Shortcomings in US leadership....
http://www.socialistproject.ca/bullet/462.php
In terms of geopolitics, only one thing matters. Power... And that power matters absolutely...
To those Ziocons who still hunger for control, who are mostly the left behind network from the GWB criminal enterprise, concepts like liberty and freedom have no meaning other than as handy catch phrases intended for mass consumption...
This is not the way i want things to be, it is just the way they are.
Until everyone wakes up, recognizes that fact, and stops buying into the simple minded illusions peddled by the current dysfunctional system, the disastrous mistakes since 1953..., at the core of the US national decision making process will continue....and the Empire will continue to crumble.
Wanting or believing is not enough. It is action that matters... Until we the people demand that principles like freedom, justice and liberty become meaningful priorities, they will remain little more than advertising slogans for wanna be thugs....
Much of America's madness can be traced to utter fraud and could be prosecuted under current American law. This applies to the sub-prime mortgages, the military-industrial complex and its lobbies, Israeli breaches of American national security, and the infamous White House Murder INC, etc... I would rather see this utter fraud prosecuted than pontificate on the nature of American society.
All combining in a drifting, "lost of empire" tone that yearns for a leader to "show the way" back to greatness. Sad, and very dangerous...
While the world's attention continues to be drawn by the birth pangs of a New Middle East, with each Friday promising more unpredictable spectacle, the talks that began in Brussels on Thursday between the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and Russia on a European anti-ballistic missile (ABM) system have taken a back seat. Brussels is a dour city in comparison with Cairo, Beirut or Tehran...
But the talks in Brussels go beyond the creation of an anti-missile defense system for Europe, shaping the direction of Russia's equations with the United States and the West and impacting significantly on security in the Middle East... These talks are a follow-up to the decision taken at the NATO summit meeting in Lisbon last November, that the alliance and Russia would formulate within the scope of a joint study the terms for missile defense cooperation (so-called Euro-ABM) within an agreed timeline of June 2011.
The Barack Obama administration has done everything possible in recent days to create a positive atmosphere for the talks. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton singled out cooperation with Russia on Euro-ABM in her speech at last week's 47th Munich Security Conference. "We seek a genuinely cooperative approach ... one that strengthens cooperation with Russia and increases our common security while maintaining strategic stability. We have already started that conversation with Moscow about how this can be accomplished ... ". A new military strategy unveiled by the corrupt US Joint Chiefs of Staff on Wednesday in Washington also mentioned Russia as one of Washington's key partners in global policy.
The document said that the US intends to boost military cooperation with Russia as well as further cooperation in fighting terrorism and securing the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons... It also mentioned joint space exploration and an anti-missile shield. The accommodative words must have lifted Russian spirits somewhat.
Only a week ago, cables released by WikiLeaks/CIA contained the embarrassing revelation that Obama didn't really concede anything to Russia at the end of 2009, despite the "reset" of Washington's relations with Moscow of the time. Then, Obama apparently rejected the previous US administration's plan to deploy components of the US's anti-missile system in Poland and the Czech Republic.
The diplomatic correspondence published by the Daily Telegraph made out that Obama made a virtue out of necessity, since Washington was facing serious technological problems with the radar system that was meant to detect long-range missiles at the launch stage. Without doubt, Russia views with suspicion the US's intentions with regard to the missile defense system. At the core of it is the suspicion that the US is bent on attaining "nuclear superiority" over Russia, which the Soviet Union had thwarted during the Cold War era.
Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov's speech at the Munich conference underscored this fact, "I think everybody understands that the agreement to discuss ... in no way means that Russia willingly agrees to accede to the NATO program developed without Russia. The principle of 'take it or leave it' does not work here ... If our concerns are not taken into account, if no equitable joint work is achieved, then we will have to compensate for the emerging imbalance."
To quote Lavrov, "our ability to create the joint Euro-Missile Defense involving Russia and NATO will become a test of sincerity declarations of readiness for partnership, for radical transformation of the strategic context of relations, for the establishment - in fact, not just in words - of an indivisible Euro-Atlantic and Eurasian security community..." , In other words, the Israeli/Arab conflict will have to be resolved in a comprehensive manner for all, if this security paradigm is to succeed...
As far as rhetoric goes, that's fine. But the strategic and technical differences that hinder the conclusion of a joint Russia-NATO missile defense architecture in Europe are formidable... From the NATO's perspective, the format it proposed for cooperation with Russia is eminently reasonable, namely, that the two sides could have "two independent but coordinated systems".
The alliance is going ahead with the development of an indivisible and exclusive territorial missile defense capability on its own. (The Lisbon summit adopted the US's deployment plans in Europe as its national contribution to the alliance's program.) In fact, two weeks ago, on January 27, the alliance completed the first hand over of an interim theatre ballistic missile defense capability.
NATO hopes to collaborate with Russia on the exchange of information and potential synergy between the alliance's capability and Russia's own independent missile defense system, while Russia will be free to develop its own ABM architecture. However, Moscow wants a fully-fledged ABM architecture for the whole of Europe.
The painful truth is that Russia lacks the capacity to keep pace with the ABM system that will be achieved by the US by 2020, which will incorporate early-warning, air and space defense. Also, there is doubt whether the technical specifications and positioning of the Russian ABM capability will be compatible with the US's flexible and highly movable ABM assets.
In political terms, too, Article 5 of the Washington Treaty establishing NATO stipulates that collective defense is the sole responsibility of the alliance's member states. Besides, any involvement of Russia that even remotely smacks of interference with the US ABM potential is highly unlikely to be acceptable to a Republican-dominated US Congress.
On the other hand, the deployment of the US's land-based ABM asset in Poland and Rumania (expected toward 2015-2020) is perceived in Moscow as a threat to Russia's second-strike capability... The Obama administration has drawn up a "phased adaptive approach" that would emphasize deployment of sea-and land-based Standard Missile 3 interceptors around Europe. The deployment during 2011-2020 involves short-and medium-range missiles in the early stages, while calling for deployment of more advanced defenses in later years to counter intermediate-range threats and ICBMs.
Clinton stressed in her speech in Munich, "We [the US] will not accept any constraints on our missile defenses." What are Moscow's choices, given the inexorable progress of the NATO's ABM program, the US's determination to adhere to its "phased adaptive approach" and Russia's incapacity to cope with the alliance's program technologically and financially on its own?
One alternative will be to team up with China and develop the two countries' joint military capacity to a level that the US can counter only at the cost of putting strains on its economy. But then, Moscow would be apprehensive that China's accelerating ballistic missile capability could pose a potential threat to Russia's security as well.
As Dmitry Trenin of Moscow Carnegie wrote recently, an alliance with China means Russia accepting the role of a "raw material base and strategic support area" for China and also relegating itself as the "younger military-political ally, i.e., Beijing's vassal".
It goes without saying that stable and friendly relations with China are an imperative for Russia, and even Trenin admits, "it's adventurous to challenge these relations". All the same, the prevailing wind in Moscow doesn't seem to favor the "orientalists"...
In sum, Moscow is hardly in a position to compel a fundamental shift in the course of the US's ABM program. It can retaliate, in principle, by restarting the arms race, but it can ill-afford the ensuing high financial burden and will also have to abandon in that case its ambitions of "innovation". But, the USA is also reaching that tipping point for severely slashing defense spending, the Pentagon and Intelligence budgets...because of astronomical debt burdens and general US obligations nationwide...
Short of becoming a NATO member country, therefore, if Russia's westward orientation is to be sustained, it needs to settle for a comprehensive long-term cooperation program with the alliance. The US estimation seems to be that Moscow will somehow find a way to do precisely that.
However, Russia holds a secret card - its capacity to be "non-cooperative" on issues such as the New Middle East or the situation around Iran... Amidst the chaos in Cairo, NATO secretary general Anders Fogh Rasmussen just visited Israel and floated the controversial idea that the alliance could step in as the peacekeeper between the Palestinians and Israel, a role that in some crucial ways President Hosni Mubarak's Egypt was hitherto performing. Quite obviously, Rasmussen mooted an American thought process...
On the other hand, Moscow has "counter-proposed" that the United Nations Security Council should depute a mission to the Middle East in the light of the developments in Egypt... Again, on Iran, both Lavrov and Russian Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov drew a "red line" at Munich that Russia would oppose any US moves on further sanctions against Iran...or Beirut...
Conceivably, Russia made a point that might have got drowned in all the confusion as Mubarak faces a departure from the presidential palace - that the road to Cairo or Tehran passes through Brussels....
Road to Cairo passes through Tel Aviv and Brussels...
While the world's attention continues to be drawn by the birth pangs of a New Middle East, with each Friday promising more unpredictable spectacle, the talks that began in Brussels on Thursday between the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and Russia on a European anti-ballistic missile (ABM) system have taken a back seat. Brussels is a dour city in comparison with Cairo, Beirut or Tehran...
But the talks in Brussels go beyond the creation of an anti-missile defense system for Europe, shaping the direction of Russia's equations with the United States and the West and impacting significantly on security in the Middle East... These talks are a follow-up to the decision taken at the NATO summit meeting in Lisbon last November, that the alliance and Russia would formulate within the scope of a joint study the terms for missile defense cooperation (so-called Euro-ABM) within an agreed timeline of June 2011.
The Barack Obama administration has done everything possible in recent days to create a positive atmosphere for the talks. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton singled out cooperation with Russia on Euro-ABM in her speech at last week's 47th Munich Security Conference. "We seek a genuinely cooperative approach ... one that strengthens cooperation with Russia and increases our common security while maintaining strategic stability. We have already started that conversation with Moscow about how this can be accomplished ... ". A new military strategy unveiled by the corrupt US Joint Chiefs of Staff on Wednesday in Washington also mentioned Russia as one of Washington's key partners in global policy.
The document said that the US intends to boost military cooperation with Russia as well as further cooperation in fighting terrorism and securing the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons... It also mentioned joint space exploration and an anti-missile shield. The accommodative words must have lifted Russian spirits somewhat.
Only a week ago, cables released by WikiLeaks/CIA contained the embarrassing revelation that Obama didn't really concede anything to Russia at the end of 2009, despite the "reset" of Washington's relations with Moscow of the time. Then, Obama apparently rejected the previous US administration's plan to deploy components of the US's anti-missile system in Poland and the Czech Republic.
The diplomatic correspondence published by the Daily Telegraph made out that Obama made a virtue out of necessity, since Washington was facing serious technological problems with the radar system that was meant to detect long-range missiles at the launch stage. Without doubt, Russia views with suspicion the US's intentions with regard to the missile defense system. At the core of it is the suspicion that the US is bent on attaining "nuclear superiority" over Russia, which the Soviet Union had thwarted during the Cold War era.
Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov's speech at the Munich conference underscored this fact, "I think everybody understands that the agreement to discuss ... in no way means that Russia willingly agrees to accede to the NATO program developed without Russia. The principle of 'take it or leave it' does not work here ... If our concerns are not taken into account, if no equitable joint work is achieved, then we will have to compensate for the emerging imbalance."
To quote Lavrov, "our ability to create the joint Euro-Missile Defense involving Russia and NATO will become a test of sincerity declarations of readiness for partnership, for radical transformation of the strategic context of relations, for the establishment - in fact, not just in words - of an indivisible Euro-Atlantic and Eurasian security community..." , In other words, the Israeli/Arab conflict will have to be resolved in a comprehensive manner for all, if this security paradigm is to succeed...
As far as rhetoric goes, that's fine. But the strategic and technical differences that hinder the conclusion of a joint Russia-NATO missile defense architecture in Europe are formidable... From the NATO's perspective, the format it proposed for cooperation with Russia is eminently reasonable, namely, that the two sides could have "two independent but coordinated systems".
The alliance is going ahead with the development of an indivisible and exclusive territorial missile defense capability on its own. (The Lisbon summit adopted the US's deployment plans in Europe as its national contribution to the alliance's program.) In fact, two weeks ago, on January 27, the alliance completed the first hand over of an interim theatre ballistic missile defense capability.
NATO hopes to collaborate with Russia on the exchange of information and potential synergy between the alliance's capability and Russia's own independent missile defense system, while Russia will be free to develop its own ABM architecture. However, Moscow wants a fully-fledged ABM architecture for the whole of Europe.
The painful truth is that Russia lacks the capacity to keep pace with the ABM system that will be achieved by the US by 2020, which will incorporate early-warning, air and space defense. Also, there is doubt whether the technical specifications and positioning of the Russian ABM capability will be compatible with the US's flexible and highly movable ABM assets.
In political terms, too, Article 5 of the Washington Treaty establishing NATO stipulates that collective defense is the sole responsibility of the alliance's member states. Besides, any involvement of Russia that even remotely smacks of interference with the US ABM potential is highly unlikely to be acceptable to a Republican-dominated US Congress.
On the other hand, the deployment of the US's land-based ABM asset in Poland and Rumania (expected toward 2015-2020) is perceived in Moscow as a threat to Russia's second-strike capability... The Obama administration has drawn up a "phased adaptive approach" that would emphasize deployment of sea-and land-based Standard Missile 3 interceptors around Europe. The deployment during 2011-2020 involves short-and medium-range missiles in the early stages, while calling for deployment of more advanced defenses in later years to counter intermediate-range threats and ICBMs.
Clinton stressed in her speech in Munich, "We [the US] will not accept any constraints on our missile defenses." What are Moscow's choices, given the inexorable progress of the NATO's ABM program, the US's determination to adhere to its "phased adaptive approach" and Russia's incapacity to cope with the alliance's program technologically and financially on its own?
One alternative will be to team up with China and develop the two countries' joint military capacity to a level that the US can counter only at the cost of putting strains on its economy. But then, Moscow would be apprehensive that China's accelerating ballistic missile capability could pose a potential threat to Russia's security as well.
As Dmitry Trenin of Moscow Carnegie wrote recently, an alliance with China means Russia accepting the role of a "raw material base and strategic support area" for China and also relegating itself as the "younger military-political ally, i.e., Beijing's vassal".
It goes without saying that stable and friendly relations with China are an imperative for Russia, and even Trenin admits, "it's adventurous to challenge these relations". All the same, the prevailing wind in Moscow doesn't seem to favor the "orientalists"...
In sum, Moscow is hardly in a position to compel a fundamental shift in the course of the US's ABM program. It can retaliate, in principle, by restarting the arms race, but it can ill-afford the ensuing high financial burden and will also have to abandon in that case its ambitions of "innovation". But, the USA is also reaching that tipping point for severely slashing defense spending, the Pentagon and Intelligence budgets...because of astronomical debt burdens and general US obligations nationwide...
Short of becoming a NATO member country, therefore, if Russia's westward orientation is to be sustained, it needs to settle for a comprehensive long-term cooperation program with the alliance. The US estimation seems to be that Moscow will somehow find a way to do precisely that.
However, Russia holds a secret card - its capacity to be "non-cooperative" on issues such as the New Middle East or the situation around Iran... Amidst the chaos in Cairo, NATO secretary general Anders Fogh Rasmussen just visited Israel and floated the controversial idea that the alliance could step in as the peacekeeper between the Palestinians and Israel, a role that in some crucial ways President Hosni Mubarak's Egypt was hitherto performing. Quite obviously, Rasmussen mooted an American thought process...
On the other hand, Moscow has "counter-proposed" that the United Nations Security Council should depute a mission to the Middle East in the light of the developments in Egypt... Again, on Iran, both Lavrov and Russian Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov drew a "red line" at Munich that Russia would oppose any US moves on further sanctions against Iran...or Beirut...
Conceivably, Russia made a point that might have got drowned in all the confusion as Mubarak faces a departure from the presidential palace - that the road to Cairo or Tehran passes through Brussels....
A voice in the Wilderness, Daniel Levy
Dictatorships & Double Standards...
This essay by Jeane Kirkpatrick was Reagan's inspiration for starting the Contra war... The poisonous ideas contained therein suggested that true "democracies" could, out of necessity, work with, or even support "authoritarian" (fascist) dictators, if it suited US geostrategic interests... This is the policy which is best described as "anti-Carterism," meaning the exact opposite of Jimmie Carter's "politics of surrender" or "bleeding-heart liberalism." The fascist policies of Reagan/Bush have empowered all of these friendly dictators, who are now being opposed by Arab people power revolutions... These immoral entanglements and Imperial mistakes initiated by the Reagan/Bush Ziocon
gangs must be corrected if America itself is to be saved from them....
gangs must be corrected if America itself is to be saved from them....
...
Military adventurism and US/Israeli Bravado....
This is clearly a case when politics is governing intelligence and letting what it wants to cloud its eyesight to what is.... Churchill warned against this oxymoron....
US defense spending could be a tenth of what it is now, and what remains would be more than capable of DEFENDING the United States of America from any enemy.
But US defense spending is what it is so that America can have force projection i.e. the ability to impose itself ON other countries, and not just the ability to protect itself FROM other countries....
The USA voting Sheeple has to decide if it really does want to be in that business, but as far as I can tell that topic is so verboten that the American public doesn't even give it a second thought.
How odd..... does Joe America even understand that he belongs to an Empire that is every bit as militaristic as the Ancient Romans?
Aside from making us the most feared and despised nation of utter war criminals and assassins on planet Earth... (right after Israel, our fifty-first state), what, exactly, has your OCD hyperactivity brought us?
Realistically, a debt worth 15 and change trillion-with-a-T dollars, and a planet-full of other problems – international and domestic – with an additional 72 Trillion USD in US GOVERNMENT obligations in 51 US States... with no rational (i.e.: non-firepower) means to address them... You name it: infrastructure, transportation, public health, finance, education, legal (not justice) and prison systems that are the envy, maybe, of Burkina Faso; and a food industry transformed into a delivery system for cheap, leisurely lethal poisons. A decrepit and complicit in utter corruption MSM creeps... And that’s just at home. The rest of the world is a worse mess. Not your problem, except at gunpoint...
But relax; we can garrison the entire world as long as nobody starts shooting at us in earnest, at home or abroad. And once they start, for whatever reason, I’m sure the Pentagon has a thirty-million-combatant Plan for that, which the lot of you inside the Beltway would fall over yourselves to endorse...
For a man equipped with a hammer and nothing but, the world turns into his thumb. Figure it out....
“The only stable state is the one in which all men are equal before the law”. Aristotle’s observation of the human condition in 440 BC is as accurate today as it was back in his day.
A simple truth widely ignored today, hence, revolution and war until the balance is reestablished. According to history, it will probable take at least 100 years of struggle and millions of American lives to reestablish Democracy, Independence and the rule of law in the United States.
The Great Treason against our American Democracy, Independence and the American people lead by the Great Traitor Bush and his fascist shadow government and perpetuated by Obama, created the world financial crisis that has resulted in the total breakdown of Democracy and the Rule of Law in bringing the criminals responsible to Justice.
Most Americans are acutely aware of this Treason and injustice and they are starting to feel the pain. Today, everyone’s future is up in the air as the criminals subject us to one managed crisis after another.
Disgustingly, American Justice is dead. Erick Holder and the DOJ, CIA and the FBI are the worst kind of Rats. Americans are not the only victims, the criminals are international and there is a move on to bring them to justice in Spain’s international court and the Hague’s international court.
Instead of twiddling your thumbs and praying, you can sign a letter from War is a Crime sent to Spain’s international court to encourage prosecution of Bush era torture criminals and extra-judicial assassinations with their ZIOCON Infamous White House Murder INC, in the Levant started since January 24th 2002 in Lebanon.... They may charge Bush, Cheney and company March 1. 2011.
http://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/6503/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=3317
A simple truth widely ignored today, hence, revolution and war until the balance is reestablished. According to history, it will probable take at least 100 years of struggle and millions of American lives to reestablish Democracy, Independence and the rule of law in the United States.
The Great Treason against our American Democracy, Independence and the American people lead by the Great Traitor Bush and his fascist shadow government and perpetuated by Obama, created the world financial crisis that has resulted in the total breakdown of Democracy and the Rule of Law in bringing the criminals responsible to Justice.
Most Americans are acutely aware of this Treason and injustice and they are starting to feel the pain. Today, everyone’s future is up in the air as the criminals subject us to one managed crisis after another.
Disgustingly, American Justice is dead. Erick Holder and the DOJ, CIA and the FBI are the worst kind of Rats. Americans are not the only victims, the criminals are international and there is a move on to bring them to justice in Spain’s international court and the Hague’s international court.
Instead of twiddling your thumbs and praying, you can sign a letter from War is a Crime sent to Spain’s international court to encourage prosecution of Bush era torture criminals and extra-judicial assassinations with their ZIOCON Infamous White House Murder INC, in the Levant started since January 24th 2002 in Lebanon.... They may charge Bush, Cheney and company March 1. 2011.
http://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/6503/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=3317
In Discourse on Colonialism, Césaire implicates the Europeans for constructing the negative relationship between colonizer and colonized. He criticizes Europe for constructing these colonies only to exploit them for their own benefit. According to Césaire, by establishing these colonies and then exploiting them, the European colonial powers have created two main problems: the problem of the proletariat and the colonial problem. In describing the colonial problem that European civilization has created, he remarks that “Europe is indefensible,” contending that the actions of the colonizers cannot be misconstrued as positive. He centralizes his argument around the claim that, “no one colonizes innocently, that no one colonizes with impunity either; that a nation which colonizes, that a civilization which justifies colonization—and therefore force—is already a sick civilization, a civilization which is morally diseased, which irresistibly, progressing from one consequence to another, one denial to another, calls for its Hitler, I mean its punishment.” [3] He labels the colonizers as barbaric for their treatment of those in the colonies. He defines the relationship as one based on “forced labor, intimidation, pressure, the police, taxation, theft, rape, compulsory crops, contempt, mistrust, arrogance, self-complacency, swinishness, brainless elites, degraded masses.” [By identifying the colonial relationship as one based on race, he draws comparisons between his home of Martinique with the colonies in Africa. By equating racism, barbarism and colonialism, he claims colonization to be a form of dehumanization; he believes this dehumanization occurs because of Europe’s racism against the Jews, the black populations in Africa, the Middle east, the Caribbean, and elsewhere....and they still are very much the same racists today....with creeping Islamophobia fomented by Israel and USA....
We have all seen the criminal bankster’s planned Austerity programs enacted in Europe and the resulting ongoing riots that will not stop. Now, it is America’s turn under the screw. The bastards sure like to torture people don’t they?
Funny, the bankster have made a mockery out of our legal system and got away with the greatest world robbery in history. America owes the banksters and their criminal brotherhood of politicians nothing... The banksters owe America’s Justice System and the American people their necks and we should insist on collecting their criminal necks and returning all the money (nullifying debt) that was criminally swindled from the people of the world and thereby ending their financial tyranny throughout the world-permanently...
The good people of Wisconsin and all the 51 States of the Union...should hold their own court (grand jury) and bring to Justice the criminal banksters and their corrupt politicians including the governor who stands with the banksters and not with the people. They all hang together and they should all hang together.
Hats off to Ray McGovern for exposing the canned propaganda press release of General Clinton....
The good people of Wisconsin and all the 51 States of the Union...should hold their own court (grand jury) and bring to Justice the criminal banksters and their corrupt politicians including the governor who stands with the banksters and not with the people. They all hang together and they should all hang together.
Hats off to Ray McGovern for exposing the canned propaganda press release of General Clinton....
The Minerva owl flies only at night....as in the despicable inside Job of 9/11.
There is blood on the hands of every American journalist and editorial MSM writer who uncritically spread the utter lies of the criminal Bush ZIOCON Administration of evil assassins to incite the public to war....
WOW! While the world looks at the ARAB nations Israel trying to avoid scrutiny! I cannot imagine what is going through the leaderships mind in Israel now with the events of the last two months changing their fundamental calculations forever but it appears that perhaps they just don't understand themselves or the "others'! Really is explosive situation in ME. And don't we hope the PRM [Presidential Review Memorandum] of last August discussing regime change in ME gets released. Administration still appearing flatfooted to me and again as elsewhere not able to be agile in dealing with events and still pretending to control them. The IDF no longer a precision tool for protection of the Israel state and its citizens....and Hezbollah is threatening to Conquer the Galilee if Israel ever attempts to re-enter Lebanon again....
The Middle East will be no different.... If they couldn't occupy and hold a smaller place like Vietnam they have no hope of occupying and holding Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, etc. MSNBC and/or CNN won't be the ones doing the shifting, they'll just be reacting to the shift/earthquake that has already occurred....
Addressing the notion of pursuing that which is in our national interest, I'd like to go backward from that into what I perceive to be the fundamental problem. It seems to me that the United States, at least since Woodrow Wilson's time, has had problems in defining what was in the national interest. This inability has led to a series of foreign policy errors/mistakes/disasters, for which history, given our economic; military; and cultural power, won't be kind. I'm led to the conclusion that we tend to define our interest in an a priori fashion, then adapting and choosing the facts that will support an already decided issue. Wishful thinking is one phrase which springs to mind. Looking back at the most fateful courses of action over the last 75 years, I think this has been a pattern....
http://www.pagina12.com.ar/diario/elpais/1-162267-2011-02-13.html
As for the 5'000+ figure, I will say this: I have it from a source of the ex-KGB which I fully trust.
5'000+ people dead. Did the Western corporate media ever mention that? NOPE....
http://www.pagina12.com.ar/diario/elpais/1-162267-2011-02-13.html
Listen to these words of wisdom about the situation in Afghanistan:
"They face a stark choice between war and peace, as (...) military pressure on them mounts. They cannot defeat us. And they cannot escape this choice"
Who do you think said that? Mullah Omar? Hakimullah Mehsud? Maybe Osama himself (from the word beyond, IMHO)? Nope.
She is one hell of a joker, is she not? She seriously claims that she supported the Egyptian Revolution from day 1, that there is a bloodbath in Iran, but that the killings in Bahrain are only "deplorable" and now that: Hillary is telling the Taliban that they cannot defeat the USA! That at a time when the USA spend more time in Afghanistan than the USSR and when it has comprehensively been defeated (does anybody still remember the lame US campaigns in southern Afghanistan last year?).
I usually do not refer to ladies with the word "bitch", but after much consideration I think that this term is ideally suited for Hillary. She is clearly evil to the core, without even a minor trace of decency or honesty. She is nasty and bellicose in a way Maggie Thatcher was, but unlike Maggie, Hillary is all words, she cannot deliver on any of her threats. Maggie, for all her numerous other faults, at least had a bite which matched her bark. Hillary is a toothless barker, something rather pathetic....
Imagine if something like this had happened in Russia, Iran or Venezuela, the media would spend months talking about it...??? Not in the case of a western puppet....Boris Yeltsin in the 90s.....
I can tell you, for a fact, but I cannot site my sources or prove that they are credible, but here is what I know: the 1993 coup of the Yeltsin regime against the democratically elected Russian Parliament resulted in 5'000+ people killed. Let me make clear what I mean, in the Moscow oblast 5'000+ people were killed in various circumstances (we are talking about violent trauma).
I can personally attest to the fact that a full week after the "official"coup there were still combats happening in the садовое колцо (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sadovoe_Koltso). I personally witnessed a machine gun battle a at 10 PM a full week after the official standoff was over....
I can personally attest to the fact that a full week after the "official"coup there were still combats happening in the садовое колцо (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sadovoe_Koltso). I personally witnessed a machine gun battle a at 10 PM a full week after the official standoff was over....
As for the 5'000+ figure, I will say this: I have it from a source of the ex-KGB which I fully trust.
5'000+ people dead. Did the Western corporate media ever mention that? NOPE....
(e)SP_A0012_edited.jpg)
