Cheney Visit To The Middle

Whenever Dick Cheney rushes off to the Middle East it is always in response to a crisis. He is the “enforcer,” the president’s handler and the one who really calls the shots. When Condi Rice failed to get the supporting factions (Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Egypt) to agree on the US strategy at last week’s Iraq Summit conference, the Vice President had to rush off to patch things up and “bring them around.” What kind of Big Stick does Cheney possess that Condi Rice does not?

 

For starters, he is privy to the globalists’ secret understanding with the “moderate” Arab leaders (all Sunni) that provides them protection and immunity in exchange for oil. The regimes in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UEA) are all corrupt. The US covers for and even facilitates that corruption because it keeps them on the hook-knowing that the US could engineer their overthrow at any time. It’s a not-so-subtle form of blackmail that Cheney carries in his hip pocket whenever he makes these emergency visits.

 

Cheney had a very full plate on his agenda. He had to put out brush fires among the Sunnis who are threatening to leave the government, relay more threats to keep the al Maliki regime and his al Sadr allies in line, and dampen growing discontent among US troops. Last, but probably most important, he had to rush off for emergency talks with Saudi Arabia and the UEA, chief sources of Sunni support in Iraq, as well as main financiers of the new globalist Mecca in Dubai.

 

Basically, the globalists are building a new empire in the Middle East, centered around Dubai-the new Casablanca of the Middle East, where secret dealings, money laundering, and legal shelter is provided for the world’s major players. Why else are billions in capital flowing into a desert isle with international companies like Haliburton moving their headquarters there? Dubai’s building boom is a telling indication that world powers have decided to centralize their Middle East wealth and power in a new city, leaving behind old financial capitols like Beirut which beset by civil war and destruction. Here’s a Power Point Presentation link showing the huge building boom going on in Dubai: http://www.strangecosmos.com/content/item/123828.html

 

Cheney’s most telling public comments, however, came on board the US aircraft carrier Stennis, where he stated, “With two carrier strike groups in the Gulf, we’re sending clear messages to friends and adversaries alike, [the United States] will stand with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating this region.” he said. He was prepping them for further use of force, even though he did not say that directly.

 

Earlier, Cheney tried to reassure the troops near Baghdad who were reeling from the bad news that deployments to Iraq are being increased from twelve months to fifteen months. Cheney told them: “Many of you have had your deployments extended and that puts unexpected hardship on you and your families. I want you to know the extension is vital to the mission.” That’s hardly a comfort to the ever-increasing number of troops (35,000) that don’t consider Iraq essential to the mission of the US.

 

Martin Sieff of the UPI commented on Why Cheney Failed [incorrectly assuming that calming Iraq is the real purpose of this administration]: “Meanwhile, some 10 weeks into the much-touted U.S. ‘surge’ strategy, the rate of violence in Iraq is running as high as ever. April, as we have noted in these columns, was the worst month for U.S. military fatalities in Iraq since President Bush authorized the beginning of military operations to topple Saddam Hussein on March 19, 2003. The same day Cheney met with Maliki in Baghdad, 14 people were killed and 87 injured by a car bomb in the Kurdish regional capital of Irbil.

 

“The attack further confirmed the continuing ability of the Sunni insurgents to strike with increasing impunity at relatively ‘soft’ civilian targets around the country precisely because so much of the U.S. troop presence in the country is being concentrated in Baghdad to stem the insurgent and sectarian militia killings there. Cheney’s failure to make any headway with Maliki on oil revenue sharing (stalled for more than a year) and the continuing effectiveness of the insurgents both stem from the same basic failure of the U.S. grand strategy on Iraq.

 

“Cheney was sent to Baghdad to play the ‘bad cop’ with the Iraqi government. A senior administration official said it was ‘game time’ for the Iraqi government. … To say that it’s finally ‘game time’ more than four years into the war is a pretty startling statement. ‘The administration is becoming increasingly desperate because they know time is running out,’ explained Lawrence Korb, a former Reagan Defense Department official who now works at the liberal Center for American Progress.

 

“What’s really going on here is a classic example of the White House’s good-cop/bad-cop approach to thorny issues. For months, the president has been playing the good cop–gently prodding and coaxing Maliki along.”Yochi J. Dreazen reported on the vice president’s trip to Baghdad, in light of other arm-twisting to be done: “Vice President Dick Cheney’s surprise trip to Baghdad today was meant to deliver a tough message to the Iraqi government–put off your vacation plans and get back to work. U.S. officials have been livid since discovering that Iraq’s fledgling parliament–hardly a hive of activity in the first place–was planning to take a two-month summer recess, postponing work on a bill spelling out how oil money would be shared among Iraq’s ethnic and sectarian groups or a law authorizing new regional elections.”

 

The new oil law, which gives preference to Western oil companies over state-run Iraqi companies, is a tough sell to this angry group of lawmakers. The Parliament is so fractionalized they can’t agree on anything anyway, so why not go on vacation? Increasingly, Iraqis are losing confidence that any real democracy exists. What they are seeing of democracy, they don’t like because nothing is getting done.

 

However, there is an even more pressing reason for the VP’s visit: to stop the Sunnis from quitting parliament. If that happened, the charade of democracy would be over. It’s almost to that point now. Sunnis are threatening to quit the parliament by May 15 if their demands are not met (more power sharing, and oil sharing). Tariq al-Hashimi says Sunnis are feeling “meaningless” in the government and if Sunnis aren’t an equal partner, he says it’s time to quit the political process.

 

If that weren’t bad enough the Shiites in Parliament had enough votes to pass a draft bill that would require that the government begin setting a timetable for withdrawal of US troops. Naturally, the puppet al Maliki regime quickly denounced this attempt to assert Iraqi sovereignty. Nobody in the Iraq government wants to do something that the US would surely veto–exposing the fact that Iraqi sovereignty is really only a charade.

Global Military Alliance: Encircling Russia and China

Although Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea and Japan are not formally members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), they are linked through military partnerships, affiliated government agreements, a network of partnerships, and bilateral military agreements with the United States and Britain.

 

The creation of a parallel NATO-like organization in the Far East and the Pacific Rim is part of the international brinkmanship of creating a unified global military alliance.  Ellen Bork, deputy executive director of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) and Gary Schmitt, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, have advocated the creation of a military network in Asia similar to NATO in a paper on South Korea written in December of 2006. The PNAC is a US think-tank whose members include Dick Cheney, George W. Bush Jr., Richard Perle, Lewis Libby, Karl Rove, Zalmay Khalilzhad, Richard Armitage, and Paul Wolfowitz.

 

The Militarization of Japan

“Japan and the NATO allies are facing the same threats.”  (Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, NATO Secretary-General)

Japan has gradually been amalgamating and harmonizing its military policies with those of the U.S. and NATO. Japan is deeply linked bilaterally and multilaterally to the U.S. military. Japan was controlled by the U.S. military for several years after the Second World War. In 1951 the Japanese government signed the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty. This arrangement was expanded on January 19, 1960 with another bilateral treaty between Japan and the U.S. government.

 

Japan and South Korea are also both part of a grand U.S. military project involving the global stationing of missile systems and rapid military forces, as envisioned during the Reagan Administration. The global military project has been endorsed in Asia as a means to counter the alleged threat of a North Korean missile attack. China has also been identified as a justification for the development of a broad military alliance, involving an integrated military network in the Far East, Southeast Asia and the Pacific Rim.

 

The Japanese government has also signed its second ever bilateral security treaty with Australia to deepen security and military links. Australia, under the Howard Government, is also heavily involved in military projects in the Asia-Pacific region and more specifically, in the context of a policy of encirclement, in the militarization of China’s eastern borders.

 

In January 2007, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe made a visit to NATO Headquarters in Brussels, and made subsequent visits, meeting with the leaders of Germany and Britain. In essence, this was a visit to NATO as a whole and to the two separate and defining core branches of NATO, the Franco-German entente largely represented by Germany and the Anglo-American alliance, represented by Britain and the US.  During the first trip by a Japanese leader to NATO Headquarters, the Japanese Prime Minister also pledged that Japan would work closely with NATO in Afghanistan. The continuation of an E.U. weapons embargo against China was also discussed. Additionally, Japan already has military cooperation agreements with NATO.

 

In 1999, at a time of NATO enlargement and at the onslaught of NATO’s war against Yugoslavia, Japan and the U.S. launched the joint missile defense research program. The Japanese government has also upgraded its Defence Agency into a full-fledged ministry constituting another breach of the Japanese Constitution. The Japanese government is also funding the deployment of the Patriot PAC-3 and the Aegis Standard Missile-3 (SM-3). Japan also allowed its territory to host U.S. military radar facilities linked to the global missile shield project.

Japanese officials also want to revise the Japanese Constitution to allow Japan to formally join military alliances, such as NATO. The U.S., Australia, and NATO have been widely supportive of the Tokyo government’s resolve to militarize Japan. 

The Japanese government is candidly in violation of Article 9 of the country’s Constitution, which stipulates that Japan cannot have a military force. In this regard, the Japanese government has initiated a process to amend the Japanese Constitution, which would pave the way for the formal formation of a military force in Japan. Japan has already started developing its military capabilities and armed forces. These legislative moves are designed merely as a step to legalize the underlying initiative. 

The Japanese government has pushed forward its militarization agenda despite the fact that the majority of Japanese citizens are opposed to the militarization of their country. Legislation is now being passed through the Japanese Parliament that will allow the Japanese government to rewrite the Japanese Constitution. According to the Japanese Prime Minister this will allow Japan to “remove its limits on collective self-defence and on helping allies under attack.”

Australia and the tightening of the Military Alliance in the Asia-Pacific Perimeter 

Australia and Japan have established close military cooperation ties since the Cold War. Australian troops have integrated military operations and missions in Anglo-American occupied Iraq, together with Japanese troops, categorized as “non-combatant personnel.”

Australia and its government, led by Prime Minister John Howard, are members of the Anglo-American alliance and full party to their global military project. From the beginning, the Australian government has been in step with the Anglo-American alliance in the military roadmap unfolding under the banner of the “Global War on Terror.” Australian troops are deployed in the Balkans, Anglo-American occupied Iraq, and NATO-garrisoned Afghanistan.

The military forces of Singapore train in Australia. Australian special forces also actively operate in Southeast Asia and the Australian Navy has ships positioned from the Persian Gulf to the Arabian Sea and Pacific Ocean. Since December 2003, Australia has been a participant in the occupation of Iraq, is a partner in the international U.S. missile shield project, and has been a military research partner of the United States.

 

Australia also has a role to play in crafting a military challenge to China. Australia has finalized a pact with Japan that is stronger than any of Japan’s defence ties with any country, aside from the United States. At the same time, Australia has entrenched itself further into the Anglo-American camp with the building of a new U.S. military base in Geraldton. Geraldton is in Western Australia, located underneath Indonesia and Malaysia, and faces East Africa and the Middle East from a distance. The new facility in Geraldton is on the Australian shores of the Indian Ocean. This military base follows three years of secret negotiations between the U.S. government and the Australian government. The military base is reported to provide an important link for a new network of international military satellites that will be used by the United States and its allies to fight wars in the Middle East and Asia.

“I think the agreement is really looking at a realignment of security in East Asia, particularly with the ever-present rise of China,” said the head of the Asia security programme at the Royal United Services Institute in London. The Indian Ocean is going to become militarized because of Chinese attempts to ensure the continuous flow and security of African and Middle Eastern energy supplies to China.

North Korea, China, and Russia are being demonized to justify the deepening military integration of Australia, Japan and several other Asia-Pacific nations with the United States and NATO. Isabel Reynolds an international correspondent in Japan reveals in an article for Reuters that the tightening security and military atmosphere in Japan and Australia is aimed at China and Russia;

“Whether or not there is an overt threat, Japan and the so-called ‘littoral allies’ [meaning countries such as the Philippines, Taiwan, and Singapore] in the region have got to address that,” he [military analyst Alex Neil] added.

North Korea’s nuclear and missile tests last year are a source of worry, and China’s shooting down of one of its own satellites with a ballistic missile in January [2007] aroused concern in many capitals.

“We are no longer in an age when either Japan or Australia can rely solely on the United States as an ally,” said military analyst Tetsuya Ozeki, who says both China and Russia are set to become equally influential in the region.”

 

Australian Prime Minister John Howard, dismissed concerns that the depending alliance between Australia and Japan would harm ties with China.

 

There are aggressive steps being undertaken by NATO and the U.S. to encircle Russia and China. What the agreement between Australia and Japan (along with the move by the Tokyo government to amend the Japanese Constitution) amounts to, is the formation of an Eastern flank against Russia and China and a parallel sister-alliance to NATO.

Next President of the United States of America? I really do hope so!

You have to see this!

This guy is AMAZING!

I guess the world should have a special focus on next years presidential elections in the US because a new candidate has risen who is against Bush and calls most of his rivals frightening. I’m sure if Americans want a turn in their foreign policy they should elect a president who has different views on global issues such as terrorism and to be able to hand over power from the corporations to the people.

Although I’m Iranian there’s no doubt I’m campaigning for this guy and the main reason for that is, he opposes aggression on Iran and goes for diplomacy and talk. However Bush and most candidates have already said that all options are on the table on how to deal with Iran, including military operations, therefore they all pose a danger to world peace except for Mike Gravel who is against any military actions against Iran.

Accusation & Failure

 

 

AP – The State Department has once again designated Iran as the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism, accusing the Islamic Republic of aiding extremists throughout the Middle East, particularly in Iraq.

Iran was singled out for criticism in a year that saw a surge of more than 25 percent in terrorist attacks that killed 40 percent more people than in 2005. Much of the increase was in Iraq where extremists used chemical weapons and suicide bombers to target crowds.

The State Department’s Country Reports on Terrorism 2006 says Iran is the “most active state sponsor” of terrorism with elements of its government — notably the Revolutionary Guards and intelligence ministry — supporting many extremist groups in Iraq and elsewhere.

The two “were directly involved in the planning and support of terrorist acts and continued to exhort a variety of groups, especially Palestinian groups with leadership cadres in Syria and Lebanese Hezbollah, to use terrorism in pursuit of their goals,” the report said.

The Revolutionary Guard has been “linked to armor-piercing explosives that resulted in the deaths of coalition forces” and has helped, along with Lebanon’s radical Hezbollah movement, train Iraqi Shiite extremists to build bombs, it said.

At the same time, “Iran maintained a high-profile role in encouraging anti-Israeli activity, rhetorically, operationally and financially,” the report said, adding Iran has yet to identify, try or turn over senior al-Qaida members it detained in 2003.

Explosion near Shiite shrine in Iraq

My saying- Accusing Iran of aiding extremists throughout the Middle East, particularly in Iraq is a complete false statement made by State Department. Today in Iraq the Shia’s are badly being hit by the Sunni insurgents and Sunni’s not only kill the Shia’s, they are also attacking the coalition forces throughout Iraq. Al-Qaida is a Sunni terrorist group which has been responsible for the deadly attacks on foreign and Iraqi forces.

So how can Iran be linked to the Sunni terrorists such as Al-Qaida while it calls itself a Shia state. The Sunnis are also responsible for the death of the Shia civilians by attacking Shia holy sites and crowded places such as markets.

The US calls the Al-Sadr a Shia terrorist and has bombed the Al-Sadr city so many times and is calling Iran a terrorist nation, while the Iraqi Sunni’s and Saudi Arabia are the ones responsible for terrorist attacks on Iraqi civilians and the coalition and Iraqi armed forces. The United States has failed in Iraq therefore is blaming it’s own error’s on Iran. Why blaming it on Iran? Iran is the only remaining obstacle in the way of unchallenged and unchallengeable U.S.-Israeli hegemony in the region. And not blaming the Sunnis? More recently, a formidable combination of Arab/Sunni client regimes, from Saudi Arabia and Jordan to Egypt and Algeria, has arisen to warn the U.S. that it (and they), face the gruesome prospect of what the Jordanian king calls “the rise of a Shia crescent” led by Iran and comprised of its allies in Iraq as well as the restive, pro-Iranian Shia populations in Lebanon, Bahrain, Kuwait, the eastern provinces of Saudi Arabia and elsehwere; bombing Iran back to Stone Age is the only solution. If you want to learn more about US-Saudi relations see my “Confessions of an Economic Hit man” video.

Confessions of an Economic Hit Man