The American Media’s job is to sell the next president but in doing so it must make it seem as though it’s a real horse race when in fact it is no such thing. This year, they’ve gone beyond the pale and this is no longer a poor rendition of Kabuki Theater, but rather something more fitting of a Monty Python skit. God how I miss Monty Python. There’s never been anything like it since — until this most recent election cycle.
I suspect before too long, the American Media, via crooked polling and all manner of clever and not so clever machinations, will break Trump completely. Trump will be Howard Deaned. Bush, who has quite a war chest already, will rise in the crooked and rigged polls concomitantly to Trump’s fall. This will occur most likely at the beginning of the new year and will gain momentum steadily through the Spring of 2016. Jeb Bush has already been tapped to be the next president. They just have to make it look good.
Go Jeb!

Posted by: Cold N. Holefield | Oct 4 2015 15:52 utc | 4

Mina @ 2: Quite a lengthy interview, thanks. The Russian coalition looks like Syria’s last,best hope. Let’s all hope it succeeds. The region, and the world NEEDS this to happen.

Posted by: ben | Oct 4 2015 16:18 utc | 6

@ 3: Welcome! You’ve found a gem of discussion, and info.

Posted by: ben | Oct 4 2015 16:24 utc | 8

Its very interesting watching the information war play out. What I find interesting on RT is that they specifically take on attacks generated in the US press, by US officials, and on Twitter by showing the particular attack and then refuting it. For instance, they’ll show the twitter images posted claiming to show civilian casualties from the Russian raids, and then show that the images appeared previously. But they’ll actually engage the US media directly taking them on point by point, where as the US reaction to RT has always just been to scream “Russian Propaganda!” and call those who watch it “unpatriotic”.
Right now they are doing an expose on the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, an “organization” (a single man) that the West takes news from completely unquestioningly, most certainly because he is an intelligence asset. It’s just a 3 minute piece, but is pretty good at showing what a farce these intelligence associated “alternative” media sites are.
To see these US reporters now cry crocodile tears for civilians killed (wether they have been or not) when they’ve ignored US atrocities for so long is more than just a little bit sickening.
That said, I don’t necessarily want to watch RT over US news, but whenever I turn on US news its all Trump, or yesterday interviews with the father of a mass shooter – in other words, barely news. They hardly touch on some of the more important international issues and when they do, the coverage is so hypocritical and never takes into account alternate view points. FOX News is better in terms of content, but their endless, awful reactionary editorializing is too much to bear. I certainly know that RT comes with its own point of view, but it is extremely valuable as another reference point when trying to measure the truth. With the rise of all of the new, many state run, networks, the media landscape is finally restored to some healthiness following the disaster of Western media consolidation.
I’m not sure how long the US can continue to act like an Empire – to continue to scream out its own viewpoint as if others don’t exist at all. The longer they do this, the more foolish they’re going to look in the eyes of world public opinion.

Posted by: guest77 | Oct 4 2015 16:26 utc | 10

another good post at emptywheel from yesterday : Is Russia Eliminating America’s Material Support for Terrorism Problem?

Posted by: james | Oct 4 2015 16:35 utc | 12

There’s another couple of scans of Covert Action Information Bulletin up. Both are from around the Gulf War and show some of the atrocities committed then. Yes, its old news, but always good to go back and see the opposition view that never made it into official “History”, especially for people who may have missed it altogether for whatever reason. I am always amazed, when reading, how much comes back to where we’re at today. After all, the early 1990s is when the US first began reshaping the world in its image unopposed – efforts that bring us right up to today.
Some goodies:

Disinformation and Covert Operations by Ellen Ray and William H. Schaap
The editors of Lies of Our Times dismantle key elements of the Bush administration’s Gulf War propaganda, and review probable U.S. violations of the Geneva Conventions.
Iraqi Voices: Human Cost of the War Centerfold Photo Essay
Iraqi citizens testify to the human reality of total war. Photographs and words from inside Iraq and Kuwait: exactly what Pentagon censorship was designed to prevent us from knowing anything about.
Dismantling the War On Libya by Jane Hunter
When bombing Libya didn’t take out Qaddafi, the CIA organized another covert war. When that adventure collapsed, the Agency inherited more homeless contras.
Sowing Disorder, Reaping Disaster by Jane Hunter
Broadcasting is a key tool of the CIA. In Iraq, it backfired when the Agency first incited the Kurds to rebel and then left them twisting in the wind for the entire world to see.
Tracking Covert Actions Into the Future by Philip Agee
A former CIA officer traces the roots of U.S. foreign policy and covert operations and reveals the grimly logical implications for the global splintering and regional struggles implicit in the New World Order.
What Bush Knew and Why He Knew It by Anthony L. Kimery
Clever is the man who hides behind the cloud of smoke that curls from the gun in his own hands. Documenting Bush’s decades-long involvement in covert operations, crimes, and coverups.

https://archive.org/details/@altviewstv-fanclub
https://archive.org/details/CovertActionInformationBulletinNo37Summer1991
https://archive.org/details/CovertActionInformtionBulletinNo42Fall1992

Posted by: guest77 | Oct 4 2015 16:44 utc | 14

Basho @ 72 in the “Snuff” article
Your comment to
Nemo, Penelope, Chipnik, tom, paulmeli:
Re gold, money, credit etc
You say, “because the borrower’s spending generates new deposits in the system new “money” equal to the credit extended has been created in the process. (I put “money” in quotes here because for all practical purposes the holder of a deposit in a financial institution views it – entirely understandably – as money, even though it is in fact simply a claim on “real money”).”
I think your inference is that the borrowed money doesn’t become money until it is deposited back into a bank acct. Actually it is money from the moment of its creation by the lending institution; this creation of new money is accomplished by entering numbers in your bank account (previously manually, now by computer keyboard), which counts as a deposit.
When you repay the loan to the lending bank this “money” ceases to be an asset of the lender, but it keeps most of the interest (Part of the interest is remitted to the Fed, although I’m not sure at what point this occurs.) Because financial institutions make interest on a “product” created from nothing, nearly all the very seriously rich people got it from the financial industry. Gates is the only exception I can think of.
Modern Monetary Theory (MMT)– promulgated by Michael Hudson, Randolph Wray, others at University of Missouri, Ellen Brown– includes the provision of State-created money. That is, like prior to WWII, each govt creates its own interest-free currency, rather than paying interest to private bankers to lend it into existence. The middle eastern countries attacked by the US continued this practice, didn’t belong to IMF, WTO, etc. Plus, as a religious commitment didn’t charge interest. Can anyone explain how this is possible?
A further injustice committed by international bankers is the following: Banks are compensated for the “risk” of lending by the interest they charge. But recently they have begun to insist that they be compensated by govts for any “losses”, so that they now are insulated from any risk as well as making interest on money created from nothing.
Example 1: In the US, banks received a “bailout” when their derivatives-based speculations caused losses. The bailout money was “created” like the other, but I am unsure whether this was only a loan, as there are conflicting reports. The US has ever since been “monetizing” the debt (printing money, otherwise known as quantitative easing).
Example 2: Officially when banks lend to a foreign govt the bank must accept the burden of any default. However the banks get around this by having their own govt purchase the worthless defaulted debt (toxic paper), often on the grounds that the bank is too big to fail, will bring down the system– thereby transferring the debt to the govt or taxpayer.
Example 3: The IMF often fulfills the function of saving the big banks from their (purposely) unsound loans to a govt like Greece. First they impose “conditionalities” that cause the economy to shrink.
Typical conditionalities: 1. let the currency float against the others, always resulting in devaluation since the economy’s in trouble. The loan’s always repayable in either dollars, euros or pounds, so devaluation means that even MORE of one’s own currency must be allocated to repayment. 2. cut public employees wages & pensions & lay some off 3. Cut all aspects of safety net: healthcare, unemployment compensation, food stamps, etc. In short, reduce all govt spending so that more is available to repay the loan, but the economy shrinks so that the loan is even more difficult to repay.
In Many cases the country is unable to make a payment. IMF/foreign lender says “That’s OK; we will lend you the money to make the payment or the interest on the debt.” Now, why would they do this? Obviously there’s a default coming. Answer, once the IMF is involved different rules apply so that now the country’s assets can be seized at bargain prices. The IMF thus acts as a collection agency for the big banks.
There is no accepted procedure for a state to declare bankruptcy & the big banks/IMF are only pretending to develop one. Sometimes states simply declare a default and stop paying. Venezuela is an example.
In the above, I don’t understand exactly how the IMF gets into the picture when the govt has only borrowed from banks. Can someone explain?

Posted by: Penelope | Oct 4 2015 16:55 utc | 16

I’m still waiting for a FALSE FLAG operation by the empire … . Of course, the idiots in control had us bomb the PWB/MSF hospital, an almost inverse false flag. If it weren’t for the casualties, I’d almost think it humorous.
I suggest that those of you looking for a different perspective from the US media, take a look at Telesur-English [http://www.telesurtv.net/english/index.html%5D (unless you read spanish well). The perspective there seems balanced … at least it is not US propaganda, and isn’t tainted by being ‘Russian Propaganda.’ Of course it could be considered Venezuelan propaganda … by those who like to discredit everything in sight.

Posted by: Rg an LG | Oct 4 2015 17:06 utc | 18

Ralphie-boy, aka: #5:
I am an acknowledged cynic … wherein cynicism is defined as “a thick shell an idealist grows to protect their idealism from reality.” Also, for what it is worth, cynics are also skeptics. And skepticism is essential in the fine art of discerning reality from bullshit.

Posted by: Rg an LG | Oct 4 2015 17:12 utc | 20

The Truth About Chavez: Bernie Sanders Is Wrong
By: Gabriel Hetland

Posted by: guest77 | Oct 4 2015 17:26 utc | 22

The author of the CNN op/ed b posted: “Editor’s Note: Nawaf Obaid is a Visiting Fellow and Associate Instructor at Harvard University’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, a Senior Fellow at the King Faisal Center for Research and Islamic Studies, and a former strategic affairs adviser to the Saudi government. The views expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.”

Posted by: karlof1 | Oct 4 2015 17:38 utc | 24

@Rg an LG:
it is a cynical relationship. The media know that Trump is good for viewership, Trump knows that the media are great free publicity for his brand.

Posted by: ralphieboy | Oct 4 2015 17:39 utc | 26

Bhadrakumar’s link in the passage below is well-worth reading:

The plain truth is that if an outright Taliban takeover is to be prevented, the US troops in their tens of thousands may have to remain in Afghanistan forever. Read a stunning interview, here, with a seasoned Afghan hand presently at the Carnegie, Sarah Chayes, a familiar name of course, who is inclined to assess that Afghanistan is inexorably falling to the Taliban again.

Chayes is very knowledgeable:

Like the Islamic State’s capture of large parts of Iraq, the Taliban successes in and around Kunduz are the almost inevitable consequence of corrupt and abusive governance. This is not a recent phenomenon. Back in the spring of 2009, when I first looked closely at Kunduz, the governor was famous for his land grabs. In an arid place like Afghanistan, almost entirely dependent on high-end agriculture, fruit growing and such, land is incredibly precious. Stealing someone’s land is worse than murdering them. The German military had responsibility for the province, and the intelligence chief’s assessment was “everyone around him is corrupt.” That was six and a half years ago, and nothing changed in the interim. Years of built-up grievances and no avenue of recourse drive people to extremes. …

Posted by: fairleft | Oct 4 2015 17:57 utc | 28

@2 mina.. thanks for that..
@21 b.. thanks for the laugh!
@27 fairleft.. thanks.. i will read it later when i get some time.. i always enjoy M H Bhadrakumar’s incisive commentary..

Posted by: james | Oct 4 2015 18:20 utc | 30

Mike Whitney has this excellent piece at Global Research. “The Russian airforce will get precise intelligence on ISIS locations from Syrian agents on the battlefield which will minimize civilian casualties and limit damage to critical infrastructure. It will also make mincemeat out of anyone on the receiving end of the bombardment. Does anyone seriously believe that ISIS and the disparate rabble of “moderate” throat-slitters that receive CIA funding are going to be able to withstand this impending onslaught?
No way. Putin’s going to cut through these guys like a tornado through a trailer park. http://www.globalresearch.ca/putins-lightning-war-in-syria/5479699 MMARR@25 Yes, I agree, most comments sections I have looked at can see right through western propaganda.

Posted by: harry law | Oct 4 2015 18:25 utc | 32

A meeting of the minds, the architect behind Iran’s strategy in Syria, Iraq and beyond, Quds Force Shadow Commander Qasem Soleimaini, and Vladimir Putin.
Excellent summary by Tyler Darden at “Zero Hedge.”
Mid-East Coup: As Russia Pounds Militant Targets, Iran Readies Ground Invasions While Saudis Panic

Back in June, the commander of Iran’s Quds Force, Qasem Soleimaini, visited a town north of Latakia on the frontlines of Syria’s protracted civil war. Following that visit, he promised that Tehran and Damascus were set to unveil a new strategy that would “surprise the world.”
Just a little over a month later, Soleimani – in violation of a UN travel ban – visited Russia and held meetings with The Kremlin. The Pentagon now says those meetings were “very important” in accelerating the timetable for Russia’s involvement in Syria. The General allegedly made another visit to Moscow in September.
The timeline here is no coincidence. Iran has long provided covert and overt support to the Assad regime via financial transfers, logistical support from the Quds, and via the involvement of Hezbollah in the Assad government’s fight to regain control of the country.
As we’ve documented extensively over the past several weeks, what appears to have happened here is that Iran, unable to simply invade Syria in support of Assad (because doing so would obviously be a disaster in terms of preserving the optics around the P5+1 nuclear deal), turned to Moscow which has in the past used Russia’s Security Council veto to block the referral of the war in Syria to the Hague and which is a known ally of both Tehran and Damascus.[…]
[…]What should be obvious here is that this is a coordinated plan.
The Kremlin has effectively agreed to bring the might of the Russian air force to bear on Assad’s opponents in Syria and on Sunni militants in Iraq in support of Iranian ground troops and because the US and its allies have failed so miserably in terms of fielding anti-Assad rebels who don’t turn out to be extremists, Putin gets to pitch the whole thing as a “war on terror.” It would be difficult to design a more elegant power play.
If you think that’s far-fetched, consider the following just out from Reuters:

Hundreds of Iranian troops have arrived in Syria in the last 10 days and will soon join government forces and their Lebanese Hezbollah allies in a major ground offensive backed by Russian air strikes, two Lebanese sources told Reuters.
“The (Russian) air strikes will in the near future be accompanied by ground advances by the Syrian army and its allies,” said one of the sources familiar with political and military developments in the conflict.
“It is possible that the coming land operations will be focused in the Idlib and Hama countryside,” the source added.
The two sources said the operation would be aimed at recapturing territory lost by President Bashar al-Assad’s government to rebels.
It points to an emerging military alliance between Russia and Assad’s other main allies – Iran and Hezbollah – focused on recapturing areas of northwestern Syria that were seized by insurgents in rapid advances earlier this year.
“The vanguard of Iranian ground forces began arriving in Syria: soldiers and officers specifically to participate in this battle. They are not advisors … we mean hundreds with equipment and weapons. They will be followed by more,” the second source said. Iraqis would also take part in the operation, the source said.

And then consider this, also just out (via Reuters):

The Russian Foreign Ministry said on Thursday it would consider any request from the Iraqi government to conduct air strikes against Islamic State inside Iraq, but said it had not yet received such an appeal, the RIA Novosti news agency reported.
It cited the foreign ministry as saying it would evaluate the “political and military” logic of such a move if a request was forthcoming.

Finally, to drive the point home and further confirm the veracity of the thesis outlined above, here’s Saudi Arabia panicking at the prospect that Russia’s presence is set to completely disrupt the Mid-East BOP (via Reuters, yet again):

Saudi Arabia, a leading foe of President Bashar al-Assad, demanded his ally Russia end its raids on Syria, saying the strikes had caused civilian casualties while failing to target the hardline Islamic State militants Moscow says it opposes.
In remarks at the United Nations in New York, a senior Saudi diplomat suggested both Russia and Assad’s other main ally Iran could not claim to fight Islamic State “terrorism” at the same time as supporting the “terrorism” of the Syrian authorities.
Saudi ambassador Abdallah Al-Mouallimi expressed “profound concern regarding the military operations which Russian forces have carried out in Homs and Hama today, places where ISIS forces are not present. These attacks led to a number of innocent victims. We demand it stop immediately and not recur.”
“As for those countries that have claimed recently to join in the fight against ISIS terrorism, they can’t do that at the same time as they support the terrorism of the Syrian regime and its terrorist foreign allies like Hezbollah and the Quds Force and other terrorist sectarian groups,” he added in comments broadcast by Saudi-owned al-Arabiya television.
ISIS is a common acronym for Islamic State, also known as ISIL. Lebanon’s Hezbollah Shi’ite militia openly fights on behalf of Assad’s government, and the Quds Force, part of Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guards, is also widely believed to be aiding Damascus.

It would be difficult to overstate the significance of what appears to be going on here. This is nothing short of a Middle Eastern coup, as Iran looks to displace Saudi Arabia as the regional power broker and as Russia looks to supplant the US as the superpower puppet master.
Do not expect Saudi Arabia and Israel to remain on the sidelines here.
If Russia ends up bolstering Iran’s position in Syria (by expanding Hezbollah’s influence and capabilities) and if the Russian air force effectively takes control of Iraq thus allowing Iran to exert a greater influence over the government in Baghdad, the fragile balance of power that has existed in the region will be turned on its head and in the event this plays out, one should not expect Washington, Riyadh, Jerusalem, and London to simply go gentle into that good night.

Posted by: Lone Wolf | Oct 4 2015 18:32 utc | 34

@31 – exactly. You and whoever in some other thread here, or maybe I heard it someplace else, basically that: “try running that one by the 9/11 families” has it dead right on.
Go ahead, DoD-CIA-State. Just try and explain to the world and especially to your own citizens why Russia should refrain from bombing any kind of al Qaeda, ISIS or otherwise.
If I hear “Russia is bombing non-ISIS forces” one more time, knowing that its giving a pass to al Qaeda there makes me sick. I knew all this BS – when al Qaeda in IRaq started to be called ISIL then started to be called al Nusrah then ISIS then whatever else was all a fucking media shell game.
“Can you find which name is the terrorist under?”

Posted by: guest77 | Oct 4 2015 18:38 utc | 36

In b’s link to CNN Obama talks in a loop. “I understand that Russia and Ukraine share a long history, but we cannot stand idly when sovereignty of a nation is violated.”
Why so negative? Yes, you can!

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Oct 4 2015 18:50 utc | 38

Weird, if you click the link twitter says that @MoonofA doesn’t exist, but if you go to @RedKahina and scroll down, there it is.

Posted by: ruralito | Oct 4 2015 19:01 utc | 40

#32 “Putin’s going to cut through these guys like a tornado through a trailer park.”
Well, when the US first invaded Iraq I likened it to kicking a hornets nest. Well the US keeps kicking that nest. BTW that is the textbook definition of insanity – repeating the same folly over and over again, and expecting a different result. In addition no organized force was ever defeated by an air campaign alone without an infantry component. When the bombing goes away the opposition emerges from it’s hiding places.

Posted by: Geordie | Oct 4 2015 19:13 utc | 42

paulmeli @ 41
Money topic
—————-
Your point about money spent only really matters; is exemplified by the trillions created and given to criminal banks that did not result in a big push on inflation, that Libertarians were screaming about and made fools of themselves, when the QE money printing scam to keep the banking crimewave afloat, that started years ago.
Same can be said for the theory, that if you created Trillions and that was given to the people directly, if they didn’t spend it, there would be no inflation, or, inflation wouldn’t last long.
That’s why there’s a push for the furthering of the class war through negative interest rates to force whatever savings are left of the people, to be stolen by the banks and to be pushed into the economy.

Posted by: tom | Oct 4 2015 20:01 utc | 44

Lone Wolf: nukes will not be used, period. Not against KSA. KSA theoretically could send a bigger force by air than Russian can handle with the forces in Syria, but that would escalate regional war enormously. Iran is a side in the conflict too, so the next thing would be relocating a much larger Russian force, both airmen and missilemen, a separate branch of Russian army, to Iran, and that would start Hormuz crisis. Oil from Gulf and Russia would go only to countries that condemn KSA aggression. Perhaps Iraq, Algeria and Venezuela would join. Not a fish would cross the straight without Russo-Iranian approval, pipelines moving Gulf oil to Turkey, Jordan and Red Sea could be hit as well. I assume that before escalating aid to Syria, Russian discussed contingency scenarios with China and Iran. A three ring circus would start, and it would be an open question of KSA would survive in its current form, or in some “rationally reorganized” fashion, unite Asir with Yemen, northern part of the Eastern Province with Iraq, Hijaz back to Hashemites and Najd to some junior Saudi prince.
The scenario is sufficiently disastrous that the West would prevail upon KSA not to think about it seriously.

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Oct 4 2015 20:08 utc | 46

History rhymes. Russia has kicked a hornet’s nest. No doubt Senator McCain in his more lucid moments is happy. “I’ve done it”. Iran will infiltrate troops into Syria. They are already in Iraq. Russia will draw minorities to its side; Christians, Shiites and Alawites. With the experience of Afghanistan and Chechnya behind them and together with the Syrian Army; a rump Syria will be carved out. But, a Holy War with 1.6 billion Sunnis has started. If Chaos is the goal, the ruling elite have succeeded. An endless holy war is guaranteed. World War III is but one mistake away. This is more dangerous than the Cuban Missle Crisis.

Posted by: VietnamVet | Oct 4 2015 20:14 utc | 48

@21 b
I’m sure I read somewhere that Russian Sukoi jets of some model or other equipped with emr jamming devices of the same sort that disbled the US aegis destroyer in the Black Sea have been delivered to Syria.
What would be the consequence for US planes – that’s what the Saudis fly – if they were to penetrate Syrian airspace and were hit with that sort of defense? Would they just fall out of the sky? I imagine their electronics would be useless.
That would be very interesting … us planes crashing without a shot being fired.

Posted by: jfl | Oct 4 2015 20:31 utc | 50

@50 “I imagine their electronics would be useless”
Absolutely useless. Loaded with bugs. Probably can’t fly anywhere except Yemen.

Posted by: dh | Oct 4 2015 20:34 utc | 52

@48
The “holy war” with 1.6 billion Sunnis is a total bunk of course. First of all, there is only 1 billion of them, and 90 percent of them have no quarrel with Russia, whatsoever.
Only Gulf Arabs can try to do something stupid, but it won’t amount to much.

Posted by: MMARR | Oct 4 2015 20:41 utc | 54

Paulmeli @ 41,
“Most spending is a result of money-printing ”
Nope, most spending is by check, by direct-deposit & by credit card.
” Over history, much more money (if we’re talking about spending) has been created by government than by private banks (like 60% of it).”
I have no idea why you have decided to re-define money so that it only “counts” when it is spent. (In fact you can’t spend it unless it already exists).
ALL money is created by banks since the Fed was started in 1913, except for the brief period when President Kennedy had Treasury notes printed. Your idea that the govt “creates” money by spending it into the economy is untrue– since the govt pays interest on each dollar that it receives from the Fed system. You can’t pay interest on something that doesn’t yet exist. The Fed system creates money by lending it into the economy.
Thanks for responding to my comment, but I shan’t follow the rest of your response since it rests upon a false — although innovative– argument. Usually, if you want to communicate w others, or present amendments and revisions to an existing system, you have to discuss these w the existing vocabulary. You are attempting to blithely change the definition of the very substance of economics — money — and you expect everyone to follow you from there.
There is a great injustice done the American people that their currency comes into being indebted w interest that they must pay. To merely dismiss this with, “Well, it isn’t money til it’s spent, ” is to miss a vital point.
You sound very intelligent. But you need to learn something about a field before applying the little gray cells to it. I’m sorry to sound so bossy; I guess I am, a bit.
Regards.

Posted by: Penelope | Oct 4 2015 20:48 utc | 56

@53 mmarr
‘ Add Syrian Kurds to the minorities lining up behind Russia. ‘
The Kurds are in Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Syria … elsewhere as well? They’ve been played and betrayed countless times by the USA.
TIIS are all very wary of the Kurds. But they are all in same boat together … with the Turks boring holes in the bottom while everyone else bales.
What are the chances of the IIS – Iran, Iraq, and Syria – finally realizing that, as regards the Kurds, they can all hang together or be hung seperately? Seems like a KIIS alliance, confederation … understanding, would make them invincible with regard to their ‘Sunni’ enemies : USA/KSA/Israel.
Russia has a lot of experience with building a nation of disparate ethnic groups. I wonder if something good might not actually happen along those lines here?

Posted by: jfl | Oct 4 2015 20:58 utc | 58

@57
“Spiritual exhaustion” describes the state of the West very well. For many parts of it Armageddon is happening already, just in a slow, steady motion, creeping in from the margins. Talk to a Greek, to a person in the southern Italy, in Malta, or even in France – they’d tell you right at this very moment that life as they know it is leaving their land, their civilization is withering away, and that they don’t expect any improvement in their lifetimes.

Posted by: MMARR | Oct 4 2015 21:07 utc | 60

@fairleft@45
No, obviously it’s quite easy to overstate, vastly overstate, the significance of what is going on ‘here’. What is happening is a shift in the ME balance of power that was inevitable when Bush overthrew Iraq in 2003. BUT that doesn’t mean Iran seeks to “displace Saudi Arabia as the regional power broker.” Instead it much more likely means that Iran wants its post-2003 protection/power be acknowledged and accomodated in the three countries across the top of the ME, Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq. Saudi paranoia aside, for example, Iran has made no effort to assert power in Yemen, or anywhere else in the ME other than in those three countries, all of which have substantial or majority Shia populations.
As for now, Iran doesn’t have much space to wiggle, given the recent nuclear agreement, waiting for sanctions to be lifted, in the middle of a diplomatic offensive post-sanction period, with a view to get the country’s economy back on track. Hence their restraint in Yemen/Iraq/Syria, their moves purely defensive. US whorehouse (congress) is waiting for the minimum mistake to prey on Iran nuclear agreement.
I agree with your assessment, I don’t think Iran is looking to “displace” anyone as a power-broker, instead, Iran looks to reassert its vital space in the region. Iran needs space to breath, it’s been choked up for long time. “Reassertion” is not the same as “displacement.” However, there is a law of unintended consequences, and nobody at this point knows how these latest tectonic moves are going to end. I think Darden is right about the level of opposition Russia/Iran/China/Iraq/Lebanon/Hezbollah are going to get. Their recent moves, for sure, won’t go unopposed.
As for Russia, Darden’s conjecture is even more far-fetched. No, Russia does not look “to supplant the US as the superpower puppet master.” Russian policymakers operate in the real world. They know Russia has 1/12th the military power of the US/NATO, for example. What Russia is doing is asserting and protecting, for the emerging Eurasian Century, Iranian and Russian influence in Iraq/Syria/Lebanon. It doesn’t do this as lone cowboy act of a new ‘superpower puppet master’, but primarily — and with military force because that’s the only thing the West ‘respects’ — to mark the border of the China-Russia-Iran-Iraq-SCO coalition.
Bingo! I couldn’t agree more with your assessment. Still, how far Russia/Iran can go out of their protective umbrella will be determined, again, by that old law of physics, “every action has a reaction…” And we can already hear the noise from the usual quarters.
BTW, thanks for the Bhadrakumar link, along with Pepe Escobar, he’s one of my favorites. Today, you beat me to it, I was busy with okie farmer’s long article on Israel’s realism. Worth the time, BTW.

Posted by: Lone Wolf | Oct 4 2015 21:16 utc | 62

@Piotr Berman@46
Lone Wolf: nukes will not be used, period. Not against KSA. KSA theoretically could send a bigger force by air than Russian can handle with the forces in Syria, but that would escalate regional war enormously. Iran is a side in the conflict too, so the next thing would be relocating a much larger Russian force, both airmen and missilemen, a separate branch of Russian army, to Iran, and that would start Hormuz crisis. Oil from Gulf and Russia would go only to countries that condemn KSA aggression. Perhaps Iraq, Algeria and Venezuela would join. Not a fish would cross the straight without Russo-Iranian approval, pipelines moving Gulf oil to Turkey, Jordan and Red Sea could be hit as well. I assume that before escalating aid to Syria, Russian discussed contingency scenarios with China and Iran. A three ring circus would start, and it would be an open question of KSA would survive in its current form, or in some “rationally reorganized” fashion, unite Asir with Yemen, northern part of the Eastern Province with Iraq, Hijaz back to Hashemites and Najd to some junior Saudi prince.
The scenario is sufficiently disastrous that the West would prevail upon KSA not to think about it seriously.
I cannot speak for b, but I am sure his was not a potential proposition when he suggested that, and I just followed up with a joke about turning sand (so much of it), into glass. What we are facing can go FUBAR at any point, the entire region just got heated up with the latest developments. We certainly hope rational minds may prevail over the erratic Saudis, who seem to have no other entertainment than playing with expensive toys at the cost of many lives.

Posted by: Lone Wolf | Oct 4 2015 21:37 utc | 64

IhaveLittleToAdd @ 33,
Yeah, to what extent are we guilty for not preventing our govt from committing aggressions abroad– or even not KNOWING about it? Good question.
I’m smart and a political junkie. I guess I’m a would-be intellectual because I’ve always felt it was my responsibility to understand things. So I struggled w the bits of reality that refused to fit into my worldview, and therefore alerted me that it was faulty & incomplete. I started with a seriously wrong worldview when I was 20, but various authors educated me in large chunks until I had something coherent that now only seems to needs additions, rather than radical revisions.
I’m relating this because when I look back on my own experience I find I can’t be very critical of those who haven’t figured it out. When I came West to California at age 19 I was stunned at how stupid my contemporaries here were. I don’t mean merely as to knowledge. I mean that the educational system here in some way prevents people learning to think.
I worked as a temp for a while, answering job applicant letters. The applicants would write a letter saying thank you for the call-back interview, and it was my job to say thanks but no thanks in a manner that was personalized and not a form letter. In reading just these brief letters I found I could tell whether they were in their 30s, 40s or 50s before I looked at the application forms: That was an indication of how markedly the educational system had deteriorated.
Today in California it’s much worse: There are vast numbers of people who are nice and have a sense of fairness, but are mentally undeveloped. They never read a book and are profoundly uninterested in anything nontrivial. Added to the poor educational system and the fluoridated water that lowers childrens’ IQ is the ascendancy of television. I’m not sure that maintaining a civilization is compatible with its citizens watching television 20 hours a week.
So, do I think that Americans are responsible for the terrible things their govt does? I have positive respect only for people who lead an examined life– one that makes a strong attempt to understand the culture of which we are a part. I think we should all try to pass on the relevant knowledge we have, and to acquire more. I don’t know of anything else we can do to change the system, unless it wd be to try to change the election laws to more easily form a third party.
I don’t think that the vast mass of Californians can be held responsible for what their govt is doing. The oligarchy has succeeded in degrading the human potential here, and the process is accelerating by several means.
Thanks for a provocative question, IhaveLittleToAdd.

Posted by: Penelope | Oct 4 2015 23:04 utc | 66

@lonewolf 34
I agree that Iran and Russia are cooperating in this military campaign in Syria.
Yet I totally disagree that Iran will send troops. Iran is far more intelligent that that. First, in 25 years, Iran has never invaded any country. Second they know very well that a non-Arab Shia army entering a Sunni majority country will be very shocking and will be immediately exploited by the Sunni powers (Saudi Arabia and Turkey) as a religious threat to all Sunnis in the region. Syria will be accused of selling the countries to the “Persians” in accord with Russia. Iran knows it is a sensitive issue and won’t fall into the trap.
Therefore in my view Iran will only prop further its Arab Shia allies, Hezbollah and the Iraqi shias militias to help the Russian in their air attacks on the islamist terrorists militias but will hand over the areas liberated to the Syrian army.
The present Saudi propaganda is to push the Arab Sunnis against Russia that they accuse of helping Iran invade the Sunni countries.
I doubt anybody will buy that Saudi b.s
They still try hard…

Posted by: Virgile | Oct 4 2015 23:15 utc | 68

@68 While you’re busy thinking about which shell the pea is under, he’ll sneak behind you and pick your pocket.

Posted by: guest77 | Oct 4 2015 23:35 utc | 70

It seems the prescient note in all this is the entering into the Middle East of a world power that upholds the sanctity of the nation state. As opposed to one that did everything in its power to destroy it.

Posted by: Rosco | Oct 5 2015 0:02 utc | 72

“I couldnt disagree with you more on this, it sounds your POV is more influenced by the Western demonization of Ahmadinejad than by what he actually did or said. Dr. Ahmadinejad is smart, very straightforward …”
Ahmedinejad was a bit less smart than you think. I he were smarter, who would not get afoul of The Leader (a.k.a. Object of Emulation etc., or Ali Khamenei). He dabled in things that no one except highest rank clerics should do, and they know better than trying: predicting when the Hidden Imam will end his Occultation, which in terms of Judeo-Christian religion, means coming of the Messiah. While in public he was just saying “soon”, in private he had a crony who apparently was designing some rituals that would hasten the long awaited event (at least, to all Twelver Shia), and while details were never made public, the chap got into prison for sorcery and an attempt to raise a jinn. The predictions that Israel will vanish from the pages of history never dealt with anything as mundane as nuclear bombs. Try to resist a messiah with his army of jinns (and perhaps using magic carpets which are notoriously hard to detect from satelites, or by radars etc.) Take that, you assorted Satans!!! It is not that funny, because serious politicians in Israel expect that the messiah will come and make short work of all their enemies, so they are immune to arguments like “this type of policy is fine for a short while, but in ten years you will get an even worse crisis.
What it show is that when a political system is based on a religion, it is imperative to restrict the power of mundane politicians because they will inevitably botch strategic forecasting due to their naive and ill-informed understanding of prophesies. Khamenei could see that Ahmedinejad has the heart in the right place, but he got really enough of him.

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Oct 5 2015 1:53 utc | 74

EXCLUSIVE-Strategika 51: Six Russian fighter jets type Multirole Sukhoi SU – 30 SM have intercepted 4 Israeli McDonnell Douglas F-15’s fighter bombers attempting to infiltrate the Syrian coast.The Israeli F 15 warplanes have been flying over Syrian airspace for months and in particular the coast of Latakia, which is now the bridgehead of the Russian forces in Syria.
The Israeli jets would generally follow a fairly complex flight plan and approach Latakia from the sea
On the night of 1 October 02, 2015, six Sukhoi SU-30 Russian SM fighters took off from the Syrian Hmimim airbase in the direction of Cyprus, before changing course and intercepting the four Israeli F-15 fighters off the coast of Syria, that were flying in attack formation.
Surprised by a situation as unexpected and probably not prepared for a dogfight with one of the best Russian multipurpose fighters, Israeli pilots have quickly turned back South at high speed over the Lebanon.
Read more at http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=53f_1443836190#23Psb6hJQdlzi8AX.99

Posted by: Tim | Oct 5 2015 3:03 utc | 76

Penelope (#16),
“Actually it is money from the moment of its creation by the lending institution . . . “
Agreed. I phrased it as I did because the process of “money” creation is more formally complete once the borrower has spent the money and the lending bank has had to settle its obligations.
“When you repay the loan to the lending bank this “money” ceases to be an asset of the lender, but it keeps most of the interest . . . “
The repayment of a loan reverses the process and the money that had been created goes to money heaven. So yes, at that point the loan ceases to be “an asset of the lender”; instead (unless the borrower defaulted) the bank is left with cash.
As to how much of the interest paid over the course of the loan the bank keeps, there’s no simple answer. In gross terms, the bank receives all of the interest. In net terms, it’s impossible to say since any answer depends how you measure the cost of funds it lent. I know that seems to contradict the fact that in making a loan a bank simply credits the customer’s account with a few keystrokes, but in order to ensure it continues to receive a workable share of all the fresh deposits resulting from the spending of loans throughout the banking system, it must be competitive. The results of its attempts constitute its average cost of funds, a constantly shifting figure depending, for the most part, on the macroeconomic environment and the competitiveness of the financial system.
“Modern Monetary Theory (MMT)– promulgated by Michael Hudson, Randolph Wray, others at University of Missouri, Ellen Brown– includes the provision of State-created money.”
In my original piece, I started by saying “First off, all monetary systems are built on some form of “real money”. One of the alternatives, as I mentioned, is “Federal Reserve banknotes and excess reserves [held at the Fed]”. That’s a form of “State created money”, mediated by the Fed, which despite its private ownership is for all practical purposes government instrumentality (for example, whatever profits the Fed makes each year is remitted to the Treasury).
Governments with their own currency can create money in whatever fashion they wish, including simply spending it into existence. For now at least, however, they all (as far as I know) choose to create it via the mediation of a central bank which creates the money by purchasing assets (generally government securities). Central banks, unlike private banks (which have to settle their payments by transferring reserves held at the Fed), really do create money ex nihilo. Only central banks can create “money” itself, as opposed to claims to money.
In broad terms, I heartily agree with your complaints about the many implicit and explicit subsidies and bailouts given to financial institutions by governments, central banks and other official bodies. It’s not only grossly unfair and divisive, it’s terribly inefficient and destructive in economic terms. Protecting creditors at (almost) all costs during and after the crisis was, in my view, a fatal error.
The same thing applies to countries getting in over their head. Resolving these dilemmas is a complex subject, but in principle, once debt has been allowed to reach untenable levels, the reality of that ought to be accepted and plans made accordingly. Instead, the tendency has been to prevaricate, postpone and pretend, all of which ensures that the problem will be even more daunting down the road.
“I don’t understand exactly how the IMF gets into the picture when the govt has only borrowed from banks. Can someone explain?”
The IMF’s remit is, amongst other things, concerned with international financial stability and hence taking part in bailouts of this sort is standard procedure.

Posted by: Basho | Oct 5 2015 4:44 utc | 78

Iraqi Prime Minister Informally Requests Russian Airstrikes Against ISIS
The Arab Source
http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/iraqi-prime-minister-informally-requests-russian-airstrikes-against-isis/
October 5, 2015
The Iraqi Prime Minister, Haider Al-‘Abadi, has informally requested to have the Russian Air Force begin
airstrikes above the Islamic State of Iraq and Al-Sham’s (ISIS) positions inside the country after meeting
with a Russian military delegation on Saturday.
According to a source from the Syrian Air Force Intelligence, another Russian military delegation arrived in
Baghdad on Saturday to discuss the utilization of Iraqi airspace to combat the terrorist group’s operations
in eastern Syria; this reportedly led to Premier ‘Abadi’s informal request for Russian airstrikes above the
terrorist group’s positions in western Iraq.
In order for the Russian Air Force to be given the green-light to begin airstrikes in Iraq, the Iraqi
Parliament will have to vote on this military escalation before the Russians can move any aerial assets into
the country.
Iraqi-Russo diplomatic relations have gradually improved since the election of Haider Al-‘Abadi in 2014; this
has also boosted military ties between the two countries, as the Russian Government has sold a large stock of
military equipment to the Iraqi Armed Forces in the last 8 months.
Should the Russian Air Force be granted the full authority to carry out airstrikes against ISIS in Iraq, they
will have to move in more aerial assets to the Middle East, while also sharing the Iraqi airspace with the
U.S. led “Anti-ISIS Coalition.”

Posted by: Jack Smith | Oct 5 2015 4:54 utc | 80

PB@75
Wasn’t Ahmadinejad involved in the Embassy hostage crisis? Even though there were back channel talks progressing the US wouldn’t go public with support until after he was gone.

Posted by: Wayoutwest | Oct 5 2015 5:26 utc | 82

in terms of security of Iran from the empires puppets, Obama sold 10’s of billion in arms to Iran’s greatest threat as a near neighbour – the Saudi Tyranny. And those arms are mostly directed to Iranian regime change. Any talk of Irans role in the reigon has to include that aspect. If Iran wasn’t going to attack the Saudis, then those arms are not for a deterrent, but for a military attack.
The Saudis along with the Israeli terrorist state, are Iran’s greatest threat now, ( that if you don’t allow for the Saudis gross military incompetence, but that can improve in the future).

Posted by: tom | Oct 5 2015 5:54 utc | 84

MMARR @55
This NATO PDF file is a better source for NATO military expenditures. It shows those countries spending $943 billion in 2014. Russia, according to the two sources in Wikipedia, spends either $70 billion or $84.5 billion. If the smaller number, NATO expenditures are 13.5 times those of Russia; with the bigger number, NATO military spending is 11 times that of Russia.
I read “12 times” somewhere and have been unsuccessful tracing the source down.

Posted by: fairleft | Oct 5 2015 7:03 utc | 86

@ Piotr Berman | 75
Where did you even hear about this ‘jinn’ crap? Sounds like another chapter of “Ahmadinejad is crazy Islamist fanatic, who wants to nuke the World, starting with Israel”. Religion by itself (whether you believe in this jinn story or not) was never an issue with ‘Nejad neither in international stage, nor in Iran itself.
* West vehemently hated him, because despite of massive pressure on him and Iran, Ahmadinejad had such a big balls, that not only he didnt surrendered Iran’s interest one inch, but also had the audacity to call out West as it is. Remember epic Putin’s speech in UN few days ago? Replace Putin’s name with Ahmadinejad and you get the usual speeches by him. Just the naked Truth, no holds barred.
* Iran’s oligarchs and corrupt politicians hated Ahmadinejad because he a) refused to compromise Iran’s sovereignty with the West, where they have a lot of business interests (think Putin), and b) fiercely fought against massive corruption in Iran and for well being of the poorest (think Chavez).
Those are the real reasons ‘Nejad was demonized 24/7, and for those very reasons he was loved by majority of Iranians, and hugely respected by most thinking people around the World.
His feud with Khameinei was also hugely overblown in the West, divide and conquer tactic. In reality while they had disagreements, Khameinei was supportive of Ahmadinejad through his both presidencies. And the root cause of few public disagreements they had was a corruption. For example, Ahmadinejad got the recording of the conversation of some very high ranking and influential politicians, which proved they are corrupt. Since police was very reluctant to do anything about it, Nejad made the audio public, and got a massive shitstorm “how dares he?” Nejad destroyed the careers of those corrupt politicians. Khameinei also criticized him, for “not doing it the right way”. In any case, Iran desperately needed to reduce the corruption, and Ahmadinejad did more in this regard during his tenure than anyone else since revolution days.
——————————
Now you coming off with 100% absurd claims like “The predictions that Israel will vanish from the pages of history never dealt with anything as mundane as nuclear bombs. Try to resist a messiah with his army of jinns”. Any reason you on zionists hate and propaganda bandwagon? What he actually said:
“The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the pages of time.” Key word is regime, and not the country. Then Ahmadinejad reminds the audience that, as Khomeini predicted, other seemingly invincible empires have disappeared and now only exist in history books. He then proceeds to list three such regimes that have collapsed, crumbled or vanished, all within the last 30 years:
(1) The Shah of Iran – the U.S. installed monarch
(2) The Soviet Union
(3) Iran’s former arch-enemy, Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein
No jinns or messiahs involved, and your claim is debunked. I’m curious, do you really believe in BS you said, or it was just a bad joke? 🙂

Posted by: Harry | Oct 5 2015 7:18 utc | 88

Posted by: fairleft | Oct 5, 2015 3:03:48 AM | 87
The raw number$ don’t tell us much. The west’s “Privatise Everything” defense materiel industries are embarrassingly profitable and corrupt. And the owners also ‘own’ the Govt, which makes ‘transparency’ a Unicorn-ish pipe dream. The inherent waste (and plunder) in such a system would reduce the difference, in physical terms, by a factor of 4 as an absolute minimum.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Oct 5 2015 7:44 utc | 90

Lone Wolf @ 51, There ARE contradictions between Rohani & Khamenie. Rohani represents Iranians who want a more modern state, want more economic?? & social freedoms, to join capitalist class. Want to open more to West, have already applied for WTO membersip.
Already have served notice that the Council that K controls no longer needs to approve parliamentary candidates. K disagrees.

Posted by: Penelope | Oct 5 2015 8:40 utc | 92

Tim@77 re: Russian-Israeli aircraft
Probably a grain of truth somewhere in Strategika 51’s blog (in French) but there’s a few things that seem off about the story.
The biggest problem is the absurdity of Israeli jets approaching Latakia or Tartus. The Russian navy already has a missile cruiser Moskava sitting there, bristling with S-300 SAMs that would see ANY military aircraft approaching the Russian fleet as a threat. The Israeli AF has no conceivable targets on the Syrian coast, and would risk almost certain annihilation getting within tens of miles of the Moskava, much less attempting to fly over/around it to some inland target. The Russians would have been watching Israeli aircraft since they started rolling down the runway in Israel, so there’s little chance of them ‘sneaking up’ on the Russian cruiser.
Then there’s the description of a half-dozen Latakia Su-30SMs sent out to intercept them. This is unlikely given the role for the Su-30s in Syria – they are configured and used now for ground attack, not air interdiction. They would have to have been on standby or patrol with air-to-air missile loadouts, which has not been observed at all yet – not to mention unnecessary. The six MiG-31Ms supposedly at the main (Damascus) airport are specifically for air interdiction, but would never ALL be sent out at once – that’s not how they’re used. I’m assuming the ‘six’ Syrian jets came from reports of the six interceptors supposedly in Syria, but never seen at Latakia or reported flying out of Damascus. There is no doubt that THOSE six MiGs are there specifically for countering any potential Israeli air threat.
And while Israel has made plenty of noise to Putin about going after Hezbollah, they would be very careful indeed to avoid doing anything so provocative that far north in the vicinity of Russian naval and air assets.
That said, I have little doubt in either Russian or Israeli resolve. It’s probably only a matter of time. Things could go south very quickly for the two should they decide to butt heads. I would be even more worried how the U.S. would react – our track record has been… well, discouraging of late.

Posted by: PavewayIV | Oct 5 2015 8:52 utc | 94

Based on the relentless work of MoA, I have done a chronology of the war in Syria http://rabinokuerbovich.blogspot.com/2015/10/the-syrian-war-2011-2015-chronology-of.html
Please take a look and comment what you think

Posted by: Rabino Kuerbovich | Oct 5 2015 9:09 utc | 96

I haven’t looked yet Rabine, but I have read b’s Short History of the Syria War 2006 to 2014 more than once. It’s up in the top LH cnr of MoA’s Main Page under Top Picks. And his coverage since before 2014 has been superb.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Oct 5 2015 9:35 utc | 98

….I made a statement… the functional reality of money…until or unless someone spends it…it doesn’t DO anything.
I don’t understand this vast shell game, but I know a little bit about this from practical life experience. Money does everything before it is spent, and nothing afterwards. For example, if I have a million dollars, I have the power to decide whom to pay it to. Beautiful ladies will flock to me no matter how ugly I might be. Once I spend it, the power is gone.
I learned this the hard way.

Posted by: blues | Oct 5 2015 10:02 utc | 100