noworldsystem.com


Fight The New World Order with Global Non Compliance

Fight The New World Order with Global Non Compliance

http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=-3287351200059366862&hl=en&fs=true

 



Obama to Announce 45,000 Troop Surge in Afghanistan

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.

80,000 is the High Number of Troops Options in McChrystal’s Request

U.S. Not Planning Major Iraq Troop Cuts Until Next Year

 



Pope Benedict calls for a New World Order

Pope Benedict calls for a New World Order

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAbhRxmA46I

 



761 U.S. Military Bases Across the Planet

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.)

Read Full Article Here

 



Silvio Berlusconi puts troops on Italian city streets

Silvio Berlusconi puts troops on Italian city streets

Nick Pisa
London Telegraph
August 5, 2008

The deployment began with military-style precision at 7am sharp as soldiers took up positions outside key strategic points across the country, including as train stations, cathedrals and monuments.

In total, 3,000 troops from all sections of the armed forces will be on patrol alongside traditional officers as the controversial Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi’s government gets tough on crime.

However, the sight of troops on streets alarmed many visitors and locals alike – one 70-year-old pensioner from Essex who refused to give her name described her amazement at seeing armed soldiers.

The woman, who was walking through Rome with her husband, said: “I think it’s very sad – it reminds me of a time gone by and is very concerning. I really don’t see the point of it.

“It makes you think there is some sort of civil war going on – which there isn’t. I would have expected to see them in a South American banana republic not in a European capital.

“I think it is a bit repressive and, if anything, will increase the fears of locals and tourists – the majority of them fortunately don’t know what it is like to live through a war.”

Read Full Article Here

Anti-Assembly Laws Enacted In Italy
http://www.telegraph.co.uk..e-people-as-soldiers-hit-streets.html

 



DoD Studied Ancient World For Empire Tips

DoD Studied Ancient World For Empire Tips

Mother Jones
August 5, 2008

In the summer of 2002, the Pentagon’s Office of Net Assessment (ONA) published an 85-page monograph called “Military Advantage in History”. Unusual for an office that is headed by Andrew Marshall, the Pentagon’s “futurist in chief,” the study looks back to the past—way back. It examines four empires, or “pivotal hegemonic powers in history,” to draw lessons about how the United States “should think about maintaining military advantage in the 21st century.” Though unclassified, the study was held close to the vest; a stamp on the cover limits its dissemination without permission. Mother Jones obtained it only through a Freedom of Information Act request. Though the report is far from revelatory, it provides a window into a mindset that unselfconsciously envisions the United States as the successor to some of history’s most powerful empires.

The study looks a little like a high school text book, devoting chapters to Alexander the Great, Imperial Rome, Genghis Khan, and Napoleonic France and citing texts by Sun Tzu, Livy, and Jared Diamond. It attempts to break down exactly how historic empires sustained their military might across continents and even centuries. The study posits that the historical examples offer “insights into what drives U.S. military advantage,” as well as “where U.S. vulnerabilities may lie, and how the United States should think about maintaining its military advantage in the future.” There is no one secret to world domination, however. The Mongols’ military advantage was rooted in their “tactical and operational superiority”; the Macedonians’ in the “exceptional leadership” of and “cult of personality” surrounding Alexander the Great; Napoleon’s in “innovative operational concepts” and “information superiority”; and the Romans’ in “robust tactical doctrine” and “strong domestic institutions” which were “designed to incorporate conquered peoples as the empire grew.” In an extraordinary passage, the study cites the Roman experience—from over a millennium ago—as a precedent for America’s long-term dominance: “The Roman model suggests that it is possible for the United States to maintain its military advantage for centuries if it remains capable of transforming its forces before an opponent can develop counter-capabilities. Transformation coupled with strong strategic institutions is a powerful combination for an adversary to overcome.”

Read Full Article Here

 



Obama’s Nazi Youth Brigade

Obama’s Nazi Youth Brigade
Presidential candidate wants domestic “security force” as powerful as U.S. military, columnist compares proposal to Hitler Youth

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
July 17, 2008

Presidential frontrunner Barack Obama has called for a “civilian national security force” as powerful as the U.S. military, comments that were ignored by the vast majority of the corporate media but compared by one journalist to the Nazi Hitler Youth.

“We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded,” Obama told a Colorado Springs audience earlier this month.

World Net Daily editor Joseph Farah asked if he was the only journalist in America who found Obama’s statement troubling.

“If we’re going to create some kind of national police force as big, powerful and well-funded as our combined U.S. military forces, isn’t this rather a big deal?” wrote Farah.

“Are we talking about creating a police state here? The U.S. Army alone has nearly 500,000 troops. That doesn’t count reserves or National Guard. In 2007, the U.S. Defense budget was $439 billion. Is Obama serious about creating some kind of domestic security force bigger and more expensive than that? If not, why did he say it? What did he mean?”

KnoxNews.com is seemingly the only other media outlet to express interest in exactly what Obama is proposing.

“The statement was made in the context of youth service. Is this an organization for just the youth or are adults going to participate? How does one get away from the specter of other such “youth” organizations from Nazi Germany and the former Soviet Union when talking about it?” wrote Michael Silence.

Obama’s proposal smacks of an expanded version of an existing program in which hundreds of police, firefighters, paramedics and utility workers have been trained and recently dispatched as “Terrorism Liaison Officers” in Colorado, Arizona and California to watch for “suspicious activity” which is later fed into a secret government database.

It is also reminiscent of the supposedly canned 2002 Operation TIPS program, which would have turned 4 per cent of Americans into informants under the jurisdiction of the Justice Department.

TIPS lived on in other guises, such as the Highway Watch program, a $19 billion dollar Homeland Security-run project which trains truckers to watch for suspicious activity on America’s highways.

More recently, ABC News reported that “The FBI is taking cues from the CIA to recruit thousands of covert informants in the United States as part of a sprawling effort…..to aid with criminal investigations.”

Since authorities now define mundane activities like buying baby formula, beer, wearing Levi jeans, carrying identifying documents like a drivers license and traveling with women or children or mentioning the U.S. constitution as the behavior of potential terrorists, the bounty for the American Stasi to turn in political dissidents is sure to be too tempting to resist under Obama’s new program.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVjcRkeKFsc

 

Obama Wages Cyberwar

Wired
July 17, 2008

Since the start of the year, the Bush administration has kickstarted a $30 billion effort to shore up cyber security, installed a new “czar” for online defense, and reserved the right to snoop on everyone’s net traffic, to ward off a digital attack.

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama says the White House is still asleep at the switch, when it comes to network defense.

“We know that cyber-espionage and common crime is already on the rise. And yet while countries like China have been quick to recognize this change, for the last eight years we have been dragging our feet,” he said in a speech today at Purdue University, focusing on unconventional threats.

His recommendations on network security were vague, mostly. But they did include some subtle digs at the current administration.

As President, I’ll make cyber security the top priority that it should be in the 21st century. I’ll declare our cyber-infrastructure a strategic asset, and appoint a National Cyber Advisor who will report directly to me.

The current cyber chief serves under the Department of Homeland Security. He also, it should be noted, had no experience in security, whatsoever.

And while Obama avoided some of the more bellicose rhetoric that’s been been skipping around the government — like the Air Force’s calls for network “dominance” — he did highlight his concerns about a potential online takeover of our country’s infrastructure.

To protect our national security, I’ll bring together government, industry, and academia to determine the best ways to guard the infrastructure that supports our power…. We need to prevent terrorists or spies from hacking into our national security networks. We need to build the capacity to identify, isolate, and respond to any cyberattack. And we need to develop new standards for the cyber security that protects our most important infrastructure –- from electrical grids to sewage systems; from air traffic control to our markets.

Intelligence officers and security officials claim hackers have been able to shut down American power grids. That’s an assertion our cohorts at Threat Level have vigorously contested.

Obama Bans Signs from German Rally
http://infowars.net/articles/july2008/220708Obama.htm

Obama Advisor: Prosecuting Bush and Cheney Risks a Cycle of Criminalizing Public Service
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/34929

Obama’s “Civilian National Security Force”
http://www.infowars.com/?p=3417