Here's some excellent humour via Zero Hedge; a strikingly accurate account of the global financial situation.
Saturday, April 14, 2012
Monday, April 9, 2012
MEK
As a follow up to my previous post on the Convenience of Terrorism, I present a BBC Newsnight episode from January 17, 2007 (part one, two and three) on the terrorist organization Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK). The most interesting part is part two, where a letter, from what the US State Department quoted as "coming from the approval of the highest authorities in Tehran", sent through the Swiss, offered the US government Iranian support to stabilization in Iraq, transparency on it's nuclear program and an end to support for Hezbollah and Hamas. In return Iran wanted an end to US hostility, abolition of sanctions, and a request for the US to disband MEK, which it could have easily done due to the hundred thousand plus troops that were in Iraq at the time, the location of MEK's bases.
In the interview, Lawrence Wilkerson (former Chief of Staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell) says the letter was blocked by Vice President Dick Cheney, using the "we don't talk to evil" stance. This has been proved to be complete rhetoric and hypocrisy, as the events of my previous post are evidence of. It's evidence of my theory that the US government doesn't care about terrorism, simply because the blocking of this peace proposal ensured the ongoing violence between Israel, Hamas and Hezbollah, and continuing action by the Iranian Quds Force to support sectarian violence in Iraq. They only care about it when it suits their plans. I ask: how many more people have to die because of this short sighted attitude?
It's also evidence that the US's present rhetoric about Iran's nuclear ambitions are false. They had, and refused a peace agreement that would have provided total transparency of Iran's nuclear programme. The US government wants regime change. They want a government, like they did in 1953, that will serve US interests in the region. That's what they want.
In the interview, Lawrence Wilkerson (former Chief of Staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell) says the letter was blocked by Vice President Dick Cheney, using the "we don't talk to evil" stance. This has been proved to be complete rhetoric and hypocrisy, as the events of my previous post are evidence of. It's evidence of my theory that the US government doesn't care about terrorism, simply because the blocking of this peace proposal ensured the ongoing violence between Israel, Hamas and Hezbollah, and continuing action by the Iranian Quds Force to support sectarian violence in Iraq. They only care about it when it suits their plans. I ask: how many more people have to die because of this short sighted attitude?
It's also evidence that the US's present rhetoric about Iran's nuclear ambitions are false. They had, and refused a peace agreement that would have provided total transparency of Iran's nuclear programme. The US government wants regime change. They want a government, like they did in 1953, that will serve US interests in the region. That's what they want.
The Convenience of Terrorism
As reported here by Democracy Now, investigative journalist Seymour Hersh uncovered a program by the US Government to train an Iranian opposition group at a secret site in Nevada. And this group is listed as a terrorist organization by the State Department! One look at the group's name, Mujahideen-e-Khalq, and it's not hard to see why they would put it on that list.
As stated on Democracy Now's website: "The training included intercepting communications, cryptography, weaponry and small unit tactics". In other words, they were trained to carry out insurgency and terrorist operations. An NBC article implicated MEK in the murder of Iranian nuclear scientists, and was backed by US officials: "All your inclinations are correct", said one.
Now normally I would say that this is another case of Americans having historical amnesia, but the fact that this training program took place during the Bush Administration destroys that theory. To me this looks plainly obvious that they simply do not care about terrorism. Their last experience training jihadists to fight an enemy in a country they are presently fighting a war in came back to bite them in Kenya, Yemen, and New York City. It was this policy of training radicals that ulitmately led to the deaths of nearly three thousand American citizens, starting the new "War On Terror", only to have the president that declared it training more terrorists! On American soil! I can't find an example of when this was ever done before. Who's to know what connections these Jihadists had or made during their time in the US or what implications they could have on terrorist attacks on US soil.
Let's be realistic and say that the American government is not stupid. People can call Bush an idiot all they like (I believe it's all an act), but we cannot discredit every official in that Administration in the same manner. If we cannot blame stupidity on this act, then we must go to the next conclusion, which is to say that terrorism is obviously not a national priority, as they led everyone to believe. The deaths of some American citizens (even three thosand) does not have any immediate economic or military consequences to the power structure. Bush demonstrated that, instead, it is a very useful tool, allowing the government to manipulate and marshall the population to war wherever they like. And it was known that these wars would, and did, actually increase terrorism instead of stop it.
So keep your eyes open for the initials MEK, because like they did thirty years ago, Jihadists don't look out for anyone's interests but their own.
UPDATE: see my above post for more info on this.
Now normally I would say that this is another case of Americans having historical amnesia, but the fact that this training program took place during the Bush Administration destroys that theory. To me this looks plainly obvious that they simply do not care about terrorism. Their last experience training jihadists to fight an enemy in a country they are presently fighting a war in came back to bite them in Kenya, Yemen, and New York City. It was this policy of training radicals that ulitmately led to the deaths of nearly three thousand American citizens, starting the new "War On Terror", only to have the president that declared it training more terrorists! On American soil! I can't find an example of when this was ever done before. Who's to know what connections these Jihadists had or made during their time in the US or what implications they could have on terrorist attacks on US soil.
Let's be realistic and say that the American government is not stupid. People can call Bush an idiot all they like (I believe it's all an act), but we cannot discredit every official in that Administration in the same manner. If we cannot blame stupidity on this act, then we must go to the next conclusion, which is to say that terrorism is obviously not a national priority, as they led everyone to believe. The deaths of some American citizens (even three thosand) does not have any immediate economic or military consequences to the power structure. Bush demonstrated that, instead, it is a very useful tool, allowing the government to manipulate and marshall the population to war wherever they like. And it was known that these wars would, and did, actually increase terrorism instead of stop it.
So keep your eyes open for the initials MEK, because like they did thirty years ago, Jihadists don't look out for anyone's interests but their own.
UPDATE: see my above post for more info on this.
Saturday, April 7, 2012
5 Points of the Spanish Economy
Zero Hedge posted an article about the increasing dangers the Spanish economy presents to the Eurozone and the world economy in general. Here are the five major points they present in the article:
1. Spain´s national debt is 50% greater than the headline numbers
2. Spain´s housing prices will fall by an additional 35%
3. Spain has "zombie" banks with massive loans to developers and homeowners
4. Spain´s economy has not stabilized and will continue to deteriorate
5. The EU will not have the firepower or political will to bail out Spain
They go into more detail on each point, but it´s plain to see that this is much different than the rosey situation that the mainstream media paints, trying to make us believe that the world economy is recovering and everything will be peachy. In fact it´s far from the truth. The Greek bailout will be one of many, and need to be repeated with Italy and Spain, US debt is at fifteen trillion dollars (with talk of further quantative easing in the near future), and Japanese debt is at 200% of GDP.
The markets are incredibly volatile right now, and at the mercy of the media, who can initiate market drops or rises by reporting rumors at will. I´ve sold off my long term securities simply because it´s smarter to play the dips right now, rather than holding them for an uncertain future. And when the crash comes I´m going to have my finger poised over that "short sell" button.
1. Spain´s national debt is 50% greater than the headline numbers
2. Spain´s housing prices will fall by an additional 35%
3. Spain has "zombie" banks with massive loans to developers and homeowners
4. Spain´s economy has not stabilized and will continue to deteriorate
5. The EU will not have the firepower or political will to bail out Spain
They go into more detail on each point, but it´s plain to see that this is much different than the rosey situation that the mainstream media paints, trying to make us believe that the world economy is recovering and everything will be peachy. In fact it´s far from the truth. The Greek bailout will be one of many, and need to be repeated with Italy and Spain, US debt is at fifteen trillion dollars (with talk of further quantative easing in the near future), and Japanese debt is at 200% of GDP.
The markets are incredibly volatile right now, and at the mercy of the media, who can initiate market drops or rises by reporting rumors at will. I´ve sold off my long term securities simply because it´s smarter to play the dips right now, rather than holding them for an uncertain future. And when the crash comes I´m going to have my finger poised over that "short sell" button.
Friday, April 6, 2012
Did You Know?
Cuba ranked 51st in the 2011 Human Development Index, beating Saudi Arabia by 5 spots and Russia by 15. It's infant mortality rate (rated by the CIA World Factbook) is the 39th best in the world, beating Canada by a slim margin and the United States by a huge one. The literacy rate is 99.8% of the total population, compared to 99% in Canada and the US. Cuba is the second highest for education expenditures as a percent of GDP, beating every country in the West.
Now just imagine where the country would be if it hadn't been subjected to an ongoing, decades long, crippling economic embargo by the United States. I don't agree with communism or central planning, but it's clear to see that the socialist aspect of it does work.
Now just imagine where the country would be if it hadn't been subjected to an ongoing, decades long, crippling economic embargo by the United States. I don't agree with communism or central planning, but it's clear to see that the socialist aspect of it does work.
Thursday, April 5, 2012
Whistle Blowing the Afghan War
I just read a report (here), published in January by US Army Colonel Daniel Davis, a veteran of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. This is the 84 page unclassified version of the report, the classified version having been delivered to the US Army Command and the US Congress. It provides quite a different view on how the war is going, compared to the view of the mainstream media. It is important to note that this report was released before the killing of sixteen civilians by as US soldier in March, so it is fair to say the situation there has since become worse.
One of the large points of the report is to point out that US troop surge, counterinsurgency and training of the Afghan National Army has failed to reduce violence in the country, and has acutally seen it increase. It is summed up in this statement in the report:
Another interesting portion of the report is about media delivery by mainstream organizations, highlighted in pages 26 - 29. Davis' viewpoint is that media corporations will deliver stories in a pro-US, biased light in order to please the Pentagon, in order to secure contact with high level command figures. He also provides examples of reporters and correspondents that were shut out by media on government request for questioning the progress of the war.
The scariest part is his assesment of what the ISAF would need to win the war outright:
"In order to pacify the contested parts of Afghanistan militarily it is my assessment it would take upwards of 300,000 combat troops, stationed in sufficient density in critical areas, in order to eradicate the Taliban element of the population and keep a close enough eye on the population to prevent others from becoming Taliban fighters."
He also goes on to say that this is also a mistake, since the mere presence of a force that large would increase the feeling of foreign occupation and thus align the populace away from the ISAF. It's obvious to say that a troop deployment of this size could never take place; there simply is not the international or US popular support needed to make it happen.
He also explores events of the Iraq War, notably the Anbar Awakening in 2007, when the Sunni population turned against Al-Qaeda. Davis, as also noted in Mark Urban's book: Task Force Black, does not attribute this to US involvement, instead (backed by accounts of insurgent fighters) ascertains it was simply a result of the Sunni population being fed up with the brutality inflicted on it by Al-Qaeda, therefore turning against the Jihadists, to the delight of US forces in Iraq. Events like this have not happened yet, and I am also of the opinion that until they do, the ISAF cannot win the war in Afghanistan. More on the topic of the local populace is noted on page 73.
In Davis' conclusion is a great quote, one which gives me hope for future change:
"Honestly, after all I’ve seen over the past decade and a half, I felt a moral obligation to do so. I believe that with knowledge comes responsibility; I knew too much to remain silent."
It is my opinion that the war in Afghanistan will be a defeat. While being supported by Pakistan, the Taliban will enjoy a safe haven in the border regions, where they will be able to conduct operations from and replenish their losses, and will simply wait out the ISAF until domestic support for the war will no longer tolerate it's soliders being killed and wounded, and foreign troops will then be withdrawn. And in the same fashion as the post-Soviet withdrawl in 1989, a brutal civil war will follow in Afghanistan, as the Taliban attempts to regain control of the country. It is when this process will start, however. I do not see the American government adhering to the 2014 withdrawl date, especially if the next president is Republican.
One of the large points of the report is to point out that US troop surge, counterinsurgency and training of the Afghan National Army has failed to reduce violence in the country, and has acutally seen it increase. It is summed up in this statement in the report:
"If I have tens of thousands of additional ISAF boots, and I kill hundreds of INS leaders, thousands of his fighters, capture huge numbers of caches, take away his sanctuaries, and deny him freedom of movement, how could he then significantly increase his level of attacks as the Taliban did in the first half of 2011?"
The scariest part is his assesment of what the ISAF would need to win the war outright:
"In order to pacify the contested parts of Afghanistan militarily it is my assessment it would take upwards of 300,000 combat troops, stationed in sufficient density in critical areas, in order to eradicate the Taliban element of the population and keep a close enough eye on the population to prevent others from becoming Taliban fighters."
He also goes on to say that this is also a mistake, since the mere presence of a force that large would increase the feeling of foreign occupation and thus align the populace away from the ISAF. It's obvious to say that a troop deployment of this size could never take place; there simply is not the international or US popular support needed to make it happen.
He also explores events of the Iraq War, notably the Anbar Awakening in 2007, when the Sunni population turned against Al-Qaeda. Davis, as also noted in Mark Urban's book: Task Force Black, does not attribute this to US involvement, instead (backed by accounts of insurgent fighters) ascertains it was simply a result of the Sunni population being fed up with the brutality inflicted on it by Al-Qaeda, therefore turning against the Jihadists, to the delight of US forces in Iraq. Events like this have not happened yet, and I am also of the opinion that until they do, the ISAF cannot win the war in Afghanistan. More on the topic of the local populace is noted on page 73.
In Davis' conclusion is a great quote, one which gives me hope for future change:
"Honestly, after all I’ve seen over the past decade and a half, I felt a moral obligation to do so. I believe that with knowledge comes responsibility; I knew too much to remain silent."
It is my opinion that the war in Afghanistan will be a defeat. While being supported by Pakistan, the Taliban will enjoy a safe haven in the border regions, where they will be able to conduct operations from and replenish their losses, and will simply wait out the ISAF until domestic support for the war will no longer tolerate it's soliders being killed and wounded, and foreign troops will then be withdrawn. And in the same fashion as the post-Soviet withdrawl in 1989, a brutal civil war will follow in Afghanistan, as the Taliban attempts to regain control of the country. It is when this process will start, however. I do not see the American government adhering to the 2014 withdrawl date, especially if the next president is Republican.
Monday, April 2, 2012
The Public Opinion Of Fast Tracking
According to a CBC poll about whether the Conservative's government proposal of fast tracking envirnomental reviews for resource development projects, as outlined in their 2012 budget, should be implemented. I strongly disagree, as noted in my last post, which was a response to the Conservative budget. And it appears that a huge majority of Canadians are with me. The current results are:
14% in favour
85% against
1% undecided
I hope the Convservatives realize that as a democratically elected, representative government, they have an obligation to represent the majority public opinion, which is opposed to this proposal. If they don't, I hope this favour rating becomes a mirror of the next election:
14% Conservative
85% NDP
1% Liberal
UPDATE: I also will add an opinion poll on the approval of the Federal Budget as a whole. I voted, and so far the results are:
9.83% Yes, totally
23.1% Yes, for the most part
11.67% No, I'd like to have seen more cuts
5.85% No, I'd like to have seen more spending
22.51% No, for the most part
27.04% No, not at all
So the majority of Canadians disagree. I'm happy about that.
14% in favour
85% against
1% undecided
I hope the Convservatives realize that as a democratically elected, representative government, they have an obligation to represent the majority public opinion, which is opposed to this proposal. If they don't, I hope this favour rating becomes a mirror of the next election:
14% Conservative
85% NDP
1% Liberal
UPDATE: I also will add an opinion poll on the approval of the Federal Budget as a whole. I voted, and so far the results are:
9.83% Yes, totally
23.1% Yes, for the most part
11.67% No, I'd like to have seen more cuts
5.85% No, I'd like to have seen more spending
22.51% No, for the most part
27.04% No, not at all
So the majority of Canadians disagree. I'm happy about that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)