As other articles point out that the "1 percent is winning" this article illustartes why a Cold War is desired.
That 6.5 trillion dollars that can not be accounted for , found its way into the pockets of some few. Added to that 6.5 trillion dollars every dollar spent on the US Military results in those dollars ending up in the pockets of that 1 percent.
Excellent article. I'd like to see another by the same author on Clinton and Trump on Iran - I think there's a lot more than is covered in this piece.
I think Clinton will do to Iran what Bush did to Iraq: an escalating series of lies about WMD's, starting with made-up complaints about violations of the nuclear agreement and proceeding to ginning up hysteria about their non-existent nuclear weapons - supplemented by stories about Iranian support for terrorism and attacks against Israel.
The only conclusion I draw from this article is that we better elect Jill Stein or we will be in deeper manure than we already are !
We, in this context is the 99% in the US AND abroad.
We get to choose between nuclear war and war on our environment.
Even if Donald Schmuck were to channel the ghost of Curtis LeMay, which he likely will in an effort to save his sinking yacht, I imagine it wouldn't do him much good.
Madame Mayhem is a known imperial entity, and this is a case of the devil you know
And network with.
Well, yes, H. Clinton has consistently promoted the right wing agenda. She's a neocon on war, a solid neoliberal on economic issues. Gets confusing, but Clinton can be summed up as pro-war, anti-poor, pro-corporate empowerment, anti-New Deal. Like her husband, she's a believer in laissez-faire capitalism, sure that the "free market" system can adequately keep the US afloat. She has also supported an agenda of military belligerence that the US can simply no longer afford.
No, that won't work. The middle class seem oddly unaware of just how profoundly we've been divided and subdivided by class and and race. Over the past eight years, the public discussion has alternated between anti-white bigotry and middle class elitism -- hardly conducive for any measure of unity that would make networking/movement-building possible. Liberals have been good at planning tactics and strategies, but fell flat on any unifying message.
Hillary is on the neocon team — if not in name, certainly in deed. She will “stand up” to Bad Vlad.
Yes, it's been long clear that the neo-liberalism of many of the "New Democrats" has significant overlap with neo-conservatism. Much of that overlap has to do with American "exceptionalism" and its justification for global interventionism, as articulated in the Project for a New American Century founded by Kagan, Kristol and Dick Cheney, of Halliburton fame. They issued a clarion call for a redoubling of American Empire, via "multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars," "regime change" in Iraq, etc.
Of course, we now live with the horrible consequences.
That Clinton is close to these folks, and has the hawkish record she does should be of concern to Democratic voters, but unfortunately, so many of them are too lazy and interested only in which team wins the contest... not what they do once in office.
But it's not all bad. The one good thing I can foresee from either a Clinton or Trump victory is that there'll be endless reasons for people to organize in the streets and market places. Either one will help trigger the mass actions needed to salvage democracy.
Matt, you might find this of keen interest…
Q: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs [“From the Shadows”], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?
Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.
Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?
Brzezinski: It isn’t quite that. We didn’t push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.
Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn’t believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don’t regret anything today?
Brzezinski: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.
Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic [integrisme], having given arms and advice to future terrorists?
Brzezinski: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?
Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated: Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.
Brzezinski: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn’t a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.
- There are at least two editions of this magazine; with the perhaps sole exception of the Library of Congress, the version sent to the United States is shorter than the French version, and the Brzezinski interview was not included in the shorter version.
The above has been translated from the French by Bill Blum author of the indispensible, “Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II” and “Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower”
And this…from that same jihadist
Mr Heins, my snap reaction to your saying Islam (present-day Islamists, you mean) is fundamentally belligerent is to remind you that the Old Testament is filled with tales of war, the New hasn't ever stopped Christians from applauding their countries' wars, and the terrorist movement in today's Middle East is armed and encouraged by Saudi Arabia (pseudo-friend of the US, genuine friend of the fossil fuel tribe - Bush et al), and not because they want us all to convert to their superior religion.
If we judge modern-day Jews by what King David did, would we understand Netanyahu?
Near as I can figure, you're right.
I'm convinced that the very heart of our problems is a sort of proxy war between American, east Europeans, using the American system to their own personal advantage, fighting ancient prejudices. And no, I'm not being anti-Semetic.