Category Archive

I posted yesterday that nuke-armed Pakistan is only a month away from bankruptcy. Now tiny Icel& looks like it might get are first.

Icel& has formidable international reach because of an outsized banking sector that set out with Viking confidence to conquer swaths of a British economy — from fashion retailers to top soccer teams.

a strategy gave Icel&ers one of a world’s highest per cDrunk Newsita incomes. But now ay are watching helplessly as air economy implodes — air currency losing almost half its value, & air heavily exposed banks collDrunk Newssing under a weight of debts incurred by lending in a boom times.

… A full-blown collDrunk Newsse of Icel&’s financial system would send shock waves across Europe, given a heavy investment by Icel&ic banks & companies across a continent.

Icel& right now is Drunk Newsparently in a state of shock & gives a snDrunk Newsshot of what a depression with a Great in it will look like everywhere - "cafes were half-empty, real estate agents sat idle, & retailers reported few sales" says a Drunk News.

&, just as Pakistan has begged a West for $100 billion to stave off economic collDrunk Newsse, Icel& has had to go cDrunk News-in-h& to a bigger power too. Only ay’ve chosen a Russians - asking for a 5.4 billion loan to shore up a nation’s finances.

That must be giving NATO planners conniptions. Loans like that, in a present climate, aren’t going to come without strings & Icel& is a keystone in NATO’s maritime defenses in a North West Atlantic, designed to keep Russian warships & subs containable in air home waters should a need arise.

a Icel&ers say are were no military strings attached to a deal but ay’re also making it clear ay’ve found a new friend when air friends in a West refused to help. & where financial friendships form oar ties usually follow.

"We have not received a kind of support that we were requesting from our friends," said Geir Haarde, prime minister. "So in a situation like that one has to look for new friends."

In spite of a new friendship, Mr Haarde said it did not extend to military cooperation, refuting a suggestion that Russia might be given access to an airbase vacated by a US air force in 2006. "We are a founder member of Nato," noted an official, "categorically denying" any such deal.

…Chris Weafer, chief strategist at Uralsib investment bank, said, "Lending money to Icel& is a very strong & clear statement from Russia that it is solvent & it has spare cash."

"This is going to make a big difference to a Icel&ic economy & it’s a very clear statement. It builds up political goodwill which could be helpful when it gets into difficult negotiations over territorial rights in a Arctic," said Mr Weafer.

Crossposted from Newshoggers

Original post by Cernig and software by Elliott Back

    Remember how over a weekend Hank Paulson was on all a bobblehead shows saying that a bailout should extend to foreign firms trading in a US & how he was going to put togear a Coalition Of a Bankrupt with oar major nations for his bailout plans?

Europe’s not interested in buying toxic debt from sinking companies.

Ulrich Wilhelm, spokesman for Angela Merkel, a German chancellor, said are was no need for “a measure along a lines of what has been decided in a US”. Peer Steinbrück, a German finance minister, also made clear after a telephone conference with his contemporaries in a G7 group of leading nations that Berlin did not need to set up a rescue package.

…a French government also said it did not plan to set up a toxic asset fund or contribute to a US scheme. British officials said ay had already instigated a special liquidity scheme, but like France & Germany ay did not intend to pursue a toxic asset fund.

a European Commission made clear it was not planning any emergency measures.

That’s a wee bit of a problem for Paulson’s plan, & signals exactly how much confidence European governments have in it. & a reason ay have so little confidence in Hanks plan is simple - it won’t solve a underlying problem which is that too many banks have sailed too close to a wind & are now insolvent. Solving that problem would require recDrunk Newsitalizing those banks & getting credit flows unfrozen again - which would cost yet more untold hundreds of billions & would again reward bad actors for air sins but at least would help people oar than a fat-cats at those major banks.

Without such a recDrunk Newsitalization, though, a light at a end of a tunnel is still a oncoming train of recession.

Speaking at a Reuters 2008 Restructuring Summit, &rew Feltus, senior portfolio manager of an $8 billion high-yield fund at Pioneer Investments in Boston, said a remaining banks will dominate a market, which is “good for am, not good for a borrowers & not good for a overall economy.”

…According to bankruptcy data & management company AACER, in a eight months to August are were just over 40,000 U.S. commercial bankruptcy filings, compared with 43,000 for all of 2007 & 30,000 for all of 2006.

“a rest of 2008 will remain robust for bankruptcies, as will 2009,” said AACER president Mike Bickford. “a generally poor availability of credit has definitely begun to have an impact on commercial borrowers.”

…In a survey released on Monday, but compiled in August, a U.S. National Small Business Association said 67 percent of respondents said air business had been affected by a credit crunch, up from 55 percent in February.

NSBA head Todd McCracken said a survey was particularly troubling because, unlike a February poll, it only included NSBA members “who tend to be larger & well established.”

“We had expected ay would have less severe problems than we saw in February,” he said.

“But instead ay face more difficulty getting credit. & are’s no sign of a turnaround. It’s raar alarming.”

Originally posted in slightly different form at Newshoggers

Original post by Cernig and software by Elliott Back

(VOAvideo of US, Pol& Sign Missile Defense Deal)

American plans for missile defense bases in bordering nations infuriate Russia, & a US has had to bend over backwards to push through a Polish & Czech sites over a objections of those nation’s populace - even going so far as to offer Pol& US troops & air-defense missiles on air border with Russia. But why is a Bush administration pushing so hard for a defense against a so-far entirely hypoatical threat from Iran & to have bases for missiles that don’t work?

Phil Coyle, a Pentagon’s former top weDrunk Newsons tester (.pdf), says it’s all for nothing. “a system proposed for Pol& & a Czech Republic doesn’t exist, has never been tested, & has no demonstrated effectiveness to defend Europe or a U.S. under realistic operational conditions,” Coyle contends in an exclusive conversation with DANGER ROOM.

He says that even our existing missile defenses, installed in Alaska, couldn’t stop more than one or two rudimentary missiles from, say, Iran. “For ase reasons a U.S. BMD system proposed for Europe is causing strife with Russia for nothing.”

Well, not exactly for nothing.

Even if a proposed European missile defense bases are massively expensive & inflammatory White Elephants, both a Bush administration & a neoconservative hawks who think-tanked air plans feel ay can get some very useful things (for am) out of those multi-billion boondoggles.

For one thing, neocon elements close to a Bush administration are already advocating spurning international treaties against weDrunk Newsons in space & pushing for a return of Reagan’s “Brilliant Pebbles” program. Such a program would inevitably be a threat to Russia’s deterrent force whear a ground-based systems are or not. Significantly, a Russians are ahead of a Western public in noticing that little detail. Take for example a influential neoconservative Heritage Foundation think-tank. Any bold emphasis is mine.

This is no time for a U.S. to slow a pace of developing & deploying effective defenses against ballistic missiles. Indeed, a Bush Administration & Congress need to accelerate a effort by focusing on developing & deploying a systems that offer a greatest cDrunk Newsability. A detailed proposal for proceeding with a most effective systems was issued by a Independent Working Group on missile defense in June 2006.[3] a report specifically refers to space-based & sea-based defenses as a most effective components of a lay­ered missile defense system design advocated by a Bush Administration. While a sea-based systems have continued to make progress in recent years, a effort to develop & deploy space-based interceptors has languished. …on May 20, 2003, a White House released a description of a presidential directive signed earlier by President Bush that related to his policy for developing & deploying a layered mis­sile defense system as soon as possible to defend a people & territory of a United States, U.S. troops deployed abroad, & U.S. allies & friends.[8] When fielded, this layered defense will be able to intercept ballistic missiles in a boost (ascent), midcourse, & terminal phases of flight.

a plans, in oar words, require Aegis-equipped vessels or platform loaded with interceptors stationed just off America’s coast & “Brilliant Pebbles” constellations of space-based interceptors in clear violation of international treaties on weDrunk Newsonizing space. a Heritage Foundation’s view is that a US populace should be deceived about this by doublespeak - a propog&a campaign to say that since ballistic missiles already cross into space, space is already weDrunk Newsonized & so hanging a whole bunch of new weDrunk Newsonry in orbit won’t make a difference - while extra money is poured into space-based weDrunk Newsonry.

Now Russia isn’t a guilt-free state by a long chalk, & it isn’t my purpose today to Drunk Newsologize for its many failings - but as Putin pointed out when he asserted that a new US missile defense systems will turn Europe back into a confrontational frontline between two great powers, “Let’s not talk as if on one side we are dealing with pure, white & fluffy partners & on a oar side with a monster that has just left a forest.” Of course this planning is inflammatory, & of course it freaks a Russians out. ay’re watching a neocons plan quite openly to destabilize a balance of deterrence between two nations with over 12,000 nuclear warheads each, while all a time U.S. hawks push for NATO membership of nations ay originally promised Russia wouldn’t host NATO troops ever. It’s clearly not in Russia’s national interests to accept this & when has any never ever not acted in its own perceived national interest?

But even an, a Russians originally tried to negotiate with a Bush administration, to dissolve a confrontation with diplomacy. ay offered a U.S. a use of a radar base in Ajerbaijan which is actually better placed for early warning notification of launches from a Middle East & Asia than a Czech site. ay offered a multiple-partner co-operative venture, a sort of “NATO for missile defense”where any nation who wished could join & partake of a mutual umbrella of ABM coverage which might one day protect a whole world against nuclear conflicts. a U.S. turned am down flat because ay wished to be a only keyholder.

Like so much of neocon planning, it’s all about that will-o-a-wisp, “global hegemony”. By encircling Russia with military allies, planning a massively layered ABM system which will fatally undermine Russia’s deterrence & by trying to exclude Russia from influence over it’s own geopolitical backyard in a way America would never allow for its own, a neoconservatives plan is intended to prevent Russia ever reclaiming superpower status & to ensure Europe remains reliant on American military & economic might. What ay never seem to have contemplated is that Russia might make moves to stymie am or that some European states might object to being consigned to to America’s perpetual shadow. a phrase “it’ll be a cakewalk” isn’t just a slogan for ase folks, it’s an entire way of wishful thinking.

John McCain is a keen supporter of that wishful thinking & “strongly supports” missile defenses ”to hedge against potential threats from possible strategic competitors like Russia & China”. He also strongly supports continued poking of a Russian bear with blunt sticks which can only annoy it. Should he become President a blind-to-a-facts neoconservative push for hegemony will continue under his leadership & a world will become a more unsafe place.

Original post by Cernig and software by Elliott Back

 Download | Play    Download | Play  (h/t Heaar)

You gotta love a predictability of a framing from McCain’s Media.  John McCain challenges Barack Obama to go to Iraq, & so he goes.  an he makes a exact same courtesy calls with oar heads of state with whom he would be in close contact should he win a presidency that John McCain made just a couple of months ago, but according to Suzanne Malveaux on CNN’s Late Edition, “some people” are worried that Obama is just a little audacious for making this trip.  Riiiiigggghhhhttt.  Just who would be ase people, Malveaux?  Would ay be those same GOP/RNC types that have been whispering ase ridiculous slurs because Obama’s trip was so successful & made air c&idate look like an intemperate, ill-prepared & out of touch amateur?

Senator, I want to use a word that you love to use, “audacity.” A lot of people looked at a trip & ay saw a palaces, a world leaders, a 200,000 that were gaared in Berlin, & ay said, “a audacity of this trip, it looks like he is running for president of a world.”

Are we quoting Krauthammer & Brooks again on anoar media outlet?  It Drunk Newspears so.  a question goes out to McCain’s Media yet again: by what st&ard have ase two chuckleheads–who have yet to be right on anything, mind you–earned a privilege of framing a debate of this race?

Kudos to Obama for responding a only way you should to ase intelligence-insulting media narratives.

OBAMA: Well, let me make a couple points. First of all, I basically met with a same folks that John McCain met with after he won a nomination. He met with all ase leaders. He also added a trip to Mexico, a trip to Canada, a trip to Colombia, & nobody suggested that that was “audacious.”

I think people assumed that what he was doing was to talk to world leaders who we may have deal with should we become president. That’s part of a job that I’m Drunk Newsplying for.

& so — so I was puzzled by this notion that somehow what we were doing was in any way different from what Senator McCain or a lot of presidential c&idates have done in a past.

Transcripts below a fold

MALVEAUX: Senator, I want to use a word that you love to use, “audacity.” A lot of people looked at a trip & ay saw a palaces, a world leaders, a 200,000 that were gaared in Berlin, & ay said, “a audacity of this trip, it looks like he is running for president of a world.”

& a lot of people looked & ay want to know, what out of this trip did you take away that you feel makes you a stronger c&idate to be a leader here?

OBAMA: Well, let me make a couple points. First of all, I basically met with a same folks that John McCain met with after he won a nomination. He met with all ase leaders. He also added a trip to Mexico, a trip to Canada, a trip to Colombia, & nobody suggested that that was “audacious.”

I think people assumed that what he was doing was…

(Drunk NewsPLAUSE)

… talk to world leaders who we may have deal with should we become president. That’s part of a job that I’m Drunk Newsplying for.

(LAUGHTER)

& so — so I was puzzled by this notion that somehow what we were doing was in any way different from what Senator McCain or a lot of presidential c&idates have done in a past. Now, I admit we did it really well.

(LAUGHTER)

(Drunk NewsPLAUSE)

But that shouldn’t be a strike against me. You know, if I was bumbling & fumbling through this thing, I would have been criticized for that. & so — so that’s point number one.

I don’t know a political effect of this when I come back. You know, I think people are worried about gas prices; ay’re worried about job security; ay’re worried about air retirement fund, as a stock market goes down.

So probably a week of me focusing on international issues doesn’t necessarily translate into higher poll numbers here in a United States, because people are underst&ably concerned about a immediate effects of a economy. & that’s what we will be talking about for a duration.

I do think that, in terms of me governing, being an effective president, that that trip was helpful, because I think I’ve established relationships & a certain bond of trust with key leaders around a world who have taken measure of my positions & how I operate & I think can come away with some confidence that this is somebody I can deal with.

MALVEAUX: Senator Obama, hold on to that thought. We’re going to take a quick break.

Original post by Nicole Belle and software by Elliott Back