Page 67 of 68

Re: US Foreign Policy

Posted: Sun Jan 19, 2020 3:45 am
by neverfail
Jim the Moron wrote:
Sun Jan 19, 2020 2:54 am

Government-induced chants of "death to America" are forms of attack.
President George Bush's public labeling of Iran as part of an axis of evil before the invasion of Iraq along with North Korea and Saddam Hussein's Iraq could not have gone over too well there either. Jim.

It gave both Iran and North Korea an incentive to become nuclear armed in their own defense.

Wake up! Calumny is not by any means one sided in this case.

Re: US Foreign Policy

Posted: Sun Jan 19, 2020 4:34 am
by Sertorio
Jim the Moron wrote:
Sun Jan 19, 2020 2:54 am
Sertorio wrote:
Sun Jan 19, 2020 2:39 am
Milo wrote:
Sat Jan 18, 2020 5:32 pm
neverfail wrote:
Sat Jan 18, 2020 2:17 pm
Sertorio wrote:
Sun Jan 05, 2020 3:11 pm


The chaos and instability we unleashed in the Middle East, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan, left Iran as the dominant country in the region. Washington empowered its nemesis. It has no idea how to reverse its mistake other than to attack Iran.

Exactly!
I do not see the US attacking Iran much.
Economic warfare is a form of attack.
Government-induced chants of "death to America" are forms of attack.
Not really, that's just agit-prop. And not comparable to economic warfare in terms of efficiency...

Re: US Foreign Policy

Posted: Mon Jan 20, 2020 4:05 am
by Sertorio
I Google translated from Arabic an item from an Arab source mentioned by South Front, relating to a statement by the Iraqi acting prime-minister to the Iraqi Parliament, which I found quite interesting:
American Bargaining for the Reconstruction of Iraq:

Mr. Abdul Mahdi spoke with an angry tone, saying:

"The Americans are the ones who destroyed the country and wreaked havoc on it. They refuse to complete building the electrical system and infrastructure projects. They have bargained for the reconstruction of Iraq in exchange for giving up 50% of Iraqi oil imports, so I refused and decided to go to China and concluded an important and strategic agreement with it, and today Trump is trying to cancel this important agreement. "

The American President's threat to the Iraqi Prime Minister to liquidate him directly with the Minister of Defense, and the Marines are the third party that sniped the demonstrators and the security men:

Abdul Mahdi continued:

"After my return from China, Trump called me and asked me to cancel the agreement. I also refused, and he threatened me with massive demonstrations that toppled me. Indeed, the demonstrations started and then Trump called, threatening to escalate in the event of failure to cooperate and respond to his desires, so that the third party (Marines snipers) began targeting the protesters and security forces and killed them from the highest structures and The US embassy in an attempt to pressure me and submit to his wishes and cancel the China agreement, so I did not respond and submitted my resignation and the Americans still insist to this day to cancel the China agreement and when the Minister of Defense said that whoever kills the demonstrators is a third party, Trump called me immediately I am physically threatened and defense minister in the event of talk about the third party "...

https://ida2at.org/news/2020/01/06/4753 ... %8A-501202
The South Front source is:

https://southfront.org/iraqi-prime-mini ... -his-life/

If true, this explains recent American actions in the ME.

Re: US Foreign Policy

Posted: Thu Feb 13, 2020 12:18 am
by Jim the Moron
"China Is Not The Enemy"

https://channelnewsasia.com/news/cnains ... l-12429600

A video is linked (23-minute) in the article of the full interview with prof Vogel.

Re: US Foreign Policy

Posted: Sat Feb 22, 2020 5:39 am
by Sertorio
"NATO Go Home!"
by Thierry Meyssan

https://www.voltairenet.org/article2092 ... _eLaj4xFZY

For two decades, US troops have been imposing their law on the broader Middle East. Entire countries are now without a state to defend them. Populations have been subjected to the dictatorship of the Islamists. Mass murders have been committed. There have been famines as well. President Donald Trump has forced his generals to repatriate their soldiers, but the Pentagon intends to continue its work with NATO soldiers.

President Trump will spend the last year of his first term in office bringing the Boys home. All U.S. troops stationed in the broader Middle East and Africa are expected to withdraw. However, this withdrawal of troops will in no way mean the end of US governance in these regions of the world. Quite the contrary.

The Pentagon’s strategy

Since 2001 - and this is one of the main reasons for the 9/11 attacks - the United States has secretly adopted the strategy outlined by Donald Rumsfeld and Admiral Arthur Cebrowski. This strategy was mentioned in the Army Review by Colonel Ralf Peters two days after the attacks [1] and confirmed five years later by the publication of the staff map of the new Middle East [2]. It was detailed by Admiral Cebrowski’s assistant, Thomas Barnett, in a popular book The Pentagon’s New Map [3].

It is about adapting the missions of the US armies to a new form of capitalism giving primacy to Finance over Economics. The world must be divided in two. On the one hand, stable states integrated into globalization (which includes Russia and China); on the other, a vast area of exploitation of raw materials. This is why the state structures of the countries in this zone must be considerably weakened, ideally by destroying them and preventing their resurgence by all means. This "constructive chaos", as Condoleeza Rice put it, should not be confused with the homonymous rabbinic concept, even though the supporters of the theopolitics have done everything in their power to do so. It is not a question of destroying a bad order in order to rebuild a better one, but of destroying all forms of human organization in order to prevent any form of resistance and to allow transnationals to exploit this area without political constraints. It is therefore a colonial project in the Anglo-Saxon sense of the term (not to be confused with a colonization of settlement).

Image

According to this map, taken from a Powerpoint by Thomas P. M. Barnett at a conference at the Pentagon in 2003, all state structures in the dewy zone must be destroyed.

In beginning to implement this strategy, President George Bush Jr. spoke of a "war without end. Indeed, it is no longer a question of winning wars and defeating opponents, but of making them last as long as possible, "a century" he said. In fact, this strategy has been applied in the "Broader Middle East" - an area stretching from Pakistan to Morocco and covering the entire CentCom theatre of operations and the northern part of the AfriCom theatre of operations. In the past, the IMs guaranteed US access to oil from the Persian Gulf (Carter doctrine). Today, they are present in an area four times larger and aim to overturn any form of order. The state structures of Afghanistan since 2001, Iraq since 2003, Libya since 2011, Syria since 2012 and Yemen since 2015 are no longer capable of defending their citizens. Contrary to official discourse, there has never been any question of overthrowing governments, but rather of destroying states and preventing their reconstitution. For example, the situation of the people of Afghanistan did not improve with the fall of the Taliban 19 years ago, but is getting worse and worse by the day. The only counter-example could be that of Syria, which, in accordance with its historical tradition, has kept its state despite the war, absorbed the blows, and although ruined today, has weathered the storm.

It should be noted in passing that the Pentagon has always considered Israel as a European state and not as a Middle Eastern state. It is therefore not affected by this vast upheaval.

In 2001, the enthusiastic Colonel Ralf Peters assured that ethnic cleansing "it works! "(sic), but that the laws of war forbade the USA to carry it out itself. Hence the transformation of Al-Qaeda and the creation of Daesh, which did for the Pentagon what it wanted but could not undertake publicly.

To understand the Rumsfeld/Cebrowski strategy, it should be distinguished from the "Arab Spring" operation, imagined by the British on the model of the "Great Arab Revolt". The idea was to put the Muslim Brotherhood in power, just as Lawrence of Arabia had put the Brotherhood of the Wahhabites in power in 1915.

Image

The official, albeit not publicly assumed, objective of the U.S. General Staff: to blow up the borders of the Middle East, to destroy both enemy and friendly states, to practice ethnic cleansing.

Westerners in general have no vision of the broader Middle East as a geographical region. They know only certain countries and perceive them as isolated from each other. In this way, they convince themselves that the tragic events that these peoples are enduring are all due to special reasons, in some cases civil war, in others the overthrow of a bloodthirsty dictator. For each country, they have a well-written history of the reason for the tragedy, but they never have one to explain that the war lasts beyond that, and they certainly do not want to be asked about it. Each time, they denounce the "carelessness of the Americans" who could not end the war, forgetting that they rebuilt Germany and Japan after the Second World War. They refuse to acknowledge that for two decades the United States has been implementing a pre-stated plan at the cost of millions of lives. They therefore never see themselves as responsible for these massacres.

The United States itself denies that it is pursuing this strategy with regard to its citizens. For example, the inspector general investigating the situation in Afghanistan wrote a report lamenting the countless missed opportunities for the Pentagon to bring peace when precisely the Pentagon did not want peace.

The Russian intervention

In order to pulverize all the states of the broader Middle East, the Pentagon organized an absurd regional civil war in the manner it had invented the pointless war between Iraq and Iran (1980-88). Eventually President Saddam Hussein and Ayatollah Khomeini realized that they were killing each other for nothing and made peace against the West.

This time it was the opposition between Sunnis and Shiites. On one side, Saudi Arabia and its allies, and on the other, Iran and its allies. It does not matter whether Wahhabi Saudi Arabia and Khomeini Iran fought together under NATO command during the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina (1992-95), or whether many troops of the "Axis of Resistance" are not Shiite (100% of the Palestinians of Islamic Jihad, 70% of the Lebanese, 90% of the Syrians, 35% of the Iraqis and 5% of the Iranians).

No one knows why these two camps are fighting each other, but they are asked to bleed each other.

In any case, in 2014, the Pentagon was preparing to recognise two new states in accordance with its map of objectives: "Free Kurdistan" (fusion of the Syrian Rojava and the Kurdish Governorate of Iraq to which part of Iran and all of eastern Turkey were to be added at a later date) and "Sunnistan" (composed of the Sunni part of Iraq and eastern Syria). By destroying four states, the Pentagon paved the way for a chain reaction that would in turn destroy the entire region.

Russia then intervened militarily and enforced the borders of the Second World War. It goes without saying that these are arbitrary, stemming from the Sykes-Picot-Sazonov agreements of 1915, and sometimes difficult to bear, but changing them by blood is even less acceptable.

The Pentagon’s communication has always pretended to ignore what was at stake. Both because it does not publicly assume the Rumsfeld/Cebrowski strategy and because it equates the Crimea’s accession to the Russian Federation with a coup de force.

The moult of supporters of the Rumsfeld/Cebrowski strategy

After two years of fierce fighting against President Trump, the general officers of the Pentagon, almost all of whom were personally trained by Admiral Cebrowski, submitted to him under conditions. They agreed not to
- create a terrorist state (Sunnistan or Caliphate);
- change borders by force;
- maintaining US troops on the battlefields of the Broader Middle East and Africa.

In exchange, they ordered their loyal prosecutor Robert Mueller, whom they had already used against Panama (1987-89), Libya (1988-92) and in the 9/11 attacks (2001), to bury his investigation into Russiagate.

Then everything unfurled as smoothly as a player piano roll.

On 27 October 2019, President Trump ordered the execution of Caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the main military figure in the Sunni camp. Two months later, on January 3, 2020, he ordered the execution of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani, the main military figure of the Axis of Resistance.

Having thus shown that he remained the master of the game by eliminating the most symbolic personalities of both sides, claiming it, and without incurring any significant retaliation, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo revealed the final scheme on January 19 in Cairo. He plans to pursue the Rumsfeld/Cebrowski strategy no longer with the US armies, but with those of NATO, including Israel and the Arab countries.

On the 1st of February, Turkey made its break with Russia official by assassinating four FSB officers in Idleb. Then President Erdogan went to Ukraine to chant the motto of the Banderists (the Ukrainian legionnaires of the Third Reich against the Soviets) with the Ukrainian National Guard and receive the head of the International Islamist Brigade (the anti-Russian Tatars), Mustafa Djemilev (known as "Mustafa Kırımoğlu").

On February 12 and 13, the Defence Ministers of the Atlantic Alliance noted the inevitable withdrawal of US forces and the forthcoming dissolution of the International Coalition Against Daesh. While stressing that they were not deploying fighting troops, they agreed to send their soldiers to train those of the Arab armies, i.e. to supervise the fighting on the ground.

NATO trainers will be deployed primarily to Tunisia, Egypt, Jordan and Iraq. For example:

- Libya will be encircled in the west and east. The two rival governments of Fayez el-Sarraj -supported by Turkey, Qatar and already 5,000 jihadists from Syria via Tunisia- and Marshal Khalifa -supported by Egypt and the Emirates- will be able to kill each other forever. Germany, happy to regain the international role it has been deprived of since the Second World War, will play the gadfly by talking about peace to cover the moans of the dying.

- Syria will be surrounded on all sides. Israel is already a de facto member of the Atlantic Alliance and bombs whoever it wants whenever it wants. Jordan is already NATO’s "best global partner". King Abdullah II came to Brussels on January 14th for lengthy talks with the Secretary General of the Alliance, Jens Stoltenberg, and attended a meeting of the Atlantic Council. Israel and Jordan already have permanent offices at Alliance Headquarters. Iraq will also receive NATO trainers, although its parliament has just voted to withdraw foreign troops. Turkey is already a member of the Alliance and controls northern Lebanon through the Jamaa Islamiya . Together, they will be able to enforce the US ’Caesar’ law forbidding any company from anywhere to help in the reconstruction of this country.

Thus, the pillaging of the wider Middle East, which began in 2001, will continue. The martyred populations of this region, whose only fault is to have been divided, will continue to suffer and die en masse. The United States will keep its soldiers at home, warm and innocent, while the Europeans will have to take responsibility for the crimes of the US generals.

According to President Trump, the Alliance could change its name to NATO-Middle East (NATO-MO/NATO-ME). Its anti-Russian function would take a back seat to its strategy of destroying the non-globalized zone.

The question arises as to how Russia and China will react to this redistribution of the cards. China needs access to raw materials from the Middle East in order to develop. It should therefore oppose this Western takeover even though its military preparation is still incomplete. On the contrary, Russia and its huge territory are self-sufficient. Moscow has no material reason to fight. The Russians may even be relieved by NATO’s new orientation. It is likely, however, that, for spiritual reasons, they will not let Syria down and may support other peoples in the wider Middle East.
A must read article. The author, being French, is immune to the Anglo influence and has been able to offer a very interesting perspective on what is happening in the ME.

Syria ceasefire

Posted: Sat Mar 07, 2020 4:58 am
by Sertorio
US blocks UN statement backing Syria ceasefire

https://news.yahoo.com/us-blocks-un-sta ... 44158.html

March 6, 2020

United Nations (United States) (AFP) - The United States blocked the adoption of a UN Security Council statement Friday supporting a Syrian ceasefire brokered by Russia and Turkey, diplomats said following a closed-door meeting.

"It's premature," the United States said, rejecting the joint statement which Russia's ambassador to the UN, Vassily Nebenzia, had asked the other 14 member states to adopt, according to diplomats.

"Various countries took note and welcome the agreement," said Nebenzia. "But due to a position from one delegation, it was not possible."

Syria's war-ravaged Idlib province woke to relative calm Friday, its skies free of warplanes for the first day in months, following the ceasefire deal reached by Russia's President Vladimir Putin and his Turkish counterpart Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

"There are a lot of questions about how it will work in practice, who will monitor it, what is happening west of Aleppo and critically has the Syrian government formally signed up?" said British Ambassador Karen Pierce.

Her German counterpart Christoph Heusgen echoed the sentiment, stating: "We have to see if this will work."

"We are concerned about the millions of people who are suffering there and we would (like to) see that this ceasefire leads to a kind of safe zones where people can go back to and they can survive," he added.

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad said Friday he was pleased with the ceasefire during a phone call with Putin.

According to diplomats, Moscow signaled that it could oppose endorsement of the US-Taliban peace deal in the Security Council following the US opposition to the Russia-Turkey ceasefire.

Syria's conflict, which is about to enter its 10th year, has killed more than 380,000 people and displaced half of the country's population.
The US is so concerned about Syrian refugees from the war in Syria, that it tried to block the ceasefire which would put a stop to it.

Re: Syria ceasefire

Posted: Sat Mar 07, 2020 6:08 am
by neverfail
Sertorio wrote:
Sat Mar 07, 2020 4:58 am

The US is so concerned about Syrian refugees from the war in Syria, that it tried to block the ceasefire which would put a stop to it.
NO one is sufficiently concerned about Syrian refugees that they want to take millions of them in.

You are lucky in Portugal that your country is not one normally targeted by refugees as a desirable land to break their way into.

Re: US Foreign Policy

Posted: Fri May 08, 2020 3:59 pm
by Sertorio
Is Trump Kicking the Saudis to the Curb the Beginning of Something Not Terrible?
by Tom Luongo - May 7, 2020
https://tomluongo.me/2020/05/07/trump-k ... -terrible/

More than anything else in Saudi Arabia, that thing you smell is fear. Everything is coming unglued for the royal family there all at once. If we all weren’t so distracted by the Coronapocalypse these things would all be front page news.

In the past week there have been three major stories concerning Saudi Arabia, none of the bullish.

First, there was the news that UAE-backed forces in Yemen broke with the Saudis-led coalition there to declare the Southern Transitional Council the new administrators over southern Yemen which includes the capital and major port at Aden.

This led to major clashes over the next week between forces which less than two weeks ago were supposedly on the same side.

In addition, Saudi mercenaries were routed in Northern Yemen. The UAE pulled its troops out of Yemen ending its fight with the Houthis after the attack on the Ab Qaiq oil processing facility last summer.

Finally, the Saudis accepted a UN-brokered ceasefire with the Houthis. This is a two-week provisional ceasefire, but considering how badly their mercs and pet head-chopping animals have been faring this should be considered a mercy gesture by the Houthis.

The war against Yemen has reached its terminal stage and it only took the impending financial collapse of the entire world to get it done.

Next up we have two news items from Thursday which underscore just how irrelevant the Wahabist government in Riyadh has become.

They accepted the reality that they can’t win an oil price war with the Russians by raising the tender prices for Saudi Aramco grades across the board. They had no choice since China told them they liked more expensive Russian oil better.

Buying from the Salman family is like buying from Donald Trump and under the current set of geopolitical imperatives China’s leaderships would be colossal fools to do so just to save a few dollars.

But the big news is that President Trump is removing the Patriot Missile systems he put in last year. From Zerohedge:

The Wall Street Journal reports that The U.S. is removing Patriot anti-missile systems from Saudi Arabia and is considering reductions to other military capabilities – marking the end, for now, of a large-scale military buildup to counter Iran, according to U.S. officials.

Trump’s been vocal about how vulnerable the regime in Riyadh is without his support. But the bigger reason for this, I think, has nothing to do with punishing Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman for starting an oil price war which created a mess in U.S. oil markets.

This is about Trump realizing that oil should no longer be central to foreign policy objectives. In a world of $20-25 per barrel oil, why are we basing our entire foreign policy, which costs trillions we now truly cannot afford, on controlling the physical commodity markets which we are more than capable of producing?

Energy Dominance was the strategy of this administration, but that was predicated on the U.S. becoming the supplier of the marginal barrel of oil. That is clearly not the case with the May contract settling for $-40.

Trump will never apologize for making a mistake. He will just change course and end one policy and begin the next. Telling the Saudis he’s pulling the Patriots is a clear sign that policy is changing.

There’s no profit or purpose for continuing the operation in Yemen. That war of attrition is over.

This is also about the beginning of Trump’s re-election campaign in the wake of this historic economic collapse. It becomes a down payment to his anti-war, anti-imperial voting block which he has thoroughly alienated with his disastrous critical decisions culminating in the assassination of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani.

He has to do something to get these people (like me) back on his side. Now with the New Great Depression he has an excellent milieu for pulling back the empire… but he actually has to do it. So, is he?

Look at where we are today. Trump previously removed our support for the war in Yemen. He did not escalate in March after Kataib Hezbollah sent a second round of missiles into a U.S. base in Iraq, when he was being lobbied hard by the State Dept. and the Pentagon to do so.

Iran was able to deliver a major cargo of oil to Syria which previously had been under sincere U.S. embargo which lead to the seizure of the Iranian oil tanker last summer. Trump, apparently, berates his National Security staff daily to get us out of Afghanistan.

Sure, we’re still trying to pull strings in Iraq to install a government that will allow our troops to stay, but this policy has all the earmarks of State Dept. and Pentagon policy which Trump could pull the plug on if it looks grim.

Iraq is a mess of our devising, fighting China, Russia and Iran there will only make things worse for everyone. No matter what happens there now, the tired cry by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo about evil Iran will fall on very deaf ears when Americans are truly suffering at home.

I still think Trump has the political instincts to realize this in an election year during a depression and a country bitterly divided on nearly every issue.

So, in the end, tThe collapse in oil prices after Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman threw a hissy fit back in March probably didn’t help U.S./Saudi relations any but given what’s happened and what’s on the horizon I don’t think it would have mattered.

Trump can blame MbS all he wants but we’d likely end up right here anyway.

Because his real enemies are not in the Kremlin or in Tehran. Trump’s real enemies are in his own White House, on Capitol Hill and across the various think tanks, NGOs and gentlemen’s clubs around the world that want him gone from power and a much poorer, desperate world than the one we had before the fear of COVID-19.

And in the grand scheme of the emerging post-COVID world is our support of the vicious Saudis all that important when we are swimming in oil we can’t find room to store?

So, MbS, like Trump and like nearly everyone else is looking closer to home to solve their problems rather than getting caught up in silly power games supporting outdated theories about who controls what part of the world.

With oil this low the petrodollar simply isn’t that important anymore and neither is the survival of what we currently know as Saudi Arabia.
I wish it were true, but is it?...

Re: US Foreign Policy

Posted: Tue Jul 07, 2020 3:44 am
by Jim the Moron
US/India relations warm
https://scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/a ... p-exchange

"In India the contest for influence is between the old friendship with Moscow and the new friendship with Washington."

A natural development, given recent events . . .

Re: US Foreign Policy

Posted: Tue Jul 07, 2020 4:04 am
by Sertorio
Jim the Moron wrote:
Tue Jul 07, 2020 3:44 am
US/India relations warm
https://scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/a ... p-exchange

"In India the contest for influence is between the old friendship with Moscow and the new friendship with Washington."

A natural development, given recent events . . .
India, just like any major power, does not have friends, just interests. If the US serves India's interests, fine. Otherwise, it's fine too...