in the future, and Iran being toppled soon. William S. Lind says Iran will be hit by Trump and
Israel will use the ensuing chaos to expel the West Bank Palestinians (back to the country whose passports they travel on).
Maybe it's just me, but it seems that NK is just another tyranny in a long list of tyrannies throughout millennia, and
like all of them it will just implode on its own. Therefore, the best thing you can do is simply to ignore it (thus denying the
tyrant an external threat to rally the populace) and wait for the NK people to say enough is enough.
There's no doubt in my mind that Kim will end up like Nikolae Ceaușescu in Romania, put up against a wall by his own military
and shot on TV. All anyone has to do is be patient and not drink the Rah-Rah Kool-Aid.*
Just a thought.
VicB3
*Was talking with a 82nd Major at the Starbucks, and mentioned NK, Ceausecu, sitting tight, etc. (Mentioned we might help things
along by blanketing the whole country with netbooks, wi-fi, and even small arms.) Got the careerist ladder- climber standard response
of how advanced our weapons are, the people in charge know what they're doing, blah blah blah. Wouldn't even consider an alternative
view (and didn't know or understand half of what I was talking about). It was the same response I got from an Air Force Colonel
before the U.S. went into Afghanistan and Iraq and I told him the whole thing was/would be insanely stupid.
His party-line team-player response was when I knew for certain that any action in NK would/will fail spectacularly for the
U.S., possibly even resulting in and economic collapse and civil war/revolution on this end.
Excellent post. But the US public education "system", while awful, is not the main reason that America is increasingly packed
with drones and idiots. IQ is decreasing rapidly, as revealed in the College Board's data on SAT scores over the last 60 years
.In addition, Dr. James Thompson has a Dec.15 post on Unz that shows a shocking decline in the ability of UK children to understand
basic principles of physics, which are usually acquired on a developmental curve. Mike Judge's movie 'Idiocracy' appears to have
been set unrealistically far in the future ..
In short, the current situation can and will get a lot worse in America. On the other hand, America's armed forces will be deteriorating
apace, so they are becoming less dangerous to the rest of the world.
The good thing about democracy is that anyone can express an opinion. The bad thing about democracy is that anyone can express
an opinion. I have to laugh at all the internet commandos and wannabe Napoleons that roost on the internet giving us their advice.
It's easy to cherrypick opinions that range from uninformed to downright stupid and bizarre. Those people don't actually run anything
though, fortunately. Keep in mind that half the population is mentally average or below average and that average is quite mediocre.
Throw in a few degrees above mediocre and you've got a majority, a majority that can and is regularly bamboozled. The majority
of the population is just there to pay taxes and provide cannon fodder, that's all, like a farmer's herd of cows provides for
his support. Ideological drones are desired in this case. It's my suspicion that the educational system is geared towards producing
such a product as well as all other aspects of popular culture also induce stupefying effects. Insofar as American policy goes,
look at what it actually does rather than what it says, the latter being a form of show biz playing to a domestic audience. I
just skip the more obnoxious commenters since they're just annoying and add nothing but confusion to any discussion.
but it seems that NK is just another tyranny in a long list of tyrannies throughout millennia, and like all of them it will
just implode on its own
.
There's no doubt in my mind that Kim will end up like Nikolae Ceaușescu in Romania, put up against a wall by his own military
and shot on TV.
All things come to an end eventually, and I agree with you that the best course of action for the US over NK would be to leave
it alone (and stop poking it), but this idea that "tyrannies always collapse" seems pretty unsupported by reality.
Off the top of my head all of the following autocrats died more or less peacefully in office and handed their "tyranny" on
intact to a successor, just in the past few decades: Mao, Castro, Franco, Stalin, Assad senior, two successive Kims (so much for
the assumption that the latest Kim will necessarily end up like Ceausescu). In the past, if a tyrant and his tyranny lasted long
enough and arranged a good succession, it often came to be remembered as a golden age, as with the Roman, Augustus.
I suspect it might be a matter of you having a rather selective idea of what counts as a tyranny (I wouldn't count Franco in
that list, myself, but establishment opinion is against me there, I think). You might be selectively remembering only the tyrannies
that came to a bad end.
so they are becoming less dangerous to the rest of the world
I agree with the logic that as Americans become dumber the ability to have a powerful military also degrades, however an
increasingly declining America also makes it more dangerous. As ever more ideologues rule the corridors of power and the generally
stupid population that will consent to everything they are told, America will start involving itself in ever more reckless conflicts.
This means they despite being a near idiocracy, the nuclear weapons and military bases all over world make America an ever greater
threat for the world.
The good thing about democracy is that anyone can express an opinion.
Not sure if this is a joke or not. In case you are serious, you clearly have not been following the news, from USA to Germany
all these so called democracies have been undertaking massive censorship operations. From jailing people to shutting down online
conversations to ordering news to not report on things that threaten their power.
A bizarre posting utterly detached from reality. Don't you understand that if a blustering lunatic presses a megaton-pistol against
our collective foreheads and threatens to pull the trigger, it represents a very disquieting situation? And if we contemplate
actions that would cause a million utterly harmless and innocent Koreans to be incinerated, to prevent a million of our own brains
from being blown out, aren't we allowed to do so without being accused of being vile bigots that think yellow gook lives are worthless?
Aren't we entitled to any instinct of self preservation at all?
What the Korean situation obviously entails is a high-stakes experiment in human psychology. All that attention-seeking little
freak probably wants is to be treated with respect, and like somebody important. Trump started out in a sensible way, by treating
Kim courteously, but for that he was pilloried by the insanely-partisan opposition within his own party – McCain I'm mainly thinking
of. That's the true obstacle to a sane resolution of the problem. I say if the twerp would feel good if we gave him a tickertape
parade down Fifth Avenue and a day pass to Disneyland, we should do so – it's small enough a concession in view of what's at stake.
But if rabid congress-critters obstruct propitiation, then intimidation and even preemptive megadeath may be all that's left.
I suspect the true conversation about the topic will start when all that becomes really serious. I mean more serious than posting
the latest selfie on a Facebook. Hangs around that warhead miniaturization/hardening timetable, IMHO. Maybe too late then.
Also, one man's tyranny is another mans return to stability. For better or worse, Mao got rid of the Warlords. Franco got rid
of the Communists and kept Spain out of WWII. The Assads are Baath Party and both secular and modernizers.
Stalin? Depends on who you talk to, but the Russians do like a strong hand.
Kim? His people only have to look West to China and Russia, or def. to the South, to know that things could be much better.
And more and more he can't control the flow of information. That, and the rank and file of his army have roundworms. And guns.
At some point, the light comes on. And that same rank and file with guns tells itself "You know, we could be doing better."
Double think is not just a question of ignorance or self contradiction because often it's important to make people embrace COMPLEXITY
instead CONFUSION believing the late it's basically the first
Saker and his legion of fanboys here didn't "attack" the text but the writer.
In the first place, there's nothing in the text to "attack". It's a laundry list of disconnected slogans and so is not a different
point of view at all. Released from the confines of the author's gamer world, it evaporates into nothing. I pointed this out to
you at some length elsewhere.
In the second, it appears you missed the point of the article. Hint: it's stated in the title. The article's about the mindsets
of the authors of such "texts", and not about the texts themselves.
It appears that I am sort of a "dissident" here.
You flatter yourself. To be a dissident requires, at the very least, comprehension of the argument one is disagreeing with.
Your "texts" are the equivalent of shouting slogans and waving placards. It may work for a street protest, but is totally out
of place on a webzine discussion forum. Hence your screeds here do not constitute real dissension, but trolling.
Hours after Haley tweeted "We appreciate these
countries for not falling to the irresponsible ways of the UN," Voice of America's UN
correspondent Margaret Besheer posted an
electronic version of the invitation to twitter, which reads "Save the Date: The Honorable
Nikki R. Haley, Permanent Representative United States Mission to the United Nations invites
you to a reception to thank you for your friendship to the United States, Wednesday, January 3,
2018 6:00-8:00p.m. Formal Invitation to Follow."
US Ambassador Nikki Haley invites the 64 countries who voted 'no', abstained or didn't show up
for UNGA Jerusalem resolution to "friendship" party.
Naturally our first thought is that it sounds like it's going to be a pretty sad and deeply
awkward party. After all only 9 actually voted with the United States, and 35 were absentions,
leaving all the rest as no-shows. So even the majority of the 64 "friends" on the invitation
list were a bit too embarrassed to fully step up for their "friend" the first time around - why
would they then attend what sounds like a literal pity party for the losing side?
Perhaps the absentions will quietly show up trying to fit in at the "cool party" for the
winning team, wherever that may be. Newsweek has likened the invitation for making into the
'nice' column of the White House's "naughty or nice" list
.
And concerning what could very well comprise the "VIP part" of the invitation list - only
Israel, Honduras, Togo, U.S., Palau, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Guatemala voted
against the Jerusalem resolution to condemn the US move to recognize the city as the capital of
Israel and relocate the American embassy there. Two-thirds of UN member states including
Germany, France, Italy, Netherlands, Belgium, Portugal, Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, Spain and
Greece voted in favor of the resolution.
Notably, Canada abstained, which is sure going to make the "friendship to the United States"
party extra stiff and awkward the moment the Canadian delegation walks through the door.
And who knows, perhaps a few of those countries that did vote 'no' alongside the US did so
because prior to the vote both President Trump and Nikki Haley threatened to cut aid to
countries failing to support the controversial US decision (well actually many are sparsely
populated micronations who have long essentially been dependencies of the US government).
Haley's
parting speech after the vote took on a threatening tone as well, as despite being isolated
by virtually the entire international community, she warned the international body that the
U.S. would remember the vote as a betrayal by the U.N., and that the vote would do nothing to
affect the Trump administration's decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital and move
its embassy there.
Haley reminded UN members of the US' generous contributions to the organization and said
that the United States expects its will to be respected in return. "When we make a generous
contributions to the UN, we also have a legitimate expectation that our goodwill is recognized
and respected," Haley said, adding that the vote will be "remembered" by the US and "make a
difference on how the Americans look at the UN."
And with all that parting drama, regarding Nikki's upcoming "friendship" party, it would be
great to be a fly on the wall for the event... or, perhaps it'll be too awkward even for the
flies.
this is yet another divide and conquer wedge issue. If you are against it they will label
you "unpatriotic anti-trump muslim-loving commie bolshevik." The cognitive dissonance is so
dense it's creating a vortex.
What a pathetic joke we've become on the international circuit. I loved the idea of #MAGA
and America first. But this? We're the laughing stock of international diplomacy.
U.S. Gives Financial Aid to 96% of All Countries. According to the federal government, for
fiscal year 2012, "The United States remained the world's largest bilateral donor, obligating
approximately $48.4 billion -- $31.2 billion in economic assistance and $17.2 billion in
military assistance." Oct 15, 2014
Merry Christmas we have decided to split $50 billion bewtween you 64.
You forgot it was the United State sand NO ONE ELSE who was pressing for the creation of
the United Nations. It is and always was an instrument for US control of it's mercantilist
policies. We gave money to South America and Africa and the Middel East out of the goodness
of our heart or in order to install regimes that allowed us to exploit their natural
resources?
You forgot it was the United State and NO ONE ELSE who was pressing for the creation of
the United Nations. It is and always was an instrument for US control of it's mercantilist
policies. We gave money to South America and Africa and the Middel East out of the goodness
of our heart or in order to install regimes that allowed us to exploit their natural
resources?
Astonishing reduction in death from famine versus previous centuries?
Education programs worldwide.
Population control programs.
I have worked many times with the UN in my career so I know what a sham it can be. But it
is an international institution that has prevented a major world or regional war since its
inception. You might be too young to know the seventies and eighties, but the UN served a
very useful purpose in giving a forum to argue between the world powers.
Trumpeteers call the UN a sham because the UN is not a US department. That is the entire
point. If you want war and to continue building the empire, just quit the UN. Cast off the
sheep's clothing and admit that the US is a violent, expansionist nation of thugs and
xenophobes.
I think what bothers Trumpeteers and right wing Americans the most about the UN is that it
costs money but the benefits are hard to measure. And Americans have no interest any more in
spending money to help people. Charity starts at home! Jesus was a white man. Death to
unbelievers. Fuck the poor and downtrodden. All of this is American zeitgeist. For years
Americans thought these things but did not dare to shout them out loud. Now Trump. a man with
no mental control over his words, shouts these things and Americans feel empowered. So fuck
the UN and all the money-grubbing poor people. Let them starve. And if they dare turn to
China or Russia we will bomb the shit out of them...in the name of democracy.
you can spout "MAGA" and "The UN sucks", but until you actually provide facts and
acknowledge facts, you look like any of the other mullet-headed, ignorant fuckheads here on
ZH.
There should be a major shakeup in the Trump team coming up imminently.
Those that put the bug in the President's ear concerning this fiasco creating move of our
embassy to Jewrusalem or on the other hand those that failed to stop him if he was set on
doing it.
We look like fools on the international stage
An interesting aside is the reaction of our main stream media to this whole affair.
The Donald trying to squeeze the UN. Vote our way or take the well known highway. Not bad
coming from the exceptional demockracy,,, the indispensable nation,,, leader of the Fee
world. Haley in an embarrassment to the US and to the species.
Worse,,, Many Americans have no problem with it. Hell, they screw each other on a daily
basis. In fact it's about the only way to make a buck these days,,, Ask the stooges at Ebay
or Amazon selling imported junk or any lawyer or MD. The sickness just never ends.
The Donald trying to squeeze the UN. Vote our way or take the well known highway. Not bad
coming from the exceptional demockracy,,, the indispensable nation,,, leader of the Fee
world. Haley in an embarrassment to the US and to the species.
Worse,,, Many Americans have no problem with it. Hell, they screw each other on a daily
basis. In fact it's about the only way to make a buck these days,,, Ask the stooges at Ebay
or Amazon selling imported junk or any lawyer or MD. The sickness just never ends.
The seven countries that sided Thursday with the United States and Israel on a U.N.
General Assembly resolution declaring "null and void" of Trump's Jerusalem Israel capital
1. Guatemala
2. Honduras
3. Marshall Islands
4. Micronesia
5. Nauru
6. Palau
7. Togo
35 creepy abstenshines.
Add U$A and I$$rahell to the seven comes 9 countries in fevour of.
Hellish repeatedly claimed that the move<<<for them to move the capital to
Jerusalem>>> was because of the will of Americans!
Question:
is Americans=Zionist/deep-state/
or
name exactly just one citizenry who happen beg Niki/Orange to trouble themselves.
Motherfuckers, they even said irrespective of the
UN votes resounding rejection, they gonna just ignore and move the USA embassy to
Jerusalem from Tel Aviv.
And not surprisingly the bibi whore played guilty trip and claimed the rejection was
disrespecting to the USA.
Lying , pricks super Psychopath.Bibi also confirmed he doesn't care the vote,implying they
gonna punish UN by pulling out U$A $$$$ supply?
How the world gonna see these outragious move? Silently ?
For those who dont understand, this is psychological warfare they will now try to run for
a while. Most of this will be actually happening in private talks between 2, kind of "you can
be part of us and benefit, rather than be on your own where we cannot guarantee your
country's future" - type of talk. When you see sometimes in the future significant number of
UN's reversal on this stance, you will know what I was talking about. Probably terms like
"surprise" will be used in the news headlines.
He wouldn't dare. Most US foreign aid consists of gift cards for shopping at Uncle Sam's
Arms Emporium . The rest, like food and medical aid, are just cover ops for the CIA station
chiefs. You think he's going to go against the MIC/CIA?
"... the numbers of America fans have plummeted, while the percentage of Russians with actively negative views emerged essentially out of nowhere to constitute majority opinion. ..."
"... For their part, Americans would have to acknowledge that Russians do not have a kneejerk hatred of America, and that the "loss of Russia" was largely of their own doing. ..."
"... The arrogant refusal to take into account Russian interests after the Cold War, instead bombing their allies, expanding NATO to Russian borders in contravention of verbal commitments made to the USSR, and for all intents and purposes treating it as a defeated Power, may have made sense when it seemed that the US would be the world's dominant hyperpower for the foreseeable future and Russia was doomed to die anyway – as was conventional wisdom by the late 1990s. ..."
At the tail end of the Cold War, there was an incredible atmosphere of Americanophilia
throughout the USSR, including amongst Russians.
Blue – approve of USA; orange – disapprove.
Around 75%-80% of Russians approved of the United States around 1990, versus <10%
disapproval.
By
modern standards , this would have put Russia into the top leagues of America fans , such
as Poland, Israel, and the United Kingdom. It was also around 10%-15% points higher than contemporary US approval of
Russia.
The blogger genby dug
up a VCIOM poll
from 1990 asking Russians – that is, Russians within the RSFSR, i.e. the territory of
the modern day Russian Federation – what they thought about Americans.
The poll was redone in 2015, keeping the same questions, which allows a direct comparison
between the two dates.
What in your opinion characterizes the United States?
1990
2015
High criminality and moral degradation
1
15
No warmth in people's relations
1
15
High living standards
35
12
Large gap between rich and poor
5
11
Racial discrimination
1
9
Highly developed science and technology
15
7
Success depends on personal effort
20
7
Free society
13
5
Other
.
6
Can't say for sure
10
12
I would wager Russian opinions on America were more positive c.1990 than the opinions of the
average American on his own country today!
Is US government friendly or hostile to Russia?
1990
2015
Friendly
35
3
Not very friendly
40
32
Hostile
2
59
Can't say
23
6
These results speak for themselves and hardly need more commentary.
Nowadays, of course, things are rather different. Suffice to say the numbers of America fans
have plummeted, while the percentage of Russians with actively negative views emerged essentially out of nowhere to constitute majority opinion.
What I think is more significant is that nobody likes to talk about it now, because it
reflects badly on pretty much everyone.
Russians would have to acknowledge that they were naive idiots who threw away an empire
centuries in the making to end up within the borders of old Muscovy in exchange for jeans and
"common human values."
These figures testify to the complete and utter failure of Soviet
propaganda, which spent decades spinning tales about American criminality, unemployment, and
lynched Negroes only to end up with a society with some of the most Americanophile sentiments
in the entire world.
It also makes it much harder to scapegoat Gorbachev, or the mythical
saboteurs and CIA agents in power that feature prominently in sovok conspiracy theories, for
unraveling the Soviet Union, when ordinary Soviets themselves considered America the next best
thing since Lenin
and the US government to be their friend.
For their part, Americans would have to acknowledge that Russians do not have a kneejerk
hatred of America, and that the "loss of Russia" was largely of their own doing.
The arrogant
refusal to take into account Russian interests after the Cold War, instead bombing their
allies, expanding NATO to Russian borders
in contravention of verbal commitments made to the USSR, and for all intents and purposes
treating it as a defeated Power, may have made sense when it seemed that the US would be the
world's dominant hyperpower for the foreseeable future and Russia was doomed to die anyway
– as was conventional wisdom by the late 1990s. And from a purely Realpolitik
perspective, the results have hardly been catastrophic; the US gained a geopolitical foothold
in Eastern Europe, tied up further European integration into an Atlantic framework, and closed
off the possibility of the "Europe from Lisbon to Vladivostok" envisaged by Charles de Gaulle.
On the other hand, in a world where China is fast becoming a peer competitor – with the
implicit backing of a resentful Russia – this may, in retrospect, not have been the best
long-term play.
Well, this Americanophobia plays well for Americans, who afford a new arms race. Yes, you may
think that America is deep in debt, but its creditors see it as an investment. When the
Exxons of the West will milk the Siberian mineral riches, America will pay everything back.
The alternative, a world where they would invest in Rosneft in order to get a share of the
plunder of, idk, Gulf of Mexico, is silly. As we saw in the 80′s, the best form of war
against Russia is not to bomb and starve Moscow. That won't scare the locals. Let Kremlin do
it instead.
If Putin is not careful, if he doesn't go low tech, low cost, the Americans will win the
long game.
Russians would have to acknowledge that they were naive idiots who threw away an empire
centuries in the making to end up within the borders of old Muscovy in exchange for jeans and
"common human values."
Your 'empire' fell to pieces as rapidly as the Hapsburgs' in 1918 and you had to expend
handsome sums in an attempt just to hold onto Chechenya (populaiton 1.1 million). You have
150 million people as is and can do without having to stomp on recalcitrant minorities and to
craft institutions which function in multilingual environments. You never had much of a
constituency in Austria for attempting to reassemble the Hapsburg dominions and Hungary's
ambitions haven't in the last century gone beyond attempting to capture Magyar exclaves.
Look at the other principals in the 1st world war: overseas dependencies retained by them
consist of a portfolio of insular territories which prefer their current status and whose
total population hardly exceeds that of Switzerland. The only one which has retained
contiguous peripheral provinces predominantly populated by minorities would be Turkey. You're
not injured for the loss of an opportunity to replicate the Turkish experience with ethnic
cleansing (of Greeks and Armenians) conjoined to abuse (of Kurds). Everyone lost their
empire, and they're not generally the worse for it.
You have a large national state. Kvetching that you don't have Azerbaijan or Estonia is
inconsistent with good sense.
Russians would have to acknowledge that they were naive idiots who threw away an empire
centuries in the making
What's remarkable to me about that graph of opinion over time is how pig-headedly
resilient Russian naivety about the US has been. Time after time it appears the scales
would fall from Russians' eyes after the US regime disgraced itself particularly egregiously
(Kosovo, Iraq, Georgia), and within a few months approval would be back up to 50% or above.
It took the interference in the Ukraine in 2014 to finally make the truth stick.
There are no disgraces incorporated into any of these events
That might be your opinion, but Kosovo and Iraq were openly illegal wars of aggression in
which the US shamelessly flouted its own treaty commitments, and supporting Georgia was, like
NATO expansion in general and numerous other consistently provocative US foreign policy
measures directed against post-Soviet Russia, a literally stupid matter of turning a
potential ally against the real rival China into an enemy and ally of said rival.
You are perfectly entitled to endorse mere stupidity on the part of your rulers, but the
fact that you so shamelessly approve of waging illegal wars counter to treaty commitments
discredits any opinions you might have on such matters.
Russians would have to acknowledge that they were naive idiots who threw away an empire
centuries in the making to end up within the borders of old Muscovy
Actually, present Russian borders are more those of Peter the Great, circa 1717, than Old
Muscovy. Russia, unlike nearly all the Great Powers of the C20th, has retained its Empire
– Siberia, the Russian Far East, Kamchatka, South Russia and the Crimea ( first
acquired as recently as 1783 ).
Once those dim-witted Ukies finally implode the Ukrainian economy, Russia will be able to
gobble up the rest of southern and eastern Ukraine – all the way to Odessa.
The places that seceded from the Soviet Union are places that Russians don't want ( Northern
Kazakhstan excepted ) and are urgently required to receive all those Central Asian immigrants
who will be deported by sensible Russian governments in the near future. ( I exclude
Armenians from the last clause )
Yes, US had squandered a lot of good will in exchange for extremely valuable "geopolitical
foothold in Eastern Europe."
Incidentally, Soviet propaganda was never anti-American. It was anti-capitalist, an
important distinction. Whereas in America, anti-Russian propaganda has always been anti-
Russian .
@RandalThat might be your opinion, but Kosovo and Iraq were openly illegal wars of aggression in
which the US shamelessly flouted its own treaty commitments,
We had no treaty commitments with either Serbia or Iraq and both places had it coming.
Correction: Russian Federation is not a nation state. It is a rump state . Its
Western borders are artificial, drawn by the Communists in the 20th century, they exclude
those parts of Russia, which the Communists decided to incorporate into separate republics of
Belarus and Ukraine.
I don't know of any Russian nationalist, who wants Azerbaijan back, but reclaiming Belarus
and Ukraine is absolutely essential to have a country, we could all proudly call 'home'
– an actual Russian nation-state. Again, what really matters here is not the size of
the country, it's that all the land that's historically Russian should be fully within the
borders of this country.
PS: just because we had trouble holding onto Chechnya doesn't mean that annexing Belarus
will be hard. Sure, we can expect blowback in the form of Western sanctions, but I don't
anticipate much resistance from inside Belarus.
@Art
Deco With that kind of thinking I don't see how you can criticise Russia's incursions
into the Ukraine. At least Russia has an actual reason to fight a war in the Ukraine.
US invaded and destroyed Iraqi state for no reason whatsoever. US interests suffered as a
result of its ill-advised aggression, they ended up empowering their avowed enemy –
Iran.
@Felix
KeverichWith that kind of thinking I don't see how you can criticise Russia's
incursions into the Ukraine. At least Russia has an actual reason to fight a war in the
Ukraine.
They dissed you. La di dah. My own countrymen have put up with that from an array of
Eurotrash and 3d world kleptocrats every time we open the newspaper.
US invaded and destroyed Iraqi state for no reason whatsoever.
No, we did so because that was the best alternative. The other alternative was a sanctions
regime which Big Consciences were assuring the world was causing a six-digit population of
excess deaths each year or taking the sanctions off and letting Saddam and the other Tikritis
to follow their Id. Iraq was a charnel house, and the world is well rid of the Tikriti
regime, especially Iraq's Kurdish and Shia provinces, which have been quiet for a decade. You
don't take an interest in the ocean of blood for which the Ba'ath Party was responsible, but
you're terribly butthurt that politicians in Kiev don't take orders from Moscow. Felix, I can
taste teh Crazy.
Your 'rump state' extends over 6.6 million sq miles and has a population of 152
million.
Exactly, and you're missing the point. Re-read my previous comment again:
I don't know of any Russian nationalist, who wants Azerbaijan back, but reclaiming Belarus
and Ukraine is absolutely essential to have a country, we could all proudly call 'home'
– an actual Russian nation-state. Again, what really matters here is not the size of
the country, it's that all the land that's historically Russian should be fully within the
borders of this country.
Russians know more about these things than you do. The vast majority of us do not regard
Belarus and Ukraine as part of
"заграница" – foreign countries.
Ukrainians and in particular Belorussians are simply variants of us, just like regional
differences exist between the Russians in Siberia and Kuban'.
I don't care, because this isn't a popularity contest. There were similar polls in Crimea
showing majority support for the EU, just before the peninsula voted overwhelmingly to rejoin
Russia. LOL
The question that matters to me is will there be a vast resistance movement inside Belarus
following the annexation, and to be honest I don't expect one.
"... North Korea's air defenses are so weak that we had to notify them we were flying B1 bombers near their airspace–they didn't even know our aircraft were coming. This reminds me of the "fearsome" Republican Guard that Saddam had in the Persian Gulf. Turns out we had total air superiority and just bombed the crap out of them and they surrendered in droves. ..."
"... We have already seen what happens when an army has huge amounts of outdated Soviet weaponry versus the most technologically advanced force in the world. It's a slaughter. Also, there has to be weaponry up the USA's sleeve that would be used in the event of an attack. Don't forget our cyber warfare abilities that would undoubtedly be implemented as well. This writer seems to always hype Russia's capabilities and denigrate the US's capabilities. Sure, Russia has the capacity to nuke the US into smithereens, and vice versa. But if its a head to head shooting war, the US and NATO would dominate. FACT. ..."
"... Commander's intent: ..."
"... Decapitate the top leadership and remove retaliatory capability. ..."
"... Massive missile/bombing campaign (including carpet) of top leadership locations, tactical missile locations and DMZ artillery belt. Destruction of surface fleet and air force. ..."
"... Advance into DMZ artillery belt up to a range of 240 mm cannon. Not further (local tactical considerations taken into account of course). ..."
"... Phase three: "break the enemy's will to fight" and destroy the "regime support infrastructure" ..."
"... I guess an American attack on North Korea would consist of preemptive strategic nuking to destroy the entire country before it can do anything. Since North Korea itself contributes essentially nothing to the world economy, no one would lose money. ..."
"... These examples perfectly illustrate the kind of mindset induced by what Professor John Marciano called "Empire as a way of life" [1] which is characterized by a set of basic characteristics: ..."
"... there has to be ..."
"... would undoubtedly ..."
"... the act of simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct, often in distinct social contexts ..."
"... A perfect illustration of that is the famous quote " it became necessary to destroy the town to save it ..."
"... I watch CNN, but I'm not sure I can tell you, the difference in Iraq and Iran, but I know Jesus and I talk to God ..."
"... this applies to the vast majority of US politicians, decision-makers and elected officials, hence Putin's remark that " It's difficult to talk with people who confuse Austria and Australia ". ..."
"... As a result, there is no more discernible US diplomacy left: all the State Department does is deliver threats, ultimatums and condemnations. Meaningful *negotiations* have basically been removed form the US foreign policy toolkit. ..."
"... That belief is also the standard cop out in any conversation of morality, ethnics, or even the notions of right and wrong. An anti-religious view par excellence . ..."
"... The US policies towards Russia, China and Iran all have the potential of resulting in a disaster of major magnitude. The world is dealing with situation in which a completely delusional regime is threatening everybody with various degrees of confrontation. This is like being in the same room with a monkey playing with a hand grenade. Except for that hand grenade is nuclear. ..."
"... This situation places a special burden of responsibility on all other nations, especially those currently in Uncle Sam's cross-hairs, to act with restraint and utmost restraint. That is not fair, but life rarely is. It is all very well and easy to declare that force must be met by force and that the Empire interprets restraint as weakness until you realize that any miscalculation can result in the death of millions of people. I am therefore very happy that the DPRK is the only country which chose to resort to a policy of hyperbolic threats while Iran, Russia and China acted, and are still acting, with the utmost restraint. ..."
"... they plan, and Allah plans. And Allah is the best of planners ..."
"... If the U.S. attacks North Korea or Iran we will become a pariah among nations (especially once the pictures start pouring in). We will be loathed. Countries may very well decide that we are not worthy of having the world's reserve currency. In that case the dollar will collapse as will our economy. ..."
"... Maybe it's just me, but it seems that NK is just another tyranny in a long list of tyrannies throughout millennia, and like all of them it will just implode on its own. Therefore, the best thing you can do is simply to ignore it (thus denying the tyrant an external threat to rally the populace) and wait for the NK people to say enough is enough. ..."
"... I agree with the logic that as Americans become dumber the ability to have a powerful military also degrades, however an increasingly declining America also makes it more dangerous. As ever more ideologues rule the corridors of power and the generally stupid population that will consent to everything they are told, America will start involving itself in ever more reckless conflicts. This means they despite being a near idiocracy, the nuclear weapons and military bases all over world make America an ever greater threat for the world ..."
My recent analysis of the potential consequences of a US attack on the DPRK has elicited a wide range of reactions. There is one
type of reaction which I find particularly interesting and most important and I would like to focus on it today: the ones which entirely
dismissed my whole argument. The following is a selection of some of the most telling reactions of this kind:
Example 1:
North Korea's air defenses are so weak that we had to notify them we were flying B1 bombers near their airspace–they didn't
even know our aircraft were coming. This reminds me of the "fearsome" Republican Guard that Saddam had in the Persian Gulf. Turns
out we had total air superiority and just bombed the crap out of them and they surrendered in droves.
We have already seen what happens when an army has huge amounts of outdated Soviet weaponry versus the most technologically
advanced force in the world. It's a slaughter. Also, there has to be weaponry up the USA's sleeve that would be used in the event
of an attack. Don't forget our cyber warfare abilities that would undoubtedly be implemented as well. This writer seems to always
hype Russia's capabilities and denigrate the US's capabilities. Sure, Russia has the capacity to nuke the US into smithereens,
and vice versa. But if its a head to head shooting war, the US and NATO would dominate. FACT.
Example 2:
Commander's intent:
Decapitate the top leadership and remove retaliatory capability.
Execution:
Phase one:
Massive missile/bombing campaign (including carpet) of top leadership locations, tactical missile locations and DMZ artillery
belt. Destruction of surface fleet and air force.
Phase two:
Advance into DMZ artillery belt up to a range of 240 mm cannon. Not further (local tactical considerations taken into account
of course).
Phase three: "break the enemy's will to fight" and destroy the "regime support infrastructure"
Phase four: Regime change.
There you go .
Example 3:
I guess an American attack on North Korea would consist of preemptive strategic nuking to destroy the entire country before
it can do anything. Since North Korea itself contributes essentially nothing to the world economy, no one would lose money.
These examples perfectly illustrate the kind of mindset induced by what
Professor John Marciano called "Empire as a way of life"
[1] which is characterized
by a set of basic characteristics:
First foremost, simple, very simple one-sentence "arguments" . Gone are the days when argument were built in some logical sequence,
when facts were established, then evaluated for their accuracy and relevance, then analyzed and then conclusions presented. Where
in the past one argument per page or paragraph constituted the norm, we now have tweet-like 140 character statements which are more
akin to shouted slogans than to arguments (no wonder that tweeting is something a bird does – hence the expression "bird brain").
You will see that kind of person writing what initially appears to be a paragraph, but when you look closer you realize that the
paragraph is really little more than a sequence of independent statements and not really an argument of any type. A quasi-religious
belief in one's superiority which is accepted as axiomatic .
Nothing new here: the Communists considered themselves as the superior for class reasons, the Nazis by reason of racial superiority,
the US Americans just "because" – no explanation offered (I am not sure that this constitutes of form of progress). In the US case,
that superiority is cultural, political, financial and, sometimes but not always, racial. This superiority is also technological,
hence the " there has to be " or the " would undoubtedly " in the example #1 above. This is pure faith and not
something which can be challenged by fact or logic. Contempt for all others . This really flows from #2 above. Example 3 basically
declares all of North Korea (including its people) as worthless. This is where all the expressions like "sand niggers" "hadjis" and
other "gooks" come from: the dehumanization of the "others" as a preparation for their for mass slaughter. Notice how in the example
#2 the DPRK leaders are assumed to be totally impotent, dull and, above all, passive.
The notion that they might do something unexpected is never even considered (a classical recipe for military disaster, but more
about that later). Contempt for rules, norms and laws . This notion is well expressed by the famous US 19th century slogan of "
my country, right or wrong " but goes far
beyond that as it also includes the belief that the USA has God-given (or equivalent) right to ignore international law, the public
opinion of the rest of the planet or even the values underlying the documents which founded the USA. In fact, in the logic of such
imperial drone the belief in US superiority actually serves as a premise to the conclusion that the USA has a "mission" or a "responsibility"
to rule the world. This is "might makes right" elevated to the rank of dogma and, therefore, never challenged. A very high reliance
on doublethink . Doublethink defined by Wikipedia as " the act of simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs
as correct, often in distinct social contexts ".
A perfect illustration of that is the famous quote " it became necessary
to destroy the town to save it ". Most US Americans are aware of the fact that US policies have resulted in them being hated
worldwide, even amongst putatively allied or "protected" countries such as South Korea, Israel, Germany or Japan. Yet at the very
same time, they continue to think that the USA should "defend" "allies", even if the latter can't wait for Uncle Sam's soldiers to
pack and leave. Doublethink is also what makes it possible for ideological drones to be aware of the fact that the US has become
a subservient Israeli colony while, at the same time, arguing for the support and financing of Israel.
As a result, there is no more discernible US diplomacy left: all the State Department does is deliver threats, ultimatums and
condemnations. Meaningful *negotiations* have basically been removed form the US foreign policy toolkit.
A totally uncritical acceptance
of ideologically correct narratives even when they are self-evidently nonsensical to an even superficial critical analysis. An great
example of this kind of self-evidently stupid stories is all the nonsense about the Russians trying to meddle in US elections or
the latest
hysteria about relatively small-size military exercises in Russia .
The acceptance of the official 9/11 narrative is a perfect
example of that. Something repeated by the "respectable" Ziomedia is accepted as dogma, no matter how self-evidently stupid. A profound
belief that everything is measured in dollars . From this flow a number of corollary beliefs such as "US weapons are most expensive,
they are therefore superior" or "everybody has his price" [aka "whom we can't kill we will simply buy"]. In my experience folks like
these are absolutely unable to even imagine that some people might not motivated by greed or other egoistic interests: ideological
drones project their own primitive motives unto everybody else with total confidence.
That belief is also the standard cop out in
any conversation of morality, ethnics, or even the notions of right and wrong. An anti-religious view par excellence .
Notice the total absence of any more complex consideration which might require some degree of knowledge or expertise: the imperial
mindset is not only ignoramus-compatible, it is ignoramus based . This is what Orwell was referring to in his famous book 1984 with
the slogan "Ignorance is Strength". However, it goes way beyond simple ignorance of facts and includes the ability to "think in slogans"
(example #2 is a prefect example of this).
There are, of course, many more psychological characteristics for the perfect "ideological drone", but the ones above already
paint a pretty decent picture of the kind of person I am sure we all have seen many times over. What is crucial to understand about
them is that even though they are far from being a majority, they compensate for that with a tremendous motivational drive. It might
be due to a need to repeatedly reassert their certitudes or a way to cope with some deep-seated cognitive dissonance, but in my experience
folks like that have energy levels that many sane people would envy. This is absolutely crucial to how the Empire, and any other
oppressive regime, works: by repressing those who can understand a complex argument by means of those who cannot. Let me explain:
Unless there are mechanisms set in to prevent that, in a debate/dispute between an educated and intelligent person and an ideological
drone the latter will always prevail because of the immense advantage the latter has over the former. Indeed, while the educated
and intelligent person will be able to immediately identify numerous factual and logical gaps in his opponent's arguments, he will
always need far more "space" to debunk the nonsense spewed by the drone than the drone who will simply dismiss every argument with
one or several slogans. This is why I personally never debate or even talk with such people: it is utterly pointless.
As a result, a fact-based and logical argument now gets the same consideration and treatment as a collection of nonsensical slogans
(political correctness mercilessly enforces that principle: you can't call an idiot and idiot any more). Falling education standards
have resulted in a dramatic degradation of the public debate: to be well-educated, well-read, well-traveled, to speak several languages
and feel comfortable in different cultures used to be considered a prerequisite to expressing an opinion, now they are all treated
as superfluous and even useless characteristics. Actual, formal, expertise in a topic is now becoming extremely rare. A most interesting
kind of illustration of this point can be found in this truly amazing video posted by Peter Schiff:
One could be tempted to conclude that this kind of 'debating' is a Black issue. It is not. The three quotes given at the beginning
of this article are a good reminder of this (unless, of course, they were all written by Blacks, which we have no reason to believe).
Twitter might have done to minds what MTV has done to rock music: laid total waste to it.
Consequences:
There are a number of important consequences from the presence of such ideological drones in any society. The first one is that
any ideology-based regime will always and easily find numerous spontaneous supporters who willingly collaborate with it. Combined
with a completely subservient media, such drones form the rontline force of any ideological debate. For instance, a journalist can
always be certain to easily find a done to interview, just as a politician can count on them to support him during a public speech
or debate. The truth is that, unfortunately, we live in a society that places much more emphasis on the right to have an opinion
than on the actual ability to form one .
By the way, the intellectually challenged always find a natural ally in the coward and the "follower" (as opposed to "leader types")
because it is always much easier and safer to follow the herd and support the regime in power than to oppose it. You will always
see "stupid drones" backed by "coward drones". As for the politicians , they naturally cater to all types of drones since they always
provide a much bigger "bang for the buck" than those inclined to critical thinking whose loyalty to whatever "cause" is always dubious.
The drone-type of mindset also comes with some major weaknesses including a very high degree of predictability, an inability to
learn from past mistakes, an inability to imagine somebody operating with a completely different set of motives and many others.
One of the most interesting ones for those who actively resist the AngloZionist Empire is that the ideological drone has very little
staying power because as soon as the real world, in all its beauty and complexity, comes crashing through the door of the drone's
delusional and narrow imagination his cocky arrogance is almost instantaneously replaced by a total sense of panic and despair. I
have had the chance to speak Russian officers who were present during the initial interrogation of US POWs in Iraq and they were
absolutely amazed at how terrified and broken the US POWs immediately became (even though they were not mistreated in any way). It
was as if they had no sense of risk at all, until it was too late and they were captured, at which point they inner strength instantly
gave way abject terror. This is one of the reasons that the Empire cannot afford a protracted war: not because of casualty aversion
as some suggest, but to keep the imperial delusions/illusions unchallenged by reality . As long as the defeat can be hidden or explained
away, the Empire can fight on, but as soon as it becomes impossible to obfuscate the disaster the Empire has to simply declare victory
and leave.
Thus we have a paradox here: the US military is superbly skilled at killing people in large numbers, but but not at winning wars
. And yet, because this latter fact is easily dismissed on grounds #2 #5 and #7 above (all of them, really), failing to actually
win wars does not really affect the US determination to initiate new wars, even potentially very dangerous ones. I would even argue
that each defeat even strengthens the Empire's desire to show it power by hoping to finally identify one victim small enough to be
convincingly defeated. The perfect example of that was Ronald Reagan's decision to invade Grenada right after the US Marines barracks
bombing in Beirut. The fact that the invasion of Grenada was one of the worst military operations in world history did not prevent
the US government from handing out more medals for it than the total number of people involved – such is the power of the drone-mindset!
We have another paradox here: history shows that if the US gets entangled in a military conflict it is most likely to end up defeated
(if "not winning" is accepted as a euphemism for "losing"). And yet, the United States are also extremely hard to deter. This is
not just a case of " Fools rush
in where angels fear to tread " but the direct result of a form of conditioning which begins in grade schools. From the point
of view of an empire, repeated but successfully concealed defeats are much preferable to the kind of mental paralysis induced in
drone populations, at least temporarily, by well-publicized defeats . Likewise, when the loss of face is seen as a calamity much
worse than body bags, lessons from the past are learned by academics and specialists, but not by the nation as a whole (there are
numerous US academics and officers who have always known all of what I describe above, in fact – they were the ones who first taught
me about it!).
If this was only limited to low-IQ drones this would not be as dangerous, but the problem is that words have their own power and
that politicians and ideological drones jointly form a self-feeding positive feedback loop when the former lie to the latter only
to then be bound by what they said which, in turn, brings them to join the ideological drones in a self-enclosed pseudo-reality of
their own.
What all this means for North Korea and the rest of us
I hate to admit it, but I have to concede that there is a good argument to be made that all the over-the-top grandstanding and
threatening by the North Koreans does make sense, at least to some degree. While for an educated and intelligent person threatening
the continental United States with nuclear strikes might appear as the epitome of irresponsibility, this might well be the only way
to warn the ideological drone types of the potential consequences of a US attack on the DPRK. Think of it: if you had to deter somebody
with the set of beliefs outlined in #1 through #8 above, would you rather explain that a war on the Korean Peninsula would immediately
involve the entire region or simple say "them crazy gook guys might just nuke the shit out of you!"? I think that the North Koreans
might be forgiven for thinking that an ideological drone can only be deterred by primitive and vastly exaggerated threats.
Still, my strictly personal conclusion is that ideological drones are pretty much "argument proof" and that they cannot be swayed
neither by primitive nor by sophisticated arguments. This is why I personally never directly engage them. But this is hardly an option
for a country desperate to avoid a devastating war (the North Koreans have no illusions on that account as they, unlike most US Americans,
remember the previous war in Korea).
But here is the worst aspect of it all: this is not only a North Korean problem
The US policies towards Russia, China and Iran all have the potential of resulting in a disaster of major magnitude. The world
is dealing with situation in which a completely delusional regime is threatening everybody with various degrees of confrontation.
This is like being in the same room with a monkey playing with a hand grenade. Except for that hand grenade is nuclear.
This situation places a special burden of responsibility on all other nations, especially those currently in Uncle Sam's cross-hairs,
to act with restraint and utmost restraint. That is not fair, but life rarely is. It is all very well and easy to declare that force
must be met by force and that the Empire interprets restraint as weakness until you realize that any miscalculation can result in
the death of millions of people. I am therefore very happy that the DPRK is the only country which chose to resort to a policy of
hyperbolic threats while Iran, Russia and China acted, and are still acting, with the utmost restraint.
In practical terms, there is no way for the rest of the planet to disarm the monkey. The only option is therefore to incapacitate
the monkey itself or, alternatively, to create the conditions in which the monkey will be too busy with something else to pay attention
to his grenade. An internal political crisis triggered by an external military defeat remains, I believe, the most likely and desirable
scenario (see here if that
topic is of interest to you). Still, the future is impossible to predict and, as the Quran says, " they plan, and Allah plans.
And Allah is the best of planners ". All we can do is try to mitigate the impact of the ideological drones on our society as
much as we can, primarily by *not* engaging them and limiting our interaction with those still capable of critical thought. It is
by excluding ideological drones from the debate about the future of our world that we can create a better environment for those truly
seeking solutions to our current predicament.
-- -- -
1. If you have not listened to his lectures on this topic, which I highly recommend, you can find them here:
If the U.S. attacks North Korea or Iran we will become a pariah among nations (especially once the pictures start pouring in).
We will be loathed. Countries may very well decide that we are not worthy of having the world's reserve currency. In that case
the dollar will collapse as will our economy.
North Korea is a nationalistic country that traces their race back to antiquity. America on the other hand is a degenerated country
that is ruled over by Jews. The flag waving American s may call the Koreans gooks but if we apply the American racial ideology
on themselves, the Americans are the the 56percent Untermensch. While the north Koreans are superior for having rejected modern
degeneracy.
A key point, which signifies a serious cultural degeneration from values of chivalry and honoring the opposite side to a very
Asiatic MO which absolutely rules current US establishment. This, and, of course, complete detachment from the realities of the
warfare.
It is all talk, because China makes them invulnerable to sanctions and NK has nukes. The US will have to go to China to deal with
NK and China will want to continue economically raping the US in exchange. That is why China gave NK an H bomb and ICBM tech (
it's known to have gave those same things to Pakistan). The real action will be in the Middle East. The Saudi are counting on
the US giving them CO2 fracking in the future, and Iran being toppled soon. William S. Lind says Iran will be hit by Trump and
Israel will use the ensuing chaos to expel the West Bank Palestinians (back to the country whose passports they travel on).
Maybe it's just me, but it seems that NK is just another tyranny in a long list of tyrannies throughout millennia, and
like all of them it will just implode on its own. Therefore, the best thing you can do is simply to ignore it (thus denying the
tyrant an external threat to rally the populace) and wait for the NK people to say enough is enough.
There's no doubt in my mind that Kim will end up like Nikolae Ceaușescu in Romania, put up against a wall by his own military
and shot on TV. All anyone has to do is be patient and not drink the Rah-Rah Kool-Aid.*
Just a thought.
VicB3
*Was talking with a 82nd Major at the Starbucks, and mentioned NK, Ceausecu, sitting tight, etc. (Mentioned we might help things
along by blanketing the whole country with netbooks, wi-fi, and even small arms.) Got the careerist ladder- climber standard response
of how advanced our weapons are, the people in charge know what they're doing, blah blah blah. Wouldn't even consider an alternative
view (and didn't know or understand half of what I was talking about). It was the same response I got from an Air Force Colonel
before the U.S. went into Afghanistan and Iraq and I told him the whole thing was/would be insanely stupid.
His party-line team-player response was when I knew for certain that any action in NK would/will fail spectacularly for the
U.S., possibly even resulting in and economic collapse and civil war/revolution on this end.
Excellent post. But the US public education "system", while awful, is not the main reason that America is increasingly packed
with drones and idiots. IQ is decreasing rapidly, as revealed in the College Board's data on SAT scores over the last 60 years
.In addition, Dr. James Thompson has a Dec.15 post on Unz that shows a shocking decline in the ability of UK children to understand
basic principles of physics, which are usually acquired on a developmental curve. Mike Judge's movie 'Idiocracy' appears to have
been set unrealistically far in the future ..
In short, the current situation can and will get a lot worse in America. On the other hand, America's armed forces will be deteriorating
apace, so they are becoming less dangerous to the rest of the world.
The good thing about democracy is that anyone can express an opinion. The bad thing about democracy is that anyone can express
an opinion. I have to laugh at all the internet commandos and wannabe Napoleons that roost on the internet giving us their advice.
It's easy to cherrypick opinions that range from uninformed to downright stupid and bizarre. Those people don't actually run anything
though, fortunately. Keep in mind that half the population is mentally average or below average and that average is quite mediocre.
Throw in a few degrees above mediocre and you've got a majority, a majority that can and is regularly bamboozled. The majority
of the population is just there to pay taxes and provide cannon fodder, that's all, like a farmer's herd of cows provides for
his support. Ideological drones are desired in this case. It's my suspicion that the educational system is geared towards producing
such a product as well as all other aspects of popular culture also induce stupefying effects. Insofar as American policy goes,
look at what it actually does rather than what it says, the latter being a form of show biz playing to a domestic audience. I
just skip the more obnoxious commenters since they're just annoying and add nothing but confusion to any discussion.
but it seems that NK is just another tyranny in a long list of tyrannies throughout millennia, and like all of them it will
just implode on its own
.
There's no doubt in my mind that Kim will end up like Nikolae Ceaușescu in Romania, put up against a wall by his own military
and shot on TV.
All things come to an end eventually, and I agree with you that the best course of action for the US over NK would be to leave
it alone (and stop poking it), but this idea that "tyrannies always collapse" seems pretty unsupported by reality.
Off the top of my head all of the following autocrats died more or less peacefully in office and handed their "tyranny" on
intact to a successor, just in the past few decades: Mao, Castro, Franco, Stalin, Assad senior, two successive Kims (so much for
the assumption that the latest Kim will necessarily end up like Ceausescu). In the past, if a tyrant and his tyranny lasted long
enough and arranged a good succession, it often came to be remembered as a golden age, as with the Roman, Augustus.
I suspect it might be a matter of you having a rather selective idea of what counts as a tyranny (I wouldn't count Franco in
that list, myself, but establishment opinion is against me there, I think). You might be selectively remembering only the tyrannies
that came to a bad end.
so they are becoming less dangerous to the rest of the world
I agree with the logic that as Americans become dumber the ability to have a powerful military also degrades, however an
increasingly declining America also makes it more dangerous. As ever more ideologues rule the corridors of power and the generally
stupid population that will consent to everything they are told, America will start involving itself in ever more reckless conflicts.
This means they despite being a near idiocracy, the nuclear weapons and military bases all over world make America an ever greater
threat for the world.
The good thing about democracy is that anyone can express an opinion.
Not sure if this is a joke or not. In case you are serious, you clearly have not been following the news, from USA to Germany
all these so called democracies have been undertaking massive censorship operations. From jailing people to shutting down online
conversations to ordering news to not report on things that threaten their power.
A bizarre posting utterly detached from reality. Don't you understand that if a blustering lunatic presses a megaton-pistol against
our collective foreheads and threatens to pull the trigger, it represents a very disquieting situation? And if we contemplate
actions that would cause a million utterly harmless and innocent Koreans to be incinerated, to prevent a million of our own brains
from being blown out, aren't we allowed to do so without being accused of being vile bigots that think yellow gook lives are worthless?
Aren't we entitled to any instinct of self preservation at all?
What the Korean situation obviously entails is a high-stakes experiment in human psychology. All that attention-seeking little
freak probably wants is to be treated with respect, and like somebody important. Trump started out in a sensible way, by treating
Kim courteously, but for that he was pilloried by the insanely-partisan opposition within his own party – McCain I'm mainly thinking
of. That's the true obstacle to a sane resolution of the problem. I say if the twerp would feel good if we gave him a tickertape
parade down Fifth Avenue and a day pass to Disneyland, we should do so – it's small enough a concession in view of what's at stake.
But if rabid congress-critters obstruct propitiation, then intimidation and even preemptive megadeath may be all that's left.
I suspect the true conversation about the topic will start when all that becomes really serious. I mean more serious than posting
the latest selfie on a Facebook. Hangs around that warhead miniaturization/hardening timetable, IMHO. Maybe too late then.
Also, one man's tyranny is another mans return to stability. For better or worse, Mao got rid of the Warlords. Franco got rid
of the Communists and kept Spain out of WWII. The Assads are Baath Party and both secular and modernizers.
Stalin? Depends on who you talk to, but the Russians do like a strong hand.
Kim? His people only have to look West to China and Russia, or def. to the South, to know that things could be much better.
And more and more he can't control the flow of information. That, and the rank and file of his army have roundworms. And guns.
At some point, the light comes on. And that same rank and file with guns tells itself "You know, we could be doing better."
Double think is not just a question of ignorance or self contradiction because often it's important to make people embrace COMPLEXITY
instead CONFUSION believing the late it's basically the first
Saker and his legion of fanboys here didn't "attack" the text but the writer.
In the first place, there's nothing in the text to "attack". It's a laundry list of disconnected slogans and so is not a different
point of view at all. Released from the confines of the author's gamer world, it evaporates into nothing. I pointed this out to
you at some length elsewhere.
In the second, it appears you missed the point of the article. Hint: it's stated in the title. The article's about the mindsets
of the authors of such "texts", and not about the texts themselves.
It appears that I am sort of a "dissident" here.
You flatter yourself. To be a dissident requires, at the very least, comprehension of the argument one is disagreeing with.
Your "texts" are the equivalent of shouting slogans and waving placards. It may work for a street protest, but is totally out
of place on a webzine discussion forum. Hence your screeds here do not constitute real dissension, but trolling.
Christmas came early for Donald Trump. He signed a historic tax cut, kept the Government
funded and operating and, to the delight of many in his base, used UN Ambassador Nikki Haley as
a mouthpiece to tell the rest of the world to go pound sand. He is feeling groovy. But Donald
Trump is still his own worst enemy. And his Presidency will be fatally harmed if he continues
with his erratic foreign policy and his empty talk on dealing with the opioid plague.
Let's start with his wildly fluctuating foreign policy. There is no consistency nor is their
a theme. When he announced that he was recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, many
assumed he was on the Israeli leash and was behaving as any obedient dog would. Perhaps.
The Trump administration has approved the largest U.S. commercial sale of lethal defensive
weapons to Ukraine since 2014. . . . Administration officials confirmed that the State
Department this month approved a commercial license authorizing the export of Model M107A1
Sniper Systems, ammunition, and associated parts and accessories to Ukraine, a sale valued at
$41.5 million. These weapons address a specific vulnerability of Ukrainian forces fighting a
Russian-backed separatist movement in two eastern provinces.
The people we are arming in the Ukraine are the actual and intellectual descendants of the
Nazi sympathizers who helped the Einsatzgruppen murder more than a million Jews after Hitler
invaded the Soviet Union. Scholar Richard Sakwa provides the horrifying details on the pro-Nazi
ideological foundation of the key Ukrainian political groups we are backing:
"The Orange revolution, like the later Euromaidan events, was democratic in intent but gave
an impetus 'to the revival of the radical versions of [the] Ukrainian national movement that
first appeared on the historical scene in the course of World War II and a national discourse
focused on fighting against the enemy'.41 " . . . .
"In Dnepropetrovsk, for example, instead of the anticipated 60 street-name changes, 350 were
planned. Everywhere 'Lenin Streets' became 'Bandera Avenues' as everything Russian was purged.
One set of mass murderers was changed for another. Just as the Soviet regime had changed
toponyms to inscribe its power into the physical environment, so now the Euromaidan revolution
seeks to remould daily life. In Germany today the names of Nazis and their collaborators are
anathema, whereas in Ukraine they are glorified."
Excerpt From: Richard Sakwa. "Frontline Ukraine : Crisis in the Borderlands." from the
Afterward
At the very moment we are signaling our support for Israel, the country founded largely
because of the horror over the Shoah, we are also giving weapons to political groups whose
parents and grand parents helped carry out the Shoah. Oh yeah, in the process of doing this we
are providing a tangible threat to Russia. Imagine what our reaction would be if Russia decided
to step up its weapons supplies to Cuba.
Then we have Trump's tough talk on the opioid slaughter taking place across America. Let me
be clear. He is not responsible for the start of this plague. The Obama Administration carries
a heavy burden on that front. CBS 60 Minutes has done a magnificent job in exposing the role
that the Obama Justice Department refused to play in going after the major corporate opiate
drug pusher--i.e.,
the McKesson Corporation :
In October, we joined forces with the Washington Post and reported a disturbing story of
Washington at its worst - about an act of Congress that crippled the DEA's ability to fight the
worst drug crisis in American history - the opioid addiction crisis. Now, a new front of that
joint investigation. It is also disturbing. It's the inside story of the biggest case the DEA
ever built against a drug company: the McKesson Corporation, the country's largest drug
distributor. It's also the story of a company too big to prosecute.
In 2014, after two years of painstaking inquiry by nine DEA field divisions and 12 U.S.
Attorneys, investigators built a powerful case against McKesson for the company's role in the
opioid crisis.
[According to DEA Agent Schiller] This is the best case we've ever had against a major
distributor in the history of the Drug Enforcement Administration. How do we not go after the
number one organization? In the height of the epidemic, when people are dying everywhere,
doesn't somebody have to be held accountable? McKesson needs to be held accountable.
Holding McKesson accountable meant going after the 5th largest corporation in the country.
Headquartered in San Francisco, McKesson has 76,000 employees and earns almost $200 billion a
year in revenues, about the same as Exxon Mobil. Since the 1990s, McKesson has made billions
from the distribution of addictive opioids.
So what has Donald Trump done? That is the wrong question. What has he failed to do? We are
approaching the one year anniversary of his Presidency and Trump has failed to nominate a
Director for the Drug Enforcement Administration, a Director for the Office of National Drug
Control Policy, a Director for the National Institute of Justice and an Assistant Secretary of
State for the Bureau of International
Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs . In other words, none of the people who would be on
the policy frontline putting the President's tough words into action have been nominated. Not
one. And those agencies and departments are drifting like a rudderless ship on stormy seas.
Another problem for Trump is his mixed signals on getting entangled in foreign wars. During
the campaign he made a point of ridiculing those candidates who wanted to go to war in Syria.
Now that he is in office, Trump, along with several members of his cabinet, are threatening
Iran on almost a daily basis. The Veteran
Intelligence Professionals for Sanity just put out a memo on this very subject (which, I'm
happy to note, reflects some of the themes I've written about previously):
Iran has come out ahead in Iraq and, with the 2015 nuclear agreement in place, Iran's
commercial and other ties have improved with key NATO allies and the other major world players
-- Russia and China in particular.
Official pronouncements on critical national security matters need to be based on facts.
Hyperbole in describing Iran's terrorist activities can be counterproductive. For this reason,
we call attention to Ambassador Nikki Haley's recent statement that it is hard to find a
"terrorist group in the Middle East that does not have Iran's fingerprints all over it." The
truth is quite different. The majority of terrorist groups in the region are neither creatures
nor puppets of Iran. ISIS, Al-Qaeda and Al-Nusra are three of the more prominent that come to
mind.
You have presented yourself as someone willing to speak hard truths in the face of
establishment pressure and not to accept the status quo. You spoke out during the campaign
against the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq as a historic mistake of epic proportions. You also
correctly captured the mood of many Americans fatigued from constant war in far away lands. Yet
the torrent of warnings from Washington about the dangers supposedly posed by Iran and the need
to confront them are being widely perceived as steps toward reversing your pledge not to get
embroiled in new wars.
We encourage you to reflect on the warning
we raised with President George W. Bush almost 15 years ago, at a similar historic
juncture:
"after watching Secretary Powell today, we are convinced that you would be well served if
you widened the discussion beyond the circle of those advisers clearly bent on a war for which
we see no compelling reason and from which we believe the unintended consequences are likely to
be catastrophic."
Finally, there is the recognition of Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel. I defer to Colonel
Lang on this. He believes that this single decision has planted an odious seed that will sprout
into a global anti-U.S. sentiment that will reduce our global influence and tangibly damage our
leadership on the world stage. While I suppose there always is a chance for a different kind of
outcome, I learned long ago not to bet against the old warrior on matters like this.
Taking all of this together I think we are looking at a 2018 where U.S. foreign policy will
continue to careen around the globe devoid of a strategic vision.
'' The people we are arming in the Ukraine are the actual and intellectual descendants of the
Nazi sympathizers who helped the Einsatzgruppen murder more than a million Jews after Hitler
invaded the Soviet Union''
They are also the descendants of the Ukrainians who were starved to death by the
Bolsheviks plundering of their crops first then starved again by Stalin.
That Jews figured large in the Bolsheviks is a fact and noted:..then and later.
A collection of reports on Bolshevism in Russia
by Great Britain. Foreign Office
''..anti-Semitism is growing, probably because the food supply committees are entirely in
the hands of Jews and voices can be heard sometimes calling for a " pogrom."
So I am giving Ukraine a pass on their so called threat to the Chosen.
You make my point. The NAZIS came up with lots of nifty reasons to justify exterminating
Jews. Starvation by Stalin, therefore kill the Jews. Yeah, that makes sense (sarcasm fully
intended).
"... And if anything Americans make their own shamelessness worse when they fabricate imaginary pretexts for weaselling out of their country's commitment, such as a wholly imaginary entitlement for them to decide for themselves when there is a "humanitarian" justification for doing so, or make up wholesale fantasy allegations about "weapons of mass destruction" that even if true wouldn't justify war. ..."
"... r Correction. It's the elites that don't want to join Russia. And the reason they don't is because the West gives them goodies for being anti-Russian. This kind of strategy worked pretty well so far (for the West) in Eastern Europe and it will continue to work for some time yet. But not forever, not in Ukraine and Belorussia. ..."
"... They are indeed, but my assumption is that Russia's present elite is, for the most part, corruptible. Putin will be gone before 2024, and his successor will be under immense pressure -- carrot and stick -- to deregulate Russia's media landscape, which will make foreign money pour into Russian media outlets, which will in turn lead to more positive coverage and more positive views of the West. Only a few days ago, we learnt that Washington ruled out signing a non-interference agreement with Moscow since it would preclude Washington from meddling in Russia's internal affairs. What does this tell you about the Western elite's plan for Russia? ..."
"... The 1996 Presidential Election campaign suggests that the Russian public is no less suggestible, and so does Russian (and Ukrainian) opinions on the crisis in the Donbass. ..."
"... Soviets and Soviet Union were always in awe of America. You could see it in "between-the-lines" of the texts of the so-called anti-imperialist, anti-American Soviet propaganda. It was about catching up with American in steel production and TV sets ownership and so on. American was the ultimate goal and people did not think of American as an enemy. ..."
"... Then there is the fact that Bolsheviks and Soviet Union owed a lot to America though this knowledge was not commonly known. Perhaps one should take look at these hidden connections to see what was the real mechanism bending the plug being pulled off the USSR. There might be even an analogy to South Africa but that is another story. ..."
"... Moreover, post-democratic post-Yanukovich Ukraine is clearly inferior to its predecessor. For one thing, under Yanukovich, Sevastopol was still Ukrainian ..."
"... There is no pro-Ukrainian insurgency in Crimea or inside the republics in Donbass, and it's not due to the lack of local football hooligans. ..."
"... Even among Svoboda voters, I suspect only a small minority of them are the militant types. We should be to contain them through the use of local proxies. The armies of Donbass republics currently number some 40-60 thousand men according to Cassad blog, which compares with the size of the entire Ukrainian army. ..."
"... Official Ukrainian propaganda worked overtime, and still works today, to hammer this into people's heads. And it's an attractive vision. An office dweller in Kiev wants to live in a shiny European capital, not in a bleak provincial city of a corrupt Asian empire. The problem is, it's ain't working. For a while Ukraine managed to get Russia to subsidize Ukrainian European dream. Now this is over. The vision is starting to fail even harder. ..."
"... Unfortunately, the Ukraine has been spending 5%* of its GDP on the military since c.2015 (versus close to 1% before 2014). ..."
"... Doesn't really matter if tons of money continues to be stolen, or even the recession – with that kind of raw increase, a major enhancement in capabilities is inevitable. ..."
"... I have read a article mentioned something like Putin said, to annexed whole Ukraine means to share the enormous resource wealth of vast Russia land with them, which make no economic sense. If Russia is worst than Ukraine, then there won't be million of Ukrainian migrating over after the Maidan coup. ..."
"... So are all those Baltic states. Russia don't want these countries as it burden, it is probably only interested in selected strategic areas like the Eastern Ukraine industrial belt and military important Crimea warm water deep seaport, and skilled migrants. Ukraine has one of lowest per capital income now, with extreme corrupted politicians controlled by USNato waging foolish civil war killing own people resulting in collapsing economic and exudes of skilled people. ..."
"... Agreed, and he happens to be in the right here. Russia actually has a good hand in Ukraine, if only she keeps her cool. More military adventurism is foolish for at least three reasons ..."
"... The return of Crimea to Russia alone has been a dramatic improvement in the inherent stability of the region. A proper division of the territory currently forming the Ukraine into a genuine Ukrainian nation in the west and an eastern half returned to Russia would be the ideal long term outcome, but Russia can surely live with a neutralised Ukraine. ..."
"... You realise that Ukraine's GDP declined in dollar terms by a factor of 2-3 times, right? A bigger share of a smaller economy translates into the same paltry sum. It is still under $5 billion. ..."
"... Futhermore an army that's actively deployed and engaged in fighting spends more money than during peacetime. A lot of this money goes to fuel, repairs, providing for soldiers and their wages rather than qualitatively improving capabilities of the army. ..."
"... The bottom-line is Ukraine spent the last 3,5 years preparing to fight a war against the People's Republic of Donetsk. I'll admit Ukrainian army can hold its own against the People's Republic of Donetsk. Yet it remains hopelessly outmatched in a potential clash with Russia. A short, but brutal bombing campaign can whipe out Ukrainian command and control, will make it impossible to mount any kind of effective defence. Ukrainian conscripts have no experience in urban warfare, and their national loyalties are unclear. ..."
"... Most ukrops even admit that Kharkov could easily have gone in 2014, if Russia had wanted it/feasible ..."
Russians would have to acknowledge that they were naive idiots who threw away an empire
centuries in the making
What's remarkable to me about that graph of opinion over time is how pig-headedly
resilient Russian naivety about the US has been. Time after time it appears the scales
would fall from Russians' eyes after the US regime disgraced itself particularly egregiously
(Kosovo, Iraq, Georgia), and within a few months approval would be back up to 50% or above.
It took the interference in the Ukraine in 2014 to finally make the truth stick.
There are no disgraces incorporated into any of these events
That might be your opinion, but Kosovo and Iraq were openly illegal wars of aggression in
which the US shamelessly flouted its own treaty commitments, and supporting Georgia was, like
NATO expansion in general and numerous other consistently provocative US foreign policy
measures directed against post-Soviet Russia, a literally stupid matter of turning a
potential ally against the real rival China into an enemy and ally of said rival.
You are perfectly entitled to endorse mere stupidity on the part of your rulers, but the
fact that you so shamelessly approve of waging illegal wars counter to treaty commitments
discredits any opinions you might have on such matters.
Russians would have to acknowledge that they were naive idiots who threw away an empire
centuries in the making to end up within the borders of old Muscovy
Actually, present Russian borders are more those of Peter the Great, circa 1717, than Old
Muscovy. Russia, unlike nearly all the Great Powers of the C20th, has retained its Empire
– Siberia, the Russian Far East, Kamchatka, South Russia and the Crimea ( first
acquired as recently as 1783 ).
Once those dim-witted Ukies finally implode the Ukrainian economy, Russia will be able to
gobble up the rest of southern and eastern Ukraine – all the way to Odessa.
The places that seceded from the Soviet Union are places that Russians don't want ( Northern
Kazakhstan excepted ) and are urgently required to receive all those Central Asian immigrants
who will be deported by sensible Russian governments in the near future. ( I exclude
Armenians from the last clause )
Yes, US had squandered a lot of good will in exchange for extremely valuable "geopolitical
foothold in Eastern Europe."
Incidentally, Soviet propaganda was never anti-American. It was anti-capitalist, an
important distinction. Whereas in America, anti-Russian propaganda has always been anti-
Russian .
@RandalThat might be your opinion, but Kosovo and Iraq were openly illegal wars of aggression in
which the US shamelessly flouted its own treaty commitments,
We had no treaty commitments with either Serbia or Iraq and both places had it coming.
Correction: Russian Federation is not a nation state. It is a rump state . Its
Western borders are artificial, drawn by the Communists in the 20th century, they exclude
those parts of Russia, which the Communists decided to incorporate into separate republics of
Belarus and Ukraine.
I don't know of any Russian nationalist, who wants Azerbaijan back, but reclaiming Belarus
and Ukraine is absolutely essential to have a country, we could all proudly call 'home'
– an actual Russian nation-state. Again, what really matters here is not the size of
the country, it's that all the land that's historically Russian should be fully within the
borders of this country.
PS: just because we had trouble holding onto Chechnya doesn't mean that annexing Belarus
will be hard. Sure, we can expect blowback in the form of Western sanctions, but I don't
anticipate much resistance from inside Belarus.
It took the interference in the Ukraine in 2014 to finally make the truth stick.
Another possibility is that the change since 2014 is rather the result of more
anti-American reporting in Russia's state-owned media. This would mean, as I suspect, that
the pendulum will swing back once the Kremlin loosens its tight grip of the media.
@Art
Deco With that kind of thinking I don't see how you can criticise Russia's incursions
into the Ukraine. At least Russia has an actual reason to fight a war in the Ukraine.
US invaded and destroyed Iraqi state for no reason whatsoever. US interests suffered as a
result of its ill-advised agression, they ended up empowering their avowed enemy –
Iran.
This would mean, as I suspect, that the pendulum will swing back once the Kremlin
loosens its tight grip of the media.
How do you see this happening? Why would the Kremlin give up its control of the media?
These people are smart enough to understand that whoever controls the media controls public
opinion.
@Felix
KeverichCorrection: Russian Federation is not a nation state. It is a rump state.
Your 'rump state' extends over 6.6 million sq miles and has a population of 152
million.
Its Western borders are artificial, drawn by the Communists in the 20th century, they
exclude those parts of Russia, which the Communists decided to incorporate into separate
republics of Belarus and Ukraine.
It's western borders are no more artificial than that of any other country not bounded by
mountains or water.
I don't know of any Russian nationalist, who wants Azerbaijan back, but reclaiming
Belarus and Ukraine is absolutely essential to have a country, we could all proudly call
'home' –
'Essential'? You just can't get through the day without Minsk?
As for White Russia, your constituency there has in its dimensions fallen by half in the
last 20 years.
As for the Ukraine, you've no discernable constituency for reunification. The constituency
for a Russophile foreign policy weighs in there at about 12% of the public. VP's
three-dimensional chess game is going swimmingly.
My own forebears discovered in 1813 that the residue of British North America was quite
content with gracious George III, and our boys got their assess handed to them by them
Cannucks. We got over it and so can you. Miss Ukraine is just not that into you. Best not to
play the stalker.
@Felix
KeverichWith that kind of thinking I don't see how you can criticise Russia's
incursions into the Ukraine. At least Russia has an actual reason to fight a war in the
Ukraine.
They dissed you. La di dah. My own countrymen have put up with that from an array of
Eurotrash and 3d world kleptocrats every time we open the newspaper.
US invaded and destroyed Iraqi state for no reason whatsoever.
No, we did so because that was the best alternative. The other alternative was a sanctions
regime which Big Consciences were assuring the world was causing a six-digit population of
excess deaths each year or taking the sanctions off and letting Saddam and the other Tikritis
to follow their Id. Iraq was a charnel house, and the world is well rid of the Tikriti
regime, especially Iraq's Kurdish and Shia provinces, which have been quiet for a decade. You
don't take an interest in the ocean of blood for which the Ba'ath Party was responsible, but
you're terribly butthurt that politicians in Kiev don't take orders from Moscow. Felix, I can
taste teh Crazy.
Your 'rump state' extends over 6.6 million sq miles and has a population of 152
million.
Exactly, and you're missing the point. Re-read my previous comment again: I don't know of any Russian nationalist, who wants Azerbaijan back, but reclaiming Belarus
and Ukraine is absolutely essential to have a country, we could all proudly call 'home'
– an actual Russian nation-state. Again, what really matters here is not the size of
the country, it's that all the land that's historically Russian should be fully within the
borders of this country.
Russians know more about these things than you do. The vast majority of us do not regard
Belarus and Ukraine as part of
"заграница" – foreign countries.
Ukrainians and in particular Belorussians are simply variants of us, just like regional
differences exist between the Russians in Siberia and Kuban'.
I don't care, because this isn't a popularity contest. There were similar polls in Crimea
showing majority support for the EU, just before the peninsula voted overwhelmingly to rejoin
Russia. LOL
The question that matters to me is will there be a vast resistance movement inside Belarus
following the annexation, and to be honest I don't expect one.
We had no treaty commitments with either Serbia or Iraq
The treaty commitment in question was with almost the entire rest of the world, namely
when your country entirely voluntarily signed up to a commitment to "refrain in their
international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or
political independence of any state". If your country had retained the slightest trace of
integrity and self-respect it would at least have had the decency to withdraw from membership
of the the UN when it chose to breach those treaty commitments.
And if anything Americans make their own shamelessness worse when they fabricate imaginary
pretexts for weaselling out of their country's commitment, such as a wholly imaginary
entitlement for them to decide for themselves when there is a "humanitarian" justification
for doing so, or make up wholesale fantasy allegations about "weapons of mass destruction"
that even if true wouldn't justify war.
An entire nation state behaving like a lying '60s hippy or a shamelessly dishonest
aggressor.
I'm sure you're proud.
and both places had it coming.
A straightforward confession of lawless rogue state behaviour, basically.
Do you actually think somehow you are improving your country's position with such
arguments? Better for a real American patriot to just stop digging and keep sheepishly quiet
about the past three decades of foreign policy.
@reiner
Tor Correction. It's the elites that don't want to join Russia. And the reason they don't
is because the West gives them goodies for being anti-Russian. This kind of strategy worked
pretty well so far (for the West) in Eastern Europe and it will continue to work for some
time yet. But not forever, not in Ukraine and Belorussia.
That's because the population of these places is Russian (no matter what they were taught
to call themselves by the Commies.) Their culture is Russian. The rulers of Ukraine and, to a
much lesser degree, Belorussia are trying to erect cultural barriers between themselves and
Russia. Good luck with that, in the 21st century. It's more likely the culture will further
homogenize, as is the trend anywhere in the world. Eventually it will tell.
Now, the question is if Russians will even want Ukraine back. This is not so clear.
What needs to be explained is not the sustained low opinion after 2014 but rather the
remarkable recoveries after 1999, 2003 and 2008.
Yugoslavia and Iraq were not that close to Russia and Russian elite was still pushing for
Integration into West at that time. After 2008, "Reset" and Obama happened.
It seems unlikely the Russian media would have been as sycophantically pro-Obama merely
for his blackness and Democrat-ness, though, and of course he wasn't around anyway in 2000
and in 2004.
Keep in mind that Obama's opponent in 2008 was McCain, that McCain.
Just like Trump, Obama seemed like the lesser evil and not to blame for previous
conflicts.
That's because the population of these places is Russian (no matter what they were
taught to call themselves by the Commies.) Their culture is Russian.
This is for them to decide, not for you.
It's more likely the culture will further homogenize, as is the trend anywhere in the
world.
Yeah, the culture homogenizes around the world, into global Hollywood corporate culture.
In the long there, "traditional Russian culture" is as doomed as "traditional Ukrainian
culture" and "traditional American culture" if there is anything left of it.
Polling by the Razumkov Centre in 2008 found that 63.8% of Crimeans (76% of Russians,
55% of Ukrainians, and 14% of Crimean Tatars, respectively) would like Crimea to secede from
Ukraine and join Russia and 53.8% would like to preserve its current status, but with
expanded powers and rights . A poll by the International Republican Institute in May 2013
found that 53% wanted "Autonomy in Ukraine (as today)", 12% were for "Crimean Tatar autonomy
within Ukraine", 2% for "Common oblast of Ukraine" and 23% voted for "Crimea should be
separated and given to Russia".
The takeaway is that Crimeans were satisfied being part of Ukraine as long as Ukraine had
an ethnic Russian, generally pro-Russian president like Yanukovich in charge (2013 poll), but
preferred being part of Russia to being part of a Ukrainian state run by Ukrainians (2008
poll, post-Maidan).
That's because the population of these places is Russian (no matter what they were
taught to call themselves by the Commies.) Their culture is Russian.
Believer of Russian nationalist fairytales tells Russian nationalist fairytales. You
managed to fit 3 of them into 2 sentences, good job.
@AP I
was referring specifically to Russian attitudes about Ukrainians. I know that among
Ukrainians themselves, there is quite the confusion on this subject.
@Mitleser
Fair points, though you seem to concede to the Russian elites a significant degree of
competence at managing public opinion, in 2000 and in 2004.
I was under the impression that Putin personally was still quite naïve about the US
even after Kosovo, which partly accounts for his rather desperately helpful approach after
9/11, though not so much after Iraq.
But I have been told by Russians who ought to have some knowledge of these things that
Putin and the wider regime were not so naïve even back in the late 1990s, so the case
can be made both ways.
reclaiming Belarus and Ukraine is absolutely essential to have a country, we could all
proudly call 'home' – an actual Russian nation-state.
In which 25 million or so Ukrainians actively resist you, and another 5 million or so
Ukrainians plus a few million Belarusians nonviolently resent your rule. You will reduce the
cities or parts of them to something like Aleppo, and rebuild them (perhaps with coerced
local labor) while under a sanctions regime. Obviously there will have to be a militarized
occupation regime and prison camps and a network of informants. A proud home.
Again, what really matters here is not the size of the country, it's that all the land
that's historically Russian should be fully within the borders of this country.
Baltics were Russian longer than Ukraine. Central Poland became Russian at the same time
as did half of Ukraine. According to the 1897 census, there were about as many Great Russian
speakers in Kiev governate as in Warsaw. Take the Baltics and Warsaw back too?
@AP
These polls vary greatly from time to time and depending on the group conducting them. These
polls are meaningless : most ordinary people go about their daily lives never thinking
about that kind of issues, when suddenly prompted by a pollster they give a meaningless
answer.
I'm sure, support for reunification will go up in Belarus, if the Kremlin shows some
leadership on this issue. We will find enough people willing to work with us, the rest will
just have to accept the new reality and go about their daily lifes as usual.
The situation in Ukraine is different, it differs wildly by region and will require us to
modify our approach.
@German_readerUS started in a demented attempt at reshaping the region according to its own
preferences.
It did nothing of the kind. It ejected two governments for reasons of state. One we'd been
a state of belligerency with for 12 years, the other was responsible for a gruesome casus
belli. Now, having done that, we needed to put in place a new government. There was no better
alternative means of so doing than electoral contests.
How do you see this happening? Why would the Kremlin give up its control of the media?
These people are smart enough to understand that whoever controls the media controls public
opinion.
They are indeed, but my assumption is that Russia's present elite is, for the most part,
corruptible. Putin will be gone before 2024, and his successor will be under immense pressure
-- carrot and stick -- to deregulate Russia's media landscape, which will make foreign money
pour into Russian media outlets, which will in turn lead to more positive coverage and more
positive views of the West. Only a few days ago, we learnt that Washington ruled out signing
a non-interference agreement with Moscow since it would preclude Washington from meddling in
Russia's internal affairs. What does this tell you about the Western elite's plan for
Russia?
Another possibility is that the change since 2014 is rather the result of more
anti-American reporting in Russia's state-owned media. This would mean, as I suspect, that
the pendulum will swing back once the Kremlin loosens its tight grip of the media.
Definitely no.
American propaganda (itself without the help of Putin) were able to convince the Russians
that America is the enemy. Propaganda of Putin to this could add almost nothing.
Fair points, though you seem to concede to the Russian elites a significant degree of
competence at managing public opinion, in 2000 and in 2004.
I am just taking into account that the early 00s were right after the 1990s when
pro-Americanism was at its peak in Russia. Yugoslavia and Iraq were too distant too alienate
the majority permanently.
I was under the impression that Putin personally was still quite naïve about the US
even after Kosovo, which partly accounts for his rather desperately helpful approach after
9/11, though not so much after Iraq.
Why do you think did he suggest joining NATO as an option?
Not because NATO are "good guys", but because it would ensure that Russia has a voice that
cannot be ignored. After all, the Kosovo War showed the limits of the UNSC and by extension
of Russia's voice in the unipolar world.
Putin will be gone before 2024, and his successor will be under immense pressure --
carrot and stick -- to deregulate Russia's media landscape, which will make foreign money
pour into Russian media outlets, which will in turn lead to more positive coverage and more
positive views of the West.
There is no reason to assume that West will offer the Russian elite enough carrot to
deregulate the Russian media order and the stick is just more reason not to do it and to
retain control.
What does this tell you about the Western elite's plan for Russia?
And you think that people in Russian elite are not aware of it?
In which 25 million or so Ukrainians actively resist you, and another 5 million or so
Ukrainians plus a few million Belarusians nonviolently resent your rule. You will reduce
the cities or parts of them to something like Aleppo, and rebuild them (perhaps with
coerced local labor) while under a sanctions regime.
This is a fantasy. Look, the effective size of Ukrainian army right now is around 70.000
– does this look like a strong, united nation willing and able to defend itself?
On the left side of the Dnieper truly crazy svidomy types is a small minority – they
stand out from the crowd, can be easily identified and neutralised just like in Donbass. A
typical Ukrainian nationalist east of Dnieper is a business owner, university educated white
collar professional, a student, a journalist, "human rights activist" – these are not
the kind of individuals, who will engage in guerilla warfare, they will just flee (like they
already fled from Donbass).
In the west, opinion of the US was managed upwards with the Obama presidency because he
fitted so well with US sphere establishment antiracist and leftist dogmas that he had
almost universally positive (even hagiographic) mainstream media coverage throughout the US
sphere, but with Trump opinions of the US are mostly back down where Bush II left them.
I agree with most of this, but you leave out precisely why public opinion shifts.
My, rather cynical, view is that media is by far the main driver in shifting public views,
and so whoever gives the media marching orders is the Pied Piper here.
An example close to home was the consternation among some of my conservative friends over
the events Charlottesville. They knew nothing about the American alt-right, and still less
about the context of what happened that day, yet they still spoke of what a disgrace it was
for Trump not to distance himself from these deplorables. This was, of course, fully the
making of Swedish media.
The 1996 Presidential Election campaign suggests that the Russian
public is no less suggestible, and so does Russian (and Ukrainian) opinions on the crisis in
the Donbass.
ruled out signing a non-interference agreement with Moscow since it would
preclude Washington from meddling in Russia's internal affairs. What does this tell you about
the Western elite's plan for Russia?
It tells me the reporters are confused or you are. There is no 'agreement' that will
prevent 'Russia' from 'meddling' in American political life or the converse. The utility of
agreements is that they make understandings between nations more precise and incorporate
triggers which provide signals to one party or the other as to when the deal is off.
Soviets and Soviet Union were always in awe of America. You could see it in
"between-the-lines" of the texts of the so-called anti-imperialist, anti-American Soviet
propaganda. It was about catching up with American in steel production and TV sets ownership
and so on. American was the ultimate goal and people did not think of American as an enemy.
Then there is the fact that Bolsheviks and Soviet Union owed a lot to America though this
knowledge was not commonly known. Perhaps one should take look at these hidden connections to
see what was the real mechanism bending the plug being pulled off the USSR. There might be
even an analogy to South Africa but that is another story.
Two powerful countries beside one another are natural enemies, they can never be friends
until one has been relegated by defeat. Britain and France were enemies until France became
too weak to present a threat, then Britain's enemy was Germany (it still is, Brexit is
another Dunkirk with the UK realizing it cannot compete with Germany on the continent).
Russia cannot be a friend of China against the US until Russia has been relegated in the way
France has been. France has irrecoverably given up control of its currency, they are
relegated to Germany's sidekick.
China is like Bitcoin. The smart money (Google) is going there. Received wisdom in the US
keeps expecting China's economic growth to slow down but it isn't going to happen. When it
becomes clear that the US is going to be overtaken, America will try and slow down China's
economic growth, that will be Russia's opportunity.
American propaganda (itself without the help of Putin) were able to convince the
Russians that America is the enemy. Propaganda of Putin to this could add almost
nothing.
Being Russian, you would be in a better position than I am to comment on this, but the
obvious counter to that line is who channeled this American propaganda to the Russian
public and for what purpose? This article might hold the answer:
oh well, I get it, US nationalists like you think you're the responsible adults dealing
with a dangerous world, while ungrateful European pussies favor appeasement, are free riders
on US benevolent hegemony etc. I've heard and read all that a thousand times before, it's all
very unoriginal by now.
No, I'm a fat middle aged man who thinks most of what people say on political topics is
some species of self-congratulation. And a great deal of it is perverse. The two phenomena
are symbiotic. And, of course, I'm unimpressed with kvetching foreigners. Kvetching Europeans
might ask where is the evidence that they with their own skills and resources can
improve some situation using methods which differ from those we have applied and
kvetching Latin Americans can quit sticking the bill for their unhappy histories with Uncle
Sam, and kvetching Arabs can at least take responsibility for something rather than
projecting it on some wire-pulling other (Jews, Americans, conspiracy x).
Do they have one more soldier at their command and one more piece of equipment because
we had troops in Iraq?
Well, according to the likes of Mattis they certainly do. Have you never heard of the
Iraqi Popular Mobilisation Forces (PMU), a large faction of which reportedly swear allegiance
directly to Khamenei.
Is that "victory" for you?
An of course they now have a direct land route to Hezbollah, to make it easier for them to
assist that national defence militia to deter further Israeli attacks. That's something they
never could have had when Saddam was in charge of Iraq.
Is that "victory" for you?
And they don't have to worry about their western neighbour invading them with US backing
again.
These polls vary greatly from time to time and depending on the group conducting them.
These polls are meaningless: most ordinary people go about their daily lives never thinking
about that kind of issues, when suddenly prompted by a pollster they give a meaningless
answer.
So according to you when hundreds or thousands of people are asked a question they are not
prepared for, their collective answer is meaningless and does not indicate their
preference?
So it's a total coincidence that when Ukraine was ruled by Ukrainians most Crimeans
preferred to join Russia, when Ukraine was ruled by a Russian, Crimeans were satisfied within
Ukraine but when Ukrainian nationalists came to power Crimeans again preferred being part of
Russia?
Are all political polls also meaningless according to you, or just ones that contradict
your idealistic views?
This is a fantasy. Look, the effective size of Ukrainian army right now is around 70.000
– does this look like a strong, united nation willing and able to defend itself?
In fairness, the young Ukrainians I have spoken to avoid the "draft" mainly out of fear
that they will be underequipped and used as cannon fodder. (I'm not sure "draft" is the word
I'm looking for. My understanding is that they are temporarily exempt from military service
if they study at university or have good jobs.)
but the obvious counter to that line is who channeled this American propaganda to the
Russian public and for what purpose?
It is known – the minions of Putin translated into Russian language American (and
European) propaganda, and putting it on the website http://inosmi.ru/ .
The Americans also try: there is a special "Radio Liberty" that 24-hour broadcasts (in
Russian) hate speech against the Russian.
But it only speeds up the process (which will happen anyway) .
This is a fantasy. Look, the effective size of Ukrainian army right now is around 70.000
– does this look like a strong, united nation willing and able to defend itself?
It was about 50,000 in 2014, about 200,000-250,000 now.
Polish military has 105,000 personnel. Poland also not united or willing to defend
itself?
On the left side of the Dnieper truly crazy svidomy types is a small minority –
they stand out from the crowd, can be easily identified and neutralised just like in
Donbass
Avakov, Poroshenko's interior minister and sponsor of the neo-Nazi Azov battalion, in 2010
got 48% of the vote in Kharkiv's mayoral race in 2010 when he ran as the "Orange" candidate.
In 2012 election about 30% of Kharkiv oblast voters chose nationalist candidates, vs. about
10% in Donetsk oblast. Vkontakte, a good source for judging youth attitudes, was split 50/50
between pro-Maidan and anti-Maidan in Kharkiv (IIRC it was 80/20 anti-Maidan winning in
Donetsk). Kharkiv is just like Donbas, right?
A typical Ukrainian nationalist east of Dnieper is a business owner, university educated
white collar professional, a student, a journalist, "human rights activist"
Football hooligans in these places are also Ukrainian nationalists. Azov battalion and
Right Sector are both based in Eastern Ukraine.
Here is how Azov started:
The Azov Battalion has its roots in a group of Ultras of FC Metalist Kharkiv named "Sect
82″ (1982 is the year of the founding of the group).[18] "Sect 82″ was (at least
until September 2013) allied with FC Spartak Moscow Ultras.[18] Late February 2014, during
the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine when a separatist movement was active in Kharkiv,
"Sect 82″ occupied the Kharkiv Oblast regional administration building in Kharkiv and
served as a local "self-defense"-force.[18] Soon, on the basis of "Sect 82″ there was
formed a volunteer militia called "Eastern Corps".[18]
Here is Azov battalion commander-turned-Kiev oblast police chief, Kharkiv native Vadim
Troyan:
Does he look like an intellectual to you? Before Maidan he was a cop.
these are not the kind of individuals, who will engage in guerilla warfare,
On the contrary, they will probably dig in while seeking cover in urban areas that they
know well, where they have some significant support (as Donbas rebels did in Donetsk),
forcing the Russian invaders to fight house to house and causing massive damage while
fighting native boys such as Azov. About 1/3 of Kharkiv overall and 1/2 of its youth are
nationalists. I wouldn't expect mass resistance by the Kharkiv population itself, but passive
support for the rebels by many. Russia will then end up rebuilding a large city full of a
resentful population that will remember its dead (same problem Kiev will face if it gets
Donbas back). This scenario can be repeated for Odessa. Dnipropetrovsk, the home base of
Right Sector, is actually much more nationalistic than either Odessa or Kharkiv. And Kiev is
a different world again. Bitter urban warfare in a city of 3 million (officially, most likely
about 4 million) followed by massive reconstruction and maintenance of a repression regime
while under international sanctions.
Russia's government has adequate intelligence services who know better what Ukraine is
actually like, than you do. There is a reason why they limited their support to Crimea and
Donbas.
Your wishful thinking about Ukraine would be charming and harmless if not for the fact
that such wishful thinking often leads to tragic actions that harm both the invader and the
invaded. Remember the Iraqis were supposed to welcome the American liberators with flowers
after their cakewalk.
In fairness, the young Ukrainians I have spoken to avoid the "draft" mainly out of fear
that they will be underequipped and used as cannon fodder.
Correct. The thinking often was – "the corrupt officers will screw up and get us
killed, or sell out our positions to the Russians for money, if the Russians came to our city
I'd fight them but I don't wanna go to Donbas.." This is very different from avoiding the
draft because one wouldn't mind if Russia annexed Ukraine. Indeed, Dnipropetrovsk in the East
has contributed a lot to Ukraine's war effort, primarily because it borders Donbas –
ones hears from people there that if they don't fight in Donbas and keep the rebels contained
there, they'd have to fight at home.
@AP
LMAO, Ukrainians are nothing like Arabs. They are soft Eastern-European types. And in Eastern
regions like Kharkov most of them will be on our side.
The best thing about Ukrainian neo-Nazis such as Azov battalion is that there is very few
of them – no more than 10.000 in the entire country. I assume Russian security services
know all of them by name.
To deal with Ukronazi problem, I would first take out their leaders, then target their
HQs, arms depots and training camps. I would kill or intimidate their sponsors. Ukronazis
would be left decapitated, without resources, undermanned and demoralised, trying to fight an
insurgency amongst the population that hates and despises them. It will be a short lived
insurgency.
LMAO, Ukrainians are nothing like Arabs. They are soft Eastern-European types.
And Russians and Poles were also soft when someone invaded their country? Ukrainians are
not modern western Euros.
And in Eastern regions like Kharkov most of them will be on our side.
Most pensioners. It will be about 50/50 among young fighting-age people.
The best thing about Ukrainian neo-Nazis such as Azov battalion is that there is very
few of them – no more than 10.000 in the entire country
Maybe. Ukrainian government claims 46,000 in volunteer self-defense battalions (including
Azov) but this is probably an exaggeration.
OTOH there are a couple 100,000 demobilized young people with combat experience who would
be willing to fight if their homeland were attacked, who are not neo-Nazis in Azov. Plus a
military of 200,000-250,000 people, many of whom would imitate the Donbas rebels and probably
redeploy in places like Kharkiv where they have cover. Good look fighting it out block by
block.
trying to fight an insurgency amongst the population that hates and despises them
In 2010, 48% of Kharkiv voters chose a nationalist for their mayor. In 2012 about 30%
voted for nationalist parties. Judging by pro vs, anti-Maidan, the youth are evenly split
although in 2014 the Ukrainian nationalist youths ended up controlling the streets, not the
Russian nationalist ones as in Donbas. This is in the most pro-Russian part of Ukraine.
Suuure, the population of Kharkiv will despise their kids, grandkids, nephews, classmates
etc,. but will welcome the invaders from Russia who will be bombing their city. Such idealism
and optimism in Russia!
@AP
Again, supporting Maidan doesn't mean you're ready to take up Kalashnikov and go fight.
Ukrainian youth is dodging draft en masse. It's a fact.
This is what typical Maidanist Ukrainian youths look like; these people certainly don't
look like they have a lot of fight in them: They remind me of Navalny supporters in Russia. These kind of people can throw a tantrum,
but they are fundamentally weak people, who are easily crushed.
@Felix
Keverich Northern Kazakhstan is/was ethnically Russian, since the 1700s. This should have
been folded into Russia; the North Caucasus should have been cut loose. My opinion.
@Felix
Keverich Typical Russian mistakes regarding Ukraine: weak student-types in Russia are the
main supporters of Ukraine in Russia, thus the same type must be the main pro-Maidan people
in Ukraine. Because Ukraine = Russia. This silly dream of Ukraine being just like Russia
leads to ridiculous ideas and hopes.
As I already said, the Azov battalion grew out of brawling football ultras in Kharkiv.
Maidan itself was a cross-section – of students, yes, but also plenty of Afghan war
vets, workers, far right brawlers, professionals, etc. It's wasn't simply "weak" students,
nor was it simply far-right fascists (another claim by Russia) but a mass effort of the
western half of the country.
Here are Afghan war vets at Maidan:
Look at those weak Maidan people running away from the enemy:
Azov people in their native Kharkiv:
Kharkiv kids:
Ukrainian youth is dodging draft en masse. It's a fact.
Dodging the draft in order to avoid fighting in Donbas, where you are not wanted by the
locals, is very different from dodging the draft to avoid fighting when your own town is
being invaded.
@AP
Summer camp was in Kiev, but there is another outside Kharkiv.
To be clear, most Ukrainians fighting against Russia are not these unsavory types, though
they make for dramatic video. Point is that pro-Maidan types in Ukraine are far from being
exclusively liberal student-types.
- The Russians ALWAYS were Americanophiles – ever since the Revolution. Russia has been
an American ally most often explicit but occasionally tacit – in EVERY major American
conflict, including the War on Terror and excluding Korea and Vietnam (both not major
compared to the Civil War or WW2). The only comparable Great Power US ally is France. Russia
and the US are natural allies.
- Russians are Americanophiles – they like Hollywood movies, American music, American
idealism, American video games, American fashion, American inventions, American support in
WW2, American can-do-aittude, American badassery and Americana in general.
- There are two Ukraines. One is essentially a part of Russia, and a chunk of it was
repatriated in 2014. The other was historically Polish and Habsburg. It is a strange entity
that is not Russian.
- The Maidan was a foreign-backed putsch against a democratically elected government.
Yanukovich was certainly a corrupt scoundrel. But he was a democratically elected corrupt
scoundrel. To claim Russian intervention in his election is a joke in light of the CIA-backed
2004 and 2014 coups.
Moreover, post-democratic post-Yanukovich Ukraine is clearly inferior to
its predecessor. For one thing, under Yanukovich, Sevastopol was still Ukrainian
@Felix
Keverich I think this poll is the most relevant for assessing the question, since it
covered different regions and used the same methodology.
Takeaway:
1. Support for uniting into a single state with Russia at 41% in Crimea at a time when it
was becoming quite clear the Yanukovych regime was doomed.
2. Now translates into ~90% support (according to both Russian and international polls) in
Crimea. I.e., a more than a standard deviation shift in "Russophile" sentiment on this
matter.
3. Assuming a similar shift in other regions, Novorossiya would be quite fine being with
Russia post facto . Though there would be significant discontent in Kharkov,
Dnepropetrovsk, Zaporozhye, and Kherson (e.g., probably on the scale of Donbass unhappiness
with the Ukraine before 2014).
4. Central and West Ukraine would not be, which is why their reintegration would be far
more difficult – and probably best left for sometime in the future.
5. What we have instead seen is a one standard deviation shift in "Ukrainophile" sentiment
within all those regions that remained in the Ukraine. If this change is "deep," then AP is
quite correct that their assimilation into Russia has been made impossible by Putin's
vacillations in 2014.
The Maidan was a foreign-backed putsch against a democratically elected government
Typical Russian nationalist half-truth about Ukraine.
To be clear – Yanukovich was democratically elected in 2010, into a position where
his powers were limited and where he was faced with a hostile parliament. His post-election
accumulation of powers (overthrowing the Opposition parliament, granting himself additional
powers, stacking the court with local judges from his hometown) was not democratic. None of
these actions enjoyed popular support, none were made through democratic processes such as
referendums or popular elections. Had that been the case, he would not have been overthrown
in what was a popular mass revolt by half the country.
There are two Ukraines. One is essentially a part of Russia, and a chunk of it was
repatriated in 2014. The other was historically Polish and Habsburg. It is a strange entity
that is not Russian.
A bit closer to the truth, but much too simplistic in a way that favors Russian idealism.
Crimea (60% Russian) was simply not Ukraine, so lumping it in together with a place such as
Kharkiv (oblast 70% Ukrainian) and saying that Russia took one part of this uniformly
"Russian Ukraine" is not accurate.
You are correct that the western half of the country are a non-Russian Polish-but-not
Habsburg central Ukraine/Volynia, and Polish-and-Habsburg Galicia.
But the other half consisted of two parts: ethnic Russian Crimea (60% Russian) and largely
ethniuc-Russian urban Donbas (about 45% Russian, 50% Ukrainian), and a heavily Russified but
ethnic Ukrainian Kharkiv oblast (70% Ukrainian, 26% Russian), Dnipropetrovsk (80% Ukrainian,
20% Russian), Kherson (82% Ukrainian, 14% Russian), and Odessa oblast (63% Ukrainian, 21%
Russian).
The former group (Crimea definitely, and urban Donbas less strongly) like being part of
Russia. The latter group, on the other hand, preferred that Ukraine and Russia have friendly
ties, preferred Russian as a legal language, preferred economic union with Russia, but did
not favor loss of independence. Think of them as pro-NAFTA American-phile Canadians who would
nevertheless be opposed to annexation by the USA and would be angered if the USA grabbed a
chunk of Canada. In grabbing a chunk of Ukraine and supporting a rebellion in which Kharkiv
and Dnipropetrovsk kids are being shot by Russian-trained fighters using Russian-supplied
bullets, Putin has turned these people off the Russian state.
3. Assuming a similar shift in other regions, Novorossiya would be quite fine being with
Russia post facto. Though there would be significant discontent in Kharkov, Dnepropetrovsk,
Zaporozhye, and Kherson (e.g., probably on the scale of Donbass unhappiness with the
Ukraine before 2014).
'Asumptions' like this are what provide Swiss cheese the airy substance that makes it less
caloric! Looks like only the retired sovok population in the countryside is up to supporting
your mythical 'NovoRosija' while the more populated city dwellers would be opposed, even by
your own admission (and even this is questionable). I'm surprised that the dutifully loyal
and most astute opposition (AP) has let this blooper pass without any comment?
@Anatoly
Karlin I think when answering this question, most people simple give what they consider
to be the socially acceptable answer, especially in contemporary Ukraine, where you will go
to prison for displaying Russian flag – who wants to be seen as a "separatist"?
In Crimea it has become more socially acceptable to identify with Russia following the
reunification, which is why the number of people who answer this way shot up . The
same effect will seen in Belarus and Ukraine – I'm fairly certain of it.
Though there would be significant discontent in Kharkov, Dnepropetrovsk, Zaporozhye, and
Kherson
Discontent will be limited to educated, affluent, upwardly mobile circles of society.
Demographic profile of Ukrainian nationalist East of Dnieper resembles demographic profile of
Navalny supporters in Russia. These people are not fighters. Most of them will react to
Russian takeover by self-deporting – they have the money and resources to do it.
Demographic profile of Ukrainian nationalist East of Dnieper resembles demographic
profile of Navalny supporters in Russia. These people are not fighters.
The Azov Battalion has its roots in a group of Ultras of FC Metalist Kharkiv named "Sect
82″ (1982 is the year of the founding of the group).[18] "Sect 82″ was (at least
until September 2013) allied with FC Spartak Moscow Ultras.[18] Late February 2014, during
the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine when a separatist movement was active in Kharkiv,
"Sect 82″ occupied the Kharkiv Oblast regional administration building in Kharkiv and
served as a local "self-defense"-force.[18] Soon, on the basis of "Sect 82″ there was
formed a volunteer militia called "Eastern Corps".[18]
The brawling East Ukrainian nationalists who took the streets of Kharkiv and Odessa were
not mostly rich, fey hipsters.
Discontent will be limited to educated, affluent, upwardly mobile circles of
society.
So, even by tour own admission, the only folks that would be for unifying with Russia are
the uneducated, poor and those with no hopes of ever amounting to much in society. I don't
agree with you, but I do see your logic. These are just the type of people that are the most
easily manipulated by Russian propoganda – a lot of this went on in the Donbas, and we
can see the results of that fiasco to this day.
a)Post-WWII American power elites are both incompetent and arrogant (which is a first
derivative of incompetence) to understand that–this is largely the problem with most
"Western" elites.
b) Currently the United States doesn't have enough (if any) geopolitical currency and
clout to "buy" Russia. In fact, Russia can take what she needs (and she doesn't have "global"
appetites) with or without the US. Plus, China is way more interested in Russia's services
that the US, which will continue to increasingly find out more about its own severe
military-political limitations.
c) The United States foreign policy is not designed and is not being conducted to serve
real US national interests. In fact, US can not even define those interests beyond the
tiresome platitudes about "global interests" and being "exceptional".
@AP I
like how I got you talking about the Ukronazis, it's kinda funny actually, so let me pose as
Ukraine's "defender" here:
This neo-Nazi scum is not in any way representative of the population of Eastern
Ukraine. These are delinquents, criminals, low-lifes. They are despised, looked down upon
by the normal people, pro-Russian and pro-Ukrainian alike. A typical Ukrainian nationalist
East of Dnieper is a business owner, a journalist, an office worker, a student who dodges
draft. It's just the way it is.
@AP The
way to think about Azov battalion is to treat them like a simple group of delinquents, for
whom Ukrainian nationalism has become a path to obtain money, resources, bigger guns and
perhaps even political power. Azov is simply a gang. And Russian security services
have plenty of experience dealing with gangs, so I don't expect Ukronazis to pose a major
challenge.
@Felix
Keverich I'm not sure about Ukrainian football hooligans, but football hooligans in
Hungary are not necessarily "low -lifes, criminals, delinquents", in fact, the majority of
them aren't. Most groups consist mostly of working class (including a lot of security guards
and similar) members, but there are some middle class (I know of a school headmaster, though
I think he's no longer very active in the group) and working class entrepreneur types (e.g.
the car mechanic who ended up owning a car dealership) and similar. I think outright criminal
types are a small minority. Since it costs money to attend the matches, outright failures
(the permanently unemployed and similar ne'er-do-wells) are rarely found in such groups.
@reiner
Tor LOL I classify all football hooligans as low-lifes simply due to the nature of their
pastime. Ukrainian neo-Nazi militias have been involved in actual crimes including murder,
kidnapping and racketeering. Their criminal activities go unpunished by the regime, because
they are considered "heroes" or something.
This neo-Nazi scum is not in any way representative of the population of Eastern
Ukraine.
If by "representative" you mean majority, sure. Neither are artsy students, or Afghan war
veterans, or schoolteachers, any other group a majority.
Also not all of the street fighters turned militias neo-Nazis, as are Azov. Right Sector
are not neo-Nazis, they are more fascists.
These are delinquents, criminals, low-lifes.
As reiner tor correctly pointed out, this movement which grew out of the football ultra
community is rather working class but is not lumpens. You fail again.
A typical Ukrainian nationalist East of Dnieper is a business owner, a journalist, an
office worker, a student who dodges draft
Are there more business owners, students (many of whom do not dodge the draft), office
workers combined than there are ultras/far-right brawlers? Probably. 30% of Kharkiv voted for
nationalist parties (mostly Tymoshenko's and Klitschko's moderates) in the 2012 parliamentary
elections, under Yanukovich. That represents about 900,000 people in that oblast. There
aren't 900,000 brawling far-rightists in Kharkiv. So?
The exteme nationalist Banderist Svoboda party got about 4% of the vote in Kharkiv oblast
in 2012. This would make Bandera twice as popular in Kharkiv as the democratic opposition is
in Russia.
I classify all football hooligans as low-lifes simply due to the nature of their
pastime.
They are well integrated into the rest of society, so you can call them low-lifes, but
they will still be quite different from ordinary criminals.
Ukrainian neo-Nazi militias have been involved in actual crimes including murder,
kidnapping and racketeering.
But that's quite different from being professional criminals. Members of the Waffen-SS
also committed unspeakable crimes, but they rarely had professional criminal backgrounds, and
were, in fact, quite well integrated into German society.
The way to think about Azov battalion is to treat them like a simple group of
delinquents, for whom Ukrainian nationalism has become a path to obtain money, resources,
bigger guns and perhaps even political power
Yes, there are elements of this, but not only. If they were ethnic Russians, as in Donbas,
they would have taken a different path, as did the pro-Russian militants in Donbas who are
similar to the ethnic Ukrainian Azovites. Young guys who like to brawl and are ethnic
Russians or identify s such joined organizations like Oplot and moved to Donbas to fight
against Ukraine, similar types who identified as Ukrainians became Azovites or joined similar
pro-Ukrainian militias. Also not all of these were delinquents, many were working class,
security guards, etc.
Good that you admit that in Eastern Ukraine nationalism is not limited to student
activists and businessmen.
And Russian security services have plenty of experience dealing with gangs,
They chose to stay away from Kharkiv and limit Russia's action to Donbas, knowing that
there would be too much opposition, and not enough support, to Russian rule in Kharkiv to
make the effort worthwhile.
@Anon
Out of all hypotheses on the JFK assassination the one that Israel was behind it is the
strongest. There is no question about it. From the day one when conspiracy theories were
floated everything was done to hide how Israel benefited form the assassination.
@reiner
Tor I feel that comparing Azov to SS gives it too much credit.
My point is that this way of life is not something that many people in Ukraine are willing
to actively participate in. Most people are not willing to condone it either. AP says that
Azov and the like can act like underground insurgency in Eastern cities. But I don't see how
this could work – there will a thousand people around them willing to rat them out.
There is no pro-Ukrainian insurgency in Crimea or inside the republics in Donbass, and
it's not due to the lack of local football hooligans.
That represents about 900,000 people in that oblast. There aren't 900,000 brawling
far-rightists in Kharkiv. So?
This means these people won't pose a big problem. These folks will take care of themselves
either through self-deportation or gradually coming to terms with the new reality in Kharkov,
just like their compatriots in Crimea did.
Even among Svoboda voters, I suspect only a small minority of them are the militant types.
We should be to contain them through the use of local proxies. The armies of Donbass
republics currently number some 40-60 thousand men according to Cassad blog, which compares with the size of the entire
Ukrainian army. We should be able to recruit more local Ukrainian proxies once we're in Kharkov.
AP says that Azov and the like can act like underground insurgency in Eastern cities.
But I don't see how this could work – there will a thousand people around them
willing to rat them out.
About 1/3 of the population in Eastern Ukrainian regions voted for Ukrainian nationalists
in 2012, compared to only 10% in Donbas. Three times as many. Likely after 2014 many of the
hardcore pro-Russians left Kharkiv, just as hardcore pro-Ukrainians left Donetsk. Furthermore
anti-Russian attitudes have hardened, due to the war, Crimea, etc. So there would be plenty
of local support for native insurgents.
Russians say, correctly, that after Kiev has shelled Donetsk how can the people of Donetsk
reconcile themselves with Kiev?
The time when Russia could have bloodlessly marched into Kharkiv is over. Ukrainian forces
have dug in. How will Kharkiv people feel towards uninvited Russian invaders shelling their
city in order to to take it under their control?
There is no pro-Ukrainian insurgency in Crimea or inside the republics in Donbass, and
it's not due to the lack of local football hooligans.
Crimea was 60% Russian, Donbas Republics territory about 45% Russian; Kharkiv oblast is
only 25% Russian.
With Donbas – there are actually local pro-Ukrainian militants from Donbas, in the
Donbas and Aidar battalions.
@AP It
was a decision that Putin personally made. He wasn't going to move in Crimea either, until
Maidanists overthrew his friend
It goes without saying that Putin doesn't share my nationalist approach to Ukraine
problem: he does not see the destruction of Ukrainian project as necessary or even desirable.
And I'm sure the restraint Putin has shown on Ukraine doesn't come from him being intimidated
by Azov militia.
These folks will take care of themselves either through self-deportation or gradually
coming to terms with the new reality in Kharkov, just like their compatriots in Crimea
did
The problem with this comparison is that Crimeans were far more in favor of joining Russia
that are Kharkivites.
The armies of Donbass republics currently number some 40-60 thousand men according to
Cassad blog, which compares with the size of the entire Ukrainian army.
Ukrainian military has 200,000 – 250,000 active members and about 100,000 reserves.
Where did you get your information? The end of 2014?
We should be able to recruit more local Ukrainian proxies once we're in Kharkov.
You would be able to recruit some local proxies in Kharkiv. Kiev even did so in Donbas.
But given the fact that Ukrainian nationalism was 3 times more popular on Kharkiv than in
Donetsk, and that Kharkiv youth were split 50/50 in terms of or versus anti Maidan support
(versus 80/20 IIIRC anti-Maidan in Donbas), it would not be so easy. Moreover, by now many of
the hardcore anti-Kiev people have already left Kharkiv, while Kharkiv has had some
settlement by pro-Ukrainian dissidents from Donbas. So the situation even in 2014 was hard
enough that Russia chose to stay away, now it is even worse for the pro-Russians.
And I'm sure the restraint Putin has shown on Ukraine doesn't come from him being
intimidated by Azov militia.
This is rather a symptom of a much wider phenomenon: the population simply doesn't see
itself as Russian and doesn't want to be part of Russia. So its hooligan-types go for
Ukrainian, not Russian, nationalism as is the case in Russia.
The time when Russia could have bloodlessly marched into Kharkiv is over. Ukrainian
forces have dug in. How will Kharkiv people feel towards uninvited Russian invaders
shelling their city in order to to take it under their control?
The locals will move to disarm Ukrainian forces, who have taken their city hostage, then
welcome Russian liberators with open arms, what else they are going to do? lol
It's just a joke though. In reality there is virtually no Ukrainian forces in city of
Kharkov. They don't have the manpower. Ukrainian regime managed to fortify Perekop and the
perimeter of the people's republics, but the rest of Ukraine-Russia border remains completely
undefended. It's wide open!
It goes without saying that Putin doesn't share my nationalist approach to Ukraine
problem: he does not see the destruction of Ukrainian project as necessary or even
desirable.
Well there you have it. Putin is a much smarter guy than you are Felix (BTW, are you
Jewish, all of the Felix's that I've known were Jewish?). Good to see that you're nothing
more than a blackshirted illusionist.*
@for-the-record
German and European reliance on US security guarantees is a problem, since it's become pretty
clear that the US political system is dysfunctional and US "elites" are dangerous extremists.
We need our own security structures to be independent from the US so they can't drag us into
their stupid projects or blackmail us anymore why do you think Merkel didn't react much to
the revelations about American spying on Germany? Because we're totally dependent on the
Americans in security matters.
And while I don't believe Russia or Iran are really serious threats to Europe, it would be
foolish to have no credible deterrence.
"How will Kharkiv people feel towards uninvited Russian invaders shelling their city in
order to to take it under their control?"
They will move to disarm ther Ukrainian forces, who have taken their city hostage, then
welcome their Russian liberators with open arms, what else they are going to do? lol
While about 1/3 of Kharkiv voted for Ukrainian nationalists, only perhaps 10%-20% of the
city would actually like to be part of Russia (and I am being generous to you). So your idea
is equivalent to American fantasies of Iraqis greeting their troops with flowers.
It's just a joke though. In reality there is virtually no Ukrainian forces in city of
Kharkov. They don't have the manpower. Ukrainian regime managed to fortify Perekop and the
perimeter of the people's republics, but the rest of Ukraine-Russia border remains
completely undefended.
Are you living in 2014? Russian nationalists always like to think of Ukraine as if it is
2014-2015. It is comforting for them.
Ukraine currently has 200,000-250,000 active troops. About 60,000 of them are around
Donbas.
Here is a map of various positions in 2017:
Kharkiv does appear to be lightly defended, though not undefended (it has a motorized
infantry brigade and a lot of air defenses). The map does not include national guard units
such as Azov, however, which would add a few thousand troops to Kharkiv's defense.
It looks like rather than stationing their military in forward positions vs. a possible
Russian attack, Ukraine, has put lot of troops in Dnipropetrovsk, Mykolaiv, Kiev and
Odessa.
Ukrainian military has 200,000 – 250,000 active members and about 100,000
reserves. Where did you get your information? The end of 2014?
I read Kassad blog, and he says Ukrainian formations assembled in Donbass number some
50-70 thousands men. The entire Ukrainian army is around 200.000 men, including the navy
(LOL), the airforce, but most of it isn't combat ready. Ukraine doesn't just suffer from a
lack of manpower, they don't have the resources to feed and clothe their soldiers, which
limits their ability field an army.
By contrast the armies of people's republics have 40-60 thousand men – that's
impressive level of mobilisation, and they achieved this without implementing draft.
@APSo your idea is equivalent to American fantasies of Iraqis greeting their troops with
flowers.
The local populations in Iraq were congenial to begin with, at least outside some Sunni
centers. It was never an object of American policy to stay in Iraq indefinitely.
Kharkiv does appear to be lightly defended, though not undefended (it has a motorized
infantry brigade and a lot of air defenses).
How many people does this "motorized infantry brigade" have? And more importantly what is
its level of combat readiness? Couldn't we just smash this brigade with a termobaric bomb
while they are sleeping?
Ukraine is full of shit. They had 20.000 troops in Crimea, "a lot of air defenses" and it
didn't make a iota of difference. Somehow you expect me to believe Ukraine has a completely
different army now. Why should I? They don't have the resources to afford a better army, so
it is logical to assume that Ukrainian army is still crap.
Russian nationalists always like to think of Ukraine as if it is 2014-2015. It is
comforting for them.
Betwixt and between all the trash talking, they've forgotten that the last occasion on
which one country attempted to conquer an absorb another country with a population anywhere
near 30% of its own was during the 2d World War. Didn't work out so well for Germany and
Japan.
@for-the-recordAustria, on the other hand, has survived for more than 60 years without the US "umbrella"
to protect it (and with a military strength rated below that of Angola and Chile), so why
couldn't Germany?
Austria hasn't been absorbed by Germany or Italy therefore Germany doesn't have a use for
security guarantees or an armed force. Do I render your argument correctly?
Not completely true, Germany didn't participate in the Iraq war and in the bombing of
Libya.
I'm hardly an expert on military matters, but it would seem just common sense to me that a
state needs sufficient armed forces to protect its own territory if you don't have that, you
risk becoming a passive object whose fate is decided by other powers. Doesn't mean Germany
should have a monstrously bloated military budget like the US, just sufficient forces to
protect its own territory and that of neighbouring allies (which is what the German army
should be for instead of participating in futile counter-insurgency projects in places like
Afghanistan). Potential for conflict in Europe is obviously greatest regarding Russia it's
still quite low imo, and I want good relations with Russia and disagree vehemently with such
insanely provocative ideas as NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia, but it would be stupid
not to have credible deterrence (whose point it is to prevent hostilities after all). I don't
think that's an anti-Russian position, it's just realistic.
Apart from that Germany doesn't probably need much in the way of military capabilities maybe
some naval forces for participation in international anti-piracy missions.
Regarding nuclear weapons, that's obviously something Germany can't or shouldn't do on its
own (probably wouldn't be tolerated anyway given 20th century history), so it would have to
be in some form of common European project. Hard to tell now if something like this could
eventually become possible or necessary.
@Felix
Keverich Sorry to prickle your little fantasy world once again tovarishch, but according
to current CIA statistics Ukraine has 182,000 active personnel, and 1,000,000 reservists! For
a complete rundown of Ukraine's military strength, read this and weep:
@Art
DecoThey've had ample opportunity over a period of 26 years to make the decision you
favor. It hasn't happened, and there's no reason to fancy they'll be more amenable a decade
from now.
Yes, these people had been sold a vision. If only they leave behind the backward, Asiatic,
mongoloid Russia, they will instantly Join Europe. They will have all of the good stuff:
European level of prosperity, rule of law, international approval, and so on; and none of the
bad stuff that they associated with Russia, like poverty, corruption, and civil strife.
Official Ukrainian propaganda worked overtime, and still works today, to hammer this into
people's heads. And it's an attractive vision. An office dweller in Kiev wants to live in a
shiny European capital, not in a bleak provincial city of a corrupt Asian empire. The problem
is, it's ain't working. For a while Ukraine managed to get Russia to subsidize Ukrainian
European dream. Now this is over. The vision is starting to fail even harder.
The experience of Communism shows that it may take decades but eventually people notice
that the state ideology is a lie. Once they do, they change their mind about things rather
quickly.
It goes without saying that Putin doesn't share my nationalist approach to Ukraine
problem: he does not see the destruction of Ukrainian project as necessary or even
desirable.
Agreed, and he happens to be in the right here. Russia actually has a good hand in
Ukraine, if only she keeps her cool . More military adventurism is foolish for at
least three reasons:
(1) All the civilian deaths in the Donbass, somewhat perversely, play to Russia's
advantage in that they take some of the sting out of the "Ukraine is the victim" narrative.
Common people know full well that the Ukrainian troops are hated in the Donbass (I once
watched a Ukrainian soldier shock the audience by saying this on Shuster Live), and they know
also that Kiev has a blame in all those dead women and children. These are promising
conditions for future reconciliation, and they would be squandered overnight if Russian
troops moved further westward.
(2) The geopolitical repercussions would be enormous. As I and others have already
written, the present situation is just about what people in elite Western circles can
stomach. Any Russian escalation would seriously jeopardize European trade with Russia, among
other things.
(3) There is a good chance that Crimea will eventually be internationally recognized as
part of the RF (a British parliamentary report on this matter in 2015, I think it was, made
this quite clear). The same might also be true of the Donbass. These "acquisitions," too,
would be jeopardized by more military action.
You mean Putin mercs kill more Ukrainian civilians and we 'take some of the sting out of
the 'Ukraine is a victim narrative'? Sounds like a plan.
No, I wrote that those civilians are already gone and that both sides had a hand in their
deaths, which will help the peace process since no side can claim sole victimhood.
And your assumption that the separatists are mercenaries is groundless speculation.
Estimations are that well over half of the separatists are born and bred in Ukraine, and
there is no evidence to suggest that they are fighting for the love of money.
Did you cc the folks in Ramallah and Jerusalem about that?
Risible comparison. Theirs is a conflict involving three major religions and the survival
of the Israeli state at stake. On the Crimean question, we have already heard influential
Westerners voice the possibility that it might one day be accepted as Russian, and if you
read between the lines, many Ukrainians are of a similiar mind.
@Felix
KeverichUnfortunately, the Ukraine has been spending 5%* of its GDP on the military
since c.2015 (versus close to 1% before 2014).
Doesn't really matter if tons of money continues to be stolen, or even the recession
– with that kind of raw increase, a major enhancement in capabilities is
inevitable.
Like it or not, but outright war with Maidanist Ukraine has been ruled out from the
beginning, as the more perceptive analysts like Rostislav Ischenko have long recognized. If
there was a time and a place for it, it was either in April 2014, or August 2014 at the
very latest. Since then, the Ukrainian Army has gotten much stronger. It has been purged of
its "Russophile" elements, and even though it has lost a substantial percentage of its
remnant Soviet-era military capital in the war of attrition with the LDNR, it has more than
made up for it with wartime XP gain and the banal fact of a quintupling in military
spending as a percentage of GDP from 1% to 5%.
This translates to an effective quadrupling
in absolute military spending, even when accounting for Ukraine's post-Maidan economic
collapse.
Russia can still crush Ukraine in a full-scale conventional conflict, and that
will remain the case for the foreseeable future, but it will no longer be the happy cruise
to the Dnepr that it would have been two years earlier.
The entire Ukrainian army is around 200.000 men, including the navy (LOL), the airforce,
but most of it isn't combat ready.
250,000. Combat readiness is very different from 2014.
Ukraine doesn't just suffer from a lack of manpower, they don't have the resources to
feed and clothe their soldiers, which limits their ability field an army.
Again, it isn't 2014 anymore. Military budget has increased significantly, from 3.2
billion in 2015 to 5.17 billion in 2017. In spite of theft, much more is getting through.
By contrast the armies of people's republics have 40-60 thousand men – that's
impressive level of mobilisation, and they achieved this without implementing draft
It's one of the only ways to make any money in the Republics, so draft is
unnecessaary.
Estimations are that well over half of the separatists are born and bred in Ukraine, and
there is no evidence to suggest that they are fighting for the love of money.
80% are natives. Perhaps as much as 90%. However, often it a way to make a meager salary
in those territories, so there is a mercenary aspect to it. Lots of unemployed workers go
into the Republic military.
Estimations are that well over half of the separatists are born and bred in Ukraine, and
there is no evidence to suggest that they are fighting for the love of money.
80% in 2014-15, to be precise; another 10% from the Kuban; 10% from Russia, the Russian
world, and the world at large.
NAF salaries are good by post-2014 Donbass standards, but a massive cut for Russians
– no Russian went there to get rich.
That said, I strongly doubt there will ever be international recognition of Crimea, let
alone Donbass. Israel has by far the world's most influential ethnic lobby. Even NATO member
Turkey hasn't gotten Northern Cyprus internationally recognized, so what exactly are the
chances of the international community (read: The West) recognizing the claims of Russia,
which is fast becoming established in Western minds as the arch-enemy of civilization?
@Anatoly
Karlin Fascinating link. The numbers for the military budget are a lot lower than
reported elsewhere.
Mobilization percentages by region:
"Among the leaders of the fourth and fifth wave of partial mobilisation were the
Khmelnitsky,
Dnipropetrovsk, Vinnytsia, Kirovohrad and Zaporizhia regions, as well as the city
of Kyiv, whose mobilisation plan was fulfilled 80-100% (the record was Vinnytsia oblast,
which achieved 100% mobilisation). At the opposite extreme are the Kharkiv, Chernivtsi,
Donetsk, Ivano-Frankivsk, Lugansk, Sumy, Ternopil and Transcarpathian regions, where
the results of the mobilisation varied from 25 to 60%."
Summary:
2014:
The true face of the Ukrainian armed forces was revealed by the Russian annexation of
Crimea and the first weeks of the war in the Donbas – they were nothing more than a
fossilised structure, unfit for any effective function upon even a minimum engagement with
the enemy, during which a significant part of the troops only realised whom they were
representing in the course of the conflict and more than once, from the perspective of
service in one of the post-Soviet military districts, they chose to serve in the Russian
army
2017:
The war in the Donbas shaped the Ukrainian army. It gave awareness and motivation to the
soldiers, and forced the leadership of the Defence Ministry and the government of the state
to adapt the army's structure – for the first time since its creation – to real
operational needs, and also to bear the costs of halting the collapses in the fields of
training and equipment, at least to such an extent which would allow the army to fight a
close battle with the pro-Russian separatists. Despite all these problems, the Ukrainian
armed forces of the year 2017 now number 200,000, most of whom have come under fire, and
are seasoned in battle. They have a trained reserve ready for mobilisation in the event of
a larger conflict*; their weapons are not the latest or the most modern, but the vast
majority of them now work properly; and they are ready for the defence of the vital
interests of the state (even if some of the personnel still care primarily about their own
vested interests). They have no chance of winning a potential military clash with Russia,
but they have a reason to fight. The Ukrainian armed forces of the year 2014, in a
situation where their home territory was occupied by foreign troops, were incapable of
mounting an adequate response. The changes since the Donbas war started mean that Ukraine
now has the best army it has ever had in its history.
* The Ukrainian armed forces have an operational reserve of 130,000 men, relatively well
trained and with real combat experience, who since 2016 have been moulded out of veterans
of the Donbas (as well as from formations subordinate to the Interior Ministry). It must be
stressed, however, that those counted in the reserve represent only half of the veterans of
the anti-terrorist operation (by October 2016, 280,000 Ukrainians had served in the Donbas
in all formations subordinate to the government in Kyiv, with 266,000 reservists gaining
combat status; at the beginning of February 2017, 193,400 reservists were in the armed
forces). Thanks to that, at least in terms of the human factor, it should be possible in a
relatively short period of time to increase the Ukrainian army's degree of combat
readiness, as well as to fight a relatively close battle with a comparable opponent,
something the Ukrainian armed forces were not capable of doing at the beginning of
2014.
NAF salaries are good by post-2014 Donbass standards, but a massive cut for Russians
– no Russian went there to get rich.
Which further points to the critical role played by Russians. Many of the local volunteers
are participating because doing so offers a salary, which is very important in a wrecked,
sanctioned Donbas. The Russian 10%-20% are motivated, often Chechen combat vets. They are
more important than their % indicates.
@Gerard2
..and lets not forget the failure in mobilisation from the Ukrainian military
That and having to hire loads of Georgians, Chechens, Poles and other mercenaries. Pretty much tallys perfectly with the failed shithole Ukraine government structure full of
everyone else .but Ukrainians
@melanf
What is almost incomprehensible for me in these endless Russia vs Ukraine arguments is how
they (yes both sides) always ignore the real issues and instead keep on raising relatively
petty points while thinking that mass non white immigration and things like the EU
commissioner of immigration stating openly that Europe needs endless immigration, are not
important.
It's like white South Africans who still debate the Boer war or the Irish debate
the northern Ireland question, and are completely oblivious to the fact that these things
don't matter anymore if you have an entirely new people ruling your land (ok in South Africa
they were not new, but you know what I mean).
I have read a article mentioned something like Putin said, to annexed whole Ukraine means to
share the enormous resource wealth of vast Russia land with them, which make no economic
sense. If Russia is worst than Ukraine, then there won't be million of Ukrainian migrating
over after the Maidan coup.
So are all those Baltic states. Russia don't want these countries as it burden, it is
probably only interested in selected strategic areas like the Eastern Ukraine industrial belt
and military important Crimea warm water deep seaport, and skilled migrants. Ukraine has one
of lowest per capital income now, with extreme corrupted politicians controlled by USNato
waging foolish civil war killing own people resulting in collapsing economic and exudes of
skilled people.
What it got to lose to unify with Russia to have peace, prosperity and been a nation of a
great country instead of poor war torn? Plus a bonus of free Russia market access, unlimited
cheap natural gas and pipeline toll to tax instead of buying LNG from US at double price.
Sorry this s just my opinion based on mostly fake news we are fed, only the Ukrainian know
the best and able to decde themselves.
Agreed, and he happens to be in the right here. Russia actually has a good hand in
Ukraine, if only she keeps her cool. More military adventurism is foolish for at least
three reasons:
Yes, this is my view also. I think Russia was never in a position to do much more than it
has, and those who talk about more vigorous military interference are just naïve, or
engaging in wishful thinking, about the consequences. I think Putin played a very bad hand as
well as could reasonably be expected in Ukraine and Crimea. No doubt mistakes were made, and
perhaps more support at the key moment for the separatists (assassinations of some of the key
oligarchs who chose the Ukrainian side and employed thugs to suppress the separatists in
eastern cities, perhaps) could have resulted in a better situation now with much more of the
eastern part of Ukraine separated, but if Russians want someone to blame for the situation in
Ukraine apart from their enemies, they should look at Yanukovich, not Putin.
In the long run, it seems likely the appeal of NATO and the EU (assuming both still even
exist in their current forms in a few years time) is probably peaking, but strategic patience
and only limited covert and economic interference is advisable.
The return of Crimea to Russia alone has been a dramatic improvement in the inherent
stability of the region. A proper division of the territory currently forming the Ukraine
into a genuine Ukrainian nation in the west and an eastern half returned to Russia would be
the ideal long term outcome, but Russia can surely live with a neutralised Ukraine.
You realise that Ukraine's GDP declined in dollar terms by a factor of 2-3 times, right? A
bigger share of a smaller economy translates into the same paltry sum. It is still under $5
billion.
Futhermore an army that's actively deployed and engaged in fighting spends more money than
during peacetime. A lot of this money goes to fuel, repairs, providing for soldiers and their
wages rather than qualitatively improving capabilities of the army.
The bottom-line is Ukraine spent the last 3,5 years preparing to fight a war against the
People's Republic of Donetsk. I'll admit Ukrainian army can hold its own against the People's
Republic of Donetsk. Yet it remains hopelessly outmatched in a potential clash with Russia. A
short, but brutal bombing campaign can whipe out Ukrainian command and control, will make it
impossible to mount any kind of effective defence. Ukrainian conscripts have no experience in
urban warfare, and their national loyalties are unclear.
AP predicts that the cities of Kharkov, Dniepropetrovsk will be reduced to something akin
to Aleppo. But it has taken 3 years of constant shelling to cause the damage in Aleppo. A
more likely outcome is that Ukrainian soldiers will promptly ditch their uniforms, once they
realise the Russian are coming and their command is gone.
@Felix
Keverich Nominal GDP collapsed, but real GDP only fell by around 20%. This matters more,
since the vast majority of Ukrainian military spending occurs in grivnas.
By various calculations, Ukrainian military spending went up from 1% of GDP, to 2.5%-5%.
Minus 20%, that translates to a doubling to quadrupling.
What it does mean is that they are even less capable of paying for advanced weapons from
the West than before, but those were never going to make a cardinal difference anyway.
AP is certainly exaggerating wrt Kharkov looking like Aleppo and I certainly didn't agree
with him on that. In reality Russia will still be able to smash the Ukraine, assuming no
large-scale American intervention, but it will no longer be the trivial task it would have
been in 2014, and will likely involve thousands as opposed to hundreds (or even dozens) of
Russian military deaths in the event of an offensive up to the Dnieper.
It's one of the only ways to make any money in the Republics, so draft is
unnecessaary.
It's not like the regime-controlled parts of the country are doing much better! LOL
My point is that this bodes well for our ability to recruit proxies in Ukraine, don't you
think? We could easily assemble another 50.000-strong local army, once we're in Kharkov.
That's the approach I would use in Ukraine: strip away parts of it piece by piece, create
local proxies, use them to maintain control and absorb casualties in the fighting on the
ground.
In reality Russia will still be able to smash the Ukraine, assuming no large-scale
American intervention, but it will no longer be the trivial task it would have been in
2014, and will likely involve thousands as opposed to hundreds (or even dozens) of Russian
military deaths in the event of an offensive up to the Dnieper.
Fortunately, we'll not be seeing a replay of the sacking and destruction of Novgorod as
was done in the 15th century by Ivan III, and all of its ugly repercussions in Ukraine.
Besides, since the 15th century, we've seen the emergence of three separate nationalities out
of the loose amalgamation of principalities known a Rus. Trying to recreate something (one
Rus nation) out of something that never in effect existed, now in the 21st century is a
ridiculous concept at best.
"It's one of the only ways to make any money in the Republics, so draft is
unnecessaary."
It's not like the regime-controlled parts of the country are doing much better! LOL
Well, they are, at least in the center and west. Kievans don't volunteer to fight because
they have no other way of making money. But you probably believe the fairytale that Ukraine
is in total collapse, back to the 90s.
We could easily assemble another 50.000-strong local army, once we're in Kharkov.
If in the process of taking Kharkiv the local economy goes into ruin due to wrecked
factories and sanctions so that picking up a gun is the only way to feed one's family for
some people, sure. But again, keep in mind that Kharkiv is much less pro-Russian than Donbas
so this could be more complicated.
@Anatoly
KarlinHow so? Poland and France (together around equal to Germany's population)
worked out perfectly for Nazi Germany.
You're forgetting a few things. In the United States, about 1/3 of the country's
productive capacity was devoted to the war effort during the period running from 1940 to
1946. I'll wager you it was higher than that in Britain and continental Europe. That's what
Germany was drawing on to attempt to sustain its holdings for just the 4-5 year period in
which they occupied France and Poland. (Russia currently devotes 4% of its productive
capacity to the military). Germany had to be exceedingly coercive as well. They were facing
escalating partisan resistance that whole time (especially in the Balkans).
Someone whose decisions matter is going to ask the question of whether it's really worth
the candle.
@Art
Deco Thanks for the correction. This suggests that transforming Iraq into a solidly
pro-Western stable democracy would have been much harder than doing so for Japan. This I
think would have been the only legitimate reason to invade in Iraq in 2003 (WMDs weren't
there, and in 2003 the regime was not genocidal as it had been decades earlier when IMO an
invasion would have been justified)
Again, much of Iraq is quiet and has been for a decade. What's not would be the
provinces where Sunnis form a critical mass. Their political vanguards are fouling their
own nest and imposing costs on others in the vicinity, such as the country's Christian
population and the Kurds living in mixed provinces like Kirkuk.
Correct, but most of this have been the case had the Baathists remained in power?
You've seen severe internal disorders in the Arab world over 60 years in Algeria, Libya,
the Sudan, the Yemen, the Dhofar region of Oman, Lebanon, Syria, and central Iraq.
Which is why one ought to either not invade a country and remove a regime that maintains
stability and peace, or if one does so – take on the responsibility of investing
massive effort and treasure in order to prevent the inevitable chaos and violence that would
erupt as a result of one's invasion.
@Anatoly
Karlin To be honest, I don't think it'll be necessary to sacrifice so many lives of
Russian military personnel. Use LDNR army: transport them to Belgorod and with Russians they
could move to take Kharkov, while facing minimal opposition. Then move futher to the West and
South until the entire Ukrainian army in Donbass becomes encircled at which point they will
likely surrender.
After supressing Ukrainian air-defence, our airforce should be able to destroy command and
control, artillery, armoured formations, airfields, bridges over Dnieper, other
infrustructure. Use the proxies to absord casualties in the fighting on the ground.
but it will no longer be the happy cruise to the Dnepr that it would have been two years
earlier.
Anatoly, please, don't write on things you have no qualification on writing. You can not
even grasp the generational (that is qualitative) abyss which separates two armed forces. The
question will not be in this:
but it will no longer be the happy cruise to the Dnepr that it would have been two years
earlier.
By the time the "cruising" would commence there will be no Ukrainian Army as an organized
formation or even units left–anything larger than platoon will be hunted down and
annihilated. It is really painful to read this, honestly. The question is not in Russian
"ambition" or rah-rah but in the fact that Ukraine's armed forces do not posses ANY C4ISR
capability which is crucial for a dynamics of a modern war. None. Mopping up in the East
would still be much easier than it would be in Central, let alone, Western Ukraine but Russia
has no business there anyway. More complex issues were under consideration than merely
probable losses of Russian Army when it was decided (rightly so) not to invade.
I will open
some "secret"–nations DO bear collective responsibility and always were subjected to
collective punishment -- latest example being Germany in both WWs -- the bacillus of
Ukrainian "nationalism" is more effectively addressed by letting those moyahataskainikam
experience all "privileges" of it. In the end, Russia's resources were used way better than
paying for mentally ill country. 2019 is approaching fast.
P.S. In all of your military "analysis" on Ukraine one thing is missing leaving a gaping
hole–Russian Armed Forces themselves which since 2014 were increasing combat potential
exponentially. Ukies? Not so much–some patches here and there. Russian Armed Forces of
2018 are not those of 2013. Just for shits and giggles check how many Ratnik sets have been
delivered to Russian Army since 2011. That may explain to you why timing in war and politics
is everything.
AP is certainly exaggerating wrt Kharkov looking like Aleppo and I certainly didn't
agree with him on that.
I wrote that parts of the city would look like that. I don't think there would be enough
massive resistance that the entire city would be destroyed. But rooting out a couple thousand
armed, experienced militiamen or soldiers in the urban area would cause a lot of expensive
damage and, as is the case when civilians died in Kiev's efforts to secure Donbas, would
probably not endear the invaders to the locals who after all do not want Russia to invade
them.
And Kharkiv would be the easiest to take. Dnipropetrovsk would be much more Aleppo-like,
and Kiev Felix was proposing for Russia to take all these areas.
To be honest, I don't think it'll be necessary to sacrifice so many lives of Russian
military personnel.
The question is not in losses, per se. Russians CAN accept losses if the deal becomes hot
in Ukraine–it is obvious. The question is in geopolitical dynamics and the way said
Russian Armed Forces were being honed since 2013, when Shoigu came on-board and the General
Staff got its mojo returned to it. All Command and Control circuit of Ukie army will be
destroyed with minimal losses if need be, and only then cavalry will be let in. How many
Russian or LDNR lives? I don't know, I am sure GOU has estimates by now. Once you control
escalation (Russia DOES control escalation today since can respond to any contingency) you
get way more flexibility (geo)politcally. Today, namely December 2017, situation is such that
Russia controls escalation completely. If Ukies want to attack, as they are inevitably forced
to do so, we all know what will happen. Ukraine has about a year left to do something.
Meanwhile considering EU intentions to sanction Poland, well, we are witnessing the start of
a major shitstorm.
Trying to recreate something (one Rus nation) out of something that never in effect
existed, now in the 21st century is a ridiculous concept at best.
A stupid comment for an adult. Ukraine, in effect never existed before Russia/Stalin/Lenin
created it. Kiev is a historical Russian city, and 5 of the 7 most populated areas in Ukraine
are Russian/Soviet created cities, Russian language is favourite spoken by most Ukrainians (
see even Saakashvili in court, speaking only in Russian even though he speaks fluent
Ukrainian now and all the judges and lawyers speaking in Russian too), the millions of
Ukrainians living happily in Russia and of course, the topic of what exactly is a Ukrainian
is obsolete because pretty much every Ukrainian has a close Russian relative the level of
intermarriage was at the level of one culturally identical people.
AK: Improvement! The first paragraph was acceptable, hence not hidden.
@Mr.
Hack economics, hope that the west and their puppets in Kiev would act like sane and
decent people, threat of sanctions and so on.
As is obvious, if the west had remained neutral ( an absurd hypothetical because the west
were the ringmasters of the farce in this failed state) ..and not supported the coup and then
the evil war brought on the Donbass people, then a whole different situation works out in
Ukraine ( for the better)
@S3
Nietzsche famously foresaw the rise and fall of communism and the destruction of Germany in
the two world wars. He also liked to think of himself as a Polish nobleman. Maybe this is
what he meant.
Its very amusing reading all the comments so far. But reality is that Russia should take back
all the lands conquered by the Tsars, and that includes Finland.
Look at America. Currently the US has troops stationed in other countries all over the
world. And most of those "independent" countries can't take virtually no decision without
America's approval. This is definitely the case with Germany and Japan, where their
"presidents" have to take an oath of loyalty to the US on assuming office. Now America has
even moved into Eastern Europe, and has troops and radars and nuclear capable missile
batteries stationed there. So America is just expanding and expanding its grasp while Russia
must contract its territories even further and further. Yippee.
So Russia must take back all the territories conquered by the Tsars so as to not lose this
game of monopoly. Those in those territories not too happy about such matters can move to
America or deal with the Red Army. This is not a matter of cost benefits analysis but a
matter of Russia's national security, as in the case of Chechnya.
The territories to Russia's East are especially necessary for Russia's security; when the
chips are down, when all the satellites have been blown out of space, all the aircraft blown
out of the air, all the ground hardware blown to smithereens; when the battle is reduced to
eye to eye rat like warfare, then those assorted Mongol mongrels from Russia's East come into
their element. Genghis Khan was the biggest mass murderer in history, he made Hitler look
like a school boy, his genes live on in those to Russia's East. So if America were to get
involved in Ukraine Russia would have no issues losing a million troops in a matter of days
while the US has never even lost a million troops in its civil war and WW2 combined.
Lets face it, those Mongol mongrels make much better fighters than the effete Sunni Arabs
any day, so Russia should get them on her side. In Syria those ISIS idiots would never have
got as far as they did were it not for those few Chechens in their midst's.
But alas, Russia has to eat humble pie at the moment, internationally and at the Olympics.
But humble pie tastes good when its washed down with bottles of vodka, and its only
momentarily after all.
@gTLook at America. Currently the US has troops stationed in other countries all over the
world.
Since 1945, between 70% and 87% of American military manpower has been stationed in the
United States and its possession. The vast bulk of the remainder is generally to be found in
about a half-dozen countries. (In recent years, that would be Germany, Japan, Iraq,
Afghanistan, and Kuwait). Andrew Bacevich once went on a whinge about the stupidity of having
a 'Southern Command' without bothering to tell his readers that the Southern Command had
2,000 billets at that time, that nearly half were stationed at Guantanamo Bay (an American
possession since 1902), that no country had more than 200 American soldiers resident, and
that the primary activity of the Southern Command was drug interdiction. On the entire
African continent, there were 5,000 billets at that time.
And most of those "independent" countries can't take virtually no decision without
America's approval. This is definitely the case with Germany and Japan, where their
"presidents" have to take an oath of loyalty to the US on assuming office.
I especially like the bit about "Though most of the German officers were not originally
inclined against America, a lot of them being educated in the United States, they are now
experiencing disappointment and even disgust with Washington's policies."
Seems its not only
the Russians who are getting increasingly pissed off with the US when at first they actually
liked the US. No wonder the Germans are just letting their submarines and tanks rot away.
"... Trump has promised to expand the half-million person Army when in fact there is no need for a US ground force; Canada and Mexico are quite benign. The NSS in fact makes it clear that the objective is not defense but increasing world hegemony: "We will advance American influence because a world that supports American interests and reflects our values makes America more secure and prosperous." Baloney, the wars have made America less secure and will continue to do so as new wars on North Korea and Iran are promoted. ..."
"... Thus hundreds of billions of dollars are wasted on the military in a country with dire domestic needs. That's no way to Make America Great Again, is it. That's just being stupid. ..."
Nikki Haley, in her distinct fashion, articulated an "America First" pov at the UNSC
yesterday as she claimed the repudiation of decades of international understandings on the
status of Jerusalem was an expression of American "sovereignty", and criticism of same
amounted to an "insult" that "would not be forgotten." Not a lot of nuance, or diplomacy, on
display and the tantrum was aimed at friends and rivals alike.
The National Security vision seems to place a lot of faith in a version of laissez-faire
libertarian economics which, reading between the lines, will serve as a motivating principle
in extending great power rivalry based on defining the "rules based international system" as
precisely such economic system. That's probably not too different from the "exceptional"
viewpoint of the previous administrations, but expressed, much like Haley, in far blunter
fashion.
Very well said. I would only add that the globalist/financial sector did even better!
@ 15, 20
I am surprised that Russia does not openly support US regime change projects. (sarc)
Afganistan cost 100's of billions and converted the Taliban from allies to enemies.
Iraq cost 100's of billions and converted them from pro Sunni/Gulf to pro-Iranian
Turkey has cost uncounted billions and converted them from pro NATO to pro Russia
Syria cost up to 100 billion and converted the country from pro-west to pro Russia
Yemen cost billions and converted a pro-western ruler (now dead) to anti-western
This is not to mention Egypt, Sudan, Somalia, Georgia, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, and a host
of other countries in Africa and South America - who all look at Libya and realize the plans
that await them
Really, what other country gets so much bang for their buck? Perhaps this is history's
version of shock and awe for those who arrogate to themselves the power to 'make' it.
Don Bacon@15, Don, projected costs of the Afghan and Iraq wars are not billions but
trillions.
Kennedy School professor Linda Bilmes finds that the all-in costs of the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan will measure in the $4 trillion to $6 trillion range when all is said and done.
But that's not the most terrifying element of her survey of the fiscal impact of the "war on
terror" and related undertakings. What should really strike fear into your heart is her
finding that "the largest portion of that bill is yet to be paid."
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/03/28/cost_of_iraq_linda_bilmes_says_iraq_and_afghanistan_wars_could_cost_6_trillion.html
So much for Trumps 'fix our infrastructure' first promises. instead of MAGA we get MIGA make
Israel great again.
The greatest danger of the US's decline in power relative to the rest of the world is an
overreaction by the US to try to halt such decline. This has been true for a while; Trump's
belligerence just brings it into sharper focus. Obama was actually pretty much the same but
he hid it behind smoother language.
NSS: "We will preserve peace through strength by rebuilding our military so that it remains
preeminent, deters our adversaries, and if necessary, is able to fight and win."
Currently the military is in poor shape. Half the fighter planes can't fly, only one of
eleven aircraft carriers is deployed, and the Pentagon has struggled to send one brigade to
Europe. Morale is low, the Air Force has a deficit of about 2,000 pilots, Navy personnel are
poorly trained in seamanship so collisions occur, and the Army is struggling to recruit
because young people in the recruit pool have drug and weight problems (and better things to
do).
The current "rebuilding" is characterized by spending tons of money on complex systems
that don't work well, like the F-35 strike fighter, the Ford-class aircraft carrier, the
stealth destroyer and the Littoral Combat Ship.
Budget limitations including sequestration mean that the defense budget funds for
rebuilding are not available, and as the out-of-power Democrat Party insists that domestic
needs be considered equally with "defense." (That's the good news.)
Of course the military budget has little to do with defense and mostly has served for
elective wars which the US has consistently lost, and then paid to correct such as the $60
billion used for Iraq reconstruction in a country the US converted from an Iran enemy to an
Iran ally (Iran says thank you Uncle Sam).
Trump has promised to expand the half-million person Army when in fact there is no need
for a US ground force; Canada and Mexico are quite benign. The NSS in fact makes it clear
that the objective is not defense but increasing world hegemony: "We will advance American
influence because a world that supports American interests and reflects our values makes
America more secure and prosperous." Baloney, the wars have made America less secure and will
continue to do so as new wars on North Korea and Iran are promoted.
Thus hundreds of billions of dollars are wasted on the military in a country with dire
domestic needs. That's no way to Make America Great Again, is it. That's just being
stupid.
"... Reza Marashi is director of research at the National Iranian American Council. He came to NIAC after serving in the Office of Iranian Affairs at the U.S. Department of State. His articles have appeared in The New York Times, Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy, and The Atlantic, among other publications. He has been a guest contributor to CNN, NPR, the BBC, TIME Magazine, The Washington Post, and the Financial Times, among other broadcast outlets. Follow Reza on Twitter: @rezamarashi ..."
"... At least since 1980, millions of bombs have been dropped on the people of Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Syria, Gaza, Libya, all 'Made in USA' or 'Made in England': directly sold by Americans and the British and mostly dropped by the American/British pilots, but none has ever been displayed with such a vigor and moral concern and called for the international community to come forward to confront or condemn the manufacturer or the perpetrators who had used them against the civilians. ..."
"... What 'international' law/obligation is this that grants the US the monopoly and full rights to continue to arm criminal regimes in the Middle East and to shamelessly support them, but the same 'international obligation' requires Iran to refrain from any military or even moral support for the victims and demands that Iran must remain an observer of the US-Saudi-UAE mass murder in Yemen?! For how many more years and decades the people in the Middle East are supposed to accept such a contemptible hypocrisy and double standards! ..."
"... You diplomatically brought in the key motivation behind the show – political ambitions. She knows she needs 'name recognition' and seems determined to get it, no matter how. ..."
"... Ever since you left DOS, US' core policy on Iran has not been changed. As a matter of fact ever since the revolution, US Iran policy has not changed an iota, Nicki Healy, Samantha Powers, and Collin Powell and many others that came and gone are all the same, firmly anti- Iran and Iran in as long as Iran and Iranians maintains their nationalistic independence policy. ..."
Nikki Haley is not good at foreign policy. With few discernible achievements to speak of after one year as America's envoy to
the UN, her most noteworthy moments have been two incoherent diatribes on Iran. The
first -- an airing of grievances passed off as justification for killing the Iran nuclear deal -- came and went with little fanfare.
Yesterday, she doubled down with a speech trying to make the case
that Iran is, among other things, supplying Houthis in Yemen with ballistic missiles and "fanning the flames of conflict in the region."
There are a variety of problems with Haley's assertions. Three in particular stand out.
First, Haley cited a UN report in her claim regarding Iranian missile transfers to the Houthis. Of course, the UN has reached
no such conclusion. Instead, a panel of experts
concluded that fired missile fragments show components from an Iranian company, but they have "no evidence as to the identity
of the broker or supplier." Asked about Haley's claim that Iran is the culprit, Sweden's ambassador to the UN
said, "The info I have is less clear." Analysts from the U.S. Department of Defense speaking to reporters at Haley's speech openly
acknowledged that they do not know the missiles'
origin. Perhaps most surreal is the very same UN report cited by Haley also
says the missile included a component that was manufactured by an American company. Did she disingenuously omit that inconvenient
bit from her remarks, or fail to read the entire UN report? The world may never know.
If Iran is arming the Houthis, it is a terrible policy that Iranian officials should reverse. All countries should stop arming
the various factions in Yemen. Tehran is no exception. But neither is Washington. It was therefore appalling to see that Haley's
speech reference Yemen and not include a single word about America's ongoing military, intelligence, and logistical support for the
Saudi-led humanitarian catastrophe taking place. If she wanted to focus on facts regarding Iran and Yemen, she should have explained
to reporters that, in addition to bolstering Iran's influence in country where it was previously negligible, the Saudi-led debacle
has also empowered al-Qaeda -- the same al-Qaeda that attacked the United States on 9/11 with 15 Saudi nationals, and continues to
plot attacks on America today.
There is also a stunning lack of foreign policy sophistication in Haley's prevailing assumption regarding Iran and missiles. Not
only do we recklessly arm despots in the world's most volatile region with missile of their own, we also provide the Iranian government
with a pretext to further develop its missile program -- and cite American and European military sales to an increasingly aggressive
Saudi Arabia and UAE as justification for doing so. "Do as I say, not as I do" is a slogan, not a strategy. And if it remains the
status quo, so too will the growth of Iran's missile program.
The most inexplicable part of Haley's charade is her insistence on talking about Iran rather than talking to Iran. The only thing
stopping her from sitting down one on one with her Iranian counterpart at the UN to respectfully discuss these matters is her own
shortsighted ideological rigidity. Frankly, the track record is clear. Talking about Iran produced more missiles under the Bush administration.
Talking to Iran eventually produced compromises on missiles under the Obama administration. Haley should spend less time using the
UN ambassadorship to boost her domestic political ambitions, and more time actually conducting diplomacy on behalf of the United
States.
If Haley is truly concerned about Iran's missile program and regional activities, she can take three immediate steps to demonstrate
her seriousness: First, immediately halt all American military, intelligence, and logistical support for the Saudi-led humanitarian
catastrophe in Yemen. If the war ends, concerns about Iran in Yemen recede. Second, freeze all missile sales to Middle Eastern countries.
If Saudi Arabia and the UAE aren't armed to the teeth with missiles they don't know how to use, Iran's threat perception and missile
development reduces accordingly. Third, immediately offer bilateral and multilateral dialogue with the Iranian government on all
issues of contention -- with no preconditions. The JCPOA is proof that sustained diplomacy with Iran can produce favorable outcomes
for American interests.
Haley's dearth of foreign policy experience is no excuse for her shambolic performance yesterday. Rather than displaying the dignity
and poise of America's face to the United Nations, she had her Colin Powell 2003 moment, demonstrating that too many of our leaders
have still not learned the lessons of the Iraq war disaster. At best, this is willful ignorance on Haley's part. At worst (and more
likely), she cherry-picked intelligence
in a fashion eerily reminiscent of the 2002-2003 push for invading Iraq. It's not too late for Haley to salvage her tenure at the
UN, but it will require listening more to the professional staff of career government officials she inherited rather than the motley
crew of Republican operatives she brought with her to New York.
Reza Marashi is director of research at the National Iranian American Council. He came to NIAC after serving in the Office
of Iranian Affairs at the U.S. Department of State. His articles have appeared in The New York Times, Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy,
and The Atlantic, among other publications. He has been a guest contributor to CNN, NPR, the BBC, TIME Magazine, The Washington Post,
and the Financial Times, among other broadcast outlets. Follow Reza on Twitter:
@rezamarashi
At least since 1980, millions of bombs have been dropped on the people of Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Syria, Gaza, Libya,
all 'Made in USA' or 'Made in England': directly sold by Americans and the British and mostly dropped by the American/British
pilots, but none has ever been displayed with such a vigor and moral concern and called for the international community to come
forward to confront or condemn the manufacturer or the perpetrators who had used them against the civilians.
But why this time? Because this time the butcher of the world has found his buddy on the receiving end!
"If Iran is arming the Houthis, it is a terrible policy that Iranian officials should reverse. All countries should stop
arming the various factions in Yemen".
Mr Marashi, you speak from the safety of your office/country: Where the American armed and trained Saudi and Emirati forces
and pilots viciously attack defenseless civilians in Yemen that has so far left more than 10,000 killed and 8 million near starvation,
it is our moral obligation to support the oppressed Yemenis, not to leave them at the mercy of the Saudi savage air attacks –
the Yemenis should not be denied support just as we Iranians were denied arms by the civilized world while we had come under Saddam's
savage military attack in the 1980s.
What 'international' law/obligation is this that grants the US the monopoly and full rights to continue to arm criminal
regimes in the Middle East and to shamelessly support them, but the same 'international obligation' requires Iran to refrain from
any military or even moral support for the victims and demands that Iran must remain an observer of the US-Saudi-UAE mass murder
in Yemen?! For how many more years and decades the people in the Middle East are supposed to accept such a contemptible hypocrisy
and double standards!?
Not good at it; even worse for it. But following in the hallowed tradition of Bush the Son's representative, Colin Powell.
Let's hope that even the British have figured out what's going on this time, and will not behave like Lapdog Blair.
Given no excuse at all for waging war, the US will invent one. Past time it was called on this, by the the other 192 nations
in the UN
"If Iran is arming the Houthis, it is a terrible policy that IRan should reverse."
WHY is it terrible? Someone should and MUST help the Houthis / Yemen PATRIOTS! No one else is helping them, NOT the U.N .and
certainly, what use are they, if they don't prevail on the Saud.Arab. to stop the war.
Not even the Russians are helping the Yemenis.
It isn't even a war, because a war means two sides fighting, but in the case of Yemen, it's a matter of the Yemenis defending
themselves. And it's the innocent civilians, women and children, as well as the civilian men, suffering and dying.
So the matter at hand is the Arab invasion, NOT where the missile came from.
The whole thing is a U.S. distraction from the Saudi invasion. And Haley frothing at the mouth, does a good job of distraction.
You diplomatically brought in the key motivation behind the show – political ambitions. She knows she
needs 'name recognition' and seems determined to get it, no matter how.
She was mentioned to replace Tillerson as Sec of State, probably at her instigation. She knows T loves her style so she can
do as she pleases, like flying with fanfare to see IAEA DG Amano in Vienna – where there is still no Ambassador. But you can bet
her ambition is to be the first US woman President, to show the Clinton clan how that is done.
Unfortunately but necessarily, it will be important to 'put her in her place' in as many media fora as possible. Reza, you
made a good contribution!
Ever since you left DOS, US' core policy on Iran has not been changed. As a matter of fact ever since the revolution, US
Iran policy has not changed an iota, Nicki Healy, Samantha Powers, and Collin Powell and many others that came and gone are all
the same, firmly anti- Iran and Iran in as long as Iran and Iranians maintains their nationalistic independence policy.
As Mr. Zarif has said, we all have seen this show before and are not impressed with it. Noticeably, what has really been changed
is yours and NIAC' analysis and opinions on US policies, especially ever since the failure of US' green color revolution back
in 09.
However, IMO, you and NIAC, owe an explanation on what made you change your opinion of US intentions for Iran, after you left
the DOS, if you seek support of expatriate Iranians for your efforts.
I'd nominate this as the understatement of the year for 2017. But someone's got to point out the obvious and Reza Marashi nailed
it.
Pity I can't link to a couple of articles on Haley's past incarnations as Governor of South Carolina or accountant to her parents'
clothing boutique business so that readers can see Haley's talent for being truly abysmal at whatever she turns her hand to.
"... Cohen, who has been quite vocal against the Russophobic witch hunt gripping the nation , believes that this falsified 35 page report is part of an "endgame" to mortally wound Trump before he even sets foot in the White House, by grasping at straws to paint him as a puppet of the Kremlin. The purpose of these overt attempts to cripple Trump, which have relied on ham-handed intelligence reports that, according to Cohen "even the New York Times referred to as lacking any evidence whatsoever," is to stop any kind of détente or cooperation with Russia. ..."
With eyebrows suspiciously furrowed, Tucker Carlson sat down tonight with NYU Professor of Russian Studies and contributor to
The Nation , Stephen Cohen, to discuss the 35 page #FakeNews dossier which has gripped the nation with nightmares of golden showers
and other perverted conduct which was to be used by Russia to keep Trump on a leash.
The left leaning Cohen, who holds a Ph.D. in government and Russian studies from Columbia, taught at Princeton for 30 years before
moving to NYU. He has spent a lifetime deeply immersed in US-Russian relations, having been both a long standing friend of Mikhail
Gorbachev and an advisor to President George H.W. Bush. His wife is also the editor of uber liberal " The Nation," so it's safe to
assume he's not shilling for Trump - and Tucker was right to go in with eyebrows guarded against such a heavyweight.
Cohen, who has been quite vocal against the Russophobic witch hunt
gripping the nation , believes that this
falsified 35 page report is part of an "endgame" to mortally wound Trump before he even sets foot in the White House, by grasping
at straws to paint him as a puppet of the Kremlin. The purpose of these overt attempts to cripple Trump, which have relied on ham-handed
intelligence reports that, according to Cohen "even the New York Times referred to as lacking any evidence whatsoever," is to stop
any kind of détente or cooperation with Russia.
Cohen believes that these dangerous accusations attempting to brand a US President as a puppet of a foreign government constitute
a "grave American national security threat."
Canada has taken a lead among NATO countries in approving heavy weapons sales to the
government and armed forces of Ukraine. The Liberal Party government of Prime Minister Justin
Trudeau announced the decision on December 13.
The decision by Washington's junior partner in Ottawa is a blow to human rights
organizations and others in the U.S. and internationally who argue that increasing the arms
flow to the regime in Kyiv will only escalate Ukraine's violence against the people's republics
of Donetsk and Lugansk in eastern Ukraine.
Ukraine was compelled to sign the 'Minsk-2' ceasefire and peace agreement on Feb 12, 2015.
Germany and France endorsed the agreement and have pretended to stand by it. But Ukraine has
violated Minsk-2 ( text here ) ever
since its signing, with impunity from Kyiv's allies in western Europe and North America.
Minsk-2 was endorsed by the UN Security Council on
Feb 17, 2015. That shows the regard which NATO members such as the U.S. and Canada attach to
the world body -- the UN it is a useful tool when it can be manipulated to serve their
interests, otherwise it is an annoyance to be ignored. Witness their boycotting of the UN
General Assembly discussion (and eventual adoption) on July 7, 2017 of the Treaty on the
Abolition of Nuclear Weapons .
"... straight from the lips of Pavlo Munchkin. The west will not react to Saakashvili's detention , and considers it to be an internal Ukrainian matter. So Kiev can make up whatever wild charges it wants, and Uncle Sam will not ride to the rescue. Saakashvili has apparently outlived his usefulness. ..."
"... Well, indeed, it looks like the collective West decided to just say to poor, ageing, clumsy Mishiko "I know thee not, old man!". The ritualistic spitting and trampling of Saakasvhili effigy in the Freest Press in the World (Western one) will commence soon enough. But before that – a quick reminder of what they were saying, before re-alignment of the winds, blowing from Washington's ObCom. ..."
"... "AFTER the Maidan revolution and the start of the Russian war against Ukraine in 2014, Western policy had two aims: to halt and punish Russian aggression and to help Ukraine become a democratic state governed by the rule of law. America imposed sanctions on Russia, ordered the president, Petro Poroshenko, to establish an anti-corruption force and sent Joe Biden, then vice-president, on repeated visits to insist on fighting graft. The EU imposed sanctions on Russia, and made support for civil-society and the rule of law a linchpin of the association agreement it signed with Ukraine in 2014. ..."
"... In that light, the news out of Ukraine over the past few weeks has been dire. The country's prosecutor-general has disrupted investigations by its National Anti-corruption Bureau, with the apparent consent of Mr Poroshenko. The interior minister has intervened to protect his son from similar scrutiny. Officers in the security service, the SBU, have tried to arrest Mikheil Saakashvili, the former Georgian president turned Ukrainian corruption-fighter, only to be driven back by protesters. Prosecutors are targeting anti-corruption activists; the army, interior-ministry troops and private militias work at cross-purposes, answering to different politicians or oligarchs . Mr Poroshenko's government has been seriously weakened. ..."
"... "To some Europeans and Americans, this picture suggests that their efforts to persuade Ukraine to turn over a new leaf were always doomed to fail. That is a misreading. In fact, the recent chaos in Ukraine comes in part because in the past year, especially since the inauguration of President Donald Trump, Europe and America have eased the pressure. If they do not restore their commitment to defending anti-corruption reforms, Ukraine risks sinking back into the morass from which it tried to extricate itself with Maidan. ..."
"... Ukraine's grubby politicians and oligarchs have tried to frustrate Western aims without openly defying them (see article ). Partly as a result, policy under Mr Trump has lost its focus on fighting graft. Kurt Volker, the American envoy to Ukraine, works on external security; America may soon sell the country lethal weapons for the first time. But when the State Department complains about corruption, it is ignored -- because (unlike Mr Biden) the White House offers it no support. As for the EU, few believe it would jeopardise its association agreement with Ukraine for the sake of the rule of law. So, the country's elite no longer fears attacking investigators and activists." ..."
"... "Lay off the pay-offs ..."
"... If they succeed in ending the attempts to fight graft, it will be a disaster for Ukraine -- and a step back for Europe and America, too. The country is the focal point of the West's conflict with Russia. Weak and divided, it is vulnerable to Russian encroachment, especially if Vladimir Putin decides he needs to fire up patriotic Russian voters. Chaos would also buttress Mr Putin's claim that the West's aims in Ukraine are purely anti-Russian and have nothing to do with democracy or the rule of law. All this would undermine the rules-based global order, with consequences in the South China Sea and elsewhere. ..."
"... Now that Ukraine is defying complaints by America's State Department and the EU's foreign-policy arm, it is vital that America and Europe use every tool at their disposal to support corruption-fighters in Kiev. The EU should make plain that the benefits of the association pact depend on progress against graft; America should attach the same conditions to arms sales. Prosecutors in Western capitals should investigate the laundering of ill-gotten Ukrainian wealth. Support for Ukraine's territorial integrity should not involve tolerance for the lack of integrity among its politicians." ..."
Al Jazeera English
Published on 9 Dec 2017
SUBSCRIBE 1.7M
He was the president of Georgia, then a governor in Ukraine, and now he's in jail on hunger
strike.
The arrest, and re-arrest, of Mikhail Saakashvii in Kiev has stirred protests which evoke
memories of the Ukrainian revolution three years ago.
Saakashvili's supporters say his detention is based on lies and they want him let go. They
already freed him once earlier this week – from a police van.
Tuesday's dramatic scenes saw a former president being dragged across a roof. Police arrested him for allegedly conspiring with Russia against the Ukrainian state. Saakashvili then escaped custody, before police tracked him down again on Friday. The former Georgian leader says his arrest is politically motivated.
But is it really?
Presenter: Sami Zeidan
Guests:
Alexander Korman – Former Head of the Public Council and First Deputy Chairman of
Public Council to the Ministry of Foreign Relations of Ukraine.
Sergey Markov – Former Russian MP & spokesman for President Vladimir Putin.
Lilit Gevorgyan – IHS Global Insigh tanalyst and principal economist covering Russia
& Ukraine.
Aaaaand there you have it, folks, straight from the lips of Pavlo Munchkin. The west will not react to
Saakashvili's detention , and considers it to be an internal Ukrainian matter. So Kiev
can make up whatever wild charges it wants, and Uncle Sam will not ride to the rescue.
Saakashvili has apparently outlived his usefulness.
I don't really feel sorry for him, because I've always thought he was a twat and his
preening over being the golden child of Washington was sickening. In fact, he probably
deserves whatever happens to him, although I expect the west will make some kind of private
deal to get him out on the promise that he will stay out of Ukraine. Where he will go then is
anyone's guess, since he is a stateless person with no citizenship. But it is significant to
note how much weight Ukraine still swings with the west, even though Europe is getting
impatient about its hamfisted anti-corruption charade. Kiev just said "Stay out of it", and
the west retired smartly.
I think you will agree that is hardly a climate in which Poroshenko will feel moved to do
anything much about corruption beyond making a lot of noise and promises.
Well, indeed, it looks like the collective West decided to just say to poor, ageing, clumsy
Mishiko "I know
thee not, old man!". The ritualistic spitting and trampling of Saakasvhili effigy in the
Freest Press in the World (Western one) will commence soon enough. But before that – a
quick reminder of what they were saying, before re-alignment of the winds, blowing from
Washington's ObCom.
Ukraine is a mess? Nooooo waaaaaay! Are you sure? Tell me more!
"AFTER the Maidan revolution and the start of the Russian war against Ukraine in 2014,
Western policy had two aims: to halt and punish Russian aggression and to help Ukraine become
a democratic state governed by the rule of law. America imposed sanctions on Russia, ordered
the president, Petro Poroshenko, to establish an anti-corruption force and sent Joe Biden,
then vice-president, on repeated visits to insist on fighting graft. The EU imposed sanctions
on Russia, and made support for civil-society and the rule of law a linchpin of the
association agreement it signed with Ukraine in 2014.
In that light, the news out of Ukraine over the past few weeks has been dire. The
country's prosecutor-general has disrupted investigations by its National Anti-corruption
Bureau, with the apparent consent of Mr Poroshenko. The interior minister has intervened to
protect his son from similar scrutiny. Officers in the security service, the SBU, have tried
to arrest Mikheil Saakashvili, the former Georgian president turned Ukrainian
corruption-fighter, only to be driven back by protesters. Prosecutors are targeting
anti-corruption activists; the army, interior-ministry troops and private militias work at
cross-purposes, answering to different politicians or oligarchs . Mr Poroshenko's government
has been seriously weakened. "
That's important part – keep it mind. But here comes the "meat" of the article! Good
flunkies of Ed Lukas has found the answer to the eternal question "Whom to blame?" as
pertains to the Ukraine and its current woes! Are you ready? Here it is:
"To some Europeans and Americans, this picture suggests that their efforts to persuade
Ukraine to turn over a new leaf were always doomed to fail. That is a misreading. In fact,
the recent chaos in Ukraine comes in part because in the past year, especially since the
inauguration of President Donald Trump, Europe and America have eased the pressure. If they
do not restore their commitment to defending anti-corruption reforms, Ukraine risks sinking
back into the morass from which it tried to extricate itself with Maidan.
Ukraine's grubby politicians and oligarchs have tried to frustrate Western aims
without openly defying them (see
article ). Partly as a result, policy under Mr Trump has lost its focus on fighting
graft. Kurt Volker, the American envoy to Ukraine, works on external security; America may
soon sell the country lethal weapons for the first time. But when the State Department
complains about corruption, it is ignored -- because (unlike Mr Biden) the White House offers
it no support. As for the EU, few believe it would jeopardise its association agreement with
Ukraine for the sake of the rule of law. So, the country's elite no longer fears attacking
investigators and activists."
Trump! It is all Trump's fault! Because – surely! – under the watch of the
President of Peace B. Obama and gramps Biden no dodgy things ever happened in the Ukraine,
noooope! Biden (and his son) gonna defend this PO like lions! This also welcomes nasty
question – aren't Mr. Poroshenko himself an oligarch, whose personal wealth skyrocketed
since his election? And maybe – I'm not insisting, no-no – having lots of cash
stashed in "Panama Papers Fund" precludes him from actually fighting corruption – and
not, you know, the election of Trump? Heresy, I know!
But the articles goes from strength to strength, boldly skipping to the "What to do?"
section. The solution is as brilliant and though-over as everything else in there:
"Lay off the pay-offs
If they succeed in ending the attempts to fight graft, it will be a disaster for Ukraine --
and a step back for Europe and America, too. The country is the focal point of the West's
conflict with Russia. Weak and divided, it is vulnerable to Russian encroachment, especially
if Vladimir Putin decides he needs to fire up patriotic Russian voters. Chaos would also
buttress Mr Putin's claim that the West's aims in Ukraine are purely anti-Russian and have
nothing to do with democracy or the rule of law. All this would undermine the rules-based
global order, with consequences in the South China Sea and elsewhere.
Now that Ukraine is defying complaints by America's State Department and the EU's
foreign-policy arm, it is vital that America and Europe use every tool at their disposal to
support corruption-fighters in Kiev. The EU should make plain that the benefits of the
association pact depend on progress against graft; America should attach the same conditions
to arms sales. Prosecutors in Western capitals should investigate the laundering of
ill-gotten Ukrainian wealth. Support for Ukraine's territorial integrity should not involve
tolerance for the lack of integrity among its politicians."
Nope. Your Russophobia is high (and you yourself dear Western elites are also high most of
the time when it comes to Russia) that you will allow this unholy corrupt mess to persist.
Because, really, you are not interested in "democracy" and "open society". Not at the prize
of people electing someone, whose strings you cannot pull.
At the same time – this is "big: and "respectable" The Economist we are talking
about. They smell the fire from the yet unlit tires of new Maidan. They are afraid .
They know, that their "Operation: SHOWCASE" of turning Ukraine into a "democratic alternative
to Russia" failed. They are in denial.
The obligatory "rules-based global order" makes a tardy but welcome cameo appearance like an
aging well-loved Thespian milking the audience for a final burst of applause before
retirement. Great stuff!
Ukrainians voted for a return of the "criminal regime" of Yanukovich
01:24 – 10.12.2017
Ninety-two percent of the audience of the Ukrainian TV channel "NewsOne" voted for the
return of the regime of former President Viktor Yanukovych, reports the news portal
"Politnavigator".
In Saturday's broadcast, viewers were asked to choose one of two options to answer the
question "For whom would you vote: for the last criminal power or the current one?". Out of
46,686 people only eight per cent supported the policy of the current president, Petro
Poroshenko.
On 23 October, the Centre for social studies "Sofia" published the results of a poll in
which 79 percent of the population in varying degrees did not approve of Poroshenko being
head of state: the answer "fully approve of the President" was chosen by only 1.6
percent.
On October 17, the Prosecutor General of the Ukraine, Yuriy Lutsenko, accused former
president Viktor Yanukovich of embezzling assets worth $40 billion. According to the head of
the supervisory authority, this was comparable with the annual budget of the country.
Yanukovych was President of the Ukraine from 2010 to 2014. After a violent regime
change by means of the Euromaidan mass protests in Kiev and other cities, he left the
country.
In the Ukraine, there have been initiated several criminal cases made against the
former head of state and his property on the territory of the country has been
seized.
There's a useful lesson there for someone: more than 90% – arguably; we have no way to
know how scientific or representative this poll was – of the population does not
support the current government, in a country that has considerable and recent practical
experience of revolution. Yet the current government prevails with complete impunity, and
even flaunts its contempt for accountability. How can these two realities coexist? Is it
possible the violent nationalist element wields disproportionate influence, despite all the
quacking about its low support in the polls and Russian exaggeration of its extremist
beliefs?
Can't vouch for the entire web site but this was interesting:
Baiting is the act of deliberately annoying or provoking someone to extreme emotion.
When a person baits another, they are deliberately taunting in order to provoke a response
from the offender's attack.
If you are a fisherman, it might be fun but if you're the fish -- or worse a worm
squirming on a hook, being used to entice a predator to amuse? It's simply not as much fun
for people who are the victims of any form of bait and switch attack.
Truly believing the world as they know it revolves around them, they tend to
symptomatically behave in ways that are compulsively self-promoting, grandiose, illogical,
irrational, egocentric, and grandiose.
Every social interaction is seen as a competition of sorts, with the Narcissist
behaving as if their distorted, self-deluded version of any fact, story, or reality is
somehow rooted in divine truth (rather than being recognized as a symptom of psychiatric
dysfunction and outright gaslighting tales and lies).
The condition -- a personality TYPE classification, rather than an actual diagnosis of
illness (per se) -- tends to be rooted in cultural nurturing, for the most part.
People all over the world are protesting against globalisation, inequality and
selfishness. Democratic liberalism is supposed to solve these problems, but liberalism and
its big brother neoliberalism are actually the cause of these problems. Furthermore, once a
country has adopted neoliberalist policies it is very hard for it ever to reject them.
Here is a list of officials in the US Government who hold Dual Citizenship, as well as just how much influence Israel had and still have on our government..
1. Attorney General - Michael Mukasey
2. Head of Homeland Security - Michael Chertoff
3. Chairman Pentagon's Defense Policy Board - Richard Perle
4. Deputy Defense Secretary (Former) - Paul Wolfowitz
5. Under Secretary of Defense - Douglas Feith
6. National Security Council Advisor - Elliott Abrams
7. Vice President #$%$ Cheney's Chief of Staff (Former) - "Scooter" Libby
8. White House Deputy Chief of Staff - Joshua Bolten
9. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs - Marc Grossman
10. Director of Policy Planning at the State Department - Richard Haass
11. U.S. Trade Representative (Cabinet-level Position) - Robert Zoellick
12. Pentagon's Defense Policy Board - James Schlesinger
13. UN Representative (Former) - John Bolton
14. Under Secretary for Arms Control - David Wurmser
15. Pentagon's Defense Policy Board - Eliot Cohen
16. Senior Advisor to the President - Steve Goldsmith
17. Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary - Christopher Gersten
18. Assistant Secretary of State - Lincoln Bloomfield
19. Deputy Assistant to the President - Jay Lefkowitz
20. White House Political Director - Ken Melman
21. National Security Study Group - Edward Luttwak
22. Pentagon's Defense Policy Board - Kenneth Adelman
23. Defense Intelligence Agency Analyst (Former) - Lawrence (Larry) Franklin
24. National Security Council Advisor - Robert Satloff
25. President Export-Import Bank U.S. - Mel Sembler
26. Deputy Assistant Secretary, Administration for Children and Families - Christopher Gersten
27. Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development for Public Affairs - Mark Weinberger
28. White House Speechwriter - David Frum
29. White House Spokesman (Former) - Ari Fleischer
30. Pentagon's Defense Policy Board - Henry Kissinger
31. Deputy Secretary of Commerce - Samuel Bodman
32. Under Secretary of State for Management - Bonnie Cohen
33. Director of Foreign Service Institute - Ruth Davis
Senate:
Senator Dianne Feinstein (California)
Senator Barbara Boxer (California)
Senator Benjamin Cardin (Maryland)
Senator Russ Feingold (Wisconsin)
Senator Al Franken (Minnesota)
Senator Herb Kohl (Wisconsin)
Senator Frank Lautenberg (New Jersey)
Senator Joe Lieberman (Connecticut) (Independent)
Senator Carl Levin (Michigan)
Senator Bernard Sanders (Vermont) (Independent)
Senator Charles Schumer (New York)
Senator Ron Wyden (Oregon)
House of Representatives:
Representative Howard Berman (California)
Representative Susan Davis (California)
Representative Bob Filner (California)
Representative Jane Harman (California)
Representative Adam Schiff (California)
Representative Henry Waxman (California)
Representative Brad Sherman (California)
Representative Gary Ackerman (New York)
Representative John H. Adler (New Jersey)
Representative Shelley Berkley (Nevada)
Representative Steve Cohen (Tennessee)
Representative Eliot Engel (New York)
Representative Barney Frank (Massachusetts)
Representative Gabrielle Giffords (Arizona)
Representative Alan Grayson (Florida)
Representative Paul Hodes (New Hampshire)
Representative Steve Israel (New York)
Representative Steve Kagen (Wisconsin)
Representative Ronald Klein (Florida)
Representative Sander Levin (Michigan)
Representative Nita Lowey (New York)
Representative Jerry Nadler (New York)
Representative Jared Polis (Colorado)
Representative Steve Rothman (New Jersey)
Representative Jan Schakowsky (Illinois)
Representative Allyson Schwartz (Pennsylvania)
Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Florida)
Representative Anthony Weiner (New York)
Representative John Yarmuth (Kentucky)
Last and not the least influential Zionist lobby in America is the Christian Zionists Movement backed by American senators and politicians, bragging a million plus members
America is the only country in the world that has this many citizens of another country in its congress???
And 4 billions every year to israel ?? Why ??
No wonder israel AIPAC is running a muck
Paradoxically it was language question which by-and-large fueled Crimea secession and Donbass
uprising. Now they decide to step on the same rake again.
If Ukraine strive to be like Canada and the part of EU why do not adopt English as an
official language, to defuse the tensions relegating Ukrainian and Russian to the role of
regional languages (which both of them now actually are). That will instantly diminish the
influence of Russia and thus fulfill the main goal of Western Ukrainian nationalists who are in
power after Maydan (at least partially). English is a great, cultural and scientifically dominant
language now and countries like Canada enjoy full benefits of this situation. Because cultural
and political influence of Russia is what Ukrainian nationalists are most afraid of. English is
politically acceptable to them. That also will save money of textbooks and like, especially
university level textbooks.
They now actually gave a powerful tool for Russia to further limit economic ties claiming
discrimination of Russian speaking population. Not that Ukrainian nationalist care much about
Russian reaction.
But Western Ukrainian nationalists have a penchant for making disastrous for the Ukrainian
economy moves to feed their ambitions and stereotypes. Which led to the situation when Ukraine is
just debt slave nation with limited sovereignty and huge problems due to impoverishment of
population and decay of Soviet era infrastructure. Neoliberalism is not a friend of such
countries as Ukraine, despite all population expectations after Maydan. They want to milk
Ukraine, not to help. and they are very skillful in that as Ukraine probably leaned during 90th.
This is what neoliberal " disaster capitalism "
is about. In other words Ukraine which previously somehow managed to balance between West and
East milking both, moved itself in the zugzwang position.
As for adoption of Ukrainian (which is a beautiful language, BTW), think what would happen if
Canadian French nationalists managed to force French upon the county as official language while
bordering with the USA (actually like in Ukraine where in western part of the country there are
few people who do not speak Russian, there are few people in Canada who neither speak nor
understand English)
It is critical now that the population can speak English because the markets for Ukraine now
are in the West. Ukraine by and large lost Russian market. Probably for a long time.
Notable quotes:
"... "The less favorable treatment of these (non-EU) languages is difficult to justify and therefore raises issues of discrimination," it said. Language is a sensitive issue in Ukraine. ..."
"... After the pro-European Maidan uprising in 2014, the decision to scrap a law allowing some regions to use Russian as an official second language fueled anti-Ukrainian unrest in the east that escalated into a Russia-backed separatist insurgency. ..."
Kiev has submitted the law for review by the Venice Commission, a body which rules on rights
and democracy disputes in Europe and whose decisions member states, which include Ukraine,
commit to respecting.
In an opinion adopted formally on Friday, the commission said it was legitimate for Ukraine
to address inequalities by helping citizens gain fluency in the state language, Ukrainian.
"However, the strong domestic and international criticism drawn especially by the provisions
reducing the scope of education in minority languages seems justified," it said in a
statement.
It said the ambiguous wording of parts of the 'Article 7' legislation raised questions about
how the shift to all-Ukrainian secondary education would be implemented while safeguarding the
rights of ethnic minorities.
As of 2015, Ukraine had 621 schools that taught in Russian, 78 in Romanian, 68 in Hungarian
and five in Polish, according to education ministry data. The commission said a provision in
the new law to allow some subjects to be taught in official EU languages, such as Hungarian,
Romanian and Polish, appeared to discriminate against speakers of Russian, the most widely used
non-state language.
"The less favorable treatment of these (non-EU) languages is difficult to justify and
therefore raises issues of discrimination," it said. Language is a sensitive issue in
Ukraine.
After the pro-European Maidan uprising in 2014, the decision to scrap a law allowing some
regions to use Russian as an official second language fueled anti-Ukrainian unrest in the east
that escalated into a Russia-backed separatist insurgency.
Poor Ukraine. It is now just a prey of major powers and other neoliberal predators, including transnational
corporations. Each wants a fat piece. Looks after Poroshenko "revolt" against anti-corruption bureau prompted Washington
to "switch horses during crossing the river" (which is very Tramp-style decision). A new favorite most probably is Timoshenko
(about whom they have a lot of compromising material, so she will always be on the hook). When a neoliberals poodle like Aslund tweets "
"President Poroshenko appears to have abandoned the fight against corruption, any ambition for
economic growth, EU or IMF funding," you can be sure that Washington priorities now definitely
changed. Such a brave man telling people the hard truth ;-) This guy would praise
Poroshenko to skies, if that wouldn't be case. .. The message from Bershidsky handlers who ordered this "hit piece" is
that same -- "The moor has done his duty, moor has
to go". Such a hatchet job in MSM like Bloomberg, NYT or Wapo is usually done only under direct order from powers that be.
Re-appearance of Saakashvili with this farce of illegal crossing of the border (imagine this !) on the political scene is
probably also orchestrated from Washington.
Formally Poroshenko is accused that he is trying to undermine the work of anti-corruption bureau controlled by FBI. The real situation
might be that gradually Poroshenko probably understood that blind following of
Washington political line is the road to nowhere and leads to further impoverishing of
population. Also "independent" status of anti-corruption buro to a certain extent makes Ukrain a colony with colonial
administration. Specifically it give FBI the possibility to persecute any Ukrainian politician. On the other hand
Poroshenko also have far right nationalists sitting behind his back and
they are probably not too exited by neoliberal reforms Poroshenko pursue. Standard of
living in Ukraine dropped to the level when it corresponds to standard of living of some Central African countries -- less
then $2 a day. It became a "sex shop" for Western Europeans, especially French. Most of
prostitutes in Western Europe are Ukrainian woman. In other words both Ukraine and Poroshenko are now is zugzwang situation.
So in desperation Poroshenko probably started making some "unapproved" moves interfering with work of FBI controlled
anti-corruption buro (which actually did not jail a single US citizen for corruption). Probably following Polish example of '
disobedience " to neoliberal dictate. A reaction followed.
Charges of corruption is such a classic tool of "color revolutions" that now it can be viewed
as just a symbol of renewed attempt to interfere into Ukraine political life. A Washington Obcom dictate, if you wish.
Actually corruption a little bit complicates looting of the country which if done by financial mechanisms as it means that in
contracts Western companies have some disadvantage and need a local "roof" which negatively affects the profits.
Notable quotes:
"... He and his first prime minister, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, knew what the U.S. State Department and Vice President Joe Biden, who acted as the Obama administration's point man on Ukraine, wanted to hear. ..."
President Petro Poroshenko is sacrificing Westernization to a personal political agenda.
It's become increasingly clear that Obama-era U.S. politicians backed the wrong people in
Ukraine. President Petro Poroshenko's moves to consolidate his power now include sidelining the
anti-corruption institutions he was forced to set up by Ukraine's Western allies.
Poroshenko, who had briefly served as Ukraine's foreign minister, looked worldlier than his
predecessor, the deposed Viktor Yanukovych, and spoke passable English. He and his first
prime minister, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, knew what the U.S. State Department and Vice President Joe
Biden, who acted as the Obama administration's point man on Ukraine, wanted to hear. So,
as Ukraine emerged from the revolutionary chaos of January and February 2014, the U.S., and
with it the EU, backed Poroshenko and Yatsenyuk as Ukraine's next leaders. Armed with this
support, not least with promises of major technical aid and International Monetary Fund loans,
they won elections, posing as Westernizers who would lead Ukraine into Europe. But their
agendas turned out to be more self-serving.
... ... ...
After a failed attempt to kick Saakashvili, an anti-corruption firebrand, out of Ukraine for
allegedly obtaining its citizenship under false pretences, Poroshenko's law enforcement
apparatus has harassed and deported the Georgian-born politician's allies. Finance Minister
Oleksandr Danilyuk, who helped Saakashvili set up a think tank in Kiev -- which is now under
investigation for suspected financial violations -- has accused law-enforcement agencies of
"putting pressure on business, on those who want to change the country." Danilyuk himself is
being investigated for tax evasion.
... ... ...
"President Poroshenko appears to have abandoned the fight against corruption, any ambition
for economic growth, EU or IMF funding," economist Anders Aslund, who has long been optimistic
about Ukrainian reforms, tweeted recently.
... ... ...
Poroshenko, however, would have gotten nowhere -- and wouldn't be defending Ukraine's
opaque, corrupt, backward political system today -- without Western support. No amount of
friendly pressure is going to change him. If Ukrainians shake up their apathy to do to him what
they did to Yanukovych -- or when he comes up for reelection in 2019 -- this mistake shouldn't
be repeated. It's not easy to find younger, more principled, genuinely European-oriented
politicians in Ukraine, but they exist. Otherwise, Western politicians and analysts will have
to keep acting shocked that another representative of the old elite is suddenly looking a lot
like Yanukovych.
In no way Mr. Saakashvili is an independent political player, he is just a pawn of some complex gambit against Poroshenko. Who
is behind him? Timoshenko, the far right nationalists (that would be very strange), the USA is completely unclear. But in no way
he of his own can command loyalty of the crowd in Kiev, this crowd most probably consist of Timoshenko
supporters, who were communicated the the "wish" of their leader that "we need to support Mr. Saakashvili, he is one of us".
In any case those events are a huge surprise to most observers, who assumes that the USA firmly backs Poroshenko.
Notable quotes:
"... "With a Ukrainian flag draped across his shoulders and a pair of handcuffs still attached to one of his wrists, Mr. Saakashvili then led hundreds of supporters in a march across Kiev toward Parliament. Speaking through a bullhorn he called for 'peaceful protests' to remove Mr. Poroshenko from office, just as protests had toppled the former President, Victor F. Yanukovych, in February 2014." ..."
"... And there was broad support for bringing Georgia into NATO. This would have given Saakashvili an ability to ignite a confrontation with Russia, which could have forced U.S. intervention.Consider Ukraine. Three years ago, McCain was declaring, in support of the overthrow of the elected pro-Russian government in Kiev, "We are all Ukrainians now." Following that coup, U.S. elites were urging us to confront Putin in Crimea, bring Ukraine, as well as Georgia, into NATO, and send Kiev the lethal weapons needed to defeat Russian-backed rebels in the East. This could have led straight to a Ukraine-Russia war, precipitated by our sending of U.S. arms. ..."
"... Alliances, after all, are the transmission belts of war. ..."
"... These all purpose internationalist revolutionaries who keep turning up here and there like the proverbial bad penny usually have deep state connections. ..."
"... Neocons are a scourge on the planet. Somehow they always manage to stay in control of things even when they make so many war mongering blunders. They must have supernatural help, but not the good kind. ..."
"... "These all purpose internationalist revolutionaries who keep turning up here and there like the proverbial bad penny ' Saakashvili as a latter day Che Guevara? Ha, ha, ha. "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce." K. Marx. ..."
"... Expanding NATO was a damn fool thing to do. The Romans couldn't hang onto Mesopotamia; overextension is real. Let's hope we get a leader who will retrench. Oh, and bring back Giraldi. Yes, Veruschka, there is an Israel Lobby. ..."
Even interventionists are regretting some of the wars into
which they helped plunge the United States in this century. Among those wars are Afghanistan and Iraq, the longest in our history; Libya, which was left
without a stable government; Syria's civil war, a six-year human rights disaster we helped kick
off by arming rebels to overthrow Bashar Assad; and Yemen, where a U.S.-backed Saudi bombing
campaign and starvation blockade is causing a humanitarian catastrophe. Yet, twice this century, the War Party was beaten back when seeking a clash with Putin's
Russia. And the "neo-isolationists" who won those arguments served America well.
What triggered this observation was an item on Page 1 of Wednesday's New York Times that
read in its entirety: "Mikheil Saakashvili, former president of Georgia, led marchers through Kiev after
threatening to jump from a five-story building to evade arrest. Page A4"
Who is Saakashvili? The wunderkind elected in 2004 in Tbilisi after a "Rose Revolution" we
backed during George W. Bush's crusade for global democracy. During the Beijing Olympics in August 2008, Saakashvili sent his army crashing into the tiny
enclave of South Ossetia, which had broken free of Georgia when Georgia broke free of
Russia. In overrunning the enclave, however, Saakashvili's troops killed Russian peacekeepers. Big
mistake. Within 24 hours, Putin's tanks and troops were pouring through Roki Tunnel, running
Saakashvili's army out of South Ossetia, and occupying parts of Georgia itself. As defeat loomed for the neocon hero, U.S. foreign policy elites were alive with
denunciations of "Russian aggression" and calls to send in the 82nd Airborne, bring Georgia
into NATO, and station U.S. forces in the Caucasus.
"We are all Georgians!" thundered John McCain. Not quite. When an outcry arose against getting into a collision with Russia, Bush, reading
the nation right, decided to confine U.S. protests to the nonviolent. A wise call. And Saakashvili? He held power until 2013, and then saw his party defeated, was charged with
corruption, and fled to Ukraine. There, President Boris Poroshenko, beneficiary of the Kiev
coup the U.S. had backed in 2014, put him in charge of Odessa, one of the most corrupt
provinces in a country rife with corruption.
In 2016, an exasperated Saakashvili quit, charged his patron Poroshenko with corruption, and
fled Ukraine. In September, with a band of supporters, he made a forced entry back across the
border.
Here is the Times' Andrew Higgins on his latest antics:
"On Tuesday Saakashvili, onetime darling of the West, took his high-wire political career to
bizarre new heights when he climbed onto the roof of his five-story apartment building in the
center of Kiev... As hundreds of supporters gathered below, he shouted insults at Ukraine's leaders and
threatened to jump if security agents tried to grab him. Dragged from the roof after denouncing Mr. Poroshenko as a traitor and a thief, the former
Georgian leader was detained but then freed by his supporters, who blocked a security service
van before it could take Mr. Saakashvili to a Kiev detention center and allowed him to
escape.
"With a Ukrainian flag draped across his shoulders and a pair of handcuffs still
attached to one of his wrists, Mr. Saakashvili then led hundreds of supporters in a march
across Kiev toward Parliament. Speaking through a bullhorn he called for 'peaceful protests' to
remove Mr. Poroshenko from office, just as protests had toppled the former President, Victor F.
Yanukovych, in February 2014."
This reads like a script for a Peter Sellers movie in the '60s. Yet this clown was president
of Georgia, for whose cause in South Ossetia some in our foreign policy elite thought we should
go to the brink of war with Russia.
And there was broad support for bringing Georgia into NATO. This would have given
Saakashvili an ability to ignite a confrontation with Russia, which could have forced U.S.
intervention.Consider Ukraine. Three years ago, McCain was declaring, in support of the
overthrow of the elected pro-Russian government in Kiev, "We are all Ukrainians now." Following
that coup, U.S. elites were urging us to confront Putin in Crimea, bring Ukraine, as well as
Georgia, into NATO, and send Kiev the lethal weapons needed to defeat Russian-backed rebels in
the East. This could have led straight to a Ukraine-Russia war, precipitated by our sending of
U.S. arms.
Do we really want to cede to folks of the temperament of Mikhail Saakashvili an ability to
instigate a war with a nuclear-armed Russia, which every Cold War president was resolved to
avoid, even if it meant accepting Moscow's hegemony in Eastern Europe all the way to the
Elbe?
Watching Saakashvili losing it in the streets of Kiev like some blitzed college student
should cause us to reassess the stability of all these allies to whom we have ceded a capacity
to drag us into war. Alliances, after all, are the transmission belts of war.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, Nixon's White House Wars: The
Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.
I'd bet that Saak is a CIA asset who is probably moon-lighting for other intelligence
services as well. Israel? Russia? Iran? Turkey? Who knows? These all purpose internationalist
revolutionaries who keep turning up here and there like the proverbial bad penny usually have
deep state connections.
Neocons are a scourge on the planet. Somehow they always manage to stay in control of things
even when they make so many war mongering blunders. They must have supernatural help, but not
the good kind.
Maybe its time conservatives acknowledged that the Rosenbergs did a good thing by helping the
Soviet Union get the A-bomb. It's obvious that the only thing stopping our bloodthirsty, mad
dog foreign policy establishment from attacking Russia or North Korea is their nukes, just as
the threat of Soviet nukes is what kept U.S. presidents from dropping ours on North Korea and
North Vietnam. If the so-called "foreign policy realists" – whose forebears have
copious amounts of Latin American, African and Asian blood on their hands – ever get
back into Foggy Bottom and the West Wing, maybe they could prevail on the President to issue
a posthumous pardon for the Rosenbergs and all of the other American Communists who greased
the wheels for the Red Bomb.
Mr Buchanan's standard line. Vladimir Putin must be allowed to inflict a humiliating defeat
on the evil United States. What Mr Buchanan sidesteps is the inherent contradiction in his
argument. As anyone who has read his articles over the years will know, his enemy is the EU,
which he wants to destroy at all costs, probably because he sees it as a challenge to US
global hegemony. In the original neocon scam, Putin was a "useful idiot" to serve as a
battering ram to break up the EU and a bogeyman to frighten the resulting plethora of weak
statelets to submit to US hegemony in return for such protection as the US vouchsafed to give
them. In return for his services, the US would give Putin such part of the European cake as
it vouchsafed to give him. Putin, at that point, would, of course, have been an American
stooge, logical in the context of US global hegemony. However, by grabbing Ukrainian
territory by military force, Putin challenged US global hegemony and as long as he is allowed
to occupy Ukrainian territory, US global hegemony is worthless. That, in its turn, will
probably provoke a Soviet-style implosion of the whole American house of cards. Thus, in
order to maintain US global hegemony by destroying the EU, Mr Buchanan has to destroy US
global hegemony by backing Putin!
"These all purpose internationalist revolutionaries who keep turning up here and there like
the proverbial bad penny '
Saakashvili as a latter day Che Guevara? Ha, ha, ha. "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce." K. Marx.
Expanding NATO was a damn fool thing to do. The Romans couldn't hang onto Mesopotamia;
overextension is real. Let's hope we get a leader who will retrench.
Oh, and bring back Giraldi. Yes, Veruschka, there is an Israel Lobby.
I'm having trouble understanding why I should care about the Ukraine, or NATO, or this
Saakashvili person. Someone please tell me how they affect me personally.
That Saakashvili has always been a few bricks short of a full load is not in dispute but to
argue that this means the US and Europe should back away from making it clear to Putin that
parts of Eastern Europe are not going to be ceded to Russian domination again makes no sense.
Like Premier Xi of China who in now trying to argue that Chinese domination of Asia is
justified by some prior period in Chinese history, Putin would like us to believe that
Russian domination of large parts of Eastern Europe is perfectly natural because of past
Russian history or even on religious grounds. We forget at our peril that Putin was a former
communist and atheist and a part of an organization that not only believed the West was
decadent and deserved to be defeated but also worked to suppress and eradicate religion.
Putin now cravenly uses religiously based arguments to justify Russian actions and would like
us to believe he is defending Christianity from Western decadence. We might as well put the
proverbial fox in charge of the hen house if we allow ourselves to accept that Putin really
has any interest in defending Christianity or doesn't lust for the restoration of Russian
domination of Eastern Europe.
Russia may no longer be the "Evil Empire" that it was called when it was the USSR but it
would be pure folly to not push back against Putin's dreams of Russian hegemony any more than
it would make sense for the US to assume that Russian and China are not going to push back
against what they perceive as US hegemony. Conversely we need to guard against assuming that
just because a country declares itself to be a democracy that the actions of any new
democratic leaders automatically deserves our support and protection. In fairness to Georgia,
the Soviets weren't known for allowing deep pools of democracy supporting leaders to develop
which unfortunately means that people like Saakashvili will float to the top.
"Three years ago, McCain was declaring, in support of the overthrow of the elected
pro-Russian government in Kiev, "We are all Ukrainians now."
The neocons probably won't be saying "We're all Kazkhstans now" in a few years when the
long-serving president of Kazakhstan dies without a clear successor and Russia moves in to
the north and east of Kazakhstan to crush the ensuing acts of Islamic terrorism and
incidentally help protect China's crucial border state of Xinjiang from ISIS, giving Russia
the balance of power in Central Asia and thus restoring it to superpower status.
Contemplating the behavior of this gentleman really makes one think that in some cases
college student is a state of mind. On the other hand, if wanted to threaten someone with his
suicide, he could have swallowed a non-lethal quantity of belladonna berries instead of a
dull standing on a roof. Politically the outcome would have likely been the same, but knowing
the mental impact of tropane alkaloids, with a hell lot of fun along the way.
Setting this walking curiosity aside for a moment there, I also join those wishing the
return of Mr. Giraldi.
It would surely be in the US interest if fewer Jews felt the need to put the interests of Israel before those of their own
country, the USA. Moreover, if Israel were truly independent and secure, or as secure as is possible for any small country
to be, would that not encourage America's Israel Firsters to go and live in Israel, thus loosening the grip that the Israeli
lobby has on the US Government
Afraid not.
First and foremost Israel has to have enough Jews in the US to talk it up to politicians as a voting block for them.
Another First is that Israel is not self supporting and never will be –they don't the land water or resources to be self sufficient
-- hence the stealing of Palestine and the constant money grubbing from other states.
Second..They also have to have Jews here to ensure the politicians keep giving Israel billions of our tax money every year.
And Israel really has to have the Uber Jews in the US stay here to fund and sway both parties and elections, threaten politicians,
form their lobby and keep an eye on their Israel voting.
Also important, Israel must have all the 100s of US Jewish agencies, clubs, org and etc to propagandize and to use Congress
to get special grants and favors for hundreds of Jewish charities.
Jews also make 100 phone calls for Israel and Jewish programs to their congresspeople for every one call a non Jew makes to
their rep on some issue.
Another point, Israel must have enough Jews in the US to get a lot of them educated -- the average IQ of Jews in Israel is 85,
Jews have only succeeded and excelled when exposed to non Jewish education.
If there were no Jews in the US it is unlikely US tech giants and others would set up plants in Israel when they could find
cheaper and just as skilled and more educated workers in Asia and elsewhere or that Israel would get special trade favors from
the US.
If there were no Jews in the US Israel wouldn't be able to sell a billion dollars worth of bonds to US unions and pension funds
every year.
If there were no Jews in the US, Jews couldn't send 2 billion of money made in the US to Israel every year -- that money would
have been in non Jewish pockets and stayed and circulated in the US economy.
If there were no Jews in the US then the 90% of Dept of Homeland Security funds might go to improving school security and preventing
school shootings in the US instead of to Jewish temples and office buildings for Jewish security.
If there were no Jews in the US then they couldn't clog up American courts to sue every other country and corporation in the
world for more money for the Jews.
If there were no Jews in the US our constitutional free speech rights wouldn't be under assault by the uber Jews.
If there were no Jews in the US congress wouldn't even think of trying to criminalize citizens rights to boycott whoever he
wishes.
If there were no Jews there wouldn't be Jews who go into small towns around the country looking for some town or county that
opens their business meetings with a Christian prayer so they can sue them under separation of church and state because it
hurts their feeling and saying Jesus makes them uncomfortable- -yea they did that in my state and took it all the way to the
supreme court –and lost thankfully.
Last but not least if there were no Jews in the US Israel probably would never have existed or would have failed shortly after
it started because there would have been no diaspora Jews to lobby the countries they lived in to help Israel .
I getting tired but will list more sometime
Meanwhile -- If you go to the presidential libraries starting with Truman, in all their papers and discussions on Israel you will
see the phase .. "domestic political considerations " ..over and over and over by every president meaning the pressure
and money that the tribe exerts for or against a politician according to their Israel policy.
This is two years old article. Not much changed... Comments sound as written yesterday. Check it out !
The key incentive to Iran deal is using Iran as a Trojan horse against Russia in oil market -- the force which helps to keep oil prices low, benefitting
the USA and other G7 members and hurting Russia and other oil-producing nations. Iran might also serve as a replacement market for EU
goods as Russian market is partially lost. Due to sanctions EU now lost (and probably irrevocably) Russian market for food, and have difficulties in maintaining their share in other
sectors (cars, machinery) as Asian tigers come in.
Notable quotes:
"... The waning clout stems from the lobby siding with the revanchist Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, whose Iran strategy since the 2012 US presidential campaign has been to unabashedly side with Republican hawks. AIPAC's alignment with the position effectively caused the group to marginalize itself; the GOP is now the only place where AIPAC can today find lockstep support. The tens of millions AIPAC spent lobbying against the deal were unable to obscure this dynamic. ..."
"... Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina took to the floor during the debate and pulled out an old trick from the run-up to the Iraq war: blaming Iran for 9/11 and saying a failure to act would result in a worse attack – is any indication, even Democrats like the pro-Israel hawk Chuck Schumer will find it untenable to sidle up to AIPAC and the Republicans. ..."
"... The problem with the right in the USA is that they offer no alternatives, nothing, nada and zilch they have become the opposition party of opposition. They rely on talking point memes and fear, and it has become the party of extremism and simplicity offering low hanging fruit and red meat this was on perfect display at their anti Iran deal rally, palin, trump, beck and phil robinson who commands ducks apparently. ..."
"... Is it any wonder the Iranians don't trust the US. After the US's spying exploits during the Iraqi WMD inspections, why are you surprised that Iran asks for 24 days notice of inspection (enough time to clear out conventional weapons development but not enough to remove evidence of nuclear weapons development). ..."
"... Most Americans don't know the CIA overthrew the Iranian government in 1953 and installed the Shaw. Most Republicans know that most Americans will believe what Fox news tells them. Republicans live in an alternate universe where there is no climate change, mammon is worshiped and wisdom is rejected hatred is accepted negotiation is replaced by perpetual warfare. Now most Americans are tired of stupid leadership and the Republicans are in big trouble. ..."
"... AIPAC - Eventually everything is seen for what is truly is. ..."
"... Israel is opposed because they wish to maintain their nuclear weapons monopoly in the region ..."
"... With the threat you describe from Israel it seems only sensible for Iran to develop nuclear weapons - if my was country (Scotland) was in Iran's place and what you said is true i would only support politicians who promised fast and large scale production of atomic weapons to counter the clear threat to my nation. ..."
"... Netanyahu loves to play the victim, but he is the primary cause that Jews worldwide, but especially in the United States, are rethinking the idea of "Israel." I know very few people who willingly identify with a strident right wing government comprised of rabid nationalists, religious fundamentalists, and a violent, almost apocalyptic settler community. ..."
"... The Israeli electorate has indicated which path it wishes to travel, but that does not obligate Jews throughout the world to support a government whose policies they find odious. ..."
"... As part of this deal the US and allies should guarantee Iran protection against Israeli aggression. Otherwise, considering Israel's threats, Iran is well justified in seeking a nuclear deterrent. ..."
"... AIPAC's defeat shows that their grip on the testicles of congress has been broken. ..."
"... Their primary goal was to keep Iran isolated and economically weak. They knew full well that the Iranians hadn't had a nuclear program since 2003, but Netanhayu needed an existential threat to Israel in order to justify his grip on power. All of this charade has bee at the instigation of and directed by Israel. And they lost They were beaten by that hated schwartze and the liberals that Israel normally counts on for unthinking support. ..."
"... No doubt Netanyahu will raise the level of his anger; he just can't accept that a United States president would do anything on which Israel hadn't stamped its imprimatur. It gets tiresome listening to him. ..."
"... It is this deal that feeds the military industrial complex. We've already heard Kerry give Israel and Saudi Arabia assurances of more weapons. And that $150 billion released to Iran? A healthy portion will be spent for arms..American, Russian, Chinese. Most of the commenters have this completely backwards. This deal means a bonanza for the arms industry. ..."
"... The Iran nuclear agreement accomplishes the US policy goal of preventing the creation of the fissionable material required for an Iranian nuclear weapons program. What the agreement does not do is eliminate Iran as a regional military and economic power, as the Israelis and Saudis -- who have invested hundreds of millions of dollars to lobby American politicians and brainwash American TV viewers -- would prefer. ..."
"... Rejection equals war. It's not surprising that the same crowd most stridently demanding rejection of the agreement advocated the disastrous invasion and occupation of Iraq. These homicidal fools never learn, or don't care as long as it's not their lives at risk. ..."
"... And how did the Republicans' foreign policy work out? Reagan created and financed Al Qaeda. Then Bush II invades Iraq with promises the Iraqis will welcome us with flowers (!), the war will be over in a few weeks and pay for itself, and the middle east will have a nascent democracy (Iraq) that will be a grateful US ally. ..."
"... I've seen Iranian statements playing internal politics, but I have never seen any actual Iranian threats. I've seen plenty about Israel assassinating people in other countries, using incendiaries and chemical weapons against civilians in other countries, conducting illegal kidnappings overseas, using terrorism as a weapon of war, developing nuclear weapons illegally, ethnically cleansing illegally occupied territories, that sort of thing. ..."
"... Iran is not a made-up country like Iraq it is as old as Greece. If the Iraq war was sold as pushover and failed miserably then an Iran war would be unthinkable. War can be started in an instant diplomacy take time. UK, France, Germany & EU all agree its an acceptable alternative to war. So as these countries hardly ever agree it is clear the deal is a good one. ..."
"... Rank and file Americans don't even know what the Iran deal is. And can't be bothered to actually find out. They just listen to sound bites from politicians the loudest of whom have been the wildly partisan republicans claiming that it gives Iran a green light to a nuclear weapon. Not to mention those "less safe" polls are completely loaded. Certain buzz words will always produce negative results. If you associate something positive "feeling safe" or "in favor of" anything that Iran signs off on it comes across as indirectly supporting Iran and skews the results of the poll. "Iran" has been so strongly associated with evil and negative all you have to do is insert it into a sentence to make people feel negatively about the entire sentence. In order to get true data on the deal you would have to poll people on the individual clauses the deal. ..."
"... American Jews are facing one of the most interesting choices of recent US history. The Republican Party, which is pissing into a stiff wind of unfavorable demographics, seems to have decided it can even the playing field by peeling Jews away from the Democrats with promises to do whatever Israel wants. So we have the very strange (but quite real) prospect of Jews increasingly throwing in their lot with the party of Christian extremists whose ranks also include violent antiSemites. ..."
"... The American Warmonger Establishment (that now fully entrenched "Military Industrial Complex" against which no more keen observer than President Dwight Eisenhower warned us), is rip-shit over the Iran Agreement. WHAT? We can't Do More War? That will be terrible for further increasing our obscene 1-percent wealth. Let's side with Israeli wingnut Netanyahu, who cynically leverages "an eye for an eye for an eye for an eye" to hold his "Power." ..."
"... AIPAC is a dangerous anti-american organization, and a real and extant threat to the sovereignty of the U.S. Any elected official acting in concert with AIPAC is colluding with a foreign government to harm the U.S. and should be considered treasonous and an enemy of the American people. ..."
The waning clout stems from the lobby siding with the revanchist Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, whose Iran strategy
since the 2012 US presidential campaign has been to unabashedly side with Republican hawks. AIPAC's alignment with the position effectively
caused the group to marginalize itself; the GOP is now the only place where AIPAC can today find lockstep support. The tens of millions
AIPAC spentlobbying against the deal were unable to obscure this dynamic.
We may not look back at this as a sea change – some Senate Democrats who held firm against opposition to the deal are working
with AIPAC to pass subsequent legislation that contains poison pills designed to kill it – but rather as a rising tide eroding the
once sturdy bipartisan pro-Israeli government consensus on Capitol Hill. Some relationships have been frayed; previously stalwart
allies of the Israel's interests, such as Vice President Joe Biden, have reportedly said the Iran deal fight soured them on AIPAC.
Even with the boundaries of its abilities on display, however, AIPAC will continue its efforts. "We urge those who have blocked
a vote today to reconsider," the group said in a spin-heavy
statement casting a pretty objective defeat as victory with the headline, "Bipartisan Senate Majority Rejects Iran Nuclear Deal."
The group's allies in the Senate Republican Party have already promised to rehash the procedural vote next week, and its lobbyists
are still rallying for support in the House. But the Senate's refusal to halt US support for the deal means that Senate Democrats
are unlikely to reconsider, especially after witnessing Thursday's Republican hijinx in the House. These ploys look like little more
than efforts to embarrass Obama into needing to cast a veto.
If Republicans' rhetoric leading up to to their flop in the Senate – Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina took to the
floor during the debate and pulled out an old trick from the run-up to the Iraq war:
blaming Iran for 9/11 and
saying a failure to act would result in a worse attack – is any indication, even Democrats like the pro-Israel hawk Chuck Schumer
will find it untenable to sidle up to AIPAC and the Republicans.
Opponents of the deal want to say the Democrats played politics instead of evaluating the deal honestly. That charge is ironic,
to say the least, since most experts agree the nuclear deal is sound and the best agreement diplomacy could achieve. But there were
politics at play: rather than siding with Obama, Congressional Democrats lined up against the Republican/Netanyahu alliance. The
adamance of AIPAC ended up working against its stated interests.
Groups like AIPAC will go on touting their bipartisan bona fides without considering that their adoption of Netanyahu's own partisanship
doomed them to a partisan result. Meanwhile, the ensuing fight, which will no doubt bring more of the legislative chaos we saw this
week, won't be a cakewalk, so to speak, but will put the lie to AIPAC's claims it has a bipartisan consensus behind it. Despite their
best efforts, Obama won't be the one embarrassed by the scrambling on the horizon.
TiredOldDog 13 Sep 2015 21:47
a foreign country whose still hell bent on committing war crimes
I guess this may mean Israel. If it does, how about we compare Assad's Syria, Iran and Israel. How many war crimes per day
in the last 4 years and, maybe, some forecasts. Otherwise it's the usual gratuitous use of bad words at Israel. It has a purpose.
To denigrate and dehumanize Israel or, at least, Zionism.
ID7612455 13 Sep 2015 18:04
The problem with the right in the USA is that they offer no alternatives, nothing, nada and zilch they have become the
opposition party of opposition. They rely on talking point memes and fear, and it has become the party of extremism and simplicity
offering low hanging fruit and red meat this was on perfect display at their anti Iran deal rally, palin, trump, beck and phil
robinson who commands ducks apparently.
winemaster2 13 Sep 2015 17:01
Put a Brush Mustache on the control freak, greed creed, Nentanhayu the SOB not only looks like but has the same mentality as
Hitler and his Nazism crap.
Martin Hutton -> mantishrimp 12 Sep 2015 23:50
I wondered when someone was going to bring up that "forgotten" fact. Is it any wonder the Iranians don't trust the US.
After the US's spying exploits during the Iraqi WMD inspections, why are you surprised that Iran asks for 24 days notice of inspection
(enough time to clear out conventional weapons development but not enough to remove evidence of nuclear weapons development).
mantishrimp 12 Sep 2015 20:51
Most Americans don't know the CIA overthrew the Iranian government in 1953 and installed the Shaw. Most Republicans know
that most Americans will believe what Fox news tells them. Republicans live in an alternate universe where there is no climate
change, mammon is worshiped and wisdom is rejected hatred is accepted negotiation is replaced by perpetual warfare. Now most Americans
are tired of stupid leadership and the Republicans are in big trouble.
ByThePeople -> Sieggy 12 Sep 2015 20:27
Is pitiful how for months and months, certain individuals blathered on and on and on when it was fairly clear from the get
go that this was a done deal and no one was about cater to the war criminal. I suppose it was good for them, sucking every last
dime they could out of the AICPA & Co. while they acted like there was 'a chance'. Nope, only chance is that at the end of the
day, a politician is a politician and he'll suck you dry as long as you let 'em.
What a pleasure it is to see the United States Congress finally not pimp themselves out completely to a foreign country whose
still hell bent on committing war crimes. A once off I suppose, but it's one small step for Americans.
ByThePeople 12 Sep 2015 20:15
AIPAC - Eventually everything is seen for what is truly is.
ambushinthenight -> Greg Zeglen 12 Sep 2015 18:18
Seems that it makes a lot of sense to most everyone else in the world, it is now at the point where it really makes no difference
whether the U.S. ratifies the deal or not. Israel is opposed because they wish to maintain their nuclear weapons monopoly in the
region. Politicians here object for one of two reasons. They are Israeli first and foremost not American or for political expediency
and a chance to try undo another of this President's achievements. Been a futile effort so far I'd say.
hello1678 -> BrianGriffin 12 Sep 2015 16:42
With the threat you describe from Israel it seems only sensible for Iran to develop nuclear weapons - if my was country (Scotland)
was in Iran's place and what you said is true i would only support politicians who promised fast and large scale production of
atomic weapons to counter the clear threat to my nation.
nardone -> Bruce Bahmani 12 Sep 2015 14:12
Netanyahu loves to play the victim, but he is the primary cause that Jews worldwide, but especially in the United States,
are rethinking the idea of "Israel." I know very few people who willingly identify with a strident right wing government comprised
of rabid nationalists, religious fundamentalists, and a violent, almost apocalyptic settler community.
The Israeli electorate has indicated which path it wishes to travel, but that does not obligate Jews throughout the world to
support a government whose policies they find odious.
Greg Zeglen -> Glenn Gang 12 Sep 2015 13:51
good point which is found almost nowhere else...it is still necessary to understand that the whole line of diplomacy regarding
the west on the part of Iran has been for generations one of deceit...and people are intensely jealous of what they hold dear
- especially safety and liberty with in their country....
EarthyByNature -> Bruce Bahmani 12 Sep 2015 13:45
I do trust your on salary with a decent benefits package with the Israeli government or one of it's slavish US lobbyists. Let's
face it, got to be hard work pouring out such hateful drivel.
BrianGriffin -> imipak 12 Sep 2015 12:53
The USA took about six years to build a bomb from scratch. The UK took almost six years to build a bomb. Russia was able to
build a bomb in only four years (1945-1949). France took four years to build a bomb. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
As part of this deal the US and allies should guarantee Iran protection against Israeli aggression. Otherwise, considering
Israel's threats, Iran is well justified in seeking a nuclear deterrent.
BrianGriffin -> HauptmannGurski 12 Sep 2015 12:35
"Europe needs business desperately."
Sieggy 12 Sep 2015 12:32
In other words, once again, Obama out-played and out-thought both the GOP and AIPAC. He was playing multidimensional chess
while they were playing checkers. The democrats kept their party discipline while the republicans ran around like a schoolyard
full of sugared-up children. This is what happens when you have grownups competing with adolescents. The republican party, to
put it very bluntly, can't get it together long enough to whistle 'Yankee Doodle Dandy' in unison.
They lost. Again. And worse than being losers, they're sore, whining, sniveling, blubbering losers. Even when they've been
spanked - hard - they swear it's not over and they're gonna get even, just you wait and see! Get over it. They lost - badly -
and the simple fact that their party is coming apart at the seams before our very eyes means they're going to be losing a lot
more, too.
AIPAC's defeat shows that their grip on the testicles of congress has been broken. All the way around, a glorious victory for
Obama, and an ignominious defeat for the republicans. And most especially, Israel. Their primary goal was to keep Iran isolated
and economically weak. They knew full well that the Iranians hadn't had a nuclear program since 2003, but Netanhayu needed an
existential threat to Israel in order to justify his grip on power. All of this charade has bee at the instigation of and directed
by Israel. And they lost They were beaten by that hated schwartze and the liberals that Israel normally counts on for unthinking
support.
Their worst loss, however, was losing the support of the American jews. Older, orthodox jews are Israel-firsters. The younger,
less observant jews are Americans first. Netanhayu's behavior has driven a wedge between the US and Israel that is only going
to deepen over time. And on top of that, Iran is re-entering the community of nations, and soon their economy will dominate the
region. Bibi overplayed his hand very, very stupidly, and the real price that Israel will pay for his bungling will unfold over
the next few decades.
BrianGriffin -> TiredOldDog 12 Sep 2015 12:18
"The Constitution provides that the president 'shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make
Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur'"
Hardly a done deal. If Obama releases funds to Iran he probably would be committing an impeachable crime under US law. Even
many Democrats would vote to impeach Obama for providing billions to a sworn enemy of Israel.
Glenn Gang -> Bruce Bahmani 12 Sep 2015 12:07
"...institutionally Iranclad(sic) HATRED towards the west..." Since you like all-caps so much, try this: "B.S."
The American propel(sic) actually figured out something else---that hardline haters like yourself are desperate to keep the
cycle of Islamophobic mistrust and suspicion alive, and blind themselves to the fact that the rest of us have left you behind.
FACT: More than half of the population of Iran today was NOT EVEN BORN when radical students captured the U.S. Embassy in Teheran
in 1979.
People like you, Bruce, conveniently ignore the fact that Ahmedinejad and his hardline followers were voted out of power in
2013, and that Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei further marginalized them by allowing the election of new President Hassan Rouhani
to stand, though he was and is an outspoken reformer advocating rapprochement with the west. While his outward rhetoric still
has stern warnings about anticipated treachery by the 'Great Satan', Khamenei has allowed the Vienna agreement to go forward,
and shows no sign of interfering with its implementation.
He is an old man, but he is neither stupid nor senile, and has clearly seen the crippling effects the international sanctions
have had on his country and his people. Haters like you, Bruce, will insist that he ALWAYS has evil motives, just as Iranian hardliners
(like Ahmedinejad) will ALWAYS believe that the U.S. has sinister motives and cannot EVER be trusted to uphold our end of any
agreement. You ascribe HATRED in all caps to Iran, the whole country, while not acknowledging your own simmering hatred.
People like you will always find a 'boogeyman,' someone else to blame for your problems, real or imagined. You should get some
help.
beenheretoolong 12 Sep 2015 10:57
No doubt Netanyahu will raise the level of his anger; he just can't accept that a United States president would do anything
on which Israel hadn't stamped its imprimatur. It gets tiresome listening to him.
geneob 12 Sep 2015 10:12
It is this deal that feeds the military industrial complex. We've already heard Kerry give Israel and Saudi Arabia assurances
of more weapons. And that $150 billion released to Iran? A healthy portion will be spent for arms..American, Russian, Chinese.
Most of the commenters have this completely backwards. This deal means a bonanza for the arms industry.
Jack Hughes 12 Sep 2015 08:38
The Iran nuclear agreement accomplishes the US policy goal of preventing the creation of the fissionable material required
for an Iranian nuclear weapons program.
What the agreement does not do is eliminate Iran as a regional military and economic power, as the Israelis and Saudis -- who
have invested hundreds of millions of dollars to lobby American politicians and brainwash American TV viewers -- would prefer.
To reject the agreement is to accept the status quo, which is unacceptable, leaving an immediate and unprovoked American-led
bombing campaign as the only other option.
Rejection equals war. It's not surprising that the same crowd most stridently demanding rejection of the agreement advocated
the disastrous invasion and occupation of Iraq. These homicidal fools never learn, or don't care as long as it's not their lives
at risk.
American politicians opposed to the agreement are serving their short-term partisan political interests and, under America's
system of legalized bribery, their Israeli and Saudi paymasters -- not America's long-term policy interests.
ID293404 -> Jeremiah2000 12 Sep 2015 05:01
And how did the Republicans' foreign policy work out? Reagan created and financed Al Qaeda. Then Bush II invades Iraq with
promises the Iraqis will welcome us with flowers (!), the war will be over in a few weeks and pay for itself, and the middle east
will have a nascent democracy (Iraq) that will be a grateful US ally.
He then has pictures taken of himself in a jet pilot's uniform on a US aircraft carrier with a huge sign saying Mission Accomplished.
He attacks Afghanistan to capture Osama, lets him get away, and then attacks Iraq instead, which had nothing to do with 9/11 and
no ties with Al Qaeda.
So then we have two interminable wars going on, thanks to brilliant Republican foreign policy, and spend gazillions of dollars
while creating a mess that may never be straightened out. Never mind all the friends we won in the middle east and the enhanced
reputation of our country through torture, the use of mercenaries, and the deaths and displacement of hundreds of thousands of
civilians. Yeah, we really need those bright Republicans running the show over in the Middle East!
HauptmannGurski -> lazman 12 Sep 2015 02:31
That is a very difficult point to understand, just look at this sentence "not understanding the fact in international affairs
that to disrespect an American president is to disrespect Americans" ... too much emperor thinking for me. We have this conversation
with regard to Putin everywhere now, so we disrespect all 143 million Russians? There's not a lot of disrespect around for Japanese
PM Abe and Chinese Xi - does this now mean we respect them and all Japanese and Chinese? Election campaigns create such enormous
personality cults that people seem to lose perspective.
On the Iran deal, if the US had dropped out of it it would have caused quite a rift because many countries would have just
done what they wanted anyway. The international Atomic Energy Organisation or what it is would have done their inspections. Siemens
would have sold medical machines. Countries would grow up as it were. But as cooperation is always better than confrontation it
is nice the US have stayed in the agreement that was apparently 10 years in the making. It couldn't have gone on like that. With
Europe needing gazillions to finance Greece, Ukraine, and millions of refugees (the next waves will roll on with the next spring
and summer from April), Europe needs business desparately. Israel was happy to buy oil through Marc Rich under sanctions, now
it's Europe's turn to snatch some business.
imipak -> BrianGriffin 11 Sep 2015 21:56
Iran lacks weapons-grade uranium and the means to produce it. Iran has made no efforts towards nuclear weapons technology for
over a decade. Iran is a signatory of the NPT and is entitled to the rights enshrined therein. If Israel launches a nuclear war
against Iran over Iran having a medical reactor (needed to produce isotopes for medicine, isotopes America can barely produce
enough of for itself) that poses no security threat to anyone, then Israel will have transgressed so many international laws that
if it survives the radioactive fallout (unlikely), it won't survive the political fallout.
It is a crime of the highest order to use weapons of mass destruction (although that didn't stop the Israelis using them against
Palestinian civilians) and pre-emtive self-defence is why most believe Bush and Blair should be on trial at the ICJ, or (given
the severity of their crimes) Nuremberg.
Israel's right to self-defense is questionable, I'm not sure any such right exists for anyone, but even allowing for it, Israel
has no right to wage unprovoked war on another nation on the grounds of a potential threat discovered through divination using
tea leaves.
imipak -> Jeremiah2000 11 Sep 2015 21:43
Iran's sponsorship of terrorism is of no concern. Such acts do not determine its competency to handle nuclear material at the
5% level (which you can find naturally). There are only three questions that matter - can Iran produce the 90-95% purity needed
to build a bomb (no), can Iran produce such purity clandestinely (no), and can Iran use its nuclear technology to threaten Israel
(no).
Israel also supports international terrorism, has used chemical weapons against civilians, has directly indulged in terrorism,
actually has nuclear weapons and is paranoid enough that it may use them against other nations without cause.
I respect Israel's right to exist and the intelligence of most Israelis. But I neither respect nor tolerate unreasoned fear
nor delusions of Godhood.
imipak -> commish 11 Sep 2015 21:33
I've seen Iranian statements playing internal politics, but I have never seen any actual Iranian threats. I've seen plenty
about Israel assassinating people in other countries, using incendiaries and chemical weapons against civilians in other countries,
conducting illegal kidnappings overseas, using terrorism as a weapon of war, developing nuclear weapons illegally, ethnically
cleansing illegally occupied territories, that sort of thing.
Until such time as Israel implements the Oslo Accords, withdraws to its internationally recognized boundary and provides the
International Court of Justice a full accounting of state-enacted and state-sponsored terrorism, it gets no claims on sainthood
and gets no free rides.
Iran has its own crimes to answer, but directly threatening Israel in words or deeds has not been one of them within this past
decade. Its actual crimes are substantial and cannot be ignored, but it is guilty only of those and not fictional works claimed
by psychotic paranoid ultra-nationalists.
imipak -> moishe 11 Sep 2015 21:18
Domestic politics. Of no real consequence, it's just a way of controlling a populace through fear and a never-ending pseudo-war.
It's how Iran actually feels that is important.
For the last decade, they've backed off any nuclear weapons research and you can't make a bomb with centrifuges that can only
manage 20% enriched uranium. You need something like 90% enrichment, which requires centrifuges many, many times more advanced.
It'd be hard to smuggle something like that in and the Iranians lack the skills, technology and science to make them.
Iran's conventional forces are busy fighting ISIS. What they do afterwards is a concern, but Israel has a sizable military
presence on the Golan Heights. The most likely outcome is for Iran to install puppet regimes (or directly control) Syria and ISIS'
caliphate.
I could see those two regions plus Iraq being fully absorbed into Iran, that would make some sense given the new geopolitical
situation. But that would tie up Iran for decades. Which would not be a bad thing and America would be better off encouraging
it rather than sabre-rattling.
(These are areas that contribute a lot to global warming and political instability elsewhere. Merging the lot and encouraging
nuclear energy will do a lot for the planet. The inherent instability of large empires will reduce mischief-making elsewhere to
more acceptable levels - they'll be too busy. It's idle hands that you need to be scared of.)
Israelis worry too much. If they spent less time fretting and more time developing, they'd be impervious to any natural or
unnatural threat by now. Their teaching of Roman history needs work, but basically Israel has a combined intellect vastly superior
to that of any nearby nation.
That matters. If you throw away fear and focus only on problems, you can stop and even defeat armies and empires vastly greater
than your own. History is replete with examples, so is the mythologicized history of the Israeli people. Israel's fear is Israel's
only threat.
mostfree 11 Sep 2015 21:10
Warmongers on all sides would had loved another round of fear and hysteria. Those dark military industrial complexes on all
sides are dissipating in the face of the high rising light of peace for now . Please let it shine.
bishoppeter4 11 Sep 2015 20:09
The rabid Republicans working for a foreign power against the interest of the United States -- US citizens will know just what
to do.
"Netanyahu has no right to dictate what the US does."
But he has every right to point out how Obama is a weak fool. How's Obama's red line working in Syria? How is his toppling
of Qadaffi in Libya working? How about his completely inept dealings with Egypt, throwing support behind the Muslim Brotherhood
leaders? The leftists cheer Obama's weakening of American influence abroad. But they don't talk much about its replacement with
Russian and Chinese influence.
Russian build-up in Syria part of secret deal with Iran's Quds Force leader. Obama and Kerry are sending a strongly
worded message.
Susan Dechancey -> whateverworks4u 11 Sep 2015 19:05
Incredible to see someone prefer war to diplomacy - guess you are an armchair General not a real one.
Susan Dechancey -> commish 11 Sep 2015 19:04
Except all its neighbours ... not only threatened but entered military conflict and stole land ... murdered Iranian Scientists
but apart from that just a kitten
Susan Dechancey -> moishe 11 Sep 2015 19:00
Israel has nukes so why are they afraid ?? Iran will never use nukes against Israel and even Mossad told nuttyyahoo sabre rattling
Susan Dechancey 11 Sep 2015 18:57
Iran is not a made-up country like Iraq it is as old as Greece. If the Iraq war was sold as pushover and failed miserably
then an Iran war would be unthinkable. War can be started in an instant diplomacy take time. UK, France, Germany & EU all agree
its an acceptable alternative to war. So as these countries hardly ever agree it is clear the deal is a good one.
To be honest the USA can do what it likes now .. UK has set up an embassy - trade missions are landing Tehran from Europe.
So if Israel and US congress want war - they will be alone and maybe if US keeps up the Nuttyahoo rhetoric European firms can
win contracts to help us pay for the last US regime change Iraq / Isis / Refugees...
lswingly -> commish 11 Sep 2015 16:58
Rank and file Americans don't even know what the Iran deal is. And can't be bothered to actually find out. They just listen
to sound bites from politicians the loudest of whom have been the wildly partisan republicans claiming that it gives Iran a green
light to a nuclear weapon. Not to mention those "less safe" polls are completely loaded. Certain buzz words will always produce
negative results. If you associate something positive "feeling safe" or "in favor of" anything that Iran signs off on it comes
across as indirectly supporting Iran and skews the results of the poll. "Iran" has been so strongly associated with evil and negative
all you have to do is insert it into a sentence to make people feel negatively about the entire sentence. In order to get true
data on the deal you would have to poll people on the individual clauses the deal.
It's no different from how when you run a poll on who's in favor "Obamacare" the results will be majority negative. But
if you poll on whether you are in favor of "The Affordable Care Act" most people are in favor of it and if you break it down and
poll on the individual planks of "Obamacare" people overwhelming approve of the things that "Obamacare does". The disapproval
is based on the fact that Republican's have successfully turned "Obamacare" into a pejorative and has almost no reflection of
people feelings on actual policy.
To illustrate how meaningless those poll numbers are a Jewish poll (supposedly the people who have the most to lose if this
deal is bad) found that a narrow majority of Jews approve of the deal. You're numbers are essentially meaningless.
The alternative to this plan is essentially war if not now, in the very near future, according to almost all non-partisan policy
wonks. Go run a poll on whether we should go to war with Iran and see how that turns out. Last time we destabilized the region
we removed a secular dictator who was enemies with Al Queda and created a power vacuum that led to increased religious extremism
and the rise of Isis. You want to double down on that strategy?
MadManMark -> whateverworks4u 11 Sep 2015 16:34
You need to reread this article. It's exactly this attitude of yours (and AIPAC and Netanyahu) that this deal is not 100% perfect,
but then subsequently failed to suggest ANY way to get something better -- other than war, which I'm sorry most people don't want
another Republican "preemptive" war -- caused a lot people originally uncertain about this deal (like me) to conclude there may
not be a better alternative. Again, read the article: What you think about me, I now think about deal critics like you ("It seems
people will endorse anything to justify their political views.)
USfan 11 Sep 2015 15:34
American Jews are facing one of the most interesting choices of recent US history. The Republican Party, which is pissing
into a stiff wind of unfavorable demographics, seems to have decided it can even the playing field by peeling Jews away from the
Democrats with promises to do whatever Israel wants. So we have the very strange (but quite real) prospect of Jews increasingly
throwing in their lot with the party of Christian extremists whose ranks also include violent antiSemites.
Interesting times. We'll see how this plays out. My family is Jewish and I have not been shy in telling them that alliances
with the GOP for short-term gains for Israel is not a wise policy. The GOP establishment are not antiSemtic but the base often
is, and if Trump's candidacy shows anything it's that the base is in control of the Republicans.
But we'll see.
niyiakinlabu 11 Sep 2015 15:29
Central question: how come nobody talks about Israel's nukes?
hello1678 -> BrianGriffin 11 Sep 2015 14:02
Iran will not accept being forced into dependence on outside powers. We may dislike their government but they have as much
right as anyone else to enrich their own fuel.
JackHep 11 Sep 2015 13:30
Netanyahu is an example of all that is bad about the Israeli political, hence military industrial, establishment. Why Cameron's
government allowed him on British soil is beyond belief. Surely the PM's treatment of other "hate preachers" would not have been
lost on Netanyahu? Sadly our PM seems to miss the point with Israel.
The American Warmonger Establishment (that now fully entrenched "Military Industrial Complex" against which no more keen
observer than President Dwight Eisenhower warned us), is rip-shit over the Iran Agreement. WHAT? We can't Do More War? That will
be terrible for further increasing our obscene 1-percent wealth. Let's side with Israeli wingnut Netanyahu, who cynically leverages
"an eye for an eye for an eye for an eye" to hold his "Power."
And let's be treasonous against the United States by trying to undermine U.S. Foreign Policy FOR OUR OWN PROFIT. We are LONG
overdue for serious jail time for these sociopaths, who already have our country "brainwashed" into 53% of our budget going to
the War Profiteers and to pretending to be a 19th century Neo-Colonial Power -- in an Endless State of Eternal War. These people
are INSANE. Time to simply say so.
Boredwiththeusa 11 Sep 2015 12:58
At the rally to end the Iran deal in the Capitol on Wednesday, one of the AIPAC worshipping attendees had this to say to Jim
Newell of Slate:
""Obama is a black, Jew-hating, jihadist putting America and Israel and the rest of the planet in grave danger," said Bob
Kunst of Miami. Kunst-pairing a Hillary Clinton rubber mask with a blue T-shirt reading "INFIDEL"-was holding one sign that
accused Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Kerry of "Fulfilling Hitler's Dreams" and another that queried, "DIDN'T WE LEARN ANYTHING
FROM 1938?"
His only reassurance was that, when Iran launches its attack on the mainland, it'll be stopped quickly by America's heavily
armed citizenry."
That is indicative of the mindset of those opposed to the agreement.
Boredwiththeusa 11 Sep 2015 12:47
AIPAC is a dangerous anti-american organization, and a real and extant threat to the sovereignty of the U.S. Any elected
official acting in concert with AIPAC is colluding with a foreign government to harm the U.S. and should be considered treasonous
and an enemy of the American people.
tunejunky 11 Sep 2015 12:47
AIPAC, its constituent republicans, and the government of Israel all made the same mistake in a common episode of hubris. by
not understanding the American public, war, and without the deference shown from a proxy to its hegemon, Israel's right wing has
flown the Israeli cause into a wall. not understanding the fact in international affairs that to disrespect an American president
is to disrespect Americans, the Israeli government acted as a spoiled first-born - while to American eyes it was a greedy, ungrateful
ward foisted upon barely willing hands. it presumed far too much and is receiving the much deserved rebuke.
impartial12 11 Sep 2015 12:37
This deal is the best thing that happened in the region in a while. We tried war and death. It didn't work out. Why not try
this?
This article is two years old, but still sounds current. The only difference now is that the conflict between Western nationalists and
neoliberal central government of President Poroshenko became more acute. Nationalists do not understand that "The Moor has done his duty, Moor can go" and neoliberal government of Poroshenko do not need
(and actually is afraid of) them.
"... Even in Kiev they view Western Ukrainians as strangers. ..."
"... So they didn't have any hate back towards the West Ukrainians. Besides, West Ukraine was sufficiently far from Donbass for Russians there not to feel threatened. ..."
"... So the Western [Ukrainians] hate towards Russians vs. Russian neutral attitude towards Ukrainians has existed for decades. ..."
"... "criminalizes the denial or justification of Russia's aggression against Ukraine" with a fine equivalent to 22 to 44,000 USD for the first offense and up to three years in prison for repeat offenders. ..."
"... But isn't it wrong that the faith of those people will depend on what EU or US will allow them to do rather than on their natural desire? How does it co-exist with all those democratic ideas. ..."
"... They key thing in all of this is to stop being naive. Learn it, remember it. Our media will only care for the "right" journalists and will throw campaigns only for them and there will be rallies only over the death of "right" people, while we won't pay attention to thousands of deaths of the "wrong" people. ..."
"... The US actively encouraged the overthrow of the democratically elected president of Ukraine, a void filled by right wing nationalists and an act that led directly to the current conflict ..."
"... In turn, the maidan coup d'etat de facto disenfranchised the culturally russian majority in SE-ukr. ..."
"... the NW-ukr neonazi bands fighting in SE-ukr are de facto foreign in SE-ukr, both culturally and geo-politically, and are there to give this majority a lesson. ..."
"... In Zakarpattia Oblast, only 410 out of 1,110 people who received draft notices came to mobilization centers, Oleg Lysenko, a representative of General Staff said recently.(kyiv news) ..."
"... For some reason that isn't quite clear to me, discussion among Western experts has overwhelmingly centered not on the imminent economic apocalypse facing Kiev, but on whether or not the United States should supply it with advanced weapons systems to beat back the Russians. ..."
"... It might be inconvenient to note, but Russia is positively crucial to Ukraine's economy not merely as a source of raw materials and energy but as a destination for industrial production that would otherwise be unable to find willing customers. According to Ukrainian government data, Russia accounted for roughly a quarter of the country's total foreign trade. The equivalent figure from the Russian side? Somewhere between 6 and 7%. Given that reality, Russia's leverage over Ukraine is obviously much greater that Ukraine's leverage over Russia. ..."
"... During the Vietnam War, the draft was a huge issue with many thousands of young men going to Canada, thousand who were in the military receiving less than honorable discharges and still others doing jail time. The war was view as an unjust war by the better educated and those who didn't have to enlist for food and shelter ("three hots and a cot"). ..."
"... The rebellion against the draft in Ukraine tells us that the war against the people in the Eastern area is an unjust war. People don't need a degree in history to understand when they are being use in ways that is not in their interest. We find only the fascist battalion who are hungry for this war. The US and EU should keep out of this internal civil struggle in Ukraine. ..."
The distrust between the West and the rest of Ukraine is not 14 months old. It has always existed. Since the War at the very
list. Even in Kiev they view Western Ukrainians as strangers. Western Ukrainians would call everyone a moscovite, and
in the East and the South, the Russians were neutral because their lives were much closer to Russia than to all this Ukrainian
bullshit. So they didn't have any hate back towards the West Ukrainians. Besides, West Ukraine was sufficiently far from Donbass
for Russians there not to feel threatened.
So the Western [Ukrainians] hate towards Russians vs. Russian neutral attitude towards Ukrainians has existed for decades.
Systematic
A new law to likely be approved by the Rada "criminalizes the denial or justification of Russia's aggression against Ukraine"
with a fine equivalent to 22 to 44,000 USD for the first offense and up to three years in prison for repeat offenders.
Meanwhile, while the law is not approved,
In February 8 in Mariupol a rally was planned against mobilization. On the eve the adviser of Interior Minister Anton Gerashchenko
said that everyone who comes there will be arrested, "Everyone who comes to the rally tomorrow against mobilization, will be
delayed for several hours for identification and after fingerprinting and photographing until released. Let me remind you that
I and my fellow lawmaker Boris Filatov has filed a bill to impose criminal liability for public calls for the failure of mobilization
"- he wrote on his page on Facebook. As a result, the action did not take place.
With all the hot headed claims of how the Soviet Union just grabbed the piece of land from Poland, Ukraine has a good chance
to correct those misdeeds. Give West Ukraine to Poland, Transkarpathia - to Hungary, and the South West - to Romania. That would be restoring historical
injustice.
vr13vr -> SallyWa 10 Feb 2015 18:18
But isn't it wrong that the faith of those people will depend on what EU or US will allow them to do rather than on their
natural desire? How does it co-exist with all those democratic ideas.
Besides, federalization may or may not protect them. Kiev may or may not adhere to rules in the future, there will be a tax
issue, there will be cultural issues as Kiev will try to Ukrainize those areas subtly - you know those programs that are not anti-Russian
per se but that increase Ukrainian presence, thus diluting the original population. Remaining under the same roof with Kiev and
L'vov isn't really the best solution for Donbass if they want to preserve their independence and identity.
SallyWa -> VladimirM 10 Feb 2015 18:16
They key thing in all of this is to stop being naive. Learn it, remember it. Our media will only care for the "right" journalists
and will throw campaigns only for them and there will be rallies only over the death of "right" people, while we won't pay attention
to thousands of deaths of the "wrong" people.
theeskimo -> ridibundus 10 Feb 2015 18:02
The US actively encouraged the overthrow of the democratically elected president of Ukraine, a void filled by right wing nationalists
and an act that led directly to the current conflict. Now they want to arm a leadership with no national mandate who have ceded
responsibility for prosecuting their war in the east to an ultra nationalist bunch of thugs.
I think it's you who should keep up with what's happening. By the time this is over, Ukraine will be no more.
newsflashUK 10 Feb 2015 18:01
Scraping the barrel for cannon fodder by pro-NATO puppet Poroshenko regime: "The draft officers have been tapping men from
20 to 60 years old and women of 20 to 50 years old with relevant military service experience and training. The age limit for senior
officers that could be mobilized is 65 years. Vladyslav Seleznev, spokesman of General Staff, said" (Kyiv news).
theeskimo -> ridibundus 10 Feb 2015 18:02
The US actively encouraged the overthrow of the democratically elected president of Ukraine, a void filled by right wing
nationalists and an act that led directly to the current conflict. Now they want to arm a leadership with no national mandate
who have ceded responsibility for prosecuting their war in the east to an ultra nationalist bunch of thugs.
I think it's you who should keep up with what's happening. By the time this is over, Ukraine will be no more.
newsflashUK 10 Feb 2015 18:01
Scraping the barrel for cannon fodder by pro-NATO puppet Poroshenko regime: "The draft officers have been tapping men from
20 to 60 years old and women of 20 to 50 years old with relevant military service experience and training. The age limit for senior
officers that could be mobilized is 65 years. Vladyslav Seleznev, spokesman of General Staff, said" (Kyiv news).
erpiu 10 Feb 2015 17:59
The focus on Putin and geopolitics forces the actual ukr people out of the picture and blurrs understanding.
The maidan was a genuinely popular NW-ukr rebellion after NW-ukr had lost all recent pre-2014 elections to the culturally Russian
majority of voters mainly in SE-ukr.
In turn, the maidan coup d'etat de facto disenfranchised the culturally russian majority in SE-ukr.
the NW-ukr neonazi bands fighting in SE-ukr are de facto foreign in SE-ukr, both culturally and geo-politically, and are
there to give this majority a lesson.
USA+EU weapons would only help the punitive "pacification" of SE ukr, the place that was deciding UKR elections until the coup.
The real festering conflict is the incompatibility of the anti-Russian feelings in NW ukr (little else is shared by the various
maidan factions) with the cccp/russian heritage of most people in SE ukr... that incompatibility is the main problem that needs
to be "solved".
Neither the maidan coup nor yanukovich&the pre-coup electoral dominance of SE ukr voters were ever stable solutions.
newsflashUK 10 Feb 2015 17:57
In Zakarpattia Oblast, only 410 out of 1,110 people who received draft notices came to mobilization centers, Oleg Lysenko,
a representative of General Staff said recently.(kyiv news)
SallyWa 10 Feb 2015 17:51
Ukraine's Economy Is Collapsing And The West Doesn't Seem To Care
For some reason that isn't quite clear to me, discussion among Western experts has overwhelmingly centered not on the imminent
economic apocalypse facing Kiev, but on whether or not the United States should supply it with advanced weapons systems to
beat back the Russians.
It might be inconvenient to note, but Russia is positively crucial to Ukraine's economy not merely as a source of raw
materials and energy but as a destination for industrial production that would otherwise be unable to find willing customers.
According to Ukrainian government data, Russia accounted for roughly a quarter of the country's total foreign trade. The equivalent
figure from the Russian side? Somewhere between 6 and 7%. Given that reality, Russia's leverage over Ukraine is obviously much
greater that Ukraine's leverage over Russia.
During WW 2 Draft dodging was almost unheard of. The war was perceived as "just", a righteous cause. Thus, men correctly saw
it as their duty to take up arms against fascism.
During the Vietnam War, the draft was a huge issue with many thousands of young men going to Canada, thousand who were
in the military receiving less than honorable discharges and still others doing jail time. The war was view as an unjust war by
the better educated and those who didn't have to enlist for food and shelter ("three hots and a cot").
The rebellion against the draft in Ukraine tells us that the war against the people in the Eastern area is an unjust war.
People don't need a degree in history to understand when they are being use in ways that is not in their interest. We find only
the fascist battalion who are hungry for this war. The US and EU should keep out of this internal civil struggle in Ukraine.
In reality Ukraine is run by neoliberals. Still this is an interesting propaganda twist. Actually "antisemitism" bait works perfectly well
in most cases.
80% of the readers will not read more than that headline.
The first paragraph:
Donetsk (Ukraine) (AFP) - Ukraine's pro-Russian rebel chief on Monday branded the country's leaders
"miserable" Jews in an apparent anti-Semitic jibe.
Of those 20% of the readers who will read the first paragraph only one forth will also read the
second one. The "anti-semitic" accusation has thereby been planted in 95% of the readership. Now
here is the second paragraph:
Alexander Zakharchenko, leader of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People's Republic, claimed that
Kiev's pro-Western leaders were "miserable representatives of the great Jewish people".
Saying that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were "miserable representatives of the great American
people" would be "anti-American"? What is anti-semitic in calling "the Jewish people" "great"?
The AFP reporter and editor who put that up deserve an Orwellian reward. It is one of the most
misleading quotations I have ever seen. Accusing Zakharchenko of anti-semitism when he is actually
lauding Jews.
Now I do not agree with Zakharchenko. There is
no such
thing as "the Jewish people" in the sense of a racial or national determination. There are people
of various nationalities and racial heritages who assert that they follow, or their ancestors followed,
religious Jewish believes. Some of them may have been or are "great".
But that does not make them "the Jewish people" just like followers of Scientology do not make
"the Scientologish people".
Saker has a link to the youtube, the audio in Russian with English subtitles. It begins at
about 12:30.
@3
When Sarkozy came in AFP really hit the skids. Like the NYTimes and Bush XLIII.
Lysander | Feb 3, 2015 12:02:09 PM | 13
What Zacharchenko did that was unforgivable is to draw attention to the fact that Kiev's current
leadership is largely Jewish. From Yats to Petro (Waltzman) Poroshenko To Igor Kolomoiski. No
matter how gracefully Zach would put it, it is the content that they hate.
Not saying there is anything wrong with that, but I guess there are some who would rather you
not notice.
Right-wing nazi-rag KyivPost has a miserable coverage of same piece. "Agence France-Presse:
Russia's guy says Ukraine run by 'miserable Jews'" Zhakharchenko is "Russia's guy," his picture
under the headline with a totally unrelated caption, subtitled by the first paragraph of the AFP
fake "news" (sic!)"Ukraine's pro-Russian rebel chief on Monday branded the country's leaders
"miserable" Jews in an apparent anti-Semitic jibe.", and a link to Yahoo news reproducing
the AFP piece in full.
Zionazi thieves stole the word "semitic" to mean "Jews," when in fact it comprehends many other
languages and peoples. Zhakharchenko's AFP phony "anti-Semitic jibe" would be insulting to all
these many peoples.
"...Semitic peoples and their languages, in ancient historic times (between the 30th and
20th centuries BC), covered a broad area which encompassed what are today the modern states and
regions of Iraq, Syria, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Palestinian territories, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait,
Oman, Yemen, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and the Sinai Peninsula and Malta..."
...The word "Semite" and most uses of the word "Semitic" relate to any people whose native
tongue is, or was historically, a member of the associated language family.[35][36] The term "anti-Semite",
however, came by a circuitous route to refer most commonly to one hostile or discriminatory towards
Jews in particular...[37]
Yet another historical theft by the so-called "chosen" crooks.
Israel's next desperate gamble is direct military attack on Lebanon and Syria.
On 5 November, the ever more delusional Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
complained to the BBC about an "Iranian takeover" of Lebanon.
On 9 November, the equally delusional Israeli Intelligence Minister Israel Katz complained
to the Associated Press that "Lebanon is Hezbollah and Hezbollah is Iran".
Israel is by no means content to merely "contemplate" a war.
With the rollback of ISIS and Al Qaeda terrorist proxy forces in Syria, and the failure of
Kurdish separatist efforts in Iraq, Israel plans to launch military attacks against southern
Lebanon and Syria.
War against Lebanon and Syria is the next stage of the Israeli-Saudi-US Axis
"project".
Saudi Arabia and the United States are very much available to "assist" the upcoming
Israeli military adventure.
South Front has presented a cogent and fairly detailed analysis of Israel's upcoming war
in southern Lebanon.
Conspicuously absent from the South Front analysis is any discussion of the Israeli
planned assault on Syria, or possible responses to the conflict from the United States or
Russia.
Israeli propaganda preparations for attack are already in high gear. Unfortunately, sober
heads are in perilously short supply in Israel and the U.S., so the prognosis can hardly be
optimistic.
"Scenarios for the Third Lebanon War
Over time, IDF's military effectiveness had declined. [ ] In the Second Lebanon War of
2006 due to the overwhelming numerical superiority in men and equipment the IDF managed to
occupy key strong points but failed to inflict a decisive defeat on Hezbollah. The frequency
of attacks in Israeli territory was not reduced; the units of the IDF became bogged down in
the fighting in the settlements and suffered significant losses. There now exists
considerable political pressure to reassert IDF's lost military dominance and, despite the
complexity and unpredictability of the situation we may assume the future conflict will
feature only two sides, IDF and Hezbollah. Based on the bellicose statements of the
leadership of the Jewish state, the fighting will be initiated by Israel.
"The operation will begin with a massive evacuation of residents from the settlements in
the north and centre of Israel. Since Hezbollah has agents within the IDF, it will not be
possible to keep secret the concentration of troops on the border and a mass evacuation of
civilians. Hezbollah units will will be ordered to occupy a prepared defensive position and
simultaneously open fire on places were IDF units are concentrated. The civilian population
of southern Lebanon will most likely be evacuated. IDF will launch massive bombing causing
great damage to the social infrastructure and some damage to Hezbollah's military
infrastructure, but without destroying the carefully protected and camouflaged rocket
launchers and launch sites.
"Hezbollah control and communications systems have elements of redundancy. Consequently,
regardless of the use of specialized precision-guided munitions, the command posts and
electronic warfare systems will not be paralysed, maintaining communications including
through the use of fibre-optic communications means. IDF discovered that the movement has
such equipment during the 2006 war. Smaller units will operate independently, working with
open communication channels, using the pre-defined call signs and codes.
"Israeli troops will then cross the border of Lebanon, despite the presence of the UN
peacekeeping mission in southern Lebanon, beginning a ground operation with the involvement
of a greater number of units than in the 2006 war. The IDF troops will occupy commanding
heights and begin to prepare for assaults on settlements and actions in the tunnels. The
Israelis do not score a quick victory as they suffer heavy losses in built-up areas. The need
to secure occupied territory with patrols and checkpoints will cause further losses.
"The fact that Israel itself started the war and caused damage to the civilian
infrastructure, allows the leadership of the movement to use its missile arsenal on Israeli
cities. While Israel's missile defence systems can successfully intercept the launched
missiles, there are not enough of them to blunt the bombardment. The civilian evacuation
paralyzes life in the country. As soon IDF's Iron Dome and other medium-range systems are
spent on short-range Hezbollah rockets, the bombardment of Israel with long-range missiles
may commence. Hezbollah's Iranian solid-fuel rockets do not require much time to prepare for
launch and may target the entire territory of Israel, causing further losses.
"It is difficult to assess the duration of actions of this war. One thing that seems
certain is that Israel shouldn't count on its rapid conclusion, similar to last September's
exercises. Hezbollah units are stronger and more capable than during the 2006 war, despite
the fact that they are fighting in Syria and suffered losses there.
"Conclusions
"The combination of large-scale exercises and bellicose rhetoric is intended to muster
Israeli public support for the aggression against Hezbollah by convincing the public the
victory would be swift and bloodless. Instead of restraint based on a sober assessment of
relative capabilities, Israeli leaders appear to be in a state of blood lust. In contrast,
the Hezbollah has thus far demonstrated restraint and diplomacy.
"Underestimating the adversary is always the first step towards a defeat. Such mistakes
are paid for with soldiers' blood and commanders' careers. The latest IDF exercises suggest
Israeli leaders underestimate the opponent and, more importantly, consider them to be quite
dumb. In reality, Hezbollah units will not cross the border. There is no need to provoke the
already too nervous neighbor and to suffer losses solely to plant a flag and photograph it
for their leader. For Hezbollah, it is easier and safer when the Israeli soldiers come to
them. According to the IDF soldiers who served in Gaza and southern Lebanon, it is easier to
operate on the plains of Gaza than the mountainous terrain of southern Lebanon. This is a
problem for armoured vehicles fighting for control of heights, tunnels, and settlements,
where they are exposed to anti-armor weapons.
"While the Israeli establishment is in a state of patriotic frenzy, it would be a good
time for them to turn to the wisdom of their ancestors. After all, as the old Jewish proverb
says: 'War is a big swamp, easy to go into but hard to get out'."
The Saudi Royal Family has bottomless pockets when it comes to controlling negative press
coverage.
Zachary Smith , November 10, 2017 at 10:28 pm
And in the shadows, at the back of the gaming room, stands Israeli Prime Minister Bibi
Netanyahu. The idea of going to the casino was his, in the first place. If the hero lands
on black, he will share in the joy, but if it is red never mind: Bibi's home is not
forfeit.
At first glance it looks to me as if Netanyahu wins any coin flip, whether it is "heads"
or "tails". No matter what happens, Saudi Arabia is going to be severely shaken up, and chaos
in surrounding Muslim nations is almost always a "plus" for Israel.
But at second glance I imagine I can also see a downside. The Arabian Peninsula has a
hefty population, and if the Kingdom here does shatter, there is a possibility that an Arabic
Napoleon could emerge. During the time of Muhammad there was an outward-moving crusade, and
might it not happen again? Saudi Arabia may not have much of an army at the moment, but that
could change quickly. A glance at a world globe shows Israel to be very close by. This sort
of thing would cause me to lose sleep if I were an Israeli strategist.
At the moment the KSA is being taken over by a young numbskull, if all the accounts I've
read are even remotely true. Perhaps Israel is providing the brains. The Moon of Alabama
blogger has a low opinion of the young man.
Saudi Arabia – This "Liberal Reformer" Is An Impulsive Tyrant
The singular fact that the planned next royal succession from Salman to MbS will be the
first from father to son since the death of Abdulaziz seems to me to add a whole other level
of uncertainty to what is already a difficult time for the kingdom.
Israel's next desperate gamble is direct military attack on Lebanon and Syria.
On 5 November, the ever more delusional Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
complained to the BBC about an "Iranian takeover" of Lebanon.
On 9 November, the equally delusional Israeli Intelligence Minister Israel Katz complained
to the Associated Press that "Lebanon is Hezbollah and Hezbollah is Iran".
Israel is by no means content to merely "contemplate" a war.
With the rollback of ISIS and Al Qaeda terrorist proxy forces in Syria, and the failure of
Kurdish separatist efforts in Iraq, Israel plans to launch military attacks against southern
Lebanon and Syria.
War against Lebanon and Syria is the next stage of the Israeli-Saudi-US Axis
"project".
Saudi Arabia and the United States are very much available to "assist" the upcoming
Israeli military adventure.
South Front has presented a cogent and fairly detailed analysis of Israel's upcoming war
in southern Lebanon.
Conspicuously absent from the South Front analysis is any discussion of the Israeli
planned assault on Syria, or possible responses to the conflict from the United States or
Russia.
Israeli propaganda preparations for attack are already in high gear. Unfortunately, sober
heads are in perilously short supply in Israel and the U.S., so the prognosis can hardly be
optimistic.
"Scenarios for the Third Lebanon War
Over time, IDF's military effectiveness had declined. [ ] In the Second Lebanon War of
2006 due to the overwhelming numerical superiority in men and equipment the IDF managed to
occupy key strong points but failed to inflict a decisive defeat on Hezbollah. The frequency
of attacks in Israeli territory was not reduced; the units of the IDF became bogged down in
the fighting in the settlements and suffered significant losses. There now exists
considerable political pressure to reassert IDF's lost military dominance and, despite the
complexity and unpredictability of the situation we may assume the future conflict will
feature only two sides, IDF and Hezbollah. Based on the bellicose statements of the
leadership of the Jewish state, the fighting will be initiated by Israel.
"The operation will begin with a massive evacuation of residents from the settlements in
the north and centre of Israel. Since Hezbollah has agents within the IDF, it will not be
possible to keep secret the concentration of troops on the border and a mass evacuation of
civilians. Hezbollah units will will be ordered to occupy a prepared defensive position and
simultaneously open fire on places were IDF units are concentrated. The civilian population
of southern Lebanon will most likely be evacuated. IDF will launch massive bombing causing
great damage to the social infrastructure and some damage to Hezbollah's military
infrastructure, but without destroying the carefully protected and camouflaged rocket
launchers and launch sites.
"Hezbollah control and communications systems have elements of redundancy. Consequently,
regardless of the use of specialized precision-guided munitions, the command posts and
electronic warfare systems will not be paralysed, maintaining communications including
through the use of fibre-optic communications means. IDF discovered that the movement has
such equipment during the 2006 war. Smaller units will operate independently, working with
open communication channels, using the pre-defined call signs and codes.
"Israeli troops will then cross the border of Lebanon, despite the presence of the UN
peacekeeping mission in southern Lebanon, beginning a ground operation with the involvement
of a greater number of units than in the 2006 war. The IDF troops will occupy commanding
heights and begin to prepare for assaults on settlements and actions in the tunnels. The
Israelis do not score a quick victory as they suffer heavy losses in built-up areas. The need
to secure occupied territory with patrols and checkpoints will cause further losses.
"The fact that Israel itself started the war and caused damage to the civilian
infrastructure, allows the leadership of the movement to use its missile arsenal on Israeli
cities. While Israel's missile defence systems can successfully intercept the launched
missiles, there are not enough of them to blunt the bombardment. The civilian evacuation
paralyzes life in the country. As soon IDF's Iron Dome and other medium-range systems are
spent on short-range Hezbollah rockets, the bombardment of Israel with long-range missiles
may commence. Hezbollah's Iranian solid-fuel rockets do not require much time to prepare for
launch and may target the entire territory of Israel, causing further losses.
"It is difficult to assess the duration of actions of this war. One thing that seems
certain is that Israel shouldn't count on its rapid conclusion, similar to last September's
exercises. Hezbollah units are stronger and more capable than during the 2006 war, despite
the fact that they are fighting in Syria and suffered losses there.
"Conclusions
"The combination of large-scale exercises and bellicose rhetoric is intended to muster
Israeli public support for the aggression against Hezbollah by convincing the public the
victory would be swift and bloodless. Instead of restraint based on a sober assessment of
relative capabilities, Israeli leaders appear to be in a state of blood lust. In contrast,
the Hezbollah has thus far demonstrated restraint and diplomacy.
"Underestimating the adversary is always the first step towards a defeat. Such mistakes
are paid for with soldiers' blood and commanders' careers. The latest IDF exercises suggest
Israeli leaders underestimate the opponent and, more importantly, consider them to be quite
dumb. In reality, Hezbollah units will not cross the border. There is no need to provoke the
already too nervous neighbor and to suffer losses solely to plant a flag and photograph it
for their leader. For Hezbollah, it is easier and safer when the Israeli soldiers come to
them. According to the IDF soldiers who served in Gaza and southern Lebanon, it is easier to
operate on the plains of Gaza than the mountainous terrain of southern Lebanon. This is a
problem for armoured vehicles fighting for control of heights, tunnels, and settlements,
where they are exposed to anti-armor weapons.
"While the Israeli establishment is in a state of patriotic frenzy, it would be a good
time for them to turn to the wisdom of their ancestors. After all, as the old Jewish proverb
says: 'War is a big swamp, easy to go into but hard to get out'."
The Saudi Royal Family has bottomless pockets when it comes to controlling negative press
coverage.
Zachary Smith , November 10, 2017 at 10:28 pm
And in the shadows, at the back of the gaming room, stands Israeli Prime Minister Bibi
Netanyahu. The idea of going to the casino was his, in the first place. If the hero lands
on black, he will share in the joy, but if it is red never mind: Bibi's home is not
forfeit.
At first glance it looks to me as if Netanyahu wins any coin flip, whether it is "heads"
or "tails". No matter what happens, Saudi Arabia is going to be severely shaken up, and chaos
in surrounding Muslim nations is almost always a "plus" for Israel.
But at second glance I imagine I can also see a downside. The Arabian Peninsula has a
hefty population, and if the Kingdom here does shatter, there is a possibility that an Arabic
Napoleon could emerge. During the time of Muhammad there was an outward-moving crusade, and
might it not happen again? Saudi Arabia may not have much of an army at the moment, but that
could change quickly. A glance at a world globe shows Israel to be very close by. This sort
of thing would cause me to lose sleep if I were an Israeli strategist.
At the moment the KSA is being taken over by a young numbskull, if all the accounts I've
read are even remotely true. Perhaps Israel is providing the brains. The Moon of Alabama
blogger has a low opinion of the young man.
Saudi Arabia – This "Liberal Reformer" Is An Impulsive Tyrant
The singular fact that the planned next royal succession from Salman to MbS will be the
first from father to son since the death of Abdulaziz seems to me to add a whole other level
of uncertainty to what is already a difficult time for the kingdom.
"... Third, Manafort's efforts mattered bigly. In 2010, he helped Victor F. Yanukovych become president of Ukraine. An unquestionably nasty piece of work, Yanukovych was, according to Farkas, "Putin's man in Kiev." Yet like it or not, he came to power as the result of democratic election. In 2013, Yanukovych opted against joining the EU, which along with NATO, had, in Farkas's words, "experienced a burst of membership expansion" right up to Russia's own borders. ..."
"... In response to Yanukovych's action, "the Ukrainian people," that is, the enlightened ones, "took to the streets," forcing him to flee the country. Rather than bowing to the expressed will of the people, however, Russia's Vladimir Putin "instigated a separatist movement" in eastern Ukraine, thereby triggering "a war between Russia and Ukraine that continues to this day." ..."
"... To accept Farkas's account as truthful, one would necessarily conclude that as Manafort was hijacking history, the United States remained quietly on the sidelines, an innocent bystander sending prayers heavenward in hopes that freedom and democracy might everywhere prevail ..."
"... Furthermore, Russia was not alone in its meddling. The United States has been equally guilty. When "the Ukrainian people took to the streets," as Farkas puts it, the State Department and CIA were behind the scenes vigorously pulling strings. Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland believed it was incumbent upon the United States to decide who should govern Ukraine. ("Yats is the guy," she said on a leaked call). Nuland would brook no interference from allies slow to follow Washington's lead. ("F–k the EU," she told the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine.) ..."
"... That Ukraine is, as Farkas correctly states, a torn country, did not give Nuland pause. Since the end of the Cold War, U.S. policymakers have assigned to themselves a magical ability to repair such tears and to make broken countries whole. The results of their labors are amply on display everywhere from Somalia and Haiti to Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. Now add Ukraine to that sorry list. ..."
"... Even so, can't we at least assume Nuland's motives were morally superior to Putin's? After all, President Putin is clearly a thug whereas Nuland is an estimable product of the American foreign policy establishment. She's married to Robert Kagan, for heaven's sake. ..."
"... This is why we should disband politically oriented NGO's. In essence, a country is only a democracy if it is pro-U.S. Resistance is futile. Meddling at this level will only bring about more conflict, instability and military obligations will follow. It is good to be king but it is also quite expensive and ultimately ruinous. ..."
"... Imperialism rules other peoples against their will, necessitating for its survival the lessening of democratic accountability at home, too, since it lessens the importance of citizens' own concerns, also requiring for its warmaking security keeping voters in the dark. ..."
"... Make that, More 'Fake News,' Of Course From the New York Times. Saturated with Fake News of various manifestations, the NY Times and its rancid analog Washington Post on the other end of the Crony-Elite NY-DC axis are unreadable. ..."
"... Given a ham-fisted EU run by Elite hacks in Brussels that is white washing Europe's Christian legacy, mandating overbearing economic and social controls and absorbing millions of net negative migrants, the Czechs, Poles, Hungarians and Balts seem to be having second thoughts. BTW, The Russians will not and do not want to invade those countries. As the EU spins out of control and the One Belt One Road initiative develops, Russia only needs to ask them what direction they want to face in the future. ..."
"... So, having said that, on foreign policy they, all newspapers and the vast majority of magazines, are war-peddling neo-con supporters. ..."
"... Do not buy any major newspaper. Let them wither away and, it wasn't fake spun 'news' we have been getting only this year: fake agenda driven bull has been going on for decades. Go to the internet and overseas for news think what I said over and you will see ..."
"... All this social, economic and political mess is the result of deregulation in the economic, social, political spheres. The effects of those deregulations are now quite obvious in: economy, society, morality and politics that are already corrupted to the core, but the corruption is not stopping there, it is consuming everything else on its way. There is no end to it, and what is even more surprising is that people want even more of all kinds of deregulations etc. ..."
"... Wouldn't it be more logical to bring back responsibility, moral standards and decency to politics, society and economy etc? What I now see in media is the total lack of any ideas on how to correct the obvious, but instead everybody is spinning his/her lies to make them more believable to the yet unconverted. This is pure relativism and sophistry and it destroys not only the USA, but the West as well. ..."
"... If an opinion piece in NYT or other MSM blatantly distorts the facts, then it belongs to the category of "fake news." Which should probably be called "malicious rumors." So the defense of some commenters that you can blatantly lie in opinion pieces (the right NYT exercised to the full extent in this particular example and for which Bacevich criticized them) is wrong. Anti-Russian witch hunt in NYT and other MSM destroys the credibility of the USA version of neoliberalism as well as the USA foreign policy. Along with Trump election, I view it as a symptom of the crisis of neoliberalism for which the US elite is unable to find a more suitable answer than scapegoating. Also the fact that Nuland is married to neocon warmonger Kagan is a material fact. ..."
Disregarding President Trump's insistent claim that the establishment press propagates "fake
news" requires a constant effort -- especially when a prestigious outlet like the New York
Times allows itself to be used for blatantly fraudulent purposes.
I cherish the First Amendment. Mark me down as favoring journalism that is loud, lively, and
confrontational. When members of the media snooze -- falling for fictitious claims about
Saddam's WMD program or Gaddafi's genocidal intentions, for example -- we all lose.
So the recent decision by Times editors to
publish an op-ed regarding Paul Manafort's involvement in Ukraine is disturbing. That the
Times is keen to bring down Donald Trump is no doubt the case. Yet if efforts to do so
entail grotesque distortions of U.S. policy before Trump, then we are courting real
trouble. Put simply, ousting Trump should not come at the cost of whitewashing the follies that
contributed to Trump's rise in the first place.
The offending Times op-ed, the handiwork of Evelyn N. Farkas, appears under the title
"With Manafort, It Really Is About Russia, Not Ukraine." During the Obama administration,
Farkas served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Russia, Ukraine, Eurasia, and Mess
Kit Repair. Okay, I added that last bit, but it does seem like quite an expansive charter for a
mere deputy assistant secretary.
The story Farkas tells goes like this.
First, from the moment it achieved independence in 1991, Ukraine was a divided nation, "torn
between Western Europe and Russia." Ukrainians in the country's western precincts wanted to
join the European Union and NATO. Those further to east "oriented themselves toward Russia,
which exerted maximum influence to keep Ukraine closely aligned." In one camp were enlightened
Ukrainians. In the other camp, the unenlightened.
Second, Manafort's involvement in this intra-Ukrainian dispute was -- shockingly -- never
about "advanc[ing] the interests of democracy, Western Europe or the United States." Manafort's
motives were strictly venal. In what Farkas describes as a "standoff between democracy and
autocracy," he threw in with the autocrats, thereby raking in millions.
Third, Manafort's efforts mattered bigly. In 2010, he helped Victor F. Yanukovych become
president of Ukraine. An unquestionably nasty piece of work, Yanukovych was, according to
Farkas, "Putin's man in Kiev." Yet like it or not, he came to power as the result of democratic
election. In 2013, Yanukovych opted against joining the EU, which along with NATO, had, in
Farkas's words, "experienced a burst of membership expansion" right up to Russia's own
borders.
In response to Yanukovych's action, "the Ukrainian people," that is, the enlightened
ones, "took to the streets," forcing him to flee the country. Rather than bowing to the
expressed will of the people, however, Russia's Vladimir Putin "instigated a separatist
movement" in eastern Ukraine, thereby triggering "a war between Russia and Ukraine that
continues to this day."
To accept Farkas's account as truthful, one would necessarily conclude that as Manafort
was hijacking history, the United States remained quietly on the sidelines, an innocent
bystander sending prayers heavenward in hopes that freedom and democracy might everywhere
prevail .
Such was hardly the case, however. One need not be a Putin apologist to note that the United
States was itself engaged in a program of instigation, one that ultimately induced a hostile --
but arguably defensive -- Russian response.
In the wake of the Cold War, the EU and NATO did not experience a "burst" of expansion, a
formulation suggesting joyous spontaneity. Rather, with Washington's enthusiastic support, the
West embarked upon a deliberate eastward march at the Kremlin's expense, an undertaking made
possible by (and intended to exploit) Russia's weakened state. In football, it's called piling
on.
That this project worked to the benefit of Czechs, Poles, Hungarians, the Baltic Republics,
and others is very much the case. On that score, it is to be applauded.
That at some point a resentful Russia would push back was all but certain. Indeed, more than
a few Western observers had warned against such a response.
The proposed incorporation of Ukraine into NATO brought matters to a head. For Putin, this
was an unacceptable prospect. He acted as would any U.S. president contemplating the absorption
of a near neighbor into hostile bloc of nations. Indeed, he acted much as had Dwight D.
Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy when they assessed the implications of Cuba joining the Soviet
bloc.
That doesn't justify or excuse Putin's meddling in Ukraine. Yet it suggests an explanation
for Russian behavior other than the bitterness of an ex-KGB colonel still with his shorts in a
knot over losing the Cold War. Russia has an obvious and compelling interest in who controls
Ukraine, even if few in Washington or in the editorial offices of the New York Times
will acknowledge that reality.
Furthermore, Russia was not alone in its meddling. The United States has been equally
guilty. When "the Ukrainian people took to the streets," as Farkas puts it, the State
Department and CIA were behind the scenes vigorously pulling strings. Assistant Secretary of
State Victoria Nuland believed it was incumbent upon the United States to decide who should
govern Ukraine. ("Yats is the guy," she said on a leaked call). Nuland would brook no
interference from allies slow to follow Washington's lead. ("F–k the EU," she told the
U.S. ambassador to Ukraine.)
That Ukraine is, as Farkas correctly states, a torn country, did not give Nuland pause.
Since the end of the Cold War, U.S. policymakers have assigned to themselves a magical ability
to repair such tears and to make broken countries whole. The results of their labors are amply
on display everywhere from Somalia and Haiti to Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. Now add Ukraine
to that sorry list.
Even so, can't we at least assume Nuland's motives were morally superior to Putin's?
After all, President Putin is clearly a thug whereas Nuland is an estimable product of the
American foreign policy establishment. She's married to Robert Kagan, for heaven's
sake.
Persuade yourself that the United States is all about democracy promotion, as Farkas appears
to believe, and the answer to that question is clearly yes. Alas, the record of American
statecraft stretching over decades provides an abundance of contrary evidence. In practice, the
United States supports democracy only when it finds it convenient to do so. Should
circumstances require, it unhesitatingly befriends despots, especially rich ones that pay cash
while purchasing American weaponry.
Yanukovych was Putin's man, "and therefore, indirectly, so was Mr. Manafort," Farkas
concludes. All that now remains is to determine "the extent to which Mr. Manafort was Putin's
man in Washington." For Farkas, the self-evident answer to that question cannot come too
soon.
As to whether Russia -- or any other great power -- might have legitimate security interests
that the United States would do well to respect, that's not a matter worth bothering about.
Thus does the imperative of ousting Trump eclipse the need to confront the pretensions and the
hubris that helped make Trump possible.
Andrew Bacevich is writer-at-large at The American Conservative
This is why the term "fake news" is so harmful and should not be used by media outlets. The
use of "bad journalism" would be much more useful as it forces the claimants to justify their
reasons for doing so.
"Fake news" is just a dog whistle.
Has it not occurred to the foreign policy establishment in Washington that it is more in
America's national interests for Ukraine to remain in Moscow's orbit, so as to strengthen
U.S.-Russian relations, not exacerbate tensions, rather than to pull them into the EU, or,
God forbid, NATO? Isn't this what any of the seasoned experts at Foggy Bottom would tell you?
Why aren't they doing so?
1) Yanukovich won in 2004 as well and the election results were hijacked by 'Maidan'
2) Yanukovich wasn't Putin man back in 2010. As a matter of fact, he and his party actively
promoted EU integration deal, until they read its actual conditions. After that they
backtracked and rushed to Putin for a support.
So it was classical case of sitting on two chairs simultaneously.
Completely agree with John Fargo. "Fake News" should be reserved for deliberate falsehoods
published knowingly. This NYT op-ed amounts to "an interpretation of history Bacevich doesn't
agree with." I may not agree with it either – but it's not like claiming that the Vegas
shooter was anti-Trump, or creating a Facebook account for a non-existent person or
organization.
Mr Fargo: Disagree. "Bad journalism" implies the author is lazy yet innocent in their way.
"Fake news" is more about narrative control and manipulation of the reader through
reinvention or exaggeration, et cetera. Calling articles and outlets fake news is more
accurate and levies much more weight against the lies and deceit than simply accusing someone
or thing of bad journalism.
This is why we should disband politically oriented NGO's. In essence, a country is only a
democracy if it is pro-U.S. Resistance is futile. Meddling at this level will only bring about more conflict, instability and military
obligations will follow. It is good to be king but it is also quite expensive and ultimately
ruinous.
If it were all about democracy promotion, they wouldn't also be so anxious to negate an
election here at home. Imperialism rules other peoples against their will, necessitating for
its survival the lessening of democratic accountability at home, too, since it lessens the
importance of citizens' own concerns, also requiring for its warmaking security keeping
voters in the dark.
Re: "More 'Fake News,' Alas, From the New York Times"
Make that, More 'Fake News,' Of Course From the New York Times. Saturated with Fake News of various manifestations, the NY Times and its rancid analog
Washington Post on the other end of the Crony-Elite NY-DC axis are unreadable.
Re: "That this project worked to the benefit of Czechs, Poles, Hungarians, the Baltic
Republics, and others is very much the case. On that score, it is to be applauded."
Given a ham-fisted EU run by Elite hacks in Brussels that is white washing Europe's
Christian legacy, mandating overbearing economic and social controls and absorbing millions
of net negative migrants, the Czechs, Poles, Hungarians and Balts seem to be having second
thoughts. BTW, The Russians will not and do not want to invade those countries. As the EU spins out
of control and the One Belt One Road initiative develops, Russia only needs to ask them what
direction they want to face in the future.
How is it someone's "opinion" constitutes "fake News"? Trump did not win by policy issues, he
rode the right-wing outrage at all things clinton/libtard better than anyone else. His policy
positions were mostly promise everything to everyone, but his campaign was about Lock her up/
build the wall! After bashing Goldman Sachs during the election, once he won he promptly
filled his cabinet with them and other mega donor types.
@John Fargo – I'm in almost complete sympathy with Mr. Bacevich's essay, but you make
an excellent point. "Bad journalism" is the better term. In fact, the only criticism I can
make of your statement is that "dog whistle" is the wrong term. Everyone associates the term
"fake news" with Donald Trump. (If it were possible, he no doubt would have trademarked it.)
Using the term alienates the very people who need to hear criticisms like those in Mr.
Bacevich's essay. They hear it, too; and upon hearing it, they stop listening.
Look, elite and non-elite self-delusion about the purity of U.S. motives abroad dates back to
the Roosevelt administration at least -- and I mean the Teddy Roosevelt administration. I
don't see how any of this amounts to a defense of charges of money-laundering against
Manafort.
I disagree with John Fargo. The news that NYT, Washington Post, and other media outlets (not
only liberal ) "produce" is the "Fake News". "Bad journalism" should be reserved and used in
the sense Nolan explains. Besides the "Fake News" on the so called "left" in American
politics in general is the problem of "double speak" and speaking with the "forked tongues".
American "right" is the camp of the white flag.
Besides the "Fake News" on the so called "left" in American politics in general is the
problem of "double speak" and speaking with the "forked tongues". American "right" is the
camp of the white flag.
I've mentioned the various "flavors" of Fake News before. There is (1) the obvious –
what is claimed as true is actually false. But also (2), what is claimed as important,
actually isn't. And (3) what is important, is weakly or not reported at all.
An example of Type 2 is the WaPost reporting on its front page before the 2016 that Jared
Kushner may have been greased into the Harvard MBA program. As if Ivy League greasing by
monied Elites is unheard of. How was that front page news? And how about the acceptances of
Chelsea Clinton (Stanford) and Malia Obama (Harvard)?
The cases of Type 3 Fake News are much more egregious. For example, the reasoned arguments
and analysis by retired American intelligence officers and academics that the Syrian forces
"chemical weapon attack" in April was almost certainly a false flag with staged recovery
activity.
The NY Times and WaPost have consistently refused to acknowledge that those arguments and
analysis even exist.
The linking of Russia to the DNC email leaks as factual by the Times, Post and NPR without
a scintilla of published hard evidence is another example.
There are many more examples of Type 3 Fake News that could be demonstrated. Much of what
claims to be journalism by the MSM is now Fake News trash.
Disregarding President Trump's insistent claim that the establishment press propagates
"fake news" requires a constant effort -- especially when a prestigious outlet like the New
York Times allows itself to be used for blatantly fraudulent purposes.
I agree in principal, although I note that President Trump and his team are as guilty of
fake news as anyone, and the president himself appears to be positively delusional. I might
at times disagree with Bacevich as to which news is fake.
I would also agree that there has been a great deal of "fake news" out of Ukraine, and
what is really going on their is a former SSR with a bitterly divided population that each
has about equal numbers, proponderance in some territories compared to others, and equally
opportunistic leadership showing no great commitment to anything recognizable as
"democracy."
Say, can we refrain from using the word 'journalism' when we refer to the American media?
We should.
The internet and sources overseas, such as the Independent News paper/site out of
Britain,
have news that is not purposely spun as is by the neo-con American news papers and magazines.
Not as much, anyway.
Several points here, for example of what bad news (pun intended) the joke of American media
is:
1- quit calling the main stream media liberal or left. They are liberal in a 'social issues
sense,' that is, to be politically correct.
2- So, having said that, on foreign policy they, all newspapers and the vast majority of
magazines, are war-peddling neo-con supporters.
3-They have agendas.
Do we not remember how they, at the new york times, peddled the war against Iraq and how,
when you look at the editorial page you feel that these people and the guests opinion writers
are soulless people that have no concern for America's 'flyover' country?
4- Yeah, isn't that ironic that these people look down on America's middle class, blue collar
workers and yes, it's troops, by that constant bashing of nations here and there and pushing
for aggressive stands or even military attacks?
Let the people at the major newspapers like this n.y.times rag tell us when they served in
the U.S. military or their when their offspring did or when they're gonna join and volunteer
for combat duty.
Never mind, I've got the answer-none of 'em.
Do not buy any major newspaper.
Let them wither away and, it wasn't fake spun 'news' we have been getting only this year:
fake agenda driven bull has been going on for decades. Go to the internet and overseas for news
think what I said over and you will see
Not everybody has the time to analyze the deluge of all the "Fake News" and categorize it
into classes and/or sub-classes you or somebody else proposes. Where all that leads? Soon we
will have new sociopolitical discipline and experts on "fake-newsology" that will introduce
another layer of pseudo-information that will have to be translated to the uninitiated and
unwashed.
All this social, economic and political mess is the result of deregulation in the
economic, social, political spheres. The effects of those deregulations are now quite obvious
in: economy, society, morality and politics that are already corrupted to the core, but the
corruption is not stopping there, it is consuming everything else on its way. There is no end
to it, and what is even more surprising is that people want even more of all kinds of
deregulations etc.
Wouldn't it be more logical to bring back responsibility, moral standards
and decency to politics, society and economy etc? What I now see in media is the total lack
of any ideas on how to correct the obvious, but instead everybody is spinning his/her lies to
make them more believable to the yet unconverted. This is pure relativism and sophistry and
it destroys not only the USA, but the West as well.
nikbez
If an opinion piece in NYT or other MSM blatantly distorts the facts, then it belongs
to the category of "fake news." Which should probably be called "malicious rumors."
So the defense of some commenters that you can blatantly lie in opinion pieces (the right NYT
exercised to the full extent in this particular example and for which Bacevich criticized
them) is wrong.
Anti-Russian witch hunt in NYT and other MSM destroys the credibility of the USA version of
neoliberalism as well as the USA foreign policy. Along with Trump election, I view it as a
symptom of the crisis of neoliberalism for which the US elite is unable to find a more
suitable answer than scapegoating.
Also the fact that Nuland is married to neocon warmonger Kagan is a material fact.
When you have a Global Cop War Machine hammer and surround yourself with a Pentagon/Security
State steering committee advising you to use it, everything else is a nail. I have to admit,
Trump is even a much smaller man than I imagined him to be at his worst.
Belligerent global power projection is currently unaffordable and quickly becoming
obsolete. While China is eating America's lunch with it's productive foreign aid and
investments that do not involve killing, destroying and intimidation.
Neither of which Trump comprehends. And of his in-house Neocon minions ("my generals"), it
goes without saying
Every time a diplomat works to reduce tensions, build relationships, avoid conflict, this is
literally taking money and opportunity out of the pockets of the Military/Industrial complex.
Trump, being ironically a terrible negotiator and, as @SDS notes above, has never had the
temperament, intelligence, or empathy to be much more than a bully, is the perfect tool for
the military/industrial complex.
Memo to Senator John McCain: Senator, the other day I noticed that, as chairman of
the Armed Services Committee, you
threatened to subpoena the Trump administration for information about the recent attack in
Niger that killed four American soldiers. "There's a mindset over there that they're a
unicameral government," you said. "It was easier under Obama We are coequal branches of
government; we should be informed at all times. We're just not getting the information in the
timely fashion that we need."
How true! But let me make one small suggestion. If you really want to know what led to those
deaths in Niger, the first place you might consider looking -- no subpoena needed -- is this
very website, TomDispatch .
Or, to be more specific, Nick Turse's coverage of the way
U.S. Africa Command and American
Special Operations forces have, with a certain stealth but also without significant
coverage in the mainstream media, extended the war on terror deep into Africa. He alone has
covered this story and the
secret bases , widespread " training
missions " (like the one in Niger), and barely noticed wars being fought there since at
least 2012, when I was already writing this of his work:
"So here's another question: Who decided in 2007 that a U.S. Africa Command should be set
up to begin a process of turning that continent into a web of U.S. bases and other
operations? Who decided that every Islamist rebel group in Africa, no matter how local or
locally focused, was a threat to the U.S., calling for a military response? Certainly not the
American people, who know nothing about this, who were never asked if expanding the U.S.
global military mission to Africa was something they favored, who never heard the slightest
debate, or even a single peep from Washington on the subject."
By 2013, in a passage that sounds eerily up to date as we
read of ISIS-allied militants on the
lawless Niger-Mali border, he was already reporting
that
"while correlation doesn't equal causation, there is ample evidence to suggest the United
States has facilitated a terror diaspora, imperiling nations and endangering peoples across
Africa. In the wake of 9/11, Pentagon officials were hard-pressed to show evidence of a major
African terror threat. Today, the continent is thick with militant groups that are
increasingly crossing borders, sowing insecurity, and throwing the limits of U.S. power into
broad relief. After 10 years of U.S. operations to promote stability by military means, the
results have been the opposite. Africa has become blowback central."
Four years later, when the Niger events occurred, nothing had changed, except that the U.S.
military had moved, again with little attention (except from Turse),
even deeper into the heart of Africa, setting up a remarkable array of bases and outposts
of every sort (including two drone bases in Niger).
Memo to Senator John McCain: Senator, the other day I noticed that, as chairman of
the Armed Services Committee, you
threatened to subpoena the Trump administration for information about the recent attack in
Niger that killed four American soldiers. "There's a mindset over there that they're a
unicameral government," you said. "It was easier under Obama We are coequal branches of
government; we should be informed at all times. We're just not getting the information in the
timely fashion that we need."
How true! But let me make one small suggestion. If you really want to know what led to those
deaths in Niger, the first place you might consider looking -- no subpoena needed -- is this
very website, TomDispatch .
Or, to be more specific, Nick Turse's coverage of the way
U.S. Africa Command and American
Special Operations forces have, with a certain stealth but also without significant
coverage in the mainstream media, extended the war on terror deep into Africa. He alone has
covered this story and the
secret bases , widespread " training
missions " (like the one in Niger), and barely noticed wars being fought there since at
least 2012, when I was already writing this of his work:
"So here's another question: Who decided in 2007 that a U.S. Africa Command should be set
up to begin a process of turning that continent into a web of U.S. bases and other
operations? Who decided that every Islamist rebel group in Africa, no matter how local or
locally focused, was a threat to the U.S., calling for a military response? Certainly not the
American people, who know nothing about this, who were never asked if expanding the U.S.
global military mission to Africa was something they favored, who never heard the slightest
debate, or even a single peep from Washington on the subject."
By 2013, in a passage that sounds eerily up to date as we
read of ISIS-allied militants on the
lawless Niger-Mali border, he was already reporting
that
"while correlation doesn't equal causation, there is ample evidence to suggest the United
States has facilitated a terror diaspora, imperiling nations and endangering peoples across
Africa. In the wake of 9/11, Pentagon officials were hard-pressed to show evidence of a major
African terror threat. Today, the continent is thick with militant groups that are
increasingly crossing borders, sowing insecurity, and throwing the limits of U.S. power into
broad relief. After 10 years of U.S. operations to promote stability by military means, the
results have been the opposite. Africa has become blowback central."
Four years later, when the Niger events occurred, nothing had changed, except that the U.S.
military had moved, again with little attention (except from Turse),
even deeper into the heart of Africa, setting up a remarkable array of bases and outposts
of every sort (including two drone bases in Niger).
Questionable analysis by Saker (omitted for brevity). Some good comments in the discussion. The situation with the standard of living
in Ukraine is really bad and it is unclear how it can improve. If you get 4000 grivna monthly salary and pay for the apartment around
2000 (heating with gas at winter often is over 1000 grivna) you can barely survive on the remaining money (2000 grivna is around 66
grivna a day) . Even food is a problem, unless you adhere to basic diet of bread, milk, eggs and potatoes. You simply can't. They are
in a trap. This war in Donbass just make the bad situation even worse. But it sill continue, because there are powerful forces interesting
in escalation of this war.
Notable quotes:
"... Just because one thinks American moves are not "strategic" only means you don't fully grasp what is going on. Remember, the narrative which is being presented here is that the United States has caused both conflicts. A coup in Ukraine and supporting regime-change in Syria. That necessitates that Russia is reacting – not calling the shots. ..."
"... Ask yourself a simple question: would Washington be better off with the status quo ante, would they be happy to go back to 2012? Of course they would – Crimea would be in Ukraine and in play, Russia would be subsidising Ukraine (not EU or IMF). But most importantly Russia would be sweating what 'might happen' with Crimea. Once West made its move and lost that threat was gone. It was just stupid. ..."
"... My take is that people there, based on a long experience, simply recognize that they are caught between two oligarchies, and unwilling to choose between them. That lethargy (for a lack of better word) is interesting. They don't buy US/West vision anymore. The thing is, they don't buy Russian either. They just don't care. Maybe that's worse than fighting for either side. ..."
"... The United States does not care about Poland or Estonia or Crimea or Ukraine or Syria or Georgia or even whether the other NATO members spend enough money. It cares about the bigger long-term picture. ..."
"... All this stuff like the coup in Ukraine, sanctions over Crimea – it's just probing moves, games. The US has Putin boxed in. He's got to scrape and claw over nothing. ..."
"... I guess it's kinda true in the sense that the US specifically (not necessarily the West as such, it seems) needs to have the uninterrupted chain of wars and cartoonish all-powerful super-evil adversaries threatening its very existence. I suppose it's needed for economic (mic) reasons, to maintain the internal unity/morale/discipline, and to run the usual protection racket abroad. Sorta like Oceania in Orwell's 1984. ..."
"... Russia is boxed in by its geography, and so is China. There is nothing new there. Enemies have been pressing on Russia's extensive borders forever. It is not likely that anyone would actually try to cross that border given this one reality: nuclear weapons. Unless the constant prodding has an answer to that reality, what is it all about? What's the point? ..."
"... Wars happen even if nobody 'wants' them. There are situations when wars happen almost on their own and nobody ever claims ownership. And if there is a war, there will be fighting in Poland – it is literally ground zero (as so often before), and no amount of NY Times editorials will make any damn difference. The country is too small, so it would be annihilated. Poland is storing missiles and 'defensive' divisions for its allies across the Atlantic with an open admission that they are targeting Russia. What do you think would happen in a real crisis or a war? Do you think US would look kindly at Russian missiles in Canada or Mexico? That is the true madness, and Poland is kind of in a heart of it. As so often before. ..."
"... At the end, I suspect, when/if it comes to renewal of hostilities, it will be: First and foremost artillery exchanges. Nothing changes. Then, small unit raids. Nothing changes. Then, tactical incursions by Ukrainian best. After initial success they'll be met by Donbas best.Because either side don't have many of those nothing changes too. A lot of talk from Washington and Moscow. Some dead/mutilated mercenaries. And while those "games" go the rest of peoples there just keep what they've been doing so far. Oceania vs Eurasia .. ..."
"... The single best way to assure that there isn't a 'regime change' is by constant probing of Russia's borders, by constant attacks, etc So I don't buy that, the experts in Washington are not that stupid. They understand fully well that placing missiles, coups, border harassment are by far the most reliable way to make sure that nothing changes in Moscow. ..."
"... The Ukraine situation will not be decided by fighting in Donbass, or in Moscow. It will be decided in Kiev (and Odessa, Lviv, Charkov) by the currently passive masses. Unless a miracle happens, or most people emigrate, this is not a sustainable situation. They are living worse than in 2013, and they already had it very bad in 2013. Marshall Plan isn't coming, membership in EU isn't coming either. Once that sinks in – it might take 5-10 years – things will change. ..."
"... That seems to be Russia's strategy. I agree that by far the best thing Moscow could do is to improve quality of life in Russia. Nato strategy is to delay it by any means: sanctions, energy, new arms race, whatever they can think off, lately mostly media campaigns. ..."
"... In Ukraine the EU-West infatuation will take a long time to dissipate. Getting hurt will eventually lead to making things better in the head , but it will take at least a generation. And things don't stay quiet for that long, other events will intervene. A circle cannot be squared: Kiev has attempted a great leap into its imagined future – Europe!!! – they bet everything on it, cut off all else, and there is no realistic way the leap will land Ukraine happily and soon enough in EU. EU will not agree to absorb 40 million poor people who mostly just want to live immediately like Germans, or move there. This is a mad dream, reality will intervene. ..."
"... I am sorry but I have to say this. How has led by Kissinger and Nixon strategy of opening China worked out? Is creating major geopolitical foe where there was none considered a sign of deep strategically long term thinking? ..."
"... The Ukrainian nationalists think that based on their accomplishments as a nation (there are none) they rightfully deserve to be geographically located somewhere between Germany and France. For this state of affairs they again blame the Russians. You see, because Russia is so big, and definitely in Eastern Europe, that they have the gravitational force that keeps Ukraine in Eastern Europe. If it wasn't for the Russians, Ukraine would have long ago catapulted into Western Europe – probably even geographically. It's only Russia that prevents them from acquiring their rightful place in the heart of Europe. ..."
"... In Ukrainians' defence, they have a bad location: wide-open, unprotected, with few geographic features and at the same time very high-quality earth. On second thought, if Ukraine, as is, was located in Western Europe 'somewhere between Germany and France' , I would be willing to bet that not a single Ukrainian would exist today. The Western Europeans know their genocide and know how to pacify populations. They almost got to them during WWII, Ukraine was the lebensraum that Nazis dreamt about. ..."
"... the assassination attempt on Mosiychuk [the former deputy commander of the infamous neo-Nazi Azov Battalio] is the initial phase of an escalation of the conflict between the Nazis and Jewish oligarchs headed by President Poroshenko, an escalation which is transitioning from a political to a "hot", or armed phase. ..."
"... Btw, Kolomoysky is an Israeli citizen. Speaking about Holocaust deniers – is it kosher to support neo-Nazi and work on the resurrection of Nazism in Ukraine and to remain an honorable Israeli citizen? It seems that Kolomoysky is such case. Next time the Israel-firsters attempt to squeal about any critics of "Holocaust story" they should be presented with the story of Jewish oligarch Kolomoysky. ..."
"... Your usage of the imbecilic word 'regime' betrays bias. What the f k is a'regime'? Is EU a 'regime', or the Saudi king, or China? If not, why not? Stick with term government and use it for all and you won't sound like a bitter dead-ender unable to see things rationally. ..."
"... Decent article, although some generalizations which is understandable. Couple points about Poland. Yes its allied with neocons atm (the bad). The government has some forces somewhat supporting Ukraine (Basically as long as the blame is focused on Russia). The government knows there are "neonazi" elements, as has mentioned Ukraine will not join EU until they stop that. As for the people Poland is divided like crazy on the Ukraine issue. ..."
"... Pax Americana's wave broke and is now rolling back out to sea, creating undertows as it goes. ..."
"... The ramifications of that sea change will take years, maybe decades, to play themselves out, but my assessment is that there will be no active "roll back (of the) '90s" or that said roll back is desirable/possible. The Ukraine and Serbia/Kosovo will wind up having to fit themselves into whatever new paradigm the world will be living under at the time. That paradigm won't be American led, or of American design. ..."
"... I don't see much of a future for Ukraine. Neither the West nor Russia is willing to underwrite the massive investment that would be required to rebuild the economy. Sure it makes sense to split the country. However, both sides are more than willing to live with an impoverished buffer between NATO and Russia. If the country is split, there is no longer any territorial disputes and the new West Ukraine ultimately becomes a NATO member and NATO weapons move hundreds of miles closer to the Russian border. Not to mention the fact that Russia would find it expensive to subsidize the new government. Same with the EU. ..."
"... The Black Sea may be important to Russia's regional aspirations, but for the US, what could be better than have as many Russian naval vessels as possible parked there? ..."
Russian activity in Syria and Ukraine are moves of desperation from a position of weakness. The United States has Russia boxed
in. The United States forced Putin to take these actions. He would be removed from power otherwise. He had no choice. He is not
in control.
In Russia you are either strong and in total control or they murder you. At least that has been the case for the last thousand
years.
There was no "huge effort not to intervene." If there was, I'd like to know who made it and when.
This is not Iraq or Afghanistan. Comparisons to American involvement in these two places have limited utility.
Just because one thinks American moves are not "strategic" only means you don't fully grasp what is going on. Remember,
the narrative which is being presented here is that the United States has caused both conflicts. A coup in Ukraine and supporting
regime-change in Syria. That necessitates that Russia is reacting – not calling the shots.
The United States is not in "control" either, but it has the initiative and has Putin off-balance.
To better understand what is going on, all three groups -- crooks, clowns, and nazis -- fall into the schnook category. They are
being duped and used by the Globalist Empire that also controls the US. US is the Jewel in the Crown of the Globalist Empire but
still a subject than a sovereign nation. It's like India was the Jewel in the Crown of the British Empire but not a free independent
nation.
Assigning emotional labels is not helpful. You are right that Ukraine is nothing like Iraq or Afghanistan, it is hard to understand
why Saker would use such a facile analogy.
You are also right that US-West have the initiative. But that is not necessarily a sustainable advantage. Hitler had the initiative
too, and so did Napoleon, they had all the initiative until they didn't. (I know poor analogy, but tempting).
The prize in Ukraine was Crimea and the Russian Naval base. That was the prize, not who gets to grow potatoes in Lviv or scoop
up coal in Donbass. Crimea is gone, and I think all rational people would agree that for now that is irreversible. So what is
the fight about? Torch marching in Kiev, Nato relevancy, or who gets to subsidise 40 million very poor people? To control Ukraine
(Kiev really) is now a hot potato that nobody particularly wants. It is like fighting over who has the control of Bihar in India,
or eastern Nigeria, or any number of poor, non-strategic backwaters full of people who mostly want to emigrate.
Washington (with Poland and a few other fire-eating nut-cases in EU) made a strong move in 2013-14 trying to get their hands
on Crimea and to replace the very strategic Russian Navy base in Sebastopol with a Nato base. They invested a lot in it, and they
had the initiative. But the locals screwed up, they were too slow, too unfocused and too distracted by nationalism. So Russia
won Crimea and all else are just provincial consequences of little long-term interest.
Ask yourself a simple question: would Washington be better off with the status quo ante, would they be happy to go back
to 2012? Of course they would – Crimea would be in Ukraine and in play, Russia would be subsidising Ukraine (not EU or IMF). But
most importantly Russia would be sweating what 'might happen' with Crimea. Once West made its move and lost that threat was gone.
It was just stupid.
A coup in Ukraine and supporting regime-change in Syria. That necessitates that Russia is reacting – not calling the shots.
The United States is not in "control" either, but it has the initiative and has Putin off-balance.
Well, I'd say:
A coup in Ukraine and supporting regime-change in Syria. That necessitates that Russia was reacting – not calling the shots.
The United States is not in "control" either, but it has the initiative and had Putin off-balance.
What has been interesting to me is something Martyanov hinted to here:
no part of the Novorossia, with the exception of Lugansk and Donetsk, matched even one tenth of scale and effort required
to get back to Russia, or, at least, get away from Kiev. I don't blame them but it is what it is and this couldn't be ignored
and it is not being ignored, thankfully.
My take is that people there, based on a long experience, simply recognize that they are caught between two oligarchies,
and unwilling to choose between them. That lethargy (for a lack of better word) is interesting. They don't buy US/West vision
anymore. The thing is, they don't buy Russian either. They just don't care. Maybe that's worse than fighting for either side.
When you are, effectively, in a state of constant conflict between states and most of population doesn't care, that looks as
people there got their spirit crushed. And, oligarchies do like people with crushed spirit. Just a pliable mass doing what's told.
Just a thought.
Initiative means that US-West are the ones starting conflicts. It is neither good nor bad and initiatives that fail are worse
than if they had done nothing. That is true about Iraq, Syria, Libya and Ukraine; in each case the status quo before the 'initiative'
was better. Russia and China don't show anywhere as much 'initiative', they mostly react, they don't set the agenda.
People with too much initiative get stuck in muck of their own creation and eventually lose even what they safely controlled
before. But the Washington-Brussels elites cannot help it, they must start things because they are not fully serious, they have
had it too good, they believe in their own mythologized narratives, and their careers are based on it. So they will keep it going.
The insurgencies within the domestic domain are still very minor, this has years to go, maybe decades.
My feeling is that The Saker is always talking about the superiority of Russian "strategy" in retrospect while speculating
about the minutiae of tactical deployments.
Americans rarely talk strategy and there is always an ongoing discussion in the higher levels of foreign policy academia and
journals about what exactly the policy or strategy is or whether we even need one.
This, however, does not mean there is no strategy.
The United States does not care about Poland or Estonia or Crimea or Ukraine or Syria or Georgia or even whether the other
NATO members spend enough money. It cares about the bigger long-term picture.
We are not fighting insurgencies (as Mao Cheng Ji contends). That ended in Iraq in about 2010 and Afghanistan in about 2012.
Since 1980, Russia and the Soviet Union have lost FAR more troops (especially as a proportion of total population) in combat
than the United States.
Everywhere US elite light infantry troops are stationed now they basically sit on their asses safe in bases. Occasionally they
go out and call in airstrikes for local allies or conduct a raid on a "high-value target." Occasionally they die or get suicide-bombed
by a local infiltrator.
All the guys I've ever met that are in these units LIVE to do what they are doing. I even know a couple dozen guys who have
been either kicked out of the military or been wounded in Afghanistan or Iraq and they still say that the best time of their lives
was walking around over there with a rifle.
They would be quite surprised by the notion that they are being forced to do what they do by the "ZioMedia" – whatever that
is. This is not 1968 in Vietnam.
Syria has no oil. Ukraine is a basket-case economy with too many people. Georgia has 4 million people. That's more than Albania
and less than Massachusetts. Most Americans couldn't find the state of Georgia on a map – nevermind the country.
Now in 2008 Russia launched an assault on Georgia that it had been planning for at least a decade after provoking what it wanted.
It didn't go well technically but it went okay tactically, but because of the size mismatch it couldn't not be a success for the
Russians. But it was quick because the Georgians are stupid but not that stupid. So it could be called an operational and strategic
win. The United States tailored its response. But here you will always see it portrayed as some great Russian victory over a NATO-trained
military and an attempted genocide of the South Ossetians. The Russians it appears used it successfully as a learning experience
and got their act together militarily.
All along the periphery of the Russian Empire/former Soviet Union the US and the Russians play games. It's a big game.
Saker's last article was about whose propaganda is better. It's a big game. It keeps people employed in the respective defense
industries.
The latest thing I read is that the US is spending $8 Billion on a rapid response division or something in Eastern Europe.
There was a Toyota ad I think for an armor brigade in Poland during the Super Bowl. Ridiculous. A single division.
Nobody wants a war. There isn't going to be any fighting in Poland. If Russians and Ukrainians want to kill themselves over
Kharkov, Americans don't care. I think the Russians and Germans fought three times over Kharkov. I guess it had a railroad track
or something. Americans don't care.
All this stuff like the coup in Ukraine, sanctions over Crimea – it's just probing moves, games. The US has Putin boxed
in. He's got to scrape and claw over nothing.
The Saker always talks about Russia having a "defensive" strategy. Change the perspective for a second. Knowing that all the
planet's real estate is "owned"- where the US Empire stands now – trade routes, bases everywhere around the remaining oilfields
in the Middle East. AND, here is the kicker – what if you consider that the US has the defensive strategy now? That is some serious
flexible depth.
Initiative means that US-West are the ones starting conflicts.
I guess it's kinda true in the sense that the US specifically (not necessarily the West as such, it seems) needs to have
the uninterrupted chain of wars and cartoonish all-powerful super-evil adversaries threatening its very existence. I suppose it's
needed for economic (mic) reasons, to maintain the internal unity/morale/discipline, and to run the usual protection racket abroad.
Sorta like Oceania in Orwell's 1984.
But I don't think this amounts to 'initiative' in any flattering sense. By the same token a rabid dog shows 'initiative'.
Change the perspective for a second. Knowing that all the planet's real estate is "owned"- where the US Empire stands now
– trade routes, bases everywhere around the remaining oilfields in the Middle East. AND, here is the kicker – what if you consider
that the US has the defensive strategy now? That is some serious flexible depth.
You can call it 'depth', or you can also call it being exposed with too long supply lines. I don't think there is an automatic
benefit to being everywhere, it could be a liability in a multi-site crisis. Hitler controlled almost all of continental Europe
(and so did Napoleon), all it did was that when he was forced on a defensive (in the east), all of those territories became potential
liabilities with allied landings, rebellions, countries switching sides, etc
Another problem is that US is trying to do it on the cheap with bombing, technology and allies – but with minimal casualties.
The inability to take casualties is a weakness, you cannot in the long-run control all this geography and also protect every GI's
life.
And Russia is still boxed in.
Russia is boxed in by its geography, and so is China. There is nothing new there. Enemies have been pressing on Russia's
extensive borders forever. It is not likely that anyone would actually try to cross that border given this one reality: nuclear
weapons. Unless the constant prodding has an answer to that reality, what is it all about? What's the point?
Nobody wants a war. There isn't going to be any fighting in Poland.
Wars happen even if nobody 'wants' them. There are situations when wars happen almost on their own and nobody ever claims
ownership. And if there is a war, there will be fighting in Poland – it is literally ground zero (as so often before), and no
amount of NY Times editorials will make any damn difference. The country is too small, so it would be annihilated. Poland is storing
missiles and 'defensive' divisions for its allies across the Atlantic with an open admission that they are targeting Russia. What
do you think would happen in a real crisis or a war? Do you think US would look kindly at Russian missiles in Canada or Mexico?
That is the true madness, and Poland is kind of in a heart of it. As so often before.
I don't think either Russia or West have better or worse 'strategy'. They play with what they have. Lately Russia has been
prevailing, maybe because West pushed too far and is on thin ice in most of these far-away places.
By the way, your description of the Georgia conflict in 2008 omitted the key event: as the Beijing Olympics were starting,
Georgia attacked S Ossetia with massive bombardment (100+ civilians killed). You say that somehow Russia 'anticipated' it and
took advantage. Isn't it their job to 'anticipate'? Wouldn't any country? But the key point is that without the extremely stupid,
almost suicidial attack by Georgia, none of that would happened. Who the hell told Saakasvilli that this would be a good idea?
Some 'strategist' who likes to 'poke the Russian borders' to keep them in a 'box'? This is abstract thinking at its worst. Get
real.
Speaking of crooks and thieves. True, those Ukrainian elites are that. Can't argue that most of US/Western elite aren't. But,
Russian (current) regime elite? How about this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_of_crooks_and_thieves
So, I guess that an average Ukrainian ponders a simple question: For which crook I am supposed to lose my life and limb? And risking
the same for people I care for? Tough decision. If if doubt do nothing feels as the best option. Keep your head down, keep your
mouth shut and try to scrap a living there. Or, if you can, emigrate somewhere. If you can that is.
That rhetorical question? Regime change in Moscow->incorporating Russia into Empire at vassal level. Or back to happy Yeltsin
era. Happy for some I mean. With vengeance.
As for this:
There are situations when wars happen almost on their own and nobody ever claims ownership
Couldn't agree more. That's the real worry at present. Combination of who are people in power and means of warfare.
People on the ground in Ukraine at "West" side incompetent and weak crooks. People on the ground in Ukraine at "East" side
are also incompetent crooks. Not so sure how weak they are, though. They must be weak enough to obey Moscow but hard enough to
keep .ahm..pruning own ranks from those unpopular with Moscow. Besides, they got into power by armed insurrection so usually those
types can be hard.
I, personally, don't see much fuss about all this. Could be wrong, of course. The real question would be how, really, good
Ukrainian armed forces are.
Have they used the time well to get good enough to create a serious problem for Donbass. My feeling .(haven't spent much time
researching it) is they have not. Now, not so sure, whatever Saker is saying here, how good Donbass military is. In reality. I
concede that they got better organized and equipped. Doesn't mean much , IMHO. The more important is how WILLING they would be
to face an attack.
I .suspect .that the will when it was all started isn't there anymore. Could be wrong. Still think I am not. Or, better .feel
that way. Those assassinations, plus overall quality of life there, plus unclear future (not what Moscow is saying, people on
the ground don't buy that) aren't good for combat morale.
At the end, I suspect, when/if it comes to renewal of hostilities, it will be: First and foremost artillery exchanges.
Nothing changes.
Then, small unit raids. Nothing changes. Then, tactical incursions by Ukrainian best. After initial success they'll be met by
Donbas best.Because either side don't have many of those nothing changes too. A lot of talk from Washington and Moscow. Some dead/mutilated
mercenaries. And while those "games" go the rest of peoples there just keep what they've been doing so far. Oceania vs Eurasia
..
Saker writing a Philip Giraldi level expose from that angle would probably have him out of a job. The Russian ruling class
is not interested in making an enemy of Israel or vice versa.
The single best way to assure that there isn't a 'regime change' is by constant probing of Russia's borders, by constant
attacks, etc So I don't buy that, the experts in Washington are not that stupid. They understand fully well that placing missiles,
coups, border harassment are by far the most reliable way to make sure that nothing changes in Moscow.
The Ukraine situation will not be decided by fighting in Donbass, or in Moscow. It will be decided in Kiev (and Odessa,
Lviv, Charkov) by the currently passive masses. Unless a miracle happens, or most people emigrate, this is not a sustainable situation.
They are living worse than in 2013, and they already had it very bad in 2013. Marshall Plan isn't coming, membership in EU isn't
coming either. Once that sinks in – it might take 5-10 years – things will change.
They understand fully well that placing missiles, coups, border harassment are by far the most reliable way to make sure
that nothing changes in Moscow.
That's one way to look at it. Another is that they believe that's exactly what's needed. Worked rather well since '91
I think. US soldier couldn't get pass Germany (West/East) border. Now
It will be decided in Kiev (and Odessa, Lviv, Charkov) by the currently passive masses.
"'Novorussian' fighting forces have from the very beginning just been a rag tag collection of Chechen and Russian
mercenaries ,with a few local alcoholic yahoos , all directed by imported Russian degenerates,
supported all along with Russian national troops and armaments"
All soldiers today get paid, thus you can call all of them 'mercenaries'. All soldiers drink. Their ethnicities are hard to
establish and generalize. Words like 'rag tag', 'yahoos', 'degenerates' mean literally nothing in this context, you just add them
to make yourself feel better.
If you take what your wrote and strip out the unnecessary poetry you might be closer to the truth: Novorussian forces are a
combination of local separatists and volunteers who joined them mostly from Russia; Russia has provided most of their modern arms.
Russia also acts as a backstop in case of another Kiev offensive to make sure that they cannot be defeated.
See, I fixed it for you. Now drop the poetic abuse and tell us what can be done about it. And take into account interests of
all parties and their relative strength. All people are equal, applying emotional adjectives to your enemies changes nothing.
Well said. Regarding: { . a rag tag collection of Chechen and Russian mercenaries,with a few local alcoholic yahoos, all
directed by imported Russian degenerates }
If that is true, then it means Ukrainian military is even more incompetent than it is, being soundly defeated by a 'rag
tag collection of mercenaries, alcoholic yahoos, and degenerates'. Being defeated by a professional opposing force is bad
enough, but being defeated and chased out of Novorussia by 'degenerates'? How embarrassing for the Kiev junta.
That seems to be Russia's strategy. I agree that by far the best thing Moscow could do is to improve quality of life in
Russia. Nato strategy is to delay it by any means: sanctions, energy, new arms race, whatever they can think off, lately mostly
media campaigns. With Russia's resources, favourable demographics and global economic realities (China), it will not work.
And then what?Once the quality of life is comparable to the average EU country, the gig will be up. Today Russia is
slightly worse off than Poland and Lithuania, but better off than Romania or Bulgaria. But it is dramatically worse off than Germany,
Czech R or Austria. Between 2000-2014 Germany and Russia were feeding off each other's growth, now they both suffer. We will see
how that plays out, but there was a natural synergy that was artificially curtailed. More than anything else the Atlantic neo-cons
fear more prosperity in Russia, so they will do almost anything to prevent it.
In Ukraine the EU-West infatuation will take a long time to dissipate. Getting hurt will eventually lead to making things
better in the head , but it will take at least a generation. And things don't stay quiet for that long, other events will intervene.
A circle cannot be squared: Kiev has attempted a great leap into its imagined future – Europe!!! – they bet everything on it,
cut off all else, and there is no realistic way the leap will land Ukraine happily and soon enough in EU. EU will not agree to
absorb 40 million poor people who mostly just want to live immediately like Germans, or move there. This is a mad dream, reality
will intervene.
Those still hoping for a happy ending have not been paying attention.
I am sorry but I have to say this. How has led by Kissinger and Nixon strategy of opening China worked out? Is creating
major geopolitical foe where there was none considered a sign of deep strategically long term thinking?
One often hears about "historical injustices" being committed against this nation or that ethnic group. Ukraine is probably
a unique (basket) case because they think (the stupid ones) that beside historical injustices, they have also suffered geographical
injustice.
The Ukrainian nationalists think that based on their accomplishments as a nation (there are none) they rightfully deserve
to be geographically located somewhere between Germany and France. For this state of affairs they again blame the Russians. You
see, because Russia is so big, and definitely in Eastern Europe, that they have the gravitational force that keeps Ukraine in
Eastern Europe. If it wasn't for the Russians, Ukraine would have long ago catapulted into Western Europe – probably even geographically.
It's only Russia that prevents them from acquiring their rightful place in the heart of Europe.
And so a solution is to have a war against geography. That usually goes very well, check with the Georgians :)
In Ukrainians' defence, they have a bad location: wide-open, unprotected, with few geographic features and at the same
time very high-quality earth. On second thought, if Ukraine, as is, was located in Western Europe 'somewhere between Germany and
France' , I would be willing to bet that not a single Ukrainian would exist today. The Western Europeans know their genocide and
know how to pacify populations. They almost got to them during WWII, Ukraine was the lebensraum that Nazis dreamt about.
My estimate would be that if Russia had not sacrificed 20 million people to defeat Germany, today there would be no Poles,
no Ukrainians, and no Czechs. A few smaller nations, like Croats, Slovaks, Slovenians, would exist as tiny folklor-only curiosity,
regularly brutally culled for potential dissenters. Those 'damn Russkies', how dare they stop this? No wonder the sneaky Westerners
will never forgive them. But one wonders why some of the designated victims, Poles, Ukrainians, Czechs, are also angry that the
lebensraum genocide Nazi plan was not allowed to take place. But we are leaving geography and getting into psychiatry
" the assassination attempt on Mosiychuk [the former deputy commander of the infamous neo-Nazi Azov Battalio] is the
initial phase of an escalation of the conflict between the Nazis and Jewish oligarchs headed by President Poroshenko, an escalation
which is transitioning from a political to a "hot", or armed phase.
Ironically enough, it is the Jewish oligarch Kolomoysky who is financing the operations of such Nazi revolutionaries. Indeed,
all of the "Ukrainian revolutions," as is well known, have been done with Jewish money and through the hands of Ukrainian Nazis.
By all accounts, Mosiychuk himself is one of the key figures behind preparing a Nazi coup d'etat."
Any reaction from the diligent ADL? Any peep from AIPAC? Kolomoysky is an Israeli citizen and a pillar of the Jewish community
of Ukraine. He has been financing the Ukrainian neo-Nazis for several years already; Kolomoysky is also implicated in the downing
of MH17. Still no interest from the Israel-occupied US Congress? Amazing. In the US, the "victims of Holocaust" from the Kagans'
clan have been plotting and implementing the collaborative projects with Ukrainian neo-Nazis. Interesting times.
Btw, Kolomoysky is an Israeli citizen. Speaking about Holocaust deniers – is it kosher to support neo-Nazi and work on
the resurrection of Nazism in Ukraine and to remain an honorable Israeli citizen? It seems that Kolomoysky is such case. Next
time the Israel-firsters attempt to squeal about any critics of "Holocaust story" they should be presented with the story of Jewish
oligarch Kolomoysky.
You use language very loosely: 'total control, 'fully integrated', 'force's skeleton', all those terms are both unprovable
and meaningless in Donbass context. There are millions of Russians in Donbass, they have always lived there. They are willing
to oppose post-coup Kiev government on their own. All else is vague verbiage that means nothing.
"the regime in Moscow decide to abandon the project it could dissolve that force in 12 hours tops and leave Novorussia ripe
for takeover by the regime in Kiev"
Your usage of the imbecilic word 'regime' betrays bias. What the f k is a'regime'? Is EU a 'regime', or the Saudi king,
or China? If not, why not? Stick with term government and use it for all and you won't sound like a bitter dead-ender unable
to see things rationally.
Russia cannot abandon Donbass because the Kiev government would massacre many Russians living in Donbass. Or they would let
their nationalist allies do it. In any case, millions would either be expelled, imprisoned or killed. That would mean the end
of Putin's government. The fact that Brussels and Mme Merkel would look the other way and that Western media would pretend that
not much was happening would not help either. So that's not going to happen, Russia is committed, it cannot 'abandon the project'.
Kiev will either negotiate seriously now, or in the future. And time is definitely not on their side, longer this goes on, worse
deal will be on the table for Kiev.
" it might take 5-10 years – things will change." It is already on the go:
http://www.fort-russ.com/2017/10/mosiychuk-assassination-attempt.html
" another Maidan to be held under openly Nazi slogans and leading to the overthrow of the Jewish oligarchs led by Petro Poroshenko
who seized power in Ukraine. Ukrainian Nazis are the most consistent and terrifying enemies of the Poroshenko regime, which they
call an "internal occupation regime." We are now seeing a rehearsal for such a Nazi Maidan. Apparently, Poroshenko is taking a
serious turn, and now terrorist methods are being used against the regime's mortal enemies."
Decent article, although some generalizations which is understandable. Couple points about Poland. Yes its allied with neocons
atm (the bad).
The government has some forces somewhat supporting Ukraine (Basically as long as the blame is focused on Russia). The government
knows there are "neonazi" elements, as has mentioned Ukraine will not join EU until they stop that. As for the people Poland is
divided like crazy on the Ukraine issue.
Lots of people changed from Russians into Ukrainians. I see many guys with Russian surnames there from news who are rabidly
antirussians. Give some time. When Russia rises and life in Russia will be good there will be suddenly 90% of Ukrainian population
Russians.
Alas, you've yet again missed the salient point you're commenting on. The sea change I talk about is "a sea change in both
capability and prospects" . And yes, a sea change in the sense that the high water mark of the USA's capabilities and prospects
is now plainly visible. Its role has been reduced from world leader to that of spoiler in Syriaq, Philippines, MENA, ECS & SCS,
in Africa, and in Europe itself. A spoiler's role is a very far cry from the world leader at "the end of history" it proclaimed
itself to be in the early '90s. Pax Americana's wave broke and is now rolling back out to sea, creating undertows as it goes.
The ramifications of that sea change will take years, maybe decades, to play themselves out, but my assessment is that
there will be no active "roll back (of the) '90s" or that said roll back is desirable/possible. The Ukraine and Serbia/Kosovo
will wind up having to fit themselves into whatever new paradigm the world will be living under at the time. That paradigm won't
be American led, or of American design.
Prof Cohen, he is smart on Russian affairs, for a Jewish guy suprising he speaks favorably of the Russians. I dont know his
political views. Certainly a change from the Neocon bs.
I don't see much of a future for Ukraine. Neither the West nor Russia is willing to underwrite the massive investment that
would be required to rebuild the economy. Sure it makes sense to split the country. However, both sides are more than willing
to live with an impoverished buffer between NATO and Russia. If the country is split, there is no longer any territorial disputes
and the new West Ukraine ultimately becomes a NATO member and NATO weapons move hundreds of miles closer to the Russian border.
Not to mention the fact that Russia would find it expensive to subsidize the new government. Same with the EU.
The obsession with theoretical military engagements ignore the reality that 'winning' is simply taking a nation that is still
a paying customer for natural gas and turning them into an expense.
As far as the value of Ukraine as an agricultural power -- Russia no longer cares. Russia (thanks to the US sanctions, among
other things) is now the world's largest grain exporter.
The Black Sea may be important to Russia's regional aspirations, but for the US, what could be better than have as many
Russian naval vessels as possible parked there?
The Saker does indeed peddle a lot of BS, but you are hardly one to talk.
1. The Chechens were briefly involved in 2014, have long since left.
2. The vast majority of the NAF (80%) are Ukrainian
citizens , as confirmed by multiple sources including a list of names leaked by your ideological comrades at the Peacekeeper
website. About another 10% are Russians from the Kuban, which is ethnically and culturally close to the Donbass, while the last
10% are Russians and other adventurers from the wider world.
So yes, it is indeed very homegrown, though it is true that the NAF would not have survived in its embryonic stages without
the more competent and experienced Russian volunteers like Strelkov, as well as Russian logistical and artillery support.
3. NAF volunteers are indeed probably lower than average on the socio-economic scale, but I would be exceedingly surprised
if it was otherwise for the UAF and the independent batallions. Certainly the chronic
drunkeness
, accidents, etc. in the Ukrainian Army that are constantly being written about indicates that doesn't harvest the cream of Ukraine's
crop. (And that makes sense – apart from a hard core of patriots and nationalists, any Ukrainian would pay to avoid conscription,
if he has the means).
Following last night's release of the latest set of JFK Assassination Files, the public has
been busy combing through the several thousand documents. Among the more notable discoveries so
far are the following: the CIA contemplated mafia hits on Cuban President Fidel Castro,
involving the "false flag" staging of bombings in Miami; Someone calling the FBI threatening to
kill Lee Harvey Oswald a day before Oswald's murder; the US examined sabotaging airplane parts
heading to Cuba. As a reminder, following a deadline 25 years in the making, last night the
National Archives released an abridged dump of JFK Assassination files. While president Trump
blocked the release of some, arguably the most controversial, documents citing national
security concerns, the release still left researchers and conspiracy theorists with 52
previously unreleased full documents and thousands in part to sift through.
Here are the key highlights from the trove so far, courtesy of CBS
and
AP :
Sabotaging plane parts
A national security council document from 1962, one year before Kennedy's murder,
referenced "Operation Mongoose," a covert attempt to topple communism in Cuba. I n
the minutes of a secret meeting on Operation Mongoose from September 14,1962, "General
(Marshall) Carter said that the CIA would examine the possibilities of sabotaging airplane
parts which are scheduled to be shipped from Canada to Cuba ."
CIA-mafia plot on Castro
A 1975 document
from the Rockefeller Commission detailing the CIA's role in foreign assassinations said
plans to assassinate Castro were undertaken in the early days of the Kennedy
administration. The report said Attorney General Robert Kennedy, the President's brother,
told the FBI he learned the CIA hired an intermediary "to approach Sam Giancana with a
proposition of paying $150,000 to hire some gunman to go into Cuba and kill Castro ." The
attorney general said that made it hard to prosecute Giancana, a Sicilian American mobster.
"Attorney General Kennedy stated that the CIA should never undertake the use of mafia
people again without first checking with the Department of Justice because it would be
difficult to prosecute such people in the future," the report reads. The report also said
the CIA was later interested in using mobsters to deliver a poison pill to Castro in order
to kill him.
CIA plots "False Flags" Terrorist events in Miami
During Operation
Mongoose in 1960 , the CIA also considered staging terror events in Miami and blaming
it on pro-Castro Cubans.
"We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida
cities and even in Washington. We could sink a boatload of Cubans enroute to Florida (real
or simulated). We could foster attempts on lives of Cuban refugees in the United States
even to the extent of wounding in instances to be widely publicized. Exploding a few
plastic bombs in carefully chosen spots, the arrest of a Cuban agent and the release of
prepared documents substantiating Cuban involvement also would be helpful in projecting the
idea of an irresponsible government."
UK paper warned of 'big news'
According to a memo from the
CIA's deputy director to the head of the FBI, a senior reporter in the Cambridge News in
England received an anonymous phone call, saying he should contact the American Embassy in
London for "some big news," before abruptly hanging up.
The FBI gets a death threat on Oswald the day before his murder
A document dated
November 24, 1963 , showed FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover addressing the death of Oswald
at the hands of Jack Ruby. "There is nothing further on the Oswald case except that he is
dead," Hoover begins.Hoover said the FBI's Dallas office received a call "from a man
talking in a calm voice," saying he was a member of a committee to kill Oswald. He said
they pressed the Dallas chief of police to protect Oswald, but Ruby was nevertheless able
to kill the gunman.
"Ruby says no one was associated with him and denies having made the telephone call to
our Dallas office last night," Hoover said. Hoover went on to say the FBI had evidence of
Oswald's guilt and intercepts of Oswald's communications with Cuba and the Soviet Union. He
said he was concerned there would be doubt in the public about Oswald's guilt and that
President Lyndon Johnson would appoint a commission to investigate the assassination.
Passing blame for a coup in South Vietnam
A top secret
document from 1975 for the Rockefeller Commission outlines the testimony of former CIA
Director Richard Helms. In the transcript, Helms said he thought former President Richard
Nixon believed the CIA was responsible for the death of South Vietnamese President Ngo Dinh
Diem, who died following a coup linked to the CIA
"There is absolutely no evidence of this in the agency records and the whole thing has
been, I mean rather -- what is the word I want -- heated by the fact that President Johnson
used to go around saying that the reason President Kennedy was assassinated was that he had
assassinated President Diem and this was just justice," Helms said. Helms added: "where he
got this from, I don't know."
The deposition continues, with him being asked if there was any way Oswald was in some
way a CIA agent or an agent ," before the document cuts off.
Alleged Cuban intel officer said he knew Oswald
A cable from the
FBI in 1967 quoted one man quipping Oswald must have been a good shot. The alleged
Cuban officer returned, "oh, he was quite good." Asked why he said that, the officer said,
"I knew him."
Jack Ruby's connections with Dallas police
An informant told the FBI that Oswald's assassin, Jack Ruby, had close links to local
police in Dallas. Ruby, whose real name was Jacob Leon Rubenstein, was said to have had a
"good in" with the authorities, who were served free drinks at his nightclub. A friend of
Ruby's, Lou Lebby, described him in an FBI document as
"emotional, unstable and a person who made his living primarily from 'scalping' tickets to
sports events."
Soviets said killing was an 'organized conspiracy'
FBI Director
Hoover forwarded a memo to the White House in 1963 , shortly after Kennedy's death. The
memo, obtained by the Church Committee and classified top secret, detailed US sources'
sense of the reaction in the USSR to Kennedy's death. "According to our source, officials
of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union believed there was some well-organized
conspiracy on the part of the 'ultraright' in the United States to effect a 'coup,'" the
memo said. " They seem convinced that the assassination was not the deed of one man, but
that it arose out of a carefully planned campaign in which several people played a
part.
The source said the Soviet officials claimed no connection between Oswald and the USSR,
and described him as "a neurotic gunman.
CIA intercepts call from Oswald to KGB
A CIA memo from
the day of Kennedy's assassination outlined a CIA intercept of a call from Oswald, then
in Mexico City, to the Russian embassy in Mexico . Oswald spoke to the consul, Valeriy
Vladimirovich Kostikov, an "identified KGB officer" "in broken Russian." The memo's author
said he was told by the FBI's liaison officer that the bureau believed Oswald's visit was
to get help with a passport or visa.
The FBI was tracking Oswald before JFK's assassination
Oswald was being tracked by the New Orleans division of the FBI in October 1963 –
the month before the assassination took place. An FBI report into
the New Orleans division of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee said that, while the committee
had been inactive since Oswald left the city, the bureau was planning to stay in contact
"with Cuban sources for any indication of additional activity." Copies of the report were
sent to FBI divisions in New York and Dallas, the city in which Kennedy was killed.
Soviets Fear Assassination Would Lead To All Out War
The Soviet Union feared that the assassination of John F. Kennedy would lead to all-out
war between it and the United States. A CIA source cited
in the documents claimed that officials in the Communist Party believed the killing was
part of a conspiracy by the "ultra-right" in the US, and were concerned that "without
leadership, some irresponsible general in the US might launch a missile at the Soviet
Union." Soviet officials also described assassin Lee Harvey Oswald as "a neurotic maniac
who was disloyal to his own country," and played down the significance of his time within
the Union.
"... "Everyone knows that five-billion contracts are not signed by the defense minister or by his deputy, or even by any head of the Defense Ministry department. All politicians know who signs five-billion contracts. And this is the president of Ukraine," Tymoshenko said, while commenting on the scandal with the detention by the NABU of Deputy Defense Minister Ihor Pavlovsky and director of the public procurement department at the Defense Ministry Volodymyr Hulevych. ..."
Only just got some time to start following Mishiko's "Mikho-Maidan" (English-language hashtag is
#Mikhomaidan .
Apparently Saakashvili came up with a humdinger this morning: He promised his followers from the stump that the Ukraine
will become a superpower dictating conditions to Europe and the world.
"Там где есть сила, там будет Украинская сверхдержава, которая будет диктовать условия в Европе и всем другим, и где люди будут
жить достойно Что стоит между нами и этим будущим? Это маленькая кучка олигархов, барыг – президент и его окружение", -- сказал
он, заверив, что сменить нынешнюю власть при желании населения можно "очень быстро и очень безболезненно".
"Кто-то говорит – "вот, этот гастролер, зачем он тут?" Все очень просто. Нет будущего ни у Грузии, ни у Молдовы, ни у Белоруссии,
ни у кого в регионе, если не будет Украины", -- подчеркнул Саакашвили.
TRANSLATION:
"If people shall unite as a force, then there will be a Ukrainian superpower which will dictate conditions in Europe and to all
the others; and people [here] will be able to live their lives with dignity. What stands between us and that future? A tiny clique
of oligarchs and speculators: The President and his entourage," he said, assuring people that it would be a very quick and painless
matter to overturn the existing government, given the desire of the people.
"Some people say, oh, here is that travelling showman, why is he here? It's very simple: There can be no future, neither for Gruzia,
nor Moldavia, nor Belorussia, not for anyone in this region, if a Ukraine doesn't exist," Saakashvili underscored.
Some people say, oh, here is that travelling showman, why is he here?
A good question yet to be answered by Mr. Saakashvili. The answer probably includes money, food, cocaine, public attention,
food, sex and did I mention food?
Mmmmm ..that sounds suspiciously like his oratory while President of Georgia, when he predicted that within X years of his modernizations
like the Glass Bridge in Tbilisi (between 3 and 5, I forget now and the source was assimilated into the government's propaganda-pablum
machine), there would be more tourists in Georgia than there were Georgians. Or like the time he told the US Senate that Georgia
was so honest a place that people did not even lock their doors, the same year the US Government's State Department released a
travel warning for Georgia that warned against pickpockets and various forms of thieving, including stopping your car on the road
and robbing you or making you get out and taking the car. Crimes carried out by Georgian and Ukrainian organized criminals are
often blamed on the Russian mafia.
Also don't forget when Mishka bragged that Gruzia didn't need no stinking Russian wine market – they could always sell their best
stuff to Western Europe!
'cause, see, the French and Germans and Italians don't produce any good wines
Yes, that's right! And then when the Russian market opened up again, it was greeted with great relief by the Georgian winemakers,
and impartial sources remarked that there was not much of an appetite in Europe for Georgia's sweet and somewhat heavy wines,
while Russians were very fond of them. Ukraine is learning the same bitter lesson now, and there would be nobody like Mishka to
teach them. For the west's part, they would probably be quite willing to give Mishka another project, to keep him busy and keep
Ukraine from slipping back into the Russian orbit.
Don't forget that Poroshenko is not likely to be going anywhere, since Ukraine is making him richer and richer, and he is likely
to dabble in politics even after he is evicted in the next election. But having Mishka there to split the vote could easily result
in a Tymoshenko victory. And that would be just perfect, with all her histrionic squalling about getting a machine gun and going
to kill some Katsaps. She did say 'we'. Go ahead, Yooooolia. Let's see you bring it.
"Everyone knows that five-billion contracts are not signed by the defense minister or by his deputy, or even by any head
of the Defense Ministry department. All politicians know who signs five-billion contracts. And this is the president of Ukraine,"
Tymoshenko said, while commenting on the scandal with the detention by the NABU of Deputy Defense Minister Ihor Pavlovsky and
director of the public procurement department at the Defense Ministry Volodymyr Hulevych.
Ponder for a moment the irony of Tymoshenko – who browbeat the director of Naftogaz into signing the take-or-pay contract with
Russia which caused Ukraine such grief and then flew to Russia herself to wrap it up, after being specifically told by the Rada
cabinet not to do it – pointing the accusing finger at corruption in the energy business.
I admired Ron Paul foright policy views for a along time. and this time he also did not
disappointed his reader.
Soviet labeled anybody who dissented from communist propaganda line or did not believe in
Communist dogma as "agents of imperialism". Neocons similarly bland and-war activists and people
who question this war mongering as peddlers of "Russian propaganda". This is what often
happen with victors in wars: they acquired worst features of their defeated enemies. for example
to defeat the USSR the USA create powerful network of intelligence agencies. Which promptly
went out of civil control in 1963, much like KGB in the USSR and became state within the state. In a way now it in now now unfeasible
that the Soviet Union posthumously have won the Cold War, as it is more and more difficult to
distinguish Soviet propaganda and the US government propaganda.
So the fact that the US government allocate large sums of money for the propaganda
against another neoliberal state -- Russia, which represent regional threat to the US hegemonic
ambitions -- tells a lot about neoliberalism as a social system. Hostilities among neoliberal
states, much like hostilities between communist states are not only possible, they are the
reality.
Notable quotes:
"... So what is the "European Values" think tank? A bunch of kooks? Well perhaps, but they are well-funded kooks. In fact they are funded by American taxpayers to defame other Americans who appear on media outlets that are out of favor with Washington's elites. Among the top donors to the "European Values" think tank is the United States Embassy in Prague. Other top funders include George Soros' "Open Society Foundation," the European Commission, and the European Parliament. They are also funded by other US government funded think tanks such as the Prague-based "League of Human Rights." ..."
"... How ironic that such a Soviet-style attack on political dissent in the United States was launched from Prague, which for decades suffered under the Štátna bezpečnosť -- ..."
"... "I am not here to defend RT," I said on the program tonight. I am here to defend the marketplace of ideas that is critical to a free society. I am here to defend the right of US citizens to dissent from the foreign policy of their government without being attacked by their own government -- or by foreign think tanks funded by their government. ..."
"... This should infuriate us: The US government defines anyone who dissents from its foreign policy of endless wars and a global military empire as peddlers of "Russian propaganda" and then Congress appropriates tens of million dollars to "counter Russian propaganda." ..."
"... That means the US Congress is appropriating tens of millions of our dollars to silence our objection to Washington's trillion dollar global military empire. What a scam! How anti-American! Is that not a declaration of war on the rest of us? Is that not an act of tyranny? ..."
Someday soon, perhaps, anyone writing the above sentence will land in some sort of gulag, as
once did East Europeans found to have appeared on a foreign broadcast questioning the
historical inevitability of the worldwide communist revolution.
In my case, I was asked to comment on a new report (see above pic) from a Czech "
think tank " exposing 2,327 American "useful idiots" who dared appear on the Russian
government-funded RT television network.
Among the "Kremlin stooges" listed in the report of the "European Values" think tank?
Alongside critics of US foreign policy like Ron Paul, the Czech "European Values" think tank
listed Sen. Lindsay Graham, Joe Lieberman, Dick Cheney, US Rep. Adam Schiff, former acting CIA
director Michael Morrell, former CIA director Michael Hayden, and hundreds more prominent
Americans who have been notably hostile to Russia and its government.
I said: "Wow! this conspiracy is even deeper than we thought! Even the virulently
anti-Russian neocons and Russia-hating CIA bigwigs are in fact Putin's poodles!"
It's funny but it's not. This is when the neo-McCarthyism lately in fashion across the
ideological divide descends into the absurd. This is when the mask slips from the witch trials,
when the naked emperor can no longer expect to not be noticed.
So what is the "European Values" think tank? A bunch of kooks? Well perhaps, but they are
well-funded kooks. In fact they are funded by American taxpayers to defame other Americans who
appear on media outlets that are out of favor with Washington's elites. Among the top donors to
the "European Values" think tank is the United States Embassy in Prague. Other top funders
include George Soros' "Open Society Foundation," the European Commission, and the European
Parliament. They are also funded by other US government funded think tanks such as the
Prague-based "League of Human Rights."
Since when did "European values" come to be defined as government-funded lists of political
"enemies" who dare question US foreign policy on television networks despised by neocons and
Washington interventionists? How ironic that such a Soviet-style attack on political dissent in
the United States was launched from Prague, which for decades suffered under the
Štátna bezpečnosť -- the communist secret police -- that took
exactly the same view of those who deviated from the Soviet party line as does the modern Czech
"European Values" think tank.
Anyone questioning our one trillion dollar global military empire is automatically
considered to be in the pay of hostile foreign governments. How patriotic is that?
"I am not here to defend RT," I said on the program tonight. I am here to defend the
marketplace of ideas that is critical to a free society. I am here to defend the right of US
citizens to dissent from the foreign policy of their government without being attacked by their
own government -- or by foreign think tanks funded by their government.
This should infuriate us: The US government defines anyone who dissents from its foreign
policy of endless wars and a global military empire as peddlers of "Russian propaganda" and
then Congress
appropriates tens of million dollars to "counter Russian propaganda."
That means the US Congress is appropriating tens of millions of our dollars to silence our
objection to Washington's trillion dollar global military empire. What a scam! How
anti-American! Is that not a declaration of war on the rest of us? Is that not an act of
tyranny?
The noose is tightening around us. Yet we must continue to fight for what we believe in! We
must continue to fight for the prosperity that comes from a peaceful foreign policy. Your
generous support for the Ron Paul Institute helps us continue to be your voice in the fight
for free expression and a peaceful foreign policy.
Maybe, instead of Russia-Gate, we have is Israel-Gate. This time Netanyahu discreetly interfering
in US Presidential Election ..Chilling thought though!
Notable quotes:
"... casus belli ..."
"... To be sure, my observations are neither new nor unique. Former Congressmen Paul Findley indicted the careful crafting of a pro-Israel narrative by American Jews in his seminal book They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby , written in 1989. Professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt's groundbreaking book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy said much the same thing nine years ago and discussions of Jewish power do emerge occasionally, even in the mainstream media. In the Jewish media Jewish power is openly discussed and is generally applauded as a well-deserved reward bestowed both by God and by mankind due to the significant accomplishments attributed to Jews throughout history. ..."
"... That many groups and well-positioned individuals work hand-in-hand with the Israeli government to advance Israeli interests should not be in dispute after all these years of watching it in action. Several high level Jewish officials, including Richard Perle , associated with the George W. Bush Pentagon, had questionable relationships with Israeli Embassy officials and were only able to receive security clearances after political pressure was applied to "godfather" approvals for them. Former Congressman Tom Lantos and Senator Frank Lautenberg were, respectively, referred to as Israel's Congressman and Senator, while current Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has described himself as Israel's "shomer" or guardian in the U.S. Senate. ..."
"... The documentary reveals that local Jewish groups, particularly at universities and within the political parties, do indeed work closely with the Israeli Embassy to promote policies supported by the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. ..."
"... That's the money shot, Phil. I'm okay with Jews, okay with the existence of Israel, all that, but I think we were massively had by Iraq II. When Valerie Plame spoke in my area, she talked disgustedly about a plan to establish American military power throughout the Middle East. She used the euphemism "neocons" for the plan's authors, and seemed about to burst with anger. ..."
"... I recall the basic idea was for the U. S. to do Israel's dirty work at U. S. expense and without a U. S. benefit, and I think there was the usual "God talk" cover in it about "democratization", "development", blah-blah. ..."
"... I'd also add Adlai E. Stevenson III and John Glenn. Stevenson was crucial in getting compensation -- paltry sum though it was– payed to "Liberty" families for their loss. The Israelis had been holding out. Something for which the Il Senator was never forgiven (especially by The Lobby). ..."
"... Netanyahu should not have been allowed to address the joint session. No foreign leader should be speaking in opposition to any sitting President (in this case Obama). It only showed the power of "The Lobby." Netanyahu who knew that Iran didn't have the weapons the Bush Adm. had claimed, was treated like a trusted ally. He shouldn't have been. ..."
"... Maybe, instead of Russia-Gate, we have is Israel-Gate. This time Netanyahu discreetly interfering in US Presidential Election ..Chilling thought though! ..."
"... And Israeli interference in U.S. government and elections is also a given. Endorsement of Mitt Romney in the 2012 presidential election by the Netanyahu government was more-or-less carried out in the open. ..."
"... All embassies try to further their national interest through political machinations and all people in politics tend to use hyperbolic language to describe what they are doing. I don't know if your shock is just for show or you are just a bit dim. The same applies to Buzzfeed's 'expose' of Bannon and the gasps the article let out at his use of terms like #War. ..."
"... The British government attitude was that everything was fine because the Israeli government "apologised" and the "rogue individual" responsible was taken out of the country, and the British media mostly ignored the story after an initial brief scandal. Indeed the main substantive response was the Ofcom fishing expedition against Al Jazeera looking for ways to use the disclosure of these uncomfortable truths as a pretext for shutting that company's operations down. ..."
"... The supreme irony behind all this is that Trump has been prevented by his own personal and family/adviser bias from using the one certain way of removing all the laughably vague "Russian influence" nonsense that has been used against him so persistently. All he had to do was to, at every opportunity, tie criticism and investigation of Russian "influence" to criticism and investigation of Israel Lobby influence under the general rubric of "foreign influence", and almost all of the high level backing for the charges would in due course have quietly evaporated. ..."
"... WASP culture has always been philo-Semitic. That cannot be stated too much. WASP culture is inherently philo-Semtic. WASP culture was born of Anglo-Saxon Puritanism, which was a Judaizing heresy. ..."
"... You cannot solve 'the Jewish problem' unless you also solve 'the WASP problem.' ..."
"... The Israeli lobby is more powerful throughout the Anglosphere than the Saudi/Arabic lobby, but the Saudi lobby is equally detestable and probably even a more grave threat to the very existence of Western man. ..."
"... That the intelligence services of many countries engage in such conduct is not really news. Indeed, you could say that it's part of their normal job. They usually don't get caught and when accused of anything they shout "no evidence!" (now, where have I heard that recently?) Of course, if the Israelis engage in such conduct, then, logically, other countries' services do so too. ..."
"... Not surprising that the Jewish public gets gamed by Israeli political elites, just as the American public keeps getting gamed by our own cabal of bought politicians. Trying to fool enough of the people, enough of the time, contra Lincoln (who was not exactly a friend of critical dissent against war either .) ..."
One month ago, I initiated here at Unz.com a discussion of the role of American Jews
in the crafting of United States foreign policy. I observed that a politically powerful and well-funded
cabal consisting of both Jewish individuals and organizations has been effective at engaging the
U.S. in a series of wars in the Middle East and North Africa that benefit only Israel and are, in
fact, damaging to actual American interests. This misdirection of policy has not taken place because
of some misguided belief that Israeli and U.S. national security interests are identical, which is
a canard that is frequently floated in the mainstream media. It is instead a deliberate program that
studiously misrepresents facts-on-the ground relating to Israel and its neighbors and creates
casus belli involving the United States even when no threat to American vital interests exists.
It punishes critics by damaging both their careers and reputations while its cynical manipulation
of the media and gross corruption of the national political process has already produced the disastrous
war against Iraq, the destruction of Libya and the ongoing chaos in Syria. It now threatens to initiate
a catastrophic war with Iran.
To be sure, my observations are neither new nor unique. Former Congressmen Paul Findley indicted
the careful crafting of a pro-Israel narrative by American Jews in his seminal book
They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby , written in 1989. Professors
John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt's groundbreaking book
The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy said much the same thing nine years ago and discussions
of Jewish power do emerge occasionally, even in the mainstream media. In the Jewish media Jewish
power is openly discussed and is generally applauded as a well-deserved reward bestowed both by God
and by mankind due to the significant accomplishments attributed to Jews throughout history.
There is undeniably a complicated web of relationships and networks that define Israel's friends.
The expression "Israel Lobby" itself has considerable currency, so much so that the expression "The
Lobby" is widely used and understood to represent the most powerful foreign policy advocacy group
in Washington without needing to include the "Israel" part. That the monstrous Benjamin Netanyahu
receives 26 standing ovations from Congress and a wealthy Israel has a guaranteed income from the
U.S. Treasury derives directly from the power and money of an easily identifiable cluster of groups
and oligarchs – Paul Singer, Sheldon Adelson, Bernard Marcus, Haim Saban – who in turn fund a plethora
of foundations and institutes whose principal function is to keep the cash and political support
flowing in Israel's direction. No American national interest, apart from the completely phony contention
that Israel is some kind of valuable ally, would justify the taxpayers' largesse. In reality, Israel
is a liability to the United States and always has been.
And I do understand at the same time that a clear majority of American Jews, leaning strongly
towards the liberal side of the political spectrum, are supportive of the nuclear agreement with
Iran and do not favor a new Middle Eastern war involving that country. I also believe that many American
Jews are likely appalled by Israeli behavior, but, unfortunately, there is a tendency on their part
to look the other way and neither protest such actions nor support groups like Jewish Voice for Peace
that are themselves openly critical of Israel. This de facto gives Israel a free pass and
validates its assertion that it represents all Jews since no one important in the diaspora community
apart from minority groups which can safely be ignored is pushing back against that claim.
That many groups and well-positioned individuals work hand-in-hand with the Israeli government
to advance Israeli interests should not be in dispute after all these years of watching it in action.
Several high level Jewish officials, including
Richard Perle , associated with the George W. Bush Pentagon, had
questionable relationships with Israeli Embassy officials and were only able to receive security
clearances after political pressure was applied to "godfather" approvals for them. Former Congressman
Tom Lantos and Senator Frank Lautenberg were, respectively, referred to as Israel's Congressman and
Senator, while current Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has described himself as Israel's "shomer"
or
guardian in the U.S. Senate.
A recent regulatory decision from the United Kingdom relates to a bit of investigative journalism
that sought to reveal precisely how the promotion of Israel by some local diaspora Jews operates,
to include how critics are targeted and criticized as well as what is done to destroy their careers
and reputations.
Last year, al-Jazeera Media Network used an
undercover reporter to infiltrate some U.K. pro-Israel groups that were working closely with
the Israeli Embassy to counter criticisms coming from British citizens regarding the treatment of
the Palestinians. In particular, the Embassy and its friends were seeking to counter the growing
Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement (BDS), which has become increasingly effective in Europe.
The four-part documentary
released late in 2016 that al-Jazeera produced is well worth watching as it consists mostly of secretly
filmed meetings and discussions.
The documentary reveals that local Jewish groups, particularly at universities and within
the political parties, do indeed work closely with the Israeli Embassy to promote policies supported
by the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. It also confirms that tagging someone
as an anti-Semite has become the principal offensive weapon used to stifle any discussion, particularly
in a country like Britain which embraces concepts like the criminalization of "hate speech." At one
point, two British Jews discussed whether "being made to feel uncomfortable" by people asking what
Israel intends to do with the Palestinians is anti-Semitic. They agreed that it might be.
The documentary also describes how the Embassy and local groups working together targeted government
officials who were not considered to be friendly to Israel to "be taken down," removed from office
or otherwise discredited. One government official in particular who was to be attacked was Foreign
Office Minister Sir Alan Duncan.
Britain, unlike the U.S., has a powerful
regulatory agency that oversees communications, to include the media. It is referred to as Ofcom.
When the al-Jazeera documentary was broadcast, Israeli Embassy political officer Shai Masot, who
reportedly was a Ministry of Strategic Affairs official working under cover, was forced to resign
and the Israeli Ambassador offered an apology. Masot was filmed discussing British politicians who
might be "taken down" before speaking with a government official who plotted a "a little scandal"
to bring about the downfall of Duncan. Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn, who is the first head of
a political party in Britain to express pro-Palestinian views, had called for an investigation of
Masot after the recording of the "take down" demand relating to Duncan was revealed. Several Jewish
groups (the Jewish Labour Movement, the Union of Jewish Students and We Believe in Israel) then counterattacked
with a complaint that the documentary had violated British broadcast regulations, including the specific
charge that the undercover investigation was anti-Semitic in nature.
On October 9 th , Ofcom ruled in favor of al-Jazeera, stating that its investigation
had done nothing improper, but it should be noted that the media outlet had to jump through numerous
hoops to arrive at the successful conclusion. It had to turn over all its raw footage and communications
to the investigators, undergoing what one source described as an "editorial colonoscopy," to prove
that its documentary was "factually accurate" and that it had not "unfairly edited" or "with bias"
prepared its story. One of plaintiffs, who had called for critics of Israel to "die in a hole" and
had personally offered to "take down" a Labour Party official, responded bitterly. She
said that the Ofcom judgment would serve as a "precedent for the infringement of privacy of any
Jewish person involved in public life."
The United States does not yet have a government agency to regulate news stories, though that
may be coming, but the British tale has an interesting post script. Al-Jazeera also had a
second undercover reporter inserted in the Israel Lobby in the United States, apparently a British
intern named James Anthony Kleinfeld, who had volunteered his services to The Israel Project, which
is involved in promoting Israel's global image. He also had contact with at least ten other Jewish
organizations and with officials at the Israeli Embassy,
Now that the British account of "The Lobby" has cleared a regulatory hurdle the American version
will reportedly soon be released. Al-Jazeera's head of investigative reporting Clayton Swisher commented
"With this U.K. verdict and vindication past us, we can soon reveal how the Israel lobby in America
works through the eyes of an undercover reporter. I hear the U.S. is having problems with foreign
interference these days, so I see no reason why the U.S. establishment won't take our findings in
America as seriously as the British did, unless of course Israel is somehow off limits from that
debate."
Americans who follow such matters already know that groups like the American Israel Public Affairs
Committee (AIPAC) swarm over Capitol Hill and have accomplices in nearly every media outlet. Back
in 2005-6 AIPAC Officials Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman were actually tried under the Espionage
Act of 1918 in a case involving obtaining classified intelligence from government official Lawrence
Franklin to pass on to the Israeli Embassy. Rosen had once boasted that, representing AIPAC and Israel,
he could get the signatures of 70 senators on a napkin agreeing to anything if he sought to do so.
The charges against the two men were, unfortunately,
eventually dropped "because court rulings had made the case unwinnable and the trial would disclose
classified information."
And Israeli interference in U.S. government and elections is also a given. Endorsement of Mitt
Romney in the 2012 presidential election by the Netanyahu government was more-or-less carried out
in the open. And ask Congressmen like Paul Findley, Pete McCloskey, William Fulbright, Charles Percy
and, most recently, Cynthia McKinney, what happens to your career when you appear to be critical
of Israel. And the point is that while Israel calls the shots in terms of what it wants, it is a
cabal of diaspora American Jews who actually pull the trigger. With that in mind, it will be very
interesting to watch the al-Jazeera documentary on The Lobby in America.
Philip Giraldi is a rare American treasure. A voice of integrity and character in a sea of moral
cowardice and corruption. If there is any hope for this nation, it will be due specifically to
the integrity of men like Mr. Giraldi to keep speaking truth to power.
When the Jewish Messiah comes, all of us goyim (Black, White, Yellow, brown or Red) will be living
like today's Palestinians. Our slave descendant will be scurrying around in their ghettos afraid
of the Greater Israeli Army military andriod drones in the sky.
But if I was a Westerner, I would support Israel any day. Because if the Israeli state were
to be ever dismantled, all of them Israelis would go to the West. Why would you want that?
My admittedly subjective impression is that your UR reports are becoming more open/unbounded
after your release from the constraints of the American Conservative . In other word, you're
now being enabled to let it all hang out. In my book that's all to the good.
Of course your work and those of the other UR writers are enabled by the beneficence
of its patron, Ron!
There may be limits to their power in Britain. Jeremy Corbyn is hated by them, and stories are
regularly run in the MSM, in Britain and also (of course!) in the New York Times claiming
that under Corbyn Labour is a haven of anti-Semitism. Corbyn actually gained millions of votes
in the last election. Perhaps they will nail him somewhere down the road but they have failed
so far.
" . . . [W]ars in the Middle East and North Africa that benefit only Israel and are, in
fact, damaging to actual American interests (emphases mine).
That's the money shot, Phil. I'm okay with Jews, okay with the existence of Israel, all
that, but I think we were massively had by Iraq II. When Valerie Plame spoke in my area, she talked
disgustedly about a plan to establish American military power throughout the Middle East. She
used the euphemism "neocons" for the plan's authors, and seemed about to burst with anger.
I looked up the plan, but don't recall the catch phrase for it.
I recall the basic idea was for the U. S. to do Israel's dirty work at U. S. expense and
without a U. S. benefit, and I think there was the usual "God talk" cover in it about "democratization",
"development", blah-blah.
I remain skeptical that the Al-Jazeera undercover story in the US will be able to be viewed. I
anticipate a hoard of Israel-firster congress critters to crawl out from under their respective
rocks and deem Al-Jazeera to be antisemitic and call for it being banned as a foreign propaganda
apparatus, much as is being done with RT and Sputnik.
I fear that we are long past the point of being redeemed as a nation. We can only watch with
sorrow as this great nation crumbles under the might of Jewish power – impotent in our ability
to arrest its fall.
ask Congressmen like Paul Findley, Pete McCloskey, William Fulbright, Charles Percy
I'd also add Adlai E. Stevenson III and John Glenn. Stevenson was crucial in getting compensation
-- paltry sum though it was– payed to "Liberty" families for their loss. The Israelis had been
holding out. Something for which the Il Senator was never forgiven (especially by The Lobby).
Netanyahu should not have been allowed to address the joint session. No foreign leader
should be speaking in opposition to any sitting President (in this case Obama). It only
showed the power of "The Lobby." Netanyahu who knew that Iran didn't have the weapons the Bush
Adm. had claimed, was treated like a trusted ally. He shouldn't have been.
And the point is that while Israel calls the shots in terms of what it wants, it is a cabal
of diaspora American Jews who actually pull the trigger. With that in mind, it will be very
interesting to watch the al-Jazeera documentary on The Lobby in America.
Maybe, instead of Russia-Gate, we have is Israel-Gate. This time Netanyahu discreetly interfering
in US Presidential Election ..Chilling thought though!
And Israeli interference in U.S. government and elections is also a given. Endorsement
of Mitt Romney in the 2012 presidential election by the Netanyahu government was more-or-less
carried out in the open.
London's Mayor, Sadiq Khan, actually went to America to campaign for Hillary. Numerous European
leaders endorsed her, while practically all denounced Trump. Exactly the same can be said of the
Muslim world, only more so.
The problem with criticism of Israel is not that it lacks basis in truth. It is that it is
removed from the context of the rest of the world. Israel's actions do not make Israel an outlier.
Israel fits very much within the norm. Even with the recording this is the case.
All embassies try to further their national interest through political machinations and
all people in politics tend to use hyperbolic language to describe what they are doing. I don't
know if your shock is just for show or you are just a bit dim. The same applies to Buzzfeed's
'expose' of Bannon and the gasps the article let out at his use of terms like #War.
Unfortunately, contemporary idiots of all stripes seem to specialise in removing context so
that they can further their specious arguments.
"so I see no reason why the U.S. establishment won't take our findings in America as seriously
as the British did"
Sadly, Clayton Swisher is probably correct that the US establishment will take their findings
in America just as "seriously" as the British media and political establishment, and government,
did.
The British government attitude was that everything was fine because the Israeli government
"apologised" and the "rogue individual" responsible was taken out of the country, and the British
media mostly ignored the story after an initial brief scandal. Indeed the main substantive response
was the Ofcom fishing expedition against Al Jazeera looking for ways to use the disclosure of
these uncomfortable truths as a pretext for shutting that company's operations down.
But there's no "undue influence" or bias involved, and if you say there might be then you are
an anti-Semite and a hater.
The supreme irony behind all this is that Trump has been prevented by his own personal
and family/adviser bias from using the one certain way of removing all the laughably vague "Russian
influence" nonsense that has been used against him so persistently. All he had to do was to, at
every opportunity, tie criticism and investigation of Russian "influence" to criticism and investigation
of Israel Lobby influence under the general rubric of "foreign influence", and almost all of the
high level backing for the charges would in due course have quietly evaporated.
And in this rare company I would place former congressman, Ron Paul.
Here's an excerpt from his latest article, President Trump Beats War Drums for Iran
:
Let's be clear here: President Trump did not just announce that he was "de-certifying" Iran's
compliance with the nuclear deal. He announced that Iran was from now on going to be in the
bullseye of the US military. Will Americans allow themselves to be lied into another Middle
East war?
This state of affairs, where the Zionist tail wags -- thrashes -- the US dog is bizarre to the
point of laughter. Absent familiarity with the facts, who could believe it all? Is there a historical
parallel ? I can't think of one that approaches the sheer profundity of the toxic embrace the
Zionists have cover the US & west generally.
So how is using money we give them as foreign aid (it's fungible by any definition of the US Treasury
and Justice Department) to lobby our legislators not a form of money laundering? Somebody ought
to tell Mnuchin to get FINCEN on this yeah, I know, it sounded naive as I typed it. FINCEN is
only there to harass little people like you and me.
I fear that we are long past the point of being redeemed as a nation. We can only watch
with sorrow as this great nation crumbles
We are long past that point.
I myself am watching with joy, because this supposedly "great nation" was corrupt to the core
from its inception.
For evidence, all one has to do is read the arguments of the anti-federalists who opposed the
ratification of the constitution* such as Patrick Henry, Robert Yates and Luther Martin. Their
predictions about the results have come true. Even the labels, "federalist" and "anti-federalist"
are misleading and no doubt intentionally so.
Those who spoke out against the formation of the federal reserve bank* scheme were also correct.
The only thing great about the US in a moral sense are the high sounding pretenses upon
which it was built. As a nation we have never adhered to them.
*Please note that I intentionally refrain from capitalizing those words since I refuse to show
even that much deference to those instruments of corruption.
Philip, glad to see you undaunted after the recent attacks on you. We can maybe take solace in
the fact that their desire for MORE will finally pass a critical point, and dumbass Americans
will finally wake up.
"She said that the Ofcom judgment would serve as a "precedent for the infringement of privacy
of any Jewish person involved in public life."
I have news for that twister of words.
In my opinion, if you choose to put yourself in the limelight, you have no private life. That
is especially true for those who think they're entitled to a position of power.
In other words, if you think you're special, then you get judged by stricter standards than
the rest of us.
It's called accountability.
BTW, speaking of Netanyahu, why do we hear so little about the scandal involving the theft
of nuclear triggers from the US?
"The Israeli press is picking up Grant Smith's revelation from FBI documents that Benjamin
Netanyahu was part of an Israeli smuggling ring that spirited nuclear triggers out of the U.S.
in the 80s and 90s."
When you listen to Abby Martin describe her experience regarding this brutal apartheid system
in Israel and the genocide of the Palestinian people, remember, Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief
of The Atlantic , was a prison guard in the Israeli Defense Forces guarding the West Bank
death camp. And David Brooks, political and cultural commentator for The New York Times
and former op-ed editor for The Wall Street Journal , has a son in the Israel Defense Forces
helping to perpetuate this holocaust of the Palestinian people. I hope I live to see the day when
some Palestinian Simon Wiesenthal hunts these monsters down and brings them to trial in The Hague.
The lobby is not as powerful in Britain as it is the US, we can talk about it and someone like
Peter Oborne is still a prominent journalist, but I don't see that it makes that much difference.
We seem to end up in the same places the US does.
I had my meeting with the Rothschilds, Goldman Sachs and the Israeli Department of Hasbara last
week and we discussed how our plan to suppress both the US and British governments is progressing.
Apparently we are meeting our targets and everything is going according to plan.
Speaking about how greatly rare a treasure are the P.G.'s words, below is linked a deliberately
rare letter written by Congressman Donald Rumsfeld on behalf of the AZC.
Also, re, "Will Americans allow themselves to be lied into another M.E. war?"
(Sigh)
History shows that, in order for ZUSA to start M.E. wars, Americans are routinely fed Executive
Branch / Corporate Media-sauteed lies. Such deceit is par-for-the-course.
At present, it would be foolish for me to not realize there is a False Flag Pentagon plan "on
the table" & ready for a war with Iran.
What is playing out in the UK, and is in early stages in America, is the fight between the two
side of Victorian WASP pro-Semtiism.
WASP culture has always been philo-Semitic. That cannot be stated too much. WASP culture
is inherently philo-Semtic. WASP culture was born of Anglo-Saxon Puritanism, which was a Judaizing
heresy. Judaizing heresy naturally and inevitably produces pro-Jewish culture. No less than
Oliver Cromwell made the deal to get Jewish money so he could wage culture war to destroy British
Isles natives were not WASPs.
WASP culture has always been allied with Jews to destroy white Christians who are not WASPs.
You cannot solve 'the Jewish problem' unless you also solve 'the WASP problem.'
By the beginning of the Victorian era, virtually all WASP Elites in the Empire – who then had
a truly globalist perspective – were divided into two pro-Semitic camps. The larger one was pro-Jewish.
It would give the world the Balfour Declaration and the state of Israel.
The smaller and growing one was pro-Arabic and pro-Islamic. It would give the world the people
who backed Lawrence of Arabia and came to prop up the House of Saud.
Each of these philo-Semitic WASP Elites groups was more than happy to keep the foot on the
pedal to destroy non-WASP European cultures while spending fortunes propping up its favorite group
of Semites.
And while each of those camps was thrilled to ally to keep up the war against historic Christendom
and the peoples who naturally would gravitate to any hope of a revival of Christendom, they also
squabbled endlessly. Each wished, and always will wish, to be the A-#1 pro-Semitic son of daddy
WASP. Each will play any dirty trick, make any deal with the Devil himself, to get what he wants.
The Israeli lobby is more powerful throughout the Anglosphere than the Saudi/Arabic lobby,
but the Saudi lobby is equally detestable and probably even a more grave threat to the very existence
of Western man.
It is impossible to take care of a serious problem without knowing its source and acting to
sanitize and/or cauterize and/or cut out that source. The source of this problem is WASP culture.
That the intelligence services of many countries engage in such conduct is not really news. Indeed,
you could say that it's part of their normal job. They usually don't get caught and when accused
of anything they shout "no evidence!" (now, where have I heard that recently?) Of course, if the
Israelis engage in such conduct, then, logically, other countries' services do so too.
Thus, Mr Giraldi's argument lends credibility to the claims that Russia interfered in the US
election and to the proposition that US intelligence agents are seeking to undermine the EU.
Since those two operations are part of the same transaction, i.e. maintain US global hegemony
by breaking the EU up into its constituent Member States or even into the regional components
of the larger Member States, using Putin as a battering ram and a bogeyman to frighten the resulting
plethora of small and largely defenseless statelets back under cold war-era American protection,
could it be that US and Russian intelligence services collaborated to manipulate Trump into the
White House? If that were true, it would be quite a scandal! Overthrowing foreign governments
is one thing, collaborating with a foreign power to manipulate your own country's politics is
quite another! But of course, there's "no evidence"
Not surprising that the Jewish public gets gamed by Israeli political elites, just as the
American public keeps getting gamed by our own cabal of bought politicians. Trying to fool enough
of the people, enough of the time, contra Lincoln (who was not exactly a friend of critical dissent
against war either .)
Please note that grivna generally kept its value and fluctuated in the band of 26-27 grivna per dollar for the same period. The
general impression from 2015 to 2017 is slight growth of economic activity, especially in home building. Standard of living did not
change much for this period and remains low. Food prices were more or less stable, which communal services costs especially house/apartment
heating skyrocketed and even for one bedroom apartment now at winter can well exceed average pension.
Some percentage of foreign trade deficit might well be due to additional costs of import of coal (with some coming from the USA
now) and gas (which is bought not directly but from Eastern European countries which has extra volumes at low prices from Russia). The
continuing war at Donbass although at very low level still also attracts a lot funds.
Notable quotes:
"... Ukrainian foreign trade deficit in January-August has grown to 3.279 billion dollars, which is 2.3 times higher than the deficit for the same period last year - 1.448 billion dollars. ..."
"... The export coverage ratio was 0.89, while in January-August 2016 it was 0.94. ..."
"... For the whole 2016, Ukraine enjoyed a small surplus of foreign trade balance amounted to 337.3 million dollars. ..."
Ukrainian foreign trade deficit in January-August has grown to 3.279 billion dollars, which is 2.3 times higher than the deficit
for the same period last year - 1.448 billion dollars.
Those data were reported by the Ukrainian National State Statistics Service.
Exports of goods from Ukraine over the period in comparison with the same period in 2016 increased by 21,1% - to 27,512 billion
dollars, import - by 27,4%, to 30,791 billion dollars.
The export coverage ratio was 0.89, while in January-August 2016 it was 0.94. Foreign trade operations were conducted
with partners from 219 countries of the world. For the whole 2016, Ukraine enjoyed a small surplus of foreign trade balance amounted
to 337.3 million dollars.
It didn't take long for things in Ukraine to go south in the Trump era.
Before last fall's U.S. election, Ukraine had finally appeared to be stabilizing after several
tumultuous years. The country was receiving generally good grades and assistance from the International
Monetary Fund; it enjoyed the political, diplomatic, and financial -- if not quite military -- support
of the West; and it was making headway on internal reforms in the legal, economic, social, educational,
health, and energy sectors. Finally, its armed forces had successfully transformed themselves from
the 6,000 combat-ready troops available in mid-2014 to a powerful, battle-hardened army that managed
to fight Russia and its proxies to a standstill in the east.
... ... ...
Kiev couldn't turn down such an offer, because it has continually insisted that the Donbass must,
and will, be brought back into the Ukrainian fold. But the consequences of this gift would be ugly.
Kiev would likely face an all-out war with the abandoned separatists, one that it would probably
win, but then have to follow with enormous investments to fix the devastated region and try to win
the hearts and minds of its anti-Kiev population. Estimates of how much it would cost to undo the
damage done by Russia start at $20 billion, according to economist Anders Aslund; Ukraine's entire
budget amounts to about $26 billion.
No less debilitating for Ukraine would be the political consequences of reintegrating the occupied
Donbass. Several million anti-Western voters would be brought into the fold, to vote against Ukraine's
pro-Western reforms. The pro-Russian political forces that ruled and still rule the region would
get a second life. And the oligarchs and thieves who mismanaged the Donbass for decades would return
to power. The Donbass would then play the same retrograde role it has played in Ukrainian politics
since independence in 1991. Political tensions would increase, East-West polarization would return,
Kiev would be rendered politically and economically impotent, and Putin would have achieved what
he wanted all along -- a thoroughly unstable Ukraine, minus the cost of funding a low-level conflict
in an economically doomed enclave.
Of course, it's impossible to say just which of these scenarios -- ranging from all-out war to
dumping the Donbass to some other intermediate move -- will happen. The point is that, with Trump's
unpredictability, radicalism, and pro-Russian sympathies, all of them are now possible or far more
possible than they were before Trump's election.
The point is that, with Trump's unpredictability, radicalism, and pro-Russian sympathies, all
of them are now possible or far more possible than they were before Trump's election.
Since the status quo that has held for the past two years is unlikely to do so for long, Ukraine
needs to develop a realistic strategy toward the occupied Donbass -- one attuned to the new geopolitical
circumstances -- and prepare for all of Trump and Putin's possible faits accomplis.
The good news is that Ukraine is prepared for all-out war with Russia; it is also prepared for
and could cope with aid cutoffs from Washington and the end of sanctions. The bad news is that Kiev
is thoroughly unprepared for the one scenario that could destroy Ukraine at little cost to Putin:
Russia's return of the Donbass.
Whatever Kiev decides to do, Ukrainians must first decide what they believe is more important:
independence or territorial integrity. The Minsk accords enabled Ukraine to enjoy the first and aspire
to the second. This state of affairs could not have lasted forever, but Trump and Putin have brought
it to a premature end.
Before Trump, Ukrainians could avoid making too many tough decisions about their strategic priorities.
After Trump, they cannot.
There is a danger for Ukraine to become "European El Salvador" or, worse, "European
Iraq"
Notable quotes:
"... After an opening chapter that makes the case for Latin America's role in the formation of the U.S. empire, the rest of this hook explores the importance of the region to the consolidation of what could be called a new, revolutionary imperialism. ..."
After an opening chapter that makes the case for Latin America's role in the formation
of the U.S. empire, the rest of this hook explores the importance of the region to the
consolidation of what could be called a new, revolutionary imperialism.
Taken each on their own, the ideas, tactics, politics, and economics that have driven Bush's
global policy are not original. An interventionist military posture, belief that America has a
special role to play in world history, cynical realpolitik, vengeful nationalism, and
free-market capitalism have all driven U.S.
diplomacy in one form or another for nearly two centuries. But whatis new is how potent these
elements have become and how tightly they are bound to the ambitions of America's domestic
ruling conservative coalition -- a coalition that despite its power and influence paints itself
as persecuted, at odds not just with much of the world but with modern life itself.
6
The book goes on to explore the intellectual re-orientation or American diplomacy in the
wake if Vietnam and the increasing willingness of militarists to champion human rights, nation
building, and democratic reform. The third chapter considers how the rehabilitation of
unconventional warfare doctrine in LI Salvador and Nicaragua by militarists in and around the
Reagan White House laid the groundwork for today's offensive military posture. Here, the human
costs of this resurgence of militarism will be addressed. In the many tributes that followed
Reagan's death, pundits enjoyed repeating Margaret Thatcher's comment that Reagan won the Cold
War "without firing a shot." The crescendo of carnage that overw helmed Central America in the
1980s not only gives the lie to such a legacy but highlights the inescapable violence of
empire. The fourth chapter turns to the imperial home front, examining how r the
Reagan administration first confronted and then began to solve the domestic crisis of authority
generated by Vietnam and Watergate. It also argues that Reagan's Central American policy served
as a crucible that forged the coalition that today stands behind George W. Bush. Chanter 5 is
con cerned with the economics of empire, how the financial contraction of the 1970s provided an
opportunity for the avatars of free-market orthodoxy -- the true core of the Bush Doctrine --
to join with other constituencies of the ascendant New Right, inaugurating first in Chile and
then throughout Latin America a new, brutally competitive global economy.
The last chapter tallies the score of the new imperialism in Latin America. Celebrated by
Bill Clinton, and now Bush, as a model of what the United States hopes to accomplish in the
rest of the world, Latin America continues to be gripped by unrelenting poverty and periodic
political instability, as the promise of living under a benevolent American imperialism has
failed to materialize. As a result, new political movements and antagonists have emerged to
contest the terms of
United States-promoted corporate globalization, calling for increased regional integration to
offset the power of the United States and more social spending to alleviate Latin American
inequality. With little to offer the region in terms of development except the increasingly
hollow promises of free trade, Washington is responding to these and similar challenges by once
again militarizing hemispheric relations, with all dissent now set in the crosshairs of the
"global war on terror."
... ... ...
Over the last year, Washington has had some success in preventing leftists and nationalists
from coming to power, in Peru, for instance, and in Mexico. But notwithstanding the outcome of
specific votes, and despite the very real conflicts of interest among Latin American nations,
the centrifugal forces pushing the region out of the U.S.'s orbit will continue.
What, then, will be Washington's long-term response to this independence movement? One could
hope that the Democrats would seize the moment to assert their commitment to nonintervention
and to work with economic nationalists to promote a fair and sustainable economic policy.
Depending on the country, such a policy would include land reform, government regulation of
foreign investment and currency speculation, more equitable contracts with multinationals, debt
relief, increased spending on welfare, education, health care, and public works, and, in the
U.S., a just immigration policy.
Don't count on it. Unlike after WWII, when a confident corporate class threw its backing
behind New Deal political liberalism at home and at least some reform capitalism abroad, the
financiers of today's Democratic Party are too deeply invested in war production and
speculative capital and too intensely committed to keeping the third world open. They will not
brook any sustained attempt to restructure the global economy in a more equitable direction. At
the same time, the party's leadership -- unlike Republicans who are organically linked to their
base -- is terrified of the antimilitarism of its rank-and-file. Thirty percent of the U.S.
population opposed the war in Iraq even when it looked like a cakewalk, even as Dick Cheney and
his cronies held a cocktail party to celebrate the PR-orchestrated toppling of Saddam's statue
in Baghdad -- a significant minority that is much larger than anything the Goldwater insurgency
and the Reagan Revolution started with.
But rather than building on this thirty percent, Democrats run away from it, with one after
the other tripping over themselves to prove they are better equipped to fight the "war on
terror'' than the Republicans. We may hope that the Democratic nominee in the 2008 election
will challenge the ideology and the interests that
have capitalized on the problem of terrorism to launch a war for civilization. It's more likely
we'll see him or her criticizing the way the "war" has been executed and demanding more of a
say in how it is waged.
If there is change in American diplomacy, it will come from the citizens who mobilized to
oppose the occupation of Iraq and who in 2006 gave back the Congress to the Democratic Party.
But to truly break up the New Right, and not just temporarily slow it down, the reactive
antimilitarism that so drives the neocons crazy will have to be converted into a
forward-looking agenda, as cohesive and coherent as the one that led to the catastrophic war in
Iraq. In this task, Latin America, long the workshop of U.S. elites, can provide a different
kind of instruction.
Across the continent, political movements have emerged from decades of unrelenting state
terror underwritten by imperial patronage to creatively and effectively oppose first
corporate-driven neoliberalism and then a renewed U.S. militarism. Through exemplary courage,
perseverance, and organizational skill, Latin American activists have provided a beacon of hope
on an otherwise bleak global landscape. They have multiple agendas and objectives, yet they
share a common set of values: human dignity, local autonomy, a vision of individual freedom
rooted in collective solidarity, and a notion of democracy defined not simply by proceduralism
or individual rights but by economic equity. It is they who are the world's true "democracy
promoters" and who are fighting the real war on terror, and offering lessons to us all.
New York
December 2006
PABG, Somewhere in the world, on August 1, 2011
Unbelievable book
Have you ever wonder why the rest of America despises or doesn't trust the USA? Yes I
wrote America so the people living in the USA will finally comprehend that America is a
continent not a country, people please check your map!!! Well let me tell you why, is because
the USA always interfere or sticks her big nose in the business of her American neighbors,
just to name a few examples/ Guatemala 1954 and Chile 1973, and also a big part of the real
problem is that the USA is not governed by the President, he or she is just a pawn or an
employee of the big corporations, and the person in the Oval Office will do anything in his
or her power to keep the big CEO's happy.
You want proof of this? Think about these recent events, 9\11, the wars on Iraq and
Afghanistan, the tax payer's money given to big corporations to cover the losses caused by
their satanic greed and Guantanamo. Also I'm tired of hearing that illegal immigration has
ruined the USA, let me tell you that if you keep your nose to your own business and leave the
rest of America alone, you won't have a big immigration problem and just to keep in mind that
the USA was built by immigrant hands. Please the USA has enough problems, public education,
public health, a failed economic system and social disintegration just to mention a few, for
the United States' Government to start thinking about building a global empire.
FYI I'm not a leftist or a USA hater, I like the USA and its people very much but I don't
have affection for the neoconservatives and the capitalist pigs that think in big profits
before their fellow human beings. Enough said, peace, live long and prosper. I'M PROUD OF
BEING A REAL AMERICAN!!!!!
"... There are dangers and threats in the world, but all of the threats from state actors are manageable and deterrable without spending more on the military, and these threats are much less severe than anything the U.S. faced between the 1940s and the end of the Cold War. The U.S. can and should get by safely with a much lower level of military spending, and our government should also adopt a strategy of restraint that keeps us out of unnecessary wars. ..."
"... The Iraq war is just the most obvious example of how the U.S. forcibly intervenes in other parts of the world over the objections of allies, in flagrant disregard for international law, and with no thought for the destabilizing effects that military action will have on the surrounding region. ..."
"... It would be much more accurate to say that the U.S. intervenes often in the affairs of weaker countries because it can, because our leaders leaders want to, and because there is usually no other power willing or able to stop it from happening. Exorbitant military spending far beyond what is needed to provide for our defense makes it possible to take military action on a regular basis, and the constant inflation of foreign threats makes a large part of the public believe that our government's frequent use of force overseas has something to do with self-defense. This frenetic meddling in the affairs of other nations hasn't made and won't make America any safer, it makes far more enemies than it eliminates, and it imposes significant fiscal and human costs on our country and the countries where our government interferes. ..."
"... At least Churchill had a focus. Neocons claim that any country that doesn't yield to our every desire is an existential threat. One article says, 'Iran', another 'China', yet another 'Russia' or 'N. Korea'. ..."
Dakota Wood
makes the usual alarmist case for throwing more money at the military. This passage stood out
for how wrong it is:
Churchill repeatedly warned his countrymen of the dangers of complacency, misguided priorities,
and weakness of will, of the foolishness to see the world and major competitors as being anything
other than what they truly are. While praising the virtues and spirit of moderation that defined
the English-speaking peoples of his day, he also urged them to recognize the necessity of having
the courage to take timely action when dangers threatened and clearly visible trends in an eroding
ability to provide for their common defense were leading toward disaster.
A similar state of affairs afflicts the United States today. To the extent America intervenes
in the affairs of others, it is because the United States has been attacked first, an ally is
in dire need of assistance, or an enemy threatens broader regional stability [bold mine-DL].
Over ten years ago, Rick Santorum talked incessantly about "the gathering storm" in a very conscious
echo of Churchill, and subsequent events have proven his alarmism to have been just as unfounded
and ridiculous as it seemed to be at the time. Hawks are often eager to invoke the 1930s to try to
scare their audience into accepting more aggressive policies and more military spending than our
security actually requires. Some of this may come from believing their own propaganda about the threats
that they exaggerate, and some of it may just be a reflex, but as analysis of the contemporary scene
it is always wrong. There are dangers and threats in the world, but all of the threats from state
actors are manageable and deterrable without spending more on the military, and these threats are
much less severe than anything the U.S. faced between the 1940s and the end of the Cold War. The
U.S. can and should get by safely with a much lower level of military spending, and our government
should also adopt a strategy of restraint that keeps us out of unnecessary wars.
Churchill-quoting alarmists aren't just bad at assessing the scale and nature of foreign threats,
but they are usually also oblivious to the shoddy justifications for intervening and the damage that
our interventionist policies do. The section quoted above reflects an almost touchingly naive belief
that U.S. interventions are always justified and never cause more harm than they prevent. Very few
U.S. interventions over the last thirty years fit the description Wood gives. The only time that
the U.S. has intervened militarily abroad in response to an attack during this period was in Afghanistan
as part of the immediate response to the 9/11 attacks. Every other intervention has been a choice
to attack another country or to take sides in an ongoing conflict, and these interventions have usually
had nothing to do with coming to the defense of an ally or preventing regional instability. Our interference
in the affairs of others is often illegal under both domestic and/or international law (e.g., Kosovo,
Libya, Iraq), it is very rarely related to U.S. or allied security, and it tends to cause a great
deal of harm to the country and the surrounding region that are supposedly being "helped" by our
government's actions.
The Iraq war is just the most obvious example of how the U.S. forcibly intervenes in other parts
of the world over the objections of allies, in flagrant disregard for international law, and with
no thought for the destabilizing effects that military action will have on the surrounding region.
The U.S. didn't invade Panama in 1989 to help an ally or because we were attacked, but simply to
topple the government there. Intervention in Haiti in 1994 didn't come in response to an attack or
to assist an ally, but because Washington wanted to restore a deposed leader. Bombing Yugoslavia
in 1999 was an attack on a country that posed no threat to us or our allies. The Libyan war was a
war for regime change and a war of choice. A few allies did urge the U.S. to intervene in Libya,
but not because they were in "dire need of assistance." The only thing that Britain and France needed
in 2011 was the means to launch an attack on another country whose government posed no threat to
them. Meddling in Syria since at least 2012 had nothing to do with defending the U.S. and our allies.
Wood's description certainly doesn't apply to our support for the shameful Saudi-led war on Yemen,
as the U.S. chose to take part in an attack on another country so that our despotic clients could
be "reassured."
It would be much more accurate to say that the U.S. intervenes often in the affairs of weaker
countries because it can, because our leaders leaders want to, and because there is usually no other
power willing or able to stop it from happening. Exorbitant military spending far beyond what is
needed to provide for our defense makes it possible to take military action on a regular basis, and
the constant inflation of foreign threats makes a large part of the public believe that our government's
frequent use of force overseas has something to do with self-defense. This frenetic meddling in the
affairs of other nations hasn't made and won't make America any safer, it makes far more enemies
than it eliminates, and it imposes significant fiscal and human costs on our country and the countries
where our government interferes.
'The gathering storm' I read that and I was dying to know which storm he was referring too.
At least Churchill had a focus. Neocons claim that any country that doesn't yield to our every
desire is an existential threat. One article says, 'Iran', another 'China', yet another 'Russia'
or 'N. Korea'.
It's surprising how low on the list N. Korea typically ranks as the hawks try to turn attention
quickly back to Iran. 'Iran is funding and developing their nuclear program, Iran is going to
buy their nuclear weapons'. At least in the case of N. Korea we do have a country that obviously
does possess WMD and is developing ICBM's and is likely to sell them in the future (even to our
best friends the Saudis).
The proposition that Putin won't be provoked by a U.S. decision to send lethal arms to
Ukraine amounts to a hunch. It's not supported by evidence, and Putin's past behavior
contradicts it. This is not a minor point: if he does ramp up the war and the Ukrainian army
is forced into retreat, the United States will face three bad choices.
First, Washington could pour even more arms into Ukraine in hopes of concentrating Putin's
mind; but he can easily provide additional firepower to the Donbas insurgents. Second, it
could deepen its military involvement by sending American military advisers, or even troops,
to the frontline to bolster the Ukrainian army; but then Russia could call America's bluff.
Third, the United States could decide not to respond to Russia's escalation given the
geographical disadvantage and the limited strategic interests at stake. That would amount to
backing down, abandoning Ukraine, and shredding the oft-repeated argument that American and
European security hinges on the outcome of the Donbas war.
As hawks often do, advocates of arming Ukraine minimize the potential risks of their
proposal while exaggerating the benefits that it will produce. On the one hand, they insist
that they are "merely" calling for the U.S. to help Ukraine defend itself (they are actually
calling for enabling Ukraine's government to go on the offensive), but at the same time they
believe that in doing so they will "raise the costs" for Russia to such an extent that it will
significantly alter Russian behavior in and towards Ukraine. If the policy is as likely to
change Moscow's behavior as they say, it can't be as low-risk as they claim, but if it doesn't
pose a serious risk it is probably going to have no positive effects at all. In the worst case,
arming Ukraine sets them up for a disastrous defeat that the U.S. will have helped to
enable.
The other flaw in the pro-arming case is that advocates of sending weapons to the Ukrainian
government simply dismiss the negative consequences that are very likely to follow. They assume
that the Russian government has a low tolerance for casualties, but they conveniently forget
that it was Russian casualties in Tskhinvali that served as part of the rallying cry for the
invasion of Georgia in the August 2008 war. The same people that called for pulling Ukraine out
of Moscow's orbit in 2014 didn't anticipate the Russian response to Yanukovych's overthrow, but
they still think that Moscow will be more inclined to back down now when faced with new
provocations. Western hawkish analysts and pundits have consistently underestimated how far
Moscow will go in this conflict, so why should their assurances be trusted now? We should have
learned over the last decade that Moscow is much more likely to respond forcefully to
provocative Western actions than most of us have assumed, and that means that the U.S. should
approach this conflict with greater caution instead of increased recklessness.
Menon and Ruger make another important point that tends to get lost in the debate on this
question:
The case for arming Ukraine also tends to be made in a vacuum, never mind that what the
United States does in Ukraine could determine what Russia does elsewhere. Moscow could
respond by putting more pressure on the Baltics, acting as a spoiler in North Korea or Iran,
or even arming the Taliban (that would be an ironic turn: in the 1980s, the United States
bled the Soviets by arming the Afghan mujahideen). If these outcomes seem impossible,
consider the United States' awful record in foreseeing the effects of its military moves
[bold mine-DL].
The explicit purpose of sending arms to Ukraine is to give their government the means to
kill more Russians and Russian proxies. This may be dressed up in euphemisms by advocates
(e.g., "raising costs," "making them pay a price"), but that is what they expressly hope to
achieve with this policy. If our positions were reversed, our government would not respond to
the deaths of our soldiers and proxies by yielding to the preferences of the government that
provided the weapons that killed them. On the contrary, our government would intensify its
support for whatever policy that government was trying to thwart. It would be foolish to assume
that the Russian government would respond differently. We should assume that they would respond
both directly in Ukraine by increasing their support for separatists and indirectly by aiding
our enemies in other wars. This last part was the point that analyst Michael Kofman made in a
report from August:
Russia's response to scattering Javelins among Ukrainian ground forces should factor into
the decision, Kofman said.
"The Russians have a very clear policy of reciprocity, as we saw in the recent diplomatic
purge. They see this as a premise of the U.S. wanting to kill Russians," Kofman said.
"... The US on the other hand is very keen on keeping control over its newest vassal, since, to quote Brzezinski's grand chess board, "without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be an empire, but with Ukraine suborned and then subordinated, Russia automatically becomes an empire" . ..."
Pifer's narrative suggests that Putin's proposal concerning peace in Donbass is not serious
so long as it does not comply with the deployment scheme suggested by the West. This statement
is also quite erroneous. Putin's proposal is serious. The president of Russia does want
peace . But his rules imply the conservation of non-bloc status of Ukraine.
Additionally, the rules mandate that Ukraine cease its attempts to discredit Russia-Europe
energy cooperation vis-à-vis Nord Stream II, bring the "Crimean question" to a close,
remove sanctions, and, presumably, pay special attention and respect to the rights of the
Russian-speaking community in Ukraine.
No offense is intended to the authors of this article, but it wasn't hard to tell they
were Russian even just judging on the contents of the proposal. The entire point of any sort
of DMZ in Ukraine is to make static potentially temporary Russian gains in a fluid
battleground. This hypothetical DMZ would essentially be a third-party Maginot Line for
Russia. Russia has stolen a comfy little buffer zone and would like to see that maintained.
That's why the US would undoubtedly veto this.
Alternatively, the US could call Putin's bluff and use armored units and heavy bombers to
retake Donbas for the Ukrainians, but pointedly stop short of Crimea. Russia maintains
un-plausible deniability in the Donbas, so Putin would be able to save a least a little face.
Crimea is claimed as full Russian territory, Putin would be politically unable to stop war
from occurring if it was retaken by Ukrainian forces. After this a full withdrawal of US
forces would be advisable so as not to trigger Russian fears of encirclement. Ukraine could
be a neutral- but sovereign- nation. It could do more as a positive example to potential
Russian dissidents than it ever could as a NATO member. A full-blown conflict with NATO would
mean Putin's fall from power, and so it is very much in his interests to avoid it. We are
operating from a position of strength, let's take advantage of it.
Ukraine and the West have no interest in ending the war.
This is why Minsk 2 failed, this is why the peace keeper proposal is bound to fail.
Putins proposal is the separation of the opposing forces.
Again: Ukraine has no interest in it. It didn't adhere to it after Minsk, instead using it to
occupy territory vacated by Donbass militias adhering to the peace agreement.
The Western proposal is a complete occupation of the Donbass.
The peace troops would not be impartial, instead they want them to be posed by the West. It
basically is the demand to hand everything over.
A demand with no correlation to the political or military situation on the ground.
And handing over the control of the borders would not merely stop the weapons flow into
Ukraine (something the Donbass never depended on, since some of the worlds largest weapons
storages in the world were located right there and they've got them in abundance), but would
surely be abused to stop any crossings and any trade across this border whatsoever.
Ukraine is blocking almost all trade between the Donbass and the rest of the country.
They don't want them to trade with anyone else. They simply want to starve them out.
And finally: The worst thing that could happen to the regime in Kiev and its Western
backers would be peace. Peace would force them to give up on blaming every fault on everyone
else. Peace would make the Ukrainians wonder what has happened to their country since their
coup. Peace would make them wonder what has happened to their economy since. Peace would make
them wonder what had happened to the tens of thousands of Ukrainian soldiers who simply
"disappeared" since the government tried to keep the already colossal losses down and the
cost of paying annuities to their relatives.
Russia has no interest in this war. It knows that the economic future of Ukraine depends
on Russia, and therefore has ample means to influence its neighbour.
The US on the other hand is very keen on keeping control over its newest vassal, since, to
quote Brzezinski's grand chess board, "without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be an empire,
but with Ukraine suborned and then subordinated, Russia automatically becomes an empire"
.
"To vanquish strategically, one often needs to take a tactical step back. "
in this phrase the authors are coming clear with regards to their goal
of genociding russian speaking population of the eastern Ukraine
and sucking "the Ukraine" into NATO...
Obama did spied on his political opponents... He really was a well connected to intelligence
agencies wolf in sheep's clothing.
Notable quotes:
"... For some of President Trump's staunchest allies, reports that former campaign chairman Paul Manafort was under U.S. surveillance are nothing short of vindication of the president's widely-dismissed claims that former President Obama wiretapped Trump Tower. ..."
"... Surveillance experts are skeptical of that suggestion. For one thing, it is illegal for investigators to "reverse target" a U.S. person by spying on a person with whom they know their true target to be in communication. ..."
For some of President Trump's staunchest allies, reports that former campaign chairman Paul
Manafort was under U.S. surveillance are nothing short of vindication of the president's
widely-dismissed claims that former President Obama wiretapped Trump Tower.
... ... ...
Longtime advisor Roger Stone has gleefully circulated a segment from Tucker Carlson's show
on Fox News in which the host says "all those patronizing assurances that nobody is spying on
political campaigns were false" and "it looks like Trump's tweet may have been right."
... ... ...
A spokesperson for Manafort, Jason Maloni, has characterized the court orders as an abuse of
power by the Obama administration, which he says wanted to spy on a political
opponent.
"It's unclear if Paul Manafort was the objective," Maloni told The Journal.
"Perhaps the real objective was Donald Trump."
Surveillance experts are skeptical of that suggestion. For one thing, it is illegal for
investigators to "reverse target" a U.S. person by spying on a person with whom they know their
true target to be in communication.
If the president were in fact the oblique target of government surveillance - either as a
candidate or as the president-elect - both Eddington and Shedd say, it would have been so
explosive that it would have almost certainly been leaked to the press.
... ... ...
The disclosure of the warrants targeting Manafort have drawn legitimate
scrutiny as a violation of Manafort's civil liberties and a possible criminal leak - the mere
existence of a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, warrant is classified.
House Intelligence Committee chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), who first raised alarm about
the practice of "unmasking" the names of Americans caught up in government surveillance, is
currently under investigation by the House Ethics Committee for allegedly exposing classified
information when he disclosed his findings to reporters.
"... One possible explanation would simply be that they have all gone nuts. But since this cannot possibly be the case, this leaves just one other explanation: Russiagate itself is a clever but sinister hoax intended to make it look like our political and media class have lost their marbles, therefore undermining our democracy, our values and our way of life ..."
The Russians may have developed the capability to create elaborate hoaxes that turn the US
into a laughing stock in the eyes of outsiders Russell O'Phobe
90
For almost a year, Russia's meddling in last year's election, along with collusion with the
Trump campaign, have dominated the political and media landscape. But an explosive new
classified report produced by US intelligence may be about to blow apart the narrative, and
reveal an even bigger story that has been missed in all the commentary so far.
The report was set up to try to answer two questions: firstly, why is it that after nearly a
year, there still hasn't been a single piece of hard evidence to prove either the hacking or
the collusion? And secondly, given this lack of credible evidence, how is it that the US media
and political classes have been talking about nothing else for months and months without any
sign of letting it go, to the point of giving the impression of being obsessed with the
issue?
The report, which was signed off by all 17 agencies ! that's the DIA, CIA, FBI and NSA !
reaches a conclusion which is nothing short of sensational:
"If there hasn't actually been any hard evidence presented of meddling or collusion, we
must ask the question of how and why the entire political and media class have been talking
about nothing else for months.
One possible explanation would simply be that they have all gone nuts. But since this
cannot possibly be the case, this leaves just one other explanation: Russiagate itself is a
clever but sinister hoax intended to make it look like our political and media class have
lost their marbles, therefore undermining our democracy, our values and our way of life."
harmful and
dangerous things in this
U.N. speech today, but it is also worth noting the things that he chose to leave out. Many observers
have already pointed out how the worsening crisis in Myanmar and the military's large-scale
ethnic cleansing campaign against the Rohingya didn't rate a mention in the speech, but then
I suppose Trump wouldn't have anything constructive to say about the violent mass expulsion of a
Muslim population in any case. The most obvious omission in the speech was also the most predictable:
Trump said nothing about the Saudi-led war on Yemen or its role in causing the world's worst humanitarian
crisis, and when he did mention Yemen at one point it was perversely to claim credit for providing
humanitarian aid for the catastrophe that our government has helped create.
There was no attempt to justify ongoing U.S. support for the war, and there wasn't even any acknowledgment
that the Saudi-led war effort was happening. Trump's enthusiasm for the Saudi relationship means
that he isn't going to call attention to the disaster the Saudis and their allies have created with
our help, and the only other time he referred to Yemen was to use it to criticize Iran. Iran is faulted
for supposedly fueling "Yemen's civil war," which exaggerates their involvement, but there is no
mention of the Saudi-led coalition's role in escalating the conflict and wrecking the country for
over two years. It is a given that the Saudis and Iranians are judged by two very different standards
by this administration, but emphasizing the minimal Iranian role in Yemen while completely ignoring
the massive, devastating role that the Saudis and their allies (and the U.S.) have had is as bad
as it gets. As usual, those most responsible for the suffering of the people of Yemen weren't held
responsible, the war on Yemen was ignored, and Trump's Iran obsession won out.
Nikki Haley Meltdown: Assad Must Go and War With North Korea!
by Daniel
McAdams Posted on
September 18, 2017 September 16, 2017 There must be something about being named US
Ambassador to the UN that brings out the inner mass murderer in people. Madeline Albright
famously admitted that she thought 500,000 dead Iraqi children due to US sanctions was "worth
it." John Bolton never met a disagreement he didn't want to turn into a war. Samantha Power
barked about human rights while her Administration's drones snuffed out human life in
unprecedented numbers. The real "butcher of the Balkans" Richard Holbrooke sold the
Yugoslavia war on lies . John
"Death Squad" Negroponte sold the lie that Saddam Hussein needed to be killed and his country
destroyed for democracy to flourish, and so on.
Considering how many millions of civilians have been killed on the war propaganda of US
ambassadors to the UN, perhaps the equivalent of another Holocaust could have been avoided if
Ron Paul's HR 1146 has passed
30 years ago.
But nothing could have prepared us for Nikki "Holocaust" Haley, who has thundered into the
Trump Administration as US Ambassador to the UN despite hating Trump and Trump hating
her . Why would President Trump pick someone for such an influential position despite her
being vocally and publicly opposed to the foreign policy that provided the margin of victory
for him? We can only guess. Was Trump lying on the campaign trail? Possibly. Does he not
bother to notice that he has surrounded himself with people who are deeply opposed, at the
DNA level, to the policies he ran and won on? Seems more likely. As Johnny Rotten famously ended the Sex Pistols run, "ever
get the feeling you've been cheated?"
In fact yes. One-time top Trump supporter Ann Coulter today Tweeted the question "is there
anyone out there left who doesn't want Trump impeached?"
Coulter meant the wall or something else, but she could just as well have been complaining
about the foreign policy about-face. Trump ran as a Ron Paul Republican, he governs as a
George W. Bush Republican. Cheated? Yes, once again.
Which brings us back to the odious Nikki Haley. Today she no doubt thought she was being
clever Tweeting in response to the
predictable fact that yet another round of sanctions against North Korea did not result in
Kim Jong-Un doing a Gaddafi suicide knife dance, that since the sanctions destroying the
North Korean economy – such as it is – have not resulted in Kim's surrender it
was time to hand the matter over to Defense Secretary James Mattis.
Said US top UN diplomat Nikki: "We cut 90% of trade & 30% of oil. I have no problem
kicking it to Gen. Mattis because I think he has plenty of options."
We killed their trade, we destroyed their oil imports and still they have the nerve to
defy us and not surrender so time for World War Three! That's Nikki. No foreign policy
experience beyond the fetid breath of the neocon "experts" whispering in her all-too-willing
ear.
But Nikki was not done today. After threatening a war on North Korea that would likely
leave ten or more thousand US troops dead, hundreds of thousands of South Korean civilians
dead, and maybe another million North Koreans dead, she decided to opine on the utterly
failed six year US regime change operation in Syria. Today, as Deir Ezzor has finally been
liberated by the Syrian government from the scourge of ISIS, Nikki Haley chose to go on
record defending ISIS and al-Qaeda by repeating Obama's line
that Assad must go.
Ponder this for a minute: Assad has just defeated ISIS in Deir Ezzor. ISIS is the reason
the US has invaded Syrian sovereignty and initiated military action. Yet according to Nikki
Haley Assad's reward for wiping out ISIS is that he must be deposed – presumably in
favor of US-backed rebels who have been in bed with ISIS for six years!
Is Nikki Haley pro-ISIS? Is she pro-al-Qaeda? Is she evil or just stupid?
You decide.
But if she is not removed from office soon, she will be leading perhaps a million people
to their graves.
All signs of sophisticated false flag operation, which probably involved putting malware into DNC servers and then
detecting and analyzing them
Notable quotes:
"... 6 May 2016 when CrowdStrike first detected what it assessed to be a Russian presence inside the DNC server. Follow me here. One week after realizing there had been a penetration, the DNC learns, courtesy of the computer security firm it hired, that the Russians are doing it. Okay. Does CrowdStrike shut down the penetration. Nope. The hacking apparently continues unabated. ..."
"... The Smoking Gun ..."
"... I introduce Seth Rich at this point because he represents an alternative hypothesis. Rich, who reportedly was a Bernie Sanders supporter, was in a position at the DNC that gave him access to the emails in question and the opportunity to download the emails and take them from the DNC headquarters. Worth noting that Julian Assange offered $20,000 for information leading to the arrest of Rich's killer or killers. 8. 22 July 2016. Wikileaks published the DNC emails starting on 22 July 2016. Bill Binney, a former senior official at NSA, insists that if such a hack and electronic transfer over the internet had occurred then the NSA has in it possession the intelligence data to prove that such activity had occurred. ..."
"... Notwithstanding the claim by CrowdStrike not a single piece of evidence has been provided to the public to support the conclusion that the emails were hacked and physically transferred to a server under the control of a Russian intelligence operative. ..."
"... Please do not try to post a comment stating that the "Intelligence Community" concluded as well that Russia was responsible. That claim is totally without one shred of actual forensic evidence. Also, Julian Assange insists that the emails did not come from a Russian source. ..."
"... Wikileaks, the protector of the accountability of the top, has announced a reward for finding the murderers of Seth Rich. In comparison, the DNC has not offered any reward to help the investigation of the murder of the DNC staffer, but the DNC found a well-connected lawyer to protect Imran Awan who is guilty (along with Debbie Wasserman-Schultz) in the greatest breach of national cybersecurity: http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/29/wasserman-schultz-seemingly-planned-to-pay-suspect-even-while-he-lived-in-pakistan/ ..."
"... I'm afraid you're behind the times. Wheeler is no longer relevant now that Sy Hersh has revealed an FBI report that explicitly says Rich was in contact with Wikileaks offering to sell them DNC documents. ..."
"... It's unfortunate for the Rich family, but now that the connection is pretty much confirmed, they're going to have to allow the truth to come out ..."
"... Mr. Dmitri Alperovitch, of Jewish descent (and an emigre from Russia), has been an "expert" at the Atlantic Council, the same organization that cherishes and provides for Mr. Eliot Higgins. These two gentlemen - and the directorate of Atlantic Council - are exhibit one of opportunism and intellectual dishonesty (though it is hard to think about Mr. Higgins in terms of "intellect"). ..."
"... Alperovitch is not just an incompetent "expert" in cybersecurity - he is a willing liar and war-mongering, for money. ..."
"... One could of course start earlier. What is the exact timeline of the larger cyberwar post 9/11, or at least the bits and pieces that surfaced for the nitwits among us, like: Stuxnet? ..."
"... Scott Ritter's article referenced in PT's post is terrific, covering a ton of issues related to CrowdStrike and the DNC hack. You need to read it, not just PT's timeline. In case you missed the link in PT's post: ..."
"... His article echoes and reinforces what Carr and others have said about the difficulty of attribution of infosec breaches. Namely that the basic problem of both intelligence and infosec operations is that there is too much obfuscation, manipulation, and misdirection involved to be sure of who or what is going on. ..."
"... The Seth Rich connection is pretty much a done deal, now that Sy Hersh has been caught on tape stating that he knows of an FBI report based on a forensic analysis of Rich's laptop that shows Rich was in direct contact with Wikileaks with an attempt to sell them DNC documents and that Wikileaks had access to Rich's DropBox account. Despite Hersh's subsequent denials - which everyone knows are his usual impatient deflections prior to putting out a sourced and organized article - it's pretty clear that Rich was at least one of the sources of the Wikileaks email dump and that there is zero connection to Russia. ..."
"... None of this proves that Russian intelligence - or Russians of some stripe - or for that matter hackers from literally anywhere - couldn't or didn't ALSO do a hack of the DNC. But it does prove that the iron-clad attribution of the source of Wikileaks email release to Russia is at best flawed, and at worst a deliberate cover up of a leak. ..."
Notwithstanding the conventional wisdom that Russia hacked into the DNC computers, downloaded emails and a passed the stolen missives
to Julian Assange's crew at Wikileaks, a careful examination of the timeline of events from 2016 shows that this story is simply
not plausible.
Let me take you through the known facts:
1. 29 April 2016 , when the DNC became aware its servers had been penetrated (https://medium.com/homefront-rising/dumbstruck-how-crowdstrike-conned-america-on-the-hack-of-the-dnc-ecfa522ff44f).
Note. They apparently did not know who was doing it. 2, 6 May 2016 when CrowdStrike first detected what it assessed to be a Russian
presence inside the DNC server. Follow me here. One week after realizing there had been a penetration, the DNC learns, courtesy of
the computer security firm it hired, that the Russians are doing it. Okay. Does CrowdStrike shut down the penetration. Nope. The
hacking apparently continues unabated. 3. 25 May 2016. The messages published on Wikileaks from the DNC show that 26 May 2016
was the last date that emails were sent and received at the DNC. There are no emails in the public domain after that date. In other
words, if the DNC emails were taken via a hacking operation, we can conclude from the fact that the last messages posted to Wikileaks
show a date time group of 25 May 2016. Wikileaks has not reported nor posted any emails from the DNC after the 25th of May. I think
it is reasonable to assume that was the day the dirty deed was done. 4. 12 June 2016, CrowdStrike purged the DNC server of all malware.
Are you kidding me? 45 days after the DNC discovers that its serve has been penetrated the decision to purge the DNC server is finally
made. What in the hell were they waiting for? But this also tells us that 18 days after the last email "taken" from the DNC, no additional
emails were taken by this nasty malware. Here is what does not make sense to me. If the DNC emails were truly hacked and the malware
was still in place on 11 June 2016 (it was not purged until the 12th) then why are there no emails from the DNC after 26 May 2016?
an excellent analysis of Guccifer's role : Almost immediately after the one-two punch of the Washington Post article/CrowdStrike
technical report went public, however, something totally unexpected happened -- someone came forward and took full responsibility
for the DNC cyber attack. Moreover, this entity -- operating under the persona Guccifer 2.0 (ostensibly named after the original
Guccifer , a Romanian hacker who stole the emails of a number of high-profile celebrities and who was arrested in 2014 and sentenced
to 4 ½ years of prison in May 2016) -- did something no state actor has ever done before, publishing documents stolen from the DNC
server as proof of his claims.
Hi. This is Guccifer 2.0 and this is me who hacked Democratic National Committee.
With that simple email, sent to the on-line news magazine,
The Smoking
Gun , Guccifer 2.0 stole the limelight away from Alperovitch. Over the course of the next few days, through a series of
emails, online posts and
interviews
, Guccifer 2.0 openly mocked CrowdStrike and its Russian attribution. Guccifer 2.0 released a number of documents, including a massive
200-plus-missive containing opposition research on Donald Trump.
Guccifer 2.0 also directly contradicted the efforts on the part of the DNC to minimize the extent of the hacking,
releasing the very donor lists
the DNC specifically stated had not been stolen. More chilling, Guccifer 2.0 claimed to be in possession of "about 100 Gb of data"
which had been passed on to the online publisher, Wikileaks, who "will publish them soon." 7. Seth Rich died on 10 July 2016.
I introduce Seth Rich at this point because he represents an alternative hypothesis. Rich, who reportedly was a Bernie Sanders supporter,
was in a position at the DNC that gave him access to the emails in question and the opportunity to download the emails and take them
from the DNC headquarters. Worth noting that Julian Assange offered
$20,000 for information leading to the arrest of Rich's killer or killers. 8. 22 July 2016. Wikileaks published the DNC emails
starting on 22 July 2016. Bill Binney, a former senior official at NSA, insists that if such a hack and electronic transfer over
the internet had occurred then the NSA has in it possession the intelligence data to prove that such activity had occurred.Notwithstanding the claim by CrowdStrike not a single piece of evidence has been provided to the public to support the conclusion
that the emails were hacked and physically transferred to a server under the control of a Russian intelligence operative.Please do not try to post a comment stating that the "Intelligence Community" concluded as well that Russia was responsible.
That claim is totally without one shred of actual forensic evidence. Also, Julian Assange insists that the emails did not come from
a Russian source.
Wikileaks, the protector of the accountability of the top, has announced a reward for finding the murderers of Seth Rich.
In comparison, the DNC has not offered any reward to help the investigation of the murder of the DNC staffer, but the DNC found
a well-connected lawyer to protect Imran Awan who is guilty (along with Debbie Wasserman-Schultz) in the greatest breach of national
cybersecurity:
http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/29/wasserman-schultz-seemingly-planned-to-pay-suspect-even-while-he-lived-in-pakistan/
Seth Rich's family have pleaded, and continue to plead, that the conspiracy theorists leave the death of their son alone and have
said that those who continue to flog this nonsense around the internet are only serving to increase their pain. I suggest respectfully
that some here may wish to consider their feelings. (Also, this stuff is nuts, you know.)
"We also know that many people are angry at our government and want to see justice done in some way, somehow. We are asking
you to please consider our feelings and words. There are people who are using our beloved Seth's memory and legacy for their own
political goals, and they are using your outrage to perpetuate our nightmare."
"Wheeler, a former Metropolitan Police Department officer, was a key figure in a series of debunked stories claiming that Rich
had been in contact with Wikileaks before his death. Fox News, which reported the story online and on television, retracted it
in June."
I'm afraid you're behind the times. Wheeler is no longer relevant now that Sy Hersh has revealed an FBI report that explicitly
says Rich was in contact with Wikileaks offering to sell them DNC documents.
It's unfortunate for the Rich family, but now that the connection is pretty much confirmed, they're going to have to allow
the truth to come out.
Mr. Dmitri Alperovitch, of Jewish descent (and an emigre from Russia), has been an "expert" at the Atlantic Council, the same
organization that cherishes and provides for Mr. Eliot Higgins. These two gentlemen - and the directorate of Atlantic Council
- are exhibit one of opportunism and intellectual dishonesty (though it is hard to think about Mr. Higgins in terms of "intellect").
Take note how Alperovitch coded the names of the supposed hackers: "Russian intelligence services hacked the Democratic National
Committee's computer network and accessed opposition research on Donald Trump, according to the Atlantic Council's Dmitri Alperovitch.
Two Russian groups ! codenamed FancyBear and CozyBear ! have been identified as spearheading the DNC breach." Alperovitch
is not just an incompetent "expert" in cybersecurity - he is a willing liar and war-mongering, for money.
The DNC hacking story has never been about national security; Alperovitch (and his handlers) have no loyalty to the US.
PT, I make a short exception. Actually decided to stop babbling for a while. But: Just finished something successfully.
And since I usually need distraction by something far more interesting then matters at hand. I was close to your line of thought
yesters.
But really: Shouldn't the timeline start in 2015, since that's supposedly the time someone got into the DNC's system?
One could of course start earlier. What is the exact timeline of the larger cyberwar post 9/11, or at least the bits and
pieces that surfaced for the nitwits among us, like: Stuxnet?
But nevermind. Don't forget developments and recent events around Eugene or Jewgeni Walentinowitsch Kasperski?
The Russia thing certainly seems to have gone quiet.
Bannon's chum says the issue with pursuing the Clinton email thing is that you would end up having to indict almost all of
the last administration, including Obama, unseemly certainly. Still there might be a fall guy, maybe Comey, and obviously it serves
Trump's purposes to keep this a live issue through the good work of Grassley and the occasional tweet.
Would be amusing if Trump pardoned Obama. Still think Brennan should pay a price though, can't really be allowed to get away
with it
Scott Ritter's article referenced in PT's post is terrific, covering a ton of issues related to CrowdStrike and the DNC hack.
You need to read it, not just PT's timeline. In case you missed the link in PT's post:
Also, the article Carr references is very important for understanding the limits of malware analysis and "attribution". Written
by Michael Tanji, whose credentials appear impressive: "spent nearly 20 years in the US intelligence community. Trained in both
SIGINT and HUMINT disciplines he has worked at the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, and the National
Reconnaissance Office. At various points in his career he served as an expert in information warfare, computer network operations,
computer forensics, and indications and warning. A veteran of the US Army, Michael has served in both strategic and tactical assignments
in the Pacific Theater, the Balkans, and the Middle East."
His article echoes and reinforces what Carr and others have said about the difficulty of attribution of infosec breaches.
Namely that the basic problem of both intelligence and infosec operations is that there is too much obfuscation, manipulation,
and misdirection involved to be sure of who or what is going on.
The Seth Rich connection is pretty much a done deal, now that Sy Hersh has been caught on tape stating that he knows of
an FBI report based on a forensic analysis of Rich's laptop that shows Rich was in direct contact with Wikileaks with an attempt
to sell them DNC documents and that Wikileaks had access to Rich's DropBox account. Despite Hersh's subsequent denials - which
everyone knows are his usual impatient deflections prior to putting out a sourced and organized article - it's pretty clear that
Rich was at least one of the sources of the Wikileaks email dump and that there is zero connection to Russia.
None of this proves that Russian intelligence - or Russians of some stripe - or for that matter hackers from literally
anywhere - couldn't or didn't ALSO do a hack of the DNC. But it does prove that the iron-clad attribution of the source of Wikileaks
email release to Russia is at best flawed, and at worst a deliberate cover up of a leak.
And Russiagate depends primarily on BOTH alleged "facts" being true: 1) that Russia hacked the DNC, and 2) that Russia was
the source of Wikileaks release. And if the latter is not true, then one has to question why Russia hacked the DNC in the first
place, other than for "normal" espionage operations. "Influencing the election" then becomes a far less plausible theory.
The general takeaway from an infosec point of view is that attribution by means of target identification, tools used, and "indicators
of compromise" is a fatally flawed means of identifying, and thus being able to counter, the adversaries encountered in today's
Internet world, as Tanji proves. Only HUMINT offers a way around this, just as it is really the only valid option in countering
terrorism.
If Critics such as neocon
Max Boot are calling for him to resign, I want him to stay.
The "wrecking of the State Department" that By
Daniel Larison is concerned, is necessary as it is too infested with neocons
leftover from Hillary days, including cadre of female warmongers.
Also color revolutions zeal needs to be tamed.
Taking into account that Trump effectivly changed sided starting from infamous
Tomahawk attack, the nes round of sanctions for Russia and sabersrattling with Iran
and North Korea, it is difficult to forsee how the Secratary of State can be effective
with such a boss. Being a bully in the schoolyard was the policy the the USA sucessfully
tried for all presidencies since Reagan, so in a sense Trump is proud hier f this
noble tradition.
Notable quotes:
"... Tillerson was a CEO of for the longest time head of the US largest corporation by market cap. His problem or problems no doubt reflect his tenure in the corporate world. A world where you have to get things done some work out some don't. ..."
"... Point is he is a non fit in the Swamp where dysfunction is implanted. Can readers recall how an experience career politician like John Boy ran all over the world and in the end was manipulated by the Russians to their advantage. Hillary logged millions of miles obviously to the benefit of the Clinton foundation. So until the prior ruling class gets back in office a new diplomat will have to wait. ..."
"... Even setting aside the critical matter of civilian control of the government and military in a democratic society, these days our military isn't exactly a by-word for competency, success, or even sound judgment. ..."
In less than seven months in the job, Tillerson has proven to be a feckless
manager of his organization and a poor handler of the president of the United
States. To be fair, even the savviest secretary of state would have his
or her hands full with a president like Trump. The sharp contrast between
Tillerson's fumblings and the more nimble footwork of Secretary of Defense
Jim Mattis shows that Tillerson is the opposite of a good secretary of state.
Most of Trump's private-sector cabinet officials have been dreadful, but
Tillerson is the worst of the lot.
Tillerson has been presiding over the wrecking of the State Department ever
since he was confirmed, and he has very little else to show for his tenure.
It's safe to say that the demoralization and hollowing out of the department
will just keep getting worse the longer he is in charge. The trouble is that
replacing Tillerson probably won't change any of that, because the gutting of
the State Department has been and continues to be an administration priority.
The person Trump chooses to replace Tillerson is likely to have the same disdain
for diplomacy and diplomats that he has.
So while I am inclined to agree with the call for Tillerson's resignation,
I can't agree with Drezner when he says "I am no longer worried about who Trump
would pick to replace him." This is exactly what we should be worrying about.
Tillerson got the job at State in part because all of the other people Trump
was considering were so fanatical, ethically compromised, or otherwise awful
that he seemed the best of a bad lot at the time. That may have been true, but
that process produced one of the least effective Secretaries of State in modern
times.
Now imagine Trump going through a similar process a second time. Is he likely
to choose someone more capable than Tillerson? Considering the state of Trump's
administration after just seven months, would anyone who fits that description
be willing to take the job? If there is someone willing, I am concerned Trump
would end up choosing another former general on account of his fascination with
military officers, and that would be at least one too many in this Cabinet.
Tillerson reportedly never wanted the job, so it shouldn't take much to persuade
him to leave. That said, the damage already done to the State Department isn't
going to be repaired anytime soon, and as long as Trump is president we should
assume it will continue regardless. I have been very critical of how Tillerson
has been running his department, but as one his critics I think we should acknowledge
that his successor could still be even worse.
Tillerson was a CEO of for the longest time head of the US largest corporation
by market cap. His problem or problems no doubt reflect his tenure in the
corporate world. A world where you have to get things done some work out
some don't.
Point is he is a non fit in the Swamp where dysfunction is implanted.
Can readers recall how an experience career politician like John Boy ran
all over the world and in the end was manipulated by the Russians to their
advantage. Hillary logged millions of miles obviously to the benefit of
the Clinton foundation. So until the prior ruling class gets back in office
a new diplomat will have to wait.
"I am concerned Trump would end up choosing another former general
on account of his fascination with military officers, and that would
be at least one too many in this Cabinet."
And you should be concerned. Even setting aside the critical matter
of civilian control of the government and military in a democratic society,
these days our military isn't exactly a by-word for competency, success,
or even sound judgment.
It has failed to win on multiple battlegrounds. Judging by the recent
Three Stooges performance of the Pacific Fleet, there are basic competency
issues at the highest levels of command. And now we learn that both Gens.
Mattis and McMaster strongly urged Trump to double down in Afghanistan,
one of the worst examples of judgment and decision-making in recent memory.
So far as I know, Tillerson had nothing to do with that idiocy, so I'd
leave him where he is and pray that Trump will eventually be disabused of
the instinct to defer to (or rather cringe before) his generals.
TBH, I can't figure out exactly why Tillerson has been so bad but I assume
his lack of experience of the State Department makes him a very poor choice
for President Trump. Judging by the Trump's administration G&G (General
& Goldman) cabinet is very experience expertise with Job-like patience is
needed to work with President Trump. Basically, it fits Drezner's toddler
comments that Mattis works well with Trump because Mattis knows a lot more
than the President and is willing to allow Trump to throw two hour tantrums
for his policy. It is to the point that we almost need Mattis to be Secretary
of State as at least we know that he can work with the President. (Dear
God is wrong to state that an ex-General be our chief Diplomat.)
However, one area where Tillerson does work well is he truly dislikes
taking media oxygen away from Trump so he may last awhile.
Why doesn't everyone resign and we'll make little "Billy" Kristol of the
Weekly Standard the official Emperor of United States? Tillerson is the
last voice of reason (and bulwark against the psychotic war mongering neocons)
lefy in Trump's Administration.
@collin: We've had at least two generals serve as Secretary of State before:
George Marshall and Colin Powell. And those are just two examples that I
can name off the top of my head. I would not be surprised to find out that
there have been other generals who served as our nation's Chief Diplomat.
Personally, I think Tillerson has been doing reasonably well at State. He
seems to be a very articulate, thoughtful person. Certainly I much prefer
Sec. Tillerson's ineffectiveness to Sec. Clinton's deadly effectiveness
in Libya.
As to the gutting of the State Department. Tillerson recently stated
that the hiring freeze was temporary and indeed announced a major hiring
initiative:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=s8LynW4TmTU
There's probably an easily identifiable formula out there for who Trump
might chose as a Tillerson replacement, based on who donated to his campaign,
who has more money than Trump himself, and/or who has suspicious ties to
Russian interests. Rohrabacher? Royce?
"... By Manuela Cadelli, President of the Magistrates' Union of Belgium ..."
"... Every totalitarianism starts as distortion of language, as in the novel by George Orwell. Neoliberalism has its Newspeak and strategies of communication that enable it to deform reality. In this spirit, every budgetary cut is represented as an instance of modernization of the sectors concerned. If some of the most deprived are no longer reimbursed for medical expenses and so stop visiting the dentist, this is modernization of social security in action! ..."
By Manuela Cadelli, President of the Magistrates' Union of Belgium
The time for rhetorical reservations is over. Things have to be called by their name to make it
possible for a co-ordinated democratic reaction to be initiated, above all in the public services.
Liberalism was a doctrine derived from the philosophy of Enlightenment, at once political and
economic, which aimed at imposing on the state the necessary distance for ensuring respect for liberties
and the coming of democratic emancipation. It was the motor for the arrival, and the continuing progress,
of Western democracies.
Neoliberalism is a form of economism in our day that strikes at every moment at every sector of
our community. It is a form of extremism.
Fascism may be defined as the subordination of every part of the State to a totalitarian and nihilistic
ideology.
I argue that neoliberalism is a species of fascism because the economy has brought under subjection
not only the government of democratic countries but also every aspect of our thought.
The state is now at the disposal of the economy and of finance, which treat it as a subordinate
and lord over it to an extent that puts the common good in jeopardy.
The austerity that is demanded by the financial milieu has become a supreme value, replacing politics.
Saving money precludes pursuing any other public objective. It is reaching the point where claims
are being made that the principle of budgetary orthodoxy should be included in state constitutions.
A mockery is being made of the notion of public service.
The nihilism that results from this makes possible the dismissal of universalism and the most
evident humanistic values: solidarity, fraternity, integration and respect for all and for differences.
There is no place any more even for classical economic theory: work was formerly an element in
demand, and to that extent there was respect for workers; international finance has made of it a
mere adjustment variable.
Every totalitarianism starts as distortion of language, as in the novel by George Orwell. Neoliberalism
has its Newspeak and strategies of communication that enable it to deform reality. In this spirit,
every budgetary cut is represented as an instance of modernization of the sectors concerned. If some
of the most deprived are no longer reimbursed for medical expenses and so stop visiting the dentist,
this is modernization of social security in action!
Abstraction predominates in public discussion so as to occlude the implications for human beings.
Thus, in relation to migrants, it is imperative that the need for hosting them does not lead to
public appeals that our finances could not accommodate. Is it In the same way that other individuals
qualify for assistance out of considerations of national solidarity?
The cult of evaluation
Social Darwinism predominates, assigning the most stringent performance requirements to everyone
and everything: to be weak is to fail. The foundations of our culture are overturned: every humanist
premise is disqualified or demonetized because neoliberalism has the monopoly of rationality and
realism. Margaret Thatcher said it in 1985: "There is no alternative." Everything else is utopianism,
unreason and regression. The virtue of debate and conflicting perspectives are discredited because
history is ruled by necessity.
This subculture harbours an existential threat of its own: shortcomings of performance condemn
one to disappearance while at the same time everyone is charged with inefficiency and obliged to
justify everything. Trust is broken. Evaluation reigns, and with it the bureaucracy which imposes
definition and research of a plethora of targets, and indicators with which one must comply. Creativity
and the critical spirit are stifled by management. And everyone is beating his breast about the wastage
and inertia of which he is guilty.
The neglect of justice
The neoliberal ideology generates a normativity that competes with the laws of parliament. The
democratic power of law is compromised. Given that they represent a concrete embodiment of liberty
and emancipation, and given the potential to prevent abuse that they impose, laws and procedures
have begun to look like obstacles.
The power of the judiciary, which has the ability to oppose the will of the ruling circles, must
also be checkmated. The Belgian judicial system is in any case underfunded. In 2015 it came last
in a European ranking that included all states located between the Atlantic and the Urals. In two
years the government has managed to take away the independence given to it under the Constitution
so that it can play the counterbalancing role citizens expect of it. The aim of this undertaking
is clearly that there should no longer be justice in Belgium.
A caste above the Many
But the dominant class doesn't prescribe for itself the same medicine it wants to see ordinary
citizens taking: well-ordered austerity begins with others. The economist Thomas Piketty has perfectly
described this in his study of inequality and capitalism in the twenty-first century (French edition,
Seuil, 2013).
In spite of the crisis of 2008 and the hand-wringing that followed, nothing was done to police
the financial community and submit them to the requirements of the common good. Who paid? Ordinary
people, you and me.
And while the Belgian State consented to 7 billion-euro ten-year tax breaks for multinationals,
ordinary litigants have seen surcharges imposed on access to justice (increased court fees, 21% taxation
on legal fees). From now on, to obtain redress the victims of injustice are going to have to be rich.
All this in a state where the number of public representatives breaks all international records.
In this particular area, no evaluation and no costs studies are reporting profit. One example: thirty
years after the introduction of the federal system, the provincial institutions survive. Nobody can
say what purpose they serve. Streamlining and the managerial ideology have conveniently stopped at
the gates of the political world.
Terrorism, this other nihilism that exposes our weakness in affirming our values, is likely to
aggravate the process by soon making it possible for all violations of our liberties, all violations
of our rights, to circumvent the powerless qualified judges, further reducing social protection for
the poor, who will be sacrificed to "the security ideal".
Salvation in commitment
These developments certainly threaten the foundations of our democracy, but do they condemn us
to discouragement and despair?
Certainly not. 500 years ago, at the height of the defeats that brought down most Italian states
with the imposition of foreign occupation for more than three centuries, Niccolo Machiavelli urged
virtuous men to defy fate and stand up against the adversity of the times, to prefer action and daring
to caution. The more tragic the situation, the more it necessitates action and the refusal to "give
up" (The Prince, Chapters XXV and XXVI).
This is a teaching that is clearly required today. The determination of citizens attached to the
radical of democratic values is an invaluable resource which has not yet revealed, at least in Belgium,
its driving potential and power to change what is presented as inevitable. Through social networking
and the power of the written word, everyone can now become involved, particularly when it comes to
public services, universities, the student world, the judiciary and the Bar, in bringing the common
good and social justice into the heart of public debate and the administration of the state and the
community.
Neoliberalism is a species of fascism. It must be fought and humanism fully restored.
One of the side-effects of these periodic moral panics that sweep through
American society --
Trayvon ,
Ferguson , Charlottesville -- is that they unmask people -- bring
out their inner nature.
Well, two weeks ago on the podcast
I said some kind words , or at least not un -kind words, about
TV talking head Charles Krauthammer. I said that while I'd written him off for
years as a, quote, "cucky neocon Israel-first GOP establishment front man,"
more recently I've been warming to him because of the mostly sensible things
he's said on Tucker Carlson's show.
Well, I'm biting my tongue. Last Tuesday on Fox News Krauthammer reverted
to cucky type, acting scandalized that Trump dared suggest there is anything
wrong with masked anarchists throwing rocks at citizens lawfully demonstrating.
Fortunately Laura Ingraham was there to counter him. I have,
as I have often noted , a very soft spot for Ms. Ingraham. Not to be shy
about it, I would walk over hot coals for her, leap the ice floes of a swollen
river for her, wrestle alligators for her.
So OK, I yield. I got Krauthammer right the first time: cucky neocon
shill.
"Shill"? A shill is a bogus competitor employed by a casino to promote
interest in the blackjack tables. Krauthammer isn't a shill.
He's had a certain political trajectory over the years: from mainline
Democrat to dissenting Democrat to mainline Republican (a trajectory traversed
over the period running from about 1979 to 1995). There is no indication
he's ever advocated anything but what he thinks or that he favors the party
he's not formally affiliated with; his antagonism to Trump is an indicator
of the crevasse which separates starboard opinion journalists from starboard
voters.
A real shill would be someone employed by the media to play a Republican.
The WaPoo hired David Weigel to do this, but the act wasn't credible after
his private correspondence was published in the Journ-O-List scandal.
Tyler Cowen, whose public writings suggest he's consumed with anxiety
about status considerations in faculty settings, might be seen as a manifestation
of libertarian pseudo-opposition on the George Mason payroll (since he never
critiques any progtrasn sacred cows). Bruce Bartlett, the Republican whose
signature is attacking other Republicans, might be considered a shill or
a poseur depending on who is paying his bills.
And, of course, 'neocon' is a nonsense term.
Krauthammer is a Canadian-reared scion of a very prosperous family. He's
lived pretty much all his life in New York, Montreal, Boston, and Washington.
His brother spent his adult life in Los Angeles. His son lives in the Bay
Area, his niece and her husband in Washington.
Between them, his parents lived in a half-dozen countries during the
course of their lives before landing in Quebec. He does not have any natural
affinity for the Trump constituency.
The best he can do is to attempt to appreciate it, and at that he is
very hit-and-miss.
@Corvinus
"The plantation owners had them and in spite of Northern propaganda, these people (slaves)
were usually treated very humanely."
Ripping them from their homeland, putting them on boats and dying by the dozens, being
sold on a stage and branded, and then being forced to work against their will...and you claim
they were treated "humanely" because Boss Hogg gave them enough food to eat, clothes on their
backs, and tin roof over their head.
"Moving our flags and our statues for spite only angers us and hastens our will to become
independent again. Keep it up and see."
Most normies (north and south, east and west) abhor the Confederacy. It represented
slavery and secession. The Confederacy sought to DESTROY our nation. The norms are about what
those monuments represent FROM THE PAST. They do not care that monuments serve as a
historical record, nor do they care about the history of such individuals the monuments pay
tribute to. Yes, Robert E. Lee opposed slavery. Yes, he had significant reservations about
personally abandoning the Union. But what matters most is that he supported the
Confederacy.
What about Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln? Should not their monuments be ripped down?
According to most normies, no. While these individuals supported slavery, their
accomplishments are generally viewed as BUILDING or PRESERVING our nation. That is the nuance
here. The Confederacy monuments and the Washington/Jefferson/Lincoln monuments are on a
separate moral plane as viewed by normies. In the end, the monuments are used as political
pawns by the right and the left, not as historical pieces. I say move the monuments to
private property. But in the meantime, anyone who rips them down now and in the future is
defacing public property and ought to be arrested. Yo, Corvie the normie,
What's your view -- you and your fellow normies -- on Sherman's Scorched earth march to the
sea?
Good idea to kill civilians and destroy property with reckless abandon because the only
thing that matters is WINNING!
Or is the notion of killing civilians -- women and children -- abhorrent to self-respecting
military men who view a war as something engaged in between martial forces who observe codes
of military honor?
Just War theory is a legacy from millennia a ago -- waaaay before you normies developed
your keen sense of moral clarity -- (don't you just love that term? moral clarity -- Israelis
love that term, moral clarity: IDF drops phosphorus on children in Gaza with
moral
clarity
. . .)
Just War Theory states that war, once engaged, must act to protect civilians to the
fullest extent possible, and should should meet force with
proportionate
force and not
more.
What's your view -- you and your fellow normies -- on Sherman's Scorched earth march to
the sea?
Good idea to kill civilians and destroy property with reckless abandon because the only
thing that matters is WINNING!
Or is the notion of killing civilians -- women and children -- abhorrent to self-respecting
military men who view a war as something engaged in between martial forces who observe codes
of military honor?
Just War theory is a legacy from millennia a ago -- waaaay before you normies developed
your keen sense of moral clarity -- (don't you just love that term? moral clarity -- Israelis
love that term, moral clarity: IDF drops phosphorus on children in Gaza with
moral
clarity
. . .)
Just War Theory states that war, once engaged, must act to protect civilians to the
fullest extent possible, and should should meet force with
proportionate
force and not
more.
Did Sherman abide by those age-old norms, normie? "What's your view -- you and your fellow
normies -- on Sherman's Scorched earth march to the sea?"
There are myths in Sherman's March that need to be explored.
We know that to the victors go the spoils. Winners write the history, and losers claim
that the history is other than accurate. Did Sherman commit war crimes? In my opinion, yes.
But in war, does winning ultimately matter? Yes. There is no "honor" in war itself, just
bloodshed by men who honorable in their willingness to die for their cause. There is no doubt
that if the tables were turned, and Lee was rampaging through Philadelphia and New York to
finally put an end to "northern aggression", southern apologists would say the exact
thing.
So, I take it that you oppose a similar Shermanesque policy if proposed by your allies or
those on the Alt Right, correct? Make it official.
Furthermore, you do realize that the slave owners themselves had committed crimes against
humanity, right? Are you ready to condemn them? Make it official.
"Or is the notion of killing civilians -- women and children -- abhorrent to self-respecting
military men who view a war as something engaged in between martial forces who observe codes
of military honor?"
Kurgen, a commenter at the Men Of The West blog, said, "Unfortunately, violence is
inevitable. In fact, from a practical and logical point of view, violence is required to
expel all the SJWs and their allies from polite civilization, and will further be required to
man the walls of the forts that hold the line against them, as well as to expel any
dissidents within them."
Do you share his sentiments? Would not those allies include women and children? I mean, if
the overall goal is for Western Civilization to emerge on top, would it not be in the best
interest to cull the herd? In this next "civil war", will YOU abide by those age-old
norms?
"Just War Theory states that war, once engaged, must act to protect civilians to the
fullest extent possible, and should should meet force with proportionate force and not
more."
Great theory, just impractical when one desires to obliterate your enemy. Besides, is it
not best to salt the earth to ensure that the offspring of your enemy will NOT "come
back"?
@Corvinus
"The plantation owners had them and in spite of Northern propaganda, these people (slaves)
were usually treated very humanely."
Ripping them from their homeland, putting them on boats and dying by the dozens, being
sold on a stage and branded, and then being forced to work against their will...and you claim
they were treated "humanely" because Boss Hogg gave them enough food to eat, clothes on their
backs, and tin roof over their head.
"Moving our flags and our statues for spite only angers us and hastens our will to become
independent again. Keep it up and see."
Most normies (north and south, east and west) abhor the Confederacy. It represented
slavery and secession. The Confederacy sought to DESTROY our nation. The norms are about what
those monuments represent FROM THE PAST. They do not care that monuments serve as a
historical record, nor do they care about the history of such individuals the monuments pay
tribute to. Yes, Robert E. Lee opposed slavery. Yes, he had significant reservations about
personally abandoning the Union. But what matters most is that he supported the
Confederacy.
What about Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln? Should not their monuments be ripped down?
According to most normies, no. While these individuals supported slavery, their
accomplishments are generally viewed as BUILDING or PRESERVING our nation. That is the nuance
here. The Confederacy monuments and the Washington/Jefferson/Lincoln monuments are on a
separate moral plane as viewed by normies. In the end, the monuments are used as political
pawns by the right and the left, not as historical pieces. I say move the monuments to
private property. But in the meantime, anyone who rips them down now and in the future is
defacing public property and ought to be arrested. Yo, Corvie the normie,
What's your view -- you and your fellow normies -- on Sherman's Scorched earth march to the
sea?
Good idea to kill civilians and destroy property with reckless abandon because the only
thing that matters is WINNING!
Or is the notion of killing civilians -- women and children -- abhorrent to self-respecting
military men who view a war as something engaged in between martial forces who observe codes
of military honor?
Just War theory is a legacy from millennia a ago -- waaaay before you normies developed
your keen sense of moral clarity -- (don't you just love that term? moral clarity -- Israelis
love that term, moral clarity: IDF drops phosphorus on children in Gaza with
moral
clarity
. . .)
Just War Theory states that war, once engaged, must act to protect civilians to the
fullest extent possible, and should should meet force with
proportionate
force and not
more.
What's your view -- you and your fellow normies -- on Sherman's Scorched earth march to
the sea?
Good idea to kill civilians and destroy property with reckless abandon because the only
thing that matters is WINNING!
Or is the notion of killing civilians -- women and children -- abhorrent to self-respecting
military men who view a war as something engaged in between martial forces who observe codes
of military honor?
Just War theory is a legacy from millennia a ago -- waaaay before you normies developed
your keen sense of moral clarity -- (don't you just love that term? moral clarity -- Israelis
love that term, moral clarity: IDF drops phosphorus on children in Gaza with
moral
clarity
. . .)
Just War Theory states that war, once engaged, must act to protect civilians to the
fullest extent possible, and should should meet force with
proportionate
force and not
more.
Did Sherman abide by those age-old norms, normie? "What's your view -- you and your fellow
normies -- on Sherman's Scorched earth march to the sea?"
There are myths in Sherman's March that need to be explored.
We know that to the victors go the spoils. Winners write the history, and losers claim
that the history is other than accurate. Did Sherman commit war crimes? In my opinion, yes.
But in war, does winning ultimately matter? Yes. There is no "honor" in war itself, just
bloodshed by men who honorable in their willingness to die for their cause. There is no doubt
that if the tables were turned, and Lee was rampaging through Philadelphia and New York to
finally put an end to "northern aggression", southern apologists would say the exact
thing.
So, I take it that you oppose a similar Shermanesque policy if proposed by your allies or
those on the Alt Right, correct? Make it official.
Furthermore, you do realize that the slave owners themselves had committed crimes against
humanity, right? Are you ready to condemn them? Make it official.
"Or is the notion of killing civilians -- women and children -- abhorrent to self-respecting
military men who view a war as something engaged in between martial forces who observe codes
of military honor?"
Kurgen, a commenter at the Men Of The West blog, said, "Unfortunately, violence is
inevitable. In fact, from a practical and logical point of view, violence is required to
expel all the SJWs and their allies from polite civilization, and will further be required to
man the walls of the forts that hold the line against them, as well as to expel any
dissidents within them."
Do you share his sentiments? Would not those allies include women and children? I mean, if
the overall goal is for Western Civilization to emerge on top, would it not be in the best
interest to cull the herd? In this next "civil war", will YOU abide by those age-old
norms?
"Just War Theory states that war, once engaged, must act to protect civilians to the
fullest extent possible, and should should meet force with proportionate force and not
more."
Great theory, just impractical when one desires to obliterate your enemy. Besides, is it
not best to salt the earth to ensure that the offspring of your enemy will NOT "come
back"?
@Corvinus
"The plantation owners had them and in spite of Northern propaganda, these people (slaves)
were usually treated very humanely."
Ripping them from their homeland, putting them on boats and dying by the dozens, being
sold on a stage and branded, and then being forced to work against their will...and you claim
they were treated "humanely" because Boss Hogg gave them enough food to eat, clothes on their
backs, and tin roof over their head.
"Moving our flags and our statues for spite only angers us and hastens our will to become
independent again. Keep it up and see."
Most normies (north and south, east and west) abhor the Confederacy. It represented
slavery and secession. The Confederacy sought to DESTROY our nation. The norms are about what
those monuments represent FROM THE PAST. They do not care that monuments serve as a
historical record, nor do they care about the history of such individuals the monuments pay
tribute to. Yes, Robert E. Lee opposed slavery. Yes, he had significant reservations about
personally abandoning the Union. But what matters most is that he supported the
Confederacy.
What about Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln? Should not their monuments be ripped down?
According to most normies, no. While these individuals supported slavery, their
accomplishments are generally viewed as BUILDING or PRESERVING our nation. That is the nuance
here. The Confederacy monuments and the Washington/Jefferson/Lincoln monuments are on a
separate moral plane as viewed by normies. In the end, the monuments are used as political
pawns by the right and the left, not as historical pieces. I say move the monuments to
private property. But in the meantime, anyone who rips them down now and in the future is
defacing public property and ought to be arrested. Yo, Corvie the normie,
What's your view -- you and your fellow normies -- on Sherman's Scorched earth march to the
sea?
Good idea to kill civilians and destroy property with reckless abandon because the only
thing that matters is WINNING!
Or is the notion of killing civilians -- women and children -- abhorrent to self-respecting
military men who view a war as something engaged in between martial forces who observe codes
of military honor?
Just War theory is a legacy from millennia a ago -- waaaay before you normies developed
your keen sense of moral clarity -- (don't you just love that term? moral clarity -- Israelis
love that term, moral clarity: IDF drops phosphorus on children in Gaza with
moral
clarity
. . .)
Just War Theory states that war, once engaged, must act to protect civilians to the
fullest extent possible, and should should meet force with
proportionate
force and not
more.
What's your view -- you and your fellow normies -- on Sherman's Scorched earth march to
the sea?
Good idea to kill civilians and destroy property with reckless abandon because the only
thing that matters is WINNING!
Or is the notion of killing civilians -- women and children -- abhorrent to self-respecting
military men who view a war as something engaged in between martial forces who observe codes
of military honor?
Just War theory is a legacy from millennia a ago -- waaaay before you normies developed
your keen sense of moral clarity -- (don't you just love that term? moral clarity -- Israelis
love that term, moral clarity: IDF drops phosphorus on children in Gaza with
moral
clarity
. . .)
Just War Theory states that war, once engaged, must act to protect civilians to the
fullest extent possible, and should should meet force with
proportionate
force and not
more.
Did Sherman abide by those age-old norms, normie? "What's your view -- you and your fellow
normies -- on Sherman's Scorched earth march to the sea?"
There are myths in Sherman's March that need to be explored.
We know that to the victors go the spoils. Winners write the history, and losers claim
that the history is other than accurate. Did Sherman commit war crimes? In my opinion, yes.
But in war, does winning ultimately matter? Yes. There is no "honor" in war itself, just
bloodshed by men who honorable in their willingness to die for their cause. There is no doubt
that if the tables were turned, and Lee was rampaging through Philadelphia and New York to
finally put an end to "northern aggression", southern apologists would say the exact
thing.
So, I take it that you oppose a similar Shermanesque policy if proposed by your allies or
those on the Alt Right, correct? Make it official.
Furthermore, you do realize that the slave owners themselves had committed crimes against
humanity, right? Are you ready to condemn them? Make it official.
"Or is the notion of killing civilians -- women and children -- abhorrent to self-respecting
military men who view a war as something engaged in between martial forces who observe codes
of military honor?"
Kurgen, a commenter at the Men Of The West blog, said, "Unfortunately, violence is
inevitable. In fact, from a practical and logical point of view, violence is required to
expel all the SJWs and their allies from polite civilization, and will further be required to
man the walls of the forts that hold the line against them, as well as to expel any
dissidents within them."
Do you share his sentiments? Would not those allies include women and children? I mean, if
the overall goal is for Western Civilization to emerge on top, would it not be in the best
interest to cull the herd? In this next "civil war", will YOU abide by those age-old
norms?
"Just War Theory states that war, once engaged, must act to protect civilians to the
fullest extent possible, and should should meet force with proportionate force and not
more."
Great theory, just impractical when one desires to obliterate your enemy. Besides, is it
not best to salt the earth to ensure that the offspring of your enemy will NOT "come
back"?
"... Barnett's vision is neoconservative to the root. He sees the world as divided into essentially two realms : The Core, which consists of advanced countries playing by the rules of economic globalization (the US, Canada, UK, Europe and Japan) along with developing countries committed to getting there (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and some others); and the rest of the world, which is The Gap, a disparate wilderness of dangerous and lawless countries defined fundamentally by being "disconnected" from the wonders of globalization. This includes most of the Middle East and Africa, large swathes of South America, as well as much of Central Asia and Eastern Europe. It is the task of the United States to "shrink The Gap," by spreading the cultural and economic "rule-set" of globalization that characterizes The Core, and by enforcing security worldwide to enable that "rule-set" to spread. ..."
"... In the near future, Barnett had predicted, US military forces will be dispatched beyond Iraq and Afghanistan to places like Uzbekistan, Djibouti, Azerbaijan, Northwest Africa, Southern Africa and South America. ..."
"... Barnett's Pentagon briefing was greeted with near universal enthusiasm. The Forum had even purchased copies of his book and had them distributed to all Forum delegates, ..."
"... "I'm not convinced that Barnett's cure would be any better than the disease," wrote Dr. Karen Kwiatowski, a former senior Pentagon analyst in the Near East and South Asia section, who blew the whistle on how her department deliberately manufactured false information in the run-up to the Iraq War. "It would surely cost far more in American liberty, constitutional democracy and blood than it would be worth." ..."
No better illustration of the truly chauvinistic, narcissistic, and self-congratulatory ideology of power at the heart of the
military-industrial complex is a book by long-time Highlands Forum delegate, Dr. Thomas Barnett, The Pentagon's New Map.
Barnett was assistant for strategic futures in the Pentagon's Office of Force Transformation from 2001 to 2003, and had been recommended
to Richard O'Neill by his boss Vice Admiral Arthur Cebrowski. Apart from becoming a New York Times bestseller, Barnett's
book had been read far and wide in the US military, by senior defense officials in Washington and combatant commanders operating
on the ground in the Middle East.
Barnett first attended the Pentagon Highlands Forum in 1998, then was invited to deliver a briefing about his work at the Forum
on December 7th 2004, which was attended by senior Pentagon officials, energy experts, internet entrepreneurs, and journalists. Barnett
received a glowing review in the
Washington Post from his Highlands Forum buddy David Ignatius a week later, and an endorsement from another Forum friend,
Thomas Friedman, both of which helped massively boost his credibility and readership.
Barnett's vision is neoconservative to the root. He sees the world as divided into essentially
two realms : The Core, which
consists of advanced countries playing by the rules of economic globalization (the US, Canada, UK, Europe and Japan) along with developing
countries committed to getting there (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and some others); and the rest of the world, which is The Gap,
a disparate wilderness of dangerous and lawless countries defined fundamentally by being "disconnected" from the wonders of globalization.
This includes most of the Middle East and Africa, large swathes of South America, as well as much of Central Asia and Eastern Europe.
It is the task of the United States to "shrink The Gap," by spreading the cultural and economic "rule-set" of globalization that
characterizes The Core, and by enforcing security worldwide to enable that "rule-set" to spread.
These two functions of US power are captured by Barnett's concepts of "Leviathan" and "System Administrator." The former is about
rule-setting to facilitate the spread of capitalist markets, regulated via military and civilian law. The latter is about projecting
military force into The Gap in an open-ended global mission to enforce security and engage in nation-building. Not "rebuilding,"
he is keen to emphasize, but building "new nations."
For Barnett, the Bush administration's 2002 introduction of the Patriot Act at home, with its crushing of habeas corpus, and the
National Security Strategy abroad, with its opening up of unilateral, pre-emptive war, represented the beginning of the necessary
re-writing of rule-sets in The Core to embark on this noble mission. This is the only way for the US to achieve security,
writes Barnett, because as long as The Gap exists, it will always be a source of lawless violence and disorder. One paragraph in
particular sums up his vision:
"America as global cop creates security. Security creates common rules. Rules attract foreign investment. Investment creates infrastructure.
Infrastructure creates access to natural resources. Resources create economic growth. Growth creates stability. Stability creates
markets. And once you're a growing, stable part of the global market, you're part of the Core. Mission accomplished."
Much of what Barnett predicted would need to happen to fulfill this vision, despite its neoconservative bent, is still being pursued
under Obama. In the near future, Barnett had predicted, US military forces will be dispatched beyond Iraq and Afghanistan to
places like Uzbekistan, Djibouti, Azerbaijan, Northwest Africa, Southern Africa and South America.
Barnett's Pentagon briefing was greeted with near universal enthusiasm. The Forum had even purchased copies of his book and
had them distributed to all Forum delegates, and in May 2005, Barnett was invited back to participate in an entire Forum themed
around his "SysAdmin" concept.
The Highlands Forum has thus played a leading role in defining the Pentagon's entire conceptualization of the 'war on terror.'
Irving Wladawsky-Berger, a retired IMB vice president who co-chaired the President's Information Technology Advisory Committee from
1997 to 2001, described his experience of
one 2007 Forum meeting in telling terms:
"Then there is the War on Terror, which DoD has started to refer to as the Long War, a term that I first heard at the Forum. It
seems very appropriate to describe the overall conflict in which we now find ourselves. This is a truly global conflict the conflicts
we are now in have much more of the feel of a battle of civilizations or cultures trying to destroy our very way of life and impose
their own."
The problem is that outside this powerful Pentagon-hosted clique, not everyone else agrees. "I'm not convinced that Barnett's
cure would be any better than the disease," wrote
Dr. Karen Kwiatowski, a former senior Pentagon analyst in the Near East and South Asia section, who blew the whistle on how her
department deliberately manufactured false information in the run-up to the Iraq War. "It would surely cost far more in American
liberty, constitutional democracy and blood than it would be worth."
Yet the equation of "shrinking The Gap" with sustaining the national security of The Core leads to a slippery slope. It means
that if the US is prevented from playing this leadership role as "global cop," The Gap will widen, The Core will shrink, and the
entire global order could unravel. By this logic, the US simply cannot afford government or public opinion to reject the legitimacy
of its mission. If it did so, it would allow The Gap to grow out of control, undermining The Core, and potentially destroying it,
along with The Core's protector, America. Therefore, "shrinking The Gap" is not just a security imperative: it is such an existential
priority, that it must be backed up with information war to demonstrate to the world the legitimacy of the entire project.
Based on O'Neill's principles of information warfare as articulated in his 1989 US Navy brief, the targets of information war
are not just populations in The Gap, but domestic populations in The Core, and their governments: including the US government. That
secret brief, which according to former senior US intelligence official John Alexander was read by the Pentagon's top leadership,
argued that information war must be targeted at: adversaries to convince them of their vulnerability; potential partners around the
world so they accept "the cause as just"; and finally, civilian populations and the political leadership so they believe that "the
cost" in blood and treasure is worth it.
Barnett's work was plugged by the Pentagon's Highlands Forum because it fit the bill, in providing a compelling 'feel good' ideology
for the US military-industrial complex.
But neoconservative ideology, of course, hardly originated with Barnett, himself a relatively small player, even though his work
was extremely influential throughout the Pentagon. The regressive thinking of senior officials involved in the Highlands Forum is
visible from long before 9/11, which was ceased upon by actors linked to the Forum as a powerful enabling force that legitimized
the increasingly aggressive direction of US foreign and intelligence policies.
@Corvinus
"The plantation owners had them and in spite of Northern propaganda, these people (slaves)
were usually treated very humanely."
Ripping them from their homeland, putting them on boats and dying by the dozens, being
sold on a stage and branded, and then being forced to work against their will...and you claim
they were treated "humanely" because Boss Hogg gave them enough food to eat, clothes on their
backs, and tin roof over their head.
"Moving our flags and our statues for spite only angers us and hastens our will to become
independent again. Keep it up and see."
Most normies (north and south, east and west) abhor the Confederacy. It represented
slavery and secession. The Confederacy sought to DESTROY our nation. The norms are about what
those monuments represent FROM THE PAST. They do not care that monuments serve as a
historical record, nor do they care about the history of such individuals the monuments pay
tribute to. Yes, Robert E. Lee opposed slavery. Yes, he had significant reservations about
personally abandoning the Union. But what matters most is that he supported the
Confederacy.
What about Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln? Should not their monuments be ripped down?
According to most normies, no. While these individuals supported slavery, their
accomplishments are generally viewed as BUILDING or PRESERVING our nation. That is the nuance
here. The Confederacy monuments and the Washington/Jefferson/Lincoln monuments are on a
separate moral plane as viewed by normies. In the end, the monuments are used as political
pawns by the right and the left, not as historical pieces. I say move the monuments to
private property. But in the meantime, anyone who rips them down now and in the future is
defacing public property and ought to be arrested. Yo, Corvie the normie,
What's your view -- you and your fellow normies -- on Sherman's Scorched earth march to the
sea?
Good idea to kill civilians and destroy property with reckless abandon because the only
thing that matters is WINNING!
Or is the notion of killing civilians -- women and children -- abhorrent to self-respecting
military men who view a war as something engaged in between martial forces who observe codes
of military honor?
Just War theory is a legacy from millennia a ago -- waaaay before you normies developed
your keen sense of moral clarity -- (don't you just love that term? moral clarity -- Israelis
love that term, moral clarity: IDF drops phosphorus on children in Gaza with
moral
clarity
. . .)
Just War Theory states that war, once engaged, must act to protect civilians to the
fullest extent possible, and should should meet force with
proportionate
force and not
more.
What's your view -- you and your fellow normies -- on Sherman's Scorched earth march to
the sea?
Good idea to kill civilians and destroy property with reckless abandon because the only
thing that matters is WINNING!
Or is the notion of killing civilians -- women and children -- abhorrent to self-respecting
military men who view a war as something engaged in between martial forces who observe codes
of military honor?
Just War theory is a legacy from millennia a ago -- waaaay before you normies developed
your keen sense of moral clarity -- (don't you just love that term? moral clarity -- Israelis
love that term, moral clarity: IDF drops phosphorus on children in Gaza with
moral
clarity
. . .)
Just War Theory states that war, once engaged, must act to protect civilians to the
fullest extent possible, and should should meet force with
proportionate
force and not
more.
Did Sherman abide by those age-old norms, normie? "What's your view -- you and your fellow
normies -- on Sherman's Scorched earth march to the sea?"
There are myths in Sherman's March that need to be explored.
We know that to the victors go the spoils. Winners write the history, and losers claim
that the history is other than accurate. Did Sherman commit war crimes? In my opinion, yes.
But in war, does winning ultimately matter? Yes. There is no "honor" in war itself, just
bloodshed by men who honorable in their willingness to die for their cause. There is no doubt
that if the tables were turned, and Lee was rampaging through Philadelphia and New York to
finally put an end to "northern aggression", southern apologists would say the exact
thing.
So, I take it that you oppose a similar Shermanesque policy if proposed by your allies or
those on the Alt Right, correct? Make it official.
Furthermore, you do realize that the slave owners themselves had committed crimes against
humanity, right? Are you ready to condemn them? Make it official.
"Or is the notion of killing civilians -- women and children -- abhorrent to self-respecting
military men who view a war as something engaged in between martial forces who observe codes
of military honor?"
Kurgen, a commenter at the Men Of The West blog, said, "Unfortunately, violence is
inevitable. In fact, from a practical and logical point of view, violence is required to
expel all the SJWs and their allies from polite civilization, and will further be required to
man the walls of the forts that hold the line against them, as well as to expel any
dissidents within them."
Do you share his sentiments? Would not those allies include women and children? I mean, if
the overall goal is for Western Civilization to emerge on top, would it not be in the best
interest to cull the herd? In this next "civil war", will YOU abide by those age-old
norms?
"Just War Theory states that war, once engaged, must act to protect civilians to the
fullest extent possible, and should should meet force with proportionate force and not
more."
Great theory, just impractical when one desires to obliterate your enemy. Besides, is it
not best to salt the earth to ensure that the offspring of your enemy will NOT "come
back"?
"... Barnett's vision is neoconservative to the root. He sees the world as divided into essentially two realms : The Core, which consists of advanced countries playing by the rules of economic globalization (the US, Canada, UK, Europe and Japan) along with developing countries committed to getting there (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and some others); and the rest of the world, which is The Gap, a disparate wilderness of dangerous and lawless countries defined fundamentally by being "disconnected" from the wonders of globalization. This includes most of the Middle East and Africa, large swathes of South America, as well as much of Central Asia and Eastern Europe. It is the task of the United States to "shrink The Gap," by spreading the cultural and economic "rule-set" of globalization that characterizes The Core, and by enforcing security worldwide to enable that "rule-set" to spread. ..."
"... In the near future, Barnett had predicted, US military forces will be dispatched beyond Iraq and Afghanistan to places like Uzbekistan, Djibouti, Azerbaijan, Northwest Africa, Southern Africa and South America. ..."
"... Barnett's Pentagon briefing was greeted with near universal enthusiasm. The Forum had even purchased copies of his book and had them distributed to all Forum delegates, ..."
"... "I'm not convinced that Barnett's cure would be any better than the disease," wrote Dr. Karen Kwiatowski, a former senior Pentagon analyst in the Near East and South Asia section, who blew the whistle on how her department deliberately manufactured false information in the run-up to the Iraq War. "It would surely cost far more in American liberty, constitutional democracy and blood than it would be worth." ..."
No better illustration of the truly chauvinistic, narcissistic, and self-congratulatory ideology of power at the heart of the
military-industrial complex is a book by long-time Highlands Forum delegate, Dr. Thomas Barnett, The Pentagon's New Map.
Barnett was assistant for strategic futures in the Pentagon's Office of Force Transformation from 2001 to 2003, and had been recommended
to Richard O'Neill by his boss Vice Admiral Arthur Cebrowski. Apart from becoming a New York Times bestseller, Barnett's
book had been read far and wide in the US military, by senior defense officials in Washington and combatant commanders operating
on the ground in the Middle East.
Barnett first attended the Pentagon Highlands Forum in 1998, then was invited to deliver a briefing about his work at the Forum
on December 7th 2004, which was attended by senior Pentagon officials, energy experts, internet entrepreneurs, and journalists. Barnett
received a glowing review in the
Washington Post from his Highlands Forum buddy David Ignatius a week later, and an endorsement from another Forum friend,
Thomas Friedman, both of which helped massively boost his credibility and readership.
Barnett's vision is neoconservative to the root. He sees the world as divided into essentially
two realms : The Core, which
consists of advanced countries playing by the rules of economic globalization (the US, Canada, UK, Europe and Japan) along with developing
countries committed to getting there (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and some others); and the rest of the world, which is The Gap,
a disparate wilderness of dangerous and lawless countries defined fundamentally by being "disconnected" from the wonders of globalization.
This includes most of the Middle East and Africa, large swathes of South America, as well as much of Central Asia and Eastern Europe.
It is the task of the United States to "shrink The Gap," by spreading the cultural and economic "rule-set" of globalization that
characterizes The Core, and by enforcing security worldwide to enable that "rule-set" to spread.
These two functions of US power are captured by Barnett's concepts of "Leviathan" and "System Administrator." The former is about
rule-setting to facilitate the spread of capitalist markets, regulated via military and civilian law. The latter is about projecting
military force into The Gap in an open-ended global mission to enforce security and engage in nation-building. Not "rebuilding,"
he is keen to emphasize, but building "new nations."
For Barnett, the Bush administration's 2002 introduction of the Patriot Act at home, with its crushing of habeas corpus, and the
National Security Strategy abroad, with its opening up of unilateral, pre-emptive war, represented the beginning of the necessary
re-writing of rule-sets in The Core to embark on this noble mission. This is the only way for the US to achieve security,
writes Barnett, because as long as The Gap exists, it will always be a source of lawless violence and disorder. One paragraph in
particular sums up his vision:
"America as global cop creates security. Security creates common rules. Rules attract foreign investment. Investment creates infrastructure.
Infrastructure creates access to natural resources. Resources create economic growth. Growth creates stability. Stability creates
markets. And once you're a growing, stable part of the global market, you're part of the Core. Mission accomplished."
Much of what Barnett predicted would need to happen to fulfill this vision, despite its neoconservative bent, is still being pursued
under Obama. In the near future, Barnett had predicted, US military forces will be dispatched beyond Iraq and Afghanistan to
places like Uzbekistan, Djibouti, Azerbaijan, Northwest Africa, Southern Africa and South America.
Barnett's Pentagon briefing was greeted with near universal enthusiasm. The Forum had even purchased copies of his book and
had them distributed to all Forum delegates, and in May 2005, Barnett was invited back to participate in an entire Forum themed
around his "SysAdmin" concept.
The Highlands Forum has thus played a leading role in defining the Pentagon's entire conceptualization of the 'war on terror.'
Irving Wladawsky-Berger, a retired IMB vice president who co-chaired the President's Information Technology Advisory Committee from
1997 to 2001, described his experience of
one 2007 Forum meeting in telling terms:
"Then there is the War on Terror, which DoD has started to refer to as the Long War, a term that I first heard at the Forum. It
seems very appropriate to describe the overall conflict in which we now find ourselves. This is a truly global conflict the conflicts
we are now in have much more of the feel of a battle of civilizations or cultures trying to destroy our very way of life and impose
their own."
The problem is that outside this powerful Pentagon-hosted clique, not everyone else agrees. "I'm not convinced that Barnett's
cure would be any better than the disease," wrote
Dr. Karen Kwiatowski, a former senior Pentagon analyst in the Near East and South Asia section, who blew the whistle on how her
department deliberately manufactured false information in the run-up to the Iraq War. "It would surely cost far more in American
liberty, constitutional democracy and blood than it would be worth."
Yet the equation of "shrinking The Gap" with sustaining the national security of The Core leads to a slippery slope. It means
that if the US is prevented from playing this leadership role as "global cop," The Gap will widen, The Core will shrink, and the
entire global order could unravel. By this logic, the US simply cannot afford government or public opinion to reject the legitimacy
of its mission. If it did so, it would allow The Gap to grow out of control, undermining The Core, and potentially destroying it,
along with The Core's protector, America. Therefore, "shrinking The Gap" is not just a security imperative: it is such an existential
priority, that it must be backed up with information war to demonstrate to the world the legitimacy of the entire project.
Based on O'Neill's principles of information warfare as articulated in his 1989 US Navy brief, the targets of information war
are not just populations in The Gap, but domestic populations in The Core, and their governments: including the US government. That
secret brief, which according to former senior US intelligence official John Alexander was read by the Pentagon's top leadership,
argued that information war must be targeted at: adversaries to convince them of their vulnerability; potential partners around the
world so they accept "the cause as just"; and finally, civilian populations and the political leadership so they believe that "the
cost" in blood and treasure is worth it.
Barnett's work was plugged by the Pentagon's Highlands Forum because it fit the bill, in providing a compelling 'feel good' ideology
for the US military-industrial complex.
But neoconservative ideology, of course, hardly originated with Barnett, himself a relatively small player, even though his work
was extremely influential throughout the Pentagon. The regressive thinking of senior officials involved in the Highlands Forum is
visible from long before 9/11, which was ceased upon by actors linked to the Forum as a powerful enabling force that legitimized
the increasingly aggressive direction of US foreign and intelligence policies.
Poroshenko has asked the UN to send peacekeepers to the Donbass
During the session of the General Assembly of the United Nations, the Ukraine is to
present to the UN an initiative that it enter the Donbass. This was stated by the Ukrainian
President Petro Poroshenko during a visit to the Lugansk region, reports the Ukraine leader's
website.
He noted that the issue of launching a UN peacekeeping mission and an OSCE armed
mission into the zone of armed conflict in the southeast of the Ukraine "is making rather
difficult progress". Poroshenko observed that this was due to the fact that Russia
"categorically" does not want to "establish peace in the Donbass" and does not want to "leave
the Ukraine alone".
"But I'm sure that water wears away a stone", said Poroshenko. He announced that he
will present the idea of the introduction of peacekeepers in the Donbass at the session of
the UN General Assembly that is to be held in New York in September.
You never know – one source at least believes the USA
wants to substitute Ukraine for Syria
in its determination to fight proxy wars with
Russia until one ignites outright international conflict between the two powers.
They are running out of locations to stage these false flags. But it sure is incredible what
a load of credulous saps constitute most of NATO's population and even the rest of the world.
This transparent chemical weapons "Assad attack" BS does not stand up to even the most
superficial scrutiny. For example, if you take any of the alleged events and add them up,
then they have contributed exactly zero to the Syrian government's military operations. But
these events sure have been useful of Syria's enemies. So why would Assad keep doing them?
Because he is like Putin who shoots down civilian airliners for sport?
One more time – chemical weapons are what you have recourse to as a last resort when
you are losing and about to be overrun. Or, I suppose, if you want to clean out an area which
might prove very costly to you in terms of manpower, and you don't want to pay too dearly to
take it. But neither is the scenario for the government in Syria at present, and it would be
abysmally stupid, not to mention completely unnecessary, for them to use chemical weapons. It
was the last two times the west tried to pull the same stunt, as well.
Coal from the USA will cost more than twice as much – inconsequential, as we have
discussed, when western taxpayers are giving Ukraine the money to buy it – and
take several weeks to arrive
. Don't wait – hire Ukraine now to plan your country's
foreign policy, and avoid the rush to its door.
America can wish, but that does not mean it will get. Ukraine is in the process of collapsing
and unlike Syria, the jihadis are not the horde taking over. In fact, it will be the quiet
majority that will be pushing the US stooges out. So I doubt Uncle Scumbag is all too keen on
undermining its puppet regime in Kiev.
But that's something that really pisses me off. Washington gets its meddling fingers into the
pie, and in short order everything is wrecked and it takes a decade or so for the country to
recover its balance, accompanied by some serious sacrifices by its leadership and its people.
And the first envoy to call when things recover their balance is Uncle Sam, and before you
know it, trade ties are re-established and the process starts all over again.
Besides that, Ukraine is of no concern to the USA whatsoever, except as a Trojan horse
against Russia. Russia is the target, and if Ukraine is ruined in the process Washington will
shed no tears.
The Head of the Pentagon, James Mattis is on currently a visit to Kiev.
"If we talk about defensive lethal weapons, we are considering this issue," he said.
According to the US Secretary of Defense, recommendations on this issue will be presented
following the visit.
"I will now return to my place of work, and based on what I saw and what I learned, I will, of
course, inform the country's leadership about very specific things that I will recommend to
implement," he said.
He also said that the US has already approved the supply of military equipment to the Ukraine
for $ 175 million.
Earlier, US Senator John McCain said that Mattis's visit to Ukraine opens up the possibility
for Washington to begin deliveries of lethal weapons to Kiev. According to McCain, the
Ukrainian authorities need such assistance to "protect the sovereignty and territorial
integrity of the country."
The senator also said that US President Donald Trump took the first "significant step" to
contain Russia by imposing new sanctions against it.
"... During his visit to Kiev, Mattis is expected to reassure the country's leaders that the U.S. remains opposed to Russia's 2014 annexation of Crimea, according to The Associated Press . ..."
John McCain (R-Ariz.) is again
urging President Trump to provide lethal aid to Ukraine as Defense Secretary
James Mattis arrives in the
country for a meeting with its president and top defense official.
"It is long past time for the United States to provide Ukraine the defensive lethal assistance
it needs to deter and defend against further Russian aggression," McCain, the chairman of the powerful
Senate Armed Services Committee, said in a statement Wednesday.
The senator's renewed calls for the U.S. to provide lethal weaponry to Ukraine as it battles pro-Russia
separatists in the eastern Donbas region comes two days after Trump announced
a new broad strategy for Afghanistan.
With the change of course in Afghanistan, McCain said, Trump "now has the same opportunity with
regard to Ukraine."
The senior Arizona Republican argued that providing weapons to Ukraine "is not opposed to a peaceful
resolution of this conflict -- it is essential to achieving it."
"As long as the status quo remains, Russia has no reason to change its behavior, and we should
only expect more violence and more death," he said.
Russia has denied providing support to the separatists, but U.S. officials have claimed otherwise.
The president already has the authority to send lethal assistance to Ukraine under the annual
defense policy bill. But former President
Barack Obama chose instead
to send only nonlethal assistance to the country.
During his visit to Kiev, Mattis is expected to reassure the country's leaders that the U.S.
remains opposed to Russia's 2014 annexation of Crimea, according to
The Associated
Press .
Trump entered office in January with hopes of improving the relationship between the U.S. and
Russia. But ties have grown tense amid ongoing investigations into Russia's role in the 2016 election
and possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Moscow.
Also fueling tensions between the two countries is a sanctions package signed into law earlier
this month that penalizes Russia for its efforts to meddle in the election. Trump reluctantly signed
the measures after they were overwhelmingly passed by Congress.
Bannon supported Blackwater founder Erik Prince's plan to use military contractors in the war
in Afghanistan and was against National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster's plan to deploy tens of thousands
of more troops to the Afghan conflict, according to a source with knowledge of the deliberations.
While saying he would "bomb the s**t" out of ISIS, Trump ran on a largely non-interventionist
campaign. He attacked President Bush for invading Iraq and cautioned against toppling the Assad regime
in Syria.
His White House, however, is not populated with like-minded thinkers. Even the most Trump-like
senior adviser left, Stephen Miller,
was a strong supporter of the Iraq War and primarily focuses on domestic policy issues.
Trump does have the habit of speaking to outside advisers on the phone and calls with Bannon and
Roger Stone might be the only times Trump hears war-weary voices.
Trump's power grows. And, his people don't speak first. (Trump speaks what The People are thinking.
Offend Trump and you have offended almost everybody.)
Bye, by)e Democrats. You can't win WITHOUT a Revolution...and not very many of the real People
are really interested in efforts to get one going.
Remember the CENTER of it all (ISIS, RIOTS) is London/Wall Street.
Everything since last Summer, has been coming out of MI5/6 to our FBI, CIA, NSA Business Intelligence
Empire.
The People are not going to go against Lincoln and they aren't
going to stand for anyone to take down the "States Rights" statues.
People are for a Strong Central Government and for a Strong State Government. It isn't "either/or".
It's BOTH. For Mob Rule...uh, not so much... Trump's power is growing steadily.
The People are sometimes for Left, sometimes for Right. It isn't "either/or". It's BOTH.
If you don't know this, you don't know anything about Americans.
These killings and riots are highly organized by both assets and AGENTS of the Anti forces of
Deep State, Deep Business. None of this is "from" WE, The People.
Bannon is now in a better position to expose the deep state. McMaster is probably soiling
his diapers.
Jesse4 > Hillary Clintub • 2 days ago
The deep state just kicked Bannon's incredibly huge butt.
lorsarah > Jesse4 • 2 days ago
The Deep State oligarchs and hacks may have won a small battle but their days are numbered.
The movement that Bannon is part of is growing.
oknow • 2 days ago
This whole intervention crap is for the birds and a waste of money as the years have shown.
If the Germans and Japanese were Islamic or international religious armies it would have never
ended. Maybe it is time that the great oil powers man up and fight.
Trump not backing down from the NK is what strength is. Not this crap of 15 years in foreign
nations.
T100C1970 > oknow • 2 days ago
This bravo sierra warfare did not start with Muzzies. It started with Commies. The Korean
war was the first war the US did not win. We got a tie with the pathetic Norks. Then in the
era in which I served as an Army Officer we managed to LOSE to the Cong + NVA.. The wars in
Iraq and Afghanistan are so far more like "ties" ... assuming you can call it a tie to spend
billions and lose thousands of troops to preserve a sort of status quo.
lorsarah > oknow • 2 days ago
"Not backing down from North Korea" IS foreign intervention, as everyone with a brain knows
that NK, which can't even keep its lights on, is not a threat.
11B30L • 2 days ago
President Trump is allowing his "little tiny ego" to get in the way of White House staffing
decisions, according to conservative commentator Ann Coulter.
Burrito Jackson • 2 days ago
Trump just sent his generals proposal back to the drawing board to keep us in Afghanistan.
Trump hasn't changed. Tired of hearing everyone controls Trump like he is a puppet.
lorsarah > Burrito Jackson • 2 days ago
Why are we there AT ALL? To protect our freedom? Of course not. Self-defense? Of course
not. It's lunacy, just as Vietnam was. But the military-industrial complex makes big money on
lunacy such as Afghanistan.
wars r u.s. • a day ago
Trump is a dove? He bombed Syria with no evidence that Assad did the chemical attack. He
dropped the MOAB on Afghanistan and his only real problem with that war is that we're not
winning. We continue to back the Saudi's in their onslaught of Yemen. Trump wants to decertify
Iran's compliance to the nuke deal even though Iran is in compliance which could lead to the
war the neocons and liberal hawks(Israeli firsters) have been salivating over for decades. He
threatens NK with "fire ad fury" and even recently threatened Venezuela...
"... the ultimate driving force behind today's international news is the aristocracy that the MIC represents, the billionaires behind the MIC, because theirs is the collective will that drives the MIC ..."
"... The MIC is their collective arm, and their collective fist. It is not the American public's global enforcer; it is the American aristocracy's fist, around the world. ..."
"... The MIC (via its military contractors such as Lockheed Martin) also constitutes a core part of the U.S. aristocracy's wealth (the part that's extracted from the U.S. taxpaying public via the U.S. government), and also (by means of those privately-owned contractors, plus the taxpayer-funded U.S. armed forces) it protects these aristocrats' wealth in foreign countries. Though paid by the U.S. government, the MIC does the protection-and-enforcement jobs for the nation's super-rich. ..."
"... So, the MIC is the global bully's fist, and the global bully is the U.S. aristocracy -- America's billionaires, most especially the controlling stockholders in the U.S.-based international corporations. These are the people the U.S. government actually represents . The links document this, and it's essential to know, if one is to understand current events. ..."
"... This massacre didn't play well on local Crimean television. Immediately, a movement to secede and to again become a part of Russia started, and spread like wildfire in Crimea. (Crimea had been only involuntarily transferred from Russia to Ukraine by the Soviet dictator Khrushchev in 1954; it had been part of Russia for the hundreds of years prior to 1954. It was culturally Russian.) Russia's President, Vladimir Putin, said that if they'd vote for it in a referendum, then Russia would accept them back into the Russian Federation and provide them protection as Russian citizens. ..."
"... The latest round of these sanctions was imposed not by Executive Order from a U.S. President, but instead by a new U.S. law, "H.R.3364 -- Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act" , which in July 2017 was passed by 98-2 in the Senate and 419-3 in the House , and which not only stated outright lies (endorsed there by virtually everyone in Congress), but which was backed up by lies from the U.S. Intelligence Community that were accepted and endorsed totally uncritically by 98 Senators and 419 Representatives . (One might simply assume that all of those Senators and Representatives were ignorant of the way things work and were not intentionally lying in order to vote for these lies from the Intelligence Community, but these people actually wouldn't have wrangled their ways into Congress and gotten this far at the game if they hadn't already known that the U.S. Intelligence Community is designed not only to inform the President but to help him to deceive the public and therefore can't be trusted by anyone but the President . ..."
"... Good summary of where we're at, but please don't call the ruling goons aristocrats. The word, "aristocrat," is derived from the Ancient Greek ἄριστος (áristos, "best"), and the ruling thugs in this country have never been the best at anything except lies, murder and theft ..."
"... I realize that calling them violent bloodthirsty sociopathic parasites is a mouthful, and that "plutacrats" doesn't have quite the appropriate sting, but perhaps it's more accurate. ..."
"... They also -- through the joint action of Rating Agencies, the Anglosaxon media, the vassal vassal states' media, make national debt's yield spreads skyrocket. It's been the way to make entire governments tumble in Europe, as well as force ministers for economics to resign. After obeisance has been restored -- and an "ex Goldman Sachs man" put on the presidential/ministerial chair, usually -- investors magically find back their trust in the nation's economic stability, and yield spreads return to their usual level. ..."
"... First, he delineates the American Elites well. The USA forged by Abe Lincoln is not a real democracy, not a real republic. It is the worst kind of oligarchy: one based on love of money almost exclusively (because if a man does not love money well enough to be bribed, then he cannot be trusted by plutocrats) while proclaiming itself focused on helping all the little guys of the world overcome the power of the rich oppressors. ..."
The tumultuous events that dominate international news today cannot be accurately
understood outside of their underlying context, which connects them together,
into a broader narrative -- the actual history of our time . History
makes sense, even if news-reports about these events don't. Propagandistic motivations
cause such essential facts to be reported little (if at all) in the news, so
that the most important matters for the public to know, get left out of news-accounts
about those international events.
The purpose here will be to provide that context, for our time.
First, this essential background will be summarized; then, it will be documented
(via the links that will be provided here), up till the present moment -- the
current news: America's aristocracy
controls both the U.S.
federal government and
press , but (as will be documented later here) is facing increasing resistance
from its many vassal (subordinate) aristocracies around the world (popularly
called "America's allied nations"); and this growing international resistance
presents a new challenge to the U.S. military-industrial complex (MIC), which
is controlled by that same aristocracy and enforces their will worldwide. The
MIC is responding to the demands of its aristocratic master. This response largely
drives international events today (which countries get invaded, which ones get
overthrown by coups, etc.), but the ultimate driving force behind today's
international news is the aristocracy that the MIC represents, the billionaires
behind the MIC, because theirs is the collective will that drives the MIC.
The MIC is their collective arm, and their collective fist. It is not the
American public's global enforcer; it is the American aristocracy's fist, around
the world.
The MIC (via its military contractors such as Lockheed Martin) also constitutes
a core part of the U.S. aristocracy's wealth (the part that's extracted from
the U.S. taxpaying public via the U.S. government), and also (by means of those
privately-owned contractors, plus the taxpayer-funded U.S. armed forces) it
protects these aristocrats' wealth in foreign countries. Though paid by the
U.S. government, the MIC does the protection-and-enforcement jobs for the nation's
super-rich.
Furthermore, the MIC is crucial to them in other ways, serving not only directly
as their "policeman to the world," but also indirectly (by that means)
as a global protection-racket that keeps their many subordinate aristocracies
in line, under their control -- and that threatens those foreign aristocrats
with encroachments against their own territory, whenever a vassal aristocracy
resists the master-aristocracy's will. (International law is never enforced
against the U.S., not even after it invaded Iraq in 2003.) So, the MIC is
the global bully's fist, and the global bully is the U.S. aristocracy -- America's
billionaires, most especially the controlling stockholders in the U.S.-based
international corporations. These are the people the U.S. government
actually represents .
The links document this, and it's essential to know, if one is to understand
current events.
For the first time ever, a global trend is emerging toward declining control
of the world by America's billionaire-class -- into the direction of ultimately
replacing the U.S. Empire, by increasingly independent trading-blocs: alliances
between aristocracies, replacing this hierarchical control of one aristocracy
over another. Ours is becoming a multi-polar world, and America's aristocracy
is struggling mightily against this trend, desperate to continue remaining
the one global imperial power -- or, as U.S. President Barack Obama often
referred to the U.S. government,
"The United States is and remains the one indispensable nation. That has
been true for the century passed and it will be true for the century to come."
To America's aristocrats, all other nations than the U.S. are "dispensable."
All American allies have to accept it. This is the imperial mindset, both for
the master, and for the vassal. The uni-polar world can't function otherwise.
Vassals must pay (extract from their nation's public, and then transfer) protection-money,
to the master, in order to be safe -- to retain their existing power, to exploit
their given nation's public.
The recently growing role of economic sanctions (more accurately called
"Weaponization of finance" ) by the United States and its vassals, has been
central to the operation of this hierarchical imperial system, but is now being
increasingly challenged from below, by some of the vassals. Alliances are breaking
up over America's mounting use of sanctions, and new alliances are being formed
and cemented to replace the imperial system -- replace it by a system without
any clear center of global power, in the world that we're moving into.
Economic sanctions have been the U.S. empire's chief weapon to impose its will
against any challengers to U.S. global control, and are thus becoming the chief
locus of the old order's fractures .
This global order cannot be maintained by the MIC alone; the more that the
MIC fails (such as in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, ), the more that economic
sanctions rise to become the essential tool of the imperial masters. We are
increasingly in the era of economic sanctions. And, now, we're entering the
backlash-phase of it.
This massacre didn't play well on local Crimean television. Immediately,
a movement to secede and to again become a part of Russia started, and spread
like wildfire in Crimea. (Crimea had been only involuntarily transferred from
Russia to Ukraine by the Soviet dictator Khrushchev in 1954; it had been part
of Russia for the hundreds of years prior to 1954. It was culturally Russian.)
Russia's President, Vladimir Putin, said that if they'd vote for it in a referendum,
then Russia would accept them back into the Russian Federation and provide them
protection as Russian citizens.
On 6 March 2014, U.S. President Obama issued
"Executive Order -- Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the
Situation in Ukraine" , and ignored the internationally recognized-in-law
right of self-determination of peoples (though he recognized that right in Catalonia
and in Scotland), and he instead simply declared that Ukraine's "sovereignty"
over Crimea was sacrosanct (even though it had been imposed upon Crimeans
by the Soviet dictator -- America's enemy -- in 1954, during the Soviet
era, when America opposed, instead of favored and imposed, dictatorship around
the world, except in Iran and Guatemala, where America imposed dictatorships
even that early). Obama's Executive Order was against unnamed "persons who have
asserted governmental authority in the Crimean region without the authorization
of the Government of Ukraine." He insisted that the people who had just grabbed
control of Ukraine and massacred Crimeans (his own Administration's paid far-right
Ukrainian thugs, who were
racist anti-Russians ), must be allowed to rule Crimea, regardless of what
Crimeans (traditionally a part of Russia) might -- and did -- want. America's
vassal aristocracies then
imposed their own sanctions against Russia when on 16 March 2014 Crimeans voted
overwhelmingly to rejoin the Russian Federation . Thus started the successive
rounds of economic sanctions against Russia, by the U.S. government
and its vassal-nations . (As is shown by that link, they knew that this
had been a coup and no authentic 'democratic revolution' such as the Western
press was portraying it to have been, and yet they kept quiet about it -- a
secret their public would not be allowed to know.)
It's basic knowledge about the U.S. government, and they know it, though
the public don't.) The great independent columnist Paul Craig Roberts headlined
on August 1st,
"Trump's Choices" and argued that President Donald Trump should veto the
bill despite its overwhelming support in Washington, but instead Trump signed
it into law on August 2nd and thus joined participation in the overt stage --
the Obama stage -- of the U.S. government's continuation of the Cold War that
U.S. President George Herbert Walker Bush had
secretly instituted against Russia on 24 February 1990 , and that, under
Obama, finally escalated into a hot war against Russia. The first phase of this
hot war against Russia is via the
"Weaponization of finance" (those sanctions). However, as usual, it's also
backed up by
major increases in physical weaponry , and by
the cooperation of America's vassals in order to surround Russia with nuclear
weapons near and on Russia's borders , in preparation for a possible
blitz first-strike nuclear attack upon Russia -- preparations that the Russian
people know about and greatly fear, but which are largely hidden by the Western
press, and therefore only very few Westerners are aware that their own governments
have become lying aggressors.
Some excellent news-commentaries have been published about this matter, online,
by a few 'alternative news' sites (and that 'alt-news' group includes all of
the reliably honest news-sites, but also includes unfortunately many sites that
are as dishonest as the mainstream ones are -- and that latter type aren't being
referred to here), such as (and only the best sites and articles will be linked-to
on this):
All three of those articles discuss how these new sanctions are driving other
nations to separate themselves, more and more, away from the economic grip of
the U.S. aristocracy, and to form instead their own alliances with one-another,
so as to defend themselves, collectively, from U.S. economic (if not also military)
aggression. Major recent news-developments on this, have included (all here
from rt dot com):
"'US, EU meddle in other countries & kill people under guise of human rights
concerns' – Duterte", and presented Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte explaining
why he rejects the U.S. aristocracy's hypocritical pronouncements and condemnations
regarding its vassals among the world's poorer and struggling nations, such
as his. Of course, none of this information is publishable in the West -- in
the Western 'democracies'. It's 'fake news', as far as The Empire is concerned.
So, if you're in The (now declining) Empire, you're not supposed to be reading
this. That's why the mainstream 'news'media (to all of which this article is
being submitted for publication, without fee, for any of them that want to break
their existing corrupt mold) don't publish
this sort of news -- 'fake news' (that's of the solidly documented type,
such as this). You'll see such news reported only in the few honest newsmedia.
The rule for the aristocracy's 'news'media is: report what happened, only on
the basis of the government's lies as to why it happened -- never
expose such lies (the official lies). What's official is
'true' . That, too, is an essential part of the imperial system.
The front cover of the American aristocracy's TIME magazine's Asian
edition, dated September 25, 2016, had been headlined
"Night Falls on the Philippines: The tragic cost of President Duterte's war
on drugs" . The 'news'-story, which was featured inside not just the Asian
but all editions, was
"Inside Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte's War On Drugs" , and it portrayed
Duterte as a far-right demagogue who was giving his nation's police free reign
to murder anyone they wished to, especially the poor. On 17 July 2017, China's
Xinhua News Agency bannered
"Philippines' Duterte enjoys high approval rating at 82 percent: poll" ,
and reported: "A survey by Pulse Asia Inc. conducted from June 24 to June 29
showed that 82 percent of the 1,200 people surveyed nationwide approved the
way Duterte runs the country. Out of all the respondents, the poll said 13 percent
were undecided about Duterte's performance, while 5 percent disapproved Duterte's
performance. Duterte, who assumed the presidency in June last year, ends his
single, six-year term in 2022." Obviously, it's not likely that the TIME
cover story had actually been honest. But, of course, America's billionaires
are even more eager to overthrow Russia's President, Putin.
Western polling firms can freely poll Russians, and
do poll them on lots but not on approval or disapproval of President Putin
, because he always scores above 80%, and America's aristocrats also don't like
finding that confirmed, and certainly don't want to report it. Polling is routinely
done in Russia, by Russian pollsters, on voters' ratings of approval/disapproval
of Putin's performance. Because America's aristocrats don't like the findings,
they say that Russians are in such fear of Putin they don't tell the truth about
this, or else that Russia's newsmedia constantly lie about him to cover up the
ugly reality about him.
However, the Western academic journal Post-Soviet Affairs (which is
a mainstream Western publication) included in their January/February 2017 issue
a study,
"Is Putin's Popularity Real?" and the investigators reported the results
of their own poll of Russians, which was designed to tap into whether such fear
exists and serves as a distorting factor in those Russian polls, but concluded
that the findings in Russia's polls could not be explained by any such factor;
and that, yes, Putin's popularity among Russians is real. The article's closing
words were: "Our results suggest that the main obstacle at present to the emergence
of a widespread opposition movement to Putin is not that Russians are afraid
to voice their disapproval of Putin, but that Putin is in fact quite popular."
The U.S. aristocracy's efforts to get resistant heads-of-state overthrown
by 'democratic revolutions' (which usually is done by the U.S. government to
overthrow democratically elected Presidents -- such as Mossadegh, Arbenz, Allende,
Zelaya, Yanukovych, and attempted against Assad, and wished against Putin, and
against Duterte -- not overthrowing dictators such as the U.S. government always
claims) have almost consistently failed, and therefore coups and invasions have
been used instead, but those techniques demand that certain realities be suppressed
by their 'news'media in order to get the U.S. public to support what the government
has done -- the U.S. government's international crime, which is never prosecuted.
Lying 'news' media in order to 'earn' the American public's support, does not
produce enthusiastic support, but, at best, over the long term, it produces
only tepid support (support that's usually below the level of that of the governments
the U.S. overthrows). U.S. Presidents never score above 80% except when they
order an invasion in response to a violent attack by foreigners, such as happened
when George W. Bush attacked Afghanistan and Iraq in the wake of 9/11, but those
80%+ approval ratings fade quickly; and,
after the 1960s, U.S. Presidential job-approvals have generally been below 60%
.
President Trump's ratings are currently around 40%. Although Trump is not
as conservative -- not as far-right -- as the U.S. aristocracy wants him to
be, he is fascist ; just
not enough to satisfy them (and their oppostion isn't because he's unpopular
among the public; it's more the case that he's unpopular largely because their
'news'media concentrate on his bads, and distort his goods to appear bad --
e.g., suggesting that he's not sufficiently aggressive against Russia). His
fascism on domestic affairs is honestly reported in the aristocracy's 'news'media,
which appear to be doing all they can to get him replaced by his Vice President,
Mike Pence. What's not reported by their media is the fascism of the U.S. aristocracy
itself, and of their international agenda (global conquest). That's their secret,
of which their public must be (and is) constantly kept ignorant. America's aristocracy
has almost as much trouble contolling its domestic public as it has controlling
its foreign vassals. Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most
recently, of
They're Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of
CHRIST'S VENTRILOQUISTS:
The Event that Created Christianity .
Fascism is defined as a system that combines private monopolies and despotic
government power. It is sometimes racist but not necessarily so. By the
correct definition, every President since at least Herbert Hoover has been
fascist to some degree.
One bit of silver lining in the deep-state propaganda effort to destabilise
the Trump regime is the damage to the legitimacy of the yankee imperium
it confers, making it easier for vassal states to begin to jump ship. The
claims of extraterritorial power used for economic warfare might confer
a similar benefit, since the erstwhile allies will want to escape the dominance
of the yankee dollar to be able to escape the economic extortion practised
by the yankee regime to achieve its control abroad.
" America's aristocracy has almost as much trouble controlling its domestic
public as it has controlling its foreign vassals. "
These foreign vassals had a cozy existence as long as the USA made it
clear it wanted to control the world. Dutch minister of Foreign Affairs
Ben Bot made this quite clear whan the Netherlands did not have a USA ambassador
for three months or so, Ben Bot complained to the USA that there should
be a USA ambassador.
He was not used to take decisions all by himself.
Right now Europe's queen Merkel has the same problem, unlike Obama Trump
does not hold her hand.
Yes, of course. I don't know about before Herbert Hoover, but certainly
during the 50s, business -- monopolistic or oligopolistic (like the old
Detroit auto industry) -- and government (including the MIC) were closely
integrated. Such was, indeed, as aspect of progressivism. It was considered
by most to be a good thing, or at least to be the natural and normal state
of affairs. Certainly, the system back then included what amounted to price-fixing
as a normal business practice.
On the other hand, the "despotic" thing is less clear. Some assert that
since FDR was effectively a dictator during World War II, that therefore
the Democratic Party represented despotism ever since FDR (or maybe ever
since Wilson).
Having lived through that period of time, I have to say that I am not
so sure about that: if it was despotism, it was a heavily democratic and
beneficent despotism. However, it is evident that there was a fascist skein
running through the entirety of USA's political history throughout the 20th
Century.
Fascism originates from Mussolini's Italy. It was anti socialist and
anti communist, it of course was pro Italian, Italy's great deeds in antiquity,
the Roman empire, were celebrated.
One can see this as racist, but as Italy consisted of mostly Italians,
it was not racist in the present meaning of the word at all. Italy was very
hesitant in persecuting jews, for example. Hitler depised Mussolini, Mussolini
was an ally that weakened Germany. Hitler and Mussolini agreed in their
hatred of communism.
Calling Hitler a fascist just creates confusion. All discussions of what
nowadays fascism is, our could mean, end like rivers in the desert.
'Aristocracy' and 'fascist' are all weasel words. (I'm the only true
fascist btw, and it's National Humanism, National Left, or Left-Right.)
US is an ethnogarchy, and that really matters. The Power rules, but the
nature of the Power is shaped by the biases of the ruling ethnic group.
It is essentially ruled by Jewish Supremacists.
Now, if not for Jews, another group might have supreme power, and it
might be problematic in its own way. BUT, the agenda would be different.
Suppose Chinese-Americans controlled much of media, finance, academia,
deep state, and etc. They might be just as corrupt or more so than Jews,
BUT their agenda would be different. They would not be hateful to Iran,
Russia, Syria, or to Palestinians. And they won't care about Israel.
They would have their own biases and agendas, but they would still be
different from Jewish obsessions.
Or suppose the top elites of the US were Poles. Now, US policy may be
very anti-Russian BUT for reasons different from those of Jews.
So, we won't learn much by just throwing words like 'fascist' or 'aristocrat'
around.
We have to be more specific. Hitler was 'fascist' and so was Rohm. But
Hitler had Rohm wiped out.
Surely, a Zionist 'fascist' had different goals than an Iranian 'fascist'.
One might say the Old South African regime was 'fascist'. Well, today's
piggish ANC is also 'fascist', if by 'fascist' we mean power-hungry tyrants.
But black 'fascists' want something different from what white 'fascists'
wanted.
It's like all football players are in football. But to understand what
is going on, we have to know WHICH team they play for.
Jewish Elites don't just play for power. They play for Jewish power.
Good summary of where we're at, but please don't call the ruling
goons aristocrats. The word, "aristocrat," is derived from the Ancient Greek
ἄριστος (áristos, "best"), and the ruling thugs in this country have never
been the best at anything except lies, murder and theft.
I realize that calling them violent bloodthirsty sociopathic parasites
is a mouthful, and that "plutacrats" doesn't have quite the appropriate
sting, but perhaps it's more accurate.
Or maybe we should get into the habit of calling them the "ruling mafiosi."
I'm open to suggestions.
and that threatens those foreign aristocrats with encroachments
against their own territory, whenever a vassal aristocracy resists the
master-aristocracy's will.
They also -- through the joint action of Rating Agencies, the Anglosaxon
media, the vassal vassal states' media, make national debt's yield spreads
skyrocket. It's been the way to make entire governments tumble in Europe,
as well as force ministers for economics to resign. After obeisance has
been restored -- and an "ex Goldman Sachs man" put on the presidential/ministerial
chair, usually -- investors magically find back their trust in the nation's
economic stability, and yield spreads return to their usual level.
No doubt about it. That's how thugs rule; there are plenty of quivering
sell outs to do the rulers' bidding. Look at the sickening standing ovations
given to Netanyahoo by supposed "US" congresscreeps.
@Fidelios Automata Abraham Lincoln's economic policy was to combine
private monopolies with the Federal Government under a President like him:
one who ordered the arrests of newspaper editors/publishers who opposed
his policies and more 'despotic' goodies.
While the article favorably informs, and was written so as to engage
the reader, it lacks reasonable solutions to its problems presented. One
solution which I never read or hear about, is mandated MRI's, advanced technology,
and evidence supported psychological testing of sitting and potential political
candidates. The goal would be to publicly reveal traits of psychopathy,
narcissism, insanity, etc. Of course, the most vocal opposition would come
from those who intend to hide these traits. The greatest evidence for the
likelyhood of this process working, is the immense effort those who would
be revealed have historically put into hiding what they are.
Eric Zuesse is a nasty, hardcore leftist in the senses that matter most.
Often, he reveals his Leftism to be based on his hatred of Christianity
and his utter contempt for white Christians. But there is that dead clock
being correct twice per day matter. In this article, Zuesse gets a good
deal right.
First, he delineates the American Elites well. The USA forged by
Abe Lincoln is not a real democracy, not a real republic. It is the worst
kind of oligarchy: one based on love of money almost exclusively (because
if a man does not love money well enough to be bribed, then he cannot be
trusted by plutocrats) while proclaiming itself focused on helping all the
little guys of the world overcome the power of the rich oppressors.
It is the Devil's game nearly perfected by the grand alliance of
WASPs and Jews, with their Saudi hangers-on.
Second, it is fair to label America's Deep State fascist , Elite
Fascist. And we should never forget that while Jews are no more than 3%
of the American population, they now are at least 30% (my guess would be
closer to 59%) of the most powerful Deep Staters. That means that per capita
Jews easily are the fascist-inclined people in America.
The most guilty often bray the loudest at others in hope of getting them
blamed and escaping punishment. And this most guilty group – Deep State
Elites evolved from the original WASP-Jewish alliance against Catholics
– is dead-set on making the majority of whites in the world serfs.
Third, the US 'weaponization of finance' seems to have been used against
the Vatican to force Benedict XVI to resign so that Liberal Jesuit (sorry
for the redundancy) Jorge Bergolgio could be made Pope. The Jesuits are
far and away the most Leftist and gay part of the Catholic Church, and the
American Deep State wanted a gay-loving, strongly pro-Jewish, strongly pro-Moslem
'immigrant' as Pope.
Fourth, that America's Leftists of every stripe, America's Neocons, and
America's 'compassionate conservatives' all hate Putin is all you should
need to know that Putin is far, far better for Russia's working class, Russia's
non-Elites, than our Elites are for us.
Charlottesville, Occupy Wall St And The Neoliberal Police State. Charlottesville
was a Neoliberal ambush designed to crush the Alt Right once and for all.
This story must be told.
No way. How about Jewish terrorists ? Very few Italians in the ruling
"aristocracy." Lots of Jews.
Very few Italians in the ruling "aristocracy."
Another common misconception is to associate the mafia with Italians
mostly. The Italian mafiosi are pikers compared to the American ones of
Eastern European descent. The real bosses are not the Italians.
Bugsy Siegel, Louis "Lepke" Buchalter, Longy Zwillman, Moe Dalitz, Meyer
Lansky and many many others.
Even the Jewish Virtual Library admits to some of it.
"... Trump is attacked. The ACLU is attacked. Peace activists opposed to the CIA's regime change operation in Syria are attacked. Tucker Carlson is attacked. Everyone attacked that the CIA and various other aspects of the Deep State want attacked as if the MSM were all sent the same talking points memo. ..."
In the aftermath of competing protests in Charlottesville a wave of dismantling of
Confederate statues is on the rise. Overnight Baltimore
took
down
four Confederate statues. One of these honored Confederate soldiers and sailors,
another one Confederate women. Elsewhere statues were
toppled or defiled
.
The Charlottesville conflict itself was about the intent to dismantle a statue of General
Robert E. Lee, a commander of the Confederate forces during the American Civil War. The
activist part of the political right protested against the take down, the activist part of the
political left protested against those protests. According to a number of witnesses
quoted
in the LA Times sub-groups on both sides came prepared for and readily engaged in violence.
In 2003 a U.S. military tank pulled down the statue of Saddam Hussein on Firdos Square in
Baghdad. Narrowly shot TV picture made it look as if a group of Iraqis were doing this. But
they were mere actors within
a U.S. propaganda show
.
Pulling down the statue demonstrated a lack of respect towards those who had fought under,
worked for or somewhat supported Saddam Hussein. It helped to incite the resistance against the
U.S. occupation.
The right-wing nutters who, under U.S. direction, forcefully toppled the legitimate
government of Ukraine
pulled
down
hundreds of the remaining Lenin statues in the country. Veterans who fought under the
Soviets in the second world war
took this
as
a sign of disrespect. Others saw this as an attack on their fond memories of better times and
protected them
. The forceful erasement of history further split the country:
"It's not like if you go east they want Lenin but if you go west they want to destroy him,"
Mr. Gobert said. "These differences don't only go through geography, they go through
generations, through social criteria and economic criteria, through the urban and the rural."
Statues standing in cities and places are much more than veneration of one person or group.
They are symbols, landmarks and fragments of personal memories:
"One guy said he didn't really care about Lenin, but the statue was at the center of the
village and it was the place he kissed his wife for the first time," Mr. Gobert said. "When
the statue went down it was part of his personal history that went away."
Robert Lee was a brutal man who fought for racism and slavery. But there are few historic
figures without fail. Did not George Washington "own" slaves? Did not Lyndon B. Johnson lie
about the Gulf of Tonkin incident and launched an unjust huge war against non-white people
under false pretense? At least some people will think of that when they see their statues.
Should those also be taken down?
As time passes the meaning of a monument changes. While it may have been erected with a
certain ideology or concept
in
mind
, the view on it will change over time:
[The Charlottesville statue] was unveiled by Lee's great-granddaughter at a ceremony in May
1924. As was the custom on these occasions it was accompanied by a parade and speeches. In
the dedication address, Lee was celebrated as a hero, who embodied "the moral greatness of
the Old South", and as a proponent of reconciliation between the two sections. The war itself
was remembered as a conflict between "interpretations of our Constitution" and between
"ideals of democracy."
The white racists who came to "protect" the statue in Charlottesville will hardly have done
so in the name of reconciliation. Nor will those who had come to violently oppose them. Lee was
a racist. Those who came to "defend" the statue were mostly "white supremacy" racists. I am all
for protesting against them.
But the issue here is bigger. We must not forget that statues have multiple meanings and
messages. Lee was also the man who
wrote
:
What a cruel thing is war: to separate and destroy families and friends, and mar the purest
joys and happiness God has granted us in this world; to fill our hearts with hatred instead
of love for our neighbors, and to devastate the fair face of this beautiful world.
That Lee was a racist does not mean that his statue should be taken down. The park in
Charlottesville, in which the statue stands, was recently renamed from Lee Park into
Emancipation Park. It makes sense to keep the statue there to reflect on the contrast between
it and the new park name.
Old monuments and statues must not (only) be seen as glorifications within their time. They
are reminders of history. With a bit of education they can become valuable occasions of
reflection.
George Orwell wrote in his book 1984: "The most effective way to destroy people is to deny
and obliterate their own understanding of their history." People do not want to be destroyed.
They will fight against attempts to do so. Taking down monuments or statues without a very wide
consent will split a society. A large part of the U.S. people voted for Trump. One gets the
impression that the current wave of statue take downs is seen as well deserved "punishment" for
those who voted wrongly - i.e. not for Hillary Clinton. While many Trump voters will dislike
statues of Robert Lee, they will understand that dislike the campaign to take them down even
more.
That may be the intend of some people behind the current quarrel. The radicalization on
opposing sides may have a purpose. The Trump camp can use it to cover up its plans to further
disenfranchise they people. The fake Clintonian "resistance" needs these cultural disputes to
cover for its lack of political resistance to Trump's plans.
Anyone who wants to stoke the fires with this issue should be careful what they wish
for.
"That Lee was a racist does not mean that his statue should be taken down."
How about the fact that he was a traitor?
"George Orwell wrote in his book 1984: 'The most effective way to destroy people is to
deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.'"
The only reason statues of traitors like Lee exist is because the South likes to engage in
'Lost Cause' revisionism; to pretend these were noble people fighting for something other
than the right to own human beings as pets.
erasing history seems part of the goal.. i feel the usa has never really addressed
racism.. the issue hasn't gone away and remains a deep wound that has yet to heal.. events
like this probably don't help.
The statues of Lee and his ilk should come down because they are TRAITORS who deserve no
honor. Washington and Jefferson may have owned slaves but they were PATRIOTS. Its really that
simple.
I don't want to get derailed into the rights or wrongs of toppling statues. I wonder whose
brilliant idea it was to start this trend
right at this particular tinder box moment.
That said, the USA has never ever truly confronted either: 1) the systemic genocide of the
Native Americans earlier in our history; and b) what slavery really meant and was. NO
reconciliation has ever really been done about either of these barbarous acts. Rather, at
best/most, we're handed platitudes and lip service that purports that we've "moved on" from
said barbarity - well I guess WHITES (I'm one) have. But Native Americans - witness what
happened to them at Standing Rock recently - and minorities, especially African Americans,
are pretty much not permitted to move on. Witness the unending police murders of AA men
across the country, where, routinely, most of the cops get off scott-free.
To quote b:
The Trump camp can use it to cover up its plans to further disenfranchise they people. The
fake Clintonian "resistance" needs these cultural disputes to cover for its lack of
political resistance to Trump's plans.
While I dislike to descend into the liturgy of Both Siderism, it's completely true that
both Rs and Ds enjoy and use pitting the rubes in the 99% against one another because it
means that the rapine, plunder & pillaging by the Oligarchs and their pet poodles in
Congress & the White House can continue apace with alacrity. And: That's Exactly What's
Happening.
The Oligarchs could give a flying fig about Heather Heyer's murder, nor could they give a
stuff about US citizens cracking each other's skulls in a bit of the old ultra-violence.
Gives an opening for increasing the Police State and cracking down on our freedumbs and
liberties, etc.
I heard or read somewhere that Nancy Pelosi & Chuck Schumer are absolutely committed
to not impeaching Donald Trump because it means all the Ds have to do is Sweet Eff All and
just "represent" themselves as the Anti-Trump, while, yes, enjoying the "benefits" of the
programs/policies/legislation enacted by the Trump Admin. I have no link and certainly cannot
prove this assertion, but it sure seems likely. Just frickin' great.
Lee was not a racist; I'd say you are addressing your own overblown egos. The U.S. Civil War
was long in coming. During the 1830's during Andrew Jackson's presidency, and John Calhoun's
vice-presidency, at an annual state dinner, the custom of toasts was used to present
political views. Jackson toasted the Union of the states, saying "The Union, it must be
preserved." Calhoun's toast was next, "The Union, next to our liberty, most dear."
Calhoun was a proponent of the Doctrine of Nullification, wherein if a national law
inflicted harm on any state, the state could nullify the law, until such time as a
negotiation of a satisfactory outcome could come about. The absolute Unionists were outraged
by such an idea.
My memory tells me that the invention of the cotton gin made cotton a good crop, but that you
needed the slaves. Slaves represented the major money invested in this operation. Free the
slaves and make slave holders poor. Rich people didn't like that idea. I think maybe the
cotton was made into cloth in the factories up north. Just saying.
How would 'addressing the problem' actually work? Should all native Americans and people of
colour go to Washington to be presented with $1 million each by grovelling white men?
But, the memorials to GW, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison,
et al
, does
not honor them for owning slaves. Memorials of Lee, Stonewall Jackson, Jefferson Davis,
et
al
, is because they took up arms against a legitimate government simply to support of a
vile system.
@6
The manufacturing states put export duties on the agricultural states, and tariffs on British
imported cloth. The English mills were undercutting the U.S. mills prices for a number of
reasons, not the least of which was they were more experienced in the industry.
The difference between a statue of Lee vs. a statue of Washington, Jefferson, LBJ, etc., is
that Washington, Jefferson, and LBJ did some good things to earn our respect even though they
did a lot of bad things, too. The Confederacy did no good things. It would be like erecting a
statue to honor Hitler's SS.
If there were statues honoring the SS, would anyone be surprised if Jews objected? Why
then does anyone fail to understand why blacks object to Confederate symbols?
I would, however, support statues that depict a Confederate surrendering. Perhaps the
statue of Lee on a horse could be replaced with a statue of Lee surrendering to Grant?
I am not a fan of the "counter-protests." Martin Luther King never "counter-protested" a
KKK rally. A counter-protest is a good way to start a fight, but a poor way to win hearts and
minds. It bothers me when the 99% fight among themselves. Our real enemy is the 1%.
George Washington "the father of our country" was a slave owner, a rapist and a murderer.
What do we expect from his descendants?
should we remove his face of the dollar bill and destroy his statues?
The civil war was due to economic reasons, free labor is good business.
Now cheap Mexican-labor ( the new type of slavery) is good business to the other side.
when will the new civil war in the US start?
@b
Many years ago, within the leadership of my student organization, I initiated to rename the
University I was attending, which was named after a communist ideological former state acting
figure, with very bloody hands, co-responsible for the death of tenths of thousands and
thousands of people. Today I still think, that educational and cultural institutions (and
many more) should be named either neutral, or by persons with cultural background and with
impeccable moral history, no many to be found. On the other side, I opposed the removal of
the very statue of the same person at a nearby public plaza - and there it stands today - as
a rather painful reminder of the past bloody history of my country, that went through a
conflict, that today seems so bizarre. Wherever I go, I look into black abyss, knowing, that
the very culture I belong to (the so called Christian Liberal Free Western World) has
inflicted so many horrors and crimes against other nations and ethnic groups, its even
difficult to count. Karlheinz Deschner wrote 10 books, titled "The Criminal History of
Christianity (Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums - on YT you can find videos him reading
from it). Yes, this is the very civilization, we Westerners originate from. It was deadly for
centuries - and its about time to change this. And keeping the memory of our so bloody
history, will help us to find the right and hopefully more peaceful solutions in the future.
Don`t tear down monuments or change street names, but give them the so often shameful
meaning, they had in history.
Then southern states have no business being part of United States of America since their
history and customs are not honored. That is good overall I think. Best for the world.
Southern states are very unlikely to attack any other sovereign state thousands of miles
away, but all united as unitary state, we can see how persistent in their aggression on the
rest of the world they are. 222 years out of its 239 years US has been aggressor:
https://www.infowars.com/america-has-been-at-war-93-of-the-time-222-out-of-239-years-since-1776/
Time to break US lust for attacking, invading and raiding other countries.
what little of this history i know - which is to say very little - kgw reflects what i have
read.. the problem is way deeper.. if you want to address racism, you are going to have to
pull down most of the statues in the usa today of historical figures..
if - that is why way you think it will matter, lol.. forgot to add that.. otherwise, forget
pulling down statues and see if you can address the real issue - like @4 rukidding and some
others here are addressing..
A little false equivalency anyone? I'm sure Adolph Hitler had some reasonable remarks at some
point in his life, so, I guess we should tolerate a few statues of him also? States rights as
the cause for the U$A's civil war? baloney, it was about the murder and enslavement of
millions of humans.
Bob Dylan's "Only a Pawn in Their Game" still
spells out
unsurpassed the divide and
rule strategy, to my mind. Powers that be are rubbing their hands with satisfaction at this
point, one would think.
I like your observation, b, that statues don't necessarily represent what they did when
they were erected. It's an important point. It meant something at the time, but now it's a
part of today's heritage, and has often taken on some of your own meaning. To destroy your
own heritage is a self-limiting thing, and Orwell's point is well taken. Perhaps people
without history have nowhere in the present to stand.
Have to add, slavery wasn't the cause for the war. It was centralization, rights of the
states. Yankees wanted strong central government with wide array of power, Southerners
didn't. Yankees were supported by London banking families and their banking allies or agents
in the US, Southerners were on their own. I personally think Southerners were much better
soldiers, more honorable and courageous, but we lacked industrial capacity and financial
funds. I could be biased having Southern blood, but my opinion anyway.
therevolutionwas@10 - Have to agree. The events leading up to the US Civil War and the war
itself were for reasons far more numerous and complex then slavery. Emancipation was a
fortunate and desirable outcome and slavery was an issue, but saying the entire war was about
ending slavery is the same as saying WW II was mostly about stopping Nazis from killing jews.
Dumbing down history serves nobody.
Still wondering how specifically the 'real issue' can be addressed. I don't think any amount
of money will compensate plains Indians .actually some are quite well off due to casinos. But
the days of buffalo hunting are gone and white people will not be going back where they came
from. As for blacks in urban ghettos you could build them nice houses in the suburbs but I
doubt if that will fix the drugs/gangs problem.
"That Lee was a racist does not mean that his statue should be taken down."
If the sole criteria for taking down any statues was that a man was a 'racist', meaning
that he hated people of color/hated black people, can we assume then that all those who owned
slaves were also racist?
Then all the statues in the whole country of Jefferson, Washington, Madison, Monroe and
perhaps all the Founding Daddies who owned slaves, should be removed. I am playing devil's
advocate here.
Fashions come and go.... and so the vices of yesterday are virtues today; and the virtues
of yesterday are vices today.
Bernard is correct at the end: "The fake Clintonian "resistance" needs these cultural
disputes to cover for its lack of political resistance to Trump's plans." The Demos have
nothing, so they tend to fall back on their identity politics.
....In total, twelve presidents owned slaves at some point in their lives, eight of whom
owned slaves while serving as president. George Washington was the first president to own
slaves, including while he was president. Zachary Taylor was the last president to own slaves
during his presidency, and Ulysses S. Grant was the last president to have owned a slave at
some point in his life.
Pitting people against people by inciting and validating fringe groups is a tried and true
social manipulation ploy.....and it seems to be working as intended.
Focus is on this conflict gets folks riled up and myopic about who the real enemies of
society really are.....and then that riled up energy is transferred to bigger conflicts like
war between nations.....with gobs of "our side is more righteous" propaganda
Humanity has been played like this for centuries now and our extinction would probably be
a kinder future for the Cosmos since we don't seem to be evolving beyond power/control based
governance.
And yes, as Dan Lynch wrote just above: "It bothers me when the 99% fight among
themselves. Our real enemy is the 1%"
Robert E. Lee a racist? No, he was a man of his time. B, you blew it with this one. You have
confused what you don't know with what you think you know.
Now, if Lee was a racist, what about this guy?
From Lincoln's Speech, Sept. 18, 1858.
"While I was at the hotel to-day, an elderly gentleman called upon me to know whether I
was really in favor of producing a perfect equality between the negroes and white people.
While I had not proposed to myself on this occasion to say much on that subject, yet as the
question was asked me I thought I would occupy perhaps five minutes in saying something in
regard to it. I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about
in any way the social and political equality of the black and white races -- that I am not
nor ever have been in favor of making VOTERS or jurors of negroes, NOR OF QUALIFYING THEM
HOLD OFFICE, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that
there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever
forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch
as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior
and inferior, and I as much as any of her man am in favor of having the superior position
assigned to the white race."
All states who joined the confederation cited the "need" and "right" to uphold slavery in
their individual declarations. To say that the civil war was not about this point is strongly
misleading. Like all wars there were several named and unnamed reasons. Slavery was the most
cited point.
The argument of rather unlimited "state rights" is simply the demand of a minority to
argue for the right to ignore majority decisions. With universal state rights a union can
never be a union. There is no point to it. What is needed (and was done) is to segregate
certain fields wherein the union decides from other policy fields that fall solely within the
rights of member states. The conflict over which fields should belong where hardly ever
ends.
P. S.--If it were up to me, I'd tear down monuments to most of the U$A's
presidents for perpetuating and abetting the rise of an empire who has enslaved and murdered
millions around the globe, simply for profits for the few. Economic slavery has replaced the
iron shackles, but the murder is still murder...
P. S.--If it were up to me, I'd tear down monuments to most of the U$A's presidents for
perpetuating and abetting the rise of an empire who has enslaved and murdered millions around
the globe, simply for profits for the few. Economic slavery has replaced the iron shackles,
but the murder is still murder...
Posted by: ben | Aug 16, 2017 2:45:29 PM |
28
/div
The Northern manufacturers were exploiting the South and wanted to continue doing so. They
didn't much care that the raw materials came from slave labor.
Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation to encourage slave rebellion
(meaning
fewer white Southern men available for military service)
and to punish the South.
Yet, while slavery ended when the North won, we all know how that turned out. For nearly
100 years
(and some might say, even today)
, many black people were still virtual
slaves due to discrimination and poor education.
B@27: you're missing a couple of very basic points.
First, not all states that seceded issued declarations. Virginia, for example, of which
the 'racist' Robert E. Leehailed, only seceded after Lincoln made his move on fort sumter. In
fact, Virginia had voted against secession just prior but, as with 3 other southern states,
seceded when Lincoln called for them to supply troops for his war.
Speaking of declarations of causes, have a look at the cherokee declaration. Yes, united
indian tribes fought for the confederacy.
Finally, the causes for secession are not the causes for war. Secession is what the
southerners did. War is what Lincoln did. One should not have automatically led to the
other.
Well, just reading the comments here it is obvious that there are several versions of history
taught at different times in the last century. If not, then all of us would "know" the real
reason for the CW - there would be no need for discussion. What is also obvious is that this
delving back into a muddied history, the defacing of formerly meaningful objects, the
thrusting of certain "rights" into the face of anyone even questioning them - all of it is
working. It is working extremely well in distracting us from things like the numerous
economic bubbles, the deep state scratching at war or chaos everywhere, politicians who are
at best prevaricating prostitutes and at worst thieves enriching themselves at our expense as
we struggle to maintain in the face of their idiocy.
It simply doesn't MATTER what started the Civil War - it ought to be enough to look at the
death toll on BOTH sides and know we don't need to go there again.
Who stands to gain from this? Because it surely isn't the historically ignorant antifa
bunch, who are against everything that includes a moral boundary. It isn't the alt-right, who
get nothing but egg on their face and decimation of position by virtue of many being "white".
CUI BONO?
The single answer is threefold: media, the government and the military - who continue to
refuse to address any of our problems - and feed us a diet of revolting pablum and
double-speak.
Honestly, congress passed a law legalizing propaganda - did anyone notice? Did anyone
factor in that they allowed themselves freedom to lie to anyone and everyone? It wasn't done
for show - it was done to deny future accountability.
Don't let this site get bogged down in history that is being constantly rewritten on
Wikipedia. Don't buy into the left/right division process. Don't let your self identify with
either group, as they are being led by provocateurs.
The lies we know of regarding Iraq, Syria, Libya - aren't they enough to force people to
disbelieve our media completely? The HUGE lies in our media about what is going on in
Venezuela should be quite enough (bastante suficiente) to make most people simply disbelieve.
But they cannot because they are only allowed to see and hear what our government approves -
and for our government, lying is quite legal now.
Let the emotions go - they are pushed via media to force you to think in white or black,
right or left, old vs young - any way that is divisive. Getting beaten for a statue would
likely make the guy who posed for it laugh his butt off most likely...
Speaking of Lincoln's quotes, here is a good one to dispel the myth about slavery being the
cause of war.
Pres. Abraham Lincoln: "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the
institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do
so, and I have no inclination to do so."
I the civil war was for the most part connected with the federal reserve central bank
charter right which unionist Yankees frightful about possible restraints of bankers rights
were keen to give London banking families unrestricted rights to do whatever they please in
the US. Other reasons exclusively included expanding federal government powers. Adding
personal income tax would be unimaginable prior to CW. Creation of all those fed gov agencies
too. It was all made possible by London bankers' servants Yankees.
The civil war in the US was not really started because of slavery. Robert E. Lee did not
join the south and fight the north in order to preserve slavery, in his mind it was state's
rights. Lincoln did not start the civil war to free the slaves.
You're right. The Emancipation Act was an afterthought really because Europe had turned
against the idea of slavery before the Civil War broke out, in fact was repelled by it, and
Lincoln knew that it would hurt commerce.
The southern states felt they had a right to secede, using the tenth amendment as the legal
basis. It states simply " The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the
people.".
Furthermore, the union of states was referred to many times by the founders as a compact.
Under the theory of compacts, when one party doesn't honor said compact, it is rendered
null.
Slavery, regardless of how we may feel today, was a legal and federally protected
institution. With the rise of the republican party, a campaign of agitation towards the south
and slavery had begun. It is this agitation towards a legal institution that rankled
southerners.
The south saw this coming well before the election of Lincoln. William seward, the
favorite to win the election, gave a speech in l858 called "the irrepressible conflict". The
south well knew of this and saw the writing on the wall if a republican was elected
president.
When reading the declarations of causes, this background should be kept in mind if one
wants to understand the southern position. Or, one can just count how many times the word
'slavery' appears like a word cloud.
Probably the best articulated statement on the southern position was south Carolina's
"address to the slaveholding states".
I'm afraid if you go back in time, no US president can be saved from a well-deserved statue
toppling. Including Abraham Lincoln, the hypocrite who DID NOT, and I repeat, DID NOT abolish
slavery. The U.S "elite" has always been rotten through and through, so good luck with those
statues.
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/06/the-clintons-had-slaves
You used Lincoln's inaugural address to show that the war was not over slavery. It's plain
enough coming from the horse's mouth, so to speak.
Lincoln, in that same inaugural address, stated what the war would be fought over ......
and it was revenue.
Here's the quote:
The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places
belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be
necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among
the people anywhere.
As a rare book dealer and history buff with thirty-odd years of experience reading and
studying original civil war era periodicals and documents, a fact stands out for me about
these now-controversial statues. None is from the civil war period. Many, like the Lee statue
in this article, date to the 1920's, which was the era of the second Ku Klux Klan. The
infamous movie "Birth of a Nation" inspired the nationwide revival of that faded terrorist
group. The year that statue was dedicated a hundred thousand Klansmen paraded in full regalia
in the streets of Washington.
The children and grandchildren of the men who had taken up arms against the United States
had by then completed a very flattering myth about 1861 - 1865. Consider too that
romanticized lost cause mythology was integral to the regional spirit long before the
rebellion. The Scots Irish who settled the American south carried with them the long memory
their forebears' defeats at the Boyne and Culloden, at the hands of the English – the
very ancestors of the hated Yankees living to the north of their new homeland.
Note also that many more CSA statues and memorials were built in the 1960s, as symbols of
defiance of the civil rights movement of that era. The War for the Union was fought at its
heart because the elite of the old south refused to accept the result of a fair and free
democratic election, but for those who came after, white supremacy became the comforting myth
that rationalized their ancestors' incredibly foolish treason.
"Robert Lee was a brutal man who fought for racism and slavery."
Would this have been written in his time? Would it be written today in other countries
(Africa included) where slavery (aka human trafficking) is big business today?
I'm disappointed that Moon of Alabama, usually so astute in its presentations, would print
this article.
That the many statutes of America's founding fathers should be re-evaluated is actually a
great idea. Many of these people were simply oligarchs who wanted to be the top of the
pyramid instead of the British. Many owned slaves and perpetuated slavery. Others, like
Andrew Jackson were legitimate psychopaths. Pretty much all of them cheered the genocide of
Native Americans. So maybe we *should* have different heros.
Using the logic b spells out above, one could argue that statues of Nazis should be
allowed too, after all they did come up with the Autobahn (modern highways), jet engines, and
viable rockets, all technology used all over the world. Some patriotic, well meaning Germans
fought in the Wehrmacht, don't they deserve statues, too? What about the Banderists and
Forest Brothers? The Imperial Japanese? Don't those well-meaning fascists deserve to
celebrate their heritage?
But simply saying that idea out loud is enough to realize what a crock that notion is.
Nazis and fascists don't deserve statues, neither do confederates. Neither do most Americans,
for that matter.
Trying to make some moral equivalence between NeoNazis and the leftists who oppose them is
about as silly as it gets. I don't support violence against these idiots, and they have the
same rights as anyone else in expressing their opinion. But to paint legit NeoNazis and the
leftists opposing them (admittedly in a very juvenile manner) in the same brush ("Both sides
came prepared for violence") is utter hogwash. We don't give Nazis a pass in Ukraine, don't
give them a pass in Palestine, and we sure as hell don't give them a pass in the US. It
doesn't matter what hypocritical liberal snowflake is on the other side of the barricade, the
Nazi is still a f*****g Nazi.
"Robert Lee was a brutal man who fought for racism and slavery."
b, you have just displayed your ignorance of the character of Robert E. Lee, why he
fought, and what he fought for. To give you the short n sweet of it, General Lee was a
Christian gentleman respected by those in the North as well as the South. He fought the
Federal leviathan as it had chosen to make war on what he considered to be his home and
country--the State of Virginia. The issue at hand was not racism and slavery but Federal
tyranny. Lincoln himself said he had no quarrel with slavery and as long as the South paid
the Federal leviathan its taxes, the South was free to go. Make a visit to Paul Craig Roberts
site for his latest essay which explains the world of the 1860s American scene much more
eloquently than I can ...
b is completely wrong in thread. The USA has been a highly racist power system historically
where killing non-Whites has been a major historical policy. Lee is not merely a racist, he
epitomizes this policy and is a symbol of it. Attacking racist symbols is essential to
destroying racism.
Historicus@38: that 'fair and free democratic election' was replete with Lincoln supporters
printing counterfeit tickets to the convention in order to shut out seward supporters.
The gambit worked and the rest, as they say, is history.
james @2--You are 1000000000% correct. And given the current state-of-affairs, will
continue to fester for another century if not more thanks to historical ignorance and elite
Machiavellian maneuvering.
Southern Extremist self-proclaimed Fire Eaters were the ones that started the war as they
took the bait Lincoln cunningly offered them. If they'd been kept away from the coastal
artillery at Charlestown, the lanyard they pulled may have remained still and war avoided for
the moment. The advent of the US Civil War can be blamed totally on the Constitution and
those who wrote it, although they had no clue as to the fuse they lit.
Chattel Slavery was introduced in the Western Hemisphere because the enslaved First
Peoples died off and the sugar plantations needed laborers. Rice, tobacco, indigo, "Naval
Stores," and other related cash crops were the next. Cotton only became part of the mix when
the cotton gin made greatly lessened the expense of its processing. But, cotton wore out the
thin Southern soils, so it cotton plantations slowly marched West thus making Mexican lands
attractive for conquest. But slaves were used for so much more--particularly the draining of
swamps and construction of port works. The capital base for modern capitalism was made
possible by slavery--a sentence you will NOT read in any history textbook. There are a great
many books written on the subject; I suggest starting with Marcus Rediker's
The Slave
Ship: A Human History
, followed by Eric Williams's classic
Capitalism and Slavery
, Edward Baptist's
The Half Has Never Been Told: Slavery and the Making of American
Capitalism
, and John Clarke's
Christopher Columbus and the Afrikan Holocaust: Slavery
and the Rise of European Capitalism
.
There are even more books published about the war itself. But as many have pointed out,
it's learning about the reasons for the war that's most important. Vice President Henry
Wilson was the first to write a very detailed 3 volume history of those reasons,
Rise and
Fall of the Slave Power in America
beginning in 1872, and they are rare books indeed;
fortunately, they've been digitized and can be found here,
https://archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A%22Wilson%2C+Henry%2C+1812-1875%22
Perhaps the most complete is Allan Nevins 8 volume
Ordeal of the Union
, although for
me it begins too late in 1847,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordeal_of_the_Union
Finally, no study of the period's complete without examining the unraveling and utter
dysfunction of the political process that occurred between 1856 and 1860 that allowed Lincoln
to win the presidency, Roy Nichols's
The Disruption of American Democracy
illustrates
that best.
The US Civil War can't be boiled down to having just one cause; it's causes were multiple,
although slavery--being an economic and social system--resides at its core. As an historian,
I can't really justify the removal of statues and other items of historical relevance,
although displaying the Confederate Flag on public buildings I see as wrong; better to
display the Spirit of '76 flag if stars and stripes are to be displayed. (I wonder what will
become of the UK's Union Jack if Scotland votes to leave the UK.) Personal display of the
Stars and Bars for me amounts to a political statement which people within the Outlaw US
Empire still have the right to express despite the animus it directs at myself and other
non-Anglo ethnicities. (I'm Germanic Visigoth with Spanish surname--people are surprised at
my color when they hear my name.)
The current deep dysfunction in the Outlaw US Empire's domestic politics mirrors that of
the latter 1850s somewhat but the reasons are entirely different yet solvable--IF--the
populous can gain a high degree of solidarity.
There's also the school of thought that holds that Honest Abe freed the slaves in order that
northern industrialists could acquire replacements for workers lost in the war.
@37
Aye Woogs. All about expanding fed gov powers, most of which was focused on permanent central
banking charter. Many forget that central banking charter had been in place before CW in the
US and that great statesman Andrew Jackson repelled it. The first central banking charter
caused terrible economic suffering, which is why it was repelled. People had more sense then.
Not so much now.
"Gentlemen! I too have been a close observer of the doings of the Bank of the United
States. I have had men watching you for a long time, and am convinced that you have used the
funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided
the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. You tell me that if I
take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter I shall ruin ten thousand families.
That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin
fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and thieves. I
have determined to rout you out, and by the Eternal I will rout you out!"
~Andrew Jackson
It saddens me that so many buy into the South fought for slavery. That story line was used in
the same manner that Weapons of Mass Destruction was used to war with Iraq. The difference is
the internet was able to get the truth out. Doesn't do much good to argue as most believe the
Confederate slavery propaganda. The US is done as a nation. A thousand different groups that
hate each other preaching no hate. Yes it will limp along for a while but it's done for.
many thanks for the history, and the books. I read Murray's essay and consider it a good
take....
".... As an historian, I can't really justify the removal of statues and other items of
historical relevance, although displaying the Confederate Flag on public buildings I see as
wrong..."
I have to agree.
& there is at least one sane (african american) person in LA, as per below article
"....Los Angeles resident Monique Edwards says historical monuments, like the Confederate
statue removed from Hollywood Forever Cemetery, need to be preserved and used as teachable
moments...."
Yankees wanted strong central government with wide array of power, Southerners didn't.
Yankees were supported by London banking families and their banking allies or agents in the
US, Southerners were on their own.
I recall that it was the slavers that wanted the central government to enforce the
Fugitive Slave Act
even in states that outlawed slavery; it was the slavers that
insisted that slavery be legal in the new territories, regardless of the wishes of the
settlers.
Also, the London industrial and banking interest strongly supported the breakaway slavers
because:
(1) It was the slave produced cotton that fueled the textile industry in England.
(2) Imported British ¨prestige¨ items found a ready market with the nouveau riche
planters grown fat on stolen labor.
(3) A Balkanized NA would be more subject to pressure from the ¨Mother Country.¨
(4) Lincoln refused to borrow from the bankers and printed ¨greenbacks¨ to finance
the war; this infuriated the bankers.
Neo-Confederate revisionism creates mythical history, in a large part, by attempting to
deify vile human beings.
Ben@26: Lincoln stated that he would only use force to collect imposts and duties.
The first battle of the war (actually more a skirmish) was the battle of Phillipi in
western Virginia in early June, l86l.
To the best of my knowledge, there were no customs houses in western Virginia as it was
not a port of entry. This was simply an invasion by the union army at Lincoln's command that
revealed his true colors. The war was Lincoln's war, plain and simple.
@51
Joey, I would like yo offer you fairy dust to buy. Interested? Luckily we should part our
ways soon. Should have happened ages ago if you ask me. Your history is not our own. You were
aggressors fighting for foreign entity. Time for us to part I think. have your own history
and say whatever you want there. We will have ours.
In my view, b is comparing a modern sensibility on race relations with that of a mid 19th
century confederate leader and so with this bad thesis it is quite easy to dismiss this post
entirely. Was the north that much more enlightened on the treatent of blacks? I think not.
Was the emancipation proclamation largely a political gesture to incite ire and violence not
only among southerners but also slaves living in these states towards their owners?
Meanwhile, the effect of such a proclamation was exempt on states where said effect would not
"pinch" the south. The north, if anything, was even more racist using blacks as a means
towards the end to consolidate power even more centrally.
It honestly reads like most neutral apologetic drivel out of the "other" msm which is on
the ropes right now from an all-out wholly political assault. If you truly wanted to educate
people on their history you would stand up for fair and honest discourse. Make no mistake,
this is all about obscuration and historical-revisionism. Globalists gotta eat.
"Slavery as an institution, is a moral &political evil in any Country... I think it
however a greater evil to the white man than to the black race... The blacks are immeasurably
better off." Robert E. Lee
Sounds like a man with opinions, but without the burning fire to see that evil enshrined
in a state-policy towards blacks. Basically, one condemns him for sharing a popular view of
the day. CALL THE THOUGHT POLICE!
From a British point of view, Washington and Jefferson were traitors as well.
As for Lee, he was racist, but doesn't seem to have been more racist than the average Yankee.
No more racist than Sherman or Lincoln, and less racist than many of the Confederate top
guys, for instance.
Then, there's the nutjob idea that forcefully taking down other statues in the South will
make these guys "win". At least, the Lee statue had a more or less legal and democratic
process going on, which is the only way to go if you don't want to look like a Taliban.
Really, did these idiots not understand that bringing down Confederate statues without due
process will massively piss off most of the locals? Do they really want the local hardliners
to come armed and ready to use their guns, one of these days? Is this the plan all along, to
spark another civil war for asshat reasons?
(Like B, toppling Saddam and communist statues was the very first thing I thought of. As
if these poor fools had just been freed from a terrible dictatorship, instead of nothing
having changed or been won at all in the last months)
I agree with Woogs (25). How stoopid are we ? History has been re-written and manipulated
going back a long way. Most of the readers here know that our "masters" , and their versions
of history are not accurate. Yet here we are arguing and such ... " he was good...NO He was
bad...." acting as if we know truth from fiction. Back then, as now, it was all planned.
Divide and conquer. Slavery was the "excuse" for war. The Power Elite" were based in Europe
at that time and saw America as a real threat to their global rule. It was becoming too
strong and so needed to be divided. Thus the people of those times were played....just as we
are today. Manipulated into war. Of course America despite the Civil War , continued to grow
and prosper so the elite devised another plan. Plan "B" has worked better than they could
have ever imagined. They have infected the "soul" of America and the infection is spreading
rapidly.Everyone , please re-read oilman2 comments (31)
Thanks B, precisely my thinking. It has a smell of vendetta. And I believe this sort of old
testament thinking is very common in the u.s. of A. What's currently happening will further
alienate both sides and lead to even more urgent need to externalize an internal problem via
more wars.
In 2016, the Southern Poverty Law Center estimated that there were over 1,500 "symbols of
the Confederacy in public spaces" in the United States. The majority of them are located,
as one might expect, in the 11 states that seceded from the union, but as Vice aptly points
out, some can be found in Union states (New York, for example has three, Pennsylvania,
four) and at least 22 of them are located in states that didn't even exist during the Civil
War.
How can that be possible? Because largely, Confederate monuments were built during two
key periods of American history: the beginnings of Jim Crow in the 1920s and the civil
rights movement in the early 1950s and 1960s.
To be sure, some sprung up in the years following the Confederacy's defeat (the concept
of a Confederate memorial day dates back to back to 1866 and was still officially observed
by the governments of Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina, as of the publication of
the Southern Poverty Law Center's report), and some continue to be built!USA Today notes
that 35 Confederate monuments have been erected in North Carolina since 2000.
But when these statues!be they historical place markers, or myth-building icons of Lee
or Stonewall Jackson!were built seems to suggest these monuments have very little to do
with paying tribute to the Civil War dead and everything to do with erecting monuments to
black disenfranchisement, segregation, and 20th-century racial tension.
I don't know if b. realizes how many German monuments got destroyed because people did not
wish to recall this particular part of history, the bomb raids of the allies helped, of
course, but there are cemeteries of Marx, Engels and Lenin statues, and
only revisionists recall what was destroyed
after WWII
.
Young people need some space to breath. They don't need monuments of war heros.
b wrote "Statues standing in cities and places are much more than veneration of one person or
group. They are symbols, landmarks and fragments of personal memories..."
Symbols indeed, traits in cultural landscapes. This piece may add another dimension to the
importance of cultural landscape in the context of this conversation:
"To this day, the question remains: why would the Southerners remember and celebrate a losing
team, and how come the non-Southerners care about it so passionately? A convenient answer
revolves around the issue of slavery; i.e., a commemoration of the era of slavery for the
former, and, for the latter, the feeling that the landscape reminders of that era should be
entirely erased."
and
"In the past two decades, the American(s)' intervention has brought down the statues of
Hussein, Gaddafi, Davis, and Lee respectively. Internationally, the work seems to be
completed. Domestically, the next stage will be removing the names of highways, libraries,
parks, and schools of the men who have not done an illegal act. Eventually, all such traits
in the cultural landscape of Virginia may steadily disappear, because they are symbols of
Confederacy."
http://www.zokpavlovic.com/conflict/the-war-between-the-states-of-mind-in-virginia-and-elsewhere/
It warms my heart that you are not a racist. But who really gives a fuck? And what makes you
think not favoring your own kind like every other racial and ethnic group does makes you a
better than those of your own racial group?? Something is wrong with you.
You are certainly entitled to your attitudes, hatreds, memories, affinities and such. You
are not entitled to your own history. History is what happened. Quit lying about it!
Lee is the past. Obama is the present. The 'Nobel Peace Prize' winner ran more concurrent
wars than any other president. He inaugurated the state execution of US citizens by drone
based on secret evidence presented in secret courts. He was in charge when ISIS was created
by the US Maw machine. What about removing his Nobel Peace Prize?
A long time ago Christians destroyed the old god's statues because they were pagan and didn't
comply with their religion (or is it ideology?). Muslims followed and did the same on what
was left. They even do that now when ISIS blows up ancient monuments.
What is next? Burning books? Lets burn the library of Alexandria once again...
Joeymac 69:
I didn't mean the Charlottesville mess was done without due process. I refer to the cases
that have happened these last few days - a trend that won't stop overnight.
Extremists from both sides aren't making friends on the other ones, and obviously are only
making matters worse.
Somebody 63:
"It is futile to discuss what the confederacy was then, when white supremacy groups consider
them their home today."
That's the whole fucking problem. By this logic, nobody should listen to Wagner or read
Nietzsche anymore. Screw that. Assholes and criminals from now should be judged according to
current values, laws and opinions, based on their very own crimes. People, groups, states,
religions from the past should be judged according to their very own actions as well, and not
based on what some idiot would fantasize they were 1.500 years later.
Looks like the Lee apologetics and claims that the war was about state's rights (go read the
CSA constitution, it tramples the rights of its own member states to *not* be slave holding)
or tariffs are alive and well in these comments. That's what these statues represent: the
utter perversion of the historical record. And as pointed out @38, none of these statues are
from anywhere near the Civil War or Reconstruction era.
I think anyone and everyone who instigates a successful campaign to destroy a memorial which
glorifies war should be awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace & Sanity and be memorialised in
bronze, nearby, as a permanent reminder that war WAS a racket, until Reason prevailed.
No offense intended.
Arch-propagandist Rove said "[Those] in what we call the reality-based community, [who]
believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality. That's not
the way the world really works anymore. We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our
own reality [e.g Russia hacked the election]. And while you're studying that
reality!judiciously, as you will!we'll act again, creating other new realities [e.g. Neo-Nazi
White Supremacism], which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're
history's actors and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."
There is a coup underway to get rid of Trump [who's 'unpardonable crime' seems to be that
he isn't going along with the War Party]. The War Party will try anything, anything, if there
is a hope that it will work to get rid of him. When Trump launched the cruise missiles
against Syria, there was a moment's silence, totally spooky given all the bs that was flying
... Would he start a war with Russia? Would Trump go all the way with that, as Clinton
probably would have done? When the attack fizzled out, the chorus resumed their attacks as
though nothing had happened.
Their tactical attacks change as they are revealed to be fakes. The current attack,
probably using War Party provacateurs operating on both sides, is the next tactical phase -
out with 'Russian Hacking the Election', in with 'Trump White Supremacist Nazi'. If there is
the standard CIA regime change plan behind this (as outlined by John Perkins and seen in
Ukraine, Libya, Syria)] and the relatively passive actions don't work, they will ultimately
resort to hard violence. At that stage, they resort to using snipers to kill people on both
sides.
The anti-fas' are supposedly liberal, anti-gun, but there already have been stories of
them training with weapons, even working with the Kurds in Syria so the ground is laid for
their use of weapons. There are those on the Trump side who would relish the excuse for gun
violence irrespective on consequence so the whole thing could spiral out of control very
rapidly and very dangerously.
Disclosure - I do not support Trump [or any US politico for that matter]. The whole US
political system is totally corrupt and morally bankrupt. Those that rise [or more accurately
those that are allowed to rise] to the top reflect that corruption and bankruptcy. This could
get very very messy.
There's nothing wrong with being racist. Racism is simply preference for one's extended
family. 'b' calls the admittedly rather goony lot at C'ville 'white supremacists'. But do
they want to enslave blacks or rule over non-whites? No. In fact most of the alt-right lament
the slave trade and all its ills, including mixing two groups who, as Lincoln pointed out,
had no future together. What the left wants to do is reduce Confederate American heritage and
culture down to the slavery issue, despite the fact only a few Southerners owned slaves.
Now, within ethnic European countries, should whites be supreme? You're goddamn right they
should. Just as the Japanese should practice 'yellow supremacy', and so on and so forth. Most
of you lot here, being liberals, will be in favour of no fault divorce. You understand there
can be irreconcilable differences which in way suggest either person is objectively bad. The
same applies to disparate ethnicities. If white Slovaks and Czechs can't get one, why would
white and non-white groups?
You lefties need to have a serious moral dialogue over your rejection of
ethno-nationalism! Time to get on the right side of history! Have you noticed the alt-right,
despite being comprised of 'hateful bigots', is favourably disposed toward Iran, Syria, and
Russia? That's because we consistently apply principles which can protect our racially,
culturally, religiously, and ethnically diverse planet, and mitigate conflict. But the woke
woke left (not a typo) meanwhile has to 'resist' imperialism by constantly vilifying America.
ITS NOT THAT I'M IN FAVOUR OF ASSAD OR PUTIN, ITS JUST THAT AMERICA IS SO NAUGHTY! OH, HOW
BASE ARE OUR MOTIVES. OH, WHAT A POX WE ARE. Weak tea. You have no theoretical arguments
against liberal interventionism or neoconservativism.
Newsflash folks. Hillary Clinton doesn't fundamentally differ from you in principle. She
merely differs on what methods should be employed to achieve Kojeve's universal homogeneous
state. Most of you just want to replace global capitalism with global socialism. Seen how
occupy wall street turned out? Didn't make a dent. See how your precious POCs voted for the
neoliberal war monger? Diversity increases the power of capital. The only force which can
beat globalization is primordial tribalism.
Lee actually thought the Civil War an awful tragedy. He was asked to choose between his
state and his country. That's not much different from being asked to choose between your
family and your clan.
Lee was a racist.
That might be true, depending on one's definition of a racist. But then, why should Abraham
Lincoln get a pass? It's well known that he did not start the Civil War to end slavery --
that idea only occurred to him halfway through the conflict. But there's also the fact that,
while he was never a great fan of slavery, he apparently did not believe in the natural
equality of the races, and
he
even once professed to have no intention of granting blacks equality under the law:
"While I was at the hotel to-day, an elderly gentleman called upon me to know whether I was
really in favor of producing a perfect equality between the negroes and white people. While
I had not proposed to myself on this occasion to say much on that subject, yet as the
question was asked me I thought I would occupy perhaps five minutes in saying something in
regard to it. I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about
in any way the social and political equality of the black and white races -- that I am not
nor ever have been in favor of making VOTERS or jurors of negroes, NOR OF QUALIFYING THEM
HOLD OFFICE, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that
there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will
forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And
inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position
of superior and inferior, and I as much as any of her man am in favor of having the
superior position assigned to the white race."
It turns out that history's a complicated thing! To bad it wasn't all written by Hollywood
with a bunch of cartoon villains and heroes ...
One gets the impression that the current wave of statue take downs is seen as well deserved
"punishment" for those who voted wrongly - i.e. not for Hillary Clinton. While many Trump
voters will dislike statues of Robert Lee, they will understand that dislike the campaign
to take them down even more.
You nailed it, b. The way things are headed, I now wonder if I will someday be arrested
for owning Lynard Skynard albums (the covers of which usually had Confederate battle flags)
or for having watched Dukes of Hazard shows as a child. It's starting to get that crazy.
Anyway, thanks for running a sane blog in a mad world!
Good interview with a Black, female pastor in Charlottsville who was in church when the march
began Friday night. They caught a lot that wasn't on network news.
"Don't let this site get bogged down in history that is being constantly rewritten on
Wikipedia. Don't buy into the left/right division process. Don't let your self identify with
either group, as they are being led by provocateurs.
The lies we know of regarding Iraq, Syria, Libya - aren't they enough to force people to
disbelieve our media completely? The HUGE lies in our media about what is going on in
Venezuela should be quite enough (bastante suficiente) to make most people simply disbelieve.
But they cannot because they are only allowed to see and hear what our government approves -
and for our government, lying is quite legal now.
Let the emotions go - they are pushed via media to force you to think in white or black,
right or left, old vs young - any way that is divisive. Getting beaten for a statue would
likely make the guy who posed for it laugh his butt off most likely..."
Posted by: Oilman2 | Aug 16, 2017 3:09:32 PM | 31
Well said. Hope to see your thoughts in the future.
And as always, Karlof1 you have some insights I rarely get ever else (especially not in a
comment section)
______________________________
"The US Civil War can't be boiled down to having just one cause; it's causes were
multiple, although slavery--being an economic and social system--resides at its core. As an
historian, I can't really justify the removal of statues and other items of historical
relevance, although displaying the Confederate Flag on public buildings I see as wrong;
better to display the Spirit of '76 flag if stars and stripes are to be displayed. (I wonder
what will become of the UK's Union Jack if Scotland votes to leave the UK.) Personal display
of the Stars and Bars for me amounts to a political statement which people within the Outlaw
US Empire still have the right to express despite the animus it directs at myself and other
non-Anglo ethnicities. (I'm Germanic Visigoth with Spanish surname--people are surprised at
my color when they hear my name.)
The current deep dysfunction in the Outlaw US Empire's domestic politics mirrors that of
the latter 1850s somewhat but the reasons are entirely different yet solvable--IF--the
populous can gain a high degree of solidarity."
Posted by: karlof1 | Aug 16, 2017 3:51:18 PM | 45
____________________________
Also, somebody @63, very poignant to mention. While I could care less whether about some
statues stand or fall (it helps living outside the empire), to deny that they are (generally)
symbols of racism, or were built with that in mind, is a little off base in my eyes. Going to
repost this quote because I think it had quite a bit of value in this discussion.
"In 2016 the Southern Poverty Law Center estimated that there were over 1,500 "symbols of
thE Confederacy in public spaces" in the United States. The majority of them are located, as
one might expect, in the 11 states that seceded from the union, but as Vice aptly points out,
some can be found in Union states (New York, for example has three, Pennsylvania, four) and
at least 22 of them are located in states that didn't even exist during the Civil War.
How can that be possible? Because largely, Confederate monuments were built during two key
periods of American history: the beginnings of Jim Crow in the 1920s and the civil rights
movement in the early 1950s and 1960s.
To be sure, some sprung up in the years following the Confederacy's defeat (the concept of
a Confederate memorial day dates back to back to 1866 and was still officially observed by
the governments of Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina, as of the publication of the
Southern Poverty Law Center's report), and some continue to be built!USA Today notes that 35
Confederate monuments have been erected in North Carolina since 2000.
But when these statues!be they historical place markers, or myth-building icons of Lee or
Stonewall Jackson!were built seems to suggest these monuments have very little to do with
paying tribute to the Civil War dead and everything to do with erecting monuments to black
disenfranchisement, segregation, and 20th-century racial tension."
Racism means zero understanding or tolerance of other people/cultures, an attitude that
ones own culture or skin colour or group is far superior to those 'others'.
Hear, hear. Generally, a resurgence of American nationalism WILL take the form of populist
socialism because it will mark a turning away from the global police state which America is
leading currently and will replace it with nationalistic spending on socialist programs with
an emphasis on decreased military spending. This will continue ideally until a balance of low
taxation and government regulation form a true economy which begins at a local level from the
ground up.
In 1861, the vice-president of the Confederacy, Alexander H. Stephens, offered this
foundational explanation of the Confederate cause:
"Its corner-stone rests, upon the
great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to
the superior race is his natural and normal condition.
This, our new government, is the
first, in the history of the world,
based upon this great physical, philosophical, and
moral truth.
"
how much public space in the US should be dedicated to monuments honoring these people in
the coming century? and for the children and grandchildren of slaves walking by them every
day? what about their heritage? and the public monuments to the indigenous people of this
land who we genocided? oh right, as a country we have still not even officially recognized
that genocide. monuments should not be solely a reflection of the past, but of the future, of
who we want to be. who we choose to recognize in our public spaces says a lot about us.
It's pretty fair too say several of the "alt-right" leaders who planned this event agent are
provocateurs or Sheep Dipped assets running honeypot "white nationalist" operations.
You can see from the make-up of the phony "Nazis" in the groups and their continued use of
various propaganda that serves only to tie people and movements OPPOSED by the Deep State to
"Nazis" and racist ideology, you can see how on the ground level, this event has psyop
planners' fingerprints all over it.
It's also fair too say the complicit media's near universal take on the event signals a
uniform, ready-made reaction more than likely dictated to them from a single source.
Trump is attacked. The ACLU is attacked. Peace activists opposed to the CIA's regime
change operation in Syria are attacked. Tucker Carlson is attacked. Everyone attacked that
the CIA and various other aspects of the Deep State want attacked as if the MSM were all sent
the same talking points memo.
And keep in mind, this all comes right after the news was starting to pick up on the story
that the Deep State's bullshit narrative about a "Russian hack" was falling apart.
Also keep in mind it comes at a time when 600,000 Syrians returned home after the CIA's
terrorist regime change operation fell apart.
The statues were erected when the KKK was at its peak, to keep the blacks in their place.
They started getting torn down after the 2015 massacre of black churchgoers by a Nazi. For
once, don't blame Clinton.
My only argument with your post is "Chattel Slavery was introduced in the Western
Hemisphere"
Chattel = movable property as opposed to your house. In that day and long before women and
children were chattel.
Thinking about what might have been might help. If the south had won would we have had a
strong enough central government to create and give corporate charters and vast rights of way
to railroads which then cross our nation. Would states have created their own individual
banking systems negating the need for the all controlling Federal reserve? Would states have
their own military units willing to join other states to repel an attack instead of the MIC
which treats the rest of the world like expendable slaves?
Before our constitution there was the Articles of Confederation. Article 1,2+3.....
Article I. The Stile of this Confederacy shall be "The United States of America."
Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every
Power, Jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the
United States, in Congress assembled.
Article III. The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with
each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and
general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or
attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any
other pretense whatever.
This first set of laws in the new world was later undone in a secret convention with
Madison, input from Jefferson and others found on our money and other honorariums. 1868 gave
us the 14th amendment to the constitution that freed all who are born within this nation and
were given equal rights. (Not saying that this worked for all slaves. Within a few years this
was used to create corporate persons with access to the bill of rights.
I am thinking there were many reasons that people who lived in those times had to fight
for what they did. We today are not in a position to judge why individuals fought. Certainly
many poor white southerners who owned no slaves at all fought and died. Was it to keep slaves
they did not own enslaved or did they fight and die for issues around protection of local or
state rights, freedoms and way of life?
Histories are written and paid for by the winners who control that particular present time
for the glorification of those rulers. A vast removal of historical artifacts speaks of a
weak nation fading into the west's need to clean up some points from history of mean and
brutal behaviors which we as a nation support now in the present but try and make it about
others.
A paragragh here from lemur 77 comment...
"Now, within ethnic European countries, should whites be supreme? You're goddamn right they
should. Just as the Japanese should practice 'yellow supremacy', and so on and so forth. Most
of you lot here, being liberals, will be in favour of no fault divorce. You understand there
can be irreconcilable differences which in way suggest either person is objectively bad. The
same applies to disparate ethnicities. If white Slovaks and Czechs can't get one, why would
white and non-white groups?"
What is the United States of America? It is made up of British, French, Spanish and
Russian territories aquired or conquered, the original colonists in turn taking them from the
native inhabitants. The US has had a largley open imigration policy, people of all cultures,
languages and skin colours and religions.
Why should white Europeans be supreme in the US lemur?
The following is the guts of a posting from Raw Story that I see as quite related.
"
White House senior strategist Steve Bannon is rejoicing at the criticism President Donald
Trump is receiving for defending white nationalism.
Bannon phoned The American Prospect progressive writer and editor Robert Kuttner Tuesday,
according to his analysis of the interview.
In the interview, Bannon dismissed ethno-nationalists as irrelevant.
"Ethno-nationalism!it's losers. It's a fringe element," Bannon noted.
"These guys are a collection of clowns," he added.
Bannon claimed to welcome the intense criticism Trump has received.
"The Democrats," he said, "the longer they talk about identity politics, I got 'em. I want
them to talk about racism every day. If the left is focused on race and identity, and we go
with economic nationalism, we can crush the Democrats."
Kuttner described Bannon as being in "high spirits" during the call
"You might think from recent press accounts that Steve Bannon is on the ropes and
therefore behaving prudently. In the aftermath of events in Charlottesville, he is widely
blamed for his boss's continuing indulgence of white supremacists," Kuttner explained. "But
Bannon was in high spirits when he phoned me Tuesday afternoon to discuss the politics of
taking a harder line with China, and minced no words describing his efforts to neutralize his
rivals at the Departments of Defense, State, and Treasury."
"They're wetting themselves," Bannon said of opponents he planned to oust at State and
Defense.
"
Curtis 6 isn't me. However, I somewhat agree with the point.
Joe 41
Very true. Lee saw himself as defending Virginia. Slavery was the chief issue used in the
states declarations of secession. But the end goal was a separate govt (that actually banned
the importation of new slaves).
Nemesis 57
Excellent. Racism was bad in the North, too.
Strange how the left are pulling down statues of democrats, and the right are fighting to
have them stand. The confederates were democrats, but nobody seem to remember that now
anymore.
Nothing strange about it. The Democrats dropped the southern racists and the Republicans
picked them up with the Southern Strategy. It's all pretty well documented. The current
Republicans are not heirs to Lincoln in any meaningful way.
...."The Democrats," he said, "the longer they talk about identity politics, I got 'em. I
want them to talk about racism every day. If the left is focused on race and identity, and we
go with economic nationalism, we can crush the Democrats.".....
Those who make silly talk about "Patriots and Traitors" (Swallows and Amazons?) are being
obtuse about their history. The whole system was racist through and through, depended upon it
and was built upon it, starting with the very first rapacious sorties inland from the swampy
coast.
Some excellent commentary here, including james's percipient notes, Grieved's point,
RUKidding's and karlof1's, perry's observations and speculations.
Aside, this "99% v.1%" discourse is disempowering and one has to ask whose interests such
talk and attendant disempowerment serve.
This is a meaningful post on a touchy subject. Global Brahmins are looting the developed
world. Color revolutions and ethnic rifts make great fire sales. In a sane world, old
monuments would molder away in obscurity. Instead a faux resistance to divide and conquer the
little people has commenced. But, it is careening out of control due to austerity and job
loss. Deplorable Bushwhackers are fighting for tribalism and supremacy. After the 27 year old
war in Iraq, subjected Sunnis turned to their ethnic myths and traditions to fight back;
obliterating two ancient cities and themselves. The Chaos is coming west.
The problem is that people focus on the effects of history, like slavery and the holocaust,
but if you go into the causes and context of these events, then you get accused of
rationalizing them. Yet being ignorant of the causes is when history gets repeated. By the
time another seriously bad effect rises, it's too late.
As for slavery, it's not as though peoples lives haven't been thoroughly commodified before
and continue to be. Yes, slavery in the early part of this country was horrendous and the
resulting racism arose from the more reptilian parts of people's minds, but that part still
exists and needs to be better understood, not dismissed.
It should also be noted that if it wasn't for slavery, the African American population would
otherwise only be about as large as the Arab American population. It is a bit like being the
offspring of a rape. It might the absolute worst aspect of your life, but you wouldn't be
here otherwise. It's the Native Americans who really got screwed in the deal, but there are
not nearly enough of them left, to get much notice.
PS,
For those who know their legal history, no, I'm not using a pseudonym. There is a lot of
family history in this country, from well before it was a country.
Mike Flynn has been out at the White House for more than four months. He
is, we are told, in the most serious kind of legal trouble. Yet the political
ghost of Mike Flynn still seems to be a hidden hand driving outcomes in
the Trump White House. Maybe it's even Flynn himself.
Allow me to explain.
On Friday, Foreign Policy
published an article explaining that the White House is pushing for
widening the war in Syria over Pentagon objections. Look into the details
and you see it's more specific than 'widening the war'. It's moving from
a near exclusive focus on defeating ISIS to pushing a broader confrontation
with Iran, which is of course heavily involved in Syria.
Not only does this run the risk of a major and damaging military confrontation
with Iran. It almost certainly complicates or hurts the campaign against
ISIS since Iran is itself extremely hostile to ISIS and fighting it on the
ground in Iraq and Syria.
So who exactly is "the White House" here?
According to the Foreign Policy piece, it's principally two
people. Ezra Cohen-Watnick and Derek Harvey, respectively the chief intelligence
adviser at the NSC and the chief Middle East advisor. If that first name
rings a bell, it should: Cohen-Watnick is the Flynn protege who was behind
the Devin Nunes, Susan Rice "un-masking" nonsense caper. While Cohen-Watnick
was up to that mischief, McMaster,
as one of his first orders of business was trying to can him .
But he was blocked by Trump and Bannon.
Dereck Harvey is clearly a hawk but he at least seems to be respected
within the military and intelligence establishments beyond just Mike Flynn.
David Patraeus had him as an advisor and he appears to have held Harvey
in high esteem.
There's an additional element to the story that bears directly on the
Russia probe.
Remember that the most plausible read of what Cohen-Watnick was doing
in that case was trying to surveil the investigation into his boss and mentor,
Flynn, and the larger Russia probe. White House Counsel Don McGahn appears
to have realized that as soon as Cohen-Watnick brought the "findings" of
his "review" to the Counsel's office. McGahn told Cohen-Watnick to stand
down. That prompted Cohen-Watnick to pull an end run by going to Nunes.
As even Lake concedes, Rice's alleged actions – if the report is
accurate – were almost certainly legal. Most national security experts
say they were not only legal but entirely proper. Moreover, the kind
of snooping around that Cohen-Watnick was apparently doing could very
plausibly be interpreted as an attempt to monitor or interfere with
the on-going counter-intelligence probe of Trump associates' ties to
Russia. The White House Counsel's job is to protect and look after the
legal interests of the President. A good lawyer would likely want to
shut that kind of freelancing down right away, especially if what Cohen-Watnick
had found didn't amount to anything that helped the President or the
White House.
My basic question is: why does Cohen-Watnick still have a job? Maybe
McMaster couldn't fire him on day one. But he's had months to establish
himself and place his stamp on the NSC.
Who is opposing this at the Pentagon? According to Foreign Policy
, it's principally Secretary of Defense Mattis and Joint Chiefs Chair Dunford.
Foreign Policy is less clear on where McMaster stands but assumes (I think
rightly based on other published reports) he is in the latter (Pentagon)
group. (Remember, that Mattis is considered a major Iran hawk; the fact
that he opposes this speaks volumes.)
Now, conflicts between Departments (State, Defense, CIA, et al.) and
the NSC are common in American foreign policy. The NSC often wins them.
That is not odd in itself. What is odd is that in this case the "NSC" is
not clearly being driven by the President's National Security Advisor. That's
highly odd.
Indeed, if we look at the current NSC it seems to still be stocked in
many cases by Mike Flynn's people. Again, not entirely out of the norm.
A new boss isn't really in a position to fire everyone at once. But Mike
Flynn isn't any former NSC boss. He resigned in disgrace and is at the center
of an investigation that is consuming the whole country. Copious reporting
says that he has not been permitted to fire a number of Flynn people.
Who exactly is keeping Cohen-Watnick and others like him in place? Remember,
this isn't my imagination or speculation. McMaster tried to fire him as
soon as he took over the NSC. More than not being fired, what juice does
he have that is allowing him to carry on major inter-agency battles to which
the NSC chief, his nominal boss, is either a bystander or an opponent? You
don't stay in a position like that against that kind of opposition – and
certainly not with that much power – unless someone very powerful is on
your side.
There is some unseen power center at work here. Is it the President?
Is it Steve Bannon? Is it Flynn? From what I can tell it's not clear. But
it seems pretty important to find out.
"... Very true. In fact, US military (in its conventional iteration) is one of the main (if not the main) pillar of the US Dollar as a main reserve currency, hence of US economy. It is, in effect, a business enterprise -- that is why US strategic (and military-doctrinal) though becomes increasingly incoherent -- one can formulate "global power" memes only for so long, at some point the sheer idiocy and futility of such "thinking" becomes evident even to those who believe in it. ..."
Us$ is being main focal point. While wrong perception maintained about usa military conventional superiority over anyone was critical
to mantain us$ status, us$ status as major reserve currency is the only thing that allowing united States to mantain her military
at current levels and basically USA status as major global power. Take us$ status away and the king is naked USA would become
very local power with vastly reduced if not ruined military and great issues at home. Everything that undermines us$ status is
well come including showing USA military impotence vs major nations that are challenging the status quo.
Take us$ status away and the king is naked USA would become very local power with vastly reduced if not ruined military and
great issues at home.
Very true. In fact, US military (in its conventional iteration) is one of the main (if not the main) pillar of the US Dollar
as a main reserve currency, hence of US economy. It is, in effect, a business enterprise -- that is why US strategic (and military-doctrinal)
though becomes increasingly incoherent -- one can formulate "global power" memes only for so long, at some point the sheer idiocy
and futility of such "thinking" becomes evident even to those who believe in it.
Only complete crazies remain. Plus, inability to realize itself as a real continental power is akin to acute sexual frustration.
"... Very true. In fact, US military (in its conventional iteration) is one of the main (if not the main) pillar of the US Dollar as a main reserve currency, hence of US economy. It is, in effect, a business enterprise -- that is why US strategic (and military-doctrinal) though becomes increasingly incoherent -- one can formulate "global power" memes only for so long, at some point the sheer idiocy and futility of such "thinking" becomes evident even to those who believe in it. ..."
Us$ is being main focal point. While wrong perception maintained about usa military conventional superiority over anyone was critical
to mantain us$ status, us$ status as major reserve currency is the only thing that allowing united States to mantain her military
at current levels and basically USA status as major global power. Take us$ status away and the king is naked USA would become
very local power with vastly reduced if not ruined military and great issues at home. Everything that undermines us$ status is
well come including showing USA military impotence vs major nations that are challenging the status quo.
Take us$ status away and the king is naked USA would become very local power with vastly reduced if not ruined military and
great issues at home.
Very true. In fact, US military (in its conventional iteration) is one of the main (if not the main) pillar of the US Dollar
as a main reserve currency, hence of US economy. It is, in effect, a business enterprise -- that is why US strategic (and military-doctrinal)
though becomes increasingly incoherent -- one can formulate "global power" memes only for so long, at some point the sheer idiocy
and futility of such "thinking" becomes evident even to those who believe in it.
Only complete crazies remain. Plus, inability to realize itself as a real continental power is akin to acute sexual frustration.
While the US is clearly not omnipotent, Ukraine was sliding into Baltic model for a long time,
probably since independence. So while the Maydan coup was organized and implemented by the USA,
the coming to power of right wing Western Ukrainian nationalists was probably given. The USA
actually only speeded the events by a year or two. During the next Presidential election far
right Ukrainian nationalist my impression is that they would depose Yanukovich anyway. so
the coup was probably more the result of incompetence and hubris of staunch neocon (and former
Cheney associate) Nuland then a real necessity. If we consider neocons to be a
flavor of political psychopaths such a result is not surprising.
Putin has a chance to prevent Maydan by using the same dirty methods as the USA, but iether
had chosen not to do this, or was slightly distracted by Olympics (please not that Georgian
invasion of South Ossetia also happened during Olympic events). After the coup he has one or two
days -- a small window of opportunity for deposing right wing nationalist by recognizing
Yanukovich government and sending groups to restore "the legitimate government", which was
actually corrupt (although probably to lesser level the subsequent government of Poroshenko, where
each minister became a millionaire) and hated by a lot of Ukrainians. So the population
reaction to restoration of Yanukovich regime by force might be quite hostile. Putin and his
government had chosen not to do it and gave the victory to the USA: Russia completely
lost the geopolitical game for Ukraine to the USA and now need to suffer the new cold war2 (which
also was given, the the global hegemon which accepts only vassals, the USA needed only the pretext
to squash attempts of Russia to conduct independent foreign policy). But in a decade from now the
USA probably will pay the price for this as the alliance of Russia and China is now more of a
reality then even before. Also the end of "cheap oil" automatically will drive the US
economy into perma stagnation. The current artificial low price can't last forever.
Destruction on Ukraine and its economic potential started at this point in full force and in
addition to the necessity of handing huge refugees flow to Russia, Russian economic suffered
huge losses from braking cooperation with Ukraine (which was part of the USSR economics and were
closely connected to Russian).
So Barack Obama got a huge geopolitical victory, the main victory of his presidency (along
with his Libyan adventure). But Ukrainians now need to suffer and there is no light at the
end of the tunnel. they are now just pawns in Washington geopolitical game against Russia and have
no choice but fight.
Notable quotes:
"... In crafting the platform in Cleveland on which Donald Trump would run, America Firsters inflicted a major defeat on the War Party. The platform committee rejected a plank to pull us deeper into Ukraine, by successfully opposing new U.S. arms transfers to Kiev. ..."
"... As pro-Russia rebels in East Ukraine have armored vehicles, Kiev wants U.S. tank-killing Javelin missiles, as well as antiaircraft weapons. State and Defense want Trump to send the lethal weapons. This is a formula for a renewed war, with far higher casualties in Ukraine than the 10,000 dead already suffered on both sides. And it is a war Vladimir Putin will not likely allow Kiev to win. ..."
"... If Ukraine's army, bolstered by U.S. weaponry, re-engages in the east, it could face a Moscow-backed counterattack and be routed, and the Russian army could take permanent control of the Donbass. ..."
"... Is President Trump losing control of Russia policy? Has he capitulated to the neocons? These are not academic questions. For consider the architect of the new arms package, Kurt Volker, the new U.S. Special Representative for Ukraine Negotiations. ..."
"... If the following is true it is worth reading: https://www.rt.com/news/398490-us-main-global-threat-survey/ ..."
"... Dear Mr. Buchanan, Had the Journal one small moment of "truth telling" then its goal would be crystal clear not to bleed Russia but to bleed the United States to utter insolvency through their endless stupid wars.. Just look at our nation's balance sheet to see the truth. Nearly FIFTEEN TRILLION DOLLARS of debt generated in a mere seventeen years. ..."
"... Volker envisions a deepening U.S. involvement in a Ukrainian civil war that can bleed and break Russia's Ukrainian allies and convince Putin to back down and accept what we regard as a just settlement ..."
"... On the contrary, I think that Volker and others driving US policy are very well aware that Putin won't back down, and this is indeed what they want. A direct, permanent conflict with Russia which will leave it isolated from the "Western" world. A bit like track and field, where it increasingly looks like Russia will be permanently excluded from international competitions, and where Russian athletes will only be allowed to compete as "neutrals", under pain of exclusion if they as so much as sing the Russian national anthem in their hotel. And once the conflict heats up in Ukraine, look for a call to boycott the 2018 World Cup in Russia (as per the 1980 Olympics). The recent Confederations Cup in Russia was widely viewed as a considerable success, and received favorable reporting in much of the Western press, and this clearly can't be allowed to happen with the World Cup, the World's premier sporting event. ..."
"... And of course conflict with Russia has nothing to do with the proclaimed goal of containing an "agressive" Putin and Russia, which is a fallacious representation of Russia's actions and motives, and everything to do with maintaining the seemingly absolute World hegemony the USA gained after the collapse of the USSR. This fantasy of absolute hegemony is hard to let go for Neocons and Deep state, and they will cling to it with all their claws, even risking nuclear war for it ..."
"... The latest sanctions on Russia are an attempt to bleed Russia in another way, by pushing it out of the World economy, with the naive conviction that it would all end well if that plan succeeded ..."
"... It's a confusion of the Soviet experience in Afghanistan with the defense of ethnic Russians standing up to a Yankee Puppet Regime trying to subjugate them. The coffins might well secure a landslide election for Putin in such a cause. The US may have seriously misunderestimated the situation there. ..."
"... I'd say the neocons have Trump on the ropes. Perhaps he figures if he buys enough of their guns he can pacify them long enough to get some control back, I doubt he has any intention of firing those guns but hey, shit happens! ..."
"... a previous puppet of US, Yushchenko, was installed in Kiev with the help of the State Dept. and the CIA-supported and educated organizations like The National Endowment for Democracy (NED). http://www.fort-russ.com/2017/08/killing-europe-us-launches-sanctions.html ..."
"... Monsanto is already in charge of the Ukraine' agricultural lands. Splendid. http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2526593/ukraine_opens_up_for_monsanto_land_grabs_and_gmos.html ..."
In crafting the platform in Cleveland on which Donald Trump would run, America Firsters
inflicted a major defeat on the War Party. The platform committee rejected a plank to pull us deeper into Ukraine, by successfully
opposing new U.S. arms transfers to Kiev.
Improved relations with Russia were what candidate Trump had promised, and what Americans
would vote for in November.
Yet, this week, The Wall Street Journal reports:
"The U.S. Pentagon and State Department have devised plans to supply Ukraine with antitank
missiles and other weaponry and are seeking White House approval as Kiev battles Russia-backed
separatists Defense Secretary Mattis has endorsed the plan."
As pro-Russia rebels in East Ukraine have armored vehicles, Kiev wants U.S. tank-killing
Javelin missiles, as well as antiaircraft weapons. State and Defense want Trump to send the lethal weapons. This is a formula for a renewed war, with far higher casualties in Ukraine than the 10,000
dead already suffered on both sides. And it is a war Vladimir Putin will not likely allow Kiev to win.
If Ukraine's army, bolstered by U.S. weaponry, re-engages in the east, it could face a
Moscow-backed counterattack and be routed, and the Russian army could take permanent control of
the Donbass.
Indeed, if Trump approves this State-Defense escalation plan, we could be looking at a rerun
of the Russia-Georgia war of August 2008.
Then, to recapture its lost province of South Ossetia, which had seceded in 1992, after
Georgia seceded from Russia, Georgia invaded.
Putin sent his army in, threw the Georgians out, and recognized South Ossetia, as John
McCain impotently declaimed, "We are all Georgians now!"
Wisely, George W. Bush ignored McCain and did nothing.
But about this new arms deal questions arise.
As the rebels have no aircraft, whose planes are the U.S. antiaircraft missiles to shoot
down? And if the Russian army just over the border can enter and crush the Ukrainian army, why
would we want to restart a civil war, the only certain result of which is more dead Ukrainians
on both sides?
The Journal's answer: Our goal is to bleed Russia.
"The point of lethal aid is to raise the price Mr. Putin pays for his imperialism until he
withdraws or agrees to peace. The Russians don't want dead soldiers arriving home before next
year's presidential election."
Also going neocon is Mike Pence. In Georgia this week, noting that Russian tanks are still
in South Ossetia, the vice president not only declared, "We stand with you," he told Georgians
the U.S. stands by its 2008 commitment to bring them into NATO.
This would mean, under Article 5 of the NATO treaty, that in a future Russia-Georgia clash
the U.S. could find itself in a shooting war with Russia in the South Caucasus.
Russia's security interests there seem clear. What are ours?
Along with Trump's signing of the new sanctions bill imposed by Congress, which strips him
of his authority to lift those sanctions without Hill approval, these developments raise larger
questions.
Is President Trump losing control of Russia policy? Has he capitulated to the neocons? These
are not academic questions. For consider the architect of the new arms package, Kurt Volker,
the new U.S. Special Representative for Ukraine Negotiations.
A former CIA agent, member of the National Security Counsel, and envoy to NATO, Volker
believes Russian troops in Transnistria, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk
are all there illegally -- and U.S. policy should be to push them out.
A former staffer of Sen. McCain, Volker was, until July, executive director of the neocon
McCain Institute. He has called for the imposition of personal sanctions on Putin and his
family and European travel restrictions on the Russian president. In the Journal this week, "officials" described his strategy:
"Volker believes that a change in Ukraine can be brought only by raising the costs for
Moscow for continued intervention in Ukraine. In public comments, he has played down the notion
that supplying weapons to Ukraine would escalate the conflict with Russia."
In short, Volker believes giving antitank and antiaircraft missiles to Ukraine will bring
Putin to the negotiating table, as he fears the prospect of dead Russian soldiers coming home
in caskets before his 2018 election. As for concerns that Putin might send his army into Ukraine, such worries are
unwarranted. Volker envisions a deepening U.S. involvement in a Ukrainian civil war that can bleed and
break Russia's Ukrainian allies and convince Putin to back down and accept what we regard as a
just settlement.
Does Trump believe this? Does Trump believe that confronting Putin with rising casualties
among his army and allies in Ukraine is the way to force the Russian president to back down and
withdraw from Crimea, Luhansk and Donetsk, as Nikita Khrushchev did from Cuba in 1962?
What if Putin refuses to back down, and chooses to confront?
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, "Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles
That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever."
E. Ukraine and Crimea would be part controlled by Ukraine and there would be no fighting
in E. Ukraine today if Obama and Nuland had not interfered in Ukraine. Period.
The upheaval and deaths there are entirely our responsibility.
@reiner
Tor
"Interestingly, it's never explained why Putin would fear his soldiers being killed
before the election if he really was a dictator. Either he doesn't care much for the election
or he's not really a dictator." Well said.
Dear Mr. Buchanan, Had the Journal one small moment of "truth telling" then its goal would be crystal clear
not to bleed Russia but to bleed the United States to utter insolvency through their endless
stupid wars.. Just look at our nation's balance sheet to see the truth. Nearly FIFTEEN TRILLION DOLLARS of debt generated in a mere seventeen years.
What an utter disaster and total disgrace to our nation.
Volker envisions a deepening U.S. involvement in a Ukrainian civil war that can
bleed and break Russia's Ukrainian allies and convince Putin to back down and accept what
we regard as a just settlement
.
On the contrary, I think that Volker and others driving US policy are very well aware that
Putin won't back down, and this is indeed what they want. A direct, permanent conflict with
Russia which will leave it isolated from the "Western" world. A bit like track and field,
where it increasingly looks like Russia will be permanently excluded from international
competitions, and where Russian athletes will only be allowed to compete as "neutrals", under
pain of exclusion if they as so much as sing the Russian national anthem in their hotel. And
once the conflict heats up in Ukraine, look for a call to boycott the 2018 World Cup in
Russia (as per the 1980 Olympics). The recent Confederations Cup in Russia was widely viewed
as a considerable success, and received favorable reporting in much of the Western press, and
this clearly can't be allowed to happen with the World Cup, the World's premier sporting
event.
And of course conflict with Russia has nothing to do with the proclaimed goal of
containing an "agressive" Putin and Russia, which is a fallacious representation of Russia's
actions and motives, and everything to do with maintaining the seemingly absolute World
hegemony the USA gained after the collapse of the USSR.
This fantasy of absolute hegemony is hard to let go for Neocons and Deep state, and they will
cling to it with all their claws, even risking nuclear war for it
.
The latest sanctions on Russia are an attempt to bleed Russia in another way, by pushing
it out of the World economy, with the naive conviction that it would all end well if that
plan succeeded
Anyone with an ounce of common sense realises that it would end terribly bad for all the
parties involved.
@reiner
Tor
It's a confusion of the Soviet experience in Afghanistan with the defense of ethnic
Russians standing up to a Yankee Puppet Regime trying to subjugate them. The coffins might
well secure a landslide election for Putin in such a cause. The US may have seriously
misunderestimated the situation there.
I'd say the neocons have Trump on the ropes. Perhaps he figures if he buys enough of their
guns he can pacify them long enough to get some control back, I doubt he has any intention of
firing those guns but hey, shit happens!
Expecting Russia to back down fearing causalities? It would be wise to check who has been
backing down due to causalities first before making such conclusions. Here Russia security is
concerned and causalities are acceptable. USA should be very worried not to take too much
responsibilities along Russian borders because things can get hot and this is not the war USA
can win. Lose it even small way and USA days as great power are over.
Both this article, and the problems it proposes to address, are based on deep and
fundamental misunderstandings of Russia and its domestic politics. Russia has escalation
dominance in the Ukrainian theater and will not only match, but exceed, any American
provocation there, including the delivery of arms to the UAF. I believe Russia would have no
problem with this development, as it would give them cover to increase, and perhaps make
official, its support for the NDF.
As an aside, before their civil war, the Ukraine was perennially among the top five of the
world's largest arms exporters. So lack of arms is not clearly not the problem. No, the
problem is that those who are trained to use them are not particularly enthusiastic about
fighting, and those that are enthusiastic about fighting are not particularly well trained.
Not to mention that a lot of them are dead already.
As for Putin and the elections, the real risk for him is not soldiers coming home in
bodybags. Russian mentality, and their general attitudes towards war, allow them to take
losses perhaps like no one else in the world. No, the real political risk to Putin is not
appearing to react strongly enough.
As it is, Russian public opinion would like him to take a tougher stance in facing down
the Empire. The world should really be glad that Russia has such a patient and tolerant
leader. Russia's next leader will lack the political capital that Putin has developed over
the years, and will likely be much more aggressive in the defense of Russia's national
interests. Those dreaming of Putin's exit should really be careful of what they wish for.
If Putin backs down to the neocons .he will very likely be overthrown by the Russian
Military .I would like to know Comrade Saker's and Comrade SmothieX1′s view on this
matter since they are both by many orders of magnitude more qualified to comment on this
point that I have raised
look for a call to boycott the 2018 World Cup in Russia
That would never work, the USA could prevent their team from going and nobody would care,
but there is no way they could make the rest of the world do this, to deprive people of such
a big event would create an epic backfire for the neocons, even vassal states such as Germany
or UK being told by the USA not to go with get the middle finger.
Well, at least we're spared in his latest Mr. Buchanan's witlessly carrying around a
bucket of "Russian hacking" BS.
But he still serves the Establishment. Note his habitual use of "we" in reference to the
USG. People who self-identify with their rulers are essential for the warmongers. Isn't that
why Americans are subjected to camouflage uniforms and "thank you for your service"
spectacles at athletic events?
I can appreciate the author's desire to see himself and to be lauded as a "true
conservative." But the fact is that he was part of the regime that was more successful only
because it picked on Grenada and other relative weaklings. 99% of the people who live in this
country shouldn't care less about who governs Ukraine, Korea, or any other place outside the
lawful territory of the United States
More of us every day realize that the beat has been rolling on, no matter who is in
nominal power in Washington, for a long, long time. Mr. Buchanan should take a couple more
steps back. Maybe he will see that, too.
In short, Volker believes giving antitank and antiaircraft missiles to Ukraine will
bring Putin to the negotiating table, as he fears the prospect of dead Russian soldiers
coming home in caskets before his 2018 election.
1.There are NO cohesive Russian Armed Forces units (formations) in Donbass. Volunteers
(aka "vacationers") from regular Russian Army? Sure, they are being paid well, plus Northern
Wind. But it seems even Ukrainian Army's top brass admission that there are no Russian troops
in Ukraine falls on a deaf ear. Evidently those in the "West" who continue to repeat this
baloney have very little understanding of how real wars are fought and how real formations
from company up to battalion and regiment level, not to speak of brigades or divisions, are
deployed. Per personnel–neither DNR nor LNR have issues with mobilizing numbers.
2. Volker continues, if that are his real intentions, to demonstrate a complete lack of
any strategic vision and following dead beat cliches–which are defining characteristics
of D.C. "elites" who are completely removed from everyday realities, which actually matter,
of the world. Nor are they competent in their assessments of the scale of the resources
required for "bringing Putin to negotiating table". Even giving some Javelins (not to speak
of TOWs) and Stinger-type weapons will only accelerate a demise of the Ukrainian Army and
with it, of the current Kiev regime. But then again, considering level of US "diplomacy" in
general, and Volker's in particular one can reasonably expect another FUBAR with dire
consequences for both US and its clients.
putin will 100% not back down. this is not 1962. same reason why china would never allow
NK to be taken over.
It has nothing, zilch, to do with Putin. It has everything to do with overwhelming
majority of Russian people, whose blood was spilled on US and EU (NATO) money. The combined
West and especially its pathetic Russian "academe" have no clue about cultural suicide West
(US especially) has committed in Russia. It is my academic contention that US Russia's
"scholarship" (with some few exceptions) knows next to zero about Russia and especially her
20th and 21st century history. It is an established scientific fact now. Overwhelming
empirical evidence to support my claim is in place and easily accessible. It is also a major
reason why US "power elites" are so dangerous–they miscalculate constantly, because
they are incompetent.
If I have understood Mr Buchanan's writings correctly, his primary goal is the destruction
of the EU, which he sees as a threat to US global hegemony. Putin is merely an American
stooge to be used to promote that end in return for which he is to get such reward as the
hegemonic US vouchsafes to grant him. The conundrum for the US hegemonists is that if Putin
wins in Ukraine, then US global hegemony is irreversibly destroyed but if he loses, the hated
EU is enormously strengthened, which in its turn destroys US global hegemony! Heads, the EU
wins, tails, the US loses! The argument Mr Buchanan is challenging seems to be that taking
Putin out will do less damage to US hegemony than allowing him to win. As for Putin, he has
two choices. He can capitulate in return for some face-saving fudge that will fool nobody.
That will probably destroy him politically with his elderly Soviet-generation supporters at
home. Or he can start WWIII and lose or start WWIII, go nuclear and then lose. That too will
destroy him at home. Thus, for US hegemonists who haven't yet accepted that Putin has "blown
it" and can no longer serve as a battering ram to destroy the EU (and has, indeed, become a
liability to the very US groups that initially backed him), the logical thing is to try to
get the US to capitulate to Putin in the mistaken belief the the European members of NATO are
incapable of fending off Putin's rickety military machine by themselves. That wholly
misunderstands the strength of nationalism in Europe, the very same nationalism that the US
hegemonists have been trying to whip up as (yet another!) battering ram to destroy the
EU!
"Is President Trump losing control of Russia policy? Has he capitulated to the neocons?
[OR ARE WE NOW FORCED TO CONCLUDE THAT TRUMP'S PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN WAS A CALCULATED FRAUD
FROM THE BEGINNING]?"
Political morons are running the US. Trump is not in control of any of his agencies or
departments. All of them are hostile to him not to speak to Congress. which blocks any of his
initiatives. What Vice President Mike Pence is talking about his trip in the Baltics or the
other US satellite states, is irresponsible. It shows that Trump has lost control that is
what the war party and the Republicans want. They will push Trump out of office and if it
doesn't work some hired crazy will kill him like JFK. The real political gangsters are the
members of the Deep State such as the CIA, NSA, the wider intelligence community, and the
Clinton and Obama political mafia.
The suggestions made by Kurt Volker, the new U.S. Special Representative for Ukraine
Negotiations, are just beyond the pale for the Russians. For what Volker suggested, Trump
should replace him. President Putin should not accept being fooled by the US any longer and
just take the Donbas, period as he did with South Ossetia. If the US war-mongers in
Washington want to go to war over Ukraine, they should try it. Putin should not allow the US
to blackmail him further on.
Putin is not an imperialist or an aggressor, but the US Empire and its NATO satellites
are.
Having conquered 75 per cent of the world's territories through over 700 US military
bases, the real perpetrator is obvious. Putin should not back down against US aggression and
provocation. Why should the US risk its destruction for a corrupt and criminal political
leadership in Ukraine? Perhaps there are still some sane people within the Belt Way, although
they are thin on the ground.
@JL
As I've proposed in other fora, a simple, effective Russian response would be to proclaim a
temporary protectorate over the Donbas republics of the Ukraine until such time as the Minsk
II agreement is fulfilled, or renegotiated to the agreement to the concerned parties. (I.E.,
temporarily permanent.) A precedent would be the French protectorates Tunisia and Morocco,
and the various analogous protectorates still exercised around the world (see Wikipedia). The
proclamation should proclaim that Russia will retaliate against any artillery, missile, air,
or naval attacks on the Donbas using forces located in Russian; and also against any ground
attack across the cease-fire line using ground forces presently deployed in Russia, at the
request of either Donbas republic. The U.S. and Nato would scream bloody murder of course,
Congress would vote more meaningless sanctions, but the situation would stabilize permanently
IMHO, perhaps after a few retaliatory barrages. It would be like the Crimea, a frozen
conflict the Ukraine and the West know they cannot win short of WW3.
@Wally
You are deluded. It's almost hopeless – but one last try- the policy of US global
hegemony has nothing to do with Israel. It's been the goal of almost the entire foreign
policy elite- including the WASP elite- since 1945. If you mistakenly insist on blaming
Israel or its supporters for everything that is happening, you can't identify the real ideas
and forces that are propelling us to disaster. That's why anti- Semitisn is such a disabling
disease- it mentally cripples those who go down that path. But you won't listen or try to get
out, so I'm wasting my breath.
This is a formula for a renewed war, with far higher casualties in Ukraine than the
10,000 dead already suffered on both sides.
last I looked there is already a war. Nothing would be "renewed," as it is ongoing.
Volker envisions a deepening U.S. involvement in a Ukrainian civil war that can bleed
and break Russia's Ukrainian allies and convince Putin to back down and accept what we
regard as a just settlement.
It is not a civil war. That is a Putinist lie. Russian units are already on the ground in
the Donbas and their casualties have been quite heavy. Russian troops have been captured, and
they were in possession of their military ID and internal passports. "Cargo 200″
shipments have been rather heavy over the last 3 years, and parents of the troops killed have
been asking about their kids.
The Ukrainians are willing to fight for themselves. They simply need the tools. Putin may
not like the fact that the Ukrainians don't want any part of his renewed Russian Empire, but
it need not involve our troops when the people are their are willing to fight.
@Taras77
"The stupidity of Volker is astonishing but he is in keeping with his neo con associates
"
This is not stupidity. This is the zioncon-inspired treason against US citizenry at large.
McCain father, an admiral, got his fame for whitewashing the USSLiberty "accident," thus
insulting the memory of American sailors who were wounded and died during the despicable
Israeli attack. John McCain moniker, "Tokyo Rose," is not for nothing. Similarly, his open
fraternization with Ukrainian neo-Nazis (on a cue from ziocons) is just a family tradition of
profitable betrayal. McCain has been loyal to ziocons because the Lobby has become
all-powerful in the US.
https://www.dailystormer.com/senile-traitor-john-mccain-claims-america-was-stronger-under-obama/
"McCain's entire political career has been based off of doing what's best for Israel and not
America."
'Antisemitism' is simply a logical reaction to the lies, thievery, violence, destruction,
and hate that is perpetrated and advocated by Jewish supremacists.
The '6M Jews' crap is falling part, BDS is breathing down their neck, & "that shitty
little country" is doomed. Excellent.
"Alone the fact that one may not question the Jewish "holocaust" and that Jewish
pressure has inflicted laws on democratic societies to prevent questions!while incessant
promotion and indoctrination of the same averredly incontestable 'holocaust' occur!gives
the game away. It proves that it must be a lie. Why else would one not be allowed to
question it? Because it might offend the "survivors"? Because it "dishonors the dead"?
Hardly sufficient reason to outlaw discussion. No, because the exposure of this leading lie
might precipitate questions about so many other lies and cause the whole ramshackle
fabrication to crumble."
- Gerard Menuhin / righteous Revisionist Jew, son of famous violinist
proclaim a temporary protectorate over the Donbas republics of the Ukraine until such
time as the Minsk II agreement is fulfilled, or renegotiated to the agreement to the
concerned parties
but that all presumes the existence of some adherence to some principle of International
Law or respect for such notions. When from the West, there are none anymore. The zio-West now
destroys entire nations based on what everyone knows and accepts are blatant lies. The
charade is over. Even the trappings of the illusion have been tossed aside, and the snarling
zio-face of 'might = right' is now menacing the world.
A precedent would be the French protectorates
you're using the language of codified law, when there isn't any anymore
Russia will retaliate against any artillery, missile, air, or naval attacks on the
Donbas using forces located in Russian;
the zio-fiend is salivating for any pretext it can use to act outraged and shocked,
shocked! that today it has been proven true! Putin is Adolf Hitler and threatens the world
with military tyranny! He must be stopped at all costs! John McCain and Lindsey Graham were
right all along!! This man is a menace! and France and Germany and England are joining the
ZUSA with immediate calls for Russia to desist and respect International Law and sovereign
borders!!
'THIS WILL NOT STAND!'
blah, blah, blah
What Putin should do is tell the West/NATO to stop fomenting war on his borders, and if
they really are going to keep pushing until Russia accepts its status as vassal state to Tel
Aviv, (like the ZUSA and England and France and Germany obviously are), that before that
happens, everyone should know that there's a certain 'shitty little state' in the middle east
that can expect to be visited by a couple of Satan II ambassadors before Russia bows down
like a mangy dog to the Jewish supremacist$ in Israel.
@neutral
That would never work, the USA could prevent their team from going and nobody would care,
but there is no way they could make the rest of the world do this, to deprive people of such
a big event would create an epic backfire for the neocons, even vassal states such as Germany
or UK being told by the USA not to go with get the middle finger.
My point was that there will be a call to boycott the World Cup, hopefully you are right
as to the outcome. After decades of being subservient vassals, it would be truly ironic if
the ultimate wedge between the US and the "coalition of the willing" were to be sports,
showing what is truly important in life
@Andrei
Martyanov
Nor are they competent in their assessments of the scale of the resources
required for "bringing Putin to negotiating table".
Following up on an earlier post, I think you are misinterpreting Volker's objective (and
those of his "fellow travelers"). They know very well that Putin won't "come to the table",
in fact they don't want him to. What they want is to force him to intervene directly and
openly, as in Syria, and then use this "invasion" to justify permanent pariah status for
Russia. They don't care at all what happens to Ukraine, only that Russia is forced to act in
a manner that will allow them to demonize it.
As Volker so trenchantly illustrates, corruption, stupidity, recklessness and ignorance
are indispensable prerequisites for the wielding of influence in the Washington D.C.
"national security" establishment. It is not so much a swamp as an open sewer.
Trump should have let the Russian sanctions bill become law without his signature. One of
his major weaknesses is his being bedazzled by flag officers and brass. His chief national
security adviser is a dead ringer for Aleister Crowley.
What they want is to force him to intervene directly and openly, as in Syria, and then
use this "invasion" to justify permanent pariah status for Russia. They don't care at all
what happens to Ukraine, only that Russia is forced to act in a manner that will allow them
to demonize it.
It would have been a valid point should what you propose as a rationale hasn't been tried
before–to no avail. Russia DOES have a proxy force in LDNR and, if and when necessary,
may drastically "improve" its fighting capabilities. Considering the (what's known) present
state of the Ukrainian Army (obviously a "strongest one in Europe(c)", wink, wink) I think
the forces LDNR field currently are enough to prevent Kiev from attempting any large scale
offensive. Having said all that, Poroshenko is desperate and he may try anything but
political fallout for Russia, if to consider Russia's direct involvement, which will be very
short and very bad for Ukraine, is being increasingly mitigated by Russia's Asian dynamics.
Once Power of Siberia is operational (among other serious infrastructure projects at the Far
East)–Europe can go to hell. But I am sure there are more aces and trump cards (no pun
intended) up Russia's "sleeve". As per demonization: is it possible to demonize even more? I
think Clapper has already established the fact that Russians are genetically inferior. So,
concentration camps for Russians are in order at some point of time.
@Ludwig
Watzal
"Political morons are running the US. Trump is not in control of any of his
agencies or departments. All of them are hostile to him not to speak to Congress."
Would you agree with me that this pathetic situation obviously didn't happen by
"accident"? It must be concluded that the Trump "presidency" is a Trojan horse. Trump's whole
campaign was a calculated fraud from the beginning. That is, presidential poseur Trump ran
with the intention of turning most general policy decisions, especially foreign policy, over
to his Jewish-supremacist handlers, and letting them pick most if not all of his subordinates
(or at least letting them have veto power over his choices).
What is the USA's Achilleus heel where Russia, Iran or North Korea can inflict it the
maximum pain?
Iraq? Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia? the Gulf countries? Japan? Israel?
It seems that North Korea already won as Tillerson now strongly denies that the USA is
seeking a regime change there. It seems that the threat of nuclear is very effective in
making the USA back down. Iran has proven on the ground in Syria that its missiles can easily
reach Israel, that is why the USA rushed to inflict new sanctions. The USA seems to be
building up a pretext ( or a false flag) to destroy Iran's missile development capabilities
to protect Israel. Is Iran staying idle, or covertly threaten USA's local allies, the Gulf
countries of possible retaliation? The Gulf countries are probably trying to prevent any
attack on Iran. Japan did the same about North Korea, resulting in offers of negotiations.
Will the Gulf countries have the same weight or the USA will take the chance of an all out
war where it would have to intervene militarily again?
Now Russia will be watching Trump weakening and the neocons taking over. Is it a done game?
who will rescue Trump? The American people who voted for him? will the USA fall into a civil
war if Trump is threatened of impeachment?
I trust Trump will reach to the American people and win back his power.
@Michael
Kenny
The EU are doing a good job of destroying themselves. If the Central and Eastern
countries continue to be bullied over migrants and bad economic deals, then maybe they'll
rightly cut and run.
USA's soft-war against Europe was evident right after the 2008 economic bust, with Greece
CDS's being targeted until capitulation. Then Hillary or whomever conned Europe into wrecking
Libya, then Ukraine, then Syria, then the wave of migrants began..
It might sound ridiculous, but I am starting to think Erdogan has been a far better leader
than Merkel or the clown car carousel of France. He's totally ruthless, and has been a
supporter of terrorists, but his moves have been somewhat logical in the face of extreme
crisis. Now he seems to have oriented Turkey to a relatively solid footing as far as I can
see.
@Rurik
The destruction and rape of Ukraine had been planned already by the ZUSA when
a previous
puppet of US, Yushchenko, was installed in Kiev with the help of the State Dept. and the
CIA-supported and educated organizations like The National Endowment for Democracy (NED).
http://www.fort-russ.com/2017/08/killing-europe-us-launches-sanctions.html
"Back in 2010, Russia proposed creating a joint venture with Ukraine and unifying Gazprom's
fields and Ukraine's gas pipelines. However, the pro-American leadership of Ukraine at the
time (when Viktor Yushchenko, who led the country as a result of a color revolution, was
president) rejected the project, seeing such as a "threat" to "national dignity", i.e.,
Ukraine's GTS [gas transport system]. The plan for "increasing Ukraine's energy security"
contained in HR 3364 [concocted in the US] means turning Ukraine into a transit monopolist
under the control of American companies. Accepting the Americans' conditions is economically
disadvantageous to Russia and renders it politically dependent on the unpredictable transit
that is Ukraine. If this act is implemented, American energy companies will be able to
participate in the privatization of Ukraine's GTS (as provided by the Third Energy Package)
and profit off of the transport of gas across Ukrainian territory. Thus, the main revenue
from transiting Russian gas would not go to the Ukrainians, but to their overseas
overlord."
Very clear. The natives can go die out peacefully without making any unnecessary noise re
"sovereignty," "national interests" and other trifles that are of no interests for the US
corporations.
Hasn't every president since Johnson been an Israeli/APAIC front man?
technicalities.
Woodrow Wilson was under control of zionists, most notably, in the person of Louis
Brandeis & his claque.
Franklin D Roosevelt was most certainly under the control of zionists/Jews -- Felix
Frankfurter, Bernard Baruch, and the Morgenthaus,
pater et fil
plus their acolytes and
syanim, exerted enormous power over FDR. Eisenhower owed most of his power/authority to doing things that pleased zionist/Jewish
string-pullers who maneuvered FDR
as you say, LBJ for sure was more committed to keeping the gawd's chozen happy than to
protecting the interests of the American people.
Based on a review on "The American Empire Project" of a book by Nathan Thrall, titled "The
Only Language they Understand,"
http://americanempireproject.com/blog/the-only-language-they-understand-by-nathan-thrall/
, Jimmy Carter probably did more to turn USA over to the zionists than even LBJ: this is
surprising because, as the review notes, Carter initially took a hard line on Israel,
demanding early on that Israel halt settlement-building, and arguing forcefully that
Palestinians deserved protection of their territorial and all other rights.
When Carter's other activities vis a vis Jews are correlated with the actions Thrall
describes, I think -- should say speculate -- that Carter was out-maneuvered by the zionists:
it was Carter who gave Jews the opening to create the holocaust museum in Washington, DC -- in
other words, it may be that Carter allowed the Trojan Horse to be rolled through the gates of
the USA and to stand at USA's front door.
The Jews got what they wanted, but Carter's demands were not only ignored, they -- and he -- were cast aside.
@Alden
"Hasn't every president since Johnson been an Israeli/APAIC front man?"
Obviously. But the tenor of Ludwig Watzal's post seems to be that Trump, other than
perhaps being "weak" or "incompetent" is not at fault.
I agree with him that technically, Trump probably isn't "in control", but that's
apparently what Trump agreed to when he and his handlers set out to defraud all of us.
"Long before he became FBI Director, serious questions existed about Mueller's role as
Acting U.S. Attorney in Boston in effectively enabling decades of corruption and covering up
of the FBI's illicit deals with mobster Whitey Bulger and other "top echelon" informants who
committed numerous murders and crimes. When the truth was finally uncovered through intrepid
investigative reporting and persistent, honest judges, U.S. taxpayers footed a $100 million
court award to the four men framed for murders committed by (the FBI-operated) Bulger gang .
Mueller's FBI was also severely criticized by Department of Justice Inspector Generals
finding the FBI overstepped the law improperly serving hundreds of thousands of "national
security letters" to obtain private (and irrelevant) metadata on citizens, and for
infiltrating nonviolent anti-war groups under the guise of investigating "terrorism."
Mueller knew that Vice President Dick Cheney's claims connecting 9/11 to Iraq were bogus yet
he remained quiet. Mueller didn't speak the truth about a war he knew to be unjustified. He
didn't speak out against torture. He didn't speak out against unconstitutional surveillance.
And he didn't tell the truth about 9/11.
He is just "their man."
@Quartermaster
You sound like you copied this statement from a Ukrainian propaganda site.
Sure thing, thousands of Donbass people fighting in the militia do not exists but Russia
troops nobody has been able to see or photograph do. I have the utmost respect for the
Russian military capabilities but I do not think they've developed a clocking device as
yet.
And, of course, going to a secret military mission, you should never forget to bring along
you internal passport and military ID. Heavy losses, really? We know people who died in
Donbass by name – and they aren't Russia soldiers. Oh, you forgot about buryats –
no picture of the Russia invasion could be complete without byuryat motorized divisions
invading Donbass.
You may not like it but this is a civil war brought about by the idiotic policies of the
scumbags the West put in charge of Ukraine. As to the tools, bring them over – they'll
end up in the hands of the Donbass militia in no time. You see, "Ukrainians are willing to
fight for themselves" mostly on the pages of Facebook. Those that do go to the Army, mostly
do it for money. The situation in today's Ukraine is so desperate, killing one's former
compatriots is about the only way for a man to make a living.
they've had their devil's tentacles in Ukraine for quite some time. When you mentioned the word 'trifles', I was reminded of what the Israeli/"Ukrainian"
oligarch said about the people on MH17. He called their deaths a 'trifle', as he mentions that the wrong plane was shot down.
Presumably his merc was sent up to shoot Putin's plane down and he shot the wrong one down
(which would explain the machine gun holes).
this video has been scrubbed from most of the internet, and most of the ones you click on
will say 'this video has been removed'
@reiner
Tor
Interestingly, it's never explained why Putin would fear his soldiers being killed
before the election if he really was a dictator. Either he doesn't care much for the election
or he's not really a dictator. Good catch! The pity is that people who have made up their
minds (or have had theirs made up for them) about Putin being a dictator will not see the wit
and logical beauty of your argument. They are quite likely to write you off as another
Russian-stooge and dig in their heels even further. Here is a short farcical satire about our
times.
Good, obedient citizen: Please Guvm'nt, help me. I can't sleep at night 'cause I fear there
may be a red under my bed waiting to choke me to death.
Guvm'nt: Don't worry lad. We watch your house, we monitor your mail. We watch you and yours.
We know when you pee and we watch who comes in and out of your house. No one can even breathe
without our being in the know.
Good citizen: Ah thank God! Thanks for preventing a red under my bed. I can now sleep in
peace.
"... I don't care about Russians or Ukrainians, but this is a strange law without any value however "no part of the country can decide it's parting without the voting of the whole country". So if I command an independence movement and we gain freedom by armed fighting, under Ukranien law we will still not be free even if there is no chance for state to recover what he lost. So I need to wait until Ukrainian Parliament vote. Is like saying US is not free from UK despite beating the British, because UK Parliament never voted to give independence to US. ..."
"... According to Soviet laws any republic that is leaving USSR must hold referendum in its autonomous regions if they quit USSR or quit this republic. Not only Ukraine failed to hold it, when Crimeans started preparation Ukraine violently squashed them. That started illegal Ukrainian occupation of Crimea 1992-2014. ..."
"... If you research the US/UK techniques used during the 1953 Iranian coup, you'll see that the 2013-14 Ukrainian coup was very close to being an exact duplicate. ..."
Willem Post:: "Crimea already was an independent state within Ukraine"
haha! One more moron arrived! What a crap!
Crimea wasn't independent, it was an autonomy within Ukraine. Crimea's annexation was prepared by Putin since 2004, i.e. 10 years earlier before it happened in real! And this is told to the world not by
Ukrainians, but the Putin's former adviser Andrey Illarionov.
The day the coup took over Kiev and abolished the Ukrainian Constitution, Crimea became
independent. And voted for independence. Crimea wanting to be part of Russia since 1991.
Crimea was giving to Ukraine under the USSR illegally, there is no VOTE under the DUMA that
voted Crimea to be part of Ukraine. The fall of the USSR, Crimea people wanted to be Russian.
And they voted this in 1991 and again in 1994. V. Putin wasnt in office until 1999. Crimea
today is far better under Russia, because nearly 25 years under Ukraine it was neglected.
Crimea is Russia...move. Ukraine ought to stop bombing Donbass or they'll be independent from
Ukraine as well.
I don't care about Russians or Ukrainians, but this is a strange law without any value
however "no part of the country can decide it's parting without the voting of the whole
country". So if I command an independence movement and we gain freedom by armed fighting,
under Ukranien law we will still not be free even if there is no chance for state to recover
what he lost. So I need to wait until Ukrainian Parliament vote. Is like saying US is not free
from UK despite beating the British, because UK Parliament never voted to give independence
to US.
"no part of the country can decide it's parting without the voting of the whole
country"
When Yugoslavia was dismantled under US encouragement and with little consequence, if any,
to the civil wars that would follow, such laws as the above ceased to exist.
It did the same in Ukraine. A coup d'etat using banderite thugs for the final coup de
grace. Did Nuland or McCain or anyone else in Washington care if it led to a bloody aftermath
that frankly, any schoolboy could have predicted? They cared about their agenda, period and
d@mn the consequences.
According to Soviet laws any republic that is leaving USSR must hold referendum in its
autonomous regions if they quit USSR or quit this republic. Not only Ukraine failed to hold
it, when Crimeans started preparation Ukraine violently squashed them. That started illegal
Ukrainian occupation of Crimea 1992-2014.
The Khasavyurt Accord granted vast amount of independence to Chechen Republic back in
1996. But infact Chenchnya broke apart into regions held by local clan warlords, who were
making money on contraband, crudely refining petroleum into gasoline, kidnapping people for
ransom from neighboring Russian regions. The republic has also become a hotbed of religious
extremism that culmitated in Shamil Basaev's invasion into Dagestan region.
Do some research before mentioning things, because these two cases are hardly
compatible.
Yep, the Saudis enthusiastically sought to turn Chechnya into what they've managed to turn
Syria into today, with more than a little help from its 'friends'.
Tell me what happened to the Ukrainian referendum that decided to oust the old president
by force instead of waiting a few months to vote him out or at the least, impeach him
constitutionally. Hmmm? Cat got your tongue now? Thought so.
Chechen had a referendum, and it was successful. Not only Chechnya has more autonomy
power, but they have a elected office to represent Chechnya in Moscow. Today, Chechnya has
been peaceful with Gronzy growing. Not to mention, many Chechen soldiers are fighting side by
side with the Russian government in Syria.
I've always wondered why the US seems always to rush to uphold the edicts of previous
Soviet rulers as sacrosanct. Stalin with S. Ossetia and Krushchev with Crimea.
I've also always wondered why all of the nations of Eastern Europe, sans Poland, that the
US seems to favor are those who were enthusiastic collaborators and co-combatants with
Hitler's troops in WWII. Croatia, Bosnia, Albania, the Baltic States and now Ukraine.
The Arioch: "According to Soviet laws..."
What a crap!
Ukraine as well as Russia and Belarus founded the USSR!
And all the three listed above discontinued it.
As for soviet laws...Just well known thing: Hitler came to power absolutely legally and
what he ended up with?
Once more: USSR was founded under machine guns (the same with Crimea so-called
referendum)
"USSR was founded under machine guns (the same with Crimea so-called referendum)"
This is refreshing. The USSR was indeed founded by un-godly terrorists ..... I mean what
country can claim legitimacy unless founded peacefully on rule of law.
Now that this is clear I expect the USA to return the thirteen colonies to Britain as at
the earliest possible convenience and we can begin discussion reparations.
They could be among ones who founded it. But they were not only members of it. There was
legal and illegal way to exit USSR. Ukraine, Russia and Belarus chosen illegal way. For Kiev
it was a tool to press illegal occupation over Sevastopole and Crimea. Which lasted more long
that it was needed, but ended in 2014.
And you are correct about Hitler. When finally breaking out of that Lenin built jail of
nations called Ukraine, Crimeans were to give Poroshenko's laws about as much respect as
Hitler's laws were worth.
The Arioch: "Lenin built jail of nations called Ukraine" What a crap again! Lenin built jail of nations called USSR, that's right! "Crimeans were to give Poroshenko's laws about as much respect as Hitler's laws were
worth."
You're just a moron!
Poroshenko became an Ukrainian president after Russia annexed Crimea
By stating this you're implying Soviets usurped the power. This is not true. To begin
with, Soviets, or Councils were trade unions and they formed themselves as an alternative to
czarist ruling institutions during WW1 and February and October Revolutions. They were
grassroots all right. Both Soviets and Bolsheviks enjoyed high appeal among regular people
because they offered solutions to very tough questions regarding land ownership (taking it
from aristocrats) and large business (taking it from oligarchs into collective
ownership).
Eventually the Red Army managed to defeat 17 armies during the Civil War. That wouldn't
have been possible without wide support among the people. Sure there was the Red Terror
unleashed after several assasination attempts on Soviet leadership. But frankly, as tragic as
it is, tough times demand tough measures.
So, if you don't recognize Soviet laws, then you don't recognize Soviet edicts and you
cannot legitimately recognize Krushchev's edict handing Crimea to Ukraine's jurisdiction,
which btw..his son has explained that it was just a simple transfer to Ukraine of full
management of construction of the water canal to Crimea. A water canal which, along with
electricity, has now been dammed by Ukraine, so apparently, the job is finished.
ATO,
Russia and Ukraine have an agreement that allows Russia to have 22,000 armed services members
in Crimea. The Russia presence before the annexing was LEGAL by treaty.
Under Ukrainian law Viktor Yanukovych was never legally removed from office. His removal
and replacement was a violation of the Ukrainian Constitution.
If you research the US/UK techniques used during the 1953 Iranian coup, you'll see that
the 2013-14 Ukrainian coup was very close to being an exact duplicate.
In short, some sort of battle in the Krasnogorovka sector, which the Ukrainian forces
lost:
"Here is a chronicle of events:
On the night from Thursday to Friday, from 13 to 14 July, the APU opened a mortar shell at
Staromikhaylovka. I emphasize, not our positions, namely residential buildings. Two houses
were damaged. One civilian was wounded. In the morning there was a report of the
correspondent of VGTRK Alexander Sladkov.
– On the night from Friday to Saturday from 14 to 15 July, the shelling was repeated,
but already more powerful, artillery worked.
– On Saturday evening, July 15, again, there was artillery shelling.
– On Sunday evening, July 16, again shelling and again destroyed houses in
Staromikhaylovki.
– In the morning there was a report about the press service of the NM DNR.
– In the night from Monday to Tuesday 17 on 18 July, a civilian died in
Staromikhaylovka, one more civilian was killed and another two were injured, another civilian
was injured in Kuibyshev district.
– On Tuesday, July 18th, that part of the front was quiet.
– But on Wednesday July 19, Thursday July 20 and until Friday July 21, every evening
and night Petrovsky district, Staromikhailovka Kirov district and the Kuibyshev district was
subjected to strong mortar and artillery strikes. Every day there were wounded civilians, as
well as destroyed houses and infrastructure.
Most likely, from 19 to 20 July, an order was given to suppress the mortar and artillery
batteries of the APU with available means, which have been killing civilians and military
republics for a week already. The next day, Ukrainian media filled the news with the fact
that Novorussians attacked their positions and even beaten something there. Reported about
the many dead servicemen of the Armed Forces and so on. Although according to the information
provided by the Ukrainian media, 9 soldiers were quoted, and only 4 were killed in the
Krasnogorovka district.
Notice in the Svetlodarsk arc area in December 2016, they had killed 80 soldiers and
injured more than 200, but there was a silence in the Ukrainian media. The same situation
occurred with the exacerbation of the YaBP in January 2017, there were also many deaths of
about 60 servicemen and about 120 were wounded and were also quiet.
And here 9 was lost on all 450 km to the front and such attention."
As always, not the least indication that the Ukrainian forces have upped their game since
February 2015...
a series of titanic explosions at Balakliya, a military base in Eastern Ukraine.
Amateur video of the incident posted on YouTube shows a raging fire spewing out of control
artillery rockets, and an explosion and shockwave that sent civilians nearby reeling.
"... I find it troublesome that the US military or associated agencies are so interwoven with Israeli state forces and institutions. In my assessment, such intense interrelationships violate George Washington's counsels in his Farewell Address, just as surely as Mast's attitudes invert the counsels of Christianity. ..."
"... Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump 28 Dec 2016 "We cannot continue to let Israel be treated with such total disdain and disrespect. They used to have a great friend in the U.S., but not anymore. The beginning of the end was the horrible Iran deal, and now this (U.N.)! Stay strong Israel, January 20th is fast approaching! " ..."
"... I'm neither Disaspora-Jewish nor Evangelical Christian, and I'm behind Israel 100 percent. The problem in the Holy Land is this: two objects occupying--or claiming to occupy--the same space. That's impossible, so you have to pick one. I pick Israel. ..."
"... Our youth are often sacrificed to foreign wars fought for immoral causes - witness Vietnam and Iraq. ..."
"... George Washington and his fellow European settler-colonists did to the indigenous people of North America what Jewish European settler-colonists did to the indigenous people of the Levant. (To be fair, though, the Zionists, if only for lack of opportunity, did not capture, import, and permanently enslave millions of people from another land.) ..."
"... It's noteworthy that both Zionists and Nazis invoked the "American" treatment of the indigenous population to justify their own crimes. As Israeli historian Benny Morris said back in 2004, "Even the great American democracy could not have been created without the annihilation of the Indians." ..."
"... So invoking the settler-colonial nationalism of the slave owner and murdering land-stealer, George Washington, is something Zionists, not their opponents, can do honestly. ..."
"... This is a ridiculous, and all too common argument from Jews – the land of the U.S. was stolen from the natives so Americans can't say anything about Israel stealing Palestine from Palestinians. ..."
"... First of all, the native people of North America were literally living in the stone age when Whites showed up and their lives have been made immeasurably better thanks to the inventions and largesse of the White man. In contrast, Palestinians have done nothing but suffer under Israeli rule. ..."
"... Second, native North Americans are subsidized to the point of billions of dollars every year and receive every possible benefit from the government (and taxpaying Whites). Free health care, education and every form of affirmative action that's ever been dreamt up are all theirs for the taking. Tell us friend, does the Jewish state extend this to Palestinians as it does to Jews? ..."
I am reluctant to write about the "Israel problem" at the heart of U.S. foreign policy two weeks in a row but it seems that the
story just will not go away as the usual suspects pile on the Barack Obama Administration over its alleged betrayal of America's
"best and greatest friend and ally in the whole world."
Even as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his gaggle of
war criminals continue
to foam at the mouth over the United Nations vote it is, in truth, difficult to blame Israel for what is happening. The Israelis
are acting on what they see as their self interest in dominating their neighbors militarily and having a free hand to deal with the
Palestinians in any way they see fit. And as for their relationship with Washington, what could be better than getting billions of
dollars every year, advanced weapons and unlimited political cover in exchange for absolutely nothing?
Surely even Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu knows that the settlements are illegal under international law and are an impediment
to any peaceful resolution with the Palestinians, which is what Resolution 2334 says. It has been U.S. policy to oppose them since
they first starting popping up like mushrooms, but Netanyahu has encouraging their expansion in full knowledge that he is creating
facts on the ground that will be irreversible. He has also pledged to his voters that he will not permit the creation of a Palestinian
state, so why should anyone be confused about his intentions?
Daniel Larison over at The American Conservative summed up the situation perfectly,
observing
that "Calling out Israel for its ongoing illegal behavior becomes unavoidable when there is no progress in resolving the conflict,
and the current Israeli government has made it very clear that there won't be any progress Israel isn't actually an ally, much less
a 'vital' one, and it certainly isn't 'critical' to our security. The U.S. isn't obliged to cater to some of the worst policies of
a client government that has increasingly become a liability. The real problem with the U.S. abstention on the resolution is that
it came many years after it might have done some significant good, and it comes so late because Obama wasted his entire presidency
trying to 'reassure' a government that undermined and opposed him time and again."
So stop blaming Israel for acting selfishly, since that is the nature of the beast, as in the fable of the frog and the scorpion.
More to the point, it is the American Quislings who should be the focus of any examination of what is taking place as they are deliberately
misrepresenting nearly every aspect of the discussion and flat out lying about what might actually be at stake due to Washington's
being shackled to Netanyahu's policies. I will leave it to the reader to decide why so many U.S. politicians and media talking heads
have betrayed their own country's interests in deference to the shabby arguments being put forward on behalf of an openly apartheid
theocracy, but I might suggest that access to money and power have a lot to do with it as the Israel Lobby has both in spades.
The Quislings are making two basic arguments in their defense of surrendering national sovereignty to a troublesome little client
state located half a world away. First, they are claiming that any acknowledgement that the Israelis have behaved badly is counterproductive
because it will encourage intransigence on the part of the Arabs and thereby diminish prospects for a viable peace agreement, which
has to be negotiated between the two parties. Second, the claim is being made that the abstention on the U.N. vote violates established
U.S. policy on the nature of the conflict and, in so doing, damages both Israeli and American interests. Bloomberg's editorial board
has conjoined the two arguments,
adroitly claiming in an over-the-top piece entitled "Obama's Betrayal of Israel at the U.N. Must Not Stand" that the abstention
"breaks with past U.S. policy, undermines a vital ally and sets back the cause of Middle East peace."
Citing the damaged peace talks argument, which is what the Israeli government itself has been mostly promoting, Donald Trump denounced
the U.N. resolution from a purely Israeli perspective,
stating that "As the United States has long maintained, peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians will only come through
direct negotiations between the parties, and not through the imposition of terms by the United Nations. This puts Israel in a very
poor negotiating position and is extremely unfair to all Israelis." He
subsequently
added "We cannot continue to let Israel be treated with such total disdain and disrespect," a comment that just might be regarded
as either tongue in cheek or ironic because that is precisely how Israel treats Washington. It is reported, however, that Trump does
not do irony.
The pundits who most often scream the loudest in defense of Israel are often themselves Jewish, many having close ties to the
Netanyahu government. They would undoubtedly argue that their ethno-religious propinquity to the problem they are discussing does
not in any way influence their views, but that would be nonsense. One of those persistently shouting the loudest regarding the "peace"
canard is the ubiquitous Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz, who has never seen anything in Israel that he dislikes.
He commented that Obama had stabbed Israel in the back and had made "peace much more difficult to achieve because the Palestinians
will now say 'we can get a state through the U.N.'"
Syndicated columnist and fellow Israeli zealot Charles Krauthammer
added his two cents , noting that the resolution abstention had meant that Washington had "joined the jackals at the U.N." Observing
that the U.N. building occupies "good real estate in downtown New York City Trump ought to find a way to put his name on it and turn
it into condos." Iran-Contra's own Elliot Abrams,
who opposes Jews marrying non-Jews, meanwhile repeats the Krauthammer "jackals" meme and also
brays about
the "abandonment of Israel at the United Nations."
But the prize for pandering to Jewish power and money has to go to the eminent John Bolton, writing on December 26 th
about "Obama's Parting Betrayal
of Israel" in The Wall Street Journal (there is a subscription wall but if you go to Google and search you can get around
it). Bolton, an ex-Ambassador to the U.N under the esteemed George W. Bush, is a funny looking guy
who reportedly did not get a position with the Trump administration because of his Groucho Marx moustache. He currently pontificates
from the neocon American Enterprise Institute (AEI) where he is something called a senior fellow. He has written a book "Surrender
Is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations and Abroad," which is available for 6 cents used on Amazon, plus shipping.
There is another John Bolton who wrote "Marada the She-Wolf," but they are apparently not related.
In his piece, Bolton hit on both the peace talks and the "I'm backing Israel arguments." He uniquely starts out by claiming that
Barack Obama "stabbed Israel in the front" by failing to stop Resolution 2334, which he then describes as "clearly intended to tip
the peace process towards the Palestinians abandon[ing] any pretense that the actual parties to the conflict must resolve their differences."
That's the peace argument plus the negotiations fiction rolled together. He then goes on to argue that Obama has betrayed Israel
by "essentially endors[ing] the Palestinian politico-legal narrative about territory formerly under League of Nations' mandate."
Bolton concedes that the damage has already been done by Obama's complicity "in assaulting Israel" and the opening can be exploited
by what he describes as the "anti-Israeli imagineers" at the United Nations. He calls on Donald Trump to work to "mitigate or reverse"
such consequences and specifically "move to repeal the resolution, giving the 14 countries that supported it a chance to correct
their error." That they cheered loudly when the resolution passed apparently will have to also be somehow expunged, though Bolton
does not mention that. Nations that refuse to go along with the repeal "would have their relations with Washington adjusted accordingly"
while "the main perpetrators in particular should face more tangible consequences."
Bolton is unhesitatingly placing Israeli priorities ahead of American interests by his willingness to punish actual U.S. allies
like Britain, Germany and France, as well as major powers Russia and China, out of pique over their vote against the settlements.
He also recommends withholding the U.S. contributions to the U.N., which amount to over 20% of the budget. Bolton then goes on to
reject any Palestinian state of any kind, recommending instead that a rump version of territory where the bulk of the Palestinians
will be allowed to live be transferred to Jordanian control.
As always, there is scant attention paid by any of the Israel boosters for actual American interests in continuing to perform
proskynesis in front of Netanyahu and whatever reptile might succeed him. American values and needs are invisible, quite rightly,
because they are of no interest to John Bolton and his fellow knee jerkers at AEI, the Hudson Institute, the Washington Institute
for Near East Policy (WINEP), the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), Brookings, the American Israel Public Affairs
Committee (AIPAC), the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) and the rest of the alphabet soup that depends on the generosity
of pro-Israel donors to keep the lights on.
Bolton provides precisely one short sentence relating to Washington's stake in the game being played, noting that the U.N. abstention
poses "major challenges for American interests." He never says what those interests are because there are none, or at least none
that matter, apart from godfathering a viable two state solution which Israel has basically made impossible. And that is only an
interest because it would lessen much of the world's disdain for U.S. hypocrisy while mitigating the radicalization of young Muslims
turned terrorists who are in part enraged by the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians, blaming it correctly on American connivance.
In reality having the U.S. finally vote on the side of sanity and fairness is really a good thing for Americans and hopefully will
lead to severing a bizarre "special relationship" that supports a kleptocracy in Asia that has been nothing but trouble.
The pundits who most often scream the loudest in defense of Israel are often themselves Jewish, many having close ties to
the Netanyahu government. They would undoubtedly argue that their ethno-religious propinquity to the problem they are discussing
does not in any way influence their views
And their disingenuous declarations are now arguably backed by force of law in the UK, where referring to the potential for
mixed loyalties on the part of jewish people in relation to the jewish nation falls within the "official definition of anti-Semitism"
recently adopted as a result of despicable pandering by politicians at the very highest levels.
" and it comes so late because Obama wasted his entire presidency "
LOL!! And yet still a God to some. He was supposed to get the U.S. out of the region. Now the trail he and the war criminals
Bush, Rumsfeld, Clinton, Kerry, Rice and Power leave is lined with more dead civilians than have died on either side in Palestine
and Israel since 48. Israeli/Palestinian issues are not without some significance but pale in the scope of the war crimes of the
U.S in the past 16 years. Millions dead and all we hear is 'f'n Jews' .
• Replies: @uslabor US General Wesley
Clark said in 2002 he was given a memo "that describes how we're going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with
Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran." Every one of those countries a potential enemy
of Israel.
I think, in addition to the obvious oil resources, the US attacked those countries for the benefit of Israel.
It ain't so much, as you say "f'n Jews". For me it is F*cking Zionist Israelis and their Neoconservative enablers in Washington.
Even when an assault is caught on camera like what occured to Alison Weir at the National Press Club, of all places, there are
no consequences for attacks on those that have the courage to criticize Israel.
I filed a pollice report and then waited and waited. Finally, the detective in charge of determining whether or not to prosecute
Murray decided not to do so. The detective's name is in another notebook somewhere. As I recall, it was Rosenbaum or something
similar.
• Replies: @SolontoCroesus re the first
cartoon, "Join the US Army, Fight for Israel"
This morning C Span Washington Journal interviewed new members of US Congress.
Among them was Brian Mast, a Republican who defeated Patrick Murphy in Florida's 18th district, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen's former district.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?419267-3/interview-representativeelect-brian-mast-rfl
Mast was a bomb detonations expert in US military who lost both legs and an arm in Afghanistan. Mast said he'd never thought about
running for congress until he wound up at Walter Reed hospital; he said he had thought he'd spend his career doing what he loved
-- "jumping out of airplanes and kicking in doors and roping out of helicopters." He said it was "very difficult for him to
lose that purpose" he'd had in life. In the process of "finding another battlefield to fight on," many congressmen & staffers visited him.
He eventually went to work for various US counterterrorism agencies in addition to "spending some time in the Israeli army . . . of which I'm very very proud. . . . I'm probably the only congressman who has been
in the Israeli military . . .
According to wikipedia, Mast attended Christian schools and identifies as a Christian; no denomination is mentioned.
Whatever denomination it is, apparently their Jesus counsels: "Blessed are they who kick in doors, for they shall be called peacemakers;"
and "Seek and ye shall find, kick and the door shall open . . ."
Mast said he applied his military, mission-oriented training to preparing himself to function in congress. He moved seamlessly
from military to counterterrorism,
With the Israeli military he worked in a role that Mast identified as SAREL (?), "which allows individuals from around the world to work with the Israeli military . . . a program they rely on quite heavily to
accomplish a lot of what they need to go on with their military, as they don't have nearly as large a military as the United States."
I find it troublesome that the US military or associated agencies are so interwoven with Israeli state forces and institutions.
In my assessment, such intense interrelationships violate George Washington's counsels in his Farewell Address, just as surely
as Mast's attitudes invert the counsels of Christianity.
The unity of Government, which constitutes you one people, is also now dear to you. It is justly so; for it is a main pillar in
the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquillity at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity;
of that very Liberty, which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee, that, from different causes and from different
quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is
the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and
actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment, that you should properly estimate the immense
value of your national Union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable
attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the Palladium of your political safety and prosperity;
watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion, that it can in any
event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from
the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts.
For this you have every inducement of sympathy and interest. Citizens, by birth or choice, of a common country, that country
has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of american, which belongs to you, in your national capacity, must always
exalt the just pride of Patriotism, more than any appellation derived from local discriminations.
, @Alden What's the official song of
the Israeli army?
as the usual suspects pile on the Barack Obama Administration over its alleged betrayal of America's "best and greatest friend
and ally in the whole world."
"Usual suspects" = Vast majority of American voters. Once again the tiresome fringely Israel bashers have lost an election.
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump 28 Dec 2016 "We cannot continue to let Israel be treated with such total disdain and disrespect. They used to have a great friend in the
U.S., but not anymore. The beginning of the end was the horrible Iran deal, and now this (U.N.)! Stay strong Israel, January 20th
is fast approaching! "
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump 22 Dec 2016
The resolution being considered at the United Nations Security Council regarding Israel should be vetoed
Love all you Joo-obsessors
coming out of the woodwork.
I'm neither Disaspora-Jewish nor Evangelical Christian, and I'm behind Israel 100 percent. The problem in the Holy Land is this:
two objects occupying--or claiming to occupy--the same space. That's impossible, so you have to pick one. I pick Israel.
Israel is
the West--and it's the way the West ought to be but isn't, at least so far in Europe: a bulwark against Islam, which is the real
menace to Western civilization, not some crazy haredim in yarmulkes living out in the middle of nowhere. Israel stands up to Islam.
We don't. At least till now (Trump). I don't care if everything you say about the Jews, the Jewish lobby, or whatever, is true. I
stand for Israel, because I don't stand for the Dar al-Islam. Have any of you ever been to Israel? I have. Where would you rather
live: Israel (a beautiful and prosperous country) or an Islamic hellhole (pick any Muslim country--hey, pick Turkey! See you at the
next Istanbul nightclub!)?
The settlements are Israel's way of saying: We won. It's what the victors in wars do. Want to have no settlements in your country?
Try actually winning one of the three stupid wars plus God knows how many intifadas you've started with the aim of driving the Israelis
to the sea. "International law"? You actually believe the U.N. ought to be running the world? What are you--a bunch of lefties?
How sorry do I feel for the poor, poor Palestinians? Hey--not sorry at all! They've spent, what, six decades sitting on their
behinds and whining when not 1) lobbing rockets at Israelis; 2) bombing school buses and restaurants; and 3) dancing in the streets
over stuff like 9/11. Plus making life miserable for the few Christians left in the Holy Land. That alone puts me on the side of
the Israelis.
Yeah, yeah, most American Jews are irritating liberals, and I wish they'd cut it out. Especially the victimology stuff with the
country clubs, since they're America's most successful ethnic group. And I don't buy neocon foreign policy, since there's no reason
for Americans to be fighting wars and dying in them in the Mideast, period. Israel does an excellent job of furthering its own interests,
such as staying in existence, and Bibi strikes me as an excellent behind-the-scenes power player--you know he's got lines into both
Syria and Russia.
If Israel gets attacked, I'm all for aiding Israel, but that hasn't happened yet, and probably won't--unless the Muslims would
like to see even more settlements.
And finally, I can't stand John Bolton's mustache. Neither can Trump, I'm told. Meanwhile, yay for Trump! When I think "quisling,"
I think Obama, not Trump--sorry.
you called it "holy land" that tells me more
than enough.
Our youth are often sacrificed
to foreign wars fought for immoral causes - witness Vietnam and Iraq. I am sure that Rachel Corrie's parents will continue to grieve
all their lives for their beautiful daughter but at least they have the comfort and pride that she died for a truly moral reason
and has become a worldwide beacon of the cause. Vale Rachel.
Oh yeah, she died for being an idiot who thought it was kind of like the Sixties: stuffing daisies into gun muzzles. Her parents
should have had the sense to tell her that war is serious business.
George Washington
and his fellow European settler-colonists did to the indigenous people of North America what Jewish European settler-colonists did
to the indigenous people of the Levant. (To be fair, though, the Zionists, if only for lack of opportunity, did not capture, import,
and permanently enslave millions of people from another land.)
It's noteworthy that both Zionists and Nazis invoked the "American" treatment of the indigenous population to justify their
own crimes. As Israeli historian Benny Morris said back in 2004, "Even the great American democracy could not have been created without
the annihilation of the Indians."
So invoking the settler-colonial nationalism of the slave owner and murdering land-stealer, George Washington, is something
Zionists, not their opponents, can do honestly.
This is a ridiculous, and all too common argument from Jews – the land of the U.S. was stolen from the natives so Americans
can't say anything about Israel stealing Palestine from Palestinians.
First of all, the native people of North America were literally living in the stone age when Whites showed up and their lives
have been made immeasurably better thanks to the inventions and largesse of the White man. In contrast, Palestinians have done nothing
but suffer under Israeli rule.
Second, native North Americans are subsidized to the point of billions of dollars every year and receive every possible benefit
from the government (and taxpaying Whites). Free health care, education and every form of affirmative action that's ever been dreamt
up are all theirs for the taking. Tell us friend, does the Jewish state extend this to Palestinians as it does to Jews?
"... The Seal of the United States Congress tells an observer a number of salient facts about American politics: the olive branch stands for America's commitment to peace; the arrows represent its readiness for war; and the Star of David, which The Economist has helpfully added to the original design, symbolises the control of Jews and/or Israel over America's policies of war and peace. ..."
"... Peter Schrank's cartoon, which accompanies an article on negotiations with Iran in this week's Economist, depicts President Obama with his ankle shackled to the Judaised seal of the US Congress, thereby prevented from shaking hands with Iran's President Rouhani, who is being restrained by his nefarious-looking, US-flag-burning compatriots. ..."
The Seal of the United States Congress tells an observer a number of salient facts about American
politics: the olive branch stands for America's commitment to peace; the arrows represent its readiness
for war; and the Star of David,
which The Economist has helpfully added to the original design, symbolises the control of Jews
and/or Israel over America's policies of war and peace.
Peter Schrank's cartoon, which accompanies an article on negotiations with Iran in this week's
Economist, depicts President Obama with his ankle shackled to the Judaised seal of the US Congress,
thereby prevented from shaking hands with Iran's President Rouhani, who is being restrained by his
nefarious-looking, US-flag-burning compatriots.
The message is that either American Jews or Israel (and it is unclear which, because the Star
of David is both a Jewish and Israeli symbol) are holding the United States back from making peace
with Iran – and moreover, that they are doing so through their control of the machinery of the American
government, since the Star of David is incorporated into the official insignia of the US, alongside
the stars and stripes. The Israel Lobby, as the cartoon rather nefariously hints, is not a separate
influence on the US government – it is a constituent part of it.
Schrank's
previous
cartoons have hardly been kind towards Israel, but one can only wonder what was going through
the mind of his editors: there are questions about the impartiality of the
magazine's coverage of Israel , but as last week's very fair and reasonable
"Who is a Jew?" feature suggests, The Economist is hardly an anti-Semitic publication.
Intentionally or not, however, Schrank's cartoon is now an addition to the disturbing trend of
cartoons hinting at the sinister control of Western governments by Israel or Jews, following Steve
Bell's Guardian cartoon showing
Netanyahu as a puppeteer with Tony Blair and William Hague as finger-puppets, and a cartoon in
the Qatari Al-Watan newspaper depicting an Orthodox Jew driving with
Obama's head as a gearstick and the UN logo as his steering wheel.
I shan't accuse The Economist directly of anti-Semitism, but it bears repeating that the
EUMC Working Definition , adopted by the British government, covers "stereotypical allegations
about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective -- such as the myth of Jews controlling the
government" and also covers "using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism to
characterise Israel or Israelis". Readers are invited to draw their own conclusions.
The notion that Jews control the world's major institutions of power, including governments, media
and banks, is one of the most established and pernicious myths peddled against Jews, and it is difficult
not to see continuity between contemporary hints about "Zionist" control of world governments and
nineteenth-century cartoons depicting a Jewish octopus with its tentacles over the globe.
In France, 29% believe Jews have too much control of international financial markets; in Italy,
39% believe Jews have too much power in the business world; and in Hungary, Poland and Spain,
well over half of the population believes at least one of these propositions. In the
United States , 14% believe that "Jews have too much power in the U.S. today", and that's from
the most philo-Semitic of countries out there.
Anti-Semitic tropes enjoy even greater vibrancy in the Muslim world, where the Elders of Zion
is taken as gospel, Jewish conspiracies are more common than Jews, and The Economist is available
too – subtly, and quite probably unintentionally, reinforcing such prejudices.
The Economist's readership might be more intelligent than the general public, but it should not
flatter itself. Even if its readers believe the myth of Jewish power in proportions far lower than
is average, their perceptions are hardly likely to be dispelled by such cartoons, which contribute
towards a toxic drip-drip in public discourse, confirming the unarticulated suspicions about Jewish
power of those who find that such beliefs are neither rare nor taboo.
It may well be that the cartoon was intended only as a nod to the influence of Israel or AIPAC
in Washington's policy-making on Iran; and perhaps the cartoonist had good reasons not to include
a Tricolore and shahada
, despite similar pressure from the French and Saudis. Nevertheless, it does not take a Professor
in Anti-Semitism Studies to understand how such an image can reinforce the myth of the Jewish conspiracy
in the minds of those already convinced of its veracity, and for whom the words "Jewish lobby" trip
too easily off the tongue.
Cartoons work by using images and symbols familiar to readers in order to induce them to read
between the lines and infer a particular unspoken message from the image. The best that can be said
about Schrank's cartoon is that it is ambiguous, but this ambiguity is precisely what makes it so
noxious: the Economist can dissociate itself from the most toxic of interpretations, but still the
process of "wink wink, nudge nudge" will continue to encourage readers, quite reasonably, to jump
to conclusions about Jewish control over Capitol Hill from the incorporation of the Star of David
into official US symbols.
Belief in a Jewish conspiracy is sufficiently prevalent worldwide that for the Economist to buttress
them, even unintentionally, is negligent at best and utterly reckless at worst. If there is nuance,
the Economist cannot protest innocence when it is lost in translation.
Update The Economist has pulled the cartoon from its website, explaining: "The print edition of
this story had a cartoon which inadvertently caused offence to some readers, so we have replaced
it with a photograph." Given that the article makes no mention of AIPAC, the Israel Lobby, or indeed
Israel (bar a passing reference in brackets to Benjamin Netanyahu), this was probably a wise move.
"... But now, a group of 43 senators -- 29 Republicans and 14 Democrats -- wants to implement a law that would make it a felony for Americans to support the international boycott against Israel, which was launched in protest of that country's decades-old occupation of Palestine. The two primary sponsors of the bill are Democrat Ben Cardin of Maryland and Republican Rob Portman of Ohio. Perhaps the most shocking aspect is the punishment: Anyone guilty of violating the prohibitions will face a minimum civil penalty of $250,000 and a maximum criminal penalty of $1 million and 20 years in prison . ..."
"... The bill's co-sponsors include the senior Democrat in Washington, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, his New York colleague Kirsten Gillibrand, and several of the Senate's more liberal members, such as Ron Wyden of Oregon, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, and Maria Cantwell of Washington. ..."
"... The likes of Schiff have "high reputations" because they do the bidding of elites in promoting the interventionist and militarist foreign policies that serve the interests of foreign powers and of minority and other lobby groups. So much for the "liberals" as a supposed anti-establishment force. ..."
There is only one story in the news, for followers of the Israel/Palestine conflict, and that
is Glenn Greenwald and Ryan Grim's
report at the Intercept yesterday on new legislation in the Congress that would criminalize support
for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS).
The bill is such a crude example of overreach by the Israel lobby that it is sure to backfire
on its supporters as Greenwald and Grim's report ricochets around the Democratic Party:
But now, a group of 43 senators -- 29 Republicans and 14 Democrats -- wants to implement a law that
would make it a felony for Americans to support the international boycott against Israel,
which was launched in protest of that country's decades-old occupation of Palestine. The two primary
sponsors of
the bill are Democrat Ben Cardin of Maryland and Republican Rob Portman of Ohio. Perhaps the
most shocking aspect is the punishment: Anyone guilty of violating the prohibitions will face a minimum
civil penalty of $250,000 and a maximum criminal penalty of $1 million and 20 years in prison
.
The proposed measure, called the Israel Anti-Boycott Act (S. 720), was introduced by Cardin on
March 23. The Jewish Telegraphic Agency
reports that the bill "was drafted with the assistance of the American Israel Public Affairs
Committee." Indeed, AIPAC, in its
2017
lobbying agenda , identified passage of this bill as one of its top lobbying priorities for the
year:
The bill's
co-sponsors include the senior Democrat in Washington, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, his New
York colleague Kirsten Gillibrand, and several of the Senate's more liberal members, such as Ron
Wyden of Oregon, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, and Maria Cantwell of Washington.
Adam Schiff is worthy of special mention, as David Bromwich points out to me. "He is among
the scores of obedient Democrats co-sponsoring the bill. Schiff has a high reputation in liberal
circles, but he voted for the Iraq war, supported the Saudi intervention in Yemen, said the
assassination of Qaddafi was 'an end to the first chapter of another popular revolution,' and
approved of Trump's bombing of Syria.
On foreign policy he is a believer in the conventional wisdom of the Cold War and the War
on Terror, that's all; but his opinions have taken on an outsize importance since he is now
routinely accepted as the party's outstanding authority on Russia. He knows Russia about as
well as he knew Iraq and Libya."
The likes of Schiff have "high reputations" because they do the bidding of elites in promoting
the interventionist and militarist foreign policies that serve the interests of foreign powers
and of minority and other lobby groups. So much for the "liberals" as a supposed anti-establishment
force.
So Gillibrand was bludgeoned into sponsoring anti-American, police-state legislation by the
lobby. The rest seem to be the usual suspects – primary loyalty to a foreign country/sect.
Controversy Over Prominent BDS Activist Linda Sarsour Reaches New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand
Jewish leaders and pro-Israel activists have expressed concern over a contribution to Time
Magazine by New York Democratic Senator Kirsten Gillibrand that praised Linda Sarsour – a Palestinian-American
political activist and vocal advocate for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement
targeting Israel.
In a short piece accompanying the magazine's "100 most influential people" list for 2017, Gillibrand
paid tribute to "four extraordinary women -- Tamika Mallory, Bob Bland, Carmen Perez and Linda
Sarsour" for organizing the Women's March on Washington, DC on January 21 ..
Israel is rapidly diversifying its trade with India and China, both of which are growing segments
of world economy
Narendra Modi of the BJP supports Israel screwing the Palestinians due to shared enemy of islam.
When he visited Israel last month, he didnt even visit Palestinian Authority and instead visited
Holocaust museum
41% of Israeli defense exports go to India
The only people interested in BDS are muslims and leftist liberals ; as Muslim immigrants do
more terrorism and no-go areas and mass rapes in Eurabia, there is less and less public support
for BDS bcos the public supports anyone who hits back at islam
The most disturbing aspect of this story is the fact that so many of our elected representatives
are willing to pass a law that is clearly a violation of all that this nation supposedly treasures
-- free speech and freedom of conscience. I know, I know that the Zionists are behind this mischief.
But my God our leaders are traitorous scum!
What has happened to our nation?
I hope that all the blue pilled Americans realize the depth of depravity necessary for our
so called leaders to craft such legislation and to support it.
Perhaps they might wake up and realize that America–the land of the free and home of the brave–is
long gone. Then they might do something to try and get it back.
I recall a comedy film from the 1980s with Robin Williams on a Caribbean island describing
the constitution there as being "written in pencil". That now seems to apply to the USA. How could
such an obvious breach of the First Amendment even be considered? It seems that a sort of primary
loyalty to a foreign country has metastasized to the point that free speech itself is under threat.
Once a law like this is enacted, the final shreds of legitimacy of the yankee state which, after
all, claims its legitimacy by following constitutional legal forms, will have vanished.
I should add that the same people demanding this law, which is at the behest of provable foreign
interests, are many of the same ones propagating the phony propaganda anti-Russian conspiracy
theory. Real treason and sedition seem to be the order of the day to these people.
Just released and there is nothing else like it - Truth of Ukraine War Revealed: Watchdog
Media Releases Definitive Chronological Timeline Video of Ukrainian War From Euromaidan to
MH-17
@Mr.
Hack
Why are you going on a childish offensive by defending the US-installed junta in
Kiev and demanding others to provide you with evidence that the neo-nazis and Banderites have
nothing to do with Yatz and Poroshenko and Nuland-Kagan?
Google "neo-Nazi parades in Ukraine" and enjoy the show. If you still have doubts about the
direct responsibility of Poroschenko for the neo-Nazi presence in the government of Ukraine,
read about Pravyj sector and its role in the Maidan revolution. Also, Proschenko had been in
contact with the State Dept for years before the Maidan revolution. Your take on this?
The main point is the US-orchestrated regime change in Kiev. Or you want to convince the UNZ
reader that Nuland was a virtual reality and nothing has changed in Ukraine since Mrs.
Nuland-Kagan' and Mr. Brennan's visit to Kiev?
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-04-14/white-house-admits-cia-director-brennan-was-secretly-kiev?page=7
Do you realize that the US has brought a range of US officials to Kiev – including the
Director of the CIA – to "improve" a democratic process there by removing a lawfully
elected and acting president?
Yes, the US intervention has brought neo-Nazis and Banderites to the positions of influence
in Ukraine. What could be more natural than a combination of the name "Kagan" and the word
"neo-Nazis?"
https://consortiumnews.com/2015/03/20/a-family-business-of-perpetual-war/
" they served up a lot more than just milk and cookies"
It was Nuland-Kagan who brought the treats to Kiev. It was the (former) Director of CIA
Brennan who came to Kiev (supposedly in secret) on the eve of the Kiev' military actions
against the civilian population of the pro-federalist east Ukraine. And you want to convince
the UNZ readers that the Maidan was organized by Russians? What is the name of your new Prime
Minister? – Mr. Groysman? "Groysman was born in Vinnytsia into a Jewish family " How
come that the predominantly anti-semitic Ukraine has elected this nonety with the proper
ethnic background? – Sure you know how to explain that this is also the Russians'
fault. How about the US-enforced appointment of Misha Saakashvilli to the governorship of
Ukraine's Odessa? – Kremlin's affair? Ukraine has lost its independence with the regime
change in 2014.
"From what I've read " – You mean the presstituting MSM? None of the respectable
sources, from consortium.com to Sic Semper Tyrannus (
http://turcopolier.typepad.com
) have ever suggested
that the coup d'etat involved – in any capacity – Russian government. Keep in
mind that the above-mentioned sources present the analyses of the principled and patriotic
Americans who dedicated their lives to the US nationals security. For obvious reasons, they
are hated by ziocons.
max Book is just anothe "Yascha about Russia" type, that Masha Gessen represents so vividly.
The problem with him is that time of neocon prominance is solidly in the past and now unpleasant
question about the cost from the US people of their reckless foreign policies get into some
newspapers and managines. They cost the USA tremedous anount of money (as in trillions) and those
money consititute a large portion of the national debt. Critiques so far were very weak and
partially suppressed voices, but defeat of neocon warmonger Hillary signify some break with
the past.
Notable quotes:
"... National Interest ..."
"... Carlson's record suggests that he has been in the camp skeptical of U.S. foreign-policy intervention for some time now and, indeed, that it predates Donald Trump's rise to power. (Carlson has commented publicly that he was humiliated by his own public support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.) According to Carlson, "This is not about Trump. This is not about Trump. It's the one thing in American life that has nothing to do with Trump. My views on this are totally unrelated to my views on Donald Trump. This has been going since September 11, 2001. And it's a debate that we've never really had. And we need to have it." He adds, "I don't think the public has ever been for the ideas that undergird our policies." ..."
"... National Interest ..."
"... But the fight also seems to have a personal edge. Carlson says, "Max Boot is not impressive. . . . Max is a totally mediocre person." Carlson added that he felt guilty about not having, in his assessment, a superior guest to Boot on the show to defend hawkishness. "I wish I had had someone clear-thinking and smart on to represent their views. And there are a lot of them. I would love to have that debate," Carlson told me, periodically emphasizing that he is raring to go on this subject. ..."
"... New York Observer ..."
"... National Interest ..."
"... Weekly Standard ..."
"... Weekly Standard ..."
"... Though he eschews labels, Carlson sounds like a foreign-policy realist on steroids: "You can debate what's in [the United States'] interest. That's a subjective category. But what you can't debate is that ought to be the basic question, the first, second and third question. Does it represent our interest? . . . I don't think that enters into the calculations of a lot of the people who make these decisions." Carlson's interests extend beyond foreign policy, and he says "there's a massive realignment going on ideologically that everybody is missing. It's dramatic. And everyone is missing it. . . . Nobody is paying attention to it, " ..."
This week's primetime knife fights with Max Boot and Ralph Peters are emblematic of the
battle for the soul of the American Right.
To be sure, Carlson rejects the term
"neoconservatism,"
and implicitly, its corollary on the Democratic side, liberal internationalism. In 2016, "the reigning
Republican foreign-policy view, you can call it neoconservatism, or interventionism, or whatever you
want to call it" was rejected, he explained in a wide-ranging interview with the National Interest
Friday.
"But I don't like the term 'neoconservatism,'" he says, "because I don't even know what it means.
I think it describes the people rather than their ideas, which is what I'm interested in. And to
be perfectly honest . . . I have a lot of friends who have been described as neocons, people I really
love, sincerely. And they are offended by it. So I don't use it," Carlson said.
But Carlson's recent segments on foreign policy conducted with Lt. Col.
Ralph Peters and the prominent neoconservative journalist and author
Max Boot were acrimonious even by Carlsonian standards. In a discussion on Syria, Russia and
Iran, a visibly upset Boot accused Carlson of being "immoral" and taking foreign-policy positions
to curry favor with the White House, keep up his
ratings , and by proxy, benefit financially. Boot says that Carlson "basically parrots whatever
the pro-Trump line is that Fox viewers want to see. If Trump came out strongly against Putin tomorrow,
I imagine Tucker would echo this as faithfully as the pro-Russia arguments he echoes today." But
is this assessment fair?
Carlson's record suggests that he has been in the camp skeptical of U.S. foreign-policy intervention
for some time now and, indeed, that it predates Donald Trump's rise to power. (Carlson has commented
publicly that he was humiliated by his own public support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.) According
to Carlson, "This is not about Trump. This is not about Trump. It's the one thing in American life
that has nothing to do with Trump. My views on this are totally unrelated to my views on Donald Trump.
This has been going since September 11, 2001. And it's a debate that we've never really had. And
we need to have it." He adds, "I don't think the public has ever been for the ideas that undergird
our policies."
Even if Carlson doesn't want to use the label neocon to describe some of those ideas, Boot is
not so bashful. In 2005, Boot wrote an essay called
"Neocons May Get
the Last Laugh." Carlson "has become a Trump acolyte in pursuit of ratings," says Boot, also
interviewed by the National Interest . "I bet if it were President Clinton accused of colluding
with the Russians, Tucker would be outraged and calling for impeachment if not execution. But since
it's Trump, then it's all a big joke to him," Boot says. Carlson vociferously dissents from such
assessments: "This is what dumb people do. They can't assess the merits of an argument. . . . I'm
not talking about Syria, and Russia, and Iran because of ratings. That's absurd. I can't imagine
those were anywhere near the most highly-rated segments that night. That's not why I wanted to do
it."
But Carlson insists, "I have been saying the same thing for fifteen years. Now I have a T.V. show
that people watch, so my views are better known. But it shouldn't be a surprise. I supported Trump
to the extent he articulated beliefs that I agree with. . . . And I don't support Trump to the extent
that his actions deviate from those beliefs," Carlson said. Boot on Fox said that Carlson is "too
smart" for this kind of argument. But Carlson has bucked the Trump line, notably on Trump's April
7 strikes in Syria. "When the Trump administration threw a bunch of cruise missiles into Syria for
no obvious reason, on the basis of a pretext that I
question . . . I questioned [the decision] immediately. On T.V. I was on the air when that happened.
I think, maybe seven minutes into my show. . . . I thought this was reckless."
But the fight also seems to have a personal edge. Carlson says, "Max Boot is not impressive. .
. . Max is a totally mediocre person." Carlson added that he felt guilty about not having, in his
assessment, a superior guest to Boot on the show to defend hawkishness. "I wish I had had someone
clear-thinking and smart on to represent their views. And there are a lot of them. I would love to
have that debate," Carlson told me, periodically emphasizing that he is raring to go on this subject.
Boot objects to what he sees as a cavalier attitude on the part of Carlson and others toward allegations
of Russian interference in the 2016 election, and also toward the deaths of citizens of other countries.
"You are laughing about the fact that Russia is interfering in our election process. That to me is
immoral," Boot told Carlson on his show. "This is the level of dumbness and McCarthyism in Washington
right now," says Carlson. "I think it has the virtue of making Max Boot feel like a good person.
Like he's on God's team, or something like that. But how does that serve the interest of the country?
It doesn't." Carlson says that Donald Trump, Jr.'s emails aren't nearly as important as who is going
to lead Syria, which he says Boot and others have no plan for successfully occupying. Boot, by contrast,
sees the U.S. administration as dangerously flirting with working with Russia, Iran and Syrian president
Bashar al-Assad. "For whatever reason, Trump is pro-Putin, no one knows why, and he's taken a good
chunk of the GOP along with him," Boot says.
On Fox last Wednesday, Boot reminded Carlson that he originally supported the 2003 Iraq decision.
"You supported the invasion of Iraq," Boot said, before repeating, "You supported the invasion of
Iraq." Carlson conceded that, but it seems the invasion was a bona fide turning point. It's most
important to parse whether Carlson has a long record of anti-interventionism, or if he's merely
sniffing the throne of the president (who, dubiously, may have opposed the 2003 invasion). "I
think it's a total nightmare and disaster, and I'm ashamed that I went against my own instincts in
supporting it," Carlson told the New York Observer in early 2004. "It's something I'll never
do again. Never. I got convinced by a friend of mine who's smarter than I am, and I shouldn't have
done that. . . . I'm enraged by it, actually." Carlson told the National Interest that he's
felt this way since seeing Iraq for himself in December 2003.
The evidence points heavily toward a sincere conversion on Carlson's part, or preexisting conviction
that was briefly overcome by the beat of the war drums. Carlson did work for the Weekly Standard
, perhaps the most prominent neoconservative magazine, in the 1990s and early 2000s. Carlson today
speaks respectfully of William Kristol, its founding editor, but has concluded that he is all wet.
On foreign policy, the people Carlson speaks most warmly about are genuine hard left-wingers: Glenn
Greenwald, a vociferous critic of both economic neoliberalism and neoconservatism; the anti-establishment
journalist Michael Tracey; Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor of the Nation ; and her husband,
Stephen Cohen, the Russia expert and critic of U.S. foreign policy.
"The only people in American public life who are raising these questions are on the traditional
left: not lifestyle liberals, not the Williamsburg (Brooklyn) group, not liberals in D.C., not Nancy
Pelosi." He calls the expertise of establishment sources on matters like Syria "more shallow than
I even imagined." On his MSNBC show, which was canceled for poor ratings, he cavorted with noninterventionist
stalwarts such as
Ron Paul , the 2008 and 2012 antiwar GOP candidate, and Patrick J. Buchanan. "No one is smarter
than Pat Buchanan," he said
last year of the man whose ideas many say laid the groundwork for Trump's political success.
Carlson has risen to the pinnacle of cable news, succeeding Bill O'Reilly. It wasn't always clear
an antiwar take would vault someone to such prominence. Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio or Mitt Romney could
be president (Boot has advised the latter two). But here he is, and it's likely no coincidence that
Carlson got a show after Trump's election, starting at the 7 p.m. slot, before swiftly moving to
the 9 p.m. slot to replace Trump antagonist Megyn Kelly, and just as quickly replacing O'Reilly at
the top slot, 8 p.m. Boot, on the other hand, declared in 2016 that the Republican Party was
dead , before it went on to hold Congress and most state houses, and of course take the presidency.
He's still at the Council on Foreign Relations and writes for the New York Times (this seems
to clearly annoy Carlson: "It tells you everything about the low standards of the American foreign-policy
establishment").
Boot wrote in 2003 in the Weekly Standard that the fall of Saddam Hussein's government
"may turn out to be one of those hinge moments in history" comparable to "events like the storming
of the Bastille or the fall of the Berlin Wall, after which everything is different." He continued,
"If the occupation goes well (admittedly a big if ), it may mark the moment when the powerful
antibiotic known as democracy was introduced into the diseased environment of the Middle East, and
began to transform the region for the better."
Though he eschews labels, Carlson sounds like a foreign-policy realist on steroids: "You can debate
what's in [the United States'] interest. That's a subjective category. But what you can't debate
is that ought to be the basic question, the first, second and third question. Does it represent our
interest? . . . I don't think that enters into the calculations of a lot of the people who make these
decisions." Carlson's interests extend beyond foreign policy, and he says "there's a massive realignment
going on ideologically that everybody is missing. It's dramatic. And everyone is missing it. . .
. Nobody is paying attention to it, "
Carlson seems intent on pressing the issue. The previous night, in his debate with Peters, the
retired lieutenant colonel said that Carlson sounded like Charles Lindbergh, who opposed U.S. intervention
against Nazi Germany before 1941. "This particular strain of Republican foreign policy has almost
no constituency. Nobody agrees with it. I mean there's not actually a large group of people outside
of New York, Washington or L.A. who think any of this is a good idea," Carlson says. "All I am is
an asker of obvious questions. And that's enough to reveal these people have no idea what they're
talking about. None."
Curt Mills is a foreign-affairs reporter at the National Interest . Follow him on Twitter:
@CurtMills .
max Book is just anothe "Yascha about Russia" type, that Masha Gessen represents so vividly.
The problem with him is that time of neocon prominance is solidly in the past and now unpleasant
question about the cost from the US people of their reckless foreign policies get into some
newspapers and managines. They cost the USA tremedous anount of money (as in trillions) and those
money consititute a large portion of the national debt. Critiques so far were very weak and
partially suppressed voices, but defeat of neocon warmonger Hillary signify some break with
the past.
Notable quotes:
"... National Interest ..."
"... Carlson's record suggests that he has been in the camp skeptical of U.S. foreign-policy intervention for some time now and, indeed, that it predates Donald Trump's rise to power. (Carlson has commented publicly that he was humiliated by his own public support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.) According to Carlson, "This is not about Trump. This is not about Trump. It's the one thing in American life that has nothing to do with Trump. My views on this are totally unrelated to my views on Donald Trump. This has been going since September 11, 2001. And it's a debate that we've never really had. And we need to have it." He adds, "I don't think the public has ever been for the ideas that undergird our policies." ..."
"... National Interest ..."
"... But the fight also seems to have a personal edge. Carlson says, "Max Boot is not impressive. . . . Max is a totally mediocre person." Carlson added that he felt guilty about not having, in his assessment, a superior guest to Boot on the show to defend hawkishness. "I wish I had had someone clear-thinking and smart on to represent their views. And there are a lot of them. I would love to have that debate," Carlson told me, periodically emphasizing that he is raring to go on this subject. ..."
"... New York Observer ..."
"... National Interest ..."
"... Weekly Standard ..."
"... Weekly Standard ..."
"... Though he eschews labels, Carlson sounds like a foreign-policy realist on steroids: "You can debate what's in [the United States'] interest. That's a subjective category. But what you can't debate is that ought to be the basic question, the first, second and third question. Does it represent our interest? . . . I don't think that enters into the calculations of a lot of the people who make these decisions." Carlson's interests extend beyond foreign policy, and he says "there's a massive realignment going on ideologically that everybody is missing. It's dramatic. And everyone is missing it. . . . Nobody is paying attention to it, " ..."
This week's primetime knife fights with Max Boot and Ralph Peters are emblematic of the
battle for the soul of the American Right.
To be sure, Carlson rejects the term
"neoconservatism,"
and implicitly, its corollary on the Democratic side, liberal internationalism. In 2016, "the reigning
Republican foreign-policy view, you can call it neoconservatism, or interventionism, or whatever you
want to call it" was rejected, he explained in a wide-ranging interview with the National Interest
Friday.
"But I don't like the term 'neoconservatism,'" he says, "because I don't even know what it means.
I think it describes the people rather than their ideas, which is what I'm interested in. And to
be perfectly honest . . . I have a lot of friends who have been described as neocons, people I really
love, sincerely. And they are offended by it. So I don't use it," Carlson said.
But Carlson's recent segments on foreign policy conducted with Lt. Col.
Ralph Peters and the prominent neoconservative journalist and author
Max Boot were acrimonious even by Carlsonian standards. In a discussion on Syria, Russia and
Iran, a visibly upset Boot accused Carlson of being "immoral" and taking foreign-policy positions
to curry favor with the White House, keep up his
ratings , and by proxy, benefit financially. Boot says that Carlson "basically parrots whatever
the pro-Trump line is that Fox viewers want to see. If Trump came out strongly against Putin tomorrow,
I imagine Tucker would echo this as faithfully as the pro-Russia arguments he echoes today." But
is this assessment fair?
Carlson's record suggests that he has been in the camp skeptical of U.S. foreign-policy intervention
for some time now and, indeed, that it predates Donald Trump's rise to power. (Carlson has commented
publicly that he was humiliated by his own public support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.) According
to Carlson, "This is not about Trump. This is not about Trump. It's the one thing in American life
that has nothing to do with Trump. My views on this are totally unrelated to my views on Donald Trump.
This has been going since September 11, 2001. And it's a debate that we've never really had. And
we need to have it." He adds, "I don't think the public has ever been for the ideas that undergird
our policies."
Even if Carlson doesn't want to use the label neocon to describe some of those ideas, Boot is
not so bashful. In 2005, Boot wrote an essay called
"Neocons May Get
the Last Laugh." Carlson "has become a Trump acolyte in pursuit of ratings," says Boot, also
interviewed by the National Interest . "I bet if it were President Clinton accused of colluding
with the Russians, Tucker would be outraged and calling for impeachment if not execution. But since
it's Trump, then it's all a big joke to him," Boot says. Carlson vociferously dissents from such
assessments: "This is what dumb people do. They can't assess the merits of an argument. . . . I'm
not talking about Syria, and Russia, and Iran because of ratings. That's absurd. I can't imagine
those were anywhere near the most highly-rated segments that night. That's not why I wanted to do
it."
But Carlson insists, "I have been saying the same thing for fifteen years. Now I have a T.V. show
that people watch, so my views are better known. But it shouldn't be a surprise. I supported Trump
to the extent he articulated beliefs that I agree with. . . . And I don't support Trump to the extent
that his actions deviate from those beliefs," Carlson said. Boot on Fox said that Carlson is "too
smart" for this kind of argument. But Carlson has bucked the Trump line, notably on Trump's April
7 strikes in Syria. "When the Trump administration threw a bunch of cruise missiles into Syria for
no obvious reason, on the basis of a pretext that I
question . . . I questioned [the decision] immediately. On T.V. I was on the air when that happened.
I think, maybe seven minutes into my show. . . . I thought this was reckless."
But the fight also seems to have a personal edge. Carlson says, "Max Boot is not impressive. .
. . Max is a totally mediocre person." Carlson added that he felt guilty about not having, in his
assessment, a superior guest to Boot on the show to defend hawkishness. "I wish I had had someone
clear-thinking and smart on to represent their views. And there are a lot of them. I would love to
have that debate," Carlson told me, periodically emphasizing that he is raring to go on this subject.
Boot objects to what he sees as a cavalier attitude on the part of Carlson and others toward allegations
of Russian interference in the 2016 election, and also toward the deaths of citizens of other countries.
"You are laughing about the fact that Russia is interfering in our election process. That to me is
immoral," Boot told Carlson on his show. "This is the level of dumbness and McCarthyism in Washington
right now," says Carlson. "I think it has the virtue of making Max Boot feel like a good person.
Like he's on God's team, or something like that. But how does that serve the interest of the country?
It doesn't." Carlson says that Donald Trump, Jr.'s emails aren't nearly as important as who is going
to lead Syria, which he says Boot and others have no plan for successfully occupying. Boot, by contrast,
sees the U.S. administration as dangerously flirting with working with Russia, Iran and Syrian president
Bashar al-Assad. "For whatever reason, Trump is pro-Putin, no one knows why, and he's taken a good
chunk of the GOP along with him," Boot says.
On Fox last Wednesday, Boot reminded Carlson that he originally supported the 2003 Iraq decision.
"You supported the invasion of Iraq," Boot said, before repeating, "You supported the invasion of
Iraq." Carlson conceded that, but it seems the invasion was a bona fide turning point. It's most
important to parse whether Carlson has a long record of anti-interventionism, or if he's merely
sniffing the throne of the president (who, dubiously, may have opposed the 2003 invasion). "I
think it's a total nightmare and disaster, and I'm ashamed that I went against my own instincts in
supporting it," Carlson told the New York Observer in early 2004. "It's something I'll never
do again. Never. I got convinced by a friend of mine who's smarter than I am, and I shouldn't have
done that. . . . I'm enraged by it, actually." Carlson told the National Interest that he's
felt this way since seeing Iraq for himself in December 2003.
The evidence points heavily toward a sincere conversion on Carlson's part, or preexisting conviction
that was briefly overcome by the beat of the war drums. Carlson did work for the Weekly Standard
, perhaps the most prominent neoconservative magazine, in the 1990s and early 2000s. Carlson today
speaks respectfully of William Kristol, its founding editor, but has concluded that he is all wet.
On foreign policy, the people Carlson speaks most warmly about are genuine hard left-wingers: Glenn
Greenwald, a vociferous critic of both economic neoliberalism and neoconservatism; the anti-establishment
journalist Michael Tracey; Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor of the Nation ; and her husband,
Stephen Cohen, the Russia expert and critic of U.S. foreign policy.
"The only people in American public life who are raising these questions are on the traditional
left: not lifestyle liberals, not the Williamsburg (Brooklyn) group, not liberals in D.C., not Nancy
Pelosi." He calls the expertise of establishment sources on matters like Syria "more shallow than
I even imagined." On his MSNBC show, which was canceled for poor ratings, he cavorted with noninterventionist
stalwarts such as
Ron Paul , the 2008 and 2012 antiwar GOP candidate, and Patrick J. Buchanan. "No one is smarter
than Pat Buchanan," he said
last year of the man whose ideas many say laid the groundwork for Trump's political success.
Carlson has risen to the pinnacle of cable news, succeeding Bill O'Reilly. It wasn't always clear
an antiwar take would vault someone to such prominence. Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio or Mitt Romney could
be president (Boot has advised the latter two). But here he is, and it's likely no coincidence that
Carlson got a show after Trump's election, starting at the 7 p.m. slot, before swiftly moving to
the 9 p.m. slot to replace Trump antagonist Megyn Kelly, and just as quickly replacing O'Reilly at
the top slot, 8 p.m. Boot, on the other hand, declared in 2016 that the Republican Party was
dead , before it went on to hold Congress and most state houses, and of course take the presidency.
He's still at the Council on Foreign Relations and writes for the New York Times (this seems
to clearly annoy Carlson: "It tells you everything about the low standards of the American foreign-policy
establishment").
Boot wrote in 2003 in the Weekly Standard that the fall of Saddam Hussein's government
"may turn out to be one of those hinge moments in history" comparable to "events like the storming
of the Bastille or the fall of the Berlin Wall, after which everything is different." He continued,
"If the occupation goes well (admittedly a big if ), it may mark the moment when the powerful
antibiotic known as democracy was introduced into the diseased environment of the Middle East, and
began to transform the region for the better."
Though he eschews labels, Carlson sounds like a foreign-policy realist on steroids: "You can debate
what's in [the United States'] interest. That's a subjective category. But what you can't debate
is that ought to be the basic question, the first, second and third question. Does it represent our
interest? . . . I don't think that enters into the calculations of a lot of the people who make these
decisions." Carlson's interests extend beyond foreign policy, and he says "there's a massive realignment
going on ideologically that everybody is missing. It's dramatic. And everyone is missing it. . .
. Nobody is paying attention to it, "
Carlson seems intent on pressing the issue. The previous night, in his debate with Peters, the
retired lieutenant colonel said that Carlson sounded like Charles Lindbergh, who opposed U.S. intervention
against Nazi Germany before 1941. "This particular strain of Republican foreign policy has almost
no constituency. Nobody agrees with it. I mean there's not actually a large group of people outside
of New York, Washington or L.A. who think any of this is a good idea," Carlson says. "All I am is
an asker of obvious questions. And that's enough to reveal these people have no idea what they're
talking about. None."
Curt Mills is a foreign-affairs reporter at the National Interest . Follow him on Twitter:
@CurtMills .
"... Samantha ' Genocide ' Powers, former US Ambassador to the UN and Spoxhole started out as a journalist too. They just can't seem to get professional diplomats to take the job, or maybe they are simply not offered it. We've been around this particular bush many times before. ..."
"... Are western institutions hollowing themselves out by promoting semi-talented gobshites instead of career diplomats and experts and does that stop people going in to the diplomatic service thus leave less and less available for top jobs as the real experts have either already retired or will soon? ..."
Samantha ' Genocide ' Powers, former US Ambassador to the UN and Spoxhole started out
as a journalist too. They just can't seem to get professional diplomats to take the job, or maybe
they are simply not offered it. We've been around this particular bush many times before.
Are western institutions hollowing themselves out by promoting semi-talented gobshites instead
of career diplomats and experts and does that stop people going in to the diplomatic service thus
leave less and less available for top jobs as the real experts have either already retired or will
soon?
The House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee report on UK-Russia relations that I posted about
above highlights this lack of expertise, but is it also the case that mass surveillance though technology
has become the magpie politicians shiny jewels to the detriment of promoting human resource capital?
Meanwhile, the head of British Intelligence outfit MI6 gave an interview to the British press
about being 'inclusive' and now trying to personally recruit new members from all backgrounds with
the traditional 'tap on the shoulder'. Yup, when you lock down the internet – for your own safety
of course – you keep full records of every citizens electronic movements, and you allow over 30 government
departments almost full access to that information at the tap of a couple of buttons with minimum
oversight, what's left? Ah yes, spies in every community to report back so no minority is left behind,
including the LBQ-GTI brigade (who have always been in British Intelligence, but officialdom previously
looked the other way). But don't call it a Police State, 'coz that is bad . Managed British
democracy and freedoms are good .
Here are a few of the headlines:
The Independent: MI6 is bringing back the 'tap on the shoulder' recruitment method
The Times: MI6 brings back tap on the shoulder to boost diversity
BBC: New MI6: Less white, less like Bond
And two pieces by 'The Friends of Snowden', the Guardian!
The Guardian: MI6 returns to 'tapping up' in effort to recruit black and Asian officers
The Guardian: What you really need to join MI6: emotional intelligence and a high IQ
What this smacks of is damage repair and promotion PR exercise. I bet this boilerplate interview
was slated for earlier release but when it was discovered that former MI6 agent Christopher Steele
prepared the Trump 'Dodgy Dossier', not to mention his past in the famous Moscow 'Spy Rock' episode,
so they waited a little while to let the news how MI6 treats its former/agents to cool off.
Do MI6 really tap people on the shoulder if they want to recruit them? I'd have thought their
methods involved press-ganging people and threatening blackmail by posting fake videos of their
victims engaged in terrorist or paedophilic acts if they refused to cooperate. http://www.nelsonsnavy.co.uk/broadside7.html
Was that how James Bond was recruited to work for Her Maj Betty Windsor's Secret Service: being
invited to a cup of tea, a Vesper Martini and a chat with Misses Moneypenny and Goodnight somewhere
in Mayfair in London?
The Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives of the US Congress has
drafted a bill to cut US military aid to Ukraine to just $150 million, which is less than
half of the $350 million Kiev received from Washington in 2016.
Under the proposed bill, the Pentagon can spend funds "for training, equipment,
weapons of a defensive nature, logistics, and intelligence."
Washington has ignored Kiev's persistent calls for the supply of offensive weapons
for its "counterterrorism operation" in Donbass.
Ukraine periodically tries sweet talk to lure the east back, but the time to do that was immediately
after the Maidan – instead, nationalist fervor gripped the capital and giddy nationalists went
hard the other way with proclamations that they would delegitimize the Russian language. If anything
about those lunatic days can be said to have been the catalyst which set subsequent events in
motion, the fatal mistake, that was it. The mayor of Lvov, no less, made a speech the very next
day – in perfect colloquial Russian – in which he tried to walk back the disaster and reassure
the easterners that there would not be legal action to discriminate against them because of their
habitual language, but the die was cast and it was too late.
Had the nationalists not had their way or had they not given in to the temptation to indulge
their hatred of Russia and everything about it, there is every chance regime change would have
succeeded in gathering Ukraine to the EU's bosom. Russia might still have made a grab for Crimea,
and for me it would still have been legitimate since it was once part of Russia and was never
ceded legally to Ukraine as its other territories were. But the stab in the back over the use
of Russian, which once again was only a treat the nationalists foolishly allowed themselves as
a reward for victory, provided a perfect catalyst for rebellion and the rapid decision-making
it entails. I would be willing to bet Washington and the State Department are still cursing over
that tactical blunder, since they are now lumbered with the great corrupt mass of Ukraine, with
an active rebellion simmering on its eastern edge, but without the sparkling prize of Crimea.
I don't know if Putin actually said he did not want to be welcomed by NATO sailors in Sevastopol,
as he is reputed to have done, but that most certainly was part of the plan.
This is a very good comment. I think you caught the essence of what happened. Nationalists first
destroyed the country territorial integrity, and after that, they destroyed its economics. Essentially
acting as US stooges, helping the USA to achieve its geopolitical goals (and Ukraine remains the
major geopolitical victory of Obama administration).
Now the majority of Ukrainians exist on around $2 a day. So the social explosion is possible.
And they continue digging the hole deeper and deeper. This is a real Ukrainian tragedy: they managed
to replicate all the horrors of 90th again.
Also, idealization of the West promoted by nationalists serves as a trap, consequences of which
are yet to come. Being Germany resource base is not a walk in the park. Ask Bulgarians about this
experience. Or Greece.
At the same time Donbas tragedy was partially the result of Putin's policy (or lack thereof)
because there was a vague promise that if on the referendum they vote for joining Russia they
will be accepted like Crimea. But he decided not do that. Or, most probably, somebody helped Putin
to decide that way. Of course, after Yeltsin drunk orgy Russia remains weak and can't challenge
the USA directly. And that would do just that. But truth be told after Odessa civilians burning
in the building all Eastern Ukraine up to Kiev was probably ready to accept Russians as liberators.
At least nationalists in Kharkov felt that the city has been already lost.
I talked with a couple of Ukrainian refugees from Donbas area and they were not actually too
exited about Putin's policy and think that he shares the blame with nationalists.
This was a trap that helped to provoke the civil war: the USA pushed for the military solution.
May be in order to destabilize the region, and by extension, Russia, which they incorrectly consider
the main geopolitical enemy after China. But as a result, they destroyed remnants of Ukrainian
economics, and now somebody needs to pick the bill. This process of deindustrialization is continuing
as Ukraine lost the major market for its production. 300% devaluation of grivna reflects just
that. Just think about it: 300% in three years: from 8 to a dollar to 26
In essence, the USA position on Donbas conflict was to the right of Ukrainian nationalists.
Especially US neocons like Nuland and McCain. I remember Yatsenyuk speech (in Russian) at this
time in which he backtracked from "Ukrainian language uber alles" position; might be a tactical
maneuver, but still
In any case, Ukraine remains the worst defeat of Putin in foreign policy area for his whole
term in office (Libya was under Medvedev). And the major geopolitical victory for the USA. Nobody
cares if Ukrainians will starve. And if Russia stops transiting of gas as they plan to do, the
economic situation in Ukraine will become much worse. At this point they might arrive as close
to the failed state as one can get.
Thank you, likbez. Yes, Putin several times referred carelessly to 'Novorossiya', which created
the impression that Russia was considering accepting it. Also, he obtained the advance approval
of the Duma to conduct military operations as he saw fit in order to protect eastern-Ukrainian
ethnic Russians. That was perhaps the biggest mistake he ever made, and he withdrew it, but it
was too late and it very much played into western hands. Washington was able to portray Russia
as ready to invade Ukraine, and it was convincing.
I think Putin has known all along that eastern
Ukraine would be an asset as a frozen conflict, like Abkhazia and South Ossetia are in Georgia,
whereas if Russia were to take them in they would be a liability, as Russia would be forced to
defend them. But those former Donbas residents who grumble because Putin did not absorb eastern
Ukraine should ask themselves if they would be better off if Kiev won and subjugated them, and
they joined the people who are living on a couple of bucks a day. Russian commerce still goes
on with the east, but not with the rest of Ukraine.
And it's true Ukraine represents a major defeat for Russia, but there was little Russia could
have done to stop it. Russia was not going to go to war against NATO to prevent it from seizing
Ukraine, but NATO is not likely to go to war to hold on to it, either. Russia played by the rules
and stayed out of what it labeled Ukraine's business, but the west had no such scruples, and it
meddled, meddled, meddled and instigated a coup. Only a coup will take it back.
"... Oh, it was glorious fun, yielding the kind of satisfaction that us anti-interventionists rarely get to enjoy: not one but two prominent neoconservatives who have been wrong about everything for the past decade – yet never held accountable – getting taken down on national television. Tucker Carlson, whose show is a shining light of reason in a fast-darkening world, has performed a public service by demolishing both Ralph Peters and Max Boot on successive shows. But these two encounters with evil weren't just fun to watch, they're also highly instructive for what they tell us about the essential weakness of the War Party and its failing strategy for winning over the American people. ..."
"... For the neocons, it's always 1938. The enemy is always the reincarnation of Hitler, and anyone who questions the wisdom of war is denounced as an "appeaser" in the fashion of Neville Chamberlain or Lindbergh. ..."
"... Reprinted with permission from Antiwar.com . ..."
Oh, it was glorious fun, yielding the kind of satisfaction that us anti-interventionists
rarely get to enjoy: not one but two prominent neoconservatives who have been wrong about
everything for the past decade – yet never held accountable – getting taken down on
national television. Tucker Carlson, whose show is a shining light of reason in a
fast-darkening world, has performed a public service by demolishing both Ralph Peters and Max
Boot on successive shows. But these two encounters with evil weren't just fun to watch, they're
also highly instructive for what they tell us about the essential weakness of the War Party and
its failing strategy for winning over the American people.
Tucker's first victim was Ralph Peters , an alleged "military expert" who's been a fixture
on Fox News since before the Iraq war, of which he was a rabid proponent. Tucker starts out the
program by noting that ISIS "caliph" Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi may have been killed in a Russian
airstrike and that the talk in Washington is now moving away from defeating ISIS and focusing
on Iran as the principal enemy. He asks why is this? Why not take a moment to celebrate the
death of Baghdadi and acknowledge that we have certain common interests with the Russians?
Peters leaps into overstatement, as is his wont: "We can't have an alliance with terrorists,
and the Russians are terrorists. They're not Islamists, but they are terrorists." He then
alleges that the Russians aren't really fighting ISIS, but instead are bombing hospitals,
children, and "our allies" (i.e. the radical Islamist Syrian rebels trained and funded by the
CIA and allied with al-Qaeda and al-Nusra). The Russians "hate the United States," and "we have
nothing in common with the Russians" –nothing!" The Russians, says Peters, are paving the
way for the Iranians – the real evil in the region – to "build up an empire from
Afghanistan to the Mediterranean." Ah yes, the "
Shia crescent " which the Israelis and their amen corner in the US have been warning
against since before the Iraq war. Yet Tucker points out that over 3,000 Americans have been
killed by terrorists in the US, and "none of them are Shi'ites: all of [these terrorists] have
been Sunni extremists who are supported by the Saudis who are supposed to be our allies." And
while we're on the subject: "Why," asks Tucker, "if we're so afraid of Iran did we kill Saddam
Hussein, thereby empowering Iran?"
"Because we were stupid," says Peters.
Oh boy! Peters was one of the most militant advocates of
the Iraq war: we were "stupid," I suppose, to listen to him. Yet Tucker lets this ride
momentarily, saving his big guns for the moment when he takes out Peters completely. And Peters
walks right into it when Tucker wonders why we can't cooperate with Russia, since both
countries are under assault from Sunni terrorists:
PETERS: You sound like Charles Lindbergh in 1938 saying Hitler hasn't attacked us.
TUCKER: I beg your pardon? You cannot compare me to somebody who makes apologies for
Hitler. And I don't think Putin is comparable.
PETERS: I think Putin is.
TUCKER: I think it is a grotesque overstatement actually. I think it's insane.
PETERS: Fine, you can think it's insane all you want.
For the neocons, it's always 1938. The enemy is always the reincarnation of
Hitler, and anyone who questions the wisdom of war is denounced as an "appeaser" in the fashion
of Neville Chamberlain or Lindbergh. Yet no one ever examines and challenges the assumption
behind this rhetorical trope, which is that war with the enemy of the moment – whether it
be Saddam Hussein, the Iranian ayatollahs, or Vladimir Putin – is inevitable and
imminent. If Putin is Hitler, and Russia is Nazi Germany, then we must take the analogy all the
way and assume that we'll be at war with the Kremlin shortly.
After all, Charles Lindbergh's opponents in the great debate of the 1940s openly said that
Hitler, who posed an existential threat to the West, had to be destroyed, and that this goal
could not be achieved short of war. Of course, Franklin Roosevelt pretended that this wasn't
so, and pledged repeatedly that we weren't going to war, but secretly he manipulated events so
that war was practically inevitable. Meanwhile, the more honest elements of the War Party
openly proclaimed that we had to aid Britain and get into the war.
Is this what Peters and his gaggle of neocons are advocating – that we go to war with
nuclear-armed Russia and annihilate much of the world in a radioactive Armageddon? It certainly
seems that way. The Hitler-Lindbergh trope certainly does more than merely imply that.
Clearly riled by the attempt to smear him, Tucker, the neocon slayer, then moves in for the
kill:
I would hate to go back and read your columns assuring America that taking out Saddam Hussein
will make the region calmer, more peaceful, and America safer, when in fact it has been the
opposite and it has empowered Russia and Iran, the two countries you say you fear most
– let's be totally honest, we don't always know the outcomes.
They are not entirely predictable so maybe we should lower that a little bit rather than
calling people accommodationist.
This is what the neocons hate: reminding them of their record is like showing a
vampire a crucifix. Why should we listen to Peters, who's been wrong about everything for
decades? Peters' response is the typical neocon riposte to all honest questions about their
policies and record: you're a traitor, you're "cheering on Vladimir Putin!" To which Tucker has
the perfect America Firster answer:
I'm cheering for America as always. Our interests ought to come first and to the extent that
making temporary alliances with other countries serves our interests, I'm in favor of that.
Making sweeping moral claims – grotesque ones – comparing people to Hitler
advances the ball not one inch and blinds us to reality.
Peters has no real argument, and so he resorts to the method that's become routine
in American politics: accuse your opponent of being a foreign agent. Tucker, says Peters, is an
"apologist" not only for Putin but also for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Again, Tucker
answers smears with cold logic:
So because I'm asking rational questions about what's best for America I'm a friend to
strongmen and dictators? That is a conversation stopper, not a beginning of a rational
conversation. My only point is when Syria was run by Assad 10% of the population was
Christian and they lived in relative peace.
And that's really the whole point: the War Party wants to stop the conversation.
They don't want a debate – when, really, have we ever had a fair debate in this country
over foreign policy? They depend on fear, innuendo, and ad hominem "arguments" to drag us into
war after war – and Tucker is having none of it.
So why is any of this important? After all, it's just a TV show, and as amusing as it is to
watch a prominent neocon get creamed, what doe it all mean in the end? Well, it matters because
Tucker didn't start out talking sense on foreign policy. He started out, in short, as a
conventional conservative, but then something happened. As he put it to Peters at the end of
the segment:
I want to act in America's interest and stop making shallow, sweeping claims about countries
we don't fully understand and hope everything will be fine in the end. I saw that happen and
it didn't work.
What's true isn't self-evident, at least to those of us who aren't omniscient.
Many conservatives, as well as the country as a whole, learned something as they saw the
disasters in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria unfold. On the right, many have rejected the
neoconservative "idealism" that destroyed the Middle East and unleashed ISIS. When Donald Trump
stood before the South Carolina GOP debate and told the assembled mandarins that we were lied
into the Iraq war, the chattering classes declared that he was finished – yet he won that
primary, and went on to win the nomination, precisely because Republican voters were ready to
hear that message.
Indeed, Trump's "America First" skepticism when it comes to foreign wars made
the crucial difference in the election , as a recent study shows :
communities hard hit by our endless wars put him over the top in the key states of Wisconsin,
Michigan, and Pennsylvania. This, and not "Russian meddling," handed him the White House.
Tucker Carlson's ideological evolution limns the transformation of the American right in the
age of Trump: while Trump is not, by a long shot, a consistent anti-interventionist, Tucker
comes pretty close. He is, at least, a realist with a pronounced antipathy for foreign
adventurism, and that is a big step forward from the neoconservative orthodoxy that has bathed
much of the world in blood.
Perhaps the neocons, having been trounced in round one, thought Boot could do better: they
were mistaken. Tucker took him apart simply by letting him talk: Boot didn't answer a single
question put to him, and, in the course of it all, as Boot resorted to the typical ad hominems,
Tucker made a cogent point:
[T]o dismiss people who disagree with you as immoral – which is your habit –
isn't a useful form of debate, it's a kind of moral preening, and it's little odd coming from
you, who really has been consistently wrong in the most flagrant and flamboyant way for over
a decade. And so, you have to sort of wonder, like –
BOOT: What have I been wrong about, Tucker? What have I been wrong about?
CARLSON: Well, having watch you carefully and known you for a long time, I recall vividly
when you said that if we were to topple the governments of Afghanistan and Iraq, the region
will be much safer and the people who took their place would help us in the global war on
terror. Of course it didn't happen –
Boot starts to completely melt down at this point, screeching "You supported the
Iraq war!" To which Tucker trenchantly replies:
I've been wrong about a ton of things, you try to learn your lesson. But when you get out
there in the New York Times and say, we really should have done more to depose Qaddafi,
because you know, Libya is going to be better when that happens. And then to hear you say we
need to knock off the Assad regime and things will be better in Syria, he sort of wonder
like, well, maybe we should choose another professions. Selling insurance, something you're
good at. I guess that's kind of the point. Are there no sanctions for being as wrong as you
have?
Why oh why should we listen to Peters and Boot and their fellow neocons, who have
been – literally – dead wrong about everything: their crackbrained ideology has led
to untold thousands of deaths since September 11, 2001 alone. And for what?
In the end, Boot falls back on the usual non-arguments: Tucker is "immoral" because he
denies that Trump is a Russian agent, and persists in asking questions about our foreign policy
of endless intervention in the Middle East. Tucker keeps asking why Boot thinks Russia is the
main threat to the United States, and Boot finally answers: "Because they are the only country
that can destroy us with a nuclear strike."
To a rational person, the implications of this are obvious: in that case, shouldn't we be
trying to reach some sort of détente, or even achieve a degree of cooperation with Moscow?
Oh, but no, because you see the Russians are inherently evil, we have "nothing" in common with
them – in which case, war is inevitable.
At which point, Tucker avers: "Okay. I am beginning to think that your judgment has been
clouded by ideology, I don't fully understand where it's coming from but I will let our viewers
decide."
I know where it's coming from. Tucker's viewers may not know that Boot is a Russian
immigrant, who – like so many of our Russophobic warmongers – arrived on our shores
with his hatred of the motherland packed in his suitcase. There's a whole platoon of them:
Cathy Young, who recently released her polemic
arguing for a new cold war with Russia in the pages ofReason magazine; Atlantic writer and
tweeter of anti-Trump obscenities Julia Ioffe, whose visceral hatred for her homeland is a
veritable monomania; Gary Kasparov, the former chess champion who spends most of his energy
plotting revenge against Vladimir Putin and a Russian electorate that has consistently rejected
his hopeless presidential campaigns, and I could go on but you get the picture.
As the new cold war envelopes the country, wrapping us in its icy embrace and freezing all
rational discussion of foreign policy, a few people stand out as brave exceptions to the
groupthinking mass of the chattering classes: among the most visible and articulate are Tucker
Carlson, Glenn Greenwald, journalist Michael Tracey, Prof. Stephen Cohen, and of course our own
Ron Paul. I tip my hat to them, in gratitude and admiration, for they represent the one thing
we need right now: hope. The hope that this madness will pass, that we'll beat back this latest
War Party offensive, and enjoy a return to what passes these days for normalcy.
"Only in the case of Crimea Moscow acted in a more open way. The hostile rejection to this
step by close allies like Belarus and Kazakhstan shows that Putin indeed acted against the
established consensus of the post-Soviet world."
WTF!!!!!! Any rejection-hostile or not-of the formal incorporation of Crimea into the
Russian'state would be a rejection of the overwhelmingly expressed will of the people of
Crimea to join with Russia as was show in the referendum.
"... Cohen's appearance on Carlson's show last night demonstrated again at what a blistering pace public opinion in the West about Putin and Russia is shifting, for the better. ..."
"... Cohen is always good, but last night he nailed it, calling the media's coverage of Hamburg 'pornography'. ..."
"... It was just a year ago, pre-Trump, that professor Cohen was banned from all the networks, from any major media outlet, and being relentlessly pilloried by the neocon media for being a naive fool for defending Putin and Russia. ..."
"... "The first thing you notice is just how much the press is rooting for this meeting between our president and the Russian President to fail. It's a kind of pornography. Just as there's no love in pornography, there's no American national interest in this bashing of Trump and Putin. ..."
"... Carlson tried to draw Cohen out about who exactly in Washington is so against Assad, and why, and Cohen deflected, demurring - 'I don't know - I'm not an expert'. Of course he knows, as does Carlson - it is an unholy alliance of Israel, Saudi Arabia and their neocon friends in Washington and the media who are pushing this criminal policy, who support ISIS, deliberately. But they can't say so, because, ... well, because. Ask Rupert Murdoch. ..."
Cohen's appearance on Carlson's show last night demonstrated again at what a blistering pace public opinion in the West about
Putin and Russia is shifting, for the better.
Cohen is always good, but last night he nailed it, calling the media's coverage of Hamburg 'pornography'.
Ahh, the power of the apt phrase.
It was just a year ago, pre-Trump, that professor Cohen was banned from all the networks, from any major media outlet, and
being relentlessly pilloried by the neocon media for being a naive fool for defending Putin and Russia.
Last night he was the featured guest on the most watched news show in the country, being cheered on by the host, who has him on
as a regular. And Cohen isn't remotely a conservative. He is a contributing editor at the arch-liberal Nation magazine, of which
his wife is the editor. It doesn't really get pinker than that.
Some choice quotes here, but the whole thing is worth a listen:
"The first thing you notice is just how much the press is rooting for this meeting between our president and the Russian
President to fail. It's a kind of pornography. Just as there's no love in pornography, there's no American national interest in
this bashing of Trump and Putin.
As a historian let me tell you the headline I would write instead:
"What we witnessed today in Hamburg was a potentially historic new detente. an anti-cold-war partnership begun by Trump and
Putin but meanwhile attempts to sabotage it escalate." I've seen a lot of summits between American and Russian presidents, ...
and I think what we saw today was potentially the most fateful meeting ... since the Cold War.
The reason is, is that the relationship with Russia is so dangerous and we have a president who might have been crippled or
cowed by these Russiagate attacks ... yet he was not. He was politically courageous. It went well. They got important things done.
I think maybe today we witnessed president Trump emerging as an American statesman."
Cohen goes on to say that the US should ally with Assad, Iran, and Russia to crush ISIS, with Carlson bobbing his head up and
down in emphatic agreement.
Carlson tried to draw Cohen out about who exactly in Washington is so against Assad, and why, and Cohen deflected, demurring
- 'I don't know - I'm not an expert'. Of course he knows, as does Carlson - it is an unholy alliance of Israel, Saudi Arabia and
their neocon friends in Washington and the media who are pushing this criminal policy, who support ISIS, deliberately. But they can't
say so, because, ... well, because. Ask Rupert Murdoch.
Things are getting better in the US media, but we aren't quite able to call a spade a spade in the land of the free and the home
of the brave.
"... Cohen's appearance on Carlson's show last night demonstrated again at what a blistering pace public opinion in the West about Putin and Russia is shifting, for the better. ..."
"... Cohen is always good, but last night he nailed it, calling the media's coverage of Hamburg 'pornography'. ..."
"... It was just a year ago, pre-Trump, that professor Cohen was banned from all the networks, from any major media outlet, and being relentlessly pilloried by the neocon media for being a naive fool for defending Putin and Russia. ..."
"... "The first thing you notice is just how much the press is rooting for this meeting between our president and the Russian President to fail. It's a kind of pornography. Just as there's no love in pornography, there's no American national interest in this bashing of Trump and Putin. ..."
"... Carlson tried to draw Cohen out about who exactly in Washington is so against Assad, and why, and Cohen deflected, demurring - 'I don't know - I'm not an expert'. Of course he knows, as does Carlson - it is an unholy alliance of Israel, Saudi Arabia and their neocon friends in Washington and the media who are pushing this criminal policy, who support ISIS, deliberately. But they can't say so, because, ... well, because. Ask Rupert Murdoch. ..."
Cohen's appearance on Carlson's show last night demonstrated again at what a blistering pace public opinion in the West about
Putin and Russia is shifting, for the better.
Cohen is always good, but last night he nailed it, calling the media's coverage of Hamburg 'pornography'.
Ahh, the power of the apt phrase.
It was just a year ago, pre-Trump, that professor Cohen was banned from all the networks, from any major media outlet, and
being relentlessly pilloried by the neocon media for being a naive fool for defending Putin and Russia.
Last night he was the featured guest on the most watched news show in the country, being cheered on by the host, who has him on
as a regular. And Cohen isn't remotely a conservative. He is a contributing editor at the arch-liberal Nation magazine, of which
his wife is the editor. It doesn't really get pinker than that.
Some choice quotes here, but the whole thing is worth a listen:
"The first thing you notice is just how much the press is rooting for this meeting between our president and the Russian
President to fail. It's a kind of pornography. Just as there's no love in pornography, there's no American national interest in
this bashing of Trump and Putin.
As a historian let me tell you the headline I would write instead:
"What we witnessed today in Hamburg was a potentially historic new detente. an anti-cold-war partnership begun by Trump and
Putin but meanwhile attempts to sabotage it escalate." I've seen a lot of summits between American and Russian presidents, ...
and I think what we saw today was potentially the most fateful meeting ... since the Cold War.
The reason is, is that the relationship with Russia is so dangerous and we have a president who might have been crippled or
cowed by these Russiagate attacks ... yet he was not. He was politically courageous. It went well. They got important things done.
I think maybe today we witnessed president Trump emerging as an American statesman."
Cohen goes on to say that the US should ally with Assad, Iran, and Russia to crush ISIS, with Carlson bobbing his head up and
down in emphatic agreement.
Carlson tried to draw Cohen out about who exactly in Washington is so against Assad, and why, and Cohen deflected, demurring
- 'I don't know - I'm not an expert'. Of course he knows, as does Carlson - it is an unholy alliance of Israel, Saudi Arabia and
their neocon friends in Washington and the media who are pushing this criminal policy, who support ISIS, deliberately. But they can't
say so, because, ... well, because. Ask Rupert Murdoch.
Things are getting better in the US media, but we aren't quite able to call a spade a spade in the land of the free and the home
of the brave.
"... As The Hill correctly pointed out, "Haley's description runs counter to the versions offered by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson , Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Trump himself ." ..."
"... But Hurricane Haley was not finished. She poured ice water on President Trump's agreement with President Putin to work together on cyber-security, telling CNN, "[w]e can't trust Russia, and we won't ever trust Russia. But you keep those that you don't trust closer so that you can always keep an eye on them and keep them in check." ..."
"... It is absolutely clear that hyper-neocon Nikki Haley has gone rogue and is actively undermining the foreign policy of her boss and President, Donald Trump. From her embarrassing, foaming-at-the-mouth tirades in the UN Security Council to this latest bizarre effort to sabotage President Trump's first attempt to fulfill his campaign pledge to find a way to get along better with Russia, President Trump's own Ambassador has become the biggest enemy of his foreign policy. ..."
Donald Trump came to the White House with a reputation as a top notch businessman. He built
an international real estate empire and is worth billions. He then went into reality
television, where his signature line as he dismissed incompetent potential employees was,
"you're fired!"
On Friday, President Trump held a long-awaited face-to-face meeting with his Russian
counterpart, Vladimir Putin. The meeting was scheduled to be a brief, 30 minute meet and greet,
but turned into a two-plus hour substantive session producing a ceasefire agreement for parts
of Syria and a plan to continue working together in the future. After the extended session,
which was cordial by all accounts, President Trump said the meeting was "tremendous."
President Trump indicated that the issue of Russian interference in the US elections came up
in conversation and that Putin vehemently denied it. It obviously was not a make or break issue
in the conversation. President Trump's latest statement on the issue is that "we don't know for
sure" who was behind any meddling.
Later on Friday, President Trump's Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson,
said
of the Syria agreement that, "I think this is our first indication of the U.S. and Russia being
able to work together in Syria."
On Sunday, President Trump
Tweeted
in praise of the
Syria ceasefire agreement, adding that, "now it is time to move forward in working
constructively with Russia!"
It suddenly appeared that the current reprise of a vintage 1950s US/Soviet face-off in
relations had turned the corner back to sanity. Perhaps we will be pulling back from the edge
of WWIII with thermonuclear weapons!
Then President Trump's Ambassador to the United Nations, the notorious neocon Nikki Haley,
showed up on the weekend talk shows.
To CNN's Dana Bash, she directly contradicted her boss, Donald Trump, and undermined his
official position regarding Russian involvement in the US election.
Said
Ambassador Haley of Trump's meeting with Putin:
One, he wanted to basically look him in the eye, let him know that, yes, we know you
meddled in our elections. Yes, we know you did it, cut it out. And I think President Putin
did exactly what we thought he would do, which is deny it. This is Russia trying to save
face. And they can't. They can't. Everybody knows that Russia meddled in our
elections.
But Hurricane Haley was not finished. She poured ice water on President Trump's
agreement with President Putin to work together on cyber-security, telling CNN, "[w]e can't
trust Russia, and we won't ever trust Russia. But you keep those that you don't trust closer so
that you can always keep an eye on them and keep them in check."
It is absolutely clear that hyper-neocon Nikki Haley has gone rogue and is actively
undermining the foreign policy of her boss and President, Donald Trump. From her embarrassing,
foaming-at-the-mouth tirades in the UN Security Council to this latest bizarre effort to
sabotage President Trump's first attempt to fulfill his campaign pledge to find a way to get
along better with Russia, President Trump's own Ambassador has become the biggest enemy of his
foreign policy.
Surely the President – who as an enormously successful businessman has hired and fired
thousands – can see the damage she is doing to his Administration by actively undermining
his foreign policy.
President Trump needs to reprise his signature television line. He needs to pick up the
phone, ask for Nikki, and shout "you're FIRED!" into the telephone.
"... Tillerson is basically echoing the Obama Administration's talking points and I think for a lot of foreign policy types who were hopeful that President Trump would take a more realist approach to foreign policy, they're hopes have been disappointed and I think that Tillerson's rhetoric and Tillerson's appointment of former NATO Ambassador, Kurt Volker, the administration's point man on Ukraine, are all very troubling signs. ..."
"... Well, Ukraine is historically. It's one country, but it really is two nations. There's the Russian speaking East, which has traditionally looked towards Moscow and then there are the former Habsburg Provinces in the West, which are traditionally Ukrainian speaking. The country has a history of dual nationalities. The recent history of U.S. involvement in Ukraine, it does not inspire a lot of confidence. ..."
"... When protests broke out in the winter of 2013, 2014, sitting U.S. Senators Chris Murphy and John McCain traveled to the Maidan to egg on the protests. The U.S. Ambassador at the time, Geoffrey Pyatt, and the Assistant Secretary of State, Victoria Nuland, also traveled and to support the protests. Nuland rudely famously handed out cookies to the protestors, the U.S. has been deeply involved in the effort to wrench Ukrainian out of Moscow's orbit. We see what has resolved it. The democratically-elected Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych was overthrown on the night of February 21 ..."
"... The U.S. wasn't a party to the deal. It was a deal between the European Union; the representatives of the European Union and the Ukrainian Government. That deal didn't last 24 hours before the protests really turned violent and Yanukovych had to flee. Soon after that, Russia annexed Crimea and then a full blown civil war started in and around April 6th, in the east. ..."
"... To quote the esteemed University of Chicago Political Scientist John Mearsheimer, "NATO expansion is the Taproot of the Ukrainian crisis." What Mearsheimer means by that is that NATO's expansion beginning in the 1990's under Bill Clinton who saw the borders of the alliance move ever eastward right up to Russia's western border. The Russians find that, I think for fairly understandable reasons, rather alarming. ..."
"... What we need to keep in mind is the Ukraine crisis really was over the EU Association Agreement. The problem from the Russian perspective is that the EU Association Agreement had specific foreign policy and security protocols embedded in it. Basically setting the stage for Ukraine's entry into NATO. I find it deeply troubling that Poroshenko and Tillerson are now broaching the subject of Ukrainian membership into NATO. That really, I think, spark a very serious reaction on the part of the Russians as possibly the worst possible thing that Ukraine could do at the moment. ..."
"... Well, it's a good question. I mean I think there's very little evidence that the alliance would be strengthened by Ukrainian membership. I think that there's really little evidence that the alliance has been strengthened by the addition of Romania and Bulgaria, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania. I find the entire concept of expanding the alliance up to the borders of Russia. It seems to me to be quite a dangerous and destabilizing move, but our foreign policy establishment is very slow to learn lessons from past mistakes. We see that now with discussion regarding Syria, for instance. These people, I don't know, were they asleep in 2003 when we went to war with Iraq? ..."
"... I mean there were people in the think tank world here who continually write [inaudible 00:10:20] saying, for instance, that the Libya intervention in 2011 was a success. It seems to me that ... I think they tend to believe their own myths and propaganda. They're so ideologically tied to this narrative of American Democracy Promotion that it really crowds out any room for rational thinking. ..."
"... The question is why is there this unique obsession with him and demonization to the point where, as Richard Engle does, he's talking about Putin playing chess and checkers and he's talking about Putin's body language and how Putin looks into people's eyes and makes you see what he wants you to see as if he's some super villain. ..."
"... It's basically Russia coverage without facts, evidence or logic. This isn't anything new, of course, but the intense demonization of this Russian leader is something that we didn't even see when Joseph Stalin ruled the USSR. This is something sort of new and really, really pretty dangerous. I think that it has its sources in a certain pent-up frustration on the part of a lot of Democrats that their candidate lost fairly and squarely to this rather bizarre fellow who sits in the Oval Office today. They can't get over it. This was, of course, something that the Clinton campaign actually. It was part of their post-election strategy. There's a new book out called, "Shattered" by Amie Parnes and, I think, Jonathan Martin ..."
"... Of course, I have this very troubling feeling that this is all in order to set the stage for Hillary Clinton to return as the nominee in four years time because then she can say well, I didn't really lose even though I outspent Donald Trump 2 to 1. I didn't really lose because it was stolen from me. The Russians stole it from me. I think there are a lot of Democrats who are willing to believe that and they're willing to absolve her for running a horrible, horrible campaign. ..."
"... Democratic partisans in the media might already be setting the stage for that return by warning of Russia sending over new spies to the U.S. in advance of 2018 and 2020, which if Clinton runs again and loses or if another Democrat runs again and loses, with a similar campaign, they could then go ahead and blame Russia again for that, too. ..."
"... Democratic partisans in the media might already be setting the stage for that return by warning of Russia sending over new spies to the U.S. in advance of 2018 and 2020, which if Clinton runs again and loses or if another Democrat runs again and loses, with a similar campaign, they could then go ahead and blame Russia again for that, too. ..."
AARON MATE: Thanks for joining us. Let's start with Ukraine. Immediately following this
historic meeting between Trump and Putin, Tillerson lays down the line that Russian behavior in
Ukraine has to change. Can you talk about what's at stake here for both sides of this?
JAMES CARDEN: There's quite a bit at stake considering the fact that the war in the
[inaudible 00:01:53] Donbass region continues to this day. It's a war that is taken nearly
10,000 lives. It's displaced over a million people and both parties to the Minsk Accord have a
long way to go in implementing the agreement. Though I fear, that Minsk is probably a
non-starter as far as Kiev goes and here's why. According to the United Nations, the Ukrainian
government has to hold a vote on decentralization for the East. It's yet to do that yet. That
vote was meant to be a pre-cursor to the agreement and I don't think they're going to hold that
vote. Here's why. If they hold that vote, I believe the far right militias will try to come to
power and try to overthrow Petro Poroshenko. Petro Poroshenko doesn't have a death wish. The
country is currently ruled by Ukrainian oligarchs in a tacit alliance with far right figures
like the speaker of Rada, Andriy Parubiy who founded the neo-Nazi party right sector.
Tillerson is basically echoing the Obama Administration's talking points and I think for
a lot of foreign policy types who were hopeful that President Trump would take a more realist
approach to foreign policy, they're hopes have been disappointed and I think that Tillerson's
rhetoric and Tillerson's appointment of former NATO Ambassador, Kurt Volker, the
administration's point man on Ukraine, are all very troubling signs.
AARON MATE: James, for those who aren't familiar with the recent history of Ukraine, can you
talk a bit more about that internal split that you're talking about between the Donbass part of
the country and the western part of Ukraine, where Kiev is and also what the U.S. role has been
going back to the Obama administration as you mentioned.
JAMES CARDEN:
Well, Ukraine is historically. It's one country, but it really is two
nations. There's the Russian speaking East, which has traditionally looked towards Moscow and
then there are the former Habsburg Provinces in the West, which are traditionally Ukrainian
speaking. The country has a history of dual nationalities. The recent history of U.S.
involvement in Ukraine, it does not inspire a lot of confidence.
When protests broke out in the winter of 2013, 2014, sitting U.S. Senators Chris Murphy
and John McCain traveled to the Maidan to egg on the protests. The U.S. Ambassador at the time,
Geoffrey Pyatt, and the Assistant Secretary of State, Victoria Nuland, also traveled and to
support the protests. Nuland rudely famously handed out cookies to the protestors, the U.S. has
been deeply involved in the effort to wrench Ukrainian out of Moscow's orbit. We see what has
resolved it. The democratically-elected Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych was overthrown on
the night of February 21
and soon after, Russia-
AARON MATE: Hey, James, just to cut in. Before he was overthrown, he actually, along with
Russia, had negotiated a deal with the U.S., right? To-
JAMES CARDEN: Deal?
AARON MATE: Yeah.
JAMES CARDEN:
The U.S. wasn't a party to the deal. It was a deal between the European
Union; the representatives of the European Union and the Ukrainian Government. That deal didn't
last 24 hours before the protests really turned violent and Yanukovych had to flee. Soon after
that, Russia annexed Crimea and then a full blown civil war started in and around April 6th, in
the east.
AARON MATE: Just to set some context, some further context here, just right now we're
talking about Ukraine in the context of Russia gate here in the U.S., where the alleged Russian
meddling through fake news and email hacks is deemed by many people a threat to U.S. National
Security so it's interesting to compare that with what happened in Ukraine whereas you talked
about there was a heavy U.S. role in this protest movement against Yanukovych, leading to his
ouster and now you have a country on Russia's borders, which is talking about joining NATO. Can
you talk about how that factors into Putin's thinking here and what he's doing inside
Ukraine?
JAMES CARDEN: Yeah, sure.
To quote the esteemed University of Chicago Political
Scientist John Mearsheimer, "NATO expansion is the Taproot of the Ukrainian crisis." What
Mearsheimer means by that is that NATO's expansion beginning in the 1990's under Bill Clinton
who saw the borders of the alliance move ever eastward right up to Russia's western border. The
Russians find that, I think for fairly understandable reasons, rather alarming.
AARON MATE: In part because they were promised by the first President Bush that would never
happen.
JAMES CARDEN: That's correct.
What we need to keep in mind is the Ukraine crisis really
was over the EU Association Agreement. The problem from the Russian perspective is that the EU
Association Agreement had specific foreign policy and security protocols embedded in it.
Basically setting the stage for Ukraine's entry into NATO. I find it deeply troubling that
Poroshenko and Tillerson are now broaching the subject of Ukrainian membership into NATO. That
really, I think, spark a very serious reaction on the part of the Russians as possibly the
worst possible thing that Ukraine could do at the moment.
AARON MATE: Why do you think it's taken for granted across so much of a foreign policy
establishment here that Ukraine falling into the Western orbit as opposed to being neutral
would be a positive thing?
JAMES CARDEN:
Well, it's a good question. I mean I think there's very little evidence
that the alliance would be strengthened by Ukrainian membership. I think that there's really
little evidence that the alliance has been strengthened by the addition of Romania and
Bulgaria, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania. I find the entire concept of expanding the alliance up to
the borders of Russia. It seems to me to be quite a dangerous and destabilizing move, but our
foreign policy establishment is very slow to learn lessons from past mistakes. We see that now
with discussion regarding Syria, for instance. These people, I don't know, were they asleep in
2003 when we went to war with Iraq?
I mean there were people in the think tank world here who continually write [inaudible
00:10:20] saying, for instance, that the Libya intervention in 2011 was a success. It seems to
me that ... I think they tend to believe their own myths and propaganda. They're so
ideologically tied to this narrative of American Democracy Promotion that it really crowds out
any room for rational thinking.
... ... ...
AARON MATE: Okay. Going back to Russia and its borders. On its Western border, you have
right now thousands of NATO troops. Can you talk about that context as it hangs over the
prospects for improved US-Russia relations?
JAMES CARDEN: Well, again, I mean lets ... take a step further back and look at the context
of this new cold war that were in with Russia. It's essentially, I believe, a forefront war.
You have the Baltic Theater, where, as you say, U.S. and NATO have thousands of troops on
Russia's border. There have been many close calls between Russian and NATO aircraft in the
skies above the Baltic Sea.
The second front is as we spoke about Ukraine, where the Russians are supporting the
Russian-speaking rebels in the east and the U.S. and NATO have a military base in western
Ukraine from which they train Ukrainian soldiers to fight the Russian backed soldiers in the
east. The third front is, as we were just talking about, Syria, and the fourth front, I believe
it's safe to say, is unfolding in cyberspace. We have, at any moment, an accident can happen
and this cold war could turn hot. I think that we're being distracted by the sideshow of Russia
hacking and the left's rather odd obsession with Vladimir Putin.
AARON MATE: On that front, that segways perfectly to a clip I want to play for you. Just
talking about how Putin is discussed in the U.S. media. I want to play for you a clip. This is
Richard Engel, the chief foreign correspondent for NBC News.
Voice of Rich E: American presidents come and go, but Putin has outlasted them all. He's
perfected the art of controlling every detail to achieve his own goals. All you really see when
you look Putin in the eye is exactly what he wants you to see. So far, he's been winning every
round in the long game he's playing against the U.S., but what is that game? Foreign policy
analyst like to say that Trump is playing checkers while Putin is playing chess.
AARON MATE: That's Richard Engle, the chief foreign correspondent for NBC News. This was in
a special he did on Friday night about Putin and Russia. I find that clip so striking because
Engle is talking about Putin winning every round of a long game against the U.S., but then in
the next sentence he asks what is the long game? James, your thoughts.
JAMES CARDEN: I can't put it any better than my Editor-in-Chief put it on Twitter when she
was watching the Engle documentary the other night. I think she said something like it reminded
her of Soviet propaganda. Any of this stuff coming out of. I assume this was on MSNBC?
AARON MATE: Yeah. It took the place of Rachel Maddow Show on Friday night and Maddow whose
been a source of similar kind of stuff.
JAMES CARDEN: Right, as you've covered very well. Yeah, so MSNBC is. I mean, it's not even
worth watching anymore. I mean it's just become an American version of. I would say R.T., but I
think R.T. actually has higher editorial standards than MSNBC. I don't know quite what it is
anymore except ... it gives space for these anti-Russian, anti-Putin hysterics.
This isn't to say by the way that Vladimir Putin is my kind of politician and if he was an
American politician here, I certainly wouldn't vote for him. He's far too nationalistic and he
would probably cozy up to the American image's right. I certainly wouldn't be happy about an
American politician raiding the treasury like he and his associates have done. The problem is
that that's an issue for the Russian people. They seem perfectly happy with Mr. Putin as
president. I think he has something along the lines of 80% approval rating so if they're okay
with it, I'm okay with it. But the idea that he is a puppet master pulling the strings, it is
just beyond ridiculous.
AARON MATE: Yeah, James, I mean the question is not why criticize Putin because as you point
out there's plenty to criticize him for.
The question is why is there this unique obsession
with him and demonization to the point where, as Richard Engle does, he's talking about Putin
playing chess and checkers and he's talking about Putin's body language and how Putin looks
into people's eyes and makes you see what he wants you to see as if he's some super
villain.
JAMES CARDEN: Yes.
AARON MATE: Out of the cartoon.
JAMES CARDEN: He's a Svengali.
It's basically Russia coverage without facts, evidence or
logic. This isn't anything new, of course, but the intense demonization of this Russian leader
is something that we didn't even see when Joseph Stalin ruled the USSR. This is something sort
of new and really, really pretty dangerous. I think that it has its sources in a certain
pent-up frustration on the part of a lot of Democrats that their candidate lost fairly and
squarely to this rather bizarre fellow who sits in the Oval Office today. They can't get over
it. This was, of course, something that the Clinton campaign actually. It was part of their
post-election strategy. There's a new book out called, "Shattered" by Amie Parnes and, I think,
Jonathan Martin
[crosstalk 00:22:08].
AARON MATE: Jonathan Allen. Yeah.
JAMES CARDEN: Jonathan Allen. They report that the morning after the election, the team met
at the headquarters in Brooklyn and they said okay, let's make Russia the cornerstone of our
post-election strategy. That plays a big part of it.
Of course, I have this very troubling
feeling that this is all in order to set the stage for Hillary Clinton to return as the nominee
in four years time because then she can say well, I didn't really lose even though I outspent
Donald Trump 2 to 1. I didn't really lose because it was stolen from me. The Russians stole it
from me. I think there are a lot of Democrats who are willing to believe that and they're
willing to absolve her for running a horrible, horrible campaign.
AARON MATE: Yeah, James, and on that point,
Democratic partisans in the media might
already be setting the stage for that return by warning of Russia sending over new spies to the
U.S. in advance of 2018 and 2020, which if Clinton runs again and loses or if another Democrat
runs again and loses, with a similar campaign, they could then go ahead and blame Russia again
for that, too.
We have to leave it there though 'cause we're way over time. James Carden, contributing
writer at The Nation, Executive Editor for The American Committee for East-West Accord. He has
also served as an advisor on Russia policy at the U.S. State Department. James, thank you.
JAMES CARDEN: Thank you.
AARON MATE: And thanks for joining us on The Real News.
Democratic partisans in the
media might already be setting the stage for that return by warning of Russia sending over new
spies to the U.S. in advance of 2018 and 2020, which if Clinton runs again and loses or if
another Democrat runs again and loses, with a similar campaign, they could then go ahead and
blame Russia again for that, too.
"... It could also be that he is just being "smart" -- saying what needs to be said ad hoc to appease -- with the intention of eventually, when the time is right, carrying out his strategic vision. We'll see. ..."
"... what about the 59 missiles its all kiss and make up? What a load of bollocks. ..."
It's likely that Trump is mind controlled since his seemingly core opinions and attitudes can
reverse 180 degrees in mere hours. Thus worrying about his getting violently demised is probably
unfounded. He will consistently perform for his Zionist handlers and dance for his Deep State
controllers.
I don't know about that. His expressing contrary opinions could be interpreted as his having
some independence--a hopeful thing. It could also be that he is just being "smart" -- saying
what needs to be said ad hoc to appease -- with the intention of eventually, when the time is
right, carrying out his strategic vision. We'll see.
A case can be made that the so called deep state is committing treason on a daily basis. Unfortunately
its constituent parts are stronger than the President and his allies.
what about the 59 missiles its all kiss and make up? What a load of bollocks. They
both love israel. if you look carefully you can see the strings
ARG Asia
I did know "Deep State" was powerful, but I had no idea they could do whatever they wanted and
interfere in nearly every of President Trump staff members with the exemption of the former Goldman
Sachs appointees. Is the US really a democracy?
Here in Asia we see the US bullying and revolver diplomacy has insulted many countries, not
only the Philippines. If the US want to have a future in Asia they have to be more respectful,
stop interfering in domestic issues, and stop all these regimes change attempts.
This is pretty schizoid administration with officials contradicting each other and the
President. This is a clear multiple personalities disorder. Of course it is clear who butter
Haley bread. It's not trump.
The U.S. Ambassador to
the United Nations, Nikki Haley, was asked Saturday what consequences Russia will face as a
result of its
interference in the 2016 election
, and she declined to specify, telling Face the Nation
moderator John Dickerson, "I think you're going to have to ask the president."
Haley spoke to Face the Nation as President Trump concluded a three day trip to Europe for
the G-20 summit. While he was there,
Mr. Trump came face to face with Russian President Vladimir Putin
-- the two men have
spoken on the phone, but this was their first in-person encounter. During their meeting, which
was scheduled to last only 30 minutes but stretched to over two hours, Secretary of State Rex
Tillerson said Mr. Trump pressed Putin on Russia's meddling. But the Russians offered a
different account - both Putin and the Russian foreign minister said
they believed Mr. Trump accepted Putin's denial of Russian involvement
.
Haley discussed the apparent disparity between the Russian and American accounts, saying, "I
think we need to be realistic about what happened."
"You had two men walk into the room. You had two men who knew the exact same thing, which is
Russia did meddle in the elections. I think President Trump wanted to make sure that President
Putin was aware that he was acknowledging it, that he knew it. I think President Putin did what
we all expected him to do, which was deny it. And I think that is what it is," Haley said.
"President Trump still knows that they meddled. President Putin knows that they meddled, but he
is never going to admit to it. And that's all that happened."
Dickerson asked Haley what consequences Russia will face as a result of its
meddling.
"Not just Russia," she replied. "Any country needs to know that there are consequences when
they get involved in our elections. And I think that's why it's good that the investigations
are going on and we're analyzing and we're looking into all of that, and I think we need to
manage it accordingly. The one thing we don't want is for our political process to ever be
influenced or tainted in any way. And I think that we have to make sure that we're always
strong on that point and let everyone know that we're not going to put up with it."
"But given that the president, as you said, knows that the Russians meddled," Dickerson
pressed, "what consequences will they face as a result of that action?"
"I think you're going to have to ask the president," the ambassador responded. "I think
that's one of the things is -- first is confronting them, letting them know that we know this
happened, letting them know it can't happen again. I know that they had quite a bit of cyber
conversation in terms of cyber meddling or cyber abuse during not just political situations,
but also from a security situation, and they talked quite a bit on the cyber-attack risk. And
so I think we'll see what happens there. You know, keep in mind -- yesterday's meeting was all
about talk, but at the end of the day, this is all going to be about actions. We now have to
see where we go from there."
"... My own little list of "society's offenders" consists largely of the self-described gaggle of neoconservative foreign-policy "experts." Unfortunately, the neocons have proven to be particularly resilient in spite of repeated claims that their end was nigh, most recently after the election of Donald Trump last November. ..."
"... Yet as most of the policies the neocons have historically espoused are indistinguishable from what the White House is currently trying to sell, one might well wake up one morning and imagine that it is 2003 and George W. Bush is still president. ..."
"... Number one on my little list is Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley, who is particularly dangerous as she is holding a position where she can do bad things. Haley has been shooting from the lip since she assumed office and, it has become clear, much of what she says goes without any vetting by the Trump administration. It is never clear whether she is speaking for herself or for the White House. That issue has reportedly been dealt with by having the State Department clear in advance her comments on hot button issues, but, if that is indeed the case, the change has been difficult to discern in practice. ..."
"... Haley is firmly in the neocon camp, receiving praise from Senators like South Carolina's Lindsey Graham and from the Murdoch media as well as in the opinion pages of National Review and The Weekly Standard. Her speechwriter is Jessica Gavora, who is the wife of the leading neoconservative journalist Jonah Goldberg. Haley sees the United Nations as corrupt and bloated, in itself not an unreasonable conclusion, but she has tied herself closely to a number of other, more debatable issues. ..."
"... But Haley sometimes goes far beyond trying to "tell the truth." In February, she blocked the appointment of former Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad to a diplomatic position at the United Nations because he is a Palestinian. ..."
"... Haley responded yes, that the administration is "supporting Israel" by blocking any Palestinian from any senior UN position because Palestine is not recognized by Washington as an independent state. ..."
"... She has never challenged the Israeli occupation of the West Bank as well as the recent large expansion of settlements, which are at least nominally opposed by the State Department and White House. ..."
"... Haley is inevitably a hardliner on Syria, reflecting the Israeli bias, and consistently hostile to Russia. ..."
"... Haley's analysis of who is doing what to whom in Syria is certainly questionable at a minimum. And her language is hardly supportive of possible administration diplomatic attempts to mend fences with the Russians and can also be seen as quite dangerous as they increase the likelihood of an "accidental encounter" over the skies of Syria as both sides harden their positions and seek to expand the areas they control. ..."
"... Regarding Ukraine, Haley has taken an extreme position that guarantees Russian hostility. In February, she addressed the UN Security Council regarding the Crimean conflict, which she appears not to understand very well. She warned that sanctions against Russia would not be lifted until Moscow returned control over the peninsula to Kiev. On June 4, she doubled down, insisting that the United States would retain "sanctions strong and tough when it comes to the issue in Ukraine." ..."
"... Haley very much comes across as the neoconservatives' dream ambassador to the United Nations -- full of aggression, a staunch supporter of Israel, and assertive of Washington's preemptive right to set standards for the rest of the world. ..."
"... If Donald Trump really wants to drain the Washington swamp and reduce interference in other nations, he might well continue that program by firing Nikki Haley. He could then appoint someone as UN ambassador who actually believes that the United States has to deal with other countries respectfully, not by constant bullying and threats. In the lyrics of Gilbert and Sullivan, she's on my list and "she will never be missed ..."
I went to a meeting the other night with some Donald Trump supporters who, like me, had voted
for him based on expectations of a more rational foreign policy. They were suggesting that the president's
attempts to move in that direction had been sabotaged by officials inside the administration who
want to maintain the current warfare state. Remove those officials and Trump might just keep his
pledge to leave Bashar al-Assad alone while improving relations with Russia. I was somewhat skeptical,
noting that the White House had unilaterally initiated the April 7 cruise missile attack on a Syrian
airbase as well as the more recent warning against an alleged "planned" chemical attack, hardly moves
that might lead to better relations with Damascus and Moscow. But there are indeed some administration
figures who clearly are fomenting endless conflict in the Middle East and elsewhere.
One might reasonably start with Generals James Mattis and H.R. McMaster, both of whom are hardliners
on Afghanistan and Iran, but with a significant caveat. Generals are trained and indoctrinated to
fight and win wars, not to figure out what comes next. General officers like George Marshall or even
Dwight Eisenhower who had a broader vision are extremely rare, so much so that expecting a Mattis
or McMaster to do what falls outside their purview is perhaps a bit too much. They might be bad choices
for the jobs they hold, but at least they employ some kind of rational process, based on how they
perceive national interests, to make judgements. If properly reined in by a thoughtful civilian leadership,
which does not exist at the moment, they have the potential to be effective contributors to the national-security
discussion.
But several other notable figures in the administration deserve to be fired if there is to be
any hope of turning Trump's foreign policy around. In Arthur Sullivan's and W. S. Gilbert's The
Mikado , the Lord High Executioner
sings about
the "little list" he is preparing of people who "never will be missed" when he finally gets around
to fulfilling the requirements of his office. He includes "apologetic statesmen of a compromising
kind," indicating that the American frustration with the incompetence of its government is not unique,
nor is it a recent phenomenon.
My own little list of "society's offenders" consists largely of the self-described gaggle
of neoconservative foreign-policy "experts." Unfortunately, the neocons have proven to be particularly
resilient in spite of repeated claims that their end was nigh, most recently after the election of
Donald Trump last November.
Yet as most of the policies the neocons have historically espoused are indistinguishable from
what the White House is currently trying to sell, one might well wake up one morning and imagine
that it is 2003 and George W. Bush is still president. Still, hope springs eternal, and now that
the United States has celebrated its 241st birthday, it would be nice to think that in the new year
our nation might be purged of some of the malignancies that have prevailed since 9/11.
Number one on my little list is Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley, who is particularly
dangerous as she is holding a position where she can do bad things. Haley has been shooting from
the lip since she assumed office and, it has become clear, much of what she says goes without any
vetting by the Trump administration. It is never clear whether she is speaking for herself or for
the White House. That issue has reportedly
been dealt with by having the State Department clear in advance her comments on hot button issues,
but, if that is indeed the case, the change has been difficult to discern in practice.
Haley is firmly in the neocon camp, receiving praise from Senators like South Carolina's Lindsey
Graham and from the Murdoch media as well as
in the opinion pages of National Review and The Weekly Standard. Her speechwriter
is Jessica Gavora, who is the wife of the leading neoconservative journalist Jonah Goldberg. Haley
sees the United Nations as corrupt and bloated, in itself not an unreasonable conclusion, but she
has tied herself closely to a number of other, more debatable issues.
As governor of South Carolina, Haley became identified as an unquestioning
supporter of Israel . She
signed into law a bill to restrict the activities of the nonviolent pro-Palestinian
Boycott,
Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, the first legislation of its kind on a state level.
Haley has also stated that "nowhere has the UN's failure been more consistent and more outrageous
than in its bias against our close ally Israel." On a recent visit to Israel, she was applauded by
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu,
stating "You know, all I've done is to tell the truth, and it's kind of overwhelming at the reaction
if there's anything I have no patience for, it's bullies, and the UN was being such a bully to Israel,
because they could."
But Haley sometimes goes far beyond trying to "tell the truth." In February, she blocked the appointment
of former Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad to a diplomatic position at the United Nations
because he is a Palestinian. In a
congressional hearing this past week, she was asked about the decision: "Is it this administration's
position that support for Israel and support for the appointment of a well-qualified individual of
Palestinian nationality to an appointment at the UN are mutually exclusive?" Haley responded yes,
that the administration is "supporting Israel" by blocking any Palestinian from any senior UN position
because Palestine is not recognized by Washington as an independent state.
At various UN meetings Haley has repeatedly and uncritically complained of institutional bias
towards Israel, asserting that the "days of Israel bashing are over," without ever addressing the
issue that Israeli treatment of the Palestinians might in part be responsible for the criticism leveled
against it. Her description of Israel as an "ally" is hyperbolic and she tends to be oblivious to
actual American interests in the region when Israel is involved. She has never challenged the Israeli
occupation of the West Bank as well as the recent large expansion of settlements, which are at least
nominally opposed by the State Department and White House.
Haley is inevitably a hardliner on Syria, reflecting the Israeli bias, and consistently hostile
to Russia. She has said that
regime change in Damascus is a Trump administration priority. Her most recent foray involves
the White House warning
that it had "identified potential preparations for another chemical weapons attack by the Assad
regime."
Haley elaborated in a tweet, " further attacks will be blamed on Assad but also on Russia and
Iran who support him killing his own people." Earlier, on April 12, after Russia blocked a draft
UN resolution intended to condemn the Khan Shaykhun chemical attack,
Haley
said , "We need to see Russia choose to side with the civilized world over an Assad government
that brutally terrorizes its own people."
Haley's analysis of who is doing what to whom in Syria is certainly questionable at a minimum.
And her language is hardly supportive of possible administration diplomatic attempts to mend fences
with the Russians and can also be seen as quite dangerous as they increase the likelihood of an "accidental
encounter" over the skies of Syria as both sides harden their positions and seek to expand the areas
they control. She
has also said that , "We're calling [Russia] out [and] I don't think anything is off the table
at this point. I think what you're going to see is strong leadership. You're going to continue to
see the United States act when we need to act." Regarding Moscow's role on the UN Security Council,
she complained that, "All they've done is seven times veto against Syria every time they do something
to hurt their own people. And so Russia absolutely has not done what they're supposed to do."
Regarding Ukraine, Haley has taken an extreme position that guarantees Russian hostility. In February,
she addressed the UN Security Council regarding the Crimean conflict, which she appears not to understand
very well. She warned that sanctions against Russia
would
not be lifted until Moscow returned control over the peninsula to Kiev. On June 4, she doubled
down, insisting that the United States
would retain "sanctions strong and tough when it comes to the issue in Ukraine."
Haley is also increasingly highly critical of Iran, which she sees as the instigator of much of
the unrest in the Middle East, again reflecting the Israeli viewpoint. She claimed on April 20, during
her first session as president of the UN Security Council, that Iran and Hezbollah had "conducted
terrorist acts" for decades within the Middle East, ignoring the more serious terrorism support engaged
in by U.S. regional allies Saudi Arabia and Qatar. She
stated
last week that the Security Council's praise of the Iran Nuclear Agreement honored a state that
has engaged in "illicit missile launches," "support for terrorist groups," and "arms smuggling,"
while "stok[ing] regional conflicts and mak[ing] them harder to solve." All are perspectives that
might easily be challenged.
Haley is also much given to rhetoric reminiscent of George W. Bush during his first term. Regarding
North Korea, on May 16
she told reporters that, "We have to turn around and tell the entire international community:
You either support North Korea or you support us," echoing George W. Bush's sentiment that, "There's
a new sheriff in town and you're either with us or against us."
So Haley very much comes across as the neoconservatives' dream ambassador to the United Nations
-- full
of aggression, a staunch supporter of Israel, and assertive of Washington's preemptive right to set
standards for the rest of the world. That does not necessarily make her very good for the rest
of us, who will have to bear the burdens of imperial hubris. Nor is her tendency to overstate her
case a plus for the Trump administration itself, which is clearly seeking to work its way through
Russiagate–and just might be considering how to establish some kind of modus vivendi with
Vladimir Putin.
If Donald Trump really wants to drain the Washington swamp and reduce interference in other
nations, he might well continue that program by firing Nikki Haley. He could then appoint someone
as UN ambassador who actually believes that the United States has to deal with other countries respectfully,
not by constant bullying and threats. In the lyrics of Gilbert and Sullivan, she's on my list and
"she will never be missed ."
Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the National
Interest.
"... While this is not the first US-Russia ceasefire brokered in Syria, it's the first in quite some time, as recent Syrian ceasefires have been brokered mostly by Russia, Turkey, and Iran, with the US insisting that the deals don't apply to their ongoing military operations. ..."
"... Putin and Trump agree to cease fire in Southern Syria. This means that Putin has surrendered the central principle of his Syria policy - territorial integrity of Syria. The carve up continues. Will some ostensible federal arrangement in Ukraine be the quid pro quo? ..."
"... I think it's better to say that the Syrian government and whatever counts as opposition in Daraa have come to an agreement, which means an end to the fighting in the Southwest - and that is in place since a few days already. ..."
"... This agreement between 'Putin' and 'Trump' only means that Russia will guarantee that the US doesn't do any dirty tricks when the Jordan-Syria reopens for business ..."
"... As Cockburn says, anything Trump comes out with is meaningless. he'll say the opposite tomorrow. However engage in a major war in Syria, particularly if against the Russians, that's another matter. His electoral base wouldn't tolerate it, if it were likely to lead to American deaths. ..."
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has
announced that the United States and Russia have agreed on a ceasefire in southwestern Syria, aiming
to halt all fighting in the area, and according to US officials allowing the rebels to shift their
focus to fighting against ISIS.
Details are still scant on this, and it's not clear how far east the ceasefire is intended to
extend. US officials say the entire goal is to stop attacks against the rebels, while Russia clearly
wants the US to stop attacking pro-government forces in the region. There has also been mention of
humanitarian aid being allowed in, but past ceasefires have almost uniformly failed at that goal.
The ceasefire is to begin at noon on Sunday, and is open-ended. Tillerson said it could be a first
step which, if successful, would be spread to other parts of the country. He also, however, added
that the US still insists upon Syrian President Assad and his entire family being removed from any
positions of power in Syria.
While this is not the first US-Russia ceasefire brokered in Syria, it's the first in quite
some time, as recent Syrian ceasefires have been brokered mostly by Russia, Turkey, and Iran, with
the US insisting that the deals don't apply to their ongoing military operations.
paul | Jul 7, 2017 2:08:20 PM | 1
Putin and Trump agree to cease fire in Southern Syria. This means that Putin has surrendered
the central principle of his Syria policy - territorial integrity of Syria. The carve up continues.
Will some ostensible federal arrangement in Ukraine be the quid pro quo?
I think it's better to say that the Syrian government and whatever counts as opposition
in Daraa have come to an agreement, which means an end to the fighting in the Southwest - and
that is in place since a few days already.
This agreement between 'Putin' and 'Trump' only means that Russia will guarantee that the
US doesn't do any dirty tricks when the Jordan-Syria reopens for business
Yes, you have a good handle on what's transpired. Negotiations for reconciliation have carried
on since the last quarter of 2016, and it was becoming clear that a positive resolution was soon
to occur.
Patrick Cockburn, in his
most recent article for the Independent, quotes a former US State Department official who
said that: "[W]e don't have a policy in Syria, everybody in the Middle East knows that whatever
is said by the Pentagon, State Department or National Security Council lacks authority because
whatever assurances they give may be contradicted within the hour by a presidential tweet or by
one of the factions in the White House."
Cockburn adds: "the ex-official lamented that
it was like living in an arbitrary and unpredictable dictatorship."
While this may very well be true as far as operational details are concerned, it is apparent
that "regime change" (orchestrating a coup d'etat) is the overarching goal the US is pursuing,
however haphazardly, in Syria with Iran next in line. When was the last time the US military got
involved somewhere and then just packed up and went back home? Cockburn is missing an important
detail and he is one of the few MSM journalists who is not acting as a propagandist for Western
interests.
The media is extremely allergic to telling it like it is and I wonder if MSM journalists like
Cockburn and Robert Fisk deliberately avoid mentioning certain things in order to safeguard their
jobs? I find it hard to believe that Cockburn, in this case, is not aware that "regime
change" was never really taken off the table. In the same article he goes on to mention US plans
for Iran so it is almost certain he knows what is going on in Syria. It is actually a decent piece
but readers who may not be aware of the state of affairs in Syria are getting an incomplete snapshot
of the situation there. Is holding the US and its "coalition" to full account an MSM "red-line"
that even the charmingly named "Independent" is unwilling to cross?
This means that Putin has surrendered the central principle of his Syria policy - territorial
integrity of Syria. The carve up continues.
I rather doubt that interpretation.
The expression is "south-west Syria". That means the Israeli
front. Maybe calming the shooting at Israel, in order to remove the need for Israeli reactions?
I don't actually know whether the Amman-Damascus road is open for traffic, but given that I
saw recently that there are still busses from Damascus to Raqqa, dangerous as that may seem, I
wouldn't be surprised to hear that busses are making the transit between Amman and Damascus, no
doubt with innumerable stops for inspection by one militia or another.
These dangerous trips do occur. Just to give you a flavour, a Syrian I know, a Druze, had to
go to Aleppo. They were stopped by Da'ish. As a Druze, instant death if discovered. He was taken
before the Amir. Are you Sunni? yes. Then prove it by reciting the Surat al-Baqara (the longest
chapter of the Qur'an). He didn't know it other than the beginning. He started, and then quickly
figured out that they didn't know it either, so he continued reciting Quranic style rubbish, until
the Amir got bored and fell asleep, At which point he was released. He described them as slitty-eyed
thus Turkic.
As Cockburn says, anything Trump comes out with is meaningless. he'll say the opposite
tomorrow. However engage in a major war in Syria, particularly if against the Russians, that's
another matter. His electoral base wouldn't tolerate it, if it were likely to lead to American
deaths.
Nikki Haley is hooked on phonics - and bombing Iran
RI Staff
63
Haley presents book report to UN Security Council
Nikki Haley is widely considered to be the greatest diplomat to have ever lived. But did
you know that up until just a few days ago, Nikki Haley
didn't even know how to read?
Washington's rookie UN ambassador to the United Nations has been checkmating Russia for
months, but last week she finally found the time to finish her first children's story,
The Scorpion and the Frog
, which tells the tale of two animal companions who are drone-bombed
by the US military while attending a wedding in Afghanistan.
As you can probably imagine, Nikki is very proud of her accomplishment and wants to let
everyone know that she read a story about animals and really, really enjoyed it.
But recently she's been yapping about frogs and scorpions at totally inappropriate times.
Nikki Haley literally can't stop talking about this dumb pop-up book that she read.
Even when she recites her daily prayers to Moloch at the Security Council, frog tales inevitable
get added into the mix:
But as RT
pointed out
: "While the allusion might seem novel, it was actually used before in an op-ed
by Chaim Shacham for the Miami Herald in 2015, titled 'Iran nuclear pact: Tale of the scorpion
and the frog.'"
"... "The use of fraudulent or forged documents should be-there's absolutely zero tolerance from us on this. If we find people submitting documents that are forged or fraudulent or they haven't disclosed full facts to us , we will not only refuse their application, they then risk a ban of 10 years from the UK if they make a subsequent application," Mackie said. ..."
There you go – he's received the ultimate shock; time to go home to the Pearl of Empire and spend
his dotage rambling the moors in his wellies, or watching the sea thrash the Cornish coast, or
something. Time to leave Russia, in any event; he's been studying it for 45 years, and this is
the best he can come up with, while he plainly does not understand it. Why does he spend his time
there, if everyone is a thug and a hate leader – why, in the name of God, does he spend time in
a country where people live who have never heard of George Orwell?
By the bye, if you enter the UK on a visitor's visa and then work as a journalist, you might
be looking at a
10-year ban on a subsequent re-application , you parrot-faced wazzock.
"The use of fraudulent or forged documents should be-there's absolutely zero tolerance
from us on this. If we find people submitting documents that are forged or fraudulent or they
haven't disclosed full facts to us , we will not only refuse their application, they then risk
a ban of 10 years from the UK if they make a subsequent application," Mackie said.
"... There are plenty of reasons why the U.S. would want to accuse the Syrian government of using chemical weapons but zero sane reasons for the Syrian government to use such. Russia and Syria have long insisted on sending chemical weapon inspectors to the airbase the Trump administration claims is at the center of its "chemical" fairy tale. The U.S. has held the inspectors back. The claims make thereby zero sense to any objective observer. ..."
"... UN peacekeepers are often an instrument of U.S. foreign policy. By cutting them down the U.S. and Haley are limiting their own political options. The White House "warning", which had to be defused within a day, has a similar effect. People will become less inclined to believe any U.S. claims or to follow up on U.S. demands. Both statements have limited future policy options. ..."
"... So Sayeth Nimrata Randhawa Haley, she who was paid US$110,000 a year as a fundraiser for Lexington Medical Center back in 2008, at a time when the average salary of her peers doing similar work for non-profit organisations of similar size and with similar budgets as her employer was just over US$44,000. Moreover Haley expected to be paid US$125,000 for the work. http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/latest-news/article16614233.html ..."
"... Something about the way Nikki Haley handled her parents' company Exotica International's finances while she was accountant there is also very fishy, not least the fact that she consistently filed her own tax returns and those of the parents' business late. ..."
"... "I will never apologize for the United States - I don't care what the facts are... I'm not an apologize-for-America kind of guy." Statement as Vice-president, during a presidential campaign function (2 Aug 1988), commenting on the Navy warship USS Vincennes having shot down Iran Air Flight 655 in a commercial air corridor on July 3, killing 290 civilians, as quoted in "Perspectives", the quote of the week section of Newsweek (15 August 1988[1]) p. 15; also quoted in "Rally Round the Flag, Boys" by Michael Kingsley in TIME magazine (12 September 1988). Newsweek cites this phrase as said about the downing of the Iranian airliner to the group of the Republican ethnic leaders ... ..."
"... psychopaths - or the criminally, terminally inattentive - have no regrets. they leave regrets to the rest of the world for their psychopathic / acts of depraved indifference. ..."
"... Adolf Hitler is my conscience - last words of Nazi governer general - Poland ww2 ..."
"... The utter contempt for the public and its level of intelligence is astounding. ..."
"... There are two views that make limited military force seem like a good idea: one is the perceived invincibility of the U.S. military within Versailles and the other is the perception of Russia as the land of Yakov Smirnov. Trump doesn't want a major war. I'll agree, and outside of McCains of the world, no one does. This doesn't mean Trump and his circle aren't under the impression they can skip the back nine and paunch a few cruise missiles to win a limited war. ..."
"... Nikki Hailey wants a few scalps for her future Presidential run just like Hillary with Gaddafi or how Rummy lame Ted the absence of targets in Afghanistan he could run on CNN. ..."
"... Noted lunatic, Fareed Zakaria pronounced Trump as officially the President when he launched cruise missiles against Syria. Thugs look for victims when they need to establish their power. ..."
"... Nikki Haley is one of many "leaders" that were created using Newt Gingrich's "Republican in an Can" kits. These kits were tweaked and perfected by Karl Rove. It is required of the candidate to be completely malleable and to contain no original thoughts. The only skill requirement is that the candidate must be capable of memorizing canned sound bites and patriotic slogans which are to be repeated and used as answers to any and all questions. The candidate must never, ever waver from these sound bites. When they do, they get in trouble. Nikki Haley is a standout, Marco Rubio is another prime example. ..."
"... Yes, I realize that Haley is nominally a "diplomat", so you already covered that territory. But it struck me that the requirements you list apply more generally. As I recently commented elsewhere: beginning a few years ago, watching news videos of Putin helped me see through the Western propaganda profile characterizing Vladimir Putin as a ruthless, utterly self-serving reptilian dictator and ex-KGB thug. I was also impressed by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. Both men comport themselves like authentic, sober professionals, albeit that they still labor under the misapprehension that the West has retained an appreciation of, and (potential) competence in, the indispensable art of diplomacy. ..."
"... The collective Western political mind, possibly due to capitalism-induced dementia, has lost its capacity for understanding and practicing diplomacy. When one abandons an art, it's like abandoning an industry: over time, the basic knowledge and understanding of the craft is lost. ..."
Trump administration officials are walking back the
White House announcement of its plans to fake another "chemical weapon attack" in Syria.
There are
plenty of reasons why the U.S. would want to accuse the Syrian government of using chemical weapons
but zero sane reasons for the Syrian government to use such. Russia and Syria have
long insisted on sending chemical weapon inspectors to the airbase the Trump administration claims
is at the center of its "chemical" fairy tale. The U.S. has held the inspectors back. The claims
make thereby zero sense to any objective observer.
The walk back, as well as the statement itself, may not be serious at all. This White House seems
unpredictable and the U.S. military, the intelligence services and the White House itself have no
common view or policy. One day they claim the U.S. will leave Syria after ISIS is defeated, the next
day they announce new bases and eternal support for the Syrian Kurds.
The way the White House statement came out, without knowledge of the relevant agencies and little
involvement of the agency principals, was not cynical but
just dumb . It sounds like the idea was dropped by Natanyahoo to his
schoolboy Jared Kushner who then convinced his father in law to issue the crazy statement. Now
officials are send out with the worst argument ever to claim that the White House "warning" made
sense.
"The elephants did not climb up the trees. Warning them off was successful," they say. "The trees
were saved!"
"
It appears that they took the warning seriously," Mattis said. "They didn't do it," he told
reporters flying with him to Brussels for a meeting of NATO defense ministers.
He offered no evidence other than the fact that an attack had not taken place.
---
"
I can tell you that due to the president's actions, we did not see an incident," [U.S. Ambassador
to the UN Nikki] Haley told the House Foreign Affairs Committee during a hearing Tuesday.[..]
[...]
"I would like to think that the president saved many innocent men, women and children," Haley
continued.
Haley "would like to think" a lot of stuff - unfortunately she is not capable of such. A bit later
she issued an egocentric
tweet about
UN peacekeeping that will surely increase U.S. political standing in the world (not):
I can even agree with Haley that UN peacekeeping has gotten way out of hand. To have UN mandated
troops spreading
Cholera in Haiti and
raping their way
through various countries does not help anyone. But the way to end this is to stop handing out
mandates for such missions. To (re-)mandate undertrained/underpaid peacekeeping forces in the UN
Security Council while cutting the budget for them is irresponsible. It will corrupt the troops and
their behavior even more.
UN peacekeepers are often an instrument of U.S. foreign policy. By cutting them down the U.S.
and Haley are limiting their own political options. The White House "warning", which had to be defused
within a day, has a similar effect. People will become less inclined to believe any U.S. claims or
to follow up on U.S. demands. Both statements have limited future policy options.
Will the Trump administration come to regret such moves?
Jen | Jun 29, 2017 7:46:08 AM |
13 "Just 5 months into our time here, we've cut over half a billion $$$ from the UN peacekeeping
budget & we're only getting started."
So Sayeth Nimrata Randhawa Haley, she who was paid US$110,000 a year as a fundraiser for Lexington
Medical Center back in 2008, at a time when the average salary of her peers doing similar work
for non-profit organisations of similar size and with similar budgets as her employer was just
over US$44,000. Moreover Haley expected to be paid US$125,000 for the work.
http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/latest-news/article16614233.html
Something about the way Nikki Haley handled her parents' company Exotica International's finances
while she was accountant there is also very fishy, not least the fact that she consistently filed
her own tax returns and those of the parents' business late.
b, 'Will the Trump administration come to regret such moves?'
i think this runs along the lines of
george xli ...
"I will never apologize for the United States - I don't care what the facts are... I'm not
an apologize-for-America kind of guy."
Statement as Vice-president, during a presidential campaign function (2 Aug 1988), commenting
on the Navy warship USS Vincennes having shot down Iran Air Flight 655 in a commercial air
corridor on July 3, killing 290 civilians, as quoted in "Perspectives", the quote of the week
section of Newsweek (15 August 1988[1]) p. 15; also quoted in "Rally Round the Flag, Boys"
by Michael Kingsley in TIME magazine (12 September 1988). Newsweek cites this phrase as said
about the downing of the Iranian airliner to the group of the Republican ethnic leaders ...
... psychopaths - or the criminally, terminally inattentive - have no regrets. they leave regrets
to the rest of the world for their psychopathic / acts of depraved indifference.
What I said at the end of the last thread seems to me still the probable explanation of what happened,
and why there's walking back:
The White House warning to Asad was a sort of official version of a Trump 3 am tweet, wasn't
it? He heard about (I won't say read, as it's unlikely) Hersh's article, and got in a rage.
He'll show 'em, he's serious. And had Spicer put out the warning, rather than tweeting it -
to show he's really, really, serious, and not someone who just tweets at 3 in the morning in
a rage.
There never was a serious plan (difficult as though that would be for many commenters here to
accept). It was just a blast of rage from Trump. I doubt if Trump wants serious war, even if there
are forces trying to push him into it.
I regard Mrs. Nikki Haley to be a sock puppet of the Trump administration and was chosen because
she has no spine/backbone.
- Judging by her previous statements she isn't "the brighest bulb in the chandalier". But that's
what the current administration was looking for, right ?
There are two views that make limited military force seem
like a good idea: one is the perceived invincibility of the U.S. military within Versailles and
the other is the perception of Russia as the land of Yakov Smirnov. Trump doesn't want a major
war. I'll agree, and outside of McCains of the world, no one does. This doesn't mean Trump and
his circle aren't under the impression they can skip the back nine and paunch a few cruise missiles
to win a limited war.
Nikki Hailey wants a few scalps for her future Presidential run just like
Hillary with Gaddafi or how Rummy lame Ted the absence of targets in Afghanistan he could run
on CNN.
Noted lunatic, Fareed Zakaria pronounced Trump as officially the President when he launched
cruise missiles against Syria. Thugs look for victims when they need to establish their power.
Not a word from either Trump or Tillerson on this bullshit. Looks like Trump has just thrown it
out there for whatever reason and left the lackeys to deal with the fallout.
Nikki Haley is one of many "leaders" that were created using Newt Gingrich's "Republican in an
Can" kits. These kits were tweaked and perfected by Karl Rove.
It is required of the candidate to be completely malleable and to contain no original thoughts.
The only skill requirement is that the candidate must be capable of memorizing canned sound bites
and patriotic slogans which are to be repeated and used as answers to any and all questions. The
candidate must never, ever waver from these sound bites. When they do, they get in trouble.
Nikki Haley is a standout, Marco Rubio is another prime example.
Nikki Haley is one of many "leaders" that were created using Newt Gingrich's "Republican
in an Can" kits. These kits were tweaked and perfected by Karl Rove.
It is required of the candidate to be completely malleable and to contain no original thoughts.
The only skill requirement is that the candidate must be capable of memorizing canned sound bites
and patriotic slogans which are to be repeated and used as answers to any and all questions. The
candidate must never, ever waver from these sound bites. When they do, they get in trouble.
______________________________________
I also think it's worth adding that in this century-- especially after 9/11/2001-- the US,
and even Western Europe has "created" leaders and official spokespersons using "Statesman in a
Can" and "Diplomat in a Can" kits.
Yes, I realize that Haley is nominally a "diplomat", so you already covered that territory.
But it struck me that the requirements you list apply more generally. As I recently commented elsewhere: beginning a few years ago, watching news videos of Putin
helped me see through the Western propaganda profile characterizing Vladimir Putin as a ruthless,
utterly self-serving reptilian dictator and ex-KGB thug. I was also impressed by Foreign Minister
Sergey Lavrov. Both men comport themselves like authentic, sober professionals, albeit that they still labor
under the misapprehension that the West has retained an appreciation of, and (potential) competence
in, the indispensable art of diplomacy.
The collective Western political mind, possibly due to capitalism-induced dementia, has lost
its capacity for understanding and practicing diplomacy. When one abandons an art, it's like abandoning
an industry: over time, the basic knowledge and understanding of the craft is lost.
It's a bipartisan, or transnational, degeneracy. Whether it's the supposedly "eloquent", "intellectual"
Obama and John Kerry, or Trump and Tillerson, (or Macron et al) the Western team looks, sounds,
and acts like a troupe of life-sized animatronic puppets programmed to spew tendentious talking
points du jour.
______________________________________
The "Statesman/Diplomat in a Can" kit fits right in with my "animatronic puppets" idea; instead
of reasonably honest professional diplomats and statesmen, the West prefers talking-point spewing,
hollow narcissists.
I can't stand Tucker Carlson from his time as a loyal footsoldier in the ranks of the George Dubya Bush Apologist Army, but it's
easy to feel in synch with him here just because CNN is so deservedly hated. Can't argue with your conclusions, either.
Then this will make you chuckle Mark – when I was discussing CNN at a meeting, one of the smarter analysts commented: "yet another
reason to hate CNN is because they're making Tucker Carlson look good! Why doesn't anyone bring that up?"
The room responded with laughter. Remember the days when CNN used to claim that they're "the most trusted name in news" – well
they're not doing that anymore:
"In the poll published Wednesday by Rasmussen Reports, 1,000 likely voters were asked to describe their media viewing habits.
Seventy-five percent said they watch at least some form of cable news each week, with 42 percent saying they most frequently watch
Fox News, 35 percent usually choosing CNN, and 19 percent favoring MSNBC. An even 50 percent of frequent Fox News viewers agreed
with a followup question, "Do you trust the political news you are getting?" By comparison, 43 percent of frequent MSNBC viewers
and just 33 percent of those who mostly watch CNN said they trust their political news."
"For instance, on Tuesday, over the course of the day, CNN was only able to attract a measly 670,000 viewers. For context,
MSNBC nearly doubled this number; Fox News nearly tripled it. CNN has almost always lagged a bit behind MSNBC in total viewers,
but not like this."
Why couldn't it be 620,000? The reason I'm asking, is because 6.2 million Americans watched Putin's interview with Megyn Kelly.
I'm not yet sure about Stone's Putin Interviews – but that number also seems to be very positive and in the millions. Of course
losing to Discovery Channel didn't help CNN:
"Furthermore, throughout this same quarter, CNN lost to MSNBC in total and primetime demo viewers. This is the first time since
2014 that CNN has lost that demo crown to its leftwing rival. In total viewers last quarter, among all cable news channels, Fox
News placed first, MSNBC third, and CNN is all alone in tenth place, just barely ahead of Investigative Discovery, a second-tier
offshoot of the Discovery Network."
I predicted this would happen back when they fucked up their coverage of the Ossetian War. Now I'm just watching the train-wreck,
thinking "am I really eating the best tasting popcorn? Have I finally found it?"
I hope they are driven right out of existence – I can't wait to see Wolf Blitzer sitting on a bench outside Hope Cottage in downtown
Halifax, bleary-eyed and waiting for the free soup line to open. All of a journalist's enemies should be among the corrupt mages
of the state apparatus – when the common man earnestly prays for you to be brought low, you've lost your way, and are feeding
on a projected image of yourself. I think it's safe to say that we have seen the most precipitous decline in ethics in journalism,
this past decade, that has occurred since its humble beginnings.
"... "The recent brutal stabbing of a left-wing anti-war activist named Stas Serhiyenko illustrates the threat posed by these extremists. Serhiyenko and his fellow activists believe the perpetrators belonged to the neo-Nazi group C14 (whose name comes from a 14-word phrase used by white supremacists). The attack took place on the anniversary of Hitler's birthday, and C14's leader published a statement that celebrated Serhiyenko's stabbing immediately afterward. ..."
"... The attack on Serhiyenko is just the tip of the iceberg. More recently C14 beat up a socialist politician while other ultranationalist thugs stormed the Lviv and Kiev City Councils. Far-right and neo-Nazi groups have also assaulted or disrupted art exhibitions, anti-fascist demonstrations, a "Ukrainians Choose Peace" event, LGBT events, a social center, media organizations, court proceedings and a Victory Day march celebrating the anniversary of the end of World War II. According to a study from activist organization Institute Respublica, the problem is not only the frequency of far-right violence, but the fact that perpetrators enjoy widespread impunity. It's not hard to understand why Kiev seems reluctant to confront these violent groups. For one thing, far-right paramilitary groups played an important role early in the war against Russian-supported separatists. Kiev also fears these violent groups could turn on the government itself - something they've done before and continue to threaten to do. ..."
"... To be clear, Russian propaganda about Ukraine being overrun by Nazis or fascists is false. Far-right parties such as Svoboda or Right Sector draw little support from Ukrainians." ..."
"... "Indeed, the brazen willingness of Vita Zaverukha – a renowned neo-Nazi out on bail and under house arrest after killing two police officers - to post pictures of herself after storming a popular Kiev restaurant with 50 other nationalists demonstrates the far right's confidence in their immunity from government prosecution. ..."
"... [ ] [T]he government must also break any connections between law enforcement agencies and far-right organizations. The clearest example of this problem lies in the Ministry of Internal Affairs, which is headed by Arsen Avakov. Avakov has a long-standing relationship with the Azov Battalion, a paramilitary group that uses the SS symbol as its insignia and which, with several others, was integrated into the army or National Guard at the beginning of the war in the East. Critics have accused Avakov of using members of the group to threaten an opposition media outlet. As at least one commentator has pointed out, using the National Guard to combat ultranationalist violence is likely to prove difficult if far-right groups have become part of the Guard itself. Avakov's Deputy Minister Vadym Troyan was a member of the neo-Nazi Patriot of Ukraine (PU) paramilitary organization, while current Ministry of Interior official Ilya Kiva – a former member of the far-right Right Sector party whose Instagram feed is populated with images of former Italian fascist leader Benito Mussolini – has called for gays "to be put to death." And Avakov himself used the PU to promote his business and political interests while serving as a governor in eastern Ukraine, and as interior minister formed and armed the extremist Azov battalion led by Andriy Biletsky, a man nicknamed the "White Chief" who called for a crusade against "Semite-led sub-humanity." [ ] ..."
"... In one notorious incident, media captured images of swastika-tattooed thugs - who police claimed were only job applicants wanting to have "fun" - giving the Nazi salute in a police building in Kiev. This cannot be allowed to go on, and it's just as important for Ukrainian democracy to cleanse extremists from law enforcement as it is to remove corrupt officials from former president Viktor Yanukovych's regime under Ukraine's "lustration" policy." ..."
Into the breach – once more! Or – once again about honest, balanced and tolerant Western Media
™, SUDDENLY finding out that there are roving bands of neo-nazis in the Ukraine. Why this particular
article is important? First of all – because it's WaPo – a fearless crusader and enabler of leakers
in anything Trump+Russia related. To doubt WaPo for a certain category of the people is sacrilege.
Second – because of WHO wrote this article, namely Joshua Cohen, former (?) USAID chief honcho
in realization of the "economic reforms" on the territory of the former USSR – a thoroughly handshakable
person, judging by his last name.
Thirdly – the amount of evidence provided in one article combined with proof links to serve
as the future reference material. Links are to very-very kosher and Ukrainian sources – so you
can't accuse them in good faith of being Kremlenite propaganda.
Blah-blah-blah – evil Russia, blah-blah, and then:
"The recent brutal stabbing of a left-wing anti-war activist named Stas Serhiyenko illustrates
the threat posed by these extremists. Serhiyenko and his fellow activists believe the perpetrators
belonged to the neo-Nazi group C14 (whose name comes from a 14-word phrase used by white supremacists).
The attack took place on the anniversary of Hitler's birthday, and C14's leader published a
statement
that celebrated Serhiyenko's stabbing immediately afterward.
The attack on Serhiyenko is just the tip of the iceberg. More recently C14
beat up a socialist politician while other ultranationalist thugs stormed the
Lviv and Kiev City Councils. Far-right and neo-Nazi groups have also assaulted or disrupted
art exhibitions, anti-fascist demonstrations, a "Ukrainians Choose Peace" event, LGBT events,
a social center, media organizations,
court proceedings and a Victory Day march celebrating the anniversary of the end of World
War II.
According to a study from activist organization Institute Respublica, the problem is not only
the frequency of far-right violence, but the fact that perpetrators enjoy widespread impunity.
It's not hard to understand why Kiev seems reluctant to confront these violent groups. For one
thing, far-right paramilitary groups played an important role early in the war against Russian-supported
separatists. Kiev also fears these violent groups could turn on the government itself - something
they've
done before and continue to threaten to do.
To be clear, Russian propaganda about Ukraine being overrun by Nazis or fascists is false.
Far-right parties such as Svoboda or Right Sector draw little support from Ukrainians."
Full stop here. First of all – "Russian propaganda" (and the Western propaganda understands
by that all Russian press, except a few "brave ones" that suck foreign grants tit of theirs) claims
no such a thing. Second – it is Poroshenko and his government who renames streets after Bandera
and Shukhevitch. Third – in the second half of the article Mr. Cohen basically proves, that said
roving bands all BUT overrun the Ukraine, while the alleged lack of support does not translate
in the active resistance to them – which is what's enough for them to reign supreme:
"Indeed, the brazen willingness of Vita Zaverukha – a renowned neo-Nazi out on bail and
under house arrest after killing two police officers -
to post pictures of herself after storming a popular Kiev restaurant with 50 other nationalists
demonstrates the far right's confidence in their immunity from government prosecution.
[ ]
[T]he government must also break any connections between law enforcement agencies and far-right
organizations. The clearest example of this problem lies in the Ministry of Internal Affairs,
which is headed by Arsen Avakov. Avakov has a long-standing relationship with the Azov Battalion,
a paramilitary group that uses the SS symbol as its insignia and which, with several others, was
integrated into the army or National Guard at the beginning of the war in the East. Critics have
accused Avakov of using members of the group to threaten an opposition media outlet. As at least
one commentator has pointed out, using the National Guard to combat ultranationalist violence
is likely to prove difficult if far-right groups have become part of the Guard itself.
Avakov's Deputy Minister Vadym Troyan was a member of the neo-Nazi Patriot of Ukraine (PU)
paramilitary organization, while current Ministry of Interior official Ilya Kiva – a former member
of the far-right Right Sector party whose Instagram feed is populated with images of former Italian
fascist leader Benito Mussolini – has called for gays "to be put to death." And Avakov himself
used the PU to promote his business and political interests while serving as a governor in eastern
Ukraine, and as interior minister
formed and armed the extremist Azov battalion led by Andriy Biletsky, a man nicknamed the
"White Chief" who called for a crusade against "Semite-led sub-humanity."
[ ]
In one notorious incident, media captured images of swastika-tattooed thugs - who police
claimed were only job applicants wanting to have "fun" - giving the Nazi salute in a police building
in Kiev. This cannot be allowed to go on, and it's just as important for Ukrainian democracy to
cleanse extremists from law enforcement as it is to remove corrupt officials from former president
Viktor Yanukovych's regime under Ukraine's "lustration" policy."
"To be clear, Russian propaganda about Ukraine being overrun by Nazis or fascists is false.
Far-right parties such as Svoboda or Right Sector draw little support from Ukrainians ."
True (about the level of support), but irrelevant, Mr. Cohen!
It doesn't matter if these fascists enjoy an approval rating of 5% or .005%
You yourself said that these perps enjoy "widespread impunity" --
They can do whatever they want, kill anybody they please, and never get punished --
That's the literal meaning of the word "impunity".
Yarosh is an MP, Parubiy would, if the same set of events occured as in February 2014, become
President, as Turchynov did. Nazi's/far right are in the SBU, Police, parts of their academia,
military
Its an intentionally idiotic statement by Cohen because Ukrainian political parties can come
and go at the drop of the hat. All this just means that the 2 million Nazi voters in 2012 election
have chosen these newly created parties because a new line of what is " mainstream" has been
drawn in Ukraine.
That's why I found it more than a little odd what is happening in France now .a new party
under Macron has been created and occupies that vast majority of seats .this is the type of thing
you would see in a banana republic.
Cohen is no idiot, I think he is just covering his ass and preparing his exit strategy.
In the hopes of keeping his press card after Ukraine goes totally South.
Cohen always knew these guys were Nazis, now he has to pretend to his reading public that he wasn't
quite aware. He was duped!
Or maybe the turning point, which got his Jewish blood boiling was Biletsky calling his ethnic
group a "Semite-led sub-humanity."
Cohen: "Oh, I never realized these people could be so hateful!" – LOL!
They always use that to pooh-pooh the suggestion that Nazism is influential in Ukraine
– but look! They only get tiny levels of support in elections! That matters little when people
are appointed to political positions rather than voted into them. There are so many things – the
dissolving of opposition political parties, the uberpatriotic signage everywhere exhorting citizens
to report their neighbours if they suspect separatist sympathies, the hit list (Mirotvorets) of
those who failed to shout the government line when prompted until told to stop – that simply scream
"FASCISM!!!" But it is inconvenient for the west to see those things, because it could not acknowledge
seeing them and continue to support the country and government which did them. The USA is an old
hand at unseeing things which don't fit the narrative. Unfortunately, it has evolved into a nation
which is good at unseeing obstacles as well; obstacles which are present and prevent it from achieving
its goals. These are expected to disappear before the eraser called 'exceptionalism'.
The canard about levels of public support for Nazism in Ukraine is used to suggest that if
Russia is spouting propaganda about this, then everything it says is propaganda.
Reply
"... (By the way, Trump reportedly told Israeli leaders during his trip Israel that he was "just back from the Middle East." What did Netanyahu think about that, but: Oh god this guy's ignorant how do we use this ignorance? ) ..."
"... And on June 21 State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert declared that the more time passes, "the more doubt is raised about the actions taken by Saudi Arabia and the UAE At this point, we are left with one simple question: Were the actions really about their concerns regarding Qatar's alleged support for terrorism or were they about the long-simmering grievances between and among the GCC [Gulf Cooperation Council] countries?" ??? ..."
"... Some people speculate that Trump in his sly wisdom is sending out contrasting messages to obtain his mysterious ends to make America great again. This gives the man too much credit. His problem is that he blabbers whatever-he thinks for the moment-makes him look tough. He projects confidence, without knowing what the hell he's talking about. He's a dangerous buffoon. ..."
"... George W. Bush by his invasion of Iraq (to better his dad) produced a mess that his successor in some respects exacerbated. While Obama withdrew from Iraq in accordance with Bush's agreement, and limited the "mission" in Afghanistan, he (or Hillary) led in the destruction of Libya, and began the grotesque involvement in the Syrian conflict. Trump does not understand the causes and effects. He's just proud that his generals dropped a GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast (MOAB) bomb an ISIL camp in Afghanistan. ..."
"... Or Trump glories (echoed by Brian Williams) in that April 7 missile strike on the Syrian airfield, when supposedly 56 Tomahawk missiles destroyed a material storage depot, a training facility, a canteen, six MiG-23 aircraft in repair hangars and a radar station. "Congratulations," he tweeted, "to our great military men and women for representing the United States, and the world, so well in the Syria attack." Interviewed on TV he intimately associated the order to attack with the quality of this chocolate cake he was sharing with a very appreciative President Xi from China at the time. ..."
"... There have been more Syria attacks since, including one that shot down a Syrian warplane over Syria, and the one that shot down an Iranian-made drone. Trump was likely not informed in advance. Not that it would have made any difference, maybe. ..."
"... Of course the main issue remains U.S. imperialism, rooted in capitalism. The global dynamics of that can be rationally analyzed, and the president's role within the system assessed. Obama was fairly predicable. Hillary Clinton was predictable because she always articulated her hawkishness, like John McCain. Their relationships to capital and their intellectual positions (neoconservatism, "realism") were known. Trump is a new phenomenon, as someone combining Lyndon Johnson's crudity, Nixon's vindictiveness, Reagan's vapid populism, and Dubya's ignorance (but he was surrounded by Cheney's hand-picked neocons, virtually announcing plans for region-wide regime change). I'm not sure what he has in common with Bill Clinton other than promiscuity (but Clinton had no John Miller.) He's new in that he's at odds half the time with his own aides and puzzling world leaders ..."
"... British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher after meeting Ronald Reagan told her foreign secretary, Lord Carrington, as she tapped the side of her skull, "Peter, there's nothing there." ..."
The isolation of Qatar appears to be a major step in the Saudi plan, directed by the newly pronounced crown prince, Mohammed bin
Salman (the 31-year-old in charge of the Saudi war in Yemen), to provoke a general confrontation between the Sunni world (led by
itself) and Shiite world (led by Iran). What has has Qatar done to offend the Saudis, the UAE, Bahrain, Egypt and Yemen? Its state-owned
al-Jazeera network has been critical of their governments, especially during the "Arab Spring." But its real sin is its diplomatic
and considerable trade relationship with Iran, with which it shares an oil field.
After the announcement by the five Arab nations on June 5 that they would break ties with Qatar, Donald Trump praised the move.
"During my recent trip to the Middle East," he tweeted on June 6. "I stated that there can no longer be funding of Radical Ideology.
Leaders pointed to Qatar – look!"
And later that day: "So good to see the Saudi Arabia visit with the King and 50 countries already paying off. They said they would
take a hard line on funding extremism, and all reference was pointing to Qatar. Perhaps this will be the beginning of the end to
the horror of terrorism!"
In other words, his visit to Riyadh (with that sword dance and all) immediately paid off in everyone taking a harder line on terrorist
funding from Qatar.
(By the way, Trump reportedly told Israeli leaders during his trip Israel that he was "just back from the Middle East." What
did Netanyahu think about that, but: Oh god this guy's ignorant how do we use this ignorance? )
"The nation of Qatar unfortunately has historically been a funder of terrorism at a very high level," Trump told reporters at
the White House June 9. "So we had a decision to make, do we take the easy road or do we finally take a hard but necessary action.
We have to stop the funding of terrorism. I decided the time had come to call on Qatar to end its funding. They have to end that
funding. And their terrorist ideology." He appears to allude to conversations during his May 20-21 trip to Riyadh and taking responsibility
for the decision.
But then on June 14 Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Roger Cabiness told CNN: "Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis met today with Qatari
Minister of State for Defense Affairs Dr. Khalid al-Attiyah to discuss concluding steps in finalizing the Foreign Military Sales
purchase of US-manufactured F-15 fighter aircraft by the State of Qatar. The $12 billion sale will give Qatar a state of the art
capability and increase security cooperation and interoperability between the United States and Qatar."
And on June 21 State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert declared that the more time passes, "the more doubt is raised about
the actions taken by Saudi Arabia and the UAE At this point, we are left with one simple question: Were the actions really about
their concerns regarding Qatar's alleged support for terrorism or were they about the long-simmering grievances between and among
the GCC [Gulf Cooperation Council] countries?" ???
* * * *
Some people speculate that Trump in his sly wisdom is sending out contrasting messages to obtain his mysterious ends to make
America great again. This gives the man too much credit. His problem is that he blabbers whatever-he thinks for the moment-makes
him look tough. He projects confidence, without knowing what the hell he's talking about. He's a dangerous buffoon.
But he's not responsible for the fact that George W. Bush's war on Iraq in 2003 provoked a wave of massive catastrophes in the
Middle East, and ignited a period of fierce contention among Iran, Sunni Arab countries in particular Saudi Arabia, and Turkey, while
encouraging Kurdish nationalism from Iraq to Syria and Turkey. And that this conflict has acquired somewhat the character of a religious
struggle of the Sunni world versus Iran-backed Shiites (the Alawite-led regime in Syria, Lebanon's Hizbollah, the Houthis in Yemen,
Shiite human rights activists in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia). Surely the most ardent foes of Iran want to depict all these forces as
pawns of the mullahs in Tehran, and (therefore) "terrorists" as such. And the Saudi king is doing a good job convincing the president
of his view that Iran is the source of all evil in the region.
Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi ambassador to Washington (1983-2005), once told M16 head Sir Richard Dearlove: "The time is
not far off in the Middle East, Richard, when it will literally be 'God help the Shia.' More than a billion Sunni have simply had
enough of them." This is the kind of specifically religious sectarianism Trump is embracing, no doubt having no idea what the difference
is between Sunnis and Shiites. He just knows that "Radical Ideology" he oddly refers to is funded by Qatar at a very high level and
Qatar also buys billions in arms from the U.S.
Or maybe he didn't know about the arms deal. Maybe he left that to his fine generals, the detail guys.
George W. Bush by his invasion of Iraq (to better his dad) produced a mess that his successor in some respects exacerbated.
While Obama withdrew from Iraq in accordance with Bush's agreement, and limited the "mission" in Afghanistan, he (or Hillary) led
in the destruction of Libya, and began the grotesque involvement in the Syrian conflict. Trump does not understand the causes and
effects. He's just proud that his generals dropped a GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast (MOAB) bomb an ISIL camp in Afghanistan.
(Think of that. The U.S. drops the biggest non-nuclear bomb ever used in the history of the world, on militants who've just recently
established a presence in the country who belong to a movement that started with al-Zarqawi in Afghanistan, relocated to Iraq, spread
to Syria and elsewhere, and is now again in Afghanistan. Maybe 3000 jihadis. The war against the Taliban is not going well; they
gain territory year to year. The Afghan army after 16 years of training remains riddled with high desertion rates, unable to make
headway against the resurgent Taliban. U.S. trains and their charges view one another with mutual contempt. Green on blue explosions
occur so often all U.S. troops are on their guard against their allies. In this hopeless situation-as if to merely express the outrage
of frustration-that bomb was dropped on a remote area with undetermined results, condemned strongly by former president Hamid Karzai:
"I vehemently and in strongest words condemn the dropping of the latest weapon " But Trump is proud of it.)
Or Trump glories (echoed by Brian Williams) in that April 7 missile strike on the Syrian airfield, when supposedly 56 Tomahawk
missiles destroyed a material storage depot, a training facility, a canteen, six MiG-23 aircraft in repair hangars and a radar station.
"Congratulations," he tweeted, "to our great military men and women for representing the United States, and the world, so well in
the Syria attack." Interviewed on TV he intimately associated the order to attack with the quality of this chocolate cake he was
sharing with a very appreciative President Xi from China at the time.
There have been more Syria attacks since, including one that shot down a Syrian warplane over Syria, and the one that shot
down an Iranian-made drone. Trump was likely not informed in advance. Not that it would have made any difference, maybe.
But once upon a time, Trump talked about cooperation with Russia against ISIL, and seemed to strongly oppose regime change as
policy. He is, in the sense of destructive power, the most powerful person on earth. That he is unreadable and unpredictable, predicting
"we'll solve" this or that massively complex problem (North Korea), manifestly ignorant and not interested in history, inheriting
the Bush/Cheney neocon-spawned mess and now taking advice from King Salman on matters like Qatar is frightening.
* * * *
Of course the main issue remains U.S. imperialism, rooted in capitalism. The global dynamics of that can be rationally analyzed,
and the president's role within the system assessed. Obama was fairly predicable. Hillary Clinton was predictable because she always
articulated her hawkishness, like John McCain. Their relationships to capital and their intellectual positions (neoconservatism,
"realism") were known. Trump is a new phenomenon, as someone combining Lyndon Johnson's crudity, Nixon's vindictiveness, Reagan's
vapid populism, and Dubya's ignorance (but he was surrounded by Cheney's hand-picked neocons, virtually announcing plans for region-wide
regime change). I'm not sure what he has in common with Bill Clinton other than promiscuity (but Clinton had no John Miller.) He's
new in that he's at odds half the time with his own aides and puzzling world leaders .
I can just imagine Xi and Putin exchanging their analyses of his mind, perhaps chuckling occasionally as we do in this country
when we analyze his mind. It's necessary, after all.
British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher after meeting Ronald Reagan told her foreign secretary, Lord Carrington, as she tapped
the side of her skull, "Peter, there's nothing there." (She has also been quoted as saying, "Poor dear, there's nothing between
his ears.") Lady Thatcher of course gave a well-received eulogy at Reagan's funeral pretending to believe otherwise. The point being
that world leaders can like other world leaders, as the Saudi king likes Trump, even if they have nothing between their ears, especially
if they think they can exploit the mental vacuum to get them to do something stupid.
Such as, join with people who "have had enough of the Shia" and are showing (in that vicious war in Yemen especially) how they
want to get rid of them. Join the debate
on Facebook More articles by: Gary Leupp
"Tillerson called on China to make greater efforts to halt "illicit" revenue streams to North
Korea that allegedly help fund Pyongyang's military programs. Just last week, he told a congressional
committee the Trump administration was "at a stage" where "we are going to have to start taking
secondary sanctions"-that is, penalise countries and corporations that engage in economic activities
with North Korea.
Unilateral "secondary sanctions" imposed by the US would, above all, fall on Chinese companies.
China is, by far, North Korea's largest trading partner. US officials and the media have repeatedly
accused Beijing of failing to do enough to choke off trade and finance with the Pyongyang regime.
Any penalties against Chinese individuals or entities would quickly sour relations between the
US and China."
I will be extremely surprised if Washington takes any steps which result in sanctions against
China. For one thing, a staggering number of American brands and corporations
have
factories and manufacturing assets in China , and pissing off the Chinese risks hurting the
bottom line. For another, China is one of the few countries with
money to lend which can match the American appetite for borrowing.
It seems patently obvious to me that countries which find themselves the target of American
sanctions should immediately react by kicking out American businesses in their country and embargoing
American goods for import. The United States does not make very much which is so unique and rare
that you could not find it anywhere else. American businesses and corporations will react with
fury to trade actions taken against them because of posturing by the government. Do I have to
think of everything?
"... Many "never-Trumpers" of both parties see the deep state's national security bureaucracy as their best hope to destroy Trump and thus defend constitutional government, but those hopes are misguided. ..."
"... As Michael Glennon, author of National Security and Double Government, pointed out in a June 2017 Harper's essay, if "the president maintains his attack, splintered and demoralized factions within the bureaucracy could actually support - not oppose - many potential Trump initiatives, such as stepped-up drone strikes, cyberattacks, covert action, immigration bans, and mass surveillance." ..."
"... Corraborative evidence of Valentine's thesis is, perhaps surprisingly, provided by the CIA's own website where a number of redacted historical documents have been published. Presumably, they are documents first revealed under the Freedom of Information Act. A few however are copies of news articles once available to the public but now archived by the CIA which has blacked-out portions of the articles. ..."
"... This led to an investigation by New Times in a day when there were still "investigative reporters," and not the government sycophants of today. Based on firsthand accounts, their investigation concluded that Operation Phoenix was the "only systematized kidnapping, torture and assassination program ever sponsored by the United States government. . . . Its victims were noncombatants." At least 40,000 were murdered, with "only" about 8,000 supposed Viet Cong political cadres targeted for execution, with the rest civilians (including women and children) killed and "later conveniently labeled VCI. Hundreds of thousands were jailed without trial, often after sadistic abuse." The article notes that Phoenix was conceived, financed, and directed by the Central Intelligence Agency ..."
"... But the article noted that one of the most persistent criticisms of Phoenix was that it resulted "in the arrest and imprisonment of many innocent civilians." These were called "Class C Communist offenders," some of whom may actually have been forced to commit such "belligerent acts" as digging trenches or carrying rice. It was those alleged as the "hard core, full-time cadre" who were deemed to make up the "shadow government" designated as Class A and B Viet Cong. ..."
"... Ironically, by the Bush administration's broad definition of "unlawful combatants," CIA officers and their support structure also would fit the category. But the American public is generally forgiving of its own war criminals though most self-righteous and hypocritical in judging foreign war criminals. But perhaps given sufficient evidence, the American public could begin to see both the immorality of this behavior and its counterproductive consequences. ..."
"... Talleyrand is credited with saying, "They have learned nothing and forgotten nothing." Reportedly, that was borrowed from a 1796 letter by a French naval officer, which stated, in the original language: Personne n'est corrigé; personne n'a su ni rien oublier ni rien appendre. In English: "Nobody has been corrected; no one has known to forget, nor yet to learn anything." That sums up the CIA leadership entirely. ..."
Douglas Valentine has once again added to the store of knowledge necessary for American citizens
to understand how the U.S. government actually works today, in his most recent book entitled
The CIA As Organized Crime . (Valentine previously wrote The Phoenix Program ,
which should be read with the current book.)
The US "deep state" – of which the CIA is an integral part – is an open secret now and the Phoenix
Program (assassinations, death squads, torture, mass detentions, exploitation of information) has
been its means of controlling populations. Consequently, knowing the deep state's methods is the
only hope of building a democratic opposition to the deep state and to restore as much as possible
the Constitutional system we had in previous centuries, as imperfect as it was.
Princeton University political theorist Sheldon Wolin described the US political system in place
by 2003 as "inverted totalitarianism." He reaffirmed that in 2009 after seeing a year of the Obama
administration. Correctly identifying the threat against constitutional governance is the first step
to restore it, and as Wolin understood, substantive constitutional government ended long before Donald
Trump campaigned. He's just taking unconstitutional governance to the next level in following the
same path as his recent predecessors. However, even as some elements of the "deep state" seek to
remove Trump, the President now has many "deep state" instruments in his own hands to be used at
his unreviewable discretion.
Many "never-Trumpers" of both parties see the deep state's national security bureaucracy as
their best hope to destroy Trump and thus defend constitutional government, but those hopes are misguided.
After all, the deep state's bureaucratic leadership has worked arduously for decades to subvert
constitutional order.
As Michael Glennon, author of National Security and Double Government, pointed out in a June
2017 Harper's essay, if "the president maintains his attack, splintered and demoralized factions
within the bureaucracy could actually support - not oppose - many potential Trump initiatives, such
as stepped-up drone strikes, cyberattacks, covert action, immigration bans, and mass surveillance."
Glennon noted that the propensity of "security managers" to back policies which ratchet up levels
of security "will play into Trump's hands, so that if and when he finally does declare victory, a
revamped security directorate could emerge more menacing than ever, with him its devoted new ally."
Before that happens, it is incumbent for Americans to understand what Valentine explains in his book
of CIA methods of "population control" as first fully developed in the Vietnam War's Phoenix Program.
Hating the US
There also must be the realization that our "national security" apparatchiks - principally but
not solely the CIA - have served to exponentially increase the numbers of those people who hate the
US.
Some of these people turn to terrorism as an expression of that hostility. Anyone who is at all
familiar with the CIA and Al Qaeda knows that the CIA has been Al Qaeda's most important "combat
multiplier" since 9/11, and the CIA can be said to have birthed ISIS as well with the mistreatment
of incarcerated Iraqi men in US prisons in Iraq.
Indeed, by following the model of the Phoenix Program, the CIA must be seen in the Twenty-first
Century as a combination of the ultimate "Murder, Inc.," when judged by the CIA's methods such as
drone warfare and its victims; and the Keystone Kops, when the multiple failures of CIA policies
are considered. This is not to make light of what the CIA does, but the CIA's misguided policies
and practices have served to generate wrath, hatred and violence against Americans, which we see
manifested in cities such as San Bernardino, Orlando, New York and Boston.
Pointing out the harm to Americans is not to dismiss the havoc that Americans under the influence
of the CIA have perpetrated on foreign populations. But "morality" seems a lost virtue today in the
US, which is under the influence of so much militaristic war propaganda that morality no longer enters
into the equation in determining foreign policy.
In addition to the harm the CIA has caused to people around the world, the CIA works tirelessly
at subverting its own government at home, as was most visible in the spying on and subversion of
the torture investigation by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. The subversion of democracy
also includes the role the CIA plays in developing and disseminating war propaganda as "information
warfare," upon the American people. This is what the Rand Corporation under the editorship of Zalmay
Khalilzad has described as "conditioning the battlefield," which begins with the minds of the American
population.
Douglas Valentine discusses and documents the role of the CIA in disseminating pro-war propaganda
and disinformation as complementary to the violent tactics of the Phoenix Program in Vietnam. Valentine
explains that "before Phoenix was adopted as the model for policing the American empire, many US
military commanders in Vietnam resisted the Phoenix strategy of targeting civilians with Einsatzgruppen-style
'special forces' and Gestapo-style secret police."
Military Commanders considered that type of program a flagrant violation of the Law of War. "Their
main job is to zap the in-betweeners – you know, the people who aren't all the way with the government
and aren't all the way with the Viet Cong either. They figure if you zap enough in-betweeners, people
will begin to get the idea," according to one quote from The Phoenix Program referring to
the unit tasked with much of the Phoenix operations.
Nazi Influences
Comparing the Phoenix Program and its operatives to "Einsatzgruppen-style 'special forces' and
Gestapo-style secret police" is not a distortion of the strategic understanding of each. Both programs
were extreme forms of repression operating under martial law principles where the slightest form
of dissent was deemed to represent the work of the "enemy." Hitler's Bandit Hunters: The SS and the
Nazi Occupation of Europe by Philip W. Blood describes German "Security Warfare" as practiced in
World War II, which can be seen as identical in form to the Phoenix Program as to how the enemy is
defined as anyone who is "potentially" a threat, deemed either "partizans" or terrorists.
That the Germans included entire racial categories in that does not change the underlying logic,
which was, anyone deemed an internal enemy in a territory in which their military operated had to
be "neutralized" by any means necessary. The US military and the South Vietnamese military governments
operated under the same principles but not based on race, rather the perception that certain areas
and villages were loyal to the Viet Cong.
This repressive doctrine was also not unique to the Nazis in Europe and the US military in Vietnam.
Similar though less sophisticated strategies were used against the American Indians and by the imperial
powers of the late Nineteenth and early Twentieth centuries, including by the US in its newly acquired
territories of the Philippines and in the Caribbean. This "imperial policing," i.e., counterinsurgency,
simply moved to more manipulative and, in ways, more violent levels.
That the US drew upon German counterinsurgency doctrine, as brutal as it was, is well documented.
This is shown explicitly in a 2011 article published in the Journal of Military and Strategic Studies
entitled German Counterinsurgency Revisited by Charles D. Melson. He wrote that in 1942, Nazi commander
Heinrich Himmler named a deputy for "anti-bandit warfare," (Bevollmachtigter fur die Bandenkampfung
im Osten), SS-General von dem Bach, whose responsibilities expanded in 1943 to head all SS and police
anti-bandit units and operations. He was one of the architects of the Einsatzguppen "concept of anti-partisan
warfare," a German predecessor to the "Phoenix Program."
'Anti-Partisan' Lessons
It wasn't a coincidence that this "anti-partisan" warfare concept should be adopted by US forces
in Vietnam and retained to the present day. Melson pointed out that a "post-war German special forces
officer described hunter or ranger units as 'men who knew every possible ruse and tactic of guerrilla
warfare. They had gone through the hell of combat against the crafty partisans in the endless swamps
and forests of Russia.'"
Consequently, "The German special forces and reconnaissance school was a sought after posting
for North Atlantic Treaty Organization special operations personnel," who presumably included members
of the newly created US Army Special Forces soldiers, which was in part headquartered at Bad Tolz
in Germany, as well as CIA paramilitary officers.
Just as with the later Phoenix Program to the present-day US global counterinsurgency, Melson
wrote that the "attitude of the [local] population and the amount of assistance it was willing to
give guerilla units was of great concern to the Germans. Different treatment was supposed to be accorded
to affected populations, bandit supporters, and bandits, while so-called population and resource
control measures for each were noted (but were in practice, treated apparently one and the same).
'Action against enemy agitation' was the psychological or information operations of the
Nazi
period. The Nazis believed that, 'Because of the close relationship of guerilla warfare
and politics, actions against enemy agitation are a task that is just as important as interdiction
and combat actions. All means must be used to ward off enemy influence and waken and maintain a clear
political will.'"
This is typical of any totalitarian system – a movement or a government – whether the process
is characterized as counterinsurgency or internal security. The idea of any civilian collaboration
with the "enemy" is the basis for what the US government charges as "conspiracy" in the Guantanamo
Military Commissions.
Valentine explains the Phoenix program as having been developed by the CIA in 1967 to combine
"existing counterinsurgency programs in a concerted effort to 'neutralize' the Vietcong infrastructure
(VCI)." He explained further that "neutralize" meant "to kill, capture, or make to defect." "Infrastructure"
meant civilians suspected of supporting North Vietnamese and Vietcong soldiers. Central to the Phoenix
program was that its targets were civilians, making the operation a violation of the Geneva Conventions
which guaranteed protection to civilians in time of war.
"The Vietnam's War's Silver Lining: A Bureaucratic Model for Population Control Emerges" is the
title of Chapter 3. Valentine writes that the "CIA's Phoenix program changed how America fights its
wars and how the public views this new type of political and psychological warfare, in which civilian
casualties are an explicit objective." The intent of the Phoenix program evolved from "neutralizing"
enemy leaders into "a program of systematic repression for the political control of the South Vietnamese
people. It sought to accomplish this through a highly bureaucratized system of disposing of people
who could not be ideologically assimilated." The CIA claimed a legal basis for the program in "emergency
decrees" and orders for "administrative detention."
Lauding Petraeus
Valentine refers to a paper by David Kilcullen entitled Countering Global Insurgency. Kilcullen
is one of the so-called "counterinsurgency experts" whom General David Petraeus gathered together
in a cell to promote and refine "counterinsurgency," or COIN, for the modern era. Fred Kaplan, who
is considered a "liberal author and journalist" at Slate, wrote a panegyric to these cultists entitled,
The Insurgents: David Petraeus and the Plot to Change the American Way of War. The purpose of this
cell was to change the practices of the US military into that of "imperial policing," or COIN, as
they preferred to call it.
But Kilcullen argued in his paper that "The 'War on Terrorism'" is actually a campaign to counter
a global insurgency. Therefore, Kilcullen argued, "we need a new paradigm, capable of addressing
globalised insurgency." His "disaggregation strategy" called for "actions to target the insurgent
infrastructure that would resemble the unfairly maligned (but highly effective) Vietnam-era Phoenix
program."
He went on, "Contrary to popular mythology, this was largely a civilian aid and development program,
supported by targeted military pacification operations and intelligence activity to disrupt the Viet
Cong Infrastructure. A global Phoenix program (including the other key elements that formed part
of the successful Vietnam CORDS system) would provide a useful start point to consider how Disaggregation
would develop in practice."
It is readily apparent that, in fact, a Phoenix-type program is now US global policy and - just
like in Vietnam - it is applying "death squad" strategies that eliminate not only active combatants
but also civilians who simply find themselves in the same vicinity, thus creating antagonisms that
expand the number of fighters.
Corraborative evidence of Valentine's thesis is, perhaps surprisingly, provided by the CIA's
own website where a number of redacted historical documents have been published. Presumably, they
are documents first revealed under the Freedom of Information Act. A few however are copies of news
articles once available to the public but now archived by the CIA which has blacked-out portions
of the articles.
The Bloody Reality
One "sanitized" article - approved for release in 2011 - is a partially redacted New Times article
of Aug. 22, 1975, by Michael Drosnin. The article recounts a story of a US Army counterintelligence
officer "who directed a small part of a secret war aimed not at the enemy's soldiers but at its civilian
leaders." He describes how a CIA-directed Phoenix operative dumped a bag of "eleven bloody ears"
as proof of six people killed.
The officer, who recalled this incident in 1971, said, "It made me sick. I couldn't go on with
what I was doing in Vietnam. . . . It was an assassination campaign . . . my job was to identify
and eliminate VCI, the Viet Cong 'infrastructure' – the communist's shadow government. I worked directly
with two Vietnamese units, very tough guys who didn't wear uniforms . . . In the beginning they brought
back about 10 percent alive. By the end they had stopped taking prisoners.
"How many VC they got I don't know. I saw a hell of a lot of dead bodies. We'd put a tag on saying
VCI, but no one really knew – it was just some native in black pajamas with 16 bullet holes."
This led to an investigation by New Times in a day when there were still "investigative reporters,"
and not the government sycophants of today. Based on firsthand accounts, their investigation concluded
that Operation Phoenix was the "only systematized kidnapping, torture and assassination program ever
sponsored by the United States government. . . . Its victims were noncombatants." At least 40,000
were murdered, with "only" about 8,000 supposed Viet Cong political cadres targeted for execution,
with the rest civilians (including women and children) killed and "later conveniently labeled VCI.
Hundreds of thousands were jailed without trial, often after sadistic abuse." The article notes that
Phoenix was conceived, financed, and directed by the Central Intelligence Agency, as Mr. Valentine
writes.
A second article archived by the CIA was by the Christian Science Monitor, dated Jan. 5, 1971,
describing how the Saigon government was "taking steps that could help eliminate one of the most
glaring abuses of its controversial Phoenix program, which is aimed against the Viet Cong political
and administrative apparatus." Note how the Monitor shifted blame away from the CIA and onto the
South Vietnamese government.
But the article noted that one of the most persistent criticisms of Phoenix was that it resulted
"in the arrest and imprisonment of many innocent civilians." These were called "Class C Communist
offenders," some of whom may actually have been forced to commit such "belligerent acts" as digging
trenches or carrying rice. It was those alleged as the "hard core, full-time cadre" who were deemed
to make up the "shadow government" designated as Class A and B Viet Cong.
Yet "security committees" throughout South Vietnam, under the direction of the CIA, sentenced
at least 10,000 "Class C civilians" to prison each year, far more than Class A and B combined. The
article stated, "Thousands of these prisoners are never brought to court trial, and thousands of
other have never been sentenced." The latter statement would mean they were just held in "indefinite
detention," like the prisoners held at Guantanamo and other US detention centers with high levels
of CIA involvement.
Not surprisingly to someone not affiliated with the CIA, the article found as well that "Individual
case histories indicate that many who have gone to prison as active supporters of neither the government
nor the Viet Cong come out as active backers of the Viet Cong and with an implacable hatred of the
government." In other words, the CIA and the COIN enthusiasts are achieving the same results today
with the prisons they set up in Iraq and Afghanistan.
CIA Crimes
Valentine broadly covers the illegalities of the CIA over the years, including its well-documented
role in facilitating the drug trade over the years. But, in this reviewer's opinion, his most valuable
contribution is his description of the CIA's participation going back at least to the Vietnam War
in the treatment of what the US government today calls "unlawful combatants."
"Unlawful combatants" is a descriptive term made up by the Bush administration to remove people
whom US officials alleged were "terrorists" from the legal protections of the Geneva Conventions
and Human Rights Law and thus to justify their capture or killing in the so-called "Global War on
Terror." Since the US government deems them "unlawful" – because they do not belong to an organized
military structure and do not wear insignia – they are denied the "privilege" of belligerency that
applies to traditional soldiers. But – unless they take a "direct part in hostilities" – they would
still maintain their civilian status under the law of war and thus not lose the legal protection
due to civilians even if they exhibit sympathy or support to one side in a conflict.
Ironically, by the Bush administration's broad definition of "unlawful combatants," CIA officers
and their support structure also would fit the category. But the American public is generally forgiving
of its own war criminals though most self-righteous and hypocritical in judging foreign war criminals.
But perhaps given sufficient evidence, the American public could begin to see both the immorality
of this behavior and its counterproductive consequences.
This is not to condemn all CIA officers, some of whom acted in good faith that they were actually
defending the United States by acquiring information on a professed enemy in the tradition of Nathan
Hale. But it is to harshly condemn those CIA officials and officers who betrayed the United States
by subverting its Constitution, including waging secret wars against foreign countries without a
declaration of war by Congress. And it decidedly condemns the CIA war criminals who acted as a law
unto themselves in the torture and murder of foreign nationals, as Valentine's book describes.
Talleyrand is credited with saying, "They have learned nothing and forgotten nothing." Reportedly,
that was borrowed from a 1796 letter by a French naval officer, which stated, in the original language:
Personne n'est corrigé; personne n'a su ni rien oublier ni rien appendre. In English: "Nobody has
been corrected; no one has known to forget, nor yet to learn anything." That sums up the CIA leadership
entirely.
Douglas Valentine's book is a thorough documentation of that fact and it is essential reading
for all Americans if we are to have any hope for salvaging a remnant of representative government.
Todd E. Pierce retired as a Major in the US Army Judge Advocate General (JAG) Corps in November
2012. His most recent assignment was defense counsel in the Office of Chief Defense Counsel, Office
of Military Commissions. This originally appeared at
ConsortiumNews.com .
"... Many "never-Trumpers" of both parties see the deep state's national security bureaucracy as their best hope to destroy Trump and thus defend constitutional government, but those hopes are misguided. ..."
"... As Michael Glennon, author of National Security and Double Government, pointed out in a June 2017 Harper's essay, if "the president maintains his attack, splintered and demoralized factions within the bureaucracy could actually support - not oppose - many potential Trump initiatives, such as stepped-up drone strikes, cyberattacks, covert action, immigration bans, and mass surveillance." ..."
"... Corraborative evidence of Valentine's thesis is, perhaps surprisingly, provided by the CIA's own website where a number of redacted historical documents have been published. Presumably, they are documents first revealed under the Freedom of Information Act. A few however are copies of news articles once available to the public but now archived by the CIA which has blacked-out portions of the articles. ..."
"... This led to an investigation by New Times in a day when there were still "investigative reporters," and not the government sycophants of today. Based on firsthand accounts, their investigation concluded that Operation Phoenix was the "only systematized kidnapping, torture and assassination program ever sponsored by the United States government. . . . Its victims were noncombatants." At least 40,000 were murdered, with "only" about 8,000 supposed Viet Cong political cadres targeted for execution, with the rest civilians (including women and children) killed and "later conveniently labeled VCI. Hundreds of thousands were jailed without trial, often after sadistic abuse." The article notes that Phoenix was conceived, financed, and directed by the Central Intelligence Agency ..."
"... But the article noted that one of the most persistent criticisms of Phoenix was that it resulted "in the arrest and imprisonment of many innocent civilians." These were called "Class C Communist offenders," some of whom may actually have been forced to commit such "belligerent acts" as digging trenches or carrying rice. It was those alleged as the "hard core, full-time cadre" who were deemed to make up the "shadow government" designated as Class A and B Viet Cong. ..."
"... Ironically, by the Bush administration's broad definition of "unlawful combatants," CIA officers and their support structure also would fit the category. But the American public is generally forgiving of its own war criminals though most self-righteous and hypocritical in judging foreign war criminals. But perhaps given sufficient evidence, the American public could begin to see both the immorality of this behavior and its counterproductive consequences. ..."
"... Talleyrand is credited with saying, "They have learned nothing and forgotten nothing." Reportedly, that was borrowed from a 1796 letter by a French naval officer, which stated, in the original language: Personne n'est corrigé; personne n'a su ni rien oublier ni rien appendre. In English: "Nobody has been corrected; no one has known to forget, nor yet to learn anything." That sums up the CIA leadership entirely. ..."
Douglas Valentine has once again added to the store of knowledge necessary for American citizens
to understand how the U.S. government actually works today, in his most recent book entitled
The CIA As Organized Crime . (Valentine previously wrote The Phoenix Program ,
which should be read with the current book.)
The US "deep state" – of which the CIA is an integral part – is an open secret now and the Phoenix
Program (assassinations, death squads, torture, mass detentions, exploitation of information) has
been its means of controlling populations. Consequently, knowing the deep state's methods is the
only hope of building a democratic opposition to the deep state and to restore as much as possible
the Constitutional system we had in previous centuries, as imperfect as it was.
Princeton University political theorist Sheldon Wolin described the US political system in place
by 2003 as "inverted totalitarianism." He reaffirmed that in 2009 after seeing a year of the Obama
administration. Correctly identifying the threat against constitutional governance is the first step
to restore it, and as Wolin understood, substantive constitutional government ended long before Donald
Trump campaigned. He's just taking unconstitutional governance to the next level in following the
same path as his recent predecessors. However, even as some elements of the "deep state" seek to
remove Trump, the President now has many "deep state" instruments in his own hands to be used at
his unreviewable discretion.
Many "never-Trumpers" of both parties see the deep state's national security bureaucracy as
their best hope to destroy Trump and thus defend constitutional government, but those hopes are misguided.
After all, the deep state's bureaucratic leadership has worked arduously for decades to subvert
constitutional order.
As Michael Glennon, author of National Security and Double Government, pointed out in a June
2017 Harper's essay, if "the president maintains his attack, splintered and demoralized factions
within the bureaucracy could actually support - not oppose - many potential Trump initiatives, such
as stepped-up drone strikes, cyberattacks, covert action, immigration bans, and mass surveillance."
Glennon noted that the propensity of "security managers" to back policies which ratchet up levels
of security "will play into Trump's hands, so that if and when he finally does declare victory, a
revamped security directorate could emerge more menacing than ever, with him its devoted new ally."
Before that happens, it is incumbent for Americans to understand what Valentine explains in his book
of CIA methods of "population control" as first fully developed in the Vietnam War's Phoenix Program.
Hating the US
There also must be the realization that our "national security" apparatchiks - principally but
not solely the CIA - have served to exponentially increase the numbers of those people who hate the
US.
Some of these people turn to terrorism as an expression of that hostility. Anyone who is at all
familiar with the CIA and Al Qaeda knows that the CIA has been Al Qaeda's most important "combat
multiplier" since 9/11, and the CIA can be said to have birthed ISIS as well with the mistreatment
of incarcerated Iraqi men in US prisons in Iraq.
Indeed, by following the model of the Phoenix Program, the CIA must be seen in the Twenty-first
Century as a combination of the ultimate "Murder, Inc.," when judged by the CIA's methods such as
drone warfare and its victims; and the Keystone Kops, when the multiple failures of CIA policies
are considered. This is not to make light of what the CIA does, but the CIA's misguided policies
and practices have served to generate wrath, hatred and violence against Americans, which we see
manifested in cities such as San Bernardino, Orlando, New York and Boston.
Pointing out the harm to Americans is not to dismiss the havoc that Americans under the influence
of the CIA have perpetrated on foreign populations. But "morality" seems a lost virtue today in the
US, which is under the influence of so much militaristic war propaganda that morality no longer enters
into the equation in determining foreign policy.
In addition to the harm the CIA has caused to people around the world, the CIA works tirelessly
at subverting its own government at home, as was most visible in the spying on and subversion of
the torture investigation by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. The subversion of democracy
also includes the role the CIA plays in developing and disseminating war propaganda as "information
warfare," upon the American people. This is what the Rand Corporation under the editorship of Zalmay
Khalilzad has described as "conditioning the battlefield," which begins with the minds of the American
population.
Douglas Valentine discusses and documents the role of the CIA in disseminating pro-war propaganda
and disinformation as complementary to the violent tactics of the Phoenix Program in Vietnam. Valentine
explains that "before Phoenix was adopted as the model for policing the American empire, many US
military commanders in Vietnam resisted the Phoenix strategy of targeting civilians with Einsatzgruppen-style
'special forces' and Gestapo-style secret police."
Military Commanders considered that type of program a flagrant violation of the Law of War. "Their
main job is to zap the in-betweeners – you know, the people who aren't all the way with the government
and aren't all the way with the Viet Cong either. They figure if you zap enough in-betweeners, people
will begin to get the idea," according to one quote from The Phoenix Program referring to
the unit tasked with much of the Phoenix operations.
Nazi Influences
Comparing the Phoenix Program and its operatives to "Einsatzgruppen-style 'special forces' and
Gestapo-style secret police" is not a distortion of the strategic understanding of each. Both programs
were extreme forms of repression operating under martial law principles where the slightest form
of dissent was deemed to represent the work of the "enemy." Hitler's Bandit Hunters: The SS and the
Nazi Occupation of Europe by Philip W. Blood describes German "Security Warfare" as practiced in
World War II, which can be seen as identical in form to the Phoenix Program as to how the enemy is
defined as anyone who is "potentially" a threat, deemed either "partizans" or terrorists.
That the Germans included entire racial categories in that does not change the underlying logic,
which was, anyone deemed an internal enemy in a territory in which their military operated had to
be "neutralized" by any means necessary. The US military and the South Vietnamese military governments
operated under the same principles but not based on race, rather the perception that certain areas
and villages were loyal to the Viet Cong.
This repressive doctrine was also not unique to the Nazis in Europe and the US military in Vietnam.
Similar though less sophisticated strategies were used against the American Indians and by the imperial
powers of the late Nineteenth and early Twentieth centuries, including by the US in its newly acquired
territories of the Philippines and in the Caribbean. This "imperial policing," i.e., counterinsurgency,
simply moved to more manipulative and, in ways, more violent levels.
That the US drew upon German counterinsurgency doctrine, as brutal as it was, is well documented.
This is shown explicitly in a 2011 article published in the Journal of Military and Strategic Studies
entitled German Counterinsurgency Revisited by Charles D. Melson. He wrote that in 1942, Nazi commander
Heinrich Himmler named a deputy for "anti-bandit warfare," (Bevollmachtigter fur die Bandenkampfung
im Osten), SS-General von dem Bach, whose responsibilities expanded in 1943 to head all SS and police
anti-bandit units and operations. He was one of the architects of the Einsatzguppen "concept of anti-partisan
warfare," a German predecessor to the "Phoenix Program."
'Anti-Partisan' Lessons
It wasn't a coincidence that this "anti-partisan" warfare concept should be adopted by US forces
in Vietnam and retained to the present day. Melson pointed out that a "post-war German special forces
officer described hunter or ranger units as 'men who knew every possible ruse and tactic of guerrilla
warfare. They had gone through the hell of combat against the crafty partisans in the endless swamps
and forests of Russia.'"
Consequently, "The German special forces and reconnaissance school was a sought after posting
for North Atlantic Treaty Organization special operations personnel," who presumably included members
of the newly created US Army Special Forces soldiers, which was in part headquartered at Bad Tolz
in Germany, as well as CIA paramilitary officers.
Just as with the later Phoenix Program to the present-day US global counterinsurgency, Melson
wrote that the "attitude of the [local] population and the amount of assistance it was willing to
give guerilla units was of great concern to the Germans. Different treatment was supposed to be accorded
to affected populations, bandit supporters, and bandits, while so-called population and resource
control measures for each were noted (but were in practice, treated apparently one and the same).
'Action against enemy agitation' was the psychological or information operations of the
Nazi
period. The Nazis believed that, 'Because of the close relationship of guerilla warfare
and politics, actions against enemy agitation are a task that is just as important as interdiction
and combat actions. All means must be used to ward off enemy influence and waken and maintain a clear
political will.'"
This is typical of any totalitarian system – a movement or a government – whether the process
is characterized as counterinsurgency or internal security. The idea of any civilian collaboration
with the "enemy" is the basis for what the US government charges as "conspiracy" in the Guantanamo
Military Commissions.
Valentine explains the Phoenix program as having been developed by the CIA in 1967 to combine
"existing counterinsurgency programs in a concerted effort to 'neutralize' the Vietcong infrastructure
(VCI)." He explained further that "neutralize" meant "to kill, capture, or make to defect." "Infrastructure"
meant civilians suspected of supporting North Vietnamese and Vietcong soldiers. Central to the Phoenix
program was that its targets were civilians, making the operation a violation of the Geneva Conventions
which guaranteed protection to civilians in time of war.
"The Vietnam's War's Silver Lining: A Bureaucratic Model for Population Control Emerges" is the
title of Chapter 3. Valentine writes that the "CIA's Phoenix program changed how America fights its
wars and how the public views this new type of political and psychological warfare, in which civilian
casualties are an explicit objective." The intent of the Phoenix program evolved from "neutralizing"
enemy leaders into "a program of systematic repression for the political control of the South Vietnamese
people. It sought to accomplish this through a highly bureaucratized system of disposing of people
who could not be ideologically assimilated." The CIA claimed a legal basis for the program in "emergency
decrees" and orders for "administrative detention."
Lauding Petraeus
Valentine refers to a paper by David Kilcullen entitled Countering Global Insurgency. Kilcullen
is one of the so-called "counterinsurgency experts" whom General David Petraeus gathered together
in a cell to promote and refine "counterinsurgency," or COIN, for the modern era. Fred Kaplan, who
is considered a "liberal author and journalist" at Slate, wrote a panegyric to these cultists entitled,
The Insurgents: David Petraeus and the Plot to Change the American Way of War. The purpose of this
cell was to change the practices of the US military into that of "imperial policing," or COIN, as
they preferred to call it.
But Kilcullen argued in his paper that "The 'War on Terrorism'" is actually a campaign to counter
a global insurgency. Therefore, Kilcullen argued, "we need a new paradigm, capable of addressing
globalised insurgency." His "disaggregation strategy" called for "actions to target the insurgent
infrastructure that would resemble the unfairly maligned (but highly effective) Vietnam-era Phoenix
program."
He went on, "Contrary to popular mythology, this was largely a civilian aid and development program,
supported by targeted military pacification operations and intelligence activity to disrupt the Viet
Cong Infrastructure. A global Phoenix program (including the other key elements that formed part
of the successful Vietnam CORDS system) would provide a useful start point to consider how Disaggregation
would develop in practice."
It is readily apparent that, in fact, a Phoenix-type program is now US global policy and - just
like in Vietnam - it is applying "death squad" strategies that eliminate not only active combatants
but also civilians who simply find themselves in the same vicinity, thus creating antagonisms that
expand the number of fighters.
Corraborative evidence of Valentine's thesis is, perhaps surprisingly, provided by the CIA's
own website where a number of redacted historical documents have been published. Presumably, they
are documents first revealed under the Freedom of Information Act. A few however are copies of news
articles once available to the public but now archived by the CIA which has blacked-out portions
of the articles.
The Bloody Reality
One "sanitized" article - approved for release in 2011 - is a partially redacted New Times article
of Aug. 22, 1975, by Michael Drosnin. The article recounts a story of a US Army counterintelligence
officer "who directed a small part of a secret war aimed not at the enemy's soldiers but at its civilian
leaders." He describes how a CIA-directed Phoenix operative dumped a bag of "eleven bloody ears"
as proof of six people killed.
The officer, who recalled this incident in 1971, said, "It made me sick. I couldn't go on with
what I was doing in Vietnam. . . . It was an assassination campaign . . . my job was to identify
and eliminate VCI, the Viet Cong 'infrastructure' – the communist's shadow government. I worked directly
with two Vietnamese units, very tough guys who didn't wear uniforms . . . In the beginning they brought
back about 10 percent alive. By the end they had stopped taking prisoners.
"How many VC they got I don't know. I saw a hell of a lot of dead bodies. We'd put a tag on saying
VCI, but no one really knew – it was just some native in black pajamas with 16 bullet holes."
This led to an investigation by New Times in a day when there were still "investigative reporters,"
and not the government sycophants of today. Based on firsthand accounts, their investigation concluded
that Operation Phoenix was the "only systematized kidnapping, torture and assassination program ever
sponsored by the United States government. . . . Its victims were noncombatants." At least 40,000
were murdered, with "only" about 8,000 supposed Viet Cong political cadres targeted for execution,
with the rest civilians (including women and children) killed and "later conveniently labeled VCI.
Hundreds of thousands were jailed without trial, often after sadistic abuse." The article notes that
Phoenix was conceived, financed, and directed by the Central Intelligence Agency, as Mr. Valentine
writes.
A second article archived by the CIA was by the Christian Science Monitor, dated Jan. 5, 1971,
describing how the Saigon government was "taking steps that could help eliminate one of the most
glaring abuses of its controversial Phoenix program, which is aimed against the Viet Cong political
and administrative apparatus." Note how the Monitor shifted blame away from the CIA and onto the
South Vietnamese government.
But the article noted that one of the most persistent criticisms of Phoenix was that it resulted
"in the arrest and imprisonment of many innocent civilians." These were called "Class C Communist
offenders," some of whom may actually have been forced to commit such "belligerent acts" as digging
trenches or carrying rice. It was those alleged as the "hard core, full-time cadre" who were deemed
to make up the "shadow government" designated as Class A and B Viet Cong.
Yet "security committees" throughout South Vietnam, under the direction of the CIA, sentenced
at least 10,000 "Class C civilians" to prison each year, far more than Class A and B combined. The
article stated, "Thousands of these prisoners are never brought to court trial, and thousands of
other have never been sentenced." The latter statement would mean they were just held in "indefinite
detention," like the prisoners held at Guantanamo and other US detention centers with high levels
of CIA involvement.
Not surprisingly to someone not affiliated with the CIA, the article found as well that "Individual
case histories indicate that many who have gone to prison as active supporters of neither the government
nor the Viet Cong come out as active backers of the Viet Cong and with an implacable hatred of the
government." In other words, the CIA and the COIN enthusiasts are achieving the same results today
with the prisons they set up in Iraq and Afghanistan.
CIA Crimes
Valentine broadly covers the illegalities of the CIA over the years, including its well-documented
role in facilitating the drug trade over the years. But, in this reviewer's opinion, his most valuable
contribution is his description of the CIA's participation going back at least to the Vietnam War
in the treatment of what the US government today calls "unlawful combatants."
"Unlawful combatants" is a descriptive term made up by the Bush administration to remove people
whom US officials alleged were "terrorists" from the legal protections of the Geneva Conventions
and Human Rights Law and thus to justify their capture or killing in the so-called "Global War on
Terror." Since the US government deems them "unlawful" – because they do not belong to an organized
military structure and do not wear insignia – they are denied the "privilege" of belligerency that
applies to traditional soldiers. But – unless they take a "direct part in hostilities" – they would
still maintain their civilian status under the law of war and thus not lose the legal protection
due to civilians even if they exhibit sympathy or support to one side in a conflict.
Ironically, by the Bush administration's broad definition of "unlawful combatants," CIA officers
and their support structure also would fit the category. But the American public is generally forgiving
of its own war criminals though most self-righteous and hypocritical in judging foreign war criminals.
But perhaps given sufficient evidence, the American public could begin to see both the immorality
of this behavior and its counterproductive consequences.
This is not to condemn all CIA officers, some of whom acted in good faith that they were actually
defending the United States by acquiring information on a professed enemy in the tradition of Nathan
Hale. But it is to harshly condemn those CIA officials and officers who betrayed the United States
by subverting its Constitution, including waging secret wars against foreign countries without a
declaration of war by Congress. And it decidedly condemns the CIA war criminals who acted as a law
unto themselves in the torture and murder of foreign nationals, as Valentine's book describes.
Talleyrand is credited with saying, "They have learned nothing and forgotten nothing." Reportedly,
that was borrowed from a 1796 letter by a French naval officer, which stated, in the original language:
Personne n'est corrigé; personne n'a su ni rien oublier ni rien appendre. In English: "Nobody has
been corrected; no one has known to forget, nor yet to learn anything." That sums up the CIA leadership
entirely.
Douglas Valentine's book is a thorough documentation of that fact and it is essential reading
for all Americans if we are to have any hope for salvaging a remnant of representative government.
Todd E. Pierce retired as a Major in the US Army Judge Advocate General (JAG) Corps in November
2012. His most recent assignment was defense counsel in the Office of Chief Defense Counsel, Office
of Military Commissions. This originally appeared at
ConsortiumNews.com .
Ukraine is now debt slave. Debt slave is not an independent country. No way. It is a
neo-colony.
Notable quotes:
"... The scale of de-industrialization and of de-modernization Ukraine achieved in short 26 years since the collapse of the Soviet Union is nothing short of mind-boggling and unprecedented. ..."
Why Ukrainians of course, it's their country after all.
" it's their country after all."
Their country?
Ukraine had ceased to exist as an independent country in 2014, with arrival
of Nuland (ziocon) and Brennan (the CIA). Hence the spectacular appointments of
Misha Saakishvilli (wanted in his native Georgia), Natali Yaresko (an American
felon), Pravyj sector (local neo-nazi), and finally, Groysman, a Jewish
entrepreneur and current prime minister of Ukraine. Jews make 0.4% of Ukrainian
population:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jewish-population-of-the-world
"While Putin was basking in the glory of the 2014 winter Olympics at Sochi,
the entire apparatus of Imperial Washington - the CIA, the National Endowment
for Democracy, the State Department and a long string of Washington funded NGOs
- was on the ground in Kiev assisting the putsch that overthrew Ukraine's
constitutionally elected President and Russian ally.
From there, the Ukrainian civil war and partition of Crimea inexorably
followed, as did the escalating campaign against Russia and its leader.
So as it turned out, the War Party could not have planned a better outcome -
especially after Russia moved to protect its legitimate interests in its own
backyard resulting from the Washington-instigated civil war in Ukraine. That
included protecting its 200-year old naval base at Sevastopol in Crimea."
Moreover, the Ukrainian territory is the result of Soviet annexations of
Rumanian, Polish, and Hungarian territories; without the generous provisions by
the USSR, Ukraine would be a puny patch of land:
http://ukrmap.su/en-uh10/273.html
Get it, boys and girls? Everyone owes it to Ukraine to "put her on her feet".
Russia owes her gas transit, buying everything Ukraine (less and less)
produces. And, of course, Ukraine's main idea about Europe, as even her former
President still thinks so, is to get to EU, get a truck load of free money (aka
investments) and start living as European upper middle class. I am not
exaggerating. Of course, the fact that Ukraine became what it became by 1990
was largely thanks to the Soviet economic system somehow got lost on such
people as Kuchma, not to speak of very many average Ukrainians.
The scale of de-industrialization and of de-modernization Ukraine
achieved in short 26 years since the collapse of the Soviet Union is nothing
short of mind-boggling and unprecedented.
Worth reviewing if you haven't seen it . It's dumbfounding how some Ukrainians today lionize
the Nazi vermin who murdered their ancestors The woman. in the cover photo I wonder who she mourns .
Good article, and good to keep the numbers in perspective:
6,000,000 Ukrainians fought in the ranks of the Red Army against Nazi Germany.
A piddly 100,000 Ukrainian UPA fighters fought in the ranks of Nazi Germany against the
Soviet Union.
Everything will come out in the wash. Once Ukraine is reunited with Russia, it will be the
6 million who are honored; and the much smaller number (100K) will be cast aside with scorn as
the vicious traitors that they were.
"... Given the stakes involved in the Russia-gate investigation – now including a possible impeachment battle over removing the President of the United States – wouldn't it seem logical for the FBI to insist on its own forensics for this fundamental predicate of the case? Or could Comey's hesitancy to demand access to the DNC's computers be explained by a fear that FBI technicians not fully briefed on CIA/NSA/FBI Deep State programs might uncover a lot more than he wanted? ..."
"... "In the case of the DNC, and, I believe, the DCCC, but I'm sure the DNC, we did not have access to the devices themselves. We got relevant forensic information from a private party, a high-class entity, that had done the work. But we didn't get direct access." ..."
"... "Isn't content an important part of the forensics from a counterintelligence standpoint?" ..."
"... "It is, although what was briefed to me by my folks – the people who were my folks at the time is that they had gotten the information from the private party that they needed to understand the intrusion by the spring of 2016." ..."
"... Burr demurred on asking Comey to explain what amounts to gross misfeasance, if not worse. Perhaps, NBC could arrange for Megyn Kelly to interview Burr to ask if he has a clue as to what Putin might have been referring to when he noted, "There may be hackers, by the way, in the United States who very craftily and professionally passed the buck to Russia." ..."
"... Given the congressional intelligence "oversight" committees' obsequiousness and repeated "high esteem" for the "intelligence community," there seems an even chance that – no doubt because of an oversight – the CIA/FBI/NSA deep-stage troika failed to brief the Senate "oversight committee" chairman on WikiLeaks "Vault 7" disclosures – even when WikiLeaks publishes original CIA documents. ..."
Given the stakes involved in the Russia-gate investigation – now including a possible impeachment battle over removing the
President of the United States – wouldn't it seem logical for the FBI to insist on its own forensics for this fundamental predicate
of the case? Or could Comey's hesitancy to demand access to the DNC's computers be explained by a fear that FBI technicians not fully
briefed on CIA/NSA/FBI Deep State programs might uncover a lot more than he wanted?
Comey was asked again about this curious oversight on June 8 by Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Richard Burr:
BURR: "And the FBI, in this case, unlike other cases that you might investigate – did you ever have access to the actual hardware
that was hacked? Or did you have to rely on a third party to provide you the data that they had collected?"
COMEY:"In the case of the DNC, and, I believe, the DCCC, but I'm sure the DNC, we did not have access to the devices themselves.
We got relevant forensic information from a private party, a high-class entity, that had done the work. But we didn't get direct
access."
BURR: "But no content?"
COMEY: "Correct."
BURR:"Isn't content an important part of the forensics from a counterintelligence standpoint?"
COMEY:"It is, although what was briefed to me by my folks – the people who were my folks at the time is that they had
gotten the information from the private party that they needed to understand the intrusion by the spring of 2016."
Burr demurred on asking Comey to explain what amounts to gross misfeasance, if not worse. Perhaps, NBC could arrange for Megyn
Kelly to interview Burr to ask if he has a clue as to what Putin might have been referring to when he noted, "There may be hackers,
by the way, in the United States who very craftily and professionally passed the buck to Russia."
Given the congressional intelligence "oversight" committees' obsequiousness and repeated "high esteem" for the "intelligence
community," there seems an even chance that – no doubt because of an oversight – the CIA/FBI/NSA deep-stage troika failed to brief
the Senate "oversight committee" chairman on WikiLeaks "Vault 7" disclosures – even when WikiLeaks publishes original CIA documents.
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington.
He was an Army Infantry/Intelligence officer and CIA analyst for a total of 30 years and now servers on the Steering Group of Veteran
Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). Reprinted with permission from
Consortium News .
"... Hillary is a wild-eyed interventionist. She gave us the Libyan fiasco, and had Obama been fool enough to listen to her again, we would now be at war on the ground in Syria. ..."
"... The establishment refuses to see the limits of American power, and it also refuses to compel our military to focus on war against non-state opponents, or Fourth Generation war. The Pentagon pretends its future is war against other states. ..."
"... The political and foreign-policy establishments pretend the Pentagon knows how to win. They waltz together happily, unaware theirs is a Totentanz." ..."
"In the case of Hillary Clinton, not only does that mean more wasted money, it means more
wars, wars we will lose.
Hillary is a wild-eyed interventionist. She gave us the Libyan fiasco, and had Obama been
fool enough to listen to her again, we would now be at war on the ground in Syria.
The establishment refuses to see the limits of American power, and it also refuses to compel
our military to focus on war against non-state opponents, or Fourth Generation war. The Pentagon
pretends its future is war against other states.
The political and foreign-policy establishments pretend the Pentagon knows how to win. They
waltz together happily, unaware theirs is a Totentanz."
"... Everything about Comey is wrong. The fact that he felt the need to 'take notes' because the President asked for loyalty is fucking absurd. What sort of example did he make for fellow G men when he referred to his dealings with his commander in chief as being 'slightly cowardly'? The whole thing is rot, helping to fuel a bogus investigation spearheaded by a broken democratic party who have lost their fucking mind. ..."
"... He also touched upon the mercenary media's fake news about Trump, provided by bad sources, which was confirmed by Comey today. ..."
"... Don't forget it was McCain who took the 'pee' dossier that had been floating around DC which was so phoney even the media wouldn't touch - and told Comey to investigate. ..."
"... This is nothing less than a coordinated overthrow of the government by the deep state, media and uniparty ..."
"... So what do we need special counsel Mueller for in light of all this? Everyone knows the whole Russia collusion affair is politically motivated BS and deflection. ..."
"... Not to mention Comey handing out immunity deals like Christmas candy on Hillary's email investigation. Why would he do that? ..."
"... Comey took notes because he planned to blackmail Trump in the future just like J Edgar Hoover did when he ran the FBI. ..."
"... "Politicized" by the global central banks who own and operate virtually all world governments. I believe we need to keep the players very CLEAR in our minds. It's all of us; humanity, against the globalists who want us dead. Politicians, our institutions... all are aligned with the globalist psychopaths. It's that simple. ..."
"... Comey makes a memo, because that is the M.O. of the FBI. He fully expects gullible sheeple to believe any written statement by an FBI agent is truth, rather than a manipulating fake. ..."
"... Comey has admitted to a number of criminal acts ..."
"... Comey and his FBI partner should be legally charged by the Justice Department for releasing his FBI Memo to NY Times. His FBI partner should be fired and charged. They had no authority to release private government information and breach confidentiality with the president of the United States. The memo proved nothing and meant nothing but releasing it by a fired employee and FBI partner is a breach to FBI and the office of the president of the USA. ..."
"... Not one coward on that Senate committee had the balls to ask about the Seth Rich investigation........disappointing ..."
"... Comey also stated as 100% undisputed fact that Russia had "meddled" with the election. Again, no proof was cited, yet not a single Republican asked for such proof, nor has Trump managed to articulate a similar request. This is somewhat disturbing. ..."
"... The threat of being "Clintoned" is a powerful force. ..."
There will come a day when the city square will be packed with gibbets filled with swinging heads
of traitorous bastard commies -- most readily found in leftshit cities. The degeneracy must end.
Today's testimony by Comey was a farce, a transparent attempt by a spent and bitter bureaucrat trying
to hurt a sitting President.
Everything about Comey is wrong. The fact that he felt the need to 'take notes' because the President
asked for loyalty is fucking absurd. What sort of example did he make for fellow G men when he referred
to his dealings with his commander in chief as being 'slightly cowardly'? The whole thing is rot,
helping to fuel a bogus investigation spearheaded by a broken democratic party who have lost their
fucking mind.
Tucker chimes in and reviews the day's events, pointing out the hypocrisy of Comey and his dealings
with AG Lynch, who asked for Comey to word the investigation of Hillary Clinton's email scandal as
a 'matter.' If that's not collusion and political pressure on the FBI, nothing is.
He also touched upon the mercenary media's fake news about Trump, provided by bad sources, which
was confirmed by Comey today.
After watching this political circus it is very clear that no one should be re-elected from
either party, with the single exception of Paul.
Looks like what we really need is a new political party that actually serves the public tax
payers, unfortunately it may take a major financial depression and its accompanying turmoil to
bring that about.
IMHO, the Comey hearing was John McCain's chance to redeem himself, and he blew it. I think
his idea to go after Comey's interactions with the Obama regime was a great idea, but he came
unprepared and unrehearsed. McCain had an opportunity to display leadership, but he failed to
lead.
Don't forget it was McCain who took the 'pee' dossier that had been floating around DC
which was so phoney even the media wouldn't touch - and told Comey to investigate.
It's time 81 year old McCain - last in his Naval Academy class - shuffled off to an assisted
living center in Arizona.
Comey created a memo because it's hard to leak to multiple sources at one time in person.
We're living history folks. This is nothing less than a coordinated overthrow of the government
by the deep state, media and uniparty dominated by leftojihadis. The Gang of 8 is composed
of 4 dimocrites and 4 rinos. The rinos had a duty to come forward and not only refute the lies
in the media but to reveal it all as a hoax. Only Nunes told President Trump what was going on
and he was forced to recuse himself from the intelligence committee investigation.
Even an atheist has to admit there's divine intervention at work here. Flawed though he admits
to be, Trump is being guided and protected by a force more powerful than the swamp.
So what do we need special counsel Mueller for in light of all this? Everyone knows the
whole Russia collusion affair is politically motivated BS and deflection.
But Mueller won't. He & Comey are besties of 25 year standing. All Mueller will do it find
no direct links between the Russians and Trump or his administration but justify Comey's investigation
by saying the Russians are bad, evil people who were trying to co-opt naive and inexperienced
Trump colleagues.
If they wanted an honest and truthful investigation they would not have selected a retired
swamp general.
It scares me that people actually believe this shit. I guess we are doomed considering how
many morons like PitBullsRule are lapping up the koolaid with their heads in the sand
Not to mention Comey handing out immunity deals like Christmas candy on Hillary's email
investigation. Why would he do that?
Comey's (limited hangout) strategy: Say a few things to look honest, so he could sell "the
Russians did it (hack)" - despite showing no evidence. Otherwise, there would be no need for a
Special Counsel and he knows Mueller will forment more troubles for Trump, perhaps for years.
Trump needs to end this Russian hack nonsense ASAP.
I'd like Loretta Lynch to show me where in the FBI handbook it explains the proper procedure
for conducting "matters".
They just make shit up to suit their needs. The Comey incident is another sad example of how
every branch of government and every agency has become politicized by both sides, to the point
they can no longer perform their intended function.
"Politicized" by the global central banks who own and operate virtually all world governments.
I believe we need to keep the players very CLEAR in our minds. It's all of us; humanity, against
the globalists who want us dead. Politicians, our institutions... all are aligned with the globalist
psychopaths. It's that simple.
"how every branch of government and every agency has become politicized by both sides, to the
point they can no longer perform their intended function" and should therefore be disbanded. Fixed
it for you.
Comey makes a memo, because that is the M.O. of the FBI. He fully expects gullible sheeple
to believe any written statement by an FBI agent is truth, rather than a manipulating fake. Trump's
possible recording constrained Comey's M.O..
Nobody will do anything about any of this. Time to shitcan the lot of them. I hope not a single
doofus up for re-election goes back to D.C. in '18.
It's hard to know which to slap first, those that break the law out in the open--or those that
turn a blind eye to the flagrant lawlessness of the trangressors.
Comey has admitted to a number of criminal acts I think.
He admitted leaking FBI information to the media
He admitted leaking FBI information to the media in order to have an effect on the country
(ie a counsel)
He admitted he was concerned enough with his meeting with Trump to make a memo of it - instead
of going to the DOJ as required by law
He admitted he was concerned with Lynch telling him to not use the word investigation (which
was the truth) and agreeing to it, instead of resigning or reporting it.
He demonstrates that he leaked information to the media, but not the truth that Trump was not
under investigation - thus showing politcal bias in his job.
There are a few crimes there that I gather the DOJ has no option but to prosecute, how can
it not? Since they are also prosecuting Winner for the exact same thing?
Feral Bureau of Weasels Head Weasel James Comey said that he behaved 'slightly cowardly'. Well,
that is the sort of behavior one expects from a Weasel.
[No insults intended to the small mammals grouped together in the weasel family.]
Great review Tucker Carlson! Comey is a disgruntled loser like Killary. Comey never followed
up on Seth Rich murder, a more serious matter than playing stupid politics.
Comey and his FBI partner should be legally charged by the Justice Department for releasing
his FBI Memo to NY Times. His FBI partner should be fired and charged. They had no authority to
release private government information and breach confidentiality with the president of the United
States. The memo proved nothing and meant nothing but releasing it by a fired employee and FBI
partner is a breach to FBI and the office of the president of the USA.
Feral Bureau of Weasels Head Weasel James Comey was actively covering up for the murderers
who murdered Seth Rich and the people who hired them. He should be shitting whole goats knowing
that Attorney General Sessions seized everything in his office while he was in LACALIFUSA. Comey
will probably be joining Obama shortly wherever it is that he is hanging out overseas.
Comey also stated as 100% undisputed fact that Russia had "meddled" with the election.
Again, no proof was cited, yet not a single Republican asked for such proof, nor has Trump managed
to articulate a similar request. This is somewhat disturbing.
"... This would have been a perfect opportunity for the United States to step into the breach and offer a helping hand towards conflict resolution, which is exactly what Secretary of State Rex Tillerson offered on Monday during a press conference. Regrettably, President Donald Trump's tweets congratulating the Gulf Arabs for isolating their Qatari neighbor-while taking credit for it-has likely closed the door on any leading mediation role for Washington. ..."
"... Trump failed to recognize that Washington had an opening to show its Arab partners that the United States-under a Trump administration-values diplomacy just as much military force. ..."
The measures that the Saudis and company are taking today are much more significant. In addition
to calling their diplomats home, the anti-Qatar reprisals include an order for Saudis, Bahraini and
Emirati citizens to leave Qatar in fourteen days, and for Qatari citizens to go back to their own
country over the same time period. Air, sea and land routes into the Qatari peninsula are blocked,
which means that the food imports that Doha relies on to feed its population will need to rely on
other seaports to unload their product. Qatar Airways, one of the region's major carriers,
is banned from using Gulf Arab airspace, causing multiple delays and forcing the airline to fly
more circuitous paths.
This would have been a perfect opportunity for the United States to step into the breach and offer
a helping hand towards conflict resolution, which is exactly what Secretary of State Rex Tillerson
offered on Monday during a press conference. Regrettably, President Donald Trump's
tweets
congratulating the Gulf Arabs for isolating their Qatari neighbor-while taking credit for it-has
likely closed the door on any leading mediation role for Washington. It's tough to act as a mediating
party between two sides when the mediator is seen as taking sides. With a single tweet, Trump managed
to yet again undercut his own Secretary of State.
We could do the easy thing and bash Trump incessantly over yet one more unwise Twitter outburst.
And it would be justified: Trump failed to recognize that Washington had an opening to show its Arab
partners that the United States-under a Trump administration-values diplomacy just as much military
force. It would also reassure European governments that have been skittish over the last four months.
Real GDP -14%
Nominal GDP ($) -200%
Inflation +101%
Index of industrial production -24.5%
1ndex of Agroproduction + 161%
1ndex of production + 124%
Gross external debt to GDP ratio +44%
Export of goods and services -180%
The volume of direct investment -400%
Capital investment (in $) -250%
Total private (in $) -56%
Wholesale volume (in $) -230%
Retail volumes (in $) -230%
Currency transferred from foreign countries -36%
Unemployment + 2%
Number of payers of taxes -10%
Goods transportation : -17.6%
Passenger transportation -27%
Gold and other noble metals reserves -25%
Currency reserves -360%
Devaluation of hryvna 320%
"... Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the other Gulf monarchies, organised in the so called Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) , have a long history of backing the spread of Sunni Islamist ideology outside the region. Not just in Britain, but, for example, even in places such as rural Nigeria, where I've seen Gulf oil money used to incentivise Christians to convert, fuelling the religious conflict there. ..."
"... Saudi Arabia is meanwhile prosecuting a war on Iranian-backed rebels in Yemen, using more than £3bn worth of British kit sold to it since the bombing campaign began. In return, it has lavished gifts on Theresa May's ministers: Philip Hammond got a watch worth £1,950 when he visited in 2015 . In turn, Tory advisers are picking up lucrative consultancy work with the Saudi government. ..."
"... However, Salman has also escalated the Yemen war and escalated tensions with Iran – most notably by executing a prominent Shia cleric and 46 other opponents last year. ..."
This clash between Britain's allies in the so-called war on terror matters. If Corbyn is prime
minister on Friday, there will be a break with the appeasement of jihadi-funding autocrats
Well, like almost everything in the region, it is about the strategic duplicity of the West, exacerbated
by the childlike idiocy of the US president. Does it matter for Brits – other than those stuck at
airports in the Gulf, or policy wonks obsessed with Middle Eastern conflicts?
It matters on every street in Britain.
Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the other Gulf monarchies, organised in the so called
Gulf Cooperation
Council (GCC) , have a long history of backing the spread of Sunni Islamist ideology outside
the region. Not just in Britain, but, for example, even in places such as rural Nigeria, where I've
seen Gulf oil money used to incentivise Christians to convert, fuelling the religious conflict there.
But the Qataris have always punched above their weight in regional affairs, and displayed a more
intelligent grasp on the strategic, demographic and cultural changes sweeping the Arab world.
It was the Qataris who set up Al Jazeera, as a counterweight to the reactionary state media across
the middle east, and to challenge the US media's right to set the global narrative about the Islamic
world.
The issue torturing the Saudi monarchy is Iran. Obama made peace with Iran in 2015, in the face
of Saudi and Israeli opposition.
Qatar is diplomatically closer
to Iran. It has also supported (outside Qatar) the spread of political Islam – that is, of parties
prepared to operate within nominally democratic institutions.
The Saudis' strategic aim, by contrast, is to end the peace deal with Iran and to stifle the emergence
of political Islam full stop.
Last month, Donald Trump took himself to Riyadh to -
participate in a sword dance and glad hand the Saudi royals. And that is where the trouble escalated.
Qatar's ruler had been reported by his own state media as warning against the escalating confrontation
with Iran: "Iran represents a regional and Islamic power that cannot be ignored and it is unwise
to face up against it," said a TV tickertape quoting the Emir.
But Trump's visit poured ethanol on to the simmering conflict. Few observers see today's move
as anything other than the Saudis acting with state department backing. One Iranian official
tweeted the spat was "the
prelimary result of the sword dance".
The problem remains Saudi culpability – past and present – for funding islamist terrorism. After
September 11, the Saudi monarchy did begin to crack down on islamist terrorism domestically, criminalising
terrorist finance. But, as
a US cable released
by Wikileaks shows , even as late as 2009, that "donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant
source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide".
Since the coronation of King Salman in January 2015, there has been a programme of economic modernisation
and political reforms the monarchy has tried to sell as liberalisation.
However, Salman has also escalated the Yemen war and escalated tensions with Iran – most notably
by
executing a prominent Shia cleric and 46 other opponents last year.
In Britain, when the Lib Dems in the Coalition supported airstrikes against Isis, the price they
extracted was for Cameron to launch an inquiry into foreign funding of terrorism.
Eighteen months on, it remains suppressed . As with the infamous Serious Fraud Office
investigation into corruption at
BAE , it is being buried because it would expose the past misdemeanours of the the Saudis.
We do not know why Britain has suddenly become the target for a jihadi terror surge: five foiled
attempts and three gruesomely successful ones in 70 days.
One possible explanation is that, with the increased tempo of fighting in Mosul and towards Raqqa,
it is becoming clear to the thousands of jihadi fantasists sitting in bedrooms across Europe, that
their "caliphate" will soon be over.
If so, the question arises: a) what will replace it on the ground and b) how to deal with the
survivors as they fan out to do damage here?
In both cases, it is vital that the Gulf monarchies funding the Syrian resistance are on board
with the solution. And, as of today, two of the key players are waging economic war and a bitter
rhetorical fight with each other.
As for the wider world, it is Iran that emerges as the tactical victor in today's spat. Trump
flew to Riyadh and the result was air transport chaos across the Gulf. Iran had an election and the
moderates won.
But there is good news. If Jeremy Corbyn is prime minister on Friday, Britain's game of thrones
in the Gulf will end. The
foreign policy he outlined at Chatham House represents a complete break with the appeasement
of terror-funding Saudi autocrats. The strategic defence review he has promised would unlikely keep
funding the Royal Navy base in Bahrain.
Britain cannot solve the diplomatic crisis in the Gulf. But it can stop making it worse. Last
December, Boris Johnson inadvertently had a go. He named the Yemen conflict as a proxy war; accusing
both the Saudis and Iran of "puppeteering". He was quickly slapped down.
Only a Labour government will stop appeasing the Saudi monarchy and reset the relationship to
match Britain's strategic interest – not the interest of Britain's arms dealers and PR consultants.
"... Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the other Gulf monarchies, organised in the so called Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) , have a long history of backing the spread of Sunni Islamist ideology outside the region. Not just in Britain, but, for example, even in places such as rural Nigeria, where I've seen Gulf oil money used to incentivise Christians to convert, fuelling the religious conflict there. ..."
"... Saudi Arabia is meanwhile prosecuting a war on Iranian-backed rebels in Yemen, using more than £3bn worth of British kit sold to it since the bombing campaign began. In return, it has lavished gifts on Theresa May's ministers: Philip Hammond got a watch worth £1,950 when he visited in 2015 . In turn, Tory advisers are picking up lucrative consultancy work with the Saudi government. ..."
"... However, Salman has also escalated the Yemen war and escalated tensions with Iran – most notably by executing a prominent Shia cleric and 46 other opponents last year. ..."
This clash between Britain's allies in the so-called war on terror matters. If Corbyn is prime
minister on Friday, there will be a break with the appeasement of jihadi-funding autocrats
Well, like almost everything in the region, it is about the strategic duplicity of the West, exacerbated
by the childlike idiocy of the US president. Does it matter for Brits – other than those stuck at
airports in the Gulf, or policy wonks obsessed with Middle Eastern conflicts?
It matters on every street in Britain.
Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the other Gulf monarchies, organised in the so called
Gulf Cooperation
Council (GCC) , have a long history of backing the spread of Sunni Islamist ideology outside
the region. Not just in Britain, but, for example, even in places such as rural Nigeria, where I've
seen Gulf oil money used to incentivise Christians to convert, fuelling the religious conflict there.
But the Qataris have always punched above their weight in regional affairs, and displayed a more
intelligent grasp on the strategic, demographic and cultural changes sweeping the Arab world.
It was the Qataris who set up Al Jazeera, as a counterweight to the reactionary state media across
the middle east, and to challenge the US media's right to set the global narrative about the Islamic
world.
The issue torturing the Saudi monarchy is Iran. Obama made peace with Iran in 2015, in the face
of Saudi and Israeli opposition.
Qatar is diplomatically closer
to Iran. It has also supported (outside Qatar) the spread of political Islam – that is, of parties
prepared to operate within nominally democratic institutions.
The Saudis' strategic aim, by contrast, is to end the peace deal with Iran and to stifle the emergence
of political Islam full stop.
Last month, Donald Trump took himself to Riyadh to -
participate in a sword dance and glad hand the Saudi royals. And that is where the trouble escalated.
Qatar's ruler had been reported by his own state media as warning against the escalating confrontation
with Iran: "Iran represents a regional and Islamic power that cannot be ignored and it is unwise
to face up against it," said a TV tickertape quoting the Emir.
But Trump's visit poured ethanol on to the simmering conflict. Few observers see today's move
as anything other than the Saudis acting with state department backing. One Iranian official
tweeted the spat was "the
prelimary result of the sword dance".
The problem remains Saudi culpability – past and present – for funding islamist terrorism. After
September 11, the Saudi monarchy did begin to crack down on islamist terrorism domestically, criminalising
terrorist finance. But, as
a US cable released
by Wikileaks shows , even as late as 2009, that "donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant
source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide".
Since the coronation of King Salman in January 2015, there has been a programme of economic modernisation
and political reforms the monarchy has tried to sell as liberalisation.
However, Salman has also escalated the Yemen war and escalated tensions with Iran – most notably
by
executing a prominent Shia cleric and 46 other opponents last year.
In Britain, when the Lib Dems in the Coalition supported airstrikes against Isis, the price they
extracted was for Cameron to launch an inquiry into foreign funding of terrorism.
Eighteen months on, it remains suppressed . As with the infamous Serious Fraud Office
investigation into corruption at
BAE , it is being buried because it would expose the past misdemeanours of the the Saudis.
We do not know why Britain has suddenly become the target for a jihadi terror surge: five foiled
attempts and three gruesomely successful ones in 70 days.
One possible explanation is that, with the increased tempo of fighting in Mosul and towards Raqqa,
it is becoming clear to the thousands of jihadi fantasists sitting in bedrooms across Europe, that
their "caliphate" will soon be over.
If so, the question arises: a) what will replace it on the ground and b) how to deal with the
survivors as they fan out to do damage here?
In both cases, it is vital that the Gulf monarchies funding the Syrian resistance are on board
with the solution. And, as of today, two of the key players are waging economic war and a bitter
rhetorical fight with each other.
As for the wider world, it is Iran that emerges as the tactical victor in today's spat. Trump
flew to Riyadh and the result was air transport chaos across the Gulf. Iran had an election and the
moderates won.
But there is good news. If Jeremy Corbyn is prime minister on Friday, Britain's game of thrones
in the Gulf will end. The
foreign policy he outlined at Chatham House represents a complete break with the appeasement
of terror-funding Saudi autocrats. The strategic defence review he has promised would unlikely keep
funding the Royal Navy base in Bahrain.
Britain cannot solve the diplomatic crisis in the Gulf. But it can stop making it worse. Last
December, Boris Johnson inadvertently had a go. He named the Yemen conflict as a proxy war; accusing
both the Saudis and Iran of "puppeteering". He was quickly slapped down.
Only a Labour government will stop appeasing the Saudi monarchy and reset the relationship to
match Britain's strategic interest – not the interest of Britain's arms dealers and PR consultants.
"... Yet, while the neocons and their liberal allies had "won" again, what did that winning mean for the people of Ukraine? Their country, already teetering on the status of failed state, slid into deeper economic chaos and civil war. With neo-Nazis and other extremists appointed to key national security positions, the new regime began lashing out at ethnic Russians who were resisting Yanukovych's ouster. ..."
"... Ukraine's eastern provinces also sought secession, prompting military clashes that inflicted some of the worst bloodshed seen on the European continent in decades. Thousands died and millions fled. ..."
"... Of course, the standard line in the U.S. media was that it was all Putin's fault, even as the Kiev regime shelled eastern cities and unleashed brutal neo-Nazi militias to engage in street fighting, the first time storm troopers emblazoned with Nazi insignias had been deployed in Europe since World War II. Yet, buoyed by how easily the anti-Putin propaganda had prevailed, some neocons even began fantasizing about "regime change" in Moscow. ..."
"... Yet, if you were to step back for a minute and look at the history of the past 35 years from the Afghan covert op through the Iraq War and the U.S. interventions in Libya, Syria, Ukraine and elsewhere what you would see is the neocons and their liberal sidekicks behaving like the Sorcerer's Apprentice, stirring up troubles that soon spun out of control. ..."
"... We're supposed to continue the neocon "tough-guy-ism" - by repressing Muslims in the West, by ousting Assad in Syria, by crushing the ethnic Russian resistance in Ukraine, by destabilizing Russia, and by forsaking negotiations with Iran over its nuclear facilities in favor of more sanctions and maybe more bombing. All somehow in the name of "democracy" and "human rights" and "security." ..."
"... no one bothers to study the bitter history of a place like Ukraine, and where no one worries about spreading turmoil to nuclear-armed Russia. ..."
"... Yet, this neocon madness this "anti-realism" has been playing out in the real world on a grand scale, destroying real lives and endangering the real future of the planet. ..."
Alarmed about this "realist" Obama-Putin collaboration, the "anti-realists" turned to
demonizing the Russian president and driving a wedge between him and Obama. The place to splinter
that relationship turned out to be Ukraine, where neocon Assistant Secretary of State Nuland was
perfectly positioned to push for the ouster of elected pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych.
As Nuland noted in one speech, the U.S. government had invested $5 billion in the "European
aspirations" of the western Ukrainians, including funding for political activists, journalists
and various business groups. The time to collect on that investment came in February 2014 when
violent demonstrations in Kiev, with well-organized neo-Nazi militias supplying the muscle, drove
Yanukovych from power.[See Consortiumnews.com's "
Neocons'
Ukraine-Syria-Iran Gambit.
"]
The Ukraine coup played out along another historic fault line, between European-oriented
western Ukraine, where Adolf Hitler's SS had gained significant support during World War II, and
eastern Ukraine with its ethnic Russian population and close business ties to Russia.
After the U.S. State Department rushed to embrace the coup regime as "legitimate" and as the
U.S. media dished out anti-Yanukvych propaganda, such as citing a sauna in his home, Obama tagged
along, falling into the neocon trap, again. U.S.-Russian relations spiraled into a hostility not
seen since the Cold War. [See Consortiumnews.com's "
Obama's
True Foreign Policy Weakness
."]
Yet, while the neocons and their liberal allies
had "won"
again, what did that winning mean for the people of Ukraine? Their country, already
teetering on the status of failed state, slid into deeper economic chaos and civil war. With
neo-Nazis and other extremists appointed to key national security positions, the new regime began
lashing out at ethnic Russians who were resisting Yanukovych's ouster.
Crimea voted overwhelmingly to secede from Ukraine and rejoin Russia, a move that Western
government's denounced as an illegal "annexation" and the major U.S. media termed an "invasion,"
although the Russian troops involved were already stationed in Crimea under an agreement to
maintain the Russian naval base at Sevastopol.
Ukraine's eastern provinces also sought secession, prompting military clashes that
inflicted some of the worst bloodshed seen on the European continent in decades. Thousands died
and millions fled.
Of course, the standard line in the U.S. media was that it was all Putin's fault, even as
the Kiev regime shelled eastern cities and
unleashed brutal neo-Nazi militias
to engage in street fighting, the first time storm
troopers emblazoned with Nazi insignias had been deployed in Europe since World War II. Yet,
buoyed by how easily the anti-Putin propaganda had prevailed, some neocons even began fantasizing
about "regime change" in Moscow.
Yet, if you were to step back for a minute and look at the history of the past 35 years
from the Afghan covert op through the Iraq War and the U.S. interventions in Libya, Syria,
Ukraine and elsewhere what you would see is the neocons and their liberal sidekicks behaving like
the Sorcerer's Apprentice, stirring up troubles that soon spun out of control.
Just look at the chaos that has been unleashed by these reckless neocon and liberal
interventionist policies from encouraging the rise of Islamic fundamentalism and facilitating the
formation of al-Qaeda via the covert war in Afghanistan, from creating a hotbed for attracting
and training jihadists during the Iraq War, from undermining regimes in Libya and Syria that for
all their faults were trying to contain this spread of terrorism, and from provoking a new Cold
War in Ukraine that risks bringing nuclear weapons into play in a showdown with Russia.
The latest outgrowth of all this trouble was the terror attack in Paris this month, with some
European hotheads now calling for another neocon favorite idea, "a war of civilizations," pitting
Christian societies against Islam in some modern version of the actual Crusades.
Yes, I know we're not supposed to talk about root causes of this chaos "at a time like this,"
and we are surely not supposed to blame the neocons and their liberal interventionist chums.
Instead, we're supposed to escalate the conflicts and the chaos.
We're supposed to continue the neocon "tough-guy-ism" - by repressing Muslims in the West,
by ousting Assad in Syria, by crushing the ethnic Russian resistance in Ukraine, by destabilizing
Russia, and by forsaking negotiations with Iran over its nuclear facilities in favor of more
sanctions and maybe more bombing. All somehow in the name of "democracy" and "human rights" and
"security."
As we gaze out upon this mad house built by the neocons, we are witnessing on a grand scale
the old adage about the inmates running the asylum, except that this asylum possesses the world's
most sophisticated weapons including a massive nuclear arsenal.
What the neocons have constructed through their skilled propaganda isa grim wonderland where
no one foresees the dangers of encouraging Islamist fundamentalism as a geopolitical ploy, where
no one takes heed of the historic hatreds of Sunni and Shiite, where no one suspects that the
U.S. military slaughtering thousands upon thousands of Muslims might provoke a backlash, where no
one thinks about the consequences of overthrowing regimes in unstable regions, where
no one
bothers to study the bitter history of a place like Ukraine, and where no one worries about
spreading turmoil to nuclear-armed Russia.
Yet, this neocon madness this "anti-realism" has been playing out in the real world on a
grand scale, destroying real lives and endangering the real future of the planet.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The
Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book,
America's Stolen Narrative,
either in
print
here
or as an e-book (from
Amazon
and
barnesandnoble.com
). 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
.
"... Critical questions – such as why the security service MI5 maintained terrorist "assets" in Manchester and why the government did not warn the public of the threat in their midst – remain unanswered, deflected by the promise of an internal "review". ..."
"... The alleged suicide bomber, Salman Abedi (image on the right), was part of an extremist group, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, that thrived in Manchester and was cultivated and used by MI5 for more than 20 years. ..."
"... The Manchester atrocity lifts the rock of British foreign policy to reveal its Faustian alliance with extreme Islam, especially the sect known as Wahhabism or Salafism, whose principal custodian and banker is the oil kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Britain's biggest weapons customer. ..."
"... This imperial marriage reaches back to the Second World War and the early days of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. The aim of British policy was to stop pan-Arabism: Arab states developing a modern secularism, asserting their independence from the imperial west and controlling their resources. The creation of a rapacious Israel was meant to expedite this. Pan-Arabism has since been crushed; the goal now is division and conquest. ..."
"... The overthrow of Gaddafi, who controlled Africa's largest oil reserves, had been long been planned in Washington and London. According to French intelligence, the LIFG made several assassination attempts on Gadaffi in the 1990s – bank-rolled by British intelligence. In March 2011, France, Britain and the US seized the opportunity of a "humanitarian intervention" and attacked Libya. They were joined by Nato under cover of a UN resolution to "protect civilians". ..."
"... In fact, Obama was a leading actor in the "shit show", urged on by his warmongering Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton , and a media accusing Gaddafi of planning "genocide" against his own people. ..."
"... Why was Abedi able to travel freely through Europe to Libya and back to Manchester only days before he committed his terrible crime? Was Theresa May told by MI5 that the FBI had tracked him as part of an Islamic cell planning to attack a "political target" in Britain? ..."
"... In the current election campaign, the Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has made a guarded reference to a "war on terror that has failed". As he knows, it was never a war on terror but a war of conquest and subjugation. Palestine. Afghanistan. Iraq. Libya. Syria. Iran is said to be next. Before there is another Manchester, who will have the courage to say that? ..."
The unsayable in Britain's general election campaign is this. The causes of the Manchester atrocity,
in which 22 mostly young people were murdered by a jihadist, are being suppressed to protect the
secrets of British foreign policy.
Critical questions – such as why the security service MI5 maintained terrorist "assets" in
Manchester and why the government did not warn the public of the threat in their midst – remain unanswered,
deflected by the promise of an internal "review".
The alleged suicide bomber, Salman Abedi (image on the right), was part of an extremist group,
the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, that thrived in Manchester and was cultivated and used by MI5
for more than 20 years.
The LIFG is proscribed by Britain as a terrorist organisation which seeks a "hardline Islamic
state" in Libya and "is part of the wider global Islamist extremist movement, as inspired by al-Qaida".
The "smoking gun" is that when Theresa May was Home Secretary, LIFG jihadists were allowed to
travel unhindered across Europe and encouraged to engage in "battle": first to remove Mu'ammar Gadaffi
in Libya, then to join al-Qaida affiliated groups in Syria.
Last year, the FBI reportedly placed Abedi on a "terrorist watch list" and warned MI5 that his
group was looking for a "political target" in Britain. Why wasn't he apprehended and the network
around him prevented from planning and executing the atrocity on 22 May?
These questions arise because of an FBI leak that demolished the "lone wolf" spin in the wake
of the 22 May attack – thus, the panicky, uncharacteristic outrage directed at Washington from London
and Donald Trump 's apology.
The Manchester atrocity lifts the rock of British foreign policy to reveal its Faustian alliance
with extreme Islam, especially the sect known as Wahhabism or Salafism, whose principal custodian
and banker is the oil kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Britain's biggest weapons customer.
This imperial marriage reaches back to the Second World War and the early days of the Muslim
Brotherhood in Egypt. The aim of British policy was to stop pan-Arabism: Arab states developing a
modern secularism, asserting their independence from the imperial west and controlling their resources.
The creation of a rapacious Israel was meant to expedite this. Pan-Arabism has since been crushed;
the goal now is division and conquest.
In 2011, according to Middle East Eye , the LIFG in Manchester were known as the "Manchester
boys". Implacably opposed to Mu'ammar Gadaffi, they were considered high risk and a number were under
Home Office control orders – house arrest – when anti-Gadaffi demonstrations broke out in Libya,
a country forged from myriad tribal enmities.
Suddenly the control orders were lifted.
"I was allowed to go, no questions asked," said one LIFG member.
MI5 returned their passports and counter-terrorism police at Heathrow airport were told to let
them board their flights.
The overthrow of Gaddafi, who controlled Africa's largest oil reserves, had been long been
planned in Washington and London. According to French intelligence, the LIFG made several assassination
attempts on Gadaffi in the 1990s – bank-rolled by British intelligence. In March 2011, France, Britain
and the US seized the opportunity of a "humanitarian intervention" and attacked Libya. They were
joined by Nato under cover of a UN resolution to "protect civilians".
Last September, a House of Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee inquiry concluded that then
Prime Minister David Cameron had taken the country to war against Gaddafi on a series of "erroneous
assumptions" and that the attack "had led to the rise of Islamic State in North Africa". The Commons
committee quoted what it called Barack Obama's "pithy" description of Cameron's role in Libya as
a "shit show".
In fact, Obama was a leading actor in the "shit show", urged on by his warmongering Secretary
of State, Hillary Clinton , and a media accusing Gaddafi of planning "genocide" against his own people.
"We knew that if we waited one more day," said Obama, "Benghazi, a city the size of Charlotte,
could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience
of the world."
The massacre story was fabricated by Salafist militias facing defeat by Libyan government forces.
They told Reuters there would be
"a real bloodbath, a massacre like we saw in Rwanda". The Commons committee reported, "The
proposition that Mu'ammar Gaddafi would have ordered the massacre of civilians in Benghazi was
not supported by the available evidence".
Britain, France and the United States effectively destroyed Libya as a modern state. According
to its own records, Nato launched 9,700 "strike sorties", of which more than a third hit civilian
targets. They included fragmentation bombs and missiles with uranium warheads. The cities of Misurata
and Sirte were carpet-bombed. Unicef, the UN children's organisation, reported a high proportion
of the children killed "were under the age of ten".
More than "giving rise" to Islamic State - ISIS had already taken root in the ruins of Iraq following
the Blair and Bush invasion in 2003 - these ultimate medievalists now had all of north Africa as
a base. The attack also triggered a stampede of refugees fleeing to Europe.
Cameron was celebrated in Tripoli as a "liberator", or imagined he was. The crowds cheering him
included those secretly supplied and trained by Britain's SAS and inspired by Islamic State, such
as the "Manchester boys".
To the Americans and British, Gadaffi's true crime was his iconoclastic independence and his plan
to abandon the petrodollar, a pillar of American imperial power. He had audaciously planned to underwrite
a common African currency backed by gold, establish an all-Africa bank and promote economic union
among poor countries with prized resources. Whether or not this would have happened, the very notion
was intolerable to the US as it prepared to "enter" Africa and bribe African governments with military
"partnerships".
The fallen dictator fled for his life. A Royal Air Force plane spotted his convoy, and in the
rubble of Sirte, he was sodomised with a knife by a fanatic described in the news as "a rebel".
Having plundered Libya's $30 billion arsenal, the "rebels" advanced south, terrorising towns and
villages. Crossing into sub-Saharan Mali, they destroyed that country's fragile stability. The ever-eager
French sent planes and troops to their former colony "to fight al-Qaida", or the menace they had
helped create.
On 14 October, 2011, President Obama announced he was sending special forces troops to Uganda
to join the civil war there. In the next few months, US combat troops were sent to South Sudan, Congo
and the Central African Republic. With Libya secured, an American invasion of the African continent
was under way, largely unreported.
In London, one of the world's biggest arms fairs was staged by the British government. The buzz
in the stands was the "demonstration effect in Libya". The London Chamber of Commerce and Industry
held a preview entitled "Middle East: A vast market for UK defence and security companies". The host
was the Royal Bank of Scotland, a major investor in cluster bombs, which were used extensively against
civilian targets in Libya. The blurb for the bank's arms party lauded the "unprecedented opportunities
for UK defence and security companies."
Last month, Prime Minister Theresa May was in Saudi Arabia, selling more of the £3 billion worth
of British arms which the Saudis have used against Yemen. Based in control rooms in Riyadh, British
military advisers assist the Saudi bombing raids, which have killed more than 10,000 civilians. There
are now clear signs of famine. A Yemeni child dies every 10 minutes from preventable disease, says
Unicef.
The Manchester atrocity on 22 May was the product of such unrelenting state violence in faraway
places, much of it British sponsored. The lives and names of the victims are almost never known to
us.
This truth struggles to be heard, just as it struggled to be heard when the London Underground
was bombed on July 7, 2005. Occasionally, a member of the public would break the silence, such as
the east Londoner who walked in front of a CNN camera crew and reporter in mid-platitude.
"Iraq!" he said. "We invaded Iraq. What did we expect? Go on, say it."
At a large media gathering I attended, many of the important guests uttered "Iraq" and "Blair"
as a kind of catharsis for that which they dared not say professionally and publicly.
Yet, before he invaded Iraq, Blair was warned by the Joint Intelligence Committee that
"the threat from al-Qaida will increase at the onset of any military action against Iraq
The worldwide threat from other Islamist terrorist groups and individuals will increase significantly".
Just as Blair brought home to Britain the violence of his and George W Bush 's blood-soaked "shit
show", so David Cameron, supported by Theresa May, compounded his crime in Libya and its horrific
aftermath, including those killed and maimed in Manchester Arena on 22 May.
The spin is back, not surprisingly. Salman Abedi acted alone. He was a petty criminal, no more.
The extensive network revealed last week by the American leak has vanished. But the questions have
not.
Why was Abedi able to travel freely through Europe to Libya and back to Manchester only days
before he committed his terrible crime? Was Theresa May told by MI5 that the FBI had tracked him
as part of an Islamic cell planning to attack a "political target" in Britain?
In the current election campaign, the Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has made a guarded reference
to a "war on terror that has failed". As he knows, it was never a war on terror but a war of conquest
and subjugation. Palestine. Afghanistan. Iraq. Libya. Syria. Iran is said to be next. Before there
is another Manchester, who will have the courage to say that?
John Pilger is an Australian journalist and documentary film maker based in the United Kingdom
since 1962. http://www.johnpilger.com/
The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect
the opinions of Information Clearing House.
Is really Russian ambassador so negligent that he posted such an information over open channel? I doubt it. that means that
Hayden may be lying and this is just a part of Purple revolution campaign of discreditation of Trump administration. Otherwise he reveals
that the NSA broke Russian diplomatic communication cipher, which is biog NO-NO.
Notable quotes:
"... Without specifically mentioning the report about Kushner, Trump tweeted Sunday in an apparent response to a number of recent stories about his administration that "leaks coming out of the White House are fabricated lies." ..."
"... Kushner's reported plan is evidence of an extreme cynicism about "organs of the state," said Hayden, and a belief that government institutions only serve the self-interests of the president currently in power. The apparent implication of such a Kremlin link was that the Trump team trusted Russian agents more than the outgoing Obama administration or the U.S. intelligence community. ..."
Kushner's reported actions suggest "we are in a really dark place as a society," Michael Hayden said.
Former CIA Director General Michael Hayden said that the reported plan by chief White House adviser Jared Kushner's to arrange
secret communications with the Russians during President Donald Trump's transition was "off the map" and like nothing he has seen
in his lifetime.
Hayden wants to chalk up the stunning plan to "naivete" rather than evil intentions - but that's not reassuring, he said in an
interview on CNN.
"Right now, I'm going with naivete, and that's not particularly comforting for me," he said. "What manner of ignorance, chaos,
hubris, suspicion, contempt would you have to have to think that doing this with the Russian ambassador was a good or an appropriate
idea?"
Hayden was commenting on reports, which first appeared in The Washington Post Friday, that Kushner discussed last December establishing
a secret communication channel with the Kremlin - using Russian facilities - without any monitoring by the U.S.
Kushner discussed the idea in Trump Tower with Sergei Kislyak, Russia's ambassador to the U.S., who was surprised by the request,
the Post reported, because of security risks such an arrangement would pose to both countries.
Kushner emerged last Thursday as a person of interest in the FBI's investigation of Russian interference in the U.S. presidential
election.
Without specifically mentioning the report about Kushner, Trump tweeted Sunday in an apparent response to a number of recent
stories about his administration that "leaks coming out of the White House are fabricated lies."
Kushner's reported plan is evidence of an extreme cynicism about "organs of the state," said Hayden, and a belief that government
institutions only serve the self-interests of the president currently in power. The apparent implication of such a Kremlin link was
that the Trump team trusted Russian agents more than the outgoing Obama administration or the U.S. intelligence community.
"What degree of suspicion of the existing government, what degree of contempt for the administration they were replacing would
be required again to think this was an acceptable course of action?" he asked.
Hayden added: "It says an awful lot about us as a society that we could actually harbor those kinds of feelings that the organs
of the state would be used by my predecessor to come after me or ... to disrupt my administration in a way that made it seem legitimate
to me to use the secure communications facilities of a foreign power - a foreign power that some in government alleged you were cooperating
with to affect the American election."
It's evidence, he added, that "we are in a really dark place as a society."
"... Why didn't the FBI do their own investigation? ..."
"... "They say that, but it's bogus," Cohen argued. "When Clapper, the director of national intelligence, signed that report in January, technically he represents all seventeen. I'll bet you a dime to a nickel you couldn't get a guest on, unprepared, who could name ten of them. This figure -- seventeen -- is bogus!" ..."
"... "The one agency that could conceivably have done a forensic examination on the Democratic computers is a national security agency ..."
Professor Stephen Cohen: Not One Piece of Factual Evidence That Russia 'Hacked the Election' March 31, 2017
chat 176 comments
Prof. Cohen: Not One Piece of Factual Evidence That Russia 'Hacked the Election'
Stephen F. Cohen, professor emeritus of Russian studies at New York University and Princeton, spoke Thursday evening with
Fox News' Tucker Carlson about the
latest shoes to drop in the investigations into the Trump campaign's possible ties to Russia.
The Wall
Street Journal reported late Thursday that Michael Flynn, President Trump's former national security advisor, has told the FBI
and congressional investigators that he is willing to be interviewed in exchange for a grant of immunity from prosecution -- not
a particularly good sign for the Trump White House.
Cohen, one of the country's foremostexperts on Russia, has been arguing for months that the anti-Russia hysteria in Washington,
D.C., is becoming a
"grave national security threat."
Carlson began the discussion by bringing up what he sees as the core issue-- the allegations that the Russian government "hacked
our election" by breaking into email accounts at the DNC and the Clinton campaign office.
"Everyone assumes this is true," he said. "We're all operating under the assumption that it's true. Do we know it's true?"
"No," Cohen answered flatly. "And if you listen to the hearings at the Senate today, repeatedly it was said -- particularly by
Senator Warner, the Democratic co-chair of the proceedings -- that Russia had hijacked our democracy. What he means is that, the
Russians, at Putin's direction, had gone into the Democratic National Committee's emails, which were embarrassing to Mrs. Clinton,
given them to Wikileaks, Wikileaks then released them to damage Mrs. Clinton and put Trump in the White House."
He noted, "This is a very dramatic narrative and they're saying in Washington that this was an act of war.... So whether or not
it's true is existential. Are we at war?"
After studying Russian leadership for 40 years, focusing on Putin in particular, Cohen said it was hard for him believe that the
Russian president would have done such a thing.
"I could find not one piece of factual evidence," he said. "The only evidence ever presented was a study hired by the Clintons
-- the DNC -- to do an examination of their computers.They
[Crowdstrike] concluded the Russians did it. Their report
has fallen apart." He
added, " Why didn't the FBI do their own investigation? "
Tucker pointed out that even Republicans say that seventeen U.S. intelligence agencies (including Coast Guard Intelligence!) have
concluded that Russian intelligence was behind this.
"They say that, but it's bogus," Cohen argued. "When Clapper, the director of national intelligence, signed that report in
January, technically he represents all seventeen. I'll bet you a dime to a nickel you couldn't get a guest on, unprepared, who could
name ten of them. This figure -- seventeen -- is bogus!"
The professor made one more critical point: "The one agency that could conceivably have done a forensic examination on the
Democratic computers is a national security agency ," he said.
He continued: "When they admit that they have no evidence, they fall back on something else which I think is very important. They
say Putin directed Russian propaganda at us and helped elect Trump. I don't know about you, Tucker, but I find that insulting --
because the premise they're putting out ... at this hearing is that the American people are zombies. ... It's the premise of democracy
that we're democratic citizens," he said. "That we have a B.S. detector in us and we know how to use it."
ValVeggie •
2 months ago Maybe not, but let's not forget that there IS evidence that the Obama administration apparently employed police-state
tactics to spy on their political rivals during the election, and to widely disseminate the information they collected in hope
that it would be illegally leaked in order to undermine the Trump administration.
Remember, the only felony we have clear proof of is the leak of Flynn's surveillance data to the press.
Time to get focused on where the crimes are, and stop falling for the progressive's shell game.
RedDog
ValVeggie •
2 months ago Now what do we have here....
WikiLeaks Reveals "Marble": Proof CIA Disguises Their Hacks As Russian, Chinese, Arabic...
"... On "Tucker Carlson Tonight," Dana Loesch said the agenda-driven media is focused on negatively portraying Trump, while they're largely giving Democrats a pass. ..."
"... Let's talk for a moment about the California Democrat convention ... where you had a number of Democrats on stage screaming 'expletive Trump' and 'expletive Republicans.'" She said Democrats and the mainstream media then want to turn around and accuse Trump and those on the right of fomenting violence. ..."
Following Montana Republican congressional candidate Greg Gianforte's alleged assault of a reporter, some in the mainstream media
are trying to blame the incident on President Trump. CNN host Don Lemon argued that Trump has culpability because he's said "very
horrible things" about reporters and suggested that they are the enemy of the American people. MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell said that
Trump has helped whip up "hostility" toward the press, while Joe Scarborough said a "straight line" can be drawn between Trump's
anti-media rhetoric and the Gianforte incident.
On "Tucker Carlson Tonight," Dana Loesch said the agenda-driven media is focused on negatively portraying Trump, while they're
largely giving Democrats a pass.
"Let's discuss Tom Perez and his cussing crusade that he's been giving at so many different fundraisers.
Let's talk for a
moment about the California Democrat convention ... where you had a number of Democrats on stage screaming 'expletive Trump' and
'expletive Republicans.'" She said Democrats and the mainstream media then want to turn around and accuse Trump and those on the
right of fomenting violence.
Headliner of the week was the Muslim
terrorist attack on a pop concert in Manchester, England. The bomber blew
himself up and took 22 others with him. That's the count as I go to tape
here; over a hundred were injured, some critically, so the death count may
be higher as you hear this.
The bomber was a 22-year-old Muslim, name
of Salman Abedi, born in Britain to parents from Libya. Those parents had
been settled in England as refugees from Colonel
Gaddafy's
government; so that's where the bomber was born, in England,
1994.
Salman Abedi's parents thereupon, in 2011,
returned to Libya. Salman Abedi, then 17, stayed in the U.K.
So I'll just pause to note here that this
is yet another case of
absimilation
. Here yet again is the relevant
passage from
We Are Doomed
, the one book you need to explain the modern
world. Chapter 10, edited quote:
The English word "assimilation" derives
from the Latin prefix
ad
-, which indicates a moving towards
something, and the same language's verb simulare, "to cause a person or
thing to resemble another." You can make a precisely opposite word using
the prefix
ab
-, which marks a moving away from something. Many
immigrants of course assimilate to American society Many others,
however, especially in the second and following generations,
ab
similate.
That's what Salman Abedi did: He
absimilated, ending up hating the country that had taken in his parents.
It wasn't just him, either. His younger
brother Hashim, 20 years old, and so presumably also born in England, seems
to have been an accomplice to the bombing. He was arrested by authorities in
Libya on Tuesday. There's also a slightly older brother, 23-year-old Ismail,
arrested by British police in Manchester, also on Tuesday.
The father has been arrested, too, also in
Libya. The authorities there say he belongs to an extremist sect of Islam.
There's also a sister, 18-year-old
Jomana Abedi
, also born in Manchester, where she is studying molecular
biology with a view to advancing cancer research No, sorry, I got my news
stories mixed up there. Ms. Abedi actually works at a mosque, though I
haven't been able to discover what she does there.
@Anon
The terrorist bombing was terrible, but the concert was worse.
It was a celebration of open borders, degeneracy, interracism, slut
culture for little girls, and jungle fever. It was all about globalist
propaganda for kiddies.
British masses seem to welcome this cultural degeneracy and mass
invasion by foreigners.
How ironic that an Islamic terrorist who gained entry into UK via
globalism threw a monkey wrench at globalism?
If Muslims want to bomb every globalist celebration of open borders,
degeneracy, Afro-colonization of white wombs, and slut culture for kids,
who cares?
Globalism isn't about respect for world cultures and world histories.
It is about spreading mono-culture of Afromania, Homomania, and Ziomania
all over the world.
And the bombing of Libya has nothing to do with it. Stop killing Muslims,
and they will stop killing u. U killmy brother, I kill yours, u kill my
kids I kill yours, simple logic.
Sure, lack of assimilation is the culprit but as a "truther" might say,
this could well be an operation carried out by the deep state. Indeed,
someone put this kid up to this, supplied explosives and logistics, so
perhaps it was an Israeli plot, for certain some Anglo-Zionist one
percenter must be behind all of this. Naturally, as it is often published
here, white Europeans are superior to all other races so the kid was by
virtue of ancestry a lesser, defective human being to begin with
Manchester police announced where the Abedi family got the tens of
thousands of pounds that enabled them to fly back and forth from England
to several countries in the Middle East for years.
Welfare fraud and student loans funded the bombing. Apparently the
English student loan system does not require class attendance and
accumulation of credits to continue receiving loans.
BBC radio useful
idiot programs claim the Abedi brothers might have been bullied by evil
Whites. But they lived on the middle of the Libyan neighborhood so it's
unlikely they were bullied by Whites.
In 2004 the King of Jordan, the ruling Saud at the time in Saudi Arabia,
and Mucharraf in Pakistan all told senator Hollings that the only way to
end terrorism was to establish peace between Israel and the Palestinians.
Since 2004 the west did nothing for peace, on the contrary, efforts to
destabilise the ME, and North Africa continued, an were intensified.
Deradicalisation is making Muslims believe that what they see happening
is not happening.
It may succeed in a few cases, but it so me seems impossible in general.
So attacks in the west will continue, it is, as Mearsheimer and Walt
write 'the strategy of the weak'.
On top of that, the west needs terrorism, if necessary does it herself,
in order to make the western societies more totalitarian all the time
'for our safety'.
The destabilisation in ME and N Africa causes massive migration, the
destabilisation of the European countries is welcome, in order to create
an Europe, a USA clone.
This latest Manchester bombing is the perfect illustration of the twofold
nature of the problem of invade the world/invite the world. Furthermore
it comes on top of another similarly perfect illustration of that twofold
nature, in the Orlando shootings. In both cases a 2nd generation
immigrant whose parents were only here because it suited the US/UK
regimes to have them here as oppositionist tools for the destabilisation
and overthrow of foreign governments, who in each case openly declare the
ongoing butchery our governments are responsible for in the ME and North
Africa as direct motivating factors for their own violence, was enabled
to attack their host nations by immigration.
Derbyshire's piece does a
good job of skewering the "invite the world" side of the issue, but
ignores "invade the world".
In 2011, you'll recall, Barack Obama, prompted by the Three
Horsegirls of the Apocalypse-Samantha Power of Obama's National
Security Council, his U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, and his Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton-who in turn were prompted by Britain and France,
with an assist from George Soros-overthrew Colonel Gaddafy.
Salman Abedi's parents thereupon, in 2011, returned to Libya.
Salman Abedi, then 17, stayed in the U.K.
That's barely the beginning of the story, with its murky elements of
the UK regime's security forces using jihadist terrorism as a weapon for
regime change in Libya and Syria, in which this family seem to have been
up to their necks. Even the BBC reported on some of these murky aspects
in the immediate aftermath of the bombing (though doubtless that line of
inquiry will be quietly dropped, or suppressed).
@Anon
The terrorist bombing was terrible, but the concert was worse.
It was a celebration of open borders, degeneracy, interracism, slut
culture for little girls, and jungle fever. It was all about globalist
propaganda for kiddies.
British masses seem to welcome this cultural degeneracy and mass
invasion by foreigners.
How ironic that an Islamic terrorist who gained entry into UK via
globalism threw a monkey wrench at globalism?
If Muslims want to bomb every globalist celebration of open borders,
degeneracy, Afro-colonization of white wombs, and slut culture for kids,
who cares?
Globalism isn't about respect for world cultures and world histories.
It is about spreading mono-culture of Afromania, Homomania, and Ziomania
all over the world.
"Others said he was a bit of a party animal, who drank vodka and
smoked weed daily, was popular with girls and "always clubbing or at
house parties", listening to rap and grime music. A young man, in
other words,
like so many others in Manchester: unconcerning,
unremarkable
. "
This is how the globalist media
want
us to live.
IIRC the 9/11 bombers liked clubbing, booze and strippers. Lots of
jihadists were petty criminals or drug dealers before the gods of their
far-off land repossessed their blood – and spilled ours
Salman's father Ramadan reportedly was a member of the Libyan Islamic
Fighting Group back in the 90′s which had AQ links. Weren't those people
in cahoots with British intelligence back then in schemes to overthrow
Khaddafi? This explains his supposed resettlement in Britain; he was
connected. Also, Daily Mail has described him as a "former airport
security worker in the UK". Think about that one for a while. They were
reported to the authorities years ago but apparently they were allowed to
go on unencumbered. The son may have gone off and become a loose cannon
but otherwise there's a lot of murkiness involved with these people.
Like the author, I grew up in the UK in happier times and am now a US
citizen.
It is a pity that free speech no longer exists in England,
because prohibiting discussion of ideas skews all political debate. For
example, it is pretty obvious that the successful Brexit vote was pretty
much a plebiscite on unlimited immigration and loss of sovereignty,
except that it would be illegal to say so in a UK publication, as this
would be "hate speech."
However I do believe that the well-intended reason for the hate speech
laws is to prevent a bad situation getting even worse, rather than to
stop people from knowing what they can see with their own eyes.
I am reminded of a court case in the UK a few years ago in which a
well-known soap opera star was on trial for the rape of a 6 year old girl
several years earlier. Many UK readers were baffled by the story since
secrecy laws meant that nearly all the salient details of the case could
not be reported upon, nor were the media even allowed to say what they
were not allowed to report on.
For example, it was not clear why the girl and the allegist rapist
were living under the same roof. Had the public known that the girl in
question was the man's own daughter, and that the rape allegations were
part of a particularly nasty divorce dispute several years later, they
might have been better able to form an opinion of his guilt or innocence.
As it happens, the accused was acquitted, possible because forensic
medical evidence showed that the alleged victim was still a virgin at the
time of the trial, but it was a close run thing, and the judge directed
that jury that medical proof of the girl's virginity did not necessarily
mean that she has not been raped. (Whatever!)
When so much of public life and politics cannot be reported upon, it
is not surprising that people will arrive at false conclusions, or find
ways of protesting that which cannot be discussed.
We should be thankful that all these bombers and shooters leave behind
what those conspiracy nutcases might call magically indestructible
identification so the authorities can go straight to the perp's family
and friends. Apparently these imitators hope to outdo the ID that
survived 911 among incinerated debris in perfect condition. And we should
be doubly thankful that our loyal and patriotic msm have such incredible
journalists that they simultaneously uncover the same evidence and reach
exactly the same conclusions within minutes of each other.
@Alden
Manchester police announced where the Abedi family got the tens of
thousands of pounds that enabled them to fly back and forth from England
to several countries in the Middle East for years.
Welfare fraud and student loans funded the bombing. Apparently the
English student loan system does not require class attendance and
accumulation of credits to continue receiving loans.
BBC radio useful idiot programs claim the Abedi brothers might have been
bullied by evil Whites. But they lived on the middle of the Libyan
neighborhood so it's unlikely they were bullied by Whites.
@Swing
And the bombing of Libya has nothing to do with it. Stop killing Muslims,
and they will stop killing u. U killmy brother, I kill yours, u kill my
kids I kill yours, simple logic.
@jilles dykstra
In 2004 the King of Jordan, the ruling Saud at the time in Saudi Arabia,
and Mucharraf in Pakistan all told senator Hollings that the only way to
end terrorism was to establish peace between Israel and the Palestinians.
Since 2004 the west did nothing for peace, on the contrary, efforts to
destabilise the ME, and North Africa continued, an were intensified.
Deradicalisation is making Muslims believe that what they see happening
is not happening.
It may succeed in a few cases, but it so me seems impossible in general.
So attacks in the west will continue, it is, as Mearsheimer and Walt
write 'the strategy of the weak'.
On top of that, the west needs terrorism, if necessary does it herself,
in order to make the western societies more totalitarian all the time
'for our safety'.
The destabilisation in ME and N Africa causes massive migration, the
destabilisation of the European countries is welcome, in order to create
an Europe, a USA clone.
Jun 27, 2016 What Does G4S Know About the Orlando Nightclub Massacre?
Much has been made in recent weeks of Omar Mateen's background. The
perpetrator of the Orlando, Fla., massacre was alternately a "radical
Islamist," a deeply closeted gay man, a wife abuser, a mental case,
everybody's best friend in high school and a loser. The list goes on. But
what the mainstream media-and the government, for that matter-have not
talked about is the fact that Mateen was employed at the time of his
crime by G4S, a London-based company that is one of the largest mercenary
firms in the world, with intelligence contractors deployed in war zones
and hot spots around the globe.
@Cyrano
The west has two faces in regards to the middle east. One is kind,
welcoming and accepting refugees and immigrants from the ME. The other
face of the west is also supposedly kind – it goes to Muslim counties and
helps them get rid of dictators – although nobody asked them to, but I
guess kindness cannot be contained. Unfortunately, in the process of
helping them reach the pinnacle of human achievement – democracy – the
west wrecks country after country in the ME. My point is that both faces
of the west are phony. You can't be kind and cruel at the same time. It
just doesn't work that way. One overrides the other and can't be
counterbalanced by phoniness.
@unit472
No doubt the murderer Abedi chose his target well. Western pop culture
threatens Islam a helluva of a lot more than democracy or capitalism. It
is assimilative and transcends race and national borders. Its not
possible to put this genie back in the bottle. That battle was lost with
Elvis and the Beatles.
... ... ...
If I ran the CIA I would put my efforts into creating an Islamic
Ariana Grande or forming some 'boy group' Saudi tweens would go crazy
over. Let the devout Muslim mom and dad experience the 'generation gap'.
@Corvinus
"If Muslims want to attack such degeneracy, they have my blessing."
Exactly what I thought. Justify the murder of people because you oppose
the ways they express themselves culturally. Listen, why don't YOU man up
and actually do something about the situation rather than be an armchair
warrior?
@Randal
His comment went too far, perhaps as hyperbole, when he endorsed murder,
for certain.
On the other hand, he was not really expressing sympathy for the
islamists per se as much as expressing agreement with some of their
positions, and that is certainly not unacceptable, treasonous or
perverse, unless you think we should allow our opinions to be determined
by what (a particular brand of) terrorists think.
That's a common trend in the modern US sphere, unfortunately (we must
embrace sexual perversion and general degenerate decadence or we are the
same as sunni muslim terrorists), to the ludicrous extent that we are now
told that opinions and attitudes that the vast majority of our ancestors
up until a couple of generations ago would have regarded as disgusting or
contemptible at best and abominations at worst are "British values" or
"European" or "western" values that we must defend to the death, and even
murder foreigners in order to impose them in their countries.
@LauraMR
Sure, lack of assimilation is the culprit but as a "truther" might say,
this could well be an operation carried out by the deep state. Indeed,
someone put this kid up to this, supplied explosives and logistics, so
perhaps it was an Israeli plot, for certain some Anglo-Zionist one
percenter must be behind all of this. Naturally, as it is often published
here, white Europeans are superior to all other races so the kid was by
virtue of ancestry a lesser, defective human being to begin with...
@Swing
And the bombing of Libya has nothing to do with it. Stop killing Muslims,
and they will stop killing u. U killmy brother, I kill yours, u kill my
kids I kill yours, simple logic.
The terrorist bombing was terrible, but the concert was worse.
It was a celebration of open borders, degeneracy, interracism, slut
culture for little girls, and jungle fever. It was all about globalist
propaganda for kiddies.
British masses seem to welcome this cultural degeneracy and mass
invasion by foreigners.
How ironic that an Islamic terrorist who gained entry into UK via
globalism threw a monkey wrench at globalism?
If Muslims want to bomb every globalist celebration of open
borders, degeneracy, Afro-colonization of white wombs, and slut
culture for kids, who cares?
Globalism isn't about respect for world cultures and world
histories. It is about spreading mono-culture of Afromania, Homomania,
and Ziomania all over the world.
Is Iran a threat to Europe? Is Indonesia (the largest "Islamic" country
in terms of population)?
The real Islamic threat, such as it is, is that propagated by Saudi
Arabia, a country which is embraced with open arms by Western governments
(and their arms industries). And which for some time now has had a de
facto alliance (or "united front" if you like) with Israel.
The Jew entertainment culture lures 8-year-old girls into concerts – then
an enemy of the Jews, kills them. It is called lose – lose!
What are
8-year-old girls doing at a concert where they yell and scream for hours
watching some immature adult bump and grind her intimate body parts,
singing sex empowerment songs.
Isn't there something very wrong about that scene?
Meanwhile – a 145-year-old venerable institution of Western
entertainment – was being closed down forever – Barnum & Bailey Circus.
8-year-olds at the circus are in danger of eating too much cotton candy.
Peace – Art
p.s. Jew entertainment have taken our youth from sugar highs, to sex
highs.
@biz
What about the ongoing Islamist terror campaigns in southern Thailand and
the Philippines, directed largely at Buddhists and tribal villagers? How
about the slow motion genocide of Melanesians in Irian Jaya at the hands
of Indonesian Muslims? Al Shabab slaughtering black Kenyans in a mall?
Are your 'zio-natos' responsible for those too?
@Diversity Heretic
John has in past columns expressed what I interpret as an anti-invasion
policy: wall the Middle East off. The wall keeps them out of the west and
keeps the west out of the Middle East. I concur. The West is following
the worse strategy possible: invade Middle Eastern countries and kill
Muslims, then invite Muslims with a grudge (sometimes justifiable) to
settle here.
madonna as interracist whore and 'pussy march' leader and her ilk have done
more harm than a handful of terrorists.
Terrorists kill a few hundred per year.
Weaponized celebrities are globo agents who colonize the minds of 100s of
millions of whites into accepting slut culture, interracism, 'diversity',
jungle fever, ACOWW, pederasty, 'gay marriage', 'inclusion', cuckery, etc.
Indeed, the reason why Manchester let in all those foreigners and continues
to self-hug itself with ugly anti-racist pseudo-virtue is because its people
have been mentally colonized by PC and pop culture.
Colonization of minds is more dangerous than killing a few.
Romans defeated the Jews and oppressed the Christians, but Christians
colonized Roman minds and Christians won. Romans fed few 100s of Christians
to lions, but Christians colonized the minds of millions of Romans. Today's
mass media spread not only ideas but idols on a global scale to billions of
people.
Pop Culture and PC are weaponized globalist jihad. Pop Culture is no longer
just for fun or a diversion. It is the MAIN culture for most white kids.
Kids worship celebrities as angels of globalism.
Those young white girls at the concert were being mentally colonized and
sensually manipulated into open borders for immigrant invaders and open
vaginas for black Africans.
The concert was a propaganda act of war.
Culture matters. This is why the Progs and Glob tear down Confederate
statues in the South. It is why they make movies like GET OUT, which are far
more dangerous than terror bombings. Terror kills a few 100. Pop Culture or
Prop Culture(as it is propaganda) colonize hundreds of millions of white
hearts/minds and EFFECTIVELY MURDER the patriot soul-spirit within them.
Soul-Murder of whites makes whites welcome invasion and their own
racial-territorial demise.
If you want to know why Manchester welcomed so much invasion and continue to
do so after the bombing, it is because white minds have been colonized by PC
and Pop Culture.
Indeed, these mentally-colonized whites hate terror bombings not because
such attacks are consequences of invasion but because they may strengthen
the nationalists who oppose immigrant-invasion.
Why do whites welcome immigrant-invasion? Because they've been mentally
colonized by PC and Pop Culture that says being a white woman means to whore
out to the world.
Suppose Nazis hadn't dropped bombs in UK in WWII but only propaganda
material from the air and succeeded in winning over the hearts and minds of
millions of Brits. That would have been more damaging.
It's like US took over so many nations with the 'soft power' of media,
academia, and entertainment. Take over minds, you take over souls. The
mind-colonized become your slaves.
Progs know the true meaning of culture as political instrument. This is why
they denounce D.W. Griffith's THE BIRTH OF A NATION. They see it as more
than just a movie. They see it as proud statement of white racial
consciousness. This is why they wage culture war. Culture is a weapon. And
as mass media has access to every home via the TV, the TV is the open gate
thru which the globalisys get to attack and colonize your minds.
Why did Jews react so harshly to PASSION OF THE CHRIST? They saw it as
Culture War in favor of Christian Pride and Jewish Guilt. Why won't
Hollywood make a movie about Nakba or Knoxville Massacre? Because they can
be propaganda against Jewish power.
How did the West come to accept 'gay marriage'? Colonization of white minds
via Pop Culture and PC. PC and Pop Culture are globo-jihad.
They can also be violent. Look at BLM. Look at 'spreading democracy'. Look
at destruction of Libya and coup in Ukraine. Look at destruction of
Christian businesses for not baking 'gay wedding cake'. Globalism uses both
soft jihad and hard jihad. Indeed, even the unleashing of ISIS and Alqaeda
is the result of globalism's war on enemies of Israel. Zionist-globalists
undermined Arab regimes and let ISIS run riot to mess things up. Thus,
Islmic Jihadis are both agents of globalism and its enemy(as Muslims hate
western degeneracy).
Anyway, the real shame is that whites acquiesced to defeat at hands of
globalists without resitance and violence.
I think part of the reason why white rightists rag on Muslim terrorists is
this: Muslims have guts enough to resist globalism(even as they've been
enabled by it). In contrast, even white patriots make a lot of noise but are
afraid to take real action.
There was a time when whites would have used violence against those who'd
dare to stick homo flags in churches, push 'gay marriage' and destroy
Christian bakers, and tear down Confederate statues.
But whites, even right wing ones, don't fight back but only complain NO
MATTER HOW MUCH THEY ARE HUMILIATED, ABUSED, AND ATTACKED. Only the Alt
Right did some pushing back at Berkeley.
So, when they see the courage of Muslim terrorists, they call them 'losers'
and 'cowards'.
Really? The real cowards are whites who do nothing while General Lee statue
is torn down. Real cowards are whites who do nothing while Trump reneges on
all his promises. Real cowards are white men who raise their girls to whore
out to Negroes. Real cowards are white men who let freaks turn big cities
into homo celebration centers and invoke homomania as 'western value' that
must be defended from Muslims. Real cowards are whites who praise Jewish
globalists who are behind homomania, the attack on Confederate culture, open
borders, and Afro-colonization of white wombs.
Compared to these loser white cowards, at least Muslim terrorists take
action against globalist filth.
A Palestinian child with a rock in west Bank has more guts than all white
men in the West who cuck out to Jewish globalists, homo freaks, and black
thugs.
White fathers who let their girls attend that concert are far worse scum
than the terrorist who blew it up.
A Palestinian child with a rock in west Bank has more guts than all white
men in the West who cuck out to Jewish globalists, homo freaks, and black
thugs.
White fathers who let their girls attend that concert are far worse scum
I often call them human urinals
white "men" so filled with racial self-loathing that they symbolically allow
themselves to be pissed on to mollify their excruciating self-hatred
I condemn the terrorist with all my breath, but I have to admit, he isn't
perhaps as morally execrable as the white men who sat by in Rotherham as
their daughters were being passed around
A symbolic pinprick pipe bomb attack on a slut fest and the Brits are
cringing and whining like school girls. At least the muzzies take their
losses (100 to 300/day, mostly civilians) like men without all the
moralizing and faggy hysteria. It's embarrassing
In the wake of the massacre in Manchester, people
rightly warn against blaming the entire Muslim community in Britain and the
world. Certainly one of the aims of those who carry out such atrocities is
to provoke the communal punishment of all Muslims, thereby alienating a
portion of them who will then become open to recruitment by Isis and
al-Qaeda clones.
This approach of not blaming Muslims in
general but targeting "radicalisation" or simply "evil" may appear sensible
and moderate, but in practice it makes the motivation of the killers in
Manchester or the Bataclan theatre in Paris in 2015 appear vaguer and less
identifiable than it really is. Such generalities have the unfortunate
effect of preventing people pointing an accusing finger at the variant of
Islam which certainly is responsible for preparing the soil for the beliefs
and actions likely to have inspired the suicide bomber Salman Abedi.
The ultimate inspiration for such people
is Wahhabism, the puritanical, fanatical and regressive type of Islam
dominant in Saudi Arabia, whose ideology is close to that of al-Qaeda and
Isis. This is an exclusive creed, intolerant of all who disagree with it
such as secular liberals, members of other Muslim communities such as the
Shia or women resisting their chattel-like status.
What has been termed Salafi jihadism, the
core beliefs of Isis and al-Qaeda, developed out of Wahhabism, and has
carried out its prejudices to what it sees as a logical and violent
conclusion. Shia and Yazidis were not just heretics in the eyes of this
movement, which was a sort of Islamic Khmer Rouge, but sub-humans who should
be massacred or enslaved. Any woman who transgressed against repressive
social mores should be savagely punished. Faith should be demonstrated by a
public death of the believer, slaughtering the unbelievers, be they the 86
Shia children being evacuated by bus from their homes in Syria on 15 April
or the butchery of young fans at a pop concert in Manchester on Monday
night.
The real causes of "radicalisation" have
long been known, but the government, the BBC and others seldom if ever refer
to it because they do not want to offend the Saudis or be accused of
anti-Islamic bias. It is much easier to say, piously but quite inaccurately,
that Isis and al-Qaeda and their murderous foot soldiers "have nothing to do
with Islam". This has been the track record of US and UK governments since
9/11. They will look in any direction except Saudi Arabia when seeking the
causes of terrorism. President Trump has been justly denounced and derided
in the US for last Sunday accusing Iran and, in effect, the Shia community
of responsibility for the wave of terrorism that has engulfed the region
when it ultimately emanates from one small but immensely influential Sunni
sect. One of the great cultural changes in the world over the last 50 years
is the way in which Wahhabism, once an isolated splinter group, has become
an increasingly dominant influence over mainstream Sunni Islam, thanks to
Saudi financial support.
A further sign of the
Salafi-jihadi impact is the choice of targets: the
attacks on the Bataclan theatre in Paris in 2015, a gay
night club in Florida in 2016 and the Manchester Arena
this week have one thing in common. They were all
frequented by young people enjoying entertainment and a
lifestyle which made them an Isis or al-Qaeda target.
But these are also events where the mixing of men and
women or the very presence of gay people is denounced
by puritan Wahhabis and Salafi jihadis alike. They both
live in a cultural environment in which the
demonisation of such people and activities is the norm,
though their response may differ.
The culpability of
Western governments for terrorist attacks on their own
citizens is glaring but is seldom even referred to.
Leaders want to have a political and commercial
alliance with Saudi Arabia and the Gulf oil states.
They have never held them to account for supporting a
repressive and sectarian ideology which is likely to
have inspired Salman Abedi. Details of his motivation
may be lacking, but the target of his attack and the
method of his death is classic al-Qaeda and Isis in its
mode of operating.
The reason these two
demonic organisations were able to survive and expand
despite the billions – perhaps trillions – of dollars
spent on "the war on terror" after 9/11 is that those
responsible for stopping them deliberately missed the
target and have gone on doing so. After 9/11, President
Bush portrayed Iraq not Saudi Arabia as the enemy; in a
re-run of history President Trump is ludicrously
accusing Iran of being the source of most terrorism in
the Middle East. This is the real 9/11 conspiracy,
beloved of crackpots worldwide, but there is nothing
secret about the deliberate blindness of British and
American governments to the source of the beliefs that
has inspired the massacres of which Manchester is only
the latest – and certainly not the last – horrible
example.
(Reprinted from The Independent by permission of author
or representative)
Thanks! For a while I thought you might identify
their motivation with our having bombed Muslim
countries pretty much continuously since 1946.
Nice save!
@Godfree Roberts
Thanks! For a while I thought you might identify
their motivation with our having bombed Muslim
countries pretty much continuously since 1946.
Nice save!
Why do those responsible deliberately miss the
target and have gone on doing so? Because they all
profit greatly from it. Who are they? The war
industry and its various 'communities', the Jews.
the media, you name it, they're all in it for fun
and profit. None of them would have an income if it
all just stopped, if they actually wanted, you know,
peace whatever that is.
They can manufacture an
invasion of Iraq based on non-existent WMDs as
punishment for 911, when apparently the real
culprits were supposed to be Saudis. They can
pretend that the conflict in Syria is a 'civil war'
rather than a proxy invasion by the US, Saudi Arabia
and other Arab states. They can manufacture groups
like Al-Qaeda and ISIS but pretend that these groups
arose independently from their own funding,
operations and just plain meddling in everybody
else's business. They can pretend that Iran is the
major sponsor of terrorism in the ME when clearly it
isn't. They can bullshit really anything they want
and everybody just buys it.
If they can do all this, then 911 ought not be
too difficult either. The press and so-called
intellectual class just buys into whatever the
narrative is supposed to be. Karl Rove's statement
that 'the empire can create it's own reality now' is
fairly obviously a sly reference to 911. How does
the empire get to this level of expertise? Clearly a
military industrial complex funded to the tune of a
trillion dollars per year that can research any
problem and do whatever it wants could run such a
project without much difficulty. It can also buy off
the press and influence the intellectual classes in
all sorts of ways that conform to some manual in
some top secret facility that nobody has ever heard
of and never will.
The release of the redacted 28 pages shows that
Prince Bandar, good friend of the Bush family,
funded two the supposed hijackers for a year while
they prepared for the 'attack'. This indicates
without any doubt that the hijackers were Saudi
intelligence assets pretending to be hijackers.
(Unless you are wacky enough to believe that Prince
Bandar, good friend of the Bush family, secretly
sought to stab his good friends in the back by
committing a heavy atrocity upon them, or at least
didn't tell them about it in advance). So its
obvious that the Saudis were running the hijacker
side of the 911 operation for their good friends in
America because thats what good friends do. That's
why the hijackers were Saudi, rather than say Iraqi
or Iranian, and thats why America didn't invade the
Saudis as punishment for the terrible deed.
Of course we also know that the CIA let these
same two hijackers, or rather Saudi intelligence
assets, into the United States without telling the
FBI about it although it had several occasions to do
so. How odd, yet these same two hijackers, or rather
Saudi intelligence assets, were known terrorists and
the CIA definitely knew all about them.
Please Mr Cockburn can you explain in your own
words why believing 911 was an inside job is somehow
crackpot?
@The Anti-Gnostic
So how come these attacks only happen in proudly
tolerant, liberal countries at venues like teen
concerts, coastal promenades, gay nightclubs, rock
concert halls? I'd venture to say the victims were
probably 90+% opposed to Middle Eastern wars or
discrimination against Muslims.
We Know What Inspired the Manchester Attack –
We Just Won't Admit It
No, you won't, it seems.
You'll happily point to wahhabism as one of the
contributory factors. I'd have thought you would be
prepared to point to the history of aggressive US
sphere military intervention in muslim countries,
though you seem a little coy about that in this
case, presumably so as not to distract from your
case against wahhabism, which so conveniently ties
in with your bête noir Trump's recent stupidity in
Saudi Arabia.
But you won't ever admit that immigration is one
of the prime factors.
So in this case we have a bombing carried out by
a 2nd generation immigrant muslim Libyan whose
father was admitted to the country for political
reasons because he was an active member of the
opposition to the Libyan government, which our
government sought to encourage, in the context of
Libya having recently been effectively destroyed and
consigned to brutally murderous, bloody chaos by
aggressive UK military action.
And yet for Cockburn and for most of the media
and political establishments, it's seemingly vital
to pretend that it's nothing to do with either
"invade the world" or "invite the world".
It now seems this was a bombing carried out by a 2nd
generation immigrant muslim Libyan whose father was
admitted to the country for political reasons
because he was an active member of the opposition to
the Libyan government, which our government sought
to encourage, in the context of Libya having
recently been effectively destroyed and consigned to
brutally murderous, bloody chaos by aggressive UK
military action.
Here's the BBC on the tangled web
of foreign conflicts our government has enmeshed us
in in Libya, by allowing immigration from a country
and regime changing its government by aggressive
military force:
There is a stark similarity here with the recent
Orlando nightclub shooting. In that case the
attacker was likewise a second generation immigrant
muslim from a country (in that case Afghanistan) the
US government has destroyed by aggressive military
action, whose parents were admitted to the country
because his father was part of the opposition to a
government the US regime wanted changed. Mateen made
online posts calling for revenge on the US for what
it had done to ME countries and even called the
police in the midst of his shootings to declare it
was an act of retaliation for US killings, and yet
those with an interest in obfuscation have looked
high and low for other motivations to obscure the
obvious one.
Invade the world and invite the world. It really
is as simple as that. Our governments interfere
murderously in other countries whilst importing
foreigners from those same countries and related
ones, and then act all horrified when it turns out
they have imported those wars along with the people.
@The Anti-Gnostic
So how come these attacks only happen in proudly
tolerant, liberal countries at venues like teen
concerts, coastal promenades, gay nightclubs, rock
concert halls? I'd venture to say the victims were
probably 90+% opposed to Middle Eastern wars or
discrimination against Muslims.
Taking punitive action against all Muslims is the
strategic goal of these people, widening the gulf
between Muslims and non-believers and moving towards
some kind of major clash of civilisations. They will
not be dissuaded by the West making Islam illegal,
shutting mosques and – somehow – exiling their own
third-and-fourth generation citizens. As well as not
being practical, it stands counter to our values, to
whit punishing the actions of the overwhelming
majority for the actions of the lunatic fringe few.
Britain endured 300,000 dead to defeat Nazi
Germany, France over 700,000 dead. We are simply not
going to be intimidated by such measures. If
anything, they will strengthen our resolve.
These people are also not part of a centralised
campaign being run by ISIS they are lone actors
What we need is more immigration so that Muslims
feel more comfortable. As long as white hold any
power in any society these attacks will continue
We can't control what goes on in
darkies'/non-Europeans' heads. They may hate us and
want to kill us, or they may not. They may decide to
set off bombs, chop off heads, etc., or they may
not.
But if we don't let them into our countries,
it doesn't matter if they hate us, want to kill us,
want to set off bombs, or want to chop off heads.
They won't
be able
to do any of those things.
See how logic works, lefties? (Please say you do.
The matter is very much in doubt.)
In that case the attacker was likewise a
second generation immigrant muslim from a country
(in that case Afghanistan) the US government has
destroyed
Has anyone really made the case that Afghanistan
was destroyed, by anyone? I've never seen it done
convincingly.
The place has long been a complete dump; there's
just never been anything to destroy. Not within
living memory, anyway.
Beyond the question of Islam, the people from Muslim
nations are for the most part lousy human specimens,
Islam or not. Does Islam put them into garish track
suits? Is Islam commanding them to grift on welfare
and other public services? Is it Islam that has them
sex grooming young white girls?
Or is this just the behavior one would expect
from an invading army that faces no resistance?
Indeed, not only are they not resisted, they are
feted (but never vetted). They are given MORE RIGHTS
by law than the native population. They are
encouraged to remain tribal.
In other words, they see their host nations as
weak, foolish, cowardly places simply asking to be
exploited to the max. For one Mohammed maybe it's
welfare fraud. For another it's hanging about in
public spaces, threatening the native population.
For another, it's bullying the white kids at school.
For another, it's strapping on a bomb. These are all
the same things, just at different places on a
continuum.
And since they are nearly all low IQ with little
future time orientation, they will never turn into
the doctors and layers and computer programmers of
Liberal fantasy.
Sure, it's pretty convenient that Islam is
morally OK with any and all of this behavior. But
the bottom line is that Europe is importing vast
numbers of degenerate human specimens that will
never amount to a thing and will be a problem in
perpetuity. That is, until they take over and kill
or enslave the remaining whites. Then hey, no more
problem!
@Svigor
We can't control what goes on in
darkies'/non-Europeans' heads. They may hate us and
want to kill us, or they may not. They may decide to
set off bombs, chop off heads, etc., or they may
not.
But if we don't let them into our countries,
it doesn't matter if they hate us, want to kill us,
want to set off bombs, or want to chop off heads.
They won't
be able
to do any of those things.
See how logic works, lefties? (Please say you do.
The matter is very much in doubt.)
In that case the attacker was likewise a second
generation immigrant muslim from a country (in
that case Afghanistan) the US government has
destroyed
Has anyone really made the case that Afghanistan was
destroyed, by anyone? I've never seen it done
convincingly.
The place has long been a complete
dump; there's just never been anything to destroy.
Not within living memory, anyway.
The real reason is the politically correct genocidal
racism and racist colonialism that brought this
bomber and his fellow invaders to the West in the
first place. Those forces spend a hell of a a lot
more money and effort in exterminating the West and
its peoples than Wahhabism does promoting Sunni
extremism. Stop cucking around the real issue,
violent Muslim terrorism and crime in the West is a
by-product of white-hating racism so intense and
genocidal that its perpetrators will import,
embrace, and support Muslims and Muslim terrorists.
Taking punitive action against all Muslims is the
strategic goal of these people, widening the gulf
between Muslims and non-believers and moving towards
some kind of major clash of civilisations. They will
not be dissuaded by the West making Islam illegal,
shutting mosques and - somehow - exiling their own
third-and-fourth generation citizens. As well as not
being practical, it stands counter to our values, to
whit punishing the actions of the overwhelming
majority for the actions of the lunatic fringe few.
Britain endured 300,000 dead to defeat Nazi Germany,
France over 700,000 dead. We are simply not going to
be intimidated by such measures. If anything, they
will strengthen our resolve.
These people are also not part of a centralised
campaign being run by ISIS they are lone actors
What we need is more immigration so that Muslims
feel more comfortable. As long as white hold any
power in any society these attacks will continue
In the wake of the massacre in Manchester,
people rightly warn against blaming the entire
Muslim community in Britain and the world.
Certainly one of the aims of those who carry out
such atrocities is to provoke the communal
punishment of all Muslims, thereby alienating a
portion of them who will then become open to
recruitment by Isis and al-Qaeda clones.
Thats a good one . The British are completely
helpless against Muslims, the police are trained to
punish whites not Muslims. Look at the Rotherham
(actually every city in England) scandal. The only
immigration that is vulnerable to public opinion is
EU immigration.
President Trump is ludicrously accusing Iran
of being the source of most terrorism in the
Middle East.
Americans like Trumps defence advisor McMaster
way have been rather put off Iran due to them
supplying explosively formed penetrator weapons to
their Shia proxy terrorist force in Iraq,which used
them to kill hundreds of US troops., and leave many
others without arms legs or testicles. McMaster was
in Iraq at the time and he knows it was the Iranians
.
Trump's original pick for McMaster's job, General
Flynn, was there in Iraq too and later head of the
DIA. By all accounts he was infuriated by Iranians
supplying the Explosively formed penetrator weapons
to Shia groups so their IEDs could blast though
armour on US vehicles in Iraq. They, especially
Flynn had access to all the examination of the
wrecked vehicles and I suppose autopsies on US
soldiers as well. Iran ludicrously took on the US,
and now comes the reckoning.
@Randal
Because those are the easy targets that create the
most impact.
Of course they don't "mostly happen at venues like
teen concerts, coastal promenades, gay nightclubs,
rock concert halls", those are just the ones that
make the big news splashes.
Nor do they "only happen in proudly tolerant,
liberal countries": they mostly happen in the
countries destabilised by US sphere military action.
The vast, vast majority of all islamist terrorism
happens in those countries (Iraq, Libya, Syria) and
not "in proudly tolerant, liberal countries" at all.
@Svigor
We can't control what goes on in
darkies'/non-Europeans' heads. They may hate us and
want to kill us, or they may not. They may decide to
set off bombs, chop off heads, etc., or they may
not.
But if we don't let them into our countries,
it doesn't matter if they hate us, want to kill us,
want to set off bombs, or want to chop off heads.
They won't
be able
to do any of those things.
See how logic works, lefties? (Please say you do.
The matter is very much in doubt.)
In that case the attacker was likewise a second
generation immigrant muslim from a country (in
that case Afghanistan) the US government has
destroyed
Has anyone really made the case that Afghanistan was
destroyed, by anyone? I've never seen it done
convincingly.
The place has long been a complete
dump; there's just never been anything to destroy.
Not within living memory, anyway.
In the wake of the massacre in Manchester, people
rightly warn against blaming the entire Muslim
community in Britain and the world. Certainly one
of the aims of those who carry out such
atrocities is to provoke the communal punishment
of all Muslims, thereby alienating a portion of
them who will then become open to recruitment by
Isis and al-Qaeda clones.
Thats a good one . The British are completely
helpless against Muslims, the police are trained to
punish whites not Muslims. Look at the Rotherham
(actually every city in England) scandal. The only
immigration that is vulnerable to public opinion is
EU immigration.
President Trump is ludicrously accusing Iran of
being the source of most terrorism in the Middle
East.
Americans like Trumps defence advisor McMaster way
have been rather put off Iran due to them supplying
explosively formed penetrator weapons to their Shia
proxy terrorist force in Iraq,which used them to
kill hundreds of US troops., and leave many others
without arms legs or testicles. McMaster was in Iraq
at the time and he knows it was the Iranians .
Trump's original pick for McMaster's job, General
Flynn, was there in Iraq too and later head of the
DIA. By all accounts he was infuriated by Iranians
supplying the Explosively formed penetrator weapons
to Shia groups so their IEDs could blast though
armour on US vehicles in Iraq. They, especially
Flynn had access to all the examination of the
wrecked vehicles and I suppose autopsies on US
soldiers as well. Iran ludicrously took on the US,
and now comes the reckoning.
Very good posts. Also, as I pointed out in another
thread, the security services have two different
levels of prioritization when it comes to elites vs
proles.
Note that this guy was reported to the police by his
own family, acquaintances and security agencies knew
he had traveled to Daesh-controlled territory in
Libya:
"Two people who knew Salman Abedi are said to have
called the police counter-terrorism hotline five
years ago to raise concerns that he thought 'being a
suicide bomber was OK'.
And a senior US intelligence official has claimed
that members of his own family had warned police
that he was 'dangerous' It is understood that Abedi
was 'known' to the Security Services through his
associations to those linked to terrorism in
Manchester's Libyan community According to NBC, a
senior US intelligence official said Abedi's family
had warned police that he was 'dangerous'. He was
identified after the attack by his bankcard and had
used a 'big and sophisticated bomb' using materials
not widely available in Britain."
But when a guy was reported last month by the Muslim
community, they picked up on it right away - well,
guess what the target was:
"A suspected terrorist attack was foiled after armed
police arrested a man who is alleged to have been
found carrying knives near the Houses of Parliament.
The Guardian understands the operation was triggered
following a tip-off to police by a member of
Britain's Muslim community who was concerned about
the man's behaviour."
Let us not leave out the good offices of the DNC,
from where Hillary and Obama murdered millions
collectively. The butcher's bill is still piling up
in Syria, Iraq and especially, Libya. Bomb churches,
they might get bombed back. And bomb a Synagogue?
Not smart unless you want your entire crew invited
to a seance with the Mossad. Wall Street and oil
companies? Too secure, public venues are the
easiest. But we get your point, Anti, you want
Republicans, Jews and Christians and money to die,
that will make you happy. Too bad for you, everyday
gays and women are suffering the most anywhere you
have the Muslims in all the Euro-flophouses..
Feminists, gays and Liberals in general are the
first to the beheading line when the Caliphate is
installed.
In the wake of the massacre in Manchester, people
rightly warn against blaming the entire Muslim
community in Britain and the world. Certainly one
of the aims of those who carry out such
atrocities is to provoke the communal punishment
of all Muslims, thereby alienating a portion of
them who will then become open to recruitment by
Isis and al-Qaeda clones.
Thats a good one . The British are completely
helpless against Muslims, the police are trained to
punish whites not Muslims. Look at the Rotherham
(actually every city in England) scandal. The only
immigration that is vulnerable to public opinion is
EU immigration.
President Trump is ludicrously accusing Iran of
being the source of most terrorism in the Middle
East.
Americans like Trumps defence advisor McMaster way
have been rather put off Iran due to them supplying
explosively formed penetrator weapons to their Shia
proxy terrorist force in Iraq,which used them to
kill hundreds of US troops., and leave many others
without arms legs or testicles. McMaster was in Iraq
at the time and he knows it was the Iranians .
Trump's original pick for McMaster's job, General
Flynn, was there in Iraq too and later head of the
DIA. By all accounts he was infuriated by Iranians
supplying the Explosively formed penetrator weapons
to Shia groups so their IEDs could blast though
armour on US vehicles in Iraq. They, especially
Flynn had access to all the examination of the
wrecked vehicles and I suppose autopsies on US
soldiers as well. Iran ludicrously took on the US,
and now comes the reckoning.
Though in this particular case I doubt they had much
to go on with just a report that a teenager was
spouting off about suicide bombing - that must be
pretty commonplace.
Americans like Trumps defence advisor McMaster
way have been rather put off Iran due to them
supplying explosively formed penetrator weapons
to their Shia proxy terrorist force in Iraq,which
used them to kill hundreds of US troops., and
leave many others without arms legs or testicles.
McMaster was in Iraq at the time and he knows it
was the Iranians .
Then the likes of McMaster need to grow up a bit and
recognise that going to war doesn't just mean that
Americans get to kill other people without anyone
fighting back.
Iran was being menaced and harmed by the US long
before - decades before - the US chose to invade its
neighbour whilst giving clear signals that if its
occupation went well then Iran would be next. A
grownup would understand that just as the US killed
all the Iraqis it felt were necessary to the success
of its policy, so Iran in turn helped kill all the
Americans it felt were necessary to prevent that
success and prevent the likely subsequent attack on
Iran.
Hardball cuts both ways and big boys take their
lumps and move on, when (as with the US and Iran)
there is nothing the US can gain by coming back for
another round and vast opportunities for yet
another, worse, disaster.
And, of course, the Iranians weren't the ones
supplying the sunni jihadists in Iraq, who killed
more than their share of US troops, with money to
buy weapons, for that McMaster would need to look
closer to home - at the very same foreign interests
currently trying to manufacture another
confrontation of Iran.
Iran ludicrously took on the US, and now comes
the reckoning.
Unlikely, since those who would gain from a
confrontation between the US and Iran live in Riyadh
and Tel Aviv, and in plush offices in Washington,
not in the real America. Most likely the US regime
will back away from a full confrontation when it
comes down to it, as they have on every previous
occasion since they were rightly turfed out of Iran
with their tails between their legs in 1979.
And while those people do have the clout to
manufacture consent for a war with Iran as they did
with Iraq, they obviously (and rightly) fear the
consequences for themselves when it all goes bad.
And if they don't back away from it then the
consequences will be every bit as costly, and more,
as the invasion and occupation of Iraq proved for
the region and for the US and for American soldiers,
and this time those responsible for it will likely
face a lot more than general political
embarrassment.
The ultimate inspiration for such people is
Wahhabism, the puritanical, fanatical and regressive
type of Islam dominant in Saudi Arabia, whose
ideology is close to that of al-Qaeda and Isis
Absolutely right. And we just swindled them for out
of $110 billion to prop up our war industries so
these "sand#@*&#$s" can go and do the dirty job for
our masters in Tel-Aviv and their representatives in
Washington.
Are we really "friends" with a regime that is only
different from N. Korea because of its oil?
Even the Islam they're propagating is exactly what
The Prophet Muhammad fought against, until they lost
and had to convert. Its Islam, is a cult that
follows strict Bedouin traditions, that are typical
Semitic. Women and others who rank low in the tribe
are considered less human. Orthodox Judaism, and
their Bedouin half brothers have had this law of no
rights to the above mentioned since time immemorial.
Jewish women are forbidden to touch or read the
Torah. This is a religious law. If they do it now
its only because of progress.
So Arabs who have adopted Wahhabism (they have lots
of money to spend) are trying to infuse their
culture as part of Islam. Which it is not
Good luck to those who will receive the brunt of our
mighty bombs thru the Wahhabis
Young men, and occasionally women, from Muslim
cultures are particularly prone to turn to a very
nasty form of murder suicide when things go wrong in
their lives, or they become depressed.
They tend
to externalize their own unhappiness and blame
others. Often the unhappiness is related to sexual
frustration and their inability to form satisfying
relationships.
Probably this killer found Ariana Grande sexually
desirable, but unobtainable.
Within their cultures there are plenty of other
equally embittered individuals willing to encourage
and facilitate them and give them material support.
@Svigor
We can't control what goes on in
darkies'/non-Europeans' heads. They may hate us and
want to kill us, or they may not. They may decide to
set off bombs, chop off heads, etc., or they may
not.
But if we don't let them into our countries,
it doesn't matter if they hate us, want to kill us,
want to set off bombs, or want to chop off heads.
They won't
be able
to do any of those things.
See how logic works, lefties? (Please say you do.
The matter is very much in doubt.)
In that case the attacker was likewise a second
generation immigrant muslim from a country (in
that case Afghanistan) the US government has
destroyed
Has anyone really made the case that Afghanistan was
destroyed, by anyone? I've never seen it done
convincingly.
The place has long been a complete
dump; there's just never been anything to destroy.
Not within living memory, anyway.
But it's saying the guy's family called him out to
the police. And that he was known to security
services based on ties to terrorist sympathizers in
the Libyan community in Manchester. Furthermore, the
article mentions that they knew he went to Libya and
what part of Libya - what the hell??!!
Furthermore, at this point - if you have teenager
talking smack about suicide bombing - take it
seriously.
@Randal
I'm not sure it's feasible to take seriously every
report of a teenage immigrant (1st or 2nd gen) lad
making big talk about suicide bombing or whatever.
There are probably thousands of them, most of them
just hormoned up boys making themselves feel big or
expressing their inadequately controlled emotions.
In this case it was complicated by the fact that his
family connections were to "our" terrorists in Libya
and Syria. On the one hand that might suggest you
should take it more seriously (he clearly had access
to dodgy contacts and materials the average teenage
wannabee doesn't have), but apart from whatever
connections his family undoubtedly had in the UK
security forces themselves, how would they be sure
he was talking about blowing up people here and not
blowing up people our government likes to see blown
up in Libya or Syria?
The latter, of course, is an area we will never see
honestly reported.
I think this lady has found the solution to stop
these guys:
"'Much needs to be done to eradicate this evil. 'But
there is one simple step which we can take now: we
must bring back the death penalty.'"
So long as the Afghan government is aligned
with India, as it now is, Pakistan must support
the Taliban. The Taliban offers its only option
for an alliance with Afghanistan, which it must
have for strategic depth vis-a-vis India.
Remember, India is Pakistan's number one
strategic threat. A pro-India Afghanistan
threatens Pakistan with a two-front war, which is
intolerable. So Pakistan is tied to the Taliban
whether it wants to be or not (my guess is not).
Makes perfect sense.
This is literally stupid, and I have no doubt
you know better. You imply that in this context
actions have no consequences, but in the real
world of course they do.
We can influence those things, but we have no
control, and no guarantee. Keeping them out is fully
under our control, and is guaranteed to work.
This is true only up to a point
It's far truer and more reliable than treating
Muslims nicely.
Actions have consequences.
Yep; open borders leaves us vulnerable to foreign
terrorism.
Really, I say to the Libertardians/Leftists/Muslim
sympathizers, and to the Zionists/Cucked
Right/'Murricans, a pox on both your houses. Both of
you lie through your teeth on a constant basis. Both
groups are fanatically pro-open-borders, for the
most part.
This is such an ignorant statement that it
almost defies belief. It is the type of statement
that, were I from a Muslim nation, would almost
make me think that the terrorists were not
completely unjustified.
It's beyond your ken that when people talk of the
destruction of Afghanistan, some other people point
out that there wasn't far to fall?
Keep it to talk of dead Afghans, that works a lot
better.
So long as the Afghan government is aligned with
India, as it now is, Pakistan must support the
Taliban. The Taliban offers its only option for
an alliance with Afghanistan, which it must have
for strategic depth vis-a-vis India. Remember,
India is Pakistan's number one strategic threat.
A pro-India Afghanistan threatens Pakistan with a
two-front war, which is intolerable. So Pakistan
is tied to the Taliban whether it wants to be or
not (my guess is not).
Afghanistan is a pawn in the Pakistan-India
conflict, just as Syria is caught up in a
Arab-Persian quarrel that started at the dawn of
recorded history. All this reduction to the variant
of Islam promoted by the Saudis Cockburn does leaves
you none the wiser.
The irony is that the places that terrorists
targeted were the very places that would give the
most support to Muslims and refugees. And they still
would, too. The very same neighborhood in Paris that
suffered from the 2015 attacks rejected Le Pen at an
even higher margin than the last election. I suppose
these people have a death wish.
@Svigor
Really, I say to the Libertardians/Leftists/Muslim
sympathizers, and to the Zionists/Cucked
Right/'Murricans, a pox on both your houses. Both of
you lie through your teeth on a constant basis. Both
groups are fanatically pro-open-borders, for the
most part.
Sorry, but the Wahhabis were happily slaughtering
fellow Sunni, Jews, Shia, and anyone else they
decided to declare a "pagan" (kaffirun) in order to
legitimize raping, robbing, enslaving, and murdering
them LONG before the West even considered bothering
to colonize the Arabs.
The Wahhabi originated in
the one part of Arabia that the Prophet (SAAW)
refused to bless – the Najd. He stated that that was
the place where fitnah (disorder, chaos) came from.
The preaching of Abdul-Wahhab was very popular
among the bedu clan ruled by the Saud family. This
practice of takfir, insisting other Muslims were
heretics, polytheists, pagans (kaffirun) made
robbing pilgrimage and other caravans a
*virtue*
instead of brigandage. The British
put the Sauds in charge of the Arabian peninsula,
now known as Saudi Arabia.
The Wahhabis promptly slaughtered those they
considered pagan – Maliki, Hanafi, Shafi, Shia – it
didn't matter. Unless you believed in their
literalist primitive understanding of Islam, you
were obviously a pagan. The Wahhabi focus almost
entirely on outward conformity from what I have
seen. While other Muslims are discussing the
attributes of God, the Wahhabis are ordering Hanafi
women to "follow the stronger evidence" and cover
their *feet.* Seriously. For real.
Go to any Saudi supported masjid in the US, and
notice how many have filthy, horrible areas for
women to pray, often only accessible by passing
through the area outside where the dumpsters are,
and note that the women's restroom many be filthier
than a porta-potti in Tijuana. This is no accident.
Wahhabis think women should be neither seen nor
heard. They know more than the Caliph Umar who
accepted a correction on Islamic law from a woman –
in public – and acknowledged to all present that she
was correct, and he was wrong. No danger of that
happening in Wahhabi land – a woman's voice is
considered part of her awrah or nakedness.
If a religious education program for women even
*exists*
, it will tend to focus on
the importance of wearing a head scarf, and covering
one's feet. Sometimes it will stress how a woman's
prayer is "better" for her at home – so why are all
of you ladies here for Juuma every Friday?
The importance of prayer seems to be limited to
having the exact "correct" position of the hands,
feet, etc. – and saying the "correct" exact words.
Imagine my surprise when I was earnestly informed
that I should never, ever pray in sadl – with my
arms down – because Imam Malik only did that
"because he had been tortured." When I asked a
Mauritania Shaykh, a noted religious scholar about
this statement, he was rather blunt. It seems that
"whoever says that is a liar." And that they really
need to fear God.
So, while silly westerners are running around and
claiming that Daesh and crew are really upset about
colonialism or whatever, the extremists keep telling
us all what they really want – and the left of the
west is so bigoted and patronizing that it literally
insists that the extremists are so backward and
stupid that they don't really mean what they say
because anyone with half a brain would be irate over
*material*
issues, not religious
matters.
You can find the Daesh English language
publication on line. Read it before you continue
blathering endless irrelevancies about
"colonialism."
While I fully concur the views stated here by Mr.
Cockburn on this matter, "western" regimes have a
more direct link to the Manchester terrorist act:
the fact that the destruction of Libya by Obama and
the French, spearheaded in the US by then foreign
secretary Hillary Clinton against the advice of
Gates, the war minister at the time, and contrary to
Obama's instincts was a direct link in the chain
leading to this Libyan's terrorist act. There are
also rumours published elsewhere that this terrorist
underwent training to act as one of the "tame"
rebels working to overthrow the Assad government.
The support for the Cameron government for the Libya
action puts the blood of this event on the hands of
the successor tory May government, in its use of
this blowback event to gain electoral mileage in its
effort to stay in power in Britain.
As indicated,
I concur with inferences of the comment by Randal,
#8 above that western actions, including the
destruction of Libya, played the key role in this
attack.
@The Kid
Sorry, but the Wahhabis were happily slaughtering
fellow Sunni, Jews, Shia, and anyone else they
decided to declare a "pagan" (kaffirun) in order to
legitimize raping, robbing, enslaving, and murdering
them LONG before the West even considered bothering
to colonize the Arabs.
The Wahhabi originated in the one part of Arabia
that the Prophet (SAAW) refused to bless - the Najd.
He stated that that was the place where fitnah
(disorder, chaos) came from.
The preaching of Abdul-Wahhab was very popular among
the bedu clan ruled by the Saud family. This
practice of takfir, insisting other Muslims were
heretics, polytheists, pagans (kaffirun) made
robbing pilgrimage and other caravans a *virtue*
instead of brigandage. The British put the Sauds in
charge of the Arabian peninsula, now known as Saudi
Arabia.
The Wahhabis promptly slaughtered those they
considered pagan - Maliki, Hanafi, Shafi, Shia - it
didn't matter. Unless you believed in their
literalist primitive understanding of Islam, you
were obviously a pagan. The Wahhabi focus almost
entirely on outward conformity from what I have
seen. While other Muslims are discussing the
attributes of God, the Wahhabis are ordering Hanafi
women to "follow the stronger evidence" and cover
their *feet.* Seriously. For real.
Go to any Saudi supported masjid in the US, and
notice how many have filthy, horrible areas for
women to pray, often only accessible by passing
through the area outside where the dumpsters are,
and note that the women's restroom many be filthier
than a porta-potti in Tijuana. This is no accident.
Wahhabis think women should be neither seen nor
heard. They know more than the Caliph Umar who
accepted a correction on Islamic law from a woman -
in public - and acknowledged to all present that she
was correct, and he was wrong. No danger of that
happening in Wahhabi land - a woman's voice is
considered part of her awrah or nakedness.
If a religious education program for women even
*exists*, it will tend to focus on the importance of
wearing a head scarf, and covering one's feet.
Sometimes it will stress how a woman's prayer is
"better" for her at home - so why are all of you
ladies here for Juuma every Friday?
The importance of prayer seems to be limited to
having the exact "correct" position of the hands,
feet, etc. - and saying the "correct" exact words.
Imagine my surprise when I was earnestly informed
that I should never, ever pray in sadl - with my
arms down - because Imam Malik only did that
"because he had been tortured." When I asked a
Mauritania Shaykh, a noted religious scholar about
this statement, he was rather blunt. It seems that
"whoever says that is a liar." And that they really
need to fear God.
So, while silly westerners are running around and
claiming that Daesh and crew are really upset about
colonialism or whatever, the extremists keep telling
us all what they really want - and the left of the
west is so bigoted and patronizing that it literally
insists that the extremists are so backward and
stupid that they don't really mean what they say
because anyone with half a brain would be irate over
*material* issues, not religious matters.
You can find the Daesh English language publication
on line. Read it before you continue blathering
endless irrelevancies about "colonialism."
@Godfree Roberts
Thanks! For a while I thought you might identify
their motivation with our having bombed Muslim
countries pretty much continuously since 1946.
Nice save!
@aceofspades
The irony is that the places that terrorists
targeted were the very places that would give the
most support to Muslims and refugees. And they still
would, too. The very same neighborhood in Paris that
suffered from the 2015 attacks rejected Le Pen at an
even higher margin than the last election. I suppose
these people have a death wish.
In the wake of the massacre in Manchester, people
rightly warn against blaming the entire Muslim
community in Britain and the world. Certainly one
of the aims of those who carry out such
atrocities is to provoke the communal punishment
of all Muslims, thereby alienating a portion of
them who will then become open to recruitment by
Isis and al-Qaeda clones.
Thats a good one . The British are completely
helpless against Muslims, the police are trained to
punish whites not Muslims. Look at the Rotherham
(actually every city in England) scandal. The only
immigration that is vulnerable to public opinion is
EU immigration.
President Trump is ludicrously accusing Iran of
being the source of most terrorism in the Middle
East.
Americans like Trumps defence advisor McMaster way
have been rather put off Iran due to them supplying
explosively formed penetrator weapons to their Shia
proxy terrorist force in Iraq,which used them to
kill hundreds of US troops., and leave many others
without arms legs or testicles. McMaster was in Iraq
at the time and he knows it was the Iranians .
Trump's original pick for McMaster's job, General
Flynn, was there in Iraq too and later head of the
DIA. By all accounts he was infuriated by Iranians
supplying the Explosively formed penetrator weapons
to Shia groups so their IEDs could blast though
armour on US vehicles in Iraq. They, especially
Flynn had access to all the examination of the
wrecked vehicles and I suppose autopsies on US
soldiers as well. Iran ludicrously took on the US,
and now comes the reckoning.
Why do those responsible deliberately miss the
target and have gone on doing so? Because they
all profit greatly from it. Who are they? The war
industry and its various 'communities', the Jews.
the media, you name it, they're all in it for fun
and profit. None of them would have an income if
it all just stopped, if they actually wanted, you
know, peace whatever that is.
They can
manufacture an invasion of Iraq based on
non-existent WMDs as punishment for 911, when
apparently the real culprits were supposed to be
Saudis...
CIA is actually a state within the state as Church commission revealed and it has an immanent tendency to seek control over "surface
state" and media. In other words large intelligence apparatus might well be incompatible with the democratic governance.
Notable quotes:
"... The CIA has a track record of acting out of self interest since its inception and should not be believed. That being said, the public is almost completely unaware of the agency's misdeeds. ..."
"In the long run, the CIA can't deceive the Chinese government without also deceiving, in some way, the American public. This
leaves us with an obvious problem: Should we believe anything the CIA says?" [RealClearWorld].
"It's a tough question for a democracy to answer. Trust is built on the tacit agreement that the "bad things" an agency does are
good for the country.
If the public believes that that is no longer the case – if it believes the agency is acting out of self-interest and not national
interest – then the agreement is broken. The intelligence agency is seen as an impediment of the right to national self-determination,
a means for the ends of the few."
Huey Long <
RE: Hall of Mirrors/Believing the CIA
The CIA has a track record of acting out of self interest since its inception and should not be believed. That being said,
the public is almost completely unaware of the agency's misdeeds.
I think the reason folks like Manning, Snowden and Assange are so reviled by the agency is because they are a threat to the
CIA's reputation more than anything else.
CIA is actually a state within the state as Church commission revealed and it has an immanent tendency to seek control over "surface
state" and media. In other words large intelligence apparatus might well be incompatible with the democratic governance.
Notable quotes:
"... The CIA has a track record of acting out of self interest since its inception and should not be believed. That being said, the public is almost completely unaware of the agency's misdeeds. ..."
"In the long run, the CIA can't deceive the Chinese government without also deceiving, in some way, the American public. This
leaves us with an obvious problem: Should we believe anything the CIA says?" [RealClearWorld].
"It's a tough question for a democracy to answer. Trust is built on the tacit agreement that the "bad things" an agency does are
good for the country.
If the public believes that that is no longer the case – if it believes the agency is acting out of self-interest and not national
interest – then the agreement is broken. The intelligence agency is seen as an impediment of the right to national self-determination,
a means for the ends of the few."
Huey Long <
RE: Hall of Mirrors/Believing the CIA
The CIA has a track record of acting out of self interest since its inception and should not be believed. That being said,
the public is almost completely unaware of the agency's misdeeds.
I think the reason folks like Manning, Snowden and Assange are so reviled by the agency is because they are a threat to the
CIA's reputation more than anything else.
In defense of Obama making $400K while Clinton only made $225K
he was actually able to *GET ELECTED*.. She took all her bribes up front then lost to Trump
with a 2-1 money advantage and the press completely in her pocket. Truly pathetic. He should get
WAY more than 2x what she does. HE ACTUALLY DELIVERED SOMETHING TO HIS BENEFACTORS. If she had
any shame - which she obviously doesn't - she'd disappear forever. And we'd all be the better
for it.
Hillary, Bill, and Chelsea are three of the most embarrassing Americans to have ever lived.
If you think I'm being too harsh, ask yourself why the (D) party they built for 30 years prefers
fascism to democratic socialism.
Whether fair or not, it's not difficult to look at Wall Street paying $400,000 to Obama
as a reward for [not prosecuting anyone on Wall Street for the crash].
Well, something that seems fairer , if not inarguable, is that if President Obama
had prosecuted people on Wall Street, demanded Pecora investigation-style hearings, or,
y'know, acted generally in the public interest, Wall Street would not be shelling out
$400,000 to hear his views on anything.
To view Obama during his presidency as not being constrained under those circumstances
seems, to me, to be a kind of willful obliviousness.
I think the problem with this article is that the author can't distinguish were Neoliberalism starts
and ends and were Anglo Zionism (which we will understand simply as Neocon ideology starts and ends.
both are variants of Trotskyism -- "Trotskyism for the rich" to be exact. Also it is economic interest
that trump all others, so that alliance of the USA and Israel is pragmatic and is about USA access to
ME oil
They definitely highly intersect, but they are still distinct political ideas ("The USA global empire
uber alles in case of neocons; translational elites uber alles in case of neoliberals) and somewhat
distinct ideologies. I am not convinced that Cheney cabals (which included Paul Wolfiwitz and several
other neocons) was only or mostly pro-Israel political faction. And if tail really wags the dog -- the
idea that Israel determine foreign policy of the USA -- is true of not. It can be be that empire has
its own dynamics and Israel is just a convenient and valuable ally for now, much like Saudies
Notable quotes:
"... To sum it all up, I need to warn both racists and rabid anti-anti-Zionists that I will disappoint them both: the object of my discussion and criticism below will be limited to categories which a person chooses to belong to or endorse (religion, political ideas, etc.) and not categories which one is born with (race, ethnicity). ..."
"... Second, so what are Jews if not a race? In my opinion, they are a tribe (which Oxford Dictionaires defines as: a social division in a traditional society consisting of families or communities linked by social, economic, religious, or blood ties, with a common culture and dialect, typically having a recognized leader ..."
"... as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise ..."
"... My own preference still goes for "Zionist" because it combines the ideological racism of secular Jews with the religious racism of Judaics (if you don't like my choice, just replace "Zionist" with any of the categories I listed above). Zionism used to be secular, but it has turned religious during the late 20th century now and so for our purposes this term can encompass both secular and religious Jewish supremacists. Add to this some more or less conservative opinions and minsets and you have "Ziocons" as an alternative expression. ..."
"... doubleplusgoodthinking ..."
"... The reason why I decided to tackle this issue today is that the forces who broke Trump in less than a month are also the very same forces who have forced him into a political 180: the Neocons and the US deep state. However, I think that these two concepts can be fused into on I would call the "Ziocons": basically Zionists plus some rabid Anglo imperialists à la ..."
"... There is some pretty good evidence that the person in charge of this quiet coup is Jared Kushner, a rabid Zionist . Maybe . Maybe not. This does not really matter, what matters now is to understand what this all means for the rest of us in the "basket of deplorables", the "99%ers" – basically the rest of the planet. ..."
"... Syria . I think that we can all agree that having the black flag of Daesh fly over Damascus would be a disaster for Israel. Right? Wrong! You are thinking like a mentally sane person. This is not how the Israelis think at all. For them, Daesh is much preferable to Assad not only because Assad is the cornerstone of a unitary Syria, but because Daesh in power gives the Israelis the perfect pretext to establish a "security zone" to "protect" northern Israel. ..."
"... Daesh is basically a tool to carve up an even bigger Zionist entity. ..."
"... The bottom line is this: modern Neocons are little more than former Trotskyists who have found a new host to use. Their hatred for everything Russian is still so visceral that they rather support bona fide ..."
"... Bottom line – Ziocons feel an overwhelming and always present hatred for Russia and Russians and that factor is one of the key components of their motivations. Unless you take that hatred into account you will never be able to make sense of the Ziocons and their demented policies. ..."
"... Yes, Trump is a poorly educated ignoramus who is much better suited to the shows in Las Vegas than to be President of a nuclear superpower, but I don't see any signs of him being hateful of anybody. ..."
"... The poor man apparently had absolutely no idea of the power and maniacal drive of the Neocons who met him once he entered the White House. ..."
"... we now have the Ziocons in total control of BOTH parties in Congress (or, more accurately, both wings of the Ziocon party in Congress ..."
"... I get the feeling that there are only two types of officers left in the top ranks of the US military: retired ones and " ass-kissing little chickenshit s " à la ..."
"... ZOG. Or "Zionist Occupation Government". That used to be the favorite expression of various Jew-haters out there and it's use was considered the surefire sign of a rabid anti-Semite. And yet, that is precisely what we are now all living with: a Zionist occupation government which has clearly forced Trump to make a 180 on all his campaign promises and which now risks turning the USA into a radioactive desert resulting from a completely artificial and needless confrontation with Russia. ..."
"... Facts are facts, you cannot deny them or refuse to correctly qualify them that because of the possible "overtones" of the term chosen or because of some invented need to be especially "sensitive" when dealing with some special group. Remember – Jews are not owed any special favor and there is no need to constantly engage in various forms of complex linguistic or mental yoga contortions when discussing them and their role in the modern world. Still, I am using ZOG here just to show that it can be done, but this is not my favorite expression. ..."
"... at the same time ..."
"... ZOG is not an American problem. It is a planetary problem, if only because right now ZOG controls the US nuclear arsenal. ..."
"... I don't believe that Trump is dumb enough to actually strike at North Korea. I think that his dumbass plan is probably to shoot down a DPRK missile to show that he has made "America great again" or something equally asinine. ..."
"... To be totally honest, I don't think that the "very powerful armada" will do anything other than waste the US taxpayer's money. I am getting a strong sense that Trump is all about appearance over substance, what the Russians call "показуха" – a kind of fake show of force, full with special effects and "cool" photo ops, but lacking any real substance. Still, being on the receiving end of Trump's показуха (po-kah-zoo-kha) must be unnerving, especially if you already have natural paranoid tendencies. I am not at all sure the Kim Jong-un will find the presence of the US carrier strike group as pathetic and useless as I do. ..."
"... They are the ONLY ONES who really want to maintain the AngloZionst Empire at any cost. Trump made it clear over and over again that his priority was the USA and the American people, not the Empire. ..."
"... I can imagine the gasp of horror and disgust some of you will have at seeing me use the ZOG expression. I assure you, it is quite deliberate on my part. I want to 1) wake you up and 2) show you that you cannot allow the discomfort created by conditioning to guide your analyses ..."
"... Things are coming to a head. Trump presented himself as a real alternative to the ultimate warmongering shabbos-shiksa Hillary. It is now pretty darn obvious that what we got ourselves is just another puppet, but that the puppet-masters have not changed. ..."
"... From Ann Coulter to Pat Buchanan , many paleo-Conservatives clearly "got it". As did the real progressives . What we are left with is what I call the "extreme center", basically zombies who get their news from the Ziomedia and who have so many mental blocks that it takes weeks of focused efforts to basically bring them back to reality. ..."
"... The modern western [neoliberal] society has been built on a categorical rejection of [Christian] ethics and morality. Slogans like "God is dead" or "Beyond good and evil" resulted in the most abject and viciously evil century in human history: the 20th century. Furthermore, most people by now can tell that Hollywood, and its bigger brother, the US porn industry, have played a central role in basically removing categories such as "good" or "truth" or "honor" from the mind of those infected by the US mass media, especially the Idiot-box (aka "telescreen" in Orwell's 1984). Instead unbridled greed and consumption became the highest and most sacred expression of "our way of life" as Americans like to say ..."
"... Hollywood movies proclaimed that " greed is good ". In fact, at the very core of the capitalist [neoliberal] ideology is the belief that the sum total of everybody's greed yields the happiest and most successful society possible. Crazy and sick stuff, but I don't have the place to discuss this here. ..."
"... Sidebar: by the way, and contrary to popular belief, Russia is not an especially religious country at all. While only a minority of Russians is truly religious, a majority of Russians seem to support religious values as civilizational ones. ..."
"... for the time being we have this apparently paradoxical situation of a generally secular society standing for traditional and religious values ..."
"... You might wonder how pacifism, international law, human and civil rights, democracy, pluralism, anti-racism, ethics and morality can help avert a nuclear war in Korea. In truth – they cannot directly do this. But in the long term, I firmly believe that these values can corrode the AngloZionist Empire from within. ..."
"... Public protests does not work in a regime where the Ziomedia gets to decide which demonstration gets coverage and which one does not. ..."
"... ZIG is a more accurate acronym as in INFESTED. Think parasites like bed bugs, ticks, lice, mites, termites, scabies, fleas, ringworm, etc. ..."
"... Excellent, thought provoking and depressingly accurate. Even the cavil about the Golan Heights is based, if I'm not mistaken, on the fact Israel declared it annexed in 1981. ..."
"... I'll have to disagree. It's not the Jews that are using US for their own needs – it's the other way around. US realized the propaganda potential of the Jews and Israel at the end of WW2 and they never let go of it. ..."
"... That propaganda potential is still there, although it has been milked for more than 70 years now. Before WW2, there was not any kind of "special relationship" between the Jews and USA. US even turned a ship full of Jewish refugees before the onset of the war out of fear that they might offend the Nazis and suffer the consequences for it. That's what a great power they used to be back then – afraid what the Nazis might do to them. ..."
"... Their calculation was like this: Who were the greatest villains of WW2? – The Germans. Who were the ultimate victims of WW2? – The Jews. If the Germans were the bad guys, and the Jews were the good guys and the innocent victims – anybody portraying themselves as protectors of the victims can enjoy the image of being the good guys themselves. ..."
"... US are not the ones being controlled, they are the ones using Israel and the Jews for all they are worth as excellent propaganda material. Sure Israel and the Jews benefit from this, otherwise they wouldn't have agreed to this cozy symbiotic relationship. But the Jews didn't initiate this, it was always US idea. ..."
"... If Trump's foreign policies are being dictated by someone else I want him to give us names, addresses and photographs of the real decision makers. Until that happens I hold him responsible. I have begun to regard Trump as Dubya with Jared as his Cheney. ..."
"... Zionists are very powerful, but they are part of Globalism, a cabal of all elites of world: Chinese, EU, American, Jewish, Latin America, Hindus, Saudis, etc. It is the GLOB that rules. ..."
"... In general, the US leadership has not proven itself bright, cunning or principled enough to resist the Zio agenda. For exhibit "A" just read up on Truman. Then consider LBJ's response to the attack on the USS Liberty. ..."
"... One could also examine who the influential members of the admins of Wilson and FDR as well. ..."
"... But ZOG goes beyond mere government. The Zions now permeate countless NGO's, media institutions including news and entertainment, high finance, folkways involving culture-wide taboos, and or course, higher and lower education. Even Christian doctrine has been altered to accommodate this highly-aggressive movement. The Zionist agenda is a burgeoning phenomena. And its zombie acolytes are similarly ubiquitous. The Zions have captured our government–and more. ..."
"... So, we see a bunch of loyal dual American-Israeli citizens sitting at the top of the Israeli government, it's businesses, and its media? Oh – right – all those dual citizens are sitting atop US government, businesses and media. And we see Israel fighting wars for US' benefit? Oh – right – it's US doing the dirty work for Jewish expansionism. ..."
"... You do not get it Saker. It does not work that way. In absolute numbers losses are very low. It is all up to media to create a perception. America can afford to have many 1000′s more dead w/o any dent in its well being. Just control the media. Vilify the enemies. ..."
"... With the exception of Vietnam War America as and Empire hasn't lost a single war. Vietnam War was misguided from the point of view of the Empire which at the end of 1960′s and beginning of 1970′s was to be redirected to Middle East. ..."
"... There will be everlasting chaos of sectarian fighting as as long as TPTB will be supplying weapons to one of the sides. Always the weaker one at given moment. The same goes for Libya and soon for Syria. No more stable, semi-secular states with strong central power in the Middle East. ..."
"... Do not judge war success in terms of what is good or bad for Americans. It's all about the Empire, not about Americans. ..."
"... My bet is that it is not Trump himself but Ivanka. The elites found a soft spot and are using this weakness to control him. Who would have the means to do this? None other than his son in law Jared. ..."
"... Roland Bernard High Finance Shocking Revelations (Dutch with Subtitles) This video, more than any I have seen, exposes the dark heart of the matter. It's a must-watch from beginning to end. Highly credible, in my opinion. ..."
"... The Zionist attempt to control language. The Israel Project's 2009 GLOBAL LANGUAGE DICTIONARY ..."
"... But the Elephant driver is the British Empire System!!! ..."
"... It is the British behind the coup against Trump. The British want to prevent the end of "Geopolitics" as we know it which is what would happen should America Russia and China come together per the New Silk Road and One Belt initiatives. This is why the British are setting off ..."
"... Look at a swarm of the US Congresspeople blubbering praises for Israel during AIPAC' annual meetings. The US Congress is indeed the Zionist Occupied Territory, a picture of a host captured by a parasitoid. ..."
"... How many referenda the Syrians have held to bring the Golan Heights to the embrace of Israel? We cannot wait to hear your story of Syrian people voting to join Israel. ..."
"... Surely in the dreams of the US ziocons and in the criminal Oded Yinon's plan for Eretz Israel, which preaches for creating a civil disorder in the neighboring states so that Israel could snatch as much territory as possible from the neighbors. The ongoing Libyan and Syrian tragedies belong to that plan. ..."
"... Several notable Jewish American mobsters provided financial support for Israel through donations to Jewish organizations since the country's creation in 1948. Jewish-American gangsters used Israel's Law of Return to flee criminal charges or face deportation " ..."
"... when I read that I thought you might have meant Charlie Reese. he used to write for the Orlando Sentinel in Florida, until ((they)) ran him out ..."
"... Doesn't matter. It was a political defeat, and war is an extension of politics. ..."
First, a painful, but needed, clarification:
Basement crazies
.
Neocons .
Zionists .
Israel
Lobbyists . Judaics .
Jews
. Somewhere along this list we bump into the proverbial "elephant in the room". For some this
bumping will happen earlier in the list, for others a little later down the list, but the list will
be more or less the same for everybody. Proper etiquette, as least in the West, would want to make
us run away from that topic. I won't. Why? Well, for one thing I am constantly accused of not discussing
this elephant. Furthermore, I am afraid that the role this elephant is playing is particularly toxic
right now. So let me try to deal with this beast, but first I have to begin with some caveats.
First, terminology. For those who have not seen it, please read my article "
Why I use the term AngloZionist and why it is important ". Second, please read my friend Gilad
Atzmon's article "
Jews, Judaism & Jewishness " (or, even better, please read his seminal book
The Wondering
Who ). Please note that Gilad specifically excludes Judaics (religious Jews,) from his discussion.
He writes "I do not deal with Jews as a race or an ethnicity . I also generally
avoid dealing with Judaism (the religion)". I very much include them in my discussion. However, I
also fully agree with Gilad when he writes that "
Jews Are Not a Race But Jewish Identity is Racist " (those having any doubts about Jews not being
a race or ethnicity should read Shlomo Sand's excellent book "
The Invention of the Jewish People "). Lastly, please carefully review my definition of racism
as spelled out in my " moderation
policies ":
Racism is, in my opinion, not so much the belief that various human groups are different from
each other, say like dog breeds can be different, but the belief that the differences between human
groups are larger than within the group. Second, racism is also a belief that the biological characteristics
of your group somehow pre-determine your actions/choices/values in life. Third, racism often, but
not always, assumes a hierarchy amongst human groups (Germanic Aryans over Slavs or Jews, Jews over
Gentiles, etc.). I believe that God created all humans with the same purpose and that we are all
"brothers in Adam", that we all equally share the image (eternal and inherent potential for perfection)
of God (as opposed to our likeness to Him, which is our temporary and changing individual condition).
To sum it all up, I need to warn both racists and rabid anti-anti-Zionists that I will disappoint
them both: the object of my discussion and criticism below will be limited to categories which a
person chooses to belong to or endorse (religion, political ideas, etc.) and not categories which
one is born with (race, ethnicity).
Second, so what are Jews if not a race? In my opinion, they are a tribe (which Oxford Dictionaires
defines as: a social division in a traditional society consisting of families or communities
linked by social, economic, religious, or blood ties, with a common culture and dialect, typically
having a recognized leader ). A tribe is a group one can chose to join (Elizabeth Taylor) or
leave (Gilad Atzmon).
Third, it is precisely and because Jews are a tribe that we, non-Jews, owe them exactly nothing:
no special status, neither bad nor good, no special privilege of any kind, no special respect or
"sensitivity" – nothing at all. We ought to treat Jews exactly as we treat any other of our fellow
human beings: as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise (Luke 6:31).
So if being Jewish is a choice and if any choice is a legitimate object of discussion and criticism,
then (choosing to) being Jewish is a legitimate object of discussion and criticism. Conversely, those
who would deny us the right to criticize Jews are, of course, the real racists since they do believe
that Jews somehow deserve a special status. In fact, that notion is at the core of the entire Jewish
identity and ideology.
Now let's come back to our opening list: Basement crazies. Neocons. Zionists. Israel Lobbyists.
Judaics. Jews. I submit that these are all legitimate categories as long as it is clear that "Jews
by birth only", what Alain Soral in France calls "the everyday Jews", are not included in this list.
Thus, for our purposes and in this context, these terms are all interchangeable. My own preference
still goes for "Zionist" because it combines the
ideological racism of secular Jews with the
religious racism
of Judaics (if you don't like my choice, just replace "Zionist" with any of the categories I
listed above). Zionism used to be secular, but it has turned religious during the late 20th century
now and so for our purposes this term can encompass both secular and religious Jewish supremacists.
Add to this some more or less conservative opinions and minsets and you have "Ziocons" as an alternative
expression.
[Sidebar: it tells you something about the power of the Zionist propaganda machine, I call it
the Ziomedia, that I would have to preface this article with a 700+ explanatory words note to try
to overcome conditioned mental reflexes in the reader (that I might be an evil anti-Semite). By the
way, I am under no illusions either: some Jews or doubleplusgoodthinking shabbos-goyim will
still accuse me of racism. This just comes with the territory. But the good news is when I will challenge
them to prove their accusation they will walk away empty-handed].
The reason why I decided to tackle this issue today is that the forces who
broke Trump in less than a month are also the very same forces who have forced him into a political
180: the Neocons and the US deep state. However, I think that these two concepts can be fused into
on I would call the "Ziocons": basically Zionists plus some rabid Anglo imperialists à la
Cheney or McCain. These are the folks who control the US corporate media, Hollywood, Congress,
most of academia, etc . These are the folks who organized a ferocious assault on the "nationalist"
or "patriotic" wing of Trump supporters and ousted Flynn and Bannon and these are the folks who basically
staged a color revolution against Trump . There is some pretty good evidence that the person
in charge of this quiet coup is
Jared Kushner, a rabid
Zionist .
Maybe . Maybe not. This does not really matter, what matters now is to understand what this all
means for the rest of us in the "basket of deplorables", the "99%ers" – basically the rest of the
planet.
Making sense of the crazies
Making sense of the motives and goals (one cannot speak of "logic" in this case) of self-deluded
racists can be a difficult exercise. But when the "basement crazies" (reminder: the term from from
here ) are
basically in control of the policies of the US Empire, this exercise becomes crucial, vital for the
survival of the mentally sane. I will now try to outline the reasons behind the "new" Trump policies
using two examples: Syria and Russia.
Syria . I think that we can all agree that having the black flag of Daesh fly over Damascus
would be a disaster for Israel. Right? Wrong! You are thinking like a mentally sane person. This
is not how the Israelis think at all. For them, Daesh is much preferable to Assad not only because
Assad is the cornerstone of a unitary Syria, but because Daesh in power gives the Israelis the perfect
pretext to establish a "security zone" to "protect" northern Israel. And that, in plain English,
means fully occupying and annexing the Golan (an old Israeli dream). Even better, the Israelis know
Daesh really well (they helped create it with the USA and Saudi Arabia) and they know that Daesh
is a mortal threat to Hezbollah. By putting Daesh into power in Syria, the Israelis hope for a long,
bloody and never ending war in Lebanon and Syria. While their northern neighbors would be plugged
into maelstrom of atrocities and horrors, the Israelis would get to watch it all from across their
border while sending a few aircraft from time to time to bomb Hezbollah positions or even innocent
civilians under whatever pretext. Remember how the
Israelis watched in total delight how their forces bombed the population of Gaza in 2014? With
Daesh in power in Damascus, they would get an even better show to take their kids to. Finally, and
last but most definitely not least, the Syrian Christians would be basically completely wiped out.
For those who know the hatred Judaics and Jews have always felt for Christianity (even
today ) it will be clear why the Israelis would want Daesh in power in Syria: Daesh is basically
a tool to carve up an even bigger Zionist entity.
Russia . Ziocons absolutely loathe Russia and everything Russian. Particularly the ex-Trotskyists
turned Neocons. I have
explained the origins of this hatred elsewhere and I won't repeat it all here. You just need
to study the genocidal policies against anything Russian of the first Bolshevik government (which
was 80%-85% Jews; don't believe me? Then listen
to Putin himself ). I have already discussed "
The ancient
spiritual roots of russophobia " in a past article and I have also explain what
rabbinical Phariseism (what is mistakenly called "Judaism" nowadays) is little more than an "anti-Christianity
"(please read those articles if this complex and fascinating history is of interest to you).
The bottom line is this: modern Neocons are little more than former Trotskyists who have found
a new host to use. Their hatred for everything Russian is still so visceral that they rather support
bona fide Nazis (isn't this ironic?) in the Ukraine than Russia, which is even more paradoxical
if you recall that before the 1917 Bolshevik coup anti-Jewish feelings were much stronger in what
is today the Ukraine than in what is the Russian Federation today.
In fact, relations between Russians and Jews have, I would argue, been significantly improving
since the Nazi coup in Kiev, much to the chagrin of the relatively few Russians left who truly hate
Jews. While you will hear a lot of criticism of organized political Jewry in Russia, especially compared
to the West, there is very little true anti-Jewish racism in Russia today, and even less publicly
expressed in the media (in fact, 'hate speech' is illegal in Russia). One thing to keep in mind is
that there are many substantial differences between Russian Jews and US Jews, especially amongst
those Russian Jews who deliberately chose not to emigrate to Israel, or some other western country
(those interested in this topic can find a more detailed discussion
here ). Jews in Russia today deliberately chose to stay and that, right there, show a very different
attitude than the attitude of those (Jews and non-Jews) who took the first opportunity to get out
of Russia as soon as possible. Bottom line – Ziocons feel an overwhelming and always present
hatred for Russia and Russians and that factor is one of the key components of their motivations.
Unless you take that hatred into account you will never be able to make sense of the Ziocons and
their demented policies.
Making sense of Trump
I think that Trump can be criticized for a lot of things, but there is exactly zero evidence of
him ever harboring anti-Russian feelings. There is plenty of evidence that he has always been pro-Israeli,
but no more than any politician or businessman in the USA. I doubt that Trump even knows where the
Golan Heights even are. He probably also does not know that Hezbollah and Daesh are mortal enemies.
Yes, Trump is a poorly educated ignoramus who is much better suited to the shows in Las Vegas
than to be President of a nuclear superpower, but I don't see any signs of him being hateful of anybody.
More generally, the guy is really not ideological. The best evidence is his goofy idea of building
a wall to solve the problem of illegal immigration: he (correctly) identified a problem, but then
he came up with a Kindergarten level (pseudo) solution.
The same goes for his views on Russia. He probably figured out something along these lines: "Putin
is a strong guy, Russia is a strong country, they hate Daesh and want to destroy it – let's join
forces". The poor man apparently had absolutely no idea of the power and maniacal drive of the
Neocons who met him once he entered the White House. Even worse is the fact that he apparently
does not realize that they are now using him to try out some pretty demented policies for which they
will later try to impeach him as the sole culprit should things go wrong (and they most definitely
will). Frankly, I get the feeling that Trump was basically sincere in his desire to "drain the swamp"
but that he is simply not too clever (just the way he betrayed Flynn and Bannon to try to appease
the Ziocons is so self-defeating and, frankly, stupid). But even if I am wrong and Trump was "their"
plant all along (I still don't believe that at all), the end result is the same: we now have
the Ziocons in total control of BOTH parties in Congress (or, more accurately, both wings of the
Ziocon party in Congress ), in total control of the White House, the mass media and Hollywood.
I am not so sure that they truly are in control of the Pentagon, but when I see the kind of pliable
and spineless figures military Trump has recently appointed, I get the feeling that there are
only two types of officers left in the top ranks of the US military: retired ones and "
ass-kissing little chickenshit s " à la Petraeus. Not good. Not good at all. As for
the ridiculously bloated (and therefore mostly incompetent) "three letter agencies soup", it appears
that it has been turned from an intelligence community to a highly politicized propaganda community
whose main purpose is to justify whatever counter-factual insanity their political bosses can dream
up. Again. Not good. Not good at all.
Living with ZOG
ZOG. Or "Zionist Occupation Government". That used to be the favorite expression of various
Jew-haters out there and it's use was considered the surefire sign of a rabid anti-Semite. And yet,
that is precisely what we are now all living with: a Zionist occupation government which has clearly
forced Trump to make a 180 on all his campaign promises and which now risks turning the USA into
a radioactive desert resulting from a completely artificial and needless confrontation with Russia.
To those horrified that I would dare use an expression like ZOG I will reply this: believe me,
I am even more upset about having to admit that ZOG is real than you are: I really don't care for
racists of any kind, and most of these ZOG folks looks like real racists to me. But, alas, they are
also right! Facts are facts, you cannot deny them or refuse to correctly qualify them that because
of the possible "overtones" of the term chosen or because of some invented need to be especially
"sensitive" when dealing with some special group. Remember – Jews are not owed any special favor
and there is no need to constantly engage in various forms of complex linguistic or mental yoga contortions
when discussing them and their role in the modern world. Still, I am using ZOG here just to show
that it can be done, but this is not my favorite expression. I just feel that committing the
crimethink here will encourage others to come out of their shell and speak freely. At the
very least, asking the question of whether we do or do not have a Zionist Occupation Government is
an extremely important exercise all by itself. Hence, today I ZOG-away
Some might argue with the "occupation" part of the label. Okay – what would you call a regime
which is clearly acting in direct opposition to the will of an overwhelming majority of the people
and which acts in the interests of a foreign power (with which the USA does not even have a formal
treaty)? Because, please make no mistake here, this is not a Trump-specific phenomenon. I think that
it all began with Reagan and that the Ziocons fully seized power with Bill Clinton. Others think
that it all began with Kennedy. Whatever may be the case, what is clear is that election after election
Americans consistently vote for less war and each time around they get more wars . It is true that
most Americans are mentally unable to conceptually analyze the bizarre phenomena of a country with
no enemies and formidable natural barriers needs to spend more on wars of aggression then the rest
of the planet spends of defense. Nor are they equipped to wonder why the US needs 16/17 intelligences
agencies when the vast majority of countries out there do fine with 2-5. Lastly, most Americans do
believe that they have some kind of duty to police the planet. True. But at the same time
, they are also sick and tired of wars, if only because so many of their relatives, friends
and neighbors return from these wars either dead or crippled. That, and the fact that Americans absolutely
hate losing. Losing is all the USA has been doing since God knows how long: losing wars against all
but the weakest and most defenseless countries out there. Most Americans also would prefer that the
money spent aboard on "defending democracy" (i.e. imperialism) be spent at home to help the millions
of Americans in need in the USA. As the southern rock band Lynyrd Snynyrd (which hails from Jacksonville,
Florida) once put it in their songs " Things
goin' on ":
Too many lives they've spent across the ocean
Too much money been spent upon the moon
Well, until they make it right
I hope they never sleep at night
They better make some changes
And do it soon
Soon? That song was written in 1978! And since then, nothing has changed. If anything, things
got worse, much worse.
Houston, we got a problem
ZOG is not an American problem. It is a planetary problem, if only because right now ZOG controls
the US nuclear arsenal. And Trump, who clearly and unequivocally campaigned on a peace platform,
is now sending a "
very powerful armada " to the coast of the DPRK. Powerful as this armada might be, it can do
absolutely nothing to prevent the DPRK artillery from smashing Seoul into smithereens. You think
that I am exaggerating? Business Insider estimated in 2010 that
it would take the DPRK 2 hours to completely obliterate Seoul . Why? Because
the
DPRK has enough artillery pieces to fire 500,000 rounds of artillery on Seoul in the first hour of
a conflict , that's why. Here we are talking about old fashioned, conventional, artillery pieces.
Wikipedia
says that the DPRK has 8,600 artillery pieces and 4,800 multiple rocket launcher systems. Two
days a go a Russian expert said that the real figure was just under 20'000 artillery pieces. Whatever
thee exact figure, suffice to say that it is "a lot".
The
DPRK also has some more modern but equally dangerous capabilities . Of special importance here
are the roughly 200'000 North Korean special forces. Oh sure, these 200'000 are not US Green Beret
or Russian Spetsnaz, but they are adequate for their task: to operate deep behind enemy lies and
create chaos and destroy key objectives. You tell me – what can the USS Carl Vinson carrier strike
group deploy against these well hidden and dispersed 10'000+ artillery pieces and 200'000 special
forces? Exactly, nothing at all.
And did I mention that the DPRK has nukes?
No, I did not. First, I am not at all sure that the kind of nukes the DPRK has can be fitted for
delivery on a missile. Having a few nukes and having missiles is one thing, having missiles capable
of adequately delivering these nukes is quite another. I suppose that DPRK special forces could simply
drive a nuke down near Seoul on a simple army truck and blow it up. Or bring it in a container ship
somewhere in the general vicinity of a US or Korean base and blow it up there. One neat trick would
be to load a nuke on a civilian ship, say a fishing vessel, and bring it somewhere near the USS Carl
Vinson and then blow it up. Even if the USN ships survive this unscathed, the panic aboard these
ships would be total. To be honest, this mostly Tom Clancy stuff, in real warfare I don't think that
the North Korean nukes would be very useful against a US attack. But you never know, necessity is
the mother of invention , as the British like to say.
I don't believe that Trump is dumb enough to actually strike at North Korea. I think that
his dumbass plan is probably to shoot down a DPRK missile to show that he has made "America great
again" or something equally asinine. The problem here is that I am not sure at all how Kim Jong-un
and his Party minions might react to that kind of loss of face. What if they decided that they needed
to fire some more missiles, some in the general direction of US forces in the region (there are fixed
US targets all over the place). Then what? How will Trump prove that he is the biggest dog on the
block? Could he decide to "punish" the offending missile launch site like he did with the al-Sharyat
airbase in Syria? And if Trump does that – what will Kim Jong-un's reaction be?
To be totally honest, I don't think that the "very powerful armada" will do anything other
than waste the US taxpayer's money. I am getting a strong sense that Trump is all about appearance
over substance, what the Russians call "показуха" – a kind of fake show of force, full with special
effects and "cool" photo ops, but lacking any real substance. Still, being on the receiving end of
Trump's показуха (po-kah-zoo-kha) must be unnerving, especially if you already have natural paranoid
tendencies. I am not at all sure the Kim Jong-un will find the presence of the US carrier strike
group as pathetic and useless as I do.
Both Russia and Syria have shown an amazing about of restraint when provoked by Turkey or the
US. This is mostly due to the fact that Russian and Syrian leaders are well-educated people who are
less concerned with loss of face than with achieving their end result. In direct contrast, both Kim
Jong-un and Trump are weak, insecure, leaders with an urgent need to prove to their people (and to
themselves!) that they are tough guys. Exactly the most dangerous kind of mindset you want in any
nuclear-capable power, be it huge like the USA or tiny like the DPRK.
So what does that have to do with the ZOG and the Ziocons? Everything.
They are the ONLY ONES who really want to maintain the AngloZionst Empire at any cost. Trump
made it clear over and over again that his priority was the USA and the American people, not the
Empire. And yet now is is playing a crazy game of "nuclear chicken" with the DPRK. Does that
sound like the "real Trump" to you? Maybe – but not to me. All this crazy stuff around the DPRK and
the (few) nukes it apparently has, is all just a pretext to "play empire", to show that, as Obama
liked to say, the USA is the "
indispensable
nation ". God forbid the local countries would deal with that problem alone, without USN carrier
strike groups involved in the "solving" of this problem!
[Sidebar: by the way, this is also the exact same situation in Syria: the Russians have single-handedly
organized a viable peace-process on the ground and then followed it up with a multi-party conference
in Astana, Kazakhstan. Looks great except for one problem: the indispensable nation was not even
invited. Even worse, the prospects of peace breaking out became terribly real. The said indispensable
nation therefore "invited itself" by illegally (and ineffectually) bombing a Syrian air base and,
having now proven its capacity to wreck any peace process, the USA is now right back in center-stage
of the negotiations about the future of Syria. In a perverse way, this almost makes sense.]
So yes, we have a problem and that problem is that ZOG is in total control of the Empire and will
never accept to let it go, even if that means destroying the USA in the process.
I can imagine the gasp of horror and disgust some of you will have at seeing me use the ZOG
expression. I assure you, it is quite deliberate on my part. I want to 1) wake you up and 2) show
you that you cannot allow the discomfort created by conditioning to guide your analyses . As
with all the other forms of crimethink , I recommend that you engage in a lot of it, preferably
in public, and you will get used to it. First it will be hard, but with time it will get easier (it
is also great fun). Furthermore, somebody needs to be the first one to scream "
the emperor has no clothes ". Then, once one person does it, the others realize that it is safe
and more follow. The key thing here is not to allow ideological "sacred cows" to roam around your
intellectual mindspace and limit you in your thinking. Dogmas should be limited to Divine revelations,
not human ideological constructs.
Where do we go from here?
Things are coming to a head. Trump presented himself as a real alternative to the ultimate
warmongering shabbos-shiksa Hillary. It is now pretty darn obvious that what we got ourselves is
just another puppet, but that the puppet-masters have not changed. The good news is that those
who were sincere in their opposition to war are now openly speaking about Trump great betrayal.
From Ann Coulter to
Pat Buchanan , many
paleo-Conservatives clearly "got it". As did the
real progressives . What we are left with is what I call the "extreme center", basically zombies
who get their news from the Ziomedia and who have so many mental blocks that it takes weeks of focused
efforts to basically bring them back to reality.
The key issue here is how do we bring together those who are still capable of thought? I think
that a minimalist agenda we can all agree upon could be composed of the following points:
Peace/pacifism International law Human and civil rights Democracy Pluralism Anti-racism Ethics and
morality
Sounds harmless? It ain't, I assure you. ZOG can only survive by violence, terror and war. Furthermore,
the AngloZionist Empire cannot abide by any principles of international law. As for human and civil
right, once quick look at the Patriot Act (which was already ready by the time the 9/11 false flag
operation was executed) will tell you how ZOG feels about these issues. More proof? How about the
entire "fake news" canard? How about the new levels of censorship in YouTube, Facebook or Google?
Don't you see that this is simply a frontal attack on free speech and the First Amendment?! What
about Black Lives Matter – is that not a perfect pretext to justify more police powers and a further
militarization of police forces? To think that the Zionists care about human or civil rights is a
joke! Just read what the Uber-Zionist and [putative] human right lawyer, the great Alan Dershowitz
writes about torture, Israel or free speech (for Norman Finkelstein). Heck, just read what ultra-liberal
super-mega human righter (well, after he returned to civilian life) and ex-President
Jimmy Carter writes about Israel -- Or look at the policies of the Bolshevik regime in Russia.
It it pretty clear that these guys not only don't give a damn about human or civil right, but that
they are deeply offended and outraged when they are told that they cannot violate these rights.
What about democracy? How can that be a intellectual weapon? Simple – you show that every time
the people (in the USA or Europe) voted for X they got Y. Or they were told to re-vote and re-vote
and re-vote again and again until, finally, the Y won. That is a clear lack of democracy. So if you
say that you want to restore democracy, you are basically advocating regime-change, but nicely wrapped
into a "good" ideological wrapper. Western democracies are profoundly anti-democratic. Show it!
Pluralism? Same deal. All this takes is to prove that the western society has become a "mono-ideological"
society were real dissent is simply not tolerated and were real pluralism is completely ascent from
the public discourse. Demand that the enemies of the system be given equal time on air and always
make sure that you give the supporters of the system equal time on media outlets you (we) control.
Then ask them to compare. This is exactly what Russia is doing nowadays (see
here if you are
interested). Western democracies are profoundly anti-pluralistic. Again, show it!
Anti-racism. Should be obvious to the reader by now. Denounce, reject and attack any idea which
gives any group any special status. Force your opponents to fess up to the fact that what they
really want when they claim to struggle for "equality" is a special status for their single-issue
minority. Reject any and all special interest groups and, especially, reject the notion that democracy
is about defending the minority against the majority. In reality, minorities are always much more
driven and motivated by a single issue which is why a coalition of minorities inevitably comes to
power. What the world needs is the exact opposite: a democracy which would protect the majority against
the minorities. Oh, sure, they will fight you on this one, but since you are right this is an intellectual
argument you ought to be capable of winning pretty easily (just remember, don't let accusations of
crimethink freeze you in terror).
Last, my favorite one: ethics and morality.
The modern western [neoliberal] society has been built on a categorical rejection of [Christian]
ethics and morality. Slogans like "God is dead" or "Beyond good and evil" resulted in the most abject
and viciously evil century in human history: the 20th century. Furthermore, most people by now can
tell that Hollywood, and its bigger brother, the US porn industry, have played a central role in
basically removing categories such as "good" or "truth" or "honor" from the mind of those infected
by the US mass media, especially the Idiot-box (aka "telescreen" in Orwell's 1984). Instead unbridled
greed and consumption became the highest and most sacred expression of "our way of life" as Americans
like to say .
Hollywood movies proclaimed that "
greed is good ". In fact, at the very core of the capitalist [neoliberal] ideology is the belief
that the sum total of everybody's greed yields the happiest and most successful society possible.
Crazy and sick stuff, but I don't have the place to discuss this here. All I will say that that
rehabilitating notions such as right and wrong, good and evil, truth and falsehood, healthy and natural
versus unnatural and pathological is a great legal way (at least so far) to fight the Empire. Ditto
for sexual morality and family. There is a reason why all Hollywood movies inevitably present only
divorced or sexually promiscuous heroes: they are trying to destroy the natural family unit because
they *correctly* identify the traditional family unit as a threat to the AngloZionist order. Likewise,
there is also a reason why all the western elites are constantly plagued by accusations of pedophilia
and other sexual scandals. One Russian commentator, Vitalii Tretiakov, recently hilariously paraphrased
the old communist slogan and declared "naturals of all countries – come to Russia" [in modern Russian
"naturals" is the antonym of "homosexual"). He was joking, of course, but he was also making a serious
point: Russia has become the only country which dares to openly uphold the core values of Christianity
and Islam (that, of course, only adds to the Ziocon's hatred of Russia).
[ Sidebar: by the way, and contrary to popular belief, Russia is not an especially religious
country at all. While only a minority of Russians is truly religious, a majority of Russians seem
to support religious values as civilizational ones. I don't think that this is sustainable for
too long, Russia will either become more religious or more secularized, but for the time being
we have this apparently paradoxical situation of a generally secular society standing for traditional
and religious values ]
You might wonder how pacifism, international law, human and civil rights, democracy, pluralism,
anti-racism, ethics and morality can help avert a nuclear war in Korea. In truth – they cannot directly
do this. But in the long term, I firmly believe that these values can corrode the AngloZionist Empire
from within. And look at the alternatives:
Organizing political parties does not work in a system where money determine the outcome. "Direct
action" does not work in a system which treats libertarians and ecologists as potential terrorists.
Public protests does not work in a regime where the Ziomedia gets to decide which demonstration
gets coverage and which one does not. Civil disobedience does not work in a regime which has
no problem having the highest per capita incarceration rate on the planet. Running for office does
not work in a regime which selects for spinelessness, immorality and, above all, subservience. Even
running away abroad does not work when dealing with an Empire which has 700-1000 (depends on how
you count) military bases worldwide and which will bomb the crap out of any government which strives
at even a modicum of true sovereignty.
The only other option is "internal exile", when you build yourself you own inner world of spiritual
and intellectual freedom and you basically "live there" with no external signs of you having "fled"
the Empire's ugly reality. But if nuclear-tipped ICBMs start flying no amount of "internal exile"
will protect you, not even if you combine that internal exile with with a life far away in the boonies.
Orthodox Christian eschatology teaches that the End Times are inevitable. However, the Fathers
also teach that we can push the End Times back by our collective actions, be it in the form of prayers
or in the form of an open resistance to Evil in our world. I have three children, 1 girl and 2 boys,
and I feel like I owe it to them to fight to make the world they will have to live even marginally
better.
... ... ..
nsa, April 17, 2017 at 1:26 am GMT
ZIG is a more accurate acronym as in INFESTED. Think parasites like bed bugs, ticks, lice,
mites, termites, scabies, fleas, ringworm, etc.
exiled off mainstreet, April 17, 2017 at 2:10 am GMT • 100 Words
Excellent, thought provoking and depressingly accurate. Even the cavil about the Golan
Heights is based, if I'm not mistaken, on the fact Israel declared it annexed in 1981. I'm
not sure it is internationally recognized, though the US, as an Israeli acolyte as indicated by
the article in spades, may have done so at some point.
Most of the time I like the way Saker thinks, but on this one I'll have to disagree. It's
not the Jews that are using US for their own needs – it's the other way around. US realized the
propaganda potential of the Jews and Israel at the end of WW2 and they never let go of it.
That propaganda potential is still there, although it has been milked for more than 70
years now. Before WW2, there was not any kind of "special relationship" between the Jews and USA.
US even turned a ship full of Jewish refugees before the onset of the war out of fear that they
might offend the Nazis and suffer the consequences for it. That's what a great power they used
to be back then – afraid what the Nazis might do to them.
Then in the closing stages of WW2, when the Russians told them what they found in the concentration
camps that they liberated – at first the Americans dismissed their reports as "communist propaganda."
They refused to believe that highly "civilized" European country such as Germany can commit such
barbarities. Only after they were faced with overwhelming evidence about the concentration camps,
the US decided to change their tune.
Their calculation was like this: Who were the greatest villains of WW2? – The Germans.
Who were the ultimate victims of WW2? – The Jews. If the Germans were the bad guys, and the Jews
were the good guys and the innocent victims – anybody portraying themselves as protectors of the
victims can enjoy the image of being the good guys themselves. That formula is still being
used today, but it's mostly in Europe and US that it's still considered valid, for the rest of
the world just too much time has passed and some of Israel's behavior in the ME has cast a shadow
on their image as eternal victims.
People on this site want to view the Jews as George Milton and US as Lenny Small – from Steinbeck
novel "Of mice and men". But the reality is much different. US are not Lenny Small, a giant with
great physical strength but not too much brain power. US are not the ones being controlled,
they are the ones using Israel and the Jews for all they are worth as excellent propaganda material.
Sure Israel and the Jews benefit from this, otherwise they wouldn't have agreed to this cozy symbiotic
relationship. But the Jews didn't initiate this, it was always US idea.
WorkingClass, April 17, 2017 at 4:20 am GMT /p>
If Trump's foreign policies are being dictated by someone else I want him to give us names,
addresses and photographs of the real decision makers. Until that happens I hold him responsible.
I have begun to regard Trump as Dubya with Jared as his Cheney.
Well done Saker. Please keep up the good work.
Anon, April 17, 2017 at 5:31 am GMT
Zionists are very powerful, but they are part of Globalism, a cabal of all elites of world:
Chinese, EU, American, Jewish, Latin America, Hindus, Saudis, etc. It is the GLOB that rules.
But the Jews didn't initiate this, it was always US idea.
Nice try, but what have you to say about the originators of the Zionist project?
P.S.: In general, the US leadership has not proven itself bright, cunning or principled
enough to resist the Zio agenda. For exhibit "A" just read up on Truman. Then consider LBJ's response
to the attack on the USS Liberty.
One could also examine who the influential members of the admins of Wilson and FDR as well.
Mark Green, April 17, 2017 at 4:50 pm GMT
This is a very thoughtful article. The Saker covers a lot of ground. Basically, he has provided
his readers with not only a highly perceptive overview, but a blueprint from which they can begin
resisting ZOG (or ZIG) tyranny. And let's make no mistake about it: ZOG exists and its impact
is immense.
But ZOG goes beyond mere government. The Zions now permeate countless NGO's, media institutions
including news and entertainment, high finance, folkways involving culture-wide taboos, and or
course, higher and lower education. Even Christian doctrine has been altered to accommodate this
highly-aggressive movement. The Zionist agenda is a burgeoning phenomena. And its zombie acolytes
are similarly ubiquitous. The Zions have captured our government–and more.
The Saker also correctly notes that the distorting influence of Zionism has become too apparent
to deny–even though it is, at the same time, nearly invisible; as it operates in plain sight under
various pseudonyms, disguises and false pretenses.
Indeed, its influence remains mostly unrecognized and it is therefore unresisted. For now.
Indeed, even Trump–after only months in office–has fallen under its clever spell. We must therefore
strive to examine, discuss, critique and resist this extra-national force of malevolence. Step
one: Identify the source.
The intellectual and culture-wide power of ZOG emanates in great part via our mainstream media.
The mind-numbing and destructive impact of ZOG in Western media must be understood and unmasked.
Fran Macadam, April 18, 2017 at 2:13 am GMT
When you're right you're right. Logic like this is what leads the paranoiacs to think Russkis
are taking over! When you make good sense, it can't help but "control" minds.
One of the saddest developments, to a former implacable Cold Warrior and anticommunist, is
that when by a miracle (yes, I count it that) the Russians ended communism by their own choice,
without shots being fired, our side did not respond honorably (at least the ones at the commanding
heights of our society.)
Like your description of what Trump thought, "Hey Russia's fighting ISIS, let's have them take
care of it and save us the trouble" I'm a simple guy too who'd rather see the destructive waste
of war money instead be spent on infrastructure for our folks.
I think of "House of the Dead" where the picture of the prisoners waiting for release through
the coming of Christ, is a picture of us poor prisoners, but still of faith, waiting in this world
too. Even so, come quickly, Lord Jesus.
CalDre, April 18, 2017 at 2:56 am GMT
@Cyrano
Wow, where to start when someone claims white is black .
It's not the Jews that are using US for their own needs – it's the other way around.
So, we see a bunch of loyal dual American-Israeli citizens sitting at the top of the Israeli
government, it's businesses, and its media? Oh – right – all those dual citizens are sitting atop
US government, businesses and media. And we see Israel fighting wars for US' benefit? Oh – right
– it's US doing the dirty work for Jewish expansionism.
US even turned a ship full of Jewish refugees before the onset of the war out of fear that
they might offend the Nazis and suffer the consequences for it.
That's not the case. The Jews were turned away because the Jewish Establishment/Zionists ordered
the US to turn them back. Why? Because they wanted them to go to Israel to rob the Palestinians
of their land instead. So it was not the Nazis the US was afraid of (then or now), but the Jewish
oligarchs.
Then in the closing stages of WW2, when the Russians told them what they found in the concentration
camps that they liberated – at first the Americans dismissed their reports as "communist propaganda."
They refused to believe that highly "civilized" European country such as Germany can commit such
barbarities. Only after they were faced with overwhelming evidence about the concentration camps,
the US decided to change their tune.
There is not to this day any "overwhelming" or even "underwhelming" evidence of the Holohoax.
Soviets made a bunch of propaganda out of the (labor) camps in large part to get back at Germany
for the terrible losses the Soviets suffered, as well as the huge embarrassment when the Nazis
revealed the Soviet crimes in Katlyn Forest. However when in the early 1990s Gorbachev released
the notorious Auschwitz "death books", it turns out hardly any Jews were killed, and none by gassings,
rather the vast majority of the dead succumbed to typhus (typhus being carried by lice, and Zyklon-B,
the chemical Germany is (falsely) accused of using to murder Jews by the millions, was actually
used to kill lice and thereby save Jews in the camps).
utu, April 18, 2017 at 5:37 am GMT
But even if I am wrong and Trump was "their" plant all along
It's possible that Trump did not even know that he was their plant but at some point after
psychological profiling of him and assessing all leverages available to them to pry and prod him
it was decided he will be just fine for the job. That's why he was allowed to win the election.
The anti-Trump color revolution conducted by the so-called liberal left was a crucial part from
the arsenal of the leverages. In the end it worked out beautifully for them. Gen. Flynn was not
too bright to realize what hit him but Bannon is perhaps the only guy, in the good guys camp,
who knows what is really going on. I am just wondering why he is still there. Perhaps they are
forcing him to stay for the sake of the deluded iron electorate of Trump to prolong their delusion.
they are also sick and tired of wars, if only because so many of their relatives, friends
and neighbors return from these wars either dead or crippled. That, and the fact that Americans
absolutely hate losing. Losing is all the USA has been doing since God knows how long: losing
wars against all but the weakest and most defenseless countries out there
You do not get it Saker. It does not work that way. In absolute numbers losses are very
low. It is all up to media to create a perception. America can afford to have many 1000′s more
dead w/o any dent in its well being. Just control the media. Vilify the enemies.
With the exception of Vietnam War America as and Empire hasn't lost a single war. Vietnam
War was misguided from the point of view of the Empire which at the end of 1960′s and beginning
of 1970′s was to be redirected to Middle East.
This was a new task for the Empire. So everything goes according to the plan, e.g. Iraq war
goals were 100% accomplished. There is no more state of Iraq. Iraq will no pose a thread to anybody
and Israel in particular. There will be everlasting chaos of sectarian fighting as as long
as TPTB will be supplying weapons to one of the sides. Always the weaker one at given moment.
The same goes for Libya and soon for Syria. No more stable, semi-secular states with strong central
power in the Middle East.
Do not judge war success in terms of what is good or bad for Americans. It's all about
the Empire, not about Americans.
The best Saker's essay so far, the most inspired and the most identifiable. Just two quick
notes from me.
First, the ZOG/ZIG is so ubiquitous and powerful that the past election with Trump against
Hillary was really a duel between pro-Trump young Zionists and the pro-Hillary old Zionists, in
other words it was a generational change among the Masters (it was also a change in who will profit
from political power). Since Trump turned to the Dark Side, I have realised that Jared was always
there, even during the election, as an éminence grise and he pulled Trump's strings a forced a
switch from election rhetoric to post-election reality. I have no doubt that Jared is the man
behind the man, except that he also must have a fairly powerful Zionist base behind him.
Second, Saker just like Mr Giraldi has become a magnet for all and sundry Hasbara trolls, obviously
because both are the most prominent exposers of the ZOG/ZIG. It is important to remember that
all Western Governments are ZOG/ZIG, without exception. Only BRICS countries appear free at the
moment, despite 1000 military basis of the global ZOG/ZIG.
My bet is that it is not Trump himself but Ivanka. The elites found a soft spot and
are using this weakness to control him. Who would have the means to do this? None other than
his son in law Jared.
He could have coerced her into doing something stupid on camera like group sex or being
blacked and little Jared would not think twice to use this to control a weak man like Trump.
Translation from "alt-rightish" into English:
"Ive been a dupe and a stupid sucker for the last 2 1/2 years, and I need to believe that somehow
the Jooz corrupted and bent this fine American hero to their own will in two months, instead of
acknowledging the obvious truth that he was a weak, pathetic asset, and a literal as well as figurative,
cocksucker, all along."
I don't know if you wrote this as a response to my comment some time back arguing you were
ignoring the elephant in the room, but this article reflects my thoughts more or less on Zion.
I would add the historical record of Zion from Pharoah, the catacombs under Rome, to Spain,
to Edwardian England, Tsarist Russia and so on is a record much like a locust. You have to wonder
where all the 'persecution' comes from. Where the causuality?
Its seeks economic surplus.
And yes, they are missing the part of the brain associated with white high empathy and 'fair
play' as Jayman has mentioned. They studied that weakness in Tavistock to find these pavlonian
words like 'rac-ism' and when designing the themes in their movies and the fiction work they publish.
The way to defeat Zion is to say the Necromancers name. Say it. If you say whats going on,
the power of the Illusion and the fraud subsists entirely. No violence is needed. Repeat no violence
is needed. Just say it. Bring it up in a discussion about politics politely and with evidence.
The higher IQ people you meet will cotton on when you anchor the pattern recognition.
They are the real 1%, they cannot govern with enlightened chattel. This is why philosophy,
psychology, economics, history, anthropology, biology, and so on have been debased into slogans
in the academy.
In time, they will come after your daughters and mothers and sisters and turn them into whores.
They will send your sons to war. They will fleece your pension funds.
The truth, is that the most persecuted race of man in history – with a notable minority of
followers of truth like the editor of this webzine -Mr Unz, Mr Sanders, Mr Marx and so on – is
that there is a number who are essentially a very high IQ version of the mafia.
• 100 Words My own reading leads me to identify the following as the Elders of Zion:
Steve Schwarzmann
Paul Singer
Robert Rubin
David Rubenstein
Summer Rothstein
Evelyn Rothschild
Stephen Friedman
Elliot Abrams
There are some more. Put them on a map and draw the links between them and their agents. Khordovsky
gave his money to Rothschild to mind after the 1990s pillaging of Russia when Putin imprisoned
him.
Ohhh they hate Putin because he stopped them in the 90s more than anything. Khordovsky was
trying to buy a media outlet.
Also the Protocols may be based on a satire but as Lord Syndenham mentioned in the Times 100
years ago, it was a spooky blueprint for the Bolshevik revolution .and the EU.
Lena Dunham social policy for jewish social freedom
Milton Autism on economics to stop redistribution to the goyim
Kristol on foreign policy for Israel's world domination.
e.g Tony Blair, Macron, Cameroon, Merkel, Juncker, Bush, Clinton etc etc.
There is no difference. They are all the same party.
@Cyrano Most of the time I like the way Saker thinks, but on this one I'll have to disagree.
It's not the Jews that are using US for their own needs – it's the other way around. US realized
the propaganda potential of the Jews and Israel at the end of WW2 and they never let go of it.
That propaganda potential is still there, although it has been milked for more than 70 years
now. Before WW2, there was not any kind of "special relationship" between the Jews and USA. US
even turned a ship full of Jewish refugees before the onset of the war out of fear that they might
offend the Nazis and suffer the consequences for it. That's what a great power they used to be
back then – afraid what the Nazis might do to them.
Then in the closing stages of WW2, when the Russians told them what they found in the concentration
camps that they liberated – at first the Americans dismissed their reports as "communist propaganda."
They refused to believe that highly "civilized" European country such as Germany can commit such
barbarities. Only after they were faced with overwhelming evidence about the concentration camps,
the US decided to change their tune.
Their calculation was like this: Who were the greatest villains of WW2? – The Germans. Who
were the ultimate victims of WW2? – The Jews. If the Germans were the bad guys, and the Jews were
the good guys and the innocent victims – anybody portraying themselves as protectors of the victims
can enjoy the image of being the good guys themselves. That formula is still being used today,
but it's mostly in Europe and US that it's still considered valid, for the rest of the world just
too much time has passed and some of Israel's behavior in the ME has cast a shadow on their image
as eternal victims.
People on this site want to view the Jews as George Milton and US as Lenny Small – from Steinbeck
novel "Of mice and men". But the reality is much different. US are not Lenny Small, a giant with
great physical strength but not too much brain power. US are not the ones being controlled, they
are the ones using Israel and the Jews for all they are worth as excellent propaganda material.
Sure Israel and the Jews benefit from this, otherwise they wouldn't have agreed to this cozy symbiotic
relationship. But the Jews didn't initiate this, it was always US idea. With no disrespect Cyrano,
you may need to read the 1996 report 'A Clean Break'
- and you'll quickly discover its the zionist entity that is the tail that wags the American dog.
The zionist entity is not limited to the geographical borders of the state of Israel, either.
Before blaming "The Jews" for the ills of the world it would behoove everyone to take a good
long hard look in the mirror. If you think you get an affirmative answer to "Who is the most beautiful
of all?" you are living in a fairy tale.
Deeply
Concerned ,
April 19, 2017 at 1:09 pm GMT
• 100 Words May I add that calling for a worldwide demonstration on a preannouced day (similar
to the one against W's Iraq war) is critically needed. The slogan of this demonstration should
be "ANY US CITIZEN WHO PUTS THE INTEREST OF ISRAEL ABOVE THE NATIONAL INTEREST OF THE US IS –
A TRAITOR . ANYONE WHO SUPPORT, PROMOTE, DEFEND A TRAITOR IS A TRAITOR". Traitor is the key word
in my opinion and it should be the rallying word.
Vires
,
April 19, 2017 at 5:50 pm GMT
• 300 Words
@Cyrano Most of the time I like the way Saker thinks, but on this one I'll have to disagree.
It's not the Jews that are using US for their own needs – it's the other way around. US realized
the propaganda potential of the Jews and Israel at the end of WW2 and they never let go of it.
That propaganda potential is still there, although it has been milked for more than 70 years
now. Before WW2, there was not any kind of "special relationship" between the Jews and USA. US
even turned a ship full of Jewish refugees before the onset of the war out of fear that they might
offend the Nazis and suffer the consequences for it. That's what a great power they used to be
back then – afraid what the Nazis might do to them.
Then in the closing stages of WW2, when the Russians told them what they found in the concentration
camps that they liberated – at first the Americans dismissed their reports as "communist propaganda."
They refused to believe that highly "civilized" European country such as Germany can commit such
barbarities. Only after they were faced with overwhelming evidence about the concentration camps,
the US decided to change their tune.
Their calculation was like this: Who were the greatest villains of WW2? – The Germans. Who
were the ultimate victims of WW2? – The Jews. If the Germans were the bad guys, and the Jews were
the good guys and the innocent victims – anybody portraying themselves as protectors of the victims
can enjoy the image of being the good guys themselves. That formula is still being used today,
but it's mostly in Europe and US that it's still considered valid, for the rest of the world just
too much time has passed and some of Israel's behavior in the ME has cast a shadow on their image
as eternal victims.
People on this site want to view the Jews as George Milton and US as Lenny Small – from Steinbeck
novel "Of mice and men". But the reality is much different. US are not Lenny Small, a giant with
great physical strength but not too much brain power. US are not the ones being controlled, they
are the ones using Israel and the Jews for all they are worth as excellent propaganda material.
Sure Israel and the Jews benefit from this, otherwise they wouldn't have agreed to this cozy symbiotic
relationship. But the Jews didn't initiate this, it was always US idea. Why are you trying to
conflate Jews and Zionists? Are you unable to see the difference between the two concepts?
It's pretty clear the issue is the stranglehold the Zionist Lobby AKA Israel lobby has
on the legislative, judiciary and executive branches of the US Federal Government and the Federal
Reserve, and its influence on the propaganda machine and academia.
Therefore the issue is not about "Jews" using the USG, but rather the Zionist Lobby, AKA Israel
Lobby in the US or Jewish Lobby in Israel, having and using the stranglehold on the USG, academia
and propaganda machine (mass media and Hollywood) to further their goals.
It's not the Jews that are using US for their own needs – it's the other way around
When you refer to "Jews", do you mean the Zionist lobby AKA Israel lobby , or the average
"Jew sixpack" living in the US i.e. the rest?
If what you mean is the so called Israel lobby when you refer to "Jews", two professors, one
of Political Sciences and one of International Affairs, both from top US Universities, disagree
with your remarkable theory, and have written extensively and with plenty of references supporting
their claims:
John Mearsheimer
R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Sciences
Chicago University
Stephen Walt
Belfer Professor of International Affairs, John F. Kennedy School of Government
Harvard University
Three links, first two for an article, second with all references. Third for the even more
detailed book, refuting your claims.
Are you familiar with their work? Are you rejecting their claims?
If yes, on what are you basing your rebuttal and what is your background?
Or are you trying to frame the blogger and everyone concerned with the subject as old Jew-haters
and anti-semites?
Now, if after reading the Saker's post, the only thing you understood was:
The Saker: "The Jews" are to blame for the ills of the world folks
Then I would recommend you should seriously improve your English, at least reading comprehension
skills – perhaps some online courses – before commenting and making a fool of yourself again publicly.
• 200 Words
@Vires Why are you trying to conflate Jews and Zionists? Are you unable to see the difference
between the two concepts?
It's pretty clear the issue is the stranglehold the Zionist Lobby AKA Israel lobby has
on the legislative, judiciary and executive branches of the US Federal Government and the Federal
Reserve, and its influence on the propaganda machine and academia.
Therefore the issue is not about "Jews" using the USG, but rather the Zionist Lobby, AKA Israel
Lobby in the US or Jewish Lobby in Israel, having and using the stranglehold on the USG, academia
and propaganda machine (mass media and Hollywood) to further their goals.
It's not the Jews that are using US for their own needs – it's the other way around
When you refer to "Jews", do you mean the Zionist lobby AKA Israel lobby , or the average
"Jew sixpack" living in the US i.e. the rest?
If what you mean is the so called Israel lobby when you refer to "Jews", two professors, one
of Political Sciences and one of International Affairs, both from top US Universities, disagree
with your remarkable theory, and have written extensively and with plenty of references supporting
their claims:
John Mearsheimer
R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Sciences
Chicago University
Stephen Walt
Belfer Professor of International Affairs, John F. Kennedy School of Government
Harvard University
Three links, first two for an article, second with all references. Third for the even more
detailed book, refuting your claims.
What is your background, and on what are you basing your claims?
Have you published an official rebuttal?
Or is your theory just a "hunch"? I am just a writer, I don't have any agenda and I call the
things as I see them. I don't buy the theory of the all-powerful Zionist lobby steering the American
foreign policy either. Why? Because it makes no sense. Sure there is such a lobby, but US allows
it to exist because it suits their interests. They (US establishment) are the ones responsible,
not the Israel lobby.
If all anyone had to do in order to influence US government – was to form a lobby – then during
the cold war there would have been a communist lobby in Washington, financed by the USSR. They
would have poured billions of dollars, and not only the cold war could have ended quickly, but
maybe today America would have been communist. Do you see where I am going with this? US government
allows lobbies to exist only after they comply with their interests. They are the initiators of
policies, not lobbies. Have a nice day.
Cyrano, April 20, 2017 at 3:56 am GMT
• 100 Word\
@Vires
You know man, you are a perfect proof why there is so much propaganda in US. Because you
make it easy on them. Them being the government. Yeah, poor US government at the mercy of evil
Zionist lobby. If it wasn't for it, it would be the most benevolent government in the world,
bringing peace and prosperity wherever they go. One day you'll wake up and you'll look into
the abyss and you'll realize that the abyss is your complete ignorance. But don't listen to
me, keep on voting every 4 years, that's going to change everything. And keep bitching about
the Jewish lobby, you are so much smarter than the average American, you have it all figured
out.
Russia. Ziocons absolutely loathe Russia and everything Russian.
Don't flatter yourself. Most Jews don't give a shit about Russia. Jews *DO* hate Iranians,
Palestinians, Syrians, Lebanese and Arab Christians but we really don't care about Russia. We
like to mock Russian nationalists like yourself and Western Russophiles but we don't hate you.
Okay, maybe we do hate Western Russophiles, I know I sure do, but we don't hate Russia or Russians.
And the reason we don't hate you is because you just aren't important enough to be worth hating.
I agree with your reasons for why Israel wants an ISIS victory (although it is ridiculous to
suggest that Israel's current cucked out leadership wants to expand Israel's borders). It is probably
the only thing you have gotten right in years. Good job! You are improving!
Roland Bernard High Finance Shocking Revelations (Dutch with Subtitles) This video, more
than any I have seen, exposes the dark heart of the matter. It's a must-watch from beginning to
end. Highly credible, in my opinion. Wally
,
April 20, 2017 at 7:58 am GMT
Russia. Ziocons absolutely loathe Russia and everything Russian.
Don't flatter yourself. Most Jews don't give a shit about Russia. Jews *DO* hate Iranians, Palestinians,
Syrians, Lebanese and Arab Christians but we really don't care about Russia. We like to mock Russian
nationalists like yourself and Western Russophiles but we don't hate you. Okay, maybe we do hate
Western Russophiles, I know I sure do, but we don't hate Russia or Russians.
And the reason we don't hate you is because you just aren't important enough to be worth hating.
I agree with your reasons for why Israel wants an ISIS victory (although it is ridiculous to
suggest that Israel's current cucked out leadership wants to expand Israel's borders). It is probably
the only thing you have gotten right in years. Good job! You are improving! The True Cost of Israel
Forced U.S. taxpayers money goes far beyond the official numbers.
Israel's occupation of the West Bank is an internationally-recognized human rights crime-but
those being impacted are harshly punished for not only acts of resistance, but even mere advocacy
for their rights.
When Trump basically fellated AIPAC during his campaign it worried me. But I thought maybe
just maybe, Trump was playing the Jews ..this article in all it's glory suggests I am very wrong.
That any potential president has to genuflect to Israel and Jews is the saddest thing in American
History. You can almost wish it would all implode. A hard reset minus Jewish whining and control
would be a true utopia.
@Cyrano You know man, you are a perfect proof why there is so much propaganda in US. Because
you make it easy on them. Them being the government. Yeah, poor US government at the mercy of
evil Zionist lobby. If it wasn't for it, it would be the most benevolent government in the world,
bringing peace and prosperity wherever they go. One day you'll wake up and you'll look into the
abyss and you'll realize that the abyss is your complete ignorance. But don't listen to me, keep
on voting every 4 years, that's going to change everything. And keep bitching about the Jewish
lobby, you are so much smarter than the average American, you have it all figured out. Jew finance
capitalists [ the master money manipulators] and their cohort in MEDIA are most certainly jewish..
Who the hell do you think promotes all this homo rights crap? It's not so much the jew Svengali
-but you- the rube in the mirror, who will have to be dealt with first when the lights go out..
Bruce
Marshall ,
April 20, 2017 at 4:16 pm GMT
But the Elephant driver is the British Empire System!!!
It is the British behind the coup against Trump. The British want to prevent the end of
"Geopolitics" as we know it which is what would happen should America Russia and China come together
per the New Silk Road and One Belt initiatives. This is why the British are setting off
World War III.
" you are a perfect proof why there is so much propaganda in US. "
Don't you imply that "so much propaganda in US" is anti-Zionist? If yes, then you have no idea
about MSM in the US. Just to give you a hint, try to google this name: Helen Thomas, specifically
a story of her private conversation with a Jewish man (who happened to be a born informer).
Look at a swarm of the US Congresspeople blubbering praises for Israel during AIPAC' annual
meetings. The US Congress is indeed the Zionist Occupied Territory, a picture of a host captured
by a parasitoid.
@Quartermaster And so was Russia's annexation of Crimea. You don't think Saker would want
to call attention to such things do you?
How many referenda the Syrians have held to bring the Golan Heights to the embrace of Israel?
We cannot wait to hear your story of Syrian people voting to join Israel. Tell us, when did
the Golan Heights belong to Israel?
Surely in the dreams of the US ziocons and in the criminal Oded Yinon's plan for Eretz
Israel, which preaches for creating a civil disorder in the neighboring states so that Israel
could snatch as much territory as possible from the neighbors. The ongoing Libyan and Syrian tragedies
belong to that plan.
The ziocons' cooperation with Ukrainian neo-Nazis is another story. "Never again," indeed.
In the Middle Ages, antisemitism defined Jews as a religious group and focused on their
religious separateness.
In the more secular era of Dreyfus and the Nazis and Nasser, antisemitism defined Jews as
an ethnic group and focused on their ethnic separateness.
Now that we are in an era which celebrates group identity and views it as a virtue, antisemitism
focuses on denying Jews their ethnic or religious identity.
" antisemitism focuses on denying Jews their ethnic or religious identity.states "
The article is about ziocons and it emphasizes, specifically, that conflating Jews and Zionists
is dishonest. You need to read the article before making your generalizations.
Considering the number of synagogues in the US and the prominence of ziocons among policy-makers
in the US, please tell us, who exactly "denies Jews their ethnic or religious identity." Have
you heard about Wolfowitz, Feith, and Kagans? How about Nuland-Kagan fraternizing with neo-Nazis?
Still OK?
https://consortiumnews.com/2015/07/13/the-mess-that-nuland-made/
ZIG is a more accurate acronym......as in INFESTED. Think parasites like bed bugs, ticks,
lice, mites, termites, scabies, fleas, ringworm, etc.
Zionist Infested Government! Brilliant! I'm going to start using this term.
Anyone who's spent any time inside the beltway quickly realizes that AngloZionists – the Saker's
term is really useful if one wants to accurately and concisely summarize these people, their ideology,
and their ultimate loyalties – infest from top to bottom the three branches of the federal government,
all the supporting bureaucracies, and all the parasitic lobbying groups, consultants, foundations,
think tanks, etc., that wield less official powers. Their proportional presence in Washington
is many orders of magnitude greater than their proportion in the general population and their
power is magnified by their informally shared ideologies and goals.
Not many of these people are actually aware of the harm they are causing. Most are fundamentally
decent people. Some I count as close friends. Yet the combined power these people wield and the
varying levels of allegiance they bear to foreign powers whose interests are inimical to those
of the USA and its citizens make them, considered en masse, an existential threat to this country,
to world peace, and to international law and order.
Few US citizens nowadays seem to know any foreign language, pity, for the following book explains
Russian anti semitism:
Alexander Solschenizyn, ´Die russisch- jüdische Geschichte 1795- 1916, >> Zweihundert Jahre zusammen
<<´, Moskau 2001, München 2002
Who is interested in the why of German anti semitism after 1870 has more luck:
Ismar Schorsch, 'Jewish Reactions to German Anti-Semitism, 1870 – 1914', New York 1972
Fritz Stern, 'Gold and Iron, Bismarck, Bleichröder, and the Building of the German Empire', New
York, 1977.
'From prejudice to destruction', Jacob Katz, 1980, Cambridge MA
Also interesting is:
Horace Meyer Kallen, 'Zionism and World Politics; A Study in History and Social Psychology', New
York, 1921
Pre WWII 'neocons':
Bruce Allen Murphy, 'The Brandeis/Frankfurter Connection, The Secret Political Activities of Two
Supreme Court Justices', New York, 1983
jacques sheete ,
April 20, 2017 at 6:23 pm GMT
@Wally
Jewish groups get up to 97% of grants from the Homeland Security"
The so called non-profit scene also appears to me little more than a cesspool of corruption
and I wonder who or what dominates those rackets.
ZOG is an excellent term that describes the situation in America perfectly. The fact of ZOG
is undeniable to everyone politically involved in the US government.
The question is will people use the term "ZOG" to attack Jews? It has one great advantage –
the word "Jew" is not used.
The thing that Jews themselves fear the most, is the word "Jew" used by Gentiles. The American
population is conditioned not to use the word. Subliminal fear is attached to using the word "Jew."
The goal of the American population must be to eliminate ZOG – but not Jews.
The question is – can this be done without using the word "Jew" and all that goes with it?
@blaggard I applaud your honesty and logic. What a fight...
Although it is made to appear so, the battle between the 'conservatives' and 'liberals'
is not a battle of ideas or even of political organizations. It's is a battle of force, terror
and power. The Jews and their accomplices and dupes are not running our country and its people
because of the excellence of their ideas or the merit of their work or because they have the
genuine backing of the majority. The Zionists are in power in spite of the lack of these things,
and only because they have driven their way into power by daring minority tactics. They can
stay in power only because people are afraid to oppose them, afraid they will be socially ostracized,
afraid they will be smeared in the press, afraid they will lose their jobs, afraid they will
not be able to run their businesses, afraid they will lose their political offices. It is fear
and fear alone which keeps these filthy left-wing sneaks in power.
@naro No one is more critical of Jews and Israel than other Jews. Jews are and have been a
NATION in exile. Their genetic identity has been proven several times using Mitochondrial DNA
in prestigious medical journals such as Nature and Science...so it is not in doubt. There is continuous
historical record of Jews for at least 2000 years. Christian guilt is well deserved for their
historical hounding, persecutions, exiled and pogroms against innocent Jews under their jurisdictions.
The writer of this article is a hate monger. There are Jews of all political spectrum. They
are not homogeneous in their political position.
Jews succeed because they study hard, work hard, and take risks in business and politics. They
think outside the box, and are inventive and scientifically curious. Instead of envying their
success try to learn and emulate it losers.
They also engage in pretty intense ethnic networking and favoritism, things they typically castigate
others for doing.
Re. diversity of Jewish political opinion, I don't see it. Most Jews are partisan Democrats
in the US and there is very broad agreement on major issues, like immigration and Israeli-centric
foreign policy, details notwithstanding. And very few Jews will acknowledge that historically,
collective Jewish behavior has played a role in the negative opinions so many peoples hold against
them, indeed they strenuously deny it. (Smoke but no fire? Unlikely.)
Last, my favorite one: ethics and morality. The modern western society has been built on
a categorical rejection of ethics and morality.
Bravo – that paragraph was golden in my book. If this is gone – kiss your society good bye
– you're just living on borrowed time – all the gold and all the nuclear spears in the world will
not save you.
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root."
– Henry David Thoreau
Ivanka's mommy is of the tribe too: "Ivana is also Jewish. Geni.com lists her father's name
as both Knavs and Zelnícek. I'll give you a hint: drop the second "e". You get Zelnick. It is
Yiddish for haberdasher. Clothier. It's Jewish, too. See Robert Zelnick, Strauss Zelnick, Bob
Zelnick, etc. Robert was a fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford. Strauss was President of
20th Century Fox. Bob was ABC News producer. Also Friedrich Zelnik, silent film producer. Also
David O. Selznick, whose name was originally Zeleznick, or, alternately, Zelnick. He and his father
were major Hollywood produ - See more at: http://www.rense.com/general96/trumpjewish.htm#sthash.4xaQKh2i.dpuf
It's all in the family (La famiglia, Kosher Nostra). The ones who voted for him are the suckers.
Kosher Nostra!!!
The problem with fiat money is that if one has enough of it, one can buy just about anything
under the sun that they please, including even large parts of a country's political system and
government.
Take for example, Jared (a.k.a. billionaire arch-Zionist trust-fund baby) Kushner
Peace. It is not my invention. All From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:
"Jewish-American organized crime":
'Jewish-American organized crime emerged within the American Jewish community during the late
19th and early 20th centuries. It has been referred to variously in media and popular culture
as the Jewish Mob, Jewish Mafia, Kosher Mafia, Kosher Nostra, or Undzer Shtik (Yiddish: אונדזער
שטיק). The last two of these terms refer to the Italian Cosa Nostra (Italian pronunciation: [kɔza
nɔstra]); the former is a play on the word kosher, referring to Jewish dietary laws, while the
latter is a direct translation of the phrase (Italian for "our thing") into Yiddish, which was
at the time the predominant language of the Jewish diaspora in the United States
In more recent years, Jewish-American organized crime has reappeared in the forms of both Israeli
and Jewish-Russian mafia criminal groups, and Orthodox kidnapping gangs .
Several notable Jewish American mobsters provided financial support for Israel through
donations to Jewish organizations since the country's creation in 1948. Jewish-American gangsters
used Israel's Law of Return to flee criminal charges or face deportation "
Anonymous , April 21, 2017 at 3:31 am GMT
@wayfarer
Even the staff at his own Jewish day school were surprised he was accepted at Harvard.
He was described as a lacklustre student his father bought his entry, and they were disappointed
that more qualified students from his school didn't make the cut.
Second, so what are Jews if not a race? In my opinion, they are a tribe (which Oxford Dictionaires
defines as: a social division in a traditional society consisting of families or communities
linked by social, economic, religious, or blood ties, with a common culture and dialect, typically
having a recognized leader). A tribe is a group one can chose to join (Elizabeth Taylor) or
leave (Gilad Atzmon).
It's true that US Jews are mixed race (about 55% European and 45% Semitic) although they choose
to Obama-ize the fact (the European part disappears).
Also, after a lifetime of contact, I would say that the best guys leave the Tribe (often the
most Semitic and through disgust ) and the worst girls join (Gentiles attracted by money and power).
FGS. Please give it up! Trying to solve Jewish question eventually leads to insanity. Saker
(et al on this site) are not interested in "solving Jewish question." – We are interested in the
survival of humanity, specifically in stopping a WWIII that could happen thanks to ziocons' policies.
" fomenting sectarian strife in order to forestal the development of a unified Arab nation which
could threaten it and creating the circumstances in which land could be acquired was at the root
of Israel's relationship with its northern neighbor."
http://www.globalresearch.ca/israel-and-islamist-militias-a-strange-and-recurring-alliance/5586075
" the "liberal" American press, written almost totally by Jewish admirers of Israel who, even
if they are critical of some aspects of the Israeli state, practice loyally what Stalin used to
call "the constructive criticism." (In fact those among them who claim also to be "Anti- Stalinist"
are in reality more Stalinist than Stalin, with Israel being their god which has not yet failed).
In the framework of such critical worship it must be assumed that Israel has always "good intentions"
and only "makes mistakes," and therefore such a plan would not be a matter for discussion–exactly
as the Biblical genocides committed by Jews are not mentioned."
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pdf/The%20Zionist%20Plan%20for%20the%20Middle%20East.pdf
My German is not of the best, but I have been interested in 200 Years Together for a while,
so maybe I can give it a try. I will try to check out these other titles you have provided, too.
Sol Bloom, 'The Autobiography of Sol Bloom', New York 1948
also is interesting, though just for one sentence, something like 'the great accomplishment
of Roosevelt was that he slowy prepared the USA people for war'.
This is in one sentence the book
Charles A. Beard, 'American Foreign Policy in the Making, 1932 – 1940, A study in responsibilities',
New Haven, 1946
Alas few people seem to read books any more, especially old books. The interesting thing about
a book, great contrast with a web article, is, once printed, it cannot be changed any more.
Sol Bloom was a jewish friend of Roosevelt. You might also want to read
Henry Morgenthau, 'Ambassador Morgenthau's Story', New Yirk, 1918
Heath W. Lowry, 'The story behind Ambassador Morgenthau's Story', Istanbul 1990
and
Charles Callan Tansill, 'Amerika geht in den Krieg', Stuttgart 1939 (America goes to War, 1938)
How the USA, and especially Morgenthau, wanted to fight Germany, in WWI.
Both Bloom and Morgenthau were of German descent, I suppose they hated Germany because of its
antisemitism.
@Ilyana_Rozumova @ Saker!!!!
FGS. Please give it up! Trying to solve Jewish question eventually leads to insanity. Are maybe
present events solving the jewish question ?
There seems to be little doubt that Trump is in conflict with Deep State, neocons in the lead,
mainly jews.
See also:
John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, 'The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy', New York
2007
It is possible that Marine le Pen of FN wins the French elections.
FN is accused of being antisemitic:
Pierre-André Taguieff, Michèle Tribalat, 'Face au Front national, Arguments pour une contre-offensive',
Paris, 1998 is an anti FN book written by two jews.
Hungary is closing Soros's university.
Putin already closed his institutions in Russia.
Joe Levantine , April 21, 2017 at 3:24 pm GMT
@Cyrano
Americans using Jews or vice versa? Just check the roles that Bernard Baruck and Rabbi Steven
Wise have played from the administration of crooked Woodrow Wilson to the more crooked Franklin
Delano Roosevelt. Two names among thousands of Jews who have shaped U.S. policies while hiding
behind the facade of their puppet presidents should give anyone food for thought.
If Cyrano can bring back into circulation the forbidden book of ' The Controversy of Zion' by
the late Douglas Reed who turned from bestseller author to a nonexistent nothing the moment he
published his 400+ book, I am positive that the commentator would apologise for this comment.
@naro Mr. Petras you are a vile old man. Nazis were quite capable at merciless killing of
defenseless Jewish (and others) men, women and children by the millions, as they were unprepared
for the utter vile brutality that Nazism represented. Now the Jews are well defended and strong,
and will defend themselves to the utmost. So come to to the fight old boy, we can take on Nazis
. We know them better now. "Now the Jews are well defended and strong we can take on Nazis."
A member of the powerful Kagans' clan of warmongers, Mrs. Nuland-Kagan has been an eager collaborator
with Ukrainian neo-Nazis (do you know about Baby Yar and such? – Mrs. Nuland-Kagan is obviously
OK with the history of Ukrainian Jews during WWII). Neither ADL nor AIPAC made any noises about
bringing Ukrainian neo-Nazis to power in Kiev in 2014. Why?
And what about Israel' collaboration with ISIS against sovereign Syria? "The documents show
that Israel has been doing more than simply treating wounded Syrian civilians in hospitals. This
and a few past reports have described transfer of unspecified supplies from Israel to the Syrian
rebels, and sightings of IDF soldiers meeting with the Syrian opposition east of the green zone,
as well as incidents when Israeli soldiers opened up the fence to allow Syrians through who did
not appear to be injured.
http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/New-UN-report-reveals-collaboration-between-Israel-and-Syrian-rebels-383926
A Canadian darling of the US State Dept, Chrystia Freeland, happened to be a progeny of a Nazi
collaborator from Ukraine (Mr. Chomiak), though Mrs. Freeland proclaimed loudly that her grandpa
was "persecuted by the Soviets:"
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/02/27/a-nazi-skeleton-in-the-family-closet/
" it appears Freeland's grandfather – rather than being a helpless victim – was given a prestigious
job to spread Nazi propaganda, praising Hitler from a publishing house stolen from Jews and given
to Ukrainians who shared the values of Nazism. Chomiak's editorials also described a Poland "infected
by Jews." Mrs. Freeland is still in office, spreading Russophobia that is so dear to ziocon hearts.
In case you did not notice, Zionists (ziocons) are modern-day Nazis.
" the "liberal" American press, written almost totally by Jewish admirers of Israel who, even
if they are critical of some aspects of the Israeli state, practice loyally what Stalin used to
call "the constructive criticism." In the framework of such critical worship it must be assumed
that Israel has always "good intentions" and only "makes mistakes," and therefore such a plan
would not be a matter for discussion–exactly as the Biblical genocides committed by Jews are not
mentioned."
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pdf/The%20Zionist%20Plan%20for%20th
We are guilty by proxy of murder, land theft, destruction of property and all the other
human misery that Israel has caused in the region.
So, if you're one of those rah-rah Israel First supporters, don't complain when the terrorists
come looking for you. You've allowed your politicians to enlist you in somebody else's war,
and in war there are always casualties on both sides.
America has become a nation of pathological irresponsibility. Nobody wants to take responsibility
for his or her own actions, which is the basic cause of the litigation flood. Least of all
do American politicians wish to do so. They would rather heap on the manure that the terrorism
directed at us has nothing whatsoever to do with the policies they have followed for the past
30 years or more. In truth, it has everything to do with those policies.
So, if you or your loved ones get bloodied by terrorists, then blame your Christian Zionists,
your Israel First crowd and your corrupt politicians who have their tongues in the ears and
their hands in the pockets of the Israeli lobby.
@turtle Sooner or later, the U.S. will go down to defeat, at which point "da Joos" will have
to find a new host.
I expect they will have a bit of a tough row to hoe in this, the New Chinese Century.
No matter how hard you try, I doubt you can pass off this woman:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connie_Chung
or any of her countrywomen, as "Semitic,"
thus disproving that "Jewish" = "Semitic" or vice versa.
Shlomo Wong? I think not. I read Jewish community publications all the time I have concluded they
are planning their next jump to China after they destroy America
There are endless articles about how much Jews and Chinese have in common (lie, cheat and steal).
They discovered that in medieval and early modern times there was a community of Persian Jews
in China and blather on about that.
And there is approval of marriage of Jewish men to Chinese women.
But the Chinese are not love thy neighbor Christians. Nor do they have millions of wanna be
Jews Old Testament obsessed Protestants. Chinese officials are well known for accepting bribes
and then doing exactly what they want.
On the other hand, Israel and American DOD employees sell lots of stolen American military
secrets to China.
Jewish attempted takeover of China will be a battle of the Titans.
• 100 Words
@Wally Indeed, "non-profit", but Jews Only and huge salaries
Recall the corrupt & hate mongering ADL, or SPLC.
Look at the 'holocau$t' scam.
Build yet another laughable 'holocaust' Theme Park, Potemkin Village, put up a picture of MLK,
falsely claim that it's all about 'tolerance', 'diversity and civil rights while down playing
it's obvious Jewish supremacism, and voila! Massive taxpayers subsidies.
"One should not ask, how this mass murder was made possible. It was technically possible, because
it happened. This has to be the obligatory starting-point for any historical research regarding
this topic. We would just like to remind you: There is no debate regarding the existence of
the gas chambers, and there can never be one."
- endorsed by 34 "reputable historians" and published in the French daily Le Monde on February
21, 1979
====================================
"These Holocaust deniers are very slick people. They justify everything they say with facts
and figures."
- Steven Some, Chairman of the New Jersey Commission on Holocaust Education, Newark Star-Ledger,
23 Oct. 1996, p 15.
Here's the top non-profits. None are identifiably Jewish:
1 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation United States Seattle, Washington $42.3 billion 1994 [1]
2 Stichting INGKA Foundation Netherlands Leiden $34.6 billion €33.0 billion (EUR) 1982 [2]
3 Wellcome Trust United Kingdom London $26.0 billion £20.9 billion (GBP) 1936 [3]
4 Howard Hughes Medical Institute United States Chevy Chase, Maryland $18.2 billion 1953 [4]
5 Ford Foundation United States New York City, New York $11.2 billion 1936 [5]
6 Kamehameha Schools United States Honolulu, Hawaii $11.1 billion 1887 [6]
7 J. Paul Getty Trust United States Los Angeles, California $10.5 billion 1982 [5]
8 Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum Foundation United Arab Emirates Dubai $10.0 billion 37 billion
د.إ (AED) 2007 [7]
9 Azim Premji Foundation India Bangalore $9.8 billion 2001 [8]
10 Robert Wood Johnson Foundation United States Princeton, New Jersey $9.53 billion 1972 [5]
@Alden I just read the latest ADL diktat. As of today any mention of Jared Kushner is deemed
anti Semitic. Consequences will be severe. I just read the latest ADL diktat. As of today any
mention of Jared Kushner is deemed anti Semitic. Consequences will be severe.
They have good reason to hide him – he and his family have some shady business dealings – his
father is a x-convict. How did he come into billions of dollars?
They say that Jared inherited his money – how did that happen when his father is still living
– did they get special tax treatment?
Hmm?
Peace - Art
p.s. Jared Kushner is 100% Zionist – how can this work out good for America?
Well he's wrong to exclude them unless you're just excluding Zionist. It doesn't matter whether
they are religious or secular. They're all made of the same stuff. Surely you've heard of all
the organ smuggling, drug dealing and other goings on in the religious community and they're supposed
to be the good guys?
There's one idea that describes the Jews perfectly. It describes their parasitism, their, lying,
their chameleon like behavior, their sense of superiority and belief that they are different from
everyone else. There's a simple explanation for why the Jews are hated so much that also explains
their behavior and success. The Jews are a tribe of psychopaths. No all, maybe not even the majority,
but a large number. All of the Jews ancient writings are nothing more than a manual for psychopaths
to live by. The Talmud is nothing but one psychopathic thought after another. The Talmud "great
enlightenment" basically says that everyone not Jewish is there to serve Jews. All their property
is really the Jews. No one is really human unless they're Jews and their lives don't matter. A
psychopathic religion for a psychopathic people.
They've been thrown out of every single country that they've been to in any numbers. Psychopaths
having no empathy themselves can only go by the feedback they get from the people they are exploiting.
So they push and push to see what they can get away with. The normal people build up resentment
towards them. Thinking "surely they will reform or repent" like a normal person who does wrong.
Of course the Jews do not. They don't have the mental process for reform. Then in a huge mass
outpouring of hate for the Jews, fed up with the refusal to reform their behavior, they attack
and/or deport them. In this stage of the cycle the Big/Rich Jews escape and the little Jews are
attacked.
Start over.
Even if it's wrong if you assume the Jews are a tribe of psychopaths you will never be surprised
and Jew's behavior will make sense.
In order to predict Jews behavior read the great book on Psychopaths by Hervey Cleckley, "The
Mask of Sanity". Here's a chapter you should read. It's about the psychopath Stanley. Who does
all kinds of manic bullshit and spends all his time feeding people the most outrageous lies. Look
at the astounding array of things he's able to get away with. Maybe it will remind you of a certain
tribe. New meme. "They're pulling a Stanley". The whole book is on the web and worth reading.
I use the simplest of logic to determine this. Form follows function, Occam's Razor. Their
behavior is exactly like psychopaths. Their religious beliefs are exactly like the internal dialog
of psychopaths. I don't know but if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and swims like a
duck. It's a duck and the Jews are a tribe of psychopaths. The MOST IMPORTANT PART is that the
behavior of the Jews as a group over time can not be reliably separated from the behavior of psychopaths.
Even if I'm wrong their behavior is the same so they should be treated as psychopaths. A very
dangerous, powerful group with no empathy towards anyone but other Jews.
I don't know why Zionist get such a bad rap I want them all to go to Israel so I'm a Zionist
too.
@wayfarer The problem with fiat money is that if one has enough of it, one can buy just about
anything under the sun that they please, including even large parts of a country's political system
and government.
Take for example, Jared (a.k.a. billionaire arch-Zionist trust-fund baby) Kushner
Thanks, very interesting. Funny thing, most of the Jews I know are such fervent liberals they
think Kushner is a traitor to the cause of liberalism.
Seraphim
,
April 22, 2017 at 2:09 am GMT
@Art You are a nazi. Your generalization are the vile ranting of a hate filled animal.
Oh my - straight to the "N" word - what happened to "anti-Semite" - has it lost its sting?
Ah' to bad.
What are you going to call us next?
Peace --- Art
p.s. By the way Nazism and Zionism are brothers - both are fascists.
p.s. What about you Jew animals in Israel - you have the most immoral army in the world.
p.s. You Jews and your hateful bluster - you are fooling no one.
p.s. ZOG is going to lose. It is an irrefragable law:
"Godwin's law (or Godwin's rule of Hitler analogies) is an Internet adage which asserts that
"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Hitler approaches
-that is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner
or later someone will compare someone or something to Hitler.
Promulgated by American attorney and author Mike Godwin in 1990, Godwin's law originally referred
specifically to Usenet newsgroup discussions. It is now applied to any threaded online discussion,
such as Internet forums, chat rooms, and comment threads, as well as to speeches, articles, and
other rhetoric where 'reductio ad Hitlerum'* occurs.
*Reductio ad Hitlerum (pseudo-Latin for "reduction to Hitler"; sometimes argumentum ad Hitlerum,
"argument to Hitler", ad Nazium, "to Nazism"), or playing the Nazi card, is an attempt to invalidate
someone else's position on the basis that the same view was held by Adolf Hitler or the Nazi Party,
for example: "Hitler was a vegetarian, X is a vegetarian, therefore X is a Nazi". A variation
of this fallacy, reductio ad Stalinum, also known as "red-baiting", has also been used in political
discourse.
Coined by Leo Strauss in 1951, reductio ad Hitlerum borrows its name from the term used in
logic, reductio ad absurdum (reduction to the absurd). According to Strauss, reductio ad Hitlerum
is a form of ad hominem, ad misericordiam, or a fallacy of irrelevance. The suggested rationale
is one of guilt by association. It is a tactic often used to derail arguments, because such comparisons
tend to distract and anger the opponent, as Hitler and Nazism have been condemned in the modern
world.
@Sam J. "... Please note that Gilad specifically excludes Judaics (religious Jews,)..."
Well he's wrong to exclude them unless you're just excluding Zionist. It doesn't matter whether
they are religious or secular. They're all made of the same stuff. Surely you've heard of all
the organ smuggling, drug dealing and other goings on in the religious community and they're supposed
to be the good guys?
There's one idea that describes the Jews perfectly. It describes their parasitism, their, lying,
their chameleon like behavior, their sense of superiority and belief that they are different from
everyone else. There's a simple explanation for why the Jews are hated so much that also explains
their behavior and success. The Jews are a tribe of psychopaths. No all, maybe not even the majority,
but a large number. All of the Jews ancient writings are nothing more than a manual for psychopaths
to live by. The Talmud is nothing but one psychopathic thought after another. The Talmud "great
enlightenment" basically says that everyone not Jewish is there to serve Jews. All their property
is really the Jews. No one is really human unless they're Jews and their lives don't matter. A
psychopathic religion for a psychopathic people.
They've been thrown out of every single country that they've been to in any numbers. Psychopaths
having no empathy themselves can only go by the feedback they get from the people they are exploiting.
So they push and push to see what they can get away with. The normal people build up resentment
towards them. Thinking "surely they will reform or repent" like a normal person who does wrong.
Of course the Jews do not. They don't have the mental process for reform. Then in a huge mass
outpouring of hate for the Jews, fed up with the refusal to reform their behavior, they attack
and/or deport them. In this stage of the cycle the Big/Rich Jews escape and the little Jews are
attacked.
Start over.
Even if it's wrong if you assume the Jews are a tribe of psychopaths you will never be surprised
and Jew's behavior will make sense.
In order to predict Jews behavior read the great book on Psychopaths by Hervey Cleckley, "The
Mask of Sanity". Here's a chapter you should read. It's about the psychopath Stanley. Who does
all kinds of manic bullshit and spends all his time feeding people the most outrageous lies. Look
at the astounding array of things he's able to get away with. Maybe it will remind you of a certain
tribe. New meme. "They're pulling a Stanley". The whole book is on the web and worth reading.
I use the simplest of logic to determine this. Form follows function, Occam's Razor. Their
behavior is exactly like psychopaths. Their religious beliefs are exactly like the internal dialog
of psychopaths. I don't know but if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and swims like a
duck. It's a duck and the Jews are a tribe of psychopaths. The MOST IMPORTANT PART is that the
behavior of the Jews as a group over time can not be reliably separated from the behavior of psychopaths.
Even if I'm wrong their behavior is the same so they should be treated as psychopaths. A very
dangerous, powerful group with no empathy towards anyone but other Jews.
I don't know why Zionist get such a bad rap I want them all to go to Israel so I'm a Zionist
too. I don't know if this guy is real or if it's true or not but there's a vast amount of information
and cases which readily conform to the idea that everything he says is true. According to the
witnesses in the dutroux-affair all the participants had to break the law to be in business with
them on an intimate level. Mostly this was done through sexual abuse of children. Twenty years
ago you might could laugh this off as some foolish rantings of conspiracy freaks but there's been
too many verifiable cases with lots of physical evidence.
Pizzagate Pedogate Dutch Whistleblower Real Big Money Revelations by an Insider
I'm also not saying it's just Jews but I am saying they are the root of it all. They're the
glue that keeps the whole thing together due to their insider grouping tribalism.
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root."
– Henry David Thoreau
@Naro Again To Summarize JEWS ARE THE BRAINIEST AND MOST ACCOMPLISHED HUMANS ALIVE TRYING
TO SURVIVE IN A WORLD OF MORONS AND IMPRESSIONABLE IDIOTS! Examples of the psychopathology and
idiocy of the Nazis is obvious on this thread-ironically in a web site owned by a Jew.
The envious losers, and political manipulators have always looked for scapegoats for their failures,
and Jews were easy targets. Not any more. Jews are quite able to defend themselves ..thank you.
You don't believe me? just try. " Jews are quite able to defend themselves .."
At least now you have prudently omitted references to Nazis, since you became educated from
other posts that American Jews – see Kagans' clan of warmongers – are in bed with Ukrainian neo-Nazis
and, moreover, that an Israeli citizen is known as a financier of the bloody neo-Nazi battalion
that had burnt a score of civilians to death in Odessa.
American (and UK) Israel-firsters have betrayed western civilization for the benefit of mythological
Eretz Israel. Your tribe was pushing for the slaughter in Iraq (see treasonous Wolfowitz and Feith
and the despicable Kristol) and in Libya (the former pearl of North Africa, where citizens used
to enjoy free education, free health care, and a sizable gold reserve – the latter stolen by the
US "deciders"). Currently, it is an ongoing bloodbath in Syria, which Israel wants to prolong
as much as possible in order to steal the Golan Heights. For the same reason your "most accomplished"
Israeli generals proclaimed loudly their preference for ISIS. What have you claimed, that your
tribe is the "brainiest?" – Relax. With such "activists" like the openly racist Avigdor Lieberman
(ex-convict) and your half-wit hater Ayelet Shaked you are safely among mediocrities. As for the
truly brainiest and ethical like Baruch Spinoza and Hanna Arend, they were rejected by your supremacist
tribe. Check the location of Spinoza' grave.
@Anonymous shut up naziscum. where is your thousand year reich? in the garbage An Israeli
demonstrates her regular poor manners Aren't you trying to imply that Israelis are striving for
their thousand-year reich? Good luck. Don't forget to take the neo-Nazi-loving Kagans' clan with
you.
Johnny F. Ive,
April 23, 2017 at 6:48 am GMT
What if the US Empire was financially bankrupted? How would it behave afterwards? I think
it will end with military overstretch and bankruptcy or nuclear war. One or the other. Its sad
that all this suffering is a tribal war. On man's way to civilization he forgot to leave that
behind. Would the US behave after bankruptcy like the Soviets did after losing in Afghanistan
or is the US going to be even more like a huge North Korea? Besides Israel there is the manipulations
of other countries like the Europeans.
I agree Trump is very concerned about appearance and that makes him weak. He like the rest
of the American Establishment is like Narcissus and in their pond the Empire is reflected back
at them. They won't let go of it.
I disagree that the American people vote against war. The American people have had plenty of
chances. They've had chances to turn the world's fortunes around plenty of times with Pat Buchanan,
Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, and Ralph Nader. That pretty much covers the whole ideological spectrum
except the neocons. The American people have consistently voted for war at least since 1992. They
had these men who ran for president in order to save us all and the were consistently rejected
by the electorate. Its not just the government. Its the 4th estate. The corporations. I'm now
a pessimist. War will come and it will fail. The question is who will the Empire wage war against
and who will survive the war?
Is Pauline Christianity legitimate? The problem with it has always been that it was built on
a tribal story. A lot of good came from it. It was used to justify some bad things too. Its origins
are not the classical world. That is probably why the alt-right has a fascination with modern
pseudo-pagan religions. I think the real story is that the Ancient Greeks particularly the Epicureans
have won the argument: https://www.csun.edu/~hcfll004/Stoic-Epic-comp.html
– these ideas are older than Christianity.
The AngloZionist tribe is now considered what the Catholics considered the pagans were. The
word paganus means hick. Pagan now means new age and Christian in the West means hick. The AngloZionist
don't even like them but require their obedience and support. Perhaps its only a matter of time
before the Judeo-Christian fairy tail loses its political power and just becomes good literature.
It has no hope especially with the transhumanist wonders about to bequeathed to the world. It
can't compete. They avoided the truth for about 2000 years and couldn't develop a convincing response
against Epicureanism. Genesis is the best they could muster against natural selection after thousands
of years of knowing about it? Epikoros (Hebrew for heretic) in the end won! But the US Empire
has an unhealthy appetite of playing chicken with nuclear powers and western Judeo-Christianity
will not go peacefully into the night. Read More
Agree:
Beefcake the Mighty
@Yevardian Um, the Golan Heights was officially annexed by Israel in 1981.
I enjoy your articles, but you can't be taken seriously whilst you keep making amateurish mistakes
like this.
Ditto on Russia being the only country truly upholding Islamic values. If Israel officially
annexed the Golan heights in 1981, why is Netanyahu making noise about it now? Seems insecure.
Also consider that "true" Islamic or Christian values would be those proposed by the actual adherents.
Would Russians have any reason to discount or misrepresent their stated values if they were altruistic
and high minded? I suggest you try and critique the Sakers comments on their intended merits if
you wish to be taken seriously.
@nsa ZIG is a more accurate acronym......as in INFESTED. Think parasites like bed bugs, ticks,
lice, mites, termites, scabies, fleas, ringworm, etc. ZOP is accurate too, and ZOP is the specific
cause of ZOG.
ZOP is Zionist Occupied People, and ZOP is a description of the US and Israeli voter obsession
with and participation in a neurotic victim cult.
ZOP is the elephant in the room that nobody in broadcast media will discuss.
US and Israeli victim cult lobbyist are obsessed with cult dominance of national elections
and society.
The US and Israel have a dominant victim cult that displays a neurotic persecution complex
and frequently demands government remedies.
A US and Israeli victim cultist is conditioned to demand government reparations and entitlements
in exchange for their votes.
A typical US and Israeli victim cultist is obsessed with Nazi and white supremacy, claiming
that white-straight-Christian-males are deplorable Nazi or Nazi sympathizers.
The US and Israeli victim cult is aggressive toward foreign nations that are a perceived threat
to the cult.
As an example, here are some of the government entitlements enjoyed by victim cultists in Israel:
Israel refused to recognize an Israeli nationality at the country's establishment in 1948,
making an unusual distinction between "citizenship" and "nationality." Although all Israelis
qualify as "citizens of Israel," the state is defined as belonging to the "Jewish nation,"
meaning not only the 5.6 million Israeli Jews but also more than seven million Jews in the
diaspora.
Critics say the special status of Jewish nationality has been a way to undermine the citizenship
rights of non-Jews in Israel, especially the fifth of the population who are Arab. Some
30 laws in Israel specifically privilege Jews, including in the areas of immigration rights,
naturalization, access to land and employment.
Arab leaders have also long complained that indications of "Arab" nationality on ID cards make
it easy for police and government officials to target Arab citizens for harsher treatment.
The interior ministry has adopted more than 130 possible nationalities for Israeli citizens,
most of them defined in religious or ethnic terms, with "Jewish" and "Arab" being the main
categories.
@wayne Read about King David in the Bible. He was a genocidal psychopath. It states in the
Bible how he vicioulsy murdered civilian prisoners of war. And on at least one occasion he gave
his men all the pre-puberty girls to "do with as they pleased", which was after they had murdered
their parents and all family members. I am sure this was a great sadistical delight to him and
his troops. Men of God? No God damned way. Undoubtely men of Satan. Different time, different
standards. You are judging him with the modern "for show" standards, by which the "civilized"
nations, which have instituted them, do not abide. The US govt has killed 10s of millions of mostly
civilians (men, women, children) since the end of WWII, around the world, and now their clients
in the Middle East and Ukraine continue mass rapes and murder. David's crimes pale by comparison.
Those in Washington D.C. will never face justice for what they are doing, at least in this world,
nor do they repent at all. You can read about King David's repentance in the same Bible.
Anon ,
April 23, 2017 at 9:47 pm GMT
300 Words
@Incitatus I deeply apologize, Anon/Keith. I overestimated you. Mea colpa.
The fable was intended to illustrate the difference between embarrassing irrational instinct
(canine leg-humpers) and intelligent criticism. You excelled, once again, at the former, and proudly
so. Knock yourself out. Polish those table legs.
"I know I confuse you."
The only one confused is you, Anon, the evader of any record who still fancies the distinction
'Keith.' Are you afraid that a record of your remarks will easily indict you for your narrow agenda
and regurgitative screeds?
No matter.
You might look up Julius Streicher, your patron saint. A man so vile cardinal Nazis at Nüremberg
avoided him as if he would leave excrement on them in any prolonged contact. They knew best. Keith
,
"Are you afraid that a record of your remarks will easily endict you".
Indict me for wanting to bring down the elephant in the room? Did the Jewnited states already
pass hate speech laws, forbidding all criticism of Israel and for exposing Jewish power in America?
Did the Jewmerica pass laws criminalizing Holocaust Revisionism? Did I wake up in a country without
first amendment rights. Or is all of this wishful thinking on your part?
Should I be indicted for a hate crime for asking for an autopsy proving several million Jews
were gassed at the Auschwitz labor camps? Should I be hung because there is no autopsy evidence?
Maybe this is the purpose of the Unz Review. My Unz Review remarks will be use to retro actively
endict me for laws that weren't on the books when I made my forbidden remarks, just like the Germans
were endicted, convicted and hung at Nuremberg?
It is you and the other Hasbara trolls who have a defensive agenda and regurgitate
the same old name calling " Its a trick, the Jews always use it"
When the Jewish Bolshevik NeoCons take over America, I am convinced I will be one of the first
to be put in a NKVD Gulag. I also know my cell mates will be other patriotic Unz Review Americans
along with millions of others who want to bring down the elephant in the room.
I apologize for mentioning the forbidden news about Rabbis and Herpes and the Jewish Egypt
slave myth. I know this upset you. Both of these stories were news published in the Israeli Haaretz
News. I guess these stories were for Jews eyes only.
Some comments are over top, but the term "Kosher Nostra" is pretty interesting. Jared's father sevred a jail term...
Notable quotes:
"... 'Jewish-American organized crime emerged within the American Jewish community during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. It has been referred to variously in media and popular culture as the Jewish Mob, Jewish Mafia, Kosher Mafia, Kosher Nostra, or Undzer Shtik (Yiddish: אונדזער שטיק). The last two of these terms refer to the Italian Cosa Nostra (Italian pronunciation: [kɔza nɔstra]); the former is a play on the word kosher, referring to Jewish dietary laws, while the latter is a direct translation of the phrase (Italian for "our thing") into Yiddish, which was at the time the predominant language of the Jewish diaspora in the United States ..."
"... In more recent years, Jewish-American organized crime has reappeared in the forms of both Israeli and Jewish-Russian mafia criminal groups, and Orthodox kidnapping gangs ..."
"... Several notable Jewish American mobsters provided financial support for Israel through donations to Jewish organizations since the country's creation in 1948. Jewish-American gangsters used Israel's Law of Return to flee criminal charges or face deportation ..."
"... Even the staff at his own Jewish day school were surprised he was accepted at Harvard. ..."
"... He was described as a lacklustre student his father bought his entry, and they were disappointed that more qualified students from his school didn't make the cut. ..."
"... They have good reason to hide him – he and his family have some shady business dealings – his father is a x-convict. How did he come into billions of dollars? They say that Jared inherited his money – how did that happen when his father is still living – did they get special tax treatment? ..."
The problem with fiat money is that if one has enough of it, one can buy just about anything under the sun that they please,
including even large parts of a country's political system and government.
Take for example, Jared (a.k.a. billionaire arch-Zionist trust-fund baby) Kushner
Peace. It is not my invention. All From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:
"Jewish-American organized crime":
'Jewish-American organized crime emerged within the American Jewish community during the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
It has been referred to variously in media and popular culture as the Jewish Mob, Jewish Mafia, Kosher Mafia, Kosher Nostra, or
Undzer Shtik (Yiddish: אונדזער שטיק). The last two of these terms refer to the Italian Cosa Nostra (Italian pronunciation: [kɔza
nɔstra]); the former is a play on the word kosher, referring to Jewish dietary laws, while the latter is a direct translation
of the phrase (Italian for "our thing") into Yiddish, which was at the time the predominant language of the Jewish diaspora in
the United States
In more recent years, Jewish-American organized crime has reappeared in the forms of both Israeli and Jewish-Russian mafia
criminal groups, and Orthodox kidnapping gangs .
Several notable Jewish American mobsters provided financial support for Israel through donations to Jewish organizations
since the country's creation in 1948. Jewish-American gangsters used Israel's Law of Return to flee criminal charges or face deportation
"
Anonymous , April 21, 2017 at 3:31 am GMT
@wayfarer
Even the staff at his own Jewish day school were surprised he was accepted at Harvard.
He was described as a lacklustre student his father bought his entry, and they were disappointed that more qualified students
from his school didn't make the cut.
As of today any mention of Jared Kushner is deemed anti Semitic. Consequences will be severe. I just read the latest ADL
diktat. As of today any mention of Jared Kushner is deemed anti Semitic. Consequences will be severe.
They have good reason to hide him – he and his family have some shady business dealings – his father is a x-convict. How
did he come into billions of dollars? They say that Jared inherited his money – how did that happen when his father is still
living – did they get special tax treatment?
"... "We control America." -Former Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon ..."
"... IDF vs Hezbollah round 2 should be interesting. All the Pauly Shores and Jared Kushners in uniform shat their panties when they faced a tough disciplined adversary immune to air superiority. Asymmetrical warfare is the 21st century's antidote to gunboat diplomacy. ..."
"... Actually, Shel Adelson put all his casino chips in Rubio's corner, and considered Trump unreliable at best. Until Trump won. Then I guess Adelson did support him, though I doubt Trump is bought and paid for to the extent Rubio would have been. ..."
"... Trump, at the order of Netanyahu, will destroy Iran in order to establish Israel as the only hegemonic power over the whole Middle East and Northern Africa. That's why they are destroying one country after another according to sectarian and religious lines such as the Yinon Plan outlined. The whole chaos in the Middle East serves only Israel. Just recently, Netanyahu said that Israel is one of the superpowers. How right he is. ..."
"... Mr. Margolis. Everything in Trumpland has to be magnified to huge. The attack on the Iran agreement fits nicely in Trump's idiosyncrasy that every achievement of president Obama must be dragged through the mud and declared the worst thing ever done by a US president. As in the case of NAFTA Trump may actually do nothing after he has talked to two women: May and Merkel. There is even an outside chance that he will talk to a third: Le Pen. ..."
"... Kushner and the military have the foreign policy portfolio. Trump has no idea whats going on. All of a sudden everybody likes him. That's enough for Trump. So "we" have gone full Zio. Duck and cover! ..."
Maybe the president believes he's won a great victory over the wicked Syrians by lobbing cruise
missiles at one of their underused air bases. Maybe Trump believes that he's scared the evil Russians
and the too big for their sampans Chinese into obedience.
His 22,000 lb MOAB terror bomb on Afghanistan should keep those pesky Taliban quiet for a while
even though the Pentagon claimed the intended target was a group- Khorosan – that may not actually
exist.
Those major malefactors, the crazy North Koreans, could be about to feel America's full military
might if they so much as twitch.
Not content with nearly stirring up a new war with North Korea, President Donald Trump is now
waving the big stick at another of Washington's favorite bogeymen, Iran. For the Trumps, Iran is
poison.
In recent days, President Trump has threatened to renounce the six-power nuclear agreement to
freeze or shrink Iran's nuclear infrastructure. This sensible pact was signed during the Obama administration
by the great powers: US, Britain, France, Russia, Germany and China. Trump appears willing to abrogate
the treaty and outrage the other great powers just because he hates Iran for some reason and, it
appears, Muslims in general.
The Trump administration seems increasingly influenced by Israel's far right Netanyahu government.
In fact, PM Netanyahu often appears the most moderate member of his rightist coalition which is dominated
by militant West Bank settlers.
Trump has surrounded himself with ardent supporters of Israel's right. One of his major bankrollers
is casino mogul Sheldon Adelson who is a key supporter of Jewish expansion on the illegally occupied
West Bank.
Israel's right has made a hate fetish of Iran and incessantly calls for war against the Islamic
Republic. However, the mighty US Israel lobby twice failed to push the Obama administration to attack
Iran. The US Congress, by contrast, is totally under the thumb of Israel's American lobby and pays
more respect to PM Netanyahu than the president. He who pays the piper .
In fact, Congress sought to block sales of Boeing civilian airliners to Iran worth $16.6 billion
even though it would have cost thousands of American jobs. Congress has been trying to sabotage the
Iran nuclear deal ever since it was signed, putting American national interests on a collision course
with those of Israel's right.
But now President Trump says he's found a new reason to sabotage the six-power deal: Iran, insists
Trump, supports 'terrorism' and has bad intentions. This charge has been around for decades, cited
by Israel as a compelling reason to attack Iran because Tehran supports the 'terrorist' Lebanese
movement Hezbollah and the Palestinian movement Hamas.
The 'terrorist' label is slapped onto all enemies of Israel and the United States. It's a handy,
meaningless sobriquet that automatically denies those so named political or moral justice.
I was with the Israel army when it invaded Lebanon in 1982 and saw first-hand how its arrogance
turned formerly pro-Israel Shia Lebanese in the south into anti-Israel fighters. Israel actually
encouraged and may have secretly financed the growth of Hezbollah and Hamas hoping they would drain
support from the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) and Lebanon's Amal militia.
Israel hates Hamas and Hezbollah and is determined to eradicate them. The principal supporter
of Hamas and Hezbollah has long been Syria. Large parts of Syria have now been destroyed by a US-engineered
uprising and bands of Saudi-financed mercenaries. That has left Iran as the main supporter of Hamas
and Hezbollah, and a principal backer of Syria's Assad government. The PLO has become a puppet of
Israel and the US.
So Israel is now determined to destroy Hezbollah in its strongholds in Lebanon and then crush
Hamas with Trump's blessing, so ending any dreams of a Palestinian state. Iran is now being blamed
for all Washington's problems in the Mideast. So war fever against Iran is again mounting.
IDF vs Hezbollah round 2 should be interesting. All the Pauly Shores and Jared Kushners
in uniform shat their panties when they faced a tough disciplined adversary immune to air superiority.
Asymmetrical warfare is the 21st century's antidote to gunboat diplomacy.
We in the west got scant information of the drubbing the Edomites got in that scrap. If you
read between the lines of major media coverage (as obviously should be done) one got the distinct
impression that they ran out of euphemisms to try to paint that conflict as anywhere near positive.
It turns out that the mighty Israeli army had feet of clay. And hurt feelings too judging by
the massive 48 hour air assault they conducted before the peace agreement came into effect.
My prediction is that the next time around the IDF will use all modern MOAB and fuel air ordnance
weapons (gifted by Uncle Sugar) to clear the ground before their snowflake grunts appear on the
scene. A real holocaust (by dictionary definition) as it were. Of course militarily it is the
proper thing to do but politically problematic. If Hezbollah has accounted for this by burrowing
ever more deeply, there will be dragons. Israel cannot allow for any kind of casualty count domestically.
It is written that the French killed 75,000 0f their own due to artillery barrages in WW1.
Those days are long over.
It looks like Trump hasn't gotten Eric's memo. He's also not afraid to think really big. Besides,
Trump is one of those people who double down and try to prove anyone wrong who says he can't do
something, so we should prepare for war with Iran, Syria, N. Korea, and Russia no matter the consequences.
The Trump administration seems increasingly influenced by Israel's far right Netanyahu government.
Ditto that. Trump is a Judaized white man who was surrounded by many American Jews with longstanding
ties to the Likud party, so I always thought his talk of non-interventionism and "America first"
seemed fanciful and merely designed to ensnare "deplorabes". It was only a matter of time before
his court Jews employed their wiles to change Trump from populist with a humble foreign policy
into a cross between George W. Bush and Bibi Netanyahu bent on regime change and more reckless
and insane than both combined.
Actually, Shel Adelson put all his casino chips in Rubio's corner, and considered Trump
unreliable at best. Until Trump won. Then I guess Adelson did support him, though I doubt Trump
is bought and paid for to the extent Rubio would have been.
Let's look at the alternatives here. Any other Republican except for Rand Paul wanted confrontation
with Iran, and on a faster timetable than Trump. Hillary was more hawkish than Trump, on that
nearly everyone agrees. So really, the odds of any other major candidate starting a war
with Iran were greater than they are with Trump.
But what of this?
Trump is a Judaized white man who was surrounded by many American Jews with longstanding
ties to the Likud party, so I always thought his talk of non-interventionism and "America first"
seemed fanciful and merely designed to ensnare "deplorabes."
Again, it would be nearly impossible for anyone to serve as President without "American Jews with
longstanding ties to the Likud Party" to be lurking around somewhere. They are everywhere
, in both parties, and at a synagogue near you. But if Trump gets into the morass of regime
change, he's a one-term President and a massive failure. I think he knows that.
Donald Trump's rhetorical bravado in Syria and Afghanistan is a prelude of a looming attack
on Iran that will evolve, at the end, into an outright war across the Middle East. Such a war
of aggression will break America's neck and will be the beginning of the end of the State of Israel.
Both crazy states have nuclear weapons and they will use them. Both, Israel and the US, don't
have any ethics. They are driven by a domination of other peoples. The US have been waging wars
since its establishment, except for 17 (!) years. A real peace-loving nation. The same holds true
for Israel. Since 1948, Israel has been at war with its neighbors and threatens Iran with war.
Trump, at the order of Netanyahu, will destroy Iran in order to establish Israel as the
only hegemonic power over the whole Middle East and Northern Africa. That's why they are destroying
one country after another according to sectarian and religious lines such as the Yinon Plan outlined.
The whole chaos in the Middle East serves only Israel. Just recently, Netanyahu said that Israel
is one of the superpowers. How right he is.
@Anonymous By all means sell all the guided missiles, sorry... airliners, that Persian hearts
desire! They will go up in smoke, torched by 500 lb bombs, or maybe by Standard missiles while
trying to hit a high-rise building in the civilized world.
And Israel wins without fighting yet again. Sun Tzu is smiling, but looks a bit tired. Sorry,
911, inside job!
Hey Eric- in your list of threats by Trump, you skip his threats to Mexic0, China, Australia,
Germany, Sweden, Britain, the EU, and most recently South Korea. And not to forget: Canada.
Of course, he's not threatening war against any of those. Just trade war.
Except China.
It's hard to tell whether he knows the difference between friends and foes.
Oh, wait, there is one country and one leader he has never threatened, never spoken a bad word
of, and never so much as hinted at being any sort of issue for the United States.
Only sure cure, to get Americans to stop terrorizing the planet earth-Remove/relocate UN into
Palestine (West Bank).
Didi
,
May 2, 2017 at 12:30 pm GMT \n
Mr. Margolis. Everything in Trumpland has to be magnified to huge. The attack on the Iran
agreement fits nicely in Trump's idiosyncrasy that every achievement of president Obama must be
dragged through the mud and declared the worst thing ever done by a US president. As in the case
of NAFTA Trump may actually do nothing after he has talked to two women: May and Merkel. There
is even an outside chance that he will talk to a third: Le Pen. mr meener
,
May 2, 2017 at 12:46 pm GMT \n
head rabbi in Israel .goyim were born to serve Israel. trump has been kosherized by
all the traitor jews around him with the master of them all kosher Kushner. the Syrian air force
base was bombed because Syria did shoot down an Israeli jet. even the NK fiasco is tied to Israel.
when Israel bombed the Syrian reactor in 2006 they killed 10 north Korean scientists who they
knew were there. EVERY foreign policy war blockades sanctions bombing are ALL for israel. there
is utterly no hope for this country
mr meener
,
May 2, 2017 at 12:48 pm GMT \n
@Proud_Srbin Thank you for frankness Mr. Margolis. Humanity always prevails, terrorists always
lose!
God Bless Mankind! when the terrorist army is ISIS Israel's private army they will not lose.
they have the backing of the whole west and saudia arbia. keep dreaming evil never loses in a
world controlled by satan and his spawn
China and Russia, both bordering Korea, have not yet drawn their redlines to any attack on
NK.
And why not? Is it because they know or feel sure that US dares not wage a full scale war against
NK?
Surely, surely mad US generals, fake MSM, fake Congress are not that mad to attack a country
like Korea.
How about by a pinprick; similar to that on the Shayrat airbase?
Israel hates Hamas and Hezbollah and is determined to eradicate them. The principal supporter
of Hamas and Hezbollah has long been Syria. Large parts of Syria have now been destroyed by
a US-engineered uprising and bands of Saudi-financed mercenaries. That has left Iran as the
main supporter of Hamas and Hezbollah, and a principal backer of Syria's Assad government.
The PLO has become a puppet of Israel and the US.
I've said all along that the war being waged by the US against Syria is for the purpose of
destroying the supply line used to transfer advanced weapons from Iran to Hezbollah. Israel simply
cannot abide the thought of being unable to invade Lebanon at will, and will never, ever get over
having their plow cleaned by Hezbollah in 2006.
Obama has left an indelible mark with his signing on of the US to the deal on Iran's nuclear
program. It's irreversible now because Russia is a party to the deal. As is the Syria war because
of Russia's influence and it's MAD deterrent. And North Korea is safe because of China's influence.
Throughout the world the situation is going to be different now for the US. Russia and China
have stood up and drawn a line in the sand. The deterrent to US aggression that was missing since
the fall of the Soviet Union is now back.
@bob balkas China and Russia, both bordering Korea, have not yet drawn their redlines to any
attack on NK.
And why not? Is it because they know or feel sure that US dares not wage a full scale war against
NK?
Surely, surely mad US generals, fake MSM, fake Congress are not that mad to attack a country
like Korea.
How about by a pinprick; similar to that on the Shayrat airbase? Make no mistake Bob, the red
lines have been drawn by China and Russia that forbid a US strike against North Korea. Much goes
on in the background that is not fed to the US media. This is why the US media is useless for
letting us know what is really happening in foreign affairs that include the US. It's also the
reason why 90% of what we read on antiwar.com is useless too.
It's a good idea to avoid military action against Iran. No matter how many military victories
you chalk up on the battlefield, you can't win in the long run fighting in an area in which the
vast majority of the population does not want you there. WorkingClass
,
May 2, 2017 at 8:27 pm GMT \n
Kushner and the military have the foreign policy portfolio. Trump has no idea whats going
on. All of a sudden everybody likes him. That's enough for Trump. So "we" have gone full Zio.
Duck and cover! eric
siverson ,
May 2, 2017 at 9:45 pm GMT \n
I think a lot of people are confusing the little independent State of Israel with the international
bankers often referred to as the new world order NWO I don't agree they are the same force and
Israel has been and will continue to be as much of a victim as all the rest of us .
Carroll
Price ,
May 3, 2017 at 2:52 am GMT \n
@eric siverson I think a lot of people are confusing the little independent State of Israel
with the international bankers often referred to as the new world order NWO I don't agree they
are the same force and Israel has been and will continue to be as much of a victim as all the
rest of us . With American tax payers forking over in excess of 5 billion dollars per year to
Israel (and that's only what we know about) you could hardly refer to that shitty little aberration
as an independent state.
"... Robert Fisk writes for the Independent , where this column originally appeared. ..."
"... And my hope still is that Trump will prevent NATO and EU war on Russia, the war that indeed will end al wars, as already Wilson wanted, because this war will end all human life. ..."
"... How it then ends is well described in the novel On the Beach, Neville Shute, 1953, the New Zealand government distributing suicide pills when the radio active dust reaches the island. ..."
"... Trump got elected by declaring himself the enemy of international Zionist globalist bankers. Once in the White House he folded to their demands. He is now Clinton/Obama Mk 3. ..."
It's one thing to have a lunatic in the White House who watches late night television and tweets
all day. But when the same lunatic goes to war, it now emerges, he's a safer bet for democracy, a
strong President who stands up to tyrants (unless they happen to be Saudis, Turks or Egyptians) and
who acts out of human emotion rather than cynicism.
How else can one account for the extraordinary report in The New York Times which recorded
how Trump's "anguish" at the film of dying Syrian babies had led him to abandon "isolationism"?
Americans like action, but have typically confused Trump's infantile trigger finger with mature
decision-making. What else is there to think when a normally sane US columnist like David Ignatius
suddenly compares Trump to Harry Truman and praises his demented President for his "flexibility"
and "pragmatism"?
This is preposterous. A madman who goofs off at something he doesn't like on CNN is just plain
wacky. A man of unsound mind who attacks three Muslim countries – two of which were included in his
seven Muslim nation refugee ban – is a danger to the world. Yet the moment he fires 59 missiles at
Syria after more than 60 civilians die in an apparent chemical attack which he blames on Assad –
but none after far more are massacred by a Syrian suicide bomber – even Angela Merkel takes leave
of her senses and praises Trump, along with the Matron of Downing Street, Signora Mogherini and sundry
other potentates. Hasn't someone cottoned on to the fact that Trump is now taking America into a
shooting war?
Handing more power to the Pentagon – about the most perilous act of any US President – means that
Defence Secretary James "Mad Dog" Mattis is now encouraging the head-chopping Saudis to bomb Yemen
– adding even more American intelligence "assets" to this criminal enterprise - and encouraging the
Gulf Arabs' delusional idea that Iran wants to conquer the Arab world. "Everywhere you look," Mattis
told his Saudi hosts this month, "if there's trouble in the region, you find Iran."
Is that the case with Egypt, then, now under Isis attack as its President "disappears" thousands
of his own people? Is that the case in Turkey whose even more crazed President has now locked up
tens of thousands of his own people while turning himself into a dictator-by-law?
Let's just briefly take a look at Trump's reaction to Recep Tayyip Erdogan's dodgy referendum,
which has given him a Caliph's power over Turkey. A round-up of the latest figures from Turkey by
the French newspaper Liberation show that there have been 47,000 arrests since last year's attempted
coup, 140,000 passports revoked, 120,000 men and women fired from their jobs (including 8,000 military
officers, 5,000 academics, 4,000 judges and lawyers, 65 mayors and 2,000 journalists). One thousand
two hundred schools and 15 universities have been closed down, 170 newspapers, television and radio
stations shut.
And after the referendum which gave Erdogan a narrow (if very dubious) majority to legitimise
these outrages, Trump called the Turkish President to congratulate him on his victory. Just as he
continues to congratulate Egyptian President Abdul Fattah al-Sisi in his "battle" against "terror",
a war which al-Sisi – whose coup d'etat against Egypt's first elected president originally brought
him to power – appears to be losing. Al-Sisi, Trump enthused, would be someone "very close to him".
We know that the US Special Forces raid on Yemen, in which Navy Seal William Owens died, killed
more civilians than al-Qaeda members. We don't know (or, I suspect, care) very much what the "mother
of all bombs" did in the Nangahar province of Afghanistan. First it killed 60 Isis fighters. Then
it killed 100 Isis fighters and not a single civilian – surely a first in US military history? But
then, weirdly, nobody has been allowed to go to the site of this monster bomb's explosion. Because
civilians were indeed killed? Or because – and this is a fact – Isis survivors went on fighting American
ground troops after the bombing?
Now Trump is sending a naval battle group to threaten North Korea, a past master at childish threats
itself. Ye gods! And this is a man who is now "flexible" and "pragmatic"? It's instructive to note
that after its first edition, The New York Times changed its headline about Trump's Syrian "anguish"
to "Trump Upends His Own Foreign Policy", still gifting him with a "foreign policy" (which doesn't
exist) while cutting out the "anguish". I am told the first original edition headline read: "On Syria
Attack, Trump's Heart Came First". Intriguing. If that is correct, you can see how The New York Times
slowly – far too slowly – realised it had itself started to fall in love with its shooting-from-the-hip
President.
Now we await the battle for Korea, forgetting that earlier war which drowned the peninsula in
blood, American and British as well as Korean and Chinese. Maybe Trump, in his vague, frightening
way, has decided that Southeast Asia will be his real war. And there, of course, the comparison with
Truman gets rather too close to home. For Truman only came in at the end of the Second World War,
after Roosevelt's death, and his crowning wartime achievement was also in Southeast Asia: the atom-bombing
of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Heaven spare us the next 100 days.
Robert Fisk writes for the Independent
, where this column originally appeared.
jilles dykstra, April 27, 2017 at 6:29 am GMT
I still do not see Trump as a crackpot.
Though I'm not sure about his ideas I still hope that he will end USA militarism, not because
out of moral ideas, but because he sees, and his rich friends, that pursuing the goal of USA world
hegemony will, or has already, ruined the USA.
The attack on Syria, and his warlike talk about N Korea, hogwash to confuse Deep State, and
to satisfy his voters. The Dutch professor Laslo Maracs, university of Amsterdam, explains all
this eloquently, alas only in Dutch, as far as I know.
And my hope still is that Trump will prevent NATO and EU war on Russia, the war that indeed
will end al wars, as already Wilson wanted, because this war will end all human life.
How it then ends is well described in the novel On the Beach, Neville Shute, 1953, the
New Zealand government distributing suicide pills when the radio active dust reaches the island.
Trump got elected by declaring himself the enemy of international Zionist globalist bankers.
Once in the White House he folded to their demands. He is now Clinton/Obama Mk 3.
Ignatius (not "normally sensible" but normally a blood-sucking Zionist warmonger) applauds
Trump for his betrayal of those who elected him, for his submission to the usual suspects . by
the way this guy (see below) explains what the power is that obedience-monkeys like Trump (and,
more importantly, the rest of us) actually serve:
Trump underestimated the problems he was going to have in government. It is true – he is a
good business negotiator – he has proven himself at making business deals. The goal of the participants
in a business deal is to create an ongoing business. The all-encompassing goal of government is
to maintain power – second is getting things done. Trump must learn a new game – he must learn
the game power. The first rule of power is you need to instill fear – you need to take someone
out!
Trump must use government power to crush someone (not twitter). Trump must take one of those
jerk judges immediately to the supreme court. Trump needs to stick something that Schumer really
wants, right where the sun don't shine. Using government power, Trump needs to make an example
of some media person.
Trump dropped some bombs and the world now has respect – that's power politics.
100 Words
@ThereisaGod Trump got elected by declaring himself the enemy of international Zionist globalist
bankers.
Once in the White House he folded to their demands.
He is now Clinton/Obama Mk 3.
Ignatius (not "normally sensible" but normally a blood-sucking Zionist warmonger) applauds Trump
for his betrayal of those who elected him, for his submission to the usual suspects .... by the
way ... this guy (see below) explains what the power is that obedience-monkeys like Trump (and,
more importantly, the rest of us) actually serve:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEpcY5JU120&t=543s It is not easy, if that is what Trump wants,
to turn around the policy of a country, that has been followed since Pearl Harbour.
The one and only period that the USA was not imperialistic was from 1919, when the American people
discovered why their sons had died in Europe, until 1933, when Roosevelt got power.
Read More Robert
Magill ,
April 27, 2017 at 10:16 am GMT
100 Words Donald Trump evokes in us the same distortion of reality as a funhouse mirror at
an amusement park.
Apparently no one is immune to the phenomenon. Maybe it's black magic. Maybe it's Jungian.
Whatever it is; it's pretty dark. In fact, the Trump effect on us has become a Litmus Test
of more
@Wizard of Oz Just sometimes Robert Fisk says something interesting and convincing, or at
least, believable. But what is one to make of his expert knowledge if he thinks Hiroshima and
Nagasaki are in SE Asia? "what is one to make of his expert knowledge if he thinks Hiroshima and
Nagasaki are in SE Asia?"
Robert Fisk the Iranian shill, and secret Shiia convert, doesn't even know that Hiroshima
and Nagasaki are NOT in Southeast Asia. Thank God that Trump and Israel are a lot smarter than
this turd. Read More Sean
,
April 27, 2017 at 11:29 am GMT
@jilles dykstra It is not easy, if that is what Trump wants, to turn around the policy of
a country, that has been followed since Pearl Harbour.
The one and only period that the USA was not imperialistic was from 1919, when the American people
discovered why their sons had died in Europe, until 1933, when Roosevelt got power. The last American
occupation troops did not leave Germany until the 1930′s.
Read More Logan
,
April 27, 2017 at 11:34 am GMT
@Wizard of Oz Just sometimes Robert Fisk says something interesting and convincing, or at
least, believable. But what is one to make of his expert knowledge if he thinks Hiroshima and
Nagasaki are in SE Asia? SE, NE, at this point in time what difference does it make?
Read More jacques
sheete ,
April 27, 2017 at 11:46 am GMT
200 Words Trump, the malleable Chimp, is just the latest iteration of Cleopatra's monkeys,
and the mask is off.
It's now reported that Trump just did a NAFTA flip-flop.
But at least the boob isn't Hillary, and maybe his simian antics will awaken a few more people
to the reality of the futility of our political systems.
All the dreamers ought to wake up to the fact that the Amerika of their fantasies has been
dead for some time, and will never be resurrected.
Somewhat different circumstances, but the idea is the same:
22 1 Scipio, when he looked upon the city as it was utterly perishing and in the last throes
of its complete destruction, is said to have shed tears and wept openly for his enemies. 2
After being wrapped in thought for long, and realizing that all cities, nations, and authorities
must, like men, meet their doom; that this happened to Ilium, once a prosperous city, to
the empires of Assyria, Media, and Persia, the greatest of their time, and to Macedonia itself,
the brilliance of which was so recent, either deliberately or the verses escaping him, he said:
A day will come when sacred Troy shall perish,
And Priam and his people shall be slain.1
1 Iliad VI.448 9.
-POLYBIUS , THE HISTORIES,Fragments of Book XXXVIII, p389
100 Words
@Abdul Alhazred Actually its the British!....well they are bloody insane!
Anyone who says they reserve the right to make a thermonuclear "First Strike" is totally mad.
https://larouchepac.com/20170426/brits-nuclear-first-strike-jolly-good Anyone who wants to
stage a preemptive nuclear attack wouldn't say so beforehand. No-one can come up with a scenario
in which Britain would ever first use nukes, so refusing to rule it out is simply the practice
of confronting potential aggression with uncertain consequences though being slow to say what
you will do, and never saying what you won't.
Lets be clear: the British nukes are out in subs and if they got the coded order to fire off
a first use strike (for some reason we cannot yet imagine) the Trident captain and crew would
obey the command. Any statement to the contrary made by some politician on BBC radio years before
is going to be bloody irrelevant. Read More
100 Words Fisk writes as if the current US president's puny actions are the cause of wars
and despotism all around the globe, although many like the Yemen have seen the same sides fighting
for five decades, wich an altered cast of outside help. They are are rooted in local conditions,
all these things Fisk is complaining about. He sometime talks as if the Middle east would settle
down in a trice without the US. But America is just a country, big and strong, but still in need
of allies.Even if America decided to withdraw from all involvement, It cannot halt others' interventions
in local conflicts by washing US hands clean. Fisk implies otherwise.
Read More quercusalba
,
April 27, 2017 at 12:16 pm GMT
200 Words I must disagree with Fisk on a number of his statements and to my surprise and chagrin
he sounds almost unhinged in his article. Excuse me, but the misogynist claim is just too juvenile
and so terribly, terribly boring. And those admittedly predominately Muslim countries from whom
Trump wishes to ban immigration - they are also countries (with the exception of Iran, and we
all know why it is on the list) which have no effective governments (thanks in good measure to
policies of these United States), as a result there is very little background information available
to our immigration officials for anyone wishing to come here from one of those countries. Wanting
to find an improved 'vetting' process for such an individuals is prudent.
I found Trump's rhetoric about the 'alleged' chemical weapons use in Syria troubling to say
the least. His authorization to bomb that airport though seemed like a pinprick action (to my
delight) and appeared to be an action to shut up his critics. I'm unsure if that is so, of course.
Trump's tweeting is not 'crazed'. It is his only means to get out his own message as an extremely
hostile and biased news media is not going to do it.
It is very hard to know what is true and what is not true anymore. I don't think Fisk in this
possesses the truth anymore than the rest of us. Read
More
@Art Trump underestimated the problems he was going to have in government.
It is true – he is a good business negotiator – he has proven himself at making business deals.
The goal of the participants in a business deal is to create an ongoing business.
The all-encompassing goal of government is to maintain power – second is getting things done.
Trump must learn a new game – he must learn the game power.
The first rule of power is you need to instill fear – you need to take someone out!
Trump must use government power to crush someone (not twitter). Trump must take one of those
jerk judges immediately to the supreme court. Trump needs to stick something that Schumer really
wants, right where the sun don't shine. Using government power, Trump needs to make an example
of some media person.
Trump dropped some bombs and the world now has respect – that's power politics.
Yet the moment he fires 59 missiles at Syria after more than 60 civilians die in an apparent
chemical attack which he blames on Assad – but none after far more are massacred by a Syrian
suicide bomber – even Angela Merkel takes leave of her senses and praises Trump, along with
the Matron of Downing Street, Signora Mogherini and sundry other potentates. Hasn't someone
cottoned on to the fact that Trump is now taking America into a shooting war?
Well Fisk, having been pontificating about Middle Eastern issues for quite a long time, haven't
you cottoned to the fact that Merkel and the "Matron of Downing Street" and all the rest of these
whores of the Zio-West are nothing more than quislings for the international PTB (Rothschild/Soros,
et al)?
I mean how ******** dumb can you be not to know that it's Israel that wants Assad out,
and that just like with Saddam and Gadhafi and all the rest, it is Israel's bidding that is getting
done here with all these serial and myriad atrocities and war crimes. Duh fucking duh!
And if Merkel and May and the entire length and breath of the CIA controlled msm are finally
happy about something Trump did, then it's only because what he did pleases the Likudicks in Israel.
Duh.
For a man of Fisk's stature in the realm of journalism to pretend that Merkel and May are acting
the way they are independent of nefarious banking/war mongering/Zio-forces in the Western world
is what is truly preposterous. Note to Fisk, Merkel and May are controlled, just like that
other little bitch of Zion, Toady Blair.
What would Mr. Fisk make of this video I wonder. A remarkable coincidence?!
When Fisk pretends that there's no comprehensible reason for why the NYT all in the sudden
gushes over Trump once he starts bombing Israel's foes, then you know it's all just dishonest
blather.
Perhaps Mr. Fisk is simply 'smart' enough to understand the score, and like all intellectual
whores, use his pen to obscure the truth, and please the PTB, rather than tempt them like Dr.
Udo Ulfkotte did. Eh Robert?
As for N. Korea, whenever you want to understand the id of the Zio-Fiend, just look to this
guy
"The North Koreans - this very erratic, unstable regime - may soon have the capability to
harm us directly," Bolton said in an interview with John Catsimatidis that aired Sunday on
New York's AM 970
200 Words
@quercusalba I must disagree with Fisk on a number of his statements and to my surprise and
chagrin he sounds almost unhinged in his article. Excuse me, but the misogynist claim is just
too juvenile and so terribly, terribly boring. And those admittedly predominately Muslim countries
from whom Trump wishes to ban immigration -- they are also countries (with the exception of Iran,
and we all know why it is on the list) which have no effective governments (thanks in good measure
to policies of these United States), as a result there is very little background information available
to our immigration officials for anyone wishing to come here from one of those countries. Wanting
to find an improved 'vetting' process for such an individuals is prudent.
I found Trump's rhetoric about the 'alleged' chemical weapons use in Syria troubling to say the
least. His authorization to bomb that airport though seemed like a pinprick action (to my delight)
and appeared to be an action to shut up his critics. I'm unsure if that is so, of course.
Trump's tweeting is not 'crazed'. It is his only means to get out his own message as an extremely
hostile and biased news media is not going to do it.
It is very hard to know what is true and what is not true anymore. I don't think Fisk in this
possesses the truth anymore than the rest of us. I speak four languages, it is amazingly simple
in these internet times, by comparing 'news', to find out, not always dead sure, what the truth
is.
On MH370 I still do not have more than suspicion, the USA again, the plane carried two groups
of Chinese technicians experts in making planes invisible for radar.
The control of the plane was taken from the crew, from the outside, this is nowadays possible
with any modern plane, on sept 11 there was a problem.
I suppose this failure led to some improvements.
MH17, someone leaked a secret Australian report, Ukraine used passenger jet flights as human
shields for their bombers.
A BUK was nevertheless fired, dit not hit an Ukrainian bomber, but a passenger flight.
Dutch prime minister the afternoon of the carnage made a very secret phone call to his vice prime
minister, the call had to be over a land line, the vice was so stupid to state in public, 'because
the Russians should not be able to listen to the call'.
At that moment officially Rutte, prime minister, knew nothing about the cause.
The only conclusion possible for me is that he did know, and told Asscher, vice, that the Russians
should be blamed.
100 Words
@Sean Fisk writes as if the current US president's puny actions are the cause of wars and
despotism all around the globe, although many like the Yemen have seen the same sides fighting
for five decades, wich an altered cast of outside help. They are are rooted in local conditions,
all these things Fisk is complaining about. He sometime talks as if the Middle east would settle
down in a trice without the US. But America is just a country, big and strong, but still in need
of allies.Even if America decided to withdraw from all involvement, It cannot halt others' interventions
in local conflicts by washing US hands clean. Fisk implies otherwise.
Even if America decided to withdraw from all involvement, It cannot halt others' interventions
in local conflicts by washing US hands clean. Fisk implies otherwise.
as an American, I'm worried about our hands (souls) being clean
if you want to go suit up for the IDF and get involved with interventions, then be my guest,
but America needs to come home (like Trump promised)
battle for Korea Trump, in his vague, frightening way, has decided that Southeast Asia
will be his real
[Truman's] crowning wartime achievement was also in Southeast Asia: the atom-bombing of
Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
I never knew that Japan and the Koreas were in south-east Asia.
Are the winters a collective delusion? Does it mean that parts of Russia and China are the
only places in north-east Asia or even that there *is* no north-east Asia?
600 Words Fisk should have mentioned Trump's special affection for Israel and his unconditional
support of Israeli militarism and Israeli brutality. This is key.
Zio-Washington's double-standards vis-a-vis Israel are at the root of ongoing US lawlessness.
No bilateral arrangement in our nation's history epitomizes this moral/political fraud better.
Washington's 'unshakable' alliance with the Zionist entity is artificial. Americans do not benefit
by this arrangement. In fact, the opposite is true. Yet no one says a word. It's taboo.
Fragile, dubious myths involving US (and Israeli) exceptionalism endure and in plain view;
this despite the fact that America (the 'proposition nation') is wedded to the ideas of 'Equality'
and 'Freedom'.
Sure we are–except when it doesn't suit us; except when it doesn't suit Israel.
Thus, enforced inequality is just peachy in Israel. And American supremacism is how Washington
implements its foreign policies. Zio-Washington decides.
Thus, when it comes to defending the rights and interests of Palestine or Iran or Syria, principles
involving freedom, equality and sovereignty are sidelined. And any references to 'existential
threats' are reserved for you-know-who. It's a one-way street.
Lesser peoples and 'bad' countries are not entitled to invoke their own interests and entitlements.
Israel on the other hand, always is.
Indeed, Trump's preemptive missile attack on Syria is a great example of Zio-American privilege
and Zio-American lawlessness. Legal restraints are for other nations. Not Zio-America. When Zio-Washington
gets upset, Zio-Washington gets to invade and bomb sovereign states, even though these same states
have not attacked us.
Washington has not only become 'the world's policeman', but the world's judge and jury.
Both the UN Charter and the Geneva Convention however identify aggressive war (including a
'first strike') as the supreme international crime. Shouldn't this matter?
Double-standard are nevertheless used routinely by Israel and Washington. This allows them
to initiate serial warfare that lacks a clear legal foundation. It's all ad hoc. It subverts the
rule of law.
And our pro-Zionist MSM sanitizes this conduct and worldview.
Special counties (and we know who they are) are therefore not bound by cumbersome restrictions
that were designed to prevent war, expansion and aggression. Feelings and 'outrage' now matter
more. This is part and parcel of Zio-American exceptionalism. Laws and ethics have been downgraded
to accommodate political objectives and feelings.
This is why Trump's anti-Assad 'outrage' (and subsequent missile attack) did not focus on aggressive
war or the unjustified killing of civilians. Because if it did, Zio-Washington would be caught
with its own pants down.
Instead, Trump got weepy over the type of weapons used to kill civilians–not the slaughter
itself.
After all, we 'good guys' kill civilians all the time. And in massive quantities.
The flimsy moral principle underlying Trump's strike on Syria strike is this:
Gas is uncool. But missiles are perfectly fine.
Gas, remember, is reminiscent of the Holocaust. And that's a no-no!
Hidden within this fake moral paradigm is the message to always respect Jewish taboos (!) when
initiating violence. Kill properly.
These ethical distinctions however are politicized and empty. Murder is still murder. Aggression
is still aggression. When will Zio-Washington take a look in the mirror?
This declining level of moral thinking undermines real legal principles. Possessing nuclear
weapons (and threatening to use them) has become 'OK' for exceptional nations but 'evil' when
bad (anti-Israel) nations follow suit. And it's Zio-Washington alone that gets to decide which
is which and who is who.
This chicanery confers unique privilege. Our Zionized media gives cover to this fraud.
Fisk does correctly note that Trump is being steered into a pattern of malevolent neoconservatism.
This means war. Ironically, as Trump reverses the stated policies and goals that got him elected
(and in the direction of neocon aggression) the MSM has done a similar about-face (supporting
Trump).
Trump is finally 'acting presidential'!
These deceptions and grotesque fairy tales benefit global militarists, government careerists,
and of course, Zionists. Read More Agree:
anarchyst
Yet the moment he fires 59 missiles at Syria after more than 60 civilians die in an apparent
chemical attack which he blames on Assad – but none after far more are massacred by a Syrian
suicide bomber – even Angela Merkel takes leave of her senses and praises Trump, along with
the Matron of Downing Street, Signora Mogherini and sundry other potentates. Hasn't someone
cottoned on to the fact that Trump is now taking America into a shooting war?
Well Fisk, having been pontificating about Middle Eastern issues for quite a long time, haven't
you cottoned to the fact that Merkel and the "Matron of Downing Street" and all the rest of these
whores of the Zio-West are nothing more than quislings for the international PTB (Rothschild/Soros,
et al)?
I mean how ******** dumb can you be not to know that it's Israel that wants Assad out,
and that just like with Saddam and Gadhafi and all the rest, it is Israel's bidding that is getting
done here with all these serial and myriad atrocities and war crimes. Duh fucking duh!
And if Merkel and May and the entire length and breath of the CIA controlled msm are finally
happy about something Trump did, then it's only because what he did pleases the Likudicks in Israel.
Duh.
For a man of Fisk's stature in the realm of journalism to pretend that Merkel and May are acting
the way they are independent of nefarious banking/war mongering/Zio-forces in the Western world
is what is truly preposterous. Note to Fisk, Merkel and May are controlled, just like that
other little bitch of Zion, Toady Blair.
What would Mr. Fisk make of this video I wonder. A remarkable coincidence?!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFEudf8NOuY
When Fisk pretends that there's no comprehensible reason for why the NYT all in the sudden
gushes over Trump once he starts bombing Israel's foes, then you know it's all just dishonest
blather.
Perhaps Mr. Fisk is simply 'smart' enough to understand the score, and like all intellectual
whores, use his pen to obscure the truth, and please the PTB, rather than tempt them like Dr.
Udo Ulfkotte did. Eh Robert?
As for N. Korea, whenever you want to understand the id of the Zio-Fiend, just look to this
guy
"The North Koreans - this very erratic, unstable regime - may soon have the capability to harm
us directly," Bolton said in an interview with John Catsimatidis that aired Sunday on New York's
AM 970
I was just going to press 'Agree', but your last sentence mystifies me.
Bolton was, as usual, talking out of his arse, but assuming sincerity on his part (with great
strain), which *us* do you think he meant?
which *us* do you think he meant?
Hey Che,
when someone like Bolton says 'they directly threaten us'
you can take it to the bank that the "us" he's referring to is Israel
us, the Jews
he purports to mean the American people, but anyone on the planet who knows the first thing
about Ziocons like Bolton, know damn well he'd see virtually every single American goyim ground
up into the dirt rather that see one fingernail on one Jewish hand suffer harm.
N. Korea does not threaten America or our interests. If anything, it threatens its neighbors.
And if so, then our trading partner China could effectively deal with it.
the only reason N. Korea is in the crosshairs is because somehow Israel considers it a threat
Read More
100 Words Syria and Hizbollah represent resistance to Israel and its client state, the USA.
So when Trump attacked Syria he was immediately praised by the ziocohen controlled American media
and Congress who have consistently placed Israeli interests ahead of American interests. This
is by no means a new development in world affairs and I am surprised that Fisk is surprised. I'm
guessing that the only folks who were really shocked were the people who believed what Trump said
during his campaign about the uselessness of US intervention in the Middle East and how he was
going to change US policy . Read More
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This
Commenter Display
All Comments Sam Shama
,
April 27, 2017 at 3:29 pm GMT
200 Words
@Mark Green Fisk should have mentioned Trump's special affection for Israel and his unconditional
support of Israeli militarism and Israeli brutality. This is key.
Zio-Washington's double-standards vis-a-vis Israel are at the root of ongoing US lawlessness.
No bilateral arrangement in our nation's history epitomizes this moral/political fraud better.
Washington's 'unshakable' alliance with the Zionist entity is artificial. Americans do not benefit
by this arrangement. In fact, the opposite is true. Yet no one says a word. It's taboo.
Fragile, dubious myths involving US (and Israeli) exceptionalism endure and in plain view;
this despite the fact that America (the 'proposition nation') is wedded to the ideas of 'Equality'
and 'Freedom'.
Sure we are--except when it doesn't suit us; except when it doesn't suit Israel.
Thus, enforced inequality is just peachy in Israel. And American supremacism is how Washington
implements its foreign policies. Zio-Washington decides.
Thus, when it comes to defending the rights and interests of Palestine or Iran or Syria, principles
involving freedom, equality and sovereignty are sidelined. And any references to 'existential
threats' are reserved for you-know-who. It's a one-way street.
Lesser peoples and 'bad' countries are not entitled to invoke their own interests and entitlements.
Israel on the other hand, always is.
Indeed, Trump's preemptive missile attack on Syria is a great example of Zio-American privilege
and Zio-American lawlessness. Legal restraints are for other nations. Not Zio-America. When Zio-Washington
gets upset, Zio-Washington gets to invade and bomb sovereign states, even though these same states
have not attacked us.
Washington has not only become 'the world's policeman', but the world's judge and jury.
Both the UN Charter and the Geneva Convention however identify aggressive war (including a
'first strike') as the supreme international crime. Shouldn't this matter?
Double-standard are nevertheless used routinely by Israel and Washington. This allows them to
initiate serial warfare that lacks a clear legal foundation. It's all ad hoc. It subverts the
rule of law.
And our pro-Zionist MSM sanitizes this conduct and worldview.
Special counties (and we know who they are) are therefore not bound by cumbersome restrictions
that were designed to prevent war, expansion and aggression. Feelings and 'outrage' now matter
more. This is part and parcel of Zio-American exceptionalism. Laws and ethics have been downgraded
to accommodate political objectives and feelings.
This is why Trump's anti-Assad 'outrage' (and subsequent missile attack) did not focus on aggressive
war or the unjustified killing of civilians. Because if it did, Zio-Washington would be caught
with its own pants down.
Instead, Trump got weepy over the type of weapons used to kill civilians--not the slaughter
itself.
After all, we 'good guys' kill civilians all the time. And in massive quantities.
The flimsy moral principle underlying Trump's strike on Syria strike is this:
Gas is uncool. But missiles are perfectly fine.
Gas, remember, is reminiscent of the Holocaust. And that's a no-no!
Hidden within this fake moral paradigm is the message to always respect Jewish taboos (!) when
initiating violence. Kill properly.
These ethical distinctions however are politicized and empty. Murder is still murder. Aggression
is still aggression. When will Zio-Washington take a look in the mirror?
This declining level of moral thinking undermines real legal principles. Possessing nuclear
weapons (and threatening to use them) has become 'OK' for exceptional nations but 'evil' when
bad (anti-Israel) nations follow suit. And it's Zio-Washington alone that gets to decide which
is which and who is who.
This chicanery confers unique privilege. Our Zionized media gives cover to this fraud.
Fisk does correctly note that Trump is being steered into a pattern of malevolent neoconservatism.
This means war. Ironically, as Trump reverses the stated policies and goals that got him elected
(and in the direction of neocon aggression) the MSM has done a similar about-face (supporting
Trump).
Trump is finally 'acting presidential'!
These deceptions and grotesque fairy tales benefit global militarists, government careerists,
and of course, Zionists.
Fisk should have mentioned Trump's special affection for Israel and his unconditional support
of Israeli militarism and Israeli brutality. This is key.
it isn't only 'key' Mark. It's the frothing, slathering gorilla in the living room tossing
hand grenades and breaking bones.
And yet Fisk, whose very identity is undistinguishable from Western (British) based, Middle
Eastern journalism ~ can not mention it.
How the f are people supposed to get a glimmer of the things you (heroically) write about when
the very people who are trusted to keep the West informed- would rather use their skills and position
to specifically and methodically mislead and dissemble and obscure- by design?
You're too kind to these intellectual whores Mark, imho.
When Fisk writes about Trump's, (and Merkel's and May's) murderous treachery and folly in the
Middle East by not mentioning *why* any of it is happening, he reminds me of Walter Duranty writing
about the Soviet Union, and the ornery resistance to the agricultural reforms by certain classes
of well-to-do peasants, who were just too greedy to understand the greatness of Stalin and his
vision.
100 Words
@Sam Shama Why spew the common nonsense?
Why spew the common nonsense?
you mean how the whole nightmarish holocaust of Eternal War and strife and horrors writ large
in the Middle East today are mostly a consequence of Zionist $ubversion of our governments and
media?
and that destroying Iraq and Libya and Syria (eventually Iran, Lebanon, etc..) are all part
of a transparent agenda to remake the greater Levant into a giant concentration camp a la Palestine?
100 Words I really doubt whether seeing pictures of dead Syrian children had anything to do
with the decision to bomb the Syrian airfield.
Fake news is at its best when it seems almost plausible. In reality no candidate for leader
of the free world since the time of King Herod would lose a moment of sleep over killing a few
Syrian children. Remember Trump even succeeded in killing an American child in Yemen.
100 Words Not a peep out of turncoat traitor Trump regarding "9/11 truth." The deafening silence
on this matter as-well-as other harsh issues facing rank-and-file Americans and the western world,
speaks volumes.
Now we've got masked gangs of ANTIFA punks running roughshod like spoiled brats and being handled
with kid gloves, as law enforcement is ordered by owned politicians, to stand down.
The self-serving globalist "elite" (~0.01%) and their Zionist trust fund baby financiers continue
to engineer civil war, as revolutionary war would be their worst nightmare.
Read More
you mean how the whole nightmarish holocaust of Eternal War and strife and horrors writ large
in the Middle East today are mostly a consequence of Zionist $ubversion of our governments and
media?
and that destroying Iraq and Libya and Syria (eventually Iran, Lebanon, etc..) are all part
of a transparent agenda to remake the greater Levant into a giant concentration camp a la Palestine?
that 'common nonsense'?
or is it common knowledge? Not a concentration camp, just a gigantic destabilised region.
There access to oil and gas is simple and cheap.
And as anyone leaves they try to go to Europe, destroy the cultures of the European countries,
so that Europe becomes a USA clone, where money reigns.
One just has to be enough cynical to see it all.
With me this cynicism began three years after sept 11, when I could no longer fool myself.
Then the question came 'how became our saviour of WWII become a rogue state ?'.
The answer was simple but shocking, Roosevelt was brought into politics in 1932 to wage war for
USA world supremacy.
Charles A Beard published his book on Roosevelt politics in 1946, also the year where the Pearl
Harbour investigation took place.
According to the democrats there had been no Roosevelt conspiracy, the republicans had other ideas.
Roosevelt needed an attack, he had promised his voters in 1940 'that USA boys would nog be
sent overseas, unless the USA was attacked'.
His oil boycott succeeded, Japan attacked when it had oil left for three months.
The republican ideas have many times been confirmed since then.
Read More
100 Words
@wayfarer Not a peep out of turncoat traitor Trump regarding "9/11 truth." The deafening silence
on this matter as-well-as other harsh issues facing rank-and-file Americans and the western world,
speaks volumes.
Now we've got masked gangs of ANTIFA punks running roughshod like spoiled brats and being handled
with kid gloves, as law enforcement is ordered by owned politicians, to stand down.
The self-serving globalist "elite" (~0.01%) and their Zionist trust fund baby financiers continue
to engineer civil war, as revolutionary war would be their worst nightmare.
https://kenfm.de/untergang-der-humanitaet/
Warren Buffett, eine der reichsten Personen auf dieser Welt, war es, der den Begriff ?„Finanzielle
Massenvernichtungswaffen" prägte. ??In einem Interview mit der New York Times am 26. November
2006 erklärte er zudem freimütig:
„Es herrscht Krieg Reich gegen Arm. Es ist meine Klasse, die Klasse der Reichen, ?die den Krieg
begonnen hat ?und wir werden diesen Klassenkampf gewinnen"
Warren Bufett in 2006 'there is war between the rich and the poor, we, the rich, will win'.
Finanzielle Massenvernichtungswaffen: financial WMD's.
English is great in short expressions.
200 Words The litmus test for a Trump foreign policy is not disengagement and isolation from
the rest of the world.
It is whether or not such foreign policy is calibrated to undermine the United States from
within. Policies like rules of engagement and "war crimes" legal action designed to demoralize
and kill US soldiers needlessly or refugee resettlement programs designed to give non-white enemies
a fighting chance to kill Americans on their own soil.
The US projecting power around the world is something that it has always done since WWII. The
difference of late, starting under Bill Clinton, was utilizing foreign interventions in a way
that deliberately blow back on the United States and are designed to hurt it or the West in general
from within.
So far, we have seen a pivot away from the anti-American foreign interventions of the recent
past. Trump has pivoted to Asia which all but guarantees there won't be any boots-on-the-ground
in North Korea. He has attempted to stem the flow of immigrants and refugees, so far, unsuccessfully,
but it is still early in the game. Syria has not amounted to anything of note, but at least Trump
is not propping up ISIS the way the Obama administration did.
Even if America decided to withdraw from all involvement, It cannot halt others' interventions
in local conflicts by washing US hands clean. Fisk implies otherwise.
as an American, I'm worried about our hands (souls) being clean
if you want to go suit up for the IDF and get involved with interventions, then be my guest, but
America needs to come home (like Trump promised)
no more wars for Israel
wouldn't you agree Sean? If you want to have clean hands then spend the money you don't need to
live on global famine relief, like Peter Singer the philosopher does and talks about. Individually
few do that and I suspect even Singer doesn't to the extent his ethics would suggest. people die
of famine and poverty and we live in luxury in the West : deal with that before droning on a bout
some careful military operations. Dropping a few bombs on the airdrome facilities of Assad's baby
killer pilots is hardly dirty war.
Assad is 100% responsible for this rebellion which started basically because his family had
ran the country into the ground,and failing to see that his people really don't like him very
much, he put up the price of basic necessities like fuel. Then he ignored the warnings of Obama's
abortive bombing attempt, and brought in Russia (the Russians only came in after the US seemed
impotent) to blast his unmotivated minority army to victory.
The idea of Israel / US subversion of Syria is a joke. If Israel wanted to oust Assad it could
have done it with a mere maneuver within territory Israel already controls: a build up on the
Golan , which Assad would have had to match by transferring his army away from fighting the rebels.
The US could have overthrown Assad with one air raid on a manufactured pretext at any time.
Killing killers who hide among the innocent always involves collateral damage so American hands
may be less than white, but America hands are clean by comparison with Assad's hands, which are
dripping with the blood of Syrians. Read More
@Fuzzy My hopes for détente under Trump were obviously a pipe dream. He folded like a cheap
lawn chair. A lawn chair cannot collapse like that, obviously it was the result of a controlled
demolition Read More Rurik
,
April 27, 2017 at 6:10 pm GMT
500 Words
@jilles dykstra Not a concentration camp, just a gigantic destabilised region.
There access to oil and gas is simple and cheap.
And as anyone leaves they try to go to Europe, destroy the cultures of the European countries,
so that Europe becomes a USA clone, where money reigns.
One just has to be enough cynical to see it all.
With me this cynicism began three years after sept 11, when I could no longer fool myself.
Then the question came 'how became our saviour of WWII become a rogue state ?'.
The answer was simple but shocking, Roosevelt was brought into politics in 1932 to wage war for
USA world supremacy.
Charles A Beard published his book on Roosevelt politics in 1946, also the year where the Pearl
Harbour investigation took place.
According to the democrats there had been no Roosevelt conspiracy, the republicans had other ideas.
Roosevelt needed an attack, he had promised his voters in 1940 'that USA boys would nog be sent
overseas, unless the USA was attacked'.
His oil boycott succeeded, Japan attacked when it had oil left for three months.
The republican ideas have many times been confirmed since then. Hallo Jilles,
what a treat it is to see people from Europe here at the inimitable Unz Review!
Not a concentration camp, just a gigantic destabilised region.
well, I guess it's just a matter of perspective. What Libya or Iraq (or the Palestinian occupied
territories) seem like to me are one big open air prison of hopelessness and despair. Wrought
with daily horrors and death. At least in a concentration camp the young women might be able to
walk the streets without being raped by savages unleashed upon the people, as it seems is the
case in Libya. Or blown to bits by CIA/Mossad car bombs like Iraq. Or subjected to random torture,
white phosphorous or having their organs harvested like in Gaza.
But then I guess it depends on the "concentration camp", since the ones Eisenhower ran for
teenage German boys after the war was over are probably as bad as it gets. So perspective in all
things, I suppose.
And as anyone leaves they try to go to Europe, destroy the cultures of the European countries,
so that Europe becomes a USA clone,
that's what you call a twofer for the Zionists. Such a deal!
'how became our saviour of WWII become a rogue state ?'.
savior?!
the US was never your savior Jilles. That's just the propaganda speaking that all German (and
American) children were/are marinated in following that evil war.
when a nation like America does to a people what American bombers did to cities like Dresden,
it's hardly fitting to refer to such people as saviors. I read accounts where fighter pilots said
that after the bombing, when the survivors were fleeing the holocaust, that they'd strafe anything
with blonde hair, men women or children. That's not the talk of a savior, but of a race-hate crazed
murderous demon. Remember, at the time Dresden was bombed, the war was effectively already over.
They were unleashing genocidal hatred on the German people, not saving them.
The answer was simple but shocking, Roosevelt was brought into politics in 1932 to wage
war for USA world supremacy.
it goes back farther than that, to W oodrow W ilson's I.
and the point was always to secure the founding of the state of Israel.
he had promised his voters in 1940 'that USA boys would nog be sent overseas, unless the
USA was attacked'.
His oil boycott succeeded, Japan attacked when it had oil left for three months.
you really do have an excellent handle on things Jilles. But you're not cynical enough yet.
the fount of treachery starts with the charter of the Federal Reserve Bank, the original treason
and betrayal of biblical enormity that has set in motion all of these wars and assorted horrors
and atrocities. And threatens to make this century just as bloody and Satanic as the last one,
unless we can somehow collectively manage to waylay these Fiends.
100 Words
@Sean If you want to have clean hands then spend the money you don't need to live on global
famine relief, like Peter Singer the philosopher does and talks about. Individually few do that
and I suspect even Singer doesn't to the extent his ethics would suggest. people die of famine
and poverty and we live in luxury in the West : deal with that before droning on a bout some careful
military operations. Dropping a few bombs on the airdrome facilities of Assad's baby killer pilots
is hardly dirty war.
Assad is 100% responsible for this rebellion which started basically because his family had
ran the country into the ground,and failing to see that his people really don't like him very
much, he put up the price of basic necessities like fuel. Then he ignored the warnings of Obama's
abortive bombing attempt, and brought in Russia (the Russians only came in after the US seemed
impotent) to blast his unmotivated minority army to victory.
The idea of Israel / US subversion of Syria is a joke. If Israel wanted to oust Assad it could
have done it with a mere maneuver within territory Israel already controls: a build up on the
Golan , which Assad would have had to match by transferring his army away from fighting the rebels.
The US could have overthrown Assad with one air raid on a manufactured pretext at any time.
Killing killers who hide among the innocent always involves collateral damage so American hands
may be less than white, but America hands are clean by comparison with Assad's hands, which are
dripping with the blood of Syrians. Hmm Assad has a looong way to go to catch up with us, Nam
Cambodia Thailand Philippines South America Iran Iraq Libya Syria and all other points on the
compass, my your an ass for you don't even know your own history as you always try to blame others,
the mark I presume of a real troll. Read More
200 Words
@Sean If you want to have clean hands then spend the money you don't need to live on global
famine relief, like Peter Singer the philosopher does and talks about. Individually few do that
and I suspect even Singer doesn't to the extent his ethics would suggest. people die of famine
and poverty and we live in luxury in the West : deal with that before droning on a bout some careful
military operations. Dropping a few bombs on the airdrome facilities of Assad's baby killer pilots
is hardly dirty war.
Assad is 100% responsible for this rebellion which started basically because his family had
ran the country into the ground,and failing to see that his people really don't like him very
much, he put up the price of basic necessities like fuel. Then he ignored the warnings of Obama's
abortive bombing attempt, and brought in Russia (the Russians only came in after the US seemed
impotent) to blast his unmotivated minority army to victory.
The idea of Israel / US subversion of Syria is a joke. If Israel wanted to oust Assad it could
have done it with a mere maneuver within territory Israel already controls: a build up on the
Golan , which Assad would have had to match by transferring his army away from fighting the rebels.
The US could have overthrown Assad with one air raid on a manufactured pretext at any time.
Killing killers who hide among the innocent always involves collateral damage so American hands
may be less than white, but America hands are clean by comparison with Assad's hands, which are
dripping with the blood of Syrians.
The idea of Israel / US subversion of Syria is a joke.
golly Sean
you could use that same argument with so many conflicts eh?
The idea of Israel / US subversion of Iraq is a joke.
The idea of Israel / US subversion of Libya is a joke.
it works just the same with them all, huh?
but then the notorious cowards in the IDF never like to get in harms way now do they, so just
like with your hero general Ariel Sharon, they always prefer to stay in safety and get other goons
to do their fighting for them, huh?
Killing killers who hide among the innocent always involves collateral damage so American
hands may be less than white
isn't that pretty much what Sharon said about the Sabra and Shatila massacre?
funny how that's always your modus operendi.. to use false flags to get others to do your fighting
for you?
like the Syrian false flag chemical attacks
or 9/11
or getting Druze Phalangist militia to slaughter women and children, lest one of them have
a sharp object to fight back with, and pose a threat to a brave IDF soldier, huh?
I suspect Robert Fisk may even know a little about that proud episode in chronicles of Zio-brave
warrior-history. Read More
what a treat it is to see people from Europe here at the inimitable Unz Review!
Not a concentration camp, just a gigantic destabilised region.
well, I guess it's just a matter of perspective. What Libya or Iraq (or the Palestinian occupied
territories) seem like to me are one big open air prison of hopelessness and despair. Wrought
with daily horrors and death. At least in a concentration camp the young women might be able to
walk the streets without being raped by savages unleashed upon the people, as it seems is the
case in Libya. Or blown to bits by CIA/Mossad car bombs like Iraq. Or subjected to random torture,
white phosphorous or having their organs harvested like in Gaza.
But then I guess it depends on the "concentration camp", since the ones Eisenhower ran for
teenage German boys after the war was over are probably as bad as it gets. So perspective in all
things, I suppose.
And as anyone leaves they try to go to Europe, destroy the cultures of the European countries,
so that Europe becomes a USA clone,
that's what you call a twofer for the Zionists. Such a deal!
'how became our saviour of WWII become a rogue state ?'.
savior?!
the US was never your savior Jilles. That's just the propaganda speaking that all German (and
American) children were/are marinated in following that evil war.
when a nation like America does to a people what American bombers did to cities like Dresden,
it's hardly fitting to refer to such people as saviors. I read accounts where fighter pilots said
that after the bombing, when the survivors were fleeing the holocaust, that they'd strafe anything
with blonde hair, men women or children. That's not the talk of a savior, but of a race-hate crazed
murderous demon. Remember, at the time Dresden was bombed, the war was effectively already over.
They were unleashing genocidal hatred on the German people, not saving them.
The answer was simple but shocking, Roosevelt was brought into politics in 1932 to wage war
for USA world supremacy.
it goes back farther than that, to W oodrow W ilson's I.
and the point was always to secure the founding of the state of Israel.
he had promised his voters in 1940 'that USA boys would nog be sent overseas, unless the USA
was attacked'.
His oil boycott succeeded, Japan attacked when it had oil left for three months.
you really do have an excellent handle on things Jilles. But you're not cynical enough yet. ;)
the fount of treachery starts with the charter of the Federal Reserve Bank, the original treason
and betrayal of biblical enormity that has set in motion all of these wars and assorted horrors
and atrocities. And threatens to make this century just as bloody and Satanic as the last one,
unless we can somehow collectively manage to waylay these Fiends.
Prost -- Had you read earlier posts by me then you would have known that the Balfour declaration
was the price Britain had to pay in 1917 in order to avoid capitulation in november 1917.
You then also would have known that I know that
Henry Morgenthau, 'Ambassador Morgenthau's Story', New York, 1918
was just war propaganda.
Morgenthau's hatred of Germany I attribute to the German antisemitism that began after the unification
in 1870.
An anti semitism about which one Rothschildt wrote to another 'the only enemy of jews is jews'.
'From prejudice to destruction', Jacob Katz, 1980, Cambridge MA says about the same in softer
words.
The Federal Reserve just is an institution.
What matters is who runs it with what purpose.
This brings us back to the root of all evil in the USA, the country is still in the second half
of the 19th century, it never became democratic, money still rules the USA.
That this was and is possible I attribute to the lack of any culture in the USA, except hamburgers
and oversized cars.
The USA is not a melting pot, it is stew, all the ingredients still are there.
Read More
100 Words
@jilles dykstra I still do not see Trump as a crackpot.
Though I'm not sure about his ideas I still hope that he will end USA militarism, not because
out of moral ideas, but because he sees, and his rich friends, that pursuing the goal of USA world
hegemony will, or has already, ruined the USA.
The attack on Syria, and his warlike talk about N Korea, hogwash to confuse Deep State, and to
satisfy his voters.
The Dutch professor Laslo Maracs, university of Amsterdam, explains all this eloquently, alas
only in Dutch, as far as I know.
And my hope still is that Trump will prevent NATO and EU war on Russia, the war that indeed will
end al wars, as already Wilson wanted, because this war will end all human life.
How it then ends is well described in the novel On the Beach, Neville Shute, 1953, the New Zealand
government distributing suicide pills when the radio active dust reaches the island. Don't be
too sure that Trump voters favor this kind of mindless and dangerous violence abroad. On the contrary,
for me, my family, and many Trump voters of our acquaintance.
Many of us voted for trump in part because he was proposing a less belligerent, less unreasonable
attitude towards Russia, if not towards Iran. We voted for him because he continually lambasted
the US invasions of Iraq and said that the US should stop invading and trying to dictate how other
peoples should operate in their countries.
I don't think a majority of people who voted Trump OR a majority of people who voted Clinton
favors attacking Syria or Iran or Russia. Yet here we are threatening each of them, attacking
Assad's regime to the benefit of Islamists, and encircling& sanctioning & trying to humiliate
and impoverish Russia.
@jilles dykstra I still do not see Trump as a crackpot.
Though I'm not sure about his ideas I still hope that he will end USA militarism, not because
out of moral ideas, but because he sees, and his rich friends, that pursuing the goal of USA world
hegemony will, or has already, ruined the USA.
The attack on Syria, and his warlike talk about N Korea, hogwash to confuse Deep State, and to
satisfy his voters.
The Dutch professor Laslo Maracs, university of Amsterdam, explains all this eloquently, alas
only in Dutch, as far as I know.
200 Words
@The White Muslim Traditionalist I find it interesting that people from America think that
Merkel is some sort of crazed loon.
She's an incredibly astute, conservative, pious Lutheran politician. Sure, because she's such
a pious woman, Kohl today got one million euro's in damages, because the ghost writer of his memoirs
published volume four without his permission, with his statements about Merkel like 'she put the
dagger in my back and turned it'.
In 2001 or so there was a financial scandal in Kohl's party, Merkel made it public knowledge.
The other remark was 'she just has lust for power', or something like that.
I suppose now millions of copies of volume four will be sold.
I also like to recall Merkel's statement about the huge numbers of immigrants 'wird Deutschland
für immer ändern', 'will change Germany forever'.
As if any German asked for this change, change for which Sarrazin already warned in 2010:
Thilo Sarrazin, 'Deutschland schafft sich ab, Wie wir unser Land aufs Spiel setzen', München 2010
Sarrazin warned that Germany is destroying itself through the immigration of large numbers
of immigrants with low IQ.
Merkel fired him immediately. Read More Agree:
Dan Hayes
100 Words
@bluedog Hmm Assad has a looong way to go to catch up with us, Nam Cambodia Thailand Philippines
South America Iran Iraq Libya Syria and all other points on the compass, my your an ass for you
don't even know your own history as you always try to blame others, the mark I presume of a real
troll. The US isn't as moral as it claim but who is? There is a thing called cognitive dissonance
.Sounds like you believe the US should stay at home for ever after, because it was solely responsible
for all deaths those conflicts, though many had started before US involvement. The lesson of US
failure in Vietnam was that military strength was not enough against a opponent that was politically
strong, Assad is not strong politically, the majority in Syria opposed him and dispute his inherited
police state and even more ruthless army facing a rag tag piecemeal rebellion he would have lost
by now without the Russians . The US is supposed to stay out and look on as Russia turns the rebels
the US tried to protect into mincemeat and Assad sprays entire villages with poison gas like they
were bugs, is it? Read More
The White Muslim Traditionalist ,
April 27, 2017 at 8:12 pm GMT
@jilles dykstra Sure, because she's such a pious woman, Kohl today got one million euro's
in damages, because the ghost writer of his memoirs published volume four without his permission,
with his statements about Merkel like 'she put the dagger in my back and turned it'.
In 2001 or so there was a financial scandal in Kohl's party, Merkel made it public knowledge.
The other remark was 'she just has lust for power', or something like that.
I suppose now millions of copies of volume four will be sold.
I also like to recall Merkel's statement about the huge numbers of immigrants 'wird Deutschland
für immer ändern', 'will change Germany forever'.
As if any German asked for this change, change for which Sarrazin already warned in 2010:
Thilo Sarrazin, 'Deutschland schafft sich ab, Wie wir unser Land aufs Spiel setzen', München 2010
Sarrazin warned that Germany is destroying itself through the immigration of large numbers
of immigrants with low IQ.
Merkel fired him immediately. Bro, how did that contradict anything that I just said?
All the Christian churches advocate taking in migrants, it's literally in the Bible. In the
Qur'an and Hadith we have similar obligations, but they're more measured.
Read More
The more dangerous America's crackpot President becomes, the saner the world believes him
to be.
What does this mean? That the world is insane and that as Trump spins into greater insanity
he becomes more in sync with the prevailing insanity? Prior to the election he seemed to be the
peace candidate which is a major reason why he won. Therefore not everyone out there is insane,
least of all "the world". The war hounds are a minority of people who are in a position to publicly
lobby for war through their mass media and spread fear and hysteria. The leaders of various countries
have more in common with each other than with their own citizens and trade notes on how to keep
their rabble in line. This sudden turn towards belligerence and war has taken people by surprise
and everyone is puzzled as to what's really going on.
The author's book "Pity the Nation" was a good read.
Read More
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This
Commenter Display
All Comments
300 Words
@jilles dykstra Had you read earlier posts by me then you would have known that the Balfour
declaration was the price Britain had to pay in 1917 in order to avoid capitulation in november
1917.
You then also would have known that I know that
Henry Morgenthau, 'Ambassador Morgenthau's Story', New York, 1918
was just war propaganda.
Morgenthau's hatred of Germany I attribute to the German antisemitism that began after the unification
in 1870.
An anti semitism about which one Rothschildt wrote to another 'the only enemy of jews is jews'.
'From prejudice to destruction', Jacob Katz, 1980, Cambridge MA says about the same in softer
words.
The Federal Reserve just is an institution.
What matters is who runs it with what purpose.
This brings us back to the root of all evil in the USA, the country is still in the second half
of the 19th century, it never became democratic, money still rules the USA.
That this was and is possible I attribute to the lack of any culture in the USA, except hamburgers
and oversized cars.
The USA is not a melting pot, it is stew, all the ingredients still are there.
The Federal Reserve just is an institution.
What matters is who runs it with what purpose.
This brings us back to the root of all evil in the USA, the country is still in the second
half of the 19th century, it never became democratic, money still rules the USA.
all too true
That this was and is possible I attribute to the lack of any culture in the USA, except
hamburgers and oversized cars.
I can't argue with that too much, and I fully understand the hostility of so many people towards
the US of A.
what's good about it? Not too much, but there are a few things that are worth mentioning. We
still have the First Amendment and free speech. Something most of Euopre are sadly lacking, as
you can be tossed in jail for saying 5,999,999 Jews died in gas chambers during the Holocaust,
and not the holy number of six million. Here in the states we're allowed to say it's 5,999,999
Jews.
Also we still have the Second Amendment, that is the protector and guarantor of the First.
Sure, our culture is a open pipe of spiritual sewage gushing out into the rest of the world,
but that's all being done by Hollywood types. Not traditional Americans, who simply want to be
left alone.
most egregious however is the war mongering, and as you mentioned with FDR, (and Wilson and
Obama and Trump, etc ) we always vote against the wars, but then always have it foisted upon us
by the tribe. (as you mentioned, it's who owns the Fed).
Anyways God bless and please keep commenting..
Read More
All the Christian churches advocate taking in migrants, it's literally in the Bible. In the Qur'an
and Hadith we have similar obligations, but they're more measured. Salaam Bro,
Welcome to UNZ! Are you in the US or Germany? It sounded like you might be German.
The idea of Israel / US subversion of Syria is a joke.
golly Sean
you could use that same argument with so many conflicts eh?
The idea of Israel / US subversion of Iraq is a joke.
The idea of Israel / US subversion of Libya is a joke.
it works just the same with them all, huh?
but then the notorious cowards in the IDF never like to get in harms way now do they, so just
like with your hero general Ariel Sharon, they always prefer to stay in safety and get other
goons to do their fighting for them, huh?
Killing killers who hide among the innocent always involves collateral damage so American
hands may be less than white
isn't that pretty much what Sharon said about the Sabra and Shatila massacre?
funny how that's always your modus operendi.. to use false flags to get others to do your fighting
for you?
like the Syrian false flag chemical attacks
or 9/11
or getting Druze Phalangist militia to slaughter women and children, lest one of them have
a sharp object to fight back with, and pose a threat to a brave IDF soldier, huh?
I suspect Robert Fisk may even know a little about that proud episode in chronicles of Zio-brave
warrior-history. Israel would hardly put effort into overthrowing Libyan or Egyptian governments
without believing their replacement would be an improvement from Israel's point of view. It
wouldn't because everyone in those counties hates Israel. I don't think there is any evidence
at all that Israel wants Assad to be overthrown. No Syrian government is going to be anything
but hostile to Israel and Syria has nothing Israel wants. Yes Israel would use a wedge on Arabs
fighting one another to keep them at it, but it cannot create divisions within a country of
between countries out of nothing. For example Iran and Iraq were at war in the 80s and Israel
supplied both with arms to keep the war going, but it didn't create the conflict, which was
a Persian versus Arab one with very ancient hational roots- just like the Iranian-Saudi proxy
war playing out in Syria.
As for false flags, as I said it does seem insane for Assad to gas kids right now but Assad
and his tiny leadership are very isolated from good advice and they have a proven ability to
make incredibly bad decisions. One thing that weighs heavily against a false flag is that the
US intelligence could have very professionally faked an attack last year and got a major US
airstrike to break the back of Assad before the rebels had been virtually annihilated in the
cities. So why a why would Assad use nerve gas now argument cuts both ways.
Read More
100 Words
@Abdul Alhazred Actually its the British!....well they are bloody insane!
Anyone who says they reserve the right to make a thermonuclear "First Strike" is totally mad.
https://larouchepac.com/20170426/brits-nuclear-first-strike-jolly-good Actually its the
British! .well they are bloody insane!
"Muhammed really is most popular baby name in the UK – as is Mohammed, Muhammad "
(Reported in The Independent, Monday 1 December 2014).
So do me a favour, Abdul, old chap: do stop blaming "the British" for what some of their
politicians say. You wouldn't like them to make sweeping generalisations about British people
called Mohammed being "bloody insane", now would you!
Read More
200 Words
@jilles dykstra Had you read earlier posts by me then you would have known that the Balfour
declaration was the price Britain had to pay in 1917 in order to avoid capitulation in november
1917.
You then also would have known that I know that
Henry Morgenthau, 'Ambassador Morgenthau's Story', New York, 1918
was just war propaganda.
Morgenthau's hatred of Germany I attribute to the German antisemitism that began after the
unification in 1870.
An anti semitism about which one Rothschildt wrote to another 'the only enemy of jews is jews'.
'From prejudice to destruction', Jacob Katz, 1980, Cambridge MA says about the same in softer
words.
The Federal Reserve just is an institution.
What matters is who runs it with what purpose.
This brings us back to the root of all evil in the USA, the country is still in the second
half of the 19th century, it never became democratic, money still rules the USA.
That this was and is possible I attribute to the lack of any culture in the USA, except hamburgers
and oversized cars.
The USA is not a melting pot, it is stew, all the ingredients still are there.
An anti semitism about which one Rothschildt wrote to another 'the only enemy of jews
is jews'.
'From prejudice to destruction', Jacob Katz, 1980, Cambridge MA says about the same in softer
words.
I'd appreciate a source for that quote.
This brings us back to the root of all evil in the USA, the country is still in the second
half of the 19th century,
Depends.
Politically that's probably close to true except for the fact that back then we had at least
a few politicians with spines and gonads. Now we just have slithering grubs and the intestinal
parasites of swine, e.g. the Swine Large Roundworm, Ascaris suum.
Morally, it hasn't even left the Stone Age.
it never became democratic,
True and you obviously know more than most Americans do about that. Democracy, in this country,
is nothing more than a deeply ingrained fetish. As you probably know, democracy only works
in small, homogeneous, MORAL groups otherwise it's simply mob rule.
money still rules the USA.
More precisely, money is the main idol that's worshipped. The rulers are vicious, sociopathic,
corrupt, insatiable, moneyed hyenas and jackals. And they are completely incorrigible.
Read More Agree:
bluedog
@Sean The last American occupation troops did not leave Germany until the 1930's. The last
American troops left Germany in 1923. The French stayed until 1935 when Hitler forced them
out. Read More Alden
,
April 28, 2017 at 12:38 am GMT
The Federal Reserve just is an institution.
What matters is who runs it with what purpose.
This brings us back to the root of all evil in the USA, the country is still in the second
half of the 19th century, it never became democratic, money still rules the USA.
all too true
That this was and is possible I attribute to the lack of any culture in the USA, except
hamburgers and oversized cars.
I can't argue with that too much, and I fully understand the hostility of so many people towards
the US of A.
what's good about it? Not too much, but there are a few things that are worth mentioning. We
still have the First Amendment and free speech. Something most of Euopre are sadly lacking,
as you can be tossed in jail for saying 5,999,999 Jews died in gas chambers during the Holocaust,
and not the holy number of six million. Here in the states we're allowed to say it's 5,999,999
Jews.
Also we still have the Second Amendment, that is the protector and guarantor of the First.
Sure, our culture is a open pipe of spiritual sewage gushing out into the rest of the world,
but that's all being done by Hollywood types. Not traditional Americans, who simply want to
be left alone.
most egregious however is the war mongering, and as you mentioned with FDR, (and Wilson and
Obama and Trump, etc...) we always vote against the wars, but then always have it foisted upon
us by the tribe. (as you mentioned, it's who owns the Fed).
The Federal Reserve just is an institution.
What matters is who runs it with what purpose.
This brings us back to the root of all evil in the USA, the country is still in the second
half of the 19th century, it never became democratic, money still rules the USA.
all too true
That this was and is possible I attribute to the lack of any culture in the USA, except
hamburgers and oversized cars.
I can't argue with that too much, and I fully understand the hostility of so many people towards
the US of A.
what's good about it? Not too much, but there are a few things that are worth mentioning. We
still have the First Amendment and free speech. Something most of Euopre are sadly lacking,
as you can be tossed in jail for saying 5,999,999 Jews died in gas chambers during the Holocaust,
and not the holy number of six million. Here in the states we're allowed to say it's 5,999,999
Jews.
Also we still have the Second Amendment, that is the protector and guarantor of the First.
Sure, our culture is a open pipe of spiritual sewage gushing out into the rest of the world,
but that's all being done by Hollywood types. Not traditional Americans, who simply want to
be left alone.
most egregious however is the war mongering, and as you mentioned with FDR, (and Wilson and
Obama and Trump, etc...) we always vote against the wars, but then always have it foisted upon
us by the tribe. (as you mentioned, it's who owns the Fed).
Anyways God bless and please keep commenting.. I have no hostility whatsoever against the USA
people in general.
Several offered me hospitality in their homes.
What struck me each time was the igorance, the lack of information.
Local tv is just stupid advertising.
None of my hosts watched serious tv news, nowhere did I see a serious paper, just something
local about engagements, weddings and funerals.
One of my hosts I presented with the book of Anne Applebaum From West to East, I think the
title was, she travelled from the Baltic sea to the Black see.
He read it, had never realised about so many peoples.
Even a well traveled more or less well known American I found very ignorant, who reads Readers
Digest ?
A Berkeley assistant professor asked me what I knew about the Civil War, at the time, end
of the seventies, very little, but when I explained to him that Europe had been wars galore,
so why would I know much about an American war, he was shocked.
My strong objections are against USA society as a system, that allows a tiny minority to
run foreign policy at their pleasure, at the cost, expense and blood of others, USA citizens
and far more foreign citizens.
The death rate American soldiers against foreign casualties was calculated by Anatol Lieven
as one to fifty.
On Okinawa is was 7000 USA soldiers against 100.000 Japanese soldiers and 40.000 civilians.
Being a social democrat it abhors me that the USA always has abundant money for death and
destruction but seems incapable of providing decent affordable health care for all its citizens;
Read More Agree:
jacques
sheete
An anti semitism about which one Rothschildt wrote to another 'the only enemy of jews is
jews'.
'From prejudice to destruction', Jacob Katz, 1980, Cambridge MA says about the same in softer
words.
I'd appreciate a source for that quote.
This brings us back to the root of all evil in the USA, the country is still in the second
half of the 19th century,
Depends.
Politically that's probably close to true except for the fact that back then we had at least
a few politicians with spines and gonads. Now we just have slithering grubs and the intestinal
parasites of swine, e.g. the Swine Large Roundworm, Ascaris suum.
Morally, it hasn't even left the Stone Age.
it never became democratic,
True and you obviously know more than most Americans do about that. Democracy, in this country,
is nothing more than a deeply ingrained fetish. As you probably know, democracy only works
in small, homogeneous, MORAL groups otherwise it's simply mob rule.
money still rules the USA.
More precisely, money is the main idol that's worshipped. The rulers are vicious, sociopathic,
corrupt, insatiable, moneyed hyenas and jackals. And they are completely incorrigible. The
Rothschildt letter,
in one of the two following books.
Both books now are not where I am right now.
In about three weeks time I could check.
Ismar Schorsch, 'Jewish Reactions to German Anti-Semitism, 1870 – 1914′, New York 1972
Fritz Stern, 'Gold and Iron, Bismarck, Bleichröder, and the Building of the German Empire',
New York, 1977.
Both are written by jews, you should read both in order to understand the emergence of anti
semitism in Germany after 1870.
Who morally is to blame, one can debate for a very long time.
In any case my idea is that jews behaved stupidly, the Schorsch book explains abundantly
how jews in articles, books and creating organisations tried to show they were not to blame.
That agreement among jews, even that was not realised, about the blame, would change nothing
about the feelings of 'real' Germans, never seems to have occurred to them.
One sees the same attitude now when Israel is critisized.
Read More
100 Words
@jilles dykstra The Rothschildt letter,
in one of the two following books.
Both books now are not where I am right now.
In about three weeks time I could check.
Ismar Schorsch, 'Jewish Reactions to German Anti-Semitism, 1870 - 1914', New York 1972
Fritz Stern, 'Gold and Iron, Bismarck, Bleichröder, and the Building of the German Empire',
New York, 1977.
Both are written by jews, you should read both in order to understand the emergence of anti
semitism in Germany after 1870.
Who morally is to blame, one can debate for a very long time.
In any case my idea is that jews behaved stupidly, the Schorsch book explains abundantly how
jews in articles, books and creating organisations tried to show they were not to blame.
That agreement among jews, even that was not realised, about the blame, would change nothing
about the feelings of 'real' Germans, never seems to have occurred to them.
One sees the same attitude now when Israel is critisized. Many thanks to you, fine sir!
You appear to be one of the few who seems to have a grip on reality and I find your comments
and insights informative and refreshing.
100 Words
@jilles dykstra I have no hostility whatsoever against the USA people in general.
Several offered me hospitality in their homes.
What struck me each time was the igorance, the lack of information.
Local tv is just stupid advertising.
None of my hosts watched serious tv news, nowhere did I see a serious paper, just something
local about engagements, weddings and funerals.
One of my hosts I presented with the book of Anne Applebaum From West to East, I think the
title was, she travelled from the Baltic sea to the Black see.
He read it, had never realised about so many peoples.
Even a well traveled more or less well known American I found very ignorant, who reads Readers
Digest ?
A Berkeley assistant professor asked me what I knew about the Civil War, at the time, end of
the seventies, very little, but when I explained to him that Europe had been wars galore, so
why would I know much about an American war, he was shocked.
My strong objections are against USA society as a system, that allows a tiny minority to run
foreign policy at their pleasure, at the cost, expense and blood of others, USA citizens and
far more foreign citizens.
The death rate American soldiers against foreign casualties was calculated by Anatol Lieven
as one to fifty.
On Okinawa is was 7000 USA soldiers against 100.000 Japanese soldiers and 40.000 civilians.
Being a social democrat it abhors me that the USA always has abundant money for death and destruction
but seems incapable of providing decent affordable health care for all its citizens;
What struck me each time was the igorance, the lack of information.
I'm a native, and agree with that. What's even more shocking is the smug, even hostile resistance
to learning anything beyond the National Anthem and such.
It's a continuous struggle especially when you're dealing with people such as you describe
such as "professors."
There is a locally well known personality, a "professor" of history, who is in great demand
here for his presentation of the American Civil War ( poor label that), who disgorges"patriotic"
nonsense as nauseating as it is mythical. Listening to one of his talks is as much an exercise
of extreme self flagellation on my part as it is mental masturbation on his part yet people
practically worship the sappy stuff he spews. There is no point in even attempting to counter
what he sez.
His audiences are completely deaf to anything but self (national) praise. It's as if nearly
the whole nation positively delights in wallowing in prideful ignorance and they turn to the
tube for their daily doses of it. Read More
@jilles dykstra The Rothschildt letter,
in one of the two following books.
Both books now are not where I am right now.
In about three weeks time I could check.
Ismar Schorsch, 'Jewish Reactions to German Anti-Semitism, 1870 - 1914', New York 1972
Fritz Stern, 'Gold and Iron, Bismarck, Bleichröder, and the Building of the German Empire',
New York, 1977.
Both are written by jews, you should read both in order to understand the emergence of anti
semitism in Germany after 1870.
Who morally is to blame, one can debate for a very long time.
In any case my idea is that jews behaved stupidly, the Schorsch book explains abundantly how
jews in articles, books and creating organisations tried to show they were not to blame.
That agreement among jews, even that was not realised, about the blame, would change nothing
about the feelings of 'real' Germans, never seems to have occurred to them.
One sees the same attitude now when Israel is critisized.
@Sean Fisk writes as if the current US president's puny actions are the cause of wars and
despotism all around the globe, although many like the Yemen have seen the same sides fighting
for five decades, wich an altered cast of outside help. They are are rooted in local conditions,
all these things Fisk is complaining about. He sometime talks as if the Middle east would settle
down in a trice without the US. But America is just a country, big and strong, but still in
need of allies.Even if America decided to withdraw from all involvement, It cannot halt others'
interventions in local conflicts by washing US hands clean. Fisk implies otherwise. Indeed.
Nobody ever does anything wrong. How could they?
Read More
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More...
This Commenter
This Thread
Hide Thread Display
All Comments Rurik
,
April 28, 2017 at 3:28 pm GMT
@Sean Israel would hardly put effort into overthrowing Libyan or Egyptian governments without
believing their replacement would be an improvement from Israel's point of view. It wouldn't
because everyone in those counties hates Israel. I don't think there is any evidence at all
that Israel wants Assad to be overthrown. No Syrian government is going to be anything but
hostile to Israel and Syria has nothing Israel wants. Yes Israel would use a wedge on Arabs
fighting one another to keep them at it, but it cannot create divisions within a country of
between countries out of nothing. For example Iran and Iraq were at war in the 80s and Israel
supplied both with arms to keep the war going, but it didn't create the conflict, which was
a Persian versus Arab one with very ancient hational roots- just like the Iranian-Saudi proxy
war playing out in Syria.
As for false flags, as I said it does seem insane for Assad to gas kids right now but Assad
and his tiny leadership are very isolated from good advice and they have a proven ability to
make incredibly bad decisions. One thing that weighs heavily against a false flag is that the
US intelligence could have very professionally faked an attack last year and got a major US
airstrike to break the back of Assad before the rebels had been virtually annihilated in the
cities. So why a why would Assad use nerve gas now argument cuts both ways.
I don't think there is any evidence at all that Israel wants Assad to be overthrown.
200 Words
@naro Robert Fisk the Iranian shill, and secret Shiia convert, doesn't even know that Hiroshima
and Nagasaki are NOT in Southeast Asia. Thank God that Trump and Israel are a lot smarter than
this turd. Why don't you simply praise Trump for being obedient to Israel? "Never again," naro?
You should have already noticed that the ordinary Americans are getting to realize that the
US has been used as a living host by the paraziotid Israel that needs the US to implement the
Oded Yinon plan for Eretz Israel. It also obvious that the implementation could end up with
a glassy Middle East, where Israel would become a heap of ashes. Or you are ready to cry antisemitism,
Holocaust, and special victimhood, despite your bloody subhuman ziocons that have arranged
the slaughter of millions of human beings in the Middle East?
Your people are collaborating with ISIS in the struggling Syria and with neo-Nazis in the deteriorating
Ukraine. The Israel-firsters have "convinced" the US government to channel the country' resources
towards the wars of aggression in the Middle East – all in the name of Eretz Israel (and war
profits). Very moral. Read More
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More...
This Commenter
This Thread
Hide Thread Display
All Comments jilles
dykstra ,
April 28, 2017 at 4:00 pm GMT
Thanks! First time in maybe ten years that anyone really wants to read books.
The wonderful thing about old books is that they're cheap, easy to get these days, and, most
important 'often history books tell more about the time they're written than about the time
they describe'.
In other words, they carry the old bias, not the bias of today.
If you're interested in Islam
Reuben Levy, 'The social structure of Islam', London, New York, 1931, 1932, 1957, 1971
Richard Fletcher, 'Moorish Spain', Berkeley 1992
100 Words
@Sean Fisk writes as if the current US president's puny actions are the cause of wars and
despotism all around the globe, although many like the Yemen have seen the same sides fighting
for five decades, wich an altered cast of outside help. They are are rooted in local conditions,
all these things Fisk is complaining about. He sometime talks as if the Middle east would settle
down in a trice without the US. But America is just a country, big and strong, but still in
need of allies.Even if America decided to withdraw from all involvement, It cannot halt others'
interventions in local conflicts by washing US hands clean. Fisk implies otherwise. Lets be
precise: the ongoing wars in the Middle East have been planned and pushed by the US/UK ziocons
to protect and enlarge the territory of Israel. Both Libya and Syria were doing quite well
(particularly Libya) until the ziocon "ameliorators" came to fix the situation in the Middle
East. The "big and strong" America and her resources have been used by the tribe to protect
their supremacist home of shameless colonizers. Instead of developing trade and cooperation,
the US came to the Midde East with weapons of mass destruction. The Israel-firsters cooked
the plan for the interventions. Millions died as a result.
Read More annamaria
,
April 28, 2017 at 4:14 pm GMT
@Sam Shama Why spew the common nonsense? Well, why don't you explain the UNZ readers the
rationale for Israelis' collaboration with ISIS? This collaboration is well-documented and
it has been discussed in Israeli press.
So, why does Israel help to and protect ISIS? Read
More annamaria
,
April 28, 2017 at 4:21 pm GMT
100 Words
@Sean The US isn't as moral as it claim but who is? There is a thing called cognitive dissonance
.Sounds like you believe the US should stay at home for ever after, because it was solely responsible
for all deaths those conflicts, though many had started before US involvement. The lesson of
US failure in Vietnam was that military strength was not enough against a opponent that was
politically strong, Assad is not strong politically, the majority in Syria opposed him and
dispute his inherited police state and even more ruthless army facing a rag tag piecemeal rebellion
he would have lost by now without the Russians . The US is supposed to stay out and look on
as Russia turns the rebels the US tried to protect into mincemeat and Assad sprays entire villages
with poison gas like they were bugs, is it? China and Russia:
" regardless of the circumstances, we will not change our policy of deepening and developing
our strategic partnership and cooperation; our policy, based on joint development and prosperity,
will not change; and our joint efforts to defend peace and justice and promote cooperation
in the world will not change. These were the words of President Xi Jinping."
Imagine: crazy US brass wielding various weapons of mass destruction over Europe, Middle
East, and Asia. Versus the Silk Road – a net of trade connections between Asia and Europe.
Read More
600 Words
@jilles dykstra I have no hostility whatsoever against the USA people in general.
Several offered me hospitality in their homes.
What struck me each time was the igorance, the lack of information.
Local tv is just stupid advertising.
None of my hosts watched serious tv news, nowhere did I see a serious paper, just something
local about engagements, weddings and funerals.
One of my hosts I presented with the book of Anne Applebaum From West to East, I think the
title was, she travelled from the Baltic sea to the Black see.
He read it, had never realised about so many peoples.
Even a well traveled more or less well known American I found very ignorant, who reads Readers
Digest ?
A Berkeley assistant professor asked me what I knew about the Civil War, at the time, end of
the seventies, very little, but when I explained to him that Europe had been wars galore, so
why would I know much about an American war, he was shocked.
My strong objections are against USA society as a system, that allows a tiny minority to run
foreign policy at their pleasure, at the cost, expense and blood of others, USA citizens and
far more foreign citizens.
The death rate American soldiers against foreign casualties was calculated by Anatol Lieven
as one to fifty.
On Okinawa is was 7000 USA soldiers against 100.000 Japanese soldiers and 40.000 civilians.
Being a social democrat it abhors me that the USA always has abundant money for death and destruction
but seems incapable of providing decent affordable health care for all its citizens;
My strong objections are against USA society as a system, that allows a tiny minority
to run foreign policy at their pleasure, at the cost, expense and blood of others, USA citizens
and far more foreign citizens.
I can't argue with that Jilles
and you're right about the general ignorance and bovine stupidity of most Americans, but
that has been very carefully created by the PTB, who don't want an educated, thinking populace.
what was it papa Bush said?
"if the American people knew what we have done, they would string us up from the lamp posts"
if the American people could think, the results would be the same. If the American
people could think and were in possession of a moral soul, then they'd know that wars based
on lies should be repudiated and the war criminals brought to justice. But the American sheople
have been systematically dumbed down to the point of zombies, infatuated with Kim Kardashian's
ass. Today Idiocracy is a reality. It's true.
But, let me just say on behalf of Americans, that I don't really see it any better across
the pond. Sure, the Europeans are better educated, and generally speak at least two languages,
and have heard of Yalta and Copernicus, but with all that education, they just don't seem to
me to be any more principled or moral than the zombified Americans.
Sure, it is the US military that is the biggest bully on the block, but does that
excuse the other little bullies that stand behind him and give him moral support? There were
French jets bombing Libya just as ferociously as any American ones. The Brits have never seen
an act of aggression from the US military that they don't reverently applaud. And the Germans,
whose government goes along with every war crime America commits in principle, are today complicit
in a racial supremacist, genocidal holocaust against a completely innocent victim whose only
crime is that they existed – in Palestine, on land that some Jewish supremacist coveted for
themselves.
The irony? That these very same Germans feel excruciating and debilitating guilt for a crime
that they had nothing to do with, while at the same time facilitating the same crime of genocide
today, in their names, by funding and arming and providing "moral" cover for the Zionists.
So sure, Europeans are far more educated, but seem to fall very short when it comes to using
that education to augment a moral foundation for their actions and the actions of their respective
governments. There seems to me to be a sort of all-pervasive cowardice in Western Europe, and
a Pavlovian, knee-jerk propensity to wallow in prostrate abasement and self-flagellate as soon
as anyone says "Holocaust". Sort of what they used to be able to bludgeon Americans with by
the pejorative "racist", until it became a joke.
Anyways, yes, we're ignorant, and bovine and dangerous, but morally, I just don't see too
many paragons of virtue or honor to hold up as examples today. Uruguay perhaps, and I would
include Putin's Russia insofar as he's trying to put out the fires the Zio-Western-fiend is
lighting all over the place, but then he too bolsters their agenda by antagonizing the former
Soviet satellite states with ultra-nationalistic chest thumping over the "great war", (that
the Bolsheviks in Russia were mainly responsible for). Note to Putin, let it rest! The great
victory that you celebrate in May was a catastrophe for Eastern Europe (and millions of Russians
too)
What struck me each time was the igorance, the lack of information.
I'm a native, and agree with that. What's even more shocking is the smug, even hostile resistance
to learning anything beyond the National Anthem and such.
It's a continuous struggle especially when you're dealing with people such as you describe
such as "professors."
There is a locally well known personality, a "professor" of history, who is in great demand
here for his presentation of the American Civil War ( poor label that), who disgorges"patriotic"
nonsense as nauseating as it is mythical. Listening to one of his talks is as much an exercise
of extreme self flagellation on my part as it is mental masturbation on his part yet people
practically worship the sappy stuff he spews. There is no point in even attempting to counter
what he sez.
His audiences are completely deaf to anything but self (national) praise. It's as if nearly
the whole nation positively delights in wallowing in prideful ignorance and they turn to the
tube for their daily doses of it. Houston Stewart Chamberlain, 'Die Grundlagen des Neunzehnten
Jahrhunderts', 1898- 1907, München
If you can read German, I can recommend it.
He was the brother of the 1938 Chamberlain, had a strange youth, attended gymnasia in different
European countries.
He was flabbergasted how the same history was taught differently in different countries.
I long ago wrote a USA correspondent how European countries considered waging war over the
Monroe Doctrine.
The reply was 'it is still taught here in glowing terms', well, in Europe it was seen as colonialism,
as many in S America feel they're still under the USA colonial yoke.
Eduardo Galeano, 'Open Veins of Latin America', Five centuries of the pillage of a continent',
1971, 2009, Londen.
Your Civil War, for the liberation of slaves.
My knowledge is from different books, and of course there were people concerned with slavery.
But the real reasons were quite different, destroying a cosmopolitan culture in the south,
quite different from the NE, for NE hegemony over the whole USA, and demand for industrial
labour, slavery does not work in factories.
The liberated slaves soon found out that they often were worse off, especially in old age,
at the plantations they could stay until their deaths.
Read More
@annamaria China and Russia:
"...regardless of the circumstances, we will not change our policy of deepening and developing
our strategic partnership and cooperation; our policy, based on joint development and prosperity,
will not change; and our joint efforts to defend peace and justice and promote cooperation
in the world will not change. These were the words of President Xi Jinping."
http://thesaker.is/breaking-personal-message-from-xi-jinping-to-vladimir-putin-our-friendship-is-unbreakable/
Imagine: crazy US brass wielding various weapons of mass destruction over Europe, Middle East,
and Asia. Versus the Silk Road - a net of trade connections between Asia and Europe. There
were allegations that Hillary was prepared to wage an atomic war in Europe.
Read More jilles
dykstra ,
April 28, 2017 at 4:43 pm GMT
100 Words
@annamaria Lets be precise: the ongoing wars in the Middle East have been planned and pushed
by the US/UK ziocons to protect and enlarge the territory of Israel. Both Libya and Syria were
doing quite well (particularly Libya) until the ziocon "ameliorators" came to fix the situation
in the Middle East. The "big and strong" America and her resources have been used by the tribe
to protect their supremacist home of shameless colonizers. Instead of developing trade and
cooperation, the US came to the Midde East with weapons of mass destruction. The Israel-firsters
cooked the plan for the interventions. Millions died as a result. I was in Syria, 1987 or so.
Of course it was dictatorial, secret services galore, five it was said.
But the country was peaceful, not rich, but also not as poor as I experienced India some ten
years before.
Aleppo was the most cosmopolitan city I ever visited, anything accepted, from miniskirts to
burka's.
The sukh, now destroyed, was wonderful, medieval, happy looking people.
Read More
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More...
This Commenter
This Thread
Hide Thread Display
All Comments jilles
dykstra ,
April 28, 2017 at 4:46 pm GMT
100 Words
@jilles dykstra Houston Stewart Chamberlain, 'Die Grundlagen des Neunzehnten Jahrhunderts',
1898- 1907, München
If you can read German, I can recommend it.
He was the brother of the 1938 Chamberlain, had a strange youth, attended gymnasia in
different European countries.
He was flabbergasted how the same history was taught differently in different countries.
I long ago wrote a USA correspondent how European countries considered waging war over
the Monroe Doctrine.
The reply was 'it is still taught here in glowing terms', well, in Europe it was seen
as colonialism, as many in S America feel they're still under the USA colonial yoke.
Eduardo Galeano, 'Open Veins of Latin America', Five centuries of the pillage of a continent',
1971, 2009, Londen.
Your Civil War, for the liberation of slaves.
My knowledge is from different books, and of course there were people concerned with
slavery.
But the real reasons were quite different, destroying a cosmopolitan culture in the south,
quite different from the NE, for NE hegemony over the whole USA, and demand for industrial
labour, slavery does not work in factories.
The liberated slaves soon found out that they often were worse off, especially in old
age, at the plantations they could stay until their deaths. Rereading, I do not want
to defend slavery, not even in the USA, where it seems to have been far better for slaves
than in Brazil
Herbert Aptheker, 'Negro Slave Revolts in the United States 1526 – 1860 ', New York
1939
@Sean Israel would hardly put effort into overthrowing Libyan or Egyptian governments
without believing their replacement would be an improvement from Israel's point of view.
It wouldn't because everyone in those counties hates Israel. I don't think there is any
evidence at all that Israel wants Assad to be overthrown. No Syrian government is going
to be anything but hostile to Israel and Syria has nothing Israel wants. Yes Israel would
use a wedge on Arabs fighting one another to keep them at it, but it cannot create divisions
within a country of between countries out of nothing. For example Iran and Iraq were
at war in the 80s and Israel supplied both with arms to keep the war going, but it didn't
create the conflict, which was a Persian versus Arab one with very ancient hational roots-
just like the Iranian-Saudi proxy war playing out in Syria.
As for false flags, as I said it does seem insane for Assad to gas kids right now
but Assad and his tiny leadership are very isolated from good advice and they have a
proven ability to make incredibly bad decisions. One thing that weighs heavily against
a false flag is that the US intelligence could have very professionally faked an attack
last year and got a major US airstrike to break the back of Assad before the rebels had
been virtually annihilated in the cities. So why a why would Assad use nerve gas now
argument cuts both ways. Very good comment, Sean
Read More LOL:
Rurik
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More...
This Commenter
This Thread Hide Thread
Display
All Comments
100 Words
@jilles dykstra There were allegations that Hillary was prepared to wage an atomic
war in Europe. The US has contingency plans for nuking in almost every scenario without
ever intending to do it. Very different from intending to carry out a nuclear first strike.
I would not be surprised if the US has the targeting dating for a nuclear strike on Britain,
just in case there was a need someday. But no way would the US ever dream of actually
using nuclear weapons in Europe, because no ally country would agree to be a nuclear
battlefield and hitting the enemy homeland would mean a nuclear strike on the US mainland
in response. Read More
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More...
This Commenter
This Thread Hide Thread
Display
All Comments Sam
Shama ,
April 28, 2017 at 5:28 pm GMT
100 Words
@annamaria Well, why don't you explain the UNZ readers the rationale for Israelis'
collaboration with ISIS? This collaboration is well-documented and it has been discussed
in Israeli press.
So, why does Israel help to and protect ISIS? Israel has a free press in which a great
deal of speculation is tolerated, even welcomed. I haven't seen any articles in any of
the major journals, or even in the smaller ones, where Daesh is described as a collaborator.
To Israeli society's credit, humour is a normal and common enjoyment, in which spirit,
some skits produced – Eretz Nehderet being the most prominent one – portray a
darkly humourous relationship between Israeli doctors [and IDF medical corps] and Daesh
operating in the Golan.
So, Israeli med corps will, as modern protocol demands, aid any and all injured.
Read More
1,400 Words
@jilles dykstra Houston Stewart Chamberlain, 'Die Grundlagen des Neunzehnten Jahrhunderts',
1898- 1907, München
If you can read German, I can recommend it.
He was the brother of the 1938 Chamberlain, had a strange youth, attended gymnasia in
different European countries.
He was flabbergasted how the same history was taught differently in different countries.
I long ago wrote a USA correspondent how European countries considered waging war over
the Monroe Doctrine.
The reply was 'it is still taught here in glowing terms', well, in Europe it was seen
as colonialism, as many in S America feel they're still under the USA colonial yoke.
Eduardo Galeano, 'Open Veins of Latin America', Five centuries of the pillage of a continent',
1971, 2009, Londen.
Your Civil War, for the liberation of slaves.
My knowledge is from different books, and of course there were people concerned with
slavery.
But the real reasons were quite different, destroying a cosmopolitan culture in the south,
quite different from the NE, for NE hegemony over the whole USA, and demand for industrial
labour, slavery does not work in factories.
The liberated slaves soon found out that they often were worse off, especially in old
age, at the plantations they could stay until their deaths. Egad! Houston Stewart Chamberlain
was a neurotic character. I haven't read his Grundlagen , but Shirer's description
of it is sufficient. Chamberlain wrote in spurts, gripped by a demonic fervour; he says
so in his autobiography, Lebenswege , that he was often unable to recognise them
as his own work because they surpassed his expectations!
French scholar of Germanism Edmond Vermeil said Chamberlain's ideas were essentially
"shoddy."
This son of an English admiral, nephew of a British field marshal, Sir Neville
Chamberlain, and of two British generals, and eventually son-in-law of Richard Wagner,
was born at Portsmouth in 1855. He was destined for the British Army or Navy, but
his delicate health made such a calling out of the question and he was educated in
France and Geneva, where French became his first language.
Between the ages of fifteen and nineteen fate brought him into touch with two Germans
and thereafter he was drawn irresistibly toward Germany, of which he ultimately became
a citizen and one of the foremost thinkers and in whose language he wrote all of his
many books, several of which had an almost blinding influence on Wilhelm II, Adolf
Hitler and countless lesser Germans.
In 1870, when he was fifteen, Chamberlain landed in the hands of a remarkable tutor,
Otto Kuntze, a Prussian of the Prussians, who for four years imprinted on his receptive
mind and sensitive soul the glories of militant, conquering Prussia and also – apparently
unmindful of the contrasts – of such artists and poets as Beethoven, Goethe, Schiller
andWagner. At nineteen Chamberlain fell madly in love with Anna Horst, also a Prussian,
ten years his senior and, like him, highly neurotic. In 1882, at the age of twenty-seven,
he journeyed from Geneva, where he had beer, immersed for three years in studies of
philosophy, natural history, physics, chemistry and medicine, to Bayreuth. There he
met Wagner who, as he says, became the sun of his life, and Cosima, the composer's
wife, to whom he would remain passionately and slavishly devoted all the rest of his
days. From 1885, when he went with Anna Horst, who had become his wife, to live for
four years in Dresden, he became a German in thought and in language, moving on to
Vienna in 1889 for a decade and finally in 1909 to Bayreuth, where he dwelt until
his death in 1927.
He divorced his idolized Prussian wife in 1905, when she was sixty and even more
mentally and physically ill than he (the separation was so painful that he said it
almost drove him mad) and three years later he married Eva Wagner and settled down
near Wahnfried, where he could be near his wife's mother, the revered, strong-willed
Cosima.
Hypersensitive and neurotic and subject to frequent nervous breakdowns, Chamberlain
was given to seeing demons who, by his own account, drove him on relentlessly to seek
new fields of study and get on with his prodigious writings. One vision after another
forced him to change from biology to botany to the fine arts, to music, to philosophy,
to biography to history. Once, in 1896, when he was returning from Italy, the presence
of a demon became so forceful that he got off the train at Gardone, shut himself up
in a hotel room for eight days and, abandoning some work on music that he had contemplated,
wrote feverishly on a biological thesis until he had the germ of the theme that would
dominate all of his later works: race and history.
Whatever its blemishes, his mind had a vast sweep ranging over the fields of literature,
music, biology, botany, religion, history and politics. There was, as Jean Real has
pointed out, a profound unity of inspiration in all his published works and they had
a remarkable coherence. Since he felt himself goaded on by demons, his books (on Wagner,
Goethe, Kant, Christianity and race) were written in the grip of a terrible fever,
a veritable trance, a state of self-induced intoxication, so that, as he says in his
autobiography, Lebenswege, he was often unable to recognize them as his own work,
because they surpassed his expectations.
Minds more balanced than his have subsequently demolished his theories of race
and much of his history, and to such a French scholar of Germanism as Edmond Vermeil
Chamberlain's ideas were essentially "shoddy." Yet to the anti-Nazi German biographer
of Hitler, Konrad Heiden, who deplored the influence of his racial teachings, Chamberlain
"was one of the most astonishing talents in the history of the German mind, a mine
of knowledge and profound
ideas."
The book which most profoundly influenced that mind, which sent Wilhelm II into
ecstasies and provided the Nazis with their racial aberrations, was Foundations of
the Nineteenth Century (Grundlagen des Neunzehnten Jahrhunderts) a work of some twelve
hundred pages which Chamberlain, again possessed of one of his "demons," wrote in
nineteen months between April 1, 1897, and October 31, 1898, in Vienna, and which
was published in 1899.
As with Gobineau, whom he admired, Chamberlain found the key to history, indeed
the basis of civilization, to be race. To explain the nineteenth century, that is,
the contemporary world, one had to consider first what it had been bequeathed from
ancient times. Three things, said Chamberlain: Greek philosophy and art, Roman law
and the personality of Christ. There were also three legatees: the Jews and the Germans,
the "two pure races," and the half-breed Latins of the Mediterranean – "a chaos of
peoples," he called them. The Germans alone deserved such a splendid heritage. They
had, it is true, come into history late, not until the thirteenth century. But even
before that, in destroying the Roman Empire, they had proved their worth, "It is not
true," he says, " that the Teutonic barbarian conjured up the so-called 'Night of
the Middle Ages'; this night followed rather upon the intellectual and moral bankruptcy
of the raceless chaos of humanity which the dying Roman Empire had nurtured; but for
the Teuton, everlasting night would have settled upon the world." At the time he was
writing he saw in the Teuton the only hope of the world. Chamberlain included among
the "Teutons" the Celts and the Slavs, though the Teutons were the most important
element. However, he is quite woolly in his definitions and at one point declares
that "whoever behaves as a Teuton is a Teuton whatever his racial origin." Perhaps
here he was thinking of his own non-German origin. Whatever he was, the Teuton, according
to Chamberlain, was "the soul of our culture. The importance of each nation as a living
power today is dependent upon the proportion of genuinely Teutonic blood in its population.
. . True history begins at the moment when the Teuton, with his masterful hand, lays
his grip upon the legacy of antiquity."
And the Jews? The longest chapter in Foundations is devoted to them. As we have
seen, Chamberlain claimed that the Jews and the Teutons were the only pure races left
in the West. And in this chapter he condemns "stupid and revolting anti-Semitism."
The Jews, he says, are not "inferior" to the Teuton, merely "different." They have
their own grandeur; they realize the "sacred duty" of man to guard the purity of race.
And yet as he proceeds to analyze the Jews, Chamberlain slips into the very vulgar
anti-Semitism which he condemns in others and which leads, in the end, to the obscenities
of Julius Streicher's caricatures of the Jews in Der Stuermer in Hitler's time. Indeed
a good deal of the "philosophical" basis of Nazi anti-Semitism stems from this chapter.
The preposterousness of Chamberlain's views is quickly evident. He has declared
that the personality of Christ is one of the three great bequests of antiquity to
modern civilization. He then sets out to "prove" that Jesus was not a Jew. His Galilean
origins, his inability to utter correctly the Aramaic gutturals, are to Chamberlain
"clear signs" that Jesus had "a large proportion of non-Semitic blood." He then makes
a typically fiat statement: "Whoever claimed that Jesus was a Jew was either being
stupid or telling a lie .. . Jesus was not a Jew."
300 Words
@jilles dykstra I have no hostility whatsoever against the USA people in general.
Several offered me hospitality in their homes.
What struck me each time was the igorance, the lack of information.
Local tv is just stupid advertising.
None of my hosts watched serious tv news, nowhere did I see a serious paper, just something
local about engagements, weddings and funerals.
One of my hosts I presented with the book of Anne Applebaum From West to East, I think
the title was, she travelled from the Baltic sea to the Black see.
He read it, had never realised about so many peoples.
Even a well traveled more or less well known American I found very ignorant, who reads
Readers Digest ?
A Berkeley assistant professor asked me what I knew about the Civil War, at the time,
end of the seventies, very little, but when I explained to him that Europe had been wars
galore, so why would I know much about an American war, he was shocked.
My strong objections are against USA society as a system, that allows a tiny minority
to run foreign policy at their pleasure, at the cost, expense and blood of others, USA
citizens and far more foreign citizens.
The death rate American soldiers against foreign casualties was calculated by Anatol
Lieven as one to fifty.
On Okinawa is was 7000 USA soldiers against 100.000 Japanese soldiers and 40.000 civilians.
Being a social democrat it abhors me that the USA always has abundant money for death
and destruction but seems incapable of providing decent affordable health care for all
its citizens; Your conception of American health care is incorrect. Yes, there are flaws,
but ANYONE can walk into an American hospital emergency room and they will be treated
REGARDLESS OF ABILITY TO PAY. Even illegal aliens will be treated
Patients in countries with "socialized medicine" quite often, have interminable wait
times for procedures that are routine here in the USA. Even Canada, our neighbor to the
north, has problems with timely availability of services. Canada has first-rate medical
personnel, who have to work under the constraints of a public system.
It is interesting to note, that in most countries with "socialized medicine" there is
a two-tier system of treatment those with private health insurance (or money) can (and
do) get better treatment than those who depend on the "public system".
In addition, there are life saving drugs that are unavailable in the public system as
they are considered "too expensive"
Witness Great Britain's "National Health Service" (NHS) with its NICE (National Institute
for Health and Care Excellence), which refuses to pay for certain breast cancer drugs,
deeming them to be "too expensive". One could argue that NICE is a "death panel" relegating
those who are unfortunate enough to need care relegated to death.
Go outside the NHS system to pay for your own care, and the door closes and locks behind
you. "NHS has invoked a policy of refusing care altogether to patients who, often upon
physician recommendation, choose to pay out-of-pocket for best-available drug treatments".
A breast cancer patient in the UK "Found that out the hard way when she tried to buy
Avastin out of her own pocket, only to have her doctor inform her that if she did so,
she would have to pay for all her treatment." Yet she has been paying income taxes of
20 to 45 percent for her "government provided free healthcare".
American health care needs improvement, but socializing it is not the answer
Read More
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More...
This Commenter
This Thread Hide Thread
Display
All Comments
Fidelios Automata ,
April 28, 2017 at 7:07 pm GMT
100 Words
@Sam Shama Israel has a free press in which a great deal of speculation is tolerated,
even welcomed. I haven't seen any articles in any of the major journals, or even in the
smaller ones, where Daesh is described as a collaborator.
To Israeli society's credit, humour is a normal and common enjoyment, in which spirit,
some skits produced - Eretz Nehderet being the most prominent one - portray a
darkly humourous relationship between Israeli doctors [and IDF medical corps] and Daesh
operating in the Golan.
So, Israeli med corps will, as modern protocol demands, aid any and all injured. You
should be more diligent in your search. Israel has been cooperating with ISIS and the
Israeli generals have loudly proclaimed their preference for ISIS over sovereign Syria.
200 Words
@Sean Anyone who wants to stage a preemptive nuclear attack wouldn't say so beforehand.
No-one can come up with a scenario in which Britain would ever first use nukes, so refusing
to rule it out is simply the practice of confronting potential aggression with uncertain
consequences though being slow to say what you will do, and never saying what
you won't.
Lets be clear: the British nukes are out in subs and if they got the coded order to
fire off a first use strike (for some reason we cannot yet imagine) the Trident captain
and crew would obey the command. Any statement to the contrary made by some politician
on BBC radio years before is going to be bloody irrelevant. Sean,
I think you are underestimating the utter evil and horror of such a pronouncement which
is an act of war and terrorism that is and has been standard operating practice of the
British Empire. There are two operative words at play "Gunboat Diplomacy" where the emphasis
is upon a canon in the face. Boom Baboom, but that's not gunpowder, nor iron ball, but
a big flash of a sun exploding
But there are those who think they can have a limited nuclear war
And "The Bitch Set Him Up!"
Yeah its LaRouche, he is the only one who called this, Donny doing the 180, and why
because Trump invoked the American System of Economics and was ready for peace with Russia
and China and because the DEAL, the real deal, the only Deal is the invitation by the
The Chinese and Russians as concerns the New Silk Road and One Belt Initiatives, which
Lyndon and Helga Zepp LaRouche and associates are noted architects of this strategic
move that would end British Empire Geopolotics
Read More
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More...
This Commenter
This Thread Hide Thread
Display
All Comments
300 Words
@annamaria You should be more diligent in your search. Israel has been cooperating
with ISIS and the Israeli generals have loudly proclaimed their preference for ISIS over
sovereign Syria.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/alliance-of-convenience-israel-supports-syrias-isis-terror-group/5587203
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3315347/Watch-heart-pounding-moment-Israeli-commandos-save-Islamic-militants-Syrian-warzone-risking-lives-sworn-enemies.html
http://21stcenturywire.com/2015/02/19/un-report-reveals-how-israel-is-coordinating-with-isis-militants-inside-syria/
http://ahtribune.com/world/north-africa-south-west-asia/1633-moshe-yaalon.html
And please spare us your lecturing on special moral qualities of IDF and Israelis
at large. Listen to your bloody Shaked; she is a Minister of Justice in your morally-lost
lands: https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/israeli-lawmakers-call-genocide-palestinians-gets-thousands-facebook-likes
"Israelis gather on hillsides to watch and cheer as military drops bombs on Gaza:" https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/20/israelis-cheer-gaza-bombing
The ongoing blood bath in the Middle East (millions died) is directly related to Oded
Yinon plan for Eretz Israel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RC1Mepk_Sw You remind me
of someone I can't quite remember this moment, flitting hither and thither, the busy
little bee, nary a thought to what they are actually reading.
Take e.g., the Daily Mail article you deposited, apparently a bolster for you claim.
The Mail piece headlines say:
Saving their sworn enemy: Heartstopping footage shows Israeli commandos rescuing
wounded men from Syrian warzone – but WHY are they risking their lives for Islamic
militants?
++ Elite Israeli troops rescue wounded Syrians from the world's worst war almost every
night
++They have saved more than 2,000 people since 2013, at a cost of 50 million shekels
(£8.7million)
++Many are enemies of Israel and some may even be fighters for groups affiliated
to Al Qaeda
++MailOnline embedded with Israeli commandos stationed on the border between Israel
and Syria
++Dramatic video filmed by MailOnline and the Israeli army shows these operations
taking place
++Israel says that the operation is purely humanitarian but analysts believe Israel
also has strategic reasons
Go on, read the whole damned article. Take it from one of the victims, Ahmed, treated
by IDF medical corps:
'I will not fight against Israel in the future. Israel looks after wounded people
better than the Arabs. The Arabs are dogs,' said a wiry rebel fighter who gave his
name as Ahmed, 23, who was recovering from a gunshot wound to the groin.
This is overwhelmingly what Israel is doing there. At most, what you twist and label
a collaboration, is the realpolitik behind Israel's work in this regard, to form an alliance
of convenience, such that rockets are not launched into Israel, especially in the North.
And why shouldn't she?
You start your post, as usual, by instructing me to be more diligent in my readings.
As I note that proposal with the seriousness it deserves, I take the occasion to remind
you that you adopt the same attitude more broadly, as exempli gratia, when you bake goods,
not inflict your male relatives with cordite when the bite was expectant of a sweet morsel.
Read More
300 Words
@Sam Shama You remind me of someone I can't quite remember this moment, flitting
hither and thither, the busy little bee, nary a thought to what they are actually reading.
Take e.g., the Daily Mail article you deposited, apparently a bolster for you claim.
The Mail piece headlines say:
Saving their sworn enemy: Heartstopping footage shows Israeli commandos rescuing wounded
men from Syrian warzone - but WHY are they risking their lives for Islamic militants?
++ Elite Israeli troops rescue wounded Syrians from the world's worst war almost every
night
++They have saved more than 2,000 people since 2013, at a cost of 50 million shekels
(£8.7million)
++Many are enemies of Israel and some may even be fighters for groups affiliated
to Al Qaeda
++MailOnline embedded with Israeli commandos stationed on the border between Israel
and Syria
++Dramatic video filmed by MailOnline and the Israeli army shows these operations
taking place
++Israel says that the operation is purely humanitarian but analysts believe Israel
also has strategic reasons
Go on, read the whole damned article. Take it from one of the victims, Ahmed, treated
by IDF medical corps:
'I will not fight against Israel in the future. Israel looks after wounded people
better than the Arabs. The Arabs are dogs,' said a wiry rebel fighter who gave his
name as Ahmed, 23, who was recovering from a gunshot wound to the groin.
This is overwhelmingly what Israel is doing there. At most, what you twist and label
a collaboration, is the realpolitik behind Israel's work in this regard, to form an alliance
of convenience, such that rockets are not launched into Israel, especially in the North.
And why shouldn't she?
You start your post, as usual, by instructing me to be more diligent in my readings.
As I note that proposal with the seriousness it deserves, I take the occasion to remind
you that you adopt the same attitude more broadly, as exempli gratia, when you bake goods,
not inflict your male relatives with cordite when the bite was expectant of a sweet morsel.
"This is overwhelmingly what Israel is doing there."
Then why had not the Israelis' medics followed their "moral values" and rushed to save
Palestinian children when the "most moral " IDF had been slaughtering the tightly-packed
civilian population in Israel-occupied Gaza?
http://gaza.ochaopt.org/2015/06/key-figures-on-the-2014-hostilities/ :
"Of the Palestinian fatalities, 551 were children and 299 women. 11,231 Palestinians
were injured including 3,436 children and 3,540 women, 10 percent of whom suffer permanent
disability." Again, why the Israelis risk their lives to save ISIS "freedom fighters?"
As for Israel's collaboration with ISIS, there are other links:
The collaboration explains this revelation: "ISIS Apologized To Israel For Attacking
IDF Soldiers"
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-28/isis-apologized-israel-attacking-idf-soldiers
"You can assume that these terrorists are fighting for Israel. If they aren't part of
the regular Israeli army, they're fighting for Israel. Israel has common goals with Turkey,
the United States, France, Britain, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other countries," Ynet quoted
Assad " Sounds logical.
Here is an Israeli citizen who was involved in financing the neo-Nazis thugs that
burned the scores of civilians alive in Odessa. The ziocons-run Wall Street Journal wrote
a flattering article on the bloody Kolomojsky who also used to be a leader of Jewish
community in Ukraine:
https://www.rt.com/news/159168-kiev-businessman-massacre-mariupol/
Not a peep from Israel and the "righteous" Jewish organizations, which invoke the memory
of Holocaust to nick any criticism of Israel, but which are dead silent in the case of
ziocons' collaboration with neo-Nazis. Your post calls this "realpolitic." Nothing to
look at Though, how much have Jewish victims of WWII extracted from Germany for "moral
sufferings and more?" Read More
when someone like Bolton says 'they directly threaten us'
you can take it to the bank that the "us" he's referring to is Israel
us, the Jews ;)
he purports to mean the American people, but anyone on the planet who knows the first
thing about Ziocons like Bolton, know damn well he'd see virtually every single American
goyim ground up into the dirt rather that see one fingernail on one Jewish hand suffer
harm.
N. Korea does not threaten America or our interests. If anything, it threatens its
neighbors. And if so, then our trading partner China could effectively deal with it.
the only reason N. Korea is in the crosshairs is because somehow Israel considers
it a threat Hello Rurik.
Having thought about it, there are a few, but I will not list the others.
The real and plausible threat (anybody knowing about the effects of nuclear weapons
will know about the effects of US stratospheric tests of megaton weapons in the early
'60s and understand) is beyond the technical capabilities of the DPRK.
Their atomic bombs, on seismic data, are all damp fizzers. They don't have the lift
to do maximum economic damage, either.
They do seem to have the capacity to sink an attacking carrier battle group or two
with conventional weapons.
I would assign the highest probability, for ZOG USA, to the confrontation with Nth.
Korea just being a shadow-play aimed at Iran.
I vaguely recall the Izzy government being good buddies with DPRK.
Will add one digression that is of interest, in old, turn-of-last century photos of
party conferences in the DPRK, several officials in military uniform are cleary from
former Warsaw Pact places, or from the USSR, but I have never seen an article to mention
it. Read More
100 Words
@annamaria "This is overwhelmingly what Israel is doing there."
Then why had not the Israelis' medics followed their "moral values" and rushed to save
Palestinian children when the "most moral " IDF had been slaughtering the tightly-packed
civilian population in Israel-occupied Gaza? http://gaza.ochaopt.org/2015/06/key-figures-on-the-2014-hostilities/:
"Of the Palestinian fatalities, 551 were children and 299 women. 11,231 Palestinians
were injured including 3,436 children and 3,540 women, 10 percent of whom suffer permanent
disability." Again, why the Israelis risk their lives to save ISIS "freedom fighters?"
As for Israel's collaboration with ISIS, there are other links:
http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/israel-and-isis-are-allies-there-we-said-it/ri19708
The collaboration explains this revelation: "ISIS Apologized To Israel For Attacking
IDF Soldiers" http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-28/isis-apologized-israel-attacking-idf-soldiers
"You can assume that these terrorists are fighting for Israel. If they aren't part of
the regular Israeli army, they're fighting for Israel. Israel has common goals with Turkey,
the United States, France, Britain, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other countries," Ynet quoted
Assad " Sounds logical.
On your sweet morsel of moral relativism: "...what you twist and label a collaboration,
is the realpolitik behind Israel's work in this regard..."
For some time, the state of Israel was hailed as a "moral" project. Here is one of the
minor facts to dispel the nonsense: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/20/israelis-cheer-gaza-bombing
"Israelis sit on a hill to watch air strikes on Gaza, some bring drinks and snacks as
they cheer the explosions a few miles away." Never again, in short.
Meanwhile the warmongering Kagans' clan has got into collaboration with neo-Nazis:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-u-s-has-installed-a-neo-nazi-government-in-ukraine/5371554
https://consortiumnews.com/2015/03/20/a-family-business-of-perpetual-war/
http://www.voltairenet.org/article182892.html
Here is an Israeli citizen who was involved in financing the neo-Nazis thugs that burned
the scores of civilians alive in Odessa. The ziocons-run Wall Street Journal wrote a
flattering article on the bloody Kolomojsky who also used to be a leader of Jewish community
in Ukraine: https://www.rt.com/news/159168-kiev-businessman-massacre-mariupol/
Not a peep from Israel and the "righteous" Jewish organizations, which invoke the memory
of Holocaust to nick any criticism of Israel, but which are dead silent in the case of
ziocons' collaboration with neo-Nazis. Your post calls this "realpolitic." Nothing to
look at... Though, how much have Jewish victims of WWII extracted from Germany for "moral
sufferings and more?" The usual dribblings.
You manage to get the Kagans inserted in there somehow, although miss Nudelman (is
that it?).
Reading your posts are similar to tolerating the tiresome, repetitive adverts which
plague television these days, mostly peddling shaky pharmaceuticals. You ought to end
or preface each with the usual disclaimers on side effects, which in this case are mostly
benign and somnambulic in effect.
As to Gaza, I only remark that rocket attacks on Sderot will elicit a response; so
that the cure is simple: stop the rockets.
As to realpolitik, my comment pertained to ISIS in Syria; that Israel does what she
can to prevent the lunatics from sending rockets to Northern Israel. But feel free to
twist it to your heart's content and somehow link it to .Gaza!! There are no realpolitik
interests in Gaza; do get that through your head.
Read More
Having thought about it, there are a few, but I will not list the others.
The real and plausible threat (anybody knowing about the effects of nuclear weapons will
know about the effects of US stratospheric tests of megaton weapons in the early '60s
and understand) is beyond the technical capabilities of the DPRK.
Their atomic bombs, on seismic data, are all damp fizzers. They don't have the lift to
do maximum economic damage, either.
They do seem to have the capacity to sink an attacking carrier battle group or two with
conventional weapons.
I would assign the highest probability, for ZOG USA, to the confrontation with Nth. Korea
just being a shadow-play aimed at Iran.
I vaguely recall the Izzy government being good buddies with DPRK.
Will add one digression that is of interest, in old, turn-of-last century photos of party
conferences in the DPRK, several officials in military uniform are cleary from former
Warsaw Pact places, or from the USSR, but I have never seen an article to mention it.
Hey Che,
I would assign the highest probability, for ZOG USA, to the confrontation with
Nth. Korea just being a shadow-play aimed at Iran.
I just read something from one of the commenters here (Kiza) that the saber-rattling
at DPRK is a less than oblique threat to Russia and China, as the need for Rothschild,
et al- to exercise absolute and unilateral domination of the entire planet is growing
to an event horizon type imperative. (I'm not quoting, but I think that's the gist)
and that's as good of an analysis as I've seen yet, and it's consistent with everything
I know about human nature and history and everything I know about Rothschild, et al
Read More
You manage to get the Kagans inserted in there somehow, although miss Nudelman (is
that it?).
Reading your posts are similar to tolerating the tiresome, repetitive adverts which
plague television these days, mostly peddling shaky pharmaceuticals. You ought to end
or preface each with the usual disclaimers on side effects, which in this case are mostly
benign and somnambulic in effect.
As to Gaza, I only remark that rocket attacks on Sderot will elicit a response; so
that the cure is simple: stop the rockets.
As to realpolitik, my comment pertained to ISIS in Syria; that Israel does what she
can to prevent the lunatics from sending rockets to Northern Israel. But feel free to
twist it to your heart's content and somehow link it to ....Gaza!! There are no realpolitik
interests in Gaza; do get that through your head.
stop the rockets.
then stop the occupation
- and murder and theft and oppression and torture and daily horrors and humiliations
You manage to get the Kagans inserted in there somehow, although miss Nudelman (is
that it?).
Reading your posts are similar to tolerating the tiresome, repetitive adverts which
plague television these days, mostly peddling shaky pharmaceuticals. You ought to end
or preface each with the usual disclaimers on side effects, which in this case are mostly
benign and somnambulic in effect.
As to Gaza, I only remark that rocket attacks on Sderot will elicit a response; so
that the cure is simple: stop the rockets.
As to realpolitik, my comment pertained to ISIS in Syria; that Israel does what she
can to prevent the lunatics from sending rockets to Northern Israel. But feel free to
twist it to your heart's content and somehow link it to ....Gaza!! There are no realpolitik
interests in Gaza; do get that through your head. "There are no realpolitik interests
in Gaza "
Because the illegally occupied Gazans are defenseless, like dwellers of the former ghettos
in Europe?
By the way, why are you taking everything personally in my posts and then insert some
cheap childish insults into every response-comment, instead of answering point by point
to the documented facts ?
One of the main points of my posts is the congruence of ziocons' policies in the Middle
East with Oded Yinon plan. Another point is the incongruence of Israelis' pretense on
being in possession of superior morality (this one always goes with references to Holocaust)
in the context of the extraordinary influence of Israel-firsters on making military decision
by the US/NATO in the Middle East. You have been steadily avoiding these two points,
as if you have some case of cognitive blindness. Though to be fair, you did utter something
about realpoitic (moral relativism, in other words) being factored in Israel's policies.
But if you recognize this relativism, then your tribe should stop pestering Germans,
reminding them again and again about their guilt. It is over. Israel's policies, beginning
with the open terrorism in the 30-s and 40-s and up to the promoting the ongoing slaughter
in the Middle East, have already concealed any pretense on victimhood. Whether in Europe,
damaged by the influx of refugees from the ME and of low-IQ migrants from sub-Saharan
Africa, or in the US, irritated by the price for the illegal wars in the ME, the citizenry
is taking on a rather sour attitude towards the Lobby and other Friends of Israel. The
floods of refugees (of various kinds) make a point for the populace. The cause of the
wars and the Israel-firsters' efforts towards initiating these wars have been under discussion.
The Israel-firsters love their mythological fatherland so much that they put the well-being
of their countries of residence second to Israel. Not good for national policies.
Read More
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More...
This Commenter
This Thread Hide Thread
Display
All Comments
@Sam Shama Israel has a free press in which a great deal of speculation is tolerated,
even welcomed. I haven't seen any articles in any of the major journals, or even in the
smaller ones, where Daesh is described as a collaborator.
To Israeli society's credit, humour is a normal and common enjoyment, in which spirit,
some skits produced - Eretz Nehderet being the most prominent one - portray a
darkly humourous relationship between Israeli doctors [and IDF medical corps] and Daesh
operating in the Golan.
@annamaria "This is overwhelmingly what Israel is doing there."
Then why had not the Israelis' medics followed their "moral values" and rushed to save
Palestinian children when the "most moral " IDF had been slaughtering the tightly-packed
civilian population in Israel-occupied Gaza? http://gaza.ochaopt.org/2015/06/key-figures-on-the-2014-hostilities/:
"Of the Palestinian fatalities, 551 were children and 299 women. 11,231 Palestinians
were injured including 3,436 children and 3,540 women, 10 percent of whom suffer permanent
disability." Again, why the Israelis risk their lives to save ISIS "freedom fighters?"
As for Israel's collaboration with ISIS, there are other links:
http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/israel-and-isis-are-allies-there-we-said-it/ri19708
The collaboration explains this revelation: "ISIS Apologized To Israel For Attacking
IDF Soldiers" http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-28/isis-apologized-israel-attacking-idf-soldiers
"You can assume that these terrorists are fighting for Israel. If they aren't part of
the regular Israeli army, they're fighting for Israel. Israel has common goals with Turkey,
the United States, France, Britain, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other countries," Ynet quoted
Assad " Sounds logical.
On your sweet morsel of moral relativism: "...what you twist and label a collaboration,
is the realpolitik behind Israel's work in this regard..."
For some time, the state of Israel was hailed as a "moral" project. Here is one of the
minor facts to dispel the nonsense: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/20/israelis-cheer-gaza-bombing
"Israelis sit on a hill to watch air strikes on Gaza, some bring drinks and snacks as
they cheer the explosions a few miles away." Never again, in short.
Meanwhile the warmongering Kagans' clan has got into collaboration with neo-Nazis:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-u-s-has-installed-a-neo-nazi-government-in-ukraine/5371554
https://consortiumnews.com/2015/03/20/a-family-business-of-perpetual-war/
http://www.voltairenet.org/article182892.html
Here is an Israeli citizen who was involved in financing the neo-Nazis thugs that burned
the scores of civilians alive in Odessa. The ziocons-run Wall Street Journal wrote a
flattering article on the bloody Kolomojsky who also used to be a leader of Jewish community
in Ukraine: https://www.rt.com/news/159168-kiev-businessman-massacre-mariupol/
Not a peep from Israel and the "righteous" Jewish organizations, which invoke the memory
of Holocaust to nick any criticism of Israel, but which are dead silent in the case of
ziocons' collaboration with neo-Nazis. Your post calls this "realpolitic." Nothing to
look at... Though, how much have Jewish victims of WWII extracted from Germany for "moral
sufferings and more?" What do you expect from Ziofascists like Sam et al
Read More
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More...
This Commenter
This Thread Hide Thread
Display
All Comments
My strong objections are against USA society as a system, that allows a tiny minority
to run foreign policy at their pleasure, at the cost, expense and blood of others,
USA citizens and far more foreign citizens.
I can't argue with that Jilles
and you're right about the general ignorance and bovine stupidity of most Americans,
but that has been very carefully created by the PTB, who don't want an educated, thinking
populace.
what was it papa Bush said?
"if the American people knew what we have done, they would string us up from the lamp
posts"
if the American people could think, the results would be the same. If the American
people could think and were in possession of a moral soul, then they'd know that wars
based on lies should be repudiated and the war criminals brought to justice. But the
American sheople have been systematically dumbed down to the point of zombies, infatuated
with Kim Kardashian's ass. Today Idiocracy is a reality. It's true.
But, let me just say on behalf of Americans, that I don't really see it any better across
the pond. Sure, the Europeans are better educated, and generally speak at least two languages,
and have heard of Yalta and Copernicus, but with all that education, they just don't
seem to me to be any more principled or moral than the zombified Americans.
Sure, it is the US military that is the biggest bully on the block, but does that
excuse the other little bullies that stand behind him and give him moral support? There
were French jets bombing Libya just as ferociously as any American ones. The Brits have
never seen an act of aggression from the US military that they don't reverently applaud.
And the Germans, whose government goes along with every war crime America commits in
principle, are today complicit in a racial supremacist, genocidal holocaust against a
completely innocent victim whose only crime is that they existed - in Palestine, on land
that some Jewish supremacist coveted for themselves.
The irony? That these very same Germans feel excruciating and debilitating guilt for
a crime that they had nothing to do with, while at the same time facilitating the same
crime of genocide today, in their names, by funding and arming and providing "moral"
cover for the Zionists.
So sure, Europeans are far more educated, but seem to fall very short when it comes to
using that education to augment a moral foundation for their actions and the actions
of their respective governments. There seems to me to be a sort of all-pervasive cowardice
in Western Europe, and a Pavlovian, knee-jerk propensity to wallow in prostrate abasement
and self-flagellate as soon as anyone says "Holocaust". Sort of what they used to be
able to bludgeon Americans with by the pejorative "racist", until it became a joke.
Anyways, yes, we're ignorant, and bovine and dangerous, but morally, I just don't see
too many paragons of virtue or honor to hold up as examples today. Uruguay perhaps, and
I would include Putin's Russia insofar as he's trying to put out the fires the Zio-Western-fiend
is lighting all over the place, but then he too bolsters their agenda by antagonizing
the former Soviet satellite states with ultra-nationalistic chest thumping over the "great
war", (that the Bolsheviks in Russia were mainly responsible for). Note to Putin, let
it rest! The great victory that you celebrate in May was a catastrophe for Eastern Europe
(and millions of Russians too)
I would assign the highest probability, for ZOG USA, to the confrontation with Nth.
Korea just being a shadow-play aimed at Iran.
I just read something from one of the commenters here (Kiza) that the saber-rattling
at DPRK is a less than oblique threat to Russia and China, as the need for Rothschild,
et al- to exercise absolute and unilateral domination of the entire planet is growing
to an event horizon type imperative. (I'm not quoting, but I think that's the gist)
and that's as good of an analysis as I've seen yet, and it's consistent with everything
I know about human nature and history and everything I know about Rothschild, et al Hello
Rurik.
Have you read the Illuminatus! trilogy? I have, twice, once before and once after
struggling through Anna Rosenbaum's Atlas Shrugged.
It was better the second time, because it is partly a parody of Ayn Rand.
It is dirty hippy material, but it is fun.
All of these ideas, the Rothschilds, the Brit. Royal family, etc. do it all, they
work even less than the Protocols of the Elders, which seems to be a template for reality,
and the claims for it to just to being malicious fake are on very shallow foundations.
Sure, I have no doubt that the Rothschild clan is mainly evil, but I do not see any
sense in ideas that they have some solo supevillain role.
If you have not read the book(s), it was originally published in three, I recommend,
it should make you laugh at times.
Borges writes, "dictatorships foster oppression, dictatorships foster servitude, dictatorships
foster cruelty; more abominable is the fact that they foster idiocy." As a preeminent mind, Borges
rightly considers the mind to be a man's greatest asset, for without mind, a man is nothing. The
more oppressive a political system, then, the greater its assault on its subjects' minds, for it's
not enough for any dictator, king or totalitarian system to oppress and exploit, but it must, and
I mean must, make its people idiotic as well. Every wrongful bullet is preceded and accompanied,
then followed up by a series of idiotic lies, but we're so used to such a moronic diet by now, our
trepanned intelligentsia don't even squirm in their tenured chairs.
Sane men and women don't consent to kill, rob and rape, much less be killed, robbed and raped,
least of all to enrich their masters , and that's why their minds must be molested as early
and as much as possible. Hence our nonstop media brainwashing us from the cradle, literally, to the
grave. Fixated by flickering boxes, even infants are now mind-conditioned to become scatterbrained
idiots before they stagger into kindergarten, to begin a lifelong process of becoming docile and
slogan-shouting Democrats and Republicans.
Yes, savages killed, but, like apes, our ancestors, they mostly tried to intimidate and trash
talk their way out of conflicts. Take the Maoris: from all accounts, they were a rather belligerent
people, but their killing of each other really took off with the introduction of the musket. The
greater a civilization, the greater its ability to accomplish great tasks, including massacre. A
savage tribe could never imagine wiping out entire cities by defecating exploding metal from the
sky, or sitting in a brightly lit and spic-and-span office stroking a joy stick to ejaculate missiles
half a planet away. Drone hell fire for y'all, with sides of bank-sponsored debt slavery and austerity,
plus an unlimited refill of American pop bullshit. Would you like a public suicide with that? No,
sir, these savages need to take webcast courses from us sophisticates when it comes to genocide,
or ecocide, or any other kind of cides you can think of. When it comes to pure, unadulterated savagery,
these quaint brutes ain't got shit on us plugged-in netizens chillaxin' in that shiny upside down
condo on da capital-punishment-for the-entire-world, y'all, hill.
You'd think that a government with absolute power would not bother with expensive parades and
elaborately-staged rallies in stadia, as are routine in North Korea, but such is the importance of
propaganda and mind-control. America has gone way beyond Kim Jong-Un and his Nuremberg-styled pageantry,
however, because the Yankee Magical Show is relentlessly pumped into our minds via television and
the internet, at home, in office or even as we're walking down the street, so that we're always swarmed
by sexy sale pitches, soft and hard porn, asinine righteousness and imbecilic trivia. All day long,
we can stuff ourselves with unlimited kitsch. Today's urgent topic, "Sylvester Stalone Spotted in
16th Century Painting." Yesterday's, "Tom Cruise's Daughter Gets Inked." Imagine a triple-amputee
Iraq vet or an unemployed mother, sitting in an about to be foreclosed home with unpaid bills scattered
across her kitchen table, staring at such headlines. At 48, I'm old enough to remember when it wasn't
this overwhelmingly stupid, though the dumbing down of America will only accelerate as this cornered
and bankrupt country becomes ever more vicious to its citizens and foreigners alike.
Not content to kill and loot, America must do it to pulsating music; cool, orgasmic dancing; raunchy
reality shows and violence-filled Hollywood blockbusters, and these are also meant for its victims,
no less. In a 1997 article published by the US Army War College,
Ralph Peters
gushes about a "personally intrusive" and "lethal" cultural assault as a key tactic in the American
quest for global supremacy. As information master, the American Empire will destroy its "information
victims." What's more, "our victims volunteer" because they are unable to resist the seductiveness
of American culture.
Defining democracy as "that deft liberal form of imperialism," Peters reveals how the word is
conceived and used these days by every American leader, whether talking about Libya, Syria, Iran
or America itself. Recognizing that the lumpens of his country are also victims of empire, Peters
frankly acknowledges that "laid-off blue-collar worker in America and the Taliban militiaman in Afghanistan
are brothers in suffering."
Much has been made of the internet as enabling democracy and protest, but whatever utility it may
have for the disenfranchised and/or rebellious, the Web is most useful to our rulers. As
Dmitry Orlov points out in a recent blog, the internet is a powerful surveillance tool for the
state and, what's more, it also keeps the masses distracted and pacified. Echoing Queen Victoria's
remark, "Give my people plenty of beer, good and cheap beer, and you will have no revolution among
them," Orlov observes that virtual sex thwarts rebellion. In sum, while the internet may empower
some people, as in allowing John
Michael Greer , Paul Craig Roberts
or Orlov to publish their unflinching commentaries, the same internet also drowns them out with
an unprecedented flood of drivel. Defending the empire, Ralph Peters cheerfully agrees, "The internet
is to the techno-capable disaffected what the United Nations is to marginal states: it offers the
illusion of empowerment and community."
Though our only hope is to be expelled from this sick matrix, many of us will cling even more
fiercely to these illusions of knowledge, love, sex and community as we blunder forward. A breathing
and tactile life will become even more alien, I'm afraid. Here and there, a band of unplugged weirdos,
to be hunted down and exterminated, with their demise shown on TV as warning and entertainment. Inhabiting
a common waste land, we can each lounge in our private electronic ghetto. Until the juice finally
runs out, that is.
If there were ever a Just Cause for the Yanks to invade and bring democracy somewhere, it would be North Korea. The horrors
that generations of North Koreans in concentration camps are enduring, would even make the holo-jews cringe.
Then again, is Israel ready to take a second row seat on the holocaust narrative and let the North Koreans take the gold
medal of international victimhood?
And what do you do with millions of people coping with culture shock, paranoia, etc.? And, last but not least, who would
make our clothing for 5 cents a piece?
All in all. I do not think the Israeli's would let the USA attack North Korea.
Zero chance of any attack on Korea beyond a prearranged choreographed pinprick. The explanation is simple: nothing in it for the
Jooies and Izzies who worked overtime to install a US government of the jooies, by the jooies, for the jooies. Why would they
waste their satrap's assets when they could be used on Iran?
October 18, 1994 Remarks on the Nuclear Agreement With North Korea William J. Clinton
Good afternoon. I am pleased that the United States and North Korea yesterday reached agreement on the text of a framework
document on North Korea's nuclear program.
"... A conventional US attack on North Korea would be far more difficult. The North is a small nation of only 24.8 million. Its air and sea forces are obsolete and ineffective. They would be vaporized on the first day of a war. But North Korea's million-man army has been training and digging in for decades to resist a US invasion. Pyongyang's 88,000-man Special Forces are poised for suicide attacks on South Korea's political and military command and control and to cripple key US and South Korean air bases, notably Osan and Kunsan. ..."
"... The stupidity, cultural ignorance and geopolitical autism of the people that actually have their fingers on the trigger on our side in today's world is mind blowing. ..."
"... Starting a war with N Korea is crazy. Are we going to start a war that would kill millions in order to stop a war that does not exist? There has been little blood spilled between the Koreas in the last 60 years – let's try for another 60 years. ..."
"... How is Trump protecting us, if we are killing and dying in a far-off land? The truth is that our homeland is a very long way from being attacked by N Korea – PERIOD. ..."
"... North Korea has got nothing anyone wants so they won't be attacked. It is all a lot of bluffing, except if the Chinese (aghast at Trump's avowed view that China is raping the US economy) try to placate him by promising to give the North Koreans the cold shoulder. ..."
"... China cannot accept a collapse of North Korea into the US client south. ..."
"... China is the central, most important actor on the peninsula, and China controls whatever happens there. ..."
"... America's main weakness is its utterly delusional political and military leadership. ..."
"... We have not fought a peer since 1945, and since 1945 we have a long record of failure. At present, we are fighting and losing to lightly armed Third World militias. ..."
"... It is an open question as to whether we can defeat ISIS in Syria and Iraq, and we certainly cannot unless we ally ourselves with Iran, Russia, Hezbollah and Assad. ..."
"... What we are watching today is the collapse of the American military and empire. ..."
"... Lots of murkkans , the Trumpsters, are crying foul, They are 'betrayed' by Trump who now 'surrender to the deep state', 'the neocons have finally gotten to Trump', blah blah blah . ..."
"... Astute obsevers like Vltchek, Engdahl, Draistser ..reminded murkkans about the exercise in futility in the 'election circus' long ago. ..."
"... Mathematically, Ian Fleming's fundamental law of probability practically guarantees that the 45th POTUS would be same as the old boss, MIC front man who speaks with forked tongue. ..."
"... As the pathetic hack Fareed Zakaria of Times magazine would gush after the Syria bombing, ' With this act, Trump has just become POTUS ' He didnt know how right he's, hehehehe ..."
"... That will not sit very well with American global full spectrum dominance and end the day that American can commit war crimes, crimes against peace and crimes against humanity on the phantom WMD allegation as humanitarian intervention. ..."
"... The simple scenario germane to this article is if Trump deploys a carrier fleet even closer to the proximity of the Norks. ..."
"... To those interested in the Korean War, I highly recommend David Halberstam's posthumous book, The Coldest Winter: America and the Korean War. It is not a standard military chronicle instead a spellbinding journalistic read. Major theme, MacArthur's super ego, pomposity and geo-political ignorance resulting in catastrophe. American troops experienced the thrill of Stalingrad. In an eerie way, Trump now has a chance of becoming American Caesar 2.0 and in the very same playground. History repeats, rhymes whatever.... ..."
"... The only book I've read on the Korean War is IF Stone's firsthand account, The Hidden History of the Korean War. It is absolutely staggering. Why was it fought? No reason. It was a military exercise for MacArthur, just kind of for the hell of it. ..."
Memory of the bloody, indecisive first Koran War, 1950-53, which killed close to 3 million people, has faded. Few Americans have
any idea how ferocious a conventional second Korean War could be. They are used to seeing Uncle Sam beat up small, nearly defenseless
nations like Iraq, Libya or Syria that dare defy the Pax Americana.
The US could literally blow North Korea off the map using tactical
nuclear weapons based in Japan, South Korea and at sea with the 7th Fleet. Or delivered by B-52 and B-1 bombers and cruise missiles.
But this would cause clouds of lethal radiation and radioactive dust to blanket Japan, South Korea and heavily industrialized northeast
China, including the capital, Beijing.
China would be expected to threaten retaliation against the United States, Japan and South Korea to deter a nuclear war in next
door Korea. At the same time, if heavily attacked, a fight-to-the-end North Korea may fire off a number of nuclear-armed medium-range
missiles at Tokyo, Osaka, Okinawa and South Korea. These missiles are hidden in caves in the mountains on wheeled transporters and
hard to identify and knock out.
This is a huge risk. Such a nuclear exchange would expose about a third of the world's economy to nuclear contamination, not to
mention spreading nuclear winter around the globe.
A conventional US attack on North Korea would be far more difficult. The North is a small nation of only 24.8 million. Its
air and sea forces are obsolete and ineffective. They would be vaporized on the first day of a war. But North Korea's million-man
army has been training and digging in for decades to resist a US invasion. Pyongyang's 88,000-man Special Forces are poised for suicide
attacks on South Korea's political and military command and control and to cripple key US and South Korean air bases, notably Osan
and Kunsan.
North Korea may use chemical weapons such as VX and Sarin to knock out the US/South Korean and Japanese airbases, military depots,
ports and communications hubs. Missile attacks would be launched against US bases in Guam and Okinawa.
Short of using nuclear weapons, the US would be faced with mounting a major invasion of mountainous North Korea, something for
which it is today unprepared. It took the US six months to assemble a land force in Saudi Arabia just to attack feeble Iraq. Taking
on the tough North Korean army and militia in their mountain redoubts will prove a daunting challenge.
US analysts have in the past estimated a US invasion of North Korea would cost some 250,000 American casualties and at least $10
billion, though I believe such a war would cost four times that much today. The Army, Air Force and Marines would have to mobilize
reserves to wage a war in Korea. Already overstretched US forces would have to be withdrawn from Europe and the Mideast. Military
conscription might have to be re-introduced.
Indeed. It was a sorrowful read with the exception of the heroics of the First Marines at Chosin Reservoir. Wiki called that
action a victory as if rearguard actions or successful retreats could ever be put in a victory column.
The big point now is what do the Chinese think. They were the reason that there even was a Korean War for those who prefer
headlines over history or happen to be in elective office in the US government (or Pentagon).
The stupidity, cultural ignorance and geopolitical autism of the people that actually have their fingers on the trigger
on our side in today's world is mind blowing.
" Hit the dirt, join the crowd, lookee mamma, a mushroom cloud" from MAD magazine, in the sixties, a kids rag that makes some
people wonder why the non funny, non witty Onion even exists.
Today that cloud thing suddenly becomes real possibility. Did I say MAD?
Starting a war with N Korea is crazy. Are we going to start a war that would kill millions in order to stop a war that
does not exist? There has been little blood spilled between the Koreas in the last 60 years – let's try for another 60 years.
How is Trump protecting us, if we are killing and dying in a far-off land? The truth is that our homeland is a very long
way from being attacked by N Korea – PERIOD.
It is time to deescalate – it is time to trade with the bastard – it is time to open up N Korea. Send in the food. Help the
people. Be better than the dictator. Give his people what he cannot deliver. Give them the power to demand freedom. It is hard
to see – but when dictator governments trade with others, they evolve to freedom.
Peace - Art
p.s. The Trump Whisperer – Ivanka – needs to get in daddy's ear and say "cool it Pops."
North Korea has got nothing anyone wants so they won't be attacked. It is all a lot of bluffing, except if the Chinese (aghast
at Trump's avowed view that China is raping the US economy) try to placate him by promising to give the North Koreans the cold
shoulder.
History shows that the leadership of states in danger of losing their independent status will choose uncertain and perilous
courses of action . The best thing is this will fizzle out. If China tries to pressure Kim, he would seriously consider starting
a conventional war. He couldn't possibly win, but that is the point: China cannot accept a collapse of North Korea into the
US client south. Nuclear weapons will not be used in any event.
@bob sykes Any
discussion of a new Korean War that does not emphasize China is asinine, like this one. China is the central, most important
actor on the peninsula, and China controls whatever happens there.
China will not permit an American ally on the Yalu River. Any state bordering China on the Yalu must be explicitly pro-Chinese.
If a war does break out on the peninsula, China will intervene on the side of the North Koreans.
To call the first Korean War inconclusive is tendentious: China decisively defeated the US/NATO forces, and did so with
with a primitive WW I style army and no navy or air force to speak of. Human wave assaults sufficed then. They did not occupy
the whole peninsula because their primitive army lacked the logistical capacity to do so.
Today China has a large modern military with a full spectrum of capabilities, including tactical and strategic nuclear weapons
and a large amphibious force. China would crush the US, Japanese and South Korean militaries, even assuming Russia stands aside.
It didn't in Korea I and Vietnam. And China's strategic nuclear forces would prevent the US from using nuclear weapons on the
peninsula. Anyway, the antique nuclear weapons we have today may not even work.
America's main weakness is its utterly delusional political and military leadership. The military that invaded
Iraq no longer exists, and it was smaller than the one that liberated Kuwait. The US military has been downsized to the point
that it cannot meet our treaty commitments. Sequestration has stripped the remaining military of funds needed for training
and maintenance. Only a third of our fighter/bombers are available for war, and the pilots get only half the hours needed to
maintain their skills. We do not practice combined arms warfare any more.
We have not fought a peer since 1945, and since 1945 we have a long record of failure. At present, we are fighting and
losing to lightly armed Third World militias. The use of the MOAB against ISIS in Afghanistan was an indicator of panic
in our military command there and at home. It is an open question as to whether we can defeat ISIS in Syria and Iraq, and
we certainly cannot unless we ally ourselves with Iran, Russia, Hezbollah and Assad.
What we are watching today is the collapse of the American military and empire.
{We have not fought a peer since 1945, and since 1945 we have a long record of failure. }
Almost true.
Imperial Japan was no Nazi Germany.
Although Japanese were tenacious fighters and they had first-rate military hardware*, U.S. and U.S. Navy were a rung above
the Imperial Japanese military. Japan simply did not have the resources or the industrial might of U.S.
By the time Allies (really the U.S.) landed in Europe in 1944, Wehrmacht was a spent force: 80% of its best, toughest units
were destroyed on the Eastern Front. Even then, at the Battle of the Bulge U.S. troops ran from the advancing Germans (mostly
** ). GIs were saved by the powerful USAF when the skies cleared up.
So we don't really have a good example of peer-to-peer land warfare for US military (other than the US Civil War).
--
* Zero was considered superior to US equipment in the beginning.
** Heroic defense of Bastogne.
And the only thing that has kept Japan and South Korea non nuclear is the US. A real threat would be for the US to simply to
go home. When Trump was tweeting that exactly -- it was seen as quite threatening.
A nuclear North Korea which is barely in the nuclear club and doesn't have the economy to militarize is simply an annoyance
to China. Japan and South Korea could be real threats quite quickly. And there is no love lost between any of them.
An irony is that the US has effectively disarmed Europe via NATO, and if the US told Germany to take care of themselves, Russia
wouldn't feel threatened, they would be threatened.
The truth is that the US hasn't won a war since we decided to constrain our military in Korea. They wanted to nuke China, and
also wanted to use them in Vietnam.
North Korea's only threat is nuclear, which is hollow, since they are assured of massive retaliation in kind. I suppose China
has been OK with the situation, since it annoys us to no end and hasn't cost them much. So far. {The truth is that the US hasn't
won a war since we decided to constrain our military in Korea. They wanted to nuke China, and also wanted to use them in
Vietnam.}
This an enduring myth that was created to salve the psych wound of being beaten by 'inferior' yellow-man.
Other than using atomic bombs, there were no constraints on US military. US military was given a free hand to bomb and destroy
anything and everything, including civilian targets* in both wars.
As to nukes.
China had no nukes during Korean war, but Soviet Union did.
First SU nuke test: Aug 1949.
First US thermonuke test: Nov 1952
First SU thermonuke test: Aug 1953.
POTUS Truman fired delusional Gen McArthur because he knew SU would most certainly use tac nukes in Korea if US did.
If you recall, Truman had no compunction using nukes on civilian targets, so he must have had good reason to restrain the crazy
generals.
Same with Viet Nam: yes US military wanted to nuke Hanoi in desperation, but cooler civilian heads prevailed. Again, there
was near-certainty that SU would respond in kind in Viet Nam.
--
* targeted deliberately: war crimes.
'" If China is not going to solve North Korea , we will."
With this porky pie,
Trump becomes the 45th 'bald faced liars' elected by the murkkans.
And .
With the bombing of Syria, Yemen
Trump joins the 'prestigious' ranks of the previous 44 war criminals in WH.
Lots of murkkans , the Trumpsters, are crying foul, They are 'betrayed' by Trump who now 'surrender to the deep state',
'the neocons have finally gotten to Trump', blah blah blah .
B.S. --
Astute obsevers like Vltchek, Engdahl, Draistser ..reminded murkkans about the exercise in futility in the 'election circus'
long ago.
Mathematically, Ian Fleming's fundamental law of probability practically guarantees that the 45th POTUS would be same as
the old boss, MIC front man who speaks with forked tongue.
As the pathetic hack Fareed Zakaria of Times magazine would gush after the Syria bombing, ' With this act, Trump has
just become POTUS ' He didnt know how right he's, hehehehe
Why not allow that? That will not sit very well with American global full spectrum dominance and end the day that American
can commit war crimes, crimes against peace and crimes against humanity on the phantom WMD allegation as humanitarian intervention.
I picked up a batch of old Rollingstone magazines from my local library for pennies to use as bathroom/breakfast reading. One
issue had Matt Taibbi following Trump on the campaign trail while still battling for the Republican party nomination. In this
leg of his tour he talked about how big insurance conglomerates were setting the prices to their liking and how he as president
would bust them up etc.. Then came the commentary from Duck Dynasty types on how they are sick and tired of paying high premiums
and so on. It gave me a minor epiphany, namely that this guy is, was and always will be full of shit in other words nothing but
a super salesman.
While I was happy that he blew away the syphilitic structure of the mainstream parties and the press I now realize that the
volatile and insane world now has a monkey with a machine gun in a major position of power. This can't end well.
The Great Pumpkin cut his jib by beating up other businessmen in the vicious world of East coast real estate. In this world
he had the MacArthur motto for there being 'no substitute for victory'. If he transmogrifies his business instincts onto the world
stage, stock up on rice and beans (and iodine tablets).
The simple scenario germane to this article is if Trump deploys a carrier fleet even closer to the proximity of the Norks.
Who thinks fat boy Jong-Un is sane? Ivanka? Sending even just conventional missiles across the bow is well within his mental construct.
With their faulty accuracy they could accidentally hit the target. A carrier sunk. What options does Trump have now? None really.
It's show time and by probable extension, "overture, curtains, lights, this is it night of nights..."
To those interested in the Korean War, I highly recommend David Halberstam's posthumous book, The Coldest Winter: America
and the Korean War. It is not a standard military chronicle instead a spellbinding journalistic read. Major theme, MacArthur's
super ego, pomposity and geo-political ignorance resulting in catastrophe. American troops experienced the thrill of Stalingrad.
In an eerie way, Trump now has a chance of becoming American Caesar 2.0 and in the very same playground. History repeats, rhymes
whatever....
Cheers- The only book I've read on the Korean War is IF Stone's firsthand account, The Hidden History of the Korean War.
It is absolutely staggering. Why was it fought? No reason. It was a military exercise for MacArthur, just kind of for the hell
of it.
"... A conventional US attack on North Korea would be far more difficult. The North is a small nation of only 24.8 million. Its air and sea forces are obsolete and ineffective. They would be vaporized on the first day of a war. But North Korea's million-man army has been training and digging in for decades to resist a US invasion. Pyongyang's 88,000-man Special Forces are poised for suicide attacks on South Korea's political and military command and control and to cripple key US and South Korean air bases, notably Osan and Kunsan. ..."
"... The stupidity, cultural ignorance and geopolitical autism of the people that actually have their fingers on the trigger on our side in today's world is mind blowing. ..."
"... Starting a war with N Korea is crazy. Are we going to start a war that would kill millions in order to stop a war that does not exist? There has been little blood spilled between the Koreas in the last 60 years – let's try for another 60 years. ..."
"... How is Trump protecting us, if we are killing and dying in a far-off land? The truth is that our homeland is a very long way from being attacked by N Korea – PERIOD. ..."
"... North Korea has got nothing anyone wants so they won't be attacked. It is all a lot of bluffing, except if the Chinese (aghast at Trump's avowed view that China is raping the US economy) try to placate him by promising to give the North Koreans the cold shoulder. ..."
"... China cannot accept a collapse of North Korea into the US client south. ..."
"... China is the central, most important actor on the peninsula, and China controls whatever happens there. ..."
"... America's main weakness is its utterly delusional political and military leadership. ..."
"... We have not fought a peer since 1945, and since 1945 we have a long record of failure. At present, we are fighting and losing to lightly armed Third World militias. ..."
"... It is an open question as to whether we can defeat ISIS in Syria and Iraq, and we certainly cannot unless we ally ourselves with Iran, Russia, Hezbollah and Assad. ..."
"... What we are watching today is the collapse of the American military and empire. ..."
"... Lots of murkkans , the Trumpsters, are crying foul, They are 'betrayed' by Trump who now 'surrender to the deep state', 'the neocons have finally gotten to Trump', blah blah blah . ..."
"... Astute obsevers like Vltchek, Engdahl, Draistser ..reminded murkkans about the exercise in futility in the 'election circus' long ago. ..."
"... Mathematically, Ian Fleming's fundamental law of probability practically guarantees that the 45th POTUS would be same as the old boss, MIC front man who speaks with forked tongue. ..."
"... As the pathetic hack Fareed Zakaria of Times magazine would gush after the Syria bombing, ' With this act, Trump has just become POTUS ' He didnt know how right he's, hehehehe ..."
"... That will not sit very well with American global full spectrum dominance and end the day that American can commit war crimes, crimes against peace and crimes against humanity on the phantom WMD allegation as humanitarian intervention. ..."
"... The simple scenario germane to this article is if Trump deploys a carrier fleet even closer to the proximity of the Norks. ..."
"... To those interested in the Korean War, I highly recommend David Halberstam's posthumous book, The Coldest Winter: America and the Korean War. It is not a standard military chronicle instead a spellbinding journalistic read. Major theme, MacArthur's super ego, pomposity and geo-political ignorance resulting in catastrophe. American troops experienced the thrill of Stalingrad. In an eerie way, Trump now has a chance of becoming American Caesar 2.0 and in the very same playground. History repeats, rhymes whatever.... ..."
"... The only book I've read on the Korean War is IF Stone's firsthand account, The Hidden History of the Korean War. It is absolutely staggering. Why was it fought? No reason. It was a military exercise for MacArthur, just kind of for the hell of it. ..."
Memory of the bloody, indecisive first Koran War, 1950-53, which killed close to 3 million people, has faded. Few Americans have
any idea how ferocious a conventional second Korean War could be. They are used to seeing Uncle Sam beat up small, nearly defenseless
nations like Iraq, Libya or Syria that dare defy the Pax Americana.
The US could literally blow North Korea off the map using tactical
nuclear weapons based in Japan, South Korea and at sea with the 7th Fleet. Or delivered by B-52 and B-1 bombers and cruise missiles.
But this would cause clouds of lethal radiation and radioactive dust to blanket Japan, South Korea and heavily industrialized northeast
China, including the capital, Beijing.
China would be expected to threaten retaliation against the United States, Japan and South Korea to deter a nuclear war in next
door Korea. At the same time, if heavily attacked, a fight-to-the-end North Korea may fire off a number of nuclear-armed medium-range
missiles at Tokyo, Osaka, Okinawa and South Korea. These missiles are hidden in caves in the mountains on wheeled transporters and
hard to identify and knock out.
This is a huge risk. Such a nuclear exchange would expose about a third of the world's economy to nuclear contamination, not to
mention spreading nuclear winter around the globe.
A conventional US attack on North Korea would be far more difficult. The North is a small nation of only 24.8 million. Its
air and sea forces are obsolete and ineffective. They would be vaporized on the first day of a war. But North Korea's million-man
army has been training and digging in for decades to resist a US invasion. Pyongyang's 88,000-man Special Forces are poised for suicide
attacks on South Korea's political and military command and control and to cripple key US and South Korean air bases, notably Osan
and Kunsan.
North Korea may use chemical weapons such as VX and Sarin to knock out the US/South Korean and Japanese airbases, military depots,
ports and communications hubs. Missile attacks would be launched against US bases in Guam and Okinawa.
Short of using nuclear weapons, the US would be faced with mounting a major invasion of mountainous North Korea, something for
which it is today unprepared. It took the US six months to assemble a land force in Saudi Arabia just to attack feeble Iraq. Taking
on the tough North Korean army and militia in their mountain redoubts will prove a daunting challenge.
US analysts have in the past estimated a US invasion of North Korea would cost some 250,000 American casualties and at least $10
billion, though I believe such a war would cost four times that much today. The Army, Air Force and Marines would have to mobilize
reserves to wage a war in Korea. Already overstretched US forces would have to be withdrawn from Europe and the Mideast. Military
conscription might have to be re-introduced.
Indeed. It was a sorrowful read with the exception of the heroics of the First Marines at Chosin Reservoir. Wiki called that
action a victory as if rearguard actions or successful retreats could ever be put in a victory column.
The big point now is what do the Chinese think. They were the reason that there even was a Korean War for those who prefer
headlines over history or happen to be in elective office in the US government (or Pentagon).
The stupidity, cultural ignorance and geopolitical autism of the people that actually have their fingers on the trigger
on our side in today's world is mind blowing.
" Hit the dirt, join the crowd, lookee mamma, a mushroom cloud" from MAD magazine, in the sixties, a kids rag that makes some
people wonder why the non funny, non witty Onion even exists.
Today that cloud thing suddenly becomes real possibility. Did I say MAD?
Starting a war with N Korea is crazy. Are we going to start a war that would kill millions in order to stop a war that
does not exist? There has been little blood spilled between the Koreas in the last 60 years – let's try for another 60 years.
How is Trump protecting us, if we are killing and dying in a far-off land? The truth is that our homeland is a very long
way from being attacked by N Korea – PERIOD.
It is time to deescalate – it is time to trade with the bastard – it is time to open up N Korea. Send in the food. Help the
people. Be better than the dictator. Give his people what he cannot deliver. Give them the power to demand freedom. It is hard
to see – but when dictator governments trade with others, they evolve to freedom.
Peace - Art
p.s. The Trump Whisperer – Ivanka – needs to get in daddy's ear and say "cool it Pops."
North Korea has got nothing anyone wants so they won't be attacked. It is all a lot of bluffing, except if the Chinese (aghast
at Trump's avowed view that China is raping the US economy) try to placate him by promising to give the North Koreans the cold
shoulder.
History shows that the leadership of states in danger of losing their independent status will choose uncertain and perilous
courses of action . The best thing is this will fizzle out. If China tries to pressure Kim, he would seriously consider starting
a conventional war. He couldn't possibly win, but that is the point: China cannot accept a collapse of North Korea into the
US client south. Nuclear weapons will not be used in any event.
@bob sykes Any
discussion of a new Korean War that does not emphasize China is asinine, like this one. China is the central, most important
actor on the peninsula, and China controls whatever happens there.
China will not permit an American ally on the Yalu River. Any state bordering China on the Yalu must be explicitly pro-Chinese.
If a war does break out on the peninsula, China will intervene on the side of the North Koreans.
To call the first Korean War inconclusive is tendentious: China decisively defeated the US/NATO forces, and did so with
with a primitive WW I style army and no navy or air force to speak of. Human wave assaults sufficed then. They did not occupy
the whole peninsula because their primitive army lacked the logistical capacity to do so.
Today China has a large modern military with a full spectrum of capabilities, including tactical and strategic nuclear weapons
and a large amphibious force. China would crush the US, Japanese and South Korean militaries, even assuming Russia stands aside.
It didn't in Korea I and Vietnam. And China's strategic nuclear forces would prevent the US from using nuclear weapons on the
peninsula. Anyway, the antique nuclear weapons we have today may not even work.
America's main weakness is its utterly delusional political and military leadership. The military that invaded
Iraq no longer exists, and it was smaller than the one that liberated Kuwait. The US military has been downsized to the point
that it cannot meet our treaty commitments. Sequestration has stripped the remaining military of funds needed for training
and maintenance. Only a third of our fighter/bombers are available for war, and the pilots get only half the hours needed to
maintain their skills. We do not practice combined arms warfare any more.
We have not fought a peer since 1945, and since 1945 we have a long record of failure. At present, we are fighting and
losing to lightly armed Third World militias. The use of the MOAB against ISIS in Afghanistan was an indicator of panic
in our military command there and at home. It is an open question as to whether we can defeat ISIS in Syria and Iraq, and
we certainly cannot unless we ally ourselves with Iran, Russia, Hezbollah and Assad.
What we are watching today is the collapse of the American military and empire.
{We have not fought a peer since 1945, and since 1945 we have a long record of failure. }
Almost true.
Imperial Japan was no Nazi Germany.
Although Japanese were tenacious fighters and they had first-rate military hardware*, U.S. and U.S. Navy were a rung above
the Imperial Japanese military. Japan simply did not have the resources or the industrial might of U.S.
By the time Allies (really the U.S.) landed in Europe in 1944, Wehrmacht was a spent force: 80% of its best, toughest units
were destroyed on the Eastern Front. Even then, at the Battle of the Bulge U.S. troops ran from the advancing Germans (mostly
** ). GIs were saved by the powerful USAF when the skies cleared up.
So we don't really have a good example of peer-to-peer land warfare for US military (other than the US Civil War).
--
* Zero was considered superior to US equipment in the beginning.
** Heroic defense of Bastogne.
And the only thing that has kept Japan and South Korea non nuclear is the US. A real threat would be for the US to simply to
go home. When Trump was tweeting that exactly -- it was seen as quite threatening.
A nuclear North Korea which is barely in the nuclear club and doesn't have the economy to militarize is simply an annoyance
to China. Japan and South Korea could be real threats quite quickly. And there is no love lost between any of them.
An irony is that the US has effectively disarmed Europe via NATO, and if the US told Germany to take care of themselves, Russia
wouldn't feel threatened, they would be threatened.
The truth is that the US hasn't won a war since we decided to constrain our military in Korea. They wanted to nuke China, and
also wanted to use them in Vietnam.
North Korea's only threat is nuclear, which is hollow, since they are assured of massive retaliation in kind. I suppose China
has been OK with the situation, since it annoys us to no end and hasn't cost them much. So far. {The truth is that the US hasn't
won a war since we decided to constrain our military in Korea. They wanted to nuke China, and also wanted to use them in
Vietnam.}
This an enduring myth that was created to salve the psych wound of being beaten by 'inferior' yellow-man.
Other than using atomic bombs, there were no constraints on US military. US military was given a free hand to bomb and destroy
anything and everything, including civilian targets* in both wars.
As to nukes.
China had no nukes during Korean war, but Soviet Union did.
First SU nuke test: Aug 1949.
First US thermonuke test: Nov 1952
First SU thermonuke test: Aug 1953.
POTUS Truman fired delusional Gen McArthur because he knew SU would most certainly use tac nukes in Korea if US did.
If you recall, Truman had no compunction using nukes on civilian targets, so he must have had good reason to restrain the crazy
generals.
Same with Viet Nam: yes US military wanted to nuke Hanoi in desperation, but cooler civilian heads prevailed. Again, there
was near-certainty that SU would respond in kind in Viet Nam.
--
* targeted deliberately: war crimes.
'" If China is not going to solve North Korea , we will."
With this porky pie,
Trump becomes the 45th 'bald faced liars' elected by the murkkans.
And .
With the bombing of Syria, Yemen
Trump joins the 'prestigious' ranks of the previous 44 war criminals in WH.
Lots of murkkans , the Trumpsters, are crying foul, They are 'betrayed' by Trump who now 'surrender to the deep state',
'the neocons have finally gotten to Trump', blah blah blah .
B.S. --
Astute obsevers like Vltchek, Engdahl, Draistser ..reminded murkkans about the exercise in futility in the 'election circus'
long ago.
Mathematically, Ian Fleming's fundamental law of probability practically guarantees that the 45th POTUS would be same as
the old boss, MIC front man who speaks with forked tongue.
As the pathetic hack Fareed Zakaria of Times magazine would gush after the Syria bombing, ' With this act, Trump has
just become POTUS ' He didnt know how right he's, hehehehe
Why not allow that? That will not sit very well with American global full spectrum dominance and end the day that American
can commit war crimes, crimes against peace and crimes against humanity on the phantom WMD allegation as humanitarian intervention.
I picked up a batch of old Rollingstone magazines from my local library for pennies to use as bathroom/breakfast reading. One
issue had Matt Taibbi following Trump on the campaign trail while still battling for the Republican party nomination. In this
leg of his tour he talked about how big insurance conglomerates were setting the prices to their liking and how he as president
would bust them up etc.. Then came the commentary from Duck Dynasty types on how they are sick and tired of paying high premiums
and so on. It gave me a minor epiphany, namely that this guy is, was and always will be full of shit in other words nothing but
a super salesman.
While I was happy that he blew away the syphilitic structure of the mainstream parties and the press I now realize that the
volatile and insane world now has a monkey with a machine gun in a major position of power. This can't end well.
The Great Pumpkin cut his jib by beating up other businessmen in the vicious world of East coast real estate. In this world
he had the MacArthur motto for there being 'no substitute for victory'. If he transmogrifies his business instincts onto the world
stage, stock up on rice and beans (and iodine tablets).
The simple scenario germane to this article is if Trump deploys a carrier fleet even closer to the proximity of the Norks.
Who thinks fat boy Jong-Un is sane? Ivanka? Sending even just conventional missiles across the bow is well within his mental construct.
With their faulty accuracy they could accidentally hit the target. A carrier sunk. What options does Trump have now? None really.
It's show time and by probable extension, "overture, curtains, lights, this is it night of nights..."
To those interested in the Korean War, I highly recommend David Halberstam's posthumous book, The Coldest Winter: America
and the Korean War. It is not a standard military chronicle instead a spellbinding journalistic read. Major theme, MacArthur's
super ego, pomposity and geo-political ignorance resulting in catastrophe. American troops experienced the thrill of Stalingrad.
In an eerie way, Trump now has a chance of becoming American Caesar 2.0 and in the very same playground. History repeats, rhymes
whatever....
Cheers- The only book I've read on the Korean War is IF Stone's firsthand account, The Hidden History of the Korean War.
It is absolutely staggering. Why was it fought? No reason. It was a military exercise for MacArthur, just kind of for the hell
of it.
If there were ever a Just Cause for the Yanks to invade and bring democracy somewhere, it would be North Korea. The horrors
that generations of North Koreans in concentration camps are enduring, would even make the holo-jews cringe.
Then again, is Israel ready to take a second row seat on the holocaust narrative and let the North Koreans take the gold
medal of international victimhood?
And what do you do with millions of people coping with culture shock, paranoia, etc.? And, last but not least, who would
make our clothing for 5 cents a piece?
All in all. I do not think the Israeli's would let the USA attack North Korea.
Zero chance of any attack on Korea beyond a prearranged choreographed pinprick. The explanation is simple: nothing in it for the
Jooies and Izzies who worked overtime to install a US government of the jooies, by the jooies, for the jooies. Why would they
waste their satrap's assets when they could be used on Iran?
"... The intervention triggers resentment and hostility at the new government, the legitimacy of which is reduced through the participation of an outside government. ..."
"... In late 2015, Eren Erdem, a Turkish MP, said in Parliament that the Turkish state was permitting Da'esh to send sarin precursors to Syria. He had a file of evidence, so was accused of treason for accessing and publicizing confidential material. The investigation into the people responsible for the transfer of toxic chemicals was shut down. ..."
"... Al-Assad is certainly capable of murdering opponents, and not bothering too much about collateral damage, but strategically it makes no sense for him to do this now, when peace talks under the aegis of Russia and Iran have begun, and the world is watching. Also, Assad has been engaged in a reconciliation process, allowing members of the FSA to return to the Syrian army, and Aleppans remain in Damascus if they didn't wish to go to Idlib. At such a juncture, using chemical weapons would be counter-productive. If Sarin was used at his command, he should be properly prosecuted: but bombing a Syrian air base merely assists Da'esh and its cronies. ..."
"... I have just watched the press conference in which Trump labelled Assad a butcher, and went on again about dead babies. I just wish that someone at one of these conferences would have the guts to point out to Trump his own butchery. ..."
"... Anyone watching this performance would think that US forces had never been responsible for killing innocent civilians, men, women, children and babies. To listen to Trump, you wouldn't think that US forces had ever killed over 150 civilians in Mosul, dozens in Raqqa, or had bombed hospitals in Afghanistan, or schools in Iraq, or were supporting the Saudi blockade of Yemen resulting in the starvation of children and babies, or had destroyed wedding parties with drones,.....I could go on. ..."
"... If Assad is a butcher, he is only a junior, apprentice, corner-shop butcher. Trump is the real thing, the large-scale, wholesale, expert butcher. ..."
"... Gotta get that pipeline in for the Saudi's, eh, no matter how many children's carcasses it crosses, yay, regime change again, yay, and a heap of new terrorists for our kids in the west to dodge and duck, yay. ..."
"... Despite the several misrepresentations, the facts are that Britain has been one of the main protagonists in prosecuting this war against Syria , which is a proxy war against Iran. ..."
"... Britain was at the forefront in setting up the Al Nusra Front and in hosting the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights to disseminate deeply negative propaganda about the Syrian Government and armed forces. ..."
"... Every step of this including the media campaign which has comprised a major part of the military campaign against Syria, has been an attempt to delegitimize the Sovereign government and its institutions and to gain consensus from the somnambulistic British and US public for yet another direct military campaign against another Middle Eastern country. ..."
"... Assad's removal would be catastrophic. There would be no stable government in Syria, it would be controlled by warlords backed by Saudi Arabia, al-Qaeda or ISIS and millions of refugees would have no country to return to or to live in. This will mean more refugees in Europe, more destabilisation and more money drained from our treasuries. ..."
The intervention triggers resentment and hostility at the new government, the legitimacy of which is reduced through the participation
of an outside government.
Soon, the new regime is considered a "puppet" and its existence is questioned by the people. Interestingly, the Middle East has
proven particularly resistant to durable regime change and democratization, further making the success of any US-led intervention
doubtful.
The situation will be even more fraught if other external actors turn any attempt at regime change into a proxy war, as Russia
and Iran are likely to do. The US experienced the downside of this during the ill-conceived war in Vietnam. During the Soviet-led
war in Afghanistan, the US played the spoiler of Soviet efforts, funnelling money and weapons to the anti-Soviet mujahideen, turning
the USSR's intervention into a protracted, bloody war.
Prof Michael John Williams is Director of the International Relations Program at New York University.
Instead, the western powers have followed the example cited by Machiavelli: "in order to prove their liberality, they allowed
Pistoia to be destroyed."
In late 2015, Eren Erdem, a Turkish MP, said in Parliament that the Turkish state was permitting Da'esh to send sarin precursors
to Syria. He had a file of evidence, so was accused of treason for accessing and publicizing confidential material. The investigation
into the people responsible for the transfer of toxic chemicals was shut down.
That surely ought to make us at least ask evidence-seeking questions about the Idlib gas attack before yet again demanding
regime change.
Al-Assad is certainly capable of murdering opponents, and not bothering too much about collateral damage, but strategically
it makes no sense for him to do this now, when peace talks under the aegis of Russia and Iran have begun, and the world is watching.
Also, Assad has been engaged in a reconciliation process, allowing members of the FSA to return to the Syrian army, and Aleppans
remain in Damascus if they didn't wish to go to Idlib. At such a juncture, using chemical weapons would be counter-productive.
If Sarin was used at his command, he should be properly prosecuted: but bombing a Syrian air base merely assists Da'esh and its
cronies.
I have just watched the press conference in which Trump labelled Assad a butcher, and went on again about dead babies. I just
wish that someone at one of these conferences would have the guts to point out to Trump his own butchery.
Anyone watching this performance would think that US forces had never been responsible for killing innocent civilians,
men, women, children and babies. To listen to Trump, you wouldn't think that US forces had ever killed over 150 civilians in Mosul,
dozens in Raqqa, or had bombed hospitals in Afghanistan, or schools in Iraq, or were supporting the Saudi blockade of Yemen resulting
in the starvation of children and babies, or had destroyed wedding parties with drones,.....I could go on.
If Assad is a butcher, he is only a junior, apprentice, corner-shop butcher. Trump is the real thing, the large-scale,
wholesale, expert butcher.
...Indeed, Richard Spencer last week protested outside the White House against the airstrikes on the regime airbase carrying a
sign that read "No more wars 4 Israel."
Syria's ruling Baath party and its allies won a majority of seats in parliamentary elections last week across government-held
parts of the country, the national electoral commission announced late Saturday.
Who are the rebels supported by Washington and Westminster?
And we're going to learn a lot more about the "rebels" whom we in the West – the US, Britain and our head-chopping mates
in the Gulf – have been supporting.
They did, after all, include al-Qaeda (alias Jabhat al-Nusra, alias Jabhat Fateh al-Sham), the "folk" – as George W Bush
called them – who committed the crimes against humanity in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania on 11 September 2001. Remember
the War on Terror? Remember the "pure evil" of al-Qaeda. Remember all the warnings from our beloved security services in the
UK about how al-Qaeda can still strike terror in London?
Gotta get that pipeline in for the Saudi's, eh, no matter how many children's carcasses it crosses, yay, regime change again,
yay, and a heap of new terrorists for our kids in the west to dodge and duck, yay.
I agree that Bashar al-Assad is not a "good person". It is impossible to be an authoritarian leader, struggling to maintain the
unity, or even existence, of a nation state, and at the same time be a kind and gentle person. However, I do not believe him to
be the psychopathic monster that he is portrayed as being, either. He is almost certainly not personally responsible for the chemical
attack in Idlib province.
Presidents do not normally make detailed decisions on what sort of weapons should be used on every airstrike made by their
aircraft. He may be a dictator, but he is not a complete imbecile. Even the dimmest of politicians could have foreseen that this
chemical attack would end up being a massive own-goal. Nobody as cynically calculating as Assad is supposed to be, would be that
stupid. My own hunch, (and that is all it is) is that sarin was used due to a blunder by a low or medium ranking Syrian airforce
officer.
Yes, of course Assad bears responsibility for overall strategy in this vicious war of survival, and as such, has blood on his
hands. But, so does Trump, so does Obama, so does Putin so does Erdogan, so does May, and so do all the leaders who have supplied
the numerous rebel groups with billions of pounds worth of weapons, and have therefore kept the pot boiling.
Last year, Theresa May stood up in parliament and proudly proclaimed her willingness to commit mass indiscriminate murder on
a scale that would make Syria look like a pinprick. She declared her willingness to press the nuclear button and therefore slaughter
hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of completely innocent men, women, children and babies. She not only has blood on her
hands, she is proud of it. Perhaps we should remember that, when she comes out with one of her sanctimonious, nauseatingly hypocritical
statements about Syria.
Assad was democratically elected more than once so he must be doing something right. (OK, so they're democracy might not be our
democracy but 'our' democracy has brought us Trump, Brexit and the like so its really six to one, a half dozen to the other).
Syria until we started messing with it -- creating, supporting and even arming opposition groups -- was stable, wasn't messing
with its neighbors and had significant religious and cultural freedoms compared to other countries in the area. (Our actions might
suggest that we really don't want stable, peaceful, countries in that region, we need them to be weak and riven by internal factions.)
Anyway, given our outstanding track record of success with regime change in that part of the world we should probably adopt
a hands-off approach -- all we seem to do is make an unsatisfactory situation dire. Hardly the way to win friends and influence
people.
Despite the several misrepresentations, the facts are that Britain has been one of the main protagonists in prosecuting this
war against Syria , which is a proxy war against Iran.
Britain was at the forefront in setting up the Al Nusra Front and in hosting the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights to
disseminate deeply negative propaganda about the Syrian Government and armed forces.
Every step of this including the media campaign which has comprised a major part of the military campaign against Syria,
has been an attempt to delegitimize the Sovereign government and its institutions and to gain consensus from the somnambulistic
British and US public for yet another direct military campaign against another Middle Eastern country.
The whole which has visited terrible and incalculable suffering, on the Syrian people. Syria was a paradise before the British
and US did their usual work. The journalists, government and security services in Britain who have wrought this mess , I'm sure
will not escape the consequences of their actions. One hopes they experience a 1000 times of the hell they have visited on Syria.
These actions are truly despicable acts of cowardice and absolute wickedness.
Syria was a paradise for those who rule Syria........ the Assad regime brutally repressed any opposition to their rule. In 1982
Assad´s father killed probably more than 30,000 in the siege of Hama. As well as sheltering a number of terrorist organisations
who have their headquarters in Damascus....... he also armed and supported the fledgling Al-Quaeda resistance to the coalition
in Iraq, giving them asylum in Syria........now the IS ....... I can think of Paradise in different ways......
The prosecution of a Swedish national accused of terrorist activities in Syria has collapsed at the Old Bailey after it
became clear Britain's security and intelligence agencies would have been deeply embarrassed had a trial gone ahead, the Guardian
can reveal.
His lawyers argued that British intelligence agencies were supporting the same Syrian opposition groups as he was, and were
party to a secret operation providing weapons and non-lethal help to the groups, including the Free Syrian Army.
Leaked emails from the private intelligence firm Stratfor including notes from a meeting with Pentagon officials confirmed
US-UK training of Syrian opposition forces since 2011 aimed at eliciting "collapse" of Assad's regime "from within."
More guff from the guardian/ Mr Williams, with just a little realistic sense, but who can replace Assad and in Syria he remains
very popular, despite the western media like lies!
Russia has to move quickly to secure a 100 year lease for the Latakia port and airbase. Otherwise the US will soon attempt to
render it useless as well, regardless of which of the moderate rebel factions it decides to install.
... Spirits die hard, and those of the Arab spring and the Orange Revolution are still alive in the halls of the Pentagon.
.... A controlled cold war however, is the only way to a avoid a larger mess than what the West has already inflicted on the
innocent Syrian people by using the most abortive war design that has ever been conceived by the war college or any other war
commander.
...... At the current rate there will be more Syrians in Germany than those remaining in Syria.
......... Is it hard to wonder why Syrians might hold a grudge against the, US?
Regime change ? All in the name of democracy as we see it.Why not try it in the Kingdom of family owned country KSA or why not
another family owned enterprises called UAE.
History tells us replacing Assad would be a bad idea. We should have learned the lesson with Hussain and Iraq, but didn't. We
would go on to replace Gaddafi of Libya and boom, it trigged ISIS.
The hard lesson here is that for some reason Muslim majority countries have a strong central authoritarian leader. No matter
if that leaders is called president, king, prime minister, or whatever. When that strong leaders is deposed, chaos ensues.
The Americans have a fetish with regime change. Up until recently they were discrete about it and did it in secret, now they are
all in the open. People who are against regime change are considered anti-Americans and tools of the Soviets...ahm.... Russia.
The amazing thing is Tillerson said Assad's faith should be left with the Syrian people, the American establishment in unison
said how could he says such a terrible thing, "we should decide what Syrian people want."
These are the same people who elected
Trump, maybe they should let Syrian people select the US president. The result may end up better.
> Bashar al-Assad is not a good person. He has reduced once great Syrian cities such as Homs and Aleppo to rubble. All six
of Syria's Unesco world heritage sites have been damaged. Worse still, more than 500,000 Syrian civilians have been killed
in the civil war, 6.1 million have been internally displaced and another 4.8 million are seeking refuge abroad.
Yes, Assad is not a good person. But what about American politicians such as Hillary Clinton, who armed "moderate rebels" and
supported the opposition in pursuit of regime change? And Syria is not the only country were this happened. Will there ever any
responsibility taken for their actions by the US and NATO?
First, they make a manageable problem into a huge problem, then just hightail back home, living local people to pick up the
pieces.
Those half millions of deaths - are they all responsibility of Assad or do the sponsors of jihadists and jihadists themselves
have some responsibility as well?
A. A horrible authoritarian regime that tortures and murders it's opponents...........but women can wear what they like in
public, get a good education courtesy of the State, and embark on a career.
B. A horrible authoritarian regime that tortures and murders it's opponents...........where women are denied education, made
virtual prisoners in their own homes, and have acid flung in their faces for having the temerity to appear unveiled when they
do go out in public.
It's not a great choice, but one is definitely better than the other.
Also worth remembering that under Assad people are allowed religious freedom. I know two Syrian Christians who are terrified of
what will happen if the rebels take control of their country.
Choice B also includes Sharia law, full extermination of other faiths and death sentence for rejection of Islam. Basically Choice
B is another Saudi Arabia, but a lot of people will have to die first.
The world's biggest superpower is willing to risk a nuclear war with mass destruction of billions and possible extinction of life
on earth on an unproven assertion made by Al Qaeda sympathisers that the Syrian government bombed them with sarin? OBL must be
laughing in his grave.
1. Who is threatening a nuclear war? The Russians? I haven't heard them threaten that. Probably because no-one would seriously
believe them.
2. An intellectually honest person should not describe young children as terrorist sympathisers. Let alone imply they somehow
deserve to be deliberately targeted by nerve gas as a result.
An intellectually honest person should question the veracity of a report that is unverified by a terrorist organisation. The children
were never described by me as 'terrorist sympathisers' so you make a dishonest accusation, the terrorist sympathisers are those
who produced the report on which the whole story is based. It is not about the death of the children which is of course a crime,
but they are being used by the terrorists for thier purposes.
An intellectually honest person would also show outrage about the mass murder of civilians, including children in Mosul and
by a US bombing in Syria that seem to not arouse the same outrage.
Regime change by US has been used at least three times against democracies, in Chili, in Iran and in Ukraine. Attempted regime
change has also been used often in South America to oust populist rulers because of US interests. Although the above analysis
raises the very good point that change has to come from the bottom up, it starts with the same fallacies of assuming that all
of the death and destruction in Syria comes from one person which is an extremely flawed point to start from. The point that is
to be made is that there is no military solution to the conflict except in an anti terrorist capacity. The problem is that all
of those against the Syrian government in the current conflict are either outright terrorists or those who collaborate heavily
with terrorists making it difficult to have a conventional peace process.
America engaged in regime changes to suit American interests during the cold war and the New world order drive. The fact that
they supported dictatorships worldwide and helped them overthrow democratically elected governments tells clearly that imposing
democracy forcibly was not their intention. Intervention in global conflicts is mainly for controlling pathways for resources
and gaining ground for business opportunities for their multinational giant corporations.
The West's narrative has fallen apart, nobody believes that the Syrian rebels are peace loving democrats. We have ample evidence
that they are infinitely worse than Assad.
We also have plenty of evidence that the Western deep state, not the public, wants another regime change in the middle east
and will stop at nothing to achieve its end including false flag gas attacks. This article goes into detail.
False Flag: How the U.S. Armed Syrian Rebels to Set Up an Excuse to Attack Assad
Evidence suggests a false flag chemical weapons attack on the Syrian people was initiated by Syrian rebels with the help
of the United States in order to justify Thursday night's U.S. Military attack on a Syrian base.
The Left is very opposed to war in Syria, the Libertarian right is very opposed to war in Syria but a hugely powerful Deep
State will stop at nothing to achieve its ends.
"Worse still, more than 500,000 Syrian civilians have been killed in the civil war, 6.1 million have been internally displaced
and another 4.8 million are seeking refuge abroad. "
well, you cannot put the blame on Assad only. He never asked for that war for a start and a lot of the refugees you're talking
about may very well be pro-Assad.
Finally an article which still sticks to logical thinking when it comes to Syria. Assad is a terrible leader but atleast with
him, most of the factions within the country can be sorted. The West's obsession with stuffing democracy down the throats of every
oil producing country in the Middle East has resulted in the Mad Max wasteland i.e. Libya and the unsolvable puzzle i.e. Iraq.
Both Gaddafi and Saddam were terrible human beings but removing them left a vacuum which has cost the lives of thousands and displaced
millions. The West must make its peace with Assad for now, stop supporting the rebels and try to find common ground with Russia
against the real enemy - ISIS.
The west - as the US/UK like to themselves, couldn't give a damn about democracy . They want compliance , not democracy. A good(brutal)
dictator is better than a 'difficult' democratically elected leader , look at events in Egypt for example.
Our own democracies are pretty ropey, certainly not up there with the Scandinavian best practice.
You're kidding right? The West stuffing democracy down the throats of the Gulf countries. More like defending them against the
threat of democracy by arming them to the teeth and stationing troops there. Have you heard of Bahrain?
The only plausible solution to this conflict is partition assuming of course the imminent defeat of Isis.
While getting rid of Assad would create a dangerous power vacuum and is in any case perhaps impossible given Russias backing,
the sheer scale of the killing he's done and destruction he's unleashed on his own people - of a totally different scale to Saddam
Hussein and even his father, from whom he seems to have inherited his psychopathic tendencies -renders the idea that he could
continue to rule a "united" Syria or even the majority of it, laughable.
If you get rid of Assad, whoever replaces him is going to have a very difficult task. How on Earth do you enforce any sort of
civilized law and order in a country which has some of the worst terrorist organizations the world has ever known. With organizations
like ISIS around, a government is gong to need to take a firm hand somewhere. It's not as if you can send Jihadists on community
service and expect them to come back as reformed characters.
Fact is that Assad still enjoys considerable support among Syrians. In particular among those who have no problem with a woman
going to the beach in a bikini and driving a car to work. He is not giong anywhere soon. And if he did, the situation would be
worse. As in the case of the butcher Saddam Hussein and the crazy dictator Khadaffi, who also were supposedly removed in an attempt
to bring "freedom and democracy to the people."
Syria was one of the few countries in the ME where you could drink alcohol. Does anyone believe whoever follows Assad be
it someone picked by the US/Israel/KSA/Qatar will be quite so tolerant?
Why can't world leaders be held to account for their crimes against humanity? Is it not about time that they are compelled to
comply with international law and for the United Nations Assembly to make them so by enforceable resolutions passed by a majority
vote?
Assad is a tyrant who should be removed from office and held accountable for his crimes against humanity. Syrians should be
entitled to a government that is respectful of their human rights.
The UN should take responsibility for enforcing a permanent ceasefire and brokering talks to secure Syria's future. It should
require as a condition of UN membership compliance with and adherence to international law protecting human rights. Non compliance
should be met with expulsion and the economic isolation of the country concerned from the rest of the world.
There is no shortcut to lasting peace. As uncomfortable as it is, the best that western governments can do is provide aid
and assistance to those in distress, while pressuring those countries that continue to feed money and weapons to the combatants
to change their positions.
You are absolutely right.
Such a pity then that the western governments in question, the UK, America and to a lesser extent, France, are in fact the
same entities, via their surrogate power in the middle east, Saudi Arabia, who are the ones providing the weapons and money.
Just as they did in Iraq and Libya, and always for the same reason, to achieve regime change against the Middle Eastern leaders
who were threatening their control of the oil market.
This situation is nothing new, these Western Powers have been attacking various parts of the Middle East for nigh on a century.
Winston Churchill was responsible for bombing Iraq in the 1920's. That also was to achieve regime change.
All of the deaths and the destruction in the Middle East can ultimately be laid at the door of the 'Western Powers' and their
willingness to do anything to protect their oil interests.
One of the most despicable thing about the West's attempts to bribe, entice and force Russia into abandoning the Syrian Government,
so that America, France, Britain and Saudi Arabia can rush in, like hyenas to finish off a wounded animal, is how patronising
they have been towards the Russians and Iranians. Granted that their racism towards the Russians might not be what it is towards
the Syrian state, which they want to deny a voice and disrespect to the extent of talking to the Russians, and ignoring the Syrian
government.
Yes, the West is behaving towards the Syrian state as if it is just something for it to manipulate, as it does with the global
economy. Not having made any progress in manipulating the Syrian proxy conflict into the outcomes it wants, the West has now resorted
to making merciless and unjustified attacks on Russian and the Iranians. Despite the fact that it is Russia and the Syrian government
forces and their Hezbollah allies who have broken the impasse in this terrible war.
It is scurrilous that there should now be this coordinated media and political campaign to make Russia out to be 'the bad guy',
the 'devil', as it were.
As for 'the liberals', well, guess what, if you want to do something constructive. Then stop blaming Russia and demonising
the Russians, the Syrian Government and their allies. Look closer to home, to America, To Britain, to France and Saudi Arabia.
There you will find more demons disguised as 'humanitarians' and 'angels' than probably in all of Russia and Syria.
The guys in the West who are posturing as angels are no less culpable than the Syrian government.
Of course the West should not destroy the Syrian state and government. But, since when has logic prevented this cartel from
exercising its destructive force? As Libya, Iraq and Yemen have proven? The liberals need to grow up and stop being allied to
the right.
Firstly, we have yet to see the results of any impartial investigation checking out the Syrian/Russian version of events about
the gas in Idlib province, which could be true. Nobody that I can see is 'supporting' the use of gas against civilians, but it
is known that the bigger terrorist organisations such as ISIS and al Qaeda do have stocks of poison gas. Secondly,so many uninformed
commentators have not understood that Syria's 6 year war has been and remains a religious war! Asad's Shiite/ Alawite/Christian/
Druse/ Ismaili communities and other minorities supported by Iran and Lebanon's Shiites, fighting for their very survival against
Saudi/ Qatari/Gulf States' extremist Wahhabi fighters, who via ISIS ,Al Qaeda and similar Islamists, want to wipe them off the
face of the earth (with Turkey playing a double game). At this very moment people are condemning Assad for bombing civilians,
whilst the US-led coalition including our own RAF, is doing exactly the same thing in the ISIS held city of Mosul -for the same
reasons. The rebels take over and then surround themselves in cities, with civilians, hoping that these horrors will raise western
public opinion against the government forces trying to defeat them. The 'half- informed' public opinion is now behaving in exactly
this predictable way against the Syrian government, trying to deal with its own religious extremist rebels, many of whom are not
even Syrians. It was always a war that the west should stay out of -other peoples religious wars are incomprehensible to non-believers
in that particular faith. To talk now of replacing Asad is juvenile and mischievous - maybe that's why Boris is so engaged?
There is an equality of evil between Assad and ISIS. That said, Assad's forces and their Shia allies have slaughtered the vast
majority of the victims.
Both Assad and ISIS will lose eventually. How many Syrians are slaughtered in the meantime is anyone's guess.
Why murderous dictators are so popular btl is a mystery.
According to Wikipedia Estimates of deaths in the Syrian Civil War, per opposition activist groups, vary between 321,358
and 470,000.
On 23 April 2016, the United Nations and Arab League Envoy to Syria put out an estimate of 400,000 that had died in the war.
Also,according to Wikipedia I n 2016, the United Nations (UN) identified 13.5 million Syrians requiring humanitarian assistance,
of which more than 6 million are internally displaced within Syria, and over 4.8 million are refugees outside of Syria. In January
2017, UNHCR counted 4,863,684 registered refugees.
Turkey is the largest host country of registered refugees with over 2.7 million Syrian refugees.
Before the troubles,Syria had a population of 23 million.
No country could go back to normality after that upheaval.
That's because politics is heartlessly, ruthlessly, compassionlessly pragmatic. If having a pet local petty king in the area keeps
it stable and does not a politically costly military operation, everything else is seen as "acceptable collateral damage".
It's funny but western foreign policy is fundamentally the same in the methods, just different in goals. If the goal of regime
change is achieved and political points collected, everything else is completely irrelevant. Opposition can become "moderately
islamist", "democratic" rebels may implement sharia law, "precision strikes" may cause tens of thousands of civilian casualties,
but it's all for the greater good.
Every time the West especially the Anglo west of the USA and Britain intervene in another countries affairs, the end product is
a disaster so for that reason alone these two societies which can only communicate in English should leave this to the Russians.
This almost manages to achieve sense, and it's good to see an article not promoting regime change for once, but it still falls
short of stating the truth that the correct policy in Syria is to help Assad win the war, and then impose conditions on his conduct
in the peace.
He has reduced once great Syrian cities such as Homs and Aleppo to rubble. All six of Syria's Unesco world heritage sites
have been damaged.
I must now begrudgingly thank the Trump Administration for causing me to realize a profound and universal truth. History doesn't
rhyme at all; it parodies.
The build up to our inevitable Syria invasion is essentially an SNL parody of our Iraq invasion. All the way down to allegations
of to "hidden stockpiles of WMDs", "gassing own citizens", "violation of no WMD agreement", "weapons inspectors not doing job",
and most recently "Assad/Saddam is Hitler". All that's left is the final piece of evidence to tip public opinion in...the holy
grail, "yellowcake uranium".
I'm not sure exactly what comes next (presumably Trump declaring an "Axis of Evil" consisting of Syria, ISIS, Iran, N.Korea...and
perhaps Russia and/or China or both...thus setting the stage for a hilarious parody of WWII).
Perhaps dear Boris should have had more talks with the British government to find out what is the political position of the conservative
government over Syria, and more importantly with Russia. So far the American have by the look of things, telling the British Government
in what they want, not bothering to ask what Britain thinks what is important.
There is actually no point in swapping one master the EU, to handcuff ourselves to the a far more right wing America.
Take Isil and jihadists out of the equation and what you're left with are people that want to oust a tyrannical and unelected
leader who clearly has nothing but disdain for his people (groups of at least).
Those rebels (or freedom fighters) are being seen as the bad guys it seems to me...?
The only reason I can see for this is that they have slight support from the United States.
Had the boot been on the other foot and the US we're supporting Assad and Russia,the rebels (freedom fighters) I'm quite sure
public opinion (Guardian readers at least) would be quite different.
So what do the Syrian rebels who are looking to overthrow a dictator have to do to be put on a pedestal of righteousness as
Castro was for effectively trying to achieve the same end goal....
Oh, that's right, Castro was trying to stick it to the Yanks.... now I get it.
I think there's a definite strain of anti-Americanism on display however cautiously we have to view their actions after Iraq and
give their closeness to the Gulf States. A quarter of the country has fled Assad, some 10 million internally displaced not to
mention the incredible numbers of dead and wounded.
And yet there's a close minded reflex to say that things will be better off with him in charge ignoring even the possibility
of partition, which strikes me as the most plausible option. The idea that Assad can now after all he's done rule a united country
indefinitely putting a lid on refugees and terrorism strikes me as utterly preposterous.
My sentiments entirely and it shocks me that there are a considerable number of Assad apologists commenting on here as he is clearly
seen as a better 'devil' than Trump...
I'm just very pleased I don't live in Syria and I think the run of the mill Syrian dying in their droves due to gas, bombs
or simply drowning in the Med would be horrified to read a large number of comments on here in relation to this article and how
Assad 'isn't such a bad old stick!'
Take Isil and jihadists out of the equation and what you're left with
what you are left is nothing. This was the big point since 2013, when Nusra began taking over the last remnants of the FSA. Since
then Cameron (or was it Hammond) had to coin the term "relatively hardline islamists" to make some of the jihadi groups somewhat
acceptable.
In its latest iteration, Nusra (now rebranded yet againTahrir al-Sham) has formally absorbed several other "rebel" group, including
the Nour al-Din al-Zenki, who were in the past equipped by the US, and were quoted by various agencies (including this paper)
as "opposition" during the recapture of Aleppo.
Ah, yes, you also have the Kurds, who are building their own state. But if there is something all the local powers agree on
(Russia, US, Turkey, Syria, Iraq...) is that they don't want an independent Kurdish state.
President Obama was heavily criticized for not doing more in Syria, but he made a difficult decision that was in many ways
the right on.
Obama required cover from the British Parliament. Bombing Syria was incredibly unpopular with the UK public from right to left.
David Miliband listened to the public and stopped the bombing of Syria. Nobody expected a Labour politician to dare to oppose
the US war machine, it took them all by surprise.
Bombing Syria was incredibly unpopular with the US public and the European public, Miliband saved us from ISIS and Al Nusra
both al Qaeda franchises running Syria.
The BBC routinely portrays the Libertarian right wing in the USA as Isolationists but if you hear it from them they are anti-war.
The American working class understands what war is like in the middle east because many of them have experienced it. They are
clearly anti another war in the middle east. proof:
You could argue this isn't about regime change per se but prosecuting a dictator for targeting and massacring civilians. And surely
the same rationale can be used against Isis. In other words you don't allow mass murderers to take. Over but prosecute them as
well.
Good article. Hits the nail on the head. Regime change may be required for Syria the G7 and Arab countries must come together
to carefully plan what happens afterwards.
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our
community standards . Replies may also be deleted.
For more detail see our FAQs .
'Monster' Assad was courted by western leaders: Remember the Assads pictured taking tea at Buckingham Palace with the Queen(google
it) , Blair all smiles in Damascus. The Kerry family pictured in Damascus enjoying a late evening supper with the Assads(google
it).
But Bashar al-Assad is a stubborn man , he wouldn't distance himself from Iran and their proxies such as Hezbollah, thus his
fate was sealed.
Well it's all tied in . People talk about Israel wanting the Golan Heights permanently in part due to oil interests, they talk
about Qatar and the gas pipeline to Europe Assad refuses. They talk about the KSA being unnerved by Iran's growing influence in
the region after the Iraq war, and how it would suit KSA , Israel and the US for Sunni leadership to emerge in Syria to rebalance
the region.
I think it's all of the above . Which isn't what US/UK populations are being told.
The West learns nothing from its mistakes. Can't we understand that our real enemy is ISIS and that springs directly from our
disastrous invasion of Iraq? Assad may be pretty awful but surely we should be able to comprehend that he is an ally in the fight
against ISIS just as the far more horrible Stalin was an ally against the Nazis.
Just because Trump suddenly talks about "beautiful babies", we all go mad again.
Syria is going to need serious amounts of aid and foreign investment to recover when peace starts to take hold. But Assad cannot
travel internationally because he will be subject to arrest. At least in any civilised country. So he will be gone one way or
antithetical. Putin has backed the wrong horse. It's too handicapped to run.
Until the Saudis, US & UK decide that enough is enough, then this idiocy will continue. Assad is a better leader for Syria than
Isis, Al Qaeda, or the other Saudi-backed groups would be.
Syria was secular and religiously tolerant under Assad. It won't be either of those things if Assad is deposed. More than likely,
it would end up as a Saudi-style Islamic theocracy with the harshest head-chopping, hand-chopping version of sharia law.
He has reduced once great Syrian cities like Homs and Aleppo to rubble
Did Assad deliberately bring his country into civil war? When his forces are being attacked by rebels sponsored by foreign
groups, he really only has two choices: give up leadership and allow the rebels to take over the country, or fight back. Given
that you're arguing that a regime change is a bad idea it logically follows that you support the second option, so it hardly seems
fair to criticise him for the consequences of that resistance. You might do better to blame the rebels and those who sponsor them
for bringing war to what was previously a (relatively) peaceful country.
This Regime Change Policy adopted by the US and in many, if not all cases, supported by the UK, whilst in some case toppling Dictators,
has left nothing but chaos in its wake.
We need to consider the case of Syria, very carefully, as we may well find ourselves handing the Country to ISIL on a plate.
Better to help Assad stabilise the Country, and then discuss political change.
The rhetoric coming from the Foreign and Defence Secretaries, can do nothing to help, but make the UK look stupid.
Hahahahaha, collude with crimes against humanity in the name of stability and call it progress because after six years we cannot
think of an alternative. Great.
He has reduced once great Syrian cities like Homs and Aleppo to rubble
Did Assad deliberately bring his country into civil war? When his forces are being attacked by rebels sponsored by foreign
groups, he really only has two choices: give up leadership and allow the rebels to take over the country, or fight back. Given
that you're arguing that a regime change is a bad idea it logically follows that you support the second option, so it hardly seems
fair to criticise him for the consequences of that resistance. You might do better to blame the rebels and those who sponsor them
for bringing war to what was previously a (relatively) peaceful country.
This Regime Change Policy adopted by the US and in many, if not all cases, supported by the UK, whilst in some case toppling Dictators,
has left nothing but chaos in its wake.
We need to consider the case of Syria, very carefully, as we may well find ourselves handing the Country to ISIL on a plate.
Better to help Assad stabilise the Country, and then discuss political change.
The rhetoric coming from the Foreign and Defence Secretaries, can do nothing to help, but make the UK look stupid.
Hahahahaha, collude with crimes against humanity in the name of stability and call it progress because after six years we cannot
think of an alternative. Great.
Absolutely no... it will be a colossal disaster... and would explode the entire region affecting not only all ME countries
including Israel, but will extend to Europe and NA, You can't keep it all "Over There"
Regime change, evidently the US has n't learned from the past experience. Look at Iraq, Lybia, regime change has resulted in complete
chaos, instability, and perpetual conflict. Syrian population is strictly divided on sectarian line - Sunnis, Shias, Christians,
Kurds. Who is going to make a cohesive government capable of running the affairs of the state? Bashar Assaad's father, Hafiz Assaad
ruled Syria with an iron grip, he understood Syrian sectarian divide.
If any country needs regime change, it is Saudi Arabia. All important positions are controlled by hundreds of Royals of Al Saud,
even honest criticism of royals brings you closer to the back swing of executioner .
My newsagent loves Assad. Why because he's a Syrian Christian. Assad is the only hope for the minority's in Syria. All of the
opposition groups are some variation on Islamic nationalists. They will all happily slaughter anyone not of their faith. Assad
is a murdering bastard but he kills those that threaten him. In Middle Eastern terms he's a liberal.
Quite right. What the people of Syria need is stability and an end to the fighting. All else is secondary. In particular, the
greatest crime that the West has committed in recent decades is the attempt to foist democracy on countries like Syria and Iraq,
where it simply does not work. Even now, Western liberals dream of sitting Sunni, Shia, Alevi, Kurds, secularists and Islamic
militants around a table to talk through to a democratic and mutually acceptable future for Syria. This is a fantasy - as democracy
always is in heavily tribalised societies. It can only end in renewed civil war and inevitable dictatorship. I often wonder whether
the West is just naive in these attempts at liberal cultural imperialism, or whether they are in fact a cynical front to mask
the equally egregious aim of checkmating Russian influence in the region. Either way, shame on us.
Now to be fair, no one knows really what the president is thinking, not even apparently his chief diplomat or his UN envoy, who
have sent conflicting messages. But let's cut to the chase – this is a very, very bad idea.
WW3 is definately a very very bad idea.
The idea that the US can change the government of another country for the better is born of US arrogance and lying manipulation.
It's a bit funny that we just casually mention that the country harping on about the respect of the international rule book sinc
2014 vaiolate one of the core UN charter principles 72 times and is openly speaking of braking it the 73th time.
Jsut picture China saying openly their goal is to change the Abe regime in Tokio or Russia to change the regime in Kiev. They
can't even have a pefered presidential candidate without mass interference hysteria and we just feel like it's A OK to go around
the world changing who's in charge of countries.
> They can't even have a pefered presidential candidate without mass interference hysteria and we just feel like it's A OK to
go around the world changing who's in charge of countries.
There are two main choices... Regime change... which hasn't worked out well where it's been attempted or just let the despots
get on with it...
There are no easy answers but perhaps the only way is to let dictators crush and annihilate their opposition, utilise death
squads to make dissenters disappear in the dead of night and, outwardly at least pretend everything is rosey....
If we, as a civilised society are able to 'look the other way' then that might be the simple answer... just hope everyone can
sleep well at night and be grateful that, however much you hate our present government they aren't out gassing (allegedly) Guardian
readers.
Not gassing people no, but still killing plenty of "innocent little babies" bombing hospitals and helping the Saudis cluster bomb
fishing villages. Why don't we see pictures on TV of Yemeni kids mutilated by American bombs? How do we sleep with that?
Well, we saw the aftermath of a deliberate attack by Saudis planes on a clearly demarcated Yemeni hospital on the BBC last year.
The first rocket hit an arriving ambulance with civilian casualties and a doctor on board. The response of the Saudi shills in
the Commons - what is it about the British upper class and the Arabs, I wonder - was to demand forcefully that the Saudis set
up an inquiry to examine the evidence of a war crime.
It should have been sadly obvious from the get-go that we had to back Assad before he attempted to beat his father's record
for murder and repression, the whole family's fucking insane, but it's long past too late now. He's soiled goods and Tillerson's
untutored idea of elections is surely farcical.
Fair article, although ISI and rebels actively participated in the destruction of Syria. If Assad falls, anarchy due to vacuum
will follow, guaranteed. Agree with the last paragraph in particular and still wondering why they (the West) don't do it especially
pressuring the countries that feed the rebels, and they are not so moderate, with money and weapon. Unless this is because of
the infamous pipeline. Tragic state of affair indeed.
Decade after decade, the west has interfered or overthrown government after governemnt , all over the world , mainly for the benefit
of capitalist puppeteers . America has been the worst , one only has to look at the CIA's track record in South America when legitimately
elected governments were ousted by force so that "American business" interest were looked after.
This same vested self interest has been the driving force over the last few years. The interventions in Iraq , Libya, Afghanistan
have all been total disasters fro the regions and resulted in more deaths than any tin pot dictator could have achieved. Backing
so called "moderate" terrorists seems to be the excuse to get involved.
More moral achievement and good could have been achieved by widespread dropping of food around the world , or even the cost
of the military hegemony being given as cash handouts to poor people , but this simplistic altruism does not allow for the geopolitical
control games that is the true beating heart of western aggression.
We are all Brexiteers now. I voted remain, but accept the democratic will of the people. Blame David Cameron and get on with the
job of making a success of it, rather than whining about it....
I'm just saying people making the case for the West to back off would probably be saying the opposite in that case if the white
minority were massacring black people on the scale of Syria. Isn't that hypocrisy?
The successful regime changes mentioned in the article such as Poland and the rest of the Eastern bloc were initiated by the people
themselves, rather than the the "help" of a foreign power.
The people did it all by themselves did they? So nothing to do with the economic collapse of the Soviet Union caused by an arms
race ramped up by President Reagan. Nothing to do with a very costly war in Afghanistan?
Given the situation, it is understandable why some people may think ousting Assad is necessary. Such thinking has a long pedigree
in the United States, where there is a robust belief in a supposed American ability to fix what is wrong.
Would you have said the same thing in 1917 and 1940. Would you have said the same thing in the duration of the cold war. If US
did not have a bigger penis then you would not be around to comment about it.
Long live the US penis and may it grow longer and stronger.
WW2 was won principally by the USSR, who suffered many more casualties than the western alliances. The cold war would not have
happened if not for the USA.
Sorry, the USA is more of a threat to the planet than any country, and Trump is unintelligent, a real threat to the world.
If the US wants Assad ousted, they should support a UN investigation to find out WHO was at fault. Shoot first questions later?
Hollywood Wild West thinking. The US has zero credibility. You simply cannot blame someone without having the facts independently
checked out. Yet they didn't wait and decided to break interantional law instead.
There seems to be a crucial component of reality lacking in this opinion piece: rather than bombing and droning and etc, why does
the 'world order' not stop the manufacture and distribution of weapons of mass destruction like barrel bombs, nuclear warheads
etc etc -- where profits are made by arms manufacturers and their investors--oh, could that be the reason?
Quite. Assad is awful, but he is less awful that the Islamist alternatives, which are the only realistic alternatives. We should
stop posturing and accept this unpalatable reality.
Much more level reporting, but still is framing the narrative as a brutal gas attack and is still a rush to judgement when the
case is that bombs were dropped on a supply of toxic gas, most likely Phosgene.
At last, some common sense. like Saddam and Gaddafi, Assad is a ruthless tyrant. What the West, including the petulant Boris Johnson
need to realise is that Syria ISN'T the West. Don't impose your values on a country that isn't ready for them. The sickening hypocrisy
of the British government would look very foolish if Putin pulled out and allowed Syria to fall to isis. Would Boris and Theresa
put British troops on the ground to keep the extremists out of Turkey?
Why isn't Syria ready for Western values? After what the country has been through the people would probably leap at the chance
of free elections. Prior to the conflict Syria was a multi-ethnic patchwork. Whatever happens to the country needs to be decided
by the Syrians themselves.
The geopolitical status quo in the Middle East is unstable, and tribal affiliations/religious/ ethnic allegiances need to be
carefully balanced and controlled. Something Lebanon, Libya, Syria and Iraq achieved reasonably peacefully for many years before
all the US led interventions.
There is no evidence that the terrorists are fighting for democracy, although if westerners ask them that is what they will
likely say.
So Trump is unfit to govern because of his locker room humour and possible antics, but gas a few thousand people and hey presto!
A darling of the left.
You're talking about this rag. Take a look at what's coming out of Howard Dean's mouth, or Bernie Sanders's, or practically any
Democrat in Washington not named Tulsi Gabbard.
Or, if you have a really strong stomach, take a look at Daily Kos.
They're what passes for "left" in America, unfortunately, because the number of SWP and Green Party members is statistically
insignificant.
Regime change is illegal under international law, except to the rogues of course found in western capitals, and their Gulf vassals.
These are the only group of people in the entire planet who talk openly about overthrowing sovereign governments of other countries.
The unfortunate truth is that, along with the ongoing decline of western civilization, one 'by-product' is that International
Law is continually disdained. The USA, having lack of insightful leadership, does as it wants, when it wants .. the result is
that perpetual wars seem to be a given .. meanwhile, Asia continues to rise and is growing real and genuine wealth by producing
and exporting the goods the rest of the world consumes and is doing it very well..
President Trump didn't do enough (yet) by bombing an air base at night. The people of Syria need weapons, tanks, missiles, air
support, etc. from a country like the USA that stands for freedom and human rights. Assad, who lives by the sword should also
die by the sword. For the U.S. to stand by and watch these atrocities unchallenged would simply be not who we are. I don't agree
with President Trump on a lot of things, but on this point he is right. I have changed from not liking him at all to liking him
just a bit more.
"The logic is that by removing and replacing an undesirable leader, the political situation in the country will change. "
Absolute tosh.
The logic behind nearly all attempts at cold war regime change was to replace a regime which aligned itself with the USSR with
one that aligned itself with the USA.
The internal situation, politically or otherwise was of no concern
Good piece. Regime change has been such a resounding success, you only have to look at Iraq and Libya to see that. Nor does a
country which has a history of using napalm and carcinogenic defoliants any room to take the moral high ground.
If Assad, is so bad, how come most of the civilian population prefer his areas to those of the rebels? The one certainty in all
of this is that the MSM has sold its credibility. Most of what I see is vested interest propaganda.
Isn't the main reason that people prefer Assad's areas because he doesn't bomb them.
There is no love of Assad anywhere.
If the US were to limit itself to punishing strikes against Assad whenever his forces committed war crimes – bombing hospitals
using poison gas etc then a minor at the level of civilisation creeps back into the equation.
The situation will be even more fraught if other external actors turn any attempt at regime change into a proxy war, as Russia
and Iran are likely to do.
A proxy war between the United States and Russia is the thing we all have to fear. In Trump and Putin you have two leaders
who use brinkmanship to get what they want and who will never back down from any position no matter what the consequences. They'd
rather pursue a misguided policy rathen than lose face. I'd like to think the recent war of words between the two countries is
just bluster, but as each day goes by I'm no longer sure anymore.
Regime change should work if all parties believe in democracy and respect each other. That does not seem likely in the middle
east. We have seen what that means forcing that idea in Iraq, Egypt and Libya. A secular SOB is better than somebody who believes
in laws of yesteryears.
Another way: reducing accidental use of chemical weapons?
Always drop 2 bombs; one from each side of ammunition dump. That way, one of such unmarked ordinance is likely to be conventional
explosives. The latter would further disperse, and dilute (reduce density) of the chemical gas; hence lessening lethality.
So we agree on the final result (need for regime change which by the way the article conflicts with its own title), but we disagree
on the method. Many bottoms-up revolutions would not have been successful without outside help. The French helped America achieve
freedom although their reason was somewhat revengeful. The people of Syria have no chance against an army and tanks ruled by a
ruthless evil dictator like Assad without outside assistance. If you think they are not shedding enough blood for their freedom,
then you are living in a hole in the ground.
In the latest iteration for 2016, the bottom ten places in the Index, reserved for the least peaceful countries on earth, include
Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya: four countries where "regime change" has been brought about – or, in Syria's case, where there
is arguably an ongoing attempt to bring it about – by the use of military force.
The evidence so far is that the use of force to topple regimes does not make things better, even when the behaviour of those
regimes is/was objectionable in many ways.
He has reduced once great Syrian cities such as Homs and Aleppo to rubble. All six of Syria's Unesco world heritage sites
have been damaged.
Nope. Most of Homs and Aleppo are intact. The areas occupied by foreign Jihadists using the local populace as human shields
were heavily bombed but now they have been liberated.
Who was it who destroyed these heritage sites? Not the SAA. The Jihadists even filmed themselves doing it and posted the videos
online for goodness sake.
Bashar al-Assad is not a good person. He has reduced once great Syrian cities like Homs and Aleppo to rubble. All six of Syria's
Unesco World Heritage sites have been damaged.
So thousands of mostly foreign jihadists occupying parts of those cities had nothing to do with it? Did the US led forces in
now n Mosul, or before that in Fallujah find the way to dislodge terrorists from urban strongholds without devastation of the
city? Also for all world heritage sites in Syria, they were defended by Syrian troops, and everything that could be moved was
moved to safe place. It was exclusively jihadists that were destroying temples, churches, shrines, even muslim graveyards when
they found the funeral momunent "too tall". In all of these efforts to save the history of the humanity, syrian govermnent got
no help nor acknowledgment. To add insult to injury, the western "cultural" response was touring 3D model of Palmyra gates through
western capitals but while Daesh was methodically blowing it up under clear desert skies, there was interestingly not a single
american drone to be found anywhere. It was syrian, iranian and russian blood spilled to liberate it twice from the death cult.
Yep. There isn't a solution to this problem, but the one thing I'm 99.999% convinved will not work is 'the west' dusting off it's
world policeman uniform and bombing the heck out of Syria.
This is precisely why the west has largely stayed out of the Syrian conflict; despite having a policy favouring the removal of
Assad there hasn't been an attempt (or even the suggestion of an attempt at a policy level) at regime change.
One does wonder, though, at what point the conflict becomes so abhorrent and the civilian casualties so grotesque that our
intervention could scarcely make things any worse
It seems that Spicer, the White House Press Secretary, whilst putting all his cerebral energy into attempting to apologise
for his jaw-droppingly ignorant statement that Hitler never used chemical weapons on his own people, failed to stop his mouth
making yet another gaffe;
"I needed to make sure that I clarified, and was not in any shape or form any more of a distraction from the president's
decisive action in Syria and the attempts that he is making to destabilise the region and root out ISIS out of Syria."
(my emphasis)
Spicer speaks about the president's attempts to destabilise the region in a CNN television interview too.
As people are beginning to ask, does Spicer actually know what distabilise means?
It bothers me that Trump is suddenly showing such concern toward innocent Syrians. Yet, at the same time he wants a ban on immigration
from seven predominantly Muslim countries, including Syria.
Don't you think the timing here is - for Trump - rather convenient? Just when he is under pressure for being a Russian patsy,
something happens to allow him to portray himself as 'standing up to Putin'.
Right. Also, the question should be...if Putin is sleazy enough to be complicit with Syria, then why wouldn't they be sleazy enough
to be involved in trying to swing the American election?
In essence there must be incremental change in the political climate and culture of a state amongst the masses before it culminates
in regime change at the top.
The political climate is no longer there because Assad has systematically murdered everyone who could have formed a credible
oppostion to his regime; opposition activitsts, aid workers, doctors and nurses, journalists - all have either been killed, have
fled to Europe, or are currently being tortured in one of his detention centres. There is no one left to rise up against him.
The intervention triggers resentment and hostility at the new government whose legitimacy is reduced through the participation
of an outside government. Soon the new regime is considered a 'puppet' and its own existence is questioned by the people.
This is indeed true. However backing Assad also has its costs; where is the legitimacy of someone who is now merely a "puppet"
for Russia and Iran's ambitions in the region?
As uncomfortable as it is the best western governments can do is to provide aid and assistance to those in distress, whilst
pressuring those countries that continue to feed money and weapons to the combatants to change their positions.
As reasonable as this sounds, I'm afraid this is just wishful thinking.
"The political climate is no longer there because Assad has systematically murdered everyone who could have formed a credible
oppostion to his regime;"
There is a credible position inside Syria which has been largely ignored by the western MSM and governments, because it does
not support the uprisisng or the violent overthrow of the Syrian government. It was refused participation when the first peace
talks were arranged.
Wow, a Guardian article I can finally wholeheartedly agree with. Does this Professor chap have a hotline to Trump and the rest
of the Western leaders itching for a fight with Assad?
Why do I get the feeling this is just another one of those "Now that Trump is in charge, we shouldn't do regime change" pieces?
I note that the author nowhere comes out against fighting an eternal war in Syria -- he just doesn't want Trump doing the "regime
change."
Yeah, he blabbers on about "aid and assistance" and "pressuring those countries that continue to feed money and weapons to
the combatants to change their positions" -- obviously choosing to ignore how several western governments provide money and weapons
to the combatants (should they be "pressuring" themselves?) But the pinnacle of his cluelessness -- or his agenda -- is reached
with this whopper:
The situation will be even more fraught if other external actors turn any attempt at regime change into a proxy war, as
Russia and Iran are likely to do.
--as if this hadn't been a proxy war for years already, one in which his own country has been quite actively engaged.
This idiot has got to go, he is not rational. He clearly has not an inkling of the gravity of his actions. Nor does he care.
How did we get to this? We always thought that a rogue state would be the end of us all. We were wrong. This moron is doing it
all by himself. Some one needs to step in, take back control. This is frightening stuff.
Assad's removal would be catastrophic. There would be no stable government in Syria, it would be controlled by warlords
backed by Saudi Arabia, al-Qaeda or ISIS and millions of refugees would have no country to return to or to live in. This will
mean more refugees in Europe, more destabilisation and more money drained from our treasuries.
Russia would also be far from pleased and if the conflict erupted into a confrontation between NATO affiliated forces
in Syria against Russia, the Eastern European front will become a lot more precarious (at a time when Britain is cutting
back on military spending and very few European countries adequately contribute towards NATO). Do we really want a repeat of tensions
from the pre-1991 era? I don't think so, especially with the combined threat of domestic Islamic terrorism throughout Europe and
with the continental debt crisis that cannot afford more wars that are not in its interests. Russia will quickly mobilise its
forces into the non-Russian caucuses, already closely aligned with Armenia and potentially link up with Iran territoriality. And
what about Turkey? They cannot be relied upon.
So what benefit exactly is it to create anarchy in Syria for Britain's immediate and long-term interests? The destruction of
Libya has created nothing but chaos and a stream of migrants from across Africa. Why Boris Johnson is waltzing around the world
demanding hard action against Russia when we are cutting back on our armed forces is startling. A better question would be in
whose immediate economic and geopolitical interests is the destruction of Assad beneficial? Well... there's two countries in the
Middle East which come to mind... not hard to guess.
That's fair enough but what if Assad stays in power? Will the refugees, who mainly fled him, return? Will anyone invest in rebuilding
the country? WIll anyone deal with the country other than Russia or Iran? Above all will the hatred of Assad, terrorism or indeed
the conflict as a whole recede?
They didn't flee him... they fled the war. Most people, in any country, are apolitical. I expect the refugees in the Middle East
and Anatolia will return to Syria and those in the West must be forced to return back.
The problem with Syria now is that it has become such a hot plate. If the West concedes to Russia and allows Syria to survive
under the rule of Assad then we will lose face internationally... and it would be domestically embarrassing. No doubt Saudi Arabia,
Israel and the Gulf monarchies would be less than pleased, and we depend on them for a lot of our oil.
It's a difficult question but what we do know is that there are no other credible groups that can rule Syria at the moment,
other than Assad's Alawite minority. If we decide to nation-build, that will cost billions, possibly even trillions with no concrete
result as our attempt in Iraq shows and we have no idea who we would put in charge. The Christians have about as much legitimacy
as the Alawites. Perhaps the only conceivable outcome would be the breakup of Syria. The Christian and Alawite regions go towards
Lebanon, the Kurdish regions are given independence and the Sunni areas are also given an independent state. But of course, the
Sunni and Christian areas are intertwined and many Sunni's support Assad, or at least do not oppose him. And Turkey, as well as
Iran, would never allow an independent Kurdistan. Iran would be less than pleased with the breakup of Syria as well.
I want to see a post-Assad plan. We all know what happens to non-Sunni minorities when a secular Arab leader is toppled. No
one has yet to provide a coherent post-Assad state-structure. Unless of course they want Turkey to territoriality expand... we
want to preserve the post-Ottoman borders and state-system yet at the same time we're waging war against the forces actively preserving
it.
There is no simple answer. Assad is a pawn of Russia and Iran, yet the other options are either Turkish expansion (which, the
last time they did that, they had sizeable European territories) or Saudi expansion (which I hope everyone agrees is less than
desirable). We have no friends in the Middle East, other than Jordan, Egypt and Israel. But they all have their own interests
and I suspect their friendships are determined upon those interests. I think our aim is to maintain the balance of power. Perhaps
only the growth of Israel could act as a counter-weight to Sunni and Shia interests.
Would you support another leader from perhaps the same party taking over as an interim measure whilst different factions are brought
together to defeat ISIS?
In an ideal world, I would love to see this happening, along with a form of truth and reconciliation commission, and a commitment
from the international community and other bodies independent of the Syrian government to assist in tackling issues such as warlordism
and corruption. The dogmatic belief that there can be no leader other than Assad is one that might have ultimately cost millions
of lives and it would be wrong to use the old dictator's mantra of 'me or chaos'. And to be fair, Assad does not have a great
track record in Syria.
And a final question - do you believe Russia should be doing more to put pressure on Assad or do you think it will be happy
to put its international credibility on the line for him? (There is something pathological I believe in Putin's willingness to
support other dictators)
How can one call for 'peaceful transition to a new society' when the original opposition to Assad was sponsored by multifarious
power-hungry foreign actors? They exploited the Arab Spring pro-democracy utopianism then messed up their insurrectional strategy
disastrously. The country now needs to be made a protectorate of an international peace-keeping force until a representative transitional
government is agreed upon.
No, that sounds like the pseudo-leftist neo-colonial discourse that Obama was so fond of.
The counter-argument to regime change is more that by now Assad controls most cities again, the opposition are awful sectarians
who should be let nowhere near power and it may still be possible to contain IS to a manageable extent while Assad maintains a
dictatorship indefinitely.
Not quite sure what you mean. Just saying that the "man on the street" would more likely than not understand "protectorate" pretty
much the same as e.g. the Moroccans did.
Regime change in Syria was being talked directly since 9/11 and it never stopped. It's on the record. So is john Kerry, on record
on TV, stating gulf states offered to cover part of the costs of a US invasion in Syria at least twice way before the so called
''civil war'' even started.
They prepared it for years but the poor taste Iraq/Libya left on the US public meant the US pulled out of the deal (all because
of the planed gas pipelines from Qatar to Europe that has to go through Syria).
The Saudis along with Qatar, Turkey and Israel believed they could force the hand of the US and acted alone initiating the
takeover. This is why despite the intel, organisation and provision of what is estimated to be 300k(german estimates) foreign
jihadists eventually came to a standstill without direct US support.
The Jihadists then prematurely jumped the gun fragmented creating ISIS (something meant to take place behind the scenes after
they defeated Assad)
The point is of course...it's all about oil...nothing about democracy or Gas or any of that crap
Yes, this is all quite true. What the USA almost always seems to do is create a power vacuum in the countries it attempts to "save"
and, inevitably it seems, the USA always chooses the wrong damn party or person to support in said vacuum. A stunning misreading
and proof of the failure of American foreign policy "experts" and CIA strategists to grasp the realities on the ground.
Yes, this is all quite true. What the USA almost always seems to do is create a power vacuum in the countries it attempts
to "save" and, inevitably it seems, the USA always chooses the wrong damn party or person to support in said vacuum.
Like in Japan. Just that Japan is ... Shinto. Or something. Not M.........
I'm sure its fair to say that for many instability, disorder, mayhem and the like are entirely desirable. Witness Kissinger who
out-and-out advocated/advocates looking after US long-term interests through war, disease and starvation.
'The on-going devastation in Syria cries out for a response, 'do something' is the inherent plea.'
Might I suggest sending generous quantities of bubble wrap to each of the 'something must be done' brigade. Popping those bubbles
is relaxing and calming. They will otherwise impatiently agitate for some ineffective, or more likely counter-productive measure
that makes things drastically worse.
Not very sensible, actually -- see the comment by capatriot above (or below, if you do "newest first"). Rather appalling that
someone with academic credentials would (1) engage in a comic book-style analysis of world politics (big bad nearly omnipotent
supervillain!) and (2) put all the blame for the carnage and destruction on one side.
We tried to change the leader in Iraq. It didn't work, and now the country is a hotbed of terrorism and incredibly corrupt and
ineffectual government. We tried to change the leader in Libya. It didn't work, and now the country is a hotbed of terrorism and
incredibly corrupt and ineffectual government. I guess we could try to change the leader in Syria, if we really, really want.
He has reduced once great Syrian cities like Homs and Aleppo to rubble.
What, he, personally? What is he, superman? And I wonder why he'd choose to do that to his own nation's cities?
But wait, you mean that there was a rebellion against the recognized government which developed into a civil war, aided and
abetted by sectarian outsiders and terrorists and the United States/West, with political and religious/ethnic overtones? And that
later, as it looked like the recognized govt was going to fail, other interested outsiders like Russia and Iran intervened to
help it?
Gosh, I wonder what the least worst outcome for the people of Syria actually is here ... perhaps we should leave it to them?
It's actually a very serious question. How much control does Assad have over his government, let alone his armed forces? He's
a trained dentist, ferchrissakes, and his older brother was the one groomed for the <strike>throne</strike> presidency. It makes
sense to assume that his powers over an entrenched nomenklatura, to say nothing of all of the different armed factions nominally
serving him, aren't limitless.
"... is a journalist based in Madison, WI whose work focuses on the Middle East. He can be reached via Twitter @paulgottinger or email: [email protected] ..."
Almost immediately after video of the alleged chemical weapons attack in Idlib hit Western media,
Assad was declared guilty by US news networks and political commentators. The front page of the New
York Times on April 5 th showed a
heartbreaking image of a child wounded in the alleged chemical attack with a headline claiming
Assad was responsible.
By the afternoon of April 7, a US attack seemed inevitable as both Rex Tillerson and Trump said
action would be taken.
Between Democrats and Republicans, a bipartisan consensus emerged, rare in the Trump presidency,
whereby Assad was deemed guilty and Trump was goaded on to attack. The few voices of dissent seemed
mostly concerned with the lack of constitutional approval for the strike
The night of the strike, US media snapped into DPRK-style, state media mode. TV pundits fell into
a trance while expressing the "
beauty " of American power being unleashed on a country already destroyed by 6 years of war.
Pundits described the attack as "surgical" despite the pentagon quietly
admitting one of the missiles missed its target and they don't know where it landed. My questions
to both CENTCOM and the Secretary of Defense Office on the missing cruise missile have thus far gone
unanswered. However, Syrian sources
claim
civilians were killed in the missile strike.
Trump justified the attack by invoking religiously themed buzzwords and unconvincing blather on
the "beautiful babies" murdered in the chemical attack.
Following the attack, Trump officials' statements indicated there was a shift towards regime change.
UN ambassador Nikki Haley
said Sunday that removing Assad is now a priority.
The Neocon sharks have started circling too. Bill Kristol
tweeted that
these strikes should be used to move towards regime change in Iran. Marco Rubio, Lindsey Graham,
and John McCain have all joined in too, their mouths watering at the thought of ousting Assad.
But was Assad really responsible for the attack?
To ask such a question is to be deemed an "Assadist" by pundits and discourse police across the
political spectrum.
Neither the lack of an independent investigation, nor the fact that nearly all the information
on the alleged attack has come from rebel sources, who stand to benefit from a US response, is deemed
sufficient cause for skepticism.
In a civilized society an actor is be presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. If guilt is
determined, a legally justified course of action is taken. In the US however, if the accused is a
US enemy, no evidence is needed, and even deranged conspiracies are given play in mainstream media
coverage.
The best recent example of this is the US media's conspiracy about Russia stealing the US election
and working for Trump. The US media has stooped so low as to even push bizarre conspiracies by
Louise Mensch . She recently
claimed
the 2014 uprising in Ferguson was a Russian plot.
In the case of the alleged attack on Khan Sheikhun, US officials and pro-war experts immediately
declared Assad's guilty and then cheered on an illegal use of force. This is all very reminiscent
of the lead up to the Iraq war.
In an eerie coincidence, Michael R. Gordon, who with Judith Miller helped sell the
Iraq WMD story to Americans,
coauthored the New York Times April 4th article on Assad's alleged sarin attack at Khan Sheikhun.
To help sell the sarin narrative, the US media brought on a doctor to describe the alleged attack
that has been
accused of helping kidnap journalists in his work with extremists.
When the US investigated its own airstrike in Mosul this March, it took a number of days before
it admitted it had killed hundreds of civilians. Yet, guilt was immediately assigned in the Khan
Sheikhun attack.
In 2013, the US media also rushed to the conclusion Assad used sarin in a horrific incident in
Ghouta. The US was on the verge of attacking Assad then, but Obama decided against it. Obama
claimed he held off because US intelligence voiced skepticism about Assad's guilt.
The UN investigation on the Ghouta attack took almost a month and even its conclusions have been
disputed.
In December of 2013, Seymour Hersh published a lengthy investigation into the 2013 attack in Ghouta
and found reason to doubt Assad's responsibility for attack. He was forced to publish it in the London
Review of Books after the New York Times and the Washington Post refused to run it.
He reported
that classified US reports claimed that Syria's al Qaeda affiliate had "mastered the mechanics
of creating sarin".
A month after Hersh's piece appeared, a MIT
study cast further doubt on the US government's story by demonstrating that the rockets used
in the Ghouta attack couldn't have flown as far as the US government claimed.
Ted Postol, one of the authors of the study said, "We were within a whisker of war based on egregious
errors."
In this latest alleged gas attack, a few individuals have dared question the state narrative.
The journalist Robert Parry has recently
claimed
there is much to be made of the fact that Mike Pompeo, the CIA Director, wasn't among those helping
sell this latest sarin story to the American people. He believes it indicates doubt in the CIA over
Assad's involvement.
Scott Ritter, a former UN weapons inspector in Iraq, has raised
skepticism over Assad's involvement. He says rebels have had chemical weapons facilities in Syria
and some of the witnesses' statements describe a strong smell during the attack, which indicates
something other than sarin was used.
The Canadian government originally
called for an investigation and stopped short of blaming Assad at the UN, but then later championed
Trump's strikes.
Groups like Organizations for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and Human Rights Watch are still
investigating the alleged attack in Khan Sheikhun.
Whether these groups or others will be able to conduct an independent investigation is not known.
But in usual fashion, the US had no interest in investigating facts, which may provide the wrong
answers.
It's possible that Assad carried out the attack, but just because he's a reprehensible figure
doesn't mean there is no need to present evidence and conduct an independent investigation.
What's clear now is that the US attack
benefitted jihadi groups, has made further US military action more likely, and has increased
the chances of a direct military confrontation with Russia. All of these results are very dangerous.
Future US military action in Syria should be resisted with popular pressure. History shows we
can't count on the media or pundits to act as the voice of reason.
Join the
debate on Facebook
Paul Gottinger is a journalist based in Madison, WI whose work focuses on the Middle
East. He can be reached via Twitter @paulgottinger
or email: [email protected]
"... The intervention triggers resentment and hostility at the new government, the legitimacy of which is reduced through the participation of an outside government. ..."
"... In late 2015, Eren Erdem, a Turkish MP, said in Parliament that the Turkish state was permitting Da'esh to send sarin precursors to Syria. He had a file of evidence, so was accused of treason for accessing and publicizing confidential material. The investigation into the people responsible for the transfer of toxic chemicals was shut down. ..."
"... Al-Assad is certainly capable of murdering opponents, and not bothering too much about collateral damage, but strategically it makes no sense for him to do this now, when peace talks under the aegis of Russia and Iran have begun, and the world is watching. Also, Assad has been engaged in a reconciliation process, allowing members of the FSA to return to the Syrian army, and Aleppans remain in Damascus if they didn't wish to go to Idlib. At such a juncture, using chemical weapons would be counter-productive. If Sarin was used at his command, he should be properly prosecuted: but bombing a Syrian air base merely assists Da'esh and its cronies. ..."
"... I have just watched the press conference in which Trump labelled Assad a butcher, and went on again about dead babies. I just wish that someone at one of these conferences would have the guts to point out to Trump his own butchery. ..."
"... Anyone watching this performance would think that US forces had never been responsible for killing innocent civilians, men, women, children and babies. To listen to Trump, you wouldn't think that US forces had ever killed over 150 civilians in Mosul, dozens in Raqqa, or had bombed hospitals in Afghanistan, or schools in Iraq, or were supporting the Saudi blockade of Yemen resulting in the starvation of children and babies, or had destroyed wedding parties with drones,.....I could go on. ..."
"... If Assad is a butcher, he is only a junior, apprentice, corner-shop butcher. Trump is the real thing, the large-scale, wholesale, expert butcher. ..."
"... Gotta get that pipeline in for the Saudi's, eh, no matter how many children's carcasses it crosses, yay, regime change again, yay, and a heap of new terrorists for our kids in the west to dodge and duck, yay. ..."
"... Despite the several misrepresentations, the facts are that Britain has been one of the main protagonists in prosecuting this war against Syria , which is a proxy war against Iran. ..."
"... Britain was at the forefront in setting up the Al Nusra Front and in hosting the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights to disseminate deeply negative propaganda about the Syrian Government and armed forces. ..."
"... Every step of this including the media campaign which has comprised a major part of the military campaign against Syria, has been an attempt to delegitimize the Sovereign government and its institutions and to gain consensus from the somnambulistic British and US public for yet another direct military campaign against another Middle Eastern country. ..."
"... Assad's removal would be catastrophic. There would be no stable government in Syria, it would be controlled by warlords backed by Saudi Arabia, al-Qaeda or ISIS and millions of refugees would have no country to return to or to live in. This will mean more refugees in Europe, more destabilisation and more money drained from our treasuries. ..."
The intervention triggers resentment and hostility at the new government, the legitimacy of which is reduced through the participation
of an outside government.
Soon, the new regime is considered a "puppet" and its existence is questioned by the people. Interestingly, the Middle East has
proven particularly resistant to durable regime change and democratization, further making the success of any US-led intervention
doubtful.
The situation will be even more fraught if other external actors turn any attempt at regime change into a proxy war, as Russia
and Iran are likely to do. The US experienced the downside of this during the ill-conceived war in Vietnam. During the Soviet-led
war in Afghanistan, the US played the spoiler of Soviet efforts, funnelling money and weapons to the anti-Soviet mujahideen, turning
the USSR's intervention into a protracted, bloody war.
Prof Michael John Williams is Director of the International Relations Program at New York University.
Instead, the western powers have followed the example cited by Machiavelli: "in order to prove their liberality, they allowed
Pistoia to be destroyed."
In late 2015, Eren Erdem, a Turkish MP, said in Parliament that the Turkish state was permitting Da'esh to send sarin precursors
to Syria. He had a file of evidence, so was accused of treason for accessing and publicizing confidential material. The investigation
into the people responsible for the transfer of toxic chemicals was shut down.
That surely ought to make us at least ask evidence-seeking questions about the Idlib gas attack before yet again demanding
regime change.
Al-Assad is certainly capable of murdering opponents, and not bothering too much about collateral damage, but strategically
it makes no sense for him to do this now, when peace talks under the aegis of Russia and Iran have begun, and the world is watching.
Also, Assad has been engaged in a reconciliation process, allowing members of the FSA to return to the Syrian army, and Aleppans
remain in Damascus if they didn't wish to go to Idlib. At such a juncture, using chemical weapons would be counter-productive.
If Sarin was used at his command, he should be properly prosecuted: but bombing a Syrian air base merely assists Da'esh and its
cronies.
I have just watched the press conference in which Trump labelled Assad a butcher, and went on again about dead babies. I just
wish that someone at one of these conferences would have the guts to point out to Trump his own butchery.
Anyone watching this performance would think that US forces had never been responsible for killing innocent civilians,
men, women, children and babies. To listen to Trump, you wouldn't think that US forces had ever killed over 150 civilians in Mosul,
dozens in Raqqa, or had bombed hospitals in Afghanistan, or schools in Iraq, or were supporting the Saudi blockade of Yemen resulting
in the starvation of children and babies, or had destroyed wedding parties with drones,.....I could go on.
If Assad is a butcher, he is only a junior, apprentice, corner-shop butcher. Trump is the real thing, the large-scale,
wholesale, expert butcher.
...Indeed, Richard Spencer last week protested outside the White House against the airstrikes on the regime airbase carrying a
sign that read "No more wars 4 Israel."
Syria's ruling Baath party and its allies won a majority of seats in parliamentary elections last week across government-held
parts of the country, the national electoral commission announced late Saturday.
Who are the rebels supported by Washington and Westminster?
And we're going to learn a lot more about the "rebels" whom we in the West – the US, Britain and our head-chopping mates
in the Gulf – have been supporting.
They did, after all, include al-Qaeda (alias Jabhat al-Nusra, alias Jabhat Fateh al-Sham), the "folk" – as George W Bush
called them – who committed the crimes against humanity in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania on 11 September 2001. Remember
the War on Terror? Remember the "pure evil" of al-Qaeda. Remember all the warnings from our beloved security services in the
UK about how al-Qaeda can still strike terror in London?
Gotta get that pipeline in for the Saudi's, eh, no matter how many children's carcasses it crosses, yay, regime change again,
yay, and a heap of new terrorists for our kids in the west to dodge and duck, yay.
I agree that Bashar al-Assad is not a "good person". It is impossible to be an authoritarian leader, struggling to maintain the
unity, or even existence, of a nation state, and at the same time be a kind and gentle person. However, I do not believe him to
be the psychopathic monster that he is portrayed as being, either. He is almost certainly not personally responsible for the chemical
attack in Idlib province.
Presidents do not normally make detailed decisions on what sort of weapons should be used on every airstrike made by their
aircraft. He may be a dictator, but he is not a complete imbecile. Even the dimmest of politicians could have foreseen that this
chemical attack would end up being a massive own-goal. Nobody as cynically calculating as Assad is supposed to be, would be that
stupid. My own hunch, (and that is all it is) is that sarin was used due to a blunder by a low or medium ranking Syrian airforce
officer.
Yes, of course Assad bears responsibility for overall strategy in this vicious war of survival, and as such, has blood on his
hands. But, so does Trump, so does Obama, so does Putin so does Erdogan, so does May, and so do all the leaders who have supplied
the numerous rebel groups with billions of pounds worth of weapons, and have therefore kept the pot boiling.
Last year, Theresa May stood up in parliament and proudly proclaimed her willingness to commit mass indiscriminate murder on
a scale that would make Syria look like a pinprick. She declared her willingness to press the nuclear button and therefore slaughter
hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of completely innocent men, women, children and babies. She not only has blood on her
hands, she is proud of it. Perhaps we should remember that, when she comes out with one of her sanctimonious, nauseatingly hypocritical
statements about Syria.
Assad was democratically elected more than once so he must be doing something right. (OK, so they're democracy might not be our
democracy but 'our' democracy has brought us Trump, Brexit and the like so its really six to one, a half dozen to the other).
Syria until we started messing with it -- creating, supporting and even arming opposition groups -- was stable, wasn't messing
with its neighbors and had significant religious and cultural freedoms compared to other countries in the area. (Our actions might
suggest that we really don't want stable, peaceful, countries in that region, we need them to be weak and riven by internal factions.)
Anyway, given our outstanding track record of success with regime change in that part of the world we should probably adopt
a hands-off approach -- all we seem to do is make an unsatisfactory situation dire. Hardly the way to win friends and influence
people.
Despite the several misrepresentations, the facts are that Britain has been one of the main protagonists in prosecuting this
war against Syria , which is a proxy war against Iran.
Britain was at the forefront in setting up the Al Nusra Front and in hosting the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights to
disseminate deeply negative propaganda about the Syrian Government and armed forces.
Every step of this including the media campaign which has comprised a major part of the military campaign against Syria,
has been an attempt to delegitimize the Sovereign government and its institutions and to gain consensus from the somnambulistic
British and US public for yet another direct military campaign against another Middle Eastern country.
The whole which has visited terrible and incalculable suffering, on the Syrian people. Syria was a paradise before the British
and US did their usual work. The journalists, government and security services in Britain who have wrought this mess , I'm sure
will not escape the consequences of their actions. One hopes they experience a 1000 times of the hell they have visited on Syria.
These actions are truly despicable acts of cowardice and absolute wickedness.
Syria was a paradise for those who rule Syria........ the Assad regime brutally repressed any opposition to their rule. In 1982
Assad´s father killed probably more than 30,000 in the siege of Hama. As well as sheltering a number of terrorist organisations
who have their headquarters in Damascus....... he also armed and supported the fledgling Al-Quaeda resistance to the coalition
in Iraq, giving them asylum in Syria........now the IS ....... I can think of Paradise in different ways......
The prosecution of a Swedish national accused of terrorist activities in Syria has collapsed at the Old Bailey after it
became clear Britain's security and intelligence agencies would have been deeply embarrassed had a trial gone ahead, the Guardian
can reveal.
His lawyers argued that British intelligence agencies were supporting the same Syrian opposition groups as he was, and were
party to a secret operation providing weapons and non-lethal help to the groups, including the Free Syrian Army.
Leaked emails from the private intelligence firm Stratfor including notes from a meeting with Pentagon officials confirmed
US-UK training of Syrian opposition forces since 2011 aimed at eliciting "collapse" of Assad's regime "from within."
More guff from the guardian/ Mr Williams, with just a little realistic sense, but who can replace Assad and in Syria he remains
very popular, despite the western media like lies!
Russia has to move quickly to secure a 100 year lease for the Latakia port and airbase. Otherwise the US will soon attempt to
render it useless as well, regardless of which of the moderate rebel factions it decides to install.
... Spirits die hard, and those of the Arab spring and the Orange Revolution are still alive in the halls of the Pentagon.
.... A controlled cold war however, is the only way to a avoid a larger mess than what the West has already inflicted on the
innocent Syrian people by using the most abortive war design that has ever been conceived by the war college or any other war
commander.
...... At the current rate there will be more Syrians in Germany than those remaining in Syria.
......... Is it hard to wonder why Syrians might hold a grudge against the, US?
Regime change ? All in the name of democracy as we see it.Why not try it in the Kingdom of family owned country KSA or why not
another family owned enterprises called UAE.
History tells us replacing Assad would be a bad idea. We should have learned the lesson with Hussain and Iraq, but didn't. We
would go on to replace Gaddafi of Libya and boom, it trigged ISIS.
The hard lesson here is that for some reason Muslim majority countries have a strong central authoritarian leader. No matter
if that leaders is called president, king, prime minister, or whatever. When that strong leaders is deposed, chaos ensues.
The Americans have a fetish with regime change. Up until recently they were discrete about it and did it in secret, now they are
all in the open. People who are against regime change are considered anti-Americans and tools of the Soviets...ahm.... Russia.
The amazing thing is Tillerson said Assad's faith should be left with the Syrian people, the American establishment in unison
said how could he says such a terrible thing, "we should decide what Syrian people want."
These are the same people who elected
Trump, maybe they should let Syrian people select the US president. The result may end up better.
> Bashar al-Assad is not a good person. He has reduced once great Syrian cities such as Homs and Aleppo to rubble. All six
of Syria's Unesco world heritage sites have been damaged. Worse still, more than 500,000 Syrian civilians have been killed
in the civil war, 6.1 million have been internally displaced and another 4.8 million are seeking refuge abroad.
Yes, Assad is not a good person. But what about American politicians such as Hillary Clinton, who armed "moderate rebels" and
supported the opposition in pursuit of regime change? And Syria is not the only country were this happened. Will there ever any
responsibility taken for their actions by the US and NATO?
First, they make a manageable problem into a huge problem, then just hightail back home, living local people to pick up the
pieces.
Those half millions of deaths - are they all responsibility of Assad or do the sponsors of jihadists and jihadists themselves
have some responsibility as well?
A. A horrible authoritarian regime that tortures and murders it's opponents...........but women can wear what they like in
public, get a good education courtesy of the State, and embark on a career.
B. A horrible authoritarian regime that tortures and murders it's opponents...........where women are denied education, made
virtual prisoners in their own homes, and have acid flung in their faces for having the temerity to appear unveiled when they
do go out in public.
It's not a great choice, but one is definitely better than the other.
Also worth remembering that under Assad people are allowed religious freedom. I know two Syrian Christians who are terrified of
what will happen if the rebels take control of their country.
Choice B also includes Sharia law, full extermination of other faiths and death sentence for rejection of Islam. Basically Choice
B is another Saudi Arabia, but a lot of people will have to die first.
The world's biggest superpower is willing to risk a nuclear war with mass destruction of billions and possible extinction of life
on earth on an unproven assertion made by Al Qaeda sympathisers that the Syrian government bombed them with sarin? OBL must be
laughing in his grave.
1. Who is threatening a nuclear war? The Russians? I haven't heard them threaten that. Probably because no-one would seriously
believe them.
2. An intellectually honest person should not describe young children as terrorist sympathisers. Let alone imply they somehow
deserve to be deliberately targeted by nerve gas as a result.
An intellectually honest person should question the veracity of a report that is unverified by a terrorist organisation. The children
were never described by me as 'terrorist sympathisers' so you make a dishonest accusation, the terrorist sympathisers are those
who produced the report on which the whole story is based. It is not about the death of the children which is of course a crime,
but they are being used by the terrorists for thier purposes.
An intellectually honest person would also show outrage about the mass murder of civilians, including children in Mosul and
by a US bombing in Syria that seem to not arouse the same outrage.
Regime change by US has been used at least three times against democracies, in Chili, in Iran and in Ukraine. Attempted regime
change has also been used often in South America to oust populist rulers because of US interests. Although the above analysis
raises the very good point that change has to come from the bottom up, it starts with the same fallacies of assuming that all
of the death and destruction in Syria comes from one person which is an extremely flawed point to start from. The point that is
to be made is that there is no military solution to the conflict except in an anti terrorist capacity. The problem is that all
of those against the Syrian government in the current conflict are either outright terrorists or those who collaborate heavily
with terrorists making it difficult to have a conventional peace process.
America engaged in regime changes to suit American interests during the cold war and the New world order drive. The fact that
they supported dictatorships worldwide and helped them overthrow democratically elected governments tells clearly that imposing
democracy forcibly was not their intention. Intervention in global conflicts is mainly for controlling pathways for resources
and gaining ground for business opportunities for their multinational giant corporations.
The West's narrative has fallen apart, nobody believes that the Syrian rebels are peace loving democrats. We have ample evidence
that they are infinitely worse than Assad.
We also have plenty of evidence that the Western deep state, not the public, wants another regime change in the middle east
and will stop at nothing to achieve its end including false flag gas attacks. This article goes into detail.
False Flag: How the U.S. Armed Syrian Rebels to Set Up an Excuse to Attack Assad
Evidence suggests a false flag chemical weapons attack on the Syrian people was initiated by Syrian rebels with the help
of the United States in order to justify Thursday night's U.S. Military attack on a Syrian base.
The Left is very opposed to war in Syria, the Libertarian right is very opposed to war in Syria but a hugely powerful Deep
State will stop at nothing to achieve its ends.
"Worse still, more than 500,000 Syrian civilians have been killed in the civil war, 6.1 million have been internally displaced
and another 4.8 million are seeking refuge abroad. "
well, you cannot put the blame on Assad only. He never asked for that war for a start and a lot of the refugees you're talking
about may very well be pro-Assad.
Finally an article which still sticks to logical thinking when it comes to Syria. Assad is a terrible leader but atleast with
him, most of the factions within the country can be sorted. The West's obsession with stuffing democracy down the throats of every
oil producing country in the Middle East has resulted in the Mad Max wasteland i.e. Libya and the unsolvable puzzle i.e. Iraq.
Both Gaddafi and Saddam were terrible human beings but removing them left a vacuum which has cost the lives of thousands and displaced
millions. The West must make its peace with Assad for now, stop supporting the rebels and try to find common ground with Russia
against the real enemy - ISIS.
The west - as the US/UK like to themselves, couldn't give a damn about democracy . They want compliance , not democracy. A good(brutal)
dictator is better than a 'difficult' democratically elected leader , look at events in Egypt for example.
Our own democracies are pretty ropey, certainly not up there with the Scandinavian best practice.
You're kidding right? The West stuffing democracy down the throats of the Gulf countries. More like defending them against the
threat of democracy by arming them to the teeth and stationing troops there. Have you heard of Bahrain?
The only plausible solution to this conflict is partition assuming of course the imminent defeat of Isis.
While getting rid of Assad would create a dangerous power vacuum and is in any case perhaps impossible given Russias backing,
the sheer scale of the killing he's done and destruction he's unleashed on his own people - of a totally different scale to Saddam
Hussein and even his father, from whom he seems to have inherited his psychopathic tendencies -renders the idea that he could
continue to rule a "united" Syria or even the majority of it, laughable.
If you get rid of Assad, whoever replaces him is going to have a very difficult task. How on Earth do you enforce any sort of
civilized law and order in a country which has some of the worst terrorist organizations the world has ever known. With organizations
like ISIS around, a government is gong to need to take a firm hand somewhere. It's not as if you can send Jihadists on community
service and expect them to come back as reformed characters.
Fact is that Assad still enjoys considerable support among Syrians. In particular among those who have no problem with a woman
going to the beach in a bikini and driving a car to work. He is not giong anywhere soon. And if he did, the situation would be
worse. As in the case of the butcher Saddam Hussein and the crazy dictator Khadaffi, who also were supposedly removed in an attempt
to bring "freedom and democracy to the people."
Syria was one of the few countries in the ME where you could drink alcohol. Does anyone believe whoever follows Assad be
it someone picked by the US/Israel/KSA/Qatar will be quite so tolerant?
Why can't world leaders be held to account for their crimes against humanity? Is it not about time that they are compelled to
comply with international law and for the United Nations Assembly to make them so by enforceable resolutions passed by a majority
vote?
Assad is a tyrant who should be removed from office and held accountable for his crimes against humanity. Syrians should be
entitled to a government that is respectful of their human rights.
The UN should take responsibility for enforcing a permanent ceasefire and brokering talks to secure Syria's future. It should
require as a condition of UN membership compliance with and adherence to international law protecting human rights. Non compliance
should be met with expulsion and the economic isolation of the country concerned from the rest of the world.
There is no shortcut to lasting peace. As uncomfortable as it is, the best that western governments can do is provide aid
and assistance to those in distress, while pressuring those countries that continue to feed money and weapons to the combatants
to change their positions.
You are absolutely right.
Such a pity then that the western governments in question, the UK, America and to a lesser extent, France, are in fact the
same entities, via their surrogate power in the middle east, Saudi Arabia, who are the ones providing the weapons and money.
Just as they did in Iraq and Libya, and always for the same reason, to achieve regime change against the Middle Eastern leaders
who were threatening their control of the oil market.
This situation is nothing new, these Western Powers have been attacking various parts of the Middle East for nigh on a century.
Winston Churchill was responsible for bombing Iraq in the 1920's. That also was to achieve regime change.
All of the deaths and the destruction in the Middle East can ultimately be laid at the door of the 'Western Powers' and their
willingness to do anything to protect their oil interests.
One of the most despicable thing about the West's attempts to bribe, entice and force Russia into abandoning the Syrian Government,
so that America, France, Britain and Saudi Arabia can rush in, like hyenas to finish off a wounded animal, is how patronising
they have been towards the Russians and Iranians. Granted that their racism towards the Russians might not be what it is towards
the Syrian state, which they want to deny a voice and disrespect to the extent of talking to the Russians, and ignoring the Syrian
government.
Yes, the West is behaving towards the Syrian state as if it is just something for it to manipulate, as it does with the global
economy. Not having made any progress in manipulating the Syrian proxy conflict into the outcomes it wants, the West has now resorted
to making merciless and unjustified attacks on Russian and the Iranians. Despite the fact that it is Russia and the Syrian government
forces and their Hezbollah allies who have broken the impasse in this terrible war.
It is scurrilous that there should now be this coordinated media and political campaign to make Russia out to be 'the bad guy',
the 'devil', as it were.
As for 'the liberals', well, guess what, if you want to do something constructive. Then stop blaming Russia and demonising
the Russians, the Syrian Government and their allies. Look closer to home, to America, To Britain, to France and Saudi Arabia.
There you will find more demons disguised as 'humanitarians' and 'angels' than probably in all of Russia and Syria.
The guys in the West who are posturing as angels are no less culpable than the Syrian government.
Of course the West should not destroy the Syrian state and government. But, since when has logic prevented this cartel from
exercising its destructive force? As Libya, Iraq and Yemen have proven? The liberals need to grow up and stop being allied to
the right.
Firstly, we have yet to see the results of any impartial investigation checking out the Syrian/Russian version of events about
the gas in Idlib province, which could be true. Nobody that I can see is 'supporting' the use of gas against civilians, but it
is known that the bigger terrorist organisations such as ISIS and al Qaeda do have stocks of poison gas. Secondly,so many uninformed
commentators have not understood that Syria's 6 year war has been and remains a religious war! Asad's Shiite/ Alawite/Christian/
Druse/ Ismaili communities and other minorities supported by Iran and Lebanon's Shiites, fighting for their very survival against
Saudi/ Qatari/Gulf States' extremist Wahhabi fighters, who via ISIS ,Al Qaeda and similar Islamists, want to wipe them off the
face of the earth (with Turkey playing a double game). At this very moment people are condemning Assad for bombing civilians,
whilst the US-led coalition including our own RAF, is doing exactly the same thing in the ISIS held city of Mosul -for the same
reasons. The rebels take over and then surround themselves in cities, with civilians, hoping that these horrors will raise western
public opinion against the government forces trying to defeat them. The 'half- informed' public opinion is now behaving in exactly
this predictable way against the Syrian government, trying to deal with its own religious extremist rebels, many of whom are not
even Syrians. It was always a war that the west should stay out of -other peoples religious wars are incomprehensible to non-believers
in that particular faith. To talk now of replacing Asad is juvenile and mischievous - maybe that's why Boris is so engaged?
There is an equality of evil between Assad and ISIS. That said, Assad's forces and their Shia allies have slaughtered the vast
majority of the victims.
Both Assad and ISIS will lose eventually. How many Syrians are slaughtered in the meantime is anyone's guess.
Why murderous dictators are so popular btl is a mystery.
According to Wikipedia Estimates of deaths in the Syrian Civil War, per opposition activist groups, vary between 321,358
and 470,000.
On 23 April 2016, the United Nations and Arab League Envoy to Syria put out an estimate of 400,000 that had died in the war.
Also,according to Wikipedia I n 2016, the United Nations (UN) identified 13.5 million Syrians requiring humanitarian assistance,
of which more than 6 million are internally displaced within Syria, and over 4.8 million are refugees outside of Syria. In January
2017, UNHCR counted 4,863,684 registered refugees.
Turkey is the largest host country of registered refugees with over 2.7 million Syrian refugees.
Before the troubles,Syria had a population of 23 million.
No country could go back to normality after that upheaval.
That's because politics is heartlessly, ruthlessly, compassionlessly pragmatic. If having a pet local petty king in the area keeps
it stable and does not a politically costly military operation, everything else is seen as "acceptable collateral damage".
It's funny but western foreign policy is fundamentally the same in the methods, just different in goals. If the goal of regime
change is achieved and political points collected, everything else is completely irrelevant. Opposition can become "moderately
islamist", "democratic" rebels may implement sharia law, "precision strikes" may cause tens of thousands of civilian casualties,
but it's all for the greater good.
Every time the West especially the Anglo west of the USA and Britain intervene in another countries affairs, the end product is
a disaster so for that reason alone these two societies which can only communicate in English should leave this to the Russians.
This almost manages to achieve sense, and it's good to see an article not promoting regime change for once, but it still falls
short of stating the truth that the correct policy in Syria is to help Assad win the war, and then impose conditions on his conduct
in the peace.
He has reduced once great Syrian cities such as Homs and Aleppo to rubble. All six of Syria's Unesco world heritage sites
have been damaged.
I must now begrudgingly thank the Trump Administration for causing me to realize a profound and universal truth. History doesn't
rhyme at all; it parodies.
The build up to our inevitable Syria invasion is essentially an SNL parody of our Iraq invasion. All the way down to allegations
of to "hidden stockpiles of WMDs", "gassing own citizens", "violation of no WMD agreement", "weapons inspectors not doing job",
and most recently "Assad/Saddam is Hitler". All that's left is the final piece of evidence to tip public opinion in...the holy
grail, "yellowcake uranium".
I'm not sure exactly what comes next (presumably Trump declaring an "Axis of Evil" consisting of Syria, ISIS, Iran, N.Korea...and
perhaps Russia and/or China or both...thus setting the stage for a hilarious parody of WWII).
Perhaps dear Boris should have had more talks with the British government to find out what is the political position of the conservative
government over Syria, and more importantly with Russia. So far the American have by the look of things, telling the British Government
in what they want, not bothering to ask what Britain thinks what is important.
There is actually no point in swapping one master the EU, to handcuff ourselves to the a far more right wing America.
Take Isil and jihadists out of the equation and what you're left with are people that want to oust a tyrannical and unelected
leader who clearly has nothing but disdain for his people (groups of at least).
Those rebels (or freedom fighters) are being seen as the bad guys it seems to me...?
The only reason I can see for this is that they have slight support from the United States.
Had the boot been on the other foot and the US we're supporting Assad and Russia,the rebels (freedom fighters) I'm quite sure
public opinion (Guardian readers at least) would be quite different.
So what do the Syrian rebels who are looking to overthrow a dictator have to do to be put on a pedestal of righteousness as
Castro was for effectively trying to achieve the same end goal....
Oh, that's right, Castro was trying to stick it to the Yanks.... now I get it.
I think there's a definite strain of anti-Americanism on display however cautiously we have to view their actions after Iraq and
give their closeness to the Gulf States. A quarter of the country has fled Assad, some 10 million internally displaced not to
mention the incredible numbers of dead and wounded.
And yet there's a close minded reflex to say that things will be better off with him in charge ignoring even the possibility
of partition, which strikes me as the most plausible option. The idea that Assad can now after all he's done rule a united country
indefinitely putting a lid on refugees and terrorism strikes me as utterly preposterous.
My sentiments entirely and it shocks me that there are a considerable number of Assad apologists commenting on here as he is clearly
seen as a better 'devil' than Trump...
I'm just very pleased I don't live in Syria and I think the run of the mill Syrian dying in their droves due to gas, bombs
or simply drowning in the Med would be horrified to read a large number of comments on here in relation to this article and how
Assad 'isn't such a bad old stick!'
Take Isil and jihadists out of the equation and what you're left with
what you are left is nothing. This was the big point since 2013, when Nusra began taking over the last remnants of the FSA. Since
then Cameron (or was it Hammond) had to coin the term "relatively hardline islamists" to make some of the jihadi groups somewhat
acceptable.
In its latest iteration, Nusra (now rebranded yet againTahrir al-Sham) has formally absorbed several other "rebel" group, including
the Nour al-Din al-Zenki, who were in the past equipped by the US, and were quoted by various agencies (including this paper)
as "opposition" during the recapture of Aleppo.
Ah, yes, you also have the Kurds, who are building their own state. But if there is something all the local powers agree on
(Russia, US, Turkey, Syria, Iraq...) is that they don't want an independent Kurdish state.
President Obama was heavily criticized for not doing more in Syria, but he made a difficult decision that was in many ways
the right on.
Obama required cover from the British Parliament. Bombing Syria was incredibly unpopular with the UK public from right to left.
David Miliband listened to the public and stopped the bombing of Syria. Nobody expected a Labour politician to dare to oppose
the US war machine, it took them all by surprise.
Bombing Syria was incredibly unpopular with the US public and the European public, Miliband saved us from ISIS and Al Nusra
both al Qaeda franchises running Syria.
The BBC routinely portrays the Libertarian right wing in the USA as Isolationists but if you hear it from them they are anti-war.
The American working class understands what war is like in the middle east because many of them have experienced it. They are
clearly anti another war in the middle east. proof:
You could argue this isn't about regime change per se but prosecuting a dictator for targeting and massacring civilians. And surely
the same rationale can be used against Isis. In other words you don't allow mass murderers to take. Over but prosecute them as
well.
Good article. Hits the nail on the head. Regime change may be required for Syria the G7 and Arab countries must come together
to carefully plan what happens afterwards.
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our
community standards . Replies may also be deleted.
For more detail see our FAQs .
'Monster' Assad was courted by western leaders: Remember the Assads pictured taking tea at Buckingham Palace with the Queen(google
it) , Blair all smiles in Damascus. The Kerry family pictured in Damascus enjoying a late evening supper with the Assads(google
it).
But Bashar al-Assad is a stubborn man , he wouldn't distance himself from Iran and their proxies such as Hezbollah, thus his
fate was sealed.
Well it's all tied in . People talk about Israel wanting the Golan Heights permanently in part due to oil interests, they talk
about Qatar and the gas pipeline to Europe Assad refuses. They talk about the KSA being unnerved by Iran's growing influence in
the region after the Iraq war, and how it would suit KSA , Israel and the US for Sunni leadership to emerge in Syria to rebalance
the region.
I think it's all of the above . Which isn't what US/UK populations are being told.
The West learns nothing from its mistakes. Can't we understand that our real enemy is ISIS and that springs directly from our
disastrous invasion of Iraq? Assad may be pretty awful but surely we should be able to comprehend that he is an ally in the fight
against ISIS just as the far more horrible Stalin was an ally against the Nazis.
Just because Trump suddenly talks about "beautiful babies", we all go mad again.
Syria is going to need serious amounts of aid and foreign investment to recover when peace starts to take hold. But Assad cannot
travel internationally because he will be subject to arrest. At least in any civilised country. So he will be gone one way or
antithetical. Putin has backed the wrong horse. It's too handicapped to run.
Until the Saudis, US & UK decide that enough is enough, then this idiocy will continue. Assad is a better leader for Syria than
Isis, Al Qaeda, or the other Saudi-backed groups would be.
Syria was secular and religiously tolerant under Assad. It won't be either of those things if Assad is deposed. More than likely,
it would end up as a Saudi-style Islamic theocracy with the harshest head-chopping, hand-chopping version of sharia law.
He has reduced once great Syrian cities like Homs and Aleppo to rubble
Did Assad deliberately bring his country into civil war? When his forces are being attacked by rebels sponsored by foreign
groups, he really only has two choices: give up leadership and allow the rebels to take over the country, or fight back. Given
that you're arguing that a regime change is a bad idea it logically follows that you support the second option, so it hardly seems
fair to criticise him for the consequences of that resistance. You might do better to blame the rebels and those who sponsor them
for bringing war to what was previously a (relatively) peaceful country.
This Regime Change Policy adopted by the US and in many, if not all cases, supported by the UK, whilst in some case toppling Dictators,
has left nothing but chaos in its wake.
We need to consider the case of Syria, very carefully, as we may well find ourselves handing the Country to ISIL on a plate.
Better to help Assad stabilise the Country, and then discuss political change.
The rhetoric coming from the Foreign and Defence Secretaries, can do nothing to help, but make the UK look stupid.
Hahahahaha, collude with crimes against humanity in the name of stability and call it progress because after six years we cannot
think of an alternative. Great.
He has reduced once great Syrian cities like Homs and Aleppo to rubble
Did Assad deliberately bring his country into civil war? When his forces are being attacked by rebels sponsored by foreign
groups, he really only has two choices: give up leadership and allow the rebels to take over the country, or fight back. Given
that you're arguing that a regime change is a bad idea it logically follows that you support the second option, so it hardly seems
fair to criticise him for the consequences of that resistance. You might do better to blame the rebels and those who sponsor them
for bringing war to what was previously a (relatively) peaceful country.
This Regime Change Policy adopted by the US and in many, if not all cases, supported by the UK, whilst in some case toppling Dictators,
has left nothing but chaos in its wake.
We need to consider the case of Syria, very carefully, as we may well find ourselves handing the Country to ISIL on a plate.
Better to help Assad stabilise the Country, and then discuss political change.
The rhetoric coming from the Foreign and Defence Secretaries, can do nothing to help, but make the UK look stupid.
Hahahahaha, collude with crimes against humanity in the name of stability and call it progress because after six years we cannot
think of an alternative. Great.
Absolutely no... it will be a colossal disaster... and would explode the entire region affecting not only all ME countries
including Israel, but will extend to Europe and NA, You can't keep it all "Over There"
Regime change, evidently the US has n't learned from the past experience. Look at Iraq, Lybia, regime change has resulted in complete
chaos, instability, and perpetual conflict. Syrian population is strictly divided on sectarian line - Sunnis, Shias, Christians,
Kurds. Who is going to make a cohesive government capable of running the affairs of the state? Bashar Assaad's father, Hafiz Assaad
ruled Syria with an iron grip, he understood Syrian sectarian divide.
If any country needs regime change, it is Saudi Arabia. All important positions are controlled by hundreds of Royals of Al Saud,
even honest criticism of royals brings you closer to the back swing of executioner .
My newsagent loves Assad. Why because he's a Syrian Christian. Assad is the only hope for the minority's in Syria. All of the
opposition groups are some variation on Islamic nationalists. They will all happily slaughter anyone not of their faith. Assad
is a murdering bastard but he kills those that threaten him. In Middle Eastern terms he's a liberal.
Quite right. What the people of Syria need is stability and an end to the fighting. All else is secondary. In particular, the
greatest crime that the West has committed in recent decades is the attempt to foist democracy on countries like Syria and Iraq,
where it simply does not work. Even now, Western liberals dream of sitting Sunni, Shia, Alevi, Kurds, secularists and Islamic
militants around a table to talk through to a democratic and mutually acceptable future for Syria. This is a fantasy - as democracy
always is in heavily tribalised societies. It can only end in renewed civil war and inevitable dictatorship. I often wonder whether
the West is just naive in these attempts at liberal cultural imperialism, or whether they are in fact a cynical front to mask
the equally egregious aim of checkmating Russian influence in the region. Either way, shame on us.
Now to be fair, no one knows really what the president is thinking, not even apparently his chief diplomat or his UN envoy, who
have sent conflicting messages. But let's cut to the chase – this is a very, very bad idea.
WW3 is definately a very very bad idea.
The idea that the US can change the government of another country for the better is born of US arrogance and lying manipulation.
It's a bit funny that we just casually mention that the country harping on about the respect of the international rule book sinc
2014 vaiolate one of the core UN charter principles 72 times and is openly speaking of braking it the 73th time.
Jsut picture China saying openly their goal is to change the Abe regime in Tokio or Russia to change the regime in Kiev. They
can't even have a pefered presidential candidate without mass interference hysteria and we just feel like it's A OK to go around
the world changing who's in charge of countries.
> They can't even have a pefered presidential candidate without mass interference hysteria and we just feel like it's A OK to
go around the world changing who's in charge of countries.
There are two main choices... Regime change... which hasn't worked out well where it's been attempted or just let the despots
get on with it...
There are no easy answers but perhaps the only way is to let dictators crush and annihilate their opposition, utilise death
squads to make dissenters disappear in the dead of night and, outwardly at least pretend everything is rosey....
If we, as a civilised society are able to 'look the other way' then that might be the simple answer... just hope everyone can
sleep well at night and be grateful that, however much you hate our present government they aren't out gassing (allegedly) Guardian
readers.
Not gassing people no, but still killing plenty of "innocent little babies" bombing hospitals and helping the Saudis cluster bomb
fishing villages. Why don't we see pictures on TV of Yemeni kids mutilated by American bombs? How do we sleep with that?
Well, we saw the aftermath of a deliberate attack by Saudis planes on a clearly demarcated Yemeni hospital on the BBC last year.
The first rocket hit an arriving ambulance with civilian casualties and a doctor on board. The response of the Saudi shills in
the Commons - what is it about the British upper class and the Arabs, I wonder - was to demand forcefully that the Saudis set
up an inquiry to examine the evidence of a war crime.
It should have been sadly obvious from the get-go that we had to back Assad before he attempted to beat his father's record
for murder and repression, the whole family's fucking insane, but it's long past too late now. He's soiled goods and Tillerson's
untutored idea of elections is surely farcical.
Fair article, although ISI and rebels actively participated in the destruction of Syria. If Assad falls, anarchy due to vacuum
will follow, guaranteed. Agree with the last paragraph in particular and still wondering why they (the West) don't do it especially
pressuring the countries that feed the rebels, and they are not so moderate, with money and weapon. Unless this is because of
the infamous pipeline. Tragic state of affair indeed.
Decade after decade, the west has interfered or overthrown government after governemnt , all over the world , mainly for the benefit
of capitalist puppeteers . America has been the worst , one only has to look at the CIA's track record in South America when legitimately
elected governments were ousted by force so that "American business" interest were looked after.
This same vested self interest has been the driving force over the last few years. The interventions in Iraq , Libya, Afghanistan
have all been total disasters fro the regions and resulted in more deaths than any tin pot dictator could have achieved. Backing
so called "moderate" terrorists seems to be the excuse to get involved.
More moral achievement and good could have been achieved by widespread dropping of food around the world , or even the cost
of the military hegemony being given as cash handouts to poor people , but this simplistic altruism does not allow for the geopolitical
control games that is the true beating heart of western aggression.
We are all Brexiteers now. I voted remain, but accept the democratic will of the people. Blame David Cameron and get on with the
job of making a success of it, rather than whining about it....
I'm just saying people making the case for the West to back off would probably be saying the opposite in that case if the white
minority were massacring black people on the scale of Syria. Isn't that hypocrisy?
The successful regime changes mentioned in the article such as Poland and the rest of the Eastern bloc were initiated by the people
themselves, rather than the the "help" of a foreign power.
The people did it all by themselves did they? So nothing to do with the economic collapse of the Soviet Union caused by an arms
race ramped up by President Reagan. Nothing to do with a very costly war in Afghanistan?
Given the situation, it is understandable why some people may think ousting Assad is necessary. Such thinking has a long pedigree
in the United States, where there is a robust belief in a supposed American ability to fix what is wrong.
Would you have said the same thing in 1917 and 1940. Would you have said the same thing in the duration of the cold war. If US
did not have a bigger penis then you would not be around to comment about it.
Long live the US penis and may it grow longer and stronger.
WW2 was won principally by the USSR, who suffered many more casualties than the western alliances. The cold war would not have
happened if not for the USA.
Sorry, the USA is more of a threat to the planet than any country, and Trump is unintelligent, a real threat to the world.
If the US wants Assad ousted, they should support a UN investigation to find out WHO was at fault. Shoot first questions later?
Hollywood Wild West thinking. The US has zero credibility. You simply cannot blame someone without having the facts independently
checked out. Yet they didn't wait and decided to break interantional law instead.
There seems to be a crucial component of reality lacking in this opinion piece: rather than bombing and droning and etc, why does
the 'world order' not stop the manufacture and distribution of weapons of mass destruction like barrel bombs, nuclear warheads
etc etc -- where profits are made by arms manufacturers and their investors--oh, could that be the reason?
Quite. Assad is awful, but he is less awful that the Islamist alternatives, which are the only realistic alternatives. We should
stop posturing and accept this unpalatable reality.
Much more level reporting, but still is framing the narrative as a brutal gas attack and is still a rush to judgement when the
case is that bombs were dropped on a supply of toxic gas, most likely Phosgene.
At last, some common sense. like Saddam and Gaddafi, Assad is a ruthless tyrant. What the West, including the petulant Boris Johnson
need to realise is that Syria ISN'T the West. Don't impose your values on a country that isn't ready for them. The sickening hypocrisy
of the British government would look very foolish if Putin pulled out and allowed Syria to fall to isis. Would Boris and Theresa
put British troops on the ground to keep the extremists out of Turkey?
Why isn't Syria ready for Western values? After what the country has been through the people would probably leap at the chance
of free elections. Prior to the conflict Syria was a multi-ethnic patchwork. Whatever happens to the country needs to be decided
by the Syrians themselves.
The geopolitical status quo in the Middle East is unstable, and tribal affiliations/religious/ ethnic allegiances need to be
carefully balanced and controlled. Something Lebanon, Libya, Syria and Iraq achieved reasonably peacefully for many years before
all the US led interventions.
There is no evidence that the terrorists are fighting for democracy, although if westerners ask them that is what they will
likely say.
So Trump is unfit to govern because of his locker room humour and possible antics, but gas a few thousand people and hey presto!
A darling of the left.
You're talking about this rag. Take a look at what's coming out of Howard Dean's mouth, or Bernie Sanders's, or practically any
Democrat in Washington not named Tulsi Gabbard.
Or, if you have a really strong stomach, take a look at Daily Kos.
They're what passes for "left" in America, unfortunately, because the number of SWP and Green Party members is statistically
insignificant.
Regime change is illegal under international law, except to the rogues of course found in western capitals, and their Gulf vassals.
These are the only group of people in the entire planet who talk openly about overthrowing sovereign governments of other countries.
The unfortunate truth is that, along with the ongoing decline of western civilization, one 'by-product' is that International
Law is continually disdained. The USA, having lack of insightful leadership, does as it wants, when it wants .. the result is
that perpetual wars seem to be a given .. meanwhile, Asia continues to rise and is growing real and genuine wealth by producing
and exporting the goods the rest of the world consumes and is doing it very well..
President Trump didn't do enough (yet) by bombing an air base at night. The people of Syria need weapons, tanks, missiles, air
support, etc. from a country like the USA that stands for freedom and human rights. Assad, who lives by the sword should also
die by the sword. For the U.S. to stand by and watch these atrocities unchallenged would simply be not who we are. I don't agree
with President Trump on a lot of things, but on this point he is right. I have changed from not liking him at all to liking him
just a bit more.
"The logic is that by removing and replacing an undesirable leader, the political situation in the country will change. "
Absolute tosh.
The logic behind nearly all attempts at cold war regime change was to replace a regime which aligned itself with the USSR with
one that aligned itself with the USA.
The internal situation, politically or otherwise was of no concern
Good piece. Regime change has been such a resounding success, you only have to look at Iraq and Libya to see that. Nor does a
country which has a history of using napalm and carcinogenic defoliants any room to take the moral high ground.
If Assad, is so bad, how come most of the civilian population prefer his areas to those of the rebels? The one certainty in all
of this is that the MSM has sold its credibility. Most of what I see is vested interest propaganda.
Isn't the main reason that people prefer Assad's areas because he doesn't bomb them.
There is no love of Assad anywhere.
If the US were to limit itself to punishing strikes against Assad whenever his forces committed war crimes – bombing hospitals
using poison gas etc then a minor at the level of civilisation creeps back into the equation.
The situation will be even more fraught if other external actors turn any attempt at regime change into a proxy war, as Russia
and Iran are likely to do.
A proxy war between the United States and Russia is the thing we all have to fear. In Trump and Putin you have two leaders
who use brinkmanship to get what they want and who will never back down from any position no matter what the consequences. They'd
rather pursue a misguided policy rathen than lose face. I'd like to think the recent war of words between the two countries is
just bluster, but as each day goes by I'm no longer sure anymore.
Regime change should work if all parties believe in democracy and respect each other. That does not seem likely in the middle
east. We have seen what that means forcing that idea in Iraq, Egypt and Libya. A secular SOB is better than somebody who believes
in laws of yesteryears.
Another way: reducing accidental use of chemical weapons?
Always drop 2 bombs; one from each side of ammunition dump. That way, one of such unmarked ordinance is likely to be conventional
explosives. The latter would further disperse, and dilute (reduce density) of the chemical gas; hence lessening lethality.
So we agree on the final result (need for regime change which by the way the article conflicts with its own title), but we disagree
on the method. Many bottoms-up revolutions would not have been successful without outside help. The French helped America achieve
freedom although their reason was somewhat revengeful. The people of Syria have no chance against an army and tanks ruled by a
ruthless evil dictator like Assad without outside assistance. If you think they are not shedding enough blood for their freedom,
then you are living in a hole in the ground.
In the latest iteration for 2016, the bottom ten places in the Index, reserved for the least peaceful countries on earth, include
Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya: four countries where "regime change" has been brought about – or, in Syria's case, where there
is arguably an ongoing attempt to bring it about – by the use of military force.
The evidence so far is that the use of force to topple regimes does not make things better, even when the behaviour of those
regimes is/was objectionable in many ways.
He has reduced once great Syrian cities such as Homs and Aleppo to rubble. All six of Syria's Unesco world heritage sites
have been damaged.
Nope. Most of Homs and Aleppo are intact. The areas occupied by foreign Jihadists using the local populace as human shields
were heavily bombed but now they have been liberated.
Who was it who destroyed these heritage sites? Not the SAA. The Jihadists even filmed themselves doing it and posted the videos
online for goodness sake.
Bashar al-Assad is not a good person. He has reduced once great Syrian cities like Homs and Aleppo to rubble. All six of Syria's
Unesco World Heritage sites have been damaged.
So thousands of mostly foreign jihadists occupying parts of those cities had nothing to do with it? Did the US led forces in
now n Mosul, or before that in Fallujah find the way to dislodge terrorists from urban strongholds without devastation of the
city? Also for all world heritage sites in Syria, they were defended by Syrian troops, and everything that could be moved was
moved to safe place. It was exclusively jihadists that were destroying temples, churches, shrines, even muslim graveyards when
they found the funeral momunent "too tall". In all of these efforts to save the history of the humanity, syrian govermnent got
no help nor acknowledgment. To add insult to injury, the western "cultural" response was touring 3D model of Palmyra gates through
western capitals but while Daesh was methodically blowing it up under clear desert skies, there was interestingly not a single
american drone to be found anywhere. It was syrian, iranian and russian blood spilled to liberate it twice from the death cult.
Yep. There isn't a solution to this problem, but the one thing I'm 99.999% convinved will not work is 'the west' dusting off it's
world policeman uniform and bombing the heck out of Syria.
This is precisely why the west has largely stayed out of the Syrian conflict; despite having a policy favouring the removal of
Assad there hasn't been an attempt (or even the suggestion of an attempt at a policy level) at regime change.
One does wonder, though, at what point the conflict becomes so abhorrent and the civilian casualties so grotesque that our
intervention could scarcely make things any worse
It seems that Spicer, the White House Press Secretary, whilst putting all his cerebral energy into attempting to apologise
for his jaw-droppingly ignorant statement that Hitler never used chemical weapons on his own people, failed to stop his mouth
making yet another gaffe;
"I needed to make sure that I clarified, and was not in any shape or form any more of a distraction from the president's
decisive action in Syria and the attempts that he is making to destabilise the region and root out ISIS out of Syria."
(my emphasis)
Spicer speaks about the president's attempts to destabilise the region in a CNN television interview too.
As people are beginning to ask, does Spicer actually know what distabilise means?
It bothers me that Trump is suddenly showing such concern toward innocent Syrians. Yet, at the same time he wants a ban on immigration
from seven predominantly Muslim countries, including Syria.
Don't you think the timing here is - for Trump - rather convenient? Just when he is under pressure for being a Russian patsy,
something happens to allow him to portray himself as 'standing up to Putin'.
Right. Also, the question should be...if Putin is sleazy enough to be complicit with Syria, then why wouldn't they be sleazy enough
to be involved in trying to swing the American election?
In essence there must be incremental change in the political climate and culture of a state amongst the masses before it culminates
in regime change at the top.
The political climate is no longer there because Assad has systematically murdered everyone who could have formed a credible
oppostion to his regime; opposition activitsts, aid workers, doctors and nurses, journalists - all have either been killed, have
fled to Europe, or are currently being tortured in one of his detention centres. There is no one left to rise up against him.
The intervention triggers resentment and hostility at the new government whose legitimacy is reduced through the participation
of an outside government. Soon the new regime is considered a 'puppet' and its own existence is questioned by the people.
This is indeed true. However backing Assad also has its costs; where is the legitimacy of someone who is now merely a "puppet"
for Russia and Iran's ambitions in the region?
As uncomfortable as it is the best western governments can do is to provide aid and assistance to those in distress, whilst
pressuring those countries that continue to feed money and weapons to the combatants to change their positions.
As reasonable as this sounds, I'm afraid this is just wishful thinking.
"The political climate is no longer there because Assad has systematically murdered everyone who could have formed a credible
oppostion to his regime;"
There is a credible position inside Syria which has been largely ignored by the western MSM and governments, because it does
not support the uprisisng or the violent overthrow of the Syrian government. It was refused participation when the first peace
talks were arranged.
Wow, a Guardian article I can finally wholeheartedly agree with. Does this Professor chap have a hotline to Trump and the rest
of the Western leaders itching for a fight with Assad?
Why do I get the feeling this is just another one of those "Now that Trump is in charge, we shouldn't do regime change" pieces?
I note that the author nowhere comes out against fighting an eternal war in Syria -- he just doesn't want Trump doing the "regime
change."
Yeah, he blabbers on about "aid and assistance" and "pressuring those countries that continue to feed money and weapons to
the combatants to change their positions" -- obviously choosing to ignore how several western governments provide money and weapons
to the combatants (should they be "pressuring" themselves?) But the pinnacle of his cluelessness -- or his agenda -- is reached
with this whopper:
The situation will be even more fraught if other external actors turn any attempt at regime change into a proxy war, as
Russia and Iran are likely to do.
--as if this hadn't been a proxy war for years already, one in which his own country has been quite actively engaged.
This idiot has got to go, he is not rational. He clearly has not an inkling of the gravity of his actions. Nor does he care.
How did we get to this? We always thought that a rogue state would be the end of us all. We were wrong. This moron is doing it
all by himself. Some one needs to step in, take back control. This is frightening stuff.
Assad's removal would be catastrophic. There would be no stable government in Syria, it would be controlled by warlords
backed by Saudi Arabia, al-Qaeda or ISIS and millions of refugees would have no country to return to or to live in. This will
mean more refugees in Europe, more destabilisation and more money drained from our treasuries.
Russia would also be far from pleased and if the conflict erupted into a confrontation between NATO affiliated forces
in Syria against Russia, the Eastern European front will become a lot more precarious (at a time when Britain is cutting
back on military spending and very few European countries adequately contribute towards NATO). Do we really want a repeat of tensions
from the pre-1991 era? I don't think so, especially with the combined threat of domestic Islamic terrorism throughout Europe and
with the continental debt crisis that cannot afford more wars that are not in its interests. Russia will quickly mobilise its
forces into the non-Russian caucuses, already closely aligned with Armenia and potentially link up with Iran territoriality. And
what about Turkey? They cannot be relied upon.
So what benefit exactly is it to create anarchy in Syria for Britain's immediate and long-term interests? The destruction of
Libya has created nothing but chaos and a stream of migrants from across Africa. Why Boris Johnson is waltzing around the world
demanding hard action against Russia when we are cutting back on our armed forces is startling. A better question would be in
whose immediate economic and geopolitical interests is the destruction of Assad beneficial? Well... there's two countries in the
Middle East which come to mind... not hard to guess.
That's fair enough but what if Assad stays in power? Will the refugees, who mainly fled him, return? Will anyone invest in rebuilding
the country? WIll anyone deal with the country other than Russia or Iran? Above all will the hatred of Assad, terrorism or indeed
the conflict as a whole recede?
They didn't flee him... they fled the war. Most people, in any country, are apolitical. I expect the refugees in the Middle East
and Anatolia will return to Syria and those in the West must be forced to return back.
The problem with Syria now is that it has become such a hot plate. If the West concedes to Russia and allows Syria to survive
under the rule of Assad then we will lose face internationally... and it would be domestically embarrassing. No doubt Saudi Arabia,
Israel and the Gulf monarchies would be less than pleased, and we depend on them for a lot of our oil.
It's a difficult question but what we do know is that there are no other credible groups that can rule Syria at the moment,
other than Assad's Alawite minority. If we decide to nation-build, that will cost billions, possibly even trillions with no concrete
result as our attempt in Iraq shows and we have no idea who we would put in charge. The Christians have about as much legitimacy
as the Alawites. Perhaps the only conceivable outcome would be the breakup of Syria. The Christian and Alawite regions go towards
Lebanon, the Kurdish regions are given independence and the Sunni areas are also given an independent state. But of course, the
Sunni and Christian areas are intertwined and many Sunni's support Assad, or at least do not oppose him. And Turkey, as well as
Iran, would never allow an independent Kurdistan. Iran would be less than pleased with the breakup of Syria as well.
I want to see a post-Assad plan. We all know what happens to non-Sunni minorities when a secular Arab leader is toppled. No
one has yet to provide a coherent post-Assad state-structure. Unless of course they want Turkey to territoriality expand... we
want to preserve the post-Ottoman borders and state-system yet at the same time we're waging war against the forces actively preserving
it.
There is no simple answer. Assad is a pawn of Russia and Iran, yet the other options are either Turkish expansion (which, the
last time they did that, they had sizeable European territories) or Saudi expansion (which I hope everyone agrees is less than
desirable). We have no friends in the Middle East, other than Jordan, Egypt and Israel. But they all have their own interests
and I suspect their friendships are determined upon those interests. I think our aim is to maintain the balance of power. Perhaps
only the growth of Israel could act as a counter-weight to Sunni and Shia interests.
Would you support another leader from perhaps the same party taking over as an interim measure whilst different factions are brought
together to defeat ISIS?
In an ideal world, I would love to see this happening, along with a form of truth and reconciliation commission, and a commitment
from the international community and other bodies independent of the Syrian government to assist in tackling issues such as warlordism
and corruption. The dogmatic belief that there can be no leader other than Assad is one that might have ultimately cost millions
of lives and it would be wrong to use the old dictator's mantra of 'me or chaos'. And to be fair, Assad does not have a great
track record in Syria.
And a final question - do you believe Russia should be doing more to put pressure on Assad or do you think it will be happy
to put its international credibility on the line for him? (There is something pathological I believe in Putin's willingness to
support other dictators)
How can one call for 'peaceful transition to a new society' when the original opposition to Assad was sponsored by multifarious
power-hungry foreign actors? They exploited the Arab Spring pro-democracy utopianism then messed up their insurrectional strategy
disastrously. The country now needs to be made a protectorate of an international peace-keeping force until a representative transitional
government is agreed upon.
No, that sounds like the pseudo-leftist neo-colonial discourse that Obama was so fond of.
The counter-argument to regime change is more that by now Assad controls most cities again, the opposition are awful sectarians
who should be let nowhere near power and it may still be possible to contain IS to a manageable extent while Assad maintains a
dictatorship indefinitely.
Not quite sure what you mean. Just saying that the "man on the street" would more likely than not understand "protectorate" pretty
much the same as e.g. the Moroccans did.
Regime change in Syria was being talked directly since 9/11 and it never stopped. It's on the record. So is john Kerry, on record
on TV, stating gulf states offered to cover part of the costs of a US invasion in Syria at least twice way before the so called
''civil war'' even started.
They prepared it for years but the poor taste Iraq/Libya left on the US public meant the US pulled out of the deal (all because
of the planed gas pipelines from Qatar to Europe that has to go through Syria).
The Saudis along with Qatar, Turkey and Israel believed they could force the hand of the US and acted alone initiating the
takeover. This is why despite the intel, organisation and provision of what is estimated to be 300k(german estimates) foreign
jihadists eventually came to a standstill without direct US support.
The Jihadists then prematurely jumped the gun fragmented creating ISIS (something meant to take place behind the scenes after
they defeated Assad)
The point is of course...it's all about oil...nothing about democracy or Gas or any of that crap
Yes, this is all quite true. What the USA almost always seems to do is create a power vacuum in the countries it attempts to "save"
and, inevitably it seems, the USA always chooses the wrong damn party or person to support in said vacuum. A stunning misreading
and proof of the failure of American foreign policy "experts" and CIA strategists to grasp the realities on the ground.
Yes, this is all quite true. What the USA almost always seems to do is create a power vacuum in the countries it attempts
to "save" and, inevitably it seems, the USA always chooses the wrong damn party or person to support in said vacuum.
Like in Japan. Just that Japan is ... Shinto. Or something. Not M.........
I'm sure its fair to say that for many instability, disorder, mayhem and the like are entirely desirable. Witness Kissinger who
out-and-out advocated/advocates looking after US long-term interests through war, disease and starvation.
'The on-going devastation in Syria cries out for a response, 'do something' is the inherent plea.'
Might I suggest sending generous quantities of bubble wrap to each of the 'something must be done' brigade. Popping those bubbles
is relaxing and calming. They will otherwise impatiently agitate for some ineffective, or more likely counter-productive measure
that makes things drastically worse.
Not very sensible, actually -- see the comment by capatriot above (or below, if you do "newest first"). Rather appalling that
someone with academic credentials would (1) engage in a comic book-style analysis of world politics (big bad nearly omnipotent
supervillain!) and (2) put all the blame for the carnage and destruction on one side.
We tried to change the leader in Iraq. It didn't work, and now the country is a hotbed of terrorism and incredibly corrupt and
ineffectual government. We tried to change the leader in Libya. It didn't work, and now the country is a hotbed of terrorism and
incredibly corrupt and ineffectual government. I guess we could try to change the leader in Syria, if we really, really want.
He has reduced once great Syrian cities like Homs and Aleppo to rubble.
What, he, personally? What is he, superman? And I wonder why he'd choose to do that to his own nation's cities?
But wait, you mean that there was a rebellion against the recognized government which developed into a civil war, aided and
abetted by sectarian outsiders and terrorists and the United States/West, with political and religious/ethnic overtones? And that
later, as it looked like the recognized govt was going to fail, other interested outsiders like Russia and Iran intervened to
help it?
Gosh, I wonder what the least worst outcome for the people of Syria actually is here ... perhaps we should leave it to them?
It's actually a very serious question. How much control does Assad have over his government, let alone his armed forces? He's
a trained dentist, ferchrissakes, and his older brother was the one groomed for the <strike>throne</strike> presidency. It makes
sense to assume that his powers over an entrenched nomenklatura, to say nothing of all of the different armed factions nominally
serving him, aren't limitless.
I agree with you completely about the danger Turkey poses to Russia in Syria. You may even be right about this being a trap that Putin walked into by making a half-hearted
military commitment to Syria and that now Drumpf decides to call the bluff by sicking Erdo on Russia
exposed in Syria
This would surely be catastrophic for Russia and Putin himself he would have no chance to continue
as leader of this great nation. However that is making a big leap of faith about Putin's basic math skills and resolve. What if VVP decides to pick up the glove that Drumpf appears to be throwing down ?
What then ?
Do you or anyone think that the Russian military is unprepared to put in place a very strong road
block to any aggression on Syria ?
As I mentioned elsewhere it would take only a couple of Iskander rocket brigades to cut Erdo's
tank army to shreds if the move on Syria proceeds
I also believe that Russia is now moving in real time and is ready to spring its own trap as Professor
Cohen noted on US TV today Russia is 'preparing for a hot war '. The rest of your comments about the Islamic threat to Russia's southern underbelly the first attempt
with Chechnya in the '90s already failed badly
No doubt West still dreams of this but it would be a major project of 10 or 20 years at least would
take a lot of ground laying
The idea that some kind of jihadist army is quickly going to march on Moscow is quite frankly
silly
I would say that China's problem in Xinjiang is just as serious if not more how many Uighur takfiris
have traveled from PRC to fight in Syria ?
Yet PRC does nothing At least Russia has Chechen military police in Syria and who knows what else
that is operating in 'shadows'
Do you think those bearded Uighur fanatics are going to come back home and continue the fight
in Xinjiang with support of US George Soros Amnesty International NED etc ?
Also Tibet ? You seem to have some blind spots when it comes to assessing
geopolitical strength
' Syria is not essential to Russia except for Russia's
economically premature
claim
to super power status '
You sound like someone who needs a lesson in your own country's history
' In the 17th and 18th centuries, the demand for Chinese goods (particularly silk, porcelain,
and tea) in the European market created a trade imbalance because the market for Western goods in
China was virtually non-existent; China was largely self-sufficient and Europeans were not allowed
access to China's interior.
European silver flowed into China '
Yes the Chinese were smart to conduct trade on their terms they told the English, French, Dutch
and other colonial pirates [including America] that if they want Chinese tea then just bring silver
and trade in one place where we allow it.
Very good and wise policy
.also incidentally followed at the time by Japan and
Korea [another story]
Only problem was you see the mighty British Empire thought it had the god-given right to rule
the world like another country today
They did not like the fact that they could not make anything off China and even had to buy silver
from the Portuguese silver mines in Brazil for all the tea that Englishmen wanted to drink
So here is what happened the Brits decided to 'open up' the Chinese market [I love that phrase how
do you do that like with a can opener ?]
You see the English had a nice little trade going in
dope
opium that they were growing
in plantations in India which they ruled with an iron fist and they were making a nice business selling
that to Chinese drug dealers under the table of course. And guess what the Chinese drug dealers were using to pay for that British dope if you guessed
silver you would be right
' This reverse flow of silver and the increasing numbers of opium addicts alarmed Chinese
officials '
Gee you think ?
' In 1839, the Daoguang Emperor, rejecting proposals to legalise and tax opium, appointed viceroy
Lin Zexu to solve the problem by abolishing the trade. Lin confiscated around 20,000 chests of
opium (approximately 1210 tons or 2.66 million pounds) without offering compensation, blockaded
trade, and confined foreign merchants to their quarters.[6] The British government, although not
officially denying China's right to control imports of the drug, objected to this unexpected seizure
and used its naval and gunnery power to inflict a quick and decisive defeat,[5] a tactic later
referred to as gunboat diplomacy "
Well gee that didn't turn out so well now did it ? China ended up having to 'open' its market
to British dope while millions of Chines peasants destroyed themselves and their families as junkies
After that China was basically 'subdued' by the colonialists pirates until they managed to get
Hong Kong back a few years ago and even now the pirates are stirring up trouble there
Sure the Imperial Russians jumped on China too after all Russian Czar and German Kaiser were first
cousins colonialism was a great European gravy train for the elites of the day
Russia got China to give it the railroad concession in Manchuria [btw not Han ethnic at that time] and
Russians built a railroad and a city [Harbin] now a city of over 5 million people
' Polish engineer Adam Szydłowski drew plans for the city [Harbin] following the construction
of the Chinese Eastern Railway, which the Russian Empire had financed.[9] The Russians selected Harbin
as the base of their administration over this railway and the Chinese Eastern Railway Zone. The Chinese
Eastern Railway extended the Trans-Siberian Railway: substantially reducing the distance from Chita
to Vladivostok and also linking the new port city of Dalny (Dalian) and the Russian Naval Base Port
Arthur (Lüshun) '
So what was the lesson in 'trading' with British /
You can be very good and clever and not let foreigners get the better of you when selling them
tea but unless
you have guns that are bigger than theirs
you may end up losing
What is going on today ? China makes and sells the 21'st century equivalent of tea and porcelain iphones
and walmart stuff
Only now it is selling not for
real money
like silver but for IOUs printed by US banksters can
be used to buy stuff in US not China maybe China wants to buy Disneyland ?
Try to buy Boeing or Lockheed Martin with Chinese big stack of dollars see what US say
Also can be used to buy US govt debt which allows US to print fake money to pay for its military
industrial complex buy Russian rocket engines etc
Isn't it great when markets are 'opened up' ? everybody wins
My point is simply this please don't talk insultingly about Russian superpower 'pretensions'
How many nuclear submarines does China make ?
I hear recently China is making good progress on its first 'good' jet engine for its fighter aircraft
You may know that only a handful of nations produce 'good' turbojet and turbofan engines in the
world today US Russia UK France
That China may soon join this exclusive club is something to be proud of
In 2003 China put its first man in space
' In 1994, Russia sold some of its advanced aviation and space technology to the Chinese.
In 1995 a deal was signed between the two countries for the transfer of Russian Soyuz spacecraft
technology to China. Included in the agreement was training, provision of Soyuz capsules, life support
systems, docking systems, and space suits. In 1996 two Chinese astronauts, Wu Jie and Li Qinglong,
began training at the Yuri Gagarin Cosmonaut Training Center in Russia. After training, these men
returned to China and proceeded to train other Chinese astronauts at sites near Beijing and Jiuquan.
The hardware and information sold by the Russians led to modifications of the original Phase One
spacecraft, eventually called Shenzhou, which loosely translated means "divine vessel." '
Mother Russia is always willing to help her friends
I can also tell you about the Chinese army more than 60 years ago in Korea
' US Eighth Army was decisively defeated at the Battle of the Chongchon River and forced
to retreat all the way back to South Korea The defeat of the U.S. Eighth Army resulted in the longest retreat of any American military unit in history
The Chinese broke through the American
defenses despite American air supremacy and the Eighth Army and U.N. forces retreated hastily to
avoid encirclement. The Chinese offensive continued pressing American forces, which lost Seoul, the
South Korean capital.
Eighth Army's morale and esprit de corps hit rock bottom, to where it was
widely regarded as a broken, defeated rabble
One more thing to be proud of. I'm sure if you decided to become a little more serious about your studies you could find many
more instances in your nation's history to be proud of. Belittling another country in order to make yourself seem bigger is how shall I put rather un-Chinese
I don't trust that Lindsey Graham any more than Obama
Alexander Solzhenitsyn
Graham is a fucking asshole. The man is despicable FILTH.
Yanin Rodriguez
Disappointing questions Tucker with all due respect. Fact - Syrians support Assad up to 82%. Fact #2 - Rebels in Syria are
by most accounts not even Syrian. Follow up on "liberating the Syrians" - with that mentality what about the Saudis?????
War is profits and comprises of the highest % of employment in the US - so until we transfer that sector of the economy to
more peaceful endeavors - we will be permanently be in illegal wars. Lastly - where are any of these wars constitutional?
Why has congress relinquished this responsibility???
We know the answers but never hear the questions asked...
Josh Hempfleng
The strike in Syria really made the Military industrial complex show themselves. The media, Democrats and Rhino's all cheering
on the attack now that they see a chance to make some money off war.
Rumi900
+Josh Hemplfeng - You say '... Democrats and Rhino's all cheering ...' Why Democrats and Rhino's?
I'd be okay with you saying Democrats and Republicans, but you seem to be letting the bulk of Republicans off the hook. Or,
are you saying all the Republican elite are Rhinos? If so, I agree. The point is, surely, that much of Washington (on both sides)
is bought and paid for by the wealthiest elites, through their lobbyists.
This isn't a partisan issue. I wish people would stop making it one! Republicans and Democrats are all equally culpable.
There are Democrats and Republicans who are not just shills for the elite. And those are the politicians we should be championing.
Trump talked about it during the election - 'draining the swamp'. The 'swamp' is not some secret power, some nefarious underground
that is controlling things.
The 'swamp' is bought and paid for politicians - politicians bought and paid for by massive donations that can now hide behind
the opaque screens of the SuperPACs. It's not just politicians on the 'other' side. Both sides are equally involved.
I don't believe Trump is serious about 'draining the swamp'. If he is, he should be going after things like the Citizen's United
decision. The Supreme Court bounced that back to the House, because it's the House that makes the law. The Supreme Court is there
to say whether the law is Constitutional. They don't make law. it's up to Congress to do that.
But politicians in the house, Republicans and Democrats alike, are happy with Citizen's United and SuperPACs and the opportunities
for massive secret donations it has allowed. It's how they all get rich.
If Trump was serious about draining the swamp, he'd be tackling those issues. But he's not. Just look at his appointees! I
didn't vote for Trump. Because I didn't believe his rhetoric. I still don't.
It's you guys, his ardent supporters, who should be holding his feet to the fire! And unfortunately, I see way too much adulation,
mindless hero worship, and not enough demanding accountability.
Joanne K
They don't want us to know that ISIS is in Syria (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) and that is what Assad is fighting, along
with other Islamic groups. The L in ISIL stands for Levant. Leave Syria out so that overthrowing Assad will only leave the amorphous
oppressed rebels (really ISIS or Al Nusra or Al Qaeda).
They are deceivers.
Zack Edwards
So basically the Neoconservatives haven't learned a goddamn thing!
"... Kiev throws paramilitaries – some openly neo-Nazi - into the front of the battle with rebels ..."
"... But Kiev's use of volunteer paramilitaries to stamp out the Russian-backed Donetsk and Luhansk "people's republics", proclaimed in eastern Ukraine in March, should send a shiver down Europe's spine. Recently formed battalions such as Donbas, Dnipro and Azov, with several thousand men under their command, are officially under the control of the interior ministry but their financing is murky, their training inadequate and their ideology often alarming. ..."
"... The Azov men use the neo-Nazi Wolfsangel (Wolf's Hook) symbol on their banner and members of the battalion are openly white supremacists, or anti-Semites. ..."
"... The regiment's first commander was far-right nationalist Andriy Biletsky, who led the neo-Nazi Social-National Assembly and Patriot of Ukraine. ..."
"... Azov has gained notoriety among its detractors due to allegations of torture and war crimes, as well as the neo-Nazi sympathies of some of its members. ..."
Ukraine crisis: the neo-Nazi brigade fighting pro-Russian
separatists
Kiev throws paramilitaries – some openly neo-Nazi - into the
front of the battle with rebels
By Tom Parfitt
9:00AM BST 11 Aug 2014
......................................
But Kiev's use of volunteer paramilitaries to stamp out
the Russian-backed Donetsk and Luhansk "people's republics",
proclaimed in eastern Ukraine in March, should send a shiver
down Europe's spine. Recently formed battalions such as
Donbas, Dnipro and Azov, with several thousand men under
their command, are officially under the control of the
interior ministry but their financing is murky, their
training inadequate and their ideology often alarming.
The Azov men use the neo-Nazi Wolfsangel (Wolf's Hook)
symbol on their banner and members of the battalion are
openly white supremacists, or anti-Semites.
The Azov Regiment (Ukrainian: Полк Азов) is a National Guard
of Ukraine regiment.[1][2][3][4]
The unit is based in Mariupol in the Azov Sea coastal
region.[5] It saw its first combat experience recapturing
Mariupol from pro-Russian separatists forces in June 2014.[3]
Initially a volunteer militia, formed as the Azov
Battalion on 5 May 2014 during the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in
Ukraine, since 12 November 2014 Azov has been incorporated
into the National Guard of Ukraine.[6] All members of the
unit are under contract of and serve as part of the National
Guard of Ukraine.[7]
More than half of the Battalion members are from eastern
Ukraine and speak Russian,[8] and some of its recruits come
from the eastern cities of Donetsk and Luhansk.[9] The
regiment's first commander was far-right nationalist Andriy
Biletsky, who led the neo-Nazi Social-National Assembly and
Patriot of Ukraine.[10][11]
In its early days, Azov was the Ministry of Internal
Affairs' special police company, led by Volodymyr Shpara, the
leader of the Vasylkiv, Kiev, branch of Patriot of Ukraine
and Right Sector.[12][13][14] Under the "Azov" umbrella were
also created the non-governmental organization "Azov Civil
Corps" and the political party National Corps.[15]
Azov has gained notoriety among its detractors due to
allegations of torture and war crimes, as well as the
neo-Nazi sympathies of some of its members.
"... While I'm told that Russia did provide some light weapons to the rebels early in the struggle so they could defend themselves and their territory and a number of Russian nationalists have crossed the border to join the fight the claims of an overt "invasion" with tanks, artillery and truck convoys have been backed up by scant intelligence. ..."
"... One former U.S. intelligence official who has examined the evidence said the intelligence to support the claims of a significant Russian invasion amounted to "virtually nothing." ..."
"... Instead, it appears that the ethnic Russian rebels may have evolved into a more effective fighting force than many in the West thought. They are, after all, fighting on their home turf for their futures. ..."
"... "You need to know," the group wrote, "that accusations of a major Russian 'invasion' of Ukraine appear not to be supported by reliable intelligence. Rather, the 'intelligence' seems to be of the same dubious, politically 'fixed' kind used 12 years ago to 'justify' the U.S.-led attack on Iraq." ..."
"... Slavs are killing each other for the same reason Arabs are killing each other: to ensure the USA geopolitical and economic interests are served well. Divide and conquer was polished by British elite to perfection, and the USA elite adopted this policy like a very talented student. This is what neocolonialism is about. Disaster capitalism in action. ..."
Official Washington draws the Ukraine crisis in black-and-white colors with Russian President
Putin the bad guy and the U.S.-backed leaders in Kiev the good guys. But the reality is much more
nuanced, with the American people consistently misled on key facts.
...............
A Mysterious 'Invasion'
And now there's the curious case of Russia's alleged "invasion" of Ukraine, another alarmist
claim trumpeted by the Kiev regime and echoed by NATO hardliners and the MSM.
While I'm told that Russia did provide some light weapons to the rebels early in the struggle
so they could defend themselves and their territory and a number of Russian nationalists have
crossed the border to join the fight the claims of an overt "invasion" with tanks, artillery and
truck convoys have been backed up by scant intelligence.
One former U.S. intelligence official who has examined the evidence said the intelligence
to support the claims of a significant Russian invasion amounted to "virtually nothing."
Instead, it appears that the ethnic Russian rebels may have evolved into a more effective
fighting force than many in the West thought. They are, after all, fighting on their home turf
for their futures.
Concerned about the latest rush to judgment about the "invasion," the Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity, a group of former U.S. intelligence officials and analysts, took the
unusual step of sending a memo to German Chancellor Angela Merkel warning her of a possible replay
of the false claims that led to the Iraq War.
"You need to know," the group wrote, "that accusations of a major Russian 'invasion' of
Ukraine appear not to be supported by reliable intelligence. Rather, the 'intelligence' seems
to be of the same dubious, politically 'fixed' kind used 12 years ago to 'justify' the U.S.-led
attack on Iraq."
But these doubts and concerns are not reflected in the Post's editorial or other MSM accounts
of the dangerous Ukraine crisis. Indeed, Americans who rely on these powerful news outlets for
their information are as sheltered from reality as anyone living in a totalitarian society.
Slavs are killing each other for the same reason Arabs are killing each other: to ensure the
USA geopolitical and economic interests are served well. Divide and conquer was polished by British
elite to perfection, and the USA elite adopted this policy like a very talented student. This
is what neocolonialism is about. Disaster capitalism in action.
No real conflict emerged. The President proved to be a puppet of the Deep State.
Notable quotes:
"... Finally the most obvious attempt to sabotage the administration can be seen in the events in Ukraine. Unsurprisingly, Senators Graham and McCain, two of the deep state's top emissaries, visited Ukraine at the beginning of the year, prompting Ukrainian troops to resume their destructive offensive against the Donbass. ..."
"... "There are a lot of killers. We have a lot of killers", Trump said. "Well, you think our country is so innocent?" ..."
"... What the deep state refuses to accept is that they have lost the leading role in educating the rest of the world on humanitarian issues related to the concept of democracy. The main actors of the deep state clearly understand the negative implications for them personally in economic and financial terms associated with the abandonment of the pursuit of global hegemony. For over a hundred years, no US president has ever placed their country on a par with others, has ever abandoned the concept of a nation (the US) "chosen by God". ..."
"... "Donald Trump has emerged with in mind a precise foreign policy strategy, forged by various political thinkers of the realist world such as Waltz and Mearsheimer, trashing all recent neoconservative and neoliberal policies of foreign intervention (R2P - Right to Protect) and soft power campaigns in favor of human rights. No more UN resolutions, subtly used to bomb nations (Libya). Trump doesn't believe in the central role of the UN and reaffirmed this repeatedly. ..."
"... If one wants to place weight on his words during the election campaign, it should be taken into consideration that Trump won the election thanks to the clear objectives of wanting to avoid a further spending spree on destructive wars. This priority was made clear and expressed in every possible way with the adoption of an America First policy, especially regarding domestic policy. ..."
"... The bottom line is always that Trump has the ability and willingness to be resilient to the pressures of the deep state, focusing on the needs of the average American citizen, rather than caving in to the interests of the deep state such as intelligence agencies, neocons, Israel lobby, Saudi lobby, the military-industrial complex, and many more. ..."
The first two weeks of the new presidency have already provided a few significant events. The
operation that took place in Yemen, conducted by the American special forces and directed against
Al Qaeda, has reprised the previous administration. Being a complex operation that required thorough
preparation, the new administration thereby had to necessarily represent a continuation of the old
one.
Details are still vague, but looking at the outcome, the mission failed as a result of incompetence.
The American special forces were spotted before arriving at al Qaeda's supposed base. This resulted
in the shooting of anything that moved, causing more than 25 civilian deaths.
The media that had been silent during the Obama administration was rightfully quick to condemn
the killing of innocent people, and harsh criticism was directed at the administration for this operation.
It is entirely possible that the operation was set up to fail, intended to delegitimize the operational
capabilities of the new Trump team. Given the links between al Qaeda, the Saudis and the neoconservatives,
something historically proven, it is not unthinkable that the failure of the operation was a consequence
of an initial attempt at sabotaging Trump on a key aspect of his presidency, namely the successful
execution of counter-terrorist efforts against Islamist terrorism.
Another structural component in the attempts to undermine the Trump administration concern the
deployment of NATO and US troops on the western border of the Russian Federation. This attempt is
obvious and is one of the strategies aimed at preventing a rapprochement between Washington and Moscow.
The EU persists in its self-defeating policy, focusing its attention on foreign policy instead of
gaining strategic independence thanks to the new presidency. It is now even more clear that European
Union leaders, and in particular the current political representatives in Germany and France, have
every intention of continuing in the direction set by the Obama presidency, seeking a futile confrontation
with the Russian Federation instead of a sensible rapprochement.
Europe continues to insist on failed economic and social policies that will lead to bankruptcy,
using foreign-policy issues as diversions and excuses. The consequences of these wrongheaded efforts
will inevitably favor the election of nationalist and populist parties, as seen in the United States
and other countries, which will end in the destruction of the EU. For the US deep state and their
long-term objectives, this tactic has a dual effect: it prevents the proper functioning of the EU
as well as significantly halts any rapprochement between the EU and the Russian Federation. The latter
strategy looks more and more irreversible given the current European Union elites. In this sense,
the UK, thanks to Brexit, seems to have broken free and started to slowly restructure its foreign-
policy priorities, in close alignment to Trump's isolationism.
Finally the most obvious attempt to sabotage the administration can be seen in the events
in Ukraine. Unsurprisingly, Senators Graham and McCain, two of the deep state's top emissaries, visited
Ukraine at the beginning of the year, prompting Ukrainian troops to resume their destructive offensive
against the Donbass. The intentions are clear and assorted. First is the constant attempt to
sabotage any rapprochement between Moscow and Washington, hoping to engulf Trump in an American/NATO
escalation of events in Ukraine. Second, given the critical situation in Europe, is the effort to
push Berlin to assume the burden of economically supporting the failing administration in Kiev. Third
is the increasing pressure applied to Russia and Putin, as was already seen in 2014, in an effort
to actively involve the Russian Federation in the Ukrainian conflict so as to justify NATO's direct
involvement or even that of the United States. The latter situation would be the dream of the neoconservatives,
setting Trump and Putin on a direct collision course.
The new American administration has thus far suffered at least three sabotage attempts, and it
is the attitude Trump intends to have with the rest of the world that has spurred them. In an interview
with Bill O'Reilly on Fox News, Trump reiterated that his primary focus is not governed by the doctrine
of American exceptionalism, a concept he does not subscribe to anyhow. The religion driving democratic
evangelization looks more likely to be replaced with a pragmatic, realist geopolitical stance.
This is how one could sum up Trump's words to Bill O'Reilly:
"There are a lot of killers. We have a lot of killers", Trump said. "Well, you think our country
is so innocent?"
What the deep state refuses to accept is that they have lost the leading role in educating
the rest of the world on humanitarian issues related to the concept of democracy. The main actors
of the deep state clearly understand the negative implications for them personally in economic and
financial terms associated with the abandonment of the pursuit of global hegemony. For over a hundred
years, no US president has ever placed their country on a par with others, has ever abandoned the
concept of a nation (the US) "chosen by God".
In an
article a few weeks ago, I tried to lay the foundations for a future US administration, placing
a strong focus on foreign policy and revealing a possible shift in US historic foreign relations.
In a passage I wrote:
"Donald Trump has emerged with in mind a precise foreign policy strategy, forged by various
political thinkers of the realist world such as Waltz and Mearsheimer, trashing all recent neoconservative
and neoliberal policies of foreign intervention (R2P - Right to Protect) and soft power campaigns
in favor of human rights. No more UN resolutions, subtly used to bomb nations (Libya). Trump doesn't
believe in the central role of the UN and reaffirmed this repeatedly.
In general, the Trump administration intends to end the policy of regime change, interference
in foreign governments, Arab springs and color revolutions. They just don't work. They cost too much
in terms of political credibility, in Ukraine the US are allied with supporters of Bandera (historical
figure who collaborated with the Nazis) and in Middle East they finance or indirectly support al
Qaeda and al Nusra front".
The recent meeting in Washington with Theresa May, the first official encounter with a prominent
US ally, revealed, among other things, a possible dramatic change in US policy. The Prime Minister
of the United Kingdom expressed her desire to follow a new policy of non-intervention, in line with
the isolationist strategy Trump has spoken about since running for office. In a joint press conference
with the American president, May said: "The era of military intervention is over. London and Washington
will not return to the failed policy in the past that has led to intervention in Iraq, Afghanistan
and Libya".
During the election campaign, Trump made his intentions clear in different contexts, but always
coming from the standpoint of non-interventionism inspired by the concept of isolationism. It is
becoming apparent that these intentions are being put into action, though the rhetoric regarding
Iran has become alarming. In typical Trump fashion (which contrasts with the Iran issue), the situation
in Syria is normalizing and the initial threats directed at China appear to have been put aside.
The case of Iran is a different and complex story, requiring a deeper analysis that deserves a separate
article. What will gradually be important, as the Presidency progresses, is understanding the necessity
to distinguish between words and actions, separating provocations from intentions.
Conclusions and future questions
There is a whole list of Trump statements that are seen as threats to other countries, primarily
Iran. The next article will further explain the possible strategy to be employed by Donald Trump
to fight these attempts to sabotage his administration, a strategy that seems to be based on silences,
bluffs and admissions to counter the perpetual attempts to influence his presidency. If one wants
to place weight on his words during the election campaign, it should be taken into consideration
that Trump won the election thanks to the clear objectives of wanting to avoid a further spending
spree on destructive wars. This priority was made clear and expressed in every possible way with
the adoption of an America First policy, especially regarding domestic policy.
The bottom line is always that Trump has the ability and willingness to be resilient to the pressures
of the deep state, focusing on the needs of the average American citizen, rather than caving in to
the interests of the deep state such as intelligence agencies, neocons, Israel lobby, Saudi lobby,
the military-industrial complex, and many more. It is only in the next few months that we will come
to understand if Trump will be willing to continue the fight against war or bend the knee and pay
the price.
" What the deep state refuses to accept is that they have lost the leading role in educating
the rest of the world on humanitarian issues related to the concept of democracy."
This was a strange article, but after reading the above quote I had to laugh and could not
find the gumption to continue reading.
The Deep State ought to have beaten Trump already - one way or another...! But somebody with
brains has realised that it's not just Trump. It's the political movement that he heads***. Even
if they killed DT tomorrow (and it's certain to have been on their agenda), the Trumpista Party
would survive: it's too active and too popular to disappear. So the establishment pretty much
has to wrap up the entire movement. They have left things dangerously late, from their point of
view.
*** I know he didn't start it; it's the old Pat Buchanan + Ron Paul gang, but Donald is twice
as cunning as those chaps. I really don't think he'll win his war with the bad guys - the War
Party - but his influence will be quite long-lasting. And of course he is our last hope to roll
back the spectre of "1984".
If this boosterism seems out of character for a primetime populist like Carlson, he doesn't seem to mind
the dissonance. He speaks glowingly of his Northwest Washington neighborhood, a tony enclave of liberal affluence where,
he tells me, he is surrounded by diplomats, lawyers, world bankers, and well-paid media types. They are reliably
"wonderful"; unfailingly "nice"; "some of my favorite people in the world." If you've watched Carlson on TV lately, you
know they are also wrong about virtually everything.
Indeed, throughout the 2016 election cycle Carlson routinely deployed his anonymous neighbors as a device
in his political punditry -- pointing to them as emblems of the educated elite's insular thinking. He scoffed at their
affection for Marco Rubio in the primaries, and he ridiculed their self-righteous reactions to the Republican nominee in
the general. "On my street," he
wrote
in
Politico Magazine
, "there's never been anyone as unpopular as Trump."
This shtick worked brilliantly for Carlson, catapulting him from a weekend hosting gig to the coveted 9
p.m. slot in Fox's primetime lineup. He now regularly pulls in more than 3 million viewers a night -- a marked improvement
on the program he replaced -- and he counts the commander in chief among his loyal fans. Just this past weekend, President
Trump set off a minor international firestorm when he suggested Sweden was experiencing an immigrant-fueled spike in
crime -- a (
dubious
)
claim he picked up by watching
Tucker Carlson Tonight
.
In an era when TV talking heads are more influential than ever, Carlson has suddenly -- and rather
improbably -- emerged as one of the most powerful people in media. The question now is what he wants to do with that perch.
To the extent that Carlson's on-air commentary these days is guided by any kind of animating idea, it is
perhaps best summarized as a staunch aversion to whatever his right-minded neighbors believe. The country has reached a
point, he tells me, where the elite consensus on any given issue should be "reflexively distrusted."
"Look, it's really simple," Carlson says. "The SAT 50 years ago pulled a lot of smart people out of every
little town in America and funneled them into a small number of elite institutions, where they married each other, had
kids, and moved to an even smaller number of elite neighborhoods. We created the most effective meritocracy ever."
"But the problem with the meritocracy," he continues, is that it "leeches all the empathy out of your
society The second you think that all your good fortune is a product of your virtue, you become highly judgmental,
lacking empathy, totally without self-awareness, arrogant, stupid -- I mean all the stuff that our ruling class is."
Carlson recounts, with some amusement, how he saw these attitudes surface in his neighbors' response to
Trump's victory. He recalls receiving a text message on election night from a stunned Democratic friend declaring his
intention to flee the country with his family. Carlson replied by asking if he could use their pool while they were
gone.
"I mean people were, like, traumatized," he says. And yet, in the months since then, "no one I know has
learned anything. There's been no moment of reflection It's just, 'This is what happens when you let dumb people
vote.'" Carlson finds this brand of snobbery particularly offensive: "Intelligence is not a moral category. That's what
I find a lot of people in my life assume. It's not. God doesn't care how smart you are, actually."
McKay Coppins
is a staff writer at The Atlantic and the author of The Wilderness, a book about the battle over the future of the Republican Party.
David Stockman provides one of the best commentaries on Flynn assassination by deep state and Obama neocon holdovers in the administration.
This is a really powerful astute, first class analysis of the situation:
Flynn's Gone But They're Still Gunning For You, Donald
== quote ==
... ... ...
This is the real scandal as Trump himself has rightly asserted. The very idea that the already announced #1 national security advisor
to a President-elect should be subject to old-fashion "bugging," albeit with modern day technology, overwhelmingly trumps the utterly
specious Logan Act charge at the center of the case.
As one writer for LawNewz noted regarding acting Attorney General Sally Yates' voyeuristic pre-occupation with Flynn's intercepted
conversations, Nixon should be rolling in his grave with envy:
Now, information leaks that Sally Yates knew about surveillance being conducted against potential members of the Trump administration,
and disclosed that information to others. Even Richard Nixon didn't use the government agencies themselves to do his black bag surveillance
operations. Sally Yates involvement with this surveillance on American political opponents, and possibly the leaking related thereto,
smacks of a return to Hoover-style tactics. As writers at Bloomberg and The Week both noted, it wreaks of 'police-state' style tactics.
But knowing dear Sally as I do, it comes as no surprise.
Yes, that's the same career apparatchik of the permanent government that Obama left behind to continue the 2016 election by other
means. And it's working. The Donald is being rapidly emasculated by the powers that be in the Imperial City due to what can only
be described as an audacious and self-evident attack on Trump's Presidency by the Deep State.
Indeed, it seems that the layers of intrigue have gotten so deep and convoluted that the nominal leadership of the permanent government
machinery has lost track of who is spying on whom. Thus, we have the following curious utterance by none other than the Chairman
of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Devin Nunes:
'I expect for the FBI to tell me what is going on, and they better have a good answer,' he told The Washington Post. 'The big
problem I see here is that you have an American citizen who had his phone calls recorded.'
Well, yes. That makes 324 million of us, Congressman.
But for crying out loud, surely the oh so self-important chairman of the House intelligence committee knows that everybody is
bugged. But when it reaches the point that the spy state is essentially using its unconstitutional tools to engage in what amounts
to "opposition research" with the aim of election nullification, then the Imperial City has become a clear and present danger to
American democracy and the liberties of the American people.
As Robert Barnes of LawNewz further explained, Sally Yates, former CIA director John Brennan and a large slice of the Never Trumper
intelligence community were systematically engaged in "opposition research" during the campaign and the transition:
According to published reports, someone was eavesdropping, and recording, the conversations of Michael Flynn, while Sally Yates
was at the Department of Justice. Sally Yates knew about this eavesdropping, listened in herself (Pellicano-style for those who remember
the infamous LA cases), and reported what she heard to others. For Yates to have such access means she herself must have been involved
in authorizing its disclosure to political appointees, since she herself is such a political appointee. What justification was there
for an Obama appointee to be spying on the conversations of a future Trump appointee?
Consider this little tidbit in The Washington Post . The paper, which once broke Watergate, is now propagating the benefits of
Watergate-style surveillance in ways that do make Watergate look like a third-rate effort. (With the) FBI 'routinely' monitoring
conversations of Americans...... Yates listened to 'the intercepted call,' even though Yates knew there was 'little chance' of any
credible case being made for prosecution under a law 'that has never been used in a prosecution.'
And well it hasn't been. After all, the Logan Act was signed by President John Adams in 1799 in order to punish one of Thomas
Jefferson's supporters for having peace discussions with the French government in Paris. That is, it amounted to pre-litigating the
Presidential campaign of 1800 based on sheer political motivation.
According to the Washington Post itself, that is exactly what Yates and the Obama holdovers did day and night during the interregnum:
Indeed, the paper details an apparent effort by Yates to misuse her office to launch a full-scale secret investigation of her political
opponents, including 'intercepting calls' of her political adversaries.
So all of the feigned outrage emanating from Democrats and the Washington establishment about Team Trump's trafficking with the
Russians is a cover story. Surely anyone even vaguely familiar with recent history would have known there was absolutely nothing
illegal or even untoward about Flynn's post-Christmas conversations with the Russian Ambassador.
Indeed, we recall from personal experience the thrilling moment on inauguration day in January 1981 when word came of the release
of the American hostages in Tehran. Let us assure you, that did not happen by immaculate diplomatic conception -- nor was it a parting
gift to the Gipper by the outgoing Carter Administration.
To the contrary, it was the fruit of secret negotiations with the Iranian government during the transition by private American
citizens. As the history books would have it because it's true, the leader of that negotiation, in fact, was Ronald Reagan's national
security council director-designate, Dick Allen.
As the real Washington Post later reported, under the by-line of a real reporter, Bob Woodward:
Reagan campaign aides met in a Washington DC hotel in early October, 1980, with a self-described 'Iranian exile' who offered,
on behalf of the Iranian government, to release the hostages to Reagan, not Carter, in order to ensure Carter's defeat in the November
4, 1980 election.
The American participants were Richard Allen, subsequently Reagan's first national security adviser, Allen aide Laurence Silberman,
and Robert McFarlane, another future national security adviser who in 1980 was on the staff of Senator John Tower (R-TX).
To this day we have not had occasion to visit our old friend Dick Allen in the US penitentiary because he's not there; the Logan
Act was never invoked in what is surely the most blatant case ever of citizen diplomacy.
So let's get to the heart of the matter and be done with it. The Obama White House conducted a sour grapes campaign to delegitimize
the election beginning November 9th and it was led by then CIA Director John Brennan.
That treacherous assault on the core constitutional matter of the election process culminated in the ridiculous Russian meddling
report of the Obama White House in December. The latter, of course, was issued by serial liar James Clapper, as national intelligence
director, and the clueless Democrat lawyer and bag-man, Jeh Johnson, who had been appointed head of the Homeland Security Department.
Yet on the basis of the report's absolutely zero evidence and endless surmise, innuendo and "assessments", the Obama White House
imposed another round of its silly school-boy sanctions on a handful of Putin's cronies.
Of course, Flynn should have been telling the Russian Ambassador that this nonsense would be soon reversed!
But here is the ultimate folly. The mainstream media talking heads are harrumphing loudly about the fact that the very day following
Flynn's call -- Vladimir Putin announced that he would not retaliate against the new Obama sanctions as expected; and shortly thereafter,
the Donald tweeted that Putin had shown admirable wisdom.
That's right. Two reasonably adult statesman undertook what might be called the Christmas Truce of 2016. But like its namesake
of 1914 on the bloody no man's land of the western front, the War Party has determined that the truce-makers shall not survive.
"... ..."Multiple reports show that my former colleagues in the intelligence community have decided that they must leak or withhold classified information due to unsettling connections between President Trump and the Russian Government... ..."
"... The deep state is running scared! I never+ attribute to coincidence that which is the FBI trampling the bill of rights. It is coincidence the deep state (fbi, nsa, various CIA and DoD spooks) tapped Russia spies who talk to private citizens who have no opportunity at espionage. Then the innuendo is leaked to the Clinton media! ..."
"... Worse on Trump for calling them out for leaking rather than as a civil liberty trampling Gestapo. Ben Franklin was right, give the democrat run spooks the power to protect you and you lose liberty and protection! ..."
This is running now on FoxNews.com, total fabrication especially the last sentence but Trumpers believe this Fake News. I think
this is where ilsm gets his intell insights from, phoney former intell officers, they sound exactly like him - check it out for
yourself
"I'm a Democrat (and ex-CIA) but the spies plotting against Trump are out of control"
By Bryan Dean Wright...February 18, 2017...Foxnews.com
..."Multiple reports show that my former colleagues in the intelligence community have decided that they must leak or
withhold classified information due to unsettling connections between President Trump and the Russian Government...
Days ago, they delivered their verdict. According to one intelligence official, the president "will die in jail."..."
The deep state is running scared! I never+ attribute to coincidence that which is the FBI trampling the bill of rights. It
is coincidence the deep state (fbi, nsa, various CIA and DoD spooks) tapped Russia spies who talk to private citizens who have
no opportunity at espionage. Then the innuendo is leaked to the Clinton media!
Worse on Trump for calling them out for leaking rather than as a civil liberty trampling Gestapo. Ben Franklin was right,
give the democrat run spooks the power to protect you and you lose liberty and protection!
"... ..."Multiple reports show that my former colleagues in the intelligence community have decided that they must leak or withhold classified information due to unsettling connections between President Trump and the Russian Government... ..."
"... The deep state is running scared! I never+ attribute to coincidence that which is the FBI trampling the bill of rights. It is coincidence the deep state (fbi, nsa, various CIA and DoD spooks) tapped Russia spies who talk to private citizens who have no opportunity at espionage. Then the innuendo is leaked to the Clinton media! ..."
"... Worse on Trump for calling them out for leaking rather than as a civil liberty trampling Gestapo. Ben Franklin was right, give the democrat run spooks the power to protect you and you lose liberty and protection! ..."
This is running now on FoxNews.com, total fabrication especially the last sentence but Trumpers believe this Fake News. I think
this is where ilsm gets his intell insights from, phoney former intell officers, they sound exactly like him - check it out for
yourself
"I'm a Democrat (and ex-CIA) but the spies plotting against Trump are out of control"
By Bryan Dean Wright...February 18, 2017...Foxnews.com
..."Multiple reports show that my former colleagues in the intelligence community have decided that they must leak or
withhold classified information due to unsettling connections between President Trump and the Russian Government...
Days ago, they delivered their verdict. According to one intelligence official, the president "will die in jail."..."
The deep state is running scared! I never+ attribute to coincidence that which is the FBI trampling the bill of rights. It
is coincidence the deep state (fbi, nsa, various CIA and DoD spooks) tapped Russia spies who talk to private citizens who have
no opportunity at espionage. Then the innuendo is leaked to the Clinton media!
Worse on Trump for calling them out for leaking rather than as a civil liberty trampling Gestapo. Ben Franklin was right,
give the democrat run spooks the power to protect you and you lose liberty and protection!
"... Pete Hegseth and Jesse Watters discuss the bitter establishment's desperation to manufacture a Trump scandal ..."
"... Most people don't know that after the 134 men died on the Forrestal fire in 1967 McCain was the ONLY person helicoptered off the ship. It was done for his own safety as many on the ship blamed him for causing the fire by "wet" starting his jet causing a plume of fire to shoot out his plane's exhaust and into the plane behind McCain causing the ordnance to cook off on that jet. McCain then panicked and dropped his own bombs onto the deck making matters much worse. McCain should have ended his career in jail. Oh, wait, he kinda did, maybe karma justice? ..."
"... FakeStream Media ..."
"... The very Fake Media has met their match ..."
Pete Hegseth and Jesse Watters discuss the bitter establishment's desperation to manufacture
a Trump scandal
TheBase1aransas 3 minutes ago
Alvina I think people that believe in freedom is not only the Best thing, but what built it.
We finally have Trump to speak for us.
Christine Lesch 4 hours ago
McCains a shumuck
Herbert Stewart 11 minutes ago
@Christine Lesch
I feel sorry for Arizona they are stuck with this guy. he needs to change parties
he had his turn and LOST1 america first!
Geoffry Allan
it appears quite apparent
that you people are really sad. trump is above all else, a good american. so.... stop being a
moron.
hexencoff 3 hours ago
no one gives a shit what John McCain says he's a scumbag!
hexencoff 3 hours ago
Jodi Boin i hope so too it's honestly very scary how far we have regressed as a country we are
fighting about the same things from 50 years ago everyone has their own beliefs and opinions and
some how adult conversation has been thrown away i mean we are still fighting over race relations
for crying out loud
Louis John 2 hours ago
@hexencoff
McCain is a trouble maker. supporter of the terrorist and warmonger Iraq Libya
Syria he is behind all the trouble scumbag
Gary M 3 hours ago
McCain is a globalist
belaghoulashi 2 hours ago
(edited) McCain has always been full of horseshit. And he has always relied on people calling
him a hero to get away with it. That schtick is old, the man is a monumental failure for this
country, and he needs to have his sorry butt kicked.
ryvr madduck 1 hour ago
+belaghoulashi
Most people don't know that after the 134 men died on the Forrestal fire in 1967 McCain was the
ONLY person helicoptered off the ship. It was done for his own safety as many on the ship blamed
him for causing the fire by "wet" starting his jet causing a plume of fire to shoot out his plane's
exhaust and into the plane behind McCain causing the ordnance to cook off on that jet. McCain
then panicked and dropped his own bombs onto the deck making matters much worse. McCain should
have ended his career in jail. Oh, wait, he kinda did, maybe karma justice?
Michael Cambo 4 hours ago
When you start to drain the swamp, the swamp creatures start to show.
Alexus Highfield 3 hours ago
@Michael Cambo
don't they...they do say shit floats.
Geoffry Allan 41 minutes ago
@Michael Cambo
- Trump has not drained the swamp he has surrounded himself with billionaires in his cabinet who
don't give a damn about the working middle class who struggle e eryday to make a living -
explain to me how he is draining the swamp
tim sparks 3 hours ago
Trump is trying so fucking hard to do a good job for us.
Integrity Truth-seeker 2 hours ago
@tim sparks
He is not trying... HE IS DOING IT... Like A Boss. Thank God Mark Taylor Prophecies
2017 the best is yet to come
Jodi Boin 3 hours ago
McCain is a traitor and is bought and paid for by Soros.
Grant Davidson 4 hours ago
Love him or hate him. The guy is a frikkin Genius...
Patrick Reagan 4 hours ago
FakeStream Media
Michael Cambo 4 hours ago
@Patrick Reagan
Very FakeStream Media
aspengold5 4 hours ago
I am so disappointed in McCain.
orlando pablo 4 hours ago
my 401k is keep on going up....thank u mr trump....
Dumbass Libtard 3 hours ago
McCain is not a Republican. He is a loser. Yuge difference.1
Mitchel Colvin 3 hours ago
Shut up McCain! I can't stand this clown anymore! Unfortunately, Arizona re-elected him for six
more years!
robert barham 4 hours ago
The very Fake Media has met their match
H My ways of thinking! 3 hours ago
Why does everyone feel that if they don't kiss McCain's ass, they are being un American? Mccain
has sold out to George Soros. He is a piece of shit who is guilty of no less than treason! Look
up the definition for treason if you're in doubt!
Sam Nardo 3 hours ago
(edited) Mc Cain and Graham are two of the best democrats in the GOP. They are called RINOS
kazzicup 3 hours ago
We love and support our President Donald Trump. The media is so dishonest. CNN = Criminal News
Network.
Geoffry Allan 34 minutes ago
@kazzicup - yeah if you get rid of the media Trump becomes
a dictator - is that what you want he will censor everything and tell you what he wants - Trump
is still president and he is doing his job and fulfilling his promises even though the media is
there and reporting - so what's the problem - I don't want a got damn dictator running this country
- if you don't like the media then just listen to Trump - 2nd amendment free speech and the right
to bear arms we have to respect it even if we may disagree
"... Senator John McCain (R- AZ) wants to go to war with Russia and he wants to reshape eastern Europe. McCain and Lindsey Graham were instrumental in the Obama-ordered and sanctioned coup d'état that brought down Ukraine's government and president and installed a U.S. puppet picked by Victoria Nuland. McCain hasn't stopped: he's just been "on hold" to see where he can take footing when the dust settles from the initial Trump shakeup. ..."
"... Not only democrats rigged Primary to elect Clinton as presidential candidate last year even though she has poor judgment (violating government cyber security policy) and is incompetent (her email server was not secured) when she was the Secretary of State, and was revealed to be corrupt by Bernie Sanders during the Primary, but also democrats encourage illegal immigration, discourage work, and "conned" young voters with free college/food/housing/health care/Obama phone. Democrat government employees/politicians also committed crimes leaking classified information which caused former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn losing his job. ..."
"... "Bill and I chose to Help early" My friends from Haiti tell me how grateful they are. They would like their gold back from your brother though. ..."
"... Star Trek...the Borg...Not a huge fan of star trek but the show does reveal interesting things...the borg, resistance is futile, etc, but it seems as tho resistance wws not futile, according the the show...the matrix is a good movie too...too many more to mention. I herd an interview with Robert Steele, very interesting...any thoughts? I also came across a christian leaning website who supports Trump, and they are quite smart..trunews.com......not your average piece of shit evangelist...anyway, thats all I got today... ..."
"... the thing you are missing is that the evil zio loves chaos... and Mericans are falling for it... how else will Soros make money without extreme movements.... when there is chaos they buy shit cheap.... Soros is reading these articles and laughing.... ..."
In past articles the fact of a long struggle was mentioned and how it ties in with the current first year of the President's
administration. The struggle is not merely to overcome the executive actions and orders of Obama. The true battle is to remove the
Marxists from bureaucratic fiefs established by Obama for carryover into the current administration and to deflect and negate their
attacks and the attacks of others.
The circuit court in San Francisco and the Department of Justice have been waging a seesaw-type of battle over the executive
order signed by the President. The order's intent is to stem the illegal aliens and foreigners entering the U.S. from Middle Eastern
nations either openly hostile to or providing the highest probability (intentionally or indirectly) for terrorists to enter the
country. This makes perfect sense, and because it does, one can easily see that only those hell-bent on weakening the U.S. and
fostering infiltration would be against the order: those Marxists of the Left labeled as "Democrats" and calling themselves
"Progressives."
They are not alone: they are aided by the Left-Right, which is even worse. The Left-Right are those masquerading as Republican
Conservatives, when they are Marxist-Leftists and proponents of Global Governance and the New World Order. They are the Paul Ryans,
the Mitch McConnells, and the Newt Gingriches. They are the pseudo-Republican politico's in office presently and in the past who
have those CFR slots and are working toward their fantasy: The Utopia of Oligarchs.
Even if they do not overtly act on behalf of the Marxists, they have been guilty numerous times of enabling the Marxists through
the complacency of inactivity.
They do not simply wish to derail the actions of President Trump: it is a much larger concept than that. They see themselves as
"partners" with the Left in the same game: to establish an elitist politico-oligarchic ruling class, broken down into divisions
throughout the globe for ethno-cultural manipulation, yet with the same end-state. That goal is the enslavement and complete control
of all of mankind with the elitists ensconced as the ruling moneyed class. They see themselves as the educated, sensible minority
with tender sensibilities and true humanistic views who must must take a stand in the globalist crusade against the barbaric
Neanderthals of the proletariat and populist serfs.
This new President has taken more action and more rapidly than even President Reagan did when he took office, and that is saying
something. Even those globalists playing the part of conservatives are knuckling under in lock step, shivering internally: A
President is in the White House that can turn these bedbugs out of the mattress and burn them. This new President quietly and
without fanfare made it a point to be there for the SEAL who was killed in Yemen as his casket was brought back home.
That should speak volumes on the caliber of the man who is in the White House.
Everything that he does is attacked by the media and disparaged by the leftists. Even the removal of Dodd-Frank (let's
remember that was Christopher Dodd and Barney Frank two troglodytes who came up with that one) is sneered at. The executive order to
halt the illegals from potential hotbeds of Middle Eastern terrorism is challenged by states packed with liberals and also by the
business and industry oligarchs who would rather the U.S. be vulnerable if they can continue to hire "tax-free" day-laborers for
less than minimum wage with impunity.
Senator John McCain (R- AZ) wants to go to war with Russia and he wants to reshape eastern Europe. McCain and Lindsey Graham
were instrumental in the Obama-ordered and sanctioned coup d'état that brought down Ukraine's government and president and installed
a U.S. puppet picked by Victoria Nuland. McCain hasn't stopped: he's just been "on hold" to see where he can take footing when the
dust settles from the initial Trump shakeup.
In previous articles, it was mentioned how critical this first 6 months to one year-period in office is for the President, namely
because of the midterm elections. If the public does not see results, they could very well change the complexion and composition of
Congress in 2018 and the Republicans could lose control of either one of or both houses of Congress. The President realizes this,
and he is moving swiftly.
The public will also see that he is doing good things, and that it is the Democrats who are attempting to obstruct his efforts.
This will carry the Republicans through in the midterm elections, and thus all legislative efforts by the President will be able to
be enacted. It's a tough fight and at times it's uphill, but he started out well, and right and the Democrats won't be able to hold
him off.
Even worse than that, they hope they will be rewarded for their
service with promotions to become immortal minions of Lucifer after
their ancient human bodies finally expire.
Not only democrats rigged Primary to elect Clinton as
presidential candidate last year even though she has poor
judgment (violating government cyber security policy) and is
incompetent (her email server was not secured) when she was the
Secretary of State, and was revealed to be corrupt by Bernie
Sanders during the Primary, but also democrats encourage illegal
immigration, discourage work, and "conned" young voters with
free college/food/housing/health care/Obama phone. Democrat
government employees/politicians also committed crimes leaking
classified information which caused former National Security
Adviser Michael Flynn losing his job.
However middle/working class used their common senses voting
against Clinton last November. Although I have not been a
republican and didn't vote in primary but I voted for Trump and
those Republicans who supported Trump in last November since I
am not impressed with the "integrity" and "judgement" of
democrats, Anti-Trump protesters, Anti-Trump republicans (such
as McCain who is too old to make a sound judgement), and those
media who donated/endorsed Clinton during presidential election
and they'll work for globalist, the super rich, who moved
jobs/investment overseas for cheap labor/tax and demanded
middle/working class to pay tax to support welfare of illegal
aliens and refugees who will be globalist's illegal voters and
anti-Trump protesters.
In that case, the choices are: Help, Fight or Stay out of the way.
Not
being the fighting type, Bill and I chose to Help early, so that we're well
positioned and so that we can also help like minded people that we bring
in. Call it Amway with a twist.
the zio power brokers love what is going on ... they LOVE making CHAOS... it's
working as planned... blow the whole thing up... you are doing exactly what
they wanted
Ending the ponzi money scheme and issuing non-debt based money will go the
farthest in returning the power to the people to whom it belongs.
How about this:
Take all that money lent to the big banks at a very low interest back from
the banks and lend it to the American people at the same intrest rate.
Star Trek...the Borg...Not a huge fan of star trek but the show does reveal
interesting things...the borg, resistance is futile, etc, but it seems as tho
resistance wws not futile, according the the show...the matrix is a good movie
too...too many more to mention. I herd an interview with Robert Steele, very
interesting...any thoughts? I also came across a christian leaning website
who supports Trump, and they are quite smart..trunews.com......not your average
piece of shit evangelist...anyway, thats all I got today...
the thing you are missing is that the evil zio loves chaos... and Mericans are
falling for it... how else will Soros make money without extreme movements....
when there is chaos they buy shit cheap.... Soros is reading these articles and
laughing....
the more chaos the better for them... when will you learn...
excellent presentation on globalist treason below from Jones.
Their mind control technology of racebaiting and gender wars are expansions
to their white guilt narrative, to maximize victimhood of ignorant slave zombies chanting
for nanny state welfare.
To entrain them how they are not worthy is maximizing the self-sabotage
instinct. This is triggered if the
weak federali slave minds are at risk of achieving success they will instead
self sabotage themselves with bad behavior and negative instincts,
to take themselves out of the situation and out of the game. Because with
success comes
leadership, philanthropy, accountability, and responsibility, all
antithetical to liberal cannibal slaves chanting for more.
I think Trump gets it... the "trump" card is the minimal ties by him to special
interests... notice I said minimal... that said, he's not as beholden as others
before him... take the Boeing deal to provide a new AF1... he bluntly says it's
overpriced, so Boeing reduces price... there is no president being owned by big
biz in this scenario... and the new media fight is being likened to the media
fight of Nixon... Idon't see itt that way... with the advent of numerous
alternative news outlets (where I get mine), it's not the same CBS and Walter
Cronkite or NBC and David Brinkley 6PM news show where most folks were almost
programmed to get any news each day, so it could be tailored to fit a
propaganda lean... the east European and Mideast wars are going to take the
longest to root out the villians, as the MIC will do anything/everything to not
lose one tiny fraction of their power, calling the shots with folks like McCain
and Graham... it's going to take at least a year, possibly two, but I agree
with the author in that if Trump shows his base he's working hard trying to get
the things implemented that he stands for, the Demos are Dead, I tell you, DEAD
the more the swamp is drained... the more Soros laughs... more chaos... more
protests, more anarchy, then killings come, total fucking chaos is the goal...
then the zios can come in and buy it for a song...
fall of USSR made how many
zios billionaires?
Order out of chaos..... the more chaos - the more hand wringing....they are
excited to get closer to their goal..
Soros would love to be injected with something to make him younger so he can
live to see the collapse of USA, and then come in and snap up all the assets...
it would be better than when snapped up property in hungary for a song...
there is no goal of 'complete control' that's bullshit... coming from a mental
midget..
the goal is CHAOS.... what ever comes after of course jews will control...
naturally.... communism, capitalism... doesn't matter... it's all the same...
but they shall be at the top
of course Soros and the lot wanted Hillary to win, so she could further erode
USA, but really they must be pleased with Trump as President, as it appears
they could not have dreamed how much choas a Trump Presidency can bring...
so things are turning out nicely for the zios... maybe even ahead of
schedule with Trump...
now all they have to do is provoke Trump into doing things to stir things
up... should be easy to provoke Trump as he is easily rattled
How can you possibly understand zios such as Soros if you don't think like
him?
The "neoliberal establishment" (aka Washington Swamp) is deeply unpopular with American people.
Trump is not that popular, but he definitely less unpopular. Such statements s of "the
national media is the enemy" would be unthinkable a decade or two ago.
Notable quotes:
"... The National Media is the enemy. They are minor birds, repeaters of what the establishment wants parroted. They can no longer be considered American citizen friendly. They are indeed part of the Swamp to be drained. ..."
The National Media is the enemy. They are minor birds, repeaters of what the establishment
wants parroted. They can no longer be considered American citizen friendly. They are indeed part
of the Swamp to be drained.
Like former, despise current president matters not. We are still a nation of laws. The people
have spoken. We want the laws followed period. CNN, MSNBC, and others who continue to go after
our president will be met with an unbridled wave of conservative determination to restore law
and order.
"... Bannon's comments were outrageous, but they are hardly new. In 2009, President Obama's White House communications director, Anita Dunn, sought to restrict Fox News' access to the White House. She even said, "We're going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent." The media's outrage over that remark was restrained, to say the least. ..."
"... Brill then bluntly told the president that five of the highest-ranking Obama officials had told him that "as a practical matter . . . Jarrett was the real chief of staff on any issues that she wanted to weigh in on, and she jealously protected that position by making sure the president never gave anyone else too much power." When Brill asked the president about these aides' assessment of Jarrett, Obama "declined comment," Brill wrote in his book. That, in and of itself, was an answer. Would that Jarrett had received as much media scrutiny of her role in eight years under Obama as Bannon has in less than four weeks. ..."
Bannon is almost universally loathed by the Washington press corps, and not just for his politics.
When he was the CEO of the pro-Trump Breitbart website, he competed with traditional media
outlets, and he has often mercilessly attacked and ridiculed them.
The animosity towards Bannon reached new heights last month, when he incautiously told the
New York Times that "the media should be embarrassed and humiliated and keep its mouth shut
and just listen for a while." He also said the media was "the opposition party" to the Trump administration.
To the Washington media, those are truly fighting words.
Joel Simon, of the Committee to Protect Journalists, told CNN that "this kind of speech not [only]
undermines the work of the media in this country, it emboldens autocratic leaders around the world."
Jacob Weisberg, the head of the Slate Group, tweeted that Bannon's comment was terrifying and "tyrannical."
Bannon's comments were outrageous, but they are hardly new. In 2009, President Obama's White
House communications director, Anita Dunn, sought to restrict Fox News' access to the White House.
She even said, "We're going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent." The media's outrage
over that remark was restrained, to say the least.
Ever since Bannon's outburst, you can hear the media gears meshing in the effort to undermine
him. In TV green rooms and at Washington parties, I've heard journalists say outright that it's time
to get him. Time magazine put a sinister-looking Bannon on its cover, describing him as
"The Great Manipulator." Walter Isaacson, a former managing editor of Time , boasted to
MSNBC that the image was in keeping with a tradition of controversial covers that put leaders in
their place. "Likewise, putting [former White House aide] Mike Deaver on the cover, the brains behind
Ronald Reagan, that ended up bringing down Reagan," he told the hosts of Morning Joe . "So
you've got to have these checks and balances, whether it's the judiciary or the press."
Reporters and pundits are also stepping up the effort to portray Bannon as the puppet master in
the White House. Last week, MSNBC's Morning Joe co-host Mika Brzezinski said, "Legitimate
media are getting word that Steve Bannon is the last guy in the room, in the evening especially,
and he's pulling the strings." Her co-host, Joe Scarborough, agreed that Bannon's role should be
"investigated."
I'm all for figuring out who the powers behind the curtain are in the White House, but we saw
precious little interest in that during the Obama administration.
It wasn't until four years after the passage of Obamacare that a journalist reported on just how
powerful White House counselor Valerie Jarrett had been in its flawed implementation. Liberal writer
Steven Brill wrote a 2015 book, America's Bitter Pill , in which he slammed "incompetence
in the White House" for the catastrophic launch of Obamacare. "Never [has there] been a group of
people who more incompetently launched something," he told NPR's Terry Gross, who interviewed him
about the book. He laid much of the blame at Jarrett's doorstep. "The people in the administration
who knew it was going wrong went to the president directly with memos, in person, to his chief of
staff," he said. "The president was protected, mostly by Valerie Jarrett, from doing anything. .
. . He didn't know what was going on in the single most important initiative of his administration."
How important was Jarrett inside the Obama White House? Brill interviewed the president about the
struggles of Obamacare and reported Obama's conclusion: "At this point, I am not so interested in
Monday-morning quarterbacking the past."
Brill then bluntly told the president that five of the highest-ranking Obama officials had told
him that "as a practical matter . . . Jarrett was the real chief of staff on any issues that she
wanted to weigh in on, and she jealously protected that position by making sure the president never
gave anyone else too much power." When Brill asked the president about these aides' assessment of
Jarrett, Obama "declined comment," Brill wrote in his book. That, in and of itself, was an answer.
Would that Jarrett had received as much media scrutiny of her role in eight years under Obama as
Bannon has in less than four weeks.
I've had my disagreements with Bannon, whose apocalyptic views on some issues I don't share. Ronald
Reagan once said that if someone in Washington agrees with you 80 percent of the time, he is an ally,
not an enemy. I'd guess Bannon wouldn't agree with that sentiment.
But the media's effort to turn Bannon into an enemy of the people is veering into hysterical character
assassination. The Sunday print edition of the New York Times ran an astonishing 1,500-word
story headlined: "Fascists Too Lax for a Philosopher Cited by Bannon." (The online headline now reads,
"Steve Bannon Cited Italian Thinker Who Inspired Fascists.") The Times based this headline
on what it admits was "a passing reference" in
a speech by Bannon at a Vatican conference in 2014 . In that speech, Bannon made a single mention
of Julius Evola, an obscure Italian philosopher who opposed modernity and cozied up to Mussolini's
Italian Fascists.
"... There has been running tension between the Trump administration and the intelligence community ..."
"... the President had argued that intelligence services were politically partisan, he dismissed their findings that Russia hacked Democratic targets during the campaign and referred slightingly to the intelligence community by tweeting with the word intelligence in quotes. ..."
"... In setting out the reorganization, Trump said that "security threats facing the United States in the 21st century transcend international boundaries. Accordingly, the United States Government's decision-making structures and processes to address these challenges must remain equally adaptive and transformative." ..."
Former Obama adviser calls Trump decision on Nat Sec panel 'stone cold crazy'
President Donald Trump's decision to reorganize the National Security Council in a way that removes the director of intelligence
and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is "stone cold crazy," former National Security Adviser Susan Rice said Sunday.
Rice retweeted another Twitter user, P.E. Juan, who said: "Trump loves and trusts the military so much he just kicked them out
of the National Security Council and put a Nazi in their place."
Rice, President Barack Obama's national security adviser, was reacting to an executive order signed by Trump that said that the
head of DNI and the nation's most senior military officer would be invited to attend the security meetings "where issues pertaining
to their responsibilities and expertise are to be discussed."
"This is stone cold crazy. After a week of crazy. Who needs military advice or intell to make policy on ISIL, Syria, Afghanistan,
DPRK?" Rice tweeted, with DPRK referring to North Korea.
White House press secretary Sean Spicer told ABC News Rice's comments were "clearly inappropriate language from a former ambassador."
DNI James Clapper was always included in Obama administration's NSC principals' meetings, CNN confirmed.
In contrast, Trump's order makes his chief strategist, Stephen Bannon, a regular member of the Principals Committee. The committee
is Cabinet-level group of agencies that deal with national security that was established by President George H. W. Bush in 1989.
Every version of it has included the Joint Chiefs chairman and the director of the CIA or, once it was established, the head of the
DNI. The President's chief of staff was typically included as well.
Bannon's presence reinforces the notion he is, in essence, a co-chief of staff alongside Reince Priebus, and demonstrates the
breadth of influence the former head of Breitbart News has in the Trump administration.
Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, offered praise for the administration's national security team writ large, but expressed concerns
about Bannon.
"I think the national security team around President Trump is very impressive. I don't think you could ask for a better one,"
he said on CBS' "Face the Nation."
"I am worried about the national security council who are the members of it and who are the permanent members of it. The appointment
of Mr. Bannon is something which is a radical departure from any national security council in history," he said. "It's of concern
this quote reorganization."
Rice continued her tweetstorm: "Chairman of Joint Chiefs and DNI treated as after thoughts in Cabinet level principals meetings.
And where is CIA?? Cut out of everything?"
And she noted a provision that would allow Vice President Michael Pence to chair NSC meetings if Trump isn't available.
"Pence may chair NSC mtgs in lieu of POTUS," Rice tweeted. "Never happened w/Obama."
And she added the observation that Trump's UN ambassador Nikki Haley, the former governor of South Carolina, was "sidelined from
Cabinet and Sub Cab mtgs."
The NSC is run by National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, a former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency until he was asked
to step down in 2014 by senior intelligence leaders.
There has been running tension between the Trump administration and the intelligence community , though during a January
22 visit to the CIA Trump declared that "nobody feels stronger about the intelligence community than Donald Trump," adding that "I
love you. I respect you."
Before then, the President had argued that intelligence services were politically partisan, he dismissed their findings that
Russia hacked Democratic targets during the campaign and referred slightingly to the intelligence community by tweeting with the
word intelligence in quotes.
In setting out the reorganization, Trump said that "security threats facing the United States in the 21st century transcend
international boundaries. Accordingly, the United States Government's decision-making structures and processes to address these challenges
must remain equally adaptive and transformative."
Regular members of the Principals Committee will include the secretary of state, the treasury secretary, the defense secretary,
the attorney general, the secretary of Homeland Security, the assistant to the President and chief of staff, the assistant to the
President and chief strategist, the national security adviser and the Homeland Security adviser.
"... By Naked Capitalism reader aliteralmind, aka Jeff Epstein. Jeff, a progressive activist and journalist, was one of only around forty candidates in the county to be personally endorsed by Bernie Sanders, and was a pledged delegate for him at the DNC. Jeff is also currently starring in Feel The Bern-The Musical , which will very soon be performed in New York. Originally posted on Citizens' Media TV ..."
"... "to be in the tank is to be "lovingly enthralled; foolishly enraptured; passionately bedazzled"" ..."
"... Today, the President announced a major new step that his Administration is taking to make mortgages more affordable and accessible for creditworthy families. ..."
Posted on
January 28, 2017 by
Yves Smith By
Naked Capitalism reader aliteralmind, aka Jeff Epstein. Jeff, a progressive activist and journalist,
was one of only around forty candidates in the county to be personally endorsed by Bernie Sanders,
and was a pledged delegate for him at the DNC. Jeff is also currently starring in
Feel
The Bern-The Musical , which will very soon be performed in New York. Originally posted on
Citizens'
Media TV
But while it is technically true that Trump did sign the order reversing the decrease, it is a
misleading picture. This story is more a negative reflection on President Obama than it is on Trump.
A Brief Tutorial From Someone Who Is Learning the Subject Right Along With You
Generally speaking, if you are a first time homebuyer and purchase a house with a down payment
of less than 20% of the home's worth, you are required to purchase mortgage insurance. This insurance
is to protect the the lender in case you default on your payments.
Let's use the example of a $200,000 home with a $10,000 (5%) down payment. So you need to borrow
$190,000.
And then every year, you pay the annual premium of $1,520.
$190,000 * .008 = $1,520
As you pay off your principal, this number goes down.
The
Obama administration's reduction of the annual premium rate is .25 points (the upfront premium
remains unchanged). So with the same loan above, your annual premium would instead be $1,045.
.008 - .0025 = .0055
$190,000 * .0055 = $1,045
That's a savings of $475 a year, or about $40 a month.
$1,520 - $1,045 = $475
$475 / 12 months = $39.59
Backlash Against Trump
The criticism of Trump for this move has been unrelenting and, at least in my internet bubble,
unanimous. I have not seen any criticism of the Obama administration at all; including by, disappointingly,
one of my primary sources of news, The Young Turks. (Can't find the video at the moment, but they
briefly criticized Trump for the move, without looking further into the issue.)
Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said Friday that Trump's words in his inaugural
speech "ring hollow" following the mortgage premium action.
"In one of his first acts as president, President Trump made it harder for Americans to afford
a mortgage," he said. "What a terrible thing to do to homeowners. Actions speak louder than
words."
"This action is completely out of alignment with President Trump's words about having the government
work for the people," said John Taylor, president of the National Community Reinvestment Coalition,
through a spokesman. "Exactly how does raising the cost of buying a home help average people?"
Sarah Edelman, director of housing policy for the left-leaning Center for American Progress,
in an e-mail wrote, "On Day 1, the president has turned his back on middle-class families - this
decision effectively takes $500 out of the pocketbooks of families that were planning to buy a
home in 2017. This is not the way to build a strong economy."
"Donald Trump's inaugural speech proclaimed he will govern for the people, instead of the political
elite," [Liz Ryan Murray, policy director for national grassroots advocacy group People's Action]
said. "But minutes after giving this speech, he gave Wall Street a big gift at the expense of
everyday people. Trump may talk a populist game, but policies like this make life better for hedge
fund managers and big bankers like his nominee for Treasury, Steven Mnuchin, not for everyday
people."
The Full Picture
To say that Trump took savings away from the neediest of homebuyers is not true, because homebuyers
never had the savings to begin with. The rate reduction was not
announced until January 9 of this year–11 days before the end of Obama's eight year term–and
was not set to take effect until January 27, a full week after Trump was sworn in.
In addition, Obama's reduction decision seems to have been made without any advance notice or
even a projection document justifying the decrease.
As I understand it
, both of these things are unusual with a change of this magnitude.
Finally, with the announcement made little more than a week before the new administration was
to be sworn in, and despite Trump being entirely responsible for implementing this change, the incoming
administration was not consulted.
Trump, who claimed a populist mantle in his first speech as a president, signed the executive
order less than an hour after leaving the inaugural stage. It reverses an Obama-era policy.
"Obama-era policy" implies the reduction was made long ago, and has been in force for much of
that time.
(Rates can't be raised if they were never lowered.)
Conclusion: It Was a Set Up
Finally. After eight years of hard work and multiple requests, your boss approaches you on
a Monday morning and says, "Good news! Starting in two weeks, I'm giving you a raise. Congratulations."
Two days later, you find out that he decided to leave the company months ago, and his final
day is Friday. Your raise doesn't start until a week after that.
You ask him about your new boss. "Well, he's a pretty strict guy." He leans in, puts the back
of his hand to the side of his mouth, lowers his voice, and continues, "Honesty, I hear he is
a bit difficult to work with. Real penny pincher." He sits up, his voice back to its normal cadence,
"But don't worry. I'm leaving a note on his desk telling him just how important this raise is
to you and your family." He stands up and slaps you on the back as he walks away. "I'm sure he'll
keep my word."
If that were me, I would be upset at my new boss, but I would be furious at my old one. He
had eight years to do something.
This was nothing more than an opportunistic political maneuver by the outgoing president, to set
the incoming president up for failure. All while pretending to care about American homeowners. If
the President Obama really wanted to help Americans, he would've considered this move–or something
similar–long ago. Instead, he told them he was giving them a gift and promised that it would be delivered
by Trump, knowing full well that he would never follow through. Lower-income Americans were used
as pawns in a cheap political game.
"The Trump administration would be accused on day one of raising mortgage costs for average
Americans if it reverses the FHA move," analyst Jaret Seiberg, managing director at Cowen Group
Inc., wrote in a note to clients. "Trump's career has been real estate. It would seem out of
character for him to be aggressively negative on real estate in his first week in office."
[ ]
"I have no reason to believe this will be scaled back," [HUD Secretary Julian] Castro told
reporters. The premium cut "offers a good benefit to hardworking American families out there
at a time when interest rates might well continue to go up."
It is not Trump's responsibility to keep the promises that Obama makes on his way out the door.
It is Obama's responsibility to not promise what is not promiseable.
There are so many things for progressives to criticize Trump about. This is not one of them.
So Who Are We Fighting Anyway?
To paraphrase Jimmy Dore ,
"The way to oppose Trump is to agree with him when he's right, and to fight him when he's wrong.
Anything else delegitimizes you, especially in the eyes of his supporters."
And again in another of his videos
: "We don't need to unite against Trump. We need to unite against corruption and corporatism."
If Democrats do something wrong, we need to fight them. If Trump does something wrong, we need
to fight him. If Trump does something right, we need to stand with him.
If we can't win with the truth, we don't deserve to win.
I agree with the sentiment but after watching the D party protest war under Bush, never talk
about it under Obama, and then cheerlead for it with Hillary I don't think they actually stand
for anything except identity politics.
Right, they traded support for real issues for identity politics. Identity politics which is
lovingly celebrated on TYT every day by the way. I'm not sure how or why anyone would go to that
rancid cesspool of biased disinformation for news, but ok.
Here is a litmus test: anyone who gave a pro forma endorsement of Hillary OK, understandable,
and I can kind of tolerate that. But for the others who were in the tank for Hillary like TYT–all
except for Jimmy Dore–those people are persona non grata from here out.
Totally disagree that TYT was in the tank for Hillary. Have watched these guys every day since
around May. They're all pro-Bernie. They clearly wanted Hillary over Trump during the general
(and I did too, but that's waaaaaay not to say I'm pro-Hillary), but I don't think "in the tank
for Hillary" is a fair characterization for any of them.
To me, the best evidence is that I have not witnessed Jimmy Dore being forced to tone his admittedly
louder and more vehement anti-Hillary ranting down on any show, including the main show. They
even gave him his own show around the end of the primaries where he gleefully goes off (Aggressive
Progressives).
As an aside, The Jimmy Dore Show seems fresher than Aggressive Progressives, I believe because
he rehearses the bits on own show first. On TJDS, he is frequently good, and consistently on fire.
Naked Cap, the entire TYT network, Glenn Greenwald, Le Show, and of course, Bernie Sanders,
are among my most important truth tellers.
It's not that clear cut. For instance, if you are a person of color, there was good reason
to be plenty worried about Trump. Violence against immigrants picked up big time in the UK after
Brexit, so there's a close parallel. And his appointment of Jeff Sessions as AG is hardly encouraging.
Did you see their election day coverage? Here are the highlights:
TYT meltdown .
My favorite part starts at 14m50s, when Kasparian rants about how she has no respect for women
who didn't vote for Clinton and calls them "f@#king dumb". Solidarity!
What the – ????? – like the right wing is not all about Identity Politics from an ethnic and
religious foundations .. errrrrrr .
Now that the Democrats embraced free market neoliberalism and went off the reservation with
non traditional views wrt whom could join the club, being the only thing separating the two, its
a bit wobbly to make out like there is some massive schism between the two.
Disheveled . you can't have a "dominate" economic purview running the ship for 50ish years
and then devolve into polemic political warfare ..
jgordon– Identity politics lovingly celebrated on that rancid cesspool of biased disinformation
every day. Wow, takes my breath away. I've watched the TYT evening news for ~10 months virtually
ever day and I'd guesstimate that I viewed 60 of their You Tube clips. Seems to me you're projecting.
Given your strident certitude you should have no trouble provide any links that convinced you
of your opinion, buttress your argument. The daily recurrences of "identity politics" put it out
there. What convinced you they were "in the tank for Hillary"? It'd be hard to come up with a
more inaccurate phrase. They full throatedly endorsed Sanders in the primaries. Cenk announced
on the Monday (IIRC) before that he would be voting for HRC so how do you arrive at using "in
the tank"? I found your remarks a "rancid cesspool of biased disinformation" long on emotion and
very short on facts and evidence. That's why it seems like projection.
The US support for the Saudi war in Yemen is the most clearcut example of the moral worthlessness
of many liberals. Actually, to their credit many Democrats and a few Republicans in Congress have
opposed it, but it isn't a big cause because Obama was the one doing it. I imagine Trump will
continue the policy, but don't expect anything to change– Trump can be opposed on other issues,
so there will be no incentive to criticize him on an issue when the Trump people can say they
are just continuing what Obama started.
It is infuriating to hear liberals mindlessly repeating how disgraceful it is to see Trump
cozying up with a dictator who has blood on his hands. It is the eternal sunshine of the spotless
mind with these people.
Hear, hear! Thanks to NC that Common Dreams piece set off my bs detector immediately. There's
a larger framing question we can add as well: who benefits from PMI?
Using the example above, the home buyer pays an upfront premium of $3,300 which gives them
no additional equity in their home, and somewhere between $1400 and $1500 a year for their premium,
which also doesn't increase their equity. And, they continue to pay PMI until they achieve a loan
to value ratio of 80%.
So you buy your 200K house and dutifully pay your mortgage and PMI, which, btw, is also not
tax deductible. You finally get to the point where through a combination of paying down your mortgage
and increasing home prices, you have 80% equity in your home. Then the housing market tanks, and
your 200K home is worth 170K. Your house is worth less than you paid for it and you're stuck paying
$1500 a year in fees that don't reduce the amount of your mortgage, that you can't deduct from
your taxes, and that you can't get rid of until you have 80% equity in your house.
Sign me up!
So who benefits? Certainly not the middle class would be homeowner, who not only gets screwed
on the finances, but thanks to inflation of home prices, is getting screwed on the finances so
that they can spend 200K on a crappy little ranch that's a 40 minute commute to their job one
way on a good day.
I also read about this on the Neocon/Neolib pro-war propaganda and general disinformation site
for women and manginas Huffington Post, and I have to say that they were spinning really hard
to make this look like something horrible Trump had done. But even in the extremely biased article
I read they surreptitiously had to admit that this was a rule the Obama regime had put in place
the midnight before Obama departed and that Trump was just reversing it. I read this before I
knew anything else about t he subject and already had a pretty good idea of what was going on.
But the above post helped a lot.
Finance benefits – they get to keep promoting unaffordable mortgages.
We refused to pay this BS insurance when purchasing our house, since it wan't insuring us against
anything but rather we'd be paying for the bank's insurance against ourselves. Seems a lot more
like a scam when you frame it that way, considering that the bank is lending you money they just
created in the first place.
Instead we saved up for another year or two until we had the whole 20% down required to avoid
the insurance. I do understand that not everyone can afford 20% down depending on their job and
where they live however if enough people refused both PMI and to purchase because they couldn't
afford 20% down on an overpriced house (and we are in another bubble already, at least in my area),
prices would drop until people could really afford them.
Finance pretends they are just trying to make the American Dream available to everybody and
too many have taken the bait to the point where finance as a percentage of GDP is near or at an
all time high. The reality is that it's mostly just a scam to benefit finance and turn the population
into debt slaves.
The home owner was able to purchase a home with less than 20% down. The PMI protects the lender
during default, which is considerably higher when borrower has no skin in the game. Also, there
are other options such as lender paid mi.
Additionally, most of you are confusing PMI – Private Mortgage Insurance- with FHA Upfront
and MIP. With the latter being required regardless of the down payment. Secondly, the author was
wrong on his facts. MIP is .85 @ 96.5% and .80 @ 30 years. 15 YR.terns offer reduced
PMI is another insurance company rip-off. Requiring people to escrow taxes with no interest
paid to them by the banks using those funds is another rip-off.
Trying to condense this whole article into a tweet is a challenge. . .
"Obama cuts mortg. ins. rate for <20% down by 25 pts ($500 on $200k home) 11days prior to exit
in con artist act sure to be dropped by Trump resulting in bogus media claims about Dem support
for working class homeowners."
I agree. If we Progressives are to make any fwd movement, we can't beat up on DJT on any and
everything. I am also cautioning friends & family to do so too. If cry "foul" everyou time he
acts, that delegitimizes us.
One recent example is the Trumps' arrivall @ wh b4 the inauguration. A snapshot shows DJT entering
WH before the Obamas and Mrs. DJT. Once posted, goes viral and the talk is how ill-mannered, selfish
is and how gracious the Obamas are for escorting the Mrs. after her "oafish" husband
What is not shown is that DJT stops, comes back, and ushers the trio ahead of him. (which you
can see on CSPAN ).
When I saw the truth of what happened, after reading the negative comments, that worried me.
We REALLY need to be more dis corning and employ critical thinking.
Have to be careful not to be swayed by bullshit, no matter where it comes from.
This explanation, while nice, only serves to make Trump look dumb. He jumped into an obvious
trap. Rather than focus on how Obama tricked him, I'm a bit more concerned with what this portends
for the future. See, if the president is unable, either for political or personal reasons, to
avoid easy pitfalls like this, the odds of his success aren't very high.
By the way, this reads like one more zing at Obama after he's already left the building. He
earned most of the criticism he got, definitely from this site, but I feel like this is overdoing
it. Criticizing him for not doing it sooner? Totally valid. Criticizing him for tripping up his
successor? Petty.
Pointing out the hypocrisy of Schumer and Kaine isn't part of that pettiness, though. That
will be useful to remember as they cozy up to the Don and claim they're doing it to "help working
families."
I am admittedly a political newbie (Bernie woke me up never did anything before him but vote),
and perhaps I am missing something, but I would be much less upset about it if he didn't screw
middle class Americans in the process.
That this is considered petty, by which I believe you mean normal politics, is exactly the
problem.
The article makes it pretty clear, if I am reading it and the links and background right, that
the screwing is principally in the form of requiring mortgage insurance to insure THE LENDER (or
note holder or whoever MERS says gets paid on default). And that the "benefit" you may feel was
(according to the spin) "taken away," was not even an "entitlement" because it would not have
even been in effect until three weeks AFTER Obama (who has screwed the middle class and everyone
else not in the Elite, nine ways from nowhere, for 8 years), and would not change the abuse that
is PMI. And would not have "put dollars in the pockets of consumers" anyway for long after that.
And how many homeowners are in the category?
And banksters and mortgage brokers and the rest, gee whiz, we mopes are supposed to be concerned
about THEM? About people whose paydays come from commissions on the dollar amount of the loans
they write? Where all the "incentives," backed by the Real Economy that undergirds the ability
of the US Government to do its fiat money forkovers to lenders that connived to change the policies
against prudential lending to inflate the bubble that crashed and burned so many, are all once
again being pointed in the direction of making Realtors ™(c)(BS) and lenders even richer on flips
and flops and dumb transactions and churning?
Just to clarify, and please anyone correct me, this was not any kind of "rate reduction." Rate
reductions are what is supposed to happen under the various homeowner "they let
you live in their house as long as you pay the rent mortgage" relief programs
that never happened except to transfer more money to the Banksters. As in "reduce the unaffordable
interest rate on oppressive mortgages." And "mark to market." And PRINCIPAL reductions
as a result. And I do know the nominal difference between "title" states and "equitable interest"
states - in either, the note holder effectively owns the house and property until the last nickel
is paid, and as seen in the foreclosure racket, often not even the. And the "homeowner" gets to
pay the taxes and maintain and maybe improve the place, to protect the note holder's equity "Fee
simple absolute" is a comforting myth.
As the article points out, the only potential reduction in money from borrower to lender/loan
servicer (since the PMI underwriters seem to have such close financial ties to the insured note
holder, there's but slim difference between the parts of the racket) might have been that tiny
reduction in the insurance PREMIUM.
Niggling over terms, maybe, but that's what "the law" is made up of.
And apologies if I mistook the referent of "he" to be "Trump" rather than Obama and his clan
- but nonetheless
This excellent analytic walkthrough is a model for what must be done to ward off any form of
"Obama 2!" as a political battle cry. It must be done relentlessly and without any consideration
of being fair to that neoliberal schemer. The Clintonites will claw their way back from the edge
of their political grave if they can draw on such sentiments.
Exactly, what we need is an FDR approach, which Bernie Sanders Democrats are far more likely
to deliver. Instead of bailing out AIG and Goldman Sachs, FDR would have set up a Homeonwers Loan
Corporation to buy up all the adjustable rate mortgages and convert them to fixed-rate mortgages,
and instead of the zero-interest loans going to Wall Street from the Fed, they'd have gone to
homeowners facing foreclosure, who could then stay in their homes and pay them off over time.
But when Obama came in, he brought in Larry Summers and Tim Geithner, who preached about "not
returning to the failed policied of FDR." What a pack of con artists. I prefer your honest hustlers
to those guys (i.e. Team Trump, American Hustle 2.0 at least you know what to expect.)
>See, if the president is unable, either for political or personal reasons, to avoid easy pitfalls
like this
How is this a pitfall? Trump puts a hold on a "last minute Obama change", lets it sit for awhile,
and then reinstates it or maybe even makes it better. Then Trump owns the reduction, not Obama.
This essay focuses on timing and tactics. Not analyzed is the essential question of What
is the appropriate premium for mortgage insurance?
It's an actuarial question based on prior loss experience. Real estate moves in long cycles.
Each trough is different in depth.
Such questions aside, HUD's annual mortgage insurance premium of 0.8% was in the middle of
the typical range of 0.5% to 1.0% charged by private mortgage insurers. Obama's short-lived cut
to 0.55% would have put HUD's premium at the low end, on what probably are higher-risk loans.
Obama's action mirrors what's seen in other gov-sponsored insurance programs, such as pension
benefit guarantee schemes which are chronically under-reserved. Cheap premiums look like a free
benefit, until the guarantee fund goes bust in a down cycle, and taxpayers get hit with a bailout.
What's so stupendously silly about Obama's diktat is that it was too late to provide
any electoral benefit. Whereas if HUD's mortgage insurance pool later went bust, it could have
been blamed on Obama for cutting premiums without any actuarial analysis.
Perhaps HUD secretary Ben Carson will ask a more fundamental question: what is HUD doing in
the mortgage insurance business, anyway? Obama's ham-handed tampering with premiums for political
purposes shows why government is not well placed to be in the insurance business - it has skewed
incentives. Ditch it, Ben!
In researching this story (I have no financial background, and have never owned anything beyond
a car), I had a theory that the reduction made no fiscal sense because the Feds raised rates for
the first time in 2016, after hovering above near zero for eight years, to .5%.
My thinking was that
the move was to discourage new borrowers by making loans more expensive, therefore increasing
the cost of mortgages and ultimately threatening the solvency of the FHA. I was wrong, which is
disappointing because it would have made for a more dramatic ending, in that Trump's revoking
the decrease would have been the "correct" thing to do.
Aye. You make an excellent point that essentially everybody in media has ignored.
What should the mortgage insurance rate actually be? And the answer is simple: It should be high
enough to cover losses incurred by mortgage defaults (plus operating expenses), but no higher.
I don't know what that rate should have actually been, but if it was 0.55%, then Obama and
the FHA should have lowered the rate years ago to avoid overcharging people. And if 0.80% was
the right rate, then Obama should never have lowered it at all, given that it would ultimately
require a taxpayer bailout. Either way , Obama is incompetent.
If the only consideration is cost to customers, then the proper rate is 0%. Offer it for free!!
But if you want to the program to actually be self-sustaining, so that it doesn't require continuous
injection of taxpayer dollars and be a perpetual target for cancellation by Congress, then you
have to charge enough to cover losses. Whether the average mortgage rate is 3.5% or 4.0% or 6.2%
matters not a whit in this calculation.
Net conclusion: Obama is either a flaming incompetent who flat-out doesn't understand the concept
of insurance, or this was a deliberate attempt to impose a political headache on Trump.
An analogy could be made to municipal bond insurance, which like mortgage insurance is intended
to protect the lender against loss of principal:
Municipal bond insurance adds a layer of protection in the rare case of default. However,
that protection is dependent on the insurance companies' credit quality.
Municipal bond insurance used to be commonplace; now it's quite rare. Why is that? As of
2008, nearly half of all newly issued municipal bonds carried some form of insurance. Today,
the share is less than 7%.
The number of municipal bond insurers has also declined and their credit ratings have fallen.
A number of bond insurers went bust during the Great Recession. Plus, a large default by
Puerto Rico has caused many municipal market participants to question the ability of insurance
companies to pay on the bonds they insure.
Muni bond insurers were publicly traded, profit seeking companies. But they underpriced their
insurance, probably because no one expected a 1930s-style crisis like 2008.
Obama had no more concept about how to price mortgage insurance than I do about how to perform
brain surgery. He was just mindlessly handing out bennies at public expense in the dark of night,
before skulking away into well-deserved obscurity.
I dunno Jim – perhaps Obama DID know (or was advised) that the rate cut was actuarially unsound
thus setting up his successor for problems down the road or bad optics upfront if the cut was
reversed.
Yep. To quote the White House press release, " Today, the President announced a major new
step that his Administration is taking to make mortgages more affordable and accessible for creditworthy
families. "
That's not a valid reason to lower PMI rates. PMI rates must cover losses, and higher
interest rates on mortgages may very well mean higher default rates. If so, PMI rates would need
to go up as well.
Now if the press release had talked about PMI overcharges by the FHA, then I might
have have bought it. But they didn't. There was no mention of actuarial soundness at all
.
For a good explanation of how mortgage insurance works and the impact of the discussed premium
increase/decrease, check out David Dayen's (a frequent contributor to NC) article on the Intercept
here . David goes more in depth on the actual numbers and what they mean.
I did briefly hear some discussion in the news about the FHA mortgage insurance program having
been underfunded in the recent past. This could have given an additional reason for Trump to block
the lower rate until the numbers could be analyzed. I did a search and found a couple of articles
from before either of these decisions that illustrate different perspectives on this issue:
The latter article is from 2009 but includes some interesting details about significant amounts
of money being transferred from the fund to the treasury department.
From the first link, as of 2015: " his recent decision to lower mortgage insurance premiums
despite the FHA falling short of its capital reserve requirement." So the fund was out of compliance
with the law, and this was a long-running point of contention between the administration and the
Republicans in Congress.
What we don't know yet is whether the fund reached its goal, which would justify lowing the
premium. The Congress members were complaining about being lied to.
"What is the appropriate premium for mortgage insurance?"
"Such questions aside, HUD's annual mortgage insurance premium of 0.8% was in the middle of
the typical range of 0.5% to 1.0% charged by private mortgage insurers. Obama's short-lived cut
to 0.55% would have put HUD's premium at the low end, on what probably are higher-risk loans."
The argument here seems to be that what is typical is appropriate. By that argument, 0.55%
which falls in that range would be ok. The argument that it's too low assumes that the range as
it stands is somehow rationally defined, which is another assumption that itself bears scrutiny.
To say that 0.5-1.0% is ok is an assumption, and should be examined in detail right along with
the 0.55 and 0.8 HUD figures before firmer conclusions could be drawn. The results would give
an informed answer to the rhetorical question " what is HUD doing in the mortgage insurance business,
anyway?" Absent that, we're reduced to arguments, tainted on both sides by political inclinations.
Jeff Epstein's clarification is exemplary.
One may be more effective, but if it's not feasible, it doesn't matter how effective it would
be in theory. See this comment by Martin from Canada a few days ago:
Maybe a viable new progressive party can be created. But it sure won't be easy. If it weren't
extremely difficult, don't you think that the Greens would have done it by now? For now, I think
that people need to be actively looking for candidates to run in the 2018 Democratic primaries.
In a few places, at the state level, this will be happening in 2017. See:
Obama came in off the golf course after Trump was elected and issued dozens of similar diktats i
recall wondering at the time that if all those moves were so important, why didn't he make them
in the 8 years he had
EZ real issue for Democrats to embrace. Stop the sales tax of food at the state/muni level.
Shift that burden (or as much as reasonably possible) to the top income brackets.
Oh wait, the places where Democrats can do this, always solidly vote D and there's no incentive.
There is an art to politics. As anyone who studies the subject knows, one has to be both "Lion
& Fox." Lion .for the strength to drive policies, but also a Fox in order to avoid "Snares and
Traps." Bannon, who actually has been writing these executive orders, stepped right into this
Trap. Rookie mistake. This is what happens when you have ideologues attempting to actually govern.
They "step in it." I believe that Jeff is a bit naive and thin skinned here as to "The Game."
Obama did indeed set a snare ..but I am a bit more concerned by Steve's arrogance for boldly stepping
in it and allowing the opposition a fine platform to grandstand on the issue. Rookie mistake.
Arrogance & Stupidity.
Afaics there are two ways in which this game can be played:
A)
1: 0bama sets the trap.
2: Trump nullifies the reduction in rates while simultaneously denouncing 0bama for setting the
trap.
3: MSMedia circus.
B)
1: 0bama sets the trap.
2: Trump nullifies the reduction in rates.
3: D-party denounces Trump.
4: MSMedia circus.
5: Trump/Bannon denounces 0bama for setting the trap.
6: MSMedia once again loses credibility, at least in the eyes of Trump supporters.
Why is option A better than B? Am I missing something here?
If everyone with less than 20% equity has PMI, why didn't it pay off after the crash and lessen
the need for a bailout? Logic would dictate most of the foreclosures were on homes people bought
most recently with less than 20% down. Did PMI pay any money during the crash and to whom and
for what?
If it didn't do any good during the last crash to lessen the public bailout, what's the point
of requiring it?
That is a very good question and I don't remember hearing anything about PMI paying out during
the crash (but that could just be my memory). In fact it never even crossed my mind but yeah you'd
think that should have mitigated some of the losses. Maybe any payout would only benefit the mortgage
holder directly and wouldn't carry through to the mortgage-based securities? That seems odd though
and if true would be a strong case for severely curtailing if not eliminating at least the more
exotic bets.
I watched a few times until what's his name, the main turk, interrupted and talked over the
female co-host too many times for my stomach. There are too many good choices to give clicks to
that type of behavior. Hey this is the 21st century.
I don't know . Obama made many policy changes after the election results came.
It's not as if government is a fast moving engine. This could have been in the works for years
and got expedited for obvious reasons. It took years for Obama to start commuting drug sentences,
also Chelsea Manning, and there was no political gain in it for him.
Unless the policy was itself a fraud, it's impossible to know whether it was implemented cynically.
I made this point below, once it escapes moderation, but basically: 1) the article fails to
tell us whether the new rate made sense; and 2) Clinton did the same thing – a bunch of last-minute
progressive moves, designed to stroke his legacy and punk his Republican successor. Let's hope
the clemency actions are less reversible than the policy moves.
The MIP rate reduction was either an ill-advised reaction to the recent spike in mortgage rates
or a simple set-up for the incoming administration. I suspect is was a combination of both, and
likely designed more for political gain than anything.
It's hard to take a guy seriously when he professes to be concerned about home affordability
when he spent the last 8 years "foaming the runway" for banks as millions of people were foreclosed
on their homes, only to watch many of those same homes get gobbled up by Wall Street and rented
back out to them.
Fewer underwater borrowers will at least curtail the path to feudalism in this new echo housing
bubble.
Another issue is who would have actually benefited from the Obama rate cut. We are supposed
to believe it would have been home buyers, but a uniform increase in the spending power of home
buyers as a group is to a large extent offset by a corresponding increase in home prices. To that
extent it would be sellers (including private equity) and not low income buyers who would benefit.
Also, as far as I'm concerned, if Obamamometer was serious about helping homeowners there are
many more better ways to do it than "foaming the runway" for banks, or preempting any meaningful
action through his statewide get out of jail free card settlement, or actually trying to stop
his buddies from blowing asset bubble after asset bubble.
Moreover, if you can´t put up more than 20% up front to buy a house maybe the problem is that
wages are shit compared to property prices and people can´t afford anything more than cheap meth
or oxycontin to cope with their sorry lives.
Pardon if this is a duplication, but: Isn't there a very large omission here? Was the premium
decrease justified, or not? It's supposed to be government insurance, so the premium should cover
the costs. Did it? Would the proposed lower premium cover them? (Yeah, I know, MMT. But apparently
the idea here was to have a self-supporting program, so it should be self-supporting unless you
announce otherwise.)
That said: this is part of a pattern. Obama made a number of progressive policy moves at the
very last minute, most of them reversible. This is nothing but legacy-stroking, as well as setting
a trap for the next Pres. Clinton did the same thing, along with some questionable pardons.
I noticed the false headlines on yahoo news (the bastion of fake and worthless news) and I
immediately checked it to find that O'Liar had planted this landmine so that it could blow up
in Trump's face. Sure enough, when Trump canceled it, he was the bad guy (even though it had never
had gone into effect as this article points out). What a cynical move by O'Liar and how cynical
can his sycophants be?
Great post! I saw the headlines when the story came out and instantly thought there was something
"off", something a little too pat about the stories. But I wasn't sure what was wrong with the
stories, and was left confused. This post of investigative reporting and facts informs me what
was actually happening. Thank you.
The reaction here puzzles me to the point of confusion. Absent any argument that the policy
didn't offer it's claimed benefits (cost savings for the middle-class), is the left so virtuous
that it will reject and refuse to fight for any advance which isn't selflessly arrived at?
Compare this to "conservatives" who successfully campaigned in 2010 against supposed Medicare
cuts related to Obamacare implementation, when they'd love nothing more than to kill the program
outright.
We, by contrast, we won't even fight for what we claim to believe in, if it isn't wrapped in
virtue.
You are missing that this is insurance, and the cost of losses must be paid for somehow. From
Bruce's comment above:
What should the mortgage insurance rate actually be? And the answer is simple: It should
be high enough to cover losses incurred by mortgage defaults (plus operating expenses), but
no higher.
I don't know what that rate should have actually been, but if it was 0.55%, then Obama and
the FHA should have lowered the rate years ago to avoid overcharging people. And if 0.80% was
the right rate, then Obama should never have lowered it at all, given that it would ultimately
require a taxpayer bailout. Either way, Obama is incompetent.
If the only consideration is cost to customers, then the proper rate is 0%. Offer it for
free!! But if you want to the program to actually be self-sustaining, so that it doesn't require
continuous injection of taxpayer dollars and be a perpetual target for cancellation by Congress,
then you have to charge enough to cover losses. Whether the average mortgage rate is 3.5% or
4.0% or 6.2% matters not a whit in this calculation.
Net conclusion: Obama is either a flaming incompetent who flat-out doesn't understand the
concept of insurance, or this was a deliberate attempt to impose a political headache on Trump.
Granted, but nobody knows the facts. Bruce wants to damn Obama for not doing it before, or
damn him now for doing it. But nothing he either did or didn't do will be deemed acceptable at
this point, even if the reduction is fully warranted.
Have we never heard politics? Process? Delay? Your net conclusion may still prove to be the
correct one, though I'm not sure that failure to implement change earlier, assuming it was warranted,
could be justly laid at the feet of Obama. But we do know?
In 2006, the DHS's Department of Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) ran an
internationally cooperative investigation
into the purchase of subscriptions of child
pornography online. Code-named Project Flicker, the investigation uncovered the identities of
30,000 child porn subscribers in 132 different nations. Some 250 of these identities belonged to
civilian and military employees of the U.S. Defense Department, who gave their real names and
purchased the porn with government .mil email addresses-some with the highest security clearances
available. In response, the Pentagon's Department of Criminal Investigative Services (DCIS)
cross-referenced ICE's list with current employment roles and began a series of prosecutions.
A
DCIS report
from July 2010 shows that 30 of these individuals were investigated, despite
uncovering a new total of
264 Defense employees
and contractors who had purchased child pornography online. 13 had Top
Secret security clearance. 8 had NATO Secret security clearance. 42 had Secret security
clearance. 4 had Interim Secret security clearance. A total of 76 individuals had Secret security
clearance or higher.
Yet, the investigations were halted entirely after only some 50 total names were investigated
at all, and
just 10 were prosecuted
.
A full 212
of the individuals on ICE's list were never even given the most cursory
investigation at all. (Note: The number 5200 keeps popping up in sources covering this-for
instance,
see here
-and I'm not sure what that number is for: American subscribers? Pentagon email
addresses that weren't confirmed to have actually been used by Pentagon employees, but still may
have been? I'll leave it to anyone interested enough to pursue these individual leads to see if
they can figure that out and get back to us.)
In 2011, the story resurfaced when
Anderson Cooper covered it
with (again) Senator Chuck Grassley on CNN. After this, the story
appears to have sunk straight back down into the memory hole yet again. Neither Anderson Cooper
nor CNN appear to have given a follow–up in the five years since the story of the failed
investigation first aired-why not? And why wasn't the first airing enough to lead to mass outrage
and calls for action anyway? See
here
for another summary of the squashed investigation from 2014.
"... The Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal first "broke" in the far-right blogosphere. The accusation they made was that these gangs were being allowed to operate undisturbed because everyone was too afraid of "appearing racist" to properly investigate them . . . and nobody listened to the far-right bloggers who were breaking this story because they were afraid of "appearing racist" if they gave any credibility to those far-right sources, too. Never mind that it seemed paranoid to rely on bloggers ..."
"... the far-right blogosphere turned out to be right. ..."
"... those people ..."
"... The Podesta Emails ..."
"... The evidence is of wildly varying levels of quality, ranging from the pareidolia of "Jesus is appearing to me in my toast" to "wait, that's actually pretty damn creepy." The mountain of claims and observations and speculations being compiled in places like Voat and Steemit are too overwhelming for any one person to hope to wade through sorting wheat from chaff, and while I don't intend to try, I will summarize some just a little bit of it here. ..."
"... While many of these claims are wild speculation over coincidences (though by no means all of them are), at some point I think a bunch of weird coincidences involving pedophilia and kids becomes sort of damning in and of itself. In one email , Podesta is among those being invited to a farm and the host says, "Bonnie will be Uber Service to transport Ruby, Emerson, and Maeve Luzzatto (11, 9, and almost 7) so you'll have some further entertainment, and they will be in [the] pool for sure ." ..."
"... Could that have an innocent explanation? Sure, maybe. But inviting a group of adult men to a gathering and calling young children "further entertainment" while listing their ages is ..."
"... All the Children ..."
"... Here are just a few of the more "institutional" coincidences involved in the story: one of the men on the small list of people found "liking" photos like this one on these individuals' Instagram accounts is Arun Rao , the U.S. Attorney Chief, charged with prosecuting cases of child pornography. ..."
"... Besta Pizza, the business whose logo so closely resembled the "little boy lover" logo, is owned by Andrew Kline , who was one of four attorneys in the Human Trafficking Prosecution Unit of the Department of Justice. Isn't it just a little ..."
"... The disturbing bit is that the photo uses the tag "#chickenlovers," and "chicken lover" is in fact ..."
"... Chicken Hawk ..."
"... Furthermore, Tony Podesta's favorite ..."
"... In addition to Jeffrey Epstein, the Podesta brothers are also friends with convicted sex offender Clement Freud as well as convicted serial child molester Dennis Hastert . ..."
"... New York Times ..."
"... And we do know that this has happened before. ..."
"... The Franklin Scandal: A Story of Powerbrokers, Child Abuse & Betrayal ..."
"... how we should respond to the possibility. ..."
Beginning in 1997, in an English town of more than 100,000 people, eight Pakistani men stood at
the core of a group involving as many as three hundred suspects who abused, gang-raped, pimped and
trafficked, by the most conservative estimate, well over a thousand of the town's young girls for
years.
The police were eventually accused of not just turning a blind eye, but of
participating in the abuse - even supplying the Pakistani gangs with drugs and tipping them off
when they heard of colleagues searching for children they knew to be in the gangs' possession.
Others were afraid of investigating the gangs or calling attention to their behavior because it
would have been politically incorrect to accuse the town's ethnic community of such a rampant and
heinous crime - in the words of one English writer, "
Fears of appearing racist trumped fears of more children being abused ."
But when this story first broke, guess where it appeared?
Here's how a blogger writing under the name Mehrdad Amanpour tells the story of how the story first started reaching people:
Some years ago, a friend sent me a shocking article. It said hundreds of British girls were
being systematically gang-raped by Muslim gangs. It claimed this was being covered-up.
I've never had time for conspiracy theories, especially when they look as hateful as those
in the article. So I checked the links and sources in the piece. I found an American racist-far-right
website and from there, saw the original source was a similarly unpleasant website in the UK.
I did a brief search for corroboration from reputable mainstream sources. I found none. So
I wrote a curt reply to my friend: "I'd appreciate it if you didn't send me made-up crap from
neo–Nazi websites."
Some months later, I read the seminal exposé of the (mainly) ethnic-Pakistani grooming gang
phenomenon by Andrew Norfolk in The Sunday Times .
I was stunned and horrified - not just that these vile crimes were indeed happening and endemic,
but that they really were being ignored and "covered-up" by public authorities and the mainstream
media.
The
Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal first "broke" in the far-right blogosphere. The accusation
they made was that these gangs were being allowed to operate undisturbed because everyone was too
afraid of "appearing racist" to properly investigate them . . . and nobody listened to the far-right
bloggers who were breaking this story because they were afraid of "appearing racist" if they gave
any credibility to those far-right sources, too. Never mind that it seemed paranoid to rely on
bloggers to report truths like these when the allegations were so wide-reaching, involving
a literal conspiracy within the police force.
And yet, years after no one was willing to take them seriously, the far-right blogosphere
turned out to be right.
Well over a thousand (mostly) white young girls were being abused by (mostly) Pakistani
gangs.
And the authorities were covering it up.
We are now, once again, in the stage of an evolving scandal that Mehrdad Amanpour described his
experience with above. Just to be clear, I'm not going to commit myself to the idea that this is
going to be as huge as Rotherham was. We should be careful: we don't know what would or wouldn't
be confirmed with a proper investigation. The question here is not whether we've gotten to the bottom
of this online. The question is whether there is enough here to justify thinking there should be
a proper investigation.
And the parallel with Rotherham is that the relatively small number of people asking for that
are mostly the loathsome kinds of people who run "racist far-right websites." So, since the claims
are inherently conspiratorial, and the mainstream doesn't want to be associated with those people
who are talking about it, it is once again all too easy to just dismiss the claims out of hand
as paranoia run wild.
Again, the evolution of the Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal was an extremely
painful lesson that the mainstream can be wrong and the "paranoid racist far-right"
can be right. And that lesson was far too expensive to simply let go to waste.
The name of this scandal is Pizzagate.
It gets the name for two reasons: first, because at the center of the scandal are high-level Washington
insiders who own a handful of businesses in the DC area, including a couple pizzerias (Comet Ping
Pong and Besta Pizza), who have fallen under suspicion for involvement in a child sex abuse ring.
Second, because the first questions arose in peoples' minds as a result of some very bizarre emails
revealed by Wikileaks in The
Podesta Emails that, quite simply, just sound strange (and usually involve weird
references to pizza). One of the strangest emails involves Joe Podesta being asked this question:
"The realtor found a handkerchief (I think it has a map that seems pizza-related). Is it yours?"
The evidence is of wildly varying levels of quality, ranging from the pareidolia of "Jesus
is appearing to me in my toast" to "wait, that's actually pretty damn creepy." The mountain of claims
and observations and speculations being compiled in places like
Voat and
Steemit are too overwhelming
for any one person to hope to wade through sorting wheat from chaff, and while I don't intend to
try, I will summarize some just a little bit of it here.
While many of these claims are wild speculation over coincidences (though by no means all
of them are), at some point I think a bunch of weird coincidences involving pedophilia and kids becomes
sort of damning in and of itself. In
one email , Podesta
is among those being invited to a farm and the host says, "Bonnie will be Uber Service to transport
Ruby, Emerson, and Maeve Luzzatto (11, 9, and almost 7) so you'll have some further entertainment,
and they will be in [the] pool for sure ."
Could that have an innocent explanation? Sure, maybe. But inviting a group of adult men to
a gathering and calling young children "further entertainment" while listing their ages is
weird , whether it ends up having an explanation or not.
If I was getting messages that listed the ages of young children that would be in a pool
And it turned out that the logo for my business contained a symbol strikingly close to
the "little boy lover" logo used by pedophiles to signify that their interest is in young boys rather
than girls . . .
And the bands that showed up at my restaurant had albums called All the Children
with images on the cover
of a child putting phallic-shaped objects into his mouth . . .
. . . and were found making creepy jokes about pedophilia (in reference to Jared Fogle: "
we all have our preferences
. . . ") . . . and there were instagram photos coming out of kids ("jokingly?") taped
to the tables in my restaurant . . .
. . . frankly, I would start asking questions about myself.
Here are just a few of the more "institutional" coincidences involved in the story: one of
the men on the small list of people found "liking" photos like this one on these individuals' Instagram
accounts is
Arun Rao , the U.S. Attorney Chief, charged with prosecuting cases of child pornography.
Besta Pizza, the business whose logo so closely resembled the "little boy lover" logo, is
owned by
Andrew Kline , who was one of four attorneys in the Human Trafficking Prosecution Unit of the
Department of Justice. Isn't it just a little unusual that someone that high up in a human
trafficking division would fail to notice the symbolism?
For yet another coincidence,
Lauren Silsby-Gayler is the former director of The New Life Children's Refuge in Haiti. It is
a matter of public record that she was caught, prosecuted, and sent to jail while in that role for
trying to abduct dozens of children, most of whom had homes and families. The
main lawyer paid
to represent Silsby-Gayler, "President of the Sephardic Jewish community in the Dominican Republic,"
was himself suspected of involvement in human trafficking.
When the Clintons gained influence in the region, one of their first acts was to work to
get Silsby-Gayler
off the hook . Among the Podesta Wikileaks are
State Department emails
discussing their case. Meanwhile, she now works on the executive board of
AlertSense . . .
which collaborates with IPAWS to send out nation-wide Amber Alerts.
While some of the supposed "codewords" people have claimed to have identified in Pizzagate appear
to be made up, there is at least one unambiguous instance: here is an Instagrammed photo posted by
James Alefantis, the owner of Comet Ping Pong that appears innocent enough: a man carrying a young
child with a beaded necklace draped around both of their necks.
The disturbing bit is that the photo uses the tag "#chickenlovers," and "chicken lover" is
in fact an established term to refer to a pedophile - someone who loves "chicken," which
is also unambiguously an established term to refer to underage children (you can see this in the
gay slang dictionary subset of the
Online Dictionary
of Playground Slang ).
Complain all you want about the "speculative" and "paranoid" online discussions of Pizzagate,
but when you have clearer-cut cases like this one where James Alefantis absolutely, unquestionably
did in fact post a photo of a man holding an infant and the one and only hashtag he used for the
photo involved a term that unquestionably is a reference to pedophilia, in a context where it is
clear that there is nothing else here that "chicken" could possibly have been referring to, the likelihood
that more speculative claims might have truth to them is increased.
There is a 1994 documentary expose on NAMBLA (the North American Man/Boy Love Association) called
Chicken
Hawk .
Here is yet another reference from a watchdog group from 2006, proving that this one existed
well before Pizzagate surfaced. Another confirmed fact dug up by the paranoid right-wing conspiracy
nuts on the Internet?
So here are a few more things we do know. We know that Bill Clinton has taken dozens
of international flights on a plane colloquially known as the "
Lolita Express " with Jeffrey Epstein, a man who spent 13 months in jail after being convicted
of soliciting a 13-year-old
prostitute . We know that Hillary Clinton's staff knew that
Anthony Weiner was sexting underage girls all the way back in 2011 - and covered it up. Guess
whose laptop revealed evidence that Hillary Clinton went on flights on Jeffrey Epstein's "
Lolita Express " along with Bill? That's right: Anthony Weiner's.
Now do you understand why the mainstream media was so eager to spin these emails as just a "distraction"
during the election?
The staff that ignored Weiner's sexting of young children included John Podesta himself, whose
brother Tony is one of the very men at the center of Pizzagate. Tony Podesta has rather warped tastes
in art. For instance, he owns a bronze statue of a decapitated man in a contorted position identical
to a well-known photograph of one of serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer's victims:
(See
here for the disturbing photo of the real victim.)
The same news story that features the image above also mentions the fact that John Podesta's
bedroom contains multiple images from a photographer "known for documentary-style pictures
of naked teenagers in their parents' suburban homes.")
Furthermore, Tony Podesta's favorite artist is Biljana Djurdjevic, whose art heavily
features images of children in BDSM-esque positions in large showers. Here's one with a row of young
girls in a shower with their hands behind their backs in a position that suggests bondage:
Here's one with a young boy in a shower tied up in the air with his hands over his head:
In addition to Jeffrey Epstein, the Podesta brothers are also friends with convicted sex offender
Clement Freud as well as convicted serial child molester
Dennis Hastert .
We do know that the New York Times , which is now dismissing Pizzagate in its
entirety as a hoax, is run by Mark Thompson - who was credibly accused a few years back of lying
to help cover up a scandal involving another high-profile public figure involved in child sex abuse,
Jimmy Savile
, during his time as
head of the BBC .
And we do know that this has happened before.
Lawrence King , the
leader of the Black Republican Caucus, who sang the national anthem at the Republican convention
in 1984, was accused by multiple claimed victims of trafficking and abusing boys out of the Boys
Town charity for years. You can
hear the chilling testimony
from three people who claim to have been victimized by King in a documentary produced shortly
after the events transpired.
You can hear the FBI, even after they received extensive testimony from victims, explain in their
own words that they weren't going to prosecute King because if anything were wrong with him, he would
have been prosecuted by a lower authority already. Eventually, King was found "O. J. guilty" of abusing
Paul Bonacci - convicted in civil court, acquitted in criminal court.
But that's not the question here. The question is how we should respond to the possibility.
Do we take the possibility seriously? History clearly indicates that we should. Even if it did
turn out to be nothing at all, I would still be more proud to belong to a community willing
to take the possibility seriously and call for investigation than I would to belong to a community
that dismissed the possibility far too hastily and luckily turned out to be right - even as it did
this and turned out to be wrong in so many cases like Rotherham before.
The real horror here would be to live in a society that responded as Reddit has - by shutting
down the whole conversation entirely, banning
r/pizzagate even while keeping subreddits like r/pedofriends, "a place for (non-offending) pedophiles
and allies to make friends with each other!" alive.
Over on his blog,
Scott Adams
asks us to keep in mind cases where confirmation bias did lead to false allegations of institutional
pedophilia, to caution against excessive confidence. (He hastens to add: "I want to be totally clear
here that I'm not saying Pizzagate is false. I see the mountain of evidence too. And collectively
it feels totally persuasive to me. It might even be true. I'm not debating the underlying truth of
it. That part I don't know.")
But which is worse? If all the evidence coming out of Pizzagate is entirely
false, what have we lost by spending time on it? On the other hand, if even five percent of the allegations
that have been made surrounding the topic are true, what have we lost by ignoring them? Which is
worse: spending too much time pursuing and thoroughly vetting false leads, or looking the other way
while any amount of child abuse goes on?
According to the FBI's National Crime Information
Center (NCIC) database, nearly 470,000 children disappear in the United States alone each year.
This number is dubious for a number of reasons. It
looks like some number of runaways
end up in the NCIC count, and to make matters worse, repeat offenders can make it into the data multiple
times. So that would suggest that the real number must be lower than this tally; but on the other
hand, we also know that many missing children are never reported in the first place, so it's possible
that that could boost the number back up. The bottom line, however, seems to be that there is no
reliable way to determine how many total children are actually missing in the U.S.
Either way, though, even if correcting for these errors took out 90% of the disappearances in
the NCIC database, and there were no unreported disappearances to account for at all, I think even
the resulting 50,000 per year would still be enough to call the problem systematic and justify suspicion
that these disappearances could well involve organized efforts-given that we already know of so many
pedophile rings in so many powerful institutions.
In 2013, Canada busted a ring involving
more than 300 adults , who had teachers, doctors, and nurses heavily represented among them.
A pedophile ring has just been identified in the
highest levels of UK football (Americans
know the sport as soccer). Norwegian police also just uncovered a ring of 50 organized pedophiles
mostly
working in the tech sector , once again including elected officials, teachers, and lawyers. The
Vatican scandals can practically go without mention - institutional involvement in child sex exploitation
is nearly an a priori given.
And the children that are being raped and murdered in the photos passed around by these
child porn rings are coming from somewhere . And when figures like politicians, teachers,
and lawyers are involved in the rings, it's hardly inconceivable that they could be involved in disappearances.
Have we identified one here?
Only time will tell. But we deserve to be paid attention. We deserve to have the matter taken
(Reprinted from Counter-Currents
Publishing by permission of author or representative)
WASHINGTON-Stopping and turning around as he made his way across the South Lawn after hearing
the unmanned aerial vehicle hovering just feet behind him, outgoing President Barack Obama tearfully
shooed away a loyal MQ-9 Reaper drone attempting to follow him out of the White House, sources
confirmed Friday.
"Go on now-get out of here!" said the former commander-in-chief, his lower lip
trembling and his eyes welling with tears as he affected a stern tone of voice in an attempt to
scare off the faithful hunter-killer drone that had spent the past eight years obediently at his
side.
"You can't come with me anymore, you got that? Can't you see this is for your own good?
Now scram. What are you waiting for? Go!" At press time, a heartbroken Obama had thrown a rock
in the drone's direction, causing the unmanned aerial vehicle to flee into the sky, where it paused
to look back one last time at its old master before flying off toward a Yemeni tribal wedding.
Better dead than bad: Status competition among German
fighter pilots during World War II
By Philipp Ager, Leonardo Bursztyn, and Joachim Voth
During World War II, the German military publicly
celebrated the performance of its flying aces to incentivise
their peers. This column uses newly collected data to show
that, when a former colleague got recognition, flying aces
performed much better without taking more risks, while
average pilots did only slightly better but got themselves
killed much more often. Overall the incentives may have been
detrimental, which serves as a caution to those offering
incentives to today's financial risk-takers.
Reply
Sunday, January 15, 2017 at 12:16 PM
Yossarian came to him one mission later and pleaded again,
without any real expectation of success, to be grounded. Doc
Daneeka snickered once and was soon immersed in problems of
his own, which included Chief White Halfoat, who had been
challenging him all that morning to Indian wrestle, and
Yossarian, who decided right then and there to go crazy.
'You're wasting your time,' Doc Daneeka was forced to tell
him.
'Can't you ground someone who's crazy?'
'Oh, sure. I have to. There's a rule saying I have to
ground anyone who's crazy.'
'Then why don't you ground me? I'm crazy. Ask Clevinger.'
'Clevinger? Where is Clevinger? You find Clevinger and
I'll ask him.'
'Then ask any of the others. They'll tell you how crazy I
am.'
'They're crazy.'
'Then why don't you ground them?'
'Why don't they ask me to ground them?'
'Because they're crazy, that's why.'
'Of course they're crazy,' Doc Daneeka replied. 'I just
told you they're crazy, didn't I? And you can't let crazy
people decide whether you're crazy or not, can you?'
Yossarian looked at him soberly and tried another
approach. 'Is Orr crazy?'
'He sure is,' Doc Daneeka said.
'Can you ground him?'
'I sure can. But first he has to ask me to. That's part of
the rule.'
'Then why doesn't he ask you to?'
'Because he's crazy,' Doc Daneeka said. 'He has to be
crazy to keep flying combat missions after all the close
calls he's had. Sure, I can ground Orr. But first he has to
ask me to.'
'That's all he has to do to be grounded?'
'That's all. Let him ask me.'
'And then you can ground him?' Yossarian asked.
'No. Then I can't ground him.'
'You mean there's a catch?'
'Sure there's a catch,' Doc Daneeka replied. 'Catch-22.
Anyone who wants to get out of combat duty isn't really
crazy.'
There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which
specified that a concern for one's own safety in the face of
dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a
rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he
had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer
be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be
crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he
was sane, he had to fly them. If he flew them, he was crazy
and didn't have to; but if he didn't want to, he was sane and
had to. Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute
simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a
respectful whistle.
'Catch-22': Cadets Hail a Chronicler of the Absurd
By ANDREW H. MALCOLM
COLORADO SPRINGS
It was love at first sight.
The first time the cadets at the Air Force Academy saw
Joseph Heller walk into the cavernous auditorium. they fell
madly in love with him. Nearly 900 future officers stood as
one to applaud the white-haired author as he arrived to begin
a weekend-long celebration.
The occasion was the 25th anniversary of the publication
of ''Catch-22,'' the novel that captured the insanity of war
and the human condition while adding a phrase to the English
language....
Reply
Sunday, January 15, 2017 at 05:39 PM
'CATCH-22': CADETS HAIL A CHRONICLER OF THE ABSURD
Section B; Page 10, Column 3; National Desk
Byline: By ANDREW H. MALCOLM, Special to the New York Times COLORADO SPRINGS, Oct. 4 Lead:
It was love at first sight.
The first time the cadets at the Air Force Academy saw Joseph Heller walk into the
cavernous auditorium. they fell madly in love with him. Nearly 900 future officers stood as one to
applaud the white-haired author as he arrived to begin a weekend-long celebration.
The occasion was the 25th anniversary of the publication of ''Catch-22,'' the novel that captured
the insanity of war and the human condition while adding a phrase to the English language.
Text:
The audience in blue uniforms rose again to applaud and cheer when the author introduced the movie
based on his book. The cadets applauded during the movie credits, after the movie and after he thought
he was finished answering questions.
Then they mobbed him down front with more questions, asked for autographs and followed him out
to a waiting car for more talk about the evil Colonel Cathcart, who kept raising the number of bombing
missions necessary for rotation home, Major Major, who would only see people in his office when he
wasn't in, and Milo Minderbinder, the mess officer who could see a profit in almost anything. 'An
Intoxicating Experience'
''For me,' said the 63-year-old author, ''this is an intoxicating experience unlike any other
I've ever had. I don't want to take it in stride. I want to revel in it.''
As part of the celebration, there was a 25th birthday cake for Yossarian, the book's puzzled protagonist.
There were academic papers presented on the theological, cultural and social significance of ''Catch-22.''
And there were big smiles on the faces of the Air Force Academy's English department, which sought
to introduce the man who made fun of an insane military bureaucracy to future members of a military
bureaucracy.
''We want these men and women to be a thinking part of a large military bureaucracy,'' said Col.
Jack Shuttleworth, head of the English department, ''We don't want them to be victims of the Colonel
Cathcarts of the world. To put it bluntly, you don't want dumb officers out there protecting your
country.''
Since its publication, ''Catch-22'' has been an informal part of the military education of many
soldiers. And it was occasionally used in some senior classes here. But in recent years it has become
a staple taught by a self-confident staff of teachers whose military experiences included tours in
Vietnam, where the historical distinctions between good guy and bad guy were fuzzed and, as Colonel
Shuttleworth put it, ''The enemy was everywhere and nowhere.'' Mutual Admiration Builds
''We oversimplify our military,'' said Mr. Heller, who as a World War II bombardier lieutenant
flew 60 missions in the Army Air Corps. ''We think they have one mind. But they are very educated
today and they want their families and students to be well educated. The degree of acceptance here,
maybe even love, for the book is very surprising, and gratifying.''
Likewise, the cadets learned that an Olympian author can also be accessible. ''He seems like a
nice guy,'' said Corey Keppler, a sophomore from Smithtown, L.I., ''I read parts of the book in high
school. Now I'm going to finish it.''
Mr. Heller also shared several confidences with his young admirers, none of whom was born when
he wrote the book. They learned that the book was originally titled ''Catch-18,'' but the imminent
publication of Leon Uris's ''Mila 18'' and the repetition of the number two in Mr. Heller's book
suggested the change.
The cadets also discovered that Milo's car in the movie really did belong to Mussolini. They laughed
when the author told why he sold the movie rights: ''I wanted the money.'' A Catch That Defies Explanation
And the author tried once again to explain why he can never define catch-22. ''It doesn't exist,''
he said, ''That's the catch. If it existed in writing or something, we could change it.''
Then he sought to give an example. ''I understand the Air Force Academy has a catch-22,'' he said,
''To repair a uniform it must be freshly cleaned. But the cleaning staff has orders not to clean
any uniform needing repairs.''
''That's some catch,'' says Yossarian in the movie.
''It's the best there is,'' replies the doctor.
There were, of course, serious moments in the celebration, which the academy advertised with a
sketch of a naked Yossarian in a tree looking out over the Air Force school. In one paper presented,
Stuart James of Denver University praised the book's ''narrative knots and sheer fantasy'' as ''a
mirror image of the madhouse world of lonely psyches that we all inhabit.'' Joan Robertson of the
academy's faculty analyzed the author's depiction of women in ''Catch-22'' as undemanding, compliant,
often not even worthy of a proper name, and thus adding a needed gritty edge to his portrayal of
men.
Frederick Kiley of the National Defense University even wrote another chapter to ''Catch-22''
in Mr. Heller's style about the brave young men who went off on the dangerous missions they did not
have to fly but could not get out of. 'I'm Sure Milo Would'
The author himself said he was surprised by the lasting impact of Milo Minderbinder, a product
of the capitalist system. ''I don't understand the merger mania sweeping American business,'' said
Mr. Heller. ''But I'm sure Milo would.''
The author said he was not surprised, however, when catch-22's kept popping up in real life. In
a speech tonight he quoted one United States Army briefing officer in Vietnam telling reporters,
''I'm happy to announce our casualties have increased greatly and are now on a level with those of
our Marines.''
Mr. Heller said he was stunned with the strength of continuing interest in his book. He confided
plans to cancel the Friday evening showing of the movie if only a few teachers attended. Instead,
it was the largest crowd he has ever addressed.
All of which put the author in his own catch-22 - the more he enjoyed the weekend, the faster
it went, and the less he could enjoy it.
''I'm as happy as a lark,'' said Mr. Heller, who expects to complete his next novel, ''Poetics,''
this winter. ''All my fantasies have been fulfilled. The sad part to me is that now I'll have to
wait another 25 years to come back.''
Let us 'ally' with all the world,
let us protect civilians, let us impose 'just peace', let us
squander the environment. No plan is too bloody, no price too
steep to prevent another 9/11. The evening news still needs
bodies of "those people". Non violence is un American.
I am not surprised the neoliberals do not post Dr King's
Vietnam Speech:
War is a ... "destructive suction tube. And you may not
know it, my friends, but it is estimated that we spend
$500,000 to kill each enemy soldier, while we spend only
fifty-three dollars for each person classified as poor, and
much of that fifty-three dollars goes for salaries to people
that are not poor."
I was informed by MLK's awareness of the truth on the ground
in 1967. That is why I protested the war in Viet Nam when
protests began early in 1968 in Richmond VA, but not the
draft. In April 1969 I had to decide whether to go to Canada
and maybe never see my family again and take my wife far from
her family as well, go to prison, or go to Viet Nam. MLK had
already been murdered and I had already lost hope in the
truth and social justice. So, I went to Viet Nam. I figured
Doctor King would understand.
Let us 'ally' with all the world,
let us protect civilians, let us impose 'just peace', let us
squander the environment. No plan is too bloody, no price too
steep to prevent another 9/11. The evening news still needs
bodies of "those people". Non violence is un American.
I am not surprised the neoliberals do not post Dr King's
Vietnam Speech:
War is a ... "destructive suction tube. And you may not
know it, my friends, but it is estimated that we spend
$500,000 to kill each enemy soldier, while we spend only
fifty-three dollars for each person classified as poor, and
much of that fifty-three dollars goes for salaries to people
that are not poor."
I was informed by MLK's awareness of the truth on the ground
in 1967. That is why I protested the war in Viet Nam when
protests began early in 1968 in Richmond VA, but not the
draft. In April 1969 I had to decide whether to go to Canada
and maybe never see my family again and take my wife far from
her family as well, go to prison, or go to Viet Nam. MLK had
already been murdered and I had already lost hope in the
truth and social justice. So, I went to Viet Nam. I figured
Doctor King would understand.
See, I'm not surprised that
BuzzFeed
would do something as shady and unethical as
exposing this Trump dossier that alleges he paid Russian sex workers for a golden shower show.
Nope, literally nothing this loathsome, pathetic excuse for a "news" site does could ever
surprise me. I can't understand why anyone would take a site seriously that posts things they
admit cannot be verified.
"... "Democrats can only turn this decade-long collapse around by not being who they appeared to be in the last three election cycles."
He yet again is a Democratic-Party sucker by his bald assumption that it wasn't "who they appeared to be," it's instead what they were
and still are, which is disgusting and which was overwhelmingly supported by Democrats supporting Obama -- they even voted for his war
against Russia, and backed almost 100% his bloody coup which overthrew the democratically elected President of Ukraine -- right next
door to Russia. ..."
"... What would we Americans think if Russia had perpetrated a coup in Mexico? ..."
This article caused me to lose respect for 'Gaius Publius', because of his statements so prejudicial and presumption-laden,
so trusting in what liars (including especially Trump) have said, as, "As horrible and as monstrous as this incoming administration
is - and it will prove to be the worst in American history" -- which presumes that Trump will certainly turn out to have been
even worse than George W. Bush and Barack Obama, which means that 'Gaius Publius' doesn't understand what the competition for
that title, "the worst in American history," really is and how vile and evil and harmful they were, such as Obama's having tried
to push Russia to the very brink of war (and Hillary Clinton would have pushed it beyond the brink, by her insisting upon establishing
a "no-fly zone" in Syria, shooting down Russian planes and forcing Russia to shoot down American planes there). 'Gaius Publius'
is a Democratic Party sucker there, blind to Obama's (and especially Clinton's) evil. Then he says:
"Democrats can only turn this decade-long collapse around by not being who they appeared to be in the last three election
cycles." He yet again is a Democratic-Party sucker by his bald assumption that it wasn't "who they appeared to be," it's instead
what they were and still are, which is disgusting and which was overwhelmingly supported by Democrats supporting Obama -- they
even voted for his war against Russia, and backed almost 100% his bloody coup which overthrew the democratically elected President
of Ukraine -- right next door to Russia.
What would we Americans think if Russia had perpetrated a coup in Mexico? Would we feel safe from their missiles?
How blind can Democrats be? It's why I quit the Party.
'Gaius Publius' is just a fool, someone who can't get rid of his assumptions once they've become false. How is he any smarter
than Republicans, who are long-infamous for being precisely such fools?
This article has some true parts, but the person who wrote it is a fool. Lots of fools mix falsehoods in with truths, instead
of believe only falsehoods. Those fools are harder to detect, but that also makes even more important the reader's being on guard
against believing what such 'over-educated' fools say or write. 'Gaius Publius' hasn't absorbed the reality of the Clinton-Obama-led
Democratic Party. It's disgusting.
All this brings to mind the report that Trump is considering a realignment of the intel agencies
including staff reductions and reassignments as it compares with JFK's experience when he fired
CIA Director Allen Dulles. Kennedy replaced Dulles for lying to him about the Bay of Pigs debacle
with an inept outsider named John McCone who was easily snookered by CIA staff. Kennedy did not
fully realize the depth of Dulles' betrayal as he continued to meet with senior CIA staff at his
home on a regular basis where they discussed, debated and decided CIA policy.
What Trump needs to understand is that certain cats, especially the neo-con variety, have more
than nine lives and will hang on to their power base with every fiber of their being - and we
know how that worked out for JFK.
Enrique Ferro's insight: Observing the President since the November 8th election, his reactions reveal
an aggressiveness rarely, if ever seen in an outgoing President's closing days, and has become a
fascinating study in human dynamics.
Obama is clearly experiencing more than a normal reluctance to hand over his @POTUS twitter account
as perhaps the reality has only just hit home that it is far too late to create a new, improved legacy.
One explanation may be that the President's carefully constructed veneer of personality, never
convincing for those who have long sought the 'real' Barak Obama, has cracked under the pressure
of the 2016 losses.
You cannot make this up! As a NEWS purveyor today you say anything you like, from any credible or not credible person or organization
on the planet, and then claim it is up to your readers to decide if it is true or not. Yikes. The American Fourth Estate is beginning
to look like a one flight up gentleman's parlor on old Times Square.
a lot of homosexual practitioners like ben smith produce this kind of garbage. the aggressive promotion of homosexualized America,
and Europe as well, has been very bad news indeed. That is a political agenda that needs to meet some serious resistance.
Chuck Todd is doing exactly was he is being paid to do. Just like you, me, and every one else. Not that he is especially good
at what he is supposed to be doing though. Tucker is much better.
"... The allegation that " The dossier is controlled by Kremlin spokesman, PESKOV, directly on PUTIN'S orders " is beyond laughable. Clearly the author of this fake has no idea how the Russian intelligence and security services work (hint: the Presidential spokesman has no involvement in that whatsoever) On page 2 there is this other hilarious sentence " exploit TRUMP's personal obsession and sexual perversion in order to obtain suitable 'kompromat' (compromising material) on him ." ..."
"... this is an attempt at removing Donald Trump from the White House. This is a political coup d'etat. ..."
"... Third, within one short week we went from allegations of "Russian hacking" to "having a traitor sitting in the White House". We can only expect a further Tsunami of such allegations to continue and get worse and worse every day. It is interesting that Buzzfeed has already preempted the accusation of this being a smear and demonization campaign against Trump by writing that " Now BuzzFeed News is publishing the full document so that Americans can make up their own minds about allegations about the president-elect that have circulated at the highest levels of the US government. " as if most Americans had the expertise to immediately detect that this document is a crude forgery! ..."
"... Fourth, unless all the officials who briefed Trump come out and deny that this fake was part of their briefing with Trump, it will appear that this document has the official imprimatur of the senior US intelligence officials and that would give them a legal, probatory, authority. This de-facto means that the "experts" have evaluated that document and have certified it as "credible" even before any legal proceedings in court or, worse, in Congress. I sure hope that Trump had the foresight to audio and video record his meeting with the intelligence chiefs and that he is now able to threaten them with legal action if they now act in a way contradicting their behavior before him. ..."
"... Fifth, the fact that CNN got involved in all this is a critical factor. Some of us, including yours truly, were shocked and disgusted when the WaPo posted a list of 200 websites denounced as "fake news" and "Russian propaganda", but what CNN did by posting this article is infinitely worse: it is a direct smear and political attack on the President Elect on a worldwide level (the BBC and others are already posting the same crap). This again confirms to be that the gloves are off and that the Ziomedia is in full state of war against Donald Trump. ..."
"... In spite of the image which Hollywood likes to give of them, most Americans are peaceful and non-violent people, but if they are pushed too far they will not hesitate and grab their guns to defend themselves, especially if they lose all hopes in their democracy. ..."
"... just because you're paranoid doesn't mean that they are not after you ..."
"... I watched the press-conference just now, and I get the impression that this latest episode is the best thing (for Trump) recently. ..."
"... Apparently it was so inane that it was immediately refuted, and it's now accepted in all quarters that it was a fake accusation. Which gives Trump an opportunity to 1. claim victimhood, 2. attack the media and US 'intelligence' services, and 3. talk about it every time he's asked any question about his mythical 'Russian connections'. It's a huge win for him. In fact, it wouldn't have surprised me if this whole thing was his own design (well, of his operatives). ..."
"... There needs to be a mass housecleaning at the CIA and other intelligence agencies, and, in a serious country, ..."
"... His enemies are like a pack, in both parties, in both chambers, in the economic and financial establishment, the media, Hollywood. He'll have to trad carefully. And yet, he is courageous and outspoken, as he has shown right away, by strongly denouncing the media and "intelligence community" for their forgeries. ..."
"... I'm afraid the conspiracy will get nastier and nastier, and sooner or later, they will remove him, even violently, very violently. I fear the Inauguration ceremony will be historic, and not for the best. Cross your fingers. The humanity's fate is at the stake. ..."
"... To finish the power of the oligarchs, Trump must separate the politics from the business and start a serious reform of CIA. If he will be able to do it, we all may enjoy much safer World. ..."
"... The document reads like "the gang that couldn't shoot straight." It's a joke. And such hyper-overreaction as this post represents suggests an instability of mind. That anyone took the document seriously per se speaks of utter unseriousness. ..."
"... despite the fact that Trump has lately wrapped himself in a prodigious portion of Establishment Mantle, the Powers That Be are terrified, and the brick bats have just begun. ..."
"... Additionally: the accuracy, legitimacy, and/or professionalism of their attacks may prove irrelevant. Facts aren't really what it's about when you control the Narrative...When you control the Production of Truth. It's no accident that the stranglehold on the MSM is guarded so viciously. Control of the Media is Control of Everything. ..."
"... The point is not that these allegations can be used as direct grounds for impeachment, but that they create a climate in which Congressmen and Senators, especially Republicans, can block Trump's personnel and policies, especially on Russia, and if and when the opportunity arises, justify voting against party lines on an impeachment motion. ..."
"... There are plenty of establishment Republican who would vote to impeach in a heartbeat, regardless of the merits of the case, if they thought their careers would survive it, This kind of furore is designed to create political circumstances in which they might hope for their careers to survive such a betrayal. ..."
"... It's useful to understand who the Neocons are. They're mostly the Zionist section of US Jewry, but even this isn't so clear since US Jews have a problem defining themselves racially. They are ethnically more European than Semitic, and their cultural affinity is wholly European rather than Semitic Middle Eastern. Also, they are not so religious, with the decline in practicing Judaism mirroring the decline in Christian Church attendance among Europeans and Americans in general. ..."
"... So it could be more informative to see US Jewry as something more like a private corporation. ..."
"... Like any other large corporation, it's transnational, sets up lobbying organizations to help client Congressmen get elected, guides their research, helps with their expenses and gets favourable legislation in return. This reality seems to build naturally out of the Jewish European background in international commerce (rather than national government administration) so a Neoliberal economic environment is much more congenial with very little input from a nominal national identity. The key is the corporate identity. ..."
"... "Trumps problem (if it is a problem for him) is that he is dealing with a ...corporate "deep state" that sees the US mostly in economic terms, as a market to be exploited for maximum profit" ..."
"... I tell you – you are right. The stakes are very high indeed. If the establishment will lose political power, many of them may finish their lives in prison. ..."
"... It was a hoax. It also allowed Trump to find out where leaks are coming from. Anyone who understands the type of man Trump is would have placed such a report in the hoax category straightaway. That the "intelligence community" did not, says a lot about them. Under Obama, they have simply become a partisan tool. ..."
"... The McCains and Wilsons and the responsible editors at Buzzfeed and CNN all wanted to believe it to be true so they posted it as true. Collaborator McCain is a despicable creature. ..."
"... McCain of "Tokyo rose" fame. The older McCain of the USSLiberty scandalous coverup and insult to the USSLiberty victims and veterans fame. Seems that there something that runs in the McCain family. ..."
"... I am amazed by the brazen nature of the attacks. The most interesting part is that at least the most lurid claims seem to have been spoonfed to the earlier idiot in the US as part of the flow by 4chan trolls, and this continued through the former MI6 loon, both the UK and US mnrons shopped the lies around for months. ..."
"... The CNN man at the press-conference was really arrogant and aggressive. I think, if Trump will exclude CNN from his future press-conferences, people would accept it with understanding. Anyway we will have interesting times. ..."
Classified documents presented last week to President Obama and President-elect Trump included allegations that Russian operatives
claim to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump, multiple US officials with direct knowledge of
the briefings tell CNN. The allegations were presented in a two-page synopsis that was appended to a report on Russian interference
in the 2016 election. The allegations came, in part, from memos compiled by a former British intelligence operative, whose past
work US intelligence officials consider credible ( ) The two-page synopsis also included allegations that there was a continuing
exchange of information during the campaign between Trump surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government, according
to two national security officials.
When I first read the document my intention was to debunk it sentence by sentence. However, I don't have the time for that and, frankly,
there is no need for it. I will just provide you here with enough simple straightforward evidence that this is a fake. Here are just
a few elements of proof: The document has no letterhead, no identification, no date, no nothing. For many good technical and even
legal reasons, sensitive intelligence documents are created with plenty of tracking and identification information. For example,
such a document would typically have a reference to the unit which produced it or an number-letter combination indicating the reliability
of the source and of the information it contains. The classification CONFIDENTIAL/SENSITIVE SOURCE is a joke. If this was a true
document its level of classification would be much, much higher than "confidential" and since most intelligence documents come from
sensitive sources there is no need to specify that.
The allegation that " The dossier is controlled by Kremlin spokesman, PESKOV,
directly on PUTIN'S orders " is beyond laughable. Clearly the author of this fake has no idea how the Russian intelligence and security
services work (hint: the Presidential spokesman has no involvement in that whatsoever) On page 2 there is this other hilarious sentence
" exploit TRUMP's personal obsession and sexual perversion in order to obtain suitable 'kompromat' (compromising material) on him
."
Nobody in a real intelligence document would bother to clarify what the word "kompromat" means since both in Russian and in English
it is obviously the combination of the words "compromising" and "materials". Any western intelligence officer, even a very junior
one, would know that word, if only because of the many Cold War era espionage books written about the KGB entrapment techniques.
The document speaks of "source A", "source B" and further down the alphabet. Now ask yourself a simple question: what happens after
"source Z" is used? Can any intelligence agency work with a potential pool of sources limited to 26? Obviously, this is not how intelligence
agencies classify their sources.
I will stop here and submit that there is ample evidence that this is a crude fake produced by amateurs who have no idea of what
they are talking about.
This does not make this document any less dangerous, however.
First, and this is the really crucial part, there is more than enough here to impeach Trump on numerous grounds both political
and legal . Let me repeat again – this is an attempt at removing Donald Trump from the White House. This is a political coup
d'etat.
Second, this documents smears everybody involved: Trump himself, of course, but also the evil Russians and their ugly Machiavellian
techniques. Trump is thereby "confirmed" as a sexual pervert who likes to hire prostitutes to urinate on him. As for the Russians,
they are basically accused of trying to recruit the President of the United States as an agent of their security services. That would
make Trump a traitor, by the way.
Third, within one short week we went from allegations of "Russian hacking" to "having a traitor sitting in the White House".
We can only expect a further Tsunami of such allegations to continue and get worse and worse every day. It is interesting that Buzzfeed
has already preempted the accusation of this being a smear and demonization campaign against Trump by writing that " Now BuzzFeed
News is publishing the
full document so
that Americans can make up their own minds about allegations about the president-elect that have circulated at the highest levels
of the US government. " as if most Americans had the expertise to immediately detect that this document is a crude forgery!
Fourth, unless all the officials who briefed Trump come out and deny that this fake was part of their briefing with Trump,
it will appear that this document has the official imprimatur of the senior US intelligence officials and that would give them a
legal, probatory, authority. This de-facto means that the "experts" have evaluated that document and have certified it as "credible"
even before any legal proceedings in court or, worse, in Congress. I sure hope that Trump had the foresight to audio and video record
his meeting with the intelligence chiefs and that he is now able to threaten them with legal action if they now act in a way contradicting
their behavior before him.
Fifth, the fact that CNN got involved in all this is a critical factor. Some of us, including yours truly, were shocked and
disgusted when the WaPo posted a list of 200 websites denounced as "fake news" and "Russian propaganda", but what CNN did by posting
this article is infinitely worse: it is a direct smear and political attack on the President Elect on a worldwide level (the BBC
and others are already posting the same crap). This again confirms to be that the gloves are off and that the Ziomedia is in full
state of war against Donald Trump.
All of the above further confirms to me what I have been saying over the past weeks: if Trump ever makes it into the White House
(I write 'if' because I think that the Neocons are perfectly capable of assassinating him), his first priority should be to ruthlessly
crack down as hard as he legally can against those in the US "deep state" (which very much includes the media) who have now declared
war on him. I am sorry to say that, but it will be either him or them – one of the parties here will be crushed.
[Sidebar: to those who wonder what I mean by "crackdown" I will summarize here what I wrote elsewhere: the best way to do
that is to nominate a hyper-loyal and determined FBI director and instruct him to go after all the enemies of Trump by investigating
them on charge of corruption, abuse of power, conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and all the other types of behavior which
have gone on forever in Congress, the intelligence community, the banking world and the media. Deal with the Neocons like Putin
did with the Russian oligarchs or how the USA dealt with Al Capone – get them on tax evasion. There is no need to open Gulags
or shoot people when you can get them all on what is their normal daily behavior :-)]
I sincerely hope that I am wrong, and I admit that I might be, but I don't have the gut feeling that Trump has what it takes to
hit hard enough at those who are using any and every ugly method imaginable to prevent him from ever making it into the White House
or to have him impeached if he tries to deliver on his campaign promises. I cannot blame him for that either: the enemy has infiltrated
all the level of power in the US polity and there are strong sign that they are even represented in Trump's immediate entourage.
Putin could do what he did because he was an iron-willed and highly trained intelligence officer. Trump is just a businessman whose
best "training" to deal with such people would probably be his exposure to the mob in New York. Will that be enough to allow him
to prevail against the Neocons? I doubt it, but I sure hope so.
As
I predicted it before the election , the USA are about to enter the worst crisis in their history. We are entering extraordinarily
dangerous times. If the danger of a thermonuclear war between Russia and the USA had dramatically receded with the election of Trump,
the Neocon total war on Trump put the United States at very grave risk, including civil war (should the Neocon controlled Congress
impeach Trump I believe that uprisings will spontaneously happen, especially in the South, and especially in Florida and Texas).
At the risk of sounding over the top, I will say that what is happening now is putting the very existence of the United States in
danger almost regardless of what Trump will personally do. Whatever we may think of Trump as a person and about his potential as
a President, what is certain is that millions of American patriots have voted for him to "clear the swamp", give the boot to the
Washington-based plutocracy and restore what they see as fundamental American values. If the Neocons now manage to stage a coup d'etat
against Trump, I predict that these millions of American will turn to violence to protect what they see as their way of life, their
values and their country.
In spite of the image which Hollywood likes to give of them, most Americans are peaceful and non-violent people, but if they
are pushed too far they will not hesitate and grab their guns to defend themselves, especially if they lose all hopes in their democracy.
And I am not talking only about gun-toting hillbillies here, I am talking about the local, state and county authorities, who often
care much more about what their local constituents think and say than what the are up to in DC. If a coup is staged against Trump
and some wannabe President à la Hillary or McCain gives the order to the National Guard or even the US Army to put down a local insurrection,
we could see what we saw in Russia in 1991: a categorical refusal of the security services to shoot at their own people. That is
the biggest and ultimate danger for the Neocons: the risk that if they give the order to crack down on the population the police,
security and military services might simply refuse to take action. If that could happen in the "KGB-controlled country" (to use a
Cold War cliché) this can also happen in the USA.
I sure hope that I am wrong and that this latest attack against Trump is the Neocon's last "hurray" before they finally give up
and leave. I hope that all of the above is my paranoia speaking. But, as they say, " just because you're paranoid doesn't mean
that they are not after you ".
I watched the press-conference just now, and I get the impression that this latest episode is the best thing (for Trump)
recently.
Apparently it was so inane that it was immediately refuted, and it's now accepted in all quarters that it was a fake accusation.
Which gives Trump an opportunity to 1. claim victimhood, 2. attack the media and US 'intelligence' services, and 3. talk about
it every time he's asked any question about his mythical 'Russian connections'. It's a huge win for him. In fact, it wouldn't
have surprised me if this whole thing was his own design (well, of his operatives).
"this whole thing was his own design" - you mean it is possible that Trump somehow has control over CNN, BBC etc. In such case
- why he would attack them? And other question - why they worked so hard against him in time of the election campaign?
Indeed. There needs to be a mass housecleaning at the CIA and other intelligence agencies, and, in a serious country,
a number of people at the CIA would be shot for treason.
Saker, Putin's crack down the oligarchs took him some years, the time to gather forces and get them in disarray. He was very
clever and cautious, he didn't go after them overnight. And Putin had decisive connections. Besides it was never so dramatic,
and his succession was smooth The problem with Trump, as you say, is that he is quite new in town, and a forlorn fighter.
His enemies are like a pack, in both parties, in both chambers, in the economic and financial establishment, the media,
Hollywood. He'll have to trad carefully. And yet, he is courageous and outspoken, as he has shown right away, by strongly denouncing
the media and "intelligence community" for their forgeries.
I'm afraid the conspiracy will get nastier and nastier, and sooner or later, they will remove him, even violently, very
violently. I fear the Inauguration ceremony will be historic, and not for the best. Cross your fingers. The humanity's fate is
at the stake.
Russian oligarchs had about 5% support of Russian people. They needed Putin themselves. Alternative was the communists and
the nationalisation of everything.
Putin gave them choice: carry on with your business, but not interfere in the politics or leave the country. Khodorkovsky
tried to resist and failed miserably. The regime change from the oligarchs to Putin took about four years.
After election 2004, it was clear who control the country. In US, the establishment, in their struggle against Trump, has
support of almost half of US people, including all minorities (Jews too). To finish the power of the oligarchs, Trump must
separate the politics from the business and start a serious reform of CIA. If he will be able to do it, we all may enjoy much
safer World.
This is excerpted from a futurist short story that was never published and hopefully would never be acted upon. Today's madness
make it almost a possibility.
Rescuing the Republic From Itself /or How 50 Men, Women and Children Could Save our Bacon.
One thing still trumps all others in America. It isn't wealth, nor power, it's not the myth of our uniqueness under Heaven
no. It's a lot more basic and powerful than those. It even trumps celebrity which is a close second. No, fundamental as those
are in the national psyche they pale in comparison to Number One racism. Added to this ancient plague is a relative newcomer.
Only about a century old; it is a formidable competitor and looks like it's here to stay. (If the money holds out.) Big drum roll
..ForeverWar!
Racism is in group preference based upon common descent. It's how you create a stable polity as De Tocqueville elaborated -
one people and one culture settled the United States. Ethnic solidarity allows us to cooperate to produce public goods in the
common interest.
The document reads like "the gang that couldn't shoot straight." It's a joke. And such hyper-overreaction as this post
represents suggests an instability of mind. That anyone took the document seriously per se speaks of utter unseriousness.
What's been referred to as the mainstream media has effectively lost all credibility, as they play the role of the partisan
opposition. There's no reason to believe their reporting beyond yesterday's high and low temperature.
It's tempting to treat this analysis as paranoid and even a tad hysterical, but I fear it's nothing more than the unvarnished
truth. Trump is a wrench in the works of the Establishment, and a bit of a loose cannon besides.
However, despite the fact that Trump has lately wrapped himself in a prodigious portion of Establishment Mantle, the
Powers That Be are terrified, and the brick bats have just begun. While it's a pleasure to see them on the run for once,
it'd be a fatal error to underestimate them.
Additionally: the accuracy, legitimacy, and/or professionalism of their attacks may prove irrelevant. Facts aren't really
what it's about when you control the Narrative...When you control the Production of Truth. It's no accident that the stranglehold
on the MSM is guarded so viciously. Control of the Media is Control of Everything.
Didn't J. Edgar Hoover have all sorts of tapes of MLK acting like Fartin Poother Bling? Drunkeness, orgies, blasphemy, hitting
women around, and acting like some rapper thug?
Well, it didn't do any good, and MLK is now revered as some kind of god.
And Monica's dress failed to topple Billy Boy Clinton.
BBC reports that it was some British Intelligence that got this news. But I don't know if we should trust that stuff. Didn't
British intelligence spread false rumors to drag the US into both WWI and WWII?
Well, if Russia does have the incriminating tape and had planned to blackmail Trump, that possibility is gone since the beans
have been spilled.
PS. Was there any truth to the rumor that Obama had 'gay' affairs with rich powerful men? Now, that would explain a lot.
Was there any truth to the rumor that Obama had 'gay' affairs with rich powerful men?
Senator Frist was mentioned as a Barry worshiper. Barry loves humiliating and lying to white men, probably still acting out
early childhood trauma over having been ditched by 3 parents (father - whoever he was, mother, and stepfather), perhaps a lot
of other unpleasantness that tends to befall unprotected boys. ,
Well, it didn't do any good, and MLK is now revered as some kind of god.
Yeah, because a Federal judge sealed his FBI records from being FOILed for fifty years, so that TPTB could create a Magic Negro
myth about him and make him more important than George Washington.
The document reads like "the gang that couldn't shoot straight." It's a joke. And such hyper-overreaction as this post represents
suggests an instability of mind. That anyone took the document seriously per se speaks of utter unseriousness.
What's been referred to as the mainstream media has effectively lost all credibility, as they play the role of the partisan
opposition. There's no reason to believe their reporting beyond yesterday's high and low temperature.
It's tempting to treat this analysis as paranoid and even a tad hysterical, but I fear it's nothing more than the unvarnished
truth. Trump is a wrench in the works of the Establishment, and a bit of a loose cannon besides.
However, despite the fact that Trump has lately wrapped himself in a prodigious portion of Establishment Mantle, the Powers
That Be are terrified, and the brick bats have just begun. While it's a pleasure to see them on the run for once, it'd be a fatal
error to underestimate them.
Additionally: the accuracy, legitimacy, and/or professionalism of their attacks may prove irrelevant. Facts aren't really what
it's about when you control the Narrative When you control the Production of Truth. It's no accident that the stranglehold on
the MSM is guarded so viciously. Control of the Media is Control of Everything.
Nov 12 2016 -- 4 days after the election of Donald Trump
Wanted to share an experience from earlier today. This afternoon, I had a plumber over to my apartment to fix a clogged
drain. He was a perfectly nice guy and a consummate professional. But he was also a middle aged white man with a southern
accent who seemed unperturbed by this week's news. And while I had him in the apartment, I couldn't stop thinking about
whether he had voted for Trump, whether he knew my last name is Jewish, and how that knowledge might change the interaction
we were having inside my own home. I have no real reason to believe he was a Trump support or an anti-Semite, but in my
uncertainty I couldn't shake the sense of potential danger. I was rattled for some time after he left.
I'm very privileged insofar as this sense of range is unfamiliar to me. And I know I feel it much less acutely than a
lot of other people right now. I'm still a straight, white guy who can phenotypically pass for gentile. Plus my first name
is pretty WASP-y.
But today was a reminder that ambiguous social interactions now feel unsafe and unpredictable in a way that they never
did before. And even if Trump is gone in four years, I don't expect to ever reclaim that feeling of security. That's just
one more thing you voted for, if you voted for him."
I am of the opinion that the dossier, even if true, is at most embarrassing but not an impeachable offense. Impeachment is
for offenses committed while in office, not for alleged misdeeds before the office starts when the person was a private citizen.
The process of election, is a judgement on fitness to hold office. He can be impeached only for things he will do after Jan. 20.
All voters who voted for him knew he is not strong on personal or business morality or ethics. He was elected in spite of that.
That should take away all the sting out of the dossier allegations.
The point is not that these allegations can be used as direct grounds for impeachment, but that they create a climate in
which Congressmen and Senators, especially Republicans, can block Trump's personnel and policies, especially on Russia, and
if and when the opportunity arises, justify voting against party lines on an impeachment motion.
There are plenty of establishment Republican who would vote to impeach in a heartbeat, regardless of the merits of the
case, if they thought their careers would survive it, This kind of furore is designed to create political circumstances in
which they might hope for their careers to survive such a betrayal.
It's useful to understand who the Neocons are. They're mostly the Zionist section of US Jewry, but even this isn't so clear
since US Jews have a problem defining themselves racially. They are ethnically more European than Semitic, and their cultural
affinity is wholly European rather than Semitic Middle Eastern. Also, they are not so religious, with the decline in practicing
Judaism mirroring the decline in Christian Church attendance among Europeans and Americans in general.
So it could be more informative to see US Jewry as something more like a private corporation.
You either belong to the corporation or you don't, and it's not essential to have a Jewish connection either (e.g. top executives
Hillary Clinton and John McCain) with the general idea being to run the enterprise for the mutual benefit of its members.
Like any other large corporation, it's transnational, sets up lobbying organizations to help client Congressmen get elected,
guides their research, helps with their expenses and gets favourable legislation in return. This reality seems to build naturally
out of the Jewish European background in international commerce (rather than national government administration) so a Neoliberal
economic environment is much more congenial with very little input from a nominal national identity. The key is the corporate
identity.
Corporations are not too concerned if their competitors go bankrupt, it's just part of the business, and in fact it's positive,
since it shows that your corporation can capture a market and exploit it more profitably. If your competitors are Gentile businesses
then there are various ways to remove them, the most popular being to gain leadership positions in Gentile Corporation "G" while
still holding loyalty to Jewish Corporation "J". Corporation "G" can them be incorporated in Corporation " J" and the top executives
replaced.
Trump's problem (if it is a problem for him) is that he is dealing with a Corporate "J" run "deep state", that sees the US
in mostly economic terms, as a market to be exploited for maximum profit. Putin faced a similar problem when he came to power
in Russia (also Corporation "J" ), and slowly resolved it by blocking their attempts to gain political power (arrest on tax charges
of Khodorkovsky) and emphasizing national interests and identity over corporate interests.
Trump could follow a similar line by blocking all special interest access to Congress, or more aggressively suspend all CIA
and FBI non-disclosure agreements, giving past and present agents immunity to prosecution and inviting them to present documentation
in confidence to a Presidential Commission regarding any activities that in their opinion were conducted against the interests
of the United States.
Alternatively he could accept the presidency of Corporation "J", take the tremendous benefits, and be hailed by the MSM as
America's Greatest Leader, but as the article says, face a backlash from his base who will see that he has sold them out.
"Trumps problem (if it is a problem for him) is that he is dealing with a ...corporate "deep state" that sees the US mostly
in economic terms, as a market to be exploited for maximum profit"
"Exploited" Miro23 ?
This has got to be the "understatement" of the decade.... Lets just take a look at the numbers, shall we?..
Let us say for a moment that I placed you (or myself ) on a street corner in New York City with the specific intention of
handing out a $1,000,000 cashiers check to each and every person who walks by ........ Do you know how many people you would
have to hand the check to...in order to EQUAL the amount of tax dollars this "deep state" VACUUM has "sucked" from the taxpayers
pockets, in a mere decade and a half ?......
14,300,000 people.!
That's right !... the entire Population of Manhattan.. TIMES TWO.
This is not the total in "spending" , mind you..No, No....this is the total in... "overspending".
Our national debt has BALLOONED from 5.7 trillion in 2000 to a whopping 20 trillion in just sixteen years...
A "bone crunching" $14.3 million, million dollars --
This level of "assault" on our nations balance sheet is wholly unprecedented in history.
Its absolutely "mind -numbing"
Its obscene.
And what can nearly all of this humongous debt, foisted on the backs of 320 million Americans, be attributed to ....
BANKING FRAUD as in....triple A rating worthless subprime junk
TERROR FRAUD as in ....it was "Saddam's Anthrax" in Senators Leahy's office
WAR FRAUD as in.....imminent threat of "mushroom clouds" ,WMD's, and "Yellow Cake from Niger".
This kind of behavior is simply unacceptable.
Yet for some reason, there has been ZERO accountability......ZERO.
This cannot continue.
The people voted in the Donald to "Drain the Swamp"....because if he doesn't do something..we are all SUNK.
And if the "swamp doesn't want to be drained"...well.... too bad......Because the American people have put their foot down
on this....and they ain't gonna budge --
Throw the whole lot in Guantanamo Bay, Mr. President, if need be.....Just get it done --
I tell you – you are right. The stakes are very high indeed. If the establishment will lose political power, many of them
may finish their lives in prison.
Agree. The establishment's hysterics and histrionics betray the fear of loosing money and power. But what a pitiful imagination,
what a consistent incompetence the "deciders" have been showing: Nothing but banality and half-wit... clear signs of degradation.
I watched the press-conference just now, and I get the impression that this latest episode is the best thing (for Trump) recently.
Apparently it was so inane that it was immediately refuted, and it's now accepted in all quarters that it was a fake accusation.
Which gives Trump an opportunity to 1. claim victimhood, 2. attack the media and US 'intelligence' services, and 3. talk about
it every time he's asked any question about his mythical 'Russian connections'. It's a huge win for him. In fact, it wouldn't
have surprised me if this whole thing was his own design (well, of his operatives).
"this whole thing was his own design" – you mean it is possible that Trump somehow has control over CNN, BBC etc. In such
case – why he would attack them? And other question – why they worked so hard against him in time of the election campaign?
No. What I meant is that, seeing how insane the MSM are these days, perhaps it would makes sense for the Trump team to secretly
manufacture some juicy red-meat fake scandal for them -- in hope that they mindlessly grab it and run with it -- and then get
burned when it's proven a ludicrous fake. But maybe it's just my devious mind... ,
"And I am not talking only about gun-toting hillbillies here, I am talking about the local, state and county authorities,
who often care much more about what their local constituents think and say than what the are up to in DC"
One of the oft heard cliches of the gun control crowd is that the armed among the unwashed are silly to think they could stand
against the might of the government. But as the writer here implies, this notion relies on the authorities staying with the program.
But these folks are still family people for which their service is just a job. The notion that they're all part of a unified goon
squad may be in error.
I sure hope it won't be Trump. However, his promise to drain the swamp has NOT happened, and the State Department is still
completely controlled by the ZioCons and the foreign policy is controlled from Tel Aviv. The recent attempt to further subvert
British politics by the Israeli embassy in London was exposed but what will the consequence be.? Not very much I guess.
The Civil War will be in fact an all-out-race-war. They didn't take this into account when the 1965 Immigration Reform Act
was passed. We are already in a low-level .maybe not so low-level race war. Barack Obama will spend his time in retirement with
very aggressive racial grievance agitation.
The basement of the US has been filled to the brim with gasoline ..we are one match away .one match
It was a hoax. It also allowed Trump to find out where leaks are coming from. Anyone who understands the type of man Trump
is would have placed such a report in the hoax category straightaway. That the "intelligence community" did not, says a lot about
them. Under Obama, they have simply become a partisan tool.
Yep, the more lurid parts are definitely a hoax, with some other parts cobbled together from open sources to lend volume and
credibility to this threadbare effort.
The weird fascination with the person of Obama is a dead giveaway. Only an Obama worshiper would feel that the highest/lowest
form of sexual perversion is to commit sacrilege against a BED that the Holy One and his consort had slept in.
Whatever Trump's personal predilections, they are most unlikely to revolve around the person of Barry Obama.
On the other hand, anyone with eyes to see will have encountered the type of fervid, manic, glassy-eyed Barry worshiper
(mostly gay or female) with the characteristic combination of sexual arousal and religious fervor, leavened with vicious bitchiness
during depressive phases.
The term "hillbillies" is a slur against the People of Appalachia. It is a slur that is used in comedy skits on SNL written
by the East Coast Rootless Cosmopolitan SNL Comedy Writers. For the record Tina Fey is not Jewish niether is Samantha Bee -- but
they are Rootless Cosmopolitan Filth.
The McCains and Wilsons and the responsible editors at Buzzfeed and CNN all wanted to believe it to be true so they posted
it as true.
Collaborator McCain is a despicable creature.
Rick Wilson is a moral degenerate as is his son whose web site is a storehouse of perversity.
Imagine what kind of mental aberration you have to hold to believe that hiring prostitutes and having them urinate on new linen
somehow invalidated or harms someone who might have slept in that room months previously.
That is the level of aberration that runs from Pizzagate to the highest levels of American Journalism and the American Democratic
party ( but I repeat myself). Sympathetic magic maybe?
McCain of "Tokyo rose" fame. The older McCain of the USSLiberty scandalous coverup and insult to the USSLiberty victims
and veterans fame. Seems that there something that runs in the McCain family.
I am amazed by the brazen nature of the attacks. The most interesting part is that at least the most lurid claims seem
to have been spoonfed to the earlier idiot in the US as part of the flow by 4chan trolls, and this continued through the former
MI6 loon, both the UK and US mnrons shopped the lies around for months.
Hanoi Hilton collaborator and Lord Haw Haw of the US in Vietnam, John McCain decided to dash it out again. Having never logged
on to 4chan, but been an admin on a site they invaded, I know and at times enjoy their troll style. That supposedly serious 'intelligence'
agencies push that entertaining crap, as disinfo without a second thought is mystifying
It also raises my estimation of the Donald, never heard his speaking voice before, but it is quite good,
.
Trump needs to clean their Augean stables.
They are cleary sn.
If the disinfo against hm iis so bad, he must be doing many things right.
. . .
I'm amazed at how incompetent the CIA is in its war against Trump but, then, I look at its historical track record since its
founding and note this has always been the case. Like petulant children, the CIA tends to be present oriented in extremis
. It discounts the future and is therefore constitutively unprepared for exposure, consequences, and blowback. The CIA knows
how to make a mess of things but not much else.
I would not trust any intelligence coming from the CIA It doesn't appear to be staffed with very intelligent
people. The KGB (now the SFB/SVR) is running circles around them.
"...incompetent CIA.."
Decades of selection in favor of opportunists and sycophants, while, at the same time, weeding out the principled and competent
professionals.
Is not the result grand? - CIA as a senescent, gossiping madame. ,
"I'm amazed at how incompetent the CIA is in its war against Trump but, then, I look at its historical track record since its
founding and note this has always been the case."
Exactly right. The CIA has never done anything to better the US for the common man. From it's inception it was the muscle
for the power elite. It's purpose was to manipulate foreign governments to provide wealth and power to the power elite/deep
state, which ever you prefer. And occasionally to eliminate threats to it'self.
The zionists have lost and they know it. BUT, they still have their"trump-card" (sorry!) left to play: a nuclear false flag
attack on America, to be blamed on Russia.
No-one could stop war at that point, regardless of belief of culpability. Although Saker is right, such a stunt would involve
some SERIOUS repercussions for the Israelites.
Are they crazy enough to risk self-annihilation to prove their superiority, once and for all?
Trump certainly doesn't have the guts to say, "Hey folks, the zionists did it .." Hell, he won't even publicly admit they did
9/11, although there's plenty of evidence he knows they did. But Obama on the other hand would help them plant the nukes and take
a train outa town.
If I were a zionist contemplating such a stunt, I'd get it over with before next Friday.
War between Russia and NATO would be the ultimate civil conflict among the European people, leading to the elimination of the
white race as a significant component of the future world population and the end of Christendom.
That, apparently, is what the NeoCons, President Obama, and their Treason Party allies, the likes of Senator McCain at home,
and Canada's witless Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau abroad, want.
They are the cancer that needs to be radiated and removed in both wings of the War party!
Mar 2, 2014 Jeremy Scahill: The One Party State, The War Party
Is the United States of America an Oligarchy? During the 2014 ISFLC, Jeremy Scahill speaks on the fact that in today's world
behemoth corporations are able to buy off politicians and pull the strings to impact legislature. Washington, D.C. is a town that
operates by campaign contributions and legal bribery in the form of campaign finance. What can the American people do to get their
political representatives to represent them as opposed to the mega corporations. When will the people's voice be heard?
"this whole thing was his own design" - you mean it is possible that Trump somehow has control over CNN, BBC etc. In such case
- why he would attack them? And other question - why they worked so hard against him in time of the election campaign?
No. What I meant is that, seeing how insane the MSM are these days, perhaps it would makes sense for the Trump team to secretly
manufacture some juicy red-meat fake scandal for them - in hope that they mindlessly grab it and run with it - and then get
burned when it's proven a ludicrous fake. But maybe it's just my devious mind
The CNN man at the press-conference was really arrogant and aggressive. I think, if Trump will exclude CNN from his future
press-conferences, people would accept it with understanding. Anyway we will have interesting times.
I look at the CNN webpage once in a while, and I get the distinct impression that the people staffing the place are simply
not very bright.
There may be too many diversity hires? It seems like a group of actors and SJWs pretending to be journalists. They aren't
serious people, and you'd like to not have to take them seriously but since they control the information flow of the nation
you kind of have to.
The zionists have lost and they know it. BUT, they still have their"trump-card" (sorry!) left to play: a nuclear false flag
attack on America, to be blamed on Russia.
No-one could stop war at that point, regardless of belief of culpability. Although Saker is right, such a stunt would involve
some SERIOUS repercussions for the Israelites.
Are they crazy enough to risk self-annihilation to prove their superiority, once and for all?
Trump certainly doesn't have the guts to say, "Hey folks, the zionists did it....." Hell, he won't even publicly admit they
did 9/11, although there's plenty of evidence he knows they did. But Obama on the other hand would help them plant the nukes
and take a train outa town.
If I were a zionist contemplating such a stunt, I'd get it over with before next Friday.
War between Russia and NATO would be the ultimate civil conflict among the European people, leading to the elimination of
the white race as a significant component of the future world population and the end of Christendom.
That, apparently, is what the NeoCons, President Obama, and their Treason Party allies, the likes of Senator McCain at home,
and Canada's witless Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau abroad, want.
I can assure you that, if Trump is prevented from taking office, or is removed from office after being sworn in, millions of
us WILL treat it as a coup d'etat and will respond appropriately, and this does not necessarily involve violence.
I can also tell you our feelings are not limited to the South and Texas. Many of us in the Western U.S. feel the same way.
I tell you - you are right. The stakes are very high indeed. If the establishment will lose political power, many of them may
finish their lives in prison.
Agree. The establishment's hysterics and histrionics betray the fear of loosing money and power. But what a pitiful imagination,
what a consistent incompetence the "deciders" have been showing: Nothing but banality and half-wit clear signs of degradation.
The difference between the corporate interests of the financial-political elite and the interests of the nation became too
obvious. So they are failing to persuade American Nation that they are acting in the national interest.
"... Dugin is positively millenarian: "We must create strategic alliances to overthrow the present order of things, of which the core could be described as human rights, anti-hierarchy, and political correctness – everything that is the face of the Beast, the anti-Christ." ..."
Russian hacking, White House warnings, angry denials by Vladimir Putin's officials: we are edging towards a digital Cuban crisis.
So it is as well to ask what is truly at stake in this e-conflict, and what underpins it.
To which end, meet the most important intellectual you have (probably) never heard of. Alexander Dugin, the Russian political
scientist and polemicist, may resemble Santa's evil younger brother and talk like a villain from an Austin Powers movie. But it
is no accident that he has earned the nickname Putin's Rasputin. ...
The purpose of operations like the hacking of the US election has been to destabilize the Atlantic order generally, and America
specifically. And on this great struggle, Dugin is positively millenarian: "We must create strategic alliances to overthrow
the present order of things, of which the core could be described as human rights, anti-hierarchy, and political correctness –
everything that is the face of the Beast, the anti-Christ."
In the Q&A he discusses Russia and Putin; his comments include this: "I'm not justifying Vladimir Putin and the kleptocracy
that he represents, because he eventually is the state capitalist of kleptocracy. "
Bannon is a zionist shill and always will be. He has tried to blur that point away. But that kind of crap is pure zionism. Putin's
ties with Ashkenazi jews is well well known. He has had much support from the extreme wings of the Lukud for years, yet the idiots
don't pay attention. Putin sold himself and they bought it up. The myth he purged the Oligarchs from Russia cracks me up. He made
sure the winners power was firmly planted.
From a "conservative revolutionary" (Renee Guenon aka real traditionalism) pov, this is pure bunk. Nationalism is semitic by
its very nature and collectivist. What they want is a global plutocracy with the bible as its whip. Now, not everybody agrees
with that version of "plutocracy". Thus comes the adversaries, the Jesuits.
"... It was possible to say, before Warren G. Harding was elected, that he wasn't particularly well-qualified to be president. And he did turn out as president to have, as we say nowadays, some issues. But his administration was stocked with (mostly) well-qualified men who served with considerable distinction. ..."
"... But how Hegelian it would be if the thesis of the Bush and Clinton dynasties, followed by the antithesis of a Trump victory over first a Bush and then a Clinton in 2016, were to produce an unanticipated synthesis: a Trump administration marked by the reconstruction of republican normalcy in America. In its own way, that would be a genuine contribution to making America great again. ..."
"... Kristol is mad Trump lambasted the Iraq war. Was Putin against the Iraq war? I think the whole world was except for the "Coalition of the Willing." You'll never see the UK back another war like that. ..."
"... "Socialist feminist Liza Featherstone and others have denounced Clinton's uncritical praise of the "opportunity" and "freedom" of American capitalism vis-à-vis other developed nations. "With this bit of frankness," Featherstone explains, referring to the former Secretary of State's "Denmark" comments, "Clinton helpfully explained why no socialist-indeed, no non-millionaire-should support her. She is smart enough to know that women in the United States endure far more poverty, unemployment, and food insecurity than women in Denmark-yet she shamelessly made clear that she was happy to keep it that way." Indeed, Clinton's denunciation of the idea that the United States should look more like Denmark betrayed one of the glaring the fault lines within the Democratic Party, and between Clintonian liberalism and Sandersite leftism." ..."
"... Of course the progressive neoliberals in this forum regularly resort to ad hominem to any ideas or facts that don't line up with the agreed-upon party line. ..."
The Trump Administration http://tws.io/2iFd3rC
via @WeeklyStandard
Nov 28, 2016 - William Kristol
Who now gives much thought to the presidency of Warren G. Harding? Who ever did? Not us.
But let us briefly turn our thoughts to our 29th president (while stipulating that we're certainly
no experts on his life or times). Here's our summary notion: Warren G. Harding may have been a
problematic president. But the Harding administration was in some ways an impressive one, which
served the country reasonably well.
It was possible to say, before Warren G. Harding was elected, that he wasn't particularly
well-qualified to be president. And he did turn out as president to have, as we say nowadays,
some issues. But his administration was stocked with (mostly) well-qualified men who served with
considerable distinction.
Andrew Mellon was a successful Treasury secretary whose tax reforms and deregulatory efforts
spurred years of economic growth. Charles Dawes, the first director of the Bureau of the Budget,
reduced government expenditures and, helped by Mellon's economic policies, brought the budget
into balance. Charles Evans Hughes as secretary of state dealt responsibly with a very difficult
world situation his administration had inherited-though in light of what followed in the next
decade, one wishes in retrospect for bolder assertions of American leadership, though in those
years just after World War I, they would have been contrary to the national mood.
In addition, President Harding's first two Supreme Court appointments -- William Howard Taft
and George Sutherland -- were distinguished ones. And Harding personally did some admirable things:
He made pronouncements, impressive in the context of that era, in favor of racial equality; he
commuted the wartime prison sentence of the Socialist leader, Eugene V. Debs. In these ways, he
contributed to an atmosphere of national healing and civility.
The brief Harding administration-and for that matter the eight years constituting his administration
and that of his vice president and successor, Calvin Coolidge-may not have been times of surpassing
national greatness. But there were real achievements, especially in the economic sphere; those
years were not disastrous; they were not dark times.
President-elect Donald J. Trump probably doesn't intend to model his administration on that
of President Warren G. Harding. But he could do worse than reflect on that administration's successes-and
also on its failures, particularly the scandals that exploded into public view after Harding's
sudden death. These were produced by cronies appointed by Harding to important positions, where
they betrayed his trust and tarnished his historical reputation.
Donald Trump manifestly cares about his reputation. He surely knows that reputation ultimately
depends on performance. If a Trump hotel and casino is successful, it's not because of the Trump
brand-that may get people through the door the first time-but because it provides a worthwhile
experience thanks to a good management team, fine restaurants, deft croupiers, and fun shows.
If a Trump golf course succeeds, it's because it has been built and is run by people who know
something about golf. The failed Trump efforts-from the university to the steaks-seem to have
in common the assumption that the Trump name by itself would be enough to carry mediocre or worse
enterprises across the finish line.
To succeed in business, the brand only gets you so far. Quality matters. To succeed in the
presidency, getting elected only gets you so far. Governing matters.
It would be ironic if Trump's very personal electoral achievement were followed by a mode of
governance that restored greater responsibility to the cabinet agencies formally entrusted with
the duties of governance. It would be ironic if a Trump presidency also featured a return of authority
to Congress, the states, and to other civic institutions. It would be ironic if Trump's victory
led not to a kind of American Caesarism but to a strengthening of republican institutions and
forms. It would be ironic if the election of Donald J. Trump heralded a return to a kind of constitutional
normalcy.
If we are not mistaken, it was Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (though sadly unaware of the phenomena
of either Warren G. Harding or Donald J. Trump) who made much of the Irony of History.
But how Hegelian it would be if the thesis of the Bush and Clinton dynasties, followed
by the antithesis of a Trump victory over first a Bush and then a Clinton in 2016, were to produce
an unanticipated synthesis: a Trump administration marked by the reconstruction of republican
normalcy in America. In its own way, that would be a genuine contribution to making America great
again.
(Harding-Coolidge-Hoover were a disastrous triumvirate that ascended to power after the Taft
& Wilson administrations, as the GOP - then the embodiment of progressivism - split apart due
to the efforts of Teddy Roosevelt.)
Peter K. -> Fred C. Dobbs... , -1
Kristol is mad Trump lambasted the Iraq war. Was Putin against the Iraq war? I think the whole
world was except for the "Coalition of the Willing." You'll never see the UK back another
war like that.
"Socialist feminist Liza Featherstone and others have denounced Clinton's uncritical praise
of the "opportunity" and "freedom" of American capitalism vis-à-vis other developed nations. "With
this bit of frankness," Featherstone explains, referring to the former Secretary of State's "Denmark"
comments, "Clinton helpfully explained why no socialist-indeed, no non-millionaire-should support
her. She is smart enough to know that women in the United States endure far more poverty, unemployment,
and food insecurity than women in Denmark-yet she shamelessly made clear that she was happy to
keep it that way." Indeed, Clinton's denunciation of the idea that the United States should look
more like Denmark betrayed one of the glaring the fault lines within the Democratic Party, and
between Clintonian liberalism and Sandersite leftism."
Is it better to ignore this fault line and try to paper it over or is it better to debate the
issues in a polite and congenial manner?
Of course the progressive neoliberals in this forum regularly resort to ad hominem to any
ideas or facts that don't line up with the agreed-upon party line.
Brain Parasite Gonna Eatcha!
I've been experiencing some difficulties with commenting on the current political situation in the
US, because it's been a little too funny, whereas this is a very serious blog. But I have decided
that I must try my best. Now, these are serious matters, so as you read this, please refrain from
any and all levity and mirth.
You may have heard by now that the Russians stole the US presidential election; if it wasn't for
them, Hillary Clinton would have been president-elect, but because of their meddling we are now stuck
with Donald Trump and his 1001 oligarchs running the federal government for the next four years.
There are two ways to approach this question. One is to take the accusation of Russian hacking
of the US elections at face value, and we will certainly do that. But first let's try another way,
because it's quicker. Let's consider the accusation itself as a symptom of some unrelated disorder.
This is often the best way forward. Suppose a person walks into a doctor's office, and says, "Doctor,
I believe I have schizophrenium poisoning." Should the doctor summon the hazmat team, or check for
schizophrenia first?
And so let's first consider that this "Russians did it" refrain we keep hearing is a symptom of
something else, of which Russians are not the cause. My working hypothesis is that this behavior
is being caused by a brain parasite. Yes, this may seem outlandish at first, but as we'll see later
the theory that the Russians stole the election is no less outlandish.
Brain parasites are known to alter the behavior of the organisms they infest in a variety of subtle
ways. For instance, Toxicoplasma gondii alters the behavior of rodents, causing them to lose
fear of cats and to become attracted to the smell of cat urine, making it easy for the cats to catch
them. It also alters the behavior of humans, causing them to lavish excessive affection on cats and
to compulsively download photographs of cute kittens playing with yarn.
My hypothesis is that this particular brain parasite was specifically bioengineered by the US
to make those it infects hate Russia. I suspect that the neurological trigger it uses is Putin's
face, which the parasite somehow wires into the visual cortex. This virus was first unleashed on
the unsuspecting Ukrainians, where its effect was plain to see. This historically Russian, majority
Russian-speaking, culturally Russian and religiously Russian Orthodox region suddenly erupted in
an epidemic of Russophobia. The Ukraine cut economic ties with Russia, sending its economy into a
tailspin, and started a war with its eastern regions, which were quite recently part of Russia and
wish to become part of Russia again.
So far so good: the American bioengineers who created this virus achieved the effect they wanted,
turning a Russian region into an anti-Russian region. But as happens so often with biological agents,
it turned out to be hard to keep under control. Its next victims turned out to be NATO and the Pentagon,
whose leadership started compulsively uttering the phrase "Russian aggression" in a manner suggestive
of Tourette's Syndrome, entirely undeterred by the complete absence of evidence of any such aggression
that they could present for objective analysis. They, along with the by now fit-to-be-tied Ukrainians,
kept prattling on about "Russian invasion," waving about decades-old pictures of Russian tanks they
downloaded from their friends on Facebook.
From there the brain parasite spread to the White House, the Clinton presidential campaign, the
Democratic National Committee, and its attendant press corps, who are now all chattering away about
"Russian hacking." The few knowledgeable voices who point out that there is absolutely no hard evidence
of any such "Russian hacking" are being drowned out by the Bedlam din of the rest.
This, to me, seems like the simplest explanation that fits the facts. But to be fair and balanced,
let us also examine the other perspective: that claims of "Russian hacking" should be taken at face
value. The first difficulty we encounter is that what is being termed "Russian hacking" is not hacks
but leaks. Hacks occur where some unauthorized party breaks into a server and steals data. Leaks
occur where an insider-a "whistleblower"-violates rules of secrecy and/or confidentiality in order
to release into the public domain evidence of wrongdoing. In this case, evidence of leaking is prima
facie: Was the data in question evidence of wrongdoing? Yes. Was it released into the public domain?
Yes. Has the identity of said leaker or leakers remained secret? Yes, with good reason.
But this does not rule out hacking, because what a leaker can do, a hacker can also do, although
with difficulty. Leakers have it easy: you see evidence of wrongdoing, take umbrage at it, copy it
onto a thumb drive, smuggle it off premises, and upload it to Wikileaks through a public wifi hotspot
from an old laptop you bought off Craislist and then smashed. But what's a poor hacker to do? You
hack into server after server, running the risk of getting caught each time, only to find that the
servers contain minutes of public meetings, old press releases, backups of public web sites and-incriminating
evidence!-a mother lode of pictures of fluffy kittens playing with yarn downloaded by a secretary
afflicted with Toxicoplasma gondii .
The solution, of course, is to create something that's worth hacking, or leaking, but this is
a much harder problem. What the Russians had to do, then, was take the incorruptible, squeaky-clean
goody-two-shoes faithful public servant Hillary Clinton, infiltrate the Clinton Foundation, Hillary's
presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee, and somehow manipulate them all into
doing things that, when leaked (or hacked) would reliably turn the electorate against Clinton. Yes
Sir, Tovarishch Putin!
Those Russians sure are clever! They managed to turn the DNC into an anti-Bernie Sanders operation,
depriving him of electoral votes through a variety of underhanded practices while appealing to anti-Semitic
sentiments in certain parts of the country. They managed to manipulate Donna Brazile into handing
presidential debate questions to the Clinton campaign. They even managed to convince certain Ukrainian
oligarchs and Saudi princes to bestow millions upon the Clinton foundation in exchange for certain
future foreign policy concessions. The list of these leak-worthy Russian subterfuges goes on and
on But who can stop them?
And so clearly the Russians had to first corrupt the Clinton Foundation, the Clinton Presidential
campaign and the Democratic National Committee, just in order to render them hackworthy. But here
we have a problem. You see, if you can hack into a server, so can everyone else. Suppose you leave
your front door unlocked and swinging in the breeze, and long thereafter stuff goes missing. Of course
you can blame the neighbor you happen to like least, but then why would anyone believe you? Anybody
could have walked through that door and taken your shit. And so it is hard to do anything beyond
lobbing empty accusations at Russia as far as hacking is concerned; but the charge of corrupting
the incorruptible Hillary Clinton is another matter entirely.
Because here the ultimate Russian achievement was in getting Hillary Clinton to refer to over
half of her electorate as "a basket of deplorables," and this was no mean feat. It takes a superpower
to orchestrate a political blunder of this magnitude. This she did in front of an LGBT audience in
New York. Now, Hillary is no spring chicken when it comes to national politics: she's been through
quite a few federal elections, and she has enough experience to know that pissing off over half of
your electorate in one fell swoop is not a particularly smart thing to do. Obviously, she was somehow
hypnotized into uttering these words no doubt by a hyperintelligent space-based Russian operative.
The Russian covert operation into subverting American democracy started with the Russians sending
an agent into the hitherto unexplored hinter regions of America, to see what they are like. Hunched
over his desk, Putin whipped out a map of the US and a crayon, and lightly shaded in an area south
of the Mason-Dixon line, west of New York and Pennsylvania, and east of the Rockies.
Let me come clean. I have split loyalties. I have spent most of my life hobnobbing with transnational
elites on the East Coast, but I have also spent quite a few years working for a very large midwestern
agricultural equipment company, and a very large midwestern printing company, so I know the culture
of the land quite well. I am sure that what this Russian agent reported back is that the land is
thickly settled with white people of Anglo-Irish, Scottish, German and Slavic extraction, that they
are macho, that their women (for it is quite a male-centric culture) tend to vote same way as the
men for the sake of domestic tranquility, that they don't much like dark-skinned people or gays,
and that plenty of them view the East Coast and California as dens of iniquity and corruption, if
not modern-day Sodoms and Gomorras.
And what if Vladimir Putin read this report, and issued this order: "Get Clinton to piss them
all off." And so it was done: unbeknownst to her, using nefarious means, Hillary was programmed,
under hypnosis, to utter the phrase "a basket of deplorables." A Russian operative hiding in the
audience of LGBT activists flashed a sign triggering the program in Hillary's overworked brain, and
the rest is history. If that's what actually happened, then Putin should be pronounced Special Ops
Officer of the Year, while all the other "world leaders" should quietly sneak out the back entrance,
sit down on the ground in the garden and eat some dirt, then puke it up into their hands and rub
it into their eyes while wailing, because how on earth can they possibly ever hope to beat that?
Or we can just go back to my brain parasite theory. Doesn't it seem a whole lot more sane now?
Not only is it much simpler and more believable, but it also has certain predictive merits that the
"Russian hacking" theory lacks. You see, when there is parasitism involved, there is rarely just
one symptom. Usually, there is a whole cluster of symptoms. And so, just for the sake of comparison,
let's look at what has happened to the Ukraine since it was infected with the Ukrainian Brain Parasite,
and compare that to what is happening to the US now that the parasite has spread here too.
1. The Ukraine is ruled by an oligarch-Petro Poroshenko, the "candy king"-along with a clique
of other oligarchs who have been handed regional governorships and government ministries. And now
the US is about to be ruled by an oligarch-Trump, the "casino king"-along with a clique of other
oligarchs, from ExxonMobile to Goldman Sachs.
2. The Ukraine has repudiated its trade agreements with Russia, sending its economy into free-fall.
And now Trump is promising to repudiate, and perhaps renegotiate, a variety of trade agreements.
For a country that has run huge structural trade deficits for decades and pays for them by constantly
issuing debt this is not going to be easy or safe.
3. The Ukraine has been subjected to not one but two Color Revolutions, promoted by none other
than that odious oligarch George Soros. The US is now facing its own Color Revolution-the Purple
Revolution-paid for by that same Soros, with the goal of overturning the results of the presidential
election and derailing the inauguration of Donald Trump through a variety of increasingly desperate
ploys including paid-for demonstrations, vote recounts and attempts to manipulate the Electoral College.
4. For a couple of years now the Ukraine has been mired in a bloody and futile civil war. To this
day the Ukrainian troops (with NATO support) are lobbing missiles into civilian districts in the
east of the country, and getting decimated in return. So far, Trump's victory seems to have appeased
the "deplorables," but should the Purple Revolution succeed, the US may also see major social unrest,
possibly escalating into a civil war.
The Ukrainian Brain Parasite has devastated the Ukraine. It is by now too far gone for much of
anything to be done about it. All of the best people have left, mostly for Russia, and all that's
left is a rotten, hollow shell. But does it have to end this way for the US? I hope not!
There are, as I see it, two possibilities. One is to view those who are pushing the "Russian hacking"
or "Russian aggression" story as political adversaries. Another is to view them as temporarily mentally
ill. Yes, their brains are infected with the Ukrainian Brain Parasite, but that just means that their
opinions are to be disregarded-until they feel better. And since this particular brain parasite specifically
influences social behavior, if we refuse to reward that behavior with positive reinforcement-by acknowledging
it-we will suppress its most debilitating symptoms, eventually forcing the parasite to evolve toward
a more benign form. As with many infectious diseases, the fight against them starts with improved
hygiene-in this case, mental hygiene. And so that is my prescription: when you see someone going
on about "Russian hacking" or "Russian aggression" be merciful and charitable toward them as individuals,
because they are temporarily incapacitated, but do not acknowledge their mad ranting, and instead
try to coax them into learning to control it.
"... it's truly amazing. many of these people have denounced joe mccarthy all their lives. ..."
"... I was thinking Katyusha. Besides being a very pretty diminutive name for Katherine, the sound of the Katyusha rockets made the forces of evil's collective sphincter tighten up. ..."
"... Just like the sound of the truth spoken to power here at NC is apparently tightening up some establishment sphincters :) ..."
"... Oh OIFVet, do you know where this line of snark is leading? Next, the NC will be "mischaracterized" as Stalin's News Organ! ..."
... Anyway, concerned by number of supposedly educated friends(Clinton supporters) being
taken in by this fake news/Russian ties thing. They've lost their heads and there's no discussing
it with them, they are convinced. Where does it end? Na zdorovie!
it's truly amazing. many of these people have denounced joe mccarthy all their lives. somebody
referred to invasion of the body snatchers on nc the other day, that's the only logical explanation.
I was thinking Katyusha. Besides being a very pretty diminutive name for Katherine, the
sound of the Katyusha rockets made the forces of evil's collective sphincter tighten up.
Just like the sound of the truth spoken to power here at NC is apparently tightening up
some establishment sphincters :)
"... A few comparisons are in order. In their fine review of French history since 1870, Alice L. Conklin, Sarah Fishman, and Robert Zaretsky point out that French leaders at Vichy had several bargaining chips they could use against Hitler, but decided not to play them "because they had other priorities on their mind, including a 'National Revolution' to remake France, politically, socially, and economically." ..."
"... Petain was accompanied by legions of experts, administrators, and technocrats, who shared Petain's disdain for ordinary people and democratic processes, and by strident French fascists who even welcomed their country's defeat. Indeed, although fascists hated democracy, they also believed that Petain's measures did not go far enough to remake the country's institutions. The main thing this menagerie of "minorities" -- to use Stanley Hoffmann's phrase -- had in common was the loathing they shared of their own country. ..."
"... France was saved from its Vichy insanities by a country that was proclaimed, in the words of Abraham Lincoln, as the "last best hope on earth" -- that is, by the United States. The question is: Who will save America from its own Vichy regime? ..."
For the French, revisiting the time period when the Vichy Regime ruled what was left of the
country after its humiliating defeat by the Germans in 1940 involves trauma. But the lessons
imparted by those dark years of Nazi occupation transcend historical era and nationality,
touching upon equivalent circumstances in the United States for the past few years. Equivalent,
not identical: clearly, phalanxes of Nazi troops aren't goose-stepping down Pennsylvania
Avenue....
A few comparisons are in order. In their fine review of French history since 1870, Alice L. Conklin,
Sarah Fishman, and Robert Zaretsky point out that French leaders at Vichy had several bargaining
chips they could use against Hitler, but decided not to play them "because they had other priorities
on their mind, including a 'National Revolution' to remake France, politically, socially, and economically."
France's new leader, the 84-year-old Marshall Petain, was a deeply reactionary veteran who loathed
the Third Republic crushed by the Germans and vowed to take advantage of France's crisis to obliterate
the past and install a centralized, authoritarian government. His rejection of liberalism, egalitarianism,
and democracy prompted measures designed to return France to its pre-revolutionary roots: cities,
industrial plants, and factories were rejected in favor of a return to nature, to villages and small
shops. On top of this heap of nouveau-peasantry loomed the Marshall himself, whose grandfatherly
physiognomy was plastered on buildings in public arenas all over the country to remind French subjects
of who was in charge.
Petain was accompanied by legions of experts, administrators, and technocrats, who shared Petain's
disdain for ordinary people and democratic processes, and by strident French fascists who even welcomed
their country's defeat. Indeed, although fascists hated democracy, they also believed that Petain's
measures did not go far enough to remake the country's institutions. The main thing this menagerie
of "minorities" -- to use Stanley Hoffmann's phrase -- had in common was the loathing they shared
of their own country.
... .. ..
Further, like his aged counterpart before him, President Obama took advantage of a crisis to
"transform" American institutions instead of grappling with the country's main problems --
national debt, unemployment, recession, and burgeoning entitlement costs, to name a few. He made
matters worse by augmenting entitlements, exploding federal deficits, exacerbating unemployment,
and blaming others for the inevitable mess that ensued...
... ... ...
France was saved from its Vichy insanities by a country that was proclaimed, in the words of Abraham
Lincoln, as the "last best hope on earth" -- that is, by the United States. The question is: Who
will save America from its own Vichy regime?
Dr. Marvin Folkertsma is a professor of political science and Fellow for American Studies with
The Center for Vision & Values
at Grove City College. The author of several books, his latest release is a high-energy
novel titled "The Thirteenth Commandment."
Lynch: How is your granddaughter Chelsea? Bubba: She's fine. How are your grandkids? Lynch: They're doing great too. Bubba: Too bad if anything were to happen to them
The Last but not LeastTechnology is dominated by
two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt.
Ph.D
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social
issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which
such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free)
site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should
be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors
of this site
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or
referenced source) and are
not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society.We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be
tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without
Javascript.
that tells me more
than enough. 
Prof. Cohen: Not One Piece of Factual Evidence That Russia 'Hacked the Election'
