Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: koan who wrote (773204)	3/6/2014 1:18:04 PM
From: joseffy	1 Recommendation Recommended By longnshort Respond to of 1573718

Bolton: ‘Our Biggest National-Security Problem Is Barack Obama’

To: koan who wrote (773204)	3/6/2014 1:37:16 PM
From: Broken_Clock	Respond to of 1573718

then why?

To: koan who wrote (773204)	3/6/2014 2:34:15 PM
From: Broken_Clock	Respond to of 1573718

Message 29425182 deal with it

To: koan who wrote (773204)	3/6/2014 2:56:13 PM
From: Broken_Clock	Respond to of 1573718

More CIA fomented destabilization…You must be very proud of Obama. MARCH 06, 2014 Propaganda Rules the News Ukraine Through the Fog of the Presstitutes by PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS Gerald Celente calls the Western media “presstitutes,” an ingenuous term that I often use. Presstitutes sell themselves to Washington for access and government sources and to keep their jobs. Ever since the corrupt Clinton regime permitted the concentration of the US media, there has been no journalistic independence in the United States except for some Internet sites. Glenn Greenwald points out the independence that RT, a Russian media organization, permits Abby Martin who denounced Russia’s alleged invasion of Ukraine, compared to the fates of Phil Donahue (MSNBC) and Peter Arnett (NBC), both of whom were fired for expressing opposition to the Bush regime’s illegal attack on Iraq. The fact that Donahue had NBC’s highest rated program did not give him journalistic independence. Anyone who speaks the truth in the American print or TV media or on NPR is immediately fired. Russia’s RT seems actually to believe and observe the values that Americans profess but do not honor. I agree with Greenwald. You can read his article here. Greenwald is entirely admirable. He has intelligence, integrity, and courage. He is one of the brave to whom my just published book, How America Was Lost, is dedicated. As for RT’s Abby Martin, I admire her and have been a guest on her program a number of times. My criticism of Greenwald and Martin has nothing to do with their integrity or their character. I doubt the claims that Abby Martin grandstanded on “Russia’s invasion of Ukraine” in order to boost her chances of moving into the more lucrative “mainstream media.” My point is quite different. Even Abby Martin and Greenwald, both of whom bring us much light, cannot fully escape Western propaganda. For example, Martin’s denunciation of Russia for “invading” Ukraine is based on Western propaganda that Russia sent 16,000 troops to occupy Crimea. The fact of the matter is that those 16,000 Russian troops have been in Crimea since the 1990s. Under the Russian-Ukrainian agreement, Russia has the right to base 25,000 troops in Crimea. Apparently, neither Abby Martin nor Glenn Greenwald, two intelligent and aware people, knew this fact. Washington’s propaganda is so pervasive that two of our best reporters were victimized by it. As I have written several times in my columns, Washington organized the coup in Ukraine in order to promote its world hegemony by capturing Ukraine for NATO and putting US missile bases on Russia’s border in order to degrade Russia’s nuclear deterrent and force Russia to accept Washington’s hegemony. Russia has done nothing but respond in a very low-key way to a major strategic threat orchestrated by Washington. It is not only Martin and Greenwald who have fallen under Washington’s propaganda. They are joined by Patrick J. Buchanan. Pat’s column calling on readers to “resist the war party on Crimea” opens with Washington’s propagandistic claim: “ With Vladimir Putin’s dispatch of Russian Troops into Crimea.” No such dispatch has occurred. Putin has been granted authority by the Russian Duma to send troops to Ukraine, but Putin has stated publicly that sending troops would be a last resort to protect Crimean Russians from invasions by the ultra-nationalist neo-nazis who stole Washington’s coup and established themselves as the power in Kiev and western Ukraine. So, here we have three of the smartest and most independent journalists of our time, and all three are under the impression created by Western propaganda that Russia has invaded Ukraine. It appears that the power of Washington’s propaganda is so great that not even the best and most independent journalists can escape its influence. What chance does truth have when Abby Martin gets kudos from Glenn Greenwald for denouncing Russia for an alleged “invasion” that has not taken place, and when independent Pat Buchanan opens his column dissenting from the blame-Russia-crowd by accepting that an invasion has taken place? The entire story that the presstitutes have told about the Ukraine is a propaganda production. The presstitutes told us that the deposed president, Viktor Yanukovych, ordered snipers to shoot protesters. On the basis of these false reports, Washington’s stooges, who comprise the existing non-government in Kiev, have issued arrest orders for Yanukovych and intend for him to be tried in an international court. In an intercepted telephone call between EU foreign affairs minister Catherine Ashton and Etonian foreign affairs minister Urmas Paet who had just returned from Kiev, Paet reports: “There is now stronger and stronger understanding that behind the snipers, it was not Yanukovych, but it was somebody from the new coalition.” Paet goes on to report that “all the evidence shows that the people who were killed by snipers from both sides, among policemen and then people from the streets, that they were the same snipers killing people from both sides . . . and it’s really disturbing that now the new coalition, that they don’t want to investigate what exactly happened.” Ashton, absorbed with EU plans to guide reforms in Ukraine and to prepare the way for the IMF to gain control over economic policy, was not particularly pleased to hear Paet’s report that the killings were an orchestrated provocation. You can listen to the conversation between Paet and Ashton here:http://rt.com/news/ashton-maidan-snipers-estonia-946/ What has happened in Ukraine is that Washington plotted against and overthrew an elected legitimate government and then lost control to neo-nazis who are threatening the large Russian population in southern and eastern Ukraine, provinces that formerly were part of Russia. These threatened Russians have appealed for Russia’s help, and just like the Russians in South Ossetia, they will receive Russia’s help. The Obama regime and its presstitutes will continue to lie about everything. Paul Craig Roberts is a former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury and Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal. His latest book The Failure of Laissez-Faire Capitalism. Roberts’ How the Economy Was Lost is now available from CounterPunch in electronic format.

To: koan who wrote (773204)	3/6/2014 4:12:10 PM
From: Broken_Clock	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573718

Why are we there and why does O want us to saty? +++ NATO airstrike that kills Afghan soldiers deals fresh blow to tiesDrone strikes are a key sticking point in shaping a security deal with Afghanistan that would allow a US presence after the planned troop withdrawal at the end of 2014. By Anna Kordunsky, Staff writer / March 6, 2014 A daily roundup of terrorism and security issues Anna KordunskyStaff Writer Anna Kordunsky is a staff writer at the Monitor's international desk, focusing on Russia, the CIS, and security and development topics. How well do you know Afghanistan? Take our quiz. NATO apologizes for civilian deaths in Afghan airstrike Afghanistan: Taliban attack kills 4, NATO airstrike may have killed civilians A NATO airstrike on Thursday morning killed at least five Afghan soldiers and injured at least eight others in a tragic incident of friendly fire that is likely to further inflame the battered Washington-Kabul relations. The strike, which hit an Afghan National Armyoutpost in the country’s volatile Logar Province, located about 50 miles from Kabul, came from a drone, according to The New York Times. It was most likely “the result of poor coordination between the people on the ground and the operators of the drone,” the Logar provincial spokesman told the newspaper. A Logar provincial spokesman described the outpost as the “ the front line against Taliban,” the Washington Post reported. The development is a fresh blow to the fragile and increasingly fractious relationship between Washington and Kabul. The US has struggled to reach a security deal with outgoing Afghan president Hamid Karzai for continued US presence in the country after the international troops are pulled out in late 2014. NATO airstrikes – and Afghan ability to prosecute them for civilian deaths – are the key sticking point, and today’s events stand certain to widen the rift further. The US-led Afghanistan International Security Assistance Force said in a statement that it has launched an investigation “to determine the circumstances that led to this unfortunate incident…. We value the strong relationship with our Afghan partners, and we will determine what actions will be taken to ensure incidents like this do not happen again.” RECOMMENDED: How well do you know Afghanistan? Take our quiz. Based on preliminary reports, the airstrike appears to have been conducted without request from the Afghan troops, the Washington Post reported, citing a Logar Afghan military spokesman. The US frequently undertakes airstrikes at the request of Afghan forces during intense clashes with the Taliban, but also maintains the ability to strike high-level targets unilaterally. " The post is totally destroyed," Khalilullah Kamal, the Charkh district governor, told Agence France-Presse after visiting the site. "The Americans used to be in that post but since they left, the ANA [Afghan National Army] took over. The post is on a hilltop. The attack was conducted by drones." Mr. Karzai, who cannot run for reelection, has often used botched airstrikes to slam the US, leveling increasingly vehement criticism at the American-led war effort as the April 5 presidential election approaches. Most of the leading candidates have indicated that they’d be willing to consider reviving negotiations of the battered bilateral security agreement in Washington. RECOMMENDED: Get your 2014 Emerging & Frontier Markets Forecast FREE. The agreement would allow for 8,000 to 12,000 US troops to stay in Afghanistan and continue training the Afghan National Army, as well for billions of dollars in aid to be delivered, after the NATO combat mission ends in the end of 2014, according to the AFP. A continued US presence would help strengthen government troops, but would generate continued controversy at home following the outcry against US actions in large part fueled by Karzai’s criticism. The US currently has around 33,600 troops in Afghanistan, according to Deutsche Welle, which is down from the 2010 high of 100,000.