The whole article is groundless disinformation. Probably written months in advance.
Along with several other central Asian nations, China and Russia belong to the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, a NATO-like treaty organization for Central Asia with increasing military influence and power.
The SCO has already demanded that Washington withdraw all US troops from central Asia within the next two years. And the US doesn't have much choice but to agree to do so. Otherwise China and Russia would start to move into Latin America and Africa militarily. [Money opens doors y'know]
Iran has already formally requested membership in the SCO. For the moment that demand has not been accepted because neither China nor Russia want a heated confrontation with the US as long as they are still gaining economic, diplomatic, and military power around the globe.
However, both China and Russia would prefer accepting Iran into the SCO over allowing the US to invade or attack Iran.
So as much as the US would love to mount an all-out war against Iran, it ain't gonna happen.
China now has an important naval presence in the Indian Ocean, and an absolute stranglehold on the US economy. The last thing in the world that the US would want to do is to make China mad.
Meanwhile Russia's economic success is beginning to turn heads in Europe. With the Euro in crisis and the dollar on its deathbed, even Germany and France are questioning whether NATO is not more of a hindrance than a help.
So don't worry about all the election-year saber rattling. The US is not about to attack Iran.
On the contrary, the US is abandoning bases and reducing its troop strength all over the world. It certainly doesn't have the money for a new war. Especially not one that would antagonize superpowers like China and Russia.
Already Chinese wealth is replacing AIPAC as the primary source of bribe-money for US lawmakers. And where the money leads, the government follows.
Personally I think wars occur whenever those behind them want them to occur. Maybe that averages out to 12 years, but only if we overlook a lot of little wars like (in Reagan's case, Panama, El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Grenada).
A very interesting document on the motivations behind wars is the report from Iron Mountain.
Like nearly all truly revelatory documents, the origin of the report is debated. The guy who initially leaked the report to the public and who claimed for several decades that the roport was genuine sudden changed his story back in the early 90s and pretended he had made the whole thing up. But that leaves enormous questions as to why anybody would go to the trouble of faking something so dry and and technical. It wouldn't serve any purpose politically or economically. The report reads like just what it claims to be. A scholarly examination of the functions that war plays in society, and the necessary adaptations that would have to occur if war were to be done away with.
The general idea of the report is that the ruling elite would like to replace actual war with a less costly and less destructive eternal war-like paranoid mentality. Such as we now see in the "war on terror".
They would like to phase in a sort of one-world ruling body that would replace war by a totalitarian global union.
BCCI was used to rob depositors of billions of dollars. It was also used to launder drug money and to funnel funds to the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and other CIA assets.
It takes a lot of money to keep a fake enemy force alive and kicking.
Like Bin Laden and Al Qaida, the Taliban are a CIA creation. Used first as "freedom fighter" to fight the Russians. Then morped into "terrorists" in order to justify the US doing exactly what the Russians had been doing...occupying Afghanistan in order to control pipeline routes to to Caspian Sea oilfields.
Yes "fax" is the ancient technology that banks and government agencies used to send important confidential banking information back before e-mail spam was invented.
I haven't seen any Taliban here in France. Nor have I heard of them being very active in the US. Seems like mostly they are in their own country fighting against foreign invaders (and not really even doing much of that). I think most people would consider them to be freedom fighters. And seeing that no nation on earth supports them, where do you imagine they get the arms, explosives, food, supplies, etc etc etc to keep up an insurgency year after year?
It's all a scam.
The US uses the Taliban to justify the occupation. The Taliban are just a new twist on the Contras. A CIA run mercenary army pursuing US interests.
Notice the wheelbarrow in the video. No sign of arms. No wounded Americans.
My guess is that the US soldiers just designated some villagers as "enemy combatants" to get their required body count.
Let's not forget that the "Taliban" are Afghanis living in their own land.
It was the US that formed, armed, equipped and fed the Taliban calling them the "soldiers of God" when they fought the Russians.
It was also the US that put them into power as the "legitimate" government of Afghanistan when the Russians were defeated.
But then the US wanted to do exactly what the Russians had done, invade Afghanistan and pipe oil from the Caspian Sea oilfields. And the only way to do that was to pretend that the Taliban were evil.
In truth, even now, the Taliban work for the west. Their job is to be the enemy. They are supplied by British helicopters. I know this because I met a British helicopter pilot who personally delivered supplies to the Taliban on several occasions.
Once in a while they are ordered to attack a village and kill some people, just to keep up appearances. And once in a while they send a couple of flunkies to set bombs or fire on western forces, also to keep up appearances.
After all, without any enemies and a few casualties the US wouldn't have much excuse to be occupying Afghanistan, would it?
Concerning this video, I suspect that like the Abu Graib photos, it was made intentionally to turn US public opinion against the war.
The big push at the moment is to stir up militant opposition against the government in the US. That will permit the imposition of martial law.
The anti-war movement will be the core of the desired militant opposition.
The Primary System has only been in place for about 30 years now.
Originally each party had a convention in each state and delegates were chosen. The delegates then went to a national convention and voted first to establish a platform and then voted to choose a candidate. There was a lot of wheeling and dealing and deal-making all night long in a "smoke-filled-room" in order to select both a presidential and vice-presidential candidate. Delegates were not bound to any candidate.
Often a "favorite son" candidate would win out over the initial front runners as a way of finding a compromise between factions.
That system had its problems but it was far more democratic than the primary system.
The major problem with the primary system is that every primary is very costly. There is no way that a "favorite-son" candidate can enter the race. It's just too expensive. So the primary system limits the possibilities to just those candidates with millions of dollars to spend in state after state.
In other words, only candidates with powerful special interest supporter can possibly win.
and "though" doesn't rhyme with, tough, trough, or through nor does "sew" rhyme with similar words such as few and if we have been struck, we can say we were sticken but when we have been stuck, we can't say we were sticken
What the OP doesn't seem to realize is that the US has no interest in renting Haifa.
It's true that the US is going to have to cede much of its world influence. In fact it already has.
What the OP is worried about is that Israel will have to stop pretending to be a superpower and will have to start living from its own resources instead of living off of the US.
The OP's claim (falsely attributed to Ron Paul) is that the US gives far more money to other mideast nations than to Israel. That claim is very far from the truth.
The United States has given more money to Israel than to any other country. The Congressional Research Service’s conservative estimate of total cumulative US aid to Israel (not adjusted for inflation) from 1949 through 2010 is $109.001 billion.
And for what? So that Jews all over the world can go there and steal the land from the indigenous people of the land? Why in the world should they have that right? What other nation has any such similar right to steal the land of others?
The original claim was that the poor Jews had no place to go. But look around. There are Jews in every country. And they are just as welcome to assimilate as any other nation. If they don't it's because they don't want to. They enjoy that cult feeling of being special, somehow deserving rights that they certainly don't grant to other peoples.
The Jews are the biggest champions in the world for free immigration when it comes to other nations. But they insist on reserving the land that they stole from the Palestinians to only members of their own cult. Nobody else is welcome to be a citizen there.
Imagine the fuss they would make if the US refused citizenship rights to Jews, and refused to let them return if they went abroad, and stole their land at will, and erected fences to keep them isolated.
Nobody said that. But I'd say it without hesitation for both the Bush's. And for Reagan.
As for the gangrenous Grinch. His money comes from all the lobbies who own him.
But he's not even intended to win. He's just there to strip as much conservative support as possible from Ron Paul. So that when the election gets thrown it won't be too glaringly obvious.
The CIA drug money is all being diverted into the effort to set up a US oil hegemony and the planned war against Iran.
It's not like Congress will finance another war directly from taxes. Drugs are a way to tax the poor more than the rich and give the money not to the treasury, but directly to the CIA.
Gee, what connection could there possibly be between Gingritch's ties to the CIA, the CIA's involvement in the production and distribution of drugs, and Gingritch's ever-shifting opinions about marijuana?
Newt Gingrich would support "medical crack" if someone offered him a bribe to do so.
The "War on Drugs" is just a war on competition. The CIA runs the drug importation business. And it makes war on those who try to get around its monopoly.
The Contras were more about bringing Cocain into the US than they were about fighting Communism in Central America.
And although the Taliban had all but eradicated illegal opium production in Afghanistan, since the Americans took over production has soared to record proportions.
And just guess who handles the shipping of all that heroin back to the states. The same guys were were flying cocaine in government owned planes from Nicaragua to a small government owned airfield in Arkansas where it was loaded into government owned trucks for distribution all over the US.
Gingrich is by far the most corrupt politician running this time around. And you can bet that a lot of his campaign funds are drug money.
More than just cheaters. Both Jefferson and Franklin frequented the Hellfire Clubs of Europe and were members of similar clubs in the US. If you've seen the movie "eyes wide shut" you'll have a pretty good idea of the sort of things they were into.
Sounds like your saying it's always the wife's fault if a man starts to philander. I don't think that's true. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Some guys don't even want to be "satisfied" by their wives. They are looking for new conquests to boost their ego.
But of course you realize such a government would never be able to wage war on the world, maintain hundreds of military bases in foreign countries, or support a rogue state like Israel.
I think you prefer Switzerland to be as it is, stable and independent, but you also want the US to be as it is. A hired gun for the mega-rich of the world. (who just happen to be big supporters of Switzerland).
As Carroll Quigley, historian and foremost expert on the CFR and its policies described:
(According to the global elitists who really run US politics)
"...the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can ‘throw the rascals out' without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy… It should be possible, to replace one party with the other party which will pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policy."
Doesn't that sound like the situation at hand. Obama entered office on the promise of change, specifically stating that he would get out of the Bush wars immediately, and then pursued exactly the same war policies as Bush.
And now it will be time to either "throw the bum out" again or, as I suspect, for the bum to seize dictatorial control in an orchestrated (faked) "revolution" that will do away with even the pretense of a democratic republic.
The reason for periodic elections is not because it is "good for the country". It's to make the people think that they have thrown out the rascals, and that things will be different.
Of course all they have really changed is the set of puppets in the store window. Nothing else has really changed at all.
RayfromUSA Forum Posts (6,611)
RE: Stratfor - The New Year begins at the Strait of Hormuz.
The whole article is groundless disinformation.Probably written months in advance.
Along with several other central Asian nations, China and Russia belong to the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, a NATO-like treaty organization for Central Asia with increasing military influence and power.
The SCO has already demanded that Washington withdraw all US troops from central Asia within the next two years. And the US doesn't have much choice but to agree to do so. Otherwise China and Russia would start to move into Latin America and Africa militarily. [Money opens doors y'know]
Iran has already formally requested membership in the SCO. For the moment that demand has not been accepted because neither China nor Russia want a heated confrontation with the US as long as they are still gaining economic, diplomatic, and military power around the globe.
However, both China and Russia would prefer accepting Iran into the SCO over allowing the US to invade or attack Iran.
So as much as the US would love to mount an all-out war against Iran, it ain't gonna happen.
China now has an important naval presence in the Indian Ocean, and an absolute stranglehold on the US economy.
The last thing in the world that the US would want to do is to make China mad.
Meanwhile Russia's economic success is beginning to turn heads in Europe. With the Euro in crisis and the dollar on its deathbed, even Germany and France are questioning whether NATO is not more of a hindrance than a help.
So don't worry about all the election-year saber rattling.
The US is not about to attack Iran.
On the contrary, the US is abandoning bases and reducing its troop strength all over the world. It certainly doesn't have the money for a new war. Especially not one that would antagonize superpowers like China and Russia.
Already Chinese wealth is replacing AIPAC as the primary source of bribe-money for US lawmakers. And where the money leads, the government follows.