It Ain't Just Mubarak -- 7 of the Worst Dictators the U.S. Is Backing to the Hilt

Peacenik watched the Superbowl and was appalled, amused, and entertained by all the hoopla. Like the U.S. has no problems. All is well with the world. What a celebration. WOW. War criminal George Bush was in the owner's box, along with a whole bunch of other "celebrities/criminals". What other country celebrates the worst of their society? (Btw George Bush had to cancel a trip to Switzerland to avoid getting arrested for war crimes.) What other country celebrates the worst of their society? Take a look at the list of dictatorial regimes the U.S. supports below. And every other banana republic you can think of. Better than Roman circuses before the collapse. At least the Packers won.

From Saudi Arabia to Uzbekistan to Chad, the U.S. keeps some very bad autocrats in power.

February 5, 2011 | Embattled Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak, whose regime has received billions in U.S. aid, has been in the global media spotlight of late. He's long been “our bastard,” but he's not alone.Petitions by Change.org|Get Widget|Start a Petition �

Let's take a look at the other dictators from around the planet who are fortunate enough to be on Uncle Sam's good side.

1. Paul Biya, Cameroon

Biya has ruled Cameroon since winning an “election” in 1983. He was the only candidate, and did pretty well, getting 99 percent of the vote.

According to the country's Wikipedia entry, “The United States and Cameroon work together in the United Nations and a number of other multilateral organizations. While in the UN Security Council in 2002, Cameroon worked closely with the United States on a number of initiatives. The U.S. government continues to provide substantial funding for international financial institutions, such as the World Bank, IMF, and African Development Bank, that provide financial and other assistance to Cameroon.”

Amnesty International details unlawful executions, journalists being thrown in jail and a host of other nasty business.

Read on...

Netanyahu Pounds War Drums

Peacenik think these people are insane. Totally insane. But Peacenik also thought all the idiots banging the drums for war with Iraq were insane as well. All Netanyahu needs is a couple of front page stories in the New York Times about toy planes that could deliver a non-existent bomb to New York, and maybe some talk about killing them there so you don't have to kill them here, and there will be war mania. In the meantime, could someone refresh everyone's memory about the consequences of war with Iran. It would be an express trip back to the 15th Century for the world.

Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks during a session of the Knesset, the Israeli parliament, in Jerusalem

WASHINGTON - Less than a week after Republicans made major gains in the U.S. midterm elections, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has called on President Barack Obama to "create a credible threat of military action" against Iran.

Initial official reaction was negative, with Defence Secretary Robert Gates insisting that Obama's preferred strategy of enhanced multilateral sanctions and negotiations, which may resume after a year's hiatus later this month, was working better than expected.

"I disagree that only a credible military threat can get Iran to take the actions that it needs, to end its nuclear weapons programme," Gates said when asked about Netanyahu's remarks during a visit in Australia.

"We are prepared to do what is necessary, but at this point, we continue to believe that the political, economic approach that we are taking is, in fact, having an impact in Iran.

Read on...

GOP Senator: US Needs to 'Neuter' Iran Sends ripples through an international audience in Halifax

Can there be any doubt that the U.S. is a rogue state? Threatening a sovereign state with neutering. This is warmongering, plain and simple. The international community has to bring pressure to bear to get the U.S. to stand down. The U.S. needs to stop destabilizing the world. Peacenik thinks sanctions may be in order. All options should be on the table.

US Senator Lindsey Graham sent ripples through an international audience Saturday saying his country should be prepared to launch a military attack on Iran that would "neuter" the country. (AFP/Mandel Ngan)

HALIFAX, Nova Scotia -- A U.S. lawmaker sent ripples through an international audience Saturday saying his country should be prepared to launch a military attack on Iran that would "neuter" the hard line regime.

But Defense Minister Peter MacKay, who was in attendance, said a military attack on Iran would have negative fallout, and that international sanctions are preferable.

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said Saturday his party would support military action against Iran that would destroy its ability to fight back while allowing its people to rise up.

Graham surprised attendees at the Halifax International Security Forum with his hawkish rhetoric, saying an attack could cripple Iran's nuclear program as well as its armed forces.

Read on...

Chomsky: Is the U.S. Gearing Up for the Destruction of Iran?

Iran sits at the top of US concerns about keeping control of Middle East oil-producing regions, preparing for serious violence if other means do not suffice.

The dire threat of Iran is widely recognized to be the most serious foreign policy crisis facing the Obama administration. General Petraeus informed the Senate Committee on Armed Services in March 2010 that "the Iranian regime is the primary state-level threat to stability" in the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility, the Middle East and Central Asia, the primary region of US global concerns. The term "stability" here has its usual technical meaning: firmly under US control.

In June 2010 Congress strengthened the sanctions against Iran, with even more severe penalties against foreign companies. The Obama administration has been rapidly expanding US offensive capacity in the African island of Diego Garcia, claimed by Britain, which had expelled the population so that the US could build the massive base it uses for attacks in the Central Command area. The Navy reports sending a submarine tender to the island to service nuclear-powered guided-missile submarines with Tomahawk missiles, which can carry nuclear warheads. Each submarine is reported to have the striking power of a typical carrier battle group. According to a US Navy cargo manifest obtained by the Sunday Herald (Glasgow), the substantial military equipment Obama has dispatched includes 387 "bunker busters" used for blasting hardened underground structures. Planning for these "massive ordnance penetrators," the most powerful bombs in the arsenal short of nuclear weapons, was initiated in the Bush administration, but languished. On taking office, Obama immediately accelerated the plans, and they are to be deployed several years ahead of schedule.

Read on...

Peacenik goes back and forth on this issue. Peacenik recently read something about Europe not allowing the U.S. or Israel to attack Iran. On the other hand there are lots and lots of influential Americans who would love to attack Iran. Is Iran a threat to the U.S.? No. Was Iraq a threat to the U.S.? No. Was Afghanistan a threat to the U.S.? No. Can Europe influence U.S. foreign policy? No. Will Iran be attacked?

6 Signs That the American Empire Is Coming to an Early End

"The day of America's global pre-eminence is over" so says Michael Klare. Is that a bad thing? Is that a scary thing? Is that a good thing?

Did America use its decades of global pre-eminence to advance good causes? to advance world peace? to advance global justice? Peacenik doesn't think so. So Peacenik doesn't think the collapse of America's pre-eminence is a bad thing. But it could be scary.

Can America be irrelevant when America is sitting on enough military power to blast the world apart many times over. In hindsight the Soviet Union seems to have accepted it's fall from co-global pre-eminence. But will the United States. The U.S. military and political class is already full of wingnut, religious crackpots. How are they going to adapt to the new reality? Not to mention the simultaneous collapse of their economic might. Scary indeed.

by Michael Klare

The day of America's global pre-eminence is over. We must face the new global realities.

Memo to the CIA: You may not be prepared for time-travel, but welcome to 2025 anyway! Your rooms may be a little small, your ability to demand better accommodations may have gone out the window, and the amenities may not be to your taste, but get used to it. It's going to be your reality from now on.

Okay, now for the serious version of the above: In November 2008, the National Intelligence Council (NIC), an affiliate of the Central Intelligence Agency, issued the latest in a series of futuristic publications intended to guide the incoming Obama administration. Peering into its analytic crystal ball in a report entitled Global Trends 2025, it predicted that America's global preeminence would gradually disappear over the next 15 years -- in conjunction with the rise of new global powerhouses, especially China and India. The report examined many facets of the future strategic environment, but its most startling, and news-making, finding concerned the projected long-term erosion of American dominance and the emergence of new global competitors. "Although the United States is likely to remain the single most powerful actor [in 2025]," it stated definitively, the country's "relative strength -- even in the military realm -- will decline and U.S. leverage will become more constrained."

Read on...

As the Commander in Chief Deliberates, Frustration Builds Within the Ranks

This article is an example of the mainstream media's modus operandi. It serves no purpose other than to advance the warmongerer's agenda and pressure Obama into making a bigger committment to Afghanistan.

The article only really cites anonymous sources, who supposedly don't want to be identified for fear of reprisals. If military leaders really cared about the troops they would be happy to get out of an ill defined war, where the army is getting chewed up and where success is unachievable. But face it, the military likes war. So does the New York Times. So does Don Cherry. Peacenik says it is time for Canada to pull the plug on Canada's participation. Bring the troops home now.

By ELISABETH BUMILLER

Brennan Linsley/Associated Press

WASHINGTON — Only nine months ago, the Pentagon pronounced itself reassured by the early steps of a new commander in chief. President Obama was moving slowly on an American withdrawal from Iraq, had retained former President George W. Bush’s defense secretary and, in a gesture much noticed, had executed his first military salute with crisp precision.

But now, after nearly a month of deliberations by Mr. Obama over whether to send more American troops to Afghanistan, frustrations and anxiety are on the rise within the military.

A number of active duty and retired senior officers say there is concern that the president is moving too slowly, is revisiting a war strategy he announced in March and is unduly influenced by political advisers in the Situation Room.

Read on...

Get Out of Afghanistan Now

Sounds like a plan to Peacenik. Nothing positive can be accomplished by the occupation of Afghanistan. The idea that the west could impose a western democracy on Afghanistan is as ridiculous as the idea that the Soviet Union could impose a communist government.

Unfortunately countries sometimes get the governments they deserve. Does Canada deserve the present Harper government? Canada doesn't but, if the sheeple don't wake up, and if the Liberals or NDP or Greens don't get their act together Canada might end up with more of Harper. But Afghanistan has always been tribal. And looks like it always will be. Get out of Afghanistan now. Bring the troops home now.

By G. Pascal Zachary, In These Times. Posted October 15, 2009.

The case for an immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan.


Saigon being evacuated

For all the talk of polarization and partisanship in U.S. politics, what's remarkable is the extent to which President Obama has continued policies and practices of his predecessor, George Bush, in domestic economics and military affairs.

Economically, Obama has continued the bailout of Wall Street, maintained Bush-era tax cuts, pursued "stimulus" through large deficit spending and re-appointed Ben Bernanke, the Federal Reserve chairman who was a Bush favorite.

In defense, Obama has broken with Bush on a few critical matters, notably by canceling expensive weapons systems and dropping (in September) an aggressive plan to impose a "missile shield" in Eastern Europe that Russia intensely opposed. Yet Obama has carried over Bush's secretary of defense, Robert Gates; essentially stuck with Bush timetables on Iraq; and maintained historically record levels of Pentagon spending. The president has continued the war in Afghanistan, raising the number of American combat troops. In a speech on August 17, Obama even tried to construct a moral basis for the war, described it as "not a war of choice," but "a war of necessity." And as a necessary war, "a war worth fighting," Obama has declared that only through the democratization of Afghanistan can the terrorist threat to the United States--in the form of al Qaeda--be eliminated from the country.

Read on...

Foreign Policy Hawks Launch New Campaign Against Obama

The neocons are like the Terminator. They will never go away, and they will never give up. And of course they all have unlimited access to the public airwaves and print media.

Now watch the usual suspects flock to "Keep America Safe" Woosley, Lieberman, Gaffney and all the rest. Peacenik thought that the neocons were on the run after the debacles in Iraq and Afghanistan. But failure doesn't deter them. A complete lack of credibility doesn't deter them. The media will keep them on life support. And they will keep the pressure on Obama. No one wants to run for office on a "soft on terror" or "soft on security" platform. So America will keep fighting wars, and occupying the world until its last dollar is spent.

by Jim Lobe

WASHINGTON - Just days after the Nobel Committee in Oslo awarded Barack Obama its coveted peace prize, two of Washington's most prominent foreign policy hawks launched a new group and ad campaign designed to depict the president as weak and defend the more aggressive policies of his predecessor, George W. Bush.

The new group, Keep America Safe, was co-founded by neo-conservative heavyweight William Kristol, who also edits The Weekly Standard; and Elisabeth (Liz) Cheney, the outspoken daughter of Bush's vice president, Dick Cheney, who is believed to harbour political ambitions of her own.

Read on...

McChrystal Faulted On Troop Statements

Peacenik thinks soldiers should shut their pie holes. McChrystal should be fired for insubordination. But of course the media and other high ranking generals have their own agendas. Petraeus will probably run for president next time round. The media is trying to undermine Obama and promote more war.

Obama is pussyfooting around too many issues. And they are all going to blow up in his face. And the democrats are on the verge of blowing their supermajority in congress without passing any progressive, popularly supported legislation, without regulating the financial industry, without getting health care reform passed, and without winding down any of the wars. Heck of a job Obama.

By Scott Wilson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, October 5, 2009

National security adviser James L. Jones suggested Sunday that the public campaign being conducted by the U.S. commander in Afghanistan on behalf of his war strategy is complicating the internal White House review underway, saying that "it is better for military advice to come up through the chain of command."

Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, who commands the 100,000 U.S. and international forces in Afghanistan, warned bluntly last week in a London speech that a strategy for defeating the Taliban that is narrower than the one he is advocating would be ineffective and "short-sighted." The comments effectively rejected a policy option that senior White House officials, including Vice President Biden, are considering nearly eight years after the U.S. invasion.

Read on...

Can the US-Iran Talks Succeed?

Peacenik was working on a post about Iran this morning which concluded that a military strike against Iran was inevitable. Peacenik allowed the media hype to influence Peacenik. But Peacenik pressed a wrong key on Peacenik's keyboard and the post disappeared. This caused Peacenik to go back and read some more.

This Dreyfuss article seems to be a little more rational than the hysteria Peacenik was reading elsewhere. Nobody thinks a military strike is plausible except the neo cons in the U.S. and Israel. Supposedly the neo cons in the U.S. are in retreat after the Iraq and Ahghanistan fiasco. Or they should be. Do the neo cons have enough influence left to manipulate the U.S. into a shooting war with Iran? Peacenik doesn't think so. Peacenik hopes not. But they are trying hard. It's deja vu. The warmongers methods have worked before. Will they work again?

Posted by Robert Dreyfuss on 09/28/2009 @ 09:00am

The US-Iran talks start Thursday in Geneva and, while a lot of other countries will be there too -- the UK, France, Russia, China, and Germany are all part of the so-called P5 + 1 -- it's really the United States and Iran who will have to make a deal. Even the latest flareup over the secret Iranian enrichment facility doesn't change the basic fact: that Washington and Tehran, after three decades without diplomatic relations, will be talking. It's a startling and important reversal of US policy, as promised by candidate Barack Obama in 2008, abandoning the charged rhetoric of the Bush administration, which lumped Iran incongruously into the Axis of Evil in 2002 and looked aghast at the idea of negotiating with Iran.

Robert Gates, the secretary of defense, did his part yesterday to lower the temperature of the rhetoric by stating explicitly that the US does not have a military option to deal with Iran's nuclear program. He didn't exactly take the military option "off the table," as the unfortunate phrase goes, but he did say:

Read on...

Tomgram: Measuring Success in Afghanistan

The futility of America's and Canada's military adventure in Afghanistan is palpable. There is no need for Canada to be involved in Afghanistan. Maybe the original reason for Canada to get involved was so that Canada would have an excuse for not getting involved in Iraq. And to curry favour with an neo con president of the U.S. Neither good reasons.

But nothing good is coming from Canada's involvement. Unless you think the militarization and brutalization of Canadian society is a good thing. Unless you think spending money on killing is better than spending money on healthcare. You like the militaristic patriotism of the U.S? It has taken root in Canada. Peacenik was proud of Canada's foreign policy when Canada was a peacemaker. Time to exit Afghanistan. Past time.

Measuring a War Gone to Hell
By Tom Engelhardt

Here may be the single strangest fact of our American world: that at least three administrations -- Ronald Reagan's, George W. Bush's, and now Barack Obama's -- drew the U.S. "defense" perimeter at the Hindu Kush; that is, in the rugged, mountainous lands of Afghanistan. Put another way, while Americans argue feverishly and angrily over what kind of money, if any, to put into health care, or decaying infrastructure, or other key places of need, until recently just about no one in the mainstream raised a peep about the fact that, for nearly eight years (not to say much of the last three decades), we've been pouring billions of dollars, American military know-how, and American lives into a black hole in Afghanistan that is, at least in significant part, of our own creation.

Imagine for a moment, as you read this post, what might have happened if Americans had decided to sink the same sort of money -- $228 billion and rising fast -- the same "civilian surges," the same planning, thought, and effort (but not the same staggering ineffectiveness) into reclaiming New Orleans or Detroit, or into planning an American future here at home. Imagine, for a moment, when you read about the multi-millions going into further construction at Bagram Air Base, or to the mercenary company that provides "Lord of the Flies" hire-a-gun guards for American diplomats in massive super-embassies, or about the half-a-billion dollars sunk into a corrupt and fraudulent Afghan election, what a similar investment in our own country might have meant.

Read on...

Obama Administration Accuses Iran of Pursuing Nuclear Weapons

Accusations Show New Administration's Clean Break From Intelligence Estimate

www.antiwar.com

It has been 15 months since the release of the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran which determined that the Iranian government had halted all efforts to create a nuclear weapon, and the outgoing chairman of the National Intelligence Council reaffirmed those findings only two months ago. The Obama Administration didn’t seem to read those reports, however.

President Obama accused Iran of “development of a nuclear weapon” during a press conference. Incoming CIA director Leon Panetta declared during his testimony that “I think there is no question that they are seeking that capability.”

While the Iranian government continues to express its desire to improve relations, Obama and associates just keep hurling accusations at Iran’s civilian nuclear program. There’s one thing the administration is missing though, and that’s evidence. Officials concede there is no evidence that undercuts the 2007 findings, but like the Bush Administration, the newcomers don’t seem to want fact to get in the way of good rhetoric.

punditman says...This does not surprise Punditman in the least; unlike a common assumption out there amongst the sheeple, there is no structural change in US foreign policy just because Obama is in charge.

So long as there is no fundamental change at the institutional level, it appears impossible for a US President to not huff and puff and threaten Iran. It's been going on since the CIA organized the overthrow of the democratically-elected government of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddeq and installed the Shaw in 1953.

Current tensions between the US and Iran are far from resolved and have the potential to become a very hot crisis. Or, the Obama administration can stop misleading the public and Secretary of State Hilary Clinton can save the day by taking Iranian overtures seriously and open a serious dialogue that could lead to detente.

What scenario is more likely, the former or the latter? Punditman is unsure but the former will make financial armageddon look like a picnic.

Are Key Obama Advisors in Tune with Neocon Hawks Who Want to Attack Iran?

By Robert Dreyfuss, Tomdispatch.com. Posted December 3, 2008

Think an attack is unlikely now? Ask key Obama cabinet figures why they're still palling around with neocon hardliners on Iran.

A familiar coalition of hawks, hardliners, and neoconservatives expects Barack Obama's proposed talks with Iran to fail -- and they're already proposing an escalating set of measures instead. Some are meant to occur alongside any future talks. These include steps to enhance coordination with Israel, tougher sanctions against Iran, and a region-wide military buildup of U.S. strike forces, including the prepositioning of military supplies within striking distance of that country.

Once the future negotiations break down, as they are convinced will happen, they propose that Washington quickly escalate to war-like measures, including a U.S. Navy-enforced embargo on Iranian fuel imports and a blockade of that country's oil exports. Finally, of course, comes the strategic military attack against the Islamic Republic of Iran that so many of them have wanted for so long.

Read on...

Peacenik is already whigged out over economic collapse, the constitutional crisis in Canada, Sean Avery's potty mouth, and now Peacenik reads a frightening post about Obama's foreign policy team. When will Peacenik get a break?

D.C. Establishment Pressuring Obama on Iran?

By Cernig Sunday Nov 30, 2008 9:00am

There's a rapidly developing consensus among Washington's Very Serious person set that Obama's plans to negotiate with Iran should get only one try, and if that fails then the bombing should begin.

Today Iran's parliamentary Speaker and the Ayatollah's most trusted negotiator, Ali Larijani, told the press that Iran's parliament is considering a request from the U.S. Congress to "parliamentary negotiations between the two countries". (And just wait till the wingnuts start howlking about a Dem Congress sidelining the Lame Duck In Chief!) Also today, France's President Sarkozy partly walked back his previous confrontational rhetoric on Iran and said that Obama's statements "reflect our shared views on the necessity of dialogue without concessions with Tehran as the only way to obtain a negotiated end to the crisis."

Read on...

Obama's right wing foreign affairs team is crazy. And the neocons are still talking up attacking Iran. Peacenik thinks this is laughable. Why is the neocon establishment pressuring Obama? Their boy Bush is still in charge. They own him. Peacenik doesn't think an attack on Iran is going to happen. That window is closed.

Conned Again?

Obama, Rahm-bo and the End of the New American Century

By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

If the change President-elect Obama has promised includes a halt to America’s wars of aggression and an end to the rip-off of taxpayers by powerful financial interests, what explains Obama’s choice of foreign and economic policy advisors? Indeed, Obama’s selection of Rahm Emanuel as White House chief of staff is a signal that change ended with Obama’s election. The only thing different about the new administration will be the faces.

Rahm Emanuel is a supporter of Bush’s invasion of Iraq. Emanuel rose to prominence in the Democratic Party as a result of his fundraising connections to AIPAC. A strong supporter of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, he comes from a terrorist family. His father was a member of Irgun, a Jewish terrorist organization that used violence to drive the British and Palestinians out of Palestine in order to create the Jewish state. During the 1991 Gulf War, Rahm Emanuel volunteered to serve in the Israel Defense Forces. He was a member of the Freddie Mac board of directors and received $231,655 in directors fees in 2001. According to Wikipedia, “during the time Emanuel spent on the board, Freddie Mac was plagued with scandals involving campaign contributions and accounting irregularities.”

Read on...

Like everyone else Peacenik is very concerned about whether Obama will be a progressive, and a peace president. There is lots of evidence he may not be. But this may also be the last chance to implement some progressive policies and roll back some of the damage done by the Bush years. Peacenik can only hope that Obama delivers.

Yes, Virginia, There Is A Foreign Policy Debate Friday

by dday

The first Presidential debate is scheduled to focus on foreign policy, and I imagine those tuning in, whose knowledge of the subject is limited, would rather hear the candidates talk about the current economic mess. But the past week or so has also revealed a series of crises in global hotspots around the world. This includes but is not limited to Iraq, and I would hope that Jim Lehrer understands the full spectrum of global decisions that the next President will have to make, and really make a sustained effort to force the candidates past simplistic slogans and into the heart of what they would do in foreign policy.

• First we have the Marriott bombing in Islamabad, Pakistan, the second big suicide attack in the Muslim world in the space of the week (along with the bombing of the US embassy in Sanaa, Yemen). Given that the Marriott is typically home to international businessmen and Western dignitaries, so those similarities exist as well. This was a signal from the Taliban in response to the recent spate of US forays into the FATA (Federally Administered Tribal Areas) region. Given that the Pakistani Prime Minister was due at the Marriott, it could have been worse.

Read on...

Peacenik found this nice summary article about U.S. foreign policy by dday, on the Hullabaloo blog. The list of foreign trouble spots is long, and the troubles are great. The first presidential debate on Friday should be interesting. Will McCain or Obama offer anything new or hopeful. Or will McCain be the blustering tough guy and Obama the thoughtful tough guy as he moves right to shore up his foreign policy creds. Peacenik is not hopeful that any of us who watch the debate will be feeling good on Saturday morning. Peacenik may just have a couple of beers and skip the debate.

McCain's Warped Worldview

**No posts this weekend. Punditman is working on his tan somewhere, and Peacenik is heading north, into the wilderness.....**

by Robert Scheer from TruthDig.com

The world according to John McCain is one in which America is triumphant at home and abroad thanks to the Bush legacy, rolling to victory internationally and mastering its domestic economic problems. If daily news, like reports of the 10 French soldiers killed by a resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan and the U.S. government's imminent nationalization of much of the American mortgage-lending industry, would seem to deny such a rosy scenario, then that only shows skeptics lack the courage that sustained McCain as a prisoner of war in Vietnam.

There you have it encapsulated, the McCain campaign for president, an irrational melange of patriotic swagger and blindness to reality that is proving disturbingly successful with uninformed voters. How else to explain the many millions of Americans who tell pollsters they prefer a continuation of Republican rule when so many of them are losing their homes to foreclosure and the nation is devastated by out-of-control military spending?

Read on...

Peacenik doesn't understand when he reads recent Zogby polls showing McCain leading in the presidential race. And Peacenik doesn't understand when he reads articles, like Scheer's, that point out that a big chunk of America supports McCain even though he promises more of the same. More of the same? More of the same? Peacenik stands by his early prediction that, in spite of everything, Obama will be the next president of the United States.

Reality Bites Again

by Jim Kunstler

The feeble American response to Russia's assertion of power in the Caucasus of Central Asia was appropriate, since our claims of influence in that part of the world are laughable. The US had taken advantage of temporary confusion in Russia, during the ten-year-long post-Soviet-collapse interval, and set up a client government in Georgia, complete with military advisors, sales of weapons, and even the promise of club membership in the western alliance known as NATO. These blandishments were all in the service of the Baku-to-Ceyhan oil pipeline, which was designed specifically to drain the oil region around the Caspian Basin with an outlet on the Mediterranean, avoiding unfriendly nations all along the way.

Read on...

Peacenik can't resist passing on Jim Kunstler's latest take on the fiasco that is the U.S. policy in Georgia and surrounding regions. Today's essay includes this quote "Nations do make tragic errors of the collective will. The cluelessness of George Bush is nothing less than a perfect metaphor for the failure of a whole generation." The question now is, is it too late to "wake the fuck up"?