.
.
.
. President Trump intends on winning the 2020 Presidential elections.
____________________________________________
Trump Fires Yosemite Sam
By Moon of Alabama
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump - 17:58 UTC · 10 Sep 2019I informed John Bolton last night that his services are no longer needed at the White House. I disagreed strongly with many of his suggestions, as did others in the Administration, and therefore....
...I asked John for his resignation, which was given to me this morning. I thank John very much for his service. I will be naming a new National Security Advisor next week.
Oh happy day!
Bolton disagrees with Trump's tweet and he is now texting reporters to say that he wasn't fired but resigned:
Robert Costa @costareports - 18:16 UTC · 10 Sep 2019Ambassador Bolton sends me a text message just now: “Let’s be clear, I resigned, having offered to do so last night.”
John Bolton was the worst person I could think of to become National Security Advisor.
Bolton will not take his firing without some revenge. There will soon be tons of 'leaks' in which a "former senior administration official" will claim that Trump did this or that very, very bad thing.
Gabby Orr @GabbyOrr_ - 18:43 UTC · 10 Sep 2019A consistent complaint among Trump loyalists & fellow WH officials is that Bolton and his camp were extremely leaky. Doesn’t help that he’s texting every reporter in his rolodex now to clarify that he wasn’t canned
While he did not work long as Trump's NSA Bolton managed to create a lot of damage.
Michael Tracey @mtracey - 18:39 UTC · Sep 10, 2019Bolton blew up the Hanoi summit with Kim, pushed for airstrikes on Iran, completely botched the attempted Venezuela coup, undermined the Syria troop withdrawal, demanded endless war in Afghanistan. And that's just in the past 9 months. The guy is a total lunatic
We published quite a bit about John Bolton. Here is a short selection:
. . . . Let me qualify FAKE by saying that the 'enemy' has been falsely accused with FAKE evidence, or is funded by the CIA as controlled Opposition ...ISIS, 'al-CIA-duh' ......Taliban ....Mullah Iran......Arab Spring protestor and so on. ___________________________________
Veterans Reach Their Tipping Point Against Our Post-9/11 Wars
Solid majorities of veterans believe Iraq and Afghanistan were not worth fighting. It's time to heed their counsel.
By the American Conservative and antiwar.com
Members of Iraq Veterans Against the War in 2007.
Editor’s Note: This editorial was published in the September/October issue of the magazine.
An important new consensus is forming against America’s endless wars, shaped by an important constituency: the military veterans who have sacrificed so much to fight them. A Pew Research poll of veterans released contained results that contradict the cherished talking points of the bipartisan Washington foreign policy blob that sees “leadership” and “engagement” as being synonymous with bombing and regime change.
Sixty-four percent of veterans said the war in Iraq was not worth fighting when the costs to America are weighed against the ostensible benefits to the region and our national security. Just 33 percent concluded that George W. Bush’s Baghdad democracy adventure was worthwhile in retrospect.
That’s not much different than the prevailing view among the American public, where 62 percent said the Iraq war wasn’t worth it versus 32 percent who still think it should have been fought. Perhaps more surprisingly, 58 percent of veterans believe the Afghanistan war—now America’s longest, despite two consecutive presidents of both parties advocating retrenchment—wasn’t worth fighting. That’s only a point behind the 59 percent of Americans as a whole who say the same.
“Veterans who served in either Iraq or Afghanistan are no more supportive of those engagements than those who did not serve in these wars,” write Pew’s Ruth Igielnik and Kim Parker. “And views do not differ based on rank or combat experience.”
Our veterans take a similarly skeptical view of intervention in Syria, with 42 percent calling it a worthwhile military campaign to 55 percent who say it was not. All this comes on the heels of a Military Times poll in which nearly half of active duty personnel surveyed expressed concern about being drawn into another major conflict while majorities suggested neither Iraq nor Afghanistan were important threats to American national security today.
Republican military veterans are still considerably more likely to find our wars of choice worth fighting than their Democratic counterparts. But laptop bombardiers have too often hidden behind the brave men and women actually doing the fighting in far-flung places instead of justifying policies that have produced chaos and often empowered the very Islamic militants we sought to destroy.
Afghanistan morphed from a just and necessary response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks into a nation-building exercise without end. Our troops performed admirably and accomplished the part of the mission that was actually possible. But turning Afghanistan into a functioning democracy or reliable ally in the fight against terrorism was never a militarily attainable goal.
Iraq was an ill-conceived intervention from the start, diverting both our nation’s justified anger and military resources away from Osama bin Laden to Saddam Hussein, launching a preventive war to disarm the dictator of weapons he did not even have. The consequences were unintended, but predictable—and widely predicted. A war sold as necessary to prevent more Americans from being killed in the aftermath of 9/11 instead put our troops at risk preventing Iraqis from killing each other. Into the resultant political vacuum jumped ISIS, which bore a closer resemblance to our attackers than did the regime that was toppled.
Next came Libya, Syria, and a host of presidential wars Congress never even authorized in the first place, despite the unambiguous text of the Constitution. In fact, a bipartisan majority of lawmakers explicitly rejected our role in the continuing humanitarian crisis in Yemen, a ghastly policy impossible to square with “America First.”
The men and women on the frontline have seen the results of these mishaps firsthand. They know how the realities of these wars have differed from the abstract theories of the neoconservatives and liberal hawks, concocted in think tank conference rooms far removed from the real world. It’s time to heed their counsel more and the Beltway “experts’” less.
John Bolton is gone and good riddance. He was pushing Trump away from peace and diplomacy.
Bolton has advised Trump at every turn to take the most counterproductive actions. The upshot has been more risk, higher combat losses and endless war.
By Daniel L Davis at USA Today and via antiwar.com
President Donald Trump used Twitter, of course, to announcethat he had removed national security adviser John Bolton from his post. “I disagreed strongly with many of his suggestions, as did others in the Administration, and therefore I asked John for his resignation,” he wrote. It’s not entirely clear which suggestions led Trump to let Bolton go. There were many options to choose from.
In a mere year and a half, Bolton has recklessly misled the president on a number of significant foreign policy issues. In 2017, before he arrived at the White House, Bolton was urging Trump to abandon the Iran nuclear deal. Among a host of other bad decisions since he became national security adviser, Bolton has encouraged the president to abandon a positive step toward peace with North Korea in Hanoi, deal belligerently with China, and discuss stationing more troops close to Russia’s border. Bolton’s latest bad advice sank a chance to reduce the number of troops in Afghanistan.
Things could have gone very differently. Had Trump selected a national security adviser aligned with his foreign policy views, it is entirely possible that by now he or she might have accomplished a number of valuable foreign policy achievements to advance our national security. Two key examples illustrate how.
Peace with North Korea
As recently as February of this year, South Korean president Moon Jae-in was openly suggesting Trump might win the Nobel Peace Prize for the progress he was making with North Korea. Instead, Bolton led Trump away from the path toward peace. He convinced Trump to pursue a big deal, rather than realistic gains, at the summit in Hanoi, scuttling any progress and causing Trump to leave Vietnam without so much as a joint statement.
A settlement with Iran
An adviser who was aligned with Trump’s more pragmatic instincts and wanted to see the president succeed in negotiations with Iran would have sought to lower tensions with Tehran, worked with our allies to find effective ways to constrain the regime, and opened the door to genuine and constructive diplomacy.
Instead, Bolton has pushed Trump to take the most destructive course conceivable. He has virtually destroyed any chance for the president to make good on his campaign pledge to negotiate a better nuclear deal with Iran, which is a worse outcome for both the United States and our friends in the region. Worst of all, the chances for a war with Iran — which would be a far worse mistake than Iraq — are significantly higher today than when Trump took office.
These and other Bolton missteps are not minor issues. Instead of making the country safer, reducing the risk of war and ending pointless conflicts around the world, Bolton has advised Trump at every turn to take the most counterproductive actions possible. The result has been increased risk, suffering higher (and unnecessary) combat losses, and the quest for peace is now more elusive than ever. All the while, U.S. power has diminished due to overstretch. Rather than ending pointless wars, Bolton has advised the president to continue them.
Bolton's focus was not diplomacy
It is easy to destroy things. But good foreign policy demands the more difficult work of constructive, pragmatic diplomacy. Bolton has demonstrated great skill in abrogating agreements and preventing wars from ending. He has shown neither the inclination nor ability to build anything, to negotiate any new agreements, or to end unnecessary wars.
Trump has made the right decision to replace Bolton. It is critical now, however, that the next national security adviser not follow in Bolton’s footsteps. The right person for the job cannot be another in the long line of establishment figures stuck in the last two decades of foreign policy failure. Trump needs someone who is experienced in international and military affairs, understands how to use diplomacy to our advantage, and, most critically, is aligned with the president’s foreign policy intent. Possibly the best choice could be retired Army Col. Douglas Macgregor. No one is more aligned with Trump and more equipped with the requisite skills.
Whoever he selects, for America’s sake, let us hope Trump chooses well.
______________________________________________________ Daniel L. Davis is a senior fellow at Defense Priorities and a former Lt. Col. in the U.S. Army who retired in 2015 after 21 years of service, including four combat deployments. Follow him on Twitter: @DanielLDavis1
.
.
.
. If you think massive herion plantations with poppies cultivated to be exported around the world, and especially the USA is a success then yes the Afghan 'War' was a 19 year success. If you think bastardising your armed forces, especially the army and 'intelligence services' and TEACHING the same with participating nations around the herion exporting industry is a success Sir, Mr. Pompeo (praying to GOD and Jesus at a good Catholic Church) then yes the Afghan war was a 19 year success. If you think conducting massive fraud into the 100's of billions using the good taxpayers money, and yet more additional Afghan 'War' appropriation bills rubber stamped by Congress.....in one year alone $74 billion spent under Obummer to sustain the disporportionate and improbable sum of a few thosuand American servicemen in a phony war for example, then yes the Afghan war of 19 years was a success. If you think paying Afghan Ghost soldiers from the American taxpayer is a success, then yes. If you think paying Taliban members not to attack American servicemen, and arming them through third parties so that the fake charade of 'war' could continue for a few years more, then yes the 19 year Afghan war is a success. All said and done, the so called Taliban set up by the CIA in 1994 to consolidate Afghanistan for the USA under the Clintons direction (Sandy Berger et al...CIA) , can now be bought and MANAGED by the current administration as obedient poodles without relying on any Quija Board channeling.
Pompeo Argues US War in Afghanistan Was ‘Successful’
Says 19 year conflict was 'a real achievement'
While the Trump Administration has yet to officially sign the peace deal with the Taliban in Afghanistan, the clearest sign yet that they’ll do so came in a new interview with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. While US officials have often been unrealistically rosy-eyed about the state of the war, Pompeo took the talking points to a new level, and now is arguing effectively that the US has won the war in Afghanistan, and “delivered” on all of its goals. The US has repeatedly redefined what the war’s goal actually was, both because stabilizing Afghanistan never really happened, and because officials wanted a metric that wouldn’t show a loss. Pompeo, however, argued that al-Qaeda is defeated and a “shadow of its former self in Afghanistan.” Pompeo said this was a “real achievement,” and that the 19 years of war had “greatly reduced the risk that an attack on the United States of America would emanate from Afghan soil.” The deal with the Taliban has as one of its centerpieces a Taliban promise to keep al-Qaeda and ISIS out of Afghanistan. Selling this not just as the best the US is going to get but a virtual victory is likely to be the administration’s talking point if they intend to advance toward finalizing the peace deal. Pompeo’s comments seem to be a first step toward exactly that.
China-Iran relations: 中国–波斯关系, Persian: [same as above]) refer to the historic diplomatic, cultural and economic relations between the cultures of China proper and Greater Iran, dating back to ancient times, since at least 200 B.C. The Parthians and Sassanid empires (occupying much of present Iran and Central Asia) had various contacts with the Han, Tang, Song, Yuan, Ming. For millennia the two ancient civilizations of Asia were further connected both economically and culturally via the Silk Road. The two were also briefly unified under the Mongol Empire.
The Han dynasty explorer Zhang Qian, who visited the neighbouring states of Bactria and Sogdiana in 126 BCE, made the first known Chinese report on Parthia. In his accounts Parthia is named "Ānxī" (Chinese: 安息), a transliteration of "Arsacid", the name of the Parthian dynasty. Zhang Qian clearly identifies Parthia as an advanced urban civilization, whose development he equates to those of Dayuan (in Ferghana) and Daxia (in Bactria).
"Anxi is situated several thousand li west of the region of the Great Yuezhi (in Transoxonia). The people are settled on the land, cultivating the fields and growing rice and wheat. They also make wine out of grapes. They have walled cities like the people of Dayuan (Ferghana), the region contains several hundred cities of various sizes. The coins of the country are made of silver and bear the face of the king. When the king dies, the currency is immediately changed and new coins issued with the face of his successor. The people keep records by writing on horizontal strips of leather. To the west lies Tiaozi (Mesopotamia) and to the north Yancai and Lixuan (Hyrcania)." (Shiji, 123, Zhang Qian quote, trans. Burton Watson).
Following Zhang Qian's embassy and report, the Han conquered Dayuan in the Han-Dayuan war and established the Protectorate of the Western Regions, thereby opening the Silk Road. Commercial relations between China, Central Asia, and Parthia flourished, as many Chinese missions were sent throughout the 1st century BCE:
"The largest of these embassies to foreign states numbered several hundred persons, while even the smaller parties included over 100 members… In the course of one year anywhere from five to six to over ten parties would be sent out." (Shiji, trans. Burton Watson).
The Parthians were apparently very intent on maintaining good relations with China and also sent their own embassies, starting around 110 BC: "When the Han envoy first visited the kingdom of Anxi (Parthia), the king of Anxi dispatched a party of 20,000 horsemen to meet them on the eastern border of the kingdom… When the Han envoys set out again to return to China, the king of Anxi dispatched envoys of his own to accompany them… The emperor was delighted at this." (Shiji, 123, trans. Burton Watson).
Parthians also played a role in the Silk Road transmission of Buddhism from Central Asia to China. An Shih Kao, a Parthian nobleman and Buddhist missionary, went to the Chinese capital Luoyang in 148 CE where he established temples and became the first man to translate Buddhist scriptures into Chinese. The Persianized kingdom of Kushan became the crossroads for Sino-Indian Buddhist transmissions, with many Iranians translating Sanskrit sutras into Chinese.[1]
Sassanian era
Like their predecessors the Parthians, the Sassanian Empire maintained active foreign relations with China, and ambassadors from Persia frequently travelled to China. Chinese documents record thirteen Sassanian embassies to China. Commercially, land and sea trade with China was important to both the Sassanian and Chinese Empires. Large numbers of Sassanian coins have been found in southern China, confirming maritime trade.[1]
On various occasions, Sassanian kings sent their most talented Persian musicians and dancers to the Chinese imperial court. Both empires benefited from trade along the Silk Road, and shared a common interest in preserving and protecting that trade. They cooperated in guarding the trade routes through central Asia, and both built outposts in border areas to keep caravans safe from nomadic tribes and bandits.
During the Liang dynasty in China, in 547 a Persian embassy paid tribute to the Liang, amber was recorded as originating from Persia by the Liang Shu (Book of Liang).[2]
There are records of several joint Sassanian and Chinese efforts against their common Hephtalite enemy. Following encroachments by the nomadic Turkic on states in Central Asia, an apparent collaboration between Chinese and Sassanian forces repelled the Turkic advances. Documents from Mount Mogh also note the presence of a Chinese general in the service of the king of Sogdiana at the time of the Arab incursion.
The last members of the Sassanian Empire's royal family fled to Tang China. Following the conquest of Iran by Muslim Arabs, Peroz III, the son of Yazdegerd III, escaped, along with a few Persian nobles and took refuge in the Chinese imperial court.[3] Both Peroz and his son Narsieh (Chinese neh-shie) were given high titles at the Tang court.[3] At least on two occasions, the last possibly in 670, Chinese troops were sent with Peroz to help him against the Arabs restore him to the Sassanian throne, with mixed results. One possibly ended up in a short rule of Peroz in Sistan (Sakestan) from which a little numismatic evidence remains. Narsieh later attained the position of commander of the Chinese imperial guards and his descendants lived in China as respected princes.[3]
____________________________________
China updates deal to invest $400 billion in Iran: Report
presstv.com
Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi last month called Iran ad China "comprehensive strategic partners".
Iran and China have updated a 25-year deal signed first in 2016 that foresees $400 billion of Chinese investment in the resource-rich Middle Eastern nation, well-regarded energy industry publication the Petroleum Economist reports.
The update came during a visit at the end of August by Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif to Beijing where his Chinese counterpart State Councilor Wang Yi called the two countries as “comprehensive strategic partners”.
According to the Petroleum Economist, the deal represents “a potentially material shift to the global balance of the oil and gas sector” and could mark a "seismic shift in the global hydrocarbons sector” where no US dollars will be involved in commodity transaction payments.
Investment in oil, gas, petchems projects
“The central pillar of the new deal is that China will invest $280 billion, developing Iran's oil, gas and petrochemicals sectors,” said the monthly magazine which spoke to “a senior source closely connected to Iran's Petroleum Ministry” during Zarif’s visit.
Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi (R) shakes hands with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif at the Diaoyutai State Guesthouse in Beijing, China August 26, 2019. (Photo by Reuters)
This amount may be front-loaded into the first five-year period of the deal but the understanding is that further amounts will be available in every subsequent five-year period, subject to both parties' agreement, it said.
“There will be another $120 billion investment in upgrading Iran's transport and manufacturing infrastructure, which again can be front-loaded into the first five-year period and added to in each subsequent period should both parties agree,” it added.
The Petroleum Economist has been a respected energy industry publication for decades, better known for its sophisticated analysis.
Its report follows another story last month that China had “re-engaged” Iran on three key energy projects, namely Phase 11 of the supergiant South Pars gas field, West Karoun oil fields and the Jask oil export terminal.
State-owned China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC), one of the country’s “big three” producers, holds an 80% stake in Phase 11 after French major Total’s withdrawal in August 2018 in response to US sanctions.
CNPC had since made little progress in developing the flagship project, but it has agreed to step up the pace on its development after getting a 30% discount to the global market price on potential condensate and LNG exports, the Petroleum Economist said.
China has also agreed to increase production from Iran's West Karoun oil fields—including North Azadegan, operated by CNPC, and Yadavaran, operated by fellow “big three” firm Sinopec—by an additional 500,000 barrels per day by the end of 2020.
According to the source cited by the magazine, Iran hopes to increase projected recovery rates from the fields from a current 5% of reserves in place to at least 25% by the end of 2021 at the very latest.
"For every percentage point increase, the recoverable reserves figure would increase by 670 million barrels, or around $34 billion in revenues even with oil at $50 per barrel," it quoted the source as saying.
Investment in manufacturing infrastructure
China’s close involvement in the build-out of Iran's manufacturing infrastructure will be entirely in line with its mammoth One Belt, One Road initiative, the Iranian source said.
The Asian giant intends to utilize the low cost labor available in Iran to build factories, designed and overseen by large Chinese manufacturing companies, with identical specifications and operations to those in China.
The idea is to ship Chinese products to Western markets by using Iran’s transport infrastructure.
Beijing’s biggest transportation project in Iran is worth $1.5 billion to electrify the rail line from Tehran to Mashhad for a length of 926 kilometers.
There are also plans to establish a Tehran-Qom-Isfahan high-speed train line and to extend this upgraded network up to the northwest through Tabriz.
The railway is part of the 2,300-kilometer New Silk Road that will link Urumqi in China’s resource-rich Xinjiang province to Tehran, connecting Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan along the way and extending to Europe via Turkey.
Tabriz, home to a number of key oil, gas and petrochemical and other industrial sites, and the starting point for the Tabriz-Ankara gas pipeline, will be a pivot point in the route.
Among benefits, Chinese companies will be given right of the first refusal to bid on any new, stalled or uncompleted oil and gas field developments, the report said.
Chinese firms will also have right of the first refusal on opportunities to become involved with any and all petrochemical projects in Iran, including the provision of technology, systems, process ingredients and personnel required to complete such projects.
Russia tangentially involved
The agreement includes a clause allowing at least one Russian company to have the option of being involved in the projects alongside Chinese operators, the report said.
Russia, tangentially included in the agreement, is weighing a similarly all-encompassing independent deal with Iran. In June, the two countries signed a dozen cooperation agreements covering energy, railway, agriculture, pharmaceuticals and tourism.
The agreements were signed as Russian Energy Minister Alexander Novak visited Iran with a delegation of 120 businesspeople, including representatives of private and public companies.
According to the Petroleum Economist, one key upside of the deals flows from the fact that both China and Russia hold seats on the UN Security Council, making it difficult for the US or any other adversary to further sanction Iran.
"In order to circumvent any further ramping up of sanctions—and over time encourage the US to come back to the negotiating table—Iran now has two out of five UNSC votes on its side,” it quoted the Iranian source as saying.
Beijing has pushed back against the United States, saying China's cooperation with Iran is legitimate under international law and should be "respected".
China imported more than 900,000 metric tons of crude oil from Iran in July, up more than 8 percent from the month before, data released last week by China's General Administration of Customs (GAC) showed.
The imports by the world’s largest oil buyer and more importantly the increase in shipments came despite Washington’s threat to punish companies after ending waivers to unilateral sanctions on Iranian oil on May 2.
Beijing has braced for any fallout from its participation in Iranian development projects and possible face-off with the US, the international energy website OilPrice.com said last month.
“If there is any further pushback from the US on any of these Chinese projects in Iran, then Beijing will invoke in full force the ‘nuclear option’ of selling all or a significant part of its $1.4 trillion holding of US Treasury bills, with a major chunk of the paper due to be sold in September on this basis,” it said.
.
.
.
. So now I know where the police convoys with sirens, and biker gangs came from. Last week the USA closed negotiations with the CIA created Taliban in Afghanistan in Qatar, and promised verbally that after Eid-ul fater the USA would sign an agreement with the Taliban to: 1. De-escalate the conflict in Afghanistan on-going for 40 years. 2. Power sharing with the corrupt ineffective puppet government in Kabul. 3. The Taliban with CIA directions would hunt down and destroy ISIS and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. (But not in Syria PLEASE after 8 years of slaughter) 4. Not allow foreign terrorists to enter Afghanistan.(Brought in by the Pentagon to create new narratives) 5. NOT attack any USA military personnel in Afghanistan. 6. Reading between the lines ....an unofficial agreement that the Taliban would protect the Opium business ...as with the end of the Vietnam war in 1975, and the Golden Triad and the protection of that business in Laos, Vietnam, Myanmar, Cambodia, Southern China (Yunan) and THAILAND. The Taliban would get 30% of the profits with the export of the drugs to Europe, and the USA. The Taliban would not seek to eradicate the business as they had previously done up to 9/11 2001. Save for 6 this is all common sense grounded in reality, stuff. After all the CIA created Taliban as 'Controlled Opposition' were merely there to create the illusion that the noble warriors of the USA were fighting a just war against an enemy that had facilitated 9/11, and posed a threat to the world and the USA. The Taliban had in the negotiation given up the idea that they could expel the USA, and control Afghanistan again by themselves. Alas, in the typical Jewey dirty low down double dealing fashion, on the day of the signing of the agreement the USA killed the Taliban defense minister, and a few days later in a FALSE FLAG IN A MOSQUE IN PAKISTAN, the brother of the Taliban leader. Without explanation the USA said it would no longer negotiate for peace with the Taliban, and the Pentagon added that Afghanistan would hence forth become an arid part of the USA military testing site (a la Area 51 in Nevada). How is the peace negotiations going with North Korea? Has Comrade Kim Jong Un accepted any further empty gestures from the USA? How is the reset going with Russia? Typical Jewey dirty low down double dealing DEVIOUS DECEPTION WILL MAKE America Aryan great again.
.
.
.This is NOT a reference to Mike Pompeo, that would be tooo obvious and racist. It also goes against the teachings of Christ, our saviour who says LOVE thy brethen or I ain't comin back to earth again for the second coming after Armegeddon in my name.
Kamala Harris is a black racist. They exist....against Russia of ALL countries. One of those unimaginative GLOBALIST WINDUP DOLLY, where the electronic voice repeats ad infinatum as per the programmed recording:
Married to a Globalist Jew
GLOBALIST people like Soros based in Europe promote and boast of destabilizing nations with $18 billion along RACE LINES.
Its True that Russia does not have a large African population---because black slaves weren't brought to Russia by the Czars??? No colonial legacy for Russia in Africa as per the black genocide of colonial trade between 15th-19th century by Europe.
Imperial Russia did not participate in the scramble for Africa in 1885 (Berlin Conference). The physical exploitation of the whole continent.
Soviet Russia gave massive unconditional aid to Africa in terms of weapons and industrial technology, even as a not so rich country herself.
TO THIS DAY, Russia still does not exploit Africa save for providing SECURITY ADVICE where it is sought. Russian weapons systems are cheap and reliable, and military training programs does not mean Russia will interfere with the politics of the country. (RUSSIA DOES NOT INTERFERE WITH THE POLITICS OF AFRICAN COUNTRIES AND CERTAINLY DOES NOT HAVE THE INCLINATION TO TRY WITH THE SOLE SUPER POWER IN THE WORLD----KAMALA HARRIS IS PROJECTING)
Russia does not use the politics of race to deal with nations.
Russia was the victim of the race card that led to the death of 30 million people during world war II (or the equivalent of a 9/11 carnage everyday over four years)
The politics of RACE comes from the GLOBALIST JEW.
The politics of RACE in Nazi Germany came ultimately from the Jewish bankers.
It is Israel which is obsessed with race, territory and empire.
_____________________________________________
No Racism, just Russians
By Margaret Kimberley at Black Agenda Report.
The absurd claim that Russians have orchestrated US racial strife is designed to nullify Black outrage and discredit those who fight oppression.
“The Russiagate corpse is reanimated again and again.”
By all accounts the Russiagate faux scandal and the hysteria it spawned should be dead. The tale of intrigue which claimed that the Donald Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government has been disproven. After two years of investigating Robert Mueller was unable to indict a single American on the charge of collusion. The indictment of Russians said to be intelligence agents is worthless, an allegation that will never be proven in court. The Democrats’ insistence on calling Mueller to testify before two House committees was a disaster which made them all look foolish and which should have put the nail in the coffin.
So why is NBC newsreporting that the Russian government is influencing black Americans? The New York Timesblames the rise of racist, right wing parties in Europe not on racist sentiment, but on a Russian plot. Kamala Harris spins tales of Russians using black people to undermine a mythical American democracy.
It seems that Russophobia won’t be allowed to die. It is too valuable to the warmaking duopoly, opportunistic politicians and the corporate media who give them all cover. Now that the investigation is over they must keep the stoking the flames and black people have been chosen as their tools.
“Kamala Harris spins tales of Russians using black people to undermine a mythical American democracy.”
The bottom line of all these stories is denial. There is denial that black people have any reasons to be angry, which is a denial of our history.
Of course it follows that there is denial of white racist reaction, too. NBC news says that videos showing racist treatment of black people “go viral” only because of “Russian linked” twitter accounts. They don’t say what makes an account Russian-linked or how they can prove the allegation. More importantly they deny that images of oppression have any impact on the lives of millions of people. Watching a gentrifying white woman claim that she was “sexually assaulted by a nine-year old” black child is enough to make all but the lowest Uncle Tom very angry.
In the absence of empowerment, social media becomes the vehicle for redress. Obviously the immediacy of the internet makes it quite easy for videos to spread quickly. Claiming that foreign individuals or a government are responsible makes the outrage null and void, erases the racism that black people face and also the determination to make the oppression known.
“There is denial that black people have any reasons to be angry, which is a denial of our history.”
Of course racism is not confined to the United States. Europeans’ image of tolerance is tested when a tipping point of brown or black faces begin to appear. Like other nations, Sweden has experienced a rise in right wing, anti-immigrant political parties after the arrival of many newcomers from the global south.
All over Europe the story is the same. People who were once considered generous and welcoming pull up the ladder when non-whites appear in large numbers. The issue is self-identified whiteness. But the New York Timesclaims that Russians are responsible for the rise in Swedish racism. How very convenient.
These nonsensical stories have many purposes. They are a form of propaganda which has a goal of getting public support for U.S. foreign policy. If enough people are convinced that Russians are evil they will be silent when their government withdraws from nuclear missile treaties. Even people who claim to resist Trump will condone sanctions or even military attacks against any country declared an enemy.
“Claiming that foreigners are responsible makes the outrage null and void.”
Russiagate continues to excuse the Democrats for the 2016 debacle of their own making. Propaganda works. Three years of repetition has done its joband most Americans will believe anything they are told about the Russian government or Russians as people.
“Three years of repetition has done its job.”
Hopefully, black people are smarter than their country men and women and won’t be swayed by the effort to say that their experiences don’t exist. On the other hand, we are no less susceptible to propaganda. Many of us have already succumbed and given up our traditional left wing stance on many issues. The desire to be rid of Trump has made this particular con game all the more powerful. The orange menace is a useful tool as well.
Not that the rulers really want to oppose him. They just want to galvanize opinion in favor of their sick scheming. Politicians like Kamala Harris are worst of all. Her record as a prosecutor makes her presidential candidacy a non-starter for many black people. The woman who made fun of the demand for more education and fewer jails is now hoisted on her own petard. She is left with trying to get votes from white Democrats who are in the thrall of Russia hatred. What better way to do that than to beat a dead horse that absolves them of blame and puts her on the side of America’s oligarchy.
“Harris is left with trying to get votes from white Democrats who are in the thrall of Russia hatred.”
Russiagate is a real life horror movie. The corpse is reanimated again and again. The low point of Mueller’s testimony was his baseless claim that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 election. “They’re doing it as we sit here. And they expect to do it during the next campaign.”
The only certainty is that the chicanery will not stop. Like the wars carried out by the U.S., the libels will be endless. They will in fact get worse as the presidential campaign season approaches. All manner of lies will be told and those claiming that Russia is responsible for racism will be among the worst. ________________________________________________
Margaret Kimberley’s Freedom Rider column appears weekly in BAR, and is widely reprinted elsewhere. She maintains a frequently updated blog as well at http://freedomrider.blogspot.com . Ms. Kimberley lives in New York City, and can be reached via e-Mail at Margaret.Kimberley(at)BlackAgendaReport.com.
US, Taliban Likely To Sign Afghan Peace Deal Next Week
Deal expected to be finalized after Eid al-Adha
Peace talks between the US and Taliban are going to be taking a little time off for the upcoming Eid al-Adha holiday. When they come back after the holiday, the Afghan peace deal is going to be the focus again, and the expectation is it will be finalized. Hopes for a finalized deal are nothing new, but both sides are now saying they believe that a peace agreement will be reached, and signed, at some point in the next week. This will then lead to work on direct Taliban-Afghan talks on power-sharing. That’s a key issue. The deal with the US involves removing foreign troops, Taliban keeping foreign Islamists out of Afghanistan, and a ceasefire. The power-sharing deal is the last aspect of peace, and the Taliban had long resisted entering such talks until the US pullout was agreed upon.
When the inexperienced President just came to power, American troop levels in Afghanistan were about 7,000 in 2016 and looking to draw down further. But the Deep State manufactured Russiagate delusion appeared, along with a concerted coup by the FBI and CIA to putsch out the duly elected President by a variety of illegal means other than Russiagate (which specifically was meant as a war of attrition taking us into 2020 elections, if plans A and B failed).
In this confused atmosphere of inexperience and Jared Kushner's Hassidic Ouija board, General 'Mad Dog' Mattis was appointed Secretary of Defense......to make the new administration appear bullish, tough and patriotic???? especially on defense. But sadly General Mattis was the closet homosexual Zen Master who wrote up the invasion of Afghanistan a good couple years before 9/11(indicating malice aforethought...and Deep State complicity in 9/11 planning) ...he was not a man who thought outside of the box addressing the MASSIVE ENDEMIC CORRUPTION and INEFFICIENCY of the Pentagon but rather played the company man who ran the business as usual model defending ALL its mistakes to the last cent. (hooker hotels, golf courses, gold plated toilet seats...and much much much more)
The DNC didn't exactly help the President appoint the right people, either. Filtering out good guys and shoooing in their Deep State comrades under Obama and the Republicans.
Zen Master Mattiss in this situation of fluidity and uncertainty pushed for what his Deep State Masters wanted.....more troops on the ground in Afghanistan protecting the Opium harvests in the country. The President caved in against his better instincts, and the troops were doubled in Afghanistan.
But now Russiagate is all but over even if the DNC goes into a Moby Dicky mode. Mattis is out, working for the corporate MIC presumably....and the President is in a much stronger position.
So now in the short term American troop levels go back to their 2016 levels, and there after none left in the country.
President Trump can claim to have brought peace to a 40 year old conflict, and bring the boys back home which the majority of Americans want. It is a domestic and international success.
_________________________________
Taliban Says Differences With US on Afghanistan Troop Pullout Resolved, US mum on talks.
Highly anticipated talks in Doha have come to an end, and the Taliban has issued a statement saying that they and the US have resolved differences onboth the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan and the guarantees on the Taliban cutting ties with other groups. The Taliban was not very specific about what was decided, as technical teams continued to meet. The US, interestingly, has refused to comment on the matter at all, beyond Zalmay Khalilzad saying they had made “excellent progress.” There had previously been suggestions that a deal could be announced at the end of these talks, but that doesn’t seem to be happening. Progress or not, the talks are still advancing. But they might not be done by next month’s Afghan presidential election, and that has the Taliban condemning that vote as a ploy, and threatening to attack election rallies that are held.
