PDA

View Full Version : for mark


baja
10-31-2013, 06:54 PM
http://thecommonsenseshow.com/2013/09/08/the-ultimate-false-flag-event/

Rohirrim
10-31-2013, 09:02 PM
Yikes!

baja
10-31-2013, 09:05 PM
So where will you be November 13, 2013?

Rohirrim
11-01-2013, 12:08 AM
So where will you be November 13, 2013?

Impossible to know. You mean where do I expect to be?

baja
11-01-2013, 07:03 AM
Impossible to know. You mean where do I expect to be?

Take the stairs



<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/PreJvrljihI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Rohirrim
11-01-2013, 08:14 AM
Well, if such a thing were to happen, which I think is highly unlikely because the grid is broken up into regions, I would think there would be some pockets where crazy **** went on. But judging by what happened after the Boston bombing, Sandy Hook, 911, etc., I think the majority reaction would be people coming together to help each other out.

W*GS
11-01-2013, 08:17 AM
Apocalyporn.

Or,

Apocalypsmut.

Pony Boy
11-01-2013, 09:24 AM
Thank God all those people will have health-care.

baja
11-01-2013, 10:17 AM
Well, if such a thing were to happen, which I think is highly unlikely because the grid is broken up into regions, I would think there would be some pockets where crazy **** went on. But judging by what happened after the Boston bombing, Sandy Hook, 911, etc., I think the majority reaction would be people coming together to help each other out.

You could be right right up until people run out of food and water. Like in a week.


I'm not predicting it will happen but read up on the subject, it's a disaster waiting to happen. The power grid is one of the many things we should have been spending money on instead of making war on Iraq and Afghanistan not to mention huge aid to Israel and others.

baja
11-01-2013, 10:25 AM
Apocalyporn.

Or,

Apocalypsmut.

Yes wags lets rant & rave about global warming and poo poo everything else.

The New York Times called the electric grid “the glass jaw of American industry.” Matthew Wald writes that according to industry leaders, there is a private acknowledgment that “If an adversary lands a knockout blow, they fear, it could black out vast areas of the continent for weeks; interrupt supplies of water, gasoline, diesel fuel and fresh food; shut down communications; and create disruptions of a scale that was only hinted at by Hurricane Sandy and the attacks of Sept. 11.”

http://politicalblindspot.com/blackout-why-havent-you-heard-of-the-gridex2-power-grid-failure-drill/


Anyone who does not think W*gs is paid disinformation shill is not paying attention.

BroncoBeavis
11-01-2013, 10:54 AM
Apocalyporn.

Not to be confused with Alpacaporn.

Which Baja might also be able to speak to as well, since I hear TJ's pretty much the world capital for that sorta thing. :)

W*GS
11-01-2013, 11:56 AM
Anyone who does not think W*gs is paid disinformation shill is not paying attention.

You'd be surprised - the Gorn rely strictly on volunteer efforts. Despite being green, they got no green.

mhgaffney
11-01-2013, 12:45 PM
http://thecommonsenseshow.com/2013/09/08/the-ultimate-false-flag-event/

Thanks. Yes, I heard about this.

Others are saying similar things. Check out this interview with gold expert Jim Sinclair. He foresees a currency crisis -- possibly precipitated when the Saudis start accepting other currencies for oil. Until now -- they have supported the petro dollar. As we know, the Saudi monarchy is very unhappy with the US and contemplating a break.

No surprise that the US financial elite will resort to war (hence, false flags) to buy time for the dollar and head off the coming collapse.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/10/greg-hunter/confiscation-of-deposits-retirement-funds-coming/

Rohirrim
11-01-2013, 12:55 PM
Thanks. Yes, I heard about this.

Others are saying similar things. Check out this interview with gold expert Jim Sinclair. He foresees a currency crisis -- possibly precipitated when the Saudis start accepting other currencies for oil. Until now -- they have supported the petro dollar. As we know, the Saudi monarchy is very unhappy with the US and contemplating a break.

No surprise that the US financial elite will resort to war (hence, false flags) to buy time for the dollar and head off the coming collapse.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/10/greg-hunter/confiscation-of-deposits-retirement-funds-coming/

And to think that we went to war for those bastards. Twice! Ungrateful bastards.

baja
11-01-2013, 01:28 PM
And to think that we went to war for those bastards. Twice! Ungrateful bastards.

If and when the USA starts to fall can you imagine the joy from all the countries the US brow beat and bullied. There will be no one rushing to the rescue of the USA due to the actions of a long gone bad government.

Rohirrim
11-01-2013, 01:31 PM
If and when the USA starts to fall can you imagine the joy from all the countries the US brow beat and bullied. There will be no one rushing to the rescue of the USA due to the actions of a long gone bad government.

I guess that depends on who takes over. All those missiles will still be sitting there. The reaction could be more like terror than joy. ;D

BroncoBeavis
11-01-2013, 01:50 PM
If and when the USA starts to fall can you imagine the joy from all the countries the US brow beat and bullied. There will be no one rushing to the rescue of the USA due to the actions of a long gone bad government.

Come now, Baja. There's no nation in the world capable, let alone willing.

We stand alone. Shouldn't ever expect any different.

baja
11-01-2013, 01:52 PM
I guess that depends on who takes over. All those missiles will still be sitting there. The reaction could be more like terror than joy. ;D

That would be infinitely worse for the USA. Fear is the single greatest motivator after love. The rest of the world will, under threat, finish the job with a vengeance.

baja
11-01-2013, 01:54 PM
Come now, Baja. There's no nation in the world capable, let alone willing.

We stand alone. Shouldn't ever expect any different.

Are you a reincarnated Roman citizen?

Rohirrim
11-01-2013, 02:18 PM
Are you a reincarnated Roman citizen?

Speaking of Rome, I envision the end of America will run along similar lines, a slow decay from within joined with numerous invasions, and it will take hundreds of years, not one climactic event. The problems of man have become global, not national. Climate change will be the biggest factor, not politics. The tropics will get the biggest hit first. Then, those people will start moving out of areas that can no longer sustain them. That will be the invasion, and it won't be military. People in the tropics will start moving North and South. Since the greatest landmasses are to the North...

We can already see one of the chief factors of Rome's decay at work in America; Massive income disparity. Rome morphed from a country of Republican ideals ("We are all Romans!") to one where the great resources of the empire were turned to providing an extremely luxurious existence to a very small number of people at the very top (Satyricon). They dined on stuffed mice, oysters and sparrow breasts while the rest of population struggled to find bread and garum. The wealth of the empire flowed to the already full coffers of the richest, who paid no taxes. By the time the Goths arrived, the average Roman saw no need to continue the charade that he was part of the Empire. What did he care whether Goths or Spanish Emperors ruled Rome? It didn't matter to him.

baja
11-01-2013, 02:27 PM
Speaking of Rome, I envision the end of America will run along similar lines, a slow decay from within joined with numerous invasions, and it will take hundreds of years, not one climactic event. The problems of man have become global, not national. Climate change will be the biggest factor, not politics. The tropics will get the biggest hit first. Then, those people will start moving out of areas that can no longer sustain them. That will be the invasion, and it won't be military. People in the tropics will start moving North and South. Since the greatest landmasses are to the North...

We can already see one of the chief factors of Rome's decay at work in America; Massive income disparity. Rome morphed from a county of Republican ideals ("We are all Romans!") to one where the great resources of the empire were turned to providing an extremely luxurious existence to a very small number of people at the very top (Satyricon). They dined on stuffed mice and sparrow breasts while the rest of population struggled to find bread. The wealth of the empire flowed to the already full coffers of the richest, who paid no taxes. By the time the Goths arrived, the average Roman saw no need to continue the charade that he was part of the Empire. What did he care whether Goths or Spanish Emperors ruled Rome? It didn't matter to him.

Sorry, events move in the blink of an eye in today's world

For example in Roman times it would have taken years to turn the three world trade buildings into rubble. Fifteen minutes were enough in 2001.

In Roman times it took months to get a message from one kingdom to another while today any commoner can send a message in an instant any where in the world.

Computers make stock trades at a lightening speed.

The global interconnected finical system can collapse over night.


No, about the only thing comparable to the Roman times is the level of denial embraced by the two world's citizens.

Requiem
11-01-2013, 02:29 PM
There is a lot in common.

baja
11-01-2013, 02:32 PM
There is a lot in common.

Except the speed at which change happens

Rohirrim
11-01-2013, 02:34 PM
Sorry, events move in the blink of an eye in today's world

For example in Roman times it would have taken years to turn the three world trade buildings into rubble. Fifteen minutes were enough in 2001.

In Roman times it took months to get a message from one kingdom to another while today any commoner can send a message in an instant any where in the world.

Computers make stock trades at a lightening speed.

The global interconnected finical system can collapse over night.


No, about the only thing comparable to the Roman times is the level of denial embraced by the two world's citizens.

America, like Rome, has the most powerful military on the planet. That doesn't just go away in an instant, regardless of what happens.

baja
11-01-2013, 02:35 PM
America, like Rome, has the most powerful military on the planet. That doesn't just go away in an instant, regardless of what happens.


Stop paying that military and see how fast it disbands

Or be unable to supply it with oil.

Rohirrim
11-01-2013, 02:38 PM
Stop paying that military and see how fast it disbands

Or be unable to supply it with oil.

That's always the last thing rulers decide to do, and for good reason. After all, if there was one thing the emperors always made sure got the best and the most, it was the Praetorian Guard. Hell, that's where many of the last emperors came from. ;D

BroncoBeavis
11-01-2013, 02:43 PM
Speaking of Rome, I envision the end of America will run along similar lines, a slow decay from within joined with numerous invasions, and it will take hundreds of years, not one climactic event. The problems of man have become global, not national. Climate change will be the biggest factor, not politics. The tropics will get the biggest hit first. Then, those people will start moving out of areas that can no longer sustain them. That will be the invasion, and it won't be military. People in the tropics will start moving North and South. Since the greatest landmasses are to the North...

We can already see one of the chief factors of Rome's decay at work in America; Massive income disparity. Rome morphed from a country of Republican ideals ("We are all Romans!") to one where the great resources of the empire were turned to providing an extremely luxurious existence to a very small number of people at the very top (Satyricon). They dined on stuffed mice, oysters and sparrow breasts while the rest of population struggled to find bread and garum. The wealth of the empire flowed to the already full coffers of the richest, who paid no taxes. By the time the Goths arrived, the average Roman saw no need to continue the charade that he was part of the Empire. What did he care whether Goths or Spanish Emperors ruled Rome? It didn't matter to him.

There's some truth in what you're saying. Where we disagree is that you tend to think all this is a product of "the wrong people" with centralized power.

I believe (as did the founders) that it's mostly the natural byproduct of centralized power. And so I believe Centralized power should be avoided as much as practicable.

baja
11-01-2013, 02:44 PM
That's always the last thing rulers decide to do, and for good reason. After all, if there was one thing the emperors always made sure got the best and the most, it was the Praetorian Guard. Hell, that's where many of the last emperors came from. ;D

You are assuming the Federal government controls it's destiny.

If the dollar crashes what would suggest paying them with?

baja
11-01-2013, 02:46 PM
There's some truth in what you're saying. Where we disagree is that you tend to think all this is a product of "the wrong people" with centralized power.

I believe (as did the founders) that it's mostly the natural byproduct of centralized power. And so I believe Centralized power should be avoided as much as practicable.

You are correct. Tell me why is it not too late to take back that power?

BroncoBeavis
11-01-2013, 02:46 PM
You are assuming the Federal government controls it's destiny.

If the dollar crashes what would suggest paying them with?

Funny money. Same thing they'll pay everyone else with (to whatever extent they aren't already :) )

BroncoBeavis
11-01-2013, 02:49 PM
You are correct. Tell me why is it not too late to take back that power?

Didn't say it was. But first you have to convince people that no real miracles spring forth from central control.

Rohirrim
11-01-2013, 02:53 PM
There's some truth in what you're saying. Where we disagree is that you tend to think all this is a product of "the wrong people" with centralized power.

I believe (as did the founders) that it's mostly the natural byproduct of centralized power. And so I believe Centralized power should be avoided as much as practicable.

Which is why we have a bicameral legislature and the power of government split into three parts. The danger is always that ideologues will take over all three branches.

baja
11-01-2013, 02:57 PM
Funny money. Same thing they'll pay everyone else with (to whatever extent they aren't already :) )


The fiat money system has an unavoidable end which we have reached, passed actually. Resuscitation will not work the patient is dead doctor.

Rohirrim
11-01-2013, 02:58 PM
You are assuming the Federal government controls it's destiny.

If the dollar crashes what would suggest paying them with?

Right now, the U.S. is at the height of its military powers. Nobody else even comes close. The idea that any single technological event could change that overnight is unreasonable. As far as military dangers go, we are still protected by two oceans. I'm also sure that our defense systems have their own grids. Carriers have their own nuclear power. So do subs. What you are talking about is a very, very long way down the road. Frankly, I'm more worried about interior decay than I am with exterior enemies.

BroncoBeavis
11-01-2013, 02:58 PM
Which is why we have a bicameral legislature and the power of government split into three parts. The danger is always that ideologues will take over all three branches.

Their intended protections went far further than just the structure of power in DC. They foresaw all sections of the Federal government coming under a common influence at times. So they viewed Federalism and the States as probably the most important check on Central power.

And we've undone most of that.

baja
11-01-2013, 03:02 PM
Which is why we have a bicameral legislature and the power of government split into three parts. The danger is always that ideologues will take over all three branches.

Executive order100438 says that has been compromised.

Rohirrim
11-01-2013, 03:04 PM
Their intended protections went far further than just the structure of power in DC. They foresaw all sections of the Federal government coming under a common influence at times. So they viewed Federalism and the States as probably the most important check on Central power.

And we've undone most of that.

What they couldn't foresee was corporate power. That's our biggest enemy right now, not China. Not terrorists. They own our government. You think Ted Cruz and the Tea Party are grass roots movements of the people? They are corporate tools of very rich and powerful men who want to get richer and more powerful by making a government of the people weaker and unable to stop them. They're the ones who passed Citizens United. They're the ones who have enshrined corporate personhood in our laws.

BroncoBeavis
11-01-2013, 03:10 PM
What they couldn't foresee was corporate power. That's our biggest enemy right now, not China. Not terrorists. They own our government. You think Ted Cruz and the Tea Party are grass roots movements of the people? They are corporate tools of very rich and powerful men who want to get richer and more powerful by making a government of the people weaker and unable to stop them. They're the ones who passed Citizens United. They're the ones who have enshrined corporate personhood in our laws.

The problem is even if you believe that about Cruz or the TP, how do you argue that it's any worse than the Goldman Sachs Party we've got running the show now?

Let those guys run New York if that's the way New York wants it. Washington DC should matter much less to the Average American than it does.

Then if Romneycare works, great!. Other people can build on that. If it's an epic clusterfark, hey, well tough for them, but at least we all learned something. If you think lower taxes don't work, let Texas give it a try. Laugh at them when it doesn't work. Or emulate them if it does.

We've embraced Central power far too often because it seems easier to get what we want. But as with most things in life, easier is almost always the wrong approach, over the long-term.

baja
11-01-2013, 03:15 PM
Right now, the U.S. is at the height of its military powers. Nobody else even comes close. The idea that any single technological event could change that overnight is unreasonable. As far as military dangers go, we are still protected by two oceans. I'm also sure that our defense systems have their own grids. Carriers have their own nuclear power. So do subs. What you are talking about is a very, very long way down the road. Frankly, I'm more worried about interior decay than I am with exterior enemies.

I know it's a well worn cliché but fear the enemy within.

baja
11-01-2013, 03:23 PM
What they couldn't foresee was corporate power. That's our biggest enemy right now, not China. Not terrorists. They own our government. You think Ted Cruz and the Tea Party are grass roots movements of the people? They are corporate tools of very rich and powerful men who want to get richer and more powerful by making a government of the people weaker and unable to stop them. They're the ones who passed Citizens United. They're the ones who have enshrined corporate personhood in our laws.


So they own the government but not the military?

Rohirrim
11-01-2013, 03:26 PM
The problem is even if you believe that about Cruz or the TP, how do you argue that it's any worse than the Goldman Sachs Party we've got running the show now?

Let those guys run New York if that's the way New York wants it. Washington DC should matter much less to the Average American than it does.

Then if Romneycare works, great!. Other people can build on that. If it's an epic clusterfark, hey, well tough for them, but at least we all learned something. If you think lower taxes don't work, let Texas give it a try. Laugh at them when it doesn't work. Or emulate them if it does.

We've embraced Central power far too often because it seems easier to get what we want. But as with most things in life, easier is almost always the wrong approach, over the long-term.

You can't seem to get it. I voted for Obama the first time because of what he said he would do. I didn't vote for him the second time because of what he did do. He said he would prosecute the criminals of Wall Street and the banksters and instead, he moved them into the Oval Office. Like I've said before, it would be like Lincoln simply ignoring the firing on Fort Sumter. Obama has ignored the biggest ponzi scheme in history. He's like a 21st Century version of Buchanan.

The Tea Party and Cruz are a modern version of the Know Nothings.

As a liberal progressive (or whatever the **** I am), I want power restored to the American people.

Rohirrim
11-01-2013, 03:28 PM
So they own the government but not the military?

Judging by the profit the military/industrial complexes corporate powers made in Iraq and Afghanistan, I'd say they were satisfied with the status quo.

BroncoBeavis
11-01-2013, 03:29 PM
You can't seem to get it. I voted for Obama the first time because of what he said he would do. I didn't vote for him the second time because of what he did do. He said he would prosecute the criminals of Wall Street and the banksters and instead, he moved them into the Oval Office. Like I've said before, it would be like Lincoln simply ignoring the firing on Fort Sumter. Obama has ignored the biggest ponzi scheme in history. He's like a 21st Century version of Buchanan.

The Tea Party and Cruz are a modern version of the Know Nothings.

As a liberal progressive (or whatever the **** I am), I want power restored to the American people.

Then give the power back to the States. The closer the power is to the people, the better it serves them.

baja
11-01-2013, 03:32 PM
Then give the power back to the States. The closer the power is to the people, the better it serves them.

That's a great idea. Tell me how you would go about that?

BroncoBeavis
11-01-2013, 03:43 PM
That's a great idea. Tell me how you would go about that?

I mostly subscribe to the law of "You get the government you deserve."

We have our problems because too many people don't understand their history. Or they do, but still sell out to the allure of the easy one-size-fits-all "fix". Because the ends justify the means (which is never really the case)

At the end of the day though it'll take a special leader who brings forward that correct message. And he'll need some of George Washington's humility and restraint when it comes to his own self-aggrandizement.

Or in other words, an act of Divine intervention. :)

baja
11-01-2013, 03:56 PM
I mostly subscribe to the law of "You get the government you deserve."

We have our problems because too many people don't understand their history. Or they do, but still sell out to the allure of the easy one-size-fits-all "fix". Because the ends justify the means (which is never really the case)

At the end of the day though it'll take a special leader who brings forward that correct message. And he'll need some of George Washington's humility and restraint when it comes to his own self-aggrandizement.

Or in other words, an act of Divine intervention. :)


You know what prompts people to do the work to create the government they want, PAIN, lots of pain.

Requiem
11-01-2013, 04:01 PM
An uninformed, apathetic and lackadaisical populous negates such a possibility.

baja
11-01-2013, 04:04 PM
An uninformed, apathetic and lackadaisical populous negates such a possibility.

Pain will fix that, it's the only remedy.

Requiem
11-01-2013, 04:14 PM
Pain will fix that, it's the only remedy.

Pain in what sense?

FYI, I don't think that the USA will ever have a populous that is effectively engaged or informed re: the political process.

baja
11-01-2013, 04:24 PM
Pain in what sense?

FYI, I don't think that the USA will ever have a populous that is effectively engaged or informed re: the political process.


Pain is the sense of suffering a poor quality of life. For example take away the food stamps and watch what happens. People lack motivation because they are still reasonably comfortable. They have their fast food and their football. When people can't feed their kids or themselves they will take action against the perceived problem and at a 9% approval rating that entity will be the government.

Rohirrim
11-01-2013, 04:30 PM
Then give the power back to the States. The closer the power is to the people, the better it serves them.

I don't believe in the validity of the Southern 'states rights' argument. Historically, it's only been used to cloak institutionalized racism and other parochial failings.

Rohirrim
11-01-2013, 04:34 PM
Pain is the sense of suffering a poor quality of life. For example take away the food stamps and watch what happens. People lack motivation because they are still reasonably comfortable. They have their fast food and their football. When people can't feed their kids or themselves they will take action against the perceived problem and at a 9% approval rating that entity will be the government.

You know why the young men in Egypt brought down that government? I heard an interview with a young Egyptian man on NPR. He came home and found his mother crying at the kitchen table because she couldn't find bread. That's when he hit the streets.

baja
11-01-2013, 04:42 PM
You know why the young men in Egypt brought down that government? I heard an interview with a young Egyptian man on NPR. He came home and found his mother crying at the kitchen table because she couldn't find bread. That's when he hit the streets.


Yup!

You like to make historical comparisons, it's been that way forever.

mhgaffney
11-01-2013, 05:19 PM
You know why the young men in Egypt brought down that government? I heard an interview with a young Egyptian man on NPR. He came home and found his mother crying at the kitchen table because she couldn't find bread. That's when he hit the streets.

Exactly. If the dollar collapses the US war machine will be unable to launch Imperialistic foreign wars. But they will find the means here at home. Posse Comitatus is history.

Imagine 100 million hungry Americans in the streets, looking for something to eat. The price of food will be out of reach for many people. One in four are already on food stamps.

The US government - military will have its hands full here at home.

After the dollar goes, the Chinese will make their currency convertible. The Yuan will soon become the world's reserve currency.

MHG

BroncoBeavis
11-02-2013, 04:57 AM
Exactly. If the dollar collapses the US war machine will be unable to launch Imperialistic foreign wars. But they will find the means here at home. Posse Comitatus is history.

Imagine 100 million hungry Americans in the streets, looking for something to eat. The price of food will be out of reach for many people. One in four are already on food stamps.

The US government - military will have its hands full here at home.

After the dollar goes, the Chinese will make their currency convertible. The Yuan will soon become the world's reserve currency.

MHG

Yeah. The World is going to move to a reserve currency whose government has an open and permanent policy of currency manipulation.

Why does discussing our more serious problems always have to end up with someone blowing sunshine up China's ass?

They've got far more fundamental problems than we have. Cheap labor can only cover them up for so long.

mhgaffney
11-02-2013, 12:51 PM
Yeah. The World is going to move to a reserve currency whose government has an open and permanent policy of currency manipulation.

Why does discussing our more serious problems always have to end up with someone blowing sunshine up China's ass?

They've got far more fundamental problems than we have. Cheap labor can only cover them up for so long.

They have their own problems, sure, but they don't have ours.

alkemical
11-03-2013, 08:59 PM
That's a great idea. Tell me how you would go about that?

Grand juries and a constitutional convention.

BroncoBeavis
11-04-2013, 07:34 AM
They have their own problems, sure, but they don't have ours.

Yeah, they have some extra flexibility that totalitarianism allows you. Like doing whatever you feel like with your currency without worrying all that much about whether it pisses off the peasantry or not.

Which is why outsiders would have to be crazy to trust it as anything more than a short-term regional trade currency.

mhgaffney
11-04-2013, 03:38 PM
Yeah, they have some extra flexibility that totalitarianism allows you. Like doing whatever you feel like with your currency without worrying all that much about whether it pisses off the peasantry or not.

Which is why outsiders would have to be crazy to trust it as anything more than a short-term regional trade currency.

It remains to be seen whether Chinese communism will give way to democracy in China -- peacefully.

The rest of the planet would probably welcome China to step into a bigger role of global leadership. They have not made the blunders -- so far - -that the US has made again and again over the last 50+ years.

baja
11-04-2013, 04:51 PM
It remains to be seen whether Chinese communism will give way to democracy in China -- peacefully.

The rest of the planet would probably welcome China to step into a bigger role of global leadership. They have not made the blunders -- so far - -that the US has made again and again over the last 50+ years.

You really want the China model, REALLY???

Check their human rights record before you wish for that.

BroncoBeavis
11-04-2013, 04:55 PM
It remains to be seen whether Chinese communism will give way to democracy in China -- peacefully.

The rest of the planet would probably welcome China to step into a bigger role of global leadership. They have not made the blunders -- so far - -that the US has made again and again over the last 50+ years.

Yeah, one only needs to look at North Korea to see what wonders the Chinese international sphere of influence can accomplish. LOL

mhgaffney
11-05-2013, 03:02 PM
You really want the China model, REALLY???

Check their human rights record before you wish for that.

No, I don't want it. Why are you reading in?

The point is, the rest of the world has had a better time dealing with the Chinese than with us. Th US leadership role is over.

mhgaffney
11-05-2013, 03:03 PM
Yeah, one only needs to look at North Korea to see what wonders the Chinese international sphere of influence can accomplish. LOL

N Korea is not China. Two very different states. No comparison, really.

BroncoBeavis
11-05-2013, 03:11 PM
N Korea is not China. Two very different states. No comparison, really.

Didn't they were the same thing. I'm saying if you want to look at China's humanitarian ethics on the international stage, look no further than North Korea.

Rohirrim
11-05-2013, 03:16 PM
No, I don't want it. Why are you reading in?

The point is, the rest of the world has had a better time dealing with the Chinese than with us. Th US leadership role is over.

Tell that to Tibet.

mhgaffney
11-05-2013, 03:27 PM
Tell that to Tibet.

I would agree with you about Tibet -- and we also probably agree that the Chinese Communist party is a huge liability for the Chinese nation.

Nonetheless, China has dealt fairly with many poor nations in Africa and S America -- and this relationship has helped these nations to develop.

The Chinese way of doing business has the US beat, hands down.

mhgaffney
11-05-2013, 03:29 PM
Escape From The Dollar
An Interview with Paul Craig Roberts

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article36755.htm

By Mike Whitney

November 05, 2013 "Information Clearing House - Paul Craig Roberts thinks the Fed has backed itself into corner. A rise in interest rates would strengthen the dollar, give the dollar new life as world reserve currency, and halt the movement into gold, but a rise in rates would collapse the bond and stock markets and reduce the value of derivatives on the banks’ balance sheets. I asked Dr. Roberts if the Fed would sacrifice the dollar in order to save the banks and what the effect would be on Washington’s power viv-a-vis the rest of the world. His answers to these three questions suggest that Washington’s days of financial hegemony and world leadership are numbered.

Mike Whitney: Is the US dollar at risk of losing its position as reserve currency? How would this loss affect US leadership and other countries?

Paul Craig Roberts: In a way the dollar has already lost its reserve currency status, but this development has not yet been officially realized; nor has it hit the currency markets. Consider that the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) have announced their intention to abandon the use of the US dollar for the settlement of trade imbalances between themselves, instead settling their accounts in their own currencies. (There is now a website, the BRICSPOST, that reports on the developing relations between the five large countries.) There are also reports that Australia and China and Japan and China are going to settle their trade accounts without recourse to the dollar.

Different explanations are given. The BRICS imply that they are tired of US financial hegemony and have concerns about the dollar’s stability in view of Washington’s excessive issuance of new debt and new money to finance it. China, Australia, and Japan have cited the avoidance of transaction fees associated with exchanging their currencies first into US dollars and then into the other currencies. They say it is a cost-saving step to reduce transaction costs. This may be diplomatic cover for discarding the US dollar.

The October 2013 US government partial shutdown and (exaggerated) debt default threat resulted in the unprecedented currency swap agreements between the Chinese central bank and the European central bank and between the Chinese central bank and the Bank of England. The reason given for these currency swaps was necessary precaution against dollar disruption. In other words, US instability was seen as a threat to the international payments system. The dollar’s role of reserve currency is not compatible with the view that precautions must be taken against the dollar’s possible failure or disruption. China’s call for “a de-Americanized world” is a clear sign of growing impatience with Washington’s irresponsibility.

To summarize, there has been a change in attitudes toward the US dollar and acceptance of US financial hegemony. As the October deficit and debt ceiling crisis has not been resolved, merely moved to January/February, 2014, a repeat of the October impasse would further erode confidence in the dollar.

Regardless, most countries have come to the conclusion that not only has the US abused the reserve currency role, but also the power of Washington to impose its will and to act outside of law stems from its financial hegemony and that this financial power is more difficult to resist than Washington’s military power.

As the world, including US allies, made clear by standing up to Washington and blocking Washington’s military attack on Syria, Washington’s days of unchallenged hegemony are over. From China, Russia, Europe, and South America voices are rising against Washington’s lawlessness and recklessness. This changed attitude toward the US will break up the system of dollar imperialism.

Mike Whitney: How is the Federal Reserve’s Quantitative Easing impacting the dollar and financial instruments?

Paul Craig Roberts: The Federal Reserve’s policy of creating large amounts of new money in order to support the balance sheets of “banks too big to fail” and to finance continuing large budget deficits is another factor undermining the dollar’s reserve currency role. The liquidity that the Federal Reserve has pumped into the financial system has created enormous bubbles in bond and stock markets. US bond prices are so high as to be incompatible with the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet and massive creation of new dollars.

Moreover, central banks and some investors have realized that the Federal Reserve is locked into the policy of supporting bond prices. If the Federal Reserve ceases to support bond prices, interest rates will rise, the prices of debt-related derivatives on the banks’ balance sheets will fall, and the stock and bond markets would collapse. Therefore, a tapering off of quantitative easing risks a financial panic.

On the other hand, continuing the policy of supporting bond prices further erodes confidence in the US dollar. Vast amounts of dollars and dollar-denominated financial instruments are held all over the world. Holders of dollars are watching the Federal Reserve dilute their holdings by creating 1,000 billion new dollars per year. The natural result of this experience is to lighten up on dollar holdings and to look for different ways in which to hold reserves.

The Federal Reserve can print money with which to purchase bonds, but it cannot print foreign currencies with which to purchase dollars. As concerns over the dollar rise, the dollar’s exchange value will fall as more dollars are sold in currency markets. As the US is import-dependent, this will translate into higher domestic prices. Rising inflation will further spook dollar holders.

According to recent reports, China and Japan have together reduced their holdings of US Treasuries by some $40 billion. This is not a large sum compared to the size of the market, but it is a change from continuing accumulation. In the past, Washington has been able to count on China and Japan recycling their trade surpluses with the US into US Treasury debt. If foreign willingness to acquire Treasury debt declines and the federal budget deficit does not, the Federal Reserve would have to increase quantitative easing, thus putting even more pressure on the dollar.

In other words, in order to avoid an immediate crisis, the Federal Reserve has to continue a policy that will produce a crisis down the road. It is either a financial crisis now or a dollar crisis later.

Eventually, the Federal Reserve’s hand will be forced. As the dollar’s exchange value declines, so will the value of dollar-denominated financial instruments regardless of how many bonds the Federal Reserve purchases.

Mike Whitney: How is China likely to respond to America’s changing economic position?

Paul Craig Roberts: When I met with Chinese policymakers in 2006, I advised them that there was a limit to how long they could rely on the US consumer market as jobs offshoring was destroying it. I pointed out that China’s large population provided policymakers with the potential for an enormous economy. They replied that the one-child policy, which had been necessary in early years to keep population from outrunning social infrastructure, was blocking the development of a domestic consumer economy. As peasant farmers no longer could rely on multiple children for old age insurance, they hoarded their earnings in order to provide for their old age. Chinese policymakers said that they intended to develop a social security system that would give the population confidence to spend more of their earnings. I do not know to what extent China has moved in this direction.

Since 2006 the Chinese government has let the yuan appreciate 25% or 33%, depending on the choice of base. The increase in the currency’s exchange value has not hurt exports or the economy. Moreover, the US no longer manufactures many of the items for which it is dependent on China, and other developing countries do not have the combination of the technology that US corporations have given to China and China’s large excess supply of labor. So it is unlikely that China faces any threat to its development except for US policies designed to cut China off from resources, such as the new US military focus on the Pacific announced by the Obama regime.

China’s large dollar holdings are the consequence of the technological prowess that China acquired from Western corporations offshoring jobs to China. What is important to China is the technology and business know-how, which they have now acquired. The paper wealth represented by dollar holdings is not the important factor.

China could destabilize the US dollar by converting its holdings into dollar currency and dumping the dollars into the exchange markets. The Federal Reserve would not be able to arrange currency swaps with other countries large enough to buy up the dumped dollars, and the dollar’s exchange value would fall. Such an action could be a Chinese response to military encirclement by Washington.

In the absence of a confrontation, the Chinese government is more likely to gradually convert its dollars into gold, other currencies and real assets such as oil and mineral deposits and food businesses.

Quantitative easing is rapidly increasing the supply of dollars, but as other countries move to other arrangements for settling their trade imbalances, the demand for dollars is not rising with the supply. Thus, the dollar’s price must fall. Whether the fall is slow over time or sudden due to an unanticipated Black Swan event remains to be seen.

mhgaffney
11-05-2013, 03:35 PM
I agree with this analysis. The possibility of a US - Iran detente is very hopeful -- and would undermine the corrupt Saudi monarchy -- and also weaken Israel's influence -- another good thing. The Saudis might face an insurrection at home -- and Israel would face increasing international pressure to deal fairly with the Palestinians.

That said- -the Saudis could crash the collar by abandoning the petro dollar. Wild times. MHG

A Field Guide to Losing Friends, Influencing No One, and Alienating the Middle East

Obama’s Washington Is the Rodney Dangerfield of the Region

By Bob Dreyfuss

November 05, 2013 "Information Clearing House - Put in context, the simultaneous raids in Libya and Somalia last month, targeting an alleged al-Qaeda fugitive and an alleged kingpin of the al-Shabab Islamist movement, were less a sign of America’s awesome might than two minor exceptions that proved an emerging rule: namely, that the power, prestige, and influence of the United States in the broader Middle East and its ability to shape events there is in a death spiral.

Twelve years after the U.S. invaded Afghanistan to topple the Taliban and a decade after the misguided invasion of Iraq -- both designed to consolidate and expand America’s regional clout by removing adversaries -- Washington’s actual standing in country after country, including its chief allies in the region, has never been weaker. Though President Obama can order raids virtually anywhere using Special Operations forces, and though he can strike willy-nilly in targeted killing actions by calling in the Predator and Reaper drones, he has become the Rodney Dangerfield of the Middle East. Not only does no one there respect the United States, but no one really fears it, either -- and increasingly, no one pays it any mind at all.

There are plenty of reasons why America’s previously unchallenged hegemony in the Middle East is in free fall. The disastrous invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq generated anti-American fervor in the streets and in the elites. America’s economic crisis since 2008 has convinced many that the United States no longer has the wherewithal to sustain an imperial presence. The Arab Spring, for all its ups and downs, has challenged the status quo everywhere, leading to enormous uncertainty while empowering political forces unwilling to march in lockstep with Washington. In addition, oil-consuming nations like China and India have become more engaged with their suppliers, including Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Iraq. The result: throughout the region, things are fast becoming unglued for the United States.

Its two closest allies, Israel and Saudi Arabia, are sullenly hostile, routinely ignore Obama’s advice, and openly oppose American policies. Iraq and Afghanistan, one formerly occupied and one about to be evacuated, are led, respectively, by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, an inflexible sectarian Shiite closely tied to Iran, and President Hamid Karzai, a corrupt, mercurial leader who periodically threatens to join the Taliban. In Egypt, three successive regimes -- those of President Hosni Mubarak, Mohammad Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood, and the chieftains of the July 2013 military coup -- have insouciantly flouted U.S. wishes.

Turkey, ostensibly a NATO ally but led by a quirky Islamist, is miffed over Obama’s back-and-forth policy in Syria and has shocked the U.S. by deciding to buy a non-NATO-compatible missile defense system from China. Libya, Somalia, and Yemen have little or no government at all. They have essentially devolved into a mosaic of armed gangs, many implacably opposed to the United States.

This downward spiral has hardly escaped attention. In a recent address to the National Council on U.S.-Arab Relations, Chas Freeman, the former American ambassador to Saudi Arabia, described it in some detail. “We have lost intellectual command and practical control of the many situations unfolding there,” said Freeman, whose nomination by Obama in 2009 to serve as head of the National Intelligence Council was shot down by the Israel Lobby. “We must acknowledge the reality that we no longer have or can expect to have the clout we once did in the region.”

In an editorial on October 29th, the New York Times ruefully concluded: “It is not every day that America finds itself facing open rebellion from its allies, yet that is what is happening with Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Israel.” And in a front-page story on the administration's internal deliberations, the Times’s Mark Landler reported that, over the summer, the White House had decided to scale back its role in the Middle East because many objectives “lie outside [its] reach,” and henceforth would adopt a “more modest strategy” in the region.

Perhaps the most profound irony embedded in Washington’s current predicament is this: Iran, for decades the supposed epicenter of anti-Americanism in the region, is the country where the United States has perhaps its last opportunity to salvage its position. If Washington and Tehran can negotiate a détente -- and it’s a big if, given the domestic political power of hawks in both countries -- that accord might go a long way toward stabilizing Washington’s regional credibility.

Debacle in Syria

Let’s begin our survey of America’s Greater Middle Eastern fecklessness with Exhibit A: Syria. It is there, where a movement to oust President Bashar al-Assad devolved into a civil war, that the United States has demonstrated its utter inability to guide events. Back in the summer of 2011 -- at the very dawn of the conflict -- Obama demanded that Assad step down. There was only one problem: short of an Iraq-style invasion of Syria, he had no power to make that happen. Assad promptly called his bluff, escalated the conflict, and rallied support from Russia and Iran. Obama’s clarion call for his resignation only made things worse by convincing Syrian rebels that the United States would come to their aid.

A year later, Obama drew a “red line” in the sand, suggesting that any use of chemical weapons by Syrian forces would precipitate a U.S. military response. Again Assad ignored him, and many hundreds of civilians were gassed to death in multiple uses of the dreaded weapons.

The crowning catastrophe of Obama’s Syria policy came when he threatened a devastating strike on Assad’s military facilities using Tomahawk cruise missiles and other weaponry. Instead of finding himself leading a George W. Bush-style “coalition of the willing” with domestic support, Obama watched as allies scattered, including the usually reliable British and the Arab League. At home, political support was nearly nil and evaporated from there. Polls showed Americans overwhelmingly opposed to a war with or attack on Syria.

When, in desperation, the president appealed to Congress for a resolution to authorize the use of military force against that country, the White House found (to its surprise) that Congress, which normally rubber-stamps such proposals, would have none of it. Paralyzed, reluctant to choose between backing down and striking Syria by presidential fiat, Obama was rescued in humiliating fashion by a proposal from Syria’s chief ally, Russia, to dismantle and destroy that country’s chemical weapons arsenal.

Adding insult to injury, as Secretary of State John Kerry scrambles to organize a long-postponed peace conference in Geneva aimed at reaching a political settlement of the civil war, he is faced with a sad paradox: while the Syrian government has agreed to attend the Geneva meeting, also sponsored by Russia, America’s allies, the anti-Assad rebels, have flatly refused to go.

Laughingstock in Egypt

Don’t think for a second that Washington’s ineffectiveness stops with the ongoing Syrian fiasco.

Next door, in a country whose government was installed by the United States after the 2003 invasion, the Obama administration notoriously failed to convince the Iraqis to allow even a small contingent of American troops to remain there past 2011. Since then, that country has moved ever more firmly into Iran’s orbit and has virtually broken with Washington over Syria.

Since the start of the civil war in Syria, Shiite-led Iraq has joined Shiite Iran in supporting Assad, whose ruling minority Alawite sect is an offshoot of Shiism. There have been widespread reports that pro-Assad Iraqi Shiite militias are traveling to Syria, presumably with the support or at least acquiescence of the government. Ignoring Washington’s entreaties, it has also allowed Iran to conduct a virtual Berlin Airlift-style aerial resupply effort for Syria’s armed forces through Iraqi air space. Last month, in an appearance before the Council on Foreign Relations in New York during the United Nations General Assembly session, Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari undiplomatically warned Obama that his government stands against the U.S. decision -- taken in a secret presidential finding in April and only made public last summer -- to provide arms to Syria’s rebels. (“We oppose providing military assistance to any [Syrian] rebel groups.”)

Meanwhile, Washington is also flailing in its policy toward Egypt, where the Obama administration has been singularly hapless. In a rare feat, it has managed to anger and alienate every conceivable faction in that politically divided country. In July, when Egypt’s military ousted President Mohammad Morsi and violently clamped down on the Muslim Brotherhood, the Obama administration made itself look ridiculous to Egyptians (and to the rest of the Middle East) by refusing to call what happened a coup d’état, since under U.S. law that would have meant suspending aid to the Egyptian military.

As it happened, however, American aid figured little in the calculations of Egypt’s new military leaders. The reason was simple enough: Saudi Arabia and the Arab states of the Persian Gulf, bitter opponents of the Morsi government, applauded the coup and poured at least $12 billion in cash into the country’s near-empty coffers. In the end, making no one happy, the administration tried to split the difference: Obama declared that he would suspend the delivery of some big-ticket military items like Apache attack helicopters, Harpoon missiles, M1-A1 tank parts, and F-16 fighter planes, but let other aid to the military continue, including counterterrorism assistance and the sale of border security items. Such a split decision only served to underscore the administration’s lack of leverage in Cairo. Meanwhile, there are reports that Egypt’s new rulers may turn to Russia for arms in open defiance of a horrified Washington’s wishes.

Saudi and Israeli Punching Bag

The most surprising defection from the pro-American coalition in the Middle East is, however, Saudi Arabia. In part, that kingdom’s erratic behavior may result from a growing awareness among its ultraconservative, kleptocratic princelings that they face an increasingly uncertain future. Christopher Davidson’s new book, After the Sheikhs: The Coming Collapse of the Gulf Monarchies, outlines the many pressures building on the country.

One significant cause of instability, claims Davidson, is the “existence of substantial Western military bases on the Arabian Peninsula, [which are considered] an affront to Islam and to national sovereignty.” For decades, such an American military presence in the region provided a security blanket for the Saudi royals, making the country a virtual U.S. protectorate. Now, amid the turmoil that has followed the war in Iraq, the Arab Spring, and the rise of an assertive Iran, Saudi Arabia isn’t sure which way to turn, or whether the United States is friend or foe.

Since 2003, the Saudi rulers have found themselves increasingly unhappy with American policy. Riyadh, the area’s chief Sunni power, was apoplectic when the United States toppled Iraq’s Sunni leader Saddam Hussein and allowed Iran to vastly increase its influence in Baghdad. In 2011, the Saudi royal family blamed Washington for not doing more to prevent the collapse of the conservative and pro-Saudi Mubarak government in Egypt.

Now, the Saudis are on the verge of a complete break over Washington’s policies toward Syria and Iran. As the chief backers of the rebels in Syria, they were dismayed when Obama chose not to bomb military sites around Damascus. Because it views Iran through the lens of a regional Sunni-Shiite struggle for dominance, it is no less dismayed by the possible emergence of a U.S.-Iran accord from renewed negotiations over that country’s nuclear program.

To express its pique, its foreign minister abruptly canceled his address to the United Nations General Assembly in September, shocking U.N. members. Then, adding insult to injury, Saudi Arabia turned down a prestigious seat on the Security Council, a post for which it had long campaigned. “Upset at President Barack Obama's policies on Iran and Syria,” reported Reuters, “members of Saudi Arabia's ruling family are threatening a rift with the United States that could take the alliance between Washington and the kingdom to its lowest point in years.”

That news service quoted Saudi Arabia’s intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, as saying that his country was on the verge of a “major shift” in its relations with the U.S. Former head of Saudi intelligence Prince Turki al-Faisal lambasted America’s Syria policy this way: “The current charade of international control over Bashar's chemical arsenal would be funny if it were not so blatantly perfidious. [It is] designed not only to give Mr. Obama an opportunity to back down [from military strikes], but also to help Assad to butcher his people.”

This is shocking stuff from America’s second most reliable ally in the region. As for reliable ally number one, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has visibly decided to be anything but a cooperative partner in the region, making Obama’s job more difficult at every turn. Since 2009, he has gleefully defied the American president, starting with his refusal to impose a freeze on illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank when specifically asked to do so by the president at the start of his first term. Meanwhile, most of the world has spent the past half-decade on tenterhooks over the possibility that his country might actually launch a much-threatened military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Since Hassan Rouhani was elected president of Iran and indicated his interest in reorienting policy to make a deal with the Western powers over its nuclear program, Israeli statements have become ever more shrill. In a September speech to the U.N. General Assembly, for instance, Netanyahu rolled out extreme rhetoric, claiming that Israel is “challenged by a nuclear-armed Iran that seeks our destruction.” This despite the fact that Iran possesses no nuclear weapons, has enriched not an ounce of uranium to weapons-grade level, and has probably not mastered the technology to manufacture a bomb. According to American intelligence reports, it has not yet even militarized its nuclear research.

Netanyahu’s speech was so full of hyperbole that observers concluded Israel was isolating itself from the rest of the world. “He was so anxious to make everything look as negative as possible he actually pushed the limits of credibility,” said Gary Sick, a former senior official in the Carter administration and an Iran expert. “He did himself harm by his exaggerations.”

Iran: Obama’s Ironic Beacon of Hope

Both Israel and Saudi Arabia are fearful that the Middle Eastern balance of power could be tipped against them if the United States and Iran are able to strike a deal. Seeking to throw the proverbial monkey wrench into the talks between Iran, the U.S., and the P5+1 powers (the permanent members of the U.N. security Council plus Germany), Israel has put forward a series of demands that go far beyond anything Iran would accept, or that the other countries would go along with. Before supporting the removal of international economic sanctions against Iran, Israel wants that country to suspend all enrichment of uranium, shut down its nuclear facilities, not be allowed any centrifuges to enrich uranium, abandon the heavy-water plant it is constructing to produce plutonium, permanently close its fortified underground installation at Fordo, and ship its stockpile of enriched uranium out of the country.

In contrast, it’s widely believed that the United States is ready to allow Iran to continue to enrich uranium, maintain some of its existing facilities, and retain a partial stockpile of enriched uranium for fuel under stricter and more intrusive inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Ironically, a U.S.-Iran détente is the one thing that could slow down or reverse the death spiral of American influence in the region. Iran, for instance, could be helpful in convincing President Assad of Syria to leave office in 2014, in advance of elections there, if radical Sunni Islamic organizations, including allies of al-Qaeda, are suppressed. Enormously influential in Afghanistan, Iran could also help stabilize that country after the departure of U.S. combat forces in 2014. And it could be enlisted to work alongside the United States and regional powers to stabilize Iraq.

More broadly, a U.S.-Iran entente might lead to a gradual de-escalation of the U.S. military presence in the Persian Gulf, including its huge naval forces, bases, and other facilities in Qatar, Bahrain, and Kuwait. It’s even conceivable that Iran could be persuaded to join other regional and global powers in seeking a just and lasting negotiated deal between Israel and the Palestinians. The United States and Iran have a number of common interests, including opposing al-Qaeda-style terrorism and cracking down on drug smuggling.

Of course, such a deal will be exceedingly difficult to nail down, if for no other reason than that the hardliners in both countries are determined to prevent it.

Right now, imagine the Obama administration as one of those vaudeville acts that keep a dozen plates spinning atop vibrating poles. At just this moment in the Middle East, those “plates” are tipping in every direction. There’s still time to prevent them all from crashing to the ground, but it would take a masterful effort from the White House -- and it’s far from clear that anyone there is up to the task.

Bob Dreyfuss is an independent investigative journalist based in Cape May, New Jersey, specializing in politics and national security. He is a contributing editor at the Nation, and his blog appears daily at TheNation.com. In the past, he has written extensively for Rolling Stone, Mother Jones, the American Prospect, the New Republic, and many other magazines. He is the author of Devil’s Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article36751.htm

BroncoBeavis
11-05-2013, 03:39 PM
I would agree with you about Tibet -- and we also probably agree that the Chinese Communist party is a huge liability for the Chinese nation.

Nonetheless, China has dealt fairly with many poor nations in Africa and S America -- and this relationship has helped these nations to develop.

The Chinese way of doing business has the US beat, hands down.

Lolz. Schmoozing African dictators for trade consideration is more cleansing for some than others, I guess.

I mean with China's obviously stellar history of protecting human rights, and high universal standard of living for its own people, it's clear that they only have the average African's interests at heart. LOL

baja
11-05-2013, 04:06 PM
No, I don't want it. Why are you reading in?

The point is, the rest of the world has had a better time dealing with the Chinese than with us. Th US leadership role is over.

I DON'T THINK THE REST OF THE WORLD TRUSTS CHINA ANY MORE THAN THEY TRUST THE USA

baja
11-05-2013, 04:08 PM
Tell that to Tibet.

Great retort.

As unpopular and underhanded the US has been they are not even in the same stratosphere as China.

DenverBrit
11-05-2013, 04:37 PM
I would agree with you about Tibet -- and we also probably agree that the Chinese Communist party is a huge liability for the Chinese nation.

Nonetheless, China has dealt fairly with many poor nations in Africa and S America -- and this relationship has helped these nations to develop.

The Chinese way of doing business has the US beat, hands down.

China desperately needs the 3rd world's food growing capacity and their natural resources.

China will do whatever it takes to get what they need and the last two Presidents US have made it very easy for them.

China is making good use of both their faces, if you think that makes them trustworthy, I suggest you read history and get your head out of PCR's arse.

alkemical
11-05-2013, 08:07 PM
Look at how much land went with the pork acquisition.

W*GS
11-06-2013, 05:55 AM
Figures gaffe sucks Chinese cawk.

mhgaffney
11-06-2013, 01:09 PM
I DON'T THINK THE REST OF THE WORLD TRUSTS CHINA ANY MORE THAN THEY TRUST THE USA

Yeah they do.

China is doing business -- with many countries -- spending US dollars by the ton -- buying up resources -- whatever -- and cutting deals with poor nations.

China actually delivers -- to the betterment of these countries.

It's quite a shift from the IMF, World Bank, and US policies of stealing, looting, corrupting leaders with payoffs, threatening, bombingt, droning, assassinating etc

alkemical
11-06-2013, 02:25 PM
Uhhhh you are SOOO wrong on this one Mark. You better pay attention to the TPP & what just happened with the Pork farms here in the USA.

mhgaffney
11-07-2013, 03:49 PM
I am not a China booster. I am not saying there have not been problems.

The Chinese no doubt pay bribes -- in much of the world this is accepted as part of doing business. Baak-sheesh.

One big difference is that the Chinese are taking the long view -- looking far down the road. They are not engaging in threats, covert ops or coercion. They are doing business.

What is most pathetic in here is the level of US exceptionalism -- even after all of the terrible things that have come down.

Probably -- things won't change until after the dollar crashes -- then reality will be impossible to avoid.

MHG

mhgaffney
11-07-2013, 03:54 PM
How America Was Lost

By Paul Craig Roberts

“No legal issue arises when the United States responds to a challenge to its power, position, and prestige." Dean Acheson , 1962, speaking to the American Society of International Law.

November 07, 2013 "Information Clearing House - Dean Acheson declared 51 years ago that power, position, and prestige are the ingredients of national security and that national security trumps law. In the United States democracy takes a back seat to “national security,” a prerogative of the executive branch of government.

National security is where the executive branch hides its crimes against law, both domestic and international, its crimes against the Constitution, its crimes against innocent citizens both at home and abroad, and its secret agendas that it knows that the American public would never support.

“National security” is the cloak that the executive branch uses to make certain that the US government is unaccountable.

Without accountable government there is no civil liberty and no democracy except for the sham voting that existed in the Soviet Union and now exists in the US.

There have been periods in US history, such as President Lincoln’s war to prevent secession, World War I, and World War II, when accountable government was impaired. These were short episodes of the Constitution’s violation, and the Constitution was reinstated in the aftermath of the wars. However, since the Clinton regime, the accountability of government has been declining for more than two decades, longer than the three wars combined.

In law there is the concept of adverse possession, popularly known as “squatters’ rights.” A non-owner who succeeds in occupying a piece of property or some one else’s right for a certain time without being evicted enjoys the ownership title conveyed to him. The reasoning is that by not defending his rights, the owner showed his disinterest and in effect gave his rights away.

Americans have not defended their rights conveyed by the US Constitution for the duration of the terms of three presidents. The Clinton regime was not held accountable for its illegal attack on Serbia. The Bush regime was not held accountable for its illegal invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. The Obama regime was not held accountable for its renewed attack on Afghanistan and its illegal attacks on Libya, Pakistan, and Yemen, and by its proxies on Syria.

We also have other strictly illegal and unconstitutional acts of government for which the government has not been held accountable. The Bush regimes’ acts of torture, indefinite detention, and warrantless spying, and the Obama regime’s acts of indefinite detention, warrantless spying, and murder of US citizens without due process. As the Obama regime lies through its teeth, we have no way of knowing whether torture is still practiced.

If these numerous criminal acts of the US government spread over the terms of three presidents pass into history as unchallenged events, the US government will have acquired squatters’ rights in lawlessness. The US Constitution will be, as President George W. Bush is reported to have declared, “a scrap of paper.”

Lawlessness is the hallmark of tyranny enforced by the police state. In a police state law is not a protector of rights but a weapon in the hands of government. [see Roberts & Stratton, The Tyranny of Good Intentions] The accused has no recourse to the accusation, which does not require evidence presented to a court. The accused is guilty by accusation alone and can be shot in the back of the head, as under Stalin, or blown up by a drone missile, as under Obama.

As a person aware of the long struggle against the tyrannical state, I have been amazed and disheartened by the acceptance not only by the insouciant American public, but also by law schools, bar associations, media, Congress and the Supreme Court of the executive branch’s claim to be above both law and the US Constitution.

As Lawrence Stratton and I show in our book about how the law was lost, liberals and conservatives chasing after their favorite devils, such as child abusers and drug pushers, and prosecutors, judges, and police devoted to conviction and not to justice, have gradually eroded over time the concept of law as a protection of the innocent, With the atmosphere of threat created by 9/11, the final destruction of the protective features of law was quickly achieved in the name of making us safe from terrorists.

The fact that we are no longer safe from our own government did not register.

This is how liberty was lost, and America with it.

Can liberty be regained? Probably not, but there is a chance if Americans have the necessary strength of character. The chance comes from the now known fact that the neoconservative Bush/Cheney regime took America and its puppet states to war in Afghanistan and Iraq entirely on the basis of lies. As all evidence proves, these wars were not the results of mistaken intelligence. They were the products of intentional lies.

The weapons inspectors told the Bush regime that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Despite this known fact, the Bush regime sent Secretary of State Colin Powell to the UN with fabricated evidence to convince the world that Saddam Hussein had “weapons of mass destruction” and was a threat to the world. Even if such weapons had existed in Iraq, many countries have them, including the US and Israel, and the presence of weapons does not under the Nuremberg Laws justify unprovoked aggression against the possessor. Under the Nuremberg Laws, unprovoked military aggression is a war crime, not the possession of weapons that many countries have. The war crime was committed by the US and its “coalition of the willing,” not by Saddam Hussein.

As for the invasion of Afghanistan, we know from the last video of Osama bin Laden in October 2001, attested by experts to be the last appearance of a man dying of renal failure and other diseases, that he declared that he had no responsibility for 9/11 and that Americans should look to their own government. We know as a reported fact that the Afghan Taliban offered to turn over Osama bin Laden to Washington if the Bush regime would provide the evidence that indicated bin Laden was responsible. The Bush regime refused to hand over the (non-existent) evidence and, with support of the corrupt and cowardly Congress and the presstitute media, attacked Afghanistan without any legal justification. Remember, the FBI has stated publicly that it has no evidence that Osama bin Laden was responsible for 9/11 and that that is why the crimes for which the FBI wanted bin Laden did not include responsibility for the 9/11 attack.

The war propaganda campaign was well prepared. Yellow ribbon decals were handed out for cars proclaiming “support the troops.” In other words, anyone who raises the obvious questions is not supporting the troops. Still today insouciant Americans sport these decals on their cars unaware that what they are supporting are the murder of foreign women, children and village elders, the death and physical and mental maiming of American soldiers, and the worldwide destruction of the reputation of the United States, with America’s main rival, China, now calling for a “de-Americanized world.”

A country with a population as insouciant as Americans is a country in which the government can do as it pleases.

Now that we have complete proof that the criminal Bush regime took our country to wars in Afghanistan and Iraq solely on the basis of intentional lies, how can the legal institutions, the courts, the American people possibly tolerate the Obama regime’s ignoring of the obvious crimes? How can America simply accept Obama’s statement that we mustn’t look back, only move ahead? If the US government, which has committed the worst crimes of our generation, cannot be held accountable and punished, how can federal, state, and local courts fill up American prisons with people who smoked pot and with people who did not sufficiently grovel before the police state.

Doubtless, the Obama regime, should it obey the law and prosecute the Bush regime’s crimes, would have to worry about being prosecuted for its own crimes, which are just as terrible. Nevertheless, I believe that the Obama regime could survive if it put all the blame on the Bush regime, prosecuted the Bush criminals, and desisted from the illegal actions that it currently supports. This would save the Constitution and US civil liberty, but it would require the White House to take the risk that by enforcing US law, US law might be enforced against its own illegal and unconstitutional acts by a succeeding regime.

The Bush/Cheney/John Yoo neoconservative regime having got rid of US law, no doubt the Obama regime thinks it is best to leave the situation as it is, rid of law.

Without accountability, America is finished. Not only will Americans live in a police state with no civil liberties, but the rest of the world is already looking at America with a jaundiced eye. The US is being reconstituted as an authoritarian state. All it takes is one failure of accountability for the police state to become entrenched, and we have had numerous failures of accountability. Does anyone really believe that some future government is going to make restitution to persecuted truth-tellers, such as Bradley Manning, Julian Assange, and Edward Snowdon, as was done for Japanese Americans?

Now that we know for a certain fact that the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were based on propaganda and lies, Congress and the world media should demand to know what was the real secret agenda. What are the real reasons for which Afghanistan and Iraq were invaded?

No truthful explanation for these wars exists.


Paul O’Neill, the Bush regime’s first Treasury Secretary, is on public record stating that at the very first cabinet meeting, long prior to 9/11, the agenda was a US attack on Iraq.

In other words, the Bush regime’s attack on Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11.

What was the Bush regime’s secret agenda, kept secret by the Obama regime, that required an illegal, war criminal, attack on a sovereign country, an action for which officials of Hitler’s government were executed? What is the real purpose of Washington’s wars?

It is totally and completely obvious that the wars have nothing to do with protecting Americans from terrorism. If anything, the wars stir up and create terrorists. The wars create hatred of America that never previously existed. Despite this, America is free of terrorists attacks except for the ones orchestrated by the FBI. What the fabricated “terror threat” has done is to create a thorough-going domestic police state that is unaccountable.

Americans need to understand that they have lost their country. The rest of the world needs to recognize that Washington is not merely the most complete police state since Stalinism, but also a threat to the entire world. The hubris and arrogance of Washington, combined with Washington’s huge supply of weapons of mass destruction, make Washington the greatest threat that has ever existed to all life on the planet. Washington is the enemy of all humanity.

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. His latest book, The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West is now available.

BroncoBeavis
11-07-2013, 04:00 PM
I am not a China booster. I am not saying there have not been problems.

The Chinese no doubt pay bribes -- in much of the world this is accepted as part of doing business. Baak-sheesh.

One big difference is that the Chinese are taking the long view -- looking far down the road. They are not engaging in threats, covert ops or coercion. They are doing business.

What is most pathetic in here is the level of US exceptionalism -- even after all of the terrible things that have come down.

Probably -- things won't change until after the dollar crashes -- then reality will be impossible to avoid.

MHG

Oh, Gaff. It's one thing to be critical of your home country. It's another thing to want to paint it so badly, you paper over the considerable excesses of its enemies.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/23/opinion/china-corrution-lijia-zhang/