Fighting for Russia against the New World Order.

Showing posts sorted by relevance for query us. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query us. Sort by date Show all posts

Iran didn’t want to kill US troops with its strike, it wanted to make point to Trump about its missile tech & resolve. It did that

Scott Ritter 
Scott Ritter is a former US Marine Corps intelligence officer. He served in the Soviet Union as an inspector implementing the INF Treaty, in General Schwarzkopf’s staff during the Gulf War, and from 1991-1998 as a UN weapons inspector. 
Iran didn’t want to kill US troops with its strike, it wanted to make point to Trump about its missile tech & resolve. It did that

Iran also fired five additional missiles at the US consulate in Erbil; US commanders on the ground said that it appeared Iran deliberately avoided striking the consulate, but in doing so sent a clear signal that had it wanted, the consulate would have been destroyed.
Trump had to back down

This was the reality that President Trump had to wrestle with when addressing the American people regarding the state of hostilities between the US and Iran.


Trump had previously promised a massive retaliation should Iran attack any US personnel or facilities. Surrounded by his national security team, Trump had to back down from that threat, knowing full well that if he were to attack Iran, the Iranian response would be devastating for both the US and its regional allies, including Israel, Saudi Arabia and the UAE. The US might be able to inflict unimaginable devastation on Iran, but the cost paid would be unacceptably high.

Trump’s rhetoric was aggressive, however, and his message made it clear that the US still considered Iran to be a rogue state whose pursuit of nuclear technology, ballistic missiles, and regional dominance would be opposed by the US, with force if necessary. But the Iranian missile attack drove home the new reality that, when it came to Iran’s actions in the Persian Gulf, American Presidential rhetoric no longer held sway as it once did.


Ali Khamenei, the Iranian Supreme Leader, drove this point home in a series of tweets claiming to have “slapped” the US in the face for its assassination of Soleimani, emphasizing that the policies pursued by Soleimani seeking the withdrawal of the US from the Persian Gulf region were becoming a reality, citing the recent vote by the Iraqi parliament to evict all foreign troops, including those of the US, from its soil.

President Trump, in his address to the American people, certainly talked the talk when it came to articulating a strong anti-Iranian policy. The real question is whether Trump and the American people are prepared to walk the walk, especially in a world where Iranian missiles are capable of dealing death and destruction on a scope and scale previously unimaginable.

Source: https://www.rt.com/op-ed/477759-iran-missiles-subdued-us-strike/
Share:

US-China Relations on the Rocks?

US Vs China - Is It 'Art Of The Deal' Or Economic Warfare ...

Both right wings of the US war party are hostile toward sovereign independent states that are free from its imperial control.

It’s notably true for nations with enormous hydrocarbon resources like Iran and Venezuela — what the US seeks control over for added ability to dominate other countries.

Most of all, it’s true for powerful nations like China and Russia, able to challenge US hegemonic aims effectively.

Russia’s super-weapons, exceeding the best in the West, made it the world’s dominant military power.
China’s growing economic, industrial, technological, and political power most concerns US policymakers because of the country’s increasing preeminence on the world stage at the expense of America in decline.

In their eyes, China is public enemy No. 1. Are both countries on a collision course for confrontation?

A rupture in political relations could follow the Trump regime’s trade war.

It’s exacerbated by unacceptable Pentagon incursions close to and in Chinese waters, and now falsely blaming Beijing for spreading COVID-19 outbreaks to shift responsibility from US failures to deal with the public health crisis effectively.

Intense China bashing affects US public opinion. A February Gallup poll showed two-thirds of Americans view Beijing mostly or very unfavorably — a 20 point decline from 2018.

A March poll by the organization showed nearly half of US respondents view China as a “critical threat.”

A new Pew Research poll showed two-thirds of Americans view China unfavorably. When Trump took office, it was 47%.

According to Asia Society’s director Orville Shell, “(i)t’s hardly surprising.”

“It’s now just about the only thing in Washington that Republicans and (Dems) agree on…(They) have a much more skeptical view of China’s intentions” — ignoring their own.

Negative US public opinion toward China shows propaganda works as intended.

According to former US National Security Council member Douglas Paal, proposed congressional legislation calls for greater get tough on China policies.

It’s an election issue. Congressional members and aspirants believe that publicly bashing China is a way to gain voter support.

Bilateral relations are likely to worsen ahead, including in the aftermath of US November elections — heightening the risk of confrontation by accident or design.

The outlook ahead is unsettling at best, a matter of great concern if bilateral relations continue deteriorating.

A rupture will be harmful to both countries. The US is China’s largest export market. It’s a major market for US exports.

According to the St. Louis Fed, agricultural products, aircraft, motor vehicles, and microchips are the top US exports to China.

The country is the world’s leading source of low-cost goods for the US and many other nations. It’s a major buyer of US Treasuries.

In response to growing contentious relations with the US, China began developing internal consumer-led growth years ago, including for services — to be less dependent on exports for future growth, especially to the West.

Has Russiagate shifted to Chinagate? US anti-China Cold War poses the risk of turning hot.
Is mutual trust beyond repair short-or-longer-term?

The issue goes way beyond Trump and GOP hardliners. If Biden succeeds DJT as president in January, Sino/US relations are unlikely to improve.

Given the current trend, they’re more likely to further deteriorate.

Obama’s 2013 Asia pivot aimed to reassert America’s East Pacific presence by advancing its military footprint in a part of the world where it doesn’t belong.

It aims to challenge and counter China growing preeminence on the world stage, while checking Russia in its far east at the same time.

Containment has been US policy throughout the post-WW II period, targeting nations able to challenge its hegemonic aims.

Cold War politics rages on multiple fronts, mainly against China and Russia — in the Middle East against Iran, in Latin America against Venezuela, Cuba and Nicaragua.

It’s what the scourge of Washington’s imperial agenda is all about, risking endless wars by hot and other means.

US imperial overreach threatens everyone everywhere.

What’s unthinkable is possible, the risk of military confrontation with China and/or Russia that could go nuclear if pushed too far.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Award-winning author Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”


Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Share:

17 Years After 911, US Backs Al Qaeda in Syria



By Finian CUNNINGHAM

17 Years After 911, US Backs Al Qaeda in Syria

The September 11 terror incidents in 2001 are said to be the biggest-ever deadly attack on US soil. Shamefully, exactly 17 years later, the US president and Pentagon military chiefs are threatening to go to war in Syria – to defend the same ilk of terrorists.

“Shamefully” is perhaps not the most fitting word here. “Consistently” would be more appropriate.

Officially, the spectacular plane-crashing mayhem 17 years ago in New York City was due to 19 Arab hijackers affiliated with the Al Qaeda terror network.

That account of the world-changing event has been hotly disputed, with many respected authors and organizations claiming that evidence shows the US intelligence agencies are implicated in an inside job. The death of some 3,000 American citizens was hence exploited as a pretext for launching a series of US overseas wars, whose hidden agenda was for promoting imperialist objectives.

In any case, the official story is that Al Qaeda operatives hijacked four airliners on the morning of September 11, 2001, and flew them into the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York, as well as into the Pentagon building near Washington. The fourth plane crashed in a rural area in Pennsylvania, allegedly after passengers challenged
the terrorist pilots.

The Al Qaeda terror network, with its ideological links to Saudi-sponsored Wahhabism, was declared “enemy number one” by then President George W Bush, who proceeded to launch wars on Afghanistan and Iraq, supposedly to avenge the 911 atrocity perpetrated against
American civilians.

The so-called “war on terror” has since become a much-overused blank check for successive US governments and their NATO allies to launch wars anywhere in the world to “defeat terrorists”. It has been used to justify increasing Western state surveillance powers against its own citizens in the name of counter-terrorism.

To be sure, the official story on 911 and subsequent US and NATO military rampaging around the globe has been challenged by skeptics and critics.

One of the key lines of contesting the official narrative is the documented evolution of the Al Qaeda terror franchise, which grew out of US sponsorship of motley radical Islamist groups in Afghanistan during the 1980s. That covert ploy was to give then occupying Soviet troops “their Vietnam”. American and British military intelligence along with lavish Saudi funding created the Frankenstein Monster of Islamic terrorism that mutated and spread across the Middle East and beyond.

So, the very notion that, post-911, the American creators of the terrorist monster would serve to protect the civilized world from their own creation was always a deeply suspect proposition.

The truth is that the US never stopped colluding with these terror groups since the days of the putative Afghan Vietnam for the Soviet Union.

The 911 incidents may have been some form of “blowback” or, plausibly, it was American intelligence handlers contriving a plot which would give imperialist planners their much-desired “new Pearl Harbor” – a blank check to declare war on the planet for the benefit of advancing US strategic interests.

Granted, the success of that nefarious covert scheme is questionable given the unforeseen huge financial and social costs to American society, as well as from general bedlam undermining global security.

For observers willing to see, it seems indisputable that there is something of a symbiotic relationship between Islamist terror proxies and the US imperialist state. The official “enemy” is a boon for justifying oppressive state powers against citizens; it serves as a pump for bloated budgets to the military-industrial complex at the heart of the American capitalist economy; and this enemy can also serve as target practice for illegal military intervention in foreign countries – US interventions that would otherwise be seen for what they are, as “criminal aggression”.

Further, the terror proxies continue to serve as a cat’s paws for US imperialism, as in the earlier formation in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union. Rather than direct large-scale American military involvement, the Al Qaeda brigades are deployed to do Washington’s dirty work. Syria is emerging as the new Afghanistan.

Officially, the Pentagon and US corporate news media scoff at these claims of collusion with terrorists. “We are bombing Syria to defeat terrorists,” so goes the mantra. Substitute any number of countries for “Syria”, as required.

Well, if that’s the case why have senior US military people like Michael Flynn admitted that the former Obama administration deliberately cultivated the terror brigades in Syria? Why have hundreds of millions of dollars gone into forming a non-existent “moderate rebel army” in Syria only for the American weaponry to end up in the hands of terror groups like Nusra Front?
What about credible reports of US military helicopters airlifting Nusra commanders out of harm’s way to other, safer parts of Syria? Similar reports of airlifting, or airdropping weapons, have come out of Afghanistan, where the Pentagon is still “fighting terrorists” – 17 years after 911.

It has taken a painfully long time over the eight years of war in Syria to uncover the full and real extent of criminality by the US and its British and French allies, along with the Saudis, Turks and Israelis.

But now we are coming full circle. President Donald Trump and his officials are warning that they will launch military strikes on Syria if the Syrian army and its Russian and Iranian allies proceed with the offensive to retake Idlib province. The northwest province is the last-remaining stronghold of anti-government militants. These militants are not the illusory “moderate rebels” the Western media have long bamboozled the public with. The militants comprise Nusra Front, Ahrar al Sham, Islamic State, and other self-professed Wahhabi jihadists of the Al Qaeda franchise. The myriad, mercurial names are merely part of the US cynical cover.

Trump – the supposed non-interventionist president – has even discarded the earlier ruse of invoking “chemical weapons” as a pretext for a US military attack on Syria. He and his officials are simply saying that any offensive by the Syrian army to retake all of its territory is an “unacceptable escalation” that will be met with a US military response.

There is no other credible rationale for such military deployment by Washington in Syria. The Western media are as usual riding shotgun with the mendacity, claiming that the Syrian army offensive will trigger a “humanitarian crisis”, rather than reporting the salient fact that the offensive is aimed at eradicating the most vile terror groups from that country.

In Syria, today, 17 years after 911, the real relationship between US authorities and terrorism is on display. The United States of Anarchy.

Share:

Ceasefire: US, China Trade Talks "Back On Track" After Trump Folds On Huawei

The "worst case" trade war scenario was avoided in Osaka on Saturday when Trump agreed to restart trade talks with Xi, holding off new tariffs on Chinese exports, and signaling a pause in the trade hostilities between the world’s two largest economies; Trump added that while existing tariffs would remain in place the US president eased restrictions on Huawei as part of what is now the second ceasefire between the two superpowers in two months, removing an immediate threat looming over the global economy even as a lasting peace remains elusive.

"We had a very good meeting with President Xi of China, excellent, I would say excellent, as good as it was going to be," he said. "We discussed a lot of things and we're right back on track and we'll see what happens", Trump told reporters after an 80-minute meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping on the sidelines of a summit of leaders of the G-20 major economies in Osaka, western Japan.


President Trump meets with China's President Xi Jinping at the start of their bilateral meeting at the G20 leaders summit in Osaka, Japan

Trump said while he would not lift existing import tariffs, he would refrain from slapping new levies on an additional $300 billion worth of Chinese goods - which would have effectively extended tariffs to everything China exports to the America.



 “We’re holding back on tariffs and they’re going to buy farm products,” he said vaguely at a news conference, without giving any details of China’s future agricultural product purchases. “If we make a deal, it will be a very historic event.” He gave no timeline for what he called a complex deal but said he was not in a rush. “I want to get it right.”


Whereas Trump and top admin officials alleged that Beijing had reneged on provisions of a tentative trade deal, it was not immediately clear if Xi agreed to return to previous agreements as part of the new truce.

Trump, however, did relent on one of the major sticking points, saying U.S. firms would be allowed to sell components to Huawei, the world’s biggest telecom network gear maker, where there was no national security problem. The president said the U.S. commerce department would meet in the next few days on whether to take it off a list of firms banned from buying components and technology from U.S. companies without government approval.

"I like our companies selling things to other people, so I allowed that to happen," Trump said. “We’re talking about equipment where there’s no great national security problem with it.” In recent months, the Trump administration has been lobbying allies around the world not to buy Huawei equipment, which the U.S. says could be used for Chinese espionage.

Huawei was delighted by the news on its verified Twitter account: “U-turn? Donald Trump suggests he would allow #Huawei to once again purchase U.S. technology!”




Predictably, China also welcomed the step. “If the U.S. does what it says, then of course, we welcome it,” said Wang Xiaolong, the Chinese foreign ministry’s envoy for G20 affairs.

Trump said he had not yet decided how to allow U.S. companies to continue selling to Huawei or whether to remove the tech giant from the Commerce Department’s entity list. He said he would meet with advisors next week to determine how to proceed.

U.S. microchip makers also applauded the move. “We are encouraged the talks are restarting and additional tariffs are on hold and we look forward to getting more detail on the president’s remarks on Huawei,” John Neuffer, president of the U.S. Semiconductor Association, said in a statement. Recently, Broadcom warned of a broad slowdown in demand as a result of Huawei sanctions and slashed its revenue forecast.

And yet, it was not clear how long the exemption would last. Trump said he had agreed with Xi to wait until the very end of trade talks to resolve broader issues around Huawei, including Washington’s lobbying campaign against allies buying its 5G equipment.

“Huawei is a complicated situation,” Trump said. “We’re leaving Huawei toward the end. We’ll see where we go with a trade agreement.”

The concession will likely draw criticism in Washington where national security hawks have urged Trump not to ease any pressure against Huawei. The company has long been the target of concern at the Pentagon and intelligence agencies in part over what the U.S. claims are its close ties to the Chinese military.




In exchange for his Huawei concession, Trump said Xi Jinping had promised to buy “tremendous” amounts of U.S. agricultural products. “We’re going to give them a list of things we’d like them to buy,” Trump said at a news conference following the Group of 20 summit in Osaka, Japan. However, as Bloomberg notes, the first indications the second fragile truce will collapse soon is that the Chinese official media reports said only that the U.S. president hopes China will import more American goods as part of the truce, without an actual confirmation it will do so.

For now, however, the second truce, after a similar ceasefire was announced on December 1 at the Buenos Aires G-20 summit, has been achieved, offering relief from a nearly year-long trade standoff in which the countries have slapped tariffs on billions of dollars of each other’s imports, disrupting global supply lines, roiling markets and dragging on global economic growth.


In a lengthy statement on the two-way talks, China’s foreign ministry quoted Xi as telling Trump he hoped the United States could treat Chinese companies fairly. On the issues of sovereignty and respect, Xi said that "China must safeguard its core interests."

“China is sincere about continuing negotiations with the United States ... but negotiations should be equal and show mutual respect,” the foreign ministry quoted Xi as saying.

Trump had threatened to extend existing tariffs to almost all Chinese imports into the United States if the meeting brought no progress on wide-ranging U.S. demands for reforms.

The return to the negotiating table ends a six-week stalemate that has unnerved companies and investors, and at least temporarily reduces fears that the world’s two largest economies are headed into a new cold war, which they still are but only after the current stalemate ends allowing the S&P to rise above 3,000 in the the meantime. Because, as Bloomberg notes, it’s unclear how they can overcome differences that led to the collapse of a previous truce reached at the G-20 in November.

* * *

While Trump and Xi were all smiles at their press briefing, the bad blood between the two leaders behind the scenes is clearly still there. Xi spent much of the summit’s first day Friday promising to open up the Chinese economy, and attacking the U.S. (without naming it) for its attack on the global trading system. As Bloomberg reported, Xi took a "not-so-subtle swipe" at Trump’s “America first” trade policy in remarks to African leaders on Friday, warning against “bullying practices” and adding that “any attempt to put one’s own interests first and undermine others’ will not win any popularity.” Xi also called out the U.S. over Huawei and said the G-20 should uphold the “completeness and vitality of global supply chains.”


For now, however, there is optimism.

“Returning to negotiations is good news for the business community and breathes some much needed certainty into a slowly deteriorating relationship,” said Jacob Parker, a vice-president of China operations at the U.S.-China Business Council. But "now comes the hard work of finding consensus on the most difficult issues in the relationship, but with a commitment from the top we’re hopeful this will put the two sides on a sustained path to resolution,” he said.

Others were more skeptical, and warned the pause - just like the first ceasefire - will not last.
“Even if a truce happens this weekend, a subsequent breakdown of talks followed by further escalation still seems likely,” Capital Economics said in a commentary on Friday, quoted by Reuters.
The United States says China has been stealing American intellectual property for years, forces U.S. firms to share trade secrets as a condition for doing business in China, and subsidizes state-owned firms to dominate industries. Meanwhile, China has said the United States is making unreasonable demands and must also make concessions.

The talks collapsed in May after Washington accused Beijing of reneging on reform pledges. Trump raised tariffs to 25% from 10% on $200 billion of Chinese goods, and China retaliated with levies on U.S. imports.

The U.S.-China feud had cast a pall over the two-day G20 gathering, with leaders pointing to the threat to global growth. In their communique, the leaders warned of growing risks to the world economy but stopped short of denouncing protectionism, calling instead for a free, fair trade environment after talks some members described as difficult.

* * *

Finally, global markets will breathe a sigh of relief on news of the resumption in U.S.-China trade talks, even as an official deal remains elusive, and there is no indication of how the two countries will bridge the most difficult aspect of a feud that has emerged beyond simple trade and now affects most aspects of US and Chinese life.

The flip-side is that with trade talks back on, the Fed will feel far less pressure to ease in July, and since in June stocks exploded higher on hopes that the Fed will cut rates as much as 50bps next month, such a reversal in US-China relations could potentially prevent Powell from capitulating, and leave the Fed on hold, an outcome which would lead to a sharp drop in US capital markets. Indeed, in recent weeks, the S&P has returned to record highs, treasury yields have tumbled to their lowest level in years. The Japanese yen, a traditional beneficiary of flight to quality, has gained, while the U.S. dollar has slipped across the board, including against China’s yuan.

Source: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-06-29/ceasefire-us-china-trade-talks-back-track-after-trump-concedes-huawei
Share:

The Yuan Brings About Pakistan’s Second Declaration of Independence

The Yuan Brings About Pakistan’s Second Declaration of Independence

By Adam Garrie

With Pakistan refusing to bend or break under US pressure, even as Washington is set to cut hundreds of millions in “aid” to Pakistan, many Pakistanis are asking themselves, “why didn’t we do this sooner”?

The answer is—in a word: CHINA.
When the US took the abrasive move to formally censure Pakistan under the guise that it harbours and abets terrorism and cut hundreds of millions in what the US calls “aid” but what in reality is US military investment, Pakistan said, “so be it” and said so boldly.

After losing over 100,000 Pakistanis in America’s ill-advised regional military operation in Afghanistan, a conflict which the US intentionally allowed to spill over Pakistan’s border, Pakistani elites and ordinary people have collectively had enough. Many have had enough for decades, not least PTI leader Imran Khan whose anti-American positions have been largely vindicated by recent events.

But while the uneven “alliance” between Washington and Islamabad has alienated Pakistanis for decades, even prior to the US invasion of Afghanistan, what has changed is that there is a new superpower with a colossal presence in the region--one that is willing to forge a thorough partnership with Pakistan and in doing so,  rendering any perceived advantages incurred from a US “alliance” more or less dispensable.

For years, China’s investment in Pakistan along the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor has breathed new life into Pakistan’s economy. From the mountainous border in the north to the Panamax Gwadar Port on the Indian Ocean, China’s positive influence can be felt throughout Pakistan’s vast terrain.

The influx of Chinese experts, workers and high level diplomats in the country has proved that a revitalised Cold War era friendship is by the standards of 2017, one based on pragmatism, mutual respect and a win-win mentality that contrasts sharply with a US attitude of disdain towards Pakistan. This attitude is magnified even more deeply by Pakistan’s Saudi “ally” that has used and abused Pakistan for decades, in a cold exploitation of the country’s financial needs.

Pakistan’s refusal to follow Saudi and the UAE into Yemen and likewise, Pakistan’s refusal to take Saudi Arabia’s side in the ongoing dispute with Qatar, is as much a reflection of the confidence and renewed independence that a Chinese partnership has given Pakistan as it is a reflection of the increased professionalization of Pakistan’s “deep state” which is largely immune to the fluxuations of Parliamentary politics, while wise enough not to inhibit the peaceful exercise of Pakistan’s multi-party democracy.

Pakistan’s refusing to blindly follow Washington’s increasingly anti-Pakistan Afghan policies is a further result of the geo-political armour that China has allowed Pakistan to wear with pride, as it is symptomatic of a Pakistani “deep state” that is far more pragmatic and intelligent than it was 20 years ago.

But the most important development thus far, in Pakistan’s 21st century partnership with China is the agreement to conduct bilateral trade in the Yuan rather than the Dollar. This agreement was inevitable, but the fact that it was agreed just after Donald Trump’s insulting statements about Pakistan followed by the withdrawal of “aid”, sends both a pragmatic and symbolic message to the world. Pakistan is not for sale and nor will Pakistan refrain from taking action to build new partnerships out of fear that the US will be permanently lost as an “ally”.  Just as the US closed one door, Pakistan and China quietly and rapidly opened another much larger door.

The treat of US financial blackmail becomes limited in its scope when one realises that Pakistan’s most important long-term trading partner is a country that is not only powerful enough to resist the Dollar’s fading hegemonic grip on global trade, but that moreover, it is a country that owns the lion’s share of US debt. This country is of course, China.

The Dollar might still control much of the world, but with China controlling the Dollar, all the while readying the Yuan for its inevitable transition to a floating currency, it is China that now has the last word when it comes to the effectiveness of US financial blackmail as well as US sanctions.

In this sense, Pakistan’s agreement to trade with China exclusively in Yuan is like a second declaration of independence for Pakistan. Furthermore, the move will certainly inspire other nations to rethink their dependence on Dollar based institutions.

With the US also cutting Pakistan out of security/intelligence sharing agreements, it is high time for Pakistani leaders to admit a long standing reality. The US has never been Pakistan’s ally, it has merely been a two-faced benefactor whose investments in the country were never designed to increase Pakistan’s sovereignty, prestige or safety. In reality, they were designed to bring about the opposite.

By contrast, the Chinese model does not make demands on one’s foreign policy, security policy, wider partnerships or style of government. China demands only honesty and respect and rewards this with the same.

When promoting One Belt—One Road throughout the world, President Xi Jinping is always eager to point out that China’s global trading network is all about enhancing mutual strengths while supplementing areas of economic or production relation weakness. There are no strings attached in One Belt—One Road—the obvious implication being that in the US model of global trading mechanisms there are many strings attached.

Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte stated that one of the reasons he prefers modernising the armed forces of Philippines using Russia and Chinese weapons, is because Russia and China do not make such sales conditional upon political demands. The same is true with wider trading partnerships with the great superpowers of the global “east”.

The US will surely amplify its anti-Pakistan rhetoric in the coming months and one shouldn’t be surprised if ultimately this leads to sanctions against a former “ally”.

But China has made Pakistan largely immune to Washington’s bullying techniques and thus serves as a model for the world that if one wants to make one’s own country “great again”—one must ditch the US as an indelible partner and embrace sovereignty with Chinese trading characteristics.

Share:

The Events In Iran Vindicate North Korea 100%



The Events In Iran Vindicate North Korea 100%

 
A Russia Truth exclusive article by Adam Garrie

The recent events in Iran, among other things, fully vindicate the security and defence policies of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea in every sense. 

Already, recent history has vindicated North Korea’s policy. Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, Yemen and to an extent Syria were destroyed by western militaries and their terrorist proxies because they did not have the full means to defend themselves, yet North Korea has not been destroyed because it does have the means to defend itself and deter attacks with its nuclear weapons. 

Far from an exotic theory, this is a very obvious matter of fact, one articulated by few world leaders, with the interesting exception of Russia’s President Vladimir Putin. 

To further understand why North Korea has been vindicated, one must examine what happens when sovereign minded countries do deals with the west? 

In 2003, Libya agreed to disarm in return for extended business and security ties to the west. The result was the total destruction of Libya less than ten years later and the barbaric murder of its Revolutionary leader Brother Muammar Gaddafi. Gaddafi had often spoken with disappointment, regarding the fact that western business deals never came through in the way he had expected when he agreed to disarm. Still, he remained cooperative and as a reward the US sent savages in to murder him. 

Syria too had softened its traditional policies of scepticism regarding the west in the years immediately preceding the western led proxy war on Syria. The result has been a seven year on Syria by those same western powers and their Takfiri terrorist proxies, most notably ISIS.

In 2015, Iran agreed to the JCPOA, also known as the Iran nuclear deal, in which Iran forfeited its goal of developing a nuclear security deterrent in exchange for business deals with the west.

In 2018, western backed proxies and local traitors now set fire to the streets of Iran, all the while little significant progress has been made in terms Iranian business deals with the west. 

The US continues to sanction Iran, threaten Iran and lie about Iran’s compliance with the JCPOA, even though Russia, China, Germany, France, Britain, the EU as a whole and the United Nations, all agree that the JCPOA is being completely upheld by the Iranian government. 

Contrasting with Libya, Syria and Iran, North Korea has stated that no deals will be considered until its nuclear deterrent is fully functional in respect of being able to do to the US what the US can and often threatens to do to it.

 When Donald Trump stands before the UN threatening to “destroy” the DPRK, it is only natural that Pyongyang will want a stronger rather than a weaker means of defending itself. This is something a child in the schoolyard could understand with ease, yet many so-called intellectuals deceive themselves and in doing so, detach themselves from simple logic.

They are either stupid or cowards, not to publicly admit that the DPRK has been proved right and just about everyone else has been proved wrong.

Furthermore, North Korea has stated that even when it is willing to negotiate on other matters, that its nuclear deterrent is not up for negotiation. 

The precedent set by previous US “business” deals in exchange for disarmament totally vindicates the DPRK’s position. Far from good faith agreements, such deals are nothing more than a chance for the US to buy itself time while a stated enemy weakens itself and then, when sufficiently vulnerable, the US, its dependants and its proxies go to war and topple the state it had done a deal with.

The pattern has been repeated over and over again, but only North Korea seems to understand the nature of this clear pattern. 

Even in respect of a superpower like Russia, the US refuses to engage in arms reduction treaties—all the while amassing forces on Russia’s borders, before turning around and criticising Russia for maintaining the strength of its own armed forces. 

Sometimes one wonders if Washington really thinks the rest of the world is completely stupid? 

That being said, much of the world is matter-of-factly naive. The events in Iran speak for themselves. 

The following are the general developments that arise after a nation does a deal with the US and its partners:

--No tangible economic improvement 

--Continued sanctions and military threats 

--Some genuinely frustrated citizens who blame their own government for America’s broken promises 

--US armed forces and proxy militants/terrorist  trying to start a war in your borders 

North Korea is indeed a more closed society than Iran and this too has been vindicated by recent events. The US and its proxies do not reward countries for openness, but destroy them because of openness. The US sees an open door not as a sign of friendship but as a sign of vulnerability. 

If the US were to truly change (something that seems impossible until declining economic conditions wreak havoc upon the west in earnest), then perhaps North Korea would be more open to the rest of the world, but until then, it must protect itself as it continues to do.

North Korea, having suffered so greatly at the hands of the US and its partners in the 1950s, is more aware than most, of the full extent of barbarity that the US is happy to rain upon countries that it views unfavourably. 

But unlike others, the DPRK has never forgotten those important lessons of the relatively recent past, nor has the Supreme Leadership in Pyongyang neglected to study the pattern that begins with rapprochement with the US and is shortly followed by the total destruction of the smaller party to that initial rapprochement. 

One will never see proxy wars, “colour revolutions” and open sedition on the streets of the DPRK. This is because the DPRK knows how the US plays its game. If one thinks that North Korea is playing a hard game itself—one must remember that this game is only as hard as that which is necessary to hold off a US attack. 

North Korea stands vindicated—others are guilty of being naive and the US, as always, is guilty of being a dishonest broker and perennial aggressor.
Share:

Dr. Ron Paul: Why Are We Siding With al-Qaeda?







Dr. Ron Paul writes:

Last week, I urged the Secretary of State and National Security Advisor to stop protecting al-Qaeda in Syria by demanding that the Syrian government leave Idlib under al-Qaeda control. While it may seem hard to believe that the US government is helping al-Qaeda in Syria, it’s not as strange as it may seem: our interventionist foreign policy increasingly requires Washington to partner up with “bad guys” in pursuit of its dangerous and aggressive foreign policy goals.

Does the Trump Administration actually support al-Qaeda and ISIS? Of course not. But the “experts” who run Trump’s foreign policy have determined that a de facto alliance with these two extremist groups is for the time being necessary to facilitate the more long-term goals in the Middle East. And what are those goals? Regime change for Iran.

Let’s have a look at the areas where the US is turning a blind eye to al-Qaeda and ISIS.

First, Idlib. As I mentioned last week, President Trump’s own Special Envoy to fight ISIS said just last year that “Idlib Province is the largest Al Qaeda safe haven since 9/11.” So why do so many US officials – including President Trump himself – keep warning the Syrian government not to re-take its own territory from al-Qaeda control? Wouldn’t they be doing us a favor by ridding the area of al-Qaeda? Well, if Idlib is re-taken by Assad, it all but ends the neocon (and Saudi and Israeli) dream of “regime change” for Syria and a black eye to Syria’s ally, Iran.

Second, one of the last groups of ISIS fighters in Syria are around the Al-Tanf US military base which has operated illegally in northeastern Syria for the past two years. Last week, according to press reports, the Russians warned the US military in the region that it was about to launch an assault on ISIS fighters around the US base. The US responded by sending in 100 more US Marines and conducting a live-fire exercise as a warning. President Trump recently reversed himself (again) and announced that the US would remain at Al-Tanf “indefinitely.” Why? It is considered a strategic point from which to attack Iran. The US means to stay there even if it means turning a blind eye to ISIS in the neighborhood.

Finally, in Yemen, the US/Saudi coalition fighting the Houthis has been found by AP and other mainstream media outlets to be directly benefiting al-Qaeda. Why help al-Qaeda in Yemen? Because the real US goal is regime change in Iran, and Yemen is considered one of the fronts in the battle against Iranian influence in the Middle East. So we are aiding al-Qaeda, which did attack us, because we want to “regime change” Iran, which hasn’t attacked us. How does that make sense?

We all remember the old saying, attributed to Benjamin Franklin's Poor Richard's Almanack, that “if you lie down with dogs, you wake up with fleas.” The “experts” would like us to think they are pursuing a brilliant foreign policy that will provide a great victory for America at the end of the day. But as usual, the “experts” have got it wrong. It’s really not that complicated: when “winning” means you’re allied with al-Qaeda and ISIS, you’re doing something wrong. Let’s start doing foreign policy right: let’s leave the rest of the world alone!

Source: http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2018/september/10/why-are-we-siding-with-al-qaeda/
Share:

War Whores Scramble To Say Syria Attack Means Troops Must Remain


A suicide bombing in Manbij, Syria has reportedly killed 19 people including four Americans, two of whom were US soldiers and two of whom worked with the US military. ISIS, which has an extensive history of falsely claiming responsibility for attacks it had nothing to do with, has claimed responsibility for the attack. Despite the fact that ISIS would claim responsibility for a housewife stepping on a Lego block, and despite the complete absence of evidence that it had anything to do with the deadly explosion, all the usual cheerleaders of endless war are pointing to the Manbij suicide bombing and shrieking “See?? Trump said ISIS is defeated and it’s not!”
“ISIS is still a very real threat here,” CNN international corespondent Clarissa Ward told Jake Tapper from northern Syria. “And the real concern that we are hearing over and over again on the ground, Jake, is that when US troops withdraw, a power vacuum is created, and that only gives them more strength.”
Virulent Syria war pundit Charles Lister, who is notorious for praising Al Qaeda and is a senior fellowat the Gulf state-funded neoconservative think tank Middle East Institute, told AFP that this attack invalidates Donald Trump’s order last month to withdraw troops from Syria.
“Trump’s order was reckless and driven far more by domestic political concerns than it was by facts on the ground,” Lister said, adding, “To suggest ISIS is ‘defeated’ because it no longer controls territory is to fundamentally misunderstand how ISIS and similar organizations seek to operate.”
Former John McCain ventriloquism dummy Lindsey Graham pounced like a rat on a cheese doodle on the opportunity to call for continued US troop presence within hours of the attack, interrupting the confirmation hearing of Attorney General nominee William Barr with an ejaculation about Trump’s Syria withdrawal.

“I would hope the President would look long and hard at where he’s headed in Syria,” Graham said after repeating the baseless claim that the attack was perpetrated by ISIS. “I know people are frustrated, but we’re never going to be safe here unless we’re willing to help people over there who will stand up against this radical ideology.”
Not to be left out when there are moronic war agendas to be sold, Fox News leapt into the fray with a quote from an anonymous foreign diplomat saying “This attack today is a direct result of the announcement made by President Trump that U.S. forces are pulling out. These troops had a bullseye on them when the president telegraphed that he was ordering a pullout.”
“ISIS has already claimed responsibility for today’s suicide attack, a reminder that the group is not defeated,” added Fox’s Jennifer Griffin.
MSNBC’s deranged intelligence analyst Malcolm Nance topped everyone as usual with a babbling nonsensical post about how US troops were killed in Manbij because there were no US troops in Manbij, proving that Assad and Putin may have allowed the attack to happen, which proves Trump is a Russian asset.
“The moment Russia and Assad took over patrolling Manbij on Trumps go ahead we get hit with suicide bombers for the first time. It’s possible Russia/Assad let the attack happen. Trump’s treachery on this matter now kills our special operators. #RussianAsset,” Nance tweeted between huffs of paint thinner.

Other voices are treating the reports about the bombing with a little more skepticism.
“If ISIS were smart it would hold its fire especially against Americans,” tweeted professor and author Max Abrahms. “The main justification for leaving Syria is the (contested) assessment ISIS is defeated. ISIS attacks convey the opposite, weakening the strategic rationale of withdrawal while making it politically harder.”
“Ok, so Trump announces that the U.S. will begin a phased withdrawal from Syria, which according to his critics, would only benefit ISIS who they say is still operational and would welcome a U.S. pull out. But not waiting for pull out ISIS then targets U.S. troops! Yeah right,” tweeted former Green Party vice presidential nominee Ajamu Baraka.
These are interesting points. If ISIS is indeed responsible for the bombing, as war pundits are unquestioningly asserting is the case, then they’re either really, really stupid or they really want US troops to remain in Syria. Or perhaps the attack was engineered by someone else who has a vested interest in keeping a US military presence in Syria, either using ISIS as a patsy or completely separate from ISIS. Wouldn’t be the first time a suspicious attack took place in Syria while the Trump administration was working to withdraw troops.
Of course, this whole debate ignores the most obvious point of all: that if there was no US military presence in Syria, there would be no US military personnel being killed in Syria. The fight against the terrorist forces who nearly overtook the nation with the help of the western power alliance’s imperialist support have been beaten to the brink of total defeat not by the US, but by the Syrian government and its allies. If US troops were removed Damascus would quickly restore stability to the region and continue rebuilding the war-ravaged nation. But this is precisely what these war whores do not want.
Syria is a strategically crucial geopolitical nation for reasons having to do with natural resources and the power dynamics of Israel, Iran, and the empire-aligned Gulf states. It is not a coincidence that so much energy gets poured into this small stretch of land and its surrounding nations by the western military alliance and its propaganda machine, and it’s unlikely that the global dominators will lose interest in Syria any time soon. Stay skeptical.
Share:

Donate

Please help support us

Big Tech Censorship

Popular searches

Russia Collusion

Liberteon.com