Tuesday, May 1, 2012

Washington ramping up a new cold war, brewing a conflict with china...

Washington ramping up a new cold war, brewing a conflict with china...

Zioconned Washington has pressured the Philippines, whose government it owns, into conducting joint military exercises in the South China Sea. Washington’s excuse is that China has territorial disputes with the Philippines, Indonesia, and other countries concerning island and sea rights in the South China Sea. Washington asserts that China’s territorial disputes with the like of Indonesia and the Philippines are a matter of United States’ national interests.

Washington has not made it clear what Washington’s stake is in the disputes. The reason Washington cannot identify why China’s disputes with the Philippines and Indonesia are threats to the United States is that there is no reason. Nevertheless, the undefined “threat” has become the reason Washington needs more naval bases in the Philippines and South Korea.

What this is all about is provoking a long-term cold war conflict with China that will keep
profits and power flowing into Washington’s military-security complex. Large profits flow to armaments companies. A portion of the profits reflow into campaign contributions to “the people’s representatives” in DC and to presidential candidates who openly sell out their country to private interests.

Washington is going to construct new naval bases in the Philippines and on the environmentally protected Jeju Island belonging to South Korea. Washington will waste tax revenues, or print more money, in order to build the unnecessary fleets to occupy these bases. Washington is acquiring bases in Australia for US Marines to protect Australia from China, despite the lack of Chinese threats against Australia. Bush and Obama are the leading models of the “people’s president” who sell out the people, at home and abroad, to private interests.

Why is Washington ramping up a new cold war?

The answer begins with President Eisenhower’s warning to the American people in his last public address about the military/industrial complex in 1961. I won’t quote the warning as it is available online. Eisenhower pointed out to Americans that unlike previous wars after which the US demilitarized, after World War II the cold war with the Soviet Union kept the power and profits flowing into the military/industrial complex, now known as the military/security complex. President Eisenhower said that the flow of power and profit into the military/industrial complex was a threat to the economic wellbeing and liberty of the American people.

No one paid any attention, and the military/security complex was glad to be rid of the five-star general war hero president when his second term expired. Thanks to the hype about the “Soviet threat,” the military/security complex faced an unlimited horizon of mounting profits and power as Americans sacrificed their future to the interests of those who protected Americans from the Soviet threat.

The good times rolled for the armaments companies and security agencies for almost three decades until Reagan and Gorbachev reached agreement and ended the cold war. When the Soviet Union subsequently collapsed, the future outlook for the power and profit of the US military/security complex was bleak. The one percent was about to lose its fortunes and the secret government was about to lose its power.

The military/security complex went to work to revive the need for a massive “defense” and “security” budget. Among their willing tools were the neoconservatives, with their French Jacobin ideology and Israeli loyalties. The neocons defined America as the “indispensable people.” Such extraordinary people as Americans must establish hegemony over the world as the sole remaining superpower. As most neoconservatives are allied with Israel, the Muslim Middle East became the target of opportunity.

Muslims are sufficiently different from Westerners that Muslims are easy to demonize.
The demonization began in the neoconservative publications. Once Dick Cheney had the George W. Bush regime staffed with neoconservatives, the next step was to create “threats” to Americans out of verbiage about the Taliban’s responsibility for 9/11 and about “Iraqi weapons of mass destruction,” including verbal images from Bush’s National Security Advisor of “mushroom clouds” over US cities.

No one in the US government or the “free” US media or the media of the US puppet states in England, Europe, Japan, Taiwan, Canada, Australia and South Korea was struck by Washington’s proposition that “the world’s sole superpower” was threatened by the likes of Iraq and Iran, neither of which had any offensive military capability or any modern weapons, according to the unequivocal reports of the weapons inspectors.

What kind of “superpower” is threatened by Iraq and Iran? Certainly, not a real one.

No one seemed to notice that the alleged 9/11 hijackers were Saudi Arabians, not Afghans or Iraqis, yet it was Afghanistan and Iraq that were labeled “terrorist threats.” Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, which do terrorize their subjects, are safe from having America bring them democracy, because they are Washington’s puppets, not independent countries.

As fear of nonentities swept over the population of “the world’s sole superpower,” the demands for war against “America’s enemies”–”you are with us or against us”–swept through the country. “Support the troops” plastic ribbons appeared on American cars. Americans went into a frenzy. The “towel heads” were after us, and we had to fight for our lives or be murdered in our beds, shopping centers, and airliner seats.

It was all a hoax to replace the Soviet threat with the Muslim threat.

The problem that developed with the “Muslim threat” is that in order to keep the profits and power flowing into the military/security complex, the promised six-week war in Iraq had to be extended into 8 years. The war in Afghanistan against a few thousand lightly armed Taliban has persisted for more than a decade, longer than the attempted Red Army occupation of Afghanistan.

In other words, the problem with hot wars is that the need not to win them in order to keep them going (Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan are all long-term wars never won) in order that the profits and power continue to flow to the military/security complex demoralizes the US military and creates the world-wide impression that the “world’s sole superpower” cannot even defeat a few thousand insurgents armed with AK-47s, much less a real army.

In Iraq and Afghanistan more US soldiers have died from demoralization and suicides than from combat. In Iraq, the US was humiliated by having to end the war by putting the Sunni insurgents on the US military payroll and paying them to stop killing US troops. In Korea the US was stopped by an army of a backward third world country that lived on rice. What would happen today if the US “superpower’s” militarily confronted China, a country with an economy on which the US is dependent, about equal in size to the US economy, operating on its home territory? The only chance the evil in Washington would have would be nuclear war, which would mean the destruction of the entire world by Washington’s hubris.

Fortunately, profits are more important to Washington than ending life on earth. Therefore, war with China will be avoided, just as it was avoided with the Soviet Union. However, China will be presented by Washington and its prostitute media, especially the New York Times, Washington Post, and Murdoch’s collection of whores, as the rising threat to America. The media story will shift the importance of America’s allies from Europe to countries bordering the South China Sea. American taxpayers’ money, or newly printed money, will flow into the “new alliance against China.”

China’s rise is a great boon to the US military/security complex, which governs america in which there is a pretense of “freedom and democracy.” China is the profitable replacement for the “Soviet threat.” As the days go by, the presstitute media will create in the feeble minds of Americans “The CHINA Threat.”

Soon whatever little remains of the US living standard will be sacrificed to Washington’s confrontation with China, along with the seizure of our pensions and personal savings in order to deter “the China threat.”

If only Americans were an intelligent people. Then they might have some prospect of holding on to their incomes, remaining wealth, and liberty. Unfortunately, Americans are so thoroughly plugged into the Matrix that they present as a doomed people, incapable of thought, reason, or ability to comprehend the facts that the rest of the world sees clearly.

Can reality be brought to the American people? Perhaps a miracle will occur. Stay tuned....

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following....

By Stephen Lendman

So does NATO. It’s America’s Zioconned imperial tool. An alliance for war, not peace, enemies were invented post-Soviet Russia.

Communism then was the alleged threat. Today it’s terrorism. Strategically intervening under US control, world peace and humanity are threatened.

NATO wages America’s wars. Middle East, North Africa, and Central Asian ones involve Israel. Both countries threaten world peace.

Israel wants unchallenged regional power. Washington wants it globally. Together, they threaten humanity. Hell hath no fury like their alliance.

Obama is America’s latest warrior president. He exceeds the worst of his predecessors. He accomplished the impossible. He governs to the right of George Bush. Yet he retains enough support so far for reelection.

In November, perhaps the economy will undo him. Perhaps he’ll avoid it by heightening fear for more war. He’s more belligerent than all his predecessors.

Public apathy lets him get away with it. People worry more about pocket book issues. Manipulated fear diverts them to security. It works most every time.

Peter Bergin’s an establishment figure. He directs national security studies for the New America Foundation. He’s also a right-wing print and television contributor, as well as a member of the National Security Preparedness Group. It replaced the 9/11 Commission to perpetuate its whitewash.

On April 28, his New York Times op-ed headlined “Warrior in Chief,” saying:

After getting the Nobel Peace Peace prize months into his tenure, he “turned out to be one of the most militarily aggressive American leaders in decades.”

He’s worse than that, of course. He exceeds all his predecessors by far. No one’s been more belligerent. No one waged more wars simultaneously and threatens more. No one endangers humanity like he does.

Candidate Obama promised peace. President Obama doubled down George Bush and then some. Discussing Afghanistan on October 27, 2007, he said:

“I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this (and the Iraq) war(s). You can take that to the bank.”

Months earlier he said:

“If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and (Afghan) President Musharraf won’t act, we will. I will not hesitate to use military force to take out terrorists who pose a direct threat to America.”

Perhaps no remembers either statement. Perhaps too few know America’s only enemies are ones it invents. Terrorism is a catch-all term used to incite fear and justify conflict. When it wears thin, something else will replace it.

Bergin tried having it both ways. His title implies criticism. His content combines praise and muted disapproval. He avoided rule of law principles, truth and full disclosure.

His article ignores Obama’s threat to world peace, his Nobel award hypocrisy, and how he and Bush alienated more countries than any previous US leader.

Liberals helped elect him, said Bergin “in part because of his opposition to the Iraq (and Afghan) war(s).” They “probably don’t celebrate (his) military accomplishments.”

Bergin calls them “sizable,” but couldn’t name any. He tried, of course, but failed. He “decimated Al Qaeda’s leadership,” he claimed. In fact, popular resistance across North Africa, the Middle East, and Central Asia looks stronger than ever. The more deaths at America’s hands, the more enemies it makes.

“He overthrew the Libyan dictator.” In fact, Africa’s most developed country was ravaged, not liberated. Libya’s a charnel house, a raging cauldron. No central authority exists. Battles rage for control. Libyans are terrorized, traumatized, and impoverished. Some accomplishment!

“He ramped up drone attacks in Pakistan, waged effective covert wars in Yemen and Somalia, and authorized a threefold increase in the number of American troops in Afghanistan.”

Is Bergin pleased or critical? It’s hard to say. He admitted that Obama “became the first president to authorize the assassination of a (US) citizen.” He falsely called Anwar al-Awlaki a threat. He also claimed Obama killed Osama.

He ignored the staged event. Bin Ladin wasn’t killed or targeted. Seriously ill, he died naturally in December 2001. On December 26, 2001, Fox News reported it, saying:

He “died a peaceful death due to an untreated lung complication, the Pakistan Observer reported, citing a Taliban leader who allegedly attended (his) funeral.”

Other media also reported his death. In October 2007, appearing on BBC with David Frost, former Pakistan Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto said bin Laden died years ago. In December that year, she was assassinated in Rawalpindi. Perhaps her admission played a part.

Obama didn’t kill Osama. Dead men don’t die twice.

Bergin wonders why Obama supporters ignore his “acting as judge and executioner” by ordering hundreds of drone strikes, killing thousands since 2009.

There’s been a “dramatic cognitive disconnect between (his) record and the public perception of his leadership.” Despite his belligerence, conservatives and others think he’s a “peacenik.”

Political posturing, of course, explains it. Supporter views are another matter. Clear facts are in plain sight. Many don’t accept them. Obama’s rhetoric belies his policies.

During Bush’s tenure, drone attacks struck Pakistan “every 43 days.” In Obama’s first two years alone, it was “every four days.”

Perhaps it’s now multiple times daily in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Iraq, other targeted countries, and more to come. Obama the peace candidate is “more Teddy Roosevelt than Jimmy Carter.”

In 1906, TR won a Nobel Peace Prize, but didn’t wage war on humanity. Carter was the 2002 recipient. Obama elevated Nobel hypocrisy to new heights. Bergin noted how fast he opts for military intervention.

Knowledgeable supporters shouldn’t be surprised. Politicians always say one thing and do another, especially on issues matter most like waging war.

In office, Bush expanded CIA funding, staff, and operations. Obama outdid him and then some for covert missions, drone wars, and other initiatives. Stopping short of calling him “trigger-happy,” Bergin said he’s “completely shaken the ‘Vietnam syndrome….”

Perhaps he forgot GHW Bush saying on March 2, 1991, after the Gulf War:

“By God, we’ve kicked the Vietnam syndrome once and for all.”

He was right. From January then to now, America’s been at war with Iraq, Yugoslavia, and elsewhere from North Africa to Central Asia. Obama’s its latest exponent. Trigger-happy fits him well.

Waging multiple wars, he can’t wait to start another. In a second term, who knows what he’ll do.

Partnered with Israel should give supporters pause. Both nations are modern day Spartas. Militarism and war is their way of life, overtly and covertly. Both are also nuclear armed and dangerous.

Under its current leadership, Israel is especially threatening. On April 28, Haaretz headlined “Israel’s former Shin Bet chief: I have no confidence in Netanyahu, Barak,” saying:

Yuval Diskin harshly criticized both leaders. They’re not worthy to lead Israel, he said, explaining:

“My major problem is that I have no faith in the current leadership, which must lead us in an event on the scale of war with Iran or a regional war.”

“I don’t believe in either the prime minister or the defense minister. I don’t believe in a leadership that makes decisions based on messianic feelings.”

Both are “messianics,” he said. One’s from “Akirov or the Assuta project.” The other’s from “Gaza Street or Caesarea.” He referred to where they live. They ought to be cordoned off and kept there.

“Believe me, I have observed them from up close…. They are not people who I, on a personal level, trust to lead Israel to an event on that scale and carry it off. These are not people who I would want to have holding the wheel in such an event.”

“They are misleading the public on the Iran issue. They tell the public that if Israel acts, Iran won’t have a nuclear bomb. This is misleading. Actually, many experts say that an Israeli attack would accelerate the Iranian nuclear race.”

In March, former Mossad head Meir Dagan said attacking Iran would be “devastating” for Israel. Doing so would ignite regional war. You know how things start, but not end. Attacking Iran will put Israel “in a very serious situation for quite a time.”

Diskin added that over the past 10 or 15 years, Israel got “more racist….toward Arabs and foreigners, and we are also….a more belligerent society.”

He also worries about extremist Jews. He fears another political assassination like Yitzhak Rabin, and wonders what could come next.

Commenting at the time, Haaretz contributor Amos Harel headlined “Shin Bet chief’s vote of no confidence is another blow to Netanyahu and Barak,” saying:

His rebuke and Diskin’s elevated “the confrontation over the Iranian question to another level….Dagan seems to be on a divine mission to stop the bombing.”

Diskin feels the same way. So do other cooler heads, but they’re outnumbered in high places.

Nonetheless, senior Israeli security officials “whisper” similar views. Shouting might work better.

Diskin’s rebuke followed IDF chief Benny Gantz calling Iran’s leadership “very rational.” He doubted Tehran would “go the extra mile” to develop nuclear weapons.

Netanyahu, Barak, and others around them go to great lengths to cite nonexistent threats, Israel’s determination to remove them, and efforts to enlist America’s support. In an election year. Perhaps 2013, not now.

Political Washington wants regime change. Whether by war isn’t known. Even America has cooler heads but not enough.

“Nothing has been determined in the Iranian story, and the spring is about to boil over into another summer of tension,” said Harel.

If Obama heads for Israel soon, it’ll show Washington’s going all out to avoid war this year. Wait ’till next year, he may say. Belligerent partners may delay another fight, but seldom decline them.

For now, Syria is top priority. Obama and Netanyahu want Assad replaced with a puppet regime subservient to Washington and Israel. Western generated violence rages for it. Intervention may follow.

Harel left that issue unaddressed or the legitimacy of waging wars against non-belligerent states. What’s more important than that.

Haaretz contributor Gideon Levy believes “Nothing has changed in Israel since 1948,” saying:

Business as usual continues. “In 1948, new immigrants were brought straight from the ships into abandoned Palestinian homes with pots of food still simmering in the kitchen, and no one asked too many questions.”

“In 2012, the Israeli government is trying to whitewash the theft of Palestinian lands, all the while scorning the law.”

Earlier crimes repeat now. Those in power “us(e) the same corrupt means” as before. War crimes then become today’s. Justifications always are fraudulent. At issue are land and power grabs.

Continuing them sends the world a message. “We will never stop this crushing, ultranationalist melody – then as now, in 1948 and in 2012.”

Levy also came down hard on Zionist ideology headlining “After 115 years, it’s time for Zionism to retire,” saying:

It should have happened long ago. Something more legitimate is needed. In its 64th year as a state, “no one even knows what” role Zionism has or “how it is defined.”

Consign it to the history books and be done with it. It’s no longer relevant. It’s done enough damage. Reinvigorating or reinventing a bad idea assures something worse as a result.

“In Israel 2012, a pursuer of justice and human rights is by definition not Zionist.” Even discussing morality and rule of law principles “is blatantly ‘not Zionist.’ “

“Anyone who blindly supports all of Israel’s misdeeds (is) Zionist. Critics are called anti-Semites, even if they are Jewish.”

“Zionism is a negative epithet and….mark of shame.” It’s time has passed. It never should have been in the first place.

Imagine the bloodshed avoided. Imagine how many lives will be spared if peace, reconciliation, and justice replace Zionist instigated conflict.

It’s about dominance, not Jewishness. Everyone for right over wrong should want it sent to history’s dustbin and rejected.

It might even slow Washington’s war machine. Stopping it takes heavier lifting. What better time to start than now.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening...


No comments:

Post a Comment