The $1,500 billion military industrial complex of the USA.


Bleep NATO
By Jeff Huber at antiwar.com

Tom Shanker of the New York Times tells us that NATO defense ministers have given their "broad endorsement" to Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s plan to escalate the Afghanistan war into a full-Monty counter insurgency effort. NATO defense ministers love Afghanistan; it justifies their phony-baloney jobs.

(generally NATO nations, bar America/UK, are reluctant to get involved in pseudo-colonial wars, which serve no real obvious purpose for their countries; Wars which have no definitive objectives but quite the contrary seem to be open ended fair weather, ever changing explanations for why they must be in Afghanistan; Military operations which are well beyond the borders of NATO countries and their traditional operational mandate. Such disparities of issues gives NATO nations ample opportunity to reflect on the long term necessity of NATO, after the demise of the Soviet Union. The wishes of the Jewish one world government concept not withstanding-----instituted around the Protocols, which were written in the 19th century by the Rothschilds of England with agreement with all the rest of them, and the need to build security structures around that single desire and ideology for the future )

Like much of the U.S. military, NATO became irrelevant when the Cold War ended. Pseudo-counterinsurgency expert David Kilcullen, who has been an adviser to David Petraeus and McChrystal (He is not American, but useful if you are thinking of building a global military force, which follows the Jewish master plan, which is not constrained by irritating debating and voting procedures of the UN. Yet yet another Celtic person.......This sounds like another Jewish instituted, albeit subliminal, race war.....Celts verses who though?) says one of the major reasons to press for a larger effort in Afghanistan is to preserve the NATO alliance. He doesn’t think counterterrorism is a particularly important reason to be in Afghanistan. (It’s not at the top of his list.)

(From a Jewish one world master plan perspectives Kilcullen's logic is perfectly reasonable....but obviously not for "ordinary" Americans out of the Jewish master plan loop......you use unnecessary wars to forge future global forces which will without question follow your dictates..."Starship troopers" (1997)..mocking anti-American satire from an European director, which unfortunately has become the reality with the USA, UK.......and even European countries, including the movie directors country Netherlands.....the insects in the desert are the rag heads who are faceless, dehumanised things which must be destroyed.....invaded....based on the thinest and wildest excuses straight from the colonial era.........in the movies case asteriods being sent by the primitive insects at Earth.

Afghanistan is profitable for them obviously, since it generates narcotics profits in the region of $50--80 billion annually.................The Afghans harvest it and they get about 5%....Hamid Karzai's brother: The American and British military protect and transport it. The proceeds are laundered in NY and London high street banks, and finally of course a select few in the Pentagon and in the UK profit from it.)

To escalate our woebegone war in Afghanistan because NATO wants us to would be the dumbest foreign policy choice our country has ever made, and we’ve made a lot of dumb foreign policy choices. (My favorite example is becoming involved in World War I. We should have stiff-armed that fandango, let the Europeans bleed themselves ashen, then offered to feed them on strict conditions. Alas.)

("Dumb choices" is the wrong adjective because it suggests the people in power who make such choices were MERELY misguided, but for their choices.......I would argue otherwise........the people who make the "dumb choices" for America are actually not that "dumb", but have priorities which shall we say do not run parallel with the general true interests of the USA overall.......they are highly intelligent, articulate, aggressive, amoral criminals who have over time amassed power and privilege in American society.

..........This means that these criminals can both fund the Soviet Union covertly, giving it a decisive push in its creation in 1918, AND at the same time run a $6 trillion Cold War HOAX, involving many unnecessary proxy wars around the world in Korea, Vietnam, Cuban missile crisis, fighting their created monsters......etc etc, over 40 years. Saddam's Iraq, and Taliban/"al-Qaeda" Afghanistan thus, along this line of facts isn't a new phenomenon.

Getting perfectly intelligent capable gentiles all heated up, doing the woggy sun dance around their set of fake agenda's, without the hindsight of being able to see their overall covert picture.

Funding the Nazis into power; providing the materials and finance for German rearmament, and then building the coalition to defeat the Nazis...after 60 million people have perished.

These games are not new)

The world needs NATO like fish need hammers. I had fun galore getting pie-faced with Brits and Germans and other Europeans at after-hour planning sessions for international combat exercises, but fun galore isn’t a reason to escalate our war in Afghanistan. How much more blood and treasure do we need to pour into one of the bleakest parts of the world in order to throw a party for our European pals?

(No America does not need to be in Afghanistan. Osama is dead...his fictional non-existential organization constitutes no clear threat to the USA, and the Taliban can be managed via the Pakistan military comprehensively if America is serious about it)

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has been consistently critical of NATO involvement in Afghanistan to date. Gates has danced on a lot of laps in regard to this subject. He always wants more help from NATO, but he doesn’t like the help he gets. NATO doesn’t know how to do counterinsurgency, Gates has complained. But now, they’re all lovey-dovey about counterinsurgency, now that they realize how manpower-intensive it is and how much throwing in with the McChrystal plan will defend their defense budgets. NATO, like much of the U.S. military, hasn’t had a reason to exist since the Berlin Wall came tumbling down in the early 1990s.

(Iran/Contra Gates is merely doing his duty for his real masters/constituency.....ensuring the Afghan narcotics flows into Europe and Russia, and his friends in the Pentagon, and UK profit from their sale.......$50---80 billion annually...presumably that is why he has been left at this vital post as a Republican appointee, and a crony of the Bush clan out of Texas. If Obama was really serious about curtailing this $1,500 billion gravy train which is the MIC, then he would have appointed a close trusted Democrat in that vital position, and not a left over from the Bush era.....this merely signals continuity, surely)

Ludicrous Dick Cheney has asserted that the Obama administration’s "dithering" on what course to take in Afghanistan will "embolden" the evil ones. Everybody who can find the ends of their noses knows Dick Cheney is a dithering idiot; he’s never been right about anything. The only entity that has been emboldened is the Western alliance’s military industrial complex, led by the Pentagon, who are fighting not for the safety of their countries but for their own existence.

(There we go again, calling "Darth Vader" Dick a dithering idiot.......the guy is a billionaire who has made is money through the American MIC, serving in several administrations, gradually shifting to the loony right as he progressed with age and senility. Dick makes money through war,......and did not become a billionaire from humble beginnings by being a dithering idiot full stop...a former lineman of humble background, who is now a billionaire....for him war is profitable.....obviously he is going to "fight" for America to continue on-going unnecessary wars, using what ever cock and bull snarling, grimace, hardball, nose expanding excuses he can think of ....but certainly not a dithering idiot---this gives a misleading analysis; as if he is somehow a cuddly man, who is inherently honest, forever doing the right and decent thing for America, selflessly at his post working away for America, but somehow quite not up to the job----NOT. He is a businessman first and foremost, making money through war and conflict....merchant of death, looking after number one)

The Pentagon’s long-war grand strategy is good for everybody’s war business. The Afghanistan conflict is particularly suitable; it’s the kind of Orwellian war that can go on forever without getting too obnoxious, and in the case of America, it’s one that the Democrats, not the Republicans, have ownership of. Or at least it can be sold that way.

(Do you really need 500,000 Afghan and coalition forces to fight 10,000 poorly armed Taliban militia?---Obviously not.......to really fight the Taliban you squeeze the Pakistan military first and foremost, the Taliban's main backers, and then arm the Afghan's who don't like the Taliban SINCERELY, and who do not have a criminal background, not tongue in cheek...and I am so JEW clever kind of way, and that is it....without the backing of the Pakistan military the Taliban cannot exist. Of course here we must talk about intentions...what are the true intentions.......of the occupation forces? Let us not leave out the $50--80 billion annual narcotics profits. Maybe this later fact can be circulated to the NATO members beyond the USA/UK........a pimp force for international narco traders)

Shanker writes, "Mr. Gates, who has kept his views about additional troops close to his vest and has discouraged his commanders from lobbying too publicly for their positions, declined to be drawn out on this assessment." That’s the biggest lie out of the New York Times since the Nigergate hoax that led to the invasion of Iraq. The media campaign the Pentagon has been waging to pressure Obama into acceding to McChrystal’s demands amounts to a soft coup.

(Obama has yet to make his decision. Let us hope that he is not fixed by the MIC too quickly and early in this new administration, which then fetters his policy options for the future, in Afghanistan, and domestically; both very linked you see.......guns or butter? You can't have both. For Obama to realize his health care initiatives, education, social welfare programs he has to cut the real security budget of $1.5 trillion eventually...he can't have both)

Candidate Obama stuck his nose in the wringer when he deflected criticism of his vote against the surge in Iraq by saying it took vital assets away from the effort in Afghanistan, the "war of necessity." That may turn out to be the tragic flaw of his presidency. The war in Afghanistan is no more necessary than most other American wars have been. None of the 9/11 attackers came from Afghanistan, and al-Qaeda isn’t there any more. As best we can tell, what remains of al-Qaeda is in Pakistan, and very little remains of it.

(No they came from Israel and America. al-Qaeda does not exist. Doubtful if any of the 19 Arabs "hijackers" were actually involved.....remote controlled planes...the list of 19 hijackers was created/provided by Indian intelligence and forwarded to the FBI (as per Jewish desire for one world government, where international security/intelligence "cooperate" with each other around the Jewish master plan) never mind that Indian intelligence were dubiously unqualified to identify who the real perpetrators of 9/11 were IN AMERICA.........far, far away in India....and that mysteriously some of the said identified hijackers are still alive in their countries.......GWOT reduced to its simple form is a Jewish war, instituted to enforce their agenda around the world, and for one world government. Thus when you have such an ambition security institutions play an important role obviously, because you need the sheep to follow your orders, whether they like it or not....as it was with Gestapo Nazi Germany...and the NKVD Soviet Union.)

America and its NATO allies account for about 90 percent of global arms sales. We have no competitors.

(Global arms sales are here to stay no matter what. The main issue rather is that rich powerful nations should not commit to war against Third World nations on dubious false grounds, and then attempt to continue with these military adventures with even more ever shifting dubious explanations, thereafter, through the Jewish controlled MSM)

There’s a lot of money to be made now on body and vehicle armor that don’t work. So the more kids we send to Afghanistan to get blown up, the more the folks who make the body and vehicle armor that don’t work make.

(The MIC in America could be worth $1.5 trillion annually.....a lot of money, power and lobbying goes behind that using the American MSM. As with the Soviet Union this is harmful for America in the long term. A society that invests in war, and arms, but not in health care, education and welfare must slowly deteriorate, as happened with the Soviet Union.......which on the eve of collapse in 1989 was spending maybe around 14% of GDP on defense, 5.5 million men under arms, 65,000 tanks, 30,000 artillery, 12,000 nuclear warheads, 8500 combat jets, .....ALL this despite the best efforts of Gorbachov, after four years in power.

The excessive expenditure on defense starved out the expenditure on all the other necessary investment areas such as infrastructure, education, healthcare, social welfare, and innovation in technology which results in manufacturing better cars, tv, hi-fi...etc...America is no longer the leader this vital area. The best engineers and innovators invariably end up working in the defense industry, rather than creating things which have real social value, and which contribute to the expansion of the economy in a meaningful way.

Obviously since 1950 there has been a steady motion in this direction, but a strong administration can put a decisive break into that and forever save America from inevitable economic ruin. You simply can't have a $1500 billion MIC and not want to twitch and itch for war to justify such a huge expenditure.........the MIC and their Jewish overlords will find that excuse always, as they have.....so I say to the peace movement of America that the ultimate objective for America is not merely the withdrawal from the illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but the dismantling of the MIC, and a reorientation of the American culture away from war)

The neoconservatives who push our war agenda are invested in it, and they have, incredibly, gained a toehold in intellectually elite circles. That the "dumbest freaking human being on the planet," Cheney sycophant Doug Feith, managed to become a visiting lecturer at Columbia University gives you an idea of how badly the national brain trust has been damaged by neoconservative influence. He eventually got canned, but he never should have been hired in the first place.

(Jewish Israeli Zealot Douglas Feith with the Celtic name is not dumb.......he is an accomplished lawyer, with connections to the MIC. He is a ardent Zionist Israeli firster, holding an Israeli Passport, and who penned the "Clean Break" 1996 document with other Neo-cons for Benjamin Netanyahu to be more bold in foreign policy, and then the PNAC 2000. He lived in Israel for many years.

Merely dismissing him as, "dumbest freaking human being on the planet," is a dangerously misleading disinformation, unintentional though it is. Feith knew perfectly well what he was doing FOR LIKUD ISRAEL, whilst serving in the Pentagon with Wolfowitz..........this very fact of his real agenda's led to his removal from that position in 2005, along with the rest.......as potential Israeli spys at the center of American security)

The Obama administration has finally had direct talks with Iran. As physicist Gordon Prather wrote recently, "Director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency Secretariat Mohamed ElBaradei is seeking approval by the Obama-Biden administration of an agreement which ‘could open the way for a complete normalization of relations between Iran and the international community.’"

Is it possible that the war crowd will allow that to happen? Prather notes that we’re on the verge of getting the kind of transparency on Iran’s nuclear program that Iran offered early on in the Bush administration, only to be shunned.

(2001, and 2003...everything America could have wished for Iran offered, but America at that time was not interested)

Let’s pray that Obama doesn’t make the mistake of listening to NATO or his generals or the right-wing noise machine, and does the smart thing by beginning to back out of Afghanistan, and continues toward normalizing relationships with Iran.

(There has been progression, no doubt borne by actual experience and the passage of time.....there was initial talk of invading Libya, Sudan, Somalia, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia and so forth within a few years in 2001.....Bush reiterated as much to Blair confidentially in January 2003. But this has not happened...so we must be grateful. Now Obama is in power, and hopefully significant new shifts can take place in American military planning under the new president/administration as he attempts to do the right thing domestically)

And, oh, mainstream media – especially the New York Times and the Washington Post – stop letting unnamed "officials" drop propaganda into your "news." That sort of thing gets us into wars we don’t need to fight.



Zardari Pakistan.


In Serving US Interest, This Pakistani Govt. Is In A Class Of Its Own


You must be hearing a lot these days from the apologists of expanded US influence in Pakistan that every government in the past has accepted humiliating US conditions.

(between 1950---1969 Pakistan received about $4 billion in USA aid, and at today's currency rate that could be about $25 billion; half for military and half for economic aid. Doubtless the aid was welcomed by the Pakistan military who were the main instigators of friendship with the USA from the early 1950's......because it gave them, confidence viz India with the new American arms, which the Pakistan military subsequently used against India in 1965...if you remember.

Field Marshal Ayub Khan of the Pakistan Military was one of the first and most enthusiastic initiators of friendship with the USA. However over time he became very cynical when he experienced the reality of "co-operation" with the USA...Why do you think he wrote the auto-biography, "Friends not Masters"? (1967) Clearly a man writing from first hand experience.

.....have a good look at the Pakistani military Ahmed beta, and see if you can see any American influence over them. Little details like name tags on their uniforms, which give you the clues as to who runs the Pakistani military as their regional slave soldiers.......where the senior officers are trained/indoctrinated (USA/UK)..........who runs the Taliban?........Who created the recent mess which killed 175 innocent Pakistanis in a short time, for specific agenda goals?........one surmises that it was elements within the Pakistan military acting on orders from the USA.........The Taliban has always been a proxy of the Pakistan military; their logistics is from the Pakistan military......the recent terrorist attacks generate sympathy for and around the Pakistan military as a national institution which ordinary Pakistanis can rely on, and for America, which further engages the Pakistan Taliban in an ceaseless war......that will also wear down the Pakistan military in Waziristan.

The recent terrorist attacks also deflect attention away from the failures of the present regime....and the public's focus to do something about the Taliban problem. So I think the recent spate of attacks in Pakistan were instigated by the supporters of the current regime, clearly interested in maintaining them in power, and as victims of terrorism.

The Indian army of the Raj was the great military tool which the British used around the globe to enforce the British empire. With independence and Partition that useful tool of the British Raj disappeared.......but not completely. In the case of the Pakistan military it continued to play that role, albeit in a more limited sense. The Indian military after independence was never allowed to play that role again for the British, given the strict control the Congress party exercised over the Indian military, and over all civilian control. The Pakistan military since 1947 has served as a proxy of British and later USA interests in the Middle East/Gulf region, and South Asia.

Once you "understand " the Pakistan military, you Ahmed Beta will understand Pakistan's problems much better. Its one thing for the Pakistan military to truly defend Pakistan in real situations of national threats, it is quite another for the Pakistan military to be used for the agenda's of gora powers from the other side of the world, against Pakistan's interests and the interests of Pakistan's neighbors.

Why did the Pakistan military back Jundallah against Iran. Because America told them to? Is that it? How does that fundamentally benefit Pakistan the nation; the neighbor of Iran.

Why did the Pakistan military back the Taliban against Afghanistan from 1994?

Why does the Pakistan military back insurgency groups against India.)

In fact, on Wednesday, government's PR wizards working under the direction of the PPP media team published a preposterous propaganda piece on the front page of one of the national dailies alleging that, "Jinnah also appealed for US aid."

(Doubtful......in his short time as head of Pakistan, it is unlikely he developed close relations with Americans, he was an archetypal Anglophile, pre-occupied as he was with creating Pakistan. I do know however that he did try to get his hands on the Nizam of Hyderabad's wealth, who at that time was one of the richest men in the world, with an estimated personal wealth of $2 billion or more...which at today's prices would be around $220 billion?. The Muslim League's upper echelon were not that concerned with taking the begging bowl to the USA, again because most of them were products of Mackauley's Brown Sahibs Anglophiles, however after Liaqat Ali Khan's assassination in 1951, the Pakistan military with urgings from senior British officers became more enthusiastic about courting the USA, and a source of arms which would counter balance the power of India in South Asia.)

The government media team is keen to convince Pakistanis that humiliating foreign conditions on aid are kosher because that is what previous Pakistani governments have been doing. Shamelessly, even the Quaid-e-Azam has been dragged into this government propaganda.

(There is no solid proof that foreign aid actually helps a country economically in the long run. In poor failed states foreign aid often becomes a political tool of the rich country rather than as a real economic assistance to help the whole nation.

......AND people keep telling me Pakistan is poor and in need of aid, but is it really that poor? Its GDP must be close to $500 billion, measured by PPP...of which only $300 billion PPP probably belongs to the registered official economy...and of which only $50 billion PPP is covered by the national budget. Perhaps $150---$300 billion PPP of Pakistan's wealth is abroad under capital flight as a result of the actions of the corrupt disloyal elite....Tamindars/Zamindars............the 30 Business families and the military multi-millionaires.....when you look at that overall economic scenario Pakistan is rich, and can be very rich if its own resources were put to good effective, efficient use.

It is in that sense, with the effective domestic mobilization of resources that foreign aid is both irrelevant, distorting and counter-productive, because they induce and bribe key government officers into making the wrong decisions which harm Pakistan's long term overall interests.)

While the record of previous governments is debatable, what's beyond doubt is that this is the first government in Pakistan that came through a 'deal' brokered by US and UK diplomats, whitewashing the illegal wealth of individuals who enjoy a dubious record. This has never happened before in the history of any Pakistani government.

(The regime of General Zia ul Haq which came to power with active American backing in 1977, could be described in many respects as similar to the current regime.....in fact worse, when you think of what they did overall in 11 years:

  • Primitive Islamisation of Pakistan society......which takes Pakistan backwards, rather than looking to the future progressively as a modern state.
  • The funding of Afghan mujaheddin of the worst Islamic type, instead of moderate Afghan's.
  • The creation of proxy internal SUNNI hardline Islamic groups, which wage jihad against Shia Pakistanis, Iran, and India, without proper control and supervision by the state.
  • The entry of Israeli intelligence and military personnel into Pakistan for the first time in the 1980's, who train some of the Mujaheddin, and become major players in the supply and control of the arms of ex-Soviet equipment to the Mujaheddin....Israel had stockpiles of it from the Arab/Israeli wars, and finally later become involved with supplying Pakistan parts for its nuclear program. The recruitment of Pakistani military officers to work for MOSSAD.......Busharaf being the most significant success for Israel, slowly being maneuvered into power as head of state in 1999.
  • The killing of political figures by the Pakistan military in Pakistan because it was suitable for the foreign powers.
  • The introduction of Islam into the military, and the promotion of an officers career based on his Islamic beard/tabligi credentials.....not smart.

In the overall scheme of things, spanning 11 years the Zia ul Haq military regime did more harm to Pakistan in surrendering the sovereignty of Pakistan to foreign hostile powers, MOSTLY INFORMALLY, in comparison to the current civilian criminal government of Zardari bhai, attempting to formally surrender. But at least as civilian government parliament is debating the big serious issues and the Pakistani public is getting a look-in {not under Zia, Busharaf}. The folly of the Zia ul Haq regime initially, has allowed foreign hostile powers subsequently to impose brazenly disadvantageous terms on Pakistan which will have negative effects on Pakistan's future...............the current set of demands by America merely formalizes what was set by Zia ul Haq informally before, originally in the 1970's. The Kerry/Lugar aid package is the product of 40 years of American experience with Pakistan, not yesterday, not merely by dealing with Zardari bhai only now. He has been power for little over one year)

I bet even the Americans have never seen before this kind of an 'easy' pro-US government in their decades-old record of meddling in other countries.

This alone should put to shame anyone who defends these shady characters in this government.

(The problem is not merely the civilians politicians, but that the civilian politicians are annexes, and part and parcel of the "game" of revolving doors where the military fuck it up yet again big time, or are simply removed because they have displeased their puppet masters, and the civilian politicians are brought in as time fillers, into power, until the military have recovered their confidence.

In that sense in this game of revolving doors of military/civilian, the main villain is the Pakistan military, as they are the most proactive group in Pakistani politics very often working in conjunction with hostile alien foreign powers.

It is very natural that Pakistanis must want to believe that there is something good in their society, an institution which is loyal to Pakistan.......that institution is not the Pakistan military however....it is the worst enemy of Pakistan. It is simply naive given clear historical facts to think otherwise.

Once ordinary Pakistanis have emotionally detached themselves from the Pakistani military (most Baluchis, Bengali's, Sindhi's, and a sizable portion Pashtuns already have) then the forces of true Pakistani nationalism can move forward. Expecting the Pakistani military to be arbiters and guarantors of Pakistan's sovereignty, ruling Pakistan in a judicious balanced way is BOTH naive and illogical.

The Pakistan military created the Afghan and Pakistan Taliban.....and they control these two organizations, as they did the FATA Taliban, on the advice of foreign hostile alien powers.

The Pakistan military often use the Taliban as a cover for their destabilization programs against AND WITHIN Pakistan, and civilian governments...which invariably results in the death of huge numbers of Pakistanis, both innocent civilians, and when the Pakistan military fight their own created monsters in the mountains of the NWFP, on the advice/orders of hostile alien powers.......a wholly stupid scenario.

The Pakistan military often conducts its large military operations ONLY because of pressure and "orders" from Washington, and not because they themselves believe whole heartedly that they are fighting and undertaking a just war against their own controlled and created monsters, the Pakistan Taliban, the Afghan Taliban.

Intellectual Pakistani Punjabis must drop their naive pretensions about their military........the Pakistani military is the main problem in Pakistan......the 1000 pound guerrilla in the room......a force of 800,000 backed by 300,000 paramilitary, which use's illegal force and violence within Pakistan, as de juere manual policy, declared and undeclared to carry out its objectives, very often at the behest of and guidance of hostile alien foreign entities.

Removing Zardari and his criminal clowns does not begin to address the real problems of Pakistan, but will merely be an useful start. As long as we don't think that some how removing Zardari will solve all Pakistan's problems, there after. After Zardari is removed, the military problem has to be solved. Zardari makes the military look good, but that is merely deceptive and not the reality. )

Pakistanis should rest assured of one thing. The challenge of governing Pakistan and subduing this nation in the service of a foreign agenda is a difficult task. It's above and beyond the intellectual capacity of the rulers in Islamabad today.

(The eternal struggle of many in Third World nations, not just Pakistan. Clearly the rulers of Pakistan, the Tamindars, Zamindars, the 30 business families and the military aren't doing their job...............Pakistan is failed state number 9, with a whole array of problems...socio-economic and political.

In that sense, with a holistic perspective of the reality of power in Pakistan, Pakistanis, just like millions of others around the Third World must struggle for their country, and its sovereignty, and its true development. Predatory powers such as the USA/UK will naturally attempt to undermine that, as they done so over so many decades.

The key in all this is Islamabad, the seat of power in Pakistan. One would like to see Pakistanis peacefully reoccupy Islamabad, .............{unlike the actions of the Pakistan Taliban carried out at the behest of the Pakistan military and their foreign masters to distract and defect from the real national issues and failings.....Zardari is corrupt puppet...sorry we must fight the Taliban first......America is taking over Pakistan....sorry we must fight the Taliban.....the economy is in a mess.....sory we must fight the Taliban first......etc}.....How does one get rid of an alien imposed government which displays clear criminal intent under Zardari........Zardari merely disappearing from media view will not solve the fundamental problems, but ONLY through people power, and the occupation and direct usurpation of power by the people peacefully can Pakistanis finally regain control of their country from the hostile alien powers.


As the challenge mounts, these shady characters will run away abroad in a few months' time with their fat bank accounts and will never look back. They will leave and never look back sooner or later.

(The standard pattern......Shaukat Aziz in the USA....and all the rest to MOSSAD Busharaf waiting in London to see if his been "chosen" to lead Pakistan again........Altaf Hussain in London......Zardari will also go to his $ 10 million Surrey mansion London, and maybe meet up with MOSSAD Busharaf over tea at a five star hotel. So we know from the simple fact OF where the criminals run to, which are the true hostile alien powers in internal Pakistan politics since 1947....you don't have to be Einstein. Which are the true hostile alien powers which interfere with Pakistani politics to its long term detriment, who provide safe havens for these national criminals)

While criticizing this ruling class, we need to send a note of thank you to Mr. Musharraf for 'dealing' us this hand as a parting gift to the nation.

Pakistanis should recognize this distinction about the current Pakistani government in the debate over the record of past Pakistani rulers in dealing with Washington.

(No they shouldn't..............this is the fruit of a long process that began in 1954, when Mohammed Ali Bogra with Ayub Khan signed the Treaty with the USA in 1954 for military/economic aid, with the tacit encouragement of the UK in the background.............Zaradri is merely the last and worst fruition of a long on-going process which has been primarily aided by the PAKISTAN MILITARY)

The current government, in this debate, is in a class of its own.


Brzezinski's perspectives on Afghanistan.

Brzezinski on the endless Afghan quagmire:
Interviewed by Josh Rushing of al-Jazeera.

Brzezinski with a Pakistani military officer in the early 1980's.
The architect of the policy to fund the Fundamentalist Islamic Afghan resistance groups, aka Mujaheddin via Pakistan's military from July 1979 with presidential approval, against the Communist Kabul government in Afghanistan which had just come into power in 1978, and backed by the Soviet Union, gives a short significant interview.
The primary purpose of Operation Cyclone which may seem odd on the surface (Capitalist Liberal Democratic America backing Islamic fundamentalists) was to 1) Defeat a Soviet backed Satellite state. 2) Draw the Soviet Union into a military quagmire, which consequently depletes its resources, and thus weakens the state......the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989 had a little to do with the 9 year Afghan adventure by the Soviet Union. 3) Revenge for Vietnam, whose primary military backer with advisers was the Soviet Union.

.......So the man who has focused on the area for 30 odd years, quite pertinently, as national security adviser to President Carter initially, certainly knows what he is talking about, without all the emotional attachment of working in that field now, and the attendant vested interests, or political interests. Note the language is quite sober and precise, without relying on the crutch of sensationalism, trying to appeal to emotion.......like...."We are 45 minutes away from a Iraqi WMD attack against America."........."If we don't fight them over there, we'd have to fight them over here."
What does he have to say on the matter?

at 15 seconds into interview......."We want a POL--I--TICALLY acceptable outcome.......We want a POL--I--TICALLY acceptable outcome..... something we can live with; in terms of our national interests. Its something in my judgment obtainable, in the regional context, and it is something specifically which reduces the risks posed to us by "al-Qaeda"."
(America can achieve its objectives in Afghanistan, which I must surmise includes a friendly local Afghan central government that is competent, effective governance wise, not corrupt, is security wise cohesive and can hold its own against the Taliban, backed by effective state institutions.....so that America does not have to be there for ever.
However this cannot be achieved with the present installed puppet regime of Hamid Karzai of UNICOL, with his brother in the background as the biggest drugs runner in the country, and his VP is no better. If "American occupied" South Korea with 37,000 American soldiers can have competent government why not Afghanistan? If "American occupied" Japan with 50,000 American soldiers can have competent government why not Afghanistan? If "American occupied" Germany with 70,000 American soldiers can have competent government why not Afghanistan?
.........we hope in answering such a question we don't fall back on racist, religiously biased answers to provide an explanation for our current set of problems in Afghanistan (casual racism is OK over dinner within the intimacy of friends and family, but not as a serious state policy)....It will be great for America's image if it can prove that despite being Israel's butt buddy number one, it can manage and effectively run a Muslim country with rationality, with a modicum of good intentions (doesn't have to be outright love) and fairness.

A failed state generates armed groups whether with criminal intentions or political intentions, and it is within this failed state scenario it is said that groups like "al-Qaeda" thrive, as had happened during the Afghan civil war of 1991--1996. You can have failed states under foreign military occupation as with the case of Iraq, Afghanistan, Cambodia and South Vietnam.............or China under Japanese occupation. The condition of a occupied state depends primarily on the intentions and activities of the superior occupation force with military power......and not on the puppets they install.)

Josh Rushing: "Do you think a full blown counter-insurgency effort could actually work? Would you see Western style democracy version in Afghanistan..........."

Brzezinski: starts laughing........"Well excuse me for laughing but the combination of the two I just find bizarre; and its so ahistorical (goes against historical experience and facts).....a foreign occupation tends to mobilize opposition (from the locals), and the more intense and large scale it is, the larger the (local) opposition becomes...........therefore when we talk about counter-insurgency we have to feed into the equation, how will the people in that country react at some point.........if we become the principle mechanism for the counter-insurgency. In other words if Afghans are fighting the Taliban, counter-insurgency can succeed. If we are fighting the Taliban (as has been the case for the last 8 years) the chances are if we give 40,000 more troops for counter-insurgency against the existing levels of the Taliban, and a year from now we may be fighting Taliban levels which are 25% higher. Then we have to send more troops in...etc etc"
I disagree with Brzezinski on the issue of democracy. For me it is a universal gift which ALL societies can benefit from and learn to accept to different degrees depending on their level of economic development and education level.

But he is right on the military issue.......in October 2001, America succeeded in Afghanistan against 40,000---50,000 Taliban and Arab Afghanis ("al-Qaeda") with some special forces, and the Northern Alliance......after the victory it was augmented to 9,000 troops by December 2001..........and now swollen to 70,000 (Obama has already promised 21,000 more after initially coming to office......in my opinion a hasty decision). The Americans are backed by 35,000 NATO....so 100,000 occupation forces + 200,000 Afghan government military, and paramilitary forces + 50,000 tribal militia loyal to the warlords on the government side ..............VERSES about 10,000 Taliban regular fighters. If there is STILL a problem now after 8 years of occupation in Afghanistan, then it is political problem of mismanagement in Afghanistan and Pakistan, AND not a military problem.
Once it is identified as a political problem and possibly even a socio-economic problem then the correct solutions using the relevant experts can be applied.
Obama has a duty to look at the Afghan problem through a different lens, and apply solutions which are markedly different than those of his predecessor, both for ideological reasons and for practical reasons. In all events he must not be painted into a corner prematurely with certain actions and decisions which tie his hands policy wise, and reduce his ability to maneuver in this critical area.......more troops, more casualties, more costs, more media uproar and criticism to do something usually more drastic, in the future.
He can wait.....and according to Senator John Kerry no major policy decisions should be made whilst the Afghan elections are on-going.

Josh Rushing: "Could a further build-up (of troops) in Afghanistan lead to this being Obama's Vietnam?"

Brzezinski: "Well...If you pursue wrong policies (from the Bush era), you can call it Obama's Vietnam or you can call it anything else, or it might be quite new, but it will still be pretty bad.......When we went into Afghanistan eight years ago to over throw the Taliban, after 9/11, we did it largely with some airforce; 300 special forces, and Afghans who were enthusiastically on our side, because they viewed us as the people who helped them against the Soviets.......we overthrew the Taliban quickly, and now eight years later we have 60,000 American troops, and our military commanders are telling us that we are not winning....what does that tell you?
"Where is the resistance? Obviously from the Taliban, but Afghans who increasing identify themselves with something which they were pleased to see overthrown eight years ago; that is a bad trend"
Some what paradoxical that the very strategy Brzezinski had devised against the Soviets in Afghanistan, in order to weaken the Soviet Union, and revenge Vietnam.....is being foolishly pursued textbook style by the Pentagon...along the same failed path.

Clearly Karzai, his team of international drug smugglers, his Pentagon handlers with the other foreign advisers aren't doing their job adequately. We often focus on the failure of Afghanistan on the Afghans themselves......oh these people are primitive, from the stone age you know....blah blah...blah ...which supposedly explains why Afghanistan is a failed state number 7 from the bottom...but what if 90% of the reason for this failure after 8 years of occupation was primarily because of the occupation forces themselves?
In all events Karzai needs to be got rid of, and new Afghan players brought in, who are more effective, AND who are given more responsibility. I don't think power sharing with the Taliban is the correct solution, that will be a sign of failure, and if enough Afghan are still disgruntled with the occupation they will fight, regardless of the orders of Mullah Omer.....realistically can't see him sitting in the Afghan cabinet under a coalition/national unity government anyway.


Josh Rushing: "Does it look to you like a similar trend the Soviet Union followed in Afghanistan?"

Brzezinski: "Oh, I've been saying that for the last three years. I've been saying that the Soviets went into Afghanistan on the erroneous assumption that using Communists; Afghan Communists from the big cities; they could create a Communist society in Afghanistan....and they discovered within a year that they were viewed as universal enemies. Well we are to some extent the same based on whether we view as Western Afghans, democratic Afghans, or even imposing elections on them for which they are not prepared....and eight years after our involvement we are beginning to discover that its rough going, so I think it is high time we draw some lessons from it. And those lessons should not involve the mechanical transfer to Afghanistan our own experience, or our own values, our own political system. I am baffled why we preceded with these elections.....based on the American model of polling stations, candidates, debates.....and now perhaps even a run off election....why not a Jirga which is a traditional way Afghans elect their leaders......why impose this mechanism?"
(America primarily did not go into Afghanistan with the intention of nation building.

Is there a comprehensive policy paper from the State Department which in minute detail states how Afghan society will be transformed into a modern function democracy?

.....no I don't think so.....what America is doing is going through the motions of democracy window dressing, BUT is not investing realistically and earnestly, where it matters, which would indicate to us that they are serious about creating a truly democratic society in Afghanistan............To this end 95% of American expenditure in Afghanistan is spent on the military....and war...and "counter-insurgency".......and the result of this American expenditure is quite obvious for all to see........and the Afghans living in the country know this to be the fact.......The Americans aren't spending on infrastructure, roads, bridges, canals, public buildings, schools, hospitals, factories, dams, power stations, warehouses........etc etc......The greatest and best contributions to Afghan infrastructure is being carried out by India and Iran.....NOT the USA.
However this bit of Bush II legacy does not have to continue. All Obama has to do is create a realistic and comprehensive marshal plan for Afghanistan, which is fully monitored and followed through.....SPENDING CONSTRUCTIVELY ON THE AFGHAN PEOPLE, which Americans can be proud off.......long after they have left the country.
To do that you don't need more military, but more investments into the Afghan people. You don't need 100,000 occupation forces and the defense expenditure of $65 billion....or is it actually $80 billion annually......or is the actual annual military expenditure on Afghanistan ....$100 billion.....fighting ...what?.............10,000 tribesmen armed with AK-47.
This is a sham and yet another Pentagon scam...and hopefully Obama can turn this around with his set of new policies viz Afghanistan.


For America, or for Likud Israel?

Long Wars and Peace Prizes
by Jeff Huber, October 13, 2009 at Antiwar.com

Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who has become the point man for the long-war mafia, delivered his ultimatum to President Barack Obama on Friday, Oct. 9. As has been his practice over the past several weeks, McChrystal proxy-leaked details of his demands through the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, and other sources. The Journal says one of McChrystal’s proposed options calls for 60,000 additional troops, and "several officials" say the "maximum variant" is even larger.
(This won't solve the Taliban problem, unless you are seriously talking about invading Pakistan proper, and dealing with them in Baluchistan, and the NWFP, which the Pakistan army will never do themselves, and can never do, and nor will they countenance American intervention......otherwise, therefore the Taliban "problem" will always linger........AND if you are thinking about invading Pakistan then you will require a heck of a lot more troops than a mere 60,000 more, unless after this escalation is granted you subsequently shout for more troops and more..............if later the American recession begins then your options for troop escalation and sustaining them will be limited anyway)
How odd it will seem to future historians that the world’s sole superpower seriously considered escalating a war in a country that is not a threat to anyone. The most insane tenet of McChrystal’s proposals is to train up 400,000 Afghan security forces. 400,000 armed and trained Afghans is the last thing we want. Five years from now we’ll have to deploy 60,000 troops to defend Iran from Afghanistan. Won’t that be a kick in the cup?
(Afghanistan given its level of governance, management, corruption, economic size and national resources can at best sustain a 100,000 military, and an additional 100,000 police and paramilitary; total 200,000; the projected 400,000 is way too unrealistic, and unsustainable.....creating more problems rather than actually solving anything in Afghanistan. Investing huge amounts of money on security when the money could be better spent on the Afghan people, and nation through infrastructure projects, education, health care, agricultural subsidies.....which permanently ingratiates them to America)

A "senior military official" says McChrystal is concerned that some of Obama’s advisers are telling him the Taliban are not a threat to the United States. That would be tantamount to Obama’s advisers telling him the sun doesn’t rise in the West. The Taliban want us to leave their country, that’s all. They may or may not get back control of Afghanistan if we leave it, but why should we care? Afghans have been controlling their own affairs for thousands of years, and not once have they invaded Poland or France.
(The Taliban created by America in 1994, through the Pakistan military, and initially funded by certain Gulf countries was never a threat to the USA....It is a regional insurgency outfit controlled by the Pakistan military to achieve strategic depth viz India in Afghanistan, and envisaged as a force for stability, after the civil war which ensued when the Soviets departed Afghanistan.....The Taliban does not have any globalist pretensions and ambitions, factually stretched embellishments from Neocons aside.
The Taliban realistically numbers about 10,000 armed with AK-47, operating for the last 15 years in Afghanistan, Baluchistan and the NWFP, areas where significant numbers of ethnic Pashtun dominate. So although an Islamic fundamentalist movement its true root/base is as an ethnic vehicle for the Pashtun community based in Afghanistan and Pakistan.........beyond this limited ethnic theater it has no further ambitions.)

The Times quotes the senior military official (he insisted on anonymity because he’s a sanctioned leaker) as saying, "The real question is, do you want the Taliban to be in power in Afghanistan? If you don’t, then they have to be addressed through a counterinsurgency campaign."
(The Taliban don't have to be in power in Kabul....the Taliban is an ethnic Pashtun political/military vehicle controlled by the Pakistan military, which represents 40% of Afghans.......or to put it another way 60% of Afghan's are not Pashtun. The Northern Alliance is a credible center of power which is not Taliban, and there must be other centers of power within Afghan civil society which is not Taliban.
Obviously when you promote murderers, criminals, drug trafficking warlords into the mainstream power structure of Afghanistan under foreign occupation, and project these very same people to ordinary Afghan's as sanctioned allies of American OVERTLY, and when ordinary Afghan's can patently observe and see them for what they really are, pure unadulterated criminals, there will obviously be a certain level of disenchantment which will set in, and a misguided yearning for sections of Afghan society out of sheer desperation to want to wish the old Taliban back into power in Afghanistan....................BUT this does not have to happen, when America leaves eventually....as they surely must.
America should not waste its time fighting the Taliban, a thankless theoretically endless task given that there are 36 million Pashtun's in Af/Pak (6/7 million Pashtun men of military age?), but rather concentrate politically in grooming alternative credible leaders within Afghanistan who are effective, competent, have a mass support base, and finally who are organized militarily, and can seriously challenge the Taliban......The Northern Alliance shorn of its colorful characters; Dr. Abdullah Abdullah, RAWA and many other groups....America enables "good" moderate Afghans to both run their own country, and withstand the onslaught of the Pakistan military controlled Taliban.
This does not mean ignoring the ethnically dominant Pashtuns, but finding moderate characters within their community who will work with a new government.
Finally it must mean ditching Karzai and the sham election circus for a better set of political leaders in Afghanistan. There sheer corruption, ineptitude fuels decisively a significant portion of the insurgency, which is then managed by the Pakistani military)

Poppycock. There are ways to address the Taliban other than through the kind of nation-birthing counterinsurgency campaign that McChrystal and his allies – who include Gen. David Petraeus and Adm. Mike Mullen – are trying to cram up our nose pores. Our counterinsurgency doctrine is a crock of beans. In the case of Afghanistan, it purports that we can transport a culture from the Middle Age to the 21st century by flooding it with teenagers armed with M-16s, Oakley sunglasses, and inferior body armor.
(It will create a greater mess)

If the Taliban take back power in Afghanistan, so what? Hamid Karzai, the guy in power whom we’re backing now, is a knock-knock joke (Who’s there? Nobody). We’d have been far better off after 9/11 to tell one-eyed, illiterate Taliban leader Mohammed Omar to cough up Osama bin Laden in return for a shiny new Cadillac. At the cost of many millions of Cadillacs later, we’re no further along in Afghanistan than we were from the outset.
( Mullah Omer head of the Taliban requested evidence of Osama's culpability in 9/11 before they considered handing him over to be tried in a court of law, from the American government........which was not forth coming, and hasn't been produced since; The FBI don't have him as a suspect on their website of the 9/11 culprits......so the refusal to hand him over to America was taken as a no, and America attacked Taliban Afghanistan in October 2001)

Obama’s National Security Adviser James Jones says al-Qaeda now has fewer than 100 fighters, and even McChrystal admits they aren’t in Afghanistan. Someone needs to explain why we should escalate a foreign war to counter a threat that is insignificant.

Pouring more troops into Afghanistan would be a travesty. We need to go back to a global security posture that looks like the one we had before we got into the business of nation-birthing, one in which we strike surgically with naval, air, and special operations forces, and step away. Invading and occupying countries as a national pastime is a grand strategy for fools.

Fred Kagan, the darling of the military-industrial-congressional complex, was a key contributor to McChrystal’s Afghanistan analysis. Neocon Kagan is a professional warmonger who never saw a war he didn’t like or couldn’t justify. (Defense contracts for all my friends!)
(Ah the Jewish neo-cons......what would we do without them?)

The Pentagon’s blatant media assault on President Obama continues. It began around Sept. 18 when a McClatchy article noted that the military is growing "impatient" with Obama on Afghanistan and cited unnamed "officers at the Pentagon in Kabul" as saying McChrystal will resign if he doesn’t get what he wants. The leak of his analysis to Bob Woodward came on Sept. 21, in a story that warned "More Forces or Mission Failure." McChrystal’s 60 Minutes infomercial on Sept. 27 was a Douglas MacArthur-like act of blatant insubordination. McChrystal followed that with a speech in London to a warfare-centric think-tank in which he repeated his position: if Obama doesn’t give me what I want, it will be his fault when we lose.

Among the latest assaults is an Oct. 11 article from right-wing media maven Rupert Murdoch’s Times of London that heralds "Barack Obama ready to pay fighters to ditch the Taliban." Times doesn’t mention that bribing insurgents is precisely how "King David" Petraeus created the illusion of success in the Iraq surge. The article notes that "Despite five war councils in two weeks, President Barack Obama has so far failed to come up with a strategy for the conflict." The Pentagon has had eight years to come up with a strategy for Afghanistan and failed to come up with anything better than its long-war mantra, a policy that says we can’t win, we just want to keep fighting. Now, the lack of a coherent strategy is somehow the fault of Obama, who has been commander in chief for less than a year.
(Paying money to Taliban members to stop fighting occupation forces is a loser .....how do you determine which of the 6/7 million Pashtuns of fighting age in Af/Pak is a member of the Taliban?....whats to stop all of them coming forward to volunteer not to fight again as Taliban.........in a region with very low incomes this might work out as a good scam for many impoverished Pashtuns......but, how do you guarantee that once money is taken as a bribe they won't fight again, whats to stop them reneging on their promise....speaking of financial scams this is exactly the sort of thing which allows sticky fingered Pentagon/military officials to make some war profits on the side.........."Monday 2,000 Taliban came forward........we gives them $1,000 each......so total $4 million.......yea yea write that down on the receipt book..........there's Abdul, and Abdul, and Abdul, and Abdul, and his brother Abdul, and his cousin Abdul, and his nephew Abdul, and his friend Mohammed, and .........Tuesday $5 million....Wednesday $10 million big ones...........Woowoa, Mr. President keep it coming, we're winning ."
If we recall a few trillion $ are unaccounted for in the Pentagon ledger, as stated in 10th September 2001 by Donald Rumsfeld. "al-Qaeda" helpfully killed ALL the accountants in the one room, out of thousands in the Pentagon, looking for those Pentagon zillions, unfortunately the next day on 9/11.
Seriously.........lets fund Afghan's who are really honest, effective and not corrupt to run their own country instead......lets give these types the money.....they are not difficult to find, because most Afghan's belong to this category.......lets get rid of Karzai finally....then put the squeeze on the Pakistan military to stop funding the Taliban.)
Obama made an enormous mistake when he called the Afghanistan conflict a "war of necessity." We need to fight in Afghanistan like fish need running shoes. Afghanistan is a discombobulated society that couldn’t work itself out of a paper bag. Al-Qaeda consists of fewer than 100 fighters, and the Taliban, which our intelligence describes as a "franchise operation," has no interest in or capability of invading the United States.

Let’s hope our Nobel winner finds the courage to stand up to the media blitz he’s facing.


Pessimism will get America and the Democrats nowhere.

An insightful, some what frustrated, pessimistic, impatient article by Professor Dave Green, outta Noo Yawk.
He is of course quite right that Obama is in danger of being the night watchman, during whose reign the Second Great Depression is ushered in, and thus his administration becomes a motionless dud presidency "fixed"policy wise by economic decline, and he leaves office with an unnoticeable legislative whimper; a one term wonder, all smiles or maybe not later, filled with cross-party compromise/surrender; the uniqueness/novelty of being a black presidency, with a Nobel Peace prize; with on-going wars and not much else. Then a rabid mother of all right wing government comes into power in 2012, under Chilling moose Sarah Palin..........and civilization as we know it ends.......Jesus does a second coming ......read the book.........seen the play.......and the movie.
But realistically he has only been in power for just over 8 months, so lets give him a few more months to up his game for America and the world, which presumably the Nobel Peace Prize was trying to nudge him to do for the international community.
In understanding American politics, or Western politics generally, one must grasp Israeli politics first, which has shifted markedly to the extreme right lead by the Likud Party. Jewish intellectual thinking especially in Western countries lead by this particular tribal urge from Israel, and the Likud Party, with its fronts and Think Tanks in the West, have made an aggressive assault on the fundamental political thinking of Western societies through various ideological vehicles such as Monetarism, Reagan economics, Neocons........and so forth, dominated all by Jewish intellectuals.
You can have good governments both from the center-left and the center-right, it does not matter, as long as the leaders of such parties surrounded by good team players have the right mix of policies which are implemented judiciously, through the national legislature, purely with the interests of the country in which they serve in mind.

The problem starts when you have pseudo-Fascists junta's installed at Israel's/Likud's behest in sophisticated Western societies; then what you have is the inevitable disconnect.......the peculiar bizzare BS from the figurehead Israeli card board cut out fronts trying to fit the Israeli centric policies into the domestic square pegs..........Bush II America; Silvio Berlesconi Italy; José Maria Aznar/ Spain; Sarkozy/France. In many respects NOT REAL political leaders of sophisticated Western countries, but circus clowns with the ensuing theatrics.
But why is Israel Fascist/Nazi orientated, aren't they supposed to be kosher Jews given sanctuary on Palestinian land to appease "Western guilt"?
The reason is simple. In many societies it is the extremist/zealot who is more vociferous and assertive, and consequently it is their agenda which dominates the political plain. In the case of Israel perhaps only 30% of Israelis are true Likudniks, but their aggressive political campaigning means that invariably it is their agenda which usually dominates the political discourse in Israel. It is more than likely that the majority of Israelis want PEACE and ENGAGEMENT with the Palestinians (70%). Israelis like all humans are normal people who enjoy going to beaches for a party, or at home enjoying the intimate company of friends and family, over dinner, the simple basic pleasures of life.
HOWEVER, the Likud minority do not wish this. They dream of Eretz Israel; an Israel which is ethnically/racially jackboot pure; an Israel which is a superpower, surrounded by dismembered Arab states, which fear Israel and bow to it. Whilst the Israeli military reminds them continually who is master in the region, frequently,viciously with impunity. These Likudnik "FANTASY DREAMS" cannot be achieved through traditional "Kibbutzim Socialism", and so Israel's fundamental ideological base must be redefined, markedly to the right....far xenophobic rabid right....which then absolves you of genocide, mass murder, colonialism, continued illegal wars.......at least to yourself, and your conscience. After that all you do is go to your local Synagogue and the Rabbi blesses you...and its ALL back to normal.
This long process started during the 1970's in Israel, and the UK and USA in the 1980's, consequentially linked a little later. Sir Keith Joseph the ideological mentor of Thatcher in Britain in the Conservative party, and in America numerous Jewish intellectuals, such as Milton Friedman, under the Ronald Reagan administration,starting preaching from the early eighties. The Neocons changed their political colors from a Jewish Trotskyite group based in America into a hardline Israeli Likud linked front more recently.

In addition Israel is a tiny country of little over 5 million Jews, and there is only so much it can do, surviving on American largess, and significant donations from global Jewry. For it to realize its Likudnik "DREAMS and FANTASY" of empire, it has to exert control over, domination and direction of key Western nations acting as its proxies.........USA/UK being foremost......France, Germany, Spain, Holland and so forth.....this means dominating the political/ideological debate in those countries so that they do the bidding of Likud Israel.
This is significantly assisted by the fake narrative of "al-Qaeda" and the open ended GWOT,which is purely a Israeli manufactured fake war.........and a civilisational conflict with Islam......."Israel's enemies are the Wests enemies"........which is of course not the reality; The rulers and elites of the 57 Muslim majority countries are allies and usually always puppets of the West, and not life threatening enemies........Libya and Iran are installed puppet regimes which have been in power unmolested mostly for 40/30 years respectfully...allowed to exist as boogie boogie scarecrow regimes.

Finally the Zionist media in the West, with channels such as "FUCK THE NEWS", Washington Post, NY Times, CBS, ABC and CNN setting the debate and agenda of Israel...........Israel would like to buy the British run Al-Jazeera, just to make sure its message is also beamed to the docile Arab people.
In such a scenario Professor David Green........evolving over 30 years by Jews with power, patronage, money, criminal intent, greed, the male ego.....militarism..........thoughts of "survival through expansion" ....for Israel to "survive" it must wage perpetual war...........Obama surrounded by Jews from Israel or otherwise (Axelrod/Immanuel)....has his work cut out facing and opposing the extremist right-wing "surge" from Israel which has been on-going for well over 30 years, AND in addition the strength of the Israeli lobby which follows Israel's dictates, AND finally and decisively the Zionist media in America.
You need to be a unique individual, and an unique administration to go against such a trend, and thus:

  • EITHER, Obama's administration is a card board cut out non-government for 4 years..."Oh look everybody he is black, with a Muslim name as President of America".......Global audience.."Aaaaaawwwwwwww....shucks.....how marvelous............AND, AND , AND", a time filler administration which becomes the fall guy for the next American depression starting in 2010 (a general recession is not inevitable in the USA).........gracefully/obediently ushering in a rabid right-wing government after him in 2012.
  • OR, Obama institutes comprehensive policies in both the domestic and foreign policy arena which serves/saves America exclusively, against the dictates of Likud Israel from the background, and which allow's him to serve a second term.

It goes without saying that courage and imagination is required to achieve the second option.


"Barry In The Bush With Smiles"

By David Michael Green. October 09, 2009 "Information Clearing House"

-- It takes a real artist to render a crushing majority into a hapless political object.

(After being nominated as the Democrat presidential candidate in 2008, presumably the entire party has accepted him as unquestioned dear leader, and that he has attempted to reinforce this with employment for Hilary in key policy posts....amongst others....so he has no worries about his party supporting his policy agenda's as their dear leader. So why this need to reach out to Republicans?.......Is this a style thang?....Is it bearing fruit? )

And Barack Obama is a real artist.

He’s had quite an impressive week. At least for an anvil.

Here’s one New York Times headline, regarding the Olympics debacle: “Chicago Is Rejected in First Round of Voting”. Impressive.

(Not a big deal, unless you are a real Obama hater, out to nitpick.....High time South America was given a chance to stage the Olympics........and the corrupt prone Olympic Committee decided as much. NOT a snub against Obama....just cus an American President makes a presentation/pitch to the IOC that should not automatically entitle America hosting the Olympics)

Here’s another: “Jobless Report Is Worse Than Expected; Rate Rises to 9.8%”. Can you say “Bye-bye, Barack”?

(Cut him some slack dude..........he has been in power for little over 8 months. It would be more accurate to say that the current dismal employment figures are the result of the mismanagement and criminality of Bush II, over 8 years)

Ah, but he was actually just warming up. David Paterson, the governor of New York, bitch-slapped the president for being stupid enough to lean on Paterson to get out of the 2010 race. Paterson is a disaster as governor, and Obama is worried that he’ll drag down the Democratic ticket, lowering the president’s majorities in Congress.

(Exercising his power and authority within his party....and signaling to others in the party that such behavior/standards will not be tolerated)

The first problem with that calculus is that there are fifty states in the union, notwithstanding the natural arrogance of New Yorkers who tend to think they own the planet. The Democratic Party’s problems are far bigger than New York. They begin on one end of Pennsylvania Avenue, and end on the other. As usual, most voters will be using the mid-term elections as a gut-check on their feelings about the current government. If the inept, cowardly and inert Mr. Obama needs someone to resign in order to save the party, that dude in the mirror with the big ol’ grin would be the most efficacious choice. Charlie Cook is now giving the Democrats only a fifty-fifty chance of retaining their majority in the House, which is now a whopping 79 seats. Man, you have to really work at it to blow something that badly in nine months time.

(Rather harsh......lets see what Obama does in the key domestic and foreign policy issues over the next few months, BEFORE the mid-term elections in 2010.......ONLY by then if he loses badly, and he hasn't made any fundamental policy changes which are clearly distinct from the BUSH II junta (where we know he could have made a difference, and had the capacity to do so, but deliberately stalled) can we begin to call him a dud presidency.......just another Jew front........blah blah blah.......a night watchman......before the Jew institutes a real fascist state in America in 2012 for Israel, under a loony right wing fruit cake.)

The second problem with asking Paterson to step out of the race to save Democratic majorities in Congress is that Obama has them already, in lopsided amounts, and he’s not doing a damn thing with them. Instead of kicking some butt to line his own caucuses up and forcing them to pass some real serious legislation that the president demands (see Bush, George W, for illustration. Also, Reagan, Ronald W.; Johnson, Lyndon B.; and Roosevelt, Franklin R.), this fool is doing deals with Republicans who are trying to destroy him, and the very predatory industries that are precisely the problem with American healthcare. I guess he must think that the GOP is just kidding. You know, like they were with Clinton. In any case, why worry about maintaining your majority if you have no intention of ever actually using it?

(In total agreement prof............could be to do with his age, inexperience...his feeling his way around in his new job, his racial background, dare I say it too dazed and grateful for being in the Whitehouse as a black guy. He really needs to implement his programs quickly, soon is not soon enough.......reverse the tax cuts to the rich; health care reform; Education reform and investment; Reform of the financial market; reform of the Byzantine American local and federal tax system; Immigration reform; pull troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan; get a grip on the REAL security budget of America, and cut it; Reform fundamentally the open free trade system of America....do you have something crap and third rate to sell? Then why not sell it to America?; Provides incentives for industry; reform the American media which is now effectively controlled by a few highly biased oligarchies linked to Jews; roll back the security police state instituted under Bush II....)

And the last reason that Obama is idiotic for meddling in state and local politics is because he was sent to Washington to save the country from the sixteen or so serious crises his predecessor bequeathed him, and about all he has going for him is the good will of the public who gave him the job. Spending your time dicking around with who should be the Democratic Party’s nominee for municipal dog-catcher is not exactly what people had in mind when they gave him this mandate. By going to Europe to beg for the Olympics, or by immersing himself in local politics, this chump is spending his political capital at a furious pace. It wouldn’t even be worth the effort if he was getting what he was asking for. But of course it’s far worse that both Paterson and the IOC slammed the door in his face, as publicly and as emphatically as imaginable. If Obama taped a “kick me” sign to his back, he could hardly signal any better his ineptitude and his willingness to get rolled at every conceivable opportunity.

(inexperience and his team?)

There’s more, of course. Another headline reports that “Panel Finishes Work on Health Bill Amendments”. The public option, already a weak sister to any real reform of the predatory wealth extraction system masquerading as national healthcare, was of course voted down by the Senate Finance Committee referred to in the title. Obama has yet to seriously weigh in on any preferences he might have. Apparently he is going to wait until the end of the legislation process. Assuming that he actually has any preferences – and I don’t, unless you count carrying water for corporate power and Wall Street – how astonishingly stupid is that as a strategy? After all the grief and months of effort Congress has gone through to maybe produce a bill, is it conceivable that they’d want to entertain some major new change at the last minute?

Then there’s Afghanistan, where the president has his own general running around painting him into a policy corner with only one option. Any military guy who tried that under Bush got summarily cashiered, even though they were actually telling the truth. You know, like maybe 160,000 GIs weren’t gonna be sufficient to occupy a country of 25 million pissed-off Iraqis. Say that and your career was over, Shinseki-style.

(Yes he needs to be more assertive with the military, and not be overawed by them. Either he cuts the military ops in Afghanistan and Iraq, which gives him loose change to finance his domestic programs....which avoids a recession.....which gives him a chance to be reelected in 2012, and not do badly in 2010......OR.....he substantively or wholly continues with BUSH II policies with marginal teflon tinkering on the periphery...with outlandish public debates dominated by "FUCK THE NEWS".....to give the impression he is actually doing something, when he actually is NOT)

Is anyone else sensing a pattern here?

(The "pattern' will be more patently obvious after the mid-term election results in 2010, and legislatively what he has actually achieved by then)

Obama would make a great nineteenth century president. You know, all those guys with names you can never remember, because they pretty much didn’t really do anything? Back in those days, Congress was king, and presidents – except during wartime – were essentially glorified clerks, executing the Congressional will, as per their Constitutional duty. That’s certainly one way to do it. It’s just that it pretty much isn’t what people have come to want and expect for the last century or so. And it sure as hell isn’t what Obama promised in the election.

(he would look out of place as a "nigger".........Seriously prof. the "decline" in the American constitutional set-up...over 100 years...distinctly beginning with Crypto-Jew Teddy Roosevelt embarking on the American quest for empire from 1898, and the subsequent inevitable road to imperial presidencies can't be blamed on Obama surely. Obama can chip away against that in his little way by disengaging from Afghanistan and Iraq, which he has the authority and choice to do)

But he has really specialized in being an acted-upon object, rather than a political protagonist, despite possessing the most powerful position in the world, commanding majorities in Congress, an initially adoring public wishing him tons of good will, and all manner of crises to warrant if not demand bold action. In his reticence he is not only carrying forward a fine Democratic Party tradition of recent decades, but in fact refining it into an art form. The pattern works like this: Republicans charge like bulls through china shops and grab the mantle of power, proceeding then to ram their program through, no matter the casualties. When they reach levels of greed, corruption and failure so excessive that even comatose Americans can no longer stand it, some effete Democratic stooge named Carter or Clinton or Obama is called in to hold down the fort long enough for the regressives to regroup and start the cycle again. But Obama in action – better rendered as ‘Obama’s inaction’ – makes Clinton look like a litter full of Mike Tysons crammed into an overheated pressure chamber by comparison.

(Beautiful......Democrats Presidents are angels hey? Carter.......Toppled the Shah of Iran 1979, and what the human cost for Iran has been since; began funding Islamic fundies in Afghanistan via Pakistan from July 1979; Toppled the democratically elected Bhutto regime in Pakistan 1977; sanctioned mass slaughter in South Korea in 1980, under/through military rule; South America I'm sure he did some nasty unsavory things there too..........Clinton.....Iraq/sanctions 500,000 children dead; Kosovo.......)

It’s astonishing how Democrats can never seem to block anything the hard-right wants to do, even when they have majorities, while the GOP kills everything the Democrats supposedly want, even with minuscule minorities in Congress. Gee, one could almost get the impression that Democrats don’t really want anything much different from Republicans, but just have to adopt a different alt-persona to hide their intentions from the public. Republicans use guns, god, gays and Gaddafi as distractions from corporate looting. Democrats strap on their cardigan sweaters and try really, really hard to do something, but gosh-darned it, just never seem to get anywhere.

(Reduced to its basic terms the two American parties are run by Jews which are used to ridicule and fool gentile Americans into thinking that they have a real choice, and a measure of say in the running of their country........which is not the case. In that sense the right/left political paradigm over which the professor is fuming about is non existent/fake/pied piper bullshit......is illusion....the only political paradigm which matters in America is the Jewish one, and the needs of Israel....when that reality hits gentile Americans, there will be revolution, and hence the instituting of the American security police state under Bush.......which Obama has not touched, or talked about rolling back/addressing....not one Congress sub-committee has touched that very important area....simple question you know, do Americans want to live in a Jew run security police state or not?)

As for our friend Mr. Obama, he seems busy unlearning every lesson of the last three decades. He doesn’t appear worried that the right will challenge his legitimacy as president ‘cause, of course, they never did that to Carter or Clinton. He doesn’t seem worried that they’ll happily destroy the country if necessary in order to wreck his presidency because, of course, there’s little precedent for that. He doesn’t much care to use the bully pulpit and strong-arm Congress to get what he wants because, of course, that never got Reagan or Bush anywhere.

(Jews operating in the Republican and Democratic party, in Wall Street, in the media could wreck the USA if they are allowed to..........They almost destroyed the $ in August/September 2008 before the emergency team in the BUSH II administration stepped in..........not many Americans are aware of this episode.The Democrats also play a vital enabler role to so called Republican bad guys.....its a elaborate Jew run double act/vaudeville )

I can’t believe I’d ever say this, but the question Obama should be asking right about now, is “What would Bush do?”

I’ll tell ya what. He’d jam his legislation down the throats of the other party, putting the fear of god in them if they dared to oppose the emperor. He’s rip people’s lungs out and stuff them back through their eye sockets if they looked at him cross-eyed. He’d lie to members of his own party and carpet bomb their entire home neighborhoods if they dared vote against him. If any media talking head didn’t tell the lies they were programmed to speak, he’d kidnap their kids and send them to Gitmo, treating them a good waterboarding for every one of their birthdays. And, he’d call in Rove to stomp some people good, the nice Republican way.

(Surely professor you are not seriously suggesting that the Barack Obama administration adopt the style and fashion of the criminally inept administration of Bush II;Katrina and all that; one of the worst in American history...........Having pure political convictions which have evolved over years of meditation and self learning, AND the requisite personal zeal to implement them onto the nation is one thing; working through the correct legal channels, and constitutional channels....HOWEVER using FALSE FLAG OPS IN AMERICA, and Mafia style MO in all areas to institute ones fundamental political objectives in the service of Likud Israel must be deemed ultimately as political "failure" and a moral "failure")

What would that look like? Here’s journalist Ron Suskind relating an inside taste of what he observed while waiting outside the Ol’ Karl’s office for an interview, back when he was running the White House political operation: “Rove was talking to an aide about some political stratagem in some state that had gone awry and a political operative who had displeased him. I paid it no mind and reviewed a jotted list of questions I hoped to ask. But after a moment, it was like ignoring a tornado flinging parked cars. ‘We will fuck him. Do you hear me? We will fuck him. We will ruin him. Like no one has ever fucked him!’ As a reporter, you get around—curse words, anger, passionate intensity are not notable events—but the ferocity, the bellicosity, the violent imputations were, well, shocking. This went on without a break for a minute or two. Then the aide slipped out looking a bit ashen, and Rove, his face ruddy from the exertions of the past few moments, looked at me and smiled a gentle, Clarence-the-Angel smile. ‘Come on in.’ And I did. And we had the most amiable chat for a half hour.”

(Yes I think American popular culture has glorified the MAFIA somewhat. When you are running a vast sophisticated 21st century modern country, working through the accepted channels is the best and only option...........if the actions of the Bush administration is exposed as criminal, then Rove would be termed a failure, and not an object lesson on how to get things done.)

Why won’t Obama do this? Why won’t he unleash all the powers at his disposal, knock heads together, and smash political opponents to smithereens in order to get his way? Two reasons. First, he wasn’t a complete personal screw-up for the last half century, acknowledged even by his own parents to be a total embarrassment. He therefore doesn’t have the burning need to show the world they’ve been wrong about him his whole life, like a certain other fellow recently seen roaming the halls of the West Wing.

The other reason is that Obama doesn’t actually appear to be doing anything that requires any particular toughness. He’s not trying to sell a bullshit war or dismantle Social Security, like Bush. He’s not trying to end legal and institutional racism in a country where it was as pervasive as bibles in ‘Bama, like Lyndon Johnson did. He’s not attempting to bring the country kicking and screaming into the twentieth century, even after it was already one-third over, like FDR was.

In fact, he doesn’t really appear to be doing much of anything, including producing the much-vaunted ‘change’ we heard endlessly about during last year’s campaign. Unless, of course, you count the nice demeanor with which he continues the predatory policies of Reagan, Clinton, and the Bushes. This is essentially George W. Bush’s third term. It’s Barry in the Bush with Smiles.

Obama more or less just seems to want to hang for a while, passively swaying in whatever winds happen to be blowing through at the moment. That might have worked in the 1950s, or even the 1970s, but not today. The brownshirts of the American right have been playing for keeps for some time now. And, while it’s true that they can be their own worst enemy in normal times, these are hardly normal times. Failing to address the real economic pain people are feeling, failing to provide remotely meaningful healthcare reform, failing to clean-up the corporate predators slamming the public with bad mortgages, sky-high credit card interest rates and bailouts of the already rich – all of these are an invitation for some change Obama can believe in, especially in 2012. If he insists on being a political object, the right will gladly turn him into one. It will be a freakin’ anvil too, not the fifth face on Mount Rushmore.

This is not kid’s stuff. These mobsters are possessed of insatiable greed, and they are clever beyond belief at mobilizing the anxieties and inadequacies of a public already dumbed-down to a level of political immaturity that can barely keep pace with the amped-up fires of their personal rage to which it’s dangerously coupled. How many re-run episodes of this mini-series do we need to see before we get clear on how it turns out?

The right is wrong on nearly everything, of course – the elites because they lie, and the shock troops because they’re frightened of their own shadows and therefore find blessed relief in every possible palliative from the pope to Palin. But they are correct about Obama being a complete patsy. They like to bring that up in the foreign policy context, because it’s good for scaring voters, and because it doesn’t remind moderates of just who is actually rolling this punk here at home (a very fine example of which was provided by the cheers that went up from our nice super-patriots when America lost the Olympics bid). But the truth is that a movement that should have been discredited to the point of annihilation by its very own actions is now instead setting the agenda in Washington, and the guy who won the landslide seems busy trying to push the mud back up the hill so that he can be buried by it himself, instead of the people who pretty much literally want to kill him.

(Yes, agreed Obama will need to make his choices soon, and quickly..........being a passive night watchman, who achieved very little, where he could have otherwise with executive ease, will be an inglorious legacy for him which will haunt him for the rest of his life. He simply cannot run America with defacto 4 more years of BUSH II policies. Either he challenges these policies FUNDAMENTALLY, as a Democrat with radical political roots, or he faces the consequences from 2010....and then into 2012 .)

I really don’t know what to say or think about this dude anymore. The way democracy is supposed to work is that his desire to hold office and the public’s preference for certain policies should reinforce each other and impel us toward a mutually satisfying presidency. Instead, though, he trucks along seemingly oblivious to the fact that the exact opposite is occurring.

This country is sinking in every way imaginable, and he will be held to blame in 2010 and 2012.

And so he should be.

It’s just that that will also mean the return of the monster set, absolutely foaming at the mouth after four years in the wilderness not holding the presidency to which they believe they’re fully entitled to own.

And then Obama will join Clinton, running around the world making speeches and writing books. Maybe they’ll even do joint appearances.

Errrum no! Clinton despite the Jewish organized blowjob, ran a two term presidency, where the economy did very well, with good employment rates........Barack Hussain Obama on the other hand, if the economy tanks during his watch, serving just one term will not be forgiven by the majority of American public, with large numbers unemployed................then he will be reminded of his Muslim name, birth certificate, and racial background in very nasty unkind terms......he will disappear from the limelight naturally, into Chicago maybe if they have him back, or Hawaii, or Indonesia, or Kenya.............exceptionally high hopes have been raised in the American public, and he must deliver....or else......The security acts passed under Bush weren't instituted to fight "al-Qaeda" prof. if you know what I mean......The security legislation instituted in America by Bush II aren't being used against "al-Qaeda" on a adaily basis)

Thanks for that, Barack. You’re a real patriot.

Oh well. At least you got the important stuff right.

You won’t have ruffled any feathers while being president.


David Michael Green is a professor of political science at Hofstra University in New York. He is delighted to receive readers' reactions to his articles (dmg@regressiveantidote.net), but regrets that time constraints do not always allow him to respond. More of his work can be found at his website, www.regressiveantidote.net.