Friday, June 22, 2018
Paul Craig Roberts beleves that the entire Western World lives in Cognitive Dessonance, based on the use of the current top news storys. In order to illustrate the disconnect that is everywhere in the Western mind. He begins with the family separation of children from immigrant/refugee/asylum parents has caused such public outcry that President Trump has backed off his policy and signed an executive order terminating family separation.
The Entire Western World Lives In Cognitive Dissonance
The Entire Western World Lives In Cognitive Dissonance
Paul Craig Roberts
In this column I am going to use three of the current top news stories to illustrate the disconnect that is everywhere in the Western mind.
Let us begin with the family separation issue. The separation of children from immigrant/refugee/asylum parents has caused such public outcry that President Trump has backed off his policy and signed an executive order terminating family separation.
The horror of children locked up in warehouses operated by private businesses making a profit off of US taxpayers, while parents are prosecuted for illegal entry, woke even self-safisfied “exceptional and indispensable” Americans out of their stupor. It is a mystery that the Trump regime chose to discredit its border enforcement policy by separating families. Perhaps the policy was intended to deter illegal immigration by sending the message that if you come to America your children will be taken from you.
The question is: How is it that Americans can see and reject the inhumane border control policy and not see the inhumanity of family destruction that has been the over-riding result of Washington’s destruction in whole or part of seven or eight countries in the 21st century?
Millions of people have been separated from families by death inflicted by Washington, and for almost two decades protests have been almost nonexistent. No public outcry stopped George W. Bush, Obama, and Trump from clear and indisputable illegal acts defined in international law established by the US itself as war crimes against the inhabitants of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Syria, Yemen, and Somalia. We can add to this an eighth example: The military attacks by the US armed and supported neo-Nazi puppet state of Ukraine against the breakaway Russian provinces.
The massive deaths, destruction of towns, cities, infrastructure, the maiming, physical and mental, the dislocation that has sent millions of refugees fleeing Washington’s wars to overrun Europe, where governments consist of a collection of idiot stooges who supported Washington’s massive war crimes in the Middle East and North Africa, produced no outcry comparable to Trump’s immigration policy.
How can it be that Americans can see inhumanity in the separation of families in immigration enforcement but not in the massive war crimes committed against peoples in eight countries? Are we experiencing a mass psychosis form of cognitive dissonance?
We now move to the second example: Washington’s withdrawal from the United Nations Human Rights Council.
On November 2, 1917, two decades prior to the holocaust attributed to National Socialist Germany, British Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour wrote to Lord Rothschild that Great Britain supported Palestine becoming a Jewish homeland. In other words, the corrupt Balfour dismissed the rights and lives of the millons of Palestinians who had occupied Palestine for two millennia or more. What were these people compared to Rothschild’s money? They were nothing to the British Foreign Secretary.
Balfour’s attitude toward the rightful inhabitants of Palestine is the same as the British attitude toward the peoples in every colony or territority over which British power prevailed. Washington learned this habit and has consistently repeated it.
Just the other day Trump’s UN ambassador Nikki Haley, the crazed and insane lapdog of Israel, announced that Washington had withdrawn from the UN Human Rights Council, because it is “a cesspool of political bias” against Israel.
What did the UN Human Rights Council do to warrent this rebuke from Israel’s agent, Nikki Haley? The Human Rights Council denounced Israel’s policy of murdering Palestinians—medics, young children, mothers, old women and old men, fathers, teenagers.
To critize Israel, no matter how great and obvious is Israel’s crime, means that you are an anti-semite and a “holocaust denier.” For Nikki Haley and Israel, this places the UN Human Rights Council in the Hitler-worshipping Nazi ranks.
The absurdity of this is obvious, but few, if any, can detect it. Yes, the rest of the world, with the exception of Israel, has denounced Washington’s decision, not only Washington’s foes and the Palestinians, but also Washington’s puppets and vassals as well.
To see the disconnect, it is necessary to pay attention to the wording of the denunciations of Washington.
A spokesperson for the European Union said that Washington’s withdrawal from the UN Human Rights Council “risks undermining the role of the US as a champion and supporter of democracy on the world stage.” Can anyone image a more idiotic statement? Washington is known as a supporter of dictatorships that adhere to Washington’s will. Washington is known as a destroyer of every Latin American democracy that elected a president who represented the people of the country and not the New York banks, US commerical interests, and US foreign policy.
Name one place where Washington has been a supporter of democracy. Just to speak of the most recent years, the Obama regime overthrew the democratically elected government of Honduras and imposed its puppet. The Obama regime overthrew the democratically elected government in Ukraine and imposed a neo-Nazi regime. Washington overthrew the governments in Argentina and Brazil, is trying to overthrow the government in Venezuela, and has Bolivia in its crosshairs along with Russia and Iran.
Margot Wallstrom, Sweden’s Foreign Minister, said: “It saddens me that the US has decided to withdraw from the UN Human Rights Council. It comes at a time when the world needs more human rights and a stronger UN – not the opposite.” Why in the world does Wallstrom think that the presence of Washington, a known destroyer of human rights—just ask the millions of refugees from Washington’s war crimes overrunning Europe and Sweden—on the Human Rights Council would strengthen rather than undermine the Council? Wallstrom’s disconnect is awesome. It is so extreme as to be unbelievable.
Australia’s Foreign Minister, Julie Bishop, spoke for the most fawning of all of Washington’s vassals when she said that she was concerned by the UN Human Rights Council’s “anti-Israel bias.” Here you have a person so utterly brainwashed that she is unable to connect to anything real.
The third example is the “trade war” Trump has launched against China. The Trump regime’s claim is that due to unfair practices China has a trade surplus with the US of nearly $400 billion. This vast sum is supposed to be due to “unfair practices” on China’s part. In actual fact, the trade deficit with China is due to Apple, Nike, Levi, and to the large number of US corporations who produce offshore in China the products that they sell to Americans. When the offshored production of US corporations enter the US, they are counted as imports.
I have been pointing this out for many years going back to my testimony before the US Congress China Commission. I have written numerous articles published almost everywhere. They are summarized in my 2013 book, The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism. https://www.amazon.com/Failure-Laissez-Faire-Capitalism/dp/0986036250/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1529582838&sr=1-1&keywords=Paul+Craig+Roberts+books&dpID=51HWdHsbtFL&preST=_SY291_BO1,204,203,200_QL40_&dpSrc=srch
The presstitute financial media, the corporate lobbyists, which includes many “name” academic economists, and the hapless American politicians whose intellect is almost non-existent are unable to recognize that the massive US trade deficit is the result of jobs offshoring. This is the level of utter stupidity that rules America.
In The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism, I exposed the extraordinary error made by Matthew J. Slaughter, a member of President George W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers, who incompetently claimed that for every US job offshored two US jobs were created. I also exposed as a hoax a “study” by Harvard University professor Michael Porter for the so-called Council on Competitiveness, a lobby group for offshoring, that made the extraordinary claim that the US work force was benefitting from the offshoring of their high productivity, high value-added jobs.
The idiot American economists, the idiot American financial media, and the idiot American policymakers still have not comprehended that jobs offshoring destroyed America’s economic prospects and pushed China to the forefront 45 years ahead of Washington’s expectations.
To sum this up, the Western mind, and the minds of the Atlanticist Integrationist Russians and pro-American Chinese youth, are so full of propagandistic nonsense that there is no connection to reality.
There is the real world and there is the propagandistic made-up world that covers over the real world and serves special interests. My task is to get people out of the made-up world and into the real world. Support my efforts.
Wednesday, June 06, 2018
The neoconservatives have seized the opportunity and replaced diplomacy with threat and coercion. Our government tells weaker countries to "do as you are told or we will impose sanctions." Sanctions are an assertion of hegemony of one country over another. And once the constraint on Washington’s unilateralism was removed, sanctions became an instrument of US foreign policy and replaced diplomacy.
The Absence of Diplomacy Is Isolating Washington — Paul Craig Roberts
Paul Craig Roberts
The dissolution of the Soviet Union removed the constraint on Washington’s unilateralism. The neoconservatives, who had just risen to power, seized the opportunity and replaced diplomacy with threat and coercion. One infamous example is from the George W. Bush regime when the Deputy Secretary of State, Richard Armitage, told Pakistan to do as you are told or you will be bombed into the stone age. We have this on the authority of the president of Pakistan himself, who did as he was told.
In the case of Russia during the Putin era, this level of threat is excessive as Russia can bomb back. So the threat has been reduced to: do as you are told or we will impose sanctions.
Sanctions are an assertion of hegemony of one country over another. They are an assertion that the imposer of sanctions has extra-legal international authority to tell other sovereign states what to do or to suffer consequences if they do not.
Once the constraint on Washington’s unilateralism was removed, sanctions became an instrument of US foreign policy and replaced diplomacy. The Clinton regime used them on Iraq. When the UN reported that the effect of the Clinton regime’s sanctions on Iraq was the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children, Clinton’s Jewish Secretary of State was asked by Lesley Stahl on the national TV program “60 Minutes” if the sanctions were worth the deaths of a half million children. Madaline Albright said yes, “the price is worth it.” The Jews feel the same way about the Palestinians. As the Palestinians’ country has been stolen by Israel, what is the point of Palestinians? Killing them is Israel’s answer. As one Israeli minister said, we are only doing what the Americans did to the native Americans known as Indians. As America shares this crime with Israel, little wonder that Washington always vetoes any UN action against Israel for its crimes against the Palestinians. The two criminal states stand united against the world.
And from Washington’s view, it has been “worth it” ever since as Washington during the 21st century proceeded to destroy in whole or part seven countries, and is still working on several more.
Any time a country doesn’t follow Washington’s orders, Washington imposes sanctions. Iran, North Korea, Russia, and Venezuela are all bearers of Washington’s sanctions. Moreover, Washington forces other countries, including its European allies, to also impose sanctions or Washington will sanction them as well.
This worked until Washington’s assertion of its hegemony over the world became excessive. That happened when Trump, guided by Israel and by Israel’s neoconservative agents who are Trump’s advisers, denounced and withdrew from the Iranian nuclear agreement signed by the US, Iran, Russia, China, France, the UK, and Germany.
When Washington’s European vassals did not also withdraw from the agreement that they had signed, Trump threatened them with sanctions.
All of Europe already suffers from high unemployment. Washington’s sanctions worsen the situation for Europe, which has resumed profitable business with Iran. Finally Europe has caught on. Washington is telling Europe that Europe must suffer economically so that Washington can exercise hegemony, from which Europe gets no benefit.
This is too much even for the European and British governments that have been Washington’s vassals since 1945. Rebellion is reported everywhere in the Internet news although not in the presstitute media. European and EU officials are saying that it is time that Europe represents its own interests instead of Washington’s. Even the head of the EU, a CIA creation, is in rebellion.
Will the rebellion last, or is it merely the antics of Europeans long on Washington’s payroll posturing for more money? How much does Washington have to shell out to quiet the European rebellion?
Vladimir Putin has been eating insults and provocations for years while awaiting for Washington’s arrogance to break up its European empire. Perhaps Putin’s patience is paying off, and it is happening now.
There are signs that Washington is isolating itself. Washington has ordered India and also Turkey, a NATO member, not to purchase Russian weapons systems, but both countries have given the bird to Washington, rejected Washington’s interferrence in their affairs and have gone ahead with the purchases.
The chairman of the European Commission, Jean Claude Juncker, said that it was time for Europe to reconnect with Russia and to stop attacking Russia. Will the EU, the CIA’s own creation, turn against Washington?
It is possible. Washington has threatened Germany with sanctions if Germany participates in Russia’s North Stream 2 gas pipeline project bringing energy to Europe. Washington’s preference is that Europe close down from lack of energy rather than to be dependent on Russia, as this dependency reduces Washington’s power over Europe.
Germany’s Merkel, long Washington’s whore, has changed her spots. She announced that the US is no longer a reliable political partner and that Germany “needs to take its fate into its own hands.” The latest poll shows that 82 percent of Germans agree with her that Washington is an “unreliable partner.”
Washington, wallowing in its fabled incompetence, is now worsening all of its empire relationships by threatening its own allies with trade wars. There is no one of sufficient competence in the Trump regime to be able to understand that America’s “trade problem” is entirely of its own making and is not due to Mexico, Canada, China, and Europe.
America’s extremely serious trade problem is due to globalism, neoliberal economics, and to the New York investment banks.
The US trade deficit with China has its origin in the offshoring of American jobs. Products, such as Levis, Nike shoes, Apple computers, once produced in America by American workers are now produced abroad where wages and various compliance costs are much lower. When these products produced abroad for American markets by US corporations come back to the US to be sold, they arrive as imports. Thus, the offshored production of US corporations is the most direct cause of American trade deficits.
However, this basic, indisputable fact is never reported by the presstitute media, or by the neoliberal economists or US government statistical agencies. The pretense is that it is all China’s, or Mexico’s, or Canada’s fault. You would never know that it was the direct result of the profit-seeking activity of US corporations.
What has happened is that with the Soviet dissolution, the governments of socialist India and communist China made a decision that capitalism was the wave of the future, and they opened their labor markets to foreign capital.
The American firms that did not want to desert their home towns and work forces by offshoring their production were forced to do so by threats from the New York investment banks. Domestic producers were told to move operations to China where lower labor costs would boost profits or face a takeover of the corporation that would raise profits by moving operations abroad.
The reason high productivity high value-added jobs have exited America is because of Wall Street and the greed of corporate executives and shareholders. As always happens, the ruling interest groups and their Washington puppets blame foreigners, thus protecting themselves.
However, now they have started what is mischaracterized as a “trade war.”
In effect, the Trump regime is not at war with China and other countries. The Trump regime is at war with the US corporations who moved their production for US markets offshore and with the New York banks that forced this move. The tarrifs will fall not on Chinese exports but on the offshored production of US corporations. The tarifs will raise the price that Americans pay for the products that US corporation make in China.
Trump’s tariffs on steel and aluminum raise the cost of inputs used in US production functions. Raising the price of these inputs means that the products of US industry made from steel and aluminum also rise in price, thus hurting US competitiveness. This is the opposite of how protectionism is supposed to work. Protectionism works by minimizing the costs of inputs and by protecting outputs with tariffs on competing foreign products. In other words, the prices of domestically produced goods are lowered, and the prices of competing imports are raised.
The neoliberal economists lied when they gave assurances that the US manufacturing and professional skill jobs moved offshore would be replaced with better jobs for Americans. As the official payroll data makes clear, the replacement jobs are worse, consisting as they do of lowly paid domestic service jobs that characteize employment in third world countries.
Jobs offshoring has been disastrous for America. The resulting trade deficit is the least of it. The loss of well-paying jobs has hurt consumer purchasing power. To maintain living standards, consumers have substituted debt for the missing income. The result is that 41 percent of Americans cannot raise $400 should they be faced with an emergency.
The budgets of states that were once manufacturing powerhouses have also been hurt, calling into quesion their ability to meet pension obligations. The benefits of jobs offshoring were concentrated on a small group of corporate executives and shareholders and are dwarfed by the massive external costs of jobs offshoring on the US economy and work force.
Robotics will make the situation far worse. The smart people so happily working on replacement of humans in the work force are in fact stupid. They are destroying the social system. Tariffs cannot protect jobs lost to robots. Moreover, robots don’t buy houses, furniture, cars, clothes, entertainment, food, drink, smart phones, computers. All the money saved by replacing people with robots is not available to purchase the products made by robots. Consumer demand collapses. The only solution is the socialization of production that makes all members of society owners of the output. Even this is only a partial solution as it leaves unanswered the question of what people do with their time and what happens to people who do not have to work and to develop their capabilities.
Capitalism, despite the claim that it efficiently allocates resources over time, has a short-run time horizon—the next quarter’s profits. Everything about the system is short-term. We have reached the point at which executives destroy the company by indebting it in order to buy back the company’s shares, thus driving up the stock price and maximizing their “performance bonuses.”
By undermining the strength of the economy, the consequence of short-run profit maximization is to make the US more belligerent. Plunder becomes a way of keeping the system afloat. Thus, hegemony over others becomes a means of survival.
Matters are coming to a head in the Trump regime. Trump’s bullying personality mated with the belligerence of neoconservative hegemony produces war in its many forms. The economic warfare with which Washington is threatening its vassals can lead to an independent Europe friendly to Russia.
The decline in Washington’s hegemonic power is a prerequisite for the resurrection of the American economy. When plunder is not an option, policy has to turn inward. The responsibilities of corporations have to be restored to include employees, customers, and communities along with shareholders. The Sherman Anti-trust Act must be revived, monopolies dismembered, banks too big to fail broken up, and offshored production brought home by taxing corporations according to whether they produce for the US market at home or abroad.
Historically, foreign trade was unimportant to US economic development. A rising middle class produced a large consumer market that sufficed for the prosperity of large-scale manufacturing and industrial enterprises. This prosperous America was destroyed by globalism. American revival awaits a new class of leaders devoid of the hubris of “exceptionalism” who can reject the role of world bully and focus on the problems at home.
Monday, April 30, 2018
The Period of American Dominance Has Passed. Russian Missile Tech has Made America’s Trillion Dollar Navy Obsolete. Russia’s new missiles can be launched from thousands of kilometers away, are unstoppable, and it takes just one to sink a destroyer and just two to sink an aircraft carrier.
The Period of American Dominance Has Passed
The Period of American Dominance Has Passed
Russian Missile Tech has Made America’s Trillion Dollar Navy Obsolete
For the past 500 years European nations—Portugal, the Netherlands, Spain, Britain, France and, briefly, Germany—were able to plunder much of the planet by projecting their naval power overseas. Since much of the world’s population lives along the coasts, and much of it trades over water, armed ships that arrived suddenly out of nowhere were able to put local populations at their mercy.
The armadas could plunder, impose tribute, punish the disobedient, and then use that plunder and tribute to build more ships, enlarging the scope of their naval empires. This allowed a small region with few natural resources and few native advantages beyond extreme orneriness and a wealth of communicable diseases to dominate the globe for half a millennium.
The ultimate inheritor of this naval imperial project is the United States, which, with the new addition of air power, and with its large aircraft carrier fleet and huge network of military bases throughout the planet, is supposedly able to impose Pax Americana on the entire world. Or, rather, was able to do so—during the brief period between the collapse of the USSR and the emergence of Russia and China as new global powers and their development of new anti-ship and antiaircraft technologies. But now this imperial project is at an end.
Prior to the Soviet collapse, the US military generally did not dare to directly threaten those countries to which the USSR had extended its protection. Nevertheless, by using its naval power to dominate the sea lanes that carried crude oil, and by insisting that oil be traded in US dollars, it was able to live beyond its means by issuing dollar-denominated debt instruments and forcing countries around the world to invest in them. It imported whatever it wanted using borrowed money while exporting inflation, expropriating the savings of people across the world. In the process, the US has accumulated absolutely stunning levels of national debt—beyond anything seen before in either absolute or relative terms. When this debt bomb finally explodes, it will spread economic devastation far beyond US borders. And it will explode, once the petrodollar wealth pump, imposed on the world through American naval and air superiority, stops working.
New missile technology has made a naval empire cheap to defeat. Previously, to fight a naval battle, one had to have ships that outmatched those of the enemy in their speed and artillery power. The Spanish Armada was sunk by the British armada. More recently, this meant that only those countries whose industrial might matched that of the United States could ever dream of opposing it militarily. But this has now changed: Russia’s new missiles can be launched from thousands of kilometers away, are unstoppable, and it takes just one to sink a destroyer and just two to sink an aircraft carrier. The American armada can now be sunk without having an armada of one’s own. The relative sizes of American and Russian economies or defense budgets are irrelevant: the Russians can build more hypersonic missiles much more quickly and cheaply than the Americans would be able to build more aircraft carriers.
Equally significant is the development of new Russian air defense capabilities: the S-300 and S-400 systems, which can essentially seal off a country’s airspace. Wherever these systems are deployed, such as in Syria, US forces are now forced to stay out of their range. With its naval and air superiority rapidly evaporating, all that the US can fall back on militarily is the use of large expeditionary forces—an option that is politically unpalatable and has proven to be ineffective in Iraq and Afghanistan. There is also the nuclear option, and while its nuclear arsenal is not likely to be neutralized any time soon, nuclear weapons are only useful as deterrents. Their special value is in preventing wars from escalating beyond a certain point, but that point lies beyond the elimination of their global naval and air dominance. Nuclear weapons are much worse than useless in augmenting one’s aggressive behavior against a nuclear-armed opponent; invariably, it would be a suicidal move. What the US now faces is essentially a financial problem of unrepayable debt and a failing wealth pump, and it should be a stunningly obvious point that setting off nuclear explosions anywhere in the world would not fix the problems of an empire that is going broke.
Events that signal vast, epochal changes in the world often appear minor when viewed in isolation. Julius Caesar’s crossing of the Rubicon was just one river crossing; Soviet and American troops meeting and fraternizing at the Elbe was, relatively speaking, a minor event—nowhere near the scale of the siege of Leningrad, the battle of Stalingrad or the fall of Berlin. Yet they signaled a tectonic shift in the historical landscape. And perhaps we have just witnessed something similar with the recent pathetically tiny Battle of East Gouta in Syria, where the US used a make-believe chemical weapons incident as a pretense to launch an equally make-believe attack on some airfields and buildings in Syria. The US foreign policy establishment wanted to show that it still matters and has a role to play, but what really happened was that US naval and air power were demonstrated to be almost entirely beside the point.
Of course, all of this is terrible news to the US military and foreign policy establishments, as well as to the many US Congressmen in whose districts military contractors operate or military bases are situated. Obviously, this is also bad news for the defense contractors, for personnel at the military bases, and for many others as well. It is also simply awful news economically, since defense spending is about the only effective means of economic stimulus of which the US government is politically capable.
Obama’s “shovel-ready jobs,” if you recall, did nothing to forestall the dramatic slide in the labor participation rate, which is a euphemism for the inverse of the real unemployment rate. There is also the wonderful plan to throw lots of money at Elon Musk’s SpaceX (while continuing to buy vitally important rocket engines from the Russians—who are currently discussing blocking their export to the US in retaliation for more US sanctions). In short, take away the defense stimulus, and the US economy will make a loud popping sound followed by a gradually diminishing hissing noise.
Needless to say, all those involved will do their best to deny or hide for as long as possible the fact that the US foreign policy and defense establishments have now been neutralized. My prediction is that America’s naval and air empire will not fail because it will be defeated militarily, nor will it be dismantled once the news sinks in that it is useless; instead, it will be forced to curtail its operations due to lack of funds. There may still be a few loud bangs before it gives up, but mostly what we will hear is a whole lot of whimpering. That’s how the USSR went; that’s how the USA will go too.
This post first appeared on Russia Insider.
Anyone is free to republish, copy, and redistribute the text in this content (but not the images or videos) in any medium or format, with the right to remix, transform, and build upon it, even commercially, as long as they provide a backlink and credit to Russia Insider. It is not necessary to notify Russia Insider. Licensed Creative Commons
N.B. the following articles collected by Paul Craig Roberts get deeper into the currant issues:
The Idiot Neoconservatives Will Get Us All Killed
The Idiot Neoconservatives Will Get Us All Killed
Saturday, April 14, 2018
Here Paul Craig Roberts analyzes why the US Secretary of War, Mattis backed down on Trump's illicit plan to attack Syria. He knew that if the U.S. Navy ships were to approach the Syrian shores and open fire, they would be destroyed by the Russians.
Are We Over the US/UK Fomented Crisis In Syria?Are We Over the US/UK Fomented Crisis In Syria?
Paul Craig Roberts
It appears from the very limited US missile attack, most of which were intercepted and destroyed by Syrian air defenses, that the US military prevailed over the crazed John Bolton and carefully avoided a strike that would have resulted in a Russian response. No significant Syrian site appears to have been targeted, and no Russians were endangered. https://www.fort-russ.com/2018/04/in-depth-syria-stuns-world-thwarts-us-attack/
The US ambassador to Russia said that the US strikes were coordinated with Russia to avoid a great power confrontation. https://www.rt.com/news/424132-us-russia-syria-strikes/ Russia Insider concludes that the exercise was a face-saver for Trump https://russia-insider.com/en/out-whimper-trump-blinks-delivers-limited-strikes/ri23132
The main effect seems to be that Trump has further discredited himself and the US by violating the UN Charter and international law and committing an act of aggression, which is a war crime for which Nazi civilian and military officials were executed. Russia’s President Putin said that the wanton and illegal use of force by Washington has had “a devastating impact on the whole system of international relations” and called for an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council. China also condemned the illegal US attack. https://www.fort-russ.com/2018/04/china-says-us-led-attacks-against-syria-are-illegal-and-against-international-law/
How was the feared conflict between the US and Russia avoided? From what I have been able to learn, the US Joint Chiefs of Staff would not accept the risk of conflict with Russia. The reason is not that the Joint Chiefs are more moral, more caring about the deaths and injuries that would result, or less inclined to go to war based on lies. Their objection was based on the lack of protection US Navy ships have from the new Russian weapons systems. An attack that brought a Russian response could sink the US flotilla and present the US with a humiliating defeat that would discredit American military prowess.
Bolton’s position was that Putin is a pussy who, as in every previous case, will do nothing. Bolton’s postion is that the Russians are so scared of US military might that they will not respond to any US attack on their forces and Syrian forces. The Russians, Bolton says, will do what they always do. They will whine about the crime to the UN, and the Western media will ignore them as always.
The US Secretary of War, Mattis, represented the Joint Chiefs opinion. What, Mattis asked, if the Russians have had enough and do what they are capable of and sink the US flotilla? Is Trump prepared to accept a defeat engineered by his National Security Adviser? Is Trump prepared for a possible wider conflict?
The Joint Chiefs would rather use the orchestrated “Syrian crisis” to argue for more money, not to go to war that could be terminable of their retirement plans. The Joint Chiefs can tell Congress: “We couldn’t risk conflict with Russia over the use of chemical weapons in Syria because we were outgunned. We need more money.” The older American generation will rementer the fantasy “missile gap” of the Nixon/Kennedy presidential campaign that was used to boost US defense spending.
It would be a mistake for anyone to conclude that common sense has prevailed and the conflict has been resolved. What has prevailed is the Joint Chiefs’ fear of a defeat. The next crisis that Washington orchestrates will be on terms less favorable to Russian arms.
Bolton, the neoconservatives and the Israeli interest that they represent will go to work on Mattis and the dissenting generals. Leaks will appear in the presstitute media that are designed to discredit Mattis and to foment Trump’s distrust. The neoconservatives will advance military men more in line with the neoonservatives’ aggressiveness to positions on the Joint Chiefs.
Syria is not about any chemical weapons use. Ahmet Uzumcu, director general of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, reported that all chemical weapons had been removed from Syria. “Never before has an entire arsenal of a category of weapons of mass destruction been removed from a country experiencing a state of internal armed conflict, and this has been accomplished within very demanding and tight time frames.” https://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/06/24/last-of-syrias-chemical-weapons-removed.html
Syria is not about dictatorship or building democracy. It is not about the alleged 70 victims of chemical weapons. It would take a complete idiot to believe that Washington and its European vassals, who have killed, maimed, orphaned, and displaced millions of Muslims in seven countries over the last 17 years to be so upset over the deaths of 70 Muslims that they are willing to risk war with Russia.
Syria and Iran are an issue, because Syria and Iran supply the Lebonese millita, Hezbollah, with money and weapons. This support from Syria and Iran gives Hezbollah the capability of preventing Israel’s occupation and annexation of southern Lebanaon, whose water resources Israel covets.
Twice the vaunted Israel Army has been chased out of Lebanon by Hezbollah. Israel’s military reputation cannot risk a third defeat by a mere militia, so Israel is using its control over US foreign policy and its rock solid alliance with the neoconservatives to use the US military to destabilize Syria and Iran as the US did to Iraq and Libya.
Additionally, there is the crazed neoconservative ideology of US world hegemony. The interests of Russia and China are in the way of US hegemony. Therefore, these two countries are defined as “threats.” Russia and China are not threats because they intend to attack the US, which neither has shown any indication of doing. They are threats because they are in opposition to US unilateralism which overrides their sovereignty. In other words, to be clear, the US cannot tolerate any country that has an independent foreign or economic policy.
That Russia and China have independent policies is the reason that they are “threats.”
It would be a mistake to conclude that diplomay has prevailed and common sense has returned to Washington. Nothing could be further from the truth. The issue is not resolved. War remains on the horizon.
Even though the Scenario turned out to be the best ever, if you are truly interested you should play the link below, which will tell you what is really going on in Syia. Hint: it is opposite of what you would hear in the U.S., UK, and EU. (They are all liers)
The Worst Case Scenario Is Now Our Reality
Felicity Arbuthnot Lays It On The Line
Thursday, April 12, 2018
Ten Days Before The End Of The World. Do you believe it? Do you even think about it? Well, I do. The people who are pushing this are in the U.S. (particularly Trump and his insane warmongering govement). I hope that the Russians handel it well to save the world.
Ten Days Before The End Of The WorldTen Days Before The End Of The World
Paul Craig Roberts
The criminally insane governments of the US, UK, and France are sending a flotilla of missile ships, submarines, and an aircraft carrier to attack Syria in the face of Russian warnings. What is the likely outcome of this outrageous act of aggression based entirely on an orchestrated and transparent lie, an act of reckless aggression that is more irresponsible and more dangerous than anything done by the demonized Nazi regime in Germany?
There are no protests from European governments. There are no protesters in the streets of European and US cities. Congress has not reminded Trump that he has been given no authority by Congress to launch a military attack on a soverign country that is likely to ignite a war, possibly World War 3. Everyone seems content with the prospect of the end of the world. The moronic American presstitutes are egging it on.
Here are possible outcomes:
(1) The Russians, trapped in the deluded belief that facts and evidence matter to the West and that common sense will prevail, accept the attacks. This outcome is the most dangerous of all, because this outcome will encourage more attacks until Russia is backed into a corner and has no alternative to a direct nuclear attack on the US.
(2) Russia takes the initiative in the brewing conflict and escorts the US missile ship, USS Donald Cook, out of attack range of Syria before the attack flotilla arrives and declares a perimeter line beyond which the Western flotilla becomes target for attack. This should force a showdown between Trump’s warmonger government and the US Congress that would challenge Trump’s ability to unilaterally commit the US to war.
(3) Russia escorts the Donald Cook away from the scene and simultaneously wipes out the military capabilities of Saudi Arabia and Israel, removing Washington’s ground-based allies in its attack on Syria, thus loading the odds in Russia’s favor, and making it clear that Russia is going to pre-empt attack, not respond to one.
(4) Russia, in the deluded belief that it must prove itself in the right, accepts the attack and its unpredictable damage before responding. This outcome is almost as bad as the first, as this lets the war start in contrast to options (2) and (3) which have some possibility of preventing a US/Russian confrontation by forcing common sense on the Americans.
(5) Senior German politicians inform Merkel that Britain and France’s support of the US strike on Syria could commit NATO to a war with Russia. Germany has had one devastating experience with the Russian military and does not need another. They could pressure Merkel to withdraw Germany from NATO. The resulting consternation/confusion would likely halt the US attack on Syria/Russia.
(6) The US Joint Chiefs of Staff could easily and honestly conclude that in the event of a Russian response to an attack on Syria, the entire flotilla could be lost, carrier included, inflicting a humiliating defeat on US arms, and that in view of this possbility, the Joint Chiefs recommend against the announced attack. Possibly this has occurred and explains Trump’s latest tweets, which suggest that doubts might have entered Trump’s mind.
Even if a hopeful outcome such as (5) and (6) occurs, we are left with the dangerous situation that some elements in the US and UK governments were able to orchestrate two events—the alleged Skripal poisoning and the alleged Assad chemical attack—and use the events to leverage unsupported accusations against Russia and Syria as justifications for an illegal military attack on a sovereign country. That such an outrageous orchestration is possible proves that there is no democracy or constraint on government in the US and UK.
Wednesday, April 11, 2018
The idiocy of Trump, French president Macron, and UK prime minister May may be bringing the end of the world.
Idiocy Is Bringing The End Of The WorldIdiocy Is Bringing The End Of The World
Paul Craig Roberts
Here is Jason Ditz on the coming end of the world:
Vladimir Soloviev explains the failure of Putin’s policy of appeasement:
If you were the president of France or the prime minister of the UK, would you permit criminally insane Washington to drag you into military conflict with Russia?
I didn’t think so. I wouldn’t either. So what’s with Macron and May? What’s with the French and British governments? What’s with the French and British media? I read recently that former UK Labour prime minister Tony Blair is now worth $100 million, his payoff for lying to the UK government and people in order to support the George W. Bush regime’s invasion of Iraq. Have Macron and May been promised the same?
It makes no sense for the UK and French governments to make themselves targets of a military power against which they have no possibility of defense. It makes no sense that their peoples and media sit silently while one French president and one British prime minister endanger not only France and the UK but the entirety of Europe. What’s with the European Union? There is only silence as Europe, and the world with it, are taken to the brink of annihiliation. This makes no sense. https://www.globalresearch.ca/taking-the-world-to-the-brink-of-annihilation/5635456
People in Ghouta, doctors in Ghouta, and Russian experts who have arrived on the scene report that there is no sign of any chemical attack. Not only did Syria not use chemical weapons against the civilians that it liberated, there was no chemical attack, not even a false flag one staged by the US supported mercenaries who have been driven out of Ghouta by the Syrian Army. In other words, the chemical attack is entirely a hoax.
To keep the hoax from being confirmed by independent investigation, Washington vetoed a UN Security Council resolution to send in neutral experts to evaluate the claim of chemical attack. Why would Washington prevent an investigation that would prove Washington’s allegation? Clearly, Washington would only prevent an investigation that would disprove the false allegation. There is no doubt whatsoever that Washington’s allegation is false and is being used as an excuse to force Russia to fight or to accept Washington’s hegemony in the Middle East.
What if there was a chemical attack? Why does it matter to people who are killed whether it was by bullets, bombs, missiles, or chemicals? Why is it so bad to use chemicals instead of Hellfire missiles? Why is it OK for Washington and Israel to blow up schools, hospitals, weddings, funerals, market places, and homes full of women and children with missiles, but not OK to kill people with chemicals? Why is it worth starting World War 3 over a hoax chemical weapons attack or a real one?
Americans, for the most part a clueless people, have no awareness of the risk that the criminally insane government in Washington is taking with their lives. What if the Russians mean what they say and do not again turn the other cheek and back down? What happens if Russia replies to force with force?
Why is it that only a few Internet sites are asking this question?
Wednesday, March 21, 2018
A good question Paul. And, yes, from my point of view, the US Goverment is indeed Criminally Insane! How about you?
Is the US Government Criminally Insane?
March 21, 2018 | Categories: Guest Contributions |
Is the US Government Criminally Insane? Read these articles and make up your mind:
Friday, March 02, 2018
In his reascent speech Putin revealed the existence of new Russian nuclear weapons that make it indisputably clear that Russia has vast nuclear superiority over the United States and its pathetic NATO vassal states. However, he declared that Russia has no territorial ambitions, no hegemonic ambitions, and no intention to attack any other country. Putin described the weapons as the necessary response to the West’s firm refusal year after year to accept peace and cooperation with Russia, instead surrounding Russia with military bases and ABM systems. But he Putin stressed that Russia’s nuclear weapons are reserved for retaliation, not for offense, but that any attack on Russia or Russia’s allies will receive an immediate response “with all that it implies.”
Putin’s State of the Union
By: 3|01 March, 2018|
Putin’s State of the Union
Paul Craig Roberts
Putin has given a remarkable address to the Federal Assembly, the Russian People, and the peoples of the world.
In his speech Putin revealed the existence of new Russian nuclear weapons that make it indisputably clear that Russia has vast nuclear superiority over the United States and its pathetic NATO vassal states.
In view of the Russian capabilities, it is not clear that the US any longer qualifies as a superpower.
There is little doubt in my mind that if the crazed neoconservatives and military/security complex in Washington had these weapons and Russia did not, Washington would launch an attack on Russia.
Putin, however, declared that Russia has no territorial ambitions, no hegemonic ambitions, and no intention to attack any other country. Putin described the weapons as the necessary response to the West’s firm refusal year after year to accept peace and cooperation with Russia, instead surrounding Russia with military bases and ABM systems.
Putin said: “We are interested in normal constructive interaction with the United States and the European Union and are expecting that common sense will prevail and our partners will choose fair and equal cooperation. . . . Our policy will never be based on aspirations for exceptionalism, we are defending our interests and respect the interests of other countries.”
Putin told Washington that its efforts to isolate Russia with sanctions and propaganda and to prevent Russian capability to respond to the growing military encirclement from the West has failed. Russia’s new weapons have made the entire US/NATO approach “ineffective from a military point of view.” “The sanctions to constrain Russia’s development, including in the military sphere… they did not work out.” They have not been been able to contain Russia. They need to realize this… Stop rocking the boat in which we all sit.”
So, what is to be done? Will the West come to its senses? Or will the West, drowning in debt and loaded to the gills with bloated and ineffective military industries, intensify the Cold War that Washington has resurrected?
I do not think the West has any senses to come to. Washington is totally absorbed in “American exceptionalism.” The extreme hubris of the “indispensable country” afflicts all.
The Europeans are bought and paid for by Washington. I am confident that Putin was hopeful that European leaders would understand the futility of trying to intimidate Russia and cease to endorse Washington’s Russiaphobia that is leading to nuclear war. No doubt Putin was disappointed in the idiotic response of the UK defense minister Gavin Williamson who accused Russia of “choosing a path of escalation and provocation.”
My guess is that the neoconservatives will play down Russia’s capability, because the neoconservatives do not want to accept that there are any constraints on Washington’s unilateralism. On the other hand, the military/security complex will hype the Russian superiority in order to demand a larger budget to protect us from “the Russian threat.”
The Russian government concluded from years of frustrating experience with Washington’s refusal to consider Russia’s interests and to work together in a cooperative manner that the reason was Washington’s belief that American power could compel Russia to accept American leadership. To shatter this Washington illusion is the reason for Putin’s forceful announcement of the new Russian capabilities.
In his address, he says, “no one wanted to speak with us. No one wanted to listen to us. Listen to us now.” Putin stressed that Russia’s nuclear weapons are reserved for retaliation, not for offense, but that any attack on Russia or Russia’s allies will receive an immediate response “with all that it implies.”
Having made it clear that the Western policy of hegemony and intimidation is dead in the water, Putin again held out the olive branch: let us work together to solve the world’s problems.
I hope that Russian diplomacy succeeds in bringing an end to the rising tensions fomented by Washington. However, Russian diplomacy faces two perhaps insurmountable obstacles. One is the need for the bloated US military/security complex to have a major enemy as a justification for its $1,000 billion annual budget and the power that goes with it. The other obstacle is the neoconservative ideology of US world hegemony.
The military/security complex is institutionalized in every US state. It is an employer and a source of major political campaign contributions, which makes it almost impossible for a senator or representative to go against its interests. In US foreign policy circles there is yet to appear countervailing power to the crazed neoconservatives. The Russiaphobia that the neoconservatives have created now affects ordinary Americans. These two obstacles have proved sufficiently powerful to prevent President Trump from normalizing relations with Russia.
Perhaps in his next speech, Putin should address the Europeans directly and ask them how European interests are served by enabling Washington’s hostilities toward Russia. If push comes to shove, how can any country hosting US ABMs, US nuclear weapons, and US military bases expect to escape destruction?
Without NATO and the forward bases it provides, Washington cannot drive the world to war. The basic fact of the matter is that NATO is an obstacle to peace.
Sunday, January 28, 2018
In the Western World Lies Have Displaced Truth
Paul Craig Roberts
Last year I was awarded Marquiss Who’s Who In America’s Lifetime Achievement Award. This did not prevent a hidden organization, PropOrNot, from attempting to brand me and my website along with 200 others “Putin stooges or agents” for our refusal to lie for the corrupt, anti-American, anti-constitutional, anti-democratic, warmonger police state interests that rule the Western World.
The only honest, factual media that exists in the Western World today are the names on the PropOrNot list of “Putin agents.”
The purpose of ProOrNot is to convince Americans that freedom of speech must be halted by destroying fact-based Internet media, such as this website and 200 others that provide factual information at odds with Big Brother’s universal brainwashing as delivered by CNN, NPR, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the rest of the utterly corrupt presstitute media, a collection of scum devoid of all integrity and all respect for truth.
A conspiracy of US government agencies, tax-exempt think tanks funded by the ruling interests, and media acting in behalf of a war and police state agenda work to shape perceived reality as it is described in George Orwell’s book, 1984, and in the film, The Matrix. Controlled perception-based reality is only a Facebook “like” away from killing one person or one million or elevating a liar or the warmonger responsible for the killing to hero status or to the control of the CIA or FBI or the US presidency.
Here on OpEdNews is an article by George Eliason that reports on who exactly PropOrNot is and who is underwriting the disinformation that is PropOrNot.
Eliason’s article is long and documented. It demonstrates the organized conspiracy against truth that exists in the Western World. Nothing stated in the Western presstitute media and no statement by any Western government or subservient vassal state can be trusted to comply with the facts.
Truth is the enemy of the state, and the state is eliminating the truth.
Peoples in the United States, Europe, Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the various vassal states, such as Japan, all live day in, day out, an orchestrated lie that serves interests directly opposed to the interests of the peoples.
Governments that do not rest on truth rest on tyranny.