Saturday 30th of March 2024

the US malarkey, hogwash, bunkum, and baloney had become an infection...

malarkeymalarkey

For many Australians who believed that Joe Biden was going to save the world, I had this message from day one, that Joe was going to be the purveyor of US malarkey, hogwash, bunkum, baloney and bullshit. He has been in the past and he was unlikely to change, except with a bit more retarded wisdom, he has delegated some of the hubris to the UK and Australia...

The AUKUS deal could not have happen even with the mad Trump. It can only happen with a demented US president and his hawkish minions, under the disguise of peaceful doves, who have the ability to market US malarkey, hogwash, bunkum, baloney and bullshit to an idiot like Scott Morrison — Scotty of nappy marketing.

This is what has been, is and will be:

 

By 

 

“The thirty-year interregnum of U.S. global hegemony,” writes David Bromwich in the journal Raritan, “has been exposed as a fraud, a decoy, a cheat, [and] a sell.” Today, he continues, “the armies of the cheated are struggling to find the word for something that happened and happened wrong.”

In fact, the armies of the cheated know exactly what happened, even if they haven’t yet settled on precisely the right term to describe the disaster that has befallen this nation.

What happened was this: shortly after the end of the Cold War, virtually the entire American foreign-policy establishment succumbed to a monumentally self-destructive ideological fever.

Call it INS, shorthand for Indispensable Nation Syndrome. Like Covid-19, INS exacts a painful toll of victims. Unlike Covid, we await the vaccine that can prevent its spread. We know that preexisting medical conditions can increase a person’s susceptibility to the coronavirus. The preexisting condition that increases someone’s vulnerability to INS is the worship of power.

Back in 1998, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright not only identified INS, but also captured its essence. Appearing on national TV, she famously declared, “If we have to use force, it is because we are America. We are the indispensable nation. We stand tall. We see further into the future.”

Now, allow me to be blunt: this is simply not true. It’s malarkey, hogwash, bunkum, and baloney. Bullshit, in short.

The United States does not see further into the future than Ireland, Indonesia, or any other country, regardless of how ancient or freshly minted it may be. Albright’s assertion was then and is now no more worthy of being taken seriously than Donald Trump’s claim that the “deep state” engineered the coronavirus pandemic. Also bullshit.

Some of us (but by no means all Americans) have long since concluded that Trump was and remains a congenital liar. To charge Albright with lying, however, somehow rates as bad form, impolite, even rude. She is, after all, a distinguished former official and the recipient of many honors.

Trump’s lies have made him persona non grata in polite society. Albright has not suffered a similar fate. And to be fair, Albright herself is not solely or even mainly responsible for the havoc that INS has caused. While the former secretary of state promoted the syndrome in notably expansive language, the substance of her remark was anything but novel. She was merely reiterating what, in Washington, still passes for a self-evident truism: America must lead. No conceivable alternative exists. Leadership implies responsibilities and, by extension, confers prerogatives. Put crudely — more crudely than Albright would have expressed it to a television audience — we make the rules.

More specifically, Albright was alluding to a particular prerogative that a succession of post-Cold War presidents, including Donald Trump and now Joe Biden, have exercised. Our political leaders routinely authorize the elimination, with extreme prejudice, of persons unwilling to acknowledge our indispensability.

Should Irish or Indonesian leaders assert such a prerogative, American officials would roundly condemn them. Indeed, when Russia’s president and the crown prince of Saudi Arabia each had the temerity to bump off an opponent, U.S. officials (in the former case) and the American media (in the latter case) professed profound shock. How could such things be permitted to occur in a civilized world? When an American president does such things, however, it’s simply part of the job description.

Three strikes and you’re out!

Now, allow me to acknowledge the allure of exercising privileges. I once flew on a private jet — very cool, indeed.

Today, however, David Bromwich’s armies of the cheated have good reason to feel cheated. Their disappointment is not without justification. The bullshit has lost its mojo. Since the promulgation of the Albright Doctrine, U.S. forces have bombed, invaded, and occupied various countries across the Greater Middle East and Africa with elan. They’ve killed lots of people, unsettling millions more. And our divided, dysfunctional country is the poorer for it, as the cheated themselves have belatedly discovered.

Blame Donald Trump for that division and dysfunction? Not me. I hold the militant purveyors of INS principally responsible. However contemptible, Trump was little more than an accessory after the fact.

To understand how we got here, recall the narrative that ostensibly validates our indispensability. It consists of sequential binaries, pitting freedom and democracy against all manner of evils. In World War I, we fought militarism; in World War II, we destroyed fascism; during the Cold War, we resisted and “contained” communism. And after 9/11, of course, came the Global War on Terrorism, now approaching its 20th anniversary.

Good versus evil, us against them, over and over again. That recurring theme of American statecraft has endowed INS with its historical context.

Today, in Washington, a foreign-policy establishment afflicted with rigor mortis reflexively reverts to the logic of 1917, 1941, 1947, and 2001, even though those past binaries are about as instructive today as the religious conflicts touched off by the Protestant Reformation of the 1500s.

Confronting evil is no longer the name of the game. Understanding the game’s actual nature, however, would require jettisoning a past that purportedly illuminates but actually imprisons Americans in an ongoing disaster.

Today, race dominates the national conversation. And few Americans would deny that we have a race problem. But the United States also has a war problem. And just about no one is keen to talk about that problem.

More specifically, we actually have three problems with war.

Our first is that we have too many of them. Our second is that our wars drag on way too long and cost way too much. Our third is that they lack purpose: when our wars do eventually more or less end, America’s declared political objectives all too often remain unmet. U.S. forces don’t necessarily suffer defeat. They merely fail. For proof, look no further than the conduct and outcomes of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

Two trips to the plate. Two whiffs. How could that have happened? In Washington, the question not only goes unanswered but totally unasked, which, of course, leaves open the possibility of yet another similar failure in the future.

As a long-ago soldier of no particular distinction, I’m mystified at the apparent absence of curiosity regarding the inability of the world’s most generously supported military to accomplish its assigned missions. If the January 6th assault on the Capitol deserves a thorough investigation — as surely it does — then how can this nation pass over a succession of failed wars as if they were mere annoyances? Shouldn’t our collective commitment to “supporting the troops” include a modicum of curiosity about why they have been so badly misused, even if the resulting inquiry should prove embarrassing to senior civilian and military officials?

Liberal media outlets characterize Trump’s claim to have won the 2020 election as the Big Lie, as indeed it is. But it’s hardly the only one. Indispensable Nation Syndrome, along with the militarism that it’s spawned in this century, should certainly qualify as — at the very least — the Other Big Lie. Curbing Washington’s susceptibility to INS requires acknowledging that the proximate challenges facing this country are in no way amenable to even the most creative military solutions. Giving yet more taxpayer dollars to the Pentagon helps sustain the military-industrial complex, but otherwise solves nothing.

Think about it. The defining reality of our moment is the ever-worsening climate chaos that so many of us are now experiencing personally. That threat, after all, has potentially existential implications. Yet in Washington’s hierarchy of national security concerns, climate takes a back seat to gearing up for a new round of “great power competition.” In effect, a foreign-policy establishment devoid of imagination has tagged Xi Jinping’s China to fill the role once assigned to Kaiser Wilhelm’s Germany, Adolf Hitler’s Germany, Joseph Stalin’s Soviet Union, and Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.

That China and the United States must make common cause in addressing the climate crisis seems to count for little. Nor does the fact that the People’s Republic ranks as America’s biggest trading partner and holds more than a trillion dollars in U.S. debt. Sustaining the good-vs-evil binary as a basis for policy requires a major enemy. It hardly matters that the most basic assumptions about the continuity between past and present are not only illusory but distinctly counterproductive.

So, here’s the deal: history didn’t end when the Cold War did. At most, it paused briefly to catch its breath. Now, it’s resumed and is darting off in directions we’ve barely begun to identify. The past that we’ve been conditioned to cherish, that’s supposed to make sense of everything, makes sense of more or less nothing at all. As a result, it won’t work as either map or compass. Indispensable Nation? Spare me.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not expecting Madeleine Albright to offer an apology, but it would be helpful if she at least issued a retraction. She might think of it as her parting gift to the nation.

 

Read more:

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2021/08/07/answering-the-armies-of-the-cheated/

 

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

this is highly unlikely...

From 

 

Biden’s National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan is in the Arabian Peninsula for meetings with Saudi and Emirati officials. Sullivan’s meeting with Saudi Crown Prince Mohamed bin Salman occurred just days before the three year anniversary of the murder of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, on MBS’s orders.

Sullivan is expected to focus on the deteriorating situation in Yemen, as he is joined by U.S. Special Envoy for Yemen Tim Lenderking, as well as by the National Security Council’s Middle East and North Africa Coordinator Brett McGurk.

The urgency of the conversation on Yemen may have been heightened by Friday’s successful passage of Rep. Ro Khanna’s Yemen amendment in the National Defense Authorization Act. Khanna’s amendment would end all U.S. support for Saudi military actions against the Houthis, including maintenance support and spare parts for the Saudi Air Force, three quarters of whose planes are U.S.-made. Although Khanna’s amendment may not survive final conference, its success on the floor of the House signals Congressional frustration with ongoing U.S. complicity in the Saudi war on Yemen.

This is likely to be the message Sullivan brings to his Saudi counterparts, something along the lines of, “Look, pressure from Congress is increasing, we will not be able to hold them off forever, you have to find a way to get out of Yemen.”

Crown Prince Mohamed bin Salman is likely to respond that given recent Houthi advances, it is even more imperative that the U.S. maintain its support to the Saudis, in order to prevent the Houthis from potentially gaining more ground. The Saudis are likely to rely on the bogeyman of Iranian support for the Houthis, an issue that the Biden administration would have been able to discount if they had acted more quickly to rejoin the Iran nuclear deal before the June elections brought a hardliner government to Tehran.

What Sullivan should say to Mohammed bin Salman and the Saudis is that Biden is serious about the statement he made during his first foreign policy speech, that the U.S. would end all support for offensive Saudi military operations, including relevant arms sales. If actually implemented, Biden’s statement would fulfill the terms of Khanna’s amendment, by ending U.S. involvement in any Saudi military actions in Yemen, because these are offensive operations, by definition. Sullivan should also make clear that if the Saudis wish to maintain a working relationship with the United States, they need to allow fuel to enter Hodeidah port and to stop delaying the entry of other basic necessities. The Saudis must also allow Sanaa International Airport to reopen. 

Sullivan should also make clear that if the Saudis ended their military campaign against Yemen, the United States would be willing to help them secure their southern border. However, if the Saudis insist on maintaining their bombardment and blockade of Yemen, the U.S. should end the sale of all arms and military equipment to the Saudis.

Unfortunately, this is highly unlikely.

 

Read more:

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2021/09/28/will-jake-sullivan-bring-tough-love-or-more-of-the-same-to-mbs-meeting/

 

Same hubris, malarkey, etc... from Sullivan... 

 

assangezassangez

 

intelligent like cane toads...

Since World War II, almost all independent states in South-East Asia have been shaped by successful anti-colonialist movements. Australia stands alone in the region, marked by a dominant political culture fixated in a colonial mind-set.

 

The idea of a fully independent Australia — one that can defend itself and contribute to good global citizenship ­— is totally beyond the imaginations of the country’s conservative, white, middle-aged, mainly male, mainly Anglo political leadership, some of whom appear to have the intellects of cane toads.

The same is true of their mostly Anglo supporters brainwashed by malevolent foreign influencers like the Murdoch media. These forces are determined that, in what is an otherwise post-colonial world, Australia has to remain a surrogate colony for the United States and for post-Brexit Britain, forever it seems.

Imperial powers expect their colonies to provide one or more of three basic benefits: 1) easy access to resources, cheap labour, and manipulable markets; 2) access to territory to protect their strategic interests (for example, military bases); and 3) the desire for “imperial glory”, to give them the appearance of “greatness” in the world.

For the USA, Australia has now become an integral part of its containing of China — hence the continued existence of spy bases like Pine Gap and the expanded military base in Darwin for rotations of US marines. AUKUS has consolidated this deal which, among other things, makes Australia a nuclear target. Meanwhile, the Australia-US free trade agreement continues to tilt very much in America’s favour, while the US merrily replaces Australian beef, wine, and barley producers in what were once Australia’s lucrative markets in China.

For the UK, Australia is a nostalgic reminder of the “glorious” days of Empire, particularly now that Brexit’s ugly chickens are coming home to roost. Any putative free trade agreement with the UK, post-Brexit, is likely to be insignificant for the Australian economy — if indeed an agreement is ever reached given the conditions the British are demanding, particularly in relation to Australian agricultural imports.

For the inhabitants of colonised countries, colonialism is first and foremost a cultural phenomenon. This means that a majority of the “natives” are led to believe that they are naturally subservient or inherently inferior to their colonisers. According to this racist narrative, the colonisers are therefore their rightful rulers. This grotesque belief is evidenced, for example, by segregated enclaves for the colonial rulers, by colonial rulers compelling local people to be their servants (or even their slaves), and by brute force. (See for example, Shashi Tharoor’s Inglorious Empire.)

Australia’s ongoing colonial political culture is founded on a hoary old myth about the so-called Anglosphere. It is a myth deeply ingrained in the national consciousness, symbolised by the “mystique” surrounding the British monarchy. (Fortunately, oafs like Prince Andrew are doing Australia great service by helping to undermine the baseless belief in the royal family’s lofty morality; at the end of the day they are a very ordinary lot.)

Tony Abbott once claimed that the “Anglosphere” countries (by which he meant Australia, Britain, Canada, New Zealand, and the USA) were bound together by a common language and a core culture with its roots in reading the King James version of the Bible and Shakespeare. Apart from the fact that many people across the entire “Anglosphere” have never read this literature, nor ever are likely to, he misses the point that all of those countries today are modern multicultural societies, increasingly cosmopolitan. To assume they have a common culture ­— let alone being economically, politically, and historically aligned — is naïve at best, stupid at worst. They are, and always have been, very different states and societies with distinctly different national interests and alliance networks. Disneyland is more real than the “Anglosphere.”

However, Abbott’s sentimental mythologising of the “Anglosphere” still has a grip on many Australians. The sad failure of a robust debate about the republic is one pointer to this backwardness. The maudlin attachment to the Queen and to some of the so-called “young royals” is characteristic of an infantile culture that cultivates a belief that a “ruling elite” is born to rule over us. As their alleged inferiors, Australians must bow or curtsey accordingly. The fact that these attachments have such a tight hold on the country’s self-imagining tells us much about the colonisation of the Australian mind.

The most recent manifestation of the colonial mind-set should be especially disturbing for thinking Australians. This is Scott Morrison’s revelation that he has committed the county to a defence arrangement with the US and the UK (AUKUS). Apparently, this means gaining access to US and/or UK technologies to drive eight nuclear-powered submarines in some distant future. But this cosying up to the US and the UK via AUKUS is a throwback to what the ancient Greeks referred to as “dog days” — days when ennui and lethargy prevailed. In contemporary Australian history this means returning to the days of Menzies and Howard when Mother England was personified by the Queen and the Queen Mother. But now we have Uncle Sam getting into the picture as well — and in due course he may be personified by Donald Trump again, or someone worse.

A more hopeful side to this depressing picture is the fact that Morrison, along with Peter Dutton, Angus Taylor, Michaelia Cash, Greg Hunt, and their ilk (including Christian Porter, Craig Kelly, and George Christensen, along with sidekicks Clive Palmer, Pauline Hanson, et al.), actually belong to a generation that is facing the end days of its domination of Australian politics. A generational change is stirring among younger voters who have profoundly felt values and very different opinions to most of the old hacks in today’s parliament, on issues as diverse as same climate change, domestic violence, women’s equality, Indigenous rights, gay rights, social justice, etc.

This younger generation is prepared to smash through mainstream political party expectations by supporting independents and mounting campaigns aligned with their values and expectations. It is a tech savvy generation turning social media into a powerful rallying tool to get their views heard. Consider the positive impact of the excellent young Australian of the Year Grace Tame, for example.

Additionally, the Australian electorate is becoming more ethnically diverse. Its once narrow Anglo character is being challenged by some impressive leaders from minority groups who are providing leadership on a wide spectrum of issues. The impressive lawyer and human rights advocate Nyadol Nyon in Melbourne is a standout example of this positive development in Australia’s changing political culture.

In short, a quiet revolution is beginning to blow in the Australian political winds. Some of its early effects are likely to be felt at the forthcoming federal election. It may be the beginning of the decolonisation of Australia’s political culture, a development that is long overdue. It’s time for Australia to join the post-colonial world.

 

Read more:

https://johnmenadue.com/aukus-confirms-australia-as-a-forever-colony/

 

Read from top.

 

Note: we have already mentioned the dangerous cane toad level of intelligence of the CONservatives in Australia about 15 years ago...

 

assangezassangez