USI Ends World Peace

By Jim Kirwan
6-18-14

The United States has changed its military doctrine in favor of using nuclear weapons for preemptive purposes, an analyst writes for Press TV.

k) USI embraces Nuclear First Strike weapons to assure absolute global dominance

“US war doctrine has been changed. US nuclear weapons are no longer restricted to a retaliatory force, but have been elevated to the role of preemptive nuclear attack,” Paul Craig Roberts wrote in a column for Press TV website.

The analyst’s article comes against the backdrop of ongoing tensions between Russia and the US over Ukraine. Washington has long accused Moscow of interfering in Ukraine by providing arms and support to pro-Russian protesters in the East European country. Russia dismisses allegations of involvement in Ukraine’s unrest.

“Washington has begun the run-up to the Third World War, and Europeans seem to be onboard,” wrote Roberts, adding that the US government has been “demonizing Russia…with shameless lies and propaganda” in an attempt to prepare Americans and its allies for “war with Russia.”

“Having lost ‘the war on terror’ in Iraq and Afghanistan, Washington needs a replacement and has set about resurrecting the Cold War,” the analyst wrote, referring to the US-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 and subsequently of Iraq two years later.

He said some US policymakers wrongly assume that a “nuclear war” would prevent the “rise of Russia and China as checks on Washington’s hegemony over the world.”

“Washington and its media whores continue to beat the drums for war,” wrote the analyst.” http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/06/18/367536/us-shifts-nuclear-strategy-to-first-strike/

Many people believe that all the wars in Iran, Iraq and most of the nations in the Middle East are solely based on religious affiliations. They want the world to believe this lie because that would justify the idea that peace can never be achieved so long as this schism exists. That is just not true.

“Tony Blair has been widely derided for his attempted justification of the 2003 Iraq invasion and his claim last weekend that he's blameless over the current turmoil. Unfortunately, though, many of his critics have also bought into a central plank of his argument: that Iraqi society is no more than a motley collection of religions and ethnicities which have been waiting for decades, if not centuries, to slaughter each other and plunge the place into a bloodbath.

Neither side, though, has yet produced historical evidence of significant communal fighting between Iraq's religions, sects, ethnicities or nationalities. … Despite popular myths, the majority of Ba'ath party founders were Shia. However, Iraqi Ba'athist ideology always had a racist dimension against the Kurdish people and non-Arabs ­ as well as a class orientation, when in power, that marginalized millions in the poorest sections of society, mostly in the south. Southern Iraq and some areas of Baghdad, populated by mostly Shia migrants from southern rural areas, have historically been home to the poorest people.

Iraq's biggest mass organization from the 1940s to the 60s was the Iraqi Communist party, founded in 1934 by activists from all religious and ethnic backgrounds. It was the strongest party even in Iraqi Kurdistan, and remained a mass party until its leadership decided to join Saddam's regime in 1973 ­ against the wishes of most party members. Saddam launched a vicious campaign against the ICP in 1978-9, and the party lost its raison d'être after joining the Iraq Governing Council set up after the occupation in 2003….

One of the greatest testaments to the tolerance that exists between the various communities in Iraq is that Baghdad still has up to a million Kurds, who have never experienced communal violence by Arabs. Similarly, about 20% of Basra's population is Sunni. Samarra, a mostly Sunni city, is home to two of the most sacred Shia shrines. Its Sunni clergy have been the custodians of the shrines for centuries.

Every tribe in Iraq has Sunnis and Shia in its ranks. Every town and city has a mix of communities. My experience of Iraq, and that of all friends and relatives, is that of an amazing mix of coexisting communities, despite successive divide-and-rule regimes.

The most serious sectarian and ethnic tensions in Iraq's modern history followed the 2003 US-led occupation, which faced massive popular opposition and resistance. The US had its own divide-and-rule policy, promoting Iraqi organizations founded on religion, ethnicity, nationality or sect rather than politics. Many senior officers in the newly formed Iraqi army came from these organizations and Saddam's army. This was exacerbated three years ago, when sectarian groups in Syria were backed by the US, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. …” http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article38845.htm

In my own experience with Lebanese, Iranians and Iraqis as well as Jordanians; the vast majority of the people in those countries support each other regardless of religious affiliations—because they have always gotten along. The religious schisms were introduced when USI attacked Iran in order to establish strict separations between the religious factions to further USI war efforts centered on Divide & Conquer.

In Iran, for instance, the ceaseless sanctions that were laid on Iran not to hinder a hostile government but to damage their native population. The goal was to so embitter the public against the then resented Mullah’s, to the degree, that ordinary Iranians would dump their existing government and embrace the US, to get rid of sanctions.

USI never understood that regardless of their anger, with their government; Iranians would never embrace foreign conquerors, for any reason. And similar emotions ran through the other people of the Middle East as well. So dividing so many nations in the entire region into religious factions is just another false-flag that only exists in the minds of would be conquerors.

And in Iran’s case: Iran has not attacked another nation for over 300 years—yet we have attacked Iran three times already. The first time in the 1950’s when USI overthrew their democratically elected leader, and replaced him with an American puppet (just as was so recently done in Kiev). We then attacked Iran again when the Iranian people overthrew the Shah of Iran in 1970, and brought in their own revolutionary government; that led to the takeover of the American Embassy which lasted for 444 days.

The third time began in 1979 with the sanctions we began after the release of the hostages. (We also overlooked the Arms for Hostages deal that Reagan & Bush one put in place, along with the American Death Squads and the drugs the CIA dealt behind that black-op curtain).

That was the same war that sponsored the current sanctions that were amplified once Iran began to legally develop peaceful nuclear energy. Yet despite our two previous attacks upon Iran: Plus the 8 years that Iran had to fight off Saddam, who made war upon them for USI and still we characterize them as terrorists, while it’s the USI that has always sought to dominate and control Iran by aggression and wars unending. The sanctions on Iran are internationally illegal and in fact are acts of belligerent war in themselves—yet we still demonize Iran solely because they refused to surrender to USI or Israel under any circumstances.

If Americans are going to go to war again: At least this time we ought to go in knowing what and who we will be fighting either for or against. But that’s the one thing that USI & the Israeli Zionistas are determined to prevent!

The Cornerstone for our Patterns of Deceit is just the Brutal Logic of a Self-Seeking Empire

“… Looking at the Bush and Obama foreign policy teams—no doubt the most shallow and intellectually lazy members of that guild to occupy White House in the years since World War II—it is easy to see how they might arrive at this conclusion.

But perhaps an even more compelling reason for adopting this analytical posture is that it allows these men of clear progressive tendencies to maintain one of the more hallowed, if oft-unstated, beliefs of the Anglo-Saxon world view.

What is that?

It is the idea that our engagements with the world outside our borders—unlike those of, say, the Russians and the Chinese—are motivated by a strongly felt, albeit often corrupted, desire to better the lives of those whose countries we invade.

While this belief seems logical, if not downright self-evident within our own cultural system, it is frankly laughable to many, if not most, of the billions who have grown up outside of our moralizing echo chamber.

What do they know that most of us do not know, or perhaps more accurately, do not care to admit. First, that we are an empire, and that all empires are, without exception, brutally and programmatically self-seeking.

Second, that one of the prime goals of every empire is to foment ongoing internecine conflict in the territories whose resources and/or strategic outposts they covet.

Third, that the most efficient way of sparking such open-ended internecine conflict is to brutally smash the target country’s social matrix and physical infrastructure.

Fourth, that ongoing unrest has the additional perk of justifying the maintenance and expansion of the military machine that feeds the financial and political fortunes of the metropolitan elite.

In short, what of the most of the world understands (and what even the most “prestigious” Anglo-Saxon analysts cannot seem to admit) is that divide and rule is about as close as it gets to a universal recourse the imperial game and that it is, therefore, as important to bear it in mind today as it was in the times of Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, the Spanish Conquistadors and the British Raj…

…To read the cold-blooded imperial reasoning in both of these documents—which speak, in the first case, quite openly of the need to destabilize the region so as to reshape Israel’s “strategic environment” and, in the second of the need to dramatically increase the number of US “forward bases” in the region—as I did twelve years ago, and to recognize its unmistakable relationship to the underlying aims of the wars then being started by the US in Afghanistan and Iraq, was a deeply disturbing experience.

To do so now, after the US’s systematic destruction of Iraq and Libya—two notably oil-rich countries whose delicate ethnic and religious balances were well known to anyone in or out of government with more than passing interest in history—, and after the its carefully calibrated efforts to generate and maintain murderous and civilization-destroying stalemates in Syria and Egypt (something that is easily substantiated despite our media’s deafening silence on the subject), is downright blood-curdling.

And yet, it seems that for even very well-informed analysts, it is beyond the pale to raise the possibility that foreign policy elites in the US and Israel, like all virtually and all the ambitious hegemons before them on the world stage, might have quite coldly and consciously fomented open-ended chaos in order to achieve their overlapping strategic objectives in this part of the world.”

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article38844.htm

k) It is in this light that we need to see and beware of the nuclear posture which the US has just unilaterally adopted!

End of Part Two

kirwanstudios@sbcglobal.net