The Russians Are Helping The United States Economy (to implode)

[unhappycamper]

unhappycamper note: Since the ‘Pentagon’ (DoD? Gannett?) has ‘requested’ that I only post one paragraph from articles on Army Times, and Airforce Times, To keep in that same (new) tradition, I will also do the same for for articles on Navy Times, Marine Corps Times, stripes.com and military.com.
To read the article in the military's own words, you will need to click the link.

Read all about Fair Use here. It sure is beginning to smell like fascism.

unhappycamper summary of this article: Payback is not pretty. :(




Russian Duma ratifies U.S. Afghan transit deal
The Associated Press
Posted : Friday Feb 25, 2011 13:04:54 EST

Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov told the Duma that there have been 780 U.S. flights over Russia — carrying 115,000 U.S. troops and more than 19,000 metric tons of cargo to and from Afghanistan — since September 2009.

[dixiegrrrrl]

1. "the agreement protects Russia’s interests in other areas."

"international efforts to stabilize Afghanistan."

I have a feeling if we stop killing people in Afghanistan it might be MORE stable.

[dipsydoodle]

3. ditto

:hi:

[aquart]

2. Fair's fair. We did it to them. Weren't we clever?

[Peace Patriot]

4. I don't see an article about US economy just Russian favor to US on overflights.

Am I missing something?

The article on overflights says the Russians are helping the U.S.--allowing many flights over Russian airspace to/from Afghanistan.

I don't see a link to an article about Russian economic disfavor to the U.S. that would elicit the comment "payback is not pretty." Am I supposed to click on one of that long list of military web pages to find the other article?

Confused.

----------------------------------

Edited to add: I clicked on Army Times and read their list of articles--no article on Russian economic "payback" to U.S. Did you neglect to post a link to your title article? Or posted the wrong link?

Still confused.

[unhappycamper]

5. Nope - the thread title is mine.

Basically the Russians are allowing overflights of their territory so we can keep the occupation going.

We have been flying at least 11 flights daily from the East Cost to Afghanistan for almost 10 years. That's lots o gas and lots o wear and tear on those expensive transport aircraft.

St. Ronnie spent the Russians into economic oblivion in the 90s. That the payback I was referring to.

[Peace Patriot]

6. Your point is a bit obscure, I think--that by enabling U.S. flights over Russia to Afghanistan,

Russia is helping to break the U.S. economy. There might be truth to it--but then a whole lot of other countries are also enabling the war on Afghanistan, so why do you think this particular Russian enablement is important--or is particular "payback"?

I was quite interested in your post because, back a while--circa 2006-2008, when the Bush Junta was still in power--I caught a little newsbit (originating from Asia, if I recall correctly)--just a few sentences--to the effect that Russia, China and India (and possibly some others) were holding a meeting on how to curtail the U.S. bully. The context was the threat of Cheney-Rumsfeld nuking Iran. The article didn't give a hint on how they were going to curtail this or other U.S. militaristic bullying but I thought of economics, of course. (Then the Bush Crash hit here.) It is one of my theories about the waning days of the Bush Junta that Daddy Bush intervened (with his "Iraq Study Group" which was really more about Iran than Iraq), in alliance with U.S. military brass who didn't want to nuke Iran (but were going to be ordered to), and this coalition got rid of Rumsfeld (late 2007) and defanged Cheney for the remainder of Junior's term. And it was my guess that WHY these more restrained U.S. imperial powers (Daddy Bush, the "old CIA," the military brass and possibly assorted corporate and political allies) put the kabosh on nuking Iran was that China and Russia were threatening to come into it, on Iran's side.

I wish I'd saved that newsbit, because I haven't seen anything else about that meeting, since then. But it certainly occurs to me that the threat of nuclear armageddon might not restrain the next Bush Junta that could easily take over here (via the 'TRADE SECRET' voting machines and other powers of election rigging) and that FURTHER measures were taken--for instance, the Bush Junta bankster meltdown and grand looting. I have been inclined to attribute the Great Looting to unspecified U.S.-based corporate rulers, but, you know, these days, WHO are the rulers? is a really good question. I mean, you could say that Exxon Mobil is a U.S. corporation, but what are they really? They are a transglobal entity--almost a "floating country" unto themselves--which touches down in various places, to suck up the oil, but really has no loyalty to this country or to us, or to anybody. Halliburton now has its headquarters among the sheiks of Araby in the U.A.E. American President Lines (an entity created by taxpayer subsidies during WW II, for sea passenger traffic and postal services, now gone global, with tankers) is headquartered in Singapore (and re-named Neptune Orient Lines). Many of our banks and numerous corporations have "gone global." And, of course, we know about China holding so much U.S. debt paper.

What all this means is that non-American entities (including corporations that we created and corporations technically chartered here but not really "American" any more) could well be deliberately draining this country of its financial resources, with intent to bust it, finally and forever, as a threat to world peace. It is very clear, indeed, that the American people have no say whatsoever over the uses of our war machine. There is no democratic control over it. So, however much we as a people want peace--and I think we overwhelmingly do and always have--the threat of a Bush Junta II coming to power is quite real.

This is a complicated issue--and I'm going to have to think about it quite a bit more. For instance, why would U.S.-based corporations that stand to profit from the war machine's focus on resources like oil--i.e., Exxon Mobil--cooperate in curtailing the power of that war machine? But then you have entities like the former American Presidents Line (now Neptune Orient) which I imagine don't give a crap where the oil comes from--Asia, Iran, South America, et al. What they DON'T WANT is nuclear armageddon in a region that supplies the oil that they make a huge profit from transporting. It's immaterial to them whether it's U.S.-based pumps that get it out of the ground, or Saudi sheiks, of the Iranian mullahs. And this could be true of a whole lot of global corporate entities, dealing in a whole lot of different products and resources, as well as international banksters, et al. War is only lucrative to a point (and mainly to war profiteers). It is ultimately counter-productive as to world commerce. And nuclear war--and even limited use of nukes (as Carl Sagan established in his book "The Cold and the Dark")--would be catastrophic in the extreme. It MUST be prevented. And if, as many believe, Cheney's finger was right on the trigger (the Minot air base incident), curtailed only by an organized counter-coup (led by Daddy Bush) (my theory), then what are the chances of that happening AGAIN? They are very great, unfortunately.

As I said, COMPLICATED.

But thanks for reminding me of that newsbit I caught back then. I wish we could find out more about it. We may have a lot more to worry about than the "Walkers" within, who are opportunistically dismantling the "New Deal." We may be under some kind of world sanction, bent on curtailing the fabled U.S. prosperity that set us up to be looted by our huge war machine in the hands of insane tyrants (Cheney, Rumsfeld).

------------

Edited for typos.