Clinton

[Eugene Wrayburn]

The problem for Clinton, as for Obama, is likely to be that all the things that she would want to do require money and it's Congress who decide on how money is spent.

Obama's healthcare bill seems to me to be a step in the right direction to making sure that there is healthcare for all. Hillary knows better than anyone how difficult that is to do having had a go and failed when Bill was Pres.

Debt free college is an admirable aim but again needs Congress to agree to fund it.

In short if you want the president to do stuff, then vote for a Congress that will agree to pay for it.

It's an interesting feature of western democracy that the newly elected leaders' first task is coming to terms with how little power they actually have.
Geldof, about Africa, said that autocracy might sometimes be the best option as it sped up the timeframes.

The British PM has massive domestic power compared to the POTUS. The US is unusual in quite how little power the head of government has.

[rowan]

The problem for Clinton, as for Obama, is likely to be that all the things that she would want to do require money and it's Congress who decide on how money is spent.

Obama's healthcare bill seems to me to be a step in the right direction to making sure that there is healthcare for all. Hillary knows better than anyone how difficult that is to do having had a go and failed when Bill was Pres.

Debt free college is an admirable aim but again needs Congress to agree to fund it.

In short if you want the president to do stuff, then vote for a Congress that will agree to pay for it.

It's an interesting feature of western democracy that the newly elected leaders' first task is coming to terms with how little power they actually have.
Geldof, about Africa, said that autocracy might sometimes be the best option as it sped up the timeframes.

The British PM has massive domestic power compared to the POTUS. The US is unusual in quite how little power the head of government has.

Theoretically it's the best system, but in practice it's the worst.

[kk67]

The British PM has massive domestic power compared to the POTUS. The US is unusual in quite how little power the head of government has.

Because our 2nd house can only delay..?.
I definitely get the feeling that the success of any of our parliamentary parties is now decided purely by the success of the square mile.

[WaspInWales]

I just wanna see Trump win now. There's is just no way he will be able to do the things he has promised, so watching the fallout from that will be worth the ticket price alone.

Would love to see other world leaders deal with him on any number of issues. As much as I detest the cunt, Trump as POTUS would provide some cheerful moments.

[Which Tyler]

I just wanna see Trump win now. There's is just no way he will be able to do the things he has promised, so watching the fallout from that will be worth the ticket price alone.

Would love to see other world leaders deal with him on any number of issues. As much as I detest the cunt, Trump as POTUS would provide some cheerful moments.

Not for long it wouldn't, he'd about turn faster than Boris winning a referendum

[Eugene Wrayburn]

The British PM has massive domestic power compared to the POTUS. The US is unusual in quite how little power the head of government has.

Because our 2nd house can only delay..?.
I definitely get the feeling that the success of any of our parliamentary parties is now decided purely by the success of the square mile.

Not only that but s/he can stack the Lords if necessary. That's as well as an inbuilt majority in the Commons for the financing of policy.

[Coco]

Rowan, you probably fuck off with that broad brush. People in America are well aware of the military industrial complex and the need to reign it in. There is still a beating heart in the 4th estate under all that reality TV and info-news, and there is dialogue on the ground. I see it because I live here. The racist fire and brimstone wankers make the mainstream media, but they are not a majority. I agree with you on the need to shake up the establishment and get power back in the people's hands, but sweet jesus, not every American is a clone of Carl Rove FFS. Remember there is a lot of diversity in this country.

This. Very well said Porkster.

[Vengeful Glutton]

If it was to be reigned in a lot of jobs would be lost. That's the reality of it.

Same as Tommy's MIC.

[rowan]

If the majority of Americans were intent on reining in the military industrial complex there is no way they would be voting for a serial war criminal.

But contrary to the juvenile, over-defensive accusation, I haven't been painting anybody with a broad brush. There wasn't even an accusation against anybody in my comment, in fact.

If you understood the English language at all, you would have noted that the word structure I used was a reduced defining relative clause - or a defining relative clause omitting the relative pronoun.

"I can understand privileged white folks in North America & Europe not being worried"

That means I was referring to a specific group of people: those privileged white folk in North America and Europe who are not worried about a war criminal (intent on removing Assad, btw) coming to power.

And that was in response to a comment that said war criminal's imminent "election" was of no concern to him/her personally. Now, had I used a non-defining relative clause structure, ie with commas, then that would have been a generalisation.

Therefore your accusation was based on a misinterpretation of my comment owing to your own ignorance of the finer points of English grammar. I'm sure you'll be man enough to apologise.

Meanwhile, this is a good piece on Clinton's involvement in the destruction of Libya - and a good example of why her imminent "election" worries me a great deal, living on the edge of the Middle East as I do:

"Of the two, it is Clinton who was filmed clapping her hands and laughing at the news of Muammar Gaddafi’s murder in 2011. It is Clinton who pressed for the military intervention that ended in Libya’s destruction. And it is Hillary Clinton who has the gall to present herself as a moral giant in comparison to her rival for the US presidency."

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/10/21/ ... f-qaddafi/

I should add to this, btw, that I attended university in America, and although that was some time ago, I have spent the past two decades living and working within a British/American-dominated expat community, so that I've actually become far more in tune with events in those two nations than I am with my own.

I just wonder why people can't discuss things without trying to silence others with accusations of 'sexism' or 'anti-Americanism' and so on. It's like trying to have a discussion on Israel and being labeled 'anti-semitist' by those who don't want to hear what you have to say. I was responding to what appeared to me a fairly flippant comment about the likely consequences of Clinton's imminent "election" (I peronally regard it as an appointment). There is, of course no prejudice against race, gender, religion or nationality in my views on Clinton. I have been at pains to spell out exactly why I am opposed to her "election" (on humanitarian grounds), and I've also mentioned several times that my preferred candidate would be Jill Stein. Incidentally, almost a million Americans followed her live broadcast on Twitter on Wednesday night, though it barely received a mention in the media...

[rowan]

I should add to this, btw, that I attended university in America, and although that was some time ago, I have spent the past two decades living and working within a British/American-dominated expat community, so that I've actually become far more in tune with events in those two nations than I am with my own.

I just wonder why people can't discuss things without trying to silence others with accusations of 'sexism' or 'anti-Americanism' and so on. It's like trying to have a discussion on Israel and being labeled 'anti-semitist' by those who don't want to hear what you have to say. I was responding to what appeared to me a fairly flippant comment about the likely consequences of Clinton's imminent "election" (I peronally regard it as an appointment). There is, of course no prejudice against race, gender, religion or nationality in my views on Clinton. I have been at pains to spell out exactly why I am opposed to her "election" (on humanitarian grounds), and I've also mentioned several times that my preferred candidate would be Jill Stein. Incidentally, almost a million Americans followed her live broadcast on Twitter on Wednesday night, though it barely received a mention in the media...

[rowan]

I just wonder why people can't discuss things without trying to silence others with accusations of 'sexism' or 'anti-Americanism' and so on. It's like trying to have a discussion on Israel and being labeled 'anti-semitist' by those who don't want to hear what you have to say. I was responding to what appeared to me a fairly flippant comment about the likely consequences of Clinton's imminent "election" (I peronally regard it as an appointment). There is, of course no prejudice against race, gender, religion or nationality in my views on Clinton. I have been at pains to spell out exactly why I am opposed to her "election" (on humanitarian grounds), and I've also mentioned several times that my preferred candidate would be Jill Stein. Incidentally, almost a million Americans followed her live broadcast on Twitter on Wednesday night, though it barely received a mention in the media...

[rowan]

I should add to this, btw, that I attended university in America, and although that was some time ago, I have spent the past two decades living and working within a British/American-dominated expat community, so that I've actually become far more in tune with events in those two nations than I am with my own.

I just wonder why people can't discuss things without trying to silence others with accusations of 'sexism' or 'anti-Americanism' and so on. It's like trying to have a discussion on Israel and being labeled 'anti-semitist' by those who don't want to hear what you have to say. I was responding to what appeared to me a fairly flippant comment about the likely consequences of Clinton's imminent "election" (I peronally regard it as an appointment). There is, of course no prejudice against race, gender, religion or nationality in my views on Clinton. I have been at pains to spell out exactly why I am opposed to her "election" (on humanitarian grounds), and I've also mentioned several times that my preferred candidate would be Jill Stein. Incidentally, almost a million Americans followed her live broadcast on Twitter on Wednesday night, though it barely received a mention in the media...

[morepork]

Jill Stein makes some of the right noises, but I can't quite filter through the interweb noise regarding some of her homeopathy and vaccine statements. Yes, I know she is a pediatrician, but Ben Carson is a neurosurgen.

Anyway, the Federal Reserve would have her assassinated if she got too close to government.

[rowan]

I should add to this, btw, that I attended university in America, and although that was some time ago, I have spent the past two decades living and working within a British/American-dominated expat community, so that I've actually become far more in tune with events in those two nations than I am with my own.

I just wonder why people can't discuss things without trying to silence others with accusations of 'sexism' or 'anti-Americanism' and so on. It's like trying to have a discussion on Israel and being labeled 'anti-semitist' by those who don't want to hear what you have to say. I was responding to what appeared to me a fairly flippant comment about the likely consequences of Clinton's imminent "election" (I peronally regard it as an appointment). There is, of course no prejudice against race, gender, religion or nationality in my views on Clinton. I have been at pains to spell out exactly why I am opposed to her "election" (on humanitarian grounds), and I've also mentioned several times that my preferred candidate would be Jill Stein. Incidentally, almost a million Americans followed her live broadcast on Twitter on Wednesday night, though it barely received a mention in the media...

[rowan]

rowan wrote:
If the majority of Americans were intent on reining in the military industrial complex there is no way they would be voting for a serial war criminal.

But contrary to the juvenile, over-defensive accusation, I haven't been painting anybody with a broad brush. There wasn't even an accusation against anybody in my comment, in fact.

If you understood the English language at all, you would have noted that the word structure I used was a reduced defining relative clause - or a defining relative clause omitting the relative pronoun.

"I can understand privileged white folks in North America & Europe not being worried"

That means I was referring to a specific group of people: those privileged white folk in North America and Europe who are not worried about a war criminal (intent on removing Assad, btw) coming to power.

And that was in response to a comment that said war criminal's imminent "election" was of no concern to him/her personally. Now, had I used a non-defining relative clause structure, ie with commas, then that would have been a generalisation.

Therefore your accusation was based on a misinterpretation of my comment owing to your own ignorance of the finer points of English grammar. I'm sure you'll be man enough to apologise.

Meanwhile, this is a good piece on Clinton's involvement in the destruction of Libya - and a good example of why her imminent "election" worries me a great deal, living on the edge of the Middle East as I do:

"Of the two, it is Clinton who was filmed clapping her hands and laughing at the news of Muammar Gaddafi’s murder in 2011. It is Clinton who pressed for the military intervention that ended in Libya’s destruction. And it is Hillary Clinton who has the gall to present herself as a moral giant in comparison to her rival for the US presidency."

[rowan]

rowan wrote:
If the majority of Americans were intent on reining in the military industrial complex there is no way they would be voting for a serial war criminal.

But contrary to the juvenile, over-defensive accusation, I haven't been painting anybody with a broad brush. There wasn't even an accusation against anybody in my comment, in fact.

If you understood the English language at all, you would have noted that the word structure I used was a reduced defining relative clause - or a defining relative clause omitting the relative pronoun.

"I can understand privileged white folks in North America & Europe not being worried"

That means I was referring to a specific group of people: those privileged white folk in North America and Europe who are not worried about a war criminal (intent on removing Assad, btw) coming to power.

And that was in response to a comment that said war criminal's imminent "election" was of no concern to him/her personally. Now, had I used a non-defining relative clause structure, ie with commas, then that would have been a generalisation.

Therefore your accusation was based on a misinterpretation of my comment owing to your own ignorance of the finer points of English grammar. I'm sure you'll be man enough to apologise.

Meanwhile, this is a good piece on Clinton's involvement in the destruction of Libya - and a good example of why her imminent "election" worries me a great deal, living on the edge of the Middle East as I do:

"Of the two, it is Clinton who was filmed clapping her hands and laughing at the news of Muammar Gaddafi’s murder in 2011. It is Clinton who pressed for the military intervention that ended in Libya’s destruction. And it is Hillary Clinton who has the gall to present herself as a moral giant in comparison to her rival for the US presidency."

[rowan]

rowan wrote:
If the majority of Americans were intent on reining in the military industrial complex there is no way they would be voting for a serial war criminal.

But contrary to the juvenile, over-defensive accusation, I haven't been painting anybody with a broad brush. There wasn't even an accusation against anybody in my comment, in fact.

If you understood the English language at all, you would have noted that the word structure I used was a reduced defining relative clause - or a defining relative clause omitting the relative pronoun.

"I can understand privileged white folks in North America & Europe not being worried"

That means I was referring to a specific group of people: those privileged white folk in North America and Europe who are not worried about a war criminal (intent on removing Assad, btw) coming to power.

And that was in response to a comment that said war criminal's imminent "election" was of no concern to him/her personally. Now, had I used a non-defining relative clause structure, ie with commas, then that would have been a generalisation.

Therefore your accusation was based on a misinterpretation of my comment owing to your own ignorance of the finer points of English grammar. I'm sure you'll be man enough to apologise.

Meanwhile, this is a good piece on Clinton's involvement in the destruction of Libya - and a good example of why her imminent "election" worries me a great deal, living on the edge of the Middle East as I do:

"Of the two, it is Clinton who was filmed clapping her hands and laughing at the news of Muammar Gaddafi’s murder in 2011. It is Clinton who pressed for the military intervention that ended in Libya’s destruction. And it is Hillary Clinton who has the gall to present herself as a moral giant in comparison to her rival for the US presidency."

[rowan]

rowan wrote:
If the majority of Americans were intent on reining in the military industrial complex there is no way they would be voting for a serial war criminal.

But contrary to the juvenile, over-defensive accusation, I haven't been painting anybody with a broad brush. There wasn't even an accusation against anybody in my comment, in fact.

If you understood the English language at all, you would have noted that the word structure I used was a reduced defining relative clause - or a defining relative clause omitting the relative pronoun.

"I can understand privileged white folks in North America & Europe not being worried"

That means I was referring to a specific group of people: those privileged white folk in North America and Europe who are not worried about a war criminal (intent on removing Assad, btw) coming to power.

And that was in response to a comment that said war criminal's imminent "election" was of no concern to him/her personally. Now, had I used a non-defining relative clause structure, ie with commas, then that would have been a generalisation.

Therefore your accusation was based on a misinterpretation of my comment owing to your own ignorance of the finer points of English grammar. I'm sure you'll be man enough to apologise.

Meanwhile, this is a good piece on Clinton's involvement in the destruction of Libya - and a good example of why her imminent "election" worries me a great deal, living on the edge of the Middle East as I do:

"Of the two, it is Clinton who was filmed clapping her hands and laughing at the news of Muammar Gaddafi’s murder in 2011. It is Clinton who pressed for the military intervention that ended in Libya’s destruction. And it is Hillary Clinton who has the gall to present herself as a moral giant in comparison to her rival for the US presidency."

Another good piece here:

The most consequential statement by Secretary Clinton in last night’s debate was her pronouncement that a no-fly zone over Syria could “save lives and hasten the end of the conflict,” that a no-fly zone would provide “safe zones on the ground” was in “the best interests of the people on the ground in Syria” and would “help us with our fight against ISIS.”

It would do none of the above. A US attempt to impose a no-fly zone in Syria would, as Secretary Clinton once cautioned a Goldman Sachs audience, “kill a lot of Syrians,” and, according to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Dunford, lead to a war with Russia. If the US has not been invited into a country to establish a “no-fly zone” such an action is, in fact, an invasion, an act of war.

It is abundantly clear from our dark alliance with Saudi Arabia and our conduct in support of jihadists in Syria that our current leaders have learned nothing from Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya as we prepare to plunge head-long into the abyss of a world war.

Our international relations are built upon lies to promote regime changes, the fantasy of a unipolar world ruled by America, and a blank check for the national security state.

As others prepare for war, we must prepare for peace. We must answer the mindless call to arms with a thoughtful, soulful call to resist the coming build up for war. A new, resolute peace movement must arise, become visible and challenge those who would make war inevitable.

We must not wait until the Inauguration to begin to build a new peace movement in America.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/10/21/war-or-peace/

[rowan]

rowan wrote:
If the majority of Americans were intent on reining in the military industrial complex there is no way they would be voting for a serial war criminal.

But contrary to the juvenile, over-defensive accusation, I haven't been painting anybody with a broad brush. There wasn't even an accusation against anybody in my comment, in fact.

If you understood the English language at all, you would have noted that the word structure I used was a reduced defining relative clause - or a defining relative clause omitting the relative pronoun.

"I can understand privileged white folks in North America & Europe not being worried"

That means I was referring to a specific group of people: those privileged white folk in North America and Europe who are not worried about a war criminal (intent on removing Assad, btw) coming to power.

And that was in response to a comment that said war criminal's imminent "election" was of no concern to him/her personally. Now, had I used a non-defining relative clause structure, ie with commas, then that would have been a generalisation.

Therefore your accusation was based on a misinterpretation of my comment owing to your own ignorance of the finer points of English grammar. I'm sure you'll be man enough to apologise.

Meanwhile, this is a good piece on Clinton's involvement in the destruction of Libya - and a good example of why her imminent "election" worries me a great deal, living on the edge of the Middle East as I do:

"Of the two, it is Clinton who was filmed clapping her hands and laughing at the news of Muammar Gaddafi’s murder in 2011. It is Clinton who pressed for the military intervention that ended in Libya’s destruction. And it is Hillary Clinton who has the gall to present herself as a moral giant in comparison to her rival for the US presidency."

Another good piece here:

The most consequential statement by Secretary Clinton in last night’s debate was her pronouncement that a no-fly zone over Syria could “save lives and hasten the end of the conflict,” that a no-fly zone would provide “safe zones on the ground” was in “the best interests of the people on the ground in Syria” and would “help us with our fight against ISIS.”

It would do none of the above. A US attempt to impose a no-fly zone in Syria would, as Secretary Clinton once cautioned a Goldman Sachs audience, “kill a lot of Syrians,” and, according to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Dunford, lead to a war with Russia. If the US has not been invited into a country to establish a “no-fly zone” such an action is, in fact, an invasion, an act of war.

It is abundantly clear from our dark alliance with Saudi Arabia and our conduct in support of jihadists in Syria that our current leaders have learned nothing from Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya as we prepare to plunge head-long into the abyss of a world war.

Our international relations are built upon lies to promote regime changes, the fantasy of a unipolar world ruled by America, and a blank check for the national security state.

As others prepare for war, we must prepare for peace. We must answer the mindless call to arms with a thoughtful, soulful call to resist the coming build up for war. A new, resolute peace movement must arise, become visible and challenge those who would make war inevitable.

We must not wait until the Inauguration to begin to build a new peace movement in America.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/10/21/war-or-peace/

Also good:

It has become crystal clear.

For the record, here it is.

She has big ambitions, which she does not spell out for fear of frightening part of the electorate, but which are perfectly understood by her closest aides and biggest donors.

She wants to achieve regime change in Russia.

She enjoys the support of most of the State Department and much of the Pentagon, and Congress is ready to go.

The method: a repeat of the 1979 Brezinski ploy, which consisted of luring Moscow into Afghanistan, in order to get the Russians bogged down in their “Vietnam”. As the Russians are a much more peace-loving people, largely because of what they suffered in two World Wars, the Russian involvement in Afghanistan was very unpopular and can be seen as a cause of the collapse of the Soviet Union.

This led to the temporary reign of the drunken Boris Yeltsin who – as recounted in Strobe Talbott’s memoirs – was putty in the hands of Bill Clinton. Hillary would like to renew that sort of relationship. Putin is an obstacle.

The new version of this old strategy is to use Russia’s totally legal and justifiable efforts to save Syria from destruction in order to cause enough Russian casualties to incite anti-Putin reaction in Russia leading to his overthrow. (Note State Department spokesman John Kirby’s recent warning that Russia will soon be “sending troops home in body bags”.)

That is the prime reason why the United States is doing everything to keep the Syrian war dragging on and on. The joint Syrian-Russian offensive to recapture the rebel-held Eastern sections of Aleppo might lead to an early end of the war. U.S. reaction: a huge propaganda campaign condemning this normal military operation as “criminal”, while driving ISIS forces out of Mosul with attacks from the East, so that they will move westward into Syria, to fight against the Assad government.

Ukraine is another theater for weakening Putin.

Hillary Clinton’s ambition – made explicit by her own and her close aides’ statements about Libya in emails at the time – is to gain her place in history as victorious strategist of “regime change”, using open and covert methods (“smart power”), thus bringing recalcitrant regions under control of the “exceptional, good” nation, the United States.

This ambition is backed by possession of nuclear weapons.

I am by no means saying that this plan will succeed. But it is very clearly the plan.

The electoral circus is a distraction from such crucially serious matters.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/10/21/ ... -nutshell/

[rowan]

rowan wrote:
If the majority of Americans were intent on reining in the military industrial complex there is no way they would be voting for a serial war criminal.

But contrary to the juvenile, over-defensive accusation, I haven't been painting anybody with a broad brush. There wasn't even an accusation against anybody in my comment, in fact.

If you understood the English language at all, you would have noted that the word structure I used was a reduced defining relative clause - or a defining relative clause omitting the relative pronoun.

"I can understand privileged white folks in North America & Europe not being worried"

That means I was referring to a specific group of people: those privileged white folk in North America and Europe who are not worried about a war criminal (intent on removing Assad, btw) coming to power.

And that was in response to a comment that said war criminal's imminent "election" was of no concern to him/her personally. Now, had I used a non-defining relative clause structure, ie with commas, then that would have been a generalisation.

Therefore your accusation was based on a misinterpretation of my comment owing to your own ignorance of the finer points of English grammar. I'm sure you'll be man enough to apologise.

Meanwhile, this is a good piece on Clinton's involvement in the destruction of Libya - and a good example of why her imminent "election" worries me a great deal, living on the edge of the Middle East as I do:

"Of the two, it is Clinton who was filmed clapping her hands and laughing at the news of Muammar Gaddafi’s murder in 2011. It is Clinton who pressed for the military intervention that ended in Libya’s destruction. And it is Hillary Clinton who has the gall to present herself as a moral giant in comparison to her rival for the US presidency."

Another good piece here:

The most consequential statement by Secretary Clinton in last night’s debate was her pronouncement that a no-fly zone over Syria could “save lives and hasten the end of the conflict,” that a no-fly zone would provide “safe zones on the ground” was in “the best interests of the people on the ground in Syria” and would “help us with our fight against ISIS.”

It would do none of the above. A US attempt to impose a no-fly zone in Syria would, as Secretary Clinton once cautioned a Goldman Sachs audience, “kill a lot of Syrians,” and, according to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Dunford, lead to a war with Russia. If the US has not been invited into a country to establish a “no-fly zone” such an action is, in fact, an invasion, an act of war.

It is abundantly clear from our dark alliance with Saudi Arabia and our conduct in support of jihadists in Syria that our current leaders have learned nothing from Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya as we prepare to plunge head-long into the abyss of a world war.

Our international relations are built upon lies to promote regime changes, the fantasy of a unipolar world ruled by America, and a blank check for the national security state.

As others prepare for war, we must prepare for peace. We must answer the mindless call to arms with a thoughtful, soulful call to resist the coming build up for war. A new, resolute peace movement must arise, become visible and challenge those who would make war inevitable.

We must not wait until the Inauguration to begin to build a new peace movement in America.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/10/21/war-or-peace/

Also good:

It has become crystal clear.

For the record, here it is.

She has big ambitions, which she does not spell out for fear of frightening part of the electorate, but which are perfectly understood by her closest aides and biggest donors.

She wants to achieve regime change in Russia.

She enjoys the support of most of the State Department and much of the Pentagon, and Congress is ready to go.

The method: a repeat of the 1979 Brezinski ploy, which consisted of luring Moscow into Afghanistan, in order to get the Russians bogged down in their “Vietnam”. As the Russians are a much more peace-loving people, largely because of what they suffered in two World Wars, the Russian involvement in Afghanistan was very unpopular and can be seen as a cause of the collapse of the Soviet Union.

This led to the temporary reign of the drunken Boris Yeltsin who – as recounted in Strobe Talbott’s memoirs – was putty in the hands of Bill Clinton. Hillary would like to renew that sort of relationship. Putin is an obstacle.

The new version of this old strategy is to use Russia’s totally legal and justifiable efforts to save Syria from destruction in order to cause enough Russian casualties to incite anti-Putin reaction in Russia leading to his overthrow. (Note State Department spokesman John Kirby’s recent warning that Russia will soon be “sending troops home in body bags”.)

That is the prime reason why the United States is doing everything to keep the Syrian war dragging on and on. The joint Syrian-Russian offensive to recapture the rebel-held Eastern sections of Aleppo might lead to an early end of the war. U.S. reaction: a huge propaganda campaign condemning this normal military operation as “criminal”, while driving ISIS forces out of Mosul with attacks from the East, so that they will move westward into Syria, to fight against the Assad government.

Ukraine is another theater for weakening Putin.

Hillary Clinton’s ambition – made explicit by her own and her close aides’ statements about Libya in emails at the time – is to gain her place in history as victorious strategist of “regime change”, using open and covert methods (“smart power”), thus bringing recalcitrant regions under control of the “exceptional, good” nation, the United States.

This ambition is backed by possession of nuclear weapons.

I am by no means saying that this plan will succeed. But it is very clearly the plan.

The electoral circus is a distraction from such crucially serious matters.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/10/21/ ... -nutshell/

[rowan]

Another good piece here:

The most consequential statement by Secretary Clinton in last night’s debate was her pronouncement that a no-fly zone over Syria could “save lives and hasten the end of the conflict,” that a no-fly zone would provide “safe zones on the ground” was in “the best interests of the people on the ground in Syria” and would “help us with our fight against ISIS.”

It would do none of the above. A US attempt to impose a no-fly zone in Syria would, as Secretary Clinton once cautioned a Goldman Sachs audience, “kill a lot of Syrians,” and, according to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Dunford, lead to a war with Russia. If the US has not been invited into a country to establish a “no-fly zone” such an action is, in fact, an invasion, an act of war.

It is abundantly clear from our dark alliance with Saudi Arabia and our conduct in support of jihadists in Syria that our current leaders have learned nothing from Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya as we prepare to plunge head-long into the abyss of a world war.

Our international relations are built upon lies to promote regime changes, the fantasy of a unipolar world ruled by America, and a blank check for the national security state.

As others prepare for war, we must prepare for peace. We must answer the mindless call to arms with a thoughtful, soulful call to resist the coming build up for war. A new, resolute peace movement must arise, become visible and challenge those who would make war inevitable.

We must not wait until the Inauguration to begin to build a new peace movement in America.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/10/21/war-or-peace/

Also good:

It has become crystal clear.

For the record, here it is.

She has big ambitions, which she does not spell out for fear of frightening part of the electorate, but which are perfectly understood by her closest aides and biggest donors.

She wants to achieve regime change in Russia.

She enjoys the support of most of the State Department and much of the Pentagon, and Congress is ready to go.

The method: a repeat of the 1979 Brezinski ploy, which consisted of luring Moscow into Afghanistan, in order to get the Russians bogged down in their “Vietnam”. As the Russians are a much more peace-loving people, largely because of what they suffered in two World Wars, the Russian involvement in Afghanistan was very unpopular and can be seen as a cause of the collapse of the Soviet Union.

This led to the temporary reign of the drunken Boris Yeltsin who – as recounted in Strobe Talbott’s memoirs – was putty in the hands of Bill Clinton. Hillary would like to renew that sort of relationship. Putin is an obstacle.

The new version of this old strategy is to use Russia’s totally legal and justifiable efforts to save Syria from destruction in order to cause enough Russian casualties to incite anti-Putin reaction in Russia leading to his overthrow. (Note State Department spokesman John Kirby’s recent warning that Russia will soon be “sending troops home in body bags”.)

That is the prime reason why the United States is doing everything to keep the Syrian war dragging on and on. The joint Syrian-Russian offensive to recapture the rebel-held Eastern sections of Aleppo might lead to an early end of the war. U.S. reaction: a huge propaganda campaign condemning this normal military operation as “criminal”, while driving ISIS forces out of Mosul with attacks from the East, so that they will move westward into Syria, to fight against the Assad government.

Ukraine is another theater for weakening Putin.

Hillary Clinton’s ambition – made explicit by her own and her close aides’ statements about Libya in emails at the time – is to gain her place in history as victorious strategist of “regime change”, using open and covert methods (“smart power”), thus bringing recalcitrant regions under control of the “exceptional, good” nation, the United States.

This ambition is backed by possession of nuclear weapons.

I am by no means saying that this plan will succeed. But it is very clearly the plan.

The electoral circus is a distraction from such crucially serious matters.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/10/21/ ... -nutshell/

Stefan Molyneux always good

[rowan]

Also good:

It has become crystal clear.

For the record, here it is.

She has big ambitions, which she does not spell out for fear of frightening part of the electorate, but which are perfectly understood by her closest aides and biggest donors.

She wants to achieve regime change in Russia.

She enjoys the support of most of the State Department and much of the Pentagon, and Congress is ready to go.

The method: a repeat of the 1979 Brezinski ploy, which consisted of luring Moscow into Afghanistan, in order to get the Russians bogged down in their “Vietnam”. As the Russians are a much more peace-loving people, largely because of what they suffered in two World Wars, the Russian involvement in Afghanistan was very unpopular and can be seen as a cause of the collapse of the Soviet Union.

This led to the temporary reign of the drunken Boris Yeltsin who – as recounted in Strobe Talbott’s memoirs – was putty in the hands of Bill Clinton. Hillary would like to renew that sort of relationship. Putin is an obstacle.

The new version of this old strategy is to use Russia’s totally legal and justifiable efforts to save Syria from destruction in order to cause enough Russian casualties to incite anti-Putin reaction in Russia leading to his overthrow. (Note State Department spokesman John Kirby’s recent warning that Russia will soon be “sending troops home in body bags”.)

That is the prime reason why the United States is doing everything to keep the Syrian war dragging on and on. The joint Syrian-Russian offensive to recapture the rebel-held Eastern sections of Aleppo might lead to an early end of the war. U.S. reaction: a huge propaganda campaign condemning this normal military operation as “criminal”, while driving ISIS forces out of Mosul with attacks from the East, so that they will move westward into Syria, to fight against the Assad government.

Ukraine is another theater for weakening Putin.

Hillary Clinton’s ambition – made explicit by her own and her close aides’ statements about Libya in emails at the time – is to gain her place in history as victorious strategist of “regime change”, using open and covert methods (“smart power”), thus bringing recalcitrant regions under control of the “exceptional, good” nation, the United States.

This ambition is backed by possession of nuclear weapons.

I am by no means saying that this plan will succeed. But it is very clearly the plan.

The electoral circus is a distraction from such crucially serious matters.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/10/21/ ... -nutshell/

Stefan Molyneux always good

Another one from Molyneux:

[rowan]

rowan wrote:
If the majority of Americans were intent on reining in the military industrial complex there is no way they would be voting for a serial war criminal.

But contrary to the juvenile, over-defensive accusation, I haven't been painting anybody with a broad brush. There wasn't even an accusation against anybody in my comment, in fact.

If you understood the English language at all, you would have noted that the word structure I used was a reduced defining relative clause - or a defining relative clause omitting the relative pronoun.

"I can understand privileged white folks in North America & Europe not being worried"

That means I was referring to a specific group of people: those privileged white folk in North America and Europe who are not worried about a war criminal (intent on removing Assad, btw) coming to power.

And that was in response to a comment that said war criminal's imminent "election" was of no concern to him/her personally. Now, had I used a non-defining relative clause structure, ie with commas, then that would have been a generalisation.

Therefore your accusation was based on a misinterpretation of my comment owing to your own ignorance of the finer points of English grammar. I'm sure you'll be man enough to apologise.

Meanwhile, this is a good piece on Clinton's involvement in the destruction of Libya - and a good example of why her imminent "election" worries me a great deal, living on the edge of the Middle East as I do:

"Of the two, it is Clinton who was filmed clapping her hands and laughing at the news of Muammar Gaddafi’s murder in 2011. It is Clinton who pressed for the military intervention that ended in Libya’s destruction. And it is Hillary Clinton who has the gall to present herself as a moral giant in comparison to her rival for the US presidency."

[rowan]

I should add to this, btw, that I attended university in America, and although that was some time ago, I have spent the past two decades living and working within a British/American-dominated expat community, so that I've actually become far more in tune with events in those two nations than I am with my own.

I just wonder why people can't discuss things without trying to silence others with accusations of 'sexism' or 'anti-Americanism' and so on. It's like trying to have a discussion on Israel and being labeled 'anti-semitist' by those who don't want to hear what you have to say. I was responding to what appeared to me a fairly flippant comment about the likely consequences of Clinton's imminent "election" (I peronally regard it as an appointment). There is, of course no prejudice against race, gender, religion or nationality in my views on Clinton. I have been at pains to spell out exactly why I am opposed to her "election" (on humanitarian grounds), and I've also mentioned several times that my preferred candidate would be Jill Stein. Incidentally, almost a million Americans followed her live broadcast on Twitter on Wednesday night, though it barely received a mention in the media...

Excellent reporting:

On October 20, 2011, Libya’s Muammar al-Gaddafi was brutally murdered by a mob of NATO-backed ‘rebels’, after first being beaten and violated in the most barbaric fashion. History leaves no doubt that not only was the Libyan leader murdered on this day but Libya itself.

The regime-change crew who dominate Western governments have a long indictment sheet against their names. Since 9/11 they have wrought havoc and human misery on a grand scale in their determination to reshape and own a world that has never been theirs to own. Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya – Syria currently embroiled in a pitiless conflict for its survival as a secular, non-sectarian state – this is the miserable legacy of nations which speak the language of democracy while practising the politics of domination.

Of the aforementioned victims of Western imperialism, there is a strong argument to be made that Libya’s destruction constitutes an especially grievous crime. After all, in 2010, the year before it experienced its ‘revolution’, the United Nations Development Programme considered Libya a high development country in the Middle East and North Africa. In concrete terms this status translated to a literacy rate of 88.4%, a life expectancy of 74.5 years, gender equality, and various other positive indicators. In addition, Libya enjoyed 4.2% economic growth in 2010 and could boast of foreign assets in excess of $150 billion.

Compare this record to Libya in 2016. According to testimony provided by US Army General David Rodriguez to the US Senate Armed Services Committee in March, it is a failed state, with the general estimating it would take ‘“10 years or so” to achieve long-term stability in what is a “fractured society”’.

There is currently no single government or authority in Libya whose writ runs in the entire country. Instead three competing authorities control their own fiefdoms. The internationally recognized government is the Government of National Accord (GNC), led by Fayez al-Sarraj, is based in the capital, Tripoli. There is also the Government of National Salvation, led by Khalifa Ghwell, which is also based in Tripoli. The third centre of power, meanwhile, is located in Tobruk in the east of the country. It is headed by an anti-Islamist general, Khalifa Haftar, who leads the Libyan National Army (LNA). Economically, oil revenues, responsible for 90% of revenue under Gaddafi, have halved, violence is widespread, and since 2011 Daesh has managed to gain a foothold, though in recent months the terrorist organization has come under huge pressure in its stronghold of Sirte from forces representing the GNC.

The impact of the chaos that has engulfed the country since Gaddafi was overthrown and murdered can be measured by the flood of Libyans who have attempted the perilous journey across the Mediterranean with the objective of reaching Europe. In the process untold thousands have perished.

UN Security Council Resolution 1973, passed in March 2011, marked the end of the Arab Spring and the beginning of the Arab Winter. The mass and popular demonstrations that succeeded in toppling Tunisian dictator Ben Ali and is Egyptian counterpart Hosni Mubarak were not replicated in Libya. Instead, in Benghazi, where the anti-Gaddafi movement was centred, Islamists predominated. There was no nationwide mass movement in Libya, such as those that swept across Tunisia and Egypt, and no popular support for toppling a government and leader who presided over a society that enjoyed the highest standard of living of any in Africa.

Loyalist Gaddafi forces were defeated by NATO not the opposition forces emanating from Benghazi. Indeed it was at the point at which the country’s armed forces were approaching Benghazi, preparatory to crushing the uprising, when NATO intervened – based on the lie of protecting civilians when in truth it was intent on regime change.

Gaddafi’s crime in the eyes of the West was not that he was an authoritarian dictator – how could it be when their closet ally in the region is Saudi Arabia? His crime in their eyes, it was revealed in a tranche of classified Clinton emails, released by Wikileaks in January of this year, was his intention of establishing a gold-backed currency to compete with the euro and the dollar as an international reserve currency in Africa. In this regard the then French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, and then US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, were key actors in pushing for NATO intervention. Libyan oil was also a factor.

The classified emails prove beyond any doubt that what took place in Libya was a monstrous crime for which those responsible have yet to be held accountable. On the contrary, Sarkozy is currently in the process of preparing a political return as French president, while Hillary Clinton is favorite to win the race for the White House against Republican nominee Donald Trump.

Of the two, it is Clinton who was filmed clapping her hands and laughing at the news of Muammar Gaddafi’s murder in 2011. It is Clinton who pressed for the military intervention that ended in Libya’s destruction. And it is Hillary Clinton who has the gall to present herself as a moral giant in comparison to her rival for the US presidency.

The Libyan people may well disagree.



http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/10/21/ ... f-qaddafi/

[rowan]

I should add to this, btw, that I attended university in America, and although that was some time ago, I have spent the past two decades living and working within a British/American-dominated expat community, so that I've actually become far more in tune with events in those two nations than I am with my own.

I just wonder why people can't discuss things without trying to silence others with accusations of 'sexism' or 'anti-Americanism' and so on. It's like trying to have a discussion on Israel and being labeled 'anti-semitist' by those who don't want to hear what you have to say. I was responding to what appeared to me a fairly flippant comment about the likely consequences of Clinton's imminent "election" (I peronally regard it as an appointment). There is, of course no prejudice against race, gender, religion or nationality in my views on Clinton. I have been at pains to spell out exactly why I am opposed to her "election" (on humanitarian grounds), and I've also mentioned several times that my preferred candidate would be Jill Stein. Incidentally, almost a million Americans followed her live broadcast on Twitter on Wednesday night, though it barely received a mention in the media...

The New York Times editorial page warns this weekend that Hillary Clinton is dangerous because of her “establishmentarian type of folly.”
Ross Douthat opines:

The dangers of a Hillary Clinton presidency are more familiar than Trump’s authoritarian unknowns, because we live with them in our politics already. They’re the dangers of elite groupthink, of Beltway power worship, of a cult of presidential action in the service of dubious ideals. They’re the dangers of a recklessness and radicalism that doesn’t recognize itself as either, because it’s convinced that if an idea is mainstream and commonplace among the great and good then it cannot possibly be folly.

Almost every crisis that has come upon the West in the last 15 years has its roots in this establishmentarian type of folly. The Iraq War, which liberals prefer to remember as a conflict conjured by a neoconservative cabal, was actually the work of a bipartisan interventionist consensus, pushed hard by George W. Bush but embraced as well by a large slice of center-left opinion that included Tony Blair and more than half of Senate Democrats.

Likewise the financial crisis: Whether you blame financial-services deregulation or happy-go-lucky housing policy (or both), the policies that helped inflate and pop the bubble were embraced by both wings of the political establishment. Likewise with the euro, the European common currency, a terrible idea that only cranks and Little Englanders dared oppose until the Great Recession exposed it as a potentially economy-sinking folly. Likewise with Angela Merkel’s grand and reckless open-borders gesture just last year: She was the heroine of a thousand profiles even as she delivered her continent to polarization and violence.

This record of elite folly — which doesn’t even include lesser case studies like our splendid little war in Libya — is a big part of why the United States has a “let’s try crazy” candidate in this election, and why there are so many Trumpian parties thriving on European soil.

The New York Times has endorsed Hillary Clinton, with an endorsement that sounded remarkably similar to Clinton campaign literature.

The Clinton campaign is running commercials showing a woman saying that she does not agree broadly with Clinton, “but she’s reasonable.” Oprah Winfrey endorsed her as well, saying, “You don’t have to like her.”

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-president ... y-clinton/