You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Pages: 1
Re: Are You Ready for Nuclear War?
Pervez Musharraf, the puppet installed by the US to rule Pakistan in the interest of US hegemony, resigned August 18 to avoid impeachment. Karl Rove and the Diebold electronic voting machines were unable to control the result of the last election in Pakistan, the result of which gave Pakistanis a bigger voice in their government than America's.
It was obvious to anyone with any sense -- which excludes the entire Bush Regime and almost all of the "foreign policy community -- that the illegal and gratuitous US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and Israel's 2006 bombing of Lebanon civilians with US blessing, would result in the overthrow of America's Pakistani puppet.
The imbecilic Bush Regime ensured Musharraf's overthrow by pressuring their puppet to conduct military operations against tribesmen in Pakistani border areas, whose loyalties were to fellow Muslims and not to American hegemony. When Musharraf's military operations didn't produce the desired result, the idiotic Americans began conducting their own military operations within Pakistan with bombs and missiles. This finished off Musharraf.
When the Bush Regime began its wars in the Middle East, I predicted, correctly, that Musharraf would be one victim. The American puppets in Egypt and Jordan may be the next to go.
Back during the Nixon years, my Ph.D. dissertation chairman, Warren Nutter, was Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs. One day in his Pentagon office I asked him how the US government got foreign governments to do what the US wanted. "Money," he replied.
"You mean foreign aid?" I asked.
"No," he replied, "we just buy the leaders with money."
It wasn't a policy he had implemented. He inherited it and, although the policy rankled with him, he could do nothing about it. Nutter believed in persuasion and that if you could not persuade people, you did not have a policy.
Nutter did not mean merely third world potentates were bought. He meant the leaders of England, France, Germany, Italy, all the allies everywhere were bought and paid for.
They were allies because they were paid. Consider Tony Blair. Blair's own head of British intelligence told him that the Americans were fabricating the evidence to justify their already planned attack on Iraq. This was fine with Blair, and you can see why, with his multi-million dollar payoff once he was out of office.
The American-educated thug, Saakashkvili the War Criminal, who is president of Georgia, was installed by the US taxpayer funded National Endowment for Democracy, a neocon operation whose purpose is to ring Russia with US military bases, so that America can exert hegemony over Russia.
Every agreement that President Reagan made with Mikhail Gorbachev has been broken by Reagan's successors. Reagan's was the last American government whose foreign policy was not made by the Israeli-allied neoconservatives. During the Reagan years, the neocons made several runs at it, but each ended in disaster for Reagan, and he eventually drove them from his government.
Even the anti-Soviet Committee on the Present Danger regarded the neocons as dangerous lunatics. I remember the meeting when a member tried to bring
the neocons into the committee, and old line American establishment representatives, such as former Treasury Secretary Douglas Dillon, hit the roof.
The Committee on the Present Danger regarded the neocons as crazy people who would get America into a nuclear war with the Soviet Union. The neocons hated President Reagan, because he ended the cold war with diplomacy, when they desired
a military victory over the Soviet Union.
Deprived of this, the neocons now want victory over Russia.
Today, Reagan is gone. The Republican Establishment is gone. There are no conservative power centers, only neoconservative power centers closely allied with Israel, which uses the billions of dollars funneled into Israeli coffers by US taxpayers to influence US elections and foreign policy.
The Republican candidate for president is a warmonger. There are no checks remaining in the Republican Party on the neocons' proclivity for war. What Republican constituencies oppose war? Can anyone name one?
The Democrats are not much better, but they have some constituencies that are not enamored of war in order to establish US world hegemony. The Rapture Evangelicals, who fervently desire Armageddon, are not Democrats; nor are the brainwashed Brownshirts desperate to vent their frustrations by striking at someone, somewhere, anywhere.
I get emails from these Brownshirts and attest that their hate-filled ignorance is extraordinary. They are all Republicans, and yet they think they are conservatives. They have no idea who I am, but since I criticize the Bush Regime and America's belligerent foreign policy, they think I am a "liberal commie pinko."
The only literate sentence this legion of fools has ever managed is: "If you hate America so much, why don't you move to Cuba!"
Such is the current state of a Reagan political appointee in today's Republican Party. He is a "liberal commie pinko" who should move to Cuba.
The Republicans will get us into more wars. Indeed, they live for war. McCain is preaching war for 100 years. For these warmongers, it is like cheering for your home team. Win at all costs. They get a vicarious pleasure out of war. If the US has to tell lies in order to attack countries, what's wrong with that? "If we don't kill them over there, they will kill us over here."
The mindlessness is total.
Nothing real issues from the American press, which is about demonizing Russia and Iran, about the vice presidential choices as if it matters, about whether Obama being on vacation let McCain score too many points.
The mindlessness of the news reflects the mindlessness of the government, for which it is a spokesperson.
The American media do not serve American democracy or American interests. They serve the few people who exercise power.
When the Soviet Union collapsed, the US and Israel made a run at controlling Russia and the former constituent parts of its empire. For awhile the US and Israel succeeded, but Putin put a stop to it.
Recognizing that the US had no intention of keeping any of the agreements it had made with Gorbachev, Putin directed the Russian military budget to upgrading the Russian nuclear deterrent. Consequently, the Russian army and air force lack the smart weapons and electronics of the US military.
When the Russian army went into Georgia to rescue the Russians in South Ossetia from the destruction being inflicted upon them by the American puppet Saakashvili, the Russians made it clear that if they were opposed by American troops with smart weapons, they would deal with the threat with tactical nuclear weapons.
The Americans were the first to announce preemptive nuclear attack as their permissible war doctrine. Now the Russians have announced the tactical use of nuclear weapons as their response to American smart weapons.
It is obvious that American foreign policy, with its goal of ringing Russia with US military bases, is leading directly to nuclear war. Every American needs to realize this fact. The US government's insane hegemonic foreign policy is a direct threat to life on the planet.
Russia has made no threats against America. The post-Soviet Russian government has sought to cooperate with the US and Europe. Russia has made it clear over and over that it is prepared to obey international law and treaties. It is the Americans who have thrown international law and treaties into the trash can, not the Russians.
In order to keep the billions of dollars in profits flowing to its contributors in the US military-security complex, the Bush Regime has rekindled the cold war. As American living standards decline and the prospects for university graduates deteriorate, "our" leaders in Washington commit us to a hundred years of war.
If you desire to be poor, oppressed, and eventually vaporized in a nuclear war, vote Republican.
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review.
- warriorpriestess
- Rep: 5
Re: Are You Ready for Nuclear War?
haha. i was totally planning to be anal-retentive and post my first post here in the intros thread - but this got me thinking. many interesting points are brought up. some of which i agree wholeheartedly with, some not so much.
i am completely unsurprised at the buying out of leaders. ahh, bribery. it's been going on forever. disgusting but it will continue for the time being.
[rant\
money is such a lure for so many. some people apparently cannot even comprehend NOT being motivated by financial gain. this is mindlessness indeed, but is anyone really surprised? ever since the mid-90s there has been a wholesale dumbing down of society.
political correctness is the norm of etiquette.
college degrees have become a joke - necessary for many jobs, but often (not always though) simply proving that the degreed individual had the resources to spend the time going through the motions of learning for the prescribed period of time required.
look at all the typos and misplaced punctuation in advertising and print media for proof of that. they went to school but didn't learn much except how to talk a good game of b.s. and act "professional" i.e. emotionless and composed; all the better to look down on those who don't believe in such blatant dishonesty.
i tried to "play the game" in retail employment for awhile and it was madness. company policies were contradictory and idiotic - encouraging customer service excellence, while simultaneously not caring about anything other than coming in under budget for each payroll period. pure hypocrisy which resulted in consistent understaffing and frustrated shoppers OVER and OVER again.
/rant]
but ANYWAYS that's a tangent way off from my original purpose in this post (reboot, lol) which was to say that it struck me as weird and mindless when the President spoke out against the Georgia/Russia situation.
granted, i do not get too deep in politics if i can possibly avoid it, but it is amazingly brash considering the world perspective on certain actions taken by our government...the legality and/or morality thereof i will not even begin to get into here other than to say that on the surface of things, at the time, there were apparently good reasons for those actions.
now - not so sure about that. and i feel strongly that the recent attacks were barbaric.
but how smart is it to make a public statement that seems so blatantly hypocritical in the face of already volatile worldwide circumstances?
d. w. p.
>^-^<
Pages: 1
