getfiscal posted:andrew cockburn said that yemen's central bank was able to function during the recent conflict because it still had some credibility and would sort of convert remittances and issue payments to public employees, which was keeping parts of the country from total collapse. so basically the saudis et al arranged for a parallel central bank in exile to be set up so that no international bank would honor commitments to the yemeni central bank, which collapsed both the ability to convert remittances and pay public employees. good times.
yes this is quite obvious. all of these dynamics are modeled in Corn
assad: plots by email to love his wife more every day. Well i know who got my vote.
Last week, at a meeting with reporters in his office in Damascus, Walid Muallem, the Syrian foreign minister, was asked whom he favored in the American Presidential election.
“I hope that they will not elect anybody,” he said with a laugh.
stop lurking and post dude
Gssh posted:It will be interesting to see how Trump's apparently non-interventionist position on Syria changes by the time he takes office. As of now he has access to the same confidential briefings from intelligence agencies as Obama.
Perhaps I'm reading too much into this article but going from arming JFS (Nusra) to killing them as well as the relentless messages of conciliation and unity from bourgeois agents Hillary and Obama it seems the ruling class is gearing to meet Trump half-way, co-opt him into empire. You guys (and girls) think it will work? I guess it really comes down to the nature of the presidency in imperial america and its power within the state and larger ruling class. THis burning question and others is why I;m here to learn from you, tHE rHizzzonE.
RTC posted:ok sure, cars...here goes nothing
Perhaps I'm reading too much into this article but going from arming JFS (Nusra) to killing them as well as the relentless messages of conciliation and unity from bourgeois agents Hillary and Obama it seems the ruling class is gearing to meet Trump half-way, co-opt him into empire. You guys (and girls) think it will work? I guess it really comes down to the nature of the presidency in imperial america and its power within the state and larger ruling class. THis burning question and others is why I;m here to learn from you, tHE rHizzzonE.
I think it's important to resist the temptation to view this, or any change of president as exceptional. What we generally see is a "pivot" in foreign exploitation from one region to another.
A while ago I was writing an article that was mostly shit but I wrote the following up, on the subject "would America have been less imperialist if the presidential election loser had won?" and I'll paste it here:
Edited by swampman ()
swampman posted:RTC posted:ok sure, cars...here goes nothing
Perhaps I'm reading too much into this article but going from arming JFS (Nusra) to killing them as well as the relentless messages of conciliation and unity from bourgeois agents Hillary and Obama it seems the ruling class is gearing to meet Trump half-way, co-opt him into empire. You guys (and girls) think it will work? I guess it really comes down to the nature of the presidency in imperial america and its power within the state and larger ruling class. THis burning question and others is why I;m here to learn from you, tHE rHizzzonE.I think it's important to resist the temptation to view this, or any change of president as exceptional. What we generally see is a "pivot" in foreign exploitation from one region to another. A while ago I was writing an article that was mostly shit but I wrote the following up, on the subject "would America have been less imperialist if the presidential election loser had won?" and I'll paste it here: ...”
Your unwritten article probably covered a lot more than this, but going by this excellent excerpt it seems your focus is on the imperial conflicts that resulted in direct, or proxy, shooting wars. Now, these are definitely important, especially when you're looking at it from the periphery, but should they be the sole judge in evaluating a president and his administration's role within the ruling class. Shouldn't the use of soft power, and the economic policy employed be given greater weight? especially because their effect is arguably greater, both domestically and internationally.
The State is unquestionably the instrument of class rule, and in the instance of the American state, it has been a particularly blunt instrument used to repeatedly beat any rebellion until it was pulverized mess. But, isn't it also an instrument to mediate the internal conflict between the different sections of the bourgeois? The industrial capitalists, the commercial capitalists, the dominant financial capitalists all have opposing interests and this is only within the big imperial bourgeois. The "nationalists", the small-scale industrialists, the petty bourgeois although comparatively powerless, still push their interests (lobbying, think tanks, etc) when they can. In this sense, I see the State and its vast bureaucracy in a sense, "above" the bourgeois. Sometimes it works for their good, despite them.
To give an example, the best one I can think of is Reagan. A relative outsider, not even a true capitalist, but the perfect candidate for the situation the U.S. was in. The unprecedented crisis of profitability that had led to a series of recessions in the 70s, destruction of the gold standard, devaluation of the dollar, high interests rates weakening big industrial capital and to top it all off, a bunch of successful revolutions in the middle east and south east asia (Iran, Vietnam etc.). Reagan and his backers promised a solution. The acceleration of neoliberalism, discarding the political orthodoxy of Keynes (of which even Nixon was an adherent), and the expansion of the US empire by taking out the greatest obstacle in their path, the Soviet bloc. Yes, in a sense, this was a more imperialist direction, but it would come at the expense the traditionally powerful national industrialists and benefit the then relatively weak finance capital, the big banks and their affiliates. And it worked. The transnational corporations and big banks won huge, at the expense literally everyone else.
So, in light of all that, given we are again in an even larger crisis of profitability, could the forces that back Trump, the few psychopath capitalists (Thiel et al) the nationalists, the petty bourgeois, the decaying labor aristocracy (white working class of the rust belt), be ascendant. Could the union of the big bourgeois be suppressed, at least temporarily? Or will they seek an accommodation? Like we'll give you Syria, but you give us China. I think your comment on their generally being a "pivot" from one region to another is plausible. Or will they stop at nothing but total capitulation? Unfortunately, from what you and many others are saying, seems the most likely scenario.
When it comes down to it, I guess this is really a personal wish that the contradictions within the ruling class actually "erupt" to some extent and weaken the most destructive and bloody fucking Empire in the history of the world and Syria, the last remaining jewel of the Arab nation, be given a reprieve, a chance, even a small one, of surviving and thriving.
swampman posted:http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/president-trumps-policy-on-syria
lol fuckin new yorker
NewYorker posted:Last week, at a meeting with reporters in his office in Damascus, Walid Muallem, the Syrian foreign minister, was asked whom he favored in the American Presidential election.
“I hope that they will not elect anybody,” he said with a laugh.
Muallem was being coy. Without a doubt, he and his boss, President Bashar al-Assad, very much wanted Donald Trump to win
No dumdums he meant it literally
Assad posted:think in most of the world, the debate about this election is who’s better, Clinton is better or Trump. In Syria, the discussion is who’s worse, not who’s better. So, no one of them, I think, would be good for us, let’s say, this is first. Second, from our experience with the American officials and politicians in general, don’t take them at their word, they’re not honest. Whatever they say, don’t believe them. If they say good word or bad word, if they were very aggressive or very peaceful, don’t believe them. It depends on the lobbies, on the influence of different political movements in their country, after the election that’s what is going to define their policy at that time. So, we don’t have to waste our time listening to their rhetoric now. It’s just rubbish. Wait for their policies and see, but we don’t see any good signs that the United States is going to change dramatically its policy toward what’s happening in the world, let’s say, to be fair, or to obey the international law, or to care about the United Nation’s Charter. There’s no sign that we are going to see that in the near future. So, it’s not about who’s going to be President; the difference will be very minimal, each one of them is going to be allowed to leave his own fingerprint, just personal fingerprint, but doesn’t mean change of policies. That’s why we don’t pin our hopes, we don’t waste our time with it.
RTC posted:So, in light of all that, given we are again in an even larger crisis of profitability, could the forces that back Trump, the few psychopath capitalists (Thiel et al) the nationalists, the petty bourgeois, the decaying labor aristocracy (white working class of the rust belt), be ascendant. Could the union of the big bourgeois be suppressed, at least temporarily? Or will they seek an accommodation? Like we'll give you Syria, but you give us China.
I think you can see how this doesn't make a lot of sense. Who is bargaining with who here?
Check out motherfucking Garrison Keillor's response to the Trump victory
We liberal elitists are now completely in the clear. The government is in Republican hands. Let them deal with him. Democrats can spend four years raising heirloom tomatoes, meditating, reading Jane Austen, traveling around the country, tasting artisan beers, and let the Republicans build the wall and carry on the trade war with China and deport the undocumented and deal with opioids and we Democrats can go for a long brisk walk and smell the roses.
The point being that the different kinds of rich people are not going to be at each other's throats, and whatever amount of culling their own they'll do to maintain their standard of living, that will be insignificant compared to the increased accumulation from the periphery. Most of the political opposition, and the leaders of the bubble industries that opposed Trump, will remain somewhat comfy, like Keillor they can just bury their heads in the Harry Potter / Kung Fu Panda crossover animated series on Netflix for the next eight years.
Maybe large sectors are about to be declassed - I think journalism is probably fucked now that they installed an off-switch on it and forgot the old ways of how to print on paper. The Americans lsoing their comfortable positions will argue even harder for foreign intervention. Get ready for the Democrats to hound Trump about impotence every time Trump doesn't act quickly enough on some humanitarian crisis. It's only after large parts of the bourgeois are reduced to working class conditions that they'll be certain to wake up. Whether they can wake up any earlier than this, is a really hard question to answer
Edited by swampman ()
swampman posted:RTC posted:So, in light of all that, given we are again in an even larger crisis of profitability, could the forces that back Trump, the few psychopath capitalists (Thiel et al) the nationalists, the petty bourgeois, the decaying labor aristocracy (white working class of the rust belt), be ascendant. Could the union of the big bourgeois be suppressed, at least temporarily? Or will they seek an accommodation? Like we'll give you Syria, but you give us China.
I think you can see how this doesn't make a lot of sense. Who is bargaining with who here?
Check out motherfucking Garrison Keillor's response to the Trump victory
Actually, not seeing it. I mean, Trump and his allies (who probably have their own competing interests) do have the presidency, which is a power center within the ruling class. Even within obama administration there were competing interests, difference between Libya, Syria and Iran is telling. Yes, all these interests are looking for the best way to manage Empire, but some policies can objectively weaken empire whether in the short or long term, despite them. If you're asking who, as in which people, are negotiating, it's probably all within the Republican party apparatus, the neocons, the libertarians, the realists etc with some involvement from the right wing of the Democrats. The sections of the bourgeoisie behind these various factions I somewhat detailed above.
I mean, check out this article by NYT. It details the competing capitalists, who have real contradictory interests w.r.t. trade, tariffs, subsidies etc. It should be obvious I am not talking about Trump dismantling US empire, but a so called trade war can certainly undermine the US dollar whether that is the intention or not. A particularly bad crisis (recession), like the one 2008, could result in a run on the US banks and if the US is unable to print money without consequence again, it could collapse the US banking hegemony. Now, this situation is only possible because the neoliberal stage of imperialism, although having once saved US dominance, has now made it stagnant and objectively weaker. And postposting, I agree completely that imperialism is a stage of capitalism, but since it first arose in early 1900s has its character and implementation not changed drastically, from colonial, to neo colonial to neo liberal and the transitions in between. We could enter into another transitory period as the US empire declines with Trump's help or not, and if history has taught us anything, this is when the revolutionary class is at its strongest.
It's entirely possible my thinking is wishful and wrongheaded, although it seems logical based on the sources I have read, particularly economic theory. But, I am willing to be completely wrong, hell my world view has been shattered so many times in the last 10 years or so, I question everything.
Anyway, don't want to derail the topic too much, so on Syria. The SAA has beat back two large US contra, JAF, assaults around Western Aleppo in the last few months, inflicting heavy losses. They are now taking the fight to them on both the Western and Eastern fronts to liberate Aleppo city and clear the path to Idlib in the West, break the siege of Fua and Kefraya and liberate last remaining rebel stronghold. The Resistance is on the warpath.
made this little ditty for fun
just received this text from @PissPigGranddad on the front lines with the YPG in Syria (yes this is real) pic.twitter.com/DOEO1UPApQ
— Connor Kilpatrick (@ckilpatrick) November 11, 2016
US volunteer in #YPG ranks:
— Civil Defence Units (@DefenceUnits) November 10, 2016
" #Raqqa operation going well, #ISIS unable to resist for long."#YPJ #SDF #Kurdistan#WrathOfEuphrates
. pic.twitter.com/1arPWu7LrH
. Be safe pisspig grampa
a look at how daesh etc finances ... from a us congress report so no mention of foreign gov paying salaries and training and equipment
meanwhile in grassroots syrian revolution news:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/army-special-forces-soldiers-killed-in-jordan-were-working-for-the-cia/2016/11/11/8c6b53de-7b66-40ed-9077-bf954070f2be_story.html
The deaths of the three soldiers also provide a rare window into the CIA’s practice of “detailing” U.S. troops and special operators for clandestine missions. The 5th Special Forces Group previously had been deployed to Jordan in 2013 to train members of the Pentagon’s Syrian train-and-equip program, but the mission’s scope was severely curbed in the past year as it failed to produce large numbers of trained fighters willing to take on only the Islamic State.
The CIA’s program, on the other hand, allows its trainees to fight both Syrian government forces and the terrorist group.
There have been at least two previous instances of service members dying while working for the CIA since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Sgt. 1st Class Nathan Ross Chapman was a Special Forces soldier detailed to the agency in 2002 when he was killed alongside CIA paramilitary officers in eastern Afghanistan, as was Marine Maj. Douglas Zembiec, who was killed during a shootout in Baghdad in 2007.
In both cases the men eventually were awarded stars on the CIA’s memorial wall. Located in the CIA’s front foyer, it tallies those who died serving the agency. It is unclear if the soldiers who died last week will receive similar recognition; the CIA does not always release names that correspond with the stars on the wall.
WASHINGTON — President-elect Donald J. Trump said Friday that he was likely to abandon the American effort to support “moderate” opposition groups in Syria who are battling the government of President Bashar al-Assad, saying “we have no idea who these people are.”
It's the left case for Trump you guys! It's happening!
Edited by ilmdge ()
cars posted:ilmdge posted:Gssh posted:It will be interesting to see how Trump's apparently non-interventionist position on Syria changes by the time he takes office. As of now he has access to the same confidential briefings from intelligence agencies as Obama.
https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/files/2016/11/Telhami-3.png
https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/files/2016/11/Telhami5.pngwhats this from
ilmdge posted:WASHINGTON — President-elect Donald J. Trump said Friday that he was likely to abandon the American effort to support “moderate” opposition groups in Syria who are battling the government of President Bashar al-Assad, saying “we have no idea who these people are.”
lol
edit: low hanging fruit but...
Edited by Chthonic_Goat_666 ()
Belphegor posted:I'm swooning
i dont think weird twitter is on the syrian army's level yet
New message for Abdullah Al Muhaysini and his militants from liberated Dahiyat Al Assad and Minyan, Western Aleppo today (12/11/2016) pic.twitter.com/8Fiq6t1AZj
— M Green (@MmaGreen) November 12, 2016
xipe posted:weird twitter
Petrol posted:Aspie_Muslim_Economist_ posted:Nothing short of abject subservience to US interests is enough, I suppose.
like i said - not woke and intersectional enough
i once got into a dispute with phillip grief about assad doing the neoliberal stuff and he seemed absol;utely convinced the syrian govt was 100% anti-neoliberal based on wikileaks cables about them not being neoliberal enuff. while that's good evidence for certain US motives as to why it wants Assad gone, it certainly isn't enough to suggest the Syrian govt never enacted reforms that were detrimental to the population.
