Another 'Middle East' point of view that strikes a cord !!!

[JustJohn or JJ]

I've always said the Wahhabi are very dangerous. Their bite size of our buttocks is increasing.


From the Canadian Free Press:

Consider the blatant continuity of agenda that has spanned several American presidential administrations, both Republican and Democrat, Progressive and Conservative. This transcends political parties and the ‘political theater’ that has been designed to keep Americans occupied. Both political parties, however, are unified under a much larger globalist agenda, which explains why the policies of the Bush ‘dynasty’ have been exponentially increased under the Obama ‘regime.’

“Think about it. The anti-Assad ‘rebels’ are losing, they’re in retreat, because the exposure to the arms and weapons running from Benghazi caused the architects of this conflict to lay low for awhile. That gave us some time, but it did not change their objective of overthrowing Assad and taking Syria for the Muslim Brotherhood. The anti-Assad rebels cannot survive without Western assistance. Considering that, what sense would it make for Assad to use chemical weapons, especially as international observers were getting in position to investigate the situation, against rebels in retreat? It makes no sense, unless you understand the larger objective and the ‘big picture.’”

“Okay, so explain the big picture,” I asked my source. “And please do it in a way that I can explain it to my neighbor, or my family, so they too can understand what we’re seeing.” What follows is an uninterrupted monologue from my intelligence insider.
The big picture explained

“Here’s the global picture. When you see it, it will make sense. This is about reshaping the entire power structure of not just the Middle East, but of the world.”

“Remember that the 2001 attacks against the U.S. was the catalyst for our military operations in Afghanistan, and then ostensibly Iraq under George W. Bush, a so-called ‘conservative republican.’ We could have gone into Afghanistan, cleaned up what we needed to, and come home. Instead, while still in Afghanistan, we went into Iraq after convincing the world they had weapons of mass destruction. Remember that George H. W. Bush, also a ‘conservative republican,’ engaged Iraq in ‘Gulf War I’ in 1990. Essentially, we’ve been in Iraq for the last quarter of a century! Why? Think about that.”

“And, we’ve been in Afghanistan for the last dozen years or so. Why? Oil and opium. It’s an ‘international bankers war.’ [Note that a recent report from ‘The Guerrilla Economist lays this out here, excerpted as follows]: “...[L]arge US military bases are on the very path of the purposed [Caspian Sea oil] pipeline. This as well as that some of the proceeds from the lucrative opium trade will find its way back to US banks which will launder the money in order to help fund Unocal in the purposed pipe building project. Win Win.”

“Oh, and by the way, if you mention Iran’s nuclear ambitions, why did we wait so long to really address this and keep Israel from doing so before any action would require a very protracted military campaign? Keep that in the back of your mind.”

“Now here’s another important part of the magic act. After eight years of George Bush, Americans were weary of war. So, a little known man named Barack Hussein Obama was selected to run against John McCain in 2008. Why Obama and not Hillary? Because the real power players needed a man with Muslim Brotherhood connections to accomplish what was needed in the Middle East. Think back to his Cairo speech. Consider that all of his campaign promises to end the wars were not only broken, but the wars and unrest were expanded by his policies, or the policies of those who put him into power.”

“So we’ve stayed in Afghanistan and in Iraq.” Then comes the Arab Spring, which was planned years in advance. It was not some serendipitously spontaneous movement by oppressed people longing for democracy, but a Saudi and Muslim Brotherhood plan to regain control of what was once the Ottoman Empire, this time on steroids. People must think bigger, outside of the confines of the Middle East.”

“As much as I don’t like the thought of saying this, Putin was correct in asking what sense it makes to destabilize the entire Middle East, especially Syria, a client state of Russia. In the context of regional affairs, it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Now, we are going to send cruise missiles into Syria… to hit what? Chemical weapons stockpiles stored in densely populated areas? How is this going to help the Syrians? The refugees fleeing from Syria?”

“I’ve told you, and you have written that we are implementing the Saudi agenda across the Middle East. But who is behind the Saudis? It is the international banking cartel, those ‘too big to jail,’ who are behind the Saudis. It’s their war and they’re funding all sides of the conflict. No matter what, they win. But what do they win?”

“Admittedly it’s difficult if not nearly impossible to tell all the players without a scorecard, and even then, the players will change their uniforms to keep everyone confused. But here’s the important part. Syria is a proxy state for Russia, as is Iran. China has interests in Iran as well. If you look at all of the major powers, they all have interests in the Middle East. So who will we, the U.S. ultimately be fighting when Syria explodes? Russia. And what will be the blowback? That’s important to understand, for it is also the objective.”
Blowback

“None of what you are seeing is about fighting terrorism, or about helping the people of Syria. It’s about oil, energy and the global economic system. Conflict exists for the globalists to achieve their objective, and their objective is the implementation of a new economic system that will be a basket of currencies, or SDR (Special Drawing Rights). If you don’t know about SDRs, just equate it to the euro, but on a global scale.”

They will usher this in by striking at the United States much like the U.S. took down the old Soviet Union. They will target our economy through oil, cheap oil, from Saudi Arabia. Remember, Russia is the world’s largest exporter of oil, neck and neck with the Saudis. But, the Saudis’ oil wells have been damaged and their ‘lift costs’ are increasing.”

“So, what we are about to see and experience in a most painful way is the destruction of the U.S. economy, the intentional killing of the U.S. dollar, by having it replaced as the world’s reserve currency, and replaced with a basket of currencies (SDR) that is much easier to control.”

“This is all about the conversion of world’s economic trading mechanism from a U.S. dollar based system to a SDR. The Middle East and Syria is merely the catalyst for is implementation. The ‘flash-bang’ of the magic act. And once this catalytic action is started, we cannot go back. War in the Middle East and particularly Syria is the catalyst that will disrupt transactions and commerce all over the world. And few will see it coming, or know what hit them.”

[pieter]

Dear John,

Aug 27, 2013 3:34:33 GMT -7 JustJohn or JJ said:

“None of what you are seeing is about fighting terrorism, or about helping the people of Syria. It’s about oil, energy and the global economic system. Conflict exists for the globalists to achieve their objective, and their objective is the implementation of a new economic system that will be a basket of currencies, or SDR (Special Drawing Rights). If you don’t know about SDRs, just equate it to the euro, but on a global scale.”

They will usher this in by striking at the United States much like the U.S. took down the old Soviet Union. They will target our economy through oil, cheap oil, from Saudi Arabia. Remember, Russia is the world’s largest exporter of oil, neck and neck with the Saudis. But, the Saudis’ oil wells have been damaged and their ‘lift costs’ are increasing.”

“So, what we are about to see and experience in a most painful way is the destruction of the U.S. economy, the intentional killing of the U.S. dollar, by having it replaced as the world’s reserve currency, and replaced with a basket of currencies (SDR) that is much easier to control.”

“This is all about the conversion of world’s economic trading mechanism from a U.S. dollar based system to a SDR. The Middle East and Syria is merely the catalyst for is implementation. The ‘flash-bang’ of the magic act. And once this catalytic action is started, we cannot go back. War in the Middle East and particularly Syria is the catalyst that will disrupt transactions and commerce all over the world. And few will see it coming, or know what hit them.”

There lies some truth in this, because wars and civil wars often have an economical, financial, political power and military influence background. Wars are beneficial to arms dealers and the Military Industrial Complex, Facility management, supplier management, Military logistics; with inside that Production logistics (the production of arms, military hardware and software [computersystems], technology, new production lines [after innovation], ammunition, engines, vehicles, planes, tanks, drones and etc.), Global logistics (provides logistics software and services for manufacturers, third-party logistics service providers, and electronic marketplaces. For instance Halliburton and The Carlyle Group), Distribution logistics and Disposal logistics (to reduce logistics cost(s) and enhance service(s) related to the business of the disposal of waste produced during the military operation) as more troops are added, more supply items are needed; or as more equipment is used, more fuel and ammunition are consumed. From 1995 to 2002, Halliburton Brown & Root Services Corp was awarded at least $2.5 billion but is believed to have spent considerably less to construct and run military bases, some in secret locations, as part of the Army's Logistics Civil Augmentation Program.





The supply chain management (SCM) of an interconnected or interlinked between network, channel and node businesses involved in the provision of product and service packages required by the end customers (The US Army, Airforce and Navy, and the private military industry of private military companies [For instance Academi, formerly known as Blackwater] and security companies) in a supply chain. Supply chain management spans the movement and storage of raw materials (petrochemicals, iron ore, uranium, sheet metal, rubber, synthetic materials [plastics], cotton, and food products like beans, potato's, maize, corn, vegetables, fruits, meat and cerials, coffee beans, thea, water, tobacco and building materials for construction) work-in-process inventory, and finished goods from point of origin to point of consumption. It is also defined as the "design, planning, execution, control, and monitoring of supply chain activities with the objective of creating net value, building a competitive (military) infrastructure, leveraging worldwide logistics (Afghanistan, Iraq, Saoudi-Arabia, Jordan, Turkey, Uzbekistan, Israel and etc.) synchronizing supply with demand and measuring performance globally."


Blackwater in Bagdad


A U.S. Marine from 2nd Marine Expeditionary Brigade, RCT 2nd Battalion 8th Marines Echo Co. takes up a fighting position after off loading from a helicopter during the start of Operation Khanjari on July 2, in Main Poshteh, Afghanistan.

During an armed conflict, war or civil war, more equipment is used, more fuel and ammo is consumed. Other classes of supply must consider a third variable besides usage and quantity: time. As equipment ages more and more repair parts are needed over time, even when usage and quantity stays consistent. By recording and analyzing these trends over time and applying to future scenarios, the US Military can accurately supply troops with the items necessary at the precise moment they are needed. History has shown that good logistical planning creates a lean and efficient fighting force. Lack thereof can lead to a clunky, slow, and ill-equipped force with too much or too little supply.

Spending

According to SIPRI, total world spending on military expenses in 2009 was $1.531 trillion US dollars. 46.5% of this total, roughly $712 billion US dollars, was spent by the United States. The privatization of the production and invention of military technology also leads to a complicated relationship with significant research and development of many technologies.
The Military budget of the United States for the 2009 fiscal year was $515.4 billion. Adding emergency discretionary spending and supplemental spending brings the sum to $651.2 billion. This does not include many military-related items that are outside of the Defense Department budget. Overall the United States government is spending about $1 trillion annually on defense-related purposes.
The defense industry tends to contribute heavily to incumbent members of Congress.



Military budget of the United States

The U.S. has the world's largest defense budget. In fiscal year 2010, the Department of Defense had a base budget of $533.8 billion. An additional $130.0 billion was requested for "Overseas Contingency Operations" in the War on Terrorism, and over the course of the year, an additional $33 billion in supplemental spending was added to Overseas Contingency Operations funding. Outside of direct Department of Defense spending, the U.S. spends another $218–262 billion each year on other defense-related programs, such as Veterans Affairs, Homeland Security, nuclear weapons maintenance, and the State Department.


“War on Terror” Changed to “Overseas Contingency Operations” (April 8, 2010)

By service, $225.2 billion was allocated for the Army, $171.7 billion for the Navy and Marine Corps, $160.5 billion for the Air Force and $106.4 billion for defense-wide spending. By function, $154.2 billion was requested for personnel, $283.3 billion for operations and maintenance, $140.1 billion for procurement, $79.1 billion for research and development, $23.9 billion for military construction, and $3.1 billion for family housing.
In fiscal year 2009, major defense programs also saw continued funding. $4.1 billion was requested for the next generation fighter, F-22 Raptor, which was to roll out an additional twenty planes for FY 2009. $6.7 billion was requested for the F-35 Lightning II, which is still in development. Sixteen planes will be built as part of the funding. The Future Combat System program is expected to see $3.6 billion for its development. A total of $12.3 billion was requested for missile defense, which includes Patriot CAP, PAC-3 and SBIRS-High. In his Fiscal Year 2011 budget, President Obama has proposed a 4% increase in Department of Defense spending, followed by a 9% decrease in FY 2012, with funding remaining level in subsequent years.
Loren Thompson has blamed the "vast sums of money" squandered on cutting-edge technology projects that were then canceled on short sighted political operatives who lack a long term perspective in setting requirements. The result is that the number of items bought under a given program are cut. The total development costs of the program are divided over fewer platforms, making the per-unit cost seem higher and so the numbers are cut again and again in a death spiral.
Critical parts of the Obama future years plan are the cost containment measures provided by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Obama administration's energy policy as health care and fuel costs are the two fastest growing parts of the defense budget.


The Future Combat System program is expected to see $3.6 billion for its development

Iron triangle (US politics)



In United States politics, the iron triangle is a term used by political scientists to describe the policy-making relationship among the congressional committees, the bureaucracy (executive) (sometimes called "government agencies"), and interest groups.
For example, within the federal government the three sides often consist of: various congressional committees, which are responsible for funding government programs and operations and then providing oversight of them; the federal agencies (often Independent agencies), which are responsible for the regulation of those affected industries; and last, the industries themselves, as well as their trade associations and lobbying groups, which benefit, or seek benefit, from these operations and programs.



An often-used example of the term is with reference to the military-industrial complex, with (1) Congress (and the House and Senate Committees on Armed Services), (2) defense contractors, and (3) the U.S. Department of Defense forming the iron triangle. The term iron triangle has been widely used by political scientists outside the United States and is today an accepted term in the field.

Carlyle Group



The Carlyle Group is an American-based global asset management firm, specializing in private equity, based in Washington, D.C. The Carlyle Group operates in four business areas: private equity, real assets, market strategies, and fund of funds, through its AlpInvest subsidiary. Carlyle's private equity business has been one of the largest investors in leveraged buyout transactions over the last decade, while its real estate business has actively acquired commercial real estate. Since its inception, Carlyle has completed investments in such notable companies as Booz Allen Hamilton, Dex Media, Dunkin' Brands, Freescale Semiconductor, Getty Images, HCR Manor Care, Hertz, Kinder Morgan, Nielsen, and United Defense.



Carlyle initially developed a reputation for acquiring businesses related to the defense industry. In 1992, Carlyle completed the acquisition of the Electronics division of General Dynamics Corporation, renamed GDE Systems, a producer of military electronics systems. Carlyle would later sell the business to Tracor in October 1994. Carlyle acquired Magnavox Electronic Systems, the military communications and electronic-warfare systems segment of Magnavox, from Philips Electronics in 1993. Carlyle sold Magnavox for approximately $370 million to Hughes Aircraft Company in 1995. Carlyle also invested in Vought Aircraft through a partnership with Northrop Grumman. Carlyle's most notable defense industry investment came in October 1997 with its acquisition of United Defense Industries. The $850 million acquisition of United Defense represented Carlyle's largest investment to that point. Carlyle was able to complete an IPO of United Defense on the New York Stock Exchange in December 2001 selling a significant portion of its interest in the company. Carlyle completed a sale of its remaining United Defense stock and exited the investment in April 2004. In more recent years, Carlyle has deemphasized its focus on defense industry investments.


Northrop Grumman Triton (Drone)

Carlyle's 2001 investor conference took place on September 11, 2001. In the weeks following the meeting, it was reported that a member of the Bin Laden family had been in attendance and that they were investors in Carlyle managed funds. Later reports confirmed that the Bin Laden family had invested $2 million into Carlyle's $1.3 billion Carlyle Partners II Fund in 1995, making the family relatively small investors with the firm. These connections would later be profiled in Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 911. The Bin Laden family liquidated its holdings in Carlyle's funds in October 2001.




War economy



A war economy is the set of contingencies undertaken by a modern state to mobilize its economy for war production. Philippe Le Billon describes a war economy as a "system of producing, mobilizing and allocating resources to sustain the violence." Some measures taken include the increasing of tax rates as well as the introduction of resource allocation programs. Needless to say, every country approaches the reconfiguration of its economy in a different way.



Many states increase the degree of planning in their economies during wars; in many cases this extends to rationing, and in some cases to conscription for civil purposes. Concerning the side of aggregate demand, the government's military budget stabilizes business cycles and fluctuations and/or is used to fight recessions.



On the supply side, it has been observed that wars sometimes have the effect of accelerating progress of technology to such an extent that an economy is greatly strengthened after the war, especially if it has avoided the war-related destruction. Some economists (such as Seymour Melman) argue, however, that the wasteful nature of much of military spending eventually can hurt technological progress.



Source: Wikipedia

[JustJohn or JJ]

BBC News Europe

28 August 2013 Last updated at 07:10 ET

Syria crisis: Gauging Russia's reactions to strike scenario

By Steven Rosenberg BBC News, Moscow



There are two subjects Russians talk about a lot: history and geography. In recent days, there's been much public discussion of both.

Russian officials and the media have been constantly recalling "Yugoslavia - 1999", "Iraq - 2003" and "Libya - 2011" as examples of Western military intervention which resulted in regime change.

The suspicion in Moscow is that the West is plotting to add "Syria - 2013" to the list.

One of the headlines this week in the Russian government daily Rossiskaya Gazeta was: "Will Obama risk repeating the Libyan-Iraqi scenario in Syria?"

Moscow appears now to be expecting a US strike on Syria. According to the head of the foreign affairs committee of the Russian Parliament, Alexei Pushkov: "It's only a question of time."

But the Russians have not stopped arguing their case that military intervention would be wrong.
'Monkey with a grenade'

First, Moscow maintains there is no proof that President Bashar al-Assad was behind the suspected chemical weapons attack in eastern Damascus.

If anything, argue the Russians, evidence points to the rebels carrying it out in order to scupper peace talks and to put pressure on the Syrian government.

Russia insists that UN weapons inspectors in Syria should be given time to complete their job, write up their report and present it to the UN Security Council.

Next, Russia continues to warn that military intervention will have "catastrophic consequences" for the wider region, including a rise in radical Islam. This week Russia's deputy prime minister tweeted that "the West is playing with the Islamic world like a monkey with a grenade".

Finally, Russia believes that any military action without a mandate from the UN Security Council would be a "grave violation of international law".

So if there is a military strike, how is Moscow likely to react?

On Wednesday, one of Russia's most popular tabloids, Komsomolskaya Pravda, warned that Western intervention could spark an East/West standoff akin to the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis.

"If optimists in the Pentagon believe that Russia will limit itself to warnings and expressions of anger, like it did over Iraq and Yugoslavia, they may well be mistaken," the paper declared on its website.

"Times have changed. There's too much at stake and Moscow won't retreat... Who'll crack first: Putin or Obama?"

Such sabre-rattling may be exaggerated. Although Moscow has been a firm ally of President Assad, Russia is unlikely to be drawn into direct military confrontation with the West.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has already made it clear that his country has "no plans to go to war with anyone".

But there are other ways in which Russia could display its disapproval of Western intervention and its anger with the United States.

Some commentators predict that Moscow may increase weapons supplies to Damascus, forge closer ties with Iran and reduce co-operation with Washington in different areas.

Relations between Russia and the West have been growing increasingly rocky.

There's little doubt that Western military intervention in Syria will make an already difficult relationship even more strained.

[karl]

J.J.

Opinions are like butts, every on has one. But, in this matter, I think perhaps the Americans needs be to listion for a change, for the Russians are not off target in their perceptions based upon fact and not by what he said, she said, I heard.

It would so appear as also the Brits are experienceing some difficulties in making crediable facts built upon such fragil evidence as presented.

If memory serves correctly, such was the case for invasion of Iraq. It was a built up farce created by imitation evidence that was not to stand the test of time. And of course, it was too late to back off once the ammunitions was expended into the country.

The appearance of all this, is such as child wishing for candy in a candy store, but not wishing to pay the price and in this stead, a grab and run situation.

It would so appear of a situation of mind set in the manner of prosicuting a war with out ground troops to accept casualtys. A clean bloodless war of combat for the other guy to die in this stead. Reality is not in this, nor of other wars the USA in past has conducted in the so called police action with out the declaration of war. In this stead, no defeat is encountered, simply a pull out of military forces and then call it a draw..

Air strikes with use of ship launched missils is fine, that is untill one of those extremely expensive stealth bombers is brought down by a lucky strike or from some hot shot pilot of the opposing forces. With this, an aircraft carrier is blown up to sink to the bottom. Then it is to the wailing wall for cease fire to sort things out.

As a person, my self am not against a war for survival, but this is simply non-sense, theses people are not a threat to the USA or others, they are simply nations advancing overly quickly and learning their way as we have. What is different is their manner of doing so. With this, not like us of European with our history of cruilty brought upon our selves with our wars.

With the above, what right do we have to prejudge these people?

Karl

[karl]

The following is a show and tell from the UK:
timesofnews.co/2013/08/29/uk-under-pressure-to-produce-syria-evidence/


HomeUnited Kingdom UK under pressure to produce Syria evidence


UK under pressure to produce Syria evidence

Posted about 6 hours ago


LONDON — An element of doubt Thursday crept into the British government’s ability to authorize military action on Syria.

British members of parliament are preparing for an emergency debate on the case for action in Syria, but the opposition Labour Party are insisting on seeing “compelling evidence” of the Syrian regime’s guilt over an alleged chemical attack before voting with Prime Minister David Cameron’s governing coalition.

Labour Party leader Ed Miliband said he was “determined we learn the lessons of the past, including (on) Iraq,” where much ballyhooed evidence of weapons of mass destruction was subsequently deemed to be false.

On Wednesday, Cameron reversed an earlier to decision to hold a single formal parliamentary vote that would specifically authorize British action prior to the conclusion of a report due from United Nations weapons inspectors.

Members of parliament will debate the motion Thursday, but a final vote from the United Kingdom on whether intervention should take place will now only come after U.N. investigators conclude their findings into the alleged chemical attack on Aug. 21 that may have killed hundreds.

Downing Street has said that the back down reflected the government’s “desire to proceed on a consensual basis,” but the move followed threats by the Labour Party not to support a possible strike.

Labour are insisting that the U.N. inspectors be given more time to deliver their report to the U.N. Security Council.

A British draft resolution authorizing “necessary measures” to protect Syrian civilians was delivered to the Security Council in New York on Wednesday, where it was discussed.

Separately, ahead of today’s parliamentary vote — due to take place around 10 p.m. local time (5 p.m. ET) — the British government received a letter from the Syrian government seeking a peaceful solution to the crisis.


“We implore you to communicate through civilized dialogue rather than a monologue of blood and fire,” the letter said, according to the BBC, who obtained a copy. The open letter was sent by the Syrian parliament speaker who also invited British MPs to send a delegation to the Mideast nation.

The U.N. inspection team will be leaving Syria by Saturday as its two-week mandate comes to an end, chief Ban Ki-moon said Thursday. Ban — speaking in Vienna on Thursday — said all opinions should be heard before anyone makes decisions on how to react to the alleged attacks.

President Obama said Wednesday he has concluded the Syrian regime is behind the attack. However, it’s not clear if Western powers will wait for the U.N. experts’ findings before launching a possible punitive military strike.

U.S. officials, the Associated Press reported, say the intelligence linking the Syrian President Bashar Assad or his inner circle to the alleged chemical weapons attack that killed at least 100 people is no “slam dunk.”

The officials say, AP reported, that questions remain about who controls some of Syria’s chemical weapons stores, and there are doubts about whether Assad himself ordered such a strike.

Both the U.S. and the U.K. are expected to reveal as early as Thursday evidence to support claims chemical weapons were used by Damascus.



Presenter

Karl