Tag Archive | "WAR"

War, Martial Law, and the Economic Crisis


NOVANEWS
Excerpt from “The Global Economic Crisis: The Great Depression of the XXI Century”

The following text is an excerpt of a chapter by Peter Dale Scott from the book, The Global Economic Crisis: The Great Depression of the XXI Century“ Global Research Publishers, 2010. 

The U.S. Treasury’s Financial Bailout

The bailout measures of late 2008 may have consequences at least as grave for an open society as the response to 9/11 in 2001. Many members of Congress felt coerced at the time into voting against their inclinations, and the normal procedures for orderly consideration of a bill were dispensed with.

The excuse for bypassing normal legislative procedures was the existence of an emergency. But one of the most reprehensible features of the legislation, that allowed Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson to permit bailed-out institutions to use public money for exorbitant salaries and bonuses, was inserted by Paulson after the immediate crisis had passed.

According to Congressman Peter Welch (D-Vermont) the bailout bill originally called for a cap on executive salaries, but Paulson changed the requirement at the last minute. Welch and other members of Congress were enraged by “news that banks getting taxpayer-funded bailouts are still paying exorbitant salaries, bonuses, and other benefits.”[1] In addition, as the Associated Press reported in October 2008, “Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. questioned allowing banks that accept bailout bucks to continue paying dividends on their common stock. ‘There are far better uses of taxpayer dollars than continuing dividend payments to shareholders,’ he said.”[2]

Even more reprehensible is the fact that after the bailouts, Paulson and the Treasury Department refused to provide details of the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) spending of hundreds of billions of dollars, while the New York Federal Reserve refused to provide information about its own bailout (using government-backed loans) that amounted to trillions. This lack of transparency was challenged by Fox TV in a FOIA suit against the Treasury Department, and a suit by Bloomberg News against the Fed.[3]

The financial bailout legislation of September 2008 was only passed after members of both Congressional houses were warned that failure to act would threaten civil unrest and the imposition of martial law.

U.S. Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., and U.S. Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Calif., both said U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson brought up a worst-case scenario as he pushed for the Wall Street bailout in September. Paulson, former Goldman Sachs CEO, said that might even require a declaration of martial law, the two noted.[4]

Here are the original remarks by Senator Inhofe:

Speaking on Tulsa Oklahoma’s 1170 KFAQ, when asked who was behind threats of martial law and civil unrest if the bailout bill failed, Senator James Inhofe named Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson as the source. “Somebody in D.C. was feeding you guys quite a story prior to the bailout, a story that if we didn’t do this we were going to see something on the scale of the depression, there were people talking about martial law being instituted, civil unrest… who was feeding you guys this stuff?,” asked host Pat Campbell. “That’s Henry Paulson,” responded Inhofe. “We had a conference call early on, it was on a Friday I think – a week and half before the vote on Oct. 1. So it would have been the middle… what was it – the 19th of September, we had a conference call. In this conference call – and I guess there’s no reason for me not to repeat what he said, but he said – he painted this picture you just described. He said, ‘This is serious. This is the most serious thing that we faced.’”[5]

Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA 27th District) reported the same threat on the Congressional floor:

The only way they can pass this bill is by creating a panic atmosphere… Many of us were told that the sky would fall… A few of us were even told that there would be martial law in America if we voted no. That’s what I call fear-mongering, unjustified, proven wrong.[6]

So it is clear that threats of martial law were used to get this reprehensible bailout legislation passed. It also seems clear that Congress was told of a threat of martial law, not itself threatened. It is still entirely appropriate to link such talk to the Army’s rapid moves at the time to redefine its role as one of controlling the American people, not just protecting them. In a constitutional polity based on balance of powers, we have seen the emergence of a radical new military power that is as yet completely unbalanced.


The Global Economic Crisis: The Great Depression of the XXI Century

Author Name: Michel Chossudovsky and Andrew Gavin Marshall, EditorsISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-3-9
Year: 2010Pages: 416 pages with complete indexList Price: $25.95

Special Price: $18.00

 To order the book click here.


Continuity of Operations (COOP)

The Army’s New Role in 2001: Not Protecting American Society, but Controlling It. This new role for the Army is not wholly unprecedented. The U.S. military had been training troops and police in “civil disturbance planning” for the last three decades. The master plan, Department of Defense Civil Disturbance Plan 55-2, or “Operation Garden Plot,” was developed in 1968 in response to the major protests and disturbances of the 1960s.

But on January 19, 2001, on the last day of the Clinton administration, the U.S. Army promulgated a new and permanent Continuity of Operations (COOP) Program. It encapsulated its difference from the preceding, externally oriented Army Survival, Recovery, and Reconstitution System (ASRRS) as follows:

a. In 1985, the Chief of Staff of the Army established the Army Survival, Recovery, and Reconstitution System (ASRRS) to ensure the continuity of essential Army missions and functions.

ASRRS doctrine was focused primarily on a response to the worst case 1980’s threat of a massive nuclear laydown on CONUS as a result of a confrontation with the Soviet Union.

b. The end of the Cold War and the breakup of the former Soviet Union significantly reduced the probability of a major nuclear attack on CONUS but the probability of other threats has increased. Army organizations must be prepared for any contingency with a potential for interruption of normal operations.

To emphasize that Army continuity of operations planning is now focused on the full all-hazards threat spectrum, the name “ASRRS” has been replaced by the more generic title “Continuity of Operations (COOP) Program.[7]

This document embodied the secret Continuity of Government (COG) planning conducted secretly by Rumsfeld, Cheney and others through the 1980s and 1990s.[8] This planning was initially for continuity measures in the event of a nuclear attack, but soon called for suspension of the Constitution, not just “after a nuclear war” but for any “national security emergency”. This was defined in Reagan’s Executive Order 12656 of November 18, 1988, as “any occurrence, including natural disaster, military attack, technological emergency, or other emergency, that seriously degrades or seriously threatens the national security of the United States.” The effect was to impose on domestic civil society the extreme measures once planned for a response to a nuclear attack from abroad.[9] In like fashion, ARR 500-3 Regulation clarified that it was a plan for “the execution of mission-essential functions without unacceptable interruption during a national security or domestic emergency.”

Donald Rumsfeld, who as a private citizen had helped author the COG planning, promptly signed and implemented the revised ARR 500-3. Eight months later, on 9/11, Cheney and Rumsfeld implemented COG, a significant event of which we still know next to nothing.[10] What we do know is that plans began almost immediately – as foreseen by COG planning the 1980s – to implement warrantless surveillance and detention of large numbers of civilians, and that in January 2002 the Pentagon submitted a proposal for deploying troops on American streets.[11]

Then in April 2002, Defense officials implemented a plan for domestic U.S. military operations by creating a new U.S. Northern Command (CINC-USNORTHCOM) for the continental United States.[12] In short, what were being implemented were the most prominent features of the COG planning which Oliver North had worked on in the 1980s.

“Deep Events” and Changes of Party in the White House

Like so many other significant steps since World War Two towards a military-industrial state, the Army’s Regulation 500-3 surfaced in the last days of a departing administration (in this case the very last day). It is worth noticing that, ever since the 1950s, dubious events – of the unpublic variety I have called deep events – have marked the last months before a change of party in the White House. These deep events have tended to a) constrain the incoming president, if he is a Democrat or, alternatively, b) to pave the way for the incomer, if he is a Republican.

Consider, in the first category, the following (when a Republican was succeeded by a Democrat):

– In December 1960 the CIA secured approval for the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba, and escalated events in Laos into a crisis for which the Joint Chiefs proposed sending 60 000 troops. These events profoundly affected President Kennedy’s posture towards Cuba and Indochina.

– In 1976 CIA Director George H.W. Bush installed an outside Team B intelligence unit to enlarge drastically estimates of the Soviet threat to the United States, eventually frustrating and reversing presidential candidate Jimmy Carter’s campaign pledge to cut the U.S. defense budget.[13]

Equally important were events in the second category (when a Democrat was succeeded by a Republican):

– In late 1968 Kissinger, while advising the Johnson administration, gave secret information to the Nixon campaign that helped Nixon to obstruct the peace agreement in Vietnam that was about to be negotiated at the peace talks then taking place in Paris. (According to Seymour Hersh, “The Nixon campaign, alerted by Kissinger to the impending success of the peace talks, was able to get a series of messages to the Thieu government” in Saigon, making it clear that a Nixon presidency would offer a better deal. This was a major factor in securing the defeat of Democratic candidate Hubert Humphrey.[14] Kissinger was not the kind of person to have betrayed his president on his own personal initiative. At the time Nixon’s campaign manager, John Mitchell (one of the very few in on the secret), told Hersh, “I thought Henry [Kissinger] was doing it because Nelson [Rockefeller] wanted him to. Nelson asked Henry to help and he did.”[15]

– In 1980 the so-called October Surprise, with the help of people inside the CIA, helped ensure that the Americans held hostage in Iran would not be returned before the inauguration of Reagan. This was a major factor in securing the defeat of incumbent Jimmy Carter.[16] Once again, the influence of the Rockefellers can be discerned. A CIA officer later reported hearing Joseph V. Reed, an aide to David Rockefeller, comment in 1981 to William Casey, the newly installed CIA Director, about their joint success in disrupting Carter’s plans to bring home the hostages.[17]

Both the financial bailout, extorted from Congress and the escalated preparations for martial law can be seen as transitional events of the first category. Whatever the explanations for their timing, they constrained Obama’s freedom to make his own policies. Moreover they have the consequence of easing this country into unforeseen escalations of the Afghan war.


SPECIAL: Global Economic Crisis + Globalization of Poverty

Author Name: Michel Chossudovsky and Andrew Gavin Marshall, Editors | Michel Chossudovsky

ISBN Number: 9780973714739 | 9780973714708

Year: 2010 | 2003

Pages: 416 | 376 both with complete indexes

List Price: $53.90

Special Price: $30.00

Click to order


The Intensive Quiet Preparations for Martial Law

Let us deal first with the preparations for martial law. In late September 2008, at the height of the financial meltdown, The Army Times announced the redeployment of an active Brigade Army Team from Iraq to America, in a new mission that “may become a permanent part of the active Army”:

The 3rd Infantry Division’s 1st Brigade Combat Team has spent 35 of the last 60 months in Iraq patrolling in full battle rattle, helping restore essential services and escorting supply convoys.

Now they’re training for the same mission – with a twist – at home.

Beginning Oct. 1 for 12 months, the 1st BCT will be under the day-to-day control of U.S. Army North, the Army service component of Northern Command, as an on-call federal response force for natural or manmade emergencies and disasters, including terrorist attacks… After 1st BCT finishes its dwell-time mission, expectations are that another, as yet unnamed, active-duty brigade will take over and that the mission will be a permanent one… They may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control.[18]

This announcement followed by two weeks the talk of civil unrest and martial law that was used to panic the Congress into passing Paulson’s bailout legislation. Not only that, the two unprecedented events mirror each other: the bailout debate anticipated civil unrest and martial law, while the announced positioning of an active Brigade Combat Team on U.S. soil anticipated civil unrest (such as might result from the bailout legislation).

Then on December 17, 2008, U.S. Northern Command chief General Renuart announced that “the US military plans to mobilize thousands of troops to protect Washington against potential terrorist attack during the inauguration of president-elect Barack Obama.”[19]

The U.S. Army War College also raised the possibility of the U.S. Army being used to control civil unrest, according to the Phoenix Business Journal:

A new report by the U.S. Army War College talks about the possibility of Pentagon resources and troops being used should the economic crisis lead to civil unrest, such as protests against businesses and government or runs on beleaguered banks.

“Widespread civil violence inside the United States would force the defense establishment to reorient priorities in extremis to defend basic domestic order and human security,” said the War College report.

The study says economic collapse, terrorism and loss of legal order are among possible domestic shocks that might require military action within the U.S.[20]

It is clear that there has been a sustained move in the direction of martial law preparations, a trend that has been as continuous as it has been unheralded. Senator Leahy was thus right to draw our attention to it on September 29, 2006, in his objections to the final form of the Fiscal Year 2007 National Defense Authorization Act, which gave the president increased power to call up the National Guard for law enforcement:

It… should concern us all that the Conference agreement includes language that subverts solid, longstanding Posse Comitatus statutes that limit the military’s involvement in law enforcement, thereby making it easier for the President to declare martial law. There is good reason for the constructive friction in existing law when it comes to martial law declarations.[21]

This quiet agglomeration of military power has not “just growed”, like Topsy, through inadvertence. It shows sustained intention, even if no one has made a public case for it.


*1 BOX = 30 BOOKS – SPECIAL OFFER: The Global Economic Crisis

Author Name: Michel Chossudovsky and Andrew Gavin Marshall, EditorsISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-3-9Year: 2010

Pages: 416 Pages

List Price: $778.50

Special Price: $297.00

Bulk Order: Click here to order multiple copies at a discounted price


The Global Economic Crisis: The Great Depression of the XXI Century (PDF)

Author: Michel Chossudovsky and Andrew Gavin Marshall, EditorsISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-3-9Year: 2010

Pages: 416 pages with complete index

Product Type: PDF File

Price: $9.50

For PDF format, click here 


NOTES

1. WCAX, Burlington, Vermont, http://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?S= 9567271, 22 December 2008; Cf. CNBC, http://www.cnbc.com/id/27423117, 30 October 2008: ” ‘You can get paid $30 million under this program’, says Michael Kesner, who heads Deloitte Consulting executive compensation practice, ‘There’s no limit on what you can get paid.’ “
2. John Dunbar, AP, http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/081025/meltdown_evolving_bailout.html, 25 October 2007.
3. David Hirst, “Fox Joins Battle cry for Details of US Bail-out”, BusinessDay, http://www.businessday.com.au/business/fox-joins-battle-cry-for-details-of-us-bailout-20081223-74eh.html?page=-1, 24 December 2008.
4. Mike Sunnucks, “Ariz. Police say they are Prepared as War College warns Military must prep for Unrest; IMF warns of Economic Riots”, Phoenix Business Journal, http://phoenix.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2008/12/15/daily34.html, 17 December 2008.
5. 1170 KFAQ, “Paulson Was Behind Bailout Martial Law Threat”, Blacklisted News, http://www.blacklistednews.com/news-2367-0-13-13–.html, 23 November 2008.
6. Rep. Brad Sherman, in the House, 8:07 EST PM, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaG9d_4zij8&NR=1, 2 October 2008; Rep. Sherman later issued the following clarification: “I have no reason to think that any of the leaders in Congress who were involved in negotiating with the Bush Administration regarding the bailout bill ever mentioned the possibility of martial law – again, that was just an example of extreme and deliberately hyperbolic comments being passed around by members not directly involved in the negotiations.” See Rep. Sherman, Alex Jones Show, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bH1mO8qhCs.
7. Army Regulation 500-3, “Emergency Employment of Army and Other Resources”, Army Continuity Of Operations (COOP) Program, http://www.wikileaks.org/leak/us-army-reg-500-3-continuity-2001.pdf, emphasis added; Tom Burghardt, “Militarizing the ‘Homeland’ in Response to the Economic and Political Crisis: NORTHCOM’s Joint Task Force-Civil Support”, Global Research, http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10534, 11 October 2008.
8. Peter Dale Scott, The Road to 9/11: Wealth, Empire, and the Future of America, Berkeley and Los Angeles, University of California Press, 2007, p. 183-87; James Mann, The Rise of the Vulcans: The History of Bush’s War Cabinet, New York, Viking, 2004, p. 138-45.
9. Peter Dale Scott, Road to 9/11, op. cit., p. 183-87.
10. National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, 9/11 Commission Report, p. 38, 326; 555, footnote 9; Peter Dale Scott, Road to 9/11, op. cit., p. 228-30.
11. Ritt Goldstein, “Foundations are in Place for Martial Law in the US”, Sydney Morning Herald, http://www.smh.com.au/articles/ 2002/07/27/10274974183 39.html, 27 July 2002.
12. Peter Dale Scott, Road to 9/11, op. cit., p. 240-41.
13. Ibid., p. 60-61.
14. Robert Parry, “Henry Kissinger, Eminence Noire”, ConsortiumNews, http://www.consortiumnews.com/2008/122808.html, 28 December 2008: “Kissinger… – while serving as a peace-talk adviser to the Johnson administration – made obstruction of the peace talks possible by secretly contacting people working for Nixon, according to Seymour Hersh’s 1983 book, The Price of Power”, p. 21.
15. Seymour Hersh, The Price of Power, 1983, p. 18; Jim Hougan, Spooks: The Haunting of America, New York, William Morrow, 1978, p. 435: “Kissinger, married to a former Rockefeller aide, owner of a Georgetown mansion whose purchase was enabled only by Rockefeller gifts and loans, was always the protégé of his patron, Nelson R[ockefeller], even when he wasn’t directly employed by him.”
16. Peter Dale Scott, Road to 9/11, op. cit., p. 93-118.
17. Ibid. p. 82-87, 91, 104-05.
18. Gina Cavallaro, “Brigade Homeland Tours Start Oct. 1”, Army Times, http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/09/army_homeland _090708w/, 30 September 2008; Michel Chossudovsky, “Pre-election Militarization of the North American Homeland, US Combat Troops in Iraq Repatriated to ‘Help with Civil Unrest’”, Global Research, http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? context= va&aid=10341, 26 September 2008.
19. AFP, Agence France-Presse, http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iTBOy3JF8pVAthIthq8C1NrMf4Cg, 17 De- cember 2008.
20. Mike Sunnucks, “Ariz. Police say they are Prepared as War College warns Military must prep for Unrest; IMF warns of Economic Riots”, Phoenix Business Journal, http://phoenix.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2008/12/ 15/daily34.html, 17 December 2008.
21. Remarks Of Sen. Patrick Leahy, “National Defense Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2007 Conference Report”, Congressional Record, http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200609/092906b.html, 29 September 2006.

Posted in USA, PoliticsComments Off on War, Martial Law, and the Economic Crisis

Why Do “Progressives” Like War?


NOVANEWS

Image result for Progressives CARTOON

Fleeing to Canada is no longer an option

By Philip Giraldi • Unz Review 

Liberals are supposed to be antiwar, right? I went to college in the 1960s, when students nationwide were rising up in opposition to the Vietnam War. I was a Young Republican back then and supported the war through sheer ignorance and dislike of the sanctimoniousness of the protesters, some of whom were surely making their way to Canada to live in exile on daddy’s money while I was on a bus going to Fort Leonard Wood for basic combat training. I can’t even claim that I had some grudging respect for the antiwar crowd because I didn’t, but I did believe that at least some of them who were not being motivated by being personally afraid of getting hurt were actually sincere in their opposition to the awful things that were happening in Southeast Asia.

As I look around now, however, I see something quite different. The lefties I knew in college are now part of the Establishment and generally speaking are retired limousine liberals. And they now call themselves progressives, of course, because it sounds more educated and sends a better message, implying as it does that troglodytic conservatives are anti-progress. But they also have done a flip on the issue of war and peace. In its most recent incarnation some of this might be attributed to a desperate desire to relate to the Hillary Clinton campaign with its bellicosity towards Russia, Syria and Iran, but I suspect that the inclination to identify enemies goes much deeper than that, back as far as the Bill Clinton Administration with its sanctions on Iraq and the Balkan adventure, which resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths and the creation of a terror-narco state in the heart of Europe. And more recently we have seen the Obama meddling in Libya, Yemen and Syria in so called humanitarian interventions which have turned out to be largely fraudulent. Yes, under the Obama Dems it was “responsibility to protect time” (r2p) and all the world trembled as the drones were let loose.

Last Friday I started to read an op-ed in The Washington Post by David Ignatius that blew me away. It began “President Trump confronts complicated problems as the investigation widens into Russia’s attack on our political system.” It then proceeded to lay out the case for an “aggressive Russia” in the terms that have been repeated ad nauseam in the mainstream media. And it was, of course, lacking in any evidence, as if the opinions of coopted journalists and the highly politicized senior officials in the intelligence community should be regarded as sacrosanct. These are, not coincidentally, the same people who have reportedly recently been working together to undercut the White House by leaking and then reporting highly sensitive transcripts of phone calls with Russian officials.

Ignatius is well plugged into the national security community and inclined to be hawkish but he is also a typical Post politically correct progressive on most issues. So here was your typical liberal asserting something in a dangerous fashion that has not been demonstrated and might be completely untrue. Russia is attacking “our political system!” And The Post is not alone in accepting that Russia is trying to subvert and ultimately overthrow our republic. Reporting from The New York Times and on television news makes the same assumption whenever they discuss Russia, leading to what some critics have described as mounting American ‘hysteria’ relating to anything coming out of Moscow.

Rachel Maddow is another favorite of mine when it comes to talking real humanitarian feel good stuff out one side of her mouth while beating the drum for war from the other side. In a bravura performance on January 26th she roundly chastised Russia and its president Vladimir Putin. Rachel, who freaked out completely when Donald Trump was elected, is now keen to demonstrate that Trump has been corrupted by Russia and is now controlled out of the Kremlin. She described Trump’s lord and master Putin as an “intense little man” who murders his opponents before going into the whole “Trump stole the election with the aid of Moscow” saga, supporting sanctions on Russia and multiple investigations to get to the bottom of “Putin’s attacks on our democracy.” Per Maddow, Russia is the heart of darkness and, by way of Trump, has succeeded in exercising control over key elements in the new administration.

Unfortunately, people in the media like Ignatius and Maddow are not alone. Their willingness to sell a specific political line that carries with it a risk of nuclear war as fact, even when they know it is not, has been part of the fear-mongering engaged in by Democratic Party loyalists and many others on the left. Their intention is to “get Trump” whatever it takes, which opens the door to some truly dangerous maneuvering that could have awful consequences if the drumbeat and military buildup against Russia continues, leading Putin to decide that his country is being threatened and backed into a corner. Moscow has indicated that it would not hesitate use nuclear weapons if it is being confronted militarily and facing defeat.

The current wave of Russophobia is much more dangerous than the random depiction of foreigners in negative terms that has long bedeviled a certain type of American know-nothing politics. Apart from the progressive antipathy towards Putin personally, there is a virulent strain of anti-Russian sentiment among some self-styled conservatives in congress, best exemplified by Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham. Graham has recently said “2017 is going to be a year of kicking Russia in the ass in Congress.”

It is my belief that many in the National Security State have convinced themselves that Russia is indeed a major threat against the United States and not because it is a nuclear armed power that can strike the U.S. That appreciation, should, if anything constitute a good reason to work hard to maintain cordial relations rather than not, but it is seemingly ignored by everyone but Donald Trump.

No, the new brand of Russophobia derives from the belief that Moscow is “interfering” in places like Syria and Ukraine. Plus, it is a friend of Iran. That perception derives from the consensus view among liberals and conservatives alike that the U.S. sphere of influence encompasses the entire globe as well as the particularly progressive conceit that Washington should serve to “protect” anyone threatened at any time by anyone else, which provides a convenient pretext for military interventions that are euphemistically described as “peace missions.”

There might be a certain cynicism in many who hate Russia as having a powerful enemy also keeps the cash flowing from the treasury into the pockets of the beneficiaries of the military industrial congressional complex, but my real fear is that, having been brainwashed for the past ten years, many government officials are actually sincere in their loathing of Moscow and all its works. Recent opinion polls suggest that that kind of thinking is popular among Americans, but it actually makes no sense. Though involvement by Moscow in the Middle East and Eastern Europe is undeniable, calling it a threat against U.S. vital interests is more than a bit of a stretch as Russia’s actual ability to make trouble is limited. It has exactly one overseas military facility, in Syria, while the U.S. has more than 800, and its economy and military budget are tiny compared to that of the United States. In fact, it is Washington that is most guilty of intervening globally and destabilizing entire regions, not Moscow, and when Donald Trump said in an interview that when it came to killing the U.S. was not so innocent it was a gross understatement.

Ironically, pursuing a reset with Russia is one of the things that Trump actually gets right but the new left won’t give him a break because they reflexively hate him for not embracing the usual progressive bromides that they believe are supposed to go with being antiwar. Other Moscow trashing comes from the John McCain camp which demonizes Russia because warmongers always need an enemy and McCain has never found a war he couldn’t support. It would be a tragedy for the United States if both the left and enough of the right were to join forces to limit Trump’s options on dealing with Moscow, thereby enabling an escalating conflict that could have tragic consequences for all parties.

Posted in USAComments Off on Why Do “Progressives” Like War?

Give war a chance: Murdered MP’s report backs UK military intervention


NOVANEWS

Image result for Jo Cox CARTOON

War should always be an available option for Britain, according to a report initiated by murdered Labour MP Jo Cox and finished by a former military intelligence officer-turned-Tory backbencher.

Due to be launched on Thursday by former prime minister Gordon Brown at the Policy Exchange think-tank, the study titled ‘The Cost of Doing Nothing’ seeks to recondition Britain’s ability to intervene militarily in the affairs of other nations.

Although the report was first begun by the late-Jo Cox, who was murdered by a far-right extremist in June of 2016, the study was finished by Conservative MP Tom Tugendhat and Cox’s parliamentary colleague Alison McGovern.

Tugendhat was a colonel in British Army intelligence and served a number of operational tours in Afghanistan and Iraq before becoming an MP.

The report warns that the UK has become bogged down in anti-interventionism because of the unpopularity of failed wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

It warns against a “selective reading” of history, while arguing that “successful” examples like Sierra Leone and Kosovo should be examined in more depth.

The authors also try to argue that, as the report’s title suggests, the cost of inaction in places like Rwanda, and more recently Syria, should be taken into consideration.

In an accompanying piece published in the Telegraph, Tugendhat writes that his experience as a soldier and Cox’s as an aid worker gave them particular expertise on the subject.

“The UK has at times swung towards non-intervention but the long view shows clearly that Britain has done better, both for ourselves and the wider world, when we have championed international law, human rights, the international community, and the responsibility to protect the most vulnerable,” Tugendhat argues.

He insisted that “Britain is a positive influence in the world” and that to “remain an effective ally, we must be prepared to engage, cooperate, and keep military intervention as a legitimate foreign-policy option.”

The report was quickly rubbished by the Stop the War Coalition (StWC).

“The Chilcot Report and recent Parliamentary Committee Reports on Iraq Libya and Syria have all concluded that the interventions were disastrous,” the group said in a statement.

“All of the countries recently attacked by British armed forces are now failed states,” it stressed.

The anti-war group also pointed to public opinion.

“The majority of the British public have grasped these facts and the obvious truth that bombs can under no circumstances be humanitarian instruments,” the coalition said.

“Polls show most oppose existing and future wars and wish to see a shift towards a foreign policy based on mutual respect, negotiation and diplomacy.”

Posted in UKComments Off on Give war a chance: Murdered MP’s report backs UK military intervention

The War against the Truth, When the Lie Becomes the Truth. Is Obama Preparing War Against Russia?


NOVANEWS
 
obama-war

At the end of Obama’s presidency, Fiction has become Fact. 

A world of fantasy permeates the mainstream media.  

The Lie has become the Truth.

“Fake New” has become “Real News”. 

And “Real News” by the independent online media is now tagged as Russian propaganda. 

What we are dealing with is a War against the Truth. 

Concepts are turned upside down. 

Political insanity prevails. We are at a dangerous crossroads in our history  The dangers of global warfare are routinely obfuscated by media disinformation.  

According to National Intelligence Director James Clapper Russia’s alleged hacking constitutes an “Existential Threat” against America.

Senator McCain considers it an “An Act of War”

Daily Mail, December 31, 2016, screenshot 

Meanwhile, US tanks and troops have been dispatched to Russia’s border under Obama’s “Operation Atlantic Resolve” and NATO’s European Reassurance Initiative (ERI). And the media remains silent. It’s not front page news.

Realties are turned upside down. Russia is the Threat. The alleged hacking is casually presented as a justification for outright war preparations against Russia: “The move comes as NATO’s relationship with Moscow has hit its lowest point in decades… U.S. national security agencies have also blamed Russia for perceived meddling in the presidential election…” (Reuters, January 6, 2016)

What is envisaged is a scenario of a possible ground war against Russia:

Ships began unloading U.S. tanks, self-propelled howitzers and hundreds of other fighting vehicles Friday in the northern German port of Bremerhaven, to be moved into Eastern Europe to bolster NATO’s deterrence against possible Russian aggression.

The U.S. also plans to move in a combat aviation brigade …  from Fort Bliss, Texas. They’ll be headquartered in Germany with some aircraft positioned in Latvia, Romania and Poland.

…Britain [is] sending fighter jets to the Black Sea area, while a battalion of troops, tanks and light armor will deploy in Estonia in the spring, backed by French and Danish troops. Germany also plans to send troops and tanks to Lithuania.

Albania, Belgium, Canada, Croatia, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Romania and Slovenia are also playing roles in what NATO has dubbed its Enhanced Forward Presence. The U.S. plans to relocate a Stryker unit from Germany to Poland as part of that group.

(Associated Press,  January 6, 2017)

Everybody is Scared of Vladimir Putin

Read carefully: Biggest shipment of American tanks since the Cold War lands in Germany (January 6), Howitzers and fighting vehicles will be joined by thousands of infantry troopers”. This massive military deployment –which is scarcely the object of media coverage– is upheld as a “peacekeeping initiative” in response to Vladimir Putin’s “aggression” and alleged hacking of the DNC.

According to Deputy Commanding General of the US Army  Timothy McGuire (in charge of the deployment of US ground forces in Eastern Europe): “The best way to maintain the peace is through preparation… this is just showing the strength and the cohesion of the alliance and the U.S. commitment to maintain the peace on the continent.” (emphasis added)

Screenshot. The Sun, January 4, 2016

While the alleged hacking is casually tagged as an “An Act of War” against the American Homeland, “Operation Atlantic Resolve” (involving a massive deployment of troops and military hardware on Russia’s border) is categorized as an “Act of Self Defense”.

When war becomes peace, the world is turned upside down.

Conceptualization is no longer possible.  Insanity prevails. The institutions of government are criminalized.

The Western media and politicians, in chorus, obfuscate the unspoken truth, namely that the US-NATO led war destroys humanity.

When the lie becomes the truth there is no turning backwards.

When war is upheld as a humanitarian endeavor supported by the United Nations, Justice and the entire international legal system are turned upside down: pacifism and the antiwar movement are criminalized.

Opposing the war becomes a criminal act.

Obama’s Legacy is War and The Big Lie.

The Big Lie must be exposed for what it is and what it does.

It sanctions the indiscriminate killing of men, women and children.

It destroys families and people. It destroys the commitment of people towards their fellow human beings.

It prevents people from expressing their solidarity for those who suffer. It upholds war and the police state as the sole avenue.

It destroys both nationalism and internationalism.

Breaking the lie means breaking a criminal project of global destruction, in which the quest for profit is the overriding force.

Posted in USA, RussiaComments Off on The War against the Truth, When the Lie Becomes the Truth. Is Obama Preparing War Against Russia?

The War Will be Over When We Get Rid of the Terrorists: Syria’s President al-Assad


NOVANEWS
Interview with Italy’s TG5 Channel
 
Bachar al-Assad

Question 1: President Assad, a few days ago, the Syrian Army, with the help of the Russian force, took the control of most of Aleppo. We can say that the war is almost over?

President Assad: No, not yet, you cannot talk about the war is over until you get rid of the terrorists in Syria, and those terrorists unfortunately still have formal support from many countries including Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and many Western countries. So, this hasn’t changed, and this kind of support will make the war drag on. But the defeat of the terrorists in Aleppo is an important step toward ending the war. If you don’t have that external support to those terrorists, it won’t be difficult at all to get rid from the terrorists everywhere in Syria, and at that time we can talk about the end of war.

Question 2: But what can you say on the huge number of victims among the civilians, and this is a big problem.

President Assad: In Syria in general?

Journalist: Yeah, yeah.

President Assad: Of course, it is a big problem; the most important thing than the infrastructure and the buildings are the people who have been killed, the families that lost their dear ones, children, their sons, brothers, sisters, mothers, and so on. This is the suffering, they’re going to live with this pain forever. But at the end, the only way to solve the problem in Syria is for everyone to forgive every other one. So, I think we have this feeling, that this is the main orientation, on the public level.

Question 3: And the role of Daesh here in Syria…. You defeat Daesh, because we have problem in Europe too with Daesh, you know, the Berlin attack. What can we do with Daesh?

President Assad: As Europeans?

Journalists: As Europeans and…

President Assad: Yeah. The problem is not only ISIS. ISIS is the product, one of the products of extremism. When you talk about Daesh, you can talk about al-Nusra, you can talk about many other different organizations, they have the same mentality and the same dark ideology. The core problem of those organizations, first of all, is the ideology, the Wahabi ideology.. If you don’t deal with it in Europe and in our region and in the world in general, we cannot deal with the extremism and its product, the terrorism, anywhere in the world. I mean, in that regard; if you don’t deal with the ideology, you are dealing only temporarily with the problem. If you want to deal with the issue of terrorism permanently, you have to deal with the pillar of that terrorism, which is the Wahabi ideology.

This is first. But currently you have another pillar of the problem; it’s the Western support of those terrorists, maybe not ISIS in general, but they give different labels: “moderates, white helmets,” they give all these humanitarian – sometimes – and moderate labels just to give them the cover in order to achieve their political goals. So, their priority in Europe – I’m talking about the European governments – their priority is not fighting terrorism; their priority is using those cards in order to change governments, and to get rid of presidents, and so on. So, with this policy, you cannot defeat terrorism in around the world, and that’s why, as you see, during the last few years, there’s nothing happening regarding terrorism in Europe; the terrorists are still attacking freely, with no change in the situation, because the Western officials are not serious in dealing with this problem.

Question 4: And the last question: so, do you think that the election of Donald Trump could change something here in the role of the United States in this area?

President Assad: Let’s say we are more optimistic with caution, because we don’t know what is the policy that he’s going to adopt regarding our region in general, how can he deal with the different lobbies in the United States that oppose any solution in Syria and any good relations with Russia. But we can say part of the optimism could be related to better relation between the United States and Russia, not the West and Russia; because Europe doesn’t exist on the political map. I’m talking about only the United States. If there’s good relation between these two great powers, most of the world, including small countries like Syria, will be the beneficiary of this relation. In that regard, we can say there will be a solution in Syria. At the same time, he said – Mr. Trump, during his campaign – that his priority is fighting terrorism, and we believe that this is the beginning of the solution, if he can implement what he announced.

Journalist: Okay, thank you.

President Assad: Thank you.

Posted in SyriaComments Off on The War Will be Over When We Get Rid of the Terrorists: Syria’s President al-Assad


Shoah’s pages

www.shoah.org.uk

KEEP SHOAH UP AND RUNNING

February 2020
M T W T F S S
« Jan    
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
242526272829