Exposing the event: James Corbett reporting from Osaka, Japan.
Archive for April, 2011
By Patrick Henningsen
21st Century Wire
April 26, 2011
With the addition of Libya to the US and NATO’s regional conflict portfolio, our world is currently host to more wars and forced occupations than at any other time in history. Given its current trajectory, you only have to sit back and wait for that illusive match that could ignite another full-blown world war.
Events in Libya are not exclusive to the military theatre. There is a geopolitical and economic chess match at play between the West and China in a battle for Africa and with it, the largest basket of natural resources on Earth.
In Libya we are witnessing what could be described as a New Cold War between the West and China, but from its early stages we can see that this war is hardly a cold one. It’s a hot war, one which might very well threaten the delicate stability that remains between the major economic and military powers across multiple global regions.
Patrick Henningsen on Russia Today explaining the basis of a “New Cold War” between China and the West.
Mostly under the media radar, the US has already outlined its strategic agenda through the formation of AFRICOM, a subset of the infamous neo-conservative Project for a New American Century(PNAC). Central to AFRICOM’s strategic goals is to confront the increasing Chinese influence on the continent.
Strong strategic and economic links already exist between Russia, Pakistan, Iran and China, and NATO military actions are already coming into direct conflict with these relationships. Led by the US and Britain, NATO is currently being deployed like an international hit squad in order to secure territories and resources which carry a high transnational corporate value.
The use of NATO in these far-flung regions has taken it far away from its original charter to preserve peace and stability along the old front-line between the now defunct USSR and the US-European alliance. The use of NATO in these regions, however, is further proof that its old cold war function is still active, the old chess pieces are still in play and its Western directors are not hiding this fact at all.
Obama presiding over new wars
In late 2007 and early 2008, Americans and fawning fans around the globe bought into a much different picture altogether. The election of US President Barrack Obama had convinced masses worldwide that those dark days were behind them; he promised them he would close America’s off-shore military concentration camp in Guantanamo Bay, pull the troops out of Iraq, reignite the fabled “peace process” between Israel and Palestine, and focus on more pressing economic matters at home.
Much to the surprise of his loyal devotees, just the opposite transpired; aided by his unlikely pro-war Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, we have seen an expansion of military troops overseas, the addition of Pakistan as a theatre of conflict, the activation of military tribunals to fabricate convictions of innocent detainees in Guantanamo, no mention of Israel, and the launch of a new undeclared illegal war in Libya. Even his greatest fans have been left scratching their heads over how the West could get it so wrong. How could this once celebrated man of the people, the first man of colour in the White House, the young turk, the reformer- steer his flock into such a pattern of geopolitical digression?
Ironically, Barrack Obama was given his Nobel Peace Prize only two months after being in office, a bizarre move by the Nobel Prize Committee. ”Obama has now fired more cruise missiles than all other Nobel Peace prize winners combined”, not a good line on the resume of a dove. He’s now joined the ranks of Henry Kissinger and other notable mass bombers. At this point, there appears to be little chance for redemption.
The Resource Wars
Despite the utopian projections by the ranks of neo-liberal globalist disciples, cadres of nations and trading alliances have formed since 2000. BRICS, MENA, and LATIN AMERICAN emerging economic blocks are challenging the pre-eminence of the traditional Anglo-American and European dominion over the global markets and cultural monopolies. Oil, gas, uranium and water feature prominently in this realignment of the global chessboard, and with each additional military theatre comes an additional risk of a multi-regional war. For decades this premonition has been known commonly as World War III. Such a new war will most certainly be fought around one singular issue… natural resources.
The capture and control of the world’s remaining resources and energy supplies will be the theme which will govern and literally fuel all major conflicts in the 21st century. This pattern has already begun with the First Gulf War in 1991, leading to the West’s complete control of energy lines in Afghanistan and Iraq from 2001 onwards, and again to the current resource grab we are currently witnessing in Libya.
A comprehensive video analysis of how a World War III scenario would likely unfold.
The Nuclear Risk
Hawks, think-tankers and arm chair cheerleaders in countries like the US and Britain may be convinced that in the event of a Third World War they will most certainly be on the winning side because the military and nuclear scales are weighing heavily in their favour. What these hawks do not consider is that the one risk which trumps all other concerns in this scenario is just that: the use of nuclear weapons. It is very likely that any version of a Third World War will almost certainly feature the use of thermo-nuclear bombs and missiles.
Confident hawks should be reminded that the risks of escalation in a two-way or a three-way shooting match will result in a massive loss of innocent lives and certain permanent environmental damage on a very large scale. Large stocks of valuable and relatively finite resources including energy, food, fish and water supplies will be rendered useless and inaccessible for many generations. In addition, nuclear fall-out will have an environmental knock-on effect globally. In short, even a regional nuclear conflict will have catastrophic consequences both in and outside of the conflict zones. Few can disagree that this is one genie which should not be allowed out of the bottle again.
Nuclear weapons have already been introduced into the conflict zone. The use of illegal and highly dangerous Depleted Uranium (DU) munitions by the US, Europe and Israel has featured widely in their respective war theatres. US and NATO forces used DU penetrator rounds in the 1991 Gulf War, the Bosnia war, bombing of Serbia, and the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
DU essentially amounts to recycled nuclear waste, repackaged for profit into a highly lethal and toxic ammunition for use on the battlefield- and it’s been around for years. While clearing a decades-old Hawaii firing range in 2005, workers found depleted uranium fins from training rounds from the formerly classified Davy Crockett recoilless gun tactical battlefield nuclear delivery system from the 1960-70s. These same training rounds were used in a highly classified program and had been fired before DU had become an item of interest, more than 20 years before the Gulf War:
“The Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities of the United Nations Human Rights Commission, passed two motions — the first in 1996 and the second in 1997. They listed weapons of mass destruction, or weapons with indiscriminate effect, or of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering and urged all states to curb the production and the spread of such weapons. Included in the list was weaponry containing depleted uranium.”
With a minimum half-life of 400,000 years, lethal radioactive DU dust has already spread over the Middle East region and beyond. Despite international efforts to ban its use, it appears that the US and its allies are determined to use it on its foreign victims… indefinitely.
Role of Domestic Bystander
On the domestic front, elites still need to prime the public for their participation in these new 21st century wars. The theme of “terrorism” and “domestic terror” will continue to occupy a prime place in our domestic conversation, ensuring a state of permanent domestic war which is currently being administered by a rapidly growing Police and Surveillance State, particularly in the US and the UK. The rapid advance of the domestic Police State in these two countries could be an indication that they may very well form one side of any impending global conflict.
It’s also a certainty that more young men and women from these same Western nations will be asked to replenish the dwindling ranks of soldiers to be stationed in legions overseas, as well as for domestic service in forming standing armies at home. And here is where the rubber actually meets the road: citizens who still consider themselves free should seriously consider for what reasons and for whose interest they are putting on their uniform… and ask why they will asked to point their guns at foreign citizens and citizens at home.
We are currently in the early stages of what appears to be a global escalation phase and it is anyone’s guess how this chess game will unfold in the immediate future. However, taking long-term trends and the colonial behaviour patterns of certain North American and European countries into account, it is almost certain that the battle for finite resources, the preservation of corporate monopolies and the dominance of a single global currency will force a confrontation between old and emerging economic blocks.
Your individual role in such an unstable future is up to you. Depending on your level of education and awareness, you will either play a role in stemming the tide of war, or contributing to it. Unfortunately, in this case, staying on the fence will likely place you in the latter category.
Author Patrick Henningsen is a writer and communications consultant and currently the Managing Editor of 21st Century Wire.
By Andrew McKillop
21st Century Wire
April 22, 2011
Since its introduction in the 1950’s, the myths surrounding nuclear power have been worked up into a complex web as massive and multiple as the debts and deficits assailing government leaderships and central bankers in most OECD countries, but like these myth-based no alternatives, the nuclear myths are easy to cut back to basics.
We can start with the Mother Myth of nuclear power. This is as beguilingly simple as the sequence leading to yet another debt and deficit bailout, with printed money in Europe, the USA or Japan. We are confronted by all-powerful debts in today’s world, and by all-powerful forces in the atom. By intelligently exploiting it we will have ultimate power…
In fact arguments about ‘how to use it’ and ‘should we use it’ started even before the world’s first atom bomb was exploded in 1945. How could we use this total power and unlimited energy ? Would it be for good or evil ? How much would it all cost ?
COSTS NEVER MATTERED
The atom scientists of the 1930s- names we still know today, like Fermi and Einstein, argued about those subjects too. But being scientists, they were not especially concerned by what it would all cost. Only later, with the founding of the UN’s Atomic Energy Agency in 1956 – which is essentially a promotional agency for nuclear power – were the key subjects of entrepreneurial effort and the obligatorily linked need for government subsidies brought into the fray. This was sold as creating a future world where atomic arms will be changed to power plant ploughshares. While atomic weapons were expensive, the ploughshares would be cheap if we spent enough investing in them (so they said).
Another handicap for the 1930’s atom scientists that make it hard for them to get an idea how much nuclear power would cost, and which cost several of them their very own lives from cancer death, was that 75 years ago they knew little and therefore cared little about radiation and what it did to living things. The myth of radiation being very ‘interesting’ but not dangerous, was however firmly debunked by the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, but not without a last ditch attempt by the occupying Allied Powers to protect it – by arresting and deporting any journalist who talked about radiation deaths. Estimates of radiation deaths from these two bombs vary widely, depending on the cut-off time interval for making an estimate and also hindered by the Allied Powers blackout on radiation deaths, but in total these were likely well in excess of 100,000.
Today with the Fukushima disaster making it suddenly OK to openly doubt that nuclear power is clean, safe and cheap, it is easy to find the radiological equivalent of these 6 industry standard BWR power plants and their fuel ponds. Anywhere up to 15 000 times the combined release of radiation from the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs.
RISKS DON’T MATTER
Under a tight shield of commercial and national security, technological complexity and simple disinterest in almost unlimited health and environment security risks the nuclear industry worldwide… has created hundreds of Doomsday Machines. They must never, ever suffer total meltdown, or damage so serious their radiological inventory can escape. If – or rather when – that happens the consequences can only and will only be dire. This central fact has been deliberately and consistently hidden from the general public since the so-called Atomic Age began.
This so-called Faustian bargain or Devil’s bet dwarfs even the incredible costs of what is a totally uneconomic source of electricity, but the financial risks of nuclear power are themselves massive – in fact open-ended like the health and environment risks.
A PRICE TO PAY: Fukushima’s Faustian drama unfolds.
We could or might find excuses for the sequence of events and overlays of hasty and uninformed, irresponsible or technologically arrogant decisions leading to hundreds of Doomsday Machines being stationed around the planet – each one a gigantic dirty bomb. For many, still even today, atomic energy looks like something for nothing, and this alone has attracted generations of charlatans to work the talk circuits in favour of nuclear power.
As we know today, the old nuclear nations which first developed atomic energy from the 1950s and 1960s have rapidly ageing and unsure reactor fleets. By the 2020-2030 period dozens of these reactors will have to be taken out of service. And then what ? Industry terminology for this includes the keywords Safestore, dismantling, entombment and sarcophagus – all of which translate to extreme high costs both in the short-term and on a recurring basis. This also assumes there will be linked and secure long-term high level radioactive waste ultimate repositories, such as the constantly abandoned US Yucca Mountain project, abandoned mainly because of its extreme high cost.
Trying desperately to keep itself alive at whatever cost and whatever risk to present and future human and other life on the planet, the nuclear industry has retreated into its laager mentality with technology gimmicks ranging from thorium and other non-uranium fuelled reactors, fusion reactors, and fast breeder reactors. Although no commercial – that is non subsidized and large scale – versions of these quick fixes exist, the high-tech sheen on these claimed alternatives is enough to beguile some weak minded, uninformed and gullible persons. Nuclear power should be given another try, they say !
The key sales pitch for nuclear power- that its costs can be recouped rather quickly from the almost free energy and power it supposedly delivers has been shamelessly used to vend these Doomsday Machines, particularly in the emerging and developing countries, from Sudan to Bangladesh, and Ghana to Mongolia. Exactly how to get this energy that will be too cheap to meter remains a shady piece of logic: massive and complex long-term financing vehicles and packages will be needed. While details are shrouded in more than only commercial and financial secrecy – nuclear power’s national security handle is heavily employed to blackout information – this, of course, is the basic strategy is mercantilist.
The 46-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group(NSG) comprises of mainly OECD membership, but also includes countries like Argentina, Brazil, China, Kazakhstan, South Africa, Turkey and Ukraine, as well as some other small non-OECD countries but specifically does not include India. This traces to the 1975 founding of the NSG, in the wake of India’s 1974 test explosion of an atom bomb, and the alarmed but confused attempt by leaderships of the old nuclear nations to lock down nuclear technology but also promote nuclear power. The permanent and basic linkage between nuclear weapons, and nuclear power had been made clear for all to see by the Indian test, but business had to go on as usual.
By some strange schizophrenia, the same alarmed political leaderships in the old nuclear nations chose to ignore (or simply not know) that with each large-sized civil power reactor they promote, their suppliers contract to house several thousands times more radiation products than those released by the Hiroshima bomb.
Setting aside this sheer madness, for the last 10 years and especially since 2005, nuclear mercantilism has rapidly grown as the effective and real mover. This extends far beyond simple market and sales maximising strategy, and the strategy is likely coordinated at high level among the key members of the NSG, who number less than 15 OECD countries.
FROM PETRODOLLARS TO URANIUM DOLLARS
The sales pitch for nuclear power is that we have to massively invest and spend if we want this unlimited energy. Only then will we touch down in Atomic Nirvana and we will finally have been promised since the 1950’s- energy that is too cheap to meter.
Our fuel is uranium and this fuel is very far from rivalling world oil or other hydrocarbons for global turnover, with an approximate value around 13 billion USD in 2010, but as the nuclear industry likes to crow, uranium fuel costs are only around five percent of total operating costs. Uranium supplies are short, and import dependence for most major consumer countries is high. As a result, uranium fuel costs could likely grow, simply due to the permanent supply shortfall of this fuel for reactors and the heavy import dependence of nearly all major users in Europe, Japan and South Korea – incidentally making a mockery of the energy security claim used to sell nuclear energy.
Accessing uranium supplies, mainly in Africa and Central Asia is already a bargaining chip for nuclear financial packaging and uranium supply features among the underlying movers in Chinese rivalry with OECD country interests in Africa, and Russian versus Western rivalry in Muslim Central Asia. Creating the debt-and-dependency hook, and recycling uranium dollars is therefore part and parcel of the nuclear sales drive in starkly unprepared low income countries – in the case of Sudan (Darfur is home to one of the three largest deposits of high-purity uranium in the world), a long-term civil war and in many others exposed to serious civil strife.
Until the Fukushima disaster threw a cloud over the so-called Nuclear Renaissance announced by the nuclear industry, this prefigured as many as 100 – 125 reactor sales in emerging and developing countries outside China and India in the 2010-2020 period. Excluding uranium supplies, fuel services (waste and reprocessing), electric power infrastructures and other parts of the nuclear value chain this pre-Fukushima sales target implied a global 10-year turnover value of at least 700 billion USD.
With leverage and financial packaging through national debt and currency exchange rate linked paper, this could generate far above 100 trillion dollars in tradable value, and above all potentially re-create the long 1985-2000 period of Third World debt-driven dependence on OECD nation financial institutions and private banks.
COPYRIGHT ANDREW MCKILLOP 2011
By Patrick Henningsen
21st Century Wire
April 13, 2011
The question as to why US-led NATO forces are determined to engineer a regime change in Libya is now becoming clear. While media pundits and political experts still argue over whether the Libyan rebel gangs are actually being backed and directed by US, UK and Israel intelligence agencies, broader long-range Western policy objectives for Libya are being completely ignored.
One only has to read the strategic briefings in U.S. AFRICOM documents to realise the true endgame in Libya: the control of valuable resources and the eviction of China from North Africa.
When the US formed AFRICOM in 2007, some 49 countries signed on to the US military charter for Africa but one country refused: Libya. Such a treacherous act by Libya’s leader Moummar Qaddafi would only sow the seeds for a future conflict down the road in 2011.
According to former Reagan cabinet official Dr Paul Craig Roberts, the situation with Qaddafi is much different than the other recent protests in the Arab world. “Why is NATO there?” has become to real question, says Roberts, who fears that risky involvement stemming from American influence could lead to catastrophic breaking point in Libya.
CHINESE INTERESTS IN LIBYA
According to Bejing’s Ministry of Commerce, China’s current contracts in Libya number no less than 50 large projects involving contracts in excess of 18 billion USD. What is even more revealing here is that due to the recent instability in the North African region, China’s investments have taken a serious hit. The recent political turmoil in the region has caused China’s foreign contracted projects to drop with new contracts amounting to $ 3,470,000,000, down 53.2%. Among them, the amount of new contracts in Libya, down by 45.3%, 13.9% less turnover; to Algeria, the amount of the contract fell 97.1%, turnover decreased by 10.7% – all within the first 2 months of this year.
WHY WE ARE IN LIBYA: a revealing interview with Dr Paul Craig Roberts.
In addition to the numerous Chinese investments in Libya, the North African nation has also recently completed one of the most expensive and advance water works projects in world history- Libya’s Great Man Made River. This 30 year venture finished only last year, gives Libya the potential for an agricultural and economic boom that would certainly mean trouble for competing agri-markets in neighbouring Israel and Egypt. It could also transform Libya into the emerging “bread basket” of Africa.
With global food prices on the rise, and Libya possessing a stable currency and cheap domestic energy supply, it doesn’t take an economic genius to see what role Libya could play in the global market place.
VALUABLE ASSET: Libya’s Great Man Made River.
AFRICOM: CHILD OF PNAC
Founded under US President George Bush Jr, AFRICOM is a subset of the larger neo-conservative Project for a New American Century (PNAC). Central to AFRICOM’s strategic goals is to confront the increasing Chinese influence on the continent. One AFRICOM study suggests that China will eventually dispatch troops to Africa to defend its interests there:
“Now China has achieved a stage of economic development which requires endless supplies of African raw materials and has started to develop the capacity to exercise influence in most corners of the globe. The extrapolation of history predicts that distrust and uncertainty will inevitably lead the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to Africa in staggering numbers…”
So we have a vocalised fear on the part of US military planners, of a military confrontation with China… in Africa. Today it’s Libya, but tomorrow, it will be in Sudan. Does this sound a little familiar? Well, it should…
THE NEW COLD WAR WITH CHINA
What the Chinese economic data (above) does show clearly is that the strategic policy objectives outlined in Washington’s AFRICOM documents, particularly those ones designed to confront and minimise China’s economic interest in Africa- are working very well as a result of instability in the region. ‘Destabilisation’ as a tool of control has always worked for colonial powers. Engineered chaos can then be managed by a strong military presence in the region.
In effect, what we are witnessing here is the dawn of a New Cold War between the US-EURO powers and China. This new cold war will feature many of the same elements of the long and protracted US-USSR face-off we saw in the second half of the 20th century. It will take place off shore, in places like Africa, South America, Central Asia and through old flashpoints like Korea and the Middle East.
What makes this new cold war much deeper and more subtle than the previous one, is that it will not be cloaked in a popular ideology like ‘Capitalism vs Communism’. This new war centres around one single issue- natural resources.
The transnational corporate capture and control of the world’s remaining resources and energy supplies will be the theme which will govern- and literally fuel, all major conflicts in the 21st century. It will be fought through numerous proxies, and on far-flung pitches across the globe but it will never be spoken of by the White House Press Secretary or the Foreign Office in Downing Street.
Early reports out of Libya confirm that “Rebels” are being backed and directed by Western intelligence agencies.
INSURGENTS NOT PROTESTORS
The great PR spin trick in the run-up to NATO’s carpet bombing run in Libya was the West’s ability to characterise Libya’s violent armed gangs as mere protestors. The average American, British or French media consumer equated the Libyan uprising with those previously in Tunisia and Egypt. The reality of course was that they were anything but.
However, the bells of freedom and democracy had indeed rung, so all that was really needed at that point was a clever WMD-like diplomatic trick to dazzle the rows of intellectually challenged diplomats at the UN in New York City. The ‘No Fly Zone’ was repackaged and worked well enough for politicians to get their foot in the door to their respective War Rooms.
It seems to have worked so far but with NATO civilian body bags already beginning to pile up, the next phase- ground troops and a NATO military occupation of Libya, will be somewhat more complicated to execute without sustaining heavy political fallout. All of these complexed efforts are used to shroud western corporate and military long-term agendas in the region, all part and parcel of these new Resource Wars with China.
HISTORY IS STILL A BITCH
Few will argue that the average western observer and mainstream media consumer suffers from chronic historical amnesia. For Americans in particular, relevant history only extends as far back as the previous season of Dancing With the Stars, or American Idol. Some might argue that this is by design, that on whole the masses have been conditioned to be passive actors in the new media-rich modern democracy because it makes managing the herds much easier.
The lessons of Afghanistan and Iraq have yet to return home for the US and Great Britain- both projects are still going concerns for the massive cartel of western corporations. This has allowed ambitious bureaucrats in Washington, London and Paris to try their hand again in Libya. In time however, Americans and Europeans will come to learn what every citizen and subject already learned many times over throughout world history. In theory it may work, but in practice, “Occupation” is a paradox. The US-UK may draw plans in private to occupy an Iraq or a Libya indefinitely but history doesn’t jibe with these imperial ambitions.
It will end one day, and end badly because the Neo-Roman Anglo-American Empire with all its legions abroad, cannot manage its fragile domestic affairs back at home. First comes the fall of the Senate, then the rise of the Caesar, and finally the collapse of the Denarius($) at home. The once great empire goes out with a whimper- too fat and too bankrupt to carry on.
Back in the day, the citizens of Rome cared little about the details of military largess and conquest abroad. There only interest was that the glory of Rome was upheld and for bread and circuses at home. As the Great Resource Wars of the 21st century continue to rage on unabated, one question comes to mind: what will mindful citizens in the aggressor countries do to change this present course of history?
Judging by the ease at which the West managed to pull of their latest heist in Libya, I would say… very little right now.
Author Patrick Henningsen is a writer and communications consultant and currently the Managing Editor of 21st Century Wire.
See original story here at http://21stcenturywire.com/2011/04/12/2577/
By Alex Jones
April 8, 2011
Listen to this powerful interview with Lyndon LaRouche, an American political activist and founder of a network of political committees, parties, and publications known collectively as the LaRouche movement. Often described as a political extremist, he has written prolifically in these publications on economic, scientific, and political topics, as well as on history, philosophy and psychoanalysis.
Meaningless withdrawal deadline passes, Obama prepares another round of spin
By Steve Watson
April 8, 2011
The world’s media reacted with a collective shrug of the shoulders today as Defense Secretary Robert Gates admitted that US troops are likely to stay in Iraq beyond 2011, making another scheduled withdrawal date nothing more than an empty meaningless promise.
There will be no withdrawal, because a permanent military occupation was agreed long ago.
The date for the final pullout of U.S. troops from Iraq keeps being pushed back further and further. Obama campaigned in 2008 on the promise that he would “immediately” withdraw troops from Iraq, then that was put back to June 2009, then it became August 2010, and now the date has been pushed back to the end of 2011. Every time a deadline gets close, the Obama administration simply insists that the situation is too unstable for withdrawal and the date is pushed back again.
Nevertheless, last August, with much sickening fanfare, the corporate media announced the “official” end to the occupation of Iraq.
“The last American combat troops left Iraq today, seven-and-a-half years after the US-led invasion, and two weeks ahead of President Barack Obama’s 31 August deadline for withdrawal from the country,” the London Guardian reported on August 19.
Buried in the recesses of such coverage was the fact that over 50,000 troops would remain behind to make up a “transition force”.
Even that number was misleading, however, given that the US still has over 100,00 contractors in Iraq.
In reality there is no plan to withdraw the military from Iraq, far from it, the plan is to stay there… forever.
In 2008 details of that agenda leaked to the media. It was revealed that the globalist neocon cabal in control of the government was actively seeking permanent occupation of the country, along with the construction of over 50 permanent bases and the right to launch pre-emptive military strikes on any country from inside Iraq.
The London Independent reported:
The terms of the impending deal, details of which have been leaked to The Independent, are likely to have an explosive political effect in Iraq. Iraqi officials fear that the accord, under which US troops would occupy permanent bases, conduct military operations, arrest Iraqis and enjoy immunity from Iraqi law, will destabilise Iraq’s position in the Middle East and lay the basis for unending conflict in their country. […]
Under the terms of the new treaty, the Americans would retain the long-term use of more than 50 bases in Iraq. American negotiators are also demanding immunity from Iraqi law for US troops and contractors, and a free hand to carry out arrests and conduct military activities in Iraq without consulting the Baghdad government.
Further details of the plot then emerged from senior Iraqi military sources who detailed the wish on behalf of the White House to control Iraqi airspace below 29,000ft and secure the right to launch military campaigns against other countries from inside Iraq:
The military source added, “According to this agreement, the American forces will keep permanent military bases on Iraqi territory, and these will include Al Asad Military base in the Baghdadi area close to the Syrian border, Balad military base in northern Baghdad close to Iran, Habbaniyah base close to the town of Fallujah and the Ali Bin Abi Talib military base in the southern province of Nasiriyah close to the Iranian border.”
The military and both the Bush and Obama administrations have consistently denied any plans for permanent bases in Iraq, yet the Pentagon continues to spend billions on the construction of permanent bases. Of course, they are not referred to as “permanent”, rather they are “enduring” bases.
The push to permanently occupy Iraq did not subside with the election of Obama, who sent a special envoy last September to meet with senior Iraqi military and civilian officials to carve out a secret deal to keep troops in Iraq beyond 2011.
The U.S. has around 1,000 bases and military installations in 156 countries scattered around the world. The Pentagon does not plan to “drawdown” its presence in these countries anytime soon. In fact, it is continually looking for excuses to expand its presence, as we have seen with the recent incursion into Libya.
Obama’s two-faced con in announcing that there will be a full withdrawal from Iraq while in reality tens of thousands of troops and contractors will remain as an occupying force for years if not decades strikes at the root of Obama’s hypocrisy and the fact that, while posturing as a peace advocate, he is firmly in the pocket of the military-industrial complex.
Steve Watson is the London based writer and editor for Alex Jones’ Infowars.net, and Prisonplanet.com. He has a Masters Degree in International Relations from the School of Politics at The University of Nottingham in England.
Editor’s Note: As we have pointed out for the last few weeks, this military attack was never about liberation or preserving human rights. It is about regime change and prying the Libyan assets out of Qaddafi’s hands, and eventually into the hands of the globalists.
By Patrick Donahue and Alaric Nightingale
April 5, 2011
Libyan rebels were pushed back from the central port of Brega by heavy fire from forces loyal to Muammar Qaddafi as the opposition prepared to export crude oil for the first time since the conflict began six weeks ago.
Rebels retreated from Brega after capturing part of it yesterday, the Associated Press reported. Regime forces fired rockets and artillery at the rebels today, sending many of them back to the city of Ajdabiya, the AP reported.
The oil tanker Equator, which can carry 1 million barrels, arrived at the Marsa al Hariga terminal near the port of Tobruk in opposition-controlled eastern Libya at about 2 p.m. time local time, according to AISLive Ltd. ship-tracking data compiled by Bloomberg.
Libya’s conflict, which began with an uprising aimed at ending Qaddafi’s 42-year rule, has threatened to grind to a stalemate. The rebels, largely disorganized, have been unable to advance without help from NATO airstrikes.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization reported that the strikes by the U.S. and allies have destroyed nearly a third of Qaddafi’s heavy weapons, according to AP. The alliance said that Qaddafi’s forces attacking rebel-held Misrata have moved tanks and heavy weapons into city areas where NATO won’t strike them because of the risk of civilian casualties, AP said.
Oil slipped from its highest level in more than 30 months asChina boosted interest rates to restrain inflation, spurring speculation that demand may decline. Oil for May delivery dropped 22 cents, or 0.2 percent, to $108.25 a barrel at 2:17 p.m. on the New York Mercantile Exchange. It traded as high as $108.78 a barrel yesterday, the highest price since Sept. 24, 2008. Futures have risen 25 percent in the past year.
Libyan rebels have “raised concerns about the lack of funds, as well as issues relating to the marketing and sale of oil and gas in Libya,” Abdul Ilah al-Khatib, the United Nations special envoy to Libya, told the UN Security Council yesterday, according to astatement on the Council’s website.
April 5, 2011
“Like the United States which is being bleed to death both literally and financially, those doing the bleeding in Israel are “globalist” in nature, who do not see borders and do not consider themselves to be of any particular religion, race, creed, or nationality. Such contrivances on their part, is merely political camouflage devised to lend them credibility when they otherwise have none. The whole world is their oyster, and the nation-state their plaything. Separating these two groups in Israel is essential in both understanding its role in the Middle East and helping to ensure those who truly consider it their home prevail against those maliciously using it for their own ends with the full intention of discarding it once they are done…”