If Pilger's comments on US Defense Secretary Chuck "Puke" Hagel's diplomacy are to be believed then the following newsflash may indeed be accurate:

"Hagel Blowing Deployment Money On Strippers, Beer" April 16, 2014

WASHINGTON — After returning from his latest deployment to visit troops overseas, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel is spending...After downing several pitchers of beer he takes a limousine downtown to The Shadow Room, where he spends several hundred dollars in [censored].

“He was here last night,” bartender John Ray said. “He walked in, ordered bottle service, and started drinking straight from the bottle. He got so drunk we had to kick him out. As the bouncer was dragging him towards the door he shouted ‘Time to get [censored]!’ Then he asked where he could find the closest [censored] club.”

"Hagel has become a regular at Archibald’s Gentlemen’s Club, where he likes to “make it rain [censored]” according to witnesses nearby. Several dancers have complained about his conduct in the private rooms.

Candy Paradise, whose stage name is ‘Destiny,’ said [censored] while he was handing me twenties,” she said. “He kept complaining about [censored] cost. He told me ‘I could get three [censored] in Vietnam for that much.’ I don’t care, I’m not a [censored]. I’m a [redacted].”

While the Joint Chiefs have tried to tell him he was wasting his money and would have nothing to show for it, Hagel has been [censored].

“No way,” he said, “I just bought a black ‘96 Mustang for $50,000, zero down and 30% interest. I’m getting a bargain.”"

[really, really censored]

I rest on my own case.

see http://www.duffelblog.com/2014/03/hagel-deployment-money/#!FPQ9O

Planta

Hal,

There may be many more devils in the world worse that the US, which presents all of us with a permanent dilemma - in any particular situation, is Power A or power B more dangerous, or less dangerous, than the US ? In any three-way struggle (and they are far more common than two-way struggles), if we want to get interested, we have to hold our noses and calculate which side or sides to support and which to oppose: which is 'better', and which is the worst.

So every situation demands judgment, there is no one-shot answer like "US bad ! All else good !".

So in this situation, let's see: imagine that Ukrainians have invaded parts of south-western Russia, taken over government buildings, raised foreign flags (i.e. committed treason), seized property, kidnapped and murdered officials, &c.

Would Russia be completely within its rights, as a sovereign country, to storm those buildings, arrest murderers, and expel any invaders ? Of course it would.

Would Ukraine have any right to interfere in Russia's internal affairs in case of internal troubles ? No, of course not. Ukraine would have to respect Russia's boundaries, and leave its internal affairs up to the Russian people, even if they are backed up by fascists like Zhirinovsky. Isn't that so ?

So when the jackboot's on the other foot ? As a pseudo-Left opportunist, which way are you going to jump, Hal ? Oh, sorry, you already have.

Joe

Let's see, Russia invades the Ukraine and it is all the Americans fault. Yeah, that makes sense.

Not.

I recently read an interesting article in a
where the author pointed out
that "What happened after World War II that
enabled the countries of Europe to develop in
relative peace was an agreement, often a tacit
agreement, to regard the territories of all
independent states as "exempt from being taken
over by their neighbours in "small wars," small
wars that often ended up by dragging other
neighbours in ever bigger and bigger wars."

"What happened now in Ukraine, breaks that tacit
agreement not to invade neighbours. The tacit
agreement that kept at least Europe in relative peace
for nearly three quarters of a century was broken.
The "Greater Russia, as the current leaders seem to
like to call the remnants of the Soviet Empire, has
invaded a part of another independent country, Ukraine,
and absorbed that part - the Crimea, into the
"Greater Russia."

"The "referendum" to join up with the invading state
was taken after the invasion. It matters not that the
soldiers of the invading country removed insignia from
their uniform. It doesn't matter how farcically unbalanced
the referendum questions were, it doesn't matter how
jubilantly the crowds in the capital of the "Greater
Russia" greeted the "new era" of expansion."

"What does matter is that this breach of the territorial
integrity of another country has started a new era.
We are returning to the pre-World War II behaviour of
some nations. It is a start of expansionism, ignoring
all norms of international treaties and agreements."

It is too easy to brush aside the events that are
unfolding.

It is unwise to ignore the fire that has
already started as nobody can predict where it will
end. We need to care what is happening in the Ukraine.

Have you seen the graphic TV re-broadcast of a TV
program in Moscow that reminded in threatening tones
that Russia "was the only power able to destroy
New York and other American ctieis, leaving behind
only radio active ashes?"

It is worth noting that it was shown at the same time
as the invasion of Crimea by the Russian troops.

I suggest Foxy,Loudmouth and LEGO read articles by Dr Paul Craig Roberts. Amongst his many achievements he was the assistant secretary to the US Treasury under President Ronald Reagan. He knows the truth.

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/

Arjay

How bout explaining these economic theories (in all the links you spit up) all by yourself?

:)