An economics, investment, trading and policy blog with a focus on Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). We seek the truth, avoid the mainstream and are virulently anti-neoliberalism.
"All Arabs today have noticed something that can't be ignored: how ISIS and Al-Qa`idah terrorists travel the world to inflict their terrorism by yet spare Israel and its interests. The relationship between the Israeli Zionist occupation entity and Nusrah Front--the official branch of Al-Qa`idah in Syria--is not a secret anymore."
Hey moron that's because they dont let them in! LOL! Is this moron kidding?!?!
"The highest priority of the US, Israel and the rest of the West is getting rid of the Shia alliance of Iran, Syria and Hezbollah,"
Well I would agree with that but the jury is out on Russia involvement imo ball is in their court the better Trump does... Russia could easily play this into a warm welcome into the mainstream of western nations depending on result of next elections in west... would require a departure from their usual ham-handed vodka fueled approach...
Lebanese Report: Leaked Documents Show Israel Sought to Arm Syrian Rebels read more: http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.665113
The above embarrassment led to ...
Israel Halts Medical Treatment for Members of Syria's Nusra Front read more: http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.666961
NSA document: Israeli special forces assassinated top Syrian military official http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/15/nsa-reveals-israeli-commandos-killed-mahmoud-suleiman-syria
Matt: would require a departure from their usual ham-handed vodka fueled approach.
Well, it compares well to the US approach, which is fueled by PCP, LSD & Meth. (Don't try this at home, kids!) Russia usually picks one side and stays with it. The US, France, the West arms, supports or creates one side to commit atrocities against the enemy of the day - who often was the heroic friend the day before - and then pretends to be shocked, shocked! when the hi-jinks of those it has addicted to violence come back to their tidy suburban drug labs.
Matt, you omitted the last phrase in that sentence of mine about Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah being allies of Russia. This is chiefly why the US is against the Iran, Syrian, Hezbollah alliance. It's not just about those countries or the Middle East for that matter. This is fundamental to US geopolicy and geostrategy. The US cannot control the region with Russia allied with these states. The US goal is to partition those states, as well as Russia and eventually China, too.
Incidentally, Russian geostrategists have been speculating about how the US could come apart on regional lines, which seems quite strange unless one realizes that they are projecting US plans for them back at the US. It's signaling that they know what the US is up to.
There's a lot more to this, going back at least a hundred years but that's beyond the scope of this comment. I have been laying it out here at MNE for some time. This is not new thinking.
Trump: 'if Russia wants to handle ISIS we should let them..." and he is running away with it... hellllloooooo!!!!!
You and all the other left people here have HHHHUUUUUUUUGGGGGEEEEE political BIASES....
When Obama policy is shit, you say "the US blah blah blah...." and when GOP has a shit policy you say "its Bush/Cheney blah blah blah...."
You people can never blame a Democrat for anything its f-ing PATHETIC how much Democrat hacks you f-ing guys are...
If Trump wins he will make a 180 turn on MANY current policies.... THIS IS WHAT HE IS RUNNING ON AND HE IS RUNNING AWAY WITH IT.... its not like the Democrat farce with Hillary... HELLLOOOO!!!!
We could end up allied with Russia and China under a Trump policy....he is NOT a neo-con the neo-cons are attempting to undermine him because he doesnt take direct orders from the Israel lobby he doesnt need their munnie....
Subscribe to the following twitters: Bill Kristol, Rich Lowry, Mark Levin, Dennis Prager and see what I mean...
That would involve regime change in the US, with a wholesale shake up of the clandestine services, foreign policy elite, and the Pentagon. It would mean replacing the existing deep state with Trump's people and reorienting the US away from empire toward multipolarism.
Do I think that is a realistic possibility even in the event of a Trump sweep?
Tom the whole thing at the DoD for the last 20+ years has been investment in the SOF community and AWAY from conventional forces because "save money!" ('American Sniper' 'Lone Survivor', yada yada...David Patraeus, etc.. ) so this effects the appearance of policy...
This is where you are seeing this whole "deep state", etc conspiracy stuff... appearance of strange religious based allegiances, etc that is the SOF model textbook 101... it manifestly doesnt work it was a nice try but we have to admit it does not work at this time and move on... it has been a failure....
Trump wants to build up the conventional forces he isnt going all around saying "I can do it cheaper with the SOF community!" he is proposing building up conventional forces again...
Let me clarify my geopolitical and geostrategic view regarding the US.
What I have been outlining is the position of the deep state including the military, as well as the TPTB, e.g., as represented by the inner circle of CFR. Its view is not totally homogenous. There is vigorous debate about policy, strategy and tactics. But there is basic agreement over history that clusters around a trend and individuals cannot depart too much from it or they are shut out.
This overall view and the internal dynamic is not necessarily share by US politicians,or even known in detail to them, even POTUS. Different presidents have taken different tacks to it. W was at least initially completely on board with a hardline view of it through Cheney and Rumsfeld, against the advice of Poppy Bush's advisers. While they agreed generally on the policy objectives, they didn't agree on the strategy and tactics. Obama on the other hand has taken a softer approach, acting to bridle the hardliners while still pursuing the same policy objectives through a softer strategic and tactical approach, for which the hardliners have criticized him as being "weak" and "indecisive."
I would expect HRC to take pretty much a hardline approach to policy, strategy and tactics, almost certainly involving wider conflict. So would all the GOP candidates other than Trump and Paul. Paul has no chance of winning the nomination at this point, whereas Trump does. So this make Trump the person of interest.
It is very difficult to know what candidate is going to do if elected based on what is said in the campaign. Everything changes when the person sits down in the seat of power in the Oval Office and is basically in control of the deep state.
We know now, to some degree at least, how people like Allen Dulles and J. Edgar Hoover influenced people in power including POTUS. While these were particular circumstances unlikely to be repeated, the pattern is visible and there is no reason to suspect that things have change all that much based on revelations over the past several decades, after Dulles and Hoover left the scent.
Dick Cheney was, and still is to some degree, at least as dark a force as Allen Dulles ever was, and he was even closer to power. Allen Dulles had to depend on his brother John Foster, for example. No longer is the CIA under someone like Dulles or the DHS or FBI under someone like Hoover. But the people in those positions of power don't get there by accident either.
So while I think that Trump might have the most benign influence on the working of the deep state should be be elected, there are limits to what a president can do, as every president learns. Presidents are essentially dealmakers, which is another reason that Trump is suitable. Most of the other GOP candidates are ideologues committed to "standing on principle" and opposed to making deals.
As matter of fact, Trump has already laid out his negotiating position. He does deals with the leaders of Russia and China and at the same time greatly increases military spending and building up US power. This sends a signal that he has no intention of pulling back but rather not doing stupid stuff.
The idea that the US cutting back on defense or conventional forces is silly in light of what the US spends relative to everyone else and actual threats that require defense.
The US military budget is about building and maintaining a global imperial force to replace the British imperial force. The basis of an imperial force was control of sea. Then it became sea and air, Then sea, air and space. And now sea, air, space and cyberspace.
But wars are still won by boots on the ground and the US is in no position to fight a land war in Eurasia, especially on two fronts with Russia and China. So it has to employ another strategy of getting others to do the land fighting. This was the purpose of the Afghan "freedom fighters" then and now the disparate forces the US is now backing, including terrorists.
If Russia is thinking how the USA could be split up on regional grounds I am enthralled.
I'm not sure I can cope with the thought of more than USA, but the mind boggles.
I like West from sea to plains. Central from Rockies to Illinois and Missisipi. Then North/South Union/ Confederate divide.
Four nice sized countries, keeping themselves fully occupied, bitching and arguing. Not bothering the rest of us. Gonna be a bitch choosing names for the countries. Disjointed States of America..... Wow.
Tom not true at all the DoD budget has not kept up (along with other non-defense spending as "we're out of money!") we have to get back to the tried and true method of high level diplomacy backed up by overwhelming conventional forces...
This lunacy as it appears to you is a product of the last 2 decades of a macro military policy based on "lower cost" Special Operations strategies... lets admit it didnt work..
We had a 600 ship Navy back at Gulf War 1.. we now have 400...
Navy does not think it can afford a replacement for the SSBNs or the SSNs .. literally I got into it recently with a retired flag level guy who was trying to tell me "we cant afford it!" I ended up calling him a moron and he stormed off... he was presenting over at APL at a conference... had this 50 page power point presentation showing how "we cant afford it!"....
imo you lefty peace-niks are probably over your head in this area... singing kumba-yah isnt going to work.... I would NOT say the same thing about your ability to apply judgement in the socio-economic justice realm... you all are more than qualified in that area for sure....
Weve got religious nut-jobs conducting international operations killing "crusader" architechture students having dinner in Paris and seated govt institutions of 70M pop nations codifying "death to America!".... we need qualified people to respond to these actions and threats.... incompetent need not apply...
Tom not true at all the DoD budget has not kept up (along with other non-defense spending as "we're out of money!") we have to get back to the tried and true method of high level diplomacy backed up by overwhelming conventional forces...
The US is not going to invade Russia, China, or even Iran, for the simple reason that there is no national interest in doing so. None of these countries are threatening the US and their capability is defensive. The US already has overwhelming conventional forces, but not enough to avoid taking unacceptable hits to US interests around the world were it to attack Russia, China or Iran, and probably also in continental US with Russia and China.
What the US is concerned with is control of sea, air space and cyberspace, and it is losing leverage on all fronts because potential adversaries are increasing defensive capabilities.
The US is attempting to stay in front through stealthy weapons — stealth ships, stealth aircraft, surveillance, and cyber-warfare.
The strong suit of the US is financial and economic warfare, and Russia, China, and the BIRCS alliance are working around that by developing alternatives.
Pierre Sprey, one of the designers of the F-16, has called stealth one big scam.
Right. I believe I posted his criticism of the F-35 here previously.
Stealth is over-hyped as a killer advantage, for one thing. The second thing is that no weapons system is invulnerable and no defense impermeable. Opponent just develop countermeasures that render expensive systems designed to last for decades obsolete rather quickly.
Arms races military build-ups are just gifts to the military-industrial complex and the only social value coms from the technological innovation that spins off into non-military use.
15 comments:
"All Arabs today have noticed something that can't be ignored: how ISIS and Al-Qa`idah terrorists travel the world to inflict their terrorism by yet spare Israel and its interests. The relationship between the Israeli Zionist occupation entity and Nusrah Front--the official branch of Al-Qa`idah in Syria--is not a secret anymore."
Hey moron that's because they dont let them in! LOL! Is this moron kidding?!?!
"The highest priority of the US, Israel and the rest of the West is getting rid of the Shia alliance of Iran, Syria and Hezbollah,"
Well I would agree with that but the jury is out on Russia involvement imo ball is in their court the better Trump does... Russia could easily play this into a warm welcome into the mainstream of western nations depending on result of next elections in west... would require a departure from their usual ham-handed vodka fueled approach...
Lebanese Report: Leaked Documents Show Israel Sought to Arm Syrian Rebels
read more: http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.665113
The above embarrassment led to ...
Israel Halts Medical Treatment for Members of Syria's Nusra Front
read more: http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.666961
NSA document: Israeli special forces assassinated top Syrian military official
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/15/nsa-reveals-israeli-commandos-killed-mahmoud-suleiman-syria
Matt: would require a departure from their usual ham-handed vodka fueled approach.
Well, it compares well to the US approach, which is fueled by PCP, LSD & Meth. (Don't try this at home, kids!) Russia usually picks one side and stays with it. The US, France, the West arms, supports or creates one side to commit atrocities against the enemy of the day - who often was the heroic friend the day before - and then pretends to be shocked, shocked! when the hi-jinks of those it has addicted to violence come back to their tidy suburban drug labs.
Matt, you omitted the last phrase in that sentence of mine about Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah being allies of Russia. This is chiefly why the US is against the Iran, Syrian, Hezbollah alliance. It's not just about those countries or the Middle East for that matter. This is fundamental to US geopolicy and geostrategy. The US cannot control the region with Russia allied with these states. The US goal is to partition those states, as well as Russia and eventually China, too.
Incidentally, Russian geostrategists have been speculating about how the US could come apart on regional lines, which seems quite strange unless one realizes that they are projecting US plans for them back at the US. It's signaling that they know what the US is up to.
There's a lot more to this, going back at least a hundred years but that's beyond the scope of this comment. I have been laying it out here at MNE for some time. This is not new thinking.
I left it out because it is not true Tom....
Trump: 'if Russia wants to handle ISIS we should let them..." and he is running away with it... hellllloooooo!!!!!
You and all the other left people here have HHHHUUUUUUUUGGGGGEEEEE political BIASES....
When Obama policy is shit, you say "the US blah blah blah...." and when GOP has a shit policy you say "its Bush/Cheney blah blah blah...."
You people can never blame a Democrat for anything its f-ing PATHETIC how much Democrat hacks you f-ing guys are...
If Trump wins he will make a 180 turn on MANY current policies.... THIS IS WHAT HE IS RUNNING ON AND HE IS RUNNING AWAY WITH IT.... its not like the Democrat farce with Hillary... HELLLOOOO!!!!
We could end up allied with Russia and China under a Trump policy....he is NOT a neo-con the neo-cons are attempting to undermine him because he doesnt take direct orders from the Israel lobby he doesnt need their munnie....
Subscribe to the following twitters: Bill Kristol, Rich Lowry, Mark Levin, Dennis Prager and see what I mean...
I agree that Trump could turn it around —maybe.
That would involve regime change in the US, with a wholesale shake up of the clandestine services, foreign policy elite, and the Pentagon. It would mean replacing the existing deep state with Trump's people and reorienting the US away from empire toward multipolarism.
Do I think that is a realistic possibility even in the event of a Trump sweep?
Not really.
Tom the whole thing at the DoD for the last 20+ years has been investment in the SOF community and AWAY from conventional forces because "save money!" ('American Sniper' 'Lone Survivor', yada yada...David Patraeus, etc.. ) so this effects the appearance of policy...
This is where you are seeing this whole "deep state", etc conspiracy stuff... appearance of strange religious based allegiances, etc that is the SOF model textbook 101... it manifestly doesnt work it was a nice try but we have to admit it does not work at this time and move on... it has been a failure....
Trump wants to build up the conventional forces he isnt going all around saying "I can do it cheaper with the SOF community!" he is proposing building up conventional forces again...
Let me clarify my geopolitical and geostrategic view regarding the US.
What I have been outlining is the position of the deep state including the military, as well as the TPTB, e.g., as represented by the inner circle of CFR. Its view is not totally homogenous. There is vigorous debate about policy, strategy and tactics. But there is basic agreement over history that clusters around a trend and individuals cannot depart too much from it or they are shut out.
This overall view and the internal dynamic is not necessarily share by US politicians,or even known in detail to them, even POTUS. Different presidents have taken different tacks to it. W was at least initially completely on board with a hardline view of it through Cheney and Rumsfeld, against the advice of Poppy Bush's advisers. While they agreed generally on the policy objectives, they didn't agree on the strategy and tactics. Obama on the other hand has taken a softer approach, acting to bridle the hardliners while still pursuing the same policy objectives through a softer strategic and tactical approach, for which the hardliners have criticized him as being "weak" and "indecisive."
I would expect HRC to take pretty much a hardline approach to policy, strategy and tactics, almost certainly involving wider conflict. So would all the GOP candidates other than Trump and Paul. Paul has no chance of winning the nomination at this point, whereas Trump does. So this make Trump the person of interest.
It is very difficult to know what candidate is going to do if elected based on what is said in the campaign. Everything changes when the person sits down in the seat of power in the Oval Office and is basically in control of the deep state.
We know now, to some degree at least, how people like Allen Dulles and J. Edgar Hoover influenced people in power including POTUS. While these were particular circumstances unlikely to be repeated, the pattern is visible and there is no reason to suspect that things have change all that much based on revelations over the past several decades, after Dulles and Hoover left the scent.
Dick Cheney was, and still is to some degree, at least as dark a force as Allen Dulles ever was, and he was even closer to power. Allen Dulles had to depend on his brother John Foster, for example. No longer is the CIA under someone like Dulles or the DHS or FBI under someone like Hoover. But the people in those positions of power don't get there by accident either.
So while I think that Trump might have the most benign influence on the working of the deep state should be be elected, there are limits to what a president can do, as every president learns. Presidents are essentially dealmakers, which is another reason that Trump is suitable. Most of the other GOP candidates are ideologues committed to "standing on principle" and opposed to making deals.
As matter of fact, Trump has already laid out his negotiating position. He does deals with the leaders of Russia and China and at the same time greatly increases military spending and building up US power. This sends a signal that he has no intention of pulling back but rather not doing stupid stuff.
AWAY from conventional forces
Lockheed F-35 "all-purpose aircraft" (said to be a dog ).
Northrup Long-Range Strike Bomber (LRSB) - the contract is being contested by Boeing.
The Navy Is Building a Stealth Battleship Strike Force
The idea that the US cutting back on defense or conventional forces is silly in light of what the US spends relative to everyone else and actual threats that require defense.
The US military budget is about building and maintaining a global imperial force to replace the British imperial force. The basis of an imperial force was control of sea. Then it became sea and air, Then sea, air and space. And now sea, air, space and cyberspace.
But wars are still won by boots on the ground and the US is in no position to fight a land war in Eurasia, especially on two fronts with Russia and China. So it has to employ another strategy of getting others to do the land fighting. This was the purpose of the Afghan "freedom fighters" then and now the disparate forces the US is now backing, including terrorists.
If Russia is thinking how the USA could be split up on regional grounds I am enthralled.
I'm not sure I can cope with the thought of more than USA, but the mind boggles.
I like West from sea to plains. Central from Rockies to Illinois and Missisipi. Then North/South Union/ Confederate divide.
Four nice sized countries, keeping themselves fully occupied, bitching and arguing. Not bothering the rest of us. Gonna be a bitch choosing names for the countries. Disjointed States of America..... Wow.
Tom not true at all the DoD budget has not kept up (along with other non-defense spending as "we're out of money!") we have to get back to the tried and true method of high level diplomacy backed up by overwhelming conventional forces...
This lunacy as it appears to you is a product of the last 2 decades of a macro military policy based on "lower cost" Special Operations strategies... lets admit it didnt work..
We had a 600 ship Navy back at Gulf War 1.. we now have 400...
Navy does not think it can afford a replacement for the SSBNs or the SSNs .. literally I got into it recently with a retired flag level guy who was trying to tell me "we cant afford it!" I ended up calling him a moron and he stormed off... he was presenting over at APL at a conference... had this 50 page power point presentation showing how "we cant afford it!"....
imo you lefty peace-niks are probably over your head in this area... singing kumba-yah isnt going to work.... I would NOT say the same thing about your ability to apply judgement in the socio-economic justice realm... you all are more than qualified in that area for sure....
Weve got religious nut-jobs conducting international operations killing "crusader" architechture students having dinner in Paris and seated govt institutions of 70M pop nations codifying "death to America!".... we need qualified people to respond to these actions and threats.... incompetent need not apply...
Tom not true at all the DoD budget has not kept up (along with other non-defense spending as "we're out of money!") we have to get back to the tried and true method of high level diplomacy backed up by overwhelming conventional forces...
The US is not going to invade Russia, China, or even Iran, for the simple reason that there is no national interest in doing so. None of these countries are threatening the US and their capability is defensive. The US already has overwhelming conventional forces, but not enough to avoid taking unacceptable hits to US interests around the world were it to attack Russia, China or Iran, and probably also in continental US with Russia and China.
What the US is concerned with is control of sea, air space and cyberspace, and it is losing leverage on all fronts because potential adversaries are increasing defensive capabilities.
The US is attempting to stay in front through stealthy weapons — stealth ships, stealth aircraft, surveillance, and cyber-warfare.
The strong suit of the US is financial and economic warfare, and Russia, China, and the BIRCS alliance are working around that by developing alternatives.
The US is attempting to stay in front through stealthy weapons — stealth ships, stealth aircraft, surveillance, and cyber-warfare.
Pierre Sprey, one of the designers of the F-16, has called stealth one big scam.
Pierre Sprey, one of the designers of the F-16, has called stealth one big scam.
Right. I believe I posted his criticism of the F-35 here previously.
Stealth is over-hyped as a killer advantage, for one thing. The second thing is that no weapons system is invulnerable and no defense impermeable. Opponent just develop countermeasures that render expensive systems designed to last for decades obsolete rather quickly.
Arms races military build-ups are just gifts to the military-industrial complex and the only social value coms from the technological innovation that spins off into non-military use.
Post a Comment