Join the discussion below, or Read more at Los Angeles Times.
#286931 Mar 11, 2013
Even less understood is how the political decisions of the late 1970s are tied to the current simultaneous financial and foreign policy crisis. Nor is it understood how Washington and Wall Street set the stage for America’s financial downfall by using Afghanistan as an investment bank throughout the 1980s to renew the Cold War instead of reinvesting in America’s civilian economy.
Much like today, the America of 1979 faced a crossroads. Vietnam, two oil shocks, a disintegrating infrastructure, a beleaguered manufacturing base and the loss of strategic ally Iran had shown that America was a vulnerable colossus. Thirty five years of economic Cold War against the Soviet Union and China had produced a vast arsenal of nuclear weapons that were proving as useless as they were unusable. World War II had set the stage for the happy marriage of war production to business — pulling the U.S. out of the depression by doubling the Gross National Product in one year (1940). The Cold War ushered the financial benefits of the 1940s into the 1950s and 1960s. But these expenditures came at a massive expense to the civilian economy and not just in terms of tax dollars. Weapons development of the post World War II years lured America’s best and brightest away from the civilian economy and even the real world of guns, tanks and armies into a world detached from time, space and money. While Germany and Japan rebuilt their civilian industries free from defense spending, the U.S. moved into ever higher levels of technology, glorifying and expanding the influence of the defense industry into every fabric of American life.
Originally termed Military Keynesianism to describe the buildup of the German defense industry prior to World War II, America’s military Keynesianism of the Cold War was the unseen hand of government supporting the American economy, balancing the cyclical ups and downs of the market by providing 16 percent of the Gross Domestic Product in 1950s and 9 percent in the 1960s. By 1963 defense spending accounted for 52 percent of all the research and development done in the United States. But by the mid-1970s, a stagnant American economy combined with the Arab oil embargo and inflation brought on by the Vietnam War exposed the weakness in the system. As German and Japanese manufacturers battered their American competition in the marketplace, the defense-heavy American economy faltered.
#286932 Mar 11, 2013
My guess is the CIA /NSA /FBI and Mossad already knows where you are.
Israeli Secret Intelligence Service
Power Surge / The Constitutional Record of George W. Bush
#286933 Mar 11, 2013
Mystical Imperialism: Afghanistan’s Ancient Role
#286934 Mar 11, 2013
#286935 Mar 11, 2013
#286936 Mar 11, 2013
You should feel HONORED enough to realize that you have some non-muslim friends who actually care about you and are only hoping you are safe and well...
#286937 Mar 11, 2013
Not to worry, the NRA is on it and have offered shooting squads in lieu of...
#286938 Mar 11, 2013
You'd have to change that to NSA - yemoron :-)
#286939 Mar 11, 2013
Speaking of moron...what little district has the TOUGHEST gun laws of anywhere in this country?
Eleven people have been taken to hospitals after a shooting outside an apartment building in the District, police said.
The shooting took place at about 2 a.m. Monday in the 1200 block of North Capitol Street. It appears that the incident was a drive-by shooting, and police are looking for two vehicles that were traveling at a high rate of speed southbound on North Capitol Street, Assistant Police Chief Peter Newsham said.
Five women and six men were taken to hospitals, although police are not sure how many of them were shot. One of the victims is in serious condition, but none of the victims have life-threatening injuries, Newsham said.
Perhaps another ban is warranted? I wonder if those guns were re-registered this year?
Since: Jan 13
#286940 Mar 11, 2013
Washington should pressure Baghdad to increase the allocation for oil cost recovery
Posted on: Mar 11th, 2013 - 9:25 pm
#286942 Mar 11, 2013
Put the fork in it, the War is done now!
Qatif, Saudi Arabia
#286943 Mar 11, 2013
News you will not see or hear on CNN and FOX News
The Law of War Does Not Shield the CIA and John Brennan's Drone Kill List
The US prosecuted Omar Khadr in Guantánamo for not being a lawful combatant. Exactly the same applies to the civilian CIA
By Morris Davis
February 12, 2013 "The Guardian" -- The disclosure Tuesday evening of the Department of Justice white paper on targeted killing (pdf) has sparked a lot of debate, much of it focused on the Obama administration's extraordinarily broad interpretation of what constitutes an "imminent" threat that justifies lethal force as an act of self-defense. As Senator Rand Paul (Republican, Kentucky) told reporters during a conference call on Wednesday, "only a team of lawyers could define 'imminent' to mean the exact opposite" of what the word means in the real world.
There are, no doubt, many Americans alive today who should be thankful their healthcare providers did not apply the administration's interpretation of "imminent" to decide if they had crossed over the line of imminent death and said pull the plug.
Some people have acquired power and profits in post-9/11 America by pandering to and perpetuating fear. As has been the case on a range of legal issues – torture, indefinite detention, warrantless surveillance, kill lists – all it takes is for someone to say "terrorism" and "threat to security" in the same breath for the vast majority of the public to handover its principles. Rather than a serious discussion on the proper law/liberty/security balance, too often the public accepts the false syllogism that whatever it takes to stop "them" from hurting "us" is obviously, as White House spokesman Jay Carney might say, "legal, ethical and wise".
Targeted killing falls into that category. The discussion tends to glom what should be several discrete inquiries – where will the lethal operation take place; who is the imminent threat and why; who will conduct the operation; and what laws apply, among others – into one big ball that slides through with little scrutiny.
The DOJ white paper discusses the right to take military action against a US citizen who is part of the enemy forces, law of war principles that govern application of military power, judicial deference to military judgments in the conduct of warfare, and combatant immunity that gives legal sanction to a deliberate killing by a member of the armed forces acting in compliance with the law of war. In and of themselves, those are all very valid points.
What the white paper ignores, however, is that the US has both a military and a CIA drone program, each one subject to its own rules. The CIA is a civilian agency with civilian employees and civilian contractors. It is not part of the US armed forces and its drone program is not immune from liability by the law of war principles that might apply to the military drone program.
The deliberate killing of another person is generally murder unless it is excused by some valid legal justification, like the law of war's combatant immunity. For example, the United States charged Omar Khadr with committing murder in violation of the law of war for throwing a grenade and killing a US service member during a battle in Afghanistan.
At his military commission trial at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, the military judge explained to Khadr that the law says a "killing is unlawful when done without legal justification or excuse" and that "the phrase 'in violation of the law of war' means a person … acting as a combatant [who] did not meet the requirements for being a lawful combatant." Khadr pled guilty to the charge and is now in prison in Canada serving a sentence for war crimes.
Dammam, Saudi Arabia
#286944 Mar 11, 2013
Under what authority is the CIA legally excused for deliberately killing?
The United States has never made – nor should it – the argument that the CIA is part of the US armed forces and governed by the law of war. The fact that the two entities are separate and operate under distinct rules is clear. John Brennan, President Obama's nominee to head the CIA, made the point in his answers to prehearing questions (pdf) from members of the Senate select committee on intelligence:
"The president must have the ability to select which element [the CIA or Department of Defense] is best suited for the particular mission. Factors to be considered in the selection of the personnel and authorities include the capabilities needed, the material required, and whether the activity must be conducted covertly."
Stated another way, Brennan says that President Obama needs to have a paramilitary force at his disposal to carry out operations the military is prohibited from conducting by the law of war.
Jack Goldsmith, former assistant attorney general in the George W Bush administration and now a professor at Harvard Law School, argues the past decade shows that the United States needs a new statutory framework governing how it conducts secret warfare. Perhaps that would be a positive step, but a new domestic statutory scheme would not make a civilian working for a civilian agency a lawful combatant entitled to immunity under the law of war for acts committed outside the United States.
Neither Congress nor the president has the power to create a legal justification for killing in violation of the law of war.
Qatif, Saudi Arabia
#286945 Mar 11, 2013
Why no "drones" visited me then?
You think I am "lower" in rank?
Lower than the cook of OBL who is in GITMO?
#286947 Mar 12, 2013
I think you are a good person with no ties to terrorist like UBL.
My guess is you are an educated professional working in the Kingdom, originally from India.
Certainly not a medical doctor like some think.
It is my understanding that SA is safe from drones.
But I would stay out of Yemen & Pakistan if I were you.
#286948 Mar 12, 2013
Reports: US 'Corporate Tax Dodgers' Keeping More Money Overseas
'Why should ordinary taxpayers have to sacrifice while highly profitable corporations are using accounting acrobatics and tax havens to avoid paying their fair share?'/ March 11, 2013 / http://tinyurl.com/bfolg79
At a time of record corporate profits, U.S. "corporate tax dodgers" are parking more of their profits offshore, taking advantage of tax loopholes to shield billions from U.S. taxes, according to new analyses in the Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg.
The WSJ looked at 60 U.S. companies that parked a combined $166 billion offshore last year, allowing 40% of their annual profits to escape U.S. taxes. In Bloomberg's analysis of 83 companies, there was a $183 billion expansion over the past year in non-U.S. holdings, for a combined total across the 83 companies of $1.46 trillion in offshore profits.
The trend is clear: figures from both papers show an increase from last year in offshore profits — up 15% using WSJ figures and a 14.4% increase using Bloomberg's data.
The companies with the five biggest offshore holdings on both the WSJ and Bloomberg lists are General Electric, Pfizer, Microsoft, Merck and Johnson & Johnson.
If Corporations Don’t Pay Taxes, Why Should You?
by Robert Scheer / March 12, 2013 / http://tinyurl.com/a7uyetc
Go offshore young man and avoid paying taxes. Plunder at will in those foreign lands, and if you get in trouble, Uncle Sam will come rushing to your assistance, diplomatically, financially and militarily, even if you have managed to avoid paying for those government services. Just pretend you’re a multinational corporation.
That’s the honest instruction for business success provided by 60 of the largest U.S. corporations that, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis,“parked a total of $166 billion offshore last year” shielding more than 40 percent of their profits from U.S. taxes. They all do it, including Microsoft, GE and pharmaceutical giant Abbott Laboratories. Many, like GE, are so good at it that they have avoided taxes altogether in some recent years.
But they all still expect Uncle Sam to come to their aid with military firepower in case the natives abroad get restless and nationalize their company’s assets. We still have a blockade against Cuba because Fidel Castro more than a half century ago dared seize an American-owned telephone company. During that same period, we have consistently intervened to maintain the lock of U.S. corporations on the world’s resources, continuing to the present task of making Iraq and Libya safe for our oil companies.
#286949 Mar 12, 2013
Or, how about a simple handshake?, you first.
Foxy is Foxy and RIP the War.
#286950 Mar 12, 2013
Mychal Massie is a respected writer and talk show host in Los Angeles.
The other evening on my twitter, a person asked me why I didn't like the Obama's? Specifically I was asked: "I have to ask, why do you hate the Obama's? It seems personal, not policy related. You even dissed (disrespect) their Christmas family picture."
The truth is I do not like the Obamas, what they represent, their ideology, and I certainly do not like his policies and legislation. I've made no secret of my contempt for the Obamas. As I responded to the person who asked me the aforementioned question, I don't like them because they are committed to the fundamental change of my/our country into what can only be regarded as a Communist state.
I don't hate them per definition, but I condemn them because they are the worst kind of racialists, they are elitist Leninists with contempt for traditional America. They display disrespect for the sanctity of the office he holds, and for those who are willing to admit same, Michelle Obama's raw contempt for white America is transpicuous.
I don't like them because they comport themselves as emperor and empress. I expect, no I demand respect, for the Office of President and a love of our country and her citizenry from the leader entrusted with the governance of same. President and Mrs. Reagan displayed an unparalleled love for the country and her people. The Reagan's made Americans feel good about themselves and about what we could accomplish. His arrogance by appointing 32 leftist czars and constantly bypassing congress is impeachable. Eric Holder is probably the MOST incompetent and arrogant DOJ head to ever hold the job. Could you envision President Reagan instructing his Justice Department to act like jack-booted thugs?
Presidents are politicians and all politicians are known and pretty much expected to manipulate the truth, if not outright lie, but even using that low standard, the Obama's have taken lies, dishonesty, deceit, mendacity, subterfuge and obfuscation to new depths. They are verbally abusive to the citizenry, and they display an animus for civility.
I do not like them, because they both display bigotry overtly, as in the case of Harvard Professor Louis Gates, when he accused the Cambridge Police of acting stupidly, and her code speak pursuant to now being able to be proud of America. I view that statement and that mindset as an insult to those who died to provide a country where a Kenyan, his illegal alien relatives, and his alleged progeny, could come and not only live freely, but rise to the highest, most powerful, position in the world. Michelle Obama is free to hate and disparage whites because Americans of every description paid with their blood to ensure her right to do same.
I have a saying, that "the only reason a person hides things, is because they have something to hide." No president in history has spent over a million dollars to keep his records and his past sealed.
#286951 Mar 12, 2013
And what the two of them have shared has been proved to be lies. He lied about when and how they met, he lied about his mother's death and problems with insurance, Michelle lied to a crowd pursuant to nearly $500,000 bank stocks they inherited from his family. He has lied about his father's military service, about the civil rights movement, ad nausea. He lied to the world about the Supreme Court in a State of the Union address. He berated and publicly insulted a sitting Congressman. He has surrounded himself with the most rabidly, radical, socialist academicians today. He opposed rulings that protected women and children that even Planned Parenthood did not seek to support. He is openly hostile to business and aggressively hostile to Israel. His wife treats being the First Lady as her personal American Express Black Card (arguably the most prestigious credit card in the world). I condemn them because, as people are suffering, losing their homes, their jobs, their retirements, he and his family are arrogantly showing off their life of entitlement - as he goes about creating and fomenting class warfare.
I don't like them, and I neither apologize nor retreat from my public condemnation of them and of his policies. We should condemn them for the disrespect they show our people, for his willful and unconstitutional actions pursuant to obeying the Constitutional parameters he is bound by, and his willful disregard for Congressional authority.
Dislike for them has nothing to do with the color of their skin; it has everything to do with their behavior, attitudes, and policies. And I have open scorn for their constantly playing the race card.
I could go on, but let me conclude with this. I condemn in the strongest possible terms the media for refusing to investigate them, as they did President Bush and President Clinton, and for refusing to label them for what they truly are. There is no scenario known to man, whereby a white president and his wife could ignore laws, flaunt their position, and lord over the people, as these two are permitted out of fear for their color.
As I wrote in a syndicated column titled, "Nero In The White House" - "Never in my life, inside or outside of politics, have I witnessed such dishonesty in a political leader. He is the most mendacious political figure I have ever witnessed. Even by the low standards of his presidential predecessors, his narcissistic, contumacious arrogance is unequalled. Using Obama as the bar, Nero would have to be elevated to sainthood... Many in America wanted to be proud when the first person of color was elected president, but instead, they have been witness to a congenital liar, a woman who has been ashamed of America her entire life, failed policies, intimidation, and a commonality hitherto not witnessed in political leaders. He and his wife view their life at our expense as an entitlement - while America's people go homeless, hungry and unemployed.”
just driving by! mook
#286953 Mar 12, 2013
More muslim lies...
An errant Palestinian rocket, not an Israeli airstrike, likely killed the baby of a BBC reporter during fighting in the Hamas-ruled territory last November, a UN report indicated, challenging the widely believed story behind an image that became a symbol of what Palestinians said was Israeli aggression. Omar al-Masharawi, an 11-month-old infant, was killed on Nov. 14, the first day of fighting.
An AP photograph showed Omar's anguished father, Jihad al-Masharawi, clutching his slain child wrapped in a shroud. Palestinians blamed Israel, and the image was broadcast around the world and widely shared on social media. Now a report from the UN office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights says the baby was "killed by what appeared to be a Palestinian rocket that fell short of Israel." Hamas and the BBC declined to comment
Add your comments below
|Obama thanking Navy SEALs who raided bin Laden (May '11)||Apr 25||Aurora Colorado||6|
|More "Fake News" From PBS: Tim McVeigh, The Okl...||Apr 23||Rswan||2|
|Being overweight may be caused by the clock in ...||Apr 22||Yeti||29|
|Why Is Russia Helping Anti-U.S. Insurgents in A...||Apr 17||copout||9|
|Osama Bin Laden reportedly calls Obama 'powerle... (Sep '09)||Apr 14||Frogmouth Trump||68|
|Obama expands ISIL fight into Syria; Canada won... (Sep '14)||Apr 14||Frogmouth Trump||25|
|Gadhafi: U.S. should seek peace with bin Laden (Feb '09)||Apr 12||Putin warns T ramp||53|
Find what you want!
Search Terrorism Forum Now
Copyright © 2017 Topix LLC