Roberto Abraham Scaruffi

Friday 6 November 2015

The European Union Times


Posted: 05 Nov 2015 03:24 AM PST

On Tuesday November 3rd, U.S. Defense Department spokesperson Laura Seal told The Daily Beast that twelve F-15C air-to-air combat planes are being sent to the Incirlik Turkey Air Base for deployment in Syria against Russia’s Su-30 air-to-air combat planes. Neither the F-15C nor the Su-30 can destroy ground-targets, only air-targets — enemy planes.
In other words: U.S. President Barack Obama is telling Russian President Vladimir Putin that unless Putin is willing to go to war against the United States, he must stop what he’s now doing in Syria. Obama is saying this in the only language whose meaning cannot be denied or misinterpreted: sending in counter-force to specifically what Russia has already sent into Syria.
If it were not the case that both the F-15C and the Su-30 are equipped only for air-to-air-combat, then the meaning of Obama’s move here wouldn’t be so clear and unambiguous. Ms. Seal made her point even clearer by volunteering to tell The Daily Beast’s reporter David Axe, “I didn’t say it wasn’t about Russia.” Axe then commented in his article, that this statement of hers “hinted at its the deployment’s true purpose.” But one would need to be a fool in order to deny it. The only real question here is why Obama has made this decision, which is quite likely to be fateful. So: that’s the subject: Why did he do this?
On 11 October 2015, CBS’s “60 Minutes” aired a segment, “Steve Kroft questions President Obama on topics including Russia’s incursion in Syria”, and the U.S. President was challenged there by Mr. Kroft regarding whether he’s “weak” on the Syria matter:
Steve Kroft: A year ago when we did this interview, there was some saber-rattling between the United States and Russia on the Ukrainian border. Now it’s also going on in Syria. You said a year ago that the United States — America leads. We’re the indispensible nation. Mr. Putin seems to be challenging that leadership.
President Barack Obama: In what way? Let — let’s think about this — let — let —
Steve Kroft: Well, he’s moved troops into Syria, for one. He’s got people on the ground. Two, the Russians are conducting military operations in the Middle East for the first time since World War II —
President Barack Obama: So that’s —
Steve Kroft: — bombing the people — that we are supporting.
President Barack Obama: So that’s leading, Steve? Let me ask you this question. When I came into office, Ukraine was governed by a corrupt ruler who was a stooge of Mr. Putin. Syria was Russia’s only ally in the region. And today, rather than being able to count on their support and maintain the base they had in Syria, which they’ve had for a long time, Mr. Putin now is devoting his own troops, his own military, just to barely hold together by a thread his sole ally. And in Ukraine —
Steve Kroft: He’s challenging your leadership, Mr. President. He’s challenging your leadership —
President Barack Obama: Well Steve, I got to tell you, if you think that running your economy into the ground and having to send troops in in order to prop up your only ally is leadership, then we’ve got a different definition of leadership. My definition of leadership would be leading on climate change, an international accord that potentially we’ll get in Paris. My definition of leadership is mobilizing the entire world community to make sure that Iran doesn’t get a nuclear weapon. And with respect to the Middle East, we’ve got a 60-country coalition that isn’t suddenly lining up around Russia’s strategy. To the contrary, they are arguing that, in fact, that strategy will not work.
Steve Kroft: My point is — was not that he was leading, my point is that he was challenging your leadership. And he has very much involved himself in the situation. Can you imagine anything happening in Syria of any significance at all without the Russians now being involved in it and having a part of it?
President Barack Obama: But that was true before. Keep in mind that for the last five years, the Russians have provided arms, provided financing, as have the Iranians, as has Hezbollah.
Steve Kroft: But they haven’t been bombing and they haven’t had troops on the ground —
President Barack Obama: And the fact that they had to do this is not an indication of strength, it’s an indication that their strategy did not work.
Steve Kroft: You don’t think —
President Barack Obama: You don’t think that Mr. Putin would’ve preferred having Mr. Assad be able to solve this problem without him having to send a bunch of pilots and money that they don’t have?
Steve Kroft: Did you know he was going to do all this when you met with him in New York?
President Barack Obama: Well, we had seen — we had pretty good intelligence. We watch —
Steve Kroft: So you knew he was planning to do it.
President Barack Obama: We knew that he was planning to provide the military assistance that Assad was needing because they were nervous about a potential imminent collapse of the regime.
Steve Kroft: You say he’s doing this out of weakness. There is a perception in the Middle East among our adversaries, certainly and even among some of our allies that the United States is in retreat, that we pulled our troops out of Iraq and ISIS has moved in and taken over much of that territory. The situation in Afghanistan is very precarious and the Taliban is on the march again. And ISIS controls a large part of Syria.
President Barack Obama: I think it’s fair to say, Steve, that if —
Steve Kroft: It’s — they — let me just finish the thought. They say your —
President Barack Obama: You’re —
Steve Kroft: — they say you’re projecting a weakness, not a strength–
President Barack Obama: — you’re saying “they,” but you’re not citing too many folks. But here —
Steve Kroft: No, I’ll cite — I’ll cite if you want me, too.
President Barack Obama: — here — yes. Here —
Steve Kroft: I’d say the Saudis. I’d say the Israelis. I’d say a lot of our friends in the Middle East. I’d say everybody in the Republican party. Well, you want me to keep going?
President Barack Obama: Yeah. The — the — if you are — if you’re citing the Republican party, I think it’s fair to say that there is nothing I’ve done right over the last seven and a half years.
Apparently, the U.S. President is taking this matter so much to heart, he’s now willing to start World War III over it, so as to prove that he’s not “weak.”
The Cold War was never this hot except at the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. But in that particular instance, the U.S. faced a potential Soviet nuclear attack upon the United States, by Soviet missiles being placed near the U.S. in Cuba. This time around, it’s starting very differently: there is no danger that Russia is posing to the United States. Indeed, Putin had repeatedly requested the U.S.’s cooperation with the war against jihadists in Syria, but Obama has repeatedly refused.
Now, Obama is going farther than merely refusing to cooperate: he’s ordering Putin to stop. Obama is doing this by his action, demanding that Putin allow Sunni jihadists to take control in Syria, a nation that under Assad has a secular non-sectarian government, most of whose chief officials are Shiites (though the Prime Minister, Wael Nader al-Halqi, is Sunni), and where the Constitution is entirely non-religious and keeps a wall of separation between church-and-state (the only one like that in the entire Middle East) — which all of the opposition-organizations that are warring against it oppose, because they’re all jihadist Sunni organizations.
Obama is, in effect, now telling Putin that the United States is willing to go to war against Russia in order to be able to eliminate Syria’s non-jihadist government — a government that was founded not only as anti-jihadist but as entirely non-religious. He’s saying this in the clearest language possible, but Putin could simply ignore it. What then will be the response when American and Russian fighter-pilots fire at each other in a Syrian sky, and one of them gets killed in the process, and his plane goes down, perhaps in flames? Will the loser (either Obama or Putin) of that battle, simply quit World War III immediately after it started, before it goes nuclear? Or, will he not? And, if not, then what will his response be? And when would that mutual test of “strength” end — and how would it end?
This could get interesting. It might even get catastrophic.
Source
        
Posted: 05 Nov 2015 03:07 AM PST

Israel is seeking a large increase in annual military assistance from the United States and has held preliminary talks with the Obama administration on a 10-year financial package that would provide up to $50 billion, American congressional sources say.
During unofficial talks in recent weeks, Israel has asked the US to increase its annual military assistance by 60 percent to an average of $5 billion a year over the 2018-2028 period, the congressional aides said on Wednesday, according to Reuters.
Under the existing agreement that was signed in 2007 and expires in 2017, annual military aid to Israel grew to about $3 billion a year. That deal was negotiated during the George W. Bush administration.
Israel says that it wants more money to counter threats that will arise as a result of the recent Iran nuclear agreement, which the Zionist regime has fireclay opposed.
US officials said that negotiations on the new aid package deal were still in the early stages and the proposal has not yet been formally presented to Congress, which must approve the funding.
“First they have to negotiate with the White House,” one senior congressional aide said of the Israeli regime.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will visit Washington next week and hold talks with President Barack Obama on the aid package. Netanyahu and Obama are expected to reach an agreement on the aid deal’s broad outlines.
Obama had reportedly agreed in principle with Netanyahu in a previous meeting to increase the aid package to between $4.2 billion and $4.5 billion.
The money is separate from the nearly $500 million in annual US funding for Israel’s missile system programs in recent years. It is also on top of the US warfighting material held in Israel, which is valued at $1.2 billion.
US annual aid to Israel has held steady despite cuts to a wide range of domestic and military programs in the United States, including reducing the size of the US Army to its lowest level since before World War Two.
The US government is pressured to serve Israel’s interests due to the influence of the powerful Zionist lobby in the United States. The pro-Israel pressure groups actively work to steer US foreign policy in favor of Israel.
Source
        
Posted: 05 Nov 2015 03:01 AM PST

The world’s richest man, Bill Gates, has said that the private sector is too selfish and inefficient to produce effective energy alternatives to fossil fuels.
While announcing his plan to spend $2 billion of his own wealth on green energy during an interview with The Atlantic, the Microsoft founder called on fellow billionaires to help make the US fossil-free by 2050 with similar philanthropy.
He said:
There’s no fortune to be made. Even if you have a new energy source that costs the same as today’s and emits no CO2, it will be uncertain compared with what’s tried-and-true and already operating at unbelievable scale and has gotten through all the regulatory problems.
Without a substantial carbon tax, there’s no incentive for innovators or plant buyers to switch.
Since World War II, US-government R&D has defined the state of the art in almost every area. The private sector is in general inept.
The climate problem has to be solved in the rich countries. China and the US and Europe have to solve CO2 emissions, and when they do, hopefully they’ll make it cheap enough for everyone else.
Source
        
Posted: 05 Nov 2015 02:56 AM PST
Jeb Bush’s numbers are in the single digits.
Jeb Bush, who was the early frontrunner for the Republican nomination, has plummeted to the low single digits in a latest national poll.
The Quinnipiac University survey released on Wednesday found Bush taking only 4 percent support, down from 10 percent in September.
Meanwhile, Donald Trump and Ben Carson continued to lead the crowded Republican field, with the New York billionaire gaining 24 percent support, followed by the retired neurosurgeon at 23 percent.
In a hypothetical general-election matchup, however, Carson defeated Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton.
Trump and Carson have been trading first and second place in recent national polls, but Carson has been on the rise.
Senator Marco Rubio is in third place at 14 percent, up 5 points since September. And Senator Ted Cruz is in fourth place with taking 13 percent support.
In hypothetical head-to-head match-ups, Republicans have beaten Clinton, the leading Democratic candidate for president.
Carson has a 50 percent to 40 percent lead over Clinton. And over more, Carson has a narrow lead over Clinton among female voters, while Clinton leads Carson among black men by good 20 points.
Clinton also trails behind Rubio, Chris Christie and even Ted Cruz in head-to-head match-ups. However, Clinton leads Trump 46 percent to 43 percent in such scenario.
Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders also performed as badly as Clinton did in all of those match-ups against Republicans.
As many as 1,144 registered voters participated in the Quinnipiac University survey which was conducted between October 29 and November 2 and has a 2.9 percentage point margin of error.
Source
        
Posted: 05 Nov 2015 02:51 AM PST

The Romanian cabinet has resigned in response to nationwide mass protests that followed a deadly fire in a Bucharest nightclub in which 32 people died, Ministers said they would continue to carry out their duties until a new government is formed.
“I’m handing in my mandate, I’m resigning, and implicitly my government too,” AP cited Romanian Prime Minister Victor Ponta as saying in a statement Wednesday. The PM said he was “obliged to take note of the legitimate grievances which exist in society.”
“I hope handing in my and my government’s mandate will satisfy the demands of protesters,” Ponta said.
The PM stepped down after an estimated 20,000 protesters took to the streets of Bucharest, the Romanian capital, demanding the resignations of PM Ponta, Interior Minister Gabriel Oprea and the mayor of the district where the nightclub was located.
On Monday, the crowds in the streets of Romanian capital waved national flags, chanting “Assassins!” and “Shame on you!”
The Romanian government has long been perceived as corrupt, and Friday’s nightclub tragedy brought emotions to boiling point.
Cristian Popescu Piedone, the mayor of the Bucharest district where the nightclub fire took place, told reporters he is morally guilty for the deadliest fire in Romania’s history.
“I assume the moral blame. As for the legal [blame], I will leave it to justice to pronounce,” Piedone said.
“I understand what is being asked and what is expected, and they are right, someone has to take political responsibility,” President Klaus Iohannis wrote on his Facebook page late Tuesday, adding that “the next step is for politicians, who cannot ignore this sentiment of revolt.”
“We need a new start,” Alina Gorghiu, co-leader of the leading opposition Liberal Party, said Wednesday.
New elections are needed “to resolve the crisis we find ourselves in,” and give Romania “a new parliament legitimized by a popular vote,” AP cited Gorghiu as saying.
On Friday, October 30, 32 people lost their lives and nearly 180 were injured in an explosion and fire which happened during a heavy metal concert accompanied by a pyrotechnics show at the Colectiv nightclub.
After fire broke out in the basement of the club, it ignited foam décor, which prompted scores of panicked spectators to try and escape through a single door.
Source
        
Posted by Roberto Abraham Scaruffi at 10:05