Tag Archives: war

A Bad Week For U.S. Diplomacy

Posted on by
Reply

us-imperialism-nepal-south-asia-revolution

Granted, most weeks are bad weeks for U.S. diplomacy, but this week was particularly rocky because it marked the 68th session of the U.N. General Assembly. On Tuesday, Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff pulled no punches in a speech highlighting how the NSA violated international law through its indiscriminate collection of personal information of Brazilian citizens and economic espionage targeting the country’s industries (two days later it was revealed the NSA also planted bugs in two Indian embassies).

Following Rousseff’s address was Obama, who gave a speech which was widely panned for its hypocrisy and falsehoods. Dave Lindorff of This Can’t Be Happening! described it best:

Whether he was declaring that “together we have worked to end a decade of war” even as he was just blocked from unilaterally launching a war against Syria, or saying “we have limited the use of drones,” when his administration has upped their use from 51 strikes in Pakistan under the prior Bush administration to 323 so far under his own administration, as David Swanson has so meticulously documented in his Top 45 Lies in Obama’s Speech at the UN, it was all lies.

But for Americans, perhaps nowhere was his lying so blatant and obscene as when he vowed that “we will not stop asserting principles that are consistent with our ideals, whether that means opposing the use of violence as a means of suppressing dissent…” This, after all, was being said just one week after the second anniversary of the launching of the Occupy Movement, which we now know, thanks to documents obtained by the Partnership for Civil Justice under the Freedom of Information Act, was crushed nationwide by a campaign of violent police assault coordinated at the highest levels of the FBI, Homeland Security Department and other federal police and intelligence agencies.

In contrast, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani delivered a speech with a more cooperative tone, calling for peaceful dialogue. But he was also blunt in calling out what he sees as the greatest threat to peace, as shown in his closing remarks:

This propagandistic discourse has assumed dangerous proportions through portrayal and inculcation of presumed imaginary threats. One such imaginary threat is the so-called “Iranian threat” -which has been employed as an excuse to justify a long catalogue of crimes and catastrophic practices over the past three decades. The arming of the Saddam Hussein regime with chemical weapons and supporting the Taliban and A1-Qaida are just two examples of such catastrophes. Let me say this in all sincerity before this august world assembly, that based on irrefutable evidence, those who harp on the so-called threat of Iran are either a threat against international peace and security themselves or promote such a threat. Iran poses absolutely no threat to the world or the region. In Fact, in ideals as well as in actual practice, my country has been a harbinger of just peace and comprehensive security.

Read the complete transcript here: http://publicintelligence.net/iran-un-speech-2013/

In a recent Global Research piece by Ryan Mallett-Outtrim, it was reported that on Wednesday, Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro cancelled plans to attend the U.N. General Assembly. Though he did not give too many details for security reasons, he did state:

There were two serious provocations, one more serious than the other, how I understand it…When I got into Vancouver I evaluated the intelligence which we received from several sources…I decided then and there to continue back to Caracas and drop the New York trip to protect a key goal: safeguarding my physical integrity and protecting my life.

Read the full article here: http://www.globalresearch.ca/argentina-brazil-bolivia-venezuela-and-latin-america-at-odds-with-the-us-at-the-united-nations/5351705

In light of suspicious circumstances surrounding the death of former Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, Maduro may have good reason to be cautious.

Later that day Bolivian President Evo Morales gave what will probably be the most memorable speech of this year’s UN General Assembly. Some of the highlights:

What peace can we speak of when military spending sacrifices the human rights of our peoples? How is it possible, when there are so many unemployed, for your (US) government, for your president, to spend 700 billion dollars on the military? It is not possible for these huge amounts of money to be spent on the military and on espionage when there are so many brothers and sisters in the United States without homes, without jobs, without schooling. I simply cannot understand how they can spend so much money to interfere in other countries while leaving their own unprovided for.

…You do not combat terrorism with more military spending or by training more military forces. As far as I know you fight terrorism with social policies, not with military bases, you fight it with religious tolerance, with more democracy, more equality, more justice and more education.

…Those who decide wars are large arms industries, the financial system and the oil companies. Plutocracy has replaced democracy.

…How can we be safe at a meeting of the United Nations here in New York? Some do not believe in imperialism and capitalism and feel totally unsafe…The headquarters should be in a state that has ratified all UN treaties.

…I would like you to be aware that the United States harbors terrorists and the corrupt. They take refuge here, and the United States does not help in the fight against corruption.

At the close of his address, Morales suggested “we think seriously about constituting a Tribunal of the People with international bodies and the large defenders of human rights to begin a lawsuit against the Obama government.”

You can read more about the speech and listen to the full translated version here:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Bolivia-s-Morales-Addresse-by-Meryl-Ann-Butler-Bolivia_Bolivian-Revolution_Evo-Morales_Poverty-130925-205.html

http://gadebate.un.org/68/bolivia-plurinational-state

Geopolitical Motives Behind Kenya Mass Shooting

Posted on by
Reply

Western corporate news has predictably portrayed the recent massacre in Kenya as a senseless terrorist attack by “Muslim fanatics” of Al Shabaab, a Somalian Al Qaeda franchise. If their motive was solely religious, perpetrating a large-scale slaughter drawing international condemnation would be a self-defeating act. Unfortunately, propaganda and mass social conditioning has led many in the West to accept that Muslim terrorists “hate us for our freedoms” and will do anything to wipe out everyone but themselves. Of course this is a stereotype and is no more true than saying fundamentalist Christian or Jewish terrorists want to kill all Muslims. The reality of terrorism is much more complex and convoluted (and often involves covert intelligence agencies).

Tony Cartalucci of Land Destroyer Report puts the Nairobi mall attack in context, describing how in 2011 the Kenyan military participated in attacks against Somalia with U.S. and French forces. But this wasn’t the first attack against Somalia the U.S. was involved in. According to Cartalucci:

Before using Kenya as a proxy for US aggression in Africa, and amidst two decades of unilateral, covert military operations, the US had backed two Ethiopian invasions into Somalia. The first US-backed invasion, under then US President George Bush, was carried out in 2006. USA Today reported in its 2007 article, “U.S. support key to Ethiopia’s invasion,” that:

The United States has quietly poured weapons and military advisers into Ethiopia, whose recent invasion of Somalia opened a new front in the Bush administration’s war on terrorism.

The second US-backed Ethiopian invasion of Somalia, under US President Barack Obama, was carried out in 2011 – coordinated with Kenya’s 2011 US-French-backed extraterritorial adventure into Somali territory. The UK Independent’s December 2011 article, “UN-backed invasion of Somalia spirals into chaos,” reported that:

Kenya’s invasion of Somalia, hailed by the West and the UN Security Council, was meant to deliver a knockout blow to the militant Islamist group al-Shabaab. Instead it has pulled Somalia’s regional rival Ethiopia back into the country, stirred up the warlords and rekindled popular support for fundamentalists whose willingness to let Somalis starve rather than receive foreign aid had left them widely hated.

It was in fact this US-backed military invasion that served as the alleged motivation of the Al Shabaab terrorists who attacked Kenya’s Westgate Mall this week.

In the same article, Cartalucci describes in detail how and why the same terrorists the U.S. is funding and arming in Syria are behind the massacre in Kenya. He also provides a concise description of what Al Qaeda really is and how they support the objectives of Western superpowers:

Al Qaeda: The Perfect Pretext to Invade, The Perfect Mercenary Army to Covertly Wage War

Al Qaeda, for the West, serves as the ultimate geopolitical tool. It can be used as a pretext to invade, as well as a nearly inexhaustible mercenary army to carry out ruthless terrorist campaigns and even full-scale war as seen in Syria and Libya, to achieve Western objectives. Additionally, the omnipresent, nebulous nature of Al Qaeda serves as justification to strip away the rights and liberties of people at home, across Western civilization – perpetuating a climate of fear within which the seeds of very profitable war can be sown and continuously reaped.

How profitable? A Harvard’s Kennedy School research paper titled, “The Financial Legacy of Iraq and Afghanistan,” places the total expenditures of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars alone somewhere between 4-6 trillion dollars. That isn’t 4-6 trillion dollars that went into a black hole. That is 4-6 trillion dollars that went to the Fortune 500 corporations that engineered and sold these conflicts to the American public in the first place.

Read the full article here: http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2013/09/kenyan-bloodbath-reaping-benefits-of-us.html#more

Pro-War “Expert” Gets Busted for Lying

Posted on by
Reply

propaganda_corporatenews

All war mongers depend on lies and deception to rally public support. A classic example is the false testimony which helped trigger the first Iraq War. Elizabeth O’Bagy is another such shill who has been quoted by John Kerry and John McCain to support the case for war. Though the lie she got called out on was about academic credentials, not any of the lies to start another war, her background reveals some of the behind-the-scenes players influencing U.S. government policy. Among the findings uncovered by Patrick Henningsen of 21st Century Wire:

  • Before getting fired, O’Bagy was a “senior research analyst” at Washington’s heavily pro-Israeli and neoconservative think tank, the Institute for the Study of War (ISW).
  • The ISW was founded by Kimberly Kagan, a devout neocon, whose fellow experts elevate U.S. military intervention, and provide policy research back-up for U.S. State Department, CIA, AIPAC and large national security defense contractors. The ISW’s board of directors is led by William Kristol. This type of organisation is a nexus which brings together, among other things, support for the Syrian opposition, anti-Castro in Cuba, and pro-Israeli activities.
  • O’Bagy is also policy director at an even more questionable Washington DC outfit – a pro-rebel, money-raising and policy promoting nonprofit organisation known as the Syrian Emergency Task Force (SETF). Exactly how much money SETF has collected to date (or where it has been spent) is unknown, but following the O’Bagy incident, O’Bagy and the group’s Communications Director Cassie Chesley – have both been pulled down from the SETF website. According to the SETF, Syrian opposition agents have been coordinating with operatives in Washington through “field work” since November 2012, including building parallel government structures inside rebel-held areas in Syria.
  • O’Bagy was a key defender of alleged CIA American al Qaeda fighter recently detained by the FBI for working with al Qaeda in Syria, by working to shift opinion over his jihadist affiliations.
  • One of O’Bagy’s mentors is none other than Michael Weiss, Research Director at the British-based Henry Jackson Society, a key Israeli and neoconservative foreign policy think-tank.

Read the full article here: http://21stcenturywire.com/2013/09/14/kerry-and-mccains-fake-phd-syria-expert-obagy-is-neocon-and-israeli-linked-operative/

Though O’Bagy’s voice may be absent from the public discourse (at least for now), there are undoubtedly plenty of others like her who are well compensated by powerful think-tanks and special interest groups. Some might also be a part of government programs such as Operation Mockingbird.

No matter what political reasons are given for war, the underlying reason is always economic. – A.J.P. Taylor

Posted on by
Reply

With so much attention on arguments for and against a potential World War 3, it’s almost easy to forget about economic problems though the issues overlap. To remind us (if we did need reminding), a number of great articles have come out recently.

Two headlines at OpEd News explain how economic pressures play a part in mass opposition against the war and reasons why even without another war, America is headed towards a greater financial crisis.

Though corporate media tells us we’re in an economic recovery, the truth is it’s a recovery for the rich, a recession for the rest.

A new UC Berkeley report documents the growing gulf between the rich and poor in the U.S. since 2009, while on a global scale a new “superclass” has emerged who are 94% male, white, and connected to financial corporations, governments, and the military, as reported in this expose on the Financial Core of the Transnational Capitalist Class.

On related notes, ever wonder how much money missile strikes cost and how many CEOs were prosecuted for their role in the financial crisis? The answers will tell you something about the priorities of the U.S. government.

Greg Palast article about the “End-Game” memo: http://www.gregpalast.com/larry-summers-and-the-secret-end-game-memo/

Message of Peace

Posted on by
Reply

Last Monday (Sept. 2), the White House received a letter calling for peace in Syria from Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro on behalf of Venezuela and “independent voices who love humanity”. Not surprisingly, no mention of the letter was made by corporate media but many of us are aware of it thanks to foreign and independent media such as the Venezuela News Agency and Axis of Logic. Though the letter seems to be speaking to the public persona of Obama and not the reality of who he really is, it could be interpreted as idealistic or ironic; a way of highlighting the differences between the two. Maduro also uses a number of memorable quotes to support his argument from activists such as Simon Bolivar, Susan Sontag, Malcolm X, John Lennon, Howard Zinn and Martin Luther King.

Via: Axis of Logic:

What we do in pursuit of lasting peace and stability of any nation on the planet will never be enough, because the wellbeing of a people exalts us while their pain diminishes us to the vilest inhumanity.

We, from the love of peace that the Venezuelan people cultivate, reject war and say no to bombs, desolation and death. That is our hope, the same that fed the soul of Martin Luther King when he said:”If I knew that the world would end tomorrow, I, today would still plant a tree”. This tree is the one we want to flourish in these tense and ominous times.

I aspire and hope that the call that I have made to you in this letter, Mr. President, doesn’t fall on empty ears. I aspire and hope that you rectify and proceed to stop the war machine that has already been set up. I aspire and I hope that you stop the beating of the funeral drums of war on Syria. I pray for it to be so.

Peace in Syria and the world!

No War!

Nicolas Maduro

Chavez lives, the homeland continues!

Read the complete letter here: http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_66001.shtml

The Real Reasons for War

Posted on by
Reply

Bev Conover, editor and publisher of Intrepid Report, just posted an important op-ed (in preparation for Obama’s war speech tomorrow) which dismantles the alleged moral arguments for war and provides a list of more likely reasons and the various groups who would benefit. Among the usual suspects:

  • Western Central Banks
  • Weapons Contractors
  • Energy Corporations
  • Geopolitical Allies Saudi Arabia and Israel
  • Powerful Elites

Via: Intrepid Report:

Then there is the matter of the red line, which Obama claimed, during last week’s visit to Sweden, “I didn’t set a red line. The world set a red line. The world set a red line when government’s representing 98 percent of the world’s populations said the use of chemical weapons is abhorrent.” But he said last year, “We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized, That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.” It’s hard keeping the lies straight, isn’t it?

Yes, the use of chemical weapons is abhorrent. The US should know as it’s used them eight times and, while not chemical weapons, used munitions coated with toxic depleted uranium Serbia, Iraq and Afghanistan, and dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan. (See 10 Chemical Weapons Attacks Washington Doesn’t Want You to Talk About)

So what are all the lies about the need for illegally attacking Syria, possibly setting the whole Middle East aflame or even starting World War III (or IV, depending on how you count) about? It’s about the elephants in the room they don’t want you to see.

Who are the elephants? One elephant is the Western banksters who profit from every war, regardless of whether it’s a win, lose or draw. The banksters make money from the loans they give to armament manufacturers and contractors who sell the necessary support supplies to the military. The banksters also have to make sure the US dollar stay as the world’s reserve currency.

– See more at: http://www.intrepidreport.com/archives/10770#sthash.4o6514Xe.dpuf

Then there is the matter of the red line, which Obama claimed, during last week’s visit to Sweden, “I didn’t set a red line. The world set a red line. The world set a red line when government’s representing 98 percent of the world’s populations said the use of chemical weapons is abhorrent.” But he said last year, “We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized, That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.” It’s hard keeping the lies straight, isn’t it?

Yes, the use of chemical weapons is abhorrent. The US should know as it’s used them eight times and, while not chemical weapons, used munitions coated with toxic depleted uranium Serbia, Iraq and Afghanistan, and dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan. (See 10 Chemical Weapons Attacks Washington Doesn’t Want You to Talk About)  So what are all the lies about the need for illegally attacking Syria, possibly setting the whole Middle East aflame or even starting World War III (or IV, depending on how you count) about? It’s about the elephants in the room they don’t want you to see.

Who are the elephants? One elephant is the Western banksters who profit from every war, regardless of whether it’s a win, lose or draw. The banksters make money from the loans they give to armament manufacturers and contractors who sell the necessary support supplies to the military. The banksters also have to make sure the US dollar stay as the world’s reserve currency.

Read the complete op-ed here: http://www.intrepidreport.com/archives/10770

If a U.S. attack on Syria is supposed to be a response for Assad gassing his own people on 8/21 as claimed, then why were U.S. and allied warships placed off the Syrian coast before that date? Michel Chossudovsky provides analysis and commentary on the pattern and timeline of weapons transports at Global Research:

If the chemical weapons attack is a justification for intervening, why was the order to launch an R2P “humanitarian” naval operation against Syria decided upon “Prior” to August 21? Was there advanced knowledge or intelligence regarding the timing and occurrence of the 21 August Chemical Weapons attack?
…With independent news reports providing firm evidence that the US sponsored Al Qaeda rebels (recruited and trained by Allied Special Forces) have chemical weapons in their possession, this delay does not favor the president’s political credibility.

Moreover, there is evidence that the US sponsored rebels used chemical weapons against civilians. (see image right)

In providing those chemical weapons to al Qaeda “rebels”, the US-NATO-Israel alliance is in violation of international law, not to mention their own anti-terrorist legislation.

Overtly supporting Al Qaeda has become the “New Normal”.

When the various pieces of evidence are put together, the picture which emerges is that of a covert “flag flag operation” carried out by the US sponsored “rebels” and special forces, intent upon blaming president Bashar Al Assad for killing his own people. As mentioned above, the naval deployment was decided upon ex ante, before the 21 August chemical Weapons attack.

This diabolical false flag attack which consists in killing civilians and blaming the Syrian government constitutes the justification for military intervention on “humanitarian grounds”.

Read the complete report here: http://www.globalresearch.ca/massive-naval-deployment-us-and-allied-warships-deployed-to-syrian-coastline-before-the-august-21-chemical-weapons-attack/5347766

What Are The Neocons Thinking?

Video

Reply

Abby Martin, of the RT program “Breaking the Set” does a brilliant dissection of the absurdity and lies coming from the pro-war neocons.

What reality are the neocons living in? These clips from “Monkey Dust” may give some insight into their state of mind: