|
|
Home | Switchboard | Unix Administration | Red Hat | TCP/IP Networks | Neoliberalism | Toxic Managers |
| (slightly skeptical) Educational society promoting "Back to basics" movement against IT overcomplexity and bastardization of classic Unix | |||||||
|
|
Paleoconservatism is a neologism created by those following within that movement to distinguish their so-called "traditional" values from the neoconservatives. While the “paleo” in paleoconservatism leaves the impression that it arose earlier than other conservatisms, the suggestion is misleading. It is mainly a reaction to Neoconservatism. And as such is pretty new movement and political philosophy. Although Neoconservatism was born in 1965, in the pages of Irving Kristol’s journal the Public Interest, it was not until editor Norman Podhoretz used Commentary in June 1970 to state his opposition to the New Left that the movement began to attract attention (Commentary in American Life by Murray Friedman , Temple University Press, 2005 )
Most neoconservatives are Jewish and are often closely related by blood or long friendships. Indeed, as its adherents are the best-known Jewish conservatives, neoconservatism might fairly be described as the conservatism of the Jews—those few Jews who become prominent on the Right almost invariably identify with it. Recalling their early struggles against fascist and communist totalitarianism, the neoconservatives continue to view external opponents of the United States as threats not simply to American interests but to civilization itself. They also remain intellectuals, not politicians, and are most comfortable as thinkers and writers who, unlike candidates for office, can express their views without reservation. Those who have served in government—with the exception of Moynihan—have done so as appointees and have developed impressive bureaucratic skills that they have used effectively in high-level positions. In one important way, however, neoconservatism has changed. The left-wing experiences that marked the youths of many older neoconservatives do not characterize the current generation—some came from the relatively conservative Jackson wing of the 1970s Democratic Party, but most of the new generation have been conservatives their entire adult lives.
However, paleoconservatism should not be seen as a simple resurrection of these earlier themes. It fuses notions associated with the anti-war, anti-empire, isolationist traditions with other strains and concepts drawn from both the social sciences and different conservative traditions. They are reconfigured so as to form a theoretically developed and structured world view informed by a particular representation of American ethnicity, elite theory, and notions of republicanism derived from southern conservatism. In other words this is an ideology, much like Neoconservatism is. And as such a competing ideology.
Many prominent paleoconservatives publish their views in The American Conservative, the leading publication exposing paleoconservative ideology. Buchanan, leading spokesman of paleoconservatism has adopted the slogan "America First” as part of a conscious attempt to evoke pre-war sentiments about keeping the United States out of “foreign wars.”
"Today we call for a new patriotism, where Americans begin to put the needs of Americans first, for a new nationalism where in every negotiation, be it arms control or trade, the American side seeks advantage or victory for the United States." With these words, columnist, television personality, and former presidential speechwriter Patrick J. Buchanan announced his candidacy for president in a New Hampshire hotel conference room. He had prefigured his slogan in an article the previous year for the National Interest: "America First--and Second, and Third." ...
... ... ...
America First was Buchanan's gambit, his bid to mobilize conservatives now that the old call to slash the federal government no longer resounded successfully. With it he hoped to attract America's nationalist hard core, people who felt aggrieved and abused not so much by foreigners as by alien elements within their own country--to unite conservatism and populism together in an ideology that could impose itself on the country more effectively than Reagan's business-oriented conservatism had ever succeeded in doing. It was not Buchanan's gambit alone, of course. Over the five years since he had quit his White House staff job in 1987, an intellectual coterie had assembled around Buchanan, made up of writers and activists who had broken off from the main mass of conservatism over the course of the 1980s, disgusted with President Reagan's weak-willed acceptance of a Martin Luther King holiday and sanctions against South Africa, with President Bush's knuckling under to the 1991 civil rights laws and his upping legal immigration levels by 200,000 a year. They complained that their conservative movement--the conservative movement of Robert Alfonso Taft and Barry Goldwater--had been hijacked. "Before true conservatives can ever take back their country," Buchanan had written in May 1991, "they are first going to have to take back their movement." From whom? From "the neoconservatives . . . the ex-liberals, socialists and Trotskyists who signed on in the name of anti-communism and now control our foundations and set the limits of permissible dissent." As one of the conservatives who would later back the Buchanan campaign lamented, "We have simply been crowded out by overwhelming numbers. The offensives of radicalism have driven vast herds of liberals across the borders into our territories. These refugees speak in our name, but the language they speak is the same one they always spoke." 1
Paleoconservatism also has a marked hostility to the “east coast establishment", echoing Huey Long’s attacks on the wealthy and Father Charles Coughlin's pleas on behalf of the local community against what he saw as the arrogance and self-interested indifference of metropolitan financial interests. They are suspicious about big finance, especially TBTF banks.
Paleoconservatism also shares the sense of exclusion from the government apparatus by neoconservatives, who now dominate the Washington political scene, and especially the Department of State. Along with Neoconservatism, they reject neoliberal globalization and multiculturalism (three horseman of Neoliberal Apocalypse):
Although Scotchie does not put it quite this way, contemporary paleoconservatism developed as a reaction against three trends in the American Right during the Reagan administration. First, it reacted against the bid for dominance by the neoconservatives, former liberals who insisted not only that their version of conservative ideology and rhetoric prevail over those of older conservatives, but also that their team should get the rewards of office and patronage and that the other team of the older Right receive virtually nothing.
The politics of this conflict, as those involved in it will recall, was often vicious and personal, the most notorious case being the backstabbing treatment of the late M.E. Bradford by his neoconservative rivals over the appointment to the chairmanship of the National Endowment for the Humanities in 1981. The bitterness of the NEH controversy was due not to the neocons pushing their own nominee, the totally unknown and laughably under-qualified William Bennett but to their complete lack of hesitation in smearing, lying about, and undermining Bradford at every opportunity.
Scotchie deals briefly with the Bradford controversy, but I have to say, as one closely involved in supporting Bradford at the time, that he does not dwell sufficiently on the sheer evil and meanness of neoconservative conduct in it. But he also notes the firing, calculated vilification, or effective ostracism of several paleos or paleo fellow travelers by the neocon cabal in the following years as well as the deliberate campaign to strip the Rockford Institute of funding by neoconservative-controlled foundations.
Most paleoconservatives are against immigration, neoclassical economics (which is pseudoscience anyway, so any rational person is against it ;-) and any military intervention by the US anywhere. They have little regard for any benefits of an egalitarian society. Their economic views are more likely to tend toward New Deal than modern neoliberalism, although there is a contingent of Austrian scholars within paleoconservative movement.
The most notable living paleoconservative is Patrick Buchanan, who recently (welcomed Donald Trump foreign policy views):
|
|
With Democrats howling that Vladimir Putin hacked into and leaked those 19,000 DNC emails to help Trump, the Donald had a brainstorm: Maybe the Russians can retrieve Hillary Clinton's lost emails. Not funny, and close to "treasonous," came the shocked cry. Trump then told the New York Times that a Russian incursion into Estonia need not trigger a U.S. military response.
Even more shocking. By suggesting the U.S. might not honor its NATO commitment, under Article 5, to fight Russia for Estonia, our foreign policy elites declaimed, Trump has undermined the security architecture that has kept the peace for 65 years. More interesting, however, was the reaction of Middle America. Or, to be more exact, the nonreaction. Americans seem neither shocked nor horrified. What does this suggest?
Behind the war guarantees America has issued to scores of nations in Europe, the Mideast and Asia since 1949, the bedrock of public support that existed during the Cold War has crumbled. We got a hint of this in 2013. Barack Obama, claiming his "red line" against any use of poison gas in Syria had been crossed, found he had no public backing for air and missile strikes on the Assad regime. The country rose up as one and told him to forget it. He did. We have been at war since 2001. And as one looks on the ruins of Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya and Yemen, and adds up the thousands dead and wounded and trillions sunk and lost, can anyone say our War Party has served us well?
On bringing Estonia into NATO, no Cold War president would have dreamed of issuing so insane a war guarantee. Eisenhower refused to intervene to save the Hungarian rebels. JFK refused to halt the building of the Berlin Wall. LBJ did nothing to impede the Warsaw Pact's crushing of the Prague Spring. Reagan never considered moving militarily to halt the smashing of Solidarity.
Were all these presidents cringing isolationists? Rather, they were realists who recognized that, though we prayed the captive nations would one day be free, we were not going to risk a world war, or a nuclear war, to achieve it. Period. In 1991, President Bush told Ukrainians that any declaration of independence from Moscow would be an act of "suicidal nationalism."
Today, Beltway hawks want to bring Ukraine into NATO. This would mean that America would go to war with Russia, if necessary, to preserve an independence Bush I regarded as "suicidal."
Have we lost our minds?
The first NATO supreme commander, General Eisenhower, said that if U.S. troops were still in Europe in 10 years, NATO would be a failure. In 1961, he urged JFK to start pulling U.S. troops out, lest Europeans become military dependencies of the United States. Was Ike not right? Even Barack Obama today riffs about the "free riders" on America's defense. Is it really so outrageous for Trump to ask how long the U.S. is to be responsible for defending rich Europeans who refuse to conscript the soldiers or pay the cost of their own defense, when Eisenhower was asking that same question 55 years ago?
In 1997, geostrategist George Kennan warned that moving NATO into Eastern Europe "would be the most fateful error of American policy in the post-Cold War era." He predicted a fierce nationalistic Russian response. Was Kennan not right? NATO and Russia are today building up forces in the eastern Baltic where no vital U.S. interests exist, and where we have never fought before - for that very reason. There is no evidence Russia intends to march into Estonia, and no reason for her to do so. But if she did, how would NATO expel Russian troops without air and missile strikes that would devastate that tiny country? And if we killed Russians inside Russia, are we confident Moscow would not resort to tactical atomic weapons to prevail? After all, Russia cannot back up any further. We are right in her face.
On this issue Trump seems to be speaking for the silent majority and certainly raising issues that need to be debated.
- How long are we to be committed to go to war to defend the tiny Baltic republics against a Russia that could overrun them in 72 hours?
- When, if ever, does our obligation end? If it is eternal, is not a clash with a revanchist and anti-American Russia inevitable?
- Are U.S. war guarantees in the Baltic republics even credible?
- If the Cold War generations of Americans were unwilling to go to war with a nuclear-armed Soviet Union over Hungary and Czechoslovakia, are the millennials ready to fight a war with Russia over Estonia?
Needed now is diplomacy. The trade-off: Russia ensures the independence of the Baltic republics that she let go. And NATO gets out of Russia's face. Should Russia dishonor its commitment, economic sanctions are the answer, not another European war.
is probably the second important paleoconservative thinker. Antiwar.com founder and editor Justin Raimondo is probably the third. Also important is Phyllis Schlafly.
Paleoconservatism claims its roots in the "Old Right", a loose grouping of people, many of them former liberals, who emerged during the Great Depression and World War II as opponents of Franklin D. Roosevelt's domestic and foreign policy. As the Cold War got underway after WWII, these people remained isolationist and opposed the Cold War, grouping post-war foreign and domestic policy together as two sides of the same coin, the "welfare-warfare state."
Early examples include journalists John T. Flynn, Garet Garrett, Rose Wilder Lane, Isabel Paterson, and Albert Jay Nock, revisionist historians Harry Elmer Barnes (one of the first major Holocaust deniers) and George Morgenstern (who claimed that FDR had dragged America into WWII by deliberately goading the Japanese to attack), libertarian Murray Rothbard, and U.S. Senator Robert A. Taft.
With militant anti-communism in vogue on the American right, they found themselves marginalized within the conservative movement and shut out from outlets like William F. Buckley's National Review, their continued isolationism getting them accused of being "useful idiots" for Moscow.
However, they continued as an outside tendency through such groups as Leonard Read's Foundation for Economic Education and an emerging Austrian school of economics led by Ludwig von Mises and Henry Hazlitt, who later became libertarian icons. It was not until the fall of the Berlin Wall that isolationism re-emerged on the right (outside of the libertarians, who had become a distinct movement from conservatism), led by people like Pat Buchanan who had been interventionist during the Cold War.
From The Paleo Persuasion The American Conservative
Politically, the leadership of the Right evolved from Robert Taft in the 1940s and ’50s, who, as Scotchie writes, “cared more … about the survival of the shoe-making industry in America than whether American consumers could someday buy $125 sneakers made by twenty-five cents an hour labor in Indonesia,” to Newt Gingrich, who babbled about a laptop computer for every school child and doted credulously on the most bizarre New Age banalities. Culturally and intellectually, the Right moved from the radical conservative cultural criticism of men like Donald Davidson, Richard Weaver, Russell Kirk, and Bernard I. Bell to the post-Reagan triumphalism that chortled over the “end of history” and the arrival of the world democratic imperium.
Anti war position make Paleoconservatism is similar to libertarianism. They reject neoconservatism with its Trotskyite "Permanent war" mentality. Paloconservatism anti-war postion like is the case with libertarians as well is based on Non-Interventionism:
Libertarianism and war are not compatible. One reason why should be obvious: In war, governments commit legalized mass murder. In modern warfare especially, war is not just waged among voluntary combatants, but kills, maims, and otherwise harms innocent people. Then, of course, wars must be funded through taxes, which are extracted from U.S. citizens by force—a form of legalized theft, as far as libertarians are concerned. And, historically, the United States has used conscription—legalized slavery—to force people to fight and die. In addition, an interventionist foreign policy makes civilians targets for retaliation, so governments indirectly cause more violence against their own people when they become involved in other countries’ affairs. In addition, war is always accompanied by many other new restrictions on liberty, many of which are sold as supposedly temporary wartime measures but then never go away.
In the article The Paleo Persuasion Samuel Francis wrote ( The American Conservative, December 16, 2002):
While some (Scotchie mentions Pat Buchanan and me) were anti-communist interventionists during the Cold War, all have come to reject the reckless military interventionism and globalism of its aftermath. A critical point of development was the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990 and the U.S. and conservative response to it. Paleos and those who soon identified with them almost spontaneously rejected U.S. military intervention against Iraq. It was a moment, falling only a year after the neoconservative onslaught on the Rockford Institute, that solidified the paleoconservative identity.
“The US, as paleos have claimed for decades, was only meant to be a constitutional republic, not an empire—as Buchanan’s 1999 foreign policy tome A Republic, Not an Empire nostalgically states,” Scotchie explains. “Republics mind their own business. Their governments have very limited powers, and their people are too busy practicing self-government to worry about problems in other countries. Empires not only bully smaller, defenseless nations, they also can’t leave their own, hapless subjects alone…. Empires and the tenth amendment aren’t friends…. Empires and small government aren’t compatible, either.”
If anti-interventionism and a commitment to the Old Republic defined by strict-construction constitutionalism and highly localized and independent social and political institutions defined one major dimension of paleoconservatism, its antipathy to the mass immigration that began to flood the country in the 1980s defined another. Indeed, it was ostensibly and mainly Chronicles’ declaration of opposition to immigration that incited the neoconservative attack on Rockford and its subsequent defunding. Scotchie devotes a special but short chapter to paleoconservative thought on immigration and makes clear that to paleos, America was an extension of Western civilization. It was intended by the Founding Fathers to be an Anglo-Saxon-Celtic nation also influenced by Athens, Rome, and Jerusalem. Large-scale immigration from non-Western nations would, as Fleming (and most other paleos) maintained, forever spoil a distinct American civilization.
The implication of this passage is that paleoconservatives, unlike libertarians, most neoconservatives, and many contemporary mainstream conservatives, do not consider America to be an “idea,” a “proposition,” or a “creed.” It is instead a concrete and particular culture, rooted in a particular historical experience, a set of particular institutions as well as particular beliefs and values, and a particular ethnic-racial identity, and, cut off from those roots, it cannot survive. Indeed, it is not surviving now, for all the glint and glitter of empire.
While Scotchie is quite clear and well-informed about the paleos’ thought on immigration and its meaning, he fails to discuss at all their views on race. This is unfortunate, as not a few of them have been accused of simple-minded “racism,” “white supremacy,” and other ill-defined bugaboos. I, for one, like to think that what they believe about race, while definitely not in the liberal-neocon mainstream, is rather more nuanced and considerably more sophisticated than their enemies (and not a few of their friends) want to think.
If Scotchie’s book has any great flaw, it is that it is simply too short. Paleoconservatism is worth a much longer and deeper look than his volume can give, though Scotchie himself is both so thoroughly familiar with his subject and so sympathetic to it that he could have produced a much more extended treatment. He might also have revealed more of the personalities of the leading paleoconservative writers, interviewed them, and discussed several writers he omits, for example, Claes Ryn of Catholic University or E. Christian Kopff of the University of Colorado at Boulder, and he might have explored why the Chronicles school has not been more successful at defining the American Right.
Have the paleos indeed failed, and if they have, is the neocon stab-in-the-back theory the only reason? Are there perhaps either large historical trends or even mere personality differences among the paleos that made their own crack-up eventually inevitable, and can such trends or conflicts be overcome? Or are the paleos really only dinosaurs, whining nostalgically for a world they have lost and unable or cantankerously unwilling to adapt to the Shining Imperial City on the Hill the neoconservatives claim to be constructing? Scotchie might have explored these questions and problems more extensively than he did, and one hopes he will do so in a bigger book in the future, but what he has given us in the meantime is an essential and valuable contribution to American intellectual history in the last decade of the last century
In a 1988 lecture, Russell Kirk quoted a letter that showed, he said, how hot the bitterness burned: "I believe," wrote his correspondent, "that the chief enemy of American conservatism has not been the Marxists, nor even the socialist liberals in the Democratic Party, but the Neo-conservatives, who have sabotaged the movement from within and exploited it for their own selfish purposes." 2
Paleoconservatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
As paleoconservatism germinated as a reaction to neoconservatism, most of its development as a distinct political tendency under that name has been in the United States, although there are parallels in the traditional Old Right of other Western nations. French conservatives such as Jean Raspail,[135] and British conservatives such as Enoch Powell,[136] Peter Hitchens,[137] Antony Flew (whom the Rockford Institute awarded the Ingersoll Prize),[138] John Betjeman,[139] and Roger Scruton[140] as well as Scruton's Salisbury Review and Derek Turner's Quarterly Review,[141] as well as Australia's Sydney Traditionalist Forum[142] all emphasize skepticism, stability, and the Burkean inheritance, and may be considered broadly sympathetic to paleo values. For example, Hitchens wrote, in opposition to the Iraq War,They are also strongly critical of neoconservatives and their sympathizers in print media, talk radio and cable TV news.[26] Paleocons often say they are not conservatives in the sense that they necessarily wish to preserve existing institutions or seek merely to slow the growth of modern big-government conservatism.[27] They do not wish to be closely identified with the U.S. Republican Party.[26] Rather, they seek the renewal of "small 'r'" republican society in the context of the Western heritage, customs and civilization.[28] Joseph Scotchie wrote:
Republics mind their own business. Their governments have very limited powers, and their people are too busy practicing self-government to worry about problems in other countries. Empires not only bully smaller, defenseless nations, they also can’t leave their own, hapless subjects alone.... Empires and small government aren’t compatible, either.[29]
By contrast, paleocons see neoconservatives as empire-builders and themselves as defenders of the republic, pointing to Rome as an example of how an ongoing campaign of military expansionism can destroy a republic.[30]
There is nothing conservative about war. For at least the last century war has been the herald and handmaid of socialism and state control. It is the excuse for censorship, organized lying, regulation and taxation. It is paradise for the busybody and the nark. It damages family life and wounds the Church. It is, in short, the ally of everything summed up by the ugly word ‘progress.’[143]
Note the One Nation movement in 1990s Australia,[144] Germany's Junge Freiheit,[145] and Italy's Lega Nord.[146] Also paleoconservatism has some analogies with the Russian dissidents such as Andrei Navrozov[147] and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.[148]
Paleoconservative attitudes toward the issue of illegal immigration to the United States and the problem of multiculturalism and assimilation on American soil are mostly negative. They view these phenomena as a significant threat to the American way of life. Their words are filled with anxiety for the future of American society, which is instilled with the positive meaning of the idea of open borders, and which is becoming permeated with alien cultures and losing its own cultural identity. Starting with an explanation of the essence of the American nation’s homogeneity, this article presents the threats which come with the ‘mixing’ of cultures and liberal immigration as well as phenomena directly linked to such immigration, namely the problem of terrorism and Islam.
Most Americans at least professed to be unalarmed about this gradual transformation of the country. They claimed that America was a nation founded upon a "proposition"; anyone who assented to the American proposition could become an American (Dead Right, by David Frum):
To Buchanan and his friends, this universalism was just sentimental flim-flam. American civilization was the product of a particular people. To preserve that civilization, it was necessary to preserve the people that had created it. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution had not created America; the Declaration and the Constitution were created by Americans. Bolivar wrote constitutions every bit as noble as that composed in Philadelphia; it was the Anglo-American character that made the Philadelphia constitution a success and the Caracas constitution a failure. History had demonstrated that non- British Isles immigrants from Europe had made good enough citizens, but why run the awful risk of cultural suicide...
... ... ...
His conservatism was a nationalist conservatism above all--a conservatism that attached far more importance to cultural and security issues than to maximizing growth and efficiency. Buchanan was slow to absorb all the implications of his nationalism. In his 1988 memoir, he still thought that "among the great American achievements of the twentieth century is free Asia, democratic and capitalist." "To squander that in an absurd 'trade war' because we cannot compete with Korean cars or Japanese computer chips would be an act of almost terminal stupidity for the West." 9 He also confessed that he had inwardly believed, at the time they took place, that the civil rights movement's civil disobedience campaigns were justified by natural law, even though he would later write editorials for the Globe-Democrat attacking them. But his thinking was jogged along by a new set of friends: the writers who published in Chronicles magazine.
... ... ...
Sympathy for the economic plight of blue-collar workers in New Hampshire was not just bleeding-heart sentimentalism: it propelled Buchanan toward accepting an active federal responsibility for promoting industry--and protecting it from foreign competition. Buchanan's standard stump speech told an anecdote about a visit to a lumber mill on the Canadian border. Shaking hands with the workers, the candidate found himself face to face with a burly giant of a man. The man stood silent for a moment, staring at the floor, and then looked up to say only, "Save our jobs." As a story, it is as kitschy as Steinbeck at his most gooey, but it led to a serious point:
I see Mr. Bush, and excuse me, some of my conservative friends, by their willingness to allow the ruthless destruction of so many of the industries vital to our defenses, as engaged in the unilateral disarmament of our country. I can't understand it. On the grounds of national interest, I favor policies that won't let certain defense-related industries go under.
... ... ...
Do we want to keep the textile manufacturing base in the United States? Do we want to keep GM and Chrysler and Ford? Do we want to keep Boeing and McDonnell-Douglas? . . . We have got to address the fact that the Asian countries and European countries are practising a form of protectionism and adversarial trade. They are capturing markets by undercutting and dumping and by targeted trade, and they have been doing this to make their countries No. 1. 12
The Economist stringer who followed Buchanan to Mississippi reported that
Mr. Buchanan has greater ideas still for the nationalist state than merely dishing out credits to any industry (oil and gas, aerospace, textiles, ship-building) that suffers from foreign competition. For instance, he privately admits he is tempted by the idea of paying for those credits--and much more--by. throwing up a wall of tariffs around the American economy.
Buchanan understood that many conservatives saw trade not as an economic issue, but as an issue of sovereignty and group loyalty. Protectionism is a way for conservatives to show solidarity with their fellow-Americans, especially blue-collar fellow-Americans, without explicitly endorsing the redistribution of wealth. Which is why so many would-be populists of the Right have been drawn to the protectionist cause. Barry Goldwater had been one of just eight senators to vote against the 1962 law that gave President Kennedy the authority to engage in the Kennedy round of General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade negotiations. Pat Robertson campaigned as a protectionist in 1988. So did George Wallace, in both 1968 and 1972. Richard Viguerie, the direct-mail whiz who in his heyday had his stethoscope pressed as close to the chest of the American conservative as anyone, argued as long ago as 1983 that "the official trade policy of the United States should be 'fair trade'--that is, no imports produced with slave labor, no imports from foreign plants built by the U.S. taxpayer and no imports from countries which don't allow our products into their country." 15
And in November 1991, just before the beginning of campaigning in New Hampshire, a group of conservative activists called a press conference in Washington to announce their repudiation of free trade. Among them was Paul Weyrich, president of the Free Congress Foundation, the stablest of the new right-wing organizations that had come to life in the late 1970s, and one of the founders of the Heritage Foundation. "We are here," Weyrich said, "to warn the Republican Party that they had better take this issue seriously."
Weyrich was not just blowing hot air. While the congressional Republican Party overwhelmingly endorsed the North American Free Trade Agreement, the endorsement was not quite unanimous. North Carolina Senator Jesse Helms voted against NAFTA as did his protégé Senator Lauch Faircloth. And many of the Republicans who voted in favor of the treaty were swung not by the ambiguous pact's free-trade aspects but by its protectionist subthemes. Suggestively, the manager of the Republican pro-NAFTA forces in the House of Representatives, Newt Gingrich, is by no means a believer in free trade. In conversation, he praises Henry Cabot Lodge and the protectionist Republicans of the 1920s, and warns that in the absence of trade controls, world industrial wages will be determined by the pay scale of South China. 17
The disloyal Israel-First/Neoconservative (IF/NC) crowd seems to be having a collective and hopefully fatal seizure over Mr. Trump’s pledge to be strictly even-handed and neutral in the ongoing war between Israel and the Arabs — a war both sides clearly intend to fight to the death.Now, many past presidential candidates have said much the same thing, but they have always added that silly, ahistorical mantra that the United States will defend Israel’s “right to exist”. But Trump did not add that mantra of the brain-dead, and so has markedly distressed the Israel-Firsters and Neocons. Indeed, they always have opposed Trump because, it seems, they sense that he will always put America first and let those individuals, nations, and groups irrelevant to the republic’s security and economic prosperity swing in the wind. I think — or at least hope — they are right.
What makes the current Israel First/Neocon seizure so hearteningly severe are not only Trump’s words and apparent America-First foreign policy inclinations, but the fact that he is getting so very many votes. “Could it possibly be,” ponder the likes of Bill Kristol, George Will, Charles Krauthammer, Max Boot, Eliot Cohen, Robert Kagan, Michael Bloomberg, Peter King, Elliott Abrams, Eric Edelman, Michael Chertoff, Mitt Romney, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and John Bolton, “that Americans are not genuinely happy, proud, and eager to have their fellow citizens and soldier-children dying uselessly in wars motivated in large part by the U.S. interventionism we advocate and by America’s subservience to a country that does nothing but degrade the republic’s security and drain its treasury?” “Could it be,” the IF/NC’ers are wondering, “that Trump and the increasing number of voters supporting him know that we Israel-Firsters and Neocons have played them for fools, corrupted their political system and media, and done our best to keep their kids dying in wars meant to serve a foreign nation’s interests at the cost of their own?” Well, it is too soon to tell, but the words of the Israel Firsters and Neocons and their fierce hatred of Trump surely suggest that they fear their war-causing disloyalty has been identified and — at long last — their jig is about up.
Facing the next-to-last last ditch, the disloyal are nearly frantic in their support for Senator Marco Rubio. And why not? Rubio is a thorough-going IF/NC, and — as he has little money of his own — is on the payroll, according to the media, of two pro-Israel, Jewish-American billionaires. Rubio also has denounced the Founders’ approach to foreign policy, expressing his belief that the IF/NC approach to U.S. foreign policy — that is, America at war everywhere, all the time, to protect Israel — is superior to John Quincy Adams’ republic-preserving advice that the United States must never go abroad “in search of monsters to destroy.”
But Rubio, after his Super Tuesday shellacking, is circling the drain until the Florida primary sends him barreling toward the sewer, and the Neocons and Israel Firsters, as Jacob Heilbrunn has written in the National Interest, have only one place to go, and that is to Hillary Clinton, who already has few of both detestable species on her team, but, the media says, only one pro-Israel, Jewish-American billionaire.
Mr. Heilbrunn’s excellent article notes that the IF/NC was originally based in the Democratic Party and so in a sense would be going home if they side with Clinton. That they were once aligned with the Democrats is clearly true, but being aligned with is much different than being part of, and I would argue that the IF/NC have never been anything but a one-issue party of their own.
Their party — best identified as the Disloyal Party or perhaps just as Copperheads — has never had any goal other than protecting the interests of Israel and keeping the United States steadily involved in the Israel-Arab war by promoting and purchasing a U.S. foreign policy that results in wars to install “democracy” abroad, but which are, in reality, only wars that are intended to annihilate Israel’s enemies, while unnecessarily making Israel’s enemies America’s. Can any clear thinking person really believe, for example, that “Foundation for Defense of Democracies” is anything but an IF/NC tool for fomenting war against Muslims in order to protect what they describe as “the only democracy” in the Middle East?
The use of the democracy angle by the IF/NC crowd is amply demonstrated in a recent article by one of its leading lights, Max Boot, titled “The GOP’s Apologists for Tyrants”. In this piece, Mr. Boot denounces Republican presidential candidates Trump, Cruz, and Kasich for “their support for dictators” and their clear lack of enthusiasm for unnecessary overseas democracy mongering and interventionist wars. Mr. Boot lauds the usual Copperhead line and insists that overthrowing Saddam, Gaddafi, and others was the correct thing to do. The only problem, he says, is that the U.S. government did not go far enough in waging those useless and massively counterproductive wars. Only the Israel First-owned Marco Rubio, Boot declares, refuses to “embrace genocidal tyrants”, which means the Copperheads were betting that they could count on Rubio for more war.
Well, Mr. Boot, no, Trump, Cruz, and Kasich are not seeking to “embrace genocidal tyrants”, but rather are looking out for America first. They know that neither Saddam nor Gaddafi was ever a serious national-security threat to the United States; indeed, both were key and extraordinarily lethal allies — and ones we did not have to pay — in the war against the Islamists.
Saddam kept Iraq’s door locked tight and so prevented the Islamists located east of Iraq from moving westward in large numbers, and he made the Iranians little more than marginal players in the Levant. How are things looking in that area now, Mr. Boot? Gaddafi kept the Islamists at bay in much of North Africa and murdered or incarcerated every Islamist that Libya’s military and security services could get their hands on, but IF/NC wanted a pro-democracy war in Libya and got it. How are affairs in the Maghreb going these days, Mr. Boot?
And do not forget, Mr. Boot, that you and your IF/NC sidekicks insisted that the U.S. government go democracy mongering in the Middle East in the name of the Arab Spring, and then you supported the military coup in Egypt that destroyed a democratically elected regime. Now, Mr. Boot, how is all of that working out? Finally, what about that clever IF/NC plan to build a new, pro-Western democracy in Afghanistan, how is that doing? Could you check on the progress of democracy there and get back to me?
What I think Mr. Trump is saying, Mr. Boot, is that it is too bad/so sad that there are murderous dictators loose in the world, but as long as they pose no life-and-death threat to the United States there is no reason for America to militarily intervene and give them — as the saying goes — the boot. After all, if the dictators are not killing Americans and/or threatening genuine U.S. national interests, who cares? Humans are hard-wired for war, so let them fight. The U.S. government exists only to defend the republic, its commerce, and its citizens and their liberties; it is under precisely zero obligation — legal, moral, or one dreamed up by disloyal U.S. citizens — to defend any set of foreigners against the murderous machinations of the dictators who rule them or the enemies who threaten them.
The wars that disloyal IF/NC Copperheads like you champion, Mr. Boot, have invariably been greatly counterproductive for U.S. national security, the national debt, and, especially, for those you and your colleagues care the least about; namely, the parents, wives, husbands, and children who suffered the loss or maiming of their loved ones in the military while they were fighting in the unnecessary wars you and your kind demand that America fight for only one reason, to make the world safe for Israel.
So, Mr. Boot, if you and the rest of your wretched and disloyal IF/NC associates want to go to the Democratic Party and side with IF/NC’er Hillary Clinton, please go immediately and trumpet your departure from the roof tops. After all, what could be more appropriate than today’s Copperheads — a kind of snake that sneaks and strikes without warning — joining the Democratic Party, the original incubator and home of the Civil War’s Copperheads? In the decade before that war, Massachusetts’s Senator Charles Sumner was speaking when he saw one of his pro-slavery foes enter the Senate Chamber and walk toward his seat. Sumner stopped and asked, I paraphrase here, the other senators to witness that a slug was slithering across the chamber’s floor looking for a chair to adhere to. For the Republican Party, the movement of the entire IF/NC crowd to the Democratic Party would be a Godsend, a veritable slithering slug migration that would find no shortage of fellow slugs waiting for them in Hillary’s camp, and there probably would be enough chairs for all of them to adhere to.
There is, then, nothing that could strengthen the Republican Party more and attract more voters to its side than to be shed of you, Mr. Boot, and your disloyal fellow Copperheads. Be gone, good riddance, and praise God for cutting out the festering IF/NC malignancy from the Republican Party so that it can once again stand for something more than endless war and Israel First.
Anti-Federalism is another key aspect of paleoconservatism, which adherents see as an antitype to the managerial state. The paleocon flavor urges honoring the principle of subsidiarity, that is, decentralized government, local rule, private property and minimal bureaucracy.[54] In an international context, this view would be known as federalism and paleocons often look to John C. Calhoun for inspiration.[55]
As to the role of statecraft in society, Thomas Fleming says it should not be confused with soulcraft. He gives his summary of the paleocon position:
Our basic position on the state has always been twofold: 1) a recognition that man is a social and political animal who cannot be treated as an "individual" without doing damage to human nature. In this sense libertarian theory is as wrong and as potentially harmful as communism. The commonwealth is therefore a natural and necessary expression of human nature that provides for the fulfillment of human needs, and 2) the modern state is a cancerous form of polity that has metastasized and poisoned the natural institutions from which the state derives all legitimacy — family, church, corporation (in the broadest sense), and neighborhood. Thus, it is almost always a mistake to try to use the modern state to accomplish moral or social ends.[56]
Russell Kirk, for example, argued that most government tasks should be performed at the local or state level. This is intended to ward off centralization and protect community sentiment by putting the decision-making power closer to the populace. He rooted this in the Christian notion of original sin; since humanity is flawed, society should not put too much power in a few hands. Gerald J. Russello concluded that this involved "a different way of thinking about government, one based on an understanding of political society as beginning in place and sentiment, which in turn supports written laws."[57]
This anti-federalism extends to culture too. In general, this means that different regional groups should be able to maintain their own distinct identity. For example, Thomas Fleming and Michael Hill argue that the American South and every other region have the right to "preserve their authentic cultural traditions and demand the same respect from others." In their Southern context they call on citizens to "take control of their own governments, their own institutions, their own culture, their own communities and their own lives" and "wean themselves from dependence on federal largesse." They say that:
A concern for states' rights, local self-government and regional identity used to be taken for granted everywhere in America. But the United States is no longer, as it once was, a federal union of diverse states and regions. National uniformity is being imposed by the political class that runs Washington, the economic class that owns Wall Street and the cultural class in charge of Hollywood and the Ivy League.[58]
In a similar fashion, Pat Buchanan argued during the 1996 campaign that the social welfare should be left to the control of individual states. He also called for abolishing the U.S. Department of Education and handing decision-making over to parents, teachers and districts. Controversies such as evolution, busing and curriculum standards would be settled on a local basis.[59] In addition, he opposed a 1998 Puerto Rican statehood plan on the grounds that the island would be ripped from its cultural and linguistic roots: "Let Puerto Rico remain Puerto Rico, and let the United States remain the United States and not try to absorb, assimilate and Americanize a people whose hearts will forever belong to that island."[60]
Like most conservatives, paleoconservatives believe that hard work, self-discipline, and adherence to religious faith were the means by which a virtuous life was earned and a moral order was established and maintained (The Paleo Persuasion The American Conservative):
Third, paleoconservatism emerged also as a reaction against what was taking place in American culture itself in the 1980s and ’90s, trends that the mainstream Right warmly embraced. Not only the increasing secularism, hedonism, and carnal and material self-indulgence of the dominant culture but also its shallowness and artificiality, its proclivity to being manipulated by media and political elites, its passivity in the face of more and more usurpation of social and civic functions by big government, big business, and big media, and the happy chatter from the contemporary political Right that celebrated this transformation and identified public morality almost exclusively with flag-waving, prayer in schools, invoking saccharine and platitude about “family values,” and constant ranting about any and all movies that contained sex.
The paleoconservative vews on the subject are well expressed in By Samuel Goldman review of the book It's Dangerous to Believe: Religious Freedom and Its Enemies, Mary Eberstadt, Harper (\The American Conservative June 10, 2016 ):
On April 27, 1979, Jerry Falwell addressed thousands of conservative Christians from the steps of the Capitol. Asserting that the “vast majority” of Americans were opposed to pornography, abortion, and homosexuality, he announced the establishment of a new organization to promote “pro-family, pro-life, and pro-morality” policies. In a statement before the rally, Falwell explained the motive behind what he called the Moral Majority: “We’ve had enough and we want America cleaned up.”
Times have changed. Formerly confident in their numbers and clout, conservative Christians are now on the defensive. Falwell dreamed of cleaning up America. Nearly two generations later, his heirs are reduced to pleading for exemptions from sweeping anti-discrimination policies. Although popular with voters in some states, these pleas have not survived national scrutiny—even where Republicans hold power. In Indiana, a law that might have allowed bakers and photographers to decline service to gay weddings endured just a few months before it was “fixed” by the legislature. In Georgia, a similar bill was vetoed by the governor under intense pressure from big business.
The cultural transformation has been even more dramatic than the political one. Especially among highly educated people, beliefs that gender has a physiological basis or that procreation is a central purpose of marriage are proceeding from outré to unacceptable. In an ironic reversal, conservative Christians have adopted an idiom of concealment from a minority they once demonized: until recently, it was gays who spoke of being “in the closet.” Now they are joined by followers of traditional orthodoxy.
Mary Eberstadt is horrified by this development. In It’s Dangerous to Believe, she describes religious traditionalists as targets of a distinctly modern brand of intolerance that mirrors the history of religious fanaticism.
To support this interpretation, Eberstadt offers a parade of horribles drawn from around the English-speaking world. The incidents she cites range from the ouster of Brendan Eich as CEO of Mozilla to penalties imposed on teachers who defended Catholic doctrines on sexuality to the withdrawal of recognition from religious clubs at several universities. Eberstadt acknowledges that her examples are “disparate.” But she insists that they add up to a “widespread and growing effort to shame, punish, and ostracize people because of what they believe.”
There is nothing inherently novel about such campaigns, which have occurred with some frequency since the emergence of Biblical religion. What’s different is the issue at stake. This is not a dispute about the nature of God, proper form of worship, or correct rendering of revelation. Instead, “every act committed in the name of this new intolerance has a single, common denominator, which is the protection of the perceived prerogatives of the sexual revolution at all costs. The new intolerance is a wholly owned subsidiary of that revolution. No revolution, no new intolerance.”
Eberstadt offers a compelling analysis of the ideology that developed to justify the sexual revolution. Rather than a libertarian demand to leave people alone, it functions as an ersatz theology with its own its dogmas, theory of history, and canon of saints and martyrs. This parallel structure may be rooted in a process of secularization, as religious concepts were drained of their religious meaning. More likely, it reflects a basic human inclination to form systems, to make sense of the world.
Whatever its source, the internal coherence of moral progressivism explains the bitterness with which it responds to challenges. Critics of the new dispensation aren’t harmless dissenters. They are heretics whose denial of the truth threatens the possibility of a virtuous community.
In this respect, Eberstadt argues, the guardians of the sexual revolution can be understood as successors to the Puritans. Contrary to their reputation in some quarters as defenders of religious liberty, the Puritans were mostly interested in the freedom to do things their way. Error, concluded the divines of New England, had no rights. That is why they were so bitterly opposed to allowing members of other denominations to dwell among them.
When it came to Baptists and Catholics, this suspicion was not altogether irrational. But the Puritans’ fear of subversion did not stop with actual rivals. The logic of their theology turned them against adversaries that did not even exist. The witch trials were no aberration but a consequence of systematic intolerance.
Eberstadt contends that a similar logic is being turned against religious traditionalists today. The Moral Majority posed a plausible challenge to the sexual revolution. Today’s dissenters from the sexual revolution, by contrast, are symbolic sacrifices at the altar of progress. According to Eberstadt, “the notion that the religious counterculture” can enforce its vision of righteousness on a majority is “downright absurd.” In her judgment, it is because they have so little real influence that recalcitrant bakers or photographers have to be publicly shamed by progressives.
Eberstadt’s description of the bewildered faithful, caught up in rapid social change, is deeply affecting. She is an acute critic of the way some Christian institutions have distanced themselves from their own teachings at the expense of low-level employees, who didn’t get the memo about what’s now politically acceptable in time. Eberstadt also discusses shocking incidents in which the mere expression of religious beliefs has led to denial of educational and job opportunities. This is prejudice pure and simple. One hopes liberals and progressives will accept her call to reject it—particularly in institutions of higher learning whose leaders speak ceaselessly of their commitment to diversity.
Yet many of the cases Eberstadt discusses are more complicated than the Manichean struggle she depicts. More than attacks on unpopular ideas, they are disputes about the discharge of political office or participation in government programs.
Take the hapless Kim Davis, who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples in Rowan County, Ky. What provoked Davis’s more thoughtful critics was not the refusal in itself. Instead, it was her expectation that she could reject the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges while keeping her job. This was not the conventional understanding of conscientious objection that allows believers to avoid otherwise compulsory duties—most prominently, military service. Instead, it looked like an attempt by a sworn public servant to have it both ways by choosing which responsibilities of her office she was willing to discharge.
After several months of wrangling, the state of Kentucky reached a compromise that removes county clerks’ names from the marriage licenses they issue. This seems a reasonable policy that protects the rights and dignity of all involved. It was necessary, however, because the connection between traditional religious belief and civil authority is not as dead as Eberstadt suggests.
The challenges to the Obamacare contraception mandate recently argued before the Supreme Court also defy Eberstadt’s depiction of a war on traditional belief. Rather than targets of an “ideological power play,” for-profit corporations such as Hobby Lobby and religious institutions like the Little Sisters of the Poor were collateral damage of a massive expansion of the administrative state. The underlying problem here is not the pseudo-theology of the sexual revolution but the cooptation of private enterprises and associations to supply a public benefit.
Eberstadt is too quick to attribute controversies about the political role of religion to irrational animus on the part of progressives. She also tends to reduce religion to Christianity and Christianity to its more traditionalist currents. This reduction makes it easier to treat religious belief as such as the target of hostility from a monolithic secular consensus.
But the American religious scene is more varied than Eberstadt acknowledges. In addition to the conservative Christians on whom she focuses, many believers have made their peace with the sexual revolution and the world it has made—or at least figured out how to live alongside it. That includes American Jews, including many who hold politically incorrect views on sexuality.
Why do Jews escape the opprobrium to which traditionalist Catholics or Baptists are subjected? Partly because they have never been more than a tiny minority, but also because they make few claims on political and cultural authority. Apart from a few neighborhoods in and around New York City, no one fears that religious Jews will attempt to dictate how they live their own lives. As a result, they are able to avoid most forms of interference with their communities.
There is a lesson here for the Christian traditionalists for whom Eberstadt speaks. They are more likely to win space to live according to their consciences to the extent that they are able to convince a majority that includes more liberal Christians and non-Christian believers, as well as outright secularists, that they are not simply biding their time until they are able to storm the public square. In addition, they will have to develop institutions of community life that are relatively low-visibility and that can survive without many forms of official support. The price of inclusion in an increasingly pluralistic society may be some degree of voluntary exclusion from the dominant culture.
There is no doubt that this will be a hard bargain for adherents of traditions that enjoyed such immense authority until recently. As Eberstadt points out, however, it will also be difficult for progressives who resemble Falwell in their moral majoritarianism. The basis for coexistence must be a shared understanding that the Christian America for which some long and that others fear isn’t coming back—not only because it was Christian but also because it involved a level of consensus that is no longer available to us. There are opportunities for believers and nonbelievers alike in this absence.
Samuel Goldman is an assistant professor of political science and director of the Loeb Institute for Religious Freedom at George Washington University.
|
|
Switchboard | ||||
| Latest | |||||
| Past week | |||||
| Past month | |||||
| Home | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 1900 |
For the list of top articles see Recommended Links section
 |
 |
 |
Jan 14, 2021 | www.theamericanconservative.com
The Trump administration denounced or threatened trade agreements and "jaw-boned" particular manufacturers without tangible or lasting results for young workers. It continued drone warfare and bombing runs, exacerbating refugee problems. Its ham-handed actions relating to visa and green card holders with vested rights partially wasted its "trump card" on immigration. Its deregulatory and tax proposals had little appeal to its three new constituencies, and in its kindness to fund managers, it forgot Bernard De Jouvenel's maxim that "the wealth of merchants is resented more than the pomp of rulers."
There are still available, either to a Republican Party cleansed of Trump or to the Biden administration, my 11 proposals of a populist nature, none very expensive. Since the Trump administration was a milder version of what Hermann Rauschning in the 1930s called "A Revolution of Nihilism," any effort to enlarge its constituency of malcontents was forsworn. Accordingly, these ideas are re-tendered:
1. Completely relieving workers under the age of 25 of payroll taxation, as in Germany and Holland. Over the long term, this would render them the most employed, rather than the most unemployed, age cohort. Because they make up at most 10 percent of the labor force, and typically enjoy barely half of average earnings, relieving them of 12.4 percent payroll taxes would require an increase in general payroll tax rates of, at most, 5 to 10 percent of one percent.
2. A revived Civilian Conservation Corps, a cause promoted only by Senator Bernie Sanders, with its focus on low-tech infrastructure projects and services, including such neglected fields of activity as soil conservation, reforestation, disaster relief, reclamation of abandoned mine sites, creation of new national parks in Appalachia, hydrology, desert agriculture, creation of footpaths and youth hostels, and training as practical nurses and nursing assistants.
00:15 / 01:003. Making the services of the United States Employment Service, a largely moribund adjunct of the unemployment system, available to all workers under the age of 25.
4. Tax credits, like those in Germany, Finland, and Japan, to encourage the installation of second kitchens in owner-occupied housing, thereby fostering the creation of low-cost housing in the form of accessory apartments, duplex houses, and mother-in-law flats. This is a far more economical method of generating new low-cost small units than subsidized housing, and restrictions to owner-occupied homes would eliminate the fears and controversies accompanying public housing proposals.
5. Limited incentives, in the form of handbooks and nominal tax credits, to foster the creation of cooperative old-age clubs on the Japanese pattern to assist the elderly in remaining in their own homes, removing pressures on Medicaid.
6. Promotion of model state and local legislation and tax incentives for the creation of land readjustment and land assembly districts on the postwar Japanese, Korean, and German pattern, to foster private redevelopment of blighted urban and inner-suburban areas.
7. Support for a revived TEAM Act providing for the organization of single-plant works councils, with the authority to negotiate local pay and productivity deals, work rules, and employee grievances. Legislation to this effect sponsored by the Dunlap Commission appointed by Labor Secretary Robert Reich and including several former Democratic secretaries of labor was vetoed by President Clinton at the behest of the United Auto Workers. Since private-sector union membership has declined by 60 percent since Clinton's veto, even Democratic congressmen might now support it, to the great benefit of the low-income work force in non-union chain establishments.
8. An orderly de-criminalization of marijuana on the Canadian pattern, accompanied by an educational campaign stressing its de-motivating characteristics and enlisting schools and colleges in its discouragement through selective drug testing, as in the military and adult work force. This will eliminate nearly a million arrests a year and defund much of the underworld that is the youth employer of first resort in depressed areas.
9. An effort to revive depressed downtown areas in small towns and cities with incentives for the creation of Business Improvement Districts, together with enhanced enforcement of antitrust, predatory pricing, and bribery laws against offending large retailers.
10. Relief for credit unions and community banks from the more oppressive Sarbanes-Oxley and Dodd-Frank regulations without holding them hostage to secure unjustified deregulation for larger banks.
11. Grant of work permits to undocumented workers without criminal records and with long records of American employment upon payment by them, their families, employers, or philanthropies of large ($5,000) application fees, the proceeds to be dedicated to a fund for law enforcement, housing, and nurse practitioner programs addressing migration in its Central American and other source countries. As with women's suffrage prior to 1920, the question of enfranchisement should be left to the States, pursuant to Article I, Sections 2 and 4 of the Constitution.
It may be objected that measures to relieve the young are of limited political appeal, since they do not vote in large numbers. They do not, but their mothers do. And many of the other measures will provide citizens with a greater sense of control over their own lives.
While much of this agenda may not appeal to gradgrind Republicans who appreciate the price of everything and the value of nothing, nor to those whose idea of an infrastructure program is aid to a contracting class and its representatives on K Street, some might be led to follow a vagrant thought of former speaker Paul Ryan. It will be recalled that he uttered the only memorable words of the 2012 Republican Convention when he declared that "college graduates should not have to live out their 20s in their childhood bedrooms, staring up at faded Obama posters and wondering when they can move out and get going with life."
George W. Liebmann, a Baltimore lawyer, is the author of various books on public policy and history, including Solving Problems Without Large Government: Devolution, Fairness, and Equality (Praeger, 1999), reprinted as Neighborhood Futures (Transaction Books, 2003).
JonF311 • 5 hours ago • editedI would modify Item#1 and Item#3 to not just encourage employment for those under 25 but I would:
1) exclude all (legal, illegal or visa workers from programs to encourage their employment.
2) such programs should also include the difficult to employ like the disabled
3) such programs should also include the difficult to employ over 50 job seeker.I especially support Item 4 (small studio apartments or granny flats)
I oppose Item#7 It is much to dangerous for such worker councils to be usurped by our leftist Marxist woke culture, political activist, social justice, cancel culture, diversity, inclusivity, cross sectional race theorists, etc. which will translate into a hostile anti-white, anti-male, anti-Christian, anti-marriage, anti-family, anti-chrildren, anti-American corporate enforced ideology. If you thought the left's false accusations of rape on campus and the lefts false accusations of race hatred on campus, it you thought false accusations of Jesse Smollett in Chicago were an example of ruining an individuals life on hearsay then wake until these work councils get taken over by leftist activists and watch what they do to innocent working class employees who just want to do their job but don't follow the leftist narrative.
I oppose Item#11. We lost 250,000 jobs due to COVID (the chinese bat flu stew). Our unemployment rate is 6.7%. At the same time we are losing jobs our legal immigration rate is steady at 1 million per year. No, I do not support illegal immigration, legal immigration, refugees, asylum seekers, economic migrants, temporary work or education visas. No western nation can continue to relieve the problems of over population by mass immigration. It is not fair to the citizens of the US or any other western/westernized country.
Kent • 8 hours agoI don't disagree with very much here though as a practical matter I will point out a mistaken assumption that seems to underlie #5:
Re: Limited incentives, in the form of handbooks and nominal tax credits, to foster the creation of cooperative old-age clubs on the Japanese pattern to assist the elderly in remaining in their own homes, removing pressures on Medicaid.
I assume that is about nursing homes, but those are almost always a last resort when the patient is so seriously disabled that they cannot possibly live independently and their medical needs surpass the abilities of family members to care for them.
Also, I don't think that youth unemployment is the big bugaboo with deindustrialization. Young people are a good deal more flexible, and have fewer financial commitments, than older people after all. Rather the disemployment of middle aged (and older) blue collar workers is the larger problem. These people expected to be in the same job (or type of job) for life and they had the rug pulled out from under them and found themselves with few prospects. Some of them ended up in low paying service jobs, some lived off a still-employed spouse, some went on SSDI, and some few even ended up homeless.
I can support every one of those measures. I would add:
12. And export credit system for balancing trade and the current account deficit.
Baruch Dreamstalker • 9 hours agoBuddhajerk • 8 hours agoMost of these barely sound conservative. One-company workers' councils violate NLRB rules, for reasons probably having to do with Clinton's veto; these days they would vastly increase the number of workers in organized setting.
The marijuana suggestion contains bits of the old War on Drugs: forced drug testing of workers, and propaganda that focuses on marijuana rather than the dangers of any kind of excess substance use/addiction. *Free employers to pursue a drug-free work place rather than a drug-free work force. *Any govt-sponsored statements on drugs should be based on facts and even-handed research, not the whoring that scientists have done for the last 50 years, and should include the tonic effects of both a mild buzz and deep psychedelic experience.
populistovice • 3 hours agoAs a moderate Democrat, most of these ideas appeal to me. As someone who has paid attention for decades, I see no chance in hell of any of these things happening [during Biden administration], especially if proposed by a Democrat. As an optimist, I wish moderate Republicans could join moderate Democrats in making such things a possibility. As a realist, I don't think America is capable of solving any problems right now, especially tough ones. As an American, it saddens me.
Most of the ideas are excellent. I would add much greater funding for vocational education at the secondary and post-secondary level. Our public schools are far too focused on preparing students for college with insufficient training for those ill suited for or uninterested in seeking a university education.
The lack of affordable housing is a major obstacle for twenty somethings to get out of their childhood home and begin the process of family formation. We need tax incentives to build limited equity cooperative apartment buildings, resident-owned mobile/modular home parks and small bungalow-style houses.
I like the proposal for worker councils but employee ownership is an even better idea. Workers owning a share in their business should be strongly encouraged by public policy at all levels.
|
|
|
Oct 01, 2020 | www.theamericanconservative.com
Getting Rid Of The Myth Of 'Isolationism'
'Isolationism' is not real, and never has been. It is an insult thrown at realists by the architects of senseless wars. (By Mike Focus/Shutterstock)
SEPTEMBER 30, 2020
|12:01 AM
DANIEL LARISONNo one claims to be an isolationist, but foreign policy analysts keep imagining and fearing a "resurgence" of isolationism around every corner. This fear was on display in a recent Atlantic article by Charles Kupchan, who tries to rehabilitate the label in order to oppose the substance of a policy of nonintervention and non-entanglement. Kupchan allows that a policy of avoiding entangling alliances and staying out of European wars was important for the growth and prosperity of the United States, but then rehearses the same old and misleading story about the terrible "isolationist" interwar years that we have heard countless times before. This misrepresents the history of that period and compromises our ability to rethink our foreign policy today.
Kupchan's article is not just an exercise in beating a dead horse, since he fears that the same thing that happened between the world wars is happening again: "If the 19th century was isolationism's finest hour, the interwar era was surely its darkest and most deluded. The conditions that led to this misguided run for cover are making a comeback." Kupchan wants to borrow a little from the people he calls "isolationists" so that the U.S. will remain thoroughly ensnared in most of its global commitments.
https://lockerdome.com/lad/13045197114175078?pubid=ld-dfp-ad-13045197114175078-0&pubo=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theamericanconservative.com&rid=www.theamericanconservative.com&width=838
At the same time that he warns that "U.S. statecraft has become divorced from popular will," he seems to want to keep it this way by rejecting what he calls the "isolationist temptation." If "a majority of the country favors either America First or global disengagement," as he says, the goal seems to be to ignore what the majority wants in favor of making a few tweaks to the same old strategy of U.S. primacy. Those tweaks aren't going to lessen popular support for a reduced U.S. role in the world, and they will likely make the public even more disillusioned with the remaining costs and demands of U.S. "leadership."
The key thing to remember in all this is that the U.S. has never been isolationist in its foreign relations. The thing that Kupchan calls America's "default setting" is not real. Isolationism is the pejorative term that expansionists and interventionists have used over the last century to ridicule and dismiss opposition to unnecessary wars. Isolationism as U.S. policy in the 1920s and 1930s is a myth , and the myth is deployed whenever there has been a serious challenge to the status quo in post-1945 U.S. foreign policy. Bear Braumoeller summed it up very well in his article , "The Myth of American Isolationism," this way: "the characterization of America as isolationist in the interwar period is simply wrong." We can't learn from the past if we insist on distorting it. As William Appleman Williams put it in The Tragedy of American Diplomacy , "It not only deforms the history of the decade from 1919 to 1930, but it also twists the story of American entry into World War II and warps the record of the cold war." Williams also remarked in a note that the use of the term isolationist "has thus crippled American thought about foreign policy for 50 years." Today we can say that it has done so for a century.
Our government eschewed permanent alliances for most of its history, and it refrained from taking sides in the European Great Power conflicts of the nineteenth century, but it never sought to cut itself from the world and could not have done that even if it had wished to do so. The U.S. was a commercial republic from the start, and it cultivated economic and diplomatic ties with as many states as possible. You can call the steady expansion of the U.S. across North America and into the Pacific and Caribbean "isolationism," but that just shows how misleading and inaccurate the label has always been.
Post-WWI America was a rising power and increasingly involved in the affairs of the world. Its economic and diplomatic engagement with the world increased during these years. If it wasn't involved in the way that later internationalists would have liked, that didn't make the U.S. isolationist. Braumoeller makes this point explicitly: "America was not isolationist in affairs relating to international security in Europe for the bulk of the period: in fact, it was perhaps more internationalist than it had ever been." The U.S. was behaving as a great power, but one that strove to maintain its neutrality. That was neither deluded nor disastrous, and we need to stop pretending that it was if we are ever going to be able to make the needed changes to our foreign policy today.
00:13 / 00:59 00:00 Next Video × Next Video J.d. Vance Remarks On A New Direction For Pro-worker, Pro-family Conservatism, Tac Gala, 5-2019 Cancel Autoplay is pausedKupchan acknowledges that there has to be an "adjustment" after the last several decades of overreach, but he casts this as a way of preventing more significant retrenchment: "The paramount question is whether that adjustment takes the form of a judicious pullback or a more dangerous retreat." No one objects to the desire for a responsible reduction in U.S. commitments, but one person's "judicious pullback" will often be denounced as a "dangerous retreat" by others. Just consider how many times we have been warned about a U.S. "retreat" from the Middle East over the last 11 years. Even now, the U.S. is still taking part in multiple wars across the region, and the "retreat" we have been told has happened several times never seems to take place. Warning about the perils of an "isolationist comeback" hardly makes it more likely that these withdrawals will ever happen.
He recommends that "judicious retrenchment should entail shedding U.S. entanglements in the periphery, not in the strategic heartlands of Europe and Asia." Certainly, any reduction in unnecessary U.S. commitments is welcome, but a thorough rethinking of U.S. foreign policy has to include every region. Kupchan is right to criticize slapdash, incompetent withdrawals, but one gets the impression that he thinks there shouldn't be any withdrawals except from the Middle East. He cites "Russian and Chinese threats" as the main reasons not to pull back at all in Europe or Asia, but this seems like an uncritical endorsement of the status quo.
It is in East Asia where the U.S. might be fighting a war against a major, nuclear-armed power in the future, and it is also there where the U.S. has some of the wealthiest and most capable allies. If the U.S. can't reduce its exposure to the risk of a major war where that risk is the greatest and its allies are strongest, when will it ever be able to do that? Reducing the U.S. military presence in East Asia will make it easier to manage U.S.-Chinese tensions, and it will give allies an additional incentive to assume more responsibility for their own security.
The U.S. has far more security commitments than it can afford and far more than can possibly be justified by our own security interests. That includes, but is not limited to, our overcommitment to the Middle East. Our foreign entanglements have been allowed to grow and spread to such an extent over the last seventy-five years that modest pruning won't be good enough to put U.S. foreign policy on a sound footing that will have reliable public support. There needs to be a much more comprehensive review of all U.S. commitments to determine which ones are truly necessary for our security and which ones are not. Ruling out the bulk of those commitments as untouchable in advance is a mistake.
There is broad public support for constructive international engagement, but there is remarkably little backing for preserving U.S. hegemony in its current form. In order to have a more sustainable foreign policy, the U.S. needs to scale back its ambitions in most parts of the world, and it needs to shift more of the security burdens for different regions to the countries that have the most at stake. That should be done deliberately and carefully, but it does need to happen if we are to realign our foreign policy with protecting the vital interests of the United States. ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Daniel Larison is a senior editor at TAC , where he also keeps a solo blog . He has been published in the New York Times Book Review , Dallas Morning News , World Politics Review , Politico Magazine , Orthodox Life , Front Porch Republic, The American Scene, and Culture11, and was a columnist for The Week . He holds a PhD in history from the University of Chicago, and resides in Lancaster, PA. Follow him on Twitter .
Room_237 • 13 hours agoRichard Hofsteder is largely responsible for this falsehood, like he is for making "populist" a by-word, as Thomas Frank points out in his new book.
I prefer the term "non-interventionist" or Washingtonian, myself. I continue to be stuck by the amazing wisdom of Washington's Farewell Address (largely written by Hamilton). It really should be our guide to this day.
bournite Room_237 • 11 hours agoThe US had an active and fairly successful foreign policy in the 1920s. What hurt our foreign policy activities was the Great Depression.
Disqus10021 bournite • 9 hours agoTry a seance and tell this Augusto Cesar Sandino. Two American brothers who owned a gold mine in his country had another brother at the State Department. That's how FP was "successful." https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...
RAF • 12 hours ago • editedEurope would have been better off if the US had stayed out of WWI and let major belligerents fight it out until they reached a cease fire on their own. The US entry into the war, tipped the scales in favor of Britain and France and resulted in a very harsh peace treaty being imposed on Germany in 1919. Four years later, Germany's currency collapsed, wiping out the savings of millions of average Germans. The Smoot-Hawley tariff of 1930 made economic conditions for people in central Europe very bad and conrtibuted to the rising popularity of the Nazi party in Germany.
rayray RAF • 4 hours agoThe world is so much smaller today than it was when this country was formed and organized by the Founding Fathers. (Mothers were not allowed)
The idea of international associations and cooperation is required with today's world. When some country like China sneezes, the whole world needs a face mask!
The Age of Daniel Boone is dead. America must be fully engaged in world matters. That does not mean going into every country with our military. America needs to continue to give some leadership in world affairs. It would be suicidal to close the windows to the rest of the world.
bournite • 12 hours agoI agree. The world is interconnected, engagement is a necessity. The problem with the US FP at this point is to see every issue as an opportunity to throw around our military weight and call it "engagement". Being fully engaged in the world is a state department issue - smart and educated diplomats working the lines of communication and cooperation with every nation to build a reputation for US leadership, to foment peace, and to build prosperity. Obviously, under Trump and Pompeo this is a waste of breath.
Worth noting, a friend of mine, ex-CIA, has made an absolute fortune off of our military preoccupations. And even he said (perhaps exaggerating) that you could get rid of 90% of the traditional military with little or no loss in actual national security. Most of it is, as he said, corporate welfare and window dressing.
(Of course he then said you should spend what you've saved entirely on cyber-security)
kouroi • 9 hours agoUsing the 'I' Word for War and Profit
Column by Tim Hartnett, posted on April 03, 2013
in War and Peace
Column by Tim Hartnett.Exclusive to STR
For about a century now, Humpty-Dumpty has been the go-to man for fans of elaborate American foreign adventures. Unwelcome inquiries are put down with a one word incantation that blesses and immunizes government-funded schemes that are always cash cows for somebody. "Isolationist" means exactly what its users mean it to mean--no more and no less. Every entry on the first page of my online search for the word "isolationism" provided the same definition: "The national policy of abstaining from political or economic relations with other countries." Nobody on the furthest fringes of the political spectrum who gets ink or air time comes close calling for a plan fitting that description.
The word remains in healthy circulation despite the total absence of public figures advocating anything of the kind. Its real linguistic purpose is to obstruct examination of extra-territorial programs that don't work and often do considerable harm.
Most of us first learned of the dreaded I-beast in grade school study of WWI. Back in that good old day, the authorities had sense enough to put these naysayers in prisons after allowing hostile crowds to have at 'em for an hour or so. If the folks at The Weekly Standard, the Heritage Foundation, AEI, Fox News et al get their way, hoosegow entrepreneurs will be back in that market before too long. How could anyone oppose US entry into The Great War, anyway? It's what catapulted us to the top of the economic heap. We are probably only one good war away from reclaiming that title.
The first people to stoke lynch mobs with the "I" word claimed we were fighting a war "to make the world safe for democracy." The Irish, Indians, Algerians, Pacific Islanders, Russian peasants, Filipinos, the Congolese and millions of other Africans were not educated well enough to accept this as readily as freedom-loving Americans did. Without guys like J.P. Morgan, J.D. Rockefeller, Charles Schwab and others who hired PR men to keep the country thinking right thoughts, foreigners are often easily misled. Isolationists are as rare on Wall Street as atheists are in foxholes.
To understand the perfidious way that isolationism works, try and visualize a typical slice of American policy from say 1968. Some experts and officers in a room at the Pentagon decide a spot on the map could use a good bombing, and the order is relayed via satellite to South Vietnam. At five they leave work to fight rush hour traffic and get home in time for a smoke with Walter Cronkite. Some Navy fliers get dispatched, and once the napalm is fixed to the jets, they're airborne. Thirty-five minutes later, the right patch below them, it's bombs away and a U-turn. An undernourished five year old girl foolishly lives nearby and an eight ounce blob of gel burning at 1,800 degrees lands on her back. She is immediately screaming and burns for six minutes until an adult manages to put the incinerating child out.
Meanwhile, the flyboys are on terra firma again with beers, joints, Steppenwolf on the turntable and much lamenting of St. Louis' undeserved defeat at the hands of Detroit. The little girl's screaming still pierces the tropical air. The engineers and the chemists who designed the people-melting device are on the other side of the world asleep in their suburban beds. And the tiny thing can't stop screaming. The next day at Harvard, William Kristol is expounding on communism, the domino theory, social responsibility, moral courage and careful reading. And the 32 lb. waif is still going through an endless agony that no man of oxen strength should ever have to endure in a lifetime. Isolating on these kinds of details misses the "big picture," I've been told. Only communists, terrorists and other abominable -ists focus on this kind of inhumane minutiae.
Forty years later, John McCain was wittily singing the lyrics "bomb Iran" while doubtless a child was on fire somewhere that US ordnance had exploded. The one certain outcome of such events is a profit for weapons manufacturers. Isolationists are oddly skeptical of the many benefits anti-isolationists find in all-purpose bombing campaigns. What's always clear is that people who speak publicly about their love for humanitarian bombing expect to be paid for it.
There are a lot of things that "isolationists" just don't know, and it must be for this ignorance they are so despised by both mainstream media and Wall Street's favorite politicians. They don't know why we have 50,000 soldiers in Germany or another 30,000 in Japan. Why we paid to keep an incorrigible thug like Mubarak in business for 30 years. Why we need missiles in Eastern Europe. Why we helped every bloodthirsty, misanthropic power monger in Central America. Why we needed to help Turkey get Ocalan. Why South Ossetia's nationalistic prerogatives are our business. Why foreign governments should be pressured by our diplomats on Wall Street's behalf. Why our government takes some kind of stand in every foreign war, election, national event or internal matter of almost any kind. How we can indict one country for human rights violations while buddying up to worse offenders like Saudi Arabia regularly. Why our foreign initiatives proceed based on fantastic ideologies in contempt of facts. These are just a few of the quandaries that afflict the minds of people who aren't buying the divine right of American altruist aristocracy to fine tune the rest of the world. They aren't exactly keen on the hyper-interventionist tendencies that keep so many beltway bandits in the chips, either.
What they also don't know is why the elite media, the experts and elected officials, if they truly understand these things, can't be called upon to explain any of them to the rest of us satisfactorily. On March 20, Dana Milbank called Rand Paul an "isolationist" in his column without any explanation. In the future, he might want to right click on Microsoft Word and choose the Look up option before deploying the term.
After American involvement in Vietnam ended, many proponents of the action claimed the death toll there would have been even worse without our presence. Others go so far as to maintain that fighting in such conflicts protects US citizens' privileges, like freedom of speech, here at home. They expect us all to believe that "Isolationists," by any definition, wouldn't get away with spouting their un-American propaganda in public places, or on television if any were allowed there, but for a policy that napalms little girls.
While people smeared with the I-word persistently point out that they are merely against policies that are misguided, immoral and often murderous, their detractors insist that what they really oppose is America. In the "big picture" mindset of the interventionist, you can't have one without the other.
Beat them over the head with a stick, that might do it.
As for the entanglements in east Asia, none of the countries under direct US vassalage have major disputes with China and do not need US protection. And it is likely that without the US Korea would be on a path to reunification. The US is trying to beat everyone in line to show who's the boss... So it seems, this K guy, like all his ilk are presenting things in a very Manichean way: either primacy or "isolationism". There is so much in between these two...
|
|
|
Aug 21, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org
Steve Bannon, Former Senior Trump Advisor, Arrested For Defrauding Trump Voters Mark Thomason , Aug 20 2020 16:12 utc | 1
It is likely that U.S. President Donald Trump will soon says that he hardly knew his former campaign manager and senior advisor Steve Bannon and that he had always suspected that Bannon was a crook.
Today the U.S. Attorney's Office of the Southern District of New York announced an indictment against Bannon and others:Starting in approximately December 2018, BRIAN KOLFAGE, STEPHEN BANNON, ANDREW BADOLATO, and TIMOTHY SHEA, and others, orchestrated a scheme to defraud hundreds of thousands of donors, including donors in the Southern District of New York, in connection with an online crowdfunding campaign ultimately known as "We Build The Wall" that raised more than $25 million to build a wall along the southern border of the United States. In particular, to induce donors to donate to the campaign, KOLFAGE repeatedly and falsely assured the public that he would "not take a penny in salary or compensation" and that "100% of the funds raised ... will be used in the execution of our mission and purpose" because, as BANNON publicly stated, "we're a volunteer organization."Those representations were false.
The four indicted persons who ran the "We Build The Wall" campaign funneled donations into their own pockets:
[STEVE] BANNON, through a non-profit organization under his control ("Non-Profit-1"), received over $1 million from We Build the Wall, at least some of which BANNON used to cover hundreds of thousands of dollars in BANNON's personal expenses.Bannon and the other three accused persons are now under arrest.
biggerInterestingly the indictments come from the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of New York which in June was involved in a spat with Trump :
Geoffrey Berman, the powerful U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, said late Friday that he had not resigned after Attorney General William Barr said he would be stepping down. Barr sent a letter to Berman on Saturday saying he had asked President Trump to fire Berman, and the president had done so."I was surprised and quite disappointed by the press statement you released last night," Barr said in a statement. "Because you have declared that you have no intention of resigning, I have asked the President to remove you as of today, and he has done so."
Berman's office had investigated some of President Trump's associates, including the president's former personal attorney Michael Cohen.
There were at that time several known cases in the Southern District that involved people somewhat associated with Trump. But it still is not known why exactly Trump intervened in that office.
Could it have been because of the case against Bannon which was not publicly known at that time?
Probably not. Bannon and the others defrauded people who want to build the wall and are thereby on Trump's side. Trump is not probably not stupid enough to intervene in such a case.
Then again ...
The advisory board of We Build The Wall includes several other pro-Trump figures including mercenary salesman Erik Prince.
CBS reports that Bannon was taken into custody by US Postal Inspection Service agents. In the announcement of the indictment Audrey Strauss, the Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, explicitly praises the USPIS for its support. In light of the recent dust up over alleged Trump moves against the Postal Service that deserves a chuckle.
Bannon had recently worked with the Chinese crook Guo Wengui to build up a media company. As we noted a year ago :
Miles Kwok aka Guo Wengui is a disgruntled Chinese oligarch. He is one of the men who finances the Hong Kong protests. Here he appears with Steve Bannon Miles Kwok & Mr Bannon: The 5 principles on Hong Kong's matter (vid).The Bennon-Guo media venture is also in trouble :
Cont. reading: Steve Bannon, Former Senior Trump Advisor, Arrested For Defrauding Trump Voters
A non-profit that "did not pay him" actually paid for services that benefited him. There was just a nominal cut out between him and the payment by his non-profit.Bannon said this was wrong when the Clinton's did it. That is how the money got from their non-profit Foundation to them, and in much larger amounts than what Bannon took.
Bannon said it was wrong then when the Clinton's did it. Democrats say it is wrong now when Bannon did it. They are both correct.
And they are all hopeless hypocrites.
Skeletor , Aug 20 2020 16:30 utc | 2
Interestingly the indictments come from the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of New YorkThe same office involved with Anthony Weiner.
And Epstein.
Go figure.Bannon is an odious prick and I hope he gets some sort of punishment.
|
|
|
Dec 13, 2019 | www.unz.com
G. Poulin , says: December 11, 2019 at 9:37 pm GMT
So if propaganda is so easy and effective, remind me again why democracy is such a great idea?El Dato , says: December 12, 2019 at 6:00 am GMT@G. Poulin You have two choices:Johan , says: December 12, 2019 at 11:49 pm GMT1) Democracy with a population that is at least minimally engaged and angrily stays that way (including removing powerful special interests from premises with pitchforks)
2) Being "managed" on behalf of various power centers. This can be liveable or can turn into strip mining of your "resources".Sadly, there is no algorithm that allows you to detect whether your are engaged or are being engaged on behalf of others. That would be easy. But one should start with a minimal state, hard money and the sons of the upper crust on the front lines and forbidden from taking office in government.
That being said, this article is a bit meandering. Came for Bellingcat but was confused.
Who presented the Emmy Award to the film makers, but none other than the rebel journalist Chris Hedges.
Maximum Clown World.
@El Dato "1) Democracy with a population that is at least minimally engaged and angrily stays that way (including removing powerful special interests from premises with pitchforks)"There are no revolutions by means of pitchforks in a democracy, everything is weakened by compromise, false promises, infiltration, manipulation, etc. You cannot stay angry all the time too, it is very bad for your health, it needs to be short and intense to be effective, which is exactly what democracy prevents.
Democracy turns you into a petted animal.
|
|
|
Jul 19, 2020 | www.theamericanconservative.com
B efore it became a political term, "conservative" was the antonym of "destructive." When the word acquired political significance in the English language beginning in the early 19th century -- Britain's Conservative Party was founded in 1834 -- this older definition continued to be part of its meaning in the new context. The political forces that conservatives opposed, such as liberalism and radicalism, were inclined toward destruction. Those liberals and radicals who most admired the French Revolution were candid about this: they wished to destroy the existing legal, religious, social, and economic order so as to build a better, more rational one in its place.
Conservatism is a counterrevolutionary force: the antithesis of Jacobinism and Bolshevism, not simply as historical movements but as revolutionary tendencies to which the Left -- and sometimes the Right -- is susceptible. But conservatism is not simply the negation of incendiary ideology; it is also affirmation of a principle -- the anti-utopian view that, despite its flaws, our civilization is worthy of our loyalty, even unto death.
https://lockerdome.com/lad/13045197114175078?pubid=ld-dfp-ad-13045197114175078-0&pubo=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theamericanconservative.com&rid=www.theamericanconservative.com&width=838
You may have heard that American conservatism is not really conservative at all, it's just "classical liberalism." America was born in revolution, and as Louis Hartz influentially argued in the 1950s, Lockean liberalism is virtually our sole tradition. True conservatism arises from feudalism, which means that in this country it exists only as an exotic import, displaced in space and time from the lands of Habsburgs or Romanovs.
This is what liberals would like American conservatives to believe, but the opposite is more nearly the truth: conservatism is not classical liberalism; rather, what is best in classical liberalism depends on conservatism. To understand this, one must return to the historical milieu in which "conservative" and "liberal" became political terms. In the 1830s these words indicated on both sides of the Atlantic opposing attitudes toward the French Revolution and its legacy. Writing in the North American Review in 1835, Thomas Jefferson's biographer B.L. Rayner retrospectively applies the labels to the two great factions of American politics in the first decade of the republic: "If Mr. Jefferson and his friends sympathised, as every one knows that they did, with the liberal party in Europe, their opponents, the Federalists of that day, sympathised in like manner with the aristocratic, or as it is now called, legitimate or conservative party in Europe -- the party which, in order to avoid any epithet in the least degree offensive or even questionable, we have called the party of Law."
In Britain, the Conservative Party developed out of a longstanding coalition of anti-revolutionary Whigs and Tories who at one stage had been known as the "Friends of Pitt" -- that is, political allies who carried on the anti-French policies of the "independent Whig" Prime Minister William Pitt the Younger, who had died in 1806. In the U.S., the anti-French faction of the 1790s was the Federalist Party, and although George Washington's administration, like Pitt's ministry, was notionally above party, in practice Washington was very much aligned with the anti-French, pro-British, counterrevolutionary politics of his Treasury secretary Alexander Hamilton and his vice president and successor John Adams. America's first government was conservative.
The Federalists did not long survive the election of Thomas Jefferson as president in 1800, but the extinction of a conserative party did not mean the extinction of conservative, counterrevolutionary politics, which lived on within Jefferson's own party. Jefferson himself had cooled in his revolutionary ardor, and conservatism prevailed even under America's first liberal president.
https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.396.0_en.html#goog_364165057 00:21 / 00:59 00:00 Next Video × Next Video J.d. Vance Remarks On A New Direction For Pro-worker, Pro-family Conservatism, Tac Gala, 5-2019 Cancel Autoplay is paused
The fact that America's war of independence had been a revolution, and that John Locke's philosophy was at the heart of its Declaration, is not the refutation of American conservatism that might be imagined. No less a foe of Jacobinism than Edmund Burke cherished another revolution, after all, one that was conservative rather than destructive -- the "Glorious Revolution" of 1688 that had established the constitutional order Burke strove to defend. Locke, for his part, had presented his Second Treatise as a justification of the Glorious Revolution. That revolution, like America's nearly a century later, was understood by the revolutionaries themselves as a change in continuity with the nation's historic principles. When the Americans invoked Lockean ideas, they did so in the full knowledge that George III's own legitimacy in England rested in the eyes of many of his subjects -- especially those of parliamentary Whigs who were already skeptical of the war with America -- on the Lockean interpretation of the Revolution of 1688. The British could not deny the Americans their rights without at the same time denying part of the foundation of Britain's own constitution: the Declaration of Independence in effect made a conservative, originalist argument.
There was much historical mythologizing involved in the Glorious Revolution and the American Revolution. But the impulse to reconcile such alterations in government with the historical character of the nation was a conservative motive, in sharp contrast to the rationalistic and radically transformative impulse behind the likes of the Jacobins or the Bolsheviks. As for Britain's legitimist opponents of the Glorious Revolution -- the Jacobite Tories who believed Parliament was wrong to depose James II -- their conservatism was real but hopeless. Conservatism must actually conserve. The ancien regime proved to be unsalvageable everywhere: in Stuart Britain, Bourbon France, Habsburg Austria, Romanov Russia, even imperial China. Italy's Catholic faith was not enough to preserve the Papal States, either.
The age of ideological revolution has not ended; the revolutionary spirit has only assumed new forms. In China, still ruled by a Communist Party, it has become institutionalized, and the revolution is advanced not in the crude manner of the old Soviet Union but through a strategy of global economic transformation, coupled with ruthless reeducation programs at home. In the West, liberalism has cut loose from its civilizational roots, and from all conservative restraint, and has become an ideology of cultural revolution combined with an acceptance of the global economic reconfiguration also desired by China.
The conservative's task today, as during the French Revolution and the Cold War, is counterrevolutionary. But now the revolution is truly global, and though it may not be as violent as in centuries past -- not yet -- the stakes are hardly lower. America and her conservatives will need the utmost resolve, and a deep commitment to the sources of our civilization, if we are to prevail again. Yet until now, at least, Providence seems to have intended the Anglo-Americans to be the firefighters against the conflagration.
Daniel McCarthy is the editor of Modern Age: A Conservative Review , and editor-at-large of The American Conservative.
Related: Introducing the TAC Symposium: What Is American Conservatism?
|
|
|
May 07, 2020 | smoothiex12.blogspot.com
- Dillon Francis • 19 hours ago • edited
Economic self-sufficiency which is also a foundation of REAL national security starts from industry. No industry--no American nation. Simple as that.The very idea of an American nation has all but been destroyed. The very people who built the US have been vilified and many within this group have gone along with it. The problem is beyond material. America is suffering from a psycho-social ailment. It is at least 2 or 3 different cultures within the borders of one country. Even if industries were brought back what purpose would they serve? Hedonism, self-worship, and consumerism are the new trinity of many within the elite and a great many in the so called middle class. I doubt economic self-sufficiency is possible let alone long-suffering given the absence of purpose and meaning in people's lives. The secular reigns supreme over the sacred.
- cdvision • 19 hours ago It is practically impossible for the US to recover as a manufacturing nation. The skills are gone, the education and training has gone, the culture will not accept it, and anyway it would be massively more expensive than buying superior goods at a cheaper price - think cars, for example. The US is massively behind the curve; I read recently that China has more robots producing stuff than the rest of the world combined. And what robots are working in the US have likely been put in by Daimler or BMW - and be Chinese made robots.
The US may try and break its dependency on China - say to Vietnam or India - but have any of those idiots suggesting this been to Vietnam or India. You see an awful lot of Chinese companies there manufacturing stuff. So changing the Made in China label to Made in Vietnam label changes nothing.
According to latest stats only 16% of Chinese exports go to the US. If this went to zero it would be a short term problem for China, but a massive blow for the US. Its not just the cheap shit that ends up in Walmart, there are few end products that don't have parts made in China, and realistically changing that is impossible. I keep repeating that all China has to do is stop exporting to the US and in a week of so the US would be on its knees. Oh, and its a myth that China is ripping off US IP - maybe in the past, but now the future is out east. Think 5G; its a given that the countries with the best infrastructure will prosper.
- Vasya Pypkin • 20 hours ago With this elite nothing good is going to happen. So, there must be elites thinking along Andrei lines, but here comes the question of power. To push measures necessary to industrialize those new elite must have power and not in a sense like Trump has or rather not...
Smells like revolutionary coup is needed to safe USA. see more- −
- +
- smoothieX12 . Mod Vasya Pypkin • 19 hours ago
With this elite nothing good is going to happen.Exactly. It is systemic, including cultural and educational.
|
|
|
Apr 11, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org
jayc , Apr 10 2020 18:17 utc | 40
Steve Bannon is an American Exceptionalist. He argues that USA-style capitalism and Chinese communism are incompatible systems which cannot "compete" for influence because, to his thinking, the Chinese model will always "win" (i.e. seem a better system, particularly in Global south). He advocates first, strict de-coupling; and second, a WW2 level total war with goal of destroying CCP.I know people who have taken to Bannon's populist message, but seem to miss the "total war" part. This is the danger of a USA lurch towards fascism, should such occur as the coronavirus lockdown proceeds, as a messianic crusade against the Chinese would be a centrepiece.
|
|
|
Mar 04, 2020 | libertarianinstitute.org
Non-interventionists are not used to having a seat at the power table. Lacking any amount of institutional influence, believers in the anti-war cause are used to spending careers tinkering at the margins of the conversation, living from hand to mouth off of minimal fundraising. No one ever got rich towing the line for "Big Peace."
This unfortunate situation has, over decades, left a cynicism for anything located in the beltway of Washington D.C. That's where principles go to die, and good people go to sell out, don't you know?
This characterization is far from unfounded. There is an endless list of grifters, double-crossers, and Fausts who have sold their soul for a couple zeros added to their paychecks. But should past betrayals define our attitudes to the possibilities of the future?
In the past week, the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft held its first event since its inaugural launch in December. Named after former secretary of state John Quincy Adams and founded through big money donations from billionaires Charles Koch and George Soros (among others), the think tank was established, in the words of Chairwoman Suzanne DiMaggio, "to bring about a fundamental reorientation in U.S. foreign policy."
The event , titled "A New Vision for America in the World," was pilloried before it even occurred. Criticism revolved around the speaker's list, which included individuals who had spent years advocating, defending, and even participating in military adventurism overseas. This is where a dose of context is important.
The event was pitched as a forum between the Quincy Institute and Foreign Policy , whose conception of its eponymous topic is decidedly status quo hegemony. Registration, the speaker's list, and the day's schedule were available exclusively on Foreign Policy 's website. Quincy was discernably the junior partner in the conversation.
Each side chose its champion. Foreign Policy originated the idea to host disgraced former Major General David Petraeus, who commanded U.S. forces in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Since his conviction for sharing state secrets with his mistress as Director of the CIA, Petraeus has spent years attempting to rehabilitate his image and spread the gospel of counterinsurgency that failed American forces in the Middle East.
In opposition stood Democratic Congressman Ro Khanna of California. A self-described "progressive capitalist," since his election in 2016 Khanna has made a name for himself as a voice for military restraint in Washington. He's done more legwork to stop American support for the Saudi-led intervention in Yemen than any other member of congress.
The event's original conception was to have a debate between Petraeus and Khanna on stage, where the two could challenge each other directly. Petraeus refused to countenance this option, a Quincy insider revealed to the Libertarian Institute. So instead each man sat down, back-to-back, with their respective interlocutors; Petraeus with Foreign Policy Editor-In-Chief Jonathan Tepperman, and Khanna with the Charles Koch Institute's Vice President for Research and Policy Will Ruger.
Tepperman opened his segment with a joke that fell on deaf ears. "Our next guest will be immediately recognizable to all of you, I'm sure, unless you've been living under a rock for the last twenty years," he smiled. "That's 'under a rock,' not 'living in Iraq,' in which case you would definitely recognize him." Try telling that one-liner to the Iraqi teenagers who have gone their entire lives without clean drinking water, or the Iraqi men who continue to live without arms or legs, or the Iraqi mothers who gave birth to babies with abominable birth defects because of America's use of depleted uranium ammunition. Yes, I'm sure they'd definitely recognize David Petraeus.
The proceeding twenty-four minutes of dialogue was the same insipid pablum that Petraeus has used to justify his speaking fees for a decade. The United States must remain stationed in Afghanistan to keep an Al-Qaeda sanctuary from being reestablished, he argued. "There is some affinity they have for Eastern Afghanistan," the former general said, even though the reasoning "was lost on me."
Would Petraeus be open to a reassessment of U.S. strategic interests; the kind of retrenchment advocated by the Quincy Institute? "I think, to be perfectly honest, the debate here -- should we be more restrained -- of course we should be more restrained," he answered coyly. "Until we shouldn't."
When Congressman Khanna began his segment afterwards, he wasted no time in cutting Petraeus down to size. "I thought the title of this conference is 'A New Vision for American Foreign Policy,'" Khanna said, "and I was wondering when he was going to say something new that we haven't heard for the last twenty years."
"If I understood General Petraeus, he's basically saying we need to have a permanent troop presence around the world, in any place that's a failed state. I mean I thought we were a republic. I thought that was totally counter to what our founder's envisioned," explained Khanna.
While he displayed a depth of knowledge on U.S. conduct overseas far exceeding the average representative, it was Khanna's conception of America's metaphysical place in the world that stood out most prominently. When foreigners think of the United States, he hopes their first thoughts are "our culture, our art, our technology, our writings [that] reflect those values."
"I don't want the first thing when they think about the United States [to be] our military or bombs," he said resolutely. This sentiment brought to mind that cataloger of American localism, Bill Kauffman, who lambasted the "sham patriotism" of "the chickenhawk who loves little of his country beyond its military might."
Ro Khanna holds to that older notion of America, of a republic on a human scale that focuses on its own betterment, not the siren song of empire. "I think every member of congress should read John Quincy Adams. He's more eloquent than all of us put together," he counseled.
Unfortunately, Petraeus had already departed out the side door before he could be infected with anyone else's perspective. He had a better exit strategy from the conference than he ever did in Iraq or Afghanistan.
So lopsided was the "exchange" that after Khanna concluded Tepperman felt the need to defend his interviewee. "There was a big mismatch between Petraeus and Khanna. In the sense that, Ro Khanna is a politician. David Petraeus is not a politician," he said, eliciting an eyeroll from Ruger. The absurdity to claim that Petraeus, who earned the antagonism of his fellow commanders by being one of the most outwardly political generals in modern American history, obliged Tepperman to admit moments later that, "Petraeus is a better politician than most."
Outside the main attraction, the conference also included a discussion between two other House members, and three theater-focused foreign policy panels. Each panel's membership was split between people selected by Quincy and those selected by Foreign Policy, allowing a more open exchange of ideas than usually seen in the beltway. The Quincy Institute's staff, particularly Managing Director for Research and Policy Sarah Leah Whitson, ably articulated the concepts of realism and drawing back from our seemingly endless wars.
Some purists will still complain that the Quincy Institute soiled itself by cohosting its first conference with Foreign Policy , and for allowing the likes of Petraeus to speak. But the fact is, Quincy created a space where a sitting congressman could publicly clown the man who lost America's two twenty-first century invasions. It created a space where renowned Pentagon reporter Mark Perry could rile the audience into a frenzy like a Rockstar performing a set of his greatest hits. And it created a space where Code Pink co-founder Medea Benjamin could be cheered by a crowd for interrogating a panelist about his financial connections to Saudi Arabia.
This new, freer environment is something to be celebrated. The Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft might have started the forum as the unofficial junior partner to Foreign Policy , but it closed it by punching above its weight class.
|
|
|
Feb 16, 2020 | www.theamericanconservative.com
hen a crisis in the 17th-century Holy Roman Empire about princely authority and autonomy spiraled into sectarian warfare, Central Europe was plunged into the Thirty Years War. It was to be a conflict so debilitating and deadly that it would prove more proportionally costly in casualties for what is now Germany than even the Second World War. When the Peace of Westphalia finally brought the nightmare to a close in 1648, it was clear that domestic politics had to be separated from diplomacy for any stability to return to Europe. So came an emphasis on the sovereignty of states to police their own affairs while retaining a standardized system for dealing with each other as (ostensible) equals in the international realm.
While no system can guarantee peace free from geopolitical upset, The Westphalian Peace was nonetheless an improvement over the religious wars of the past. Something like it would also be an improvement over the rampant, American-led liberal hegemony of today. The ideologies of permanent war have had disproportionate influence over the ruling cliques in Washington, D.C., from the Clintonite neoliberals to the Dick Cheney neoconservatives. There are very real material reasons for this, of course, such as defense contracting and the powerful lobbying behind it. But it was on purely ideological terms that America's dangerous imperial overstretch was sold to a domestic audience.
Those like former U.N. ambassador Samantha Power would have us believe that there are teeming masses of people abroad just yearning to have American bombs rained down upon them as a solution for their domestic woes. Yet for most of American history, this was not so. The early and rising United States was a nation of diplomats who had taken the lessons of Westphalia to heart. From George Washington and John Quincy Adams up through the start of the 20th century, the importance of keeping domestic ideological arrangements out of sober realist diplomacy was usually understood. It was Woodrow Wilson who departed from this arrangement with his commitment to establishing the United States as guarantor not only of the rights of its own citizens but also the people of foreign nations abroad. His unrealistic vision was rejected by both Congress and most of the world's other great powers. Still, Britain and America were influenced enough by his thinking to stand aghast when first Japan and then Italy and Germany went about sabotaging the fragile postwar order. It would take a second, more destructive war, with the United States and the U.S.S.R. creating a peace out of their victorious power, to undo the damage that had been done. Two countries that could not have been more internally different became the crux of the most important wartime alliance of the 20th century. Largely forgotten was that the top crime pursued by the allies during the Germans' postwar trial was that of " waging aggressive war ."
Since the end of the Cold War, and with the checks on America's ambitions largely removed, we have seen this Wilsonian messianism return, and stronger than before. America's cultural history of puritanism and faith in its own (culturally and historically specific) institutions has merged with an unchecked hubris. Interventions unrelated to the interests of the average American came in the Balkans and Somalia, and then expanded to nearly the entire Middle East and large swathes of Africa. The justification is always the 9/11 terror attacks. The Bush administration in particular merged all of these trends by marrying the images of apocalyptic religious struggle to the Wilsonian quest for a world order founded on a universal conception of rights. When weapons of mass destruction, the ostensible reason for the invasion of Iraq, failed to turn up, Bush quickly pivoted to another argument: that we would build a new and better Iraq Americanized through our concept of civil society. What we got was the rise of ISIS, sectarian strife, and an empowered Iran greatly expanding its influence throughout that region. It was an outcome abundantly obvious to the many experts who were opposed to the war from the outset.
This turn towards militarized humanism became even more overt as the Obama administration reacted to the Arab Spring. Lacking the WMD excuse and post-9/11 bellicosity, the administration that was elected in large part to replace and undo the Bush legacy decided to topple the government of Libya and indirectly try to do the same in Syria. The administration tapped into a large network of human rights NGOs to fill the media with stories of atrocities, many of which were exaggerated or even outright false .
What was the result? Libya is a now a Somalia-level failed state with street-side slave markets that's fueled a European refugee crisis. The Syrian Civil War continues towards a now inevitable conclusion, heavily extended in length by the interventions of countries like Turkey and Saudi Arabia working hand-in-hand with the United States . Those interventions were sold to the public under the guise of upholding universal standards of government as imagined by the United States, but have only contributed to global instability and alienation of much of the world from Washington .
In order to inoculate the American public, media, and (dare one hope) policymaking class against future foolhardy adventures, the Westphalian Peace should be reintroduced into the disussion. The foreign policy establishment is largely controlled by a class of professionals in love with their own image as upholders of liberal hegemony and oblivious to the results of their actions. From empowering al-Qaeda in the Middle East to driving Russia and China together, the consequences have proven catastrophic. It is time to stick up for the concept of national sovereignty as the core principle of diplomacy once again.
It was the France, the Catholic power willing to ally with Protestants against its greater Hapsburg foe regardless of domestic politics, that won the most out of the Thirty Years War and at the lowest cost. Such realism in pursuit of modest goals should inform our diplomatic thinking today.
Christopher Mott is a research fellow at Defense Priorities and a former academic and researcher at the State Department. His book on Central Asian geopolitical history, The Formless Empire , was published by Westholme Publishing in 2015.
"America's cultural history of puritanism and faith in its own (culturally and historically specific) institutions has merged with an unchecked hubris."Baruch Dreamstalker Sammacdon • 3 days agoDoes America have faith in its culturally and historically specific institutions?
Which ones?
America still supports the Bill of Rights for oneself, but not always for others. Listen to how "religious freedom" differs when articulated by a liberal and a conservative.Baruch Dreamstalker • 3 days agoThere's a new player since Westphalia, the soldiers without borders known commonly as terrorists. Arguing about whose fault it is that they exist is as fruitless as "Who lost China?" The article, alas, deals with them only as epiphenomena of great-power actions. C+.JonF311 Baruch Dreamstalker • 3 days agoBut if we weren't poking a big old wasp's nest in the Middle East would any of those terrorists give a hoot about us? We would still have to worry about domestic terrorists, of course.Baruch Dreamstalker JonF311 • 3 days agoAbsolutely, about domestic terrorists, who are an old story from the days they were called "clinic bombers."Begemot Baruch Dreamstalker • 2 days ago"Our enemies are our fault" is an invitation to become extinct. I don't go there.
Soldiers without borders are part of the picture now, and the most persuasive assignment of responsibility for them may take gold in the 50-Yard Blame Toss, but is still a "should" non-answer to an "is" problem.
David Naas • 3 days agosoldiers without borders known commonly as terroristsAlso known as mercenaries, who aren't new at all. In fact, they've enjoyed something of a revitalization since 2001 with such 'private military contractors" as Blackwater/Xe Services/Academi and its imitators. Courtesy of the US government.
Many times in history one can point to as the embodiment of "realism" in international affairs. After Westphalia came the Napoleonic wars and the Congress of Vienna. Some time later came WW1/WW2/Cold War (really one conflict) and no real settlement (with the USA presuming a foolish "End of History" and a faux Superpower hegemony.)kouroi • 3 days agoI am reminded that Henry Kissinger was supposed to be a master of realpolitik , and we saw how well that worked. The last real decent politician who understood things may have been Otto von Bismarck, and he was cast aside by a neurotic Kaiser who hated his English grandmother.
The author makes a very good point... That waging aggressive wars is a crime for which we hung people at Nuremberg. But let us not forget the reality of realism, the Roman maxim of, "If you have trouble at home, stir up a war abroad." Works like a charm, or always has before.
High goal in the United States of Amnesia.... remembering something...Disqus10021 • 2 days ago • edited
If anything, the elites would like to bury as much as possible... so that the conclusion is always their alternative only...Unless there are members of Congress who were European history majors, I doubt that any of them could tell you much about the Peace of Westphalia. I would be satisfied if they could at least learn some lessons from WWI. One of the best takeaways from that war that I have read was David Stockman's (Reagan's first Budget Director) observation that if the US had just stayed out of the war, the major belligerents would eventually have come to a cease fire and Germany would not have been plunged into chaos after the war. Another takeaway comes from William Shirer's "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich". The German government paid for its war costs by issuing bonds and when its access to the bond market became exhausted, it simply resorted to printing money. After the war, it not only did not raise taxes to pay off its reparations and other war debts but lowered them.Dr. Rieux • 2 days ago • editedGermany's Weimar constitution which was approved in 1919 looked good on paper and was very democratic for its time. But it never worked well in practice. The country was beset by a series of weak coalition governments during the Weimar years, governments which were incapable of stopping the runaway inflation of the early 1920's and incapable of dealing with the economic fallout as the Great Depression spread from the US to Europe in the early 1930's.
I doubt our foreign policy "elites" are oblivious to the results of their actions. That degree of self-imposed ignorance even Washinton's "best" and "brightest" couldn't possibly achieve.mark • 2 days agoWhat they are is immune to the consequences of their actions, never called to account for the millions of innocent lives they helped to ruin or to completely snuff out.
Baruch says "There's a new player since Westphalia, the soldiers without borders known commonly as terrorists. "Connecticut Farmer • a day ago • editedTerrorism has suffered a lazy and opportunistic amount of definition creep in recent decades. I go by the old idea that it's about using unforeseen violence against civilians for political ends.
However to me, the vast bulk of terrorism is state terror and states really hate it when privateers muscle in on their act. For example the morning after the 9-11 bombings (I live a long way from the US) I had two immediate thoughts. First and foremost was sadness for the dead and their families. Second was an awful foreboding for the many thousands of innocent brown foreign civilians who'd die in misplaced criminal revenge aka state terror.
"It was the France, the Catholic power willing to ally with Protestants against its greater Hapsburg foe regardless of domestic politics, that won the most out of the Thirty Years War and at the lowest cost."Paul De Palma • 21 hours agoBe reminded, however, France's victory lasted 115 years--ten minutes in historical terms--coming to an end with the Treaty of Paris in 1763 which ended The Seven Years War which resulted in bankruptcy for the Bourbon monarchy and eventual domestic upheaval commencing in 1789. After the defeat of Napoleon (the inevitable result of said upheaval) and as a result of the Congress of Vienna in 1815 France was pretty much finished off as a world power. Nothing is ever permanent. Except war.
"Those like former U.N. ambassador Samantha Power would have us believe that there are teeming masses of people abroad just yearning to have American bombs rained down upon them as a solution for their domestic woes."
The author is engaging in a bit of hyperbole here. Changing "have American bombs rained down upon them" to "enjoy the fruits of American-style democracy" would suffice. Same conclusion. Same results.
Thanks for such an incisive framing of US foreign policy over the last century and, in particular, the last twenty years. In its crispness and clarity, your piece is on par with Andrew Bacevich's work. It deserves a wide readership.
|
|
|
Jan 18, 2020 | www.unz.com
wedish Family , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 11:10 pm GMT
@AP1. The interests of these countries may be aligned.
2. Even if the immigrant may be mistaken, if his belief is sincere he may still provide valuable contact, intelligence, etc.
This is a very naive idea of how perceived "national interests" form. In real life, highly-motivated groups of immigrants will have an outsized influence on how their host country thinks of its interests in their regions of birth. This is basically a geopolitical example of Nassim Taleb's minority rule .
United States is especially vulnerable to such subversion since much of its conception of itself and its place in the world centers on elastic and easily abused ideas like freedom and human rights .
|
|
|
Jan 18, 2020 | www.unz.com
Peripatetic Commenter , says: Show Comment January 17, 2020 at 9:43 pm GMT
I don't think it will be long before we see Congress in the US calling for invasion of Russia on the grounds of a lack of diversity, lack of respect for LGBTP and so forth.
|
|
|
Jan 18, 2020 | www.unz.com
AP says: January 15, 2020 at 9:59 pm GMT 100 Words @Thulean Friend
That too. Ukraine is a split country on pro/anti-Russian attitudes
Rather strong and somewhat anachronistic statement. Ukraine was split prior to 2014.
There are still pro-Russian areas but being free of Crimea and Donbas means Ukraine can no longer be characterized as "split." Probably 1/4 of the population can be considered to be politically friendly to Russia. Given, say, Latvia's ethnic Russian population, that country is nowadays probably more "split" than Ukraine.
JPM , says: January 15, 2020 at 10:59 pm GMT
@AP d in a frozen conflict zone. After they were fucked by industrial collapse and job loss. Before that they were fucked by wars, famines and the Bolsheviks. They really can't seem to catch a break.Europeans seem to be on the precipice of disaster everywhere. It would be nice to band together, rather than die while getting hung up on the narcissism of small differences. Probably just wishful thinking on my part though. I guess Americans can't understand how important it is for Ukrainians on one side of the Dniepr to show how different they are from Ukrainians on the other or how different they are from Russians for that matter.
|
|
|
Jan 18, 2020 | www.unz.com
Swedish Family , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 8:28 pm GMT
@Oscar PetersonSignificantly, events appear to have escalated from the 25 December killing of five PMF guys on the Syria-Iraq border by an unattributed drone or missile strike. Our media is doing its best to obscure this event as the probable starting point. Two days later on 27 December, the rocket fire near Kirkuk killed the US contractor. Then came the strike on KH troops back out in the West and now the assassination of Soleimani et al.
[ ]
So the trigger was the 25 December attack, and all the timing flows from that, not from any great real estate developer savvy. Frankly, in my view, you give Trump way to much credit for systematic thought. I don't think he really does that at all.
This is also the view of the Middle-East veterans over at Patrick Lang's blog:
Last weekend, in response to a rocket attack on a base outside Kirkuk that left one US contractor dead and four US servicemen wounded, we launched drone strikes on five Iraqi PMU outposts in Iraq and Syria near Abukamal killing 25 members and wounding scores more of the Kata'ib Hezbollah brigades of the PMU.
We blamed Iran and the Kata'ib Hezbollah for the rocket attack near Kirkuk. That may be true, but the Kata'ib Hezbollah is not some rogue militia controlled out of Teheran. It is an integral part of the PMU, its 46th and 47th brigades and has been for years. The PMU is an integral part of the Iraqi military and has been for years. The PMU played a major role in defeating IS in both Iraq and Syria. Our attack on the Kata'ib Hezbollah outposts was an attack on the Iraqi military and government. We informed PM Abdul-Mahdi of our intended attacks. Abdul-Mahadi warned us not to do it, but, of course, we conducted the attacks despite his warning. We were proud of the attacks. The Pentagon even released footage of the attacks. It was supposed to be a clear message to Teheran.
Unfortunately for us, the message was also heard by Iraqis. After the funerals of many of the victims of our attacks on the PMU outposts, a large crowd of protestors headed for the US Embassy in the Green Zone. For weeks prior to this, Iraqi security forces kept protestors from entering the Green Zone and approaching the US Embassy. Not this time. The crowds, including mourners fresh from the funerals of their family members and many PMU soldiers, unarmed but in uniform, poured into the Green Zone right to the gates of the Embassy itself. A reception area was entered and burned. Iraqi security forces of the PrimeMinister's Counter Terrorism Command were among the protestors. I surmise that PM Abdul-Mahdi was sending his own message back to the US.
https://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2020/01/our-embassy-in-baghdad-ttg.html
The protests at the American embassy, then, were over Iraqi servicemen murdered in American drone strikes
Qasem Soleimani was an Iranian soldier. He lived by the sword and died by the sword. He met a soldier's destiny. It is being said that he was a BAD MAN. Absurd! To say that he was a BAD MAN because he fought us as well as the Sunni jihadis is simply infantile. Were all those who fought the US BAD MEN? How about Gentleman Johhny Burgoyne? Was he a BAD MAN? How about Sitting Bull? Was he a BAD MAN? How about Aguinaldo? Another BAD MAN? Let us not be juvenile.
The Iraqi PMU commander who died with Soleimani was Abu Mahdi al Muhandis. He was a member of a Shia militia that had been integrated into the Iraqi armed forces. IOW, we killed an Iraqi general. We killed him without the authorization of the supposedly sovereign state of Iraq.
We created the present government of Iraq through the farcical "purple thumb" elections. That government holds a seat in the UN General Assembly and is a sovereign entity in international law in spite of Trump's tweet today that said among other things that we have "paid" Iraq billions of US dollars. To the Arabs, this statement that brands them as hirelings of the US is close to the ultimate in insult.
and now the Americans went one better and murdered an Iraqi general.
|
|
|
Jan 18, 2020 | www.unz.com
Major announcements in this State of the Nation speech on Jan 15, 2020.
Here is a very brief summary to get the conversation started.
Immediate politics :
who reduced uncollected VAT from 20% to 1%. Source tells me FM Sergey Lavrov rumored to be permanently retiring.Constitutional changes :
Demographics :
continued fall in Russia's fertility rates to 1.5 children per woman this year (up from post-Soviet peak of close to 1.8 in mid-2000s), setting 1.7 children per woman as the new target for 2024. Reaffirmed demographics as the first national priority. Maternity capital to be increased by further 150,000 rubles and constitute 616,617 rubles (≈$10,000) for a family with two children, to be annually indexed.***
Some very tentative thoughts :
(1) I have long thought now that Putin's end game is to transition into an overseeing "elder statesman" role, along the model of Lee Kuan Yew/PAP in Singapore [see 1 , 2 , 3 ]. This appears to be the final confirmation that this is happening.
(2) Questions about the succession revolved around (a) The Belarus variant, in which it effectively constitutes a new state with Russia, allowing Putin to become the supreme head of that state; (b) A constitutional reshuffle such as the one we're seeing here. This question has also been answered.
utu , says: January 15, 2020 at 5:16 pm GMT
" Putin's end game is to transition into an overseeing "elder statesman" role" – Not always does it work: King Lear, Benedict 16.AnonFromTN , says: January 15, 2020 at 5:28 pm GMT"Lear gave up a God-given duty and right to rule his people. His tragic flaw 'hamartia' is presumptuousness. He presumes that he can divest himself of what God invested him with (the Elizabethan idea of the divine rights of the ruler), he grows in tragic stature as the play progresses." – found on google.
Anatoly Karlin , says: Website January 15, 2020 at 5:42 pm GMTPutin's end game is to transition into an overseeing "elder statesman" role
Looks more like he plans to become a powerful Prime Minister after 2024, rather than elder statesman. Might be good in the medium term: politicians of his caliber are rare. Still, in the longer term Russia needs a real successor: rule by committee never works, even in smaller and simpler countries.
@AnonFromTN I think (and it's already been said for years) that's he too tired for the role of PM, which is more intensive than the Presidency and involved dealing with boring domestic crap whereas the Presidency, at least, offers more in the way of Grand Strategy, diplomacy, etc.Felix Keverich , says: January 15, 2020 at 5:42 pm GMTI think the likeliest game plan is for him to chair a much more empowered State Council after 2024. (This is what Nazarbayev did with the Security Council after retiring last year).
JPM , says: January 15, 2020 at 5:44 pm GMTPresidential candidates should have been resident in Russia for 25 years (previously 10 years) and never had a foreign citizenship. (This rules out a large proportion of Atlanticists and crypto-Atlanticists).
Does this imply, that they'll allow an actual election in 2024? I'm getting excited
Speaking of constitutional changes, they should just get rid of the entire Yeltsin's text, and write a new one. Yeltsin's constitution is a mishmash of French and American constitutions, completely detached from the country's realities and tradition.
So union with Belarus is still on the table right? But if that happens it would be Belarus joining a continuous RF, under the newly modified constitution?
My take on this is that Lukashenka told Putin to piss off, and he did. So no union.
AnonFromTN , says: January 15, 2020 at 5:46 pm GMTReaffirmed demographics as the first national priority.
How about not importing all of Central Asia, so that wages aren't depressed. Higher wages might boost that low TFR.
Maternity capital to be increased by further 150,000 rubles and constitute 616,617 rubles (≈$10,000) for a family with two children, to be annually indexed.
Will that will help subsidize the Chechens, Avars, Laks etc. the most relative to their population size because Russia is a "Multinational" state with equality for all of its "constituent" nations?
Speaking of which will Uzbek and Tajik guests be able to get in on that too? A future Russian Duma might need to grant more rights to them because Russia will need more workers to support its aging population. They speak Russian after all, and there is a shared history. So, they will integrate well into society. I feel like that is what a future Russian PM will be arguing a few years down the line.
@Boswald Bollocksworth s everything that is going to befall it.Anatoly Karlin , says: Website January 15, 2020 at 5:48 pm GMT
Second, Lukashenko himself is a problem. He might be qualified to run a small agrobusiness, but certainly nothing greater than that. Yet his outsized ego (common among morons, think Bush Jr) won't let him fade away peacefully.
Third, Belarus is subsidized by Russia, and many Russian citizens believe that the money would be much better spent inside Russia or helping countries that deserve this aid, like Syria.
Maybe Putin thinks differently, but he does a lot to remain popular. So, after pension reform hit to his support I don't think he is going to do something most people disapprove of.@JPM Fortunately, there's very little Central Asian breeding going on it Russia – the pattern is for them to make their money (5-10x what they can make at home) and raise families at home.Thulean Friend , says: January 15, 2020 at 5:53 pm GMTChechens, Avars, etc. will benefit disproportionately, but the program is after all primarily intended as an incentive. Personally, I think a childlessness tax will be much more effective, since people react better to penalties than rewards – plus it will rake in a net profit – but I don't suppose its politically feasible in the modern age.
Seems like a good balance between a liberal direction – limiting any one president to two absolute terms while substantially increasing the say of the parliament – and some common sense requirements (like on citizenship).Putting it to a referendum is also welcome. The will of the people should not only be heard but increased.
Putin bemoaned continued fall in Russia's fertility rates to 1.5 children per woman this year (up from post-Soviet peak of close to 1.8 in mid-2000s), setting 1.7 children per woman as the new target for 2024.
Reaffirmed demographics as the first national priority.
Maternity capital to be increased by further 150,000 rubles and constitute 616,617 rubles (≈$10,000) for a family with two children, to be annually indexed.I doubt this will work.
The biggest problem for fertility all over the world is housing. As long as the housing sector is neoliberalised, it will be a major impediment. Affordable housing is per definition low-margin and hence not interesting to private developers. For them, a perpetual housing shortage pushes up the profit margin. All firms are constantly seeking to maximise profits, so their behaviour is rational from a purely market fundamentalist point of view. That's why market fundamentalism need to be overthrown. There has to be a massive building spree to lower the cost of housing to no more than 4-5 years of annual (net) wages for a median worker to buy without debt. That would be the real game changer. Import the churkas and get it done.
The second problem is ideology and religiosity. If you look at Israel, a major component of their high fertility is the massively increasing Haredi sector. Even outside the Haredis, they have a high share of genuinely religious jews. For the seculars, TFR is still a respectable 2.5, which is likely explained by nationalism. Whatever Russian nationalism is, it isn't very fecund. Russians aren't very religious either, though Putin seems to be. Church attendence in Russia is quite low. At this stage, I don't believe high fertility can be solved without going into artificial wombs and more exotic solutions. A cultural revolution doesn't seem to be on the cards.
(2) Questions about the succession revolved around (a) The Belarus variant, in which it effectively constitutes a new state with Russia, allowing Putin to become the supreme head of that state; (b) A constitutional reshuffle such as the one we're seeing here. This question has also been answered.
I still think Belarus will be swallowed by Russia within this decade.
|
|
|
Jan 18, 2020 | www.unz.com
Mitleser , says: January 15, 2020 at 6:13 pm GMT
@Aly so Chairman of the State Council.The State Council includes the following members: the Speaker of the Federation Council of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, the Speaker of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, Presidential Plenipotentiary Envoys to the federal districts, senior officials (heads of the highest executive agencies of state power) in Russia's federal constituent entities, and the heads of the political parties in the State Duma.
|
|
|
Jan 18, 2020 | www.unz.com
Philip Owen , says: January 15, 2020 at 6:28 pm GMT
Mishustin is a genius at reforming bureaucracies with IT systems. He is also an economist who thinks Russia should be less autarkic. He is in the Kudrin camp. For example, he is still scheduled to speak at the Gaidar forum. Shoigu seems to have fallen back. M is associated witht he Union of Right Forces.There has been a huge Twitter storm of people/trolls posting this a Putin's effort to stay in power.
|
|
|
Jan 18, 2020 | www.unz.com
nickels , says: January 15, 2020 at 6:59 pm GMT
More power to Parliament means Oligarchy control, like all western countries.Maïkl Makfaïl , says: January 15, 2020 at 11:47 pm GMT
Not good.@nickels Exactly . Kudrin and his friends want parliament to have more power so that the russian people have less of it. They know they have 0 legitimacy , that the people hate them and that they would never survive at the top of the political elite if a real and intelligent nationalist comes to power in Russia one day ( Putin is a half-disapointment whose main merit is to have benefited from the work of Primakov ). They want the presidency to be paralysed . I hope they wont succeed and that there will always be a strong statesman on their way in Russia.Thulean Friend , says: January 16, 2020 at 4:50 am GMT@nickels control away from oligarchs, but that is more due to his own force of personality rather than the system itself.nickels , says: January 16, 2020 at 3:17 pm GMTIn brief, whether a country will be beholden to oligarchs is less due to the governance structure and more about the general culture. Some countries have a very corrupt citizenry/culture and that will produce bad outcomes in most situations in the long run regardless of the political system. This can only be suspended temporarily by a very strong leader – but you only get them infrequently.
The only hope to reduce power of oligarchs when Putin leaves power is to attack corruption in society, at both high levels and ground levels.
@Thulean Friend 'The only institution ever devised by men for mastering the money powers in the state is the Monarchy.'Daniel Chieh , says: January 16, 2020 at 5:30 pm GMT
Napolean.Belloc, for one, writes over and over on this theme.
Most European histories are Whig histories, and, hence, worthless on this topic. Which is not to discount your valid point about princes becoming indebted to jews. Aristocracy had this problem to a greater extent.
@nickels advantage. Contrary to Thulean, I believe that universal rule of law actually weakens the state and its ability to control merchantile factions. Of course, casual acceptance of "rule of power" is a form of corruption and if it isn't limited to the strongman himself, results in wasteful factionalism.nickels , says: January 16, 2020 at 7:56 pm GMTHowever, this essential snubbing of the merchantile factions has the very obvious result of them working against the state, for "rule of law"(which benefits them), and of course, not helping their rivals in the warrior factions. In the long run, lack of access to liquidity can severely cripple governments that don't play well with potential creditors.
@Daniel ChiehThulean Friend , says: January 16, 2020 at 8:06 pm GMTI believe that universal rule of law actually weakens the state and its ability to control merchantile factions.
Yes, I think this is the key factor. Government by committee is no government, which means the parasites will rise to take over.
Additionally, the western stupidity of tying everything to high flown abstractions, i.e. universal law and principles, is both idiotic and impossible. History demands the intervention of the intellect, i.e. the mind of the monarch or the autocrat.
@nickels e was not particularly involved in planning the conquest and the company self-financed much of the early stages of the conquest itself, ironically enough often from wealthy Indians who were given attractive financing options. The company innovated many things we take for granted today, such as the joint stock company. Of course, the British state did step in eventually but by that time much of the groundwork had already been set. Adjusted for inflation, the EIC was many times larger than either Google or Apple is today at its peak, closer to 4+ trillion USD.nickels , says: January 16, 2020 at 9:01 pm GMTToo much of history blindly focuses on kings and rulers while ignoring many non-state actors.
@Thulean Friend Sounds interesting, thx.Philip Owen , says: January 17, 2020 at 12:11 am GMT
'Why War' by Frederic Clemson Howe had a similar theme about how the 'flag followed the dollar' in the lead up to WWI.@Thulean Friend money from private trading as company employees were allowed to do. The less rich one commanded three regiments of cavalry at the 3rd siege of Seringapatam. He was elected Prize Officer and thus had an extra share.They returned and with other East India men built a canal to a coal mine they opened on the hill above an iron works eventually connecting Clydach Gorge to the sea thus launching the industrial revolution in South Wales. So there are very direct links between profits from trade and the industrial revolution. They fed off each other. South Wales at one time produced most of the world's copper. This was in great demand in India for making brass.
|
|
|
Jan 18, 2020 | www.unz.com
Today's Russia is a product of several factors:
- The unreformable Soviet Union of the 1980s which turned into a "cake" of sorts for the Soviet " Nomenklatura " which, when it realized that it would lose control of the country, decided to break up the Soviet Union into 15 different countries (including quite a few totally fictional ones) and re-branded itself from "defenders of the Party and the USSR" into "fervent nationalists". That was just about as fake a rebranding as ever but there was nothing the majority of the people ( who wanted to maintained the Soviet Union ) could do about it.
- Then came the horrors of the 1990s during which Russia (and the rest of the newly minted republics) were drowned into an orgy of lawlessness, violence, corruption and total, absolute, subservience to the AngloZionist Empire.
- Finally, during the 2000s we saw a period of shared power between the Atlantic Integrationists lead by Medvedev and the Eurasian Sovereignist lead by Putin. This was an uneasy partnership in which the Atlantic Integrationists were in control of the "economic block" while the Eurasian Sovereignists were tasked with Russia's foreign affairs and defense.
|
|
|
Jan 18, 2020 | www.unz.com
Swedish Family , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 9:13 pm GMT
@Interested Bystander 2020However, it is hard to miss Trump's style over the past three years, a consistently unconventional approach to problems that often seems illogical and rushed at the first glance, but upon a closer examination, his approaches usually have their own logic and underlying motivation that, on occasions, could be construed as the result of a broader strategic and tactical consideration.
I once believed this, but Michael Wolff's books quickly dispelled that fantasy. Here's what strategy meant during the campaign:
It was during Trump's early intelligence briefings, held soon after he captured the nomination, that alarm signals first went off among his new campaign staff: he seemed to lack the ability to take in third-party information. Or maybe he lacked the interest; whichever, he seemed almost phobic about having formal demands on his attention. He stonewalled every written page and balked at every explanation. "He's a guy who really hated school," said Bannon. "And he's not going to start liking it now."
[ ]
One of the ways to establish what Trump wanted and where he stood and what his underlying policy intentions were -- or at least the intentions that you could convince him were his -- came to involve an improbably close textual analysis of his largely off-the-cuff speeches, random remarks, and reflexive tweets during the campaign.
Bannon doggedly went through the Trump oeuvre highlighting possible insights and policy proscriptions. Part of Bannon's authority in the new White House was as keeper of the Trump promises, meticulously logged onto the white board in his office. Some of these promises Trump enthusiastically remembered making, others he had little memory of, but was happy to accept that he had said it. Bannon acted as disciple and promoted Trump to guru -- or inscrutable God.
Fire and Fury (Michael Wolff, 2018)
And here's Trump readying himself for the notorious Helsinki summit with Putin back in 2018:
On Friday, July 13, three days before the Helsinki summit, the president and his team arrived late in the day at Trump Turnberry golf resort in Scotland, after passing on their way from the airport cow pastures and cheering citizens -- but no protesters.
Mike Pompeo and John Bolton were carrying copious briefing books. This was meant to be a weekend of preparation interspersed with golf. John Kelly, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Bill Shine, and several other aides had come along, too.
Saturday was sunny and in the mid-seventies, with nothing on the agenda except golf. But by now a few protesters had made their way to Turnberry. "No Trump, No KKK, No Racist USA," shouted a small group of them during the president's afternoon golf game.
Trump, energized by his NATO and UK meetings -- "we roughed them up" -- was in no mood to prepare for his Putin meeting. Even his typical, exceedingly casual level of preparation -- prep masked as gossip -- wasn't happening. Pompeo and Bolton reduced the boxed briefing binders to a one-pager. The president wouldn't focus on it.
He was fine. And why shouldn't he be? He had walked into his meeting with Kim unable to pick out North Korea on a map, but it didn't matter. He was in charge, a strong man making peace.
Don't box me in , he told his advisers. I need to be open , he kept repeating, as though this was a therapeutic process. Pompeo and Bolton urgently pressed him about the basic talking points for the summit, now just hours away -- but nothing doing.
The next morning he played golf, and then it started to rain.
Siege (Michael Wolff, 2019)
|
|
|
Jan 18, 2020 | www.unz.com
barr , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 5:48 pm GMT
@JimDandy Hpw did the instruction to "Fly direct" prove fatal to MH 17MUMBAI: The ministry of civil aviation's claim that there was no Air India flight near the ill-fated Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777 when it was shot down over Ukraine on Thursday appears misleading.
An Air India Dreamliner flight going from Delhi to Birmingham was in fact less than 25km away from the Malaysian aircraft,Minutes before the crash caused by a missile strike, the AI pilots had also heard the controller give the Malaysian aircraft MH17 what is called "a direct routing". This permits an aircraft to fly straight, instead of tracking the regular route which is generally a zig-zag track that goes from one ground-based navigation aid or way point to another. "Direct routing saves fuel and time and is preferred by pilots. In this case, it proved fatal," said an airline source.
1 Was India pressurized to deny the close proximity and 2 was it under pressure to deny that it heard the controller giving the instruction to MH 17????
|
|
|
Jan 18, 2020 | www.unz.com
What seems to have been a case of bad judgments and human error does, however, include some elements that have yet to be explained. The Iranian missile operator reportedly experienced considerable "jamming" and the planes transponder switched off and stopped transmitting several minutes before the missiles were launched . There were also problems with the communication network of the air defense command, which may have been related.
The electronic jamming coming from an unknown source meant that the air defense system was placed on manual operation, relying on human intervention to launch. The human role meant that an operator had to make a quick judgment in a pressure situation in which he had only moments to react. The shutdown of the transponder, which would have automatically signaled to the operator and Tor electronics that the plane was civilian, instead automatically indicated that it was hostile. The operator, having been particularly briefed on the possibility of incoming American cruise missiles, then fired.
The two missiles that brought the plane down came from a Russian-made system designated SA-15 by NATO and called Tor by the Russians. Its eight missiles are normally mounted on a tracked vehicle. The system includes both radar to detect and track targets as well as an independent launch system, which includes an Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) system functionality capable of reading call signs and transponder signals to prevent accidents. Given what happened on that morning in Tehran, it is plausible to assume that something or someone deliberately interfered with both the Iranian air defenses and with the transponder on the airplane, possibly as part of an attempt to create an aviation accident that would be attributed to the Iranian government.
The SA-15 Tor defense system used by Iran has one major vulnerability. It can be hacked or "spoofed," permitting an intruder to impersonate a legitimate user and take control. The United States Navy and Air Force reportedly have developed technologies "that can fool enemy radar systems with false and deceptively moving targets." Fooling the system also means fooling the operator. The Guardian has also reported independently how the United States military has long been developing systems that can from a distance alter the electronics and targeting of Iran's available missiles.
The same technology can, of course, be used to alter or even mask the transponder on a civilian airliner in such a fashion as to send false information about identity and location. The United States has the cyber and electronic warfare capability to both jam and alter signals relating to both airliner transponders and to the Iranian air defenses. Israel presumably has the same ability. Joe Quinn at Sott.net also notes an interested back story to those photos and video footage that have appeared in the New York Times and elsewhere showing the Iranian missile launch, the impact with the plane and the remains after the crash, to include the missile remains. They appeared on January 9 th , in an Instagram account called ' Rich Kids of Tehran '. Quinn asks how the Rich Kids happened to be in "a low-income housing estate on the city's outskirts [near the airport] at 6 a.m. on the morning of January 8 th with cameras pointed at the right part of the sky in time to capture a missile hitting a Ukrainian passenger plane ?"
Put together the Rich Kids and the possibility of electronic warfare and it all suggests a premeditated and carefully planned event of which the Soleimani assassination was only a part. There have been riots in Iran subsequent to the shooting down of the plane, blaming the government for its ineptitude. Some of the people in the street are clearly calling for the goal long sought by the United States and Israel, i.e. "regime change." If nothing else, Iran, which was widely seen as the victim in the killing of Soleimani, is being depicted in much of the international media as little more than another unprincipled actor with blood on its hands. There is much still to explain about the downing of Ukrainian International Airlines Flight 752.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East.
AnonStarter , says: Show Comment January 15, 2020 at 10:45 pm GMT
Given this news, any impartial observer would at least entertain the possibility of its truth, particularly given the lengthy track record of the United States/Israel in perpetrating such crimes.Sean , says: Show Comment January 15, 2020 at 11:10 pm GMTIt's a good litmus test for determining where one's sentiment lies. Even "alternative media" aren't likely to touch this story.
Bravo to Mr. Giraldi and Mr. Unz.
The Iranian Ambassador to Britain, Hamid Baeidinejad said in an interview on the UK Channel 4 news hours ago that although Iran had needed time to determine what had happened, it had now accepted responsibility, would pay compensation, and the people who fired on the jet will be put on trial.onebornfree , says: Website Show Comment January 15, 2020 at 11:49 pm GMTIf nothing else, Iran, which was widely seen as the victim in the killing of Soleimani, is being depicted in much of the international media as little more than another unprincipled actor with blood on its hands.
Both Trump and the Iranian regime have good domestic disquiet reason to rethink the confrontational policy each are pursuing. Iran and the US could get closer over this. I think the predictable unpredictability of assassination and catastrophic loss of life events makes false flagging them of dubious value.
Why did I rob banks? Because I enjoyed it. I loved it. I was more alive when I was inside a bank, robbing it, than at any other time in my life. I enjoyed everything about it so much that one or two weeks later I'd be out looking for the next job. But to me the money was the chips, that's all.
(Sutton W, Linn E: Where the Money Was: The Memoirs of a Bank Robber. Viking Press (1976), p. 160)
I suppose it is possible there are people who get addicted to false flagging others' deaths. If half of what is said in this site is true, Mossad really needs to set up a 12 step program.
" .the big question which many people on social media are asking is: why was this "videographer" standing in a derelict industrial area outside Tehran at around six o'clock in the morning with a mobile phone camera training on a fixed angle to the darkened sky? The airliner is barely visible, yet the sky-watching person has the camera pointed and ready to film a most dramatic event, seconds before it happened. That strongly suggests, foreknowledge."anonymous [150] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 12:36 am GMT"Iran Jet Disaster Setup – Who Is the Mysterious Videographer?:"
https://ahtribune.com/world/north-africa-south-west-asia/iran/3809-jet-disaster-setup.htmlAnd I would add: how do we know the video[s] are even genuine? [Answer: we don't, it is only an unproven assumption at this time].
Regards, onebornfree
Hmmm, cameras waiting beforehand, transponders not working. Sort of sounds like 9-11, doesn't it?The Alarmist , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 3:01 am GMTanonymous [405] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 3:49 am GMTThe Iranian missile operator reportedly experienced considerable "jamming" and the planes transponder switched off and stopped transmitting several minutes before the missiles were launched.
I vaguely recall reports of transponder issues arising during the shootdown of MH-17.
Anon [230] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 4:10 am GMTCivilian passenger flights were still departing and arriving in Tehran, almost certainly an error in judgment on the part of the airport authorities. Inexplicably, civilian aircraft continued to take off and land even after Flight 752 was shot down.
The Iranian government is blameworthy for keeping planes in the air either because of diabolical reasons (delays a counter attack) or economic (nearly $1 billion a year in overflight fees).
However, the pilots of the airliners that took over during the morning between the first missile hitting Iraq and the downing of the Ukrainian airliner were dumb and irresponsible.
Anon [200] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 5:20 am GMTThe system includes both radar to detect and track targets as well as an independent launch system, which includes an Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) system functionality capable of reading call signs and transponder signals to prevent accidents.
Clearly you have no clue how an IFF operates and that no commercial airliner even has an IFF on board. Every commercial aircraft looks like the enemy to this SAM operator.
Also, you need to explain how spoofing a RADAR which creates a false track would cause the shoot down. The missile would simply target the false track instead of the real aircraft.
You also need to explain how an old SAM missile site can be hacked or spoofed to shoot down a civilian airliner. Especially this old one which has no Mode-S or ADS-B capability and only radio communication capability.
As Mark Twain said, it's better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you are an idiot rather than open it and remove all doubt.
Even if this was a clear mistake on Iran's part, the US and Israel still have blood on their hands for the downing of this plane. The missiles were launched in response to a targeted killing of an Iranian general. If that didn't happen, these missiles never would've been launched.Onlooker , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 5:22 am GMTTrump-Pence-Pompeo-Kushner-Netanyahu are ultimately responsible for these 176 lives lost. I suspect MBS is also part of the scheme. It was his fake peace offering that lured Soleimani to Iraq in the first place. I'm with Trudeau on this.
@Anon Before calling someone an idiot it is better to follow Mark Twain's advice yourself. A more careful reading reveals no claim that IFF was onstalled on the airliner. The commenter does speculate that possible spoofing involved a false attribution of a real airliner not the creation of a false airliner and radar track. Perhaps you are familiar with "old" electronic countermeasures and not with the "new", "top secret" and spiffy versions hinted at by the U.S. military?AnonStarter , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 6:30 am GMT@Quartermaster /An Airliner can not legally launch with deadlined transponder, so the claim that it quit transmitting "several" minutes earlier would have placed it on the ground when it quit./AnonStarter , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 6:45 am GMTFrom the SoTT link :
As it climbed and reached 4,600ft above ground level, the plane's transponder suddenly stopped working at about 6.14am, 2 minutes or so after take off . [emphasis added]
The plane was already airborne when the transponder stopped working.
@Onlooker Less than twenty replies into the thread and we've already got two individuals attempting to distort the facts. Here's the key link that readers should visit:Daniel Rich , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 7:16 am GMTCompare the information there against what the detractors say here.
@Quartermasterutu , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 7:31 am GMTThe airliner had not been in the air long at all when it was shot down. An Airliner can not legally launch with deadlined transponder, so the claim that it quit transmitting "several" minutes earlier would have placed it on the ground when it quit.
The flight departed Tehran Imam Khomeini International Airport at 02:42 UTC ( 06:12 local time ) and the last ADS-B signal was received by the Flightradar24 network at 02:44 UTC( 06:14 local time) . According to the report the aircraft climbed to 8000 feet and turned right back toward the airport and crashed at 02:48 UTC ( 06:18 local time ) -- four minutes after the last ADS-B signal was received by the Flightradar24 network. – Source Flight Radar 24
Mr. Giraldi's original claim:
The Iranian missile operator reportedly experienced considerable "jamming" and the planes transponder switched off and stopped transmitting several minutes before the missiles were launched. There were also problems with the communication network of the air defense command, which may have been related.
4 minutes after the transponders were switches off, the plane crashed .
Without [proper] access to the FDR and CVR, it's impossible to determine when the plane was hit and how long it took to crash, exactly.
The plane was only flying at 8,000 feet [its normal {flight} ceiling is 30,000 feet and above], so it's speed relatively low [cruise speed is between about 400 and 500 knots (460 – 575 mph / 740 – 930 kph), but the Ukrainian plane was still climbing] and the fall back to Earth relatively quick.
On the clip where the plane is on fire and finally crashes, the downward angle looked to be about 25 to 30 %, which is relatively steep. Time of downfall can be calculated when the relative data is available.
Therefore, Mr Giraldi's claim " several minutes before the missiles were launched " is technically correct , until proven wrong by data from the FDR and CVR,
The Tor system is too primitive to be hacked. It is a stand alone, autonomous and mostly analog system. The radar signals it generates are shown on analog tube-screens.Ghali , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 8:07 am GMTInteresting theory by P. Giraldi. However, I am very surprised that Israel/Mossad role in these acts of terrorism never mentioned. We know that Trump is a Zionist servant and acts on instructions from his jewish fananciers. We know, Trump is incapable of serious thinking.GMC , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 8:10 am GMTHere is a good article with some interesting observations:
https://sputniknews.com/columnists/202001131078026961-iran-jet-disaster-setup/The Iranians took the hit because their missiles took out the airliner. And then, they could stop the Western media crying for the next 6 mos. and this gave them time to bring in other neutral investigators to look at the evidence and come up with logical scenarios. There is a reason the black boxes weren't given to any one else to own – because they still remember the scam investigation of MH 17. I f lew planes for over 20 yrs – Every controlled/radared airport would ask me to turn on my transponder if it wasn't on – Everyone of them. This plane not only came from Ukraine but was an easy target for a hack from any of the big Intel countries. The BIG STORY here is that most every plane flying today – can have the same type consequences!!! because of the Western War Machine.AZ , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 10:08 am GMTAsk the Israelis. They are experts in these operations. The blood of the innocent on their headslavoisier , says: Website Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 12:01 pm GMTR D Steele has some interesting thoughts as well:
@AnonUncommonGround , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 12:23 pm GMTTrump-Pence-Pompeo-Kushner-Netanyahu are ultimately responsible for these 176 lives lost. I suspect MBS is also part of the scheme. It was his fake peace offering that lured Soleimani to Iraq in the first place. I'm with Trudeau on this.
Trudeau showed some real courage criticizing Trump and his terrible decisions.
More Western allies have to stand up to the Zionist stooge and call him out on his treachery and stupidity.
@bobhammerlavoisier , says: Website Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 12:32 pm GMTThe Democrats have gone too far.
I believe that P.G. has supported Trump until recently.
Besides, you could get some general information about such themes if you read articles like the following:
There's No Evidence Iran Is Responsible for the Deaths of Hundreds of Americans
by Stephen ZunesHow the President Became a Drone Operator
by Allegra Harpootlianhttps://www.counterpunch.org/2020/01/16/how-the-president-became-a-drone-operator/
@bobhammer Stop drinking the Kool-Aid. Turn off Fox News now.Anonymous [401] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 2:22 pm GMTWe are not always the good guys and we are up to our necks in deceit, plunder, and evil. Our actions have harmed millions of people around the world and it has to stop.
It is time for more self-reflection as individuals and as a nation; and it is long past time for us to be comfortable with lies.
@bobhammer The "uninterruptible" autopilot can be activated – either by pilots or by on-board sensors, or by radio or satellite link<= connected to controls at the remote end. Government agencies, quasi government agencies, military brats and probably the entire group of privately operated NGOs and private party mobsters (bankers, corporations and private military armies and privateers) at the remote end, can take over control of in-flight Aircraft, and fly it, land it, take it off, whatever, even if the pilot sitting in the cockpit objects. and does all he can to retrieve control from the remote operator.Trinity , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 2:51 pm GMTSeveral comments report says interrupt able remote control, allows, persons on the ground, to take from the pilot in a flying airplane, control of the airplane the pilot is suppose to be flying, in situations for example when terrorist are in the cockpit. I have not read the manufacture's literature nor do I have personal knowledge abut the equipment list of any of these aircraft, the list suggest they are all aircraft, not only equipped with the UAP but that they were all aircraft made by the same manufacturer. I am merely repeating what was on stated as fact on a website I visited.
Many are looking for proof that remotely equipped uninterruptible autopilots are being used as Remote Control weaponized drones . Imagine an pilot, located on the ground in London or somewhere parks his /her remote ground to air control vehicle and takes over flight control including turns on/off the transponder [<=which tells everyone where the plane is during its flight] on a plane that is flying, landing or taking off from say the Tehran airport in Iran?
My personal experience is that it generally takes less than 2 minutes after a transponder is turned off during a planes flight, before fighter jets arrive to escort the transponder disabled plane; so the whole system that protects civilian aircraft, and allows the military to know the aircraft is civilian, is dependent on the Transponder, installed in the airplane, to continuously squawk during flight, its exact position so that everyone can identify the flight, and track the aircraft during its flight. Every land based control tower, ATC control system center and military installation depends on that airborne squawking transponder to track the en-route progress of commercial and private aircraft flights from take off to landing.
Another comment made on that list referred to above claimed Uninterruptible Auto Pilot [UAP] equipped aircraft have been involved in unexplained flight accident/disappearance events (I have no personal knowledge about the equipment in these aircraft, I just repeated here what someone else said elsewhere, please verify these claims yourself or provide verification ) .
(4 @911) <=UAP allows pilot-less flights, no pilot need board the plane for its flight.
(PS752) (transponder turned off, destroyed by confused ground defense crews)
MH370 (vanished into thin air)
MH17 (had its flight path altered.)
Eyes focus on Uninterruptible Auto Pilot (UAP) .. to explain recent Tehran 160 person disaster?This is really something to think about? Always the question has been how did four military officers from Iran, trained a few weeks in Florida to fly jets, manage to get through four differently located pilot screening TSA gates to fly the aircraft and passenger into the 9/11 events. Conspiracy theories suggest since no pilot is needed, there were no pilots for TSA to screening. Remote control on the ground flew the aircraft to their destinations.
"By way of deception thou shalt do war."Pindos , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 4:01 pm GMTJust about says it all doesn't it? What kind of people are we dealing with here? Of course only the morons out there are still being fooled by these kind of false flags. Even in the year 2020 these same morons still believe ZOG's 9-11 fairy tale and label any other theory as a "conspiracy." Speaking of conspiracies the biggest idiots out there, even bigger than the ones who believe ZOG's narrative or those type who believe the total wacktard stuff put out by ZIO controlled disinfo puppets like Alex Jones.
Ukrainian commercial airline? What other nation besides Iran does ZOG have it in for? Is it Russia?
War by deception? HARDLY to anyone with two brain cells left. These fools have been caught before, they aren't that clever. What they are is protected by a syndicate of bought and paid for politicians. They were caught attacking the USS Liberty, they were caught bombing American and British installations in Egypt, the Rosenbergs and Pollard were nailed, but of course despite all of this, America and her leaders continued the value Israel as a friend and an ally. With a friend like Israel, who needs enemies. Then of course we have the story of our 5 little dancing Israelis apprehended in NYC after being observed dancing and celebrating the WTC towers collapsing. So you mean a group of Israelis from Israel, nation that is ALLEGEDLY "friends" with America and America think it is hilarious and worth celebrating when America is attacked and thousands are burned alive or jump to their death from hundreds of feet above the street?? Of course "our" media quickly exonerated the celebrating Israelis and buried that story faster than your average house cat buries his own turds.
ZOG really thinks the average American has the IQ of a monkey. Even after the WMD caca they still think you people will believe anything they tell you to believe. The sad part is they are right about that with the majority of the population.
@Anon Wrong anonunit472 , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 4:37 pm GMTIdentification, friend or foe (IFF) is a radar-based identification system designed for command and control. It uses a transponder that listens for an interrogation signal and then sends a response that identifies the broadcaster. It enables military and civilian air traffic control interrogation systems to identify aircraft, vehicles or forces as friendly and to determine their bearing and range from the interrogator. IFF may be used by both military and civilian aircraft.
If such a capability exists would the US reveal and use it in such a minor circumstance. Occam's razor suggests this was just another case of 'better safe than sorry' during a time of military tensions. Not a whole lot different than the Vincennes shootdown of an Iranian airliner that came too close during a military confrontation in the Gulf.scrub , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 5:24 pm GMTI would hate to know how many 'friendly' aircraft were shot down by over zealous AAA gunners in WW2 but it wasn't just a handful.
Anybody who thinks that US-Israel wouldn't have been capable of staging such a horrific event as the shooting down of the airliner by Iran hasn't been following Whitney Webb's continuing articles which are available right here on UNZ. Israel seems to have insinuated itself into about every computer security program worldwide.anon [230] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 5:35 pm GMTWebb's article mentions large scale defense contractor Dell Computer's close connection to the Israeli government. Dell computer head Michael Dell has personally made large contributions to that curious "charity" called The Friends of The Israeli Defense Forces as has Larry Ellison, head or Oracle Software. Interestingly enough, neither of them have made correspondingly large contributions to American veterans however.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friends_of_the_Israel_Defense_Forces
Michael Dell is probably one of the biggest (or the biggest) single contributors to the Republicans from Texas, home of Dell computer. Larry Ellison (also a large government computer contractor) is also one of the Republican Party's biggest contributors.
Ellison's $5.5 million dollar contribution to the Republican is dwarfed however, by his recent contributions to The Friends of the Israeli Defense Forces which seem to total (as of today) $31 million (or more).
https://www.timesofisrael.com/record-53-8-million-raised-for-idf-soldiers-at-beverly-hills-gala/
Are both men and their companies security risks? Is there any doubt of this or are contribution to charity connected to a foreign army now simply to be considered as being benign and innocent.
@Pindos Wrong anonRurik , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 5:38 pm GMTIdentification, friend or foe (IFF) is a radar-based identification system designed for command and control. It uses a transponder that listens for an interrogation signal and then sends a response that identifies the broadcaster. It enables military and civilian air traffic control interrogation systems to identify aircraft, vehicles or forces as friendly and to determine their bearing and range from the interrogator. IFF may be used by both military and civilian aircraft.
Your Wikipedia snippet is absolutely incorrect . IFF is only used for Military Aircraft. If you want to prove me wrong:
Provide a link to any civilian transponder with IFF capability
Provide a link to any civilian aircraft Minimum Equipment List that requires an IFF@unit472barr , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 5:48 pm GMTVincennes shootdown of an Iranian airliner that came too close during a military confrontation in the Gulf.
Doesn't it rile you, as a U.S. veteran, that American soldiers are dying in treasonous service to an enemy nation?
Doesn't it bother you in the least, that Americans are on the hook for untold trillions of dollars, so they can slaughter innocent people, thousands of miles away, whose only "crime" is that a certain shitty little country, wants to see them all sent reeling into the stone age, (which is exactly what they want for you too).
Have y0u ever bothered to notice just exactly whom it is that is driving all the liberal-progressive shit we all see daily, with the ubiquitous homomania and Hollywood sewage force-injected into America's culture?
I see you occasionally speak against that stuff, but then when it comes to American soldiers dying on behalf of those rats, there you are, defending the narrative of Iran as bad guys.
How many Iranians do you see pumping Hollywood sewage into America's veins?
How many Iranians do you see on Capital Hill, demanding Trump and all his Deplorables are irredeemably racists? And need to have their guns taken away?
How many Iranians do you see at Goldman Sachs, (and the other 'Too big to fail Banksters) looting the country dry?
How many Iranians do you see in our universities, force-feeding America's youth the progressive-liberal monkey shit, they're paying to consume daily?
You'd have to be very myopic not to notice who it is behind America's depraved descent into cultural and spiritual guano. (not to mention the Eternal Wars, that only an imbecile could pretend not to notice ((who)) are behind them).
And I have a clue for you, it isn't the Iranians. In fact, they had a nice good taste of ((Western)) culture under the Shah, and they decided they'd rather not see their women whored out, and their children spiritually dead husks.
It'd be good if people could lift the veils they willfully allow to cover their own eyes, in some kind of misguided machismo about how tough "our" military are, as they're killing and dying on behalf of their worst enemy.
@JimDandy Hpw did the instruction to "Fly direct" prove fatal to MH 17Saggy , says: Website Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 6:09 pm GMTMUMBAI: The ministry of civil aviation's claim that there was no Air India flight near the ill-fated Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777 when it was shot down over Ukraine on Thursday appears misleading.
An Air India Dreamliner flight going from Delhi to Birmingham was in fact less than 25km away from the Malaysian aircraft,Minutes before the crash caused by a missile strike, the AI pilots had also heard the controller give the Malaysian aircraft MH17 what is called "a direct routing". This permits an aircraft to fly straight, instead of tracking the regular route which is generally a zig-zag track that goes from one ground-based navigation aid or way point to another. "Direct routing saves fuel and time and is preferred by pilots. In this case, it proved fatal," said an airline source.
1 Was India pressurized to deny the close proximity and 2 was it under pressure to deny that it heard the controller giving the instruction to MH 17????
@Anon http://www.dean-boys.com/extras/iff/iffqa.htmlMarvin Sandnes , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 6:52 pm GMTFAA regulations require that all aircraft, military or civilian, flying at an altitude of 10,000 feet or higher in U.S. controlled airspace, must be equipped with an operating IFF transponder system capable of automatic altitude reporting (this is the reason that two of the modes are used by both military and civilian aircraft).
So, did the Ukrainian plane have an IFF transponder or not? Ref?
The guy with the camera aimed up into a dark sky on that morning worked for a Saudi Arabia news service. From the "grayzone" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBGw5GMXb4c&feature=em-uploademailwdg , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 6:58 pm GMTCui bono? Israel and its NeoCon fifth column operating in the US and throughout the western world.Iris , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 7:01 pm GMT@QuartermasterA123 , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 7:02 pm GMTwhat Giraldi has published doesn't even rise to the level of the most idiotic conspiracy theory one can concoct.
It happened only a few months ago that an Israeli jet violated Syria's airspace and deliberately sheltered behind a Russian Iliouchine IL-20 to get it shot down by Syrian air defence.
It was so very clearly and simply explained by the Russian Chief of Staff than any imbecile could understand it; the idiot is definitely you.
@Saggy I believe you are correct.Saggy , says: Website Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 7:28 pm GMThttps://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/iff
My understanding is:
A civilian transponder will respond to almost any inquiry (or even a non-coded radar pulse):
-- Standard civilian transponder code = USA military Mode 3.
-- Standard civilian transponder altitude reporting = USA military Mode C.To reduce detectability in combat, the pilot can change the setting on a Military IFF system to only squawk when a correctly coded interrogation signal is recieved.
@Saggy Moon Of Alabama has the story –Frederick V. Reed , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 7:30 pm GMTThe Boeing jet broadcast the usual civil ADS-B signal but one has to expect that a U.S. cruise missile can and would do the same.
although 'one can expect ' seems like one hell of an assumption.
Transponders are turned on and off with switches in the cockpit. Is Giraldi suggesting that this transponder was equipped to be controlled from outside? Source of assertion that transponder was turned off? Can he name any commercial transponder with this feature? Does he know anythng about elctroic warfare? This sounds like the birthing of a conspiracy theory.Just passing through , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 8:07 pm GMT@DaveE The hilarious thing in Britain is that many people on the comments sections of MSM will talk about 'Asian' or more specifically 'Muslim' child rape gangs, because these gangs were heavily Muslim they can be referred to using the adjective 'Muslim'.Iris , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 8:11 pm GMTBut when you point out that the ones beating the drums for war in Iran and who successfully plunged America and UK into a long a protracted war in the Middle East are mostly Jewish, as evidenced by this article in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz
they start getting all pissy, because of the Holocaust legend, Jews are now above scrutiny and Jewish power cannot be talked about. It is the slipperly slope fallacy, what is merely being advocated for here is not to trust a single thing that comes out of the mouth of a Jew regarding the Middle East as there is a clear conflict of interest, not genocide.
I also suspect that peoples understandable antagonism towards Muslims has somehow made them more sympathetic to Israel. Tommy Robinson is for example funded by rich Jews like Ezra Levant of Rebel Media and Robert J. Shillman – who sits on the board of Friends of Israel Defence Forces – shills for Israel. Now the Western goyim start frothing at the mouth when they hear Muslim and so think countries like Iran are evil and out to destory the West, a laughable claim.
@Z-manAnonymous [230] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 8:18 pm GMTstupid Christian Zionist dogma
You don't have to apologise. Christian Zionists are no Christians; they are uncultured, criminal country-bumpkins utilised by their Zionist handlers to justify the destruction of the twice-millenary Christian Arab community.
Here is what real Christians think:
Mor Maurice Amsih, Syrian Orthodox Bishop of Euphrates, demonstrating against the murder of General Soleimani, calling Soleimani and his companions " martyrs " who are now " Saints in the Heavenly Kingdom" for their blood shed freeing the Syrian people from Zio-sponsored terrorists. [@ 0:25]https://www.youtube.com/embed/1eH4djCP2mI?feature=oembed
@SaggyAnonStarter , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 8:22 pm GMTMoon Of Alabama has the story –
The Boeing jet broadcast the usual civil ADS-B signal but one has to expect that a U.S. cruise missile can and would do the same.
although 'one can expect ' seems like one hell of an assumption.
This is absolutely irrelevant since the Iranian SAM missile launcher is so old it can not even detect and decode ADS-B signals. Note that the requirement for ADS-B transponders only came into effect this year .
Some additional information to consider:A123 , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 9:29 pm GMTIRGC Releases Details of Accidental Downing of Ukrainian Plane
https://ifpnews.com/irgc-releases-details-of-accidental-downing-of-ukrainian-plane
By the account of Brigadier General Amir-Ali Hajizadeh:
1. Prior to the downing of the aircraft, Americans had threatened to hit 52 sites in Iran.
2. These threats placed Iran's air defense systems on the highest alert level.
3. There were reports that cruise missles had been fired at Iran.
4. In spite of IRGC requests that airspace be cleared of commercial flights, those requests were not met.
5. The air defense unit recognized Flight 752 as a cruise missle from a distance of 19 kilometers, but is still required to get approval to fire upon it.
6. When the operator attempts to get approval, he can not do so due to "disruption" of his communication system.
7. The operator is forced to make an independent decision in a 10 second window of time and fires upon the plane.Russell Bentley , however, states that
1. the SA-15 system has an IFF interrogator built into its radar system,
2. Boeing 737 aircraft are equipped with two IFF transponders, which are set and activated prior to take off, and
3. it is possible for a plane to take off without an IFF transponder operating.
4. In spite of all this, the flight's recording on FLIGHTRADAR24.COM , proves that the transponder was on and working.
5. Even if there was no IFF signal, a SA-15/TOR M-1 operator could still determine the location, bearing, speed and size of the potential target.
6. The SA-15 also has an automatic all weather day/night NV/IR Electro Optical Targeting System (EOTS) used for target engagement and fire control by which the plane would have been easily identified.
7. Flight 752 should have been identifiable as a commercial airliner by its external lights alone.From this information, he concludes that either there are traitors within Iran seeking to facilitate regime change or that the downing of Flight 752 was a false flag operation perpetrated by the usual suspects.
I'd like to see more information about this topic from those qualified to speak about it.
@AnonStarteranonymous [393] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 9:40 pm GMT2. These threats placed Iran's air defense systems on the highest alert level
7. The operator is forced to make an independent decision in a 10 second window of time and fires upon the plane.How long were the operators on alert? Tension and sleep deprivation are a bad mix. This looks like the crew on the ground had seconds to make a decision, and in the rush got it wrong.
I'm not sure how anyone on the outside could tell if the operator made the launch by mistake or from ill intent. No doubt the crew will be given the Richard Jewell treatment in an attempt to deflect blame from the religious hierarchy.
@AnonStarterJust passing through , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 10:12 pm GMT1. the SA-15 system has an IFF interrogator built into its radar system,
Correct
2. Boeing 737 aircraft are equipped with two IFF transponders, which are set and activated prior to take off, and
Incorrect The Boeing 737 aircrfat has two ATC Transponders only one of which is activated prior to takeoff. The second ATC transponder is only activated if the first one fails. An ATC Transponder is NOT an IFF transponder.
3. it is possible for a plane to take off without an IFF transponder operating.
Incorrect . A functioning ATC transponder is part the Boeing 737 Minimum Equipment List which is available here . The only way the Ukraine Air crew could have gotten around this requirement was to get prior permission from the Iranian Civil Aviation Authority and EVERY other country's Cicil Aviation Authority in its flight path which I can guarantee you would not be forthcoming.
5. Even if there was no IFF signal, a SA-15/TOR M-1 operator could still determine the location, bearing, speed and size of the potential target.
Incorrect The operator could determine range, range rate. and bearing if the transponder was not function.
6. The SA-15 also has an automatic all weather day/night NV/IR Electro Optical Targeting System (EOTS) used for target engagement and fire control by which the plane would have been easily identified.
The plane was at least 1.5 miles away (8000 ft altitude). You go get yourself a pair of Night Vision/Infra Red scopes and see how well you do identifying different aircraft from that distance
@Ron Unz One good article to show people in relation to the Israel Lobby's influence on America's decision to go to war in Iraq is an article in Israeli newspaper Haaretz titled White Man's Burden which carries the following subheading;Curmudgeon , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 10:19 pm GMTThe war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals, most of them Jewish, who are pushing President Bush to change the course of history. Two of them, journalists William Kristol and Charles Krauthammer, say it's possible. But another journalist, Thomas Friedman (not part of the group), is skeptical.
This comes from a reputable newspaper from Israel so cannot be dismissed as the ravings of some neo-Nazis. I have found this to have the most success in getting people online to think about the Iraq War more, it is impossible for detractors to label a link to an Israeli newspaper article as "anti-Semitic" without looking absurd.
I would find the UN's review kind of hard to recommend to people in real life simple because of the provocative nature of the stories it runs. The American Pravda series is of course very informative but the articles require quite a bit of time to read through and check the hyperlinks within the article itself. Without sounding like someone with a superiority complex, most people cannot read this much information and grasp it. Many will not touch articles relating to Holocaust Denial or race.
But anyway, you sir are doing great work with the maintenance and story selection on this website and I wish you the best of luck in the future. It certainly has armed me with lots of information that I can use to counter mainstream narratives in a whole host of issues. Although my efforts in real life have not been very successful, I do seem to be getting some success in my cyber-activism on mainstream news websites, where I am able to provide a clear and cogent narrative with links to reputable websites and not come across as a nutjob who raves about da jooz .
@Anon Sharpen your reading skills. Civilian aircraft have different frequency transponders than military aircraft. Flight plans are filed, and the transponder signals correspond to filed flight plans. When attacking, military craft turn off their transponders. No transponder signal = no corresponding flight plan = unfriendly aircraft.Curmudgeon , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 10:22 pm GMT
There is no need to "spoof" anything, once the transponder stops signalling. That aside, I found it curious that this particular airplane was on its first flight after major maintenance. Who knows what was done in servicing. If the computer in the car you drive can be hijacked to cause sudden acceleration or brake failurs, an airplane's certainly can.@lavoisier Unfortunately, Trudeau is just a different sort of Zionist stooge. His mentor, Irwin Cotler, is popular enough in Israel to be President.
|
|
|
Jan 18, 2020 | www.unz.com
AnonFromTN , says: January 15, 2020 at 6:42 pm GMT
@Shitposter him some fighter planes for free and he will build an airbase of the Belarus army.
6. Belarus makes gasoline and other products from Russian oils and resells them at a huge profit. Besides, he wants to export it all via Baltic statelets, providing their ports business that Putin is taking away from them by building Russian deep-sea ports, like Ust-Luga.
7. Not to mention that he talks about 10 times more than is wise, saying mostly BS (the latter is natural for a moron).
There are many more, but these are enough to explain how most Russians feel about him. Belarus either gets rid of that idiot, or suffers because of his stupidity.
|
|
|
Thulean Friend , says: Show Comment December 23, 2019 at 5:34 am GMTJan 18, 2020 | www.unz.com
,
About this whole Ukraine-Russia gas transit thing that Felix is panicking about. It seems Germany had a key role in facilitating the deal.Thulean Friend , says: Show Comment December 24, 2019 at 4:43 am GMTHowever, that risk receded this week after Moscow and Kyiv concluded a landmark agreement that will ensure Russian gas continues to transit through Ukraine even after Nord Stream 2 is completed. Germany played a critical role in brokering the agreement and pressuring Russia to maintain Ukraine's transit status.
Why would Germany spend all this time and resources to construct these pipelines and then suddenly pressure Russia to maintain the transit fees? That makes zero sense unless you believe that Germany was acting as a proxy on behalf of a greater power. My pet theory: Germany most likely caved to US pressure and tried to triangulate at the last minute in a bid to stave off a larger German-US conflict.
@Swedish FamilyWhat Germany wants, it seems to me, is (1) cheap energy for German industry, (2) a maximally weak Russian hand visavi Ukraine (which is now in effect a NATO/EU dependency), and (3) good enough relations with the Kremlin for Russia not to go rogue. Goals (1) and (3) obviously sit uneasily with goal (2), which is why we see so much back and forth.
I agree with (1) and (3) but I'd disagree over (2). I am not convinced Germany cares much about Ukraine's well-being. It is a very small economy (barely over 100 billion USD) and Germany's trade exposure to Ukraine is minimal. It isn't part of NATO, EU or any other major Western framework.
If Ukraine collapsed it would create significant refugee streams but Ukrainians are very easily assimilated into Western European countries, unlike Syrians or Turks, so even in a worse-case scenario the fallout would not be a major problem. If Croats or Serbs can mix into Germany easily, I don't see why Ukrainians would be a problem. Germany's shrinking work force would in fact even need such an influx. The only kink would be Russia's expanding borders if both Belarus+Ukraine was swallowed up but Germany probably would calculate that Russia wouldn't attack a NATO ally (and they wouldn't be wrong). I'm not saying Germany would want such an outcome, only that the worst-case scenario wouldn't be a big problem for them.
I think this has the fingerprints of the US all over it. Trump personally hates Ukraine, which has been documented in leaked documents during the impeachment process and major personalities of the Trumpist movement like Tucker Carlson openly cheers for Russia. So it wasn't Trump or his people who pushed for this but rather the permanent national-security state that was behind it and they are obsessed with keeping Russia down, or inventing fake Russiagate hoaxes to justify their paranoia. Germany made a 180 and suddenly pressured Russia to do something which Germany itself had no interest in keeping for the longest time. That suggests Germany caved to US pressure and tried to do a compromise. The US interest would be for NS2 to be scrapped completely. This was a German attempt at triangulating.
Either way, Ukraine got a big win purely because of Great Power politics over which they had no direct control.
|
|
|
Jan 17, 2020 | www.unz.com
iffen , says: January 15, 2020 at 5:55 pm GMT
Ban PMs, Ministers, governors, some mayors and judges, from having second citizenships of foreign residencies; moreover, Presidential candidates should have been resident in Russia for 25 years (previously 10 years) and never had a foreign citizenship.I knew that if you kept it up, Putler would get around to targeting you.
|
|
|
Jan 17, 2020 | www.unz.com
says: January 15, 2020 at 6:42 pm GMT 200 Words @Shitposter Just a few off the top of my head:
1. Lukashenko wants the prices for oil and natural gas for Belarus to be the same as for Russian regions, but refuses to behave like a Russian region.
2. He got many loans from Russia and Russian semi-commercial entities (like Sberbank), but behaves as if his country is living within its means.
3. He prevented Russian companies from acquiring Minsk automotive plant (MAZ). In response, Russia switched the trucks for its mobile rockets from MAZ to domestic KaMAZ.
4. He never recognized South Ossetia and Abkhasia.
5. He refused Russian request for an airbase, suggesting that Russia gives him some fighter planes for free and he will build an airbase of the Belarus army.
6. Belarus makes gasoline and other products from Russian oils and resells them at a huge profit. Besides, he wants to export it all via Baltic statelets, providing their ports business that Putin is taking away from them by building Russian deep-sea ports, like Ust-Luga.
7. Not to mention that he talks about 10 times more than is wise, saying mostly BS (the latter is natural for a moron).
There are many more, but these are enough to explain how most Russians feel about him. Belarus either gets rid of that idiot, or suffers because of his stupidity.
|
|
|
Jan 17, 2020 | www.unz.com
Beckow says: January 15, 2020 at 7:12 pm GMT 200 Words @Anatoly Karlin All advanced countries need a no-children tax on free-loaders to survive. It is easy to implement and mostly fair (there are a few corner cases). It is not a penalty since it is a personal choice to be a parasite on the society and consume instead of raising children.
It can easily be implemented by including a number of children in retirement formula and in taxes. The no-kids parasites, the assorted barren women and gays, feminists and male scoundrels who abandon their families, would pay for the long-term support they get from the society – for the children that they will need to get pensions, medical care, etc Or we can just cut them off once they no longer work. No kids – no old-age benefits, unless you pay for them. This would be automatic in a normal society in the past.
Most modern people don't have children because they are lazy and because raising children is hard. It is a core role of any society to have families, so those who don't participate need to pay up.
Philip Owen , says: January 15, 2020 at 7:19 pm GMT
@Beckow The Soviet Union did have a tax on childless (or unmarried?) men for a while. It wasn't popular and didn't last.Beckow , says: January 15, 2020 at 7:30 pm GMT@Philip Owen opular with the parasites who have to pay, but all taxes are unpopular.AnonFromTN , says: January 15, 2020 at 8:08 pm GMTIt is fundamentally the most fair way to handle generational issues – those who choose to be free-loaders, can't expect others' children to take care of them. This will happen regardless, all the pension obligations are imposed on people who never agreed to them, they will re-structure them in the future to benefit their own families.
In the West this is complicated by the diversity-migrant issue in the next generation – why should they pay for people who invited them for cheap labor? There is an assumption that they will pay, but why should they? This issue is coming.
@Philip Owen In Stalin's times that tax was imposed an all and gradually reduced with the number of children, so that only people who had three or more children did not pay "childless" tax. In Brezhnev's USSR that tax was on childless men and married childless women (on the assumption that marriage is male's choice, so a woman cannot be penalized when no one marries her).inertial , says: January 15, 2020 at 8:23 pm GMT@AnonFromTN Too many women whose potential husbands were killed in the war. Penalizing them with a tax on top of everything would've been heartless.Abelard Lindsey , says: January 15, 2020 at 8:26 pm GMT@Beckow The US already has this. One look at the IRS 1040 form and instructions will confirm this.nonFromTN , says: January 15, 2020 at 8:30 pm GMT@songbird Frankly, I don't know. I never lived in Stalin's times and never had enough siblings or three children. What I remember in the 1960s and 1970s, every school child in grade 1 (maybe 1 and 2) received a glass of free milk at school daily, and children from poorer families received free lunch (I never did).Philip Owen , says: January 15, 2020 at 9:43 pm GMT@AnonFromTN In the UK we had a small bottle, about a third of a pint, of free milk. The ones who needed it most never drank it. (My school was in a small town and contained all social classes). School meals were paid for by most but some had them free.The Russian government has just introduced free school meals for all for certain years. I forget which.
|
|
|
Jan 16, 2020 | www.unz.com
What seems to have been a case of bad judgments and human error does, however, include some elements that have yet to be explained. The Iranian missile operator reportedly experienced considerable "jamming" and the planes transponder switched off and stopped transmitting several minutes before the missiles were launched . There were also problems with the communication network of the air defense command, which may have been related.
The electronic jamming coming from an unknown source meant that the air defense system was placed on manual operation, relying on human intervention to launch. The human role meant that an operator had to make a quick judgment in a pressure situation in which he had only moments to react. The shutdown of the transponder, which would have automatically signaled to the operator and Tor electronics that the plane was civilian, instead automatically indicated that it was hostile. The operator, having been particularly briefed on the possibility of incoming American cruise missiles, then fired.
The two missiles that brought the plane down came from a Russian-made system designated SA-15 by NATO and called Tor by the Russians. Its eight missiles are normally mounted on a tracked vehicle. The system includes both radar to detect and track targets as well as an independent launch system, which includes an Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) system functionality capable of reading call signs and transponder signals to prevent accidents. Given what happened on that morning in Tehran, it is plausible to assume that something or someone deliberately interfered with both the Iranian air defenses and with the transponder on the airplane, possibly as part of an attempt to create an aviation accident that would be attributed to the Iranian government.
The SA-15 Tor defense system used by Iran has one major vulnerability. It can be hacked or "spoofed," permitting an intruder to impersonate a legitimate user and take control. The United States Navy and Air Force reportedly have developed technologies "that can fool enemy radar systems with false and deceptively moving targets." Fooling the system also means fooling the operator. The Guardian has also reported independently how the United States military has long been developing systems that can from a distance alter the electronics and targeting of Iran's available missiles.
The same technology can, of course, be used to alter or even mask the transponder on a civilian airliner in such a fashion as to send false information about identity and location. The United States has the cyber and electronic warfare capability to both jam and alter signals relating to both airliner transponders and to the Iranian air defenses. Israel presumably has the same ability. Joe Quinn at Sott.net also notes an interested back story to those photos and video footage that have appeared in the New York Times and elsewhere showing the Iranian missile launch, the impact with the plane and the remains after the crash, to include the missile remains. They appeared on January 9 th , in an Instagram account called ' Rich Kids of Tehran '. Quinn asks how the Rich Kids happened to be in "a low-income housing estate on the city's outskirts [near the airport] at 6 a.m. on the morning of January 8 th with cameras pointed at the right part of the sky in time to capture a missile hitting a Ukrainian passenger plane ?"
Put together the Rich Kids and the possibility of electronic warfare and it all suggests a premeditated and carefully planned event of which the Soleimani assassination was only a part. There have been riots in Iran subsequent to the shooting down of the plane, blaming the government for its ineptitude. Some of the people in the street are clearly calling for the goal long sought by the United States and Israel, i.e. "regime change." If nothing else, Iran, which was widely seen as the victim in the killing of Soleimani, is being depicted in much of the international media as little more than another unprincipled actor with blood on its hands. There is much still to explain about the downing of Ukrainian International Airlines Flight 752.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East.
AnonStarter , says: Show Comment January 15, 2020 at 10:45 pm GMT
Given this news, any impartial observer would at least entertain the possibility of its truth, particularly given the lengthy track record of the United States/Israel in perpetrating such crimes.Sean , says: Show Comment January 15, 2020 at 11:10 pm GMTIt's a good litmus test for determining where one's sentiment lies. Even "alternative media" aren't likely to touch this story.
Bravo to Mr. Giraldi and Mr. Unz.
The Iranian Ambassador to Britain, Hamid Baeidinejad said in an interview on the UK Channel 4 news hours ago that although Iran had needed time to determine what had happened, it had now accepted responsibility, would pay compensation, and the people who fired on the jet will be put on trial.onebornfree , says: Website Show Comment January 15, 2020 at 11:49 pm GMTIf nothing else, Iran, which was widely seen as the victim in the killing of Soleimani, is being depicted in much of the international media as little more than another unprincipled actor with blood on its hands.
Both Trump and the Iranian regime have good domestic disquiet reason to rethink the confrontational policy each are pursuing. Iran and the US could get closer over this. I think the predictable unpredictability of assassination and catastrophic loss of life events makes false flagging them of dubious value.
Why did I rob banks? Because I enjoyed it. I loved it. I was more alive when I was inside a bank, robbing it, than at any other time in my life. I enjoyed everything about it so much that one or two weeks later I'd be out looking for the next job. But to me the money was the chips, that's all.
(Sutton W, Linn E: Where the Money Was: The Memoirs of a Bank Robber. Viking Press (1976), p. 160)
I suppose it is possible there are people who get addicted to false flagging others' deaths. If half of what is said in this site is true, Mossad really needs to set up a 12 step program.
" .the big question which many people on social media are asking is: why was this "videographer" standing in a derelict industrial area outside Tehran at around six o'clock in the morning with a mobile phone camera training on a fixed angle to the darkened sky? The airliner is barely visible, yet the sky-watching person has the camera pointed and ready to film a most dramatic event, seconds before it happened. That strongly suggests, foreknowledge."anonymous [150] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 12:36 am GMT"Iran Jet Disaster Setup – Who Is the Mysterious Videographer?:"
https://ahtribune.com/world/north-africa-south-west-asia/iran/3809-jet-disaster-setup.htmlAnd I would add: how do we know the video[s] are even genuine? [Answer: we don't, it is only an unproven assumption at this time].
Regards, onebornfree
Hmmm, cameras waiting beforehand, transponders not working. Sort of sounds like 9-11, doesn't it?The Alarmist , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 3:01 am GMTanonymous [405] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 3:49 am GMTThe Iranian missile operator reportedly experienced considerable "jamming" and the planes transponder switched off and stopped transmitting several minutes before the missiles were launched.
I vaguely recall reports of transponder issues arising during the shootdown of MH-17.
Anon [230] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 4:10 am GMTCivilian passenger flights were still departing and arriving in Tehran, almost certainly an error in judgment on the part of the airport authorities. Inexplicably, civilian aircraft continued to take off and land even after Flight 752 was shot down.
The Iranian government is blameworthy for keeping planes in the air either because of diabolical reasons (delays a counter attack) or economic (nearly $1 billion a year in overflight fees).
However, the pilots of the airliners that took over during the morning between the first missile hitting Iraq and the downing of the Ukrainian airliner were dumb and irresponsible.
Anon [200] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 5:20 am GMTThe system includes both radar to detect and track targets as well as an independent launch system, which includes an Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) system functionality capable of reading call signs and transponder signals to prevent accidents.
Clearly you have no clue how an IFF operates and that no commercial airliner even has an IFF on board. Every commercial aircraft looks like the enemy to this SAM operator.
Also, you need to explain how spoofing a RADAR which creates a false track would cause the shoot down. The missile would simply target the false track instead of the real aircraft.
You also need to explain how an old SAM missile site can be hacked or spoofed to shoot down a civilian airliner. Especially this old one which has no Mode-S or ADS-B capability and only radio communication capability.
As Mark Twain said, it's better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you are an idiot rather than open it and remove all doubt.
Even if this was a clear mistake on Iran's part, the US and Israel still have blood on their hands for the downing of this plane. The missiles were launched in response to a targeted killing of an Iranian general. If that didn't happen, these missiles never would've been launched.Onlooker , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 5:22 am GMTTrump-Pence-Pompeo-Kushner-Netanyahu are ultimately responsible for these 176 lives lost. I suspect MBS is also part of the scheme. It was his fake peace offering that lured Soleimani to Iraq in the first place. I'm with Trudeau on this.
@Anon Before calling someone an idiot it is better to follow Mark Twain's advice yourself. A more careful reading reveals no claim that IFF was onstalled on the airliner. The commenter does speculate that possible spoofing involved a false attribution of a real airliner not the creation of a false airliner and radar track. Perhaps you are familiar with "old" electronic countermeasures and not with the "new", "top secret" and spiffy versions hinted at by the U.S. military?AnonStarter , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 6:30 am GMT@Quartermaster /An Airliner can not legally launch with deadlined transponder, so the claim that it quit transmitting "several" minutes earlier would have placed it on the ground when it quit./AnonStarter , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 6:45 am GMTFrom the SoTT link :
As it climbed and reached 4,600ft above ground level, the plane's transponder suddenly stopped working at about 6.14am, 2 minutes or so after take off . [emphasis added]
The plane was already airborne when the transponder stopped working.
@Onlooker Less than twenty replies into the thread and we've already got two individuals attempting to distort the facts. Here's the key link that readers should visit:Daniel Rich , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 7:16 am GMTCompare the information there against what the detractors say here.
@Quartermasterutu , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 7:31 am GMTThe airliner had not been in the air long at all when it was shot down. An Airliner can not legally launch with deadlined transponder, so the claim that it quit transmitting "several" minutes earlier would have placed it on the ground when it quit.
The flight departed Tehran Imam Khomeini International Airport at 02:42 UTC ( 06:12 local time ) and the last ADS-B signal was received by the Flightradar24 network at 02:44 UTC( 06:14 local time) . According to the report the aircraft climbed to 8000 feet and turned right back toward the airport and crashed at 02:48 UTC ( 06:18 local time ) -- four minutes after the last ADS-B signal was received by the Flightradar24 network. – Source Flight Radar 24
Mr. Giraldi's original claim:
The Iranian missile operator reportedly experienced considerable "jamming" and the planes transponder switched off and stopped transmitting several minutes before the missiles were launched. There were also problems with the communication network of the air defense command, which may have been related.
4 minutes after the transponders were switches off, the plane crashed .
Without [proper] access to the FDR and CVR, it's impossible to determine when the plane was hit and how long it took to crash, exactly.
The plane was only flying at 8,000 feet [its normal {flight} ceiling is 30,000 feet and above], so it's speed relatively low [cruise speed is between about 400 and 500 knots (460 – 575 mph / 740 – 930 kph), but the Ukrainian plane was still climbing] and the fall back to Earth relatively quick.
On the clip where the plane is on fire and finally crashes, the downward angle looked to be about 25 to 30 %, which is relatively steep. Time of downfall can be calculated when the relative data is available.
Therefore, Mr Giraldi's claim " several minutes before the missiles were launched " is technically correct , until proven wrong by data from the FDR and CVR,
The Tor system is too primitive to be hacked. It is a stand alone, autonomous and mostly analog system. The radar signals it generates are shown on analog tube-screens.Ghali , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 8:07 am GMTInteresting theory by P. Giraldi. However, I am very surprised that Israel/Mossad role in these acts of terrorism never mentioned. We know that Trump is a Zionist servant and acts on instructions from his jewish fananciers. We know, Trump is incapable of serious thinking.GMC , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 8:10 am GMTHere is a good article with some interesting observations:
https://sputniknews.com/columnists/202001131078026961-iran-jet-disaster-setup/The Iranians took the hit because their missiles took out the airliner. And then, they could stop the Western media crying for the next 6 mos. and this gave them time to bring in other neutral investigators to look at the evidence and come up with logical scenarios. There is a reason the black boxes weren't given to any one else to own – because they still remember the scam investigation of MH 17. I f lew planes for over 20 yrs – Every controlled/radared airport would ask me to turn on my transponder if it wasn't on – Everyone of them. This plane not only came from Ukraine but was an easy target for a hack from any of the big Intel countries. The BIG STORY here is that most every plane flying today – can have the same type consequences!!! because of the Western War Machine.AZ , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 10:08 am GMTAsk the Israelis. They are experts in these operations. The blood of the innocent on their headslavoisier , says: Website Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 12:01 pm GMTR D Steele has some interesting thoughts as well:
@AnonUncommonGround , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 12:23 pm GMTTrump-Pence-Pompeo-Kushner-Netanyahu are ultimately responsible for these 176 lives lost. I suspect MBS is also part of the scheme. It was his fake peace offering that lured Soleimani to Iraq in the first place. I'm with Trudeau on this.
Trudeau showed some real courage criticizing Trump and his terrible decisions.
More Western allies have to stand up to the Zionist stooge and call him out on his treachery and stupidity.
@bobhammerlavoisier , says: Website Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 12:32 pm GMTThe Democrats have gone too far.
I believe that P.G. has supported Trump until recently.
Besides, you could get some general information about such themes if you read articles like the following:
There's No Evidence Iran Is Responsible for the Deaths of Hundreds of Americans
by Stephen ZunesHow the President Became a Drone Operator
by Allegra Harpootlianhttps://www.counterpunch.org/2020/01/16/how-the-president-became-a-drone-operator/
@bobhammer Stop drinking the Kool-Aid. Turn off Fox News now.Anonymous [401] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 2:22 pm GMTWe are not always the good guys and we are up to our necks in deceit, plunder, and evil. Our actions have harmed millions of people around the world and it has to stop.
It is time for more self-reflection as individuals and as a nation; and it is long past time for us to be comfortable with lies.
@bobhammer The "uninterruptible" autopilot can be activated – either by pilots or by on-board sensors, or by radio or satellite link<= connected to controls at the remote end. Government agencies, quasi government agencies, military brats and probably the entire group of privately operated NGOs and private party mobsters (bankers, corporations and private military armies and privateers) at the remote end, can take over control of in-flight Aircraft, and fly it, land it, take it off, whatever, even if the pilot sitting in the cockpit objects. and does all he can to retrieve control from the remote operator.Trinity , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 2:51 pm GMTSeveral comments report says interrupt able remote control, allows, persons on the ground, to take from the pilot in a flying airplane, control of the airplane the pilot is suppose to be flying, in situations for example when terrorist are in the cockpit. I have not read the manufacture's literature nor do I have personal knowledge abut the equipment list of any of these aircraft, the list suggest they are all aircraft, not only equipped with the UAP but that they were all aircraft made by the same manufacturer. I am merely repeating what was on stated as fact on a website I visited.
Many are looking for proof that remotely equipped uninterruptible autopilots are being used as Remote Control weaponized drones . Imagine an pilot, located on the ground in London or somewhere parks his /her remote ground to air control vehicle and takes over flight control including turns on/off the transponder [<=which tells everyone where the plane is during its flight] on a plane that is flying, landing or taking off from say the Tehran airport in Iran?
My personal experience is that it generally takes less than 2 minutes after a transponder is turned off during a planes flight, before fighter jets arrive to escort the transponder disabled plane; so the whole system that protects civilian aircraft, and allows the military to know the aircraft is civilian, is dependent on the Transponder, installed in the airplane, to continuously squawk during flight, its exact position so that everyone can identify the flight, and track the aircraft during its flight. Every land based control tower, ATC control system center and military installation depends on that airborne squawking transponder to track the en-route progress of commercial and private aircraft flights from take off to landing.
Another comment made on that list referred to above claimed Uninterruptible Auto Pilot [UAP] equipped aircraft have been involved in unexplained flight accident/disappearance events (I have no personal knowledge about the equipment in these aircraft, I just repeated here what someone else said elsewhere, please verify these claims yourself or provide verification ) .
(4 @911) <=UAP allows pilot-less flights, no pilot need board the plane for its flight.
(PS752) (transponder turned off, destroyed by confused ground defense crews)
MH370 (vanished into thin air)
MH17 (had its flight path altered.)
Eyes focus on Uninterruptible Auto Pilot (UAP) .. to explain recent Tehran 160 person disaster?This is really something to think about? Always the question has been how did four military officers from Iran, trained a few weeks in Florida to fly jets, manage to get through four differently located pilot screening TSA gates to fly the aircraft and passenger into the 9/11 events. Conspiracy theories suggest since no pilot is needed, there were no pilots for TSA to screening. Remote control on the ground flew the aircraft to their destinations.
"By way of deception thou shalt do war."Just about says it all doesn't it? What kind of people are we dealing with here? Of course only the morons out there are still being fooled by these kind of false flags. Even in the year 2020 these same morons still believe ZOG's 9-11 fairy tale and label any other theory as a "conspiracy." Speaking of conspiracies the biggest idiots out there, even bigger than the ones who believe ZOG's narrative or those type who believe the total wacktard stuff put out by ZIO controlled disinfo puppets like Alex Jones.
Ukrainian commercial airline? What other nation besides Iran does ZOG have it in for? Is it Russia?
War by deception? HARDLY to anyone with two brain cells left. These fools have been caught before, they aren't that clever. What they are is protected by a syndicate of bought and paid for politicians. They were caught attacking the USS Liberty, they were caught bombing American and British installations in Egypt, the Rosenbergs and Pollard were nailed, but of course despite all of this, America and her leaders continued the value Israel as a friend and an ally. With a friend like Israel, who needs enemies. Then of course we have the story of our 5 little dancing Israelis apprehended in NYC after being observed dancing and celebrating the WTC towers collapsing. So you mean a group of Israelis from Israel, nation that is ALLEGEDLY "friends" with America and America think it is hilarious and worth celebrating when America is attacked and thousands are burned alive or jump to their death from hundreds of feet above the street?? Of course "our" media quickly exonerated the celebrating Israelis and buried that story faster than your average house cat buries his own turds.
ZOG really thinks the average American has the IQ of a monkey. Even after the WMD caca they still think you people will believe anything they tell you to believe. The sad part is they are right about that with the majority of the population.
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2020 | www.unz.com
Kevin Barrett January 12, 2020 2,000 Words 135 Comments Reply Email This Page to Someone
Remember My Information
=> List of Bookmarks
◄ ► Bookmark ◄ ► ▲ ▼ Toggle All ToC ▲ ▼ Add to Library Remove from Library B Show Comment Next New Comment Next New Reply Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period. Email Comment Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter Search Text Case Sensitive Exact Words Include Comments Search Clear CancelDonald Trump occasionally utters unspeakable truths. In March 2018 he called Bush Jr.'s decision to invade Iraq "the worst single mistake in US history." Earlier, Trump had said that Bush should have been impeached for launching that disastrous war.
Yet on January 2 2020 Trump made a much bigger mistake: He launched all-out war with Iran -- a war that will be joined by millions of anti-US non-Iranians, including Iraqis -- by murdering Gen. Qassem Soleimani, the legendary hero who defeated ISIS, alongside the popular Iraqi commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis. Gen. Soleimani was by far the most popular figure in Iran, where he polled over 80% popularity, and throughout much of the Middle East. He was also adored by millions even outside that region, non-Muslims as well as Muslims. Many Christians throughout the world loved Gen. Soleimani, whose campaign against ISIS saved the lives of thousands of their co-religionists. Even Sunni Muslims (the people, not the billionaire playboy sheikhs) generally loved and admired the Shia Muslim Gen. Soleimani, a saintly warrior-monk who was uncommonly spiritual, morally impeccable, and the most accomplished military genius of this young century.
The strategic stupidity of Trump's order to murder Soleimani cannot be exaggerated. This shocking, dastardly murder, committed while Soleimani was on an American-encouraged peace mission, has unleashed a "Pearl Harbor effect" that will galvanize not just the nation of Iran, but other forces in the region and around the world. Just as the shock effect of Pearl Harbor helped the American war party overcome domestic political divisions and unite the nation in its resolve for vengeance, so has the Soleimani murder galvanized regional groups, led by Islamic Iran and Iraq, in their dedication to obliterate every last trace of any US-Israeli presence in the region, no matter how long it takes, by any means necessary.
Most Americans still don't understand the towering stature of Soleimani. Perhaps some comparisons will be helpful.
To understand the effect on Iran and the region, imagine that Stalin had succeeded in murdering George Patton, Dwight Eisenhower, and Douglas MacArthur, all on the same day, in 1946. These US generals, like Soleimani, were very popular, in part because they had just won a huge war against an enemy viewed as an embodiment of pure evil. How would Americans have reacted to such a crime? They would have united to destroy Stalin and the Soviet Union, no matter how long it took, no matter what sacrifices were necessary. That is how hundreds of millions of people will react to the martyrdom of Gen. Soleimani.
But even that comparison does not do justice to the situation. Patton, Eisenhower, and MacArthur were secular figures in an increasingly secular culture. Had Stalin murdered them, their deaths would not have risen to the level of religious martyrdom. Americans' motivation to avenge their deaths would not have been as deep and long-lasting, nor as charged with the avid desire to sacrifice everything in pursuit of the goal, in comparison with the millions of future avengers of the death of Gen. Soleimani.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/4nKSlbFCJwo?feature=oembed
The tragedy, from the US point of view, is that this didn't need to happen. Iran, a medium-sized player in a tough neighborhood, is a natural ally of the United States. As Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote in The Grand Chessboard , "Iran provides stabilizing support for the new political diversity of Central Asia. Its independence acts as a barrier to any long-term Russian threat to American interests in the Persian Gulf region." (p. 47) Obama, guided by Brzezinski and his acolytes, set the US on a sensible path toward cordial relations with Iran -- only to see his foreign policy triumph sabotaged by the pro-Zionist Deep State and finally shredded by Netanyahu's puppets Trump and Pompeo. Iran, dominated by principled anti-Zionists, is a thorn in the side of Israel, so the unstable Iranophobe Trump was inserted into the presidency to undo Obama's handiwork and reassert total Israeli control over US policy -- the same total control initially cemented by the 9/11 false flag.
If the murder of Soleimani bears comparison to Pearl Harbor, it also echoes the October 1914 killing of Archduke Ferdinand in Sarajevo, the first domino in a series that ended in a world war. The dominos are lined up the same way today, though it may take longer for all of them to fall. Due to the enormity of its psychological effect, the Soleimani assassination irreversibly sets the US at permanent war with Iran and the rest of the Axis of Resistance. That war can end in only two ways: The destruction of Islamic Iran, or the complete elimination of the US military presence in the region. The first alternative is unacceptable not only to Iran, its regional friends, and the conscience of the world, but also to Russia and China, who would be next in line for destruction if Iran is annihilated. The second alternative is probably unacceptable to the permanent National Security State that governs the US no matter who is in office, and to Israel and its global network (and its agents in the "US" National Security State). So the irresistible force will soon be meeting the immovable object. It is difficult to see how this could possibly end well.
Ironically, given Trump's well-justified scorn for Bush's invasion of Iraq, the first front of the world war unleashed by Soleimani's killing will be in that long-suffering nation, whose government has just ordered US troops to depart posthaste. If Trump wants to keep US forces in Iraq he is going to have to re-invade that nation, attack and destroy its government and military, fight a long-term counterinsurgency (this time against the vast majority of the population) and take far more casualties than Bush Jr. did.
Trump's decision to martyr the great Iranian general and the celebrated Iraqi commander was perfectly timed to unite Iraq against the American occupation. Prior to the murder, Iraq was in the midst of color-revolution chaos, as demonstrators protested against not just the US and Israel, the real culprits in the destruction of their country, but also Iran, Iraqi politicians, and other targets. Those demonstrations, and the murders that marred them, were orchestrated by Gladio style covert US forces. As Iraqi Prime Minster Abdul Mahdi explained :
" I visited China and signed an important agreement with them to undertake the construction instead (of an American company). Upon my return, Trump called me to ask me to reject this agreement. When I refused, he threatened to unleash huge demonstrations against me that would end my premiership.
"Huge demonstrations against me duly materialized and Trump called again to threaten that if I did not comply with his demands, then he would have Marine snipers on tall buildings target protesters and security personnel alike in order to pressure me. I refused again and handed in my resignation. To this day the Americans insist on us rescinding our deal with the Chinese.
"After this, when our Minister of Defense publicly stated that a third party was targeting both protestors and security personnel alike (just as Trump had threatened, he would do), I received a new call from Trump threatening to kill both me and the Minister of Defense if we kept on talking about this 'third party'.
"I was supposed to meet him [Soleimani] later in the morning when he was killed. He came to deliver a message from Iran in response to the message we had delivered to the Iranians from the Saudis (as part of a peace initiative)."
So Trump lured Soleimani to Tehran with a peace initiative, then ambushed him. That's why Soleimani was traveling openly on a commercial flight to Baghdad International Airport. He thought he was under US protection.
Abdul Mahdi's explanation rings true. It reflects the views of most Iraqis, who will be galvanized by Trump's atrocious actions to resume their insurgency against US occupation.
As Iraqis continue to attack the hated US presence in their country, Trump will undoubtedly blame Iran, whatever its actual role. So this time the Iranians will have no motivation to avoid helping the Iraqi liberation struggle -- they would be blamed even if they didn't. Though Soleimani was a relatively America-friendly stabilizing force after the US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan -- the claim that he was behind IEDs that killed US troops is a ridiculous lie -- in the wake of his death Iran will respond positively to Iraqi requests for help in its national liberation struggle against the hated US occupier.
A rekindled anti-US insurgency in Iraq, and various forms of ambiguous/deniable retaliation for the murder of Gen. Soleimani throughout the region and the world, will force Trump up the escalation ladder. Iran, and the larger eject-the-US-from-the-Mideast project, will not back down, though they may occasionally stage tactical retreats for appearance's sake. The only way Trump could "win" would be by completely destroying Iran. Even if Russia and China allowed that, an unlikely prospect, Trump or any US president who "won" that kind of war would be remembered as the worst war criminal in world history, and the US would lose all its soft power and with it its empire.
Russia now faces the same kind of decision it had to make when the Zionist-dominated US tried to destroy Syria: stand by and let Tehran be annihilated, with Moscow next in line; or use its considerable military power to save its ally. Putin will have no choice but to support Iran, just as he supported Syria. China, too, will need to ensure that the USA loses its Zionist-driven war on Iran. Otherwise Beijing would risk facing the same fate as Tehran.
Even if the only help it gets from Russia and China is covert, Iran is in a strong position to wage asymmetric war against the US presence in the Middle East. Almost two decades ago, the $250 million war game Millennium Challenge 2002 blew up in the neocons' faces, as Lt. Gen. Paul Van Riper commanded Iranian forces against the US and steered them to victory. Though some technological developments since then may favor the US, as Dr. Alan Sabrosky recently pointed out on my radio show , others favor Iran, which now has missiles of sufficient quality and quantity to rain down hell on US bases, annihilate much of if not all of Israel, and send every US ship anywhere near the Persian Gulf to the bottom of the ocean. (Anti-ship missiles have far outstripped naval defenses, and Iran has concealed immense reserves of them deep in the Zagros Mountains overlooking the Persian Gulf.)
So Trump or whoever follows him will eventually face a choice: Accept defeat and withdraw all American bases and forces in the region; or continue up an escalation ladder that inexorably leads to World War III. The higher up the ladder he goes, the harder it will be to jump off.
The apocalyptic scenario may not be accidental. Mike Pompeo, who is widely believed to have duped Trump into ordering the killing of Gen. Soleimani, may have done so not only on behalf of the extremist Netanyahu faction in Israel, but also in service to an apocalyptic Christian Zionist program that yearns for planetary nuclear destruction . Pompeo is ardently awaiting "the rapture," the culmination of Christian Zionist history, when a global nuclear war begins at Megiddo Hill in Occupied Palestine and consumes the planet, sending everyone to hell except the Christian Zionists themselves, who are "beamed up" Star Trek fashion by none other than Jesus himself.
Whether it goes down in radioactive flames or in a kinder and gentler way, the US empire, as unstable as its leaders, is nearing the final stages of collapse. "Very stable genius" Trump and Armageddonite Pompeo may have hastened the inevitable when they ordered the fateful killing of Gen. Soleimani.
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2020 | www.unz.com
January 4, 2020 2,300 Words 73 Comments Reply Email This Page to Someone
Remember My Information
=> List of Bookmarks ◄ ► ◄ ► ▲ ▼ Remove from Library B Show Comment Next New Comment Next New Reply Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period. Email Comment Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Bookmark Toggle All ToC ▲ ▼ Add to Library Search Text Case Sensitive Exact Words Include Comments Search Clear CancelIn one of the series of blatant lies the USA has told to justify the assassination of Soleimani, Mike Pompeo said that Soleimani was killed because he was planning "Imminent attacks" on US citizens. It is a careful choice of word. Pompeo is specifically referring to the Bethlehem Doctrine of Pre-Emptive Self Defence .
Developed by Daniel Bethlehem when Legal Adviser to first Netanyahu's government and then Blair's, the Bethlehem Doctrine is that states have a right of "pre-emptive self-defence" against "imminent" attack. That is something most people, and most international law experts and judges, would accept. Including me.
What very few people, and almost no international lawyers, accept is the key to the Bethlehem Doctrine – that here "Imminent" – the word used so carefully by Pompeo – does not need to have its normal meanings of either "soon" or "about to happen". An attack may be deemed "imminent", according to the Bethlehem Doctrine, even if you know no details of it or when it might occur. So you may be assassinated by a drone or bomb strike – and the doctrine was specifically developed to justify such strikes – because of "intelligence" you are engaged in a plot, when that intelligence neither says what the plot is nor when it might occur. Or even more tenuous, because there is intelligence you have engaged in a plot before, so it is reasonable to kill you in case you do so again.
I am not inventing the Bethlehem Doctrine. It has been the formal legal justification for drone strikes and targeted assassinations by the Israeli, US and UK governments for a decade. Here it is in academic paper form, published by Bethlehem after he left government service (the form in which it is adopted by the US, UK and Israeli Governments is classified information ).
So when Pompeo says attacks by Soleimani were "imminent" he is not using the word in the normal sense in the English language. It is no use asking him what, where or when these "imminent" attacks were planned to be. He is referencing the Bethlehem Doctrine under which you can kill people on the basis of a feeling that they may have been about to do something.
The idea that killing an individual who you have received information is going to attack you, but you do not know when, where or how, can be justified as self-defence, has not gained widespread acceptance – or indeed virtually any acceptance – in legal circles outside the ranks of the most extreme devoted neo-conservatives and zionists. Daniel Bethlehem became the FCO's Chief Legal Adviser, brought in by Jack Straw, precisely because every single one of the FCO's existing Legal Advisers believed the Iraq War to be illegal. In 2004, when the House of Commons was considering the legality of the war on Iraq, Bethlehem produced a remarkable paper for consideration which said that it was legal because the courts and existing law were wrong , a defence which has seldom succeeded in court.
(b) following this line, I am also of the view that the wider principles of the law on self-defence also require closer scrutiny. I am not persuaded that the approach of doctrinal purity reflected in the Judgments of the International Court of Justice in this area provide a helpful edifice on which a coherent legal regime, able to address the exigencies of contemporary international life and discourage resort to unilateral action, is easily crafted;
The key was that the concept of "imminent" was to change:
The concept of what constitutes an "imminent" armed attack will develop to meet new circumstances and new threats
In the absence of a respectable international lawyer willing to argue this kind of tosh, Blair brought in Bethlehem as Chief Legal Adviser, the man who advised Netanyahu on Israel's security wall and who was willing to say that attacking Iraq was legal on the basis of Saddam's "imminent threat" to the UK, which proved to be non-existent. It says everything about Bethlehem's eagerness for killing that the formulation of the Bethlehem Doctrine on extrajudicial execution by drone came after the Iraq War, and he still gave not one second's thought to the fact that the intelligence on the "imminent threat" can be wrong. Assassinating people on the basis of faulty intelligence is not addressed by Bethlehem in setting out his doctrine. The bloodlust is strong in this one.
There are literally scores of academic articles, in every respected journal of international law, taking down the Bethlehem Doctrine for its obvious absurdities and revolting special pleading. My favourite is this one by Bethlehem's predecessor as the FCO Chief Legal Adviser, Sir Michael Wood and his ex-Deputy Elizabeth Wilmshurst.
I addressed the Bethlehem Doctrine as part of my contribution to a book reflecting on Chomsky 's essay "On the Responsibility of Intellectuals"
In the UK recently, the Attorney General gave a speech in defence of the UK's drone policy, the assassination of people – including British nationals – abroad. This execution without a hearing is based on several criteria, he reassured us. His speech was repeated slavishly in the British media. In fact, the Guardian newspaper simply republished the government press release absolutely verbatim, and stuck a reporter's byline at the top.
The media have no interest in a critical appraisal of the process by which the British government regularly executes without trial. Yet in fact it is extremely interesting. The genesis of the policy lay in the appointment of Daniel Bethlehem as the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's Chief Legal Adviser. Jack Straw made the appointment, and for the first time ever it was external, and not from the Foreign Office's own large team of world-renowned international lawyers. The reason for that is not in dispute. Every single one of the FCO's legal advisers had advised that the invasion of Iraq was illegal, and Straw wished to find a new head of the department more in tune with the neo-conservative world view. Straw went to extremes. He appointed Daniel Bethlehem, the legal 'expert' who provided the legal advice to Benjamin Netanyahu on the 'legality' of building the great wall hemming in the Palestinians away from their land and water resources. Bethlehem was an enthusiastic proponent of the invasion of Iraq. He was also the most enthusiastic proponent in the world of drone strikes.
Bethlehem provided an opinion on the legality of drone strikes which is, to say the least, controversial. To give one example, Bethlehem accepts that established principles of international law dictate that lethal force may be used only to prevent an attack which is 'imminent'. Bethlehem argues that for an attack to be 'imminent' does not require it to be 'soon'. Indeed you can kill to avert an 'imminent attack' even if you have no information on when and where it will be. You can instead rely on your target's 'pattern of behaviour'; that is, if he has attacked before, it is reasonable to assume he will attack again and that such an attack is 'imminent'.
There is a much deeper problem: that the evidence against the target is often extremely dubious. Yet even allowing the evidence to be perfect, it is beyond me that the state can kill in such circumstances without it being considered a death penalty imposed without trial for past crimes, rather than to frustrate another 'imminent' one. You would think that background would make an interesting story. Yet the entire 'serious' British media published the government line, without a single journalist, not one, writing about the fact that Bethlehem's proposed definition of 'imminent' has been widely rejected by the international law community. The public knows none of this. They just 'know' that drone strikes are keeping us safe from deadly attack by terrorists, because the government says so, and nobody has attempted to give them other information
Remember, this is not just academic argument, the Bethlehem Doctrine is the formal policy position on assassination of Israel, the US and UK governments. So that is lie one. When Pompeo says Soleimani was planning "imminent" attacks, he is using the Bethlehem definition under which "imminent" is a "concept" which means neither "soon" nor "definitely going to happen". To twist a word that far from its normal English usage is to lie. To do so to justify killing people is obscene. That is why, if I finish up in the bottom-most pit of hell, the worst thing about the experience will be the company of Daniel Bethlehem.
Let us now move on to the next lie, which is being widely repeated, this time originated by Donald Trump, that Soleimani was responsible for the "deaths of hundreds, if not thousands, of Americans". This lie has been parroted by everybody, Republicans and Democrats alike.
Really? Who were they? When and where? While the Bethlehem Doctrine allows you to kill somebody because they might be going to attack someone, sometime, but you don't know who or when, there is a reasonable expectation that if you are claiming people have already been killed you should be able to say who and when.
The truth of the matter is that if you take every American killed including and since 9/11, in the resultant Middle East related wars, conflicts and terrorist acts, well over 90% of them have been killed by Sunni Muslims financed and supported out of Saudi Arabia and its gulf satellites, and less than 10% of those Americans have been killed by Shia Muslims tied to Iran.
This is a horribly inconvenient fact for US administrations which, regardless of party, are beholden to Saudi Arabia and its money. It is, the USA affirms, the Sunnis who are the allies and the Shias who are the enemy. Yet every journalist or aid worker hostage who has been horribly beheaded or otherwise executed has been murdered by a Sunni, every jihadist terrorist attack in the USA itself, including 9/11, has been exclusively Sunni, the Benghazi attack was by Sunnis, Isil are Sunni, Al Nusra are Sunni, the Taliban are Sunni and the vast majority of US troops killed in the region are killed by Sunnis.
Precisely which are these hundreds of deaths for which the Shia forces of Soleimani were responsible? Is there a list? It is of course a simple lie. Its tenuous connection with truth relates to the Pentagon's estimate – suspiciously upped repeatedly since Iran became the designated enemy – that back during the invasion of Iraq itself , 83% of US troop deaths were at the hands of Sunni resistance and 17% of of US troop deaths were at the hands of Shia resistance, that is 603 troops. All the latter are now lain at the door of Soleimani, remarkably.
Those were US troops killed in combat during an invasion. The Iraqi Shia militias – whether Iran backed or not – had every legal right to fight the US invasion. The idea that the killing of invading American troops was somehow illegal or illegitimate is risible. Plainly the US propaganda that Soleimani was "responsible for hundreds of American deaths" is intended, as part of the justification for his murder, to give the impression he was involved in terrorism, not legitimate combat against invading forces. The idea that the US has the right to execute those who fight it when it invades is an absolutely stinking abnegation of the laws of war.
As I understand it, there is very little evidence that Soleimani had active operational command of Shia militias during the invasion, and in any case to credit him personally with every American soldier killed is plainly a nonsense. But even if Soleimani had personally supervised every combat success, these were legitimate acts of war. You cannot simply assassinate opposing generals who fought you, years after you invade.
The final, and perhaps silliest lie, is Vice President Mike Pence's attempt to link Soleimani to 9/11. There is absolutely no link between Soleimani and 9/11, and the most strenuous efforts by the Bush regime to find evidence that would link either Iran or Iraq to 9/11 (and thus take the heat off their pals the al-Saud who were actually responsible) failed. Yes, it is true that some of the hijackers at one point transited Iran to Afghanistan. But there is zero evidence, as the 9/11 report specifically stated, that the Iranians knew what they were planning, or that Soleimani personally was involved. This is total bullshit. 9/11 was Sunni and Saudi led, nothing to do with Iran.
Soleimani actually was involved in intelligence and logistical cooperation with the United States in Afghanistan post 9/11 (the Taliban were his enemies too, the shia Tajiks being a key part of the US aligned Northern Alliance). He was in Iraq to fight ISIL.
The final aggravating factor in the Soleimani murder is that he was an accredited combatant general of a foreign state which the world – including the USA – recognises. The Bethlehem Doctrine specifically applies to "non-state actors". Unlike all of the foregoing, this next is speculation, but I suspect that the legal argument in the Pentagon ran that Soleimani is a non-state actor when in Iraq, where the Shia militias have a semi-official status.
But that does not wash. Soleimani is a high official in Iran who was present in Iraq as a guest of the Iraqi government, to which the US government is allied. This greatly exacerbates the illegality of his assassination still further.
Craig Murray is an author, broadcaster and human rights activist. He was British Ambassador to Uzbekistan from August 2002 to October 2004 and Rector of the University of Dundee from 2007 to 2010. (Republished from CraigMurray.org by permission of author or representative)
utu , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 6:16 am GMT
Rise and Kill First: The Secret History of Israel's Targeted Assassinations by Ronen BergmanIgor Bundy , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 7:16 am GMTThe book's title is inspired by a statement in the Talmud: "If someone comes to kill you, rise up and kill him first".
And there is another dictum in Talmud: Tob Shebbe Goyim Harog ("Kill the Best Gentiles").
We know Israel does this all the time but to non state actors. I dont think in recent history anyone has openly target a state actor in such a criminal fashion because it is an act of war and not only that but considered barbaric. To ask for mediation and then to assassinate the messengers is an act that not even the mongols took part in and they considered it enough to wipe out any such parties..Parfois1 , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 7:25 am GMTGood expose about the creative criminal minds twisting language and decency to justify murder and war crimes...Ghali , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 7:56 am GMTA new legal doctrine to justify crimes in an industrial scale for the good of UK-USrael.
However they might be right in claiming that Gen. Soleimani had killed or was about to kill many "Americans" – not strictly US citizens – but the honorary American terrorist foot soldiers fighting American wars in the Middle East.
Do terrorists act legally? The U.S. is a terrorist organisation. It is misleading to call the US a nation or a country. Soleimani is widely-acknowledged as the architect of the successful campaign to defeat the U.S.-Israel sponsored terrorists (ISIS and al-Qaeda) in Syria and Iraq. The sad irony is that Iran was a major U.S. "ally" during the U.S. aggression against Afghanistan and more importantly against Iraq. Without Iran (the Eastern front) the U.S. would not have invaded Iraq. Iran played a major military role helping the U.S. against the Iraqi Resistance.Priss Factor , says: Website Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 8:18 am GMTHollywood creatures are the vilest scum.Dube , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 9:12 am GMTHollywood's fake history vs. actual history on Israel's role in the Iraq war.
Hollywood's fake history vs. actual history on Israel's role in the Iraq war. for more https://t.co/lTonBw8VGF pic.twitter.com/1pxVcmIqhq
-- Adam Green (@Know_More_News) January 12, 2020
While Ahmadinejad never actually said that Israel would be driven into the sea, that statement was imminent, therefore it was legitimate to quote it.Zumbuddi , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 9:41 am GMTHow hideous that this is named Bethlehem, "The place of healing; place of birth of the Prince of Peace.'tim hardacre , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 9:47 am GMTMore appropriate to call it the ESTHER doctrine, or PURIM doctrine.
The Hebrew text provides no solid evidence that Haman sought to kill Jews: the notion is based on Mordecha the Spy and self-serving Snitch.
Netanyahu has made public statements linking today's Iran to the Purim doctrine that Jews celebrate to this day.
In other words, Jews demonstrate a clear patter of "imminent threat" to kill those who resist Zionist – Anglo dominence.
Under this Purim (Bethlehem) doctrine, therefore, it is not only legitimate, it is necessary -- a Constitutional obligation -- that the American government Kill Jews who pose an Imminent Threat to the American -- and Iranian -- people.
As a retired international lawyer I am of the opinion Mr. Murray sets out fact and law impressively . He says everything that is needed to be saidJust passing through , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 9:50 am GMTGood for the FCO legal team in resisting the invasion of Iraq. I do know at least one British regiment sought independent legal advice before accepting orders.
Great article Mr. Murray, very needed in these times of almost universal deceit.Gallum , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 9:52 am GMTMr. Bethlehem displays the famous Jewish quality of chutzpah – the quality of a bit who has killed his parents in cold blood but begs the judge for mercy because he is an orphan – when he decided to simply change the law.
I wish I had some of that Jewish privilege, that way I too could go around robbing and killing and then simply change the law to get away Scot free.
Iran's President Hassan Rouhani attended Glasgow Caledonian University in Scotland, graduating in 1995 with an M.Phil. degree in Law. Rouhani is close to Jack Straw and Straw is very close to Lord Levy. And Lord Levy is very close to Lord Rothschild. Jack Straw says "in Hassan Rouhani's Iran, you can feel the winds change." "Winds changing" is an understatement. They are gust winds blowing at high velocity directly from the City of London and from Israel's direction. All very high level British intrigue going on here in Iran. It was Jack Straw who appointed Daniel Bethlehem who developed the "Bethlehem Doctrine" used in justifying the assassination of General Soleinami under false pretenses Pompeo probably knew about when he informed President Trump. From 1979 to 2013, Rouhani held a number of important positions in the Velayat-e Faqih's key institutions, as "the man in power but in the shadows." Hassan Rouhani's job it appears considering his education and position is through Shia law is to continue to perpetuate the spread of the "revolution." The "revolution" is designed to keep confrontation in place. Why not gradually move from "revolutionary Shia" to a more conciliatory peaceful religious position? Iran's Mohammad Javad Zarif who is now an Iranian career diplomat, spent 20 years from the age of 17 studying in the United States. Kind of makes us look harder at John Kerry and whether or not his connections to Mohammad Javad Zarif have anything to do with all that is unfolding here?Nonny Mouse , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 10:41 am GMTThey all have fake names. Netanyahu is really Mileikowski. Ben Gurion was really Gruen. But for a British Jew to grab the name Bethlehem is a real attack on Christianity.Parfois1 , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 10:43 am GMT@Ghalianonymous [382] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 10:51 am GMTThe sad irony is that Iran was a major U.S. "ally" during the U.S. aggression against Afghanistan and more importantly against Iraq. Without Iran (the Eastern front) the U.S. would not have invaded Iraq. Iran played a major military role helping the U.S. against the Iraqi Resistance.
Well, what can one say? First, there is the official narrative; then there are the alternative narratives in their many fashions and narrations; and then there is the oddball narrative that defies logic and reason. Iran allied with Usrael?
It may look (and is) an exorbitant stretch of imagination to come to such a view. But it is not unique; it is not much different from the often-heard impossible claim here at UR that Nazi Germany was allied with the Soviet Union in 1939!
@RouterAlNoseytheDuke , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 11:01 am GMTCan I be the only person to think that from the moment Hitler transported his first shipment of Haavara Agreement Jews to Palestine there has not been a moments piece in that corner of the globe.
Can you be the only person . . .?
Possibly.
"There has not been a moment's piece [sic] in that corner of the globe" since Herzl began attempting to co-opt the Ottoman Empire in ~1895.
Balfour ramped it up a notch in 1917; at the urging of Louis Brandeis, Woodrow Wilson endorsed Balfour's plan.
@Wally Note here that Wally fails to condemn Trump's illegal act of war on a national of a nation which Congress has not declared war upon.NoseytheDuke , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 11:09 am GMTYes Wally, Obama was a war criminal who deserves to hang for his crimes, but if you are to retain any credibility with which to continue your mission to expose the Holohoax, you should also acknowledge that Trump is a war criminal too who, based on precedent, also deserves to hang. Your loyalty is clearly misplaced.
@Dube I believe that what he actually said was that, "Israel would disappear from the pages of history". The usual liars reported this as "Iran would wipe Israel off the map".SolontoCroesus , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 11:29 am GMTIf the West is to fight back and survive then the first battle should surely be against the lying media organs that bear so much responsibility for the shit-storm that is on the way.
@Parfois1 Hillary Mann Leverett negotiated with Iranian counterparts at United Nations and gained Iranian assistance in finding partners to defeat TalibanBiff , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 11:31 am GMT
March 31, 2015~15 min:
Leverett:
"Unlike Mr. Dubowitz and many in Washington, I have actually negotiated with current Iranian officials, and it was an effective negotiation. [it resulted] in a state enormously not only overthrow the Taliban, but set up a proper government in Afghanistan. There is just no evidence whatsoever that continuing to bludgeon them and pressure them is going to do anything to give us concessions."
Leverett participated in a 'round-table discussion' with Mark Dubowitz of Foundation for Defense of Democracy (FDD).
Dubowitz's spiel was boilerplate: "Saddam killed 200,000 of his own people, he is pursuing nuclear weapons," blah blah blah.
On Jan 12 2020 on C Span, https://www.c-span.org/event/?467915/washington-journal-01122020 first Ilan Goldenberg of Center for New American Security (George Soros, major funder), then Michael Rubin of American Enterprise Institute * recited the same talking points: only the names were changed, a tacit acknowledgement that the original, Iraqi-based set of names were dead.
*AEI Board of Trustees:
AEI is governed by a Board of Trustees, composed of leading business and financial executives.
Daniel A. D'Aniello, Chairman
Cofounder and Chairman
The Carlyle GroupClifford S. Asness
Managing and Founding Principal
AQR Capital Management, LLCThe Honorable Richard B. Cheney
Peter H. Coors
Vice Chairman of the Board
Molson Coors Brewing CompanyHarlan Crow
Chairman
Crow HoldingsRavenel B. Curry III
Chief Investment Officer
Eagle Capital Management, LLC-- also interesting comments from the audience @ 11 min
Leverett has also repeated, on numerous occasions, that sanctions –" a weapon of war" -- are counterproductive and, in the case of Iraq, "killed a million Iraqis, half of them children."
@NoseytheDukedimples , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 11:34 am GMTI believe that what he actually said was that, "Israel would disappear from the pages of history".
More precisely the quote says "The Israel regime would disappear .." meaning the Israel government – not the country and its' people.
@Dube Indeed, the Jews cunningly arranged for the Arab states to look like they might attack them in 1967. Then they swooped like a prescient eagle and blew up all the Egyptian planes on the ground before this attack, which might not have happened otherwise, actually happened. Its definitely a winning philosophy, but only if you are sure you are going to win in the first place.Art , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 11:45 am GMTLeave it to a Jew and his Bethlehem Doctrine, to crush the four centuries old Treaty of Westphalia where the principle of national sovereignty was instituted. Killing the leaders of a sovereign nation breaks the treaty.YetAnotherAnon , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 12:02 pm GMTAssassination is a Jew tool. Killing is the Jew way.
Stop the Jew – Think Peace
@RouterAl "Jew Jack Straw was everything you would expect from Jew"YetAnotherAnon , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 12:12 pm GMTI seem to recall a piece in an Israeli paper saying he wasn't Jewish. It was quite witty, saying IIRC that although he looked like a shul trustee and his career trajectory (student politics then law then media) was classically Jewish, he has (as wiki says) only one Jewish great-grandparent.
From wiki
"In 2013, at a round table event of the Global Diplomatic Forum at the UK's House of Commons, Straw (who has Jewish heritage) was quoted by Israeli politician Einat Wilf, one of the panelists at the forum, as having said that among the main obstacles to peace was the amount of money available to Jewish organizations in the US, which controlled US foreign policy, and also Germany's "obsession" with defending Israel."
@dimples "Its definitely a winning philosophy, but only if you are sure you are going to win in the first place."Cowboy , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 12:18 pm GMTYes, it didn't do the losers much good at Nuremberg, although Germany had explained the attack of June 22 as a pre-emptive strike – " Therefore Russia has broken its treaties and is about to attack Germany. I have ordered the German armed forces to oppose this threat with all their strength ".
John Chuckman , says: Website Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 12:58 pm GMT"The Bethlehem Doctrine is that states have a right of "pre-emptive self-defence" against "imminent" attack. That is something most people, and most international law experts and judges, would accept."
So Operation Barbarossa was legal. But we knew that already because not only Germany, but Romania, Finland, Italy, Hungary, Slovakia and Croatia ( wiki doesn't mention the Spanish Azul division) all attacked due to the "imminent threat" of Stalin, who certainly had a long history of war crimes, the most recent being his invasions of Poland, Latvia, Estonia, Romania and even Finland.
Additionally, 400,000 of the Waffen SS were non-Germanic, yet wiki prefaces its description of Barbarossa as "The operation put into action Nazi Germany's ideological goal of conquering the western Soviet Union so as to repopulate it with Germans." .
The more things change, the more the lies stay the same. Like Hitler, Soleimani was a "bad, hateful terrorist" who they smear by claiming "he deserved to die". In the end this is really about the mother of all modern jewish lies, the "holocaust".
"The Bethlehem Doctrine"Jake , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 12:59 pm GMTJust one additional bit of evidence for the sick, corrupting influence of empire on law and human affairs.
This what what happens when you have an empire instead of a country.
#1 – "When Pompeo says Soleimani was planning "imminent" attacks, he is using the Bethlehem definition under which "imminent" is a "concept" which means neither "soon" nor "definitely going to happen". To twist a word that far from its normal English usage is to lie. To do so to justify killing people is obscene. That is why, if I finish up in the bottom-most pit of hell, the worst thing about the experience will be the company of Daniel Bethlehem."Jake , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 1:06 pm GMT#2 – [1] Now the serpent was more subtle than any of the beasts of the earth which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman: Why hath God commanded you, that you should not eat of every tree of paradise? [2] And the woman answered him, saying: Of the fruit of the trees that are in paradise we do eat: [3] But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of paradise, God hath commanded us that we should not eat; and that we should not touch it, lest perhaps we die. [4] And the serpent said to the woman: No, you shall not die the death. [5] For God doth know that in what day soever you shall eat thereof, your eyes shall be opened: and you shall be as Gods, knowing good and evil.
What do we get when we add #1 and #2?
#3 – The CIA, the Mossad, and the Saudi General Intelligence Presidency are all offshoots from, are all in origin product of, Brit WASP secret service.
When we add the answer to the above question to #3, what then is the sum?
@Biff It is 100% true.9/11 Inside job , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 1:06 pm GMTOffhand, I think 19 of the 21 highjackers were Saudi born and raised. All 21 were Arab Sunnis.
@Biff Agree that 9/11 had " nothing to do with Iran" but to say that "9/11 was Sunni and Saudi led " is disinformation . Is Craig Murray , a former British Diplomat , a 9/11 gatekeeper? Murray has writtenFuerchtegott , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 1:09 pm GMT
"I do not believe that the US government or any of its agencies were responsible for 9/11." Like Noam Chomsky , Murray fails the 9/11 "litmus test ".
Trump is continuing the state terrorism by drone as carried out by Bush and Obama : "Why is Obama still killing children [by drome] ?" cato.org :
.".. thousands of civilians , including hundreds of children , have fallen victim to his preemptive drone strikes over the last seven years 'America's actions are legal ', Obama said ,'we were attacked on 9/11′"
So Obama had the chutzpah to blame his murder of civilians on 9/11. The Democratic and Republican parties are truly wings which belong to the same bird of prey .A very feministy Doctrine.peter mcloughlin , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 1:10 pm GMTHistorically, nations act in what serves their interests. Western involvement in the Middle East has been primarily about energy security and commerce. They seek to justify it through different means, including legalistic sophistry. The real danger of the US-Iran confrontation is consequences that lead to no alternative but escalation. One scenario, a Tehran 79 type hostage stand-off in Baghdad where President Trump (in an election year) could find himself with no choice but up the ante. The spector of humiliation and defeat convincing him the only hope is to persevere. But that could be an illusion, moving deeper into a sequence of events leading unstoppably to the real danger in the Middle East – confrontation with Russia. Many say it couldn't happen. History suggests otherwise. Living by the law might be the future: learning from history the way to create that future.Johnny Walker Read , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 1:15 pm GMT
https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/It's all about interpretation . As Bill Clinton taught us about words and their meaning:anonymous [582] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 1:23 pm GMT
"it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is"
https://www.youtube.com/embed/j4XT-l-_3y0?feature=oembed
Sunni this, Sunni that !@# You, Craig Murray, you whitrash piece of shit!!Been_there_done_that , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 1:40 pm GMTIf this scum was a career diplomat of that pissant island, which has never been up to any good, then he must fundamentally be an evil scumbag, working for the pleasure of that old thieving witch.
Just various masks of controlled opposition. Mofers all!!
Yet another mixed bag. Invoking an official government lie, thus poisoning the well.Desert Fox , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 1:48 pm GMT" Yes, it is true that some of the hijackers at one point transited Iran to Afghanistan. "
" The hijackers "?
I suppose this is an inserted reference to the alleged "hijackers" that were not even on the airline flight manifests yet became central to the phony 9/11 story that no serious person believes.Israel and its colony the ZUS are the most dangerous countries in the world because of their total disregard of international law as evidenced by their joint attack on the WTC on 911 and their using this as the excuse to destroy the middle east for Israel, which has killed millions and kept America at war for Israel for decades!SolontoCroesus , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 2:50 pm GMTThe ZUS and Israel are in the same league as Stalin and Hitler and are a blight on humanity!
@Desert FoxMulegino1 , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 3:02 pm GMTThe ZUS and Israel are in the same league as Stalin and Hitler and are a blight on humanity!
What is your criterion for comparison, Desert Fox?
I don't know much about Stalin, so can't deal with that.
Hitler was defending Germany: he told Herbert Hoover that his three " idees fixes " were:
"to unify Germany from its fragmentation by the Treaty of Versailles;
to expand its physical resources by moving into Russia or the Balkan States . . .[to prevent a recurrence of] the famine;
to destroy the Russian Communist government . . .[consequent to] the brutalities of the Communist uprisings in German cities during the Armistice period." ( Freedom Betrayed, by Herbert Hoover).
ZUS and Israel are aggressing, invading, occupying, displacing and ethnically cleansing forces; they are not acting defensively, as NSDAP was, by any application of logic.
Number 2 , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 3:21 pm GMTThis is total bullshit. 9/11 was Sunni and Saudi led, nothing to do with Iran.
The Saudis may have enabled the creation of the legends of the hijackers, but had little or nothing to do with the execution of the operation. 9/11 certainly was carried out preponderantly by Israeli operatives for the economic benefit of Zionist Jews and their criminal co-conspirators in the world of finance and the councils of government.
The sentence ought to be reordered thus:
'9/11 was Sunni and Saudi led. ' That is total bullshit. In any case, it had nothing to do with Iran.
Sean promptly serves up the CIA line, more slogans for people who are not too bright. Today it's a little pun to muddle up the law and give CIA a desperately-sought loophole for the crime of aggression, for which there is no justification. Sean is thinking fast as he can to try and distract you from the necessity and proportionality tests which accompany any use of force and govern the status of the act as countermeasure, internationally wrongful act, or crime. Sean's indoctrination has protected his stationary hamster-wheel mind from the black letter law of Chapter VII, including Articles 47 and 51, which place self-defense forces at the disposal of the UNSC under direction of the Military Staff Committee. Sean also seizes up with Orwellian CIA CRIMESTOP when he hears anything about the case law governing use of force, such as the minimal indicative examples below.Desert Fox , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 3:22 pm GMThttps://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-vii/
https://www.icj-cij.org/en/case/70/summaries
https://www.icj-cij.org/en/case/90/summariesCIA has been running from the law for 85 years now, but despite their wholesale corruption of the Secretariat, they're losing control of the UN charter bodies and treaty bodies. Some SIS scapegoats are going to be faking palsy in the dock to get a break. Brennan first.
@SolontoCroesus Recommend you do the research, Hitler was put into power by the zionist banking kabal, the same kabal that rules the ZUS, read the book Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler, and they wanted Hitler and Stalin to destroy each other, that was the zionist plan and they used the ZUS and Britain to do it, just as they have destroyed the mideast for Israels greater Israel agenda.9/11 Inside job , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 3:29 pm GMTThe ZUS is just like Hitler invading and destroying the mideast for Israel using the attack on WTC as an excuse, which was a joint attack on the WTC on 911 by traitors in the ZUS and Israel, the whole deal is a zionist driven holocaust on the people of the middle east.
By the way Israel is perpetrating a holocaust of the people of Palestine and this holocaust is backed by the ZUS, which is Israels military arm ie a subsidiary of the IDF.
Recommend the archives section on henrymakow.com on Hitler and Stalin.
Harry
@Jake There were no hijackers , there were no planes , they were likely CGI's in videos produced in a "Holywood production" prior to 9/11 , see septemberclues. info "The central role of the news media on 9/11" .Truth3 , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 3:35 pm GMT@Biff 9/11 was a Jewish operation from Day One.c matt , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 3:46 pm GMTPNAC, anyone?
Silverstein?
@Wally I am sure, if asked, he would condemn Obama's war crimes as well (and Bush I, Bush II, Clinton, etc. probably going back to Lincoln at least). But the subject was about Soleimani's assassination, which, as much as I am sure you would like to do, cannot be pinned on Obama.Wally , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 3:55 pm GMT@NoseytheDuke LOLRev. Spooner , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 3:56 pm GMT– There hasn't been a US declaration of war since WWII, and there have been countless US military actions.
Your Pelosi talking point refuted.– Your double standard is on parade. Again, no mention of "war criminal" Obama.
– You clearly prefer to ignore my many posts critical of Trump.
– And of course you cannot refute anything I have posted about the fake & impossible "holocaust".
Ah.
@Igor Bundy Right. The Mongols rolled the murderers of their emissaries or ambassadors in carpets and had them trampled to death by horses. This was followed by razing the city/state. I'm told Nuttyyahoo of Israel provided the info and encouraged it.Really No Shit , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 3:58 pm GMTMy two cents worth:Rev. Spooner , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 4:05 pm GMT1) Elizabeth Warren has lied about her ethnicity and has benefited from it thus lying can be natural for her she would most likely give a lap dance to Bibi if demanded to get elected,
2) Arabs are being absolved of 9/11 by their Ashkenazi cousins who mistakenly believe that they are semites despite having overwhelmingly slavic blood there must be trace amounts of meshuggah genes mixed up with the Indo-European and thus the hatred of Iranians,
3) Jesus came once before, therefore it must reason that he is coming back the second time and now the arrival is imminent so Daniel Bethlehem must become Christian now or go to hell
@Priss Factor Adam Green is a true American patriot.Buck Ransom , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 4:20 pm GMT@Biff " every jihadist terrorist attack in the USA itself, including 9/11, has been exclusively Sunni ,"Z-man , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 4:37 pm GMT
LOL.@Jake 20 Hijackers. One, a black Moroccan Muslim, chickened out and is in jail somewhere in the USA. The leader, Atta, was from Egypt. The lead guy to the flight that only had four hijackers because of the Moroccan, which crashed in PA, was from Lebanon and could pass for an American/Jew. Two were from the United Arab Emirates and the rest, 15 , were Saudis.AnonFromTN , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 4:46 pm GMTMafia-style assassination of Soleimani was undoubtedly an act of state terrorism. What's more, it was an act of war against Iran. It was a crime committed by the US military on orders of Trump, who publicly confessed that he gave that criminal order.AnonFromTN , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 4:54 pm GMTLimited Iranian response just shows that Iran government is sane, in sharp contrast to the US government.
@SolontoCroesusAgent76 , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 5:13 pm GMT"to unify Germany from its fragmentation by the Treaty of Versailles;
to expand its physical resources by moving into Russia or the Balkan States . . .[to prevent a recurrence of] the famine;
to destroy the Russian Communist government . . .[consequent to] the brutalities of the Communist uprisings in German cities during the Armistice period." (Freedom Betrayed, by Herbert Hoover).Your #2 and #3 are naked aggression. Exactly as Soleimani murder.
May 8, 2019 Afghanistan, the Forgotten Proxy War. The Role of Osama bin Laden and Zbigniew BrzezinskiGeeBee , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 5:19 pm GMTThe original "moderate rebel"
One of the key players in the anti-Soviet, U.S.-led regime change project against Afghanistan was Osama bin Laden, a Saudi-born millionaire who came from a wealthy, powerful family that owns a Saudi construction company and has had close ties to the Saudi royal family.
https://llco.org/afghanistan-the-forgotten-proxy-war/
June 6, 2018 Why the US shouldn't build more foreign bases
The United States maintains almost 800 military bases in over 70 countries, which far exceeds our modern day security requirements.
Mar 28, 2014 VICE on HBO Debrief: Children of the Drones
Suroosh Alvi went to Pakistan and found out that American drones there are doing more harm than good.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/wFQwbxFPVfo?feature=oembed
@Been_there_done_that While I am sure that the official story of the September 11th 2001 'attack' is false, I frequently wonder why the 'truthers' seem never to be able to get all their ducks in a row. Many claim that the film footage of the aircraft strikes were pre-manufactured CGIs, issued to the media in order to mask the real culprits which they allege were cruise missiles. But a cruise missile doesn't have a flight manifest. Either those four flights that the official story says were hijacked took off that day, or they did not. The CGI theory rests, of course, on there being no such flights. Yet you claim that 'the hijackers' were not on flight manifests for those flights. This is surely the craziest interpretion: either the flights were fictional (as in the CGI theory) and thus there were no manifests, or they really did take place, and therefore had manifests, and were hijacked. If, as you claim, the flights actually took place, but no hijackers boarded them, how on earth did they fly into the twin towers? It makes no sense at all I fear.CanSpeccy , says: Website Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 5:27 pm GMTnsa , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 5:28 pm GMTevery jihadist terrorist attack in the USA itself, including 9/11
Generally interesting comment. But why distract from the issue of the Soleimani assassination with such a ridiculous comment ab0ut 9/11?
Americans are now as gods. asserting their inherent right to kill anyone, anytime, anywhere, for any reason.GeeBee , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 5:28 pm GMT
"Did we just kill a kid?" In 2012 a USAF drone operator named Bryant reported he was "flying" drones out of New Mexico and painted a 6000 mile away Afghan shack with his laser, and with permission released a Hellfire missile. During the time the missile took to arrive, he saw on his screen a child toddle from behind the shack. Mesmerized, in slow motion, he saw the shack explode and the child disappear. Having killed hundreds remotely, he still wasn't ready for this and asked his copilot: "Did we just kill a kid?". The operator answered: "I guess so". Suddenly on the screen appeared the words of some unknown anonymous supervisor: "No, it was a dog". Bryant responded: "A dog on two legs?"
Even the resident boomer Nam hero, Rich, might have trouble justifying this kind of activity .but then again in a jewed out society ..maybe not.@Desert Fox 'The ZUS and Israel are in the same league as Stalin and Hitler and are a blight on humanity!'Desert Fox , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 5:54 pm GMTAh. I see that you are still drinking the Kool Aid regarding Herr Hitler. I used to believe it all too. You'll learn in time, as will enough people. Only then will the gigantic criminal enterprise fomented by 'the International Race' that we call World War II be seen for the monstrous crime against humanity that it was. Perhaps – just perhaps – that same sick and depraved race will then finally be so deservedly called to account for its foul deeds.
Make no mistake: understanding just who and what Adolf Hitler really was, and especially his role in saving at least part of the West from Communism, is absolutely central to an appreciation of this awful world in which we now live.
@GeeBee I am under no illusions about Hitler or Stalin as both were funded by the international zionist banking kabal, read the book Hitlers Secret Bankers by Sidney Warburg and Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler and Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution,by Anthony Sutton, zionists were behind the whole deal.Paul , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 6:41 pm GMTRecommend henrymakow.com and his archive section on Hitler and Stalin.
Noam Chomsky has pointed out that if the United States is truly against terrorism, it should stop engaging in it.Art , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 7:09 pm GMT@AnonFromTN Limited Iranian response just shows that Iran government is sane, in sharp contrast to the US government.Lol , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 7:25 pm GMTThere is great tension in the world, tension toward a breaking point, and men are unhappy and confused. At such a time it seems natural and good to me to ask myself these questions. What do I believe in? What must I fight for and what must I fight against?"
― John Steinbeck, East of EdenThis is one of those times.
What's ironic is that Pompeo and his fellow Americans would cry like the little girls they are if the rest of the world starting assassinating Americans based on the same grounds. Lolanonymous [283] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 7:31 pm GMTThere is no such thing as international law or legality. Might makes right as shown by the US doing as it pleases and thumbing it's nose at everyone. Some person with legal credentials gets trotted out to declare whatever has been done is legal, just rubber-stamping it. It's too bad but that's the reality.2stateshmustate , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 7:42 pm GMT@Z-man With all due respect which is 0. How pray tell did the those "hijackers" manage to plant the explosives in the 3 World Trade towers buildings with which to imploded them? Of course they didn't. Israel and Jews have their fingerprints all over the 911 attack.SolontoCroesus , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 7:42 pm GMT911 was an Israeli/ Jew false flag attack that resulted in the murder of 3000 innocent goyim before noon that day. It's purpose was to create hatred towards Arabs, Muslims and Persians so that stupid Americans would send their children to die for the squatter colony of Israel.
Folks the Jew controlled US government is saying that those 3 sky-scrapers collapsed into their own footprint at free fall speed due to one cause: office furniture fires. Not the impact of the "plane" and not the fuel carried by the "planes". This has never happened before or since in the history of the world. It is complete bullshit. The JewSA's story is totally impossible and defies the laws of physics. Namely the Law of the conservation of energy.
As anyone who observers the fall of all 3 towers can see those building fall at free fall speed. For this to happen it means that the underlying structure is offering NO resistance to the above falling structure. How can this be? The many floors below the impact zone were in no way effected by the fire. Yet we see them vaporized into dust as the buildings collapse into their own footprint.
No folks this is impossible. Therefore the entire government's story is suspect and I would suggest total bullshit.
I'll admit that in the heat of the moment I fell for this lie. But what really got my attention was when I found out about the collapse of Building 7. A 57 story that was not hit by any "plane". And yet it followed the same script as the Twin Towers. Use critical thinking Americans.I realize for many the truth about 911 is going to blow up their entire world view regarding the exceptionalness of the US and our good buddy Israel. But it is vital for the survival of our nation that the real criminals behind 911 be held accountable.
Israel did 911 and they are our number one enemy.
@AnonFromTN If so, AnonFromTn, while begging pardon for a Whataboutery argument, How does #2 differ from the activities of Israelis, that are supported by American taxpayers; and how does #3 differ from the activities of Americans toward Iran, whose government US / Israel has been seeking to topple and re-form to "western" preferences, since at least 1979? *AnonFromTN , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 8:18 pm GMTMoreover, Desert Fox is partly (but only minimally-partly) correct in that zionist Jews and Allies set-up or duped or manipulated or otherwise used Germany to attempt to destroy Bolshevism in Russia, similar to the way that US used Saddam against Iran, then killed Saddam; used Soleimani against ISIS in Iraq, then killed Soleimani.
So are the actions of USA / ZUSA excusable, unaccountable, but those of Germany were demonstrably not?
Or should the American people remain warily alert for the next shoe to drop, when that "arc of justice" bends inexorably their way?
* I still, perhaps stubbornly, maintain that Germany had far more justification for its actions in seeking to vanquish a political regime that was observably committing mass murder with the "imminent" danger of carrying out the same against the German people -- as, in fact, was done; and that seeking to protect its people from starvation, of which 800,000 people had died within the present memory of surviving Germans, is an obligation of the state, a far more compelling obligation than that of "protecting American interests" 7000 miles from the homeland, when the homeland has more than adequate capacity to provide for its people, and when the interests being protected are those of a very few very rich individuals or corporations.
Competing and trading fairly is far less costly than waging war, and not nearly so ignoble.@SolontoCroesus I am not trying to whitewash the Empire. Many of its actions are clearly criminal, including bombing of Serbia, the invasion of Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, assisting murderous Saudis in Yemen, etc. Assassination of Soleimani is yet another similarly criminal action, not the first and likely not the last.Agent76 , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 8:20 pm GMTHowever, the criminality of the Empire does not justify Hitler in any way. His troops behaved in a totally barbaric manner in the former Soviet Union. I know that not from propaganda, but from the accounts of real people who lived through German occupation in 1941-44.
The Empire being a criminal enterprise does not make the Third Reich any less criminal. FYI, bandits often clash with each other, and both sides in those clashes remain bandits.
Jan 13, 2020 Assassination-gate! Trump Officials Say No 'Imminent Threat.' With Guest Phil GiraldiJamesinNM , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 8:47 pm GMTTrump officials – including Trump himself today – have been steadily pulling back from initial claims after the January 3rd assassination of Iranian top general Soleimani that he was killed because of "imminent threats" of attack led by the Iranian.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/WjtMSaOBaiU?feature=oembed
Pray for Christ's return and the destruction of all evil.9/11 Inside job , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 8:47 pm GMT@Paul "Noam Chomsky and the gatekeepers of the left " is a chapter in Barrie Zwicker's book "Towers of Deception ", this chapter is available in pdf format at 9/11conspiracy.tv .JamesinNM , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 8:52 pm GMT
Zwicker argues that Chomsky " In supporting the official story is at one with the right-wing gatekeepers such as Judith Miller of the New York Times Chomsky's function is identical to Miller's: support the official story Chomsky systematically engages in deceptive discourse on certain key topics such as 9/11 , the Kennedy assassination and with regard to the CIA . ..A study of Chomsky's stands show him to be a de facto defender of the status quo's most egregious outrages and their covert agency engines To the New World Order he is worth 50 armored divisions ."
As filmmaker Roy Harvey has stated " the single greatest obstacle to the spread of 9/11 truth is the Left media ."@Sean Make that plea as justification to Christ at the final judgement when your eternal destiny is being determined.Zumbuddi , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 9:30 pm GMT@JamesinNM Years ago I was given the book, Prayers, by Michel Quoist.Been_there_done_that , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 9:35 pm GMT
IIRC, the first page said, "Prayer is political action."@GeeBeeHerald , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 9:42 pm GMT"If, as you claim, the flights actually took place, but no hijackers boarded them, how on earth did they fly into the twin towers?"
Remote control – a proven and trusted technology.
It could have been possible that some of the airline planes were electronically "switched" in mid-air, remotely flown with their beacons turned off, to simply disappear into the South Atlantic Ocean once their fuel ran out, while replaced by a fuel tanker in one case, to create a bigger fireball upon impact in Manhattan, or a much smaller plane to penetrate into the Pentagon.
The public ought to demand a thorough investigation resulting in concrete answers and prosecutions.
Some of the alleged hijackers were actually alive after the event and outraged to have had their identities stolen and misused.
@Biff Great article, but Craig is taking the easy way out on 9/11. Of course, the Arabs were Sunnis, but were bit players only, and no way was 9/11 Saudi led.
|
|
|
Jan 09, 2020 | www.unz.com
steinbergfeldwitzcohen , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 11:59 pm GMT
No Wall has been built in America BUT the U.S. Embassy is in Jerusalem.
No Immigration Solution. Record numbers of f-1's and b1's.
National Debt Level WORSE than in summer 2008 Right Before Financial Meltdown.
No End to the 'Endless' Wars (Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq)
Israel got the Golan Heights. Jews have gotten an E.O. recognizing them as a Nation. All the big Jew Wall St. Firms have had easy money and tax credits from Trump.What did America get? How can anyone believe anything other than: 'Israel first, last and always' from Donald J. Trump? He endlessly blathers about the evils of antisemitism while 80% of Jews continue to vote Democrat.
I can do nothing except conclude the man's soul has been completely and utterly drained from him through his never ending fellating of Israel and the incessant pounding BoBo Satanyahoo gives him.
At this point, it is just an embarrassment to watch Trump. I saw his press conference this afternoon and I couldn't believe the difference between that monotone, babbling idiot I saw today and the guy who used to fill Stadiums.
The America government has become the Great Satan.
Israel is it's helper.
Trump is the Great Betrayer.
|
|
|
Jan 09, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com
ombon , 59 minutes ago link
has bear r us , 1 hour ago linkThe credo of British politics is the words of the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Prime Minister of Great Britain, Henry Palmerston, uttered in his speech in the House of Commons on March 1, 1858: "We do not have eternal allies and we do not have constant enemies; our interests are eternal and permanent. Our duty is to protect these interests. " And these interests lie in destroying and robbing other nations and keeping their own people in fear.
It more accurately than ever describes the current state of the United StateLet it Go , 1 hour ago linkwhitehead is clearly antisemitic and should be banned from the internet. Abandoning the only friend the usa has in the mideast will have severe consequences for the usa empire.
frankthecrank , 1 hour ago linkWhen America put Trump in office many of us were seeking a world where the leadership in Washington would focus on bringing both jobs and money home rather than squandering it on foreign wars. Simply put, Trump did not come across as a warmonger during the presidential campaign. If David Stockman is right it could be that the power of the swamp is too strong and simply cannot be drained.
Stockman, who served as a Republican U.S. Representative from the state of Michigan and as the Director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Ronald Reagan, contends that President Trump has become a hostage of those occupying the very swamp he promised to drain.
http://America Did Not Vote For More Death And Destruction!html
hoytmonger , 1 hour ago linkCome Home, America: Stop Policing The Globe And Put An End To Wars-Without-End
NO--we have nowhere to park all of that stuff and nowhere to house all of those troops. It would help immensely if we just got this over with and started taxing and outright administering these places we occupy. If we're going to be an empire (which no one ever voted for) then we need to start acting like it. Rome, Byzantium, England, Spain, France, etc. Just do it and be done with it.
GoFuqYourself , 1 hour ago linkThat's because Fox News is a subsidiary of the MIC.
beemasters , 1 hour ago linkFalling on deaf ears. America is not policing the globe; they are plundering then destroying it at the behest of the rottenchilds.
uhland62 , 1 hour ago linkIn fact, the United States military spends about $81 billion a year just to protect oil supplies around the world .
And there's no outcry. God forbids if that money is used to subsidize education, medical care or build infrastructures. That would be evil socialism.
luffy0212 , 5 minutes ago linkWar spending is bankrupting America.
I wish - not happening yet. Instead they harrass NATO countries to abandon some economic projects to do more damage to them on top of sanctions. If Iraq sells oil to China it's a problem for them, even though that could reduce US costs for Iraq. US policies are cookoo.
All Presidents get turned once in the WH. Maybe it's as simple as threatening to be kennedy'd.
gazmann , 1 hour ago linkFrank...Frank-Frank...IT always been about Zionist, Banksters, and the families that run your world. When will you get it through you little pea size brain you are nothing but expendable Xenophobe fodder allowed to thrive and be ripped the moment they deem it so.
Illegal , 1 hour ago linkIt has nothing to do win policing. It has to do with CONTROL
alexcojones , 21 minutes ago linkMaybe if they took the American flag off of every military uniform, plane and embassy and replaced it with the Rothschild red shield things might become more obvious.
LeadPipeDreams , 7 minutes ago linkBTW John Whitehead, you wrote: "The 9/11 attacks were blowback . The Boston Marathon Bombing was blowback . The attempted Times Square bomber was blowback. The Fort Hood shooter, a major in the U.S. Army, was blowback ."
Most, if not ALL, of those were CIA orchestrated false flag events.
Correct - statements like those are of course huge red flags - Whitehead is likely a controlled op.
|
|
|
Jan 09, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com
by Tyler Durden Wed, 01/08/2020 - 22:45 0 SHARES
Authored by John Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,
" Let us resolve that never again will we send the precious young blood of this country to die trying to prop up a corrupt military dictatorship abroad. This is also the time to turn away from excessive preoccupation overseas to the rebuilding of our own nation. America must be restored to a proper role in the world. But we can do that only through the recovery of confidence in ourselves . together we will call America home to the ideals that nourished us from the beginning. From secrecy and deception in high places; come home, America. From military spending so wasteful that it weakens our nation; come home, America ."
- George S. McGovern, former Senator and presidential candidate
I agree wholeheartedly with George S. McGovern, a former Senator and presidential candidate who opposed the Vietnam War, about one thing: I'm sick of old men dreaming up wars for young men to die in.
It's time to bring our troops home.
Bring them home from Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. Bring them home from Germany, South Korea and Japan. Bring them home from Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Oman . Bring them home from Niger, Chad and Mali. Bring them home from Turkey, the Philippines, and northern Australia.
That's not what's going to happen, of course.
The U.S. military reportedly has more than 1.3 million men and women on active duty, with more than 200,000 of them stationed overseas in nearly every country in the world. Those numbers are likely significantly higher in keeping with the Pentagon's policy of not fully disclosing where and how many troops are deployed for the sake of " operational security and denying the enemy any advantage ." As investigative journalist David Vine explains, "Although few Americans realize it, the United States likely has more bases in foreign lands than any other people, nation, or empire in history ."
Don't fall for the propaganda, though: America's military forces aren't being deployed abroad to protect our freedoms here at home. Rather, they're being used to guard oil fields, build foreign infrastructure and protect the financial interests of the corporate elite. In fact, the United States military spends about $81 billion a year just to protect oil supplies around the world .
The reach of America's military empire includes close to 800 bases in as many as 160 countries , operated at a cost of more than $156 billion annually. As Vine reports, "Even US military resorts and recreation areas in places like the Bavarian Alps and Seoul, South Korea, are bases of a kind. Worldwide, the military runs more than 170 golf courses ."
This is how a military empire occupies the globe.
Already, American military servicepeople are being deployed to far-flung places in the Middle East and elsewhere in anticipation of the war drums being sounded over Iran .
This Iran crisis, salivated over by the neocons since prior to the Iraq War and manufactured by war hawks who want to jumpstart the next world war, has been a long time coming.
Donald Trump, Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton: they all have done their part to ensure that the military industrial complex can continue to get rich at taxpayer expense.
Take President Trump, for instance.
Despite numerous campaign promises to stop America's "endless wars," once elected, Trump has done a complete about-face, deploying greater numbers of troops to the Middle East, ramping up the war rhetoric, and padding the pockets of defense contractors. Indeed, Trump is even refusing to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq in the face of a request from the Iraqi government for us to leave.
Obama was no different: he also pledged -- if elected -- to bring the troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan and reduce America's oversized, and overly costly, military footprint in the world. Of course, that didn't happen.
Yet while the rationale may keep changing for why American military forces are policing the globe , these wars abroad (in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Yemen and now Iran) aren't making America -- or the rest of the world -- any safer, are certainly not making America great again, and are undeniably digging the U.S. deeper into debt.
War spending is bankrupting America.
Although the U.S. constitutes only 5% of the world's population, America boasts almost 50% of the world's total military expenditure , spending more on the military than the next 19 biggest spending nations combined.
In fact, the Pentagon spends more on war than all 50 states combined spend on health, education, welfare, and safety.
The American military-industrial complex has erected an empire unsurpassed in history in its breadth and scope, one dedicated to conducting perpetual warfare throughout the earth.
Since 2001, the U.S. government has spent more than $4.7 trillion waging its endless wars .
Having been co-opted by greedy defense contractors, corrupt politicians and incompetent government officials, America's expanding military empire is bleeding the country dry at a rate of more than $32 million per hour .
In fact, the U.S. government has spent more money every five seconds in Iraq than the average American earns in a year.
Future wars and military exercises waged around the globe are expected to push the total bill upwards of $12 trillion by 2053 .
Talk about fiscally irresponsible: the U.S. government is spending money it doesn't have on a military empire it can't afford.
As investigative journalist Uri Friedman puts it, for more than 15 years now, the United States has been fighting terrorism with a credit card , "essentially bankrolling the wars with debt, in the form of purchases of U.S. Treasury bonds by U.S.-based entities like pension funds and state and local governments, and by countries like China and Japan."
War is not cheap, but it becomes outrageously costly when you factor in government incompetence, fraud, and greedy contractors . Indeed, a leading accounting firm concluded that one of the Pentagon's largest agencies " can't account for hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of spending ."
Unfortunately, the outlook isn't much better for the spending that can be tracked.
A government audit found that defense contractor Boeing has been massively overcharging taxpayers for mundane parts, resulting in tens of millions of dollars in overspending. As the report noted, the American taxpayer paid :
$71 for a metal pin that should cost just 4 cents; $644.75 for a small gear smaller than a dime that sells for $12.51: more than a 5,100 percent increase in price. $1,678.61 for another tiny part, also smaller than a dime, that could have been bought within DoD for $7.71: a 21,000 percent increase. $71.01 for a straight, thin metal pin that DoD had on hand, unused by the tens of thousands, for 4 cents: an increase of over 177,000 percent.
That price gouging has become an accepted form of corruption within the American military empire is a sad statement on how little control "we the people" have over our runaway government.
Mind you, this isn't just corrupt behavior. It's deadly, downright immoral behavior.
Americans have thus far allowed themselves to be spoon-fed a steady diet of pro-war propaganda that keeps them content to wave flags with patriotic fervor and less inclined to look too closely at the mounting body counts, the ruined lives, the ravaged countries, the blowback arising from ill-advised targeted-drone killings and bombing campaigns in foreign lands, or the transformation of our own homeland into a warzone.
That needs to change.
The U.S. government is not making the world any safer. It's making the world more dangerous. It is estimated that the U.S. military drops a bomb somewhere in the world every 12 minutes . Since 9/11, the United States government has directly contributed to the deaths of around 500,000 human beings. Every one of those deaths was paid for with taxpayer funds.
The U.S. government is not making America any safer. It's exposing American citizens to alarming levels of blowback, a CIA term referring to the unintended consequences of the U.S. government's international activities. Chalmers Johnson, a former CIA consultant, repeatedly warned that America's use of its military to gain power over the global economy would result in devastating blowback .
The 9/11 attacks were blowback . The Boston Marathon Bombing was blowback . The attempted Times Square bomber was blowback. The Fort Hood shooter, a major in the U.S. Army, was blowback .
The assassination of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani by a U.S. military drone strike will, I fear, spur yet more blowback against the American people.
The war hawks' militarization of America -- bringing home the spoils of war (the military tanks, grenade launchers, Kevlar helmets, assault rifles, gas masks, ammunition, battering rams, night vision binoculars, etc.) and handing them over to local police, thereby turning America into a battlefield -- is also blowback.
James Madison was right:
"No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare." As Madison explained, "Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few."
We are seeing this play out before our eyes.
The government is destabilizing the economy, destroying the national infrastructure through neglect and a lack of resources, and turning taxpayer dollars into blood money with its endless wars, drone strikes and mounting death tolls.
Clearly, our national priorities are in desperate need of an overhauling .
At the height of its power, even the mighty Roman Empire could not stare down a collapsing economy and a burgeoning military. Prolonged periods of war and false economic prosperity largely led to its demise. As historian Chalmers Johnson predicts:
The fate of previous democratic empires suggests that such a conflict is unsustainable and will be resolved in one of two ways. Rome attempted to keep its empire and lost its democracy. Britain chose to remain democratic and in the process let go its empire. Intentionally or not, the people of the United States already are well embarked upon the course of non-democratic empire.
This is the "unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex" that President Dwight Eisenhower warned us more than 50 years ago not to let endanger our liberties or democratic processes.
Eisenhower, who served as Supreme Commander of the Allied forces in Europe during World War II, was alarmed by the rise of the profit-driven war machine that emerged following the war -- one that, in order to perpetuate itself, would have to keep waging war.
We failed to heed his warning.
As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People , there's not much time left before we reach the zero hour.
It's time to stop policing the globe, end these wars-without-end, and bring the troops home before it's too late.
g3h , 23 minutes ago link
Thom Paine , 26 minutes ago linkBottom line, doesn't seem the America people care. They are busy doing min wage jobs. Perhaps not happy, but hey they don't complain. Not one takes away their freedom.
Normal , 32 minutes ago linkA safe world would make the US poor
spam filter , 34 minutes ago linkThe elite of the U.S., Saudi Arabia, and Israel are the enemies of the world. And, they are Stupid.
Youri Carma , 51 minutes ago linkIt's already too late. We'll never dig ourselves out of this hole. Our Government is a runaway trainwreck, and the track ends at world war.
All true but the problem is we're preaching before the choir here. How do we reach at least a few percentage of those 1.3 million men on active duty? Asking myself this question a lot lately.
|
|
|
Jan 09, 2020 | www.unz.com
Steve Gilbert , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 7:29 pm GMT
@Authenticjazzman The US could afford lots of things if we cut the military budget by 99%, as we should have done after WWII.
The military works for the plutocrats, stealing money from the taxpayers. The ruling class turned Vietnam from an agricultural nation into a low paid factory nation which took thousands of textile jobs from Americans – i.e winning the Vietnam war. The problem lies in the taxpayers not understanding what winning means. Manufacturing havens with super low wages and homeless veterans begging at every intersection. West Point teaches people they have the right to drop bombs on civilians and torture them in Guantanamo. Of course these folks think of themselves as the smartest people who ever lived.
|
|
|
Jan 08, 2020 | www.unz.com
During more than a half-century of Washington watching we have seen stupidity rise from one height to yet another. But nothing -- just plain nothing -- compares to the the blithering stupidity of the Donald's Iran "policy", culminating in the mindless assassination of its top military leader and hero of the so-called Islamic Revolution, Major General Qassem Soleimani.
To be sure, we don't give a flying f*ck about the dead man himself. Like most generals of whatever army (including the US army), he was a cold-blooded, professional killer.
And in this day and age of urban and irregular warfare and drone-based annihilation delivered by remote joy-stick, generals tend to kill more civilians than combatants. The dead civilian victims in their millions of U.S. generals reaching back to the 1960s surely attest to that.
Then again, even the outright belligerents Soleimani did battle with over the decades were not exactly alms-bearing devotees of Mother Theresa, either. In sequential order, they were the lethally armed combatants mustered by Saddam Hussein, George W. Bush, the Sunni jihadists of ISIS and the Israeli and Saudi air forces, which at this very moment are raining high tech bombs and missiles on Iranian allies and proxies in Syria, Lebanon and Yemen.
The only reason these years of combat are described in the mainstream media as evidence of Iranian terrorism propagated by its Quds forces is that the neocons have declared it so. That is, by Washington's lights Iran is not allowed to have a foreign policy and its alliances with mainly Shiite co-religionists in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen are alleged per se to be schemes of aggression and terror, warranting any and all retaliations including assassination of its highest officials.
But that's just colossal nonsense and imperialistic arrogance. The Assad government in Syria, the largest political party in Lebanon (Hezbollah), the dominant population of northern Yemen (Houthis) and a significant portion of the Iraqi armed forces represented by the Shiite militias (the PMF or Popular Mobilization Forces) are no less civilized and no more prone to sectarian violence than anybody else in this woebegone region. And the real head-choppers of ISIS and its imitators and rivals have all been Sunni jihadist insurrectionists, not Shiite-based governments and political parties.
The truth is, America has no dog in the Shiite versus Sunni hunt, which has been going on for 1300 years in the region. And when it comes to spillover of those benighted forces into Europe or America, recent history is absolutely clear: 100% of all Islamic terrorist incidents in the US since they began in the 1990s were perpetrated or inspired by Sunni jihadists, not Iran or its Shiite allies and proxies in the region.
So we needs be direct. The aggression in the Persian Gulf region during the last three decades has originated in the Washington DC nest of neocon vipers and among Bibi Netanyahu's proxies, collaborators and assigns who rule the roost in the Imperial City and among both political parties. And the motivating force has all along been the malicious quest for regime change -- first in Iraq and then in Syria and Iran.
Needless to say, Washington instigated "regime change" tends to provoke a determined self-defense and a usually violent counter-reaction among the changees. So the truth is, the so-called Shiite crescent is not an alliance of terrorists inflicting wanton violence on the region; it's a league of regime-change resisters and armed combatants who have elected to say "no" to Washington's imperial schemes for remaking the middle eastern maps.
So in taking out Soleimani, the usually befuddled and increasingly belligerent occupant of the Oval Office was not striking a blow against "terrorism". He was just dramatically escalating Washington's long-standing regime-change aggression in the region, thereby risking an outbreak of even greater violence and possibly a catastrophic conflagration in the Persian Gulf where one-fifth of the world's oil traverses daily.
And most certainly, the Donald has now crushed his own oft-repeated intent to withdraw American forces from the middle east and get out of the regime change business -- the very platform upon which he campaigned in 2016. There are now upwards of 50,000 US military personnel in the immediate Persian Gulf region and tens of thousands of more contractors, proxies and mercenaries. After Friday's reckless maneuver, that number can now only go up -- and possibly dramatically.
In joy-sticking Soleimani while lounging in his plush digs at Mar-a-Lago, the Donald was also not avenging the innocent casualties of Iranian aggression -- Americans or otherwise. He was just jamming another regime-change stick in the hornets nest of anti-Americanism in the region that Washington's bloody interventions have spawned over the decades, and which will now intensify by orders of magnitude.
Sometimes a picture does tell a thousand words, and this one from the funeral procession in Tehran yesterday surely makes a mockery of Secretary Pompeo's idiotic claim that the middle east is now safer than before. If there was ever a case that this neocon knucklehead should be immediately dispatched to his hog and corn farm back in Kansas, this is surely it.
Iranians carried the coffins of top general Qassem Soleimani and his allies in Kerman, IranThe larger point here is that Imperial Washington and its mainstream media megaphones have so egregiously and relentlessly vilified Iran and falsified the middle east narrative that the Iranian side of the story has been completely lost -- literally airbrushed right off the pages of contemporary history in Stalineseque fashion.
Not that the benighted, mullah-controlled Iranian regime is comprised of anything which resembles white hats. One of the great misfortunes of the last four decades is that the long-suffering people of Iran have not been able to throw-off the cultural and religious shackles imposed by this theocratic regime or escape the economic backwardness and incompetence of what is essentially rule by authoritarian clerics.
But that's exactly the crime of Washington's neocon-inspired hostility and threats to the Iranian regime. It merely rekindles Iranian nationalism and causes the public to rally to the support of the regime, as is so evident at the current moment.
Worse still, the underlying patriotic foundation of this pro-regime sentiment is completely lost on Imperial Washington owing to its false narrative about post-1979 history. Yet the fact is, in the eyes of the Iranian people the Quds forces and Soleimani have plausible claims to having been valiant defenders of the nation.
In the original instance, of course, Soleimani earned his chops on the battlefield contending with the chemical weapons-dropping air force of Saddam Hussein during the 1980s. And Saddam was the invader whose chemical bombs achieved especially deadly accuracy against often barely armed teenage Iranian soldiers owing to spotting and targeting assistance rendered by the U.S. air force -- a Washington assisted depredation that a whole generation of Iranians know all about, even if present day Washington feints ignorance.
Then after Bush the Younger visited uninvited and unrequested Shock & Awe upon Baghdad and much of the Iraqi countryside, it transpired that the nation's majority Shiite population didn't cotton much to being "liberated" by Washington. Indeed, the more radical elements of the Iraqi Shiite community in Sadr City and other towns of central and south Iraq took up arms during 2003-2011 against what they perceived to be the American "occupiers" because, well, it was their country.
Needless to say, their Shiite kinsman in Iran were more than ready to give aid and comfort to the Iraqi Shiite in their struggle against what by then was perceived as Iran's own mortal enemy. After all, a full year before Bush the Younger launched the utterly folly of the second gulf war in March 2003, his demented neocon advisors and speechwriters, led by the insufferable David Frum, had concocted a bogeyman called the Axis of Evil, which included Iran and marked it as next in line for Shock & Awe.
But the idea that the Iraqi people and especially its majority Shiite population would have been dancing in the streets to welcome the US military save for the insidious interference of Iran is just baseless War Party propaganda.
Stated differently, Washington sent 158,000 lethally armed fighters into a country that had never threatened America's homeland security or harbored its enemies, and had no capacity to do so in any event. But contrary to the glib assurances of Rumsfeld, Cheney and the rest of the neocon jackals around Bush, these U.S. fighters soon came to be widely viewed as "invaders", not liberators, and met resistance from a wide variety of Iraqi elements including remnants of Saddam's government and military, radicalized Sunni jihadists and a motley array of Shiite politicians, clerics and militias.
Foremost among these was the Sadr clan which emerged as the tribune of the the dispossessed Shiite communities in the south and Baghdad. They rose to prominence after Bush the Elder urged the Shiite to rise up against Saddam after the 1991 Gulf War, and then left them dangling in the wind.
No U.S. support materialized as the regime's indiscriminate crackdown on the population systematically arrested and killed tens of thousands of Shiites and destroyed Shiite shrines, centers of learning, towns and villages. According to eyewitness accounts, Baathist tanks were painted with messages like "No Shiites after today," people were hanged from electric poles, and tanks ran over women and children and towed bodies through the streets.
From this horror and brutality emerged Mohammad Mohammad Sadeq al-Sadr, the founder of the Sadrist movement that today, under the leadership of his son Muqtada, constitutes Iraq's most powerful political movement. After the collapse of the Baathist regime in 2003, the Sadrist movement formally established its own militia, known as the Jaysh al-Mahdi, or the Mahdi Army .
The vast Shiite underclass needed protection, social services and leadership, and the Sadrist movement stepped into these gaps by reactivating Sadeq al-Sadr's network. In the course of U.S. occupation, the Mahdi Army's ranks of supporters, members and fighters swelled, particularly as sectarian conflict intensified and discontent towards the occupation grew out of frustration with the lack of security and basis services.At one point the Mahdi Army numbered more than 60,000 fighters, and especially as Iraq degenerated into total sectarian chaos after 2005, it became a deadly thorn in the side of U.S. forces occupying a country where they were distinctly unwelcome.
But the Mahdi Army was homegrown; it was Arab, not Persian, and it was fighting for its own homes and communities, not the Iranians, the Quds or Soleimani. In fact, the Sadrists strongly opposed the Iranian influence among other Shiite dissident groups including the brutal Badr Brigade and the Iran-aligned Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution (SCIRI). As the above study further noted,
I raqis today refer to the Sadrist Movement's Peace Brigades as the "rebellious" militias, because of their refusal to submit not only to Iran , but also to the federal government and religious establishment. Muqtada al-Sadr has oriented his organization around Iraqi nationalistic sentiments and derided the Iran-aligned militias . In line with the true political outlook of his father and his followers, Muqtada's supporters chanted anti-Iranian slogans and stormed the offices of the Dawa Party, ISCI and the Badr Brigade when they protested against the government in May 2016.
As it happened, the overwhelming share of the 603 US servicemen the Pentagon claims to have been killed by Iranian proxies were actually victims of the Mahdi Army uprisings during 2003-2007. These attacks were led by the above mentioned Iraqi nationalist firebrand and son of the movements founder, Muqtada al-Sadr.
In fact, however, the surge in U.S. deaths at that time was the direct result of subsequently disgraced General David Petraeus' infamous "surge" campaign. Among others, it targeted al-Sadr's Mahdi Army in the hope of weakening it. Beginning in late April 2007, the U.S. launched dozens of military operations aimed solely at capturing or killing Mahdi Army officers, causing the Mahdi Army to strongly resist those raids and impose mounting casualties on U.S. troops.
So amidst the fog of two decades of DOD and neocon propaganda, how did Iran and Soleimani get tagged over and over with the "killing Americans" charge, as if they were attacking innocent bystanders in lower Manhattan on 9/11?
It's just the hoary old canard that Iran was the source of the powerful roadside bombs called Explosively Formed Penetrators (EFPs) that were being used by many of the Shiite militias, as well as the Sunni jihadists in Anbar province and the west. Yet that claim was debunked more than a decade ago by evidence that the Mahdi Army and other Shiite militias were getting their weapons not just from the Iranians but from wherever they could, as well as manufacturing their own.
As the estimable Iran export, Gareth Porter, recently noted:
The command's effort to push its line about Iran and EFPs encountered one embarrassing revelation after another. In February 2007 a US command briefing asserted that the EFPs had "characteristics unique to being manufactured in Iran." However, after NBC correspondent Jane Arraf confronted the deputy commander of coalition troops, Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno, with the fact that a senior military official had acknowledged to her that US troops had been discovering many sites manufacturing EFPs in Iraq, Odierno was forced to admit that it was true.
Then in late February 2007, US troops found another cache of parts and explosives for EFPs near Baghdad, which included shipments of PVC tubes for the canisters that contradicted its claims . They had come not from factories in Iran, but from factories in the UAE and other Arab countries, including Iraq itself. That evidence clearly suggested that the Shiites were procuring EFP parts on the commercial market rather than getting them from Iran.
Although the military briefing by the command in February 2007 pointed to cross-border weapons smuggling, it actually confirmed in one of its slides that it was being handled by "Iraqi extremist group members" rather than by Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). And as Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, the US commander for southern Iraq, admitted in a July 6 press briefing , his troops had not "captured anybody that we can directly tie back to Iran."
On the other hand, what the Iranian Quds forces have actually accomplished in Iraq and Syria has been virtually expunged from the mainstream narrative. To wit, they have been the veritable tip of the spear in the eradication of the Islamic State.
Indeed, in Iraq it was the wobbly Iraqi national army that Washington stood up at a cost of billions, which turned tail and ran when ISIS emerged in Anbar province in 2014. So doing, they left behind thousands of US armored vehicles, mobile artillery and even tanks, as well as massive troves of guns and ammo, which enabled the Islamic State to briefly thrive and subjugate several million people across the Euphrates Valley.
It was also Washington that trained, equipped, armed and funded the so-called anti-Assad rebels in Syria, which so weakened and distracted Damascus that that the Islamic State was briefly able to fill the power vacuum and impose its barbaric rule on the citizens of Raqqa and its environs. And again, it did so in large part with weaponry captured from or sold to ISIS by the so-called moderate rebels.
To the contrary, the panic and unraveling in Iraq during 2014-2015 was stopped and reversed when the Iranians at the invitation of Baghdad's Shiite government helped organize and mobilize the Iraqi Shiite militias, which eventually chased ISIS out of Mosul and Anbar.
Likewise, outside of the northern border areas liberated by the Syrian Kurds, it was the Shiite alliance of Assad, Hezbollah and the Iranian Quds forces that rid Syria of the ISIS plague.
Yes, the U.S. air force literally incinerated two great cities temporarily occupied by the Islamic State -- Mosul and Raqqa. But it was the Shiite fighters who were literally fighting for their lives, homes and hearth who cleared that land of a barbaric infestation that had been spawned and enabled by the very Washington neocons who are now dripping red in tooth and claw.
So we revert to the Donald's act of utter stupidity. On the one hand, it is now evident that the reason Soleimani was in Baghdad was to deliver an official response from Tehran to a recent Saudi de-escalation offer. And that's by the word of the very prime minister that Washington has stood up in the rump state of Iraq and who has now joined a majority of the Iraqi parliament in demanding that Iraq's putative liberators -- after expending trillions in treasure and blood -- leave the country forthwith:
Before the vote Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi told the parliament that he was scheduled to meet with Soleimani a day after his arrival to receive a letter from Iran to Iraq in response to a de-escalation offer Saudi Arabia had made. The U.S. assassinated Soleimani before the letter could be delivered by him. Abdul-Mahdi also said that Trump had asked him to mediate between the U.S. and Iran. Did he do that to trap Soleimani? It is no wonder then that Abdul-Mahdi is fuming.
At the same time, the positive trends that were in motion in the region just days ago -- -ISIS gone, Syria closing in on the remaining jihadists, Saudi Arabia and Iran tentatively exploring a more peaceful modus vivendi, the Yemen genocide winding to a close -- may now literally go up in smoke. As the always sagacious Pat Buchanan observed today,
What a difference a presidential decision can make.
Two months ago, crowds were in the streets of Iraq protesting Iran's dominance of their politics. Crowds were in the streets of Iran cursing that regime for squandering the nation's resources on imperial adventures in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen. Things were going America's way.
Now it is the Americans who are the targets of protests.
Over three days, crowds numbering in the hundreds of thousands and even millions have packed Iraqi and Iranian streets and squares to pay tribute to Soleimani and to curse the Americans who killed him.
We have long believed that there is nothing stupider in Washington than the neocon policy mafia that has wrecked such unspeakable havoc on the middle east as well as upon American
Sasha , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 4:41 am GMT
"Not that the benighted, mullah-controlled Iranian regime is comprised of anything which resembles white hats. One of the great misfortunes of the last four decades is that the long-suffering people of Iran have not been able to throw-off the cultural and religious shackles imposed by this theocratic regime or escape the economic backwardness and incompetence of what is essentially rule by authoritarian clerics."Carlton Meyer , says: Website Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 5:21 am GMTI get it that maybe Iranians don't have a Walmart in every town, and may not have the privilege of mortgaging their lives on a Visa or MC – but that's not what I call backwardness, rather progress. If times are tough, is it the backwardness of their system, or might crippling sanctions play a small role in that? What "cultural and religious shackles" might these be? Please be more specific, or I might think you mean that they don't have instant access to Hollywood blockbusters or something. The horror! Finally – if you want to use the term "regime", please apply it with a broad brush, maybe even broad enough to touch on the oh-so-democratic West. Let's just call them "governments", OK?
Nice to see the great David Stockman appear at Unz. Watch him teach Fox Business News blabbers economics and political realities. Then he stuns them by saying the Pentagon's budget must be cut:Haxo Angmark , says: Website Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 5:26 am GMThttps://www.youtube.com/embed/_-fUmMrzzJc?feature=oembed
well said by Stockman, though it's all water under the bridge now.Justsaying , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 5:30 am GMTDrumpf, a life-long Zion-stooge, and the (((neo-conz))) and their cucks
have got their War of Choice. Depending how the Greater MidEast War goes,
it may help solve all sorts of outstanding problems, there
and here. Right now it's just after dawn in Tehran .let's see how far
Drumpf et al. up the bloody ante today.
@Sasha Well and truly spoken. American pop and consumerist culture along with pop drinks and endless fads, crude music and fast foods are being peddled as markers of serious culture. They are shoved down the throats of unsuspecting minds in asymmetric commerce as part of an aggressive campaign to turn the planet into a consumerist backyard for American junk and to consolidate American hegemony.Justsaying , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 5:41 am GMTJUSA , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 5:55 am GMTThe larger point here is that Imperial Washington and its mainstream media megaphones have so egregiously and relentlessly vilified Iran and falsified the middle east narrative that the Iranian side of the story has been completely lost --
Iran's foreign minister Zarif has been denied entry into the United States to attend a UN meeting. Speaking of idiocy in denying Iranians their side of the story. That has been the imperial modus operandi in appropriating narratives with the complicity of our poor excuse for journalism, the servile MSM.
@Sasha I agree. If Iranians are really that disgusted by the "cultural and religious shackles imposed by this theocratic regime or the economic backwardness and incompetence of what is essentially rule by authoritarian clerics", those clerics wouldn't still be in power. All they have to do is look at the degeneration of the West from drugs, alcohol, money, power, coarsening pop culture, pornography, all manners of sexual perversion and they know they are wise to take a different path.A123 , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 6:05 am GMTCulturally, economically, politically, even technologically, the US is on a downward spiral, courtesy of the Jews. This warmongering perpetuated by the same tribe will eventually finish us off. China, Russia and Iran have existed for thousands of years. They will have the last laugh.
Mark James , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 6:09 am GMTBefore the vote Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi told the parliament that he was scheduled to meet with Soleimani a day after his arrival to receive a letter from Iran to Iraq in response to a de-escalation offer Saudi Arabia had made. The U.S. assassinated Soleimani before the letter could be delivered by him.
So, Iranian de-escalation was based on a sneak attack against the U.S. Embassy? No. Simple logic shows that Mahdi is lying. Iran *escalated* by attacking the embassy.
-- What does Stockman suggest as a response to the Iranian sneak attack on the U.S. Embassy?
-- Why are the voices that are always screaming about 'International Law' not outraged by Iran's violations?Given the history of such actions from the Carter era, a strong response was necessary and inevitable. Iran offered war. And, Trump responded prudently and proportionally.
________Based on tonight's news, Khameni made a 'show' reprisal that had little impact on U.S. Forces. (1)
Iran fired more than a dozen ballistic missiles at two Iraqi bases housing U.S. troops, but preliminary reports suggest there are no U.S. casualties yet, two sources with direct knowledge of actions on the ground told Military Times Tuesday night.
Khameni's attack on the embassy was a failure that backfired badly. He is now desperately trying to back down, because he knows that Iran has no effective defense against U.S. Military options.
PEACE
______
Stockman knew Reagan's first budget was a joke. He wrote it: telling the late Bill Greider –in real time– that it was a 'Trojan Horse.'freedom-cat , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 6:14 am GMTNow he's telling Pompeo to go back to the pig farm but word is the Sec.State is now not running for a Senate seat. But I tend to believe Pompeo is not directing things it's coming from Trump's inner circle. Kushner strikes me as more of a neocon and he's obviously down with what they want in Tel Aviv. Which I think is an attack on Iran Nuclear capabilities before the end of the summer.
I heard Andrea Mitchell praising Stephen Hadley (Bush Neocon) as a "wise man" who called this an opportunity for negotiation. That's g one Andrea: it went out when Trump got rid of the deal Iran was adhering to, which the neocons and Israel didn't want.
I was reading earlier today that American Military Contractor company's stock began soaring right after the assassination; Ratheon, Northrup Grumman, Lockheed, Boeing, etc etcgotmituns , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 6:16 am GMTNow Asian market defense contracting company stocks are soaring because Iran has fired missiles at a couple US bases in Iraq.
Insanity. Hitting your head over and over on a brick wall, while thinking you'll start feeling better.
I'm sorry to say I voted for this moron; and all because I hated the alternative and he was flapping his jaws about ending the warring in M.E. I had my doubts from the beginning but I was willing to give him a chance. Won't be voting in this fall's election. There is not one candidate worth voting for; none.
Geez, by November we might be in full blown WW3 & elections suspended. who the hell knows at this point.
As stupid as it getsBiff , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 6:31 am GMT
-- -- -- -- -- -- –
Well, the Iranians really loused up now. Now Trump and his Israeli loving friends can finally kick their butts really good. Very bad idea attacking us.After the latest round of shit-slinging, Washington stinks, Tehran stinks, but Israel is still smelling like a rose even though they are the instigator of the whole affair.Mr. Allen , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 6:38 am GMT
How do they keep getting away with it each and every time?This is absurd. Don't lump all generals in together as the same. You might as well say Nazi generals and Russian generals and British generals and American generals and Japanese generals are all the same – all equally culpable of equal war crimes in WWII.Lockean Proviso , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 6:59 am GMTUnless you truly believe there is no good and bad sides in all these Middle Eastern wars this can't be true.
The Americans are aggressors and invaders in the Middle East. For the Iraqis to turn on the Americans it must mean something.
We get closer to the truth when we see Soleimani as a freedom fighter and Americans as terrorists.
To lump Soleimani with the American lot is devoid of morals and common sense
@JUSAPasser by , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 7:22 am GMTAll they have to do is look at the degeneration of the West from drugs, alcohol, money, power, coarsening pop culture, pornography, all manners of sexual perversion and they know they are wise to take a different path.
Yes, although it is interesting to note that the Iran has been one of the top nations for sex-change surgeries because the regime would rather change tomboys and sissies into "boys" and "girls" rather than allow homosexuality or even atypical gender affect. They do avoid having a pernicious and culturally radicalizing gay lobby though.
Anyway, it's none of our business and if we really had to choose sides in the Saudi vs Iran conflict then Iran would be the rational choice. Maybe neocon stupidity will help bring that conflict to a truce as they unite against the USA.
Pretty bad news for the US:JackOH , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 8:16 am GMTSigned:
YOUR ENEMY MOQTADA AL-SADR #Iraq #US #USA_غادروا_العراق pic.twitter.com/CcSmNOHqUu
-- Elijah J. Magnier (@ejmalrai) January 6, 2020
Moqtada al-Sadr, the most influential person in Iraq, is now calling the US an enemy and threatening Trump personally. If Mahdi Army joins the other Shia groups around the world, big damage will be done to the US via many means and no american will be able to stay in Iraq. Embassy could be gone too. US companies working on oil and gas will be kicked out. The country will move strongly towards Russia and China. All US investment in the Iraq adventure will be totally lost.
Angering iraqi shia is very stupid US move. They are an ascending force, with young combat ready population and young and expanding demographics. Last time the US angered the iraqi shia (2004), it lost the war in Iraq even before it knew it.
This is the result of a declining power not recognizing its decline and making enemies everywhere.
The 2020s will be a turbulent period of power transition where the US and Europe decline and the rest of the world rises, the end of the superpower moment and the beginning of a multipolar world.
That David Stockman? Kudos, Ron.CBTerry , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 8:16 am GMTExcellent article by a man so principled that as a representative from Michigan he voted against the Chrysler bail-out.Hans Vogel , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 9:03 am GMT
So please forgive me for pointing out this error:From the interweb:
A feint (noun) is primarily a deceptive move, such as in fencing or military maneuvering. It can also mean presenting a feigned appearance. Feint can also be a verb, but in that case it simply means to execute a feint.
To feign (verb) is to deceive; either by acting as if you're something or someone you're not, or lying.
There is some overlap between particular meanings of the two words (For example, his ignorance was a feint, he was feigning ignorance), but mostly they are separate.
Both words come from the French feindre, which means to "pretend, represent, imitate, shirk".Thanks for this well-written, passionate but nevertheless lucid analysis.eah , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 9:04 am GMTYet I feel mention should always be made of US corporate and imperial greed as a main motive for intervention anywhere in the world. It is about the oil and the profits and it is highly illuminating to turn to works by non-US authors. A good starting point would be Pino Solanas classic masterpiece La hora de los hornos (The Hour of the Furnaces) from 1968.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/jQOXKoMHOE0?feature=oembed
Also read Alfons Goldschmidt's eloquent and committed Die dritte Eroberung Amerikas (1929). And the recent magnificent overview by Matthieu Auzanneau, Or noir. La grande histoire du pétrole (2015).
Here is the best short analysis of the crime that was the invasion and conquest of Iraq:
Hans Vogel , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 9:04 am GMTThe Trump presidency has been nothing but neoliberalism and Zionism on steroids and shouldn't be renewed for a second season. Feel free to convince me otherwise
-- EMPEROR WHITEPILL (@CptBlackPill) January 8, 2020
@Justsaying Spot on!swamped , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 9:08 am GMT"In the original instance, of course, Soleimani earned his chops on the battlefield contending with the chemical weapons-dropping air force of Saddam Hussein during the 1980s. And Saddam was the invader whose chemical bombs achieved especially deadly accuracy against often barely armed teenage Iranian soldiers owing to spotting and targeting assistance rendered by the U.S. air force -- a Washington assisted depredation that a whole generation of Iranians know all about, even if present day Washington feints (sic) ignorance" and a whole generation (and more) know that this Washington-assisted depredation was carried out by the U.S. Administration in which Mr.Stockman served, whether or not he prefers now to "feint" ignorance of that, too. An Administration which also gave us the Nicaraguan Contra terrorists, the infamous Iran-Contra deal, Central American death squads, Israel's invasion of Lebanon & much more. Funny how Mr. Stockman was mum on such matters at the time. Maybe, like Jimmy Carter, he's found his moral compass since leaving government but wish he had found it a whole lot sooner. Hate to see a good Harvard Divinity School education go to waste. No matter, the article makes perfect sense even if it comes a little late.GeeBee , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 9:23 am GMT'The dead civilian victims in their millions of U.S. generals reaching back toSabretache , says: Website Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 10:15 am GMTthe 1960s1944 surely attest to that.'There, fixed it for you.
Whenever I see the kind of absurd foul language employed here by Stockman, I simply stop reading. What on earth is a "flying f ** ck' anyway, other than a supposed macho signal of just how big and angry a 'BSD' (to use another swaggering obscenity prevalent on his home turf) he thinks he is. Perhaps he'd care to explain.Ronnie , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 10:40 am GMTThe recent and nearly simultaneous crash of the newish Ukranian 737 in Tehran (with the 15 missiles launched from Iran) may be quite significant – indirect way to hurt the US (Boeing) again and Israel too – owned by Ukraine's most notorious billionaire Kolomoisky – and the guy who selected the new comedian President – and amazingly no US or Israeli passengers on board. Was it an accident or an exquisite punishment?Vaterland , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 11:11 am GMTben sampson , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 11:15 am GMTAnd when it comes to spillover of those benighted forces into Europe or America, recent history is absolutely clear: 100% of all Islamic terrorist incidents in the US since they began in the 1990s were perpetrated or inspired by Sunni jihadists, not Iran or its Shiite allies and proxies in the region.
It is especially hard to overlook that the terrorists and self-radicalized (mass-)murders who killed hundreds of Europeans, including my own countrymen, were adherents to the wahhabist ideology, created, funded and often staffed by the very countries which are the closest allies of the USA and Israel. And whom they sell hundreds of billions of weapons to as they wage their so called "war on terror" which is mostly the war to take out Israel's and Saudi-Arabias enemies.
David Stockman may be at the center of the intelligentsia which built the empire that many in the world looked up to and admired, and which crude figures like Pompeo, Bolton, Shapiro, Perle and Nuland are tearing down. But the problems and outright evilness of the empire now are inherent to its system and not merely a question of sophistication versus brutishness.
It's past time to close Rammstein.
@Sabretache Stockman is just guilty and fake thats all..why he uses such language.Ipostle , says: Website Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 11:21 am GMTthere is not a sincere word in all that he wrote above there, save that there is somethng important in there that Stockman is losing or wants..and is trying to set up to get
@Sasha You can't fault David Stockman for calling Islam a shackle. Unless you want to agree with Bush that Islam is peaceful.Biff , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 11:28 am GMT@A123Amon , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 11:33 am GMTIran *escalated* by attacking the embassy.
And you have proof of this where?
@A123 So this is what a paid shill looks like.Proud_Srbin , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 11:49 am GMTMass murderer and Assassin in Chief is SIMPLY continuing to execute blood lusty and genocidal policies established by alliance of TERROR which calls itself 5 eyes but Sovereign, FREEDOM loving people call 5 headed BEAST.Hans Vogel , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 11:53 am GMT
God Bless Axis of Resistance!
Resist Slavery, TERROR and neoNazis!@Mr. Allen9/11 Inside job , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 11:54 am GMTThis is absurd. Don't lump all generals in together as the same. You might as well say Nazi generals and Russian generals and British generals and American generals and Japanese generals are all the same – all equally culpable of equal war crimes in WWII.
Yes indeed, all generals are fundamentally the same. War crimes are not the exclusive realm of any one nationality or political or religious category.
Hollywood says otherwise, but what Hollywood says is little to do with historical fact and accuracy.
David Stockman blames "neocon stupidity", but Trump's foreign policy has nothing to do with stupidity it's planned and it's all about Israel ,"endless wars" , arms manufacturing and sales , and ensuring that the "war on terror" continues . We live in a Pathocracy and are governed by psychopaths and narcissists who have no compunction about the killing of civilians (collateral damage ) ,murder by drone , the destruction of cultural sites, the killing of 500,000 Iraqui children by sanctions (it was worth it – Madeleine Albright) and the murder of populist leaders such as Allende .barr , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 12:09 pm GMT@Sasha How does the mind develop? A boy grows up loving baseball ,because he grew up watching it since age 3 or 10 . If he watched soccer or Tennis, that would have been his favorite game . A blank page is ready for description of murder or love in English or Iranian language .anonymous [245] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 12:29 pm GMT
It is same about religion ,participation in civic rituals ,enjoying certain shows or music or theaters, food,consumption,and giving into outside demands rather than to self restraint self reflection and self observation and self evaluation of the imposed needs .
Mind learns to praise hollow words and illegal amoral immoral activities . Because we don't appreciate the converse and don't reward the opposite. Gradually society eliminates those thinkers Very soon we have one sort of thinking everywhere . Very soon adult bullying is copied by kids from TV and from watching the praise heaped on psychopaths.
This also means IQ gets distorted . Capacity to analyze gets impaired .
,American mind is manufactured mind by outside . BUt the process never stops. It doesn't get that chance to take internal control at any stage . In childhood and adolescence, when the time is right to inculcate this habit and enforce this angle or build this trait ,it is not done at all. Other nations try and other cultures do. Here is the difference between self assured content mind and nervous expectant mind always on a shopping outing . Most of our problems in society come from this situation,@JackOH Hmm.unit472 , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 12:34 pm GMTI enjoyed reading someone with a Washington resume' tearing into the current crew, too. And it was a relief to see addressed the accusation about the Iranian official being not only killed for, but set up by feigned US interest in, peace. Those with a public voice -- especially "journalists" -- who won't even mention this are either inept or corrupt.
But note the condescension towards the people of the Middle East and their "regimes" noted above, starting with comment #1. Read the column carefully, and you'll see that the criticism from Mr. Stockman is tactical, not principled. That's because he puts himself above all of those people over there, including the group shown relative sympathy, who "are no less civilized and no more prone to sectarian violence than anybody else in this woebegone region." Ask yourself the writer's purpose of those last four words, and in his use of "sectarian." Would a more concise "are no less civilized and no more prone to violence than anybody else" be a little too truthful?
I wonder whether this columnist is being brought in to buttress and/or replace the discredited one who he describes as "the always sagacious Pat Buchanan." (Those who haven't should read Mr. Paleoconservative's latest "If Baghdad Wants Us Out, Let's Go!" and the overwhelmingly negative comments it has drawn.) Heretical to their extents, but both remain devout Exceptionalians.
After more than a decades worth of failed economic prognostications ( that cost anyone who listened to him dearly) Stockman is now going to give us foreign policy advice? Remember this guys only official role was as an OMB appointee in the first term of Ronald Reagan.Just passing through , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 12:35 pm GMT@Ronnie Interestingly the plane just happened to be Ukrainian. Could this be the casus belli the West needs to go ham on Iran? More strikes on Iran justified by this plane crash and perhaps even sanctions on Russa as no doubt they will try an pin it on them as well?Realist , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 12:35 pm GMT@Sasha Stockman is notorious for defending cultures and countries (Russia, China, Iran, Islam) by belittling them. Paraphrasing: It is wrong for the US to confront Russia, because they have a third rate economy. or it is wrong for the US to confront China because China can't project power across the world. . He always takes the elitist position the US should not attack lessers like Russia, China, etc'. It seems he is trying to cover his ass against the dreaded charge that he is taking 'the enemy's side'.SolontoCroesus , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 12:38 pm GMT@Justsaying Blast from the past:anon [876] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 1:10 pm GMT"What you want to do is just beam in Melrose Place and 90250 into Tehran because that is subversive stuff. The young kids watch this, they want to have nice clothes, nice things . . and these internal forces of dissension beamed into Iran which is, paradoxically, the most open society, a lot more open than Iraq . . . therefore you have more ability to foment this dynamic against Iran. The question now is, Choose: beam Melrose Place -- it will take a long time (ha ha).
On the other hand if you take out Saddam I guarantee you it will have ENORMOUS positive reverberations that people sitting right next door, young people, in Iran, and many others will say, The time of such despots is gone, it's a new age."https://www.youtube.com/embed/wHmhf_wrcrM?feature=oembed
https://www.youtube.com/embed/fpQdg4D78Jc?feature=oembed
"A nuclear armed Saddam will place the entire world at risk"https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4501196/user-clip-netanyahu-iran-regime-change
PS C Span broadcast a PSA of Peggy Orenstein who will discuss her book about value of easy access to porn and discussion of masturbation.
How could a plane crash and several mega sky scapers not implode in seconds? Luchy Siverstein had another proctologist appointment?DanFromCT , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 1:15 pm GMT@Haxo Angmark What a trap DJT fell into! The president has proved himself more of a neocon patsy, as he was as much set up as the Iranian general, whose name will be forgotten by week's end in America. The neocons feeding the President a straight diet of cooked intel and their "never Trump" flunkies in the Senate have killed two birds with one stone inasmuch as the President's boasting he'd take out Iran's main cultural landmarks will be cast as a threat of genocide, which the Dems will now use to tar DJT as an intemperate megalomaniac in the minds of independents, probably ending his chances of winning reelection later this year.Sean , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 1:15 pm GMTRichardTaylor , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 1:16 pm GMTThe truth is, America has no dog in the Shiite versus Sunni hunt, which has been going on for 1300 years in the region. [ ] Needless to say, their Shiite kinsman in Iran were more than ready to give aid and comfort to the Iraqi Shiite in their struggle against what by then was perceived as Iran's own mortal enemy
The Sunni regime in Riyadh ceaselessly complain about the treatment of the Arab minority in Iran even though these are Shia Arabs, The Shia in Iraq are likewise Arabs. Iran is almost as big as Egypt or Turkey. Being a country of 80 million Shia Persians Iran could not possibly be conquered by the US without a massive effort, even if the deep state and joint chiefs wanted to, which they do not. The only time Iran runs into trouble is when it tries to act abroad as a power independent of both the US and Russia.
After the Iranian revolution the US was regarded as an all powerful enemy that would stage a coup, and so the Embassy staff, thought to be spies, were taken hostage. America was totally paralyzed and humiliated. Its raid to rescue the hostages was pathetic and exposed a total lack of special forces capability. the Islamic republic repudiated the Shah's role as America's cop on the beat, but it wanted to remain the most dominant power in the region nonetheless. Already worried by the arms given to Iran under the Shah who also supplied the Kurds fighting in Iraq, the 1974-75 Shatt al-Arab clashes between the Shah and Saddam's forces that led to led to 1000 KIAs, Saddam was faced with a radical Shia Iran appealing to his own oppressed Shia majority. After a series of border clashes with the aggressive Revolutionary Guards, Saddam predictably decided on an all out attack on Iran. The US backed Saddam and there was massive support for Iraq from the Soviet Union in the final phase of the war.
The Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran made use of suicide squads of schoolboys to clear minefields and in human wave attacks and by the end the front lines were well within Iraqi territory and Saddam had to settle for merely surviving. Iran had linked up with Assad's minority Alawite regime ruling a Sunni majority, and his Shia allies in Lebanon. Israeli defence minister and former general Ariel Sharon moved Israeli forces into West beirut then allowed Phalange gunmen let into palestinian refugee camps (PLO fighters had already left the city) where they slaughtered thousands of non combatants.
Under the influence of Iranian clerics' interpretations from the war with Saddam justifying suicide if the enemy was killed in the act, Assad's cat's paw Lebanese Shia suicide bombed the US marines out of Beirut. Then Palestinians learnt how suicide bombing was a powerful weapon and in the aftermath of the failure of Camp David 2000 embarked a vicious series of suicide massacres that destroyed Ehud barak and brought Sharon to power. Iran has gained influence in the region but ti is difficult to see what the Palestinians have got ot out of the patronage of Iran, which is first and mainly concerned with itself.
Due entirely to side effects of actions the US took against Saddam's Iraq taken to protect the current regime in Saudi Arabia Iran has went from strength to strength and they seem to think that run of luck will continue. Unfortunately for Iran, they are now a very real threat to Saudi Arabia, and the US knows it cannot put an army in Saudi Arabia to guard it with outraging Islamic nationalist opinion in that country
Instead of poking its nose into Arab affairs why does Iran, which managed to impoverish its own middle class in the last three decades and recently had to cut fuel subsidies, not concentrate on its own business? It seems to be calculating that Trump cannot afford to the bad publicity of starting a war too close to an election, and so they can make hay while the sun shines. Or perhaps they are pressing their luck like any good gambler on a roll. The assassination of Soleimani was intended to be taken a sign that Dame Fortune in the shape of America has grown tired of their insouciance. I think Iran should cut their losses although such is not human nature. The dictates of realism according to Mearsheimer mandate endless offence to gain even the slightest advantage, but he also says a good state must know its limitations.
@Justsaying America's problems don't have anything to do with soda pop or fast food. Nor is "consumerism" a serious problem that the world needs to worry about. I like having new smartphones, fast internet, and the convenience of getting things quickly.Miro23 , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 1:26 pm GMTA very good summary by David Stockman of the bad place that the US finds itself in.Desert Fox , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 1:32 pm GMTWith an old and confused Presidential tweeter surrounded by Zionist gangsters.
Trump is insane as is the ZUS government and its dual citizens who are calling the shots. Trump is the reincarnation of the Roman emperor Caligula.Anon [398] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 1:47 pm GMTAll of this was brought on by the joint attack by Israel and traitors in the ZUS government on the WTC on 911, blamed on the muslims to give the ZUS the excuse to destroy the middle east for zionist Israel and their greater Israel agenda.
Isn't Stockman the guy pumping a large investment newsletter scam? Is Unz getting a % of the scam to promote him? And how about these dumbo boomers who support him. LmaoChris Mallory , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 2:03 pm GMTZ-man , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 2:04 pm GMTLike most generals of whatever army (including the US army), he was a cold-blooded, professional killer.
Modern US Army generals are more likely to be lying, azz kissing politiicans than cold blooded killers.
@Carlton MeyerZ-man , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 2:08 pm GMTNice to see the great David Stockman appear at Unz. Watch him teach Fox Business News blabbers economics and political realities. Then he stuns them by saying the Pentagon's budget must be cut:
Yes, I was slightly surprised and gratified by his views.
'Maria' Bartiromo is/was married to a Joo . 'Nuff said.
That other one, the shrill Daegen McDowell, is also married to a Jew but is even more Zionist than your average 'Likudnik'. She was a regular on 'Imus in the Morning' but then had a falling out with Imus and was never back. I hope he haunts her until her demise. (Purple grinning Satan here)@SolontoCroesus Netanyahoo should be taken out with extreme prejudice .Twodees Partain , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 2:11 pm GMT@freedom-cat – Hitting your head over and over on a brick wall, while thinking you'll start feeling better.-Carlton Meyer , says: Website Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 2:12 pm GMTMore aptly: Hitting yourself on the head with a hammer because it feels so good when you stop.
@Mr. AllenJust passing through , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 2:30 pm GMTThis is absurd. Don't lump all generals in together as the same. You might as well say Nazi generals and Russian generals and British generals and American generals and Japanese generals are all the same – all equally culpable of equal war crimes in WWII.
American censorship ensures that Americans only hear of the greatness of American Generals. American Generals killed far more civilians with weaponry than opposing Generals in World War II, in Korea, and in Vietnam. Few know about mass slaughters they were responsible for, like:
https://www.youtube.com/embed/XVee6taH0iw?feature=oembed
@Z-man Taking him out would be boring, if we are talking about hypotheticals, then better to start isolating Israel and sanctioning them. It will be funny watching them kvetchTomSchmidt , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 2:34 pm GMT@barr "A blank page"Hail , says: Website Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 2:37 pm GMTHmmm, not keeping up with the times in mind Research, are we? Start here:
https://read.amazon.com/kp/card?preview=inline&linkCode=kpd&ref_=k4w_oembed_mmOnQFKZcLfUYP&asin=B000QCTNIM&tag=kpembed-20
@freedom-catTomSchmidt , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 2:41 pm GMTI'm sorry to say I voted for this moron
I remember 2016. I remember many saying they were voting (or had voted) for Trump to get out of the endless/pointless Forever Wars, and as often as not they would mention Iran (the need to not go to war with).
During the slow death of Nationalist-MAGA in 2017 and 2018 , many holdouts continued to say "At least we didn't elected Hillary, or we'd for sure be at war with Iran!"
_______
Steve Sailer's six-word summary of US guiding policy from ca. the 1990s to 2010s (and 2020s, so far), " Invade the World, Invite the World (to resettle in the US)," was the core of DJT's campaign (opposition to them, of course); his core supporter base was motivated by both, some more one than the other, others strongly by both together.
I'd propose the core Trump base in 2016 was:
– 20%: primarily against "Invade the World" (soft, or neutral, or otherwise on "Invite")
– 40%: primary against "Invite the World" (soft, neutral, or even supportive of "Invade")
– 40%: against both Invade and Invite, seeing them as a package dealI count myself in the third category.
(The proprietor of the Unz Review himself has written that he was for Trump primarily because of foreign policy, putting him in the first category.)
This Jan. 2020 assassination affair, we are told over the death of an Iraqi 'contractor' named Nawres Hamid who had recently handed that debased-currency known as a US passport , shows in dramatic form how much Trump has failed at both Invade and Invite. (Nawres Hamid as personification of Invade-Invite; he and three family members were sponsored to resettle in Sacramento some time in the 2010s.)
@freedom-cat "he was flapping his jaws about ending the warring in M.E. I had my doubts from the beginning but I was willing to give him a chance."SolontoCroesus , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 2:46 pm GMTTo be fair, he was explicit about getting tough with Iran. That's basically the only foreign pledge he has kept. All the dialing down of hostilities was a lie.
He has at least killed fewer people in drone strikes than Obama and Bush.
@Sean Sean, your propaganda is old and tired and boring.George F. Held , says: Website Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 2:48 pm GMTYou're still shopping at F W Woolworth.
After the Iranian revolution the US was regarded as an all powerful enemy that would stage a coup, and so the Embassy staff, thought to be spies, were taken hostage.
One major precipitant was the information revealed about how US embassy had been spying on Iran, when Iranian weavers re-assembled massed of documents that embassy staff had shredded.
the rest of your screed = hasbara boilerplate. skewing information
Larry Johnson posted this more balanced overview of The Whole Offense:
Key sentence in the middle of the essay:
Since the terrorist attacks of 9-11, the United States has done a lot of killing of terrorists, real and imagined. Yet, the threat of terrorism has not been erased.
I submit that " the threat of terrorism has not been erased " because the wrong terrorists were being killed.
The real terrorists hive in TelAviv and Washington, DC.@Mr. Allen BS. The Nazi generals were trying to save the western world and civilization from the jews; the other generals, whether they knew it or not, were working for the jews to destroy both. The jews won and have largely obtained their desired end. Just look at Europe todayTomSchmidt , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 2:49 pm GMT@Vaterland Do it. Complete Nordstream2. Withdraw from NATO. It was 1907 that Britain turned Russia from focusing on Asia to Europe and kicked off the new 30-years war. German organization and Russian spirit and resources would be a fearsome combination.barr , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 2:49 pm GMTPutin speaks German, doesn't he?
@TomSchmidt Is it less than 1oo pages ,?then I am try.Cross Product of Spider-Man , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 2:49 pm GMTIf you live in a GOLDen cage, eventually you may develop Stockman syndrome.Derp , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 2:50 pm GMTThis Trump Iran policy seems like pure genius to me. He may be able to obliterate Israel, Hezbollah and Iran, by goading them with one check-mark on the Obama er um Trump Disposition Matrix.
When I was a young teen I used to like that song, "Storm the Embassy", by the Stray Cats, before they had any fame in the states. Decades later the Offspring scored a hit called "The Kid's Aren't Alright", written in a similar key and chord progression. Groovy
This is the all-encompassing delusion, the stickiest residual brainwashing of old big shots. The Biggest Big Lie. And you old timers play along with it. Every time.Sick of Orcs , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 2:55 pm GMTStupidity. Stupid my ass.
Wartorn countries are ideal arms-trade entrepots. All the unauditable trillions of stuff that falls off DoD trucks, it's flooding into Syria and Iraq. CIA sells it. And most of it sits in safe caches until the next war. Then CIA sells it again. This is CIA's second biggest profit center, after drugs. And you know this is CIA's war, Right? Right? This is dumb jarheads dumped in there to hold the bag for TIMBER SYCAMORE. Trump has less workplace discretion than a McDonald's fry cook. He's CIA's puppet ruler. Puppets are not stupid, they're inert.
If you're CIA and you've got impunity in municipal law, this is not stupid, this is smart. This is brilliant. Steal arms from the troops, start a war, sell em to wogs, steal em from the wogs, sell to other wogs. Repeat. This is the policy and vital interest of the CIA criminal enterprise that runs your country.
You know it. Say what you actually think ffs. What are they gonna do, send you to Vietnam?
The Orange Fugazi's autonomy is limited to golf and tweets about closely monitoring situations.DanFromCT , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 3:05 pm GMTIt's a lowdown dirty shame.
@Anon If I'm not mistaken, Stockman has been forecasting a market collapse since 2010 or so. I just checked and in 2013 he recommended selling stocks with end-of-the-world fear mongering. At some point he and the libertarians' advice will coincide with a major adjustment or collapse and the scam perpetuates itself. I'm no expert in market timing myself, but my conclusion is that these guys are basically shills for gold and silver trading interests, using political scare tactics to drive sales, and in the process shamelessly costing naive investors to miss the market time and again since it's low in late 2008.follyofwar , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 3:05 pm GMT@Carlton Meyer God, if there is one, please save us from such shrill, hysterical female defenders of the military-industrial-complex as Maria Bartiromo and Degan McDowell. I wonder how screechy-voiced Maria could say with a straight face that we were, prior to Trump, "starving the military." Such women, and let's include the women of The View, make good advertisements for why the 19th Amendment should never have been passed.Mike P , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 3:06 pm GMTDavid Stockman, though I oppose his libertarianism, is worthy of much credit for going into the den with such venomous vipers.
@Hans VogelSick of Orcs , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 3:10 pm GMTYes indeed, all generals are fundamentally the same. War crimes are not the exclusive realm of any one nationality or political or religious category.
Still, America leads the world when it comes to killing civilians, POWs, and other war crimes.
I am with Mr. Allen – we shouldn't lump them all together. American generals, and the prostitute "statesmen" that give their orders, deserve a special place in hell – with a guest room, of course, for the likes of Winston Churchill and Bomber Harris.
@Hail The earliest sign we were betrayed was when post-election, pre-Inauguration Trump said he wouldn't go after Cankles. Most people didn't even notice, or still believed he was playing 32-dimensional underwater quantum chess.Just passing through , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 3:14 pm GMT@Vaterland Germany still under American (see Jewish) occupation huh? I still here Americans tell me that those European countries are begging for American defence. This is an American trait of arrogance, they think Europeans actually want Americans occupying us and that they are doing us a favour.Alistair , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 3:18 pm GMTI bet they would hit our countries with sanctions and other punishment if we threatened to kick them out just like is the case with Trump demanding billions from Iraq to pay for an air force base that Yankeed built to launch terror raids against Iraqis.
I bet most Germans do not even know about the terrorist occupation of Deutschland by America where they staved and raped with impunity. Americans are truly sickening and nobody would care if they got nuked save for a few Anglos
Regardless of our opinion about General Qassem Soleimani, Trump targeted killing him was for his own personal grudge against Soleimani -- that was independent of the official US policy toward Iran.follyofwar , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 3:20 pm GMTOver the last couple of years, in the heat of twitter exchanges between Trump and President Rouhani, Trump was using his usual colorful language – street mob style – he was insulting Rouhani on twitter while president Rouhani kept his cool – restraining himself to engage at the street level exchange with Trump -- meanwhile, Gen. Soleimani seized on the occasion and replied to Trump's insults; he taunted Trump, called him "Bartender, Casino manager, Mobster" etc. and threatened to go after his properties worldwide -- you can check Online history of Soleimani's tweets about Donald Trump. Here is a sample that New York Post had published;
https://nypost.com/2020/01/04/iranian-general-qassem-soleimani-once-taunted-trump-in-fiery-speech/
As we all know Donald Trump does not appreciate threats, and if he gets the chance he punch back harder, and that's what has really happened; Donald Trump's personal grudge against Soleimani had led to his assassination; just the way Street Mobs eliminate their opponents; surely, that seems trivial, but these days, the world is governed by fake leaders who won't hesitate to use the power of their office to boost their own ego -- even at their own nation's expense.
Regardless of our opinion; General Soleimani was a brave soldier, a principled man who has dedicated his life to his nation, and that deserves respect -- just as Ernesto "Che" Guevara and Neilson Manddala did.
@Miro23 To perhaps soon be replaced by an even older, and definitely more confused successor come next January. The only saving grace would be if Biden doesn't know how to tweet. But he's every much the Zionist as is Trump, and has said so in the past. With a non-working brain, which is where Trump's lost brain is heading, Biden will believe whatever bullshit his neoliberal advisors feed him. Who is there to save us?JackOH , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 3:23 pm GMT@anonymous a#245, thanks for your reply.America1st , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 3:26 pm GMTYou bet, I'm happy to see a Washington name on these pages, because I've been convinced for years a lot of the stuff we talk about here is pretty much mainstream or mainstreamable thought that's been shoved aside by high-motivation rent-seekers of all sorts.
" . . . [N]ote the condescension towards the people of the Middle East . . .". Yes, I did. I don't know squat about foreign policy, but people who sense they're being looked down on or feel they're being used will sometimes want to get back at those who've patronized them when the opportunity arises. I wish our leaders would take that platitude to heart.
Foolish elitists like Stockman advocate for the failed policies of the past.America1st , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 3:28 pm GMTFrom 1979 to 2020, 41 years most of our politically astute appeased Iran. In the early 80's Reagan sunk half of Iran's navy and they quieted down fora few years.
Since 1988 foolish political elites who thought they new better began appeasing again.
Seems only Reagan learned from History how appeasement helped Hitler.
Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2 and Obama all used appeasement. Iran grew stronger and more influential.
Obama foolishly tried to buy peace by releasing $150 billion of frozen Iranian assets, Iran spent it on Missle, Nuclear technologies and funded terrorism.
President Trump is reverting back to the lessons of Historyand trying to clean up Obama's mess.
I pray we reelect him in 2020 and give him 4 more years to save America from the deluded academics.
@Haxo Angmark How foolish Liberals are.Hail , says: Website Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 3:39 pm GMT@America1stVaterland , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 3:39 pm GMTFrom 1979 to 2020, 41 years most of our politically astute appeased Iran. In the early 80's Reagan sunk half of Iran's navy and they quieted down fora few years.
Since 1988 foolish political elites who thought they new better began appeasing again.
Why not just save time and write Iran Delenda Est , maybe in all-caps, a few times?
@TomSchmidt Yes he does. He was married to a German teacher and was stationed in Dresden. He touched on many of the issues of trust and fear in this speech to the Bundestag. Years before Merkel took office. Different times. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NZQZQLV7tEDerp , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 3:43 pm GMTThe other mandatory ritual incantation of US public Juche is to vilify the official enemy. Even pseudo-gonzo mavericks like Taibbi find they must do this. Stockman's new tweak of the government-issue boilerplate is admirable for its subtlety, by comparison with Taibbi's abject obeisance to the war line.Vaterland , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 3:51 pm GMT"Not that the benighted, mullah-controlled Iranian regime is comprised of anything which resembles white hats. One of the great misfortunes of the last four decades is that the long-suffering people of Iran have not been able to throw-off the cultural and religious shackles imposed by this theocratic regime or escape the economic backwardness and incompetence of what is essentially rule by authoritarian clerics."
As a founding member of the G-77 Iran brought together 80 per cent of the world's population. When the US took to manifest aggression after the WTC fell down, who did the G-77 choose to lead it? Iran. Iran brokered the Tehran Consensus, which unites more countries and people than NATO and doesn't blow shit up. The Non-Aligned Movement made Iran their nuclear/chemical disarmament envoy for peaceful coexistence. Half the world's people and two-thirds of its countries have made Iran a leader of the world. Why? Because they defend the UN Charter. They actually know what's in Article 2(4) and Article 39 and Article 41. Do you?
In objective human rights terms, Iran sucks about as much as the US in terms of three of the highest-level human rights indicators, outperforms the US in terms of openness to external human rights scrutiny, and falls short of US in terms of reporting compliance (although the US got graded very leniently on its delinquent CAT reporting while it ran its worldwide torture gulag.) So you don't have to do new vocal stylings on BAD BAD DOUBLEPLUSBAD ENEMY BAD. You can actually consult the facts. Imagine that.
https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Indicators/Pages/HRIndicatorsIndex.aspx
@Just passing through I have very ambivalent feelings towards the USA, in the past and present. Complex topic. Simple analogy: George C. Marshall looks like the twin-brother of my grandfather who served in the Wehrmacht. Sons of Europe, at war with Europe; now increasingly no longer European and a threat to Europe as their empire degrades. I see no reason to hate the American people as a whole, there's millions of good hearted, compassionate and reasonable people living in America today. Just look at Tulsi Gabbard's events. But they, too, are held hostage of this evil Empire. Separate peoples and governments; Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn too lived under the Soviet regime.A123 , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 3:58 pm GMTI do hate Mike Pompeo though. And I'm not ashamed of it.
@America1staandrews , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 3:58 pm GMTPresident Trump is reverting back to the lessons of Historyand trying to clean up Obama's mess.
You are correct. Trump inherited problems from the prior Obama and Bush administrations. Fortunately, Trump is winning.
Khameni's "retaliation" caused no damage. The high visibility launch covered live by FARS was a PR stunt to placate his domestic audience. (1)
"Optically Quite Dramatic" But Officials Confirm No US Casualties From Iranian Missile Strike
[Iran launched] missiles and purposely miss their intended targets.
Iran has superior missile technology that can hit whatever they want – this could be in an attempt to save face as a public relations event for its citizens while attempting to de-escalate the situation and avoid war.
PEACE
_______(1) https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/no-us-casualties-iranian-missile-strike
If War is to Begin, You're Going to Want to Not Commit SeditionNobody Really Knows , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 4:11 pm GMTAndrew Anglin
Daily Stormer
January 8, 2020
At time of writing, it is unclear if we're headed to open war with Iran, though it is seeming more and more likely by the hour.So, I feel the need to remind everyone that they need to be careful not to commit sedition.
In wartime, sedition can be a very serious crime.
Largely, we have not had people in the United States going to jail for anti-war protests since the World Wars, but a war with Iran will be the biggest war the US has been involved in since World War Two, and there is going to be a lot of opposition to it, so it is probable that there will be actions done to chill speech by making examples of people who protest the war too hard.
[ ]
Stockman is a curious gloom and doomer. He reliably rants about the permanent war economy and the biggest defense budget in the world but that's as far as he goes. Like Paul Craig Roberts, his propaganda delivering contemporary, he offers a childish oversimplification of how things work.Paul , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 4:23 pm GMTWhen things fall apart the cops and the troops will shoot the citizens and protect the rich. Meanwhile, before things fall completely apart, propaganda specialists like Stockman shoot the unsuspecting citizens with propaganda to protect the rich.
The rich learned long ago to divide the lower classes into the obedient subservient voters who love them and the rest of the poor who don't matter because their brothers and sisters protect the rich. What better time to divide, conquer and stage more international tensions than right now?
@Carlton Meyer Bloated "defense" spending is socialism-for-the-rich and military Keynesianism. ISIS does not even have a rowboat.Curmudgeon , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 4:30 pm GMT@A123 Another fine example of American exceptionalism.Sean , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 4:37 pm GMT
There is zero evidence that the American contractor killed, was killed by Kata'ib Hezbollah. It fits the classic Israeli false flag.
The US "retaliates" by killing Iraqis who are the Kata'ib Hezbollah.
It is inconceivable to you that Iraqis may be upset that the country who invaded Iraq in 2003, completely destroyed the infrastructure, built a massive fortified Embassy, and sold off its assets to Jewish interests, primarily, just might be upset that that same country has just massacred the Iraqis who saved the country from ISIS. It had to be Iran behind it, because all Iraqis are grateful for the 2003 US invasion and all of the benefits of occupation that flowed from that. The million Iraqis that died are irrelevant.Even Stockman doesn't get the Baathists. They don't care about your religious beliefs. They care that your religious beliefs become politicized. Sure Saddam and Assad were minorities, but one was a Sunni, the other a Shi'ite, but both Ba'athists. Both kept the lid on extremists irrespective of religious beliefs. Stockman's reference to Bush 41 incitement and the subsequent backlash is held up as some sort of proof of bad Sunnis. If the Pope successfully goaded German Roman Catholics to take up arms against Protestants, do you think that it just may be, that a Protestant backlash might be severe in places where Protestants were the majority? Nope, it's got to be Hitler's fault, or maybe even Iran's.
@SolontoCroesus The assassination of was Soleimani was a deliberately stupid and counterproductive act by America because that is the way to send a message that you are a force to be reckoned with and mean what you say. Costly signalling is honest signalling. In this case the US is signalling they are beyond the rhetoric of the last thirty years and willing to get kinetic .AnonFromTN , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 4:41 pm GMTIran and their theology of suicide martyrs is the greatest thing that ever happened to the Israeli right, influenced by Shia suicide bombing driving the US marines out of Lebanon the Palestinian massacres of Israeli civilians non combatants got a wall built pening them up, took Sharon to the premiership, and made Israelis turn their back on Ehud Barak. No Israeli leader would now dream of offering what Barak did while he was PM.
Iran is to big to be occupied and that is a fact. What can they be so worried about except ceasing to play independent great power in the Arab mainly Sunni Middle East. Well they are not that powerful. I think the leadership of Iran is taking the free ride they have been getting getting for granted. They did not overthrow Saddam, America did and Iran gained got a windfall.
Saddam was overthrown because the threat he represented to Saudi Arabia had to be neutralised so the US army could be withdrawn from Saudi Arabia, where its infidel presence was causing outrage and resentment. John Bolton got sacked, and a few days later, Iran gets the bright idea to not just threaten Saudi Arabia, but launch–or at least not forbid their Houthie protégés to launch–blatant drone attacks on vital Saudi oil facilities (Sept 2019) thus forcing Trump to send more and more troops there. Iran was sending a message: we can and we will.
My reading of the American government is that their killing of Soleimani was a sign that for them Iran has entered the danger zone where something more that rhetoric and sanctions will be used. Iran can still turn back and be forgiven, but if they choose to go on and take the consequences of ignoring the costly (and therefore sincere) signal that the US has sent, so be it.
This was as stupid as it gets so far. Confidently expect even stupider actions of the Empire in its impotent rage, now that it is losing its grip. Ever since Iraq invasion, the Empire was undermining itself more efficiently than its worst enemies could have hoped for.TomSchmidt , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 4:42 pm GMT@barr Longer. But try the audiobook while you're doing time-wasting activities like driving. It's how I finally read War and Peace.TKK , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 4:44 pm GMTHmmm . the best way to prevent more American soldiers being killed is to keep alive the man who has been killing so many of them for 20 years?TomSchmidt , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 4:45 pm GMT@America1st When is appeasement the right policy?Greg Bacon , says: Website Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 4:47 pm GMTSince it's apparent that Israel is making our MENA foreign policy and that the foaming at the mouth Zionists want to start a hot shooting war with Iran, using their American mercs, which US city should be sacrificed to Moloch, the G-d of Israel, to start this war?Hail , says: Website Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 4:48 pm GMTNew York is the safest bet, since there are tens of thousands loyal Jew sayanim living there who would gladly give all to start a war against Iran. Using the time-tested technique of staging a false flag.
@CurmudgeonTom Walsh , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 4:48 pm GMTThere is zero evidence that the American contractor killed, was killed by Kata'ib Hezbollah.
And that so-called American was actually a 33-year-old Iraqi named Nawres Hamid .
Hamid was only recently (2017) handed a (cheap) US-citizenship for services rendered to the empire, along with a free pass to settle his family in the US (Sacramento).
War-nut, dump-refugees-on-Middle-America-advocate, and empire-pusher John McCain is, I am sure, saluting the flag of Empire in his grave, a tear in his eye at the perfect alignment of every aspect of this saga of Nawres Hamid.
@Mr. Allen What about the RAF generals and 8th airforce generals who killed millions of German women and children in WW2? Were they more civilized than Soleimani?Paul , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 4:50 pm GMTA war between the United States and Iran is wanted by the Israel First people.Rich , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 4:51 pm GMT@Alistair One thing you got right is that the dead Iranian general belongs with murderers and terrorists like Mandela and Che. He was as much a piece of garbage as them.TomSchmidt , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 4:51 pm GMT@America1st Was the Iraq war in 2003 a success or a failure, by the way? Just so we have a reference point on success or failure with you.Agent76 , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 4:52 pm GMTJune 6, 2018 Why the US shouldn't build more foreign basesSteveK9 , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 4:54 pm GMTThe United States maintains almost 800 military bases in over 70 countries, which far exceeds our modern day security requirements.
Jun 18, 2019 4 Times the US Threatened to Stage an Attack and Blame it on Iran
The US has threatened to stage an attack and blame it on Iran over and over in the last few years. Don't let a war based on false pretenses happen again.
Mar 27, 2019 The MIC and Wall Street Rule The World: Period!
To dismiss Suleimani as yet another thug, then praise the Shiite militia for driving ISIS from Iraq without acknowledging that it was Soleimani that organized and led that battle (from the front) is a little unfair.JUSA , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 4:54 pm GMT@A123 Says the warmonger. The US needs to get the hell out of the Mideast, period. We are fighting (((someone else's))) war.Hans Vogel , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 4:55 pm GMT@Mark James
Kushner strikes me as more of a neocon and he's obviously down with what they want in Tel Aviv. Which I think is an attack on Iran Nuclear capabilities before the end of the summer.
Ya think? The Kushner family from father to son have publicly declared themselves Israel's most loyal sons. They couldn't have found a better man to be president, a stupid puppet goy as part of the family so they can continue to pull the puppet strings in the background. It's the way (((these people))) operate, for thousands of years. Never the front man, always directing things from the shadow.
@Mike P This stance is very understandable but I believe common sense should tell us otherwise. There can be little doubt that since its colonial war in the Philippines, the US has led the pack in terms of numbers of people killed in what used to be called the Third World.TKK , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 4:57 pm GMTHowever, I am quite certain the way many people look at the US today (based on all those millions of poor devils killed in the colonies), wishing their leaders a special place in hell, is no different from how one could look at the English a little over a century ago (Sepoy Mutiny, Sudan, Opium War, etc.). Or, for that matter, how the inhabitants of the Italian states might look at the French during the late 1400s and early 1500s. And what about the German Order in the Baltic, the Byzantines, the Romans etc. etc.?
In other words the US can point to a venerable but sad number of precedents to their own criminal operations abroad. It is impossible to define the worst offender among all those included in the long list of evildoers.
Anyone who enters another country, carrying arms and without the permission of the local inhabitants, deserves to be killed. It is that simple. Unfortunately, because since times immemorial most who do that somehow escape their just fate, one sees the same thing happening again and again.
As usual, this has been turned into an Israel and Jew demonizing circle jerk, save a few sane commenters.Curmudgeon , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 5:00 pm GMTLet's examine the imbecility of this site:
A Jewish, gay, open borders advocate multimillionaire selects "chosen ones", the gold star commenters who are posting wily nilly to dominate the discourse –
who all happen to be Muslim, Latino, foreign born or rabidly Anti- American?
As commenters rage about the take over of the world by Jews, who flood America with -- –
Muslims, Latinos, and foreign borns, and shove the Alphabet Mafia down our throats.
You couldn't sell this as a straight to DVD screenplay. It's that absurd.
@SeanCyrusTheGreat , says: Website Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 5:11 pm GMTInstead of poking its nose into Arab affairs why does Iran, which managed to impoverish its own middle class in the last three decades and recently had to cut fuel subsidies, not concentrate on its own business?
Have you been living under a rock?
The US froze (stole) billions in Iranian assets post revolution. The complaints about Obama "paying" Iran for the JCPOA, were nothing but a partial return of Iranian assets. So, the Iranians were short billions for 30 years, which could have been used to rebuild. It's kind of like building a house and finding out a big chunk of the cash in your bank account has been frozen, illegally, by the bank. It's there, but you have no access to, or benefit of, it.
Of course all of the sanctions have nothing to do with Iran's problems. In particular, any country that bought oil from Iran would also be sanctioned, causing a massive drop in revenue, plays no part in the economic difficulties. Additionally, Iran exercising its rights under an international treaty – the NPT, which the US repudiates in Iran's case, thereby removing another large source of revenue, is not a factor either. At least, not to you.@Realist You have done the greatest description of Stockman.SolontoCroesus , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 5:21 pm GMT@TKKDesert Fox , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 5:26 pm GMTThe best way to prevent more American soldiers being killed is to keep alive the man who has been killing so many of them for 20 years? [irony]
That's exactly what is being done -- men most responsible for American soldiers being killed are being kept alive:
David Petraeus -- still alive
Robert Kagan -- -still alive
Benjamin Netanyahu -- still alive
George Bush -- – still aliveA year or so ago Mike Morrell commented that "US needs to send maps and crayons to Iran, to demonstrate to them where their borders are: 'Iran HERE, Iran, NOT there.' "
I couldn't get over the irony: USA circles Iran, 7000 miles from continental USA, and somehow Iran is trespassing outside its borders?
Morrell:
"Have the Iranians and the Russians pay a little price. . . . They were supplying weapons that killed Americans . . . kill them covertly . . . I want to scare Assad . . . I want to bomb his offices in the middle of the night, I want to destroy his presidential aircraft . . . I want to destroy his helicopter. . . . I am not advocating assassinating him – I'm not advocating that: I'm advocating going after what he thinks is his power base . . ."
One question: BY WHAT RIGHT?
@SteveK9 AL CIADA aka ISIS is a creation of the CIA and the Mossad and MI6 and NATO aka the ZUS and Israel and Britain.Curmudgeon , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 5:32 pm GMTThis war in the mideast was brought on by the JOINT Israeli and ZUS attack on the WTC on 911, which was blamed on the muslims to give the ZUS the excuse to destroy the mideast for Israel.
@AlistairBitindawg , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 5:37 pm GMTjust as Ernesto "Che" Guevara and Neilson Manddala did.
Would that be the same "Che" Guevara that thought Negroes were inferior, and Nelson Mandela who was convicted of attempting to blow up a power station that would have killed dozens of innocent people?
Soleimani rarely targeted civilians. For those who would point to the suicide bombings in Israel, I would remind you that all Israelis over the age of 18 will be, or have been, in the armed forces, and are subject to call up even after discharge.
It's all about Israel. Netanyahu has been plotting scheming and demanding that we, that the U.S. bomb Iran back to the stone ages for nigh onto twenty years. He has even issued coded and veiled threats to nuke Iran himself.Liberty Mike , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 5:38 pm GMTTrump is a Zionist collaborator and he is Netanyahu's shabbos goy. He has willingly co-operated in turning over the U.S. military to be Israel's running dog.
America is a Christian majority country, and Bret Stephens is absolutely correct. The Jews are an intellectually superior people. Us mere Goyim, are by comparison, utterly stupid.
America does not genuinely and honestly support Israel. America has been hornswoggled by the superior intelligence and guile of the Jewish people to support the Jew state.
When the Jews decided to set up their own country at the turn of the twentieth century, they knew that they would need the support of Christendom. To that end they initiated a psy-op, a psychological operation tasked with rewriting Christian theology.
Up until the turn of the twentieth century Christian theology had held that the coming of Jesus Christ had negated all of God's covenants with the Jews. This was known as, replacement theology. That, in essence, Christians had become God's chosen people.
As a consequence, down through the ages, Christians and Jews had been at odds. Christ killer was a common epithet and there were many pogroms.
Jews would have been aware that there was an obscure Christian theology that held, that God had not revoked his covenants with the Jews. That God's covenants with the Jews remained intact and were still in force.
This obscure theology was being preached by a ne'er do well preacher named Cyrus Scofield. What the Jews did, and surely this was, what is known as, "Jew genius", they financed Cyrus on two trips to Europe.
What the Jews did, was to take this obscure dispensationalist christian theology and write it into the King James version of the bible as study notes. When Scofield returned from Europe, he had the manuscript of the Scofield study bible. It is presumed that Rabbi's and yeshiva students produced it.
It was published, produced and distributed by the very Jewish Oxford University Press, which still holds the patent on it, and periodically updates it to keep up with changing times in the Middle East.
There is an ample historical trail that validates this thesis.
There is also an historical trail that reveals that today's Jews, Ashkenazim Jews, are not descendants of the biblical era Jews, that they are Jewish converts from the land of Khazar.
More, that the circumstances of their conversion to Judaism was a process that selected for intelligence and drive and that is why today's Jews are an intellectually superior, driven and successful, albeit, artificial people.
Artificial, as they are not a people that occurred naturally, over time and in a land of their own.
@follyofwar What specific libertarianism of Stockman do you oppose?Curmudgeon , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 5:38 pm GMT@JackOHAgent76 , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 5:39 pm GMT" . . . [N]ote the condescension towards the people of the Middle East . . .". Yes, I did. I don't know squat about foreign policy, but people who sense they're being looked down on or feel they're being used will sometimes want to get back at those who've patronized them when the opportunity arises. I wish our leaders would take that platitude to heart.
This is a product of American exceptionalism, and it is not confined to the Middle East. The overwhelming majority of Americans refuse to accept that others may be just fine with their own form of government, economic system, and culture.
Jan 7, 2020 Qassem Soleimani, short biography from South FrontLiberty Mike , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 5:42 pm GMTShort biography of the Iranian General, murdered by the Trump regime on 3 January 2020.
@SolontoCroesus Note that it has been the white man, not the jew, not the nigger, and not the tranny, who has been the principle architect of such death and destruction.Agent76 , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 5:42 pm GMT@SolontoCroesus You are all over it Croesus!SolontoCroesus , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 5:43 pm GMTAug 8, 2016 "I want to scare Assad" Mike Morell on Charlie Rose
Mike Morell, former deputy director of the CIA, discusses the need to put pressure on Syria and Russia. The full conversation airs on PBS on August 8th, 2016.
@Rich In the super-liberal town where I live, garbage gets separated: plastics here, paper there, banana peels there.Rev. Spooner , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 5:45 pm GMTIf Solemeini is "as much a piece of garbage as Mandela, Che," then what category of garbage were Churchill and Stallin?
FDR -- same piece of garbage as Churchill – Stalin, or more like Solemeini?How about Arthur "Bomber" Harris -- same garbage, or different?
When Solemeini is coordinating military engagements with US military leaders, is he "as much a piece of garbage as Mandela, Che" or is he more like Kagan and Lady Lindsey?
@9/11 Inside job You are right, stupidity has nothing to do with it, its well thought out and dictated by Israel. The 'tail actually wags the dog.' Americans (most) will never get it as they are trapped in a bubble while the rest of the world has realized it. In Europe the common folks have while the politicians still have to pretend.Ilyana_Rozumova , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 5:50 pm GMT
When the hour of awakening arrives, I will have no sympathy for the common Jews as they remain silent today. And Jeffery Epstein didn't kill himself.It all started with elimination of Mosadeh so US is guilty!Rurik , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 6:02 pm GMT@Sasha9/11 Inside job , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 6:05 pm GMTWhat "cultural and religious shackles" might these be? Please be more specific, or I might think you mean that they don't have instant access to Hollywood blockbusters or something. The horror!
The Shah was notorious for encouraging young women to emulate the West and wear miniskirts and such.
At first glance, it seemed like a positive change for the better. (who approves of burkas, for instance). But as we all know by now, the ((cultural elites)) of the West, are feverishly using liberalism to transform the societies they dominate into moral and spiritual sewers.
[insert here photo of Madonna or Miley or some other gutter skank as role model for little girls)
In a well-known case, the 'brutal' rapist of a ten year old Austrian boy, at a public swimming pool, had his conviction set aside by the high court, because not enough sympathy was shown to the rapist's cultural proclivities. This is a society that is spiritually dead. Contrast that with Iran's equally well-known treatment of men who rape boys, by hanging them by their necks from cranes, for all to witness.
Iran, clearly has a lot to teach the dying ((murdered)) West.
If headscarves are the price of female dignity and honor, then I suppose it really isn't all that big of a deal, especially when you consider the alternative in the West.
[I'm not posting a photo of Kardashian or some other skank, because you all know what I mean]
@Sean bbs.chinadaily.com .cn :"Beirut marine [barracks]bombing was Mossad false flag operation "Talha , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 6:12 pm GMT
'I reported that Marines had been sent there to become the focus of a major incident . The Mossad is to arrange for a number of our Marines to be killed in an accident to be blamed on the Arabs! This will be used to inflame American public opinion to help lead us into war ' Dr. Beter, a Pentagon analyst .Not possibly as stupid as declaring openly that you want to deliberately commit war crimes on public record.Mr. Allen , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 6:13 pm GMTOf course, when you have guys cheer leading you that couldn't find Iran on a map if their life depended on it, you might not notice:
Fox host defends America committing war crimes: "I don't care about Iranian cultural sites and I'll tell you why. If they could they would destroy every single one of our cultural sites and build a mosque on top of it" pic.twitter.com/AJolDVtzJR
-- Andrew Lawrence (@ndrew_lawrence) January 6, 2020
For everyone who wants a refresher on how this is defined as a war crime, the Red Cross has a great section on the evolution of these particular protocols in history. I would highly recommend the section titled:
"Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property"Which starts:
"Article 1 of the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property defines cultural property, for the purposes of the Convention, irrespective of origin or ownership, as:
(a) movable or immovable property of great importance to the cultural heritage of every people, such as monuments of architecture, art or history, whether religious or secular; archaeological sites; groups of buildings which, as a whole, are of historical or artistic interest; works of art; manuscripts, books and other objects of artistic, historical or archaeological interest; as well as scientific collections and important collections of books or archives or of reproductions of the property defined above "
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul_rule38Note that both Iran and we (the US) are signatories:
http://www.unesco.org/eri/la/convention.asp?KO=13637&language=E&order=alphaNote also that the US did not sign until 2009. The reasons given are outlined here – main one being*:
"The objections raised by DoD at the time were based on the perceived inability to meet the Convention's obligations in the event of nuclear warfare. With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, DoD removed its objection to ratification."
http://usicomos.org/hague-convention-and-usicomos/Peace.
*Note: This is actually a great starting point for those of us who want to prevent preemptive use of nuclear weapons by our government. The DoD is fully aware that nuclear strikes against population centers will be in violation of the very treaties that they have signed onto in the aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union.
@Tom Walsh9/11 Inside job , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 6:17 pm GMTWhat about the RAF generals and 8th airforce generals who killed millions of German women and children in WW2? Were they more civilized than Soleimani?
I guess I opened a can of worms I didn't mean to I am an American and understand that Americans are not as innocent or as magnanimous as our history books may make it.
But I had also assumed most people would agree that in general, American generals (and Russian generals) would be seen as on the "right side of history" and hence morally infinitely better as compared to Japanese or Nazi generals.
To the extent that is true, we shouldn't be lumping them morally together as the author here is trying to lump American and Iranian generals together.
In my world view, Americans are aggressors in the Middle East today, Iranians are not. So lumping them together is to refuse to see right and wrong .
Back to WWII: most people in the world today are probably happy they are not under Japanese or German rule. So I assume my statements about Nazis and ally generals were correct.
As for whether most people in the world today would be happy from American / Western imperial rule, I would say yes to that. BUT does that REALLY make WWII just another evil war where evil won and where Nazi generals and American and RAF and Russian generals are the same as Japanese and Nazi generals???
@Sean bbs.chinadaily.com .cn:" Beirut Marine[barracks]bombing was a Mossad false flag operation"AnonFromTN , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 6:17 pm GMT
" I reported that Marines had been sent there to become the focus of a major incident . The Mossad is to arrange for a number of our Marines to be killed in an incident to be blamed on Arabs! This will be used to inflame American public opinion to help us lead into war " Dr. Beter , a Pentagon analystLooks like the Empire decided not to escalate further the war it started with Iran. Optimists would say that Trump at least shows some wisdom after utter stupidity of engaging in terrorism. Pessimists would say that the Empire is simply afraid. I am on the fence.9/11 Inside job , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 6:22 pm GMTstreetwisereports.com : "Israel made the [false flag] attack on the Saudi Oil fields " Special Opinion Piece by Bob MoriartyMLK , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 6:27 pm GMT@A123 Thanks for doing your part to introduce some sanity here.Rather obviously, Iran needs to get it together. I get that it's unhappy that Trump was elected, and wasn't removed from office as the Democrats promised them, so they could get back to the Obama giveaway.
But, hands down, Iran wins the competition for the worst handling of relations with the United States since Trump took the oath.
Now, the ayatollah's train wreck has resulted in the death of his beloved Soleimani.
|
|
|
Jan 08, 2020 | www.unz.com
Robert Dolan , says: Show Comment January 7, 2020 at 5:31 am GMT
Zion Don is not just a fuckup ..he's a DANGEROUS fuckup.Cloak And Dagger , says: Show Comment January 7, 2020 at 5:59 am GMTThe lady doth protest too much:Daniel Rich , says: Show Comment January 7, 2020 at 7:43 am GMTOn Monday, as the meeting ended, several ministers transmitted Netanyahu's declaration distancing Israel from the Soleimani hit.
"The assassination of Soleimani isn't an Israeli event but an American event. We were not involved and should not be dragged into it," he said, according to Israeli news outlets.
Netanyahu backs away from Soleimani assassination, warns ministers to ' stay out' of purely 'American event
.'
Does the word 'backpedaling' ring a bell, Bibi?You'll reap what you sow, oh grand Master of Conception. I sincerely hope it'll be an abundant and infinite harvest. And, of course, mazel tov, ol' boy. You're gonna need it by the bushel
|
|
|
Jan 07, 2020 | www.unz.com
Z-man , says: Show Comment January 7, 2020 at 1:27 pm GMT
Yes, as long as Neoco hens and Christian Zionists run our foreign policy we're screwed.
BTW, Mike Pompeo or as I affectionately call him; Lard face, Plump'eo, crazed CZ-zealot fat boy, etc., is now a legitimate target of the Iranians. May Allah provide justice to the family of Soleimani. (Grin) And look, I'm wishing 'ill will' on a zealot 'goy' (gentile) instead of a typical Neo-cohen snake, how ironic. (Another grin)
A positve spin:
With the 'incorrect' memo leaked by the Pentagon about an orderly exit from Iraq this can be the silver lining in all this mess. This assassination might actually accelerate the exiting of US forces from Iraq and the surrounding quagmires. Who knows, Trump might be a genius.
Again, NO MORE WARS FOR ZION, BDS NOW, ONE STATE SOLUTION-PALESTINE.
And to really stick it to Neo cohens (My apologies to Prof. Steven Cohen ), Trump-Putin Axis Da!! Destroy the Deep State and the CABAL .
|
|
|
Jan 06, 2020 | www.unz.com
President Trump and his Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told us the US had to assassinate Maj. Gen. Qassim Soleimani last week because he was planning "Imminent attacks" on US citizens. I don't believe them.
Why not? Because Trump and the neocons – like Pompeo – have been lying about Iran for the past three years in an effort to whip up enough support for a US attack. From the phony justification to get out of the Iran nuclear deal, to blaming Yemen on Iran, to blaming Iran for an attack on Saudi oil facilities, the US Administration has fed us a steady stream of lies for three years because they are obsessed with Iran.
And before Trump's obsession with attacking Iran, the past four US Administrations lied ceaselessly to bring about wars on Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Serbia, Somalia, and the list goes on.
At some point, when we've been lied to constantly and consistently for decades about a "threat" that we must "take out" with a military attack, there comes a time where we must assume they are lying until they provide rock solid, irrefutable proof. Thus far they have provided nothing. So I don't believe them.
President Trump has warned that his administration has already targeted 52 sites important to Iran and Iranian culture and the US will attack them if Iran retaliates for the assassination of Gen. Soleimani. Because Iran has no capacity to attack the United States, Iran's retaliation if it comes will likely come against US troops or US government officials stationed or visiting the Middle East. I have a very easy solution for President Trump that will save the lives of American servicemembers and other US officials: just come home. There is absolutely no reason for US troops to be stationed throughout the Middle East to face increased risk of death for nothing.
In our Ron Paul Liberty Report program last week we observed that the US attack on a senior Iranian military officer on Iraqi soil – over the objection of the Iraq government – would serve to finally unite the Iraqi factions against the United States. And so it has: on Sunday the Iraqi parliament voted to expel US troops from Iraqi soil. It may have been a non-binding resolution, but there is no mistaking the sentiment. US troops are not wanted and they are increasingly in danger. So why not listen to the Iraqi parliament?
Bring our troops home, close the US Embassy in Baghdad – a symbol of our aggression – and let the people of the Middle East solve their own problems. Maintain a strong defense to protect the United States, but end this neocon pipe-dream of ruling the world from the barrel of a gun. It does not work. It makes us poorer and more vulnerable to attack. It makes the elites of Washington rich while leaving working and middle class America with the bill. It engenders hatred and a desire for revenge among those who have fallen victim to US interventionist foreign policy. And it results in millions of innocents being killed overseas.
There is no benefit to the United States to trying to run the world. Such a foreign policy brings only bankruptcy – moral and financial. Tell Congress and the Administration that for America's sake we demand the return of US troops from the Middle East! (Republished from The Ron Paul Institute by permission of author or representative)
|
|
|
Jan 06, 2020 | www.unz.com
Just passing through , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 9:38 pm GMT
@gotmituns I think we all know the Orange One who is in the pockets of Jews and Israel First nationalists* will not actually pull out troops. I have also heard someone on this comments board says the agreement between the US and Iraq stipulates that the US has 1 year to withdraw if requested to do so by Iraq, so he will no doubt cite that reason for staying there as long as possible – which leaves ample time for more Jewish tricks and swindles à la USS Liberty or Lavon Affair.The real question is whether or not his room-temperature IQ support base will pick up on the fact that their man in the White House is only increasing troop presence despite being told to piss off by the Iraqis, thus laying waste to the myth that Iraqis are begging the US to stay there. Will this be the broken promise that will finally deprogram the hordes of MAGAtards and awaken them from their slumber?
* – https://lobelog.com/trump-has-a-259-million-reason-to-bomb-iran/
|
|
|
