[robbo203]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird wrote:

You, like robbo, YMS and the others, mcolome1, should actually start to read what I write, and not live in a mythical world of outrage, ignorance and misunderstanding.

Elementary science suggests we have read what you wrote, and reacted to it: so maybe the problem is with how you communicate your ideas.  Or maybe the problem is with the ideas themselves.  It is a key feature of elitism to assume that your audience is at fault for not understanding your arguments, don't you think?

 Absolutely  YMS,  The problem is not that we dont read what LBird has written but that he does not grasp, and does not want to grasp,  the utter stupifty of the implications of what he has written.  And he hides this behind the mock protest that others have misunderstood him. Poor misunderstood LBlrd!  Of course it doesnt help when he refuses to answer a straight question with a straight answer which is the typical strategem of somebody who has something to hide. In LBird's case a piss-poor argument in favour of Leninist-style society wide decisionmaking over everything.  That is what he really advocates when he says democracy should have no limits

[robbo203]

Matt wrote:

 it does not folow that individuals ignore the rest in a poycentric model. Rather, iIt is a much more democratic model which allows for the fluid interaction and recognition of there beng several or many inputs necessary to arrive at conclusive results, in a modern technological and informational savvy, post-capitalist era with multiple interactive factors to interplay within decisions as to the better optional gains for the whole. It allows more for "From each according to their ability" to prevail with a multiplicity of interactions feeding into decision making and the best optional outcomes.Your rigid model is much more likely to create crises of over and undersupply with the loss of corrective autonomous self regulative adjustment. It has the smack of the Gulags to me.. We have been there before.

 Matt , our resident Leninist, LBird who like his mentor, Lenin, wants to turn the whole of society into a single office and a single factory, simply does not grasp, and shows no willingness to grasp, the utter stupidity of what he is arguing for  – total society wide decisionmaking over everything . He claims that I am making an argument about something he is not saying at all but that is rubbish.  He himself  has declared that there are no limits to democracy but as I have already explained, a localised form of democracy is in itself a form of limitation – it limits the electorate to  a particular locality in the case of certain kinds of decisions of a local nature.  By rejecting  the argument that demcoracy will necessarily be limited in some respects, Lbird is effectively saying that there will be no localised forms of decisonmaking!  In other words 7 billion people will all be involved in the making of billions upon billions of decisions right across the world.  Which of course is ludicrous. He then has the nerve to say that because we point out that democracy will necessarily be limited in socialism we are therefore rejecting democracy in favour of what he calls "individualism"  (he still doesnt undestand what this word means).   Which of course is rubbish and typical of his simplistic black or white view of the world,  Obviously there will be a lot more democray in socialism than there is today but that does not mean it will be "unlimited"

[robbo203]

Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:

  This means "there is an exchange".   information is exchanged, and values such as a clean household are exchanged.  for houshold chores one person might do dishes in "exchange" for another person sweeping.  In a family there's few enough people that this is all kept in the head with a sort of "how much do you help me vs how much do I help you" type mental accounting of fairness.  Unfortunately that only works because a family is a small group where you know each persons history and reliability and repuation from long experience with them.  The unfortunate part is that won't scale to the large numbers needed for specialization.  The woman who makes silicon chips doesn't know personally from long experience the people who want to use the silicon chips for making the computer that will be sold to to the family to use in creating a google doc for sharing chores.  She has no knowledge about them or their reputation or if they are working against her or not.  She could have that information if you gave her access to your google docs for sharing chorse an there was a chore in there that said something like "bring food to the people who help us out by making microchips".  So that's a solution, but one that requires sharing a Shareable count and tally of chores and who benefits from the chores.  In the family wthout a sharing chores speadsheet this count is kept internally to each person in their head and not sharable with the rest of the world except by word of mouth and then there's no way for strangers to check your reputation and history to see if you are honest.  So the solution is to share the information and the family can share their chores so others can trust them.  These spreadsheets with different interests being helped by different chores is effectiveliy (due to how it's used and how it works) a form of exchange and a form of "money".  

 Two points. Firslty, on the question of "exchange", when we talk about exchange in an economic context we are referring to quid pro quo exchanges – I will give you something on condition that you give me something else in return. In other words it is an exchange in property titles to the things being exchanged. It is only because there is the expectation that you will get something back from the other party to the transaction that the transaction happens at all.  Otherwise it wouldnt.  A further point about economic exchange is that it is fundamentally self interested.  Each party to an exchange is looking to his or her own interests only. This necessarily implies economic valuation for the purposes of comparison.  Each party to the exchange wants to maximise the difference in utlility between what s/he gets in an exchange and what s/he gives, This is a foundational dogma of bourgeois economics and the basic reason why it asserts that trade is necessarily a positive sum game.  If both parties did not benefit from the transaction it wouldnt happen. Period. That is "economic exchange".  But it is totally misleading to apply the reasoning behind this to "exchanges" in the general sense.  When people "exchange" pleasantries or information they are not engaged in a property based transaction.  The word you are looking for is actually reciprocity not exchange,  In socialism there will be no  economic exchange since economic exchange as a quid pro quo phenomenon is based on private property in the means of production .  There will however be reciprocity.  Reciprocity is about cementimg snd strengethening social bonds,  It is not about advancimg ones own self interests.  In the case of household chores where one person might do dishes in "exchange" for another person sweeping, this is not an example of economic exchange but of reciprocity. It is about what is good for household as a whole. It is essentially a moral concept Seondly the argument that a system of generalised reciprocity – which is essentally what socialism is all about – cannot be "scaled up" is a completely bogus argument. It is the argument of last resort that critics of socialism resort to when all their other argument have been knocked away from under their feet.  "Ah its a nice idea" they say "but you can only really apply but on a small scale – such as within a household or a commune  but not to a large scale society" Thats rubbish.  There are numerous examples of generalised recipocty that operate on a very large scale indeed even under capitalism,  Take the internet for example,  This has been cited as an example of a gift economy which is esentially what socialism would be. See https://wiki.gifteconomy.org/Main_Page What people who make this kind of objection really mean is that you cannot "scale up" the kind of riciprocal relationships to be found inside the household to capitalist society as a whole since that would no longer be capitalism,  That is true enough but that is NOT an argument against socialism though it might be an agument against peice meal reform. Socialism entails a fundamental change in the entire social context in which people relate to one another in a way that make generalised reciprocity not only possible but the norm

[robbo203]

Yet another example fo the total disconnect between the Trump regimes professed isolationist aim of steering well clear of military entanglements abroad and the actual reality of what it is doing on the ground.  This just a continuation of the same old US military aggreesion and intervention in the affairs of other countries.  Nothing has changed with Trump in power Once again  from the admittedly rather biassed and OTT  website http://www.legitgov.org/…. "USociopaths trolling for World War III: The US prepares to 'incapacitate' Kim: USS Carl Vinson carrying huge fleet of fighter jets arrives in South Korea as military sources reveal plan to 'remove' Jong-un's war chiefs –South Korea's Yonhap News Agency claims the heightened military presence is part of a plan to decapitate North Korean leadership. | 15 March 2017 | A growing US presence off the Korean Peninsula is reportedly part of a plan aimed at 'incapacitating' Kim Jong-Un's government in Pyongyang should [a US-engendered] conflict break out. A nuclear-powered US aircraft carrier arrived in South Korea on Wednesday for joint military exercises in the latest show of force against the North. The USS Carl Vinson arrived at the southern port of Busan as US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson began a tour of the region, where tensions have escalated in recent weeks…More than 80 aircraft, including the fighter aircraft F/A-18F Super Hornet, the E-2C Hawkeye and the carrier-based EA-18G Growler are on board the supercarrier."   

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

Matt wrote:

Unicentric = Having a single centre.Polycentric = Having many centres.

Perhaps you're missing the point, Matt. I'm sure we all know the difference between 'uni' and 'poly' as words. It's the political meaning that you seem to have missed.'Uni' = 'democracy', whereas 'Poly' = 'individual'.robbo is a 'poly' individualist, whereas Democratic Communists are 'uni' democrats.This is a question of 'power' – 'power' is either a collective phenomenon ('uni', centralised upon a social decision-making process, in which individuals participate and then obey) or 'power' is an individual phenomenon ('poly', decentralised amongst individuals, who can ignore other individuals).Socialism requires collective decision-making, not 7 billion decisions which ignore each other.I'm a democrat, whereas robbo is an individualist – that's why we disagree. This is a debate about where 'power' will lie within Socialism/Communism – distributed amongst 7 billion biological and sovereign individuals, or with a collective World Socialism where democracy is sovereign.

.   Again, this demonstrates LBird simply does not understand the argument at all.  It’s like banging your head against the wall trying to get it through to him and in my opinion he is just being deliberately obtuse to prevent having to acknowledge the thoroughly anti- democratic implications of his Leninist worldview.  This is why he constantly misrepresents what I am saying.  He has to hide behind a screen of falsehoods to protect himself So for instance he portrays me as an “individualist” who rejects collective decision-making. That’s absolute rubbish.  Of course I accept that socialism requires collective decision-making – when have I have said anything to the contrary?   The question is what is the “collective” that makes these decisions. Is it one single collective embracing the whole of humanity or are there multiple collectives operating at different scales of socio-spatial organisation – local regional and even global too LBird is an advocate of a unicentric model of decision-making since he has made it quite plain that he will not allow local decision-making or regional decision-making under his system. There will only be one organ of decision-making under his system – and only one – his central 'World Hall' as he  calls it.  There will be no such thing as a local council, for example, in LBird Brave New World.  Local councils will be abolished. All decisions relating to people living in a particular locality must be routed through his remote central World Hall and put to the vote of the entire global population – 7 billions of us.  The idea is a just too silly for words I, on the other hand, am very firmly an advocate a polycentric model of collective decision-making – that is democracy operating at different levels of socio-spatial organisations. This is actually the only realistic option.  I also argue that, alongside these collective decisions to be made by countless numbers of collective organs, there is also another class of decisions that will be made by individuals themselves that do not involve and have no need to involve collective decision-making.  Now this is very clearly the Marxist position and I am more than happy to endorse it.   Marx was a fierce advocate for individual choice and individual freedom.  He argued strongly that “the free development of eachis the condition for the free development of all”endorse.  He well understood, unlike LBird who doesn’t really know what communism is about, that in order for the communist principle to apply – from each according to abilities to each according to need – people have to be free to decide how they themselves want to contribute to society.  In the German Ideology, for example, he spoke of the individual in communism being able to “hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, do critical criticism in the evening, just as he has in mind.”  We may question Marx’s choice of activities but the underlying principle he was trying to illuminate was clearly enough.  Individuals should be able to choose what work they do.  Work should not be forced. Forced work is estranged work.  Forced work is a characteristic of class-based societies. So there would be two basic types of decisions in communism/socialism – individual decisions and collective decisions and the latter will take many forms relating to a polycentric model of decision-making. LBird rejects all of this.  He rejects on the one hand the Marxist view that there will be a class of decisions that individuals will take without the need for collective decision-making.  And he rejects the polycentric model of decision-making in favour of an utterly preposterous unicentric model of the world in which only one single decision-making organ can exist.  This is fully in line with his Leninist conviction that the"The whole of society will have become a single office and a single factory" (State and Revolution).  Since it is quite impossible that 7 billion could vote on billions upon billions of collective decisions that will need to be made in communist society what that means is that in order to salvage this unicentric model of decision-making, those decisions will have to be undertaken on the spot by a minuscule de facto elite. There is no other option available to LBird and even this is not really an option at all.  This is why I argue the ultimate logic of LBirds Leninist way of looking at the world is thoroughly anti-democratic and elitist to its very core   

[robbo203]

Capitalist Pig wrote:

sounds nice but it means absolutely nothing. I'm just astonished by the unwillingness to even discuss the possiblilities of government or even make the case that no government would be nessesary. really shows how cut off from reality you are. sad.

 Define what you mean by government in that case CP. If you mean by  that simply administration then of course there will be administration in socialist society which much like today will be multitiered – local regional and global – and where collective decisionmaking will be made on a democratic basis and obviously to a much greater extent than is the case today If you mean by government, the state machine then no – there will be no state in a socialist society since if you understand your Marxist theory, you will know that the state is essentially an instrument of class rule,  Since there will be no economic classes in socialism there cannot exist a state in socialism.  Its fairly straightforward really.  What specifiically about all this do you not understand?  You really need to be more clear about what precisely it is you want to know before making sweeping claims that others here are "unwilling" to discuss whatever it is you want to know about it

[robbo203]

John Pozzi wrote:

Hi Vin,Thank you.Now I know my socialism is the direct democratic socio-economy where people own the means of production, distribution, and exchange and is directly regulated by the global community of GRB shareholders, and your socialism is not practical because you have no commonwealth to exchange.Regards, 

 John How can people collectively own the means of production and then engage in exchange with one another?  Exchange means an exchange in property titles and therefore necessarily implies private property not common property. You have been asked this question several  times but have yet to provide an explanation

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

If anyone can translate the political meaning of robbo's post, I'd be obliged to the translator.

 It means quite simply that you believe in the Leninist model of decision-making  though you pretend not to understand what I said

[robbo203]

  

LBird wrote:

robbo's chosen political method to denigrate 'democracy' is to equate it with 'centralisation'. Thus:

robbo203 wrote:

Clearly L Bird supports this totalitarian and ultra-centralised mode of decision-making.

[my bold]robbo pretends that 'democracy' leads to 'centralisation', by which he means 'totalitarian' (a concept employed by post-war Cold War warriors, but we'll let that pass). 

   This is so way off the mark it is almost laughable.  It demonstrates that LBird seems wilfully intent on not understanding the argument which has been presented to him.  I am not trying to denigrate democracy by “equating with it with centralisation”.  What a silly claim. Actually the word I used was “ultra-centralised”. Does LBird know what this means? It means EXTREME centralisation. What I am actually saying is that democracy will be killed off by extreme centralisation. Yet this is precisely what  LBird advocates – extreme centralisation of decision-making – and that is why I oppose what Lbird stands for.  Because it will lead to a fundamentally anti-democratic outcome.   LBird is not a democrat but a naive Leninist who cloaks his Leninism in a mantle of democratic rhetoric.  He merely pays lip service to democratic values.  However, even if his absurd idea of a totalitarian society-wide system of decision-making operating out of a single global centre were remotely feasible, it could only really operate on the basis of a tiny technocratic elite arrogating to itself the power to make all decisions on society’s behalf.  There are billions of decisions to be made and there is no possibility of such decisions being made on any other basis given LBird’s Leninist model of decision-making. 

LBird wrote:

Any Democratic Communist would of course reply that 'democracy' does imply 'centralisation'. There has to be a central location, at which is based a central organisation that obeys the orders of the voters. The losing voters then obey the orders of the 'central' majority.We can see this in practice in the parish, village, town, city, regional and national elections of even bourgeois democracy.The 'parish' democracy is centralised upon the 'parish hall', at which a central bureaucracy counts the votes and announces the results of the democratic vote, taken by all the parish residents. Of course, the central parish bureaucracy is also elected using democratic methods. And so on, for all levels, from parish to national. The new feature of democratic World Socialism will be a central 'World Hall'.

  This demonstrates once again how utterly confused LBird is on the matter.  Of course local democracy requires a local centre and regional democracy requires a regional centre and so forth.  Im not disputing that at all but this has got nothing to do with what I am taking about The point that I was trying to impress upon LBird is that since local democracy requires a local centre and since there are numerous local centres corresponding to numerous local communities what this means in effect is that you inevitably have a POLYCENTRIC system of democratic decisionmaking in socialism.  However this is not what LBird wants.  He has made it absolutely clear that he is calling instead for a UNICENTRIC models of decision-making – that is one in which in which ALL decisions relating to production and everything else throughout the entire world are ONLY to made from a single global centre – what he calls his central 'World Hall' – and that somehow ALL these decisions are to be made by the entire global population.  In other others, no other decisions can be permitted other than those that come out of his central World Hall.   If LBird protests that I am somehow misrepresenting him I would remind him of his own wprds. It was he who declared forthrightly that there are “no limits to democracy”.  Well in a polycentric model of decision-making there clearly are such limits.  If a local community makes a decision concerning a local matter than self-evidently this precludes another local community, or a regional community or the global community getting involved in making this local decision.  We respect the right of that community to make decisions that affect itself.  That is a limitation. LBird rejects any such limitations.  Consequently he is saying that the global community as a whole must decide on every conceivable decision impacting on everyone throughout the world. Of course that is not even worth thinking about  as serious proposal but the logic of what LBird is talking about is certainly worth thinking – and worrying –  about since it in effect argues for the concentration of all power in the hands of tiny elite and the complete destruction of any kind of democracy whatsoever

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

 In fact, we could call your version of 'logic'… Leninist Logic.

 I think the very idea that the totality of decisions to be made in a socialist society should be made by the entire global population –  a logistical impossiblity which will inevitaby end up  in the de facto dictatorship by a tiny elite – is the very manifestation of a "leninist logic".  It expresses the centralistic totalitarian tendencies of the Leninist. Lenin after all spoke of the "The whole of society will have become a single office and a single factory" (State and Revolution).  Clearly L Bird supports this totalitarian and ultra-centralised mode of decision-making.  I would say that constitutes very strong prima facie grounds for saying that the only Leninist here is LBird!

[robbo203]

moderator1 wrote:

LBird wrote:

 All 'logic' is a social and ideological product, which we can change. Just like maths and physics.

Agreed, but that also includes changing the concept of democracy to suit the situation.  You have logically concluded that the voluntary associated producers will adopt a form of democracy with no limits.  In short all decisions – important and unimportant – will be voted on by the community.  That's a logical fallacy.

  Of course there are "limits to democracy" and anyone who thinks otherwise really hasn’t thought about it at all! It is quite consistent to say that socialism will witness a significant expansion in democratic decision-making but that this expansion will stop at the point in which these necessary limitations come into play.  If there really were “no limits” that means, quite literally, that any and every decision ever made will be subject to a democratic vote and since socialist society is a global society that means the entire global population will participate in all conceivable decisions to be made within this society,  That self-evidently is preposterous. What that means is that the individual in socialist society will have no choice as to what work to perform according to her ability – that will be decided by global society.  She will have no choice as to what to what to take according to her need from the distribution centres since that too will be decided by global society.  So already we see in this ridiculous concept of a "democracy without limits" a complete repudiation of the communist principle “from each according to ability to each according to need”. None of us in the imaginary society of “democracy without limits” would have any say over what we do as individuals, where we live or how we might live. It will all be decided for us…..by global society! And it doesn’t stop there. There can be no localised or even regionalised forms of democracy within a hypothetical society of “democracy without limits".  To even talk about local democracy is necessarily to place limits on democracy by restricting a class of decisions – essentially those of a local nature – to a subset of society – the local population – thereby excluding the non-local population. Moreover, I haven’t even begun to talk about the mechanics or logistics of such a proposal – how do you organise a global vote on even a single decision let alone billions of them? In fact, by its very nature this proposal2 amounts to the advocacy of a totally centralised totalitarian society which, by default if not by design, will concentrate all power in the hands of a tiny elite and signify paradoxically the total destruction of democracy Incidentally. Alan, yes it is hilarious that Capitalist Pig should sing the praises of LBird. Little does he realise that what LBird is calling for will signify the complete abolition of all those cherished "legal safeguards" he had been going on about to prevent a dictatorship of the majority from happening

[robbo203]

Capitalist Pig wrote:

You can demonize capitalism all you want but in the end the only alernative you have is anarchism. It takes a great amount of work and detication to run a successful business its not really as easy and stupid as you envision it to be. I think donald trump is doing well considering the federal reserve is literally trying to crash the economy. I just want to see valid criticism not just personal attacks

  No CP you are missing the point.  I am not particularly interested in the fact that Trump is a blatant fraud and a conman,  which must by now be pretty obvious to anyone who hasnt got their head stuck in the sand. As I said he could be as white as the driven snow with an intellect to match and he STILL would not be able to operate capitalism in the interests of the majority.  You can only operate capitalism in the interest of the owners of capital – like Trump and his fellow crony capitalists. You seem to think Trump is "doing well" and by implication that it rather matters who is at the helm of American capitalism.  I would take quite the  opposite view.  You could install a trained BarbaryMacaque in the Oval Office  (with elementary tweeting skills) and it would make little difference to the lives of ordinary workers,  Politicians to a man or woman are tools of the system whatever their political stripe So while it might appear to you that I am making "personal attacks" against Trump this is only to try to wake you up out of your self induced slumber to enable you to see that even on your terms Trump is not the person you seem to think he is.  But the bottom line as far as I am concerned is that even he was all the things you claim he is  he is still going to prove a deep disappointment  – not so much because of but, rather, in spite of himself

[robbo203]

Trump – a walking contradiction https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/01/ranked-donald-trumps-foreign-policy-contradictions/513635/

[robbo203]

Capitalist Pig wrote:

 you have not acknowledged one of my points instead you cite lefty articles that some how 'prove' that I am wrong about trump's motives therefore no debate required. I am calling you dishonest in your analysis which is shown by your unwillingness to adress simple and obvious facts. Don't call yourself unbiased and objective when you know you aren't. But it isn't the same as outright lying

 Everyone without exception is biased – including you CP.  I am just amazed that anyone with any scrap of intelligence can fall for the transparent BS that gushes forth on an almost daily basis from the mouth of that arrogant self-aggrandizing narcissist, Donald Trump.  It’s so friggin obvious that the man is a fraud through and through but you seem to have allowed yourself to fall under the spell.  Hopefully in your case, it only a matter of time before the penny begins to drop By the way, it really does not matter that much if Trump did not possess these rather unattractive personal qualities. Even is he was as white as the driven snow and overflowing with Christian charity as the expression goes, he would still be doomed to failure and forced to break his promises.  You cannot run capitalism in the interests of the majority.  You can only run capitalism in the interests of the owners of capital.  That is the nature of the beast. This is what is unique about the socialist position and this site in particular.  You won’t find socialists taking sides in the game of capitalist politics.  We don’t hold that the enemy of an enemy is a friend.  We are just as merciless and principled in our attacks on the so called Democrats as on the Republicans Despite what you claim Trump is a corporate capitalist and exponent of what you call “crony capitalism” and who has a clear record of treating his own workforce with utter contempt.  He is not interested in the wellbeing of “American Workers” as he so loudly proclaims. How can you possibly be so gullible as to fall for this utter crap?  This is a mere marketing ploy to garner and consolidate electoral support.  “America First” is a completely hollow slogan that in reality is intended to put the interests of Trump First. On the question of personal Trumps wealth, Alan is essentially correct.  Trumps claim that “I took $1 million and I turned into $10 billion.” is a lie.  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/29/the-myth-and-the-reality-of-donald-trumps-business-empire/?utm_term=.bc887635499f. The fake figures aside, this is just regurgitating the trashy myth of the so called “self-made” man which is itself based on a lie.  In fact, Trump’s wealth was not made by himself but by his workforce.   But Trump has lied about all sorts of other things too.  Look at the area of foreign policy.  We were lead to believe that under Trump the USA would become more isolationist, would withdraw from meddling in the internal affairs of other countries.  It now seems that the opposite is the case.  And you are intent on defending this guy, even to the extent of accusing others on this forum of engaging in untruths and distortions. The irony could not be richer CP!

[robbo203]

Capitalist Pig wrote:

everything the donald has done is crippling the globalists' agenda of one world government which is open borders, corporate colonialism and crony capitalism. Why do you hate prosperity?

 CP Dont by conned by the rhetoric! Trump is a globalist  (which does not necessarily mean wanting "one world government " incidentally) and a corporatist. He  himself has personal financial interests in more than 2 dozen countries.  He has packed his cabinet with representatives of BIG BUSINESS or "crony capitalism" as you call it to an almost inprecedented extent  (I cant think of anyone who would more closely fit the bill of a crony capitalist than Trump given his policy of protectionism towards American Big Business). And  despite the suggestion that America under Trump  would be isolationist and shun military adventurism  in other parts of the world, if anything US military might is being flexed even more under more under Trump  (he promised to increase military spending did he not?) Here's just a sample of things that have happened under his adminsitration which I have copied and pasted from a site called http://www.legitgov.org/ from which I receive regular bulletins.  These refute the claims that Trump is some sort of anti -globalist  opposed to meddling in other countries Trump gave CIA power to authorize drone strikes – report | 14 March 2017 | President Donald Trump has reportedly given the Central Intelligence Agency the power to conduct drone strikes against suspected terrorists…Unnamed US officials claim that President Trump expanded the power to conduct drone strikes from the Pentagon exclusively to the CIA, the Wall Street Journal reported Monday. The move has not been confirmed by the Trump administration. Under the new authority, the CIA would not require permission from the Pentagon or even the White House before launching a drone strike for a targeted killing mission.   Pentagon wants to declare more parts of world as temporary battlefields | 13 March 2017 | Donald Trump's administration is considering a military proposal that would designate various undeclared battlefields worldwide to be "temporary areas of active hostility", the Guardian has learned. If approved, the Pentagon-proposed measure would give military commanders the same latitude to launch strikes, raids and campaigns against enemy forces for up to six months that they possess in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria.   SEAL Team 6 joins South Korea war drill for the first time | 13 March 2017 | US special forces — including SEAL Team 6 — will take part in a large war drill in South Korea as part of a plan to "decapitate" the leadership in Pyongyang, according to a report. The SEAL team will join the annual Foal Eagle and Key Resolve exercises between the two allies for the first time, along with the Army's Rangers, Delta Force and Green Berets, Yonhap News Agency of South Korea reported. South Korean defense officials have confirmed that the drill will practice taking out the North Korean leadership, the Daily Star reported.   U.S. force in Syria to help anti-ISIS fighters with firepower | 10 March 2017 | A Kurdish-led force fighting the Islamic State group with the support of U.S. troops will close in on the extremists' de facto capital Raqqa within a few weeks, but the battle for the city will be difficult, a U.S. military official said Thursday. [Yes, it's 'difficult' as the US is simultaneously arming and funding ISIS] Air Force Col. John Dorrian said the U.S. force consisting of a couple of hundred Marines that arrived in the region south of the Syrian-Turkish border on Wednesday will not have any front-line roles, but will provide artillery fire to support the advance of the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces.   Marines have arrived in Syria to fire artillery in the fight for Raqqa | 8 March 2017 | Marines from an amphibious task force have left their ships in the Middle East and deployed to Syria, establishing an outpost from which they can fire artillery guns in support of the fight to take back the city of Raqqa from the Islamic State, defense officials said. The deployment marks a new escalation in the U.S. war in Syria, and puts more conventional U.S. troops in the battle. Several hundred Special Operations troops have advised local forces there for months, but the Pentagon has mostly shied away from using conventional forces in Syria

[Author]

Posts