Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "TalkTV"
channel.
-
12
-
9
-
Netanyahu would fight Iran with the last drop of blood - of U.S. soldiers. Israel under Netanyahu and the Saudis who play Trump like a fiddle HATE the deal BECAUSE IT WORKS. - It makes SURE that Iran cannot make weapons grade material w/o it being noticed (and since they - and that is certified - destroyed equipment that is also necessary for steps towards enrichment - they would need 1 year minium to get there. Which is plenty of time to act against it if - IF - they do not honor the deal and try to make material for nukes.
Iran fully kept their side of the deal, the Trump admin btw cannot deny that, the UN and the Europeans certify to it.
Now for the REAL reasons
Hezbollah in Lebanon (they just did well in an election) does not allow Israel to grab Lebanon (Israel tried several times !! most notable in the 1980s and 2006)
As long as Israel tries to drive out the Palestinians with apartheid policies (even worse - in South Africa they did not try to make people LEAVE the country) ISRAEL - not the U.S., not Europe ! - will have problems with Hamas.
Israel helped to found Hamas as competition to secular PLO (under smart Arafat) btw.
Syria and even more Iran support Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Iran supports Hamas (Palestinians).
Neither Syria, nor Iran, Hezbollah or Hamas have sponsored terror attacks in OUR countries (Europe, U.S. Canada,...)
Israel is highly aggressive with Lebanon, Syria, the Palestinians - well deal with the backlash.
Hezbollah and Hamas are Shia Muslim, they have no caliphate or jihadist agenda - not like the SAUDI supported terrorists (ISIS, Al Qaedea, ....) We leave them alone, they leave us alone. That does not work with ISIS - they come over and bring terror - and again they are inspired by the Saudi style Islam (an extreme form of Sunni Islam = Wahhabism).
An intact Syria and Iran (and Russia and China leaning in) = no grabbing of Lebanon (WATER). That is one of the reasons Israel provides medical treatment for the jihadists fighting in Syria (even to ISIS fighters). And help with money, training, equipment,... In case you have ever wondered why Israel never had an ISIS attack.
Israel has 200 war heads with nukes (material stolen from the U.S.) they know that Iran is no threat to them, that Iran will never attack them first - they are not suicidal or irrational.
But corner Iran - and watch what happens.
Oh, and China has economic interests in Iran.
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
+Ed Hoosen - they have cultivated the "circle the waggons" mentality in Israel for 70 years now. Fierce European foreign fighters gave the British troops troops a lot of trouble in the Protectorate Palestine. From 1900 on until and during WW2. The Zionists were not picky - the plans for their own land included discussion about Panama, The Seychelles. They just needed to convince one of the colonial powers to help them take over someone else's land - and lend them their military support in case the natives had objections.
These people were no victims. After the Nazi prosecution the idea of Zionism - which had been a minority movement among Jews - had more support, especially in the U.S. - Truman (the moron and war monger) gave them their colony (for political gain, to get the Jewish vote and money for his election, and against the serious advice of the Pentagon and especially Secretary of State Gen. Marshall).
So then the experienced Zionist fighters who were already in Palestine officially took charge, traumatized Nazi victims came into the new founded colony and were glad to let them take care of their security (or perceived security). Other Jewish people (often with ideals about a new society) who were enraged on behalf of the victims or with family that had suffered joined them.
And they all agreed - this time THEY would be the majority in the new country.
With SHARING, RESPECT, INTERACTION and MODERN AGRICULTURE and WATER MANAGEMENT the additional European settlers COULD have make it work for ALL - for the native population and the newcomers.
Softening the natural ressentment against the immigrants/new settlers by "bribing them" with the advantage they could have from the new people.
Well, that was not the plan of the new settlers.
They new colonists were middle class Europeans - Ashkanazi Jews who have no genetic ties to the "Holy Land" anyway and who look like Europeans - because they ARE Europeans (or U.S. citizens of European descent).
And they had on average every prejudice of that time of the (usually well educated) middle class - minus the anti-Jewish sentiment.
And those who had been fighting as Europeans for their CLAIM on that far away country to which they had NO TIES (the right as THEY saw it) - they for sure had no qualms about the fate of the brown people who were the natives - who looked different than them, and on average were less educated.
Plus the brown people did not have the Big Bully U.S. on their side.
The new Jewish colonists cleared out many of the natives right away (who naturally also resisted, it was clear what was coming and no one had asked THEM). The kicked out Black Jews (Gold Meir was all for it), with some disdain let the Arab Jews stay (these are the real descendents of Moses, Abraham, King David - if those men ever lived).
Read the "jokes" about the stupid Arab Jews in Kishons books. They are the underclass.
Prosecution does not necessarily make persons or group more empathic.
And I think they have developed a sort of group think.
Maybe there is a cumulative effect of centuries of disdain and prosectution that shows up NOW in the Israeli citizens closing the ranks and not giving a damn about anyone else.
Truth is: all citizens of wealthy country are (for the most part) very disinterested if their government harms poor brown people. These victims are usually in other countries. The Israelis have them closer - on the other hand their rightwing government makes sure that there is a divide. Interaction is hindered as well as possible.
Israelis can live in their bubble - sure with high security, but comfortable - and never be the wiser about the plight of the Palestians. Most do not really want to know anyway. And with the current climate most would not dare to speak up even if they felt a little uneasy.
I saw a video where Israeli citizens on the street were asked: What would they want their government to do. It was as if you would interview folks in Belgium, Argentine, or the U.S. The parliament is useless, the politicians are not doing their job, the economy is not doing too well, pensions cut ... The only person that mentioned: I wish we would get peace was a young man, an Arab. He did not address it as directly as I do - it was a very "indirect" statement. I noticed that - as if it was almost a taboo to mention that something like a "peace process" should be an important agenda.
I think a determined U.S. government must force Israel to the negotiation table kicking and screaming. For a 2 state solution (and a good fence between them).
And before that can ever happen Big Donations in politics in the U.S. must be eliminated. The powerful Israeli lobby heavily finances BOTH parties. Even if a candidate does not get money directly - a) they are also supposed to raise money for the party in general and b) the party establishment gets Israeli Lobby money for sure - and the task assigned to them by the Big Donors of Aipac is to make the party underlings fall in line. If regular politicians do not obey they will be opposed and eliminated. This is not only a matter of not getting money for a political campaign - they will crush any politician daring to speak up.
Even Senator Sanders - who does not need the organizational support of the Democratic Party OR their fundraising capacity or any Aipac money is careful what he says about Israel. He made a few statements - more than most politicians in the U.S. dare to say, but not even close to what would be deserved. And since he is Jewish he has some protection from being slandered as anti-Jewish.
Obama ALSO acted cautiously around the Israeli lobby (he did not like Netanyahu), he offended them of course with the Iran deal. Well we could watch the shenanigans of Netanyahu and the Republicans in 2015 when it was signed.
The Democratic Party more or less had to stand by their president, their Jewish financiers had to forgive them the infidelity.
But they were happy to support the extensions of the sanctions against Iran in August 2017 (after the UN and the Trump admin had confirmed the full compliance or Iran with the nuclear deal).
But Iran allegedly "destabilizes" the Middle East - aka they annoy the heck out of Israel, increase their influence in Iraq, and help to prevent regime change in Syria.
They support Hamas - and Hezbollah which prevents Israel from taking over Lebanon.
So Iran is called the worst supporters of terrorism ever.
I think they have nothing on the U.S. or the Saudis.
4
-
So.... police gave a neutral assessment. May exaggerated it in parliament. The police does NOT know what kind of visa the men got from the British embassy in Russia (or that is what they said when asked). The government after 1 month of speculation in spring 2018 came up with the claim that a fluid or gel was spread on the door (knob) - which caused the poisoning. Portdon Down confirmed it was a substance from the Novichok class, military grade.
- The weird thing is that makes is very, very dangerous to handle. and the Skripals should have dropped dead on first contact. And if it was so diluted - then it is strange that the effects would set in at the same time (maybe not the same exposure, skin contact, body weight).
After the Italian restaurant they walked through a little park. There they are the last time on CCTV, they walk normally, the bench where the doctor found them and gave them first aid is a few walking minutes away. So they were hit by the allegedly deferred symptoms at the same time.
The men that are now suspects came to Salesbury after 11.48 a.m. and the Skripals left that house at 9:15 on March 2018 and never returned to it (both proven by CCTV - if it has not been manipulated).
The men had stayed in a cheaper hotel in Eastend in London. The police raided it in May - never bothered to tell the owners or other guests - which learned it like everybody else from the media in Sep. 2018 (NOW the government and police ask the populatin for help, if they have noticed anything unusual).
The men came on Saturday and at Sunday noon again to Salisbury nearby their house. (seeking out the worst time if they wanted to plant poison). People coming from church, doing gardening etc.
Sergei and daughter Yulia switched off their phones for 4 hours and they did so at exactely the same time (and on again together). So they wanted to evade surveillance.
George thinks they MET with these men (but when ??) - they bought flowers, went to the cementary, were in the pub and then eating in the Italian restaurant. Sergei got louder there, other clients noticed that he was excited / disturbed / annoyed - but he spoke Russian. The men were not there. These places were turned upside down in spring and everyone questioned, they would have remembered.
So maybe they had agreed to meet with someone in the park ?? and it went wrong. And the poison in the perfume bottle was NOT used for the Skripals or to impregnate the doorknob (it that is even true) - there must have been another batch.
The partner of the recent victim that picked up the perfume in a charity bin says it was sealed in cellophane, he had to open it with a knive. His partner died when she handled the perfume bottle.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Major infrastructure investments in the Western countries, or in the coal region in the UK - QE For The People - could have eased the economic troubles in the 1970s, as well. But the unwashed masses and the politicians were not even aware that such instruments are available for governments (that want to serve the regular people) - most citizens and politicans are still clueless. (Corbyn knows these concepts, although he does not talk about them, the financial elites are foaming from the mouth as is, no need to alert them when he is not yet in power).
But thanks to the internet WE are catching on.
I recommend Dr. Richard Werner "*Debt and Interest free money*"- short video clips, he has the gift to explain the widely unknown concepts
The Bank of England published in 2014: Money Creation in a Modern Economy. The pdf - it is not long and easy to understand - is available online as pdf.
I can recommend both for short and easy to understand introduction. It will change your view on everything you thought you knew about the money system, banking, loans, and government funding.
Then positvemoney(dot)org - they have a series on money creation, debt, austerity.
Dr. Stephanie Kelton - interview with Democracy@Work - or her Deficit Owl speech (Angry Bird event) - both are on youtube.
You are welcome.
2
-
2
-
+ Blake Seven - admitting that people now (or in the past) were even worse off than you (or your ancestors) - does NOT TAKE AWAY from us NOW being screwed (it is more the degree TO WHICH people are being screwed). - it sounds like you are into the "divide and conquer" trap of the ruling class..
The SAME MINDSET that allows the SHAMEFUL treatment of those INVITED Windrush immigrants, and DESTROYING RECORDS ** - also allows the selling out of the British fishing industry in EU or other trade negotiations.
(** The destruction of the records is CRIMINAL, and who are the cowardly civil servants who do not dare to blow the whistle)
That is the mindset that also allows for the defunding of the NHS (it had the leanest budget of all systems of the wealthy European nations AND THEN it was being defunded over 10 - 15 years - see World Bank per capita healthcare expenditure of nations).
The traitors (New Labour, Blairites) that could not be bothered to oppose the government on immigration - also cannot be bothered to stand up for the native British population.
The divide and conflict of interest is not between the immigrants and the natives. (or between the people whose ancestors mildly profited from the empire or who were completely exploited by the empire).
If the economy would work for The People the immigrants likely could be integrated well and would be very much needed (if social housing, education, infrastructure and NHS is properly funded, too. They could easily find the money to bail out the banks, for QE for the banks, and they have yet to find an expensive war or regime change they do not like.
Of course there has been to much immigration into the UK given the current state of the economy. - Because the EU ALSO does not work for the Polish people (or Romania, Bulgaria, ...) - why were so many of them coming to the U.K.?? - because they do not have enough jobs at home in this neoliberal economic system. The neoliberal system that is promoted by ALL Western governments (incl. the UK). They can promote it on stereoids in the EU - it gives them leverage over more than 500 million people (TTIP, CETA for instance).
The UK !!!!, France and Hillary Clinton heavily lobbied the hesistant Obama administration in 2010/2011 to regime change Libya - that opened the refugee routes. (they are having slave markets now in Libya, literally, the country is a failed state NOW).
Plus of course Syria - again the UK and French governments are ALSO heavily involved destroying a once functioning and relatively prosperous country (that is true for Libya, Syria, and before that Iraq).
And before THAT disaster, the UK was all for the Iraq disaster. - The British CITIZENS - much to their credit - took it to the streets in 2003. A demonstration with 1 million in a country with 65 million is no small thing.
But Tony Blair felt safe !!! to IGNORE THAT. He was right, he is now making money like a bandit (!!!) and he is not going to prison and no one within his bubble is suffering the consequences of war.
It is not that the regular British or European citizes are to blame for the psychopaths on top - but it is about time to put in the extra effort to stop them. For ethical reasons, for the sake of peace, for the sake of the economic well-being of EVERYONE amont the regular people.
the psychopaths on top will not stop at destroying foreign countries or oppress immigrants (and create the REASONS for immigration) - and they will screw US as well as the "brown" (or Muslim) people.
It is obviously time for more massive civil disobedience (like they did with the Civil Rights Movement in the U.S.). Just "demonstrating" does not cut it.
btw: I think Jeremy Corbyn would be a huge advancement for the country (NEW economic ideas, see QE For the People, or Stephanie Kelton on MMT).
he would keep the country out of the EXPENSIVE war mongering and regime changes.
AND he has INTEGRITY (and the willingness to stand up for unpopular positions). That is rare and valuable.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I recommend watching the Russian Foreign Minister Serjey Lavrov who gave BBC an interview after the strikes. (the uncut !! version is on a channel Russia Insight) - It was obvious - and Lavrov confirmed it - that a last minute deal was struck. - I heard that Macron called Putin, asking for a guarantee that the Russians would not attack a French ship, they would only go after Syrian targets.
Ships of the US, UK, France, Russia, China, likely Iran, .... they were all assembled off the coast - incl. the Chinese in a show of solidarity and to raise the stakes for the US/NATO warmongers even more.
Remember Putin had said in the case of an airstrike the ships where the strikes were launched would be shot at - not only the missiles intercepted.
Putin said allegedly that he could not give Marcon the promise he asked for.
Lavrov was asked: How close were we ? He said not very - there are MILITARY backchannels established between the US and Russia, and there are extra backchannels regarding Syria. These militaires are professional, they understand each other, they were worried and they found a solution. And he did not want to give more details than that.
Well over 100 missiles, 70 % intercepted allegedly, 8 targets, no casualties - it looked like an arranged show with some sacrificial lambs.
So this time lucky: BUT I prefer the situation where the military are the war mongers and the policitans and diplomats are the level headed actors that hold them back.
And: in 2013 Obama wisely backed down although he never admitted his mistake to hastily put blame before having any evidence (British lab report - Sarin used does not match government stocks)
It was foolish to put immediate blame and indeed the guilt of the Syrian government was never proven (UN report later, no blame assigned (they are very cautious about that). New York Times had one self-taught expert who thoughthe could reconstruct the flight curve of the rocket- and he put the blame on the government did it - Prof. Postol of MIT disagreed (but was not mentioned by the Times).
If the verdict is not possible it is also helpful to look at motive - and the Islamists were losing. There had been warnings of General Mark Dempsey before (not to get into a conflict with Russia) so I assume behind the scenes Israel, KSA etc. were lobbying very much for war.
The jihadis were losing and had reason to provoque an escalation with U.S. boots on the ground and a no-fly zone.
Last year the sacrificial lambs were some hangars and tarmacs.
This year - see above.
The " locked and loaded" comment regarding future use of chemical weapons of Trump or Nikki Hailey (UN ambassador) was an INVITATION to repeat either an attack - or at least ot fake such an attack and launch a social media campaign.
The Islamists - and the nations who absolutely want Syria seen broken up - can only win.
- So given the tensions we had now - what are they going to do next time.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
**John Kerry in Sep. 2016: we wanted ISIS to grow stronger in Syria - it would weaken Assad (and since ISIS and other jihdists were allowed to sell oil from the occupied oil fields in Syria mostly to Turkey, with U.S./ NATO looking the other way, and the brother of Erdogan in the middle of the trade - ISIS could recruit offering the best pay, had money for an impactful social media game in Europe. Many men left the other militias and joined ISIS. Including the "moderate" rebels trained by the U.S. military - as we know from Congressional hearings. Some just sold the weapons they had received - others signed up with ISIS, AlQaeda and the like.
So officially ! the U.S. had to give up on arming so called "moderate" rebels - well they have the "White helmets" as front.
The former foreign minister of Qatar in Dec. 2017 describes on Qatari TV how the Saudis ordered Qatar to arrange for a proxi war (they had a falling out with KSA recently, so little brother Qatar dares the big bully Saudi Arabia. KSA cannot invade - the U.S. has one of the largest foreign bases in Qatar. - So we are getting the details now.
Training camps in Turkey and Jordan, mercenaries from all sorts of foreign countries were secretely trained and armed. Military brass from KSA, US, Israel, Qatar present. The jihadists/mercenaries infiltrated Syria - waiting for a "popular protest movement" which they could hijack and turn it into a "civil war". Such an uprising was quite predictable (and could be cautiously nurtured). Syria had a catastrophic draught. Many people were streaming into the cities, not enough jobs, etc.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The Saudi rulers cannot afford to have a good efficient army - there would be coups. Just too much oil money around. So the upper class of Saudia Arabia (a nouvaux rich culture) place their sons in the army (at higher positions). But likely without the tradition of the U.S. for military schools for future officiers.
Those sons likely would rather party and join the international jet-set, or if they are more ambitious do business abroad. And those who are content to serve in the arm (the younger sons ? may not be the most ambitious, driven and capable of the lot (they would likely want to be in business). So ... they are not risking their life, and in times of peace the job may be boring.
Lawrence Wikerson: they cannot integrate the expensive weapons system which they are buying. They cannot even win the war against Yemen (a poor country), they drop the bombs from high altitude (which is safer for the pilotes), so they do not know - or care - WHAT will be hit. They are utterly incompetent.
(paraphrased - from an interview on TheRealNews he has regular appearances there, highly recommended)
They Saudis do not spend so much money because they want to have a capable army. They buy the goodwill of Western politicians who are in the pockets of the arms industry and they buy the goodwill of the mainstream media. Which has been VERY generous considering their track record. - But no one really has sympathies, with the killing of Kashoggi they have awakened the sleeping dogs.
The Saudis will not be shunned by the governments bribed by the merchants of death (U.K., France, Germany, maybe Sweden - all major export countries of weapons). In the U.S. at the moment additionally the financial interests of the Trump family.
But there will be a long term effect - it is also ! a PR disaster. They could get away with putting peaceful protestors into prison, one Saudi woman is in dager of being sentenced to death. No one batted an eye. Only independen media reported.
But that story blew up, and the media either had the green light from the Deep state to do it (not the Trump admin, but that admin will not last). Or it helped that the Washington Post was incensed that one of their own was targeted. And the story has the right elements to go viral. - Cruel human rights violations is one thing, but a hit job at a WaPo columnist - that is too much.
The voters are not likely to forget the gruesome and scandalous incident - though it will not have an immediate effect. people DO remember 9/11 and Saudi hijackers. And now this.
Never mind MBS is a cruel, ruthless dictator - he is a fool as well. And he has made himself a LOT of enemies within the upper Saudi class. If the U.S. government would ever withdraw support - for MBS - he would be ousted, killed, disappeared, would have an accident.
The Saudis spend more than the Russians on the military per year. The Russians get a well respected capable army for that money. AND they CAN produce their own weapons, actually it is a major export industry. The S300 and S400 missile defense system may be superior to the U.S. solutions. India intends to buy it (U.S. is pissed off and threatens them), Turkey !!! considers to buy it. Syria would like to buy it if the Russians would give it to them. But they keep them in the loop.
The Russians do have the S400 system installed in Syria (pretty sure it is the more modern S400 system and not S300) and they coordinate with the Syrian military - but it belongs to them and is under their control.
And they did not use it as far as I know in spring 2017 and 2018 (U.S. UK French missile "attacks" - well they had backchannel agreements, knew what would be targeted and the Syrians offered some sacrificial lambs. For 2018 Sergey Lavrov confirmed that, and it was likely the same in 2017).
The Russians have a good reputation for the S400 they would not undermine that export hit by having it proven to be less capable than expected. And every time it is used they would show their cards - locations, strengths and weaknesses of the system. So they never found a situation important enough to use it.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
He "trains" people there - would that be the "White Helmets" ? Syria before the war had a functioning medical system, and they continue to have a Civil Defense Organization (it exists since the 1950s and is accredited with the UN), firebrigades, ambulances, etc.
They just can't operate in the rebel held areas (there are allegations that the jihadists when they took over areas took over the local organizations and their equipment, drove out the trained people, even killed some. Just found articles of two aid workers who the Italian gov. paid multimillion ransoms for (they worked in projects near Aleppo, were caught by jihadists, and were freed in 2015)
So I do not think the guy was training doctors and nurses and first respondes before 2011 when the crisis and then war started. - And ever since the only "personnel" that was possibly "trained" by the West was part of the very questionable group founded by an ex spook, that ONLY operates in areas held by the jihadists. aka the White Helmets.
There is a REASON why there are no war correspondents of the West, or the Red Cresecent, Doctors Without Borders, Red Cross in THOSE areas. They would be killed.
They need a civil defense of course in those areas and some doctors , but they must be aligned with the fundamentalist Islamists / rebels.
One of the doctors who were first to twitter about the attack or accident !! in April 2017 had been kicked out of the NHS and then out of the UK. They UK justice system could not nail him down - the people which he allegedly helped to kidnap were still hostages resp. one got killed later. So no witnesses, no trial. But he can't get into the UK.
The guy went straight to the areas where the jihadists are and I assume worked there as doctor of medicine. Now his tweets may have been correct (later we got more confirmation, indeed something has happened). But funny how the tweets of someone like that is taken IMMEDIATELY as proof by our media or governments.
Some of the White helmets might do good work. But they lean heavy on propaganda (see the videos - and they do not even make them realistic, those scenes when they "rescue" children out of the rubble.
The only prop that the producers of tje clips never forget is that the actors need to wear the signatory White Helmets.
Usually no gloves for the rubble - it would make you unfit for work after one or two pick-ups. I get that people in desperation would dig into rubble for their loved ones.
But for an - allegedly - trained group of first responders who do have helmets and cars - but no gloves ?? You need to improve on the use of props when filming.
Never mind the rescue operations for people that were allegedly poisoned by gas or nerve agents . The rescuers (or the actors playing rescuers) could not be bothered to wear gloves, or a mask. Not that it would protect you from Sarin.
But if you can't afford a hazmat-suit * do at least the minimum.
* why not, they are not THAT expensiveand the White Helmets got 100 million USD from the Western "democracies". That "generosity in itself is very suspicious - I suspect it is a front for selling and distributing weapons. US Congress did not allow to arm the "rebels" after testimonies that there is no such thing as "moderate" rebels, and the weapons are sold, traded or whatever to whoever pays for them.
So the deep state might have found it better to set up a front organization, use their media cont(r)acts to give them some humanitarian glory. 100 million USD is not small change.
1
-
1
-
1
-
M.I.C. was shocked in the 1990s: The West did not "win" the Cold War, the Soviet Union stepped down. The always cited economic troubles did not force the S.U. to give up - see Cuba and North Korea, both countries do not have nearly the resources, size, advantages and military might of the S.U.
Actually after Jeltsin handed over the country to the vulures the Russians, the Soviet Union had a worse economic contraction than the U.S. in the Great Depression. (Birth rate, life expectancy dropping, homelessness addictions, drug, prostitution, organized crime flourished)
The West was initially relieved that in 2000 Putin and not a rabid rightwing nationalist had won, they were worried about nuclear material (weapons grade) and other advanced military Soviet technology would be getting into the wrong hands (terrorists, developing countries).
The grip on the population under Gorbachev was strong enough (KGB), the military still was in good enough shape.
International prices for commodities increased in the 1990s (oil, minerals, timber) so they would have had higher revenue and sold more to China (which has been developed by the Western capitalist nations since the 1990s - to NOW become their main competition).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+ Susie Wood - there is no work to be done. Iran kept its part of the *deal*, and the Trump admin ADMITTED that. So it is the turn of the U.S. to hold their part = step by step and over time lifting sanctions. Which would help the moderates in Iran - it is not talked about but Iran is shifting towards opening. The hardliners do not like it - but the population (very young on average) wants it. An improving economy would strengthen the moderate forces.
The deal is international, every REASONABLE person, who knows the content knows that Iran cannot produce the material to build a weapon. So Israel the rogue nuclear power can calm down.
Negotiating something (with the participation of the most important allies of the U.S ) and then say: No we were just kidding, we are not sticking to it. We demand new negoatiations ! - that sets a very bad precedent.
Why would the Iranians BELIEVE the U.S. is reliable. They are not AND the truth is: there are forces that absolutely WANT ANY TREATY to fail.
There are forces that want the U.S. to go to war with Iran . - if you think the Iraq war was bad - Iran has a stronger military. Plus China has interests, and to some degree Russia.
There is a chance that they might be given !! nuclear weapons if the U.S. attacks them or let's Israel go crazy. (I think I heard that Wilkerson say, not sure).
The U.S. NOW say: Just kidding, we do not want to honor our side of the deal. - an INTERNATIONAL deal. Which is good and rigorous, allows for a lot of controls - SAFETY is NOT the ISSUE.
Iran opening towards the West and becoming less menacing, improving the international relationships and interacting more is the problem. - For Israel and KSA.
KSA just hates Shia Muslim, and Isreal will never be able to grab Lebanon as long as Iran or Syria support Hezbollah. So Israel will have to live with the fact that they cannot annect THAT country too. (or grab a part of Syria which they also would like to do while they are at it.)
And again as long as Syria exists (and is not reduced to the Libyan status of a failed state, genocide on Christians, Shias, Alawites included) - Hezbollah will have their intact line of supplies.
Israel could not defeat Hezbollah in 2006 - so NOW they hope the U.S. will do the heavy lifting for them (take out Syria and Iran, then they likely would be able to occupy Lebanon).
Israel and KSA threw a tantrum when the deal was signed (and the Republicans because they get a lot of money from Aipac. Also the Dems. But they could not defect from their president THEN. In August 2017 Congress and Senate extended the sanctions against Iran and most Dems agreed - Aipac money in action again !!).
Why ? The Iranians completely complied with the deal !!!!
The U.S. does not like that Iran helps Syria fight against the jihadists and insurgents (with Russia). They a) have an invitation of the Syrian government and b) that has nothing to do with the nuclear deal.
After all: what business has the U.S. in Syria, it is not their neighbourhood and they do not even do trade with them. - if KSA and Israel would like to go to war with Syria (or Iran) - they can do so (they don't want, they know better).
Believe me - if Iran would get a democratically elected friendly government tomorrow, Israel and KSA would go crazy. No more pretext to paint them as the boogeyman.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Andrew O'Hagan intentionally ignores: The moment the fire started spreading accross the facade of Grenfell Tower the building was a lost cause. The firebrigade came there to put out the fire in an apartment, routine. Little did they know that a perfectly safe house had been turned into a tinderbox. - the moment the flames ignited the facade there was maybe a window of opportunity of 5 - 10 minutes to put the fire on the facade out. And around that time they also could have made the decision for a SAFE EVACUATION.
But of course that would have required advance knowledge that such a task would even be necessary. Fires had been put out in Grenfell before and the old concrete facade and the metal windows did not promote facade fires.
It is like a wildfire, either you catch it right in the beginning - or it will spread uncontrollably.
An architect that lives nearby said he was completely shocked about how rapidly the fire spread. Well THAT is not new: such insulation or cladding fires have happened in recent years, fire brigades in other countries had voiced their concerns before. But these events always had a luckier ending. A lot of property damage but little if any loss of live.
A piece of cladding was tested in a laboratory a few days later: under sustained heat and flames, the core of the cladding pieces melted inside the thin aluminium skin. The insulation material, which burns well - ? plastics - became liquid, seeped through the aluminium skin.
It provided the fuel for the fire, and of course the liquid fuel helped with spreading the fire. Increasing heat accelerated the process. Bursting windows allowed the fire to enter the building from the outside - far away from the initial start of the aparment fire.
The testing was not sophisticated or expensive to do btw. The morons in charge could have easily detected the SYSTEMIC risk that kind of cheap cladding posed.
And the cladding was changed after the first bid. The very active Grenfell community likely would have noticed that change BUT the freedom of information act did not apply, the information was withheld from them.
Another example of SYSTEMIC failure on all levels - and yes very likely caused by class, financial interest in gentrification. What else would explain the stonewalling of the "authorities" and the "management" when they dealt with a grassroots group with very active, educated, articulate and involved renters.
The burning fridge caused a routine apparment fire, the flames leaking out at the (maybe open, maybe burst window) ignited the facade. The fire brigade was of course INSDE and dealt with the fire in the aparment. They put it out and did not even know that the catastrophe had started outside on the facade.
If they had realized in the NEXT 5, 10, 15 minutes after the facade had caught fire, that the building already was a lost cause they could have ordered to evacuate.
(It is like in the film Titanic, as soon as the Iceberg hit they were lost, even though it was not immediately obvious - except in the film to the engineer who informs the captain)
There is a video of such a facade fire on a French high-rise - the balcony (1st floor or half floor = LOW) was burning. The flames reached out, after approx 5 minutes into the the video, the flames set the facade on fire - _then it was over _ no chance to restrain the fire.
Around that time one could see the fire brigade arriving (or visible in the video). They had an advantage (starting point LOW), the highrise was not THAT high, their ladders were high enough.
It was during day.
The set-up of the facade obviously included SOME barriers for the spreading of fire.
One could see it in the way the fire spread, in distinct columns. And I think the corners seemed to have some reinforcement
STILL the French fire brigades COULD not prevent the fire from spreading ALL OVER and to the full height of the facade (on one side only if I remember correctly). The full blaze was reached in LESS THAN 1 hour.
It was during the day, the building had MORE THAN ONE narrow staircase - the damage was high, but they had only one casualty (and that may have been due to the original fire in the apartment.and not because of the wildfire on the facade).
Not even the French under much better conditions could contain that facade fire. But they had definitely much better conditions to EVACTUATE.
That is the insanity with Grenfell Tower: A building that was already a hazard due to the way it was built (one narrow staircase only). And then systemic failure was heaped upon systemic failure.
Deviate from the "stay put" standard procedure and EVACUATE
After the short window of time in the beginning (which was bound to escape the notice of the firefighters anyway) it became increasingly dangerous - smoke in the staricase.
Plus: this would have meant to act contrary to the drill and the routines that USUALLY guarantee safety - unless unbeknowst to the fire brigade some morons have turned a house that always had been safe into a tinder box.
"Stay put" also means that people stay in safety while the the firebrigades can MOVE with their HEAVY and LARGE equipment up the staircases ! And that they can concentrate on taking control of the fire and are not busy rescuing people with smoke inhalation problems.
Deviating from well rehearsed procedures is something the firefighters and their command are trained NOT to do.
In a fire the elevators cannot be used, Grenfell Tower had ONE staircase which was not wide at all. The firefighters need it free so they can go up - which is especially important for the upper levels which are out of reach of the ladders. So even if they received better equipment - I think the technical maximum is 13 floors (or 15).
In any case not enough to reach the upper levels of Grenfell Tower - not for control of the fire, and not for rescuing.
Some people panicked and ran out in the earlier stages (sometimes warned by phone calls from outsiders). Which usually is a mistake, they can perish due to smoke inhalation in the staircase.
But when they were fleeing early enough OR they had the good fortune to come across a firefighter when they were about to collapse or could not find their way - that saved them in THIS scenario.
(I saw several videos where meeting a firefithter saved someone, including the family from the 16th floor that had stayed put for several hours and then ran down. They managed to stay together, they almost failed but met a firefighter when they were about to collapse.)
If ALL people had been ordered out, more people would have been running DOWN (if they were fit enough) on the smoke filled staircase, in darkness.
Likely some trying to take stuff with them. In the early stage it was not as obvious how desperate the situation was especially when you were IN the house and did not see the whole facade and the rapid spread of the fire on it.
While the firefighters in full gear and with equipment try to go UP. They were fearful of a "traffic jam" and people dying on the staircase.
I can see how that was not an option for fire brigade and their command. It was a choice between pest and cholera - and they did not even know which one was which.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
soulmate7 - So what Labour POLICIES do you disagree with ?? - you are aware of the fact of that most UK citizens care first and foremost for THEIR LIFE and THEIR COUNTRY. - The Jewish population in UK has been treated very fairly and polling shows that from all minorities they suffer the least negative bias (that poll was recently quoted by the Times of Israel).
6 % holds anti semitic views (let's assume they are really anti semitic) - more of them in the far right, and the rest evenly spread out over the political spectrum - so no Labour does not have an anti-semitism problem, and it is not abundant with the Tories either.
So - luckily - Jewish people are not suffering harassment - the internet does not count, lots of unhinged people - but in real life, the work place, education, housing, in daily life they are doing well and they looneys do not dare to target them.
I think - and hope - the constant "crying wolf" - will backfire. It is getting a little bit too obvious. And of course the Daily Mail manipulated the photos to create the impression Corbyn had laid down the wreath for a terrorist. No he didn't.
It is very telling that both shills - they must know about the intentional misrepresentation meanwhile - would not clarify that, but go on as IF they believed Corbyn had honoured terrorists.
Mossad targeted PLO, civilians died, Corbyn joined the ceremony for THOSE civilian victims. And did not remember that right away - go figure after four very busy years.
Now, if you disagree with the policies of Corbyn as alleged Labour voter - that is fine. Plenty of other parties out there for you. Labour has enough appeal with a reservoir of people who did not vote before to compensate for those who turn to other parties.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The bombing of Serbia (not Kosovo !! let's be precise with the wording and facts) was NOT MEANT as humanitarian intervention !! - it was sold as such and many people believed it then. One or two years after the BOMBING OF SERBIA (ONE of the parties in a nasty civil war - nasty on ALL sides) it came out the the PRETEXT of the war (concentrations camps run by Serbs, planned genocide etc. was all made up. It was a WMD story).
The US for some reason wanted war, they NEEDED Germany (almost a neighbour to YU, they needed to fly from there, Germany has lots of cultural connections with YU). There was a NEW German governement in charge, a coalition between the Social Democrats (like Labour in the UK) and the Green Party. The latter had absorbed the peace movement. (I assume the US had something on Schroeder and Fischer the party leaders, and also maybe Scharping the war minister and liar in chief).
In Germany "Never Again" (meaning Germany never again taking part in a war of aggression) is proverbial anyway. So nothing but the worst accusations against the Serbians would do to sell the war to the public and to the base of the Green Party (which was furious anyway, then they were not the bourgeoise, trans-atlantic sell-outs they are today).
So Never Again became Never Again Auschwitz, the Serbians THEN were accused of the worst atrocities and the the bombing started (and that was not a UN sanctioned mission). THAT pulled the rug from under the feet of any moderate or level-headed people on the Serbian side.
Later there were atrocities - on all sides (the most published however were the Serbian atrocities). Let's not forget that the US also had jihadists infiltrating the country to stir up even more trouble. (Yugoslavia also had Muslim). The jihadists had run out of a job after the Soviets left Afghanistan, so the U.S. with the help of Saudi Arabia recruited them to make trouble in the heart of Europe.
The German public did not suspect anything wrong - after all Yugoslavia did not have oil. Surely the US had no greedy motif to PUSH FOR WAR in THAT country ?
(There are other motifs - ask Chile, ask Afghanistan, or Grenada).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The OPCW was about to TAKE UP their work LAST weekend, the weekend the US / NATO absolutely "needed" to bomb. - Hint: Syria will be there in 2 weeks or 3 months if you MUST bomb them (killing more people, to "punish" Assad who is doing just fine - can somone explain me the logic behind that).
- but facts and investigations are overrated.
And May needed to get the bombing done quickly. On Monday Parliament was coming back from Easter break.
There was NO WAY anybody (and that includes the spy agencies) could know what was going on. If the spy agencies have mules or double agents - these people can be deceptive towards the Western side as well (and they are not going to have many mules there , it is very dangerous.
The rebels also do not let the citizens travel freely, they are not allowe to flee from an area, when the government army attacks the rebels. They are forced to stay in the area. (In Eastern Aleppeo the rebels would rather amputate than allow civilians to go to the other side of the city where the government was in charge and there was better medical care possible. .
So it was not so easy to place a mule in an area that was held by the Islamists. (I think now the Islamists are are pretty much done, they have to give up, which I think drives the neocons and the Israeli lobby crazy).
Video evidence can be manipulated, or it is from another event (country, time), same is true for photos, let alone tweets. The people, especially "first responders", alledged or real medical staff - circulating the photos might have an agenda. They are for sure friendly with / obedient to the jihadists or they could not have lived in the area.
That is also true for the White Helmets.It is no coincidence that they ONLY operate in areas held by the Islamists. And whatever might be the stance of a man (no woman in these groups) they are either complicit with the agenda of the jihadists or at the very minimum they shut up. (Can you imagine what would happen to a person - or their family - if their mobile phone is confiscated for some reason and they detect messages that are against their interest of the Islamists. I mean they lash women for not covering up or wearing nail polish.
There is a good reason no Western journalist OR any independent NGO (Red Cross, Red Crescent; Doctors w/o borders is there).
If the Red Cross for instance would confirm things that would be another matter.
And these poisoning events (or alleged events) have a nasty habit of coming up WHEN the rebels are losing, and /or peace talks are around the corner. Especially !!! when the Trump admin or Trump himself panic the war mongers by announcing that the US will disengage from Syria (was the case in April 2017 and again in 2018).
Boom. Another social media storm "confirming" use of chemical weapons. And claiming "done by the Syrian government".
(Peter Ford former British ambassador to Syria said last year (paraphrased): Not convinced at all, we need to have a proper investigation, and we need to WAIT for the results.
Assad had nothing to gain but a lot to lose by using chemicals weapons.
The rebels on the other hand could only win, and the grandstanding US / NATO states are not going to hold them accountable. How could they if - IF - they had the intention? These militant groups form, break up, regroup under other names, people desert, take government amnesties.
Then he said: Mark my word, that attitude of the West * makes such attacks more likely. You heard me say it here: We have just given the jihadists 1000 reasons to commit such crimes.
( * to immediately and w/o investigation go after the Syrian government and take the CLAIMS of the rebels at face value and then shortly after respond with airstrikes)
And how stupid does anyone think Assad is ? Never mind he owes the Russians - big time.
And would bring THEM into troubles as well. BTW: Chinese navy joined the Russian navy in the region. Just for a demonstration that they are on Russia's side.
It is almost as if the West is not really interested WHAT happened and WHO REALLY did it (politicians AND media)
As if they are just waiting for a pretext, ANY pretext to have (limited) airstrikes against Syria. They cannot topple Assad, nor will they leave the country alone. Perpetual state of war suits some special interest just fine (and that could inlcude Israel).
And there is an agenda against the allies of Syria (Russia, but also Iran has been on the hit list for the longest time).
And if Trump strays from the war agenda (Assad must go, or having a lot of tensions between Russia and Europe !! and also Russia and U.S. ) there is even more reason to make Trump fall in line. (He looked defeated when he announced the US would react militarily, also in his body language. After he talked about the "succes" of the mission he was much more upbeat. Either mood swings - of he feared the weekend bombing would escalate. - So feared other people. - Weird if Trump might be the only person reasonable enough to be fearful. - Well this time we did not sleepwalk into a major war.
See Gen. Wesely Clark 7 countries in 5 years
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
So ... membership has shot up .... glad to hear that. - I think most people are "selfish" - they are mostly interested in what is going on IN THEIR country. So they are going to shove the "wreath" event * and "anti semitism the 137th" aside and look at what REALLY impacts their life.
Let: see Brexit, Brexit, Brexit, NHS and social services, heat wave indicating what is in store regarding climate change, zero hour contracts and exploding rents, no wage growth (adjusted for inflation) - but we are told that the economy is booming and unemployment is low (depends on how you define "employed").
* I mean it could be that in 2014 he thought (and trusted the Arabic speaking organizers) that this was going to be about the 1985 victims of the Israeli attack - and it likely was.
he may wish now he had stayed in the hotel - lol.
Anyway: compare that with being on the right side of the Iraq war.
Or the ONLY official voice of reason regarding the Skripal affair. Remember early on when May, BoJo etc. all "knew" right away that it was the Russian government - burning AlL diplomatic bridges.
Well the story fell apart after that , it got weirder by the day. (I heard a recent informal polling in Salisbury. people do not know WHAT happened. it MIGHT even have been the Russian government. One thing is sure: they do not believe the official version).
The only politician that had the good sense that as PM even if you suspect that Russia (the government) "dune it" - you leave yourself some room to backpaddle without losing face if the upcoming !! investigation shows contradictory evidence.
The NHS was one of the most cost-efficient systems in the world, certainly compared to all wealthy European nations. And THEN the tories started over the course of 10 years to cut the already lean budget, running it into the ground - so that they could sell privatization as "solution" to the voters.
Their buddies would love that. And after all the banksters had been bailed out, austerity (only for the citizens !) and tax cuts for the rich had the debts and deficits exploding - there was a gap so they were "forced" to defund the NHS.
While the Blairites could not be bothered to scream bloody murder.
So who again was on the right side of the argument (recently the Tories came up with a plan for the NHS, too little too late - but even that is ONLY because of the pressure of Labour under corbyn).
Compare having a functional PROPERLY FUNDED NHS to whether or not Corbyn had a gaffe in 2014 in Tunis when he was a backbencher.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I read that Mogg campaigned with his former nanny (going door to door). - Because she would know how to talk to the "commoners". And unfortunately he needed the votes of said commoners and had to give a "folksy" performance - with the help of nanny. Mogg has the same half baked economic ideas (harmful to the regular people) like all the tories plus the burden of his upbringing.
He could be a harmless toff - ideally he would enjoy his riches and privileges and engage in some charity work, or be a gentleman academic. But no way someone of his mindset can represent The People.
I mean FDR was also from a rich and well connected family, and HE did a lot for the little people in the U.S. - but Mogg is no FDR.
FDR had a lot of resistance in the Democratic Party. But this campaign was during 1932, when the Great Depression had ravaged the U.S., 1 million people had joined the unions in 1932 (that had been beaten down - once more - in the 1920s), strikes and demonstrations everywhere.
And the Russian Revolution was still present in public awareness, it had happened in 1917, that the Russian dictatorship was toppled, aristocrats and rich people had been dispossessed or feared that to happen. The fledgeling democracy was quickly taken over by the Bolshevics (which then killed the czar and his family which had been under house arrest).
A civil war had been going on in Russia (needless to say the U.S., UK, France took sides, and Japan joined too - which indirectly might have helped the Bolshevics the most militant group among the revolutionaries and with talented if ruthless leaders).
So enough Democratic representatives in the U.S. in 1933 (most of them wealthy and still doing fine) were scared enough of the pitchforks that could come for them too - and they went along. Plus FDR had the personality to make them fall in line.
His unheard of programs: no austerity - in the middle of the crisis unemployment and retirement payments were INTRODUCED, the government created millions of jobs, and they paid for it with taxes on the wealthy and the rich).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
6:20 they are really scared. Brexit is a mess, the Tories may be afraid of a a split (hard Brexit, Soft Brexit, Remain camp). I think the non Tories that are so ideological about Brexit are firmly in the UKIP camp (well Farage made a reappearance so that may damage the prospects of Labour).
Let the press and the media foam - at some point the British citzens will look around - and find that the shops and citizens of the Jewish community that THEY know are doing fine.
The U.K. was one of the not too numberous countries that took Jewish refugees in during WW2 (Sweden, Switzerland turned some down, even the U.S. - in many cases that meant their were sent back into the hand of the Nazis),
UK Jews are 0,5 % of the population, they do not tend to vote Labour, anyway. (They tend to be wealthier and better educated and if they want posh interests defended they are better represented by the Tories)
The rest of the country might see that the Jewish people they know are doing O.K. and better,
and may not have much attention and energy to spare about what "offends" (allegedly) the Jewish community. (after all the people that are given the megaphone by the media were not ELECTED by the Jewish community to speak for ALL of them).
I also think they do the cause no favours - people are getting the the impression that well of people are complaining all the time even about harmless remarks (The impression may be wrong. We only hear a certain clique, we do not know how easily offended regular Jews w/o any axe to grind really are).
Jackie Walker a black Jewish Progressive and Momentum co-founder got suspende (and cleared) and later expelled for "anti-semitism".
Look up WHAT she said and decide for yourself.
Truth is - they wanted an eloquent woman outspoken about Palestine gone in a very successful grassroots organization gone - and not even being Jewish could save her from the thought police.
The media can do "anti semitism" in endless circles - the public will NOTICE that they neglect their duty to report on the stuff that is really important for the life of most people.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Even though FDR was also from a rich and well connected family he did a lot for the little people in the U.S. He had a lot of resistance in the Democratic Party. But his presidential campaign was during 1932, when the Great Depression had continued to ravage the U.S., 1 million people had joined the unions in 1932 (that had been beaten down - once more - in the 1920s), strikes and demonstrations everywhere.
And the Russian Revolution - of 1917 - was still present in public awareness.
So enough Democratic representatives in the U.S. in 1933 when FDR took office (most of them wealthy and still doing fine) were scared enough of the pitchforks that could come for them too - and they went along with his economic policies.
Which he also got from non mainstream economists * . After all the mainstream economists had MISERABLY FAILED in 1929. And then with handling the crisis.
* see Labour - and Corbyn did not even talk about the really exciting stuff, like debt-free money, or MMT or QE for the people, although he for sure has a grasp on these concepts, because the advisors associated with Labour. - Well no need to trigger Big Finance and the Blairites and the media owned by rich peopple even more - they are already going after Corbyn. They knew full well he would end some of the looting.
FDR had the personality to make the toffs in his own party fall in line (I admit there Corbyn might need to improve, an ounce or more of ruthlessness would serve him and the country well).
FDR's unheard of programs: no austerity - in the middle of the crisis unemployment benefits and retirement payments were INTRODUCED, the government created millions of jobs, and they paid for it with taxes on the wealthy and the rich.
In the 1940s the 40 hour week became the law of the land - (before some companies and sectors had it). That was done even though it was probable that the U.S. would engage in WW2.
That was meant as - one person per household working a 40 hour job - and it is enough for a family.
Side Note: in Europe the 40 hour week came in the 1950s.
So we had massive increases in productivity since then - over 60 - 70 years - and still work 40 hours in a job - never mind 2 persons per household and often more then 40 hours.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I read that Mogg campaigned with his former nanny (going door to door). - Because she would know how to talk to the "commoners". And unfortunately he needed the votes of said commoners and had to give a "folksy" performance - with the help of nanny.
I mean FDR was also from a rich and well connected family, and he did a lot for the little people in the U.S. - but Mogg is no FDR.
FDR hqd a lot of resistance in the Democratic Party. But this campaign was during 1932, when the Great Depression had ravaged the U.S. , 1 million people had joined the unions (that had been beaten down - once more - in the 1920s) in 1932, strikes and demonstrations everywhere.
And the Russian Revolution was still present in public awareness, it had happened in 1917, that the aristocrats and rich people had been dispossessed, the fledgeling democracy was quickly taken over by the Bolshevics (which then killed the czar and his family which had been under house arrest).
A civil war had been going on (needless to say the U.S., UK, France took sides - which indirectly might have helpeed the Bolshevics the most militant group among the revolutionaries and with talented if ruthless leaders).
So enough Democratic representatives (most of them wealthy and still doing fine) were scared enough to go along. Plus FDR had the personality to make them fall in line. (no austerity, in the middle of the crisis unemployment and retirement payments were INTRODUCED, the government created millions of jobs, and they paid for it with taxes on the wealthy and the rich).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+ Nick It is called political grandstanding, appealing to the voters, etc. etc. - John McCain bomb, bomb, bomb Iran, Mitt Romney did some Red Scare in 2012, and Trump, well.... bomb the families of terrorists.
That said, when that patriotic venting did it's purpose - get the voters behind the politician - it is hopefully back to the business of international affairs. I think Putin is intelligent, knows to play the game of power and does not get carried away by his emotions when it comes to DOING big politics.
Sure the Russian government would kill people (so do the other nations btw) - but WOULD he in THIS case?
On the surface Mr. Skripal was not up to any business against the Russian government. And he had ceased to be important for the Russians long ago. And just in case he had some shady business going on - with the mob or plotting against the government - wasn't MI6 supposed to have an eye on him? After all that could result in trouble for the U.K.
So WHAT would have been the benefits for that assault - at all and especially at that time ?
Attracting mor esanctions, undermining the relationship with Europe - Gas for Germany and Austria !!! Taking attention away from football (which was a big thing for Russia).
Putin also could not benefit from it for the upcoming election if the U.K. would react professionally and with some restraint (indicating they thought the Russian government was one of the suspected but not burning all diplomatic and professional bridges). Such a measured reaction could not have used in the last weeks before the election. And Putin was bound to win anyway, so ....
Putin said during 2016 that he does not pay much attention to the U.S. campaign rhetoric regarding foreign policy. He says - and he is right - that what is said in the U.S. campaign versus how the situation will often is very different
[it could be better despite bellicose rhetoric or worse despite promises that the U.S. would stop regime changing etc.]
Sadly foreign policiy is used in the U.S. to rile up voters and pose as patriotic and to make cheap points. Which often leads to irresponsible and shortsighted policies (so it is not only the rhetoric, the politicians fall for it or get caught up in the momentum).
Anyway: At the end of the day Putin would have to weigh the good it would do for him versus the possible costs.
It does not make sense.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What kind of person becomes a double agent: Motives could be greed, revenge on the "system" (not being promoted for instance, injustice done to a family member), being a psychopath (thriving under stress, the thrill of getting away with it), being blackmailed, a love entanglement, in rare cases even a political or other conviction.
- and once one starts to be a double agent one is of course open for further blackmail, for being exposed by the foreign country..
A person must be really resistant to stress - or really desperate or entangled to live that lifestyle.
So would such a person be good "growing-English-roses-life-quietly" material ??
MI6 paid him well when he was an agent it seems, he bought a nice home in England and I think a vacation home in Spain. Did Mr.Skripal live off his savings, did he get a pension from MI6, did he have need for money ? Or would greed for money be a motive for him ?
Would he get involved with shady characters. maybe using his old contacts (He was arrested in Dec. 2004 if memory serves, so he is not on top of his game, but he still might have some useful contacts and knowledge.
1
-
1
-
1