Подразделением МЧС организовано тушение открытого огня.
The post Голубев: резервуары с нефтепродуктами загорелись в Азове из-за атаки дронов first appeared on The News And Times.
Day: June 17, 2024
The U.S. suspended avocado shipments from Mexico following after an incident that reportedly threatened the safety of American agricultural inspectors.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture notified the Avocado Exporting Producers and Packers of Mexico of the decision late on June 14, according to a notice from the trade group seen by Bloomberg. While the statement didn’t describe the incident, local press reports say two inspectors were held against their will and attacked amid a protest over police pay.
The suspension is the second by the U.S on Mexican avocados in the past 2 1/2 years, temporarily cutting off Americans’ primary supply of the popular fruit. Mexico exports the vast majority of its avocados to the U.S.
Mexican officials have struggled to maintain secure conditions in Michoacan state, the biggest producer of avocados in the country, where gang violence and extortion are rampant. A ban in February 2022, triggered by a threat against an inspector, lasted a week while the Michoacan government implemented a security plan.
A spokesperson for APEAM didn’t have an immediate comment. A call and email to the USDA weren’t immediately returned.
Why does it seem the Pentagon is far better at spending money than actually putting together a successful operation? The failed “Operation Prosperity Guardian” and the disastrous floating Gaza pier are but two recent examples of enormously expensive initiatives that, though they no-doubt enriched military contractors, were incapable of meeting their stated goals.
To great fanfare, last December the Pentagon announced the launch of Operation Prosperity Guardian, a joint US/UK military operation to halt the Yemeni Houthi disruption of Israel-linked commercial shipping through the Red Sea. The Houthis announced their policy in response to civilian deaths in Israel’s war on Gaza, but when the US and UK military became involved they announced they would target US and UK shipping as well.
The operation was supposed to be quick and easy. After all, the rag-tag Houthi militia was no match for the mighty US and UK navies. But it didn’t work out that way at all. Over the weekend the Wall Street Journal published a devastating article revealing that after spending more than one billion dollars on munitions alone, the operation had failed to deter the Houthis and failed to re-open commercial shipping in the Red Sea.
The Journal reported that Avril Haines, the director of national intelligence, recently told Congress that “the U.S.-led effort has been insufficient to deter the militant group’s targeting of ships and that the threat will ‘remain active for some time.’”
Meanwhile, the article informed us that a continued US effort to fight the Houthis over Red Sea shipping was “not sustainable.” Perhaps the most revealing part of the article comes from a Washington military expert, Emily Harding of CSIS: “Their supply of weapons from Iran is cheap and highly sustainable, but ours is expensive, our supply chains are crunched, and our logistics tails are long.”
It is reminiscent of a recollection by Col. Harry G. Summers of a discussion he had with North Vietnamese Col. Tu: “You know, you never defeated us on the battlefield,” said Summers. Tu paused for a moment, then replied, “That may be so. But it is also irrelevant.”
Similarly, the US military spent a quarter of a billion dollars building a temporary floating pier to deliver aid to the starving Palestinians even though a land route already existed and would have been far cheaper to use. The project was doomed from the beginning, as days after opening stormy weather broke up the pier and washed part of it up on Israel’s shore. The US military managed to gather the pieces together again, but in total only a few aid trucks managed to use it before, over the weekend, the pier was again disassembled for fear of another weather-related break-up.
The only thing the pier was good for, it seems, was assisting the Israeli military in a Gaza raid on June 8th that killed 270 Palestinian civilians.
As neocons inside the Beltway continue to plot war with China over Taiwan, it seems someone should notice the trouble we have had dealing with Houthis and floating piers. For now, the growth in military spending seems unlimited, but increasing spending bringing diminishing results raises the question of just how much bang are we getting for our bucks?
We have the most expensive military on earth, they say. That may be true, but it is also irrelevant.
- This article was published at RonPaul Institute
The post We Spent A Billion Dollars Fighting The Houthis…And Lost – OpEd first appeared on The South Caucasus News.
Strange to relate – strange, that is, to anyone born and raised in the UK – the name; “Pimm’s” means zilch to large numbers of the American public; To Brits the world over Pimm’s is absolutely synonymous with the English summer.; Its only rival as a favorite summertime treat is strawberries and cream, which reaches its frenzied zenith of popularity at the Wimbledon tennis tournament in June.
What is Pimm’s?; It is an alcohol-based fruit drink that keeps the English summer social season afloat.; From the Royal Ascot races to Wimbledon, from Henley Royal Regatta to Cowes week, from the Chelsea Flower Show to the Glyndebourne opera, Pimm’s is always on tap, and always being downed by the bucketful. ;
Back in 1823 James Pimm was a fishmonger who opened an Oyster House in South London.; He conceived the idea of selling, alongside his oysters, a drink which might be said to aid digestion.; So he concocted a gin-based liqueur infused with various herbs, spices and quinine.; This he bottled and labeled “Pimm’s No 1 Cup”.
Using his liqueur as the base, he then devised a delicious beverage, topping it up with sparkling lemonade, and piling chopped up summer fruits on top.; And that in essence is what Pimm’s No 1 is today.; A mainstream current recipe specifies one part of Pimm’s to three parts of sparkling lemonade, topped with slices of orange, strawberry and cucumber together with a sprig of mint.
Over the two centuries since it first saw the light of day, the original gin-based Pimm’s has seen the birth of six variants.; Only two – Cups 3 and 6 – remain in production in addition to Pimm’s No 1.
Pimm’s Nos 2, 4, and 5 hit the market in the 1930s and left it in 1970.; To produce them the original recipe was altered by replacing the gin with, respectively, Scotch whisky, dark rum and rye whisky.; Pimm’s No 3, which replaces the gin with brandy, has been introduced and withdrawn several times but, now dubbed Pimm’s Winter Cup, it has its fervent admirers and is currently available.
Pimm’s No 6 Cup is a vodka-based variant which has had a checkered career, but it is now back by popular demand.; The less said about Pimm’s No 7 (a tequila-based variant) the better.
What is the sensual experience of actually imbibing a glass of Pimm’s? ;
To start with, it is an episode to be savored.; You can’t down it in one.; You have a tall glass of sparkling liquor in front of you, with slices of fruit and cucumber floating on top and a sprig of mint adorning one side.; A few ice cubes are usual, though (it being England) not obligatory. Too much ice can deaden the taste.; Often ice-cold lemonade straight from the fridge will produce the result.;
The first sip fills the mouth with a light alcoholic beverage, gently infused with herbs and spices, the taste absolutely delicious from having been filtered through fresh fruit. ; As you sip your way through, you see the level of sliced orange, strawberry and cucumber slowly sinking in the glass.; With your last swallow comes the climax of your Pimm’s encounter.; Your final experience is to slide those delectable alcohol-imbued fruits from the glass and chew your way through them.; Whether the whole event takes five minutes or half an hour, it is a unique experience, and unlikely to be forgotten.
At home on a sun-drenched afternoon, people will usually make up a jug of Pimm’s and take it out to the garden to keep their guests well topped up.; A standard recipe for a jugful is 200 ml of Pimm’s to 600 ml of lemonade, with plenty of fruit, cucumbers and mint to shovel in on top.
Finally, for the avoidance of all doubt, I must add that Pimm’s is totally unrelated to that other famous sparkling British alcoholic drink, Buck‘s Fizz.
Buck’s fizz;is an alcoholic;cocktail;made of about two parts;champagne (sometimes some other sparkling wine); to one part;orange juice.;
The drink is named after;London‘s;Buck’s Club, where it is said to have first been served in 1921 by a barman named Malachi “Pat” McGarry.; McGarry features in the works of P G Wodehouse as the barman of the Drone’s Club.; The original Buck’s Club recipe is said to contain additional ingredients known only to the club’s bartenders.
Buck’s fizz is often drunk at Christmas and on New Year’s eve.; It has no relationship at all to Pimm’s.; Pimm’s time is summertime.; Cheers!;
The post Say “Pimm’s”: Conjuring Up An English Summer – OpEd first appeared on The South Caucasus News.
Categories
A Critique Of Latin American Neocons – OpEd
By Marina Rocha
In attempting to counter Marxists, some libertarians inadvertently align themselves with statist institutions and support;immoral;war efforts. This concession to evil contradicts the foundational;principles;laid out by authors like;Murray;Rothbard;and should be challenged.
A couple of months ago, I heard such a naïve perspective from an Argentinian libertarian in an X Spaces, reflective of a broader trend within the libertarian liberty movement. Recent foreign policy;decisionsmade by prominent Latin American libertarians show how this view is prevalent.
In this text, neoconservatism is not used to label people who merely have traditional conservative views. As demonstrated in a recent Ron Paul;interview, it’s;entirely possible to be a pro-market Christian without embracing neoconservatism, an ideology that is distinguished by its belief in America’s;role as the world’s;police, advocates for a totalitarian;surveillance state, and supports preemptive and disproportionate wars abroad. Furthermore, neoconservatives often endorse a mixed economy model restrained by national security concerns or interventionist policies during busts, as exemplified during George W. Bush’sadministration both;before;and;after;the 2008 financial crisis.
Therefore, my critique of the local Right’s;embrace of neoconservatism stems from its unconditional support for America’sforeign policy in past and present conflicts and its alignment with a philosophy at odds with genuine antistatist principles. However, this was somewhat provoked by other concerning trends in Latin America.
Rather than promoting genuine antiwar and anti-imperialist views, Marxists in the Latin American region often adopt positions akin to those of neoconservatives, albeit from a;“different”;ideological standpoint. In Brazil, for instance, the ruling party has been embroiled in corruption;scandals, funneling public funds to governments like those of Cuba and Venezuela, which have, as expected, failed to repay their debts. Latin American socialists advocate for a;“proactive”;foreign policy;aimed at strengthening;entangling;alliances;with other socialist governments, all funded by taxpayers.
Former Brazilian president;Dilma Rousseff, who basically;did;everything the Austrian business cycle theory advises against and whose policies created a huge;economic crisis, was;appointed;to a lucrative position at the BRICS Bank in China—a country over ten thousand miles away—instead of being imprisoned for her;destructionist;policies.
Leftist politicians in Latin America justify such foreign policy adventures by citing the supposed benefits of nation building and by deflecting attention from domestic issues through references to American imperialism, with not only;war;crimes;seen as imperialist, but also anything coming from America—even authors like Rothbard,;far from a friend of the military-industrial complex—seen as a CIA regime-change plot to destabilize the region. As a reaction, the Latin American Right often tries to debunk socialists by turning to pro−American empire sources, engaging in war crimes apologetics. This approach, however well-intentioned it might be, can backfire and should be challenged by the historical and theoretical framework established by the Austrian School of economics and libertarianism in general, as explained below.
The Economic Calculation Problem and the Private Production of Defense
Hans-Hermann Hoppe;argues in;The Private Production of Defense;that the state is;not necessary;for national defense and may actually be harmful. He points out the contradiction of peaceful relationships between individuals compared to states constantly being at war:
However, before the arrival of a single world state not only are S1, S2, and S3 in a state of anarchy relative to each other but in fact every subject of one state is in a state of anarchy vis-à-vis every subject of any other state. Accordingly, there should exist just as much war and aggression between the private citizens of various states as between different states. Empirically, however, this is not so. The private dealings between foreigners appear to be significantly less war-like than the dealings between different governments.
Individuals familiar with the dynamics of state authority and its associated motivations are not shocked by this fact. The state actors’;exclusive control over force escalates the expense of providing protection against potential threats, while diminishing efficiency—as alternative security mechanisms are not allowed to compete—just as in any other monopoly. Moreover, given that they do not directly bear a significant portion of the war-induced losses—passed on to those subjected to taxation and conscription—government agents face fewer restraints in entering conflicts compared to private individuals.
As expected of any system of collective ownership,;national defense also suffers;from a problemof;economic;calculation.;Assume, for example, that an army has only five weapons, seven military personnel, and ten wars—ranging from attacks on cities in its own country by violent gangs to terrorist attacks on an allied country thousands of miles away—to resolve.;Since the means are not privately owned, there is no market price for them, which makes it impossible to calculate the costs and benefits involved in each war. Nor is it possible to know which resolution would bring the greatest value to the population, which also;cannot;be solved through;“public-private”;enterprises and defense contractors.
War as the Most Used Weapon for Political Power Grabs
Since national defense cannot be carried out efficiently through the state, other questions can be asked about the outcomes involved in wars. In this sense, the economist;Robert;Higgs;in;Crisis and Leviathan;shows;how crisis, combined with existing ideological inclinations, increases the power of the government, with a ratchet effect after its end.
In chapter 7, “The Political Economy of War, 1916–18,” Higgs analyzes how the United States’;entry into World War I led to the creation of various regulatory agencies and the nationalization of previously private economic sectors. These measures, despite being partly reversed after the conflict, had permanent effects on the regulation of the economy and society, as well as setting important legal precedents.
Of the various precedents upheld by the US Supreme Court in the war scenario, one may be of interest to those concerned about today’s;growing censorship regime. The famous;“you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater”;decision—much used by those who want to silence speech they do not agree with—led to the;censorship;of a pamphlet opposing the draft during World War I, showing once again how individual liberties, once limited during times of war, can be infringed upon afterward.
Blowback and When the Enemy of My Enemy Is Not My Friend
Reading the previous section, some libertarians in Latin America may wonder why they should worry about the increasing size of the military-industrial complex, since only American citizens would suffer from the consequences of this phenomena. This question can be answered with two examples from Brazil.
During the Cold War, Brazil went through a military;coup;with the help of the American government, which resulted in several violations of individual rights. Even if one does consider that some of those who were politically persecuted had intentions of establishing a socialist government in the country, the twenty-one years of dictatorship resulted in a blowback afterward, with left-wing ideas becoming the unquestioned mainstream for a long time.
A more recent case can be seen in Brazil’s;current censorship regime, as;exposed;by journalist David Agape. Agents linked to the FBI have contributed to the restriction of expression in Brazil, especially during the 2022 Brazilian presidential elections. Just as the war on terror came;home;to restrict the freedoms of the American population, the same state apparatuses strengthened during that period are now helping to implement the Brazilian censorship regime.
The Path Forward: Between Neoconservatism and Marxism
With these challenges in mind, many libertarians may wonder what a viable alternative to the region’s;socialist plans could be. Would supporting an external enemy power to combat this threat be necessary? Beyond blowback, revisiting the economic calculation problem is crucial. State-owned external forces are plagued by the same bad incentives as its institutions and are inefficient.
Private forces, like Elon Musk’s;efforts through the;Twitter;files, are better at revealing the truth to the public. Additionally, establishing parallel institutions and gradually persuading more individuals of libertarian beliefs are a more sustainable approach in the long run.
In practical terms, a noninterventionist foreign policy applied to the Latin American context involves strongly opposing the expansionist desires of the Marxists and standing against sending money abroad and forming political alliances to integrate the region that aim to create an increasingly centralized government but without an unconditional alliance with the opposing side. The Marxist;polylogism;of criticizing everything from Western countries as not applicable to Latin America must also be rejected, as brilliantly done by;Wanjiru Njoya.
To conclude, it is important to express that these criticisms are made with great respect and admiration for many Latin American libertarians, who have achieved significant victories, particularly in Brazil and now in Argentina. Exactly for this reason, I ask that they apply the defense of private property rights and methodological individualism—foundational principles of libertarian philosophy—consistently in all areas. The enemies of our enemies are not necessarily our friends.
- About the author: Marina Rocha is a young economist from Belo Horizonte, Brazil. Currently, she is an apprentice at the Mises Institute and also has jobs in finance and as an economic advisor to libertarian city councilors around the country.
- Source: This article was published by the Mises Institute
The post A Critique Of Latin American Neocons – OpEd first appeared on The South Caucasus News.
