This time around, it is more about cold, hard cash-management and future business opportunities. As the New Yorker
notes, philanthropists “Zuckerberg and [Bill] Gates are placing some
very large chunks of wealth permanently outside the reaches of the
Internal Revenue Service.” The magazine adds that, “The size and timing
of the tax benefits to Zuckerberg and Chan are uncertain, but they are
likely to be large.” Despite this, the liberal editors of the New Yorker
add, “by all means, let us praise Zuckerberg and Chan for their
generosity. And let us also salute Gates, who started the trend.” Jesse
Eisinger of ProPublica (the investigative journalism web site),
however, has aptly pointed out that the “emperor”—or “the generational
superman”—has no clothes. Eisinger explained that Zuckerberg’s decision
to create a limited liability company for his Facebook shares was
essentially “mov[ing] money from one pocket to the other.” Analyses of
the Chan Zuckerberg “gift” by business commentators have confirmed this.
• It reduces taxes for the billionaire family. American tax law
provides a deduction for stock sales based on “fair market value.” As
Facebook stock is presumed to appreciate in value, at the time CZI
donates stock to a charity, it will write off—not the cost of the stock
when they received it from Zuckerberg—but its price at final sale.
Therefore any gain in value is never taxed. Forbes reported that Zuckerberg “can potentially use that to shelter billions of other income.” Judged
by past practice, Zuckerberg’s interest in this aspect of the deal
cannot be insubstantial. He already uses a donor-advised fund (the
Silicon Valley Community Foundation), a relatively new and wildly
popular device that generates an immediate tax deduction but has no
requirement for charitable contribution. He also reportedly employs the
“Double Irish” loophole to shift profits to the Cayman Islands. Gabriel
Zucman, a tax haven specialist at UC Berkeley, dryly remarked, “I
applaud their emphasis on ‘promoting equality’ but that starts with
paying one’s taxes. A society where rich people decide for themselves
how much taxes they pay and to what public goods they’re willing to
contribute is not a civilized society.”
Nancy Hanover is the author of the WSWS piece.
And it's worth noting how few in the media have bothered to reveal the reality of Zuckerberg.
Tuesday, December 8, 2015. Chaos and violence continue, more bombs are
dropped on Iraq (with no measurable effect), Turkey and Iraq continue to
argue over Turkish troops in Iraq, Haider al-Abadi's position remains
precarious, and much more.
Turkey has halted its deployment of troops to Iraq, AUSTRALIA ASSOCIATED PRESS reports.
But before you breathe a sigh of relief, Turkey's Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Mevlut Cavusoglu, states that the troops already in Iraq will
not be withdrawn.
What's going on?
Iraq's Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi, on Sunday, gave Turkey 48 hours
to remove troops from Mosul. That ticking alarm clock is about to buzz.
So where do things stand? SPUTNIK reports:
Turkish troops remain in Iraq despite a partial withdrawal, Iraq's Defense Ministry spokesman Nuseir Nouri told Sputnik Arabic. In a convoluted statement, the spokesman first denied that Turkish
troops were present in Iraq, then saying that there are troops
protecting the camps training Masoud Barzani-linked
fighters. On Friday, up to 150 Turkish military personnel had been
deployed in northern Iraq's Nineveh province allegedly to provide
training to the fighters.
Iraq's quickly become The Land of the Non-Withdrawal. US troops are still there. Now Turkish ones as well.
This has not set well with Iraqis and a demonstration took place today. Seamus Kearney (EuroNews) reports, "Hundreds of protesters have gathered outside the Turkish embassy in
Baghdad, demanding the withdrawal of Turkish troops from the north of
the country."
It's hard to see how this non-withdrawal is going to please protesters.
And let's remember, this is Iraq and Turkey.
Iraqis were already outraged about Turkish war planes bombing northern
Iraq. Haider al-Abadi had called for that to end but the US government
wanted it to continue.
Who won that battle?
The US government.
Leaving Haider humiliated.
Humiliation which may have egged on former prime minister Nouri
al-Maliki who continues to be the subject of press and social media
whispers -- specifically that he's planning an attempted coup that will
restore him as prime minister.
He was a hideous prime minister. That's not an endorsement of Haider al-Abadi.
Like Nouri, he's seen as a puppet of Iran. (In truth, both men are as
indebted and indentured to the United States government as they are to
Iran.)
Tareq al-Hashemi, former two-term vice president of Iraq, has a column at MIDDLE EAST MONITOR
on Iran and a recent event where Iranians stormed an Iraqi border -- an
event that Tareq notes Iran would never have allowed to take place
there and one that many suspect was a planned event on the part of the
Iranian government:
The position of Al-Abadi’s government, which only made a useless
statement, is one of collusion. If the government wanted to, it could
have taken pre-emptive or subsequent measures to reinforce the border
crossing with enough military forces that are capable of deterring the
storming of the border when it noticed these suspicious gatherings.
There is no doubt that the government monitors the growth of the
gatherings over the past few days. The government also could have, at a
later time, worked on containing them and forcing them to return, but it
did not do so. We did, however, see the government use excessive force
against the Iraqis displaced from Anbar. Didn’t the government hold up
thousands of Iraqis and refuses, until this day, to allow them to enter
the country through the Bazibir Bridge, west of Baghdad, even those who
are sick, elderly, disabled, women and children? Didn’t the government
deprive hundreds of thousands of displaced families from their right to
return to their municipalities and areas of residence after they were
liberated from [the Islamic State]’s control?
As most reading Tareq's column will grasp, those from Anbar were predominately Sunni.
That has always been the complaint against the central-Baghdad
government when Nouri was in charge and remains the complaint to this
day with Haider in charge: The government persecutes Sunnis while
protecting Shi'ites.
That's why the Islamic State got its foothold in Iraq to begin with.
It's also one of the continuing threats to the stability of Haider al-Abadi's government.
In early November, Abadi's efforts to implement a reform agenda that
intended to tackle a corrupt and dysfunctional political system were
decisively defeated in a unanimous vote in Parliament. From then on,
his reform initiatives, which were announced in the summer of 2015 in
response to mass demonstrations in Baghdad and southern Iraq, will
require Parliament's approval. This limits any unilateral power the
prime minister has to shape Iraq going forward. Opposition to his
proposed reforms exposed his vulnerability, which is now visible not
only to the public but also to his political rivals. Indeed, despite
waging a war focused on reclaiming lost territory on Iraq's periphery,
Baghdad is now preoccupied with a dangerous power struggle within the
political establishment that Iran had worked for years to cultivate. For Abadi, it is not the military threat posed by the Islamic State,
per se, that looms over his premiership. Instead, the real threat to
his leadership, and perhpas to US interests to maintain an allied
government in Baghdad, is an intra-Shi'ite contest for political
authority. This competition is occurring within a fragment government
led by a prime minister who depends for his political survival on the
very same forces threatening that survival. Indeed, former Prime
Minister Nouri al-Maliki whose autocratic and sectarian leadership the
West blames for Iraq's ills, has leveraged his prior relationships with
pro-Iran Shi'ite militias and managed to make a potential comeback to
threaten his successor. Abadi also faces challenges to his authority
from other Shi'ite figures aligned with Iran, who, at best, effectively
limit his power, and, at worst, could attempt to unseat him.
Back to the issue of Turkey, Chas Freeman was the US Ambassador to Saudi Arabia from 1989 to 1992. Sputnik interviewed
him about this latest crisis and he states, "The basic principles of
international law are no longer respected in the Middle East. This
Turkish intervention reflects the breakdown of sovereignty and
territorial integrity in the Levant catalyzed by the American invasion
of Iraq, which was itself unauthorized under international law."
Monday, ARUTZ SHEVA reported that Iraq's prime minister Haider al-Abadi has declared he will appeal
the issue to the United Nations Security Council if Turkish troops are
not removed.
Too late for him with Russia beating him to the punch in calling for a discussion. Eyewitness News notes, "The discussion was expected to follow a closed-door meeting of the 15-nation council on unrelated issues."
Relations between Moscow and Ankara have been tense since Turkish
fighter jets shot down a Russian fighter jet on the Syrian border on
November 24. Since then, Russia has imposed sanctions on Turkey,
including a ban on the import of some Turkish foods and a halt on sales
of Turkish holiday travel packages -- a major blow to the tourist
industry.
The issue was touched on briefly at today's US State Dept press briefing moderated by spokesperson John Kirby.
QUESTION: John, on this, on Turkey-Iraq. Turkish foreign
minister has said today that Turkey won’t send more troops to Iraq, but
at the same time, they won’t withdraw the troops that they have in Iraq.
Do you have anything on this? MR KIRBY: Well, I’ve seen those reports, Michel. Again, as I
said yesterday, this is an issue for Turkey and Iraq to continue to work
out. We’re encouraged by the fact that their defense ministers have
spoken. We want to see that dialogue continue. This is an issue that
both of them, we believe, need to continue to discuss, work out. QUESTION: And how do you view that Russia called the UN Security Council to discuss this issue? MR KIRBY: I’m sorry? QUESTION: That Russia has called the UN Security Council to discuss the Turkish -- MR KIRBY: We continue to believe that the best path forward
here is for Turkey and Iraq to work this out bilaterally and to have
discussions. And they have, and we’re encouraged by that. And as I said
yesterday, we believe that this can and should be – and there should be
no reason why it couldn’t be – resolved peacefully through dialogue and
discussion. As I also said, we want – it’s important and I want to
restate this as a sound principle, because it’s a principle that needs
to be continually hit home. Iraq’s a sovereign country; and we want all
efforts against ISIL inside Iraq to be done with the cooperation, in
consultation with the Iraqi Government and with their full permission.
That’s an important fundamental principle here to respect the
sovereignty of Iraq and that won’t change going forward. But we believe
that this is best resolved between Turkey and Iraq. QUESTION: Do you mean that you don’t support discussing this issue and the --
MR KIRBY: No, what I said was, rather than tell you what we
don’t support, let me tell you what we do support, and that is that we
support Turkey and Iraq continuing to have a dialogue and working their
way through this.
What they do support?
They supported Turkey.
The White House supported the bombs Turkey has dropped on northern Iraq
and defended Turkey doing so -- all the while Haider and other
government officials in Iraq objected. The White House has backed
Turkey's military infusion/invasion of Iraq as well.
What they won't back is anything that addresses the actual problems in Iraq.
For example, let's note these bullet points the White House prepared.
That's how you defeat the Islamic State?
Only if you're an idiot.
Barack's a failure.
He's a failure because he can't speak the truth, he's a failure because
he can't speak up, he's a failure because he wanted the title of
president but didn't want to do the work.
Over a year ago, June 19, 2014, Barack told the world a political solution was needed.
Now he's too chicken to even note that reality.
So he offers a lot of b.s. that's supposed to make him look tough but only makes him look pathetic.
The only way you defeat the Islamic State is by robbing it of is very reason for existence -- the persecution of the Sunnis.
As Britain makes a decision on whether to bomb IS in Syria, as we are
already doing in Iraq, we appear to have little understanding of why IS
has become so strong and, indeed, why its support is growing. In our
disgust at its medieval methods of torture and killing, it is easy to
forget that IS is not merely tolerated but welcomed in its strongholds
in Iraq and Syria. It is true that there are many foreign fighters in
both cities but there are also Sunni Arab populations that regard IS
rule as a better alternative to the Shia-led government of Iraq,
Iranian-funded militias, the Kurds or the regime of Syria’s president,
Bashar al-Assad.
The point is one Barack grasps verbally but one he fails to provide
action for. Instead of providing a diplomatic infusion, bringing all
the agents to the table and hashing things out, he prefers to drop bombs
and send in troops.
None of which will erase the Islamic State or what pops up to replace
the Islamic State -- which popped up to replace al Qaeda in Mesopotamia.
Today the US Defense Dept announced:
Strikes in Iraq Fighter, bomber, and remotely piloted aircraft conducted 20
strikes in Iraq, coordinated with and in support of the Iraqi
government: -- Near Huwayjah, four strikes struck three separate ISIL
tactical units, wounded two ISIL fighters, damaged an ISIL trench, and
destroyed an ISIL vehicle and an ISIL tunnel. -- Near Kisik, three strikes struck three separate ISIL
tactical units and destroyed three ISIL fighting positions and an ISIL
rocket cache. -- Near Mosul, a strike destroyed an ISIL excavator. -- Near Ramadi, six strikes struck two separate ISIL tactical
units, denied ISIL access to terrain, and destroyed three ISIL ammo
caches, 12 ISIL buildings, an ISIL command and control node, an ISIL
sniper position, seven ISIL heavy machine guns, four ISIL staging areas,
an ISIL mortar system, an ISIL tactical vehicle, an ISIL tunnel
entrance, seven ISIL fighting positions, and two ISIL supply caches. -- Near Sinjar, a strike destroyed an ISIL vehicle. -- Near Tal Afar, two strikes destroyed three ISIL weapons caches, nine ISIL bunkers, three ISIL tunnels, and an ISIL vehicle. -- Near Hit, a strike destroyed an ISIL homemade explosives facility and two ISIL vehicle bombs. -- Near Qayyarah, two strikes destroyed an ISIL logistics facility and an ISIL vehicle bomb-making facility.
Task force officials define a strike as one or more kinetic
events that occur in roughly the same geographic location to produce a
single, sometimes cumulative, effect. Therefore, officials explained, a
single aircraft delivering a single weapon against a lone ISIL vehicle
is one strike, but so is multiple aircraft delivering dozens of weapons
against buildings, vehicles and weapon systems in a compound, for
example, having the cumulative effect of making those targets harder or
impossible for ISIL to use. Accordingly, officials said, they do not
report the number or type of aircraft employed in a strike, the number
of munitions dropped in each strike, or the number of individual
munition impact points against a target.
These bombs have been dropped on Iraq since Augut 2014 by US war planes.
They've had no real effect other than terrorizing the Iraqi people and
putting US tax payers further in debt for financial cost of a
never-ending war.
Quentin Sommerville concludes his essay on the Islamic State with this,
"The grievances in Iraq and Syria that allowed it to flourish have not
been addressed and have only intensified – and appear to lie far beyond
the reach of air strikes alone."
No comments:
Post a Comment