IntenseDebate - ChrisBkipper

1 year ago @ http://www.information... - Ame... · 0 replies · +4 points

The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

1 year ago @ http://www.information... - In Washington G... · 0 replies · +1 points

It's not at all difficult to understand the US establishment's targeting of Russia, China and Iran as enemies - especially after the reasons were made all too clear with the examples of Iraq, Libya and Venezuela. The answer lies in "dollar hegemony" and the fact these countries are attempting to bypass the US's economic warfare strategy to strike an independent path. The example this would set for other nation's to follow would be more destructive to the US's "pre-eminent" position (ie rule of force through a dollar system that provides a tribute-based free ride for the US military and economy) in the world today than any attack on NATO, let alone threat to its Monroe Doctrine protective dome.
The only puzzling aspect is why the US is not doing more to prize China and Russia away from each other, as Trump's foreign policy agenda seemed to be following.
Why Trump should be not only criticized but deemed a 'traitor' for one of the few things he got right is truly curious.

1 year ago @ http://www.information... - The End Of Our S... · 1 reply · +1 points

And ironically, it was the Sth African Jews who led the fight against apartheid

1 year ago @ http://www.information... - The NATOs... · 2 replies · +1 points

But unfortunately, it would be a case of "when elephants fight, it's the grass that suffers" - a truism made all the more apt in the case of Ukraine and the Donbass with their vast fertile steppes.

1 year ago @ http://www.information... - The NATOs... · 2 replies · +4 points

But I read in the NYT that the whole Ukraine saga is a simple of case of
Putin being a very naughty boy trying to bully the nice freedom-loving Ukrainians with threats of an imminent invasion. Is Pepe trying to say they're liars? Surely not!
I mean, I know the Western media makes occasional mistakes and may hold differing opinions to sane people, but to suggest they'd deliberately lie on a scale exhibited in the article linked below is too much to handle. So I'm going to have to assume that it's ICH, Pepe, Russia, China and most of the world doing the lying https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/05/world/europe/p...

1 year ago @ http://www.information... - Cover-Up ... · 0 replies · +1 points

You're wrong - a collision requires two or more moving bodies

1 year ago @ http://www.information... - Cover-Up ... · 0 replies · +1 points

The terminology used in the quoted Navy incident report - "struck an object while submerged" - implies USS Connecticut hit a stationary object, presumably a topographical feature.
The author of the article has instead used the term "collision", meaning an impact between two moving objects, which implies another vessel was hit.
My guess is that it was the former.

1 year ago @ http://www.information... - Cover-Up ... · 2 replies · +1 points

The term "collision" means an impact between TWO MOVING objects.
The use of this term by the US Navy would thus have a clear inference that the USS Connecticut hit another moving object.
However, the term used by the US Navy in the incident report quoted above was "struck", which would imply impact with a stationary object.
The only reference to "collision" is from the author of the article.
Considering the vast difference in degrees of significance and inferred responsibility for this incident depending on whether an inert/fixed or moving object was struck, it would be helpful if the author could clarify which of the two terms is correct.
I'm inclined to assume the error lies with the author of the article, as it's highly unlikely the authors a military incident report would be unaware of the meaning of these terms.

1 year ago @ http://www.information... - Can... · 0 replies · +3 points

I'm intrigued by the opening paragraph of this article as it seems to imply the USA's "pivot" to Asia - ie China - came sometimes after the Obama presidency, with the 44th president apparently focused on the war in Afghanistan.
The pivot - or "rebalance" as US policy makers now term it - was THE centrepiece of Obama's foreign policy and represented the formalisation of the US's long-term strategy of "containing" the rise of China as its primary strategic objective, while identifying the broader Asia-Pacific region as the world's most important region.
It was also described as a "no more wars for Israel" policy, with Obama indicating his view that the US had become sidetracked from its primary imperial objectives.
The ‘Pivot to Asia’ was formally articulated by Obama in a speech to the Australian parliament on 17 November 2011 commemorating the 60th anniversary of the signing of the ANZUS treaty.

1 year ago @ http://www.information... - Michael Hudson : The E... · 0 replies · +2 points

Essential reading (or listening/viewing for those of that inclination). The whole system explained in little more than an hour with such simplicity - the exact opposite of the incomprehensible mumbo jumbo spouted by the Babylonian black magicians masquerading as Western economists that inhabit our universities, newspapers, think tanks and government.

IntenseDebate Comment System

Connect with ChrisBkipper

People I'm following

ChrisBkipper