The US, their wars and global politics - My views

My views on the role the US plays on the international stage today are pretty simple to outline:

Up to the Great Depression, in the 1930-ies, the US economy was pretty much centred inwards: the US domestic market. Up to then, the US was not a world-power, and had hardly any affluence abroad.

The Great Depression hit the US very hard, and shook it fundamentally...: a large Western country, unable to feed its own people. To me, WWII, just after the Great Depression, was a pivotal time in the US economy and its global politics: Sucked into WWII, the US learned that by ensuring a US global presence, through its global military and political presence, it could ensure their global economic presence: assuring they had a wider steady input of natural resources (oil, minerals, basic products) and a much bigger output towards the global consumer market, far beyond their national borders.

This lesson-learned was not new, by the way: this was how the English global Empire was built and maintained between the 18th and 20th century: A global economic power importing basic supplies and exporting goods, duly supported by a global military land and sea force.

And as WWII was the point where the English Empire started to crumble, the US Empire was born almost "naturally" to fill that vacuum: through continued global military dominance, global political influence, ensure a steady and stable domestic economic growth.

And as of WWII, the US did everything in its political and military power, to ensure its economic interests were preserved. Unfortunately most of the US economy is dominated by and serving large US mega-companies, who -in turn- also finance US political parties ensuring US (and thus global) politics were steered in the way those companies want. The fuzzy "border" between the US mega companies and US politics makes an interesting subject by itself, resembling legalized bribery.

After WWII, the subsequent global cold war between the US and "the communists" was not an ideological war, but an economic war, ensuring US political, military and thus economic influence was ensured. Be it via public and visible wars or military actions (Korea, Vietnam/SE Asia, Cuba, Panama, Grenada, the Balkans) or subversive/proxy wars (South and Central America, Africa, and later on, the Middle East), the US did everything it could, to ensure and maintain its dominating position on the global stage, purely for economic profits. Global politics, military and subversive (or even humanitarian) actions were just "a means", to serve its own economical interests.

As such, no matter which war the US was involved in, since the 1950-ies, it looked first at their own economic interests. The politics, of "spreading of democracy", "war on terror" or whatever other reasons they might give, none of that matters. It is their economic interests which dominated all, learning from the Great Depression that their limited domestic market could not sustain the economic growth and gain they needed.

Though defeated in SE Asia, and despite some (temporary) gains in subversive actions in South and Central America in the '70-'80-ies, the big turn-around (according to me) was the 2003 Iraq war: Fed by blunt fake and false propaganda, Iraq was invaded under false pretences: that war was purely for Iraq's oil resources and its strategic location in the Middle East.

Followed by Libya, and various others wars (either successful or failed attempts like Syria), the US ended up where we are now in 2026: Venezuela and Iran.

Neither of their unilateral military actions in Venezuela nor Iran are about "democracy", turning "dictatorships into power to the people", nor "imminent military threats". It is all about economic power and economic dominance, where their military, political (or even humanitarian) actions merely serve that one single US goal:
To ensure an imperialistic dominance of the world's economy, to ensure an economic dominance, so that a 1930-ies "Great Depression" will not happen again, AND to ensure it financially "feeds" the big US companies' global dominance, knowing these companies are the main funders/sponsors of the US political parties.

In my view: all global imperialists, be it the Roman, Christian, Byzantine, Spanish, British, Communist or US empires, are due to fail eventually. The only difference is nowadays through a fast-connected world, empires fail much faster than ever before.

As such, the US empire, despite its current military, political and economic might, will eventually fail, like all other imperialistic powers failed before.

Picture via BBC (Anadolu via Getty Images)

Read the full post...

The Afghan Quarterback

The coach had put together the perfect team for the Chicago Bears. The only thing that was missing was a good quarterback. He had scouted all the colleges and even the Canadian and European Leagues, but he couldn't find a ringer who could ensure a Super Bowl win.

Then one night while watching CNN he saw a war-zone scene in Afghanistan. In one corner of the background, he spotted a young Afghan soldier with a truly incredible arm. He threw a hand-grenade straight into a 15th story window 100 yards away. -KABOOM!

He threw another hand-grenade 75 yards away, right into a chimney. -KA-BLOOEY!

Then he threw another at a passing car going 90 mph. -BULLS-EYE!

"I've got to get this guy!" Coach said to himself. "He has the perfect arm!"

So, he brings him to the States and teaches him the great game of football. And the Bears go on to win the Super Bowl.

The young Afghan is hailed as the great hero of football, and when the coach asks him what he wants, all the young man wants is to call his mother.

"Mom," he says into the phone, "I just won the Super Bowl!"

"I don't want to talk to you, the old Muslim woman says. "You are not my son!"

"I don't think you understand, Mother," the young man pleads. "I've won the greatest sporting event in the world. I'm here among thousands of my adoring fans."

"No! Let me tell you!" his mother retorts. "At this very moment, there are gunshots all around us. The neighborhood is a pile of rubble. Your two brothers were beaten within an inch of their lives last week, and I have to keep your sister in the house so she doesn't get raped!" The old lady pauses, and then tearfully says,

"I will never forgive you for making us move to Chicago!

With thanks to TGIF-Jeff!

Read the full post...

The US and dirty wars

They say if you put a frog in water and slowly warm up the pot, the frog will not notice the increasing temperature and boil to death. A metaphor showing how often we get used to situations, as they gradually get worse and run out of control...

I watched the documentary movie "Dirty Wars" by Jeremy Scahill, an American investigative journalist who also exposed the "frog in boiling water" role of Blackwater in US wars and homeland security.

"Dirty Wars" exposes the increasing role of US covert operations to capture or (mostly) kill anyone, anywhere, without any due juridicial process or proper public oversight. "Dirty wars" takes the specific examples of the killing of civilians in Gardez (Afghanistan), women and children in Al Ma'jalah (Yemen) and of two US civilians in Yemen (cleric Anwar Awlaki and his 16-year-old son Abdulrahman Anwar al-Awlaki). It focuses on the role of JSOC, the notorious US para-military branch which reports directly to the US President, bypassing the "normal" military chain of command.

I think this is a typical example of "a frog in boiling water"... We all sympathized with the US, and the victims of the World Trade Center attacks on 9/11. There was a significant global consent of the US invasion of Afghanistan to eradicate the Taliban and kill Bin Laden. But as of then things have just turned for the worse and the US took the global sympathy of 9/11 to move on to abolish proper human rights, juridicial process, international law and public oversight. Be it the invasion of Iraq -now internationally recognized as based on fake evidence and subversive economic motives-, the capture and detention of civilians -Guantanamo-, to random drone attacks on the soil of sovereign countries -just about anywhere in the world-, to the use of private militia and obscure security firms to execute its own "private" wars, and intrusion of the privacy of citizens -the revelations of Edward Snowden on NSA practices-,....

As time went by, from 9/11 to now, I think it is time to jump out of the boiling water, and question the foreign politics of the US, with all of its related issues. How is it that a single country, which prouds itself to stand up for worldwide democracy, can get away with worldwide unilateral military action without being questioned?

The issue is not just the accountability, oversight, human rights, states' sovereignty, etc.. But the issue is also that it is getting worse. "Dirty wars" claims that the unilateral covert operations increased over time -more now under Obama than under Bush JR, for God's sake-. It gradually shaped the world's perception of the US, and how it turns the world more polarized "extremist" action against the US and its foreign policy. The issue is not just the foreign policy actions themselves, but how they clearly don't work. Proof in case is that the initial feeling of sympathy for the US in Afghanistan and even Iraq, turned completely against the US, and how they polarized the world so much "with us or against us". With a growing sense of "against us".

No matter how cynical it might be, but somewhere it is comforting to see how Russia bluntly and publicly put the US foreign policy with its back against the wall: in Syria - where Putin took the wind out of Obama's sails for an imminent assault on Syria through shrewd foreign diplomacy, and did so again in the Ukraine -by invading the country before the US could say "1-2-3"-. While the latter - the invasion of a sovereign country- can not be justified, it is reassuring that somewhere the world powers might be slightly more balanced than in 2001-2003, even it were by matching the US through employing the same foreign tactics.

It is time for us, frogs, the leap out of the boiling water, and call the US to justice. It would not only serve international political balance, but most of all serve the rights of us, the citizens of the world.

Photo courtesy J.Ronald Lee

Read the full post...

This is what winning looks like

John Allen, the US general in charge of NATO's troops in Afghanistan, handed over his command to his successor. But not without a farewell speech, in which he declared:

"This is victory, this is what winning looks like, and we should not shrink from using these words." (Full)

Dear General Allen, I have some news from you: you have not accomplished shit in Afghanistan. The Taliban have not been defeated, and are just waiting for you to leave. The living conditions of the Afghani people have not become better and certainly not safer.

Actually your intervention did make a difference. Nowadays, Afghanistan is once again, one of the largest exporters of heroin, while poppy growing was fully eradicated under the Taliban rule before your invasion.

If this is what US victory looks like, you can keep it.


Picture courtesy TheChive

Read the full post...

US mass killings: good for gun sales

In the four days after the July 20 shooting in the Colorado movie theater, dealers in the state submitted 3,647 requests for state background checks required to buy a firearm, according to the FBI. That’s 41% more than during the same four days the prior week and a 38% increase over the first Friday to Monday in July. (Source)

I just crack up with this quote in the same article:

At a gun show in Loveland, Colorado (ed: no kidding, "A gunshow in Loveland"), two days after the shooting, customers bought rifles, scopes and ammunition from dealers such as Mike Ellis from Greeley.

Ellis, 43, said he regretted that no one in the theater crowd shot back.

“If there were several people carrying arms it probably wouldn’t have played out as it did,” Elllis said.

Thanks to GB for the tip.

Cartoon courtesy Bill Day / PoliticalCartoons.com

Read the full post...

So why did the West push for South Sudan's independence?

75% of the oil reserve in Sudan, perhaps 6.5 billion barrels, is located in South Sudan (Source).

Since the "second" Sudan war between the North and South started in 1983, an estimated 2 million civilians were killed, and at least 4 million were displaced at least once.

During the war, aid agencies set up one of the largest, most costly and complex humanitarian relief operations ever, "Operation Lifeline Sudan", running a "relief pipeline" from Kenya (and partially Uganda) into the South. An operation which was often criticised as "fueling the conflict".

True or not, I guess "Operation Bulletline Sudan" fueled the conflict much more: While Russia -mostly through proxies- and China -mostly thru "oil-for-bullets" deals- made good business of arms deals with the North, the "West" kept "an extensive arms pipeline" running to the South during the whole conflict.
For years, the world kept their eyes closed, as business was good: selling weapons dearly, and getting cheap oil, I mean, what more can one wish?

This US arms supply to the South continues to run up to this very day, mostly through Kenya, one of the strongest US proxies in the region. Meanwhile, Russia and China continue to supply Khartoum. What will this lead to? An expanded conflict border zone where North and South Sudan dispute oil fields.

Aren't we lucky there is an embargo for selling arms to Sudan?

PS: this map might indicate the oilfields more clearly (Tnx @MFB)

Read the full post...

Yeaah, It's a Party in the CIA

yeah, we’ve got our backups all over the world,
from Kazakhstan to Bombay;
payin’ the bribes like yeah, pluggin’ the leaks like yeah;
interrogating the scum of the earth,
we’ll break them by the break of day!

yeeeaaahhh, it’s a party in the CIA!

by Weird Al Yankovic

Read the full post...

US, UN and the Taliban: An invitation to dance.

There are no coincidences in life. Certainly not if they concern politics. Once again, UN and US politics have only one letter of difference.

KABUL: The United States and other foreign powers are engaged in preliminary talks with the Taliban about a possible settlement to the near decade-long war in Afghanistan, Afghan President Hamid Karzai said on Saturday. (Source)

and on the very same day:

The UN Security Council has split the international sanctions regime for the Taliban and al-Qaida to encourage the Taliban to join reconciliation efforts in Afghanistan. (Source)

So, all of a sudden, the Taliban is no longer the arch-rival of neither US, UN or the Afghan government anymore...? All of a sudden, they are not the harbour of terrorism anymore? Is it because the Taliban have become good boys? Starting to behave, and wear suits and ties as they are now become devoted Catholics?

Or might we just have another Vietnam and "Black Hawk Down"-Somalia scenario, where the US is trying everything possible, to bail out of Afghanistan, using no matter what means. After all, why not? "If you can't beat them, you might as well join them (again)", the US will be thinking. What the flip to they care what happens to the country after they leave?

So Mr.USA: after a decade of war in Afghanistan, what will you have accomplished? Did the threat of terrorism get any less? Was the Taliban or Al Qaeda eradicated? Any less threat for another 9/11?
What have you accomplished Mr.USA, apart from having plunged yet another country into disarray, pushed it further down into poverty and insecurity, killing tens of thousands along the way, and causing suffering to zillions more? Did the women's right flourish? Burqa's being massively exchanged for bikini's? Every child now goes to school, and is properly fed? Open freedom of speech? Drug fields completely eradicated? None of the above, Mr.USA, so shame on you.

Shame on you.


Picture courtesy Free Republic

Read the full post...

A historic overview: The US involvement in Iran

Via St Pete for Peace. Discovered via Pros before Hos

Read the full post...

Civilian casualties in Iraq, Afghanistan and 9/11

Putting the amount of innocent victims into perspective...

This also means by invading Iraq and being unable to guarantee civil stability (a responsibility enforced by the Fourth Geneva Convention), the US has directly or indirectly killed more Iraqi civilians than Sadam ever did (989,788 versus about 600,000).


Graph courtesy Prose Before Hos

Read the full post...

Libya and bin Laden,... is the West on a new killing spree?

No matter how horrific the 9/11 attacks were. No matter how repressive the Ghadaffi's regime was - including clusterbombing his own people. Still, we, "the civilized world" should show higher ethics.

And we don't. We use "an eye for an eye" tactics, meeting violence with more violence, having our hate and mass hysteria lead us. That's why I have been upset with the world lately.

I think it is immoral to wildly celebrate the murder of a man, even if he was a criminal brain who killed thousands. The more so as Bin Laden was not a cause. He was a symptom. A symptom of a divided world, mostly caused by decennia of frauded US foreign policy. A policy rooted in expansionism, religious discrimination and a hunger to dominate economically and politically.
Now bin Laden is dead, will the world be a better place? I don't think so.

Even worse, what happens in Libya. I have no respect for a repressive leader. I have no respect for any leader turning his arms against his own people to stay in power. But I also have no respect for an international community who miss-uses a pretty clear Security Council resolution to topple a government. Even if it is a repressive government.
The mandate given by the UN Security Council resolution on Libya (#1970) is very clear: protect civilians under threat of attack, enforce a no-fly zone, an arms embargo and a freeze of assets.
This is not what NATO does. NATO is executing a clear support operation for the "rebels", in their attempt to topple Ghadaffi. And that includes attempts to kill Ghadaffi. And nobody cries foul, because Ghadaffi is the bad guy.

Not even if one of the assassination attempts kills Ghadaffi's 29 year old son, and three of Ghadaffi's grandsons. All younger than 12. Only the West can get away unpunished with killing three young boys without being accused of war crimes.

After toppling the Afghanistan and Iraq regime, it seems we are all too eager to open up new war fronts. Wars to which we know no end. Wars which will lead to years long of human suffering. As in Afghanistan and in Iraq.

I am upset with the West, right now. And sad. Even more so when I see people celebrating the death of a person, when I hear all the joy on Twitter, when I hear all the cries of "This is a good day for the nation, God bless America". Just like "Gott mit Uns", the motto of the German Nazis.

If there is a God, I am sure he does not bless wars. I am sure he does not bless the killing of three small boys. Even if they were the grandsons of a cruel dictator.

Meanwhile innocent civilians are getting slaughtered in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia. A civil uprising met with violent repression, very much like the one in Libya. But there... "Sssshhht, don't say a word! They are our allies!".

Despicable, that's all I can say. And we are all guilty of not crying foul.

Read the full post...

Breaking news: Obama is an American Citizen

(to view the video, you might have to first click the "close" button in the top right corner, to close the ad)

For the elite not following the news: Trump and others claimed that Obama was not born in the US, which created a US media hype...
This showed once more there is no end to the hot air US media can sell.

Here is Jon Stewart taking a piss at them all. "This man should run for president!" Love it!

PS: Now the only issues remaining:
- Obama's christianing certificate ("He really is a Muslim")
- Justification for his extensive stay in several Muslim countries ("He really attended a madrasas instead of kindergarten")
- Obama's DNA testing to show he is really who he says he is ("He can't be")
- Media claims that the island of Oahu is actually an independent state, and not part of the US Commonwealth ("See the lawsuit of the Single State of Oahu versus the United States of America, for the protection of the Inherited Pacific Guano Reserves")


Video courtesy MediaIte

Read the full post...

US military hijacks social media

The United States military is developing software that will let it secretly manipulate social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter by using fake online personas to influence Internet conversations and spread pro-American propaganda.

A Californian corporation has been awarded a contract with US Central Command (CENTCOM), which oversees US armed operations in the Middle East and Central Asia, to develop what is described as an "online persona management service" that will allow one US serviceman or woman to control up to 10 separate identities based all over the world.

The project has been likened by Web experts to China's attempts to control and restrict free speech on the Internet. Critics are likely to complain that it will allow the US military to create a false consensus in online conversations, crowd out unwelcome opinions and smother commentaries or reports that do not correspond with its own objectives. (Source)

Original picture courtesy Evan Vucci/AP

Read the full post...

In the shadow of the news: 1940's US syphilis experiments on humans

Guatemalans subjected to U.S. syphilis experiments in the 1940s are suing federal health officials to compensate them for health problems they have suffered.

The lawsuit comes after revelations that U.S. scientists studying the effects of penicillin in the 1940s deliberately infected about 700 Guatemalan prisoners, mental patients, soldiers and orphans. None was informed or gave consent. (...)

The Guatemalan experiments were hidden for decades, until a medical historian uncovered the records in 2009. (Source)

Why does this remind me of the experiments on humans another nation did around the 1940's?

Guess the earlier US apology did not help.


Cartoon courtesy Indiana University

Read the full post...

The subjectivity of war hunger

A week ago, it seemed that a military intervention in Libya was far fetched. Less so today.

That raises the question of the norms the international community uses to determine for which countries it should intervene.

If it is:
- use of unreasonable armed force against civilians
- atrocities against civilian population
- instigating civil war
- causing a mass exodus of civilian refugees

... then Israel should have been "invaded" a long time ago, I guess.

Certainly when we think of using internationally banned weapons against civilians and civilian targets (use of white phosphorus in densely populated civilian areas of Gaza), economic sanctions against Israel would have been justified. As well as expelling them from all kinds UN committees, a Security Council condemnation, engaging the ICC to prosecute Israeli government officials, and implementing a no-fly zone over the country...

So what are the prediction when this will all happen? For Libya, probably within the next week. For Israel, probably never.

Ok, but then how about a military intervention in Ivory Coast? Or a no-fly zone above Sudan?


Cartoon courtesy Al Jazeerah

Read the full post...

"Inside Job", a must see documentary

On the way back from India, I watched the documentary Inside Job, which tells the story of the global financial meltdown of 2008. Through a series of interviews, knitted together like a thriller, it shows the different issues directly or indirectly related to the burst of the bubble, leading up to a domino-like collapse of the financial pyramid scheme the US government had tolerated to exist.

In a nutshell, loan sharks were encouraged to approve mortgages (even worse, "to chase people aggressively to take a mortgage), for people who had no collateral, nor any means to pay off the mortgage.
As it was an easy way to make a quick buck (for the banks, the bank reps, etc..), these mortgages were issued on a massive scale, even though everyone knew these loans were going to fail. And once a mortgage failed, there'd be no way for a bank to get something of value against the loan failure, as there was not collateral.

That was the basis: a bubble-loan. Or even worse: a bubble everyone concerned, knew would burst. But banks were happy: on paper, they issued loads of loans, cash was flowing, turn-over peaked. Bank reps got commissions on the loans, and the economy got a (short-term) boost.

The banks concerned where AAA-rated giants, so when they were selling those mortgages amongst each other, nobody asked any questions. Worse, those banks invented a financial scheme, valued as first class investments, where they insured themselves against the losses of the loans, and traded that insurance amongst each other, as real values, again on a massive scale.
In short: they were betting on a horse to win and at the same time, they were betting on the same horse to loose. But there was no real horse. Everyone just pretended.

The US treasury and US oversight mechanisms knew what was going on, were warned about the bubble, but did not want to regulate the whole pyramid scheme, as it involved that much money, they feared regulation would break the speed of the economic revival. So bankers were left to do as they pleased.

Of course, the bubble burst, and the whole pyramid scheme collapsed in no time, pulling down all foreign investors in those banks, and causing the first real international financial meltdown. As a consequence millions of people around the world lost their job as all of a sudden, the economy was left with no liquidity and companies had to close their business. Banks went out of business, and many people lost their savings, real savings.

This is not a happy-happy movie. I can not believe how it is possible for a government to allow the financial industry to free-wheel, purely for the short-term gain of the economy, knowing on forehand that it would only be a few years before it collapsed.

On top of that, it is impossible for me to imagine how such a large part of the US economy could have been based on "void". On something which was not real, had no real value. But then again, we are talking about the same government that allowed the Internet bubble to be built in the late 90's, collapsing in 2000.

Worse is the realization that because of the US' greed for easy money, the rest of the world suffered. It is not only the greed, but the deeply instilled financial and economic individualism pulling everyone in for a quick buck. The documentary has a short sideline about the academici, who knew what was going on, but did not say anything... Simply because there was a revolving door mechanism where economic experts from different universities were consultants for the banks involved, and paid high fees to write academic papers glorifying the bubble itself.

And to top it all off, many people who sat at the core of the 2008 meltdown, are still in power, either in corporations, or in the current Obama government.

Fast food, Fast money, Fast wars,... As they say.. "only in the US!"...

Disgusting. The only good thing that came out of it, is that internationally, the US is getting more and more resistance. A dynamic that Bush started in 2003, while invading Iraq, continues: nations are starting to realize that the "US way" is not the way to go, and move back to their own ground, economically, financially, culturally...

And that is a good thing for the equilibrium of the world.

Read the full post...

Cartoon: Khadaffi's political system

Cartoon courtesy The Dry Bones Blog

Read the full post...

Libya: American Neo-con see opportunities for a new war. (Iiiie-haa..)

In a distinct echo of the tactics they pursued to encourage U.S. intervention in the Balkans and Iraq, a familiar clutch of neo-conservatives appealed Friday for the United States and NATO to "immediately" prepare military action to help bring down the regime of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi and end the violence that is believed to have killed well over a thousand people in the past week.

The appeal, which came in the form of a letter signed by 40 policy analysts, including more than a dozen former senior officials who served under President George W. Bush, was organized and released by the Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI), a two-year-old neo-conservative group that is widely seen as the successor to the more-famous – or infamous – Project for the New American Century (PNAC). (Source)

Amongst the co-signees was former Bush Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, in more moderate circles better known for his distinguishly short stint as the president of the Worldbank. While that nomination disgusted anyone with a sound mind, we all danced on his ashes when Old Pal Paul had to resign after it became clear he abused his position to give his girlfriend a highly paid job (within the same poverty-fighting organisation).


Article discovered via Aid News. Cartoon (slightly modified) by Jim Morin, discovered via The English Blog

Read the full post...

After Tunesia, Egypt and Libya, is the US next?

Fact:

The battle against Republican attempts to undermine trade union rights is spreading with Democratic lawmakers fleeing the state of Indiana in a bid to block anti-union legislation, and workers' rights protests swelling in the US Midwest.
(..)
Thousands of protesters have occupied the state Capitol in Wisconsin for eight days now in an attempt to block a bill that would strip public employees of most of their collective bargaining rights.

Governor Scott Walker insists he is unbowed by the protest -- which reached a peak of 65,000 people on Saturday -- but the bill's passage was stalled by 14 Democratic state senators who fled to Illinois Thursday to deny the necessary legislative quorum. (Source)

The state capital occupied for over a week, mass protests, lawmakers fleeing the state, governing bodies remaining unbowed... Hmm... does that not make it a bit of a mix between Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain and Libya?

But contrary to the latter, the Wisconsin protests hardly got any international press. Just imagine things were different and the press would pay more attention. Let's play sarcastic for a while here. In the form of news bulletins.

AFP: After two weeks of mass protests in Wisconsin, the governor turned over control of the state to the federal government. President Obama is quoted as saying, before he flushed, "Right, more shit on my lap, that is juuust the thing I needed at this moment!".

Reuters: In a decisive action, President Obama is said to have given the order to "shoot the protesters". In an act of sudden lucidity, the White House called Cheney, asking for the telephone number of Blackwater. Since Iraq, that company had changed names fifteen times already, and their telephone numbers got lost between all other post-Bush files which were muffled away.

Al Jazeera: In the mean time, all foreign and domestic press was banned from the state. As the Blackwater helicopters (part of a new multi billion dollar contract) circled around the Wisconsin capital, the commanding officer asked Obama, if indeed, they could shoot. Obama said "Yes we can!".

Al Jazeera: (which obtained exclusive footage from Wikileaks) aired the shooting ten minutes later. It showed Blackwater operatives shooting unarmed people, saying -quote- "Hey this is better than a turkey shoot". "Here, eat this, bastard" and "Yeah, I can see it is a pen he is holding, but let's pretend it is an RPG, like in the Baghdad times, and nuke the bastard".

Al Jazeera: UN Secretary General Ban ki-Moon read a statement on live UN TV (Yes, it exists, but nobody watches it, and the Serbs hijack the channel at night to broadcast porn): "We find this situation totally unacceptable. This is a violation of basic human lights, showing a cleal dislespect for individuality, democlacy and civilization. We can not accept UN staff folced to pay for palking tickets in New Yolk City!.. (later it was clear someone gave him the wrong speech).

Google: Google went undercover, and using a dial-up line to a free Internet service in the Netherlands (as all US Internet were cut), they showed mobile phone footage of protests spreading to Utah, North Dakota and South Dakota. And also Mexico and Venezuela. But that was on the rising oil prices)

Al Jazeera: Three hours after the turkey shoot, Obama came on national television with the following statement: "In a clear breakdown of communications.." (crowd shouts "Yes we can!") "I gave the order to shoot pictures of the demonstrators" (crowd shouts "Yes we can!") "..An order which was misunderstood as to shoot the demonstrators with bullets" (crowd shouts "Yes we can!"). "I take full responsibility for the casualties" (crowd shouts..) "..and have decided to hand over the power of the nation to vice president "Hilary -La Bitch- Clinton", while I take my family for a short vacation to Hawaii."

Al Jazeera: Violent protests spread all over the country, including Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. People are seen smashing windows of cars (seems later, it was footage from a documentary "One day in LA South"), massive civil disruptions (Was old footage from the Katarina floods), and missile launches (the average space shuttle launch attempts). Nothing really happened, as the public was too busy hamstering food from the local McDonald's and Wendy's, and watching the play-offs.

Al Jazeera: Four days later, the government blamed the Russians and Iran for the instability. The army took over control officially, and handed it over to twenty rich industrialists (who always had control over the country anyway), with the instructions "Blow me another economic bubble, like the one with the prime mortgage".

MNBC: One month later, aired an exclusive interview with Obama, now living in the village "Toeternietoe" in North Kenya. Obama proudly showed his wife working in the garden and his kids attending the local school. He stated "I have always felt like a Kenyan, and now I am a Kenyan. Next year, I will run in the elections for village chief (crowd shouts "Yes we can!")."

Three months later, Ushahidi arrived on the spot, asking "Crowdsourced information gathering, anyone?"

[end].

Next on The Road: The Weather.


Picture courtesy De Wereld Morgen

Read the full post...

Food crisis?! What food crisis? Cargill cashes in.

Food price crisis, what crisis? 'Cargill, the world’s largest agricultural commodities trader, announced on Wednesday that its profits had tripled year-on-year in the second quarter of its fiscal year, as the company profited from supply disruptions in the global food chain and rising prices’. (Source: From Poverty to Power)

Post filed under: "corruption", "food scammers", "Right Wing", "Flaud US Foreign Policy", "F**k the Poor", "How to mix aid and business to your financial benefit" and "Money First, Ethics Later".

I wonder what the quarterly report of Monsanto looks like.

More about Cargill on The Road.

And for once I will not link back to the source of the picture, as they don't deserve to be linked back to.

Read the full post...