|02-21-2012, 02:39 am||#11|
Please "enlighten" me
I'm not saying what you can and can't do it's not my site I just comment on things I find strange. Also perhaps you can explain this whole Shade thing to me I can not for the life of me figure out what its about. I like mushrooms as well and the forest but what does this have to do with "our cause" as you called it?
|User who says thanks to Angry_White_Goy||
|02-21-2012, 06:54 am||#12|
Are The Israelis Willing To Start World War III?
Are The Israelis Willing To Start World War III?
Exclusive to American Free PressBy M. Raphael Johnson 11-8-3
According to a recent article by veteran British military analyst Joseph Vialls, Russia has sent the most advanced and feared missile in the world, owned only by Russia and China, the P270 Moskit, also known as the 'Sunburn,' to Damascus and Tehran. This can only be understood as a counter to the Israeli threats to use nuclear weapons against their enemies.
The Sunburn flies at an altitude of 60 feet and is nearly impossible to defend against. A few fired at Israel could make that state 'history.'
Add to this a new Russian air force installation near the Kyrgystan/Russia border, coupled with a Chinese base just over their western border with Kyrgystan, and Armageddon may be on the horizon. All Russian jets at this new base just outside of Bishkek are equipped with Sunburn missiles.
The gloves are off, and with America and Israel still unable to steal any oil from Iraq because someone keeps blowing the pipelines, Russian and Chinese firepower buildup suddenly slammed the door firmly shut on Caspian oil reserves in the old Soviet republics. For more than a decade American oil multinationals have been conducting 'joint ventures' in the former Soviet republics bordering the Caspian Sea, with the stated intent of pumping stolen crude oil out through Turkey, then on to western markets. Now this route has been blocked permanently, and America is in no position to do anything about it, because a large part of the U.S. conventional army is currently bogged down in Iraq, being shot at and killed on a daily basis.
For many who have been watching this region as a confrontation between the United States and Israel versus Russia largely over the control of the biggest gas and oil deposits in the world, a new front has been opened.
As a response to this checkmate, Sharon recently visited Putin on Nov. 3 to meet with him concerning the nuclear issue in Iran. Quickly, Sharon permitted Palestinians to return to their jobs and eased their travel restrictions.
Since the end of the Gorbachev era, the Russian oligarchs, nearly all Jewish by ethnicity (with the noticeable exception of Vladimir Potanin), have controlled nearly all key sectors of the Russian economy. This, of course, includes Russia's major ace-in-the-hole, oil and gas. The giant YUKOS conglomerate is presently one of the largest oil companies in the world, valued at about $40 billion.
YUKOS is the result of a 'loans for shares' deal brokered through the semi-coherent Boris Yeltsin in 1995. Here, the liberal Russian government swapped loyalty from the oligarchs in exchange for privatization at prices far below that of the market. This $40 billion giant was bought for about $300 million, thus looting the entire Russian economy for the benefit of a handful of Israeli citizens living in Russia.
When YUKOS' chair, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, was arrested at the end of last month, the American capitalist establishment went orbital. Forgetting the 1999 New York Times's expose on massive money laundering and fraud from YUKOS, the conservative establishment began to lionize oligarchy and, specifically, Khodorkovsky.
Recently, The Financial Times weighed in with a giggly piece from Chrystia Freeland, which referred to the oligarch as a 'democratic activist.' About a paragraph later, the writer said - without irony - that the oligarch's model for economics is the robber baron factories of the early American 20th century. Fox News, on Nov. 3, referred to YUKOS as the most progressive corporation in Russia.
According to a Nov. 3 Agence France-Presse story, Khodorkovsky made a deal with Jacob Rothschild this year that control of the YUKOS giant would pass to Rothschild in the event of Khodorkovsky's arrest. However, the Russian government has frozen all YUKOS assets for the time being.
It is significant that YUKOS's liberal pressure group, the Open Russia Foundation, is completely controlled by Rothschild now that its founder is in jail. As their official mission statement reads, "The motivation for the establishment of the Open Russia Foundation is the wish to foster enhanced openness, understanding and integration between the people of Russia and the rest of the world." (Translation: how can we as Jews best fuck Russia some more?)
Their board of trustees includes Rothschild and Henry Kissinger. The Washington, D.C. launch of the organization included Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) and Librarian of Congress James Billington, one of the leading voices against Russian traditionalism in the academic establishment. Significantly, the Open Russia Foundation recently provided Yale University (A LOT of Jew here!) with substantial grants to study the Russian economy as well as providing the Carnegie Foundation with 3 percent of its entire operating budget.
It seems that the drive to control the globe's energy is progressing. The American empire's battles in Serbia, Central Asia, Iraq and Chechnya are one and the same war. Other than fighting Israel's enemies, these adventures are also wars to control Central Asian oil and natural gas (one of the main pipelines from the Caspian Sea went straight through Serbia). The control of this wealth by the United States and Israel necessitates bypassing Russian channels. This means that the Jewish oligarchy in Russia would become the central actor in world politics.
The Israeli/CIA complex was using Khodorkovsky to sell off the assets of YUKOS to Exxon/Mobil (as well as a smaller piece to Texaco), hence bringing Russia's pipelines into the hands of the western powers. The Nov. 5 New York Times also indicated that the Bush family's Carlyle Group was involved. (Bin Ladens Family is the Caryle Group Henry Kissinger worked for them and so did George the elder, as a matter of fact according The washington Post he was having lunch with Bin Ladens brother the day before 911. My theory is Osama was dying anyway and so they made him the pasty, he took a hit for the team and died in a caave somewhere from kidney failure.)
It was not long after Putin began threatening the YUKOS conglomerate that neo-conservative pundits such as William Kristol and Ariel Cohen began calling Putin a 'communist,' 'another Stalin' and 'tyrannical.'
The basis of these wild accusations, of course, is the fact that Putin stands in the way of Zionist domination.
Russia's response to Israel's terror threats against most of the Islamic world is fully understood as both a political and economic question. Further, increasing cooperation between Russia and India, as well as China, are clear markers that Putin, one of the few actually competent leaders in world politics, is building an anti-imperialist and anti-NATO alliance with the aim of countering American/Zionist moves for the world's oil and gas wealth.
The interests, however, go even further than Zionist control over American foreign policy decision-making. Vialls writes on another topic: that the existence of the American/Zionist empire is based on the victory of American forces over the Russian and Islamic. Of course, both in Bosnia and Chechnya, the Mossad/CIA operatives have not hesitated to assist fundamentalists in fighting Slavic nationalism, largely because Slavicism is a greater threat with Putin firmly in the saddle. Islam, divided and leaderless, with a history of centuries of defeat and colonialism behind it, is only a potential force in world politics.
Are The Israelis Willing To Start World War III?
---------- Post added at 07:48 am ---------- Previous post was at 07:16 am ----------
Russian Super Sunburn SS-N-26 ONYX Missiles make the US Navy Obsolete & a US Attack on Iran Suicidal
Ron: Ever wonder why the US and Israel go on and on threatening to bomb Iran but never do? I have. The answer is simple enough. In accordance with a directive from Creator Source Star Fleet now defuses all nuclear weapons which makes the threat of a joint US Israeli nuclear annihilation of Iran just so much hot air. The second reason is even more embarrassing for the US because it evidences that the huge US Navy is now as militarily obsolete as Hannibal's elephants, and much more dangerous to man.
Ever since the Russians developed the supersonic P270 Moskit [Mosquito] anti-ship missile, known in NATO circles as the SS-N-22 "Sunburn", over 10 years ago the US Navy has been vulnerable to irrestible (means bang you are dead) attack in confined seas such as the Persian Gulf and the Red Sea and the Eastern Mediterannean. That Sunburn missile type is said to be deployed in Syria and Iran. It was once described by Rep. Dana Rohrabacher as "the most dangerous anti-ship missile in the Russian, and now the Chinese, fleet.” The ship borne version of this missile is launched from deck mounted quad tubes, but since Rohrabacher made his comments, Russia has adapted the Sunburn for submerged launch from submarines, air launch from Sukhoi 27s, and single surface launch from modified 40’ flatbed trucks. Prior to 2003 all Western defense experts unambiguously viewed all versions of Sunburn as the “most dangerous missiles in the world”. - firstname.lastname@example.org
However, by November 2003 the Russians had greatly improved on the SS-N-22, producing the SS-N-26* ONYX yakhont missile capable of a cruising speed of 2100 mph at an elevation of only 45 feet above sea level. That meant that Russia and China (which bought the ONYX technology from Russia) can sink American aircraft carriers at will without ever having to escalate to nuclear warfare, which gives both countries a massive strategic advantage. See Putin hammers the final nail into Israel’s coffin Copyright Joe Vialls, 16 November 2003, * Shown as the SS-N-25 in the picture below.
Russian Super Sunburn SS-N-26 ONYX Missiles Make US Navy Obsolete & US Attack on Iran Suicidal
Russia Ready to Vaporize the Jewish State and Kick America out of the Eastern Hemisphere's Oil Fields
© 2003 Joseph Vialls and CyberJournal
October 28, 2003
This article uses the term "Zionist" offensively. However, it includes important material
During the Cold War of the sixties, the only thing stopping American or Russian psychopaths from taking over the entire world was the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction [MAD], where a multiple ICBM launch by America on Russia or vice versa, would automatically lead to a "doomsday" response (Sort of a Samson Option thing)by the nation under attack. Mutual destruction of both America and Russia was thereby guaranteed, resulting in nearly thirty years of unprecedented peace and quiet, caused solely by mutual nuclear fear.
About one month ago, Russia discreetly invoked MAD again, but this time in the Middle East in direct response to hysterical Israeli threats to nuke Iran with submarine-launched American Harpoon missiles. Quietly and with the minimum of fuss, Russia deployed its most advanced tactical nuclear missiles and crews to both Syria and Iran, thereby sending an unmistakable diplomatic signal that if Israel attacked Tehran or Damascus with nuclear weapons, Russia would in return instantly and anonymously vaporize the Jewish State.
This is not an idle or exaggerated threat. The Russian missile type deployed in Syria and Iran is the P270 Moskit [Mosquito], known in NATO circles as the SS-N-22 "Sunburn", once described by Rep. Dana Rohrabacher as "the most dangerous anti-ship missile in the Russian, and now the Chinese, fleet." The ship-borne version of this missile is launched from deck mounted quad tubes, but since Rohrabacher made his comments, Russia has adapted the Sunburn for submerged launch from submarines, air launch from Sukhoi 27s, and single surface launch from modified 40' flatbed trucks. Nowadays, western defense experts unambiguously view all versions of Sunburn as the "most dangerous missiles in the world".
Mach 2.2 Moskit [SS-N-22 Sunburn] Missile
To see exactly how the Zionists drove us to this nuclear flash point, it is necessary to go back a few years to discover how the Jewish State managed to acquire sophisticated German submarine launch platforms, and American nuclear-tipped Harpoon missiles, thereby allowing a bunch of psychotic religious crazies in Tel Aviv to bring the Middle East, and perhaps the entire world, to the very brink of thermonuclear war.
Around 1989 Israel was trying to replace its obsolescent Gal-class submarine fleet, while simultaneously whining that it didn't have the funds to do so. Predictably perhaps, the Jewish State was looking for a free hand out. Having failed to extract these big-ticket items as gifts from America, in 1991 Israel turned its sights on Germany, perpetually in moral debt to the Zionists because of the brilliantly managed and highly successful 'holocaust industry.'
After a pathetically short period of Zionist arm wrestling in Berlin, Germany caved-in and agreed to build and provide the first two Dolphin class submarines free of charge, and extend a loan to Israel for the third. Naturally this loan was never repaid, meaning that German taxpayers had unwittingly funded Israel's entire submarine fleet, custom-designed to launch nuclear-tipped missiles from specially designed torpedo tubes.
Obtaining the deadly American Harpoon missiles was relatively easy. For decades, American taxpayers have unwittingly provided the Jewish State with enough free "expendable" munitions to crush the Palestinian people in their own country, and the Harpoon missile is classed as an expendable munition. What this means is that Harpoon falls into the same generic category as rifle bullets and hand grenades, so Washington went ahead and gifted the Jewish State with more than fifty nuclear-capable Harpoons.
The nuclear warheads for these missiles can be either American or homegrown Dimona [the 'secret' Israeli nuclear laboratory -- JW] products, but no matter which, Israel had to make it known that the nuclear capability was real, for there is no point making a nuclear threat if you cannot back it up with real nuclear muscle. This was achieved by leaking the information through high profile Israeli media assets, who initially plastered the information all over the Internet. This completed stage one of the exercise, which then had to be swiftly followed by a quasi-official statement of absolute deniability. Think about this one carefully people, think about it very carefully.
If Damascus or Tehran should suddenly turn into heat and light any time soon, the Israelis will instantly get the blame, in the first place because of their leaked high-profile threats, and secondly because of their known hatred of anything even remotely related to Islam or Arabs. We did not have very long to wait for this "on the record" deniability statement, which was issued less than 24-hours after the initial threats.
Former Israeli deputy defense minister Efraim Sneh claimed on Army Radio that, "Anyone with even the slightest understanding of missiles knows that the Harpoon can never be used to carry nuclear warheads". This was swiftly reinforced by Ted Hooton, editor of Jane's Naval Weapon Systems in London, who agreed with Sneh's assessment, saying problems with payload weight would put the Harpoon out of balance, limiting its range and accuracy, "It seems to me that a nuclear weapon, which is extremely dense, would make the Harpoon nose heavy and significantly reduce its range -- in any event well below the (150 kilometers) it is designed for," he said.
While many might doubt the authenticity of Sneh's claim, who would dare question the measured opinion of Jane's, widely touted as the most authoritative military publication on earth? Unfortunately Jane's appears to have made a terrible error, because Hooton's claim is the exact opposite of reality. Harpoon normally carries a 215-pound conventional explosive charge in its warhead, which can easily be replaced by a 99.2-pound nuclear device, which then needs additional ballast to balance the missile in flight!
Rest assured that the American-Israeli Harpoons are nuclear, and the Zionists have every intention of using them on Tehran and Damascus if they think they can get away with it. Dangerous people do dangerous things in dangerous times, and there is nothing more dangerous that a pack of religious fanatics with their backs to the Mediterranean, facing the imminent destruction of Zion. The Israeli economy is in tatters, Jewish migrants are fleeing Israel in droves, and the Zionist host [America] is fast running out of spare cash and free weapons.
Russia has known all about Israel's nuclear forward planning for many months, and the only question the Kremlin faced was which deterrent to pull out of its vast nuclear arsenal and deploy in the Middle East. At the same time, Russia was equally determined to send very strong signals to America: signals also designed to make the Zionist crusaders think long and hard before they took any more aggressive action against the former Soviet republics and North Korea.
Deterrent choice for the Middle East was easy, because the Russians already knew the Americans were frightened of the SS-N-22, which the U.S. Navy actually tried to purchase from the Russian Navy in September 1995. In a letter reproduced at the bottom of this page, Vice Admiral Bowes wrote to Russian Commander in Chief Admiral Gromov, "I appreciate the opportunity to convey to you the United States Navy's interest in acquiring all variants of the SS-N-22 'Sunburn' Anti-Ship Supersonic Ship-to-Ship missile for test and evaluation". America's naked fear of this unstoppable weapon was thus laid bare, but Russia -- predictably -- refused to sell.
If the Israelis decide to nuke Tehran or Damascus, there is little doubt that some of their Harpoon missiles will get through, though probably only because of the element of surprise. The American-Israeli Harpoon is still vulnerable to defensive systems because it is a relatively old subsonic missile, powered by a small Teledyne turbofan engine. Detectable by radar, cruising relatively high at around 300 feet altitude, and with a range of only 65 miles, the Harpoon can be terminated by one of many different point defense systems. But regardless of these notable shortcomings, and as previously stated, some will reach their targets in Damascus or Tehran.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is when the real fireworks will start. Within seconds the tarpaulins will be thrown back on a number of 40' flatbed trucks currently dispersed in classified locations, revealing the dull metal of the 37' Sunburn launch tubes within. While the hydraulic stabilizer jacks slam into the ground and the launch tubes elevate to the firing position, Russian artillery specialists will confirm the pre-programmed target coordinates, then defer to central command fire control, at the same time retaining unit "dead man" authority to fire on bypass if absolutely necessary.
Each Sunburn will hurtle out of its launcher riding on the white-hot tail of a booster rocket, while its special ramjet lights and cycles up to full thrust. Then rapidly sinking back to an undetectable cruising altitude of approximately 60 feet, each missile will accelerate to Mach 2.2 [1,520 mph] in less than 30 seconds, with a total flight time from Damascus to Tel Aviv of around three minutes. When the end finally comes for Israel, it will all be over in microseconds.
Flying faster than rifle bullets, the Sunburns will approach Tel Aviv and Haifa at twice the speed of sound, detonating in blinding white 200 Kiloton flashes designed to instantly transform animal vegetable and mineral into heat and light. If I was an Israeli general facing this doomsday response on my wife, my family and my synagogue, I would not launch any Harpoons at all, but then I am not a religious fanatic obsessed with killing Muslims and stealing their land. Unfortunately, reading the minds of certifiable lunatics is all but impossible, so the best I can suggest is that perhaps the Israelis will launch, and perhaps they will not.
Worst of all for the Zionists left alive in Washington and New York, is that if the Russians are obliged to launch their counter-strike against Israel, it will be one-hundred-percent deniable. Unlike Israel and its public threats to nuke Iran, Russia has not threatened anyone at all. Because Sunburn flies below the horizon it cannot be detected or logged by radar, and a 200-kiloton hole in the middle of Tel Aviv will yield no clues. Very likely the Russians will copy the Americans, and blame a fictional "rogue state" like Iran, Pakistan or North Korea.
The Sunburns deployed in Syria and Iran are not the only ones currently giving the Zionists recurring nightmares. Although the Russians refused to sell any SS-N-22s to Vice Admiral Bowes in 1995, they later made a very public sale of more than 100 Sunburns to the Chinese, who mounted them on frigates and corvettes, which they stationed near Taiwan. Thus by 2001, both the Russian and Chinese Pacific Fleets were fully equipped with 200+ Sunburns, each and every one of them easily capable of sinking an American aircraft carrier.
Ever since the illegal invasion of Iraq by America earlier this year , Russia has deliberately sent a number of unmistakably harsh diplomatic signals that the days of the Zionist crusaders are numbered, especially in the mid and far east, but predictably all of these signals have been deliberately suppressed by the western media. Russia's bottom line is completely neutralizing America and Israeli in the Eastern Hemisphere, thereby preventing the U.S. from stealing Eurasia's strategic oil reserves.
In late May while the illegal invasion of Iraq was in full swing, a small Russian fleet deployed to the Indian Ocean, uncomfortably close to American carrier battle groups transiting in an out of the Persian Gulf. This exercise, the first held by Russia in the Indian Ocean for more than ten years, was extremely uncomfortable for the American commanders, who knew that five of the Russian vessels, including three submarines, were fully equipped with nuclear-capable Sunburn missiles.
The diplomatic signal in the Indian Ocean was blatantly obvious. Though numerically inferior to the American fleet, the Russians had more than enough unstoppable firepower to win any sea battle outright. Billion-dollar American aircraft carriers became obsolete monoliths that day, as did America's arrogant ability to roam the oceans of the world attacking smaller sovereign nations on Zionist orders. If America pushed too hard in Russian or Chinese spheres of influence, a 93,000-ton American aircraft carrier might "spontaneously" fireball in mid-ocean; in reality removed from the face of the earth by an unheard and unseen Sunburn missile, launched by a submerged Russian submarine more than fifty miles away.
In August and September 2003, the Russian and Chinese navies held large independent exercises in the Pacific, both coincidentally designed to, "Simulate sinking aggressive American carrier battle groups".
No prizes for guessing the name of the principal weapon system selected for this challenging task. During September, the Chinese missile destroyer "Fuzhou" fired a Sunburn with a practice warhead, which high-speed cameras then recorded striking the center of the white cross on the hull of the target vessel, located more than 60 nautical miles away from the firing point. Terminal attack profile was Mach 2.05 at an altitude of 22 feet.
These exercises took place while the Zionist media was hyping up public opinion against that nasty "Rogue State" North Korea, allegedly brimming with fictional "Weapons of Mass Destruction" being manufactured specifically for sale to Iran, or so you were led to believe by CNN, NBC, Fox News and many others. In turn, Iran was allegedly itching to mount the fictional weapons on multiple launchers, then fire the lot at poor little Israel, all alone and unarmed at the eastern end of the Mediterranean. Plans were made to intercept Korean ships on the high seas for inspection, and Australia obsequiously offered to send a gunboat. But then Australia always offers to send a gunboat when a lowly clerk in the White House snaps his or her fingers.
Those readers with long memories will recall that the Korean War of the fifties was all about spheres of influence. In other words the Korean War was a surrogate war, with America and Britain backing the south while Russia and China backed the north. Though sixty years have passed since the end of the Korean War, this proxy position has not changed, and North Korea is still viewed by Russia and China as firmly within their spheres of influence. Thus the diplomatic signal generated by the large Russian and Chinese naval exercises was clear and unambiguous: "Hands off North Korea, or else!" Within days of the Chinese Sunburn launch, which was observed and logged by two American spy planes, Washington went uncharacteristically quiet about the Korean peninsula, and remains so today.
Perhaps for the first time in contemporary American history, Washington was being forced to come to grips with a new and very harsh reality. Though the United States was allowed [in fact discreetly encouraged] to become horribly bogged down in Afghanistan and Iraq, it was no longer allowed to interfere anywhere else in the world. Massive American aircraft carriers were no longer free to roam around looking for helpless prey, and Russia or China, sometimes both in tandem, started riding shotgun on all American adventures in the Eastern Hemisphere.
Effectively denied sea [and most land] access to the Eastern Hemisphere, it was not long before the Zionists decided to play what they thought was their trump card, declaring that their absolute right of self-defence allowed them to launch Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles [ICBMs] of sixties vintage, against "terrorist targets" on the other side of the world. Though such weapons might appear to have the advantage of not needing direct sea or land access in the Eastern Hemisphere, this twisted Zionist thinking was quickly proved to be panicky and entirely delusional.
On 17 October 2003, Russian President Vladimir Putin responded to this crude threat, pointing out that although Russia had scrapped hundreds of its ICBMs under various disarmament treaties, it still has a "significant amount" of SS-19 intercontinental ballistic missiles that had never been previously deployed, and thus were not part of disarmament negotiations, which remain mothballed for emergency use. "These are the most powerful rockets in the world", Putin said, adding they would be the perfect weapons for breaking through any potential American missile defense shield.
Unconfirmed rumor suggests that Russia has a minimum of two hundred unused SS-19s in storage. Within 48-hours of this stern Russian warning, frantic Zionist talk of firing ICBMs at "terrorist targets" in the Eastern Hemisphere became muted, then stopped completely.
Russian Nukes Deter Israel and US
I don't agree with a lot in this article and it's dated but I wanted to point out that as this guy states, Israel is far from untouchable. But I think they'll start the war anyway because they are just crazy like that, well if they piss Russia off too bad they won't even know what hit them. In a first strike they could take out their missiles & planes on the ground, they subs , and still nuke their cites. I'm not this will happen but it is definitely do-able.
---------- Post added at 07:54 am ---------- Previous post was at 07:48 am ----------
The Raduga 3M80, 3M82 and Kh-41 Moskit / SS-N-22 Sunburn are all variants of the same 4.5 tonne supersonic rocket-ramjet missile. This weapon is the primary armament of the PLA-N's new 956E Sovremennyy class destroyers and is credited with a range between 50 and 120 nautical miles.
More recently it has been integrated on the Project 12421 Molniya class missile boats, which carry four rounds.
An air launch centreline tunnel adaptor enables Su-27/30 family strike fighters to carry a single round and this configuration has been displayed on the navalised Su-33, and more recently advertised on the land based Su-35BM Flanker variants.
A coastal defence variant labelled the Moskit E is in development, with a two round TEL based on the MZKT-7930 chassis.
Inertial midcourse guidance is supplemented with an Altair active radar seeker - there are no reports to date of land attack derivatives. The missile is powered by a Turayevo 3D83 ramjet
Unlike subsonic Western anti-ship missiles such as the Harpoon and Exocet, the Moskit is a supersonic sea-skimmer. It can be programmed to fly a high altitude trajectory at Mach 3, or a sea-skimming trajectory at Mach 2.2. If the sea skimming mode is chosen, the missile will be first detected by a warship under attack when it emerges over the horizon at a distance of about 15 to 25 nautical miles. This provides the defences on the ship with about 25-60 seconds of warning time before impact. The raw speed of the Moskit makes it a challenging target for most shipboard defences. All variants use the KTRV-Detal 3A-81E-01 series radar altimeter, similar to the design used in the Kh-59ME / AS-18 Kazoo.
Terminal phase approach to targets is at 10 - 20 m AMSL.
Manufacturer datasheets state the following capabilities for the Moskit E system:
Ability to engage surface targets including warships, transports and ACVs with speeds of up to 100 knots.
Ability to engage targets at sea states of up to 6, and low signature targets at states of up to 5.
Wind speeds of up to 20 m/s.
The fire control system performs automatic test of missiles pre-launch, and can manage and allocate missiles for up to 4 targets.
The missile launch tubes can be deployed on a vessel for up to 18 months without servicing.
The 3M-80E and 3M-80E1 missile seeker has active radar and passive anti-radiation homing capability [likely band limited by antenna design].
The most recent variant is the improved Moskit MVE system:
Ability to fly pre-programmed composite profiles comprising high and low altitude segments.
Range on a low altitude profile of up to 140 km.
Range on a composite flight profile of to 240 km.
Kh-41 Sunburn. China deploys the supersonic ramjet 3M-82 Moskit on its Sovremmeniy DDGs, the air launched ASM-MSS/Kh-41 variant has been integrated on the Su-30 series, via the Su-33. Below launch from Sovremmeniy DDG (Rosoboronexport).
|02-21-2012, 09:45 am||#13|
Full spectrum global dominance
FULL SPECTRUM GLOBAL DOMINANCE
"Full Spectrum Dominance: Totalitarian Democracy in the New World Order"
Review of F. William Engdahl's book
For over 30 years, F. William Engdahl has been a leading researcher, economist, and analyst of the New World Order with extensive writing to his credit on energy, politics, and economics. He contributes regularly to business and other publications, is a frequent speaker on geopolitical, economic and energy issues, and is a distinguished Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.
Engdahl's two previous books include "A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order" explaining that America's post-WW II dominance rests on two pillars and one commodity - unchallengeable military power and the dollar as the world's reserve currency along with the quest to control global oil and other energy resources.
Engdahl's other book is titled "Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation" on how four Anglo-American agribusiness giants plan world domination by patenting all life forms to force-feed GMO foods on everyone - even though eating them poses serious human health risks.
Engdahl's newest book is reviewed below. Titled "Full Strectrum Dominance: Totalitarian Democracy in the New World Order," it discusses America's grand strategy, first revealed in the 1998 US Space Command document - Vision for 2020. Later released in 2000 as DOD Joint Vision 2020, it called for "full spectrum dominance" over all land, surface and sub-surface sea, air, space, electromagnetic spectrum and information systems with enough overwhelming power to fight and win global wars against any adversary, including with nuclear weapons preemptively.
Other means as well, including propaganda, NGOs and Color Revolutions for regime change, expanding NATO eastward, and "a vast array of psychological and economic warfare techniques" as part of a "Revolution in Military Affairs" discussed below.
September 11, 2001 served as pretext to consolidate power, destroy civil liberties and human rights, and wage permanent wars against invented enemies for global dominance over world markets, resources, and cheap labor - at the expense of democratic freedoms and social justice. Engdahl's book presents a frightening view of the future, arriving much sooner than most think.
After the Soviet Union's dissolution in late 1989, America had a choice. As the sole remaining superpower, it could have worked for a new era of peace and prosperity, ended decades of Cold War tensions, halted the insane arms race, turned swords into plowshares, and diverted hundreds of billions annually from "defense" to "rebuild(ing) civilian infrastructure and repair(ing) impoverished cities."
Instead, Washington, under GHW Bush and his successors, "chose stealth, deception, lies and wars to attempt to control the Eurasian Heartland - its only potential rival as an economic region - by military (political, and economic) force," and by extension planet earth through an agenda later called "full spectrum dominance."
[COLOR="lime"]As a result, the Cold War never ended and today rages with over a trillion dollars spent annually on "defense" in all forms even though America has no enemy, nor did it after the Japanese surrendered in August 1945. So the solution was to invent them, and so they were.[/COLOR]
Post-Soviet Russia, "The 'new' Cold War assumed various disguises and deceptive tactics until September 11, 2001" changed the game. It let George Bush "declare (a) permanent (Global War on Terror) against an enemy who was everywhere and nowhere, who allegedly threatened the American way of life, justified (police state) laws," and is now destroying our freedoms and futures.
The roots of the scheme go back decades - at least to 1939 when powerful New York Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) insiders planned a post-war world with one nation alone triumphant and unchallengeable.
Engdahl's book is a geopolitical analysis of the past two decades - peering into "the dark corners of Pentagon strategy and actions and the extreme dangers ('full spectrum dominance' holds for) the future," not just to America but the entire world.
Things are so out-of-control today that democratic freedoms and planetary life itself are threatened by "the growing risk of nuclear war by miscalculation" or the foolhardy assumption that waging it can be limited, controlled, and safe - like turning a faucet on and off. The very notion is implausible and reckless on its face, yet powerful forces in the country think this way and plan accordingly.
The Guns of August 2008
On the 8th day of the 8th month of the 8th year of the new century, a place few people in the West ever heard of made headlines when Georgia's army invaded South Ossetia - its province that broke away in 1991 and declared its independence. For a brief period, world tensions were more heightened than at any time since the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis when only cooler heads avoided possible nuclear war.
Like then, the crisis was a Washington provocation with tiny Georgia a mere pawn in a dangerous high-stakes confrontation - a new Great Game that former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski described in his 1997 book, "The Grand Chessboard."
He called Eurasia the "center of world power extending from Germany and Poland in the East through Russia and China to the Pacific and including the Middle East and the Indian subcontinent." He explained that America's urgent task was to assure that "no state or combination of states gains the capacity to expel the United States from Eurasia or even to diminish significantly its decisive arbitration role." Dominating that part of the world is key to controlling the planet, and its the main reason for NATO's existence. From inception, its mission was offense.
Post-Cold War, Washington used the illusion of democracy to dominate everywhere - with the long arm of the Pentagon and NATO as enforcers. Euphoric East Europeans couldn't know that American-style democracy was even more repressive than what had ended. Decades of Voice of America and Radio Free Europe propaganda was soon revealed to be no different than the Soviet system they rejected and in some ways much worse.
Western-imposed "shock therapy" meant "free market" hokum, mass privatizations, ending the public sphere, unrestricted access for foreign corporations unemcumbered by pesky regulations, deep social service cuts, loss of job security, poverty wages, repressive laws, and entire economies transformed to benefit a powerful corporate ruling class partnered with corrupted political elites. Globally, Russia got billionaire "oligarchs," China "the princelings," Chile "the piranhas," and in new millennium America the Bush-Cheney "Pioneers" and Obama Wall Street Top Guns wrecking global havoc for self-enrichment.
As for ordinary people, Russia is instructive for what's heading everywhere:
-- mass impoverishment;
-- an epidemic of unemployment;
-- loss of pensions and social benefits;
-- 80% of farmers bankrupted;
-- tens of thousands of factories closed and the country de-industrialized;
-- schools closed;
-- housing in disrepair;
-- skyrocketing alcoholism, drug abuse, HIV/AIDS, suicides, and violent crime; and
-- a declining population and life expectancy because the country was looted for profit and all safety nets ended; what Milton Friedman called "freedom."
Mikhail Gorvachev tried to revitalize Soviet Russia with Glasnost and Perestroika but failed. In return for agreeing to "shock therapy" and nuclear disarmament, GHW Bush promised no eastward NATO extension into newly liberated Warsaw Pact countries. The Russian Duma, in fact, ratified Start II, providing a firm disarmament schedule - contingent on both countries prohibiting a missile defense deployment as stipulated under the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM).
On December 14, 2001, the Bush administration withdrew from ABM and much more. It claimed the right to develop and test new nuclear weapons (in violation of NPT), rescinded the Biological and Toxic Weapons Convention, greatly increased military spending, refused to consider a Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty to increase already large stockpiles, and claimed the right to wage preventive wars under the doctrine of "anticipatory self-defense" using first-strike nuclear weapons.
The door was now open for enhanced militarization, creation of the US Missile Defense Agency, and proof again that trusting America is foolhardy and dangerous. Both GHW Bush and Bill Clinton lied by enticing former Warsaw Pact countries into NATO, one by one.
At the beginning of the 1990s, Zbigniew Brzezinski described America's arrogance this way:
"Presidential travels abroad assumed the trappings of imperial expeditions, overshadowing in scale and security demands the circumstances of any other statesman (reflecting) America's anointment as the world's leader (to be) in some respects reminiscent of Napoleon's self-coronation."
Brzezinski understood the dangers of imperial arrogance, causing the decline and fall of previous empires. Even a superpower like the US is vulnerable. He was very comfortable with an American Century, only leery of the means to achieve and keeping it. In 2008, with 28 NATO country members, including 10 former Warsaw Pact ones, Washington sought admission for Georgia and Ukraine, and did so after announcing in early 2007 the planned installation of interceptor missiles in Poland and advanced tracking radar in the Czech Republic, both NATO members.
Allegedly for defense against Iran and other "rogue" states, it clearly targeted Russia by guaranteeing America a nuclear first-strike edge, and that provoked a sharp Kremlin response. Washington's deployment is for offense as are all US/NATO installations globally.
Vladimir Putin expressed outrage in his February 2007 Munich International Conference on Security address stating:
"NATO has put its frontline forces on our borders. (It) does not have any relation with the modernisation of the Alliance itself or with ensuring security in Europe. On the contrary, it represent a serious provocation that reduces the level of mutual trust. And we have a right to ask: against whom is this expansion intended? And what happened to the assurances our western partners made after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact?"
Putin's speech drew a storm of US media Russia-bashing. Last August, it got this writer to comment in an article titled "Reinventing the Evil Empire," saying: Russia is back, proud and re-assertive, and not about to roll over for America, especially in Eurasia. For Washington, it's back to the future with a new Cold War, but this time for greater stakes and with much larger threats to world peace.
Over the past two decades, Washington upped the ante, encroaching on Russia's borders and encircling it with NATO/US bases clearly designed for offense and to block the spread of democratic freedoms to former Soviet Republics. "Diabolical propaganda" made it work by projecting imperial America as a colonial liberator bringing "free market" capitalism to the East. It succeeded as "long as the United States was the world's largest economy and American dollars were in demand as (the) de facto world reserve currency...." For decades, America "portray(ed) itself as the beacon of liberty for newly independent nations of Africa and Asia," as well as former Soviet Republics and Warsaw Pact nations.
Geopolitical Reality - America's New Manifest Destiny, Global Expansion to the Vastness of Eurasia
For over a century, America sought "total economic and military control over (Soviet) Russia" through the full strength of its military-industrial-security sectors - by war or other means. From 1945, the Pentagon planned a first-strike nuclear war, an "all out conventional war (called) TOTALITY (as) drafted by General Dwight Eisenhower" per Harry Truman's order, the same man who used atomic weapons against a defeated Japan instead of accepting its requested surrender.
With the dissolution of the Soviet Union, America's superpower supremacy depends on "precluding Eurasian countries from developing their own defense pillars or security structures independent of US-controlled NATO," especially to prevent a powerful China-Russia alliance capable of serious challenge, along with other Eurasian states, notably oil rich ones.
As geopolitical strategist Halford Mackinder (1861 - 1947) observed in his most famous dictum:
"Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland;
Who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island;
Who rules the World-Island commands the World."
Mackinder's World-Island was Eurasia, all of Europe, the Middle East and Asia.
Early in the last century and notably post-WW II, America determined to rule even at the risk of all out nuclear war. For its part, Britain intended to stay in the game, and in April 1945, Winston Churchill urged Dwight Eisenhower and Franklin Roosevelt "to launch an immediate full-scale war against the Soviet Union, using up to 12 captured German divisions (as) cannon fodder to destroy Russia once and for all."
Instead, Washington invented a post-war enemy, and got Europe and Asian countries to feel threatened enough to agree to US dictates, even ones contrary to their own interests. As for America, in 1945, Truman ordered Eisenhower "to prepare secret plans for a surprise nuclear strike on some (Soviet) cities (despite knowing the Kremlin) posed no direct or immediate threat to the United States" or its close allies. (A Nuclear First Strike A "Winnable" Nuclear war)
A nuclear-armed Russia with intercontinental missile capabilities halted the threat - until the 2001 Bush Doctrine asserted the right to wage preventive wars, with first-strike nuclear weapons, to depose foreign regimes perceived dangerous to US security and interests. That was the strategy behind the 2008 Georgian conflict that could have escalated into nuclear war.
Defused for the moment, "a number of leading US policy makers (see Russia today) as unfinished business (and seek its) complete dismemberment (as) an independent pivot for Eurasia." Nuclear superiority, encirclement, and "diabolical propaganda" are three tools among others to finish the job and leave America the sole remaining superpower. Disempowering Russia and China will create an open field for a "total global American Century - the realization of 'full spectrum dominance,' as the Pentagon called it".(Which make the Gobal Israeli Century by Proxy)
Today, under Obama as under Bush, the risk of nuclear war by miscalculation is highest in nearly half a century. With America the clear aggressor, Russia may feel its only option is strike first while able or delay and face the consequences when it's too late. The closer offensive nuclear missiles are to its borders, the nearer it gets to disempowerment, further dismemberment, and possible nuclear annihilation.
Its reaction left few doubts of its response. In February 2007, Strategic Rocket Forces commander Col. Gen. Nikolai Solovtsov said "Moscow would target US Ballistic Missile Defense sites with its nuclear arsenal if Washington" proceeded with its plans. Putin delivered harsh rhetoric and announced Russia would spend $190 billion over the next eight years to modernize its military by 2015 and that state-of-the-art weapons would take precedence. His message was clear. A New Cold War/nuclear arms race was on with Russia ready to contend "out of national survival considerations," not a desire for confrontation.
"Missile Defense" for Offense
On March 23, 1983, Ronald Reagan proposed the idea in a speech calling for greater Cold War military spending, including a huge R & D program for what became known as "Star Wars" - in impermeable anti-missile space shield called the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). The idea then (and now) was fantasy, but a glorious one for defense contractors who've profited hugely ever since.
The Clinton administration gave it modest support until the National Missile Defense Act of 1999 proposed an active missile defense "as soon as is technologically possible...."
When George Bush became president, Donald Rumsfeld wanted war preparations to include missile defense and space-based weapons to destroy targets anywhere in the world quickly for "full spectrum dominance." The strategy included "deployment of a revolutionary new technique of regime change to impose or install 'US-friendly' regimes throughout the former Soviet Union and across Eurasia."
Controlling Russia - Color Revolutions and Swarming Coups
"Swarming" is a RAND Corporation term referring to "communication patterns and movement of" bees and other insects and applying it to military conflict by other means. It plays out through covert CIA actions to overthrow democratically elected governments, remove foreign leaders and key officials, prop up friendly dictators, and target individuals anywhere in the world.
Also through propaganda and activities of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), the International Republican Institute (IRI), and National Democratic Institute (NDI) - posing as NGOs but, in fact, are US government-funded organizations charged with subverting democracy, uprooting it where it exists, or preventing its creation by criminally disruptive means. Methods include non-violent strikes, mass street protests, and major media agitprop for regime change - much like what's now playing out in Iran after its presidential election.
Other recent examples include the Belgrade 2000 coup against Slobodan Misosevic, Georgia's 2003 Rose Revolution ousting Eduard Shevardnadze for the US-installed stooge, Mikheil Saakashvili, and the 2004-05 Ukraine Orange Revolution, based on faked electoral fraud, to install another Washington favorite, Viktor Yushchenko. The idea is to isolate Russia by cutting off its economic lifeline - the "pipeline networks that (carry its) huge reserves of oil and natural gas from the Urals and Serbia to Western Europe and Eurasia..." They run through Ukraine, a nation "so intertwined (with Russia) economically, socially and culturally, especially in the east of the country, that they were almost indistinguishable from one another."
Achieving geopolitical aims this way is far simpler and cheaper than waging wars "while convincing the world (that regime change was the result of) spontaneous outbursts for freedom. (It's) a dangerously effective weapon."
In 1953, cruder CIA methods toppled democratically elected Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh - the agency's first successful coup d'etat to install Reza Shah Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran. (AKA Operation Ajax no admitted to since it's declassifed)
In 1954, it deposed the popularly elected Jacobo Arbenz and replaced him with a military dictator - on the pretext of removing a non-existent communist threat. Arbenz, like other targets, threatened US business interests by favoring land reform, strong unions, and wealth distribution to alleviate extreme poverty in their countries.
Short of war, various tactics aim to prevent them: "propaganda, stuffed ballot boxes, bought elections, extortion, blackmail, sexual intrigue, false stories about opponents in the local media, transportation strikes, infiltration and disruption of opposing political parties, kidnapping, beating, torture, intimidation, economic sabotage, death squads and even assassination (culminating in) a military (or other coup to install) a 'pro-American' right-wing dictator" - while claiming it's democracy in action. For decades, countries in Latin America, the Middle East, and other world regions have been frequent victims.
Since the CIA's 1947 creation, "national security" and a fake communist threat justified every imaginable crime from propaganda to economic warfare, sabotage, assassinations, coup d'etats, torture, foreign wars and much more.
However, by the 1960s, new forms of covert regime change(This used to be called a coup in the old days) emerged along the lines that RAND studies called "swarming" - the idea being to develop social manipulation techniques or disruptive outbreaks short of wars or violent uprisings. After 2000, as mentioned above, they played out in Central Europe's Color Revolutions. According to State Department and intelligence community officials, "It seemed to be the perfect model for eliminating regimes opposed to US policy," whether or not popularly elected. Every regime is now vulnerable to "new methods of warfare" by other means, including economic ones very much in play now and earlier.
Organizations like the Gene Sharp Albert Einstein Institution, George Soros' Open Society Foundation, Freedom House and others are very much involved, and Sharp's web site admits being active with "pro-democracy" groups in Burma, Thailand, Tibet, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Belarus, and Serbia. They all conveniently "coincided with the US State Department's targets for regime change over the same period."
Eurasian Pipeline Wars
Central to the current conflict is control of the region's vast oil and gas reserves, and as long as Russia can use its resources "to win economic allies in Western Europe, China, and elsewhere, it (can't) be politically isolated." As a result, Moscow reacts harshly to military encirclement and bordering Color Revolutions - hostile acts, the geopolitical equivalence of war.
For America to remain the sole superpower, controlling global oil and gas flows is crucial along with cutting off China from Caspian Sea reserves and securing the energy routes and networks between Russia and the EU.
It's why America invaded and occupies Afghanistan and Iraq, incited Baltic wars in the 1990s, attacked Kosovo and Serbia in 1999, threatens Iran repeatedly and imposes sanctions, and keeps trying to oust Hugo Chavez. For its part under Vladimir Putin, Russia's economy began to grow for the first time in decades. It's rich in oil and gas, and uses them strategically to gain influence enough to rival Washington, especially in alliance with China and other former Soviet states like Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan, united in the 2001-formed Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Iran and India having observer status.
Under Bush-Cheney, Washington reacted aggressively. "full spectrum dominance" is the aim with Russia and China the main targets. Controlling world energy resources is central, and nothing under Obama has changed. Iraq's occupation continues and Afghanistan operations are enhanced with increased troop deployments under newly appointed General Stanley McChrystal's command - a hired gun, a man with a reputation for brutishness that includes torture, assassinations, indifference to civilian deaths, and willingness to destroy villages to save them.
As long as Russia and China stay free from US control, "full spectrum dominance" is impossible. Encircling the former with NATO bases, Color Revolutions, and incorporating former Soviet states into NATO and the EU are all part of the same grand strategy - "deconstruct(ing) Russia once and for all as a potential rival to a sole US Superpower hegemony."
Vladimir Putin stands in the way, "a dynamic nationalist (leader) committed to rebuilding" his country. In 2003, a defining geopolitical event occurred when Putin had billionaire oligarch, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, arrested on charges of tax evasion and put his shares in giant Yukos Oil group under state control.
It followed a decisive Russian Duma (lower house) election in which Khodorkovsky "was reliably alleged" to have used his wealth for enough votes to gain a majority - to challenge Putin in 2004 for president. Khodorkovsky violated his pledge to stay out of politics in return for keeping his assets and stolen billions provided he repatriate enough of them back home.
His arrest also came after a report surfaced about a meeting with Dick Cheney in Washington, followed by others with ExxonMobil and ChevronTexaco. They discussed acquiring a major stake of up to 40% of Yukos or enough to give Washington and Big Oil "de facto veto power over future Russian oil and gas pipelines and oil deals." Khodorkovsky also met with GHW Bush and had ties to the Carlyle Group, the influential US firm with figures like James Baker one of its partners.
Had Exxon and Chevron consummated the deal, it would have been an "energy coup d'etat. Cheney knew it; Bush knew it; Khodorkovsky knew it. Above all, Vladimir Putin knew it and moved decisively to block it" and hit hard on Khodorkosky in the process. It "signaled a decisive turn....towards rebuilding Russia and erecting strategic defenses." By late 2004, Moscow understood that a New Cold War was on over "strategic energy control and unilateral nuclear primacy," and Putin moved from defense to a "new dynamic offensive aimed at securing a more viable geopolitical position by using (Russia's) energy as the lever."
It involves reclaiming Russia's oil and gas reserves given away by Boris Yeltsin. (To a few Jews what a surprise!)Also strengthening and modernizing the country's military and nuclear deterrent to enhance its long-term security. Russia remains a military powerhouse and displays impressive technology at international trade shows, including the S-300 and more powerful S-400, reportedly more potent than comparable US systems.
Controlling China with Synthetic Democracy
From the 1940s to today, America's China strategy has been "divide and conquer," only tactics have varied from "big stick" to "carrot-and-stick" diplomacy. Key is to keep Russia and China from cooperating economically and militarily, "maintain a strategy of tension across Asia, and particularly Eurasia" (that, of course includes the Middle East and its oil riches) - for the overarching goal of total "control of China as the potential economic colossus of Asia."
With America embroiled in Eurasian wars, policy now "masquerad(es) behind the issues of human rights and 'democracy' as weapons of psychological and economic warfare."
Another initiative as well is ongoing - the 2007 AFRICOM authorization, the US Africa Command to control the continent's 53 countries no differently than the rest of the world, using military force as necessary. China's increasing need for Africa's resources (including oil), not terrorism, is the reason.
The 2008 Army Modernization Strategy (AMS) focuses on "full spectrum dominance," controlling world resources, and the prospect of wars for three to four decades to secure them. China and Russia are most feared as serious competitors - the former for its explosive economic growth and resource requirements and the latter for its energy, other raw material riches, and military strength.
AMS also included another threat - "population growth" threatening America and the West with "radical ideologies" and hence instability as well as unwanted "resource competition" that expanding economies require - everything from food to water, energy and other raw materials. These issues lay behind AFRCOM's creation and strategy for hardline militarism globally.
America's second president, John Adams, once said: "there are two ways to conquer and enslave a nation. One is by the sword. The other is by debt," or more broadly economic warfare. With much of US manufacturing offshored in China, both methods are constrained so an alternative scheme is used - human rights and democracy by an America disdaining both at home or abroad.
Nonetheless, in 2004, the State Department's Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor targeted China on these issues with millions in funding, headed by a right-wing conservative, Paula Dobriansky. She's a CFR member, NED vice chairman, Freedom House board member, senior fellow at the neo-conservative Hudson Institute, and member of the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) at which she endorsed attacking Iraq in 1998. Now she targets China with "soft warfare" strategy that's just as deadly.
Other tools include the Dalai Lama organizations in Tibet, Falun Gong in China, "an arsenal of (global) NGOs" carefully recruited for their mission, and, of course, the Western media, including public television and radio in America and BBC globally.
Weaponizing Human Rights - From Darfur to Myanmar to Tibet
In targeting China, Washington's human rights/democracy offensive focused on Myanmar, Tibet, and oil-rich Darfur. Called the "Saffron Revolution" in Myanmar (formerly Burma), it featured Western media images of saffron-robed Buddhist Monks on Yangon (formerly Rangoon) streets calling for more democracy. "Behind the scenes, however, was a battle of major geopolitical consequence" with Myanmar's people mere props for a Washington-hatched scheme - employing Eurasian Color Revolution tactics:
-- "hit-and-run swarming" mobs of monks;
-- connecting protest groups through internet blogs and mobile text-messaging links; and
-- having command-and-control over protest cells, dispersed and re-formed as ordered with no idea who pulled the strings or why - a hidden sinister objective targeting China for greater geopolitical control and destabilizing Myanmar to do it.
Also at stake is control of vital sea lanes from the Persian Gulf to the South China Sea with the Myanmar coastline "providing shipping and naval access to one of the world's most strategic waterways, the Strait of Malacca, the narrow ship passage between Malaysia and Indonesia."
Since 9/11, the Pentagon tried but failed to militarize the region except for an airbase on Indonesia's northernmost tip. Myanmar rejected similar overtures - hence its being targeted for its strategic importance. "The Strait of Malacca, linking the Indian and Pacific Oceans, (is) the shortest sea route between the Persian Gulf and China. (It's) the key chokepoint in Asia" so controlling it is key. China has close ties to Myanmar. It's provided billions in military assistance and developed the infrastructure. The country is also oil-rich, on its territory and offshore.
China is the world's fastest growing energy market. Over 80% of its oil imports pass through the Strait. Controlling it keeps a chokehold over China's life-line, and if it's ever closed, about half the world's tanker fleet would have thousands of extra miles to travel at far higher freight costs.
In summer 2007, Myanmar and PetroChina signed a long-term Memorandum of Understanding - to supply China with substantial natural gas from its Shwe gas field in the Bay of Bengal. India was the main loser after China offered to invest billions for a strategic China-Myanmar oil and gas pipeline across the country to China's Yunnan Province. The same pipeline could give China access to Middle East and African oil by bypassing the Malacca Strait. "Myanmar would become China's 'bridge' linking Bangladesh and countries westward to the China mainland" trumping Washington should it succeed in controlling the Strait - a potential geopolitical disaster America had to prevent, hence the 2007 "Saffron Revolution" that failed.
India's Dangerous Alliance Shift
From 2005, India was "pushed into a strategic alliance with Washington" to counter China's growing influence in Asia and to have a "capable partner who can take on more responsibility for low-end operations" - directed at China and to provide bases and access to project US power in the region. To sweeten the deal, the Bush administration offered to sell (nuclear outlaw) India advanced nuclear technology. At the same time, it bashed Iran for its legitimate commercial operations, and now Obama threatens hardened sanctions and perhaps war without year end 2009 compliance with clearly outrageous demands.
Part II continues Engdahl's important analysis to conclusion.
Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at email@example.com.
Total Collapse The Build up to World War III Coming Faster Than You Know It!! - YouTube.flv - YouTube
---------- Post added at 10:45 am ---------- Previous post was at 10:09 am ----------
|02-21-2012, 10:48 am||#14|
AngryWhiteGoy, I promise to go over your super long post later when I have more time. Thank you for the enligh- uh, I mean information ;-)
As far as shade is concerned, to anyone interested, I replied to AngryWhiteGoy here:
MUST READ! Breakthrough Science Gives Hope to Whites - Page 4 - Forbidden Truth
|02-23-2012, 07:01 pm||#16|
|02-26-2012, 06:57 pm||#17|
Goyishe Kopps sind leicht Verklempt
M.J. Rosenberg has written an important piece on HuffPost AIPAC's "War With Iran" Bill Passes House Committee. Here's a taster:
The clearest evidence that war is the intention of the bill's supporters comes in Section 601 which should be quoted in full. (It is so incredible that paraphrasing would invite the charge of distorting through selective quotation.)
(c) RESTRICTION ON CONTACT. -- No person employed with the United States Government may contact in an official or unofficial capacity any person that -- (1) is an agent, instrumentality, or official of, is affiliated with, or is serving as a representative of the Government of Iran; and (2) presents a threat to the United States or is affiliated with terrorist organizations. (d) WAIVER. -- The President may waive the requirements of subsection (c) if the President determines and so reports to the appropriate congressional committees 15 days prior to the exercise of waiver authority that failure to exercise such waiver authority would pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the vital national security interests of the United States.
What does this mean?
It means that neither the president, the Secretary of State nor any U.S. diplomat or emissary may engage in negotiations or diplomacy with Iran of any kind unless the president convinces the "appropriate Congressional committees" (most significantly, the House Foreign Affairs Committee which is an AIPAC fiefdom) that not engaging with Iranian contacts would present an "an unusual and extraordinary threat to the vital national security interests of the United States."
To call this unprecedented is an understatement. At no time in our history has the White House or State Department been restricted from dealing with representatives of a foreign state, even in war time(Can you say Zionist Occupied Government?)
Stephen Sizer: War with Iran by Christmas?
‘Powerful lobby is hellbent’ for US to go to war w Iran
by Philip Weiss on November 5, 2011
Great piece by MJ Rosenberg at Huffpo on who is pushing for war against Iran-- the lobby. Rosenberg says Israel's sabre-rattling is just that. But it's intended to jack up U.S. foreign policy yet again and send us to war. Imagine if we had had this kind of incisive commentary fingering the neocons before the Iraq debacle? Here is Rosenberg's first third.
Wasting no time after its success in getting the administration to oppose Palestinian statehood at the United Nations, and still celebrating the UNESCO funding cut-off, AIPAC has returned to its #1 priority: pushing for war with Iran.
The Israelis have, of course, played their own part in the big show. In the last few weeks, it has been sending out signals that it is getting ready to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities (and embroil the United States in its most calamitous Middle East war yet).(make that may the Worlds worst War yet! (AKA WW III)
But most observers do not believe an Israeli attack is imminent. (If it was, would Israel telegraph it in advance?) The point of the Israeli threats is to get the United States and the world community to increase pressure on Iran with the justification that unless it does, Israel will attack.
Naturally, the United States Congress, which gets its marching orders on Middle East policy from the lobby (AIPAC) which, in turn, gets its marching orders from Binyamin Netanyahu, is rushing to do what it is told.
(If only Congress addressed joblessness at home with the same alacrity and enthusiasm.)
Accordingly the House Foreign Affairs Committee hurriedly convened this week to consider a new "crippling sanctions" bill that seems less designed to deter an Iran nuclear weapon than to lay the groundwork for war.
‘Powerful lobby is hellbent’ for US to go to war w Iran | Mondoweiss
WW III Depleted Uranium Tipped Bunker Busters compared to WW II Blockbusters
Once upon a time when we still Run Iran we were going to build them 23 reactors!
As long as he's "OUR" Evil Dictator he can have Nukes and U.S. High Tech Weapons
Iranian newspaper clip from 1968 reads: "A quarter of Iran's Nuclear Energy scientists are women." The photograph shows some female Iranian PhDs posing in front of Tehran's research reactor
The Shah approved plans to construct, with U.S. help, up to 23 nuclear power stations by 2000. In March 1974, the Shah envisioned a time when the world's oil supply would run out, and declared, "Petroleum is a noble material, much too valuable to burn ... We envision producing, as soon as possible, 23,000 megawatts of electricity using nuclear plants."
by Nadir Mir| Opinion
The Geopolitics of the times may indicate that the next war is Iran. Although Pakistan being an established nuclear power would logically be higher on the scales of denuking agenda for so called globalists. Still Geopolitical logic dictates otherwise
In Iran’s case, the American agenda is to prevent it from going nuclear. (Something which Pakistan achieved over quarter of a century ago – Enriched Uranium) The recent IAEA accusative report, Israel’s brinkmanship (you do it or we do it), American election fervour (attacking Iran is an election issue for 2012, at least for Mitt Romney Republican Presidential candidate), conservative Arab animosity for Revolutionary Iran (in future nuclear armed), Iran’s energy linkage to Russia – China, Iran’s defiance of USA plus western world, and finally the fear or perception of Tehran crossing the nuclear Rubicon combine for ‘Strike on Iran’.
The most likely version is an air and missile strikes or campaign (depending how the war progresses). Still a limited invasion cannot be ruled out (US has freed most of its forces from Iraq for the purpose).
PM Benjamin Netanyahu, National security advisor Uzi Arad and Defence Minister Ehud Barak plus numerous Israeli leaders of late are cajoling for a strike on Iran. American friends have joined the Iran demonization campaign. For nearly a decade, this crying wolf – Iran going nuclear – or need to strike has been going on. This time it looks for real. The problem is both Israel and Iran are supremely confident and itching to fight.
In one scenario, Israeli air force (100 F15E, F16IS, F16cs), plus land based missiles (jhericos) and two Dolphin submarines (firing cruise missiles) off Iran’s coast initiate the first blow. This may be a one – two blow i.e., missile strikes preceding or following the air strikes. Destroying as much as possible of Iranian nuclear projects (Natanz, Esfahan, Busher etc) with bombs and missiles. Tehran’s retaliation with missiles plus Hezbollah, Hamas rockets are absorbed by Israel. Threatening to up the ante (Nuke Iran) Tel Aviv (evoking paranoia of a Second Holocaust) drags USA into the war, to use its larger military muscle. The Iranians fight back (Iran will respond with full force has already been said by Ayatollah Ali Khameni). Though the high intensity war may fizzle out in weeks or months, a low intensity war may continue for years. The Arab – Islamic world would be inflamed, the western world divided. War drags on – at least the asymmetrical part is protracted.
‘The Point of No Return’ an article by the Atlantic makes clear the high probability of war with Iran. The Israelis are evasive on even if they would inform Washington about such a strike. An Israeli strike appears imminent now or in spring 2012 (winter is not considered ideal for such operations).
In fact the initial strategic moves have been initiated on the Middle East Geopolitical Chessboard. NATO is planning to intervene to achieve regime change in Syria. This is aimed at depriving Iran of its chief ally Syria and somewhat suffocating the Geopolitical space available to Hezbollah and Hamas. After Syria and Iran’s (claimed by US / NATO) isolation, the stage will be set for war on Iran initiated by Israel, US or jointly. Tehran’s revolutionary fervour which engulfed the British Embassy and reports of Libyan (NATO trained) fighters being shipped to fight against the Damascus Regime and a lot more are indicators of the gathering Great Storm
Despite an election year if USA strikes Iran, it would obviously be a heavier punch than Israel. More so, it may not be limited to Iran’s nuclear establishment, but also aim at the Revolutionary Guards, military industrial – economic complex, ports, and communication infrastructure. In essence ‘Cave Age or Scorched Earth’. According to David Rothkopf (author of Super Class), it would be folly to assume President Obama cannot strike Iran due to an election year. By the same token, many Americans and Europeans are against an attack on Iran.
The British are unsure, the French hesitant, Germans Anti aggression, the Russians (Putin led) against an attack, the Chinese peace loving, even India and Pakistan may have similar views – (no attack on Iran). The world yearns for peace, but the Israeli leaders are preparing (even if the Israeli nation is divided on the issue). Good Americans want jobs at home not conflict abroad – but the war lobby wants war.
Attack on Iran plans have been on hold since President Bush era. Now in 2012, US Presidential campaign ‘most Republican Candidates’ except Ron Paul are for ‘bombing Iran’.
Interestingly America’s ex defenders Mr. Robert Gates, Admiral Mike Mullen, General Zinni etc have serious reservations on the ‘Persian Misadventure’. Even the present Defence Secretary Panetta (despite europhia of Bin Laden killing)’warned of unintended consequences!
Even more ironically the Israeli nation is divided by half on the subject. (After all the expected Iranian riposte of missiles, rockets and asymmetrical attacks is going to first of all target Israel). As a smart Israeli went to the extent of saying that if America was so worried about a ‘Second Holocaust’ it might fight Iran itself (without Israeli involvement). The Israeli Defence Forces even while confident are apprehensive and rightly so!
Still wise people in Europe, America and elsewhere are asking pertinent questions. A single Israeli Air strike will not be sufficient to totally destroy the Iranian nuclear projects, (delay it by 2 to 3 years), what next? If the US does not bomb Iran, what is the war termination strategy? Will it become a regional war by design or default? Will it escalate to nuclear realm?
What will be the impact on the Arab spring and Middle East? (Probably go hyper Anti Israel – Anti American!)
The reality is, there are no good answers. What if radioactivity due to Israel – US bombing reaches Nuclear Armed Pakistan and India? (Of course the Pakistani elite have no time for such issues. They are uninitiated into Pakistani Geopolitical issues, what to ponder about Iran?)
Unfortunately the fact is that an attack on Iran will adversely affect Pakistan in many ways. Pakistan will be surrounded by hostile India, unstable Afghanistan and warring Iran. Radioactivity leaks due to bombing may reach Pakistan! (Even handling Dengue Mosquitoes has been an uphill task). Inflame Shias, bring Iranian refugees, disrupt gas, oil import and bring Pakistan closer to the denuking agenda!
Reportedly the Russian PM Putin when recently briefed on emerging Geopolitics and probability of war told his generals, ‘Prepare for Armageddon’!
Putin – a great visionary leader is absolutely right. US – NATO attack on Iran would unleash ‘the hounds of hell’ not only for the victim state but the region around, the world at large and the attackers themselves!
The only viable solution in Global interest is ‘Geopolitics of Peace’. A comprehensive peace settlement from Mediterranean Sea to the Gulf to include Israel – Palestine, Israel – Iran issues. Plus pull out of all foreign troops from Afghanistan and Iraq. The need for denuking wars would stand obviated. The specter of hell on earth (for everybody) exorcised!
Next War-Iran | Pakalert Press
State Department Uses ‘Nuclear Option’ Propaganda to Justify More Preemptive War
Posted on truther on February 26, 2012 // Leave Your Comment
Swap out the word “Syria” for “Iraq” or “Libya” and we’ve all read this press release for the business of war before. What worked for attacking an innocent Iraq worked for attacking an innocent Libya. And now it’s also being used as an excuse to destroy two more nations which have never even threatened the West: Syria and Iran.
Even the blind should notice the same trends leading to war:
Claim the leaders are bad guys (which is not difficult because most leaders are).
Incite, fund and arm rebels (terrorists) (AKA Freedom Fighters and Rebels) to lure those governments into fighting back.
Claim the leaders are killing their own citizens (which almost all leaders do including the good ole U.S.).
Slap economic sanctions on the government while simultaneously creating a shadow government, central bank, and economy for the puppet rebel leaders.
Scare domestic populations until they’re okay with more war.
Bypass any authority to commit tax money and troops for war.
Drop billions of dollars in bombs by remote control destroying innocent life and infrastructure.
Murder the former leader in cold blood if need be.
Consolidate any and all resources into the hands of Western cartels.
Fund these same cartels with more tax dollars to reconstruct the devastated war zone.
Rinse and repeat.
The only difference lately is that “providing aid to terrorists” is no longer used as an excuse for war. Perhaps, this is because Israel and NATO, led by the U.S., are the only ones currently aiding terrorists, as they did to oust Gaddafi in Libya, and who they are now arming to instigate a civil war against Assad in Syria. They’re even openly funding terrorists in Iran to do the exact same thing. Furthermore, the FBI has proven to be the only provider of aid to supposed domestic U.S. terrorists
State Department Uses ‘Nuclear Option’ Propaganda to Justify More Preemptive War | Pakalert Press
|03-02-2012, 05:41 pm||#18|
What Happens After Israel Attacks Iran (According to the CFR)
What Happens After Israel Attacks Iran
Public Debate Can Prevent a Strategic Disaster
February 23, 2012
This article is part of a Foreign Affairs package: The Iran Debate -- To Strike or Not to Strike? (lrargerich / flickr)
Since its birth in 1948, Israel has launched numerous preemptive military strikes against its foes. In 1981 and 2007, it destroyed the nuclear reactors of Iraq and Syria, operations that did not lead to war. But now, Israelis are discussing the possibility of another preemptive attack -- against Iran -- that might result in a wider conflict.
The public debate in Israel about whether Jerusalem should order a strike on Iran’s nuclear program is surprisingly frank. Politicians and policymakers often discuss the merits of an attack in public; over the past year, for example, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak have sparred regularly and openly with former Mossad director Meir Dagan, the most prominent opponent of an Israeli operation. But much of the conversation is focused on whether Israel should strike, not on what might happen if it does -- in other words, the result on the “day after.”
Indeed, the analysis in Israel about the possible effects of a bombing campaign against Iran is limited to a small, professional elite, mostly in government and behind closed doors. This intimate circle that does consider scenarios of the “day after” concentrates almost exclusively on what an Iranian response, direct or through proxies, might look like. This is not surprising, given that Israel must worry first and foremost about the immediate military implications of an Iranian counterattack. But in doing so, Israeli policymakers are ignoring several of the potential longer-term aspects of a strike: the preparedness of Israel’s home front; the contours of an Israeli exit strategy; the impact on U.S.-Israel relations; the global diplomatic fallout; the stability of world energy markets; and the outcome within Iran itself. Should Israel fail to openly debate and account for these factors in advance of an attack, it may end up with a strategic debacle, even if it achieves its narrow military goals.
Israeli officials have thought extensively about how the first moves of a military conflict between Jerusalem and Tehran might play out. Ephraim Kam, a former Israeli military intelligence officer and deputy head of Israel’s Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), reflected the general consensus in the security establishment when he wrote in the Institute’s 2010 strategic assessment that Iran may respond in two possible ways to an Israeli operation: missile strikes on Israel, either directly or through allied organizations such as Hezbollah or Hamas; or terror attacks, likely on Israeli targets abroad by Iranians or those proxy groups.
A direct Iranian response would involve a missile barrage from Iran onto Israeli territory, similar to the volley of rockets launched at Israel by Iraq during the first Gulf War. Only one Israeli citizen died then, and it seems that Israeli officials estimate that the damage of a similar Iranian strike would be greater, but still limited. This past November, Ehud Barak, referring to possible direct and proxy-based Iranian retaliation, said that “There is no scenario for 50,000 dead, or 5,000 killed -- and if everyone stays in their homes, maybe not even 500 dead.” Barak’s calm also reflects Israel’s previous experience in preempting nuclear threats. Iraq did not respond when Israel destroyed its nuclear facility in 1981, disproving the doomsday predictions made by several Israeli experts prior to the strike, and Syria remained silent when Israel bombed its nascent reactor in 2007.
Israeli policymakers also do not seem particularly concerned about the prospect of a proxy response. They recognize that Hezbollah, as it did in 2006, can target Israel with a large number of rockets. Yet in an interview with Ronen Bergman in The New York Times late last month, several Israeli experts argued that, regardless of a potential battle with Iran, the probability of an extended conflict with Hezbollah is already high. According to this logic, an attack on Iran would merely hasten the inevitable and might actually be easier to sustain before, not after, Iran acquires nuclear weapons. In addition, the new constraints now operating against Hezbollah -- the ongoing revolt in Syria chief among them -- might even limit the ability of the organization to harm Israel in a future conflict. Indeed, over the past several months, the Secretary General of Hezbollah, Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, has emphasized the group’s independence, saying on February 7 that “the Iranian leadership will not ask Hezbollah to do anything. On [the day of an Israeli attack on Iran], we will sit, think, and decide what we will do.”
Meanwhile, the Israeli security establishment remains confident that Iran and its proxies will have trouble staging large-scale attacks on Israeli or Jewish targets abroad. Iran and Hezbollah have done so successfully in the past, most notably in response to Israel’s assassination, in 1992, of Hezbollah’s first secretary general (they are strongly suspected to have directed suicide bombings against the Israeli embassy and the Jewish community center in Buenos Aires in 1992 and 1994, respectively). Israeli experts such as Kam agree that similar attacks could occur again in the wake of a strike on Iran, but argue that Tehran’s ability to respond is limited, likely due to its own handicaps and the restrictions posed by the post-9/11 global effort against terrorism. They gained support for their theory in mid-February, when, according to preliminary evidence, Iranian agents staged clumsy, botched attacks on Israeli targets in Georgia, India, and Thailand, injuring only one person in New Delhi and ending in humiliation in Bangkok, with one operative accidentally blowing off his legs.
Balanced against these threats is the expected benefit of an Israeli bombing campaign. According to Bergman, the Israeli defense community estimates that it can inflict a three-to-five-year delay on the Iranian nuclear project. But in its optimistic estimation about the success of an attack and about Israel’s ability to deter any response, it has failed to address, at least publicly, several crucial factors.
Although Israel has buttressed its home-front preparedness since its 2006 war with Hezbollah, it seems that it must do much more to ready the country for the rocket and missile attacks that it is expected to endure after a strike against Iran’s nuclear program. In a move that Israelis are now sardonically mocking, the former minister for home front defense, Matan Vilnai, left his post in February to become Israel’s ambassador to China. Before departing, Vilnai staged an angry outburst during a Knesset subcommittee meeting on February 7 over the lack of homeland preparedness, creating such a stir that the chairman had to end the meeting. Data presented at the session reveal the source of Vilnai’s frustration: a quarter of all Israelis do not have the most basic physical shelter needed to weather sustained rocket fire. Gas masks, a basic safety measure against a chemical attack, are available to only 60 percent of the population. And Vilnai’s former ministry lacks the bureaucratic muscle to win the resources and funds necessary to improve the situation. When the Netanyahu administration established the ministry early last year, the Israeli journalist Ofer Shelah called it “the big lie” because it “has no authority, no independent budget, and no ability to affect national priorities.”
The lack of readiness within Israel is all the more worrisome in light of the fact that Israeli analysts have spent little time discussing an exit strategy. An Israeli strike might follow a version of the previous attacks against the Iraqi and Syrian nuclear programs, which did not lead to conflict. Or, following the example of Israel’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon, it might spark a prolonged war. That operation, intended to remove the threat of armed Palestinian groups within two days, instead lasted 18 years, and contributed to the evolution of a new enemy in Hezbollah. Similarly, Israel’s incursion into Lebanon in 2006 had no clear exit strategy and lasted an unexpected 33 days, ending in confusion. Without serious public discussion about the possibility of a long war with Iran, Israel could enter an extended conflict unprepared to provide for and defend its citizens.
Israeli leaders have also failed to address in public the effect of an Israeli strike on U.S.-Israel relations. There is, of course, much conversation about whether the United States and Israel agree on the need for a strike, and, if so, when it should occur. So far, it seems, Jerusalem and Washington remain united in their opposition to Iran’s nuclear program, but are not yet in agreement about the time for military action; indeed, Israel has refused to commit to warning Washington in advance of an attack. Should Israel bomb Iran, it could easily provoke a crisis even if it did first warn the United States, especially if the Obama administration has to intervene. Once again, Israeli strategic thinking on the issue is likely informed by the 1981 bombing of Iraq’s nuclear reactor. The attack infuriated the White House, which condemned it and, in punishment, suspended the delivery of some aircraft to Israel. Yet Washington retroactively approved of the strike and restored and even strengthened its relationship with Jerusalem -- a process that Netanyahu may expect to repeat itself. The prime minister might also be calculating that, in an election year, Obama would prefer to avoid openly criticizing Israel after an attack.
In addition, the broader diplomatic impact of an Israeli strike has also received little open attention. The former Mossad director Meir Dagan has raised the possibility that an attack might disrupt the existing international pressure on Iran, which is now beginning to place severe strain on the regime, and make it harder for that coalition to re-form in the event that Iran restarts its program. On the whole, however, Israeli leaders have not confronted that possibility, seeming to place faith in the efficacy of the three-to-five year delay that they hope a strike will achieve.
Also largely missing from Israel’s public analysis is the question of how a bombing campaign would affect worldwide energy markets. As a small country with a limited global perspective, Israel rarely needs to consider the international impact of its actions. (AKA We could GAF about the rest of the world) The few Israeli analysts who have looked into this question have tended to underplay Iran’s intention, and capability, of acting on its threat to close the Strait of Hormuz. Last month, for example, Amos Yadlin, the former director of Israel's military intelligence, and Yoel Guzansky, the former head of the Iran desk of Israel’s national security council, argued in a paper for the INSS that it is highly doubtful that Iran would block the waterway.
That lack of perspective extends to what might happen inside of Iran after a strike. The public discourse about an attack rarely includes any consideration of whether a bombing campaign would galvanize Iranians to rally around the current leadership, ruining any chance of the regime change that might ultimately be necessary to end the threat of a nuclear program. Israel remains unwilling to estimate whether a strike would hurt or help the cause of the dissidents; its failure to predict the Arab Spring has humbled its proclivity for making such forecasts.
And so there is a gap in Israel's debate about Iran. Although Israeli experts focus heavily on the immediate implications of the “day after,” they neglect, with a few exceptions, the broader repercussions of an attack. Ironically, then, at the core of the elite, scientific calculations regarding an attack on Iran and its aftermath stands a certain kind of fatalism. It is based on the traditional trust that Israelis place in their leaders, and on their sense that open conversation might in fact harm Israeli interests. But the lack of public debate may, in the event of an attack, leave Israel handicapped both in its ability to strike and to defend itself.
In particular, a lack of open discussion leaves the Israel Defense Forces as the primary source of information and analysis on a strike. The IDF, given its narrow focus on the military aspects of an attack, may fail to fully consider its potential political and diplomatic impact. A more public debate might strengthen those in the bureaucracy who are urging the Israeli government to weigh those other factors as carefully as the military planning. The elevation of those voices could then prevent Israeli leaders from operating on the basis of limited information and faulty assumptions. If history is any guide, Israeli policymakers could benefit from such an expansion of the conversation. Israel’s disastrous invasion of Lebanon in 1982 began with a war plan that the public had not vetted. The operation ended after overwhelming pressure from civil society, a process that took nearly two decades. To avoid a similar strategic blunder in confronting Iran’s nuclear program -- either as a result of an attack, or a failure to do so -- Israel should give the public a stake in the debate about the “day after” much sooner than that.
Read more of the Foreign Affairs' package: The Iran Debate -- To Strike or Not to Strike?
What Happens After Israel Attacks Iran | Foreign Affairs
It's quite telling they don't give the prospect of Iran shutting down The Straits more than a one paragraph in this lengthy article. When is fact that is going to be the FIRST thing that happens after the attack. Also this is what will bring the U.S. in and most likely start WW III. Also is just me or does the photo here look like a nuke going off? It's a sun rise, but I thought odd though I guess it this article is about the day or morning after.
|03-03-2012, 01:44 am||#19|
Gilad Atzmon: Armageddon Ahead
Friday, November 4, 2011 at 7:39AM Gilad Atzmon
It does not take a genius to gather that the Israeli aggression towards Iran would endanger every living species on this planet. Devastatingly enough, our Western governments do nothing to stop the Jewish State. That should not take us by surprise: our politicians are largely funded and vetted by Israeli lobbies that openly support attack on Iran.
Here in Britain Defence Secretary Liam Fox had to resign two weeks ago when it became clear that he was ‘breaching ministerial laws’. The British press went out of its way to reduce the issue of his resignation into just another 'gay-ish mini scandal'. But we actually have strong reason to believe that Fox was working intensively for Israel. He was enthusiastically advocating Israeli interests such as an attack on Iran. Together with his ‘best friend’ Adam Werritty, he was also funded by the Israeli lobby. We know also that Fox and his ‘flat mate’ Werritty were in direct contact with Mossad, and were even warned by MI6 about it.
But Fox was not alone: with 80% of our leading party’s MP's being Conservative Friends Of Israel’s (CFI) members, we have good reason to believe that treachery is now institutional amongst UK elected politicians.
As we brace ourselves while learning from the Israeli press about the IAF’s final preparations ahead for an attack on Iran's nuclear plants, I would like to share with you a short passage from The Wandering Who.
In the following extract, I explore the exact genocidal scenario that Israeli pilots are now training to accomplish, in these very days. As much as it is clear that our treacherous elected puppets will fail to restrain Israel, it is equally and tragically obvious that Israel lacks the means to restrain its own madness.
“…I will try to elucidate this idea through a simple and hypothetical yet horrifying war scenario. We, for instance, can envisage a horrific situation in which an Israeli so-called ‘pre-emptive’ attack on Iran escalates into a disastrous nuclear war, in which tens of millions of people perish. I guess that amongst the survivors of such a nightmare scenario, some may be bold enough to argue that ‘Hitler might had been right after all.’
The above is obviously a fictional scenario, and by no means a wishful one, yet such a vision of a ‘possible’ horrific development should restrain Israeli or Zionist aggression towards Iran. As we know, Israeli officials threaten to flatten Iran rather too often. In practice, pre-TSD Israelis make this devastating scenario into a possible reality.
Seemingly, Israelis and Zionist politicians fail to see their own actions in the light of history. They fail to look at their actions in terms of their consequences. From an ethical perspective, the above ‘imaginary’ scenario is there to prevent Israel from attacking Iran. Yet, as we all know, Israel and its lobbies are desperate to dismantle the so-called ‘Iranian threat’. My explanation is simple. The Jewish state and the Jewish discourse in general are completely foreign to the notion of temporality. Israel is blinded to the consequences of its actions, it only thinks of its actions in terms of short-term pragmatism. Instead of temporality, Israel thinks in terms of an extended present.” (The Wandering Who pg. 179)
The Jewish State and its lobbies are the greatest threat to world peace. If we want to save ourselves, there is no other way of doing so than looking closely into Jewish, Israeli and Zionist culture, identity and ideology. There is no other way of doing so than scrutinising Israel’s unique and relentless attitude towards lobbying.
Gilad Atzmon - Writings - Gilad Atzmon: ArmageddonAhead
|attack, feature, iii, immenent, military, nuclear, related, world war, youtube|