Thread contenitore generico sugli USA

[Amati75]

L'ATTACCO DELL'11 SETTEMBRE È OPERA DEGLI STATI UNITI - TRUMP.

Donald Trump ha dichiarato:

"Mi hanno tappato la bocca per 4 anni, ma ora lo dico sempre, non c'è stato nessun attacco al WTC (torri gemelle), non c'è stato nessun attacco come ci hanno mostrato e non c'erano prove che altri Paesi fossero coinvolti..... ma abbiamo finito per farci trascinare in una guerra in Medio Oriente... Abbiamo speso 9.000 miliardi di dollari, abbiamo ucciso milioni di persone... e cosa abbiamo ottenuto? Niente. Abbiamo ottenuto solo morte e sangue".

https://twitter.com/EnricoFaraboll1/...041383768?s=20

L'ex Presidente degli Stati Uniti ha definito la politica estera del Paese una vergogna, osservando come l'attuale governo sia stato nuovamente coinvolto nel conflitto in Medio Oriente.

O sei una capra in Inglese come quello che ha scritto/tradotto il video nel tweet o sei un falso come una banconota da tre euro….

Quale delle due , capra o disonesto?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[alpha12000]

https://www.theamericanconservative....eid=7c0dc7b7cb

Taiwanese voters have spoken, elevating Vice President Lai Ching-te to the presidency. By selecting a candidate from the independence-minded Democratic Progressive Party for the third time in a row, the island state’s 24 million people gave a collective uplifted middle finger to the People’s Republic of China, and especially President Xi Jinping.

Lai’s victory was modest: 40 percent of the vote in a three-way race, with the DPP losing its parliamentary majority. Nevertheless, the PRC exhibited its displeasure, issuing warnings against separatism and undertaking military operations nearby. More significant was China’s political counterattack, as the Pacific island nation of Nauru shifted its recognition from the Republic of China to the PRC, reducing Taipei’s diplomatic partners to just 12.

So far, this looks a bit like Kabuki theater—a seemingly intense battle in which no one gets hurt. Yet Beijing’s patience appears to be waning, with Xi insisting that the issue must be resolved and the People’s Liberation Army training to seize Taiwan if necessary.

Groupthink dominates Washington’s position on Taiwan. U.S. political leaders assume America’s support for Taipei irrespective of cost, which few detail. Indeed, President Joe Biden has repeatedly promised to fight for Taiwan (which his staff has equally often, but unconvincingly, repudiated). In contrast, a majority of Americans oppose the use of U.S. troops.

Some otherwise serious policymakers assume that the Chinese would scatter if Washington simply declared its intentions. Others figure the U.S. would have to win since America always wins, or at least is supposed to.

Unfortunately, such observers are living a dream.

China has been rapidly expanding its military forces and currently deploys the world’s second most powerful navy. The PRC has embarked upon a major nuclear build-up to shrink America’s advantage in this critical area. China concentrates its forces in Asia rather than dispersing them globally. Beijing can rely on scores of mainland military bases while Washington must project power across the Pacific Ocean.

Finally, Taiwan matters far more to the Chinese than the American people. One reason is history: Japan seized the islands in 1895 after defeating the Chinese Empire during what was known as the Century of Humiliation. Nationalistic Chinese want Taiwan back. Security is another important concern—little different than what animated Washington’s refusal to accept a Soviet military presence in Cuba in 1962.

Americans understandably sympathize with Taiwan. The Republic of China is a vibrant democracy, an outpost of liberty in the shadow of the world’s greatest despotism. Indeed, Beijing is moving backwards, with Xi Jinping looking more like Mao Zedong every day. Nevertheless, sympathy does not a casus belli make.

Especially when the costs of war would be so great. Any conflict would be very different from America’s recent Mideast fights. Defense Priority’s Lyle Goldstein, who long taught at the Naval War College, warned:

The military balance in the Western Pacific and especially around Taiwan has shifted decisively. U.S. Navy and Air Force units would face enormous losses in any attempt to reinforce the beleaguered island. Even the vaunted U.S. submarine force almost certainly could not prevail in such circumstances, since it has limited numbers and firepower. Moreover, Beijing has been working assiduously on decisive countermeasures to American submarines, including sea mines. Beijing would deploy its missile forces to easily gain vast superiority in the air, enabling an enormous mainland assault to go forward—spearheaded by heliborne infantry and commandos. The only thing worse than such a sad day would be either the utter defeat of American expeditionary forces at the lonely end of a 6,500 mile supply line, or the rather conceivable resort to nuclear war.

Although nothing is certain, the U.S. usually loses wargames of the potential conflict, and even victory, meaning Taiwan remains unconquered, comes at a heavy cost, with multiple carriers sunk, hundreds of aircraft downed, and thousands of military personnel killed. Moreover, escalation, including nuclear weapons, would be likely. The PRC would do whatever it thought necessary to prevent U.S. domination just off its coast. Washington would have to strike the Chinese mainland, which would force Beijing to in turn target American territory. Never have two major conventional combatants possessed nuclear weapons.

Even the minimum expected military losses, compounded by the significant economic harm, would undercut other American defense commitments. Proposals to accelerate military outlays ignore Washington’s rising debt burden, which is approaching record levels. Americans aren’t likely to slash social programs to protect Taiwan. Finally, even victory would be temporary, with China retreating to rearm and prepare for the next round, rather like Germany after its defeat in the First World War.

Is anything at stake with Taiwan worth incurring these costs and taking these risks?

Going to war should require an extremely important interest. Going to war against a powerful nuclear-armed state should require a truly vital or existential interest. None is present in Taiwan. The Taiwanese people deserve to decide their own political future, and virtually none identify with the PRC. Protecting that right, however, is neither an obligation of the U.S. nor worth risking America’s future.

Talk of democracy versus autocracy is meaningless boilerplate. Washington cares little about liberty when it overthrows democracies that it dislikes and embraces autocracies that it favors. Just watch President Joe Biden grovel before the Saudi royals. Freedom House ranks their loathsome regime even lower than the PRC. Anyway, democracy in America should be the highest priority for U.S. policymakers.

Nor is Taiwan’s dominant semiconductor chip industry reason for war, which would disrupt global supplies. China would blockade the island and combat could flatten the factories. Indeed, such facilities would not likely survive no matter who won. Washington probably would destroy them rather than allow them to fall into China’s hands. Fear of over-dependence on Taiwanese chip facilities should lead to production and supply diversification, not military intervention. (Oddly, former president Donald Trump equivocated on defending Taiwan because, he believes, it created its chip industry at America’s expense.)

U.S. officials also insist that Washington must preserve an autonomous Taiwan to inhibit Chinese naval operations further into the Pacific. Yet Beijing has greatly expanded its geographic reach without holding the island. Moreover, every time American policymakers announce that they want to protect Taipei to reinforce US domination of the Asia-Pacific, they intensify Chinese determination to regain Taiwan. It makes no sense to go to war with China to control a territory that is supposed to prevent China from starting a war.

Hawks who insist on fighting every war big and small to maintain “credibility” warn that America’s Pacific allies would lose confidence in Washington if it did not combat Beijing over Taiwan. Yet the U.S. formalizes security commitments with defense treaties. Congress has not done so with Taipei for a reason. All great powers set priorities and make choices, just as Washington is not defending Ukraine. In contrast, America proved its willingness to defend South Korea, at great cost.

Moreover, none of America’s allies have committed to go to war with the U.S. on Taiwan’s behalf. The treaties with Japan and South Korea are supposed to be “mutual.” These nations have much more at stake in Taiwan than does America. Why should Washington commit if they won’t? Indeed, constantly reassuring allies against every contingency discourages them from doing more for their own defense. Both Seoul and Tokyo have long lagged in defense efforts since they can rely on America. In practice, Washington promising to do more means they will do less.

Ultimately, it is not in the interests of the American people, on whose behalf Washington is supposed to operate, to battle Beijing over Taiwan. However, that doesn’t mean the U.S. shouldn’t do anything. To start, Americans should help arm Taipei. The latter needs to do a much better job defending itself, in both staffing its military and deploying the right weapons, especially anti-ship missiles. There is much that the Taiwanese should learn from the Russo-Ukraine war. The U.S. and Taipei should even have discreet discussions about the latter’s interest in possessing nuclear weapons. Proliferation is undesirable, but still might be the least bad option. Better nations at risk deter China than rely on America.

The U.S. also should work with allied and friendly states, in Asia and Europe especially, to prepare economic penalties should the PRC use force against Taiwan. This won’t be easy, given how such nations benefit from Chinese trade. Nevertheless, war in Northeast Asia would have catastrophic regional and global impacts. One study estimated the likely economic cost at $10 trillion. The best way to deter Chinese military action would be to ensure that the denizens of Zhongnanhai counted the cost before they embarked on war.

Finally, the U.S. should seek to reassure the PRC. That might seem counterintuitive, but few Chinese want to go to war. They hope to force Taiwan to agree to some form of unification without fighting. Despite his increasingly tough rhetoric, even Xi realizes that military failure would be catastrophic for China and him personally. His ongoing military purges suggest that he is not confident in the PLA. Nothing is foreordained.

However, warn three China scholars, war is more likely “if Chinese leaders believe that the United States will take advantage of their restraint to promote Taiwan’s formal independence.… Beijing may determine that refraining from an attack would mean it would forever lose the possibility of unification or would allow the United States to restore something akin to a defense alliance with Taiwan. And if China comes to that conclusion, then Washington’s focus on beefing up military power in the region may still fail to prevent a war.”

Analysts broadly agree that a Taiwanese declaration of independence likely would trigger a Chinese military response. Unfortunately, Beijing appears to believe that recent behavior by both Taipei and Washington indicates that Taiwan’s objectives have shifted toward independence, with Washington’s support. In fact, several Chinese officials have told me that there is no returning to the status quo ante because they believe that means eventual separation. What matters is not what the U.S. and Taiwan intend, but what Beijing believes they intend.

Thus, it is essential not to stoke Chinese paranoia. Politicians determined to use Taiwan to score partisan points risk spurring a catastrophic conflict with horrendous consequences. The best hope to avoid war is to convince Beijing that the peaceful status quo remains in its interest. That requires convincing the PRC that the peaceful status quo truly is the status quo. Negotiations for the U.S., China, and Taiwan to all step back from political contention and military conflict might offer the best hope to reduce the likelihood of conflict.

Unfortunately, the Taiwanese people live in a bad neighborhood and must adapt to local realities, meaning a potentially aggressive China. This may be unfair, but life is unfair. Washington’s duty is to protect Americans, not Taiwanese, however sympathetic the latter’s cause. The U.S. should firmly rule out military intervention while pursuing other policies designed to dissuade China from loosing the uncertain furies of war.

[occidentale]

Gli Stati Uniti e l'Iraq inizieranno presto i colloqui sul futuro della presenza militare statunitense nel paese, dopo la richiesta del governo iracheno di ritirare le proprie truppe .
Attualmente ci sono circa 2.500 soldati in Iraq.

[occidentale]

Kenneth Eugene Smith, 58 anni, è stato giustiziato con un'esecuzione per ipossia da azoto avvenuta in un carcere dell'Alabama.
È la prima volta al mondo che viene usata questa tecnica per applicare la pena di morte.

[Marximiliano]

C' da dire, lo ribadisco, che quantomeno quella non l'ha votata nessuno.
Positivo o negativo che sia, a seconda del punto di vista da cui si guarda la cosa, ma non è lì perché ha vinto le elezioni.

Quindi il nostro sistema è malato, ma quello già si sapeva

[IlWehrwolf]

La denuncia di Robert Kennedy Jr. contro la super lobby dei 'neocons'



Il candidato alla presidenza Usa: "I neoconservatori dirigono l'amministrazione Biden"
"La forza trainante dietro alle guerre in questo paese è stata un gruppo di persone chiamato i neoconservatori che sono infiltrati nel Dipartimento di Stato. Hanno pubblicato il loro manifesto alla fine degli anni '90, chiamato ‘Il progetto per un nuovo secolo americano’. Questo documento ha delineato i loro piani per il mondo. Hanno affermato che l'America aveva vinto la Guerra Fredda e, come vincitrice, era nostro privilegio governare il mondo per almeno un secolo".
Sono state queste le parole del candidato indipendente alla presidenza degli Stato Uniti Robert Kennedy Jr. Intervistato da Dave Rubin di "The Rubin Report".
Il “Project for a new american century" si tratta di un "progetto per un nuovo secolo americano e sosteneva che dovremmo compiere questa impresa attraverso l'uso del nostro superiore potere militare e attraverso la violenza", ha detto il candidato alla Casa Bianca. "Hanno elencato otto paesi che dovevano essere rovesciati, tra cui l'Iraq. Poco dopo la pubblicazione, i neoconservatori nella Casa Bianca, che circondavano il presidente George W. Bush, ci hanno ingannato riguardo alla guerra in Iraq, dicendo che c'erano armi di distruzione di massa e suggerendo falsamente che Saddam avesse qualcosa a che fare con gli attacchi dell'11 settembre. Quella guerra ci è costata, alla fine, circa 8 trilioni di dollari. Abbiamo lasciato l'Iraq peggio di come l'abbiamo trovato. Abbiamo ucciso più iracheni di Saddam Hussein. Il paese è ora in mezzo ad una battaglia incoerente tra sciiti e sunniti. Abbiamo creato l'ISIS (Hillary Clinton: “L’Isis è una nostra creatura ma ci è scappata di mano", ndr). Abbiamo spinto 2 milioni di rifugiati in Europa, destabilizzando tutte le nazioni europee probabilmente per il prossimo secolo. Tutti quei neoconservatori sono stati cacciati dall'incarico e pensavamo che fossero andati per sempre. Ma sono riapparsi prima nell'amministrazione Obama. Ora dirigono l'amministrazione Biden", ha detto Kennedy.
Anche il compianto giornalista Giulietto Chiesa aveva parlato del progetto dei neoconservatori: il loro testo 'guida', aveva spiegato Chiesa, era un rapporto di novanta pagine intitolato ‘Ricostruire le difese dell'America: strategie, forze e risorse per un nuovo secolo’ in cui si legge chiaramente che ‘l’America dovrebbe cercare di preservare ed estendere la sua posizione di leadership globale mantenendo la superiorità delle forze armate USA’ e che il governo degli Stati Uniti dovrebbe avvantaggiarsi della sua superiorità militare ed economica per guadagnare una incontestabile superiorità attraverso tutti i mezzi possibili, comprese le forze militari. Inoltre nel rapporto vi è un passaggio assai curioso: ‘Il processo di trasformazione, anche se porterà un cambiamento rivoluzionario, risulterà molto lungo, se non si dovesse verificare un evento catastrofico e catalizzante, come una nuova Pearl Harbor'.

https://www.antimafiaduemila.com/hom...i-neocons.html

[Halberdier]

Kenneth Eugene Smith, 58 anni, è stato giustiziato con un'esecuzione per ipossia da azoto avvenuta in un carcere dell'Alabama.
È la prima volta al mondo che viene usata questa tecnica per applicare la pena di morte.

L'Umanità evolve, a quanto pare...

Quindi il nostro sistema è malato, ma quello già si sapeva

[Halberdier]

In Alabama si uccide... con l'azoto. L'ONU: «Potrebbe essere tortura»
Si tratta della prima esecuzione effettuata con questa controversa pratica negli Stati Uniti. Giustiziato Kenneth Smith.

WASHINGTON - Il boia colpisce in Alabama, dove Kenneth Smith è stato giustiziato con l'azoto. È la prima volta che tale controversa pratica viene usata negli Stati Uniti per una condanna a morte da quando è stata introdotta l'iniezione letale nel 1982.
Smith è stato dichiarato morto alle 20:25 locali, dopo che l'esecuzione è stata rimandata di alcune ore per attendere l'esito dell'ultimo appello alla Corte suprema americana.

L'esecuzione con l'azoto - Quella andata in scena nella serata di ieri in Alabama (la notte di oggi in Svizzera) è la prima condanna a morte eseguita utilizzando l'azoto. Ma in cosa consiste? In pratica al condannato a morte viene messa sul volto una mascherina che emette gas a pressione come quelle che si usano per somministrare ossigeno in ospedale, solo che invece dell'ossigeno in questo caso pompa azoto. In pratica si muore per asfissia, visto che l'azoto di per sé è un gas inerte. «La procedura per uccidere Smith è durata in tutto 22 minuti», hanno precisato i giornalisti presenti all'esecuzione. La decisione dell'Alabama di utilizzare questa pratica è stata ampiamente criticata. Soprattutto a causa della sua crudeltà. Basti pensare che in molti Stati questa tecnica è stata espressamente vietata per uccidere animali di grossa taglia.

Condannato per omicidio - Kenneth Smith, 58 anni, era stato condannato a morte nel 1989 per aver ucciso una donna l'anno prima. Un delitto, quello commesso da Smith, commissionato dal marito della vittima che voleva intascare i soldi dell'assicurazione. Per l'assassinio Smith e un altro sicario (già giustiziato nel 2010) avevano intascato mille dollari a testa. Smith venne condannato, come detto, nel 1989, alla pena capitale da un giudice che inasprì la sentenza della giuria popolare (che si era raccomandata di punire Smith con l'ergastolo).

L'ONU: «Potrebbe essere tortura» - Il metodo di esecuzione con l'azoto, usato nella notte in Alabama, «potrebbe essere una tortura». Lo afferma l'Onu. «Mi rammarico profondamente per l'esecuzione, nonostante le serie preoccupazioni che questo nuovo e non testato metodo di soffocamento mediante gas di azoto possa equivalere a tortura o a un trattamento crudele, inumano o degradanti», ha affermato l'Alto commissario delle Nazioni Unite per i diritti umani, Volker Turk. «La pena di morte è incompatibile con il diritto fondamentale alla vita. Esorto tutti gli Stati a mettere in atto una moratoria sul suo utilizzo, come passo verso l'abolizione universale». L'Unione europea dal canto suo esprime «profondo rammarico» per «l'esecuzione di Kenneth Eugene Smith avvenuta ieri nello Stato dell'Alabama, costringendo il detenuto a respirare azoto puro». «Secondo i maggiori esperti, questo metodo è una punizione particolarmente crudele e insolita», scrive il Servizio d'azione esterno dell'Ue. «L'Ue - si legge nella nota - si oppone fermamente alla pena di morte in ogni momento».

https://www.tio.ch/dal-mondo/attuali...essere-tortura

[alpha12000]

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/...ce-poll-finds/

At least 70 percent of registered Chicago voters say they do not approve of far-left mayor Brandon Johnson’s performance after his first eight months in office, according to a new poll.
The poll, conducted for the education-reform advocacy group Stand for Children, was designed to measure Chicagoans’ opinions on school-choice policy. However, the poll also contained generalized questions about the performance of local politicians. Voters were asked “how you feel each of the following is performing” in response to a list of names that included “Brandon Johnson as Chicago Mayor,” according to poll results obtained by the Chicago Sun-Times.
Stand for Children has not publicly released its poll data on local politicians.
The poll found that 43 percent of those surveyed rated Johnson’s mayoral performance as “poor,” while 27 percent said it was “only fair,” according to the Sun-Times. Only 7 percent rated Johnson’s performance as “excellent” and 14 percent rated it as “good.” Ten percent said they “didn’t know.”
Among the black men surveyed, 67 percent rated Johnson’s performance as mayor as “fair” or “poor,” while 14 percent said it was “excellent” or “good.” Seventy-five percent of the white voters surveyed gave Johnson a “fair” or “poor” job rating, as did 69 percent of Latinos.
The poll results are a stinging early rebuke for Johnson, a far-left activist and former teachers-union lobbyist who became mayor of the decidedly Democratic city in May. He defeated career school-district manager Paul Vallas in last year’s mayoral race, winning the backing of U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders and the Democratic Socialists of America.
Chicago Democrats have generally dismissed the poll of 500 registered voters, taking issue with the framing of questions and questioning who was actually surveyed.
Chicago Teachers Union President Stacy Davis Gates derisively referred to the education-reform advocate behind the poll as “Stand on Children” for its support of school choice, and she dismissed the group as “right wing,” according to the Sun-Times. The politically-powerful Chicago Teachers Union backed Johnson’s mayoral campaign.
Stand for Children is non-partisan and headed by a Democrat.
According to its website, “Stand for Children is a unique catalyst for education equity and racial justice, to create a brighter future for us all.” Jessica Handy, the organization’s executive director, spent five years working for the Illinois Senate Democrats before joining Stand for Children. The organization works to grow funding for public schools, expand access to dual credit, promote early literacy, and protect juveniles in the justice system.
Christian Perry, Johnson’s political director, refused to acknowledge grounds for the widespread dissatisfaction reflected in the poll. “We’re very proud about the mayor’s accomplishments thus far. The mayor’s gonna continue to invest in the working-class people of this city, like he’s done throughout the first year of his tenure,” Perry told the Sun-Times, pointing to a progressive checklist that includes eliminating the sub-minimum wages for tipped workers, increasing paid leave and increasing jobs for young people.
“We don’t take any stock in skewed polls commissioned by those opposed to the mayor’s agenda,” Johnson’s campaign spokesman, Bill Neidhart, wrote in a text message to the Sun-Times. “This is the same kind of poll that showed Brandon Johnson wouldn’t be mayor. They were wrong then. They are wrong now,”
Ben Krompack, vice president of Tulchin Research, which conducted the poll, denied that it was skewed or illegitimate. The poll was conducted January 4-9.
“We conducted a multi-modal survey, which was interviews initiated by live telephone interviewers calling both land lines and cell phones as well as surveys completed on-line from individuals contacted by either email or text message,” Krompack told the Sun-Times. “It’s a representative sample of registered voters in Chicago. The demographics — age, race, geography, gender — are reflective of the demographic voter electorate in the city.”
Handy told the Sun-Times that her group bankrolled a “credible poll by a credible pollster.” She also denied that Stand for Children is universally “opposed to the mayor’s agenda.”
“We disagree on some items, but there are many things that we agree with them on, particularly with regard to equitable school funding,” she said. “We’ve worked hard … to put forth policies that are student-centered first and grounded in equity.”
The poll comes in the wake of a late-December announcement by the Chicago Board of Education that it wants to move away from a system that allows families to choose schools and instead return to a system that prioritizes neighborhood schools.
Last month, the board approved a resolution to lay out a “transformational” strategic plan to “transition away from privatization and admissions/enrollment policies and approaches that further stratification and inequity in CPS and drive student enrollment away from neighborhood schools,” according to the Sun-Times.
Regarding the heated responses to Stand for Children’s recent poll, Handy told National Review, “It’s not focusing on the purpose of the polls — most polls contain those [kinds of] context questions. The story is really that parents and families are not on board with the mayor’s plans to transition away from public school options. Most public school kids attend a school that is not their neighborhood school. A plan to transition away from the current system is damaging to the kids, to their families, and to the city itself.”
“There are many things that we work on, public school choice is not the main thing we work on. This poll was in response to an overreaching proposal from the mayor’s office to do away with schools that many, many families and kids are relying on,” Handy said.
The Stand for Children poll found that support for school choice was overwhelming.
Eighty-two percent of Chicago voters polled said they believe that families in Chicago Public Schools should be able to choose the public school that best meets their student’s needs, whether that’s their neighborhood school, a school in another neighborhood, or a magnet, selective enrollment, or charter school. It was even higher among parents, 86 percent.
Sixty-three percent of voters felt that eliminating school choice would limit opportunities and increase school segregation.
Half of the families in Chicago Public Schools who do not choose their neighborhood school said they would move to find a school that is a better fit for them if their neighborhood school was the only public option available to them. Of the families that said they would move, 30 percent would opt to leave the Chicago altogether.

[occidentale]