Ever wonder why Defense Secretary Ash Carter is such an ardent backer of TPP? Why did he say “passing TPP is as important to me as another aircraft carrier”? The NYTimes (which backs the TPP) calls it “a 12-nation accord that administration officials view as a linchpin for the Obama administration’s strategic pivot to Asia.”
This is not an economic deal, it is a strategic-military deal aimed at expanding control over the region. It also has something to do with the massive U.S. military presence across the Pacific-Asian region, which costs the American taxpayer hundreds of billions per year – and for what?
The justification for this military expansion into Asia was just trumpeted by Clinton:
When we say America is exceptional, it doesn’t mean that people from other places don’t feel deep national pride, just like we do. It means that we recognize America’s unique and unparalleled ability to be a force for peace and progress, a champion for freedom and opportunity. Our power comes with a responsibility to lead, humbly, thoughtfully, and with a fierce commitment to our values. Because, when America fails to lead, we leave a vacuum that either causes chaos or other countries or networks rush in to fill the void.”
Hillary Clinton’s 'exceptionalist' warpath - New Cold War: Ukraine and Beyond
This is utter bullshyt, as should be clear by now. Clinton’s sleazy relationships with the Saudis, the debacle in Iraq, etc. show that the post-Cold War American Empire program is just an engine of bloodshed and corruption with no justification at all – there is no expansionary Communist threat to oppose, no Axis power set on world domination to block – all you have is the world’s last superpower, struggling to justify its huge military budget by inventing threats (China! Russia!) that don’t actually exist.
Notice also how the corporate media refuses to ask Clinton questions about this? This is a huge reason that Clinton is viewed unfavorably by over half the electorate – and yet she never gets any questions challenging her position on foreign military spending from the corporate media, nor from the “liberal progressive non-profit” outfits that are backing her:
Although Salon.com, yet another member of the mighty Clinton propaganda Wurlitzer, recently described Trump as a latter-day Mussolini, it’s actually Clinton who is pandering to the Black Shirts. Somehow she has gotten it into her head that the best way to attack Trump is to bash him from the right.
The fact is, massive cuts to U.S. foreign military spending are inevitable, and without them, there’s no way that the domestic U.S. economy will improve – hundreds of billions of dollars need to be moved from military to domestic infrastructure programs (for example, a modern electrical grid is expected to cost $150 billion; Europe already has this in place).
Instead of investing in the American domestic economy and the American people, Obama and his crew are really saying they can instead exert military control over Asian trade, to ensure that Wall Street continues to get a slice of the pie on every international transaction – and then, Wall Street can keep financing their pet politicians like Obama and Clinton and Bush. But that’s Obama for you – another Winston Churchill trying to hold on to a global empire that is doomed to fall apart.
This is not an economic deal, it is a strategic-military deal aimed at expanding control over the region. It also has something to do with the massive U.S. military presence across the Pacific-Asian region, which costs the American taxpayer hundreds of billions per year – and for what?
The justification for this military expansion into Asia was just trumpeted by Clinton:
When we say America is exceptional, it doesn’t mean that people from other places don’t feel deep national pride, just like we do. It means that we recognize America’s unique and unparalleled ability to be a force for peace and progress, a champion for freedom and opportunity. Our power comes with a responsibility to lead, humbly, thoughtfully, and with a fierce commitment to our values. Because, when America fails to lead, we leave a vacuum that either causes chaos or other countries or networks rush in to fill the void.”
Hillary Clinton’s 'exceptionalist' warpath - New Cold War: Ukraine and Beyond
This is utter bullshyt, as should be clear by now. Clinton’s sleazy relationships with the Saudis, the debacle in Iraq, etc. show that the post-Cold War American Empire program is just an engine of bloodshed and corruption with no justification at all – there is no expansionary Communist threat to oppose, no Axis power set on world domination to block – all you have is the world’s last superpower, struggling to justify its huge military budget by inventing threats (China! Russia!) that don’t actually exist.
Notice also how the corporate media refuses to ask Clinton questions about this? This is a huge reason that Clinton is viewed unfavorably by over half the electorate – and yet she never gets any questions challenging her position on foreign military spending from the corporate media, nor from the “liberal progressive non-profit” outfits that are backing her:
Although Salon.com, yet another member of the mighty Clinton propaganda Wurlitzer, recently described Trump as a latter-day Mussolini, it’s actually Clinton who is pandering to the Black Shirts. Somehow she has gotten it into her head that the best way to attack Trump is to bash him from the right.
The fact is, massive cuts to U.S. foreign military spending are inevitable, and without them, there’s no way that the domestic U.S. economy will improve – hundreds of billions of dollars need to be moved from military to domestic infrastructure programs (for example, a modern electrical grid is expected to cost $150 billion; Europe already has this in place).
Instead of investing in the American domestic economy and the American people, Obama and his crew are really saying they can instead exert military control over Asian trade, to ensure that Wall Street continues to get a slice of the pie on every international transaction – and then, Wall Street can keep financing their pet politicians like Obama and Clinton and Bush. But that’s Obama for you – another Winston Churchill trying to hold on to a global empire that is doomed to fall apart.