Posts tagged ‘Libya’

December 28, 2014

10 Things You Didn’t Know About Libya Under Gaddafi’s So-called Dictatorship

by mkleit

Ruling the country for for 41 years until his demise in October 2011, Muammar Gaddafi did some truly amazing things for his country and repeatedly tried to unite and empower the whole of Africa. So despite what you’ve heard on the radio, seen in the media or on the TV Gaddafi did some powerful things that were not very reminiscent of a vicious dictator. Here are ten things Gaddafi did for Libya that you may not know about…

1. In Libya a home is considered a natural human right.

In Gaddafi’s green book it states: ” The house is a basic need of both the individual and the family, therefore it should not be owned by others”. Gaddafi’s Green Book is the formal leader’s political philosophy, it was first published in 1975 and was intended reading for all Libyans even being included in the national curriculum.

1

2. Education and medical treatment were all free.

Under Gaddafi’s reign Libya could boast one of the best healthcare services in the Arab and African world. Also if a Libyan citizen could not access the desired educational course or correct medical treatment in Libya they were funded to go abroad.

3. Gaddafi carried out the worlds largest irrigation project.

The largest irrigation system in the world also known as the great manmade river was designed to make water readily available to all Libyan’s across the entire country. It was funded by the Gaddafi government and it said that Gaddafi himself called it ”the eighth wonder of the world”.

2

4. It was free to start a farming business.

If any Libyan wanted to start a farm they were given a house, farm land and live stock and seeds all free of charge.

3

5. A bursary was given to mothers with newborn babies.

When a Libyan woman gave birth she was given 5000 (US dollars) for herself and the child.

Mother and child ride atop a camel as a Tuareg caravan travels north through a remote region of southern Niger

6. Electricity was free.

Electricity was free in Libya meaning absolutely no electric bills!

5

7.  Cheap petrol

During Gaddafi’s reign the price of petrol in Libya was as low as 0.14 (US dollars) per litre.

6

8. Gaddafi raised the level of education.

Before Gaddafi only 25% of Libyans were literate. He bought that figure up to 87% under his rule with 25% earning university degrees.

9. Libya had It’s own state bank.

Libya was the only country in the world to have a bank owned by the state meaning they were able to give loans to citizens at zero percent interest by law and they had no external debt.

7

10. The gold dinar

8

Before the fall of Tripoli and his untimely demise Gaddafi was trying to introduce a single African currency made of gold. Following in the foot steps of the late great pioneer Marcus Garvey who first coined the term ”United States of Africa”. Gaddafi wanted to introduce and only trade in the African gold Dinar  – a move which would have thrown the world economy into chaos.

The Dinar was widely opposed by the ‘elite’ of today’s society and who could blame them. African nations would have finally had the power to bring itself out of debt and poverty and only trade in this precious commodity. They would have been able to finally say ‘no’ to external exploitation and charge whatever they felt suitable for precious resources. It has been said that the gold Dinar was the real reason for the NATO led rebellion, in a bid to oust the outspoken leader.

So, was Muammar Gaddafi a Terrorist?

Few can answer this question fairly, but if anyone can, it’s a Libyan citizen who has lived under his reign? Whatever the case, it seems rather apparent that he did some positive things for his country despite the infamous notoriety surrounding his name. And that’s something you should try to remember when judging in future.

This quirky video documentary spells out an interesting, if rather different, story from the one we think we know.

(via urbantimes)

Sources:

http://rense.com/general95/theam.htm
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-884508
http://disinfo.com/2011/10/16-things-libya-will-never-see-again/
http://www.countercurrents.org/chengu120113.htm

September 30, 2014

سوريا… تكرار لليبيا؟

by mkleit

خليل حرب

تاريخ المقال من جريدة السفير اللبنانية: 30-09-2014 02:16 AM

ليس طبيعيا ان يشارك طيارون في مهمات عسكرية حساسة، ثم تتباهى وسائل اعلام دولهم بهذه الخفة بنشر صورهم وكشف هوياتهم في اليوم ذاته.

بمثل هذا «التحالف» الذي نشأ بهذه العجالة والروابط الفضفاضة والمصالح المبهمة، يصبح مثل هذا السلوك محل ريبة.

لنتفق اولا ان دول «التحالف» في سوريا، ليست هي ذاتها في العراق. بمعنى ان المقاتلات الجوية التي تشارك في تنفيذ هجمات على الاراضي السورية، لا تنفذ مهمات مشابهة على الاراضي العراقية. في العراق، تنحصر المهمات القتالية الجوية بالولايات المتحدة، وانضمت اليها الان كل من فرنسا وبريطانيا، مع احتمالات مشاركة كندا واستراليا وغيرهما من الدول الغربية لاحقا.

وعلى الرغم من ان العنوان العريض للحملة العسكرية، العابرة للحدود، كما وصفها الاميركيون قبل بدايتها، هو «الحرب على داعش»، الا ان المشهد في سوريا، مغاير تماما. تتذرع قائدة «التحالف»، اي واشنطن، بأن حكومة بغداد هي التي طلبت تدخلنا. وعندما يشار الى سوريا، يجري تجاهل حقيقة ان دمشق نادت بتعاون دولي واقليمي لمواجهة الخطر منذ اكثر من ثلاثة اعوام، اي قبل سقوط الموصل بكثير، وبروز خيار «التحالف» كأداة ضرورية وملحة لمواجة تداعيات الموقف اقليميا. وهكذا، فانه عندما تتم الاشارة الى سوريا، فان المنطق السياسي يتبدل، ويتم الحديث عن عبثية ضرب «داعش» في العراق، من دون ضرب مواقعه في سوريا.

الجدل يبدو عقيما في ظل الحلقة المفرغة التي تقدم فيها التبريرات السياسية والعسكرية. لكن طرح التساؤلات يصبح اكثر مشروعية، ولعل اهمها الان: لماذا راحت تصريحات دول «التحالف» ومواقفها، تتبدل ما بين عشية الغارات وبعد بدايتها بأيام خصوصا في ما يتعلق بأهداف الحرب ومراميها؟ data=VLHX1wd2Cgu8wR6jwyh-km8JBWAkEzU4,jYbgdwQ-zXk9LcFt1rD2IdV3QE4m0wGpL1Ca5OV0NjtIMs34KEQE3511OhkVfBrEfxiGlzwONSEt7VsEnp0-84kUiNoL_hJbIo7tZQ

لن نقف طويلا امام خطوة نشر صور الطيارين الخليجيين وهويات بعضهم منذ اليوم الاول لبدء الضربات الجوية، ولا امام الاعلان الاميركي في اليوم الثاني ان المقاتلات الخليجية، والاردنية، نفذت 80 في المئة من المهمات الهجومية، بعدما كان الاميركيون انفسهم، اعلنوا في اليوم الاول ان المقاتلات الاميركية نفذت كل الهجمات من مناطق الحدود مع العراق مرورا بدير الزور، ووصولا الى ريف حلب، وان اسلحة الجو العربية، اكتفت بمهمات المساندة الجوية والدعم.

ولن نقف طويلا ايضا امام تعليقات العديد من السوريين واللبنانيين وهي محقة بالمناسبة بأن كمين العتيبة الشهير في الغوطة الشرقية، اوقع لوحده قتلى في صفوف الارهابيين، اكثر مما فعلته مئات الغارات التي نفذها «التحالف» طوال سبعة ايام، بما في ذلك الهجمات بصواريخ «توماهوك» التي اطلقت من الخليج العربي والبحر الاحمر، وهي كلها هجمات لم تبدأ سوى بعد القيام بالالاف من عمليات الاستطلاع الجوي والتجسس المكثف طوال شهور.

لا، لن نقف طويلا امام ذلك. لكننا نحتاج الى فهم مغزى هذا التبدل والتلون في مصطلحات ومفاهيم قادة دول «التحالف»، وكأننا امام سيناريو شبيه بما بات يعرف بـ…الخديعة الليبية. بعد شهور على بداية الحرب السورية، سعى الغرب الى محاولة ابتكار «بنغازي سورية» في مدينة حماة. فشلت المحاولة، لكن المغزى كان، التسلل من شعار حماية المدنيين في مدينة سورية، لاجترار قرار من مجلس الامن يجيز التدخل الجوي لفرض منطقة حظر جوي والدفاع عن اهل المدينة. جرى ما يشبه ذلك تماما في مدينة بنغازي، بعد شهر فقط على بداية «الثورة الليبية» ضد النظام الليبي. تحول قرار مجلس الامن 1973، الصادر في 17 اذار 2011، الى منصة انقض منها الفرنسيون والانكليز والاميركيون على نظام معمر القذافي. ويقال دائما ان الروس تعلموا درسا ديبلوماسيا قاسيا من خلال تلك المكيدة التي نصبها الغرب لموسكو التي بنت على ذلك الكثير من التشدد في مواقفها السورية لاحقا.

كانت الدول الغربية ذاتها تقول ان القرار 1973 لم يكن يهدف الى احتلال ليبيا ولا تغيير النظام فيها. قبل شهر ونصف الشهر، تبنى مجلس الامن القرار رقم 2170 تحت الفصل السابع للتحرك ضد تنظيمي «داعش» و«جبهة النصرة». سارعت روسيا الى القول ان القرار لا يجيز العمل العسكري تلقائيا، ويحتاج ذلك الى عودة مجلس الامن لاتخاذ قرار لاحق. لم يحدث ذلك. شكل باراك اوباما «التحالف» على عجل، وذهب الى الحرب.

ومنذ ذلك اليوم، والتصريحات والمواقف تتبدل وتتلون. الداهية البريطاني يغازل ايران بشكل لم يسبق له مثيل. يكتشف الان فجأة ان لطهران ادوارها الاساسية في تسوية النزاعات في كل من العراق وسوريا ويطالب بافساح الطريق امامها سياسيا وديبلوماسيا. يقول وزير الخارجية البريطاني فيليب هاموند قبل ايام، ان مشاركة بريطانيا في الغارات على سوريا مستقبلا ستكون ممكنة. العراب الاميركي اصبح يتحدث عن عملية عسكرية قابلة للتطور تدريجيا، بعدما كان يقول بداية انها حرب من السماء فقط. يروج الاميركي تدريجيا لفكرة الحاجة لنحو 15 الف مقاتل من «المعارضة المعتدلة». لم يستبعد كما هو ظاهر، احتمال الحاجة الى قوات خاصة تتحرك على الارض احيانا. مملكة الالتباس، السعودية، تقول الان بوضوح، ان الخطوة الامثل في القضاء على «داعش»، يجب ان تكون بابعاد الرئيس بشار الاسد. تستحضر الان، في مثل هذه الاجواء الملتهبة، وجود «الحرس الثوري» و«حزب الله» في سوريا. تتعامى، هي وقطر، عن الشبهات الملتصقة بهما، بضلوعهما في دعم نفس المجموعات الارهابية التي يفترض ان يقاتلها «اميرهم المحارب» خالد بن سلمان في اطار حرب «التحالف». وفي نكتة سمجة، تقول السعودية وقطر بكل ثقة انهما لم تدعما المتطرفين في سوريا، وان مليارات الدولارات التي تدفقت على المعارضة ذهبت الى «المعتدلين». ويخلص الامير تميم والامير سعود الفيصل الى ان لب المشكلة يكمن في وجود الاسد في الحكم، وما من نصر سيتحقق، الا برحيله. يقول تميم، الامير الحديث العهد بالحكم، ان «الهدف على المدى الطويل، يجب أن يكون مهاجمة النظام السوري».

 خالد بن سلمان

خالد بن سلمان

ومن جهتهم، يشكك الاتراك بفكرة الاكتفاء بالضربات الجوية. يروجون لفكرة «المنطقة الآمنة» وفرض حظر جوي على الشمال السوري. اليوم سيسعى اردوغان الى نيل تفويض واضح من البرلمان بذلك. وبخبث، يعمل الاسرائيليون على المقلب الاخر على تهيئة الظروف الملائمة ميدانيا، لقيام «شريط حدودي» على غرار ما سمي بـ«الجدار الطيب» في الجنوب اللبناني في سنوات الاحتلال.

ما زالت عوامل كثيرة تحول دون «اطلسة» الصراع مع سوريا، وتمنع تطوير العدوان، الى مرحلة المواجهة المباشرة. يصح ذلك حتى اللحظة الراهنة. لكن المشهد يمكن ان يتبدل غدا، فمن بإمكانه الادعاء ان حسابات الحروب تبنى بشكل صحيح دائما؟

May 31, 2013

NATO – The Modern Elite’s War Dog

by mkleit
HOW THE GLOBAL ZIONIST ELITE INITIATE WAR?NATO - THE MODERN ELITE'S WAR DOGPHOTO: NATO Murdered Muammar al-Qadhdhafi in International Zionists' Water WarExtract from David Icke's book: "I am Me I Am Free", California, 1996, pp. 28-9.---------If you want a world army and you want the people to accept it or even demand it, first of all you need a problem. If the  United Nations peacekeeping operation is effective, that is disastrous under the rules of Problem-Reaction-Solution. No Problem No Reaction No Solution. You therefore manipulate events in places like Bosnia to ensure that the UN peacekeeping force is not working. The more you can embarrass the UN operation the better, because as horrific pictures came out of Bosnia day after day the cry of “something must be done” became, again understandably, louder and louder. This provided the opportunity for the solution - a 60,000 strong “NATO” (world army), the biggest multinational force to be assembled since the Second World War. Another mighty step towards the creation of the world army and the dismantling of nation state armies under the guise of “peace” had been achieved. That was the real reason for the Bosnian conflict, hard as I know it must be to accept if you are new to this research. But if you read ... and the truth shall set you free you will appreciate from the evidence and background that such a conclusion is glaringly obvious. Virtually every major peace negotiator in Bosnia, from the start of that conflict, was a member of a network of the Bilderberg Group (Bil), the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the Trilateral Commission (TC), and the Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA). These organisations are controlled by the same Global Elite that manipulated the conflict into being and then funded and armed all sides in the horror that ensued. The European Union peace negotiators were Lord Carrington (Bil, TC, RIA), Lord David Owen (Bil, TC) and Carl Bildt (Bil). They worked with the UN negotiators Cyrus Vance (Bil, TC, CFR) and Thorvald Stoltenberg (Bil, TC). Then, amid worldwide publicity, appeared the “independent” peace negotiator, Jimmy Carter, the first Trilateral Commission President of the United States and CFR member. After him came the group who negotiated the world army in Bosnia through the so called Dayton Agreement. These were Richard Holbrook (Bil, TC, CFR), who answered to the US Secretary of State Warren Christopher (CFR, TC), who in turn reported to President Bill Clinton (Bil, TC, CFR). The world army in the former Yugoslavia was headed from the start by US Admiral Leighton Smith (CFR) and the civilian aspects of the operation are overseen by Carl Bildt (Bil).Lord Carrington, the former British cabinet minister, who became chairman of the Bilderberg Group in 1991, works closely with Henry Kissinger, one of the world’s most prolific manipulators on behalf of the Elite. Interestingly, the horrific war in Rwanda erupted three days after an undisclosed “diploniatic mission” to that country led by Lord Carrington and Henry Kissinger. The former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin (a Kissinger frontman, later assassinated) also agreed arms shipments to Rwanda in the run up to the conflict. People think it must be difficult to start a war, but it isn’t you know. It’s easy, given the desire of so many to give their minds away. To fight a war you need money and weapons.The Global Elite control the supply of both, so that’s never a problem. To start a war you need one “side” to attack another country or community and away we go. The other country or community will defend itself and the war has begun. Many people are so full of dogma and racial division and intolerance that finding a group who will attack another is hardly difficult. You are spoilt for choice. The Global Elite normally ensure that their “employees” or puppets are leading all “sides”, as with Franklin D. Roosevelt, Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, and Winston Churchill, in the Second World War. The Global Elite representatives (also known as presidents and prime minsters) then sell a fairy story to the human herd about the need to “fight for freedom” or “take our Godgiven right to this land” and suddenly you have two herds knocking seven bells out of each other. Creating a war, even a world war, is not difficult. It’s a doddle. It shouldn’t be, I know, but until humanity wakes up and grows up, it will be so.

NATO Murdered Muammar al-Qadhdhafi in International Zionists’ Water War

 

Extract from David Icke’s book: “I am Me I Am Free”, California, 1996, pp. 28-9.

———

If you want a world army and you want the people to accept it or even demand it, first of all you need a problem. If the United Nations peacekeeping operation is effective, that is disastrous under the rules of Problem-Reaction-Solution. No Problem No Reaction No Solution.

You therefore manipulate events in places like Bosnia to ensure that the UN peacekeeping force is not working. The more you can embarrass the UN operation the better, because as horrific pictures came out of Bosnia day after day the cry of “something must be done” became, again understandably, louder and louder.

This provided the opportunity for the solution – a 60,000 strong “NATO” (world army), the biggest multinational force to be assembled since the Second World War. Another mighty step towards the creation of the world army and the dismantling of nation state armies under the guise of “peace” had been achieved.

That was the real reason for the Bosnian conflict, hard as I know it must be to accept if you are new to this research. But if you read … and the truth shall set you free you will appreciate from the evidence and background that such a conclusion is glaringly obvious.

Virtually every major peace negotiator in Bosnia, from the start of that conflict, was a member of a network of the Bilderberg Group (Bil), the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the Trilateral Commission (TC), and the Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA).

These organisations are controlled by the same Global Elite that manipulated the conflict into being and then funded and armed all sides in the horror that ensued. The European Union peace negotiators were Lord Carrington (Bil, TC, RIA), Lord David Owen (Bil, TC) and Carl Bildt (Bil). They worked with the UN negotiators Cyrus Vance (Bil, TC, CFR) and Thorvald Stoltenberg (Bil, TC).

Then, amid worldwide publicity, appeared the “independent” peace negotiator, Jimmy Carter, the first Trilateral Commission President of the United States and CFR member. After him came the group who negotiated the world army in Bosnia through the so called Dayton Agreement.

These were Richard Holbrook (Bil, TC, CFR), who answered to the US Secretary of State Warren Christopher (CFR, TC), who in turn reported to President Bill Clinton (Bil, TC, CFR).

The world army in the former Yugoslavia was headed from the start by US Admiral Leighton Smith (CFR) and the civilian aspects of the operation are overseen by Carl Bildt (Bil).

Lord Carrington, the former British cabinet minister, who became chairman of the Bilderberg Group in 1991, works closely with Henry Kissinger, one of the world’s most prolific manipulators on behalf of the Elite.

Interestingly, the horrific war in Rwanda erupted three days after an undisclosed “diploniatic mission” to that country led by Lord Carrington and Henry Kissinger. The former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin (a Kissinger frontman, later assassinated) also agreed arms shipments to Rwanda in the run up to the conflict.

People think it must be difficult to start a war, but it isn’t you know. It’s easy, given the desire of so many to give their minds away. To fight a war you need money and weapons.

The Global Elite control the supply of both, so that’s never a problem. To start a war you need one “side” to attack another country or community and away we go.

The other country or community will defend itself and the war has begun. Many people are so full of dogma and racial division and intolerance that finding a group who will attack another is hardly difficult. You are spoilt for choice.

The Global Elite normally ensure that their “employees” or puppets are leading all “sides”, as with Franklin D. Roosevelt, Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, and Winston Churchill, in the Second World War.

The Global Elite representatives (also known as presidents and prime minsters) then sell a fairy story to the human herd about the need to “fight for freedom” or “take our Godgiven right to this land” and suddenly you have two herds knocking seven bells out of each other.

Creating a war, even a world war, is not difficult. It’s a doddle. It shouldn’t be, I know, but until humanity wakes up and grows up, it will be so

May 30, 2013

Iran is not Nuclear, it has its own Central Bank

by mkleit
Vatic Note:  This article makes the point that Iran is only one of three countries left  where control of banking is NOT under a Rothschild.  That alone is good enough reason, but there are others such as Iran’s Oil Bourse is competing with Rothschilds monopoly control of the London Oil Bourse, that uses US dollars as the reserve currency and that is how the term “Petrodollars” came about.
Iran plans on using Euro dollars backed by gold (its only 15%), but that is more than our currency, which is only backed by the faith and credit of the USA.  And now we know our gold has tungsten in it.  Also remember, ChinaRussia, and Iran have been buying tons of gold, so that makes it more likely they will try to take over the reserve currency market using their gold backed currency. And they are doing this when the Rothschilds are trying to get a One World Currency.
Now you know why Israel is hot to trot to invade Iran and that is a war crime to do so for profit and a death penalty offense.
Iran is not alone in being targeted by the Edomite bankers, no indeed, Egypt for their oil and water, Gaza for its offshore oil,  Libya for its oil and water and all of them for their shira banking no interest loans that was growing on the African continent and seriously cutting into Rothschild profits, as if trillions per year is not enough… My goodness, greed personified.
All of these are war crimes committed by our foreign occupied country and guess who will pay for this in the end if we do not stop it, since its our government?
You guessed right if you said “We, the people, will pay dearly for it”, but then that has always been the plan hasn’t it?   A conspiracy processed world war III. They did the same thing to Germany in WW II.   This is a good read, and factual as you can see by the back up links above.
Rothschild’s want Iran’s Bank
by Clark Kent, Hang The Bankers   

Iran Central Bank

Could gaining control of the Central Bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran (CBI) be one of the main reasons that Iran is being targeted by Western and Israeli powers?

As tensions are building up for an unthinkable war with Iran, it is worth exploring Iran’s banking system compared to its U.S., British and Israeli counterparts.

Some researchers are pointing out that Iran is one of only three countries left in the world whose central bank is not under Rothschild control. Before 9-11 there were reportedly seven: Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, Libya, Cuba, North Korea and Iran.

By 2003, however, Afghanistan and Iraq were swallowed up by the Rothschild octopus, and by 2011 Sudan and Libya were also gone. In Libya, a Rothschild bank was established in Benghazi while the country was still at war.

(VN: yes, and those same bogus rebels trained by the CIA In Virginia, also signed an oil deal with BP, and Exxon, wouldn’t you know….Gadaffi had nationalized oil  so he could avoid debt, use the revenues from the oil to fund infrastructure, education for all his citizens and build a water system from deep underground water caches, to aid his farmers in growing their own food.  Since The globalists want all nations dependant on them for both food and water, it was evident that Libya had to go down.)

Islam forbids the charging of interest, a major problem for the Rothschild banking system. Until a few hundred years ago, charging interest was also forbidden in the Christian world and was even punishable by death. It was considered exploitation and enslavement.

Since the Rothschilds took over the Bank of England around 1815, they have been expanding their banking control over all the countries of the world. Their method has been to get a country’s corrupt politicians to accept massive loans, which they can never repay, and thus go into debt to the Rothschild banking powers. If a leader refuses to accept the loan, he is oftentimes either ousted or assassinated. And if that fails, invasions can follow, and a Rothschild usury-based bank is established.

The Rothschilds exert powerful influence over the world’s major news agencies. By repetition, the masses are duped into believing horror stories about evil villains. The Rothschilds control the Bank of England, the Federal Reserve, the European Central Bank, the IMF, the World Bank and the Bank of International Settlements.

Also they own most of the gold in the world as well as the London Gold Exchange, which sets the price of gold every day.

It is said the family owns over half the wealth of the planet—estimated by Credit Suisse to be $231 trillion—and is controlled by Evelyn Rothschild, the current head of the family.

Objective researchers contend that Iran is not being demonized because they are a nuclear threat, just as the Taliban, Iraq’s Saddam Hussein and Libya’s Muammar Qadaffi were not a threat.

What then is the real reason? Is it the trillions to be made in oil profits, or the trillions in war profits? Is it to bankrupt the U.S. economy, or is it to start World War III? Is it to destroy Israel’s enemies, or to destroy the Iranian central bank so that no one is left to defy Rothschild’s money racket?

It might be any one of those reasons or, worse—it might be all of them.
Source: http://americanfreepress.net/?p=2743

March 23, 2013

Salbuchi: israel and USA’s Nightmare

by mkleit

Adrian Salbuchi for RT

 

Adrian Salbuchi Source: soberaniaargentina.com

 

When Israel invaded Southern Lebanon in 2006 they were ignominiously expelled by Iran-backed Hezbollah. Since then, the Jewish State has gone into ‘we-have-to-take-out-Iran’ mode, doing everything it can to drag America to war against Iran.

Almost seven years later, Israel’s window of opportunity is closing fast.

‘My big brother America is gonna beat you up…!’
That’s been Israel’s implicit message to Iran ever since. When George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Condoleeza Rice and the NeoCons ran America, bringing the US on board this war-mongering effort against Iran did not seem a daunting task. Especially considering that inside the US, Israel can rely on a little help from its ‘friends’: the powerful pro-Israel lobby led by AIPAC – American Israeli Public Affairs Committee.

But in 2008 Bush was replaced by Barack Obama whose brand of Democrats are not all knee-jerking ‘Israel First’ fanatics. Add to that the US Military’s growing resistance to a foreign policy that has been led astray by the Israeli lobby, particularly after successive fiascos in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the growing “Arab Spring” mess.

Even more, large sectors of US and global public opinion are becoming aware of the dangers of America’s Israel addiction; of Israel’s use and abuse of the US as a proxy power fighting its wars, something clearly not in America’s national interest.

In his message to the UN General Assembly last September, Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu produced a cute bomb-shaped graph to show the world just how close ‘big bad Iran’ is to having a nuclear bomb which he says they will use to obliterate ‘good little Israel’.

Netanyahu would have certainly loved to see staunch Zionist Mitt Romney make it to the White House in November’s elections but – Alas! – he didn’t, and Obama’s still living there, and even had the nerve of naming non-Zionist moderate Chuck Hagel as head the Pentagon.

It seems the US is taking an increasingly arm’s length approach to the ‘Iran Problem’ given the very serious geopolitical perils and overtones that any unilateral US/Israeli/NATO military attack on Iran would spell, which might even lead to direct confrontation with Russia.

Meanwhile Iran will not back down on its nuclear program, an issue the Obama Administration is taking an oddly calm view on. Significantly, the US even gave Argentina a subtle nod to negotiate with Iran over the 1994 AMIA terror bombing in Buenos Aires.

Since, theories have arisen that Bush, the US president at the time, coaxed Argentina’s President Kirchner into falsely accusing Iran, solely based on CIA/Mossad “evidence” delivered in October 2006, right after Israel’s fiasco in Lebanon.

So in light of all this what, exactly, is going on here? Why are the US and Israel at loggerheads over Iran?

Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel, uses a diagram of a bomb to describe Iran’s nuclear program while delivering his address to the 67th United Nations General Assembly meeting September 27, 2012 at the United Nations in New York. (AFP Photo/Don Emmert)

America’s Worst Nightmare
Today the US and Israel have increasingly divergent interests and objectives regarding Iran. Israel’s are easy to grasp: Iran is Israel’s geopolitical arch-enemy, and one of the few countries that is up to the task of becoming a strong and credible leader in the Muslim World, especially since one of Iran’s key objectives is to do away with Israel’s hardline rule in Palestine.

Mainstream Western media have continually and falsely noted that “Iran wants to wipe Israel off the map”, rather than Iran merely wanting an end to the Israeli occupation of Palestine. America, however, has a different cause for concern.

 

Mainstream Media Control Source: http://www.heydumbasses.com

 

Nothing to do with Iran’s nuclear program but rather with the US Dollar. For many decades the US, through its Federal Reserve Bank, has abusively printed huge quantities of unbacked ‘Fiat money’ to finance its huge deficit, which today has ballooned to over 15 trillion. All’s well as long as that money circulates and ends up somewhere far away, such as the vaults of the central banks of friendly countries like Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, and even of some not so friendly countries like China.

Even if it is kept going around and around in the global financial merry-go-rounds of the bonds markets or… the huge global oil market.

“Just keep it flowing and busy in all those markets”, Washington seems to be saying, “…so that we can continue printing more and more of it!” Of course, none dare call it inflation, technocrats have nice buzz-words for things like, “Quantitative Easing I, II and III”, “TARP Funding” and “too-big-to-fail-megabank bailouts…” But call it what you may, inflation by any other name smells just as rotten…

Public Enemies
The US knows only too well that, to a great extent, it is a superpower without much power, because if China decided to sell their almost 2 trillion in US-Dollar treasury bills, bonds and other financial instruments, quickly changing them into Euros, it would spell inflationary disaster for America.

Such eventualities however, are unlikely to occur given the complexities of global financial markets; thus, neither China nor any other major US-dollar-holder appears ready to do that – not just now, anyway.

However, there is another much more physical, concrete and strategically complex threat that keeps US leaders awake at night- the oil market. To better understand why America’s joy-ride is fast coming to an end as people’s political awareness grows, let me give you a simple example:

Every time Argentina, South Africa or Japan need to buy a barrel of crude oil, its people must work to earn those 100 dollars oil costs in international markets.

The US, however, only needs to print US$100. The same goes if they need money to overrun Iraq, Libya or drone-bomb Afghanistan to smithereens: just print the money and keep the oil flowing and the bombs falling.

Get the picture? It’s easy to be a “superpower” that way!

But the picture becomes clearer when you join the dots. Imagine what would happen if those trillions upon trillions of Petro-Dollars spinning and gurgling globally were to suddenly slip from the control of the three – and only three – New York, London and Dubai-based global oil markets solely trading in Dollars?

For instance, if a major oil-producing country or group of countries were to create a fourth global oil market trading not in Dollars but in Euros, say Yens, Rubles, Yuans…?

Given the volumes of oil that countries like China, India and Japan gobble up, if successful, such a market would displace very sizeable shares of Petro-Dollar volumes, which would mean fast declining mega-sums of Petro-dollars spinning away from global markets and flowing back towards US-centered financial circuits.

Can you imagine what hundreds of billions of freed up Petro-Dollars flowing back to the US in a short period of time would mean?

Reuters/Lee Jae-Won

Weapons of mass destruction
Well, like the proverbial cat playing with a mouse under its paws, since at least 2005 Iran has been openly toying with the idea of opening up a such fourth non-US$ global oil market. China would probably support them as they get a sizeable share of their oil from Iran, so perhaps would India.

If the followers of Hugo Chavez hold on to power, Venezuela too might tag along (now do we understand why the US needs to get a strong grip on Venezuela?).

Even Russia, which does not really need Iranian oil, might support Iran for its own geopolitical reasons, considering its growing conflicts with the West. Last year, we even heard strong rumors about Iran selling oil to India payable in gold…

Iran fully understands this issue so they are cautiously biding their time. Remember, their Persian forefathers invented chess… So, wouldn’t the US just love to take out Iran to thwart such a threat? I mean, it already happened twice in the last decade:

IRAQ: As part of UN sanctions after the first Gulf War, every year Saddam Hussein was allowed to trade one billion dollars of Iraqi oil for medicines and food. But then, starting in 2000 Saddam started to switch over to the Euro.

Suddenly, the world learned from Bush’s NeoCons that Iraq had arsenals of nasty “weapons of mass destruction”; that Saddam had to be “taken out” otherwise mushroom clouds would explode over London, Washington and New York! And so, a decade ago in March 2003, the US, UK and NATO promptly ransacked Iraq and had Saddam Hussein murdered. WMD’s? Ooopss, sorry… didn’t find any!…but: Iraq continues selling its oil in dollars.

LIBYA: In 2010 Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi was planning to introduce a new currency to trade North African oil: the “Gold Dinar” in lieu of the dollar. Suddenly, the world learned from the US, France and Britain that Gaddafi was a formidable monster so…in October 2011 he too was taken out and murdered on live TV to the laughter of Hillary “We-came-we-saw-he-died” Clinton. Now Libya lies in shambles but its new pro-Exxon/BP “authorities” trade their oil solely in dollars…

Turning points
The key question now is which shall prevail in the US in the weeks and months to come: American national interest or Israeli national interest?

This is really top level Machtpolitik so, just to be sure everything’s in order, the most obedient Western mainstream media are keeping “all options on the table” running all sorts of headlines to remind us how nasty Iran is, its nuke ambitions, poor Little Israel and its security issues (which is why they’re allowed to keep the sole nuclear arsenal in the Middle East, right?), the delicate state of the global financial system and why no one should be allowed to rock the boat and, of course, the never-ending “War on Terror…”, But now we know.

It is all about oil; it is all about the US-Dollar; it is all about a global financial system being kept artificially alive for mega-banker profit; it is about Israel… The flip-side of that coin gets even worse: It’s not about the interest of the working masses in the US, Europe and worldwide; and it definitely is not about Democracy or Human Rights.

 

You won’t hear, see, nor speak! This is corporate media Source: http://thewatchers.adorraeli.com

February 22, 2013

Libya and the UN Bombing: Fact or a Bed time Story?

by mkleit

pimpdarlin:

“I believed the lies about Gaddafi & Libya all my life.

Search for & discover the truth.

Gaddafi is a strong Arab leader who has stood up to Rothschild bankers, unlike our own leaders who have wilfully made us & our unborn children DEBT SLAVES.

Have the courage to know the truth & take it wherever it leads you or you & your families will one day be under NATO/NWO bombs.

Read Muammar Al Qaddafi’s Green Book.

Find out about the living standards & freedoms enjoyed by Libyans.

Research the Great Man Made River Project & then find out how Libya’s water supply has been targeted by the UN & NATO by bombs & special/black ops.

These are war crimes. Ignored & unreported by the inhuman Zionist mainstream media.

The 2 main objectives of behind the invasion of Libya are:
privatising the national oil company and the state-owned central banking system.

Wake up. Unless enough of us do, we will be picked off & set against each other by these banker fascists who laugh at how easily we are controlled.

THINK for yourself in these times, as if your life depended on it.

IT DOES.

Love & respect to the people of Libya.

The main objectives behind the invasion of Libya, a sovereign country are the privatization of the oil & banking industries.”

February 17, 2013

Bahrain: The Palestine of the Arab Gulf

by mkleit

For those of you who don’t know, this is Bahrain: (feel free to google for more information about the country)

Bahrain is located in the Middle East, it is the smallest Arab country but an influential one with its oil riches
http://ir.blogs.ie.edu

Probably the title may seem as a political opinion, but it’s not. This would be far from a political analysis as much as it would be a humanitarian spread of information.

Bahrain has followed the stream of the so-called “Arab Spring”, though in my personal opinion, it is the only country that is having a true revolution, alongside the protests in Eastern provinces of Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA).
The reason for that: Bahrain is only “Arab Spring” country that has minimal news coverage since the 14th of February 2011, the start of its revolution.

For me, it is because of the verity of its peaceful protest and their would be no use for “the higher powers” of a change in Bahrain’s current political system. But if you have checked the outcome of other “Arab Spring” revolution you might realize the following:

  1. Egypt is still in time of turmoil due to “unchanged” regime that has come to their newly formed political system.
  2. Yemen is drowning in political problems that keep on evolving day by day due to tribal collisions and deviation from the original demands of the revolution.
  3. Tunisia, the first spark of the revolutions, are not different from their Egyptian counterparts, where the type of regime is the same, and with the same results as well.
  4. Libya has entered a excruciating civil war that’s tearing the country apart, as well as the great loss in most of its resources after the NATO interference in removing former dictator Muamar Ghaddafi. Libya was concerned a country that could turn all of Africa into a huge green space due to its resources that varied from gold, oil, gas, and water.
  5. Syria is a complex issue. From my own point of view, the first protests were true and honest until it was infiltrated by several terrorist groups that tore several regions of country apart, especially within the opposition itself. The reformation that Syrian president Bashar Assad has done lessened the levels of violence, until the terrorist groups have took over the whole opposition. It’s not weird that you find several central commands for the Syrian opposition; most of them not related to each other, such as the Free Syrian Army (FSA), Syrian National Council, Al-Nusra Front, etc… Media had a huge role in diverting public opinions to be extreme to both pro and anti-regime.

All that, Palestine is still outside the map and witnessed a severe aggression from the zionist entity in its land. To make this all brief and straight forward, “israel” is the only one that’s benefiting from the “Arab Spring”. From the North, there are Lebanon and Syria that are directly affected with the latter’s crisis.

Syria, part of the axis of opposition to “israel”, with Lebanon, Iran, and Palestine. The zionist entity also benefited from Egypt’s turmoil, since the Arab country has a huge weight in the Arab-israeli conflict, due to geopolitical reasons. While as the rest of the Arab countries, fall under colonial benefits for elite nations.

 

Bahrain’s revolution in Photo
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/175357.html

 

But what about Bahrain? Why makes it special apart from all other Arab countries that witnessed revolutions? I’ll tell you why. Bahrain is the only country among the above mentioned that served a peaceful unarmed revolution, yet the regime faced the protests with apprehensions, detainment, preposterous legislation, and death.

Where was the media from all this? Mainstream media in the Arab Gulf is an allied nation by itself and follows the command of the Gulf kings. One Ommani friend once told me in a gathering of Journalists in Amman, Jordan: “You can only praise the king, army, allies, and religion in Arab mainstream media, but not criticize them, or else…”

Or else the king and his allies will either seize your acts, by diplomacy or force, and what’s even worse, diverting public opinion against you. Thus what is happening in the smallest Arab country. Search mainstream media during news broadcasts, only a small number of them would report the Bahraini revolution on a daily basis, those who have a political agenda with the people, such as Al-Alam TV (Iranian), al Manar TV (Lebanese, pro-Hezbollah), Press TV (Iranian), Addonnia (Syrian, pro-government), Itijah TV (Iraqi, Lebanese-based, pro-axis of opposition to “israel”), al-Akhbar newspaper (Lebanese, pro-axis of opposition to “israel”) and few more. On the other side, worldwide media outlets would only mention Bahrain if it’s a global matter such as the F1 competition, Arab Gulf League gathering, or some festival…

And to make things worse, Saudi and Bahraini officials have agreed to send Saudi forces to the Arab island to “preserve peace and harmony”. None of which is being achieved due to the continuous oppression on protesters.

 

Bahrain – Palestine, the wound is one
occupiedpalestine.wordpress.com

 

Why Palestine and Bahrain are sort of similar?

  1. Occupied by foreign forces; the only difference stands is that Palestine is occupied by a religiously-based extremist movement of no nationality, known as zionism, which has an ideology that Palestine and parts of the Arab world are their “promised land”. Bahrain is currently occupied by religiously-based extremist movement of a known nationality, known as Wahabism, which has an ideology of oppressing all what is not Wahabi, regardless if the oppressed was Muslim or not.
  2. International mainstream media ignores the situation of the oppressed and often leans towards the oppressor, that is if the whole situation was reported. While as local Arab media would report Palestine on a daily basis, but not giving it a priority, while as Bahrain is completely marginalized.
  3. Journalists in both countries are being censored or faced with harsh treatment while performing their job.
  4. The stereotype that both countries’ are being oppressed on a secular basis, Palestine because they are Muslims and Bahrain because they are Shiites. This is completely falsified, Palestine is a multicultural society, it has Muslims, Christians, Jews, communists, secularists, and so on. Bahrain’s revolution is based on the collaboration of Shiites with Sunnis, secularists, and communists all together.

I do believe there are several more reasons that correlate with the comparison. God save Bahrain and Palestine. The latter is the mother, and the first is its two-years old child.

September 18, 2012

هل هناك فيلم أم ان العرب هم الفيلم؟

by mkleit

الياس خوري

حتى الآن لم ير احد الفيلم الذي اخرجه رجل مستعار الاسم قيل انه سام بازيل او سام باسيل، وهو اسرائيلي امريكي، ثم قيل ان باسيل هو منتج الفيلم اما مخرجه فيدعى آلان روبرتس، كما قيل ان مخرج الفيلم رجل آخر اسمه نيقولا باسيلي نيقولا. الاول مقاول والثاني نصاب ومختلس. اما عنوان الفيلم ‘براءة المسلمين’، فليس هو العنوان الاصلي، اذ قيل ان عنوانه كان ‘مقاتلو الصحراء’، وهو يدور قبل الفي سنة اي قبل ظهور الاسلام، وان اسم بطله خلال التصوير كان جورج، لكنه تحوّل في ‘التريلر’ الذي عرض على اليو- تيوب الى محمد.

الاصولي الصهيوني- المسيحي المتعصب تيري جونز، الذي اراد احراق القرآن هلل للفيلم، والمصري المعتوه موريس صادق، الذي يهلوس بفكرة طرد المسلمين الى الصحراء دعمه، والمحافظون الجدد من ايتام جورج دبليو بوش، رقصوا طربا له.

حكاية تلخص ابشع ما في العنصرية وفوبيا الاسلام واللاسامية الجديدة ضد العرب والمسلمين.

لكن السؤال هو هل هناك فيلم؟

قيل انه عرض مرة واحدة في كاليفورنيا لكن العرض توقف لأن الصالة كانت فارغة. عمليا لم ير احد الفيلم الذي هدد السيد نيقولا باسيلي نقولا، قبيل سوقه الى التحقيق، بأنه سيعرضه كاملا، وسيتحفنا بساعتين من البذاءة والهبل والسفالة!

تابعت اخبار هذا الفيلم اللعين في جميع الصحف الامريكية، فلم اعثر على خبر، بل عثرت على نتف تشبه النمائم، ولم اقرأ مقالا واحدا لناقد او صحافي شاهده.

هل نحن امام خدعة صنعها الاعلام الالكتروني، وحققت هدفها، بأن تحولت طبلا رقص على ضرباته الوف المتظاهرين في دول الربيع العربي الاربع: مصر وليبيا وتونس واليمن، اضافة الى السودان وتسبب في فوضى دموية اودت بالسفير الامريكي في ليبيا وببعض المتظاهرين.

وحين تسأل ماذا يجري لا يجيبك سوى الصراخ والدعوة الى الثأر للكرامة، واحراق القنصليات والمدارس والاعلام. كأننا امام جنون جماعي منظم اُفلت من عقاله، حيث احتل السلفيون المشهد مهددين متوعدين السلطات الاسلامية في بلادهم؟

ما هذا؟

قبل الغضب والهياج الجماهيري كان يجب ان نسأل هل هناك فيلم ومن صنعه؟ أم ان من نظّم وقاد هذه الاحتجاجات كان يبحث عن حجة كي ينزل الى الشارع ويقتل ويدّمر. اميل الى الاعتقاد ان الفيلم الحقيقي كان في الشوارع، اما ‘التريلر’ الذي لا تزيد مدته عن اربع عشرة دقيقة فكان الحجة.

دعوني اطرح بعض الأسئلة:

اولا، ألا يجدر بنا ان نقرأ الفيلم في سياق الحملة الانتخابية الامريكية، حيث يكشّر اليمين المحافظ والصهيوني عن انيابه بهدف اسقاط باراك اوباما وايصال رومني الى الرئاسة. ان من يتابع حملة التجييش الاعلامية والاعلانية في الولايات المتحدة يعلم ان باراك اوباما يُشتم لسببين، الاول بوصفه ابن رجل مسلم يدعى حسين، والثاني لأنه لا يستأنس بغطرسة نتنياهو وعنجهيته، فرئيس الحكومة الاسرائيلية يعتقد انه يستطيع جر امريكا الى الحرب مع ايران. الا يمكن ان نرى في هذه الضجة الدموية احدى الوسائل للبرهنة على انه في 11 ايلول/ سبتمبر 2012 جرت مذبحة جديدة ضد الامريكيين، قام بها مسلمون في عهد رئيس يدعون انه مسلم.

انا لست هنا في معرض الدفاع عن ادارة اوباما التي اثبتت عجزها و/او عدم رغبتها في التخلي عن دعمها الاعمى للاحتلال الاسرائيلي، ولكن ما وصفته هو حقيقة الاشياء كما تبدو في سياق الحملة الرئاسية الامريكية.

ثانيا، الا يحق لنا ان نتساءل لماذا انفجرت المظاهرات في مصر وليس في اي مكان آخر. فالاحتجاجات الصاخبة ضد الرسوم الكاريكاتورية الدنماركية المسيئة للرسول العربي، بدأت في السعودية قبل ان تنتشر في العالمين العربي والاسلامي؟ ثم لماذا اقتصرت الاحتجاجات على دول الربيع العربي دون غيرها؟ هل يعود السبب كما قيل الى المناخ الديمقراطي الذي اطلقته الثورات؟ أم ان العكس صحيح، فالاحتقان الديني يشكل متنفسا للشعوب التي ترزح تحت نير الاستبداد، وبالتالي يكون من المنطقي ان تنفجر مظاهرات الغضب فيها، مثلما حصل دائما؟

ثالثا، هل صحيح ان المظاهرات كانت عفوية؟ لا شك انه يمكن الاستنتاج بأن اصابع تنظيم ‘القاعدة’ لعبت دوراً كبيرا في اغتيال السفير الامريكي في ليبيا، لكن من انزل جحافل الاصوليين الى الشوارع؟ هل نزلوا بشكل عفوي تعبيرا عن مشاعرهم، ام هناك قيادة قررت هزّ العصا في وجه الاخوان والنهضة، من اجل ان تُحدث تعديلا في ميزان القوى السياسي الذي اسفرت عنه الانتخابات؟

رابعا، هل استغل السلفيون الفيلم من اجل التحرك داخليا ولفرض وجودهم على الأرض، ام هناك ايضا اجندة لدى بعض مموليهم تتمنى فوز رومني، لأنها تعتبر ان ضرب ايران هو اولويتها المطلقة؟

خامسا، لنفترض ان الافتراضات السابقة كلها خاطئة، فلماذا اتخذ التحرك ضد ‘تريلر’ تافه وسفيه ولم يره احد تقريبا، هذا الشكل الدموي الاعلامي؟

هل يكفي ان يعزف مهوس عنصري على زماره حتى يرقص على ايقاعه الراقصون؟ اين العقل؟ وما هذه الشعارات الخرساء التي لا تقول شيئا؟ هل يعتقدون ان التعامل مع الدول يكون بتحميلها مسؤولية عمل مشين قامت به عصابة وسوف تكشف الأيام انه لم يكن فيلما، بل كان استفزازا رخيصا وصل اصحابه الى مبتغياتهم، بل الى اكثر من ذلك: تصوير العرب كغوغاء، وتشويه ثوراتهم الديمقراطية والاستنتاج بأن الدولة الصهيونية العنصرية هي الديمقراطية الوحيدة في المنطقة.

هل هذا ما ارادوه، ام هــــم يتــــبعون مشاريع لا يفقــــهون منــــها شيئا، وتهدف في النـــهاية الى تحويل البلاد العربية الى مزبلة؟

وغدا سوف تثبت الأيام ان الفيلم الوحيد الذي هدف هـــذا ‘التريلر’ الى الاعلان عنه، هو الفيلم الذي رأيناه في الشوارع العربية.

لا يوجد فيلم حقيقي غير هذا الفيلم المثير للأسى والسخرية.

وهذا يعيدنا الى كلام المتنبي الذي وصف حال الأجداد بكلام لا يزال للأسف صالحا لوصف حال الأحفاد:

‘أغايةُ الدينِ ان تَحفو شواربكم

يا أمةً ضحكت من جهلِها الأممُ

القدس العربي

July 21, 2012

Good Dictators and Bad Dictators

by mkleit

Published on Thursday, September 1, 2011 by CommonDreams.org

Perhaps you are confused by U.S. policy towards Middle East dictators. The U.S. supports some, denounces others and launches missiles to overthrow another. Having reported from the region for over 25 years, I can explain what might otherwise seem to be an inconsistent U.S. policy.Qaddafi was bad before he was good before he was bas again. And yet US policy is sinisterly consistent. (File)

There are good dictators and bad dictators. We support the good ones and denounce the bad ones, unless of course, we change our minds.

Take Muammar Qaddafi – please. When he nationalized U.S. and European oil companies in the 1970s, he became a bad dictator. He was such a bad dictator, no one could agree on how to spell his name (Gaddafi? Khadafy?)

Qaddafi was such a bad dictator that the Reagan Administration bombed Tripoli in 1986. But Qaddafi stuck around for another 25 years, proving once again the effectiveness of aerial bombardment in punishing bad dictators.

In 2003 Qaddafi, expecting a U.S. victory in Iraq, stopped planning to build a nuclear weapon and otherwise cooperated with the U.S. and Europeans. While Britain and the U.S. removed sanctions against Libya, Qaddafi blithely continued the brutal repression of his own people.

That was OK, however, because Qaddafi was no longer a bad dictator. He was just naughty.

When a popular uprising against Qaddafi seemed about to lose earlier this year, Qaddafi once again became a very, very bad dictator bent on genocide against his own people. U.S. and European powers began an aerial war but said they wouldn’t send ground troops. They sent in CIA operatives instead.

The opposition leaders, who assassinated their own top general, are now known as heroic freedom fighters. Now that Qaddafi appears to be defeated, western powers have to find a good dictator to take over. That won’t be easy because of the feuds existing amongst exiled politicians, tribal leaders and former Qaddafi officials.

Another wonderful example is Hosni Mubarak of Egypt. He accepted billions in U.S. military aid and didn’t attack Israel. He conducted fraudulent elections, allowed only government-controlled trade unions, muzzled the press and jailed dissidents, subjecting them to horrific torture.

He was a good dictator.

Well actually, Mubarak was a good dictator right up until February of this year when millions demonstrated in Cairo’s Tahrir Square, and workers went on strike in Suez, threatening the entire political and economic system in Egypt. Then he became a bad dictator, which in retrospect, the U.S. had only been reluctantly supporting for strategic, geo-political reasons.

Please remember that such zigzags in U.S. policy reflect our National Interest. It’s a rough world out there and we have to make tough choices. The National Interest benefits all of us, whether rich or poor.

For the long-term stability of our nation, we need access to Middle East oil and gas. We’ve established military bases in the region to protect the sea lanes and pipelines needed to get the crude shipped to U.S. oil companies.

Maintaining high profits for U.S. oil companies is an important component of our National Interest. After all, if oil companies didn’t make outsized profits, we might end up paying $4 for a gallon of gas.

The U.S. has been pursuing the National Interest for many years under both Democratic and Republican administrations, which means it must be OK.

Not only does the U.S. oppose bad dictators, we

always favor democracy. The U.S. favors free elections, for example, unless the wrong people win.

In 2006 the Palestinian Authority held parliamentary elections. International observers agreed the elections were free and fair. Hamas, a conservative Islamist party, won the election. The U.S. and Israel refused to recognize the results and encouraged fighting between Hamas and Fatah, the other major Palestinian party.

In 2007 military skirmishes broke out between Fatah and Hamas. Fatah took control of the West Bank. Hamas took control of Gaza. Israeli officials said they couldn’t hold peace talks as long as the Palestinian leadership remained divided. When Fatah and Hamas agreed to form a joint government earlier this year, Israel said it could never negotiate with the terrorist group Hamas.

The U.S. has remained equally consistent. It calls for the resignation of Bashar al Assad in Syria but makes no such pronouncements about pro-U.S. dictators in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain or Jordan.

So don’t be confused by U.S. policy. Any country opposing the U.S. National Interest can’t be a democracy. Any dictatorship agreeing with U.S. policies is on the road to democratic change.

I hope that clears up any remaining confusion.

 

http://reeseerlich.com/2012/01/20/good-dictators-and-bad-dictators/

November 13, 2011

World intrigued by “Occupy Wall Street” movement – By Reuters

by mkleit

(Reuters)Tahrir Square in Cairo, Green Square in Tripoli, Syntagma Square in Athens and now Zuccotti Park in New York — popular anger against entrenching power elites is spreading around the world.

Many have been intrigued by the Occupy Wall Street movement against financial inequality that started in a New York park and expanded across America from Tampa, Florida, to Portland, Oregon, and from Los Angeles to Chicago.

Hundreds of activists gathered a month ago in the Manhattan park two blocks from Wall Street to vent their anger at what they see as the excesses of New York financiers, whom they blame for the economic crisis that has struck countless ordinary Americans and reverberated across the global economy.

I Can't Affor a Lobbyist

In the U.S. movement, Arab nations see echoes of this year’s Arab Spring uprisings. Spaniards and Italians see parallels with Indignados (indignant) activists, while voices in Tehran and Beijing with their own anti-American agendas have even said this could portend the meltdown of the United States.

Inspired by the momentum of the U.S. movement, which started small but is now part of U.S. political debate, activists in London will gather to protest outside the London Stock Exchange on October 15 on the same day that Spanish groups will mass on Madrid’s Puerta del Sol square in solidarity.

“American people are more and more following the path chosen by people in the Arab world,” Iran’s student news agency ISNA quoted senior Revolutionary Guards officer Masoud Jazayeri as saying. “America’s domineering government will face uprisings similar to those in Tunisia and Egypt.”

Chinese newspapers splashed news about Occupy Wall Street with editorials blaming the U.S. political system and denouncing the Western media for playing down the protests.

“The future of America stands at a crossroads. Presuming that effective measures to relieve the social mood and reconstruct justice cannot be found, it is not impossible that the Occupy Wall Street movement might be the final straw under which America collapses,” said a commentary in the Global Times.

“This movement has uncovered a scar on American society, an iceberg of accumulated social conflicts has risen to the surface,” said the commentary in the tabloid, which is owned by the Communist Party mouthpiece, the People’s Daily.

“THIS IS TAHRIR SQUARE”

In Cairo, Ahmed Maher, a founder and leading member of Egypt’s April 6 Youth Movement which helped to topple autocrat Hosni Mubarak, said it was in contact with several groups organizing the anti-Wall Street demonstrations.

“A few days ago we saw a banner in New York that said ‘This is Tahrir Square’,” Maher said, referring to the Cairo square that became the epicenter of Egypt’s revolution.

“The Arab Spring has definitely inspired the burst of protests in the United States and Europe.”

Others noted differences between Arab protesters and U.S. protesters, branded by one Republican presidential candidate as “anti-American” and so jealousy-ridden that they wanted to “take somebody else’s … Cadillac.”

“The Arab protests started with requests for reform but quickly transformed into demands for governments to leave, or at least their leaders,” said Abdulaziz al-Uwaisheg, columnist in Saudi daily al-Watan. “The American protest is against specific policies … It did not ask to change the government.”

Spanish media have devoted daily coverage to Occupy Wall Street, dubbing participants “Indignados in Manhattan,” with left-leaning newspapers saying the U.S. protesters were inspired by Spain’s own disenchanted youth-led grouping.

“Occupy Wall Street is one more branch of a global movement,” said Veronica Garcia, a 40-year-old lawyer involved in the Spanish demonstrations.

MARCHES INSPIRED BY MOVEMENT

Blessed are the Poor

While Spain’s “Indignados” have poured much of their anger so far on politicians, Garcia said Saturday’s Madrid march was likely to focus more on bankers.

In London, which was hit by rioting and looting by disaffected people in early August, protesters were using social media like Facebook and Twitter to plan their Stock Exchange protest on Saturday.

The Occupy London protest aims to draw attention to “the economic systems that have caused terrible injustices around the world,” according to their website.

“Bankers have got off scot-free whilst the people of this country are being punished for a crisis they did not create,” a statement on the website said, echoing the chant taken up by U.S. marchers: “We are the 99 percent.”

Unions, which organized protests against austerity moves in debt-stricken Greece, welcomed the New York protests.

“It’s optimistic because we haven’t seen such protests before,” Greek public sector unionist Despina Spanou told Reuters. “There is no coordination so far because most of this is spontaneous, but we cannot rule anything out.”

Newspapers around the world have sought to identify the true motor of discontent driving the Occupy Wall Street movement, with the Korea Herald seeing an historic dimension reflecting the civil rights movement and anti-Vietnam War rallies.

“But perhaps the closest historical parallel is with the Populist movement of the 1890s, which, like Occupy Wall Street, was a broad, economics-driven revolt that targeted a predatory class of corporate capitalists – the robber barons of the Gilded Age,” the newspaper said.

“THERE’S SOMETHING HAPPENING HERE”

Japan’s Kyodo news agency ran an interview from New York with organizer Kalle Lasn who said he hoped that “Occupy Wall Street” would inspire Japan’s jobless youth.

“Is there some beginning of some kind of ‘Occupy Tokyo’ or ‘Occupy Marunouchi’, something like that happening in Japan right now or not?” Kyodo quoted Lasn as saying, referring to the Marunouchi business district in

Tokyo.

The Occupy Wall Street protests across the United States with their focus on banking bailouts and unfairness appeared to present a dilemma for Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin.

The protests support one Kremlin agenda by underscoring the economic troubles of Moscow’s Cold War foe, but could also send a signal encouraging street protests — not what Putin wants as he heads toward a second stint as president in a March vote.

This July, Putin said the United States was “acting like hooligans” in the global economy. In Aug

ust, he said the United States was living beyond its means “like a parasite.”

Putin and President Dmitry Medvedev have not spoken publicly about the protests, but state-run TV stations they use to shape opinion seem to have found a way around the contradiction.

Footage of crowds protesting against perceived corporate greed and government connivance echo

Occupy The World

ed the emphasis on U.S. economic inequality that was a Soviet-era propaganda staple.

Such footage may also back up Putin’s argument for a tight state rein on

Russia’s corporate world –

– and his colorful depictions of the United States as a flagging, sometimes dangerously irresponsible financial power.

At the same time, news footage often focusing on outspoken, outlandishly dressed participants in the U.S. protests appeared aimed at lending the crowds a circus-like look that could be to discourage Russians from trying this at home.

The Chinese, however, have not been so subtle, using the movement to fire repeated broadsides at the capitalist system.

“The Occupy Wall Street movement was sparked by the extreme disparity between the rich and the poor,” the Hong Kong Economic Journal said in its editorial.

“Now it looks like the spark is being turned into a great fire that is spreading to other countries.”

British commentators were not so convinced by such an apocalyptic vision. Giles Whittell in the London Times, highlighting the movement’s lack of a coherent agenda, came to the conclusion in a headline that it was: “Passionate but Pointless.”

(Reporting by Charlie Zhu in Hong Kong, Andrew Hammond in Dubai, Parisa Hafezi in Tehran, Marwa Awad in Cairo, Catherine Hornby in Rome, Michael Martina in Beijing, Antoni Slodkowski in Tokyo, Peter Griffiths in London, Tracy Rucinski in Madrid, Renee Maltezou in Athens, Steve Gutterman in Moscow, David Cutler in London; Writing by Peter Millership; Editing by Mark Heinrich)

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/11/us-usa-wallstreet-world-idUSTRE79A3OB20111011

%d bloggers like this: