September 11, 2012
July 24, 2012
In the New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/24/world/middleeast/chemical-weapons-wont-be-used-in-rebellion-syria-says.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20120724 – it is evident that Syria has a large cachet of WMD. Why? Well Saddam’s stock must have gone somewhere when sabrés were rattled.
Syria is all that is left of the common Ba-athist political party that fell with Saddam in Iraq. What is Ba’athism? It is an Islamic form of Socialism. Possibly a good thing for the Arab World to balance the many dynastic totalitarian ruled cultures that seem stuck in feudal existence. That Syria has many weapons of mass destruction was predicted. It was reported on the news that weapons were probably hidden in Syria, the storage place inheriting Saddam’s WMD. There may well have been much political cooperation between their governments both under the iron grip of a leader past his use by date, slaughtering dissidents. His domination of a country by going to war with factions is in common.
And now the Assad regime is bombing Allepo. And denying that they would use chemical weapons on Syrians. Foreign invaders would be a completely other matter. Will Romney start to threaten to invade Syria? Seems a natural. Or he will he be beaten to it. The temptation must be terrible on both candidates. They see it in different terms.
All the more so as it is probably quite correct – that Syria indeed has WMD and that someone is going to do the equation that constructed history. The problem is going to be the brutal Assad regime. It is going to be the WMD, and now it seems only natural that the UN will demand that Syria give them up. Or face terrible consequences.
Who would America trust in such a scenario. The guy who killed that terrorist guy.
September 4, 2011
Politics needs evolution too.
The US were way ahead of the game before GW Bush made the biblical error of declaring war on Iraq despite the evidence and spent the American economy into extraordinary debt compounded by fraud and banking fantasy-land mathematics. It was a stampede into insolvency that left the economy etherised on the table hooked up to the life support of QE.
Did we evolve better politics? It seems to be a long-term-only option. After Bush, the Democrats fielded two viable candidates but then the elected House of Representatives failed to pass laws when it could and then handed Congress back to the Republicans.
Political evolution seems to be the underlying problem in Western economies. Why do our democracies become increasingly more corrupt? As the pie gets bigger the shared slices get smaller.
Politics is not evolving, it is collecting a cloud of believers and faith healers.
December 22, 2008
The path that GW Bush has set the United States upon is inverse socialism. It is regression. It has produced an incipient depression in the world economy by creating a inverse bubble. A huge cash vacuum has removed 2 trillion from the American federal reserve.
To reduce the treasury into a funding agency for the seriously wealthy, bankers and those who take a cut from everyone, is grand scale theft.
August 10, 2008
The history lessons that the leader of Georgia attended may have given him a distorted concept of valour. Giving the Russian army an excuse to invade seems rash at best. Risking all for territorial integrity, why?
Russia used to control all sorts of countries that became independent of the USSR last century. Of course there are going to be territorial disputes. There is an obvious need therefore to monitor the collapse of large empires, and follow it up with border certification, acceptance by both sides that the border will be honoured. By enjoining a Russian enclave, Georgia actually had the opportunity to make peace with its giant adversary. All the other satellites are anxious that Russia not be allowed to overrun recognised borders militarily. There is merit in that concept, certainly.
Is the Bush reponse to Russia the right one? Somehow, it seems irrational to involve America so rapidly. It is not like Georgia had joined NATO just yet. So why is GW Bush basically rattling sabres? It seems political in the extreme. But is it correct?
It does seem that it is true that Georgia sent its troups in first, apparently the Georgians started to excercise military force in Ossetia before Russia crushed their army in no uncertain terms. One has to wonder, if an invader of similar scale attempted a landing in Florida, what would the USA do in response?
The “new world order” achieved by Bush’s daddy has recklessly and systematically been destroyed by the actions of the second Bush administration. The American right has a chance to reconcile with that legacy before they start launching holus bolus into Obama. But then is the shooting of the Arkansas Democratic Chairman by a disgruntled sacked employee of Target the actual cost of the Second Amendment? That we are all essential free to be equal if anyone can have a loaded gun, anywhere?
The American state is allowed to enact laws decided by its own democracy. But Disturbing Trends has questioned if the USA is in fact a democratic country? Are the people allowed to make any kind of rational decision as to what happens next or are they a victim to their own hysteria and need to be controlled? Is the predictions of 1984 by George Orwell not already evident and accepted in the same way that the citizens of Germany were taken in by the rise of Nazism?
If America destroys the hope in the Obama campaign and do not enter into a fresh New Deal phase, then, under McCain – we see America entering a more severely military face off with Russia. The current opportunity Russia took to punish Georgia is limited by the simple fact that if they do not now respond honourably, then paranoia will be rife.
The fact that Bush/McCain wanted to have nuclear weapons in Georgia is why Russia has invaded Georgia. Given a good excuse, they are likely to get away with it if they are honourable.
If they are not, like in the 1968 that Condi Rice alluded to, then they will set the world on edge, and Obama will get drowned by the paranoia – such is the hopes of the Bush reaction. It is political, afterall.
July 20, 2008
The United States of America is being swallowed by its own shallowness and greed. There is a wonderfully revealing article in the NY Times today with a revealing interactive graph of events during each decade. It is most remarkable that the savings rate which deteriorated badly in the Great Depression mirrors what is happening now, the collapse of savings. The difference is the debt levels then were conservative – the debt levels of the extreme 90s overboiled in the 2000s.
The Bush era has left a legacy that is far more damaging to the USA economy than it seems, all that debt has to be matched with savings, or you get a deficit, which is funds that the average US citizen owes to the oil producing OPEC countries. How exactly is the Government going to bail out the average citizen drowning in excess credit and crippling interest? By preventing millions of bankruptcies and foreclosures? Preventing banks from reselling properties at a huge discount? The bailouts of major mortage lenders proves this to be true. Bush has run the most socialist economy possible by making the middle class the needy class.
Where is the debt going to be absorbed? Deterioration in the value of the capital reserve? Does that means the grandchildren of the Bush years will be far less wealthy than those who benefitted from ridiculously biased tax breaks that has worsened the position of the average person to such a degree that they are now prisoners of credit card companies – owned by the intensely rich?
Seems like the most devastating blow delivered to everyday Americans is the mass transfer of effective wealth and ownership from American hands, from the Ma and Pa businessscape into the hands of corporatisation, increasingly foreign owned banks and retirement funds that seem more vulnerable by the minute.
Who’s fault? It seems that a country that eats its way to doom has a lack of direction in its culture as a major malady. Hip-hop had it’s social revolution, now with “Pimps and Bitches” being part of the mainstream conversation and “bling” having lost any bad ass connotation – that it was stolen – now it’s seen as a badge of billionary success – any excuse for radically masculine boys to wear diamonds.
Cultural decay – a kind of illiteracy – seems successful. All these make over reality wife swaps and inverted entertainments (Supernanny goes to visit you with her camera crew) are not really engaging people. They are just really cheap fomulae to execute, and like most cheap fodder, it bloats the mind with plenty of useless nonsense. That is cultural decay as it is consumable by anybody, and most do not want their entertinment to challenge them.
But challenging the mind is the entire point of entertainment. That is why the new generation of video games that are immersive, require you to think on your feet and enact a strategy. After fighting for months in some kind of imaginary desert scenario against “bad guys” – the futility and sheer quantity of death necessary – it becomes evident that war is an activity civilization should find absolutely abborhent; but, yet – at the onset of either Gulf war there was a palpable sense of “get on with it!”, and a sense of relief that the bombs had finally started to drop.
While America gets sucked into fruitless wars, Bush seems to have opened the floodgates for the Saudi establishment to buy more American capital with their oil wealth before the Green lobby replace a need for oil with a need for solar energy capture and wind farms rendering the end to this new age of slavery.
The American economy is huge and can still easily absorb this level of indebtedness – it’s the poverty created now that seems the real problem for far too many.
When did this start. Click on the heading of this article to view the NY Times interactive display (requires Adobe Flash Player). Hover over 1984. Observe the trend in savings. 1984 is the top of the mountain that has collapsed ever since. Savings is the degree of participation in ownership possible – the spoils of war. The USA may be able to walk in militarily but it may not be able to afford to “stay the course”, if it carries on with this trend. Even in the past four years savings as a fraction of debt is the worst its ever been, apart from the early 1930s when there were no savings, so America rebuilt by borrowing leading to gradual increase in capital, until 1984. What happened then? Oh yes, let’s see. Regan was elected.
May 29, 2008
Take a look at the linked movie. Click the title. It explains the design team’s philosophy and perhaps explains why the Dept of HS is so effective at stopping terrorists (except white ones) from being able to harm Americans. Damn! It is so effective that even GW got it almost immediately!
Here is the link again:
November 8, 2007
Instant public perception reveals the turkey – but sometimes not before thousands have thrown millions at it. Too much property investment capital inevitably results in sales that get reversed. Too many mortgagee sales depresses prices. Declining prices could become deflation. That would cause massive problems.What flooding the market with low value dollars has done is cheapen the US economy. Hence the foolhardy effort to get everyone on the mortgage train we now insidiously refer to as sub-Prime. No-one is talking about how many citizens are losing their homes in the USA as a result of Bush indifference to the needs of real people. It has provided the grass roots market players with a sense of uselessness – or irrelevance. What we hear about is how investors are losing their punts in these non-productive organs of real estate wheel greasing. How many cents in the dollar they can expect. It is a damning and sad story but not half as hard as the young couple expecting who suddenly lose their house and entire life structure. Not to mention to effect on the overall health of the USA economy. How are they going to make productive lives for themselves now? Some one please tell me how this is a good result of the Bush tax massacre? Go on – go to the Discussion site and lecture me on the merits of running huge deficits to fight a war that has little economic benefit but heavy costs. Where is the beef?
September 25, 2007
On a MB (Message Board) on The Agonist – one of the best blogs in the business:
“I meant Trade Center Bombing 1993, first year of Clinton in office same as 2001 for Bush. I think Al Qaeda likes first term Presidents, a point of weakness before they get their bearings.”
Perhaps that is the pattern and why the USA developed a pattern of inevitability on election day every two cycles – GW Bush should not have won the last two elections on merit alone. Greeting a President with a potentially life changing act of terror gives Al Qaeda an agenda setting edge. How can the incumbent ignore the taint? It is this understanding of the political behaviour of their enemy – that is a concern as it has created a sense of preordained destiny in the political narrative of “America” (I think George Bush calls the U.S.A. “America” over and over and it leaks into the media, but Bush is the President of the U.S.A. – and referring to it as “America” is just winding Hugo Chavas up).
It is too late to save the Bush Administration from itself. “America” will suffer terribly as a result, and economically, if you read between the lines.
September 4, 2007
This comment shows why America needs to impeach its President and Vice-President. Aside from the issue of poor war planning, and huge waste of strategic advantage that the Iraq war has been – the wire tapping issue – the hiding behind legislation brought specifically to hide the actions of the Bush Presidency from International law courts – war crimes committed with weapons of inhumane dimensions and extraordinary tactics – are enough to try, without getting into conspiracy theories however plausible.
August 24, 2007
Reading the full Bush commentary rather than just sound bites – makes one appreciate how good his speech writers are to be able to frame American war involvement only against the “end game” risk factors.
It is revealing that the Bush logic is based on a novel. America walked into Iraq and created havoc. Why? The Democrats can not answer for that, but they do expect to be able to take over the end game. How?
The Republicans will blame them for folding early. But the Bush policy to wipe out the insurgency requires killing every insurgent or removing their motivation.
Withdrawal is not the best solution. The current strategy is even worse. Polling public opinion does not inform, but restricts.
July 30, 2007
The rhetoric inside America is that of bring back our boys and girls. This film shows what they are doing, how effective they are occupying a foreign land that seems embarressed by the stupidity of their invaders, when asked if he was scared, the quietly seated local shakes his head.
The trouble with fighting an unjust war is there can be no logic behind the actions of on the ground operators. How can their actions be seen as anything but brutal and out of sync with reality by the cowed populations over which the terms of life are dictated and their lives bruised by the use of force without real intent.
When asked about what they are doing, the American soldier says “I am just doing my job.”
If American forces are going to be in Iraq, they at least need to know their purpose. They need to earn respect rather than the disgust and fear that seems to welcome them.
July 22, 2007
While George Bush is under general anesthetic – if Cheney had a medical emergency with one of his quadruple bypasses or Lipitor scheduling error, and Bush did not wake up for a while, we would have an America firmly out of the control of Republicans. Would that mean that any change of direction may occur – perhaps a rush to file papers for impeachment could be a good idea, and get in before the anesthetic wears off. It is what they would do.
Seriously, long shots like medical error on the President while Cheney is cleaning his rifle may change the nature of this crop of Democrats but if an election were to be held today how could a Republican win? The advance media for Hilary is replacing good press day for the President. She is seen as articulate where Bush is heard bumbling. Obama is seen as relevant, alive – where Cheney is only kept alive by modern medical miracles.
Bush is faced with the cost of his primary error. Invading Iraq when he did not absolutely have to, he lost the extraordinary morale high ground granted by the obscenity on the American psyche; and yet as Osama bin Laden is walking free, even if only in their thoughts, the bulk of their military muscle is being exposed to a civil war it started by undoing the chain letter of death threats that was Saddam’s rule.
What it such a good idea? Right-minded Americans find rationales to believe it is of course a good thing – but will American democracy sustain the attack long enough to do any good? These are just excuses to keep the war going indefinitely and are no longer ringing true to the electorate.
Bush will run out of time before ending this war. He will leave it to the next President to sort out, because his domestic agenda will take over. He will suddenly be having to make making handsome gestures to maintain his office.
There is no end game in the foreseeable future unless Mr Bush just cuts and runs from Iraq.
June 5, 2007
So, George Bush, having polluted the world with wars over oil wants us to suddenly believe that his heart is in it when he suddenly proclaims that China, India, Russia and the major pollution culprit America will respond to his sudden “decision” that they will somehow control the forces that affect our world?
It’s a horrible sham, and a very dangerous one at that.
May 25, 2007
George Bush finally looks like he has fallen over the edge – the edge when a president no longer wants makeup artists fussing before a camera explores ones frailty. As he predicts a bloody summer of violence in Iraq he does not seem to realise that his actions are not inspiring peace. “Modern war” is still a barbaric excuse for not communicating.
Yes, it is going to be a bloody summer.
Just imagine if George Bush had conceded to Al Gore all those years ago. Al would have been able to do some sums and would have sent 100,000 troops plus into Afghanistan and followed this up with 100,000 civilians to rebuild the country after isolating the Taliban. Iraq was in need of attention, yes, but invasion may be seen as a breach of trust by the citizens.
What gets me is that George Bush has said nothing about how to make things better in Iraq, only how he will wage war on Iraq – and why? To kill terrorists. Where do they keep coming from? They grow up hating those that impose upon their country. It is generally accepted by invading Iraq created more terrorists. Bush is the grand executioner of fools drawn to the battle for reasons of religious zealotry.
What is transpiring is nothing less than a huge waste of humanity and is a great tragedy and a terrible sin, on both sides.
May 23, 2007
He criticizes the secret authorization of the National Security Agency to eavesdrop without a court order on telephone calls and e-mail messages between the United States and other countries, and its suspension of the rights of due process for “enemy combatants”. He says these acts demonstrate “a disrespect for America’s Constitution that has now brought our republic to the brink of a dangerous breach in the fabric of democracy.”
This is not a polite criticism. No, like Disturbing Trends, Al Gore has taken a harsher approach to the actions of the man who stole his job.
May 6, 2007
The man has his faith to rely upon.
April 23, 2007
Character assasination has taken on a whole new meaning as the “war on terror” progresses. The Dept of Homeland Security has a massive budget for spying upon the activities of potential terrorist threats. That is a reaction to the events of 9/11 and many have conjectured or argued a stance that the Governemnt used or even created 9/11 as a justification for control of the population with monosyallbic concepts and easily digested sound bites.
More civilians have died in the crossfire in this “war on terror” (if you include the events in Iraq since the US invasion) than the war sought to protect from the acts of terrorists. It is hard to accept that the War in Iraq is the same as the war launched to prevent Al Qaeda from establishing, it can be argued that the US invading Iraq was the best thing that could have happened for Al Qaeda.
The war on terror has flipped the tables on the US economy and in conjuction with cynical tax cuts made the poor of America (90%) utterly dependent upon the whim of a cartel of billionaires that rely upon growth in public consumption to continue being powerful. The US has blundered into a new form of slavery. The US now have a war effort in play, so a percentage of your grandchildrens’ income is going to be paying the bill. This is a reduction in the freedom of Americans since Bush came to power.
The first signs of a totalitarian state was the questionable election results that saw the Republicans only begin to enact their agenda after the public were well hypnotised by 9/11. Before 9/11 it was evident that new thinking had pushed aside pursuit of Al Qaeda started under Clinton.
The imprisonment of journalists and academics is the next stage of a new McCarthism. It seems that it now happening and I wonder if the voices of all those Homeland Security agents who are not finding terrorists around every street corner are in fact writing propaganda to “flush out” terrorists? Or, indeed, if it is the activity of “the enemy” – whomever it may be.
It relies upon uncalled for judgement of individuals when looking at Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia that almost invites slander but is regulated by its own active editing “community”. But they can not keep up with concerted efforts to commit acts of libel by “concerned citizens” who remain anonymous to the public eye.
Free speech is one thing. Being able to endanger the lives of others is something else.
April 1, 2007
Bush created a budget balancing act based on increased spending, mainly military, of three trillion dollars. A trillion is 1000 billions, using the American system of dealing with numbers that are simply too big. 1,000,000 is our familiar million. 1,000,000,000 (one billion) is becoming a more commonplace concept of the 21st Century – and already we are talking in “trillions” (one of which looks like this: 1,000,000,000,000).
The 3,000,000,000,000 or so America spent on its friutless effort in Iraq has probably been borrowed from Saudi princes who probably are forced to indirectly fund the food chain that disposses far too many and creates al Qaeda. Perhaps that is the underlying rationale behind the Bush invasion. It was not Daddy’s record, but a deal we are not allowed to know about.
The Saudi royal family and its grip on power is funded by the centering of profit from oil extraction from the largest oil fields in the world through just a few hands who then appear to me to pitch America against their own enemies – the Shiite revolution that would render their power obsolete.
America stepped into a breach that appears to be more chaotic for the intervention. It has stepped into the breach of a war brewing on both sides of it. It needs to shore up Sunni support against its new spotlight of threat: Iran.
Whom is fooling whom?
American intervention is an effort to prolong the status quo, history tells us unfathomable power in too few hands is not a stable form of Government. It has resulted in revolution elsewhere, America and France are fine examples of a Republican success that followed revolutions.
March 15, 2007
It was a scar on the landscape of freedom. It was a blot on democratic leadership and has been defeated by the House of Representatives by a veto busting 333-93 margin. Bipartisan support ensures that freedom can now return to America.
There is a lot more to be undone.
February 20, 2007
George Monbiot explains what is wrong with all those conspiracy theories that are convinced the US Government was involved in 9/11 and who pluck convenient “truths” and “proofs” from their own conviction that things must be that way because it is all so unbelievable.
A wrong answer is simply that. Wrong. A right answer is usually the simple answer. That it was just 19 Islamic extremists driven by Jihad and social memory of the Ottoman days of glory and funding of Osama bin Laden is simpler than a requisite grand orchestration for the sake of public opinion. Bush already did that when he rigged his way into Presidency in the first place. Now, that does not mean that the Bush/Cheney cabal are not involved. But to also involve the army, air force, navy and entire government is complex and therefore unlikely.
The problem is that the conspiracy theorists make genuine opposition to the madness of the Iraq war seem unintelligent. Using the X-Files as a basis of political argument is not going to find the truth out there – this is the real world and the Bush cabal and what is driving it to “keep America great” does have strong and real intentions and these do not benefit the majority of Americans, nor is their “New World Order” beneficial to progress or civilization.
Yes, there are elements of the story that could show Government complicity (mainly by inaction and ruthless politicking against President Clinton) – these truths are useful in convincing its audience that something is wrong. But the Cabal behind the Bush Administration is probably more like what the conspiracists breathlessly fear than the Government that they pretend to be, and it is their authoritarian needs that drove them into the irrational war in Iraq. But to accuse them of creating 9/11 is to cloak the entire Left as nutters.
The truth is the truth. There is no need to dress it up.
See COMMENTS…edited paragraph 1 to change ‘complicit’ to ‘involved’ as comments revealed to me that the argument that ‘Bush/Cheney were complicit in 9/11’ seems likely, but shed doubt on ‘US Government involvement’. Wow – did I buy it from those who reject George Monbiot.
February 18, 2007
A good telling off should put Mr Bush back into line with the rest of the world. He has had too much nodding and the deadly smiles of the likes of Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney’s rippling grimness. His cabal of approval has been broken. How he has to contend with a Democrat Congress.
Mr Bush has to listen to the people’s elected representatives who are now telling him to pull his horns in. His view is becoming the isolated minority but can the Democrats produce a cohesive plan or do they want the voters to decide what that will be. Here is a range of candidates defined by their Iraq strategy.
This way of ranking candidates is not valid. Remember there is no valid logic behind the war and if one could consider that Bush may have run again anyway in 2004, if Al Gore had served a first term elected President in 2000 – as he was voted to do by a slim margin according to the news media reports of discounted votes and interference with Florida voters. If Bush was a first term president he would only now be considering his Iraqi invasion options. In other words, increasingly, this is Bush’s war and nobody else will want to fight it.
About bloody time someone got Bush to defend his rationale before accepting that this man who has got nearly everything else wrong should be now getting anything right.
February 16, 2007
Pressing Allies, President Warns of Afghan Battle – New York Times – even Bush himself acknowledges that the efforts in Afghanistan may come to nothing if the military success of the American presence there is insufficient.
Compare the American contribution to Afghanistan of 13,000 troops with the 170,000 Bush wants in Iraq and the scale appears out of whack. The Taliban established they were prepared to protect Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, giving America adequate reason to attack militarily and establish a more moderate Government in Afghanistan. But instead of acting forcefully to promote democratic ideals, the US Government has underfunded completion of the military goals, and now with the once avoidable expense of Iraq to contend with, the problem is larger than it was before.
Strategy can not be shot from the hip. This man exposes the singular logic of an all powerful Commander in Chief being in control of these wars. Bush is convinced that he is right. Perhaps he needs to be. But one must wonder if Bush is best man for the job, since it must be done by one man, perhaps Bush should retire. So far his record is a testament of exactly how not to win a war.
Bush will continue to lead America by the nose into conflict. Not that he wants to, but that he has blundered his way into a quagmire and is unlikely to have the smarts to conclude the mess gracefully as the months count down to zero, the same realization will dawn on the American electorate.
The republicans best nominate an anti war candidate. How the winds of politics are turning.
February 9, 2007