I react to this very interesting article of Ogres . I do it on my blog because my message is long, and it will probably be more comfortable to read on a dedicated page.
The article takes this video:
This Issue date of 2002, qq months before the invasion of Iraq.
Since Christian Cotten and Smain Bedrouni have been particularly targeted, COMMISSIONS rogatory, suit etc.. always with the backdrop of accusations of antisemitism.
Cotten is a disturbing figure: he says things that are very real, very theatrical, the risk of sounding crazy, but that the advantage to score 'minds. Maybe this is a communication technique used to print the best message ... It is on this issue than it was his intervention and some key ideas that will be passed that makes the most noted.
The enigmatic Cotten On several occasions in the past, Cotten had announced on its website ( political life ) of sensational revelations about French politics, can bring down the regime ... The latest update of its website and in any event in this sense, update dates from the eve of his trial last September ... Since then, its website is outdated ... As I do not know what type or Eve to Adam, I can not in any way judge its credibility. But what he says anyway joined analyzes thousands of people. If someone has news about this guy ... What is it? Has he been abducted by aliens?
Anyway this issue in 2002 is interesting at this time, it was still possible to invite Ardisson Meyssan and to leave 20 minutes to an hour of prime time to explain his views.
Since I doubt that this type of program will be shown, the dictatorship of the single thought has corrected this. And they did not skimp on how to break Meyssan, and all those who contest the official version on September 11 while the entire diplomatic community are aware of the truth.
Truth official and the truth itself: it does not eat soup pigs
In 91 when the attack on Iraq I meet the son of a diplomat whose father worked in an embassy. He had announced that texting the war had been decided in advance by the Yanks, and that Saddam was tricked into invading Kuwait after receiving the green light from U.S..
Throughout the 90s, whenever I set this in discussion or debate on the Gulf War, I was treated to fool or a liar. People needed to believe that the Gulf War was a just war (especially as France had participated). Recognize that the media would fuck them too hard. Recognize that it was living a lie, and questioning all the ideas we take for granted comfortable ... It's out of illusion and can be be forced to act ... Too hard for most people ... That's why all the propaganda wars rogue easily passed in the 90: Iraq, Yugoslavia, Algeria ...
So nobody wanted to believe that Saddam had been captured by the yankees ...
In 2001, just months before Sept. 11, Jean-Pierre Chevenement will confirm yet at a hearing member of the National Assembly (minutes available on the website of the National Assembly). He was speaking as part of an investigation into the mysterious disease that targeted military developments in Iraq (Daguet division), probably sick of all ingested depleted uranium. He then threw a lot of things about this war, and for the first time to my knowledge explained why he had resigned from his post as defense minister during the Gulf War ...
All that to say that there is truth known within all diplomacy, but the relative economic strength and military imposes to silence, and truth to the public. It does not eat soup with pigs.
Secret War between France and Israel in Africa and Lebanon
For example, while MAM and Chirac have been at undeclared war in Africa and the Middle East against Israel (in Côte d'Ivoire and Lebanon particular), the media has never filtered these facts (except Meyssan Gaullist circles very close since Sept. 11, when he is left at the base, and a former protégé of Chirac, who was using him as a convenient way for leaking information outside of diplomatic channels without getting wet, but the policies make it, especially since internet).
Similarly, in the world, everyone is aware of the American problem, and everyone hopes they will be planted, except that, as nobody can challenge them openly in the military, anything that anyone can hope is that the military quagmire ruin their economies ...
American quagmire in Iraq and declining dollar
Dollars On Fire Besides, they are evils: the quagmire in Vietnam after they had invented the financial holdup of the century, abandoning the gold standard, and the establishment of an oil-backed dollar (so they knowingly caused the oil crisis to support the dollar and oil will never better deserved his nickname of Black Gold).
Now that even the oil monarchies began to doubt the dollar (Syria, Kuwait replaced it with the Euro, the UAE think about it more and more), what will they do?
They are trapped and have no choice if they want to continue to impose the regulation of oil in dollars, they must absolutely and quickly get their hands on the Iranian reserves.
And regardless of whether the Iranian production, as Iraqi production falls. On the contrary, it allows them to reserve the oil for later. The goal is not to pump oil, but to prevent oil sales are conducted in a different currency than the dollar ...
Iraq has failed to comply, Saddam began, Iran was actually a drop of Iranian oil is sold in dollars, Russia increasingly diverse, and will soon require d be settled in rubles, which will make the ruble a common currency of reference and will boost the Russian economy (which has much more potential than the U.S. economy: they have a vast territory and huge resources, their most big problem is their demographic).
If this trend spreads to abandon the dollar, Americans are very evils ... They no longer count on the Saudis, who for the moment their are inextricably linked because the Americans are the law in Saudi Arabia and do not hesitate to kill many Saudi princes in the past, so we can say that among the Saud, a party is complicit, like Prince Sultan Bin, head of Saudi intelligence and collaborators from the USA and Israel, while the other part of the Saud family is taken hostage and threatened with death, it does seem you it's King Abdullah today, very critical vis-à-vis Israel and not necessarily for war with Iran ... Besides I miss about this info and tracks, and I am appealing to readers to send me info so I have a better vision of what is happening in Saudi Arabia.
short, it is urgent for the U.S. to stem this trend to the ousting of dollars.
Attacking Iran to save the dollars
This is partly done with the development of Iraqi oil under glass. This will likely be with Iran, though I wonder how they'll do it ... Less than an invasion and the establishment of a puppet government ... No solutions!
They can always try Algeciras to Iran: pushing the country into a civil war by playing fake terrorists and imposing their own faction within the Iranian pouvoi by an invisible coup ... As in Algeria, where the generals have used the "terrorists" to impose their dictatorship without that being seen too.
But Iran is not Algeria: for now the Iranian regime has always managed to contain the U.S. attempts to destabilize through terrorism ...
This will be difficult for Americans to achieve their objectives in Iran.
Unless the goal is to destroy everything and then offer help in rebuilding Dollar ... and in this case Iran will be obliged to sell its oil in dollars ... But they can also choose to reject draconian, especially since the massive bombing might strengthen the Iranian regime's hard ...
We saw in the case of the quagmire in Iraq that U.S. American plans were not going as planned.
is also pleased that the Americans are wrong and are faced with major failures, as in Vietnam (despite the terrible cost to the Vietnamese, because a U.S. military put in a situation of failure is an army that destroys everything !) because it contains a minimum their arrogance.
However, current issues within the American establishment are: how to extend the U.S. imperialist policy?
Dictatorship hidden USA: cartel of oligarchs, sham democracy, and internal rivalries within the establishment
Who really runs America? I expose my views on the U.S.: it is a dictatorship, democratic facade. Candidates, political, are all chosen by the establishment: ie the cartel of bankers and industrialists of oil and armaments deciding U.S. policy.
is an oligarchy in the sense that a cartel, a handful of individuals to share power.
Political life is a sham designed to maintain the illusion that the average American, which in any case is discharged so that it is also the one who vote least in the world.
Do not believe for as long as the oligarchs are all agreements between them.
Nothing is further from the truth!
In fact, as the Kings in the feudal era, they maintain them ambivalent relationship of competition and collaboration. Nothing is more ruthless than face another oligarch oligarch. They come in to lose its power and status, we will immediately trampled by others who will be happy to rip your leftovers.
It seems that today many competing factions in the U.S. regarding procedures to follow in the next presidential term. There
particularly realistic, and the neo-conservatives.
The trend in the power struggle between realists and neo-conservatives has reversed sharply since the early 2000s.
The comeback of the "realists", the fall of the neocons
Today the neocons are looking new sampling points, trying to distinguish himself from George Bush for him to blame for their failures, and some have even repositioned "left" tendency of origin since most neoconservatives are former Trotskyists .
Incidentally, this propensity of Trotskyists to betray the ideals of the left to take the side of the handle and implement policies of extreme right-wing pro-Israeli hardest (we have seen in France in the past with Jospin or Dray to a lesser extent) shows that this movement is a huge scam. In politics he is judged by deeds and not words, and deeds of these "Trotskyists" can not be more striking: ultra-liberal, pro-Israel, "go-war ... Besides the French néonconservateurs are also former leftists: the innénérable Kouchner, but Gluksman, Brukner and the band moved from New pigoufs philosophy in neo-conservatism since 1997 have all signed the PNAC (Project for a New American Century) neocons profession of faith, which indicated clearly the color: hyperimpérialisme U.S. military attack on Iraq, remodeling of the Middle East, unconditional support for Israel ...
But back to the American Establishment: the face of neocons discredited, the realistic return:
- Kissinger, the architect of the Vietnam War, which is also terminated when, years after it was finally done for, and who pocketed a Nobel Peace Prize to the passage of peace, a roof to such a butcher! Kissinger supported the Republican McCain.
Kissinger: Nobel War - Brezinsky, the architect of the Soviet quagmire in Afghanistan, which has armed and financed Al Qaeda and Bin Laden at the time American allies cons the Soviets, and Reagan also used. Brezinsky supports Barack Obama.
Brezinsky: a smart drive. - Madeleine Albright, the grandmother who believed that the death of one and a half million Iraqis including over 500,000 children under 5 years because of the embargo was worth it. She supports Clinton hilarry (obviously).
Madeleine Albright: granny genocide of Iraqi children. Realists more dangerous than the neocons, because most Machiavellian
Do not believe that the realists are less dangerous than the neocons.
Instead, they are more dangerous to me.
A beautiful head winner ... Neocons as their name suggests, are cons: they believe their own propaganda about the war easily won, and an Iraqi population who welcome them with garlands of flowers.
The advantage of neocons is that they have sucked the blood of America to the end to support the interests of Israel, and the military-industrial lobby.
They ruined the U.S. economy, especially ruined America's image abroad.
They actually had the merit of revealing the true face of America ...
The undertaker monster show ... Realists them, have always managed to give the appearance of law and morality in their actions.
Whenever possible, the realists prefer to limit the use of military intervention, or when they bomb, but avoid maintaining an occupying army, as an occupying army is expensive, undermining the political credibility, undermines morale Shred the country and forced to get dirty so own hands.
The preferred method is realistic to do the dirty work by dictators, so that they keep their hands clean.
Person will go to denounce the fact that this dictator commits atrocities because he is supported by the U.S. ... What the public sees, what are blacks who kill blacks, Arabs killing Arabs ... No one sees who the real clients.
It costs much less expensive on all fronts: financial, political ...
The return of Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan, and his assassination, may be seen as signs of political struggle between realists and neoconservatives (I have not mentioned, but we all know them: Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Dov Zakheim Daniel Pipes, Eliot Abrams ...).
If Bhutto had been established and elected I would have personally found that it heralded a victory for Democrats in the U.S..
Observe the fuss in dictatorships friendly to U.S. pre-empt the upcoming U.S. presidential
Indeed, to anticipate the outcome of U.S. elections, I think the best is to study the pattern of dictators and pseudo Friends of American Democrats. No American election was held without a reconfiguration at the constellation of American poodle. If nothing changes, it is going to be a re-election or a political continuity. If there are cons of significant change, for example if "Doves" are replaced by "hard", one can conclude that the internal political changes in the U.S. will move in that direction. Conversely, if the disks are replaced by doves, one can conclude a "softening" of U.S. policy, therefore, likely a Democratic victory.
Bhutto's arrival so permit me to anticipate a repositioning towards the Democrats in the U.S., but its killing me suggest that all is not played, and that the factions continue to fight within the oligarchy World.
It will be very careful about what will happen in the coming months ...
Another sign of power struggle within the Oligarchs, the famous U.S. intelligence report announcing that Iran has ceased nuclear weapons program in 2003.
This report looks very much like a compromise between realists and neoconservatives ...
For one side it closes the next door to an attack on Iran under the guise of nuclear energy. On the other hand, he nonetheless asserts that Iran had a nuclear program until 2003 (that Russian and Iranian officials deny), providing a perch for neocons to attack a little later (under false pretext for the reactivation of this program for example). For
for realistic emergency is clear: we must refocus U.S. policy, re-brand "democratic" U.S. undermined past 10 years, and save the U.S. economy is sinking.
For the neocons, whose main concern is to serve Israel more than the USA, the urgency is to take advantage of Bush's bellicose regime to push even further the logic of war.
They say this war is no less need to save the dollar and the U.S. economy undermined, but rather more war, pushing the logic of chaos to the end and impose dollars strength.
Indeed if their plans to Iran quickly and easily fleeced works, then the dollar is saved and the U.S. economy off again for 25 years ... But given what happened in Iraq, it is doubtful that Iran is allowed to make as easily, and instead a careless movement can definitely accelerate the fall of the U.S. economy ...
In fact what is advocated by the neocons to play all out and take over the entire area of the Middle East, including Iran (and presumably Pakistan subsequently, can be seen before who knows) . If Iraq is a failure according to them is that we failed to block Iran, which the coup took the opportunity to deploy his balls ... Set the account to Iran is set at the same time the problems in Iraq.
typical neocon reasoning, based on rabbinic proverb popular in Israel, "when the force does not work, you must use more strength."
Personally I do not know who are the worst among the neocons and the realists.
A "dove" that genocide population and kills more civilians while adorning the mantle of virtue and boosting its economy, it is better than a "hawk" who killed openly, but faces resistance, discredits his country and ruined its economy?
Dove Albright had more deaths in Iraq during the 90s because of the famine and the embargo on medicines, the U.S. invasion of neoconservatives ... And at least in an invasion of the people knows what to do, he resists ... Over the deadly embargo Albright did not cost the United States, while the invasion of the neocons has ruined america at all points of view ...
A victory of the "moderates" in the U.S. does not want to say fewer deaths and injustices in the South, it just means a greater ability and greater hypocrisy in how one makes these deaths and these injustices.
Anyway, if you listen to Democrats, he says that the Iranians will morfler ...
If the couple both mad deadly Clinton-Albright wins the election, there may be an embargo against Iran that will cause severe punishments to the people (always remind us of the million and a half dead Iraqi embargo, digits UN).
In this case I still prefer an open war against Iran, which can leave the country to resist and defend themselves with arms, despite the difference in power and who has a good chance of precipitating the collapse of the U.S. ...
Anyway in the months to come, observe well the international configuration, and eventual redeployment of dictators or pseudo-democratic U.S. is allowing us to anticipate the best who wins the U.S. presidential.
0 comments:
Post a Comment