You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘arms trade’ category.

Good article on TAC:

The Wholesale Failure of American Foreign Policy

How long will the people permit it?

 

 

The contemporary mission of the US armed forces is to make military contractors rich. As an addendum the foreign policy elite use the military to scare the world into political alignment with the US. How did this happen? The American people flat out don’t care and therefore the media just goes along with the corrupt government on this endless gravy train. At no time has it been more true that “war is a racket” as Gen. Smedley Butler noted long ago. In my view, the National Security State is our largest unit of organized crime.

[Amen.]

This comment is actually priceless in the bolded parts:

TG says:

Ah, but Hillary Clinton is ‘qualified’ to be president, and Donald Trump is ‘unqualified.’ Why? Because Clinton has been deemed ‘qualified’ by the New York Times, and she has been engaged with echo-chamber think tanks for decades that keep telling her how great she is, and she has been mucking about in government for over two decades, and anyhow she’s a woman. So even though Trump says a lot of sensible things, and has a track record of (mostly) succeeding with large complex projects in a very competitive business environment (and even when he fails he knows how to cut his losses), and he appears to care more about the national interest than selling out for personal gain, obviously we can’t vote for him, because racism.

[ 🙂 Well, since Trump is running on a Republican ticket, he’ll just end up being another neo-con just like Hillary. The fools wanting to vote for him are just as clueless as the Hillary fans.]

Karl R Kaiser says:

It’s only a failure if you believe the government’s STATED strategic purposes.

But if the purpose of our foreign policy is to enrich the military industry, bankers, oil barons, and opium importers, to empower Israel, and to frighten Americans into accepting a paramilitary surveillance state, then voila, American foreign policy is an unqualified success.

Douglas K. says:

I echo other comments here. Current policy is a failure only if you’re concerned about American lives, civil liberties, security, prestige, international reputation, military preparedness … stuff like that. You know, the metrics of success that normal people use.

But if the actual goal is to maintain permanent low-level foreign and domestic threats to justify continued massive military expenditures and the perpetual expansion of the security state, then it’s all working perfectly. The “war on terror” is like the “war on drugs” in that the point is to fight it forever, not to win. After all, the money is in the fighting. “Victory” — perpetually undefined and therefore unachievable — would end the gravy train.

Anarcissie says:

The US leadership/elite/ruling class decided that it had to rule the world, to make the world safe for itself and its interests, back during World War 2, and created a system to do that. It is now generally referred to as ’empire’. All arrangements eventually come to an end, and we are now coming to the end of this particular arrangement. It might be objectively possible for our leaders to try to work up a new arrangement, but my guess is that in their sentimental attachment to power and glory, they will just keep doing the same things until some catastrophe brings the sad game to an end. The present election seems to bear out this pessimistic view.

Advertisements

Here is the best article so far on the Sanders’ sell-out to criminal, vile Clinton:

The worst disservice Sanders has done to his supporters, other than to lead them on a wild goose chase for real change, is to virtually ignore his rival’s vaunted “experience.” He need not have mentioned Hillary Clinton’s Senate record, since there was nothing there; her stint as law-maker was merely intended to position her for a run for the presidency, according to the family plan. But there was a lot in her record as Secretary of State.

As she recounts in her memoir, she wanted a heftier “surge” in Afghanistan than Obama was prepared to order. Anyone paying attention knows that the entire military mission in that broken country has been a dismal failure producing blow-back on a mind-boggling scale, even as the Taliban has become stronger, and controls more territory, than at any time since its toppling in 2001-2002.

Hillary wanted to impose regime change on Syria in 2011, by stepping up assistance to armed groups whom (again) anyone paying attention knows are in cahoots with al-Nusra (which is to say, al-Qaeda). In an email dated Nov. 30, 2015, she states her reason: “The best way to help Israel…is to help the people of Syria overthrow the regime of Bashar Assad.”

In her memoir she criticizes Obama for not doing more to oust the secular Assad regime. She has repeatedly stated during her campaign that she favors a no-fly zone over Syria, like the one she advocated for Libya. That means conflict with Russia, which is bombing sites in Syria, with the permission of its internationally recognized government, under what Russia’s leaders (and many rational people) consider to be terrorists’ control.

Sanders–sorry, I cannot call him “Bernie” anymore, since he has become precisely as avuncular as Dick Cheney–could have effectively attacked Hillary the Skjaldmær (Old Norse for “Shield-maiden,” referring to an often berserk warrior-woman) for her role in the destruction of Libya. But no! Always referring to her deferentially as “Secretary Clinton”—as though her actions in that role merit respect—he rarely alluded to her greatest crime at all. That’s unforgivable.

(Yes, in one debate he mentioned Libya in passing—timidly, and with no follow-up. While he repeatedly mentioned how The Secretary had voted for the Iraq War and he hadn’t, he hardly exuded moral outrage about that or any other Clinton decision. His campaign was all about her Wall Street ties and well-paid, secret talks, the transcripts of which he once wanted to see but has now apparently lost interest. It was never about “foreign policy,” which is supposedly her forte. He may call himself a “socialist,” but he’s no anti-imperialist. He has voted in favor of every “defense spending” bill, supported the NATO assault on Serbia in 1999, supported Israel’s attack on Gaza in 2014, etc.)

He could have attacked Clinton savagely—with the savagery of mere matter-of-fact honesty—by citing those emails exchanged between Clinton and her vicious confidant and former adviser Anne-Marie Slaughter, in which the latter—under the subject line “bravo!”—congratulates her on engineering Obama’s agreement for the bombing of Libya. (On March 19, 2011, as the bombing of Libya began, Slaughter wrote: “I cannot imagine how exhausted you must be after this week, but I have NEVER been prouder of having worked for you. Turning [Obama] around on this is a major win for everything we have worked for.”

He could have quoted that email from Sidney Blumenthal, that Svengali figure who has long been Clinton’s unofficial mentor (along with Henry Kissinger and others): “No-fly! Brava! You did it!” (Brava, if you’re interested, is the feminine form of Bravo.)

He could have repeatedly used that damning clip that reveals Hillary’s joy at the grotesque murder of Moammar Gadhafy—-who had become a friend of Tony Blair, Silvio Berlusconi, and the CIA as of 2011—at the hands of Islamist thugs, who rammed a stick and knife up his anus on camera just to make it more humiliating. His ads could have started with some appropriately edited version of this. And ended with this. And left the people to draw their own conclusions.

He could have asked, “Why the hell did you appoint Dick Cheney aide Victoria Nuland as Under Secretary of State for Eurasia, and support and fund that coup in Ukraine in 2014 in your goddamn ambition to expand NATO?”

But no. He didn’t have it in him. And now he wants his youthful erstwhile followers to transfer their support to someone who is not only the embodiment of Wall Street, with all its blood-sucking and all its crookedness, but the personification of U.S. imperialism in an era when its depth of crisis has produced a state of perpetual war.

Savvy people in Syria and elsewhere surely understand what the Sanders endorsement means: Syria is the next Libya.

Hillary in the Oval Office, Binyamin Netanyahu at her side, will laugh as Assad gets her knife up his ass, chaos deepens, the draft is re-instated, and boys and girls—of all ethnicities, gay and straight together—march off to fight the Brava Wars drastically reducing youth unemployment and making legions more eligible for the GI Bill.

Even if Sanders doesn’t vote for the war (and why should there be a vote, after all, in this post-constitution era?), he will share responsibility.

Shame! And shame on any once “Bernie” supporter who follows him into his moral morass.

* * *

Feel the burn. The burn of the rigged system. Why be drawn into it—the object of Hillary’s praise, for switching so readily from him to her (for the sake of “unity”)?

What is there to unite with, but more corruption, exploitation, and wars based on lies?

The votes that matter are the votes on the street. Either Trump or Clinton will provoke mass upheaval. The key contribution of the Sanders campaign has been to lay bare for idealistic youth the magnitude of the rot in the system itself, while raising (however dishonestly) the prospect of “political revolution.”

It’s the hope Sanders has sold out. But yes, that’s what we need. Social, economic, and political revolution. Too bad he’s chosen the other side.

Gary Leupp is Professor of History at Tufts University, and holds a secondary appointment in the Department of Religion. He is the author of Servants, Shophands and Laborers in in the Cities of Tokugawa JapanMale Colors: The Construction of Homosexuality in Tokugawa Japan; and Interracial Intimacy in Japan: Western Men and Japanese Women, 1543-1900. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion, (AK Press). He can be reached at: gleupp@tufts.edu

======end======

Well done, Gary and Counterpunch! My impression had been, since I actually didn’t know much about Sanders before he started his presidential campaign, that he actually had integrity. That he actually was going to use his remarkable abilities as a politician and speaker to do good. To educate and guide the dumb and clueless American voters, especially the young ones, who have no alternative given to them as to understanding how the world works, especially in terms of power, and are conditioned to idolize the very structures that are ruining the world (like Wall Street and the military/arms industry).

I had thought, given that Sanders seemed to actually present a socialist idea for society, that he was not on the imperial bandwagon. I thought he wasn’t attacking Clinton on her vile imperialism because  that would mean directly antagonizing with her supporters, since they have been conditioned (and  many also deliberately choose) to support wars, mass murder, torture, etc. So I thought he was going for their disenfranchisement angle, to connect with them.

But as Leupp points out above, Sanders seems to be much, much  more rotten when it comes to military and imperialism issues. And maybe this is why he is congratulating himself – in the most ridiculous way possible – for having achieved something that he fancies to be momentous:  having her promise to raise the minimum wage to 15 dollars. It’s pathetic. This, after he caved in to Hillary, the most disgusting Republican in drag ever, the most mass murder loving Democrat ever.

A lesson why democracy doesn’t work in a vile world – or in a world full of dumb, selfish, and corrupt people such as the United States.

It was interesting and awful to see how each political faction in the US tried to spin the Orlando attack to blame whatever group they hate.

Amusingly, liberals were on a roll with their gay victim media fest  when the news came out that maybe Mateen had a homosexual problem himself. A little Mastercard moment, you have to admit. For a moment, the shouts of “We told you! We told you! Conservatives are all evil and homosexuals are all darlings”  hushed down a bit and were replaced by “It doesn’t matter if he was a homosexual, snap, it matters that homos were killed, we must always ignore when homosexuals perpetrate violence and just scream about them being victims”.

Trump seized the attack to inflame the fears and racism of his supporters, “I told you we need a Muslim ban, I told you, I told you, we need to protect our  borders, the wall, the wall, and the Mexicans, Afghans, Paraguayans, Kurds, whatever, ban, ban, ban” – completely overlooking the fact that the alleged shooter is American and was born in the US.

Trumpinites were yelling off their heads about the evil Muslims and ISIS and terrorists attacking innocent  Americans on American soil – you know, the fatherland, I mean heartland – when all of a sudden the news came out that at least three of the homosexual victims were illegals. Oops – a little wrench right into  the Mexicans and the wall and the terrorists.

Right-wingers were screaming hysterically “Ahhh! Terrorists! Terrorists! Be afraid, afraid, be very afraid! We need more bombings, more wars, more arms sales, more killings, more destruction of other countries so our corrupt political puppets can be instituted in a corrupt democratic system or we can put in place a nice old fashioned dictator that we control”. Well, they didn’t actually say the second part and just screamed “Terrorists! Terrorists!” hysterically – the rest will follow so naturally, why waste one’s breath telling the truth to the sheeple?

There was a lot more shouting and spun angles. Every political  faction in the US though ignored what I found the most important thing Mateen declared to the media (if true): he did this shooting to avenge and to call attention to US’ mass killings of women and children in Afghanistan – apparently where his family came from.

So this isn’t just some evil person who is killing others because of no reason – he is very much protesting US warfare and the killing of thousands of innocent people and the protracted destruction of an entire country (just one of many).

But you wouldn’t know this from  many of the comments to several news articles on the shooting. One that stood out to me was a guy asking: what makes an individual pick up a rifle and just go out and kill people? What sort of an deranged person would do that?

He was genuinely puzzled and asking the question.

One could also ask: what makes a group of Americans get on a plane and just go and kill and kill people? Thousands and thousand of men, women, and children. What makes the US, the UK, and France, among others, go terrorize millions of people abroad, to destroy their families, their homes, their countries, their lives, their psychological structure, their hopes and dreams?

Well, we know – evil greed and the desire to make a buck, in other words, savage capitalism, the US’, the UK’s, and France’s specialty. At this time, it’s the desire to rob other people of oil, gas, minerals, and other sought-after materials, control markets abroad, use international financial systems in the most corrupt ways, turn everyone into mindless consumers, in short, old neo-colonialism now covered with a high-tech face.

I had seen this movie before. I remember being speechless when I heard Pres. Hollande  proclaim on national television after the November attacks that “France is now at war.”

Really? And what was France in before – when it took its military aircraft and all its other vicious weapons and joined the US and the UK in multiple killing sprees of thousands and thousands of innocent people – the poorest of the poor – in Africa and in the Middle East? Is now mass murder a form of peace for France, the UK, and the US?

The arrogance, the sheer Nazi arrogance that is needed to think that when Americans and Brits and the French kill other people, this is a non-event, and it’s not terrorism either – even though millions of innocent people are forever terrorized and traumatized by this – that is, those who survive the barbarity of war.

How many days have gone by when the US, the UK, and France killed 50 people in some
region of the world? We don’t even know, it’s so frequent in all these wars. But these are
nameless people because they are poor people. They are of color in many ways, not just regarding their skin. The most important is not having the current Nazi citizenship du jour – therefore their lives are completely dispensable and their killing is not to be even accounted for. Americans have no feelings when they murder people abroad. Neither do the French. Murder, especially mass murder, is a seen as a right.

LGBT pigs also didn’t waste a second to trot out the “Oh look, the terrorist is from one of those evil conservative countries where they throw off gays from buildings.” Yes, and  the LGBT pigs are from countries where they use high-tech to commit mass murder, including of children. Glass houses and all that.

Who is the greater evil?

Then we had a large number of pols and pundits solemnly declaring, “Sheeple, the ignominy, this was an attack  on America – what America stands for!” I would have paid money for someone to add, “Yes, an attack on sodomy – the cornerstone of America, what our forefathers fought and died for.” Alas, all I heard was, “The gays, the gays, stop the hatred, victims, victims, crying, crying, the evil terrorists, it’s all so awful.”

This site reports that “about 92,000 people have been killed in the Afghanistan war since 2001. More than 26,000 of those killed have been civilians. Nearly 100,000 people have been injured since 2001.”

Almost a hundred thousand Afghan dead. Contrast that to 50 homos in Orlando.

And what are Americans wailing and grieving about?

Then, in total American mode of let’s hear all the measures we shall take after another horrible crisis, the corrupt US media  invited all these “experts” to tell the public how terrorism can be prevented – which everybody knows in a country of 320 million is impossible. Never mind that.  “Experts” were in overdrive telling us that we need more surveillance, more police, more spending, more intel, more this, more that. Not one suggested that maybe, just maybe if Americans didn’t go murder other people then other people might not want to murder Americans. Not that difficult.

And this is why, the most brilliant political phrase that I came across recently was Henry Adams’ “politics, as a practice, whatever its professions, has always been the systematic organization of hatreds”.

Et voilà, and here we have another grotesque episode of it, in overkill fashion.

Counterpunch really throws a punch here:

President Killary: Would the World Survive Hillary Clinton?

Hillary has accepted massive bribes in the form of speaking fees from financial organizations and corporations.  She is under investigation for misuse of classified data, an offense for which a number of whistleblowers are in prison. Hillary has survived the bombing of Libya, her creation of a failed Libyan state that is today a major source of terrorist jihadists, and the Benghazi controversy. She has survived charges that as Secretary of State she arranged favors for foreign interests in exchange for donations to the Clintons’ foundation.  And, of course, there is a long list of previous scandals: Whitewater, Travelgate, Filegate.  Diana Johnstone’s book, Queen of Chaos, describes Hillary Clinton as “the top salesperson for the ruling oligarchy.”

Hillary Clinton is a bought-and-paid-for representative of the big banks, the military-security complex, and the Israel Lobby.  She will represent these interests, not those of the American people or America’s European allies.

The Clintons’ purchase by interest groups is public knowledge.  For example, CNN reports that between February 2001 and May 2015  Bill and Hillary Clinton were paid $153 million in speaking fees for 729 speeches, an average price of $210,000.

According to rootsactionteam.com, multi-million dollar donors to the Clinton Foundation include Saudi Arabia, Ukrainian oligarch Victor Pinchuk, Kuwait, Exxon Mobil, Friends of Saudi Arabia, James Murdoch, Qatar, Boeing, Dow, Goldman Sachs, Walmart, and the United Arab Emirates.

According to the International Business Times, “Under Hillary Clinton, the State Department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments had given millions to the Clinton Foundation.”

And this woman is a main candidate for the United States presidency? Seriously, Bush in drag. The United States has become what Nazi Germany wanted to be. I have no doubt that the Nazis, had they won the war, and had they succeeded in being the  empire to rule Europe, after a few decades, they could well have instituted more voting on in internal and local level, and have called themselves a democracy. And Germans would be yelling how wonderful their country and their system was, because it brought them material profit.

And then you see all these famous lefty boomer women going wild about Hillary.

What an ugly spectacle.

 

*Paul Craig Roberts is a former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury and Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal. Roberts’ How the Economy Was Lost is now available from CounterPunch in electronic format. His latest book is The Neoconservative Threat to World Order.

Wikileaks: Hillary Clinton Helped Topple Gadhafi While France & UK Fought Over Libya’s Oil – By |

WASHINGTON — A message from Hillary Clinton’s private email server reveals that France and the United Kingdom both sought to control Libya’s oil in the days after the U.S.-backed coup in 2011.

An email sent on Sept. 16, 2011 to Clinton, then the U.S. Secretary of State, from journalist and family friend Sidney Blumenthal, shows that French President Nicolas Sarkozy and British Prime Minister David Cameron each traveled to Tripoli about one month after Moammar Gadhafi’s government fell in order to assert their claim on Libya’s energy reserves.

They made these demands, Blumenthal wrote, during meetings with the country’s National Transitional Council, a de facto government which formed with Western support in the aftermath of the coup:

And,

The United States, France, U.K. and other NATO allies backed rebel forces in Libya that ousted Gadhafi in August 2011, in what was widely reported to be a “humanitarian intervention” against a government with a history of severe human rights abuses.

So, if they all knew he was a monstrous dictator, why did they all support him for decades, do business with him, and then arm him to his teeth?

Mar. 11: Libya: lessons in controlling the arms trade – by Pieter D. Wezeman

In the current military air strikes against Libyan forces, nations that once supported Colonel Muammar Gaddafi’s regime are now—based on sanction by the United Nations—attacking the forces they were marketing and delivering arms to only weeks before. As the violence escalates and the international community examines how to respond to internal conflict and human rights violations, arms supply should be analysed as it implicates the international community as complicit in the violence it is now trying to end.

More:

  • UK approved £2.3bn in arms exports over 21 months

  • Successive governments ‘misjudged the risk’ [What baloney!]

Heavily armed: The British government approved £61.3million in arms exports to Gaddafi’s regime since 2009

Britain sold weapons to Libya and other dictatorships in North Africa and the Middle East just four months before Colonel Gaddafi’s regime slaughtered hundreds of protesters, a damning report reveals today.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1373444/Libya-The-dirty-secret-UK-arms-sales-Gaddafi.html#ixzz44pfrKnWB

The British, you know, these people who claim to be for “freedom and democracy”, did they object ? Did they stop the arms sales and the terror they unleashed?

No, they continued doing their monstrous deeds, while most of the British population looked the other way and while all these dictators continue to terrorize and kill millions of children and adults. And with their bloody British hands, they pocketed the money. So did France and the US.

As long as the US, the UK, and France can rob a country of its resources by putting in place, supporting, and arming a dictator that will sell to them what they want, while keeping the population in a horrible state of poverty and oppression, they will do so. And they don’t even bother to do it very covertly, given how corrupt their populace is. Should any of these dictators outlast their use or start to make demands or not agree to be such a puppet, then it’s time to play the “Oh! We’ve just discovered so and so is a horrible dictator! Now we must topple him! And now our corporations must move in and directly control the natural resources that don’t belong to us! Three cheers fo freedom and democracy – Hitler-style!”

Either the US, the UK, and France rob poor countries through instituting and arming a monstrous dictator, or they do it through a sham of a corrupt “democratic” government, where their corporations move in and rob directly. Either way, the people of any such country remain in horrible poverty, suffering, and are robbed of their own country’s resources.

And after  all of this, Americans, British, and French, all exclaim, “Isn’t the democratic governments you see in our own respective countries wonderful? Isn’t capitalism wonderful?”

Hitler died, but his ideology and tactics were fully taken up by the US, the UK, and France – not that it was new to the imperialist powers to continue to oppress millions and rob poor countries all over the world.

Kill, rob, kill, rob, kill, rob – corporations are the “legitimacy” wrapper that the Nazi-like military of the US-UK-France cover themselves with.

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

%d bloggers like this: