Silent assent is insidious – and cowardly. In civilized societies, the rule of law ensures that cogent rules, based in law, apply equally to every member of society.
The rule of law protects us from each other, too; that is, from the worst behaviors toward fellow human beings that humans can be given to.
As Aristotle wrote: “It is more proper that law should govern than any one of the citizens.”
Read more at:
The U.S. Supreme Court: Now a Roman Catholic Institution? - The Globalist
Showing posts with label Farce. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Farce. Show all posts
3/2/20
Afghanistan: US-Talibon Agreement guaranteed to fail
The agreement, warned Rep. Barbara Lee, "leaves thousands of troops in
Afghanistan and lacks the critical investments in peacebuilding,
human-centered development, or governance reform needed to rebuild
Afghan society."
The Taliban have agreed
to sever ties with al-Qaida and other international terror groups and
sit down for peace talks with other Afghans, including a government they
have always denounced as a US puppet. In return, Washington will start a
phased withdrawal of troops.
Troop levels will be cut to 8,600 over the next 135 days and five bases will be closed. If both sides keep to their commitments, all U.S. military forces could leave Afghanistan by spring 2021, although Washington is thought to want to keep intelligence operatives on the ground fighting Isis and al-Qaida.
According to Lee, nobody should be fooled into thinking that this is a "peace" agreement.
"It leaves thousands of troops in Afghanistan and lacks the critical investments in peacebuilding, human-centered development, or governance reform needed to rebuild Afghan society," the Congresswoman said.
As peace advocates have been saying since even before the U.S. invasion took place in 2001, following the attacks of September 11, there was never a military solution to the situation in Afghanistan. That remains true today.
"Two decades of trying to bomb our way to peace have made clear: there is no U.S. military solution in Afghanistan," said Stephen Miles, executive director of Win Without War, in a statement.
While the reduction in U.S. military presence "is a welcome step," Stephens said, the agreement "utterly fails to confront the underlying logic of military occupation, lacks any strategy for long-term peace, and falls far short of accountability and justice. It is no 'peace deal.'"
Like Lee, Stephens said a deal that leaves nearly two-thirds of current U.S. forces in Afghanistan for 'counterterrorism' purposes—"bringing levels down to about where they were when Trump entered office"—cannot be considered a peace deal. While the drawdown can be considered a positive development, he said, the agreement "is far from an end to endless war—and further still from anything that would ensure stability, peace, and justice after decades of violence."
Read more at: "So-Called 'Peace Deal' Is Anything But": Critics Warn US-Taliban Deal Exposes Fallacies of Endless War Paradigm | Common Dreams News
 |
| A Fake Deal ? USA-Taliban-Afghanistan |
Troop levels will be cut to 8,600 over the next 135 days and five bases will be closed. If both sides keep to their commitments, all U.S. military forces could leave Afghanistan by spring 2021, although Washington is thought to want to keep intelligence operatives on the ground fighting Isis and al-Qaida.
According to Lee, nobody should be fooled into thinking that this is a "peace" agreement.
"It leaves thousands of troops in Afghanistan and lacks the critical investments in peacebuilding, human-centered development, or governance reform needed to rebuild Afghan society," the Congresswoman said.
As peace advocates have been saying since even before the U.S. invasion took place in 2001, following the attacks of September 11, there was never a military solution to the situation in Afghanistan. That remains true today.
"Two decades of trying to bomb our way to peace have made clear: there is no U.S. military solution in Afghanistan," said Stephen Miles, executive director of Win Without War, in a statement.
While the reduction in U.S. military presence "is a welcome step," Stephens said, the agreement "utterly fails to confront the underlying logic of military occupation, lacks any strategy for long-term peace, and falls far short of accountability and justice. It is no 'peace deal.'"
Like Lee, Stephens said a deal that leaves nearly two-thirds of current U.S. forces in Afghanistan for 'counterterrorism' purposes—"bringing levels down to about where they were when Trump entered office"—cannot be considered a peace deal. While the drawdown can be considered a positive development, he said, the agreement "is far from an end to endless war—and further still from anything that would ensure stability, peace, and justice after decades of violence."
Read more at: "So-Called 'Peace Deal' Is Anything But": Critics Warn US-Taliban Deal Exposes Fallacies of Endless War Paradigm | Common Dreams News
2/29/20
Taliban-US Deal IS A Fake Deal: "So-Called 'Peace Deal' Is Anything But": Critics Warn US-Taliban Deal Exposes Fallacies of Endless War Paradigm
The agreement, warned Rep. Barbara Lee, "leaves thousands of troops in
Afghanistan and lacks the critical investments in peacebuilding,
human-centered development, or governance reform needed to rebuild
Afghan society."
The Taliban have agreed
to sever ties with al-Qaida and other international terror groups and
sit down for peace talks with other Afghans, including a government they
have always denounced as a US puppet. In return, Washington will start a
phased withdrawal of troops.
Troop levels will be cut to 8,600 over the next 135 days and five bases will be closed. If both sides keep to their commitments, all U.S. military forces could leave Afghanistan by spring 2021, although Washington is thought to want to keep intelligence operatives on the ground fighting Isis and al-Qaida.
According to Lee, nobody should be fooled into thinking that this is a "peace" agreement.
"It leaves thousands of troops in Afghanistan and lacks the critical investments in peacebuilding, human-centered development, or governance reform needed to rebuild Afghan society," the Congresswoman said.
As peace advocates have been saying since even before the U.S. invasion took place in 2001, following the attacks of September 11, there was never a military solution to the situation in Afghanistan. That remains true today.
"Two decades of trying to bomb our way to peace have made clear: there is no U.S. military solution in Afghanistan," said Stephen Miles, executive director of Win Without War, in a statement.
While the reduction in U.S. military presence "is a welcome step," Stephens said, the agreement "utterly fails to confront the underlying logic of military occupation, lacks any strategy for long-term peace, and falls far short of accountability and justice. It is no 'peace deal.'"
Like Lee, Stephens said a deal that leaves nearly two-thirds of current U.S. forces in Afghanistan for 'counterterrorism' purposes—"bringing levels down to about where they were when Trump entered office"—cannot be considered a peace deal. While the drawdown can be considered a positive development, he said, the agreement "is far from an end to endless war—and further still from anything that would ensure stability, peace, and justice after decades of violence."
Read more at: "So-Called 'Peace Deal' Is Anything But": Critics Warn US-Taliban Deal Exposes Fallacies of Endless War Paradigm | Common Dreams News
|
| A Fake Deal ? USA-Taliban-Afghanistan |
Troop levels will be cut to 8,600 over the next 135 days and five bases will be closed. If both sides keep to their commitments, all U.S. military forces could leave Afghanistan by spring 2021, although Washington is thought to want to keep intelligence operatives on the ground fighting Isis and al-Qaida.
According to Lee, nobody should be fooled into thinking that this is a "peace" agreement.
"It leaves thousands of troops in Afghanistan and lacks the critical investments in peacebuilding, human-centered development, or governance reform needed to rebuild Afghan society," the Congresswoman said.
As peace advocates have been saying since even before the U.S. invasion took place in 2001, following the attacks of September 11, there was never a military solution to the situation in Afghanistan. That remains true today.
"Two decades of trying to bomb our way to peace have made clear: there is no U.S. military solution in Afghanistan," said Stephen Miles, executive director of Win Without War, in a statement.
While the reduction in U.S. military presence "is a welcome step," Stephens said, the agreement "utterly fails to confront the underlying logic of military occupation, lacks any strategy for long-term peace, and falls far short of accountability and justice. It is no 'peace deal.'"
Like Lee, Stephens said a deal that leaves nearly two-thirds of current U.S. forces in Afghanistan for 'counterterrorism' purposes—"bringing levels down to about where they were when Trump entered office"—cannot be considered a peace deal. While the drawdown can be considered a positive development, he said, the agreement "is far from an end to endless war—and further still from anything that would ensure stability, peace, and justice after decades of violence."
Read more at: "So-Called 'Peace Deal' Is Anything But": Critics Warn US-Taliban Deal Exposes Fallacies of Endless War Paradigm | Common Dreams News
1/27/19
Britain- Brexit: For the poor, it’s not Europe that’s the problem. It’s austerity - by William Keegan
As the Brexit
farce proceeds, it is worth remembering that before David Cameron made
his catastrophic error of calling a referendum, the EU was way down the
list of British people’s concerns in almost every opinion poll. Indeed,
not even in the first 11.
The central point is that Brexit became the focus for all manner of discontents, many of them understandable. But leaving the EU would indubitably not be the answer to them, and would be guaranteed not to make the discontents into “glorious summer”.
Indeed, it would exacerbate the sources of this discontent. Why? Surely it is becoming increasingly obvious that growing swaths of British industry – much of it foreign-owned by conglomerates that enjoy the advantages of the single market – are cutting back their investment plans and in many cases planning to relocate to mainland Europe. The prospect of the diminution of the economic base of the country has dire implications not only for employment and living standards, but also for the tax base on which living standards depend.
We have spent 45 years becoming an integral region of Europe, creating an economic omelette that no one in their right mind would try to unscramble. Unfortunately there are a lot of not-so-right minds about, some of them in the cabinet, and we have the misfortune to have a prime minister who transmits but does not listen, and is fixated on a treacherous mission.
Read more: For the poor, it’s not Europe that’s the problem. It’s austerity | Business | The Guardian
The central point is that Brexit became the focus for all manner of discontents, many of them understandable. But leaving the EU would indubitably not be the answer to them, and would be guaranteed not to make the discontents into “glorious summer”.
Indeed, it would exacerbate the sources of this discontent. Why? Surely it is becoming increasingly obvious that growing swaths of British industry – much of it foreign-owned by conglomerates that enjoy the advantages of the single market – are cutting back their investment plans and in many cases planning to relocate to mainland Europe. The prospect of the diminution of the economic base of the country has dire implications not only for employment and living standards, but also for the tax base on which living standards depend.
We have spent 45 years becoming an integral region of Europe, creating an economic omelette that no one in their right mind would try to unscramble. Unfortunately there are a lot of not-so-right minds about, some of them in the cabinet, and we have the misfortune to have a prime minister who transmits but does not listen, and is fixated on a treacherous mission.
Read more: For the poor, it’s not Europe that’s the problem. It’s austerity | Business | The Guardian
2/1/17
Saudi Arabia: "the hypocrisy continues" as Trump and the Saudi king discuss major pact to confront Iran - by Ben Norton
 |
| "the hypocrisy continues" |
The official Saudi Press Agency reported that Trump and Saudi King Salman stressed the “depth and strength of the strategic relations between the two countries.”
The two agreed to greater military intervention in the Middle East, and the creation of so-called safe zones in Syria and Yemen. The details of how such zones would be created are not clear, but if they were instituted, it would likely take direct U.S. military involvement.
Hillary Clinton ran her 2016 presidential campaign against Trump on a pledge to create a “safe zone” in Syria, though she had previously acknowledged that instituting a safe zone could “kill a lot of Syrians” and lead to “American and NATO involvement where you take a lot of civilians.”
Reuters reported, citing a senior Saudi source, that the two leaders “agreed to step up counter-terrorism and military cooperation and enhance economic cooperation.”
The White House said Trump and Saudi King Salman also “agreed on the importance of strengthening joint efforts to fight the spread of radical Islamic terrorism.”
Saudi Arabia, a close U.S. ally since the 1930s, is a theocratic absolute monarchy that brutally represses all internal dissent, beheads nonviolent protesters and funds and spreads extremist Islamism throughout the globe. A leaked 2014 email from Hillary Clinton revealed, citing Western intelligence sources, that the U.S.-backed regimes in Saudi Arabia and Qatar supported the genocidal militant group ISIS.
Saudi Arabia also has the world’s second-largest oil reserves, plays a leading role in the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), and has been offered more than $115 billion in weapons deals by the U.S. government in the past eight years. U.S. arms sales to Saudi Arabia continue uninterrupted under Trump.
Note EU-Digest: Where there has been no difference between the Obama and Trump Administrations policies is in their both dedicated "love and admiration" for Saudi Arabia, the main source and training center for the worlds most dangerous terrorists, including those which masterminded and carried out the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the twin Towers in New York.
Saudi Arabia is also one of the most oppressive, undemocratic and anti-women's rights countries in the world.
They were, however, not included by the Trump Administration on their Ant-Muslim (possible Islamic terrorist) immigration list.
So when you hear a US government official speak about "American values "- you might ask, what does he/she mean by that?
Read more: Trump and the Saudi king discuss major pact to confront Iran - Salon.com
11/3/15
Turkey has become Pakistan on the Mediterranean: Election Results Have Dire Consequences for Turkey - by Michael Rubin (Newsweek)
 |
| Erdogan - the Sultan in Chief |
The election was a farce. In any election, AKP cheating gives it an extra 5 percent or so bonus. That figure, cited privately by Turkish politicians, diplomats and veteran Turkish journalists, takes into account stuffed ballots, lost ballot boxes from opposition-held areas, voter suppression and—in the November 1 election—enough registered dead people to make a corrupt Chicago politician blush.
Erdogan long ago became the Turkish equivalent of corrupt Russian leader Vladimir Putin, minus the polonium tea (at least until he gets his hands on some polonium). He has sworn "to raise a religious generation," and he will now succeed.
Now he also seeks to change the constitution to confirm his position as sultan-in-chief. Some diplomats comfort themselves with the fact that Erdogan's new parliamentary majority falls short of that needed to simply impose constitutional change and even short of that needed to call a referendum.
These analysts make the mistake of assuming that Erdogan respects institutions or plays by the rules. He is within easy bribery of the additional 15 votes he needs for a referendum and can fix any ballot to conform to his desired results. It's just a matter of time.
So what next for Turkey?
President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry may believe themselves sophisticated for denying the obvious, but Turkey is a state sponsor of terrorism. It has become Pakistan on the Mediterranean.
Erdogan supports the Islamic State militant group (ISIS), Hamas, jihadi terrorism in Sudan and, to some extent at least, Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and Boko Haram. Erdogan is an ideologue, and he will not hesitate to kill people to promote hatred and intolerance.
Turkey's support for the Islamic State and Al-Qaeda affiliates inside Syria will, in the long term, claim the lives of thousands inside Turkey. The recent bombings in Ankara and beheading in southeastern Turkey should send chills down the spine of anyone betting on Turkish stability.
The chief victims of Erdogan's strengthened rule will be women. Erdogan has made clear his view that women should have three babies, and he has called birth control "treason" and systematically excluded women from government service. He has even declared a war on Caesarean sections, as they deny God's will.
Erdogan despises the press. He has not only transformed Turkey into "the world's largest prison for journalists," but has been increasingly shameless in his efforts, seizing opposition newspapers and shutting down independent television stations midbroadcast.
Many journalists will retire or flee; others make moral compromise. Cengiz Çandar, for example, a columnist for Radikal and a veteran of both the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and the U.S. Institute of Peace, went so far as to endorse the arrests of his fellow journalists.
Turkey has already fallen behind Russia in press freedom—no easy feat; it is well on its way to falling behind Iran. How low it can go is anyone's guess, as Erdogan even turns to punishing thought-crimes.
The Turkish economy is on borrowed time, and perhaps a covert Qatari line of credit. When the Turkish economy imploded in 2000 to 2001, Turks turned to Erdogan, who promised an end to corruption and a technocratic fix.
This time around, they will have nowhere to turn. To invest in Turkey is akin to investing in Russia: Expect to lose money. The question for the world is, "What might Erdogan do to distract from the looming disaster?"
Obama at first embraced Erdogan and then chose to ignore him. A new U.S. president in 2016 will not have such a luxury.
He or she will have to answer some very basic questions about the U.S. approach to Turkey. It's time to plan for a world where Turkey is an adversary and a catalyst for regional instability, not a pillar upon which to rely.
For the complete report go to Newsweek
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)