Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category

As U.S. military troops swarmed in large numbers into Haiti after the January 12, 2010 earthquake one had to wonder if more was going on..

Supplies and medicines sat on runways and were slow to get to the needy Haitian people and several countries accused the U.S. military of holding up the planes.

Good ole’ George W. Bush and his pal Bill Clinton joined together, staring at us from U.S. television screens asking for all Americans to please send monies to help the Haitian people.

How fascinating that there seemed to be more interest in the Haitian crisis than the Katrina catastrophe that occurred on “Homeland” soil. Does the American political elite really care that much about the Haitian people??

I doubt it. Human compassion isn’t their style – just the pretense of it.

Looks to me like Haiti is about to become a part of the American Empire.

Well, read and find out what F. William Engdahl says in his article The Fateful Geological Prize Called Haiti. Engdahl (among others) offers his opinion as to why the U.S. is so interested in Haiti:

The Fateful Geological Prize Called Haiti

by F. William Engdahl
Global Research, January 30, 2010

President becomes UN Special Envoy to earthquake-stricken Haiti.

A born-again neo-conservative US business wheeler-dealer preacher claims Haitians are condemned for making a literal ‘pact with the Devil.’

Venezuelan, Nicaraguan, Bolivian, French and Swiss rescue organizations accuse the US military of refusing landing rights to planes bearing necessary medicines and urgently needed potable water to the millions of Haitians stricken, injured and homeless.

Behind the smoke, rubble and unending drama of human tragedy in the hapless Caribbean country, a drama is in full play for control of what geophysicists believe may be one of the world’s richest zones for hydrocarbons-oil and gas outside the Middle East, possibly orders of magnitude greater than that of nearby Venezuela.

Haiti, and the larger island of Hispaniola of which it is a part, has the geological fate that it straddles one of the world’s most active geological zones, where the deepwater plates of three huge structures relentlessly rub against one another—the intersection of the North American, South American and Caribbean tectonic plates. Below the ocean and the waters of the Caribbean, these plates consist of an oceanic crust some 3 to 6 miles thick, floating atop an adjacent mantle. Haiti also lies at the edge of the region known as the Bermuda Triangle, a vast area in the Caribbean subject to bizarre and unexplained disturbances.

This vast mass of underwater plates are in constant motion, rubbing against each other along lines analogous to cracks in a broken porcelain vase that has been reglued. The earth’s tectonic plates typically move at a rate 50 to 100 mm annually in relation to one another, and are the origin of earthquakes and of volcanoes. The regions of convergence of such plates are also areas where vast volumes of oil and gas can be pushed upwards from the Earth’s mantle. The geophysics surrounding the convergence of the three plates that run more or less directly beneath Port-au-Prince make the region prone to earthquakes such as the one that struck Haiti with devastating ferocity on January 12.

A relevant Texas geological project

Leaving aside the relevant question of how well in advance the Pentagon and US scientists knew the quake was about to occur, and what Pentagon plans were being laid before January 12, another issue emerges around the events in Haiti that might help explain the bizarre behavior to date of the major ‘rescue’ players—the United States, France and Canada. Aside from being prone to violent earthquakes, Haiti also happens to lie in a zone that, due to the unusual geographical intersection of its three tectonic plates, might well be straddling one of the world’s largest unexplored zones of oil and gas, as well as of valuable rare strategic minerals.

The vast oil reserves of the Persian Gulf and of the region from the Red Sea into the Gulf of Aden are at a similar convergence zone of large tectonic plates, as are such oil-rich zones as Indonesia and the waters off the coast of California. In short, in terms of the physics of the earth, precisely such intersections of tectonic masses as run directly beneath Haiti have a remarkable tendency to be the sites of vast treasures of minerals, as well as oil and gas, throughout the world.

Notably, in 2005, a year after the Bush-Cheney Administration de facto deposed the democratically elected President of Haiti, Jean-Baptiste Aristide, a team of geologists from the Institute for Geophysics at the University of Texas began an ambitious and thorough two-phase mapping of all geological data of the Caribbean Basins. The project is due to be completed in 2011. Directed by Dr. Paul Mann, it is called “Caribbean Basins, Tectonics and Hydrocarbons.” It is all about determining as precisely as possible the relation between tectonic plates in the Caribbean and the potential for hydrocarbons—oil and gas.

Notably, the sponsors of the multi-million dollar research project under Mann are the world’s largest oil companies, including Chevron, ExxonMobil, the Anglo-Dutch Shell and BHP Billiton.[1] Curiously enough, the project is the first comprehensive geological mapping of a region that, one would have thought, would have been a priority decades ago for the US oil majors. Given the immense, existing oil production off Mexico, Louisiana, and the entire Caribbean, as well as its proximity to the United States – not to mention the US focus on its own energy security – it is surprising that the region had not been mapped earlier. Now it emerges that major oil companies were at least generally aware of the huge oil potential of the region long ago, but apparently decided to keep it quiet.

Rest of article, Cuba’s Super-giant find, here. (Map of mineral and oil reserves on Haiti with article)

Read more at Marguerite Laurent’s website, particularly article Oil in Haiti – Economic Reasons for the UN/US occupation.

Haiti Has Larger Oil Reserves than Venezuela


Read Full Post »

This is big news and it could mean very bad things for us “little people.” Credit cards rates will skyrocket, along with other bank interest rates such as your mortgage. What’s next? With all the shootings and cries of “terrorism” it could be martial law. This bears watching and following in the news…

From Huffington Post

Ryan Grim

First Posted: 11- 5-09 05:59 PM   |   Updated: 11- 6-09 05:38 PM

bankAmid the ongoing financial regulation overhaul, the banking industry is hoping to pull off a quiet power grab that has eluded its grasp since the Great Depression, by stripping the independence of the board that sets financial accounting standards.

The move could effectively let banks set their own accounting standards in rough economic times.

Astonishingly, at a time when the public is crying out for greater regulation to limit excessive risk-taking by financial institutions, the banks are trying to get Congress to agree that the next time there’s a big downturn, they should have the ability to alter their accounting standards — essentially, fudge the numbers — so that the public and investors won’t be able to tell how insolvent they really are. By ignoring their declining asset values, they can avoid the standard requirement of raising more capital.

The mechanism is contained in an amendment set to be introduced in mid-November by Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-Colo.) that would move final authority over the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) from the Securities and Exchange Commission to a new body, a so-called “oversight” board, that would include the officials charged with managing systemic risks to the financial markets.

These regulators would have the authority to override FASB’s accounting guidelines by taking into account economic conditions.

The move is so radical that it has split corporate America. The bankers and members of Congress who support it have earned themselves an unlikely enemy: the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

A typical business or investor, after all, prefers honest, independent accounting, because they buy and sell real things based on real value.

Story continues below


“Washington isn’t thinking straight,” said Josh Rosner, managing director of Graham, Fischer & Co, a New York-based financial analyst who advises regulators and institutional investors. “Financial statements are for the benefit of investors.”

Indeed, allowing banks to alter accounting standards when they run into trouble is incentive to take more risk and, in essence, institutionalizes fraud. The regulators would now be under enormous political pressure — and sometimes under direct orders — to allow banks to remain in business long after they’ve become insolvent, in the hopes that things will turn around and they’ll grow again.

And rather than stabilize the system, removing accounting independence destabilizes it in the long run, as investors and other banks have little confidence in the veracity of financial statements.

Perlmutter told the Huffington Post that under his proposal, the FASB “would stay with the SEC, but in instances where an accounting procedure or a way it’s being implemented poses a threat to the financial system by exaggerating what’s going on — is pro-cyclical to a point that it, too, threatens the system — then the financial regulator, the systemic regulator, could look in to it.

“For virtually every situation you can think of, there’s no change, but [there would be a change] in the event that there’s a threat to the system, like the dysfunctional market we had from October through March, and that the accounting procedures just didn’t fit for a system where there was no market,” Perlmutter said.

Leslie Oliver, a spokeswoman for Perlmutter, said backers of the amendment haven’t been surprised at the opposition from certain sectors of corporate America.

“That’s understandable for a company that has tangible assets,” she said. Perlmutter said he has yet to hear directly from the Chamber.

That the banking industry finds itself in opposition to large sectors of the business community is evidence that a historic power struggle for control of the economy is underway.

The issue is stirring up the House Financial Services Committee. “It’s caused a great deal of controversy,” said committee chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.). Frank has yet to take a position, he said, waiting until Perlmutter finishes meeting with members of the committee. “I told him I would wait until he finishes his conversations,” Frank told HuffPost.

FASB is fighting to keep its independence. “The amendment that’s being considered represents a shift that threatens to fundamentally challenge the objectives of financial accounting and politicize the process and harm financial system,” said FASB spokesman Neal McGarity. “The mission of bank regulators is to ensure the safety and soundness of the banking system. We have a different mandate. That’s why this is of considerable concern.”

A powerful subcommittee chairman already opposes it. “I’m for keeping the independent FASB and I see no reason to change it,” Rep. Paul Kanjorski told HuffPost.

The Chamber joined with investors and auditors in opposing the Perlmutter amendment.

From a letter sent to top committee members by representatives of the Center For Audit Quality; the Chamber of Commerce; and the Council of Institutional Investors:

“By placing the FASB under the jurisdiction of a structure charged with managing systemic risks to the financial markets, accounting rules will be viewed though the narrow lens of a few large companies from specific industries, rather than considerate of the applicability of financial reporting policies to over 15,000 public companies. Such a narrow focus can skew standards such that it makes understanding of transactions that businesses engage in on a daily basis more difficult and undermine the confidence of investors. We believe that the SEC has been and continues to be best suited to provide the oversight of the FASB for such a broad and diverse economy.”

The American Bankers Association stands on the other side. “A Systemic Risk Oversight Council could not possibly do its job if does not have oversight authority over accounting rulemaking,” top bank lobbyist Ed Yingling testified before the committee on October 29. “This is a major deficiency in the draft legislation. Accounting policies are increasingly and profoundly influencing financial policy and the basic structure of our financial system. Thus, accounting standards must now be part of any systemic risk calculation. To do anything less creates the potential to undermine any action taken to address a systemic risk. The Financial Accounting Standards Board should continue to function as it does today, but it should no longer report only to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The SEC’s view is simply too narrow. Accounting policies contributed to the crisis, as has now been well documented, and yet the SEC is not charged with considering systemic and structural effects.”

Yingling said the ABA “strongly supported” the approach taken by Perlmutter. “We thank Representatives Perlmutter and [Frank] Lucas [R-Okla.] for their foresight and leadership on this critical issue.”

While the big banks would be pleased by the change, Frank said, the major push has come from community banks. Perlmutter said that his amendment was one of the community bankers’ highest priorities.

Community banks are a popular and powerful political force in Congress. They didn’t heavily trade the exotic products that nearly brought down the global economy; they received little in the way of bailout money; they don’t give multi-billion-dollar bonuses; they tend to take more responsibility for loans that they issue; and they’re generally respected members of the local community.

“Many members of the committee are supportive of community banks,” said Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), one of the most progressive members of the committee and a subcommittee chair. “The big banks have been such an outrageous, scandalous story about how they operate and what they have done that we tend to want to support the community banks in whatever they ask us to do.”

Waters told HuffPost she supports Perlmutter’s amendment.

And winning the support of community bankers is in essence a necessary condition for Democrats who want to pass reform legislation through the Financial Services Committee. The Perlmutter amendment could be a way to win community banks over to the idea of a systemic regulator, a priority of the administration.

But working to loosen accounting rules could come back to hurt the Democratic Party: When the system goes down again, voters will want to know why.

When HuffPost asked Frank if Wall Street was pushing Perlmutter’s measure, he responded emphatically.

“You have this caricature in your heads. You literally don’t understand the way the world works,” he said. “It’s the community banks, the credit unions, who are driving this…Seriously, the community banks have the political clout here. Not the Wall Street banks.”

Frank said the ABA was likely pushing for the amendment to win favor with community banks in its rivalry with the Independent Community Bankers of America.

Perlmutter agreed. “It’s the community banks I’ve been working with. I’m not hearing it from the Wall Street guys,” he said.

While the ABA has traditionally been associated with large Wall Street banks, it also represents small banks and is attempting to expand its membership by signing up more community bankers.

It works well for the big banks when their interests are aligned with the little ones, as is the case here. When their interests are not aligned, the little banks often win. Community banks, for instance, won an exemption from examinations — though not the rules — related to the Consumer Financial Protection Agency.

The ICBA wants to use its clout and the distrust of the big banks to move Perlmutter’s amendment even further in their direction. “We’re not buying and selling all the time. We hold a lot of things for the long term…. So we’d like to build in some additional sensitivity to community banks so would like to make that more explicit,” Steve Verdier, an ICBA senior vice president, told HuffPost. “We’re going to get in touch with [Perlmutter] to see if there are more things that can be done to tweak it in our direction.”

Much of the debate around the amendment comes down to what is called the mark-to-market accounting requirement. Banks — both big and small — have long sought to avoid marking their assets down to market prices when those market prices are too low. Marking down the assets requires the bank to take a loss on its books, which then requires it to raise more capital by selling off assets at low prices. Banks claimed that in the fall, the market had frozen and that they couldn’t sell assets. Another way of putting it is that the market price was lower than they wanted to accept.

Regardless, forced selling at low prices creates a downward spiral that banks and the GOP blame for the financial crisis last fall. The GOP called for a study of the effect of mark-to-market accounting on the economic collapse as part of the bailout. That report found the accounting practice did not cause the collapse. Either way, the banks hope to avoid that cycle when the commercial real estate market collapses and they find themselves with bad loans again.

“It’s about easing the pressure to reduce the value of their assets in community banks, so they don’t have to raise more capital,” Frank said.

Asking accountants to change standards based on economic conditions could very well make their heads explode, however. It’s not their job, they say, to keep the system from collapsing. It’s their job to give honest numbers. If a company is bankrupt, it’s bankrupt.

“Accounting standards are not policy,” remarked one person involved in the fight.

But they have become policy. In the spring, Kanjorski’s subcommittee hauled the head of FASB in for a hearing and demanded the number-crunchers change their mark-to-market standards within three weeks or Congress would do it for them. FASB’s head pushed back during the hearing, saying that banks who called him asking for such a change were usually bankrupt fairly quickly.

“They practically dragged him into the hallway and beat him to death,” said Rep. Brad Miller (D-N.C.), a committee member skeptical of the Perlmutter amendment.

Three weeks later, they eased their accounting rules. But it wasn’t simple for the banks. Even with the intense congressional pressure, the change only sneaked by by a single vote and created tension on a board accustomed to a freedom from politics. The Perlmutter amendment would make such a battle unnecessary for the banks.

“There are a lot of banks that are in a lot of trouble and have a lot of exposure to commercial real estate,” Miller said. “You can’t fix that with accounting.”

Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) fought a lonely battle last spring to stave off the loosening of the accounting rules and opposes this more dramatic shift, as well. Banks may have good reason to want to overstate the value of their assets, he said, and it may work for a time. But an economy can’t be run indefinitely on imaginary numbers. “I enjoy reading fiction, but not in financial statements,” he said.

UPDATE: HuffPost obtained a copy of the amendment language that is circulating among lobbyists. Perlmutter’s spokeswoman confirmed its authenticity.

The amendment would empower the council overseeing FASB to “recommend to the SEC, either publicly or privately to take such action as is necessary, including but not limited to suspension, modification or elimination of such accounting principles, standards or procedures as they may apply to the stability of the financial system or the safety and soundness of financial companies, as a whole, for such duration as is reasonable and appropriate.”

If the SEC doesn’t follow the “recommendation,” according to section (c) of the amendment, the council can order it to do so.

In other words, for the sake of financial stability, bank regulators could secretly order the “elimination” of accounting standards.

SEC. 1103. PRUDENTIAL OVERSIGHT OF ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES AND STANDARDS THAT POSE SYSTEMIC RISKS.(a) IN GENERAL.–In the event that any member of the Council believes that an accounting principle, standard or procedure threatens the stability of the United States financial system or companies, as a whole, then the Council shall investigate and by a majority vote, determine whether any corrective action, emergency or otherwise, is necessary to prevent or mitigate any adverse effects from such principle, standard or procedure. In the event that the Council determines that corrective action is necessary then, the Council shall recommend to the SEC, either publicly or privately to take such action as is necessary, including but not limited to suspension, modification or elimination of such accounting principles, standards or procedures as they may apply to the stability of the financial system or the safety and soundness of financial companies, as a whole, for such duration as is reasonable and appropriate.

(b) ADOPTION OF COUNCIL RECOMMENDATIONS BY SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION.–the Securities and Exchange Commission shall ensure that the prudential standards recommended by the Council are implemented within 60 days of the Council’s recommendation or within such other time period specified by the Council.

(c) FAILURE TO ADOPT STANDARDS.–If the Securities and Exchange Commission fails to ensure that the prudential standards recommended by the Council are implemented within the time period specified in paragraph (b), the Council is authorized to direct that any recommendations issued pursuant to paragraph (a) be implemented for the purposes of generally accepted accounting principles.”

UPDATE II: The SEC and the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants both oppose the amendment, as well. “Accounting should be about accounting, and not about anything else,” writes SEC chair Mary Schapiro in a letter to Frank sent Thursday.

From a letter from the AICPA:

It is our understanding that Congressman Ed Perlmutter (D-CO) is considering language to amend the Financial Stability Improvement Act of 2009, which would undermine the independent accounting standard process as currently carried out by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB). The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) strongly opposes this amendment and any attempt that would serve to undermine the independence of accounting standard setting. The purpose of public company financial reporting is to provide investors with clear, objective, and transparent financial information. This helps investors make informed investment decisions. Any attempt to divert financial reporting from its primary investor-focused objectives to other policy objectives with regard to financial institutions damages investor protections.

Read Full Post »

I was watching the DVD this afternoon and thought I’d share… I know you can find it on the Internet (I pulled this one from Googlevideo), but another copy will not hurt.

It always makes me wonder why G. W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, and Dick Cheney are not in court and/or prison. For years I was proud of being an American. In less than four years, these men made me ashamed. They have disgraced and disfigured our country and we will feel the reprecussions for many, many years to come.

Isn’t it true that a captain is responsible for the actions that happen when he is in control of the ship? If so, then these “gentlemen” are responsible for the unfettered “theft” of American money, the deaths and murders of hundreds of Americans and Iraqi people, the torture and maiming of individuals for unspecified and highly questionable “crimes,” disregard for the needs of the American and Iraqi countries, mistreatment and disrespect for American soldiers, and numerous other crimes. What a black mark on the history of America.

But, as you know, the Bush’s and his like do not care what we really think; they made BILLIONS from the war. They just insulate themselves and plead ignorance…

Read Full Post »

Mitchell has spoken out about this subject several times in the past, but always has been mocked (expected reaction). However, he keeps trying to get people to listen, but I imagine no one will listen until they are faced with or become privy to a situation themselves…

From CNN updated 4:41 p.m. EDT, Mon April 20, 2009

Former astronaut: Man not alone in universe

earth_moonEarth Day may fall later this week, but as far as former NASA astronaut Edgar Mitchell and other UFO enthusiasts are concerned, the real story is happening elsewhere.

Mitchell, who was part of the 1971 Apollo 14 moon mission, asserted Monday that extraterrestrial life exists, and that the truth is being concealed by the U.S. and other governments.

He delivered his remarks during an appearance at the National Press Club following the conclusion of the fifth annual X-Conference, a meeting of UFO activists and researchers studying the possibility of alien life forms.

Mankind has long wondered if we’re “alone in the universe. [But] only in our period do we really have evidence. No, we’re not alone,” Mitchell said.

“Our destiny, in my opinion, and we might as well get started with it, is [to] become a part of the planetary community. … We should be ready to reach out beyond our planet and beyond our solar system to find out what is really going on out there.”

Mitchell grew up in Roswell, New Mexico, which some UFO believers maintain was the site of a UFO crash in 1947. He said residents of his hometown “had been hushed and told not to talk about their experience by military authorities.” They had been warned of “dire consequences” if they did so.


But, he claimed, they “didn’t want to go to the grave with their story. They wanted to tell somebody reliable. And being a local boy and having been to the moon, they considered me reliable enough to whisper in my ear their particular story.”

Roughly 10 years ago, Mitchell claimed, he was finally given an appointment at Pentagon to discuss what he had been told.

An unnamed admiral working for the Joint Chiefs of Staff promised to uncover the truth behind the Roswell story, Mitchell said. The stories of a UFO crash “were confirmed,” but the admiral was then denied access when he “tried to get into the inner workings of that process.”

The same admiral, Mitchell claimed, now denies the story.

“I urge those who are doubtful: Read the books, read the lore, start to understand what has really been going on. Because there really is no doubt we are being visited,” he said.

“The universe that we live in is much more wondrous, exciting, complex and far-reaching than we were ever able to know up to this point in time.”

A NASA spokesman denied any cover-up. “NASA does not track UFOs. NASA is not involved in any sort of cover-up about alien life on this planet or anywhere else — period,” Michael Cabbage said Monday.

Debates have continued about what happened at Roswell. The U.S. Air Force said in 1994 that wreckage recovered there in 1947 was most likely from a balloon-launched classified government project.

Stephen Bassett, head of the Paradigm Research Group (PRG), which hosted the X-Conference, said that the truth about extraterrestrial life is being suppressed because it is politically explosive.

“There is a third rail [in American politics], and that is the UFO question. It is many magnitudes more radioactive than Social Security ever dreamed to be,” Bassett said.

Read Full Post »

texas-flag1Hell, why not? A bloody revolution might wake up some folks in this complacent country…

As I live in South Texas, I’ve discussed this with my fellow Texans and everyone think it’s a great idea. People are already volunteering to patrol the borders and set up more fencing to keep out the potentially illegal Americans.

We talked about how we would create our own currency (with one star on it, of course) and change the laws to suit our unique situation. We discussed if partnering up with Mexico would be a good idea and we laughed about Chuck Norris being interested in running for President. At any rate, it’s been a great conversation item over the last couple of days that has brought a lot of fun and serious talks…

All this began with Texas Governor Rick Perry’s comment at the Austin Tea Party event Wednesday, April 15th:

“When we came into the Union in 1845, one of the issues was that we would be able to leave if we decided to do that,” he told reporters on Wednesday. “My hope is that America, and Washington in particular, pay attention. We’ve got a great Union. There’s absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, who knows what may come of that?”

The comment was twisted to mean that Perry was implying that Texas should secede from the rest of the country. It may have been twisted a bit, but, it does sound as if that is what he is alluding to, so everyone has been having a heyday in news stories, on television, and in the blogs…

So what do most Texans really say about seceding from the U.S. of A.?

According to Rasmussen Reports, a recent poll found that 75% of Texas voters would vote to remain in the United States; 18% would vote to secede; and 7% are undecided. Aside from the polls, some say it cannot legally happen, while others say it is a possibility; you’ll have to decide for yourself. My coworkers are of the opinion that whoever is not in favor of the secession should leave, which leaves more land and opportunities for the rest of us…

Anyway, if the Lakotah Indians can state that the U.S. has unilaterally breached all treaties, thereby forcing them to withdraw from the United States and demand their territories back (which includes five states), why can’t Texas play with the idea of seceding?

Like I said, it’s been a great conversation item and will be until the fervor either dies down or something really happens…

What do you think?

Read Full Post »

From Ananova

White House gives out sex line number

redlips_phone1Journalists hoping to interview Hillary Clinton on the G20 summit were surprised when the number they were given turned out to be a phone sex line.

The White House accidentally listed a sex line number for journalists seeking an “on-the-record briefing call with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and National Security Advisor Jim Jones”, reports Fox News.

Journalists who dialled the number heard a soft-voiced female recording, that was clearly not Clinton, asking for a credit card number if you “feel like getting nasty”.

After several efforts to make sure that the phone number was correctly dialled, a call to the White House resulted in a corrected press release.

“If you are having trouble dialling into the call, please try this number as an alternative,” it said, and listed the international line included for reporters abroad to dial.

By this time, the conference call was already under way.

Asked for comment, Deputy White House Press Secretary Bill Burton responded: “A corrected phone number on a press release is probably one of the stupider things Fox News has covered lately.”

Read Full Post »

From PressTV

 Fri, 03 Apr 2009 17:08:46 GMT

noam_chomskyNATO would be better off if it sought an “immediate disbandment”, renowned American author and political analyst Professor Noam Chomsky says.

“If the question was ‘How ought NATO to develop?’ the answer is ‘immediate disbandment’,” Chomsky told Russia Today when asked about the alliance’s development in the future.

Chomsky said despite the costly maintenance of the US military, which spends half of the world’s military expenditure, and the financial crisis, President Barack Obama has shown no desire to limit the military spending.

“In reality there is little sign of change. You may have noticed that despite the financial crisis there is no serious attempt to limit US military spending since (Barack) Obama became president,” he said.

“They may cancel some expensive high tech projects like purchase of the F22 fighter. You don’t need those sorts of planes for the sort of wars we have now.”

Chomsky also slammed the previous US administration for concocting excuses which contributed to NATO’s survival.

The administration of George W. Bush “issued a defense strategy document that effectively said that the real threat was actually the advanced technological level of third world countries and the need to preserve the superiority of the US technological military industrial base…. So suddenly the original threat turns out to be a lie and it is business as usual for NATO.”

The comments came ahead of the 60th NATO anniversary which marks its formation with the aim of providing collective defense for members.

The body’s defensive capability rose to utmost standards upon accepting the then-united West Germany in mid-1990s. Moscow dropped its objection to the accession in exchange for the alliance’s promise not to expand beyond Germany’s border and close to those of Russia’s.

In contravention of the pledge, however, the Bush administration threw its weight behind the membership bid of former Soviet Union states such as Georgia and Ukraine.

“The United States wants to recruit Eastern European nations to join NATO because they think they will be prepared to send soldiers to fight in those sorts of wars,” Chomsky concluded.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »