World War III - The New Axis of Evil

[mick silver]

Source: Storm Clouds Gathering (http://stormcloudsgathering.com/world-war-3-new-axis)


The alliances and proxies of the Syrian Front explained.

The concept that humanity is teetering on the edge of third world war is no longer the domain of the lunatic fringe (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/11920013/Heres-how-World-War-Three-could-start-tomorrow.html).
Those of you who have been paying attention know that in reality, the war is already underway (http://edition.cnn.com/2015/11/24/middleeast/warplane-crashes-near-syria-turkey-border/). In this video we're going examine the profiles of the key players and the alliances they've formed, expose their motives, and present evidence of crimes that they've already committed. All of our sources will be linked below.
The Map of AlliancesRussia, China (http://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/russia-china-oppose-forced-regime-change-in-syria-1.410340), and Iran (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-syria-crisis-iran-idUSBRE88007120120901) have all explicitly sided with the Syrian government. Russia is providingair support (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34882503), advanced anti-aircraft missile systems (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34976537), heavy weapons (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/14/russia-sends-artillery-and-tanks-to-syria-as-part-of-continued-military-buildup) and training (http://www.france24.com/en/20151202-russia-syria-military-exercises-prepare-idlib-battle).
Iran, for its part, has troops on the ground (http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/10/reports-iranian-troops-syria-joint-offensive-151001143337046.html).
For the time being, China is more preoccupied with the ongoing tensions in the South China Sea (http://time.com/4093997/wu-shengli-china-navy-us/), and has not flexed its muscles in Syria as of yet. However, they should always be considered a wildcard variable (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-23845800).
The current Iraqi government is also a wildcard. In 2015 they began to indicate where their loyalties lay in several meaningful ways. For example they told the U.S. government that new ground operations were not welcome (http://thehill.com/policy/defense/258342-iraqi-government-says-it-doesnt-want-us-ground-operations), while at the same time announcing that they intend to look to Russia for military assistance (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-iraq-russia-idUSKCN0S112120151007).
The list of countries pushing for regime change in Syria is a bit longer: The United States, France, England, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Qatar, Turkey and Israel. If seeing these characters in bed together strikes you as strange, looking at their motives will clarify things considerably.
A Matrix of MotivesThere isn't just one motive for this bloodbath. Rather there is a matrix of motives which intersect in some rather odd places.
Of course money had to play a role.
In 2009, Qatar put forth a proposal (http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/pipeline-politics-in-syria/) to build a natural gas pipeline which would have passed through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, to Turkey (http://www.thenational.ae/business/energy/qatar-seeks-gas-pipeline-to-turkey) and into Europe. The president of Syria, however rejected this proposal. Instead, in 2011 he forged a pact with Iraq and Iran to run a pipeline eastward (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424053111903591104576467631289250392?mg=ren o64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB1000 1424053111903591104576467631289250392.html) cutting Qatar and Saudi Arabia out of the loop completely.
It was around this time that jihadists began flooding into the region intent on ousting Assad. The West presented these groups (https://twitter.com/senjohnmccain/status/339455679800700928) as freedom fighters.
Sectarian GeopoliticsThe vast majority of these militants (ISIS included) are Sunni jihadists, which is significant, because Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey and Jordan are all Sunni as well.
And Saudi Arabia in particular has a long history of spreading their preferred strain of sunni extremism (http://theweek.com/articles/570297/how-saudi-arabia-exports-radical-islam) (Wahhabism) by investing heavily in building mosques, madrasas, schools, and Sunni cultural centers across the Muslim world. Now they have ISIS pushing it by the barrel of a gun (ISIS adheres to the Wahhabi form of Sunni Islam).
ISIS is not merely some dark aberration. Wahhabism as a philosophy calls for its adherents to take the reigns of power by force, and to impose sharia law. Wahhabism also encourages its followers to persecute Shia muslims (http://www.internationalpolicydigest.org/2014/05/26/saudi-arabias-escalating-campaign-shia-muslims/), which they consider apostates. And of course apostasy is punishable by death.
Iran is Shia. The current government in Iraq is Shia, and has strong ties with Iran (http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/policy-budget/warfare/2014/12/30/iraq-iran-isil/21051369/). The pipeline deal which Assad accepted would strengthen this Shia block, and its regional influence. The Sunnis don't like this, in fact they've even coined a term to describe it: The Shia Crescent (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/jan/26/worlddispatch.ianblack).
Israel also doesn't like this "Shia Crescent", at all, and they have decided to work with the Sunnis to form a parallel block (http://www.algemeiner.com/2015/10/15/a-parallel-crescent-to-stop-iran-in-its-tracks/) to counter balance Iran's influence.
That's why Israel has launched numerous airstrikes against the Syrian government over the years (see here (http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/01/30/170672569/israel-bombs-military-target-outside-damascus-syria-says), here (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/07/israeli-jets-bomb-syria-says-damascus), and here (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/11/report-israel-strikes-target-in-syria/415446/)), and has provided medical care, logistical support and safe passage to known jihadists (http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/New-UN-report-reveals-collaboration-between-Israel-and-Syrian-rebels-383926).
In 2013 Israel's ambassador to the U.S., Michael Oren, told The Jerusalem Post (http://www.jpost.com/Syria-Crisis/Oren-Jerusalem-has-wanted-Assad-ousted-since-the-outbreak-of-the-Syrian-civil-war-326328) that "The initial message about the Syrian issue was that we always wanted [President] Bashar Assad to go, we always preferred the bad guys who weren’t backed by Iran to the bad guys who were backed by Iran," he said.
This was the case, he said, even if the other "bad guys" were affiliated to al-Qaida.
Let that sink in for a moment.
Evidence of Criminal ActivityNow at this point if you were to ask any of these governments directly why they are arming and funding jihadists in Syria they would would claim that they are only supporting the "moderate rebels", specifically the FSA. However, FSA commanders have gone on record (http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/3875.htm.Download) to say that they cooperate with, and conduct joint operations with Al-Nusra (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/i-am-not-fighting-againstalqaida-itsnot-our-problem-says-wests-last-hope-in-syria-9233424.html) (Al-Qaeda's official branch in Syria), and ISIS and Al-Nusra have officially formed alliances (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/al-qaeda/10925602/Al-Qaeda-merges-with-Isis-at-Syria-Iraq-border-town.html), , and it is well established that the FSA command has been dominated by Islamic extremists for years (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/07/us-syria-crisis-rebels-idUSBRE8B60QX20121207).
Furthermore, a think tank that was founded by Tony Blair, released a report in 2015 whichconcluded that it was pointless to attempt to make a distinction between moderate rebels and jihadists (http://tonyblairfaithfoundation.org/religion-geopolitics/reports-analysis/report/if-castle-falls), since the majority of these groups share ISIS's core belief system (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/20/most-syrian-rebels-sympathise-with-isis-says-thinktank), and would impose sharia law if they came into power.
In this context, the support being given to these groups can only be interpreted as material support for terrorism, which is a crime.
Now the U.S. government has been arming, funding and training these extremist both covertly and overtly since 2011. However this support would have been impossible without the assistance of the regional members of the anti-Assad axis.
For years Jordan has allowed the CIA to run training camps for militant groups (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/mar/08/west-training-syrian-rebels-jordan) and has granted those militants safe passage into Syria.
Qatar has also provided training grounds. In 2014 PBS visited one of these training camps and interviewed some of the trainees (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/syrian-rebels-describe-u-s-backed-training-in-qatar/). One of the fighters told the reporters that they were being trained "how to finish off soldiers still alive after an ambush."
Finishing off wounded soldiers is a clear violation of the Geneva conventions. It's a warcrime. This is a hallmark of a terrorist organization, not moderate freedom fighters.
Turkey, has been the primary route for material and personnel headed in and out of jihadist territory for many years (http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/business/2014/09/turkey-iraq-syria-isis-market-export-import.html). A blatant example of this was 400 tons of weapons that were looted from Gaddafi's armories, shipped to Turkey and then moved into Syria in 2012. At this stage they weren't even trying to hide it, even though it was already clear that jihadists were receiving the lion's share of the weapons (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/15/world/middleeast/jihadists-receiving-most-arms-sent-to-syrian-rebels.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0).
Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Qatar also have assisted in the transfer of heavy weapons directly to Al-Nusra (http://www.voanews.com/content/syria-rebels-weapons/1628351.html) by flying hundreds of cargo flights into Syria.
And then there's the infamous Toyota trucks which ISIS drives. U.S. counter-terrorism officials made a show of investigating (http://abcnews.go.com/International/us-officials-isis-toyota-trucks/story?id=34266539) where they were getting these trucks, but it would have been much simpler if they had just called up the U.S. State Department. According to the PRI (http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-04-01/one-toyota-pickup-truck-top-shopping-list-free-syrian-army-and-taliban), the U.S. State Department has been supplying Toyota Hiluxes (the exact model being used by ISIS) to the FSA for years.
"Specific equipment like the Toyota Hiluxes are what we refer to as force enablers for the moderate opposition forces on the ground," he adds. Shahbander says the US-supplied pickups will be delivering troops and supplies into battle. Some of the fleet will even become battlefield weapons.
"You can absolutely expect for many of those trucks to be mounted with crew-served machine guns or other type of equipment, military equipment, that the opposition forces have access to. I mean, that's one of the reasons why the Toyota Hilux is such an important force multiplier, because it could be used both for humanitarian purposes and for operational purposes as well."
Knowing the real chain of alliances between these groups it makes perfect sense that ISIS would end up behind the wheel.
And let's not forget about the oil. At this stage ISIS has reached a point where it no longer needs direct sponsorship. The organization earns an estimated $1 million to $2 million dollars a day through oil sales (http://www.businessinsider.com/isis-making-50-million-a-month-from-oil-sales-2015-10). The U.S. was aware of this but did nothing to stop it (http://oilprice.com/Geopolitics/Middle-East/Why-Is-The-US-Reluctant-To-Bomb-ISIS-Oil-Fields.html). They didn't even condemn the country which was facilitating the sale of this oil.
Russia, on the other hand, began targeting oil convoys headed into Turkey in November of 2015. Shortly thereafter Turkey shot down a Russian Su-24 that supposedly violated Turkish airspace for 17 seconds. In response Russia released satellite evidence (http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/europe/article4630594.ece) that they claim shows how Turkey is smuggling oil from ISIS. The U.S. government dismissed this evidence (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/12/02/russia-claims-turkeys-president-selling-oil-islamic-state/76654566/), but didn't counter it with any evidence of their own.
So where is the oil going? We're supposed to just put that little detail out of our minds.


They knew, but they did nothing. Why?
Right, and I suppose we didn't call out Turkey for buying the oil because we didn't want to hurt Erdogan's feelings.
Recipe for DisasterClearly it is not in the interest of the anti-Assad axis to eliminate ISIS. The United States and France are keen to make a show of airstrikes and special forces, but what they really want is the ability to operate in Syria militarily. This is the only way they'll have any chance of influencing the outcome.
Trouble is, Russia is dug in. Unlike the United States and France, they have permission to operate in the country (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/12102611/Russian-forces-to-stay-in-Syria-indefinitely-under-deal-with-Assad.html), and this has allowed them to set up bases, and a strong anti-aircraft defense grid which at any point could be used to enforce a no-fly zone.
Washington is in a weak position (http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-syria-20151011-story.html). It can't really win from this angle (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/russian-airstrikes-are-working-in-syria--enough-to-put-peace-talks-in-doubt/2016/01/19/64127084-beb2-11e5-98c8-7fab78677d51_story.html), so they'll have to find a way to put Russia off balance and retake the momentum.

It's important to remember the real stakes in this conflict. The West is in a state of decline. Their influence is waning. If the U.S. and their allies fail to remove Assad from power (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-syria-idUSKBN0EC1F420140601) what they will be faced with is more than just a strong Shia crescent. If they fail, they risk being edged out of the entire region (http://www.dw.com/en/russian-airstrikes-in-syria-challenge-us-regional-dominance/a-18752255), and replaced by Russia (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/424737/how-russia-positioned-itself-middle-easts-new-power-broker-arthur-l-herman). This would give Russia an enormous amount of leverage in global energy markets, and this of course has serious implications for the petrodollar. For Washington this is an unacceptable outcome (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-24/us-turkey-prepared-for-military-solution-to-is-in-syria/7109990), so expect the unexpected.



Share This Article... Share (https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.blacklistednews.com%2FW orld_War_III_-_The_New_Axis_of_Evil%2F48584%2F0%2F38%2F38%2FY%2F M.html&title=World%20War%20III%20-%20The%20New%20Axis%20of%20Evil&description=The%20Best%20in%20uncensored%20news%2C %20information%2C%20and%20analysis) Twitter (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#twitter) Facebook (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#facebook) Google+ (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#google_plus) StumbleUpon (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#stumbleupon) Email (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#email) Pinterest (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#pinterest) Reddit (http://www.blacklistednews.com/#reddit)

[mick silver]

watch the video at link it good

[Cebu_4_2]

watch the video at link it good


8 links Mic, WTF? Help me man here. We have a wall of letters and no clear links with anything you post (most the time).

[Jewboo]

...anything you post (most the time).

Link us to a few of your properly-formatted Threads so we can learn how it is done right.


:)

[Neuro]

I read it like the new Axis of evil is:

The United States, France, England, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Qatar, Turkey and Israel.

But to be honest I don't think the Sunni extremist supporters from the West is particularly convincing. I think they can Switch side. They did let Iran in from the cold. I think they may throw Saudi Arabia under the bus. Similar to how they threw Saddam Hussein under the bus, after they had given him the clearance to invade Quwait...

[mick silver]

at the top of the tread I stated , is your eyes getting worst http://stormcloudsgathering.com/world-war-3-new-axis
8 links Mic, WTF? Help me man here. We have a wall of letters and no clear links with anything you post (most the time).

[Spectrism]

I read it like the new Axis of evil is:


But to be honest I don't think the Sunni extremist supporters from the West is particularly convincing. I think they can Switch side. They did let Iran in from the cold. I think they may throw Saudi Arabia under the bus. Similar to how they threw Saddam Hussein under the bus, after they had given him the clearance to invade Quwait...


Remember that GW Bush speech when he said Saudi Arabia was running out of oil and needed to find other means of support? It was very odd. Maybe that was code language for something the Sauds had to do.... or else.


--------------------------------------------------
19 May 2008

http://www.scotsman.com/news/bush-to-arab-nations-you-re-running-out-of-oil-1-1168684

Bush to Arab nations: You're running out of oil
PRESIDENT George Bush yesterday told leaders of the oil-rich states of the Middle East that they must face up to a future without their precious hydrocarbons. In a stark warning, he said their supplies were running out and urged them to reform and diversify their economies. The outgoing United States president told the World Economic Forum, meeting in the Egyptian resort of Sharm el-Sheikh, that it was time to "prepare for the economic changes ahead".
Mr Bush's family name is inextricably linked to the oil industry, and this was his strongest statement yet on the future of global supplies.

He told the conference: "The rising price of oil has brought great wealth to some in this region, but the supply of oil is limited, and nations like mine are aggressively developing alternatives to oil.

"Over time, as the world becomes less dependent on oil, nations in the Middle East will have to build more diverse and more dynamic economies."
Mr Bush also used his speech to call for more investment in people and "extending the reach of freedom", as well as urging other nations to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, and to isolate Syria.
He particularly mentioned women's rights, saying they were key to building powerful economies. He cited Egypt as a model for the development of professional women, girls going to school in Afghanistan and women joining political parties in Iraq and Kuwait.
In an apparent criticism aimed at Saudi Arabia, he told the forum: "This is a matter of morality and of basic math. No nation that cuts off half its population from opportunities will be as productive or prosperous as it could be. Women are a formidable force, as I have seen in my own family and my own administration. As the nations of the Middle East open up their laws and their societies to women, they are learning the same thing."


The president's speech was made only days after he urged Saudi Arabia to increase oil production to ease prices at the pumps, as millions around the globe face increasing costs of filling up and even more grapple with rising food bills.
The future of Scotland's own North Sea oil supply is an issue for both politicians and consumers, who were given a taste of limited fuel shortages during the Grangemouth refinery dispute.
The US has turned dramatically towards biofuels, with Congress raising the federal requirement for using the oil alternative from 6.5 billion gallons last year to nine billion gallons this year. As a consequence, about a quarter of the American corn crop was used for biofuels last year, driving up the price of corn and, hence, also the price of food for millions of families.
Predictions of when the world's oil supplies will fall below global demand range from as early as the next decade, to as late as 2050. Mr Bush has been criticised throughout his term in office for not encouraging more energy alternatives in the US, and for allowing controversial drilling explorations for new fossil-fuel supplies in often environment-ally sensitive areas, such as Alaska.


Analysts warned last night that few in the Middle East, which has two-thirds of the world's oil reserves, are likely to heed Mr Bush. Many have already started diversifying their economies and do not like being preached to by someone so unpopular in the region.
Gerald Butt, editor of the authoritative Middle East Economic Survey, said: "The Gulf states have been trying to diversify their economies away from oil for years, so they'll say, 'This is like teaching your grandmother to suck eggs'.
"Arab states don't like being told what to do by outsiders, and especially by America, whose standing in the region is very low. Bush's comments will be dismissed as unwarranted interference."
Although he praised parts of the Arab world, commentators said Mr Bush had angered many with a speech at the Israel parliament last Thursday, in which he offered unflinching support for the Jewish state but mentioned the Palestinian dream of statehood only once.
Walid Khadduri, a Beirut-based consultant, pointed out that the Gulf states had already been investing windfall profits from high oil prices in major infrastructure projects, including education and housing, and in diversifying their industrial bases.


He said: "Bush's credibility is zero anyway. I really don't know anyone who follows what he says, especially after what has happened in Iraq and then his Knesset speech the other day."
The knock-on effect of rising fuel costs has led to increasing food prices and subsequent riots around the globe, as high prices hit some of the world's poorest.
There is now a desperate attempt to find oil from alternative sources to keep the supply flowing.
Potential sources in Canada would cost almost three times as much to produce as conventional crude oil because they have to be extracted from tar sands. Although the supply, in Alberta, is estimated to be second in size only to Saudi Arabian reserves, the production costs are unlikely to offer much relief for consumers.
While the Bush presidency has tried to reduce its dependence on foreign oil, it has yet to decrease fuel use, say critics.
While the UK produces about 0.3 per cent of the world's supply of oil and uses about 2 per cent, the US produces 2.5 per cent but uses 24 per cent.
Family dynasty is soaked in black gold


BOTH George H Bush and George W Bush will be remembered almost as much for their connections to oil as to the presidency.
Bush Snr owes his fortune to Texas crude, while his son also took posts in the industry before following in his father's footsteps into politics.
Commentators have accused Bush jnr's drive to war in Iraq as merely a quest for oil, with potentially billions of dollars in profit to be made from opening up the country's oil reserves – if Iraq was ever stable.
George Bush Snr, who was president from 1989 to 1993, became a millionaire off the oil industry by the age of 40 in Texas. He started the Bush-Overby Oil Development company in 1951 and co-founded the Zapata Petroleum Corporation two years later. He served as the firm's president from 1954 to 1964. He then entered politics.
After gaining an MBA from Harvard University, Bush Jnr worked in the family oil businesses.
He became a senior partner and chief executive officer of Arbusto Energy, Spectrum 7 and Harken Energy.
Arbusto Energy obtained financing early on from James Bath, a close Bush family friend and in 1979 the sole US business representative of Salem bin Laden, head of the wealthy Saudi family and brother of Osama bin Laden.
Don't expect high prices and shortages of petrol to improve in the short term



[interesting bullshit propaganda follows]
ANALYSIS: George Kerevan
HOW close are we to "peak oil", when the world's oil supplies will start to diminish? Petroleum output has shot up by a nearly third since the early 1990s to around 83 million barrels per day, suggesting we are able to squeeze more production when necessary.

But the International Energy Agency predicts oil demand will double between now and 2030 as a result of rising car use in countries such as China. As no major oil fields – those with over 500 million barrels – have been discovered for a generation, this rising demand will be very difficult to meet.
One source will be in small oil fields of the kind being hunted by Scottish companies such as Cairn Energy. Such fields are expensive to find and costly to tap due to the huge infrastructure required. The fact that oil has shot up to $128 (65) a barrel – the highest ever even taking account of inflation – might make this possible.

But it is unlikely there will be a serious increase in global output for around a decade given the time it takes to build pipelines and tanker terminals. So expect high petrol prices (and shortages) to remain for the near term. Even then, this is likely to be the last surge in oil output and we will reach peak oil by 2030, if not before.

Another source of oil lies in the vast tar sands of Canada. But extracting useable oil from tar involves a vastly expensive industrial process which also results in big emissions.

It is possible to squeeze extra oil from older fields such as the North Sea. This is done by pumping water (or ) into the wells to blow out more oil. But this destroys the sponge-like membranes which contain the petroleum, meaning you get more oil out in the short term but less in the longer term.

Gordon Brown wants Opec to pump more oil to bring down prices. But experts suspect that the size of Opec reserves (80 years at current consumption) have been greatly exaggerated by local politicians. If so, peak oil could be here sooner than we think – some predict as early as 2012.


Read more: http://www.scotsman.com/news/bush-to-arab-nations-you-re-running-out-of-oil-1-1168684#ixzz3yqCdqOGX
Follow us: @TheScotsman on Twitter (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rw?id=cqFF9Cwg8r5ygEacwqm_6r&u=TheScotsman) | TheScotsmanNewspaper on Facebook (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rf?id=cqFF9Cwg8r5ygEacwqm_6r&u=TheScotsmanNewspaper)

[Cebu_4_2]

at the top of the tread I stated , is your eyes getting worst http://stormcloudsgathering.com/world-war-3-new-axis


Okay the red link got me.

[Cebu_4_2]

Link us to a few of your properly-formatted Threads so we can learn how it is done right.


:)



I try.

[cheka.]

all that f-ing babble to push more fear+war, he/she/it's conclusion:

It's important to remember the real stakes in this conflict. The West is in a state of decline. Their influence is waning. If the U.S. and their allies fail to remove Assad from power what they will be faced with is more than just a strong Shia crescent. If they fail, they risk being edged out of the entire region, and replaced by Russia. This would give Russia an enormous amount of leverage in global energy markets, and this of course has serious implications for the petrodollar. For Washington this is an unacceptable outcome, so expect the unexpected.

[mick silver]

WWIII - Syria, Russia & Iran - The New Equation08.Oct.2015 | http://d3cced9h6ghzi5.cloudfront.net/sites/default/files/imagecache/user_thumb_submitted/pictures/picture-1.pngSCG (http://stormcloudsgathering.com/who-is-scg)




The Syrian Front Just Got Much More Dangerous


On September 30th, 2015 Russia began airstrikes (http://edition.cnn.com/2015/09/30/politics/russia-syria-airstrikes-isis/) against ISIS and its affiliates in Syria. These strikes were conducted at the request of the Syrian government (http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/09/30/444679327/russia-begins-conducting-airstrikes-in-syria-at-assads-request). Iran followed announcing that they were preparing to send in ground troops (http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/02/us-mideast-crisis-russia-syria-idUSKCN0RV41O20151002)
These developments completely change the geopolitical equation, and not just in Syria.
Western politicians and their corporate media lapdogs are obviously not happy (http://edition.cnn.com/2015/09/09/politics/russia-syria-military-buildup-kerry-lavrov/) about where this is headed, and they have taken to the airwaves in force to voice their condemnation (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-34432440). First they claimed that Russia was hitting "moderate" (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/russia-in-syria-cia-backed-moderate-rebels-struck-by-fresh-air-strikes-as-iranian-troops-pour-into-a6676051.html), U.S. backed rebels rather than exclusively focusing on ISIS.
Wait, on September 16th General Lloyd Austin of the US Central Command testified that there were only 4 or 5 U.S. trained fighters in all of Syria (http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/16/us-military-syrian-isis-fighters), and now these fighters are supposedly in control of an entire region?
This assertion would be absurd enough on its own, but the reality of the matter is that the area in question has been controlled by Al-Nusra, for at least two years (http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/russia-has-entered-a-war-in-syria-it-cannot-afford-to-lose-a6674271.html). And just so we're clear here, Al-Nusra is Al-Qaeda's Syrian branch, and they have direct alliances with ISIS.
Not that this distinction between Al-Nusra and the FSA would really change the equation. The FSA has publicly acknowledged on several occasions that they are cooperating Al-Nusra, and the FSA command itself has been dominated by Islamic extremists since at least 2012 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/07/us-syria-crisis-rebels-idUSBRE8B60QX20121207).


So if the FSA and Al-Nusra work together and Al-Nusra is working with ISIS, why haven't those funding and arming the FSA been charged with providing material support to terrorists?
But Russia's airstrikes are killing civilians! Look we have proof from the White Helmets (an NGO funded by the U.K. government (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/11894944/As-the-West-drops-demand-for-Assad-to-go-meet-the-group-the-UK-funds-to-support-his-victims.html)) That's funny, this image looks an awful lot like this one... which was posted on September 25th (https://twitter.com/snhr/status/647490545770721281), 5 days before the airstrikes even began. That was a bit a problematic, so they deleted the tweet (https://twitter.com/SyriaCivilDef/status/649226960753836033) (archived version here (https://archive.is/PuGh3)), but not before the U.S. and its allies would use the occasion to take their hypocrisy to a new level.
On October 2nd the U.S. issued a joint statement (http://fortune.com/2015/10/02/west-calls-for-immediate-end-to-russian-airstrike-in-syria/) with France, Germany, the U.K., Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar calling for Russia to "immediately cease its attacks on the Syrian opposition and civilians.”
Just to put this into perspective, the Saudis have been bombing Yemen (with U.S. support) since March of 2015, killing thousands of civilians (http://mondoweiss.net/2015/07/killed-bombing-civilians), and creating a humanitarian crisis of epic proportions.
The irony also seemed to be lost on Washington, who after decades of military occupations and drone campaigns which have killed millions of civilians topped it off by bombing a Doctors Without Borders hospital in Afghanistan just one day later! (https://theintercept.com/2015/10/03/one-day-after-warning-russia-of-civilian-casualties-the-u-s-bombs-a-hospital-in-the-war-obama-ended/)
Well this is awkward. What can we do to save face? Hey our friend John McCain has an idea. We should just send our moderate jihadist some more weapons.
So we armed extremists in Afghanistan, which became the Taliban, which we're still bombing (often inaccurately) to this day, and you want to do it again?
This isn't a plan, this is desperation. Washington has been out maneuvered. This turn of events is on par with the 2013 episode where the U.S. backed rebels got caught using sarin gas against civilians. Only now there aren't nearly as many options left.
With Russia providing air support and Iran assisting in the ground campaign (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/07/russian-jets-pound-syrian-provinces-in-fresh-wave-of-attacks-says-watchdog), the U.S. no longer has any leverage in Syria, and if Putin is able to maintain momentum this could very well be a turning point regionally (http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/1.678484) as well.
That doesn't mean the game is over though. The U.S. and its allies aren't going to just walk away from this (http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/05/politics/russia-ground-campaign-syria-isis/). You can rest assured that Washington is scrambling to cook something up (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/10/05/turkey-threatens-to-shoot-down-russian-planes-that-stray-from-syria.html) right now, and if the last few years are any indicator, this could get very interesting (http://www.businessinsider.com/manned-russian-jets-are-stalking-us-predator-drones-in-syria-2015-10).

[mick silver]

World War III - Who Will Be Blamed? [Sources & Transcript]11.Sep.2015 | http://d3cced9h6ghzi5.cloudfront.net/sites/default/files/imagecache/user_thumb_submitted/pictures/picture-1.pngSCG (http://stormcloudsgathering.com/who-is-scg)




If you want to start a to war, the unwashed masses must be convinced to send their brothers, sons and fathers to die on the front lines. The specter of an external enemy must be etched into their collective mind through trauma, exaggeration and repetition. History must be whitewashed, twisted and cherry picked down to a politicized nursery rhyme. At no point should the real motives or consequences of such an endeavor be discussed.


World War is upon us. It has been unfolding in slow motion for years. The only question now is who will get blamed.
Humans tend to view each stage of history in isolation. As a result they rarely see the chain reactions that build over decades, until a flash point catches their attention.
September 11th, 2001 was one such flash point. You could make the case that this was where it all began. There's some truth in that, but it's also an oversimplification.




Of course the dancing with the stars version of the story: the U.S. backed the Mujaheddin in response to the Soviet invasion of December of 1979.
You might want to run that version by Robert Gates, director of the CIA under Ronald Reagan and George Bush Senior, and Secretary of Defense under both George W. Bush and Barack Obama, because in his memoir entitled "From the Shadows", he revealed that the U.S. actually began the covert operation 6 months prior. With the express intent of drawing in the Soviets.

The Carter administration began looking at the possibility of covert assistance to the insurgents opposing the pro-Soviet, Marxist government of President Taraki at the beginning of 1979. On March 5, 1979, CIA sent several covert action options relating to Afghanistan to the SCC. The covering memo noted that the insurgents had stepped up their activities against the government and had achieved surprising successes. It added that the Soviets were clearly concerned about the setbacks to the Afghan communist regime and that the Soviet media were accusing the United States, Pakistan, and Egypt of supporting the insurgents. The SCC met the next day and requested new options for covert action.
The DO informed DDCI Carlucci late in March that the government of Pakistan might be more forthcoming in terms of helping the insurgents than previously believed, citing an approach by a senior Pakistani official to an Agency officer to discuss assistance to the insurgents, including small arms and ammunition. The Pakistani had stated that without a firm commitment from the United States, Pakistan “could not risk Soviet wrath.” Meanwhile, in Saudi Arabia, a senior official also had raised the prospect of a Soviet setback in Afghanistan and said that his government was considering officially proposing that the United States aid the rebels …
On March 30, 1979, Aaron chaired a historic “mini-SCC” … Walt Slocombe, representing Defense, asked if there was value in keeping the Afghan insurgency going, “sucking the Soviets into a Vietnamese quagmire?” Aaron concluded by asking the key question: “Is there interest in maintaining and assisting the insurgency, or is the risk that we will provoke the Soviets too great?”
The day before the SCC meeting on April 6 to consider Afghan covert action options, Soviet MO Arnold Horelick sent Turner a paper on the possible Soviet reactions … The risk was that a substantial U.S. covert aid program could raise the stakes and induce the Soviets to intervene more directly and vigorously than otherwise intended.
The meeting was finally held on July 3, 1979, and — almost 6 months before the Soviets invaded Afghanistan — Jimmy Carter signed the first finding to help the Mujahedin covertly. It authorized support for insurgent propaganda and other psychological operations in Afghanistan; establishment of radio access to the Afghan population through third-country facilities; and the provision either unilaterally or through third countries of support to the Afghan insurgents, in the form of either cash or nonmilitary supplies. The Afghan effort began relatively small. Initially, somewhat more than half a million dollars was allocated, with almost all being drawn within six weeks.
By the end of August, Pakistani President Mohammad Ziaul-Haq was pressuring the United States for arms and equipment for the insurgents in Afghanistan … Separately, the Pakistani intelligence service was pressing us to provide military equipment to support an expanding insurgency.
When Turner heard this, he urged the DO to get moving in providing more help to the insurgents. They responded with several enhancement options, including communications equipment for the insurgents via the Pakistanis or the Saudis, funds for the Pakistanis to purchase lethal military equipment for the insurgents, and providing a like amount of lethal equipment ourselves for the Pakistanis to distribute to the insurgents.
On Christmas Eve and Christmas Day, 1979, the Soviets massively intervened in Afghanistan. A covert action that began six months earlier funded at just over half a million dollars would, within a year, grow to tens of millions, and most assuredly included the provision of weapons.
From the Shadows (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1416543368/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1416543368&linkCode=as2&tag=nindnetw-20&linkId=2CPSN6NIEJD3SOTI) (1996) - Robert Gates pp. 144-149.
Oops!
And they still haven't learned (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/08/31/petraeus-use-al-qaeda-fighters-to-beat-isis.html) their lesson.
Speaking of Al-Qaeda, if you do a google search for "Jet fuel maximum burning temperature" you'll find an article from popularmechanics.com (http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a6384/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center/) informing you that under ideal conditions jet fuel tops out at 1500 degrees Fahrenheit, and that steel melts at 2750 degrees. They go on to explain how isn't a problem because "for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt".
Trouble is, the steel DID melt.


Of course little details like the laws of physics never got in the way of a good story.
Oh by the way, did you ever find anyone who could credibly explain how a third building, World Trade Center building 7, fell straight down at 5:21 pm that day though it was not hit by any plane?


And did they ever explain how the BBC reported this event 26 minutes before it actually happened?
Oh I know what you're thinking: maybe it was a green screen and shoddy editing, and that we can't confirm the actual time from that clip. Or can we? Turns out there was a second clip that did show the time: 21:54. That's 9:54 in England, 4:54 Eastern. Twenty six minutes BEFORE the building actually fell.
But I digress.
The invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were not motivated by the fall of the twin towers. Nor was the evisceration of your rights and privacy that followed. To say 911 was a pretext would be putting it lightly.


The best laid plans of mice and men often go awry, but George W. Bush sure did try. Iraq and Afghanistan became quagmires, just like Cheney predicted.


Obama picked up where he left off by toppling Libya and funding extremist in Syria (the precursors of ISIS) (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/03/us-isis-syria-iraq). They knew the weapons were ending up in the hands of jihadists (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/15/world/middleeast/jihadists-receiving-most-arms-sent-to-syrian-rebels.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0) since at least 2012. They knew what would come next.
A Department of Defense document from 2012 (https://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Pg.-291-Pgs.-287-293-JW-v-DOD-and-State-14-812-DOD-Release-2015-04-10-final-version11.pdf) (acquired through an FOIA request) shows that the U.S. government was aware that these fighters intended to form a caliphate, and that this conflict would likely lead to a proxy war with Russia and China.
The Middle East was being balkanized. Every pocket of resistance broken up into bite sized chunks, but it was taking too long, so Saudi Arabia invaded Yemen, and Israel did their part by repeatedly bombing the Syrian army (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/07/israeli-jets-bomb-syria-says-damascus) (the most recent attack (http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.668447) was in July). Oh, and Turkey helped too (http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-turkey-bombing-kurds-20150729-story.html)! It's a been a team effort.
In 2013, when the U.S. backed rebels in Syria got caught using sarin gas against civilians and the western narrative fell apart fell apart, Russia became a diplomatic thorn in Washington's side (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/11/with-a-diplomatic-plan-for-syria-russia-outshines-/?page=all). So like a true gambler doesn't know when to walk away, Obama doubled down by backing the coup in Ukraine, installing a puppet government with extensive ties to the U.S. State Department, bankrolling their ethnic cleansing campaign in the East and blaming the entire mess on Vladimir Putin.


Russian aggression (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/us-to-send-250-tanks-to-countries-along-russian-border-to-respond-to-russian-aggression-10339385.html), Russian aggression (http://www.france24.com/en/20150624-nato-russian-aggression-ukraine-must-be-countered), Russian aggression... because reducing Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria to rubble is about spreading democracy, but accepting the results of a peaceful referendum in Crimea (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/17/crimea-referendum-final-results_n_4977250.html)... well that's just beyond the pale.
The war on the Ukrainian front continued through 2014 and into 2015. Somewhere along the way, the preparations (http://edition.cnn.com/2015/06/24/world/nato-troops/) for an open conflict (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/12/russia-and-nato-actively-preparing-war-report/) between the U.S., Russia and China (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/11630185/US-China-war-inevitable-unless-Washington-drops-demands-over-South-China-Sea.html) were normalized and brought from the shadows. Open threats (http://stormcloudsgathering.com/www.news.com.au/world/russian-arms-treaty-violations-prompt-united-states-to-consider-sending-nuclear-weapons-to-europe/story-fndir2ev-1227385735356) were leveled in full view. Coverage was predictably one-sided.
We've been through this before. Weapons of mass destruction, human rights (http://www.un.org/press/en/2011/ga11050.doc.htm), Russian aggression... New excuses, same goal.
If you want to start a to war, the unwashed masses must be convinced to send their brothers, sons and fathers to die on the front lines. The specter of an external enemy must be etched into their collective mind through trauma, exaggeration and repetition. History must be whitewashed, twisted and cherry picked down to a politicized nursery rhyme. At no point should the real motives or consequences of such an endeavor be discussed.
It stands to reason that if we want to STOP a war we must reverse this pattern.
Let's start with a realistic look at the consequences.
The United States and Russia alone possess a total of over 15,000 nuclear warheads (as of 2014 (http://armscontrolcenter.org/issues/nuclearweapons/articles/fact_sheet_global_nuclear_weapons_inventories_in_2 014/)), each of which are 10 to 30 times more powerful than those that the U.S. used against Japan in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
During the Soviet era it was understood that a hot war between these two countries would inevitably lead to the use of these weapons, and would therefore be an act of mass suicide. This idea was so deeply engrained, that it had its own acronym: M.A.D. (Mutually Assured Destruction). In recent years scientists have realized that this should be taken as a literal truth, regardless of which side may suffer the most in the initial exchange.
A nuclear war between just these two countries, utilizing only the weapons which are slated to be active after the implementation of the START treaty in 2018, would release over 150 million tons of debris into the atmosphere. This debris would block out the sun, dropping global temperatures between 8 and 30 degrees centigrade. Agriculture would become impossible. Mass extinctions would follow, and our species would not likely be exempt (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/dec/12/nuclearindustry.climatechange).
This is a mild description. We're not even touching upon the direct consequences of the blasts, firestorms, and radiation poisoning or the secondary deaths caused by exposure, and disease.
In this context you might be inclined to believe that the use of these weapons would be completely off of the table. That every effort would be made to reduce stockpiles and that no new bombs would be built. Unfortunately this is not the case.
In recent years U.S. strategists have begun to promote (https://www.stratfor.com/the-hub/case-tactical-nuclear-weapons#) the idea of "limited nuclear warfare (http://breakingdefense.com/2013/05/no-longer-unthinkable-should-us-ready-for-limited-nuclear-war/)" with a focus on tactical nukes. The idea being that smaller weapons are more effective because they are actually usable.
This isn't just talk. Under Obama (https://www.revealnews.org/article/new-mexico-thrives-on-nuclear-bomb-despite-us-pledge-to-reduce-arsenal/) the U.S. military developed the most expensive and most dangerous nuclear bomb ever: the B61-12 (http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-most-dangerous-nuclear-weapon-americas-arsenal-13433). The B61-12 is a guided nuclear missile, the first of its kind, and it's yield can be dialed down electronically for the desired effect.
This capability has been promoted by the CFR (https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2009-11-01/nukes-we-need) as a means of preemptively destroying China's hardened missile silos.
Apparently the Obama administration took these recommendations to heart, because section 1063 of the NDAA of 2013 (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-112hrpt479/pdf/CRPT-112hrpt479.pdf) Directed the U.S. Strategic Command to prepare a report assessing the capability of the U.S. military to destroy a network of tunnels in China and "the known hardened and deeply buried sites of foreign nations" with "conventional and or nuclear forces". While Russia wasn't mentioned directly here, it should be clear that they are on that list.
Those promoting this new stance claim that this is merely a new form of deterrence, but this line of argumentation (even if it were sincere), is fatally flawed.
A preemptive nuclear strategy, especially when discussed in public, sends a clear message to those who being threatened: that they themselves must strike first. (http://breakingdefense.com/2013/10/chinas-fear-of-us-may-tempt-them-to-preempt-sinologists/) And Russia and China do not possess dial-a-yield tactical nukes, so their preemptive strikes would be full scale.
Of course America's political establishment has a good reason to play chicken with all of our lives, and the future of this planet. The balance of geopolitical and financial power has been shifting, and not in Washington's favor.
China's new Silk Road project (http://thediplomat.com/2014/05/chinas-new-silk-road-vision-revealed/), Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2015/03/23/China-s-New-Development-Bank-How-Obama-Blew-It-Pacific-Again), and outposts (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/28/whats-behind-beijings-drive-control-south-china-sea-hainan) in the South China Sea, in tandem with the Eurasian Union (http://www.politico.eu/article/russia-forges-epoch-making-eurasian-economic-union/) spearheaded by Russia, are edging the United States out (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/1/putin-seeks-dump-dollar-regional-trade/) of the world's new center of gravity.
Pivots (http://globalriskinsights.com/2015/04/obamas-pivot-to-asia-fails-to-impress-china/) have failed, bilateral discussions have gotten no where, sanctions have backfired, trade agreements have stalled (http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/01/us-trade-tpp-idUSKCN0Q52FL20150801), influence has eroded... Washington is running out of options (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/03/the-decline-of-the-west-why-america-must-prepare-for-the-end-of-dominance/254779/), and time.
The dollar denominated financial system has peaked. This is the end of a debt super cycle (http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/76d741ca-258a-11e5-9c4e-a775d2b173ca.html#axzz3kKcFTLhc), and of the petrodollar (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alastair-crooke/petrodollar-us-saudi-policy_b_6245914.html). The next leg down is going to be epic (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11704051/The-world-is-defenseless-against-the-next-financial-crisis-warns-BIS.html).
The powers that be would rather tip the board than lose the game. They'd rather take us to war than to take the blame. And if you let them get away with it, that's just the beginning.

Share to Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=http://stormcloudsgathering.com/ww3-who-will-be-blamed?utm_source=share-fb) http://stormcloudsgathering.com/ww3-who-will-be-blamed

[mick silver]

World War is upon us. It has been unfolding in slow motion for years. The only question now is who will get blamed.
Humans tend to view each stage of history in isolation. As a result they rarely see the chain reactions that build over decades, until a flash point catches their attention.
September 11th, 2001 was one such flash point. You could make the case that this was where it all began. There's some truth in that, but it's also an oversimplification.

[mick silver]

World War III - The Calm Before the Storm21.Dec.2014 | http://d3cced9h6ghzi5.cloudfront.net/sites/default/files/imagecache/user_thumb_submitted/pictures/picture-1.pngSCG (http://stormcloudsgathering.com/who-is-scg)




In historical terms these are the final seconds of the 11th hour, and the clock is ticking.


"World War III" is a loaded term (as are many historical references). It assumes that these tragic mass murders that humanity calls war, are isolated events with distinct beginnings and ends. This kind of over simplification obscures the multi-generational chain reactions that lead up to that moment when swords are drawn or missiles fly.
Of course, there is another reason that the public is rarely conscious of these chain reactions. The ruling classes learned long ago that the best way to take a nation to war, is to trick them into it.
Vietnam was an extension of the Cold War, which was an extension of World War II, which was a direct result of the terms imposed on Germany following World War I.
This multifaceted conflict that is unfolding right now between the declining powers of the West and geopolitical and economic upstarts from the East may not end up being labeled as "World War III" in the history books. Perhaps they'll continue to label each phase with a catchy name, like "Operation Baltic Freedom" or "Operation Siberian Storm". Whatever.
On the other hand, if someone does something stupid, history books may not make it through the aftermath at all. Of course I would never insinuate that the United States government would ever do anything stupid. It's not like the country is run by a gaggle of war mongering imbeciles. Well, actually, I suppose that depends on how you define the word "imbecile".
Congress did just pass Resolution 758 (https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-resolution/758), and the "The Ukraine Freedom Support Act of 2014" (https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/2828) which lay the foundation for open and direct conflict between the U.S. and Russia (the law provides for lethal aid to Kiev), more sanctions are on the table (http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/new-law-significantly-expands-legal-basi-03885/), and of course if you've been paying attention you might have noticed that Washington is playing a game of high stakes chicken with oil prices, (http://www.theguardian.com/business/economics-blog/2014/nov/09/us-iran-russia-oil-prices-shale) with a little help from our good friends the Saudis. All the while playing hardball with China in South East Asia (http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/82fb0638-ce7b-11e3-9dfd-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3MTQtZhGa), and ramping up production of nuclear weapons (http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/576667/20141220/putin-russia-nuclear-missiles-sanctions-war-obama.htm#.VJWpp5CFA) while their puppets in Kiev continue to shell civilians in eastern Ukraine. (http://www.wsj.com/articles/at-least-10-civilians-killed-in-eastern-ukraine-when-shells-hit-schoolyard-bus-1412180641) What could possibly go wrong?
Heading into 2015, it may have appeared that we were having something of a calm before the storm, but that was an illusion (created by selective reporting). This war is already hot on multiple fronts. It has been for years. All it takes is one stupid move for proxy wars to cut out the middle man, and then all bets are off.


To even consider a direct military confrontation between the U.S. and Russia is insane. The consequences would be nothing short of unthinkable. Yet, humanity seems to be sleepwalking right into that very scenario.
Could we as a people stop this? Of course we could. These so called rulers don't actually have power, they just have your obedience.
Will you withdraw that obedience, on time, or will you continue to allow yourself to be distracted by bread, circuses, and pointless bickering?
If you were planning on shifting gears, now would be the time to do it. In historical terms these are the final seconds of the 11th hour, and the clock is ticking

[mick silver]

World war 3 has already begun. In this video we are going to prove it.
Follow us on Facebook: http://facebook.com/StormCloudsGathering
Follow us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/collapseupdates
Donate: http://stormcloudsgathering.com/donate
Visit our website: http://StormCloudsGathering.com (http://stormcloudsgathering.com/)
Get weekly email updates: http://tinyurl.com/naturalrightsnewsletter
----------
Lebanon now under attack by NATO backed insurgents: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/world/jan-june13/lebanon_05-27.html
Current Drills in Korea: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asiapacific/us-carrier-joins-s-korea... (http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asiapacific/us-carrier-joins-s-korea-drill-despite-n/673016.html)
Dagger Brigade deploys in Africa:
http://www.army.mil/article/96958/
U.S. Troops in Mali now: http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-04-30/world/38921208_1_robert-fi... (http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-04-30/world/38921208_1_robert-firman-mali-bamako)
U.S. to maintain a covert position in Afghanistan:
http://rt.com/news/afghanistan-us-mercenaries-troops-withdrawal-127/
http://rt.com/news/us-drones-afghanistan-2014-360/
CIA now increasing operations in Iraq:
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/03/report-cia-increasing-operations... (http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/03/report-cia-increasing-operations-iraq-syria-al-qaeda)
Russia Moves troops into Mediterranean
http://www.businessinsider.com/russian-fleet-enters-mediterranean-2013-5
U.S. Moves troops into Mediterranean
http://www.businessinsider.com/us-troops-mediterranean-2012-11#ixzz2TSnS... (http://www.businessinsider.com/us-troops-mediterranean-2012-11#ixzz2TSnSp4Cs)
Russia to deliver anti-aircraft missiles to Syria:
http://www.timesofisrael.com/russia-syria-s-300-deal-still-on-senior-isr... (http://www.timesofisrael.com/russia-syria-s-300-deal-still-on-senior-israeli-official-says/)
Increasing Resistance to U.S. influence in South America and China's rise in influence there: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125972406692572311.html
Syrian Rebels engaging in atrocities:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22519770
UK Quatar plot to frame Syria for Chemical weapons:
http://www.presstv.com/detail/2013/01/30/286331/ukqatari-plot-against-sy... (http://www.presstv.com/detail/2013/01/30/286331/ukqatari-plot-against-syria-revealed/)
Rebels used poison gas:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22424188
The Vatican calls for global government: http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2011/10/25/the-vatican-calls-for... (http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2011/10/25/the-vatican-calls-for-world-government/)
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/03/29/295668/russia-warns-against-kore... (http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/03/29/295668/russia-warns-against-korea-escalation/)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2013/mar/30/north-korea-war-south-... (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2013/mar/30/north-korea-war-south-korea-video)
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/29/us-korea-north-russia-idUSBRE9... (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/29/us-korea-north-russia-idUSBRE92S04T20130329)
http://rt.com/news/cia-arms-smuggling-syria-796
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Politics/john-kerry-concedes-iran-moving-... (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Politics/john-kerry-concedes-iran-moving-closing-possessing-nuclear/story?id=18655927)
http://rt.com/usa/obama-israel-military-june-503/
http://rt.com/news/us-eu-armor-syrian-rebels-516/
http://rt.com/news/syria-un-rebels-peacekeepers-hostage-910/
http://rt.com/usa/north-korea-us-interceptors-338/

[mick silver]

Risking World War III in Syria
Published: February 6, 2016Source: Consortium News (https://consortiumnews.com/2016/02/06/risking-world-war-iii-in-syria/)

After Saudi-backed Syrian rebels balked at peace talks and the Russian-backed Syrian army cut off Turkish supply lines to jihadists and other Syrian rebels, the U.S. and its Mideast Sunni “allies” appear poised to invade Syria and force “regime change” even at the risk of fighting Russia, a gamble with nuclear war, writes Joe Lauria.
By Joe LauriaDefense Secretary Ashton Carter last October said in a little noticed comment (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/sec-carter-direct-u-s-action-ground-iraq-syria-n452131)that the United States was ready to take “direct action on the ground” in Syria. Vice President Joe Biden said in Istanbul last month that if peace talks in Geneva failed, the United States was prepared for a “military solution” in that country.
The peace talks collapsed on Wednesday even before they began. A day later Saudi Arabia said it is ready to invade Syria while Turkey is building up forces at its Syrian border.
https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/saudiss-13-1-300x200.jpg?82332e (https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/saudiss-13-1.jpg?82332e) Saudi King Salman meets with President Barack Obama at Erga Palace during a state visit to Saudi Arabia on Jan. 27, 2015. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

The U.N. aims to restart the talks on Feb. 25 but there is little hope they can begin in earnest as the Saudi-run opposition has set numerous conditions. The most important is that Russia stop its military operation in support of the Syrian government, which has been making serious gains on the ground.
A day after the talks collapsed, it was revealed that Turkey has begun preparations for an invasion of Syria, according to (http://m.sputniknews.com/middleeast/20160204/1034221247/turkey-syria-military-invasion.html) the Russian Defense Ministry. On Thursday, ministry spokesman Igor Konashenkov said: “We have good reasons to believe that Turkey is actively preparing for a military invasion of a sovereign state – the Syrian Arab Republic. We’re detecting more and more signs of Turkish armed forces being engaged in covert preparations for direct military actions in Syria.” The U.N. and the State Department had no comment. But this intelligence was supported (http://m.sputniknews.com/middleeast/20160204/1034245266/turkey-syria-military-threat-warning.html)by a sound of alarm from Turkey’s main opposition party, the Republican People’s Party (CHP).
Turkey, which has restarted its war against Kurdish PKK guerillas inside Turkey, is determined to crush the emergence of an independent Kurdish state inside Syria as well. Turkish strongman Recep Tayyip Erdogan stopped the Syrian Kurds from attending the aborted Geneva talks.
A Turkish invasion would appear poised to attack the Syrian Kurdish PYD party, which is allied with the PKK. The Syrian (and Iraqi) Kurds, with the Syrian army, are the main ground forces fighting the Islamic State. Turkey is pretending to fight ISIS, all the while actually supporting (http://www.meforum.org/5317/turkey-isis)its quest to overthrow Assad, also a Turkish goal.
Saudi Arabia then said on Thursday it was prepared to send its ground forces into Syria if asked. Carter welcomed (http://m.sputniknews.com/middleeast/20160205/1034257710/us-syria-saudi-arabia-troops.html) it. Of course Biden, Erdogan, Carter and the Saudis are all saying a ground invasion would fight ISIS. But their war against ISIS has been half-hearted at best and they share ISIS’ same enemy: Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. If the U.S. were serious about fighting ISIS it would have at least considered a proposal by Russia to join a coalition (https://consortiumnews.com/2016/01/24/can-us-break-with-jihadist-allies/)as the U.S. did against the Nazis.
The Prize of Aleppo
The excuse of the Geneva collapse is a ruse. There was little optimism the talks would succeed. The real reason for the coming showdown in Syria is the success of Russia’s military intervention in defense of the Syrian government against the Islamic State and other extremist groups. Many of these groups are supported by Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the United States in pursuit of overthrowing Assad.
These three nations are all apparently poised for a ground invasion of Syria just as, by no coincidence, the Syrian Arab Army with Russian air cover is pushing to liberate perhaps the greatest prize in the Syrian civil war — Aleppo, the country’s commercial capital. The Russians and Syrians have already cut off (https://www.rt.com/op-edge/331279-erdogan-syria-aleppo-turkey/#.VrOMeHTEDDk.facebook)Turkey’s supply lines to rebels in the city.
The U.S. cannot stand by and watch Russia win in Syria. At the very least it wants to be on the ground to meet them at a modern-day Elbe (http://rbth.com/arts/2015/04/25/elbe_day_a_handshake_that_made_history_45455.html) and influence the outcome.
But things could go wrong in a war in which the U.S. and Russia are not allies, as they were in World War II. Despite this, the U.S. and its allies see Syria as important enough to risk confrontation with Russia, with all that implies. It is not at all clear though what the U.S. interests are in Syria to take such a risk.
From the outset of Russia’s intervention the U.S. and its allies have wanted Moscow out of the Syrian theater. They seem to be only waiting for the right opportunity. That opportunity may be now — forced by events.
Former U.S. national security adviser and current Obama adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski said (http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/c1ec2488-6aa8-11e5-8171-ba1968cf791a.html) last October in the Financial Times that, “The Russian naval and air presences in Syria are vulnerable, isolated geographically from their homeland. They could be ‘disarmed’ if they persist in provoking the U.S.”
Turkey’s downing in November of a Russian warplane that allegedly veered 17 seconds into Turkish territory appeared to be very much a provocation to draw Russia into a conflict to allow NATO to drive Moscow out of Syrian skies. But Russia was too smart for that and instead imposed sanctions on Turkey, while urging Russian tourists not to visit the country, which has hurt (http://www.businessinsider.com/why-1300-turkish-hotels-are-up-for-sale-2016-2) the Turkish economy.
A Battleground of Empires
As a fertile crossroad between Asia and Africa backed by desert, Syrian territory has been fought over for centuries. Pharaoh Ramses II defeated the Hittites at the Battle of Kadesh near Lake Homs in 1247 BCE. The Persians conquered Syria in 538 BCE. Alexander the Great took it 200 years later and the Romans grabbed Syria in 64 BCE.
Islam defeated the Byzantine Empire there at the Battle of Yarmuk in 636. In one of the first Shia-Sunni battles, Ali failed to defeat Muawiyah in 657 at Siffin along the Euphrates near the Iraq-Syria border. Damascus became the seat of the Caliphate until a coup in 750 moved it to Baghdad.
Waves of Crusaders next invaded Syria beginning in 1098. Egyptian Mamluks took the country in 1250 and the Ottoman Empire began in 1516 at its victory at Marj Dabik, 44 kilometers north of Aleppo — about where Turkish supplies are now being cut off. France double-crossed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes%E2%80%93Picot_Agreement)the Arabs and gained control of Syria in 1922 after the Ottoman collapse.
We may be now looking at an epic war with similar historical significance. All these previous battles, as momentous as they were, were regional in nature.
What we are potentially facing is a war that goes beyond the Soviet-U.S. proxy wars of the Cold War era, and beyond the proxy war that has so far taken place in the five-year Syrian civil war. Russia is already present in Syria. The entry of the United States and its allies would risk a direct confrontation between the two largest nuclear powers on earth.
Joe Lauria is a veteran foreign-affairs journalist based at the U.N. since 1990. He has written for the Boston Globe, the London Daily Telegraph, the Johannesburg Star, the Montreal Gazette, the Wall Street Journal and other newspapers. He can be reached atjoelauria@gmail.com (joelauria@gmail.com) and followed on Twitter at @unjoe (https://twitter.com/unjoe).

Share This Article...

[mick silver]

.S. Now Overtly at War Against RussiaBy Eric Zuesse (http://www.globalresearch.ca/author/eric-zuesse)
Global Research, February 06, 2016
Strategic Culture Foundation (http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2016/02/06/us-now-overtly-at-war-against-russia.html) 6 February 2016

Region: Europe (http://www.globalresearch.ca/region/europe), Russia and FSU (http://www.globalresearch.ca/region/russia-and-fsu), USA (http://www.globalresearch.ca/region/usa)
Theme: US NATO War Agenda (http://www.globalresearch.ca/theme/us-nato-war-agenda)


http://www.globalresearch.ca/wp-content/plugins/print-me/printme.png (http://www.globalresearch.ca/u-s-now-overtly-at-war-against-russia/5506180?print=1)

156
16 7

570

http://www.globalresearch.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/nato_war.jpg
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg announced (http://deutsche-wirtschafts-nachrichten.de/2016/02/02/gegen-russland-usa-ruesten-massiv-in-europa-auf/) on February 2nd that he approves of US ‘Defense’ Secretary Ash Carter’s proposal to quadruple US armaments and troops in Europe, against ‘Russian aggression’.
Secretary Carter said (http://www.defense.gov/News/News-Transcripts/Transcript-View/Article/648901/remarks-by-secretary-carter-on-the-budget-at-the-economic-club-of-washington-dc) earlier that same day, in his announcement of America’s arming for war against Russia:

We are reinforcing our posture in Europe to support our NATO allies in the face of Russia’s aggression. In Pentagon parlance, this is called the European Reassurance Initiative and after requesting about $800 million for last year, this year we’re more than quadrupling it for a total of $3.4 billion in 2017.
That will fund a lot of things: more rotational US forces in Europe, more training and exercising with our allies, more preposition and war-fighting gear and infrastructure improvements to support all this.
And when combined with US forces already in and assigned to Europe – which are also substantial – all of this together by the end of 2017 will let us rapidly form a highly capable combined arms ground force that can respond across that theater, if necessary.
The US is preparing for an invasion of Russia.
«By the end of 2017» the US will be prepared to invade Russia.
https://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/39232/18771686.104/0_94af0_83126c68_orig.gif
Secretary Carter went on to say:

Russia and China are our most stressing competitors. They have developed and are continuing to advance military system[s] that seek to threaten our advantages in specific areas. And in some case[s], they are developing weapons and ways of wars that seek to achieve their objectives rapidly, before they hope, we can respond.
Because of this and because of their actions to date, from Ukraine to the South China Sea, DOD has elevated their importance in our defense planning and budgeting.
Since he is a Secretary of ‘Defense’ instead of a Secretary of Offense, he immediately added:

While we do not desire conflict of any kind with either of these nations – and let me be clear.
That’s all there was to the assertion there; he didn’t finish the sentence, nor even the thought. But in this offhanded way, he did at least try to give the impression that the US is never an aggressor – for example: that, though the US is expanding NATO right up to Russia’s borders, Russia is being the ‘aggressor’ to move troops and weapons up to those borders – up to Russia’s own borders (to counter the US & NATO invasion-threat, of course; but, no: it’s to threaten NATO, if you believe the West).
In the statements by Ash Carter, Barack Obama, and Jens Stoltenberg, that’s ‘Russian aggression’. In the allegory by George Orwell, 1984, America’s rhetoric is called simply «Newspeak».
It’s as if during the Soviet Union (i.e., before 1991), when Nikita Khrushchev was the aggressor in 1962 and John Kennedy was the defender (against Soviet missiles in Cuba), Khrushchev had refused to yield and said that Soviet nuclear missiles near the US had only a defensive, not offensive, purpose (no purpose for a blitz nuclear attack against the US too fast for the US to be able to get its missiles launched in retaliation). Kennedy said no to that idea then, and Putin says no to that idea (right on Russia’s very borders) now. The US, in post-Soviet, post-communist, Russia, has turned around and become the aggressor – against the now democratic nation of Russia. (And Putin’s approval-rating (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/dec/20/donald-trump/donald-trump-right-about-putins-popularity-russia/) from the Russian people is at least 80%, whereas Obama’s approval-rating (http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/obama-job-approval) from the American people is near 50%.)
We’ve switched roles. The US has turned to dictatorship, while Russia has turned to democracy. It’s a super-switcheroo. ‘Democracy’ in the US has become, during recent decades, the election of Presidents and congresspersons who were campaigning on lies, and who then actually delivered more like the opposite, as their actual governmental policies.
A good example of this is that when Mr Obama was campaigning for re-election to the Presidency in 2012, he outright mocked his opponent Mitt Romney’s asserting (2:22 on the video (http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/26/romney-russia-is-our-number-one-geopolitical-foe/)) that, «Russia, this is without question our number one geopolitical foe». But the moment that Obama became re-elected, Obama activated (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/01/obamas-invasion-plan-syria-drawn-kim-roosevelt-1957.html) a 1957 CIA plan to overthrow Russia’s ally Bashar al-Assad in Syria, and a more-recent CIA and State Department plan (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/02/new-video-evidence-americas-coup-ukraine-means.html) to overthrow the actually neutralist (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/03/160-billion-cost-ukraines-viktor-yanukovych-spurned-eus-offer-20-nov-2013.html) Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych in Ukraine and replace him with a rabidly anti-Russian government. The head of Stratfor called it «the most blatant coup in history,» (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/12/head-stratfor-private-cia-says-overthrow-yanukovych-blatant-coup-history.html) and it was an extremely bloody coup (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-RyOaFwcEw), followed by a civil war – and economic collapse, and even more corruption there. In addition, Obama carried out a French plan (http://web.archive.org/web/20160109230627/https:/www.foia.state.gov/searchapp/DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_DecWebClearedMeta/31-C1/DOC_0C05779612/C05779612.pdf) to overthrow Russia’s ally Muammar Gaddafi in Syria.
All of these plans were strongly welcomed by Russia’s main oil-market competitors, all of them fundamentalist Sunni Arab financial backers of jihadists: the Saud royal family of Saudi Arabia, and the Thani royal family of Qatar, as well as the Sabah royal family of Kuwait (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_(testimony)), and the six royal families of the UAE. Those royals own most of the world’s oil, and only Russia and its ally Iran are even in that league. All of those Sunni Arab royal families (especially the Sauds (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/02/al-qaedas-bookkeeper-spills-beans.html)) are the main financial backers of al-Qaeda, ISIS, and other jihadist groups, all of which are fundamentalist Sunni terrorist groups, which especially aim to exterminate all Shiites – and Shiites just happen to be supported by Russia. (The US overthrew the democratically elected progressive President of Iran and installed the tyrannous Shah, back in 1953, and Iranians have loathed the US government ever since.)
President Obama, in his second Administration, ceased his previous focus against the Sunni group al-Qaeda, and refocused US policy to be against Russia, even to the extent of supporting al-Qaeda, ISIS, and other rabidly anti-Russian Sunni groups, who are driving millions of refugees from Syria, Libya, etc., into Europe. (Of course, Obama’s rhetoric remains against those Sunni extremists – just as his rhetoric was against Romney’s policies that Obama ended up imposing in his second term.) All of those terrorist groups are allied with the Sunni Arab royal families against Shiite-led Iran, and Shiite-allied Syria.
The fundamentalist Sunni beliefs (http://www.sott.net/article/309445-Eric-Zuesse-The-Saudi-Wahhabi-origins-of-jihadism) of the Arab royal families have, since at least 1744, been committed to exterminating all Shiites. Now that Shiite and Shiite-allied nations are supported by Russia, the United States is more overtly than ever preparing to conquer Russia, for the benefit of the aristocracies of America, and of Arabia.
And there are many other examples of President Obama’s policies exposing him to be an example of «the election of Presidents and congresspersons who were campaigning on lies, and who then actually delivered more like the opposite, as policies», such as his claiming to champion democracy in Syria when his actual demand regarding Syria is to block democracy there because all the evidence shows (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/10/ban-ki-moon-condemns-the-american-stand-on-syria-endorses-putins.html) that it would result in an overwhelming electoral victory for Bashar al-Assad. And another example is Obama’s support of the right of self-determination of peoples regarding Scotland and Catalonia, but not in Crimea, nor in Donbas, nor in Abkhazia. The United Nations supports the right of self-determination of peoples everywhere, and Ban Ki-moon has clearly stated (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/10/ban-ki-moon-condemns-the-american-stand-on-syria-endorses-putins.html) that America’s demand for the removal of Bashar al-Assad from power is alien to the principles upon which the United Nations was founded.

https://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/66745/18771686.104/0_94af1_74815c_orig.jpgSo: the US regime (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/jimmy-carter-is-correct-t_b_7922788.html) is moving toward a nuclear confrontation against Russia, as a ‘defensive’ measure against ‘Russian aggression’.
Obama had previously used ‘The Iran Threat’ as his basis for placing anti-ballistic missiles in European countries near and bordering Russia, but he can’t do that anymore and so he’s now doing it with what had been his actual motive all along: to ‘protect’ Europe from ‘Russian aggression’.
What had led up to Romney’s assertion that Russia «is without question our number one geopolitical foe» was his having been baited (http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/26/romney-russia-is-our-number-one-geopolitical-foe/) by CNN to comment upon a private statement that Obama had made to Dmitry Medvedev, saying that, «This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility». CNN didn’t say what that matter was about, but simply baited Romney with it for Romney to play the Red-scare Joseph R. McCarthy role, which Romney did (McCarthy, of the anti-communist witch-hunts, being a Republican hero). Reuters explained (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-nuclear-summit-obama-medvedev-idUSBRE82P0JI20120326) what the context was, what Obama had been replying to there: Putin’s concern was that placing anti-ballistic missiles (ABMs) in Europe to strip Russia of its ability to retaliate against a first-strike from NATO forces in Europe, was unacceptable. Obama was telling that he would «have more flexibility» against Republican hate-mongers against Russia, after he’d win re-election. It was just another lie from him. He won re-election and turned out to be actually a black Mitt Romney. In fact, Obama had spent his entire first term deceiving the entire world to think that he rejected Republicans being «stuck in a Cold War mind warp» (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/sep/07/barack-obama/obama-says-romney-called-russia-our-no-1-enemy/), as he put it. It was all merely an act for him. He should be in Hollywood, not in the White House.
If this cat gets much farther out of the bag, it’s not just the cat but the whole world that will be lost.
The first priority for a President Bernie Sanders, or for a President Donald Trump, must be to undo the Bush-Obama foreign policy, because it certainly won’t be undone by a President Hillary Clinton, nor by a President Ted Cruz, nor by a President Marco Rubio – and this is the main thing that’s at stake in the current US Presidential contest. What’s at stake here is nothing less than whether civilization even survives another few decades. That’s now seriously at question, and trillions are being spent right now to bring it to an end.
This isn’t kid’s stuff. And it’s not really rocket science, either. It’s instead a fundamental and stark moral issue, that’s staring the entire world in the face right now. And it hasn’t got a thing to do with religion, but it has a lot to do with restoring democracy where it has been eroded down to virtually nothing.
Democracy requires a truthfully informed public. And that’s the truth. Let’s get with it, before it’s too late to do so.
The likelihood of a nuclear war has never been higher than it is now, except perhaps for the Cuban Missile Crisis, but the entire world was being informed about that then, and what about the situation now? This time around, the situation is perhaps even more serious. The urgency of the situation is critical.
Is this (http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=465530170&m=465530171) the type of ‘news’ coverage we’ll continue to get on the world’s top matter – that Russia is invading our territory, when we’re actually constantly invading (and perpetrating coups (http://stormcloudsgathering.com/the-ukraine-crisis-what-youre-not-being-told)) in theirs, and they’re actually doing what they must do in order to defend the Russian people themselves from NATO?
End NATO now. Or else it (and its cooperative ‘news’ media in the West) will end us all. The whole expansion of NATO up to Russia’s borders has been based upon US President George Herbert Walker Bush’s lie (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/11/americas-great-lie-europes-great-shame-russias-great-case.html) to Mikhail Gorbachev in 1990, which induced Gorbachev to end not just the Soviet Union but their equivalent of NATO, the Warsaw Pact – all of which Russia did do in 1991. Russia has consistently fulfilled its part of the bargain, but GHWB’s vicious violation of his promise has been consistently followed, adhered to, by American Presidents ever since. The deceit goes on, and the US is now heading towards culminating the most dangerous lie in world history.

Eric Zuesse, Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010 , and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity .The original source of this article is Strategic Culture Foundation (http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2016/02/06/us-now-overtly-at-war-against-russia.html)
Copyright © Eric Zuesse (http://www.globalresearch.ca/author/eric-zuesse), Strategic Culture Foundation (http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2016/02/06/us-now-overtly-at-war-against-russia.html), 2016
Comment on Global Research Articles on our Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/GlobalResearchCRG)
Become a Member of Global Research (https://store.globalresearch.ca/member/)

[mick silver]

World War III starts in the Middle East? Saudi Arabia and Turkey consider a ground invasion of SyriaBy Michael Snyder (http://endoftheamericandream.com/) -
February 9, 2016


Share on Facebook
(http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.intellihub.com%2Fwo rld-war-iii-starts-middle-east-saudi-arabia-turkey-consider-ground-invasion-syria%2F) Tweet on Twitter
(https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=World+War+III+starts+in+the+Middle+East %3F+Saudi+Arabia+and+Turkey+consider+a+ground+inva sion+of+Syria&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.intellihub.com%2Fworld-war-iii-starts-middle-east-saudi-arabia-turkey-consider-ground-invasion-syria%2F&via=intellihubnews)







https://www.intellihub.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/2016-02-09_0541-300x165.png (https://www.intellihub.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/2016-02-09_0541.png)End of the American Dream Blog


Are Saudi Arabia and Turkey about to send ground troops into Syria? If so, how will Russia, Iran and the Syrian government respond?
In 2016, Syria has become ground zero for a conflict that has been raging for centuries. For more than a thousand years, the Sunnis and the Shiites have been wrestling with one another for control of the Middle East.
Saudi Arabia, Turkey and other Sunni nations had hoped to turn Syria into a Sunni nation, and for years they have been funding and arming ISIS and other Sunni insurgent groups in an attempt to overthrow the Assad regime.
Initially the Assad regime was losing quite a bit of ground, but the tide turned once the Syrians invited the Russians and the Iranians to help them. Of course the Iranians have their own long-term goals. Once Assad leaves power, the Iranians hope to turn Syria into a truly Shiite nation that is run and dominated by Hezbollah.
At this moment, the Sunnis and losing and the Shiites are winning. Relentless Russian airstrikes have enabled Syrian, Iranian and Hezbollah ground forces to advance, and now they have surrounded Aleppo. Before the war Aleppo was the largest city in Syria, and if it falls, the war will be very close to over.
(Ad) Dark Days Ahead If We Don't Address These Issues -- Find Out Why (http://www.shadethemotionpicture.com/?page_id=20)


Thousands of refugees are currently flooding out of Aleppo as the Russians bombard the surrounding area continually. There is little hope that the Sunni forces that once were so optimistic about overthrowing Assad can hold out much longer without help.
As the situation becomes increasingly desperate, Saudi Arabia and Turkey are now considering what was once unthinkable – a full-blown ground invasion of Syria.
Of course this could very well set off World War III in the Middle East, but Saudi Arabia and Turkey have already invested so much in this conflict, and they don’t appear to be willing to throw up their hands and walk away now.
Just consider what Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan told reporters this past weekend (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-02-08/turkey-saudi-arabia-mull-syria-ground-invasion-russia-hezbollah-decimate-rebels)…


“What’s going on in Syria can only go on for so long. At some point it has to change,” Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan told reporters on a plane back to Turkey from Latin America over the weekend.As we’ve documented extensively over the past several days, Ankara, Riyadh, and Doha have their backs against the wall when it comes to the effort to oust Bashar al-Assad and perpetuate Sunni hegemony in the Arabian Peninsula.Hezbollah has surrounded Aleppo and their advance is backed by what’s been described as an unrelenting Russian air campaign. The rebels’ supply lines to Turkey have been cut and without a direct intervention by either the US or the Gulf states, the battle for Syria will have been lost for the opposition which pulled out of peace talks in Geneva citing the ongoing aerial bombardment by Moscow.And according to Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-07/erdogan-signals-turkey-won-t-stay-out-of-syria-if-asked-to-join), he added the following ominous statement…


“You don’t talk about these things. When necessary, you do what’s needed. Right now our security forces are prepared for all possibilities.”The Saudis are being less vague. They are now publicly saying that they would definitely be willing to commit ground troops (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-07/erdogan-signals-turkey-won-t-stay-out-of-syria-if-asked-to-join) to the conflict in Syria…


Ahmed Asseri, a spokesman for the Saudi Arabia-led coalition fighting Yemen, said Saudis would also be willing to contribute ground troops as part of a wider campaign against Islamic State in Syria, Al-Arabiya television reported Friday.And consider what one of their top generals told Al Jazeera (http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/02/general-saudi-arabia-set-deploy-troops-syria-160205042542486.html)…


“Today, the Saudi kingdom announced its readiness to participate with ground troops with the US-led coalition against ISIL, because we now have the experience in Yemen,” Brigadier General Ahmed Asseri told Al Jazeera.We know that air strikes cannot be enough and that a ground operation is needed. We need to combine both to achieve better results on the ground.”In addition to Saudi Arabia, the government of the United Arab Emirates is also indicating that it is ready to send ground forces into Syria. The following comes from the Express (http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/642076/united-arab-emirates-saudi-arabia-boots-ground-syria)…


On Sunday, the UAE, a federation of seven states and one the Middle East’s most important economic centres, said it stands ready to supply ground troops to support and train international coalition soldiers in the war-ravaged country.Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Anwar Gargash said boots on the ground are the most effective way to fight ISIS, also known as Daesh.Mr Gargash said: “I think that this has been our position throughout, that a real campaign against Daesh has to include ground elements.”All of that stuff that the UAE and the Saudis are saying about fighting ISIS is complete nonsense.
Thanks to the Russians, the Iranians and Hezbollah, ISIS and other Sunni insurgent groups are already on their last legs in Syria.
No, the truth is that the only reason the UAE, the Saudis and Turkey would go in would be to help the Sunni insurgency win the war.
And of course they would absolutely love the assistance of the United States in this venture. Unfortunately for them, the Obama administration does not seem very eager to commit troops in large numbers to this fight.
I think that the Obama administration realizes that a full-blown invasion of Syria at this point could easily bring us to the brink of war with Russia. The following is what U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry reportedly said to a Syrian aid worker (http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/opposition-blame-syrian-bombing-kerry-tells-aid-workers-1808021537) on the sidelines of a recent international conference on Syria…


Two Syrian aid workers said they approached Kerry at a donor conference drinks reception and told him that he had not done enough to protect Syrian civilians. He then said they should blame the opposition.“He said that basically, it was the opposition that didn’t want to negotiate and didn’t want a ceasefire, and they walked away,” the second of the aid workers told MEE in a separate conversation and also on the basis of anonymity.“‘What do you want me to do? Go to war with Russia? Is that what you want?’” the aid worker said Kerry told her.For once, John Kerry has it right.
If a Sunni coalition spearheaded by the United States were to conduct a full-blown invasion of Syria, it would force the Russians to respond.
And once Americans and Russians start killing one another, World War III is only a hop, skip and jump away.
But even if the U.S. is not involved, joint military action by Saudi Arabia and Turkey in Syria definitely would have the potential to spark a major regional war in the Middle East. From there, who knows how far it could spread.
Our world is becoming increasingly unstable, and Syria has become a crucible for rising global tensions that could explode at any moment.
Hopefully Saudi Arabia and Turkey will listen to common sense. If they choose to go in, there is very little to be gained and so much that could be lost. They will never be able to defeat the combined forces of the Russians, the Iranians and Hezbollah, and they could very easily end up starting a war that nobody wants to see.
Source: End of the American Dream (http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/world-war-iii-starts-in-the-middle-east-saudi-arabia-and-turkey-consider-a-ground-invasion-of-syria)

[mick silver]

Soros Warns Russia-China Military Alliance Will Take on US ... one has to wonder witch way This ass hole betting... my thought are he betting on the USA TO NOT WIN

© AP Photo/ Manuel Balce Ceneta



US (http://sputniknews.com/us/)04:29 18.06.2015(updated 08:36 18.06.2015) Get short URL
21 (http://sputniknews.com/us/20150618/1023508506.html#comments)130221559

In the interest of global peace, the United States must mend relations with China, or else suffer the consequences of World War III. At least, that’s what billionaire investor George Soros says.

"Both the US and China have a vital interest in reaching an understanding because the alternative is so unpalatable," Soros wrote in an article for the New York Review of Books.

"The benefits of an eventual agreement between China and the US could be equally far-reaching."http://cdn2.img.sputniknews.com/images/101428/26/1014282678.jpg
© REUTERS/ Joshua Lott
On the Hook: Soros' Adventurism in Ukraine to Cost US Taxpayers Dearly (http://sputniknews.com/us/20150608/1023087135.html)

According to Soros, the danger could come if Chinese economic reforms fail. In that event, President Xi Jinping "may foster some external conflicts to keep the country united and maintain himself in power."
These "conflicts" would present themselves in the form of a Sino-Russo alliance which could draw the entire world into war.
"In that case, should the external conflict escalate into a military confrontation with an ally of the United States such as Japan, it is not an exaggeration to say that we would be on the threshold of a third world war," he writes.

Soros goes on to point out the key differences between Washington, Beijing, and Moscow, suggesting that China and Russia both consider themselves victims of "America’s aspirations to world domination."http://cdn3.img.sputniknews.com/images/101792/77/1017927759.jpg
© REUTERS/ Ruben Sprich
Soros: US on the Brink of World War III With China (http://sputniknews.com/us/20150522/1022438626.html)

"Fully recognizing these difficulties, the US government should nevertheless make a bona fide attempt at forging a strategic partnership with China," Soros writes.
"This would involve identifying areas of common interest as well as areas of rivalry. The former would invite cooperation, the latter tit-for-tat bargaining. The US needs to develop a two-pronged strategy that offers incentives for cooperation and deterrents that render tit-for-tat bargaining less attractive."
Soros also notes that regardless of what the US does, the world could be entering a renewed Cold War, but that such an outcome would "still be preferable to a third world war."


1226

...

Reddit
Google+
Blogger
Pinterest
StumbleUpon



1559

Related:Soros Flaring Flames of Ukraine War to Force Regime Change in Russia (http://sputniknews.com/politics/20150605/1022978438.html)Leak Reveals George Soros Plan to Make EU Underwrite Ukraine Crisis (http://sputniknews.com/europe/20150601/1022822447.html)Soros $1 bln investment in Russia no political threat - MP (http://sputniknews.com/russia/20061120/55811410.html)






Read more: http://sputniknews.com/us/20150618/1023508506.html#ixzz4046jxLlx

[Joshua01]

With the weakening of the military, Obama has done his job. Our military leadership has been decimated by Obama and replaced by incompetence. It's all part of the Master Plan

[mick silver]

Turkish Prime Minister: "Russia Guilty of Crimes Against Humanity" Post by Newsroom (https://www.superstation95.com/index.php/world/author/973-newsroom) - Feb 15, 2016





https://cdn.superstation95.com/media/k2/items/cache/5778877be1a35482f319be586a4e5dc3_XL.jpg

"If Russia continues behaving like a terrorist organization, forcing civilians to flee, we will deliver an extremely decisive response."
https://cdn.superstation95.com/images/TurkPM.jpg

This from a Turkish dwarf, Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, (left) whose government has been shelling another country (Syria) for three days?!? !
That is precisely what has been taking place. With all the troubles over the past few yeaers inside Syria, where "rebels" are trying to forcibly overthrow the duly-electred President, Bashar Assad, it turns out that Turkey has been sponsoring these "rebels" even when they've allied with known terror groups like ISIS and AL Qaeda!
Did it ever occur to Prime Minister Davutaglo that his government's artillery barrages into Syria are what's forcing civilians to flee? Did it ever occur to him that his government has aligned itself with ISIS and Al Qaeda terror groups, to the point of physically transporting those terrorists from one battle area to another INSIDE SYRIA, to bolster OTHER terrorists that are trying to overthrow the Syrian government?
These things are what have been taking place along the Turkey-Syria Border for weeks!
Turkey is now a proven State-Sponsor-of-Terrorism. They openly provide material support to ISIS and Al Qaeda among other documented terrorist groups, inside Syria. Turkey is doing this because they have some age-old beef with Kurds, who live along the border and act with a certain autonomy.
Turkey does not like autonomous people, so to Turkey, they would rather support ISIS and Al Qaeda, rather than live peacefully with Kurds. It's a very weird situation over there.
In any case, Prime Minister Davutoglo and his boss, President Recap Erdogan, belong in handcuffs in a prison cell, for war crimes trials in The Hague. They are aiding and abetting ISIS, participating in, and benefitting from the oil which ISIS is stealing from Syria and Iraq; which they allow to be transported to Turkey where it Is refined, re-packaged to look legitimate, then sold.
Erdogan, Davutaglo and their government are likely pocketing a sizeable amount of cash from this stolen oil smuggling.
Russia's assistance to Syria has put a big dent in the stolen oil, so the corrupt officials inside Turkey are witnessing their ill-gotten gains drying up. THAT is why Turkey is causing so much trouble in Syria; they want to line their pockets with stolen oil money.
Whatever Davutaglo and Erdogan have to say to achieve that, they will. That's why we see this rhetoric against Russia claiming the Russians are committing crimes against humanity. It's nonsense.
Turkey is backing terrorists. The proof is irrefutable.
Are Turks all nuts or is it just their government which is out of their minds?


Last modified on Monday, 15 February 2016

[mick silver]

Rumor Mill: Obama-Putin Phone Call Mis-Routed Over INSECURE Circuit; Intercepted! Post by Newsroom (https://www.superstation95.com/index.php/world/author/973-newsroom) - Feb 14, 2016





https://cdn.superstation95.com/media/k2/items/cache/9ee28f01f100eeeb1372f6866ddd0d3a_XL.jpg


Media outlets are in a frenzied effort to obtain what is alleged to be an accidentally-misrouted Presidential Phone call; sent via an insecure circuit, which was intercepted. The telephone call was allegedly between U.S. President Barack Obama and Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin.
According to the rumors -- all of which are completely unsubstantiated at this time -- a call between the two leaders was somehow routed through an insecure telephone circuit. This allegedly resulted in the normal encryption which secures such calls, to be negated.
If true, that would have placed the contents of the call out in the open. That, according to the rumors, is exactly what allegedly took place. Worse, the rumors indicate the call was intercepted and recorded.
Everything we are about to report to you about the alleged phone call is Hearsay. We do not have ANY proof whatsoever, and all of this may end up being false or simply wrong.
Having said that, the rumor mill is rife with claims the call between the two leaders dealt with the situation in Syria and, contrary to White House comments saying the leaders agreed more Diplomacy was needed, the call instead was an extraordinarily heated call, replete with name-calling of a vile nature and actual threats of war!
The rumor mill churned out details that lend credibility to the possibility the call was insecure and recorded. For instance, Putin allegedly told Obama that he would no longer tolerate Erdogan (The Turkish President) "protecting and assisting terrorists, then engaging in sneak attacks, while hiding behind the shield of NATO." Putin also allegedly referred to the Saudi Arabians by a less than diplomatic epithet, and he allegedly went on to say that unless Obama "put a leash on these dogs, Turkey would be on a Russian Bear's menu." He allegedly also said that Saudi Arabia's intent to forcibly remove Bashar Assad "could make the desert glow in the dark." If true, it was a direct nuclear threat against Saudi Arabia!
Obama allegedly made clear that NATO would not allow that to take place, to which Putin allegedly chuckled "NATO is falling apart; they can't even control their own borders!" He allegedly added "they have no power to interfere with Russia!" Putin also allegedly made clear to Obama "These people are doing your bidding, get them under control while you still can or Russia will do it for you."
There are a variety of varying versions of this phone call, but all of them seem to indicate the phone call was about Syria, Turkey assisting terrorists, and Russia being unwilling to tolerate it anymore.
We must again reiterate this is 100% rumor-mill gossip within media circles and to our knowledge, no media outlet actually has a recording of the conversation. ALL OF THIS INFORMATION COULD BE WRONG.
In the past, however, we have found that rumors somehow have a way of ending up based in fact; and its only a matter of time before such facts come out. It is in that light that we felt it newsworthy to offer this GOSSIP, with several clear disclaimers so there is no misunderstanding. There is NO PROOF that any of this is accurate . . . . but it may be.
Decide for yourselves!

[mick silver]

Notice How Quiet Russia Has Been Over Syria? The Middle East is about to find out "No" means "No" Post by Editorial Board (https://www.superstation95.com/index.php/component/k2/author/2852-editorialboard) - Feb 15, 2016

font size decrease font size https://cdn.superstation95.com/components/com_k2/images/system/blank.gif (https://www.superstation95.com/index.php/component/k2/895#) increase font size https://cdn.superstation95.com/components/com_k2/images/system/blank.gif (https://www.superstation95.com/index.php/component/k2/895#)




https://cdn.superstation95.com/media/k2/items/cache/c54cd01619725a4dabebc35be504cd7b_XL.jpg


Over the past few days, there has been a whirlwind of media attention over events in Syria and a likely Invasion of that country. Syria, as everyone knows, is an ally of Russia and Russia is operating inside that country, with the permission of its lawfully elected government.
Despite a whirlwind of statements from several Arab nations, NATO and the UN, Russia has only said two things:
1) If ground troops from any nation enter Syria without Damascus' permission, it will be a declaration of war." AND;
2) The Americans - the American President and our Arab partenrs - have to ask themselves if they want permanent war."
Other than those two public statements, Russia has been very quiet. The fact that the Russians have said nothing is a very revealing thing: There is no more left to say.
The time for talking is over.
Actions will determine the future.

If this . . . . then that.

It's quite simple, really. Russia has said "If any foreign ground forces enter Syria without Damascus' permission, it will be a declaration of war."

Russia says what it means and means what it says; a rarity in today's world.

So the line has been clearly drawn by Russia. Now, it's up to the rest of the world to decide whether or not Russia's statements mean what they actually said?

This is a mistake that many are about to make. The Arabs, ever shifty as a matter of culture, do not realize they are dealing with an absolute. No means no.

The Arabs are acting just plain stupid in this regard. They apparently think if they come into Syria with a big enough force, and fast enough, they will simply over-run the nation.

The idea that their troops will be vaporized by tactical, battlefield, nuclear weapons, didn't even occur to them.
Now that some alternative media sites (like this one) have stated this is precisely what will take place, those sites are receiving heavy and sustained visits from people in Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Qatar and elsewhere in the Middle East. Folks are now rapidly waking up to the fact tactical nukes may very well be used.

Rather than face this reality and pull back, these nations seem to be going into psychological "denial." They seem to be thinking ""Russia wouldn't dare." Not to put too fine a point on it but, Yes, they would.





Turkey is proving to be worst of all. That country has a leader, Erdogan, who seems to have become a maniac. Perhaps he suffers from some delusion about being some religious prophet or calling-down the Mahdi . . . or whatever they call it.

He -- Erdogan of Turkey -- will be the first hot head to move and, if we read Russia correctly, they will allow him to come right over the border, deep into Syria, before they strike.
Once Turkish troops are sufficiently inside Syria, the Russians will unleash force in such a fury, the Turks won't know what hit them! It will be horrible -- and glorious -- all at the same time (depending upon which side you're on!)

But regardless of the side you're on, it will already be too late for those Turkish troops. Few if any will get out alive.

We suspect the rest of the Arabs will see this and run like hell. End of war.

The US has neither the cash nor the inclination to enter a war with Russia. We also have a limp-wristed weakling as our President. As we saw several years ago with his "Red Line" about chemical weapons in Syria, Obama TALKS a good game, but when push comes to shove, he's a girly-man. No stomach for a fight. We will even go so far as to say all this trouble in the Middle East is Obama's fault! If he weren't such a candy-assed wimp, a lot of the troubles that have flared-up around the world, would never have taken place.
As for NATO, the Europeans are so mentally weak from political correctness, and so financially wrecked by their socialistic systems, they can't even protect their own borders! NATO can't say no to wild hordes of barbaric invaders, what will they do when someone actually starts shooting at them on a battlefield? RUN AWAY!
NATO, in other words, is a joke.

Within a few days, we'll see an explosion of military action in and around Syria. We will see a brutal defeat of Turkey and Saudi Arabia, then cooler heads will suddenly prevail. We hope.
Yet, part of us is very concerned due to the old adage made famous in the movie "Forrest Gump:" Stupid is as stupid does. Obama and his left-wing, liberal cry-babies are, if nothing else, stupid. They may yet get all of us killed by talking tough against a country like Russia who is not afraid of their bluster.
Like it or not, Russia is a super power.
Now think back a few years to when President Limp Wrist went on TV and referred to Russia as a "regional power." That misstatement was a huge miscalculation. History will record that from the moment Obama uttered those words, everything in the world went to hell in a hand basket.
Stupid is as stupid does.

[mick silver]

Confirmed: Russian and Syrian jets are on standby to shoot down any Turkish or Saudi plane that crosses into Syria. Turkey is prepared to close the Bosporus and attack Russian ships in the Mediterranean.


by Gordon Duff, Senior Editor with Jim W. Dean and input from Nahed al Husaini, Damascus, Gene Khrushchev, Moscow, Jeff Smith, Jim Hanke, Voijan Melosivic, Belgrade and others (http://www.veteranstoday.com/staff-writers/) (Dr. Bassam Barakat, Damascus, Henry Kamens, Tbilisi)(Video of Saudi/Israeli nuclear attack on Yemen)
Turkey has begun continuous shelling of YPG Kurds (pro-American) inside Syria for at least 3 hours; this is seen as a prelude to a ground attack on anti-ISIS forces inside Syria.___________http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/459483-syria-russia-320x183.jpgMunich “cessation of hostilities” is off to a rocky start


[ Editor’s Note, 2:30 pm ET: VT is back up after being hacked for several hours when one key story was up — the one below on the Saudis moving tactical nukes to Turkey, to be closer to the NW Syrian battleground, and the NATO tripwire for any attack that might be launched on Syria after some staged provocation.

[mick silver]

The Geopolitics of World War III11.Sep.2014 | http://d3cced9h6ghzi5.cloudfront.net/sites/default/files/imagecache/user_thumb_submitted/pictures/picture-1.pngSCG (http://stormcloudsgathering.com/who-is-scg)




The real reason Russia and Syria are being targeted right now.


Contrary to popular belief, the conduct of nations on the international stage is almost never driven by moral considerations, but rather by a shadowy cocktail of money and geopolitics. As such, when you see the mouthpieces of the ruling class begin to demonize a foreign country, the first question in your mind should always be "what is actually at stake here?"
For some time now Russia, China, Iran, and Syria have been in the cross hairs. Once you understand why, the events unfolding in the world right now will make much more sense.
The U.S. dollar is a unique currency. In fact its current design and its relationship to geopolitics is unlike any other in history. Though it has been the world reserve currency since 1944, this is not what makes it unique. Many currencies have held the reserve status off and on over the centuries, but what makes the dollar unique is the fact that since the early 1970s it has been, with a few notable exceptions, the only currency used to buy and sell oil on the global market.
Prior to 1971 the U.S. dollar was bound to the gold standard, at least officially. According to the IMF, by 1966, foreign central banks held $14 billion U.S. dollars, however the United States had only $3.2 billion in gold (http://www.imf.org/external/np/exr/center/mm/eng/sc_sub_3.htm) allocated to cover foreign holdings.
Translation: the Federal Reserve was printing more money than it could actually back.
The result was rampant inflation and a general flight from the dollar.
In 1971 in what later came to be called the "Nixon Shock" President Nixon removed the dollar from the gold standard completely.
At this point the dollar became a pure debt based currency. With debt based currencies money is literally loaned into existence.
Approximately 70% of the money in circulation is created by ordinary banks which are allowed to loan out more than they actually have in their accounts.
The rest is created by the Federal Reserve which loans money that they don't have, mostly to government.
Kind of like writing hot checks, except it's legal, for banks. This practice which is referred to as fractional reserve banking is supposedly regulated by the Federal Reserve (http://www.investopedia.com/university/thefed/fed2.asp), an institution which just happens to be owned and controlled by a conglomerate of banks, and no agency or branch of government regulates the Federal Reserve.


Now to make things even more interesting these fractional reserve loans have interest attached, but the money to pay that interest doesn't exist in the system. As a result there is always more total debt than there is money in circulation, and in order to stay afloat the economy must grow perpetually.
This is obviously not sustainable.
Now you might be wondering how the dollar has maintained such a dominant position on the world stage for over forty years if it's really little more than an elaborate ponzi scheme.
Well this is where the dollar meets geopolitics.
In 1973 under the shadow of the artificial OPEC oil crisis, the Nixon administration began secret negotiations with the government of Saudi Arabia to establish what came to be referred to as the petrodollar recycling system. Under the arrangement the Saudis would only sell their oil in U.S. dollars, and would invest the majority of their excess oil profits into U.S. banks and Capital markets. The IMF would then use this money to facilitate loans to oil importers (http://www.imf.org/external/np/exr/center/mm/eng/rs_sub_3.htm) who were having difficulties covering the increase in oil prices. The payments and interest on these loans would of course be denominated in U.S. dollars.
This agreement was formalized in the "The U.S.-Saudi Arabian Joint Commission on Economic Cooperation" (http://www.gao.gov/products/ID-79-7) put together by Nixon's Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in 1974.
Another document released by the Congressional Research Service (http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/135931.pdf) reveals that these negotiations had an edge to them, as U.S. officials were openly discussing the feasibility of seizing oil fields in Saudi Arabia militarily.
In the United States, the oil shocks produced inflation, new concern about foreign investment from oil producing countries, and open speculation about the advisability and feasibility of militarily seizing oil fields in Saudi Arabia or other countries. In the wake of the embargo, both Saudi and U.S. officials worked to re-anchor the bilateral relationship on the basis of shared opposition to Communism, renewed military cooperation, and through economic initiatives that promoted the recycling of Saudi petrodollars to the United States via Saudi investment in infrastructure, industrial expansion, and U.S. securities.
The system was expanded to include the rest of OPEC by 1975.
Though presented as buffer to the recessionary effects of rising oil prices, this arrangement had a hidden side effect. It removed the traditional restraints on U.S. monetary policy.
The Federal Reserve was now free to increase the money supply at will. The ever increasing demand for oil would would prevent a flight from the dollar, while distributing the inflationary consequences across the entire planet.
The dollar went from being a gold back currency to a oil backed currency. It also became America's primary export.
Did you ever wonder how the U.S. economy has been able to stay afloat while running multibillion dollar trade deficits for decades?
Did you ever wonder how it is that the U.S. holds such a disproportionate amount of the worlds wealth when 70% of the U.S. economy is consumer based?
In the modern era, fossil fuels make the world go round. They have become integrated into every aspect of civilization: agriculture, transportation, plastics, heating, defense and medicine, and demand just keeps growing and growing.
As long as the world needs oil, and as long as oil is only sold in U.S. dollars, there will be a demand for dollars, and that demand is what gives the dollar its value.
For the United States this is a great deal. Dollars go out, either as paper or digits in a computer system, and real tangible products and services come in. However for the rest of the world, it's a very sneaky form of exploitation.
Having global trade predominately in dollars also provides the Washington with a powerful financial weapon through sanctions. This is due to the fact that most large scale dollar transactions are forced to pass through the U.S.
This petrodollar system stood unchallenged until September of 2000 when Saddam Hussein announced (http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/english/200009/26/eng20000926_51324.html) his decision to switch Iraq's oil sales off of the dollar to Euros. This was a direct attack on the dollar, and easily the most important geopolitical event of the year, but only one article in the western media even mentioned it. (http://edition.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/meast/10/30/iraq.un.euro.reut/)
In the same month that Saddam announced he was moving away from the dollar, an organization called the “The Project for a New American Century”, of which Dick Cheney just happened to be a member, released a document entitled “REBUILDING AMERICA’S DEFENSES Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century”. This document called for massive increases in U.S. military spending and a much more aggressive foreign policy in order to expand U.S. dominance world wide. However the document lamented that achieving these goals would take many years “absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor”.

One year later they got it.
Riding the emotional reaction to 9/11, the Bush administration was able to invade Afghanistan and Iraq and pass the patriot act all without any significant resistance.
There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and this wasn't a question of bad intelligence. This was a cold calculated lie, and the decision to invade was made in full knowledge of the disaster which would follow.


They knew exactly what was going to happen but in 2003, they did it anyway. Once Iraqi oil fields were under U.S. control, oil sales were immediately switched back to the dollar. Mission accomplished.
Soon after the invasion of Iraq the Bush administration attempted to extend these wars to Iran. Supposedly the Iranian government was working to build a nuclear weapon. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24677-2005Jan20.html) After the Iraq fiasco Washington's credibility was severely damaged as a result they were unable to muster international or domestic support for an intervention. Their efforts were further sabotaged by elements within the CIA and Mossad who came forward to state (http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/mossad-cia-agree-iran-has-yet-to-decide-to-build-nuclear-weapon-1.419300) that Iran had not even made the decision to develop nuclear weapons much less begin an attempt. However the demonization campaign against Iran continued even into the Obama administration (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/9122351/Obama-I-will-not-hesitate-in-using-force-to-block-Irans-nuclear-threat-from-Iran.html).
Why?
Well, might it have something to do with the fact that since 2004 Iran has been in the process of organizing an independent oil bourse (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HA21Ak01.html)? They were building their own oil market, and it wasn't going to be tied to the dollar. (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/iran-ends-oil-transactions-in-us-dollars/) The first shipments of oil were sold through this market (http://www.tehrantimes.com/economy-and-business/1748-1st-oil-shipment-sold-on-iran-oil-bourse) in July of 2011.
Unable to get the war that they wanted, the U.S. used the U.N to impose sanctions against Iran. The goal of the sanctions was to topple the Iranian regime. (http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/nation-world/article/Goal-of-Iran-sanctions-is-regime-collapse-U-S-2520405.php) While this did inflict damage (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/01/world/middleeast/iran-staggers-as-sanctions-hit-economy.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0) on the Iranian economy, the measures failed to destabilize the country. This was due in large part to Russia's assistance in bypassing U.S. banking restrictions. (http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/01/10/uk-iran-russia-oil-exclusive-idUKBREA090DN20140110)
In February of 2009 Muammar Gaddafi, was named chairman of the African Union. He immediately proposed the formation of a unified state with a single currency. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/03/world/africa/03africa.html?_r=0) It was the nature of that proposed currency that got him killed.
In March of 2009 the African Union released a document entitled "Towards a Single African Currency". (http://ea.au.int/en/sites/default/files/DOCUMENT_EN_FR_2_4_MARCH_2009_EA_CONGRESS_ARTICLE_ VOLUME_1.pdf) Pages 106 and 107 of that document specifically discuss the benefits and technicalities of running the African Central bank under a gold standard. On page 94 it explicitly states that the key to the success of the African Monetary Union would be the "eventual linking of a single African currency to the most monetary of all commodities - gold." (Note that the page number is different on other versions of the document (http://ea.au.int/en/sites/default/files/DOCUMENT_EN_FR_2_4_MARCH_2009_EA_CONGRESS_ARTICLE_ VOLUME_4.pdf) that they released.)
In 2011 the CIA moved into Libya and began backing militant groups in their campaign to topple Gaddafi and the U.S. and NATO pushed through and stretched a U.N. nofly-zone resolution to tip the balance with airstrikes. The presence of Al-Qaeda extremists among these rebel fighters was swept under the rug.
Libya, like Iran and Iraq had committed the unforgivable crime of challenging the U.S. dollar.
The NATO intervention in Libya segued into a covert war on Syrian. The armories of the Libyan government were looted and the weapons were shipped via Turkey to Syrian rebels groups working to topple Assad. It was already clear at this point that many of these fighters had ties to terrorist organizations. However the U.S. national security apparatus viewed this as a necessary evil. In fact the Council on Foreign relations published an article (http://www.cfr.org/syria/al-qaedas-specter-syria/p28782) in 2012 stating that "The influx of jihadis brings discipline, religious fervor, battle experience from Iraq, funding from Sunni sympathizers in the Gulf, and most importantly, deadly results. In short, the FSA needs al-Qaeda now."
(Hat tip to theantimedia.org (http://theantimedia.org/council-on-foreign-relations-syrian-rebels-need-al-qaeda-now/) for catching this.)
Let's be clear here, the U.S. put ISIS in power. (http://stormcloudsgathering.com/the-covert-origins-of-isis)

[mick silver]

Let's be clear here, the U.S. put ISIS in power. (http://stormcloudsgathering.com/the-covert-origins-of-isis)


In 2013 these same Al-Qaeda linked Syrian rebels launched two sarin gas attacks. This was an attempt to frame Assad and muster international support for military intervention. Fortunately they were exposed by U.N. and Russian investigators and the push for airstrikes completely fell apart when Russia stepped in to broker a diplomatic solution. (http://edition.cnn.com/2013/09/12/politics/syria-putin-analysis/)


The campaign for regime change in Syria, as in Libya has been presented in terms of human rights. Obviously this isn't the real motive.
In 2009, Qatar put forth a proposal (http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/pipeline-politics-in-syria/) to run a natural gas pipeline through Syria and Turkey to Europe. Assad however rejected this, and in 2011 he forged a pact with Iraq and Iran to run a pipeline eastward (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424053111903591104576467631289250392?mg=ren o64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB1000 1424053111903591104576467631289250392.html) cutting Qatar and Saudi Arabia out of the loop completely. Not surprisingly Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey have been the most aggressive regional players in the push to topple the Syrian government.
But why would this pipeline dispute put Syria in Washington's cross hairs? Three reasons:
1. This pipeline arrangement would significantly strengthen Iran's position, allowing them to export to European markets without having to pass through any of Washington's allies. This obviously reduces the U.S. government's leverage.
2. Syria is Iran's closest ally. It's collapse would inherently weaken Iran.
3. Syria and Iran have a mutual defense agreement, and a U.S. intervention in Syria could open the door to open conflict with Iran.
In February of 2014 this global chess game heated up in a new venue: Ukraine. The real target however was Russia.
You see Russia just happens to be the worlds second largest oil exporter, and not only have they been a thorn in Washington's side diplomatically, but they also opened an energy bourse in 2008 (http://rt.com/business/russia-opens-online-fuel-bourse/), with sales denominated in Rubles and gold. This project had been in the works since 2006. (http://en.ria.ru/russia/20060522/48434383.html) They have also been working with China (http://www.ibtimes.com/china-russia-currency-agreement-further-threatens-us-dollar-248338) to pull off of the dollar in all of their bilateral trade.
Russia has also been in the process of organizing a Eurasian Economic Union (http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2011/11/11/putins-dream-of-eurasian-union-could-control-worlds-energy/) which includes plans to adopt common currency unit, and which is slated to have its own independent energy market. (http://www.neurope.eu/article/russia-spearheads-common-energy-market-eurasian-union)
Leading up to the crisis in Ukraine had been presented with a choice: either join the E.U. under an association agreement or join the Eurasian Union. The E.U. insisted that this was an either or proposition. Ukraine couldn't join both. Russia on the other hand, asserted that joining both posed no issue. President Yanukovich decided to go with Russia. (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/eurasian-union-ukraine-chooses-to-strengthen-ties-with-russia-and-reject-historic-trade-deal-with-eu-8955407.html)
In response the U.S. national security apparatus did what it does best: they toppled Yanukovich and installed a puppet government. To see the full evidence of Washington's involvement in the coup watch "The ukraine crisis what you're not being told"


This article (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/mar/06/ukraine-crisis-great-power-oil-gas-rivals-pipelines) from the Guardian is also worth reading.
Though this all seemed to be going well at first, the U.S. quickly lost control of the situation. Crimea held a referendum and the people voted overwhelmingly (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26598832) to secede from Ukraine and reunify with Russia. The transition was orderly and peaceful. No one was killed, yet the West immediately framed the entire event as an act of Russian aggression, and this became the go to mantra from that point on.
Crimea is important geostrategically because of its position in the Black Sea which allows for the projection of naval power into the Mediterranean. It has also been Russian territory for most of recent history. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/02/27/to-understand-crimea-take-a-look-back-at-its-complicated-history/)
The U.S. has been pushing for Ukraine's inclusion into NATO (http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/04/01/ukraine.analysis/) for years now. Such a move would place U.S. forces right on Russia's border and could have potentially resulted in Russia losing their naval base in Crimea. This is why Russia immediately accepted the results of the Crimean referendum and quickly consolidated the territory.
Meanwhile in Eastern Ukraine, two regions declared independence from Kiev and held referendums of their own. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/ukraines-rebels-say-they-are-seeking-a-mandate-not-independence-in-referendum/2014/05/11/ac02688a-d8dc-11e3-aae8-c2d44bd79778_story.html) The results of which overwhelmingly favored self rule.
Kiev responded to this with what they referred to as anti-terrorist operations. (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/15/ukraine-military-forces-russia-live-blog) In practice this was a massive and indiscriminate shelling campaign (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2014/07/25/human-rights-watch-ukrainian-forces-are-rocketing-civilians/) which killed thousands of civilians. Apparently killing civilians didn't qualify as aggression to the West. In fact the IMF explicitly warned the provisional government that their 17 billion dollar loan package could be in danger (http://www.cnbc.com/id/101631226) if they were not able to put down the uprising in eastern Ukraine.
While the war against eastern Ukraine was raging elections were held and Petro Poroshenko was elected president. It turns out that Poroshenko, was exposed by a leaked diplomatic cable released by wikileaks (https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/06KIEV1706_a.html) in 2008 as having worked as a mole for the U.S. State Department since 2006. They referred to him as "Our Ukraine insider" and much of the cable referred to information that he was providing. (A separate cable (http://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/06KIEV2038_a.html) showed that the U.S. knew Poroshenko was corrupt even at that point.)
Having a puppet in place however hasn't turned out to be enough to give Washington the upper hand in this crisis. What does Washington do when they have no other leverage? They impose sanctions (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/09/11/new-russia-sanctions-obama-ukraine/15449511/), they demonize and they saber rattle (or pull a false flag).
This isn't a very good strategy when dealing with Russia. In fact it has already backfired. (http://www.cnbc.com/id/101705303) The sanctions have merely pushed Russia and China into closer cooperation and accelerated Russia's de-dollarization agenda (http://en.ria.ru/business/20140827/192383783/Russias-Gazprom-Neft-to-Sell-Oil-For-Rubles-Yuan.html). And in spite of the rhetoric, this has not led to Russia being isolated. The U.S. and NATO have put a wedge between themselves and Russia, but not between Russia and the rest of the world (look up BRICS if you are unclear about this).
This new anti-dollar axis goes deeper than economics. These countries understand what's at stake here. This is why in the wake of the Ukrainian crisis China has proposed a new Eurasian security pact (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/china-calls-for-new-security-pact-with-russia-iran/) which would include Russia and Iran.
Consider the implications here as the Obama administration begins bombing in Syria which also has a mutual defense agreement with Iran.
This is not the cold war 2.0. This is World War 3.0. The masses may not have figured it out yet, but history will remember it that way.
Alliances are already solidifying and and a hot war is underway on multiple fronts. If the provocations and proxy wars continue, it's only a matter of time before the big players confront each other directly, and that is a recipe for disaster.
Does all of this sound insane to you? Well you're right. The people running the world right now are insane, and the public is sleep walking into a tragedy. If you want to alter the course that we are on, there's only one way to do it. We have to wake up that public. Even the most powerful weapons of war are neutralized if you reach the mind of the man behind the trigger.
How do we wake the masses you ask? Don't wait for someone else to answer that for you. Get creative. Act like you children's and grandchildren's futures depend on it, because they do.



Share to Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=http://stormcloudsgathering.com/the-geopolitics-of-world-war-iii?utm_source=share-fb)

[mick silver]

Saudi Arabia to launch full-scale military exercise with 20 other nationsSource: RT
(https://www.rt.com/news/332454-saudi-arabia-big-drills/)Soldiers from 20 countries are to gather in Saudi Arabia (http://www.hangthebankers.com/?s=saudi+arabia) for massive military exercises lasting 18 days, the official Saudi Press Agency (SPA) said. It comes as Riyadh has openly warned Syrian President Bashar Assad (http://www.hangthebankers.com/?s=assad) that he will be toppled.
The Saudi state agency made the announcement on Sunday, adding that participating troops will begin arriving in “the next few hours.”
The oil-rich nation described the exercises as “the largest and most important” military drills in the region’s history.
The so-called “Northern Thunder” exercise will take place in the north of the country and will include air, sea and land forces. SPA said that it will show that Riyadh and its allies “stand united in confronting all challenges and preserving peace and stability in the region.”
Among the participants will be Arab and African countries. The US and other Western powers have not been invited.
http://www.hangthebankers.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Saudi-Arabia-military.jpg

Sunday’s announcement comes as Saudi Arabia, which is a member of the US-led coalition against Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL), deployed military jets and personnel to Turkey’s Incirlik Air Base. The base is already used by the US Air Force for their planes conducting sorties in Syria.
While Riyadh says this necessary to “intensify” its operations against Islamic State in Syria, the move has sparked concern that the Saudis are getting ready for a full-scale ground invasion of war-torn Syria, where they are backing anti-government rebels battling Syrian President Assad.
In a recent interview with American media, the Saudi Foreign Minister flatly stated that Assad will be toppled if he does not leave during a political transition.
“Bashar al-Assad will leave – have no doubt about it. He will either leave by a political process or he will be removed by force,” Adel al-Jubeir told CNN.
At the same time, Saudi Arabia is leading a coalition that has been bombing Houthi rebels in Yemen since March. Riyadh went to war in Yemen to restore ousted President Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi, who fled from the Shiite Houthi rebels after his two-year term expired in January.
His predecessor, Ali Abdullah Saleh, who was formerly an opponent of the rebels, is now their ally and provides assistance them with tribal troops loyal to him.
The Saudis also created a 35-member coalition to battle “terrorism” in Muslim countries last December.

Share This Article...

[mick silver]

.S. Allies Now Fighting CIA-Backed RebelsBy GPD (http://www.veteranstoday.com/author/admin/) on February 14, 2016
Not long ago, U.S. jets and Shia militias worked together to battle ISIS. Today, those militias are trying to take down American proxies in Syria.
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/48509361.cached.jpg


[ Editor’s note: The origin of this story is the Newsweek group owned by Israeli agent Jane Harman. ]____________Iraqi militias who once fought ISIS (http://www.thedailybeast.com/content/dailybeast/features/isis.html) with U.S. help are now working with Russian and Iranian forces to crush American-backed rebels in the strategic Syrian city of Aleppo (http://www.thedailybeast.com/content/dailybeast/articles/2016/02/06/is-this-game-over-for-assad-s-enemies.html), two defense officials have told The Daily Beast.
At least three Shia militias involved in successful battles against ISIS in Iraq—the Badr Brigade, Kata’ib Hezbollah, and the League of the Righteous—have acknowledged taking casualties in fighting in south and southeast Aleppo province.
U.S. defense officials confirmed to The Daily Beast that they believe “at least one” unit of the Badr Brigade is fighting in southern Aleppo alongside other Iraqi militia groups. Those groups are backed by Russian airpower and Iranian troops—and all of whom are bolstering President Bashar al-Assad (http://www.thedailybeast.com/content/dailybeast/articles/2015/06/19/a-damning-indictment-of-syrian-president-assad-s-systematic-massacres.html)’s Syrian Arab Army.
Reports on social media say the Iraqi militias in Syria are armed with U.S. tanks and small arms they procured on the Iraqi side of the border. Those reports could not be independently confirmed.
The presence of militias fighting on behalf of Assad—a dictator that the U.S. has pledged to depose—is yet another reminder of the tangled alliances that the United States must thread as it pursues seemingly contradictory policies in its battles against the self-proclaimed Islamic State. In Iraq, these Shia militias were battling on behalf of the U.S.-backed government. In Syria, they are fighting against an American-supported rebel coalition that includes forces armed by the CIA.
read more at Daily Beast (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/12/exclusive-u-s-allies-now-fighting-cia-backed-rebels.html)


http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/plugins/social-media-feather/synved-social/image/social/regular/96x96/facebook.png (http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.veteranstoday.com%2F 2016%2F02%2F14%2Fu-s-allies-now-fighting-cia-backed-rebels%2F&t=U.S.%20Allies%20Now%20Fighting%20CIA-Backed%20Rebels&s=100&p[url]=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.veteranstoday.com%2F2016%2F02%2F 14%2Fu-s-allies-now-fighting-cia-backed-rebels%2F&p[images][0]=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.veteranstoday.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F02%2F48509361.cached.jp g&p[title]=U.S.%20Allies%20Now%20Fighting%20CIA-Backed%20Rebels)http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/plugins/social-media-feather/synved-social/image/social/regular/96x96/twitter.png (http://twitter.com/share?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.veteranstoday.com%2F201 6%2F02%2F14%2Fu-s-allies-now-fighting-cia-backed-rebels%2F&text=Hey%20check%20this%20out)http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/plugins/social-media-feather/synved-social/image/social/regular/96x96/google_plus.png (https://plus.google.com/share?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.veteranstoday.com%2F201 6%2F02%2F14%2Fu-s-allies-now-fighting-cia-backed-rebels%2F)http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/plugins/social-media-feather/synved-social/image/social/regular/96x96/reddit.png (http://www.reddit.com/submit?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.veteranstoday.com%2F20 16%2F02%2F14%2Fu-s-allies-now-fighting-cia-backed-rebels%2F&title=U.S.%20Allies%20Now%20Fighting%20CIA-Backed%20Rebels)http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/plugins/social-media-feather/synved-social/image/social/regular/96x96/pinterest.png (http://pinterest.com/pin/create/button/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.veteranstoday.com%2F2016%2F0 2%2F14%2Fu-s-allies-now-fighting-cia-backed-rebels%2F&media=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.veteranstoday.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F02%2F48509361.cached.jp g&description=U.S.%20Allies%20Now%20Fighting%20CIA-Backed%20Rebels)http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/plugins/social-media-feather/synved-social/image/social/regular/96x96/linkedin.png (http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?mini=true&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.veteranstoday.com%2F2016%2F02 %2F14%2Fu-s-allies-now-fighting-cia-backed-rebels%2F&title=U.S.%20Allies%20Now%20Fighting%20CIA-Backed%20Rebels)http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/plugins/social-media-feather/synved-social/image/social/regular/96x96/mail.png (?subject=U.S.%20Allies%20Now%20Fighting%20CIA-Backed%20Rebels&body=Hey%20check%20this%20out:%20http%3A%2F%2Fwww. veteranstoday.com%2F2016%2F02%2F14%2Fu-s-allies-now-fighting-cia-backed-rebels%2F)
Related Posts:

Erdogan Threatens US Over McGurk Visit to YPG Allies (http://www.veteranstoday.com/2016/02/08/erdogan-threatens-us-over-mcgurk-visit-to-ypg-allies/)
300 Al Qaeda Moderate Rebels Butchered While Fleeing to Turkey (http://www.veteranstoday.com/2016/02/07/300-al-qaeda-moderate-rebels-butchered-while-fleeing-to-turkey/)
Washington Post: Syrian rebels are losing Aleppo and perhaps also the war (http://www.veteranstoday.com/2016/02/05/washington-post-syrian-rebels-are-losing-aleppo-and-perhaps-also-the-war/)
Compared to Washington’s Regional Allies, Assad Looks Positively Angelic (http://www.veteranstoday.com/2016/02/04/compared-to-washingtons-regional-allies-assad-looks-positively-angelic/)
Russia Gives Command Briefing, 7000 Moderate Rebels Now Under Russian Air Cover (http://www.veteranstoday.com/2016/01/11/russia-now-providing-air-cover-for-7000-syrian-rebels/)

[Spectrism]

This report is the final determination of actions that will be the response to the next aggression..... and it will happen. Turkey and Saudi will not back down now. Istanbul will be nuked to make it a safe passageway. If I lived there, I would be out of there in hours.

Shit is about to break loose.




Confirmed: Russian and Syrian jets are on standby to shoot down any Turkish or Saudi plane that crosses into Syria. Turkey is prepared to close the Bosporus and attack Russian ships in the Mediterranean.


by Gordon Duff, Senior Editor with Jim W. Dean and input from Nahed al Husaini, Damascus, Gene Khrushchev, Moscow, Jeff Smith, Jim Hanke, Voijan Melosivic, Belgrade and others (http://www.veteranstoday.com/staff-writers/) (Dr. Bassam Barakat, Damascus, Henry Kamens, Tbilisi)(Video of Saudi/Israeli nuclear attack on Yemen)
Turkey has begun continuous shelling of YPG Kurds (pro-American) inside Syria for at least 3 hours; this is seen as a prelude to a ground attack on anti-ISIS forces inside Syria.___________
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/459483-syria-russia-320x183.jpgMunich “cessation of hostilities” is off to a rocky start


[ Editor’s Note, 2:30 pm ET: VT is back up after being hacked for several hours when one key story was up — the one below on the Saudis moving tactical nukes to Turkey, to be closer to the NW Syrian battleground, and the NATO tripwire for any attack that might be launched on Syria after some staged provocation.

[mick silver]

NATO’s Provocative Anti-Russian Moves
Exclusive: Official Washington’s demonization of Vladimir Putin and the neocon “group think” about “Russian aggression” have fueled a reckless drive to move NATO forces up to Russia’s border, thus heightening risks of nuclear war and not serving real U.S. national interests, writes Jonathan Marshall.
By Jonathan Marshall
Twenty-seven years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, NATO is back flexing its muscles as if nothing had changed since the days of the Soviet Union. Defense ministers from the enlarged (https://consortiumnews.com/2015/12/03/nato-picks-a-new-fight-with-russia/), 28-member organization agreed recently to strengthen (http://www.dw.com/en/nato-agrees-on-stronger-eastern-flank-against-russia/a-19038835) the alliance’s “forward presence” in Eastern Europe. If their new policy is endorsed at a summit in Poland this summer, NATO will begin deploying thousands of troops (http://www.dw.com/en/deterrence-in-eastern-europe-top-of-the-agenda-at-nato-meeting/a-19038013) in Poland and the Baltic states, right up against Russia’s borders.
In other words, the Western alliance will redouble its military commitment (http://www.dw.com/en/nato-agrees-on-stronger-eastern-flank-against-russia/a-19038835) to a Polish government whose right-wing, anti-Russian, and autocratic (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/17/poland-rightwing-government-eu-russia-democracy-under-threat) policies are so egregious that even the stanchly neo-conservative editorial page of the Washington Post saw fit to condemn (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/polands-new-right-wing-leaders-cross-a-line/2015/12/22/54d42ea4-a8d3-11e5-8058-480b572b4aae_story.html) the new leaders’ encroachments on democracy and the rule of law.
https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/sigla_nato_1-300x162.jpg?82332e<img class="size-medium wp-image-17202" src="https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/sigla_nato_1-300x162.jpg?82332e" alt="NATO headquarters in Brussels, Belgium." width="300" height="162" srcset="https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/sigla_nato_1-300x162.jpg 300w, https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/sigla_nato_1-260x140.jpg (https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/sigla_nato_1.jpg?82332e) 260w, https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/sigla_nato_1.jpg 400w" sizes="(max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px" />NATO headquarters in Brussels, Belgium.

Worse yet, NATO’s provocative commitment will include a potential threat to start World War III on behalf of that government. Most Americans are unaware that NATO’s policies — reaffirmed by the Obama administration — view nuclear weapons as a “core component” of the alliance’s capacity to repel even a conventional attack on one of its member states.
An accidental clash of forces, perhaps triggered by military exercises gone awry, could potentially lead NATO to use its nuclear weapons against Russian troops on Poland’s borders. Or, just as catastrophically, it could prompt Russian forces to attack NATO’s nuclear stockpiles preemptively.
Either scenario could trigger a much wider nuclear war. The British television channel BBC Two explored such a scenario, involving Latvia, in a chilling “war game” film that aired earlier this month (https://consortiumnews.com/2016/02/11/bbc-imagines-world-war-iii/).
Rather than let small, distant countries put U.S. national security at risk, the United States should, as an interim step short of disbanding NATO, demand the elimination of theater, or nonstrategic, nuclear weapons from NATO stockpiles. (Theater weapons are smaller and shorter in range than the large warheads carried by intercontinental ballistic missiles and long-range bombers.)
England and France would retain their independent, sovereign nuclear deterrents. But the United States would prevail on NATO to withdraw the 200 nuclear bombs it now stations at air bases in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and even Turkey. It would also forgo costly and destabilizing plans (http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-to-station-20-new-nukes-in-western-germany-report/5477987) to deploy a new generation of highly accurate B61 bombs (https://consortiumnews.com/2016/01/23/learning-to-love-and-use-the-bomb/) in Germany.
Eliminating NATO’s theater nuclear weapons would dramatically reduce security concerns about terrorist attacks — a threat highlighted by an Air Force security review in 2008. It would also eliminate them as tempting targets of a Russian preemptive attack (http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2015/02/wrong-move-adding-nuclear-weapons-russia-ukraine-conflict/104940/) in case a conflict begins to spin out of control.
A unilateral elimination of theater nuclear weapons would leave Western nations with thousands of nuclear warheads, enough to wipe out much of human civilization along with Russia. It would also leave the United States alone with an 8-to-1 advantage over Russia in military spending (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/02/11/chart-u-s-defense-spending-still-dwarfs-the-rest-of-the-world/).
Political leaders from Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg, The Netherlands and Norway called (http://www.commondreams.org/news/2010/02/20/allied-bid-obama-remove-us-european-nuclear-stockpile) for the removal of U.S. nuclear weapons from European soil in 2010, saying they had “lost all military importance” and had become a liability.
U.S. military leaders were inclined to agree. In 2008, the U.S. European Command, once a champion of theater nuclear weapons, acknowledged (https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/RL32572.pdf) they were no longer important as a deterrent. When asked in 2010 if tactical nuclear weapons in Europe bought NATO any additional security, General James Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, declared (http://thebulletin.org/parting-words-gates-and-tactical-nuclear-weapons-europe) simply, “No.”
In today’s political climate, however, demonizers of Russia insist that self-interested steps to eliminate our unneeded weapons would somehow reward Vladimir Putin.
Last year, two leading congressional Republicans, Alabama’s Mike Rogers, chair of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, and Ohio’s Mike Turner, chairman of the Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee, demanded that the United States deploy more nuclear weapons (http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2015/02/wrong-move-adding-nuclear-weapons-russia-ukraine-conflict/104940/) to Europe to counter Russia’s annexation of Crimea.
In 2014, Bush-era right-wingers John Bolton and John Yoo advocated (http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2014/09/why-john-boltons-dangerous-call-nuclear-arms-makes-no-sense/94166/) reintroducing theater nuclear missiles into Europe. Either move would simply result in tit-for-tat responses by Russia, leaving both sides mired in a counterproductive arms race.
Other strategic analysts concede (http://www.nationalinterest.org/feature/nato%E2%80%99s-tactical-nuclear-weapons-must-go%E2%80%94-not-today-11137) that “tactical nuclear arms in Europe are literally outdated” — obsolete both technically and in terms of strategy — but say that withdrawing them “would look like capitulation to Russia and thus encourage Putin to continue pressing his luck.” In other words, the United States should allow its security to be held hostage not only to the whims of Poland and Latvia, but also to Russia’s alleged perceptions.
In an ideal world, NATO would negotiate away its theater nuclear weapons as part of a bilateral treaty to reduce Russia’s own arsenal of smaller weapons, which may number 1,000 or more (https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/RL32572.pdf). But insistence on a negotiated deal has long been an excuse for inaction (https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2014_01-02/Trapped-NATO-Russia-and-the-Problem-of-Tactical-Nuclear-Weapons). And giving any single NATO member a veto will ensure that the alliance’s nuclear policies never change.
Russia’s numerical superiority, moreover, buys it no military advantage. If it launched nuclear weapons in Europe, odds are that the conflict would escalate quickly to engage the strategic nuclear forces of the United States, the UK, and France — leaving Russia a radioactive slag heap. That’s why Russian military doctrine (https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/RL32572.pdf) firmly envisions using nuclear weapons only as a last resort, either to respond to a nuclear attack or to resist foreign aggression that “would put in danger the very existence of the state.”
Russia today hangs onto its theater nuclear weapons because its conventional forces have been radically weakened by the collapse of the USSR, the loss of control over Eastern Europe, and a succession of economic crises, including of late the collapse of oil prices.
In a recent commentary (http://nationalinterest.org/feature/why-america-restarting-the-cold-war-russia-15183), Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-California, chair of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging Threats, dismissed claims of Russia’s growing threat to U.S. security as “belligerent nonsense.”
“It remains the case that NATO countries hugely outspend Moscow when it comes to military procurement,” he observed. “There is no evidence whatsoever that Russia, as when it was the Soviet Union, is embarked on a wanton course of global expansion. This is a country that unilaterally pulled its occupying troops out of Eastern Europe, a door closing on the Cold War.”
Rohrbacher added, “Obviously, some highly influential people can’t accept that and leave the Cold War behind, their mindsets and careers linked to a lingering enmity between the Kremlin and the White House. In particular, they can be found as think tank strategists and arms merchants.”
Jonathan Marshall is author or co-author of five books on international affairs, including The Lebanese Connection: Corruption, Civil War and the International Drug Traffic (http://www.amazon.com/Lebanese-Connection-Corruption-International-Stanford/dp/0804781311/) (Stanford University Press, 2012). Some of his previous articles for Consortiumnews were “Risky Blowback from Russian Sanctions (https://consortiumnews.com/2015/01/19/risky-blowback-from-russian-sanctions/)”; “Neocons Want Regime Change in Iran (https://consortiumnews.com/2015/03/02/neocons-want-regime-change-in-iran/)”; “Saudi Cash Wins France’s Favor (https://consortiumnews.com/2015/05/08/saudi-cash-wins-frances-favor/)”; “The Saudis’ Hurt Feelings (https://consortiumnews.com/2015/05/14/the-saudis-hurt-feelings/)”; “Saudi Arabia’s Nuclear Bluster (https://consortiumnews.com/2015/05/19/saudi-arabias-nuclear-bluster/)”; “The US Hand in the Syrian Mess (https://consortiumnews.com/2015/07/20/the-us-hand-in-the-syrian-mess/)”; and “Hidden Origins of Syria’s Civil War. (https://consortiumnews.com/2015/07/20/hidden-origins-of-syrias-civil-war/)” ]
https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/images/pdf.png?82332e<img src="https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/images/pdf.png?82332e" alt="image_pdf" title="View PDF" /> (https://consortiumnews.com/2016/02/13/natos-provocative-anti-russian-moves/?print=pdf)https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/images/print.gif?82332e<img src="https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/plugins/pdf-print/images/print.gif?82332e" alt="image_print" title="Print Content" /> (https://consortiumnews.com/2016/02/13/natos-provocative-anti-russian-moves/?print=print)
Tags:Jonathan Marshall (https://consortiumnews.com/tag/jonathan-marshall/) NATO (https://consortiumnews.com/tag/nato/) Poland (https://consortiumnews.com/tag/poland/) Russia (https://consortiumnews.com/tag/russia/) Vladimir Putin (https://consortiumnews.com/tag/vladimir-putin/)

[mick silver]

The US Hand in the Syrian Mess
Exclusive: Neocons and the mainstream U.S. media place all the blame for the Syrian civil war on President Bashar al-Assad and Iran, but there is another side of the story in which Syria’s olive branches to the U.S. and Israel were spurned and a reckless drive for “regime change” followed, writes Jonathan Marshall.
By Jonathan Marshall
Syria’s current leader, Bashar al-Assad replaced his autocratic father as president and head of the ruling Ba’ath Party in 2000. Only 35 years old and British educated, he aroused widespread hopes at home and abroad of introducing reforms and liberalizing the regime. In his first year he freed hundreds of political prisoners and shut down a notorious prison, though his security forces resumed cracking down on dissenters a year later.
But almost from the start, Assad was marked by the George W. Bush administration for “regime change.” Then, in the early years of Barack Obama’s presidency, there were some attempts at diplomatic engagement, but shortly after a civil conflict broke out in 2011, the legacy of official U.S. hostility toward Syria set in motion Washington’s disastrous confrontation with Assad which continues to this day.
http://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/assads.jpg?82332e<img class="size-full wp-image-9902" src="http://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/assads.jpg?82332e" alt="Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in front of a poster of his father, Hafez al-Assad." width="151" height="200" /> (http://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/assads.jpg?82332e)Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in front of a poster of his father, Hafez al-Assad.

Thus, the history of the Bush administration’s approach toward Syria is important to understand. Shortly after 9/11, former NATO Commander Wesley Clark learned from a Pentagon source that Syria was on the same hit list as Iraq. As Clark recalled (http://www.salon.com/2011/11/26/wes_clark_and_the_neocon_dream/), the Bush administration “wanted us to destabilize the Middle East, turn it upside down, make it under our control.”
Sure enough, in a May 2002 speech titled “Beyond the Axis of Evil,” Under Secretary of State John Bolton named (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1971852.stm) Syria as one of a handful of “rogue states” along with Iraq that “can expect to become our targets.” Assad’s conciliatory and cooperative gestures were brushed aside.
The Assad regime received no credit from President Bush or Vice President Dick Cheney for becoming what scholar Kilic Bugra Kanat has called (http://setav.org/en/a-tale-of-four-augusts-obamas-syria-policy/book/18560) “one of the CIA’s most effective intelligence allies in the fight against terrorism.” Not only did the regime provide life-saving intelligence on planned al-Qaeda attacks, it did the CIA’s dirty work of interrogating terrorism suspects “rendered” by the United States from Afghanistan and other theaters.
Syria’s opposition to the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 and its suspected involvement (https://consortiumnews.com/2011/011711.html) in the February 2005 assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri deepened the administration’s hostility toward Damascus.
Covertly, Washington began collaborating with Saudi Arabia to back Islamist opposition groups including the Muslim Brotherhood, according to journalist Seymour Hersh (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/03/05/070305fa_fact_hersh?currentPage=all). One key beneficiary was said to be Abdul Halim Khaddam, a former Syrian vice president who defected to the West in 2005. In March 2006, Khaddam joined with the chief of Syria’s Muslim Brotherhood to create the National Salvation Front (https://search.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/06DAMASCUS1357_a.html), with the goal of ousting Assad.
Thanks to Wikileaks, we know that key Lebanese politicians, acting in concert with Saudi leaders, urged Washington (https://search.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/06BEIRUT2735_a.html) to support Khaddam as a tactic to accomplish “complete regime change in Syria” and to address “the bigger problem” of Iran.
Meanwhile, the Assad regime was striving mightily to reduce its international isolation by reaching a peace settlement with Israel. It began secret talks with Israel in 2004 in Turkey and by the following year “had reached a very advanced form and covered territorial, water, border and political questions,” according to (http://www.counterpunch.org/2007/02/10/israel-iran-and-the-bush-administration/) historian Gabriel Kolko.
A host of senior Israelis, including former heads of the IDF, Shin Beit, and Foreign Ministry, backed the talks. But the Bush administration nixed them, as Egyptian President Hosni Mubarek confirmed in January 2007.
As Kolko noted, the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz then “published a series of extremely detailed accounts, including the draft accord, confirming that Syria ‘offered a far reaching and equitable peace treaty that would provide for Israel’s security and is comprehensive’ — and divorce Syria from Iran and even create a crucial distance between it and Hezbollah and Hamas.
“The Bush Administration’s role in scuttling any peace accord was decisive. C. David Welch, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, sat in at the final meeting [and] two former senior CIA officials were present in all of these meetings and sent regular reports to Vice President Dick Cheney’s office. The press has been full of details on how the American role was decisive, because it has war, not peace, at the top of its agenda.”
Isolating Assad
In March 2007, McClatchy broke a story (http://www.idahostatesman.com/2007/03/30/1421258/us-steps-up-campaign-against-syrian.html) that the Bush administration had “launched a campaign to isolate and embarrass Syrian President Bashar Assad. . . . The campaign, which some officials fear is aimed at destabilizing Syria, has been in the works for months. It involves escalating attacks on Syria’s human rights record. . . . The campaign appears to fly in the face of the recommendations last December of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, which urged President Bush to engage diplomatically with Syria to stabilize Iraq and address the Arab-Israeli conflict. . . . The officials say the campaign bears the imprint of Elliott Abrams, a conservative White House aide in charge of pushing Bush’s global democracy agenda.”
Not surprisingly, Vice President Cheney was also an implacable opponent of engagement (http://www.ipsnews.net/2008/09/us-brief-talks-with-syria-spur-speculation/) with Syria.
Attempting once again to break the impasse, Syria’s ambassador to the United States called for talks to achieve a full peace agreement with Israel in late July 2008. “We desire to recognize each other and end the state of war,” Imad Mustafa said in remarks broadcast on Israeli army radio (http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=126848&Cat=1&dt=7/31/2008). “Here is then a grand thing on offer. Let us sit together, let us make peace, let us end once and for all the state of war.”
Three days later, Israel responded by sending a team of commandos into Syria to assassinate a Syrian general as he held a dinner party at his home on the coast. A top-secret summary by the National Security Agency (https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/07/15/israeli-special-forces-assassinated-senior-syrian-official/) called it the “first known instance of Israel targeting a legitimate government official.”
Just two months later, U.S. military forces launched a raid into Syria, ostensibly to kill an al-Qaeda operative, which resulted in the death of eight unarmed civilians. The Beirut Daily Star wrote (http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2008/Oct-30/76641-questions-swirl-over-american-stonewalling-about-syria-raid.ashx), “The suspected involvement of some of the most vociferous anti-Syria hawks at the highest levels of the Bush administration, including Vice President Dick Cheney, have combined with US silence on the matter to fuel a guessing game as to just exactly who ordered or approved Sunday’s cross-border raid.”
The New York Times condemned the attack (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/29/opinion/29iht-edsyria.1.17346161.html) as a violation of international law and said the timing “could not have been worse,” noting that it “coincided with Syria’s establishing, for the first time, full diplomatic relations with Lebanon. This was a sign that Syria’s ruler, Bashar Assad, is serious about ending his pariah status in the West. It was also a signal to Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan that Assad, whose alliance with Iran they abhor, is now eager to return to the Arab fold.”
The editorial added, “if President Bush and Vice President Cheney did authorize an action that risks sabotaging Israeli-Syrian peace talks, reversing the trend of Syrian cooperation in Iraq and Lebanon, and playing into the hands of Iran, then Bush and Cheney have learned nothing from their previous mistakes and misdeeds.”
In an interview with Foreign Policy magazine (http://foreignpolicy.com/2008/10/31/seven-questions-for-syrian-ambassador-imad-moustapha/), Syrian ambassador Imad Moustapha noted that his government had just begun friendly talks with top State Department officials, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. “And suddenly, this [raid in eastern Syria] happens,” the ambassador said. “I don’t believe the guys from the State Department were actually deceiving us. I believe they genuinely wanted to engage diplomatically and politically with Syria. We believe that other powers within the administration were upset with these meetings and they did this exactly to undermine the whole new atmosphere.”
Despite these many provocations, Syria continued to negotiate with Israel through Turkish intermediaries. By late 2008, according to journalist Seymour Hersh (http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/04/06/syria-calling), “Many complicated technical matters had been resolved, and there were agreements in principle on the normalization of diplomatic relations. The consensus, as an ambassador now serving in Tel Aviv put it, was that the two sides had been ‘a lot closer than you might think.’” Then, in late December, Israel launched Operation Cast Lead, a devastating assault on Gaza that left about 1,400 Palestinians dead, along with nine Israeli soldiers and three civilians.
Israeli Sabotage
The brief war ended in January, just before President Obama’s inauguration. Assad told Hersh that despite his outrage at Israel “doing everything possible to undermine the prospects for peace … we still believe that we need to conclude a serious dialogue to lead us to peace.” The ruler of Qatar confirmed, “Syria is eager to engage with the West, an eagerness that was never perceived by the Bush White House. Anything is possible, as long as peace is being pursued.”
Of Obama, Assad said “We are happy that he has said that diplomacy — and not war — is the means of conducting international policy.” Assad added, “We do not say that we are a democratic country. We do not say that we are perfect, but we are moving forward.” And he offered to be an ally of the United States against the growing threat of al-Qaeda and Islamist extremism, which had become major forces in Iraq but had not yet taken hold in Syria.
Assad’s hopes died stillborn. The new government of Israel under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, which took office in March 2009, steadfastly opposed any land-for-peace deal with Syria. And the Obama administration lacked the clout or the will to take Israel on.
President Obama did follow through on promises to engage with Syria after a long period of frozen relations. He sent representatives from the State Department and National Security Council to Damascus in early 2009; dispatched envoy George Mitchell three times to discuss a Middle East peace settlement; nominated the first ambassador to Damascus since 2005; and invited Syria’s deputy foreign minister to Washington for consultations.
However, Obama also continued covert funding to Syrian opposition groups, which a senior U.S. diplomat warned (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/us-secretly-backed-syrian-opposition-groups-cables-released-by-wikileaks-show/2011/04/14/AF1p9hwD_story.html) would be viewed by Syrian authorities as “tantamount to supporting regime change.”
At home, Obama’s new policy of engagement was decried by neoconservatives. Elliott Abrams, the Iran-Contra convict who was pardoned by President George H.W. Bush and who directed Middle East policy at the National Security Council under President George W. Bush, branded Obama’s efforts “appeasement” (http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/obama-talks-syria-mocks) and said Syrian policy would change only “if and when the regime in Iran, Assad’s mainstay, falls.”
Syria, meanwhile, rebuffed Washington’s demands to drop its support for Iran and for Hezbollah and reacted with frustration at the administration’s refusal to lift economic sanctions. Said Assad (http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc503617/m1/1/high_res_d/RL33487_2010Mar03.pdf), “What has happened so far is a new approach. Dialogue has replaced commands, which is good. But things stopped there.”
As late as March 2011, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton continued to defend talks with Assad, saying (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/checkpoint-washington/post/how-the-us-message-on-assad-shifted/2011/08/18/gIQAfPZxNJ_blog.html): “There’s a different leader in Syria now. Many of the members of Congress of both parties who have gone to Syria in recent months have said they believe he’s a reformer.”
But that stance would change a month later, when the White House condemned “in the strongest possible terms” the Damascus regime’s “completely deplorable” crackdown on political opponents in the city of Dara’a, ignoring the killing of police in the city.
That August, following critical reports from the United Nations and human rights organizations about the regime’s responsibility for killing and abusing civilians, President Obama joined European leaders in demanding (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/assad-must-go-obama-says/2011/08/18/gIQAelheOJ_story.html) that Assad “face the reality of the complete rejection of his regime by the Syrian people” and “step aside.” (In fact, a majority of Syrians polled (http://www.thedohadebates.com/external/uploads/doha/polling/YouGovSirajDoha%20Debates-%20President%20Assad%20report.pdf) in December 2011 opposed Assad’s resignation.)
Washington imposed new economic sanctions, prompting Syria’s U.N. ambassador, Bashar al-Jaafari, to assert that the United States “is launching a humanitarian and diplomatic war against us.” Obama’s policy, initially applauded by interventionists until he failed to send troops or major aid to rebel groups, opened the door to support from the Gulf States and Turkey for Islamist forces.
The Rise of the Salafists
As early as the summer of 2012, a classified Defense Intelligence Agency report concluded (http://levantreport.com/2015/05/19/2012-defense-intelligence-agency-document-west-will-facilitate-rise-of-islamic-state-in-order-to-isolate-the-syrian-regime/), “The salafist [sic], the Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI [al-Qaeda in Iraq, later the Islamic State]” had become “the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria.”
As Vice President Joseph Biden later admitted (http://mideastshuffle.com/2014/10/04/biden-turks-saudis-uae-funded-and-armed-al-nusra-and-al-qaeda/), “The fact of the matter is . . . there was no moderate middle. . . . [O]ur allies in the region were our largest problem in Syria. . . . They poured hundreds of millions of dollars and . . . thousands of tons of weapons into anyone who would fight against Assad except that the people who were being supplied were Al Nusra and al-Qaeda and the extremist elements of jihadis.”
As with Iraq and Libya — do we never learn? — “regime change” in Syria may well bring about either fanatical Islamist state or a failed state and no end to the violence.
Recalling Israel’s folly in cultivating Islamist rivals to Fatah (notably Hamas), Jacky Hugi, an Arab affairs analyst for Israeli army radio, recently made the remarkable suggestion (http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2015/07/israel-syria-war-bashar-al-assad-support-rebels-al-qaeda-is.html) that “What Israel should learn from these events is that it must strive for the survival and bolstering of the current regime at any price.” He argued:
“The survival of the Damascus regime guarantees stability on Israel’s northern border, and it’s a keystone to its national security. The Syrian regime is secular, tacitly recognizes Israel’s right to exist and does not crave death. It does not have messianic religious beliefs and does not aim to establish an Islamic caliphate in the area it controls.
“Since Syria is a sovereign nation, there is an array of means of putting pressure on it in case of conflict or crisis. It’s possible to transmit diplomatic messages, to work against it in international arenas or to damage its regional interests. If there’s a need for military action against it, there’s no need to desperately look for it amid a civilian population and risk killing innocent civilians.
“Israel has experienced years of a stable border with the Syrian regime. Until the war broke out there, not a single shot was fired from Syria. While Assad shifted aggression toward Israel to the Lebanese border by means of Hezbollah, even this movement and its military arm is preferable to Israel over al-Qaeda and its like. It’s familiar and its leaders are familiar. Israel has ‘talked’ through mediators with Hezbollah ever since the movement controlled southern Lebanon. It’s mostly indirect dialogue, meant to serve practical interests of the kind forced on those who have to live side by side, but pragmatism guides it.
“While Hezbollah fighters are indeed bitter enemies, you will not find among them the joy in evil and cannibalism, as seen in the last decade among Sunni jihadist organizations.”
Washington need not go so far as to back Assad in the name of pragmatism. But it should clearly renounce “regime change” as a policy, support an arms embargo, and begin acting in concert with Russia, Iran, the Gulf states and other regional powers to support unconditional peace negotiations with Assad’s regime.
President Obama recently dropped hints (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/15/opinion/thomas-friedman-obama-makes-his-case-on-iran-nuclear-deal.html) that he welcomes further talks with Russia toward that end, in the face of prospects of an eventual jihadist takeover of Syria. Americans who value human rights and peace ahead of overthrowing Arab regimes should welcome such a new policy direction.
[Part Two of this two-part series is available at “Hidden Origins of Syria’s Civil War. (https://consortiumnews.com/2015/07/20/hidden-origins-of-syrias-civil-war/)“]Jonathan Marshall is an independent researcher living in San Anselmo, California. Some of his previous articles for Consortiumnews were “Risky Blowback from Russian Sanctions (https://consortiumnews.com/2015/01/19/risky-blowback-from-russian-sanctions/)”; “Neocons Want Regime Change in Iran (https://consortiumnews.com/2015/03/02/neocons-want-regime-change-in-iran/)”; “Saudi Cash Wins France’s Favor (https://consortiumnews.com/2015/05/08/saudi-cash-wins-frances-favor/)”; “The Saudis’ Hurt Feelings (https://consortiumnews.com/2015/05/14/the-saudis-hurt-feelings/)”; and “Saudi Arabia’s Nuclear Bluster. (https://consortiumnews.com/2015/05/19/saudi-arabias-nuclear-bluster/)”]

[mick silver]

John McCain Continues to Be a FoolBy Jonas E. Alexis (http://www.veteranstoday.com/author/alexis/) on February 15, 2016
When will McCain start to grow up? When will have to courage to tell the truth about himself and about Russia? Why can’t he tell his listeners that Assad was democratically elected—and won the presidential campaign by a landslide?
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/putin-1.jpg“So, Mr. McCain, are you sure you want to get involved into political mud-slinging?”

…by Jonas E. Alexis (http://www.veteranstoday.com/staff-writers/)
Corey Robin of Brooklyn College and the City University of New York’s Graduate Center has recently written that “The biggest challenges to today’s public intellectual are imagination and will.”[1] (http://www.veteranstoday.com/2016/02/15/john-mccain-continues-to-be-a-fool/#_ftn1)
Complete nonsense.
The biggest challenge to today’s public intellectuals and politicians is that they need to stop being fools. They think they can live an intellectual and political life without morality and practical reason or without the truth, but the past two centuries alone have shown us that this is a complete delusion.[2] (http://www.veteranstoday.com/2016/02/15/john-mccain-continues-to-be-a-fool/#_ftn2)
Marquis de Sade for example did not lack “imagination and will.” His fantasy allowed him to turn practical reason upside down. This led to immoral acts, which played a central role during the French Revolution.[3] (http://www.veteranstoday.com/2016/02/15/john-mccain-continues-to-be-a-fool/#_ftn3)
Arthur Schopenhauer did not lack imagination when he wrote The World as Will and Idea, a book which had an enormously powerful influence on Friedrich Nietzsche. Schopenhauer’s imagination, as articulated in The World as Will and Idea, allowed him to propound that ultimate reality is not fundamentally good and desirable. Hegel argued that metaphysical reason, which is fundamentally good, will work itself out in history. Metaphysical reason, Hegel further argued, is divine and will triumph in the end.
However, for Schopenhauer, there is no such thing as “the cunning of reason.” Like Darwin, Schopenhauer believes that “will”—another subtle substitute for things like nature—is blind, chaotic, unpredictable, and dangerous.
According Schopenhauer’s philosophical conclusion, man’s existence seems to be an error; therefore, he must create his own standards, living as if no ultimate truth exists. This radical idea indeed had enormous philosophical consequences, too much to detail here.
Biographer and translator of German philosophy R. J. Hollingdale argues that Schopenhauer’s central philosophy, that “life is incurably evil,”[4] (http://www.veteranstoday.com/2016/02/15/john-mccain-continues-to-be-a-fool/#_ftn4) distinguishes him from all other philosophers before him.
Perhaps this was one reason why Schopenhauer found solace in misogyny. Perhaps this was one reason why he contracted syphilis as a young man. Perhaps it was one reason why he died “an embittered and disappointed man.”[5] (http://www.veteranstoday.com/2016/02/15/john-mccain-continues-to-be-a-fool/#_ftn5)
So, the modern fool and de Sade and even Schopenhauer have something in common. De Sade wanted nothing to do with the moral order, and the modern fool is actually following the same path. The modern fool wants to fulfill his appetite or passion, which he does not want to submit to practical reason.
The modern fool wants to go for the gusto—be it sexual, political, or even diabolical. He wants to fool around as much as he can and sometimes drags others in the same rabbit hole. John McCain is a classic representation of this.
The apologist for terrorism has recently declared that
“Mr. Putin is not interested in being our partner (http://yournewswire.com/john-mccain-slams-president-putin-russias-intervention-in-syria/). He wants to re-establish Russia as a major power in the Middle East. He wants to use Syria as a live-fire exercise for Russia’s modernizing military, he wants to turn Latakia province into a military outpost from which to harden and enforce a Russian sphere of influence — a new Kaliningrad, or Crimea — and he wants to exacerbate the refugee crisis and use it as a weapon to divide the trans-Atlantic alliance and undermine the European project.”[6] (http://www.veteranstoday.com/2016/02/15/john-mccain-continues-to-be-a-fool/#_ftn6)
This is what one ought to call “stream of consciousness.” These ideas pass through McCain’s mind and he doesn’t even seem to sit down for a moment and start evaluating them.
How many times has Putin modified his standards to meet the Zionist State of America on their own turf? How many times has he told them to abide by international law and basically stop worshiping Satan (http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/08/05/vladimir-putin-the-new-world-order-worships-satan/)?
When will McCain have to courage to tell the truth himself and about Russia? Why can’t he tell his listeners that Assad was democratically elected—and won the presidential campaign by a landslide?[7] (http://www.veteranstoday.com/2016/02/15/john-mccain-continues-to-be-a-fool/#_ftn7) Could it be that McCain is just jealous that Putin continues to win,[8] (http://www.veteranstoday.com/2016/02/15/john-mccain-continues-to-be-a-fool/#_ftn8) despite obstacles? Perhaps the book of Proverbs was right after all:
“Those who trust in themselves are fools, but those who walk in wisdom are kept safe.”
[1] (http://www.veteranstoday.com/2016/02/15/john-mccain-continues-to-be-a-fool/#_ftnref1) Corey Robin, “How Intellectuals Create a Public,” Chronicle of Higher Education, January 22, 2016.
[2] (http://www.veteranstoday.com/2016/02/15/john-mccain-continues-to-be-a-fool/#_ftnref2) See E. Michael Jones, Degenerate Moderns: Modernity as Rationalized Sexual Misbehavior (South Bend: Fidelity Press, 2012).
[3] (http://www.veteranstoday.com/2016/02/15/john-mccain-continues-to-be-a-fool/#_ftnref3) For a cultural history on this, see E. Michael Jones, Libido Dominandi: Sexual Liberation and Political Control (South Bend: St. Augustine’s Press, 2000).
[4] (http://www.veteranstoday.com/2016/02/15/john-mccain-continues-to-be-a-fool/#_ftnref4) R. J. Hollingdale, Nietzsche: The Man and His Philosophy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965 and 1999), 65.
[5] (http://www.veteranstoday.com/2016/02/15/john-mccain-continues-to-be-a-fool/#_ftnref5) Ibid., 65.
[6] (http://www.veteranstoday.com/2016/02/15/john-mccain-continues-to-be-a-fool/#_ftnref6) Quoted in Tim Hume, “McCain slams Russia: ‘Mr. Putin is not interested in being our partner,’” CNN, February 15, 2016.
[7] (http://www.veteranstoday.com/2016/02/15/john-mccain-continues-to-be-a-fool/#_ftnref7) “Bashar al-Assad wins re-election in Syria as uprising against him rages on,” Guardian, June 4, 2014; “Assad wins Syria’s presidential vote in landslide,” CBS News, June 4, 2014; Syria’s Assad Wins Presidential Election in Landslide,” Voice of America, June 6, 2014; “Landslide Win for Assad in Syria’s Presidential Elections,” Haaretz, June 4, 2014; “Bashar Assad wins Syria presidential election with 88.7% of vote,” Russia Today, June 4, 2014.
[8] (http://www.veteranstoday.com/2016/02/15/john-mccain-continues-to-be-a-fool/#_ftnref8) “Why Putin’s Strategy in Syria Wins Over and Over Again,” Sputnik News, February 15, 2016.

http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/plugins/social-media-feather/synved-social/image/social/regular/96x96/facebook.png (http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.veteranstoday.com%2F 2016%2F02%2F15%2Fjohn-mccain-continues-to-be-a-fool%2F&t=John%20McCain%20Continues%20to%20Be%20a%20Fool&s=100&p[url]=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.veteranstoday.com%2F2016%2F02%2F 15%2Fjohn-mccain-continues-to-be-a-fool%2F&p[images][0]=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.veteranstoday.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F02%2FmcCain_.jpg&p[title]=John%20McCain%20Continues%20to%20Be%20a%20Fool)ht tp://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/plugins/social-media-feather/synved-social/image/social/regular/96x96/twitter.png (http://twitter.com/share?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.veteranstoday.com%2F201 6%2F02%2F15%2Fjohn-mccain-continues-to-be-a-fool%2F&text=Hey%20check%20this%20out)http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/plugins/social-media-feather/synved-social/image/social/regular/96x96/google_plus.png (https://plus.google.com/share?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.veteranstoday.com%2F201 6%2F02%2F15%2Fjohn-mccain-continues-to-be-a-fool%2F)http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/plugins/social-media-feather/synved-social/image/social/regular/96x96/reddit.png (http://www.reddit.com/submit?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.veteranstoday.com%2F20 16%2F02%2F15%2Fjohn-mccain-continues-to-be-a-fool%2F&title=John%20McCain%20Continues%20to%20Be%20a%20Fo ol)http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/plugins/social-media-feather/synved-social/image/social/regular/96x96/pinterest.png (http://pinterest.com/pin/create/button/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.veteranstoday.com%2F2016%2F0 2%2F15%2Fjohn-mccain-continues-to-be-a-fool%2F&media=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.veteranstoday.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F02%2FmcCain_.jpg&description=John%20McCain%20Continues%20to%20Be%20 a%20Fool)http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/plugins/social-media-feather/synved-social/image/social/regular/96x96/linkedin.png (http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?mini=true&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.veteranstoday.com%2F2016%2F02 %2F15%2Fjohn-mccain-continues-to-be-a-fool%2F&title=John%20McCain%20Continues%20to%20Be%20a%20Fo ol)http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/plugins/social-media-feather/synved-social/image/social/regular/96x96/mail.png (?subject=John%20McCain%20Continues%20to%20Be%20a% 20Fool&body=Hey%20check%20this%20out:%20http%3A%2F%2Fwww. veteranstoday.com%2F2016%2F02%2F15%2Fjohn-mccain-continues-to-be-a-fool%2F)
Related Posts:

U.S. Officials: Russia Defeated NWO Agents and Satanists in 2015 (http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/12/30/u-s-officials-russia-defeated-nwo-agents-and-satanists-in-2015/)
New World Order Is Doomed (http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/12/28/new-world-order-is-doomed/)
Turkey and ISIS Got Caught With Their Pants Down—Again! (http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/12/26/turkey-and-isis-got-caught-with-their-pants-down-again/)
Vladimir Putin: ISIS Will Taste Its Own Medicine and Syria Will Survive (http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/11/19/vladimir-putin-isis-will-taste-its-own-medicine-and-syria-will-survive/)
Paris Proves Vladimir Putin Won Ideological War (http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/11/16/paris-that-proves-vladimir-putin-won-the-ideological-war/)