By Nicholas C. Arguimbau
Paul Craig Roberts is not a fool. Nor is he a card-carrying Communist. His conservative credentials at least once were impeccable - a senior researcher at the Hoover Institute, Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal, one of the economists responsible for President Reagan’s supply-side economics, and Reagan’s Assistant Treasury Secretary for economic policy, working for development of the tax policies that were central to everything that followed in the US http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/pages/about-paul-craig-roberts/
That is why he cannot be dismissed lightly when he says the United States and Russia are already at war over the Ukraine, and the US is planning nuclear war, based upon a transparent pretense. He is not alone. Now there are almost daily expressions of concern that the US is positioning itself to take the first strike in a nuclear war with Russia; see, e.g. Stern,"Threats Against Russia Increase Danger Of Nuclear War ," http://www.countercurrents.org/stern300814.htm
Dr. Mahboob A. Khawaja
“We are waging war on terrorism even as we embody terrorism. No wonder we seem sometimes to be at war with ourselves, and have been for most of the 21st century….. No American under 12 Has Lived in a Country at Peace…whatever the U.S. government knows, or thinks it knows, is not widely shared with most of its citizens….. The American Enemies List Is Decided Anonymously and Secretly.” (William Boardman, “ Is America a Country at war with an Illusion.” Information Clearing House: 8/19/2013).
Late Dr. Ali Shariati (the persuasive intellectual force of Iran’s Islamic revolution), once noted: “when people live in darkness, they lose sense of direction.” The 21st century knowledge-based information age tells a lot about how some of the global politicians and sadistic leaders tend to ignore the lessons of history. The darkness is returning to Baghdad. In March 2003, America waged a bloody war against Iraq under a false pretext of having ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction.’ All impartial accounts of the decade long war point out to the American-led savagery to have murdered approximately 3 million innocent people in Iraq and destroyed countless human habitats and hub of one of the well known ancient human civilizations.
by Stephen Lendman
America came to stay. Obama saying "(w)e will bring America's longest war to a responsible end" is false. It's his latest Big Lie.
His Monday statement included many others. "The United States did not seek this fight," he said.
"We went into Afghanistan out of necessity, after our nation was attacked by al Qaeda on September 11th, 2001." "We went to war against al Qaeda and its extremist allies with the strong support of the American people and their representatives in Congress; with the international community and our NATO allies; and with the Afghan people, who welcomed the opportunity of a life free from the dark tyranny of extremism."
by Stephen Lendman
This year's March madness wasn't in America. Nor what continues in April. Or what preceded it. Or perhaps what's likely to follow. It's in Ukraine.
It's ground zero. It represents the greatest geopolitical crisis since WW II. It threatens a third global conflict. It that's not madness, what is?
Obama bears full responsibility. His rap sheet is blood-drenched. He's waging multiple direct and proxy wars. He's got lots more mass slaughter and destruction in mind.
He wants unchallenged US global dominance. He wants Russia marginalized, isolated, weakened, contained and co-opted. His objectives risk global war.
Ukraine is a major geopolitical flashpoint. It's hugely dangerous. Challenging Russia recklessly may ignite what no responsible leader would risk.
Obama represents the worst of rogue leadership. He's ideologically extreme. He's over-the-top and then some. He's a con man like no other. He risks potential armageddon.
By Michael Collins
General Karl W. Eikenberry was right in November 2009 when he urged less support for an Afghanistan ruled by President Hamid Karzai. President Obama and Generals Stanley McChrystal and David Petraeus all wanted a surge. The policy failed. The general won't say it but he told them so in a second opinion solicited by Obama. Look at the facts. (Image)
The Bush administration hand-picked Hamid Karzai to be the first ruler of Afghanistan. Following the axiom, nothing good comes out of the Bush administration; is it any surprise that Karzai oscillated between less than effective and a near disaster? Lately, he's gone nonlinear.
On February 25, Karzai ordered United States Special Forces out of three provinces claiming that Afghan troops tied to the U.S. command were torturing their fellow citizens. As U.S. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel arrived in Kabul on March 11, Karzai accused the U.S. of "colluding with the Taliban." He added the odd notion that the Taliban sought a prolonged U.S. presence in Afghanistan.
Retired Army colonel David Maxwell of Georgetown University remarked: “I cannot see how we could work with such an apparently delusional leader much longer, but unfortunately I do not know if we have any other good options.” Bloomberg, Mar 11
It didn't have to be this way.
By Michael Collins
Somebody released information concerning one of President Barack Obama's methods for fighting terrorism. (Image)
"Mr. Obama has placed himself at the helm of a top secret nominations process to designate terrorists for kill or capture. Secret ‘Kill List’ Proves a Test of Obama’s Principles and Will, New York Times, May 29
Republicans are furious. Sen. John McCain says the White House intentionally leaked the story to make Obama look good.
"Regardless of how politically useful these leaks have been to the administration, they have to stop." John McCain, CBS News, June 6
By Michael Collins
What a lovely photo of the two well-heeled leaders of the free world. Previously, it was the American cowboy president and the supposedly left leaning Prime Minister Tony Blair. That buddy act helped drag United States into the worst foreign policy disaster in its history. (Image full size)
This working partnership between President Barack Obama and Prime Minister David Cameron portends less immediate damage than the Bush-Blair team. Nevertheless, there will be blood
Is there anything other than disaster awaiting the US and Great Britain in Afghanistan?
The response to the murder of sixteen Afghan civilians on March 12th has been disastrous for the United States with retaliatory attacks ongoing. Even before that, March 8 was a Deadly day for the Brits in Afghanistan with six soldiers killed in a bombing of an armored vehicle. General David Allen, in charge of the Afghanistan effort, lamented that this is the type of incident that could threaten the entire effort.
How will the U.S.-British enterprise recover from the latest in a series of insults to the Afghan people?
The people of the U.S. and Great Britain get the message. In a recent poll, 61% of citizens want U.S. troops home immediately. Only 19% oppose that decisive action. In Great Britain, 75% oppose the Afghan war effort.
The relation between imperialism and democracy has been debated and discussed over 2500 years, from fifth century Athens to Liberty Park in Manhattan. Contemporary critics of imperialism (and capitalism) claim to find a fundamental incompatibility, citing the growing police state measures accompanying colonial wars, from Clinton’s anti-terrorist laws, and Bush’s “Patriot Act” to Obama’s ordering the extrajudicial assassination of overseas US citizens.
In the past, however, many theorists of imperialism of varying political persuasion, ranging from Max Weber to Vladimir Lenin, argued that imperialism unified the country, reduced internal class polarization and created privileged workers who actively supported and voted for imperial parties. A historical, comparative survey of the conditions under which imperialism and democratic institutions converge or diverge can throw some light on the challenges and choices faced by the burgeoning democratic movements erupting across the globe.
The US government (White House and Congress) spends $10 billion dollars a month, or $120 billion a year, to fight an estimated “50 -75 ‘Al Qaeda types’ in Afghanistan”, according to the CIA and quoted in the Financial Times of London (6/25 -26/11, p. 5). During the past 30 months of the Obama presidency, Washington has spent $300 billion dollars in Afghanistan, which adds up to $4 billion dollars for each alleged ‘Al Queda type’. If we multiply this by the two dozen or so sites and countries where the White House claims ‘Al Qaeda’ terrorists have been spotted, we begin to understand why the US budget deficit has grown astronomically to over $1.6 trillion for the current fiscal year.
By Cyril Mychalejko
As tens of thousands of corpses continue to pile up as a result of the US-led "War on Drugs" in Latin America, private contractors are benefiting from lucrative federal counternarcotics contracts amounting to billions of dollars, without worry of oversight or accountability.
U.S. contractors in Latin America are paid by the Defense and State Departments to supply countries with services that include intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, training, and equipment.
"It's becoming increasingly clear that our efforts to rein in the narcotics trade in Latin America, especially as it relates to the government's use of contractors, have largely failed,” said U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill, chair of the Subcommittee on Contracting Oversight which released a report on counternarcotics contracts in Latin America this month. “Without adequate oversight and management we are wasting tax dollars and throwing money at a problem without even knowing what we're getting in return.”
|Your donation helps provide a place for people to speak out. thepeoplesvoice.org P.O. Box 159113 Nashville, TN 37215 Not tax deductible. firstname.lastname@example.org|
|Articles and Writers||Old TPV|
|<< <||> >>|