Wednesday, October 15, 2014

Ria Novosti — US Secretary of Defense Says US Army Must Be Able to Deal With Terrorists, Russia

US Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel said that the US army must be able to face threats coming fromterrorists and insurgents as well as to "deal with" Russia's modern and capable army.
"Demands on the Army will only grow more diverse and complicated going forward. Threats from terrorists and insurgents will remain with us for a long time. But we also must deal with a revisionist Russia with its modern and capable army on NATO's doorstep," Hagel said in Washington.
Cranking up Cold War II.

Ria Novosti
US Secretary of Defense Says US Army Must Be Able to Deal With Terrorists, Russia

8 comments:

Ryan Harris said...

The Democrat party voters refer to neo-liberals as if it weren't their own policy but someone elses. It is like the tea party crazy wing of the GOP is not part of the Republican party except when it is convenient. These two parties pursue crazy stupid policies, but then their supporters claim it is someone else? Come on. Give it up, your party system is broke and is destroying our system of government.

I refuse to use the neo-lib or tea party terminology from today forward, all neoliberals need to be called what they are: Democrats. And Tea Partiers: Republicans. If they were separate or different, they would align with other factions periodically. They never do. They are one and the same with the major parties.

So Congrats Democrat party you've got your way, you've set the world back 30 years to fearing Russia and alienating them with rhetoric and inflammatory foreign policy. It took years to break down the fear and distrust to begin working together. And they've damn near destroyed the relationship with China as they've begun the military provocations and heavy rhetoric of containment. The hard core liberals generate the propaganda and the mainstream do the dirty work. Enlightened idiots. Incredibly stupid and frustrating.

Ignacio said...

LOL, this is like the Homeland TV show in the first and second season, where the biggest warmonger is a Democrat spouting real neocon ideology from his dirty mouth.

Is a one-party system (just like China) where you have different factions but the overall theme and ideology is all the same. Sadly this goes on and on in many matters in all the West, just not USA.

Tom Hickey said...

It's even got a name, Ignacio. Policy continuity.

Tom Hickey said...

"The Democrat party voters refer to neo-liberals as if it weren't their own policy but someone elses."

The economic basis of neoliberalism is free markets, free trade, and free capital flows, and privatization and deregulation. It's bipartisan.

Matt Franko said...

Tom that is why the 'authority/libertarian' measure is on a separate axis...

I think the "left/right" axis is a ruse....

The "authority/libertarian" axis is the one that really matters...

rsp,

Tom Hickey said...

The axis can be viewed as a matrix of four boxes or categories. The two boxes on the top row are the two categories of authoritarianism that are distinguished by the two columns of the matrix, right and left. Right authoritarian would be typified by totalitarian fascism (Hitler), for example, and left authoritarianism would be typified by totalitarian communism (Stalin).

The bottom row is the categories of libertarianism. Right libertarianism is typified by Libertarianism or anarcho-capitalism (Rothbard) and left libertarianism by anarchism or anarcho-socialism (Chomsky).

The value of the compass is that it allows for finer distinctions within the matrix instead of lumping everything into four general categories. That way it is possible to position people and schools of thought on the compass in relation to the center, which it the balance point between left-radical and right-reactionary, and authoritarian-hierarchical and libertarian-consensual.

That seems useful to me.

Ryan Harris said...

No one identifies as a neo-lib or neo-con. No one. It's that other guy. The one over there. The one we all hate.

I do get what you are saying, and I understand the liberal-authoritarian divide but, it is Dems and Repubs that control everything in our government.

Tom Hickey said...

I would say that the Establishment controls the government and the Establishment is divided into factions based on somewhat different interests. But as whole, the Establishment agree on the policy agenda and the hidden agenda, which is furthering the interests of the Establishment. It's ever this way. The ruling elite is divided into factions and they jockey for position among themselves. The rest only get to watch. In "democracies" through voting for candidates selected by the Establishment they get to imagine that they are actually players in the game. If you don't know who is the mark, you are the mark.

George Carlin sums it up here in one minute.