The beginning of WW3?

jackiebaron

How the Empire will Prevail:
Will Washington Foment War Between China and India?

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

June 06 2011 "Information Clearing House" -- What is Washington’s solution for the rising power of China?

The answer might be to involve China in a nuclear war with India.

The staging of the fake death of bin Laden in a commando raid that violated Pakistan’s sovereignty was sold to President Obama by the military/security complex as a way to boost Obama’s standing in the polls.

The raid succeeded in raising Obama’s approval ratings. But its real purpose was to target Pakistan and to show Pakistan that the US was contemplating invading Pakistan in order to make Pakistan pay for allegedly hiding bin Laden next door to Pakistan’s military academy. The neocon, and increasingly the US military position, is that the Taliban can’t be conquered unless NATO widens the war theater to Pakistan, where the Taliban allegedly has sanctuaries protected by the Pakistan government, which takes American money but doesn’t do Washington’s bidding.

Pakistan got the threat message and ran to China. On May 17 Pakistan’s prime minister, Yousaf Raza Gilani, as he departed for China declared China to be Pakistan’s “best and most trusted friend.” China has built a port for Pakistan at Gwadar, which is close to the entrance of the Strait of Hormuz. The port might become a Chinese naval base on the Arabian Sea.

Raza Rumi reported in the Pakistan Tribune (June 4) that at a recent lecture at Pakistan’s National Defense University, Husain Haqqani, Pakistan’s ambassador to the US, asked the military officers whether the biggest threat to Pakistan came from within, from India, or from the US. A majority of the officers said that the US was the biggest threat to Pakistan.

China, concerned with India, the other Asian giant that is rising, is willing to ally with Pakistan. Moreover, China doesn’t want Americans on its border, which is where they would be should Pakistan become another American battleground.

Therefore, China showed its displeasure with the US threat to Pakistan, and advised Washington to respect Pakistan’s sovereignty, adding that any attack on Pakistan would be considered an attack on China

I do not think China’s ultimatum was reported in the US press, but it was widely reported in India’s press. India is concerned that China has stepped up to Pakistan’s defense.

The Chinese ultimatum is important, because it is a WWI or WWII level of ultimatum. With this level of commitment of China to Pakistan, Washington will now seek a way to maneuver itself out of the confrontation and to substitute India.

The US has been fawning all over India, cultivating India in the most shameful ways, including the sacrifice of Americans’ jobs. Recently, there have been massive US weapons sales to India, US-India military cooperation agreements, and joint military exercises.

Washington figures that the Indians, who were gullible for centuries about the British, will be gullible about the “shining city on the hill” that is “bringing freedom and democracy to the world” by smashing, killing, and destroying. Like the British and France’s Sarkozy, Indian political leaders will find themselves doing Washington’s will. By the time India and China realize that they have been maneuvered into mutual destruction by the Americans, it will be too late for either to back down.

With China and India eliminated, that only leaves Russia, which is already ringed by US missile bases and isolated from Europe by NATO, which now includes former constituent parts of the Soviet Empire. A large percentage of gullible Russian youth admires the US for its “freedom” (little do they know) and hates the “authoritarian” Russian state, which they regard as a continuation of the old Soviet state. These “internationalized Russians” will side with Washington, more of less forcing Moscow into surrender.

As the rest of the world, with the exception of parts of South America, is already part of the American Empire, Russia’s surrender will let the US focus its military might on South America. Chavez will be overthrown, and if others do not fall into line, more examples will be made.

The only way the American Empire can be stopped is for China and Russia to realize their danger and to form an unbreakable alliance that reassures India, breaks off Germany from NATO and defends Iran.

Otherwise, the American Empire will prevail over the entire world. The US dollar will become the only currency, and therefore be spared exchange rate depreciation from debt monetization.

Gold and silver will become forbidden possessions, as will guns and a number of books, including the US Constitution.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury in the Reagan Administration, Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal, Senior Research Fellow in the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and held the William E. Simon Chair in Political Economy, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Georgetown University. He is the author or coauthor of nine books and has testified before committees of Congress on thirty occasions.

humanji

Can you please add your own opinion when posting these articles.

jackiebaron

humanji wrote: »

Can you please add your own opinion when posting these articles.

Did you not see my question as the header???

humanji

That's a question, not an opinion. It's a discussion forum. Try and start one.

old_aussie

How would Pakistan pay for hiding bin laden if the US invades?

Who said pakistan was hiding bin laden?

What would the US have to gain by invading Pakistan.....nothing, so the conspiricy look's a bit weak.

studiorat

Why do these guys always seem to work or attend Jesuit colleges?

jackiebaron

old_aussie wrote: »

How would Pakistan pay for hiding bin laden if the US invades?

Who said pakistan was hiding bin laden?

What would the US have to gain by invading Pakistan.....nothing, so the conspiricy look's a bit weak.

Whether Pakistan WAS hiding him or not is not the point. Just SAY they were hiding him and people will believe it. Do we know Strauss-Kahn raped or tried to rape a girl? No. But he's SAID to have done so, so he's finished.

And what would the US have to gain by invading Pakistan? I don't know. What did they to gain by invading Iraq or Afghanistan? There's a broader picture somewhere. They've been hitting Yemen with hellfire missiles for years prior to this Arab awakening. Same with Somalia. Obviously it's about multiple things but it all boils down to money and control. So we can all agree that the Caspian oil Basin is the prize here and multiple players are jockeying for it. China seems to be paying money for it. The US/Nato seems to be trying to bomb their way to it. Russia already controls quite a bit of it.

Now obviously control of the shipping lanes of the Red Sea (bordered by Somalia and Yemen) are important in getting supplies through the Suez Canal to Mediterranean and Western destinations. Maybe the reason to invade Pakistan is to occupy it and further encircle China, cutting them of from energy sources. If you look at your map, a large Western military presence in Pakistan would be the final step in the complete encirclement of Iran as well. It would also put the mouth of the Gulf of Oman (entry to the Straits of Hormuz) squarely in the hands of the US/Nato military.

I personally can't ultimately figure out the moves in this game. But I would tend to think the smart money is on Iran and China. They play chess while the US only has the brains and patience for checkers.

And anyone who thinks this is about catching terr'ists or spreading democracy is a cretin.

studiorat

jackiebaron wrote: »

I personally can't ultimately figure out the moves in this game. But I would tend to think the smart money is on Iran and China. They play chess while the US only has the brains and patience for checkers.

And anyone who thinks this is about catching terr'ists or spreading democracy is a cretin.

So you can't figure it out but you think anyone who thinks it may be to prevent terrorist attacks or spread democracy is a cretin. How does that work?

There are two very strong motives behind America's foreign policy.
- Prevent terrorist attacks on it's home soil and it's embassies and citizens around the world.
- Provide better and more stable economic partners for the US, allowing American business to set up freely in those countries.

So there you have fighting terrorism and spreading democracy. Simples.

sbsquarepants

jackiebaron wrote: »

I personally can't ultimately figure out the moves in this game. But I would tend to think the smart money is on Iran and China. They play chess while the US only has the brains and patience for checkers.
.

Ah yes, Iran - the spirtual home of rational thought. The place is a fundamentalist theocracy, any claim to superior strategy or intellect, you may be making on their behalf, is basically cancelled out by this "allah factor" :rolleyes:

jackiebaron

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Ah yes, Iran - the spirtual home of rational thought. The place is a fundamentalist theocracy, any claim to superior strategy or intellect, you may be making on their behalf, is basically cancelled out by this "allah factor" :rolleyes:

You might want to go back a little further in the Iranian psyche than a few modern mullahs who are vilified and smeared as lunatics in the West because they nationalised their oil. Prior to 1979 The West viewed Iran as a paradise of enlightenment with that fcuking dimwit Shah Pahlavi in power with his gold thrones and his goddam mink underwear.
The Persian people have a patience and intelligence that is barely understood in the West. So do the Chinese. How can the thought process of people who are raised to get pissed off about late pizzas compare with the Eastern mindset.

And lose the ":rolleyes:"

jackiebaron

studiorat wrote: »

So you can't figure it out but you think anyone who thinks it may be to prevent terrorist attacks or spread democracy is a cretin. How does that work?

There are two very strong motives behind America's foreign policy.
- Prevent terrorist attacks on it's home soil and it's embassies and citizens around the world.
- Provide better and more stable economic partners for the US, allowing American business to set up freely in those countries.

So there you have fighting terrorism and spreading democracy. Simples.

. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ,.-‘”. . . . . . . . . .``~.,
. . . . . . . .. . . . . .,.-”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .“-.,
. . . . .. . . . . . ..,/. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ”:,
. . . . . . . .. .,?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\,
. . . . . . . . . /. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,}
. . . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`^`.}
. . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:”. . . ./
. . . . . . .?. . . __. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :`. . . ./
. . . . . . . /__.(. . .“~-,_. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`. . . .. ./
. . . . . . /(_. . ”~,_. . . ..“~,_. . . . . . . . . .,:`. . . . _/
. . . .. .{.._$;_. . .”=,_. . . .“-,_. . . ,.-~-,}, .~”; /. .. .}
. . .. . .((. . .*~_. . . .”=-._. . .“;,,./`. . /” . . . ./. .. ../
. . . .. . .\`~,. . ..“~.,. . . . . . . . . ..`. . .}. . . . . . ../
. . . . . .(. ..`=-,,. . . .`. . . . . . . . . . . ..(. . . ;_,,-”
. . . . . ../.`~,. . ..`-.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..\. . /\
. . . . . . \`~.*-,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..|,./.....\,__
,,_. . . . . }.>-._\. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .|. . . . . . ..`=~-,
. .. `=~-,_\_. . . `\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . .`=~-,,.\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . `:,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . `\. . . . . . ..__
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .`=-,. . . . . . . . . .,%`>--==``
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _\. . . . . ._,-%. . . ..`

Talk E

I'll squeeze this in here, it's quite relative. Well worth a watch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOwZwkhFemQ

studiorat

jackiebaron wrote: »

. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ,.-‘”. . . . . . . . . .``~.,
. . . . . . . .. . . . . .,.-”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .“-.,
. . . . .. . . . . . ..,/. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ”:,
. . . . . . . .. .,?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\,
. . . . . . . . . /. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,}
. . . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`^`.}
. . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:”. . . ./
. . . . . . .?. . . __. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :`. . . ./
. . . . . . . /__.(. . .“~-,_. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`. . . .. ./
. . . . . . /(_. . ”~,_. . . ..“~,_. . . . . . . . . .,:`. . . . _/
. . . .. .{.._$;_. . .”=,_. . . .“-,_. . . ,.-~-,}, .~”; /. .. .}
. . .. . .((. . .*~_. . . .”=-._. . .“;,,./`. . /” . . . ./. .. ../
. . . .. . .\`~,. . ..“~.,. . . . . . . . . ..`. . .}. . . . . . ../
. . . . . .(. ..`=-,,. . . .`. . . . . . . . . . . ..(. . . ;_,,-”
. . . . . ../.`~,. . ..`-.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..\. . /\
. . . . . . \`~.*-,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..|,./.....\,__
,,_. . . . . }.>-._\. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .|. . . . . . ..`=~-,
. .. `=~-,_\_. . . `\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . .`=~-,,.\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . `:,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . `\. . . . . . ..__
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .`=-,. . . . . . . . . .,%`>--==``
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _\. . . . . ._,-%. . . ..`

I see you don't have a clue what you're talking about again.

See, you stupidly said it wasn't about catching terrorists and spreading democracy. But it is, plain and simple. You can't prove otherwise can you?:pac:

Talk E

studiorat wrote: »

I see you don't have a clue what you're talking about again.

See, you stupidly said it wasn't about catching terrorists and spreading democracy. But it is, plain and simple. You can't prove otherwise can you?:pac:

Only an absolute fool would believe it's about terrorism and democracy. A gullible, foolish, naive, dope. :pac:

studiorat

studiorat wrote: »

There are two very strong motives behind America's foreign policy.
- Prevent terrorist attacks on it's home soil and it's embassies and citizens around the world.
- Provide better and more stable economic partners for the US, allowing American business to set up freely in those countries.

So there you have fighting terrorism and spreading democracy. Simples.

Talk E wrote: »

Only an absolute fool would believe it's about terrorism and democracy. A gullible, foolish, naive, dope. :pac:

Well then stop being such a child, use your brain for a change and tell me why my two statements are wrong.

Talk E

studiorat wrote: »

Well then stop being such a child, use your brain for a change and tell me why my two statements are wrong.

I'll show you.

Take a look at this and tell me everything he predicted didn't/isn't happening.

This is plain and simple, even you should cop this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZU0c8DAIU4

EDIT:
Here is a transcript for any thicks who dont know how to use youtube

Here are Robert Welch's ten predictions from 1958 (as can be seen in the nine-minute video):

Here are the ... aims for the United States.... (1) Greatly expanded government spending, for missiles, for so-called defense generally, for foreign aid, for every conceivable means of getting rid of ever larger sums of American money — as wastefully as possible. (2) Higher and then much higher taxes. (3) An increasingly unbalanced budget, despite the higher taxes.... (4) Wild inflation of our currency.... (5) Government controls of prices, wages, and materials, supposedly to combat inflation. (6) Greatly increased socialistic controls over every operation of our economy and every activity of our daily lives. This is to be accompanied, naturally and automatically, by a correspondingly huge increase in the size of our bureaucracy, and in both the cost and reach of our domestic government. (7) Far more centralization of power in Washington, and the practical elimination of our state lines. There is a many-faceted drive at work to have our state lines eventually mean no more within the nation than our county lines do now within the states. (8) The steady advance of Federal aid to and control over our educational system, leading to complete federalization of our public education. (9) A constant hammering into the American consciousness of the horror of "modern warfare, " the beauties and the absolute necessity of "peace" — peace always on Communist terms, of course. And (10) the consequent willingness of the American people to allow the steps of appeasement by our government which amount to a piecemeal surrender of the rest of the free world and of the United States itself....

The first thing that strikes people about these ten predictions is just how accurately they depict what's happening to us right now. For example, consider "greatly expanded government spending," "an increasingly unbalanced budget," "wild inflation of our currency" (the worst is still ahead, but we already have the Fed's "quantitative easing"), "government controls of prices, wages, and materials" (ObamaCare is part of this, but the worst of this is still ahead), "greatly increased socialistic controls over every operation of our economy and every activity of our daily lives" (of course, the bailouts, takeovers, financial regulatory legislation, food safety legislation, FCC regulation of the Internet, ObamaCare, etc., etc.), "far more centralization of power in Washington, and the practical elimination of our state lines" (thank goodness the Tenth Amendment and nullification movements have started reversing this trend), "the steady advance of Federal aid to and control over our educational system" (this has been a constant for the past five decades), and "the consequent willingness of the American people to allow ... a piecemeal surrender of the United States itself...." (fifty-two years later we're teetering on the edge of being submerged in the New World Order).

Overall, the most striking thing about Robert Welch's predictions in 1958 is how little Congress and the various Presidents have changed course during the past 52 years.

In his second speech at the 1974 JBS Council Dinner Robert Welch summarized what he hoped The John Birch Society would do to help the American people to accomplish during the next fifteen years. Here are his five main goals:

"To restore the complete independence of the United States, which includes getting us out of the United Nations and the United Nations out of the United States."
"We must once again make our money freely redeemable in gold at some realistic price. And we must take all practicable legislative steps to prevent a recurrence of the enormous thievery and other subversive crimes that have been perpetrated on the American people through a contrived inflation by every president from Franklin Roosevelt to Richard Nixon."
"We should reduce the number of government bureaus, of government employees, and the whole quantity of government by at least 50 percent."
"We should withdraw all American troops from every spot on earth that is not American soil, except when and where troops may be required, as decided by Congress, to protect American lives and property from criminal vandalism."
"We should get government out of the areas and functions and activities where government does not belong."

These five goals have stood the test of time since 1974 and are still good goals for us to recommend to the 112th Congress.

Go to YouTube.com, find the nine-minute video of Robert Welch's ten predictions from 1958 and five goals from 1974 by searching for "John Birch Society Tea Party," then forward the link to those in your sphere of influence and recommend they view it.

studiorat

Dude, I don't know why you posted that. The John Birch society is against the war on terror and of trying to spread democracy. They have issues with the very elements of foreign policy I mentioned. Did you watch the video your self?

We should withdraw all American troops from every spot on earth that is not American soil, except when and where troops may be required, as decided by Congress, to protect American lives and property from criminal vandalism.

What does he mean by "except where troops may be required" ? Does that support current foreign policy?

The only thing you've shown us is that you appear to be a bit clueless on this topic. Can you clear up the point you meant to make by posting the you tube clip please?

Talk E

studiorat wrote: »

Dude, I don't know why you posted that. The John Birch society is against the war on terror and of trying to spread democracy. They have issues with the very elements of foreign policy I mentioned. Did you watch the video your self?



What does he mean by "except where troops may be required" ? Does that support current foreign policy?

The only thing you've shown us is that you appear to be a bit clueless on this topic. Can you clear up the point you meant to make by posting the you tube clip please?

I did think that was clear enough for you.

Point being, the plan to "combat terrorism" and "spread democracy" was in place before terrorism was even an issue because it not about that.

Specifically points 9 and 10, I thought, show that pretty well.

(9) A constant hammering into the American consciousness of the horror of "modern warfare, " the beauties and the absolute necessity of "peace" — peace always on Communist terms, of course.

And (10) the consequent willingness of the American people to allow the steps of appeasement by our government which amount to a piecemeal surrender of the rest of the free world and of the United States itself.

ed2hands

jackiebaron wrote: »

You might want to go back a little further in the Iranian psyche than a few modern mullahs who are vilified and smeared as lunatics in the West because they nationalised their oil. Prior to 1979 The West viewed Iran as a paradise of enlightenment with that fcuking dimwit Shah Pahlavi in power with his gold thrones and his goddam mink underwear.
The Persian people have a patience and intelligence that is barely understood in the West. So do the Chinese. How can the thought process of people who are raised to get pissed off about late pizzas compare with the Eastern mindset.

And lose the ":rolleyes:"

Awesome commentary there is fairness. Well put.

ed2hands

studiorat wrote: »

So you can't figure it out but you think anyone who thinks it may be to prevent terrorist attacks or spread democracy is a cretin. How does that work?

There are two very strong motives behind America's foreign policy.
- Prevent terrorist attacks on it's home soil and it's embassies and citizens around the world.
- Provide better and more stable economic partners for the US, allowing American business to set up freely in those countries.

So there you have fighting terrorism and spreading democracy. Simples.

O dear. Monty (Edit : Monty? Sorry was reading him just before this. I mean you.) You're better than that surely. You're winding us up if you totally believe that's anything other than comedic. Total doublespeak for wealth and control.

Brown Bomber

studiorat wrote: »

There are two very strong motives behind America's foreign policy.
- Prevent terrorist attacks on it's home soil and it's embassies and citizens around the world.
- Provide better and more stable economic partners for the US, allowing American business to set up freely in those countries.

So there you have fighting terrorism and spreading democracy. Simples.

Sorry but this is worth a second one :pac:


. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ,.-‘”. . . . . . . . . .``~.,
. . . . . . . .. . . . . .,.-”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .“-.,
. . . . .. . . . . . ..,/. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ”:,
. . . . . . . .. .,?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\,
. . . . . . . . . /. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,}
. . . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`^`.}
. . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:”. . . ./
. . . . . . .?. . . __. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :`. . . ./
. . . . . . . /__.(. . .“~-,_. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`. . . .. ./
. . . . . . /(_. . ”~,_. . . ..“~,_. . . . . . . . . .,:`. . . . _/
. . . .. .{.._$;_. . .”=,_. . . .“-,_. . . ,.-~-,}, .~”; /. .. .}
. . .. . .((. . .*~_. . . .”=-._. . .“;,,./`. . /” . . . ./. .. ../
. . . .. . .\`~,. . ..“~.,. . . . . . . . . ..`. . .}. . . . . . ../
. . . . . .(. ..`=-,,. . . .`. . . . . . . . . . . ..(. . . ;_,,-”
. . . . . ../.`~,. . ..`-.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..\. . /\
. . . . . . \`~.*-,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..|,./.....\,__
,,_. . . . . }.>-._\. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .|. . . . . . ..`=~-,
. .. `=~-,_\_. . . `\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . .`=~-,,.\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . `:,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . `\. . . . . . ..__
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .`=-,. . . . . . . . . .,%`>--==``
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _\. . . . . ._,-%. . . ..`

studiorat

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Sorry but this is worth a second one :pac:


. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ,.-‘”. . . . . . . . . .``~.,
. . . . . . . .. . . . . .,.-”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .“-.,
. . . . .. . . . . . ..,/. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ”:,
. . . . . . . .. .,?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\,
. . . . . . . . . /. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,}
. . . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`^`.}
. . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:”. . . ./
. . . . . . .?. . . __. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :`. . . ./
. . . . . . . /__.(. . .“~-,_. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`. . . .. ./
. . . . . . /(_. . ”~,_. . . ..“~,_. . . . . . . . . .,:`. . . . _/
. . . .. .{.._$;_. . .”=,_. . . .“-,_. . . ,.-~-,}, .~”; /. .. .}
. . .. . .((. . .*~_. . . .”=-._. . .“;,,./`. . /” . . . ./. .. ../
. . . .. . .\`~,. . ..“~.,. . . . . . . . . ..`. . .}. . . . . . ../
. . . . . .(. ..`=-,,. . . .`. . . . . . . . . . . ..(. . . ;_,,-”
. . . . . ../.`~,. . ..`-.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..\. . /\
. . . . . . \`~.*-,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..|,./.....\,__
,,_. . . . . }.>-._\. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .|. . . . . . ..`=~-,
. .. `=~-,_\_. . . `\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . .`=~-,,.\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . `:,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . `\. . . . . . ..__
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .`=-,. . . . . . . . . .,%`>--==``
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _\. . . . . ._,-%. . . ..`

Looks like you have your own mini consensus :rolleyes:
I guess the facts are just too boring for such imaginative minds.

rmacm

Talk E wrote: »

Only an absolute fool would believe it's about terrorism and democracy. A gullible, foolish, naive, dope. :pac:

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Sorry but this is worth a second one :pac:
Snip Picard face palm.

I love the way that for such a supposedly open minded forum that people on both sides are more than willing to pull face palms and descend into name calling.

I realise I've quoted two of the most prominent CT supporters on the forum and apologies for that (I've had a few too many beers) but it goes for both sides of the argument.

Talk E

rmacm wrote: »

I love the way that for such a supposedly open minded forum that people on both sides are more than willing to pull face palms and descend into name calling.

I realise I've quoted two of the most prominent CT supporters on the forum and apologies for that (I've had a few too many beers) but it goes for both sides of the argument.

It's only a bit of craic. But since you bring it up, first blood was drawn with this comment by one of the least prominent CT supporters on the board...

studiorat wrote: »

I see you don't have a clue what you're talking about again.

See, you stupidly said it wasn't about catching terrorists and spreading democracy. But it is, plain and simple. You can't prove otherwise can you?

studiorat

Talk E wrote: »

It's only a bit of craic. But since you bring it up, first blood was drawn with this comment by one of the least prominent CT supporters on the board...

Talkie, I really don't think you know the difference between what you make up off the top of your head, what you rob from other peoples web sites or what actually is fact. It's quite amazing, pathological in fact.

jackiebaron

studiorat wrote: »

Looks like you have your own mini consensus :rolleyes:
I guess the facts are just too boring for such imaginative minds.

What "facts" are you talking about exactly?

careca11

its seems from the article that really , America are hoping for WW3 and are doing there utmost to get it started as quickly as possible

Talk E

studiorat wrote: »

Talkie, I really don't think you know the difference between what you make up off the top of your head, what you rob from other peoples web sites or what actually is fact. It's quite amazing, pathological in fact.

Perhaps then you should see a psychiatrist?, you cant leave this hanging. It could develop into something more serious. It's not cool to share your personal issues on the board.

jackiebaron

studiorat wrote: »

I see you don't have a clue what you're talking about again.

See, you stupidly said it wasn't about catching terrorists and spreading democracy. But it is, plain and simple. You can't prove otherwise can you?:pac:

Do yourself (and everyone else) a favour, studiorat. Read "War Is A Racket" by Gen. Smedley Butler.

If the most decorated general in the US Armed Forces can't convince you that the reasons for war are always profit and geo-strategic influence over commercial markets, and NEVER about the flaccid reasons given to the regular public slob then you are, quite frankly, beyond redemption.

studiorat

Talk E wrote: »

Perhaps then you should see a psychiatrist?, you cant leave this hanging. It could develop into something more serious. It's not cool to share your personal issues on the board.

I'm sorry but I have a problem with posters just making stuff up or stealing it from other websites and posting on a forum at their own.

Thing is, as long as you tell the right lies and agree with the general consensus here, all the other posters seem to be happy enough to sit back and let you do it, therefore they are complicit in your lying.

studiorat

jackiebaron wrote: »

Do yourself (and everyone else) a favour, studiorat. Read "War Is A Racket" by Gen. Smedley Butler.

If the most decorated general in the US Armed Forces can't convince you that the reasons for war are always profit and geo-strategic influence over commercial markets, and NEVER about the flaccid reasons given to the regular public slob then you are, quite frankly, beyond redemption.

???

So we have a 50 year old speech from some old goat in the John Birch society and a book by a general who died before the end of the second world war. And this is what? Some kind of description of current american policy.

Talk about moving the goal posts lads? :rolleyes:

Talk E

studiorat wrote: »

I'm sorry but I have a problem with posters just making stuff up or stealing it from other websites and posting on a forum at their own.

Thing is, as long as you tell the right lies and agree with the general consensus here, all the other posters seem to be happy enough to sit back and let you do it, therefore they are complicit in your lying.

Stealing ? :pac: you still crying about the fluoride post I forgot to link or have you got new evidence

MRPRO03

U.S. slaps new sanctions on Iran

The U.S. government has imposed new sanctions against Iran.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the Basij Resistance Force, and Iran's Law Enforcement Forces are targeted.

Secretary of State Clinton says officials responsible for Iran's crackdown on protesters must be held accountable.

Washington has also imposed sanctions against Iran to stop Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/meast/06/09/us.iran.sanctions/

jackiebaron

studiorat wrote: »

???

So we have a 50 year old speech from some old goat in the John Birch society and a book by a general who died before the end of the second world war. And this is what? Some kind of description of current american policy.

Talk about moving the goal posts lads? :rolleyes:

We'll go further. Eisenhower warned of the concentration of unwarranted power in the hands of a merged corporate/military cabal. Are you going to fob him off as a doddering old fool too or are you going to call him a "conspiracy theorist"?
Here is a President of the United States (and not one who has Alzheimer's or is a reformed coke and alcohol addict) warning about the fusion of business with the Pentagon in order to yield what he referred to as the "Military-Industrial Complex".
What dismissive little cliche are you going to slop on him? That he was bald? That he drank too much Merlot after liberating France? Get fücking real!

So Smedley Butler died before World War 2. And lo and behold that means that his observations of the machinations of industrial and corporate influence in war profiteering all of a sudden became null and void? Are you totally deranged?

Go back a 1000 years and you'll find that kings conducted wars purely for profit and in order to wage these wars they exacted taxes on their subjects to foot the bill.

Once again if you think the revolting slaughters in Central America in the 60's, 70's and 80's and the carnage in Indochina were about spreading freedom and defending the motherfückin' homeland instead of opening markets to the United Fruit Corporation and Goodyear and propping up Dupont Chemical then you really are a very VERY trusting and gullible individual.



One other thing, studiorat, what's your take on Israel deliberately bombing the USS Liberty in 1967?

If that's not a case of sacrificing "friendlies" in broad daylight to further a sinister agenda then I don't know what is. I'd love to hear you wrapping yourself in your rationalisations over that one. Let me guess....it was also a "long time ago" or "it was in the 60's! Everyone was high on LSD at the time!"

jackiebaron

studiorat wrote: »

???

So we have a 50 year old speech from some old goat in the John Birch society and a book by a general who died before the end of the second world war. And this is what? Some kind of description of current american policy.

Talk about moving the goal posts lads? :rolleyes:

And if the thoughts and observations of a general who died before World War 2 are so irrelevant to current American (military) policy then why do they study the theories and movements of Rommel, Guderian, Napoleon, Hannibal, Ghenghis Khan, Darius, Sun Tzu, etc., etc at West Point? Why do they analyse the craft of Hallsey and Nelson and Nimitz and Togo and Yamamoto at Annapolis. And why do economists and industrialists study the theories of Malthus, and Aquianas and Meynard Keynes?

Oh...they're old guys...gottit!

I'll proffer your much vaunted " :rolleyes: "

studiorat

I'll be brief for the moment Jackie.

You quote Eisenhower, in the very same speech where he says

"Throughout America's adventure in free government, our basic purposes have been to keep the peace; to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity and integrity among people and among nations"

I suppose it's acceptable to take some parts of the speech on and disregard others.

So we'll look at my two points again:

US homeland and foreign security.
US spread of democracy to protect it's self.

The second point particularly, I mentioned US' "spread of democracy", nowhere did I suggest it was for altruistic means. I simply stated that it was a policy. And in a framework where US security is dependent on security further afield.

Regarding Smedley Butler, he based his thesis on the first world war. The German empire has as much of a military industrial complex as anyone else, as did the UK. Yet after the first world war all three de-mobilized. It was only after the second world war that only two countries did not de-mobilize. He could not have predicted that. Briefly scanning over War is a Racket it seems to me oversimplified.

Furthermore Smedley Butler seems to suggest the only reason for war is protection of national security. However the modern case is that that national security and global security are intertwined, like it or not. Something again SB missed out...

ed2hands

studiorat wrote: »

I'll be brief for the moment Jackie.

You quote Eisenhower, in the very same speech where he says

I suppose it's acceptable to take some parts of the speech on and disregard others.

So we'll look at my two points again:

US homeland and foreign security.
US spread of democracy to protect it's self.

The second point particularly, I mentioned US' "spread of democracy", nowhere did I suggest it was for altruistic means. I simply stated that it was a policy. And in a framework where US security is dependent on security further afield.

Regarding Smedley Butler, he based his thesis on the first world war. The German empire has as much of a military industrial complex as anyone else, as did the UK. Yet after the first world war all three de-mobilized. It was only after the second world war that only two countries did not de-mobilize. He could not have predicted that. Briefly scanning over War is a Racket it seems to me oversimplified.

Furthermore Smedley Butler seems to suggest the only reason for war is protection of national security. However the modern case is that that national security and global security are intertwined, like it or not. Something again SB missed out...

Can you tell me your thoughts on that statement. I promise you i'm sincerely interested, though i may take the piss if it's more comedic drivel.

studiorat

ed2hands wrote: »

Can you tell me your thoughts on that statement. I promise you i'm sincerely interested, though i may take the piss if it's more comedic drivel.

Here's a couple of citations which support this idea.

A profound but underappreciated truth about globalization is the extent to which national security and international security have become inseparably linked. This is true even in the most powerful countries. In the United States, for example, most Americans would agree on a short list of threats to their national security: transnational terrorism, proliferation of nuclear weapons, a pandemic of a new deadly disease, global warming and economic instability and crisis. What stands out on this list is that these threats can affect every country's security.

Nor do the threats that preoccupy other parts of the world stand in isolation...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-jones-carlos-pascual-and-stephen-stedman/changing-how-we-address-g_b_175368.html

It is our belief that national security is no longer simply national but also transnational and transcultural in its scope, and globalization has a significant role to play in the development of security and strategic agendas at all levels. National borders delineating separations between states and national economies, as well as linguistic, cultural, and legal norms, are less distinct than they once were. Security is no longer a zero-sum game and therefore all countries and cultures are dependent on one another in the pursuit of true global security

http://www.sustainablehistory.com/the-geopolitical-and-geosecurity-implications-of-globalization.html

studiorat

jackiebaron wrote: »

The US has been fawning all over India, cultivating India in the most shameful ways, including the sacrifice of Americans’ jobs. Recently, there have been massive US weapons sales to India, US-India military cooperation agreements, and joint military exercises.

Washington figures that the Indians, who were gullible for centuries about the British, will be gullible about the “shining city on the hill” that is “bringing freedom and democracy to the world” by smashing, killing, and destroying. Like the British and France’s Sarkozy, Indian political leaders will find themselves doing Washington’s will. By the time India and China realize that they have been maneuvered into mutual destruction by the Americans, it will be too late for either to back down.

No mention of the air craft carriers, fighter jets , transport aircraft, cruise missiles and that India and Russia developed and build in partnership.
70% of India's arms are bought from Russia, economic and military agreements go back as far as the 1950's and were drawn up again after the Soviet collapse. Although relations are between the two are strained at the moment due to Russia not delivering an Aircraft Carrier and Submarine on time, India's latest contract for fighter aircraft have actually gone to Europe not the Russians or the US for that matter.
India hand Russia have run 5 military exercises in the last couple of years, the last being in October 2010.

ed2hands

studiorat wrote: »

Here's a couple of citations which support this idea.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-jones-carlos-pascual-and-stephen-stedman/changing-how-we-address-g_b_175368.html




http://www.sustainablehistory.com/the-geopolitical-and-geosecurity-implications-of-globalization.html

:)Well there no arguing with that. No understanding it either.
The G word rears it's ugly head. Interesting articles though. Ta for the reply.

studiorat

ed2hands wrote: »

:)Well there no arguing with that. No understanding it either.
The G word rears it's ugly head. Interesting articles though. Ta for the reply.

I had a feeling people would pick up on the word or should I say catch-phrase.
It's way too broad a term to label it though.

Jonny7

I know I'll get mobbed for this but..


Here is the author of the piece in question Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYQ-e256ZYo

and here is Glenn Beck

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxq_2bQUIxs


and this is what they're both doing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SuXT-Oum19Y

ed2hands

Jonny7 wrote: »

I know I'll get mobbed for this but..


Here is the author of the piece in question Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYQ-e256ZYo

and here is Glenn Beck

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxq_2bQUIxs


and this is what they're both doing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SuXT-Oum19Y

Pot Kettle Black! I've witnessed you in pontificating mode aswell now. So when is your next sermon?:D

Jonny7

ed2hands wrote: »

Pot Kettle Black! I've witnessed you in pontificating mode aswell now. So when is your next sermon?:D

When I get my book deal like these fellas!

WakeUp

I think something is coming there are warning signs everywhere. Jones reckons its about to kick off will post this video as its relevent to the thread. Whether you believe him or not is obviously up to the individual though.

Jonny7

WakeUp wrote: »

I think something is coming there are warning signs everywhere. Jones reckons its about to kick off will post this video as its relevent to the thread. Whether you believe him or not is obviously up to the individual though.

I am seeing warning signs alright.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uR2UXmTGK4M

WakeUp

Jonny7 wrote: »

I am seeing warning signs alright.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uR2UXmTGK4M

Funny guy:D so you going to support the ground invasion of Libya if it happens in a few months? you going to support military intervention in Syria? Iran??? Do you not feel a bit silly believing all these "interventions" are soley because its the right thing to do and because the powers that be care about human rights? When that couldnt be further from the truth and they couldnt give a flying fck about people and never have,ever. Keep telling yourself they do though if it makes you sleep better at night by continuing to do that you will continue to miss the bigger picture and there is a bigger picture.

Jonny7

WakeUp wrote: »

Funny guy:D so you going to support the ground invasion of Libya if it happens in a few months? you going to support military intervention in Syria? Iran??? Do you not feel a bit silly believing all these "interventions" are soley because its the right thing to do and because the powers that be care about human rights? When that couldnt be further from the truth and they couldnt give a flying fck about people and never have,ever. Keep telling yourself they do though if it makes you sleep better at night by continuing to do that you will continue to miss the bigger picture and there is a bigger picture.

Nothing can be done for Syria, short of him putting people in camps and exterminating them, the Syrians have to deal with Assad themselves

Iran? I would be very against intervention there

Libya yes, and Ivory coast yes.

If Norway, Japan, Brazil, Germany, etc would have been intervening in Libya I would be behind it (air only) - unfortunately we're always stuck with US/UK/France who don't have much high moral ground to stand on.

Uuuh Patsy

studiorat wrote: »

So you can't figure it out but you think anyone who thinks it may be to prevent terrorist attacks or spread democracy is a cretin. How does that work?

There are two very strong motives behind America's foreign policy.
- Prevent terrorist attacks on it's home soil and it's embassies and citizens around the world.
- Provide better and more stable economic partners for the US, allowing American business to set up freely in those countries.

So there you have fighting terrorism and spreading democracy. Simples.

It amazes me that anybody could come to the conclusion that the US is a true democracy...

Jonny7

Uuuh Patsy wrote: »

It amazes me that anybody could come to the conclusion that the US is a true democracy...

Ironically in Belgium they still don't have a government for a year, too many different parties, maybe that's true democracy

On a serious note, by definition, true democracy, true capitalism, true communism will never "truly" exist.

studiorat

Uuuh Patsy wrote: »

It amazes me that anybody could come to the conclusion that the US is a true democracy...

Who would that be then?