What's new

The Great Game Changer: Belt and Road Intiative (BRI; OBOR)

.
Are you afraid of hotly pursue and fierce attack tactics? If yes then I also advice you dont quote their post. :D If no, you could ruin your life by discussing with them. Leave them alone is a good option.

Back to topic guys.
Sorry,just because I have no time.Byebye,friends.
 
.
Sometimes I can't help but ask this question: Is Barak Obama trying to destroy the United States intentionally through questionable policies ?

@SvenSvensonov , @LeveragedBuyout , @AMDR , @F-22Raptor , @Peter C , @C130 , @TruthSeeker , @Death.By.Chocolate , @MastanKhan , @qamar1990 et al. Can you please give your input?


how? pretty sure we have been self destructing since Nixon took office :rofl:

just a few points I want to mention from the article

I believe we can reduce our green house emissions by 25% buy 2025, we are burning more and more natural gas instead of coal, we are turning turn more and more to renewables like solar,wind, and geothermal. the electric car revolution is just around the corner IMO...so massive reduction of greenhouse emissions is only natural.

will China do the same???? I think they can if they get serious about it.

the TPP I don't really know what it's all about who it favors and it hurts so I won't say anymore

China throwing around billions for development funds and banks good for them, and hopefully they see returns from it :bounce:

China and Russia teaming up doesn't worry me :victory1:
 
.
Sometimes I can't help but ask this question: Is Barak Obama trying to destroy the United States intentionally through questionable policies ?

@SvenSvensonov , @LeveragedBuyout , @AMDR , @F-22Raptor , @Peter C , @C130 , @TruthSeeker , @Death.By.Chocolate , @MastanKhan , @qamar1990 et al. Can you please give your input?

Hi,

Obama cannot do much in this case----. U S military is coming out of two major defeats----and two major failures----defeats in AFG and Iraq---and failures in Libya and Syria---. ISIL came as such a shock that they were clueless as to what to do immediately.

As America is being reminded that the world was a much better and controlled place with Saddam in it---it has an extremely hard time swallowing this bitter pill. Middle east is lost----slowly losing Ukraine---Turkey thumbing its nose at Nato---possibly not a trustworthy nato member anymore----.


The problem is that Russia knows that he U S military---the American soldier cannot fight the Russian soldier anymore----. Russia really wants to have a go at the American soldier---wants to show them what real war is----not like shooting ducks at a farm---like in afg or in Iraq---.

So---the bottomlinne is---what can the U S do---nothing. The message for japan, Vietnam, philipines---chose your battles and sides carefully---. Don't let pride cloud the judgement---.

Remember---you have to live next door to china---and not the U S.
 
.
Sometimes I can't help but ask this question: Is Barak Obama trying to destroy the United States intentionally through questionable policies ?

@SvenSvensonov , @LeveragedBuyout , @AMDR , @F-22Raptor , @Peter C , @C130 , @TruthSeeker , @Death.By.Chocolate , @MastanKhan , @qamar1990 et al. Can you please give your input?
I don't think he is intentionally trying to destroy the the U.S., I just think that he partly has no idea what he is doing in some cases. While the US economy is still recovering from 2008, there are still roadblocks ahead.

As for foreign policy, his handling of the Ukraine Crisis has been pretty good in my opinion. He has reassured Eastern NATO allies that we will stand by our Article 5 responsibilities if Invoked. He put sanctions on Russia for the annexation of Crimea and pressured the EU to do the same to substantial effectiveness (Ruble Nosedive)

As for China, he is (to my knowledge) pushing for better relations and cooperation (counter-climate change agenda), which is good.

He armed the Syrian rebels (FSA) which in my opinion is ridiculous considering some FSA members may defect to ISIS, bringing their American-supplied weapons with them.

While Obama is definelty not one of our greatest presidents, he is not our worst.

Did China and Russia out-maneuver Obama in Asia ? Maybe. Everything is to obscure. Although China is scoring on some cheap Russian gas deals right now to due to sanctions. The country who comes out on top of the crisis in Ukraine won't be NATO or Russia, it will be China.

Keep in mind I try not to follow politics, so the points I presented are probably off.
 
Last edited:
.

No doubt about it, China can only gain from this situation. Russia becomes more dependent on China, and China can in turn use the opportunity to secure resources that Russia had previously intended for European use (and moreover, China can probably secure these resources at favorable prices). But the author is correct, the risk should not be ignored. Chinese capital can go a long way towards softening the economic damage wrought on Russia, but it's unlikely that China will be able to replace the lost capital entirely. Russia is deeply integrated into the European market, so in the short to medium term, Russia will have to just endure it.

I have been impressed by China's determination to stabilize the financial system in the past 20 years. I remember when the 1997 crisis hit, everyone was on edge, wondering if China would also devalue; but it did not. And in 2008, when the outlook appeared grim, China did its part to stimulate demand with a gigantic fiscal stimulus package, which, together with the American stimulus package, probably helped avert an outright depression.

In a strange sense, even though it goes against American interests, China's actions make me more optimistic that China is indeed starting to share the burden of maintaining stability in the global system. Cheers.
 
.
Sometimes I can't help but ask this question: Is Barak Obama trying to destroy the United States intentionally through questionable policies ?

Can you please give your input?

To say that Obama is intentionally destroying the US would be ascribing to Obama a level of intelligence that he does not possess. The true explanation can be found in Hanlon's Razor:

Hanlon's razor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The man is simply a clown. He doesn't know how to run the economy, FBI, the IRS, the healthcare system, the NSA, the immigration system, the energy sector, the Defense Department, the Democratic Party, or anything else except, perhaps, for a community in Chicago.

the answer is clear, because it's Obama,

Exactly.

Besides, what was the rationale to announce a pivot in the middle of an economic crisis? Who is that smart guy in the US foreign department who thought that foreign policy can be singularly done with military?

This is an interesting point, because the US State Department hasn't been in control of foreign policy for some time (and deservedly so, after the pure incompetence of the 1990s through Colin Powell's backstabbing of the Bush Administration). Foreign policy is largely run out of the Defense Department these days, so it's natural that US foreign policy must be interpreted through a security prism. Obama is a man without much intellect, and has even less real world executive experience, so he is easily manipulated.
 
.
.
But the author is correct, the risk should not be ignored.

The point made by the author on strategic return is also very interesting. Russia is just too big to fail in China's strategic calculations. If it takes a bailout, so be it, in my view.

But, Russia's economy is surprisingly resilient and, probably, the sanctions will reinforce the resilience in the long run. It is already decoupling from resource-based economy although some 30+% of GDP still comes from energy.
 
.
Obama offers same old vision of division

By Hannay Richards

Speaking at the University of Queensland in Brisbane, Australia, on Saturday, US President Barack Obama gave what at least one person has called "the historic Brisbane speech". It was hardly that, but certainly it had one eye on history as it was clearly intended to be both part of the cement fixing Obama's place in history before he steps through the White House door for the last time, and a reassertion of the United States' leadership credentials after China's successful week in the spotlight hosting the Asia-pacific Economic Cooperation meetings in Beijing.

Unlike his performance in the Chinese capital last week, during which he cultivated the image of being just one of the boys hanging out in the local neighborhood, Obama's speech in Brisbane was intended to tell the world that the US is still firmly in the driving seat, and to tell future historians that it was Obama who ensured the US was behind the wheel during the Asia-Pacific century, thanks to his "pivot" policy.

Obama claimed that he was in town to talk about "the future that we can build together, here in the Asia-Pacific region".

Yet the future he envisioned was clearly the US way or the highway, or as Obama put it, a choice between conflict and cooperation.

Most people would say that's a no-brainer, let's all work together for a better future. Indeed, that was what appeared to have been the consensus at the APEC summit, where the regional leaders stated in their final declaration, "We commit to working together to shape the future through Asia-Pacific partnership in the spirit of mutual respect and trust, inclusiveness, and win-win cooperation."

But, as with most things when you get tired of reading the small print, there was a catch in Obama's speech. What he actually meant by cooperation is not everyone pulling together so the boat doesn't end up on the rocks that all the disputes are about, but everyone pulling together to follow a course set by the US in favor of its own interests.

Although Obama claimed the US believes that nations and peoples have the right to live in security and peace, it was hard to ignore the subliminal message that it is only the US that has some god-like ability to grant these, even though there are one or two nations and peoples who would probably argue that in using what power it has, the US has only bought them turmoil and violence.

He asserted that an effective security order for Asia must be based "not on spheres of influence, or coercion, or intimidation where big nations bully the small", yet those should be laid at the door of the White House, as it is the US' insistence on such tactics to promote its own dominance that have resulted in the tensions and uncertainties plaguing the region. The alliances that Obama went to great lengths to praise are an inflexible structure that heralds disaster unless adjusted to meet the changing times.

Obama's allusive remarks were clearly aimed at China, whose rise the US is having trouble adapting to. When Obama did finally get round to naming China, it was to portray the two countries as best buddies, but only when it is acting in accordance with the US' wishes.

He was happy to praise China's role as a responsible actor in the region when the two countries' interests overlap, when it is "cut from the same cloth" as Australia or the US' other regional allies. He was less forthcoming about China's role in the areas where they disagree. The message was clear, if you're not wearing the gang colors you're not welcome to have a say in what the US regards as its area.

And so there could be no doubts about the message, Obama elaborated how the US will continue to modernize its defense posture across the region, deploying more of its "most advanced military capabilities to keep the peace and deter aggression" and steadily deepening its engagement in the region "day in and day out".

Then with a straight face he said, "We do this without any territorial claims".


This after quoting Brisbane's famous son, David Malouf, who has written that the shrinking of distance means "even the Pacific, the largest of oceans, has become a lake", which only served to reinforce the perception that the US considers the Pacific to be its own private lake that others can use only if it chooses to grant them the privilege; a privilege that it will extend exclusively to its friends.

The overall tone of his speech was another clear indication that the US' self-conceived exceptionalism is nothing more than the hubris that comes with thinking you are better than anyone else. On the surface, Obama appeared to be promoting inclusiveness and friendship, nicely wrapped up as usual with the promotion of values that have universal appeal, but in reality it was a reaffirmation to its allies that the US had not changed tack.

After the positive vibes given off by the APEC meeting in Beijing, Obama's speech, with its business-as-usual message, was a real a downer. The paucity of imagination shown in the old-school vision of division he presented was in stark contrast to the forward-looking inclusiveness elaborated by Beijing earlier in the week.

But, of course, if the US is to continue to play its leading role in world affairs in the 21st century, it needs a bogeyman to star against, and China is the country that best fits the bill.

@LeveragedBuyout
 
.
Obama is not an "old school" American. He was not raised with the American values that were in force during America's rise to being a leading nation. Rather he is a "world citizen" and believes in universal democratic socialism, hence, "one-worldism". That is, his loyalties are not to current American citizens but rather to the "struggling peoples of the "third world" who have been unfairly exploited by white America and Europe. His policies all reflect this mindset, constrained only by his need to gain and keep political power within the American system, and by his narcissism of being important and famous, himself.
 
.
That is, his loyalties are not to current American citizens but rather to the "struggling peoples of the "third world" who have been unfairly exploited by white America and Europe.

Could you elaborate on this, please?

To me Obama is a fail because he picked up where GWB left off, instead of actually changing things (from US foreign policy perspective).

At least before him, there was a viable democratic youth movement calling for reforming US foreign policy as well as domestic inequalities. With him becoming the president, the movement almost ceased to exist.

Of course, there must be other reasons, like this article mentions:

8 Reasons Young Americans Don't Fight Back: How the US Crushed Youth Resistance

Traditionally, young people have energized democratic movements. So it is a major coup for the ruling elite to have created societal institutions that have subdued young Americans and broken their spirit of resistance to domination.

Young Americans—even more so than older Americans—appear to have acquiesced to the idea that the corporatocracy can completely screw them and that they are helpless to do anything about it. A 2010 Gallup poll asked Americans “Do you think the Social Security system will be able to pay you a benefit when you retire?” Among 18- to 34-years-olds, 76 percent of them said no. Yet despite their lack of confidence in the availability of Social Security for them, few have demanded it be shored up by more fairly payroll-taxing the wealthy; most appear resigned to having more money deducted from their paychecks for Social Security, even though they don’t believe it will be around to benefit them.

How exactly has American society subdued young Americans?

1. Student-Loan Debt. Large debt—and the fear it creates—is a pacifying force. There was no tuition at the City University of New York when I attended one of its colleges in the 1970s, a time when tuition at many U.S. public universities was so affordable that it was easy to get a B.A. and even a graduate degree without accruing any student-loan debt. While those days are gone in the United States, public universities continue to be free in the Arab world and are either free or with very low fees in many countries throughout the world. The millions of young Iranians who risked getting shot to protest their disputed 2009 presidential election, the millions of young Egyptians who risked their lives earlier this year to eliminate Mubarak, and the millions of young Americans who demonstrated against the Vietnam War all had in common the absence of pacifying huge student-loan debt.

Today in the United States, two-thirds of graduating seniors at four-year colleges have student-loan debt, including over 62 percent of public university graduates. While average undergraduate debt is close to $25,000, I increasingly talk to college graduates with closer to $100,000 in student-loan debt. During the time in one’s life when it should be easiest to resist authority because one does not yet have family responsibilities, many young people worry about the cost of bucking authority, losing their job, and being unable to pay an ever-increasing debt. In a vicious cycle, student debt has a subduing effect on activism, and political passivity makes it more likely that students will accept such debt as a natural part of life.

2. Psychopathologizing and Medicating Noncompliance. In 1955, Erich Fromm, the then widely respected anti-authoritarian leftist psychoanalyst, wrote, “Today the function of psychiatry, psychology and psychoanalysis threatens to become the tool in the manipulation of man.” Fromm died in 1980, the same year that an increasingly authoritarian America elected Ronald Reagan president, and an increasingly authoritarian American Psychiatric Association added to their diagnostic bible (then the DSM-III) disruptive mental disorders for children and teenagers such as the increasingly popular “oppositional defiant disorder” (ODD). The official symptoms of ODD include “often actively defies or refuses to comply with adult requests or rules,” “often argues with adults,” and “often deliberately does things to annoy other people.”

Many of America’s greatest activists including Saul Alinsky (1909–1972), the legendary organizer and author of Reveille for Radicals and Rules for Radicals, would today certainly be diagnosed with ODD and other disruptive disorders. Recalling his childhood, Alinsky said, “I never thought of walking on the grass until I saw a sign saying ‘Keep off the grass.’ Then I would stomp all over it.” Heavily tranquilizing antipsychotic drugs (e.g. Zyprexa and Risperdal) are now the highest grossing class of medication in the United States ($16 billion in 2010); a major reason for this, according to theJournal of the American Medical Association in 2010, is that many children receiving antipsychotic drugs have nonpsychotic diagnoses such as ODD or some other disruptive disorder (this especially true of Medicaid-covered pediatric patients).

3. Schools That Educate for Compliance and Not for Democracy. Upon accepting the New York City Teacher of the Year Award on January 31, 1990, John Taylor Gatto upset many in attendance by stating: “The truth is that schools don’t really teach anything except how to obey orders. This is a great mystery to me because thousands of humane, caring people work in schools as teachers and aides and administrators, but the abstract logic of the institution overwhelms their individual contributions.” A generation ago, the problem of compulsory schooling as a vehicle for an authoritarian society was widely discussed, but as this problem has gotten worse, it is seldom discussed.

The nature of most classrooms, regardless of the subject matter, socializes students to be passive and directed by others, to follow orders, to take seriously the rewards and punishments of authorities, to pretend to care about things they don’t care about, and that they are impotent to affect their situation. A teacher can lecture about democracy, but schools are essentially undemocratic places, and so democracy is not what is instilled in students. Jonathan Kozol in The Night Is Dark and I Am Far from Home focused on how school breaks us from courageous actions. Kozol explains how our schools teach us a kind of “inert concern” in which “caring”—in and of itself and without risking the consequences of actual action—is considered “ethical.” School teaches us that we are “moral and mature” if we politely assert our concerns, but the essence of school—its demand for compliance—teaches us not to act in a friction-causing manner.

4. “No Child Left Behind” and “Race to the Top.” The corporatocracy has figured out a way to make our already authoritarian schools even more authoritarian. Democrat-Republican bipartisanship has resulted in wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, NAFTA, the PATRIOT Act, the War on Drugs, the Wall Street bailout, and educational policies such as “No Child Left Behind” and “Race to the Top.” These policies are essentially standardized-testing tyranny that creates fear, which is antithetical to education for a democratic society. Fear forces students and teachers to constantly focus on the demands of test creators; it crushes curiosity, critical thinking, questioning authority, and challenging and resisting illegitimate authority. In a more democratic and less authoritarian society, one would evaluate the effectiveness of a teacher not by corporatocracy-sanctioned standardized tests but by asking students, parents, and a community if a teacher is inspiring students to be more curious, to read more, to learn independently, to enjoy thinking critically, to question authorities, and to challenge illegitimate authorities.

5. Shaming Young People Who Take Education—But Not Their Schooling—Seriously. In a 2006 survey in the United States, it was found that 40 percent of children between first and third grade read every day, but by fourth grade, that rate declined to 29 percent. Despite the anti-educational impact of standard schools, children and their parents are increasingly propagandized to believe that disliking school means disliking learning. That was not always the case in the United States. Mark Twain famously said, “I never let my schooling get in the way of my education.” Toward the end of Twain’s life in 1900, only 6 percent of Americans graduated high school. Today, approximately 85 percent of Americans graduate high school, but this is good enough for Barack Obama who told us in 2009, “And dropping out of high school is no longer an option. It’s not just quitting on yourself, it’s quitting on your country.”

The more schooling Americans get, however, the more politically ignorant they are of America’s ongoing class war, and the more incapable they are of challenging the ruling class. In the 1880s and 1890s, American farmers with little or no schooling created a Populist movement that organized America’s largest-scale working people’s cooperative, formed a People’s Party that received 8 percent of the vote in 1892 presidential election, designed a “subtreasury” plan (that had it been implemented would have allowed easier credit for farmers and broke the power of large banks) and sent 40,000 lecturers across America to articulate it, and evidenced all kinds of sophisticated political ideas, strategies and tactics absent today from America’s well-schooled population. Today, Americans who lack college degrees are increasingly shamed as “losers”; however, Gore Vidal and George Carlin, two of America’s most astute and articulate critics of the corporatocracy, never went to college, and Carlin dropped out of school in the ninth grade.

6. The Normalization of Surveillance. The fear of being surveilled makes a population easier to control. While the National Security Agency (NSA) has received publicity for monitoring American citizen’s email and phone conversations, and while employer surveillance has become increasingly common in the United States, young Americans have become increasingly acquiescent to corporatocracy surveillance because, beginning at a young age, surveillance is routine in their lives. Parents routinely check Web sites for their kid’s latest test grades and completed assignments, and just like employers, are monitoring their children’s computers and Facebook pages. Some parents use the GPS in their children’s cell phones to track their whereabouts, and other parents have video cameras in their homes. Increasingly, I talk with young people who lack the confidence that they can even pull off a party when their parents are out of town, and so how much confidence are they going to have about pulling off a democratic movement below the radar of authorities?

7. Television. In 2009, the Nielsen Company reported that TV viewing in the United States is at an all-time high if one includes the following “three screens”: a television set, a laptop/personal computer, and a cell phone. American children average eight hours a day on TV, video games, movies, the Internet, cell phones, iPods, and other technologies (not including school-related use). Many progressives are concerned about the concentrated control of content by the corporate media, but the mere act of watching TV—regardless of the programming—is the primary pacifying agent (private-enterprise prisons have recognized that providing inmates with cable television can be a more economical method to keep them quiet and subdued than it would be to hire more guards).

Television is a dream come true for an authoritarian society: those with the most money own most of what people see; fear-based television programming makes people more afraid and distrustful of one another, which is good for the ruling elite who depend on a “divide and conquer” strategy; TV isolates people so they are not joining together to create resistance to authorities; and regardless of the programming, TV viewers’ brainwaves slow down, transforming them closer to a hypnotic state that makes it difficult to think critically. While playing a video games is not as zombifying as passively viewing TV, such games have become for many boys and young men their only experience of potency, and this “virtual potency” is certainly no threat to the ruling elite.

8. Fundamentalist Religion and Fundamentalist Consumerism. American culture offers young Americans the “choices” of fundamentalist religion and fundamentalist consumerism. All varieties of fundamentalism narrow one’s focus and inhibit critical thinking. While some progressives are fond of calling fundamentalist religion the “opiate of the masses,” they too often neglect the pacifying nature of America’s other major fundamentalism. Fundamentalist consumerism pacifies young Americans in a variety of ways. Fundamentalist consumerism destroys self-reliance, creating people who feel completely dependent on others and who are thus more likely to turn over decision-making power to authorities, the precise mind-set that the ruling elite loves to see. A fundamentalist consumer culture legitimizes advertising, propaganda, and all kinds of manipulations, including lies; and when a society gives legitimacy to lies and manipulativeness, it destroys the capacity of people to trust one another and form democratic movements. Fundamentalist consumerism also promotes self-absorption, which makes it difficult for the solidarity necessary for democratic movements.

These are not the only aspects of our culture that are subduing young Americans and crushing their resistance to domination. The food-industrial complex has helped create an epidemic of childhood obesity, depression, and passivity. The prison-industrial complex keeps young anti-authoritarians “in line” (now by the fear that they may come before judges such as the two Pennsylvania ones who took $2.6 million from private-industry prisons to ensure that juveniles were incarcerated). As Ralph Waldo Emerson observed: “All our things are right and wrong together. The wave of evil washes all our institutions alike.”



Bruce E. Levine is a clinical psychologist and author of Get Up, Stand Up: Uniting Populists, Energizing the Defeated, and Battling the Corporate Elite (Chelsea Green, 2011). His Web site is www.brucelevine.net
 
.
Obama is not an "old school" American. He was not raised with the American values that were in force during America's rise to being a leading nation. Rather he is a "world citizen" and believes in universal democratic socialism, hence, "one-worldism". That is, his loyalties are not to current American citizens but rather to the "struggling peoples of the "third world" who have been unfairly exploited by white America and Europe. His policies all reflect this mindset, constrained only by his need to gain and keep political power within the American system, and by his narcissism of being important and famous, himself.

Very insightful post. :tup:

I wasn't aware that so many Americans see Obama in that way.
 
.
Very insightful post. :tup:

I wasn't aware that so many Americans see Obama in that way.

Thus stuff spews out of right wing media, 24/7. This is the conservative line of thinking.

Its either this or that, there is usually no in-between.
 
. .
Back
Top Bottom