World Politics

Page 765 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
Re: Re:

Starstruck said:
python said:
i remain very curious, though admittedly its an academic if not an irrelevant concern NOW, what and how would change had the plotters prevail ? what were their ultimate goals ?

to assume they would reverse any and all erdogan policies seems too simplistic.

some commentators point at the previous military coups for clues as trying to keep the political islam in check. i'd buy that. others point at the multiple erdogan international failures for the clues. i'd buy that too. yet others suggest the putsch was merely a self-defense, a preventative reaction of a part of the military that knew they were to be cleansed within days...

perhaps its a misfortune they did not prevail ?

oh, i almost forgot, erdogan is now accusing washington as an accomplice for roofing gulen :rolleyes: demands his extradition, while kerry calmly suggested to file the appropriate papers which erdogan curiously never did...

@14:40
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeNO3sc6-RQ
a thought provoking compilation of opinions ! i find it hard to believe but not entirely exclusionary, that the plotters would inform washington in advance, though, as one of the panelists noted, that's been the practice for various plotters...of course, an indirect evidence for such a theory would seem to find a support in the hard-nosed position the state dept took re, gulen, both his legal shelter and extradition.

it's as if the us long-term policy towards erdogan (not to be confused with turkey per se) was to keep him on the short leash. compared to a longer leash afforded other 'more responsible' nato allies.
SeriousSam said:
python said:
perhaps its a misfortune they did not prevail ?

The Turkish people and the opposition parties seem to prefer their democracy, with all its problems, to military dictatorship, though a secular military dictatorship more subservient to Nato interests than Erdogan could indeed have been a useful tool for the west in the short term
agree with the bolded entirely...yet, the unbolded part - the alleged support for democracy - needs some corrections. 1st, the erdogan pre-coup authoritarian system could be hardly called a democracy, though, as i said before, it's considerably more competitive than, for instance, the putin authoritarian model. 2nd, while it is true that many turks support erdogan, a huge chunk don't including the kurds and other minorities..what is going on,to a large extent is a survival chanting, or a realignment with the winner
 
Aug 31, 2012
7,550
3
0
python,

I can't think of many events more destructive to the democratic status of a country than a military coup succeeding. A necessary (but not sufficient) component of a democracy, and as Popper argued, the most important component, is that empowerment and removal of the top public servants and decision makers is regularly decided at the ballot box and nowhere else.
 
Jul 5, 2009
2,440
4
0
Merckx index said:
Anyone here know much about FAD—an anti-missile system being developed in South Korea, which doesn’t really want it, under pressure from the U.S.? It’s nature makes it pretty much useless vs. North Korea, as it’s designed to shoot down missiles that are far higher than those that would come from the north. It appears to be aimed at China and Russia, both of whom regard it as almost an act of war.

https://kpfa.org/player/?audio=237742

The FAD discussion begins at about 25:30, following a discussion of the decision against China on the Spratly Islands (another example, according to the correspondent, of the U.S. pressuring another country to confront China). And in turn followed by a discussion of how easily the U.S. Presidential election could be swung by the very hackable machines. The reporter claims that the Secretary of Elections in key states like Ohio can basically determine the outcome.

North Korea would never attack South Korea with missiles. They have conventional, hardened artillery that would completely flatten Seoul before they could be eliminated. Estimates are that Seoul could be hit with a half-million shells per hour (!!) using the 170 mm Koksan weapon.

Again, South Korea has no need for the FAD unless it's to defend against countries that would attack (i.e., retaliate) using ballistic missiles. The only country in the region that fits that description? China. This is kind of a big deal.

John Swanson
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
SeriousSam said:
python,

I can't think of many events more destructive to the democratic status of a country than a military coup succeeding. A necessary (but not sufficient) component of a democracy, and as Popper argued, the most important component, is that empowerment and removal of the top public servants and decision makers is regularly decided at the ballot box and nowhere else.
while i generally agree with the ideal or the noble idea, we need to keep in mind how convoluted, complex and at times downright destructive the 'ballot box' decisions can be...

i have many thoughts but little time, still we should keep in mind it was the ballot box that brought the nazis to power. i am still to read it was undemocratic... it was the ballot box that by most accounts through a proper election brought the muslim brotherhood to power in egypt (btw, erdogan openly declared them their ideological brothers). it was the ballot box that most crimeans used to realign their citizenship...etc etc

these diverse example are not to discredit the elections per se, but to show that, like so many other political processes, the election process - even when reflecting the majority - could be quite controversial.

among the reasons for such a mess could be several REAL and NATURAL factors - from a blind nationalism bordering on xenophobia that infects masses, to various spinning and manipulation techniques, to normal human laziness and ignorance...

agree, a military coup is theoretically antipodal to a democracy. but who counted how many military coups where either directly organized or encouraged by the western 'democracies' ? or, conversely, how many military governments, after stabilizing what they saw as a mess, peacefully transferring power to civilians ?

both are historical facts, though, the examples of the civilly minded military are not all that numerous...

there is military and there is military. in some countries, where the civil society had had a chance to develop, the military had seized to to play a primary role. they got replaced by the various political parties representing various strata of their societies - from corporate to liberal etc. yet in other societies, like say egypt or iran, the military (besides the political islam) was is and will remain for a while the only organized and well lead structure capable of producing coherent rulers. simply speaking, there isnt enough anything in between the 2 extremes, like say a numerous middle class capable of engaging in a competitive and rational political process.

imo, the turkish plot showed it the society in transition. on the one hand, it's still rooted in the past, the traditional values etc. but on the other, it's the society that made a tremendous economic and (after ataturk) civil progress.
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
Re:

movingtarget said:
while clearly an important subject, turkey will never, imo, become the eu member. they simply don't fit on so many levels. besides, i can see how their sworn historical enemies like greece and cypus will not hesitate to veto the move. unless of course, another coup, lets say for fun by humus traders, will turn turkey upside down to somehow become a moderate state free of political islam.

hugely more important in my view is the growing discord between turkey and the united states. i just read some place that a former high official for colin powel (the afr. american former defense secretary) very clearly associated the cia with the recent coup. i'd be inclined to take such an informed source seriously.

to that extent, it will be very interesting how the turkish demand for extraditing gulen will proceed. i understand, jut yesterday, according to turkish side, they filed the necessary official documents. recall, john kerry challenged them to do so. so they did.

will america hand him over ?

if they were 2 equal allies, yep, that's what would likely happen. but they aren't. i cant see the us bowing out for many reasons. among the few that instantly jump to mind are the us status of the nato leader, the plain pride and, more importantly, such practical factors like gulen was and still is the political lemon that hasn't been squeezed dry yet.

what will the sickly ego of the sultan do then ? he is on record threatening the us. obama is smart enough to pass the ticlish matter to the next prez. while the hillarious would likely succumb, the thump would not.

then the sultan would explode and turkey would be free again :)
 
Re: Re:

python said:
movingtarget said:
while clearly an important subject, turkey will never, imo, become the eu member. they simply don't fit on so many levels. besides, i can see how their sworn historical enemies like greece and cypus will not hesitate to veto the move. unless of course, another coup, lets say for fun by humus traders, will turn turkey upside down to somehow become a moderate state free of political islam.

hugely more important in my view is the growing discord between turkey and the united states. i just read some place that a former high official for colin powel (the afr. american former defense secretary) very clearly associated the cia with the recent coup. i'd be inclined to take such an informed source seriously.

to that extent, it will be very interesting how the turkish demand for extraditing gulen will proceed. i understand, jut yesterday, according to turkish side, they filed the necessary official documents. recall, john kerry challenged them to do so. so they did.

will america hand him over ?

if they were 2 equal allies, yep, that's what would likely happen. but they aren't. i cant see the us bowing out for many reasons. among the few that instantly jump to mind are the us status of the nato leader, the plain pride and, more importantly, such practical factors like gulen was and still is the political lemon that hasn't been squeezed dry yet.

what will the sickly ego of the sultan do then ? he is on record threatening the us. obama is smart enough to pass the ticlish matter to the next prez. while the hillarious would likely succumb, the thump would not.

then the sultan would explode and turkey would be free again :)

From what I know of the USA and deportation and it's not that much, the USA expects total cooperation when trying to get someone back to the USA like for instance Assange but when the request comes from other countries it's a different matter especially with her own citizens. The Knox trial in Italy was interesting. She was tried in Italy and released and then there was a retrial which also went in her favour. But from what I read even if the retrial did not go in her favour it was very unlikely that the USA would have sent her back to Italy to be jailed.

If Gulen is seen as a political refugee even though not a US citizen I doubt he will be sent back to Turkey. I am sure that the US does not want Erdogan to kiss and make up with Putin. I think the US would prefer the strained relations to continue.
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,666
0
0
....here is a total shocker...

The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in The Hague has determined that the late Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic was not responsible for war crimes committed during the 1992-95 Bosnian war.

In a stunning ruling, the trial chamber that convicted former Bosnian-Serb president Radovan Karadzic of war crimes and sentenced him to 40 years in prison, unanimously concluded that Slobodan Milosevic was not part of a “joint criminal enterprise” to victimize Muslims and Croats during the Bosnian war.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/08/01/the-exoneration-of-milosevic-the-ictys-surprise-ruling/

Cheers
 
Re:

blutto said:
....here is a total shocker...

The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in The Hague has determined that the late Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic was not responsible for war crimes committed during the 1992-95 Bosnian war.

In a stunning ruling, the trial chamber that convicted former Bosnian-Serb president Radovan Karadzic of war crimes and sentenced him to 40 years in prison, unanimously concluded that Slobodan Milosevic was not part of a “joint criminal enterprise” to victimize Muslims and Croats during the Bosnian war.

Cheers

Maybe they can give him a posthumous humanitarian award ?
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,666
0
0
Re: Re:

movingtarget said:
blutto said:
....here is a total shocker...

The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in The Hague has determined that the late Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic was not responsible for war crimes committed during the 1992-95 Bosnian war.

In a stunning ruling, the trial chamber that convicted former Bosnian-Serb president Radovan Karadzic of war crimes and sentenced him to 40 years in prison, unanimously concluded that Slobodan Milosevic was not part of a “joint criminal enterprise” to victimize Muslims and Croats during the Bosnian war.

Cheers

Maybe they can give him a posthumous humanitarian award ?

....funny you should say that but his name, along with Hillary Clinton, has been submitted to be considered for the Nobel Peace Prize....

Cheers
 
Re: Re:

blutto said:
movingtarget said:
blutto said:
....here is a total shocker...

The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in The Hague has determined that the late Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic was not responsible for war crimes committed during the 1992-95 Bosnian war.

In a stunning ruling, the trial chamber that convicted former Bosnian-Serb president Radovan Karadzic of war crimes and sentenced him to 40 years in prison, unanimously concluded that Slobodan Milosevic was not part of a “joint criminal enterprise” to victimize Muslims and Croats during the Bosnian war.

Cheers



Maybe they can give him a posthumous humanitarian award ?

....funny you should say that but his name, along with Hillary Clinton, has been submitted to be considered for Nobel Peace Prize....

Cheers

Then he's in good company !
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,666
0
0
Re: Re:

movingtarget said:
blutto said:
movingtarget said:
blutto said:
....here is a total shocker...

The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in The Hague has determined that the late Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic was not responsible for war crimes committed during the 1992-95 Bosnian war.

In a stunning ruling, the trial chamber that convicted former Bosnian-Serb president Radovan Karadzic of war crimes and sentenced him to 40 years in prison, unanimously concluded that Slobodan Milosevic was not part of a “joint criminal enterprise” to victimize Muslims and Croats during the Bosnian war.

Cheers



Maybe they can give him a posthumous humanitarian award ?

....funny you should say that but his name, along with Hillary Clinton, has been submitted to be considered for Nobel Peace Prize....

Cheers

Then he's in good company !

....pretty perfect....both just wonderful people who were wrongly accused....

Cheers
 
Re:

blutto said:
....here is a total shocker...

The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in The Hague has determined that the late Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic was not responsible for war crimes committed during the 1992-95 Bosnian war.

In a stunning ruling, the trial chamber that convicted former Bosnian-Serb president Radovan Karadzic of war crimes and sentenced him to 40 years in prison, unanimously concluded that Slobodan Milosevic was not part of a “joint criminal enterprise” to victimize Muslims and Croats during the Bosnian war.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/08/01/the-exoneration-of-milosevic-the-ictys-surprise-ruling/

Cheers


Bull. The guy may not have been on the ground with Karadzic and Mladic, to oversee the military, but he helped spread the nationalism in the late 80's which led to the war and breakup of Yugoslavia. I know exactly how he got into power and who supported him when he began his ascent. Yugoslavia was a strong, neutral country in between the East and West. It didn't side with either the US patsies or the Soviet patsies, choosing instead to unify post WWII and it became one of the founders of the Non-Alignment Movement in 1961 (if you don't know what that is, you should). The country was the first communist country to allow foreigners free travel (no visa) to and from the country, didn't boycott the 1980 OR 1984 summer olympics and played host to the 1984 Winter Olympics (Sarajevo).

Long story short, Milosevic was a great pawn in the game of chess. He was supported (perhaps not militarily but politically) by the US as communism was coming to an end. He wasn't a communist, or capitalist or democrat or whatever, he was a nationalist. The powers that be didn't want a strong neutral country in that region and he was a perfect figure to have. Unfortunately too many people were fooled and the rest hardly did anything to change the outcome and he gained power, told the other republics to join Serbia or else. The war began and everyone saw what he was about. The US, as it did with Saddam, didn't like how he 'steered off,' and they acted all surprised when he wasn't what they thought 'he should have been,' and then labeled him a villain and went in to try to 'calm everything down.'

The region still suffers economically, the people hardly earn good wages, the infrastructure that was there before the war predictably isn't, the smaller towns and villages are slowly disappearing as everyone is either moving to the big cities or abroad and ho-hum to the tragic loss of life during the war, and the trust among the republics, although slowly getting better, is not what it once was, obviously.
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,666
0
0
Re: Re:

BullsFan22 said:
blutto said:
....here is a total shocker...

The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in The Hague has determined that the late Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic was not responsible for war crimes committed during the 1992-95 Bosnian war.

In a stunning ruling, the trial chamber that convicted former Bosnian-Serb president Radovan Karadzic of war crimes and sentenced him to 40 years in prison, unanimously concluded that Slobodan Milosevic was not part of a “joint criminal enterprise” to victimize Muslims and Croats during the Bosnian war.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/08/01/the-exoneration-of-milosevic-the-ictys-surprise-ruling/

Cheers


Bull. The guy may not have been on the ground with Karadzic and Mladic, to oversee the military, but he helped spread the nationalism in the late 80's which led to the war and breakup of Yugoslavia. I know exactly how he got into power and who supported him when he began his ascent. Yugoslavia was a strong, neutral country in between the East and West. It didn't side with either the US patsies or the Soviet patsies, choosing instead to unify post WWII and it became one of the founders of the Non-Alignment Movement in 1961 (if you don't know what that is, you should). The country was the first communist country to allow foreigners free travel (no visa) to and from the country, didn't boycott the 1980 OR 1984 summer olympics and played host to the 1984 Winter Olympics (Sarajevo).

Long story short, Milosevic was a great pawn in the game of chess. He was supported (perhaps not militarily but politically) by the US as communism was coming to an end. He wasn't a communist, or capitalist or democrat or whatever, he was a nationalist. The powers that be didn't want a strong neutral country in that region and he was a perfect figure to have. Unfortunately too many people were fooled and the rest hardly did anything to change the outcome and he gained power, told the other republics to join Serbia or else. The war began and everyone saw what he was about. The US, as it did with Saddam, didn't like how he 'steered off,' and they acted all surprised when he wasn't what they thought 'he should have been,' and then labeled him a villain and went in to try to 'calm everything down.'

The region still suffers economically, the people hardly earn good wages, the infrastructure that was there before the war predictably isn't, the smaller towns and villages are slowly disappearing as everyone is either moving to the big cities or abroad and ho-hum to the tragic loss of life during the war, and the trust among the republics, although slowly getting better, is not what it once was, obviously.

....as I said a real shocker....the other shocker, and one oddly missing from the narrative established here in the West, are the missing graves that were a major justification for the NATO intervention....and then there is the fact of the court ruling ( which I firmly believe was not taken lightly considering the circumstances...and unanimous as well... )....

....find below another look at this development....and yes it is probably very easy to dismiss given the source but humour me and read it.....and btw the author does come with some reasonable West approved bone fides, so there is that to consider as well....

https://www.rt.com/op-edge/354362-slobodan-milosevic-exonerated-us-nato/

Cheers
 
Re: Re:

blutto said:
BullsFan22 said:
blutto said:
....here is a total shocker...

The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in The Hague has determined that the late Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic was not responsible for war crimes committed during the 1992-95 Bosnian war.

In a stunning ruling, the trial chamber that convicted former Bosnian-Serb president Radovan Karadzic of war crimes and sentenced him to 40 years in prison, unanimously concluded that Slobodan Milosevic was not part of a “joint criminal enterprise” to victimize Muslims and Croats during the Bosnian war.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/08/01/the-exoneration-of-milosevic-the-ictys-surprise-ruling/

Cheers


Bull. The guy may not have been on the ground with Karadzic and Mladic, to oversee the military, but he helped spread the nationalism in the late 80's which led to the war and breakup of Yugoslavia. I know exactly how he got into power and who supported him when he began his ascent. Yugoslavia was a strong, neutral country in between the East and West. It didn't side with either the US patsies or the Soviet patsies, choosing instead to unify post WWII and it became one of the founders of the Non-Alignment Movement in 1961 (if you don't know what that is, you should). The country was the first communist country to allow foreigners free travel (no visa) to and from the country, didn't boycott the 1980 OR 1984 summer olympics and played host to the 1984 Winter Olympics (Sarajevo).

Long story short, Milosevic was a great pawn in the game of chess. He was supported (perhaps not militarily but politically) by the US as communism was coming to an end. He wasn't a communist, or capitalist or democrat or whatever, he was a nationalist. The powers that be didn't want a strong neutral country in that region and he was a perfect figure to have. Unfortunately too many people were fooled and the rest hardly did anything to change the outcome and he gained power, told the other republics to join Serbia or else. The war began and everyone saw what he was about. The US, as it did with Saddam, didn't like how he 'steered off,' and they acted all surprised when he wasn't what they thought 'he should have been,' and then labeled him a villain and went in to try to 'calm everything down.'

The region still suffers economically, the people hardly earn good wages, the infrastructure that was there before the war predictably isn't, the smaller towns and villages are slowly disappearing as everyone is either moving to the big cities or abroad and ho-hum to the tragic loss of life during the war, and the trust among the republics, although slowly getting better, is not what it once was, obviously.

....as I said a real shocker....the other shocker, and one oddly missing from the narrative established here in the West, are the missing graves that were a major justification for the NATO intervention....and then there is the fact of the court ruling ( which I firmly believe was not taken lightly considering the circumstances...and unanimous as well... )....

....find below another look at this development....and yes it is probably very easy to dismiss given the source but humour me and read it.....and btw the author does come with some reasonable West approved bone fides, so there is that to consider as well....

https://www.rt.com/op-edge/354362-slobodan-milosevic-exonerated-us-nato/

Cheers

I'll give a go. RT isn't what the MSM wants you to think is. They are redundant and have an agenda (who doesn't anymore?), but they do hit a lot of truths, truths that you won't see on CNN or Fox.
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,666
0
0
Re: Re:

BullsFan22 said:
blutto said:
BullsFan22 said:
blutto said:
....here is a total shocker...

The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in The Hague has determined that the late Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic was not responsible for war crimes committed during the 1992-95 Bosnian war.

In a stunning ruling, the trial chamber that convicted former Bosnian-Serb president Radovan Karadzic of war crimes and sentenced him to 40 years in prison, unanimously concluded that Slobodan Milosevic was not part of a “joint criminal enterprise” to victimize Muslims and Croats during the Bosnian war.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/08/01/the-exoneration-of-milosevic-the-ictys-surprise-ruling/

Cheers


Bull. The guy may not have been on the ground with Karadzic and Mladic, to oversee the military, but he helped spread the nationalism in the late 80's which led to the war and breakup of Yugoslavia. I know exactly how he got into power and who supported him when he began his ascent. Yugoslavia was a strong, neutral country in between the East and West. It didn't side with either the US patsies or the Soviet patsies, choosing instead to unify post WWII and it became one of the founders of the Non-Alignment Movement in 1961 (if you don't know what that is, you should). The country was the first communist country to allow foreigners free travel (no visa) to and from the country, didn't boycott the 1980 OR 1984 summer olympics and played host to the 1984 Winter Olympics (Sarajevo).

Long story short, Milosevic was a great pawn in the game of chess. He was supported (perhaps not militarily but politically) by the US as communism was coming to an end. He wasn't a communist, or capitalist or democrat or whatever, he was a nationalist. The powers that be didn't want a strong neutral country in that region and he was a perfect figure to have. Unfortunately too many people were fooled and the rest hardly did anything to change the outcome and he gained power, told the other republics to join Serbia or else. The war began and everyone saw what he was about. The US, as it did with Saddam, didn't like how he 'steered off,' and they acted all surprised when he wasn't what they thought 'he should have been,' and then labeled him a villain and went in to try to 'calm everything down.'

The region still suffers economically, the people hardly earn good wages, the infrastructure that was there before the war predictably isn't, the smaller towns and villages are slowly disappearing as everyone is either moving to the big cities or abroad and ho-hum to the tragic loss of life during the war, and the trust among the republics, although slowly getting better, is not what it once was, obviously.

....as I said a real shocker....the other shocker, and one oddly missing from the narrative established here in the West, are the missing graves that were a major justification for the NATO intervention....and then there is the fact of the court ruling ( which I firmly believe was not taken lightly considering the circumstances...and unanimous as well... )....

....find below another look at this development....and yes it is probably very easy to dismiss given the source but humour me and read it.....and btw the author does come with some reasonable West approved bone fides, so there is that to consider as well....

https://www.rt.com/op-edge/354362-slobodan-milosevic-exonerated-us-nato/

Cheers

I'll give a go. RT isn't what the MSM wants you to think is. They are redundant and have an agenda (who doesn't anymore?), but they do hit a lot of truths, truths that you won't see on CNN or Fox.

....thanks....historian's first rule of thumb, everybody lies, either knowingly or not ( we politely call it bias but that is also a fib, its just lowest common denominator lying... )....therefore always have $h!t detectors in tip top tune.... :D ....but you know all that....

...and btw, as you read the RT article remember this....

Bill Clinton’s administration in the 1990s disemboweled Yugoslavia on humanitarian grounds, after portraying it as the resurgence of the genocidal Third Reich and its president, Slobodan Milosevic, as the new Hitler. Milosevic, by the way, has just been exonerated of all crimes for which Clinton’s kangaroo International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia had formerly condemned him. In 2003, casting her vote for the invasion of Iraq, Hillary Clinton cited the persecution of Milosevic as the example to follow for removing Saddam Hussein. It’s worth listening to her self-assurance in demonizing a man she, and Bill Clinton’s administration, knew to be innocent of the charges—knew because they trumped them up:

We and our NATO allies did not depose Mr. Milosevic, who was responsible for more than a quarter of a million people being killed in the 1990s. Instead, by stopping his aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo, and keeping on the tough sanctions, we created the conditions in which his own people threw him out and led to his being in the dock being tried for war crimes as we speak.

But Bill Clinton didn’t just scrap Yugoslavia; he junked international law by removing from the Security Council the legal monopoly on authorizing war. He set a precedent in the Kosovo War by claiming Responsibility to Protect (R2P), which gives humanitarian intervention the pseudo-legal means to overthrow a sovereign state. The UN Charter specifically disallows humanitarian intervention for a very good reason: it was that responsibility Hitler’s rogue regime claimed for invading Poland—the protection of German minorities—to start WW II.

Never mind. The Kosovo precedent opened the gates to all the “humanitarian” wars that followed, including Hillary Clinton’s war on Libya in 2009, consistent with her approval of her husband’s intervention in Kosovo. During a meeting with Code Pink on 6 March 2003 at the US Capitol, defending her vote in favor of attacking Iraq, Senator Clinton applauded her husband’s war in Kosovo, claiming that he saved Kosovar Albanian from ethnic cleansing—a lie—while commending his initiative to go it alone, without the “international community’s” consent:


"With respect to whose responsibility it is to disarm Saddam Hussein, I do not believe that given the attitudes of many people in the world community today that there would be a willingness to take on very difficult problems were it not for United States leadership. And I am talking specifically about what had to be done in Bosnia and Kosovo, where my husband could not get a Security Council resolution to save the Kosovar Albanians from ethnic cleansing. And we did it alone as the United States, and we had to do it alone. It would have been far preferable if the Russians and others had agreed to do it through the United Nations — they would not. I’m happy that, in the face of such horrible suffering, we did act."

She’s praising here her husband’s international crime, the interference with a country’s sovereignty for fictional humanitarian reasons. No, the goal of the war in Kosovo was not ethnic defense (Bill Clinton’s policy throughout the 90s in the former Yugoslavia was to foment and prey on ethnic anarchy) but the expansionist penetration of a foreign territory and the construction of one of the largest military bases in Europe, at Camp Bondsteel, costing the American people a good chunk of social services—possibly, his welfare “reform,” for example.


http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/08/05/the-elective-affinities-of-hillary-clinton/

....the rest is pretty good...brings in lots of ancient Greek stuff, so has a nice high brow sheen.....like you can read this in an upscale coffee shop and feel real cool ( as opposed to the potential embarrassment of being caught looking at Putinesque propaganda... :D ...)
Cheers
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,666
0
0
....for the Turkey file....

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/08/08/washington-slapdown-turkey-turns-to-moscow-for-help/

Turkey is slowly leaving the Atlantic system. That is the reason behind this coup. That is the reason why NATO is panicking. This is much broader and much bigger than Erdogan. This is a tectonic movement. This will affect Turkish-Syrian relations, Turkish-Chinese relations, Turkish-Russian relations and Turkish-Iranian relations. This will change the world.”

— Yunus Soner, Deputy Chairman Turkish Patriotic Party

“It is becoming clear that the attempted putsch was not just the work of a small clique of dissatisfied officers inside the armed forces; it was rather the product of a vast conspiracy to take over the Turkish state that was decades in the making and might well have succeeded.”

— Patrick Cockburn, CounterPunch

The fact is, the normalizing of relations between Russia and Turkey will foreshadow a bigger geopolitical shift that will link Ankara to Tehran, Damascus and other Russian allies across Eurasia. The alliance will alter the global chessboard in a way that eviscerates the imperial plan to control the flow of energy from Qatar to Europe, redraw the map of the Middle East and pivot to Asia. That strategy will either be decimated or suffer a severe setback
.

Cheers
 
Re:

Starstruck said:
The world is in great hands operated by great minds.
http://gawker.com/all-the-most-excruciating-moments-from-the-trump-pence-1783831489

In Britain too:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3u8k2Dhys-I

The final solution, Yes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiwd7qoxAMU

If being an unhinged loon is a prerequisite maybe I should run.
Australia is hardly immune either. We've just had a "sovereign citizen" who is also project planner for the Galileo Movement elected to our Federal Senate :eek:
 
Re: Re:

42x16ss said:
Starstruck said:
The world is in great hands operated by great minds.
http://gawker.com/all-the-most-excruciating-moments-from-the-trump-pence-1783831489

In Britain too:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3u8k2Dhys-I

The final solution, Yes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiwd7qoxAMU

If being an unhinged loon is a prerequisite maybe I should run.
Australia is hardly immune either. We've just had a "sovereign citizen" who is also project planner for the Galileo Movement elected to our Federal Senate :eek:

Isn't he impressive when he speaks ! Usually i have to change the channel.
 
Re: Re:

movingtarget said:
42x16ss said:
Starstruck said:
The world is in great hands operated by great minds.
http://gawker.com/all-the-most-excruciating-moments-from-the-trump-pence-1783831489

In Britain too:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3u8k2Dhys-I

The final solution, Yes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiwd7qoxAMU

If being an unhinged loon is a prerequisite maybe I should run.
Australia is hardly immune either. We've just had a "sovereign citizen" who is also project planner for the Galileo Movement elected to our Federal Senate :eek:

Isn't he impressive when he speaks ! Usually i have to change the channel.
I have to leave the room when Malcolm Roberts speaks, I'm amazed that my TV is still in tact :mad:
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,666
0
0
....Stiglitz on the Euro, the EU, and brexit....nice read...

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/aug/10/joseph-stiglitz-the-problem-with-europe-is-the-euro

Why would well-intentioned statesmen and women, attempting to forge a stronger, more united Europe, create something that has had the opposite effect? The founders of the euro were guided by a set of ideas and notions about how economies function that were fashionable at the time, but that were simply wrong. They had faith in markets, but lacked an understanding of the limitations of markets and what was required to make them work. The unwavering faith in markets is sometimes referred to as market fundamentalism, sometimes as neoliberalism. Market fundamentalists believed, for instance, that if only the government would ensure that inflation was low and stable, markets would ensure growth and prosperity for all. While in most of the world market fundamentalism has been discredited, especially in the aftermath of the 2008 global financial crisis, those beliefs survive and flourish within the eurozone’s dominant power, Germany. These beliefs are held with such conviction and certainty, immune to new contrary evidence, that they are rightly described as an ideology. Similar ideas, pushed by the IMF and the World Bank around the globe, led to a lost quarter-century in Africa, a lost decade in Latin America, and a transition from communism to the market economy in the former Soviet Union and eastern Europe that was, to say the least, a disappointment.

Germany, however, holds itself out as a success, providing an example of what other countries should do. Its economy has grown by 6.8% since 2007, but at an average growth rate of just 0.8% a year – a number that, under normal circumstances, would be considered close to failing. (By comparison, the US growth rate in the same period averaged 1.2%.) It’s also worth noting that developments in Germany before the crisis, in the early 2000s – when the country adopted reforms that aggressively cut into the social safety net – came at the expense of ordinary workers, especially those at the bottom. While real wages stagnated (by some accounts decreased), the gap between those at the bottom and the middle increased – by 9% in less than a decade. And through the early years of the century, poverty and inequality increased as well. Germany is talked about as a “success” only by comparison with the other countries of the eurozone.

It is perhaps natural that the eurozone’s leaders want to blame the victim – to blame the countries in recession or depression or reeling from a referendum result – for bringing about this state of affairs. They do not want to blame themselves and the great institutions that they have helped create, and which they now head. But blaming the victim will not solve the euro problem – and it is in large measure unfair.

....funny who Stiglitz ends up calling the fools in this scenario....and it ain't the great unwashed...

Cheers
 
Re:

blutto said:
....Stiglitz on the Euro, the EU, and brexit....nice read...

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/aug/10/joseph-stiglitz-the-problem-with-europe-is-the-euro

Why would well-intentioned statesmen and women, attempting to forge a stronger, more united Europe, create something that has had the opposite effect? The founders of the euro were guided by a set of ideas and notions about how economies function that were fashionable at the time, but that were simply wrong. They had faith in markets, but lacked an understanding of the limitations of markets and what was required to make them work. The unwavering faith in markets is sometimes referred to as market fundamentalism, sometimes as neoliberalism. Market fundamentalists believed, for instance, that if only the government would ensure that inflation was low and stable, markets would ensure growth and prosperity for all. While in most of the world market fundamentalism has been discredited, especially in the aftermath of the 2008 global financial crisis, those beliefs survive and flourish within the eurozone’s dominant power, Germany. These beliefs are held with such conviction and certainty, immune to new contrary evidence, that they are rightly described as an ideology. Similar ideas, pushed by the IMF and the World Bank around the globe, led to a lost quarter-century in Africa, a lost decade in Latin America, and a transition from communism to the market economy in the former Soviet Union and eastern Europe that was, to say the least, a disappointment.

Germany, however, holds itself out as a success, providing an example of what other countries should do. Its economy has grown by 6.8% since 2007, but at an average growth rate of just 0.8% a year – a number that, under normal circumstances, would be considered close to failing. (By comparison, the US growth rate in the same period averaged 1.2%.) It’s also worth noting that developments in Germany before the crisis, in the early 2000s – when the country adopted reforms that aggressively cut into the social safety net – came at the expense of ordinary workers, especially those at the bottom. While real wages stagnated (by some accounts decreased), the gap between those at the bottom and the middle increased – by 9% in less than a decade. And through the early years of the century, poverty and inequality increased as well. Germany is talked about as a “success” only by comparison with the other countries of the eurozone.

It is perhaps natural that the eurozone’s leaders want to blame the victim – to blame the countries in recession or depression or reeling from a referendum result – for bringing about this state of affairs. They do not want to blame themselves and the great institutions that they have helped create, and which they now head. But blaming the victim will not solve the euro problem – and it is in large measure unfair.

....funny who Stiglitz ends up calling the fools in this scenario....and it ain't the great unwashed...

Cheers

Very interesting article. I am no economist but one thing I never understood about Great Britain's role in the EU was why didn't they adopt the Euro currency if they thought belonging to the EU was such a good thing and why was Great Britain allowed to do this. To me they seem to have played a senior role politically along with Germany and France but they sort of had one leg in Europe and the other outside it. Just a thought.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.