The enemy aggressor is always pursuing a course of larceny, murder, rapine
and barbarism. We are always moving forward with high mission, a destiny imposed by the
Deity to regenerate our victims,
while incidentally capturing their markets; to civilise savage and senile and paranoid peoples,
while blundering accidentally into their oil wells
American journalist
John T. Flynn
cited from Wikipedia
Like any great country the USA is prone to creating its own empire. In this sense it is not that
different from Spain, Great Britain, France, and Germany. The difference is that the USA prefer indirect
methods installing puppet regimes and creating "fifth column" within the country. Like Great Britain
in the past the USA pretences are global in nature as in "Sun never sets in British Empire")
U.S. global domination agenda is bipartisan. It far precedes 'neocons', as an extension
of north America's 'manifest destiny' doctrine, which was transformed into U.S. finance imperialism.
For a very frank discussion of US empire see
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=YM_MH_Bfq5c
Internally the US dual party structure provides a clever mechanism that is directed
toward reducing resistance against imperial policies. Voters are forced to support this system by endorsing
one of two basically equally jingoistic imperial candidates.
The new documents suggest that mantra 'No Rivals' that the USA neocons promote is
actually a long lasting foundational trait of this republic, that precede emergence of neocons as a
dominant political force. Neocons dominance in Washington just reveals US post-Soviet geostrategic agenda,
including its Mideast proxy Israel's new role. According to Wikipedia (American
imperialism - Wikipedia) :
Journalist Ashley Smith divides theories of the U.S. imperialism into 5 broad categories: (1)
"liberal" theories, (2) "social-democratic" theories, (3) "Leninist" theories, (4) theories of "super-imperialism",
and (5) "Hardt-and-Negri-ite" theories. There is also a conservative, anti-interventionist view as
expressed by American journalist
John T. Flynn:
The enemy aggressor is always pursuing a course of larceny, murder, rapine and barbarism.
We are always moving forward with high mission, a destiny imposed by the
Deity to regenerate our victims,
while incidentally capturing their markets; to civilise savage and senile and paranoid peoples,
while blundering accidentally into their oil wells.[16]
A "social-democratic"
theory says that imperialistic U.S. policies are the products of the excessive influence of certain
sectors of U.S. business and government—the
arms industry in alliance
with military and political bureaucracies and sometimes other industries such as oil and finance,
a combination often referred to as the "military–industrial
complex". The complex is said to benefit from
war profiteering and
the looting of natural resources,
often at the expense of the public interest.[17]
The proposed solution is typically unceasing popular vigilance in order to apply counter-pressure.[18]
Johnson holds a version of this view.
Alfred T. Mahan, who served as an officer in the
U.S. Navy during the late 19th
century, supported the notion of American imperialism in his 1890 book titled The
Influence of Sea Power upon History. In chapter one Mahan argued that modern industrial nations
must secure foreign markets for the purpose of exchanging goods and, consequently, they must maintain
a maritime force that is capable of protecting these trade routes.page
needed]
A theory of "super-imperialism" says that imperialistic U.S. policies are not driven simply by
the interests of American businesses, but by the interests of the economic elites of a global alliance
of developed countries. Capitalism
in Europe, the U.S. and Japan has become too entangled, in this view, to permit military or geopolitical
conflict between these countries, and the central conflict in modern imperialism is between the
global core and the global
periphery rather than between
imperialist powers.
Following the
invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, the idea of American imperialism was reexamined. On October
15, the cover of William
Kristol's Weekly Standard
carried the headline, "The Case for American Empire."
Rich Lowry, editor in chief
of the National Review,
called for "a kind of low-grade colonialism" to topple dangerous regimes beyond Afghanistan.[20]
The columnist Charles
Krauthammer declared that, given complete U.S. domination "culturally, economically, technologically
and militarily," people were "now coming out of the closet on the word 'empire.'"[8]
The New York Times Sunday
magazine cover for January 5, 2003, read "American Empire: Get Used To It."
In the book "Empire",
Michael Hardt and
Antonio Negri argued that
"the decline of Empire has begun".[21]
Hardt says the Iraq War is a
classically imperialist war, and is the last gasp of a doomed strategy.[22]
This new era still has colonizing power, but it has moved from national military forces based on
an economy of physical goods to networked
biopower based on an informational
and affective economy.
The U.S. is central to the development and constitution of a new global regime of
international
power and sovereignty,
termed Empire, but is decentralized and global, and not ruled by one sovereign state; "the United
States does indeed occupy a privileged position in Empire, but this privilege derives not from its
similarities to the old European imperialist powers, but from its differences."[23]
Hardt and Negri draw on the theories of
Spinoza,
Foucault,
Deleuze and Italian
autonomist marxists.[25]
Geographer David
Harvey says there has emerged a new type of imperialism due to geographical distinctions as well
as uneven levels of development.[26]
He says there has emerged three new global economic and politics blocs: the United States, the
European Union and Asia
centered on China and
verification needed] He says there are tensions between the three major blocs
over resources and economic power, citing the
2003 invasion of Iraq,
whose goal was to prevent rivals from controlling oil.[28]
Furthermore, Harvey argues there can arise conflict within the major blocs between capitalists and
politicians due to their opposing economic interests.[29]
Politicians, on the other hand, live in geographically fixed locations and are, in the U.S. and Europe,
accountable to the electorate. The 'new' imperialism, then, has led to an alignment of the interests
of capitalists and politicians in order to prevent the rise and expansion of possible economic and
political rivals from challenging America's dominance.[30]
Classics professor and war historian
Victor Davis Hanson
dismisses the notion of an American empire altogether, mockingly comparing it to other empires: "We
do not send out proconsuls to reside over client states, which in turn impose taxes on coerced subjects
to pay for the legions. Instead, American bases are predicated on contractual obligations — costly
to us and profitable to their hosts. We do not see any profits in Korea, but instead accept the risk
of losing almost 40,000 of our youth to ensure that Kias can flood our shores and that shaggy students
can protest outside our embassy in Seoul."[31]
Factors unique to the "Age of imperialism"
A variety of factors may have coincided during the "Age
of Imperialism" in the late 19th century, when the United States and the other major powers rapidly
expanded their territorial possessions. Some of these are explained, or used as examples for the
various perceived forms of American imperialism.
The prevalence of racism, notably
John Fiske's
conception of Anglo-Saxon
racial superiority, and
Josiah Strong's call to "civilize and Christianize"—all manifestations of a growing
Social Darwinism
and racism in some schools of American political thought.[32]
Early in his career, as Assistant Secretary of the Navy,
Theodore Roosevelt
was instrumental in preparing the Navy for the
Spanish–American
War[33]
and was an enthusiastic proponent of testing the U.S. military in battle, at one point stating
"I should welcome almost any war, for I think this country needs one".[36]
Industry and trade are two of the most prevalent factors unique to imperialism. American intervention
in both Latin America and Hawaii resulted in multiple industrial investments, including the popular
industry of Dole bananas.
If the United States was able to annex a territory, in turn they were granted access to the trade
and capital of those territories. In 1898, Senator Albert Beveridge proclaimed that an expansion
of markets was absolutely necessary, "American factories are making more than the American people
can use; American soil is producing more than they can consume. Fate has written our policy for us;
the trade of the world must and shall be ours."[37]
U.S. foreign policy debate
1898 political cartoon:
"Ten Thousand Miles From Tip to Tip" meaning the extension of U.S. domination (symbolized by a
bald eagle) from
Puerto Rico to the
Philippines. The cartoon
contrasts this with a map of the smaller United States 100 years earlier in 1798.
Annexation is a crucial instrument
in the expansion of a nation, due to the fact that once a territory is annexed it must act within
the confines of its superior counterpart. The United States Congress' ability to annex a foreign
territory is explained in a report from the Congressional Committee on Foreign Relations, "If, in
the judgment of Congress, such a measure is supported by a safe and wise policy, or is based upon
a natural duty that we owe to the people of Hawaii, or is necessary for our national development
and security, that is enough to justify annexation, with the consent of the recognized government
of the country to be annexed."[38]
Prior to annexing a territory, the American government still held immense power through the various
legislations passed in the late 1800s. The Platt Amendment was utilized to prevent Cuba from entering
into any agreements with foreign nations, and also granted the Americans the right to build naval
stations on their soil.[39]
Executive officials in the American government began to determine themselves the supreme authority
in matters regarding the recognition or restriction of
[39]
When asked on April 28, 2003, on
al-Jazeera whether the United
States was "empire building," Secretary of Defense
Donald Rumsfeld replied
"We don't seek empires, we're not imperialistic. We never have been."[40]
However, historian Donald
W. Meinig says the imperial behavior by the United States dates at least to the
Louisiana Purchase,
which he describes as an "imperial acquisition—imperial in the sense of the aggressive encroachment
of one people upon the territory of another, resulting in the subjugation of that people to alien
rule." The U.S. policies towards the
Native Americans he
said were "designed to remold them into a people more appropriately conformed to imperial desires."[41]
Writers and academics of the early 20th century, like
Charles A. Beard, in
support of non-interventionism
(sometimes referred to as "isolationism"),
discussed American policy as being driven by self-interested expansionism going back as far as the
writing of the Constitution. Some politicians today do not agree.
Pat Buchanan claims that
the modern United States' drive to empire is "far removed from what the Founding Fathers had intended
the young Republic to become."[42]
Andrew Bacevich argues
that the U.S. did not fundamentally change its
foreign
policy after the Cold War,
and remains focused on an effort to expand its control across the world.[43]
As the surviving superpower at the end of the Cold War, the U.S. could focus its assets in new directions,
the future being "up for grabs" according to former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy
Paul Wolfowitz in 1991.[44]
Thorton wrote that "[...]imperialism is more often the name of the emotion that reacts to a series
of events than a definition of the events themselves. Where colonization finds analysts and analogies,
imperialism must contend with crusaders for and against."[46]
Political theorist Michael
Walzer argues that the term
hegemony is better than empire to describe the US's role in the world;[47]
political scientist Robert
Keohane agrees saying, a "balanced and nuanced analysis is not aided...by the use of the phrase
'empire' to describe United States hegemony, since 'empire' obscures rather than illuminates the
differences in form of rule between the United States and other Great Powers, such as Great Britain
in the 19th century or the
Soviet Union in the twentieth.".[48]Emmanuel Todd assumes that
USA cannot hold for long the status of mondial hegemonic power due to limited resources. Instead,
USA is going to become just one of the major regional powers along with European Union, China, Russia,
etc.[49]
Other political scientists, such as Daniel Nexon and Thomas Wright, argue that neither term exclusively
describes
foreign
relations of the United States. The U.S. can be, and has been, simultaneously an empire and a
hegemonic power. They claim that the general trend in U.S. foreign relations has been away from imperial
modes of control.[50]
[...], so influential has been the discourse insisting on American specialness, altruism and
opportunity, that imperialism in the United States as a word or ideology has turned up only rarely
and recently in accounts of the United States culture, politics and history. But the connection
between imperial politics and culture in
North America, and in
particular in the United States, is astonishingly direct.[51]
International relations scholar David Rothkopf disagrees and argues that cultural imperialism
is the innocent result of globalization,
which allows access to numerous U.S. and Western ideas and products that many non-U.S. and non-Western
consumers across the world voluntarily choose to consume.[52]Matthew Fraser
has a similar analysis, but argues further that the global cultural influence of the U.S. is a good
thing.[53]
Nationalism is the main
process through which the government is able to shape public opinion.
Propaganda in the media is
strategically placed in order to promote a common attitude among the people. Louis A. Perez Jr. provides
an example of propaganda used during the war of 1898, "We are coming, Cuba, coming; we are bound
to set you free! We are coming from the mountains, from the plains and inland sea! We are coming
with the wrath of God to make the Spaniards flee! We are coming, Cuba, coming; coming now!"[39]
One of the earliest historians of American Empire,
William Appleman
Williams, wrote, "The routine lust for land, markets or security became justifications for noble
rhetoric about prosperity, liberty and security."[58]
Max Boot defends U.S. imperialism
by claiming: "U.S. imperialism has been the greatest force for good in the world during the past
century. It has defeated communism and Nazism and has intervened against the Taliban and Serbian
ethnic cleansing.[59]"
Boot used "imperialism" to describe United States policy, not only in the early 20th century but
"since at least 1803".[61]
This embrace of empire is made by others
neoconservatives, including
British historian Paul
Johnson, and writers Dinesh
D'Souza and Mark Steyn.
It is also made by some liberal
hawks, such as political scientist
Zbigniew Brzezinski
and Michael Ignatieff.[62]
British historian Niall
Ferguson argues that the United States is an empire and believes that this is a good thing. Ferguson
has drawn parallels between the
British Empire and the
imperial role of the United States in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, though he describes
the United States' political and social structures as more like those of the
Roman Empire than of the
British. Ferguson argues that all of these empires have had both positive and negative aspects, but
that the positive aspects of the U.S. empire will, if it learns from history and its mistakes, greatly
outweigh its negative aspects.page
needed]
Another point of view implies that United States expansion overseas has indeed been imperialistic,
but that this imperialism
is only a temporary phenomenon; a corruption of American ideals or the relic of a past historical
era. Historian Samuel Flagg Bemis argues that
Spanish–American War
expansionism was a short-lived imperialistic impulse and "a great aberration in American history",
a very different form of territorial growth than that of earlier American history.[64]
Historian Walter LaFeber
sees the Spanish–American War expansionism not as an aberration, but as a culmination of United States
expansion westward.[65]
Historian Victor Davis
Hanson argues that the U.S. does not pursue
world domination, but maintains
worldwide influence by a system of mutually beneficial exchanges.[66]
On the other hand, a Filipino revolutionary General
Emilio Aquinaldo felt
as though the American involvement in the Philippines was mutually destructive, "...the Filipinos
fighting for Liberty, the American people fighting them to give them liberty. The two peoples are
fighting on parallel lines for the same object. We know that parallel lines never meet."[67]
American influence worldwide and the effects it has on other nations have multiple interpretations
according to whose perspective is being taken into account.
Liberal internationalists argue that even though the present world order is dominated by the
United States, the form taken by that dominance is not imperial. International relations scholar
John Ikenberry argues
Following are excerpts from the Pentagon's Feb. 18 draft of the Defense Planning Guidance
for the Fiscal Years 1994-1999: This Defense Planning guidance addresses the fundamentally new situation
which has been created by the collapse of the Soviet Union, the disintegration of the internal as well
as the external empire, and the discrediting of Communism as an ideology with global pretensions and
influence. The new international environment has also been shaped by the victory of the United States
and its coalition allies over Iraqi aggression -- the first post-cold-war conflict and a defining event
in U.S. global leadership. In addition to these two victories, there has been a less visible one, the
integration of Germany and Japan into a U.S.-led system of collective security and the creation of a
democratic "zone of peace."
U.S. blueprint for proxy Israel's role in conquering a 'new world order' agenda for incoming Benjamin
Netanyahu regime, compatible with fascist 'eretz israel' agenda: 1996 A Clean Break: A New Strategy
for Securing the Realm http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm
Following is a policy blueprint prepared by The U.S. Institute for Advanced Strategic
and Political Studies' "Study Group on a New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000." The main substantive ideas
in this paper emerge from a discussion in which prominent opinion makers, including Richard Perle, James
Colbert, Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Douglas Feith, Robert Loewenberg, David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser
participated. The report, entitled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," is the framework
for a series of follow-up reports on strategy.
1997 A Geostrategy For Eurasia, by Zbigniew Brzezinski [major democratic strategist] Foreign Affairs,76:5,
September/October 1997 Council on Foreign Relations Inc.
http://www.comw.org/pda/fulltext/9709brzezinski.h...
05/06/03: When the Bush administration started lobbying for war with Iraq, they used as
rationale a definition of preemption (generally meaning anticipatory use of force in the face of
an imminent attack) that was broadened to allow for the waging of a preventive war in which force
may be used even without evidence of an imminent attack. They also were able to convince much of
the American public that Saddam Hussein had something to do with the attacks of 9/11, despite the
fact that no evidence of a link has been uncovered. Consequently, many people supported the war on
the basis of 1) a policy that has no legal basis in international law and 2) a totally unfounded
claim of Iraqi guilt.
What most people do not know, however, is that certain high ranking officials in the Bush administration
have been working for regime change in Iraq for the past decade, long before terrorism became an
important issue for our country. In 1997 they formed an organization called the Project for the New
American Century (PNAC). They have sought the establishment of a much stronger U.S. presence throughout
the Mideast and Iraq's Saddam Hussein has been their number one target for regime change. Members
of this group drafted and successfully passed through Congress the Iraqi Liberation Act, giving legal
sanctions for an invasion of the country, and funneled millions of taxpayer dollars to Hussein opposition
groups called the Iraqi National Congress and The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq.
The PNAC philosophy was formed in response to the ending of Cold War hostilities with Russia and
the emergence of America as the world's only preeminent superpower. Claiming that this is a "strategic
moment" that should not be squandered, members of PNAC say that America should use its position to
advance its power and interests into all areas of the globe. They believe the time is ripe for establishing
democracies in regimes considered hostile to U.S. interests and are not hesitant to advise the use
of military means to achieve those ends.
PNAC members on the Bush team include Vice-President Dick Cheney and his top national security
assistant, I. Lewis Libby; Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld; Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul
Wolfowitz; National Security Council member Eliot Abrams; Undersecretary for Arms Control and International
Security John Bolton; and former Chairman of the Defense Policy Board, Richard Perle. Other PNAC
members exerting influence on U.S. policy are the President of the Committee for the Liberation of
Iraq Randy Scheunemann, Republican Party leader Bruce Jackson and current PNAC chairman William Kristol,
conservative writer for the Weekly Standard. Jeb Bush, the president's brother and governor
of Florida, is also a member.
Their campaign to overthrow Hussein was unsuccessful during the Clinton presidency and early days
of Bush's term, but on 9/11 they found the event they needed to push for the overthrow of Hussein.
Within 24 hours both Wolfowitz and Cheney were calling for an invasion of Iraq, even before anyone
knew who had been responsible for the attacks.
Individuals who now belong to PNAC have been influencing White House policy since the Reagan era,
calling for coups in Central America and claiming that a nuclear war with Russia could be "winnable."
Richard Perle is one of their most prominent spokesmen. He and Michael Ledeen (of the American Enterprise
Institute), who is currently lobbying for war with Syria and Iran, have adopted a stance that they
call "total war" - the ability to wage multiple simultaneous wars around the globe to achieve American
ends. Recently Perle commented on America's war on terrorism: "No stages," he said, "This is total
war. We are fighting a variety of enemies. There are lots of them out there. All this talk about
first we are going to do Afghanistan, then we will do Iraq . . . this is entirely the wrong way to
go about it. If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely and we don't
try to piece together clever diplomacy, but just wage a total war . . . our children will sing great
songs about us years from now."
Members of PNAC are so self-assured they are advancing America's best interests that they publish
policy papers specifically outlining their plans, plans that many fear may be laying the groundwork
for a third world war. Their ideas are peculiarly atavistic, considering the friendly ties that have
been forged between most of the major nations during the past ten years.
Their central policy document is entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses (RAD)," published on
their website at
http://newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf.
It outlines a plan for American hegemony in the coming years, pinpointing "problem areas" of the
world and suggesting regime change of unfavorable governments so that eventually the whole world
will be unified under the banner of American democracy.
Already we are seeing evidence of PNAC influence on U.S. policy. For instance, the concept of
"Homeland Defense" comes straight from "RAD." Iran, Iraq and North Korea, nations that George Bush
calls the "Axis of Evil", are listed together in "RAD" several times as possible military threats
to the U.S. There is a suggestion that military spending be increased to 3.8 percent of the GDP,
exactly the amount (over and above present expenses for the Iraqi campaign) Bush has proposed for
next year's budget. Its basic statement of policy bespeaks and advocates the very essence of the
idea of preemptive engagement.
Bush's National Security Strategy of September 20, 2002, adopted PNAC ideas and emphasized
a broadened definition of preemption. Since we are already hearing accusations against regimes in
Iran and Syria, will they be slated next for invasion?
The document is written with all of the single-mindedness, unilateralism and inattention to international
ramifications (with either friend or foe) that the Bush administration displayed in its current build-up
for war with Iraq. There is even assertion of the necessity of American political leadership overriding
that of the U.N. (p. 11), a policy that was sadly played out when the U.S. invaded Iraq without the
approval of either the U.N. or the international community.
Rebuilding America's Defenses
I believe that "Rebuilding America's Defenses" is a must-read for anyone concerned about the future
of our planet. Since the document is over 80 pages long I have created a summary of its major ideas
in order to make it more accessible.
Subject areas are arranged under 4 categories:
A. Pax Americana - outlining the rationale for global empire,
B. Securing Global Hegemony - pinpointing regions that are considered trouble spots for U.S. policy,
C. Rebuilding the Military - plans for expansion of U.S. military might, and
D. Future Wars of Pax Americana - the "RAD" vision of complete control of land, sea, air, space
and cyberspace.
As much as possible I have used direct quotations followed by page numbers so that the reader
can consult the original. My personal comments are in italics.
For further reading about the PNAC, see the following articles:
"It is not a choice between preeminence today and preeminence tomorrow. Global leadership is not
something exercised at our leisure, when the mood strikes us or when our core national security interests
are directly threatened; then it is already too late. Rather, it is a choice whether or not to maintain
American military preeminence, to secure American geopolitical leadership, and to preserve the American
peace" (p. 76).
The building of Pax Americana has become possible, claims "RAD," because the fall of the Soviet
Union has given the U.S. status as the world's singular superpower. It must now work hard not only
to maintain that position, but to spread its influence into geographic areas that are ideologically
opposed to our influence. Decrying reductions in defense spending during the Clinton years "RAD"
propounds the theory that the only way to preserve peace in the coming era will be to increase military
forces for the purpose of waging multiple wars to subdue countries which may stand in the way of
U.S. global preeminence.
Their flaws in logic are obvious to people of conscience, namely, 1) a combative posture on our
part will not secure peace, but will rather engender fear throughout the world and begin anew the
arms race, only this time with far more contenders, and 2) democracy, by its very definition, cannot
be imposed by force.
Following is the preamble to the document:
"As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's most preeminent
power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge:
Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievement of past decades? Does the United
States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?
"[What we require is] a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges;
a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership
that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.
"Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely
avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise.
America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East.
If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history
of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises
emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of the past century should have
taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership" (from the Project's Statement of Principles).
Four Vital Missions
PNAC members believe that there are four vital missions "demanded by U. S. global leadership,"
but claim that "current American armed forces are ill-prepared to execute" these missions.
"Homeland Defense. America must defend its homeland. During the Cold War, nuclear deterrence
was the key element in homeland defense; it remains essential. But the new century has brought with
it new challenges. While reconfiguring its nuclear force, the United States also must counteract
the effects of the proliferation of ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction that may soon
allow lesser states to deter U.S. military action by threatening U.S. allies and the American homeland
itself. Of all the new and current missions for U.S. armed forces, this must have priority.
"Large Wars. Second, the United States must retain sufficient forces able to rapidly deploy
and win multiple simultaneous large-scale wars and also to be able to respond to unanticipated contingencies
in regions where it does not maintain forward-based forces. This resembles the 'two-war' standard
that has been the basis of U.S. force planning over the past decade. Yet this standard needs to be
updated to account for new realities and potential new conflicts.
"Constabulary Duties. Third, the Pentagon must retain forces to preserve the current peace
in ways that fall short of conduction major theater campaigns. A decade's experience and the policies
of two administrations have shown that such forces must be expanded to meet the needs of the new,
long-term NATO mission in the Balkans, the continuing no-fly-zone and other missions in Southwest
Asia, and other presence missions in vital regions of East Asia. These duties are today's most frequent
missions, requiring forces configured for combat but capable of long-term, independent constabulary
operations.
"Transform U.S. Armed Forces. Finally, the Pentagon must begin now to exploit the so-called
'revolution in military affairs,' sparked by the introduction of advanced technologies into military
systems; this must be regarded as a separate and critical mission worthy of a share of force structure
and defense budgets" (p. 6).
"In conclusion, it should be clear that these four essential missions for maintaining American
military preeminence are quite separate and distinct from one another – none should be considered
a 'lesser included case' of another, even though they are closely related and may, in some cases,
require similar sorts of forces. Conversely, the failure to provide sufficient forces to execute
these four missions must result in problems for American strategy. The failure to build missile defenses
will put America and her allies at grave risk and compromise the exercise of American power abroad.
Conventional forces that are insufficient to fight multiple theater wars simultaneously cannot protect
American global interests and allies. Neglect or withdrawal from constabulary missions will increase
the likelihood of larger wars breaking out and encourage petty tyrants to defy American interests
and ideals. And the failure to prepare for tomorrow's challenges will ensure that the current
Pax Americana comes to an early end" (p. 13).
On Usurping the Power of the UN
"Further, these constabulary missions are far more complex and likely to generate violence than
traditional 'peacekeeping' missions. For one, they demand American political leadership rather than
that of the United Nations, as the failure of the UN mission in the Balkans and the relative success
of NATO operations there attests.
"Nor can the United States assume a UN-like stance of neutrality; the preponderance of American
power is so great and its global interests so wide that it cannot pretend to be indifferent to the
political outcome in the Balkans, the Persian Gulf or even when it deploys forces in Africa. Finally,
these missions demand forces basically configured for combat. While they also demand personnel with
special language, logistics and other support skills, the first order of business in missions such
as in the Balkans is to establish security, stability and order. American troops, in particular,
must be regarded as part of an overwhelmingly powerful force" (p. 11).
On Preserving American Preeminence
"Since today's peace is the unique product of American preeminence, a failure to preserve that
preeminence allows others an opportunity to shape the world in ways antithetical to American interests
and principles. The price of American preeminence is that, just as it was actively obtained, it must
be actively maintained" (p. 73).
"The fourth element in American force posture – and certainly the one which holds the key to any
longer-term hopes to extend the current Pax Americana – is the mission to transform U.S. military
forces to meet new geopolitical and technological challenges" (p. 11).
"America's armed forces, it seemed, could either prepare for the future by retreating from its
role as the essential defender of today's global security order, or it could take care of current
business but be unprepared for tomorrow's threats and tomorrow's battlefields" (p. i).
"Moreover, America stands at the head of a system of alliances which includes the world's other
leading democratic powers. At present the United States faces no global rival. America's grand strategy
should aim to preserve and extend this advantageous position as far into the future as possible.
There are, however, potentially powerful states dissatisfied with the current situation and eager
to change it, if they can, in directions that endanger the relatively peaceful, prosperous and free
condition the world enjoys today. Up to now, they have been deterred from doing so by the capability
and global presence of American military power. But, as that power declines, relatively and absolutely,
the happy conditions that follow from it will be inevitably undermined" (p. i).
B. Securing Global Hegemony
"In a larger sense, the new president will choose whether today's 'unipolar moment,' to use columnist
Charles Krauthammer's phrase for America's current geopolitical preeminence, will be extended along
with the peace and prosperity that it provides" (p. 4).
"RAD" takes the posture that only the U.S. should manipulate international relations and points
out "trouble spots" that may cause future problems, like Iraq, Iran, Korea and all of East Asia.
There is concern that several nations might come together to challenge U.S. interests. Consequently
any nation that produces nuclear weapons or engages in significant arms build-up will be viewed as
a potential threat.
"America's global leadership, and its role as the guarantor of the current great-power peace,
relies upon the safety of the American homeland; the preservation of a favorable balance of power
in Europe, the Middle East and surrounding energy-producing region, and East Asia; and the general
stability of the international system of nation-states relative to terrorists, organized crime, and
other 'non-state actors.' The relative importance of these elements, and the threats to U.S. interests,
may rise and fall over time. Europe, for example, is now extraordinarily peaceful and stable, despite
the turmoil in the Balkans. Conversely, East Asia appears to be entering a period with increased
potential for instability and competition. In the Gulf, American power and presence has achieved
relative external security for U.S. allies, but the longer-term prospects are murkier. Generally,
American strategy for the coming decades should seek to consolidate the great victories won in the
20th century – which have made Germany and Japan into stable democracies, for example – maintain
stability in the Middle East, while setting the conditions for 21st century successes, especially
in East Asia.
"A retreat from any one of these requirements would call America's status as the world's leading
power into question. As we have seen, even a small failure like that in Somalia or a halting and
incomplete triumph as in the Balkans can cast doubt on American credibility. The failure to define
a coherent global security and military strategy during the post-Cold War period has invited challenges;
states seeking to establish regional hegemony continue to probe for the limits of the American security
perimeter" (p. 5).
Iraq and the Persian Gulf
"After eight years of no-fly-zone operations, there is little reason to anticipate that the U.S.
air presence in the region should diminish significantly as long as Saddam Hussein remains in power.
Although Saudi domestic sensibilities demand that the forces based in the Kingdom nominally remain
rotational forces, it has become apparent that this is now a semi-permanent mission. From an American
perspective, the value of such bases would endure even should Saddam pass from the scene. Over the
long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the Gulf as Iraq has. And even
should U.S.-Iranian relations improve, retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be
an essential element in U.S. security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region"
(p. 17).
"In the Persian Gulf region, the presence of American forces, along with British and French units,
has become a semi-permanent fact of life. Though the immediate mission of those forces is to enforce
the no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq, they represent the long-term commitment of the
United States and its major allies to a region of vital importance. Indeed, the United States has
for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved
conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force
presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein" (p. 14).
"Although the no-fly-zone air operations over northern and southern Iraq have continued without
pause for almost a decade, they remain an essential element in U.S. strategy and force posture in
the Persian Gulf region. Ending these operations would hand Saddam Hussein an important victory,
something any American leader would be loath to do. Likewise, withdrawing from the Balkans would
place American leadership in Europe – indeed, the viability of NATO – in question. While none of
these operations involves a mortal threat, they do engage U.S. national security interests directly,
as well as engaging American moral interests" (p. 11).
"In Europe, the Persian Gulf and East Asia, enduring U.S. security interests argue forcefully
for an enduring American military presence" (p. 74).
"The Air Force presence in the Gulf region is a vital one for U.S. military strategy, and the
United States should consider it a de facto permanent presence, even as it seeks ways to lessen
Saudi, Kuwaiti and regional concerns about U.S. presence" (p. 35).
Axis of Evil
"It is now commonly understood that information and other new technologies – as well as widespread
technological and weapons proliferation – are creating a dynamic that may threaten America's ability
to exercise its dominant military power. Potential rivals such as China are anxious to exploit these
transformational technologies broadly, while adversaries like Iran, Iraq and North Korea are rushing
to develop ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons as a deterrent to American intervention in regions
they seek to dominate" (p. 4).
"The current American peace will be short-lived if the United States becomes vulnerable to rogue
powers with small, inexpensive arsenals of ballistic missiles and nuclear warheads or other weapons
of mass destruction. We cannot allow North Korea, Iran, Iraq or similar states to undermine American
leadership, intimidate American allies or threaten the American homeland itself. The blessings of
the American peace, purchased at fearful cost and a century of effort, should not be so trivially
squandered" (p. 75).
East Asia
"Reflecting the gradual shift in the focus of American strategic concerns toward East Asia, a
majority of the U.S. fleet, including two thirds of all carrier battle groups, should be concentrated
in the Pacific. A new, permanent forward base should be established in Southeast Asia (p. 39).
"As stressed several times above, the United States should seek to establish – or reestablish
– a more robust naval presence in Southeast Asia, marked by a long-term, semi-permanent home port
in the region, perhaps in the Philippines, Australia, or both" (p. 44).
"In Southeast Asia, American forces are too sparse to adequately address rising security requirements….Except
for routine patrols by naval and Marine forces, the security of this strategically significant and
increasingly tumultuous region has suffered from American neglect…..Southeast Asia region has long
been an area of great interest to China, which clearly seeks to regain influence in the region. In
recent years, China has gradually increased its presence and operations in the region.
"Raising U.S. military strength in East Asia is the key to coping with the rise of China to great-power
status. For this to proceed peacefully, U.S. armed forces must retain their military preeminence
and thereby reassure our regional allies. In Northeast Asia, the United States must maintain and
tighten its ties with the Republic of Korea and Japan. In Southeast Asia, only the United States
can reach out to regional powers like Australia, Indonesia and Malaysia and others. This will be
a difficult task requiring sensitivity to diverse national sentiments, but it is made all the more
compelling by the emergence of new democratic governments in the region. By guaranteeing the security
of our current allies and newly democratic nations in East Asia, the United States can help ensure
that the rise of China is a peaceful one. Indeed, in time, American and allied power in the region
may provide a spur to the process of democratization inside China itself….A heightened U.S. military
presence in Southeast Asia would be a strong spur to regional security cooperation, providing the
core around which a de facto coalition could jell" (pp. 18-19).
"The prospect is that East Asia will become an increasingly important region, marked by the rise
of Chinese power….A similar rationale argues in favor of retaining substantial forces in Japan. In
recent years, the stationing of large forces in Okinawa has become increasingly controversial in
Japanese domestic politics, and while efforts to accommodate local sensibilities are warranted, it
is essential to retain the capabilities U.S. forces in Okinawa represent. If the United States is
to remain the guarantor of security in Northeast Asia, and to hold together a de facto alliance
whose other main pillars are Korea and Japan maintaining forward-based U.S. forces is essential"
(p. 18).
Europe
"As discussed above, the focus of American security strategy for the coming century is likely
to shift to East Asia. This reflects the success of American strategy in the 20th century, and particularly
the success of the NATO alliance through the Cold War, which has created what appears to be a generally
stable and enduring peace in Europe. The pressing new problem of European security – instability
in Southeastern Europe – will be best addressed by the continued stability operations in the Balkans
by U.S. and NATO ground forces supported by land-based air forces. Likewise, the new opportunity
for greater European stability offered by further NATO expansion will make demands first of all on
ground and land-based air forces. As the American security perimeter in Europe is removed eastward,
this pattern will endure, although naval forces will play an important role in the Baltic Sea, eastern
Mediterranean and Black Sea, and will continue to support U.S. and NATO operations ashore" (pp. 43-44).
"The Balkans, and southeastern Europe more generally, present the major hurdle toward the creation
of a Europe 'whole and free' from the Baltic to the Black Sea. The delay in bringing security and
stability to southeastern Europe has not only prevented the consolidation of the victory in the Cold
War, it has created a zone of violence and conflict and introduced uncertainty about America's role
in Europe" (pp. 15-16).
"Despite the shifting focus of conflict in Europe, a requirement to station U.S. forces in northern
and central Europe remains. The region is stable, but a continued American presence helps to assure
the major European powers, especially Germany, that the United States retains its longstanding security
interest in the continent. This is especially important in light of the nascent European moves toward
an independent defense 'identity' and policy; it is important that NATO not be replaced by the European
Union, leaving the United States without a voice in European security affairs" (p. 16).
"Although U.S. Navy and Marine forces generally operate on a regular cycle of deployments to European
waters, they rely on a network of permanent bases in the region, especially in the Mediterranean.
These should be retained, and consideration given to establishing a more robust presence in the Black
Sea" (p. 17).
Regime Change
Several statements advocating the possible necessity of removing hostile regimes can be found
in the document.
"American military preeminence will continue to rest in significant part on the ability to maintain
sufficient land forces to achieve political goals such as removing a dangerous and
hostile regime when necessary" (p. 61).
"The need to respond with decisive force in the event of a major theater war in Europe, the Persian
Gulf or East Asia will remain the principal factor in determining Army force structure for U.S.-based
units. However one judges the likelihood of such wars occurring, it is essential to retain sufficient
capabilities to bring them to a satisfactory conclusion, including the possibility of a decisive
victory that results in long-term political or regime change" (p. 25).
"America's adversaries will continue to resist the building of the American peace; when they see
an opportunity as Saddam Hussein did in 1990, they will employ their most powerful armed forces to
win on the battle-field what they could not win in peaceful competition; and American armed forces
will remain the core of efforts to deter, defeat, or remove from power regional aggressors" (p. 10).
C. Rebuilding the Military
"If an American peace is to be maintained, and expanded, it must have a secure foundation on unquestioned
U.S. military preeminence" (p. 4).
One stated objective of "RAD" is "to outline the large, 'full-spectrum' forces that are necessary
to conduct the varied tasks demanded by a strategy of American preeminence for today and tomorrow"
(p. 5). Much of the document is an elucidation of those missions and includes specific recommendations
about weaponry, deployment patterns, increased personnel and defense spending.
"In sum, the 1990s have been a 'decade of defense neglect'. This leaves the next president of
the United States with an enormous challenge: he must increase military spending to preserve American
geopolitical leadership, or he must pull back from the security commitments that are the measure
of America's position as the world's sole superpower and the final guarantee of security, democratic
freedoms and individual political rights" (p. 4).
"Preserving the desirable strategic situation in which the United States now finds itself requires
a globally preeminent military capability both today and in the future. But years of cuts in defense
spending have eroded the American military's combat readiness, and put in jeopardy the Pentagon's
plans for maintaining military superiority in the years ahead. Increasingly, the U.S. military has
found itself undermanned, inadequately equipped and trained, straining to handle contingency operations,
and ill-prepared to adapt itself to the revolution in military affairs" (p. i).
The four core missions of PNAC referred to below were outlined in section A. Pax Americana.
"To carry out these core missions, we need to provide sufficient force and budgetary allocations.
In particular, the United States must:
MAINTAIN NUCLEAR STRATEGIC SUPERIORITY, basing the U.S. nuclear deterrent upon a global, nuclear
net assessment that weighs the full range of current and emerging threats, not merely the U.S.-Russia
balance.
RESTORE THE PERSONNEL STRENGTH of today's force to roughly the levels anticipated in the 'Base
Force' outlined by the Bush Administration, an increase in active-duty strength from 1.4 million
to 1.6 million.
REPOSITION U.S. FORCES to respond to 21st century strategic realities by shifting permanently
based forces to Southeast Europe and Southeast Asia, and by changing naval deployment patterns to
reflect growing U.S. strategic concerns in East Asia.
MODERNIZE CURRENT U.S. FORCES SELECTIVELY, proceeding with the F-22 program while increasing purchases
of lift, electronic support and other aircraft; expanding submarine and surface combatant fleets;
purchasing Comanche helicopters and medium-weight ground vehicles for the Army, and the V-22 Osprey
'tilt-rotor' aircraft for the Marine Corps.
CANCEL 'ROADBLOCK' PROGRAMS such as the Joint Strike Fighter, CVX aircraft carrier, and Crusader
howitzer system that would absorb exorbitant amounts of Pentagon funding while providing limited
improvements to current capabilities. Savings from these canceled programs should be used to spur
the process of military transformation.
DEVELOP AND DEPLOY GLOBAL MISSILE DEFENSES to defend the American homeland and American allies,
and to provide a secure basis for U.S. power projection around the world.
CONTROL THE NEW 'INTERNATIONAL COMMONS' OF SPACE AND 'CYBERSPACE,' and pave the way for the creation
of a new military service – U.S. Space Forces – with the mission of space control.
EXPLOIT THE 'REVOLUTION IN MILITARY AFFAIRS' to ensure the long-term superiority of U.S. conventional
forces. Establish a two-stage transformation process which
• ?maximizes the value of current weapons systems through the application of advanced technologies,
and,
• ?produces more profound improvements in military capabilities, encourages competition between
single services and joint-service experimentation efforts.
INCREASE DEFENSE SPENDING gradually to a minimum level of 3.5 to 3.8 percent of gross domestic
product, adding $15 billion to $20 billion to total defense spending annually" (p. v).
"In general terms, it seems likely that the process of transformation will take several decades
and that U.S. forces will continue to operate many, if not most, of today's weapons systems for a
decade or more. Thus, it can be foreseen that the process of transformation will in fact be a two-stage
process: first of transition, then of more thoroughgoing transformation. The break-point will come
when a preponderance of new weapons systems begins to enter service, perhaps when, for example, unmanned
aerial vehicles begin to be as numerous as manned aircraft. In this regard, the Pentagon should be
very wary of making large investments in new programs – tanks, planes, aircraft carriers, for example
– that would commit U.S. forces to current paradigms of warfare for many decades to come" (p. 13).
Army
List of recommendations for modernizing the Army (see p. 23).
"American landpower remains the essential link in the chain that translates U.S. military supremacy
into American geopolitical preeminence. Even as the means for delivering firepower on the battlefield
shift – strike aircraft have realized all but the wildest dreams of air power enthusiasts, unmanned
aerial vehicles promise to extend strike power in the near future, and the ability to conduct strikes
from space appears on the not-too-distant horizon – the need for ground maneuvers to achieve decisive
political results endures. Regimes are difficult to change based upon punishment alone. If land forces
are to survive and retain their unique strategic purpose in a world where it is increasingly easy
to deliver firepower precisely at long ranges, they must change as well, becoming more stealthy,
mobile, deployable and able to operate in a dispersed fashion. The U.S. Army, and American land forces
more generally, must increasingly complement the strike capabilities of the other services. Conversely,
an American military force that lacks the ability to employ ground forces that can survive and maneuver
rapidly on future battlefields will deprive U.S. political leaders of a decisive tool of diplomacy"
(p. 30).
Air Force - Toward a Global First-Strike Force
List of recommendations for modernizing the Air Force (See p. 31).
"Although air power remains the most flexible and responsive element of U.S. military power, the
Air Force needs to be restructured, repositioned, revitalized and enlarged to assure continued 'global
reach, global power'" (p. 31).
"Because of its inherent mobility and flexibility, the Air Force will be the first U.S. military
force to arrive in a theater during times of crisis; as such, the Air Force must retain its ability
to deploy and sustain sufficient numbers of aircraft to deter wars and shape any conflict in its
earliest stages. Indeed, it is the Air Force, along with the Army, that remains the core of America's
ability to apply decisive military power when its pleases. To dissipate this ability to deliver a
rapid hammer blow is to lose the key component of American military preeminence" (p. 37).
"A gradual increase in Air Force spending back to a $110 billion to $115 billion level is required
to increase service personnel strength; build new units, especially the composite wings required
to perform the 'air constabulary missions' such as no-fly zones; add the support capabilities necessary
to complement the fleet of tactical aircraft; reinvest in space capabilities and begin the process
of transformation" (p. 37).
"The ability to have access to, operate in, and dominate the aerospace environment has become
the key to military success in modern, high-technology warfare. Indeed, as will be discussed below,
space dominance may become so essential to the preservation of American military preeminence that
it may require a separate service. How well the Air Force rises to the many challenges it faces –
even should it receive increased budgets – will go far toward determining whether U.S. military forces
retain the combat edge they now enjoy" (pp. 38-39).
"A recent study done for the Air Force indicates that a worldwide network of forward operating
bases….might cost $5 billion to $10 billion through 2010. The study speculates that some of the cost
might be paid for by host nations anxious to cement ties with the United States, or, in Europe, be
considered as common NATO assets and charged to the NATO common fund" (p. 20).
Navy/Marine Corps
List of recommendations for modernizing the Navy (See pp. 39-40).
List of recommendations for modernizing the Marines (See pp. 47-48).
"The end of the Cold War leaves the U.S. Navy in a position of unchallenged supremacy on the high
seas, a dominance surpassing that even of the British Navy in the 19th and early parts of the 20th
century. With the remains of the Soviet fleet now largely rusting in port, the open oceans are America's,
and the lines of communication open from the coasts of the United States to Europe, the Persian Gulf
and East Asia. Yet this very success calls the need for the current force structure into question.
Further, the advance of precision-strike technology may mean that naval surface combatants, and especially
the large-deck aircraft carriers that are the Navy's capital ships, may not survive in the high-technology
wars of the coming decades. Finally, the nature and pattern of Navy presence missions may be out
of synch with emerging strategic realities. In sum, though it stands without peer today, the Navy
faces major challenges to its traditional and, in the past, highly successful methods of operation"
(p. 39).
"Thus, while naval presence, including carrier presence, in the western Pacific should be increased,
the Navy should begin to conduct many of its presence missions with other kinds of battle groups
based around cruisers, destroyers and other surface combatants as well as submarines. Indeed, the
Navy needs to better understand the requirement to have substantial numbers of cruise-missile platforms
at sea and in close proximity to regional hot spots, using carriers and naval aviation as reinforcing
elements" (p. 46).
"The Navy's force of attack submarines also should be expanded. It is unclear that the current
and planned generations of attack submarines (to say nothing of new ballistic missile submarines)
will be flexible enough to meet future demands. The Navy should reassess its submarine requirements
not merely in light of current missions but with an expansive view of possible future missions as
well" (p. 46).
"The Navy must begin to transition away from its heavy dependence on carrier operations….. Design
and research on a future CVX carrier should continue, but should aim at a radical design change to
accommodate an air wing based primarily on unmanned aerial vehicles" (p. 40).
"To offset the reduced role of carriers, the Navy should slightly increase its fleets of current-generation
surface combatants and submarines for improved strike capabilities in littoral waters and to conduct
an increasing proportion of naval presence missions with surface action groups. Additional investments
in counter-mine warfare are needed, as well" (p. 40).
"In particular, the Marine Corps, like the Navy, must turn its focus on the requirements for operations
in East Asia, including Southeast Asia. In many ways, this will be a 'back to the future' mission
for the Corps, recalling the innovative thinking done during the period between the two world wars
and which established the Marines' expertise in amphibious landings and operations" (p. 47).
Overseas Bases
"As a supplement to forces stationed abroad under long-term basing arrangements, the United States
should seek to establish a network of 'deployment bases' or 'forward operating bases' to increase
the reach of current and future forces. Not only will such an approach improve the ability to project
force to outlying regions, it will help circumvent the political, practical and financial constraints
on expanding the network of American bases overseas" (p. 19).
"There should be a strong strategic synergy between U.S. forces overseas and in a reinforcing
posture: units operating abroad are an indication of American geopolitical interests and leadership,
provide significant military power to shape events and, in wartime, create the conditions for victory
when reinforced. Conversely, maintaining the ability to deliver an unquestioned 'knockout punch'
through the rapid introduction of stateside units will increase the shaping power of forces operating
overseas and the vitality of our alliances. In sum, we see an enduring need for large-scale American
forces" (p. 74).
"Further, improvements should be made to existing air bases in new and potential NATO countries
to allow for rapid deployments, contingency exercises, and extended initial operations in times of
crisis. These preparations should include modernized air traffic control, fuel, and weapons storage
facilities, and perhaps small stocks of prepositioned munitions, as well as sufficient ramp space
to accommodate surges in operations. Improvements also should be made to existing facilities in England
to allow forward operation of B-2 bombers in times of crisis, to increase sortie rates if needed"
(p. 34).
"The Air Force should be redeployed to reflect the shifts in international politics. Independent,
expeditionary air wings containing a broad mix of aircraft, including electronic warfare, airborne
command and control, and other support aircraft, should be based in Italy, Southeastern Europe, central
and perhaps eastern Turkey, the Persian Gulf, and Southeast Asia"
(p. 31).
Nuclear Expansion
"…significant reductions in U.S. nuclear forces might well have unforeseen consequences that lessen
rather than enhance the security of the United States and its allies" (p. 8).
"Over the past decade, efforts to design and build effective missile defenses have been ill-conceived
and underfunded, and the Clinton Administration has proposed deep reductions in U.S. nuclear forces
without sufficient analysis of the changing global nuclear balance of forces" (p. 6).
"Rather than maintain and improve America's nuclear deterrent, the Clinton Administration has
put its faith in new arms control measures, most notably by signing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
(CTBT). The treaty proposed a new multilateral regime, consisting of some 150 states, whose principal
effect would be to constrain America's unique role in providing the global nuclear umbrella that
helps to keep states like Japan and South Korea from developing the weapons that are well within
their scientific capability, while doing little to stem nuclear weapons proliferation. Although the
Senate refused to ratify the treaty, the administration continues to abide by its basic strictures.
And while it may make sense to continue the current moratorium on nuclear testing for the moment
– since it would take a number of years to refurbish the neglected testing infrastructure in any
case – ultimately this is an untenable situation. If the United States is to have a nuclear deterrent
that is both effective and safe, it will need to test." (pp. 7-8).
"…of all the elements of U.S. military force posture, perhaps none is more in need of reevaluation
than America's nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons remain a critical component of American military
power but it is unclear whether the current U.S. nuclear arsenal is well-suited to the emerging post-Cold
War world. Today's strategic calculus encompasses more factors than just the balance of terror between
the United States and Russia. U.S. nuclear force planning and related arms control policies must
take account of a larger set of variables than in the past, including the growing number of small
nuclear arsenals – from North Korea to Pakistan to, perhaps soon, Iran and Iraq – and a modernized
and expanded Chinese nuclear force. Moreover, there is a question about the role nuclear weapons
should play in deterring the use of other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, such as chemical
and biological, with the U.S. having foresworn those weapons' development and use. It addition, there
may be a need to develop a new family of nuclear weapons designed to address new sets of military
requirements, such as would be required in targeting the very deep under-ground, hardened bunkers
that are being built by many of our potential adversaries" (p. 8).
"But what should finally drive the size and character of our nuclear forces is not numerical parity
with Russian capabilities but maintaining American strategic superiority – and, with that superiority,
a capability to deter possible hostile coalitions of nuclear powers. U.S. nuclear superiority is
nothing to be ashamed of; rather, it will be an essential element in preserving American leadership
in a more complex and chaotic world" (p. 8).
D. Future Wars of Pax Americana
"Until the process of transformation is treated as an enduring military mission – worthy of a
constant allocation of dollars and forces – it will remain stillborn" (p. 60).
"RAD" envisions a future in which the United States is in complete control of land, sea, air,
space and cyberspace of planet Earth. It finds objectionable the limitations imposed by the ABM treaty
and urges a newer rendition of Reagan's 'Star Wars' defense shield program. Three missions are seen
as crucial.
1. Global Missile Defenses - "A network against limited strikes, capable of protecting
the United States, its allies and forward-deployed forces, must be constructed. This must be a layered
system of land, sea, air and space-based components" (p. 51).
"The first element in any missile defense network should be a galaxy of surveillance satellites
with sensors capable of acquiring enemy ballistic missiles immediately upon launch" (p. 52).
"At the same time, the administration's devotion to the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty
with the Soviet Union has frustrated development of useful ballistic missile defenses. This is reflected
in deep budget cuts – planned spending on missile defenses for the late 1990s has been more than
halved, halting work on space-based interceptors, cutting funds for a national missile defense system
by 80 percent and theater defenses by 30 percent. Further, the administration has cut funding just
at the crucial moments when individual programs begin to show promise. Only upgrades of currently
existing systems like the Patriot missile – originally designed primarily for air defense against
jet fighters, not missile defense – have proceeded generally on course.
"Most damaging of all was the decision in 1993 to terminate the 'Brilliant Pebbles' project. This
legacy of the original Reagan-era 'Star Wars' effort had matured to the point where it was becoming
feasible to develop a space-based interceptor capable of destroying ballistic missiles in the early
or middle portion of their flight – far preferable than attempting to hit individual warheads surrounded
by clusters of decoys on their final course toward their targets. But since a space-based system
would violate the ABM Treaty, the administration killed the 'Brilliant Pebbles' program, choosing
instead to proceed with a ground-based interceptor and radar system – one that will be costly without
being especially effective" (p. 52).
2. Control of Space - "RAD" advises instituting a new "Space Service" thereby escalating
U.S. military preparedness "from the theatre level to the global level" in order to achieve worldwide
dominance, both militarily and commercially.
"Yet to truly transform itself for the coming century, the Air Force must accelerate its efforts
to create the new systems – and, to repeat, the space-based systems – that are necessary to shift
the scope of air operations from the theater level to the global level" (p. 64).
"…control of space – defined by Space Command as 'the ability to assure access to space, freedom
of operations within the space medium, and an ability to deny others the use of space' – must be
an essential element of our military strategy" (p. 55).
"Much as control of the high seas – and the protection of international commerce – defined global
powers in the past, so will control of the new 'international commons' be a key to world power in
the future. An America incapable of protecting its interests or that of its allies in space or the
'infosphere' will find it difficult to exert global political leadership" (p. 51).
"The proliferation of technologies for delivering highly accurate fires over increasingly great
distances poses a great challenge for both the Army and the Marine Corps, but rather than attempting
to compete in the game of applying long-range fires, both services would be better off attempting
to complement the vastly improved strike capabilities of the Navy and Air Force, and indeed in linking
decisive maneuvers to future space capabilities as well" (p. 68).
"Target significant new investments toward creating capabilities for operating in space, including
inexpensive launch vehicles, new satellites and transatmospheric vehicles, in preparation for a decision
as to whether space warfare is sufficiently different from combat within earth's atmosphere so as
to require a separate 'space service'. Such a transformation would in fact better realize the Air
Force's stated goal of becoming a service with true global reach and global strike capabilities"
(p. 64).
"Given the advantages U.S. armed forces enjoy as a result of this unrestricted use of space, it
is shortsighted to expect potential adversaries to refrain from attempting to disable or offset U.S.
space capabilities. And with the proliferation of space know-how and related technology around the
world, our adversaries will inevitably seek to enjoy many of the same space advantages in the future.
Moreover, 'space commerce' is a growing part of the global economy. In 1996, commercial United States,
and commercial revenues exceeded government expenditures on space. Today, more than 1,100 commercial
companies across more than 50 countries are developing, building, and operating space systems.
"The complexity of space control will only grow as commercial activity increases. American and
other allied investments in space systems will create a requirement to secure and protect these space
assets; they are already an important measure of American power. Yet it will not merely be enough
to protect friendly commercial uses of space.
"As Space Command also recognizes, the United States must also have the capability to deny America's
adversaries the use of commercial space platforms for military purposes in times of crises and conflicts.
Indeed, space is likely to become the new 'international commons', where commercial and security
interests are intertwined and related. Just as Alfred Thayer Mahan wrote about 'sea-power' at the
beginning of the 20th century in this sense, American strategists will be forced to regard 'space-power'
in the 21st" (pp. 54-55).
"In short, the unequivocal supremacy in space enjoyed by the United States today will be increasingly
at risk" (p. 55).
"As Colin Gray and John Sheldon have written, 'Space control is not an avoidable issue. It is
not an optional extra.' For U.S. armed forces to continue to assert military preeminence, control
of space – defined by Space Command as 'the ability to assure access to space, freedom of operations
within the space medium, and an ability to deny others the use of space' – must be an essential element
of our military strategy. If America cannot maintain that control, its ability to conduct global
military operations will be severely complicated, far more costly, and potentially fatally compromised"
(p. 55).
"But, over the longer term, maintaining control of space will inevitably require the application
of force both in space and from space, including but not limited to anti-missile defenses and defensive
systems capable of protecting U.S. and allied satellites; space control cannot be sustained in any
other fashion, with conventional land, sea, or airforce, or by electronic warfare. This eventuality
is already recognized by official U.S. national space policy, which states that the 'Department of
Defense shall maintain a capability to execute the mission areas of space support, force enhancement,
space control and force application.' (Emphasis added.)" (p. 56).
3. Control of Cyberspace - "Although many concepts of 'cyber-war' have elements of science
fiction about them, and the role of the Defense Department in establishing 'control,' or even what
'security' on the Internet means, requires a consideration of a host of legal, moral and political
issues, there nonetheless will remain an imperative to be able to deny America and its allies' enemies
the ability to disrupt or paralyze either the military's or the commercial sector's computer networks.
"Conversely, an offensive capability could offer America's military and political leaders an invaluable
tool in disabling an adversary in a decisive manner. Taken together, the prospects for space war
or 'cyberspace war' represent the truly revolutionary potential inherent in the notion of military
transformation. These future forms of warfare are technologically immature, to be sure. But, it is
also clear that for the U.S. armed forces to remain preeminent and avoid an Achilles Heel in the
exercise of its power they must be sure that these potential future forms of warfare favor America
just as today's air, land and sea warfare reflect United States military dominance" (p. 57).
Strategy for Transforming Conventional Forces
Read below notions of how conventional warfare will be conducted in the future, including the
use of microbes and "advanced forms of biological warfare that can 'target' specific genotypes."
"In exploiting the 'revolution in military affairs,' the Pentagon must be driven by the enduring
missions for U.S. forces. This process will have two stages: transition, featuring a mix of current
and new systems; and true transformation, featuring new systems, organizations and operational concepts.
This process must take a competitive approach, with services and joint-service operations competing
for new roles and missions. Any successful process of transformation must be linked to the services,
which are the institutions within the Defense Department with the ability and the responsibility
for linking budgets and resources to specific missions" (p. 51).
"Although it may take several decades for the process of transformation to unfold, in time, the
art of warfare on air, land, and sea will be vastly different than it is today, and 'combat' likely
will take place in new dimensions: in space, 'cyber-space,' and perhaps the world of microbes. Air
warfare may no longer be fought by pilots manning tactical fighter aircraft sweeping the skies of
opposing fighters, but a regime dominated by long-range, stealthy unmanned craft. On land, the clash
of massive, combined-arms armored forces may be replaced by the dashes of much lighter, stealthier
and information-intensive forces, augmented by fleets of robots, some small enough to fit in soldiers'
pockets. Control of the sea could be largely determined not by fleets of surface combatants and aircraft
carriers, but from land- and space-based systems, forcing navies to maneuver and fight underwater.
Space itself will become a theater of war, as nations gain access to space capabilities and come
to rely on them; further, the distinction between military and commercial space systems – combatants
and noncombatants – will become blurred. Information systems will become an important focus of attack,
particularly for U.S. enemies seeking to short-circuit sophisticated American forces. And advanced
forms of biological warfare that can target specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from
the realm of terror to a politically useful tool" (p. 60).
Changes in Naval Warfare: "Beyond immediate opportunities such as conversion of Trident submarines,
consideration should be given to employing a deactivated carrier to better understand the possibilities
of operating large fleets of UAVs at sea. Likewise, submerged 'missile pods,' either permanently
deployed or laid covertly by submarines in times of crisis, could increase strike capabilities without
risking surface vessels in littoral waters. In general, if the Navy is moving toward 'network-centric'
warfare, it should explore ways of increasing the number of 'nodes on the net'" (p. 67).
Army of the Future: "Consider just the potential changes that might effect the infantryman.
Future soldiers may operate in encapsulated, climate-controlled, powered fighting suits, laced with
sensors, and boasting chameleon-like 'active' camouflage. 'Skin-patch' pharmaceuticals help regulate
fears, focus concentration and enhance endurance and strength. A display mounted on a soldier's helmet
permits a comprehensive view of the battlefield – in effect to look around corners and over hills
– and allows the soldier to access the entire combat information and intelligence system while filtering
incoming data to prevent overload. Individual weapons are more lethal, and a soldier's ability to
call for highly precise and reliable indirect fires – not only from Army systems but those of other
services – allows each individual to have great influence over huge spaces. Under the 'Land Warrior'
program, some Army experts envision a 'squad' of seven soldiers able to dominate an area the size
of the Gettysburg battlefield – where, in 1863, some 165,000 men fought" (p. 62).
Comment section added to this article on October 30, 2011
Throughout this document which is capital in understanding the catastrophic events to which 9/11
was designed to be the detonator, wars of aggression against peaceful nations, total annihilation
of nations and civilizations, are coldly described as their aim and plan, with specific methods
to reach their genocidal and even biocidal (destruction of all life) pathologically evil
To understand the motor behind this PNAC's genocidal wars, the FILTER must imperatively be removed
from our investigative reading.
The key word that is filtered out from the debate, yet it is the elephant in the room, is the
very FACT that most signatories of this document are either JEWISH or ultra-zionists, most of them
appear also in the Jewish-Israeli documents for identical strategy, a document which invariably exposes
the treasonous allegiance to an entity enemy to the USA, of the often dual-nationals signatories
to these two major documents. As a few examples:
Participants in the Study Group on "A New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000:"
Richard Perle, American Enterprise Institute, Study Group Leader
James Colbert, Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs
Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Johns Hopkins University/SAIS
Douglas Feith, Feith and Zell Associates
Robert Loewenberg, President, Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies
Jonathan Torop, The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
David Wurmser, Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies
Meyrav Wurmser, Johns Hopkins University
While it is theoretically of ZERO importance to which racial or religious or national or cultural
origins one is, we must have the intellectual courage to recognize that inspite of this ideal we
humanists do hold, there is a group amidst us who has departed from us, who by exclusion and hatred
of the others has slipped into a degree of pathological mass-sociopathy for whom the aim has become
annihilation and domination of what they consider "the enemy" namely all non-jews --
The cross-pollination of racist ideology between their "secular" and "religious" networks, is
striking to whomever reads extensively and critically Jewish and Israeli publications and declarations,
and compares it to the malevolent activities of the same Judeo-centric networks, foundations, trusts,
thinbk-tanks, etc etc etc with often lofty names feigning "pro-democracy" nd "pro-peace" while they
are the very radical opposite.
Wars of aggression and total genocide corresponds 100 % to Jewish Talmudic ideology, contrary
to all the hype.
Lawrence Wilkerson Travails of Empire - Oil, Debt, Gold and the Imperial Dollar
"...This includes the observation that "gold is being moved in sort of unique ways, concentrated
in secret in unique ways, and capitals are slowly but surely divesting themselves of US Treasuries.
So what you are seeing right now in the supposed strengthening of the dollar is a false impression."...
"
"...The BRICS want to use oil to "force the US to lose its incredibly powerful role in owning
the world's transactional reserve currency." It gives the US a great deal of power of empire
that it would not ordinarily have, since the ability to add debt without consequence enables the expenditures
to sustain it."
"...Later, after listening to this again, the thought crossed my mind that this advisor might
be a double agent using the paranoia of the military to achieve the ends of another. Not
for the BRICS, but for the Banks. The greatest beneficiary of a strong dollar, which is a terrible
burden to the real economy, is the financial sector. This is why most countries seek to weaken
or devalue their currencies to improve their domestic economies as a primary objective. This is
not so far-fetched as military efforts to provoke 'regime change' have too often been undertaken to
support powerful commercial interests."
"...A typical observation is that the US did indeed overthrow the democratically elected government
of Mossadegh in 1953 in Iran. But 'the British needed the money' from the Anglo-Iranian oil company
in order to rebuild after WW II. Truman had rejected the notion, but Eisenhower the military veteran
and Republic agreed to it. Wilkerson says specifically that Ike was 'the last expert' to hold
the office of the Presidency. "
August 15, 2015 | Jesse's Café Américain
"We are imperial, and we are in decline... People are losing confidence in the Empire."
This is the key theme of Larry Wilkerson's presentation. He never really questions whether
empire is good or bad, sustainable or not, and at what costs. At least he does not so in the
same manner as that great analyst of empire Chalmers Johnson.
It is important to understand what people who are in and near positions of power are thinking
if you wish to understand what they are doing, and what they are likely to do. What ought
to be done is another matter.
Wilkerson is a Republican establishment insider who has served for many years in the military
and the State Department. Here he is giving about a 40 minute presentation to the Centre For International
Governance in Canada in 2014.
I find his point of view of things interesting and revealing, even on those points where I may
not agree with his perspective. There also seem to be some internal inconsistencies in this
thinking.
But what makes his perspective important is that it represents a mainstream view of many professional
politicians and 'the Establishment' in America. Not the hard right of the Republican party, but much
of what constitutes the recurring political establishment of the US.
As I have discussed here before, I do not particularly care so much if a trading indicator has
a fundamental basis in reality, as long as enough people believe in and act on it. Then it is worth
watching as self-fulfilling prophecy. And the same can be said of political and economic memes.
At minute 48:00 Wilkerson gives a response to a question about the growing US debt and of the
role of the petrodollar in the Empire, and the efforts by others to 'undermine it' by replacing it.
This is his 'greatest fear.'
He speaks about 'a principal advisor to the CIA Futures project' and the National Intelligence
Council (NIC), whose views and veracity of claims are being examined closely by sophisticated assets.
He believes that both Beijing and Moscow are complicit in an attempt to weaken the dollar.
This includes the observation that "gold is being moved in sort of unique ways, concentrated in
secret in unique ways, and capitals are slowly but surely divesting themselves of US Treasuries.
So what you are seeing right now in the supposed strengthening of the dollar is a false impression."
The BRICS want to use oil to "force the US to lose its incredibly powerful role in owning
the world's transactional reserve currency." It gives the US a great deal of power of
empire that it would not ordinarily have, since the ability to add debt without consequence enables
the expenditures to sustain it.
Later, after listening to this again, the thought crossed my mind that this advisor might
be a double agent using the paranoia of the military to achieve the ends of another.
Not for the BRICS, but for the Banks. The greatest beneficiary of a strong dollar, which is
a terrible burden to the real economy, is the financial sector. This is why most countries
seek to weaken or devalue their currencies to improve their domestic economies as a primary objective.
This is not so far-fetched as military efforts to provoke 'regime change' have too often been undertaken
to support powerful commercial interests.
Here is just that particular excerpt of the Q&A and the question of increasing US debt.
I am not sure how much the policy makers and strategists agree with this theory about gold. But
there is no doubt in my mind that they believe and are acting on the theory that oil, and the dollar
control of oil, the so-called petrodollar, is the key to maintaining the empire.
Wilkerson reminds me very much of a political theoretician who I knew at Georgetown University.
He talks about strategic necessities, the many occasions in which the US has used its imperial power
covertly to overthrow or attempt to overthrow governments in Iran, Venezuela, Syria, and the Ukraine.
He tends to ascribe all these actions to selflessness, and American service to the world in maintaining
a balance of power where 'all we ask is a plot of ground to bury our dead.'
A typical observation is that the US did indeed overthrow the democratically elected government
of Mossadegh in 1953 in Iran. But 'the British needed the money' from the Anglo-Iranian oil company
in order to rebuild after WW II. Truman had rejected the notion, but Eisenhower the military veteran
and Republic agreed to it. Wilkerson says specifically that Ike was 'the last expert' to hold
the office of the Presidency.
This is what is meant by realpolitik. It is all about organizing the world under a 'balance
of power' that is favorable to the Empire and the corporations that have sprung up around it.
As someone with a long background and interest in strategy I am not completely unsympathetic to
these lines of thinking. But like most broadly developed human beings and students of history
and philosophy one can see that the allure of such thinking, without recourse to questions of restraint
and morality and the fig leaf of exceptionalist thinking, is a terrible trap, a Faustian bargain.
It is the rationalization of every nascent tyranny. It is the precursor to the will to pure power
for its own sake.
The challenges of empire now according to Wilkerson are:
Disequilibrium of wealth - 1/1000th of the US owns 50% of its total wealth. The current
economic system implies long term stagnation (I would say stagflation. The situation in the US
is 1929, and in France, 1789. All the gains are going to the top.
BRIC nations are rising and the Empire is in decline, largely because of US strategic miscalculations.
The US is therefore pressing harder towards war in its desperation and desire to maintain the
status quo. And it is dragging a lot of good and honest people into it with our NATO allies
who are dependent on the US for their defense.
There is a strong push towards regional government in the US that may intensify as
global warming and economic developments present new challenges to specific areas. For example,
the water has left the Southwest, and it will not be coming back anytime soon.
This presentation ends about minute 40, and then it is open to questions which is also very interesting.
Lawrence Wilkerson, Distinguished Visiting Professor of Government and Public Policy at the
College of William Mary, and former Chief of Staff to U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell.
Henry Kissinger has said, not unreasonably, that we are in "the foothills" of a cold war
with China. And Vladimir Putin, who nurses an unassuageable grudge about the way the Cold
War ended, seems uninterested in Russia reconciling itself to a role as a normal nation
without gratuitous resorts to mendacity. It is, therefore, well to notice how, day by day,
in all of the globe's time zones, civilized nations are, in word and deed, taking small but
cumulatively consequential measures that serve deterrence.
If arrogance were a deadly disease, George Will would be dead.
George Will has been an
ass clown since I first had the displeasure of watching him in the 1970s. Age has not brought
an ounce of wisdom. Nevertheless, this total lack of self reflection and ability to project
American sins on others is unfortunately not unique to our man George. It seems a habit
throughout the entire US political spectrum. The ability to view, for example, the invasion
of Iraq as perfectly normal behavior, while viewing any resistance to US/Israeli dominance as
beyond the pale is the character of the decaying American superpower. George Will is but one
manifestation of it. It was once infuriating. But now it's simply like listening to the
ravings of a schizophrenic. More pathetic than anything else.
What do you expect from George Swill? He is a pathetic, disoriented refugee from his home in
Victorian England, when barbarism never set for a single instant on the British Empire.
There's a way to get the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth from the
mainstream news media. Just look at their propaganda and ask yourself, "Why do they want me
to believe this particular lie?" If you can figure that you, you will have the truth.
Well, you know, the white man's burden...
The funny thing is that they seriously consider themselves a "superior race", while behaving
like wild barbarians.
Such opinions/articles of "Western civilized people" cause only a condescending smile,
nothing more. So let's let George Will entertain us.
I find it pretty bizzarre how western media obsessively try to portray the Defender
incident as a some sort of "victory" for "civilized nations".
What exactly is the victory here? The fact that Russia only resorted to warning fire and
didn't blow up the ship?
Decades of propaganda masquerading as news has led most "educated" Americans into a Matrix
of false narratives. Should you dare mention election fraud or question the safety of COVID
vaccines in the presences of anyone who considers the NY Times and Wash Post as the "papers
of record", they will be happy to inform you that you are "captured" by false news. Dialogue
with these true believers has become almost impossible. We are the indispensable, civilized
nation, don't you understand basic facts?
My sister, who is truly a good-hearted person, unfortunately keeps CNN and MSNBC on most
of the day in her small apartment, and lives for The NY Times, which she pours over,
especially the weekend edition. She knows that Putin is evil and Russia is a bad place to
live, etc etc. I got rid of my TV ten years ago and started looking elsewhere for my
information. I live in a rural area of a Red state, she lives in Manhattan. We have to stick
to topics that revolve around museums, gardening, and food.
This is precisely the type of arrogance that has led to US leaving Afghanistan with their
pants down - having spent untold Trillions of dollars and having nothing to show for it. And
soon, leaving Iraq and Syria too. It reminds me of how the US left Vietnam and Cambodia.
The 'White' establishment in Washington and across the US military industrial complex, has
an air of superiority and always seem to feel that they can subjugate via throwing money at
people! This in effect turns everyone they deal with into Whores (yes, prostitutes). Its
fundamentally humiliating, and sews the seeds of corruption - both economic and moral. Then,
they are shocked that there's a back clash!
The Taliban succeeded not with arms - but by projecting a completely different narrative
of "Morality (i.e. non-corruption), honor, and even intermingled nationalism with their
narrative". They projected a story that suggested that new Afghan daughters would not turn
into Britney Spears or porn stars.
And, believe it or not, the Chinese see themselves as having been fundamentally humiliated
by the West and couch their efforts as a struggle for their civilization (its not ideological
or even economic) - they are fighting for honor and respect.
Western Civilization (and western elite) on the left and right are fundamentally
materialistic. They worship money, and simply don't understand it when others don't. When
they talk about superiority, they are basically saying the worship of money rules supreme.
You sort of become dignified in the west if you have a lot of wealth. They want to turn the
whole world into prostitutes. Policy and laws are driven by material considerations.
Now, I am not saying that spirituality or religion is good; and in fact, the Chinese are
not driven by religious zeal (they are, on the whole, non-religious). What I am saying is
that - no matter how its expressed - be it through religion, through culture, through
rhetoric, etc. - all this back clash is really a struggle for respect, 'honor' and thus a
push back to Western Arrogance, and the humiliation it has caused. The West simply doesn't
understand that there are societies - especially in the east, that value honor over other
things.
When Trump calls other people losers, he is basically saying he is richer, they are
poorer. In his mind, winning, is all about money. When people write articles about the
superiority of a civilization - they are implicitly putting other people down. That's not
just arrogant, its rude and disrespectful. Its basically like a teenager judging their
parents. How dare a newly formed nation (the US), judge or differentiate or even pretend to
be superior to the Chinese, Persians etc.?
Our foreign policy (and rhetoric) in the West has to completely change. We have to be
really careful, because, (honestly), it won't be very long before these other (inferior)
civilizations actually take over global leadership. Then how will we want to be treated?
Don't for a second think these folks can't build great gadgets that go to Mars! Oh, did China
just do that? Does Iran have a space program? Did they just make their own vaccines? Once
they start trading among themselves without using the USD greenback, we are finished.
Some notable recent achievements of 'civilised' nations include:
-Illegal invasion and bombing of multiple non-aggressor nations
-Overthrowing of democratically elected Governments
-Support of extremist and oppressive regimes
-Sponsoring of terrorism, including weapon sales to ISIS
-Corruption of once trusted institutions like the UN and OPCW
...when all she did was offer slight resistance to Western aggression? The key event was
the August 2013 false-flag
gas attack and massacre of hostages in Ghouta in Damascus.
What really angered the West was the Russian
fleet in the Mediterranean that prevented the NATO attack on Syria. (You will not find a
single word of this in Western media.) This is why Crimea needed to be captured by the West.
As revenge and deterrence against the Russian agression.
The standoff was first described by Israel Shamir in
October 2013:
"The most dramatic event of September 2013 was the high-noon stand-off near the Levantine
shore, with five US destroyers pointing their Tomahawks towards Damascus and facing them -
the Russian flotilla of eleven ships led by the carrier-killer Missile Cruiser Moskva and
supported by Chinese warships.
Apparently, two missiles were launched towards the Syrian coast, and both failed to
reach their destination."
A longer description was published by Australianvoice in
2015:
"So why didn't the US and France attack Syria? It seems obvious that the Russians and
Chinese simply explained that an attack on Syria by US and French forces would be met by a
Russian/Chinese attack on US and French warships. Obama wisely decided not to start WW III
in September 2013." Can Russia Block Regime Change In Syria Again?
In my own comments from 2013 I tried to understand the mission of the Russian fleet. This
is what I believed Putin's orders to the fleet were:
To sink any NATO ship involved in illegal aggression against Syria.
You have the authority to use tactical nuclear weapons in self-defense.
I am sure NATO admirals understood the situation the same way. I am not sure of the
American leadership in Washington.
Insulting language aside, the narrative they are trying to create is that there is an
anti-Russia, anti-China trend developing and that those sitting on the fence would be wise to
join the bandwagon.
This will be particularly effective on the majority of folks who barely scan headlines and
skim articles. Falun Gong/CIA mouthpiece Epoch Times is on board with this, based on recent
headlines.
Wikipedia has a list of reliable
and unreliable sources . "Reliable" are those sources that are under the direct control
of the US regime. Any degree of independence from the regime makes the source "unreliable."
WaPo and NYT are at the top of the list of reliable sources.
This is the diametric opposite of how Wikispooks defines reliability.
Reliability of sources is directly proportional to their distance *from* power.
At A Closer Look on Syria (ACLOS) we only trust primary sources.
Makes me remember the cornerstone work from former Argentine president DF Sarmiento, who
dealt with "Civilization or Barbarism" in his book "Facundo". Of course, his position was the
"civilized" one.
Those "civilized" succeeded in creating a country submitted to the British rule, selling
cheap crops and getting expensive manufactures, with a privileged minority living lavishly
and a great majority, in misery.
Also, their "civilized" methods to impose their project was the bloody "Police War"
This article is fundamentally about propaganda and "soft power".
Soft power in foreign policy is usually defined when other countries defer to your
judgement without threat of punishment or promise of gain.
In other words, if other countries support your country without a "carrot or stick"
approach, you have soft power.
For years, the US simply assumed other "civilized" of the western world would dutifully
follow along in US footsteps due to unshakeable trust in America's moral authority. The
western media played a crucial role by suppressing news regarding any atrocities the western
powers committed and amplifying any perceived threats or aggressions from "enemies".
Now, with the age of the internet, western audiences can read news from all over the world
and that has been a catastrophe for western powers. We can now see real-time debunking of
propaganda.
In the past, the British would have easily passed off the recent destroyer provocation as
pure Russian aggression and could expect outrage from all western aligned countries. The EU
and US populations could have easily been whipped into a frenzy and DEMANDED reprisals
against Russia if not outright war. Something similar to a "Gulf of Tonkin" moment.
But, that did not happen. People all over the world now know NOTHING from the US or
British press is to be trusted. People also now know NATO routinely try to stir up trouble
and provoke Russia.
So, Americans and even British citizens displayed no widespread outrage because they
simply did not believe their own government's and compliant media's side of the story.
US and British "soft power" are long gone. No one trusts them. No one wants to follow them
into anymore disastrous wars of aggression.
Western media still do not understand this and cannot figure out why so many refuse
western vaccines or support the newest color revolutions.
They cast Germany as a victim or potential victim of foreign aggressors, as a peace-loving
nation forced to take up arms to protect its populace or defend European civilization
against Communism.
I remember a tv history program that had interviews with German soldiers.
I recall one who had seen/participated in going from village to village in the USSR
hanging local communist leaders. He said they had been taught that by doing this
they were "protecting civilization".
Arrogance is not a deadly disease or even a hindrance for mainstream presstitutes; it is a
job qualification, making them all the more manipulable and manipulative. And so, as with
Michael Gordon, Judith Miller, Brett Stephens and David Sanger (essentially all of them
pulling double duty for the apartheid state), people will die from their propaganda, but they
will advance.
Name a leader with moral courage and integrity among suzerainties (private plantations).
Nations without integrity and filled with Orcs (individuals without conscience), can't be
civilized. They're EVIL vassals of Saruman & Sauron, manipulated by Wormtongue.
"The true equation is 'democracy' = government by world financiers."
– J.R.R. Tolkien
Henry Kissinger, in his interview with Chatham House stated, "the United States is in a
CRISIS of confidence... America has committed great moral wrongs." What are U$A's core
values?
According to a CFR member :
"How lucky I am that my mother studied with JRR Tolkien and CS Lewis and WH Auden and that
she passed on to me a command of language that permits me to "tell the story" of the world
economy in plain English. She would have been delighted that I managed to show that the evil
Gollum from Tolkien's tales lives above the doorway in the Oval Office, which he
certainly does. I saw him there myself. He may have found a new perch over at The Federal
Reserve Bank as well."
– Excerpt From, Signals: The Breakdown of the Social Contract and the Rise of
Geopolitics by Dr Philippa Malmgren
The Financial Empire has ran out of LUCK. "In God We Trust"
I thought moral superiority was the official position of NATO. The explicit intent is to
weaponize human rights and democracy . So it is not merely the mundane 'our group is better'
or the somewhat nostalgic western form of moral superiority, it's weaponized moral
superiority.
George Will looking good I tellya. Anybody know who does his embalming?
Doesn't Will's article reek of Nazi propaganda against the Russians as a mongrel Asiatic
uncivilized people? Of course to attack the Chinese as uncivilized? China uncivilized? 5,000
years of continuous culture? The Russians and Chinese must join up with civilization.
Unfortunately at least in the West race is only about skin color. It certainly wasn't the
case with the original Nazis. Will's piece is blatantly racist out of the tradition of
Nazism.
Oxford and the Ivy League. The training grounds for the Anglo American deep state and the
cheerleaders of the empire. Expect nothing more of these deeply under educated sudo
intellectuals.
Plenty of people who work for the MIC and in various policy circles/think tanks have
plenty "to show for it" where all these wars are concerned. Many billions of dollars were
siphoned upwards and outwards into the bank accounts and expensive homes of the managerial
and executive classes (even the hazard pay folks who actually went to the places "we" were
bombing) not just at Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Booz Allen, etc. but plenty of lesser known
"socioeconomically disadvantaged" Small Businesses (proper noun in this context) companies
who utilized the services of an army of consultants to glom onto the war machine. In most
cases of the larger firms, Wall Street handled the IPOs long ago, and these companies have
entire (much less profitable) divisions dedicated to state and local governments to
"diversify" their business portfolios in case the people finally get sick of war. But that
rarely happens in any real sense because the corporate establishment "legacy media" makes
sure that there's always an uncivilized country to bomb or threaten....and that means the
"defense" department needs loads of services, weapons, and process improvement consultants
all the time. War is a racket; always has been, always will be.
Unfortunately, it seems that truly large segments of the population in the developed
western countries and especially in the Anglo-sphere believe the propaganda emanating from
the imperial mouthpieces. The US citizenry is a case study in manipulating the public.
Indeed, the DNC liberals are effectively the vanguard of the pro-war movement, espouse
racist Rusophobia and conitnue Trump's hostility to China. The so-cslled conservatives follow
their own tradition of imperial mobilization behind the Washington regime: Chin,Latin
America, the very people who berated the 'Deep State' now paise its subversive activities
against the targeted left-wing governments.
As for the moribund left - it would be better described as leftovers - it is often taken
for a ride as long as the imperial messaging is promoted by the liberal media. The excuses
for imperialism are a constant for many of them (even as they call themselves
anti-imperialists) and the beleaguered voicesfor the truth are far and few. The latter often
face silencing campaigns not just from the establishment hacks, but from their own supposed
ideological comrades, who are, of course, in truth nothing of the sort.
All in all, despite the consistent record of manipulative propaganda and utter criminality
the imperial regime never loses the support of the critical masss of the citizenry.
All in all, despite the consistent record of manipulative propaganda and utter criminality
the imperial regime never loses the support of the critical masss of the citizenry.
Maybe 50% of the people here bother to vote, in IMPORTANT elections. Can be a lot less if
the election is not important. The only people still engaged politically here at all are the
people with good jobs. The American people have given up. And there are a lot of angry people
running around, with guns. Claiming the citizenry here support the government is imperial
propaganda. Why do you think they like mercenaries and proxies so much? And this is all in
great contrast to when I was young 50 years ago.
While I agree with 99% of your post, there is one point that I think needs to be keeping
in mind. While the populace of this particular manure-hole certainly has its equal share of
dumb creatures, the people running things cannot be so easily dismissed. The problem as I see
it is they have a great deal of a certain kind of intelligence, as someone said "smart, but
not wise". They are educated, but insane. The cream of the crop that has gone sour. In my
travels I would often ask people what they actually thought of "Americans". An Indonesian man
responded " soft, but cunning. You have to be careful around them."
If these cunning, insane, power hungry creatures were simply dumb and not truly evil, we
might be in less of a shit show (nod to psychohistorian) than we are.
After 20 years of regular interaction with Amerikastanis online and in real life, I have
realised that they live in a parallel universe in which Hollywood is the arbiter of truth.
They genuinely believe that anything they choose to imagine is the truth just because they
imagine it.
A couple of days ago when the Imperialist States admitted its "Russia Bounty" story was
concocted, the people who had shrieked to the skies about it last year had a chance to
apologise. Did they? They ignored it. It did not happen because they chose to believe it
didn't.
Edited for clarity; racial slurs are removed... Paradoxically recently due to summer riots
the attitude toward Zionism among the US public slightly improved, as least as far as domestic
policies are concerted...
American Renaissance has done important work, but it is ultimately useless because it
pulls its punches or willfully misses what should be the main target: Zionist Supremacist
Power. Take Jared Taylor's commentary of the US military in the video below. It's pure
Pat-Condell. He blames everything but will not name the power behind the mess. Shhhh about
the Zionists.
https://www.bitchute.com/embed/03vYmvgpmBQi/
At this point, why should Taylor lament that Mexican-American soldiers proudly display the
Mexican flag? Why not, when the US flag represents nothing abroad but 'twerking', Zionist
supremacism, Wars for Israel, mindless animus toward Russia, ridiculous paranoia about China,
nonstop hatred toward Iran, complete nonsense about Venezuela, BLM stupidity, and global
dissemination of globo-homo ludicrousness? Americanism meant something when
Anglo-Americans(and those properly Anglo-Americanized) ruled the nation with pride and
confidence. Then, Americanism was based on the Great Compromise: A move toward a more
merit-and-rule-based on the part of Anglo-Americans who took the land from the Indians,
brought blacks in chains, and encouraged mass-immigration to develop the land. In return,
non-Anglos would acknowledge the Anglo-foundation of America and try to be Good Americans.
That compromise is no longer relevant because the US is now totally Zionist-supremacist,
meaning the New Americanism is predicated on just about everyone and everything revolving
around the question of "Is it great for Zionists?" If Zionists want it, they get it
eventually. No wonder the First and Second Amendments are now hanging by a thread. Zionists
don't like the Constitution now that they got total power.
Other than Zionists, Jared Taylor should be blaming his own Wasp kind. Why did they hand
over power to the Zionists almost completely? That was the beginning of much of the rot
since. Taylor bitches about blacks, Mexicans, and etc. not being properly patriotic in the
new order, but who created the new order? Zionists spearheaded the making of New America, but
Wasps just played along. If Wasps are such worthless cucks to Zionists, why should it be
surprising that nonwhites would no longer respect whites? Of course, given that most
nonwhites would find it odd if Zionists told them, "Americanism = Zionist Greatness",
Zionists encourage the next-best-thing, which is anti-whiteness or 'scapewhiting'(scapegoat
whitey for everything), as it unites all nonwhites with Zionists in the War on Whiteness. War
on Whiteness or WOW is great for Zionists as it morally shames and paralyzes whites into
having no pride and prestige, which translates into having no will and agency. Filled with
shame and 'white guilt', whites become mired in mode of redemption, the terms of which are
decided by Zionists who advise Total Support for Zion, More Wars for Israel, More Diversity,
and More Globo-Homo(proxy of Zionist Power).
The source of the problem is the Zionist-White relations. When whites handed over power to
Zionists, Zionists made the key decisions, and those have been premised on
whatever-necessary-to-secure-Zionist-power. #1 priority for Zionists is then White
Submissivism to Zionist Supremacism. If Taylor will not discuss Zionist Power, it's like
complaining about the smoke without mentioning the fire. Also, does it make sense for whites
to bleat about blacks, browns, yellows, and etc. when whites themselves cravenly collaborate
with Zionist Power? Whites, especially the elites, don't stand for what is good for America
as a whole. They suck up to Zionists and support Zionist identity & Zionism. When whites
act like that, why should nonwhites be good American patriots? Whites have led the way in
betraying the original Americanism. In some ways, nonwhites, such as blacks into black power
and Mexican-Americans into Mexican pride, are more admirable because, at the very least, they
are tribal-patriotic about their own kind. In contrast, whites have betrayed both White Power
and Traditional Americanism. They are now allergic to anything white-and-positive but also
utterly lack a general sense of Americanism. White 'liberals' love to virtue-signal by
supporting blacks, diversity, & globo-homo, AND white 'conservatives' love to cuck-signal
by waving the Israeli Flag & yapping about how Israel is "America's best, greatest,
closest, and dearest ally." Both groups fail at simple generic patriotism based on rules and
principles. For white 'liberals', blacks are higher than other groups, and for white
'conservatives' it's Zionists-uber-alles.
In the current order, Zionists encourage nonwhites to wave their own identitarian flag
AGAINST whiteness while encouraging whites to wave the Zionist flag. In a way, one might say
this Zionist strategy is foolish. After all, if nonwhites are made to be anti-white and if
whiteness is made to be synonymous with support-for-Israel and praise-of-Zionists, might it
not lead to nonwhites being anti-Israel and anti-Zionist as well? After all, if whiteness =
love-for-Zionists whereas non-whiteness = anti-whiteness, wouldn't it lead to non-whiteness =
anti-Zionistness since whiteness is so closely associated with cucking to Zionists?
Zionists bank on two factors in this strategy. They figure (1) nonwhites are too dumb to
connect the dots or (2) even if nonwhites connected the dots and became more critical of
Israel & Zionist Power on account of whiteness = support-for-Zion, it will draw whites
even closer to Zion as white-knight-defenders of Israel against the rising tide of darkies.
We see scenario 2 play out with both Mitt Romney and Jared Taylor. They hope that powerful
Zionists will like them more if they stand with Zionists against the 'antisemitic'
darkies.
It's like Zionists encourage Ilhan Omar to be anti-white while white conzos beat their
chests as noble defenders of Zionists from 'Anti-Semites'.
contrived moulded whatever the case I leave this excerpt. I feel it hits the head.
Here's what journalist Joe Bageant wrote in 2007:
Much of the ongoing battle for America's soul is about healing the souls of these
Americans and rousing them from the stupefying glut of commodity and spectacle. It is about
making sure that they -- and we -- refuse to accept torture as the act of "heroes" and babies
deformed by depleted uranium as the "price of freedom." Caught up in the great
self-referential hologram of imperial America, force-fed goods and hubris like fattened
steers, working people like World Championship Wrestling and Confederate flags and
flat-screen televisions and the idea of an American empire. ("American Empire! I like the
sound of that!" they think to themselves, without even the slightest idea what it means
historically.) "The people" doing our hardest work and fighting our wars are not altruistic
and probably never were. They don't give a rat's bunghole about the world's poor or the
planet or animals or anything else. Not really. "The people" like cheap gas. They like
chasing post-Thanksgiving Day Christmas sales. And if fascism comes, they will like that too
if the cost of gas isn't too high and Comcast comes through with a twenty-four-hour NFL
channel.
That is the American hologram. That is the peculiar illusion we live within, the illusion
that holds us together, makes us alike, yet tells each of us we are unique. And it will
remain in force until the whole shiteree comes down around our heads. Working people do not
deny reality. They create it from the depths of their perverse ignorance, even as the
so-called left speaks in non sequiturs and wonders why it cannot gain any political traction.
Meanwhile, for the people, it is football and NASCAR and a republic free from married queers
and trigger locks on guns. That's what they voted for -- an armed and moral republic. And
that's what we get when we stand by and watch the humanity get hammered out of our fellow
citizens, letting them be worked cheap and farmed like a human crop for profit.
Genuine moral values have jack to do with politics. But in an obsessively religious
nation, values remain the most effective smoke screen for larceny by the rich and hatred and
fear by the rest. What Christians and so many quiet, ordinary Americans were voting for in
the presidential elections of 2000 and 2004 was fear of human beings culturally unlike
themselves, particularly gays and lesbians and Muslims and other non-Christians. That's why
in eleven states Republicans got constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage on the
ballot. In nine of them the bill passed easily. It was always about fearing and, in the worst
cases, hating "the other."
Being a southerner, I have hated in my lifetime. I can remember schoolyard discussions of
supposed "nigger knifing" of white boys at night and such. And like most people over fifty,
it shows in my face, because by that age we have the faces we deserve. Likewise I have seen
hate in others and know it when I see it. And I am seeing more of it now than ever before in
my lifetime, which is saying something considering that I grew up down here during the Jim
Crow era. Fanned and nurtured by neoconservative elements, the hate is every bit equal to the
kind I saw in my people during those violent years. Irrational. Deeply rooted. Based on
inchoate fears.
The fear is particularly prevalent in the middle and upper-middle classes here, the very
ones most openly vehement about being against using the words nigger and fuck. They are what
passes for educated people in a place like Winchester. You can smell their fear. Fear of
losing their advantages and money. Fear there won't be enough time to grab and stash enough
geet to keep themselves and their offspring in Chardonnay and farting through silk for the
next fifty years.
So they keep the lie machinery and the smoke generators cranking full blast as long as
possible, hoping to elect another one of their own kind to the White House -- Democratic or
Republican, it doesn't matter so long as they keep the scam going. The Laurita Barrs speak in
knowing, authoritative tones, and the inwardly fearful house painter and single-mom forklift
driver listen and nod. Why take a chance on voting for a party that would let homos be scout
masters?
(Dear Hunting with Jesus: Dispatches from America's Class War, chapter 2)
Many great observations tonight, but all, beg the question; How do we change a nation
state that has so thoroughly morphed into an advertising and marketing phony, aided and
abetted by so many deluded morons?
This is interesting. Apparently both the Russians and the Chinese have concluded that
Biden intends to use "CornPop" faux-macho posturing as his foreign policy, and they have both
decided that "f**k that, let's nip this in the bud".
Because it looks like they have decided they have had a gut-full of US "exceptionalism"
and are quite determined to say so. To anyone, but especially to the Americans.
Going to be a lot of very confused people at Foggy Bottom. They may never have experienced
this degree of contempt before.
I about fell on the floor when I read Blinken's words, my first thought being "this klutz
has zero knowledge of history since 1588 and just admitted as much. In China, Blinken would
never achieve any position of power.
The decadence of the Outlaw US Empire's government is like so many prions turning brain
tissue into a swiss-cheese-like mass and then boasting about how finely tuned are its
cognitive abilities. And when Harris is installed, we'll have a genuine novice in charge--The
Blind leading the Blind.
It's no wonder the Chinese sought an audience with Lavrov ASAP.
The Americans have completely lost the culture of negotiation. If there are no elementary
human manners, then what kind of agreements can we talk about? A sad picture. And
dangerous. A madman with nuclear weapons (and chemical weapons, by the way) is not the best
option for a reliable negotiating partner.
Are you gonna believe what I tell you or are you gonna believe what you see, comes to mind.
I believe what I see and I don't see the USA doing any bridge building, even in its own
country where bridge infrastructure is in serious decay.
I repeat: These are not normal people in charge. They have lost their minds.
Maybe once a long time ago the USA diplomatic corp was supported by elected officials that
set out to make allies based on mutual respect. But those days are long gone. The only
bridges the USA builds is munition supply channels, be it by air or by sea. They destroy
physical and metaphorical bridges in every nation they occupy.
The USA builds walls and barriers and obstruction: at home at the Mexican border, in the
capital state, by economic sanctions illegally applied throughout the world, by destroying
its home regulatory system to keep poisoned citizens from seeking judicial or regulatory
redress for pollution and human suffering.
I see a mendacious, failed state surrounding its elected officials and financial
institutions and even suburbs with walls and barriers. Then they attack people who criticise
them in moderately peaceful ways. That is who they are, that is what I see.
In the reality the USA is not falling apart. It is neoliberalism that is falling apart and
this is just how common people feel during the collapse of neliberalism.
"79% of Americans think the US is falling apart" those not accounted for are possibly
homeless or illiterate and don't have the opportunity of putting their view forward.
RTaccount 1 day ago 15 Jan, 2021 02:22 PM
There will be no peace, no unity, and no prosperity. And there shouldn't be.
TheFishh RTaccount 1 day ago 15 Jan, 2021 03:38 PM
The US regimes past and present have worn out their bag of tricks. A magician is a con-man.
And the only way they can entertain and spellbind the crowd with their routines is if
everyone just ignores the sleight of hand. But people are starting to call the US out for the
tricks it is pulling, and that's where the magician's career ends.
SJMan333 23 hours ago 16 Jan, 2021 01:02 AM
America as a whole is now reaping the fruits of its decades of exceptionalism complex.
Through its propaganda machine, Americans as individuals and collectively as a society, have
been brainwashed into believing that laws, rules and basic human decency do not apply to
themselves. These are only sweetened poisons for them to shove down the throats of other
lesser countries, especially those in Africa, Latin America, Middle East and Asia ((bluntly
put, non-white countries)) when it suited America's global resource thievery and daylight
wealth grabbing. Habitualized into bullying every other countries with no resistance,
Americans are now showing their ugly faces on each other. The same exceptionalism delusion
"the laws apply to you, not me'' is driving every American (except the colored Americans
probably) to blame all the ills of the country on everyone else except himself. Nancy Pelosi
advocated total lock-down but treated herself to a total grooming in a hair saloon is just
one example. For the sins it has committed over the decades, I guess the time is right for
USA to have a dose of its own medicine. Except in this case, America never thought it
necessary to develop an antidote.
Fyodor Lukyanov, the
editor-in-chief of Russia in Global Affairs, chairman of the Presidium of the Council on
Foreign and Defense Policy, and research director of the Valdai International Discussion
Club How could something like this happen in Washington? It was assumed that, despite all
its social and political problems that have worsened in recent years, America was different and
far more robust than we are now seeing. A habit of being special
The rule of thumb was, 'there is America and there are others'. With the others,
shortcomings are natural and to be expected, even if many of them are well-established
democracies. But America is a different story, because by default, the US is a role model that
was supposed to remain the democratic icon forever.
Exceptionalism is foundational for America's political culture. This type of
self-identification was the cornerstone on which the nation and society were built a couple of
hundred years ago. That's how Americans are raised. And you will run into this phenomenon
everywhere.
When asking his supporters gathered by the Capitol building to go home, President Donald
Trump said, "You are special." People from the more liberal political camp have even
deeper convictions about the US being exceptional and therefore under an obligation to bring
light into the world, as they see it.
That's why everybody is shocked – how could this have happened? The reaction was
followed by a wave of explanations as to why the clashes near and inside the Capitol building
only looked like similar events in other countries, but in reality, they were something
entirely different. Here is a comment from the CNN website, "Sure there are superficial
similarities... but what's happening in America is uniquely American. It is that country's
monster."
Such restlessness is understandable. If we look at exceptionalism in the context of the
world order that we've had in recent decades, we see that after the end of the Cold War, the US
has held the unique position of the sole global hegemon. No other power in world history has
ever reached this level of dominance.
Besides massive military and economic resources, America's exceptionalism has also been
relying on the idea that this nation sets the tone for the global worldview. This authorized
America to certify systems of government in other countries and exert influence in situations
that it believed required certain adjustments. As we all know, this influence took different
forms, including direct military intervention.
We are not going to list the pros and cons of such a world order in this article. What's
important is that one of the key aspects of this order is the belief in the infallibility of
the global leader. That's why American commentators and experts are so worried about the
Capitol Building events and Trump's presidency in general hurting the international status of
the US.
Boomerang effect
Generally speaking, post-election turmoil is not a rare occurrence. After all, the US itself
has encouraged the new political tradition that has emerged in the 21st century. In recent
times, in certain places, election campaigns haven't ended after the votes were counted and the
winner is announced. Instead, Washington often encouraged the losing side to at least try to
challenge the results by taking to the streets. Indeed, resistance was part of the US
Declaration of Independence after all.
Western capitals consistently emphasized the legitimacy of such actions in situations when
people believed that their votes had been 'stolen'. Washington was usually the lead voice in
these declarations. Granted, this mostly applied to immature democracies with unstable
institutions, but where are all those unshakable, solid democratic countries today? The world
is experiencing so much instability that nobody is exempt from major shocks and
crises.
Information overload
There is another reason why traditional institutions are losing their footing. They were
effective in a solidified informational environment. The sources of information were either
controlled or perceived as trustworthy by the majority.
Today there are problems with both. Technological advances boost transparency, but they also
create multiple realities and countless opportunities for manipulation. Institutions must be
above reproach if they are to survive in the new conditions. It would be wrong to say that they
are all crumbling. They are, however, experiencing tremendous pressure, and we can't expect
them to be perfect.
Looking for a scapegoat
The US is not better or worse at facing the new challenges. Or, rather, it is better in some
areas and worse in others. This would all be very normal if America's exceptionalism didn't
always need affirmation.
Situations in which the US appears to be just like any other country, albeit with some
unique characteristics, are a shock to the system. In order to stay special, America looks
where to place the blame. Ideally, the guilty party should be someone acting in the interests
of an outside power, someone un-American.
This mechanism is not unknown to Russians from the experience in our country – for a
long time now, Russian elites have been keen to blame outsiders for their own failures. But
America's motivation today is even stronger; there is more passion, because simply covering up
the failures is no longer enough – America wants to prove that it is still perfect.
Russia says American system 'archaic' & not up to 'modern democratic standards' after
rioters raid Washington's Capitol building
Democrats are taking back the American political landscape. For the next two years (until
the 2022 mid-term elections), they will have all the power – in the White House and
Congress. Trump's supporters have seriously scared the ruling class, and the Capitol building
debacle during the last days of his presidency has created a perfect pretext for cleaning
house. Big Tech companies are at their disposal (so far).
Internal targets
Target number one is Trump himself. They want to make an example out of him, so that others
wouldn't dare challenge the sanctity of the political establishment. But Trump will not be
enough, something must be done about his numerous supporters. The awkward finale of his
presidency opens the door for labeling his fans as enemies of the republic and democracy.
The Democrats will do everything within their power to demoralize their earnest opponents.
This won't be hard, since the Republican Party itself is a hot mess right now. Trump has
alienated almost all his supporters from the party leadership, but he is still popular among
regular voters.
Demonstrative restoration of order and democratic fundamentals will also be used to reclaim
the role model status. The reasoning is clear – we successfully neutralized the terrible
external and internal threats to our democracy, so now we have regained the right to show the
world how one should deal with the enemies of said democracy. The 'summit of democracies' idea
proposed by Joseph Biden is starting to look like an emergency meeting for closing the ranks in
a fight against enemies of progress.
Foreign targets
And this brings us back to the foreign policy issue, because it's not difficult to predict
who will be enemy number one. Putin as an almighty puppeteer of all undemocratic forces in the
world (including Trump) has been part of the rhetoric for a few years now. Hillary Clinton said
it when giving a campaign speech in Nevada in August 2016, and Nancy Pelosi echoed the
sentiment after Trump supporters stormed the Capitol Building. Of course, China is a close
second on the enemy list created by the Democratic leadership, but there are some economic
restraints there.
America's inevitable strife to reclaim its exceptionalism will clash with the current
tendencies in global development. All aspects of international affairs, from economy to
security, to ideology and ethics, are diversifying. Attempts to divide the world along the old
democracy vs. autocracy lines, i.e. go back to the agenda prevalent at the end of the 20th to
the beginning of the 21st century, are doomed, because this is not the way the world is
structured now.
But attempts will be made nevertheless, and we can't rule out some aggressive 'democracy
promotion'. Even if it's just to prove that the embarrassing Trump episode was nothing more
than an unfortunate accident. This, by the way, could become a short-term unifying factor for
the diverse members of the Democratic Party, some of whom represent the old generation, while
others are energetic young proponents of left-wing politics.
We can conclude that the world will not really benefit from the new presidency, even if
respected foreign policy professionals return to the White House now that Trump is leaving. It
might stabilize America's frenzy in international affairs that we are all used to by now, but a
new wave of ideology will neutralize the potential advantage (if it even existed, which is
debatable).
America's resolve to prove to the world that it's not like others will encounter the
large-scale 'material resistance', which will make a dangerous situation even worse. At least
with Trump we knew that he didn't like wars, and he didn't start any new ones. Biden's credit
history is very different.
Like this story? Share it with a friend!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the
author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
By Jonny Tickle In recent years, the US has gone crazy with its idea of 'American
exceptionalism' and Washington has taught its people that the country does not need to follow
any rules and can disregard international agreements, Moscow claims.
Maria Zakharova, the spokesperson for Russia's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, made the claim
on Thursday to YouTube channel 'Izolenta live.'
"It's a nuclear power that has gone wild with the idea of its own exceptionalism,
withdrawing from lots of documents, treaties, international organizations," she
said.
Zakharova also believes that Washington has "encouraged its population to think that they
don't owe anybody anything" and "they should not obey anyone," up to and including
international law.
However, she noted that the White House may one day decide to return to various deals
sidelined in recent years, presumably referring to the incoming president, Joe Biden.
Since the incumbent at the White House, Donald Trump, came to power in 2017, Washington has
reduced its participation in international organizations. In 2018, the US withdrew from UNESCO
and from the UN Human Rights Council (HRC). A year later, Trump pulled his country out of the
Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF), and in 2020 the country left the Open Skies
Treaty. Furthermore, on February 5, a fortnight after Biden is due to take office, the US will
depart from the New START nuclear arms reduction treaty unless the Kremlin and the new
president's team quickly come to an understanding.
Last month, at his annual press conference, Russian President Vladimir Putin chided the US
for pulling out of treaties that Russia is fully supportive of, noting that there could be an
"arms race" if Biden doesn't agree to an extension of START.
"We heard the statement by the president-elect that it would be reasonable to extend the
New START. We will wait and see what that will amount to in practical terms. The New START
expires in February," Putin pointed out.
"... Then the exceptionalist-triumphalist power inevitably runs off-the-rails, and -- especially when it feels threatened or insecure -- lashes out in fits of aggressive military, economic, religious, or racial chauvinism. This cycle tends to replay again and again until the empire collapses, usually through some combination of external power displacement and internal exhaustion or collapse. ..."
Exceptionalism, triumphalism, chauvinism. These characteristics define most empires, including, like it or not, these
United
States . The sequence matters. A people and national government that fancies itself exceptional -- an example for the rest of
the world -- is apt to assert itself militarily, economically, and culturally around the globe. If that self-righteous state happens
to possess prodigious power, as the U.S. has since the Second World War, then any perceived success will lead to a sense of triumphalism,
and thus put into motion a feedback loop whereby national "achievement" justifies and validates that conception of exceptionalism.
Then the exceptionalist-triumphalist power inevitably runs off-the-rails, and -- especially when it feels threatened or insecure
-- lashes out in fits of aggressive military, economic, religious, or racial chauvinism. This cycle tends to replay again and again
until the empire collapses, usually through some combination of external power
displacement and internal exhaustion or collapse.
Such imperial hyper-powers, particularly in their late-stages, often employ foot soldiers across vast swathes of the planet, and
eventually either lose control of their actions or aren't concerned with their resultant atrocities in the first place. On that,
the jury is perhaps still out. Regardless, the discomfiting fact is that by nearly any measure, the United States today coheres,
to a remarkable degree, with each and every one of these tenets of empire evolution. This includes, despite the hysterical denials
of sitting political and Pentagon leaders, the troubling truth that American soldiers and intelligence agents have committed war
crimes across the Greater Middle East since 9/11 on a not so trivial number of occasions. These law of war violations also occurred
during the Cold War generation -- notably in Korea and Vietnam -- and the one consistent strain has been the almost complete inability
or unwillingness of the U.S. Government to hold perpetrators, and their enabling commanders, accountable.
Enter the International Criminal Court (ICC). First
proposed , conceptually, in 1919 (and again in 1937, 1948, and 1971), in response to massive war crimes and human rights violations
of the two world wars, the Hague-headquartered court finally opened for business in 2002. With more than 120 signatory member states
(though not, any longer, the U.S.) the ICC has the jurisdiction to prosecute international violations including "genocide, crimes
against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression." A compliment, rather than a replacement, to sovereign national justice
systems, the ICC is designed to be the "court of
last resort," obliged to exercise jurisdiction only when a nation's courts prove unwilling or unable to prosecute such crimes.
All of which sounds both admirable and unthreatening (at least to reasonably well-behaved states with accountable, responsive
justice systems), but to the contemporary American imperial hyper-power, the very existence of the ICC is viewed as a mortal threat.
Matters demonstrably came to a head this past week when an ICC appeals court
reversed a lower-level decision and allowed its special prosecutor -- whose visa Washington has already revoked -- to simply
open an official investigation into alleged war crimes committed in Afghanistan by all three major parties to the conflict:
the Taliban, U.S., and U.S.-backed Kabul-based Afghan government. This decidedly mild decision, which only allows a multi-directional
inquiry , unleashed an immediate firestorm in Washington.
The reflexive reactions and responses of current and former Trump officials was both instructive and totally in line with decades
worth of bipartisan U.S. disavowal of the very notion of international norms and standards. Trump's recent hawkish national security
adviser, John Bolton -- now an MSNBC-DNC
darling for his apparent critique
of the president in a new memoir -- has spearheaded opposition to the ICC since its inception, has
asserted that the ICC is "illegitimate," and that the U.S. Government "will not sit quietly," if "the court comes after us."
After the most recent ruling, Secretary of State (and former director of the very CIA that is likely to be implicated in said war
crimes investigation) Mike Pompeo
declared the ruling a "truly breathtaking action by an unaccountable, political institution masquerading as a legal body," adding,
threateningly, that "we will take all necessary measures to protect our citizens from this renegade, unlawful, so-called court."
On that latter point, Pompeo is neither wrong, nor espousing a policy -- no matter how aggressive or rejectionist -- unique to
Donald Trump's administration. Here, a brief bit of all but forgotten history is in order. In 1998, the UN General Assembly
voted 120-7 to establish the
ICC. The United States, in good company with a gaggle of criminally compromised states -- China, Iraq, Israel, Libya, Yemen, and
Qatar -- voted against the measure. Two years later, however, President Bill Clinton unenthusiastically
signed onto this foundational
Rome
Statute , but with some dubiousness and the requisite American exceptionalist caveat that he "will not, and do not recommend
that my successor, submit the treaty to the Senate for advice and consent until our fundamental concerns are satisfied."
Then came the 9/11 terrorist attacks. This tragedy turned (for then ascendant neoconservatives)
opportunity for expanded U.S. military global
assertiveness, ensured that Clinton's successor -- one George W. Bush -- wouldn't even consider ICC treaty submission to the Senate.
Rather, in May 2002, Bush
sent a note to the UN Secretary General informing him that the most powerful and influential country in the world no longer intended
to ratify the Rome Statute or recognize any obligations to the ICC (which officially
opened for business only two months later
). Never simply a morality tale of Republican villainy, Bush's disavowal didn't explain the half of it.
Far more disturbingly, a stunningly euphemistic
American Service-members' Protection Act
of 2001 amendment, first introduced just 15 days after the
9/11 attacks, to the Supplemental Appropriations Act for Further Recovery From and Response to Terrorist Attacks on the United States,
was already under consideration in Congress. With broad bipartisan majorities, that legislation -- which authorized the U.S. president
to use "all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any U.S. or allied personnel being detained or imprisoned
by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court" -- passed in the
House a couple weeks after Bush sent his note
to the UN, and the Senate just two weeks later.
President Bush then signed this authorization for, up to and including military, force into law on August 2, 2002. Much of the world
was appalled and international human rights organizations took to – quite appropriately – calling it the "
Hague Invasion Act ." It remains
in force today.
The timeline is instructive and itself tells a vital part of the story. Democrats and Republicans alike had chosen to "preempt"
-- an internationally prohibited precedent that Bush would
later invoke to invade Iraq -- the not yet in force ICC with this bill. They did so, I'd assert, because they knew a salient dirty
secret: the U.S. was about to unleash martial fury across the Greater Middle East. In the process, inevitably, American troopers
and intelligence spooks would push the limits of acceptable wartime behavior, and thus be vulnerable to international prosecution
by the soon effective ICC.
This was unacceptable for an exceptionalist, triumphalist nation, about to undertake chauvinist actions the world over. That unilateral,
world-order-be-damned national position held, and still holds, sway in the intervening 18 years. So, for all the Trump administration's
coarse obtuseness in response to the opening of the latest ICC Afghan investigation, this is, at root, not (as the mainstream media
will inevitably now claim) a Donald phenomenon.Three administrations, and multiple guard-changing Congresses, chose to not to touch
the infamous Hague Invasion Act or realign the U.S. with the ICC or the spirit (or even the pretense) of international law.
The cast of elite characters, many still politically influential, who voted for the Hague Invasion Act is nothing short of astounding.
The bill passed the House by a margin of 280-138, and counted
such "yea" votes as House Intelligence Committee Chair -- top Trump opponent and Russiagate investigator -- Democrat Adam Schiff.
Notably, especially in this ongoing electoral cycle, then Vermont Representative Bernie Sanders opposed the measure.In the
Senate , an even larger portion of Democrats joined current Speaker Mitch McConnell (and most of his Republican caucus), to vote
for the Act. These included such past and present notables as former Secretaries of State John Kerry and Hillary Clinton, current
Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, and, then Foreign Relations Committee Chair, and now Democratic presidential frontrunner, Joe Biden.
His vote, naturally, should come as scant surprise since even in early Senate committee
hearings four years
earlier, ranking minority member Biden was at best tepid, and at worst quite skeptical of the ICC – even finding unlikely points
of agreement with the later Hague Invasion Bill's sponsor, and longtime unilateralist hawk, Republican Senator Jesse Helms.
Still, the swift, frenetic response of senior Trump officials to ICC decision is telling. I suspect that Pompeo and Bolton know
the inconvenient truth – that U.S. national security forces have committed crimes in Afghanistan (and elsewhere) and that
the U.S. Government hasn't ever truly held these select perpetrators sufficiently accountable. Contra Pompeo, Bolton, and other Trump
officials' ardent public assertions, the U.S. military and intelligence community are, in fact – due to being demonstrably "unwilling
or unable to prosecute such [war] crimes" – the perfect candidates for ICC investigation, and if evidentiary appropriate,
prosecution. The U.S. has a historically abysmal
record either of
restraining or punishing wartime violations.
The rarely recounted
record is an extensive as it is appalling:
After U.S. Air Force pilots and U.S. Army soldiers strafed and gunned down some 400 Korean refugees (most women, children,
and old men) hiding under a bridge at No
Gun Ri over the course of four days in 1950, there was no criminal investigation when the military determined the killings
represented naught but an "unfortunate tragedy inherent to war."
When, after a two-year coverup, the journalist Seymour Hersh brought to light the blatant execution of at least 504 civilians
in the hamlet of My Lai , South Vietnam, just six
soldiers were charged, and only one – Lieutenant William Calley – convicted. Though countless victims were beheaded, scalped,
or had their throats slit in an orgy of violence, even Calley's original life sentence was repeatedly reduced by senior generals
until he was ultimately granted clemency by President Richard Nixon. Convicted by jury of military officer peers of personally
killing at least 22 civilians, Calley served only five months in detention and some three years under house arrest.
Later in the Vietnam War, when Lieutenant Colonel Anthony Herbert
blew the whistle on
endemic torture among some U.S. troops, and a subsequent investigation uncovered 141 confirmed incidents of prisoner abuse, not
a single criminal charge was filed and only three soldiers were administratively fined or reduced in rank. The only significant
punishment meted out was leveled at Herbert -- recipient of four Silver Stars and three Bronze Stars, who was also shot 10 ten
times and bayonet thrice -- when his reputation and career were ruined in retaliation.
When allegations of systemic prisoner abuse at Iraq's Abu Ghraib Prison were reported by Major General Antonio Taguba, and
simultaneously uncovered by the very same Seymour Hersh, not a single soldier above the rank of staff sergeant faced charges.
Taguba, incidentally, did suffer
-- his career unceremoniously curtailed in the wake of threats, intimidation, and harassment by the senior army commander
in Iraq (General John Abizaid) and the then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.
Finally, and perhaps most relevant to the current ICC investigatory backlash, after an American AC-130 gunship unloaded on
a civilian hospital (by definition, a war crime) repeatedly for 30-60 minutes and killed 42 doctors, patients, and staff members,
the top theater commander, General John Campbell, and then Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter
changed
their stories four times in four days without ever fully explicating what exactly caused the massacre. An official military
probe – instructively, the generals always investigate themselves in these matters – found no criminal culpability, and, while
Campbell's nominal boss, General Joseph Votel, claimed to have administratively disciplined sixteen soldiers and officers, the
names of those personnel – and he details of their punishment – were never released.
Add to that the disconcerting fact that the U.S. crossed a rather macabre
tipping
point in 2019, whereby, for the first time, the American military and its Afghan allies killed more civilians than the Taliban,
and this brings us full circle to an alarming present reality. The very figures who championed and supported the wildly chauvinistic
"Hague Invasion" Act seem set to hold sway over, and in Biden's case serve as candidate for, the Democratic Party.In November, that
faction will likely, then face off against a Trump team that vehemently opposes even a basic investigation into alleged American
criminal misbehavior in the Afghan theater of its ongoing forever wars.
All of which demonstrates, once and for all, that human rights, and international law or norms were never of genuine interest
to the United States. None of this will play well on the "Arab," or even broader global, "Street," and will – just like U.S. abuses
at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo – actually
increase worldwide "terrorism"
and anti-Americanism. None of which matters to, or greatly concerns, a Washington elite lacking even a modicum of self-awareness.
Because empires, like the United States, which peddle in exceptionalism, triumphalism, and chauvinism are, historically, the world's
true rogue states
.
Danny Sjursen is a retired U.S. Army officer and a contributing editor at antiwar.com
. His work has appeared in the LA Times, The Nation, Huff Post, The Hill, Salon, Truthdig, Tom Dispatch, among other publications.
He served combat tours with reconnaissance units in Iraq and Afghanistan and later taught history at his alma mater, West Point.
He is the author of a memoir and critical analysis of the Iraq War, Ghostriders of Baghdad: Soldiers,
Civilians, and the Myth of the Surge . His forthcoming book, Patriotic Dissent: America in the Age of Endless War is
now available for
pre-order . Follow him on Twitter at @SkepticalVet . Check out
his professional website for contact info, scheduling speeches, and/or access
to the full corpus of his writing and media appearances.
Re: "...Thus, six years ago, in 2014, we spoke about this issue when we discussed the
theme The World Order: New Rules or a Game Without Rules. So, what is happening now?
Regrettably, the game without rules is becoming increasingly horrifying and sometimes
seems to be a fait accompli."
Putin said this virtually in the same breath directly after his previous paragraph you
excerpted where he speaks of the serious ongoing challenges of the coronavirus pandemic.
What that says to me is that he is hinting with his trademark subtlety that he thinks the
CV pandemic may not be a naturally arising event. In other words, a plandemic.
Yes, that's the ongoing rhetorical battle between the Collectivist nations who uphold the
sanctity of International Law and the Neoliberal Nations controlled by Financial Parasites
that can't survive under a functional International Law System. That distinction is
constantly becoming clearer particularly to those residing within the Neoliberal nations as
they watch their lives being destroyed. IMO, we're on the cusp of entering the most critical
decade of this century which will determine humanity's condition when 2101 is reached.
The Russians ( Putin / Lavrov) say ever so politely that the US is not
agreement-capable.
I add that the US ( politicians, Wall Streeters, MSM, think tanks ) are:
not truth-capable;
not ethics-capable;
not shame-capable;
not honour-capable.
What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world, but loses his soul? He turns into a
ghoul without a soul, says I, a devil without human-ness! How dare they call us deplorables
when they are the despicables?
Putin proposed, "exchanging guarantees of non-interference in each other's internal
affairs, including electoral processes, including using information and communication
technologies and high-tech methods."..
####
That is some excellently timed next level trolling from Pootie-McPoot-Face.
Of course the USA will never agree to such a proposal, because (a) it does not regard its
meddling as 'interference' but as the bringing of the gift of freedom, (b) it stands on its
absolute right of judgment as to what is a situation that requires more democracy and what is
not, and (c) it probably knows at some level that Russia did not meddle in the US elections,
and that it would therefore in that case be constraining its own behavior in exchange for
nothing.
But then, when refused – I imagine the US will try to extract something from the
offer, such as "A-HA!! So you ADMIT to meddling in our elections!! – Russia can
obviously claim, "Well, we tried."
"Welcome to America, the Land of Freedom" , read the signs at Washington, DC's
international airport as you line up to have your fingerprints taken and your body cavities
searched for mini nuclear devices.
I could have titled this article "Setting the Cat among the Pigeons". In an attempt to
forestall the expected avalanche of disagreement, I confirm my awareness of statistics produced
by a wide range of individuals and institutions of widely-varying intent and ideology, and
which can "prove" almost anything one cares to prove, GINI coefficients being one easy example.
The statistics on which this article is based were not selected carelessly and are not
invalidated by a reader's disaffection.
The United States Is the Best Only at Being the Worst
The US today has the greatest income inequality of all Western nations [1] [2] ,
surpassing China and more than a few undeveloped nations as well. From this, it has the lowest
social mobility of most nations [3] , meaning that
improving one's station in life is becoming increasingly impossible. If your parents are not
educated and wealthy, you will never be either, and the American Dream is dead . The US
today has the smallest middle class and the largest lower class of all major
nations, the middle class having been mostly eviscerated in 2008, that process completing
itself today, and will probably never now recover. Americans carry the largest amount of
personal debt among all nations [4] , including
credit card debt and increasingly unrepayable student loans , and the US now
leads the world in personal bankruptcies[5] . Since 2008,
according to the US government's own statistics, the US has the lowest percentage of home
ownership at 57% [6] , ranked 43rd in
the world, far below China at 90% [7] , and America now
has a virtual epidemic of homelessness compared to most other nations, with untabulated
millions of homeless families with children.
The poverty rate in the US is extraordinary, with official statistics placing this
number at 13% but in reality with more than 25% of the population living below the poverty
line, in most cases far below [8] . It also has the
highest percentage of children living in poverty , and with almost a third of all US
citizens dependent on food stamps and other government aid to survive [9] .
Unemployment is also extraordinary. According to the government's own statistics, fully
40% of working-age Americans have no job [10] [11] , with many
of the rest under-employed , working only part-time. It is only American cities or those
in the most impoverished of nations that contain such vast areas of urban decay and
desperate slums like those of Detroit and Chicago, where half of the areas are violent
crime-ridden wastelands where no one goes.
The US has the highest educational costs , and yet the poorest overall quality of
education in the developed world and parts of the rest. Read this article [12] .
It will open your eyes. A few good schools or universities in an entire nation do not make it a
world leader, the proof residing in the highest level of functional illiteracy of all
major nations (25%) and a truly legendary level of ignorance[13] . The US is the
only country in the world where, in repeated polls for the past 60 years, a full 75% of the
adult and student populations cannot find their own country on a map of the world [14]
. Compared to other nations, the US has the highest health care costs by a factor of two
to ten, and yet has a surprisingly poor overall quality as well as the highest
percentage of a population without health care [15] . The US has the
highest infant mortality rate and the shortest life expectancy at birth of all
major nations and far below many others [16] [17] , ranking
around 50 in a list of countries. The US has the highest obesity rate of all nations,
with nearly half of the population being overweight [18] , one of the
highest rates of sexually-transmitted diseases[19] , of
anti-depressant drug use that increased by 65% in only 15 years [20] , a national
crisis in opioid drug use[21] and of
depression . It has the highest teen-age pregnancy and abortion rates of all
developed nations [22] , and one of the
highest divorce rates [23] [24] . Note that
in many international studies US statistics aren't collected because, as observers noted "The
authors left out the US because the country is "an extreme outlier." The US also has the
largest number of one-person households (about 30%) [25] [26] , and the
largest percentage of fatherless children (about 25%) [27] .
America is one of the two most racist countries in the world, where even the random
and unprovoked killing of non-whites is not only permissible but usually meets with approval.
Americans are gun-crazy, owning more guns than the entire rest of the world combined, and
more guns than all the world's police and military. They carry their guns everywhere, and
use them everywhere, the US having the highest rates of gun shootings and murders of any
nation, with more than 20 small children and more than 200 adults being sent each day to either
the hospital or the cemetery. Many small American cities, like the nation's capital of
Washington DC with only half a million people, or places like Detroit or Chicago, have more
murders each year (by an order of magnitude) than does Shanghai with 25 million people. The
overall homicide rate for China is 0.6 and for Shanghai 0.2; that for the US is 4.0. The
gun death rate for children in the US is 40 times higher than for any other nation in the world
[28] [29] . The US
also has the highest number of crimes committed with firearms each year, a staggering
total of a minimum confirmed of 500,000 and an estimated 3 million [30] [31] , and the
highest number of violent raids on private homes, with more than 80,000 instances per
year of SWAT teams kicking in someone's front door in the middle of the night, always
terrorising and sometimes killing the occupants, usually without identifying themselves and
often attacking the wrong house. [32] [33]
The US has the highest rate of cocaine and meth usage of any nation [34] ,
thanks in large part to the CIA's very successful war on drugs which permits that agency to
import cocaine duty-free. The US has the highest rate of gender inequality[35]
among industrialised nations, far exceeding egalitarian nations like China (and formerly Iraq
and Libya). The US has the highest number of lawyers and lawsuits in the world, by
orders of magnitude, a reflection of both natural belligerence and inborn greed, Americans
spending twice as much on lawsuits each year as on new cars [36] . Japan has
14,000 lawyers, China 160,000, the US 1.35 million (11 per 100,000 for Japan and China compared
to 300 per 100,000 for the US). Americans surpass the entire world in their amount of
useless consumption , having long passed the point where it can be deemed pathological.
As one measure, that of shopping mall space per capita, Germany has 2.7 sq ft per person, Japan
has 3.9 and the UK has 5. For every American shopper there are 24 sq ft of mall. The US has by
far the highest level of carbon emissions on a per-capita basis, thanks in no small part
to General Motors who has repeatedly committed genocide on electric automobiles.
Wars and violence are defining adjectives of America. The US as a nation is now, and
has always been, intensely militaristic, inherently provocative, combative and violent.
The US is by far the largest merchant of death in the world, being responsible for about 70% of
total world arms sales . For comparison, Russia is second at 17%, while China is at 3%.
If we include everything, the US spends about twice as much on its military each year as
the entire rest of the world combined, already well-documented by many authors at well in
excess of $1 trillion. It also has the world's largest network of foreign military bases
, with more than 1,000 such installations, including many that appear on no map, and the
world's largest number of bio-weapons labs , with more than 400 outside the US. America
has launched the most wars of aggression in the history of the world and has been at
war for 235 of its 243 years as a nation , all those wars unprovoked and unjustified, and
none of which were either wars of 'liberation' or 'to make the world safe for democracy', but
for colonisation and plunder. The US is also outstanding in that it has assassinated more
foreign world leaders and other officials (about 150) [37] than even Israel
has done, and also operates the largest network of torture prisons that has ever existed
in the history of the world. The US also wins first prize for having some of the most
bloodthirsty homicidal mass murderers and pathological killers in the history of the
world, far exceeding our former heroes Stalin and Hitler. Kissinger, Albright and Curtis
LeMay come immediately to mind, but there are more.
The US has by far the highest incarceration rate of all nations, with more than 25%
of the world's prisoners in its jails and with almost 35% of all adult Americans having a
criminal record . Alarmingly, the US has by far the highest number of internment
camps – prison camps – in the world, all 800 fully-staffed but empty, waiting
for Americans to dare launch another Occupy Wall Street or similar protest. The US has the most
militarised police forces of any nation, with frighteningly heavy-duty military hardware
like MRAPs, APCs, drone aircraft and automatic weapons. The police motto "To protect and serve"
that was once plastered on every police car, has been amended. It now reads "To occupy and
kill". The US has by far the highest number of civilians killed each year by police
(well over 1,000) of any nation in the world, even including rogue states and axis of evil
members. Americans have far more to fear from their local police than from terrorists.
Police brutality in America is now legendary, so common as to be one of the nation's
defining adjectives, with beatings, shootings, harassment, false criminal charges reaching
epidemic proportions and increasing.
America is the world's only nation with a website named "Killed by Police.org" to document
the epidemic of civilians killed by police, and the only nation where local newspapers have
sections devoted to listing the number of daily killings in each neighborhood of the major
cities to assist citizens in house purchases. Violent crime rates in the US are at least
an order of magnitude above those of China or Japan (and many other nations).
The US also has one of the most corrupt police and judicial systems in the world. No
Western country is particularly free of this charge, but America excels. As one example, the US
has by far the largest number in the world of citizens falsely convicted by fraudulent
testimony , some 40,000 convictions caused by one fraudulent forensics lab alone. And of
course, the US has the world's largest espionage network by orders of magnitude, with an
ambition to steal every secret and to record and save every communication by every human on the
planet.
It is no longer a secret that American-style democracy has a few flaws , with extreme
dysfunction and rampant corruption among the more visible, though looting the public trough
would run a close second. The US also has the government most totally over-run with
puppet-masters and controlled by parasitic aliens, having entirely lost control to its various
lobbies and with all its elected officials having sworn allegiance to the Jews and Israel
rather than to America. The US has the highest number and percentage of Presidents,
Secretaries of State and Defense Secretaries who were certifiable as criminally insane
and who should have been given lobotomies and committed to institutions for life. Too many
names to list here. America is the one nation that has more or less institutionalised
government corruption at virtually every level, extending deeply into the judiciary, the
regulatory bodies and Congress, as well as local and state governments. The US is well-known
for compiling the most fraudulent economic statistics of all developed and undeveloped
nations, including the hugely fictitious 'average income' of $45,000, and is one of the most
indebted of all countries in the world today. I strongly suggest everyone read this short
article on US economic statistics [38] and cease the
rubbish about how China's numbers can't be trusted.
Not to be outdone, the US media are in a class by themselves in terms of dishonesty,
bias, censorship, and petty opinion-based journalism. American journalists are mostly
cut from the same cloth, displaying more or less the same malignancies.
The US has the most complete immunity for elite white-collar crime , prosecuting only
its person-companies but never the persons. Americans boast of their transparent and
corruption-free financial system, and the US media enjoys trashing China for what appears to be
an occasional corporate fraud. But in the long list of the world's largest corporate
bankruptcies due to fraud and corruption , all but one occurred in the US. Ron Unz prepared
a list that included Enron, WorldCom, Tyco, Global Crossing, Adelphia, MF Global, Lehman, Bear
Stearns, Merrill Lynch, Washington Mutual, and Wachovia. The US has also been home to the
world's largest Ponzi schemes like those of Bernie Madoff and Allen Stanford, that resulted in
almost $100 billion in public losses. It is the US, not China, that is the home to corporate
fraud and deceit, while all but two of the largest corporate frauds in China in recent
decades were committed by American firms, not Chinese.
To end our list of areas in which American Exceptionalism truly shines, the US has for years
been deservedly voted the world's most hated nation , is widely reviled as the
world's greatest bully , and judged by all peoples – including Americans – as
the greatest threat to world peace .
Lest anyone think the above list is unfair or exaggerated, you can do a simple test by
applying the items to other countries. Germany, for example, or China or Canada. Certainly
every nation has some deaths, crime, divorces, military spending and so on, but none of the
items in this list can be applied to Germany, China or Canada, nor to any other nation. The US
does have the greatest debt, highest military spending, racism, killings, guns, incarceration,
torture prisons, initiated wars, and all the rest. The records for inequality, obesity,
consumption, personal debt, poverty, cocaine use, murders, all belong to America, with no other
nation even in the running. The claim is as demonstrably true for ignorance and hypocrisy as it
is for police brutality. As an accusation or an indictment, the list is 100% accurate, a
factual description of America as it is today, seen without the propaganda and rose-colored
glasses.
A complete list of areas of American Exceptionalism must include one other item:The most
traitors . This unfortunate category exists on several levels, the first being the
President and White House staff and the US Congress who, as we already know, have
pledged allegiance to Israel rather than America. The second is the foreign-owned US FED
, criminally pursuing its own agenda while systematically destroying the economic fabric of
America. The cadre of elite owners of most large US banks and multinationals fall into
this category as well, pursuing their own private advantage while consciously gutting the
economy of their own nation.
But there is a third, more pervasive level, a large cadre of educated Americans who are
essentially compradors, traitors to most of their values and to their people , embedded in
the system and dependent on it, participating fully in the destruction of their own country by
acting as lieutenants for the officials of the secret government. These individuals are vital
for the success of the transformation of the US to a fascist state, with the elites dependent
upon them to execute their policies, yet they also profit from their positions in terms of
attractive salaries and protection from much of the law. These are the people who best know of
all the crimes and social injustices, being in fact a willing part of their execution process,
but least likely to blow the whistle for fear of damaging their careers. It is the middle level
of educated executives, lawyers, accountants and managers in government, criminal
corporations, Foundations, think tanks, the media , and so many others, who are directly
responsible for knowingly inflicting the vast damage on their own people and nation. Like the
CEOs of the banks and multinationals, these compradors seek only their own advantage,
discarding their human values and blinding themselves to the harm they do.
The following bulleted list is for your ease in reading.
Look at the comments. These bozos don't care about inequality. They don't care if the rich
are eating their lunch. They don't care about the poverty rate, and think that blacks make up
all the poor, when their are actually more poor whites than poor blacks. They think the
majority of homeless are black when the majority of homeless are white. (The cross-eyed
retards.) They don't care about the wars. NIMBY is the farthest they can see. Horizons are
foreshortened for them. They actually think that, say, Nigeria or North Korea is more corrupt
than the US....
What makes US truly exceptional are its elites. Obviously this exceptionalism doesn't
extend all the way down to more than half of the population – the so called deplorables
– who are thankfully replaceable, which is currently under way – just to show
them who are really the exceptional ones.
Luckily, no one is even planning to do any replacement of the exceptionals – which
would be treason of course, and probably dealt with accordingly, but not to worry, once the
3rd world deplorables fully replace the domestic deplorables, the replacement of the
exceptionals WILL occur, despite the beliefs of the degenerates that they possess some unique
qualities that are universally admired – especially by their 3rd world
protégés.
You see, the 3rd world deplorables tend to be emotional that way, they don't care about
the "unique" qualities of the exceptionals and eventually will come to see the different hue
of the skin of the exceptionals, exceptionally offensive to their sensibilities and will do
away with the degenerates who see themselves as untouchables – but that's probably few
decades down the road and the degenerates definitely don't possess such fair-sightedness to
see what's coming to them.
@Ultrafart the
Brave g in the US have you observed the architecture of the public buildings –
Federal and State? Even the Congress and seat of the legislative branch of the federal
government, is called The Capitol, after Rome. Coincidence?
So when we see a world body, something like the UN Security Council for instance, expanded
to include 5 more countries e.g., Germany, India, Brazil, Japan and another(?) that would
give us our 10 "crowns" on one of the 7 heads I've designated above (which one of them is the
7th, IOW has primacy, is open to debate).
It's all there hiding in plain sight , for our eyes to see.
Okay, okay. When I hit a sentence like this "even the random and unprovoked killing of
non-whites is not only permissible but usually meets with approval," I realize I'm dealing
with a chucklehead who swallows everything he hears in the news media. The news media go out
of their way to highlight all white-on-black crime while they ignore the reverse. On
Americans' general ignorance, though, I think he's unfortunately right.
This is trolling but sadly, it is also based on the truth.
Nowadays, all the young people outside America no longer want to go to America to work or
study, and the older people, who used to admire or look up to America now look at at it with
pity or disgust.
It's very sad what America has now become, esp under the relentless idiocy of the corrupt
and incompetent Trump regime.
America has now sadly become like the "shit-hole" countries Trump told those 4 young
minority congresswomen to go back home to.
Every empire in history has believed in its own exceptionalism: and history has always,
ultimately, proven it wrong. This delusion is, to quote the last of the author's bullet
points – the "greatest threat to world peace". https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/
Mr.. Romanoff: "America is one of the two most racist countries in the world, where even
the random and unprovoked killing of non-whites is not only permissible but usually meets
with approval."
I stopped reading here. Mr. Romanoff isn't as informed or experienced as I'd thought, but
this is outright deception, ignorance or both. He hasn't apologized yet, so I'll guess
both.
America is one of the two most racist countries in the world, where even the random and
unprovoked killing of non-whites is not only permissible but usually meets with
approval.
Enough of your fucking shit!
Blacks in America are the luckiest blacks on the planet.
Americans are gun-crazy, owning more guns than the entire rest of the world combined,
and more guns than all the world's police and military.
That is patently false it is amazing how full of shit you are.
Another fact goes unmentioned: the US has the largest number of unindicted war criminals
in the post-WW II world, a fact that allows for an escalation of war crimes committed. For
those here who refuse to accept the racist nature of our country, they need only look at the
ethnic makeup of the millions of victims of our unprovoked foreign wars of aggression.
@Larry Romanoff
i Restoration was a Jew operation. Japan, like America, are both 100% ZOG.
Emperor Hirohito was only 5 feet 4 inches tall, but they told him he was 10 feet tall and
Japan was (((exceptional))).
Hence the exceptional cruelty with which the Master Race Japs dispensed with their enemies
during WW2. They groomed him well for that kosher mass slaughter.
What Mr.Romanoff has written is obviously true, despite its troll-some flavor.
One point that may have been neglected is how the USA is the greatest money launderer in
the world.
It does this by printing money out of the thin air(ie: quantitative easing), and thus
creating new money to pay for all that stuff that China makes for the US consumer.
This has allowed the USA to live well beyond its means, and have a bloated and overrated
military that is used to attack other small countries that cannot effectively defend
themselves and thus create great profits for the military-industrial complex, at the expense
of millions of foreign lives and only some thousands of US soldiers.
This sort of regime change operation is actually no more than a stock market pump and dump
operation, first you demonize some little country with false accusations, sanction them and
provoke them into doing some hostile acts, or pretend that they have made some human rights
violation like using poison gas or are committing genocide or incarceration of a minority,
then bomb the shit out of them, and then rack in all that weapons used and resupply bucks.
Maybe after that, install a puppet govt and steal their resources.
Oh Yeah, Big Daddy Warbucks! Go USA!
Also, by having the US dollar as the reserve currency(past cleverness no longer present),
all other countries have to keep a supply of dollars for trading and thus the demand for this
imaginary currency and also demand for US Treasuries. Thus countries buy US debt, further
funding the USA's bloated military and overspending.
Everybody knows the USA will never pay back that debt, and also the debt will never go
down. It will just go up and up until nobody wants to use the US dollar or hold US debt and
then the US dollar will crash.
This is the way that the shit-faced USA rapes the world financially, and everybody knows
this.
The USA was founded on the genocide of the Red Indians and the stealing of their land. The
USA made 200 treaties with the Red Indians and broke every one.
After that, the USA grew fat on the slave labor of innocent Africans, raping their women
and "going black" in reverse.
But Trump is even better, with his family descending from primitive savages in the black
forest of Germany. Sometimes they caught the wild boars there and reamed them good, sometimes
the wild boars caught THEM and reamed them good.
In any case, Trump's grand-daddy fled conscription and came to the USA as a lice-ridden
and filthy immigrant, but made good selling liquor and supplying prostitutes to the miners. A
pimp.
And Trump's daddy was a KKK member, arrested at a KKK rally after being too slow to run
away from the police, and then became a front-man for Nazi business interests in the USA
before WW2.
From Drumpf to Trump, but in the end, no change to the clown-like shit-show called the
Trump drama series.
Wow. a very precise shot at America's most underlying problem:
These individuals are vital for the success of the transformation of the US to a fascist
state, with the elites dependent upon them to execute their policies, yet they also
profit from their positions in terms of attractive salaries and protection from much of the
law . These are the people who best know of all the crimes and social injustices, being
in fact a willing part of their execution process, but least likely to blow the whistle for
fear of damaging their careers. It is the middle level of educated executives, lawyers,
accountants and managers in government, criminal corporations, Foundations, think tanks,
the media, and so many others, who are directly responsible for knowingly inflicting the
vast damage on their own people and nation
A very illuminating description of modern day America, no punches pulled by Larry
Romanoff.
Larry is a classic white uncle type. The Japanese rightwing have their own "white guy who
is on our side" who spouts their beliefs in english about how the Rape of Nanking never
happened, Japan didn't start the war, Tojo dindu nuffin and they love him for it. Larry is
the Chinese version. Larry's worldview = China never did anything wrong in its entire
history. Tienamen was a myth, Great Leap Foward famine was a myth, forced abortions due to
One Child Policy is a myth, China's neighbours hating China's guts is a myth, America bad,
America bad, America bad.
Can you name even one negative thing about China's government?
@Tom Welsh
"Explanations exist; they have existed for all time; there is always a well-known solution to
every human problem -- neat, plausible, and wrong".
You will have to explain why America prior to 1965 immigration act, was a scientific and
intellectual powerhouse, without peer in the world.
Whites were 89% of the population of the U.S. in 1965, and the amount of northeast asians,
and sub-continent Asians was statistically insignificant (1 percent or less). This white
co-hort of 89% had the additional drag of a black population that is not known for its
engineering and technical prowess.
This is a fast but excellent piece in placing a mirror on America in the 21st Century. I for
one dont understand why there are so many negative replies to LR's conclusions. There are
obviously many so called White Nationalists or Patriots (both real and fake)
venting rage here, that still believe they are "Exceptional" above the rest of the non-Anglo
Saxon world, but as LR says the exceptionalism might be more on the negative side these days.
The critics need to grow up and take responsibility for the mess the US is now in, in order to
fix things, if that is their real goal.
I find his bullet list of conclusions to be basically in line, but of course there surely
exists a similar bullet list of positive achievements to the US experiment as well, but that
was obviously not the thrust of this article. As should be well understood, self aggrandizement
does not fix anything.
What all Americans should agree on is the US national experiment is being sunk maybe even
per plan, from certain elements of the controlling leadership, but not necessarily by us
"bottom feeders" as the moneyed elite like to call the rest of us these days.
The cries of outrage and venom being spewed at LR would be better placed into how to fix
things in the USA and how the population can come together to put America back on a sane and
positive coarse that serves the entire populace, not those who just consider them Chosen of
some sort. What we have had the last 40 years, is surely a divide and conquer mission by the
two parties.
For me the LR bullet list is a fairly accurate of national examples that demonstrate a
societal and governance destruction. My exceptions are :
The most strident nationalism of all nations
Highest level of racism and race-related violence
Other countries can be exemplified here of potentially taking the lead, one being our Most
Favored
State, which is a large part of our national problem, suckering our leadership at every turn,
and plundering our wealth and ethos.
This should be the title and subtitle of this article:
The Destruction of American Exceptionalism
The consequences of the decisions and policies of selfish, corrupt, traitorous and
dishonorable politicians who are the puppets of the international corporate and finance
elite
Probably a lot here is true, but let me play Alexander the Great cutting the Gordian Knot
with a very simple question: if America is the worst, then why do we have so much
immigration?
The USA is the best of the worst, and has maybe the worst handle on influx of the
miserables.
Compared to Japan, the US cities are almost universally shitholes, or on the way there, where
immigrants seem to be draw, though the US plantations can always use their labor.
It's always been a neoliberal project to open borders to destroy the citizen worker who had
some rights.
Wherever there is benefit from lies, States lie. UK re Hitler, OZ re Taz, or even China re
Japan, US re China today, etc.
My appreciation of Mao was enhanced from facts, while a lot is mythology. Humans aren't
perfect, and act under circumstance for the best.
My emperor should offer a post-humous medal to Sun Yatsen, his supporters, and Mao and his
collaborators.
Then we should figure out outstanding issues on a non-western idea of territoriality.
"... A striking example of philosophical messiness and confusion is that the conservative movement even incorporated clearly anti-conservative ideas, specifically, the anti-historicism advanced by Leo Strauss and his followers. Strauss championed what he called "natural right," which he saw as sharply opposed to tradition. He called the latter "the ancestral" or "convention." To look to them for guidance was to be guilty of the great offense of "historicism," by which he meant moral relativism or nihilism. History, Strauss insisted, is irrelevant to understanding what is right. Only ahistorical, purely abstract reason is normative. ..."
"... The Jaffaite notion that America rejected the past and was founded on revolutionary, abstract, universal ideas contributed to what this writer has termed "the new Jacobinism." According to this ideology, America is "exceptional" by virtue of its founding principles. Since these principles belong to all humanity, America must help remake societies around the world. "Moral clarity" demands uncompromising adherence to the principles. The forces of good must defeat the forces of evil. Inherently monopolistic and imperial, American principles justify foreign policy hawkishness and interventionism. ..."
"... These contrasting views of America entail wholly different nationalisms. The moralistic universalism of American exceptionalism, with its demand that all respect its dictates runs counter to the American constitutional spirit of compromise, deliberation, and respect for minorities. Exceptionalism does not defuse or restrain the will to power, but feeds it, justifying arrogance, assertiveness, and even belligerence. ..."
"... In a speech in the spring of 2019, Pompeo declared that America is "exceptional." America is, he said, "a place and history apart from normal human experience." It has a mission to oppose evil in the world. America is entitled to "respect." It should dictate terms to "rogue" powers like Iran and confront countries like China and Russia that are "intent on eroding American power." This speech was given and loudly cheered at the 40th anniversary gala of the Claremont Institute in California, whose intellectual founder was -- Harry Jaffa. ..."
"... American exceptionalism is in important ways the opposite of a conservatism or a nationalism that defends the moral and cultural heritage that generated American constitutionalism. Exceptionalism fans imperial designs. ..."
"... the phony opposition between nationalism and American exceptionalism on the one hand, and globalism. Any nationalism is only one step removed from globalism, but the nationalism of small countries is usually fairly harmless because the countries themselves are weak. But American nationalism and exceptionalism is in practice indistinguishable from globalism. It simply makes explicit from which location the globe will be ruled. ..."
"... The original idea behind American Exceptionalism is that we are the "Shining City on the Hill". In other words, we were a good example to others. There was nothing in there about the residents of that Shining City going out and invading its neighbors to force them to follow its good example. ..."
"... Sociopaths respect no limits on their power. ..."
"... Actually, according to Kurt Vonnegut, it was neither nationalism nor liberty - but piracy! One group of pirates trying to break away from another. Then again, perhaps that is what you mean by the heralded "liberty"? ..."
A child waves the United States flag from the crown of Liberty Enlightening the World, less formally known as The Statue of Liberty,
on Liberty Island in New York Harbor. | Detail of: 'Statue of Liberty' by Frederic Auguste Bartholdi.
Reactions to globalization, the Trump presidency, and the coronavirus pandemic have turned discussions of American conservatism
increasingly into discussions of "nationalism." Regrettably, terminological confusion is rampant. Both "conservatism" and "nationalism"
are words of many and even contradictory meanings.
The strengths of post-World War II American intellectual conservatism have been widely heralded. As for its weaknesses, one trait
stands out that has greatly impeded intellectual stringency: a deep-seated impatience with the supposedly "finer points" of philosophy.
Making do with loosely defined terms has made conservatism susceptible to intellectual flabbiness, contradiction, and manipulation.
This deficiency is connected to a virtual obsession with electoral politics. William F. Buckley's path-breaking National Review
was an intellectual magazine, but its primary purpose was to prepare the ground for political victories, most of all for capturing
the presidency. The desire to forge a political alliance among diverse groups pushed deep intellectual fissures into the background.
Having a rather narrowly political understanding of what shapes the future, most conservatives thought that the election and presidency
of Ronald Reagan signified the "triumph" of conservatism; but the triumph was hollow. The reason is that in the long run politicians
have less power than those who shape our view of reality, our innermost hopes and fears, and our deeper sensibilities. A crucial
role is here played by "the culture" -- universities, schools, churches, the arts, media, book publishing, advertising, Hollywood,
and the rest of the entertainment industry -- which is why America kept moving leftward.
For post-war so-called "movement" conservatives, conservatism meant chiefly limited government, a free market, anti-communism,
and a strong defense. These tenets were all focused on politics, and vastly different motives hid behind each of them. Why were these
tenets called "conservatism"? Rather than point to a few policy preferences, should that term not refer to a general attitude to
life, a wish to conserve something, the best of a heritage? One thinks of the moral and cultural sources of American liberty
and constitutionalism. But, outside of ceremonial occasions, most movement conservatives placed their emphasis elsewhere.
A striking example of philosophical messiness and confusion is that the conservative movement even incorporated clearly anti-conservative
ideas, specifically, the anti-historicism advanced by Leo Strauss and his followers. Strauss championed what he called "natural right,"
which he saw as sharply opposed to tradition. He called the latter "the ancestral" or "convention." To look to them for guidance
was to be guilty of the great offense of "historicism," by which he meant moral relativism or nihilism. History, Strauss insisted,
is irrelevant to understanding what is right. Only ahistorical, purely abstract reason is normative.
Hampered by a lack of philosophical education, many Straussians have been oblivious to the far-reaching and harmful ramifications
of this anti-historicism. By blithely combining it with ideas of very different origin, they have concealed, even from themselves,
its animosity to tradition.
One of Strauss's most influential disciples, Harry Jaffa, made the radical implications of Straussian anti-historicism explicit.
In his view, America's Founders did not build on a heritage. They deliberately turned their backs on the past. Jaffa wrote:
"To celebrate the American Founding is to celebrate revolution." America's revolution belonged among the other modern revolutions.
It is mild "as compared with subsequent revolutions in France, Russia, China, Cuba, or elsewhere," he wrote, but "it nonetheless
embodied the greatest attempt at innovation that human history had recorded." The U.S. Constitution did not grow out of the achievements
of ancestors. On the contrary, radical innovators gave America a fresh start. What is distinctive and noble about America is that,
in the name of ahistorical, abstract, universal principles, it broke with the past.
This view flies in the face of overwhelming historical evidence. The reason the Founders were upset with the British government
is that it was acting in a radical, arbitrary manner that violated the old British constitution. John Adams spoke of "grievous
innovation." John Dickinson protested "dreadful novelty." What the colonists wanted, Adams wrote, was "nothing new," but respect
for traditional rights and the common law. The Constitution of the Framers reaffirmed and creatively developed an ancient heritage.
The Jaffaite notion that America rejected the past and was founded on revolutionary, abstract, universal ideas contributed
to what this writer has termed "the new Jacobinism." According to this ideology, America is "exceptional" by virtue of its founding
principles. Since these principles belong to all humanity, America must help remake societies around the world. "Moral clarity" demands
uncompromising adherence to the principles. The forces of good must defeat the forces of evil. Inherently monopolistic and imperial,
American principles justify foreign policy hawkishness and interventionism.
Compare this notion of America to what is implied in Benjamin Franklin's famous phrase about what the Constitutional Convention
had produced -- "a republic, if you can keep it." To sustain the Constitution, Americans would have to cultivate the moral and cultural
traits that had given rise to it in the first place. To be an American is to defend an historically evolved inheritance, to live
up to what may be called the "constitutional personality." Only such people are capable of the kind of conduct that the Constitution
values and requires. Americans must, first of all, be able to control the will to power, beginning with self. They must respect the
law, rise above the passions of the moment, take the long view, deliberate, compromise, and respect minorities. Whether applied to
domestic or foreign affairs, the temperament of American constitutionalism is modesty and restraint. There is no place for unilateral
dictates.
These contrasting views of America entail wholly different nationalisms. The moralistic universalism of American exceptionalism,
with its demand that all respect its dictates runs counter to the American constitutional spirit of compromise, deliberation, and
respect for minorities. Exceptionalism does not defuse or restrain the will to power, but feeds it, justifying arrogance, assertiveness,
and even belligerence.
During the presidency of Donald Trump many proponents of American exceptionalism who want preferment have recast their anti-historical
universalism as "nationalism," showing that the term can mean almost anything. It is now "nationalist" to demand that American principles
be everywhere respected. For example, Mike Pompeo, a person of strong appetites and great ambition, has put this belief behind his
campaign of assertiveness and "maximum pressure."
In a speech in the spring of 2019, Pompeo declared that America is "exceptional." America is, he said, "a place and history
apart from normal human experience." It has a mission to oppose evil in the world. America is entitled to "respect." It should dictate
terms to "rogue" powers like Iran and confront countries like China and Russia that are "intent on eroding American power." This
speech was given and loudly cheered at the 40th anniversary gala of the Claremont Institute in California, whose intellectual founder
was -- Harry Jaffa.
What may seem to political practitioners and political intellectuals to be hair-splitting philosophical distinctions can, on the
contrary, have enormous practical significance. American exceptionalism is in important ways the opposite of a conservatism or
a nationalism that defends the moral and cultural heritage that generated American constitutionalism. Exceptionalism fans imperial
designs. The culture of constitutionalism opposes them.
Claes G. Ryn is professor of politics and founding director of the new Center for the Study of Statesmanship at The Catholic
University of America. His many books include America the Virtuous and A Common Human Ground , now in a new paperback edition.
Americans must, first of all, be able to control the will to power, beginning with self. They must respect the law, rise above
the passions of the moment, take the long view, deliberate, compromise, and respect minorities.
All lovely ideas. Too bad our "conservative" president is capable of none of these.
Great essay by Professor Ryn in exposing again, as he has done so often before, the phony opposition between nationalism
and American exceptionalism on the one hand, and globalism. Any nationalism is only one step removed from globalism, but the nationalism
of small countries is usually fairly harmless because the countries themselves are weak. But American nationalism and exceptionalism
is in practice indistinguishable from globalism. It simply makes explicit from which location the globe will be ruled.
All true, every word, but the problem with American exceptionalism isn't a matter of semantics or clever arguments but a matter
of power.
This is why the definition of exceptionalism keeps shifting, because as a practical matter it means "whatever is in the interests
of empire" at this particular moment in this particular case.
The original idea behind American Exceptionalism is that we are the "Shining City on the Hill". In other words, we were
a good example to others. There was nothing in there about the residents of that Shining City going out and invading its neighbors
to force them to follow its good example.
These days we are trying to force others to follow good ideals and high standards that we are ourselves following less and
less.
Exactly. The author twists words and creates strawmen and red herrings and argues with dead men.
Washington and Hamilton set forth an idea of country separate from all others and different. Yes, America is and was exceptional.
Friend to all, ally to none, an example to all the world, based in English heritage and culture. It was founded by conservative
revolutionaries, who attempted to claw back freedoms taken away by those in London, who were becoming overlords of an empire.
There was "year zero", and early America could draw on all of English history, plus the Enlightenment, the Renaissance, ancient
Greece and Rome, as well as religious traditions going back to antiquity.
It was always the Jeffersonian impulse towards revolution that was different. Jefferson loved the Year Zero France. But Jefferson
at his core was an idealist.
The problem was that idealists like Jefferson gradually gained power a little over a hundred years ago. Their idealism was
used by those who wanted to exploit America's power to further their own goals contrary to the ideals of American exceptionalism
and American tradition. Greed and idealism went together and America used the cover of American exceptionalism to create an empire.
As to Buckley, his goal seems more like controlled opposition than anything else. He was a gatekeeper for the powerful, defining
acceptable conservatism, keeping conservatism on the plantation. Conservativism Inc continues to try to do so.
Trump is a return to classic American traditionalism and exceptionalism. He is attempting to reshape the world along nationalistic
lines, which is why AMLO in Mexico praised him so much. Globalists don't want to lose their power. Oligarchs don't want to give
up their exploitation and extraction systems. Pundits don't want to give up their money train and status. Bureaucrats don't want
actual democracy.
On Wikipedia's list of the 50 cities with the world's highest homicide rates (per 100,000 population), the US has 4, South
Africa has 4 and the rest are in Latin America. It hardly makes us the shining city on a hill or exceptional, unless you think
a high crime rate is good.
Mark Twain said, "The radical invents the views. When he has worn them out the conservative adopts them." Today I would modify
Twain a bit; when conservatives adopt some radical idea, the radicals respond by declaring that idea worn out. Exhibit A would
be the idea of "American exceptionalism."
The historical fact is that American exceptionalism is a Communist concept, devised by Stalin in 1929 to describe --
and to dismiss -- what his American agents told him about the huge differences between American society and European societies,
both of which Soviet-sponsored parties were trying to control. These differences included far lesser class distinctions, greater
racial animosities, a labor movement much more concerned with economic bargaining than fielding political candidates, vastly weaker
political parties, much more ethnic and religious diversity, and more hostility to centralized government. Today, we would have
to add far more imprisonment of criminals, more approval of the death penalty, and a jealous passion for the right to have guns,
although those differences weren't nearly as wide in 1929 as now. American exceptionalism exists. You can argue about whether
it is good or bad, and certainly some of the differences between America and Europe are better or worse than others, but it's
pure pretense to claim that America is an ordinary, unexceptional Western country. And no one on the left made any such pretense,
until people on the right started talking about and glorifying (or at least not denigrating) "American exceptionalism," which
had previously been solely a term of contempt. The radicals invented the views, then declared them worn out when the conservatives
adopted them.
The truth that America is an exceptional country does not, of course, mean that its foreign policy has always been wise, and
certainly it does not mean that America's catastrophic blundering in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq were either morally right
or good for Americans. It merely means that we can't correct those mistakes by pretending that the country we're trying to rescue
is unexceptional, that it is no different from other societies, and thus that foreign policies accepted by European or Asian voters
will necessarily be winners here too.
I don't know why you think any of this is even relevant to my point: that American exceptionalism is real, and that desperately
needed foreign policy reforms won't work if we ignore that fact. Worse, the points you raise all distort the real nature of America's
differences from other Western countries.
American and European laws on abortion are very little different; in most of Europe, as in America, abortion is legal and accepted,
Poland being one of the very few exceptions. We're probably closest to Ireland, where abortion has been recently legalized but
remains socially frowned on. Again, whether you or I think that's a good thing or a bad thing doesn't matter; it's simply not
one of the major points of difference between America and Europe.
Explaining the difference in imprisonment between Europe and America solely by America's greater black and Hispanic population
is wrong in so many ways I hardly know where to begin. First, the difference in imprisonment is very recent, starting in the early
1990s and largely devised by a centrist Democratic US president; America's black and Hispanic population has always been much
larger than Europe's, so it can't explain the difference in imprisonment. Second, America imprisons whites as well as blacks much
more than Europe does. Third, poor blacks and Hispanics commit crimes at the same rate as poor whites of the same economic status;
poor people of whatever race or color choose to commit crimes more often, because they have more incentive to make that choice.
The higher black and Hispanic crime rate simply reflects the fact that far more of them are poor. As long ago as the 19th century,
the British poor were called by the upper class "the criminal classes," and that reflected the undeniable truth that the British
poor, like poor people everywhere, committed more crime than anyone else.
I thank you for the BBC link; I had long suspected that Europe's ban on the death penalty often didn't reflect popular opinion
at first, but I didn't have the data proving it. But that doesn't in any way change the fact that considerably more Americans
than Europeans support the death penalty, and long have, which is why European elites were able to get away with banning it without
losing elections, and American elites have not.
Again, I'm not saying anything about whether any of these differences between America and the rest of the West are good or
bad.. My point is that they exist, and it's no good pretending that they don't merely because America's foreign policy isn't working
very well.
I'll say it over and over, but GOP is Right Wing Lockean (Maritime Imperialist) "Anything Goes" Liberalism. DNC is Left Wing
Lockean (Maritime Imperialist) "Anything Goes" Liberalism. We use these words wrong in our USA. Traditionalist Conservatives have
NEVER enjoyed political party representation here. We are to-date completely a-historical and delusionally racist "Novum Organum"
conquistadors with English accents. Good News? Better futures lie ahead of us. Start with agrarianism, potable water, and arable
land. North America is underpopulated. I worked for State Dept. I witnessed the World Bank's destruction of Ukraine. Ask me a
real question. I'll answer honestly. We suffer post-WW2 legacy Daddy and Mommy Warbucks here, writing checks to their own kids.
We can, must and will do better. Those without pasts are without futures. To Survive is to Sur Vivre, Live Above. Hold tight.
Have faith.
There is the wish for what definitions should do in political and religious discussion, and then there is the reality of what
they actually do. The wish is that, by using the word "definition," I am referring to something like the definition of a mathematical
concept. We can define precisely what addition means. The problem is, we cannot do that with terms like conservatism. Ryn's argument
illustrates the failure of that attempt: we have "wholly different nationalisms"; we have something that calls itself conservatism
but it's wrong, because Ryn says so.
Definitionism leads to abstruse dispute, as scholars tussle over what is really nationalistic or conservative. The rest
of us look on askance. Most people are not interested in a discussion filled with labels, like, "I'm a cisgender vegetarian transsexual
white socialistic vegetarian Capricorn with subclinical mental disabilities." For most people, that sort of definition-oriented
declaration comes across as hostile to discussion. Like, "I'm here in my castle. I dare you to try to penetrate it." The intrepid
soul who attempts to start an actual friendly conversation, in response to that sort of statement, is likely to move away from
definitionism. Not "You cannot be white: your skin is brown," but rather, "Really! My sister is a Capricorn!"
Definitionism (in some ways a/k/a labeling) is more likely to destroy dialogue than to create it. "Oh, you're a [fill in the
blank]: you can't be good." It is possible to be a Nazi, a Bolshevik, or anything in between -- and still, in various regards,
to be smart, friendly, successful, etc. Political dialogue is like dipping a ladle into a soup kettle: you may pull out some beans,
some meat, some corn -- but possibly no one knows what else lurks in there. The attempt to define is is not merely a lost cause
-- it basically misses the point.
Ah but the revolution was not based at all on nationalism. It was for liberty. The Articles, as the war, were not based on
ideas of nationalism but more libertarian than not. Lest we forget, the convention was called to improve the Articles. That the
federalists (nationalists) hijacked the convention required quashing liberty in favor of a cleverly designed campaign masking
the future.
Patrick Henry was on to it early:
"When the American spirit was in its youth, the language of America was different: liberty, sir, was then the primary object
.But now, sir, the American spirit, assisted by the ropes and chains of consolidation, is about to convert this country into a
powerful and mighty empire .Such a government is incompatible with the genius of republicanism. There will be no checks, no real
balances, in this government..."
In the end the anti federalists have been proven right.
Actually, according to Kurt Vonnegut, it was neither nationalism nor liberty - but piracy! One group of pirates trying to break
away from another. Then again, perhaps that is what you mean by the heralded "liberty"?
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
(John Adams, October 11, 1798.).
Are we still "a moral and religious people"? Well, are we?
Mayhap we are in deep trouble? Well, are we?
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free . . . it expects what never was and never will be"
(Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Colonel Charles Yancey, January 6, 1816.)
No comment.
"I am only one, but I am one. I can't do everything, but I can do something. What I can do, that I ought to do. And what I
ought to do, By the grace of God, I shall do."
Roger Thornhill 2 hours ago If I recall correctly, Obama gave the Russians all of 48 hours
to leave their consulate in San Francisco, which had been occupied since the 19th Century. This
was around Christmas time in 2016. So I don't find this particularly surprising. Two days to
have the diplomats, staff, and families completely out of the country.
Does Cancel Culture intersect with Woke? The former's not mentioned in
this fascinating essay , but the latter is and appears to deserve some unpacking beyond
what Crooke provides.
As for the letter, it's way overdue by 40+ years. I recall reading Bloom's The Closing
of the American Mind and Christopher Lasch's Culture of Narcissism where they say
much the same.
What's most irksome are the lies that now substitute for discourse--Trump or someone from
his admin lies, then the WaPost, NY Times, MSNBC, Fox, and others fire back with their lies.
And to top everything off--There's ZERO accountability: people who merit "canceling" continue
to lie and commit massive fraud.
The Chinese and Russian Foreign Ministers just jointly agreed in a rare published account
of their phone conversation that the Outlaw US Empire " has lost its sense of reason,
morality and credibility .
Yes, they were specifically referring to the government, but I'd include the Empire's
institutions as well. In the face of that reality, the letter is worse than a joke.
I like this article, it says it all. I have also long harbored a theory that the US
intelligence are behind most of the worlds financial cyber-crime, systematically fleecing the
world to fund their many many operations around the world. They have the tech with Windows
back-doors, the motivation to hide 'off the book' operations and a proven lack of morals as
demonstrated during the Iran–Contra affair, many years ago. but what do I know. As Bill
Maher says, 'I can't prove it but I know it's true'.
John Ervin , Jul 16, 2020 11:59 PM Reply to
voxpox
The USA foreign policy shows a penchant for amoral deceptiveness of ALL other countries,
even best allies, chronically.
So that gives heft to Bill Maher's maxim. Perennial treaty busters and oath breakers, why would anyone trust? Fool me once etc.
That's at the core of my take on all USA has said about C-19(84). Been there, done that,
with 100 other false flags, always the same tune.
The boy who cried wolf: Uncle Scam. Always proven false after all the marbles are stolen. Or at some point down the road. If
not, it shall be, like the JFK fiasco. Like the lone holdout among nations on the Napalm Ban,
or sole rogue to drop an A bomb (75th Anniversary of that cowardly Holocaust coming up in a
few weeks.)
Lone, lone, lone. A sad little homeboy in the Land of the Lone Gunman. So many, though. Too many, for the
world's good .
~~~~~~~~~
Don't take it from me, though, I'm a total patriot, really, compared to Mr. Gonzo, Hunter
S. Thompson:
"America just a nation of 200 million used car salesmen with all the money we need to buy
guns and no qualms at all about using them on anybody else in the world who tries to make us
uncomfortable."
Hunter always said it like it is, at least at yhr time he saw it, he rode with the Hell's
Angels and wrote the 1st book about them, and wasn't much shy about calling a spade a
spade.
And. Like my own old man: another highly assisted apparent suicide.
This neocon thinks that Russia will ever Trust the USA and "collective West". Credibility is gone, probably for decadesto
come.
Notable quotes:
"... In the presence of Russia's previously expansive relationship with Europe, a Russian pivot to Asia may have remained largely symbolic. In the presence of Western sanctions, however, it has instead become truly historic: Russia and China are closer today than at any point since the Sino-Soviet split that Nixon's China policy seized advantage of. ..."
"... pax Sinaica ..."
"... Paul Stronski, a former director for Russia and Central Asia on the US National Security Council, identifies the implications better. Given that China "currently receives most of its primary imports through sea lanes from the south", Stronski writes, "the Russian Far East provides not only a diversified source a reliable and rich supply from its northern borders could also function as a hedge against a US Navy blockade". ..."
"... Australia's foreign policy elite is usually quick to talk up its "post-European" credentials. But on Russia they have been content to be guided by an uncritical neo-Atlanticist perspective . While Europe may fear a Russia that is too strong, Asia should fear a Russia that is too weak. ..."
Yes, to balance China, let's
bring Russia in from the cold
The West's isolation of Russia has helped Moscow acquiesce
in an expanded Chinese presence it would once have resented.
Last month, US
President Donald Trump surprised allies by calling for Russia and Australia to be admitted together with
India and South Korea to an expanded G-7.
Writing in support of
the idea, federal Liberal MP Dave Sharma has
cast
the
argument as a reversal of Nixon's 1972
opening
to Mao's China
, a "reshuffling of the deck" to balance China's growing shadow in world affairs by
peeling off a sanctioned but far from shrunken "
global
Russia
" increasingly closely attached to China's side.
Given China's
increasingly agonistic approach to Australia and Indo-Pacific states, such a policy commends itself by its
realist credentials. But it would also acknowledge the role Western policies have played in accelerating the
Sino-Russian rapprochement.
Certainly, Moscow and
Beijing's "axis of convenience" predates the
sanctions
imposed
by the West on Russia in 2014: the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (a forum for military cooperation and
intelligence sharing originally focused on counter-terrorism) was
founded
in
2002; Russian President Vladimir Putin announced Russia's own "
pivot
to the East
", before the outbreak of the Ukraine crisis, in 2013.
Russia and China are
undoubtedly
closer
today
than six years ago, but there is more to it than that. In the presence of Russia's previously expansive
relationship with Europe, a Russian pivot to Asia may have remained largely symbolic. In the presence of
Western sanctions, however, it has instead become truly historic: Russia and China are closer today than at
any point since the Sino-Soviet split that Nixon's China policy seized advantage of.
In 2018, 3500 Chinese
troops crossed the border to join 300,000 Russian counterparts in military exercises
billed
by
the Russian ministry of defence as the largest its forces had participated in since 1981. Through a
partnership with Russia's sanctioned Sberbank (Russia's biggest state-owned bank), Huawei
seems
this
year likely to win not only construction rights to Russia's 5G network, but also a vote of confidence in the
reliability of Chinese technology that will commend a "tech"
pax
Sinaica
to other BRICS and emerging states.
[Image removed] Vostok-2018
military manoeuvres involving troops from China (Kremlin.ru)
Economically, China
has not only cushioned the economic blow of Western sanctions. It has overcome longstanding Russian
sensitivities about Chinese investment in Moscow's vast but underpopulated and underdeveloped Asian
territories. (In the Russian Far East alone, an area almost the size of Australia, 6.3 million Russians look
across the border at 110 million Chinese in China's three northernmost provinces.)
Delivered via the
4857-kilometre
Eastern
Siberian Oil Pipeline
, Russian oil exports to China more than doubled between 2013 and 2016, when
Russia
overtook
Saudi
Arabia as China's major oil supplier, allowing Beijing to substitute a continental supplier to its north for
one dependent on a maritime route policed by the US Navy to its south. Meanwhile, under a
deal
signed
by Putin and Chinese leader Xi Jinping in May 2014 (just months after Western nations first imposed
Crimea-related sanctions), the first deliveries of $400 billion worth of Russian gas from fields north of
Lake Baikal arrived in China via the Chinese-funded "Power of Siberia" line last December. A "Power of
Siberia" II is to follow.
In seeking to bring
Russia in from the cold to balance China, Australia should make common cause with Tokyo and Seoul, as it
should also with New Delhi. India has long recognised the importance of Russia to the Asian balance.
Moscow once frowned
on Chinese investment in Siberia's mining sector. But in the contemporary climate, China
obtained
its
first stake in a Russian gold, iron and copper mining venture in 2015, 400 kilometres from the border. With
Russia China's largest supplier of timber, Chinese firms are deeply involved in one of the region's major
employers. And barely an hour's flight from Beijing, Siberia's open spaces have enormous potential as
crowded North Asia's "lungs" –
before
Covid-19
struck, the rush to build hotel (and, where relevant, cruise ship) facilities had begun, from Lake Baikal to
Vladivostok.
When in 2012 Russia
established a Federal Ministry for the Russian Far East, then-President Dmitri Medvedev warned of the danger
of Russia's Asian territories becoming a mere "resource appendage" of China. Reflecting the post-2014 shift
in Russian attitudes, those qualms seem to have evaporated.
Thus, Russia and
China announced
plans
for
a $5.3 billion project for two "International Transport Corridors" linking China's landlocked Heilongjang
and Jilin provinces to port facilities in Russia's nearby Maritime Province. If constructed, such corridors
would provide China with direct access not only to the Sea of Japan (unhindered by the US Navy and its
allies Japan and South Korea), but also an expanded presence in a province, which, though including the Far
East's biggest cities (Khabarovsk: 577,000; and Vladivostok: 605,000) has only been Russian since 1858.
Modern Chinese maps often designate it as a historical Chinese territory.
Elsewhere, too, the
West's isolation of Russia has helped Moscow acquiesce in an expanded Chinese presence it would once have
resented. Strategically and economically, the five former Soviet republics of Central Asia are a
Russian-Chinese condominium, with resource-rich Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan as crucial planks in China's
Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).
Even in the Arctic,
Russia's traditional resistance to a larger Chinese role
has
softened
. Just as China has sought (and obtained) recognition as "near-Arctic" state, so Russian
authorities have suggested a role for China in constructing the infrastructure to connect the BRI to
Russia's Northern Sea Route.
[Image removed]
Construction
of the Power of Siberia gas pipeline (Kremlin.ru)
That Western
sanctions would drive a Russian rapprochement with China was predictable. Even now that it has happened,
however, a certain "operating fallacy" prevents some analysts from extracting any downside in this for the
West. As Ariel Cohen
wrote
in
Forbes
last
year, "By anchoring itself to China with Power of Siberia pipeline, Russia closes many doors, and in the
long run, endangers its own energy trade – and national sovereignty."
But the mere fact
that something is "bad" for Russia doesn't make it "good" for the West.
Balancing China
alone is far more realistic than balancing China and Russia together.
Paul Stronski, a
former director for Russia and Central Asia on the US National Security Council,
identifies
the
implications better. Given that China "currently receives most of its primary imports through sea lanes from
the south", Stronski writes, "the Russian Far East provides not only a diversified source a reliable and
rich supply from its northern borders could also function as a hedge against a US Navy blockade".
Alive to Russia's
significance to the Asian balance, Japan
imposed
a
weaker, more "symbolic" sanctions regime than did Australia, following the US and Europe. Faithful to its
"New Northern Policy", South Korea imposed
none
at all
. In 2018, the value of Korean trade with Russia rose almost a third.
In seeking to bring
Russia in from the cold to balance China, Australia should make common cause with Tokyo and Seoul, as it
should also with New Delhi. India has long recognised the importance of Russia to the Asian balance, has not
imposed sanctions, and is
exploring
pipelines.
To "exclude" China
from Russian Asia is as pointless as it is undesirable. Not
all
Chinese
investment in Siberia or the Russian Far East is unwelcome: the poorer, emptier, and more underdeveloped
these territories remain, the less Russia will have to contribute to any future, informal "coalition of the
balancing" in Asia.
But the foreign
investment needed should be diverse, lest the Chinese commercial penetration that is already occurring make
a continental-size region of vast natural resources and immune to Western blockade, an effective extension
of Chinese strategic space – a "
Central
Powers 2.0
" stretching from Hainan to the Arctic Circle and Baltic.
As Sharma concedes,
to bring Russia in from the cold, "the statecraft required is not easy, and the realpolitik underpinning it
might be hard to stomach". And – although in the history of "Russia-gate", unsubstantiated intelligence
leaks to the press
have
a record
of proving over-egged – in a week that has seen the apparent revelation of Russian bounties on
coalition troops in Afghanistan, it will be a particularly hard sell.
But balancing China
alone
is
far more realistic than balancing China and Russia
together.
Certainly, the asymmetry in the relationship is unpleasant for Russia. But it does nothing to undermine the
advantages that accrue to China.
Australia's foreign policy elite is usually quick to talk up its "post-European"
credentials. But on Russia they have been content to be guided by an uncritical
neo-Atlanticist
perspective
. While Europe may fear a Russia that is too strong, Asia should fear a Russia that is too
weak.
"The World Cannot Breathe!" Squashed By The U.S. - A Country Built On Genocide And Slavery
More than two centuries of lies are now getting exposed. Bizarre tales about freedom and
democracy are collapsing like houses of cards.
One man's death triggers an avalanche of rage in those who for years, decades and
centuries, have been humiliated, ruined, and exterminated.
It always happens just like this throughout the history of humankind – one single
death, one single "last drop", an occurrence that triggers an entire chain of events, and
suddenly nothing is the same, anymore. Nothing can be the same. What seemed to be
unimaginable just yesterday, becomes "the new normal" literally overnight.
*
For more than two centuries, the country which calls itself the pinnacle of freedom, has
been in fact the absolute opposite of that; the epicenter of brutality and terror.
From its birth, in order to 'clear the space' for its brutal, ruthless European settlers,
it systematically liquidated the local population of the continent, during what could easily
be described as one of the more outrageous genocides in the human history.
When whites wanted land, they took it. In North America, or anywhere in the world. In what
is now the United States of America, millions of "natives" were murdered, infected with
deadly diseases on purpose, or exterminated in various different ways. The great majority of
the original and rightful owners of the land, vanished. The rest were locked up in
"reservations".
Simultaneously, the "Land Of The Free" thrived on slavery. European colonialist powers
literally hunted down human beings all over the African continent, stuffing them, like
animals, into ships, in order to satisfy demand for free labor on the plantations of North
and South America. European colonialist, hand in hand, cooperated, in committing crimes, in
all parts of the world.
What really is the United States? Is anyone asking, searching for its roots? What about
this; a simple, honest answer: The United States is essentially the beefy offspring of
European colonialist culture, of its exceptionalism, racism and barbarity.
Again, simple facts: huge parts of the United States were constructed on slavery. Slaves
were humiliated, raped, tortured, murdered. Oh, what a monstrous way to write the first
chapters of the country's history!
The United States, a country of liberty and freedom? For whom? Seriously! For Christian
whites?
How twisted the narrative is! No wonder our humanity has become so perverse, so immoral,
so lost and confused, after being shaped by a narrative which has been fabricated by a
country that exterminated the great majority of its own native sons and daughters, while
getting insanely rich thanks to unimaginable theft, mass-murder, slavery and later –
the semi-slavery of the savage corporate dictatorship!
The endemic, institutionalized brutality at home eventually spilled over to all parts of
the planet. Now, for many decades, the United Stated has treated the entire world as full of
its personal multitude of slaves. What does it offer to all of us: constant wars,
occupations, punitive expeditions, coups, regular assassinations of progressive leaders, as
well as thorough corporate plunder. Hundreds of millions of people have been sacrificed on
the grotesque U.S. altar of "freedom" and "democracy".
Freedom and democracy, really?
Or perhaps just genocide, slavery, fear and the violation of all those wonderful and
natural human dreams, and of human dignity?
Burn Amerikastan burn. It's beautiful watching you burn
You who had your knee on our necks and killed us as the world looked on.
You who broke into our countries on false pretences, you who killed wives in front of
husbands, fathers in front of daughters, you who said it was your right to do so,
You who stole our resources, you who watched without words
You who claimed you were Exceptional
The world sees you for what you are
Now you burn.
Burn Amerikastan burn.
In the name of the children of Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Syria, Donbass, Yemen,
Afghanistan
@Fiendly Neighbourhood Terrorist You missed out the Serbs.
'Bombed back to the Stoneage' by direction of Bill Clinton and by the butcher of WACO.
Breaking international law by the stealing of Kosovo and handing it to a bunch of radical
islamists – the KLA – thousands of whom have been fighting for ISIS.
Kosovo is Serbia.
They will get it back.
[Hide MORE]
United Nations reports a death toll of 100,000 people!!!!!!!!!!!!! in that nation's
ongoing war
Additional 131 ,000 people !!!!!!!!!!!! dying from hunger, disease and a lack of
medical care.
Since then, 3.65 million people have been internally displaced
The worst cholera outbreak ever recorded has infected 2.26 million !!!!!! and cost
nearly 4,000 lives (Even so this number is just the official account.)
Attacks on hospitals, clinics by Saudis & Co. have led to the closure of more than half
of Yemen's prewar facilities.
The policies of the USA and much of the entire WEST are deeply implicated in Yemen's
suffering, through the sale of billions of dollars in munitions to Saudi Arabia and other
countries that have intervened in the civil war.
"If Trump sent in military troops on his own the press would call it
unconstitutional."
Since when has the constitution or any law – or anyone citing them – been an
obstacle to the evil orange clown?
If he can commit war crimes in Syria and illegally seize Syrian oilfields and seize
Russian and Venezuelan diplomatic property, etc., he can send in military troops or whatever
he feels like doing. He was accused of abusing his office and acquitted. He can do whatever
he pleases.
TNI editor Jacob Heilbrunn interviews Russian deputy foreign minister Sergei Ryabkov about
the New START Treaty and the state of U.S.-Russia relations.
Jacob Heilbrunn : What is your assessment of the state of U.S.-Russia relations?
Sergei Ryabkov : The current state of our bilateral relations is probably worse than we have
experienced for decades preceding this current moment. I don't want to compare this with Cold
War times because that era was different from what we have now -- in some ways, more
predictable; in some ways, more dangerous. From Moscow's perspective, the Trump era is worrying
because we move from one low point to another, and as the famous Polish thinker Jerzy Lec said
once, "We thought we had reached the ground, and then someone knocked from beneath."
This is exactly how things happen today. We try hard to improve the situation through
different proposals in practically all areas that pull Moscow and Washington apart. It doesn't
happen. We recognize that everything that is associated with Russia policy is now quite
problematic, to put it mildly -- quite toxic for the U.S. mainstream in the broader sense of
the word. But the only answer to this, we believe, is to intensify dialogue and search for ways
that both governments, businesses -- structures that impact the general mood of the public --
maintain and probably deepen their interaction and discourse so as to remove possible
misunderstandings or grounds for miscalculations.
One of the most troubling areas in this very dark and dull picture is of course arms
control. There we see a downward spiral that is being systematically enhanced and intensified
by the U.S. government. It looks like America doesn't believe in arms control as a concept
altogether. Instead, it tries to find pretexts to depart from as many arms control treaties,
agreements, and arrangements that Russia is also a party to. This is very regrettable. But make
no mistake: we will not pay any price higher than the one we would pay for our own security in
order to save something or keep the U.S. within this system. It's squarely and
straightforwardly the choice that the American government may or, in our view, even should make
-- because we still think that the maintenance of these agreements ultimately serves American
national interests.
Heilbrunn : What is your view of the Trump administration's approach to the START
Treaty?
Ryabkov : I can easily say that the Trump administration's approach to the START Treaty is
quite strange. Number one: we understand the reasons why the Trump administration wants China
to become a party to any future arms control talks or arrangements -- although we equally
understand the reasons why China doesn't want to be part of these agreements, and thus we
believe that it's up to Washington to deal with Beijing on this issue. And in the absence of a
very clear and open and considered consent from the other side -- that is, from China -- there
would be no talks with China or with China's participation. That's an obvious reality that we
face.
So the next element of this logic brings us to the natural conclusion that it would be in
everyone's interest just to extend what we have now -- that is, a new START in the form as it
was signed and subsequently ratified -- and then defer contentious issues and unresolved
problems, including the one that is associated with U.S. non-compliance with this treaty, to a
later point. An eventual extension of the treaty for five more years would give sufficient time
to both Washington and Moscow, and eventually for others, to consider the situation and make
decisions not in a hurry but with due regard to all aspects and to the gravity of the
challenges before us, including those associated with new military technologies. But again, we
are not there to trade this approach for anything on the U.S. side, to get something from the
U.S. side in return. I think it's quite logical and natural as it stands, so we invite the U.S.
to consider what we are telling them at face value.
Heilbrunn: Traditionally, Russia has worked well with Republican administrations starting
with Nixon. Is that era at an end?
Ryabkov: I don't know. It completely depends on the U.S. We do believe that irrespective of
what party is in the government in the U.S., there are choices; there are opportunities; and
there are possibilities that at least should be explored with Russia. I don't know if this
administration regards Russia as a party worth having a serious dialogue with. I tend to
believe it's not because of domestic political reasons, because of different approaches to
matters that are quite obvious at least for us, including the international system of treaties
and international law in general.
But then again, it may well be so that the current Republican administration will in effect
become a line in history in which a considerable number of useful international instruments
were abrogated and that America exited them in the anticipation that this approach would serve
U.S. interests better. Having said that, I will never say or never suggest that it was for us
-- at least in the mid-2010s -- better with the previous administration.
It was under the previous Obama administration that endless rounds of sanctions were imposed
upon Russia. That was continued under Trump. The pretext for that policy is totally rejected by
Russia as an invalid and illegal one. The previous administration, weeks before it departed,
stole Russian property that was protected by diplomatic immunity, and we are still deprived of
this property by the Trump administration. We have sent 350 diplomatic notes to both the Obama
and the Trump administrations demanding the return of this property, only to see an endless
series of rejections. It is one of the most vivid and obvious examples of where we are in our
relationship.
There is no such thing as "which administration is better for Russia in the U.S.?" Both are
bad, and this is our conclusion after more than a decade of talking to Washington on different
topics.
Heilbrunn: Given the dire situation you portray, do you believe that America has become a
rogue state?
Ryabkov: I wouldn't say so, that's not our conclusion. But the U.S. is clearly an entity
that stands for itself, one that creates uncertainty for the world. America is a source of
trouble for many international actors. They are trying to find ways to protect and defend
themselves from this malign and malicious policy of America that many of the people around the
world believe should come to an end, hopefully in the near future.
Heilbrunn : If President Trump were to respond to your last point, he might say, "What's
wrong with uncertainty from the American perspective? What's wrong with keeping your
adversaries off balance? Why should the U.S. be a predictable power?" What would your response
be to that?
Ryabkov : My response to this would be that we are not asking the U.S. to be a responsible
and predictable partner because we don't believe it would be possible any time soon. We are
saying that this is a reality that we all face, and thus we only adjust our own reaction and
our own response to it trying the best way possible to protect our own interests.
Heilbrunn : Related to that, and on the START Treaty, a Trump administration State
Department official recently announced that the U.S. was ready, essentially, to bury Russia, to
spend it into the ground in a new arms race just as it had in the 1980s.
Ryabkov : To bring it into oblivion.
Heilbrunn : Right. What is your response to those kinds of threats?
Ryabkov : There is no response. We just take note of it, and we draw our lessons from the
past. We will never, ever allow anyone to draw us into an arms race that would exceed our own
capabilities. But we will find ways how to sustain this pressure, both in terms of rhetoric and
also in terms of possible action.
Heilbrunn : What does this kind of rhetoric imply for the future of an extension of the
START Treaty? Doesn't it suggest that the treaty may in fact already be doomed and that the
Trump administration is using China as a poison pill to kill the treaty altogether?
Ryabkov : On China, I think the U.S. administration is obsessed with the issue, and it tries
to introduce "Chinese discourse" into every single international issue at the table. So it's
not about the START Treaty. It's much broader, deeper, and it's by far more multifaceted than
anything that relates to arms control as such. My view on this is that chances for the new
START Treaty to be sustained are rapidly moving close to zero, and I think that on February 5,
2021, this treaty will just lapse, and it will end. We will have no START as of February 6,
2021.
Heilbrunn : Do you feel the American stance toward Russia is inadvertently helping to
promote a Russia-China rapprochement that is actually not in Washington's interest?
Ryabkov : We don't think we can operate on the premise that because of some pressure or some
external impact on us, something happens in terms of the evolution of priorities or approaches
to China or to anyone else. We don't believe the U.S. in its current shape is a counterpart
that is reliable, so we have no confidence, no trust whatsoever. So our own calculations and
conclusions are less related to what America is doing than to many, many other things. And we
cherish our close and friendly relations with China. We do regard this as a comprehensive
strategic partnership in different areas, and we intend to develop it further. Heilbrunn : The
U.S. is pushing very hard against China right now, at least rhetorically. China has vowed to
smash any Taiwanese move toward independence and looks to be cracking down in Hong Kong as
well. Do you see this as another instance where American overt bellicosity ends up boomeranging
and pushing its adversaries to take more drastic measures?
Ryabkov : Of course, it's not possible for me to judge what China will do in those cases or
in those instances, but I do think that every single area where the U.S. believes there is an
opportunity to pressure China is being currently used in a most energetic and most forceful
manner. I think it clearly entails a further growth of uncertainty in international relations.
I still hope though that at some point, the natural instinct to talk and agree and conclude
deals will prevail rather than this ongoing effort to squeeze something out of others -- not
only China, but Russia and others who tend to follow their independent policy from America.
Heilbrunn : In this regard, when it comes to Russia -- because you see the U.S. as trying to
increase the pressure on Russia as well -- do you draw a distinction between President Trump
and his administration, or do you see them as aligned in their approach toward Russia? Because
during the 2016 election campaign, Trump was explicit about trying to revive the U.S.-Russia
relationship.
Ryabkov : No, I see no lines anywhere. I see no distinction, as you have described.
Moreover, I see no distinction between the previous administration and this one.
Heilbrunn : Let me put it another way: what about differences between Trump and his own
advisers? Do you think Trump himself is inclined to take a more diplomatic route, or do you
think that U.S.-Russia policy is being driven by him?
Ryabkov : I don't know who drives U.S. policy toward Russia. We welcome any signal from the
Americans, including from the President himself in favor of improvement, in favor of going
along, and we are prepared to bear our share in this. But unfortunately, it doesn't work. And I
suspect to some extent that it's also my own fear that in my modest position, I was not able to
offer anything to my bosses that may help to change things for the better.
Heilbrunn : Final question: do you think that matters, at least in the area of arms control,
would change under a Biden presidency? Because the Democrats are much more sympathetic to arms
control agreements than Republicans currently appear to be. What's your take?
Ryabkov : I have no idea how things will unfold in relation to the forthcoming election in
the U.S. No predictions, no expectations. I do think, though, that it would be very late in the
process for any administration -- including the second Trump administration if he is reelected
-- to deal with the issue of a new START extension after the day of elections in America. I
think more broadly that the current, almost one-hundred percent watertight anti-Russian
bipartisan consensus in the U.S. doesn't promise much good for this relationship for the
future, irrespective of who wins the next election. So we will see. We will continuously work
hard to try to devise alternative paths forward, but we have no partner on the American
side.
Sergei Ryabkov is Deputy Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation.
Wednesday, July 10, 2019Non-Agreement Capable, Or Agreement Incapable, Or...
Agreement-unworthy, or.... I didn't find many English-language report on Putin's last week
interview on this issue:
We knew this all along, didn't we? It is not just about personalities, however
repulsive in his narcissism and lack of statesmanship Obama was. It is systemic, no matter who
comes to power to the Oval Office--it will make no difference. No difference, whatsoever. What
is known as US power (political) elite has been on the downward spiral for some time and, in
some sense, the whole Epstein
affair with serious pedophilia charges, not to mention an unspeakable slap on the wrist in
which this well-connected pervert was let go ten years ago, is just one of many indications of
a complete moral and cognitive decomposition of this so called "elite" which continues to
provide one after another specimens of human depravity. Remarkably, as much as I always feel
nauseated when seeing GOPers, it is impossible to hide the fact that Epstein's clients in their
majority are mostly associated with putrid creatures from the so called "left", with Bill
Clinton featuring prominently in the company of this pervert.
There were some attempts to even conceive a possibility of somehow "progressives" and
"conservatives" getting together in their condemnation of this heinous crime (yeah, yeah, I
know, Presumption of Innocence).
Doesn't it sound wonderful, warm and fuzzy, or too good to be true? It sure does,
because, as much as most American elite "conservatives" are not really conservatives, what
passes as "progressive" in the United States is PRIMARILY based on sexual deviancy, including
implicit promotion of pedophilia by "intellectual class", and "environmental" agenda, period!
Everything else is secondary. Those who think that actual conservatism (not a caricature it is
known in the United States) has anything to discuss with the so called "progressives"--they
unwittingly support this very "progressive" cause which, in its very many manifestations, is a
realization of the worst kind of suppression of many millennia old natural, including
biological, order of things and, in the end, elimination of normality as such--a future even
Orwell would have had difficulty describing.
Of course, Pinkerton gets some flashes of common sense, when states that:
Most likely, a true solution will have "conservative" elements, as in social and cultural
norming, and "liberal" elements, as in higher taxes on city slickers coupled with conscious
economic development for the proletarians and for the heartland. Only with these economic and
governmental changes can we be sure that it's possible to have a nice life in Anytown, safely
far away from beguiling pleasuredomes.
Well, he puts it very crudely, but I see where he is at least trying to get it
from. I will add, until nation, as in American nation, recognizes itself as a nation, as people
who have common history, culture and mission, thus, inevitably producing this aforementioned
healthy social and cultural norming--no amount of wishful thinking or social-economic
doctrine-mongering will help. There is no United States without European-keen, white Christian,
heterosexual folk, both with acutely developed sense of both masculinity and femininity,
period. But this is precisely the state of the affairs which American "progressives" are
fighting against; this is the state of the affairs which they must destroy be that by
imposition of suffocating political correctness, the insanity of multi-gender and LGBT
totalitarianism, or by criminal opening of the borders to anyone, who, in the end, will vote
for the Democratic Party. You cannot negotiate with such people. In the end, WHO is going to
negotiate? A cowardly, utterly corrupt, current GOPers and geriatric remnants of Holy
Reaganites? Really? Ask how many of them are Mossad assets and are in the pockets of rich
Israeli-firsters and Gulfies?
True "Left" economics, which seeks more just distribution (not re-distribution) of wealth,
based on a fusion of economic models and types of property, cannot exist within cultural
liberal paradigm of "privileged" minorities, be them racial or sexual ones, aided by massive
grievance-generating machine--it is not going to last. Both economic and social normality can
exist ONLY within cohesive nation and that, due to activity on both nominal sides (in reality
it is the same) of American political spectrum, has been utterly destroyed. The mechanism of
this destruction is rather simple and it comes down, in the end, to the, pardon my French,
number of ass-holes populating unit-volume (density, that is) of political space in America. It
goes without saying that such a density in the US reached deadly toxic levels, and Russiagate
coup, Epstein's Affair, or the parade of POTUSes with the maturity levels of high school kids
are just numerous partial manifestations of what one can characterize as the end of the rope.
After all, who would be making any agreements with representatives of the system which is
rotting and decomposing?
Paul Craig Roberts penned today a good piece: The
Obituary for Western Civilization Can Now be Written . I have to disagree somewhat with
PCR's one assertion:
Europeans Are as Dumbshit as Americans
I would pause a little here. Yes and no. Here is Colonel Wilkerson who talks about
both wealth (starts roughly at 14:00) and about other very important strategic and operational
fact: overwhelming majority of weapons on hands today are among those who either support Trump
openly or simply had it with system in general.
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/kZA2yIFkhKg/0.jpg
And here is the issue: my bets are on people with military backgrounds, who had first hand
experience with military organization (standard manuals, combat manuals et al) and have
operational and command experience in their conflict with American Social Justice Warriors (you
know--"progressives") and other openly terrorist "progressive" organizations such as Antifa. At
least ruined Portland started to do something
about it . Is there any real left left in the US? And I don't mean this a-hole Bernie
Sanders.
And here is my rephrasing of Tolstoy's conclusion to War and Peace: there are too many
ass-holes in American politics today , very many of them being so called "progressives"
. This number must be reduced by all legal means today, and if American ass-holes can
work together terrorizing majority of good, not ass-hole people, what's precluding those good
people to work together? Nothing, except for the rotting corpse of GOP which had audacity to
call itself "conservative". If not, all is lost and we do not want to live in the world which
will come. And the guns will start speaking. UPDATE : 07/11/19
Oh goody, do they read me or is it one of those moments when, in Lenin's description of
Revolutionary Situation, economic slogans transform into political ones? Evidently Catholic
Conservative Michael Warren speaks in unison with Lenin and me, with both me and Warren
certainly not being Marxists or "communists". Here is what Warren has to say today:
It is a very loaded statement. It is also not an incorrect one. It is also
relevant to what I preach for years, decades really, that history of the so called "communism"
in USSR was a conservative history--a transition from depravity and corruption of Russian
Imperial "elites" to what resulted in the mutated nationalism of sorts in late 1930s and led to
the defeat of Nazism, historically unprecedented restoration of the destroyed country and then
breaking out into space. But that is a separate story--in USSR, as it is the case in Russia
today, sexual perversion and deviancy are not looked at lightly. Nor are, in general, "liberal
values" which are precisely designed to end up with the legitimization of pedophilia--a long
held, and hidden, desire of Western
"elites" . Guess why such an obsession with, realistically, literary mediocrity of
Nabokov's Lolita by Western moneyed and "intellectual" class. Who in their own mind,
unless one is a forensic psychiatrist or detective, would be interested in such a topic, not to
mention writing a book on it, not to mention a variety of Hollywood and, in general, Western
cinematography artsy class making scores of Lolita movies? Each time I read Lolita, in
both Russian and English, I felt an urgent desire to take a shower after reading this
concoction. I guess, I am not "sophisticated" enough to recognize appeals of this type of
"art". As Warren notes:
Yes: those passions are legitimate. We should feel contempt for our leaders when we
discover that two presidents cavorted with Epstein, almost certainly aware that he preyed on
minors. We should feel disgust at the
mere possibility that Pope Francis rehabilitated Theodore McCarrick. And we should be
furious that these injustices haven't even come close to being properly redressed. This is
how revolutions are born. America is reaching the point where, 200 years ago, a couple French
peasants begin eyeing the Bastille. The question is, can conservatives channel that outrage
into serious reform before it's too late? Can we call out the fetid, decadent elites within our
own ranks ? Are we prepared to hold our own "faves" to account -- even Trump himself?
Alas, it's only a matter of time until we find out.
In this, I, essentially an atheist, and a conservative Catholic, are speaking in
the same voice.
With a national election lurking on the horizon we will no doubt be hearing more about
Exceptionalism from various candidates seeking to support the premise that the United
States can interfere in every country on the planet because it is, as the expression goes,
exceptional.
That is correct and that is because it works the majority of Americans are stupid.
Do you see a solution suggested here?
It is also an unfortunate indication that the neoconservatives, pronounced dead after
the election of Trump, are back and resuming their drive to obtain the positions of power
that will permit endless war, starting with Iran.
The neocons never went anywhere. Trump is a minion of the Deep State and staffs his
administration accordingly.
My point is simple and ineluctable, whatever our demerits, our great republic is
supposed to weed out psychopaths like Brennan long before they get as close as he has to
destroying the whole shebang.
Never happens all administrations are full of psychopaths.
Frankly nothing new. Every Empire sought to rule the world and committed a long list of
atrocities in the process. "The empire on which the sun never sets", in reference to the
British Empire (the one currently still ruling the world), comes from Xerxes' "We shall
extend the Persian territory as far as God's heaven reaches. The sun will then shine on no
land beyond our borders." as he invaded Greece.
That said, a word on the Rumsfeld-Cebrowski Doctrine and their Pentagon world map would be
on point here
"... Because behind today's coronavirus-inspired astonishment at conditions in developing or lower income countries, and Trump's authoritarian-like thuggery, lies an actual military and political hegemon with an actual impact on the world; particularly on what was once called the "Third World." ..."
"... In physical terms, the U.S.'s military hegemony is comprised of 800 bases in over 70 nations – more bases than any other nation or empire in history. The U.S. maintains drone bases, listening posts, "black sites," aircraft carriers, a massive nuclear stockpile, and military personnel working in approximately 160 countries. This is a globe-spanning military and security apparatus organized into regional commands that resemble the "proconsuls of the Roman empire and the governors-general of the British." In other words, this apparatus is built not for deterrence, but for primacy. ..."
"... The U.S.'s global primacy emerged from the wreckage of World War II when the United States stepped into the shoes vacated by European empires. Throughout the Cold War, and in the name of supporting "free peoples," the sprawling American security apparatus helped ensure that 300 years of imperial resource extraction and wealth distribution – from what was then called the Third World to the First – remained undisturbed, despite decolonization. ..."
"... In fiscal terms, maintaining American hegemony requires spending more on "defense" than the next seven largest countries combined. Our nearly $1 trillion security budget now amounts to about 15 percent of the federal budget and over half of all discretionary spending. Moreover, the U.S. security budget continues to increase despite the Pentagon's inability to pass a fiscal audit. ..."
"... Foreign policy is routinely the last issue Americans consider when they vote for presidents even though the president has more discretionary power over foreign policy than any other area of American politics. Thus, despite its size, impact, and expense, the world's military hegemon exists somewhere on the periphery of most Americans' self-understanding, as though, like the sun, it can't be looked upon directly for fear of blindness. ..."
"... The shock of discovering that our healthcare system is so quickly overwhelmed should automatically trigger broader conversations about spending priorities that entail deep and sustained cuts in an engorged security budget whose sole purpose is the maintenance of primacy. And yet, not only has this not happened, $10.5 billion of the coronavirus aid package has been earmarked for the Pentagon, with $2.4 billion of that channeled to the "defense industrial base." Of the $500 billion aimed at corporate America, $17.5 billion is set aside "for businesses critical to maintaining national security" such as aerospace. ..."
"... To make matters worse, our blindness to this bloated security complex makes it frighteningly easy for champions of American primacy to sound the alarm when they even suspect a dip in funding might be forthcoming. Indeed, before most of us had even glanced at the details of the coronavirus bill, foreign policy hawks were already issuing dark prediction s about the impact of still-imaginary cuts in the security budget on the U.S.'s "ability to strike any target on the planet in response to hostile actions by any actor" – as if that ability already did not exist many times over. ..."
This March, as COVID-19's capacity to overwhelm the American healthcare system was becoming
obvious, experts marveled at the scenario unfolding before their eyes. "We have Third World
countries who are better equipped than we are now in Seattle,"
noted one healthcare professional, her words echoed just a few days later by a shocked
doctor in New York who described
"a third-world country type of scenario." Donald Trump could similarly only grasp what was
happening through the same comparison. "I have seen things that I've never seen before," he
said
. "I mean I've seen them, but I've seen them on television and faraway lands, never in my
country."
At the same time, regardless of the fact that "Third World" terminology is outdated and
confusing, Trump's inept handling of the pandemic has itself elicited more than one "banana republic"
analogy, reflecting already well-worn, bipartisan comparisons of Trump to a "
third world dictator " (never mind that dictators and authoritarians have never been
confined solely to lower income countries).
And yet, while such comparisons provoke predictably nativist outrage from the right, what is
absent from any of
these responses to the situation is a sense of reflection or humility about the "Third
World" comparison itself. The doctor in New York who finds himself caught in a "third world"
scenario and the political commentators outraged when Trump behaves "like a third world
dictator" uniformly express themselves in terms of incredulous wonderment. One never hears the
potential second half of this comparison: "I am now experiencing what it is like to live in a
country that resembles the kind of nation upon whom the United States regularly imposes broken
economies and corrupt leaders."
Because behind today's coronavirus-inspired astonishment at conditions in developing or
lower income countries, and Trump's authoritarian-like thuggery, lies an actual military and
political hegemon with an actual impact on the world; particularly on what was once called the
"Third World."
In physical terms, the U.S.'s military hegemony is comprised of 800 bases in over 70
nations –
more bases than any other nation or empire in history. The U.S. maintains drone bases,
listening posts, "black sites," aircraft carriers, a massive nuclear stockpile, and military
personnel working in approximately 160 countries. This is a globe-spanning military and
security apparatus organized into regional commands
that resemble the "proconsuls of the Roman empire and the governors-general of the
British." In other words, this apparatus is built not for deterrence, but for primacy.
The U.S.'s global primacy emerged from the wreckage of World War II when the United
States stepped into the shoes vacated by European empires. Throughout the Cold War, and in the
name of supporting "free peoples," the sprawling American security apparatus helped ensure that
300 years of imperial resource extraction and wealth distribution – from what was then
called the Third World to the First – remained undisturbed, despite
decolonization.
Since then, the United States
has overthrown or attempted to overthrow the governments of approximately 50 countries,
many of which (e.g. Iran, Guatemala, the Congo, and Chile) had elected leaders willing to
nationalize their natural resources and industries. Often these interventions
took the form of covert operations. Less frequently, the United States went to war to
achieve these same ends (e.g. Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq).
In fiscal terms, maintaining American hegemony requires spending more
on "defense" than the next seven largest countries combined. Our
nearly $1 trillion security budget now amounts to about 15 percent of the federal budget
and over half of all
discretionary spending. Moreover, the U.S. security budget continues to increase despite the
Pentagon's inability to pass a fiscal audit.
Trump's claim that Obama had
"hollowed out" defense spending was not only grossly untrue, it masked the consistency of the
security budget's metastasizing growth since the Vietnam War, regardless of who sits in the
White House. At $738 billion dollars, Trump's security budget was passed in December with the
overwhelming support of House Democrats.
And yet, from the perspective of public discourse in this country, our globe-spanning,
resource-draining military and security apparatus exists in an entirely parallel universe to
the one most Americans experience on a daily level. Occasionally, we wake up to the idea of
this parallel universe but only when the United States is involved in visible military actions.
The rest of the time, Americans leave thinking about international politics – and the
deaths, for instance, of 2.5 million
Iraqis since 2003 – to the legions of policy analysts and Pentagon employees who
largely accept American military primacy as an "article of faith," as Professor of
International Security and Strategy at the University of Birmingham Patrick Porter has said
.
Foreign policy is routinely the last issue Americans consider when they vote for
presidents even though the president has more discretionary power over foreign policy than any
other area of American politics. Thus, despite its size, impact, and expense, the world's
military hegemon exists somewhere on the periphery of most Americans' self-understanding, as
though, like the sun, it can't be looked upon directly for fear of blindness.
Why is our avoidance of the U.S.'s weighty impact on the world a problem in the midst of the
coronavirus pandemic? Most obviously, the fact that our massive security budget has gone so
long without being widely questioned means that one of the soundest courses of action for the
U.S. during this crisis remains resolutely out of sight.
The shock of discovering that our healthcare system is so quickly overwhelmed should
automatically trigger broader conversations about spending priorities that entail deep and
sustained cuts in an engorged security budget whose sole purpose is the maintenance of primacy.
And yet, not only has this not happened, $10.5 billion of the coronavirus aid package has been
earmarked for the Pentagon, with $2.4 billion of that
channeled to the "defense industrial base." Of the $500 billion aimed at corporate America,
$17.5 billion is
set aside "for businesses critical to maintaining national security" such as
aerospace.
To make matters worse, our blindness to this bloated security complex makes it
frighteningly easy for champions of American primacy to sound the alarm when they even suspect
a dip in funding might be forthcoming. Indeed, before most of us had even glanced at the
details of the coronavirus bill, foreign policy hawks were already
issuing dark prediction s about the impact of still-imaginary cuts in the security budget
on the U.S.'s "ability to strike any target on the planet in response to hostile actions by any
actor" – as if that ability already did not exist many times over.
On a more existential level, a country that is collectively engaged in unseeing its own
global power cannot help but fail to make connections between that power and domestic politics,
particularly when a little of the outside world seeps in. For instance, because most Americans
are unaware of their government's sponsorship of fundamentalist Islamic groups in the Middle
East throughout the Cold War, 9/11 can only ever appear to have come from nowhere, or because
Muslims hate our way of life.
This "how did we get here?" attitude replicates itself at every level of political life
making it profoundly difficult for Americans to see the impact of their nation on the rest of
the world, and the blowback from that impact on the United States itself. Right now, the
outsized influence of American foreign policy is already encouraging the spread of coronavirus
itself as U.S. imposed sanctions on Iran severely hamper that
country's ability to respond to the virus at home and virtually
guarantee its spread throughout the region.
Closer to home, our shock at the healthcare system's inept response to the pandemic masks
the relationship between the U.S.'s imposition
of free-market totalitarianism on countries throughout the
Global South and the impact of free-market totalitarianism on our own welfare state .
Likewise, it is more than karmic comeuppance that the President of the United States now
resembles the self-serving authoritarians the U.S. forced on so many formerly colonized
nations. The modes of militarized policing American security experts exported to those
authoritarian regimes also contributed , on a
policy level, to both the rise of militarized policing in American cities and the rise of mass
incarceration in the 1980s and 90s. Both of these phenomena played a significant role in
radicalizing Trump's white nationalist base and decreasing their tolerance for democracy.
Most importantly, because the U.S. is blind to its power abroad, it cannot help but turn
that blindness on itself. This means that even during a pandemic when America's exceptionalism
– our lack of national healthcare – has profoundly negative consequences on the
population, the idea of looking to the rest of the world for solutions remains unthinkable.
Senator Bernie Sanders' reasonable suggestion that the U.S., like Denmark, should
nationalize its healthcare system is dismissed as the fanciful pipe dream of an aging socialist
rather than an obvious solution to a human problem embraced by nearly every other nation in the
world. The Seattle healthcare professional who expressed shock that even "Third World
countries" are "better equipped" than we are to confront COVID-19 betrays a stunning ignorance
of the diversity of healthcare systems within developing countries. Cuba, for instance,
has responded
to this crisis with an efficiency and humanity that puts the U.S. to shame.
Indeed, the U.S. is only beginning to feel the full impact of COVID-19's explosive
confrontation with our exceptionalism: if the unemployment rate really does reach 32 percent,
as has been predicted,
millions of people will not only lose their jobs but their health insurance as well. In the
middle of a pandemic.
Over 150 years apart, political commentators Edmund Burke and Aimé Césaire
referred to this blindness as the byproduct of imperialism. Both used the exact same language
to describe it; as a "gangrene" that "poisons" the colonizing body politic. From their
different historical perspectives, Burke and Césaire observed how colonization
boomerangs back on colonial society itself, causing irreversible damage to nations that
consider themselves humane and enlightened, drawing them deeper into denial and
self-delusion.
Perhaps right now there is a chance that COVID-19 – an actual, not metaphorical
contagion – can have the opposite effect on the U.S. by opening our eyes to the things
that go unseen. Perhaps the shock of recognizing the U.S. itself is less developed than our
imagined "Third World" might prompt Americans to tear our eyes away from ourselves and look
toward the actual world outside our borders for examples of the kinds of political, economic,
and social solidarity necessary to fight the spread of Coronavirus. And perhaps moving beyond
shock and incredulity to genuine recognition and empathy with people whose economies and
democracies have been decimated by American hegemony might begin the process of reckoning with
the costs of that hegemony, not just in "faraway lands" but at home. In our country.
America was and remains an exceptional nation in terms of the spirit of its people,
creativity of its economic system, and ability to adapt to new circumstances. But
exceptionalism is not a mandate for the reckless pursuit of peripheral objectives at the
expense of real global priorities, nor for championing short-term gains over America's
long-term interest without anticipating predictable consequences. The Chinese character for
"crisis" famously carries a second meaning: "opportunity." Although the world currently finds
itself in the center of an existential crisis, a promising opportunity may well rest just over
the horizon.
"... Albright's original statement was an aggressive assertion that America was both extraordinarily powerful and unusually farsighted, and that legitimized the frequent U.S. recourse to using force. ..."
"... After two decades of calamitous failures that have highlighted our weaknesses and foolishness, even she can't muster up the old enthusiasm that she once had. No one could look back at the last 20 years of U.S. foreign policy and still honestly say that "we see further" into the future than others. ..."
It was 22 years ago when then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright publicly declared the
United States to be the "indispensable nation": "If we have to use force, it is because we are
America; we are the indispensable nation. We stand tall and we see further than other countries
into the future, and we see the danger here to all of us."
In a recent
interview with The New York T imes, Albright sounded much less sure of her old
position: "There's nothing in the definition of indispensable that says "alone." It means that
the United States needs to be engaged with its partners. And people's backgrounds make a
difference." Albright's original statement was an aggressive assertion that America was
both extraordinarily powerful and unusually farsighted, and that legitimized the frequent U.S.
recourse to using force.
After two decades of calamitous failures that have highlighted our weaknesses and
foolishness, even she can't muster up the old enthusiasm that she once had. No one could look
back at the last 20 years of U.S. foreign policy and still honestly say that "we see further"
into the future than others. Not only are we no better than other countries at
anticipating and preparing for future dangers, but judging from the country's lack of
preparedness for a pandemic we are actually far behind many of the countries that we have
presumed to "lead." It is impossible to square our official self-congratulatory rhetoric with
the reality of a government that is incapable of protecting its citizens from disaster.
The heart of the American exceptionalism in question is American hubris. It is based on the
assumption that we are better than the rest of the world, and that this superiority both
entitles and obligates us to take on an outsized role in the world.
In our current foreign
policy debates, the phrase "American exceptionalism" has served as a shorthand for justifying
and celebrating U.S. dominance, and when necessary it has served as a blanket excuse for U.S.
wrongdoing. Seongjong Song defined it in an 2015 article
for The Korean Journal of International Studies this way: "American exceptionalism is the
belief that the US is "qualitatively different" from all other nations." In practice, that has
meant that the U.S. does not consider itself to be bound by the same rules that apply to other
states, and it reserves the right to interfere whenever and wherever it wishes.
American exceptionalism has been used in our political debates as an ideological purity test
to determine whether certain political leaders are sufficiently supportive of an activist and
interventionist foreign policy. The main purpose of invoking American exceptionalism in foreign
policy debate has been to denigrate less hawkish policy views as unpatriotic and beyond the
pale. The phrase was often used as a partisan cudgel in the previous decade as the Obama
administration's critics tried to cast doubt on the former president's acceptance of this idea,
but in the years since then it has become a rallying point for devotees of U.S. primacy
regardless of party. There was an explosion in the use of the phrase in just the first few
years of the 2010s compared with the previous decades. Song cited a study that showed this
massive increase:
Exceptionalist discourse is on the rise in American politics. Terrence McCoy (2012) found
that the term "American exceptionalism" appeared in US publications 457 times between 1980
and 2000, climbing to 2,558 times in the 2000s and 4,172 times in 2010-12.
The more that U.S. policies have proved "American exceptionalism" to be a pernicious myth at
odds with reality, the more we have heard the phrase used to defend those policies. Republican
hawks began the decade by accusing Obama of not believing in this "exceptionalism," and some
Democratic hawks closed it out by
"reclaiming" the idea on behalf of their own discredited foreign policy vision. There may
be differences in emphasis between the two camps, but there is a consensus that the U.S. has
special rights and privileges that other nations cannot have. That has translated into waging
unnecessary wars, assuming excessive overseas burdens, and trampling on the rights of other
states, and all the while congratulating ourselves on how virtuous we are for doing all of
it.
The contemporary version of American exceptionalism is tied up inextricably with the belief
that the U.S. is the "indispensable nation." According to this view, without U.S. "leadership"
other countries will be unable or unwilling to respond to major international problems and
threats. We have seen just how divorced from reality that belief is in just the last few
months. There has been no meaningful U.S. leadership in response to the pandemic, but for the
most part our allies have managed on their own fairly well. In the absence of U.S.
"leadership," many other countries have demonstrated that they haven't really needed the U.S.
Our "indispensability" is a story that we like to tell ourselves, but it isn't true. Not only
are we no longer indispensable, but as Micah Zenko pointed out
many years ago, we never were.
The numerous foreign misadventures of the US military since 1989 are far from a humiliating
military defeat, they are more of an embarassment for the ruling elites. Take for example
Afganistan - how many soldiers did the US army lose there in 18 years? 2500? That's nothing
compared to the strength and resources available to the Pentagon.
Societal collapse? I admit the living standards of the average working class Joe fell
dramatically compared to the 90's, but you are far from a societal collapse. It won't happen
as long as the US Dollar is the world currency. Believe me :)
The dollars days are numbered. You can't degrade a fiat currency by endless printing with
reckless abandon and expect that the other nations of the planet will retain any trust that
the scrip will remain a reliable store of value.
BTW Afghanistan is an unmitigated DISASTER. The "hyperpower" cannot impose its will on one
of the most backward and impoverised nations on the planet. Heck the Soviets did better in
their day, and they had to face a billion-dollar-a-year foreign-backed insurgency funded by
US & Saudi, and backed to the hilt by Pakistan. By comparison, the Taliban have NO allies
and no foreign funding, yet try as they might, neither the US nor its feckless puppet regime
in Kabul can succeed in grinding them down.
Hmmm... I wouldn't. Who would fight whom? Or would it be a free for all Mad Max style?
You Americans have this weird fascination with the apocalyptic. Seriously, just look at
your movies - each year Hollywood dishes out at least half a dozen blockbusters dealing with
societal collapse - be it due to an alien invasion, zombie plague, impact event or something
else...
I admit, you have problems. The middle class is getting poorer each year, mass imigration
from the southern side of your continent is tearing apart the social fabric and your elite
got richer and more arrogant sice they embraced globalisation in the 90's. But this doesn't
mean that the country is heading towards a civil war.
Well .... I'm not even American so I feel I can look at this somewhat More objectively than a
hardcore blue or red stater. Still hard to tell whether covid will put a wrench in the
trajectory or accelerate it. And if you want apocalypticism, go see Rod.
Vietnam, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan -- how many more humiliating military defeats will
it take for Americans to realize that they are anything but exceptional?
Americans view killing foreign men, women, and children as a successful endeavor of their
efforts to fight for freedom. American also are not bothered if their soldiers torture and
rape foreign men, women and children. So these wars are not seen as failures but successes,
even if actual geopolitical goals are not realized.
"You won't. It always takes a humiliating military defeat or a societal collapse to reevalute
such myths."
I would go a bit further and say that Americans won't reevaluate those myths until they
personally feel the pain from those things and they blame their pain on the government that
caused them. So much of our current policies are guided by the principal of making sure that
Americans do not feel the pain of their government's actions. We eliminated the draft so most
Americans have no skin in the game regarding military conflicts (not to mention no war taxes,
no goods rationing, etc.). We have come to expect bottomless economic "stimulus," borrowed
from our children's future labor, so we feel minimal pain from the poor preparation for the
pandemic. Bread and circuses have proven to be powerful manipulation tools indeed.
The US is remarkably insular, in large part because it is a mostly self-sufficient (or used
to be) nation-continent, but the hubristic idea of exceptionalism also makes us resistant to
good ideas invented elsewhere.
As concerns COVID-19, I have a number of physicians in my family, and it's only on March
16th that they awakened to the crisis, a week after France officially announced it was going
into lockdown or after London basically became a ghost town. One of them even took her kids
to Disneyland around that time, something that seemed the height of irresponsibility to us at
the time. Thus obliviousness is not just a feature of the Trump administration. The lone
exception is tech companies, perhaps because they are more globalized than most, but the
Washington policy navel-gazing circle-jerk is mostly oblivious to the West Coast.
Now the idea that some crises can only be solved with US leadership is not without merit.
Just because we cannot solve all doesn't mean there aren't some important categories where
our military might and logistic prowess carry the day. That COVID-19 would prove to be an
especially tough challenge for the US was entirely predictable. From our fractured
decision-making due to federalism, our abysmally inefficient health-care system with its huge
swathes of uninsured, our ideology of free market solutions to everything, and our polarized
and ineffectual legislature, made this crisis almost tailor-made to expose the fault-lines in
our brittle society in the worst possible light.
I don't think we need to ape the Chinese, but certainly we need to look outward for a
change, shed our not-invented-here mentality and look at how South Korea or New Zealand
succeeded where we failed, despite having a fraction of our resources.
What military might which has not been able to win any war that it started ever? What
logistic prowess that cannot make PPEs for at least the healthcare workers, not to mention
toilet paper for the people?
I would love to see all our political leaders (and their media friends) respond to the
observations by Mr. Bacevich and Mr. Larison. Of course, I agree with both of them. Perhaps
this economic crisis combined with the pandemic will finally break america. It's a shame it
has come to this. Must we endure economic collapse, starvation, and the corruption / looting
by the wealthy in order to finally stop caring about imaginary threats half way around the
world? I suspect the answer is yes. Americans will never abandon their arrogance until they
are laid low by something.
"A wolf, meeting with a Lamb astray from the fold, resolved not to lay violent hands on him,
but to find some plea to justify to the Lamb the Wolf's right to eat him. He thus addressed
him: "Sirrah, last year you grossly insulted me."
"Indeed," bleated the Lamb in a mournful tone of voice, "I was not then born."
Then said the Wolf, "You feed in my pasture."
"No, good sir," replied the Lamb, "I have not yet tasted grass."
Again said the Wolf, "You drink of my well."
"No," exclaimed the Lamb, "I never yet drank water, for as yet my mother's milk is both
food and drink to me."
Upon which the Wolf seized him and ate him up, saying, "Well! I won't remain supperless, even
though you refute every one of my imputations."
Moral: The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny."
**************************
For a few more years, the US will have absolute power over other people and we will use
that power in an absolutely corrupt way at the behest of our overlords in Riyadh and
Jerusalem. When retribution finally comes our way, no one will shed a tear for us.
The US has long been a myth-making factory for the population. The average American has a
pretty rough life. Generally strapped with debt (mortgage, cars), working a dead-end job with
little protection should you lose it. But people are tribal and can get their sense of
self-worth from the tribe. So to be constantly told you are "exceptional" and part of the
"greatest nation the world has ever known" can cover up a lot of pain in real life. See New
England Patriots fans or LSU Tigers fans.
So while being so exceptional, you get to spend hours trying to figure out which Obamacare
policy won't cost so much that it takes up all of your extra monthly cash while
simultaneously leaving you thousands in debt if you actually needed to use it.
I tend to think the psychological decomposition is on-going. Americans know that something is
terribly wrong, but they can't seem to put their collective finger on it. The Trump vote was
a big signal that folks know something is wrong. The hope was that Trump could fix it, but he
just knew something was wrong too. He didn't know how to fix it, but at least he is willing
to talk about it.
But I don't see how you right the ship. What's wrong is that what got us to be a wealthy
powerful country today isn't what is going to keep us that way going forward. That's very
hard for people at all levels of society to understand and accept.
So I expect a continued devolution. Where it gets increasingly "real ugly" for a lot of
people, while a lot of us continue to do fairly well. You have to have a lot of hope your
kids can make it too.
Americans know that something is terribly wrong and getting worse by the day and by the
crisis, but they seems to think that tribal solutions are the answer.
So true. An eye opening set of essays goes to the hart of this: Deer Hunting with Jesus:
Dispatches from America's Class War Paperback by Joe Bageant.
However, that book hasn't received the same fame and traction as this other one (and I am
looking at you TAC and Rod Dreher as well): Hillbilly Elegy: A Memoir of a Family and Culture
in Crisis by J. D. Vance and this is because in the first the author focuses on the system as
the one that produces certain results while on the other the author puts more weight on
individual choices, the darling idea of conservatives, the lifting oneself by bootstraps, the
American success story of rags to riches...
Opium is not native to China. The reason that the British pushed opium on China, in spite of
the strenuous objections of the Chinese governments and officials of the time, is because
before the Opium Wars, trade with China was causing a worldwide shortage of silver. Silver
was about the only thing that non-Chinese had that Chinese wanted. Until opium.
In fact, at least one Chinse official wrote Queen Victoria a letter to the effect that
opium is forbidden in Great Britain, so why are you trying to push it on us here?
"The coronavirus pandemic is a curse. It should also serve as an opportunity, Americans at
long last realizing that they are not God's agents. Out of suffering and loss, humility and
self-awareness might emerge. We can only hope."
Laugh. ohhh you guys need to stop. The virus is not an indication that God is denying an
exceptional role for the US. A star athlete is exceptional and may even be fascinating.
However,
the reality remains that in order to stay exceptional, fascinating and "indispensable"
---- there are things that athelete must do and and there are things that athelete must avoid
doing.
We have engaged in a lot of things we should avoid and neglected some matters that would
be helpful in maintaining our own health and care --- damaging our exceptional
performance.
Jesse Owens and the Bolt, Usain bolt don't participate in every event and they don't run
in every race all the time . . .
It simply is unsustainable.
I of course reject all the whining bout how we, the US, are not exceptional --- and while
dispensable, or value on the planet remains vital.
"value"? more like "impact"... and "vital"? For about 100 years China was an object of
history rather than subject, no biggie. The World would need a breather with a bit of hiatus
concerning the US.
If the virus is not gods curse then the equally foolish notion that Americans are gods agents
ought to be rejected as well. I think you have misunderstood the context of the reference to
gods.
Two constitutional amendment movements must come out of this crisis:
1) Large metropolitan areas must be detached from the states in which they reside. It is
beyond tragic to see civilised people, with deep roots and traditional values, come under the
tyranny of brutal marxist regimes - as we see in so many places from Virginia to NY to
Pennsylvania to Illinois. We have giant colonies of government dependents and cube-dwellers,
which are being used by the Left as vote plantations. The governments they produce are then
inflicted on normal decent innocent people who just happen to live within the same state
lines. This can't be allowed to continue.
2) Anybody (like Bill Gates) who engages in planning or promoting policies that would treat
humans as livestock (e.g., by tracking them with implanted micro-chips) should be charged
with crimes against humanity.
It would be an uphill battle to achieve these goals, but if we do not start right away, the
next crisis could be used by the Left to impose their sick vicious perverted social
engineering programme - which would mean the end of human civilisation and of the human race
as we know it.
Who would want to implant chips in people who willingly pay hundreds of dollars for a
portable device that facilitates tracking the owner?
As far as separating metropolitan areas from surrounding rural areas, it would exacerbate
a problem that is already developing. The structure of Congress is already weighted toward
rural states. Anything that increases that advantage will mean that more people are governed
by fewer people. That's not going to make the US a more stable country.
The readership of TAC are predominantly committed Leftists.
This comment appears to have touched a nerve.
These measures would impede implementation of The Agenda.
Excellent.
While there are certainly leftists (like myself) among TAC readership, the thing that
distinguishes most TAC readers from folks like yourself is that we reside on the left side of
the sanity/insanity divide.
The commenters here seem to feel these two ideas are crazy:
1) Civilised people should not be placed under the power of people they view as primitive
bloodthirsty degenerates.
2) Human beings should not be treated as livestock - tracked and managed by a post-human
ruling class.
If The Left believes these ideas are insane, we have a big problem.
That is confirmation that the chasm between Western Civilisation and the marxist ideology is
absolutely unbridgeable. There is zero overlap - zero common ground. [In fact, the two are so
far apart that one can't see the other with a telescope on a clear day.]
We need to be moving toward some form of separation - whether that means a peaceful partition
like the Soviet Union in the early nineties, a loose confederation like the British
Commonwealth, or maybe a defence/foreign policy alliance based on the NATO model.
"Sane people have crazy ideas. Crazy people have sane ideas."
It's gonna be tough to sell that one.
Are you really just saying that we should submit to an insane ideology because the people
promoting it are just the coolest, most fabulous people ever?
The normal humans are not buying that garbage.
That's why marxism always turns to extreme violence.
Socialism cannot compete, so it must conquer. It cannot persuade, so it must coerce and
terrorise.
Every time I see the "the Left" used as the subject of a sentence, it always seems to follow
that the writer does not know what he's talking about, and probably does not know any actual
leftists who think or do what the writer is claiming they think or do. When you build straw
men from information you get on Fox News, you're not likely to get much more than ill-founded
generalizations.
Any time you see a comment that repeats "the Left/Liberals/Democrats believe X" and "the
Right/Conservatives/Republicans believe Y" you can bet that it will not be insightful.
Our leaders were so preoccupied with remaking the world they failed to see that our country
was falling apart around them. Has the time come to bury the conceit of American
exceptionalism? In an article for the American edition of The Spectator , Quincy
Institute President Andrew Bacevich concludes just that:
The coronavirus pandemic is a curse. It should also serve as an opportunity, Americans at
long last realizing that they are not God's agents. Out of suffering and loss, humility and
self-awareness might emerge. We can only hope.
The heart of the American exceptionalism in question is American hubris. It is based on the
assumption that we are better than the rest of the world, and that this superiority both
entitles and obligates us to take on an outsized role in the world.
In our current foreign policy debates, the phrase "American exceptionalism" has served as a
shorthand for justifying and celebrating U.S. dominance, and when necessary it has served as a
blanket excuse for U.S. wrongdoing. Seongjong Song defined it in an 2015 article
for The Korean Journal of International Studies this way: "American exceptionalism is the
belief that the US is "qualitatively different" from all other nations." In practice, that has
meant that the U.S. does not consider itself to be bound by the same rules that apply to other
states, and it reserves the right to interfere whenever and wherever it wishes.
American exceptionalism has been used in our political debates as an ideological purity test
to determine whether certain political leaders are sufficiently supportive of an activist and
interventionist foreign policy. The main purpose of invoking American exceptionalism in foreign
policy debate has been to denigrate less hawkish policy views as unpatriotic and beyond the
pale. The phrase was often used as a partisan cudgel in the previous decade as the Obama
administration's critics tried to cast doubt on the former president's acceptance of this idea,
but in the years since then it has become a rallying point for devotees of U.S. primacy
regardless of party. There was an explosion in the use of the phrase in just the first few
years of the 2010s compared with the previous decades. Song cited a study that showed this
massive increase:
Exceptionalist discourse is on the rise in American politics. Terrence McCoy (2012) found
that the term "American exceptionalism" appeared in US publications 457 times between 1980
and 2000, climbing to 2,558 times in the 2000s and 4,172 times in 2010-12.
The more that U.S. policies have proved "American exceptionalism" to be a pernicious myth at
odds with reality, the more we have heard the phrase used to defend those policies. Republican
hawks began the decade by accusing Obama of not believing in this "exceptionalism," and some
Democratic hawks closed it out by
"reclaiming" the idea on behalf of their own discredited foreign policy vision. There may
be differences in emphasis between the two camps, but there is a consensus that the U.S. has
special rights and privileges that other nations cannot have. That has translated into waging
unnecessary wars, assuming excessive overseas burdens, and trampling on the rights of other
states, and all the while congratulating ourselves on how virtuous we are for doing all of
it.
The contemporary version of American exceptionalism is tied up inextricably with the belief
that the U.S. is the "indispensable nation." According to this view, without U.S. "leadership"
other countries will be unable or unwilling to respond to major international problems and
threats. We have seen just how divorced from reality that belief is in just the last few
months. There has been no meaningful U.S. leadership in response to the pandemic, but for the
most part our allies have managed on their own fairly well. In the absence of U.S.
"leadership," many other countries have demonstrated that they haven't really needed the U.S.
Our "indispensability" is a story that we like to tell ourselves, but it isn't true. Not only
are we no longer indispensable, but as Micah Zenko pointed out
many years ago, we never were.
It was 22 years ago when then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright publicly declared the
United States to be the "indispensable nation": "If we have to use force, it is because we are
America; we are the indispensable nation. We stand tall and we see further than other countries
into the future, and we see the danger here to all of us."
In a recent
interview with The New York T imes, Albright sounded much less sure of her old
position: "There's nothing in the definition of indispensable that says "alone." It means that
the United States needs to be engaged with its partners. And people's backgrounds make a
difference." Albright's original statement was an aggressive assertion that America was both
extraordinarily powerful and unusually farsighted, and that legitimized the frequent U.S.
recourse to using force.
After two decades of calamitous failures that have highlighted our weaknesses and
foolishness, even she can't muster up the old enthusiasm that she once had. No one could look
back at the last 20 years of U.S. foreign policy and still honestly say that "we see further"
into the future than others. Not only are we no better than other countries at anticipating and
preparing for future dangers, but judging from the country's lack of preparedness for a
pandemic we are actually far behind many of the countries that we have presumed to "lead." It
is impossible to square our official self-congratulatory rhetoric with the reality of a
government that is incapable of protecting its citizens from disaster.
The poor U.S. response to the pandemic has not only exposed many of the country's serious
faults, but it has also caused a crisis of faith in the prevailing mythology that American
political leaders and pundits have been promoting for decades. This found expression most
recently in a rather odd
article in The New York Times last week. The framing of the story makes it into a
lament for a collapsing ideology:
The pandemic sweeping the globe has done more than take lives and livelihoods from New
Delhi to New York. It is shaking fundamental assumptions about American exceptionalism -- the
special role the United States played for decades after World War II as the reach of its
values and power made it a global leader and example to the world.
The curious thing about this description is that it takes for granted that "fundamental
assumptions about American exceptionalism" haven't been thoroughly shaken long before now. The
"special role" mentioned here was never going to last forever, and in some respects it was more
imaginary than real. It was a period in our history that we should seek to understand and learn
from, but we also need to recognize that it was transitory and already ended some time ago.
If American exceptionalism is now "on trial," as another recent article put it
, it is because it offered up a pleasing but false picture of how we relate to the rest of the
world. Over the last two decades, we have seen that picture diverge more and more from real
life. The false picture gives political leaders an excuse to take reckless and disastrous
actions as long as they can spin them as being expressions of "who we are" as a country. At the
same time, they remain blind to the country's real vulnerabilities. It is a measure of how
powerful the illusion of American exceptionalism is that it still has such a hold on so many
people's minds even now, but it has not been a harmless illusion.
While our leaders have been patting themselves on the back for the enlightened "leadership"
that they imagine they are providing to the world, they have neglected the country's urgent
needs and allowed many parts of our system to fall into disrepair and ruin. They have also
visited enormous destruction on many other countries in the name of "helping" them. The same
hubris that has warped foreign policy decisions over the decades has encouraged a dangerous
complacency about the problems in our own country. We can't let that continue. Our leaders were
so preoccupied with trying to remake other parts of the world that they failed to see that our
country was falling apart all around them.
American exceptionalism has been the story that our leaders told us to excuse their neglect
of America. It is a flattering story, but ultimately it is a vain one that distracts us from
protecting our own country and people. We would do well if we put away this boastful fantasy
and learned how to live like a normal nation.
The Trump administration has been desperately trying to kill the nuclear deal for the last two years after reneging on it. Now
they will try to kill it by
pretending to
be part of it again:
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is preparing a legal argument that the United States remains a participant in the Iran nuclear
accord that President Trump has renounced, part of an intricate strategy to pressure the United Nations Security Council to extend
an arms embargo on Tehran or see far more stringent sanctions reimposed on the country.
The administration's latest destructive ploy won't find any support on the Security Council. There is nothing "intricate" about
this idea. It is a crude, heavy-handed attempt to employ the JCPOA's own provisions to destroy it. It is just the latest in a series
of administration moves that tries to have things both ways. They want to renege on U.S. commitments while still refusing to allow
Iran to benefit from the agreement, and they ultimately hope to make things difficult enough for Iran that their government chooses
to give up on the agreement. It reeks of bad faith and contempt for international law, and all other governments will be able to
see right through it. Some of our European allies have already said as much:
European diplomats who have learned of the effort maintain that Mr. Trump and Mr. Pompeo are selectively choosing whether
they are still in the agreement to fit their agenda.
It is significant that the Trump administration feels compelled to go through this charade after telling everyone for years that
the U.S. is no longer in the deal. Until now, Trump administration officials have been unwavering in saying that the U.S. is out
of the deal and can't be considered a participant in it:
Can't wait to see the tortured memo out of State/L claiming that somehow the U.S. is still a participant in the JCPOA. The
May 8, 2018 announcement is literally titled "Ceasing U.S. Participation in the JCPOA ."
https://t.co/I5t8LaC7dN
"... I guess when an administration has shown over and over again that it does not respect, international law, domestic law, the US constitution, logic, meaning or the English Language then it can say anything and do anything. ..."
"... The power of the United States is rapidly fading. The country is on the eve of a massive social crisis, as its ruling class fails even to understand the extent of the system's failure. ..."
"... Israel is nobody's real need. Zionism is a philosophical oddity stranded by the tides of history, a mid Victorian nonsense entirely composed of racism and silly ideas about human inequality. ..."
... is that akin to the portion of a George Carlin comedy sketch ?
"From 1778 to 1871, the United States government
entered into more than 500 treaties with
the Native American tribes; all of these treaties have since been violated
in some way or outright broken by the US government,
while at least one treaty was violated
or broken by Native American tribes."
The EU rapprochement with Iran is all about the huge market the EU wants. Their interest in
the JCPOA was always about Iran developing, and the EU benefiting for its trade and
investment potential.
Crippling Iran again with snapback sanctions certainly would end Iran-EU relations for a
decade or longer.
With the EU economy in the toilet due to the pandemic, now more than ever the EU needs
Iran free of sanctions, not laden with crippling new ones.
Only one country benefits from the economic strangulation of Iran--Israel.
In these times of memory holes, sometimes it pays to remember:
As much as I'd like to be optimistic that justice might actually be served for both
Epstein and his myriad clients/co-conspirators, I think the powers-that-be will again
squash this - or liquidate Epstein - before things get out of hand for them.
The American justice system has been corrupted in much the same way the political
system has been, and it's primary objective is to protect the rulers from the common
folk, not to actually deliver true justice.
I'll watch with anticipation, but I haven't had any satisfaction from either a
political or justice perspective since at least the 2000 coup d'etat, so I won't hold my
breath this time.
Economist Michael Hudson explains how American imperialism has created a global free lunch,
where the US makes foreign countries pay for its wars, and even their own military
occupation.
This is part of Tom's description of the Article on Pompeo, Esper and the gang of 1986
(west pointers). They are well embedded. In fact, one class from West Point, that of 1986, from which both Secretary of Defense
Mark Esper and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo graduated, is essentially everywhere in a
distinctly militarized (if still officially civilian) and wildly hawkish Washington in the
Trumpian moment.
In case you missed it the first time, I repeat this link from the beginning of April,
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/176686/tomgram%3A_danny_sjursen%2C_trump%27s_own_military_mafia_/
-----------------
Red Ryder | Apr 27 2020 17:07 utc | 14
One addition there. The EU lost "market share" in Iran due to US sanctions. (As
they did with Russia). What they would like to do is to get it back. (France was one
of the bigger losers)
Before any aggression, the United States want Iran to be hermetically sealed with sanction
just like Iraq was before our invasion. Everybody knows the US's intentions because we've
seen it before. There will be NO domestic support for war on Iran as Americans die due to
no public healthcare and massive unemployment and poverty. Iran and the Middle East view a
war on Iran as an Israeli wet dream. Israel is viewed as the intellectual author of
aggression against Iran, and Iran will respond appropriately. So, is AIPAC willing to get
Israel destroyed? Is AIPAC on a suicide mission? Looks that way.
Israel and Saudi Arabia are de facto allies aiming to carve up the entire Middle East
between them. Forget about Sunni / Shia / Hebrew, that is a manufactured excuse to war for
resources (oil first, then water).
Proof? Mutual "enemies" (oil-rich Iran and Syria, which is the nexus for pipelines) and
mutual ally (Uncle Sam). Also not a single complaint from Israel over the $100b US-Saudi
Arms deal. As to Palestine, that is a human rights issue and has no weight because water is
not recognized as a strategic resource (yet).
I guess when an administration has shown over and over again that it does not respect,
international law, domestic law, the US constitution, logic, meaning or the English
Language then it can say anything and do anything.
"The Iranians are not helping the Palestinians one iota. They are splitting the
opposition." [email protected]
Whoever has been helping Hezbollah has been helping the Palestinians. And whoever has
been holding Syria together, despite the pressure of the imperialists and their sunni-state
puppets, has also been helping the Palestinians by bringing some kind of balance into
regional power calculations.
It is imperative that Iran continues not only to provide political support to the
Palestinian cause but to democratise the Gulf, to the extent of bringing about the demise
of the autocracies, and the Arabian world generally.
Israel has already exerted its maximum influence. The power of the United States is
rapidly fading. The country is on the eve of a massive social crisis, as its ruling class
fails even to understand the extent of the system's failure. (There will be no war to
divert attention from the crisis.) And Israel will be left to solve its own problems as its
'allies' find themselves increasingly pre-occupied with real problems.
Supporting Israel and building it up as an imperialist base has been part of an era in
which the empire was hegemonic and thus able to define international events in terms of
domestic politics.
That era has ended. The USA is still powerful but it is no longer anything more than one
of the major participants in geopolitical competition. Even to maintain its position it is
going to have to do, what other powers have done and concentrate its resources on its real
needs.
Israel is nobody's real need. Zionism is a philosophical oddity stranded by the
tides of history, a mid Victorian nonsense entirely composed of racism and silly ideas
about human inequality. Israel has one choice, to divest itself of its fascist
government and its fascistic culture and seek accommodation within the neighbourhood or to
wither away as its population emigrates leaving only the committed fascists to play with
Armageddon.
Long before that happens the imperialists will have taken its weapons away from it.
It may very well be the case that the ordinary Iranian is no more committed to fighting
on behalf of Palestinians than the average American is committed to risking all, or
anything, for the sake of Israel. But Iran's commitment to Palestine is a powerful
political statement and one that counters the divisive tactics of the wahhabis and their
imperial friends. Iran has taken up the mantle that Nasser briefly wore, in the vanguard of
a muslim and Arab nationalist movement. This makes it very difficult for the sunni tyrants
actually to commit forces to defend Israel or attack Iran. Their duplicity is a measure of
their own weakness.
Does anyone imagine that the pro-Israeli policies pursued by the Sauds are actually
popular? The Gulf and Saudi policies of sucking up to Israel are far more damaging to them
than Iran's stance is to it.
The United States announced its withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action
(JCPOA), also known as the "Iran nuclear deal" or the "Iran deal", on May 8, 2018.
This document discusses the legal rationale for the US withdrawal from tje JCPOA in
detail:
Iran should sign a peace deal with the Israelis.
Posted by: Glasshopper | Apr 27 2020 16:42 utc | 8
Some people should stick to what they do well, like hopping on glass. A simple
observation: peace deal with "the Israelis" is not possible. Gulfie princes tried. No
cigar. They genuinely tried to be nice with Israel, out of "anti-Semitic delusion that Jews
control USA". I conjecture that Glasshopper made a similar assumption -- why would Iran
consider a "peace deal with the Israelis" if its direct conflict is with USA (and the
Gulfies)? How it would help them unless "Jews control USA"?
As a mental experiment, let Grasshopper sketch a putative "deal with Israelis". Kushner
plan?
@70 BraveNewWorld, you haven't added up the numbers correctly. Take China, Russia and Iran
out of the equation leaves you with five (including the EU as a whole, which is not a
given). Take the USA out as well and it doesn't matter how sycophantic the Europeans are,
Pompeo can only muster four votes.
And he needs five to refer the issue to the UNSC.
That's why Pompous wants to waddle his way back in: no matter which way he looks at
this, without the USA sitting at the table he is one-short.
Actually, I've just read the JCPOA and UNSC Resolution 2231 and neither has any mention of
a "majority vote" requirement for a referral to the UNSC for a vote on "snapping back"
sanctions. It appears that any one JCPOA participant can refer the issue of alleged
non-compliance to the UNSC, provided that they first exhaust the Joint Commission dispute
mechanism.
But I do note this in the JCPOA (my bold): "Upon receipt of the notification from the
complaining participant, as described above, including a description of the good-faith
efforts the participant made to exhaust the dispute resolution process specified in this
JCPOA , the UN Security Council, in accordance with its procedures, shall vote on a
resolution to continue the sanctions lifting"
Seems to me that there is a procedural "out" there for the UN Secretariat i.e. it may
use that highlighted section to decide that the participant is a vexatious litigant whose
participation in the Joint Commission was not in good faith, ergo, the UN can refuse to
even take receipt of the complaint.
Everything else then becomes moot.
The USA would raise merry-hell, sure, it would. But that would be no more outrageous a
ploy by the UN than was the USA's own argument that it can have its cake and eat it
too.
After all, if a participant to the JCPOA referred its complaint to the UNSC without
first going through the Joint Commission then it is a given that the UNSC is under no
obligation to receive that complaint. No question.
So why can't the UNSC also refuse to accept a complaint when it is clear that the
complainant has not gone through the Joint Commission process in "good faith"?
One for the lawyers and ambassadors to argue, I would suggest, but it is not a given
that the USA can ram this through even if everyone were to agree that it were still a
participant in the JCPOA.
@61 Arch: "This document discusses the legal rationale for the US withdrawal from tje JCPOA
in detail"
Arch, the crux of that CRS legal paper boils down to this:
.."under current domestic law, the President may possess authority to terminate U.S.
participation in the JCPOA and to re-impose U.S. sanctions on Iran, either through
executive order or by declining to renew statutory waivers"..
All the other fluff in that paper is inconsequential compared to this question posed by
that quote: can the US claim to be half-pregnant?
I suspect not.
Note that at the time the CRS paper was written (May 2018) it did have a valid point
i.e. while Trump *had* refused to re-certify Iranian compliance, he had *not* reimposed US
sanctions on Iran, and so the CRS paper could credibly argue that Trump wasn't pregnant, he
just talking dirty to the Congress.
But that was then, and this is now, and - as b points out - Executive Order 13846 is the
smoking gun because in it Trump is OFFICIALLY stating that he has decided to " cease the
participation of the United States in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action ".
That EO is clearly the killing blow to Pompeo's nonsense, and even the CRS legal paper
you linked to would agree.
As I see it, the historical problem with European fascism has been that when push comes to
shove the knife comes out and its either give in to enforced collaboration or take a
stabbing, it's your choice. Even if that means helping murder millions of your neighbours
or being murdered. As Celan said "Der Tod ist ein Meister aus Deutschland."
The US has been enforcing a morally sanitised Disney Adult version of this old world
order since at least the 2003 Supreme Crime of Aggression against Iraq. Sooner or later as
this global pandemic, political, and financial crisis unfolds, the US leaders will be
forced to choose whether or not the UN is a viable vehicle through which to continue the
elite lunatic project for planetary full spectrum dominance of 21st C financial and
military affairs.
So I reckon the Pentagon at some point either gets to finally execute the long awaited
'Operation Conquer Persia' or the politicians and their chickenhawk ideologues will back
off again and continue the death by a thousand cuts of the last 40 years. I'd probably bet
the latter but that's the trouble with genuine psychopaths, push comes to shove they will
go for it if they think they'll get away with it.
This last 2 decades has been like watching a reality TV series about a fat drunken
psychopath with a bloody knife going around and stabbing people at a party, but now the
psycho is starting to stagger and everyone in the house is watchful trying to keep their
distance. House rules are that anyone starts an actual fight to the death with the psycho
then everyone dies!
I more or less trust that if we ever get there, a multipolar world order won't collapse
into outright fascism but we're closer to collapse every year, especially from this year
on, and most especially in the Persian Gulf.
In current US political system, it is not necessary to propose a valid claim, or proposal
or argument - they intend to act from a position of authority. They know where you live.
"... The truth is that decline was never a choice, but the U.S. can decide how it can respond to it. We can continue chasing after the vanished, empty glory of the "unipolar moment" with bromides of American exceptionalism. We can continue to delude ourselves into thinking that military might can make up for all our other weaknesses. Or we can choose to adapt to a changed world by prudently husbanding our resources and putting them to uses more productive than policing the world. ..."
"... Exit From Hegemony: The Unraveling of the American Global Order ..."
More than 10 years ago, the columnist Charles Krauthammer
asserted that American
"decline is a choice," and argued tendentiously that Barack Obama had chosen it. Yet looking back over the last decade, it has become
increasingly obvious that this decline has occurred irrespective of what political leaders in Washington want.
The truth is that decline was never a choice, but the U.S. can decide how it can respond to it. We can continue chasing after
the vanished, empty glory of the "unipolar moment" with bromides of American exceptionalism. We can continue to delude ourselves
into thinking that military might can make up for all our other weaknesses. Or we can choose to adapt to a changed world by prudently
husbanding our resources and putting them to uses more productive than policing the world.
There was a brief period during the 1990s and early 2000s when the U.S. could claim to be the world's hegemonic power. America
had no near-peer rivals; it was at the height of its influence across most of the globe. That status, however, was always a transitory
one, and was lost quickly thanks to self-inflicted wounds in Iraq and the natural growth of other powers that began to compete for
influence. While America remains the most powerful state in the world, it no longer dominates as it did 20 years ago. And there can
be no recapturing what was lost.
Alexander Cooley and Dan Nexon explore these matters in their new book,
Exit From Hegemony: The Unraveling of the American Global Order . They make a strong case for distinguishing between the
old hegemonic order and the larger international order of which it is a part. As they put it, "global international order is not
synonymous with American hegemony." They also make careful distinctions between the different components of what is often simply
called the "liberal international order": political liberalism, economic liberalism, and liberal intergovernmentalism. The first
involves the protection of rights, the second open economic exchange, and the third the form of international order that recognizes
legally equal sovereign states. Cooley and Nexon note that both critics and defenders of the "liberal international order" tend to
assume that all three come as a "package deal," but point out that these parts do not necessarily reinforce each other and do not
have to coexist.
While the authors are quite critical of Trump's foreign policy, they don't pin the decline of the old order solely on him. They
argue that hegemonic unraveling takes place when the hegemon loses its monopoly over patronage and "more states can compete when
it comes to providing economic, security, diplomatic, and other goods." The U.S. has been losing ground for the better part of the
last 20 years, much of it unavoidable as other states grew wealthier and sought to wield greater influence. The authors make a persuasive
case that the "exit" from hegemony is already taking place and has been for some time.
Many defenders of U.S. hegemony insist that the "liberal international order" depends on it. That has never made much sense. For
one, the continued maintenance of American hegemony frequently conflicts with the rules of international order. The hegemon reserves
the right to interfere anywhere it wants, and tramples on the sovereignty and legal rights of other states as it sees fit. In practice,
the U.S. has frequently acted as more of a rogue in its efforts to "enforce" order than many of the states it likes to condemn. The
most vocal defenders of U.S. hegemony are unsurprisingly some of the biggest opponents of international law -- at least when it gets
in their way. Cooley and Nexon make a very important observation related to this in their discussion of the role of revisionist powers
in the world today:
But the key point is that we need to be extremely careful that we don't conflate "revisionism" with opposition to the United
States. The desire to undermine hegemony and replace it with a multipolar system entails revisionism with respect to the distribution
of power, but it may or may not be revisionist with respect to various elements of international architecture or infrastructure.
The core of the book is a survey of three different sources for the unraveling of U.S. hegemony: major powers, weaker states,
and transnational "counter-order" movements. Cooley and Nexon trace how Russia and China have become increasingly effective at wielding
influence over many smaller states through patronage and the creation of parallel institutions and projects such as the Collective
Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), and the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). They discuss
a number of weaker states that have begun hedging their bets by seeking patronage from these major powers as well as the U.S. Where
once America had a "near monopoly" on such patronage, this has ceased to be the case. They also track the role of "counter-order"
movements, especially nationalist and populist groups, in bringing pressure to bear on their national governments and cooperating
across borders to challenge international institutions. Finally, they spell out how the U.S. itself has contributed to the erosion
of its own position through reckless policies dating back at least to the invasion of Iraq.
The conventional response to the unraveling of America's hegemony here at home has been either a retreat into nostalgia with simplistic
paeans to the wonders of the "liberal international order" that ignore the failures of that earlier era or an intensified commitment
to hard-power dominance in the form of ever-increasing military budgets (or some combination of the two). Cooley and Nexon contend
that the Trump administration has opted for the second of these responses. Citing the president's emphasis on maintaining military
dominance and his support for exorbitant military spending, they say "it suggests an approach to hegemony more dependent upon military
instruments, and thus on the ability (and willingness) of the United States to continue extremely high defense spending. It depends
on the wager that the United States both can and should substitute raw military power for its hegemonic infrastructure." That not
only points to what Barry Posen has
called "illiberal hegemony,"
but also leads to a foreign policy that is even more militarized and unchecked by international law.
Cooley and Nexon make a compelling observation about how Trump's demand for more allied military spending differs from normal
calls for burden-sharing. Normally, burden-sharing advocates call on allies to spend more so the U.S. can spend less. But that isn't
Trump's position at all. His administration pressures allied governments to increase their spending, while showing no desire to curtail
the Pentagon budget:
Retrenchment entails some combination of shedding international security commitments and shifting defense burdens onto allies
and partners. This allows the retrenching power, in principle, to redirect military spending toward domestic priorities, particularly
those critical to long-term productivity and economic growth. In the current American context, this means making long-overdue
investments in transportation infrastructure, increasing educational spending to develop human capital, and ramping up support
for research and development. This rationale makes substantially less sense if retrenchment policies do not produce reductions
in defense spending–which is why Trump's aggressive, public, and coercive push for burden sharing seems odd. Recall that Trump
and his supporters want, and have already implemented, increases in the military budget. There is no indication that the Trump
administration would change defense spending if, for example, Germany or South Korea increased their own military spending or
more heavily subsidized American bases.
The coronavirus pandemic has exposed how misguided our priorities as a nation have been. There is now a chance to change course,
but that will require our leaders to shift their thinking. U.S. hegemony is already on its way out; now Americans need to decide
what our role in the world will look like afterwards. Warmed-over platitudes about "leadership" won't suffice and throwing more money
at the Pentagon is a dead end. The way forward is a strategy of retrenchment, restraint, and renewal.
Yeah. US just happened to decline, a completely natural process, some universal constant, like gravity of which we have no control.
No. A decadent US population, informed by clueless media, put in charge incompetent and self-serving leaders, who made a series
of very poor choices for the nation, but financially beneficial for themselves.
And thus our betrayed America's version of the White Man's Burden. It's sad to think our children having to endure living in a
world where they aren't called to die in God-forsaken hellholes for reasons that have nothing to do with this nation's core principles.
Sad!
Lol. Sort of. Except the very oligarchs you speak of, on both sides, set the stage for all of it.
This is the inevitable result of voting as a right, ans they knew it. Universal suffrage is a tool of control, not liberty.
The oligarchs are really just like other Americans, who got their hands on a whole lot of money. I have no doubt the rest of the
population would behave like oligarchs if given the same resources.
We don't have universal suffrage and voting is no where named as a right in the Constitution. The most it has to say is that voting
can not be denied to people based on their membership in certain classes, nor limited based on the payment of a tax.
"it has become increasingly obvious that this decline has occurred irrespective of what political leaders in Washington want."
It isn't "irrespective of". It is because of what they wanted. They wanted and aggressively pushed for US foreign policy
to serve the narrow regional interests of client states like Israel and Saudi Arabia. They got what they wanted, in spades, and
now America's geopolitical and economic fortunes are in a tail-spin.
If America had ignored these people, with their stupid interventionism, their almost blatant service of foreign interests by
demanding "no daylight" with "allies" who did nothing but suck our blood, we would have been far better off. We would have been
far better able to anticipate, prepare for, and respond to the pandemic. It's impossible not to think ruefully of the trillions
we wasted on Middle East wars and other interventions, money now so badly needed here at home.
The US will pursue a similar path to Israel. Advantage is relative. Rather than repair the US economy it is simpler to destroy
those of one's rivals. I see war as the only attractive option for the US elite as that is the only area where they still enjoy
clear superiority (or believe they do, same thing policy-wise.)
Cooley and Nevon's book appears to be a good read - I will put it on my 'to read so buy' book list. China is the next hegemon
- this is inevitable due to design. As time goes by during this 'coronavirus pandemic' I have been waiting to hear a politician,
any politician, assert that they will support legislation to require 'essential supply lines' to be returned to the U.S. Aside
from 'murmurs', not a 'lucid' peep. Just 'sue china' legislation, or smoke and mirrors blame on those within the U.S. via the
media or politicians. This is just embarrassing and surreal.
The priority should be to bring these supply lines back to the U.S. [i.e., medical]. Too hell if I am going to be forced to
pay for 'Obamacare' or 'Medicare For All' like a Russian Serf, to the Corporations [vassals] of China [Tatars] - enforced by their
'Eunuchs', greedy politicians in Washington. {Eunuchs were castrated lackies of Emperors]. Yet Chinese slave labour on these medical
products, including pharmaceutical ingredients, and precious metals for parts for the Department of Defense, keep profit margins
very high.
Because of their cowardice one must ask: Why increase defense spending on any project - or be concerned with Iran or Venezuela
or Russia or keeping NATO afloat? Allowing China to continue to be the 'sole source' provider of essential goods is just asking
for another scenario like the one before us. If so, I am convinced that my country is nothing more than a 'dead carcass' being
ripped apart by 'Corporate Vassals of China'. This, of course, includes the Tech Companies as well.
China does not have ideal geography to be world hegemon.
For one thing, it is too easy to prevent any ships from leaving the South China Sea.
The fact that China has not gone to war with anyone since 1953, except for two sharp but short border conflicts in 1962 and
1979, should tell you something. Contrast with the peace-loving liberal democracy of the United States.
The answer of course is a functional international system--environmental protection, world health, a transparent financial system,
world court, and policing. All agreed on by at least the major players which makes it costly for others not to participate.
With good reason many 'mistrust' this int'l system given the threat to sovereignty of a country, most importantly the freedom
of its citizens. An int'l system is asymmetrical, a radical 're-distribution' program that preys on citizens of the 'pseudo-wealthy'
west. The United States will be, post-Corona Virus, potentially $30T in debt. Yet they contribute the most to the WHO. The largest
contribution to the UN comes from the United States. This fact seems to rebut your 'costly for others not to participate'.
The Paris Agreement, like the UN and WHO, will rely on most of the funds coming from the U.S. and redistributed to other countries.
And this will further destroy the standard of living in this country to the degree of crashing the economy. The expected Utopian
Outcome for this so-called 'One-World' order will be a great disappointment to those that advocate for it. Because, after all,
it is nothing more than a Utopian dream gambling on the cohesive nature of different demographic groups combined with significant
reduction in freedoms for all - based on flawed models, including so-called 'man made global warming' models. To define the Demographic
is use in the context of my response: does not = race; it equals culture. Right now this is being demonstrated in the super state
of the EU. There can be no harmony in a world like this. It is like forcing a 'square peg' into a 'round hole'.
And who are these major players? The Eunuch Politicians in Washington and Western Europe? What are their priorities? Their
wallets or their constituents? And I do not mean in a parental way. That is not the role of government.
Viewed from a global perspective at this time, there is a decline in American power and influence, but the vanity of politicians
prevents them from seeing it and they don't want to let go.
The British government makes the same mistakes as it clings to an imaginary "prestige" as a world power - a power that vanished
in 1914.
After Eden was removed as PM post-Suez the new PM Harold McMillan came in and was honest with the British ppl in explaining their
new role in the world, just 10-15 years after the triumph of WW2 a UK Prime Minister had the courage to tell the British people
that they were no longer at the top table, that the age of Empire was over and to put in place the policies required to remove
the burden of empire from Britain and adjust to its new role in the world. Do you see an American politician with the capability
to tell some uncomfortable home truths to the American people and still win an election?
i think that is why voters elected Trump. The citizens of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin have lived the decline of the
United States. At least under trump there have been no new wars but the withdrawal from Iraq, Afghanistan NATO, Japan, Korea needs
to occur with the Military-Industrial-Media Complex kicking and screaming.with each step. Also ending sanctions on Iran, Cuba,
North Korea and Venezuela.
We are in Japan because it allows us to patrol the sea lanes which is vital for our economy and it gives us a large force ready
to respond in case of Chinese or North Korean aggression. The Status of Forces Agreement and other treaties with Japan stipulate
what percentage of costs are born by Japan.
Allowing Japan to destroy consumer electronics, damage steel and automotive is vital to our economy? Could we not patrol the sea
lanes if we wanted to from Guam? Is not freedom of the sea just as vital to Japan, Europe and India? How is China or North Korea
the aggressor when Japan, Korea and Taiwan have been client states of China with the US thousands of miles away?
Imperialism has bankrupt the United States just as it did Europe. The time has come to end these treaties.
Ultra protectionism, retreat to our island and no one can find us, 'make America great again' I dare say, thinking is naive and
unrealistic.
America wil be poorer, weaker, and more vulnerable if it tried to only make its own goods and had to rely on only its own labor.
Trade is profit and profit is the ability to develop, build, and defend what we have. Where do the profits go is the question.
Who loses in the trade is another question. Does the benefit from the former outweigh the latter?
I don't see Japanese trade as making much of a dent in employment rates. The profits go to the Japanese state and industry,
who are important counterweights to Chinese ambitions in Asia, a mutual interest. So, the costs are few, and the profits are used
in significant measure to mutual benefit.
The liberal hegemon is dead, yes our imperialism is dead even if it doesn't know it, but it is essential to remain strategically
involved in the world around us. Even if we stop playing the game, the world around us does not. Did Russia have the luxury of
turning into a turtle after the Cold War? No. Nations, which are all wolves, smell weakness. Yet the Trumpian right wants to hide,
put its finger in its ear, and pretend that everything will be fine it seems.
What are these withdrawals from Iraq & Afghanistan you speak of? They just have not happened, like not even a little bit, so tired
of people pushing this completely false narrative as if it is true, just maddening. A democracy cannot function if people exist
in their own worlds with their own facts that are just not true
The Brits after WW2 offer a lesson here. Hurt badly by WW1, their whole system began teetering as that illusion of the "natural
superiority" of the British took massive hits in the various colonies of the Empire. By exposing the ordinariness of the administrators
and soldiers, it encouraged revolt (see Gandhi in India). But WW2 arguably devastated the UK. It's "win" over Germany was Pyrrhic,
as it needed both the USSR and the USA , and each took a chunk of prestige and of the "hegemon". George VI recognized this, and
British politicians encouraged the shift from Empire to Commonwealth. (Which, if they had never involved themselves in the EU
beyond trade and had kept up the Commonwealth as it was intended, would have been a better path than what they did, IMHO.) Nevertheless,
they handled it better than I think we will.
As Jefferson said, "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations-entangling alliances with none."
But to get there, we have a lot of nonsense -- damned nonsense - - to overcome.
Excellent review and outlook on an encouraging transition from the compulsion of hegemony within a generally agreeable paradigm
of economic liberalism (rules-based international markets).
Well this present regime is actively smashing "international organizations" constructed largely by the Americans after WW2. This
makes it even easier for the Chinese to fill the vacuum we have created. It would be better to hold them in a Western biased "international
organization"
All indications are that ship has sailed. Will there be hegemons? Yes, but more than one. The US will not be the only hegemon
and the COVID-19 helped the world see the emperor has no clothes.
I think that's the likely course, unless the US remains especially incompetent in ensuring that China isn't the one cleaning up
at all the empire liquidation sales.
No nation should be entrusted with anything like the power the US has had.
Until they start shooting down our airliners, sinking our cruise ships, attacking our Naval Bases, and invading their neighbors
and committing genocide against people of other races and religions.
Then, the doves will wake up and realize that the Big Stick is what kept us safe afterall.
You mean fight people who actually threaten us rather than attack people because we dream up scenarios where it's possible or
we just don't like them? I'll take that over preemptive genocide.
If we focused on actual defense 9/11 would not have happened. We ignored Al Qaeda despite the fact the bombed us multiple times
because we were too busy bombing Serbia, blowing up their TV stations and expanding NATO to gobble up former Russian Republics.
The United States routinely ignores any international laws, whenever it sees fit. Anyway, the idea that United States hegemony
is obligatory because muh international order is an argument from consequences.
Lol, America Is what's in the rear view, not just our status as the sole superpower.
People better get ready, this empire is getting ready to collapse.
Meh, people better get ready, we're getting ready to muddle along for the next several decades.
The American state is way too tasty a prize. No one is going to dismantle it, and people will unite against any threat that
has the potential to. Eventually someone will figure out a Bernie/Trump fusion and that person will be our Peron or Putin. Radical
leftists will be crushed by the police if they try anything, and the white nationalists will all be in prison.
We're somewhere between Argentina and Russia heading forward.
Sell the empire. Ignore the Middle East outside of the oil trade lanes. Reorient our trade networks on SE Asia, India, and Latin
America - no more feeding China. End of hostile moves towards Russia - let Europe reconcile with Russia. Fully support multipolar
world order.
Militarily we don't need the plodding battleship of a force we have now. No need to occupy whole countries with 'boots on the
ground'. Maintain top notch special forces, advisor and coordination programs with allies, and anything useful for blowing up
Chinese force projection especially the PLA navy. Subs and missiles.
Lots of good ideas here. Would trading with India involve a "reorient[ation]?" (I don't know.) That is to say, would still trading
with India mean that we have to maintain our current naval position, or would that still be consistent with some sort of drawdown?
Or are you saying that since India is not a hostile force, we would not have to worry about it? Or does is that problem met with
the "anything useful for blowing up Chinese force projection especially the PLA navy. Subs and missiles." Conceivably, China could
increase its presence in the Indian Ocean to create problems, no? Overall, agree with a lot of it--I'm just curious about the
logistics.
India in the longer term could ostensibly do much of what China does for us now trade wise. Needs to finish developing its infrastructure
and its manufacturing tech. SE Asia and Mexico are closer short term.
I think due to the commercial value of the seas our navy is our most cost effective means of force projection. Patrolling the
Persian Gulf means we have our thumb on the number one petroleum artery. I would focus more on cost effective means to deny China
(and Chinese trade) access to the seas in the event of tension. Carriers are expensive targets when subs and strategic missile
emplacements can inspire even more fear due to unpredictability. But yes we still need bases and partnerships throughout the Indian
and Pacific Oceans. China can roam around in peacetime as it wishes, what matters is that it stays totally bottled up in port,
along with its maritime trade, in a conflict.
Allow these places to run up trade surpluses with us rather than China.
I think Mr. Larison is on the right track. However, even if the logic of abandoning the Liberal International Order (LIO) is accepted--and
the LIO most certainly should be abandoned--the entire story or narrative of post-World War II America narrative must be either
abandoned or refashioned. It seems that the LIO functions as some sort of purpose for American citizens, and a higher-level theology
for those who work in the United States Government, especially those who are involved in foreign policy making. Countering or
reshaping the narrative of United States foreign policy and its link with domestic policy will be a challenge, but one that needs
to be taken up, and taken up successfully. In personal conversations with those who support the LIO, they seem to take [my] criticisms
of the LIO as some sort of ad hominem attack. This reaction is obviously illogical, but it is one that those who see the
wisdom of abandoning the LIO must tactically and tactfully counter. Regrettably, supporting the LIO is conflated with being an
American, or conflated with the raison d'etre of the existence of the United States. Many think the abandonment of the
LIO cannot rationally be replaced and will necessarily be replaced with some sort of nihilism or the most cynical form of "realism,"
of which they mistakenly believe they possess understanding. For a start, reforming the educational system, insofar as it not
already dominated by incorrect-but-fashionable far-leftist ideas that advocate a narrative of American history and purpose as
false as it is pernicious, would seem to necessary. Many children grow into adulthood falsely thinking maintaining the LIO is
their responsibility. It is, at root, a theological sickness.
I hope it is over. To hell with the Europeans who have made a national sport of mocking Americans and all things America, while
we risk nuclear war on their behalf. Let them face Putin and the Islamic invasion on their own - those problems are Europe's,
not ours.
The United States is ramping up for the "Great Final War' with both Russia and China. Throw in Iran, Syria, North Korea etc. as
an afterthought. The U.S. will bring the temple down on itself rather than give up the goal of 'Full Spectrum Dominance'.that
it has been pursuing since the end of WWII.
Alexander Cooley and Dan Nexon may think the glory days are coming to an end, but I don't think Trump and the neocons got the
memo yet. I see no evidence of any intent to change.
There is no "international order." That's just rhetoric that is useful for certain economic interests. A world without american
hegemony will be divided and filled with conflict. Globalization can't work politically.
America is the exceptional indispensable nation. Home of super heros in the movies and their
military. Their TV is full of cop dramas with tough macho cops who always get their man. Many
Americans cannot accept as a nation that they could ever be wrong on anything. After all,
they saved Europe from the Nazis and then the evil ruskies. They see themselves as the
greatest nation to ever exist upon the Earth that seeks only to do good for other countries
(sigh).
Sadly, none of the above is true. The US needs to step down from their pedestal and rejoin
the human race as equals. Belief in your own exceptionalism leads to hubris which leads to
arrogance, leading to an overestimation of your own capabilities and a fatal underestimation
of the capabilities of your adversary. Americans and especially their government are living
in a fantasy with crumbling foundations.
This March, as COVID-19's capacity to overwhelm the American
healthcare system was becoming obvious, experts marveled at the scenario unfolding before their
eyes. "We have Third World countries who are better equipped than we are now in Seattle,"
noted one healthcare professional, her words echoed just a few days later by a shocked
doctor in New York who described
"a third-world country type of scenario." Donald Trump could similarly only grasp what was
happening through the same comparison. "I have seen things that I've never seen before," he
said
. "I mean I've seen them, but I've seen them on television and faraway lands, never in my
country."
At the same time, regardless of the fact that "Third World" terminology is outdated and
confusing, Trump's inept handling of the pandemic has itself elicited more than one "banana republic"
analogy, reflecting already well-worn, bipartisan comparisons of Trump to a "
third world dictator " (never mind that dictators and authoritarians have never been
confined solely to lower income countries).
And yet, while such comparisons provoke predictably nativist outrage from the right, what is
absent from any of
these responses to the situation is a sense of reflection or humility about the "Third
World" comparison itself. The doctor in New York who finds himself caught in a "third world"
scenario and the political commentators outraged when Trump behaves "like a third world
dictator" uniformly express themselves in terms of incredulous wonderment. One never hears the
potential second half of this comparison: "I am now experiencing what it is like to live in a
country that resembles the kind of nation upon whom the United States regularly imposes broken
economies and corrupt leaders."
Because behind today's coronavirus-inspired astonishment at conditions in developing or
lower income countries, and Trump's authoritarian-like thuggery, lies an actual military and
political hegemon with an actual impact on the world; particularly on what was once called the
"Third World."
In physical terms, the U.S.'s military hegemony is comprised of 800 bases in over 70 nations
–
more bases than any other nation or empire in history. The U.S. maintains drone bases,
listening posts, "black sites," aircraft carriers, a massive nuclear stockpile, and military
personnel working in approximately 160 countries. This is a globe-spanning military and
security apparatus organized into regional commands
that resemble the "proconsuls of the Roman empire and the governors-general of the
British." In other words, this apparatus is built not for deterrence, but for primacy.
The U.S.'s global primacy emerged from the wreckage of World War II when the United States
stepped into the shoes vacated by European empires. Throughout the Cold War, and in the name of
supporting "free peoples," the sprawling American security apparatus helped ensure that 300
years of imperial resource extraction and wealth distribution – from what was then called
the Third World to the First – remained undisturbed, despite decolonization.
Since then, the United States
has overthrown or attempted to overthrow the governments of approximately 50 countries,
many of which (e.g. Iran, Guatemala, the Congo, and Chile) had elected leaders willing to
nationalize their natural resources and industries. Often these interventions
took the form of covert operations. Less frequently, the United States went to war to
achieve these same ends (e.g. Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq).
In fiscal terms, maintaining American hegemony requires spending more
on "defense" than the next seven largest countries combined. Our
nearly $1 trillion security budget now amounts to about 15 percent of the federal budget
and over half of all
discretionary spending. Moreover, the U.S. security budget continues to increase despite the
Pentagon's inability to pass a fiscal audit.
Trump's claim that Obama had
"hollowed out" defense spending was not only grossly untrue, it masked the consistency of the
security budget's metastasizing growth since the Vietnam War, regardless of who sits in the
White House. At $738 billion dollars, Trump's security budget was passed in December with the
overwhelming support of House Democrats.
And yet, from the perspective of public discourse in this country, our globe-spanning,
resource-draining military and security apparatus exists in an entirely parallel universe to
the one most Americans experience on a daily level. Occasionally, we wake up to the idea of
this parallel universe but only when the United States is involved in visible military actions.
The rest of the time, Americans leave thinking about international politics – and the
deaths, for instance, of 2.5 million
Iraqis since 2003 – to the legions of policy analysts and Pentagon employees who
largely accept American military primacy as an "article of faith," as Professor of
International Security and Strategy at the University of Birmingham Patrick Porter has said
.
Foreign policy is routinely the last issue Americans consider when they vote for presidents
even though the president has more discretionary power over foreign policy than any other area
of American politics. Thus, despite its size, impact, and expense, the world's military hegemon
exists somewhere on the periphery of most Americans' self-understanding, as though, like the
sun, it can't be looked upon directly for fear of blindness.
Why is our avoidance of the U.S.'s weighty impact on the world a problem in the midst of the
coronavirus pandemic? Most obviously, the fact that our massive security budget has gone so
long without being widely questioned means that one of the soundest courses of action for the
U.S. during this crisis remains resolutely out of sight.
The shock of discovering that our healthcare system is so quickly overwhelmed should
automatically trigger broader conversations about spending priorities that entail deep and
sustained cuts in an engorged security budget whose sole purpose is the maintenance of primacy.
And yet, not only has this not happened, $10.5 billion of the coronavirus aid package has been
earmarked for the Pentagon, with $2.4 billion of that
channeled to the "defense industrial base." Of the $500 billion aimed at corporate America,
$17.5 billion is
set aside "for businesses critical to maintaining national security" such as aerospace.
To make matters worse, our blindness to this bloated security complex makes it frighteningly
easy for champions of American primacy to sound the alarm when they even suspect a dip in
funding might be forthcoming. Indeed, before most of us had even glanced at the details of the
coronavirus bill, foreign policy hawks were already
issuing dark prediction s about the impact of still-imaginary cuts in the security budget
on the U.S.'s "ability to strike any target on the planet in response to hostile actions by any
actor" – as if that ability already did not exist many times over.
On a more existential level, a country that is collectively engaged in unseeing its own
global power cannot help but fail to make connections between that power and domestic politics,
particularly when a little of the outside world seeps in. For instance, because most Americans
are unaware of their government's sponsorship of fundamentalist Islamic groups in the Middle
East throughout the Cold War, 9/11 can only ever appear to have come from nowhere, or because
Muslims hate our way of life.
This "how did we get here?" attitude replicates itself at every level of political life
making it profoundly difficult for Americans to see the impact of their nation on the rest of
the world, and the blowback from that impact on the United States itself. Right now, the
outsized influence of American foreign policy is already encouraging the spread of coronavirus
itself as U.S. imposed sanctions on Iran severely hamper that
country's ability to respond to the virus at home and virtually
guarantee its spread throughout the region.
Closer to home, our shock at the healthcare system's inept response to the pandemic masks
the relationship between the U.S.'s imposition
of free-market totalitarianism on countries throughout the
Global South and the impact of free-market totalitarianism on our own welfare state .
Likewise, it is more than karmic comeuppance that the President of the United States now
resembles the self-serving authoritarians the U.S. forced on so many formerly colonized
nations. The modes of militarized policing American security experts exported to those
authoritarian regimes also contributed , on a
policy level, to both the rise of militarized policing in American cities and the rise of mass
incarceration in the 1980s and 90s. Both of these phenomena played a significant role in
radicalizing Trump's white nationalist base and decreasing their tolerance for democracy.
Most importantly, because the U.S. is blind to its power abroad, it cannot help but turn
that blindness on itself. This means that even during a pandemic when America's exceptionalism
– our lack of national healthcare – has profoundly negative consequences on the
population, the idea of looking to the rest of the world for solutions remains unthinkable.
Senator Bernie Sanders' reasonable suggestion that the U.S., like Denmark, should
nationalize its healthcare system is dismissed as the fanciful pipe dream of an aging socialist
rather than an obvious solution to a human problem embraced by nearly every other nation in the
world. The Seattle healthcare professional who expressed shock that even "Third World
countries" are "better equipped" than we are to confront COVID-19 betrays a stunning ignorance
of the diversity of healthcare systems within developing countries. Cuba, for instance,
has responded
to this crisis with an efficiency and humanity that puts the U.S. to shame.
Indeed, the U.S. is only beginning to feel the full impact of COVID-19's explosive
confrontation with our exceptionalism: if the unemployment rate really does reach 32 percent,
as has been predicted,
millions of people will not only lose their jobs but their health insurance as well. In the
middle of a pandemic.
Over 150 years apart, political commentators Edmund Burke and Aimé Césaire
referred to this blindness as the byproduct of imperialism. Both used the exact same language
to describe it; as a "gangrene" that "poisons" the colonizing body politic. From their
different historical perspectives, Burke and Césaire observed how colonization
boomerangs back on colonial society itself, causing irreversible damage to nations that
consider themselves humane and enlightened, drawing them deeper into denial and
self-delusion.
Perhaps right now there is a chance that COVID-19 – an actual, not metaphorical
contagion – can have the opposite effect on the U.S. by opening our eyes to the things
that go unseen. Perhaps the shock of recognizing the U.S. itself is less developed than our
imagined "Third World" might prompt Americans to tear our eyes away from ourselves and look
toward the actual world outside our borders for examples of the kinds of political, economic,
and social solidarity necessary to fight the spread of Coronavirus. And perhaps moving beyond
shock and incredulity to genuine recognition and empathy with people whose economies and
democracies have been decimated by American hegemony might begin the process of reckoning with
the costs of that hegemony, not just in "faraway lands" but at home. In our country.
Well they signed the agreement with the Taliban and two days later the DOD was bombing
them again so who knows what happens there.
Trump has declared all sorts of deals that ultimately turned into puffs of smoke -- the
non-deal with North Korea comes to mind. I consider pulling out of the TPP and tariffs
against China more indicative of bucking the consensus, but those can be reversed by Trump or
any other president whenever they feel like it.
Iran hawks never talk about diplomacy except as a way to discredit it.
Notable quotes:
"... And even if Iran were to accept and proceed comply in good faith, just as Iran complied scrupulously with the JCPOA, what's to prevent any US administration from tearing up that "new deal" and demanding more? ..."
Daniel
Larison Two Iran hawks from the Senate, Bob Menendez and Lindse Graham, are
proposing a "new deal" that is guaranteed to be a non-starter with Iran:
Essentially, their idea is that the United States would offer a new nuclear deal to both
Iran and the gulf states at the same time. The first part would be an agreement to ensure
that Iran and the gulf states have access to nuclear fuel for civilian energy purposes,
guaranteed by the international community in perpetuity. In exchange, both Iran and the gulf
states would swear off nuclear fuel enrichment inside their own countries forever.
Iran is never going to accept any agreement that requires them to give up domestic
enrichment. As far as they are concerned, they are entitled to this under the Non-Proliferation
Treaty, and they regard it as a matter of their national rights that they keep it. Insisting on
"zero enrichment" is what made it impossible to reach an agreement with Iran for the better
part of a decade, and it was only when the Obama administration understood this and compromised
to allow Iran to enrich under tight restrictions that the negotiations could move forward.
Demanding "zero enrichment" today in 2020 amounts to rejecting that compromise and returning to
a bankrupt approach that drove Iran to build tens of thousands of centrifuges. As a proposal
for negotiations, it is dead on arrival, and Menendez and Graham must know that. Iran hawks
never talk about diplomacy except as a way to discredit it. They want to make a bogus offer in
the hopes that it will be rejected so that they can use the rejection to justify more
aggressive measures.
The identity of the authors of the plan is a giveaway that the offer is not a serious
diplomatic proposal. Graham is one of the most incorrigible hard-liners on Iran, and Menendez
is probably the most hawkish Democratic senator in office today. Among other things, Menendez
has been a
booster of the Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK), the deranged cult of Iranian exiles
that has been buying the support of American politicians and officials for years. Graham has
never seen a diplomatic agreement that he didn't want to destroy. When hard-liners talk about
making a "deal," they always mean that they want to demand the other side's surrender.
Another giveaway that this is not a serious proposal is the fact that they want this
imaginary agreement submitted as a treaty:
That final deal would be designated as a treaty, ratified by the U.S. Senate, to give Iran
confidence that a new president won't just pull out (like President Trump did on President
Barack Obama's nuclear deal).
This is silly for many reasons. The Senate doesn't ratify treaties nowadays, so any "new
deal" submitted as a treaty would never be ratified. As the current president has shown, it
doesn't matter if a treaty has been ratified by the Senate. Presidents can and do withdraw from
ratified treaties if they want to, and the fact that it is a ratified treaty doesn't prevent
them from doing this. Bush pulled out of the ABM Treaty, which was ratified
88-2 in 1972. Trump withdrew from the INF Treaty just last year. The INF Treaty had been
ratified with a
93-5 vote. The hawkish complaint that the JCPOA wasn't submitted as a treaty was, as usual,
made in bad faith. There was no chance that the JCPOA would have been ratified, and even if it
had been that ratification would not have protected it from being tossed aside by Trump.
Insisting on making any new agreement a treaty is just another way of announcing that they have
no interest in a diplomatic solution.
Menendez and Graham want to make the obstacles to diplomacy so great that negotiations
between the U.S. and Iran can't resume. It isn't a serious proposal, and it shouldn't be taken
seriously.
And even if Iran were to accept and proceed comply in good faith, just as Iran complied
scrupulously with the JCPOA, what's to prevent any US administration from tearing up that
"new deal" and demanding more?
This isn't something new. The American people have been fed propaganda for decades to make
them believe America was exceptional. It was the bed rock of our Imperialism. If you lookout
at measures of well being, America was always down on the list in every category. About the
only thing we led in was military spending. American exceptionalism was used as a tool to
justify our bad behavior all over the planet. Our government is the biggest terror
organization on the planet. We have killed or injured millions of people. All in the name of
spreading democracy, something we actually don't have.
A cynical school of thought holds that one reason America makes borders so unpleasant is to deter US
citizens from traveling so as to preserve our sense of exceptionalism in the face of countervailing
evidence. For instance, one colleague, a former city planner, came back from a vacation in the south of
France and raved about how terrific the roads were. The Gilet Janues would assure him that in rural areas,
they were neglected, but my contact's point was that even in affluent parts of the US, you couldn't find
ones on a par with the ones he drove on his holiday. And I suspect that even the roads that are impediments
to safe, fast driving in the depopulating parts of France
are still better than those in Michigan
.
But America is slipping even further. It used to be that it would come up short in infrastructure and
social well being indicators compared to most European countries. We now have readers who are looking at
what they see in the better parts of the developing world and are finding America coming up short.
Costa Rica has admittedly long been depicted as the Switzerland of Central America. It has become more
and more popular with expats for at least the last 15 years. I visited there briefly on a client project in
1997. While the downtown section of San José looked worn, even there, the people on the street were neatly
if modestly dressed. And when you went out to the suburbs, the country looked comfortable to prosperous, and
it seemed as if citizens made an effort to keep their neighborhoods well kept, even in non-tourist sections.
Oh, and the food was terrific, particularly the fish.
A more recent sighting from Eureka Springs:
Just returned from deep southern rural Costa Rica to rural N.W. Arkansas. Peace and quiet almost
everywhere I go now. Unless it's my own noise (music) which could not bother another.
The entire trip was quite the reminder of just how third world we the peeps are nowadays.
Internet was so much better there. No satellite dishes, except as modifications to them for use as
roadside trash receptacles. Still no rural wired net in the U.S.. Cell signals were strong everywhere,
yet I never saw people glued to a phone.
Public trans, brand new buses all up and down the countryside. Even many miles down dirt roads.
Fantastic bus stops. No such thing as public transit in rural U.S.
A lot of people drive efficient 150cc motorcycles. The large bus stops seem intentionally oversized by
design to co-serve as a place to pull under during rain. How civilized.
Grocery stores with real food everywhere. No chain stores best I can tell. Unless in larger cities.
And a shockingly smaller amount of trash packaging. I would say for the same amount of weekly grocery
consumption I generate at least three if not five times more trash in the U.S. Seemingly every few
hundred people, never more than a mile, usually much less, have a store with produce and meats. I'm seven
miles from a dollar store, two more miles to actual groceries. About the same population density in both
places.
And then there is health care for all vs give me all you got, we don't give a fk.
Don't know but would wager their water tests much better across the board as well. Nobody consumes
plastic water bottles. Even very remote beaches had little shards of plastic all along the water line
though. No escaping it.
Schools did not look like prison at all. Kids were kids, with cookie stands, a work ethic, bicycles,
laughter, no apparent phones, lots of soccer, some dirt on their fingers and toes. And laughter.
Poor to middle working class people did not look miserable, unhealthy, guarded and or afraid.
The chickens, dogs and cats were abundant though not overly so, well fed, healthy, roaming free.
Police were calm, not dressed to kill with body language fitting the peace officer description. CR has
no military.
We have a choice and we are making so many bad ones. I feel like so many of my fellow US citizens
don't get this fact. And it's a shortcoming of Sanders types by failing to paint this vision/picture.
Even they are trapped in the downward spiral, knowing no other way from experience.
And Expat2uruguay seems to have adapted well to her big relocation. Ironically her big lament seems to be
the cuisine isn't terribly inspired and fish is hard to come by, but other advantages of living there seem
to more than make up for it. From a recent report:
Since relocating to Uruguay I was diagnosed with Stage 2B breast cancer. There was no bill whatsoever
for the surgery. The entire cost of my entire treatment, including my monthly membership fee of $60 a
month, was under $2,700.
That total includes 16 months of the monthly fee and all of my treatments, including six months of
chemotherapy, 6 weeks of daily radiation, co-pays for medications and tests, $7 co-pays for doctor
visits, and additional testing and consultation for heart damage caused by the chemotherapy. I also had a
couple of problems during the chemotherapy that required visits to the emergency room, a four day
hospital stay because of ultra-low defenses, and consultation in my home a couple times. They did a
really good job, and they're very good at cancer treatment here.
But the very best thing about Uruguay is the peacefulness, the tranquility, the laid-back approach to
life. My stress levels are way down from when I lived in the US.
Several factors are likely at work. One is, as we've pointed out from the very outset of this site, that
unequal societies are unhappy and unhealthy societies. Even those at the top pay a longevity cost due to
having shallower social networks, having a nagging awareness that most if not all of their supposed friends
would dump them if they took a serious income hit (can't mix with the same crowd if you can't fly private
class, can't support the right charities, can't throw posh parties) and having to think about or even
building panic rooms.
Another is the precarity even at high but below top 1% levels: job insecurity, the difficulty of getting
kids into good colleges and then paying for it when they do, along with attempting to save enough for
retirement. Even with steering clear of costly divorces and medical emergencies, the supposed basics of a
middle or upper middle income lifestyle add up in light of escalating medical, education, and housing costs.
And then some feel they are entitled to or need to give their kids perks in line with their self image of
their status, like fancy vacations.
And we don't need to elaborate on how hard it is for people who are struggling to get by. But it's not
hard to see that the status and sometimes money anxiety at the top too readily translates into abuses of
those further down the food chain to buck up their faltering sense of power and self worth. Anglo-style
capitalism is often mean-spirited and that tendency seems particularly strong now.
Specifically, which developing countries that readers know well give the US a lifestyle run for the
money? And I don't mean for for US expats bearing strong dollars but for ordinary people. And where do they
fall short?
You need to be cautious sometimes in interpreting how life is in other countries. I've known people who
moved to very orderly, prosperous countries like Japan, South Korea, Germany, Austria etc., and loved the
first year or so and would rave about it, but would gradually become, if not disenchanted, but a little more
aware as they became familiar of negative undercurrents – there always seems to be a price to be paid for
having a very law abiding, neat orderly society. Likewise, moving to poorer, but more cheerful countries
like Thailand or the Philippines, or perhaps Portugal/Greece also (for those people willing to learn the
language and go deeper into the society, there is a downward curve as they discover the downside to the laid
back attitudes and constant sunshine.
There is also the simple advantage of laggards – they can learn from other countries mistakes and skip a
generation of technology. I recall foreign visitors to Ireland in the early 1990's raving about how good the
phone system was. There was no magic to it – Ireland simply had fallen well behind, but invested in what was
then the most up to date proven digital system in the late 1980's, without having to go through the process
of an incremental upgrade. You find this in a lot of developing countries – I remember being amazed when
travelling in Tibet about 15 years ago that there was near perfect mobile phone signals even in very remote
areas. It was simply that it was cheaper for the Chinese to extend mobile masts before land lines, so it
made sense to roll out a remote network, when in other more 'advanced' nations your signal died as soon as
you hit some hills. Sometimes, economically, there is an advantage to just using old established infrastrure
(decades old airports, etc), which function adequately, rather than spending billions on brand new
facilities which can only be built with significant opportunity cost.
Anyway, having said all that, as a regular visitor to the US I've frequently been struck by just how poor
the infrastructure can be, even in high tech places like New York. I don't think the trek out to JFK from
Manhattan would be considered acceptable in any other major world city. And poor areas of the US do have a
sort of shabbiness you don't see even in many countries that are unambiguously much poorer (much of Asia,
for example). J.K Galbraith of course explained the reason for all this many decades ago when he wrote about
private splendour and public squalor.
>and loved the first year or so and would rave about it, but would gradually become, if not
disenchanted, but a little more aware
There's a rule of thumb for this, you must know as any expat will rattle it off for you:
1) The first year you love it beyond all words
2) The second year you hate everything with the heat of a thousand suns.
3) The third year on, it's just where you live.
After WW2, Australia encouraged British people to emigrate out to here. It was called the Ten Pond
Pom scheme as these emigrants would pay ten pounds but if they did not like it could return home while
paying their own fares. But they had to be here a minimum of two years in order to get a ticket home
free.
The British picked up a reputation as whingers as they said that this was not how things were done
in England or that is not what we believe back home. Come the two year mark, many left to go back to
the UK as they thought the place would be just like England but with more sun.
Funny thing was a very large section of them would after returning home start to remember why they
left post-war Britain. Then they would work hard to save up their money to pay the full fare out to
Australia for themselves and their families. The numbers were large enough to be a noticeable
phenomena.
I very much liked Sydney the two years I lived there. But I didn't succeed in getting permanent
residence, so perhaps I had not quite settled psychologically.
Plus Australia and Canada are American-tolerant and require less adaptation than any other
countries.
Not my experience (and I lived in four different countries on average 10 years each, and spent
enough time in a couple of others to know more than a "tourist") – for me, it's always "place where
you live" with advantages and disadvantages. Each place I lived in was special in its own way – and
had some significant problems (often well hidden from an occasional traveller).
What I did see and considered interesting is that after the fall of communist regimes quite a few
emigrants went home – and about half of those emigrated again within few years.
The 'advantage of laggards' is fairly well documented in the history of technology and especially of
telecoms. If something sort of works where you are, you tend to keep using it, while laggards who never
got the last generation of tech might pick up a cheaper-better-faster option that doesn't rely on
existing infrastructure.
Do you remember the transitions from 1G to 2G to 3G cellphones? How that might have affected you
depends on where you were based at the time; basically America did terribly with 2G infrastructure and
adoption (remember when Americans had to pay for inbound calls??) whereas Europe handled it much better
and thus gave birth to the SMS cultural/linguistic explosion, but then America's bad experience with 2G
spurred them to embrace 3G.
Electronic health records are another example the US began adoption a long, long time ago – the most
dominant US health records provider (Epic) was founded in the 1970s, and this is part of why the US has
the worst electronic health records in the world. I was at a digital health event a few years ago where
someone explained to the audience how EHR works in Zambia, and that it was stunningly superior to any
American system.
And people get REALLY confused about this. They assume that because a country is 'developed' or 'hi
tech' it must have some kind of first-mover advantage, whereas in many cases existing infrastructure
forms a stultifying status quo that impedes further development. It's really hard to get your average
American to accept that the countries in Asia that they like to look down upon have much better
internet/telecoms and industrial tech than America does. I am forever fascinated to watch this
technological leapfrogging happen, and I live in hope that the renewables boom leads to a wave of tech we
haven't yet dreamed of emerging in Africa & other places that aren't yet choked by an anticompetitive
status quo.
A big reason I've been living in Europe these last 25 years is because of my experience traveling in
Andalucía while living a comfortable life with a well-paying job in Silicon Valley. While not developing
world by any common definition, this area is and was relatively poor and unemployment hovered around 20%
unemployment and yet somehow people were always out enjoying the evening at bars (not to get drunk, but
simply to socialize). Little evidence of homelessness. I lived in Spain for a number of years after/because
of that experience. A friend from the US who frequently travels to Spain for work confirms he's never seen
such road quality even in the poorest regions. I can attest that, for health care, I never saw a bill. The
one time I ventured out of the gov network for a 2nd opinion from a private neurologist, the private expert
confirmed the gov't doctor's diagnosis – in fact they knew each other and each respected the other's work.
Just hope you to enjoy it! I can endorse all that you wrote. This is not to say there are of course
lot of problems and things badly done. There is in place a push for privatization like elsewhere in the
EU. I knew the guy that many years ago was responsible for developing infrastructure foe primary
attention in health care in Andalusia and they did a good job.
Perhaps you can confirm this, but a doctor friend who briefly worked in Spain told me that the
reason healthcare in Andalucia is so good is that it is in effect subsidised by northern European
retirees. German and Dutch systems are happy to pay (lower) Andalucian prices for retired people in
the South of Spain, while the local system uses the money to make a better system for everyone. I've
never heard any traveller I know say anything bad about southern Spanish health care.
I don't know about this. In the early 80s, with good old days PSOE governing, is when the
primary attention was designed and it was done quite well. That is what I can say first hand
because I met people involved and heard good critics by outsiders. When you have public servants
who are capable and want to do things correctly
When I'm told "I haven't met my deductible or that a procedure isn't covered" I get down on my knees
and thank God I'm an American.
This is what freedom feels like!
Taiwan. Cost.of living is generally cheap unless you're buying property, which can get pricey. But, rent
is generally low, food is very low and mostly healthy (they dont put much sugar in their stuff compared to
America), healthcare isn't free for non-citz but still stupid cheap compared to America and top quality,
crime is very low (second lowest crime rate in the world after Japan) and you get to experience real Chinese
culture instead of PRC propaganda. I could go on but those are the highlights for me. I view it as a truly
civilized society, although it no doubt has it's own problems. I encourage everyone i know to visit.
I cycled a little around Taiwan 10 years ago – it is a very well functioning country, very safe and
friendly with quite a distinct culture somewhere between China and Japan (lots of Japanese retirees go to
Taiwan). Public transport is excellent, the cities have good facilities and there are lovely surf beaches
in the south – the mountains are amazing, especially when you have cheap hot spring resorts everywhere.
The only negative is that probably because of their history many Taiwanese are super sensitive of
anything that could be construed as criticism (even jokes). Oh, and that the towns and cities are
incredibly ugly, even by most Asian standards. So much was just thrown up during the years of expansion,
it will take a generation or two to make things a little better.
They do have some infrastructure problems though, mainly because of their location right in the path
of some of the worst storms the Pacific can throw at any island – entire main roads get completely washed
away very regularly.
The National Palace Museum is one of the great cultural treasures of the world and better than the
British Museum in my opinion. A must see option for anyone visiting Taipei.
I've been here for 30 years. Your broad strokes are largely correct but leave out a lot of fine
detail. One small point is sugar:
Taiwanese puts TONS of sugar in drinks -- coffee, tea, all the traditional summer drinks, snacks/chips
of any kind. When you go to a 500cc place for a drink, they even have a chart so you can choose how much
sugar you want -- regular (= high), medium, and low (30% of the normal).
Coffee or tea at 7-11 and Family Mart is always powdered and includes powdered creamer and sugar.
As for food, Taiwanese LOVE garlic and leeks and are not averse to throwing in a lot of salt. Not to
mention the cooking oil -- lard or vegetable -- that remains on anything that's been stir fried.
And Taiwanese LOVE deep fried food, traditional as well as MacDonald's.
As for "real Chinese culture," watch out for that since many Taiwanese do NOT consider themselves
Chinese, and many Chinese (PRC) and overseas Chinese look down on Taiwanese as somewhat low class.
This isn't something new. The American people have been fed propaganda for decades to make them believe
America was exceptional. It was the bed rock of our Imperialism. If you lookout at measures of well being,
America was always down on the list in every category. About the only thing we led in was military spending.
American exceptionalism was used as a tool to justify our bad behavior all over the planet. Our government
is the biggest terror organization on the planet. We have killed or injured millions of people. All in the
name of spreading democracy, something we actually don't have.
>America makes borders so unpleasant is to deter US citizens from traveling
And if you do escape, and if you do bring back stories of how much better so many things are in said
other country, you are lectured to as how the US "protects their freedom" and if it wasn't for the fruits of
your labor being mostly directed into trying to get the F35 to work that other country* would certainly have
already been completely overrun by Communists! So shutupshutupshutup.
An American friend and former colleague, now a UK citizen and regulator, amused us with a story of how
she was harangued at JFK for no longer living in the US when she began travelling on her UK passport.
A friend of mine, a business man, has always problems at JFK because his surname coincides with
that of a Colombian drug dealer. He is always directed to a room and stays there for hours until they
let him free (always equals two times to my knowledge).
My wife and I got lectured several years ago coming through Atlanta from Europe to visit family in
the states by the homeland Security agent. My wife hadn't renewed her green card and was travelling on
her Canadian passport. She has Polish/Canadian citizenship. I had to really bite down hard on my lip
during the lecture because I did not want to miss our connecting flight. I told the agent since we
were not planning to move back to the US, there was no need to waste so much money on renewing the
card. Finally, I asked: are Canadian passport holders still allowed to enter the country? And if so,
can we go now?
The worst border crossings are always upon entering the States. The pointless shouting and general
vacuousness of the security – certain indications that you're back among the Free – are comical to a
point, until one sees how intimidated the Fins or whoever you flew in with are by this uncivilized
chaos. I've apologized more than once on behalf of my country to a nice, non-English speaking
non-terrorist being pointlessly harrassed by 'security'.
US Customs were always terrible. When I was a kid, we'd go down to the recently named JFK
airport and watch the customs lines from the glassed in gallery above. I remember one agent finding
some liqueur chocolates and jumping up and down on them. I didn't know adults did stuff like that.
Alternate experience mine:
While in Lebanon and Syria in 2004, bought a kilo of zatar, had it wrapped in multiple layers of
plastic to preserve it, stuffed it in luggage and forgot about it. Upon returning to the states,
went thru customs in SF. Agent said "what ya got in the bags?" We said "nothin". He said "open
up anyway" so I did. When he got to the bottom and found the (forgotten) spice he pulled it out
and looked at me, and I laughed, and told him what it was. He said "Yeah, whatever", put it back
in the bag and sent us on our way
I grimace when I hear that we are part of a "free world". Ever since 9/11 there have so many curbs on
our freedom and the mass surveillance by the 3 letter agencies and corporations make a mockery of the
term.
Thank you for publishing this delightful article. What a shame that most U.S citizens get their
conceptualization of the rest of the world from MSM. A friend lived and worked in various parts of Africa
for years; he told me that when he announced plans to return *home*, his African companions asked him
"why? its SO DANGEROUS THERE!!!"
My sister's companion-with family in Israel- describes our local ( in upper Northeast U.S.) hospitals as:
like something from a 3rd world country
There is nothing like immersion to generate understanding and appreciation for other places, people, and
lifestyles.
I had drinks with a US professor from Iowa last week and he expressed how surprised and impressed he
was with Canadians' interest in and knowledge of US and world affairs. I gave him a version of Trudeau
pere's line -- "when you are the mouse sleeping alongside an elephant, it behooves you to pay attention to
every twitch "
Many years ago a public radio station here in Hawaii would broadcast a Canadian radio show "As It
Happens". I was struck that the host could (say) mention the name of a politician or government
official and just assume that the audience knew who they were. Of course I don't know who the target
audience in Canada would have been, but very few broadcasts in the U.S. can count on their audience
being that well informed
Other countries have to pay attention to what goes on in the USA, as the saying goes, when the
USA sneezes, the rest of the world catches a cold. I recall being impressed in Jamaica with how
knowledgeable some local people were about world events, people were pretty up-to-date about
African politics, US politics, etc.
Berlin, Germany – not exactly developing world. Met a German woman while backpacking in SE Asia in '95,
came here in '96, been here ever since, got German citizenship (along with US) in 2017.
Berlin is a bit like NYC in that each city is special, and neither is a particularly representative
sample of what the rest of the country is like. So with that caveat: The stress level here seems much lower
than in the US; there's great public transport, perhaps the world's strongest privacy and employee-rights
laws and not much fear of violence (from fellow citizens or police). And there is no reason for anyone to
lack health insurance: everything is covered, with extremely small out-of-pocket expenses and health care is
excellent.
That said, neoliberalism's ravages can be felt here, too: wages have been stagnant for 20+ yrs and German
politicians are obsessed with "das schwarze Null" (literally, "the black zero"; i.e. "being in the black" or
"getting out of the red"). Rents have skyrocketed and not nearly enough affordable/govt housing has been
built in the past 20+ yrs.
Among the people I know/deal with, precarity seems basically non-existent, perhaps as a result of
everyone knowing that govt welfare/etc. – from which people can live without fear of homelessness, losing
their health insurance or going hungry – is available as a last resort, though the housing situation is
getting quite precarious.
All in all, I'm very happy and grateful to be able to live here. As a freelancer, I don't benefit from
it, but I still think vacation policy here is fantastic: all employees get at least 4 wks off in total
(everyone I know gets at least 5 wks) + each employee is entitled to take a 3-wk-long vacation.
Unfortunately, there is enough misery in Germany to even have a weekly tv-series about it Armut in
Deutschland = Poverty in Germany divided in the all too common categories: Old people poverty, Child
poverty, Working poor etc.
Another thought, when discussing poverty it is really important to consider that the psychology
(seeing that you cannot afford anything) and physiology (not affording good food so you get fat from
salt, fat, sugar-based food from Lidl) of poverty is relative: you compare yourself with the people that
you are surrounded by and purchasing power is relative to the country where you live.
I was in a very non touristy part of Jamaica last year. The roads were pretty poor, with sections washed
out. I would say the overall quality of roads was lower than the USA. In fact they were so bad, bit of
plastic started falling off my rented car.
However, people were much happier. Just for starters, the rental agency was completely fine with a few
bits of plastic that shook loose. No problem!
The food was fantastic, and inexpensive. The market in the local town just sold meat without any
refrigeration. This is Jamaica, it was hot. Yet the market smelled fresh, the meat looked amazing, it was
clean. Everything just moves so quickly there seems to be no time for stuff to go off. The veggies were
amazing and plentiful.
The school children seemed to wear uniforms. They hung out together. They socialized and talked and well
seemed like children. Engaged and full of life.
There was a funeral in a building near by us, and they chanted and sung all night until sun up. That
meant it was a little loud (as out place didn't have any glass in the windows). It was sometime haunting,
sometimes joyful, but people really celebrated the life that had passed.
The younger people, say less than 30, were all very tall. It seems like nutrition and health must have
improved a lot over the last 30-40 years, as the old were much shorter.
So I wouldn't call it first world by any stretch, but you could do much much worse in many parts of the USA.
I witnessed a funeral in Belize and was similar experience. On the other side of the road some guys
having fun playing soccer barefooted. Mosquitoes make Belize the hell if not in the shore where wind
keeps them apart.
I spent a lot of time in Jamaica in the late 80s and early 90s. It was life-changing for me in that I
was not a particularly happy person at that time, and it was the first time I had spent time in a
so-called 3rd world or developing country. I met people in Jamaica who had nothing compared to most
Americans, but they were happier than I was. This even though I was on top of the food chain, being a
white American male. It made me rethink a lot of stuff. I agree about the food there, I loved it, and the
people too.
There is a dark side to Jamaica however, which you will come upon if you stay there for a longer
amount of time. I don't know what part of JA you were in, perhaps a small town or in the countryside? It
can be very pleasant in the country, but I spent a lot of time in Kingston, and there is some of the
worst poverty in the hemisphere there. Better than Haiti and some other places, but still pretty harsh.
Lots of unwed teenage pregnancies (younger teens), with the fathers MIA. A lot of homophobia and macho
attitudes. Politics can become violent. There are also some serious environmental issues, and climate
change will not be kind to the West Indies.
I was vacationing and stayed in the blue mountains away from Kingston or tourists. I have heard
Kingston can be rough, and crime can be a problem in other big cities. The biggest touristy place we
spent any time in was Port Antonio, and I never felt unsafe or threatened there. I didn't even see
that many tourists there but we were off season.
I have a passing familiarity with Colombia of late. Although the minimum wage is low, employers are
required to provide such benefits as vacation, sick leave and payments into the pension system. In addition,
workers are eligible to visit special holiday facilities for recreation and relaxation. Unlike in my US
city, in which public transportation is infrequent and inconvenient, Medellin has an overhead heavy rail
system. There is a public healthcare system, which is good at covering basic needs, and a private one which,
while less affordable for ordinary people, is of European standards of quality. Although admittedly the
country has been wracked by violence in past years and there's still much inequality, people are happy and
friendly.
Note: my Colombian in the family approved this message.
Peru is an amazing country: beautiful scenery, amazing food, inexpensive, and nice people. I
sprained my ankle last year in Lima and deliberately found the most expensive clinic in Lima to treat
it. English-speaking doctor, full x-rays, medication and foot bandage put on by the doctor herself.
Total: $200 US.
Pro tip: get your prescription glasses in Arrequipa. There's at least 500 optical stores in the
historic center. Super cheap.
I have another friend who relocated to Ecuador along with his girlfriend. He's a retired
optometrist and gives away hundreds of reading glasses to the locals, who much appreciate them.
Regarding highway infra, in the PNW at least any new improved road gets tolled so that it is actually
made for the people who can pay the tolls. I'm certain this makes zero tax amazon happy
Oh Look!
https://thetollroads.com/help/faq/469
two tiered society Interstates limited to self driving delivery/important people in 3 2
The interstate toll lanes on I-405 are terribly undemocratic. Regular working commuters who can't
afford the toll passes are forced into three over-crowded lanes, while in the two left toll lanes the BMW
& Lexus drivers zip on by. I'm guessing a bunch of the wealthy tech people east of Lake Washington used
their clout to get that accomplished.
I spent some time in Costa Rica. Everybody seemed quite happy. The impression that I had was its
government actually liked its people and was not afraid of them. The people seemed to return the sentiment.
Costa Rica has the highest level of education and lowest birthrate in Central America; no standing
military since 1948. Not a cheap country to live in anymore, compared to the rest of Central and South
America, and rampant theft problems (probably because of very light penalties for such), but on the
whole, you could do a lot worse.
Mauritius, whence my parents came, is worth considering. The standard of living is good for most people,
especially if qualified or with particular manual skills. The average salary is nearing USD12k pa.
Public services are well funded by the government and free at the point of delivery.
It's interesting to observe how many migrants who are not francophone and do not specialise in the
island's four pillars, financial services, textiles / light manufacturing, tourism and agriculture
(including power generation by sugar mills) are now making the island their home, not just for a secondment
of some years. I have come across Italian jockeys and tilers, doctors and teachers, IT specialists, hotel
managers and other staff from around the world.
There's a good mix of accommodation. One need not live in a gated community. These were in the main
designed to part South Africans and even French from their money, a ploy that appears to be working such is
the amount of construction that would not look out of place in the south of France or US sun belt. The
island is safe.
Myjobs.mu lists vacancies.
The Rev Kev has visited the island and can provide further insight.
Thank you for the shout out Colonel. I must admit that I visited Mauritius during my salad years some
forty years ago so I will try to recreate my impressions from that distant era. After spending several
weeks in the waning apartheid days of South Africa, I found Mauritius exotic to say the least. Whereas
the cultural boundaries of SA were fairly firm, I found Mauritius to have a kaleidoscope of different
cultural elements such as English, French, Indian and Creole and you would never know what part you would
encounter next. The parts I saw in my brief time were of great beauty and I remember thinking that it
would take months to explore all the different parts there.
You should return and compare how things have changed. Also, please visit Rodrigues, the one of the
world's least known islands and a delight.
The island really took off in the 1980s, once the generation that led the island to independence
was turfed out in a landslide and the IMF bitter medicine of 1979 had been overcome.
The island has become more cosmopolitan since. One example is the 10K plus South Africans on the
island. Afrikaans is often spoken on the west coast.
Unfortunately, the environmental decay is also plain for all to see.
Tho easily discernable, I hesitate a bit to name what has become the truest home I've known, as I can
recall what Prague was like 20 years ago compared to the mini-Paris it became after tourists got ahold of it
(major crime increase, higher costs of living, general succumbing to the european monoculture, as has
happened throughout europe).
In any event, life is better (to my taste) outside NATO-aligned countries & the Schengen zone. Glad that
the military jets I hear and see are Russian, as is the base. I was stunned when first arriving to see
children happy, safe, walking the streets of their city without a need for adult accompaniment. In fact, the
children and elderly people here restore my faith in humanity. When the initial newness wears off after a
year or so, it just gets better in terms of comprehending the culture and enjoying the people, along with
seeing the problems more clearly. I lived for extended periods in Germany, Portugal, Denmark too, enjoyed
each place (far and away higher quality of genuine living than in the US), but indeed there is a certain
pretension to false happiness there, no need for that here, as the wheels came off long ago, thus humor,
family, friendship and other pillars for endurance are stronger, softer, more genuine.
On occasion, I've done some teaching here (ain't never been no trust-fund traveler, pshaw!), and students
(good Syrians and Iranians in the mix with the sweet locals) are shocked when I answer their questions
honestly about how America treats its elderly, how much education costs, gun violence, police brutality, the
general state of the family, etc.
There is a difficulty in getting paid fairly, tho that's largely nothing new comparatively. One must
write or edit an article or 2 each month for a company based outside the local economy if one hopes to
sustain oneself; I've been fortunate in this regard. An average person here relies on their family; all work
together to survive. Conditions can be spartan (tho again, compared to what?), but the things that make one
endure and appreciate the substance of life are in no short supply.
And the food is off the charts – affordable and healthy, as it should be everywhere.
Literature and traditional music are living currency here, as is respect in general. May it always be so.
I'm curious as to your feelings about Portugal, as we have considered it as a place to live. I've had
a lot of friends visit, but don't know anyone who has lived there for an extended period.
My feelings of profound love for Portugal and the Portuguese are of course difficult to summarize,
but suffice to say I preferred it to Germany or Denmark, tho it didn't quite suit me as well as
Armenia does. The primary ways I relate to a country initially are through its literary and musical
traditions, and the Portuguese soul's expressions are deeply beautiful, poetic, and retained.
I spent two years there, in Sintra and in Porto. Sintra is paradisiacal, Porto a hidden gem
becoming increasingly well-known. Drawbacks for me were the same as in all Europe: a political bent
toward following their NATO masters/western propaganda/Hollywood, and, on the street level, more crime
(tho not too bad) and agressive drug dealers, things you just don't see in Yerevan (and used to not
see in Prague). But on the whole, many friends became like family there, it's less expensive than the
mainstream hubs of Europe, and the Moorish impact, coupled with modern migration from north Africa,
results in a vivacity and a fluid, positive moroseness I'd not experienced before. The microclimates
are dynamically diverse and well worth experiencing. Certain flowers and mountain mists never
evaporate from the mind.
Plenty of retirees from wealthier countries set themselves up there quite comfortably, but those
people are rarely part of my experience.
Having a decent grasp of Spanish, I was surprised it lent itself to a less intuitive grasp of
Portuguese than I imagined it would. Both languages are beautiful, with Portuguese being softer
in an expressively melodic way.
And yes, I agree, the politeness, dignity, ease-in-the-body qualities found in people there
is, in my experience, second only to the grace that operates as the norm for conduct here in
Armenia. Many similarities between the two – the unbreakable importance of the family, the style
and role of humor, the rightful place literature and music inhabit in one's soul and
disposition, etc. My Portuguese friends felt at home here, as if meeting heretofore unknown
cousins for the first time.
Nothing against Spain, tho – it was my first love and destination. Catalonia. But yes, in
general, interactions were more formal and businesslike there, less relaxed than when inside the
generous, creative calm (including explosive boisterousness!) of Portuguese.
We visited the southern coast of Portugal last year to explore the idea of moving there. It was not
a success: too many Brit expats, more expensive than we'd been told, and the real estate market is
completely crazy. The country itself merits a look.
Indeed, the Alentejo has become overblown, party central, prime strips for the elite, etc. If
one can brave the less glamorous climes, such as Sintra's winters of cold rain and bonechilling
fog, there are delicacies to be enjoyed at half the cost, in the north as well. I look forward to
returning many times.
I'm recalling Jerez, now, up-north mountain-land with its own unique mythology, where local
drivers (on fine if narrow roads) have more frequent trouble encountering a bull or flocks upon
flocks of chickens than oncoming automotive traffic. I think one bull drove us backward for half a
kilometer.
"They hate us for our freedoms"
; to be strip searched at the airport, toasted with the
skin cancer X-ray machine, have our devices downloaded, license plates scanned on the way home, the data
sold to an advertiser, to have to pay mandatory fraudulent medical "insurance," borrow money at 29% to pay
for medical needs, lose our homes to other scams, have to compete in the job market with imported peons,
that we subsidize with tax dollars, then see over half of our tax dollars go to losing wars and to subsidize
billion dollar corporations and then be told it's
to protect us against the "terrorists".
Still a pretty good country and the only one we have, so it's worth fighting for.
I have lived in Uruguay for 4 years now. The things that are much better here than in California are
public transportation, internet service, culture, and small business penetration. I can walk a half a block
to a small store that's open several hours a day. I can walk 4 blocks to a store that's open 12 hours a day.
I can walk ten blocks to a full-on mall with a large grocery store. There's also one or more bakeries,
butchers, vegetable sellers, hardware stores, barbers/hair stylists, and restaurants galore within a
quarter-mile radius. And I live in a quiet neighborhood! Oh, there are also three fantastic beaches within a
20 minute walk of my house. I love my location!
Society here is very laid-back, parents are indulgent of their children and it is legal to drink alcohol
and smoke marijuana in the public places and streets, But don't drink and drive, there is no legal limit,
aka zero tolerance. Yet culture is vibrant here. There's an excellent music scene with lots of low-cost or
free live music. Jazz, blues, and electronica are surprisingly popular. There are people who play music on
the bus for donations, and not just guitar players, but also saxophone players, operatic singers, rappers,
violinists, and accordion players. There are people that meet weekly in the downtown area to dance tango on
the sidewalk. There are almost weekly practices all over the city of Candombe, which involves large groups
of synchronized dancers and drummers parading through the streets for an hour or two. There are so many
beautiful parks large and small all over the city where lovers kiss, families play and groups of friends
drink mate or beer and often smoke marijuana. There are 50 museums in Montevideo, and at least 35 of them
are free. The ones that cost money are less than $10 and usually include a tour. There are ballets,
symphonies and lots of theaters, all of which are very inexpensive. They love sports here and are quite
interested in maintaining physical fitness. Lots of soccer balls getting kicked, volleyball games on the
beach and bicyclist and runners on the Rambla. The Rambla! It's a UNESCO world heritage site that goes for
20 miles along the beach, a wide paved Boardwalk that is very popular when the weather is nice, especially
during sunsets. Full disclosure, the beach is for a river, a really huge river – You can't even see the
other side. On the other side of the river is Buenos Aires, just in case you get a hankering for a big city.
Or you could travel a few hours to Punta Del Este, playground of the Rich and Famous.
But Uruguay is relatively expensive, the most expensive country in South America. This is not a place
where you're going to come and live like a king among the peasants. The prices in restaurants and grocery
stores are similar to the prices I paid in Sacramento, California. But the wages here are much less. So this
is a good place if you can get your income from somewhere else As a retired person or a remote teleworker.
But, oddly, even though the locals here struggle with the difference between wages and prices, it's quite
common for them to have second houses along the coast that they go to during their frequent vacations. It's
also typical to employ a house cleaner.
Uruguay is a small country, with three million people and half of them live in the capital city of
Montevideo. Because of this, nearly everyone here knows everyone else. Uruguay is the safest country in
South America with the largest middle class and least income inequality, along with being the most stable
economically and politically. People here enjoy discussing politics, and voting in elections is mandatory.
But what about the downsides? There are some. First off, you're not going to be able to order a bunch of
stuff on Amazon. In fact, you're going to have to give up on finding many of the spices and foods and little
trinkets that you're used to acquiring in the US. Consumers beware! Also, flights back to the US or
destinations outside of South America are very expensive. And, because it's so laid back, it's difficult to
find good workers on household projects or to get good service in a restaurant or at a public counter. You
just have to be really patient. Finally, the sidewalks are a mess! Since each resident is responsible for
the sidewalk in front of their own house or business, sometimes they can get be a bit dangerous if you don't
watch your step. You wouldn't want to scoot around on one of those elderly mobility scooters here! And then
there's the dog poop and the trash Oh, well, no place is perfect!
I'm sorry, this is so long, I usually don't talk much about my life here, especially on Facebook, because
I don't want to cause resentment and look like I'm bragging, but today I'm making an exception, obviously.
(By the way, I'm happy to host visitors, In fact, I let couchsurfers stay in my home for free.)
Central México. Year 4. In spite of the crime I like it here and would not go back to the US. The culture
is rich and deep, and the aesthetic is quite refined. The food! The amazing natural beauty. And the colors!
And the biodiversity! There is a balanced perspective on life, not the despair or rage that increasingly
underly US culture. I live simply and modestly, and find my Social Security can almost pay all of my monthly
expenses. My stress levels have dropped tremendously and my BP is at levels I haven't seen in 40 years.
Quite honestly, I'm ramping up my Spanish so I can pass my citizenship test and may renounce my US
citizenship because I am fed up with having my hard earned $$ underwrite corporate welfare and killing
people. I've embraced México as my home and am grateful to have been welcomed in return. Coming here is far
and away one of the best things I've ever done.
After his famous rant about people coming to the U.S. from "shit-hole" countries in Africa and other
developing countries, Trump asked why more people from, say Norway, were not emigrating to the U.S. I may
have missed it, but I don't remember any politician or anyone with a public voice telling him, "Look, Mr.
President, compared to the other two dozen or so advanced industrial countries the United States is a
shit-hole country".
Bulgaria, observations from one of the two big cities on the Black Sea coast:
– excellent bus service across the city, from airport to industrial zone; articulated airconditioned busses,
everyone uses them, young people read books while riding, space for mothers to latch strollers, doors are
wide and steps low so mothers in fact prefer the bus to using personal vehicle
– municipal children's kitchen: delivers free to a local distribution booth 2 meals 5 times a week at very
low cost by local standards, or free for families with large number of children 1-3yrs. The meals are
home-cooked level, tasty and healthy, delivered in your own glassware (like used pickle jars for example –
simple!) – so no throwaway plastic. Ive tried private kitchens, quality was lower and cost 2-3 times higher
– a very large city park along the beach starting just off downtown – one of the best things in the whole
country actually: it's everyone's family playground – old and young, there is a new public pool, carnival
booths, restaurants, fish stands, icecream stands, open air theater, public hall overlooking the beach,
restaurant and club on the beach – for the wide public, not exclusive, in the evening young and old dress up
and take walks leasurely and just talk and hang out
– the city is dense and everything is walking distance, within a 20 min walk you will pass by every service
that a life needs, from a hospital to police to stadium and trainstation and cobler, not to mention stores
and restaurants
Downsides:
– like Uruguay and other similarly positioned countries, incomes of working people are generally low for the
local living costs. However most people own a home (I think ~80% or even more) – and with low birthrates
many inherit more than one funcitonal home – so that helps a lot. For someone on a US SS check, average I
think ~$1300 a month, is plenty for TWO. Local professionals earning the equivalent of $40-50k a year,
especially a 2 such income households, live a higher and less stressful standard of living than any tech
professional I know in coastal US (not to mention 4 weeks mandatory paid time off).
– lots of professionals – doctors particularly – leave for Western EU countries where they earn more,
particularly specialists; for GP's though, staying can be much better as they still make a decent living and
only refer people for anything more serious than a cold
In general, I think Bulgaria is good for retired expats if you pick a good spot like the city I
described, unless you have a serious health issue which requires specialists, and those may not be available
in Bulgaria. But even for things like stents, even cardiac surgery, MRI scans, those are done now and by
doctors who specialized or were educated in the UK, Germany or the like – so the issue is more general
infrastructure and availability, rather than quality (cost is a fraction of US costs, even paying out of
pocket)
Appreciate this account. The 'bus-culture' sounds similar to Yerevan's; it makes public transport
truly a pleasurable part of one's day (tho we do have the dreaded, indefatigable marshrutkas – are they
used in Bulgaria?).
The municipal children's kitchen! I wonder why there isn't something comparable here, tho I've seen
scant evidence of anyone going hungry. One always shares with one's neighbors: part of the built-in,
practiced and practical ethic.
I was pretty impressed with the infrastructure I saw in China 20 years ago. Brand-new airports and train
stations, good new highways mostly, although I saw some failed projects on the island of Hainan, where the
roads were like a bad roller coaster, it seemed like a proper bed was not laid down before paving. (I was
told that the guys who built those roads had skimmed off the highway budget to line their own pockets, and
were later shot for doing so.)
Malaysia looked good too when we were there for 10 days, and inexpensive. Most Malaysians speak English
which is nice for visitors, and they have one of the best retirement visa progams.
Thailand's infrastructure is getting better all the time, we were there for more of 2012, and the way you
could cheaply get around Bangkok amazed me. A city of 11,000,000 people, but most of the public transport
was very well integrated – airports, buses, elevated rail and subways all connect with each other.
What struck me about most of the "developing" nations I've visited was that the quality of life seemed
higher than the US, as far as access to good food, general happiness of the people, and access to decent
health care, especially in Malaysia and Thailand. I saw some eye specialists in Thailand and was very
impressed with them. We ate from street vendors all the time in Thailand and were never sick from the food,
which was remarkably fresh. The air pollution in Chiang Mai and Bangkok is a problem however.
We are seriously considering leaving the USA should things go badly in the upcoming election, we're
considering Mexico, Ecuador etc and also SE Asia, although the latter is awfully far from friends and
family.
Very interesting topic, but it's also very large so the below comments are brief and therefore
overgeneralized, apols in advance. My own area is Southeast Asia, where I've lived for much of the last 30
years, but I get the sense that the below obtains in much of the world .
1. (Caucasian) expats remain a privileged class, even in Singapore which is now significantly more
advanced than the US across the board, economically and socially. On the other hand, you're a guest in all
these countries, there on sufferance. Any rights of property or residency you may enjoy largely come via
your employer/business, or from a local spouse. While this may seem trite, it's important: an expat life
just isn't that of the locals, even Westernized local elites, and even when you're married in and living
simply as some retirees do.
2. ASEAN countries are all *very* unequal societies by Western standards/ideals. Even Singapore, which
provides excellent public services to all citizens, also relies heavily on a low cost migrant labor force
(on weekends you see Tamil laborers in the parks flirting with Filipina housemaids). These migrants make far
better money than at home and thus remain docile, but also have no path at all to residency status unless
they can marry in. Foreign helpers are also becoming common in Thailand.
3. In the other countries, as a local friend put it, 'either you have servants (5 – 15%) or you are one
(the rest)'. Having a maid/cook and in trafficky places a driver/errand boy gives a family a fundamentally
different daily life not comparable to the modern West. Labor laws are rarely enforced on locals (expats
need to take care, you are sheep for shearing)
4. Most non-Western societies assume that successful individuals in all classes subsidize their less
successful relatives, via remittance or inheritance. State safety nets consist of primary education and
basic health care, which are basically free but very patchy in covering special needs (that's cash).
5. As in the West, a stable income is as or more important than a high income; it's hard to put down
roots or plan for the future without that. In most of ASEAN, c.USD 3500 a month still buys a comfortable
life for a family: a townhouse with aircon, a number of motorbikes and many of the same Chinese consumer
gadgets Americans have, as well as the aforementioned domestic servants. But, see next .
6. To me, social mobility appears quite low. It's hard for the broad peasant/servant class to ascend to
the middle class, even via police or military. Foreign workers support their extended families and build a
house in their home village; they rarely start their own businesses with savings.
Again, overgeneralizing but it seems most of the ASEAN 'middle class' (the 5-15% PMC) are (grand)children
of:
(a) the officials who took over from the colonialists, or (b) mercantile families, predominantly ethnic
Chinese.
Thus, that 10% also draws on some kind of inherited income / family support on top of their salaries to
maintain their lifestyles, cover emergencies and ensure their own kids can obtain the needed credentials to
keep themselves in the PMC.
Anyway, I hope this is useful context for this rich topic. Again, a broad brush, YMMV.
In most of ASEAN, c.USD 3500 a month still buys a comfortable life for a family
Very comfortable, I'm sure. $42k a year is more that millions of Americans earn. Singapore is probably
the most expensive SE Asian country.
What struck me about living and travelling in SE Asia was realizing how Americans are being ripped off
in comparison to many other parts of the world. In Chiang Mai, we were paying $200 a month for a clean
studio apartment with no real kitchen (rent included decent internet and all utilities), $20 a month for
cell phone service, and about $20 a day on eating out (for two people). Transportation was also
inexpensive. After seven months of living so cheaply, when we came back to the US it felt like we were
hemorrhaging money as soon as we hit the airport.
My wife is refusing to buy anything right now. We got back from staying in Europe and she is
shocked at how expensive everything is here. For us it started at the Hilton in the airport as we had
a very early departure time to flyout. It was a splash of cold water.
Yep. I have a musician friend who did an artist-in-residence gig for 6 months in Germany with
his wife & two kids joining him. He said the same thing (they live in NYC). He also said not only
were groceries cheaper, they were better quality as well.
The article is about developing countries and France is developed, not developing. Weather has huge
impact on roads and comparing roads in south of France to Michigan is not a fair comparison. I have driven
through France extensively and the roads are good but parts of the US and Canada has much better roads. I
would say Arizona or Utah has waaaaaay better roads than any part of France, especially the north.
Operant word: "developing". AKA a region experiencing the upswing. Shiny new industries, new
infrastructure, new institutions. Growth. All nations have a finite socio-political lifespan before
re-configuration; the US is no exception. Idealism's parametric in America-2020 is at a nadir compared to
the fire-eyed certainty of magistrates in Colonial America-1620. The waterwheel of fortune is philosophy's
consolation: rise-up on its spokes if you like but do not complain when you plunge back down into the
depths. The tragedy is also the hope: bad times always pass, as do the good times. Rinse-repeat-return to
the wilderness. -- Answering the question, Ahmedabad, Gujurat has great food but prohibits alcohol.
This country has spent its productive energy producing MBA's who specialize in sucking money from people.
It has a political system based on bribery and is no longer a "nation of laws". Given the non-response to
the 2008 crash, the surprise may be it is not in worse shape.
Costa Rica is the one country in South/Central America that was spared CIA "help", presumably because
they don't have a military. This is what South America would look like if the U.S. left them alone.
The U.S. probably has the solutions to its problems, but people with solutions, such as college
professors, are excluded from government decision making. In my experience, average people tend to be
smarter then the geniuses on the boob tube and in Washington.
I don't know what the big problem is with public colleges. You can get a good education at a public
college.
Is there anyone here who has anything to say about living in Chile ? I visited Chile back in 2007 and
enjoyed myself. I spent most of my time in Santiago
and was impressed by it being clean, a nice subway
and interesting architecture.
I am three years into my escape from the US. 50 countries of wandering in three years. I cannot, for the
life of me, imagine why I would go back to the open-air prison of the US.
Quality of life in places as diverse as Plovdiv, Bulgaria; Penang, Malaysia; Brno, Czechia; Kanazawa,
Japan; Kunming, China; are literally off the charts for half the cost.
The other thing I'd add: the wife and I made $480k per year in our last few years. A decent middle-class
income in Manhattan.
After taxes and various contributions to Fed-pumped Ponzis and 'healthcare' our net take home was around
$240k per year.
All so we could be good goys and pay another 5k a month for a shitty 1-bedroom condo with hollow doors
and ride a piss-smelling subway up to offices we sat in meetings for 6 of our 10 daily hours and then fake
pointless outrage over whatever new political offense the dear leaders had perpetrated over $17 cocktails
and then come home and fall asleep to Netflix and sleeping pills.
Outside the US, we've maxed our income to 220k total (all untaxed), so we're only down 20k or so from our
Manhattan highs. And we can do this from anywhere we have an internet connection. We interact with locals.
We eat staggeringly good food. When we get bored we hop a plane and fly somewhere new.
I'm 40. Maybe at 50 this will all grow tiring, but I doubt it.
I assume Norbert Wiener is your "nom de plume" or are you related to the Norbert Wiener?
This is what we are finding. You can go to almost anywhere out of America and live for much less with
much better food, life style, and people seem much better adjusted. Hell even London seems cheap in many
ways when you consider the quality of what you are getting.
Thank you for another good article. What strikes me is that so many automatically go to, or
refer to, Mr Putin as the voice of reason these days and not Washington DC or any NATO
country. I never thought that I will live to see the US become less trusted than our old
enemy, the commies. BUT, as I say in my books, the Russia of today is not the USSR at all.
Anyway, for those interested in interesting military history, I recently discovered this
myself, see https://www.georgemjames.com/blog/the-fuhrers-commando-order-origins.
I wanted to post on the open thread but got busy and forgot. GMJ.
US Vice President Mike Pence used his speech at the Holocaust memorial last week to bang a
war drum at Iran. It revealed a deplorable lack of dignity and understanding of the event,
despite Pence's efforts to appear solemn. But not only that. It showed too how out of touch the
United States – at least its political leadership – is with the rest of the world
and a growing collective concern among others to ensure international peace.
Maybe that's why Britain's Prince Charles appeared to snub Pence, declining to shake his
hand while attending the commemoration of the Holocaust and 75th anniversary of the liberation
of Auschwitz. Charles warmly greeted other dignitaries, including Russian President Vladimir
Putin and France's Emmanuel Macron. It was curious how he blanked Pence.
But there again, maybe not that curious.
Pence and the Trump administration seem to be hellbent on starting a war with Iran. A war
that would engulf the entire Middle East and possibly ignite a world conflagration.
Washington's wanton threats of violence against Iran and its recent assassination of one of
Iran's top military leaders stands as a shocking repudiation of international law and the UN
Charter. It's the kind of conduct more akin to an organized crime syndicate rather than a
supposedly democratic state.
The UN Charter was created in 1945 in the aftermath of the Second World War precisely to
prevent repetition of the worst conflagration in history and all its barbaric crimes, including
the Nazi Holocaust. Over 5o million people died in that war, and nearly half of them belonged
to the Soviet Union.
The prevention of war is surely the most onerous responsibility of the UN Security Council.
Yet the United States is the one power that routinely ignores international law and the UN
Charter to unilaterally launch wars or military interventions. Washington's threats against
Iran are, unfortunately, nothing new. This is standard American practice.
Putin, Macron, Prince Charles and German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier all invoked the
need for collective commitment to international law and peace. They implied that such a
commitment was the best way to honour those who were killed in the Holocaust and the Second
World War; the surest way to prevent the barbarity of fascist ideology and persecution ever to
be repeated.
Those speakers one after another denounced the ideology of demonizing others which fuels
hatred and wars. How pertinent is that to the way Washington routinely demonizes other nations
and foreign leaders?
In sharp contrast, when the American vice president made his address, his apparent solemnity
was contradicted by a
blood-curdling call to arms against Iran , which he accused of being the "leading state
purveyor of anti-semitism". Pence urged the whole world "to stand strong against the Islamic
Republic of Iran", spoken as if he was spitting out the words like venom.
There is little doubt that Pence was formulating a rationale for military confrontation with
Iran. That has been the consistent policy of the Trump administration over the past three
years.
It was no surprise that Pence's speech was in sync with the usual bellicose rhetoric from
Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu towards Iran. But what was arresting was just how out of sync
Pence and the Trump administration are with the rest the world.
That's what is perplexing about many American politicians. They seem ignorant of history
(Pence gave no acknowledgement to the Soviet soldiers who liberated Auschwitz and other death
camps); they are consumed by self-righteousness and arrogance like a puritan preacher without
an ounce of humanity.
Anyone who reflects on the horror of war would surely be advocating the respect of and
adherence to international law, commitment to peace, and the earnest pursuit of dialogue and
partnership among nations.
Russia's Putin has repeatedly called for the members of the UN Security Council to urgently
get together in order to guarantee a multilateral commitment to peace. Putin has also
repeatedly appealed to the United States to get serious about negotiating renewed arms control
treaties. Washington has ignored those latter calls.
Mike Pence's menacing words and attitude at the Holocaust memorial showed a disturbing and
pernicious disconnect with the need for preventing war and genocide. It was a disgraceful
dishonouring of victims.
Out of sync with the world, the US has returned to the ashes and lawlessness of 1945.
U.S. President Donald Trump wants to destroy the nuclear agreement with Iran. He has
threatened the EU-3 poodles in Germany, Britain and France
with a 25% tariff on their car exports to the U.S. unless they end their role in the
JCPOA deal.
In their usual gutlessness the Europeans gave in to the blackmail. They
triggered the Dispute Resolution Mechanism of the deal. The mechanism foresees two 15
day periods of negotiations and a five day decision period after which any of the involved
countries can escalate the issues to the UN Security Council. The reference to the UNSC
would then lead to an automatic reactivation or "snapback" of those UN sanction against
Iran that existed before the nuclear deal was signed.
Iran is now countering the European move. Its Foreign Minister Javad Zarif
announced that Iran may leave the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons
(NPT) if any of the European countries escalates the issue to the UNSC:
Zarif said that Iran is following up the late decision by European states to trigger the
Dispute Resolution Mechanism in the context of the JCPOA, adding that Tehran officially
started the discussion on the mechanism on May 8, 2018 when the US withdrew from the
deal.
He underlined that Iran sent three letters dated May 10, August 26 and November 2018
to the then EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini, announcing in the latter that
Iran had officially triggered and ended the dispute resolution mechanism and thus would
begin reducing its commitments to the JCPOA.
However, Iran gave a seven-month opportunity to the European Union before it began
reducing its commitments in May 8, 2019 which had operational effects two months later,
according to Zarif.
Iran's top diplomat said that the country's five steps in compliance reduction would
have no similar follow-ups, but Europeans' measure to refer the case to the United
Nations Security Council may be followed by Tehran's decision to leave NPT as stated in
President Hassan Rouhani's May 2018 letter to other parties to the deal.
He stressed that all the steps are reversible if the European parties to the JCPOA
restore their obligations under the deal.
The Europeans certainly do not want Iran to leave the NPT. But as they are cowards and
likely to continue to submit themselves to Trump's blackmail that is what they will end up
with. Britain is the most likely country to move the issue to the UNSC as it is in urgent
need of a trade deal with the U.S. after leaving the EU. Cooke has piece at Strategic
Culture on Wurmser who may be the strategist behind Trump admin moves on Iran. Adds to this
piece by b.
https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2020/01/20/many-matryoska-dolls-america-way-imagining-iran/
"Well (big surprise), Wurmser has now been at work as the author of how to 'implode' and
destroy Iran. And his insight? "A targeted strike on someone like Soleimani"; split the
Iranian leadership into warring factions; cut an open wound into the flesh of Iran's
domestic legitimacy; put a finger into that open wound, and twist it; disrupt – and
pretend that the U.S. sides with the Iranian people, against its government."
Overall, the strategy looks to be aimed at weakening and disrupting Iran and removing
its allies in the region from the game before US strikes begin.
The downing of the Uki plane and Trump Pompeo immediately saying they were with the
Iranian people would fit very well into this strategy though it is not mentioned by
Crooke.
The Europeans certainly do not want Iran to leave the NPT. But as they are cowards and
likely to continue to submit themselves to Trump's blackmail that is what they will end
up with. Britain is the most likely country to move the issue to the UNSC as it is in
urgent need of a trade deal with the U.S. after leaving the EU.
We shouldn't humanize entire nations when analyzing geopolitics.
The Europeans are simply aware of the objective fact they are de facto occupied
countries thanks to the many de facto American bases scattered around Western and Central
Europe (Germany being the country with the most American bases in the world). They obey the
USA for the simple fact they are occupied by the USA.
That's why some neocarolingians/European nationalists mainly from Germany, France and
the Benelux (e.g. Macron, Juncker) avidly defend the creation of an European Army. You
don't need to be a geopolitics genius to infer the grave consequences such move would have
to the European peoples' welfare.
As long as NATO exists, Western Europe will remain firmly in American hands.
Besides, there's also the ideological factor.
Many Europeans still see today the USA as their "most illustrious child", their
continuation as the Western Civilization's center. New York is the new Paris+London. They
see themselves as the dwarf countries they really are and rationalize that, ultimately, it
is better to live under the hegemony of another Western nation than under the hegemony of
the "yellows" (i.e. Chinese) or the "slavics" (i.e. Russia). They really see themselves as
a true North Atlantic family, which share the same race and the same cultural values.
These Atlanticists are specially numerous in the UK, which is not surprising, given its
geographic location and the fact that it was indeed the country that founded the USA.
Of course Iran and what happens in Iraq are joined at the hip...
Professor Maranadi>
"Seyed Mohammad Marandi
@s_m_marandi
·
10m
Many believe an economic crisis lies ahead of the US & the timing of the crash will
determine the fate of Trump's re-election bid. However, another threat looms. If the US
fails to swiftly comply with Iraqi demands to end the occupation, the resistance will
become very violent."
and in Germany?
USA warnen: "Unmittelbar bevorstehender Angriff auf US-Militärs in Deutschland".
RT/D
"Pulling back" may suit the Clowns, but agreement requires more than that if there's to
be no child.
The Clowns are not contract capable. The only "deal" is for the imperial forces to leave
the ME... the only deal is action....Of one sort or another. The clowns imagine a glorious
victory over smoking ruins.
Fatwa or not, Iran must have the bomb, for the same reason NoKo had to build it. It's the
only way to lance the boil and move on from under the incessant threats from the United
States. We won't let up, even if it takes 100 years, and they have to know this. They do
have the engineering know how to do it; now they must, but they will have to be discrete
and stockpile enough 90% U235, then fiddle around with the details involved in assembling a
staged device with enough yield so it's understood by all. I expect this whole process will
now move forward.
One is reminded of Austria-Hungary's ultimatum to Serbia in 1914: "As the German ambassador
to Vienna reported to his government on July 14, the [note] to Serbia is being composed so
that the possibility of its being accepted is practically excluded." As Churchill wrote at
the time: "it seemed absolutely impossible that any State in the world could accept it, or
that any acceptance, however abject, would satisfy the aggressor."
Many people refer to the European countries as 'occupied' (vk) and that is the reason they
submit to American policy. I don't believe that is the case. The number of troops is far
too small to 'occupy' a country that was resisting an occupation. Those troops were there
as a 'trigger' to initiate a conflict with the Soviet Union if it invaded Europe. These
days they are just there as some kind of vestigial legacy, and don't really mean anything.
The US exercises its control over the EU and elsewhere through its control of international
finance and trade. This system benefits the elite of those countries that are part of the
'empire', so has substantial support from influential people inside those countries. Unless
and until there is some groundswell of support among the peoples of those countries to
change that system, they will continue to be an obedient part of the US empire.
It's not even clear that resistance isn't futile. Those countries that want to maintain
independence like Russia, China, Iran, Turkey (?), India (?) also have a strong internal
attraction to Western 'culture'. As much as some denigrate that culture as shallow,
materialistic, and worthless, it seems to have a very universal attraction around the
World, particularly among the young. There are a lot of people everywhere that would like
to be a part of a global empire, with a hedonistic Western-style culture. Sad, but
true.
I tend to agree with comments here saying Iran needs to make bomb.
North Korea proved that truth 100%. No amount of agreements or "guarantees" with usual
lying suspects will provide security to Iran - only hard cold nuclear deterrence will.
This time, now, Iran has enough conventional & asymmetrical firepower to deter its
enemies long enough for it to develop nukes (few years?).
It already has proven means to deliver warheads, now it needs them.
I strongly concur with several other commentators here. Iran should immediately commence
enriching uranium to weapons grade levels and assemble at least 10-20 nuclear warheads ASAP
if they ever hope to remain an intact, non-US/Israeli dominated country.
The US understands ONLY raw power and who it perceives has it (Israel, North
Korea..etc.), and who doesn't (Libya, Syria, Iraq..etc.).
The NPT "Treaty" is nothing more than a cabal of nuclear armed countries attempting to
cartel who's allowed to posses a nuclear weapons arsenal and all the rest of the world
countries that's ultimately at their mercy.
"So, what does Iran actually gain by leaving the NPT?"
For one thing, it means they won't have to violate that treaty and international law if
they decide to take steps that wouldn't be allowed under the NPT terms. It's easy to look
at the lawless rogue US regime and forget this, but: some countries actually do try to have
some semblance of abiding by and respecting treaties and the rule of law.
I am always taken aback when people compare unsavory characters to members of the
primate family. Please do not engage in "zoomorphism." And I am dead fucking serious.
Animals do not deserve to be denigrated in such a way. Keep your insults grounded in the
human sphere.
The U.S. has already used that tactic of insisting on concessions known to be unacceptable
to the other side with the intention of causing war at least twice: to Japan in 1941 and to
Yugoslavia before the Kosovo War.
Does Iran really need a nuke? They have proven they can hit a US base and Saudi oil
infrastructure. It is believed they already have.... or at least have the capability of
mining the Strait of Hormuz. If the global financial elite can't get oil out of the gulf...
what happens to the global economy? My guess is it would implode. Isn't this the real and
only reason the US hasn't bombed Iran back to the stone age yet? They already have
deterrence. The US claims about restoring deterrence was just the projection of sociopaths
and psychopaths.
re:Cornelius von Hamb | Jan 20 2020 19:59 utc | 14
"For one thing, it means they won't have to violate that treaty and international law if
they decide to take steps that wouldn't be allowed under the NPT terms."
Iran says it won't develop nuclear weapons (anti Islamic), so what steps could they
possibly be not wanting to rule out?
The state of the JCPOA today bears a lot on Trump's negotiations with North Korea.
Kim Un Jung has be spooked by Bolton comparing North Korea's fate to Libya and by the ease
with which US withdrew from the JCPOA. Negotiations have halted.
Trump needs to show that he is serious with deals that he guaranties will be binding the
partners more seriously than the flawed JCPOA.
Iran has only one choice: Press Europe to take a stand against the USA, (which will
probably not happen) then pull out officially from the JCPOA that has become a liability
with no advantages and calls for re-negotiation. Trump will certainly jump in and will try
to get the best deal possible by squeezing Iran on its regional role. Yet he can't have too
excessive demands as he wants to make a similar deal with North Korea.
Iran could ask for withholding sanctions during negotiations. It could take years to
finalize the deal. In the meantime the regional situation could change greatly
That seems to be the only path for Iran.
According to what is said here, the US is still afraid of attacking Iran, and is going for
internal disruption, and sanctions. So what's new? It's been the same policy for forty
years. The fact that Trump doesn't like long-term wars, and will only go for a big bang
without consequences, is neither here nor there.
Rouhani and his team, including Zarif, seem to me pretty bright, and capable of coping
with the politics. Relighting nuclear refinement is essentially a political move.
Again, find it hard to believe that they are in fact such quisling sycophants to the
US.
Suspect they rely on Trump to provide cover for the fact that they (like him) are beholden
to higher powers.
The USE of WMDs is haram.
Words mean things B, much as the PC police have twisted their meanings,and even fatwas can
be reversed.
The frantic efforts to corral the USSRs nukes were never anything like 100% effective,500+
warheads and tonnes of
plutonium were NEVER accounted for from the KNOWN inventory,who knows what the unknown
inventory was ?
Generals of Rocket Forces had to eat,and there were willing buyers for their only
wares.
A CIA assessment I was made privy to,the old boys network for an opinion from outside,
claimed the Iranians did not have the ability to keep those warheads in working order,which
begs a question,how many ?
I told my old schoolmate they were wrong in their assessment, they've had the capability
since the Shahs nuclear program.I know Iran very well,worked and lived there ,during the
Shah times.
The US has turned into such a fake bullshit nation that nothing the people say who run the
place can be trusted. It is totally a Masonic land where money is God and the decent people
are exploited and oppressed. Free speech and democracy are only kosher if the issue is
something like Pooper-Scooper Enforcement Officer with no real money or power involved,
unless of course there is an impressive uniform which goes with the position.
The brainwashed masses are presently transfixed to their TV's watching the theatre of the
fake-impeachment pageant unfold, dutifully believing it is all real. All the performers strut
about keeping to their carefully-scripted lines. Like the establishment-hatched fake
Russia-bashing campaign, it is all theater. With the impeachment drama intended the polarize
the entire nation, the people are once-again being caresully herded into their red and blue
stalls in ensure nothing really populist, and not controlled by the establishment cabal
running things, gets off of the ground. the entire performance will be so carefully
choreographed, on a pro and anti Trump basis that it will also ensure that whomever the
ruling cabal anoints will be chosen for the top puppet job.
Like in the US midterm elections in 2018, issues involving US foreign policy were mum. In
the coming presidential election, Americans will see no real difference in the leading
contenders' position regarding foreign affairs, which most Americans in any case now believe
should be left to the military and the agencies who know best how to protect and advance
their interests. Once again, any real discussion or debate on foreign policy during the
coming election campaign will be taboo, and with the careful censorship of the alternate
media, and with no real protest from the American people, who in fact become willing
accomplices to any further unjust wars and atrocities their so-called "free" nation
commits.
Americans are brought up on Hollywood imagery, life-styles and fantasy. The corporate
media and entertainment industry is so pervasive that most of the people cannot discern the
difference between fantasy and reality, and as result of their constantly-fed addiction, they
now demand more and more theatre and even wars to satisfy their cravings. A false-flag
attack, 9/11, on their own people coming from their diabolical "owners", results in being no
more than a thrilling performance to make life seem more real. If there was any reality to
the people they would long ago have arrested the thousands of insider perps involved,
(especially deep-state ones in and out of the US), and long ago they would hung everyone of
them.
I would put it a bit differently. Trump's erraticness is a strong signal he fits to a pattern the Russians have used to depict
the US: "not agreement capable". That's what I meant by he selects for weak partners. His negotiating style signals that he is
a bad faith actor. Who would put up with that unless you had to, or you could somehow build that into your price?
I have no idea who your mythical Russians are. I know two people who did business in Russia before things got stupid and they
never had problems with getting paid. Did you also miss that "Russians" have bought so much real estate in London that they mainly
don't live in that you could drop a neutron bomb in the better parts of Chelsea and South Kensington and not kill anyone?
Pray tell, how could they acquire high end property if they are such cheats?
"It is politically important: Russia has paid off the USSR's debt to a country that no longer exists," said Mr Yuri Yudenkov,
a professor at the Russian University of Economics and Public Administration. "This is very important in terms of reputation:
the ability to repay on time, the responsibility," he told AFP.
It would have been very easy for Russia to say it cannot be held responsible for USSR's debts, especially in this case where
debt is to a non-existent entity.
In Syria, the Department of Defense was supporting one group of pet jihadis. The CIA was supporting a different group of pet
jihadis.
At times the two groups of pet jihadis were actively fighting each other. I am not sure how the DoD and CIA felt about their
respective pet jihadis fighting each other. However they felt, they kept right on arming and supporting their respective
groups ...
North Korea's cavalier rejection of its NPT membership in 2003 is
a prime example , but many saw it as a case not applicable to most member states. However,
more recently,
Saudi Arabia , and
Turkey and
Iran (which, after the killing of Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, is looking for new ways to
upset Washington), have gone so far as ti layout terms under which they would leave the treaty
and even obtain nuclear weapons, statements without precedent in the treaty's history.
A number of otherwise respectable member countries, such as South Korea , also have
political parties in their legislatures that advocate treaty withdrawal and acquisition of
nuclear weapons.
We have to take seriously the possibility that -- without international action to arrest
this tendency -- the already frayed bonds that tie countries to the NPT and the pledge not to
acquire nuclear weapons may not hold. This would presage a world with many more nuclear states
and a vastly increased risk of nuclear use.
Victor Gilinsky is program advisor for the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center
(NPEC) in Arlington, Virginia. He served on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission under Presidents
Ford, Carter, and Reagan. Henry Sokolski is executive director of NPEC and the author of
Underestimated: Our Not So Peaceful Nuclear
Future (second edition 2019). He served as deputy for nonproliferation policy in the office
of the U.S. secretary of defense in the Cheney Pentagon.
Britain and the EU powers fear Washington's ever-escalating aggression against Iran will
spark an all-out war that will redound against their own imperialist interests, even if it
doesn't immediately draw in Russia and China. A war would send oil prices soaring, roil the
European economy, spark another massive refugee crisis and further radicalize a growing working
class counter-offensive.
No doubt Pompeo and others have told the Europeans that if they want to restrain Trump,
avert a major conflagration and retain influence in the Middle East, they must rally behind
Washington and its maximum pressure campaign.
To these dubious incentives, the Trump administration added a trade war threat, according to
a report published yesterday by the Washington Post under the title, "Days before
Europeans warned Iran of nuclear deal violations, Trump secretly threatened to impose 25
percent tariff on European autos if they didn't."
Why, after so many assurances to the contrary, have the three European Iran's Nuclear Deal
Partner's – Germany, France, the UK – decided to go after Iran, to follow the US
dictate again?
The short answer is because the cowards. They have zero backbone to stand up against the US
hegemony, because they are afraid to be sanctioned – as Trump indicated if they were to
honor the" Nuclear Deal". Iran is absolutely in their right to progressively increase uranium
enrichment, especially since the US dropped out unilaterally, without any specific reasons,
other than on Netanyahu's orders – of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA),
also called Iran's Nuclear Deal.
Just a few days ago Ms. Angela Merkel met with President Putin in Moscow, and BOTH pledged
in front of a huge press crowd that the Nuclear Deal must stay, must be maintained and
validated.
And now, because of Trump's Barbarian threats, trade threats on Europe – an increase
of up to 25% import taxes on European cars – and wanting a new deal with Iran, whatever
that means, they, the Europeans – the three Nuclear Deal partners, back down. Why not
call Trump's bluff? As China did. This Barbarian Kingpin is lashing around his deathbed with
tariffs and sanctions, it is only a sign of weakness, a sign of slowly but surely disappearing
in the – hopefully – bottomless abyss.
This threesome is a bunch of shameless and hopeless cowards. They have not realized yet that
the west, starting with the US empire, is passé. It's a sinking ship. It's high time for
Iran to orient herself towards the east. Iran is already a Middle-Eastern key hub for the
Chinese Belt and Road initiative (BRI), or the New Silk road. Iran can do without Europe; and
the US needs Europe more than vice-versa. But the 'chickens' haven't noticed that yet.
On the behest of Washington, the Trump clown, they, Germany, France and the UK, want to
start an official dispute process, bringing Iran back to where it was before the Nuclear Deal,
and reinstating all the UN sanctions of before the signature of the deal in July 2015. And this
despite the fact that Iran has adhered to their part of the deal by 100%, as several times
attested to by the Atomic Energy Commission in Vienna. Can you imagine what these abhorrent
Europeans are about to do?
This reminds of how Europe pilfered, robbed and raped Africa and the rest of the now called
developing world, for hundreds of years. No ethics, no qualms, just sheer egocentricity and
cowardice. The European Barbarians and those on the other side of the Atlantic deserve each
other. And they deserve disappearing in the same bottomless pit.
Iran may consider three ideas:
1) Call the European bluff. Let them start the dispute process – and let them drive it
all the way to the UN Security Council. Their spineless British Brother in Crime, BoJo, also
called the British Prime-Minister, Boris Johnson, will do the job for them, bringing the case
"Iran Nuclear Deal – and Sanctions" to the UN Security Council – where it will
fail, because Russia and China will not approve the motion.
2) Much more important, Dear Friends in Iran – do not trust the Europeans for even
one iota ! – They have proven time and again that they are not trustworthy. They
buckle under every time Trump is breaking wind – and
3) Dedollarize your economy even faster – move as far as possible away from the west
– join the Eastern economy, that controls at least one third of the world's GDP. You are
doing already a lot in this direction – but faster. Join the SCO – the Shanghai
Cooperation Organization, comprising half of Mother Earth's population; ditch the dollar and
the SWIFT payment system, join instead the Chinese Interbank Payment System (CIPS) – and
be free of the sanction-prone western monetary system. Eastern monetary transactions are
blocking out western dollar-based sanctions. Already your hydrocarbon trades with China,
Russia, India and others are not carried out in US dollars, but in local currencies, Chinese
yuans, Russian rubles and Indian rupees.
True – Iran will have to confront Iran-internally the western (NATO) and CIA trained,
funded and bought Atlantists, the Fifth Columnists. They are the ones that create constant
virulently violent unrest in the cities of Iran; they are trained – and paid for –
to bring about Regime Change. That's what Russia and China and Venezuela and Cuba are also
confronted with. They, the Fifth Columnists have to be eradicated. It's a challenge, but it
should be doable.
Follow the Ayatollah's route. He is on the right track – looking East.
Peter Koenig is an economist and geopolitical analyst. After working for over 30 years
with the World Bank he penned Implosion
, an economic thriller, based on his first-hand experience. Exclusively for the online magazine
" New Eastern Outlook. "
For some years Washington, an implacable enemy of Moscow, has been getting less and less
predictable. Lavrov and Kerry spend hours
locked up negotiating a deal in Syria ;
within a week the US military attacks a Syrian Army unit; "by mistake" . Who's in charge?
Now with the murder of Soleimani, possibly on a Washington-approved peace mission, Washington
has moved to another level of lawlessness and is exploring the next depth as it defies
Baghdad's order to get out. A pirate power. The outside problems for Moscow aren't getting
smaller, are they? Washington is certainly
недоговороспособны
– it's impossible to make an agreement with it and, if you should think you have done so,
it will break it. A dangerous, uncontrollable madman, staggering around blowing everything up
– is any foreign leader now to be assumed to be on Washington's murder list? Surviving
its decay is a big job indeed. The problems are getting bigger in the Final Days of the
Imperium Americanum.
"World War III is not going to happen because World War III already happened and the global
capitalist empire won. [Where is the "capitalism"?] Take a look at these NATO maps (make sure
to explore all the various missions). Then take a look at this Smithsonian map of where the
U.S. military is "combating terrorism." And there are plenty of other maps you can google.
What you will be looking at is the global capitalist empire. Not the American empire, the
global capitalist empire.
If that sounds like a distinction without a difference well, it kind of is, and it kind of
isn't. What I mean by that is that it isn't America (i.e., America the nation-state, which
most Americans still believe they live in) that is militarily occupying much of the planet,
making a mockery of international law, bombing and invading other countries, and
assassinating heads of state and military officers with complete impunity.
Or, rather, sure,
it is America but America is not America."
Does the United States's withdrawal from the JCPOA constitute non-compliance, or not? If so,
does their non-compliance constitute breach of contract, or not?
The U.S. effort to coerce European foreign policy through tariffs, a move one European
official equated to "extortion," represents a new level of hardball tactics with the United
States' oldest allies, underscoring the extraordinary tumult in the transatlantic
relationship.
...
U.S. officials conveyed the threat directly to officials in London, Berlin and Paris rather
than through their embassies in Washington, said a senior European official, who like
others spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive negotiations.
Yes the US extorted their own "allies" to get them to betray Iran and destroy their own
reputations. I must say the one thing i begrudgingly like about Trump is his honest upfront
thuggist actions. After the backroom betrayals of Obama bush clinton merkel and the rest its
almost refreshingly honest. Also i can think of no quicker way of destroying the US empire
than by threatening your own allies the MIC must be desperate to start a new never ending
war, although perhaps they should be careful of what they wish for
Trumps calculations were (obviously) right. EU would have never risked a massive economic
crisis because of a breakdown in US-EU trade by siding with Iran.
Sadly, they are doing what every other country would do in this position to protect their own
self percieved national interests.
Like China,India and Russia too now more and more totally abiding by sanctions and in case
of China winding down oil trade even more.
In this time of lurking economic crisis, US sanctions could cripple Europe from one day to
the next. With our countries also being on the edge of social unrest, and mass conflict
between elites and people, a massive economic crisis would bring everything tumbling
down.
This is the sad reality. Risking the sure economic meltdown to save an already lost Iran
deal would trade the social and economic welbeing of their voters for Iran. The deal has been
lost ever since Trump annouced his opposition. This is the reality. Triggering a crisis on
the back of its own voters without a real chance to save that deal would have been an empty
gesture anyway.
Realpolitik.
Good thing is Merkel seems to have had a great day with Putin. EU will silently learn from
this and warm ties with Russia. If not for its people, for its business.
The deal was a good idea, but it always was destined to end like this. Iran will go
nuclear, and the US and Isreal will have "no alternative" for shooting war. If they dare
now.
Paragragh 14 of the UNSC resolution is worth thinking about.
"14. Affirms that the application of the provisions of previous resolutions pursuant to
paragraph 12 do not apply with retroactive effect to contracts signed between any party and
Iran or Iranian individuals and entities prior to the date of application, provided that the
activities contemplated under and execution of such contracts are consistent with the JCPOA,
this resolution and the previous resolutions;"
To date, only Russia and China are holding up their ends of the deal. Iran, sticking to
the deal is on the losing side as it has no trade with the EU yet it still must stay within
the provisions of the deal. I believe there were clauses on what Iran could do if other
parties were not upholding their end.
The nuke deal is dead and Iran knows it. Under Paragragh 14, Russia China can sign up to all
deals allowed under the resolution and when snapback provisions occur, Iran Russia china can
still operate contracts it has signed before sanctions reinstated. This way, Iran gets the
benefits of trade and investment with China and Russia that could not have occurred before
the nuke deal, but at the same time, Iran will no longer be bound by the deal.
China signed up a huge oil deal with Iran not long back. Russia have also been signing a good
number of contracts. None of these will be effected by UNSC sanction.
Overall, the nuke deal was a win for Iran. Pity the US and Euro's have reneged, but still,
a win for Iran.
Does the United States's withdrawal from the JCPOA constitute non-compliance, or not? If so,
does their non-compliance constitute breach of contract, or not?
Now Peter, do you really think the Outlaw US Empire or its poodles will abide by contract
law in general and the JCPOA contract law specifically?
IMO, the JCPOA's outcome is becoming similar to the outcome of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact
in that it bought time and showed who's the true aggressor. I recall writing the Eurasians
need to behave as if they're at war with the EU-3 and their master--and that includes the
Eurasian nations who so far aren't too much affected by the fallout from the JCPOA's
failure.
What has me curious is the nature of the talks between Iran and Qatar.
Piotr Berman , Jan 15 2020 3:11 utc |
119Jackrabbit , Jan 15 2020
3:12 utc |
120
Peter AU1 @114
= Under Paragragh 14, Russia China can sign up to all deals allowed under the resolution
and when snapback provisions occur, Iran Russia china can still operate contracts it has
signed before sanctions reinstated.
Not sure about that. Paragraph 14 has this constraining language:
... provided that the activities contemplated under and execution of such contracts are
consistent with the JCPOA, this resolution and the previous resolutions.
My reading of this phrase is that he word "and" implies that the contracts must
satisfy provisions of ALL of these.
Put another way: When the snap back occurs, then contracts signed are exempt except
that they must comply with the provisions that are snapped back (AND) the JCPOA, AND this
resolution!?!?
Yes, it seems nonsensical. But how else can one interpret the "and"?
= Overall, the nuke deal was a win for Iran.
It was a 'win' for both sides.
I've always believed that USA entered into the JCPOA to buy time because Syrian "regime
change" was taking longer than expected. I've read many times that neocons and/or neocon
sympathizers believed that "Damascus is on the road" to Tehran."
USA-Israel want to fight Iran before it gets a bomb. Iran bought time to prepare for that
fight.
The EU cannot lead in anything - it is a completely owned and operated US tool. It is a big
zero in providing humanity any help with the big problem of our time: the 'indispensable and
exceptional' supremacist US. by: AriusArmenian @ 15
evilempire @ 74 <= I agree the Iranians probably did not shoot down the 737.. I posted
to MOA a link to a presstv article, headlined no missile hit the passenger liner, and the
link even said --its official.. within a short few minutes after tha, the pressTV link
disappeared and PressTV replaced it with a new story , Iranians admit they had mistakenly
shot down the PS752 taking off from Tehran. This suggest either a military coup in Iran, or
Iraq double crossed Iran. killed in Iraq by Trump were the leaders of the Shia religious arm
(IRCG leaders )
The unusually harsh words and expression in anger by Khomeini, said he would severely
punish those 8 persons responsible for the mistake, <= non characteristic of Khomeini ,
suggesting a trusted friend let him down; the two arms of the Military may be at war with
each other and Trump was helping the Iranian Military (eliminate the upper leadership of the
Revolutionary guard)? Today's JCOPA by the European powers issue suggest insiders have been
at work all weekend. Russia and China silence all fit betrayal. Have the two separate
branches of Iran military been at odds with each?
Imagine the White house wiping out Qaseum Soleimani and other IRCG members drawn on false
pretense into Iraq.?
here is Bs report on the matter
The Iranian Armed Forces General Staff just admitted (in Farsi, English translation) that its
air defenses inadvertently shot down the Ukrainian flight PS 752 shortly after it took off on
January 8 in Tehran :
2- In early hours after the missile attack [on US' Ain al-Assad base in Iraq], the
military flights of the US' terrorist forces had increased around the country. The Iranian
defence units received news of witnessing flying targets moving towards Iran's strategic
centres, and then several targets were observed in some [Iranian] radars, which incited
further sensitivity at the Air Defence units.
3- Under such sensitive and critical circumstances, the Ukrainian airline's Flight PS752 took
off from Imam Khomeini Airport, and when turning around, it approached a sensitive military
site of the IRGC, taking the shape and altitude of a hostile target. In such conditions, due
to human error and in an unintentional move, the airplane was hit [by the Air Defence], which
caused the martyrdom of a number of our compatriots and the deaths of several foreign
nationals.
4- The General Staff of the Armed Forces offers condolences and expresses sympathy with
the bereaved families of the Iranian and foreign victims, and apologizes for the human error.
It also gives full assurances that it will make major revision in the operational procedures
of its armed forces in order to make impossible the recurrence of such errors. It will also
immediately hand over the culprits to the Judicial Organization of the Armed Forces for
prosecution.
The Pentagon had claimed that Iran shot down the airliner but the evidence it presented
was flimsy and not sufficient as the U.S. tends to spread disinformation about Iran.
The Associated Press errs when it says that the move was "stoked by the American drone
strike on Jan. 3 that killed top Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani". The move was stoked five
days earlier when the U.S. killed 31 Iraqi security forces near the Syrian border despite the
demands by the Iraqi prime minister and president not to do so. It was further stoked when
the U.S. assassinated Abu Mahdi al-Muhandes, the deputy commander of the Popular Militia
Forces and a national hero in Iraq.b at 19:09 UTC | Comments (150)
The State Department issued a rather aggressive response to Abdul-Mahdi's request:b at
19:09 UTC | Comments (150)
Very interesting post. something is up Thanks.
Posted by: DontBelieveEitherPr. | Jan 15 2020 2:14 utc | 113
thanks, yes, the US economic power directly and indirectly via economic laws or
extra-territorial sanctions. A company simply cannot make a deal with Iran if it doesn't want
to be ruined by US legal means. Sad, but true.
Iranian frozen assets in international accounts are calculated to be worth between $100
billion[1][2] and $120 billion.[3][4] Almost $1.973 billion of Iran's assets are frozen in
the United States.[5] According to the Congressional Research Service, in addition to the
money locked up in foreign bank accounts, Iran's frozen assets include real estate and other
property. The estimated value of Iran's real estate in the U.S. and their accumulated rent is
$50 million.[1] Besides the assets frozen in the U.S., some parts of Iran's assets are frozen
around the world by the United Nations.[1]
***********
Now I will have to cry myself to sleep. Trump, such a poor man...
Posted by: Piotr Berman | Jan 15 2020 3:11 utc | 119
Yes, I am getting tired of that meme too. The poor helpless king of the world, if only he
could do what he wants ... if only he could "drain the swamp"
He promised to abolish the JCPOA, he suggested he would deal with the increase of Iran's
power in the region and he promised to restore US and military power to it's old (lost) world
domination. A world domination Russia and China would need to deal with too:
He already promised he would abolish JCPOA during his 2016 election campaign. And he
promised to not only make both the American economy and military strong again. So America can
exert at least as much power as it did under the great Ronald Reagan.
Secondly, we have to rebuild our military and our economy. The Russians and Chinese
have rapidly expanded their military capability, but look at what's happened to us. Our
nuclear weapons arsenal, our ultimate deterrent, has been allowed to atrophy and is
desperately in need of modernization and renewal. And it has to happen immediately. Our
active duty armed forces have shrunk from 2 million in 1991 to about 1.3 million today.
The Navy has shrunk from over 500 ships to 272 ships during this same period of time. The Air
Force is about one-third smaller than 1991. Pilots flying B-52s in combat missions today.
These planes are older than virtually everybody in this room.
And what are we doing about this? President Obama has proposed a 2017 defense budget
that in real dollars, cuts nearly 25 percent from what we were spending in 2011. Our military
is depleted and we're asking our generals and military leaders to worry about global
warming.
We will spend what we need to rebuild our military. It is the cheapest, single
investment we can make. We will develop, build and purchase the best equipment known to
mankind. Our military dominance must be unquestioned, and I mean unquestioned, by anybody
and everybody.
Mao | Jan 15 2020 4:19 utc | 124
Current Europe is a selling girl of imperialism.
Indeed! The western band of galoots are captives of their white skin color...
Very unbecoming to the rest of the non-white world = majority.
Fortunately, many of us see past our skin colors, whatever that may be...
We will spend what we need to rebuild our military. It is the cheapest, single investment we
can make. We will develop, build and purchase the best equipment known to mankind. Our
military dominance must be unquestioned, and I mean unquestioned, by anybody and everybody.
Posted by: moon | Jan 15 2020 4:58 utc | 125
Oh, we'll spend the money alright; for more of the inferior, junk, weaponry already in our
arsenals.
Planes that can't fly in the rain, aircraft carriers that can't be commisioned, and battle
rifles (that's a misnomer; the M-14 was the last U.S. battle rifle) (M-4 & M-16) that are
unreliable in intense combat situations. The M-16 should have been replaced during the Viet
Nam war...
But there it still is; almost 60 years later...
Personally I thought the cartoon was pretty good. The artist even thought that the detail
of the dogs' ass holes was important enough to include. Notably none of them have any
external genitalia, hence "bitches" also being accurate. I bet if we could see the rendition
from the other side, Israel's face would be hideous despite the appealing rear view!
This is a repeat of the EU3 negotiations with Iran that ended with a EU3 deal offered to Iran
that experts called "a lot of pretty wrappig around an empty box" because as it turned out,
the EU3 had been promising the US that they would not recognize Iran's right to enrichment
contrary to what they were telling the Iranians as part of the EU3's effort to drag out
Iran's suspension of enrichment.
The result was that Khatami was embarrassed and Ahmadinejad was elected, as Jack Straw said
later:
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/us-scuppered-deal-with-iran-in-2005-says-then-british-foreign-minister/
So again the Eu is playing the good cop to the US bad cop, and they keep goalposts
moving
This has been a consistent pattern going back years.
All along Iran has been making better compromise offers than the JCPOA only to see the
goalposts moved because this conflict was never really about nukes just as the invasion of
Iraq was not about WMDs, all that is just a pretext for a policy of imposed
regime-change.
NOTE That the Obama administration itself said that the JCPOA is "non-binding" funny how
Iran is accused of "breaching" or "violating" it yet Trump is only said to have "abandoned"
or even "withdrawn" from the deal
"President Rohani represent's the interests of the bourgeoisie in Tehran and Esfahan,
merchants oriented toward international trade and hard hit by US sanctions. Sheikh Rohani is
a long time friend of the US deep state: he was the first Iranian contact between the Reagan
administration and Israel during the Iran-contra affair in 1985. It was he who introduced
Hashem Rafsanjani to Oliver North's men, allowing him to buy arms, to become
commander-in-chief of the armies and incidentally the richest man in the country, and the
president of the Islamic Republic."
Thierry Meyssan. Voltairenet. org.
Wednesday morning, my first read before b's M. O. A. is Thierry. Really folks, it is
indespensible. One can support the I. R. I.,but still reserve criticism of the domestic
politics of Iran.
Outside the West, people don't see any difference between Europe and the USA. So it is known
that which ever direction the US takes, Europe will follow. Both the USA and Europe are
Israeli colonies. So unless Israel objects whatever the US does would always be the Eurooean
policy.
Annex B, paragraph 5 allows Iran to purchase weapons from Russia (for example...) after 5
years from signing of the Agreement in 2015.
So 2020 for weapons.
This is why Russia is so insistent the agreement holds together for the 5 years, at least.
If it doesn't, due to this action by Germany etc, then they can't sell to Iran as all old
sanctions will 'snap back'.
(Other restrictions are lifted on longer time frames, 8 and 10 years. Also, other matters
remain open forever until security council agrees the nuclear proliferation issue in Iran is
dead and buried.)
V , Jan 15 2020 9:05 utc |
142Russ , Jan 15
2020 11:08 utc |
143
powerandpeople 138 says:
Annex B, paragraph 5 allows Iran to purchase weapons from Russia (for example...) after
5 years from signing of the Agreement in 2015.
So 2020 for weapons.
This is why Russia is so insistent the agreement holds together for the 5 years, at
least. If it doesn't, due to this action by Germany etc, then they can't sell to Iran as all
old sanctions will 'snap back'.
There's an example of how appeasement and idiot-legality are way past their expiration
date. It's clear the UN itself, like all other existing international bodies, has been fully
weaponized with Russia the ultimate target.
In the process of "first they came for Irak, then they came for Libya [with the full
consent of Russia and China]...now they're coming for Irak again and for Iran....", well
obviously Russia is the one they'll ultimately be coming for.
It really is time to hang together or hang separately. Although Russia should remain
cautious about direct military stand-offs, it's definitely way past time to start openly
challenging and flouting war-by-sanctions, and to start constructing international bodies
alternative to the UN and other imperial weapons.
As for fighting within the UN, someone earlier said Russia and China wouldn't be able to
prevent the "snap-back" of UN sanctions on Iran. Why not? I'm not asking for a
technical-legalistic answer, but a power-based answer. Self-evidently the "legality" ship has
sunk, and anyone who still makes a fetish of it is fighting with one hand tied behind one's
back.
I don't say gratuitously flout legality; certainly there's great propaganda value in
seeming to adhere to international law in the face of the open lawlessness of the US. But
where it comes to critical battles like getting Iran out from under the sanctions, in the
process dealing a blow to the alleged impregnability of the sanctions weapon, the most
important thing is the real result.
Trump has in fact done more to ensure that Iran will have a nuclear weapon than any other
president through his abrupt withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan Of Action (JCPOA)
and his assassination of Soleimani..
Trump has in fact done more to ensure that Iran will have a nuclear weapon than any other
president through his abrupt withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan Of Action (JCPOA)
and his assassination of Soleimani..
Russ
Russia and I think China are working towards a multi-polar world order based on international
law.
Russia is pushing this vision and to pull other countries in, it has to walk the talk.
PR information warfare play a big part in state decisions. As we have seen from the Uki plane
shootdown Euro's beginning the process to trigger snapback, A small anti Iran block sprang to
life (UK, Canada, Ukraine, Afghanistan and Sweden) that will be great PR for the US in its
anti Iran crusade.
As I put in another comment, everyone likes a winner
I also recommend the short piece by Patrick Armstrong posted by moon up there.
I've been of the opinion from the beginning of this that the main reason Russia &
China have not leapt to the aid of Iran is that Iran does not need or want them to, yet at
least. Crooke's mention of the attack on the Saudi oil facilities is a connection that needs
to be made, that was not a fluke.
But it's a very "asymmetric" situation, as Crooke points out. Interesting times.
And each consequence leads to yet another consequence. But world leaders do not recognize
where this path is leading humanity. If they did they might be able to stop – or
perhaps not. They delude themselves to the real destination of the journey. https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/
Indeed they were, and now we know it was just a charade. Triggering the Dispute Resolution
Mechanism on basis intel supplied by Bibi is a ruse to replace the JCPOA. Where have we heard
this before? Oh, Iran is less than a year from getting the nuclear bomb.
On Tuesday, Britain, France and Germany launched the 2015 Iran nuclear deal's dispute
resolution mechanism, which they said was partly prompted by concerns that Tehran might be
less than a year away from developing a nuclear weapon.
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani has rejected a proposal for a new "Trump deal" to resolve
a nuclear spat as a "strange" offer, pointing the finger at the US President over his
failure to deliver on promises.
"This Mr. Prime Minister in London, I don't know how he thinks. He says let's put
aside the nuclear deal and put the Trump plan in action. If you take the wrong step, it
will be to your detriment. Pick the right path. The right path is to return to the nuclear
deal", Rouhani said on Wednesday.
On Tuesday, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson urged Trump to replace the Joint
Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), also known as the 2015 Iran nuclear deal with his own
new pact to keep Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. The US president responded by
tweeting that he agreed with Johnson on a "Trump deal".
Zarif Says 'It Depends on Europe' if JCPOA Remains After Dispute Resolution Mechanism
Activation. [.]
my apologies if anyone's brought this already, but the plot now thickens. a commenter at the
site at which i cross-post brought this to my attention on my 'iran makes arrests over
accidental downing of Ukrainian airliner'.
it's a tweet leading to new york times coverage of a 'Exclusive: Security camera footage
verified by the New York Times confirms that 2 missiles, fired 30 seconds apart from an
Iranian military site, hit the Ukrainian plane'
i'd used a free click to pull text, including:
"The new video was uploaded to YouTube by an Iranian user around 2 a.m. on Tuesday.
The date visible on the footage is "2019-10-17," not Jan. 8, the day the plane was downed. We
believe this is because the camera system is using a Persian calendar, not a Gregorian one.
Jan. 8 converts to the 18th of Dey, the 10th month in the Persian calendar. Digitally that
would display as 2019-10-18 in the video. One theory is that the discrepancy of one day can
be explained by a difference between Persian and Gregorian leap years or months." "
but it's everywhere already, set in stone, the WSJ news coverage included:
"The video was verified by Storyful, a social-media-intelligence company owned by News
Corp, parent of Wall Street Journal publisher Dow Jones. It raises new questions about how
forthcoming Iranian authorities were when, after three days of denial, they admitted they had
mistakenly struck the Ukraine International Airlines flight without mentioning a second
missile."
the video obviously bring up a dozen more questions, including what it shows, where, when,
etc., but corporate coverage assures us that 'iran has lied about the airliner thrice now:
evil iran'.
wait for even more sanctions, more assassinations.
What bothers me about this entire thread is no one can see either a way to end the
suppression every player on the field has been subjected to by the private mobsters. . War
whether by WMDs or Sanctions. produces the same, millions will die and nothing will alter the
possession of power, and the abuse of the masses, by the few.
The thesis "the nation state system is the structure that allows the mobsters (private
bankers, private corporations, and privateers) to control sufficient authority to rule the
world". Without strength from deadly force, and authority from engineered consent, ruling the
world is difficult.
No one has found a way to pin the maker of wrongdoing chaos button, or convicted criminal
button on the private mobsters. As the private mobsters dance, and side step their positions
between the 206 or so nation states, they avoid being boxed up, and they install their
puppets in every place they land. It is the puppets who deliver to the international arenas
the voting power that allow the private mobsters to control conflict outcomes; and puppets
in-service-to the private mobsters oversee and manage the regional and local political and
economic domains. In such a situation, the law becomes progressively more suppressive; it
produces a hierarchy of relative power and the hierarchy allows to order the nation states
relative to their power in the hierarchy. The world might even be safer without any
government at all than to allow itself to be victimized by the private mobster use of the
nation state system. Clearly the mightier the actor in the system, the less the system can or
will hold the mighty actor to conform to the rule of law. So the rule of law suppresses the
little guy and enhances the big guy.. If there were no nation state system, there would not
be any push button suppression.
There has to be an answer.. that is not war or decimation of more humanity.
The only goal of Europe in sticking to the JPCoA when Trump walks out is to keep Tehran from
developping its nuke while excruciating sanctions hinder all normal life. Regime change is
still the goal, be it at the expense of european trade.
Think of NorthStream, or of the two-state fiction in Palestine where " there's no one to
broke peace with ".
There has to be an answer.. that is not war or decimation of more humanity.
Posted by: snake | Jan 15 2020 14:26 utc | 155
One lesson from history is that it is important that those big shots just beneath the
ultimate societal power be held to the strictest standards: The law applies to you too, big
shot. Clovis effectively adhered to this principle many centuries ago. Putin by reining in
the worst of the oligarchs operated in tune with this principle.
The prevailing principle in the West is that oligarchs, the mighty, etc are above the law,
while in the US for example swat teams kill pets that bark at their door-smashing arrival at
the homes of the little people, and those who invest in private prisons feast financially on
slave labor by millions of plebeians 'plea bargained' into servitude.
Oh, Iran is less than a year from getting the nuclear bomb.
Since Bibi, Trump and the rest of Iran's enemies and their indoctrinated populations have
been saying this for years it's time for Iran to just get on with it and pull out all stops
in putting several together to be used as an option of last resort. But they should make no
public confirmation, like Israel. If the warmongering US wants a war they and their allies
(and their populations would then be aware of the consequences and would force them to
re-assess the situation. IMO this is the only way Iran will survive. If Trump wins another
term I can almost guarantee he will forge ahead with attempting another regime change. Iran
is already a pariah state in their eyes so really nothing much more for Iran to lose.
Tim Horton's has been foreign-owned (now Brazil) since 2014, but the rot started to set in as
expansion, particularly into the US, became a major goal. Once a reasonable quality purveyor
of coffee and made-from-scratch in-store donuts, now just another hawker of industrialized
brown swill and partly-cooked/frozen-then-shipped and finish-baked chemical-laced products.
I only patronize a Timmie's if I don't know of a decent quality local bakery/restaurant in
that particular area. The devil you know...
To William Gruff: Absolutely, Canada is a vassal state of the US.
Example 1: Cretien managed to keep Cdn troops out of Iraq, but dithering Paul Martin got
forced by the US to send non-combat troops into Afghanistan, then
bribery-cash-in-brown-envelopes Harper turned it into combat roles that persist to this
day.
Ex 2, Diefenbaker scrapped the nearly-complete AVRO Arrow project on direct orders from
the US that the total-crap BOMARC missile system was to be implemented instead.
Trudeau sorta confronted the US by legalizing pot, but other than that... the foreign
policy leash is very visible on the Canadian lapdog.
Iran doesn't react like the US psychopaths do..
They follow the letter of the law, as they have done with JCPOA.
But in my opinion, Iran should get its nuke capabilities up to par asap. Why continue to want
to look as though you're following the law of JCPOA by allowing the IAEA in who reports to
the EU/US to continue intrusive inspections when they all plan war against you leaving you
nuke defenseless while Israel and Saudis have or are getting nukes?
If Iran has nukes the US will back off. Nuff said.
In 70 years of illegal and violent occupation of Palestine through deportation,eradication
and no respect for human lives adding what zionist army and services have done through these
years and this is "some nasty stuff"..no israel it's the cancer of middle-east..just it!
The AVRO Arrow fiasco was criminal... "scrapping" doesn't even begin to tell the story...
utter destruction was more like it, with welding torches, right down to the last bolt. That
plane, with it's mach 2 Iroquois engine was en route to completely embarrassing the US
MIC
As well, few people know the AVRO Jetliner story, which preceded the Arrow - the first
North American passenger jet aircraft - years ahead of anything the US produced
This panel discussion explains how Congress is bought by the military industrial (mostly
oil) complex. Then again Eisenhower included Congress in the Cabal several years after he
overthrew the democratic leader of Iran. The dialogue of these panel members links all
Mideast invasions back to the initial destruction of Iranian government in 1953. Apparently,
we cannot have democracy in the Mideast as it is bad for the mafia business.
I recently heard a story on CBC radio about the Arrow. Not only did they destroy the
prototype and all parts, they even destroyed all the drawings, except for one set which was
smuggled out by a draftsman, who kept them secret for decades. But now they are on display at
the "Diefenbaker Canada Centre at the University of Saskatchewan until April 2020" (from
Wiki)
It's interesting to learn that Uncle Sam wanted the program stopped. Why didn't some US
company just buy Avro instead? Buying out the competition is standard operating procedure for
US corporate parasites.
wendy davis @154 Rouhani's tweet when accepting responsibility for the downing of the plane
stated:
Hassan Rouhani
@HassanRouhani
·
Jan 10
Armed Forces' internal investigation has concluded that regrettably missiles fired due to
human error caused the horrific crash of the Ukrainian plane & death of 176 innocent
people.
Investigations continue to identify & prosecute this great tragedy & unforgivable
mistake. #PS752
As you can see, Rouhani stated 'missiles' as in plural.
Great to run into you again. Indeed by signing on to the JCPOA Iran demonstrated a number
of things. 1) Iran keeps her word. 2) The US never does. 3) Europe's role is to smile while
preparing to stab you in the back. 4) The US will sacrifice her own interests for Israel's
everytime.
I think all of us could have predicted all that. But what I could never have predicted was
the complete in your face nature of American imperialism. It is one thing for there to be
overwhelming evidence against a suspect. It's quite another for him to openly brag about his
crimes and then promise to commit even more. That is why Trump's presidency is a blessing for
Iran. If you happen to be in Iran, please share with us any information about the national
mood and how people are coping in difficult circumstances.
Didn't know that about Merkel; yet another reason she qualifies as a cowardly poodle. It's
also clear, IMO, that Merkel lied to Putin and the press about her position on the JCPOA at
their post-talks
presser :
Putin: "We certainly could not ignore another issue which is vitally important not only
for the region but also for the whole world – the issue of preserving the Joint
Comprehensive Plan of Action on Iran's nuclear programme. After the United States withdrew
from this fundamental agreement, the Iranian side declared that they suspended some of their
voluntary commitments under the JCPOA. Let me underscore this – they only suspended
their voluntary commitments while they stress their readiness to go back to full compliance
with the nuclear deal.
"Russia and Germany resolutely stand for the continued implementation of the Joint Plan.
The Iranians are entitled to a support from European nations, which promised to set up a
special financial vehicle separate from the US dollar to be used in trade settlements with
Iran. The Instrument in Support of Trade Exchanges (INSTEX) must finally begin working."
Merkel, statement: "Of course, we also discussed Iran. We agree that everything necessary
must be done to preserve the JCPOA. Germany believes that there should be no nuclear weapons
in Iran, and therefore we will use all the available diplomatic means to preserve this
agreement, even though it is not perfect, but it includes obligations of all the sides."
Merkel answering a question: " I have mentioned an issue on which we do not see eye to eye
with the Americans (JCPOA), even though they are our allies with whom we are working together
on many matters. But when it comes to German and European opinions, we are acting above all
in our own interests, while Russia is upholding its own interests, so we should look for
common interests in this process.
"Despite certain obstacles, we have found common interests in our bilateral relations
regarding the JCPOA with Iran. We have common opinions and different views, but a visit such
as this one is the best thing. It is better to talk with each other rather than about one
another, because it helps one to understand the other side's arguments."
It's very clear from Russia's reaction that the EU-3's action was a complete surprise. I
doubt Merkel will be invited to Moscow again. For Russians and the rest of humanity, there's
no trusting the West. IMO, it must always be treated as hostile regardless the smiles.
"
While it might work in domestic politics, this mad man negotiating tactic erodes trust in
international affairs and it will take decades for the US to recover from the harm done by
Trump's school yard bully approach.
Even the docile Europeans are beginning to tire of this and once they get their balls
stitched back on after being castrated for so long, America will have its work cut out
crossing the chasm from unreliable and untrustworthy partner to being seen as dependable and
worthy of entering into agreements with.
"... Another aspect of Trump's erraticness is making sudden shifts, or what we have called gaslighting. He'll suddenly and radically change his rhetoric, even praise someone he demonized. That if nothing else again is a power play, to try to maintain his position as driving the pacing and content of the negotiations, which again is meant to position his counterparty as in a weaker position, of having to react to his moves, even if that amounts to identifying them as noise. It is a watered-down form of a cult strategy called love bombing (remember that Trump has been described as often being very charming in first meetings, only to cut down the person he met in a matter of days). ..."
"... I would disagree with the "selecting staff" part. I can't really think of any of his appointees to any office while he is president that was a good pick. One worse than the other basically. Maybe in his private dealings he did better, but in public office it's a continuous horror show. Examples like Pence, Haley, "Mad Dog", Bolton, DeVos, his son in law, Pompeo. The list goes on. ..."
"... For me as a foreigner who detests the forever wars and most of the US foreign policy, this is a good thing: the more heavy handed, the more brutal, the more cruel, the more stupid the US policy is, the less is the chance for our euro governments to follow the US in today's war or other policy. ..."
"... They are not inept and incompetent at what they are trying to achieve. The GOP has long sought to privatize government to help the rich get richer and harm anyone who isn't rich by cutting services and making them harder to get. Trumps picks are carrying out that agenda very well. ..."
"... Trump is just a huge crude extension of the usual "exceptional" leaders, much more transparent by not pretending he is any sort of representative of democratic and cooperative values claimed by his predecessors. ..."
"... But what I think is noticeable is that his worst high profile staff picks, while horrible people, are generally those who are under his thumb and so he has control of. ..."
"... He got elected over the dead bodies of just about everyone who counts in the Republican Party. He pretty much did a hostile takeover of the GOP. So his ability to draw on seasoned hands was nil. And on top of that, he is temperamentally not the type to seek the counsel of perceived wise men in and hanging around the party. The people he has kept around are cronies like Wilbur Ross and Steve Mnuchin. ..."
"... The one notably competent person he has attracted and retained is Robert Lightizer, the US Trade Representative ..."
"... oderint, dum metuant ..."
"... Führerprinzip ..."
"... Hitler ran the Third Reich by a system of parallel competition among bureaucratic empire builders of all stripes. Anyone who showed servile loyalty and mouthed his yahoo ideology got all the resources they liked, for any purpose they proposed. But the moment he encountered any form of independence or pushback, he changed horses at once. He left the old group in place, but gave all their resources to a burgeoning new bureaucracy that did things his way. If a State body resisted his will, he had a Party body do it instead. He was continually reaching down 2-3 levels in the org charts, to find some ambitious firecracker willing to suck up to him, and leapfrog to the top. ..."
"... This left behind a complete chaos of rival, duplicated functions, under mainly unfit leaders. And fortunately for the world, how well any of these organizations actually did their jobs was an entirely secondary consideration. Loyalty was all. ..."
"... Hitler sat at the center of all the resource grabbers and played referee. This made everyone dependent on his nod and ensured his continued power. The message was: there are no superiors in the Reich. There is only der Führer, and his favor trumps everything ..."
"... The few over-confident generals he picked, except for Flynn, finally caved when they realized staying was an affront to the honor code they swore to back in OCS or their academy. ..."
"... I don't know how they selected staff in the Reagan years, but lately the POTUS seems to appoint based on who the plutocrats want. As has been noted Bary O took his marching orders from Citigroup if I remember right. I doubt if Trump had even heard of most of the people he appointed prior to becoming president. So at least some of Trump's turnover is due to him firing recommendations from others who didn't turn out how he'd like. That's one reason I didn't get all that upset over the Bolton hiring – I didn't think he'd last a year before Trump canned him. ..."
"... I would say that Trump, not acting in an intelligent way is doing very clever things according to his interests. My opinion is that his actions/negotiations with foreign countries are 100% directed for domestic consumptiom. He does not care at all about international relationships, just his populist "make America great again" and he almost certainly play closest attention to the impact of his actions in US opinion. ..."
"... Classic predatory behaviors: culling the herd and eating the weak. ..."
"... I think Trump understands that one of the basic tactics of negotiation (though forgotten by the Left(tm)) is to set out a maximalist position before the negotiation starts, so that you have room to make compromises later. ..."
"... But in domestic politics, there's no doubt that publicly announcing extreme negotiating positions is a winning tactic. You force the media and other political actors to comment and make counter-proposals, thus dragging the argument more in your direction from the very start. Trump remembers something that his opponents have willfully forgotten: compromise is something you finish with not something you start from . In itself, any given compromise has no particular virtue or value. ..."
"... Today's Democrats want to destroy those social programs you cite. They have wanted to destroy those social programs ever since President Clinton wanted to conspire with "Prime Minister" Gingrich to privatize Social Security. Luckily Monica Lewinsky saved us from that fate. ..."
"... A nominee Sanders would run on keeping Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid in existence. And he would mean it. A nominee Biden might pretend to say it. But he would conspire with the Republicans to destroy them all. ..."
"... The maintenance of fear, chaos and blowback are exACTLY the desired result. Deliberately and on purpose. ..."
"... It also helps him do some things quietly in the background ..."
Trump and
the Mad Negotiator Approach Posted on January
14, 2020 by Yves Smith Trump's numerous character
flaws, such as his grandiosity, his lack of interest in the truth, his impulsiveness, his
habitual lashing out at critics, have elicited boatloads of disapproving commentary. It's
disturbing to see someone so emotional and undisciplined in charge of anything, let alone the
United States.
Rather than offer yet more armchair analysis, it might be productive to ask a different
question: why hasn't Trump been an abject failure? There are plenty of rich heirs who blow
their inheritance or run the family business into the ground pretty quickly and have to knuckle
down to a much more modest lifestyle.
Trump's lack of discipline has arguably cost him. The noise regularly made about his
business bankruptcies is wildly exaggerated. Most of Trump's
bankruptcies were of casinos , and most of those took place in the nasty 1991-1992
recession. He was one of only two major New York City developers not to have to give meaningful
equity in some of their properties in that downturn. He even managed to keep Mar-a-Lago and
persuaded his lenders to let him keep enough cash to preserve a pretty flashy lifestyle because
he was able to persuade them that preserving his brand name was key to the performance of
Trump-branded assets.
The MarketWatch analysis shows a variety of lenders, all big banks or listed specialized
finance companies like Ladder Capital, that have provided lots of money to Trump over the
years in the forms of short-, medium- and long-term loans and at competitive rates, whether
fixed or variable.
"The Treasury yield that matches the term of the loan is the closest starting benchmark
for Trump-sized commercial real estate loans," said Robert Thesman, a certified public
accountant in Washington state who specializes in real estate tax issues. The 10-year
Treasury swap rate is also used and tracks the bonds closely, according to one expert.
Trump's outstanding loans were granted at rates between 2 points over and under the
matching Treasury-yield benchmark at inception. That's despite the well-documented record of
bankruptcy filings that dot Trump's history of casino investment.
The flip side is that it's not hard to make the case that Trump's self-indulgent style has
cost him in monetary terms. His contemporary Steve Ross of The Related Companies who started
out in real estate as a tax lawyer putting together Section 8 housing deals, didn't have a big
stake like Trump did to start his empire. Ross did have industrialist and philanthropist Max
Fisher as his uncle and role model, but there is no evidence that Fisher staked Ross beyond paying for his education .
Ross has an estimated net worth of $7.6 billion versus Trump's $3.1 billion.
Despite Trump's heat-seeking-missile affinity for the limelight, we only get snippets of how
he has managed his business, like his litigiousness and breaking of labor laws. Yet he's kept
his team together and is pretty underleveraged for a real estate owner.
The area where we have a better view of how Trump operates is via his negotiating, where is
astonishingly transgressive. He goes out of his way to be inconsistent, unpredictable, and will
even trash prior commitments, which is usually toxic, since it telegraphs bad faith. How does
this make any sense?
One way to think of it is that Trump is effectively screening for weak negotiating
counterparties. Think of his approach as analogous to the Nigerian scam letters and the many
variants you get in your inbox. They are so patently fake that one wonders why the fraudsters
bother sending them.
Everyone knows that Nigerian scam e-mails, with their exaggerated stories of moneys tied
up in foreign accounts and collapsed national economies, sound totally absurd, but according
to research from Microsoft, that's on purpose .
As a savvy Internet user you probably think you'd never fall for the obvious trickery, but
that's the point. Savvy users are not the scammers' target audience, [Cormac] Herley notes.
Rather, the creators of these e-mails are targeting people who would believe the sort of
tales these scams involve .:
Our analysis suggests that is an advantage to the attacker, not a disadvantage. Since
his attack has a low density of victims the Nigerian scammer has an over-riding need to
reduce false positives. By sending an email that repels all but the most gullible the
scammer gets the most promising marks to self-select, and tilts the true to false positive
ratio in his favor.
Who would want to get in a business relationship with a guy who makes clear early on that he
might pull the rug out from under you? Most people would steer clear. So Trump's style, even if
he adopted it out of deep-seated emotional needs, has the effect of pre-selecting for weak,
desperate counterparties. It can also pull in people who think they can out-smart Trump and
shysters who identify with him, as well as those who are prepared to deal with the headaches
(for instance, the the business relationship is circumscribed and a decent contract will limit
the downside).
Mind you, it is more common than you think for businesses to seek out needy business
"partners". For instance, back in the day when General Electric was a significant player in
venture capital, it would draw out its investment commitment process. The point was to
ascertain if the entrepreneurs had any other prospects; they wouldn't tolerate GE's leisurely
process if they did. By the time GE was sure it was the only game in town, it would cram down
the principals on price and other terms. There are many variants of this playbook, such as how
Walmart treats suppliers.
Trump has become so habituated to this mode of operating that he often launches into
negotiations determined to establish that he had the dominant position when that is far from
clear, witness the ongoing China trade row. Trump did in theory hold a powerful weapon in his
ability to impose tariffs on China. But they are a blunt weapon, with significant blowback to
the US. Even though China had a glass jaw in terms of damage to its economy (there were signs
of stress, such as companies greatly stretching out when they paid their bills), Trump could
not tolerate much of a stock market downdraft, nor could he play a long-term game.
Another aspect of Trump's erraticness is making sudden shifts, or what we have called
gaslighting. He'll suddenly and radically change his rhetoric, even praise someone he
demonized. That if nothing else again is a power play, to try to maintain his position as
driving the pacing and content of the negotiations, which again is meant to position his
counterparty as in a weaker position, of having to react to his moves, even if that amounts to
identifying them as noise. It is a watered-down form of a cult strategy called
love bombing (remember that Trump has been described as often being very charming in first
meetings, only to cut down the person he met in a matter of days).
Voters have seen another face of Trump's imperative to find or create weakness: that of his
uncanny ability to hit opponents' weak spots in ways that get them off balance, such as the way
he was able to rope a dope Warren over her Cherokee ancestry claims.
The foregoing isn't to suggest that Trump's approach is optimal. Far from it. But it does
"work" in the sense of achieving certain results that are important to Trump, of having him
appear to be in charge of the action, getting his business counterparts on the back foot. That
means Trump is implicitly seeing these encounters primarily in win-lose terms, rather than
win-win. No wonder he has little appetite for international organizations. You have to give in
order to get.
I think this is pretty astute, thanks Yves. One reason I think Trump has been so
successful for his limited range of skills is precisely that 'smart' people underestimate him
so much. He knows one thing well – how power works. Sometimes that's enough. I've known
quite a few intellectually limited people who have built very successful careers based on a
very simple set of principles (e.g. 'never disagree with anyone more senior than me').
Anecdotally, I've often had the conversation with people about 'taking Trump seriously',
as in, trying to assess what he really wants and how he has been so successful. In my
experience, the 'smarter' and more educated the person I'm talking to is, the less willing
they are to have that conversation. The random guy in the bar will be happy to talk and have
insights. The high paid professional will just mutter about stupid people and racism.
I would also add one more reason for his success – he does appear to be quite good
at selecting staff, and knowing who to delegate to.
There is another figure from recent history who displayed similar astuteness about power
while manifesting generally low intelligence: Chile's Pinochet. He had near failing grades in
school but knew how to consolidate power, dominate the other members of the junta, and weed
out the slightest hint of dissidence within the army.
To the average viewer, Trump's branding extends to the negative brands that he assigns to
opponents. Witness Lyin' Ted , Pocahontas and similar sticky names that
make their way into coverage. He induces free coverage from Fake News as if they
can't resist gawking at a car wreck, even when one of the vehicles is their own. Manipulation
has worked quite a lot on people with different world views, especially when they don't
conceive of any different approaches.
Scott Adams touted that as one of Trump's hidden persuasionological weapons . . . that
ability to craft a fine head-shot nickname for every opponent.
If Sanders were to be nominated, I suppose Trump would keep saying Crazy Bernie. Sanders
will just have to respond in his own true-to-himself way. Maybe he could risk saying
something like . . .
" so Trashy Trump is Trashy. This isn't new."
If certain key bunches of voters still have
fond memories for Crazy Eddie, perhaps Sanders could have some operatives subtly remind
people of that.
Some images of Crazy Eddie, for those who wish to stumble up Nostalgia Alley . . .
I would disagree with the "selecting staff" part. I can't really think of any of his
appointees to any office while he is president that was a good pick. One worse than the other
basically. Maybe in his private dealings he did better, but in public office it's a continuous horror
show.
Examples like Pence, Haley, "Mad Dog", Bolton, DeVos, his son in law, Pompeo. The list goes
on.
Another indication how bad his delegation skills are is how short his picks stay at their
job before they are fired again. Is there any POTUS which had higher staff turnover?
Its a horror show because you don't agree with their values. After the last few
Presidents, too much movement to the right would catastrophic, so there isn't much to do. His
farm bill is a disaster. The new NAFTA is window dressing. He slashed taxes. He's found a way
to make our brutal immigration system even more nefarious. His staff seems to be working out
despite it not having many members of the Bush crime family.
Even if these people were as beloved by the press as John McCain, they would still be
monsters.
It's not their values that make them a horror show, it's their plain inaptitude and
incompetency. E.g. someone like that Exxon CEO is at least somewhat capable, which is why I
didn't mention him. Though he was quite ineffective as long as he lasted and probably quite
corrupt. Pompeo in the same office on the other hand is simply a moron elevated way beyond
his station. Words fail and the Peter principle cannot explain.
The US can paper over this due to their heavy handed application of power for now, but
every day he stays in office, friends are abhorred while trying not to show it, and foes
rejoice at the utter stupidity of the US how it helps their schemes.
For me as a foreigner who detests the forever wars and most of the US foreign policy, this
is a good thing: the more heavy handed, the more brutal, the more cruel, the more stupid the
US policy is, the less is the chance for our euro governments to follow the US in today's war
or other policy. So while I am sort of happy about the outcome, I don't see the current
monsters at the helm worse than the monsters 4 years ago under Obama. In fact I detested them
much more since they had the power to drag my governments into their evil schemes.
Evil and clearly despicable is always better than evil and sort of charismatic.
For me as a foreigner who detests the forever wars and most of the US foreign policy,
this is a good thing: the more heavy handed, the more brutal, the more cruel, the more stupid
the US policy is, the less is the chance for our euro governments to follow the US in today's
war or other policy.
Indeed, if you look at the trendline from the '80's to now, trump is, in some ways, the
less effective evil.
They are not inept and incompetent at what they are trying to achieve. The GOP has long
sought to privatize government to help the rich get richer and harm anyone who isn't rich by
cutting services and making them harder to get. Trumps picks are carrying out that agenda
very well.
I feel exactly the same. Trump is just a huge crude extension of the usual "exceptional"
leaders, much more transparent by not pretending he is any sort of representative of
democratic and cooperative values claimed by his predecessors.
But what I think is noticeable is that his worst high profile staff picks, while horrible
people, are generally those who are under his thumb and so he has control of. But in the
behind the scenes activities, they've been very effective – as an obvious example,
witness how he's put so many conservative Republicans into the judiciary, in contrast with Obamas haplessness.
That is not a Trump thing, getting more judges is a 100% rep party thing and only rep
party thing. Sure, he is the one putting his rubber stamp on it, but the picking and
everything else is a party thing. They stopped the placement for years under Obama before
Trump was ever thought about, and now are filling it as fast as they can. Aren't they having
complicit democrats helping them or how can they get their picks beyond congress? Or am I
getting something wrong and Obama could have picked his judges but didn't?
The people he chooses to run his administration however are all horrible. Not just
horrible people but horrible picks as in incompetent buffoons without a clue. Can you show a
evil, horrible or not but actually competent pick of his in his administration?
The only one I can think of is maybe the new FAA chief Dickson. Who is a crisis manager,
after the FAA is in its worst crisis ever right now. So right now someone competent must have
this post. All the others seem to be chickenhawk blowhards with the IQ of a fruitfly but the
bluster of a texan.
Is she effective? What has she done to make her a spy mastermind?
She is obviously a torturer, but is that a qualification in any way useful to be a
intelligence agency boss?
I have the suspicion Haspel was elevated to their office by threatening "I know where all
the bodies are buried (literally) and if you don't make me boss, I will tell". Blackmail can
helping a career lots if successful.
The outcomes of incompetence and malicious intent are sometimes indistinguishable from one
another. With the people Trump has surrounded himself with, horrible, nasty outcomes are par
for the course because these guys are both incompetent and chock full of malicious intent.
Instead of draining the swamp, he's gone and filled it with psychotic sociopaths.
Some time ago I heard Mulvaney answer the criticism about the Trump budget of the day
cutting so much money from EPA that EPA would have to fire half of its relevant scientists.
He replied that " this is how we drain the swamp".
Citing "corruption" was misdirection. Trump let his supporters believe that the corruption
was The Swamp. What the Trump Group ACTually means by "The Swamp" is all the career
scientists and researchers and etc. who take seriously the analyzing and restraining of Upper
Class Looter misbehavior.
I limited the post to his negotiating approach. One would think someone so erratic would
have trouble attracting people. However, Wall Street and a lot of private businesses are full
of high maintenance prima donnas at the top. Some of those operations live with a lot of
churn in the senior ranks. For others, one way to get them to stay is what amounts to a
combat pay premium, they get paid more than they would in other jobs to put up with a
difficult boss. I have no idea how much turnover there is in the Trump Organization or how
good his key lieutenants are so I can't opine either way on that part.
Regarding his time as POTUS, Trump has a lot of things working against him on top of his
difficult personality and his inability to pay civil servants a hardship premium:
1. He got elected over the dead bodies of just about everyone who counts in the Republican
Party. He pretty much did a hostile takeover of the GOP. So his ability to draw on seasoned
hands was nil. And on top of that, he is temperamentally not the type to seek the counsel of
perceived wise men in and hanging around the party. The people he has kept around are cronies
like Wilbur Ross and Steve Mnuchin.
The one notably competent person he has attracted and retained is Robert Lightizer, the US
Trade Representative
2. Another thing that undermines Trump's effectiveness in running a big bureaucracy is his
hatred for its structure. He likes very lean organizations with few layers. He can't impose
that on his administration. It's trying to put a round peg in a square hole.
I have no idea how much turnover there is in the Trump Organization or how good his key
lieutenants are so I can't opine either way on that part.
Is it just me or does nobody know? Does it seem to anyone else like there has been
virtually no investigation of his organization or how it was run?
Maybe it's buried in the endless screeds against Trump, but any investigations of his
organizations always seem colored by his presidency. I'd love to see one that's strictly
historical.
I am simply saying that I have not bothered investigating that issue. There was a NY Times
Magazine piece on the Trump Organization before his election. That was where I recall the bit
about him hating having a lot of people around him, he regards them as leeches. That piece
probably had some info on how long his top people had worked for him.
Congratulations Yves, on another fine piece, one of your best. I might recommend you
append this comment to it as an update, or else pen a sequel.
While Trump has more in common stylistically with a Borgia prince out of Machiavelli, or a
Roman Emperor ( oderint, dum metuant ) than with a Hitler or a Stalin, your note
still puts me in mind of an insightful comment I pulled off a history board a while ago,
regarding the reductionist essence of Führerprinzip , mass movement or no mass
movement. It's mostly out of Shirer:
Hitler ran the Third Reich by a system of parallel competition among bureaucratic
empire builders of all stripes. Anyone who showed servile loyalty and mouthed his yahoo
ideology got all the resources they liked, for any purpose they proposed. But the moment he
encountered any form of independence or pushback, he changed horses at once. He left the old
group in place, but gave all their resources to a burgeoning new bureaucracy that did things
his way. If a State body resisted his will, he had a Party body do it instead. He was
continually reaching down 2-3 levels in the org charts, to find some ambitious firecracker
willing to suck up to him, and leapfrog to the top.
This left behind a complete chaos of rival, duplicated functions, under mainly unfit
leaders. And fortunately for the world, how well any of these organizations actually did
their jobs was an entirely secondary consideration. Loyalty was all.
Hitler sat at the center of all the resource grabbers and played referee. This made
everyone dependent on his nod and ensured his continued power. The message was: there are no
superiors in the Reich. There is only der Führer, and his favor trumps everything
.
As you note, some of these tools (fortunately) aren't available to Cheeto 45 .
I hope this particular invocation of Godwin's avenger is trenchant, and not OT. Although
Godwin himself blessed the #Trump=Hitler comparison some time ago, thereby shark-jumping his
own meme.
It might be as simple as birds of a feather (blackbirds of course) flocking together.
Trump seems to have radar for corrupt cronies as we have seen his swamp draining into the
federal prison system. The few over-confident generals he picked, except for Flynn, finally
caved when they realized staying was an affront to the honor code they swore to back in OCS
or their academy.
I don't know how they selected staff in the Reagan years, but lately the POTUS seems to
appoint based on who the plutocrats want. As has been noted Bary O took his marching orders
from Citigroup if I remember right. I doubt if Trump had even heard of most of the people he
appointed prior to becoming president. So at least some of Trump's turnover is due to him
firing recommendations from others who didn't turn out how he'd like. That's one reason I
didn't get all that upset over the Bolton hiring – I didn't think he'd last a year
before Trump canned him.
My recollection of the Reagan years was that he had a lot of staff who left to "spend more
time with their families"; in other words they got caught being crooked and we're told to go
lest they besmirch the sterling reputation of St. Ronnie.
He early-on adopted the concept of "dismantle the Administrative State". Some of his
appointees are designed to do that from within. He appoints termites to the Department of
Lumber Integrity because he wants to leave the lumber all destroyed after he leaves the White
House.
His farm bill is only a disaster to those who support Good Farm Bill Governance. His
mission is to destroy as much of the knowledge and programs within the USDA as possible. So
his farm bill is designed to achieve the destruction he wants to achieve. If it works, it was
a good farm bill from his viewpoint. For example.
I would say that Trump, not acting in an intelligent way is doing very clever things
according to his interests. My opinion is that his actions/negotiations with foreign
countries are 100% directed for domestic consumptiom. He does not care at all about
international relationships, just his populist "make America great again" and he almost
certainly play closest attention to the impact of his actions in US opinion.
He calculates
the risks and takes measures that show he is a strong man defending US interests (in a very symplistic and populist way) no matter if someone or many are offended, abused or even killed
as we have recently seen. Then if it is appreciated that a limit has been reached, and the
limit is not set by international reactions but perceived domestic reactions, he may do a
setback showing how sensibly magnanimous can a strongman like him be. In the domestic front,
IMO, he does not give a damn on centrists of all kinds. Particularly, smart centrists are
strictly following Trumps playbook focusing on actions that by no means debilitate his
positioning as strongman in foreign issues and divert attention from the real things that
would worry Trump. The impeachment is exactly that. Trump must be 100% confident that he
would win any contest with any "smart" centrist. Of course he also loves all the noises he
generates with, for instance, the Soleimani killing or Huawei banning that distract from his
giveaways to the oligarchs and further debilitation of remaining welfare programs and
environmental programs. This measures don't pass totally unnoticed but Hate Inc .
and public opinions/debates are not paying the attention his domestic measures deserve.
Trump's populism feeds on oligarch support and despair and his policies are designed to keep
and increase both. Polls on Democrats distract from the most important polls on public
opinion about Trum "surprise" actions.
Trump has the rare gift of being able to drive his enemies insane – just witness
what's become of the Democrats, a once proud American political party.
Democrats have long been (what, 50 plus yrs. – Phil Ochs – Love Me I'm A
Liberal) exuding false pride of not appearing to be or sounding insane. Their place, being
the concern troll of the duopoly. All are mad. If the Obama years didn't prove it, the Dems
during Bush Cheney certainly did.
Yes, 50 years. Nixon played mad to get his Vietnam politics through, Reagan was
certifiable
"My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will
outlaw Russia forever." "We begin bombing in five minutes." live on air.
Etc.
I suspect only half of the post was posted? The last para seems to get cut in mid
sentence.
I'd add one more thing (which may be in the second half, assuming there's one). Trump's
massively insane demands are a good anchoring strategy. Even semi-rational player will not
make out-of-this-earth demands – they would be seen as either undermining their
rationality, or clearly meant to only anchor so less effective (but surprisingly, even when
we know it's only an anchor it apparently works, at least a bit). With irrational Trump, one
just doesn't know.
I think Trump understands that one of the basic tactics of negotiation (though forgotten
by the Left(tm)) is to set out a maximalist position before the negotiation starts, so that
you have room to make compromises later.
Sometimes this works better than others – I
don't know how far you can do it with the Chinese, for example. But then Trump may have
inadvertently played, in that case, into the tradition of scripted public utterances combined
with behind-the-scenes real negotiation that tends to characterize bargaining in Asia.
But in
domestic politics, there's no doubt that publicly announcing extreme negotiating positions is
a winning tactic. You force the media and other political actors to comment and make
counter-proposals, thus dragging the argument more in your direction from the very start.
Trump remembers something that his opponents have willfully forgotten: compromise is
something you finish with not something you start from . In itself, any
given compromise has no particular virtue or value.
There is actually two parts to a negotiation I should mention. There is negotiating a
deal. And then there is carrying it out. Not only Trump but the US has shown itself incapable
of upholding deals but they will break them when they see an advantage or an opportunity.
Worse, one part of the government may be fighting another part of the government and will
sabotage that deal in sometimes spectacular fashion.
So what is the point of having all these weird and wonderful negotiating strategies if any
partners that you have on the international stage have learned that Trump's word is merely a
negotiating tactic? And this includes after a deal is signed when he applies some more
pressure to change something in an agreement that he just signed off on? If you can't keep a
deal, then ultimately negotiating a deal is useless.
The incapability of the US to keep their treaties has been a founding principle of the
country. Ask any Indian.
Putin or the russian foreign ministry called the US treaty incapable a few years before
Trump, and they were not wrong. Trump didn't help being erratic as he is, but he didn't
cancel any treaty on his own: JCPOA, INF, etc. He had pretty broad support for all of these.
Only maybe NAFTA was his own idea.
He owes the fact he's President not to any skill he has, but to Democrats being so bad.
Many non establishment types could have beaten Hillary.
And Trump owes the fact that he's not DOA in 2020 re-election again because Democrats are
so bad. There are a handful of extremely popular social programs Democrats could champion
that would win over millions of voters and doom Trump's re-election. But instead, they double
down on issues that energize Trump's base, are not off-limits to there donors while ignoring
what the broad non corporate/rich majority support. For example impeaching him for being the
first recent President not to start a major new war for profit and killing millions and then
saying it's really because something he did in Ukraine that 95% of Americans couldn't care
less about and won't even bother to understand even if they could.
That leaves the fact he is rather rich and must have done something to become that. I
don't know enough about him to evaluate that. But I would never what to know him or have a
friend that acts like him. I've avoided people like that in my life.
Did you read the post as positive? Please read again. Saying that Trump's strategy works
only to the extent that he winds up selecting for weak partners is not praise. First, it is
clinical, and second, it says his strategy has considerable costs.
I find it interesting that the primary foreign entity who has played Trump like a violin
is Kim in North Korea. He has gotten everything he wanted, except sanctions relief over the
past couple of years.
However, Trump's style of negotiating with Iran has made it clear to Kim that North Korea
would be idiots to give up their nuclear weapons and missiles. Meanwhile, Iran has watched
Trump's attitude towards Kim since Kim blew up his first bomb and Trump is forcing them to
develop nuclear weapons to be able to negotiate with Trump and the West.
But other than the minor matter of US 8th Army (cadre) sitting in the line of fire, the
bulk of any risks posed by Li'l Kim are borne by South Korea, Japan and China. So for Trump,
it's still down the list a ways, until the Norks can nuke tip a missile and hit Honolulu. So
what coup has Kim achieved at Trump's expense, again?
Today's Democrats want to destroy those social programs you cite. They have wanted to
destroy those social programs ever since President Clinton wanted to conspire with "Prime
Minister" Gingrich to privatize Social Security. Luckily Monica Lewinsky saved us from that
fate.
A nominee Sanders would run on keeping Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid in existence.
And he would mean it. A nominee Biden might pretend to say it. But he would conspire with the
Republicans to destroy them all.
The ClintoBama Pelosicrats have no standing on which to pretend to support some very
popular social programs and hope to be believed any longer. Maybe that is why they feel there
is no point in even pretending any more.
Mind you, there's no reason to think that this negotiation approach wasn't an adaptation
to Trump's emotional volatility, as in finding a way to make what should have been a weakness
a plus. And that he's less able to make that adaptation work well as he's over his head, has
less control than as a private businessman, and generally under way more pressure.
I recall reading that Trump's empire would have collapsed during the casino fiasco were it
not for lending from his father when credit was not available elsewhere. NYT investigative
reporters have turned up evidence of massive financial support from Trump father to son to
the tune of hundreds of millions throughout the son's career. So much for the great
businessman argument.
Trump is nothing more or less than a reflection of the mind set of the US people. The left
wing resorts to the same tactics that Trump uses to gain their ends. Rational thought and
reasonable discussion seems to be absent. Everyone is looking for a cause for the country's
failing infrastructure, declining life expectancy, and loss of opportunity for their children
to have a better life than they were able to achieve.
They each blame the other side. But
there are more than two sides to most folks experience. If ever the USA citizens abolish or
just gets fed up with the two party system maybe things will change. In reality most people
know there is little difference between the two parties so why even vote?
This analysis of Trump reminded me of a story I heard from the founders of a small rural
radio station. Both had been in broadcasting for years at a large station in a major market,
one as a program director and the other in sales. They competed for a broadcasting license
that became available and they won.
With the license in-hand they needed to obtain
investments to get the station on-air within a year or they would lose the license. Even with
their combined savings and as much money as they could obtain from other members of their
families and from friends -- they were short what they needed by several hundred thousand
dollars.
Their collateral was tapped out and banks wouldn't loan on the broadcast license
alone without further backing. They had to find private investors. They located and presented
to several but their project could find no backers. In many cases prospects told them their
project was too small -- needed too little money -- to be of interest. As the deadline for
going on-air loomed they were put in touch with a wealthy local farmer.
After a long evening presenting their business case to this farmer in ever greater detail,
he sat back and told them he would give them the money they needed to get their station
on-air -- but he wanted a larger interest in the business than what they offered him. He
wanted a 51% interest -- a controlling interest -- or he would not give them the money, and
they both had to agree to work for the new radio station for a year after it went on-air.
The
two holders of the soon to be lost broadcast license looked at each other and told the farmer
he could keep his money and left. The next day the farmer called on the phone and gave them
the names and contact information for a few investors, any one of whom should be able and
interested in investing the amounts they needed on their terms. He also told them that had
they accepted his offer he would have driven them out of the new station before the end of
the year it went on-air. He said he wanted to see whether they were 'serious' before putting
them in touch with serious investors.
Sorry, assassination doesn't fit into this scenario. That is a bridge too far. Trump has
lost his effectiveness by boasting about this. It isn't just unpredictability. It is
dangerous unpredictability.
I never once said that Trump was studied in how he operates, in fact, I repeatedly pointed
out that he's highly emotional and undisciplined. I'm simply describing some
implications.
If our corrupt Congress had not ceded their "co-equal" branch of gov't authority over the
last 40 years thereby gradually creating the Imperial Presidency that we have now, we might
comfortably mitigate much of the mad king antics.
Didn't the Founding Fathers try desperately to escape the terrible wars of Europe brought
on by the whims and grievances of inbred kings, generation after generation? Now on a whim
w/out so much as a peep to Congress, presidential murder is committed and the
CongressCritters bleat fruitlessly for crumbs of info about it.
I see no signs of this top-heavy imperialism diminishing. Every decision will vanish into
a black hole marked "classified."
I am profoundly discouraged at 68 who at 18 years old became a conscientious objector,
that the same undeclared BS wars and BS lies are used to justify continuous conflct almost
nonstop these last 50 years as if engaging in such violence can ever be sucessful in
achieving peaceful ends? Unless the maintenance of fear, chaos and blowback are the actual
desired result.
Trump's negotiating style is chaos-inducing deliberately, then eventually a "Big Daddy"
Trump can fix the mess, spin the mess and those of us still in the thrall of big-daddyism can
feel assuaged. It's the relief of the famiy abuser who after the emotional violence
establishes a temporary calm and family members briefly experience respite, yet remain wary
and afraid.
Kim Jong Un uses similar tactics, strategy, perhaps even style. Clinically and
intellectually, it's interesting to watch their interaction. Emotionally, given their
weaponry, it's terrifying.
Great post! The part about selecting for desperate business partners is very insightful,
it makes his cozying up to dictators and pariah states much more understandable. He probably
thinks/feels that these leaders are so desperate for approval from a country like the US
that, when he needs something from them, he will have more leverage and be able to impose
what he wants.
"... Deal finishes October 2020 if I remember correctly. All sanctions will be lifted so long as Iran is in compliance at that time. This is a move to prevent this. ..."
"... Obviously, Merkel doesn't have the political strength to nix Nordstream 2. Until she's replaced by someone with greater vision, EU and German policy won't change toward Iran. IMO, the trio don't amount to the level of poodles as they're known to have courage. The Trio proudly display the fact that they're 100% Cowards. ..."
"... The EU cannot lead in anything - it is a completely owned and operated US tool. It is a big zero in providing humanity any help with the big problem of our time: the 'indispensable and exceptional' supremacist US. ..."
Deal finishes October 2020 if I remember correctly. All sanctions will be lifted so long
as Iran is in compliance at that time. This is a move to prevent this.
I always learn some thing here. For example imagine my surprise to learn the EU had a
reputation worth protecting. All you need to know about the EU is bitches will do what
bitches are told. This is just one more step on the road to war with China, is that really
what the citizens of the EU want? Are the people of the EU ready to die for the Trump and the
Republican party?
Think tanks, think tanks, think tanks. In 2009, the Brookings Institute's paper Which Path to
Persia, proposed offering Iran a very good deal and then sabotaging it. Good cop, Obama, bad
cop, Trump. Mission accomplished.
Only a matter of when and how. The warmongers have Trumps balls in a vice, he can't even
resign without making it worse by letting Pence take over. The art of the squeal, very high
pitched is whats happening in DC.
1st of all The UK was always going to side with DC over Iran. 2ndly for France and Germany
they probably aren't ready to put themselves plus their EU partners in the US doghouse for
Iran. When they break it will be a time of their own choosing.
Thanks b, for this detailed coverage of the 3 wimps' efforts to kill JCPOA. You did not
disappoint. Love the image showing mother residing in "occupied Palestine" .. (term coined by
MoA barfly)
I commented in the previous post, Russia warned of unintended consequences
LINK
Moscow is calling on the European parties to the Iran nuclear deal not to escalate tensions
and to abandon their decision to trigger the treaty's Dispute Resolution Mechanism, the
Russian Foreign Ministry said Tuesday.
"We strongly urge the Eurotroika [of parties to the JCPOA] not to inflame tensions and
to abandon any steps which call the prospects of the nuclear deal's future into question.
Despite all the challenges it has faced, the JCPOA has not lost its relevance," the
ministry said in a statement.
Ex-US vice-president, Joseph Biden is also suspected of corruption, according to a
member of the Ukrainian parliament
KIEV, January 14. /TASS/. Ukraine's Supreme Anti-Corruption Court has obliged the
National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) to launch a probe into seizure of government power
and corruption suspicions. The cases mention the names of the United States' 44th
president, Barack Obama, former Ukrainian president, Pyotr Poroshenko and ex-US
vice-president, Joseph Biden, a member of the Ukrainian parliament from the Opposition
Platform - For Life party, Renat Kuzmin, said[.]
"investigate the suspicions over the seizure of government power in Ukraine and of the
embezzlement of state budget money and international financial assistance by members of the
Obama administration"
If it ever was possible to sign a treaty with the US and expect them to abide by it, it
hasn't been possible for a long time. Here as everywhere else, Trump merely openly proclaims
the systemic lawlessness he shares with the rest of the US political class. (His contemptuous
withdrawal from the JCPOA never has been one of the things the establishment and media
criticize him for.)
For as long as US imperial power lasts, anyone who doesn't want to be a poodle (or to get
regime-changed because they foolishly attempt to sit the fence) has to accept that there can
be no legitimate agreements with the US or its poodles. If you sign a treaty with them, you
have to view it exactly the same way you know they do, as nothing but propaganda, otherwise
not worth the paper it's written on. No doubt North Korea, if they were in any doubt before,
registered how Trump and the US media immediately proceeded to systematically lie about the
agreement they'd supposedly just concluded, before the ink was even dry.
Here's hoping that if Iran was in any doubt before, they too are getting the message: As
far as the US and Europe are concerned, the only purpose of the JCPOA is to serve as a weapon
against them.
Face it B, there will be blood. It's a matter of time. It's unavoidable. The empire will
force its own destruction - and perhaps the rest of humanity's. The demons of nihilism will
prevail.
(Sounds like I have been hearing death metal. I swear I did not. And I not under the
influence either.)
The Oct 2020 deadline is important for more than one reason- Irans application to the SCO is
being held up because of it. The SCO membership would obligate support from countries like
India in response to politically motivated sanctions.
Surprised at Germany since Merkel just met with Putin. When I read of this earlier this
morning, that it's based on lies was 100% clear, that the trio are feckless and deserve all
the social instability that will soon come their way. Why did I mention social instability:
"The Fed is considering a plan to allow them to lend cash DIRECTLY TO HEDGE FUNDS in order
to ease the REPO Crisis. [Emphasis original]
"Where is 'bailing out private investment funds' in their alleged 'dual mandate'?"
Which gets us back to the reason Iran's targeted: Because it lies outside the dollar
economy, refuses to engage in petrodollar recycling, and has a quasi-socialist economy with
no private banking. Plus, we now see that Iraq will pursue evicting NATO and Outlaw US Empire
forces and likely join the Arc of Resistance's/Iran's policies which are what the Outlaw US
Empire went to war over to begin with.
Obviously, Merkel doesn't have the political strength to nix Nordstream 2. Until she's
replaced by someone with greater vision, EU and German policy won't change toward Iran. IMO,
the trio don't amount to the level of poodles as they're known to have courage. The Trio
proudly display the fact that they're 100% Cowards.
The EU is a hopeless craven vassal of the US. The US dropping out of the JCPOA was the acid
test which the EU has spectacularly failed. We are in a historical pivot with the rise of the
coalescing multifarious East which is forcing the EU to make a decision: stay under the US
wing, go it alone, or ally with the East. The EU seems to know it at least should get more
distance between itself and the US but every time there is a major geopolitical event it
starts to talk like it is going independent but then always drops back into the US hand. How
many times does this have to happen for us to admit what the EU is about?
The EU cannot lead in anything - it is a completely owned and operated US tool. It is a big
zero in providing humanity any help with the big problem of our time: the 'indispensable and
exceptional' supremacist US.
Posted by: AriusArmenian | Jan 14 2020 19:58 utc |
15
If we accept that EU nations lack sovereignty and go further to suggest that such nations are
more simulations than real, what would an analysis of such events as the fallout from the
demise of the JCPOA look like? How should one talk about international events when corporate
sovereignty and oligarchical decision making are the real? How would we describe this exact
context based not on the simulation but on the real workings of power?
Yes indeed! At least blighty knows the score! The leash is no place for the British bulldog.
When brexit is complete they will be free to crawl straight up muricas bum! Lol!
Haha, great drawing. This pile on the left is incomparable. But the picture is incomplete -
there is not enough proudly walking in front of the masters of a small Polish poodle with a
bone in his teeth.
Agree with Nemo, #1. This is a matter of sovereignty. At the moment, European countries
are not sovereign, and, btw, this is a kind of double non-sovereignty: the submission of a
separate European country to the Americans, plus the submission of the same country to a
Brussels bureaucracy called the EU leadership. What independent, bold decisions can we talk
about? None.
The United States, like Israel, has become a pariah that shreds, violates or absents itself
from international law. We launch preemptive wars, which under international law is defined as
a "crime of aggression," based on fabricated evidence. We, as citizens, must hold our
government accountable for these crimes. If we do not, we will be complicit in the codification
of a new world order, one that would have terrifying consequences. It would be a world without
treaties, statutes and laws. It would be a world where any nation, from a rogue nuclear state
to a great imperial power, would be able to invoke its domestic laws to annul its obligations
to others. Such a new order would undo five decades of international cooperation -- largely put
in place by the United States -- and thrust us into a Hobbesian nightmare. Diplomacy, broad
cooperation, treaties and law, all the mechanisms designed to civilize the global community,
would be replaced by savagery.
Chris Hedges, an Arabic speaker, is a former Middle East bureau chief for The New York
Times. He spent seven years covering the region, including Iran.
.jpg/220px-Raising_of_American_flag_at_Iolani_Palace_with_US_Marines_in_the_foreground_(detailed).jpg)
© Sputnik / Russian Foreign Ministry 22 Follow RT on
When in Russia Get yourself a dose of Sputnik V, Foreign Ministry tells US envoy who asked Santa for VACCINE
© REUTERS / RONEN ZVULUN Snub or No Snub? Netizens Laugh Off Prince Charles' Explanation After Not Shaking Hands With Mike Pence When world leaders addressed the Holocaust memorial held in Israel last Wednesday it was obvious – albeit implicitly – from their words that the US has become an isolated rogue state owing to its inveterate belligerence.
© Sputnik / Alexey Nikolsky World War II for Dummies? US Vice President Hails Liberators of Auschwitz Death Camp, 'Forgets' to Name Them It was an odious spectacle to see Pence don a somber face as he talked about the victims of the Holocaust , while his own state wages war against any foreign nation whenever and wherever Washington deems. At an event that was supposed to reflect on the horror and evil of war, Pence showed he had no understanding or self-awareness.
© AP Photo / Czarek Sokolowski If One's Outraged by Words About Polish Anti-Semitism, One Should Delve Into History – Ex-Polish MP The American national myth, evolved over recent decades since 1945, views itself as "exceptional" from all other nations. That translates as the US presuming to be "superior" and "above the law that others are bound by".
.jpg)
