Time for a little fear: Let's talk foreign policy

[Musburger1]

Today, the Washington Post ran an article (see link, its a short article) suggesting that many Republican operatives favor Hillary Clinton over Trump based on foreign policy. I've seen where the neocon foreign policy leads beginning with the occupation of Iraq, Obama's failed Afghanistan campaign, Hillary Clinton's Libyan disaster, as well as the events in Ukraine and Syria. Clinton, the non-Trump Republicans, and the Pentagon are pretty much on the same page. More of the same. The campaigns amount to who would be the better quarterback. Trump differs in that he opposes regime change, wants allies to pay their fair share of the cost, and has questioned whether NATO is even relevant.

In principle, I find myself agreeing with Trump. Whereas he may be a lousy quarterback, I think the broad policy outline is more prudent. To make me make my case, I'm going to attempt to copy two editorials in replies after this post.

 

[Musburger1]

John Pilger: A World War Has Begun Break the Silence

I have been filming in the Marshall Islands, which lie north of Australia, in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. Whenever I tell people where I have been, they ask, "Where is that?" If I offer a clue by referring to "Bikini", they say, "You mean the swimsuit."


Few seem aware that the bikini swimsuit was named to celebrate the nuclear explosions that destroyed Bikini island. Sixty-six nuclear devices were exploded by the United States in the Marshall Islands between 1946 and 1958 -- the equivalent of 1.6 Hiroshima bombs every day for twelve years.


Bikini is silent today, mutated and contaminated. Palm trees grow in a strange grid formation. Nothing moves. There are no birds. The headstones in the old cemetery are alive with radiation. My shoes registered "unsafe" on a Geiger counter.


Standing on the beach, I watched the emerald green of the Pacific fall away into a vast black hole. This was the crater left by the hydrogen bomb they called "Bravo". The explosion poisoned people and their environment for hundreds of miles, perhaps forever.


On my return journey, I stopped at Honolulu airport and noticed an American magazine called Women's Health. On the cover was a smiling woman in a bikini swimsuit, and the headline: "You, too, can have a bikini body." A few days earlier, in the Marshall Islands, I had interviewed women who had very different "bikini bodies"; each had suffered thyroid cancer and other life-threatening cancers.


Unlike the smiling woman in the magazine, all of them were impoverished: the victims and guinea pigs of a rapacious superpower that is today more dangerous than ever.


I relate this experience as a warning and to interrupt a distraction that has consumed so many of us. The founder of modern propaganda, Edward Bernays, described this phenomenon as "the conscious and intelligent manipulation of the habits and opinions" of democratic societies. He called it an "invisible government".


How many people are aware that a world war has begun? At present, it is a war of propaganda, of lies and distraction, but this can change instantaneously with the first mistaken order, the first missile.


In 2009, President Obama stood before an adoring crowd in the centre of Prague, in the heart of Europe. He pledged himself to make "the world free from nuclear weapons". People cheered and some cried. A torrent of platitudes flowed from the media. Obama was subsequently awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.


It was all fake. He was lying.


The Obama administration has built more nuclear weapons, more nuclear warheads, more nuclear delivery systems, more nuclear factories. Nuclear warhead spending alone rose higher under Obama than under any American president. The cost over thirty years is more than $1 trillion.


A mini nuclear bomb is planned. It is known as the B61 Model 12. There has never been anything like it. General James Cartwright, a former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has said, "Going smaller [makes using this nuclear] weapon more thinkable."


In the last eighteen months, the greatest build-up of military forces since World War Two -- led by the United States -- is taking place along Russia's western frontier. Not since Hitler invaded the Soviet Union have foreign troops presented such a demonstrable threat to Russia.


Ukraine - once part of the Soviet Union - has become a CIA theme park. Having orchestrated a coup in Kiev, Washington effectively controls a regime that is next door and hostile to Russia: a regime rotten with Nazis, literally. Prominent parliamentary figures in Ukraine are the political descendants of the notorious OUN and UPA fascists. They openly praise Hitler and call for the persecution and expulsion of the Russian speaking minority.

This is seldom news in the West, or it is inverted to suppress the truth.


In Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia -- next door to Russia - the US military is deploying combat troops, tanks, heavy weapons. This extreme provocation of the world's second nuclear power is met with silence in the West.


What makes the prospect of nuclear war even more dangerous is a parallel campaign against China.


Seldom a day passes when China is not elevated to the status of a "threat". According to Admiral Harry Harris, the US Pacific commander, China is "building a great wall of sand in the South China Sea".


What he is referring to is China building airstrips in the Spratly Islands, which are the subject of a dispute with the Philippines - a dispute without priority until Washington pressured and bribed the government in Manila and the Pentagon launched a propaganda campaign called "freedom of navigation".


What does this really mean? It means freedom for American warships to patrol and dominate the coastal waters of China. Try to imagine the American reaction if Chinese warships did the same off the coast of California.


I made a film called The War You Don't See, in which I interviewed distinguished journalists in America and Britain: reporters such as Dan Rather of CBS, Rageh Omar of the BBC, David Rose of the Observer.


All of them said that had journalists and broadcasters done their job and questioned the propaganda that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction; had the lies of George W. Bush and Tony Blair not been amplified and echoed by journalists, the 2003 invasion of Iraq might not have happened, and hundreds of thousands of men, women and children would be alive today.


The propaganda laying the ground for a war against Russia and/or China is no different in principle. To my knowledge, no journalist in the Western "mainstream" -- a Dan Rather equivalent, say --asks why China is building airstrips in the South China Sea.


The answer ought to be glaringly obvious. The United States is encircling China with a network of bases, with ballistic missiles, battle groups, nuclear -armed bombers.


This lethal arc extends from Australia to the islands of the Pacific, the Marianas and the Marshalls and Guam, to the Philippines, Thailand, Okinawa, Korea and across Eurasia to Afghanistan and India. America has hung a noose around the neck of China. This is not news. Silence by media; war by media.


In 2015, in high secrecy, the US and Australia staged the biggest single air-sea military exercise in recent history, known as Talisman Sabre. Its aim was to rehearse an Air-Sea Battle Plan, blocking sea lanes, such as the Straits of Malacca and the Lombok Straits, that cut off China's access to oil, gas and other vital raw materials from the Middle East and Africa.


In the circus known as the American presidential campaign, Donald Trump is being presented as a lunatic, a fascist. He is certainly odious; but he is also a media hate figure. That alone should arouse our scepticism.


Trump's views on migration are grotesque, but no more grotesque than those of David Cameron. It is not Trump who is the Great Deporter from the United States, but the Nobel Peace Prize winner, Barack Obama.


According to one prodigious liberal commentator, Trump is "unleashing the dark forces of violence" in the United States. Unleashing them?


This is the country where toddlers shoot their mothers and the police wage a murderous war against black Americans. This is the country that has attacked and sought to overthrow more than 50 governments, many of them democracies, and bombed from Asia to the Middle East, causing the deaths and dispossession of millions of people.


No country can equal this systemic record of violence. Most of America's wars (almost all of them against defenceless countries) have been launched not by Republican presidents but by liberal Democrats: Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton, Obama.


In 1947, a series of National Security Council directives described the paramount aim of American foreign policy as "a world substantially made over in [America's] own image". The ideology was messianic Americanism. We were all Americans. Or else. Heretics would be converted, subverted, bribed, smeared or crushed.


Donald Trump is a symptom of this, but he is also a maverick. He says the invasion of Iraq was a crime; he doesn't want to go to war with Russia and China. The danger to the rest of us is not Trump, but Hillary Clinton. She is no maverick. She embodies the resilience and violence of a system whose vaunted "exceptionalism" is totalitarian with an occasional liberal face.


As presidential election day draws near, Clinton will be hailed as the first female president, regardless of her crimes and lies - just as Barack Obama was lauded as the first black president and liberals swallowed his nonsense about "hope". And the drool goes on.


Described by the Guardian columnist Owen Jones as "funny, charming, with a coolness that eludes practically every other politician", Obama the other day sent drones to slaughter 150 people in Somalia. He kills people usually on Tuesdays, according to the New York Times, when he is handed a list of candidates for death by drone. So cool.


In the 2008 presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton threatened to "totally obliterate" Iran with nuclear weapons. As Secretary of State under Obama, she participated in the overthrow of the democratic government of Honduras. Her contribution to the destruction of Libya in 2011 was almost gleeful. When the Libyan leader, Colonel Gaddafi, was publicly sodomised with a knife - a murder made possible by American logistics - Clinton gloated over his death: "We came, we saw, he died."


One of Clinton's closest allies is Madeleine Albright, the former secretary of State, who has attacked young women for not supporting "Hillary". This is the same Madeleine Albright who infamously celebrated on TV the death of half a million Iraqi children as "worth it".


Among Clinton's biggest backers are the Israel lobby and the arms companies that fuel the violence in the Middle East. She and her husband have received a fortune from Wall Street. And yet, she is about to be ordained the women's candidate, to see off the evil Trump, the official demon. Her supporters include distinguished feminists: the likes of Gloria Steinem in the US and Anne Summers in Australia.


A generation ago, a post-modern cult now known as "identity politics" stopped many intelligent, liberal-minded people examining the causes and individuals they supported -- such as the fakery of Obama and Clinton; such as bogus progressive movements like Syriza in Greece, which betrayed the people of that country and allied with their enemies.


Self absorption, a kind of "me-ism", became the new zeitgeist in privileged western societies and signaled the demise of great collective movements against war, social injustice, inequality, racism and sexism.


Today, the long sleep may be over. The young are stirring again. Gradually. The thousands in Britain who supported Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader are part of this awakening - as are those who rallied to support Senator Bernie Sanders.


In Britain last week, Jeremy Corbyn's closest ally, his shadow treasurer John McDonnell, committed a Labour government to pay off the debts of piratical banks and, in effect, to continue so-called austerity.


In the US, Bernie Sanders has promised to support Clinton if or when she's nominated. He, too, has voted for America's use of violence against countries when he thinks it's "right". He says Obama has done "a great job".


In Australia, there is a kind of mortuary politics, in which tedious parliamentary games are played out in the media while refugees and Indigenous people are persecuted and inequality grows, along with the danger of war. The government of Malcolm Turnbull has just announced a so-called defence budget of $195 billion that is a drive to war. There was no debate. Silence.


What has happened to the great tradition of popular direct action, unfettered to parties? Where is the courage, imagination and commitment required to begin the long journey to a better, just and peaceful world? Where are the dissidents in art, film, the theatre, literature?


Where are those who will shatter the silence? Or do we wait until the first nuclear missile is fired?

 

[Musburger1]

David Stockman: Trump is Right. Dump NATO Now
Too long to paste article so you'll have to click on the link for this one.

I

 

[Mr. Deez]

What should have happened is that Bush the elder should have declared “mission accomplished” and slashed the Pentagon budget from $600 billion to $200 billion; demobilized the military-industrial complex by putting a moratorium on all new weapons development, procurement and export sales; dissolved NATO and dismantled the far-flung network of US military bases; slashed the US standing armed forces from 1.5 million to a few hundred thousand; and organized and led a world disarmament and peace campaign, as did his Republican predecessors during the 1920s.

I love this quote from Stockman's remarks. And everything was great after the '20s, right? Europe and Asia became bastions of peace and prosperity. No "industrial state" enemies arose. Everything was cool, and then suddenly we started warmongering for no reason.

Oh wait, that's not what actually happened. A band of monsters came to power in several nations in the face of our (and other civilized nations') disarmament and indifference, built military industrial complexes of their own, invaded countless nations for the purpose of conquest, genocide, and economic domination, and murdered tens of millions of innocent people in the process. It was in that context, that the more civilized nations like the United States and others (including NATO countries) built their global military structures.

Guys like Stockman can badmouth some of our decisions over the years (relying extremely heavily on hindsight and disregard for context), but I'll take the handful of skirmishes we've fought over the last 70 years (even with the stupid mistakes) with relatively low casualties over another world war involving nations that would now have nuclear weapons and delivery systems to use them if we had disengaged.

 

[Clean]

While I admire some of the things John Pilger has done, like alerting the world to the extent of the evil Pol Pot had done in Cambodia, he is an alarmist. He also has total disdain for the United States.

Statements such as:

This is the country where toddlers shoot their mothers and the police wage a murderous war against black Americans.

are obviously waayy over the top.

 

[Musburger1]

While I admire some of the things John Pilger has done, like alerting the world to the extent of the evil Pol Pot had done in Cambodia, he is an alarmist. He also has total disdain for the United States.

Statements such as:



are obviously waayy over the top.

Agree with you that he does embellish a bit where it isn't necessary, but the main point I get out of his piece is:

The US encroachment on non-allied territories has escalated an arms race and reignited the possibility of a nuclear exchange.

The other article by Stockmon makes the same arguments, but more so from an economic perspective than Pilger's which is focused on morality.

Deez brought attention to the rise of Hitler following WWI which he used as a contradiction to Stockmon's proposal to disband NATO. His point is that Russia could follow a similar path as did Germany and the US and Europe must ensure this can't happen.

First of all, Putin is not a Hitler, but there is always the possibility his successor might be. I would suggest a middle ground. I would like to see NATO retract to its original geography instead of the expansionary trajectory its on. This would serve three purposes:
1. It would be less expensive
2. It would relieve tensions with Russia
3. It would be sticking with the deal we made with Russia when the Soviets agreed to German reunification.

It's possible that the neocon goals include initiating an arms race to both weaken Russia and insure US hegemony, and also provide a stream of US tax dollars to enrich the military-industrial complex. None of these goals are admirable.

 

[chango]

Statements such as:
This is the country where toddlers shoot their mothers and the police wage a murderous war against black Americans
are obviously waayy over the top.

I don't know about waayy over the top. He didn't say it happens every day; he just said it happens-and it does whether you pay attention or not. The last time it happened was 3 weeks ago:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/police-recommend-charge-for-mother-shot-by-4-year-old-son/

 

[Clean]

Nice looking lady!

Yes, to quote Ricky Bobby, that just happened, but the point is that an isolated incident shouldn't be used to besmirch the entire United States of America. Same thing applies to the other statement; all police are not waging a murderous war against black Americans.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Why is it that every time Musburger posts I imagine him sitting in some unmarked 4 story building on the outskirts of Moscow with an army of Putin's internet propagandists? US and Western ideology countries bad...Russia nobly combatting Western tyranny...rinse and repeat.

The US does self serving stuff just as every country does. We have the worlds largest and most advance military by far and use it to throw our weight around. Specifically, it's often used to defend our allies and our own interests.

NATO has been and continues to be a beacon of what's positive about our foreign policy.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Deez brought attention to the rise of Hitler following WWI which he used as a contradiction to Stockmon's proposal to disband NATO. His point is that Russia could follow a similar path as did Germany and the US and Europe must ensure this can't happen.

Actually, I wasn't referring specifically to Hitler. We let conquest-driven thugs all over the world turn into superpowers that cost us obscene amounts of money and blood to finally bring under control. Yes, Hitler was the most famous, but he certainly wasn't the only one even in Europe.

First of all, Putin is not a Hitler, but there is always the possibility his successor might be.

You don't know that. You're speculating. Furthermore, in 1938, we didn't think Hitler was Hitler either. We had to find out the truth the hard way. Many thought he was just a patriotic German trying to protect ethnic German minorities in places like Poland and Czechoslovakia, and there probably was a degree of truth to his claims. It wouldn't surprise me if some Poles and some Czechs mistreated some ethnic Germans in the mid '30s. (In other words, he made the same argument to support his aggression that Putin often makes about Crimea and other places.)

And do bear in mind that Putin is not the only potential bad apple kept in check by the overseas American military presence. Far from it.

I would suggest a middle ground. I would like to see NATO retract to its original geography instead of the expansionary trajectory its on. This would serve three purposes:
1. It would be less expensive

Less expensive than what? Yes, it's less expensive if Putin is truly the choir boy you think he is and never threatens anybody. It's not less expensive than one day having to liberate Eastern Europe.

And I don't think any of it is as costly as you think (though there is plenty of waste and inflated costs). I think a lot of people like you think we still have hundreds of thousands of troops stationed all over Europe. We don't. As of October 2015, we had about 151,000 troops stationed abroad (Europe, Asia, etc.). Link.

(To put it into perspective, in 1991 (AFTER our first post-Cold War drawdown), we had about 203,000 just in Germany and about 258,000 in Europe. Link.) The idea of a massive military presence especially in Europe is a myth. What's there now is a minimal force coupled with a lot of empty infrastructure, and very, very little of it is in Eastern Europe.

2. It would relieve tensions with Russia

In the short term, I'm sure it would, just as not assisting Czechoslovakia relieved tensions with Hitler.

3. It would be sticking with the deal we made with Russia when the Soviets agreed to German reunification.

What deal? I don't remember any treaty getting ratified, and I don't remember anything getting formally memorialized. Moreover, circumstances change. Nobody has to join NATO, but if they want to and if the current NATO nations want to admit them, that's nobody's business.

 

[Crockett]

British media reports toddlers are involved in more US shootings than Islamic terrorists.
http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...-toddlers-kill-more-people-than-terrorists-do

I don't think they have updated the numbers since December massacre by Muslim extremists in San Bernadino I think the death toll by Muslims is higher than for toddlers.

 

[Musburger1]

Deez, I think your assessments with respect to Russia being the aggressor, both in Georgia and Crimea, are 180 degrees from the reality, but overall your positions have merit. But so does the opposite position.

There is no question that since the US became the sole superpower after the Soviet collapse 25 years ago that the US has used that clout to apply both economic and military pressure to countries considered non-allies. Resolving the argument as to whether the US should continue to turn up the pressure depends on whether or not it ends up with increasing the prospects for peace and prosperity or decreasing these probabilities.

Your argument for ratcheting up - continuing the basic course we've been on - is based on what MIGHT happen if we back off. The argument for backing off is based on what MIGHT happen if we don't.

And so the debate continues.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Deez, I think your assessments with respect to Russia being the aggressor, both in Georgia and Crimea, are 180 degrees from the reality, but overall your positions have merit. But so does the opposite position.

There is no question that since the US became the sole superpower after the Soviet collapse 25 years ago that the US has used that clout to apply both economic and military pressure to countries considered non-allies. Resolving the argument as to whether the US should continue to turn up the pressure depends on whether or not it ends up with increasing the prospects for peace and prosperity or decreasing these probabilities.

Your argument for ratcheting up - continuing the basic course we've been on - is based on what MIGHT happen if we back off. The argument for backing off is based on what MIGHT happen if we don't.

And so the debate continues.

Mus, the US has used its clout for apply economic and military pressure to non-allies (and sometimes even allies) to varying degrees literally for centuries. It's not new. Have we always been choir boys about it? Hell no. We've shown bad judgment and done plenty of stupid things like invading Iraq. However, acknowledging that we're human doesn't mean we should roll back alliances and military postures that have mostly kept relative peace for 70 years. War was the norm in Europe for millennia. Since 1945, peace has been the norm in Europe. I don't think that's a coincidence, and I'm reluctant to gamble on that.

Also, I don't necessarily say Russia is the aggressor in Crimea or Georgia. I know what I read in the papers, and I see what you post which is usually the complete opposite but often comes from questionable sources. I don't know what the truth is. However, the bottom line is that I don't know what the truth is, but I err on the side of caution, because that has mostly served us well.

In addition, my argument for ratcheting up our military presence in Europe isn't following the current course. We've been ratcheting down for over 25 years. Yes, NATO has expanded, but our actual military presence in Europe as well as the military capabilities of our NATO allies have been going down since the end of the Cold War. I'm not for going back to Cold War levels by any means, but I think we've scaled back too far.

Finally, you know from our discussions on Syria that I'm not a blind hater of Putin. I'm not a fan of his like you are, but I don't think he's always bad. I think we should be working with him in the Middle East where we can. I also think that a big source of contempt for Putin from the West has more to do with the fact that he's culturally conservative and doesn't like gays than with anything he does from a geopolitical standpoint. Nevertheless, the guy says some scary things at times and even if he's not an aggressor as you contend, he often acts as aggressors do.

 

[Musburger1]

Deez,
When the Nazis came to power in Germany, they ramped up defense spending, used propaganda against neighboring countries to cover their aggression, and eventually created excuses to invade. Has it ever occurred to you that elements within the US power structure are capable of going down a similar path, albeit more nuanced with additional tools including proxy armies, NGOs, and economic instruments in conjunction with the military? In other words, can American citizens trust our overlords to not become the equivalent of Rome or Nazi Germany? I know the question seems absurd on its face, but not so from the perspective of the countries we've labeled as the enemy.

 

[ProdigalHorn]

Deez brought attention to the rise of Hitler following WWI

With all due respect, I doubt Deez was on the ball enough in the 1930s to pull that off.

 

[ProdigalHorn]

British media reports toddlers are involved in more US shootings than Islamic terrorists.

That's a pretty meaningless stat, partly because even if it were meaningful, Isis tends to do a lot more damage with bombs, so I'm not that worried about one or two Islamic terrorists slipping through the cracks armed with guns. I'm more worried about the ones carrying briefcases and backpacks.

Nonetheless, a parent who keeps a loaded handgun near their young child and accidentally gets shot doesn't compare in any way to someone who is innocently wandering around Boston to find their leg blown off. To equate the two events is pretty ridiculous, IMO.

It's also overblown from the standpoint that you're talking about around 50 incidents in a year according to that link (which is still tragic, obviously). But 10 people die every day in this country from drowning in non-boating incidents. We really need to do something about those killer swimming pools.

 

[Crockett]

Yep, we should ignore statistics and devote our concerns to what the media want us to worry about. Heart disease, backyard drowning, gun safety, food safety, etc. are things over which we can exert some degree of control. Much better to worry about Islamic Motivated terrorism which we have to let the politicians handle.

 

[Seattle Husker]

That's a pretty meaningless stat, partly because even if it were meaningful, Isis tends to do a lot more damage with bombs, so I'm not that worried about one or two Islamic terrorists slipping through the cracks armed with guns. I'm more worried about the ones carrying briefcases and backpacks.

Nonetheless, a parent who keeps a loaded handgun near their young child and accidentally gets shot doesn't compare in any way to someone who is innocently wandering around Boston to find their leg blown off. To equate the two events is pretty ridiculous, IMO.

It's also overblown from the standpoint that you're talking about around 50 incidents in a year according to that link (which is still tragic, obviously). But 10 people die every day in this country from drowning in non-boating incidents. We really need to do something about those killer swimming pools.

What it does it put the fear of terrorism and ISIS in context for the average American citizen. The fact that we should be more concerned about water and gun safety yet terrorism for Americans is less of a problem.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Deez,
When the Nazis came to power in Germany, they ramped up defense spending, used propaganda against neighboring countries to cover their aggression, and eventually created excuses to invade. Has it ever occurred to you that elements within the US power structure are capable of going down a similar path, albeit more nuanced with additional tools including proxy armies, NGOs, and economic instruments in conjunction with the military? In other words, can American citizens trust our overlords to not become the equivalent of Rome or Nazi Germany? I know the question seems absurd on its face, but not so from the perspective of the countries we've labeled as the enemy.

Elements within the US power structure are capable of doing all sorts of sleazy things, and I'm sure that they do sleazy things all the time. I'm not as naive as you assume, but I'm not naive about other countries either. Respectfully, I think you're more naive about Vladimir Putin than I am about any country.

I basically assume that there will always be bad apples who are interested in conquest. I would rather have them under my thumb than to be under theirs.

Two big factors for me. First, most areas of the world that have a significant US military presence are now peaceful and strong economic partners of the US. Second, no nation has ever used its power for conquest less than the US has. Hell, what if we did to the nations we've invaded what Japan and Germany did to the nations they invaded? Nobody with our level of power has been so benevolent.

 

[Musburger1]

[QUOTE="Mr. Deez, post: 1443939, member: 39847

Two big factors for me. First, most areas of the world that have a significant US military presence are now peaceful and strong economic partners of the US. Second, no nation has ever used its power for conquest less than the US has. Hell, what if we did to the nations we've invaded what Japan and Germany did to the nations they invaded? Nobody with our level of power has been so benevolent.[/QUOTE]
Vietnam, Cambodia, Serbia, Iraq and Libya beg to differ.

The US helped to build back Japan and Germany and the people prospered. The military occupation which followed was welcomed primarily because each country feared hostile enemies; Germany feared the Soviets and Japan feared both the Soviets and China. But after the USSR dissolved the occupation remained. Both the German and Japanese governments, if not puppets, are at least heavily influenced by the United States. The people on Okinawa want the US base removed but the Japanese government won't allow that.

You look at Argentina, and several of the Latin American nations and you'll find a pattern of manipulation and control of the governments as well as the extraction of resources which only served to benefit US corporations and the corrupt ruling classes put in place by the US. Look at pre-revolution Iran and you see the same thing.

But even so, there were some checks on US power prior to 1991. Now there are virtually none. As Russia and China attempt to rise, the US presses confrontation to keep the status quo. That's dangerous.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Vietnam, Cambodia, Serbia, Iraq and Libya beg to differ.

If we weren't pretty benevolent, these countries and their people wouldn't be alive to beg to differ.

The US helped to build back Japan and Germany and the people prospered. The military occupation which followed was welcomed primarily because each country feared hostile enemies; Germany feared the Soviets and Japan feared both the Soviets and China. But after the USSR dissolved the occupation remained.

If you think the occupation remained, then you don't know what an occupation is.

Both the German and Japanese governments, if not puppets, are at least heavily influenced by the United States. The people on Okinawa want the US base removed but the Japanese government won't allow that.

Both countries have free elections, and to the extent that they have ties with the US, such ties are voluntary. None of these countries are being forced to house US military facilities. Furthermore, when those installations close, the host nations aren't happy about it, because it means large economic and job losses. Bear in mind that both countries have opposition parties that are hostile to the US presence. They just lose.

Even Okinawa isn't how you describe it. Other than Guantanamo, it's probably the base which has the most hostile local population. However, most of that opposition isn't an ideological opposition to the US or even the US having bases in Japan. What they don't like is that a very disproportionate share of US forces (74 percent) are in Okinawa rather than in the rest of Japan, leaving little of the landmass to the local population. That's the core of their opposition.

You look at Argentina, and several of the Latin American nations and you'll find a pattern of manipulation and control of the governments as well as the extraction of resources which only served to benefit US corporations and the corrupt ruling classes put in place by the US. Look at pre-revolution Iran and you see the same thing.

You won't get an argument from me here. Our record in Latin America is mixed at best.

But even so, there were some checks on US power prior to 1991. Now there are virtually none. As Russia and China attempt to rise, the US presses confrontation to keep the status quo. That's dangerous.

Not as dangerous as losing a world war.

 

[Musburger1]

Both countries have free elections, and to the extent that they have ties with the US, such ties are voluntary.

We can go round and round on this stuff, but the free election assertion is beginning to come under fire; at least in the USA. I'm sure the processes are quite different in Japan and Germany, so I'll stick to the US in this reply.

We have a two party system that basically now belongs to competing oligarchs. Each party presents the public with a choice of pre-approved candidates (those that have been purchased by powerful special interests and media owners). This year, an actual oligarch - one whose interests diverge from the establishment oligarchy - has pitted himself against the establishment. People aren't voting for Trump; they are voting against the ruling establishment.

My contention is simply: if the United States political system can be corrupted and controlled by the most powerful corporate interests and the military-industrial complex, the same players surely have made significant inroads toward managing the political processes in our key allies governments. Perhaps not total control but substantial.

For example, how do the sanctions against Russia play out in terms of the German opinion on the street? I'm sure the government and media are quite adamant about sustaining them. But what about the general population? Are they driving policy or led by policy?

 

[Mr. Deez]

We can go round and round on this stuff, but the free election assertion is beginning to come under fire; at least in the USA. I'm sure the processes are quite different in Japan and Germany, so I'll stick to the US in this reply.

We have a two party system that basically now belongs to competing oligarchs. Each party presents the public with a choice of pre-approved candidates (those that have been purchased by powerful special interests and media owners). This year, an actual oligarch - one whose interests diverge from the establishment oligarchy - has pitted himself against the establishment. People aren't voting for Trump; they are voting against the ruling establishment.

My contention is simply: if the United States political system can be corrupted and controlled by the most powerful corporate interests and the military-industrial complex, the same players surely have made significant inroads toward managing the political processes in our key allies governments. Perhaps not total control but substantial.

When I say "free elections," I mean that the people are getting what they're voting for. It's not rigged. Do moneyed interests have the ability to influence the voters through propaganda? Of course, but that's pretty much true everywhere, and in this day and age of the internet, I put the blame for this on the public. We get what we ask for and what we deserve.

Having said that, I think the German system is more open than the American, because they don't have a winner take all system, which is what causes a two-party system. Four parties are seated in the Bundestag, and that will probably be five or six after the next election. That means it's much easier for opposition groups to gain a platform to promote themselves without kowtowing to the dominant parties and easier for them to get a seat at the table.

One major political party in Germany openly calls for the closure of US military facilities, and big shock, it's Die Linke (The Left), the successor party to the East German Socialist Unity Party (the former ruling communist party). Even if you throw in the Greens (who are often critical of military action in general), we're talking about 20 percent of the German Bundestag. The other 80 percent are favorable. Can financed propaganda sway things? Sure, but can they pull 80 percent? Doubtful, especially with a media that is generally hostile to the United States. If the German people wanted the US military to leave, they could make it happen. It's not an "occupation" as you called it or anything close to it.

For example, how do the sanctions against Russia play out in terms of the German opinion on the street? I'm sure the government and media are quite adamant about sustaining them. But what about the general population? Are they driving policy or led by policy?

From what I can tell and what I've read in polls, most Germans support the EU and US sanctions against Russia, but they're more tepid about tightening the sanctions. Bear in mind that Germany has a trading partner with Russia, which complicates the issue for them more than it would for the US. The German media is somewhat split on Russia in general. Some outlets are more hostile. Others are more favorable.

 

[Musburger1]

Good response and information about the German political process.

Back to America again. There are issues that are important to the special interests, or oligarchs as I call them, and other issues that may be important to the general public, but are irrelevant to the oligarchs.

For example, gay marriage, food stamps, and health care legislation mean virtually nothing to Monsanto, Wall Street, or the Pentagon, but its an issue the public can decide by casting a vote for a Democrat or a Republican. These issues may indeed decide an election, but neither Jamie Dimon nor the CEO at Lockheed care about such issues.

But there are other issues that the power players are concerned with, such as foreign policy and trade agreements such as TTIP and TPP. When the oligarchs control the both the purse strings and own the major media, any candidate from either side of the isle is not going to oppose them. You'll find that successful Republican and Democrats march in lock step with the establishment if they expect to get anywhere. Occasionally someone will attempt to buck the system such as a Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, or a Bernie Sanders but its an uphill battle because the establishment can easily use the media to portray them as kooks or radicals.

Obama has been portrayed by Republicans as not being forceful enough with respect to foreign policy, soft on Muslims, and weakening the military. I honestly have no idea what he really believes, but if you actually analyze the past 8 years, the US has extended the neocon policies conducted under George Bush. There's been some pivots here and there - out of Iraq and then back into Afghanistan for instance - but the same people run the show. Victoria Nulan and other right wing neocons retained positions from the prior administration. Obama stepped up drone bombings in Pakistan and Yemen. Hillary Clinton cheerleaded the bombing and regime change in Libya. With respect to foreign policy, the offensive coordinators for both the Democrats and Republicans are composed of the same generals, State Department people, and think tanks. The two parties just argue who would be the better QB.

As far as the trade deals, which are what the multinational corporations care about, the negotiations are carried out in secret. Both the establishment democrats and establishment republicans will lick the boots of the corporate masters and get a deal passed. Their objective is to have their own stamp on it before they pass a bill, not the other party's stamp. Not they know or care what's in it or even if it benefits the general public. Because they don't work for or represent the general public.

Bottom line, if you care about gay rights or how big your welfare check ought to be, perhaps you have a say in your government. On those issues, there is a difference as far as left and right. But if you are concerned about large scale economic issues, immigration, and the armed forces, leave that up to the oligarchy. They'll approve which democrat and republican candidates you may pull the lever for.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Good response and information about the German political process.

Back to America again. There are issues that are important to the special interests, or oligarchs as I call them, and other issues that may be important to the general public, but are irrelevant to the oligarchs.

For example, gay marriage, food stamps, and health care legislation mean virtually nothing to Monsanto, Wall Street, or the Pentagon, but its an issue the public can decide by casting a vote for a Democrat or a Republican. These issues may indeed decide an election, but neither Jamie Dimon nor the CEO at Lockheed care about such issues.

But there are other issues that the power players are concerned with, such as foreign policy and trade agreements such as TTIP and TPP. When the oligarchs control the both the purse strings and own the major media, any candidate from either side of the isle is not going to oppose them. You'll find that successful Republican and Democrats march in lock step with the establishment if they expect to get anywhere. Occasionally someone will attempt to buck the system such as a Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, or a Bernie Sanders but its an uphill battle because the establishment can easily use the media to portray them as kooks or radicals.

Obama has been portrayed by Republicans as not being forceful enough with respect to foreign policy, soft on Muslims, and weakening the military. I honestly have no idea what he really believes, but if you actually analyze the past 8 years, the US has extended the neocon policies conducted under George Bush. There's been some pivots here and there - out of Iraq and then back into Afghanistan for instance - but the same people run the show. Victoria Nulan and other right wing neocons retained positions from the prior administration. Obama stepped up drone bombings in Pakistan and Yemen. Hillary Clinton cheerleaded the bombing and regime change in Libya. With respect to foreign policy, the offensive coordinators for both the Democrats and Republicans are composed of the same generals, State Department people, and think tanks. The two parties just argue who would be the better QB.

As far as the trade deals, which are what the multinational corporations care about, the negotiations are carried out in secret. Both the establishment democrats and establishment republicans will lick the boots of the corporate masters and get a deal passed. Their objective is to have their own stamp on it before they pass a bill, not the other party's stamp. Not they know or care what's in it or even if it benefits the general public. Because they don't work for or represent the general public.

Bottom line, if you care about gay rights or how big your welfare check ought to be, perhaps you have a say in your government. On those issues, there is a difference as far as left and right. But if you are concerned about large scale economic issues, immigration, and the armed forces, leave that up to the oligarchy. They'll approve which democrat and republican candidates you may pull the lever for.

Mus,

I get your point here, and we have some agreement. I've said more than once in this forum that there's no doubt in my mind that social issues, race issues, and welfare policy are largely diversions to keep people from looking at other more consequential issues. Furthermore, I've said in the past that Obama is not a radical departure from the Bush Administration when it comes to policy (especially foreign policy). A very similar group of interests have clout with both parties. However, there are a few things to keep in mind.

First, the Establishment (whoever that might be) has its power with the consent of the governed. They have clout because their candidates win, and they win because we vote for them in primaries, caucuses, and general elections. Nobody is forcing anything on us, and the system isn't rigged.

Second, the system is more open than it has ever been. You mentioned that anti-establishment types get labeled as radicals. However, they've never had it as good as they have it now. Thirty years ago, virtually our entire perception of politicians was driven by what mainstream media sources said of them, because almost all information was disseminated through them. If a politician wanted to counter that, he had spend a fortune on advertising, direct mailers, etc. That means he had to ***** for somebody and in a very big way. If he had run in 1980, nobody outside of Vermont would have even known who Bernie Sanders was, and the media would never have taken him seriously. Now, he can counter the mainstream press through social media and at a fraction of the cost. That's a huge game changer. Furthermore, what relatively little money a candidate does need can be raised a lot easier. Back in the day, he'd have to solicit it through the mail, and people would have to write out paper checks and mail them - a big and very expensive process that's easy to screw up. As a practical matter, big checks were all that mattered. Now, he can make a short video, post it on Facebook, and hundreds of thousands or millions of people can Paypal him $10. It's MUCH, MUCH easier for the general public to pool their resources.

And think about things on the voter's end. In 1980, how did you find out how your congressman voted on something? You looked in the newspaper. If it didn't cover the vote you were interested in, then you'd go to the library and sort through congressional records, which is a lot of work. Furthermore, that process took months, because the books weren't updated very quickly.

The bottom line is that there has never been a time when the Establishment had less leverage on the public when it came to information and the ability of candidates to connect to the voters and get their messages out.

Finally, why do you think the public has generally allowed the Establishment to run the show on immigration, military policy, and trade policy? Two reasons. First, they're so ignorant on those issues that they virtually can't have an informed opinion. For example, should we impose a tariff on Cambodian rice? Who the hell knows? I don't. I'm sure you don't. So why would your congressman listen to you on the issue? Second, when it comes to these complex policy areas, the general public has little motivation to become informed, because letting the Establishment have their way has mostly served us well. We have a massive economy and a military that's limited only by the American people's political will.

I'm not saying there's no room for criticism. There certainly is. Our immigration system is a blatant screw-job on the American worker, and most of our trade deals fleece the general public on both sides to benefit wealthy interests. (FYI - TTIP is very unpopular in Germany.) However, if you look at the totality of the situation, we're doing more right than we're doing wrong.

 

[Musburger1]

The gains in informing, educating, and organizing the public as a result of the advent of social media are positive. But these gains have been offset by factors such as the Citizens United ruling, the concentration of media into just a few large corporations, and wealth inequality which allows the powerful to purchase more and more influence.

The West and the US more specifically, in many ways is following the path of Rome. First, there is the bread and circuses arrangement where the state provides for the general welfare of the citizens and various entertainment pacifies the public. Another feature is the expansion of executive power that incrementally usurps the legislative branch that supposedly represents the people. Hail Caesar! And thirdly, despite the assertion the military isn't expanding its reach, the sheer number of clandestine operations, military bases, military conflicts, and dollars spent on armaments suggest overreach. Also, real wages have tended downward and as the combination of debt and demographics worsen, the political climate promises to worsen.

 

[Mr. Deez]

The gains in informing, educating, and organizing the public as a result of the advent of social media are positive. But these gains have been offset by factors such as the Citizens United ruling, the concentration of media into just a few large corporations, and wealth inequality which allows the powerful to purchase more and more influence.

To be clear, I think Citizens United was wrongly decided. However, I don't see it as the political Armageddon that some suggest. The mechanisms were in place for powerful and wealthy people to influence policymakers before the decision was handed down. Was it a good decision? Certainly not. But was it a game changer? No.

And I would disagree that the media is more concentrated. I think the opposite is true. Again, 40 years ago, there were only a few sources for media, and they were mostly corporate-owned. Now, there are thousands of sources of all kinds through the internet. It has never been more fragmented.

The West and the US more specifically, in many ways is following the path of Rome. First, there is the bread and circuses arrangement where the state provides for the general welfare of the citizens and various entertainment pacifies the public. Another feature is the expansion of executive power that incrementally usurps the legislative branch that supposedly represents the people. Hail Caesar! And thirdly, despite the assertion the military isn't expanding its reach, the sheer number of clandestine operations, military bases, military conflicts, and dollars spent on armaments suggest overreach. Also, real wages have tended downward and as the combination of debt and demographics worsen, the political climate promises to worsen.

I'm not saying you're completely wrong on all of this. I think you have a lot of the problems right. I just don't think you have the solutions right. I don't see how national disarmament and disengagement helps. That approach has only led to trouble in the past, and it would lead to trouble again, except that the bad apples in the modern era would have nuclear weapons.

Also, are we really engaging in more clandestine operations? I don't see how you could know that. If you could, the operations wouldn't be clandestine.

 

[Musburger1]

By national disarmament and disengagement, I assume you are referring to my opposition to our escalation of militarizing Eastern Europe. Russia has announced they will respond in kind.
https://www.rt.com/news/337818-russia-nato-asymmetrical-response/

As far as clandestine operations, how the hell do you think all the well-armed foreign jihadists wound up in Syria? Divine intervention?

 

[Mr. Deez]

By national disarmament and disengagement, I assume you are referring to my opposition to our escalation of militarizing Eastern Europe.

Not entirely. I'm referring to your support for unilaterally and seemingly universally giving up US military assets abroad. We've already don't a lot of that. Personally, I think we should evaluate each overseas asset periodically and on a case-by-case basis. Some of our bases should be closed. Some should be expanded. You seem to hold a general, ideological hostility to them. I don't.

Russia has announced they will respond in kind.
https://www.rt.com/news/337818-russia-nato-asymmetrical-response/

Let them respond however they choose. Both sides claim they're building up their forces in response to the other. You believe your boy in Moscow and think his largely centralized and state-sponsored media are entirely honest and think the entire Western media is putting forth a big, coordinated scam. I don't buy that.

You watch and read RT far too much.

As far as clandestine operations, how the hell do you think all the well-armed foreign jihadists wound up in Syria? Divine intervention?

Syria's a mess, and I don't condone how the US has conducted itself. Like I've said previously, I think we should be working with Putin here, and I think we should drop this ******** of insisting that Assad leave power as a condition of working with him. However, you're using an anecdote to presume a broad explosion of clandestine operations far beyond what we've done in the past. That's absurd.

 

[Musburger1]

Deez, the entire US military has been restructured. Conventional armies present no threat to the US military and certainly not to the US homeland. Instead, the dangers which exist come from non-state actors that receive support from states. Thus the transformation to a large number of smaller, less identifiable cells that perform covert operations. And that makes sense. But that isn't enough to satisfy the military industrial complex. So they create a conventional army bogey man in Russia to justify build ups in countries where the US has no historical interests. And the covert operations, ostensibly to fight non-state jihadist threats, take on a secondary (perhaps a primary) purpose of confronting any nation that might become a regional power.