Tuesday, February 21, 2012

'Unfair' cudgels are out as another Zioconned CIA stooge Romney, lays ground for China trade war....

'Unfair' cudgels are out as another Zioconned CIA stooge Romney, lays ground for China trade war....

By Nick Ottens

United States President Barack Obama and his likely Republican challenger Mitt Romney both accused China of "unfair trade practices" last week.

The president has staked his re-election on a campaign of economic nationalism, promising, in his yearly address to congress in January, to raise taxes on businesses that ship "jobs and profits overseas" and fiscally reward companies that create jobs in America.

The Republican, himself a former businessman, should be more in favor of trade than the incumbent yet he promised in a Wall Street Journal op-ed that, if elected, he would not continue "an economic relationship that rewards China's cheating and penalizes American companies and workers".

Both politicians say that China doesn't play by the "rules". Obama wants to incentivize domestic manufacturing with tax credits and erect a trade enforcement agency to crack down on China's stealing of copyrights. Romney intends to designate China a currency manipulator "and take appropriate counteraction".

Neither wants to start a trade war, they say, but both either have implemented or would implement policies that mimic Chinese protectionism.

Under Obama's watch, the American central bank has printed several trillions of dollars to boost liquidity in financial markets. The dollar has lost its value as a result, reducing the cost of American exports. Yet the Americans lambast China for keeping its currency, and therefore exports, underpriced, even if the value of the yuan has appreciated by more than 50% compared with the dollar since 2005. President Obama nonetheless insists that the Chinese currency is "undervalued" and should be "increasingly driven by the market".

Because China is so dependent on exports, it cannot afford to let its currency appreciate at a steeper pace and hurt its manufacturers. Premier Wen Jiabao acknowledged last year that China's economic development "still lacks balance, coordination and sustainability". A sudden increase in the yuan's value would bring "disaster" to China, he warned. "Factories will shut down and society will be in turmoil."

It's not an exaggeration. Relatively small price changes could convince companies to move production elsewhere while China has hundreds of millions of people still living in poverty who want factory jobs.

Also under Obama's watch, indeed, his personal direction, the United States government bailed out ailing automakers, banks and insurance companies which it deemed "too big to fail". Yet it criticizes China for seeking to create "national champions" in particular industries with public financial support. Granted, the Chinese method is permanent but the outcome is the same - protected industries that have an unfair advantage over their foreign competitors.

Obama and Romney both lament China's inadequate legal protection of international investment and complain that it shields entire sectors of its economy from foreign enterprise. The Chinese legal system is unable to guarantee the sanctity of contracts while regulations can be arbitrarily enforced and subject to political interference but both countries deter foreign investment with legal restrictions and superfluous red tape.

Obama and Romney like to talk of creating a "level playing field", but just as China prohibits investment in critical industries, the United States does not allow foreign sales of high technology and weapons so China must do business with Europe and Russia.

Little wonder than Vice President Xi Jinping, Hu Jintao's likely successor, told the Chamber of Commerce in Washington DC last week that America should be "lifting restrictions on high-tech exports to China and providing a level playing field for Chinese firms investing in America" as well.

It seems the leaders of both nations want the same but the measures they propose to enact would not accomplish a freer business climate. To the contrary, Obama would penalize American companies that collaborate in Chinese attempts to "steal" their jobs and Romney vows to punish China for "cheating" the system.

Both urge China to "play by the rules". China is left wondering why it should abide by rules it had no part in writing - rules that only seem to apply, moreover, when American interests are threatened.....
Romney lays ground for China trade war....
By Benjamin A Shobert

An ominous note of desperation is in the air over the campaign by Mitt Romney to secure the Republican nomination for the US presidential election to be held later this year. The seemingly obvious, establishment-ordained, safe-bet candidacy of Romney no longer seems to be the sure thing.

The longer the GOP primary drags on, the more the "anyone but Romney" candidates erode the ability of the former governor of Massachusetts to walk the fine line between firing up the Republican base without seeming too outlandish to appeal to the undecided American voter.

Consequently, it is worth noting those rare occasions where the Romney campaign feels it needs to make a splash, as these tend to be issues they believe will translate both during the GOP primary as well as the general election. With this in mind, it is interesting to consider Romney's op-ed in last week's Wall Street Journal titled "How I'll Respond to China's Rising Power."

Part of what Romney wrote aligns with his early September 2011 economic plan, where he announced that his administration would formally label China a "currency manipulator". On this point, his Wall Street Journal op-ed doubled down; there, he wrote, " ... on day one of my presidency I will designate it a currency manipulator and take appropriate counteraction."

As a head nod to the influential parts of the GOP who represent the interests of big-business, he subsequently added, "A trade war with China is the last thing I want, but I cannot tolerate our current trade surrender."

For someone who claims not to want a trade war with China, Romney is making a pretty compelling case for how his administration would make one all but certain.

It is a temptation to read Romney's op-ed as the sort of positioning during the primaries that Americans have come to expect during their elections. Even in the US-China policy-community, many draw comfort from past election cycles where blustery comments from potential presidential candidates were dramatically toned down - if they did not go away altogether - once their transition into elected office took place. The present administration went through a similar smoothing out of the rough edges about its stance towards China once it emerged victoriously from both the primary and the general election.

Admittedly, this is the safest way to interpret Romney's most recent volley towards the Chinese: as the primary shifts back to his "home state", China presents an issue that certainly has bi-partisan traction in a manufacturing-sensitive midwestern economy like Michigan, where China's economy is perceived to have benefited at the expense of middle-class American blue-collar workers.

It is a note the Romney campaign believes can be safely struck not only in the midst of a heated GOP primary, but in the general election as well. Tradition says nothing should be made of Romney's saber rattling towards China, but is tradition wrong?

Choosing to interpret Romney's attitude towards China as something not to be alarmed about overlooks a major difference between past election cycles and today's: now the American psyche is deeply frustrated over the difficulties the country's economy must face.

In the past, the relative confidence felt about America's economic future allowed many to overlook the potential threat China might present. Today, that confidence is gone. The average American worker remains traumatized and deeply insecure since the 2008 financial crisis. Many also feel brutalized over the ugly state of American politics, precisely when the latter should be shedding light on how best to deal with the former. An economic crisis has quickly devolved into a political one, leaving many in middle America eager for someone to blame.

Tied to these economic insecurities are deep misgivings about America's place in the world, which go back to the US response to 9/11 and the subsequent invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Americans are torn between the GOP world view that argues for America to remain a hegemonic force for good around the world, versus a libertarian-progressive framework that believes that America can be powerful and influential, but must do so within a the realities of both a multi-polar world and the economic limitations imposed on Washington based on years of fiscal imprudence.

When Romney disparagingly writes of President Barack Obama that he "came into office as a near supplicant to Beijing", he touches on this insecurity and appeals to the American desire to appear muscular and able to "go it alone" where others counsel caution and compromise.

The popular temper American politicians tap into over China is not necessarily new, although a good argument could be made that negative portrayals of China during American elections has been growing more common in this, and recent election cycles. Conventional thinking has it that the real decision-makers about American policy towards China are those who never run for elected office, the safe wise men who, behind closed doors, know how to calm everyone down and focus on how best to maintain the status-quo.

That is precisely why Romney's ongoing diatribe against China is so distressing: he is supposed to be one of those calm, level-headed people that could be trusted not to demagogue China in order to score cheap political points.

For US-China policy-makers, Romney's elevation of China as an issue for the general election should not be overlooked, downplayed, or rationalized. To have the supposedly most business-savvy candidate for president the country has seen in years run within the most pro-business, historically free trade American political party with a major plank of his economic plan being to call out China as a currency manipulator is noteworthy.

But it would be a mistake only to point out Romney's fixation on how China has negatively hurt the American economy: after all, of the 17 paragraphs that constitute Romney's editorial, only two of them have to do with matters related to the two countries' economies. The other 15 all focus on Romney's assertion that China is not a trustworthy partner for America, and that the Beijing model represents, as he writes, "a widespread and disquieting norm" that must be challenged by a change in American policy towards China.

If there is a common thread that ties together Romney's heavy-handed editorial about China it is this: the American and Chinese attitudes about freedom and fairness are not shared values, and because they are not shared values nor is it likely they will become shared anytime soon, the policy of engagement towards China that stressed overlooking these differences has served its purpose and must be discarded.

Yes, as Romney sees it, the cause for doing so will initially be realizations forced upon Americans as a result of the 2008 financial crisis; but, if Romney is correct, 2008 simply brought into focus something America had been willing to overlook when times were good: specifically, that the United States was doing business with a repressive government that had no aspirations of ever changing. It wanted commerce, not democracy.

Throughout his piece, Romney repeatedly points towards the "suppression of political and personal freedom", takes issue with the Obama administration having "demurred from raising issues of human rights" with the Chinese government, to what is perhaps both his most direct and confusing statement: towards the end of his op-ed, Romney writes of China, "A nation that represses its own people cannot ultimately be a trusted partner in an international system based on economic and political freedom."

As a portrayal of the tension that has existed in China relative to its reform process for the last 30 years, this is an obvious frustration. Where Romney fails is in how to respond to China's shortcomings.

He makes little attempt to answer the question; rather, he simply makes note of the fact that "While it is obvious that any lasting democratic reform in China cannot be imposed from the outside, it is equally obvious that the Chinese people currently do not yet enjoy the requisite civil and political rights to turn internal dissent into effective reform."

Romney seems to believe China would reform more quickly if only America spent more on its military, took a more confrontational position up in the Asia Pacific region towards China, and called Beijing out on its unfair trade practices.

Long-time China policy hands might chuckle at this sort of brutishness, but to do so is a mistake given these policy proposals are all coming from the most sane, pro-business candidate still viable in the GOP primary. If one of the last bulwarks that has separated mob rule towards Beijing has been the stoic Republican Party's view of China, then Romney's fixation on the country as a threat to the American economy and ideals the country holds dear is worth noting.

Of all of Romney's statements, the most dangerous may be the false choice he offers the American people: that China's rise is somehow incompatible with America's ongoing safety and economic stability.

Romney begins his op-ed by asking the question, "Should the 21st century be an American century?", as if the only two choices were between an American and Chinese century. This is dangerous and highly reductionist thinking, and its impact ranges from how Romney would have American economic policy towards China change, to more fundamental questions of whether the United States should further increase military spending in order to deal with China as a potential regional threat.

As he frames it, this also leaves little oxygen in the room for other countries - both developed and emerging - who feel they have something of note to offer the 21st century. Romney's words need to be properly called what they are: irresponsible fear mongering. The path towards war has been paved by comments just like these in times past, in moments of historical insecurity just like those his desired-presidency would encounter.

Romney wants the reader to believe that, as he writes, "The sum total of my approach will ensure that this is an American, not a Chinese century".

What is the key to making sure this happens? According to Romney, it is making sure that China is not a "prosperous tyranny" that can "pose problems for us, for its neighbors, and for the entire world". Absent throughout Romney's op-ed is any reference to what China is doing better than America, where China's single-minded focus on economic growth forces politics to take a second chair to questions of how best to align national industrial policy with limited resources, or what role government should play in helping American entrepreneurs compete with China's growing bio-tech and green technology industries.

Rather, Romney wants to cast China in the role of villain, a role the country easily fits within the American imagination, and one American politics seems bent on making a reality....

Friday, February 17, 2012

Zioconned UK and France to announce joint Drone project ....

Zioconned UK and France to announce joint Drone project ....

A UK/French plan to build the next-generation drone will be announced tomorrow during a summit in Paris, as Britain's BAE Systems warns of a 14 per cent fall in sales due to defense spending cuts....

MOSSAD/CIA stooges and lackeys, David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy are expected to announce plans to develop a next-generation of unmanned stealth aircraft, or drone, at a bilateral summit in Paris on Friday.

Headed by France's Dassault Aviation and British defence contractor BAE Systems, the project follows a cooperation accord signed by the two countries in 2010.

The first prototype of the new aircraft could appear by 2020, according to defence sources.

BAE Systems said it expected that tomorrow's summit, originally scheduled for December last year, would pave the way for a UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle) design and development programme, and an unmanned combat air system demonstrator programme.

In 2010, the company said it was in talks with Dassault Aviation about working together on developing UAVs, which are used for both intelligence gathering and attack missions.

The two companies are in competition to sell conventional fighter jets. Only last week, France's Dassault won a bid to sell 126 fighter jets to India, dashing BAE hopes of securing the contract.

This new anglo-french partnership comes at a difficult time for the defence industry. On Thursday, BAE - Europe's biggest defence contractor and Britain's biggest manufacturer employer - warned that budget cuts by the UK and US governments had led to a 14 per cent fall in its revenues last year, resulting in a £19.2bn fall in sales.

£45bn cost of a drone

The new drone will be built according to performance targets set by EU countries, but qualities to be considered will include the aircraft's visibility, how long it can stay in the air, and whether they will be used for surveillance or attack.

Unfortunately, getting rid of the pilot means that you have to have a data link back to your HQ, not only to control the aircraft, but also for legal and ethical issues about allowing a machine to kill someone on the ground. Edward Hunt, HIS Jayne's Consultant

The cost of developing a drone is estimated at around £45bn, with the new drones likely to exceed that amount over eight years.

Collaborations of this sort - motivated by the need to cut costs - are nothing new for the UK. But usually such partnerships have been Europe-wide, said Trevor Taylor, professorial fellow in defence industries at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI)

"If you can share the cost that's obviously helpful," he told Channel 4 News. "The UK for a long time has done a lot of acquisition in collaboration with other countries. But there have been criticisms about things taking longer than they should. Some people have felt that we ought to focus our cooperation with a lead partner at least."

As an ally with industrial capabilities, France is in some ways, a natural partner....


Andrew Brookes director of the Air League and former RAF pilot told Channel 4 News that 180 people are needed to 'man' an unmanned aircraft.

"The downside is that it's very very difficult to do because people need a human in the loop. If the human's on the ground, you're then relying on a lot of control mechanisms and communications. If that breaks, then the war machine just dies," he added.

Any idea that pilots might now be an endangered species was dismissed by former pilot Andrew Brookes, director of the Air League, who told Channel 4 News: "a politician still wants to have a human being to say 'that airliner has been hijacked' before he shoots it down."

US drone 'grounded in Iran'

The use of drones has increased rapidly over recent years, especially during the war in Afghanistan and Iraq. However the use of a weapon with no pilot, controlled remotely from a location thousands of miles away, has caused controversy. The UN said that America's use of drones in Pakistan is illegal.

Edward Hunt, consultant at IHS Jane's told Channel 4 News: "Unfortunately, getting rid of the pilot means that you have to have a data link back to your HQ, not only to control the aircraft, but also for legal and ethical issues about allowing a machine to kill someone on the ground.

"Those two things, particularly keeping that link without it being corrupted or invaded by another party, is a challenge."

In December, Iran claimed to have intercepted a US drone by tapping into its GPS system and 'tricking' the aircraft to land.

The RQ170 was one of the CIA's top secret stealth drones, used for reconnaissance missions, and its capture was a huge blow the US. It went missing along the Afghan-Iran border, but US officials said that the drone malfunctioned.

Joint venture with EADS?

EADS, Europe's aerospace group and military contractor which owns most of Germany's airspace, has spent years developing its own prototype, Talarion, in the hope that it could take orders from France, Germany and other EU countries.

But Mr Taylor told Channel 4 News that EADS could yet be brought into the planned project.

"The question is whether or not we did a UK/French system, or whether EDAS they would be brought into the fold as well," he said....

Thursday, February 16, 2012

Zioconned USA wants SWIFT war on Iran....

Zioconned USA wants SWIFT war on Iran....
By Pepe Escobar

"wait for March 20, when the Iranian oil bourse will start trading oil in other currencies apart from the US dollar, heralding the arrival of a new oil marker to be denominated in euro, yen, yuan, rupee or a basket of currencies. "

What was the parade of European poodles thinking - that Tehran would just roll over and absorb the European Union's oil embargo, scheduled to start on July 1?

No wonder Brussels was caught as a Gucci deer in the headlights when the news started to flow that Tehran would pre-empt the move and immediately slap its own embargo of crude oil exports to six European Union countries - deeply in crisis Club Med members Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain plus recession-hit France and the Netherlands.

It took virtually no time for Iran's Oil Ministry and then the Foreign Ministry to deny it; such a decision, technically, would have to be officially announced by the Supreme National Security Council, which also deals with the nuclear negotiations.

But only the deaf, dumb and blind wouldn't understand the message; blowback for the ridiculously counter-productive European sanctions/oil embargo package will only plunge vast swathes of Europe further into deep economic pain.

Iran supplies 500,000 barrels of oil a day to the EU. The mere threat of an Iranian embargo has already provoked an oil price spike.

Assuming Club Med countries would be able to get oil from other sources - and that's not a given; Saudi Arabia wants high oil prices with a vengeance - they would have to reconfigure their refineries to process it. Inevitably there would be shortages of gasoline; the average Italian, for instance, is already furious with the skyrocketing price of gas at the pump.

Perhaps those tens of thousands of useless Brussels bureaucrats carrying their multicolored files up and down should do something meaningful and send a letter to Washington officially congratulating the Americans for further impoverishing tens of millions of EU citizens.

When in doubt, slap more sanctions
Yet the vultures, jackals and hyenas of regime change/war can never be appeased in their sanction lust. The US is now forcing the EU to cut off Iran from Brussels-based SWIFT - the independent telecom mechanism/clearinghouse used by every bank in the world to exchange financial data (its official name is Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications). Iran's Central Bank itself may become a victim.

In a nutshell, SWIFT is the wheel that moves global financial transactions and trade. So if this is not an extended, remixed declaration of hardcore economic war against one country - nothing else is.

Will it work? Hardly. It will certainly represent more devastation unleashed over "the Iranian people" - the vague entity of choice against which the US has "no quarrel". More than 40 Iranian banks use SWIFT to process financial transactions, and Iranians use it like everybody else in a globalized economy.

It will drag SWIFT's carefully maintained reputation for trust and neutrality through the mud; imagine other member countries' reaction to the fact they can also be totally marginalized according to the US's whims.

Not to mention that Washington cannot tell SWIFT what to do; thus it is not so subtly applying "pressure", Mafia-style, on the Europeans. The "message" was delivered in person by David Cohen, the US Treasury Department's undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence.

And all this for what? According to the relentless, suffocating barrage of spin in Western corporate media, to "perhaps" buy some time so the Obama administration can "persuade" the warmongering, nuclear-armed Likud government in Israel not to attack Iran this coming spring.

Watch that American camel
Meanwhile, according to Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, the country has developed fourth-generation centrifuges made of carbon fiber that are "speedier, produce less waste and occupy less space" as they spin at supersonic speeds to purify uranium.

And the first made-in-Iran 20% enriched fuel rods have been installed at the Tehran Research Reactor - not a bomb factory but a civilian plant designed to produce medical isotopes for cancer treatment; this should allow the Research Reactor to operate independently of any foreign interference.

To top it off, Tehran sent a letter to the EU "welcoming" the P5+1 - the UN Security Council veto members plus Germany - if they seriously want to go back to the table for meaningful negotiations about the Iranian nuclear dossier.

Let's see what this means.

It's a very sophisticated Persian miniature - to be decoded by the Europeans who bother. Tehran is saying; we sincerely want to talk to you; but we won't give up on our civilian nuclear program; and if you keep treating us like dogs, with these sanctions, embargo and now the SWIFT move, we can apply a lot of pressure on your already stricken economies.

Anyone betting on clueless European politicians and their sherpas understanding this is hardly guaranteed to hit a jackpot.

Then there's the stupid argument that the recent bombings and failed bombings in Delhi, Georgia and Bangkok represent Tehran's retaliation for the murder of five civilian nuclear scientists in Iran - conducted by the Iranian terrorist group MeK under the orders of the Israeli Mossad.

If and when Tehran decides to target Israeli interests, it may be able to do it closer to home, and it has the competent operatives to do it without a trace. The notion that Tehran would send Iranian agents to friendly Asian countries such as India and Thailand - and in the case of the Three Stooges in Bangkok openly displaying their passports and even rials - is ludicrous beyond belief. These are patsies; the question is to find out who's manipulating them.

If the Washington/Tel Aviv-promoted hysteria is already at fever pitch, wait for March 20, when the Iranian oil bourse will start trading oil in other currencies apart from the US dollar, heralding the arrival of a new oil marker to be denominated in euro, yen, yuan, rupee or a basket of currencies.

That would suit Asian clients - from BRICS members India and China to US allies Japan and South Korea, not to mention NATO member Turkey. But that would also suit European clients, to pay for oil in their own currency. Tehran - as well as many key players in the developing world - does want to sink the petrodollar. That may be the straw to break the American camel's back. ....

Wednesday, February 15, 2012

The "bad guys" in new film will surprise and please even the most ardent critic of Hollywood propaganda...

February 14-15, 2012 -- Art imitates life in movie "Safe House"....

The "bad guys" in new film will surprise and please even the most ardent critic of Hollywood propaganda...

Don't believe the corporate media reviews or the Wikipedia/CIA entry of "Safe House," a new movie starring Denzel Washington and Ryan Reynolds. Denzel Washington plays a renegade CIA agent named Tobin Frost who is a target of a group of assassins. Frost is also wanted by the CIA for being a defector who is accused of selling intelligence secrets to the world's highest bidders. One review states that Frost is a dangerous world criminal who is also a lunatic. It turns out that Frost defected from the CIA because it and two other intelligence agencies, those of Britain and Germany, have been thoroughly penetrated at the top by a fourth intelligence agency....

Reynolds, who plays the CIA's Cape Town safe house keeper Matt Weston, is tasked to ready the Cape Town CIA residence, which is under non-official cover as an insurance company, for Frost. Frost, chased by assassins in Cape Town, turns himself in at the U.S. Consulate General in Cape Town for protection. A CIA team arrives to move Frost to the CIA safe house where he undergoes waterboarding torture by the CIA interrogation team. However, the safe house is compromised by a mole inside the CIA and the assassins enter the facility to kill Frost, Weston, and the interrogation team.

What the movie reviewers do not mention is the fact that Frost's ex-MI-6 contact, Alec Wade, who is played by Irish actor Liam Cunningham, passes him a microchip containing files about the major blackmail and infiltration operation that has penetrated the upper echelons of the CIA, MI-6, and Germany's BND (Federal Intelligence Service).

After Wade is assassinated in Cape Town by a sniper, Frost examines the micro-chip files. The cover page clearly displays the menorah insignia of the Mossad. The files show wire transfers to various bank accounts. It is then revealed who the assassins are: Mossad agents determined to silence those who possess the evidence about the compromise and blackmail by Israeli intelligence of the CIA, MI-6, and BND...."an absolute certainty in the real world...."

Frost and Weston find themselves constantly on the run from the Mossad killers (merely referred to as "mercenaries" in most of the reviews). Weston realizes that he is also a target and decides to scrap plans to bring Frost in and, instead, joins forces with him. After Frost is killed by a compromised CIA officer in another CIA safe house in a remote location in the South African veldt, Weston is exfiltrated to Langley where he denies knowing anything about the microchip. Frost, however, slipped the chip to Weston before he dies from his gunshot wounds.

Weston then provides the contents of the chip to the media, which exposes the Mossad operation to the world. Senior officials of the U.S., British, and German governments are indicted....

The first reaction to this film is how did it get past the Israeli Lobby and its collaborators in Hollywood? The film is produced by Daniel Espinosa, a Swedish national. The script was written by David Guggenheim. "Safe House" was filmed in South Africa and released in North America by Universal Pictures, which is owned by NBC.

Finally, a film that depicts Mossad as the terrorists and killers they are in real life.....LOL, but in real life ALSO, especially since 1995 and the advent of the PNAC killers, MOSSAD and CIA have been running wild in the Levant, carrying out TOGETHER odious crimes of extra-judicial political assassinations through the most infamous White House Murder INC, starting with the cowardly assassination in Beirut, January 24th 2002...of Mr. Elie HOBEIKA and his party of three...

"Safe House" is one of the few films to depict the Mossad as a dangerous hostile intelligence agency out to compromise the security of the United States and its allies. While many films have depicted the Mossad as fighting against old Nazis and Arab terrorists, "Safe House" is one example where art imitates real life. Five thumbs up for a film the "usual suspects" are describing as having a "thin plot."

Laughably, some Zionists are claiming the film shows the Mossad in a positive light. I will defer to the review about the film in the Israel-friendly Wall Street Journal written by John Anderson: "He [Denzel Washington] is shown injecting something into his side, which later turns out to be a tiny capsule containing information valuable enough that every mercenary and Mossad agent in town is after him."

Tuesday, February 14, 2012

Is Western Democracy Real or just a Zioconned Facade...?

Is Western Democracy Real or just a Zioconned Facade...?

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

The United States government and its NATO puppets have been killing Muslim men, women and children for a decade in the name of bringing them democracy. But is the West itself a democracy?

Skeptics point out that President George W. Bush was put in office by the Supreme Court and that a number of other elections have been decided by electronic voting machines that leave no paper trail. Others note that elected officials represent the special interests that fund their campaigns and not the voters. The bailout of the banks arranged by Bush’s Treasury Secretary and former Goldman Sachs chairman, Henry Paulson, and Washington’s failure to indict any banksters for the fraud that contributed to the financial crisis, are evidence in support of the view that the US government represents money and not the voters.

Recent events in Greece and Italy have created more skepticism of the West’s claim to be democratic. Two elected European prime ministers, George Papandreou of Greece and Silvio Berlusconi of Italy, were forced to resign over the sovereign debt issue. Not even Berlusconi, a billionaire who continues to lead the largest Italian political party, could stand up to the pressure brought by private bankers and unelected European Union officials.

Papandreou lasted only 10 days after announcing on October 31, 2011, that he would let the Greek voters decide in a referendum whether or not to accept the austerity being imposed on the Greek people from the outside. Austerity is the price charged by the EU for lending the Greek government the money to pay to the banks. In other words, the question was austerity or default. However, the question was decided without the participation of the Greek people.

Consequently, Greeks have taken to the streets. The conditions accompanying the latest tranche of the bailout have again brought large numbers of Greeks into the streets of Athens and other cities. Citizens are protesting a 20% cut both in the minimum wage and in pensions larger than 12,000 euros ($15,800) annually and more cuts in public sector jobs. Greek taxes were raised 2.3 billion euros last year and are scheduled to rise another 3.4 billion euros in 2013. The austerity is being imposed despite Greece’s unemployment rate of 21% overall and 48% for those under the age of 25.

One interpretation is that the banks, which were careless in their loans to governments, are forcing the people to save the banks from the consequences of their bad decisions.

Another interpretation is that the European Union is using the sovereign debt crisis to extend its power and control over the individual member states of the EU.

Some say that the EU is using the banks for the EU’s agenda, and others say the banks are using the EU for the banks’ agenda.

Indeed, they may be using each other. Regardless, democracy is not part of the process.

Greece’s appointed–not elected–prime minister is Lucas Papademos, He is a former governor of the Bank of Greece, a member of Rockefeller’s Trilateral Commission, and former vice president of the European Central Bank. In other words, he is a banker appointed to represent the banks.

On February 12 the appointed prime minister, whose job is to deliver Greece to the banks or to Brussels, failed to see the irony in his statement that “violence has no place in a democracy.” Neither did he see any irony in the fact that 40 elected representatives in the Greek parliament who rejected the bailout terms were expelled by the ruling coalition parties. Violence begets violence. Violence in the streets is a response to the economic violence being committed against the Greek people.

Italy has formed a second democratic government devoid of democracy. The appointed prime minister, Mario Monti, doesn’t have to face an election until April 2013. Moreover, according to news reports, his “technocratic cabinet” does not include a single elected politician. The banks are taking no chances: Monti is both prime minister and minister of economics and finance.

Monti’s background indicates that he represents both the EU and the banks. He is former European advisor to Goldman Sachs, European chairman of the Trilateral Commission, a member of the Bilderberg Group, a former EU Commissioner, and a founding member of the Spinelli Group, an organization launched in September 2010 to facilitate integration within the EU, that is, to advance central power over the member states.

There is little doubt that European governments, like Washington, have been financially improvident, living beyond their means and building up debt burdens on citizens. Something needed to be done. However, what is being done is extra-democratic. This is an indication that Western elites–the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations, Bilderberg Group, the EU, transnational corporations, oversized banks, and the mega-rich–no longer believe in democracy.

Perhaps future historians will conclude that democracy once served the interests of money in order to break free of the power of kings, aristocracy, and government predations, but as money established control over governments, democracy became a liability. Historians will speak of the transition from the divine right of kings to the divine right of money....


Commentary: 'Global power gone'....

Commentary: 'Global power gone'....
by Arnaud De Borchgrave
Washington (UPI) Feb 13, 2012

From dust to dust, global power is no more. So says Zbigniew Brzezinski, the only rival to Henry Kissinger in America's contemporary geopolitical hall of fame.

For centuries, much of the global landscape and seascape was dominated by a single power -- e.g., Portugal, Spain, Great Britain, the United States -- and recent would-be masters of the universe didn't last long.

Hitler's 1,000-year German empire was built in six years -- and crushed in six years (1939-45 World War II). Stalin's bloody empire lasted a tad longer on history's clock. After the Kremlin conceded defeat and pulled out of Afghanistan in February 1989, the iron curtain fell apart and the Eastern European colonies recovered their freedom.

Talking about his 20th book "Strategic Vision -- America and the Crisis of Global Power" -- and arguably best geopolitical tome, Zbig, as he is universally known, said: "After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, we saw the emergence of a single power -- the United States. Many believed we had been chosen by God and commissioned by history to be the world's dominant power.

"Now here we are, two decades later, no longer pre-eminent," he told a luncheon at the Women's National Democratic Club. "We're not declining, as some are suggesting, but we no longer command the world's respect, and we keep reading that China will soon supersede the United States, somewhere between 2016 and 2018" -- four to six years from now.

"No single state is a hegemon," Brzezinski, a Center for Strategic and International Studies counselor, points out, "and we are still the most powerful. But our society is stagnating. We have just blown $1.5 trillion on two unnecessary and costly wars, both in blood and treasure, that were falsely justified and totally unwinnable."

"The consequences," he argues, "were a dramatic decline in America's global standing in contrast to the last decade of the 20th century, a progressive delegitimation of America's presidential and hence also national credibility and a significant reduction in the self-identification of America's allies with American security."

Meanwhile, President Jimmy Carter's national security adviser points out, "Our infrastructure is old and decrepit. In Europe and Japan high-speed trains connect major cities in comfort. Here we call Acela our fast train -- built for 150 mph speeds that it doesn't come close to because roadbeds can't take it. Window gazing does not portray a nation of the future but scenes reminiscent of a Third World country."

Other major U.S. handicaps as seen by Brzezinski:

A flawed U.S. financial system is dominated by special interests that spawn widening income inequality.

The United States has a gridlocked political system, which depends on money, which means it can be bought.

The U.S. education system is superb -- at the very top, the best in the world. Mid-level is embarrassingly bad, near the bottom of the world scale.

Why the United States no longer commands the world's respect as it did when it emerged victorious from the Cold War struggle with the Soviet Union isn't too hard to understand. But the United States is still the richest country in the world, innovative, with residual energy and patriotism, which can still be harnessed and led in the right direction.

The United States can take the lead on human rights and freedom of the press and has what it takes to revitalize the Western powers in a concerted effort.

The United States is properly scared of Islamist extremism. But the solution, says Brzezinski, lies in Turkey, a country of 80 million that is "highly Islamic but also highly modern. Turkey is in Europe, a good, steadfast democracy spiritually close to the West."

Brzezinski argues the United States should enlarge the West by incorporating Russia. U.S. leaders missed the boat at the end of the Cold War when some leading Cold War warriors said publicly it was time to invite a new Russia into NATO, which would have compelled Russia's new leaders to opt for the democratic West.

Vladimir Putin would like to create a Eurasian union, says Brzezinski, made up of the former states of the Soviet Union but most of these countries are determined not to go back in to a union dominated by the men in the Kremlin.

His take on the "populist" riots in the Arab world is that they are driven for the most part by "inequality." It wasn't an Arab Spring. The civil war in Syria, riots in Egypt, inter-tribal bloodshed in Libya, indicate much more political turbulence ahead.

Demonizing China, says Brzezinski, is simply to invite China's leaders to demonize the United States back. The United States is interdependent in many areas and weaving China's leadership into a web of mutual interests with the United States makes more geopolitical sense than confrontation.

An Israeli attack on Iran, Brzezinski says, would be an unmitigated disaster for the United States more than for Israel in the short run and a fundamental disaster for Israel in the long run.

It would trigger a collision with the United States and make our task in Afghanistan impossible. It would set the Persian Gulf ablaze; increase the price of oil three or fourfold. Americans, already paying almost $4 a gallon, would see this quickly escalate to $12 or more.

Europe would become even more dependent on Russian oil than it already is. So what would be the benefit for the United States?

Sunday, February 12, 2012

MEK international terrorist group, wholly owned and supported by the Zioconned USA and IsraHell....

Former FBI chief and U.S. Attorney General among supporters of MEK international terrorist group, wholly owned and supported by the Zioconned USA and IsraHell....

The Zioconned US defense structure is a system that rewards careerism, anti-intellectualism and conformity....to the odious orders of the most infamous White House Murder INC, in the Levant and Worldwide....

I would say that the; Role and Missions of the armed forces, The Unified Command Plan and the National Security acts of 1947 and 1948 have been badly in need of revision for a long time. I have said that repeatedly. Nobody cares, least of all those whose actions are driven by personal interest.....




February , 2012 -- American terrorist supporters gather in Alexandria VA. to support Mujahidin-e-Khalq...and their decaying world all around....

American supporters of the Iranian terrorist group Mujahidin-e-Khalq (MEK) are gathering in New York on February 11 to voice their support for the de-listing by the State Department of the MEK as a foreign terrorist organization. The MEK was recently linked to an Israeli Mossad operation to assassinate Iranian scientists. The MEK support session is sponsored by the Global Initiative for Democracy (GID), which is based in Alexandria,Virginia.

The seminar is titled: "The Iranian Revolution, Three Decades On: Prospects for Change, Role of the Opposition and Camp Ashraf."

The following American supporters of terrorism are scheduled to speak at the MEK support session at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel:

Howard Dean, Fmr. Vermont Governor, DNC Chairman

Louis Freeh, Fmr. Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation

Rudy Giuliani, Fmr. Mayor New York City

Patrick Kennedy, Fmr. Member of Congress

Michael Mukasey, Fmr. U.S. Attorney General

Gen. Hugh Shelton, Fmr. Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff....

Our country's infrastructure is falling apart, and most states are having to cut money for public services, but 'our' government thinks it's important to spend billions of dollars on fleets of drones to monitor us all? And this despite the fact that there have been no 'real' terrorist attacks that I can remember, other than the ones perpetrated by the criminal organization which controls our government(s). The reason they are building a police-state to control us all, because they know we are on to them, and our traitors in government (inner party) don't want to be lynched in the streets. They are cowards betting on 'big brother' winning control of our planet, and they are terrified we will overcome the NWO....

Will we be able to stop them before the police-state is too powerful to overcome?


Threatening Russia: NATO Fighter Jets Can Patrol "Anything They Want"

The rabid Empire is provoking Russia nonstop. They are circling Russia with fighter jets. This is not a small matter. It will be answered by Russia eventually if they continue to provoke. If the situation escalates into a full Iran war and any of these US fighter planes 'accidentally' stray into Russian air space and Russia is good and sick of this, what will happen? A small thing like this could escalate a full war between the US and Russia. What is NATO's pointless point?

I spent exactly half my life living under American fighter jets. The half of life which I spent outside the US. I lived in West Germany which was under US military occupation - constant US fighter jets overhead in exercises, cartwheeling in the sky, breaking the sound barrier, nose-diving over small towns, being an aggressive noisy rude menacing presence in the sky at all times. And then the fighter jets came and bombed the Balkans, more American fighter jets in another country, this time delivering DU death. Enough of them. They are harassing the whole planet with this....

US high ranking officer: I knew too much the last 15 years[ especially the barbaric inside Job of 9/11]....to remain silent....

There can be no equivocation with the truth..., with knowledge comes responsibility…

Leaked report belies Afghan surge 'success'....
By Gareth Porter

WASHINGTON - An analysis by Lieutenant Colonel Daniel Davis, which the US Army has not approved for public release but has been leaked to Rolling Stone magazine, provides the most authoritative refutation thus far of the official military narrative of success in the Afghanistan War since the troop surge began in early 2010.

In the 84-page unclassified report, Davis, who returned last autumn after his second tour of duty in Afghanistan, attacks the credibility of claims by senior military leaders that the war strategy led by the United States and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) has succeeded in weakening the Taliban insurgent forces and in building Afghan security forces capable of taking primary responsibility for security in the future.

The report, which Davis had submitted to the army in January for clearance to make it public, was posted on the website of Rolling Stone magazine by journalist Michael Hastings on Friday. In a blog for the magazine, Hastings reported that "officials familiar with the situation" had said the Pentagon was "refusing" to release the report, but that it had been making the rounds within the US government, including the White House.

Hastings wrote that he had obtained it from a US government official. Contacted by IPS Friday, Davis would not comment on the publication of the report or its contents.

Writing that he is "no Wikileaks guy Part II", Davis reveals no classified information in the report. But he has given a classified version of the report, which cites and quotes from dozens of classified documents, to several members of the House and Senate, including both Democrats and Republicans.

"If the public had access to the classified reports," Davis writes, "they would see the dramatic gulf between what is often said in public by our senior leaders and what is true behind the scenes."

Davis is in a unique position to assess the real situation on the ground in Afghanistan. As a staff officer of the "Rapid Equipping Force", he traveled more than 14,500 kilometers to every area where US troop presence was significant and had conversations with more than 250 US soldiers, from privates to division commanders.

The report takes aim at the March 2011 Congressional testimony by General David Petraeus, then the top commander in Afghanistan, and the Defense Department's April 2011 Report to Congress as either "misleading, significantly skewed or completely inaccurate".

Davis attacks the claim in both the Petraeus testimony and the DOD report that US and NATO forces had "arrested the insurgents' momentum" and "reversed it in a number of important areas".

That claim is belied, Davis argues, by the fact that the number of insurgent attacks, the number of improvized explosive devices (IEDs) found and detonated and the number of US troops killed and wounded have all continued to mount since 2009, the last year before the addition of 30,000 US troops and 10,000 NATO troops.

Davis notes that Petraeus and other senior officials of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), the US-NATO command in Afghanistan, have boasted of having killed and captured thousands of insurgent leaders and rank and file soldiers, cut insurgent supply routes and found large numbers of weapons caches as well as depriving the insurgents of their main bases of operation since spring 2010.

If these claims were accurate measures of success, Davis writes, after the Taliban had been driven out of their strongholds, "there ought to have been a reduction in violence not a continual, unbroken string of increases".

In fact, Davis writes, Taliban attacks "continued to rise at almost the same rate it had risen since 2005 all the way through the summer of 2011" and remained "well above 2009 levels in the second half of 2011" even though it leveled off or dropped slightly in some places.

Davis notes that total attacks, total number of IEDs and total US casualties in 2011 were 82%, 113% and 164% higher, respectively, than the figures for 2009, the last year before the surge of 30,000 troops. The annual number of US dead and wounded increased from 1,764 in 2009 to 4,662 in 2011.

The veteran Army officer quotes Congressional testimony by Admiral Mike Mullen on December 2, 2009, as citing a lesser increase in Taliban attacks in 2009 of 60% over the 2008 level as a rationale for a significant increase in US troop strength in Afghanistan, implying that the war was being lost.

Davis leaves no doubt about his overall assessment that the US war effort has failed. "Even a cursory observation of key classified reports and metrics," Davis concludes, "leads overwhelmingly to the conclusion that over the past two years, despite the surge of 30,000 American Soldiers, the insurgent force has gained strength..."

Davis is also scathing in his assessment of the Afghan army and police, who have been described as constantly improving and on their way to taking responsibility for fighting the insurgents.

"What I saw first-hand, in virtually every circumstance," writes Davis, "was a barely functioning organization - often cooperating with the insurgent enemy..."

Both in his longer report and in an article for Armed Forces Journal published online on February 5, Davis recounts his experience at an Afghan National Police station in Kunar province in January 2011. Arriving two hours after a Taliban attack on the station, Davis asked the police captain whether he had sent out patrols to find the insurgents.

After the question had been conveyed by the interpreter, Davis recalls, "The captain's head wheeled around, looking first at the interpreter and turning to me with an incredulous expression. Then he laughed."

"No! We don't go after them," he quotes the captain as saying. "That would be dangerous!"

According to Davis, US troops who work with Afghan policemen in that province say they "rarely leave the cover of the checkpoints", allowing the Taliban to "literally run free".

Describing the overall situation, Davis writes, "[I]n a number of high profile mission opportunities over the past 11 months the ANA [Afghan National Army] and ANP [Afghan National Police] have numerous times run from the battle, run from rumors, or made secret deals with the Taliban."

The draft posted online notes after that statement that the classified version of the paper has been "redacted", indicating that Davis provides further details about those "secret deals" in the classified version.

The Army dissenter calls on the House and Senate Armed Services Committees to "conduct a bi-partisan investigation into the various charges of deception or dishonesty in this report". He urges that such a hearing include testimony not only from senior military officials but from mid- and senior-level intelligence analysts from the Defense Intelligence Agency and other intelligence agencies.

Both Senate and House Armed Services Committees have exhibited little or no interest in probing behind the official claims of success in Afghanistan. That passive role reflects what many political observers, including some members of congress, see as cozy relationships among most committee members,military leaders, Pentagon officials and major military contractors.

It remains to be seen whether Davis's raising of the issue of misleading claims of success in a front-page New York Times story on February 6 and in subsequent television appearances will bring pressure on those committees from other members to hold hearings on whether senior military officials are telling the truth about the situation in Afghanistan.

Meanwhile, the US military leadership in Afghanistan is brushing off Davis's critique as having no importance. During a briefing in which he claimed continued steady progress in Afghanistan, Army Lieutenant General Curtis Scaparrotti, deputy commander of US Forces-Afghanistan, dismissed the Davis report as "one person's view of this".

Thursday, February 9, 2012

Syria: another Zioconned US stepping stone....Hiatus in European debate on Iran....

Syria: another Zioconned US stepping stone....Hiatus in European debate on Iran....

By Ardeshir Ommani

The Syrian armed opposition is not independent from the United States and reactionary Arab regimes in its objective to capture power, not through the ballot box by imposing a civil war. The degree of its dependency and servitude manifests itself when US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton unambiguously called on "friends of democratic Syria" to unite and rally against President Bashar Assad. This proclamation was ushered the day after the US sponsored authorization for military intervention into Syria was rejected by China and Russia, who were forced to veto the US plan for invasion of Syria.

In the continuation of her command, Clinton reiterated that the "international community", just like George W Bush's "coalition of the willing" had a duty to promote a political transition that would see President Bashar al-Assad step down.

Clinton gave her directive to the whole world while visiting Bulgaria, one of the 10 poorest countries of Europe, with Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of less than US$53 billion in 2010, the Per Capita Income of $13,449 and the General government gross debt as high as 19.7% of the country's GDP. The purpose of interposing Bulgaria's poor economic conditions is not to denigrate the country or its people, but to show that US Imperialism with its plans of domination, destruction and plunder uses even the most poverty-stricken nations to turn against other struggling countries such as Syria, Iran and not too long ago Libya to accomplish its criminal purpose. Following in the footsteps of Cheney, Rumsfeld and Company just before the invasion of Iraq, Clinton lashed out at Russia and China as a stepping stone to declare "faced with a neutered Security Council we have to redouble our efforts outside of the United Nations with our allies and partners…."

I think we have seen this movie before. The first character that appears on the stage is a spokesman for the Arab League (AL). It makes no difference whether he is elected or appointed by the Saudi Arabian King and Prime Minister and more importantly he has received Hillary Clinton's or General David H. Petraeus, the Director of the CIA's blessings. Following his assignment, the Arab League emissary who has been ushered to the UN General Assembly room by Susan Rice, US Ambassador to the United Nations, pleads for establishing a "no fly zone" to save the lives of the innocent Syrians for God's sake!

If there is no contest to the resolution well-prepared by the US government, then Washington gets to work and with the help of the coalition of the willing, permission in hand, begins the bombarding of Syrian logistics, every kind of arms depot, the electrical grids, the factories, food depots, water reservoirs, city sewer systems and schools and hospitals. Does this scenario have precedence? Yes, about six months after extracting the license to impose a "no fly zone" over Libya, the Western powers with carpet bombings flattened that country, liberated the country's light sweet crude oil and succeeded to install one of the senior ENI SpA executives (Italy's major oil company) as Libya's oil minister and in two months the Western oil companies were sucking out 1.3 million barrels a day.

This time the job of preparing the draft resolution was given to the Moroccan representative to the UN who was on a fast track. The plan demanded the Syrian government withdraw all of its armed forces from all populated areas back to its barracks. However, it ignored Russia's demand that the Syrian opposition distance itself from extremist groups that commit violence and crimes against civilians. The second Russian demand that was totally ignored was that 'armed groups must stop attacks against state institutions and the public while the Syrian armed forces are leaving the cities.' The refusal to include these provisions into the draft resolution meant only one thing: dissolution of the Syrian state and a total "regime change".

Instead of being apologetic, the co-authors of the draft began slamming the integrity of the Russian government. For instance, Morocco's representative charged the Russian government with ignoring the "Arab's common stances". France's delegate went as far as calling Russia and China accomplices in crimes committed by the Syrian regime. For Russia and China who had seen the terrible consequences in Libya, there was only one alternative and that was vetoing the resolution.

This time around, in the case of Syria, China and Russia had learned their bitter lesson and resisted being fooled for a second time. But the US and its allies had stacked the cards in favor of passing the resolution and doing unto Syria what they did to Libya. More telling, the US did not accept any alteration in the resolution, which forced China and Russia to veto the motion and defeat it.

As far back as in November 2011, NATO in collaboration with the pro-imperialist and reactionary Arab Sheiks of Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Turkey were planning to invade Syria, set up a colonial regime and overthrow a social democratic secular government. According to an article on Al Bawaba, an Arabic/English internet site, Senior European sources revealed that Arab jet fighters and possibly Turkish warplanes, backed by American logistical support would impose a no-fly zone in Syria's sky after the Arab League issues a decision calling for armed intervention. The sources told Kuwait's al Rai daily that the Syrian trucks, tanks and military vehicles would not be excluded from the targets of the invading jets.

The fates of Libya and Syria could not be more similar. While deep in economic crisis, the US and Europe are looking to regenerate capitalism through widespread war with the developing countries before being ready for war in many forms....hard and soft....with Russia and China......
Hiatus in European debate on Iran....
By Kaveh L Afrasiabi

PALO ALTO - At last week's Munich Security Conference, there was a conspicuous absence of any meaningful discussion of the "Iran crisis" threatening global peace and security.

This was not surprising since the Europeans have moved in lockstep with the United States on Iran despite a US reorientation of its defense policy towards Asia and the Pacific at the expense of Europe.

In early January, US President Barack Obama unveiled a new US defense strategy that reflected a continuing US commitment to maintaining global military superiority while addressing the need for bringing a decade of military over-expansion to a halt.

In light of Pentagon budget cuts and rising US domestic needs, the US requires greater "burden sharing" between North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) members, former US Defense Secretary Gates said at last year's Munich conference. His successor, Leon Panetta, sounded more upbeat at this year's conference [1], predicating that the Afghan conflict would soon end.

Neither Panetta nor any other Western speaker gave more than cursory attention to Iran and the danger signs in Persian Gulf and Strait of Hormuz. The conference devoted much attention to Syria, but not Bahrain, another flash point of mass rebellion and insecurity in the Arab world. Many speakers took aim at Russia for its unapologetic support of the embattled Baathist regime in Damascus.

It seems that in Europe, ad hoc policy such as France and England's naval bandwagoning with the American armada in the Persian Gulf has replaced rational defense strategies that could entertain an Iranian-European security debate and even cooperation.

Given Europe's proximity to Iran compared to the US and shared interests with Tehran, there ought to be an enlightened Iran-European security dialogue unaffected by Israeli and American intrusions.

Because of their economic interdependence, Iran and the European countries have the potential to lay down the elements of a broad security agreement that is mutually rewarding, such as a non-intervention pact. That would instantly take care of European anxieties about Iran's missile threat, the threat of terrorism, and the like, as well as Tehran's worries that Europe is conspiring with Washington and Tel Aviv for regime change in Iran.

Europe is increasingly a mirror of interventionist and hawkish US policy toward Iran, despite the threats to Europe's security, especially energy security, in light of EU's recent decision to impose an oil embargo on Iran within a few months.

Had the participants at the Munich security conference [1] paid serious attention to the issue of energy security, then they would have been compelled to debate the impact of the Western approach on the stability of world oil market, upon which the fate of global economic recovery rests.

"The Europeans have joined the Americans in declaring an economic war on Iran and are refusing to see the light of reality, which is that this is not an alternative to war but a prelude to it," said a Tehran University political science professor who spoke with the author on the condition of anonymity.

"The costs to Europe of a blind obedience to the United States on Iran are on the rise and may soon become prohibitively too high if the Europeans are not careful," added the Tehran professor, who has published widely on the subject of Iran's relations with Europe and wishes to see a genuine "European Union-Iran dialogue" apart from the "five plus one" talks that include US, Russia, and China, on the subject of the nuclear standoff.

In the past, there were several rounds of such dialogue on economic, human rights, and other issues, but these have stalled in the wake of the continent's concerns over Iran's nuclear ambitions. In deferring to US for leadership on the Iran issue, a whole range of diplomatic possibilities have been ignored, which is neither in Europe's nor Iran's interests.

China is likely the biggest beneficiary of a crisis that has diverted US military attention from other "priority areas". A US-Iran war would drain the US economy, and this too would benefit Beijing in some significant respects, heralding a declining Western superpower overstretching itself that paves the way to future superpowers.

Europe stands to gain little from its current approach toward Iran. Only through real debate can Europe open new horizons in terms of security cooperation.

1. See
here for Panetta's speech.
2. Link to the
Munich conference.

Wednesday, February 8, 2012



Comme par hasard, le Bilderberg a toujours été à la botte de ces manipulateurs, marionnettistes de l'ombre, "illuminatis" qui auront successivement instrumentalisé, entre autres ignominies, deux guerres mondiales, le bolchevisme, le nazisme, et même... le sionisme crapuleux....

Dans ce contexte, tandis qu'à l'Ouest, consigne est donnée de longue date de se boucher le nez, certains plus à l'Est pourraient bien avoir de gros dossiers bien saignants sur les nazis en question. Affaire à suivre, donc....

En faisant briller la lame du bourreau, ils échapperont à la décapitation....???
Cela ne pose pas de problèmes, éthiques, au hasard, de procéder à des généralisations en évoquant: »la domination psychologique des arabo-musulmans sur les Chrétiens et ce n’est qu’un début. »
Ne faites pas partie de ceux, innombrables, qui parlent au nom des tous les autres, quels que soient ces autres?

De surcroît, quitte à évoquer la prétendue domination psychologique des arabo-musulmans sur le reste des composantes de la société française, je dis prétendue, car est dominé psychologiquement celui qui le veut bien, l’honnêteté intellectuelle impose de ne pas oublier de mentionner le silence, voire la complaisance de certains non chrétiens à l’égard des agitateurs islamiques, entretenant peut-être ainsi l’espoir illusoire, « qu’en faisant briller la lame du bourreau, ils échapperont à la décapitation. »

De même qu’il y a autant de façons « d’être juif » qu’il y a de juifs, il y à autant de façon d’être un ‘goy » qu’il y a de « goyim », sauf à réduire les gens à un trait identitaire et en faire une prison où ils sont assignés à demeure et pour toujours.

Libre à ceux qui le souhaitent de procéder ainsi en ce qui les concerne, mais qu’ils ne parlent pas au lieu de l’autre, dont ils ne savent rien au fond, sauf à prétendre savoir mieux que lui ce qu’il est....

La Démocratie ? Quelle Démocratie.... ?

C’est un artefact exceptionnel, qui a émergé un jour dans la culture grecque.
Aussi anormal que le « Royaume de Dieu » d’un certain Rabbi Iéshoua qui a émergé un jour dans la culture Juive....

Dans l’un et l’autre cas, ça a pu prendre forme pendant un certain temps en s’appuyant sur un « petit troupeau », une minorité agissante, convaincue et volontaire.
Et toujours de manière précaire, car allant contre les tendances naturelles récurrentes que certaines religions et idéologies savent, elles, flatter à fond : appétits, jalousie, domination sur les plus faibles, des mâles sur les femelles, hystérie collective, fanatisme, rêve de domination mondiale, etc.

Ces hommes et ces femmes, pleinement adultes (pas des assistés de 16 ou 18 ans), de type équilibrés, avides de vérité, responsables, honnêtes, travailleurs et courageux ne sont pas toujours là en nombre suffisant pour s’imposer, hélas.
Et le suffrage universel suffit souvent à lui seul à les noyer sous la masse prédominante des clients de la démagogie, de la paresse parasitaire, du fanatisme, de la bêtise manipulée, et les réduire à l’impuissance tout aussi efficacement qu’une révolution bolchevique, un golpe ou une invasion armée.

Conclusion : le cours naturel des choses voudrait que bientôt ces deux épiphénomènes spécifiques de l’Occident, nommés « Démocratie » et « Royaume de Dieu », dont nous aurons profité un certain temps, ne soient plus qu’un souvenir historique.
Alexandre Vialatte aurait eu le mauvais ( ?) goût de conclure : Et c’est ainsi qu’Allah est grand !

It gets even better when the skunk Tom Friedman tries to explain it all on a daily basis with his utter drivel....


Tuesday, February 7, 2012

Zioconned Western special services: it is easier to conclude peace with Islamists rather than struggle with them...

Zioconned Western special services: it is easier to conclude peace with Islamists rather than struggle with them....from the Hinu Kush to MENA, to Africa and beyond....LOL

Expert on Central Asia Vitaliy VOLKOV

Central Asia is a powder keg to the World....

Last week the members of local community of salafits in Shubarshi village in Aktobe oblast shot up three policemen. It has been not the first case this year. Before that, a die-hard exploded himself in Aktobe KNB department, in addition a vehicle filled with explosives detonated near KNB pretrial detention center in Astana. Members of Almaty city Special Forces suffered in a bloody slaughter in one of Almaty flats. These week, the prisoners of Balkhash colony exploded themselves in attempt to escape (at least one of them – adherent of untraditional religious flow). Does it mean that tolerant and calm Kazakhstan is facing real threat of religious extremism? Alexander KRASNER (Novaya-Kazakhstan) and Seitkazy MATAYEV (KazTAG) discussed it with well known German expert on Central Asia Vitaliy VOLKOV in Köln.

-I have been talking about an “arc of crisis” for a long time, which has two branches: one comes from Afghanistan and Pakistan to India, and another one- through Central Asia to Russia and Caucasus. The fire has been walking on it inflaming hotbeds here or there. Islamic terrorists are trying to act in a wide front and constantly remind about themselves, as any resonant terror act attracts not just attention but also supporters.

There is quite wide recruiting base in Kazakhstan. It includes not only Kazakh people, but also migrant workers, who work here. Arab people actively act on your territory, who are closely connected with Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU). But their target is not Kazakhstan, but, first of all, Uzbekistan and Russian Caucasus. If in tactical aims they need destabilization in Kazakhstan, they wil do it, and they have these opportunities. Although, your special forces, as I believe, are trying to trace this situation.

There are data, that the heads of newly formed Islamic underground world acting at the base of the IMU in Kyrgyzstan have strong positions and are ready for military actions. In this new IMU, as some sources reported, there are many militants from Caucasus and other Russian regions. There are data, that lately their troops have been replenished with militants from Kazakhstan.

The new IMU are basically based in Pakistan and supported by ISI – interdepartmental investigation office of this country. It is not based on relatives ties, which previous IMU members had, who escaped from Uzbekistan in the end of 1990th and settled in Pakistan. The new generation browbeats even the talibs in Afghanistan. They are carpetbaggers who set their rules of Shariat, they are ready to move, first to Afghanistan, and then to Kyrgyzstan, and through Tajikistan to Uzbekistan. They do not consider Tajikistan as a front direction, as in many districts there they have freedom of movement. The local Tajik authorities are paid by the IMU members, fear them or have the same goals as they do. That’s why they let them move through their territory, basically to Kyrgyzstan. Of course, the main ideological target of the new IMU is Uzbekistan. Karimov is their enemy, and the presidential chair under him, according to some signs, is swinging. People are dissatisfied with the ruling regime, population’s passionarity has increased. Recently one political force stated that they are ready for revolution of Arabic type. In common, that Arabic example for Central Asia has been underestimated by experts, including me.

Kazakhstan is a very convenient rear base for the militants, thus, it has better position in these terms, than other Central Asian states. There is no sense for Islamists to frustrate situation in Kazakhstan. Although, they can do it already today.

-S.Matayev: In one word, you believe that militants are preparing operations in Central Asia to invade in these or those states of the region?

-According to my data, the IMU are planning scaled operations in Pakistan, Afghanistan and some Central Asian states.

-S.M.: Who is interested in it and who is financing it?

-There are at least two big financing sources. First- it is drugs traffic. The drugs lords are not interested in destabilization, as they have adjusted routs for drugs transportation. They don’t need a big wave. They need small conflicts, as in the time of such conflicts it is possible “to fish in troubled water”. Another thing, when drug lords and warlords are the same people. They can be close relatives of the president of this or that state or have direct ties with the president, government or somebody from the government; in this case the primary goal is the politics and the profit from drugs trafficking is a means for the goal achievement.

The second source of financing is bigger- it is sponsors from Arabic states, who, by the way, work also in Kazakhstan. Through their channels they actively finance, including the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan. They aspire to make khalifat.

The war in Libya on the background of the failure of NATO troops in Afghanistan nudges that in the USA, and, perhaps, in Europe, there is opinion in some political circles and special services that it is easier to conclude peace with Islamists rather than struggle with them. To make peace and define spheres of influence. Where is the border of this division?

Until today, all the heads of Central-Asian states believed that in any geopolitical situation they will get support from the West and from Russia, because they struggle with Islamists. As soon as Western politicians start looking for peace with ben Laden’s followers, it will immediately change the position of Central-Asian leaders.

-S.M.: Is the reaction of Central Asian leaders adequate on this situation?

-Differently. Recently there was a message that Turkmenistan president ordered to organize controlling service on earth orbit and empowered it to the local Ministry of National Security. One of my colleagues supposed that Berdymukhamedov recently got to know about Google. And that Americans are watching Ashgabat and see everything what is going on there. He ordered to control this Google. Of course, it is a joke, but it is adequate to the level of his thinking. Berdymukhamedov is a dentist.

They said that he was Niyazov’s dentist. This person has no idea about how a state functions and how it is governed. All his analytics is based on fear. The situation is different in Kyrgyzstan, they have no time to analyze. Their goal is just to keep the state. As I know, Uzbekistan has strong analytical service, there are Soviet specialists. They forecast the future. Another thing is that this future does not seem pink in their forecasts. The economy is in critical condition.

Even Karimov can’t and does not want to go against gentility, terrible corruption, which is corroding the state.

There is no analysis of the situation in Tajikistan. But as far as they have ties with Afghan warlords, Rahmon gets information in the form of baizes what is planned and who to contact. He imprisoned all his former colleagues. They are also not great specialists, but at least they were warlords who went through war and had ties with various groups. Today Rahmon is in very complicated situation: his own kindred is dissatisfied with him, they say that he tends to lie a lot and disrespects elder people.

As for Kazakhstan, I think, the country which chaired the OSCE last year, should invest more into analytics connected with Afghan processes and propose deep strategic conception.

A. Krasner: Looks like the heads of Central-Asian states do not think much about geopolitical situation. First of all they are concerned about preservation of their personal power…

-The age of governors of Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan (for now I exclude Tajikistan and Turkmenistan leaders) stimulates various political circles and elites to think about their claim for power. It is more obvious in Uzbekistan and might be destabilization factor. There are several groups, controlled by the local national Security Council, which for now supports Karimov. However, the head of the council Inoyatov has his group of supporters in a certain region of the state. There are big businessmen, who form some political lobby, there is elder president’s daughter.

The situation is a bit different in Kazakhstan, I would not underestimate the factor of, for example, Rakhat Aliyev. Despite strong overestimation of his own opportunities, he continues to destabilize the situation.

-S.M.: What do you expect from the upcoming presidential elections in Kyrgyzstan? Will the cardinal problems be resolved there or everything will come to banal property redistribution? Now the presidential post in Kyrgyzstan reminds the royal one in Great Britain: reigning but not ruling. According to your opinion, should the presidential form of ruling return to Kyrgyzstan?

-It is the same as to think if a fly sitting on the head of a hippo affects his behavior. I am not sure the election will be held in the form as it is planned. Let’s make comparison with Afghanistan. For example, we will hold elections there. But Afghan people do not want to live in a uniform country. In this situation, they can elect anybody, but the main problem won’t be resolved, how to find consensus with various ethnic groups. I don’t believe that something can seriously depend on election in Kyrgyzstan. Perhaps, something can be changed, if a wave of processes travels through Central Asian states which I had mentioned before. A strong Islamic group will appear which will make claim for power.

As for Kyrgyzstan, there is a president, who can do almost nothing there, and, perhaps, already does not want to. It is obvious that security agencies of this state act independently and only in their interests, sometimes in cooperation with criminals.

-S.M.: Don’t you think that a third power not connected with any kindreds and groups, representing people’s masses can come to power during autumn election in Kyrgyzstan?

- I am very skeptical about so called free elections. From my point of view a young leader should appear to bring changes, so called Shamil, who will call people to fight.

But it is blood. I think appearance of such Shamil is possible in Uzbekistan. Perhaps, it wil be somebody from the group of Mohammad Salih, as Salih is a charismatic person, a well-known poet, oppositionist, who lives abroad.

He stated about foundation of new movements and Karim fears. Looks like there are people in Uzbekistan government who are ready to support this movement. It is a statement of not only Salih, but also information from different sources, which confirms it. He is a representative of intelligence, from one side – quite national, from another side- soviet, dissident. At the same time he is not connected with the West so much to abstract from Uzbek reality. He is a person who believes in Islam, but he is not a fan. There are also “akremists” (main figures of Fergana events of 2005) and a number of other underground movements in Islam.

A.K.: The calmest Central Asian state seems to be Turkmenistan. But as they say still waters run deep.. or am I mistaken?

-Turkmenistan is not a small country. Besides Turkmen people, who are dissatisfied with unemployment, who don’t get salaries from the government, there are a lot of Uzbek and Kazakh people- who are potentially protest electorate, which, Heaven forbid, will be claimed by Uzbekistan from one side and by Afghanistan from another side.

If Uzbekistan flares, I don’t exclude that Turkmenistan might be the next.

A.K.: What can you say about Chinese policy to Central Asia?

-It is quite selective and efficient. As I know Chinese positions are quite strong in some spheres in Kyrgyzstan, in educational branch they recently squeezed up Russians. Iran is trying to keep up to China in Tajikistan. But Rahmon fears Islamic tendencies, thus, he is very careful with Iran.

Chinese positions in Uzbekistan are also very strong, although Karimov is quite careful, and lately tends to set close ties with the US, especially in the military branch. But here, he might face big problems with Russia. Medvedev went to Tashkent before the recent SCO summit not in vain, apparently, they discussed this issue.

At the same time China plays big role in Afghanistan and Pakistan, not less than the US.

Moreover, China is pushing out the US from Pakistan, which used to be American patrimony.

China is brining weapons there and giving Pakistan government more money than the US. That is why, Americans are looking for eastern rout for cargoes delivery to Afghanistan. Chinese, in their turn, do not hinder American base location in Bishkek, although, could outbid it in 5 minutes.

-A.K.: What is ahead in Central Asia?

- From my point of view, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan are the next hot points, and the events might develop there quite soon. There is no a single factor in Kyrgyzstan showing that there won’t be any new bow net with unpredictable consequences.

Central Asia is a powderkeg of the universe. A kind of universal “Afghanistan” will exist and oppose “civilization” despite all the solutions by force and finances until people find a way to reach agreement with each other without using power and money. Nor power neither money managed to defeat Afghanistan. It brings us to an opportunity to search for new peacekeeping ideas. About that I wrote in my books: in Turkmenka and in Kabul-Caucasus, and in the new novel Century of Die-hard.

-Thank you for the interview.

Copyright 2009 echkelon-Boston-Globe. Powered by Blogger
Blogger Templates created by Deluxe Templates
Wordpress by Wpthemescreator