Michael Steele......

.
.
.
.
During the 10 year Vietnam war 1965--75, which America lost, with the death of 150,000 servicemen unofficially and the additional death of 4 million Vietnamese, the most important thing that was fixed for the criminal elite of the USA was the drugs from South East Asia into the country, using the resources of the American military and intelligence.............a few Americans became very rich from the drugs whose profits were laundered into Wall Street, and the USA arms industry also benefited.

For most ordinary Americans in the official war, a high percentage of them illiterate boys from the lowest strata of American society.........poor white boys, and poor black boys, obviously suffered. We must also never forget that 4 million Vietnamese also died from that unnecessary war.........and great crimes were also committed in the region, especially in Cambodia in the process of executing that war.

There was no clear evidence of Communism on the march from Vietnam, into the whole region. Indeed American action in Vietnam facilitated the Communist takeover of Cambodia by Pol Pot..........and the subsequent genocide of 1.5 million of its people.

And so the American war machine for pretty much vague reasons is in yet more wars, which do not seem justifiable, but mainly for the sake of drugs profits laundered into Wall Street, and the American arms industry profits as with Vietnam.

The key difference with Vietnam is two fold.

America financially and thus economically is not in a position to conduct such wars rationally given the level of national debt, trade imbalance, loss of manufacturing.

The other difference with Vietnam is that whilst that war had a start and a finish, the present wars are planned for quite a while with more wars against more "enemy" countries being planned along the war in an ad hock manner.........endless war, which turns America into a dictatorship at home, and a pure predatory power abroad.

We may say that this is a clear indication of the end of the USA.......as we know it, as it sinks into the abyss eventually. No nation on earth has ever fought endless wars and survived. It is an abnormal Human condition. Comparisons with the 1,000 year highly militarized Roman empire is irrelevant because that was a different era where low tech, and massive genocidal slaughter was possible by one power, whilst save the Carthaginians, Germans and Persians, no real threats were offered until the Barbarian invasions of AD 400--500.

Simply put:

1. The USA cannot conduct modern high tech warfare indefinitely without incurring exorbitant costs which must eventually crush the American economy.

2. Modern society is less accepting of wars than they were 2000 years ago, where primitive society accepted that war as part of the Great Empire was certainly worth sacrificing for, or for the sake of greater glory or some type of material benefit for the masses........cheap wheat from Egypt .........or olive oil from Greece and Turkey. One of the things one notes about the Roman army was that no matter how many battles they lost they always came back with reinforcements..........Roman armies could sustain losses upon losses in the 100,000 and still put armies into battle. Modern sophisticated society with modicums of comfort and civilization cannot make such sacrifices. What for?

3. In the modern world, unlike the Roman world technology works both ways, and subjugated societies under Pax Americana can put up effective resistance in way a primitive societies in the Roman era could not. Guerrilla warfare against the Roman army in Palestine was futile and self destructive, the Romans simply destroyed Jerusalem......or any other resistance groups within their empire.....which was continuously connected by land and sea. Resistance against the USA on the other hand can be very effective using simple basic modern weapons as the mere 30,000 Iraqi Sunni's have shown.

4. The Romans were as a reflection of their time barbaric, and they did unspeakable things in Gallic France, Palestine against the Jews, against the Dacians in Romania, against Carthage, and even against the Greeks whom they so admired. HOWEVER, once things settled down and a territory was under their control, the Romans a very pragmatic efficient Empire got on with the serious business of governing and assimilating the new territory into their great empire. There were major benefits for all being part of the Roman empire........Roman roads which still exist to this day in most of Western Europe, Roman Villas for the local elite, Roman Qua-ducts, Roman Baths, the Roman economy and a huge single economy within which to do business....Roman agriculture, and the opportunities of being part of a great empire. During the latter period of the empire, you could come from Spain or North Africa....and become a very important figure within Rome at the center.

The USA on the other hand shows no clear indication as Pax Americana in Iraq and Afghanistan, that it intends to establish normality in its newly occupied territories after 7 years of occupation in Iraq, and 9 years of occupation in Afghanistan. No serious attempt in governance (According to TI these two countries are the most corrupt nations on earth). An over reliance on criminal elements from within these two societies, and engaging in on-going combat against the locals especially in Afghanistan's case, after 9 years. In short the USA is mean spirited in its manner and occupation of these countries without offering the fruits and benefits of being part of Pax Americana, which were/are/was so abundant.........infrastructure, development, industry, modern law, stable democracy, shopping malls, modern consumerism etc.......Thus naturally the locals MUST resist against Pax Americana, as they have not been given the choice. The Psychology of this American behavior........uttering inane dishonest banalities of democracy, justice, stability, development whilst running mafia narco states is inexplicable.

5. The Romans for a while for a couple of hundred years were quite effective rulers.......Caesar could be ineffective, but the administrative system worked and carried on running the empire. In the USA now it seems a kleptocracy has taken power, and thus such a nation run by such people must eventually destroy their own country................Corruption eventually destroyed the Roman empire, related to finance, and over extension.

In the Vietnam war there were many prominent critics of the war within the administrations and outside, and their position were accepted, and respected......someone had a point view...a perspective, on a profoundly important topic with huge costs, and the loss of life.

But now someone like Michael Steele takes a position against the war in Afghanistan, and he is automatically called a traitor.............he becomes nervous.........feels isolated so he backtracks and corrects himself. The man was merely stating the obvious, and he is hounded for stating the obvious truth..............how do you run a country such as America if stating the obvious truth is shouted down?

How do you run America with 300 million people, if stating the obvious truth about unemployment, the economy, immigration, healthcare, security in the USA........is not stamped by Obama and his Wall Street Banker buddies? How do you run a Republican Party a section of which tries to create an alternative debate and narrative to Obama for the 2012 Presidential elections, if the person is hounded down in such an insecure, instant, oh my God the clouds are falling down upon us by his own party?

Where than is the rational, intellectual debate in all these serious matters.......or are we to suppose the former Trotskite Neo-cons are the only specialist with received God given wisdom in this significant area?

The reaction against Steele stating the truth informs us that he was right; it was a panic reaction........and a majority of Americans would agree with him.

But Obama and the Politburo with their other agenda's require no debate, merely rubber stamping approval..............

"Comrades..................for the greater good of the empire please agree with us..."



































.
.
.
.

Finally after 63 years, but wait no .........

.
.
.
.
On the Tits and Bums rag, especially gora tits and bums rag they had this interesting piece of IRONY with the underlying subsequent revelation of Congress mismanagement which I have posted below.

India theoretically is the 4th most powerful nation on earth, and a nuclear power which should automatically guarantee her a seat as a permanent member of the UN Security Council. But hasn't.

Maybe the International bankers based in NY, London, and Zurich don't like India, who knows (Jewish this world materialism vs Indian aestheticism????.....but then again there are plenty of grasping Indians).

Maybe the fact that India is still celebrating the utterly utterly utterly evil British Empire as a member of the Commonwealth in a clappy happy upbeat way, and annually still taking the begging bowl to Paris for foreign aid counts against her joining this exclusive "club"......of the USA, Russia, France, Britain and China.

India has a 1,500,000 army, 200,000 airforce and a navy close to 60,000 personnel unofficially, and can mobilize 3,000,000 men and some woman for war, backed by 4,000,000 million paramilitaries doing the essential rear-guard duties in times of war. The second largest conventional force by numbers in the world.

And clearly both the left and right of Indian politics want India to be recognized as a "Great Power".......lobbying all in sunder about India's case, and are mesmerized when the USA repeatedly takes the SAP for who he is, and promises them to make India into a "great power".

To be a "Great Power" not only is it essential to talk the talk, but you have to walk the walk. There are certain key things which you have to do to turn yourself into a "Great Power"....which becomes an actual REALITY. But not based on the promises of others.

I am not sure what exactly the wisdom of being a "Great Power" is, save for massaging the male ego....but lets indulge it for arguments sake here.

Whats involved?

Unfortunately though the above numbers about Indian military might are impressive on paper, due to the negligence of the political elite and their distrust of the armed forces generally, which almost came to the boil in the mid-seventies between Field Marshal Manekshaw Chief of the Indian army and Indira Gandhi, the politicians generally neglect the armed forces of India based on some vague ill-defined deference to Gandhian philosophy of not over encouraging militarism within India, which might also threaten Indian Democracy at some point as with neighboring Pakistan.

You'll never find Bollywood making a "Pure" war movie without any songs, shorn of any romanticism, that most other nations make without exception.....ditto Indian television.

The USA makes millions of great war movies.

Russia makes many great war movies.

China makes great historical and current war movies.

This little cultural insight alone tells us a lot.

There are many "indicators" of this political negligence of the Indian armed forces, and you don't need a Ph.d in International security to find the reasons.

Take the essential portfolio of Defense within the cabinet......the person is responsible for the current and future protection and defense of the nation, and further responsibility over a million and half servicemen with a budget of $32 billion; not exactly on a par with the ministry of tourism or fisheries you'd think. In the early years Congress preferred to appoint people who loathed the military such as Kishna Menon, and more recently the standard practice by all parties is to choose someone from the minorities, a political none entity, a clown who could be passed off just as easily as a Harijan street sweeper. This tells us a lot about the reality of being a "great power". Are we serious? If you are serious about being a "Great Power", then you have got to appoint the right people into such important portfolio's.....not the likes of George Fernandes or AK Anthony, or Johnny Lever.

"Great Powers" must have basic strategic balance, and the simple ability to defend themselves from other predatory powers in a credible manner. I am not even talking about offensive capability, sending aircraft carriers here there every where, and waving the "Great Power" flag.

India has been tested and came out well against failed state Pakistan (run by the USA) when that nation attacked India in 1948, 1965, 1971 and 1999 without any Indian provocation. In the case of the East Pakistan war it was a decisive victory. But the Raj Pooonjab Police Force (aka Pakistan military) is worth less than the tati that comes out of my arse.........it is the worst military in the world whose main job description is killing her own citizens, and acts of terrorism against the very same citizens and then blaming it on various Islamic fundamentalist which the Raj Pooonjab Police Force first created, trained, armed, backed, financed, sustains and directs, up to 500,000 since the 1970's. The Raj Pooonjab Police Force has killed 3,000,000 East Pakistanis; 100,000 Baluchis and their work against the Pashtuns is in progress with the direct aid of the USA.

Suffice to say any analysis which exemplifies Indian military prowess and professionalism against such a "unique" foe is useless in the real, "Great Power" world.

But at least we know from such a foe the real action for India is in the mountains.

Up in the mountains of the Himalayas.

Up in the fucking bahuwa aXika.

Ut vahi parvawIya BAg.

India needs credible forces to defend such problem areas: 600,000 military in Kashmir stationed well away from Civilian areas (Civilian problems to be dealt with by Police, CBI and RAW only) 400,000 in Himachal and Uttrakhand. 800,000 In Arunchal Pradesh, 600,000 up the mountains and 200,000 in Assam. You can have 700,000 concentrated in the Punjab, Rajasthan and other parts of India. No point having just two armoured divisions on a par with Pakistan, when the real Indian economy is 8 times bigger than Pakistan's. Why not have 20 armoured divisions with 6,000 tanks to show decisively which nation has the economic and industrial muscle. Psychologically where military people defer to power this will have an important impact. Pakistan will less likely play games with India in the future and will take the country more seriously, or at least think twice......unlike in the past, for example where Musharaf played golf whilst he initiated Kargil with 3 other generals.

Why have 34 divisions only to Pakistan's soon to be 30? What is wrong in having over 150 divisional HQ, with trained staff to man them organized further into 40 corps HQ, 22 army HQ, 10 army groups HQ upon full mobilization and about 5 sector commands.

I am talking about regular forces and not reserves. The Indian army can be officially 2 million, but unofficially 2.5 million with a 1.5 million reserve.

Interesting to see how India fares in a long mass warefare involving years, where logistics, mass production, INFRASTRUCTURE, mobilization of GDP, organizational discipline come into play in a multiple fronted war in the Eastern and Western sector, against a real professional foe. On that level India hasn't been tested so far.

A professional military without a huge reserve will lose a lot of quality experienced men in a REAL long drawn out war, so my preference is to have a large army initially to the tune of 2.5 million which soaks in losses in a two fronted war, and is backed by 1.5 million well trained reserves.

Since the time of the British Raj from where the Indian army gets its military traditions, and not from Tipu Sultan's army, or the Maratha Confederation or the Mughals...........the current military slavishly follow the British model of warefare, even if somewhat outdated. Though to be fair to the Pakistanis Americanization is taking place, and they are finally discarding their British Raj appearance of over 63 years back.......thats what I call tradition.

Without being privy to detailed field manuals on tactics I believe the traditional Indian approach to war is that of the British Raj from the last century pre-1945 which is pin point the enemy, close in on the enemy, bear in numerical superiority on specific points, and give them cold steel in small groups or mass charges. Variation of that was used in Kargil, where Indian losses were 500 to Pakistan's estimated losses of 4,000 irregulars, NLI. Officers lead the charge, and thus they incur heavy losses. That is not a feasible option in a long drawn out two fronted mass war. Any new tactic has to rely on artillery....lots and lots of it, trained for altitude warefare/trajectory.....and strong defensive points of large well supplied independent Brigades which are self sufficient up to a point. The Romantic notions of cold steel charges and Kukri charges, led by officers has to be ditch good and proper.

It would also be appropriate if comprehensive Indianisation of the military took place and it loses its "I say old boy" colonial heritage. It would be nice if cadets in Dehra Dun took their oaths in Hindi or Sanskrit. It is wise that senior officers above the rank of Brigadier should not have taken any military training either in the UK or USA.........Russia is acceptable.

Thus in such a BASIC scenario for such a credible army India needs to manufacture 20,000 Mortars, you know those simple things made of steel tubes with one end blocked off, but the perfect weapon for mountain warefare; 22,000 AA Guns 40--120 mm; 10,000 mountain artillery TOW and SP. India needs to manufacture attack helicopters, and transport helicopters suited for the high altitude ....Russian versions can be plagiarized for starters, they are cheap and easy to manufacture.

If the Indian navy loses an engagement, India does not lose the war, but India may be blockaded, though highly unlikely since a strong LANDBASED airforce can unblock it. Further in the event of a blockade, shipping routes and supplies can be ensured via Bangladesh, Myanmar, and Sri Lanka........contingency plans can be made well in advance.

If the army loses a battle or two, you lose the whole war and much else eventually. Third World countries with limited military budgets must optimize their meager resources and direct them into the right strategy, and not go for over elaborate fancy irrelevant International banker coded military programs. (50,000 crore---6 submarines, North Sea, London.....It is a stretch to imagine even with the best of foreign Western advice that I will be ever bringing a few million hostile forces against India, that of course will never be....I am a teacher)

Diplomacy and the art of diplomacy is a boon. If through mere diplomacy you can achieve lasting peace with neighbors, this is good. It is too be desired and work on constantly.......Europe has matured to the point where save for some parts in the Balkans, peace and good neighborly relations are the norm. But alas as we well know it was not always like that, and Europe throughout history experienced many unnecessary wars through the false illusions and designs of egotistical men.

Weimar Germany and the Soviet Union extensively cooperated on military matters with each other to the point where in places such as Ufa, in the Soviet Union the two countries secretly developed tanks because such technology were denied to both countries....they cooperated on many other levels into 1941. In 1940 the Soviets supplied Germany with extra petrol, grains and other essential raw materials and possibly military hardware for the invasion of France and the attack on the UK in late summer.

The Soviet Union was the greatest military power on earth, but after Stalin executed 80% of the top officers in 1937, the whole military became worthless, and it showed when the Soviet Union had problems defeating the small Finnish army in 1940. This convinced Hitler to attack his much larger foe which eventually finished the Third Reich, but not after the sacrifice of 25---30 million war dead in the Soviet Union.

What I am saying is that India must not rely on diplomacy alone to protect itself. Nations you are friendly with nominally can suddenly become unfriendly.........the only insurance and guarantor against such an unfortunate situation is a strong CONVENTIONAL military which everybody understands is powerful and effective. Increase the army to 2.5 million from the current 1.5 million unofficially; the airforce from 200,000 to 300,000. Increase the divisional HQ from the current 34 to 150, with 30 mountain divisions. March them visibly up and down Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh and Arunchal Pradesh. Conduct mass armored exercises in Rajasthan involving 10 armored divisions.

The COST of all this will be far far far less than when India INVITES yet another open war which may ultimately be very costly as it initially was for the Soviet Union. Stalin and the Communists at least were able to recover to save their country; the Congress Party won't be able to do that.

Not with 39 ordinance factories. As I have said before India needs 200--300 ordinance factories at least based in the North near the action.... West Bengal, Punjab, and Harayana. 2.5% of GDP on defense is again too small and it should be closer to 5%.

Let me repeat that the USA, Russia and China do not buy arms from foreign countries 90---100% of their defense inventory is their own, and this is logical without being a strategic military genius.....it makes sense that in defense you rely on your own manufactured weapons rather than wait anxiously for the spares to arrive on the goodwill of foreign nations and their particular whim for the day.

Yes I know that a lot of people from politicians, to netas, to senior officers to arms middle men make money from kickbacks.....which then go on to the Swiss accounts.........2005......."Ahem everybody we are going to spend $10 billion on a new jet fighter.....what are your bids?"...2006......."Ahem everybody we are going to spend $10 billion on a new jet fighter.....what are your bids?"....2007......."Ahem everybody we are going to spend $10 billion on a new jet fighter.....what are your bids?"...2008......."Ahem everybody we are going to spend $10 billion on a new jet fighter.....what are your bids?"....2009......."Ahem everybody we are going to spend $10 billion on a new jet fighter.....what are your bids?"...2010......."Ahem everybody we are going to spend $10 billion on a new jet fighter.....what are your bids?"....2011......."Ahem everybody we are going to spend $10 billion on a new jet fighter.....what are your bids?"....2012......."Ahem everybody we are going to spend $10 billion on a new jet fighter.....what are your bids?"....2013......."Ahem everybody we are going to spend $10 billion on a new jet fighter.....what are your bids?"....2014......."Ahem everybody we are going to spend $10 billion on a new jet fighter.....what are your bids?"....Tehelka.....yes its that obvious, but its makes a mockery of Indian defense.......Johnny Lever level mockery.


__________________________________

Draft defence production policy stresses R&D

Rajat Pandit of TOI

The government is finally ready with a spanking new Defence Production Policy (DPP) which seeks to drastically reduce India's overwhelming and strategically-vulnerable dependence on foreign military hardware and software by bolstering indigenous R&D and private sector participation in a major way.

(understatement.......when 70% of your hardware is foreign your military machine is hostage to foreign powers.....ask the Pakistanis in 1965. You then have to make peace on their terms, and their threats.

What's wrong with calling this new defense policy Saatagni Kharkana Nitii.......after the ballistic weapon created in India around 1000 BC, but subsequently banned as unchivalrous...........DPP in the UK means Director of Public Prosecutions......which UK diplomat is guiding and ghost writing such policies?????)

The DPP's final draft, in fact, holds "only those weapon systems/platforms will be procured from abroad which cannot be made/developed within the country" in specified timeframes to meet "critical" operational requirements.

(Legaleeze Weasel terms which can be interpreted in a variety of ways...........either you go for 100% domestic production/procurement, like the USA, China or Russia or you don't)

All such "buy" projects will necessarily include transfer of technology, unless "exceptions are required for specific reasons", to ensure subsequent generations of the weapon systems are developed indigenously.

(Legaleeze Weasel terms which can be interpreted in a variety of ways...........either you go for 100% domestic production/procurement, like the USA, China or Russia or you don't)

With the government now ready to fund domestic private companies with 80% of developmental costs, approval procedures for 'development/integration/make' of new defence systems indigenously are being 'further simplified'.

( By 2050.........hopefully)

The DPP also says priority will be given to develop "strategic and critical technologies" to "reduce vulnerabilities" in case of sanctions and denials.

(meaningless generalizations)

Defence production secretary R K Singh told TOI the objective is to "change the entire dynamics and orientation" of the existing defence procurements and production.

(Legaleeze Weasel terms which can be interpreted in a variety of ways...........either you go for 100% domestic production/procurement, like the USA, China or Russia or you don't)

"We want a strong domestic defence-industrial base to ensure our strategic autonomy is not circumscribed. It will also have an economic multiplier effect by generating jobs here," said Singh.

"The Defence Acquisitions Council (headed by defence minister A K Antony) will now take up the DPP for final approval in its next meeting, or the one after that," he added.

(The clown AK Anthony has the final decision........)

The DPP specifies futuristic weapon systems, required after 7-8 years and beyond, will by and large be developed/integrated within the country after the long-term integrated perspective plans of the armed forces are analysed by sectoral multi-disciplinary indigenisation committees (SMDICs).

(-------Bring in the netas....and more committees........Legaleeze Weasel terms which can be interpreted in a variety of ways...........either you go for 100% domestic production/procurement, like the USA, China or Russia or you don't)

With representatives from the ministry, armed forces, DRDO and others, SMDICs will play "a pro-active role" in organising partnerships between academia and industry.

(Why simplify the whole thing under one command structure when you can include 10 different groups deciding on a project)

For every weapon system to be developed, two Indian companies with the lowest quotes will be selected, with the L-1 (lowest bidder) getting 65% of the order. The second company, or L-2, will get the remaining 35% but on the L-1 price.

But all this will take a lot of doing. The government till now has taken only piecemeal measures to boost private sector participation in the defence production arena, which was largely the public sector's preserve till a decade ago.

(Don't hold you breath.........our policy might take a couple of decades to implement------you understand?)

The defence sector was opened up in 2001-2002 to 100% private investment, with up to 26% foreign direct investment (FDI), but the results so far have not been very encouraging.

(Wonder why?)

Moreover, the abysmal performance of DRDO, eight defence PSUs and 39 ordnance factories has meant India, which fancies itself as an emerging superpower, still imports over 70% of its military requirements.

(Ah no, the problem is not DRDO, its the netas and top military brass setting unrealistic standards of Indian made weaponry.......as if India can suddenly produce topnotch globally standard equipment. And when they fail in a few aspects, opting for the KICKBACK foreign deals for other reasons not related to defense procurement.

The T-34 had multiple problems in production INITIALLY, but these were ironed out after full production had begun in 1940.)

As reported earlier, India has inked arms deals worth a whopping $50 billion since the 1999 Kargil conflict, making it the largest arms importer in the developing world.

(Sad sad sad...........and the later spare parts deal....that's not included)

Acknowledging India's self-reliance index is less than 30%, the DPP says, "Dependence on other countries for defence needs makes the country vulnerable, reduces foreign policy and strategic options and impedes the country's growth as an independent power in its own right."

(You don't suppose Einstein)

The attempted general strike in India.

.
.
.
.
.
I've not read in detail the issues around the Bandh in India, but put simply it goes something like this:

(1) The Congress led government says there has to be fuel price hikes, since the subsidy for fuel is insufficient to keep pace with rising demand. The government has ear marked about 3,000 crore ($638 million) to subsidize petrol, diesel, kerosene and LPG. Whilst the actual demand for such products in India will reach 98,000 crore ($20 billion. HT Karan Thapar)

(2) The Opposition ranging from the far-left to the far right however state that this is all rubbish, and that price hikes are not necessary, and are only taking place due to the incompetence and mismanagement of the government.

Who's right? Who is wrong? What policies should be implemented for long term amelioration of the problem?

My Masters in International Law at Warwick University 14 years ago focused on India, its corruption, human rights commission, environmental policies and its macro-economic policies around IMF implemented Structural Adjustment Programs (SAP--which in American street slang means looser), and since then I have taken a casual if somewhat superficial interest in India's economic development.

One really ought to read Greg Pallast in relation to this issue, and his acute analysis of how the IMF/WB through their implementation of austerity policies defacto exploit and loot the wealth of Third World nations and facilitate the long term asset stripping and resourcing stealing of such unfortunate countries through the manipulation of a narrow corrupt elite placed into power by the USA and its various Democracy Programs, to serve the interests of the International Banking community.

You might say what has the "market" reality of the price of oil at $80 a barrel got to do with the IMF/WB. Quite a lot if you look at the whole Capitalist Western system which is rigged to exploit the masses and especially vulnerable Third Word nations in favor of the few, again in the West. Otherwise known as Neo-colonialism.

Neo-liberalism, Globalization, Monetarism and Deregulation all sounded so great when they are expounded enthusiastically from the early 1980's, by the USA and their well funded fronts in academia and the global media as a globalist International Banker policy.

But the actual reality is that such policies haven't worked for many countries. In the case of Russia and Argentina specifically when teams of neo-liberal advisers from American Think Tanks arrived to manage these two countries, the result were unmitigated disasters, from which Argentina and Russia are still barely recovering from.

Within America itself now there are many economic problems which are all compounded by rising unemployment, and a national debt which is greater than the national economy. China is in a position to decide America's economic future........and not the Federal Reserve.

In India there is this general talk of 'development' but the reality is that many Indians still live in abject poverty. 840 million Indians still live on 20 rupees a day, and one meal of rice a day. On the other hand India has 55 billionaires and is host to the second richest man on earth with a $100 billion personal fortune. He is contemplating and constructing a $2 billion Penthouse. The richest man on earth hails from Mexico, but let us not discuss the problems of that backyard American colony and its multiple challenges at all levels. I cannot honestly believe that you can morally call national development that which leaves behind and neglects the vast majority of ordinary Indians basic needs.

CHEAP FOOD.

MODEST HOUSING WITH BASIC FACILITIES.

FREE EDUCATION UP TO THE AGE OF 16.

FREE HEALTHCARE.

CHEAP FUEL/TRANSPORT.

The neo-colonial Anglicized elite of India who have looted and denied real across the board development of the masses in South Asia can hardly ask the masses NOW to be the first shock troops in line to make more sacrifices on the meager basics of food and fuel, whilst the Anglicized Indian elite lord it up in London, NY and heaven knows where else with their secret off shore accounts with looted Indian assets worth up to $1,500 billion.

There is absolutely no paradox that such neo-liberal International Banker policies should be implemented by a 'leftie" party with secularism as its foundation. Congress as the 'Liberation" Party went seriously downhill under Indira Gandhi when she became the first dynasty entitled leader of the Party. PM ManMohan Singh the neta was recruited as an agent of the International Bankers over 20 years ago, and with his nicey smile, and geriatric manners, he has been slowly implementing their policies in India.......The International Bankers learnt their lesson in Russia and Argentina; you can't implement such policies suddenly in such a complex country as India, otherwise you are courting disaster.

Backing sardarji is the Italian mafia sinisterly operating in the background, in the guise of illiterate Sonia a former au pair, who is hoping her son the playboy Rahul becomes the next Raja of India. This is all a comical farce.....a Priyadarshan movie. No wait its real life.

WHAT IS OIL?

Oil is not a fossil fuel. The Russian scientist who originally theorised that oil was created by decomposing dinosaurs in the 18th century was wrong, when Russian scientists under Stalin 200 years later discovered that oil was a NATURAL occurring MINERAL produced by earth, and thus without limits, enough for everybody into infinity, and so long as the earths core does not freeze, like Mars.

In theory oil can be a free commodity, after governments have paid for refining, storage and transport costs, but it isn't. The industry is dominated by a few Western companies based in the USA, France, UK/Holland. They as private Capitalist companies think only in terms of profit, and the commodity market for oil is dominated by financial cartels in NY, Rotterdam, London and Germany. This cartel artificially keeps the price of oil high at $80 a barrel, but at one time went as high as $150 a barrel. There is no justification for this. Such prices hurt the poor, and poor nations, and poor nations development.

India can protect itself from this Western fix and market rigging by:

By investing in nuclear power which uses local fuels.

Wind/solar/wave power.

Hydrogen power.

further exploitation of India's vast coal reserves......without being hemmed in by Climate Change hogwash policies.

AND finally investing heavily in oil and gas exploration within India and off shore, as well as sources in the near far countries such as Myanmar, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran. The alternatives sources of power mentioned above will take time to be fully utilized, and thus oil and gas into eternity because of its nature will still be an essential source of energy for all nations. (India $ 2.1 billion earmarked by government, and China $32 billion for oil exploration, India’s oil import bill reached US$ 85.47 billion in 2009-10 Priyanka Bhardwaj TOI)

India is rich. Its actual economy measured by PPP is around $3600--3800 billion; the fourth richest nation on earth, and which will become the third richest in just a few years. India has money and India has resources. The Indian government frequently spends billions on worthless foreign defense equipment...billions...billions...billions, when focus should be made on domestic production of defense equipment, even if its substandard.

This practice carries on by all parties because it makes certain politicians, netas, senior military officers and arms middlemen in India rich, and they deposit the money in off shore accounts (Indira Gandhi and her family have been implicated, as have others)..............now imagine this elite putting the same amount of effort into securing India's gas & oil needs, by investing the necessary funds and implementing the necessary policies to make India self sufficient in gas and oil.

BUT they won't as International banker pawns. For them what is more important is to plug in India into the International Banker policies, and global economy.

What is 3,000 crore fuel subsidy by the government?.......0.05% of GDP ($638 million) of the official Indian economy of $1300 billion. According to Karan Thapar this subsidy bill will rise to 98,000 crore or $20 billion in this financial year which the Indian government allegedly can't sustain.

Unfortunately this subsidy bill is seen as a COST, a burden on the state, rather than seeing it as another indicator of the India's economic rise, and booming economy.............like the Ambani building his $2 billion penthouse; Shobha De bragging on about her latest foray into a luxury hotel in India and outside........or India spending $10 billion or is it going to be eventually $20 billion on a 4th generation jet fighters whose technology will soon be out of date, from a foreign country.

Seeing fuel subsidy for the masses as a COST and burden which the government can't pay for is a neo-liberal alien Western concept. $20 Billion or 98,000 crore estimated fuel subsidy bill this year is still 0.5% of the real Indian economy as measured by PPP of $3600--3800 billion.

The Indian Budget of $200 billion is woefully too small. Only 15% of the official GDP...........a neo-liberal paradise. The government thus must find serious strategies to increase the budget to GDP ratio from the current 15% to at least 25% of GDP, through an effective new tax regime. Then in such a prosperous confident India governments won't feel mean spirited about spending a paltry 1% on fuel subsidy.

Subsidies are the only way, in the complete absence of a SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM to give a little help to the masses......Bakshish.

Thus I support annual subsidized national health-care to the tune of 4-5% of GDP.

I support annual subsidized national education for all up to the age of 16, spending 6% of GDP on education.

I support annual subsidized national development and infrastructure investment to the tune of 10% of GDP.

I support annual subsidized agricultural policies to the tune of 3% of GDP.

I support annual subsidized fuel to the tune of 1% of GDP, at least.

These can only be achieved by governments who accept that in power and in government they have a moral duty to uplift the masses beyond paying lip service to their needs, whilst privately pursuing neo-liberal banana republic policies which slowly steals even the meager basics of the masses, such as food and fuel.

Is a Bandh an effective response to the International Bankers programs in India?

I think Bandh's of a sort played a certain role in India's eventual liberation.

Bandh's are a non-violent and effective pure representation and affirmation of popular public opinion. Public opinion, beyond the misrepresentation presented by the "official' media seems to be broadly supportive of the bandh against general price rises.

Thus bandh starkly brings home the message to the government about the publics discontent about certain key areas.

ON THE OTHER HAND......bandh should not be the default option for ALL protests against governments, and thus should be used sparingly.

One notes in failed state Bangladesh, managed by the UK and USA, hartal's (bandh's) were a common feature of everyday life. Unfortunately such action resulted in the loss of 30% of GDP by some estimates.......but my personal experience was that everybody loved them. Relatives of mine working for the government as civil servants didn't have to go to work, even though they were being paid......a kind of impromptu "holiday' where the "tash" were brought out and a general worthless adda carried on whilst the real economy suffered.

In India hartals or bandh's for short spurts are perfectly legitimate, especially for the private non-government sector, BUT not to the point where it results in causing national Hari-Kiri, and significant losses in production in relation to GDP. Below 1% GDP losses is OK.

Bandh's also hurt the 840 million Indians who rely on their day to day earnings to live for the day, and don't have savings to fall back on.......(Indian blogger)

Of course if such action is extremely effective who is to say the government in power, later in opposition aren't tempted to use the very same tactic against the new government, and a vicious cycle sets in.

Finally on this point if one has read Grag Pallasts incisive article about IMF riots:

"At this point, the IMF drags the gasping nation to Step Three: Market-Based Pricing, a fancy term for raising prices on food, water and cooking gas. This leads, predictably, to Step-Three-and-a-Half: what Stiglitz calls, "The IMF riot."

The IMF riot is painfully predictable. When a nation is, "down and out, [the IMF] takes advantage and squeezes the last pound of blood out of them. They turn up the heat until, finally, the whole cauldron blows up," as when the IMF eliminated food and fuel subsidies for the poor in Indonesia in 1998.(after the Asian financial crisis of 1997 instigated by Wall Street and George Soros) Indonesia exploded into riots, but there are other examples - the Bolivian riots over water prices last year and this February, the riots in Ecuador over the rise in cooking gas prices imposed by the World Bank. You'd almost get the impression that the riot is written into the plan."

In India nobody is suggesting that the far right and left are working with the IMF in organizing the bandh, or that food and fuel riots have actually occurred. The bandh was peaceful, well organized and had a limited start date and finish. However if the bandh becomes the main and only tool for the opposition to score points against Congress, then their actions can be termed as self defeating IMF instigated riots or the like, even if they are actually not because the end result will be the same.

American tragi-comedy

.
.
.
.

Heard Any Good War Jokes Lately?
by Jeff Huber at antiwar.com

The pratfall Dave Petraeus took face-first into his microphone during his farcical testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee last Tuesday channeled the Twix candy bar commercial that asks: “Need a moment?” As the New York Times put it, the Teflon General was facing some intense questioning on the president’s order to begin reducing American forces in Afghanistan next year when he “slumped toward the microphone on his table.” Maybe Dave just needed some time think things over. Maybe he needed to stall while his driver ran out to see if he left his crib sheet in his government sedan.

The general returned to the floor a half hour after later claiming he “just got dehydrated.” Must have been from all the heat he was catching from the committee.

The hearing’s running gag was a manhood dance between committee members who wanted Petraeus to come right out and say Obama’s withdrawal timeline for Afghanistan makes dirt look smart and Petraeus wanting to agree that Obama’s timeline makes dirt look smart without coming right out and saying it. This bit of patter between Petraeus and committee chairman Carl Levin deserves an Emmy:

Levin: “Do you continue to support that July 2011 date for the start of reduction in U.S. forces from Afghanistan?”

Petraeus: “I support the policy of the president, Mr. Chairman…”

Levin: “When you say that you continue to support the president’s policy … does that represent your best personal professional judgment?”

Petraeus: “In a perfect world, Mr. Chairman, we have to be very careful with timelines…”

Levin: “Do I take that to be a qualified yes, a qualified no, or just a non-answer?”

Petraeus: “A qualified yes, Mr. Chairman.”

When the senior half of the comedy team McCain and Lieberman* asked Petraeus if he told Obama, as per a recent book by Joseph Alter of Newsweek, that he’s “confident we can train and hand over to the ANA” in 18 months, Petraeus’ qualified non-answer was, “Well, Senator, I’m not sure it’s productive to comment on conversations that took place in the Oval Office.”

After a three-Twix-bar think about it I couldn’t conjure a single thing that could possibly have been more productive at that testimony than commenting on Petraeus’ discussion with Obama in the Oval Office concerning withdrawal timelines. McCain apparently could, though, because he said, “I understand that. I understand that.” He must have said it twice in case nobody believed him the first time.

Petraeus’ next non-answer was an unqualified masterpiece of bull-feather artistry. McCain asked “Do you agree with the comment of [Afghan] President Karzai’s former intelligence chief that Karzai has lost confidence in the ability of the United States and NATO to succeed in Afghanistan?”

Petraeus replied that his protégé Stan McChrystal, commander in Afghanistan, had “no sense” that there was “a lack of confidence in the United States’ commitment to Afghanistan.” To further support his position, he added, “The fact that we have more than tripled … our forces … is of enormous significance.”

Note Petraeus’ sleight-of-tongue here: the issue was whether the United States could succeed in Afghanistan, not whether it would commit to Afghanistan. They are not the same thing, at least not in any sane interpretation of the terms. We cannot possibly succeed at anything in Afghanistan other than running our ship of state aground. Committing to a course that will run us aground, however, seems to be the war mongrels’ goal, hence Petraeus’ observation that tripling our number of forces there constitutes “success.”

McCain then called Petraeus one of “America’s great heroes” but cautioned that he continued to worry about “the message we are sending to the region” by not making an even larger, even more open-ended commitment there than we’ve already made. That’s when Petraeus did his Chevy Chase impersonation and they carried his skinny carcass out of the room. Here’s how the dialogue went when Petraeus came back:

Petraeus: “Senator, my apologies.”

Levin: “Are you kidding?”

Petraeus: “I got a little bit light-headed there. It wasn’t Senator McCain’s questions, I assure you.”

Levin: “I know, it was mine.”

Petraeus: “No, it’s just that…”

Levin: “Clear me, too, would you, with the same breath, if you would? Just kidding.”

Can these guys be bloody serious?

Testimony the next day by Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Mike Mullen was equally bathetic, perhaps even more so. Gates and Mullen both asked the committee to be “patient” and allow them to make America’s longest war even longer. They’re like the lunatics who think we needed to have more patience with the Vietnam War. After all, we only committed a decade and a half-million troops to that conflict. Just think; if we had redoubled our efforts in Vietnam we’d still be winning there.

Gates, predictably, blamed the media for America’s disaffection for the war in Afghanistan. “The narrative,” he rued, is “too negative.”

Hmm. We’re backing a crooked ruler who stole an election and relying on his drug lord brother for intelligence. McChrystal himself called the Marjah offensive an “open sore,” and he had to delay the Kandahar offensive because nobody in Kandahar wants us to liberate them. We can’t even make up our minds who the enemy is. Is it the Taliban or is it al-Qaeda or is it the Pakistani security forces or is it Iran or maybe even the Turks? Wait: I bet it’s those crafty Chinese people! Or maybe that Venezuela guy we don’t like, Chavez or whatever his name is.

The comedians who put on last week’s Senate Armed Services Committee burlesque should retire from their day jobs and write full time for Saturday Night Live. Lord knows the present manifestation of SNL needs all the help it can get. In fact, the best stratagem for fixing both our failed foreign policy and our bad television programming might be a role reversal: put the incompetent generals and politicians in charge of our wars on Saturday Night Live and put the incompetent comedians on Saturday Night Live in charge of our wars.

The only thing genuine in the Senate hearing came from a lone protester who shouted “This is mass murder” as she was escorted out by police.

No kidding, lady. No kidding.

The Third Reich, and the Wehrmacht.

.
.
.
.
Yes I thought those posters of Obama as Hitler by the Tea Party plebs were a bit tasteless and far fetched. But was it? Obama smiles after all, has a family with two girls, is half African, and well educated.......Whilst Hitler on the other.

But on fundamentals which matter to 100's of millions if not billions, they may have more in common.

Both men are and were fronts for Jewish bankers based in Europe and North America.

Both men love loved perpetual war, and so it seems.........both men have had a sado-masochistic homosexual obsession with war, where men committed themselves, and sacrificed themselves in war.

Both men know/knew nothing about war, its essential strategies, but by their very policies there is a perception that they think thought they know knew better.

Both men were are big lying psychopaths, where making convincing lies to the public, with grand eloquent passionate oratory comes very easily.

Both men attack attacked the media for not obeying their world view..........Obama's criticism of the NYT recently for being too critical of Afghan policy. Both men have had problems handling criticism.

Finally both men sacked top generals who offered a more realistic view of the world.

OH DEAR, NEVER MIND.........just whistle, keep your fingers crossed, and hope for Mit Romney to be in by 2012.

_________________________________

The last post: McChrystal's bleak outlook

President Obama lost patience with Runaway General's failed strategy

By Jonathan Owen and Brian Brady of the Independent.

Sacked US General Stanley McChrystal issued a devastatingly critical assessment of the war against a "resilient and growing insurgency" just days before being forced out.

Using confidential military documents, copies of which have been seen by the IoS, the "runaway general" briefed defence ministers from Nato and the International Security Assistance Force (Isaf) earlier this month, and warned them not to expect any progress in the next six months. During his presentation, he raised serious concerns over levels of security, violence, and corruption within the Afghan administration.

Details of General McChrystal's grim assessment of his own strategy's current effectiveness emerged as the world's most powerful leaders set the Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, a five-year deadline to improve security and governance in his country.

The G8 summit in Toronto called for "concrete progress" within five years on improving the justice system and for Afghan forces to assume greater responsibility for security. David Cameron said a "political surge" must now complement the military one.

But the "campaign overview" left behind by General McChrystal after he was sacked by President Barack Obama last week warned that only a fraction of the areas key to long-term success are "secure", governed with "full authority", or enjoying "sustainable growth". He warned of a critical shortage of "essential" military trainers needed to build up Afghan forces – of which only a fraction is classed as "effective".

He pinpointed an "ineffective or discredited" Afghan government and a failure by Pakistan "to curb insurgent support" as "critical risks" to success. "Waning" political support and a "divergence of coalition expectations and campaign timelines" are among the key challenges faced, according to the general.

It was this briefing, according to informed sources, as much as the Rolling Stone article, which convinced Mr Obama to move against the former head of US Special Forces, as costs soar to $7bn a month and the body count rises to record levels, because it undermined the White House political team's aim of pulling some troops out of Afghanistan in time for the US elections in 2012. In addition to being the result of some too-candid comments in a magazine article, the President's decision to dispense with his commander was seen by the general's supporters as a politically motivated culmination of their disagreements.

General McChrystal's presentation to Nato defence ministers and Isaf representatives provided an uncompromising obstacle to Mr Obama's plan to bring troops home in time to give him a shot at a second term, according to senior military sources. The general was judged to be "off message" in his warning to ministers not to expect quick results and that they were facing a "resilient and growing insurgency".

It came as mounting casualties added to US and UK discomfort. June has been the bloodiest month for coalition forces since the conflict began, with 88 killed. A soldier from 4th Regiment Royal Artillery died yesterday in hospital in Birmingham of wounds sustained in an explosion on 10 June. He had been on patrol with members of the Afghan National Army in Nahr-e Saraj North District, Helmand Province. He was the 308th British soldier killed since the start of the war nine years ago. The death toll is escalating, with 62 deaths this year – almost double the 32 that died in the same period last year.

Nato played down the chances of success. "I don't think anyone would say we're winning," said a Nato spokesman. The revelations provide context to the disagreements between Mr Obama and his general, highlighted in the article in Rolling Stone in which senior White House figures were criticised.

The reality, according to a senior military source, is that General McChrystal's candour about the reality of the situation was an obstacle to Mr Obama's search for an "early, face-saving exit" to help his chances in the 2012 presidential elections. "Stan argued for time, and would not compromise. Rolling Stone provided an excuse for Obama to fire the opposition to his plan without having to win an intellectual argument," he said.

General McChrystal knew "his time was up" and had been told by White House aides his "time-frame was all wrong", with the general thinking in years while the President was thinking more in months, he added.

The general's departure is a sign of politicians "taking charge of this war", a senior Whitehall official said. "The Taliban are feeling the pressure, but we're not harvesting it politically," he said. "Obama sacking McChrystal was a show of strength. What we are seeing on both sides of the Atlantic, at long last, is the politicians starting to take charge of this war. Wars are won when you have a Churchill and an Alanbrooke, when you have a proper balance between political direction and military leadership."

Mr Cameron asked for a political settlement to be mapped out at a special cabinet meeting held at Chequers earlier this month, he said. "Cameron doesn't want to make Brown's mistake of getting bogged down in details instead of doing grand strategy."

He said General McChrystal had been urging Washington to "start the political track as soon as possible" while his replacement, General Petraeus, has argued "that we need to get the upper hand militarily and regain the military initiative, and then negotiate from a position of strength". He said it would take time to recover from General McChrystal's loss, "particularly if Petraeus just ploughs on with trying to get the upper hand militarily".

Admiral Mike Mullen met with President Karzai yesterday to assure him that the new Nato commander will pursue the same strategy followed by his predecessor. He pledged that General Petraeus would also do his best to reduce civilian casualties.

General McChrystal said progress in the next six months was unlikely. He raised serious concerns over levels of security, violence, and corruption within the Afghan administration. Only five areas out of 116 assessed were classed as "secure" – the rest suffering various degrees of insecurity and more than 40 described as "dangerous" or "unsecure".

Just five areas out of 122 were classed as being under the "full authority" of the government – with governance rated as non-existent, dysfunctional or unproductive in 89 of the areas. Seven areas out of 120 rated for development were showing sustainable growth. In 48 areas, growth was either stalled or the population were at risk. Less than a third of the military and only 12 per cent of police forces were rated as "effective".

A strategic assessment referred to in the presentation revealed just how close the strategy in Afghanistan is to failing. It stated that the campaign was "on track temporarily" – but this was defined as meaning that there was "a low level of confidence that positive trends will be sustained over the next six-month period". It also said the Afghan people "believe that development is too slow" and many "still generally mistrust Afghan police forces". Security was "unsatisfactory" and efforts to build up the Afghan security forces were "at risk", with "capability hampered by shortages in NCOs and officers, corruption and low literacy levels".

A general's damning report...

Afghan security forces

General McChrystal says both the Afghan police (ANP) and army (ANA) were "critically short on trainers – the essential resource required for quality". Out of 2,325 required, only 846 were already on the ground and 660 more were promised.

Governance

The Afghan government was assessed as having "full authority" in only five districts; in 45 more, governance was "unproductive", in 29 "dysfunctional" and in 15 "non-existent". In the "Critical risks" section of his presentation, General McChrystal listed "Governance: ineffective or discredited". ISAF accepted that "governance needs improvement and lags security efforts".

Security

Nato informed that "violence and security varies regionally... focused in localised areas", and "assessments of key district security are improving slightly". However, only a third of 122 "key terrain areas" were regarded as "secure" or suffering "occasional threats". In key areas, 47 per cent of the population were assessed as secure.

Corruption

General McChrystal noted the need to "address principal sources of corruption and grievance" in Kandahar. Nato warned that "corruption remains an impediment to connectivity between the government and its people". Echoes earlier US concerns that the "lack of Afghan government will and the capacity to prosecute narco-corrupt officials continues to undermine development of governance and security".

Justice

Referred to President Karzai's early pledge to "further the reform process within our justice system". But US Department of Defense has since complained courts are "chronically corrupt". McChrystal's recommendations on "Detention operations and rule of law" include "transition to Afghan lead" and "promoting transparency across spectrum of detention activities".

Development/reconstruction

Emphasised need to "create conditions for development", particularly in the south. But there are worries that the government "has become increasingly dependent on contributions from the international community". Although satisfaction with the local electricity supply has risen, many remain without access and the general warns of the need to "significantly expand electrical supply to meet rising demand".

Different face same policy

.
.
.
.
So McCrystal is gone, hardly a year after his appointment, and the second commander to be sacked in Afghanistan since General Mckiernan in early 2009.

Clearly things are not going well for America, or as perceived by the Jewish dominated government in Washington. In reality America had won in Afghanistan in 2001, but now America is in an aimless MOBY DICK like pursuit of enemies it clearly created in the first place through the helpful servile services of the ISI, which America bankrolls, such as the Taliban and "al-Qaeda" the none-existent hologram.

If you have and plan to have 100,000 American soldiers, 40,000 NATO and 180,000 mercenaries pursuing essentially a none enemy, then with such large numbers of armed men strutting about freely in the country feeling bored, obviously this is going to create some friction with the locals. A few Afghans out of the 28 million who offer active resistance to the illegal occupation of their country which is also being used for growing and exporting heroin can hardly be called a credible or justifiable enemy of the sole super power on earth.

But at least the artificial Jew created race war between Iranians vs Celts in this theater is finished in a symbolic sense. Enter now the new Jew commander David Petraeus the Jew with a WASP outer layer.

Most Iranian countries are Third World, with the exception of Russia, and all Celtic countries are First World; what more meaningful debates does one need to undertake except for soothing the insecurities of Nathan Rothschild's clan in London and his ginger pubic hair. The USA which won its independence from the UK, ought not pursue wars for the whims and bizarre fantasies of the Rothschild of London...................its silly, its meaningless. Yes the Heroin profits are handy and clever, horse whipping Afghans to produce the stuff, and then paying them pittance but that will hardy contribute towards America the nation state. (Jimmy Carter vs The Shah 52/444.....David Kilcullen)

In the 21st century we are rational human beings not ruled by emotions or petty prejudices. That at least is the aim. As rational human beings we ought not be duped by such basic Jew race wars.....as intelligent beings we ought to recognize them, and avoid being exploited so easily.

If we do not the costs can be tremendous.

Consider the artificial race war created by the Jew between the great German race and the "Slav's" of Russia and Ukraine in the last century. The devious filthy Jew propagated Adolf Hitler into power, and built up his war machine, and the extreme xenophobia that eventually gripped the German nation led by Goebbels...."The Rabbi". On the other side we had Joseph Stalin possibly a Jew, with 3 Jewish wives consecutively, also funded by the filthy devious Jew.

The Great war of WWII followed which was essentially a slaughter theater between between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. At least 25 million Soviets perished in the Great Patriotic War, and upwards of 10 million ethnic Germans may have perished in the whole of Eastern and Central Europe between 1939--1948.

All for what?

The Jew has also been busy trying to do the same between India and China, start a race war where none existed for 5,000 years. The Jew has been busy investing capital into China such that China is now the greatest industrial and soon to be trading nation on earth. The Jew has also been busy in India, whispering soothing words to the Indians that the USA will make India into a Super-power (he he he).....upon these mischievous words the foolish Indians quickly ran to Russia and bought yet another second hand aircraft carrier at over inflated Jew prices to make India into a "Superpower". Indian papers such as the Times of India, once a heavy weight broadsheet is now a mere purveyor of gossip and titillation about Indians and AMERICAN stars. As if 90% of Indians need to know about the trivia of Hollwood stars. Bollywood Stars can speak American better than their Hindi, and are often in America. Poor needy men following the rich is not a new narrative of course.

We hope these two ancient civilizations do not fall into this time honored Jew trick of race wars.

The same is happening in front of our very eyes within America, more Jew funded race wars, with the Jew flooding the country with Hispanics for the coming race war between European Americans and the rest. European Americans will become a minority in the USA by 2040.

In that sense America's presence in Afghanistan (Arianna) is about Jewish race wars more than anything else, but how does one write all that down in State department policy papers, and explain to the diplomatic and general public in simple language...................you can't.

Misguided rationale and justification

.
.
.
.

Afghan Bling
By Justin Raimondo

Just as John McCain was telling Gen. David Petraeus how worried he is that the US is going to leave Afghanistan before “the job” is done, the General’s head dropped onto the desk in front of him: had he passed out from ennui? McCain had the same effect on the American electorate in 2008. Petraeus blamed it on not having had breakfast, but, in any case, the US government seems intent on having Afghanistan for lunch – and what a rich meal that is going to be! According to a piece by James Risen in the New York Times, there’s gold in them thar hills!

“The United States has discovered nearly $1 trillion in untapped mineral deposits in Afghanistan, far beyond any previously known reserves and enough to fundamentally alter the Afghan economy and perhaps the Afghan war itself, according to senior American government officials.”

Risen, reporting the views of US officials, goes on to write that the lode is “so big and include[s] so many minerals that are essential to modern industry that Afghanistan could eventually be transformed into one of the most important mining centers in the world.”

The face of a nearly forgotten figure, Paul Wolfowitz, rises up from the mists of the past, promising that the oil riches of Iraq would ensure no unusual outlays from the US Treasury for postwar reconstruction:

“We’re dealing with a country that could really finance its own reconstruction… The oil revenues of that country [Iraq] could bring between 50 and 100 billion dollars over the course of the next two or three years. Now, there are a lot of claims on that money, but that’s – we’re not dealing with Afghanistan that’s a permanent ward of the international community. We are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon.”

As Sarah Palin would put it: and how’s that Iraq-will-pay-for-itself idea workin’ out for ya?

Eight years later, we are dealing with Afghanistan, “a permanent ward of the international community,” i.e. a US colony, but Wolfie’s words have gone down the Memory Hole conveniently located near every neocon’s work station.

Afghanistan, says an internal Pentagon memo, could become “the Saudi Arabia of lithium” – a prospect that, if the Saudi kleptocracy is replicated on Afghan terrain, bodes ill for the people of that country. Given the truth of this alleged discovery – one that is by no means a new one, by the way – such an outcome certainly seems all too likely. A look [.pdf] at Afghanistan’s mining laws – coincidentally just recently formulated and passed – confirms this suspicion:

“Article 4: Ownership of Minerals

“(1) All naturally occurring Minerals and all Artificial Deposits of Minerals on surface or subsurface of the territory of Afghanistan or in its water courses (rivers and streams) are the exclusive property of the State.

“(2) Mineral operations shall be conducted in Afghanistan by the State. A Person can also carry out mining operations by obtaining a License or Authorization in accordance with the provisions of this Law.”

This is a perfect set-up for corruption. Licenses are granted by the Afghan Ministry of Mines, formerly headed up by Muhammad Ibrahim Adel, who was dumped by the Karzai regime after being accused by the US of accepting a $30 million bribe from the Chinese for a copper mining franchise. His crime, of course, was that he accepted a bribe from the wrong people: his successor won’t make the same mistake.

A crude analysis of the above-cited mining laws would characterize them as “socialist,” but this really qualifies as corporatism: government for the benefit of certain politically-connected corporations, i.e. the same sort of crony capitalism that currently characterizes the US economy. We’re exporting our system around the world.

Everything about the Risen piece screams government disinformation campaign. To take one example: Risen avers that this “vast” mineral wealth was just recently discovered “by a small team of Pentagon officials and American geologists.” As Marc Ambinder points out, however, the Soviets beat the Obama-ites to the punch by a couple of decades.

The Soviets – who were themselves on the way out, although they didn’t know it – were convinced that by “building socialism” in Afghanistan, i.e. a strong centralized state, they could exploit the country’s rich natural resources for their own benefit. In the end the costs proved too great, and the terminal crisis of the Soviet system doomed the Kremlin’s puppet government to a swift demise.

Like the Soviets, the Americans live in an ideologically constructed alternate universe – one already colliding with the reality on the ground – which doesn’t permit them to see the many reasons for their inevitable failure.

The Obama-ites think that by dangling some fool’s gold in front of the American public that they can forestall growing discontent with the longest war in our history. This is what they think of us: that we’re just a bunch of greedy pigs eager to grab what we can from whomever we can. That just about sums up the guiding philosophy of the current regime.

(No that's not the real ultimate justification; the real ultimate justification is about making the Greater Middle East "safe" for Eretz Israel....which as a rationale can never be sold to any public, even the American public so the Jew strategists in the Pentagon came up with the "minerals meme"......that need to secured by the USA by force, and a continuation of the faggotty war against Afghan wedding parties.

In Iraq recently as I understand it correctly, most of the contracts awarded were to non-USA companies for exploration and exploitation of the big oil fields there.

In Afghanistan, for the sake of politics, Hamid Karzai has been talking about giving Japan, and by implication other Asian nations preference towards exploiting Afghanistan's alleged mineral deposits.

The Socialist Chinese have shown with their commercial mineral contracts around the world in South America, Africa and of course Asia that in international business, best practices, fair exchange of goods, real help with infrastructure is the best policy towards promoting long term business relations and cooperation around the world...........and not as in the 19th century habit of European colonialism sending the military to secure other peoples wealth......this is Jewish. Madoff Jewish...Wall Street Jewish......"The City" Jewish)

Citing Jack Synder’s Myths of Empire, Stephen Walt, writing on his Foreign Policy blog, debunks what he calls the “el Dorado myth,” making the perfectly reasonable point that we don’t need to control territories rich in natural resources in order to make economic use of them, engage in trade, and otherwise partner with the Afghans to mutual profit:

“Because whoever is in charge is going to have to sell them to someone and won’t be able to prevent them from being sold to us (even if indirectly) if we want to buy (that’s how markets work). And if we want to make sure that U.S. companies have the opportunity to compete for the opportunity to mine these resources some day, it might be a good idea if we didn’t spend the next decade blundering around and angering the local population.”

(The same with Afghan Opium and Heroin)

Yes, but it matters who’s in charge. If it’s the US, acting through its Afghan sock puppet, then franchises are going to be doled out to friends of the regime. There is no market economy in an occupied country: the conqueror extracts the spoils of war, in this case from the very soil of Afghanistan, not as result of any free contract, but due to its preeminent position as the occupier. There is always a lot of window dressing to prettify this ugly reality, but in the Afghan case it doesn’t even look like the occupiers care much about appearances. As Ambinder points out, the bidding war started in 2009.

Our rulers don’t at all mind “blundering around and angering the local population,” just as long as they and their cronies reap rich rewards, however short-lived and costly their acquisition. Furthermore, they don’t want just any old companies competing for the opportunity to mine those resources some day. Not everyone is invited to the feast. The US/NATO occupiers are in a perfect position to say “I’m sorry, sir, but those tables are reserved.”

This dangling of bling is not only for the benefit of the American people, but also for the Europeans, who haven’t been all that enthusiastic [.pdf] about doing their duty on the Afghan front, at least up until now. The Obama-ites are seeking to entice them with the prospect of mineral riches down the road, but this promise is bound to be met with a high degree of skepticism. After all, Afghanistan lacks the infrastructure to bring its mineral wealth to market, quite aside from the difficulties of extracting it to begin with. If the Obama administration believes they can use the vague promise of future riches to lure the Europeans into America’s latest nation-building project, they are very wrong. Aside from overwhelming opposition to the war by European voters, Obama’s Euro-socialist friendsters are having their own problems over there – what with Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy, and Ireland going down the economic sinkhole – with not a lot of resources to spare.

The idea that Afghanistan is going to finance its own reconstruction on account of its mineral wealth, or that the US can derive some economic benefit from pillaging those resources, is a dangerous mix of economic ignorance and brazen militarism. In short, this is a rationale for war that fits the current gang in Washington to a tee.

__________________________

The Chinese takeaway