Filed under: airstrikes, Centcom, Coup, David Petraeus, Iran, Israel, middle east, Military, Military Industrial Complex, military strike, nation building, Nuke, occupation, Petraeus, Tehran, united nation, War On Terror, WW3, ww4
Iran can be bombed says General Petraeus
Alex Spillius
London Telegraph
January 11, 2010
The US military commander for the Middle East and the Gulf region has confirmed that the United States has developed contingency plans to deal with Iran’s nuclear facilities.
Gen David Petraeus, head of Central Command or Centcom, did not elaborate on the plans, but said the military has considered the impacts of any action taken there.
Asked about the vulnerability of Iran’s nuclear installations, he told CNN: “Well, they certainly can be bombed. The level of effect would vary with who it is that carries it out, what ordnance they have, and what capability they can bring to bear.”
He added: “It would be almost literally irresponsible if Centcom were not to have been thinking about the various ‘what ifs’ and to make plans for a whole variety of different contingencies.”
Iran maintains its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes, but the United States and other Western nations fear Tehran wants to acquire nuclear weapons.
Israel has called Iran’s nuclear programme the major threat facing its nation. Gen Petraeus declined to comment about Israel’s military capabilities, according to CNN.
Iran had until the end of last year to accept a deal offered five permanent UN Security Council members – Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States, plus Germany.
It did not do so. Instead, Tehran gave the West until the end of January to accept its own proposal.
Petraeus said he thought there was still time for the nations to engage Iran in diplomacy, noting there is no deadline on the enactment of any US contingency plans.
But he added that “there’s a period of time, certainly, before all this might come to a head”.
Filed under: 2-party system, Afghanistan, airstrikes, alqaeda, Arabian Peninsula, Barack Obama, Britain, bush, bush = obama, Caspian Sea, China, Colonialism, Coup, Dictatorship, drone attacks, Empire, Europe, european union, Flight 253, future wars, gas prices, George Bush, gulf, gulf of Aden, impirialism, India, indian ocean, Iran, Iraq, islamist, Israel, left right paradigm, middle east, Military, Military Industrial Complex, military strike, mutallab, nation building, obama, obama = bush, obamas war, occupation, Oil, Oman, Pakistan, Petrol, puppet governments, resource wars, Robert Gates, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Shiite, Somalia, staged terrorist attack, sunni, Turkmenistan, uav, United Kingdom, war crime, War Crimes, War On Terror, WW3, ww4, yemen | Tags: christmas bomber, Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab, underwear bomber
Obama’s Yemeni odyssey targets China
Asia Times
January 9, 2010
A cursory look at the map of region will show that Yemen is one of the most strategic lands adjoining waters of the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Peninsula. It flanks Saudi Arabia and Oman, which are vital American protectorates. In effect, Uncle Sam is “marking territory” – like a dog on a lamppost. Russia has been toying with the idea of reopening its Soviet-era base in Aden. Well, the US has pipped Moscow in the race.
The US has signaled that the odyssey doesn’t end with Yemen. It is also moving into Somalia and Kenya. With that, the US establishes its military presence in an entire unbroken stretch of real estate all along the Indian Ocean’s western rim. Chinese officials have of late spoken of their need to establish a naval base in the region. The US has now foreclosed China’s options. The only country with a coastline that is available for China to set up a naval base in the region will be Iran. All other countries have a Western military presence. (are western military puppet governments)
The American intervention in Yemen is not going to be on the pattern of Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama will ensure he doesn’t receive any body bags of American servicemen serving in Yemen. That is what the American public expects from him. He will only deploy drone aircraft and special forces and “focus on providing intelligence and training to help Yemen counter al-Qaeda militants”, according to the US military. Obama’s main core objective will be to establish an enduring military presence in Yemen. This serves many purposes.
A new great game begins
First, the US move has to be viewed against the historic backdrop of the Shi’ite awakening in the region. The Shi’ites (mostly of the Zaidi group) have been traditionally suppressed in Yemen. Shi’ite uprisings have been a recurring theme in Yemen’s history. There has been a deliberate attempt to minimize the percentage of Shi’ites in Yemen, but they could be anywhere up to 45%.
More importantly, in the northern part of the country, they constitute the majority. What bothers the US and moderate Sunni Arab states – and Israel – is that the Believing Youth Organization led by Hussein Badr al-Houthi, which is entrenched in northern Yemen, is modeled after Hezbollah in Lebanon in all respects – politically, economically, socially and culturally.
Yemenis are an intelligent people and are famous in the Arabian Peninsula for their democratic temperament. The Yemeni Shi’ite empowerment on a Hezbollah-model would have far-reaching regional implications. Next-door Oman, which is a key American base, is predominantly Shi’ite. Even more sensitive is the likelihood of the dangerous idea of Shi’ite empowerment spreading to Saudi Arabia’s highly restive Shi’ite regions adjoining Yemen, which on top of it all, also happen to be the reservoir of the country’s fabulous oil wealth.
Saudi Arabia is entering a highly sensitive phase of political transition as a new generation is set to take over the leadership in Riyadh, and the palace intrigues and fault lines within the royal family are likely to get exacerbated. To put it mildly, given the vast scale of institutionalized Shi’ite persecution in Saudi Arabia by the Wahhabi establishment, Shi’ite empowerment is a veritable minefield that Riyadh is petrified about at this juncture. Its threshold of patience is wearing thin, as the recent uncharacteristic resort to military power against the north Yemeni Shi’ite communities bordering Saudi Arabia testifies.
The US faces a classic dilemma. It is all right for Obama to highlight the need of reform in Muslim societies – as he did eloquently in his Cairo speech last June. But democratization in the Yemeni context – ironically, in the Arab context – would involve Shi’ite empowerment. After the searing experience in Iraq, Washington is literally perched like a cat on a hot tin roof. It would much rather be aligned with the repressive, autocratic government of Saleh than let the genie of reform out of the bottle in the oil rich-region in which it has profound interests.
Obama has an erudite mind and he is not unaware that what Yemen desperately needs is reform, but he simply doesn’t want to think about it. The paradox he faces is that with all its imperfections, Iran happens to be the only “democratic” system operating in that entire region.
Iran’s shadow over the Yemeni Shi’ite consciousness worries the US to no end. Simply put, in the ideological struggle going on in the region, Obama finds himself with the ultra-conservative and brutally autocratic oligarchies that constitute the ruling class in the region. Conceivably, he isn’t finding it easy. If his own memoirs are to be believed, there could be times when the vague recollections of his childhood in Indonesia and his precious memories of his own mother, who from all accounts was a free-wheeling intellectual and humanist, must be stalking him in the White House corridors.
Israel moves in
But Obama is first and foremost a realist. Emotions and personal beliefs drain away and strategic considerations weigh uppermost when he works in the Oval Office. With the military presence in Yemen, the US has tightened the cordon around Iran. In the event of a military attack on Iran, Yemen could be put to use as a springboard by the Israelis. These are weighty considerations for Obama.
The fact is that no one is in control as a Yemeni authority. It is a cakewalk for the formidable Israeli intelligence to carve out a niche in Yemen – just as it did in northern Iraq under somewhat comparable circumstances.
Islamism doesn’t deter Israel at all. Saleh couldn’t have been far off the mark when he alleged last year that Israeli intelligence had been exposed as having kept links with Yemeni Islamists. The point is, Yemeni Islamists are a highly fragmented lot and no one is sure who owes what sort of allegiance to whom. Israeli intelligence operates marvelously in such twilight zones when the horizon is lacerated with the blood of the vanishing sun.
Israel will find a toehold in Yemen to be a god-sent gift insofar as it registers its presence in the Arabian Peninsula. This is a dream come true for Israel, whose effectiveness as a regional power has always been seriously handicapped by its lack of access to the Persian Gulf region. The overarching US military presence helps Israel politically to consolidate its Yemeni chapter. Without doubt, Petraeus is moving on Yemen in tandem with Israel (and Britain). But the “pro-West” Arab states with their rentier mentality have no choice except to remain as mute spectators on the sidelines.
Some among them may actually acquiesce with the Israeli security presence in the region as a safer bet than the spread of the dangerous ideas of Shi’ite empowerment emanating out of Iran, Iraq and Hezbollah. Also, at some stage, Israeli intelligence will begin to infiltrate the extremist Sunni outfits in Yemen, which are commonly known as affiliates of al-Qaeda. That is, if it hasn’t done that already. Any such link makes Israel an invaluable ally for the US in its fight against al-Qaeda. In sum, infinite possibilities exist in the paradigm that is taking shape in the Muslim world abutting into the strategic Persian Gulf.
It’s all about China
Most important, however, for US global strategies will be the massive gain of control of the port of Aden in Yemen. Britain can vouchsafe that Aden is the gateway to Asia. Control of Aden and the Malacca Strait will put the US in an unassailable position in the “great game” of the Indian Ocean. The sea lanes of the Indian Ocean are literally the jugular veins of China’s economy. By controlling them, Washington sends a strong message to Beijing that any notions by the latter that the US is a declining power in Asia would be nothing more than an extravagant indulgence in fantasy.
In the Indian Ocean region, China is increasingly coming under pressure. India is a natural ally of the US in the Indian Ocean region. Both disfavor any significant Chinese naval presence. India is mediating a rapprochement between Washington and Colombo that would help roll back Chinese influence in Sri Lanka. The US has taken a u-turn in its Myanmar policy and is engaging the regime there with the primary intent of eroding China’s influence with the military rulers. The Chinese strategy aimed at strengthening influence in Sri Lanka and Myanmar so as to open a new transportation route towards the Middle East, the Persian Gulf and Africa, where it has begun contesting traditional Western economic dominance.
China is keen to whittle down its dependence on the Malacca Strait for its commerce with Europe and West Asia. The US, on the contrary, is determined that China remains vulnerable to the choke point between Indonesia and Malaysia.
An engrossing struggle is breaking out. The US is unhappy with China’s efforts to reach the warm waters of the Persian Gulf through the Central Asian region and Pakistan. Slowly but steadily, Washington is tightening the noose around the neck of the Pakistani elites – civilian and military – and forcing them to make a strategic choice between the US and China. This will put those elites in an unenviable dilemma. Like their Indian counterparts, they are inherently “pro-Western” (even when they are “anti-American”) and if the Chinese connection is important for Islamabad, that is primarily because it balances perceived Indian hegemony.
The existential questions with which the Pakistani elites are grappling are apparent. They are seeking answers from Obama. Can Obama maintain a balanced relationship vis-a-vis Pakistan and India? Or, will Obama lapse back to the George W Bush era strategy of building up India as the pre-eminent power in the Indian Ocean under whose shadow Pakistan will have to learn to live?
US-India-Israel axis
On the other hand, the Indian elites are in no compromising mood. Delhi was on a roll during the Bush days. Now, after the initial misgivings about Obama’s political philosophy, Delhi is concluding that he is all but a clone of his illustrious predecessor as regards the broad contours of the US’s global strategy – of which containment of China is a core template.
The comfort level is palpably rising in Delhi with regard to the Obama presidency. Delhi takes the surge of the Israeli lobby in Washington as the litmus test for the Obama presidency. The surge suits Delhi, since the Jewish lobby was always a helpful ally in cultivating influence in the US Congress, media and the rabble-rousing think-tankers as well as successive administrations. And all this is happening at a time when the India-Israel security relationship is gaining greater momentum.
United States Defense Secretary Robert Gates is due to visit Delhi in the coming days. The Obama administration is reportedly adopting an increasingly accommodative attitude toward India’s longstanding quest for “dual-use” technology from the US. If so, a massive avenue of military cooperation is about to open between the two countries, which will make India a serious challenger to China’s growing military prowess. It is a win-win situation as the great Indian arms bazaar offers highly lucrative business for American companies.
Clearly, a cozy three-way US-Israel-India alliance provides the underpinning for all the maneuvering that is going on. It will have significance for the security of the Indian Ocean, the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Peninsula. Last year, India formalized a naval presence in Oman.
All-in-all, terrorism experts are counting the trees and missing the wood when they analyze the US foray into Yemen in the limited terms of hunting down al-Qaeda. The hard reality is that Obama, whose main plank used to be “change”, has careened away and increasingly defaults to the global strategies of the Bush era. The freshness of the Obama magic is dissipating. Traces of the “revisionism” in his foreign policy orientation are beginning to surface. We can see them already with regard to Iran, Afghanistan, the Middle East and the Israel-Palestine problem, Central Asia and towards China and Russia.
Arguably, this sort of “return of the native” by Obama was inevitable. For one thing, he is but a creature of his circumstances. As someone put it brilliantly, Obama’s presidency is like driving a train rather than a car: a train cannot be “steered”, the driver can at best set its speed, but ultimately, it must run on its tracks.
Besides, history has no instances of a declining world power meekly accepting its destiny and walking into the sunset. The US cannot give up on its global dominance without putting up a real fight. And the reality of all such momentous struggles is that they cannot be fought piece-meal. You cannot fight China without occupying Yemen.
Russia, China, Iran redraw energy map
Asia Times
January 9, 2010
The inauguration of the Dauletabad-Sarakhs-Khangiran pipeline on Wednesday connecting Iran’s northern Caspian region with Turkmenistan’s vast gas field may go unnoticed amid the Western media cacophony that it is “apocalypse now” for the Islamic regime in Tehran.
The event sends strong messages for regional security. Within the space of three weeks, Turkmenistan has committed its entire gas exports to China, Russia and Iran. It has no urgent need of the pipelines that the United States and the European Union have been advancing. Are we hearing the faint notes of a Russia-China-Iran symphony?
The 182-kilometer Turkmen-Iranian pipeline starts modestly with the pumping of 8 billion cubic meters (bcm) of Turkmen gas. But its annual capacity is 20bcm, and that would meet the energy requirements of Iran’s Caspian region and enable Tehran to free its own gas production in the southern fields for export. The mutual interest is perfect: Ashgabat gets an assured market next door; northern Iran can consume without fear of winter shortages; Tehran can generate more surplus for exports; Turkmenistan can seek transportation routes to the world market via Iran; and Iran can aspire to take advantage of its excellent geographical location as a hub for the Turkmen exports.
We are witnessing a new pattern of energy cooperation at the regional level that dispenses with Big Oil. Russia traditionally takes the lead. China and Iran follow the example. Russia, Iran and Turkmenistan hold respectively the world’s largest, second-largest and fourth-largest gas reserves. And China will be consumer par excellence in this century. The matter is of profound consequence to the US global strategy.
Filed under: Afghanistan, Africa, civil unrest, DEBT, depression, despotism, Dictatorship, Dissent, Economic Collapse, economic depression, Economy, Empire, famine, global economy, Great Depression, hyperinflation, Inflation, Iran, malthusian, malthusian catastrophe, middle east, Ordo Ab Chao, Pakistan, Protest, recession, riot, third world, US Economy | Tags: 2010 forecast, 2010 predictions
2010 could be a year that sparks unrest
Economist.com
December 31, 2009
IF THE world appears to have escaped relatively unscathed by social unrest in 2009, despite suffering the worst recession since the 1930s, it might just prove the lull before the storm. Despite a tentative global recovery, for many people around the world economic and social conditions will continue to deteriorate in 2010. An estimated 60m people worldwide will lose their jobs. Poverty rates will continue to rise, with 200m people at risk of joining the ranks of those living on less than $2 a day. But poverty alone does not spark unrest—exaggerated income inequalities, poor governance, lack of social provision and ethnic tensions are all elements of the brew that foments unrest.
Filed under: Afghanistan, animal cruelty, Censorship, CIA, CNN, Colonialism, Conditioning, Coup, Empire, exile, Extraordinary Rendition, forced deportation, guantanamo bay, impirialism, Iraq, kidnapped, Mainstream Media, media blackout, media censorship, Media Manipulation, mediaopoly, middle east, Military, military base, Military Industrial Complex, nation building, navy, occupation, Pentagon, PR, Propaganda, psychological operations, Psyops, secret war, War On Terror | Tags: diego garcia, indian ocean
U.S. Navy Kidnapped Islanders and Gassed Their Dogs
National Expositor
October 26, 2009
In order to convert the sleepy, Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia into a dominating military base, the U.S. forcibly transported its 2,000 Chagossian inhabitants into exile and gassed their dogs.
By banning journalists from the area, the U.S. Navy was able to perpetrate this with virtually no press coverage, says David Vine, an assistant professor of anthropology at American University and author of “Island of Shame: the Secret History of the U.S. Military on Diego Garcia(Princeton University Press).”
“The Chagossians were put on a boat and taken to Mauritius and the Seychelles, 1,200 miles away, where they were left on the docks, with no money and no housing, to fend for themselves,” Vine said on the interview show “Books Of Our Time,” sponsored by the Massachusetts School of Law at Andover.
“They were promised jobs that never materialized. They had been living on an island with schools, hospitals, and full employment, sort of like a French coastal village, and they were consigned to a life of abject poverty in exile, unemployment, health problems, and were the poorest of the poor,” Vine told interview host Lawrence Velvel, dean of the law school.
Their pet dogs were rounded up and gassed, and their bodies burned, before the very eyes of their traumatized owners, Vine said.
“They were moved because they were few in number and not white,” Vine added. The U.S. government circulated the fiction the Chagossians were transient contract workers that had taken up residence only recently but, in fact, they had been living on Diego Garcia since about the time of the American Revolution. Merchants had imported them to work on the coconut and copra plantations. Vine said the U.S. government induced The Washington Post not to break a story spelling out events on the island.
“Through Diego Garcia,” Vine pointed out, “the U.S. can project its power throughout the Middle East, and from East Africa to India, Australia and Indonesia. With Guam, the island is the most important American base outside the U.S.” He said U.S. bases now number around 1,000, including 287 in Germany, 130 in Japan and Okinawa, and 57 in Italy.
“Bases have been essential tools of U.S. military and economic power since not long after independence,” Vine pointed out. “We had bases all the way to the Pacific. After the Civil War, the U.S. began to acquire coaling bases in the Pacific.”
Although the Chagossians were forcibly removed in 1971, they still hope to return, Vine says, and refer to their period of exile as one of “profound sorrow.” Vine says they would be happy to live on the unused eastern portion of the island and work at the base but the U.S. instead “imports contract labor from other areas so they can send them home when the job is done.” The island’s exiled survivors and their descendants today number about 5,000.
Long off limits to reporters, the Red Cross, and all other international observers and far more secretive than Guantánamo Bay, many long suspected the island was a clandestine CIA “black site” for high-profile detainees, Vine wrote in a related article. Journalist Stephen Grey’s 2006 book “Ghost Plane” documented the presence on the island of a CIA-chartered plane used for rendition flights. On two occasions former U.S. Army General Barry McCaffrey publicly named Diego Garcia as a detention facility. And a Council of Europe report named the atoll, along with those in Poland and Romania, as a secret prison.
The island became “a major launch pad” for the U.S. attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq, Vine said. In addition to its capacious harbor, the island readily supports some of the largest U.S. warplanes, including Air Force B-52s, B-1Bs and B-2s. Two years ago, the Pentagon awarded a $32 million contract to add a submarine base to the island’s arsenal.
Diego Garcia had been a British possession until 1966, when London allowed the U.S. to use it as a military base in exchange for cancelling a $14-million British debt for a military hardware purchase. Some idea of the size of the base may be conveyed by the fact it is said by the Pentagon to contain 654 buildings.
In a related article about Diego Garcia, Vine has written: “With support for the Chagossians’ struggle growing in both the United States and Britain at the same time that revelations about a secret CIA prison are spreading, the United States must finally act to remedy the damage done by another Guantánamo damaging too many lives and undermining its international legitimacy. The United States must allow the Chagossians to return and assist Britain in paying them proper compensation; the United States must close the detention facilities and open Diego Garcia to international investigators; the United States must end the painful irony that is a base the military calls the ‘Footprint of Freedom.’”
Filed under: 2004 election, 9/11, alqaeda, Dictatorship, domestic terror, domestic terrorism, double agent, Empire, fake alqaeda, FBI, florida, George Bush, george w. bush, informant, intimidation, islam, islamic community, Jose Padilla, mccarthy, Miami, middle east, muslim, neocons, Oppression, Provocateurs, stasi, stasi tactics, War On Terror | Tags: Imam Foad Farahi
FBI tries to deport Muslim man for refusing to be an informant
After Imam Foad Farahi declined to become a federal informant, the government tried to destroy him.
FederalJack.com
October 17, 2009
(MIAMI NEW TIMES) Bush-Cheney and Kerry-Edwards signs littered the lawns of North Miami Beach as Imam Foad Farahi walked from a mosque to his apartment a few blocks away. It was November 1, 2004, the day before George W. Bush would win a second term in office. But the Muslim holy man had been too busy fasting and praying to pay much attention to the presidential election.
For Farahi, an Iranian citizen who had lived in the United States for more than a decade, it was simply another month of Ramadan in South Florida. Then, around 5 p.m., as he neared his apartment, he saw two men standing outside. They were waiting for him.
“We’re from the FBI,” one of the men said.
“OK,” he responded.
They wanted to know about José Padilla and Adnan El Shukrijumah, two South Florida men linked to the Al-Qaedaterrorist network. Padilla, the so-called Dirty Bomber, was arrested in May 2002 and initially given enemy combatant status. He eventually stood trial in Miami, was convicted on terrorism charges, and sentenced to 17 years in prison. Shukrijumah is a Saudi Arabian and an alleged Al-Qaeda member whose last known address was in Miramar. The FBI is offering up to $5 million for information leading directly to his capture.
“I know José Padilla, but I don’t know Adnan,” Farahi told the agents.
Of course, Farahi knew of Shukrijumah. As imam of theShamsuddin Islamic Center in North Miami Beach, Farahi was in a unique position to know about local Muslims, including Padilla and Shukrijumah. Padilla had prayed at Farahi’s mosque and was once among his Arabic students. Shukrijumah was the son of a local Islamic religious leader.
“I have had no contact with Padilla since 1998, when he left the country,” Farahi told the government agents. He had once met Shukrijumah but had no contact with him after that. “I don’t know anything about his activities.”
“We want you to work with us,” Farahi remembers the agents telling him.
And this is when the imam’s five-year battle with the federal government began.
“I have no problem working with you guys or helping you out,” Farahi said. He could keep them informed about the local Muslim community or translate Arabic. But the relationship, he insisted, would need to be public; others would have to know he was helping the government.
But that wasn’t what the FBI had in mind, Farahi says. The agents wanted him to become a secret informant who would investigate specific people. And they knew Farahi was in a vulnerable position. His student visa had expired, and he had asked the government for a renewal. He had also applied for political asylum, hoping one of those legal tracks would offer a way for him to stay in the United States indefinitely.
“We’ll give you residency,” the agents promised. “We’ll give you money to go to school.”
Farahi considered the offer for a moment and then shook his head.
“I can’t,” he told them.
The slender, bearded 34-year-old Farahi frowns as he recalls all of this while sitting on a white folding chair in the Shamsuddin Islamic Center on a recent afternoon. “People trust you as a religious figure, and you’re trying to kind of deceive them,” he says, remembering the choice he faced. “That’s where the problem is.”
Farahi soon discovered the FBI’s offer wasn’t optional. The federal government used strong-arm tactics — including trying to have him deported and falsely claiming it had information linking him to terrorism — in an effort to force him to become an informant, he says.
The imam has resisted the government at every step, having most recently taken his political asylum case to the U.S. Court of Appeals in Atlanta.
“As long as you’re not a citizen, there are lots of things [the government] can do,” says Ira Kurzban, Farahi’s attorney. “They can allege you’re a terrorist and try to bring terrorist charges against you, or they can get you deported.” Terrorism, he explains, can even be defined as giving “money to a hospital in the West Bank that turns out to be run by Hamas.”
Farahi asserts unequivocally he is innocent of any terrorism charges the government could bring against him. In fact, he says, he would report anyone in the Muslim community supporting terrorism. “From the Islamic perspective, it’s your duty to respect the law, and if there’s anything going on, any crime about to be committed, or any kind of harm to be caused to people or property, it should be reported to the police,” he says.
The FBI’s intense efforts to pressure Farahi into becoming an informant reveal the bureau’s desperation to infiltrate local Muslim communities. The hard-line tactics have become so widespread in the United States that the San Francisco-based civil rights group Muslim Advocates distributes a video advising how to respond if FBI agents approach.
In fact, relations between the FBI and U.S. Islamic communities are so strained that a coalition of Muslim-American groups in March accused the government of using “McCarthy-era tactics” and threatened to sever communication with the FBI unless it “reassessed its use of agent provocateurs in Muslim communities.”
Despite this public conflict, few specific cases of Muslims being recruited as informants have become public. Farahi’s battle with the government is not only daring but also unusual.
“People have two choices,” Farahi says. “Either they end up working with the FBI, or they leave the country on their own. It’s just sometimes when you’re in that situation, not many people are strong enough to stand up and resist and fight — to reject their offers.”
Filed under: Bolivia, China, common currency, Credit Crisis, Cuba, DEBT, deflation, Dictatorship, Dollar, dollar collapse, dollar dump, Economic Collapse, economic depression, Economy, Ecuador, Empire, Euro, evo morales, Fascism, fiat currency, France, g20, gas prices, gasoline, global bankers, global central bank, global currency, global economy, global elite, global government, global treasury, Globalism, globalist elite, Great Depression, Greenback, Honduras, Hugo Chavez, hyperinflation, imf, IMF bonds, Inflation, internationalist, internationalists, Iran, Japan, Jose Antonio de Sucre, latin america, market manipulation, middle east, New World Order, Nicaragua, NWO, Oil, One World Government, Petrol, putin, ruble, Russia, SDR, SDRs, Simon Bolivar, single currency, socialism, spain, Stock Market, super currency, tax, Taxpayers, Tehran, UN, united nations, US Economy, Venezuela, Wall Street, World Bank, world currency, world government, yuan
Russia and Iran Now OFFICIALLY Talking of Dumping Dollar for International Trade
Washington’s Blog
October 18, 2009
After the Independent reported that Middle Eastern oil producers, plus China, Japan and France have all agreed to start trading oil using a basket of currencies – instead of the dollar – starting in 9 years, spokesmen for those governments denied it.
The Independent’s reporter explained why the governments were denying the rumor.
But now the governments themselves are starting to admit that they are switching out of the dollar.
For example, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said Wednesday that Russia is ready to consider using the Russian and Chinese national currencies instead of the dollar in bilateral oil and gas dealings. As Russia’s newspaper RIA Novosti writes:
Russia is ready to consider using the Russian and Chinese national currencies instead of the dollar in bilateral oil and gas dealings, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said on Wednesday.
The premier, currently on a visit to Beijing, said a final decision on the issue can only be made after a thorough expert analysis.
“Yesterday, energy companies, in particular Gazprom, raised the question of using the national currency. We are ready to examine the possibility of selling energy resources for rubles, but our Chinese partners need rubles for that. We are also ready to sell for yuans,” Putin said.
And Iran’s Press TV reports that Iran wants to completely drop the dollar from its foreign exchange:
Since October 2007, Iran has received 85 percent of its oil revenues in currencies other than the US dollar and Tehran is determined to find a substitute for the US dollar for the rest of its 15 percent of oil revenues, the report added.
This story is confirmed by the Tehran Times, which notes:
As I have repeatedly noted, many countries have been moving out of the dollar for years. The process is simply accelerating.
In line with this plan, Iran has informed Japan that it should use the yen instead of dollars to pay for the oil it buys from the Islamic Republic.
In addition, Iran has decided to open a bourse for oil and gas transactions in currencies other than the U.S. dollar, especially the euro.
Latin America plans US dollar replacement
Press TV
October 17, 2009
Leftist Latin American leaders have agreed on using a new intra- regional trading currency, dubbed as Sucre, instead of the US dollar.
Bolivian President Evo Morales, who hosted leaders of the Bolivarian Alternative for Latin America and the Caribbean (ALBA), said that the “document is approved.”
During the seventh ALBA summit, the leaders agreed on the currency reform as well as approving plans to impose economic sanctions against the coup leaders in Honduras, AFP reported.
The currency, Sucre, is named after Jose Antonio de Sucre who fought for Spain’s independence alongside Venezuelan hero Simon Bolivar in the early 19th century.
Sucre is scheduled to be rolled out in 2010 in a non-paper form.
The nine members of ALBA, conceived by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, are Cuba, Dominica, Venezuela, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Honduras, Saint Vincent and Antigua, Bolivia and Barbuda.
The bloc also agreed to replace the International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes, which is in charge of arbitrating international disputes and has probed a large number of contract disputes between Western energy firms and members of ALBA.
ALBA, which has already lost many of its members, including Ecuador, is echoing the moves of the European Union and its introduction of euro.
Filed under: 9/11, 9/11 Truth, Afghanistan, Ahmadinejad, alqaeda, Barack Obama, BBC, blackops, Britain, CIA, Coup, destabilization, destabilize, Dictatorship, Empire, european union, fake alqaeda, George Bush, george w. bush, intel cenyer, Iran, Israel, Jundollah, Jundullah, khalid sheikh mohammed, KSM, london, MEK, Mi6, middle east, Military, Military Industrial Complex, MKO, Mossad, mujahideen, mullahs, nation building, New World Order, NGOs, Nuke, NWO, obama, occupation, Oil, Pakistan, Revolutionary Guard, Revolutionary Guards, Shiite, State Sponsored Terrorism, suicide bomber, suicide bombing, sunni, Tehran, terrorist funding, terrorist training, truth movement, United Kingdom, us military, War On Terror, Whistleblowers, WW3, ww4, Zionism | Tags: Iran meddling, mirza, Mirza Aslam Baig, Mirza Aslam Beig, Pishin, Rajab Ali Mohammadzadeh, Sistan-Baluchistan, US meddling, Zahedan
US-Backed Terrorist Group Kills Iran Military Officers
Bankrolling and arming Al-Qaeda offshoot part of 2007 White House directive to destabilize Iranian government
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
October 19, 2009
The U.S. government effectively attacked Iran yesterday after its proxy terror group Jundullah launched a suicide bomb attack against the Iranian Revolutionary Guard at their headquarters in Pishin, near the border with Pakistan.
Leaders of the Al-Qaeda affiliated Sunni terrorist group Jundullah have claimed responsibility for a suicide bombing in Iran that killed over 40 people yesterday. The group is funded and trained by the CIA and is being used to destabilize the government of Iran, according to reports out of the London Telegraph and ABC News.
In the aftermath of the attack, which killed at least five commanders of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard along with scores of others, media reports have swung between Iranian accusations of US and British involvement and blanket denials on behalf of the U.S. State Department.
However, the fact that Jundullah, who have since claimed responsibility for the attack and named the bomber as Abdol Vahed Mohammadi Saravani, are openly financed and run by the CIA and Mossad is not up for debate, it has been widely reported for years.
“President George W Bush has given the CIA approval to launch covert “black” operations to achieve regime change in Iran, intelligence sources have revealed. Mr Bush has signed an official document endorsing CIA plans for a propaganda and disinformation campaign intended to destabilize, and eventually topple, the theocratic rule of the mullahs,” reported the London Telegraph in May 2007.
Part of that destabilization campaign involved the the CIA “Giving arms-length support, supplying money and weapons, to an Iranian militant group, Jundullah, which has conducted raids into Iran from bases in Pakistan,” stated the report.
Jundullah is a Sunni Al-Qaeda offshoot organization that was formerly headed by alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. The fact that it is being directly supported by the U.S. government under both Bush and now Obama destroys the whole legitimacy of the “war on terror” in an instant.
The group has been blamed for a number of bombings inside Iran aimed at destabilizing Ahmadinejad’s government and is also active in Pakistan, having been fingered for its involvement in attacks on police stations and car bombings at the Pakistan-US Cultural Center in 2004.
The group also produces propaganda tapes and literature for al-Qaeda’s media wing, As-Sahab, which is in turn closely affiliated with the military-industrial complex front IntelCenter, the group that makes available Al-Qaeda videos to the western media.
In May 2008, ABC News reported on how Pakistan was threatening to turn over six members of Jundullah to Iran after they were taken into custody by Pakistani authorities.
“U.S. officials tell ABC News U.S. intelligence officers frequently meet and advise Jundullah leaders, and current and former intelligence officers are working to prevent the men from being sent to Iran,” reported ABC news, highlighting again the close relationship between the terror group and the CIA.
In July 2009, a Jundullah member admitted before a court in Zahedan Iran that the group was a proxy for the U.S. and Israel.
Abdolhamid Rigi, a senior member of the group and the brother of the group’s leader Abdolmalek Rigi, who was one of the six members of the organization extradited by Pakistan, told the court that Jundullah was being trained and financed by “the US and Zionists”. He also said that the group had been ordered by America and Israel to step up their attacks in Iran.
Jundullah is not the only anti-Iranian terror group that US government has been accused of funding in an attempt to pressure the Iranian government.
Multiple credible individuals including US intelligence whistleblowers and former military personnel have asserted that the U.S. is conducting covert military operations inside Iran using guerilla groups to carry out attacks on Iranian Revolution Guard units.
It is widely suspected that the well known right-wing terrorist organization known as Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK), once run by Saddam Hussein’s dreaded intelligence services, is now working exclusively for the CIA’s Directorate of Operations and carrying out remote bombings in Iran.
After a bombing inside Iran in March 2007, the London Telegraph also reported on how a high ranking CIA official has blown the whistle on the fact that America is secretly funding terrorist groups in Iran in an attempt to pile pressure on the Islamic regime to give up its nuclear program.
A story entitled, US funds terror groups to sow chaos in Iran, reveals how funding for the attacks carried out by the terrorist groups “comes directly from the CIA’s classified budget,” a fact that is now “no great secret”, according to a former high-ranking CIA official in Washington who spoke anonymously to The Sunday Telegraph.
Former US state department counter-terrorism agent Fred Burton backed the claim, telling the newspaper, “The latest attacks inside Iran fall in line with US efforts to supply and train Iran’s ethnic minorities to destabilise the Iranian regime.”
John Pike, the head of the influential Global Security think tank in Washington, said: “The activities of the ethnic groups have hotted up over the last two years and it would be a scandal if that was not at least in part the result of CIA activity.”
The timing of the bombing that targeted Iranian Revolutionary Guard members yesterday was clearly orchestrated to coincide with talks between representatives from Iran, Russia, France, the U.S. and the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna today concerning Iran’s nuclear intentions.
Iranian Unrest: Evidence Of Western Intelligence Meddling
Filed under: 2-party system, Afghanistan, alqaeda, army, Barack Obama, Britain, bush, bush = obama, bush surge, Colonialism, Dictatorship, Empire, George Bush, Hillary Clinton, Iraq, left right paradigm, Marines, McChrystal, middle east, Military, Military Industrial Complex, nation building, Neolibs, obama, obama = bush, obama deception, obama surge, occupation, oligarchy, rome, Stanley McChrystal, steny hoyer, surge, Taliban, Troops, USMC, war crime, War Crimes, War On Terror, warhawks, White House
Obama to Announce 45,000 Troop Surge in Afghanistan
Obama tops Bush in troop buildup
AntiWar.com
October 14, 2009
The Obama Administration has reportedly told the British government that it intends to announce an escalation of another 45,000 troops in Afghanistan, potentially as soon as next week.
The report comes despite claims that the Obama Administration is continuing to hold talks about the strategy, though this seems to be more based on the question of whether to emphasize the failed battle against the Taliban or focus what will soon be over 100,000 troops on fighting the roughly 100 al-Qaeda members reportedly in the nation.
Britain announced that it intends to send another 500 soldiers to Afghanistan to bolster its 9,000-strong force. The announcement reportedly came as a result of the US assurances, and despite the growing domestic opposition to the war.
Several Democrats, including House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, have expressed reservations about the massive escalation, particularly coming just seven months after the administration’s last escalation. Yet Rep. Hoyer urged fellow Democrats to go along with whatever President Obama decides.
Obama tops Bush in troop buildup
Bill Van Auken
WSWS
October 14, 2009
The combined US troop deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan have now reached a higher level than existed at any time under the presidency of George W. Bush. This surge past the record set by its predecessor marks another grim milestone in the Obama administration’s escalation of American militarism.
In addition to the 21,000 US soldiers and Marines that Obama ordered deployed to Afghanistan as part of the escalation he unveiled last March, another 13,000 “support” troops are being quietly sent to the country with no official announcement, the Washington Post reported Tuesday.
This stealth buildup is a replay of the methods used by the Bush administration in its Iraq surge, when it announced the deployment of an additional 20,000 combat troops while saying nothing about the 8,000 support troops sent with them.
In neither case was the failure to declare the full number an oversight. Obama, like Bush before him, recognizes that the military interventions he oversees are deeply unpopular with the majority of the American people.
According to the troop numbers provided by the Post, there are now 65,000 US troops in Afghanistan, with another 124,000 still in Iraq, for a total of 189,000 American military personnel waging two colonial-style wars and occupations. At the height of the Bush administration’s 2007 “surge” in Iraq, there were 26,000 US troops in Afghanistan and 160,000 in Iraq, for a total of 186,000.
There is every indication that the policies being pursued by the Obama White House will send these numbers significantly higher.
Over the weekend, military officials revealed to the media that the proposal for increased troop levels in Afghanistan submitted by the American commander there, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, included a high-end figure of 80,000—in addition to the 68,000 that are to be deployed by the end of this year.
The New York Times, echoing official sources, commented that this highest request was “highly unlikely to be considered seriously by the White House.” While this may well be true—for now—the leaking of the number serves a definite political purpose, making Obama’s ultimate agreement to a smaller surge—still involving tens of thousands of additional troops in Afghanistan—seem like a reasonable compromise between the White House and the Pentagon.
While visiting Britain this week, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stressed the US commitment to continuing the Afghanistan war. “We are not changing our strategy, our strategy remains to achieve the goal of disrupting, dismantling and defeating Al Qaeda and its extremist allies, and denying them safe haven and the capacity to strike us here in London, or New York or anywhere else,” she said in a radio interview. “One should never doubt our commitment or our leadership, we intend to pursue the goal,” Clinton continued. “We will not rest until we do defeat Al Qaeda.”
Clinton’s remarks make clear that the Obama administration, while dropping the term “war on terrorism” coined by the Bush White House, continues to embrace the methods underlying this terminology—in particular, the attempt to terrorize the American people into accepting US wars of conquest and aggression.
The claim that 68,000 US troops—with tens of thousands more likely to follow—are in Afghanistan to fight Al Qaeda and prevent another 9/11 is a transparent pretext. Top US security and military officials have concurred that there are a grand total of approximately 100 individuals affiliated with Al Qaeda presently in Afghanistan, without any means of carrying out an attack on another country. If and when McChrystal’s request for additional troops is met, there will be 1,000 or more US soldiers and Marines in Afghanistan for every Al Qaeda member.
The target of the military escalation is not Al Qaeda, but rather the people of Afghanistan. Washington is attempting to suppress growing popular resistance to the occupation and is prepared to sacrifice the lives of untold numbers of Afghans, as well as those of hundreds if not thousands more US soldiers, to that end.
The defeat of “terrorism” is no more the strategic aim pursued by Washington in Afghanistan than it is in Iraq. US military might has been unleashed in both countries to assert the hegemony of American imperialism over Central Asia and the Persian Gulf, which are the two largest sources of the world’s energy supplies.
The potential costs of this venture are immense. A report prepared by the Pentagon last January describes the stated US goal of achieving a stable client state in Afghanistan as an operation that “will last, at a minimum, decades.” Appearing on NBC’s “Meet the Press” Sunday, Gen. Barry McCaffrey (ret.) was slightly more optimistic, saying that it would take “10 years of $5 billion a month,” in addition to major fighting.
In Iraq, meanwhile, there is no reason to believe that the stated deadline for pulling US troops out by 2012 will be met. On the contrary, the instability and continued resistance created by the American occupation and the destruction of Iraqi society will be used as a justification for continuing the occupation and asserting US control over the country’s oil fields.
And the threat that the US interventions will provoke new and potentially far bloodier conflicts is growing, as evidenced by the mounting crisis in Pakistan and increasing tensions throughout the Indian subcontinent flowing from the war in Afghanistan.
The debate that is now taking place in the Obama White House is over committing generations of young Americans to endless wars and occupations.
Under conditions in which resources are being denied for desperately needed jobs and basic social services, even more social wealth will be diverted to build up the US military.
Expanding the ranks of the Army is necessary if any significant escalation of the war in Afghanistan is to be sustained. The military is stretched to the breaking point by the two occupations. Even if Obama approves 40,000 more troops, nowhere near that number are immediately available.
While the American political establishment is no doubt counting on a double-digit unemployment rate driving jobless youth into the military, there is growing objective pressure for the reintroduction of conscription, with youth once again drafted to fight in colonial wars.
Millions of people voted for Barack Obama last November in the vain hope that his election would reverse the escalation of militarism initiated under Bush. Their votes, like the growing popular sentiment against the Afghan war, have been disregarded as the Obama administration continues this escalation in the interest of the financial oligarchy that it serves.
Filed under: 2-party system, Afghanistan, airstrikes, Anti-War, army, Barack Obama, China, CIA, CNN, Colonialism, Coup, death squads, destabilization, destabilize, Dictatorship, El Salvador, Empire, Eugenics, Fascism, federal crimes, Genocide, human rights, ISI, Islamabad, kidnapping, left right paradigm, McChrystal, middle east, Mike Mullen, Military, military base, military bases, military insustrial complex, military strike, nation building, NATO, Nazi, neocons, Neolibs, obama, occupation, Pakistan, Pentagon, Population Control, proxy war, Richard Holbrooke, Senate, Seymour Hersh, soldiers, Stanley McChrystal, State Sponsored Terrorism, Taliban, Torture, Troops, u.s. military, u.s. soldiers, Vietnam, war crime, War Crimes, War On Terror, Waziristan | Tags: Joint Special Operations Command, North West Frontier Province, NWFP
Ex-Intel officer: U.S. Seeks Occupation of Pakistan
Press TV
Seppember 14, 2009
The US seeks to establish new military bases in Pakistan to keep the country destabilized and control its nuclear weapons, says a former head of Pakistan’s intelligence service.
In an exclusive interview with Press TV on Sunday, Hamid Gul said that Washington planned to expand its embassy and increase its security guards in Pakistan.
“There are already three thousand five hundred of them [US security guards] and one thousand more are coming,” Gul said.
He also noted that Americans seek to set up a large intelligence network inside Pakistan under the pretext of giving financial aid to the country.
“They [Americans] are going to set up a large intelligence network inside Pakistan. They say because we are spending money directly on projects, therefore we need the security guards and we are bringing in the contractors,” said Gul.
US officials “want to go for Pakistan’s nuclear assets. They are inching close to those nuclear assets day by day,” he added.
When asked about Washington’s long-term goal in Pakistan, the former Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) said that the United States wants to keep the country destabilized.
Washington’s decision to expand its embassy in Pakistan has also rung alarm bells in China with Chinese Ambassador to Pakistan, Luo Zhaohui, expressing concern over the planned measure.
“China has concerns over the expansion of the US Embassy in Islamabad and the United States should expand its Embassy by materializing rules and regulations of Pakistan,” Zhaohui said at a news conference.
Washington’s “good war”
Death squads, disappearances and torture in Pakistan
WSWS
September 16, 2009
As the Obama administration prepares a major escalation of the so-called AfPak war, reports from Pakistan’s Swat Valley, near Afghanistan’s eastern border, provide a gruesome indication of the kind of war that the Pentagon and its local allies are waging.
While touted by Obama and his supporters as the “good war,” there is mounting evidence that the Pentagon and the CIA are engaged in a war against the population of the region involving death squads, disappearances and torture.
The Pakistani army sent 20,000 troops into Swat, part of the country’s North West Frontier Province (NWFP), last April to wage war against ethnic Pashtun Islamist movements (routinely described as the Pakistani Taliban) that have supported fellow Pashtuns across the border who are resisting the US-NATO occupation of Afghanistan.
This offensive, which was carried out on the direct and highly public insistence of US envoy Richard Holbrooke and senior American military officers during repeated trips to Islamabad, unleashed a humanitarian catastrophe. In what amounted to a massive exercise in collective punishment, many civilians were killed or wounded and some 2.5 million people were driven from their homes.
Now, the Pakistani military continues to occupy the area, carrying out a reign of terror in which individuals identified as opponents of the government and the US occupation across the border are being picked up and tortured to death.
According to a report published September 15 in the New York Times, with the military occupation of the Swat Valley “a new campaign of fear has taken hold, with scores, perhaps hundreds, of bodies dumped on the streets in what human rights advocates and local residents say is the work of the military.”
While the Pakistani military has denied responsibility for this wave of killings—blaming them on civilians seeking revenge against the Islamists—the Times quotes local residents, politicians and human rights workers as blaming the army. They point, the article states, to “the scale of the retaliation, the similarities in the way that many of the victims have been tortured and the systematic nature of the deaths and disappearances in areas that the military firmly controls.”
In addition to bearing marks of brutal torture, many of the bodies are discovered with their hands tied behind their backs and with a bullet in the back of the neck. In some cases corpses have been beheaded.
On September 1, the Pakistani newspaper Dawn quoted government officials as saying that 251 bodies had been found dumped along the roadside in the Swat Valley since July. On August 27, the newspaper reported that 51 bodies had been found in the area in the space of just 24 hours.
Dawn has also reported the discovery of a number of mass graves containing victims of the military and referred to local residents who had “witnessed the crude and inhuman lumping together of the living and the dead.”
The Times cites the case of Akhtar Ali, 28, arrested by the military at his electrical repair shop on September 1. While military officials repeatedly told his family that he would be released, four days later his corpse was dumped on their doorstep, bearing cigarette burns and with nails hammered into his flesh. “There was no place on his body not tortured,” his family said in a petition seeking justice.
American officials have praised the Pakistani military for its campaign in the Swat Valley, with US Ambassador Anne Patterson visiting Mingora, Swat’s largest town, last week to congratulate the army.
Now US officials are pressing the Pakistani government to replicate this bloody campaign in South Waziristan. A similar offensive is already underway in the Khyber Agency, site of the Khyber Pass, a key route for supplies to the US occupation force in Afghanistan. UN officials report that 100,000 people have been displaced by the attack.
Washington stands behind the atrocities being carried out against the Pakistani people. It is funding the Pakistani military operations, with some $2.5 billion in overt military aid this fiscal year. Meanwhile, CIA drone attacks continue, having claimed nearly 600 Pakistani victims over the past year, the majority of them civilians.
There is every reason to suspect that the wave of disappearances, torture and death squad assassinations in Pakistan is also “made in the USA.”
Before becoming the US commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal headed the military’s Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), the secret special operations unit that investigative journalist Seymour Hersh described as an “executive assassination wing.”
US special forces “trainers” are operating on Pakistani soil, instructing Pakistani forces in the kind of tactics favored by JSOC—tactics that yield the bound and battered bodies dumped in the streets of Swat.
These tactics fit a long pattern of US counterinsurgency warfare, from Operation Phoenix in Vietnam to the US-backed death squads that terrorized the population of El Salvador in the 1980s.
Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen warned again Tuesday in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee that the military will almost certainly seek an increase in troop levels over the 70,000 American soldiers and Marines that are to be deployed in Afghanistan by the end of this year.
Citing diplomatic sources, Dawn reported that Gen. McChrystal is calling for a shift in the war’s focus to the Afghanistan-Pakistan border area.
Having lost control of most of Afghanistan after nearly eight years of US occupation, the Pentagon is preparing to launch a new wave of bloodletting and terror against the population on both sides of the border in the hope of breaking popular resistance.
The administration of Barack Obama, elected on a wave of antiwar sentiment, is already implicated in war crimes that rival those carried out by his predecessor. Support for the war within the US has declined to levels approaching those reached over Iraq, with the latest CNN poll showing 58 percent of Americans opposing the US occupation of Afghanistan and only 39 percent supporting it.
Driven by the interests of the US ruling elite, the escalation of this dirty war, together with the escalating assault on jobs and living standards at home, is creating the conditions for the emergence of a mass political movement of working people against the Obama administration and the profit system which is the driving force of imperialist war.
Filed under: 2-party system, Barack Obama, bilderberg, catastrophic event, CFR, China, CNBC, Dictatorship, Economic Collapse, economic crisis, Economy, Empire, Eugenics, False Flag, Fascism, food crisis, gaza, Genocide, George Bush, global elite, global government, Globalism, Great Depression, Holocaust, inside job, internationalist, internationalists, Israel, left right paradigm, malthusian catastrophe, mao, middle east, nation building, Nazi, neocons, Neolibs, New World Order, NWO, obama, occupation, Ordo Ab Chao, palestine, Population Control, State Sponsored Terrorism, US Economy, War On Terror, WW3, ww4, Zionism
Kissinger: Obama will create a New World Order
Aangrifan
January 20, 2009
Henry Kissinger has revealed what Obama is going to try to do to bring about bring about a New World Order.
Kissinger writes (Henry Kissinger: The world must forge a new order or retreat to chaos – 20 January 2009, opinion article):
1. “The alternative to a new international order is chaos.”
In other words, join the New World Order or you will suffer from false flag operations and the undermining of your economies.
2. “The extraordinary impact of the President-elect (Obama) on the imagination of humanity is an important element in shaping a new world order.”
In other words: we Zionists and fascists have chosen Obama as our puppet.
3. “The ultimate challenge is to shape the common concern of most countries and all major ones regarding the economic crisis, together with a common fear of jihadist terrorism, into a strategy reinforced by the realisation that the new issues like proliferation, energy and climate change permit no national or regional solution.”
The New World Order means world government. You will be ruled from Washington or Jerusalem.
4. “The role of China in a new world order is crucial.”
“Each side of the Pacific needs the cooperation of the other in addressing the consequences of the financial crisis…”
“The Sino-American relationship needs to be taken to a new level.”
http://www.prisonplanet.com/..notch-cfr-bilderberg-members.html
Kissinger’s Plan For Food Control Genocide
http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=165442
Filed under: 2008 Election, 9/11 Truth, Afghanistan, airstrikes, al-qaeda, biden, Bill Clinton, catastrophic event, Colin Powell, Coup, DHS, Dictatorship, Economic Collapse, economic depression, Economy, egypt, Empire, False Flag, FBI, food crisis, food shortage, George Bush, Great Depression, Homeland Security, Hugo Chavez, inside job, Iran, Israel, joe biden, John McCain, Lebanon, Madeleine Albright, Martial Law, michael chertoff, middle east, Military, military strike, Mossad, nation building, neocons, Neolibs, New World Order, Nuke, NWO, obama, occupation, palestine, Russia, State Sponsored Terrorism, Syria, Taliban, Tehran, US Economy, us military, Venezuela, War On Terror, World Trade Center, WW3, ww4 | Tags: cuban missile crisis, Emad A. Salem, greek, Heracle, international crisis, Ramzi Yousef, roman
Biden Predicts “International Crisis” Within First 6 Months Of Obama Presidency
Kurt Nimmo
Infowars
October 20, 2008
In a striking moment of candor, Joe Biden tells us would-be president Obama will face “an international crisis within his first six months in power and he will need supporters to stand by him as he makes tough, and possibly unpopular, decisions,” Matthew Jaffe reports on ABC News’ Political Radar blog. Speaking at a Seattle fundraiser, Biden said this “test” would likely unfold in the Middle East or Russia. It would likely be coupled with the economy.
“Gird your loins,” Biden told the crowd. “We’re gonna win with your help, God willing, we’re gonna win, but this is not gonna be an easy ride. This president, the next president, is gonna be left with the most significant task. It’s like cleaning the Augean stables, man. This is more than just, this is more than – think about it, literally, think about it – this is more than just a capital crisis, this is more than just markets. This is a systemic problem we have with this economy.”
It is interesting Biden would mention Greek mythology to make his point. Augeas, one of the Argonauts, is best known for his stables, which housed the single greatest number of cattle in the country and had never been cleaned until the great hero Heracles came along. Apparently Biden would have us believe Obama is Heracles, the son of Zeus, know for his extraordinary strength, courage, ingenuity, and sexual prowess with both males and females. Biden also put the senator from Illinois in the same league as John F. Kennedy.
Biden said Obama, if elected, will do something extremely unpopular within the next year and will trend down in the polls. “I promise you, you all are gonna be sitting here a year from now going, ‘Oh my God, why are they there in the polls? Why is the polling so down? Why is this thing so tough?’ We’re gonna have to make some incredibly tough decisions in the first two years. So I’m asking you now, I’m asking you now, be prepared to stick with us. Remember the faith you had at this point because you’re going to have to reinforce us,” said Biden.
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
October 22, 2008
Joe Biden’s “guarantee” that an “international crisis” will unfold shortly after President Obama takes office conjures up several different possibilities, but it seems the likely outcome will revolve around an announcement that Iran has developed a nuclear bomb, prompting a potential military attack.
“It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy,” Biden told an audience in Seattle this past weekend.
“Remember I said it standing here if you don’t remember anything else I said. Watch, we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.”
The assured tone with which Biden delivered his forecast was staggeringly convincing, and left the observer in no doubt that there will be a major world crisis shortly after Obama takes office. “Mark my words, mark my words,” Biden stressed, adding that “tough” and “unpopular” foreign policy decisions will have to be made.
“I promise you it will occur,” Biden added, “As a student of history and having served with seven presidents, I guarantee you it is going to happen.”
Biden’s use of the word “generated” is even more startling. One of the dictionary definitions we find for the word “generated” is “to bring into existence; cause to be; produce,” which begs the question, will this be another staged and manufactured crisis like the 9/11 attacks, which occurred less than 8 months after Bush took office?
Or will it be something even more serious, a nuclear conflagration involving Russia or Iran?
John McCain raised the specter of nuclear war yesterday when he warned that the United States faces “many challenges here at home, and many enemies abroad in this dangerous world,” before mentioning the 1962 Cuban Missile crisis.
Echoing Biden’s comments, McCain said the next president “won’t have time to get used to the office” and “I know how close we came to a nuclear war and I will not be a president that needs to be tested. I have been tested. Senator Obama has not.”
What is the test to which McCain and Biden refer, and how can they be so sure that it will arrive shortly after Obama takes office should he win the election as expected? What was Colin Powell referring to on Meet The Press when he said, “There’s going to be a crisis which will come along on the 21st, 22nd of January that we don’t even know about right now.”
The most likely scenario seems to revolve around Iran announcing, or the U.S. government claiming, that they are ready to build their first nuclear bomb.
Indeed, the Mossad front news outlet Debka File reported yesterday that “Iran will be ready to build its first bomb just one month after the next US president is sworn in.” The very next sentence of the report ties this in with Biden’s promise of an international crisis immediately after Obama takes office.
“DEBKAfile’s military sources cite the new US timeline: By late January, 2009, Iran will have accumulated enough low-grade enriched uranium (up to 5%) for its “break-out” to weapons grade (90%) material within a short time. For this, the Iranians have achieved the necessary technology. In February, they can move on to start building their first nuclear bomb,” according to the report.
Of course, the legitimacy of these claims are likely to be completely fabricated – the official U.S. National Intelligence Estimate concluded in December that Iran had suspended its nuclear weapons campaign in late 2003 – but the Israelis may be laying the groundwork for a propaganda offensive similar to the “weapons of mass destruction” scam that preceded the invasion of Iraq.
Will the military assault on Iran occur not under the highly unpopular Bush administration, as many had predicted, but under an Obama presidency? Riding into office on a wave of popular approval and support, Obama will have the political capital to get the country behind the attack if the threat of imminent danger is cited – or at least stand by and allow Israel to do the dirty work.
Will a nuclear flash point on the scale of the Cuban Missile Crisis turn out to be the “international crisis” that Biden so vehemently promised? Or will the event take on a different characteristic.
Bush exploited 9/11 to realize the pre-set agenda of his Neo-Con masters months after he was inaugurated and Bill Clinton seized upon the Oklahoma City Bombing shortly into his second term to expand federal power. What will Obama’s crisis be that enables him to offer his contribution to building the American police state?
– A terror attack, or a series of attacks, on major American cities, possibly involving crudely designed nuclear bombs or dirty bombs?
– A complete economic collapse and a new great depression leading to food riots and the imposition of martial law?
– A military showdown with Russia should Russia attempt to invade Georgia or another pro-U.S. Russian satellite country?
– A nuclear showdown with Russia should Russia start a nuclear war with Ukraine, as has been threatened?
– The necessity for another military attack on Afghanistan should the Taliban continue to regain control of the country?
– A confrontation with Venezuela should it be revealed that Hugo Chavez is receiving nuclear bomb technology from Russia or Iran?
– A new escalation in the Middle East should Israel deploy its nuclear arsenal to attack Iran, Syria Lebanon, or even Egypt?
Whatever the new “international crisis” that we have been guaranteed turns out to be, you can bet your bottom dollar that the response to it will ultimately lead to more carnage and a further assault on the fast-disappearing freedoms that we still enjoy – and in that sense under an Obama presidency, the more things “change,” the more they will stay the same.
National Intelligence Spooks Promise Terror Attack For New President
Both Clinton and Bush exploited bombings within first year of taking office, Obama or McCain likely to enjoy the same opportunity
Prison Planet
May 27, 2008
National intelligence spooks are all but promising that history will be repeated for a third time running, and the new President of the United States – likely Barack Obama or John McCain – will be welcomed into office by a terror attack that will occur within the first year of his tenure.
“When the next president takes office in January, he or she will likely receive an intelligence brief warning that Islamic terrorists will attempt to exploit the transition in power by planning an attack on America, intelligence experts say,” according to a report in the Washington Times.
“Islamic terrorists bombed the World Trade Center in February 1993, in Mr. Clinton’s second month as president. Al Qaeda’s Sept. 11 attacks came in the Bush presidency’s first year….The pattern is clear to some national security experts. Terrorists pay particular attention to a government in transition as the most opportune window to launch an attack.”
Naturally, the Washington Times article makes out as if a terror attack within the early stages of a new presidency is a bad thing, but both Clinton and Bush exploited terror in America to realize preconceived domestic and geopolitical agendas.
The 1993 World Trade Center bombing was an inside job from start to finish – it did not come as a “surprise” to the U.S. government since they ran the entire operation, having cooked the bomb for the “Islamic terrorists” that they had groomed for the attack.
In 1993 the FBI planted their informant, Emad A. Salem, within a radical Arab group in New York led by Ramzi Yousef. Salem was ordered to encourage the group to carry out a bombing targeting the World Trade Center’s twin towers. Under the illusion that the project was a sting operation, Salem asked the FBI for harmless dummy explosives which he would use to assemble the bomb and then pass on to the group. At this point the FBI cut Salem out of the loop and provided the group with real explosives, leading to the attack on February 26 that killed six and injured over a thousand people. The FBI’s failure to prevent the bombing was reported on by the New York Times in October 1993.
“Islamic terrorists bombed the World Trade Center in February 1993, in Mr. Clinton’s second month as president. Al Qaeda’s Sept. 11 attacks came in the Bush presidency’s first year….The pattern is clear to some national security experts. Terrorists pay particular attention to a government in transition as the most opportune window to launch an attack.”
Naturally, the Washington Times article makes out as if a terror attack within the early stages of a new presidency is a bad thing, but both Clinton and Bush exploited terror in America to realize preconceived domestic and geopolitical agendas.
Powell Warns Of Coming Crisis “which will come along on the 21st, 22nd of January that we don’t even know about right now”.
Echoes Biden comments that Obama will be tested in early days of his term
Steve Watson
Infowars.net
October 21, 2008
Colin Powell has made bizarre comments that echo the recent declaration by Democratic VP candidate Joe Biden that there will be an “international crisis” early into Barack Obama’s presidency that will test the new president by forcing him to make unpopular decisions.
Speaking on meet the press two days ago, Powell officially endorsed Obama and also made the following statement:
“The problems will always be there and there’s going to be a crisis which will come along on the 21st, 22nd of January that we don’t even know about right now.
So I think what the President has to start to do is to start using the power of the oval office and the power of his personality to convince the American people and convince the world that America is solid, that America is going to move forward, we are going to fix our economic problems, we’re going to meet out overseas obligations.”
Watch Powell make the comment at 2.35 into the following video:
Is Colin Powell referring to a theoretical crisis that could occur at any time? If so why does he choose a specific date, within the first two days after the inauguration? Also why does he refer to general problems that the new president will have to deal with in a separate context? We are already in an economic crisis, everyone knows that, so what new crisis is Powell talking about?
Chertoff: Change In President Fuels Vulnerability
Bloomberg
October 21, 2008
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said the U.S. may be vulnerable to a terrorist attack during the next six months, with violent groups more likely to try to take advantage of a new president and administration.
“Any period of transition creates a greater vulnerability, meaning there’s more likelihood of distraction,’’ Chertoff said in an interview. “You have to be concerned it will create an operational opportunity for terrorists.’’
Albright Agrees with Biden: Obama Will Face Unexpected Test
http://blacklistednews.com/news-1974-0-20-20–.html
Obama Wants U.S. Troop Surge In Afghanistan
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/se..AM.20081022.wcampaign_speech23
Low priority for Palestinian issue if Obama elected US president
http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=5655
Filed under: 2008 Election, Alex Jones, Amero, asia, Australia, BP, Britain, Canada, China, Control Grid, Credit Crisis, DEBT, Dollar, dubai, Economic Collapse, economic depression, Economy, Europe, european union, exxon mobil, Federal Reserve, gas prices, global economy, global elite, global government, Globalism, Great Depression, Greenback, hyperinflation, Inflation, internationalist, internationalists, Iran, Japan, John McCain, kuwait, Lindsey Williams, london, manipulated economy, manipulated oil prices, manipulated prices, market manipulation, Mexico, middle east, muslims, neocons, New World Order, North American Union, Oil, OPEC, Petrol, price fixing, Saudi Arabia, single currency, Stock Market, United Kingdom, US Economy, Wall Street | Tags: global currency, global currency system, globalization, Mohammad Ali Khatibi, oil bourse, oil cut, one world currency, shell, Stanley Monteith, t-bills, the energy non crisis
Lindsey Williams Predicted Oil Will Be $50 a Barrel
Insider of the Global Elite was told: “Price of crude oil is going down to $50 a barrel. . . gas will be $2 to $2.50 a gallon” (1st video @ 7:11). “The entire Arab world will be bankrupt” (2nd video @ 7:34) “. . . you are going to shout and dance on the street at $2 a gallon and mark my words within 3-4 weeks time you are going to shutter in your boots because the dollar is going to go to zero, they’ll have an excuse to bring in the North American Union, they will be able to issue a new currency . . .” (3rd video)
Lindsey Williams on Alex Jones Show, October 26, 2008
Oil falls to $63, OPEC plans on cutting supply of oil
AP
October 26, 2008
Oil prices fell to 17-month lows at $63 a barrel Monday in Asia as investors weighed Friday’s OPEC output cut against growing evidence of a severe global economic slowdown that would undermine crude demand.
Light, sweet crude for December delivery fell 32 cents to $63.83 a barrel in electronic trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange by midday in Singapore.
Investors brushed off a 1.5 million barrel-a-day cut announced by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries on Friday, focusing instead on falling crude demand as economies across the globe reel from the impact of a credit crisis.
On Friday, oil fell $3.69 to settle at $64.15. Prices have plunged 57 percent from a record $147.27 on July 11.
“The mood is fairly negative reflecting worry about the international economic outlook,” said David Moore, a commodity strategist at Commonwealth Bank of Australia in Sydney. “If there is further weak economic data in the U.S. or Europe, prices could come under more downward pressure.”
Iran’s OPEC governor Mohammad Ali Khatibi said Sunday a reduction in production “will be considered” at the group’s next meeting in Algiers in December — a meeting that might even be held early if necessary.
“I thought the OPEC cut was a fairly decisive act, but concerns of recession in the major economies remain dominant,” Moore said. “OPEC’s cut does take a step toward tightening the market.”
http://www.reuter..dName=domesticNews&rpc=22&sp=true
Oil Can Fall to $50-$60 if Credit Stays Tight
http://www.cnbc.com/id/27160853
Oil down 50pc from July high
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/finance..-July-high.html
Filed under: 2008 Election, 9/11, 9/11 Truth, airstrikes, anthrax, bailout, Big Banks, Censorship, Cindy McCain, Credit Crisis, DEBT, Disinformation, Dollar, Economic Collapse, economic depression, Economy, false information, Fox News, global economy, Great Depression, Greenback, Hugo Chavez, hyperinflation, Inflation, Iraq, John McCain, keating 5, Media, media blackout, middle east, military strike, Preemptive Strike, preemptive war, Propaganda, Saber Rattling, scandal, Shock and Awe, Stock Market, tax, US Economy, Venezuela, Wall Street, War On Terror, WMD | Tags: edwin gray, Fox & Friends, keating five, michael reagan, Mike Papantonio, mohammed atta, run on banks, s&l, savings and loan, Steve Doocy, william black
Fox host tells guest mentioning McCain role in Keating Five scandal to ’pipe down’
Nick Juliano
Raw Story
September 25, 2008
’Cut his mike,’ producer suggests
The Keating Five scandal, and John McCain’s role in it, has received relatively little mention in presidential campaign coverage, and at least one Fox News host seems dedicated to keeping it that way.
Appearing Thursday morning on Fox & Friends, radio host Mike Papantonio tried to remind viewers about McCain’s intervention with federal regulators on behalf of real estate mogul Charles Keating, who was trying to avoid regulations of a savings and loan he owned during the S&L crisis of the 1980s.
F&F’s Steve Doocy told Papantonio to “pipe down,” called him “rude” and demanded he “cut it out.” A show producer could be overheard saying “cut his mike.”
As Papantonio tries one last time to explain the details of the Keating Five scandal, Doocy again cuts him off.
“This is not the History Channel,” he says.
Papantonio’s apparent crime was interrupting fellow guest Michael Reagan, the conservative radio host, who was arguing that it would be unfair to judge McCain based on his actions 20 years ago.
“It has everything to do with what’s happening today,” Papantonio said before being told to pipe down.
Regardless of whether Papantonio was being rude, preserving an orderly debate certainly could not have been Doocy’s goal in silencing the guest. Not two minutes before his admonition that Papantonio was “being rude,” Doocy repeatedly interrupted his guest to deliver talking points that might as well have been written by the McCain campaign.
At least three times Doocy interrupted Papantonio as he argued that McCain’s political gambit to “suspend” his campaign and delay Friday’s debate was more a response to his flagging poll numbers than an attempt to fix the economic crisis. Doocy wasn’t buying it.
“If Barack Obama wants to do so much for the economy, why doesn’t he go to his day job and work in the US senate?” he asked Reagan, cutting off Papantonio’s argument.
McCain Links Iraq to 9/11 Two Months After Attack
McCain: Chavez is in the Middle East
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/220826.php
McCains Defaulted On Home Taxes For Last Four Years
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/28/mccains-failed-to-pay-tax_n_109785.html
Filed under: 9/11, Britain, Censorship, Dictatorship, Empire, Europe, european union, global police force, Globalism, gulf, kosovo, kuwait, media blackout, middle east, Military, military base, Military Industrial Complex, muslims, nation building, New World Order, occupation, Pentagon, permanent military bases, philippines, Police State, qatar, rome, Russia, Saudi Arabia, south korea, Soviet Union, Troops, United Kingdom, Vietnam, Washington D.C., world police force | Tags: soldiers, u.s. soldiers, ussr
761 U.S. Military Bases Across the Planet
Alternet
September 8, 2008
Here it is, as simply as I can put it: In the course of any year, there must be relatively few countries on this planet on which U.S. soldiers do not set foot, whether with guns blazing, humanitarian aid in hand, or just for a friendly visit. In startling numbers of countries, our soldiers not only arrive, but stay interminably, if not indefinitely. Sometimes they live on military bases built to the tune of billions of dollars that amount to sizeable American towns (with accompanying amenities), sometimes on stripped down forward operating bases that may not even have showers. When those troops don’t stay, often American equipment does — carefully stored for further use at tiny “cooperative security locations,” known informally as “lily pads” (from which U.S. troops, like so many frogs, could assumedly leap quickly into a region in crisis).
At the height of the Roman Empire, the Romans had an estimated 37 major military bases scattered around their dominions. At the height of the British Empire, the British had 36 of them planetwide. Depending on just who you listen to and how you count, we have hundreds of bases. According to Pentagon records, in fact, there are 761 active military “sites” abroad.
The fact is: We garrison the planet north to south, east to west, and even on the seven seas, thanks to our various fleets and our massive aircraft carriers which, with 5,000-6,000 personnel aboard — that is, the population of an American town — are functionally floating bases.
And here’s the other half of that simple truth: We don’t care to know about it. We, the American people, aided and abetted by our politicians, the Pentagon, and the mainstream media, are knee-deep in base denial.
Now, that’s the gist of it. If, like most Americans, that’s more than you care to know, stop here.
Where the Sun Never Sets
Let’s face it, we’re on an imperial bender and it’s been a long, long night. Even now, in the wee hours, the Pentagon continues its massive expansion of recent years; we spend militarily as if there were no tomorrow; we’re still building bases as if the world were our oyster; and we’re still in denial. Someone should phone the imperial equivalent of Alcoholics Anonymous.
But let’s start in a sunnier time, less than two decades ago, when it seemed that there would be many tomorrows, all painted red, white, and blue. Remember the 1990s when the U.S. was hailed — or perhaps more accurately, Washington hailed itself — not just as the planet’s “sole superpower” or even its unique “hyperpower,” but as its “global policeman,” the only cop on the block? As it happened, our leaders took that label seriously and our central police headquarters, that famed five-sided building in Washington D.C, promptly began dropping police stations — aka military bases — in or near the oil heartlands of the planet (Kosovo, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait) after successful wars in the former Yugoslavia and the Persian Gulf.
As those bases multiplied, it seemed that we were embarking on a new, post-Soviet version of “containment.” With the USSR gone, however, what we were containing grew a lot vaguer and, before 9/11, no one spoke its name. Nonetheless, it was, in essence, Muslims who happened to live on so many of the key oil lands of the planet.
Yes, for a while we also kept intact our old bases from our triumphant mega-war against Japan and Germany, and then the stalemated “police action” in South Korea (1950-1953) — vast structures which added up to something like an all-military American version of the old British Raj. According to the Pentagon, we still have a total of 124 bases in Japan, up to 38 on the small island of Okinawa, and 87 in South Korea. (Of course, there were setbacks. The giant bases we built in South Vietnam were lost in 1975, and we were peaceably ejected from our major bases in the Philippines in 1992.)
Filed under: Ahmadinejad, airstrikes, blockade, Britain, Condoleezza Rice, Coup, egypt, Europe, european union, False Flag, George Bush, gulf, h.con.res.362, hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, Iran war resolution, Israel, jerusalem, John Bolton, middle east, Military, military strike, neocons, Nuke, Pentagon, Preemptive Strike, preemptive war, Shock and Awe, Syria, Tehran, Turkey, United Kingdom, War On Terror, Washington D.C., WW3, ww4 | Tags: ISIS, nuclear war, Science and International Security, soldiers, South Ossetia, u.s. soldiers, US Naval warships, USCENTCOM, USS Abraham Lincoln, USS Iwo Jima, USS Pearl Harbor, USS Peleliu, USS Ronald Reagon, USS Roosevelt, USS Theodore Roosevelt
U.S. stalls Israeli military strike on Iran
Haaretz
August 8, 2008
The American administration has rejected an Israeli request for military equipment and support that would improve Israel’s ability to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities.
A report published last week by the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) states that military strikes are unlikely to destroy >Iran’s centrifuge program for enriching uranium.
The Americans viewed the request, which was transmitted (and rejected) at the highest level, as a sign that Israel is in the advanced stages of preparations to attack Iran. They therefore warned Israel against attacking, saying such a strike would undermine American interests. They also demanded that Israel give them prior notice if it nevertheless decided to strike Iran.
As compensation for the requests it rejected, Washington offered to improve Israel’s defenses against surface-to-surface missiles.
Israel responded by saying it reserves the right to take whatever action it deems necessary if diplomatic efforts to halt Iran’s nuclearization fail.
Senior Israeli officials had originally hoped that U.S. President George Bush would order an American strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities before leaving office, as America’s military is far better equipped to conduct such a strike successfully than is Israel’s.
Jerusalem also fears that an Israeli strike, even if it succeeded well enough to delay Iran’s nuclear development for a few years, would give Iran international legitimacy for its program, which it currently lacks. Israel, in contrast, would be portrayed as an aggressor, and would be forced to contend alone with Iran’s retaliation, which would probably include thousands of missile strikes by Iranian allies Hezbollah, Hamas and perhaps even Syria.
Rice: Israel Can Attack Iran if It Wants
The Jerusalem Post
August 10, 2008
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice defended Israel’s right to make its own decision about whether it takes military action against Iran, in an interview released over the weekend.
“We don’t say yes or no to Israeli military operations. Israel is a sovereign country,” she said in response to a question from The Politico Web site as to whether she was concerned that America would be blamed in the case of an IDF attack on the Islamic Republic.
Her statements come amid speculation that Washington has warned Jerusalem not to attack Iran and media reports that the US told Israel it doesn’t have the green light to use Iraqi airspace for any such attack.
US: No plan for naval blockade of Iran
Press TV
August 13, 2008
A senior official with the US Defense Department has dismissed reports that Washington is planning a naval blockade of Iran.
“As a matter of policy we do not discuss current or future ship’s movements. However, I can tell you that reports of an alleged naval blockade of Iran are false,” Lt. Col. Patrick Ryder, a spokesman for the assistant secretary of defense for public affairs told The Jerusalem Post on Wednesday.
“We routinely rotate deployed naval forces in the USCENTCOM area of responsibility,” he added.
The US Central Command supervises US military operations in the Middle East, East Africa and Central Asia.
On Monday, Egypt’s Middle East Times reported that a massive US and European armada was heading towards the Persian Gulf for a naval blockade of Iran.
The report said that the force included the nuclear-powered American aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt as well as forces from the British Royal Navy and a French nuclear submarine.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=66457§ionid=351020101
Bolton: Regime Change In Iran ‘Would Lead To Greater Stability In The Region’
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/08/06/bolton-stability-in-region/
Iran: We will protect our waters
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=66556§ionid=351020101
U.S. Continues Allegations Against Iran
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=43540
Iran warns against ’surprise attack’
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=66379§ionid=351020104
EU expands Iran nuclear sanctions, joins U.S. blockade
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7549879.stm
Why the Pentagon Thinks Attacking Iran is a Bad Idea
http://www.usnews.com/articles/ne..gon-thinks-attacking-iran-is-a-bad-idea.html
Israel irked over Iranian leader’s planned visit to Turkey
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/200..elirandiplomacy_080808113841
Study Cautions Against Strike on Iran’s Nuclear Facilities
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp..AR2008080703026.html?nav=rss_nation
Massive U.S. Naval Armada Heads For Iran
http://noworldsystem.co..-naval-armada-heads-for-iran/
Coup on Iran & False Flag News Archive
Filed under: Ahmadinejad, airstrikes, atlantic, Bio Weapons, biochemicals, Biological Attack, biological warfare, blockade, Britain, China, Condoleezza Rice, Congress, Coup, Europe, european union, False Flag, federal crime, France, genetically modified, georgia, GM, gulf, h.con.res.362, Iran, Iran war resolution, Israel, Japan, man made disease, man made diseases, middle east, Mikheil Saakashvili, Military, military strike, moscow, NATO, navy, neocons, Nuke, ocean, Preemptive Strike, preemptive war, Propaganda, putin, Russia, Saber Rattling, Shock and Awe, South Ossetia, Soviet Union, Syria, Tehran, Troops, United Kingdom, War Crimes, war games, War On Terror, WW3, ww4 | Tags: kadafi, nuclear war, soldiers, u.s. soldiers, US Naval warships, USS Abraham Lincoln, USS Iwo Jima, USS Pearl Harbor, USS Peleliu, USS Ronald Reagon, USS Roosevelt, USS Theodore Roosevelt
Massive U.S. Naval Armada Heads For Iran
Europe Business
August 7, 2008
Operation Brimstone ended only one week ago. This was the joint US/UK/French naval war games in the Atlantic Ocean preparing for a naval blockade of Iran and the likely resulting war in the Persian Gulf area. The massive war games included a US Navy supercarrier battle group, an US Navy expeditionary carrier battle group, a Royal Navy carrier battle group, a French nuclear hunter-killer submarine plus a large number of US Navy cruisers, destroyers and frigates playing the “enemy force”.
The lead American ship in these war games, the USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN71) and its Carrier Strike Group Two (CCSG-2) are now headed towards Iran along with the USS Ronald Reagon (CVN76) and its Carrier Strike Group Seven (CCSG-7) coming from Japan.
They are joining two existing USN battle groups in the Gulf area: the USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN72) with its Carrier Strike Group Nine (CCSG-9); and the USS Peleliu (LHA-5) with its expeditionary strike group.
Likely also under way towards the Persian Gulf is the USS Iwo Jima (LHD-7) and its expeditionary strike group, the UK Royal Navy HMS Ark Royal (R07) carrier battle group, assorted French naval assets including the nuclear hunter-killer submarine Amethyste and French Naval Rafale fighter jets on-board the USS Theodore Roosevelt. These ships took part in the just completed Operation Brimstone.
The build up of naval forces in the Gulf will be one of the largest multi-national naval armadas since the First and Second Gulf Wars. The intent is to create a US/EU naval blockade (which is an Act of War under international law) around Iran (with supporting air and land elements) to prevent the shipment of benzene and certain other refined oil products headed to Iranian ports. Iran has limited domestic oil refining capacity and imports 40% of its benzene. Cutting off benzene and other key products would cripple the Iranian economy. The neo-cons are counting on such a blockade launching a war with Iran.
The US Naval forces being assembled include the following:
Carrier Strike Group Nine
USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN72) nuclear powered supercarrier
with its Carrier Air Wing Two
Destroyer Squadron Nine:
USS Mobile Bay (CG53) guided missile cruiser
USS Russell (DDG59) guided missile destroyer
USS Momsen (DDG92) guided missile destroyer
USS Shoup (DDG86) guided missile destroyer
USS Ford (FFG54) guided missile frigate
USS Ingraham (FFG61) guided missile frigate
USS Rodney M. Davis (FFG60) guided missile frigate
USS Curts (FFG38) guided missile frigate
Plus one or more nuclear hunter-killer submarines
Peleliu Expeditionary Strike Group
USS Peleliu (LHA-5) a Tarawa-class amphibious assault carrier
USS Pearl Harbor (LSD52) assult ship
USS Dubuque (LPD8) assult ship/landing dock
USS Cape St. George (CG71) guided missile cruiser
USS Halsey (DDG97) guided missile destroyer
USS Benfold (DDG65) guided missile destroyer
Carrier Strike Group Two
USS Theodore Roosevelt (DVN71) nuclear powered supercarrier
with its Carrier Air Wing Eight
Destroyer Squadron 22
USS Monterey (CG61) guided missile cruiser
USS Mason (DDG87) guided missile destroyer
USS Nitze (DDG94) guided missile destroyer
USS Sullivans (DDG68) guided missile destroyer
USS Springfield (SSN761) nuclear powered hunter-killer submarine
IWO ESG ~ Iwo Jima Expeditionary Strike Group
USS Iwo Jima (LHD7) amphibious assault carrier
with its Amphibious Squadron Four
and with its 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit
USS San Antonio (LPD17) assault ship
USS Velia Gulf (CG72) guided missile cruiser
USS Ramage (DDG61) guided missile destroyer
USS Carter Hall (LSD50) assault ship
USS Roosevelt (DDG80) guided missile destroyer
USS Hartfore (SSN768) nuclear powered hunter-killer submarine
Carrier Strike Group Seven
USS Ronald Reagan (CVN76) nuclear powered supercarrier
with its Carrier Air Wing 14
Destroyer Squadron 7
USS Chancellorsville (CG62) guided missile cruiser
USS Howard (DDG83) guided missile destroyer
USS Gridley (DDG101) guided missile destroyer
USS Decatur (DDG73) guided missile destroyer
USS Thach (FFG43) guided missile frigate
USNS Rainier (T-AOE-7) fast combat support ship
Also likely to join the battle armada:
UK Royal Navy HMS Ark Royal Carrier Strike Group with assorted guided missile destroyers and frigates, nuclear hunter-killer submarines and support ships
French Navy nuclear powered hunter-killer submarines (likely the Amethyste and perhaps others), plus French Naval Rafale fighter jets operating off of the USS Theodore Roosevelt as the French Carrier Charles de Gaulle is in dry dock, and assorted surface warships
Various other US Navy warships and submarines and support ships. The following USN ships took part (as the “enemy” forces) in Operation Brimstone and several may join in:
USS San Jacinto (CG56) guided missile cruiser
USS Anzio (CG68) guided missile cruiser
USS Normandy (CG60) guided missile cruiser
USS Carney (DDG64) guided missile destroyer
USS Oscar Austin (DDG79) guided missile destroyer
USS Winston S. Churchill (DDG81) guided missile destroyer
USS Carr (FFG52) guided missile frigate
The USS Iwo Jima and USS Peleliu Expeditionary Strike Groups have USMC Harrier jump jets and an assortment of assault and attack helicopters. The Expeditionary Strike Groups have powerful USMC Expeditionary Units with amphibious armor and ground forces trained for operating in shallow waters and in seizures of land assets, such as Qeshm Island (a 50 mile long island off of Bandar Abbas in the Gulf of Hormuz and headquarters of the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps).
The large and very advanced nature of the US Naval warships is not only directed at Iran. There is a great fear that Russia and China may oppose the naval and air/land blockade of Iran. If Russian and perhaps Chinese naval warships escort commercial tankers to Iran in violation of the blockade it could be the most dangerous at-sea confrontation since the Cuban Missile Crisis. The US and allied Navies, by front loading a Naval blockade force with very powerful guided missile warships and strike carriers is attempting to have a force so powerful that Russia and China will not be tempted to mess with. This is a most serious game of military brinkmanship with major nuclear armed powers that have profound objections to the neo-con grand strategy and to western control of all of the Middle East’s oil supply.
The Russian Navy this spring sent a major battle fleet into the Mediterranean headed by the modern aircraft carrier the Admiral Kuznetsov and the flagship of its Black Sea Fleet, the Guided Missile Heavy Cruiser Moskva. This powerful fleet has at least 11 surface ships and unknown numbers of subs and can use the Russian naval facility at Syria’s Tartous port for resupply. The Admiral Kuznetsov carries approximately 47 warplanes and 10 helicopters. The warplanes are mostly the powerful Su-33, a naval version (with mid-air refueling capability) of the Su-27 family. While the Su-33 is a very powerful warplane it lacks the power of the stealth USAF F-22. However, the Russians insist that they have developed a plasma based system that allows them to stealth any aircraft and a recent incident where Russian fighters were able to appear unannounced over a US Navy carrier battle group tends to confirm their claims. The Su-33 can be armed with the 3M82 Moskit sea-skimming missile (NATO code name SS-N-22 Sunburn) and the even more powerful P-800 Oniks (also named Yakhonts; NATO code name SS-N-26 Onyx). Both missiles are designed to kill US Navy supercarriers by getting past the cruiser/destroyer screen and the USN point-defense Phalanx system by using high supersonic speeds and violent end maneuvers. Russian subs currently use the underwater rocket VA-111 Shkval (Squall), which is fired from standard 533mm torpedo tubes and reaches a speed of 360kph (230mph) underwater. There is no effective countermeasures to this system and no western counterpart.
A strategic diversion has been created for Russia. The Republic of Georgia, with US backing, is actively preparing for war on South Ossetia. The South Ossetia capital has been shelled and a large Georgian tank force has been heading towards the border. Russia has stated that it will not sit by and allow the Georgians to attack South Ossetia. The Russians are great chess players and this game may not turn out so well for the neo-cons.
Kuwait has activated its “Emergency War Plan” as it and other Gulf nations prepare for the likelihood of a major regional war in the Middle East involving weapons of mass destruction.
The two-ton elephant in the living room of the neo-con strategy is the advanced biowar (ABW) that Iran, and to a lessor extent Syria, has. This places the motherlands of the major neo-con nations (America, France, the United Kingdom), as well as Israel, in grave danger. When the Soviet Union fell the Iranians hired as many out-of-work former Soviet advanced biowar experts as possible. In the last 15 or so years they have helped to develop a truly world class ABW program utilizing recombination DNA genetic engineering technology to create a large number of man made killer viruses. This form of weapon system does not require high tech military delivery systems. The viruses are sub-microscopic and once seeded in a population use the population itself as vectors. Seeding can be done without notice in shopping malls, churches, and other public places. The only real defense to an advanced global strategic biowar attack is to lock down the population as rapidly as possible and let those infected die off.
Unless the public gets it act together and forces the neo-cons to stop the march to yet another war in the Middle East we are apt to see a truly horrific nightmare unfold in OUR COUNTRIES.
United States was once ally of Iran for the “War On Terror”
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1009504.html
US threatens Iran with ‘punitive’ measures
http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_2370594,00.html
Israel Building Up Strike Capabilities Against Iran
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/08/07/isr..e-capabilities-against-iran/
Iran submits nuclear letter, no mention of freeze
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3578123,00.html
U.S.: Iranian Response On Nukes Unacceptable
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D92C9MC81&show_article=1
Kadhafi warns ‘arrogant’ Iran of military humiliation
http://www.spacewar.com/2006/080805155712.qouscvqz.html
Filed under: 2-party system, 2008 Election, 9/11 Truth, Afghanistan, Barack Obama, Condoleezza Rice, Dollar, Economy, energy, False Flag, Federal Reserve, gas prices, global elite, gold, Greenback, hyperinflation, Inflation, Iraq, Israel, jihadist, John McCain, left right paradigm, middle east, mujahideen, nation building, neocons, Neolibs, obama, occupation, ohio, Oil, Petrol, private banks, Russia, silver, Soviet Union, State Sponsored Terrorism, Taliban, US Economy, War On Terror, We Are Change, zbigniew brzezinski
Rice: US would be safe under Obama
AFP
August 7, 2008
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice says the nation would be safe under a Barack Obama presidency and that she is ruling out a shot at the vice presidency under either Obama or Republican John McCain.
In an interview with Politico and Yahoo News released Thursday, Rice was asked if she would feel secure with a president Obama.
“Oh, the United States will be fine,” she responded. “I think that we are having an important debate about how we keep the country safe,” she said, pointing to the Middle East and Iraq.
Read Full Article Here
We Are Change Ohio Confronts Barack Obama
Obama: Inflate Your Tires
Filed under: Ahmadinejad, AIPAC, airstrikes, blockade, China, CIA, Coup, Economy, False Flag, George Bush, gulf, Gulf of Tonkin, h.con.res.362, Hegelian Dialectic, Holocaust, inside job, Iran, Iran war resolution, Iraq, Israel, jewish, michael mullen, middle east, Mike Mullen, Military, military strike, mofaz, muslim, nation building, neocons, Nuke, occupation, Preemptive Strike, preemptive war, Problem Reaction Solution, Ray McGovern, Russia, Sanctions, shaul mofaz, Shock and Awe, staged provocation, State Sponsored Terrorism, Tehran, tel aviv, Troops, Uncategorized, US Economy, USS Liberty, War On Terror, White House, WW3, ww4, Zionism | Tags: Phillip Giraldi, soldiers, u.s. soldiers
Mullen Warns Israel: Don’t Even Think About Another USS Liberty
Mark Glenn
American Free Press
August 4, 2008
Recently appointed Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Adm. Mike Mullen flew to Tel Aviv to warn Israel’s military establishment how “important” it was that “history not repeat itself ”—referring to Israel’s deliberate attack on the USS Liberty in June, 1967. The Establishment media blacked out the event (in which 34 American men were killed) for decades—and still does.
Given the fact that this brazen two-hour attack upon the United States has been hushed up for 41 years, the reason for Mullen’s meeting is obvious—someone within the intelligence or military apparatus of the United States has concluded that Israel is planning a “USS Liberty Part II,” meaning an attack on a U.S. ship, most likely in the Persian Gulf, leading to a massive loss of life to be blamed on Iran.
As was intended in 1967, when Israel attacked the Liberty, angry Americans would demand the “obliteration” of the guilty party, the false identity of which the Jewish media establishment in America would provide. And while all players involved have been tight-lipped about the particulars of this meeting, Mullen’s impromptu trip to Israel and subsequent discussion was in effect a stern warning to Israel to “Not even think about it.”
Some in Washington are beginning to realize that they’ve just put their foot into something nasty with regards to Israel’s dirty wars in the Middle East that will never be finished as long as it exists. With oil and virtually all consumer products skyrocketing in price simultaneous to the U.S. economy going down the drain, some now understand that by signing on as Israel’s pit bull in the Muslim world that America will wind up paying the ultimate price for her devotion to the Jewish state, meaning the complete destruction of her economy and her position as a world power.
America’s top general officer seems to be wary of widening the present debacle to include war with Iran that may bring into the fray nuclear-armed nations such as Russia and China. He has now joined with saner voices both inside and outside the Bush administration who are trying to prevent an otherwise apocalyptic end to America.
In discussing an attack on Iran, Mullen recently stated that opening a third front would be “extremely stressful” on the U.S. military and added that it would lead to consequences “difficult to predict,” adding that “There is need for better clarity, even dialogue.”
Is this making Israel jittery to the point she would contemplate pulling off another USS Liberty?
“Respectable” people have begun to openly voice such thoughts as well. In a recent provocative article entitled “If Iran is Attacking, It Might Really Be Israel,” ex-CIA officer Phillip Giraldi wrote:
Some intel types are beginning to express concerns that the Israelis might do something completely crazy to get the U.S. involved. There are a number of possible “false flag” scenarios in which the Israelis could stage an incident that they will make to look Iranian, either by employing Iranian weapons or by leaving a communications footprint that points to Teheran’s involvement. Those who argue Israel would never do such a thing should think again. Israel is willing to behave with complete ruthlessness towards the U.S. if they feel that the stakes are high enough. Witness the attack on the USS Liberty and the bombing of the U.S. Consulate in Alexandria in the 1950s. If they now believe that Iran is a threat that must be eliminated it is not implausible to assume they will stop at nothing to get the United States to do it for them, particularly as their air force is only able to damage the Iranian nuclear program, not destroy it. . . .
Joined alongside Giraldi is former long-time CIA analyst Ray McGovern who in a recent essay entitled “Israel Planning a September/October Surprise?” writes the following with regards to the U.S. pulling out of the Middle East and what Israel might do as a result:
My guess is the Israeli leaders are apoplectic. . . . This dramatic change—or even just the specter of it—greatly increases Israel’s incentive to ensure U.S. involvement in the area that would endure for several years. The Israelis need to create “facts on the ground”—something to guarantee Washington will stand by “our ally.” The legislation drafted by AIPAC calls for a blockade of Iran. That would be one way to entangle; there are many others. The point is that the growing danger the Israelis perceive will probably prompt them to find a way to get the U.S. involved in hostilities with Iran. All Israel has to do is to arrange to be attacked. Not a problem. There are endless possibilities among which Israel can choose to catalyze such a confrontation. Viewed from Tel Aviv it appears an increasingly threatening situation, with more urgent need to “embed” (so to speak) the United States even more deeply in the region—in a confrontation involving both countries with Iran. A perfect storm is brewing. . . . In sum, Israel is likely to be preparing a September/October surprise designed to keep the U.S. bogged down in Iraq and in the wider region by provoking hostilities with Iran. And don’t be surprised if it starts as early as August. . . .
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/..ens-to-shut-Gulf-shipping-lanes.html
Israel Ready To Attack Iran Without U.S. Permission
http://english.pravda.ru/world/asia/01-08-2008/105968-israel-0
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=65490§ionid=3510203
Mofaz on Iran: We won’t allow a second Holocaust to occur
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1007710.html
Iran to face sanctions if it does not cooperate : French diplomat
http://www.spacewar.com/2006/080804172147.64wyi9eg.html
Iran tests ’new weapon’ for use at sea
http://www.boston.com/news/wo.._at_sea_tested/?s_campaign=8315
US backs down from Iran deadline
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=65325§ionid=351020104
Bush must be stopped before starting war with Iran
http://www.tennessean.com/apps/p..PINION03/807280349/1008/OPINION01
Filed under: 2012 election, 9/11, 9/11 Truth, al-qaeda, Al-Qaeda Tapes, Anti-War, Bill Clinton, bin laden, Bin Laden Tapes, Bush Sr., Communism, Controlled Demolition, Coup, Dick Cheney, Dictatorship, Dissent, Empire, False Flag, Fascism, Founding Fathers, George Bush, George H.W. Bush, Goering, Gulf of Tonkin, howard stern, inside job, Iraq, Iraqnam, jeb bush, middle east, nation building, navy, navy seals, Nazi, neocons, occupation, Oil, PNAC, Protest, Saddam Hussein, Sanctions, Saudi Arabia, State Sponsored Terrorism, thomas jefferson, Vietnam, war on drugs, World Trade Center, wtc-7
Jesse Ventura Talks 9/11 Truth On Howard Stern
http://www.nypost.com/seven/07312008/ne..to_us_122366.htm
Man Charged With Placing 9/11 Stickers On A Plane
http://infowars.net/articles/july2008/300708Utah.htm
Filed under: 2008 Election, Ahmadinejad, Alex Jones, Amero, Canada, central bank, Congress, Control Grid, Credit Crisis, DEBT, Dollar, Economic Collapse, economic depression, Economy, Euro, exxon mobil, Federal Reserve, gas prices, George Bush, global economy, global elite, global government, Globalism, Great Depression, Greenback, indonesia, Inflation, Iran, John McCain, Lindsey Williams, manipulated economy, manipulated oil prices, manipulated prices, Mexico, middle east, neocons, New World Order, North American Union, offshoring, Oil, OPEC, petro, Petrol, price fixing, Ron Paul, Russia, single currency, SPP, Stock Market, Tehran, US Economy | Tags: oil bourse, oilstorm, shell, Stanley Monteith, t-bills
Lindsey Williams: ’Price of crude oil is going down to $50 a barrel’ ’the dollar is going to zero’
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9q9hYDmBeQ
Ahmadinejad: Oil Prices Are Fixed
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080617/ts_nm/iran_oil_ahmadinejad_dc
Traders manipulated oil prices – U.S.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/07/24/markets/cftc/index.htm?eref=rss_topstories
’Oil price may hit $500 a barrel’
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=64986§ionid=3510213
Pickens sees $300 oil unless U.S. cuts imports
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/business/stor..f-a4325ad8691c
Filed under: 2-party system, 2008 Election, 9/11, Afghanistan, Al Gore, al-qaeda, Barack Obama, Britain, carbon dioxide, CFR, Co2, Cold War, Communism, Dictatorship, Empire, Europe, european union, Fascism, Germany, global elite, global government, global police force, Global Warming, Globalism, globalist, Hillary Clinton, Hitler, internationalism, internationalist, Iran, Iraq, John McCain, Lebanon, left right paradigm, Media, middle east, nation building, NATO, Nazi, neocons, Neolibs, New World Order, North American Union, Nuke, obama, occupation, One World Government, Oregon, Russia, sovereignty, Soviet Union, Taliban, Tehran, Troops, UN, United Kingdom, us sovereignty, War On Terror, world government, world police force | Tags: concert, germania, golden angel, karachi, NWO, Patrice, portland, reamonn, Siegessäule, victory angel
Media Hails Obama’s Speech As Call For “New World Order”
Prison Planet
July 25, 2008
The media hailed Obama’s Berlin speech in front of hundreds of thousands yesterday as a call for a vision of America as part of a “new world order”.
Excerpts from The International Herald Tribune:
“I come to Berlin as so many of my countrymen have come before,” Obama said, confronting the delicate issue of campaigning abroad. “Tonight, I speak to you not as a candidate for President, but as a citizen — a proud citizen of the United States, and a fellow citizen of the world.”
Obama was warmly embraced by the German press, which frequently referred to his aura, or as the newspaper Bild put it in Thursday’s paper, the “political pop star.”
“Yes, there have been differences between America and Europe,” Obama said. “No doubt, there will be differences in the future. But the burdens of global citizenship continue to bind us together. A change of leadership in Washington will not lift this burden. In this new century, Americans and Europeans alike will be required to do more — not less. Partnership and cooperation among nations is not a choice; it is the one way, the only way, to protect our common security and advance our common humanity.”
Will Media Report Concert Before Obama’s Berlin Speech?
News Busters
July 24, 2008
Remember back in May when media gushed and fawned over a huge crowd in Portland, Oregon — supposedly gathered to hear the words of Democrat presidential candidate Barack Obama — but chose not to report the free concert given before his speech?
Well, it has been learned that before the presumptive Democrat nominee spoke to a crowd in Berlin Thursday, two popular German acts — reggae artist Patrice and rock band Reamonn — entertained the gathering audience.
Will media report this tonight, or just gush and fawn over the huge crowd again?
Obama Promises Path to World Government
Daniel Taylor
Old Thinker News
July 25, 2008
Barack Obama’s July 24th speech in Berlin brought to light the Democratic Presidential candidates’ globalist views, mirroring those of the Council on Foreign Relations and other globalist think tanks. Obama’s praise of the European Union, calls for the “tearing down” of walls between nations and religions, and finally for world unity against climate change and terrorism reveal that an Obama Presidency will not bring change, but rather a continued erosion of national sovereignty and steps closer to world government.
Interestingly, Obama’s speech was delivered beneath the “victory angel” statue in Berlin. As the Guardian reported on the 21st,
“The centrepiece of the European leg of Obama’s visit will be his Berlin speech. Liberal and conservative politicians in Germany expressed consternation that Obama plans to address the crowds from beneath the golden angel statue which graces Berlin’s Siegessäule, a landmark which Hitler moved to its present location as part of his bid to transform Berlin into the world capital Germania.”
Obama’s speech stated in part:
“That is why the greatest danger of all is to allow new walls to divide us from one another. The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand. The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes; natives and immigrants; Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down.”
…
“Yes, there have been differences between America and Europe. No doubt, there will be differences in the future. But the burdens of global citizenship continue to bind us together. A change of leadership in Washington will not lift this burden. In this new century, Americans and Europeans alike will be required to do more — not less. Partnership and cooperation among nations is not a choice; it is the one way, the only way, to protect our common security and advance our common humanity.”
…
“The terrorists of September 11th plotted in Hamburg and trained in Kandahar and Karachi before killing thousands from all over the globe on American soil.
As we speak, cars in Boston and factories in Beijing are melting the ice caps in the Arctic, shrinking coastlines in the Atlantic, and bringing drought to farms from Kansas to Kenya.
In this new world, such dangerous currents have swept along faster than our efforts to contain them. That is why we cannot afford to be divided. No one nation, no matter how large or powerful, can defeat such challenges alone. None of us can deny these threats, or escape responsibility in meeting them. Yet, in the absence of Soviet tanks and a terrible wall, it has become easy to forget this truth. And if we’re honest with each other, we know that sometimes, on both sides of the Atlantic, we have drifted apart, and forgotten our shared destiny.”
Barack Obama’s remarks mirror those of Richard Haass, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, who stated that the problems of climate change and terrorism would require a surrender of national sovereignty and ultimately the formation of a world government. “Some governments are prepared to give up elements of sovereignty to address the threat of global climate change,” stated Haass. “The goal should be to redefine sovereignty for the era of globalization, to find a balance between a world of fully sovereign states and an international system of either world government or anarchy.”
Obama is not the only presidential candidate with globalist ideals. John McCain’s proposed League of Democracies and support of North American integration is one example. Hillary Clinton’s open support for world government is another.
Obama’s promise of “change” will bring no such thing. A continuation of globalist policy towards world government and weakened national sovereignty will undoubtedly be pursued.
More Interesting Highlights:
That is why America cannot turn inward. That is why Europe cannot turn inward. America has no better partner than Europe. Now is the time to build new bridges across the globe as strong as the one that bound us across the Atlantic. Now is the time to join together, through constant cooperation, strong institutions, shared sacrifice, and a global commitment to progress, to meet the challenges of the 21st century.
..
This is the moment when we must defeat terror and dry up the well of extremism that supports it. This threat is real and we cannot shrink from our responsibility to combat it. If we could create NATO to face down the Soviet Union, we can join in a new and global partnership to dismantle the networks that have struck in Madrid and Amman; in London and Bali; in Washington and New York. If we could win a battle of ideas against the communists, we can stand with the vast majority of Muslims who reject the extremism that leads to hate instead of hope.
This is the moment when we must renew our resolve to rout the terrorists who threaten our security in Afghanistan, and the traffickers who sell drugs on your streets. No one welcomes war. I recognize the enormous difficulties in Afghanistan. But my country and yours have a stake in seeing that NATO’s first mission beyond Europe’s borders is a success. For the people of Afghanistan, and for our shared security, the work must be done. America cannot do this alone. The Afghan people need our troops and your troops; our support and your support to defeat the Taliban and al Qaeda, to develop their economy, and to help them rebuild their nation. We have too much at stake to turn back now.
This is the moment when we must renew the goal of a world without nuclear weapons. The two superpowers that faced each other across the wall of this city came too close too often to destroying all we have built and all that we love. With that wall gone, we need not stand idly by and watch the further spread of the deadly atom. It is time to secure all loose nuclear materials; to stop the spread of nuclear weapons; and to reduce the arsenals from another era. This is the moment to begin the work of seeking the peace of a world without nuclear weapons.
This is the moment when every nation in Europe must have the chance to choose its own tomorrow free from the shadows of yesterday. In this century, we need a strong European Union that deepens the security and prosperity of this continent, while extending a hand abroad. In this century – in this city of all cities – we must reject the Cold War mind-set of the past, and resolve to work with Russia when we can, to stand up for our values when we must, and to seek a partnership that extends across this entire continent.
..
This is the moment we must help answer the call for a new dawn in the Middle East. My country must stand with yours and with Europe in sending a direct message to Iran that it must abandon its nuclear ambitions. We must support the Lebanese who have marched and bled for democracy, and the Israelis and Palestinians who seek a secure and lasting peace. And despite past differences, this is the moment when the world should support the millions of Iraqis who seek to rebuild their lives, even as we pass responsibility to the Iraqi government and finally bring this war to a close.
This is the moment when we must come together to save this planet. Let us resolve that we will not leave our children a world where the oceans rise and famine spreads and terrible storms devastate our lands. Let us resolve that all nations – including my own – will act with the same seriousness of purpose as has your nation, and reduce the carbon we send into our atmosphere. This is the moment to give our children back their future. This is the moment to stand as one.
Filed under: 2-party system, 2008 Election, Ahmadinejad, airstrikes, Barack Obama, Britain, China, Coup, Dictatorship, diplomacy, Empire, Europe, european union, False Flag, flip flip, flip flopping, Fox News, France, gas prices, gaza, George Bush, Globalism, hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, Iraq, Israel, John McCain, Lebanon, left right paradigm, Media, middle east, Military, Military Industrial Complex, military strike, nation building, neocons, Neolibs, Nuke, obama, occupation, Oil, palestine, Petrol, Preemptive Strike, preemptive war, Propaganda, Pullout, Russia, Saber Rattling, Saddam Hussein, Sanctions, Shock and Awe, sudan, Syria, Tehran, UN, United Kingdom, War On Terror, White House, WW3, ww4
Obama: No Option Off The Table On Iran
Reuters
July 23, 2008
U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said on Wednesday a nuclear Iran would pose a “grave threat” and that the world must stop Tehran from obtaining an atomic weapon.
Obama told reporters during a visit to Israel that if elected, he would take “no options off the table” in dealing with the Iran issue and said tougher sanctions could be imposed.
“A nuclear Iran would pose a grave threat and the world must prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon,” Obama told reporters after visiting the Israeli town of Sderot, which lies close to the border with the Hamas-run Gaza Strip.
He said the international community should immediately offer “big sticks and big carrots” to persuade Iran to halt its nuclear program. The West suspects Iran wants to build atom bombs but the Islamic Republic says its aims are peaceful.
“Iranians need to understand that whether it’s the Bush administration or the Obama administration, this is a paramount concern to the United States,” he said in Sderot, which has been hit by cross-border rockets fired by Gaza-based militants.
McCain, Obama agree: U.S. must dominate Middle East
PSL Web
July 26, 2008
Senators John McCain and Barack Obama differ in their proposals for when and how the United States should begin a major troop withdrawal from Iraq, and under what conditions they would enter into negotiations with the government of Iran.
On just about every other issue related to U.S policy in the Middle East, the presumptive presidential candidates of the Republican and Democratic parties are in near total agreement. And when it comes to the goal, the word “near” can be deleted. Both share—as must all ruling class-approved candidates for the position of CEO of the empire—an unquestioning dedication to U.S. domination of that key strategic region. Seventy percent of known global oil reserves are located in the Middle East.
Both Obama and McCain have expressed a limitless devotion to the state of Israel. Both have emerged as leading voices in the chorus of demonization against the governments of Iran, Syria and Sudan, and popular movements such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Hamas and other Palestinian resistance organizations.
Obama: air strike on Iran useless
Press TV
July 24, 2008
The White House hopeful Barack Obama says an air strike on Iran will not halt its nuclear program, calling for tougher Iran sanctions.
“Iran is a big country. They have dispersed their nuclear capabilities in a way that you are not going to see smooth, surgical strikes solving the problem entirely the way that Israel was able to deal with Iraq’s nuclear threat,” he told ABC News.
The Illinois senator called for “tough sanctions” coupled with “tough diplomacy that makes the calculus for the Iranians different.”
While insisting that “war is not a good option,” Obama maintained that he “would not take military options off the table when it comes to Iran and dealing with their nuclear capacity.”
The US has set a two-week deadline for Tehran to halt its nuclear program, after their talks on Iran’s nuclear program.
Envoys from the five permanent members of the UN Security Council–China, Russia, the US, Britain and France–plus Germany held a meeting in Geneva on Saturday to discuss Iran’s nuclear program.
In Israel—Obama Flip-Flops on Iran (…Again)
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/jul2008/obam-j23.shtml
Obama ’virtually indistinguishable from any U.S. politician’
http://www.bloomberg.co..d=amiQZ8aYhNMM&refer=us
Filed under: 9/11, Africa, Ahmadinejad, airstrikes, al-qaeda, army, Bill Clinton, bin laden, Colin Powell, Coup, Dictatorship, Empire, False Flag, George Bush, Impeach, Iran, Iraq, JCS, Lebanon, Libya, middle east, Military, military strike, nation building, navy, neocons, Nuke, occupation, paul wolfowitz, Pentagon, Preemptive Strike, preemptive war, Saddam Hussein, Shock and Awe, Somalia, sudan, Syria, Tehran, Troops, War Crimes, War On Terror, wesley clark, WMD, WW3, ww4
U.S. Will Invade 7 Countries in 5 Years – Wesley Clark
Filed under: Ahmadinejad, airstrikes, brazil, Britain, Coup, Europe, european union, False Flag, florida, France, gulf, Iran, middle east, Military, military strike, Nuke, ocean, Preemptive Strike, preemptive war, Shock and Awe, Tehran, United Kingdom, war games, War On Terror, WW3, ww4 | Tags: iwo jima, JTFEX, operation brimstone, theodore roosevelt
U.S. Warns Iran With War Game ’Operation Brimstone’
Press TV
July 22, 2008
The United States is set to lead a joint military exercise in the Atlantic Ocean to show off its combat capabilities as a warning to Iran.
The Joint Task Force Exercise (JTFEX) 08-4 ’Operation Brimstone’ will take place on July 21-31 in North Carolina and off the eastern US coast from Virginia to Florida, involving France, Britain and Brazil.
More than a dozen ships, including the US carrier strike group Theodore Roosevelt and expeditionary strike group Iwo Jima, the French submarine Amethyste, and the British HMS Illustrious Carrier Strike Group, as well as a Brazilian frigate will take part in the 10-day exercise.
Six vessels from the US Norfolk Naval State will play enemy at the exercise.
The drill is aimed at training for operation in shallow coastal waters such as the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz.
According to the Debkafile, both the Roosevelt and Iwo Jima are scheduled to be deployed in the Middle East in the coming months.
noworldsystem.com 