World Affairs Brief March 3, 2006 Copyright Joel Skousen. Partial quotations with attribution permitted. Cite source as Joel Skousen's World Affairs Brief
(http://www.worldaffairsbrief.com)
this guy is not the greatest, but take as added info
I wish I understood how people can think that totalitarianism is ok
well, that requires them to understand what fascism is though
I wish people would try to stop the military-industrial cancer
/ jim
SHIITE GOLDEN DOME EXPLOSION: INSIDE JOB?
- done by Iraqi Govt guys tied to USA, to keep Shiites from control
IRAN AND RUSSIA INK NUKE ENRICHMENT DEAL, BUT IT WON'T FLY
- dream on, Iran wants to keep some control
DUBAI PORT DEAL LACED WITH INSIDER DEALING
- Snow, Carlysles, Bush Family, the usual suspects
- Dubai is a CIA satellite city
- watch Israel political forces kill this deal
MORE NEO-CONS PLAYING THE ANTI-BUSH ROLE
- setting up for new round of NeoCons to take over
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
SHIITE GOLDEN DOME EXPLOSION: INSIDE JOB?
As I alluded to last week, evidence is emerging that the demolition of the Shiite Golden dome in Samarra was deliberately provoked by agents close to the US-controlled Iraq government. It was not a fast hit-and-run terror attack, as initially reported, but rather a carefully planned demolition that required uninterrupted access to the mosque for 4 to 12 hours. It also required that someone from the Interior Ministry, which controls the guards at the shrine, replace the normal contingent of 35 guards with only 5 incompetents.
Cairo's Al-Ahram newspaper reports that "Construction Minister Jassem Mohammed Jaafar, who toured Samarra and inspected the damage incurred to the shrine, said the placing of explosives inside the dome was meticulous and must have taken at least 12 hours. 'Holes were dug into the mausoleum's four main pillars and packed with explosives,' he told the media, adding that work on each pillar must have taken at least four hours." A crew of 12 workers could have done it in 4 hours. One witness say 10 commandos dressed in National Guard uniforms entered the building.
Other witnesses testified that there was "unusual activities by the Iraqi National Guard [ING] in the area around the mosque." Al-Samarraj reports tended to confirm this: "Two mosque guards reported four men in ING uniforms had blindfolded them and planted explosives. A second witness, Muhammad al-Samarrai, the owner of an internet cafe in the area, was told to stay in his store and not leave the area. From 11 p.m. until 6:30 a.m., ten minutes before two bombs were detonated, the area surrounding the mosque was patrolled by joint forces of Iraqi ING and Americans."
Someone in the Interior Ministry definitely wants to halt any independent investigation of witnesses. Al-Ahram continues: "Hoping to find answers and interview residents of Samarra, the Al-Arabiya news network dispatched three of its journalists, including former Al Jazeera reporter Atwar Bahjat, herself a native of the ancient city. Sources in Iraq say she was interviewing residents when a truck full of unknown armed men abducted her as she screamed for help. Bahjat, 30, of mixed Sunni-Shia heritage, was found executed outside Samarra, along with her cameraman and sound technician. Her field equipment and video were missing."Â According to Iraqi blogger Zeyad of Healing Iraq, quoting other Iraqi sources, "Bahjat had been filming the arrest of two Iranians in Samarra who were let go when Interior Minister Baqer Jabr arrived on the scene."
Investigative Reporter Kurt Nimmo also noted that the ING may have been facilitating the reprisals that followed the attack: "In addition to apparently facilitating the mosque bombing, Iraqi National Guard troops provided assistance to 'more than a dozen masked Shia gunmen' attacking the Sunni al-Quds mosque in western Baghdad in the wake of the Samarra attack, according to the Times Online. In addition, 'gunmen arrived [at the Maakel prison in Basra] in a fleet of cars and showed documents which claimed that they were from the Interior Ministry . . . and lynched at least eleven Sunni inmates, among them at least two Egyptians.'"
US spokesmen were quick to suggest that Iran was behind the violence, trying to destabilize the newly elected Iraqi government. However, this is completely illogical as sometimes cynical commentator Oswald Spengler said, "One reads dire predictions everywhere that civil conflict in Iraq might lead to regional war. That is true, but no one fears this more than the government of Iran . . . That is why Tehran's policy all along has been to support US efforts on behalf of constitutional government in Iraq to bring that country's Shiite majority into power by peaceful means . . .
Despite Iranian efforts to build up the capabilities of Shi'ite irregulars inside Iraq, the capabilities of the Sunni military caste remain formidable even after the dissolution of the Saddam Hussein regime, and the outcome of full-fledged civil war would be uncertain. Power within Iraq now is balanced the way the British intended it to be when they stitched together this Frankenstein monster of a country after World War I." Spengler feels like the US motive is similar to the British--institutionalize friction and conflict in order to justify continued control: "In fact, the worst outcome from the vantage point of Washington's interest would be a stable constitutional government in Iraq. Once Shiite elements controlled leading ministries, Iran would have unlimited means to meddle in the classic Middle Eastern style of infiltration, bribery and intimidation. Middle Eastern governments, after all, are not governments in the Western sense, but rather hotels in which different factions rent rooms. With footholds inside the Iraqi government, Iran could develop."
That is why corruption and pay-offs are always present in Middle Eastern government, and why raw democracy will not work within the conflicted theories of Islam. It is a system of power politics, and the US is facilitating those power struggles by making sure the Shiite government is destabilized and compromised by power-sharing with the Sunnis and Kurds. It is also why Iraqi guerrillas are not really concentrating on Americans as much as Iraqis. As Asia Times reports: "White-collar professionals such as doctors and academics are being targeted in the violence sweeping Iraq. 'Really we don't know exactly who they are, but I am sure these criminals are not normal and they get training in other countries,' said Ali al-Obeidi, a doctor in Mosul. 'They know very well what they are doing . . Their purpose is to destroy Iraq from the inside.'"
IRAN AND RUSSIA INK NUKE ENRICHMENT DEAL, BUT IT WON'T FLY
No less than 3 times in the past week, Iran and Russia have announced a final deal transferring Iran's nuclear enrichment program to Russia--a move the US says will fully satisfy its concerns about Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program. That, in and of itself, is a strange piece of stupidity given America's extensive experience with Russia cheating on all agreements that weren't to their strategic advantage.
But even more strange is Iran's suicidal insistence on still retaining it's own indigenous nuclear enrichment program. True, this is a technical right accorded all signers of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, but in practice, the major nuclear powers claim the sole right to determine who will join the nuclear weapons club and who won't--unless a nation can get there without permission and declare its weapons a fait accompli--as India and Pakistan have done with help from Russia and China.
Iran is the next target for conflict. I don't think it will lead to WWIII directly, but a US strike on Iran will aid in the overall antagonism against America. In any case, as a tactical move, Iran's insistence at openly doing its own enrichment is flagrantly provocative and makes the cover Russia is willing to provide useless. Under the Russian enrichment deal, Iran could get away with anything it wanted to, and Russia would provide cover. But to openly flaunt the issue looks to me like an open invitation to the US and Israel saying, "Come and Get Me!" I'm beginning to wonder if those really controlling Iran are perhaps setting it up for an attack on purpose. It wouldn't be the first time.
Indian connection: To complete US hypocrisy on the nuclear enrichment issue, India is being granted full access to US "fast breeder reactors" even though it's a rogue nuclear threat to the subcontinent. All the US is asking is that India voluntarily separate its military and civilian nuclear programs (as if that were really possible). While the details hammered out this week are complex, India will be allowed to take its "fast breeder" reactors off the international inspection list as well as all its current reactors that are producing fuel for nuclear weapons. Only the new nuclear plants provided by the US and Europe will be subject to international inspections. What's to keep India from copying the newest technology and implementing it within their nuclear plants exempt from international scrutiny? Nothing.
Bush desperately wants to ink the deal on his trip to India.
There are several reasons:
1)It's a big financial deal to the US nuclear industry, long denied the building of any new nuclear power plants in the US due to overzealous environmental restrictions and costs (conveniently forcing us into building more natural gas fired plants, which are now causing a shortage in natural gas supplies).
2)It's a big lever to get India to back out of the proposed Iran-India gas pipeline deal, which the US opposes. The US wants Iran isolated, with as few nations as possible having economic links and vested interests in defending Iran.
3) Playing up to India is supposed to be a key strategy in containing or counter-balancing China's influence in the region. But this is naive. In reality, India has never risen to any level of military power sufficient to challenge any of the major powers, especially China. When push comes to shove in the next war, India will fall right back into it's old Sino-Soviet block alliance--with only a tip of the hat to the US as thanks for all of the technology transfers and lucrative outsourcing contracts.
4) There is another dangerous level of technology transfer going on in this deal, that is not widely known. The US is offering India high tech "space launch" technology that has direct applications to India's quest for long-range ballistic missiles. This is the same treasonous technology transfer that the Clinton administration allowed to pass to China through the Loral Corporation. I don't believe this is a bone thrown to an insider-connected corporation as much as a dangerous strategy to supply India with a weapons technology that gives India military clout she never had before.
Together, the two technology transfers to India makes this package the most dangerous expansion of nuclear proliferation since the Nixon-Kissinger team gave Russia the miniature ball bearing technology, which enabled Russia to built extreme accuracy into her multiple warhead ballistic missile guidance systems. Congressional opposition is already brewing to the Indian nuclear giveaway. Time will only tell if the opposition is feigned or real.
DUBAI PORT DEAL LACED WITH INSIDER DEALING
The more information surfaces about ceding control of major US port facilities to a company owned and controlled by the United Arab Emirates, the more it looks like Dubai is operating as a major financial conduit for petro-dollars finding their way back into the coffers of insider connected US corporations linked to the dark side of government. The port deal is only the tip of the iceberg. Here's what we know this week:
1) According to CNN, "The oil-rich United Arab Emirates is a major investor in The Carlyle Group, the private equity investment firm where President Bush's father once served as senior adviser and is a who's who of former high-level government officials. Just last year, Dubai International Capital, a government-backed buyout firm, invested in an $8 billion Carlyle fund." The Carlyle group is perhaps the most omni-present financial backer of US mercenary corporations and other dark-side government operations.
2) In 2002, the Carlyle Group bought CSX Lines, the US-flag container shipping subsidiary of CSX Inc. that gave Carlyle control over the nation's largest Jones Act container fleet. It was renamed Horizon Lines LLC. John Snow, the CEO of CSX, was then appointed by Pres. Bush to become Treasury Secretary. According to an industry publication, Bridge Deck, "Carlyle's other maritime holdings include Seabulk International, formerly Hvide Marine, which owns and operates 10 Jones Act tankers in the Gulf of Mexico. Through United Defense Industries, Carlyle controls United States Marine Repair, the nation's largest non-nuclear ship repair and conversion company." Now we are beginning to see a connection with Dubai Ports and Carlyles holdings. Other links will undoubtedly come forth. All of this effort to build monolithic control of US ports does NOT seem to be an issue of handing America's ports over to foreign control, but an Arab nation (with access to petro dollars) being privileged to join in the wealth-making connections of US insider corporations and profit thereby--far in excess of what could be gained by investing in low interest Treasury Bonds.
3) Wayne Madsen reports that the Bush family connections to US Dubai and Kuwaiti are worth further scrutiny: "Neil [Bush] also developed close connections to the Maktoum family of Dubai, the same family that has interests in the state-owned firm, Dubai Ports World." The President's brother, who was deeply involved in illicit government-connected money operations in the Denver area that resulted in the failure of Silverado Savings and Loan, has an educational software company being funded by Dubai sources. Neil Bush also landed lucrative contracts with the Kuwaiti Ministry of Electricity and Water, through insider influence, with no prior background into this industry. After a 1993 junket to Kuwait with father Geo. H. W. Bush, son Marvin--a novice to the brokerage field--brokered several lucrative defense contracts between the Kuwaitis and US defense corporations, reaping high commissions.
4) Dubai Ports is still pushing the international boycott of all products originating in Israel. This revelation has the Jewish lobby in Congress up in arms. If anything is going to sink this port deal, it will be the specter of American ports being closed to Israeli goods.
5) Airport terminal 2 in Dubai is a major transit point for all the weapons and material being air-freighted into middle-east theater of operations. CorpWatch says, "Dubai airport's Terminal Two [is] possibly the busiest commercial terminal in the world for the 'global war of terrorism.'" US secret ops have the run of the place--no customs, no checks. Everything is wide open to the CIA and other military commands. People on the ground say this side of the Dubai airport is a mini puppet-state of the US defense establishment. So, who is taking over who, really?
6) Nothing could be more symptomatic of insider-dealing on the Dubai deal than the revelations that "North Carolina Sen. Elizabeth Dole's husband, former Sen. Bob Dole, has been hired by Dubai Ports World to help shepherd the company through a $6.8 billion deal to control terminals at six U.S. ports."Despite this, Dole continues to claim she is a "concerned critic" of the deal. Sure. Who will we discover next is on the payroll of this outfit?
All of this tends to explain why the President, as a script reader, would be induced to defend this increasingly embarrassing deal--one that he knew nothing about, and yet could vouch for its utter safety and security vis-a-vis American interests. The various business incarnations of the UAE appear to be mere fronts for US secret operations. Those are the "American interests" the President is defending. But that isn't going to hit the evening news. What will hit the news is that the President is going to look very foolish defending this deal. It is becoming a another in the long list of liabilities the President is facing and is contributing to the continued decline in his popularity ratings.
Karl Rove is no longer being looked upon as a boy genius in strategizing for the President's image. No one in their right might would have advocated putting the reputation of the President on the line for this lemon deal. Bush hasn't vetoed a single piece of legislation his entire career, and now he's going to lay it all on the line by threatening to veto any bill challenging the Dubai Ports option? Frankly, this looks like more of the strategy to set Bush up for ridicule--keeping the US president looking like a hick cowboy and feeding the world's growing disgust of America's government.
MORE NEO-CONS PLAYING THE ANTI-BUSH ROLE
In light of the above, it is also no surprise that three other Neo-cons seem to be positioning themselves in opposition to the president. Frank Gaffney, founder and president of the Washington-based Center for Security Policy (CSP), and funded by insider U.S. defense contractors, was the first to make the Dubai Ports deal a major issue. Gaffney is deep inside Globalist circles and is a mentor to many of the new crop of up-and-coming Neo-cons strategists. Why would he turn on Bush and contribute to the drumbeat of embarrassment?
I think it has to do with two long-term strategies. 1) Bush is being set up to take the blame when retaliation comes against the US for its arrogance and continual meddling in the Middle East, and 2) Prominent Neo-cons are picked to set themselves up as a new opposition to take favorable advantage of the inevitable rejection of Neo-conservatism someday. These few can say "I told you so," and go on to lead America into the next phase of globalist manipulation. Neo-cons themselves are former liberals who switched sides in order to lead during the next "conservative" phase of American globalism.
Gaffney isn't alone. Robert Parry reports that, "conservative legend William F. Buckley Jr. and neoconservative icon Francis Fukuyama have joined the swelling ranks of Americans judging George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq a disaster." Buckley has always been a phony conservative. He began his rise to wealth and power after his induction into the Satanic rituals of the Skull and Bones society of Yale--like George W. Bush and hundreds of other government leaders in the past century.
"Fukuyama, a leading neoconservative theorist, went further citing not just the disaster in Iraq but the catastrophe enveloping Bush's broader strategy of preemptive military American interventions, waged unilaterally when necessary. 'The so-called Bush Doctrine that set the framework for the administration's first term is now in shambles,' Fukuyama wrote Feb. 19 in The New York Times Magazine."
This is significant. Fukuyama is not only attacking the futility of the continuing war in Iraq, but the overall Neo-con strategy of constant global intervention. This is heresy for a globalist. Of course, this intervention isn't going to stop, and Fukuyama hasn't repented of being a globalist. Intervention in the name of democracy is the core plan for building hatred against the US and setting America up for the preemptive nuclear strikes planned by Russia and China in the next decade. Fukuyama, like Gaffney, is merely setting himself up to be one of the next generation leaders that will continue to deceive Americans when the next war comes and people demand change. They'll get only the appearance of change--and that's all America deserves, because they haven't learned anything from the deceptions of George W. Bush and his conservative/Christian charade. This kind of change is NOT about seeing the light. It's all about pre-preparing the next group of national "saviors" and "wise men."
- end - |
