Sunday, April 3, 2011

back to pre-war condition of 1939

NATO is significantly increasing its military presence in the Black Sea basin. According to the head of the European Command of the Armed Forces U.S. Admiral James Stavridis, U.S. Marine Corps will expand its activities in the Black Sea region. According to the official version of Stavridis, who, incidentally, at the same time holds the position of Supreme Allied Commander (OER) of NATO in Europe, the increase in the number of U.S. Marines is due to the need for training of the allied forces for their further deployment to Afghanistan. According to Stavridis, in 2011 the U.S. has planned various kinds of interaction with as many as 14 Black Sea region countries, to include the preparation of the Armies of partner states for deployment to Afghanistan and training their sergeant staff. However, he did not specify which countries he had in mind. Even if we were to include Moldavia in the list of the countries of the Black Sea region, there would not be as many as 14 states. Russia, Ukraine, Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey and Georgia have full access to the Black Sea. The interaction with the Russian side is obviously not planned. Perhaps, Stavridis had in mind the countries of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation that include Armenia, Azerbaijan, Greece, Serbia and Albania? In this case we have only 11 potential partners of America in the region. Moreover, Armenia and Serbia are reluctant to send their troops to the Afghan war. Stavridis may have included Poland to the list of the Black Sea region countries. According to his confession, along with two Georgian battalions, his subordinates have prepared a couple of Polish brigades. Given the old dream of the Polish elite to be stretching "from one sea to another," it is clearly not opposed to be among the Black Sea region countries. Yet, this does not give an exhaustive answer about Washington's plans in the region. Even more questions arise concerning the preparation for the Afghan operation. First, the Georgian military will be prepared for operations against the Taliban not in Afghanistan but at home, although the terrains of the two countries differ markedly. Second, according to Stavridis, the parties have already commenced joint exercises. In the course of the exercise the forces of the U.S. Navy practiced the use of unmanned aerial vehicles that ran on board the ships, and other maneuvers. A key role was played by warships that clearly practiced strikes at the coast. It also seems a bit strange, because even if they wanted, they would not be able to send the fleet to Afghanistan. At the same time, the Royal Marines of the British Royal Navy are conducting strange trainings with their Ukrainian counterparts near the main base of the Russian Black Sea Fleet. The trainings are held in the Old Crimea, at the base of the Black Sea Marine Corps training center of coastal defense troops of the Ukrainian Navy. According to the legend of the maneuvers, they represent "workshops to share experiences in carrying out peacekeeping missions." What are the real objectives pursued by NATO countries in the region? A captain of 1st rank, 1st Vice-President of the Academy of Geopolitical Issued answered this question for "The Americans, in addition to the preparation of cannon meat from the satellite countries for participation in the punitive operations against Afghanistan, are preparing for combat action in the Black Sea area. This time it will no longer be a local conflict like the war of 2008, but a large-scale war. It suffices to recall the statement made by head of the Academy of Military Sciences Gareev on March 26 where he touched upon this topic. In addition, this same conclusion can be drawn from the available data on building groups of NATO in the Black Sea basin and at Russia's western borders. The U.S. is starting to deploy new military bases in Poland and upgrade existing ones to receive a much larger number of troops. The military buildup of NATO to Russian borders clearly indicates that the preparation for aggression is in full swing. We must pay tribute to U.S. troops by saying that the preparation for a strike against a possible military adversary is in all respects conducted at the highest professional level. The fact that the British, with the approval of our Ukrainian brothers, are honing the skills of warfare in the Crimea near Sevastopol, too, speaks volumes. These are the links of one chain, because since the establishment of the Rockefeller, International oligarchic capital has adopted a common policy of aggression against other countries. In fact, if we draw historical parallels, the world is in a state of 1939, i.e., before the start of a global war, whose precursor is the aggression of the U.S. and its satellites against Iraq and Afghanistan, and this time against Libya. The only question is when this "Black Sea Libya" happens. It is not that the Americans and their European satellites are the bad guys, it's just that the prosperity of their economies depends on the control of the world's raw materials resources. In a crisis, they have no other choice. With regard to the outbreak of the conflict with Russia, there are more than enough reasons for it." For example, the Georgian scenario may be played out again, or the Libyan scenario may be attempted as well. The West is very sensitive to terrorist groups operating in the North Caucasus. A look at the western press is sufficient to understand how these events are covered. After another successful raid carried out against militants, NATO can submit a voice in defense of the "revolutionaries and guerrillas," and further continue to operate under the planned scenario.

Reason for war? Gaddafi wanted to nationalise oil

The Libyan leader proposed the nationalisation of U.S. oil companies, as well as those of UK, Germany, Spain, Norway, Canada and Italy in 2009. On January 25, 2009, Muammar Al Gaddafi announced that his country was studying the nationalisation of foreign companies due to lower oil prices. "The oil-exporting countries should opt for nationalisation because of the rapid fall in oil prices. We must put the issue on the table and discuss it seriously," said Gaddafi. "Oil should be owned by the State at this time, so we could better control prices by the increase or decrease in production," said the Libyan leader. These statements have worried the main foreign companies operating in Libya: Anglo-Dutch Shell, British Petroleum, U.S. ExxonMobil, Hess Corp., Marathon Oil, Occidental Petroleum and ConocoPhillips, the Spanish Repsol, Germany's Wintershall, Austria's OMV , Norway's Statoil, Eni and Canada's Petro Canada. In 2008, the Libyan state oil company, National Oil, prepared a report on the subject in which officials suggested modifying the production-sharing agreements with foreign companies in order to increase state revenues. As a result of these contract changes, Libya gained 5.4 billion dollars in oil revenues. On February 16, 2009, Gaddafi took a step further and called on Libyans to back his proposal to dismantle the government and to distribute the oil wealth directly to the 5 million inhabitants of the country. However, his plan to deliver oil revenues directly to the Libyan people met opposition by senior officials who could lose their jobs due to a parallel plan by Gaddafi to rid the state of corruption. Some officials, including Prime Minister Al-Baghdadi, Ali Al-Mahmoudi and Farhat Omar Bin Guida, of the Central Bank, told Gaddafi that the measure could harm the country's economy in the long term due to "capital flight." "Do not be afraid to directly redistribute the oil money and create fairer governance structures that respond to people's interests," Gaddafi said in a Popular Committee. The Popular Committees are the backbone of Libya. Through them citizens are represented at the district level. "The Administration has failed and the state's economy has failed. Enough is enough. The solution is for the Libyan people to directly receive oil revenues and decide what to do with them," Gaddafi said in a speech broadcast on state television. To this end, the Libyan leader urged a radical reform of government bureaucracy. Despite this, senior Libyan government officials voted to delay Gaddafi's plans. Only 64 ministers from a total of 468 Popular Committee members voted for the measure. There were 251 who saw the measures as positive, but chose to delay their implementation. Given the rejection of the Committee, Gaddafi affirmed before a public meeting: "My dream during all these years was to give the power and wealth directly to the people." So...another big LIE falls by the wayside, the false image of Ghaddafi the dictator who robs from his people. So far we have had pictures of pro-Ghaddafi demonstrations being portrayed as being against him. The professional, foreign and Photoshop nature of anti-Ghaddafi posters being bandied about were noted, along with signs being held upside down by people not knowing the alphabet placed on the signs. We have had pictures of one sided battles where heavily armed terrorists are "fighting" with nobody. We have had reports, glaringly false, that Ghaddafi was fleeing the country. We have had more than enough reports of bombings against his own people that never happened, as well as attacks against "unarmed civilians" that proved to be incorrect. It is patently obvious that there are no "unarmed civilians" involved in these actions against Ghaddafi, but CIA and other intelligence service mercenaries, foreign elements and Al Qaeda. It has been brought to light that the living standard in Libya is the highest in Africa and that Libya was to be commended for its human rights record. How many lies do we have to catch them in before somebody in charge buys a clue? It's no sale! They try to portray Ghaddafi as crazy when he speaks of fighting Al Qaeda and now they have to admit it's true.Two documents strongly back Gaddafi on this issue, according to the findings of Alexander Cockburn. "The first is a secret cable to the State Department from the US embassy in Tripoli in 2008, part of the WikiLeaks trove, entitled, "Extremism in Eastern Libya," which revealed that this area is rife with anti-American, pro-jihad sentiment. The second document, or rather set of documents, are the so-called Sinjar Records, captured al-Qaeda documents that fell into American hands in 2007. They were duly analysed by the Combating Terrorism Center at the US Military Academy at West Point. Al-Qaeda is a bureaucratic outfit and the records contain precise details on personnel, including those who came to Iraq to fight American and coalition forces and, when necessary, commit suicide. The West Point analysts' statistical study of the al-Qaeda personnel records concludes that one country provided "far more" foreign fighters in per capita terms than any other: namely, Libya." So who is the crazy one? Obviously that gang of lunatics savagely launching attacks on Libya based on the worst collection of lies in the history of the world. If you want to know where they are headed, just look at their track record, littered with genocide, theft and destruction. More and more evidence is surfacing that this entire operation has been planned from outside (read U.S. and EU) for quite some time. First surround (Egypt and Tunisia), then invade. Wesley Clarke revealed the laundry list which included Libya. In the U.S., there is a particulary motley group of interventionist war mongers who don't know what they're doing: Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton and Samantha Power, obviously sexually frustrated and repressed man hating lesbians who want to prove they are he-men. We are also seeing attacks on residential areas, many civilians being killed. There have been attacks on Ghaddafi's living area, a clear attempt at assassination. Today intelligence also reports they plan a ground invasion. The fascists of the west never change. The term "humanitarian bombing" reminds of George Orwell doublespeak. One can only heartily agree on Gaddafi's statement: They are "a group of crazy fascists that will end in the garbage dump of history." History will surely judge them on the same page as Adolph Hitler