Posts Tagged ‘united states’

And why is it highly likely that the use of chemical weapons in Syria is US ruse? This article outlines a few very clear and obvious reasons citing western mainstream media.

These articles by debkafile are interesting. According to them, Assad said he would consider the attack on Syria by the US as originating from Israel and will respond accordingly. Is Israel confident that it can prevent Syrian rocket attack? Or is the government of Israel ready to sacrifice its own people?

The highest commanders of the US, UK, French, German, and Italian militaries along with totalitarian Arab Suni states of Saudi Arabia, Quatar, and Jordan are meeting in Jordan for the last meeting before the attack on Syria. If Syria waits until the bombs start raining it may not have a chance and from its view, it should start the conflict that is unavoidable at its own timing and terms. Or Assad will end up like Sadam and Gadhafi that too waiting until the US invaded.

The US and world economy will tank and Obama and Democrats and Western governments should be removed from power. Bankrupt governments ready to borrow more to start new wars until their houses explode. The problem is that there is no real opposition anywhere in the “democratic” world. The only response the people have is a revolution.

 

London, Jan 30 (ANI): The Obama administration gave green signal to a chemical weapons attack plan in Syria that could be blamed on President Bashar al Assad’s regime and in turn, spur international military action in the devastated country, leaked documents have shown.

But who would attack their own people? Al-Qaida would. Now they are America’s allies again. Dejavu Osama bin Laden.

The US accused Syrian government of using chemical weapons. The source of the accusation was … the rebels! Now that is a very independent and disinterested source that should be trusted with accusations that their opponent, Syrian government did what Obama said would start US aggression against Syria.

But what if Assad used the chemical weapons? Is killing with conventional weapons OK but with chemical weapons not?

The US has the biggest world arsenal of WMDs: nuclear, chemical, and biological. It is also the only country that has ever used nuclear weapons against a civilian population or against any country for that matter. Why does US have those weapons? To use them. Why other countries cannot use them in their own self-preservation? If Soviet Union had attacked, would not US have used them, too? Would that “crossed somebody’s line”?

debka files

A few observations:

US invasion will happen without Egypt that is now against Islamic Caliphate and Otoman Empire that the US is so desperatel trying to recreate in the Middle East.

US invasion will be limited as long as Syria surenders. If not, the US will be forced to increase its involvement, in self defense of course.

US may try to set up a Druze bantustan on Israeli and Jordanian border to prevent Al-Qaida reaching those countries. The experience with South Lebanon border zone that was manned by Lebanese Christians and run by Israel and then abandoned suggests that it will not work long term.

Turkey will start re-establishing Otoman empire, starting with Syria. That will help Turkish government to refocus citizens from worsening economy and unemployment at home. But they will only import more chaos home.

Nobel Peace Laureate’s adventure will make Americans to forget not only the bad economy that is not improving 5 years after the crash but also that the whole country is under the watchful eye of Big Brother.

If successful, the US will cause removal the ancient Christian population from Syria and help masacre Alawites. Of course, because of no boots on the ground, Barak will be innocent of war crimes committed by Al-Qaida against minorities in Syria.

Syrian moslems will long after the times when Asad family ruled, so good the new rulers will be.

Israel will long after the times when Asad family ruled, so good the Al-Qaida on its border will be.

First Iraq that is in constant chaos after US troops withdrew. Sunni rule was replaced by Shia rule. US involvement led to half of its ancient, pre-muslim population Christian population to leave. al-Qaeda of Levant has now bases in the Sunni areas od Iraq and expanding into Syria.

Then came Libya where gangs of “militia” effectively rule parts of the country while the “government” has no power. Powerful Misrata militias were said to persecute darker Libyans and other tribes they dislike. Everybody shooting at everybody. And US ambassador Stevens killed by those US supported against Gadhafi under still somewhat foggy circumstances.

Now Syria. “Alawites into grave and Christians to Lebanon” say those that US arms. If Assad goes, that’s what will happen.

In Egypt, a unholly alliance of the likes of Obama and McCain became really agitated when the population-supported military removed an islamic government that was trying to institute an islamic dictatorship. The argument that a democratically elected government is always a good thing does not work when that government does not obey universal rights, as the history of 1930s Germany clearly demonstrates.

Each of these countries was ruled by a dictator that kept peace among its various religious and tribal groups and provided for basic needs to prevent a revolt. Then came the first revolt in Tunisia caused by high food prices which in turn were at least partially caused by burning food in Western countries (yes, burning corn to supplement gasoline led to higher food prices, in addition to China and India population getting wealthier and eating more).

Democracy is meant to allow people to vote for ideas how to run their country but in multi-ethnic, multi-religious and multi-tribal Arab countries it only means that a more populous groups can “democratically” oppress other groups.

The result will be decades up upheaval, inter-communal hatred and distrust, and millions of refugees full of hate and bitterness entering the US and Europe. If you doubt it, look for the former Yugoslavia where inter-ethnic and inter-religious marriages were once common.
Nobody is a winner, except for the asylum patients living in Brussels and Washington laughing on the way to their shrink.

by Rep. Ron Paul, December 10, 2011
The Soviet Union detonated its first nuclear bomb on August 29, 1949, leading to the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction, shared by both the USA and the Soviets. The unwritten agreement by the two superpowers deterred nuclear war with an implied threat to blow up the world, if need be, to defend each of their interests.

I well remember the Cuban missile crisis of October 1962, having been drafted into the military at that time. Mutually Assured Destruction had significant meaning to the whole world during this period. This crisis, along with the escalating ill-advised Vietnam War, made me very much aware of the problems the world faced during the five years I served as a USAF flight surgeon.

It was with great pleasure and hope that I observed the collapse of the Soviet Empire between 1989 and 1991. This breakup verified the early predictions by the free market economists, like Ludwig von Mises, that communism would self-destruct because of the deeply flawed economic theories embedded in socialism. Our nukes were never needed because ideas are more powerful than the weapons of war.

Many Americans at the time were boldly hopeful that we would benefit from a generous peace dividend. Sadly, it turned out to be a wonderful opportunity wasted. There was to be no “beating their swords into plowshares,” even though history shows that without weapons and war there’s more food and prosperity for the people. Unfortunately, our leaders decided on another course that served the special interests who benefit from constant wars and the arbitrary rearrangement of national borders for control of national resources.

Instead of a peace dividend from ending the policy of Mutually Assured Destruction, US leaders opted for a foreign policy of American world domination as its sole superpower. It was all in the spirit of Woodrow Wilson’s idealistic goal of “making the world safe for democracy” by pursuing a war to end all wars.

The mantra became that American exceptionalism morally required us to spread our dominance world-wide by force. US world dominance, by whatever means, became our new bipartisan foreign policy. There was to be no peace dividend, though our enemies were virtually non-existent.

In many ways America had been “exceptional” but in an opposite manner from the neocon driven foreign policy of the last 20 years. If America indeed has something good to offer the cause of peace, prosperity, and liberty it must be spread through persuasion and by example; not by intimidation, bribes, and war.

Maintaining world domination is based on an intellectually and financially bankrupt idea that generates dependency, war, loss of civil liberties, inflation, and debt, all of which contribute to our economic crisis.

Saddest of all, this policy of American domination and exceptionalism has allowed us to become an aggressor nation, supporting pre-emptive war, covert destabilization, foreign occupations, nation building, torture, and assassinations. This policy has generated hatred toward Americans and provides the incentive for almost all of the suicide attacks against us and our allies.

To continue to believe the fiction that the militants hate us for our freedoms and wealth may even result in more attacks against us — that is, unless our national bankruptcy brings us to our knees and forces us to bring our troops home.

Expanding our foreign military intervention overseas as a cure for the attacks against us, tragically, only guarantees even more attacks. We must someday wake up, be honest with ourselves, and reject the notion that we’re spreading freedom and America’s goodness around the world. We cannot justify our policy by claiming our mission is to secure American freedoms and protect our Constitution. That is not believable. This policy is doomed to fail on all fronts.

The policy of Mutually Assured Destruction has been gone now for 20 years, and that is good.

The policy of American domination of the world, as nation builder-in-chief and policeman of the world, has failed and must be abandoned — if not as a moral imperative, then certainly out of economic necessity.

My humble suggestion is to replace it with a policy of Mutually Assured Respect. This requires no money and no weapons industry, or other special interests demanding huge war profits or other advantages.

This requires simply tolerance of others’ cultures and their social and religious values, and the giving up of all use of force to occupy or control other countries and their national resources. Many who disagree choose to grossly distort the basic principles shared by the world’s great religions: the Golden Rule, the Ten Commandments, and the cause of peace. Religions all too often are distorted and used to justify the violence engaged in for arbitrary power.

A policy of Mutually Assured Respect would result in the U.S.:

Treating other nations exactly as we expect others to treat us.

Offering friendship with all who seek it.

Participating in trade with all who are willing.

Refusing to threaten, bribe, or occupy any other nation.

Seeking an honest system of commodity money that no single country can manipulate for a trade advantage. Without this, currency manipulation becomes a tool of protectionism and prompts retaliation with tariffs and various regulations. This policy, when it persists, is dangerous and frequently leads to real wars.

Mutually Assured Respect offers a policy of respect, trade, and friendship and rejects threats, sanctions, and occupations.

This is the only practical way to promote peace, harmony, and economic well-being to the maximum number of people in the world.

Mutually Assured Respect may not be perfect but far better than Mutually Assured Destruction or unilateral American dominance.

Cry for help.

With the recent plans of the Serbian government to accept Albanian customs officers on the line between Kosovo and the rest of Serbia, Kosovo Serbs have realized that they are doomed and will have to either leave their ancestral lands or accept daily terrorism of the human organs-trading Thaci and his government. Both their own government and EU/US “human rights” organizations have abandoned them. Even sympathetic governments in Romania and Slovakia won’t do anything that could make US and Germany angry. The only help if any can come from Russia.

Precedents

Russia has in the past granted Russian citizenship to ethnic Russians living in the former soviet republics to increase its influence in those republics and defend its interests. For example in Crimea, it used this strategy to convince Ukrainians that they should not try to evict Russian fleet from Crimea’s deep see ports. In South Ossetia, Russia qualified Georgian attack as an attack against its own citizens and a reason to intervene.

Impact on Europe

The impact on Europe could potentially be very significant. The question is what Russia would do if its (Serbian) citizens came under attack as they inevitably will. Compared to its “Near Abroad”, Kosovo and Serbia are surrounded by countries that follow US orders and therefore a direct military help is implausible.

It seems that Russian government itself is unsure what granting Russian citizenship would mean for it and therefore is “studying the applications” according to Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.

Opportunity for Russia

While Russia will not get involved militarily, it could use the Kosovo Serb citizenships to increase its diplomatic and humanitarian involvement and prevent US and EU from consolidating their gains in Balkans and Serbia. It could essentially freeze the conflict and get a lever on those in EU that for the lack of other challeges feel like medling in Russia’s periphery.

Threat to pro-US/EU Serbian elites

Serbian citizens have grudgingly accepted that they lost the war and Kosovo and they cannot do anything about it and largely stopped supporting pro-Kosovo parties. If Russia stops Serb loses in Kosovo, Serbs may think that Kosovo (or at last the northern part of it) is not necessarily lost and elect pro-Kosovo parties like Kostunica’s DS. Those parties could be more forceful in defending Kosovo Serbs and make Germany and US positions in Kosovo painful. The standoff could also impact other countries in the region.

Russia could build it position awaiting a possible EU and US economic (and maybe also political) breakdown.

Is this the demonstration of Romney’s business skills, to borrow money to wage a new useless war? But he is being financed by big business, so there must be money to be made … just not for the middle class. Yet middle class is going to vote for those crack heads?! Is the American middle class crack heads, then, too?

Return of the War Party?
By Patrick J. Buchanan

Is a vote for the Republican Party in 2012 a vote for war?

Is a vote for Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich a vote for yet another unfunded war of choice, this time with a nation, Iran, three times as large and populous as Iraq?

Mitt says that if elected he will move carriers into the Persian Gulf and “prepare for war.” Newt is even more hawkish. America should continue “taking out” Iran’s nuclear scientists — i.e., assassinating them — but military action will probably be needed.

Newt is talking up uber-hawk John Bolton for secretary of state.

Rick Santorum has already called for U.S.-Israeli strikes: “Either we’re going to stop them … or take the long term consequences of having a nuclear Iran trying to wipe out the state of Israel.”

But if Iran represents, as Bibi Netanyahu is forever reminding us, an “existential threat,” why does not Israel itself, with hundreds of nuclear weapons, deal with it?

Bibi’s inaction speaks louder than Bibi’s words.

He wants the Americans to do it.

For the retired head of Mossad, Meir Dagan, calls attacking Iran “the stupidest thing I have ever heard of.” He means stupid for Israel.

Why? Because an Israeli attack would be costly in planes and pilots, and only set back Iran’s nuclear program. And such a pre-emptive strike would unify Iranians behind the regime.

Moreover, Israel would be inviting Tehran’s ally Hezbollah to rain down rockets on Israel, igniting another of the bloody Lebanon wars that Israel was desperate to end the last time.

As for the United States, the only way we could eliminate Iran’s nuclear program would be days of air and missile strikes.

Iran could retaliate by cutting off oil exports and mining the Strait of Hormuz, tripling the world price of oil, and hurling the European Union and United States into recession.

Iran could also turn Hezbollah loose on Americans in Lebanon and urge Shias to attack U.S. troops, diplomats and civilians in Bahrain, Iraq and Afghanistan, and here in the United States.

No one knows how this would end. A U.S.-Iran war could force us to march to Tehran to remove the Islamic regime and scour that huge country to ensure that it was shorn of weapons of mass destruction — for an Islamic regime that survived a U.S. war would be hellbent on acquiring the bomb to pay us back. Yet, we lack a large enough army to occupy Iran.

And why should thousands more Americans have to die or come home to be fitted for metal limbs so Israel can remain sole proprietor of a nuclear weapon from Morocco to Afghanistan?

And where is the hard evidence Iran is acquiring nukes?

The U.S. intelligence community declared in December 2007, with “high confidence,” that Iran was no longer seeking nuclear weapons. It has never rescinded that declaration.

And there is no conclusive evidence in that media-hyped report last week from the International Atomic Energy Agency that Iran is for certain building nuclear weapons. Indeed, that report was exposed as the work of incompetents within hours.

Relying on intelligence agencies, the IAEA said a top Russian nuclear weapons scientist had been instructing Iranians for years. The scientist turns out to be V.I. Danilenko, who has no expertise in nuclear weapons, but is a specialist in using conventional explosives to produce nanodiamonds for the manufacture of lubricants and rubber.

Are we being lied and stampeded into yet another war by the same propagandists who gave us the yellow-cake-from-Niger forgeries?

Bibi calls Mahmoud Ahmadinejad another Hitler and says we are all in 1939 again. But is this credible?

True, Ahmadinejad hosted a Holocaust conference featuring David Duke and said Israel should be wiped off the map, but he does not control Iran’s military, has lost favor with the ayatollah, and has been threatened with impeachment. Ahmadinejad is a lame duck with less than two years left in his term. Is mighty Israel afraid of this man?

Told that the IAEA said Iran was actively pursuing nuclear weapons, Ahmadinejad laughed: “The Iranian nation is wise. It won’t build two bombs against 20,000 (nuclear) bombs you (Americans) have.”

Does he not have a point? How would an Iranian bomb secure Iran, when Israel’s nuclear arsenal would be put on a hair trigger, and Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Egypt would then rush to get their own bombs?

In that South Carolina debate, Ron Paul, the one person there proven right on Iraq, was given less than 90 seconds to speak.

Under the Constitution, said Paul, no president has the right to launch an unprovoked attack on Iran without congressional authorization.

Before America goes to war with Iran, let Congress, whose members are forever expressing their love for the Constitution, follow it, and vote on war with Iran. And before we go to the polls in 2012, let’s find out if the GOP is becoming again the same old War Party that bankrupted the nation.