America's Financial Crisis

[robertik1]

Re: America's Financial Crisis

This is the murder of the British biologist who again, simply knew too much, in this case about Washington's and London's evil plans to attack Iraq under false pretenses. Makes you wonder where's the public outcry.

********************************

NEW EVIDENCE PROVES THAT DR DAVID KELLY WAS MURDERED BY BLAIR REGIME!

Dr David Kelly was found dead on 18 July 2003, just three-days after testifying at the Parliamentary Foreign Affairs Committee in respect of fabricated intelligence on Iraq's 'imagined' WMD capabilities.

Thames Valley Police, involved in Operation 'Mason' - which started 12 hours before Dr Kelly was reported missing - failed to find the body of the missing Government scientist despite using a helicopter with heat-seeking equipment and flying over the exact spot where his corpse was later discovered. And, unusually, no inquest into his death has ever been held because it was blocked on the insistence of Tony Blair and Alistair Campbell. Instead, the whitewashed Hutton 'Inquiry' was set up by Tony Blair to investigate the circumstances surrounding his death. It was revelead just days ago that George Bush and Tony Blair deliberately ignored MI6 and CIA intelligence that showed Iraq had no WMDs in the run up to the disastrous illegal invasion of the country which has suffered more under under the illegal invasion that at any time under Saddam Hussein. And the latest damning evidence obtained under the Freedom of Information Act shows that a Police Eurocopter EC135 'failed' to detect Dr Kelly's body in the woodland in which his body was later found by search and rescue volunteers.

July 18, 2003:

1.15am: The latest time Dr Kelly could have died
2.50am: Helicopter with termal imaging equipment(below) flies over copse where his body was found - and 'fails' to spot him
8.30am: Dr Kelly is finally found by searcher on the ground

Norman Baker, the Liberal Democrat MP who has written a thoroughly meticulously researched book investigating Dr Kelly’s death, said: ‘Every violent or unusual death warrants a proper inquiry. It is astonishing there has never been an inquest into Dr Kelly’s death. There is no doubt in my mind he was murdered. This information proves his body was not where Lord Hutton thinks it was. The question is, where was it?’ The whitewashed Hutton Report concluded that:

"In light of the evidence which I have heard I am satisfied that Dr Kelly took his own life in the wood at Harrowdown Hill at a time between 4.15pm on 17 July and 1.15am on 18 July 2003. I am satisfied that no other person was involved in the death of Dr Kelly for the following reasons:

* A very careful and lengthy examination of the area where his body was found by police officers and by a forensic biologist found no traces whatever of a struggle or of any involvement by a third party or third parties and a very careful and detailed post mortem examination by Dr Hunt, together with the examination of specimens from the body by a forensic toxicologist, Dr Allan, found no traces or indications whatever of violence or force inflicted on Dr Kelly by a third party or third parties either at the place where his body was found or elsewhere.


* The wounds to his wrist were inflicted by a knife which came from Dr Kelly's desk in his study in his home, and which had belonged to him from boyhood. It is highly unlikely that a third party or third parties could have forced Dr Kelly to swallow a large number of Coproxamol tablets. These conclusions are strongly supported by the evidence of Professor Hawton, Dr Hunt and Assistant Chief Constable Page. I am further satisfied from the evidence of Professor Hawton that Dr Kelly was not suffering from any significant mental illness at the time he took his own life."


According to David Broucher, Britain's Ambassador to the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva, in testimony to the Hutton Inquiry, in late February, 2003, he had asked Kelly "What do you think will happen if Iraq is invaded?" Kelly answered, "I will probably be found dead in the woods." In this statement, Kelly implied, according to Broucher, that his death would be by someone else's hands, not his own. Before Parliament and under pressure from the media, Kelly denied almost all of his previous WMD comments to the BBC. Why did Dr Kelly criticise and then, under pressure, totally accept Blair's September 2003 pro-war '45 minutes' spin on Iraq's so called weapons of mass destruction? Moreover, why and how did Dr David Kelly die? Kelly had expressed his earlier (trimmed down) assessments to three BBC reporters and made detailed criticisms of NuLab spin doctors (especially Alistair Campbell) at the Prime Minister's office who were insisting Iraq was a 'clear and present' danger. Kelly expressed the view that there was only a 30% chance that Iraq had any weapons of mass destruction and certainly none that posed an immediate threat to the UK or Iraq's neighbours. And certainly none that could be launched in 45 minutes!

Dr Kelly at the BBC

A month after the end of the war, on May 29, 2003, Andrew Gilligan made the following report on BBC's Radio 4's Today program: "What we've been told by one of the senior officials in charge of drawing up that dossier [Blair's September 2002 speech justifying war on Iraq] was that, actually, the government probably knew that the 45 minute figure was wrong, even before it decided to put it in. What this person [Dr Kelly] says is that, a week before the publication date of the dossier, it was actually rather a bland production. Downing Street, our source says, ordered for it to be 'sexed up', to be made more exciting, and ordered more facts to be discovered ... and essentially, the 45 minute point was probably the most important thing that was added ..." On June 2 and June 4, 2003 Newsnight BBC, Susan Watts quoted from the same source (later revealed to be Dr Kelly) as follows: "The 45 minute point was a statement that was made and it got out of all proportion. They were desperate for information; they were pushing hard for information which could be released. That was one that popped up and it was seized on and it's unfortunate that it was. That's why there is the argument between the intelligence services and the Cabinet Office/Number 10 because they picked up on it and once they've picked up on it, you can't pull it back from them."

Blair's Weapons of Mass Deception

In September 2002, Blair's 'justification' for war was contradicted by many of his own intelligence officers and Dr Kelly…. Blair's Chief of Staff Jonathan Powell wrote to the PM on 17 September 2002, a week before Blair's Speech, saying "We need to make it clear in launching the document that we do not claim we have evidence that Saddam is an imminent threat." Yet, on 24 September 2002, Blair told the British Public "Saddam has existing and active military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, which could be activated within 45 minutes." Guardian newspaper also learned that Blair's 45 minute claim was based on 'hearsay' information from the Secret Intelligence Service (MI6). The revelation that the claim was second hand appeared in an internal Foreign Office document released by the Hutton Inquiry. tremendous pressure from the British Government, Dr Kelly was essentially instructed to 'shut up'. Crumbling to this pressure he completely reversed his previous statements to the BBC when he testified before the Foreign Affairs Committee on Tuesday, July 15, 2003.

Dr Kelly could no longer remember naming Alistair Campbell as the source of the 45 minute spin (even though he had named Campbell and the Number 10 press office to BBC's Andrew Gilligan and to Susan Watts on audio tape played before the Hutton Inquiry). Kelly was asked, "Do you believe that the document [Blair's September, 2002 speech] was transformed by Alistair Campbell?" Kelly answered, "I do not believe that at all." Kelly was asked (in Question 101) by Andrew MacKinlay: "So you made no comments about the veracity of that document [Blair's September speech] at all to Gilligan. You did not say it was exaggerated, embellished, probably over-egged?" Dr Kelly answered in a very low voice (hard to hear): "No I had no doubt that the veracity of it was absolute." Certainly 'absolute' truth is not the language of currency used by scientists. Question 144 by Chairman Donald Anderson was: "What lessons have you learned from this episode?" Kelly responded, "Never to talk to a journalist again, I think." It was the proper response - in terms of ensuring future State control of 'spin/propaganda' at all times.

In question 131, Richard Ottaway asked if he said the words '45 minutes' to the BBC's Susan Watts. The question was, "You deny that those are your words?" Kelly answered, “Yes!”. An audio tape taken by Susan Watts was given to the Hutton Inquiry.

Question 141 saw Richard Ottaway again ask, "My final question is what sort of threat do you feel Iraq posed to the rest of the world in September 2002?" Kelly replied, "I think I would quote the dossier, that it was a 'serious and current threat.'" (Kelly's reference to the 'dodgy-dossier' was as if quoting chapter and verse from Campbell's poisoned scripture.)

Question 159 witnessed Sir John Stanley going for real blood asking, "Why did you go along with this Parliamentary committee? You were being exploited, were you not?" Kelly, feebly said, "I would not say I was being exploited." But Sir John Stanley did not let up in Question 160. He asked: "Why did you feel it was incumbent upon you to go along with the request that clearly had been made to you to be thrown to the wolves not only to the media, but also, to this committee?" Kelly responded, "I think that is a line of questioning you will have to ask the Ministry of Defence. I am sorry." Kelly suggested the reasons why he agreed to appear were not his own but those of the MoD.

Question 161, Chairman Donald Anderson, wanting to make clear the witness had not been mistreated in any way asked, "Do you feel any concern at the way the Ministry of Defence responded after you volunteered your admission?" Dr Kelly: "I accept what happened."

Question 167, without mercy, Andrew MacKinlay asked: "Have you ever felt like a fall-guy? You have been set up, have you not?" Dr. Kelly: "That is not a question I can answer." And Question 168, Andrew MacKinlay: "But you feel that?" Dr. Kelly, "No, not at all, I accept the process that is going on." Question 169, Chairman: "I'm sorry, you accept… [what]?" Dr. Kelly: "I accept the process that is happening." Question 174, Mr Oliver: "Did you suggest to anyone at all that the intelligence services were unhappy about the September dossier?" Dr. Kelly: "Unhappy? I do not think they were unhappy. I think they had confidence in the information that was provided in that dossier."

Everyone was happy and confident that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction that were ready to launch in 45 minutes. And everyone was 'happily' convinced of the wisdom of Blair and Campbell's September 2002 speech and the subsequent catastrophic war in which over 100,000 people have died. The Ministry of Defence, Tony Blair, Alistair Campbell and then Dr David Kelly all agreed, and yet, the problem remained simply because the truth remained, irrespective of who lined up with whom - the dossier on WMD was fabricated to 'justify' an illegal war. So much for the 'absolute' veracity (honesty, accuracy, truth) of Blair's September speech. And on 30 August 2003, Alistair Campbell, the man who was "heavily involved in producing the September dossier" and the man who "suggested leaking Dr Kelly's name to a journalist," resigned his job as Tony Blair's Director of Communications. Would Campbell have resigned if Dr Kelly had not died and the British anti-war public had not demanded answers?

[...]

Source: http://www.news-alliance.com/_suicide_or_murder.html

I knew that the Iraq war was a sham from the start, even before it started, even while "patriotic" Americans around me were attacking me for it.

[Armenian]

Re: America's Financial Crisis

Joseph P. Kennedy, the father of President John F. Kennedy was successful investor who became one of America's richest men after the Great Depression. As the story goes, he pulled his money out when a shoe-shine boy gave him advice on which stocks to invest, there were reports in that time as well that shoe-shine boys too were taking out $500 loans and not backing their pledges with assets to buy stocks.

It's interesting that you bring this up. Some years ago, I think it was around the year 2000, I read an article in the New York Newsday about a young inmate who had become so good in Stock Market investments that his guards, including his prison warden, would line up to take advise from him on their investments. I recall remembering this story about Joe Kennedy when I read that article. The 1990s was a time of euphoria in the US when even snot nosed teenagers could make massive fortunes in the Market. Those amongst us with some depth and a little understanding of world history, however, could see this disaster coming many years ago.

[SoyElTurco]

Re: America's Financial Crisis

Joseph P. Kennedy, the father of President John F. Kennedy was successful investor who became one of America's richest men after the Great Depression. As the story goes, he pulled his money out when a shoe-shine boy gave him advice on which stocks to invest, there were reports in that time as well that shoe-shine boys too were taking out $500 loans and not backing their pledges with assets to buy stocks.

Joseph Kennedy instinctively knew to pull out when he realized uneducated and unskilled children were gambling in the stock market. How could one have trusted a system that was disseminating wealth to everyone without and end?

If you think these times are tough and the worst is over, guess again. The worst is yet to come. The banks, who are the backbone of the economic system, control all our money. More important is the fact that banks know this fact - they know that they are indispensible. Knowing this, they did not worry the least bit about gambling with the money of the people - they took the greatest risk ventures to see how much profit they could make.

http://www.portfolio.com/news-markets/national-news/portfolio/2008/11/11/The-End-of-Wall-Streets-Boom?tid=true

The sum of all wealth in the world is $65 trillion. The wealth of the United States is ~ $15 trillion. And then the question: How were the banks playing with $180 trillion?

http://www.rapidtrends.com/blog/derivatives-buffet-calls-them-financial-weapons-of-mass-destruction/

How did all this go unchecked?

The signs of the tell-tale shoeshine boy are everywhere. Now is the time to prepare for the worst. When a hurrican approaches, the subsiding of the violence is not any reason to stop taking caution - the eye is the calmest part of a hurricane. Surrounding the eye is the eye wall, which is the most violent part of a hurricane. The eye wall is almost a complete ring of thunderstorms and contains the strongest winds in the hurricane - we are now in a metaphorical "eye" of the hurricane.

[Azad]

Re: America's Financial Crisis

In these tough economic times, lawsuits are going to skyrocket. Everyone is going to point fingers at the next one for their misfortune in loosing their decadent lifestyle. Good times to be a litigation attorney.

Well, welcome to America, the nation of well spoken criminals posing as politicians and financiers, a nation where a teenager gets put into jail for having an ounce of marijuana in his pocket, while well dressed criminals that have ruined the lives of countless citizens get to maintain their lavish lifestyles...

"Dec. 23 (Bloomberg) -- Fairfield Greenwich Group, Walter Noel’s hedge-fund firm that had $7.5 billion invested with Bernard Madoff, was sued by investors for allegedly failing to protect their assets.

Noel’s Greenwich Sentry fund invested $220 million with Madoff and his Fairfield Sentry fund invested $7.3 billion solely in Madoff, jeopardizing investors’ interests while collecting “millions of dollars in fees,” according to a complaint filed Dec. 19 in New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan.

Fairfield Greenwich Group founding partners Noel, Andres Piedrahita and Jeffrey Tucker are accused of breach of fiduciary duty, negligence and unjust enrichment, as are Brian Francouer and Amit Vijayvergiya of FG Bermuda, a Noel affiliate. The complaint was filed as a class-action, or group, lawsuit on behalf of investors."

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=athXyvizTMBs

[jgk3]

Re: America's Financial Crisis

I see a shit load of Chinese made American flags flying everywhere. But I ask - where is the real patriotism within Americans?

Nice burn.

[Federate]

Re: America's Financial Crisis

The population in general is kept dumb and fed disinformation so they are rather easy to manipulate. Everyone is constantly busy watching their TV shows which disconnect their lives from reality and then they tune to the news where the rest of the world is portrayed as some violent, retarded xxxxhole.

There is no unity in the "U"SA. The only unison they share is being the united slaves of Israel. Even the most basic form of unity, the family, is brushed aside in such society!

[Armenian]

Re: America's Financial Crisis

The historic theft of the nation's wealth by the corporate elite and the criminal behavior by those who are entrusted to represent the citizenry... These are all merely the tip, the exposed tip, of the massive iceberg. And the fancy ship is slowly sinking...

Where is the outrage?

Where are all those American NGOs, of the kind we find in numerous developing nations inciting the populace against corruption and injustice?

Why aren't Americans rioting like the Greeks?

This Madoff character is in essence an accurate personification of Wall Street itself. So, there is nothing unusual or unprecedented about this filthy jew's actions. [I never liked, nor trusted, the world's greatest "ponzy scheme" known as the Stock Market, to my benefit]

I would also like to say here that Blagojevich is an accurate personification of American politics. He got "exposed" simply because he got in the way of a major power grab game being played by Democrats and Republicans.

However, now that their cover is blown, why the xxxx is Madoff (as well as Blagojevich) not arrested? Why aren't Madoff's accomplices (including his sons) arrested? Why is the firm in question still operating? These types of individuals, ones who have ruined the lives of countless people and institutions and in doing so undermined the very nation they live in, would have been arrested, tried and imprisoned in countries like China and Russia.

Well, welcome to America, the nation of well spoken criminals posing as politicians and financiers, a nation where a teenager gets put into jail for having an ounce of marijuana in his pocket, while well dressed criminals that have ruined the lives of countless citizens get to maintain their lavish lifestyles...

Wake up you pathetic fools, look beyond the polished hype, this has been the real America for the longest time now.

Does anyone here realize now why I have been saying that our corrupt politicians in Armenia are nothing compared to these sophisticated criminals?! Do you people now see why I was so upset about how Serzh Sargisyan was being portrayed by American interests in Armenia such as ArmeniaNow, A1 Plus, Radio Liberty and Hetq!? Who the xxxx gave these professional criminals the moral right to judge nations? What the xxxx is wrong with Armenians that foolishly, subserviently and pathetically follow their lead?! Weren't we Armenians supposed to be shrewd, thus enabling us to see right through their games? Or is that trait in us reserved only against other Armenians?

Nevertheless, Armenians riot, the Chinese riot, the French riot, Russians riot, Greeks riot... The real question is - why aren't Americans rioting in the millions over all these serious criminal activities, scandals and thefts? Where is the anger in America? Why aren't concerned patriots attempting an insurrection? In this once called "land of the free and the home of the brave", who's looking out for the people?

I see a shit load of Chinese made American flags flying everywhere. But I ask - where is the real patriotism within Americans?

[Azad]

Re: America's Financial Crisis

This is getting so ridiculous .....


NEW YORK – Even Uncle Sam may get burned by Bernard Madoff. Investors who lost their fortunes in Madoff's alleged Ponzi scheme will end up paying far less in taxes and may even be eligible for refunds, according to accounting experts. By some estimates, the Internal Revenue Service could be out as much as $17 billion in lost tax revenue.

"This is one more thing federal, state and local officials will have to deal with," said John Berrie, a tax partner at the law firm Bryan Cave in New York City. "It's another heavy box on their back."

In addition, investors may be counting on a federally mandated insurance fund to bail them out, but that program lacks the money to pay for all the claims that are likely to come.

The timing couldn't be worse. Unemployment has surged, meaning fewer workers are paying payroll taxes. And housing prices have dropped, reducing property taxes.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081218/ap_on_bi_ge/madoff_scandal_taxes

[Armenian]

Re: America's Financial Crisis

At Meeting in Brazil, Washington Is Scorned

Latin American leaders took another step away from the decades-old orbit of the United States at a meeting here that brought together nearly all of Latin America and the Caribbean, but excluded the United States and Europe. And in the process of convening the leaders of 31 countries, Brazil once again flashed its credentials as the undisputed leader of Latin America. But the host country’s highly popular president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, an ally of the United States, did not prevent the leaders from celebrating the inclusion of Raúl Castro, Cuba’s president, and from using the occasion to attack the United States and Europe for their roles in causing the global economic crisis that is roiling this region as well. “Cuba is returning to where it always should have been,” Hugo Chávez, Venezuela’s president, told reporters. “We are complete.”

The United States became a punching bag at the three-day conference, which ends Wednesday, in this tourist haven in Brazil’s Bahia State. Mr. Castro was hardly alone in assailing the United States and what he called its “neo-liberalist” model for the credit crisis, which is affecting many other economies. “In the middle of an unprecedented global crisis, our countries are discovering that they aren’t part of the problem,” Mr. da Silva said. “They can and should be fundamental players in the solution.” The timing of the meeting, just four months before the next Summit of the Americas in Trinidad and Tobago, was significant, analysts said. That meeting, first convened in Miami in 1994 at the urging of President Clinton, will include the United States and Canada but will exclude Cuba. Mr. da Silva did his part to upstage the Summit of the Americas, even sending planes from Brazil’s air force to ensure the presence here of presidents from poorer countries in Central America and the Caribbean. President Alan García of Peru and President Álvaro Uribe of Colombia were the only heads of state who did not attend. Vice President Francisco Santos of Colombia said that Mr. Uribe, a staunch American ally, stayed home to cope with the aftermath of deadly floods.

The meeting drew together diverse coalitions of the region’s countries, including the recently formed Union of South American Nations, or Unasur, a grouping that has held meetings in recent months that also excluded the United States. “There is no question that this is about exclusion, about excluding the United States,” said Peter Hakim, president of the Inter-American Dialogue, a policy research group in Washington. “Brazil is demonstrating its enormous convening power.” With the rise of China as a principal export destination and the visit last month by President Dmitri A. Medvedev of Russia to court Latin American leaders, there are more frequent reminders that the United States is becoming an ever more distant player in the affairs of the region, said Riordan Roett, the director of the Latin American Studies program at Johns Hopkins University. “The United States is no longer, and will not be ever again, the major interlocutor for the countries in the region,” he said. One by one, the presidents saluted the inclusion of Cuba in the meeting, an expression that indicated a frustration with the efforts by the United States to exclude Cuba from similar hemispheric deliberations, said Michael Shifter, the vice president of the Inter-American Dialogue.

Many of the leaders, including Mr. da Silva, called for lifting the United States embargo of Cuba. “This is a further step in the process of ensuring that Cuba occupies its rightful place of dignity in the region and throughout the world,” said Bruce Golding, the prime minister of Jamaica. But even as the Latin American leaders spoke of their collective power and growing unity, regional strains have been evident. In Bolivia, Oscar Ortíz, the president of the Senate and a prominent critic of President Evo Morales, called on Unasur, the new regional body, to investigate further recent killings in northern Bolivia, which a Unasur commission described unequivocally as a massacre. The region’s leaders continue to struggle to pick a leader for Unasur. Tabaré Vásquez, Uruguay’s president, said in October that he would oppose the nomination of former President Néstor Kirchner of Argentina, a stance that reflects the tense relations between the countries in the past year.

Tension has also been increasing between Ecuador and Brazil, with President Rafael Correa of Ecuador expelling executives from Odebrecht, a major Brazilian construction company, and disputing a loan by Brazil’s powerful national development bank, which finances public works projects throughout Latin America. But these disputes may have more to do with Brazil’s rising regional profile as its multinational corporations compete more aggressively for business beyond Brazil’s borders. In Mr. da Silva, Brazil has a leader who has been adept at relieving tension through diplomacy, even as Washington’s diplomacy has become largely inoperative in much of the region. “Lula is a leader who practices the politics of the bear hug, by thinking all problems can be solved by a warm embrace,” said Larry Birns, director of the Council of Hemispheric Affairs, a research group based in Washington.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/17/wo...l?ref=americas

[Armenian]

Re: America's Financial Crisis

The geopolitical dimensions of the current economic crisis being experienced here in the United States cannot be ignored. The article below is a very significant and powerful analysis pertaining to last summer's Russian-Georgian war and its impact on the global stature of the United States. Nevertheless, this is a beautifully written piece. A must read. Due to its length I only posted fragments of the article. Please read it in its entirety in the provided link.

Armenian

*************************************

That Was No Small War in Georgia — It Was the Beginning of the End of the American Empire

Tskhinvali, South Ossetia — On the sunny afternoon of August 14, a Russian army colonel named Igor Konashenko is standing triumphantly at a street corner at the northern edge of Tskhinvali, the capital of South Ossetia, his forearm bandaged from a minor battle injury. The spot marks the furthest point of the Georgian army’s advance before it was summarily crushed by the Russians a few days earlier. “Twelve Georgian battalions invaded Tskhinvali, backed by columns of tanks, armored personal carriers, jets, and helicopters,” he says, happily waving at the wreckage, craters, and bombed-out buildings around us. “You see how well they fought, with all their great American training — they abandoned their tanks in the heat of the battle and fled.” Konashenko pulls a green compass out of his shirt pocket and opens it. It’s a U.S. military model. “This is a little trophy — a gift from one of my soldiers,” he says. “Everything that the Georgians left behind, I mean everything, was American. All the guns, grenades, uniforms, boots, food rations — they just left it all. Our boys stuffed themselves on the food,” he adds slyly. “It was tasty.” The booty, according to Konashenko, also included 65 intact tanks outfitted with the latest NATO and American (as well as Israeli) technology.

Technically, we are standing within the borders of Georgia, which over the last five years has gone from being an ally to the United States to a neocon proxy regime. But there are no Georgians to be seen in this breakaway region — not unless you count the bloated corpses still lying in the dirt roads. Most of the 70,000 or so people who live in South Ossetia never liked the idea of being part of Georgia. During the violent land scramble that occurred after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the South Ossetians found themselves cut off from their ethnic kin in North Ossetia, which remained part of Russia. The Russians, who’ve had a small peacekeeping force here since 1992, managed to keep the brewing conflicts on ice for the last 15 years. But in the meantime, the positions of everyone involved hardened. The Georgians weren’t happy about the idea of losing a big chunk of territory. The Ossetians, an ethnic Persian tribe, were more adamant than ever about joining Russia, their traditional ally and protector.

The tense but relatively stable situation blew up late in the evening of August 7, when on the order of president Mikheil Saakashvili, Georgia’s army swept into South Ossetia, leveling much of Tskhinvali and surrounding villages and sending some 30,000 refugees fleeing north into Russia. Within hours, Russia’s de facto czar Vladimir Putin counterattacked — some say he’d set a trap — and by the end of that long weekend the Georgians were in panicked retreat. The Russian army then pushed straight through South Ossetia and deep into Georgia proper, halting less than an hour’s drive from Saakashvili’s luxurious palace. All around me is evidence of a rout. A Georgian T-72 tank turret is wedged into the side of a local university building, projecting from the concrete like a cookie pressed into ice cream. Fifty yards away you can see the remains of the vehicle that the orphaned turret originally was part of: just a few charred parts around a hole in the street, and a section of tread lying flat on the sidewalk. Russian tanks now patrol the city unopposed, each one as loud as an Einstrzende Neubauten concert, clouding the air with leaded exhaust as they rumble past us.

But listening to Colonel Konashenko, it becomes clear to me that I’m looking at more than just the smoldering remains of battle in an obscure regional war: This spot is ground zero for an epic historical shift. The dead tanks are American-upgraded, as are the spent 40mm grenade shells that one spetznaz soldier shows me. The bloated bodies on the ground are American-trained Georgian soldiers who have been stripped of their American-issue uniforms. And yet, there is no American cavalry on the way.

For years now, everyone from Pat Buchanan to hybrid-powered hippies have been warning that America would suddenly find itself on a historical downslope from having been too reckless, too profligate, and too arrogant as an unopposed superpower. Even decent patriotic folk were starting to worry that America was suffering from a classic case of Celebrity Personality Disorder, becoming a nation of Tom Cruise party-dicks dancing in our socks over every corner and every culture in the world, lip-synching about freedom as we plunged headfirst into as much risky business as we could mismanage.

And now, bleeding money from endless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, we’re a sick giant hooked on ever-pricier doses of oil paid for with a currency few people want anymore. In the history books of the future, I would wager that this very spot in Tskhinvali will be remembered as both the geographic highwater mark of the American empire, and the place where it all started to fall apart.

I first visited Georgia in 2002 to cover the arrival of American military advisers. At the time, the American empire was riding high. A decade after the Soviet Union’s collapse, Russia seemed to be devolving into an anarchic and corrupt failed state, while the U.S. just kept getting stronger. Within months of President George W. Bush’s swearing-in, Time ran a column boasting that America didn’t need to accommodate Russia anymore because it had become “the dominant power in the world, more dominant than any since Rome.” That same year we invaded Afghanistan without breaking a sweat.

The New York Times magazine proclaimed: “The American Empire: Get Used to It.” A new word, hyperpower, was being used to describe our history-warping supremacy. The military advisers were dispatched to Georgia ostensibly to train that country’s forces to fight local Al Qaeda cells, which everyone knew didn’t exist. In reality, we were training them for key imperial outsourcing duties. Georgia would do for the American Empire what Mumbai call centers did for Delta Airlines: deliver greater returns at a fraction of the cost.

They became a flagship franchise of America Inc. It made sense for the Georgians, too: Their erratic and occasionally violent neighbor Russia wouldn’t fuck with them, because fucking with them would be fucking with us — and nobody would dare to do that.

[...]

Reliable casualty counts for the broader conflict are still all but impossible to get, but as of late August the Russians admit having lost 64 soldiers, and the Georgians a combined 215 soldiers and civilians. In both cases, the real number is probably much higher. On the civilian front, Ossetian sources claim that 1,500 were killed in the Georgian assault — Putin called it a “genocide” — but many Westerners dismiss that figure. Privately, however, American advisers and defeated Georgian commanders admit to “total defeat.”

Indeed, Arkady Ostrovsky of the Economist, a British reporter who has long been close to Saakashvili, told me that on the day of the cease-fire, the Georgian leader spoke of shooting himself, and was only dissuaded when word came of a supportive statement by Condi Rice. “It was sad to watch,” Ostrovsky told me. “I should have been more critical of Saakashvili back when it might have counted. A lot of us should have.” That’s exactly the kind of full-spectrum smackdown the Russians were aiming for. And Konashenko wants us all to see it, so he offers to take me and some other reporters to the city of Gori in occupied Georgia. Russia seized control of the city at the end of hostilities, essentially cutting its foe in two and leaving it exposed to Vladimir Putin’s whims. “We’ll show you Gori — the city is spotless,” Konashenko says cheerfully. “We could have destroyed it, but we didn’t. Of course, there’s a little bit of damage here and there”

[...]

As we hop out of the army trucks, one of the Russian commanders points to a limp banner flying at half-mast over the polished-granite administration building on the far side of the square, “You see?” he says. “The Georgian flag is still flying. This is Georgian territory — we’re not annexing it like the media says.” This kind of boast, conquering a country and then making a big noble show of respecting its sovereignty, was something that had once been reserved for America’s forces. How quickly history has turned here. The other Western journalists fan out for some atrocity hunting, digging for signs that the Russians might have dropped a cluster bomb or massacred civilians. The foreign-desk editors back home have been demanding proof of Russian evil, after largely ignoring Georgia’s war crimes in South Ossetia. It’s a sordid business, but the reporters are just following orders.

After an hour in the 90-degree heat, I head over to the city’s central square, where I stumble across a stunning spectacle: dozens of Russian soldiers doing a funky-chicken victory dance in the Georgian end zone. They’re clowning around euphorically, shooting souvenir photos of each other in front of the administration building and the statue of Stalin (Gori’s most famous native son) while their commanders lean back and laugh. I approach Lieutenant Colonel Andrei Bobrun, assistant commander of the Russian land forces’ North Caucasus Military District — the roughest neighborhood in Western Eurasia — and ask him how he feels now, as a victorious military leader in a proxy war with America.

“I have never been so proud of Russia — magnificent Russia!” Bobrun crows, an AK strapped over his shoulder. “For twenty years we just talked and talked, blabbed and blabbed, complained and complained. But we did nothing, while America ran wild and took everything it could. Twenty years of empty talk. Now Russia is back. And you see how great Russia is. Look around you — we’re not trying to annex this land. What the fuck do I need Georgia for? Russia could keep this, but what for? Hell, we could conquer the whole world if we wanted to. That’s a fact. It was Russia that saved Europe from Genghis Khan. Russia could have taken India and the Middle East. We could take anything — we took Alaska, we took California. There is nothing that Russia could not take, and now the world is being reminded again.” “Why did you give California back?” I asked. It has always baffled me why a country would abandon prime coastal real estate for the frozen swamps of Siberia — I always assumed it was because the Russians were ashamed when they found themselves holding onto a chunk of this planet as perfect as California: like B-list nerds who successfully crash a Vanity Fair Oscar party, but within minutes of their little triumph, skulk out of the tent out of sheer embarrassment, knowing they never belonged there in the first place. “We gave it all back because we don’t need it,” Borisov boasted, puffing out his chest. “Russia has enough land, what the hell do we need more for. But if others want to start something, this is what will happen. Russia is back, and I am so proud.”

As the day wore on, the Kremlin press pool organizers finally rounded us up, and we headed back again along the same victory trail. It was on this second visit to ruins of Tskhinvali, as dusk approached and the violence seemed to already acquire a kind of abstract tone, that I started to realize that I was looking at something much bigger than the current debate about Russian aggression or who was more guilty of what — pulling the camera much farther back on this scene, I understood that I was looking at the first ruins of America’s imperial decline. It’s not an easy thing to spot. It took years after the real collapse for Russians to finally accept that awful reality, and to adjust accordingly, first by retrenching, not overplaying an empty hand, slowly building up without making any loud noises while America ran wild around the world bankrupting itself and bleeding dry. And now it’s over for us. That’s clear on the ground. But it will be years before America’s political elite even begins to grasp this fact. In the meantime, Russia is drunk on its victory and the possibilities that it might imply, sending its recently-independent neighbors into a kind of frenzied animal panic. Experience has taught them that it’s moments like these when Russia’s near abroad becomes, once again, a blood-soaked doormat in the violent epochal shifts — history never stopped here, it just froze up for a decade or so. And now it’s thawing, bringing with it the familiar stench of bloated bodies, burned rubble, and the sour sweat of Russian infantry.

We have entered a dangerous moment in history — America in decline is reacting hysterically, woofing and screeching and throwing a tantrum, desperate to prove that it still has teeth. Which it does — but not in the old dominant way that America wants or believes itself to be. History shows that it’s at this moment, tipping into decline and humiliation, when the worst decisions are made, so idiotically destructive that they’ll make the Iraq campaign look like a mere training exercise fender-bender by comparison. Russia, meanwhile, is as high as a Hollywood speedballer from its victory. Putting the two together in the same room — speedballing Russia and violently bad-tripping America — is a recipe for serious disaster.

If we’re lucky, we’ll survive the humiliating decline and settle into the new reality without causing too much damage to ourselves or the rest of the world. But when that awful moment arrives where the cognitive dissonance snaps hard, it will be an epic struggle to come to our senses in time to prevent the William Kristols, Max Boots and Robert Kagans from leading us into a nuclear holocaust which, they will assure us, we can win against Russia, thanks to our technological superiority. If only we have the will, they’ll tell us, we can win once and for all.

Source: http://donvandergriff.wordpress.com/...erican-empire/