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.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: oldirtybastard who wrote (145325)	1/16/2019 5:07:05 AM
From: TobagoJack	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 217786

update on the germans events are going about as expected, and logically, per money talks and bs walks, etc etc zerohedge.com It's A Gas... Germany Outraged By US Colonial Arrogance Authored by Finian Cunningham via The Strategic Culture Foundation, This time the outspoken US ambassador in Berlin may have gone too far to be ignored. The German government has denounced as a “provocation” letters that the American envoy sent to companies involved in the Nord Stream 2 project warning them of possible US sanctions. [url=][/url] The German government reportedly told the project companies to “ignore” the missives dispatched by Ambassador Richard Grenell. Nord Stream 2 is the 1,222-kilometer pipeline being laid in the Baltic seabed which will greatly increase delivery of natural gas from Russia to Germany. It will double Germany’s import of Russian gas when complete. But the Trump administration has repeatedly voiced its objection to the project, claiming that it will give Moscow undue political leverage over Europe. Trump has warned of sanctions on participating companies, which include German and Austrian firms. The flagrant ulterior agenda is seen as the US trying to undermine German-Russian energy trade, for the purpose of selling more expensive American liquefied natural gas to Europe. So much for American free-market capitalism! Grenell’s letters to the German firms – received at the weekend – are viewed as an unprecedented threat to the nation’s conduct of private business. The US embassy denied it was a threat, saying the letters were merely stating Washington’s policy of imposing sanctions. It is but the latest furore involving the maverick envoy who has been accused in the past of violating diplomatic protocol by meddling in Germany’s domestic affairs. German media have previously blasted Grenell for seeking “regime change” in Berlin because of his open support for the anti-immigration party, Alternative for Germany (AfD). When Grenell took up his diplomatic post in Berlin last May, he immediately provoked a political firestorm when he tweeted that German companies doing business with Iran “should wind down operations” or face punitive American sanctions. That was at the time President Trump pulled out of the international nuclear accord with Iran. “Never tell the host country what to do, if you want to stay out of trouble,” snapped Wolfgang Ischinger, Germany’s former ambassador to Washington. Only a few weeks after that dubious debut, Grenell gave an interview to the pro-Trump Breibart News outlet, *boasting that he wanted to “empower other conservatives throughout Europe”. That was taken as an endorsement of the AfD in Germany, which has emerged as a serious challenger to the political establishment in Berlin. Martin Schulz, the former leader of the Social Democratic Party, was among several political figures who then demanded Grenell’s dismissal. “What this man is doing is unheard of in international diplomacy… he’s behaving like a colonial officer of the far-right,”* said Schulz. He added a fair point by noting: “If a German ambassador were to say in Washington that he was there to boost the Democrats, he would have been kicked out immediately.” Grenell’s high-profile media interventions concerning German politics and business do appear to constitute a brazen breach of the 1964 Vienna Convention which stipulates that diplomats must remain neutral on matters of policy concerning host nations. Officially, an ambassador’s role is to lobby discreetly on behalf of his government, and to always adopt a low-profile. Of course, this would not be the first time that US embassies and envoys have violated the Vienna Convention in host countries. Washington habitually uses these outposts for fomenting regime change. Trending Articles Escobar: All Under Heaven, China's Challenge To The…Beijing is tweaking the rules of the Western order to reflect its revitalized geopolitical and economic power, but… Richard Grenell, however, has openly flouted these norms and acted as an unabashed mouthpiece for Trump, echoing the president’s contempt for the German government of Chancellor Angela Merkel. The upshot, according to Der Spiegel, is that Grenell has become politically isolated in Berlin. Merkel “keeps him at a distance” and most politicians, except for the AfD, have shunned his contact. After the latest controversy of writing warning letters to German companies, it may be the final straw for Berlin’s tolerance. Already, the German media have been commenting on how the “trans-Atlantic partnership” is finished under Trump. Business newspaper Handelsblatt commented previously: “Nothing in trans-Atlantic relations is normal any longer… Berlin has for too long clung to the illusion of trans-Atlantic normalcy… the era of close ties is now over”. Moreover, there are increasing calls among German politicians and media for a “strategically autonomous Germany and Europe” unfettered by Washington’s policies. Such a development is long overdue and its necessity long predates Trump. Since the end of the Second World War, Germany has resembled an occupied country for American military power and a subordinate to Washington’s political objectives. The primary objective has always been to prevent Germany from developing a natural partnership with Moscow, previously with the former Soviet Union, and subsequently the Russian Federation. The absolute disregard for German sovereignty was perhaps best demonstrated not by the Trump administration, but during the presidency of Barack Obama when it emerged that American intelligence agencies were tapping the personal phone calls of Chancellor Merkel. If that’s not colonial arrogance, then what is? Yet the German political and media establishment barely protested over that infringement by Washington on the country’s sovereignty and its leader. What Trump and his cipher-envoy in Berlin have done is take the arrogance to an unbearably overt level. Trump has been kicking Germany for alleged “unfair trading practices”, denigrating Merkel over her refugee policy, browbeating Berlin to double its spend on NATO military budget, and lambasting German businesses for not complying with Washington’s hostile foreign policy towards Iran and Russia. Trump in his boorish style is merely laying bare the long-presumed US hegemony over Germany. And it’s not a pretty sight. Berlin is being shamed into having to be seen to stand up to this American bullying. The absurdity is that the US and its NATO acolytes have been foaming at the mouth for the last two years about alleged and unproven Russian interference in domestic politics of Western states. Whenever the glaring reality is it’s the Americans who are driving horses and coaches of interference through their supposed allies, who are evidently vassals.

To: oldirtybastard who wrote (145325)	1/16/2019 5:12:36 AM
From: TobagoJack	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 217786

let us see if team use withdraws form nato before doing so from syria, or more likely neither per deep-state Neo-con and Neo-libral manipulation trump may not care that the thigh bone is connected to the hip, and onward toward and through the neck the deep-state knows the 700 bases are connected to the carriers and through the navy, the dollar, and ... zerohedge.com Trump Aides "Scrambled" After He Raised Leaving NATO Altogether "Several Times"President Trump has privately told senior administration officials that he wants to withdraw from NATO altogether, finds an explosive New York Times report: Senior administration officials told The New York Times that several times over the course of 2018, Mr. Trump privately said he wanted to withdraw from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Current and former officials who support the alliance said they feared Mr. Trump could return to his threat as allied military spending continued to lag behind the goals the president had set. [url=][/url]File photo of President Trump's attendance at the NATO summit in Brussels, July 11-12Most of the remarks came surrounding last summer's contentious NATO summit in Brussels, according to the Times. The 2-day meeting which concluded on July 12 was replete with Trump's demanding that European countries pull their own weight on defense spending in the 29-nation trans-Atlantic alliance, including what was described at the time as a "vague threat" by the president that the US could actually exit the alliance if the imbalance continues. He told reporters at the time that NATO countries must radically increase defense spending or the US “will do our own thing.” At the time Trump noted the Cold War era military alliance was a "drain on the United States" and that he "didn't see the point" according to the Times report, citing current and former administration officials: In the days around a tumultuous NATO summit meeting last summer, they said, Mr. Trump told his top national security officials that he did not see the point of the military alliance, which he presented as a drain on the United States. — New York Times The Times report likens any potential US withdrawal "a move tantamount to destroying NATO" and perhaps to be expected, hypes NATO statements saying “Even discussing the idea of leaving NATO — let alone actually doing so — would be the gift of the century for Putin.” But the report expresses alarm that "Mr. Trump’s skepticism of NATO appears to be a core belief." Notably, the NYT report opens by suggesting that even mere discussion of a NATO pullout plays into Moscow's hands, and further in the report cites an anonymous US official to make the unmeasurable or unprovable assertion that it would "accomplish all that Mr. Putin has been trying to put into motion." When asked for official comment the White House did not confirm or deny the Times report, only reaffirming that the US commitment to NATO remains “very strong” and the alliance “very important”. But it appears the president's private discussions with aides over the idea of the United States going its own way was no mere one-off conversation, according to the NYT: When Mr. Trump first raised the possibility of leaving the alliance, senior administration officials were unsure if he was serious. He has returned to the idea several times, officials said increasing their worries. The revelation, or we might say admin "leaks," that Trump is giving it serious consideration comes after weeks of 'deep state' push back in the wake of Trump's announced US "full" and "immediate" troop draw down in Syria. The NYT suggests that like with the issue of Syria pullout, the question of NATO has opened up a quiet war between the president and his own advisers and generals: "just when officials think the issue of NATO membership has been settled, Mr. Trump again brings up his desire to leave the alliance," according to the report. During the reported height of Trump's raising the issue with his staff ahead of last summer's NATO summit in Brussels, his national security team "scrambled" to contain the president's informal remarks and reign in such considerations, as according to the Times even merely verbalizing such potential plans would embolden Russia and sink NATO's standing: At the time, Mr. Trump’s national security team, including Jim Mattis, then the defense secretary, and John R. Bolton, the national security adviser, scrambled to keep American strategy on track without mention of a withdrawal that would drastically reduce Washington’s influence in Europe and could embolden Russia for decades. And what remains is the following key and obvious question: is the Commander-In-Chief, who was elected by the American people, allowed to set the agenda and course of discussion over and against his generals and national security advisers or not? After Syria, and possibly future or near term Afghan withdrawal, and now with the revelation that even the US role in NATO is under reevaluation in the president's mind, the deep state revolt against Trump is only set to explode further in the open. No doubt, in the bowels of both the Pentagon and State Department it's once again time for "damage control" - or so the thinking goes.