Moon of Alabama, within a longer post (The Neocon's Dream - Decolonize Russia, Re-colonize China), draws attention to a symposium being put on by a “commission” of the US government—The Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, also known as the U.S.
A couple of days ago Sarcastic Cynical Texan asked on another thread here on Mark’s blog,
“How do we the people of the United States benefit from our nation's government policies of world hegemony? Cui bono? It seems that the USA has picked up where the British Empire left off. The commoners in Britain were sacrificed by their elites to build and maintain the Empire, we Americans are being similarly abused by our ruling elites. Would it not have been better had we built up our own economic and military power and set the example of minding our own business? And to show the other nations that the rule of law is our way of life.”
I responded as follows (and am copying my response here because it seems relevant and also in the hope of stimulating some additional discussion of the tantalizing question of cui bono…):
Cui bono?
I've been asking myself that question for years now.
Take the U.S. so-called War on Terror, declared, ostensibly, to prevent another 9/11.
According to the Costs of War Project at Brown University, the War on Terror has resulted in
• Over 929,000 people dead due to direct war violence, and several times as many due to the reverberating effects of war
• Over 387,000 civilians killed as a result of the fighting
• 38 million war refugees and displaced persons
• US government counterterror activities conducted in 85 countries
• Systemic violations of human rights and civil liberties, in the U.S. and abroad.
It looks to me like the U.S. War on Terror has caused no small amount of 'terror' itself. Which of course raises the same question.
Cui bono?
Perhaps the question answers itself...
According to the Costs of War Project, the Pentagon has spent over $14 trillion since the invasion of Afghanistan, one-third to one-half to military contractors.
The "war on terror" should have been limited to giving the Bin Laden led Islamist faction their reward . . . 72 virgins. That was accomplished in a few weeks, 20 weeks instead of 20 years. The MIC corporate entities and Fed. bureaucracy cashed in bigly, we the people got robbed in many, many different ways.
The valiant vassals of Vilnius will learn the hard way that your last paragraph is true.
I wonder what the Helsinki Commission's take would be regarding Texas independence, decolonizing the USA . . . HYPOCRISY most likely? When I read the names of the "commissioners" I became slightly nauseated, the swamp's bottom dwellers are well represented.
The map by Pomorenko looks realistic, the fantastic map above not so much. Altai, Tuva and Buryatya are full of Mongols as is the Inner Mongolia area of China, those peoples would probably like to have their capitol be in Ulaanbataar instead of Beijing or Moscow.
The existence and attitude of this "commission" is absolutely incredible and terrifying. Blatant warmongering against a nuclear power by twisting and/or neglect of relevant facts, an organization partially composed of elected representatives acting outside the bounds of the authority of their offices to advance foreign policy positions and promote war. What's next? How many secret meetings are attended by our representatives during which they make decisions we may never hear about? Is this the way they think our government is supposed to operate? Where is the debate? Where is the opportunity for public input (as Mark questions)? What is the basis for their "reasoning"?
The WaPo article is just as terrifying and disgusting. What motivating force is so strong that these people are willing to cause millions of deaths and destroy countries in order to defeat Russia? It boggles the mind. Is it for the good of the "U.S. and its allies" to destroy the world? Our government is composed of either a large number of idiots or a large number of people who are absolutely evil. God help us.
I watched a Scott Ritter interview filmed this morning in which he described the current prodding of The Bear such as the Klaningrad debacle and the UK's most senior army commander stating UK troops should prepare for combat on European soil, along with the shelling of Donetsk and the Russian oil plants as toddler tantrums because Russia isn't folding like the West expected. I think this round table they've announced is more of that. It makes them seem like they still have control when really it'll be just a bunch of over tired babies banging their sticky clenched fists on the table.
They say that God punishes people by answering their prayers. China has considerable territorial claims on Russia as is. One assumes that a good deal of territory "liberated" from Russian control would end up as part of China. How this would make the world a better or safer place is difficult to understand. There is also the question of what would become of four digits worth of nuclear weapons that would be rolling around loose.
This is starting to feel like Beavis and Butthead do grand strategy. "Hey Beavis, ya know what would be cool?"
It really seems like the establishment is going off the deep end vis-a-vis Russia. I was, frankly, OK with driving up Russia's costs for invading Ukraine. Whatever our role was in provoking this, there has to be a high cost to Russia just invading its neighbors, even if those neighbors are ultimately US proxies that Russia feels threatened by. So I was OK with initial assistance, but we've gone far beyond that and are signing up to an endless commitment to support Ukraine.
But this stuff about "decolonizing Russia" is a whole extra layer of crazy. It has me thinking of early comments Russia's ambassador made about how a broken up Russia would represent a threat to its neighbors due to instability. Of course, that's an accurate statement, but I had to wonder why Russia was talking about this--we were just trying to make life difficult for Russia and were not trying to make it disintegrate. Well, here we are now with this symposium going out of its way to confirm the worst of Russia's fears. Russia has repeatedly threatened nuclear war in the event of threats to its survival, and the West just lays it out there and dares them to declare war and resort to nukes. We've even given them a casus belli by blockading Kaliningrad.
Many clowns on this panel, but Blumenthal and Whitehouse stand out as especially despicable and hypocritical elitists. Surprised Romney's not there with them.
Lithuania is all in on Davos - they were famously cruel to the unvaxxed - worse than Austria. I'm guessing they are following orders from the Davos men.
Here we've been talking about Civil War II when all along we should have been talking about de-colonizing the USA. No matter what we do it's going to suck for a lot of people so here's my plan:
Blue: WA, OR, CA, NV, NM, CO, MN, WI, IL, MI, VA, MD, DE, NJ, NY, CT, RI, MA, VT, NH, ME, HI, and possibly AZ and UT
Red: all non-blue
Everyone has one year to liquidate assets and move. Treaty to ensure unfettered transportation, overflight rights. No blue-red cross ownership of assets allowed. Like everyone else, armed forces personnel choose sides. Military equipment is apportioned by square miles of land. Nukes are split 50-50. Federal debt is split by ratio of total net worth of red-blue citizens.
Red America reboots with the original constitution--and especially with Article I Section 8, 9th, and 10th amendments. The Blues get the Fed, FBI, DoJ, DHS, DEA, ATF, CDC, FDA, EPA, DoE, DoEd, HHS, gun confiscation, unfettered illegal immigration, unfettered pedophilia, public schools with CRT, LGBTQI+, reparations, the Federal Register, etc.
Voila! De-colonized! (A fella can dream, can't he?)
The New Republic of Texas will reclaim all of our original territory: currently more than half of NM, the OK panhandle, SW KS, SE CO, and the "stovepipe" in CO & WY.
My lesser dream would be to retake all Federal land except for as the Constitution says in art. 1 sec. 8: post offices, forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards and other needful buildings.
Not sure why you feel there's any need to give blue almost half the states. Give the blues the major metro areas where they tinker w/elections and the rest of us flyover folks will be happy to wave g'bye.
Mostly just ease / practicality. I realize that they're concentrated in metro counties, but if you tried to contain them in small areas, you'd end up having to wall them off or have a bloody war after all. It's all a pipe dream anyway because the left would never leave us alone (after all, that's why we have gotten into this predicament to begin with).
A couple of days ago Sarcastic Cynical Texan asked on another thread here on Mark’s blog,
“How do we the people of the United States benefit from our nation's government policies of world hegemony? Cui bono? It seems that the USA has picked up where the British Empire left off. The commoners in Britain were sacrificed by their elites to build and maintain the Empire, we Americans are being similarly abused by our ruling elites. Would it not have been better had we built up our own economic and military power and set the example of minding our own business? And to show the other nations that the rule of law is our way of life.”
I responded as follows (and am copying my response here because it seems relevant and also in the hope of stimulating some additional discussion of the tantalizing question of cui bono…):
Cui bono?
I've been asking myself that question for years now.
Take the U.S. so-called War on Terror, declared, ostensibly, to prevent another 9/11.
According to the Costs of War Project at Brown University, the War on Terror has resulted in
• Over 929,000 people dead due to direct war violence, and several times as many due to the reverberating effects of war
• Over 387,000 civilians killed as a result of the fighting
• 38 million war refugees and displaced persons
• US government counterterror activities conducted in 85 countries
• Systemic violations of human rights and civil liberties, in the U.S. and abroad.
It looks to me like the U.S. War on Terror has caused no small amount of 'terror' itself. Which of course raises the same question.
Cui bono?
Perhaps the question answers itself...
According to the Costs of War Project, the Pentagon has spent over $14 trillion since the invasion of Afghanistan, one-third to one-half to military contractors.
https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/
The "war on terror" should have been limited to giving the Bin Laden led Islamist faction their reward . . . 72 virgins. That was accomplished in a few weeks, 20 weeks instead of 20 years. The MIC corporate entities and Fed. bureaucracy cashed in bigly, we the people got robbed in many, many different ways.
The valiant vassals of Vilnius will learn the hard way that your last paragraph is true.
I wonder what the Helsinki Commission's take would be regarding Texas independence, decolonizing the USA . . . HYPOCRISY most likely? When I read the names of the "commissioners" I became slightly nauseated, the swamp's bottom dwellers are well represented.
The map by Pomorenko looks realistic, the fantastic map above not so much. Altai, Tuva and Buryatya are full of Mongols as is the Inner Mongolia area of China, those peoples would probably like to have their capitol be in Ulaanbataar instead of Beijing or Moscow.
The existence and attitude of this "commission" is absolutely incredible and terrifying. Blatant warmongering against a nuclear power by twisting and/or neglect of relevant facts, an organization partially composed of elected representatives acting outside the bounds of the authority of their offices to advance foreign policy positions and promote war. What's next? How many secret meetings are attended by our representatives during which they make decisions we may never hear about? Is this the way they think our government is supposed to operate? Where is the debate? Where is the opportunity for public input (as Mark questions)? What is the basis for their "reasoning"?
The WaPo article is just as terrifying and disgusting. What motivating force is so strong that these people are willing to cause millions of deaths and destroy countries in order to defeat Russia? It boggles the mind. Is it for the good of the "U.S. and its allies" to destroy the world? Our government is composed of either a large number of idiots or a large number of people who are absolutely evil. God help us.
I watched a Scott Ritter interview filmed this morning in which he described the current prodding of The Bear such as the Klaningrad debacle and the UK's most senior army commander stating UK troops should prepare for combat on European soil, along with the shelling of Donetsk and the Russian oil plants as toddler tantrums because Russia isn't folding like the West expected. I think this round table they've announced is more of that. It makes them seem like they still have control when really it'll be just a bunch of over tired babies banging their sticky clenched fists on the table.
They say that God punishes people by answering their prayers. China has considerable territorial claims on Russia as is. One assumes that a good deal of territory "liberated" from Russian control would end up as part of China. How this would make the world a better or safer place is difficult to understand. There is also the question of what would become of four digits worth of nuclear weapons that would be rolling around loose.
This is starting to feel like Beavis and Butthead do grand strategy. "Hey Beavis, ya know what would be cool?"
Beavis and Butthead would do grand strategy much better than our neocon elite !!!
It really seems like the establishment is going off the deep end vis-a-vis Russia. I was, frankly, OK with driving up Russia's costs for invading Ukraine. Whatever our role was in provoking this, there has to be a high cost to Russia just invading its neighbors, even if those neighbors are ultimately US proxies that Russia feels threatened by. So I was OK with initial assistance, but we've gone far beyond that and are signing up to an endless commitment to support Ukraine.
But this stuff about "decolonizing Russia" is a whole extra layer of crazy. It has me thinking of early comments Russia's ambassador made about how a broken up Russia would represent a threat to its neighbors due to instability. Of course, that's an accurate statement, but I had to wonder why Russia was talking about this--we were just trying to make life difficult for Russia and were not trying to make it disintegrate. Well, here we are now with this symposium going out of its way to confirm the worst of Russia's fears. Russia has repeatedly threatened nuclear war in the event of threats to its survival, and the West just lays it out there and dares them to declare war and resort to nukes. We've even given them a casus belli by blockading Kaliningrad.
WTF is wrong with our leaders?
It’s hard to get more Left than Steve Cohen.
The only one I recognize as having a hope for common sense is Tim Scott. About half I have no clue on.
Commissioners:
House of Representatives
Co-Chairman Steve Cohen, Tennessee
Ranking Member Joe Wilson, South Carolina
Robert B. Aderholt, Alabama
Emanuel Cleaver, II, Missouri
Brian Fitzpatrick, Pennsylvania
Ruben Gallego, Arizona
Richard Hudson, North Carolina
Gwen Moore, Wisconsin
Marc Veasey, Texas
U.S Senate
Chairman Ben Cardin, Maryland
Ranking Member Roger F. Wicker, Mississippi
Richard Blumenthal, Connecticut
John Boozman, Arkansas
Tim Scott, South Carolina
Jeanne Shaheen, New Hampshire
Tina Smith, Minnesota
Thom Tillis, North Carolina
Sheldon Whitehouse, Rhode Island
I categorize the above as a bunch of PUKES!
Thanks for the list. But "Sea Island" Scott? I'm not holding my breath.
I honestly don’t know much about him.
Many clowns on this panel, but Blumenthal and Whitehouse stand out as especially despicable and hypocritical elitists. Surprised Romney's not there with them.
Lithuania is all in on Davos - they were famously cruel to the unvaxxed - worse than Austria. I'm guessing they are following orders from the Davos men.
Here we've been talking about Civil War II when all along we should have been talking about de-colonizing the USA. No matter what we do it's going to suck for a lot of people so here's my plan:
Blue: WA, OR, CA, NV, NM, CO, MN, WI, IL, MI, VA, MD, DE, NJ, NY, CT, RI, MA, VT, NH, ME, HI, and possibly AZ and UT
Red: all non-blue
Everyone has one year to liquidate assets and move. Treaty to ensure unfettered transportation, overflight rights. No blue-red cross ownership of assets allowed. Like everyone else, armed forces personnel choose sides. Military equipment is apportioned by square miles of land. Nukes are split 50-50. Federal debt is split by ratio of total net worth of red-blue citizens.
Red America reboots with the original constitution--and especially with Article I Section 8, 9th, and 10th amendments. The Blues get the Fed, FBI, DoJ, DHS, DEA, ATF, CDC, FDA, EPA, DoE, DoEd, HHS, gun confiscation, unfettered illegal immigration, unfettered pedophilia, public schools with CRT, LGBTQI+, reparations, the Federal Register, etc.
Voila! De-colonized! (A fella can dream, can't he?)
The New Republic of Texas will reclaim all of our original territory: currently more than half of NM, the OK panhandle, SW KS, SE CO, and the "stovepipe" in CO & WY.
My dream.
As a native Texan old enough to grow up watching Westerns, I think your dream is awesome! 👍
My lesser dream would be to retake all Federal land except for as the Constitution says in art. 1 sec. 8: post offices, forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards and other needful buildings.
Not sure why you feel there's any need to give blue almost half the states. Give the blues the major metro areas where they tinker w/elections and the rest of us flyover folks will be happy to wave g'bye.
Mostly just ease / practicality. I realize that they're concentrated in metro counties, but if you tried to contain them in small areas, you'd end up having to wall them off or have a bloody war after all. It's all a pipe dream anyway because the left would never leave us alone (after all, that's why we have gotten into this predicament to begin with).
Was just gonna say, We can kiss Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada and California goodbye.
And that's to say nothing about Native American lands...at least the Rus have something like an historical claim on their land.