binarray2000

USA, in most cases, doesn't have "an lucky, unfair hand" but it uses its muscles (political, economic, intelligence, military pressure) to force other countries to submit to US interests.

Yes, it is normal that every country wants to protect its interests, but not at the expense of others! And by using the above mentioned pressure, USA bullies others to take a hit for its interests. Two examples:

(1) Biden regarding the countries who weren’t willing to impose sanctions on Russia over Ukraine: “Alot of us had to rally the world’s major economic countries to impose real cost on Russia. It is true they did not want to do that, but again, it was America’s leadership and the president of the United States insisting, oft times almost having to embarrass Europe to stand up and take economic hits to impose costs on Russia.”

https://youtu.be/D0zC4cxzszQ

(Remember, these are alleged US partners - major NATO and EU members - he's taking about.)

(2) A few days ago, US threatened to sanction European firms involved in Russian gas pipeline project for Europe called North Stream 2. US wants European countries to buy its gas instead of the Russian cheaper one. (US gas is transported by ships and it is much more expensive)

> Each country has a duty to protect its own interests; they also have a duty to promote and support its own intersts

There are very few countries on the Earth that can withstand the pressure (political, economic, intelligence, military) of the hegemon which, again, under the guise of "free trade" pushes his own imperial interests. And those countries are immediately called an "enemy" to the "free world" (euphemism for "US and its vasals NATO and EU"). So, the "international community" (another euphemism for "US and its vasals NATO and EU") has to sanction such a country - applying political and economic pressure. If it's militarly weak, to bomb it - applying intelligence and military pressure, as well. In case you don't know which countries I am talking about, just open your warmongering media - warmongering, as they didn't oppose any war of the empire.

Because of all of this, countries cave in and accept being exploited just to avoid the worst. No matter if is is a mobile phone or gas pipeline.

I'll end with a quote from a former free thinking German politician about how USA enforces its interests: "The manner of thought that takes into regard solely its own interests can only be referred to as totalitarian."

USA carries out mass surveillance (dragnet). It spies not on special foreign targets of interest but on every human being using electronic communications on this planet. Which means that only those who use smoke signals and pigeons have their privacy.

It is what Nazis did during WWII and what Stasi did in the ex DDR. Back then, the world - especially the so called "free world" - was appalled. And they did it "only" to their citizens.

It is not scary. I wanted to put it mildly. It is rogue!

Indeed, foreign countries do block the US tech in sensitive areas. For example, Russia. Alleged partners (major EU and NATO members) do not, and they get spied on.

Also, in the case of USG we do not presume anymore, we know for a fact that it spies on both the US (which is illegal) and the rest of the world (which is scary).

For the rest of your comment, I have to refer you to the last paragraph of my previous comment.

When US companies sell their phones and other electronic devices around the globe under the guise of free trade, that is OK. The world has to accept it. Even thou USG and its intelligence agencies have a proven track record of tampering the devices, pressuring companies to leave backdoors in software and hardware and spying on the planet.

Now that Chinese companies want to do the same under the same guise, that is not OK. USG is against it. Even thou there is no proof that the devices are tampered or backdoored. (I assume they are, but there is no proof.)

Funny how the same very thing that the US has invented for their imperial purposes ("free-trade") when it was strong and alone in that position comes to bite the inventor in the arse now that China does the same.

> If the demand for drug fighting just lost 90% of it's target, why do we need so many drug fighters? In terms of a real war, if an army just decimated 90% of it's enemy, it's time to send some troops back home.

Well, those people wouldn't be jobless as there are (serious) drugs to fight: Heroin and cocaine. But, that would be against the imperial interests of the USA, one powerful agency in particular. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_involvement_in_Contra_coca...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_CIA_drug_traffi...

[3] https://www.globalresearch.ca/a-conspiracy-theory-that-becam...

[4] https://www.amazon.com/Politics-Heroin-Complicity-Global-Tra...

[5] https://www.amazon.com/Whiteout-Drugs-Press-Alexander-Cockbu...

"Uses" and "owns" are two different verbs. Around 20 countries own DU ammo. But, US is the only one that uses it.

Thank you for the honest answer. Much appreciated! (And upvoted!)

That is exactly my point. The link dade_ has posted has interesting new and interesting details on that. First sentence under "Dutch East Indies and the war in the Far East" heading is telling:

> On December 8, 1941, the Netherlands declared war on the Japanese Empire.[35] On January 10, 1942 the Japanese invaded the Dutch East Indies (now Indonesia).

Unfortunately, military use of radioactive elements doesn't stop at bombs. Today's use of depleted uranium - because of its elusiveness - is in some sense worse than the use of atomic/hydrogen bombs. (BTW, only USA uses DU!)

People of Iraq, Libya, Serbia (including Kosovo and Metohija), Bosnia, Afghanistan, Syria (and neighboring countries) but also soldiers that were/are part of the occupational force there are sick and dying of cancer and leukemia.

Thank you for this honest post. When I read it I cannot help but think of how your grandfather fought thousands and thousands of kilometers away from his home (Japan, South Africa, Indonesia). In places that have never threatened him, his family or his people. If not for imperial interests, could you please expand on why he did it (if you know it)?

I wonder, if USIC (US intelligence community) has used billionaires in the 1970s to cover up their secret operations, if they do it today?

Why am I not surprised?

(1) You are a German.

(2) You are advocating for German imperial interests.

(3) "Drang nach Osten" (und Süden) is alive and kicking!

Thus, if anyone interferes with that by quoting facts they are "conspiracy theorists", "heretics", "far-whatever".

Croatia is today, for the second time since the WWII, a German vassal. To "pay" for the German political and military support in the 90ies, they have had to sell everything of value to German interests for peanuts: Most hotels on the Croatian part of the Adria coast are in German hand, Croatian telecom company (actually, a strategic resource for every country) is now "Deutsche Telekom", every Croatian company of value is owned by some German company.

The consequence are a high unemployment and a mass exodus: 300.000, some figures go as far as 500.000, Croats have left Croatia since it became the EU member in 2013 (2017 figures; according to Wikipedia, population estimate for Croatia in 2017 is 4.154.200). Croatian MD's and nurses are in Germany, keeping the German wages low for German hospital owners while German nurses live off of social security (because they don't want to break their backs in 12 hour shifts for chump change). Needless to say, Croatian medical system is in disarray.

And this is only a part of economic woes Croatia goes through. I will not go deep into political woes but name one: Croatia is the only country in the EU and NATO, in which the highest ranking officials (President, cabinet members) (1) attend openly fascistic and nazistic concerts, (2) make a yearly pilgrimage to an Austrian town of Bleiburg where Tito (with the blessing from US and GB) has killed some 90.000 Ustasha (Croats) in 1945, (3) deny the role of the Croat people and their WWII Independent State in the genocide on Serbs, Jews and Roma, (4) actively work (together with the Roman-Catholic church) on rehabilitation of people responsible for those crimes.

One episode is illustrative: End of 2016, in the city of Jasenovac, which is near the concentration camp Jasenovac, Croatian veterans from the 90ties have installed a memorial plaque with words "Za dom spremni!" on it. It is Ustasha greet during WWII, similar to "Sieg Heil" of the German Nazis. Now, as a German, imagine that in the city of Dachau, near former Dachau concentration camp, some veteran group puts a memorial plaque with "Sieg Heil" on it. What would happen? They would be punished at the speed of light while the outcry in the media would be enormous. In Croatia that memorial plaque stood there for almost a year! (it was removed after 10 months in September 2017 and put in the city of Novska, mere 10 km from the old spot)

And what does a "democratic" and "denazified" Germany do while Croatia revives Nazism? It is DEAD silent! Vassal is still needed to do the dirty work (wage a war, any kind of it) for German interests (again: "Drang nach Osten" (und Süden))!

Now that we can understand who you are protecting by accusing others of being "conspiracy theorists" (it took me awhile), one last question: If Martin A. Lee is a "conspiracy theorist", what about New York Times?

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/12/08/world/germans-follow-own-l...

http://www.nytimes.com/1992/01/16/world/europe-backing-germa...

It is ironic that a country, which reunited after tearing a wall between its people in 1989, had a major role in breaking an almost neighboring country apart, taking part in its destruction and (subsequently) raising walls between people. I am talking about the former Yugoslavia.

A quote from a book "The Beast Reawakens: Fascism's Resurgence from Hitler's Spymasters to Today's Neo-Nazi Groups and Right-Wing Extremists" (published in 1999) by Martin A. Lee:

(Chapter eight "Shadow over the East", Page 299) Whereas the United States and the rest of the European Community tried to prevent the breakup of Yugoslavia, Bonn unilaterally recognized Croatia as an independent nation at the end of 1991 and twisted arms to get other countries to comply with its wishes. American officials subsequently charged that Bonn was responsible for provoking the crisis in Yugoslavia, which had existed as a single country since 1919, except for the gruesome interlude when Hitler created a Croatian client state.

Reunified Germany’s preemptive diplomatic maneuver led to a major escalation of the civil war in the Balkans, which took hundreds of thousands of lives and displaced more than a million people. Bonn exacerbated the conflict by supplying Croatia with large quantities of weapons. Between 1992 and 1994, Germany exported $320 million of military hardware — including MiG fighter jets, surface-to-air missiles, and late-model tanks — to Croatia, despite a United Nations arms embargo forbidding such commerce. Convoys of up to fifteen hundred military vehicles from former East Germany were discovered en route to the Balkan farrago. Germany also trained Croatian pilots and provided intelligence reports in an effort to vanquish their mutual enemy. Heleno Sano, an expert on German defense issues, commented on the psychological underpinnings of this policy: “In their ‘historic unconscious,’ the Germans have resented the Serbs since World War II, because despite the fact that Hitler sent in thirty divisions, he was unable to defeat the antifascist guerrillas led by Tito.”

Under the auspices of NATO, German warplanes saw action for the first time since 1945, carrying out aerial patrols to prevent Ser­bian fighter jets from flying over Bosnian territory. And when the tide turned in Croatia’s favor in the summer of 1995, Bonn agreed to contribute up to four thousand military personnel to enforce a tenuous peace accord. German intervention was widely depicted in humanitarian terms, but General Klaus Naumann had something else in mind when he lobbied behind the scenes for a wider military role. While some German officials expressed a genuine reluctance to interfere in a place that had been devastated by Hitler, Naumann saw a chance for his men to test their mettle in a combat setting.

As someone who loves his female cousins (I call them sisters) and their daughters and as someone who treats his wife as an equal partner (my philosophy: "Man and woman are two wings of the same bird.") I am all for both sexes being protected from any kind of harassment. Yes, and the media must talk about it (especially, when children and minors are harmed).

BUT...

As an outsider to the USA (I live in Europe), I cannot believe what I see in the US media.

Basically, all you can read about is three topics (in no particular order):

(1) Trump is guilty for EVERYTHING

(2) Russia is guilty for EVERYTHING

(3) Sexual harassment

It looks (off the top of my head):

- as if the USA is not fighting numerous wars

- as if the US troops are not in almost every country on the globe

- as if the federal debt is now not over 20.000 billion

- as if military budget is now not almost 700 billion

- as if bridges are not falling and as if infrastructure is not crumbling

- as if the whole society is not in all kinds of (deep) debt

- as if there is no lead and mercury in tap water in numerous municipalities

- as if many cities and municipalities are not bankrupt

- as if banks and other financial institutions are not ripping the US society

- as if corporations are not ripping the US society (latest rip: net neutrality)

- as if there is not less freedoms (of the press, of the expression, of movement [TSA])

- as if everyone has a medical insurance

- as if everyone has access to free college education

- as if there are no race riots

- as if there are no tent cities

- as if, as if, as if...

Can someone from the USA explain this to me:

- Is there critical mass concerned with the latter stuff or is almost everyone concerned with Trump, Russia and sexual harassment?

- If the latter stuff is of more concern for the people, why do the elected representatives (who get elected and re-elected by their constituents) not broach about it?

Thank you.

> Because the IDF would have annihilated them. It's far easier to pick on haphazard regimes, who are generally incapable of organizing strategic defensive efforts.

Then why do I read an article like this in Jerusalem Post, quoting WSJ:

http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Report-Israel-treating-al-Q...

They even quote Assad:

“Some in Syria joke: 'How can you say that al-Qaida doesn’t have an air force? They have the Israeli air force',” Assad told Foreign Affairs magazine earlier this year. “They are supporting the rebels in Syria. It is very clear.”

> ISIS was more about power and wealth than it was about ideology. The ideology was just a vehicle.

ISIS/AQ/Whatever-name-their-master-gives-them is a project to destabilize Syrian government that didn't want to play along with plans of the US empire for the Middle East. Quick summary of a FOIA document obtained by Judicial Watch:

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/05/newly-declassified-u-...

BTW, this document was produced in August 2012 by DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency; basically, Pentagon's Intel Agency). At that moment, guess who was its chief: Gen. Michael Flynn. Yes, that Flynn you now see in the media.

EDIT: A video of Flynn:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6Y274U7QIs&feature=youtu.be...

Indeed, I wrote this three days ago:

"Since he appeared on the scene I have always wondered, how in an environment where engineers take pride for what they have actually done (US tech world), a guy that only talks and has no engineering accomplishment to show is given that much cognitive space. Back when he was a Microsoft evangelist (!) I have watched a few videos of him to get the sense of a talking human being. And I could't believe how shallow he was. His whole demeanor was one of an airhead."

To add to that, and get back on the topic, how can someone who has not writen a lot of code or designed significant hardware consult someone? And companies are obviously willing to pay him. What a world!

Since he appeared on the scene I have always wondered, how in an environment where engineers take pride for what they have actually done (US tech world), a guy that only talks and has no engineering accomplishment to show is given that much cognitive space. Back when he was a Microsoft evangelist (!) I have watched a few videos of him to get the sense of a talking human being. And I could't believe how shallow he was. His whole demeanor was one of an airhead.

I use CCleaner for maybe even 10 years, a great tool.

But Windows 10 (a few older versions as well, but somewhat hidden) has something similar called "Disk Cleanup" (Win key > enter "Disk Cleanup" > "Clean up system files" > Check all marks). "Disk Cleanup" removes stuff that CCleaner doesn't, so I use them together.

You can even remove system restore and shadow copies (Win key > enter "Disk Cleanup" > "Clean up system files" > "More Options" tab > "System Restore and Shadow Copies" > "Clean up" button).

I'm curious: How is "fat shaming" applied to sumo wrestlers? They are probably big (no pun intended) stars in Japan.

I could do a writeup of this video, but I am busy. Sacrifice 11 minutes of your time and be open minded:

https://youtu.be/SC2Qj8HsMK8

Could you please clarify. Which one of these do you mean (first three results when googling SQL migrations):

(1) https://www.npmjs.com/package/sql-migrations

(2) https://flywaydb.org/documentation/migration/sql

(3) https://github.com/rubenv/sql-migrate

(1) I'll clarify myself: When I write about imperial politics, I mean the western oligarchy, not the people in the west. Yes, the people in the west have been made complicit in the crime of the oligarchy, but they are also (in a sense) a victim. For example: The oligarchy in England was not able to conquer India alone. Nor would they have risked their lives in the process. For that they have used the people. First they gave more money and power (military grades) to soldiers who would go to another side of the world and risk their lives to fight some foreigners who didn't pose any threat to their families or their country. After these soldiers have done their part, using the same scheme ("more money and power"), administrative officers were sent to administer the looted and to secure the power position of the oligarchy. Again, both groups (soldiers and administrators) were victims as well, risking their lives for a tiny bit of money and power compared to the profits and power gain of the oligarchy. And that pattern continues to be used today. Look for example at the testimonies of US soldiers who were in Iraq (on YouTube [1] [2] [3]). These guys are now physically and psychically sick from the war they were sent to wage for the US oligarchy and the system has no purpose for them (prior to them entering the service and now), but they are still humans with compassion.

(2) The argument about science and technology is a complex one. Yes, there were Romans but we don't know sources for their scientific and technological advancements. We do know that, after the Romans, the west fell behind burning books and "heretics", and that the Islamic world was leading in science and technology during that time. We also know that when the west (the western oligarchy) came back with trade, it was followed by the imperial politics. And that continues to exist today as well. Look at the USA: It has made a system where it offers free information on US universities in their embassies. Then the young bright people, many from countries the US oligarchy has destroyed economically, so see no future in them and they come and study in the US. Later, in universities, research facilities and companies (as employees and [co]founders) they become (known) sources for scientific and technological advancements in the US. By doing that, he US is robbing already robbed countries: (a) of their future elite that would build a home country again; (b) their home countries have paid for their pre-tertiary education. And other western countries (oligarchies) do the same.

(3) Considering what I wrote under (1), it were not all "Westerners" but the western oligarchy who was the driver of the slave trade. Also, even thou there was (and still is) slave trade in Africa, the sheer scale, brutality and profit extraction out of slaves by the western oligarchy is not comparable with "intrarace" slave trade.

(4) Yes, white guilt is wrong. You are right that it is a tool of warfare, a warfare between poor people in the west and poor people in other countries, staged by the western oligarchy. No rich people fight in a war, not in the past, not now. And you are right that it is "a psychological/social weapon and an excuse to persecute individuals for things they did not do themselves". There is only the guilt of the oligarchy. If (and only if) the people in the western world say no to being peons in this game their oligarchy plays with their and the lives of other people, then they would do more for the peace in the world than all UN programs for the "third world".

[1] https://youtu.be/gdn3bIfP7fk

[2] https://youtu.be/VwwMF6biCJU

[3] https://youtu.be/SOqPBC3ZMn8

Thank you very much for this. It is very good!

May I suggest a feature: Clickable tags. That way one could find all related articles you've found.

The point you make about protectionism is a very good one. But it doesn't tell the whole story.

Isn't it interesting that in books about the economic development of the "first world" you never read about imperial politics? It boils down to how looting of other peoples resources and selling/keeping these people as slaves is the key reason for the riches in the "first world" (particularly its western part). And how protectionism came after (or in parallel, in later phases) to protect the looted. And how the West still does the looting of other peoples resources today and (thanks to that) keeps and grows its riches. And how the only thing that has changed is that it doesn't do the slave trade anymore, but how it still uses and profits greatly from the slave labour.

Maybe someone can recommend a book on this.

You must see it in a broader context. I'll paraphrase you:

"jesus christ. the damage our own government has done to [Iraq, Syria, Libya, North Korea, Vietnam, Serbia, Afghanistan...] is just insane. if i was a [citizen of these countries] I would be so pissed."

At least, the shareholder has his life and his property (sans the missed opportunity due to "the damage our own government has done to microsoft").

Instead of an argument you use belittling. Very "smart" of you.

From the context I assume your family roots are in the "Balkans" and you understand Serbian but you are not a Serb, so one question: What is the version of history of your peoples?

Aaaaahhhhh... those outworn words and phrases: "nationalist propaganda", "Greater Serbia", "Serbian nationalists aggressively pursue expansionism".

I don't know where you live and or your nationality, but looks like those words were taken from "How to demonize those you want to conquer"-manual, that the US/UK/EU empire uses for all those who want to live free (Syrians, Iraqis, Iranians, Serbs...).

Further, it seems OK for all those who mindlessly use those phrases that Albanians can create their states (and plan Greater Albania), that it is OK for the Germans to unite and create greater (Greater?) Germany, and it is OK that the Croats who have been "dreaming for a thousand of years" to have their own state to get it.

But for the Serbs to be in one state where they would live together and free on territories where Serbs have lived for thousands of years, that is "nationalist propaganda"!

Where is the logic in that?

To add to this:

- Serbs were the first and major peoples who have truly fought the Ottoman Empire (1389 in Kosovo Polje)

- Serbs were tho only ones in the "Balkans" who, after being occupied by the Ottomans, have constantly and truly rebelled against them. For almost 500 years!

- Serbs were the only ones in the "Balkans" who have fought in the WW1 on the right side (over 2/3 of the male population between 18 and 55 were dead in that war)

- Serbs were the ones in the "Balkans" who have fought in the WW2 on the right side (over 60% of the partisans were Serbs)

- In 1999, 19 NATO states have attacked Serbia after US/UK empire has supported "the rebels" (the same scenario was later applied in Libya and Syria). After 78 days, Serbia and NATO have signed a peace agreement, not a capitulation of Serbia.

That is only a part of your glorious past in which we were attacked and had to fight a much, much stronger enemy. And it's only the last 600 years of constant attacks! Which other "nation" in the "Balkans" has done (or gone through) that?

(maybe the reason for the hatred of the Serbs in the "Balkans" stems from the fact that they are not doing what other "nations" are: Always support the oppressor [Hitler, Ottomans, Austria-Hungary, NATO], build concentration camps for the innocent, accept the Pope, always have the foreign king...)

Also, let's talks about victims. For brevity, I'll mention the WW2 and 700.000 Serbs (mostly civilians; children, as well) killed in the Croatian concentration camp Jasenovac. Which is a fraction of the two million Serbs killed during the WW2.

To speak about Serbian kings, about Serbian states, about Serbian culture, heritage, religion, science (Milutin Milanković, Mihajlo Pupin, Ruđer Bošković, Nikola Tesla - to name a few) would take too much time.

Regarding Vučić ("the Serbian president"): (1) He is an IDIOT. He always was and still is. In the past ('90ies) he proclaimed "we should kill 100 Muslims for each Serb" which is against everything that is Serbian way of thinking and fighting. (2) Now he is the favorite of the US/UK/EU empire. They have brought that IDIOT to power to finally let Kosovo i Metohija to the Albanians and their masters (US/UK/EU empire), to definitely destroy Serbian economy, culture, to burden the debt on the Serbs etc. (3) It is VERY, VERY fishy what happened in the last election in Serbia. There were sooooo many irregularities that, if brought to the court, the whole election would be void (and that IDIOT would lose). Of course, US/UK/EU empire is quiet about irregularities because they don't care what their stooge is doing as long he's on their mission.

What you are not being told by your favorite main-stream media - but is important to understand the "conflict" - is that the territory of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia was, prior to the end of the WW1, territory of Serbia and it was (together with Kosovo and Metohija and Raška [Rashka]) called "Old Serbia":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Serbia

After the WW1, it was still a territory of Serbia (which was one of the winners) and that territory was brought by Serbia into the "Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes" which was later renamed "Kingdom of Yugoslavia":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Yugoslavia

Now the question is: Why have Tito (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josip_Broz_Tito) and the Communists after WW2 drawn the lines of new republics in such a way that Serbia has essentially lost the territory?

(1) My comment was an addendum to the post which (partly) explained to another post(er) why German companies aren't moving their production to cheaper markets. I remind you of this because the author of the article and many people here have a rosy view of the economic situation in Germany. Seeing only the "positives" and blending out the "negatives" because they don't fit the official narrative isn't helpful for our discussion.

(2) Germany is the biggest country in EU (EU != Europe), has the largest workforce and, thus, the largest low-wage sector. Yes, that is correct. But it is not "easy", as this Eurostat graph shows:

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/...

You see Germany in the company with such economic powerhouses as Estonia, Poland, Lithuania, Romania, Latvia - all of them having a bit worse PERCENTAGE of low-wage workers than Germany. This is not someone's perception, or some narrative, these are hard numbers.

(3) You obviously didn't read the articles I've posted. Especially that from Nachdenkseiten as it lists many other issues not widely spoken about in the mainstream media - neither in Germany nor in other countries. It is an analysis from Prof. Dr. Gerhard Bosch (Geschäftsführender Direktor Institut Arbeit und Qualifikation Universität Duisburg-Essen). While we discuss the article published oh hbr.org, which talks about the causes for the success of the German economy, Mr. Bosch mentions the elephant in the room:

> German economic policy continues to be characterised by its excessive focus on exports. As a way of dealing with the euro crisis, the German federal government advises other countries to introduce their own labour market reforms on the model of the Hartz Acts. This policy, however, cannot be applied at will to other countries, since only by abolishing the laws of mathematics would be it possible for all countries to have export surpluses.

Meaning: German model doesn't work for others. And, it only works for Germany because others take a hit while Germany "takes" a surplus.

Yes, German economy/society has it's qualities. But would it be such a "success" without major influence in EU institutions, in ECB, without Euro, with other countries having their currencies (which they can devalue to make their good cheaper and imported - German - goods more expensive), with customs on its goods, with fairer wages in Germany? I highly doubt it.