@Sam, re Emmanuel Kant's "Zum ewigen Frieden," this might be the English language equivalent: "Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch" Thanks.
[A bit long; sorry, but not too sorry, it is not simple.]
@Raimondo: "The Romans exacted tribute from their conquered subjects: we have inverted that tradition, instead paying tribute - in the form of "foreign aid" - to our allies and satellite nations, even as they denounce us and their Washington lobbyists demand more."
Me: No. The US extracts 'tribute' all right, and by the bucketful; let me count some of the ways:
1) $US as 'world reserve currency,' #1. You may have heard of 'interest?' Well, $US is a fiat currency = they just print them. Digitally, of course - most $US (M2) exist as book-entries, mainly in 'trading' banks; and come into existence as loans issued at interest = %. Deposits in banks may 'earn' a pittance = min-% in interest; the loans are charged the max-% the market will bear. The banks insist on getting their %, so all of M2 is contributing *un-earned* income to the banks - mostly owned by the fat-cats = the <1% (in OWS-parlance). This 'loans at %' is an outright racket, it's a wicked tax with neither value for the people, nor representation, hence banksters (see CWA & BND below). Then the *un-earned* income $USs are forced upon the world. It gets worse.
2) $US as 'world reserve currency,' #2. Many (most?) commodities are traded in $US. You may have heard of 'petro-dollars' whereby oil producers accumulate $US? It works like this:
Any country needing oil (most), needs $US to pay for it, Germany, say. So they manufacture things (Mercedes, BMWs, VWs, Audis & Porsches, say), and sell some of those to the US. Then Germany uses the $US to buy oil, which they then burn for heating & transport - the oil 'disappears' into the air as CO2. Ooops (twice); having burned the oil, they need more, so repeat the loop - eternally. The oil producers get royalties (5%, say, or perhaps 16.7% - who knows, except it's usually a (very) low %). US$s retained by the producer-countries are petro-dollars which a) are income, which may be shared with the sovereign resource-owners = the people, but b) more generally accumulate - or are 'recycled' by buying (mainly) US arms, say. Think KSA = Saudi Arabia.
2a) The 'petro-dollars' process is repeated by most countries producing 'exports' for the US; #1 = China say, taken over from former #1 = Japan. China has as an enormous accumulation of what may be termed as 'electro-dollars,' which a) earn a pittance-% and b) can't easily be spent back into china (too much would cause (massive) inflation), can't easily be 'recycled' by buying anything from/in US, neither weapons nor by being invested - US 'national interests' prevent that, as they say.
3) $US as 'world reserve currency,' #3. The US insists on its vassal-states allowing FDI = foreign direct investment. This is part of the WC10Ps = Washington Consensus, Ten Points. Another part is 'independent reserve banks;' The banks in Iraq, Libya, Syria and Iran are(were!) not WC10Ps-conform. Notice anything? WC7in5, perhaps? Another part of the WC10Ps is privatisation; the FIRE = Finance, Insurance, Real Estate sector buys what were publicly owned enterprises, strips them lean&mean then turns them into toll-booth operations, usually then viciously ripping-off the former owners. Essentially, privatisation = theft. The WC10Ps are a) accepted 'willingly' by traitor govt.s (hence SQSHsO = snivelling quisling sycophantic hangers-on) or imposed by military conquest, see Perkins' "Economic Hit Man;" possibly 1st victim = Allende's Chile.
3a) There is an alternative to FDI and independent reserve banks (which are subject to lobbying, especially by the US), and it's called 'state-owned banks,' see Ellen Brown's "The Remarkable Model Of The Commonwealth Bank Of Australia" (now, sadly, criminally privatised as CWA) and the existing BND, "Public Sector Banks: From Black Sheep to Global Leaders."
4) $US as 'world reserve currency,' #4. The (mainly US) corporations' modus operandi is to 'buy low, sell high.' When the resulting profits exceed 'cost plus a fair mark-up,' such profits are termed 'super-profits' = *un-earned* income aka 'economic rent.' In Aus, for example, ~83% of mining revenue exits the country – a tax designed to recover some of this loss contributed to the downfall of the two immediate predecessors of the new Aus PM. The 'other side' of 83% is 17% = the Aus' people's share if it ever trickles down, remarkably close to the amount originally offered to (= forced upon?) Iran as royalty, back before or around WW1. Surprise? Hardly.
All along the production, distribution, wholesale & retail chains sit the banksters and/or FIRE blood-suckers, hence Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi's famous remark vis-à-vis Goldman Sachs; a "great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money."
Some figures: I saw one estimate that up to ~40% of any particular product's price could be bankster %, added at multiple steps. Apple is rumoured to mark-up some products by ~300%. Iraqi oil costs ~$US1,- to 'dig up;' imagine the potential super-profit = economic rent when oil 'wholesales' at $US101,- say. Hence Iraq; illegal "Shock'n whore" invasion = mass-murder for oil (literally millions dead since 1991), most if not all directly due to US-meddling. Recall Al-CIAda and NED&ilk fomenting, CIA&ilk subverting.
It's crooked business (enforced by mafia methods); the <1% clean up, and the 99% may get some crumbs if 'lucky.' It really does seem that the (mainly US) corporations make most of their profits by unfair means (when not outright cheating), and even segueing into murder for spoil = supreme international crime (Iraq, Libya, etc.). Then there's the criminal Z-tail, wagging the US-dog. We see it happening; the Empire in operation.
IF any(most?) of this sad story is news, THEN it's likely because of the corrupt&venal MSM+PFCBs *not* telling us 'the rest of the story' - see Bernays: "Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country."
THE ISRAELI ZIONISTS OBSESSION WITH IRAN
9 years ago
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/02/19/c...
And yet life went on...the incessant bitichng about completely unrelated trivial crap continued.. It wouldn't surprise me if most Americans didn't even think about this 'issue' at all...and of those who actually did, many probably still thought invading Iraq was a good idea and, at the same time, ridiculed North Korea's :nuclear program"...with its antiquated technology and limited delivery capabilities....as 'not serious' and/or a 'ridiculous and pathetic' attempt for attention and/or food subsidies...
So what has changed now other than Bibi's increasing shrill and frequent claims of imminent doom associated with a non-existent bomb which couldn't reach Israel in the first place, other than possibly through Syria...and even then, what is Iran going to do with it? If Syria theoretically already has stockpiles of chemical WMDs, wouldn't nukes simply be a much more expensive and gratuitous way to accomplish the same thing...and much more likely to kill Palestinians if used?
I'm guessing the use of nukes on Israel would most likely cross some sort of US and Israeli "red-line" too...and even if the entire territory commonly referred to as :"Israel" were immediately transformed into a radioactive waste land, Israel sill theoretically has nuclear armed submarines which could strike back.
All in all, this entire invented "threat" is ridiculous..and if you notice many pundits, including Bibi, will at times divert the 'issue' away form Iran potentially nuking Israel directly, and suddenly change to feigned concern about a potential attack on 'some Arab nations in the region' (wink, wink)...and 'we' all know what that means...
It's important to keep in mind the 'war' has already begun...and it's called "Syria"... The 'status quo' is completely unacceptable, as Lindsey Graham would say...
If PG can't even answer that one honestly and accurately, he has no business writing about the Middle East.
The monomaniacs hopelessly obsessed with the Zionist entity must be having a hard time these days convincing people that the focus must remain on Israel. Everybody else is shocked at the carnage Arabs are inflicting on each other in Egypt and Syria and beyond, but PG pretends none of that is happening. Thankfully, he's here to remind us all who the "miscreant" is.
17 replies · active 3 weeks ago
"Iran, which has initiated no wars with anyone since the seventeenth century"
How conveniently you overlook their role in propping up Bashar Assad in Syria and aiding the brutal slaughter of its people. How conveniently you overlook their backing of Hezbollah and Hamas and the role they've played in international terrorism. Iran has plenty of blood on its hands.
"Israel has waged wars of aggression against all of its neighbors, or did you not notice?"
Distortion and monomania. You're the one who repeatedly fails to "notice" a great many things, such as the annihilationist wars the Arabs have waged against Israel (which caused the displacement of Arabs in 1948, by the way) [Me: Outright lie; see Plan Dalet/Deir Yassin & all etc., down to the 'current moment']. You also fail to "notice" their ubiquitous and institutionalized hatred (a violent, triumphalist intolerance with roots in centuries of imperialism that long predates the settlements you cite as being the number one obstacle to peace). Surely you won't be able to "notice" the hyperbolic propaganda contained in statements like "a monopoly" on media or "at war with half the world".
You ascribe far too much power to Israel when you blame it for having a stranglehold on American media. That smacks of a familiar canard. Perhaps you're not willing to accept that many Americans simply think differently than you do. When you hear pro-Israel views expressed on Fox News, for example, remind yourself that paying subscribers across the country -- not some shadowy cabal -- are the reason they're successful. Apparently, all those American viewers are seeing and hearing something they like and coming back for more. Nobody's forcing them to prop up Fox News and its pundits. Ask Roger Ailes (whose network is owned in part by rich Saudis) if he sees himself as a subservient cog in a giant pro-Israel machine.
It doesn't speak highly of you when you paraphrase the likes of a drunken Mel Gibson who claimed that Israel is responsible for "all the wars in the world." Al-Qaida terrorists bring down the WTC, killing 3000, and it's Israel's fault the USA attacks Afghanistan? [Me: Hijacks possibly; but jet-fuel fires did not cause the Oh, so neat collapse of *3* WTC towers in the exact manner of 'controlled demolition']. Can every drone strike everywhere be traced back to Israel, too? Will you lay NOTHING at the feet of Islamic radicals? Or have you somehow failed to "notice" all their outrageous, triumphalist, intolerant, barbaric behavior? Are they not aggressors with an aggressive, expansionist ideology? It's as if you write your columns in a vacuum.
You needn't descend into wild exaggeration to make the point that America shouldn't go to war with Iran. You might have made some valid points early on, but the end of your article and your response to me show that you're not above making overwrought claims and ignoring data which conflicts with your biases.
You wrote about bias and hyperbole. But is it not hyperbole to claim as you did Israel was "provoked" into several past wars as though Israel had done no "provoking" on its part?
Currently, the situation is that Israel is fully armed with conventional and nuclear weapons and "backed" by the US. Israel is an expansive apartheid state, and maintains guard over a Palestine ghetto, deprived and blockaded.
I agree that claims that Israel controls US policy are ridiculous [Me: Yet 'it is claimed' that the US-Congress is "Israeli occupied territory"]. However, that is difficult for some to see since Israeli leaders have wedded themselves to US policy so closely as though their own (as have leaders in Britain, Saudi Arabia, Kosovo, Georgia, etc.).
As for "Arab" terrorism and bloodshed, it is also worthwhile to consider the divide and conquer role played by the US and its dependent allies including Israel. ALL the history going back to at least WWI is relevant. There was the Shah coup in Iran, the support of Saddam, the promotion of Al Qaeda, the sponsorship of Saudi extremists, the attacks and invasions of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Egypt, Iraq. There was and is financial and military support given despotic leaders throughout the Middle East. There are the occupations and military bases.
By wedding themselves to the global policies of such a global cabal of militarists, spymasters, and profiteers, Israeli leaders have opened themselves to the charge of bearing more or less responsibility for much of the world's malaise [Me: Since the Zs were active since latest 1896, had decided on Palestine latest 1905, the Zs' coveting pre-dated the UK lust for oil, coincident with pre-WW1 conversion of British warships from coal to oil].
"an expansive apartheid state" -- Once again, tiny Israel is accused of being expansionist. Islam "expanded" out of the Arabian peninsula to the point that it now stretches from Morocco to Indonesia and beyond (always peacefully, of course), but in some unbalanced minds it's Israel that is "expansionist". As for "apartheid", I wonder if you're aware that the ethnic group that comprises the majority of Israel was expelled from Arab lands in 1948 and would suffer a fate far worse than apartheid if any of its members tried to return [Me: Apart from the few 'native' Jews (not particularly unwelcome), it's the invading Zionists causing the major problem, with their murdering to steal land/property]. Arabs enjoy more rights in Israel than than they do in any Arab nation, whereas a certain tribe isn't allowed to set foot in Saudi Arabia or exist at all in any future Palestinian state. You and others have accepted that this particular ethnic hatred is perfectly OK. Extreme, murderous intolerance by Arabs gets ignored, while Israel stands accused of apartheid [Me: After improper alienation of land/property, all discussion of how the Zs may treat natives is trivial to senseless].
"responsibility for much of the world's malaise" -- So terrorist enclaves should have been allowed to grow and operate unimpeded in some of the countries on your list? [Me: 99% of terrorism is an asymmetric response to extreme oppression - what else? Terrorists may be regarded as freedom-defenders without the 'benefits' of the US/Z arsenal - itself used only aggressively, 99% *against* freedom.]
Israel IS an expansionist state.
You completely ignored the main point of my comment, namely that Israeli leaders now adhere to a cabal of global militarists and swindlers. The only debate is about their degree of influence within that cabal.
__had a response2this, since yesterday ======$#$%&%$#$==yet have not//////*\\\jus can not make it thru the checkpoint . . . [Me: here, I assume "checkpoint" = antiwar censor-bot/censor-person = un- & anti- free speech]
nevertheless, outside/in, don't see How! ... you can again fail with the likes of just such an inept address ... 'we can deal with the palestinians circling the wagon train, all-right, but' . . .
My "inept address" actually was aimed to be a parable - a story not meant to be factual. I was trying to make the point that honorable people should be loyal to their own country or in the case that they prefer another country to the extent that they are willing to be treacherous to their own, should leave or "make aliyah" and regain their honor. I know that I aimed low with that "Indians and wagon train" tale; but, obviously not low enough.
. . . waiting . . .
and waiting . . .
waiting4what . . . waiting@the checkpoint
. . .
I am not trying to respond to you in place of Mr. Giraldi (that is his privilege), but your line of bull is just too much to ignore. And, I would welcome your hatred on a personal level.
You needn't dump out everything in the book for novice practitioners of hasbra, that you were issued, all at one time. Spend a little at a time, won't you? You are all over the map. Don't worry about ancient injustices against the Israelis - that is ancient, who knows the truth? Maybe they did to the Arabs first?
We need to talk about the gross injustices, Israel is pulling on the Palestinians NOW - anyone with eyes can see that nastiness. Let's also talk about who keeps invading Lebanon - Iran or Israel? And believe me, for every Mel Gibson, there are are a dozen Avigdor Liebermans.
Finally, if America goes to war with Iran (as you seem to wish for), the body bag won't need to be any "wild exaggeration".
Your indictment of Iran for inciting violence is odd as Iran has been getting regularly threatened by both the U.S. and Israel since the 1990s [Me: Started with Britain's oil-lust, pre-WW1; then continued with UK/CIA coup against Mossadegh, 1953, etc.; Iran made itself free in 1979] and its ties to Syria, Hamas and Hezbollah are as nothing compared to what Tel Aviv and Washington have been up to. The rest of your argument consists of throwaway lines and the usual smearing. How can you seriously describe the all too evident Zionist control of what the media says about the Middle East as the public’s “seeing and hearing something they like and coming back for more.” And calling it a “familiar canard”, presumably means to imply that I am an anti-Semite, right? “Institutionalized hatred” seems to fit Arabs in your mind but not the Israelis. And yes, 9/11 was certainly in large part about Israel as is international terrorism in general, but maybe those constitute another thing you didn’t notice or don’t really care about. And what exactly does Mel Gibson have to do with this discussion, but I guess you hate him too.
"I have little sympathy for Islamists or political Islam" -- Nice to know, but that sentiment is muted in your articles compared to your insistence that Israel is to blame for everything. You don't present the everpresent backdrop to Israeli actions and policies, which is the ubiquitous, longstanding, exterminatory hatred and violence that have been directed against Israel since before 1948 -- before statehood, before settlements, before any "acts of aggression".
"the usual smearing" -- Can you back up the statement about Israel causing the USA to be "at war with half the world", or is that not a kind of smear itself? The point about Mel Gibson was simply that your words echoed his. He engaged in a similar-sounding hyperbole when he claimed that a certain ethnic group was responsible for "all the wars in the world". I mentioned Mel Gibson not because I hate him (considering your passionate obsession, you're certainly not one to call out anyone on hate), but because your words reminded me of the same ones he uttered in a rant that caused him public embarrassment.
You might not realize it, but you're not just smearing what you call the "Zionist-controlled media", you're also smearing the millions of people who consume it. The people I described as "coming back for more" are your fellow citizens, many of whom are bright, educated, and who presumably have access to alternative media including the internet and websites like this one. When you rail against the poison these hapless victims are being subjected to, you're implying that you stand above them with special knowledge of a secret cabal that tinkers with the news. What I'm saying is that many of those millions are equally well-informed yet they STILL opt to follow Fox News or talk radio [Me: There's an important point here; I'll continue it after the end of all the antiwar comments; keywords MSM/PFBCs.] or wherever else they might encounter pro-Israel voices they agree with. Your focus is entirely on the media, and not one iota on the millions of people who choose to consume it. Much like your focus is almost entirely on Israel, and barely an iota on Israel's enemies.
"9/11 was certainly in large part about Israel as is international terrorism in general" -- Ah yes. Rather than blame the barbarians who commit heinous acts, you echo and endorse their grievances. You blame Israel for the slaughter rather than the actual murderers who carried out the slaughter. Would you let any terrorist off the hook as long as his purported bete noire was the same place you hate too?
You will never hear a bad word about Israel on FOX News, aka Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch's Israeli worshipping whorehouse. Not one SINGLE instance of criticism AT ALL. And who else is above abuse and reproach at Fox News? Anyone? Any other nation, even America? The answer is NO!!! Only Israel!
Ditto for all the Rightwing hate radio hosts who litter the airwaves like so much useless offal. It's like they hatch these retards out of the same egg - all given their marching orders and talking points, opinions spewed matching up with a startling glare of conformity.
[Me: 'The West,' usually US, F+UK/NATO & D (but only when the latter can fool their electorate), strangely enough, *all* support the *supreme international criminal* Zs - but I cannot see why.]
[Me: The Zs have been at war with the entire ME (if not the world) latest since the Muslim/Arabs (M/As) refused to let the Zs buy into Palestine, following Herzl, Balfour & Jabotinsky, etc..]
And if the places where he goes tell him to piss off , they are tired of hearing him run his mouth (make fun of him and treat him with ZERO respect - why not, Samson Option? pleeeeease) are they antisemites, or do are they just rightfully sick of this smug bloviating toilet licker? I don't see how disagreeing with Israel's policies could be antisemitic - let's see these racists have a NON-JEWISH PM and see what happens?
1 reply · active 4 weeks ago
for Who knows better than U the in deed highly disturbed details of how it's pulledoff . . .
{the criminal mind: evil?genius! does in ffact habitually ffind itself, p r e e m p t i v e l y, far past such naive others around them = the socio.psycho.path2untold riches and, sobs, power
Yes, we could call this the "Wonder Imperative" --related to the hypocrisy charge which we seem t think makes some sense. Better keep on wondering than reach a conclusion I guess.