Archive for December, 2010

How about it, Mr. President … ?

Friday, December 31st, 2010

Late last evening, I visited the web site:  http://www.AE911Truth.org

I found overwhelming evidence that reveals lies and deception that were used to cover-up the 9/11 destruction of the World Trade Center buildings in New York City.  As I watched the video testimonies of firemen, police, architects, engineers and witnesses, the inescapable evidence convinced me that you and the people of America, for our own safety, must now publicly investigate and reveal the truth about who caused the destruction of the World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2 and 7.

The web site, listed above, presents your televised remarks, when you virtually repeated the same words that George W. Bush used when he tried to convince Americans and the people of the world not to reject the official government explanation of the WTC disaster.

It was difficult to watch, as you chose to ignore the fact, that the official report is a deceptive and treacherous cover-up of what really happened on 9/11.  The voters elected you, because they trusted your words, when you promised that an Obama government would be honest and tell the truth.  You now have that opportunity.

The 9/11 crimes fit the purpose of the “Project for a New American Century” which said the US needed “a New Pearl Harbor” disaster, that would create an enemy and deceive Americans into supporting a war against the people of the oil rich nations of the middle east and enable the US to militarily control the future policies of the world.

When you scorned the 9/11 Truth seekers, you repeated almost the exact words of George W Bush.  Despite your words and the words of Bush, the truth is never outrageous.  Nine Arabs did not do the crimes.  There is no doubt that you know and understand who caused 9/11.

Using the same words that Bush used, seems to support your critics in their claim, that you have been selected from your youth to be groomed from your childhood to be affable and willing to follow a mentor who would advise you, through the years, to do what would eventually move you into the circle of power, that would arrange your public credentials and popularity to successfully achieve your election to the Senate and the Presidency.

The expanding public concern is now focusing on the abundant evidence that reveals the contradictions of the government’s report of the 9/11 crimes. The worldwide demand for truth will now confront your image as a people’s leader and will soon require you to publicly reveal the truth of 9/11.

It is apparent that you depended on instructions of advisors on how you should act, since your youth and, even now, you seem to continue that dependence as president.  Your physical appearance and charm has attracted millions of earnest American citizens, young and old, to believe that you earnestly intend to seek and follow the truth.  That gift of their belief has placed you in the opportunity to be your own person, able to honestly say and do what your decisions truthfully require.  As the president, you are in the position to use your authority to follow the truth and institute an honest, open, public investigation of the evidence that will show who is responsible for the crimes of 9/11.

As President, you are in a position to be admired in history as one of the great presidents, if you courageously arrange the honest, public investigation and prosecution of whoever is responsible for creating the horrible treachery of the 9/11 crimes.  The Justice Department is subject to your authority.

If you choose to heroically help uncover the plot of 9/11, you will need to be prepared to publicly explain to the American people the truth.  You will also need to arrange your personal safety and prevent a deadly reprisal against you by the culprits who perpetrated and covered up the plan of 9/11.  Some of the associates of the plot may be near you, so you need to be careful.  Remember the Kennedy assassination.

I pray that God almighty will bless you with the courage and help to understand the information that is available on the website of:   http://www.AE911Truth.org

With admiration and hope for that young man who promised truth and won the presidency, I urge you, Barack, to do it for all of the American people.

– W J Anthony

The Goose and the Gander … ?

Tuesday, December 28th, 2010


By WJ Anthony

What seemed, late Sunday evening, to be a New Year wish by the lame duck Congress, is causing a great concern for main street Americans.  If our source is accurate, the lame ducks quietly and quickly passed a bill through both houses of Congress, to enable the Federal government to control what you will use as alternatives to the prescriptions imposed by the big pharmaceutical corporations.  And that will fit the Healthcare law that will enable its Church of Modern Medicine to decide how you will die and when you will die.  The bill uses other words, but the meaning is the same in the food control Bill S510.

With thanks to livwaterso1@mail.com for the following quote:

Alexander Bolton of The Hill reports:

Reid’s staff earlier in the day had told a coalition of groups supporting the legislation that it had a chance of passing but the prospects appeared to dim as Sunday wore on. The swift approval by unanimous consent caught some aides and lobbyists working on it by surprise.

Sen. Tom Coburn, the outspoken conservative Republican from Oklahoma, had been blocking the legislation. He lifted his objection at the final moment.

Why Senator Coburn reversed himself, enabling this bill, which empowers unelected bureaucrats to control family farms with regulations to be written later, is a mystery.”

A controversial proposal that was dropped from President Barack Obama’s health care reform after it led to claims of ‘death panels’ being set up is to be introduced using a new United States government regulation.

By Toby Harnden,  The Telegraph, Washington – 12:22AM GMT 27 Dec 2010

Under the new policy, contained in a regulation for Medicare, the US government health program for the elderly, doctors who advise patients on options for end-of-life care will be paid from the public purse.

According to The New York Times, congressional backers of the new policy have kept quiet for fear provoking a furor similar to the one in 2009 when Republicans seized on the notion of end-of-life counseling to claim the bill would lead to government-ordered death sentences.

The final version of the health care legislation, signed into law by Mr Obama last in March, authorized coverage of annual physical examinations but did not include Section 1233, the most controversial part of the bill.

But now the new regulation states that Medicare will cover “voluntary advance care planning” to discuss end-of-life treatment, as part of these examinations.

Advance care planning improves end-of-life care and patient and family satisfaction and reduces stress, anxiety and depression in surviving relatives,” the administration said in the preamble to the Medicare regulation, which quotes research published in the British Medical Journal.

[EMPHASIS ADDED]


Even the Russian newspaper Pravda is puzzled: “It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American decent into Marxism is happening with breathtaking speed.


On Feb. 7, 2009, the cover of Newsweek magazine proclaimed: “We Are All Socialists Now.”


If you blinked, you might have missed the enormous clamor that arose about the FEMA security at airports, which authorizes security personnel to apply a high level X-Ray to examine your intimate body structure and configuration or a manual inspection of what you might have between your legs in or near your crotch or in or near your breasts.

And how much more is coming; who knows?  The personal embarrassment of the airport security plan is also considered appropriate for trains, maybe buses and probably every time you enter a courthouse or hospital or public school.  The victims of the high schools or colleges may produce some interesting complications that the genius of youngsters seems talented to modify what they discover.

Think of built-in X-Ray cameras on the secured entrances that already exist, and in classrooms, then built in on toilets and urinals – all saved for evidence or future reference.  Rebellion against superfluous authority easily erupts in high schools, which result in the policy of requiring students to request a roll of toilet paper from the principal’s office, with the requirement that the roll be returned after the necessity was completed.  That policy was adopted 25 years ago, to prevent disgruntled students from flushing rolls of toilet paper down toilets and plugging them up.

Something’s wrong?  It might be that the administration and teachers are looked on as prison guards.  Students have often referred to their school as a prison, that they are forced to submit to class presentations that are taught down to them instead of teaching children from their level of feeling and understanding.

That is portrayed in the administration of most government officials, and among the elected officials that get chummy with the voters only during their campaign to be elected.  After the election, they are out of touch.  Which brings to mind the touch at airports.

How many terrorists have the security systems apprehended?  Any?  The pilots have won an exemption from being scrutinized by X-radiation or the touchy probing of security personnel.  Are those photos stored in some archive somewhere for verification, in case a passenger sues FEMA or the government for violation of personal rights?  There have been claims that the X-Ray procedure is a danger to the health of a passenger who frequently travels by air.  I wonder if the members of Congress or members of the Executive administration are required to expose themselves to the X-Ray eyes of the airports?

It would seem to be appropriate for all government employees, including all politicians to be included in the requirement that requires ordinary citizens to be X-Rayed at airports.  It would seem most appropriate to not only have them suitably captured on X-Ray film but also to have their films and pictures published, so their constituents could see and know the honesty of the results; probably start with the Leaders of the House and Senate.  It might enhance their reelection campaigns, providing their constituents with an honest glimpse of their forthrightness.

The president and vice-president and their staff should also be included, for their own protection and the security of the nation.  Who knows, there may be a plan to weave an imposter into the presidency, who could be readily identified by the same X-Ray and touch methods that are now used in airports.  The comparison of views of the president if filed on record differed from an imposter’s view could electronically verify if the president is legitimate.

The old and revered adage may be our worthy guide in this, “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.”  Then, we all could take a gander at our representatives.

Can WE steal Our future … ?

Monday, December 27th, 2010

Thanks to  Opinion Maker …

US Arrogance and The Conflict of Geography

Posted on 26. Dec, 2010 by Raja Mujtaba in Af-Pak

[Translate]

By Brig Samson S Sharaf

The message being sent to Pakistan in the post Wikileaks scenario is ominous and bereft of diplomatic dignity. “We will continue to insist to Pakistani leaders that terrorist safe havens within their borders must be dealt with,” said President Obama. Retired Gen. Jack Keane, put it more bluntly: “Don’t just put a finger in their chest, put a fist in their chest.” As predicated in my columns, USA is expanding the drone war into Pakistan while our national leaders continue to put a façade of protest in the backdrop of tacit compliance.

If USA is adamant in pushing its own interests in Afghanistan and remains insensitive to Pakistan’s security, ethnic and other social concerns, Pakistan is well within its right to pursue its own ends of policy. After all it was these objectives that formed the basis of Pakistan’s cooperation with the US in the war against USSR and allowed free access to Afghans for over two decades. More than 70% population of Afghanistan is ethnically, linguistically and culturally linked to Pakistan. Despite the Durand Line, the ethnic Pashtuns and Gujjars have been flowing to and fro for centuries. The Powindas, as we call them, have rights to grazing meadows, encampments and movements as if it was their own country.  Cognitively they are as much Pakistani as those living on this side of the divide. A deliberate effort is now being made to label this cross border movement as sanctuaries and lump the blame for failures on Pakistan.

Pakistan’s objectives have been consistent and USA was aware of these sensitivities once it embarked on its Shock and Awe in Afghanistan. To expect Pakistan to forego these historic, cultural, family and religious linkages to the chagrin of its public sentiments and long term interests is tantamount to asking Pakistan’s surrender.

Agreed, that within the big power play, small countries enjoy little freedom of action, but as the war of non state actors expands, the lesson is clear; it is possible to resist and defy super powers with a cause that has public appeal.  Non State Actors like Al Qaeda, Taliban and the Wikileaks have proved so and Nation states backed by its people must do so as well.

On the systemic spectrum of national power, these idiosyncratic notions of leadership, national character, morale and ability to seize fleeting opportunities is what all successful nations of the world have capitalised on. Many have reinvented themselves in crises. Vietnam, Sri Lanka, China, Germany, the Balkans, Iran, Venezuela and the people of Afghanistan poignantly demonstrate what national will and character can accomplish.  Amongst these, countries have achieved indigenous self reliance while challenging the international equilibrium through prolonged struggles based on inherent motivations, dignity and self respect.

USA too went through this phase during the American Civil War but forgot the sociology of a conflict when it shifted its national purpose and strategy to the use of Long Arm for global dominance. As more economic centers to balance the US Global Dominance will emerge, the competition will stiffen and tensions heighten. Hence before this multi layered balance of power stabilises, USA seeks to permanently entrench itself in the region to reap resource benefits and dominate the underbelly of Russia and China. In the bargain, it also establishes a strategic presence in the Islamic Heartland that it perceives as a future threat much beyond the non state actors.

In this quest to seize the global resources of the future, US in the short and medium term will not hesitate to use its Long Arm through fanning, prolonging and expanding conflicts in the zones of strategic importance. The entire arc from West to Central Asia is one such zone of conflict in which USA factorises Israel and India to act as two important citadels on the flanks.  Pakistan and Afghanistan are in the eye of this storm.

This entire zone lacks democratic credentials. Most of the countries in the region are Muslim with dictatorships and kingdoms supported by USA. The publicly acclaimed US slogan of bringing democracy is a farce to say the least. It supports dictators and divisive religious policies to cement its presence in the region to the extent of interventions at the micro levels. USA calls all the shots.

First in line are the dictators and kings who need a US umbrella for their survival and reciprocate the services by allowing their sovereignty to be nibbled. The Saudis will not hesitate to request USA to bomb Iran to pulp or choose to look the other way if Israel does so. Egyptians and Jordanians will look the other way when Israel kills and maims Palestinians or constructs illegal housings.

Then there are countries vacillating between dictatorships and sham democracies with weak institutions, dependant on US/Arab support for economic and political survival. These countries are also exposed to the strings of International Financial Institutions whose controls lie in Washington and represent another dimension of non state interventionism. Pakistanis will permit micro management of its affairs and look the other way when US drones kill more innocent than Al Qaeda. Afghans will play sides and stack away millions of dollars just in case they have to make the run once they are ousted.

Third are the sea of emotions of deprivation, political marginalisation, betrayal, strong feelings of ethno-religious identity and surviving on the fringe. Their political leaders in power do not represent their feelings. These are the neglected lot whose emotions overflow the brim; who can act violently to preserve their national identity whilst some could fall victims to the extremist agenda. These are the downtrodden that hold the key to the fleeting opportunities of national character and morale.

It is time to admit that the resistance to US occupation in Afghanistan is as much indigenous as it was during the British Afghan Wars and the Soviet Invasion. It is not led by the Taliban alone but also comprises politically and ethnically diverse groups such as Younis Khalis, Gulbadin Hikmatyar and Haqqanis. As the resistance increases, in Kanduz and northern Afghanistan, it also indicates that despite a decade, the fire of Afghan pride is conflagrating. If USA does not resort to engagement methods other than the long war, it assures that it will meet its biggest defeats at the hand of rag tags for the second time after Viet Nam.

It is high time the US Policy Makers realise; once bitten, twice shy.

Brigadier Samson Simon Sharaf is a retired infantry officer of Pakistan Army and honorary Colonel of the First Sindh Regiment. He has the distinct honour of serving in the Military Operations Branch GHQ during the most interesting and eventful years of Pakistan’s history. Did his Post Graduation from Quaid e Azam University with distinction. His specialization is International Political Economy with sharp focus on Nuclear Policy Making and Security.

He is a frequent speaker in national and international seminars and writes through the framework of established theoretical paradigms. His hundreds of articles though futuristic have invariably been vindicated. He has also been a High Altitude mountaineer, trekked the entire perimeter of Pakistan and explored the harsh and difficult NARA Desert in the severest summer heat. He is Rector of St. Mary’s College, the first Catholic Higher education Institution in Pakistan and CEO of both Ecotech Iternational Inc. USA and WaterTech Private Limited, Pakistan. He is a pioneer of relief water in disaster areas.

Brig Sharaf is a regular contributor to Opinion Maker.

Our Image and Our Contradictions . . .

Monday, December 27th, 2010

Thanks to  Opinion Maker …

The US: The National Image and its Contradictions

Posted on 27. Dec, 2010 by Raja Mujtaba in US

[Translate]

An Analysis

By Professor Lawrence Davidson

Part One: What is the Problem?

Benjamin Disraeli once labeled Britain’s government “an organized hypocrisy.” That was in circa 1845. Things have not changed much and by now hypocrisy might well be seen as a common sin of democratic government. This is because in democracies straight forward honesty about behavior that runs counter to the idealized national image is usually bad politics. Among today’s democracies none proves this point more than the United States. The United States, like Great Britain in the 19th century, simultaneously acts like an imperial power and cultivates a national image as the world’s prime purveyor of good government, stability and progress. However, history has taught us that a nation cannot be both of these things at once. So the folks in Washington have created for themselves an environment wherein principle and consistency are impossible. Take, for instance, the following:
1. A stolen election in the Ivory Coast has resulted in active disapproval on the part of the U.S. government. After all, this is not good government. President Obama slapped sanctions on the fellows who stole the vote and urged the United Nations to send more troops (some 9,000 are already in the country) to set things right. On the other hand, the November parliamentary elections in Egypt (presently a U.S. ally) were an outright farce. The opposition was banned, jailed and otherwise intimidated. Not at all good government. And Washington’s response? Nada (nothing). If you claim to be the prime purveyor of democracy in the world, are you not suppose to be consistent?

2. Then there is the yet unproven Iranian nuclear weapons program. According to studies done by U.S. intelligence this program is a myth. Nonetheless, Israeli paranoia has stirred up U.S. Congressional passions. Iran is now proclaimed a destabilizing rogue nation. The United States has proceeded to apply one package of sanctions after another on Teheran. There are actually men and women among our elected officials (obviously more swayed by the whisperings of Zionist lobbyists than by U.S. intelligence reports) who are quite willing to go to war over this unsubstantiated threat. Considering the cost and horror of such action, I think that they, regardless of age or sex, should be in the front combat lines of any conflict resulting from their misplaced enthusiasm. Not to be undone in this effort, European Union countries also seek to put pressure on Iran to stop something that is not happening..

On the other hand there is Israel (America’s “strategic”ally), the source of much of this mania. That country is in violation of international law in ways that Tehran could never match. Its expansionist policies are the main destabilizing force in the entire Middle East. It is religiously devoted to the ethnic cleansing of an entire people while claiming that it is civilized and “Western.” And, Israelhas 200 or more nuclear warheads, the missile systems to deliver them, and a leadership whose reckless disregard for world peace makes Amadinejad look like a model of sanity. If the United States seeks stability in the Middle East so that region may be a reliable source of oil, should it not be concerned with Israel as well as Iran? So, what does Washington have to say about the loaded warheads in Israel? Nada. And the EU, well, they plan to admit Israel into the European Organization for Nuclear Research.

3. Latin America has always been an arena wherein the U.S. preaches good government and development. But on the ground hypocrisy rules. Cuba, Venezuela, Guatemala, Nicaragua and El Salvador are or were hounded by one American administration after another because their leftist governments were, by definition, bad governments. Simultaneously, the same administrations backed the murderers and torturers who once passed for political leaders in places like Argentina and Chile. Washington also backed the Contras and called these violators of human rights, “freedom fighters.” It has gotten to the point where the number of people living south of the Rio Grande who now trust the U.S. government is dwindling fast. And some of those who still do so also cheer the South and Central American death squads funded by various American corporations and trained by the U.S. military’s infamous School of the Americans in Georgia. What does Washington have to say about this skewed situation? Nada.

These are just a few examples of the contradictions that beset the idealized U.S. national image. As the skepticism that can be found in Latin America, and now the Middle East too suggests, belief in this America really stops at its borders. Beyond that point the ideal image is increasingly seen as masking a form of aggressive narcissism. Yet inside the borders, most are still true believers. Our national self-image dominates to the point that we can apply Andre Gide’s adage, “the true hypocrite is the one who ceases to perceive his deception, the one who lies with sincerity.” I think many of our politicians fall into this category.

Part Two: Why Is It So?

Why are things this way? Well, as mentioned above, believing in a national image that is unhinged from reality has something to do with it. American politicians know that identifying yourself with the idealized U.S. (democracy, stability and progress, etc.) is a winning political formula. But how do you bury the contradictions? You either hide your hypocrisy behind a thick cloud of secrecy (a la the Wikileaks affair) or you obscure your double standards with mass propaganda. Washington uses both strategies. If you pursue these strategies long enough and consistently enough you build yourself a “thought collective”–groupthink on a national level. Within the thought collective self-deception and rationalization become high arts and soon both the leaders and the followers no longer notice the underlying hypocrisy. It also helps that most of the public is indifferent toward the world beyond their local sphere. Indifference results in ignorance and the void left by ignorance is readily filled with manipulative misinformation. Nor do the indifferent care about government secrecy on subjects that appear to have no relevance to their daily lives.

To make all this a bit clearer think about your own experience. When you act in the world things usually work out if the ideas and beliefs in your head match well with the reality outside you. However, when those ideas and beliefs do not match up with outside reality, things almost never go well. Indeed, at such times you can walk right off a cliff. America’s idealized national image, along with all the spin coming from its powerful political and media elites, constitute a good part of the notions floating around the collective “U.S. head.” Over the last fifty years or more those notions have become ever more detached from reality. Viet Nam, Iraq, the September 11th attacks, were all symptoms of this growing fact. Much of the rest of the world can see this, but rather than face the grim truth, most Americans are determined to maintain their collective self-image through stubborn self-deception and hypocrisy. And, there is no telling how much longer this can go on?

Lawrence Davidson is a Professor of Middle East History at West Chester University in West ChesterPennsylvania.He is the author of America’s Palestine: Popular and Official Perceptions from Balfour to Israeli Statehood (University Press of Florida, 2001), Islamic Fundamentalism (Greenwood Press, 2003), and, co-author with Arthur Goldschmidt of the Concise History of the Middle East, 8th and 9th Editions (Westview Press, 2006 and 2009). His latest book is entitled Foreign Policy, Inc.: Privatizing American National Interest (University of Kentucky Press, 2009). Professor Davidson travels often and widely in the Middle East. He also has taken on the role of public intellectual in order to explain to American audiences the impact of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East.

Davidson is a regular contributor to Opinion Maker

For you and me ….. God bless all of us ….

Friday, December 24th, 2010

At this time in history, six billion of our neighbors are wondering about the issues and meaning of their life and worry about what we Americans believe.

This link below may remind us of who we are.

http://llerrah.com/viewcard.php?vflg=1&code=303551

A US plan for New US War Crimes … ?

Monday, December 20th, 2010
North Korea As Pretext: U.S. Builds Asian Military Alliance Against China And Russia
by Rick Rozoff
Global Research, December 3, 2010
Stop NATO

On December 1 the U.S. and its South Korean military ally completed four days of naval maneuvers in the Yellow Sea where China claims a 200-mile exclusive economic zone.

The U.S. dispatched the 97,000-ton USS George Washington nuclear-powered aircraft supercarrier for the exercise, accompanied by a carrier strike group consisting of a guided missile cruiser and three guided missile destroyers. The American deployment included 6,000 sailors and 75 aircraft. South Korea supplied destroyers, corvettes, frigates, support ships, anti-submarine aircraft and an undisclosed amount of military personnel.

The war games, which included live-fire shooting and bombing drills, were the latest in a series of U.S.-led military exercises in South Korea and the seas to its east and west beginning in July of this year:

From July 25-28 the U.S. conducted a joint military exercise with South Korea codenamed Invincible Spirit in the Sea of Japan/East Sea with the involvement of 20 warships including the USS George Washington supercarrier, 200 warplanes including F-22 Raptor stealth fighters and 8,000 troops.

In August the U.S. and South Korea conducted this year’s Ulchi Freedom Guardian military exercise, the world’s largest command and control simulation drill, in the latter country with 30,000 U.S. and 56,000 South Korean troops participating.

In early September Washington and Seoul held an anti-submarine warfare exercise in the Yellow Sea with two U.S. guided missile destroyers and a fast attack submarine and two South Korean destroyers.

Only the August exercise was a routine one, the latest in a series of Ulchi Freedom Guardian maneuvers held over several decades.

On the day the most recent military exercise ended, December 1, it was announced that the U.S. and South Korea will hold another military exercise this month. [1] The following day “South Korea…readied plans for more live-fire drills as a warning to North Korea and scheduled talks with the United States and Japan on dealing with [North Korea]….” [2] The armed forces of the Republic of Korea will begin five days of artillery drills on December 6 in 29 locations, including on border islands in the Yellow Sea.

On the same day Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will meet with the foreign ministers of South Korea and Japan in Washington, D.C., in a rebuff to China and Russia, which are partners in the six-party talks – along with the U.S., Japan, South Korea and North Korea – that have been held since 2003 after North Korea withdrew from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. This despite China calling for an emergency meeting of representatives to the six-nation negotiations and winning North Korea’s agreement to rejoin the long-stalled process. On December 2 Russia announced it was ready to participate in emergency talks with the six-country group.

Just as Russia and China were excluded from the U.S.-led investigation of the Cheonan sinking earlier this year, so now they are being brushed aside in favor of a confrontational U.S.-Japan-South Korea initiative.

Two days after the American-led naval exercise in the Yellow Sea concluded, the U.S. began a week-long exercise with Japan off the second nation’s islands near the South Korean coast. The war games, Keen Sword 2011, involve 60 warships, 400 aircraft and 44,000 troops and are the largest-ever joint U.S.-Japan military drills. Kyodo News disclosed that “The maneuvers will be carried out to practice for guarding against ballistic missile attacks and for defending remote Japanese islands,” the latter an allusion to a Chinese-Japanese territorial dispute in the East China Sea. Standard Missile-3 interceptors on U.S. and Japanese Aegis class destroyers deployed in the Sea of Japan and Patriot Advanced Capability-3 anti-ballistic missiles currently stationed at bases from the north to the south of Japan, Hokkaido to Okinawa, will be employed.

In the words of an Air Force major assigned to U.S. Forces Japan headquarters: “There’s going to be naval operations, air operations, land – pretty much the full spectrum of military activities. There is going to be a lot of flying, some movement involving the aircraft carrier George Washington.” [3]

South Korea’s military has been invited to attend the exercise as an observer, as Australian, British and French officers were on board USS George Washington for the exercise in the Yellow Sea that ended two days ago. In the words of Australian Minister Stephen Smith, “We had an official on board the USS George Washington as essentially a show of support.” [4] Japanese military personnel observed the Invincible Spirit naval exercise in the Sea of Japan in July.

As a recent Russian commentary characterized the now constant American military activity in East Asia – exemplified by the deployment of the George Washington supercarrier in waters off China’s and Russia’s coasts and island possessions in the Sea of Japan in July, in the South China Sea in August, in the Yellow Sea in November and at the confluence of the Sea of Japan and East China Sea this month – “the Pentagon [is] flexing its muscles against both North Korea and China.” [5]

And not only in respect to conventional forces. On November 22 South Korean Defense Minister Kim Tae-young responded to a question by one of his nation’s members of parliament on “whether the government intends to consider the redeployment of US tactical nuclear weapons in South Korea…in the affirmative.” [6]

Although the sinking of a South Korean corvette, Cheonan, in March has been used in the intervening nine months as the rationale for U.S.-led war games in the seas of East Asia, that incident in no manner accounts for joint American-Vietnamese naval drills in the South China Sea in August, visits to Australia and nine other Asia-Pacific nations by President Barack Obama, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen early last month [7], and the overall diplomatic offensive and military maneuvers Washington is intensifying in the region with each passing day.

Three months after the sinking of the Cheonan, President Obama accused his counterpart, Chinese President Hu Jintao, of “willful blindness” in relation to North Korea in what was reported as a “blunt” conversation during the Group of 20 summit in Toronto on June 27. [8]

Since North Korea’s shelling of the South Korean island of Yeonpyeong on November 23, the U.S. has intensified pressure on China to rein in North Korea. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mullen recently told a Washington, D.C. think tank audience that “Beijing’s call for consultations will not be a substitute for action,” and, in reference to China’s military modernization program: “I am concerned about some of the high-end capabilities that they clearly are developing. I don’t underestimate them in terms of capability. Some of the specific capabilities are very clearly focused on and pointed at the United States of America, and they are anti-access capabilities.” [9] That is, China has the temerity to develop defensive capabilities in the face of U.S. military presence off its coasts.

The U.S. is exploiting North Korea as a decoy to target China and is supporting Japan in territorial conflicts with both China and Russia [10] as components of a broader strategy to renew, enlarge and integrate military alliances throughout the Asia-Pacific area. [11]

Washington recognizes the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands, administered by Japan, as Japanese, but also refers to the Southern Kuril Islands, which since 1945 have belonged to Russia (and its predecessor state, the Soviet Union) as Japanese territories.

Hillary Clinton’s visit to New Zealand last month resulted in the signing of the Wellington Declaration committing the two countries to a new strategic partnership, annual military consultations and a resumption of joint military exercises. In fact what Clinton secured was the revival of the Cold War-era Australia, New Zealand, United States (ANZUS) Security Treaty which was signed during the Korean War and invoked to recruit Australian and New Zealand troops for the Vietnam War.

An Indian commentator said of the top U.S. diplomat’s achievement: “Clinton was not only given a traditional New Zealand Maori’s welcome called Powhiri, the greatest gift that she could bring back to Washington was the release of the New Zealand Defense White Paper 2010 two days before her arrival. The White Paper envisaged Wellington’s greater presence in the South Pacific and strengthening the alliance with Washington and Canberra.” [12]

Kevin Rudd, until recently Australia’s prime minister and now its foreign minister, affirmed on November 28 that “Australia could be drawn in to any military conflict on the Korean peninsula under its alliance with the US.” In his own words, “I…simply state the obvious: that under our alliance with the United States, Article 4 of the ANZUS Treaty is clear about our requirements to act to meet the common danger….” [13]

Similarly, a briefing note prepared for Defence Minister Peter MacKay of Canada revealed that “If war breaks out on the Korean peninsula, Canada could become embroiled due to a half-century-old United Nations military alliance,” the United Nations Command formed by the U.S. and its allies in the Korean War after the armistice was signed in 1953. The memo states that although the main “fighting formation” that would lead military operations against North Korea is the joint U.S.-South Korea Combined Forces Command, that joint command “includes under its strategic organizational umbrella the legacy United Nations Command.” [14]

Other members of the United Nations Command are Canada’s fellow NATO member states the U.S., Britain, France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Greece, Turkey and Luxembourg; ANZUS members Australia and New Zealand; the Philippines and Thailand, with which the U.S. has defense alliances – and military assistance obligations – comparable to those it has with Australia, Japan, New Zealand and South Korea.

As with the reactivation of trilateral ANZUS military obligations, so with the U.S.-Japanese mutual military assistance agreement. On October 27 Clinton held a press conference in Hawaii with Japanese Foreign Minister Seiji Maehara and when asked about an island chain contested by Japan and China – the Senkakus to Tokyo, the Diaoyus to Beijing – said, “the Senkakus fall within the scope of Article 5 of the 1960 U.S.-Japan Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security. This is part of the larger commitment that the United States has made to Japan’s security. We consider the Japanese-U.S. alliance one of the most important alliance partnerships we have anywhere in the world and we are committed to our obligations to protect the Japanese.”

She also said the Washington-Tokyo alliance “is the cornerstone of American strategic engagement in the Asia Pacific.” [15]

Two weeks later President Obama was in Yokohama, Japan for the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit and told Prime Minister Naoto Kan that the U.S.-Japan alliance is “the cornerstone of American strategic engagement in the Asia Pacific” and “the commitment of the United States to the defense of Japan is unshakable.” [16]

Clinton’s and Obama’s phraseology was identical.

In late October Clinton, flanked by her Japanese counterpart, said: “This year, we celebrate the 50th anniversary of our alliance, which was forged at the height of the Cold War,” in reference to the aforementioned Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan of 1960. [17]

In advance of the Keen Sword 2011 U.S.-Japan war games currently underway, Air Force Lieutenant General Hawk Carlisle, who is directing the exercise on the American side, stated in the middle of last month: “In 1960, Japan and the U.S. signed the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security. Participation in Keen Sword further enhances the Japan-U.S. alliance, which remains a key strategic relationship in the Asia-Pacific region.” [18]

Clinton’s spokesman, the State Department’s Philip Crowley, backed Japan’s territorial claims on Russia’s Kuril Islands on November 2, even referring to them as the Northern Territories, the Japanese government’s designation. He didn’t go as far as Clinton had five days earlier in pledging adherence to Article 5 of the U.S.-Japan treaty – “Each Party recognizes that an armed attack against either Party in the territories under the administration of Japan would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that it would act to meet the common danger” – but the prospect of Washington and Tokyo invoking the provision against Russia is not an unimaginable contingency.

On December 4 Japanese Foreign Minister Maehara will arrive at the northern island of Hokkaido “to view four Russian-held islands claimed by Japan, known as the Northern Territories in Japan and the Southern Kurils in Russia.” [19] While in Hokkaido, Maehara will meet with former residents of the Kurils.

Decades-old and until of late seemingly dormant or discarded military blocs, treaties and military assistance clauses are being resuscitated and expanded in the Asia-Pacific region. Military alliances modeled after the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in the area in the 1950s and their 21st century equivalents are being integrated into an eastern version of and in many ways extension of NATO. At least eight Asia-Pacific nations – Australia, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Mongolia, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea and Tonga – have troops assigned to NATO’s International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan.

As part of the Afghan war effort, NATO maintains a military presence in five nations bordering western China: Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan and Tajikistan.

Last month Japan announced that it was deploying an initial contingent of troops “to its westernmost island in response to Chinese naval manoeuvres in the East China Sea.” The first 100 troops will be sent to Yonaguni, the southernmost of the Ryukyu/Nansei islands less than 100 miles from the Senkaku/Diaoyu island grouping. The Japanese Defense Ministry is “also considering sending troops to the islands of Miyako and Ishigaki west of Okinawa to beef up border security.” [20] Ishigaki is also about 100 miles from the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands.

Regarding last month’s flurry of visits to the Asia-Pacific region by major U.S. foreign policy and military officials, The Hindu reported: “US visitors…declared Washington’s resolve to expand its footprint in South-East Asia. Clinton called for beefing up US military presence in Singapore, which implies a firmer grip on the strategic Strait of Malacca, strengthening defence cooperation with Thailand and the Philippines…and stepping up interaction with Vietnam.” [21]

The most ambitious element of American plans to forge an Asian equivalent of NATO is the recruitment of India as the largest and most strategically essential partner in the development of an eastern military bloc. The U.S. is moving to supplant Russia as India’s main weapons supplier and historical military ally and employing the South Asian nation to counter China’s emergence as a regional and world power.

Washington is proceeding at a breakneck – an alarming – pace with plans to politically and militarily polarize East Asia, using the crisis on the Korean Peninsula to do so. Attempts by China and Russia to defuse the conflict and resume negotiations aimed at its peaceful resolution are being spurned by headstrong and reckless U.S. government and military officials.

Russia and China share borders with North Korea. The U.S. is a continent away. A new conflagration on the peninsula would directly affect the first two nations. America can exploit a renewal of hostilities to reinstall itself in the Asia-Pacific region and use proxies – Japan as much as South Korea – to accomplish that objective.

Notes

1) Vladimir Fedoruk, US and South Korea plan more war games, Voice of Russia, December 1, 2010
2) Radio Netherlands/Agence France-Presse, December 2, 2010
3) Voice of America News, December 2, 2010
4) Australian Associated Press, November 30, 2010
5) Konstantin Garibov, Pentagon flexes muscles in Korea, Voice of Russia, November 26, 2010
6) Itar-Tass, November 22, 2010
7) Obama, Gates And Clinton In Asia: U.S. Expands Military Build-Up In The East, Stop NATO, November 7, 2010

http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2010/11/07/obama-gates-and-clinton-in-asia-u-s-expands-military-build-up-in-the-east

8) U.S. Risks Military Clash With China In Yellow Sea, Stop NATO, July 16, 2010

http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2010/07/16/u-s-risks-military-clash-with-china-in-yellow-sea]

9) CNN, December 1, 2010
10) U.S. Supports Japan, Confronts China And Russia Over Island Disputes, Stop NATO, November 4, 2010

http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2010/11/04/u-s-supports-japan-confronts-china-and-russia-over-island-disputes

11) Asia: Pentagon Revives And Expands Cold War Military Blocs, Stop NATO, September 14, 2010

http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2010/09/15/asia-pentagon-revives-and-expands-cold-war-military-blocs
U.S. Marshals Military Might To Challenge Asian Century, Stop NATO, August 21, 2010

http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2010/08/21/u-s-marshals-military-might-to-challenge-asian-century

12) Balaji Chandramohan, U.S. Strengthening Old Alliances in Asia Pacific to Contain the influence of China, Diplomatic Courier, November 30, 2010
13) The Australian, November 29, 2010
14) Mike Blanchfield, New Korean war could ensnare Canada, documents suggest, Canadian Press, November 26, 2010
15) U.S. Department of State, October 27, 2010
16) After NATO Summit, U.S. To Intensify Military Drive Into Asia, Stop NATO, November 17, 2010

http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2010/11/17/after-nato-summit-u-s-to-intensify-military-drive-into-asia

17) U.S. Department of State, October 27, 2010
18) Pacific Air Forces, November 15, 2010
19) Xinhua News Agency, November 30, 2010
20) Nikkei/Reuters, November 21, 2010
21) Vladimir Radyuhin, Indo-Russian ties: which way? The Hindu, November 27, 2010,
http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-opinion/article916376.ece

Rick Rozoff is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Rick Rozoff

Welcome to Our Future !

Thursday, December 16th, 2010

Do You Hear what I Hear?

By WJ Anthony

Have you heard the warnings?  What warnings? you ask.

Our generation of humanity, at least in USA, is accustomed to warnings, especially today.  It is in your neighborhood, on the TV and radio.  Sirens of police and fire fighters, cameras watching what we do at every stoplight, police at every city high school, airport surveillance with open hand touch or body scan radiation of passengers… except for the Wall Street “theftsters” of taxes or investments who cover the losses of scam by bankers who loaned money for sub-prime mortgages to people they knew couldn’t repay the inflated value of mortgages… or crooks…  who play with phony derivatives scams…  or politicians…  who run for public office to get payoffs and broads for serving the crimes of lobbies.  Things don’t look good in America.

What happened to this land of the free and home of the brave?  We thought we were wholesome people, families who were neighborly and concerned for the wellbeing of our country.   We went to church, paid our taxes, supported the local schools, and took family summer vacations to wholesome parks or lakes.  We didn’t litter the streets or highways.  We went to school and respected out teachers, learned the skills of our trade or industry, worked for our living, and respected the honesty of our bosses.  We paid our bills, and saved for the future, trusted our government, expected truth and justice, and lived with our spouse and loved our family.

Yet, since we were children, war and more wars were in our life, year after year killing and dying with never ending fear of threat and Armageddon hanging over our lives.  Why… a thousand US military based in nations throughout the world?

Why… could businesses in the US, be funded by US banks to close their US operations, lay off their US workers, build new facilities in foreign countries, pay their foreign workers a fraction of US wages to learn and produce the same products or services as their former US workers, and be permitted to ship and sell the foreign-made products or services back to the US consumer market, without needing to pay any import tariff?

Why did our presidents lie?  They lied about the causes of the Spanish American War; the War with Mexico; and World War One.

Franklin Roosevelt lied that Sunday morning, when he told us the Pearl Harbor attack was a surprise.

Truman lied about US involvement in the “police action,” known as the Korean War.

Lyndon Johnson looked us in the eye on TV and told the lie, that a North Vietnamese boat attacked our US ship in international waters; so he could take us head long into the shameful unjustifiable war against Vietnam at enormous cost in lives and treasure.

The first Bush president told ambassador April Glaspie to lie to Saddam Hussein about his dispute with Kuwait.

The young Bush president lied when he claimed that 19 Afghan Arabs hijacked four US airliners on 9/11 and crashed two of them into the World Trade Center towers, one into the Pentagon, and crashed a fourth plane in Pennsylvania and then had Cheney, Rumsfeld and Powell lie to television viewers and claim that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, which he intended to use in a biochemical attack against helpless Israel?

Both Bushes and Bill Clinton invaded and launched illegal and deadly wars that killed over 2 billion innocent Iraq and Afghan men, women and children.

Did we agree with the slaughter of millions of people by the Bushes and Clinton?

The antiwar protestor, Bill Clinton, when he was president, chose to carve his name in the blood of the innocent.  He ordered the illegal bombing of the people of Serbia for over 70 days without the consent of American people.

Did we agree with Bill Clinton on his War crime?

Do these lies justify war crimes?  Did the lies enable crooks to achieve world power?  Did the lies acquire wealth for certain decision makers?

Did the lies cause the depression and problems that Americans now face?

To understand policies of American government and the role of war in its operation, go to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations

More than three hundred specific wars took place outside of the continental US (some might be called military operations) since the birth of this nation.  Not included are the hundreds of wars and military operations against native people on their homeland.

That Wikipedia archive listed above, tells how mercantile-based companies, with the permission of Spanish, Dutch, and British kings, invaded the North America homeland of native peoples to steal the lands and resources and kill hundreds of thousands of native peoples in their homeland, which we now call “The United States of America.”

You may ask, “Why bring this up now; this is information of long ago?  What does that have to do with what we now face in the US?”

The US, or America, as we like to call it, is a result of a policy of British kings, who hoped to build a British Empire, based on their money, which would rule the world.

The gunboat diplomacy of Great Britain and the wars of the United States were never based on genuine justice.  Nowadays, we hear opinions that claim the US was built as a pillar of freedom, human rights, democracy, courage and honesty.  We cannot excuse our war with Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan.  The world knows the controlled demolitions crime of 9/11 was an inside job, to deceive the American people and Congress into allowing George W Bush to order the invasion and war in Afghanistan and Iraq, as the “Project for a New American Century.”

“We know this!” you might exclaim.  War is big business in America.  War creates a huge market for the tools of war.  Our war markets surpass all peacetime markets.  After World War 2, American people were anxious to buy the new products of peace – automatic clothes washers, dishwashers, refrigerators, freezers, television sets, automobiles, boats, etc.  When a consumer market of refrigerators, has been satisfied, sales to consumers drop to a small fraction of what they were previously.  Unless the manufacturers are able to produce and sell other products, they go out of business.

After the war, the need and market for war munitions was expected to decline; the people greeted the vision of a world without war.  The weapon industries lobbied Congress, the presidents and taxpayers to believe in the cold war.  It was a way to resume the war business.  Manufacturers know that war is the greatest profit making opportunity of all markets, because its products are continually used up or destroyed.  War always needs more of everything it can use.

War loves money.  It requires money – lots of money.  Since war is always an ‘emergency’ there are no excuses to reduce the supply of ‘vital’ war materials and the borrowed money that is required to purchase all the supplies and structures and employees and troops that should or can be used in war.  And since war is an emergency, the production and delivery of the armaments and processes of war need to be done as quickly as possible, which requires an arrangement to manufacture and deliver war on a ‘cost plus’ basis; the government interprets the ‘plus’ to mean ‘regardless of the cost’ or ‘whatever it costs under the sun’.

Which brings us to consider all the money involved in those US wars and military operations, first against the native peoples and then all the hundreds of other specific wars or military operations against peoples outside the continental US.  All the money that was borrowed to purchase the tools of war and equip “our men (and now women) in uniform” (so they could kill the enemy in one way or other or die as heroes), was spent as loans from bank corporations with the agreement by government that US taxpayers, for generations afterward, would repay the loans with interest after the end of the war.  Banking has probably been the biggest profiteer in wars, by the loans that they float to government and war industries and by their ownership of corporate investments in the war industries.  If there is no war, they have to start one.

Americans are told that our wars were fought to keep us free?  Did Woodrow Wilson or someone say, “We fought the World War to make the world safe for democracy.”  Really?  Should this tell us something?

What do the words of the Declaration of Independence mean in its second paragraph?

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.  That whenever any form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

The Declaration was created over a decade before the US Constitution.  There are two great and essential differences between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

1.  The Declaration says all people are endowed with “certain inalienable Rights” from their Creator, which means no president, Congress, or church or brotherhood has the authority to remove those rights from a person.

2.  The purpose of Government is to secure that birthright for each of us.   In effect, the Declaration declared the inalienable Rights to be a birthright.

How did the Creator intend that birthright to be achieved?  The Declaration specifically listed three rights. What does Life include and what does Liberty include?  We might be surprised by the answers.

The Declaration said those three rights were among other rights.  What might be the other rights?

The right to not be deliberately aborted once a person is conceived and starts to become one of us?

One of the birthrights was the right to pursue Happiness.  What does Happiness include?

Happiness requires an appropriate standard of living that includes appropriate goods and services.   Infants, children, adults and senior aged people have certain needs that are necessary to be satisfied and able to be happy.

When the Declaration described the inalienable Rights, it said not a word about money, such as money earning more money, or spending money.   The Declaration inferred the need for goods and services, when it mentioned that we have the right to pursue Happiness.

Might a Birthright-based government foster many improvements in a person’s satisfaction of Liberty?   Would it be wise for the Birthright government to respect the right of a mature, dissenting contender, who rejects the premises and functions of the Birthright government and its society?  Could a provision be incorporated in the plan of a Birthright society and its government, to arrange a significant opportunity for dissidents with such contentions?

America has vast areas of natural challenge, such as unproductive badlands, deserts, or frontiers that are undeveloped but could offer significant resources if they were developed.   Contenders could be offered government help, to develop a pilot project that might express the process and conditions that a contender would approve.  If a contender was offered an area of challenge for a pilot project, and the contender was able to demonstrate that his or her vision was feasible to coherently satisfy happiness for its users, then continued assistance could be appropriately offered to the contender by the Birthright government.  The value of offering such a provision is that, a better idea might emerge from the pilot project, which could be successfully adopted by the established system of government.

The ‘pursuit’ of ‘Happiness’, may require transportation, safety, healthcare, tools, communication, special services and provisions.  That would especially be true for handicapped or ill people.   Education would help each person to develop and use their freedom of discovery to select a role in life, by which they can pursue the happiness of fulfillment.

Besides the things mentioned above, ‘Happiness’ probably requires appropriate means to participate with other people and opportunities to express personal understandings.

In the present money-based Government, based on the Constitution, the goods and services, which people need, are purchased by money, if they have money.  The Government coins money and determines its value.   The government obtains money by taxing the people it governs and uses that money to sustain the services of people who the government employs and to purchase the facilities that those officers of government use to perform their vested powers.

The Constitution does not assign to the Government the duty to organize the political or economic facilities to produce and distribute goods and services to satisfy the inalienable Rights of its citizens.   The Constitution mentions nothing about inalienable Rights.

The original proposed text of the Constitution said nothing about people having any rights or how they obtained their rights.  The Convention, which created the Constitution, would have failed to pass the original proposed text of the Constitution, without including the ten proposed amendments.  Those ten amendments became what are known as the Bill of Rights.  The Bill of Rights does not contain any words that suggest or state where people get their rights.

The Constitution in Article 1, Sections 2, 7, 9 mentions money, and Section 8 declares the powers of Congress to create and handle money.  The judgment and administrative functions of government listed in the Constitution and its Articles and Amendments demonstrate that the new Government of the United States was not intended to secure the inalienable Rights of all of the people that it would govern.

Why didn’t the Constitution state that the purpose of Government was to secure the inalienable Rights of people it governs?  The second paragraph of the Declaration was widely known throughout America during the Revolutionary War and after the war.

Does War violate the inalienable Rights of each human being to live and be free to pursue Happiness?

If the purpose of Government is to secure the inalienable Rights of each person, would those Rights preclude the US Government from waging war?

Do our inalienable Rights require our Government to secure peace and beneficial relations among our people and help the people in other governments to live and be free to pursue happiness?

Would the inalienable Rights have required the wealthy slave owning men of the American colonies to recognize and accept the inalienable Rights of their own wives and daughters, their slaves, and the native people?

If a new Government of The United States would organize the production and distribution of goods and services to secure the birthrights of its citizens to live and be free to pursue their Happiness, would any Americans be unemployed and loaded with debt and foreclosed mortgages?

Would Americans consent to change their Government, so that it would be able to secure their inalienable Right to pursue Happiness?

If the powers of American Government were organized to provide each person with food, clothing, the necessities of life, a home for shelter, and appropriate opportunities to participate in the pursuit of happiness, would you like to live, as a citizen, in that America?

* If you have read the foregoing text, we invite you to respond to the following question and then copy and paste the question and your response and email it to:   wjanthony11@yahoo.com After we tally the responses, we will publish the results on this blog.  Thank you for visiting.

Should the United States reorganize its powers of Government with the authority and responsibility to secure the inalienable Rights of each person, and to organize the production and distribution of goods and services, so as to provide each citizen with appropriate food, clothing, the necessities of life, a home for shelter, and appropriate opportunities to participate in their pursuit of happiness?

YES _______          NO_______

WIKI … US … by WIKI who … ?

Thursday, December 2nd, 2010

WIKI-MURDERS…

WIKI-TERROR….

WIKI-WAR

Posted on 01. Dec, 2010 by Raja Mujtaba in Opinion

[Translate]

By Gordon Duff STAFF WRITER/Senior Editor

An attack on American forces in the Persian Gulf is being planned.  Wikileaks is an integral part of the operation.  Step one was the current “diplomatic” Wikileak.  Step two, the brazen “Mossad style”murders in Iran.

Wikileaks couldn’t be more involved if they built the bombs or fired the missiles themselves.

When America is attacked, either in the Persian Gulf or at home, Wikileaks will be a part of it.  The operation is staged for the Persian Gulf where American warships are “sitting ducks” for a sneak attack like the USS Liberty “incident.”

As with the Liberty attack, Israel can use friends in high places in the United States to assure that if they are blamed, they can claim it was an honest mistake, even if an American super-carrier goes down with all hands.

The preferred weapon will be submarine launched missiles, probably with small nuclear warheads, that will appear to be launched from Iran. Israeli submarines are currently on station within range of American targets, subs known to be armed with cruise type missiles similar to those used by Iran.  The attacks on US forces are dependent on the build-up of tensions tied to terror bombings that have killed one Iranian scientist and wounded another.

A “working group” within the American military is tasked with placing the blame on Iran with “in the can” intelligence much as was used on 9/11. The same forces responsible for planning the Building 7 demolition on 9/11 are being called upon.

Iran is being “set up” through terrorist attacks timed to make any military action in the region immediately look like Iran “out of control.”  More attacks on scientists and their families are planned until international tensions are high enough for a “false flag” terror attack on the United States to seem plausible.

Key media assets have been warning that a major story can be expected.

It will be claimed Iran attacked the United States in retaliation for terrorist acts Iran now  blames on Israel and the United States.  In truth, these acts are meant to be intentional provocations, but it is clearly understood that Iran is incapable of acting.  Russia has never delivered the advanced air defense system Iran needs and with virtually no air force, Iran is incapable of resisting an American onslaught.

A SIGNATURE MOSSAD OPERATION

The attacks have killed one scientist and wounded another.  The wives of both men were wounded.  Israel has done everything but announce that it planned and executed these attacks and is planning more. Iran is being dared to respond but, in fact, no response by Iran will be necessary.  Sources tell us that an act of war against the United States, one which can be blamed on Iran, is in the planning.

The attacks inside Iran are staged from Azerbaijan, Afghanistan and Baluchistan, a remote province of Pakistan.  Each of these nations has surrendered control of border regions with Iran to intelligence agencies, including the CIA, Mossad and MI-6.  All have separatist movements with ties to Israel and India.

The Baloch separatist group, Jundullah, funded by the CIA and operated by the Mossad, acts for Israel much as Hizbollah acts for Iran in Lebanon.  Regular terror attacks inside Iran are staged, not only military targets but mosque bombings and assassinations.  Jundullah, the PKK in Turkey and Kurdistan, the Tehrik-i-Taliban in Pakistan, all are operated by Israel as surrogates, attacking Turkey, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan and sometimes American forces as well.

WIKILEAKS TIMING

There is now little doubt that Wikileaks is an intelligence operation managed from Tel Aviv, carrying out Israeli foreign policy.  The most recent “leaks” have successfully reset the diplomatic stage in the Middle East, exposing undercurrents of animosity against Iran while destroying American diplomatic credibility.

Were a crisis in the region to arise, and one is already in motion thanks to the Israeli terrorists openly operating inside Iran, the United States would now be hamstrung in attempts to foster a regional settlement.  Nobody is talking, not anymore, not when anything said will be in the newspapers and nobody is trusting the United States.  President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton have been exposed as highly suspicious of Gulf region allies.

As clear as it was, from the outset, that Wikileaks is an intelligence operation of Israel, making use of their extensive network within the Departments of Defense and State, staffed by hundreds of “dual citizens,” it is really the powerful Israeli lobby, AIPAC, that makes it all possible.

AIPAC SPYING ACCUSATIONS

Former AIPAC lobbyist, Steve Rosen, an employee we have been informed was fired, not for spying against the United States but being “caught,” is suing the organization for defamation.  He claims to have extensive files outlining spy operations by AIPAC that penetrate every aspect of America’s national security, information he claims the FBI has had all along, has had but has ignored.

Rosen claims, in a sense, that AIPAC is a spy organization.

AIPAC, the single most powerful organization in American politics, no member of congress, no president has ever held office without their blessing, has long been reputed to be a foreign lobby.  However, loopholes created specifically for AIPAC allow it to circumvent all regulations that help protect America from foreign influences.

Now it is believed that the information Rosen is referring to is actually Wikileaks itself and that AIPAC is, in fact, Wikileaks.

AMERICA, NOT THE SAME “RUBES” AS ON 9/11

One question that is never asked in the United States is how many American believe 9/11 was not what it seemed.  After ABC’s Jon Faine attacked Kevin Bracken, a popular Australian labor leader, a poll with over 10,000 respondents showed 77% support for a 9/11 conspiracy.  Though Bracken never accused Israel, Jon Faine was clear.  Faine believed that, if 9/11 was a “false flag” that Israel would be blamed.

Though it isn’t clear how many Americans support one of the several 9/11 conspiracies, with or without Israel’s involvement, one thing is clear.  When a suspected terrorist is arrested and a terrorist plot is uncovered, Americans seem unconcerned and millions are clearly skeptical.  The current car bomb threat in Portland, Oregon is one such incident.  There is no news followup, no internet chatter, nothing on “talk radio.”  Most Americans assume the FBI invented the whole thing.  Though this is probably not true, it is far easier to convince the average American the FBI has “gone bad” than of terrorist plotters.

A decade of phony alerts, airport hassles and outright lies have worn Americans out on terrorism.  If asked, Americans would say, “bring it on.”  However, it is because they fear real terrorists much less than their own political leaders, both former and current.

PLANS FOR A “WIKI-WAR”

The geopolitical goals of a “Wiki-War” are potentially unlimited.  The China-Iran-Pakistan axis, one that really doesn’t yet exist, could be preempted.  Turkey can be isolated from its Islamic neighbors and intimidated.  More likely, Israeli expansion is looking toward Western Iraq, where Israel has maintained a foothold in Mosul, near the Syrian border, for decades.  Israel believes Western Iraq is as much a part of Israel as Jerusalem itself, tracing their stake on the region back 3500 years.

Israel has managed to play Chaldean Christian groups against their Shiite neighbors, who have longstanding enmity toward their Sunni countrymen, a region ripe for plucking.  With Iran crushed by the United States, a nation whose economic viability would face immediate collapse with the closing of Persian Gulf oil supplies, a power vacuum would immediately open.  Wikileaks has had significant success in neutering America’s diplomatic capabilities, leaving Israel as the regions only military force.

The “Wiki-War” is dependent on Iran having no air force and poor air defenses.  With these crippling problems and a “defense only” capability aimed at shutting off the world’s oil supply, an air campaign against Iran will be devastatingly successful.  Iran is virtually defenseless against it.

When the oil stops and the banks and stock markets crash, the exodus of “dual citizens” will begin.

Gordon Duff is a Marine Vietnam veteran, and Senior Editor at Veterans Today. His career has included extensiveexperience in international banking along with such diverse areas as consulting on counter insurgency, defense technologies or acting as diplomatic officer of UN humanitarian groups. Gordon Duff’s articles are published around the world and translated into a number of languages. He is regularly on TV and radio, a popular and sometimes controversial guest. He is a regular contributor to Opinion Maker