The truth at any cost lowers all other costs — curated by former US spy Robert David Steele.
Exclusive: The Saudi-Israeli alliance has gone on the offensive, ramping up a “regime change” war in Syria and, in effect, promoting a military victory for Al-Qaeda or its spinoff, the Islamic State. But the consequences of that victory could toll the final bell for the American Republic, writes Robert Parry.
Continue reading “Robert Parry: The Day After Damascus Falls”
Part 1 of a two part series — This interview with Professor Stephen Cohen provides a very useful, and I believe largely accurate, portrayal of why our policy toward Russia has gone off the rails and could lead to a 2nd Cold War that is even more dangerous than the first — with one serious omission, IMO. Cohen's discussion of the reasons for NATO’s expansion, while accrurate, does not include the influence of the arms manufacturers in promoting that expansion. The MICC had a huge interest in NATO expansion, because adding new countries to NATO had the obvious potential for opening up huge arms markets in the name of NATO’s policy of standardization and interoperability. That the market has turned out less than predicted in the 1990s does not obviate the power of the motive. It is part of the mosaic of domestic political impulses to expand NATO that Cohen describes as being so dangerous. CS
Exclusive: R2Pers say America has a “responsibility to protect” endangered people around the world, but this R2P moral imperative is selective, often indistinguishable from neocons tolerating some slaughters and choosing to wage war against certain enemies — just dressed up in liberal rhetoric, reports Robert Parry.
Is Flawed Terrorism Research Driving Flawed Counterterrorism Policies?
More than thirteen years after the U.S. intelligence community named the prevention of terrorism its number one goal, it seems to have little understanding of what drives terrorism, or how to counter it. And, if the recently increasing criticism is correct, the government’s investment in academic terrorism research isn’t helping. It may be because the government is continuing to fund research supporting discredited theories of terrorist radicalization, rather than objective empirical analyses.
Article (link only) is pretty good, but see the even better acid reply (in full below the fold) from a reader.
As you read this think about what has happened to the United States from the time of the Marshall Plan when people around the world looked to the U.S. as an exemplar of what a modern society should be, until today when we are the most feared nation in the world, the number one threat to peace. This didn't happen to us, we did it to ourselves, and only we can undo it.
The #1 threat to peace in the world? World polling suggests it’s the United States
In early 2014, Gallup International/WIN released its annual global survey based on research conducted the previous year. The most striking statistic was that 24 percent of people around the world believe that the U.S. poses the greatest threat to peace. The runners-up were far behind: eight percent of respondents thought Pakistan was the greatest threat, while six percent thought it was China. And only five percent of those surveyed thought Iran was a threat to world peace. The numbers are based on interviews with 1,000 people in 65 different nations. (The survey published this year did not contain the same question.)
