Charlie Rose

Ricardo_Amaral  02/07/2013 05:48 AM Report

Gelles, I hope you will enjoy watching these videos:

'CIA turns into military force, targets countries it's not at war with' – January 2013

http://youtu.be/IZFYFVxiheE

The US Senate is considering President Obama's picks to lead the Pentagon and the CIA. The candidate for the post of Spy Chief, presidential counter-terrorism advisor John Brennan, is a strong advocate of aggressive CIA tactics, and has secured a controversial drone programme as one of the agency's main tools. Paul Craig Roberts, a former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury thinks if Brennan is confirmed as the CIA head, the agency will further expand its powers.

*****

Gelles, the United States is not the only place where we have a pathetic economic and financial system check this out:

Keiser Report: Horror Bankers Attack! - February 5, 2013

http://youtu.be/ENdQpuUIsKM

In this episode of the Keiser Report, Max Keiser and Stacy Herbert discuss Ben 'Horror Frog' Bernanke ripping the legs off the global reserve currency in order to defend itself from deflation, while in Europe, the Magritte and Dali of policymakers worry not about bankruptcy as long as the fraud flow fees keep flowing, or F-cubed.

In the second half of the show, Max Keiser talks to Simon Rose of SaveOurSavers.co.uk about his recent experience giving evidence to the Treasury Select Committee and about the moochers living on the dole of quantitative easing while the Bank of England sits on one third of the stock of gilts with a 'cunning' plan to sell them one day and theoretically make a profit.

*****

Gelles, most Americans have no idea that the old United States does not exist anymore...today all we have only the carcass of what the United States used to be....

The Police State is already here? - January 25, 2013

http://youtu.be/vTl6r5gHk3E

These never-before-seen interviews with Alex Jones, David Icke, Mark Cripsin Miller, Mickey Z, Brian Kraft, Naomi Wolf, David McAlvany, Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, Doug Casey, Ken Klein and G. Edward Griffin will help you realize that individual freedom is only one more catastrophe away from being stolen from you. The Patriot Act, HR 1995, NDAA, the weakening of habeas corpus, FEMA camps, RFID, a compromised mainstream media, free speech zones, micro chipping, electronic voting, the Military Com

*****

Drone warfare priority in China-Japan standoff – January 2013

http://youtu.be/LkFWA8Fi434

.

Ricardo_Amaral  02/07/2013 02:03 AM Report

Brazilian legislators slams moves to take Iranian channels off air – February 6, 2013

http://youtu.be/t6pU2ZKC3jE

Following decisions by the European Companies to take two Iranian news channels off air, Brazilian legislators have slammed such moves as attempts to restrict the freedom of expression. Satellites operators like Eutelsat, Argiva and HispaSat, from France, England and Spain say the European Union forced them to cut off the Iranian TV channels. In another wave of attacks on the principle of free speech, the Spanish's Government has ordered the city of Madrid Administration to cancel the Broadcasting concession of two local channels used by Hispan TV and Press TV. The International Satellite Company STN has denounced that decision as illegal and said they will take legal measures in order to reestablish the transmission. The right to freedom of expression is enshrined in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948. For their part, Hispan TV and Press TV have described the recent moves to take them off the air as an attack on free speech.

.

ShalomFreedman  02/06/2013 08:59 AM Report

Tom Donilon is an excellent spokesman, explainer, politician. However it seems to me his presentation here raises more questions than it does provide answers. He presents the situation in Iraq as if a stable government is in power there, totally allied with its U.S. sponsor. But the Iranian- Iraqi relationship is not probed. And the fact that Iran is supplying Syria through Iraq is not mentioned.

Donilon also makes it very clear that the U.S. is going to prevent Iran from attaining nuclear weapons. He mentions the sanctions but does not mention that they have not stopped Iran but rather accelerated its race to nuclear weapons. Today February 6, a few days after this interview, the Iranians openly proclaim that they have already achieved a nuclear capability.

Charlie Rose has surprised me in his two most recent interviews on Syria. He has not said a word or raised a real question about the Syrian- Iranian-Hizbollah threat to America's closest ally in the region, Israel. He has said nothing about the recent premptive effort of Israel in Syria which was aimed to prevent an increasing threat of WMD weapons against its citizens.

I also find that Mr.Donilon's presentation of what has happened in the Middle East more than a little 'over- optimistic'. The fact is that Egypt now has an Islamist President and regime more interested in ruling absolutely over its people, than moving toward greater democratic freedom. Just this week President Morsi met with one of the U.S.'s major enemies in the region the Iranian President. It is possible to go on and detail problematic situations in many other countries, from Yemen to Libya. None of these regimes are true democratic allies of the WEst.

All in all this is a rosier- than- reality presentation by Mr. Donilon. I would suggest that Charlie Rose next time he has an interview on Syria ask the following questions. ' What threat does the present Syrian situation present to its neighbors? And what is the chance of a possible Islamist takeover of Syria should Assad fall? And is there anything which can be done to make the situation one more favorable to democratic forces in the region?

Ricardo_Amaral  02/06/2013 04:53 AM Report

Gelles, check this video with a conversation with Stephen S. Cohen, Professor in the Graduate School, University of California, Berkeley – a discussion of the new book he has written with Professor Brad Delong entitled “The End of Influence”.

Conversations with History - Stephen S. Cohen author of “The End of Influence”

http://youtu.be/S7hB6LEyW68

Time: 1 hr.

"What Happens When Other Countries Have the Money"

Stephen S. Cohen, Professor in the Graduate School, University of California, Berkeley

Conversations host Harry Kreisler welcomes Professor Stephen S. Cohen for a discussion of the new book he has written with Professor Brad Delong entitled “The End of Influence”. Professor Cohen argues that the 2008 economic collapse demonstrates the failure both domestically and internationally of neo-liberal economic policies embraced by both democrats and republicans during the last three decades. Neoliberalism assumed that an unfettered market and a fettered government are the best route to prosperity. These policies increased economic inequality and led to the bloating of the financial sector.

The policies also led to unbalanced trade and the transfer of dollars to sovereign funds in many of the emerging powers especially China. The future course of the sovereign funds will be a key determinant in whether centers of innovation develop in these emerging powers which control enormous reserves in dollars. In conclusion, Cohen raises a second key question: will the US redefine its reluctance to embrace greater government involvement in the economy once the crisis has past and the U.S. confronts challenges emanating from states with enormous assets in their sovereign funds. Ironically, neoliberal policies intended to limit government intrusion in the market has hastened the increased involvement of government in many emerging countries and led to the redistribution of power in the international system.

**********

BloombergBusinessweek - January 24, 2013

“Boeing's 787 Dreamliner and the Decline of Innovation”

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-01-24/boeings-787-dreamliner-and-the-decline-of-innovation

...The Dreamliner’s troubles reflect a wider trend. Innovation in mature economies such as America’s seems stuck in a perpetual holding pattern. Venture capitalist Peter Thiel has warned about this slowdown for years. “There is so much incrementalism now,” Thiel said in a recent interview with Bloomberg Businessweek. “Even back in the ’90s there were companies like Amazon that were willing to do big things. That has gone out of fashion now.” Thiel points to SpaceX and the electric car company Tesla Motors, both run by Elon Musk, as the rare examples of recent attempts to leap forward boldly. Yet Musk often gets portrayed as a quixotic dreamer. “I think this reflects the insanity of our country, that anything non-incremental is seen as insane,” Thiel says.

Who’s responsible for this perceived downturn in innovation? One obvious target is overweening government. Some Boeing defenders have charged that the FAA wildly overreacted by grounding the Dreamliner. “They are trying to make us too risk-averse,” says Gordon Bethune, a retired airline executive who worked for Boeing and later ran Continental Airlines. “The FAA is teaching Boeing something. Are we sending the right signals to our innovators in automobiles, airplanes, appliances, that the heavy hand of God is going to come down on you if you have so much as one question wrong in a hundred-question exam?”

Yet an even more important factor than excessive regulation is that the public markets simply don’t reward big risks.

Going public theoretically should give companies more access to capital to finance research and development, but it turns out that an initial public offering actually tends to discourage bold bets. Shai Bernstein, an assistant finance professor at the Stanford Graduate School of Business, recently studied more than 20 years of patent citations and found that on average, in the five years after a company stages an IPO, there is a 40 percent drop in the quality of innovation. This happens partly because a company’s best inventors tend to cash in their chips and head to smaller companies with more upside, and partly because managers become more inclined to pursue the incremental projects that won’t spook investors.

Too often at a newly public company, Bernstein says, “suddenly everyone is mindful about bottom-line profits rather than just building a great company.” Consider the swooning PC maker Dell, which pioneered the selling of personal computers over the phone and the Internet. For years its founder, Michael Dell, openly taunted rivals that spent heavily on research and development. Wall Street loved Dell’s lightweight, capital-efficient business model.

But when consumers moved away from desktops to mobile devices, Dell stumbled and proved ill-equipped to come up with any new technology to meet changing tastes. The former Wall Street darling is now in talks to go private.

After the explosion of the Space Shuttle Challenger in 1986, U.S. President Ronald Reagan addressed the nation from the Oval Office. “I know it is hard to understand, but sometimes painful things like this happen,” he said. “It’s all part of the process of exploration and discovery. It’s all part of taking a chance and expanding man’s horizons.

The future doesn’t belong to the fainthearted; it belongs to the brave.” Less than three decades later, NASA has pulled back from manned space exploration—yet another sign of how the benefits of risky endeavors have been trumped by cost concerns and the fear of failure. The Boeing 787 will inevitably fly again; it may already be back in the skies by the time you read this. But a future full of innovations braver than dimmable airplane windows remains just a dream.

**********

Innovation:

Gelles, here is an excellent lecture about innovation, that gives in detail the reasons why the United States is falling behind many countries in real innovation.

Americans think that they still are number 1 in the world regarding innovation, but the reality is another story.

“Falling Behind: U.S. Competitiveness in a High-Tech World”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sV4rIWD7CLI

Time: 1 hr. 10 min.

Robert Atkinsons talk will focus on the United States losing its international economic competitiveness as it falls behind in advanced technologies and the forthcoming green tech revolution. A New College alumnus, he is the founder and president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a Washington, DC-based technology policy think tank.

Atkinson is the author of The Past and Future of America's Economy: Long Waves of Innovation that Drive Cycles of Growth and the State New Economy Index series. He is chair of the Congressionally-created National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission and was appointed by President Clinton to the Commission on Workers, Communities, and Economic Change in the New Economy. Before starting ITIF, Atkinson was Vice President of the Progressive Policy Institute and Director of PPIs Technology & New Economy Project.

.

nah  02/06/2013 03:06 AM Report

James Baker said earlier in the year on your program that the US shouldn't be involved in Syria and that it didn't have to 'because our allies are doing it'. Hillary Clinton nodded in agreement. How has JaN, Jabhat al Nusra been able to operate within in Syria? Donlon states Assad is responsible, and that extremists show up by 'magnetism'. US through involvement with Qatar and KSA also bears responsibility for the flow of militias into Syria. Only recently was the SSG created to vet who should should receive arms. This looks like a very bad process mismanaged throughout. An intellectual diaspora is sought and found but the MB dominated it. Ford gathered opposition in Doha and ordered the forming of another opposition group. Do you really claim Moaz Khatib is viewed by Syrians as the representative of the Syrian people? What a mess. I would say sham, but Sham is the name for beautiful Damascus.

Gelles  02/05/2013 11:38 PM Report

correcting typos:

proved nothing in this world or the next.

We had a play book ...

Gelles  02/05/2013 11:31 PM Report

A fundamental misunderstanding led off this discussion. The two parties to the conversation tacitly agreed no nation rapidly losing economic and industrial power has the right to fail in business as it seeks to lead in diplomacy and exemplary development of its own political-economy. Yet they accepted rigid debt and tax-based revenue deficits as normal when they knew that military and civilian Keynesian planning was the only technique in recent history that was immune to recessions, depressions and failure -- for as long as it was tried and we budgeted for good results, not for numbers that proved nothing in this world or the nest.

We has a play book for WW II. It can be updated for tomorrow. It was based on full employment of all labor and money sufficient to deliver planned output and profit enough to pay all bills.

Fear of hyperinflation was contained with no diminution of entrepreneurial innovation in business and government and with heavy investment in defense advanced research projects with an eye and an ear to success from here to eternity.

finalfantasytown  02/05/2013 11:19 PM Report

Thus, the focus is to persuade the four members of free country to withdraw from the game which is meaningless and unrelated to their future, and dissolve in long-time peace of human life in this planet.

Max83  02/05/2013 11:18 PM Report

Sorry there are two little typos in my post below. It is supposed to say: ''The USA and most of its citizens have learned from its mistakes of the past years since 9/11 and do not intend to make the same mistakes again.

and

This is thanks to President Obama and Secretary Hillary Clinton and I know Secretary John Kerry will only improve and build on this already positive development.''

Max83  02/05/2013 11:13 PM Report

@ Ricardo_Amaral

I don't know if you read my post below carefully enough. Again you are quoting articles from 2005 Ricardo, that is almost 8 years ago. We are now in 2013.

I agree with you that thanks or no thanks :-) to the Bush-Cheney administration in 2005 and the following years the American standing and prestige in the world was at an all time low, but President Obama and his foreign policy team since 2009 have constantly and consistently improved the US reputation world wide. I can attest to that from my own experiences from being a German citizen living here in the USA, but still having all of my family and many friends living in Europe.

Maybe re-read my post below Ricardo and you will see that I agree with your writings if we were still in 2005, but the story is different now, a new and improved one in 2013. This is thanks to President Obama and Secretary Hillary Clinton and I know Secretary John Kerry will only improve and build on this on this already positive development.

The USA and most of its citizens have learned from its mistakes of the past years since 9/11 and do not intend not to make the same mistakes again. You can rest assured in that and they will also make up for the chaos and the unnecessary destruction they unfortunately caused during the Bush 43 administration.

''Secretary Kerry Delivers Remarks Upon his Arrival to the Department of State''

Video Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdFMJcXB9w8

'' Published on Feb 4, 2013

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry delivers remarks upon his arrival to the U.S. Department of State in Washington, D.C. on February 4, 2013.''

finalfantasytown  02/05/2013 11:10 PM Report

War is for Gods, which is nothing related to the future of human being. I am thinking why Zeus completely destructed five human races.

finalfantasytown  02/05/2013 11:05 PM Report

when understand the thief Prometheus and his reasons, then continue to understand why all Gods join/play this lethal game. I think it is possible for human being peacefully to live in this planet, which should be renamed. If Gods leave, this planet will be isolated. There are several isolated countries. China is one of them. Why opening and reform after Tian an men square event in 1989? It is punishment. Deng Xiaoping did the right thing. Actually, it is impossible for Chinese to keep culture and tradition for hundreds of years. When going to the southwest areas of minorities, they keep their tradition and culture very well. It is directly related to today's U.S.

Gelles  02/05/2013 11:03 PM Report

We were a privileged audience, listening to Tom Donlon, the National Security Advisor in the Obama Administration, discuss with Charlie Rose, the issues (as he is permitted to talk of them,) that ought to be resolved in the interest of global peace, security and progress toward universal human rights, acceptance of the golden Rule, and seeking to advance human material welfare. We, as the human race , seek and must secure Freedom from Want and Freedom from Fear.

One of the issues is Iran's entry into the modern world of nations that will not fail to seek peace, modernity, universal human rights and behavior toward all others, inside and outside of Iran, that is consistent with the Golden Rule.

Many of the comments already posted here are addressed to issues that mean nothing relative to what America and its partners (great continental nations, as well as, smaller nations) are expected to accomplish within less than a decade.

Tom Donlon is responsible for success along the aforesaid lines.

The comments already posted are, many of them, irresponsible, relative to the best outcomes an audience can help to bring about.

[Forgive me if I post in sections--crashes are common here at this crowded hour.]

finalfantasytown  02/05/2013 09:58 PM Report

I think I was born on the wrong place.

Ricardo_Amaral  02/05/2013 09:53 PM Report

@ Max83 - A reality check about US prestige and influence in Brazil and in South America - never mind in the rest of the world....

Quoting from my article published in June 2005:

Brazzil Magazine - June 2, 2005

“While China Rises the US Falls in Brazil and Latin America” - Written by Ricardo C. Amaral

http://www.brazzil.com/2005-mainmenu-79/152-june-2005/9296.html

...US Influence Declining in South America

The Arab-South America Summit offered to the Arabs commercial alternatives not available before, which will reduce the European and American hegemony in the Arab world.

The Arab Summit laid the foundations to further reduce the gap between the Arab world and South America, an area of the world that is becoming one of the major industrial and commercial trading blocs in the world.

On January 26, 2005 The Financial Times of London had an interesting editorial - "How America became the world's dispensable nation."

That Financial Times article started by saying: "In a second inaugural address tinged with evangelical zeal, George W. Bush declared: "Today, America speaks anew to the peoples of the world." The peoples of the world, however, do not seem to be listening. A new world order is indeed emerging - but its architecture is being drafted in Asia and Europe, at meetings to which Americans have not been invited.

....The US, it turns out, is a dispensable nation. Europe, China, Russia, Latin America and other regions and nations are quietly taking measures whose effect, if not sole purpose, will be to cut America down to size.

Ironically, the US, having won the cold war, is adopting the strategy that led the Soviet Union to lose it."

To further illustrate the United States loss of clout and influence in South America, we just have to look at the results of the latest election of the head of the OAS.

One of US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's goals in her trip to Brazil in late April 2005 was to convince President Lula to change his mind and have Brazil vote for the US candidate that would head the Organization of American States (OAS) for the next 5 years.

One week later, the candidate that Brazil was supporting all along, in opposition to the United States, Mr. Insulza from Chile was the winner. It was the first time in the organizations 60-year history that the candidate supported by Washington did not win.

This particular election sends a clear signal to the world of how fast the United States is losing its influence in South America. At the same time that the US is losing its influence, China is quickly replacing the United States influence in the Area.

China's Rising Influence

In a very short period of time China is becoming the most important business partner of Brazil. China has been quickly replacing the United States' influence in Brazil - and that is also happening in other South American countries

On May 17, 2005 - The Financial Times of London had another article trying to explain why US influence was declining in South America: "Latin lessons the US faces a loss of leadership."

The article said: "Why have relations turned so sour? Economics is part of the reason. During the late 1980s and 1990s Latin America embraced free market policies and moved enthusiastically into the US orbit. But when reform often failed to produce growth that began to change, with many Latin Americans blaming the US for their problems.

"The failure of the Bush administration to help Argentina when it ran into a disastrous debt crisis at the end of 2001 was particularly damaging to its image in the region.

"Whether or not Washington or Wall Street really bear the blame, many Latin Americans believe the US led them down the primrose path but then were simply not interested when times got tough," says Julia Sweig, a Latin America specialist at the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations.

"After a number of South American countries embraced democracy, and many of the economic policies prescribed by Washington including all kinds of privatizations, the result of these changes did not benefit the South American population as expected.

"And South America's less than impressive economic performance over the past 15 years has led to a fresh bout of soul-searching about what kind of economic model is right for the region.

"... In particular, the role of the state - which policymakers were trying to cut back for most of the 1990s - is undergoing a rethink, in part reflecting South America's growing economic relationship with parts of Asia that have achieved much higher rates of growth."

There is another factor that contributed to the current state of affairs in South America. After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the United States lost its interest regarding South America. 

Some South American countries including Brazil, instead of whining or crying over spilled milk, did something about it, as a capitalist country they started searching around the world for new partners to establish new ties to replace their lost business.

The US decline of influence with Brazil did not happen overnight or because of political reasons; it was as a result of economic reasons as Brazil found new partners.

The Brazilian need to find new markets for its products coincided with the economic explosion that has been happening in the Chinese economy in the last few years.

Today, China has an insatiable need for commodities of all kinds to feed its amazing production machine.

.

finalfantasytown  02/05/2013 09:52 PM Report

I understand why Prometheus steal fire to his creature, mankind.

Ricardo_Amaral  02/05/2013 09:50 PM Report

@ Max83 - A reality check about US prestige and influence in Brazil and in South America - never mind in the rest of the world....

I posted this information at Brazzil magazine in May 2005:

May 3, 2005

Brazil: One of Condi Rice’s goals in last week’s trip to Brazil it was to convince President Lula to change his mind and have Brazil vote for the US candidate that would head the Organization of American States (OAS) for the next 5 years.

At the end the candidate that Brazil was supporting all along, in opposition to the United States, Mr. Insulza from Chile was the winner.

This election it is a clear signal to the world of how fast the United States is losing its influence in Latin America. It is unbelievable the decline of US influence right on its backyard, and the amount of influence that China was able to gain in South America in such a short time period.

Most Americans have not realized and they also don’t care that the United States influence in South America is sinking today just like the “TITANIC.”

*****

Here is what the Financial Times of London had to say about the OAS election.

May 3, 2005

“Setback for US as Chilean takes OAS helm”

By Richard Lapper

Jose Miguel Insulza, Chile’s interior minister, was yesterday elected secretary-general of the Organization of American States, making a setback for the US which had failed to win enough support for its two preferred candidates.

…Critics said the outcome could weaken the position of Roger Noriega, US secretary of state for Inter-American Affairs and the man responsible for US relations with an organization traditionally dominated by Washington.

…”This was not a graceful retreat by the US, but it is a positive move,” said Julia Sweig, Latin American specialist at the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations. “It’s a turning point in relations between the US and Latin America.”

*****

The New York Times article on May 3, 2005 – Chilean, Once Opposed by US, is elected head of the OAS.”

The article added: “…It was the first time in the organizations 60-year history that the candidate supported by Washington did not win.”

Another major blow to US influence in Latin America

*****

February 5, 2013

Here is another example of declining American prestige and influence in Brazil and in South America:

This is the best Hillary Clinton could do on her trip to Brazil – the American consulate arranged for her to participate in one event with the black students of Universidade Zumbi dos Palmares, in São Paulo.

This was the first time that I heard of this university for black students in Braszil. This university for black students has been operating since 2003 and today that school has 1,600 black students.

That was the main highlight of Hillary Clinton's visit to Brazil.

By the way, the entire trip of Hillary Clinton to South America was a complete fiasco....in country after country.

Secretária de Estado americana Hillary Clinton em São Paulo - 03/03/2010

http://youtu.be/u32z6RnvWKE

Hillary Clinton se encontra com estudantes em São Paulo – March 6, 2010

http://youtu.be/WRrBClVF3io

March 4, 2010

SouthAmerica: Poor Hillary Clinton – her trip to Brazil turned out to be a complete fiasco.

In the morning she met the leaders of the Senate and the House of Representatives plus some senators and congressmen in Brazil.

Then she had a meeting with the Brazilian Secretary of State and he reinforced Brazil’s position of voting against the new sanctions that the US and Israel are trying to pass at the United Nations against Iran.

Then she had a brief meeting with President Lula and discussed the other items on her agenda. (Turned out to be nothing more than a courtesy meeting.)

Then Hillary went to Universidade Zumbi dos Palmares, in São Paulo to talk with the students.

I learned something new thanks to Hillary Clinton’s trip to Brazil: I had no idea that the city of São Paulo had an university called Universidade Zumbi dos Palmares.

Zumbi was the black leader of a fugitive slave settlement called Palmares in Brazil around the years 1675 to 1695.

*****

Zumbi (1655 – November 20, 1695), also known as Zumbi dos Palmares, was the last of the leaders of the Quilombo dos Palmares.

Quilombos were fugitive slave settlements or slave refugee settlements. Quilombo dos Palmares was a self-sustaining region of escaped slaves from the Portuguese settlements in Brazil. At its height, Palmares had a population of a few thousand people.

Before the king Ganga Zumba was dead, Zumbi had taken it upon himself to fight for Palmares' independence. In doing so he became known as the commander-in-chief in 1675. Due to his heroic efforts it increased his prestige. Palmares' warriors were no match for the Portuguese artillery; the republic fell, and Zumbi was wounded in one leg.

Though he survived and managed to elude the Portuguese and continue the rebellion for almost two years, he was betrayed by a mulato who belonged to the quilombo and had been captured by the Paulistas, and, in return for his life, led them to Zumbi's hideout. Zumbi was captured and beheaded on the spot November 20, 1695. The Portuguese transported Zumbi's head to Recife, where it was displayed in the central praca as proof that, contrary to popular legend among African slaves, Zumbi was not immortal. This was also done as a warning of what would happen to others if they tried to be as brave as him. Remnants of quilombo dwellers continued to reside in the region for another hundred years.

November 20 is celebrated, chiefly in Brazil, as a day of black conciousness. The day has special meaning for those Brazilians of African decent who honor Zumbi as a hero, freedom fighter, and symbol of freedom. Zumbi has become a hero of the twentieth-century Afro-Brazilian political movement. (Zumbi has become a black hero in Brazil only in the last 30 years.)

*****

03/03/2010

“Hillary diz que Irã pode lançar corrida por armas nucleares no Oriente Médio”

MÁRCIA SOMAN MORAES

da Folha Online

Atualizado às 22h34.

A secretária de Estado norte-americana, Hillary Clinton, afirmou nesta quarta-feira que um programa de armas nucleares do Irã pode gerar uma corrida por este tipo de armamento no Oriente Médio, e que a melhor forma de evitar que isso aconteça seria aplicar sanções ao país.

"Eles têm direito de manter um programa nuclear, mas não de fabricação de armas nucleares. (...) Os países do Oriente Médio vão pensar: "se o Irã me ameaça e tem armas nucleares, também preciso ter"", afirmou.

Hillary participou na noite desta quarta de uma conversa com alunos da Universidade Zumbi dos Palmares, em São Paulo. Sua participação foi uma oferta do consulado dos Estados Unidos à instituição, que tem parceria com universidades americanas.

Ela chegou hoje ao Brasil, em visita pautada pelo polêmico programa nuclear iraniano. Em discurso aos alunos, voltou a pedir o apoio do Brasil na aprovação de sanções do Conselho de Segurança da ONU (Organização das Nações Unidas) ao Irã.

Mais cedo, em Brasília, Hillary se encontrou com o chanceler brasileiro Celso Amorim, que manteve o discurso brasileiro de que as sanções são contraproducentes e que o diálogo é fundamental. "Ainda é possível fazer acordo, mas cada dia está mais difícil, pois as posições estão se enrijecendo", disse.

"Não se trata de o Brasil se recusar a se juntar a um consenso. As questões internacionais não são discutidas dessa maneira, com pressão. Cada país tem que pensar pela própria cabeça, e nós pensamos pela nossa própria cabeça", afirmou Amorim.

http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/folha/mundo/ult94u701967.shtml

.

tabs  02/05/2013 08:45 PM Report

NCP2:

Yes Virginia, there is an American Empire. Some people get confused about whether or not there is an American Empire. The basis of that confusion is that the American Empire is not a traditional empire of literal conquest and domination. Rather the American empire was born out of the unintended consequences of the Marshal Plan to rebuild both Western Europe and Japan as a counter weight to Soviet expansionism in the aftermath of WW2. This American Empire's foundation is built upon 3 Ideas, Capitalism, Democracy and Free Trade. The soliders of that Empire are named Coke Cola, Disney, McDonalds, GM, Boeing, Minnesota Mining, GE, Exxon,IBM, Intel, Microsoft and now Facebook. The role of the US military is to provide global order and stability so that this American creation of a Globalized economy can operate unimpeded. The real muscle behind this empire is that the American currency is the bed rock foundation of this Globalized economy in that it is the Worlds Reserve Currency. In which every nation has to hold USD bills in reserve to buy oil (60% of the worlds currency reserves are in USD). The United States for instance can impose a global tax by merely devaluing it's currency, this is the nature and source of true power.

At the end of WW2 the only counter weight to American global hegemony was the Soviet Union headed by Joesph Stalin. Stalin realized that the Soviet Union could not compete against the United States economicaly nor militarily as the US had a nuclear weapon. Thus Stalin to stay competitive used the tactic that had served him so well in his climb to and in maintaining power in the Soviet Union and that was by creating apprenshion in his oponents. To this end Stalin used military aggression with a seemingly irrational abandon, as his closing of the highway into Berlin illustrates. After Stalins demise in 1953 his successors tried to continue the Stalinist tradition of using military adventerism as a means of maintaining Super Power status. However Mr Khrushev lacked the intestinal fortitude of a Stalin and as a result blinked in October of 1962. From that point on without the that component of being able to create apprehension in the West the Soviet Union was destined to fail. This was certainly observable to anyone with a keen eye by 1976.

tabs  02/05/2013 07:10 PM Report

Mr Donilion certainly has his finger on the pulse of policy. Which must enamour him endlessly to President Obama. However this interview was so much boiler plate coupled with a load of pure fiction. For the Obama adminsitrations first goal upon assuming office as stated by Mr Donilion was to restore, "the full faith and prestige of the United States?" The fact of the matter is that US foreign policy has not deviated from the basic principles of maintaining an American Empire since the end of WW2. The most that any adminsitration can do is turn the helm of state a bit to port or to starboard. The basic proof of this is that why else would President Obama embark upon a "surge" in Afghanistan, when other options as expressed by VP Biden were open to him, which would have satisified his "Afghanistan was the right war" statement during the 2008 election? Or the keeping of GITMO open for business, despite promises during the election to do otherwise.

With regards to the administrations mindset on several of the pressing issues as expressed by Mr Donilion one finds them to be wishfull thinking at best. With regards to Afghanistan Mr Donilion goes on about how the US is progressing towards the goal of having the Afghans take over their own security and that they will have "2 fighting seasons" to prove their mettle. These plans sound all well and good from an American standpoint, but who ever said the Afghans will show up? From watching Mr Roses show one has noticed that the Afghans have long ago figured out that citing metrics and measurments is the way to get into the American bureaucratic heart and checkbook.

Second Mr Donilion expressed the administrations view that any "rational" actor would seek an accommodation with all the sanctions being applied against them. However it seems that the Iranians have a different definition of what being "rational" is. Rational to the the Supreme Leader maybe that the end game is to goad the US and or Israel into attacking Iran for the purpose of coalescing Islamic fervor and then calling for a world wide Islamic jihad against the United States and the West.

With regards to understanding Mr Putins Russia, one only needs to remember that Mr Putin started his career in the shadow of Stalinist Russia. As such Mr Putin views Mr Obama as being a weak indivdual, as why would President Obama pull the missles out of Poland without a quid pro quo? Further if one wants to get anywhere with Mr Putin one needs to twist his arm, by applying pressure at some unrelated point, all the while going about business as usual with him. One could call this a policy of compartmentalization.

With regards to China, if one recalls that at the beginning of Obama administration there were a number of provocations between North Korea and South Korea. To which President Obama dispatched Secratary Geithner to Beijing, to calm the waters. However the the Chinese seem to haved learned that they too can be provocative in their relationship with Japan without consequences from the Obama admnistration.

One might comment that a number of small fires and some not so small were started under President Obamas first term foreign policy tuteledge. Now at the beginning of the second term in office and one might add without President Obamas diligent firewoman Hillary to douse the flames, we might well begin to see some of those fires get really out of control and start to spread. For President Obama and Secratary of State Kerry both seem to have graduated from the Neville Chamberlin correspondence school of affective foreign policy.

Ricardo_Amaral  02/05/2013 06:53 PM Report

.

Noam Chomsky: Iran is NO Threat (University College London) - October 8, 2011

http://youtu.be/rutrNbkrhIA

Excerpt from Professor Noam Chomsky's UCL Rickman Godlee Lecture 2011 -- Contours of global order: Domination, stability, security in a changing world

.

anne4444  02/05/2013 05:56 PM Report

War and violence will bring negative information into the souls. It is worthwhile to have different views on life.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoN1fhEMhvU

Here is additional information for many souls of earth-beings, who exited, are exiting and will exit Earth as space-beings in their future lives.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyuIptNUXQI

Max83  02/05/2013 05:33 PM Report

I hope the current Supreme Leader of Iran Ali Khamenei is listening very carefully to what Mr. Donilon had to say about Iran, because it is the Truth.

Thank you for this very insightful interview. I do not agree with most of the comments below, because in my opinion they are either based on outdated Cold War logic/history, or they are assuming that the Obama administration is just a continuation of the Bush 43 administration, which is not true and not the case.

President Obama is not a Neocon and his National Security team in my opinion is very realistic and aware in regards to the state of world affairs, and far from being naive.

As Hillary Clinton has said before, this is not about either soft or hard power, it is about smart power and I can clearly see how the USA foreign policy team is smartly and patiently pursuing this goal of smart power.

It takes time to unwind what was an extremely dysfunctional and self-sabotaging foreign policy enacted through the Bush-Cheney administration. The Obama administration has achieved this in its first term.

I see the comments below mostly as propaganda rather than facts and I am very optimistic for the USA and for the world for the next years to come under the leadership of President Obama, even when there are still challenges left to face.

I can highly recommend the lecture Hillary Clinton gave a couple of days ago at the Council on Foreign Relations. It is the best foreign policy information I have heard and seen in quite a while:

''Hillary Clinton - Remarks on American Leadership''

Video Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6B3wBkYK3Es

'' Published on Jan 31, 2013

In her farewell address, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton discusses American leadership.''

Ricardo_Amaral  02/05/2013 04:56 PM Report

In January 2004 I posted this information on the Elite Trader Economics forum regarding Emmanuel Todd's book: “After the Empire - The Breakdown of the American Order” as follows:

July 26, 2003

The Conceited Empire

A historian credited with predicting the downfall of the Soviet Union in the 1970s now says that the US has been on its way out for the last decade

The power and influence of the United States is being overestimated, claims French historian and demographer Emmanuel Todd. "There will be no American Empire." "The world is too large and dynamic to be controlled by one power." According to Todd, whose 1976 book predicted the fall of the Soviet Union, there is no question: the decline of America the Superpower has already begun.

Emmanuel Todd compares the US to 16th century Spain, arguing that US economic power is being undermined by the decline of its industrial base and its increased dependence on other countries to feed its consumption. The power and influence of the United States is being overestimated, claims French historian and demographer Emmanuel Todd. "There will be no American Empire." "The world is too large and dynamic to be controlled by one power." According to Todd, whose 1976 book predicted the fall of the Soviet Union, there is no question: the decline of America the Superpower has already begun.

Mr. Todd, wrote that America is economically, militarily, and ideologically too weak to actually control the world.

The US is still the most powerful nation in the world today, but there are many indicators that they are about to relinquish their position as solitary superpower. He said: “In my 1976 book, La chute finale (Before the Fall: The End of Soviet Domination), I based my prediction of the fall of the Soviet Union on the relevant indicators of the time. An analysis of current demographic, cultural, military, economic, and ideological factors leads me to conclude that the remaining pole of the former bipolar world order will not remain alone in its position. The world has become too large and complex to accept the predominance of one power. There will not be an American Empire.

The American hegemony from the end of WW II into the late 1980s in military, economic, and ideological terms definitely had imperial qualities. In 1945 fully half the manufactured goods in the world originated in the US. And although there was a Communist-bloc in Eurasia, East Germany, and North Korea, the strong American military, the navy and air force, exercised strategic control over the rest of the globe, with the support and understanding of many allies, whose common goal was the fight against communism. Although communism had some dispersed support among intellectuals, workers, and peasant groups, the power and influence of the US was by and large with the agreement of a majority throughout the world. It was a benevolent empire. The Marshall Plan was an exemplary political and economic strategy. America was, for decades, a 'good' superpower.

It has, above all, become a weak one. The US no longer has the might to control the large strategic players, primarily Germany and Japan. Their industrial capacity is clearly smaller than that of Europe and approximately equal to that of Japan. With twice the population, this is no great accomplishment.

Their military potential is nevertheless still the largest by far, but is declining and consistently over estimated. The use of military bases is dependent on the good will of their allies, many of which are not as willing as before.

The theatrical military activism against inconsequential rogue states that we are currently witnessing plays out against this backdrop. It is a sign of weakness, not of strength. But weakness makes for unpredictability. The US is about to become a problem for the world, where we have previously been accustomed to seeing a solution in them.

*****

Another interview with Emmanuel Todd regarding his book.

This interview was the subject of some discussion at Metafilter.com.

In a Nutshell:

The US leadership doesn't know anymore where to turn. They know that they are monetarily dependent on the rest of the world, and they are afraid of becoming inconsequential. There are no more Nazis and Communists. While a demographic, democratic, and politically stabilizing world recognizes that it is increasingly less dependent on the US, America is discovering that it is increasingly dependent on the rest of the world. That is the reason for the rush into military action and adventures. It is classic.

Classic?

The only remaining superiority is military. This is classic for a crumbling system. The final glory is militarism. The fall of the Soviet Union took place in an identical context. Their economy was in decline, and their leadership grew fearful. Their military apparatus gained in size and stature and the Russians embarked on adventures to forget their economic shortcomings. The parallels in the US are obvious. The process has significantly accelerated in the past few months.

...One of the working propositions of my book, After the Empire is that the concept of military control of the globe no longer makes any sense. In relation to the military, there will be a balance of power in the future. There is still a nuclear balance of power between the US and Russia. The notion that sections of the globe can be controlled through military might is passé, because it is unrealistic.

You can destroy regimes and bomb their infrastructure, as the Americans have done in Afghanistan, but the populations -- including those in the developing world -- have become educated and literate enough to eliminate any possibility of re-colonization. The only power that ultimately counts today is economic power.

...Most apparent is how clumsy the US has been to date, and how far they have moved away from any notion of universality. They don't see the world as it really is anymore. They are failing in any balanced and fair approach to their allies. All of this reminds me of Germany under Wilhelm II. The US is losing allies steadily. One gets the impression that an office somewhere in Washington has been tasked with the duty to daily prepare a scheme to develop new enemies for the US.

* * *

Emmanuel Todd is a 60 year-old Historian and Political Scientist at the National Institute for Demographics in Paris. His research examines the rise and fall of peoples and cultures over the course of thousands of years.

.

Ricardo_Amaral  02/05/2013 04:47 PM Report

Reality check:

USA and Israel

http://spengler.atimes.net/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=18814

*****

The United States with friends like Israel, who needs enemies?

Planned war on Iran and the General who said No! - August 22, 2012

http://spengler.atimes.net/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=18814&start=20

*****

Thursday, August 23, 2012

Israel and World War III

http://israelandworldwariii.blogspot.com/

*****

Here is an interesting map of US military bases around Iran:

http://www.qwmagazine.com/2011/12/13/image-us-military-bases-around-iran/

I wonder how American would feel if it was the other way around and if Iran had over 40 military bases across the borders of Canada, and Mexico?

I guess Americans would not mind it.

*****

I posted the following information about Iran at the Elite Trader Forum in February 2006 as follows:

February 6, 2006

SouthAmerica: The United States government believes that “The boogieman is coming to get you again – Iran is the latest boogieman …

The Iranians want to build nuclear weapons – and so what?

Since Iran is a sovereign country they have the right to do anything they want inside their country to protect their population, including building nuclear weapons - In my opinion, the same story applies to North Korea.

Here we are talking about a country's sovereignty. I don't know if the American people understand the concept of "Sovereignty" today, otherwise why the United States make such a big deal about other countries developing nuclear weapons?

This is not a debate about defending North Korea's or Iran's position. This is a debate about how a country that has sovereignty also has the right to build nuclear weapons.

The decision to build nuclear weapons is between the government and the people of that country. If the people of a country decides that they want to build nuclear weapons; then it is not the business of any other country to try to stop that endeavor. Or a country has sovereignty or it does not.

Every country has the right to build nuclear weapons including not only North Korea but also Iran, Brazil, Argentina, etc.

By the way; the United States, and the Russia, both countries have the right to develop and build its new series of smaller nuclear weapons. I don't see any other country trying to stop the United States or Russia from going ahead with their nuclear weapons plans.

Here is why the Iranians don't trust the United States, and they believe that they need nuclear weapons to defend their country against a possible pre-emptive attack by the United States.

Remember, Iran is the second part of the "Axis of Evil." If you watch the Fox News Network, the impression that you get is that the Iranian government is getting ready to attack the US with nuclear weapons.

You know, like a repetition of the Saddam Hussein regime change fiasco. These phantom weapons can be launched and reach the US in 45 minutes, or something like that. (What a bunch of BS.)

You might ask: why not North Korea first?

Because of two reasons:

1) Iran has lots of "OIL" and North Korea doesn't.

2) North Korea has a large army, and the US could not beat them during the first Korean War, and the US most likely can't beat them again.

The North Koreans have a 5 million people army, and the US can't beat even a bunch of insurgents in Iraq estimated at less than 15,000 people.

I want to remind you once again, Iran has lots of "OIL."

Here is another example of how well American intervention on other country’s business worked in the past – it is just a reminder.

Here we go again…………

**********

The American Prospect

"Regime change since 1953"

Article published 11/01/03

Regime Change: The Legacy - Since 1953, U.S. presidents have been toppling other governments. Now, the consequences.

By Stephen Kinzer

Issue Date: 11.1.03

A very happy group of men convened at the White House on Sept. 4, 1953, to hear a cloak-and-dagger story that would resonate through all of subsequent American history. Two weeks before, the Central Intelligence Agency had overthrown Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh of Iran. It was the first time the CIA had deposed a foreign leader, and on this day the agent who ran the operation, Kermit Roosevelt, was to explain how he did it.

Roosevelt's account of bribes, staged riots and artillery duels was almost too hair-raising to believe. It transfixed everyone in the room, including President Dwight Eisenhower, who later wrote that it "seemed more like a dime novel than historical facts." If there was a single moment when the United States can be said to have entered the modern era of covert action and regime change, this was it.

"One of my audience seemed almost alarmingly enthusiastic," Roosevelt later recalled. "John Foster Dulles was leaning back in his chair. Despite his posture, he was anything but sleepy. His eyes were gleaming; he seemed to be purring like a giant cat. Clearly he was not only enjoying what he was hearing, but my instinct told me that he was planning as well."

Roosevelt's instinct was true. Soon after his triumphant White House briefing, his CIA superiors approached him with a new offer. President Eisenhower and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles wished to be rid of troublesome Guatemalan leader Jacobo Arbenz. Seeing as Roosevelt had already shown his skill at toppling elected governments, would he like to try again? He demurred, but the project went ahead anyway. It was another brilliant success, as Arbenz was forced from power and replaced by a pliant colonel. In the space of less than a year, the CIA had deposed two popular leaders whose nationalism and refusal to accommodate foreign capital had made them anathema in Washington.

These two "regime change" operations set the United States on a course to which it still holds. Over the 50 years that have followed, driven by a combination of idealism and arrogance, successive American administrations have assumed the right to topple governments around the world. Only now, in the wake of the shocks that the world system has suffered in the last few years, is the full aftereffect of those operations being felt.

The coups of the 1950s in Iran and Guatemala, like the recent Iraq invasion, were planned with a stubborn insistence that everything would turn out all right in the end. This relentlessly naive optimism, this unbounded faith in the ability of the United States to work its will in the world, has become a guiding principle of American foreign policy. It has led some in Washington to conclude that the United States represents such a unique combination of lofty principles and great power that it can triumph even over history itself.

During the Cold War, the United States could depose foreign governments only through covert action. Armed invasions were out of the question because they had the potential to set off global cataclysm. Today, however, invasion is once again considered a realistic option. With no Red Army to fear, regime change is now a job for the CIA if possible, the military if necessary.

There are obvious differences between the recent Iraq War and the coups that brought down the leaders of Iran and Guatemala half a century ago. One was a full-scale military campaign, while the others were covert operations. The target in Iraq was a monstrous tyrant, while those in Iran and Guatemala were democratically elected leaders. But the Iraq War resembles those first two CIA coups in important ways.

Economic factors have often played a crucial role in American decisions to plot regime change. The target country almost always has a valuable resource that it is refusing to share on terms that the West considers fair. Prime Minister Mossadegh nationalized Britain's fabulously lucrative Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, and American leaders feared that if the nationalization were allowed to stand, it would set a dangerous precedent that could undermine corporate power around the world. President Arbenz's offense was his campaign to force the United Fruit Company to sell off its vast unused lands so they could be distributed to Guatemalan peasants.

Similarly, Saddam Hussein was sitting atop a huge reserve of oil and was decidedly hostile to U.S. companies eager to extract, refine and sell it. In all three of these countries, regime-change operations were designed in part to show that the United States does not tolerate foreign leaders who restrict the ability of Western corporations to make money.

The drive to control the world's most valuable resources is not the only factor that pushes the United States into action abroad. Eagerness to strike against global enemies is also a strong motivation. During the Cold War, the enemy was communism. An alarming series of communist advances in the late 1940s and early 1950s terrified many Americans. Secretary of State Dulles and his brother, Allen, who ran the CIA during the Eisenhower administration, took office eager to demonstrate their determination to fight this enemy.

British leaders tried to overthrow Mossadegh in 1952, but he learned of their plot and foiled it by expelling all British diplomats from Iran, among them secret agents assigned to stage the coup. Desperate to remove their tormenter, the British asked Washington for help. President Harry Truman refused, worrying quite rightly that such a violent interruption of Iranian political life would have unpredictable and perhaps disastrous consequences. That left the British angry and frustrated. But when news came of Eisenhower's election in November 1952, they were thrilled. Kermit Roosevelt stirred their hopes by visiting London soon after the election and telling his friends in the Secret Intelligence Service that the new administration's approach to Iran might be "quite different" from Truman's.

This prospect so excited the British that they could not even wait until Eisenhower was inaugurated to make their appeal to his incoming team. They sent one of their top agents, Christopher Montague Woodhouse, to Washington to present the case for a coup. Woodhouse realized that the Americans would not swing into action simply to recover Britain's oil company, so he shrewdly came up with another argument. "Not wishing to be accused of trying to use the Americans to pull British chestnuts out of the fire," he wrote later, "I decided to emphasize the communist threat to Iran rather than the need to recover control of the oil industry." The Dulles brothers leaped at that argument, just as Woodhouse knew they would.

A similar confluence of economic and political factors drove the decision to overthrow Arbenz in Guatemala. Arbenz was a figure much like Mossadegh. Both were nationalists who wished to improve daily life for their countries' suffering masses. Neither saw why his government's dispute with a foreign corporation should throw him into the vortex of the great East-West confrontation. The Dulles brothers, however, saw every local conflict through the lens of that confrontation. In their eyes, every leader not explicitly tied to the United States was a potential enemy. Arbenz's sin, like Mossadegh's, was his insistence on embracing the domestic challenge of alleviating poverty rather than the global one of supporting Washington's anti-communist crusade.

Neither Mossadegh nor Arbenz was a communist, but that didn't matter. In fact, it helped. Not even the Dulles brothers would have risked nuclear conflagration by attacking China, the Soviet Union or one of their satellites. Yet their desire to strike back against communism was so intense that almost any target would do. Iran and Guatemala were ideal because, by subduing them, the United States would not only remove a perceived enemy but also acquire a strategic platform from which it could project its power across an entire region of the world.

Precisely the same impulse fueled the operation against Saddam Hussein. Once again, the United States felt threatened by a ruthless global enemy, in this case terrorism and its most deadly practitioners, the leaders of al-Qaeda. Once again, finding and destroying the real enemy was too difficult, so some other enemy had to be found. Iraq was chosen, even though it was no more responsible for terrorist attacks on the United States than Iran or Guatemala had been responsible for the spread of communism during the 1950s. With Iran long since lost to U.S. influence and Saudi Arabia looking ever shakier, the Bush administration envisions Iraq as the new center of American power in the Middle East.

This combination of economic and political motivations is not the only way in which the template set in Iran and Guatemala during the 1950s shaped this year's Iraq operation. Neither Iran in 1953 nor Guatemala in 1954 posed an imminent danger to the United States. Those early coups were operations of choice, warnings to the world that no regime is safe if it defies the United States. So was the Iraq War.

Planners of those early CIA operations distorted intelligence data to make their case. The Dulles brothers fed Eisenhower a series of highly exaggerated reports suggesting that Iran was about to turn communist. At a National Security Council meeting in March 1953, they gave him one asserting that communists "might easily take over" in Iran and deprive the West of "the enormous assets represented by Iranian oil production and reserves." Years later, however, retired American officials who were posted in Iran in 1953 told an American scholar, Mark J. Gasiorowski, that Iran's communist party "was really not very powerful, and that higher-level U.S. officials routinely exaggerated its strength and Mossadegh's reliance on it."

This manipulation of intelligence was repeated in 1954 as the CIA sought to portray the Guatemalan government as a captive of communism. From those two operations, American spymasters around the world learned an insidious lesson: that intelligence should be shaped to meet the political needs of the White House. So it was in the case of Iraq, as American leaders justified their invasion plan on the grounds that Saddam Hussein was sponsoring terrorism and building weapons of mass destruction.

Washington's failure or refusal to think seriously about the long-term consequences of intervention is the most disturbing factor that binds the CIA's early covert operations to the Iraq War. In seeking regime change in Iran and Guatemala (and later in the Congo, Indonesia, Chile and elsewhere), American planners sought to achieve short-term victories against what they considered intolerable regimes. They did the same thing when they plotted this year's invasion of Iraq. In each case, those who warned about the effects that these operations might have years or decades later were dismissed as wimps or, in one of the most memorable phrases to emerge from the Iraq War, "cheese-eating surrender monkeys."

From the perspective of 50 years of history, the horrific aftereffects of the 1953 Iran coup are becoming clear. That coup showed emerging leaders throughout the Middle East that the United States preferred strongman rule to democracy, a message that encouraged budding tyrants including Saddam Hussein. It also placed Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi back on his throne, leading to 25 years of dictatorship that finally produced the Islamic Revolution of 1979. That revolution brought to power a band of militantly anti-Western clerics who not only sponsored acts of murderous terrorism against the United States but also inspired fundamentalist sects in other countries. Among those sects was the Taliban in neighboring Afghanistan, which gave sanctuary to Osama bin Laden and other violent fanatics.

Until the Eisenhower administration staged Operation Ajax, as the coup was code-named, most Iranians felt great admiration for the United States. Hundreds of altruistic Americans had worked selflessly in Iran as doctors, teachers and development specialists, and none had ever sought to exploit the country's resources or intervene in its political life. The coup changed all that. It turned countless Iranians bitterly against the United States and led growing numbers of them to embrace radical Islam, the ideology most closely associated with anti-Americanism.

Iranian militants who seized American diplomats as hostages in 1979, an act that brought down Jimmy Carter's presidency and permanently poisoned Iranian-American relations, struck because they feared the CIA was plotting a second Operation Ajax that would once again bring the hated shah back to his "Peacock Throne."

It is always dangerous to draw cause-and-effect lines through history, but the impact of the 1953 coup in Iran on Middle Eastern history, and even on the United States itself, is today impossible to ignore. "With hindsight, can anybody say the Islamic Revolution of 1979 was inevitable?" one Iranian intellectual mused in a recent article. "Or did it only become so once the aspirations of the Iranian people were temporarily expunged in 1953?"

The 1954 coup in Guatemala also led to a terrible tragedy, the apocalyptic civil war that lasted for three decades and killed hundreds of thousands of Guatemalans. Like the Iran coup, the one in Guatemala led to the establishment of a brutal military regime that not only oppressed its people but also served as a model for nearby countries.

President Truman refused to sponsor a coup in Iran not because he was a Middle East expert and believed he could predict the long-term results, but for precisely the opposite reason. He realized how little he and most Americans knew about matters Middle Eastern, and common sense made him fear the consequences of intervening there. Eisenhower had no such reservations. Neither did presidents who followed him, most notably George W. Bush.

With a confidence born of ignorance, millenarian vision and boundless faith in military power, President Bush plunged the United States into an operation that was not urgently necessary but that satisfied the desire for revenge against someone for the losses of September 11. He turned aside the advice of many friends and deeply divided a nation that had come together in the depths of its grief. Perhaps he has even set in motion a series of processes that will not only further destabilize Iraq and the Middle East but also weaken America's national security.

Those who predict a good outcome in Iraq should not look to the CIA coups in Iran and Guatemala. The legacy of those operations is too frightening. If the long-term results of the Iraq invasion are anything like what has happened in Iran and Guatemala since the United States deposed their governments half a century ago, the world is in for a new wave of horrors. That would confirm the truth of Truman's dictum, "There is nothing new in the world except the history you do not know."

*****

On August 8, 2012 I posted at the Elite Trader forum this interesting discussion with prof. John Mearsheimer about China.

The title "Why China Cannot Rise Peacefully" was the title of his lecture.

China is just watching the United States going broke around the world with massive military expenditures as its economic and financial system is being neglected at home, it is shrinking, and in a process of a total collapse.

It is an interesting lecture, but I am a little more realist than prof. John Mearsheimer, since we have reached a major turning point regarding the global economy; we already reached the second leg of the first Great Depression of the 21st century – this is where the shit really hits the fan.

What is in the horizon is not a military confrontation between China and the United States – it is how these countries are going to handle what is left of their financial and economic system after the coming massive meltdown in the global financial markets and economic system.

The mother of all financial meltdowns.....

Garfield Institute for Public Leadership – March 18, 2012

Why China Cannot Rise Peacefully

http://blip.tv/garfield-institute-for-public-leadership/why-china-cannot-rise-peacefully-6031071

A interesting discussion with John Mearsheimer, R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science & co-director of the Program for International Security Policy, University of Chicago, author of The Tragedy of Great Power Politics.

.

REMant  02/05/2013 04:23 PM Report

It will be noticed that Mr Donilon sidestepped Charlie's question re the announcement by the leader of the main Syrian rebel factions, in a surprise turnaround, that he would be willing to negotiate with Assad, amidst claims by the defense minister the govt will win. Apparently, like Lincoln, Obama will have none of that.

I doubt seriously whether Iran's nuclear capability makes any difference to "security," whatever that is. We seem to have made war into defense, and that in turn into a guarantee against feeling threatened, a process which echoes labeling others as haters and/or objects for police and reformatories, as, for instance, when accusing co-workers of harassment, prejudice, defamation and ill-manners. If we go around projecting that image, is it any wonder much of the world hates us, too?

One of the recent Egyptian scuffles started as a soccer riot. Much of the protest seems to be aimed at the police, which doesn't appear to have yet been reformed. Nor would I be surprised to find some foreigners involved with the ElBaradie group. And I expect Israeli saber-rattling to increase as a result of Bibi's poor election showing.

There's no doubt the French are acting in Mali in large measure as a US proxy. Unfortunately, their involvement has resulted in reprisals against ethnic minorities uninvolved with the Islamists. The problem in Mali is that it's split like Afghanistan, and appears to have a nationalist junta which cares little about either part. The shipping lanes on this side of Africa, BTW, are now seeing piracy develop.

Clinton went to China first, because it was only politic to see your primary creditor in a financial crisis. I'm sure I was not alone in 2009 in arguing this. No one, however, sees any significance in this supposed "recalibration," and I think it's another instance of this administration's war on bad PR, nicely illustrated, I'd say, by Mr Donilon's appearance here. If it isn't, then it's more "containment," which I don't think we really need.

Ricardo_Amaral  02/05/2013 04:03 PM Report

Here is an important development that Charlie Rose and Tom Donilon didn't even mentioned on last night's show regarding the massive mess that we have in the Middle East – a massive mess that is growing at the speed of light.

Russia condemns Israeli strike on Syria as attack on sovereign state – January 31, 2013

http://youtu.be/revylRAYrzc

The Russian Foreign Ministry has issued a statement expressing deep concern over Israel's airstrike on Syria saying that it violates the UN Charter

*****

'Israeli air strike opens new front in Syria war' – January 31, 2013

http://youtu.be/s4LBgteyPXo

Syria claims Israel has carried out a deadly bombing raid on its territory, destroying a military research centre near Damascus. It denies claims the attack targeted a weapons convoy near the Lebanese border.

It's the first time in decades that Israel has launched an attack on another state, NOT in response to military action. Israel and most Western powers are keeping silent on the incident, which has sparked condemnation from Russia.

The Arab League has described Israel's strike on Syria as flagrant aggression and a glaring violation of the country's sovereignty. Abayomi Azikiwe, Editor of Pan-African News Wire, says the attack on Syria is all part of a plan to bring down the Assad government.

*****

Here is an interesting program with George Galloway – a British politician....a member of the British Parliament.

Israeli airstrike on Syria, an absolute war crime – February 1, 2013

http://youtu.be/WyglFNckXkA

*****

Alex Jones Show – February 1, 2013

Israeli AIR STRIKE Inside Syria Puts Middle East MILITARY FORCES on HIGH ALERT

http://youtu.be/JDU4SNLWZms

Military forces in Syria, Lebanon and Jordan have raised their alert levels following an Israeli attack inside Syria on Wednesday.

The Arabic-language daily Lebanese newspaper Addiyar reports that Syria has moved troops to the Israel-occupied Golan Heights, the Lebanese Army has reinforced its southern outposts and Jordan has positioned troops on the Jordan River border with Israel, according to The Voice of Russia.

DEBKAfile reports that the Russian fleet in the Mediterranean is also on high alert. Its military sources claim that "Turkish units on the Syrian border are on high preparedness although Ankara played down the reports of the Israeli air strike in Syria, uncomfortable over the fact that the Israeli Air Force was the first external power to intervene directly in the Syrian conflict.

.

NormaLee  02/05/2013 03:37 PM Report

Unfortunately,as an American sociologist with a focus on Iran, I had tears in my eyes listening to Donilon's tired,trite & threadbare explanations for the great progress we have made in deterring Iran's nuclear ambitions..by crippling the economy of innocent Iranians, and by the way giving China and India great trading partners.

Donilon is not only naive ,he is as Ricardo Amarai says.'clueless'.

I can only hope that with Kerry & Hegal the situation will change and Obama will realize how the past & current absence of cross-cultural understanding as evidenced by the hubris of "advisors", such as your guest,has been responsible for the lessening of respect for the US. www.irancustomtravel.com

Ricardo_Amaral  02/05/2013 03:25 PM Report

Tom Donilon, and the other members of the National Security Advisors in the Obama Administration, should also watch the following videos to get a better picture of what is happening in the Middle East and North Africa:

Gerald Celente: The World is Heading into World War III – February 3, 2013

http://youtu.be/RLOEe2bOFu8

Trends Journal founder Gerald Celente says, "The banks are forcing . . . governments to keep funding them by flooding money into the system." Celente predicts, "What's going to happen when this thing starts collapsing? People are going to be going into gold." Join Greg Hunter of USAWatchdog.com as he goes One-on-One with one of the world's top trend researchers, Gerald Celente.

*****

CrossTalk: Unforgetting Iraq (featuring Pepe Escobar) – February 1, 2013

http://youtu.be/lAFDS9w2OIY

Even after the US occupation, Iraq continues to witness external intervention on an enormous scale. Is this what is driving the country towards becoming a failed state? Is the Maliki government contributing to Iraq's fragmentation? And why is Iraq currently out of the media spotlight, despite all the things happening there? CrossTalking with Pepe Escobar, Sami Ramadani and Meir Javedanfar.

*****

Check the Pepe Escobar portion of this video:

Mali war: France's new adventure – January 29, 2013

http://youtu.be/ttvhwR3vh-U

We go to Mali with French troops and ask the French president what he is doing so soon after the Libya. Our reporter asks the people of Britain about economic growth figures from China. We talk to veteran foreign correspondent, Pepe Escobar, about the continuing crisis in Syria. These and much more are all reviewed in this edition of Double Standards with Afshin Rattansi.

*****

Uprising endangers the grip of the Saud dynasty: Jamal Wakim – February 4, 2013

http://youtu.be/4wbciMu5KgM

An analyst says the critical situation and mounting opposition from various groups in Saudi Arabia will soon lead to a 'Saudi Spring' that will endanger the Al Saud dynasty's rule in Saudi Arabia. The comment comes as Saudi protesters have taken to the streets in the capital, Riyadh, to express solidarity with political prisoners and those arrested in demonstrations against the ruling Al Saud regime. On Sunday, the demonstrators called on Saudi authorities to release all jailed opposition activists and prisoners of conscience. Press TV has interviewed Jamal Wakim, political analyst in Beirut to further discuss the issue.

*****

Here is a reality check about the US economic and financial system:

Dollar Sell Off Within 4 Months - John Williams – January 27, 2013

http://youtu.be/O8kBDUw45uY

Congress does not get its financial house in order by the new deadline in mid-May 2013, John Williams of Shadowstats.com contends, "It will be the end of the road . . . . They are not going to have another opportunity . . . they are pushing the limit as it is now." Williams says he expects, ". . . a negative reaction in the next 3 or 4 months to the dollar." Williams adamantly continues to predict hyperinflation to the U.S. dollar by the end of 2014. Join Greg Hunter of USAWatchdog.com as he goes One-on-One with economist John Williams.

*****

Are we heading to an economic crash in the next few years? - January 11, 2013

http://youtu.be/vQKW_47i3wM

Dr. Michael Hudson, Institute for the Study of Long-Term Economic Trends, joins Thom Hartmann. The United States is the only developed nation in the world that doesn't guarantee paid holidays, paid annual leave, or paid maternity leave. They've taken away our sense of safety in the workplace - as safety laws and regulations are continually getting watered down. Heck, they've even taken our money by flattening our wages during a time of increased productivity. And in New Hampshire - Republicans are doing the bidding if Corporate America to get rid of our lunch breaks. This is nothing short of theft - and pretty soon, we'll be handing over the shirts on our backs, just so our bosses can squeeze out whatever profits they can. It's also symptomatic of a larger war being wages on not just working people - but entire cities and even our federal government by the financial elite

.

Ricardo_Amaral  02/05/2013 02:57 PM Report

Charlie, regarding your interview with Tom Donilon, National Security Advisor in the Obama Administration, or this fellow is extremely naïve, or he thinks that your audience are a bunch of idiots.

All the United States can do right now it is to continue on the same path of its very successful “Operation Clueless” and hope for the best as the Middle East and North Africa spins completely out of control.

Middle East and the US “Operation Clueless”

http://spengler.atimes.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=18895

If the ultimate goal was to destabilize and create chaos in the entire Middle East and in North Africa, then the United States could not have done a better job - and “Operation Clueless” has been a great success.

*****

Libya:

Here is the real reason the United States/NATO has attacked Libya to overthrow Muammar Gaddafi:

Gaddafi gold-for-oil, dollar-doom plans behind Libya 'mission'? - May 5, 2011

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuqZfaj34nc&feature=channel_video_title

*****

GADDAFI WANTED GOLD FOR HIS OIL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NugQlJHVvmI&feature=player_embedded

*****

The real truth about Libya and Gaddafi:

The Unfair Demonization of Gaddafi by the Western Power - June 25, 2011

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaR5lB5BKwQ&NR=1

*****

The Final Collapse of the US Dollar

By Author and Columnist: Ricardo C. Amaral

http://thefinalcollapseoftheusdollar.blogspot.com/2011/05/final-collapse-and-meltdown-of-us.html

*****

Tom Donilon thinks that heavy sanctions and all kinds of economic pressures can bring down a country very quickly.

Tell that story to Fidel Castro in Cuba, and he will have a good laugh....

Over 50 years of heavy sanctions and all kinds of economic pressures could not bring down the government of a small island right next door to the United States.

You have to be an idiot to think that heavy sanctions and all kinds of economic pressures can bring down the government of a country very rich in oil resources with all kinds of customers waiting in line to get a good deal from Iran.

*****

Tom Donilon said with a straight face that the United States has restored its prestige, clout, and influence around the world.

I wonder if this fellow is serious and if he really believes in that kind of non-sense?

The United States has no prestige, clout, and influence in South America. The entire Middle East and North Africa is spinning completely out of control like never before – and the United States is completely clueless about all the moving pieces that is engulfing that entire area into chaos.

The United States has almost 1,000 military bases around the world and a collapsing economic and financial system to support God knows what the US is trying to accomplish around the world.

I can write a book about the shrinking and collapsing US economic and financial system that still is in a coma and in life support and not a single thing in the horizon with any prospects to be a large job creator to create growth in the US economic system.

The US economic and financial system it is down to playing artificial financial games and nothing else.

What pass today for innovation in the United States is nothing more than incremental immaterial changes to old technology.

What is keeping the US economic and financial system from total collapse is the fact that the US dollar still is the main foreign reserve currency around the world – but even that special status has reached the end of the road and the final breakdown and collapse of the entire international monetary system can happen at any time.

And when the final collapse comes it is going to catch most people by surprise....

*****

Here is what I posted here on the Charlie Rose Show website when Charlie Rose interview Susan Rice United Nations US ambassador – February 9, 2012:

Here is a short list of the best of what Americans can achieve today:

1) Iraq = a pathetic situation with the compliments of the USA, and a civil war spinning completely out control..

2) Afghanistan = after 10 years of American intervention the place is a major mess and also it is also spinning out control.

3) Pakistan = a joke of American intervention and diplomacy and the place is also spinning completely out of control.

4) Libya = After US/NATO destroyed the entire infrastructure of that country - the country is in the middle of a nasty civil war, and chaos which is spinning completely out of control.

5) Egypt = American intervention on the internal affairs of countries such as Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen, and so on...all these countries are a massive mess like never before.

6) Syria = The United States want to turn Syria into a wasteland in the same way they turned Libya into chaos.

7) Iran = the United States has been tormenting the Iranians and interfering on the internal affairs of their country since the CIA overthrew the legitimate democratic elected government of Iran in 1953 to install on its place a nasty dictator - a puppet of the United States which was a disaster for the Iranian people.

In a nutshell:

The only thing that the United States has been good at since the early 1960's is in creating chaos around the world.

I could list many other American fiascos around the world in the last 50 years including the US military defeat in Vietnam.

We also could add to the above list the war between the United States and North Korea that has been going on since the early 1950's and still going on today.

We could also add the fiasco in Somalia.

But the US Army had some undisputed victories in the last 30 years such as their attack against Grenada, and also Panama in the 1980's and 1990's.

These are facts that the entire world have been watching over the years resulting in United States declined in prestige and influence around the world.

Basically today, you have to be a complete idiot to follow American leadership to just about anything.

.