HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
Nov. 21, 2005 THE WARS IN AFGHANISTAN, IRAQ AND FUTURE TARGETS America’s readiness to strike anywhere in the world is being enhanced by the creation of police substations around the world. Iraq was destined to be one of those outposts. Currently, the Bush administrations “reality readjustment” regarding Iraq’s possession of WMDs and yellow cake is being spoon-fed to a gullible American public as something that never happened. Now they call their own lies a Democratic party falsehood. Moreover, they are playing the same shell game with Iran, Syria and North Korea. There is no proof that North Korea has a WMD, or the means to deliver it. The international monitors have already been exiled—much to America’s favor. Now there is no one to counter those U.S. claims, except North Korea’s “mad” President, Kim Jong-Il, Syria is accused of sponsoring and harboring terrorists and being involved in the assassination plot of the Lebanese Prime Minister. Iran is “threatening” to use spent fuel rods from their nuclear power plants in a military context. This is part of an all-too familiar storyline. The administration convinces the citizenry that all enemies of the U.S. are led by mentally unbalanced men, from The Soviet leaders of the Cold War and Ayatollah Khomeini, to Bin-Laden, Saddam, Kim Jong-Il, et al. The same was said of Manuel Noriega, who was once a "friend" of the U.S. The government creates the image of a “rogue nation” that is determined to bring America to its knees, creating a wave of paranoia similar to that of the communism scare of the 50’s. William Rivers Pitt asserts that “In August of 2002, Defense Policy Board chairman and PNAC member Richard Perle heard a policy briefing from a think tank associated with the Rand Corporation. According to the Washington Post and The Nation, the final slide of this presentation described ‘Iraq as the tactical pivot, Saudi Arabia as the strategic pivot, and Egypt as the prize’ in a war that would purportedly be about ridding the world of Saddam Hussein's weapons. Bush has deployed massive forces into the Mideast region, while simultaneously engaging American forces in the Philippines and playing nuclear chicken with North Korea. Somewhere in all this lurks at least one of the "major theater wars" desired by the September 2000 PNAC report.” It was PNAC that first insinuated Saddam had something to do with the 9-11 attacks, writing “It may be that the Iraqi government provided assistance in some form to the recent attack on the United States. But even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Failure to undertake such an effort will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism." After Saddam was removed from office, Gary Schmitt of the Dallas morning News wrote: “(It) wiped out a decade's worth of pan-Muslim hubris about America's weakness after the retreat from Somalia and, conversely, helped set the table for the progress that's been made so far. Moreover, the war in Iraq has not stopped us from reforming the CIA and the FBI to better enable them to wage the war on terror or, for that matter, disrupting al-Qaeda cells in South and Southeast Asia and sub-Saharan Africa.” Added Schmitt, “Saddam's Iraq was a ticking time bomb, and we are safer for having gotten rid of him…just how safe would we have been in the future if we hadn't?” Destroying the Taliban, Al Qaeda and Osama bin-Laden was the goal of the Afghani invasion. Even had that mission been accomplished en toto, the war would have continued. The purpose is to establish a regional military presence, which is why Great Britain, American’s military concubine, is expected to assume control of the so-called “peacekeeping” effort in 2006. Many believe this is the first step toward America fighting multiple, simultaneous wars in a nearby region of the world, e.g.—Iran and Syria. A North Korean military adventure could also be on the horizon. James Brooke of the New York Times wrote in a June 22, 2003 article, “When the United States announced plans to pull its troops (in South Korea) away from the border with North Korea, attention focused mostly on South Korea and its objections to losing the protection of the so-called tripwire. What was largely overlooked were the protests from the party that felt most threatened by the change: North Korea. In a new twist, North Korea now fears that if the United States rolls up its human tripwire, it will free U.S. military planners to go north, bombing nuclear sites near Pyongyang, the capital. In the military chess game on the Korean Peninsula, by moving U.S. troops out of range of North Korea’s border artillery, the United States gains a strategic advantage.” Alexandre Mansourov, a former Soviet diplomat in Pyongyang emphasizes that the North Korean Army is one of the world’s largest and the Pyongpamg government, fearing an imminent U.S, attack, may be in a rush to develop WMDs. When America first made those allegations they suspended its shipments of humanitarian aid to North Korea. Kim Jong Il’s administration then pulled out of the 1994 Nuclear non-proliferation treaty and kicked the nuclear monitors out of his country. By American standards, this can be construed as an act of aggression and one can expect U.S. forces to act accordingly. Currently the U.S. Congress is urging the Bush administration to withdraw American troops from Iraq. Senator John Murtha says “the mission is accomplished.” This makes for a clever sound bite, and little else. Keeping U.S. soldiers imbedded in Iraq is the Bush administration’s version of “The Neverending Story.” In a memo dated July 12, 2005, William Kristol and Gary Schmitt wrote: “There is no question that the U.S. is ill prepared for another serious crisis that might require the use of American military forces. But the cost of reducing troop levels in Iraq or Afghanistan will be high. Neither Iraq’s nor Afghanistan’s militaries will be ready to take on the burden of fighting their respective insurgencies in the time frame Secretary Rumsfeld is pushing for. Creating new and effective institutions like an Iraqi or Afghan army takes time, as does fighting an insurgency. Neither task here is at all impossible but, if rushed, we do risk ultimate failure for lack of patience.” PNAC’s policy statement reads: “…we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership…Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.” WHO STANDS TO PROFIT? To be sure, there is money to be made by such a vast undertaking. One such entity is the Carlyle Group. A privately-held Washington, DC based group that manages 14 billion dollars in assets and has connections to several defense companies. The group was formed in 1987 and boasts a membership roster of former President George H.W. Bush, former Secretary of Defense Frank Carlucci and former Secretary of State James Baker. From British Prime Minister John Major is an advisor to the group and until recently, the group had strong ties to the bin-Laden family (yes, THOSE bin-Ladens). Other members include Colin Powell, former Phillipines President Fidel Ramos, South Korean Prime Minister Park Tae Joon and another former Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger. The Bush and bin-Laden families have been in business since 1977 and ended unceremoniously in 1988, with the mysterious death of Salem bin-Laden. The bin-Laden family helped George W. Bush form Arbusto Energy (a semi-prophetic moniker if nothing else) in Midland, Texas. ("Arbusto" means "shrub" in Spanish). Some believe that the President’s father doing business with foreign governments is a conflict of interest and has a shady undertone to it. Moreover, the CG as a privately-held entity and doesn’t have to divulge its financial dealings. George W. Bush was a partner in Harlen, a company chosen to explore for gas in Kuwait in 1989. Two months before his father chose to invade chase Hussein out of Kuwait, “W” sold 2/3 of his stock in that company. He earned more than $300,000 in profits, which many saw as an illegal windfall due to insider trading. The stock crashed, ending up worth less than $1 a share. For the record, the Bush/bin-Laden tie ended in May, 1988, when Salem bin-Laden died in a mysterious plane crash. The eldest of the bin-Laden brothers, crashed his aircraft into power lines, then fell 115 feet to the ground. This despite the fact that he was an experienced pilot with more than 15,000 hours of flight time. According to reports, “(bin-Laden) surprised onlookers by turning west toward power lines less than a quarter-mile away.” CAN PNAC BE STOPPED? Congress does not need to inflict windfall profits taxes on the oil companies. The way they plan to reduce oil prices is to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. How? By establishing a military presence in the areas where the oil is produced and then controlling those fields. U.S.-based oil companies aren’t going to rush headlong into creating alternative sources of energy. The U.S. does not want to risk being shut out of the loop by greedy OPEC ministers, or the Chinese—who appear determined to monopolize oil and wreck America economically. The U.S. has thrown out the idea of abiding by the rules of the Geneva Convention and is flirting with the idea of turning a blind eye to torture. Blair Korchinski writes, “They see nothing wrong with pre-emptive war. They see nothing wrong with human rights violations. They see no reason why the world should look to the UN instead of the US for leadership. They want to be sure that they control outer space. They would also like to limit dissent, including controlling cyberspace.” America is also pouring money into weather research, hoping to be able to use it as a military “weapon”). Korchinski emotes further: “Irving Kristol…praised Bush for giving new life to the neo-conservative movement...the far right controls the White House, and the far right is on its way to controlling the world. That control is unlikely to disappear when Bush does. The policies being instituted are too far reaching. Assuming that a Democrat takes over, will they have the willpower to expose the depth of the damage done? The reality is that whoever next controls the White House will still have troops in Iraq, still have questionable trade deals in place or already being negotiated, still have to meet with the well-earned distrust of the world.” Korchinski again: “The Project for a New American Century is not that ideologically different from the Fraser Institute or other right-wing pressure groups in Canada. PNAC may be trying to take over the world for the benefit of wealthy few, but the right in Canada, including large and influential parts of our Liberal party, is all too willing to cheer them on.” Still, had the Bush administration sold the American public on it’s becoming the peace officer of the world (even by establishing a pre-emptive strike policy), it would have gone over much better than their “Iraq has WMDs” distortions. A Canadian e-mailer believes, “I'm afraid that it will take much more than ‘little acts of resistance.’ These fanatics in pursuit of their evil agenda will only be defeated by a catastrophic event. two events that could derail them are possible, in my opinion: 1) the Countries that hold most of the U.S. fiat debt-- mainly the Europeans, Japanese & Chinese could refuse to continue financing the U.S. war machine. this would take a lot of courage on the part of those governments and would cause a global depression. 2) the Russians or one of their proxy states e.g. Syria could attack Tel Aviv with a Russian nuclear sunburn missile or destroy one of The U.S. carriers. that would halt them in their tracks. these sunburn missiles are aimed at Israel now & the U.S. has been warned that if they or Israel attempts to invade & occupy Syria or Iran then Tel Aviv will be vaporized. of course, there is a danger that the U.S. would attack Russia with ICMBs & that would cause nuclear holocaust.” SOURCES: Lance Brown, “Exposing the Project for the New American Century: An Effort to Analyze, and Expose the Project for the New American Century, and its Plan for an ‘Unipolar’ World,” PNAC.info, November 10, 2005 William Rivers Pitt, “The Project for the New American Century,” February 25, 2003 Bernard Weiner “How We Got Into This Imperial Pickle: A PNAC Primer,” The Crisis Papers, May 26, 2003, www.crisispapers.org Blair Korchinski, “Conquest for Fun and Profit,” The International Relations Center , “Project for the New American Century,” November 22, 2003 Barton Gellman, "Keeping the U.S. First; Pentagon Would Preclude a Rival Superpower," the Washington Post. Gary Schmitt, “Has the Iraq War Made Us Safer?,” Dallas Morning News, September 11, 2005 David Lazarus, “Carlyle Group Bush, Sr. (Etc.) Profits Increasing From Afghan War,” Rense.com, December 4, 2001 “Carlyle Group,” SourceWatch/The Center for Media & Democracy Profile of the Carlyle Group, www.wikipedia.com Oliver Burkeman and Julian Borger, “Meet The Carlyle Group: Former World Leaders and Washington Insiders Make Billions from the War on Terrorism,” The Guardian, October 31, 2001 Roger Miller, “Bush & Bin Laden: George W. Bush Had Ties to Billionaire bin Laden Brood,” AFD (date unavailable) Bud Kennedy, “The Strange Death Of bin Laden's Brother In Texas,” Fort Worth Star-Telegram, September 27, 2001 ------------ About the author: Timothy Stelly is a 46-year old California native with a wide variety of interests-from fishing to politics, which have a lot in common: Both require you to deal with worms and most of your time is spent idling. He is a former Democrat, believing that Party represents outdated ideas. He is officially registered as an Independent, choosing to keep his options open. Timothy is also the author of more than 80 screenplays and novels, two of which have been "published": "Tempest In The Stone" and "The Malice Of Cain", both available through PublishAmerica. He defines his writing style as "Hip-hop fiction; a cross between Richard Pryor and Richard Wright." His UK columns is written in a hard-edged style, but he is not yet a curmudgeon or a conservative. (Is that redundant?) After all, one of his favorite movies is "The Adventures of Milo and Otis." stellbread0.tripod.com Email: stellbread@yahoo.com Tell a friend about this site! ------------ All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com and are not allowed to be posted on other websites. ARTICLE THIEVES WILL BE PROSECUTED! |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
