Archive

Posts Tagged ‘Politics’

10 World’s Most Outstanding Politicians (2012)

December 31, 2012 Leave a comment

The outgoing year will remain in people’s memory for quite a number of major world events. Elections were held, new leaders were elected in many countries. Syria was the most talked-about country in 2012, so Syrian President Bashar al-Assad can be named the politician of the year. Of course, many other significant events took place in different parts of the world. Pravda.Ru offers its own version of world’s ten most outstanding politicians of the year. Read more…

Advertisements

Western Media Discuss Options To Attack Ian

February 7, 2012 Leave a comment

According to some reports, U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta stated that Israel will strike at Iran sometime between April and June of this year. The Pentagon declined to officially comment, and Israeli leaders are silent as well. The Western media, however, were happy to sink their teeth in the story. Many publications are convinced that both Israelis and Americans may strike at Iran. Read more…

Shocking Images Of “Rebel” Atrocities

NATO has painted itself into a corner in Libya. Its daily acts of terrorism against Libyan civilians, its acts of murder against Libyan children and its flagrant breach of international law make Obomber, Cameron and Sarkozy war criminals. Why are they not sitting alongside General Mladic in The Hague?

There exists something called international law and like it or not – and we have all seen how the USA and UK, principally, flout it at every turn (Iraq, Serbia) – even the countries belonging to NATO, the most hated organisation on the planet, imposed upon the citizens without any iota of constitutional validity, are bound to follow its precepts.

The precepts of international law are as perfectly simple to follow as they are clear to read. The band of murderous countries currently conducting the illegal act of butchery in Libya are signatories to the United Nations Charter and this is crystalline in the terms and conditions involving an armed insurrection inside a sovereign state. Third parties are not allowed to take sides. Only those with criminal intentions would bend and flout international law in siding with terrorists – and why has there been no similar action against other countries fighting extremists?

The Libyan Revolution is staged, aided, financed and abetted from abroad and this is patently obvious in the way it began – not inside the capital, Tripoli, but in the endemically separatist Benghazi, among a band of heavily armed Islamist fanatics whose militancy and racism have long been apparent and also along the already secured western frontier. Enter some SEALS into Misrata and we have a made-in-the-USA Revolution with its backers Washington’s poodle and former colonial master, Britain and Sarko “I want your oil” the Psycho.

NATO has sided with these criminals, murderers and thieves – rascals from the dregs of Libyan society, who themselves fought against NATO in Afghanistan and Iraq. What are that prissy snob Cameron, the bald-headed wonder William “Hey! I ain’t gay!” Hague, that monumentally disappointing and treacherous Obomber, that lying Hillary War Zone Clinton female and that revolting little Napoleon, Sarko the Psycho doing cavorting with terrorists?

Having taken sides, NATO has broken the law. Moreover, the remit under UNSC Resolutions 1970 and 1973 (2011) is for the policing of a no-fly zone. Whoever gave the order to murder Colonel Gaddafi’s grandchildren was policing what no-fly zone exactly? Furthermore, why has the act of war not received the go-ahead from the UN Military Commission and if it is not an act of war, then what is the legality of strikes on civilian targets?

Somewhere along the line there is a criminal case against the above-mentioned Obama, Clinton, Hague, Cameron and Sarkozy. If The Hague does not recognise this case, then it is acting in breach of international law, is partial and therefore has no right whatsoever to judge General Ratko Mladic. Either there is one set of weights and measures which apply to all or else the notion that international law exists is nonsensical, and ipso facto, The Hague has no legitimacy whatsoever.

Now we turn to the shocking atrocities committed by the Libyan terrorists. Following are some videos which the bought media has tried to suppress. I would urge Messrs. Hague, Cameron and Sarkozy to look at them (I shall not bother with Obomber and Clinton, they’d probably just laugh). In these videos, you can see some horrifically shocking images of children slaughtered and hacked to pieces by the Libyan “rebels” (sorry, “unarmed civilians”).

Viewer discretion is recommended.

Here is a video of the butchery and rape of little girls. Viewer discretion recommended.

How do the citizens of the UK, France and the USA feel about their governments siding with these monsters, lying about Gaddafi’s forces attacking unarmed civilians when all they were doing was fighting Islamist terrorists? How do the citizens of these countries feel about the millions upon millions of their taxpayers’ hard-earned wages being squandered on this monumental miscalculation, at best, and criminal act of collusion, at worst?

How many times have Sarkozy, Obomber and Cameron said there is no funding for hospitals, schools and social services, when all the time they know that the cost of a military aircraft is 50,000 USD per hour, per aircraft. Sorry, Mr. Smith we cannot afford your cancer treatment, I am afraid you will have to die.

And the people of the United States of America, Britain and France just sit back and do nothing? Kind of makes them guilty by association does it not?

And just before we finish, proof that Cameron, Hague, Obomber, Clinton and Sarkozy are incompetent to be in their jobs: the whole footage which sparked off their reaction was based on a false flag event: it was not the Libyan Government forces firing on civilians. Watch:

I rest my case.

Photos: Unarmed civilians being brutally attacked by Colonel Gaddafi. What would Obomber, Camoron or that disgusting little Napoleon do if a band of Islamist fanatics ran amok in their countries? OK we know the answer. They’d collude with them. Muammar al-Qathafi however is more of a man. He fights. He was after all the first international leader to issue an arrest warrant against bin Laden and Al-Qaeda. The USA was then his ally. Time for an ethical foreign policy and doing the decent thing. NATO, stop! NOW!

Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey

Georgia’s Dangerous Quest for American Weapons

Since Mikheil Saakashvili took power in Georgia, the small post-Soviet republic has become one of the U.S.’s most devoted allies. It has been the highest per capita troop contributor in both Iraq and Afghanistan — even while two of its erstwhile territories, Abkhazia and South Ossetia, host hostile Russian forces.

Saakashvili was frightened of the Russian...

And Georgia hasn’t been particularly shy about suggesting that it sees its contributions to U.S. military missions as part of a quid pro quo. “As soldiers here, we help the American soldiers,” one Georgian corporal in Iraq told the New York Times in 2007. “Then America as a country will help our country.” In Afghanistan, it’s volunteered to serve in the dangerous Helmand province, where seven of its soldiers have been killed so far.

The help Georgia wants in return is protection against its nemesis, Russia, and to help Georgia regain control over Russian-occupied Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Thus far, though, aside from rhetoric, the U.S. hasn’t given much actual help. George W. Bush visited Tbilisi in 2005 and called Georgia “a beacon for democracy.” Last month, a U.S. Marine Corps general effusively praised Georgians’ service in Afghanistan, noting: “Georgians like to fight.”

But talk is cheap, and there has never been much action to back up those words. Tellingly, when war broke out in 2008 over South Ossetia, the U.S. — after giving Saakashvili the impression that Washington would have his back in the case of conflict with Russia — stood by, except for one poignant move: U.S. military planes flew the Georgian soldiers serving in Iraq back home. But, by the time those troops got home, the war had already been lost.

Georgia’s primary security goal for most of Saakashvili’s rule has been to join NATO, and the U.S. did back that, but to no avail — the war with Russia took serious consideration of NATO membership off the table. After all, had Georgia been a member at the conflict’s onset, it would have forced the U.S. and the rest of NATO to declare war against Russia. Now Georgia has a new target in its sights: American weapons. Last year, it began a serious push to get the U.S. to provide it with “defensive weapons,” in particular air defense and anti-tank systems.

Providing Georgia with weapons would perpetuate a “Berlin Wall mentality”

“[L]eaving Georgia defenseless doesn’t help the situation,” Saakashvili told Newsweek. “Georgia cannot attack Russia, while a defenseless Georgia is a big temptation for Russia to change our government through military means. … As part of ongoing security cooperation, we hope that the U.S. will help us with defense-weapons capabilities.”

Lately, he’s upped the rhetorical stakes by claiming that only the U.S. could sell Georgia the weapons it needs to protect itself: “What Georgia really needs is something that it cannot get from anywhere else and that’s anti-air and anti-tank [weapons] and that’s completely obvious. … That’s where should be the next stage of the cooperation.”

The U.S. has never been a particularly large supplier of weapons to Georgia, which inherited Soviet equipment upon independence and then came to rely on other former Soviet and Warsaw Pact countries for reinforcements. While the Pentagon has set up a number of military training programs with Georgia, those programs focus on preparing the Georgians for deployment to Iraq and Afghanistan.

But the issue of American weapons has now come to define the state of the U.S.-Georgia relationship, with Georgia and its allies in Washington arguing that if the U.S. doesn’t give Georgia weapons, it’s kowtowing to Russia for the sake of a wishful-thinking “reset.” U.S. Senator John McCain is the leading advocate for weapons provisions; in March he told a Congressional hearing, “It is hard for me to understand, since the Russians still occupy territory that is clearly Georgian territory and continue to threaten Georgia, and yet we’re not even giving them weapons with which to defend themselves. It is not comprehensible.”

Georgia spent about $1.5 million on four top D.C. lobbying firms last year alone, far outpacing comparable countries. Those lobbying efforts include an aggressive press campaign arguing that the State Department is enforcing a “de facto embargo” by quietly blocking Georgia’s attempted arms purchases, although there is no evidence of such an embargo.

One key, but answered, question is whether Georgia expects to buy the weapons or for the U.S. to give them as aid. When asked, Georgian officials duck the question, saying that discussions aren’t that far along. But it’s one thing to allow Georgia to buy weapons, and quite another to use U.S. taxpayer dollars to fund them. But the numbers suggest that Georgia could never afford American hardware on its own.

Georgia is poor and Americans weapons are expensive. Tbilisi’s estimated defense budget for 2011 is about $370 million, of which one-third — $123 million — is available for procurement. The United Arab Emirates, to take one point of comparison, has just spent $7 billion on U.S. air-defense equipment. A single Patriot anti-aircraft missile costs nearly $6 million, meaning that 20 missiles — to say nothing of the launchers, radars or other essential components — would be all Georgia could afford with an entire year’s budget..

If Georgia actually wants to use its own money for weapons, then, it would do better to buy weapons from a cheaper source. Russia has intimidated many of Georgia’s former arms suppliers, especially in Eastern Europe and Israel, into ending cooperation with Georgia. But other arms manufacturers, such as China, India, Brazil, or Turkey, could surely step in.

Even if Georgia were armed to the teeth, however, it’s not clear how much good it would do them. Russia’s military is so much stronger than Georgia’s that additional weapons would be a moot point. Or worse: Though Georgia repeatedly emphasizes that it is only seeking “defensive” weapons, any defensive weapon makes aggression easier by improving defense against a counterattack. Georgia touts the threat of a Russian attack, but it was in fact Georgia which fired the first shots that precipitated the 2008 war with Russia, in an apparent belief that Russia would stand idly by.

In a paper published earlier this year, two scholars of the region, Cory Welt and Samuel Charap, argue that providing Georgia with weapons would perpetuate a “Berlin Wall mentality” of eternal conflict, and block the path that Georgia really needs to take with regard to its lost territories of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. That, Welt and Charap write, is the slow, painstaking process of “conflict transformation that reduces tensions, brings people together across the conflict lines, creates trust, builds trade links, and normalizes contacts among authorities.”
But subtlety is not Saakashvili’s strong suit. While American weapons may not make any difference on the ground, they would be a tangible sign of hard support from the West, which Saakashvili clearly craves. Over the last few years, Georgia has perhaps done more, for less reward, than any other ally of the United States. That’s not an argument for shipping Georgia free missile systems, of course. It just makes the situation all the more tragic.

Georgia’s Dangerous Quest for American Weapons

Baltimore a sign of crisis in America

March 7, 2011 Leave a comment

Leonard Gray used to leave his house in Baltimore every day to come to the Inner Harbor. It was a job, a living and a piece of Baltimore’s million-dollar revival. Until one day, Gray and the other 160 employees of Disney’s ESPN Zone were laid off.

“I worked here at ESPN Zone for six years and without notice they gave us the ax, they threw us out like we was just some paper cups,” Gray said.

That’s how Leonard joined the ranks of Baltimore’s unemployed – it’s a crowded place with 11.4 percent of the city’s residents.

“Right now, I’m struggling to survive, struggling to pay my bills, sometimes I can’t go to the market to eat,” Gray said.

But business is booming in the Inner Harbor, a luxury retail and dining district that the city has sunk millions into and made its model of economic development.

“People think that the Inner Harbor is a happy-go-lucky place, but they don’t know what’s going on behind the scenes. People are being disrespected, people are getting unfair wages,” said Gray.

Like much of America–where the richest 20 percent own 84 percent of the wealth–Baltimore’s harbor is split along class lines, said Luis Larrin, a labor organizer with the grassroots United Workers organization.

“The workers who work in these restaurants can’t even eat what they’re cooking because they’re charged the same price,” Larrin said. “$7.00 for a hamburger, an hour’s wage. They could never even think of bringing their families to spend the day here.”

It’s also split along racial lines, said sociologist and Professor Kris Marsh.

“You can say it’s a class thing, but ironically enough most of the people who are pushed out by this new development happen to be blacks, or happen to be Latinos,” said Marsh.

Just a few blocks East or West of the Harbor, the reality is much different–a city crumbling under the weight of foreclosures and crushing economic crisis.

It was against this backdrop that President Obama announced 1.1 trillion dollars in cuts to the budget last month. On the domestic spending chopping block were 13.9 billion dollars in cuts to food stamp programs, which about 530,000 Maryland depend on. Maryland has seen a 32 percent increase since in food stamp recipients since 2008.

Currently, 20 percent of Baltimore residents live below the poverty line–six percent more than when Obama stopped here days before his inauguration in 2009.

“This is what I believe, Baltimore, but you made this belief real. You proved once more the people who love this country can change it,” US President Barack Obama told a massive crowd gathered in 2009, days before his inauguration.

But residents in these blocks and blocks of abandoned row-houses told us that they haven’t been able to change the spreading poverty threatening to engulf more and more of Baltimore.

Ylan Mui, a staff writer for the Washington Post explained the system of capitalism creates a byproduct of inequality; it’s how the system is structured.

“The question becomes, what are the social implications of that?” she said. “What are the economic implications of that? Does such a large amount of wealth being concentrated among the top tiers of American households, does that simulate economic growth, does that trickle down to other economic classes? What we are really grappling with is not necessarily the fact of income inequality, but the magnitude of income inequality.”

Across the world and in the US food prices have been rising, further impacting lower income earners, a growing group in the US.

“Lower income households spend a large portion of their income on food, on these basic necessities. That leaves them less money to spend on discretionary items, which is one thing that actually helps drive the economy,” Mui said.

She explained it is important to think about the impact of food on consumers when measuring economic growth and costs. Necessity items are where most is spent for low income earners, and these items do not contribute to economic growth in the same was as other products.

“Income inequality needs to be rectified,” she added. “There is a growing recognition that it is a problem.”

Protests In Wisconsin: Union Protests Spread Across The US

February 21, 2011 Leave a comment

Over 20,000 angry union supporters gathered at the Wisconsin state capital expressing opposition to an anti-union bill and an end to Walker’s governorship. Now, pro-union protests have spread to other states proposing cutbacks.

Republican lawmakers are trying to secure quorum in Wisconsin to hold a vote on a measure to kill the collective bargaining rights of state union workers, however the Democratic law makers have refused to show up at the legislature and have fled the state to avoid being brought into the capital by state police.

The Republican controlled Senate dispatched the state troopers to find the Democrats, but they were unsuccessful. A group of them have opted to stay in a hotel just on the other side of the state line in Illinois.

Without quorum a vote cannot be held, effectively stalling the passage of the legislation.

Meanwhile, the State legislature in Tennessee has also proposed a bill that will dissolve the collective bargaining rights of the state’s teachers and proposed police layoffs in Hartford, Connecticut were met with hundreds of police marching the it streets, expressing their opposition. In Ohio crowds of hundreds have descended on the state capitol to protest legislation that would strip all state employees of their collective bargaining rights.

Opposition to cuts to workers and labor rights continue to be met with opposition, opposition which appears to be speeding across the country.

The Wisconsin protest is being called the largest set of protests the state has encountered in years.

Widely seen as the boldest anti-union bill in the nation, the law has been engineered to combat the $3.6 billion state budget shortfall.

If passed, the law would bring about a major political shift in Wisconsin. The state has been widely seen as progressive in the past, being the first state to pass comprehensive pro-union legislation in 1959.

Over 40 percent of the 2,600 unionized teachers and staff called in sick in Madison, Wisconsin, forcing the State’s second largest school district to cancel school for the day.

The state’s prisons are staffed by unionized guards. These guards would lose their bargaining rights under the new law. So far, the guards have not opted to protest or walk out. That may change.

Under the proposed law, unions could not force employees to pay dues, but could choose to represent state workers. However, they could not seek pay increases above the listed maximum in the Consumer Price Index without approval from a public referendum.

In exchange for the loss of their labor rights, the state government would promise not to engage in furloughs or layoffs. If the bill fails, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker has threatened to lay-off 6,000 state workers.

Walker plans to move forward, insisting he has the necessary votes in the state legislature to pass the bill.

Support for the measure comes from the state’s Republicans who control the legislature. The state’s Democrats and union members adamantly oppose the proposed law. The Republicans claim they have the votes, despite public outcry, to pass the new law.

Activists nevertheless are pushing for a ‘citizen’s filibuster’ to prevent the passage of the bill by forcing discussion into unsociable hours.

While a number of other US states are considering bills which target labor rights, Wisconsin’s is by far the most antagonistic anti-labor measure aimed at solving budgetary shortfalls.

David Vines, a protestor and a student at the University of Wisconsin argued the Republican controlled state government is trying to bust up unions and is creating a culture war to drive poor people away from the polls.

He explained the government was elected based on promises of jobs, but instead has opted to take on issues people see as less vital, such as voter ID rules and anti-union laws.

“They are not concerned about jobs at all right now,” he said. “They come in here and they try and bust up unions and use these culture wars as a way to drive younger people and poorer people away from polls.”

Radio Host Alex Jones said this is a huge development, and the main driver behind the protests is the economy as a whole which has been driven down by the inflated dollar.

Austerity and globalism are impacting the world, what began in Europe, and the Middle East is spreading to the US, he contended.

“We’re seeing massive protests, riots. We’re seeing people get very angry,” Jones said. “We’ve seen the governor of Wisconsin threaten preemptively to call out the National Guard.”

He added, “The question is will the people be victorious against this or will the offshore robber barons of the new world order be successful brining in their new world government?”

Jones argued the protests have been coordinated and organized by international powers in order to create reasons to bring in a new global power structure and eventually a world government.

U.S. With Corporate Media Tries To Lead Iran Protests

February 19, 2011 Leave a comment

Hillary Clinton had instantly recognized them by referring to them as the Iranian “opposition” a few months ago: “We continue talking with them and supporting the opposition.” The same government that, in the words of Juan Gelman, had so many ups and downs against the protests against the government of their ally Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, now they have thrown themselves into the effort to head up support to those who are allegedly fighting the government in Tehran, granting them a semblance of legitimacy.

by Iroel Sánchez

Rebellion

Hillary Clinton had instantly recognized them by referring to them as the Iranian “opposition” a few months ago: “We continue talking with them and supporting the opposition.” The same government that, in the words of Juan Gelman, had so many ups and downs against the protests against the government of their ally Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, now they have thrown themselves into the effort to head up support to those who are allegedly fighting the government in Tehran, granting them a semblance of legitimacy.

Towards this end, the U.S. State Department has opened a Twitter account USAdarFarsi to encourage those who do what America wants. Quickly, in an instant, the mainstream Western media, for example, the Spanish press started talking about repression in the Iranian capital, showing images of a burning trash can they call a “barricade” (El País–The Country), and a video in which a small group People burn a blanket on a busy road to the indifference of passing drivers (Público–Public) which was used to talk about victims of firearms.

Once again the technique of self-fulfilling prophecy begins to operate from the media against U.S. enemies, announcing in advance what the White House wants to happen. In this case, the goal is to divert the anti-imperialist and popular rebellion in the Middle East against the main enemy of the United States and Israel in the area and prevent the fire from reaching regimes such as Morocco and Saudi Arabia, faithful servants of the Empire.

And not only is the United States acting in this case, the consul of the Spanish government in Tehran who was weeks ago so reluctant to investigate and condemn the Moroccan regime’s crimes against the Saharawi people, spent four hours at a police station in Iran “after being stopped when I strolled through the center of Tehran while the ‘protests’ were taking place “…

Much ado about nothing, the U.S. is desperate to deflect attention. See the picture showing the “thousands” of demonstrators, and this is just Tehran. The rest of the country is, well, er. quietly living in peace. University of Tehran Professor Seyed Mohammad Marandi said no more than “a few hundred rioters” were in downtown Tehran.

However, just survey the western corporate media. Being dusted off are the stories that failed so miserably not long ago, trying to push Washington’s agenda.

The Empire is now determined to even the score in the Middle East, by generating displays of mass discontent to bring down a U.S. adversary in the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Obama’s National Security Advisor, Tom Donilon, issued an official, White House letterhead statement, declaring as a matter of U.S. policy that Iran must allow protests of whatever sort the Obama Administration wishes to encourage.

In other words, they will try to “get something going” in Iran. The administration will fail, and the spectacle will be disheartening for them.

Did somebody say “demonstrators” for hire?

Here’s looking forward to seeing them fall on their faces once again. It’s over…

U.S. with corporate media tries to lead Iran protests