31.3.11

Over population.

.
.
.
.
Basic problem of many Developing Countries with weak governance that they have not corrected their population problems. India now has 1.2 billion people, far far too many in such a poor country, and with the exception of Indira Gandhi no Indian government has seriously attempted to curb India's rapid rise in population which will reach a staggering 1.5 billion surpassing China in 2025.

Most Indian cities and general habitations are filthy, squalid, poverty stricken, smelly, dusty, disorganized, noisy, with beggars every where, and cows roaming freely, shitting every where....and with high levels of crime. No wonder only a few million tourists visit this vast country with a very rich heritage.

India is a "visual feast".....and one does not have to be an economics professor to see the reality of the country.

The sex ratio imbalance is sad, and only shows the general backwardness and ignorance of the people. However one hopes rather optimistically that demand for girls will rise at a certain critical point, fingers crossed.

In this failed state desperate scenario, 9% annual growth rates means very little, given the extreme wealth gap between the rich and the poor. In a nation where the elite educate their children in foreign rich countries and deposit their wealth in foreign tax havens.

SOUTH ASIA, must institute serious population controls or risk social and political instability related to over population. Its not about growing more food, on limited finite land using American designed Monsanto foods, where both Pakistan and India will face serious water shortage problems in the near future, its about controlling the population.

Though year in year out idiot Indian experts talk about how the young generation will create new demands and markets, pushing the country into rapid further development......however what they fail to mention is the poor governance of the central authorities in Delhi who are unable to utilize the full potential of the state, and that only a few sectors, which are not necessary labor intensive, or ever will are taking the Indian economy ahead allegedly, as stated by the Central government and their statisticians. But how much of that is real growth which is sustainable, and which will create real jobs for the newer generations?

____________________________

India's population rises to 1.2 billion: Census of India 2011

By Times of India via PTI

India's population rose to 1.21 billion people over the last 10 years — an increase by 181 million, according to the new census released today, but significantly the growth is slower for the first time in nine decades.

The population, which accounts for world's 17.5 per cent population, comprises 623.7 million males and 586.5 million females, said a provisional 2011 Census report. China is the most populous nation acounting for 19.4 per cent of the global population.

The country's headcount is almost equal to the combined population of the United States, Indonesia, Brazil, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Japan put together, it said.

The population has increased by more than 181 million during the decade 2001-2011, the report said. The growth rate in 2011 is 17.64 per cent in comparison to 21.15 per cent in 2001.

The 2001-2011 period is the first decade — with exception of 1911-1921 — which has actually added lesser population compared to the previous decade, Registrar General of India and Census Commissioner of India C Chandramauli said in presence of Home Secretary Gopal K Pillai.

Among the states and Union territories, Uttar Pradesh is the most populous state with 199 million people and Lakshadweep the least populated at 64,429.

The combined population of UP and Maharashtra is bigger than that of the US.

(Read: Major highlights of the Census 2011)

(Read: Literacy rises by 9.2%, now 74.04%)

The highest population density is in Delhi's north-east district (37,346 per sq km) while the lowest is in Dibang Valley in Arunachal Pradesh (just one per sq km).

The Census indicated a continuing preference for male children over female children. The latest child sex ratio in is 914 female against 1,000 male—the lowest since Independence.

"This is a matter of grave concern," Chandramauli said.

According to the data, literates constitute 74 per cent of the total population aged seven and above and illiterates form 26 per cent.

The literacy rate has gone up from 64.83 per cent in 2001 to 74.04 per cent in 2011 showing an increase of 9.21 per cent.

Libyan attack by the JEWSA was planned in 2000

.
.
.
.
This is another of many explanations of the attack on Libya by the JEWSA.
________________________________

LIBYA; CIA; KOUSSA; HIFTER by aangirfan


Moussa Koussa

Libya's foreign minister Moussa Koussa was in Tunisia on a diplomatic mission.

On 31 March 2011, we read that he mysteriously arrived at the UK's Farnborough airport before being taken to London.

Did he defect or was he pressurised? (Libyan foreign minister Moussa Koussa defects to Britain‎)

Brian has provided some useful links:

1. Reason for Libyan war? Gaddafi wanted to nationalise oil.

"On February 16, 2009, Gaddafi ... called on Libyans to back his proposal to dismantle the government and to distribute the oil wealth directly to the 5 million inhabitants of the country.

"However, his plan to deliver oil revenues directly to the Libyan people met opposition by senior officials who could lose their jobs due to a parallel plan by Gaddafi to rid the state of corruption."





2. Toward African freedom in Libya and beyond.

"No one has shouted any louder than Gaddafi that Africa must be for the Africans...

"Why hasn’t the Western world rolled into Israel or the West Bank and saved the Palestinian people who suffer true slaughter and discrimination at the hands of Israel?"

3. Libyan Rebel Leader Spent Much of Past 20 Years in Langley Virginia

Khalifa Hifter, the new leader of Libya's opposition military, spent the past two decades in suburban Virginia.

4. American Media Silent on CIA Ties to Libya Rebel Commander

Hifter is CIA.

5. LIBYA explained.

Mar 26, 1996 - "Reuters news reports ... state that unrest in ... Eastern Libya is caused by armed rebels... This is an operation to overthrow Gaddafi led by Col. Khalifa Hifter, of a contra-style group based in the United States called the LibyanNational Army."

Gaddafi the good Third World Ay-rab leader

.
.
.
.
Qaddafi was believed to be trained by the USA/UK military in the 1960's, and worked in Libyan Military Intelligence, eventually becoming a Colonel at a very early age.

Gaddafi is believed to be Jewish, as are Ahmedinejad of Iran, the Saudi Royal family and Kemal Ataturk, founder of modern secular Turkey.

Gaddafi is believed to be Gay.

Why did the USA remove pro-American King Idris of Libya in 1969, and install a gay Jewish Colonel in power in the country?

In 1969 Monarchy Libya was surrounded on the one side by Nasser of Egypt, with his populist Arabism which emphasized Socialism, and on the other side, the Tunisian Republic under Bourguiba.

Realpolitik analysts in the USA may have assessed that in such a scenario pro-America, largely ineffective King Idris would eventually be removed by a popular revolution, either self generated or funded by Egypt. So why not preempt such an outcome with your own controlled puppet, through a "popular" revolution, using Jewish Socialism as the ideological base of the new regime?

And so Gaddafi has ruled Libya without much problems for 42 years....one of the longest surviving puppets of the USA. Gaddafi's Military Intelligence background certainly helps him stay in power, as have units of the American Green Berets who have been constantly present in the country training his military units through the 1970's, 1980's and 1990's. The Gay fraternity within the American establishment and security apparatus, who know him intimately (And not merely as just another Ay-rab terrorist funding dictator) have been vital in protecting Gaddafi from the "whim of the week" USA imperial power.

Gaddafi is a BAD Arab leader:

He single handed together with the Mossad controlled Abu Nidal Palestinian group created the image of the modern Ay-rab terrorist, killing innocent civilians every where in the 1970's and 1980's, and funding various "revolutionary" groups from the Philippines/Asia, Africa, South America and Europe. This was ALL done with the full knowledge of the American state apparatus.

Preceding the present fake narrative of "Islamic terrorism" courtesy of "al-Qaeda".......again created and controlled by Israel/USA and their Western allies, and given birth exactly after the end of the Cold War in 1989--1991.

Gaddafi the good Third World Arab leader:

Per Capita income in Libya is the highest in Africa.....thanks to Gaddafi.

Libyan's enjoy the highest HDI in Africa....thanks to Gaddafi.

Most Libyan's enjoy decent housing thanks to Gaddafi.

Most Libyans enjoy free education thanks to Gaddafi.

Most Libyans enjoy free healthcare thanks to Gaddafi.

Gaddafi has built a wonderful $25 billion underground water system which extracts water from aquifers deep in the Sahara, and into the major Libyan cities. Everybody in Libya benefits from this investment, rich, poor, and the middle class. Those who like Gaddafi and those who don't like Qaddafi in Libya.

Gaddafi has done deals to attract foreign investments into his country.

Why is the JEWSA militarily interfering in Libya against their puppet of 42 years?

I'll go through a list of reasons but the thing to remember is despite all the advances in so called civilization, humans in politics are still essentially frivolous and whimsical....as are their rationale. The moron stupidity is often greater at the macro level by/from people from the First World, because they have the necessary ego and resources with ideas:

The USA has a long history of ditching and turning on their former puppets.....because the puppet is no longer relevant in the new geo-strategic "game-plan" for example promoting Islamic Fundamentalists, instead of Arabist Socialist nationalists like Gaddafi.....or the puppet has upset too many people in the USA......or the Israeli tail has better and other ideas, than the American junkyard dog.

Maybe some in the USA see a smash and grab opportunity...."The thief looter mentality" (3) which was practiced widely in Iraq (Baghdad museum in a literal case). Although ultimately the USA has not benefited from the oil exploration/exploitation contracts meted out by the puppet Malaki government, since the invasion in 2003 huge quantities of Iraqi oil has been exploited by the USA covertly without the benefits going to the Iraqi people and government, under the cover of civil war, and failed state governance with no accountability. The USA has grabbed $30 billion worth of Gaddafi's assets in the USA, as they did $30-$40 billion of the Shah of Iran assets in 1979 (at today's prices with interest), immediately after installing the Ayatollah's into power. As they did with the Czar of Imperial Russia's assets of $1.3 billion in 1918 (worth over $100---200 billion now with interests) after funding the Jewish Bolsheviks into power in 1917-1918.

Maybe its just plain simple racism......white powers with imperial ambitions ganging up against a weak Third World power, weakened by civil war. Teaching the Wog what for.

Maybe the JEWSA, Juif France and Rothschild UK with economic problems require a cheap circus distraction from internal economic problems. (Wag the Dog)

Maybe its a Crusade by Christian powers against yet another Muslim state, after Iraq 2003, where the USA has murdered 1.4 million civilians under the cover of ethnic civil war (El Salvador option), and created 4.5 million refugees. Afghanistan 2001, which is now a giant Heroin plantation from hell, run by the USA. Somalia which was invaded by Ethiopia, and the assistance of Western special forces. Pakistan with drones and Special forces in Pakistan.......and now Libya with Tomahawk missiles and special forces.

Maybe its the Israeli/Neocon Project for New American Century (PNAC 2000) policy document reactivated which envisaged military action by the USA against, Iraq, North Korea, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt and Pakistan. (i) Soften up the regime with people power........(ii) get the Islamic fundies into power........(iii) attack the country because "al-Qaeda" has found a terrorist safe haven.

Maybe its just a song........hmmm...hmmm...hmmma hmm hmmma mmmm...Montezuma....and the shores of Tripoli............just like going to the toilet, its very natural for the USA to attack Libya.....it is historically ordained, and maybe Hilary, Obama grew up with the song believing in it, and its is now in their subconscious......the military action even before the explanation to the nation as to why on earth, again.

GADDAFI must fight for himself, his family, his honor, his country, his tribe who will not be well treated if the opposition win........for all Arabs, for Muslims, for the Third World. Gaddafi is good for Libya, and puts many Arab regimes to shame, which Gaddafi reminds them about. For many years Gaddafi lectured and supported Third World Revolutionary movements around the world under the principles of self determination, about fighting oppression, and now he must do it for his country against the Western Imperialist powers led by the JEWSA.

He must seek solid allies who face the same threat from the JEWSA and Israel such as Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Algeria and beyond in Venezuela
, Russia and CHINA. He must send his emissaries to these countries to see what help they can give him now in his hour of need.

___________________________

The Euro-US War on Libya: Official Lies and Misconceptions of Critics

By Professor James Petras and Robin Eastman-Abaya at Information Clearing House.


Many critics of the ongoing Euro-US wars in the Middle East and, now, North Africa, have based their arguments on clichés and generalizations devoid of fact. The most common line heard in regard to the current US-Euro war on Libya is that it’s “all about oil” – the goal is the seizure of Libya’s oil wells.

On the other hand Euro-U.S, government spokespeople defend the war by claiming it’s “all about saving civilian lives in the face of genocide”, calling it “humanitarian intervention”.

Following the lead of their imperial powers, most of what passes for the Left in the US and Europe, ranging from Social Democrats, Marxists, Trotskyists,Greens and other assorted progressives, claim they see and support a revolutionary mass uprising of the Libyan people, and not a few have called for military intervention by the imperial powers, or the same thing, the UN, to help the “Libyan revolutionaries” defeat the Gaddafi dictatorship.


These arguments are without foundation and belie the true nature of US-UK-French imperial power, expansionist militarism, as evidenced in all the ongoing wars over the past decade (Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, etc.). What is much more revealing about the militarist intervention in Libya is that the major countries, which refused to engage in the War, operate via a very different form of global expansion based on economic and market forces. China, India, Brazil, Russia, Turkey and Germany, the most dynamic capitalist countries in Asia, Europe and the Middle East are fundamentally opposed to the self-styled “allied” military response against the Libyan government – because Gaddafi represents no threat to their security and they already have full access to the oil and a favorable investment climate. Besides, these economically dynamic countries see no prospect for a stable, progressive or democratic Libyan government emerging from the so-called ‘rebel’ leaders, who are disparate elites competing for power and Western favor.


1. The Six Myths about Libya: Right and Left

The principal imperial powers and their mass media mouthpieces claim they are bombing Libya for “humanitarian reasons”. Their recent past and current military interventions present a different picture: The intervention in Iraq resulted in well over a million civilian deaths, four million refugees and the systematic destruction of a complex society and its infrastructure, including its water supplies and sewage treatment, irrigation, electricity grid, factories, not to mention research centers, schools, historical archives, museums and Iraq’s extensive social welfare system.

A worse disaster followed the invasion of Afghanistan. What was trumpeted as a ‘humanitarian intervention’ to liberate Afghan women and drive out the Taliban resulted in a human catastrophe for the Afghan people. The road to imperial barbarism in Iraq began with ‘sanctions’, progressed to ‘no fly zones’, then
de facto partition of the north, invasion and foreign occupation and the unleashing of sectarian warfare among the ‘liberated’ Iraqi death squads.

Equally telling, the imperial assault against Yugoslavia in the 1990s, trotted out as the great “humanitarian war” to stop genocide, led to a 40-day aerial bombardment and destruction of Belgrade and other major cities, the imposition of a gangster terrorist regime (KLA) in Kosovo, the near-total ethnic cleansing of all non-Albanian residents from Kosovo and the construction of the largest US military base on the continent (Camp Bondsteel). The bombing of Libya has already destroyed major civilian infrastructure, airports, roads, seaports and communication centers, as well as ‘military’ targets.

The blockade of Libya and military attacks have driven out scores of multi-national corporations and led to the mass exodus of hundreds of thousands of Asian, Eastern European, Sub-Saharan African, Middle Eastern and North African skilled and unskilled immigrant workers and specialists of all types, devastating the economy and creating, virtually overnight, massive unemployment, bread-lines and critical gasoline shortages. Moreover, following the logic of previous imperial military interventions, the seemingly ‘restrained’ call to patrol the skies via “no fly zone”, has led directly to bombing civilian as well as military targets on the ground, and is pushing to overthrow the legitimate government. The current imperial warmongers leading the attack on Libya, just like their predecessors, are not engaged in anything remotely resembling a humanitarian mission: they are destroying the fundamental basis of the civilian lives they claim to be saving – or as an earlier generation of American generals would claim in Vietnam, they are ‘destroying the villages in order to save them’.

2. War for Oil or Oil for Sale?

The ‘critical’ Left’s favorite cliché is that the imperial invasion is all about “seizing control of Libya’s oil and turning it over to their multi-nationals”. This is despite the fact that US, French and British multinationals (as well as their Asian competitors) had already “taken over” millions of acres of Libyan oil fields without dropping a single bomb. For the past decade, “Big Oil” had been pumping and exporting Libyan oil and gas and reaping huge profits.

Gaddafi welcomed the biggest MNC’s to exploit the oil wealth of Libya from the early 1990s to the present day. There are more major oil companies doing business in Libya than in most oil producing regions in the world. These include: British Petroleum, with a seven-year contract on two concessions and over $1 billion dollars in planned investments. Each BP concession exploits huge geographic areas of Libya, one the size of Kuwait and the other the size of Belgium. In addition, five Japanese major corporations, including Mitsubishi and Nippon Petroleum, Italy’s Eni Gas, British Gas and the US giant Exxon Mobil signed new exploration and exploitation contracts in October 2010.

The most recent oil concession signed in January 2010 mainly benefited US oil companies, especially Occidental Petroleum. Other multi-nationals operating in Libya include Royal Dutch Shell, Total (France), Oil India, CNBC (China), Indonesia’s Pertamina and Norway’s Norsk Hydro. Despite the economic sanctions against Libya, imposed by US President Reagan in 1986, US multinational giant, Halliburton, had secured multi-billion dollar gas and oil projects since the 1980s. During his tenure as CEO of Halliburton, former Defense Secretary Cheney led the fight against these sanctions stating, “as a nation (there is) enormous value having American businesses engaged around the world”. Officially, sanctions against Libya were only lifted under Bush in 2004. Clearly, with all the European and US imperial countries already exploiting Libya oil on a massive scale, the mantra that the “war is about oil” doesn’t hold water or oil!


3. Gaddafi is a Terrorist


In the run-up to the current military assault on Tripoli,the US Treasury Department’s (and Israel’s special agent) Stuart Levey, authored a sanctions policy freezing $30 billion dollars in Libyan assets on the pretext that Gaddafi was a murderous tyrant. However, seven years earlier, Cheney, Bush and Condoleezza Rice had taken Libya off the list of terrorist regimes and ordered Levey and his minions to lift the Reagan-era sanctions.

Every major European power quickly followed suite: Gaddafi was welcomed in European capitals, prime ministers visited Tripoli and Gaddafi reciprocated by unilaterally dismantling his nuclear and chemical weapons programs. Gaddafi became Washington’s partner in its campaign against a broad array of groups, political movements and individuals arbitrarily placed on the US’ “terror list”, arresting, torturing and killing Al Qaeda suspects, expelling Palestinian militants and openly criticizing Hezbollah, Hamas and other opponents of Israel. The United Nations Human Rights Commission gave the Gaddafi regime a clean bill of health in 2010.

In the end Gaddafi’s political ‘turnabout’, however much celebrated by the Western elite, did not save him from this massive military assault. The imposition of neo-liberal ‘reforms’, his political ‘apostasy’ and cooperation in the ‘War on Terror’ and the elimination of weapons of mass destruction, only weakened the regime. Libya became vulnerable to attack and isolated from any consequential anti-imperialist allies. Gaddafi’s much ballyhooed concessions to the West set his regime up as an easy target for the militarists of Washington, London and Paris, eager for a quick ‘victory’.


4. The Myth of the Revolutionary Masses

The Left, including the mainly electoral social democrat, green and even left-socialist parties of Europe and the US swallowed the entire mass media propaganda package demonizing the Gaddafi regime while lauding the ‘rebels’. Parroting their imperial mentors, the ‘Left’ justified their support for imperial military intervention in the name of the “revolutionary Libyan people”, the “peace-loving” masses “fighting tyranny” and organizing peoples’ militias to “liberate their country”. Nothing could be further from the truth. The center of the armed uprising is Benghazi, longtime monarchist hotbed of tribal supporters and clients of the deposed King Idris and his family. Idris, until he was overthrown by the young firebrand Col. Gaddafi, had ruled Libya with an iron fist over a semi-feudal backwater and was popular with Washington, having given the US its largest air base (Wheeler) in the Mediterranean. Among the feuding leaders of the “transitional council” in Benghazi (who purport to lead but have few organized followers) one finds neo-liberal expats, who first promoted the Euro-US military invasion envisioning their ride to power on the back of Western missiles. They openly favor dismantling the Libyan state oil companies currently engaged in joint ventures with foreign MNCs.

Independent observers have commented on the lack of any clear reformist tendencies, let alone revolutionary organizations or democratic popular movements among the ‘rebels’. While the US, British and French are firing missiles, loaded with depleted uranium, at the Libyan military and key civilian installations, their ‘allies’ the armed militias in Benghazi, rather than go to battle against the regime’s armed forces, are busy rounding up, arresting and often executing any suspected members of Gaddafi’s “revolutionary committees”, arbitrarily labeling these civilians as “fifth columnists”. The top leaders of these “revolutionary” masses in Benghazi include two recent defectors from what the ‘Left’ dubs Gaddafi’s “murderous regime”: Mustafa Abdul Jalil, a former Justice minister, who prosecuted dissenters up to the day before the armed uprising, Mahmoud Jebri, who was prominent in inviting multi-nationals to take over the oil fields, and Gaddafi’s former ambassador to India, Ali Aziz al-Eisawa, who jumped ship as soon as it looked like the uprising appeared to be succeeding. These self-appointed ‘leaders’ of the rebels who now staunchly support the Euro-US military intervention, were long-time supporters of the Gaddafi’s dictatorship and promoters of MNC takeovers of oil and gas fields. The heads of the “rebels” military council is Omar Hariri and General Abdul Fattah Younis, former head of the Ministry of Interior. Both men have long histories (since 1969) of repressing democratic movements within Libya. Given their unsavory background, it is not surprising that these top level military defectors to the ‘rebel’ cause have been unable to arouse their troops, mostly conscripts, to engage the loyalist forces backing Gaddafi. They too will have to take a ride into Tripoli on the coattails of the Anglo-US-French armed forces.

The anti-Gaddafi force’s lack of any democratic credentials and mass support is evident in their reliance on foreign imperial armed forces to bring them to power and their subservience to imperial demands. Their abuse and persecution of immigrant workers from Asia, Turkey and especially sub-Sahara Africa, as well as black Libyan citizens, is well documented in the international press. Their brutal treatment of black Libyans, falsely accused of being Gaddafi’s “mercenaries”, includes torture, mutilation and horrific executions, does not auger well for the advent of a new democratic order, or even the revival of an economy, which has been dependent on immigrant labor, let alone a unified country with national institutions and a national economy. The self-declared leadership of the “National Transitional Council” is not democratic, nationalist or even capable of uniting the country. These are not credible leaders capable of restoring the economy and creating jobs lost as a result of their armed power grab. No one seriously envisions these ‘exiles’, tribalists, monarchists and Islamists maintaining the paternalistic social welfare and employment programs created by the Gaddafi government and which gave Libyans the highest per-capita income in Africa.

5. Al Qaeda

The greatest geographical concentration of suspected terrorists with links to Al Qaeda just happens to be in the areas dominated by the “rebels”. For over a decade Gaddafi has been in the forefront of the fight against Al Qaeda, following his embrace of the Bush-Obama ‘War on Terror’ doctrine.

These jihadist Libyans, having honed their skills in US-occupied Iraq and Afghanistan, are now among the ranks of the “rebels” fighting the much more secular Libyan government. Likewise, the tribal chiefs, fundamentalist clerics and monarchists in the East have been active in a “holy war” against Gaddafi welcoming arms and air support from the Anglo-French-US “crusaders” – just like the mullahs and tribal chiefs welcomed the arms and training from the Carter-Reagan White House to overthrow a secular regime in Afghanistan. Once again, imperial intervention is based on ‘alliances’ with the most retrograde forces. The composition of the future regime (or regimes, if Libya is divided) is a big question and the prospects of a return to political stability for Big Oil to profitably exploit Libya’s resources are dubious.

“Genocide” or Armed Civil War

Unlike all ongoing mass popular Arab uprisings, the Libyan conflict began as an armed insurrection, directed at seizing power by force. Unlike the autocratic rulers of Egypt and Tunisia, Gaddafi has secured a mass regional base among a substantial sector of the Libyan population. This support is based on the fact that almost two generations of Libyans have benefited from Gaddafi’s petroleum-financed welfare, educational, employment and housing programs, none of which existed under America’s favorite, King Idris. Since violence is inherent in any armed uprising, once one picks up the gun to seize power, they lose their claim on ‘civil rights’. In armed civil conflicts, civil rights are violated on all sides. Regardless of the Western media’s lurid portrayal of Gaddafi’s “African mercenary forces” and its more muted approval of ‘revolutionary justice’ against Gaddafi supporters and government soldiers captured in the rebel strongholds, the rules of warfare should have come into play, including the protection of non-combatants-civilians (including government supporters and officials), as well as protection of Libyan prisoners of war in the areas under NATO-rebel control. The unsubstantiated Euro-US claim of “genocide” amplified by the mass media and parroted by “left” spokespersons is contradicted by the daily reports of single and double digit deaths and injuries, resulting from urban violence on both sides, as control of cities and towns shifts between the two sides. Truth is the first casualty of war, and especially of civil war. Both sides have resorted to monstrous fabrications of victories, casualties, monsters and victims.

Demons and angels aside, this conflict began as a civil war between two sets of Libyan elites: An established paternalistic, now burgeoning neo-liberal autocracy with substantial popular backing versus a western imperialist financed and trained elite, backed by an amorphous group of regional, tribal and clerical chiefs, monarchists and neo-liberal professionals devoid of democratic and nationalist credentials – and lacking broad-based mass support.


Conclusion


If not to prevent genocide, grab the oil or promote democracy (via Patriot missiles), what, then, is the driving force behind the Euro-US imperial intervention? A clue is in the selectivity of Western military intervention: In Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Jordan, Qatar and Oman ruling autocrats, allied with, and backed by, Euro-US imperial states go about arresting, torturing and murdering unarmed urban protestors with total impunity.

In Egypt and Tunisia, the US is backing a conservative junta of self-appointed civil-military elites in order to block the profound democratic and nationalist transformation of society demanded by the protesters. The ‘junta’ aims to push through neo-liberal economic “reforms” through carefully-vetted pro-Western ‘elected’ officials.

While liberal critics may accuse the West of “hypocrisy” and “double standards” in bombing Gaddafi but not the Gulf butchers, in reality the imperial rulers consistently apply the same standards in each region.

They defend strategic autocratic client regimes, which have allowed imperial states to build strategic air force and naval bases, run regional intelligence operations and set up logistical platforms for their ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as their future planned conflict with Iran. They attack Gaddafi’s Libya precisely because Gaddafi had refused to actively contribute to Western military operations in Africa and the Middle East.

The key point is that while Libya allows the biggest US-European multi-nationals to plunder its oil wealth, it did not become a strategic geo-political-military asset of the empire. As we have written in many previous essays the driving force of US empire-building is military and not economic. This is why billions of dollars of Western economic interests and contracts had been sacrificed in the setting up of sanctions against Iraq and Iran – with the costly result that the invasion and occupation of Iraq shut down most oil exploitation for over a decade.

The Washington-led assault on Libya, with the majority of air sorties and missiles strikes being carried out by the Obama regime, is part of a more general counter-attack in response to the most recent Arab popular pro-democracy movements. The West is backing the suppression of these pro-democracy movements throughout the Gulf; it finances the pro-imperial, pro-Israel junta in Egypt and it is intervening in Tunisia to ensure that any new regime is “correctly aligned”. It supports a despotic regime in Algeria as well as Israel’s daily assaults on Gaza. In line with this policy, the West backs the uprising of ex-Gaddafites and right-wing monarchists, confident that the ‘liberated’ Libya will once again provide military bases for the US-European military empire-builders.

In contrast, the emerging market-driven global and regional powers have refused to support this conflict, which jeopardizes their access to oil and threatens the current large-scale oil exploration contracts signed with Gaddafi.

The growing economies of Germany, China, Russia, Turkey, India and Brazil rely on exploiting new markets and natural resources all over Africa and the Middle East, while the US, Britain and France spend billions pursuing wars that de-stabilize these markets, destroy infrastructure and foment long-term wars of resistance.

The growing market powers recognize that the Libyan “rebels” cannot secure a quick victory or ensure a stable environment for long-term trade and investments. The “rebels”, once in power, will be political clients of their militarist imperial mentors. Clearly, imperial military intervention on behalf of regional separatists seriously threatens these emerging market economies:

The US supports ethno-religious rebels in China’s Tibetan province and as well as the Uyghur separatists; Washington and London have long backed the Chechen separatists in the Russian Caucuses. India is wary of the US military support for Pakistan, which claims Kashmir. Turkey is facing Kurdish separatists who receive arms and safe haven from their US-supplied Iraqi Kurdish counterparts.

The North African precedent of an imperial invasion of Libya on behalf of its separatist clients worries the emerging market-powers. It is also an ongoing threat to the mass-based popular Arab freedom movements. And the invasion sounds the death knell for the US economy and its fragile ‘recovery’: three ongoing, endless wars will break the budget much sooner than later. Most tragic of all, the West’s ‘humanitarian’ invasion has fatally undermined genuine efforts by Libya’s civilian democrats, socialists and nationalists to free their country from both a dictatorship and from imperial-backed reactionaries.

___________________________



20.3.11

Jewish International Law and Diplomacy

.
.
.
.
Iran does not have nuclear weapons; is a signatory to the NPT; has clearly stated publicly through its leadership that it does not desire nuclear weapons; is negotiating about its civilian nuclear program ad infinitem; has openned the country to IAEA inspectors for indefinte on the spot go any where see anything inspections running close to a decade, whose experts have confirmed that they have found nothing suspicious; Iran a country run by Western installed puppets and crypto-Jews (Ahmedinejad).....but paranoid Israel......and the Western crypto-Jew fraternity is not yet saitisfied or happy.

They itch for permanent war in the Middle East...as has been exemplified recently by their intervention in Libya against Gaddafi, a Western installed puppet of Jewish origin on his mothers side, who enjoys close security links with Israel (most of the mercenary forces fighting for Gaddafi come from Africa courtesy of Israeli security conractors) .....it is not so much the idea that the West should remove a dictator which is "bad" and nasty to his people and their free will and liberty....what is bad is the neo-colonial post Cold War scenario which gives free reign to the JEWSA and its poodles to pick and choose which dictator is bad and therefore fit for regime change, and which dictators are good.

Classic Gun Boat diplomacy from the 19th century which we are suppose to have mercrifully evolved out of.

Can we have no fly zones in Afghanistan? More civilians have been killed there by so called "mistakes" over 10 years than in Libya in a few weeks, with no abatement or cessation of the mistakes since.


The strategy Iran must follow is continued engagement with the JEWSA, and its poodles over its civilian nuclear program.

AND to create an effective military machine, with is backed by domestic massed produced arms (refer to my earlier posts on Iran military strategy)

And so the JEWSA diplomat below does a double speak: " We KNOW Iran does not have nuclear weapons and does not desire them, but you never know sometime in the future when we are less pre-occupied and tied down they could have one."

So we slap massive sanctions on a possible maybe potential nuclear armed nation in the future in 2020, 2030.


______________________________

US Official: Iran Not Close to ‘Breakout’ Capability on Nuclear Weapons
Insists Iran Undecided on Actually Making One

by Jason Ditz at antiwar.com.


Speaking today at a conference, State Department special adviser Robert Einhorn, insisted that Iran was nowhere close to “breakout capability” for the production of a single nuclear weapon, though he insisted he believed Iran would like to reach that capability at some future point.

At the same time, Einhorn also conceded that he had no idea if Iran had even made any political decision related to making a nuclear weapon and speculated that the nation, which has repeatedly ruled out creating such weapons, is “undecided” and the leadership is “divided” on the scheme.

Einhorn added to this that the international sanctions against Iran are “taking a big toll” and chided Iran for not being willing to negotiate seriously. Which must eventually give rise to the question of what the negotiations are supposed to be about.

The US continues to demand Iran halt its civilian nuclear program, but the demand seems particularly ridiculous couched in the terms Einhorn presented today, of a government nowhere close to acquiring nuclear weapons and at best “undecided” on the prospect.


_____________________

The Jewsa and its poodles ALL face major domestic economic problems so bitch slapping a former puppet of theirs, who in addition is militarily weak and divided, tied down by a civil war (purely domestic affair), is convenient to them NOW.




5.3.11

CIA Saddam

.
.
.
.
As they lament in Baghdad now, "Out with the apprentice, in with the master"

___________________________

GADDAFI, SADDAM AND THE CIA by aangirfan.com


MILES COPELAND Jr

The USA did not free Iraq.

They wrecked it.(into 3 sectarian parts for Israel; 1.4 million civilians deaths which must be answered in war crimes trials, and 4.5 million refugees))

This was deliberate.

Satellite TV has been kept away from the recent deadly protests against poverty and misery in Iraq.

(February 2011 -Iraq's protests test Maliki's leadership)




ALLEN DULLES


Iraqis can see what could happen to Libya, Tunisia and Egypt.

On 3 March 2011, we read that, Iraq's Moqtada al-Sadr urged Iraqis to protest against any possible US military intervention in Libya. (Iraq's Sadr urges protests against US over Libya)

According to Sadr, the USA installed Gaddafi and now wants to remove him.

Sadr accused the USA and western nations of:

1. Planting agents in Arab states. (most Arab states have American/UK puppets.......but it is also true that poor men chase after rich ones, which makes it easier for rich men to control them)

2. Supporting dictatorships.

3. Then intervening in the name of democracy and claiming to liberate Arabs.


Saddam was put into power by the CIA.

Saddam offered to leave Iraq in order to avoid a war.

The real Saddam escaped to Belarus.

CNN (CNN.com - UAE official: Hussein was open to exile - Nov 2, 2005) reported:

"Days before the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, Saddam Hussein agreed in principle to accept an offer of exile from the United Arab Emirates... a UAE government senior official told CNN.

"The reported offer came before an emergency Arab League meeting in Egypt in discussions between UAE officials and a Hussein aide...

"The UAE official's account was repeated by another source who attended the Arab League summit and, separately, by a senior UAE government official...

"News of the reported offer from the UAE emerged... during an interview broadcast by the Arab network Al-Arabiya with Sheikh Mohammed Bin Zayed Al Nahayan, the crown prince of Abu Dhabi, one of the United Arab Emirates.

"The offer was spearheaded by his father, then-UAE President Sheikh Zayed Ben Sultan Al Nahayan, who died November 3...

'"We had secured the approval of the main players, everyone who was involved, and the man concerned - Saddam Hussein - in 24 hours,' he said...

CNN.com - UAE official: Hussein was open to exile - "Nov 2, 2005


Saddam was put into power by the CIA.

Richard Sale, UPI Intelligence Correspondent, wrote about Saddam and the CIA on 4/10/2003 (Exclusive: Saddam Was key in early CIA plot).

According to Sale, British scholars and former U.S. diplomats and intelligence officials say that Saddam Hussein was used by the U.S. intelligences services for over 40 years.

In 1959, Saddam was part of a CIA-authorized six-man squad trying to assassinate Iraqi Prime Minister Gen. Abd al-Karim Qasim.

CIA operative Miles Copeland told UPI the CIA had had "close ties" with Iraq's Baath Party, and with the Egyptian intelligence service.

Roger Morris, a former National Security Council staffer, confirmed that the CIA had chosen the Baath Party "as its instrument."

According to another former senior State Department official, Saddam was in his early 20s, when he became a part of the U.S. plot to get rid of Qasim.

Adel Darwish, Middle East expert and author of "Unholy Babylon," said that Saddam's CIA handler was an Iraqi dentist working for CIA and Egyptian intelligence.

U.S. officials separately confirmed Darwish's account.

The 1959 assassination was botched. Qasim escaped death, and Saddam escaped to Tikrit, thanks to CIA and Egyptian intelligence agents, several U.S. government officials said.

Saddam then moved to Beirut, according to Darwish and former senior CIA officials. In Beirut, the CIA put Saddam through a training course, former CIA officials said.

Saddam then moved to Cairo. According to former U.S. intelligence officials, Saddam made frequent visits to the American Embassy.

In 1963 Qasim was killed in a Baath Party coup. Morris claimed that the CIA was behind the coup.

Iraq Postage Stamp: Air Mail 4 Fils

The CIA provided the Iraqi National Guardsmen with lists of suspected communists who were then murdered, according to former U.S. intelligence officials.

Middle East expert Adel Darwish told UPI that Saddam presided over the mass killings.

A former senior CIA official said: "It was a bit like the mysterious killings of Iran's communists just after Ayatollah Khomeini came to power in 1979. All 4,000 of his communists suddenly got killed."

Saddam became head of al-Jihaz a-Khas, the secret intelligence service of the Baath Party.

The CIA/Defense Intelligence Agency connection with Saddam continued.

According to a former DIA official, the U.S. shared satellite intelligence with both Iraq and Iran during the Iran-Iraq war in an attempt to produce a military stalemate.

The typical CIA guy.

According to bhtimes.blogspot (In Search of Saddam Hussein’s WMD:Russian Intelligence, Belarus & Highway 11 http://bhtimes.blogspot.com/search?q=highway+11+saddam)

"On March 29 and 30, Saddam contacted Belarus.

"The former Soviet Republic had been one of many that offered Saddam exile in the days just prior to the war...

"Saddam had a Belarusian IL-76 transport plane flown to Baghdad... and flown back to Belarus.

"After the fall of Saddam's regime, it was found that many of the senior leaders who had fled went to Syria and Belarus."


Hussein Given Safe Haven in Belarus?

"Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has obtained safe haven in Belarus, several intelligence agencies believe.

"Western intelligence sources said several intelligence agencies in the Middle East and Europe base this assessment on new information about a March 29 flight from Baghdad to Minsk.

"They said the flight of a chartered cargo plane could have transported Saddam, his sons and much of his family to Belarus.

"'There's no proof that Saddam was on the plane but we have proof that a plane left on that day from Baghdad airport and arrived in Minsk,' a senior intelligence source said.

"'If you can think of anybody else who could obtain permission to fly out of Baghdad in the middle of a war, then please tell me.'...

"U.S. officials said Saddam had been exploring the prospect of fleeing to Belarus over the last year.

"They said the Iraqi ruler was in close contact with Belarus President Alexander Lukashenko and that Minsk became a major military supplier to Baghdad.

"Within hours after the departure of the cargo flight to Minsk on March 29, the Saddam regime was awash with rumors that the president had escaped.

"Intelligence sources said the rumors spread rapidly throughout the military command and among field officers.

"'There was a significant decline in Iraqi combat strength starting from around March 31,' an intelligence source said.

"'In interviews with coalition interrogators, Iraqi commanders have attributed the decline in combat to the feeling that Saddam had fled.'"


Photos: www.cloakanddagger.de/
http://www.breakfornews.com/TopStoriesJune05.htm

Was Saddam put on trial or was it a double?

It seems to us that the Saddam who was on trial was a fake.

The body language was not that of the dictator.

The face looked different.


Mrs. Saddam says defendant Saddam is not her Saddam

From: Idaho Observer: Mrs. Saddam says defendant is not her husband

BAGHDAD -- Seldom in history has there been a question as to the true identity of a defendant in a court trial.

However, in the alleged trial of former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, controversy abounds as to whether or not the man being tried is, indeed, Saddam Hussein.

Mike Ruppert reported June 18, 2004, that the Russian newspaper Pravda published a story claiming the U.S. finally allowed Saddam's wife Sajida Heiralla Tuffa to see her husband.

Within moments of entering the prison in Quatar where the deposed president is allegedly being held, she reportedly reemerged screaming in a rage, “This is not my husband, it's his double, where is my husband? Take me to my husband!”

Since Tuffa's public display of outrage, several reporters have noted that live footage and photos of the man being tried as Saddam reveal that he has bad teeth and an underbite. Conversely, photos of the real Saddam consistently show that he has near perfect teeth and an overbite.

fontana 15

The following is from Prison Planet and was written by Joe Vials.

Sajida Heiralla Tuffah was Saddam's wife and the mother of his children.

Mrs Saddam says Saddam is not Saddam Joe Vialls June 18 2004

"After the Russians applied enormous diplomatic pressure, America was finally obliged to allow Sajida Heiralla Tuffah access to her husband in Qatar, where he had been flown in some luxury aboard a United States Air Force VIP jet.

"The facilities at Baghdad Airport were considered to be sub-standard, besides which, people were beginning to talk about the laughing and bourbon-swilling Muslim prisoner, who was the only one in sight not wearing a hood and sensory deprivation earphones, and not being sexually abused by Ricardo Sanchez.

"Well, you could have heard a pin drop all the way across Qatar.

"Sajida arrived from Syria with her official escort Sheikh Hamad Al-Tani, and then entered the prison, emerging only moments later pink with rage and shouting, "This is not my husband but his double. Where is my husband? Take me to my husband".

"American officials rushed forward to shield Mrs Saddam from perplexed Russian observers, trying to insist that Saddam had changed a lot while in custody and she probably didn't recognise him.

"This was certainly not the best way to handle the Iraqi President's wife. "You think I do not know my husband?" Sajida shouted furiously, "I was married to the man for more than twenty-five years!" Then she stormed off, never to return.

"This remarkable confrontation was reported by Pravda and four other newspapers in the east between 13 and 17 April, but the New York Times and others made damn sure you didn't read or hear about it in the west."


CAPTION CONTEST...."Hey who wants to be the next Saddam?....free trips to Beirut, Cairo and Minsk"

It is entirely likely that Saddam, who was trained and put into power by the CIA ( aangirfan: Saddam worked for the CIA), was not hanged and that the hanging video was some kind of fake.

We know that Saddam offered to leave Iraq before the war started.

My Lai's in Afghanistan

.
.
.
.





What happens in a country with endless wars and security ops....looking for fake, phantom non-existent enemies.....such as "al-Qaeda" and the Taliban (controlled by the ISI)?


You end up with a lot of young men (110,000 military and 100,000 mercenaries) lonely, trigger happy, frustrated, bored, totally disconnected to the locals looking for action.......and the result is usually an Afghan wedding Party is attacked; or men at Friday prayers; an Afghan school......or in the story below little children collecting firewood for cooking.

The American military always shitting in their pants against one to one MASS FACE TO FACE warefare ...with no allies.......against a real foe.....cause these things, deliberately.

The causes vary: the fundamental nature of the military the world over, does not traditionally attract the best, brightest or most enlightened sections of society, unless the nations in a real war; "American Revolutionary War"....."American Civil War". Men who are a little stupid, think with their muscle first, perhaps with homosexual tendencies are more attracted to the profession generally, and we go from country to country and see countless number of crimes committed by various military's around the world.

Racism obviously plays a part. Lack of respect for Afghans given their fourth world condition in comparison with the first world conditions of the average Americans. Running the country as a narco-state plantation. Creating various cock and bull stories and rationals in the MSM to cover such war crimes, must make them complacent, smug and superior.

Or it could be psychological......to keep Afghans in their place.

And so as with such tragedies of trigger happy psychopaths doing what is natural to them....the Pentagon creates more confusing and conflicting BS for the rest of us.

THE WORLD MUST RISE UP AND STRUGGLE AGAINST AMERICAN "800 BASES AROUND THE WORLD" IMPERIALISM.

_____________________________

President Peace Prize “Expressed Regret” for Killing 9 More Children in Afghanistan

In the Pech valley area of Kunar province the villagers are gathering and protesting… the chant “Death to America” seems to be their favorite this day. They are angry about the recent increasing numbers of attacks on their civilians, especially the latest one in which two U.S. helicopter gunships hovered over a small group of children collecting firewood, rose up and fired missiles at them. The missile misses, so they killed the children, one by one, with their gatling guns. They simply mowed them down. The oldest was 12.

“One survivor of the attack, an 11-year-old boy, is reported as saying the helicopters hovered over the boys, rose up, fired rockets and then shot the boys one after the other using their canons.” ABC News

How is it that two helicopter gunship pilots could hover over a group of children for a while and not be able to identify them as children? If they thought that they were armed insurgents, would these pilots have hovered over them, motionless in the air making themselves a rather easy target for armed insurgents? And once they started firing and the kids didn’t shoot back, don’t you think that would have been a clue that their targets were not fighters?

At first the story was that the U.S. military responded to an attack with “artillery fire” which killed the kids then the story changed to” jets bombed” the kids and that was easier to explain because of the speed the jets move so of course they could not have determined that the group were children and not fighters.

“A US artillery attack killed nine children and injured a tenth yesterday in Kunar province…” Newser

“The causalities come after US forces dropped bombs in a mountainous village of Nangalam in Kunar province…” Press TV

But unfortunately for the U.S. military spin doctors, there was an 11-year-old survivor who could tell the real story of what happened. Who knows what the official story would have been had that child died along side his friends.

Because of that survivor we know that these were U.S. attack gunships, flying low and even hovering over their target long enough to be able to clearly see who they were.

General Petraeus has ordered an “investigation” for whatever that is worth. He has apologised for the incident, for whatever that is worth.

”An apology is not enough. It is not the first time that they have killed our poor and innocent people. We don’t accept their apology. They must go on trial in Afghanistan. If it is not possible in Afghanistan, they must be tried in the international court for their action. They have apologized in the past but continue killing our people again and again.” Enatatullah Khan

2010 was the deadliest year for civilians in Afghanistan since we invaded in 2001. The “surge”, as President Peace Prize would call it. Recent attacks in this area have seen a dramatic rise in the last few weeks.

“The incident came less than two weeks after tribal elders there claimed NATO forces killed more than 50 civilians in recent air and ground strikes. An Afghan government investigation maintained that 65 civilians died in recent coalition operations in a remote part of the province, a hotbed of the insurgency.” Associated Press

President Obama indicated his “deep regret for the tragic accident in Kunar Province,”. I am sure that will make the families of those children sleep better at night knowing the president of the occupying country has “deep regret” over the incident.

Don’t expect the CIA honey-pot Wikileaks to publish this gunship video. There is no way to justify the attacks and they can’t find a way to spin it to make the military look like heroes (remember the soldier who ran with the kids in his arms to get them medical attention in the Collateral Damage video?) or at least… humans.

This attack is highly suspect which is why so many people are calling for a REAL investigation.

How is it possible that two gunship pilots, not one but two, could hover over kids for a while without being able to identify them as kids? Perhaps a clue lies in the motivation for the attack.

“The accidental deaths happened in a botched retaliation attack after insurgents fired at an American outpost in Kunar province.” Epoch Times

Apparently there had been some mortars fired at the local U.S. base and the gunships went out looking for the insurgents. They couldn’t find them, but they did find kids from the local village gathering firewood.

Given what we now know about how long the two pilots had to assess the situation before opening fire…. given what we now know about how they selectively targeted children running away… is too much of a leap to wonder if they were trying to send a message to the local tribes?

There should be a criminal investigation. All communications with those pilots must be reviewed carefully. At the very least, the pilots involved should be either taken off active duty or they should be relegated to duty that involves unarmed aircraft. If they can’t tell the difference between 9-year-old children and a full-grown man fighting a war, they have no business at the stick of a gunship, one of the most deadly conventional weapons our military has.

“Foreign Affairs Minister Kevin Rudd says it is unacceptable that nine young Afghan boys were gunned down by US helicopters while collecting firewood.” ABC News

There should be an investigation, but there won’t be. These pilots hovered over their targets, knowing full well they were not insurgents possibly armed with surface to air missiles that could have taken them out, and they waited… waited for orders.

There should be an investigation, but there won’t be one. And 9 more children died in Afghanistan under President Peace Prize’s watch, for nothing. All across America, the (Jewish)“progressives” are silent. These are shameful times we live in.

_________________________

As I understand Barak Obama would like to end this saga, but the "long war" Pentagon ideologues such as Patreuas, Gates, Mullen and Hilary Clinton are against an "early" withdrawal....even after 10 years of vicious nasty destructive occupation of Afghanistan. The Rothschilds of London may have ordered them to stay longer for the sake of the Afghan heroin profits.

Occupied Ariana.........for Heroin and the Rothschilds empire.

.
.
.
.
The problem with these left wing online sites is that they report the truth (richest country on earth attacks poorest country on earth, which is bad for Afghans and not much benefit for most Americans) without ANY attempt at explaining the real background to the problem, so that ordinary people in America can have a better grasp of the motivations of the important actors who are directly responsible for such meaningless tragedies in far off remote distant lands that had in the recent past no connections to America in any conceivable way. (Wired, Common Dreams, Alternet) .......the article is a Hotdog without the ketchup, mustard and onions......its bland, and in that sense worthless.....it is stating the obvious, which most of us already know (bread is made from wheat, endless war bad for any country.) Bubba Smith who works as a car mechanic doesn't visit such sites.

Now in the era of crypto-Jew Murdocks Fox News, and CNN and all the rest......what Common Dreams is doing might seem "remarkable" such as things are in the USA MSM, but still a site which purports to be alternative with a much smaller selective audience, it should try harder and be more honest with its readers.

Truths:

1. American foreign policy is NOT dictated by America strategically, but by the Rothschilds of London who are defacto "sovereigns" of the global Jewish tribe. The Rothschilds use their American fronts/agents to control American government policy, and this is further reinforced/complemented by AIPAC, which focuses on Israel exclusively.(Soros, Kissinger, Brzezinski, Clinton's, Bush clan, Anglofiles in the administration....CFR, Trilateral Commission, Bilderberger Group) ............the Rothschilds don't attempt to dictate every aspect of American state policy as that would be foolish and impossible, but rather the big issues which have a Rothschild economic and political interest....oil/heroin etc........classic example of this is the toppling the Shah of Iran by the USA, and specifically by Brzezinski, by Kissinger, by George Ball and all the rest of the Rothschild agents in the USA. The toppling of the Shah of Iran was bad for the USA, with a loss of an good safe reliable ally, the loss of potential business worth $700--1000 billion between 1979--2011 (JOBS), loss of American influence in the country with no embassy, BUT deemed a success for the Rothschilds of London......Ditto Mubarak of Egypt, Gaddafi installed by the USA in 1969, Bahrain where American forces are based...and Saudi Arabia???

2. The USA is in Afghanistan because of the profits which are being made from Afghan Heroin. The retail profits from this business is said to be worth anything between $50--$80 billion. The Rothschilds of London have organized and profited from the drugs business since the East India Company days, when they inter- married with the Jewish Sassons out of Mumbai, in the 19th century. "The City' in London is the premier global center which has facilitated the laundering of global drugs money for the past 200 years. British leaders nervously and anxiously visit Helmand Afghanistan frequently to exhort the British military to continue with their noble deeds. The American military and the British military play a major logistical role in facilitating this drugs business into Pakistan, Iran, Central Asia, India, Russia, Western Europe and North America. Since 2001, the 10,000 colonial troops of the British military have been based in Helmand province, the highest heroin growing province in Afghanistan, where production of Heroin has soared since the British colonial forces arrived there, and began helping Afghan farmers grow more poppy in a pseudo colonial plantation cash crop scenario. Afghan Heroin benefit a few Jews........but harm many in the USA, Europe, UK and the rest of the world.

3. Israel has long been unhappy about Pakistan's possession of nuclear weapons, and used the USA and India to try and curb and neutralize the program since the 1970's. As early as 1974, the Rothschild agent in the USA, Henry Kissinger conveyed to Pakistan the threats not to develop nuclear weapons. AFGHANISTAN thus NOW provides a base for these very same international elements to attack, destabilize Pakistan, and thus eventually neutralize its nuclear program through the fake narrative of GWOT, "al-Qaeda" and the American created Taliban........which the Pakistan military must engage and fight for ever for the USA.

4. 9/11 was not carried by "al-Qaeda" with its leadership in Afghanistan. OBL until his death in 2001 was to the last an American recruited agent. There is no "al-Qaeda" in Afghanistan. The Taliban was created by the USA in 1994, using the Pakistani military.The Taliban are "Controlled Opposition" to the USA "liberators" of the country and is managed through the ISI of Pakistan.

Pleading to ordinary Americans for justice might have some merit, and is better than nothing, but ultimately ordinary Afghans must take destiny in their own hands, and liberate their own country themselves under the principles of "Self Determination" clearly laid out in UN charters and International law........and NOW opportunistically hailed by the very same USA/UK in the case of Egypt post Mubarak, Libya and Tunisia recently, very cynically.

The Taliban is "Controlled Opposition" and worthless, so alternative credible sources of resistance must be found against the colonial occupiers of Afghanistan which can militarily defeat them. Along this process what is required is greater disenchantment with the Kabul puppet government and greater mutiny within the ranks of the Tajik dominated security forces. Also crucial is that Russia and Pakistan cease facilitating this criminal occupation of Afghanistan for their own good. Finally countries such as Iran and Pakistan back a new credible resistance movement within AFGHANISTAN logistically so that they can fight the colonial occupiers more effectively as is their duty under International Law.

________________

The Afghan War is Brutal, Expensive, Unpopular, and Ineffective – So Why Are We Spending Billions on It?

Leading Afghan Feminist Wants the U.S. and NATO to Leave Her Nation

by Sonali Kolhatkar at commondreams.org

"The sad truth is that Obama’s war policies have turned out to be even more of a nightmare than I expected.” – Malalai Joya, A Woman Among Warlords

While millions of Americans are experiencing unemployment, wage stagnation, rising tuition, dwindling social services, and poverty at levels not seen since the Great Depression, an unjustifiably large proportion of our taxes are being used to cause death and destruction in Afghanistan. With Afghanistan being the longest war the U.S. has ever officially waged, we should carefully examine the costs of the war - financial and otherwise - and ask ourselves, is it really worth it?

The war costs taxpayers between $500,000 to $1 million per soldier in Afghanistan every year. Since President Obama deployed thousands of more troops than Bush, the escalating war has come with a bloated price tag. So far, we have spent $336 billion on the war, and if Congress approves a request for additional funding, that number will go up to $455.4 billion – nearly half a trillion dollars. According to CostofWar.com, just the $120 billion in additional funding could fund 1.6 million elementary school teachers for a year, 1.9 million firefighters for a year, or $5,550 Pell Grants for 19.3 million students. A single month’s expenses on the Afghanistan war could pay for 46.9 billion meals for the hungry each month. Six months’ worth of Afghanistan war expenses could pay for school supplies for every single child in the world.


In addition to its financial price, the Afghanistan war is costing real human lives. Over the course of the entire war, at least 1,400 U.S. troops have been killed and over 10,000 wounded. The rate of deaths is also increasing, as more than a third of the total troops killed (499) died just during the past year. The price paid by ordinary Afghans is even greater. Not counting so-called insurgents, at least 2,412 civilians were killed and 3,803 were wounded in just the first 10 months of last year – these are most likely conservative estimates. The rate of Afghan civilian deaths is up 20 percent compared to the year before, directly corresponding to the increased troop levels under President Obama. In fact, over the course of the war, U.S.-led military actions have resulted in more direct civilian deaths (5,791 - 9,060) than “insurgent”-led actions (4,949 - 6,499).

Meanwhile, the U.S.-backed government in Afghanistan has no more legitimacy than Egypt’s embattled Mubarak regime. The 2009 elections in which President Hamid Karzai claimed victory were condemned internationally as fraudulent. Released documents showed that 100% of votes from dozens of polling places in provinces like Kandahar were for Karzai. Afghanistan’s Electoral Complaints Commission received thousands of complaints of fraud. Journalists easily purchased voter registration cards on the black market. Despite documentary evidence of criminal activity implicating top government officials and Karzai himself, the U.S. continues to legitimize the central government as the only alternative to the Taliban. There is also little criticism beyond vague assertions of “corruption” of members of the Afghan Parliament. Many Afghan MPs have a history of bloody war crimes, particularly during the post-Soviet era of the early 1990’s when tens of thousands of civilians were maimed, raped, and killed often with U.S.-supplied weapons. Today, those same men, considered the Taliban’s ideological brethren, control private militias, suck up millions of dollars of aid for their private gain, terrorize civilians, and are neck-deep in the drug trade.

It is no wonder then that leading Afghan activist and former Member of Parliament, Malalai Joya, wants the U.S. and NATO out of her country. Having come face-to-face with the brutality of war and the power that U.S.-backed war criminals wield, Joya has been demanding an end to the occupation for years. In her book, A Woman Among Warlords, just out in paperback, Joya explains the situation of ordinary Afghans: “[w]e are caught between two enemies – the Taliban on one side and the U.S./NATO forces and their warlord allies on the other.” She goes on to say that “for our people, Obama is a warmonger, like Bush. He follows the same disastrous policies, only with much more determination and force.”

Joya is the most outspoken Afghan to have been elected to Afghanistan’s Parliament. She is beloved by her people for daring to speak out against U.S.-backed war criminals that dominate the government and is targeted by those very warlords. In fact, Joya has survived at least 4 assassination attempts. She represents a majority of Afghans that want neither a foreign occupation with its fundamentalist lackeys in government nor their enemies the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Despite this, her opinions are rarely reflected in U.S. media.

By most accounts, violence is increasing. According to the Afghanistan NGO Safety Office (ANSO), attacks in Helmand and Kandahar rose by 124% and 20% last year compared to 2009. Furthermore, the violence has now spread to parts of the previously more peaceful North and East, but the U.S. military and its spokespeople continue to cast their failures as successes. For example, in a recent letter to U.S. troops, General David Petraeus said, “Throughout the past year, you and our Afghan partners worked together to halt a downward security spiral in much of the country and to reverse it in some areas of great importance.” He went on to cite specific progress in the Afghan capital Kabul as well as the traditional Taliban strongholds of the Helmand and Kandahar provinces, ignoring the fact that the number of attacks there are increasing. The ANSO, which provides security advice for organizations operating on the ground in Afghanistan, said in its quarterly report, “No matter how authoritative the source of any such claim [of progress], messages of this nature are solely intended to influence American and European public opinion.” As Malalai Joya says in her book, “It is all a lie – dust in the eyes of the world.”

Like Malalai Joya, most Afghans are painfully aware of the war’s spiral into violence and mayhem: a November 2010 survey by the Afghan Center for Socio-Economic and Opinion Research found that favorable opinions of the U.S. have hit an all-time low of 43% among Afghans. More than twice as many Afghans now blame the U.S. and NATO for violence compared to a year ago. Afghans are also less optimistic about the availability of jobs and economic opportunities, freedom of movement, and the rights of women compared to a year earlier. Americans share the Afghan opinion that the troops should leave. A CNN Opinion Research poll last December found that 63% now oppose the war.

In the last chapter of her book, Joya details her recommendations on how the world can really help Afghans, the first of which is to the end the U.S.-NATO war. She also explains the real humanitarian needs of the Afghan people that the international community could fulfill, and how this would have to go hand-in-hand with disarmament, especially of the warlords that have enjoyed foreign support for so long. Finally, Joya ardently demands all foreign troops to withdraw from her country, making a strong case for how any outbreak of civil war could be minimized through responsible international diplomacy.

According to Joya, “the truth about Afghanistan has been hidden behind a smoke screen of words and images carefully crafted by the United States and its NATO allies and repeated without question by the Western media.” Joya will speak directly to American audiences this spring in a nationwide tour intended to expose the brutality and futility of the war and clear the smoke screen. Her speaking tour comes ahead of a major push by antiwar activists to organize bi-coastal events protesting the Afghanistan war on April 9th and 10th 2011. Starting in mid-March, Joya will begin her tour in New York. From there, she heads to New Jersey, Washington D.C., Maryland, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Minnesota, Oregon, Washington state, and California. Joya’s tour will culminate with her participation in San Francisco’s April 10th Antiwar Demonstration. Details of Malalai Joya’s Spring 2011 tour are online at www.afghanwomensmission.org.

Joya’s words can help Americans clear the “dust from our eyes” and face the reality that for all our sakes, the Afghanistan war must end sooner rather than later.