11.28.2008

RED ALERT: India/Pakistan

Filed under: General — citizen X @ 6.14 pm

Summary

If the Nov. 26 attacks in Mumbai were carried out by Islamist militants as it appears, the Indian government will have little choice, politically speaking, but to blame them on Pakistan. That will in turn spark a crisis between the two nuclear rivals that will draw the United States into the fray.

mumbai_blast_newspaper.jpg

Analysis

At this point the situation on the ground in Mumbai remains unclear following the militant attacks of Nov. 26. But in order to understand the geopolitical significance of what is going on, it is necessary to begin looking beyond this event at what will follow. Though the situation is still in motion, the likely consequences of the attack are less murky.

We will begin by assuming that the attackers are Islamist militant groups operating in India, possibly with some level of outside support from Pakistan. We can also see quite clearly that this was a carefully planned, well-executed attack.

Given this, the Indian government has two choices. First, it can simply say that the perpetrators are a domestic group. In that case, it will be held accountable for a failure of enormous proportions in security and law enforcement. It will be charged with being unable to protect the public. On the other hand, it can link the attack to an outside power: Pakistan. In that case it can hold a nation-state responsible for the attack, and can use the crisis atmosphere to strengthen the government’s internal position by invoking nationalism. Politically this is a much preferable outcome for the Indian government, and so it is the most likely course of action. This is not to say that there are no outside powers involved — simply that, regardless of the ground truth, the Indian government will claim there were.

That, in turn, will plunge India and Pakistan into the worst crisis they have had since 2002. If the Pakistanis are understood to be responsible for the attack, then the Indians must hold them responsible, and that means they will have to take action in retaliation — otherwise, the Indian government’s domestic credibility will plunge. The shape of the crisis, then, will consist of demands that the Pakistanis take immediate steps to suppress Islamist radicals across the board, but particularly in Kashmir. New Delhi will demand that this action be immediate and public. This demand will come parallel to U.S. demands for the same actions, and threats by incoming U.S. President Barack Obama to force greater cooperation from Pakistan.

If that happens, Pakistan will find itself in a nutcracker. On the one side, the Indians will be threatening action — deliberately vague but menacing — along with the Americans. This will be even more intense if it turns out, as currently seems likely, that Americans and Europeans were being held hostage (or worse) in the two hotels that were attacked. If the attacks are traced to Pakistan, American demands will escalate well in advance of inauguration day.

There is a precedent for this. In 2002 there was an attack on the Indian parliament in New Delhi by Islamist militants linked to Pakistan. A near-nuclear confrontation took place between India and Pakistan, in which the United States brokered a stand-down in return for intensified Pakistani pressure on the Islamists. The crisis helped redefine the Pakistani position on Islamist radicals in Pakistan.

In the current iteration, the demands will be even more intense. The Indians and Americans will have a joint interest in forcing the Pakistani government to act decisively and immediately. The Pakistani government has warned that such pressure could destabilize Pakistan. The Indians will not be in a position to moderate their position, and the Americans will see the situation as an opportunity to extract major concessions. Thus the crisis will directly intersect U.S. and NATO operations in Afghanistan.

It is not clear the degree to which the Pakistani government can control the situation. But the Indians will have no choice but to be assertive, and the United States will move along the same line. Whether it is the current government in India that reacts, or one that succeeds doesn’t matter. Either way, India is under enormous pressure to respond. Therefore the events point to a serious crisis not simply between Pakistan and India, but within Pakistan as well, with the government caught between foreign powers and domestic realities. Given the circumstances, massive destabilization is possible — never a good thing with a nuclear power.

This is thinking far ahead of the curve, and is based on an assumption of the truth of something we don’t know for certain yet, which is that the attackers were Muslims and that the Pakistanis will not be able to demonstrate categorically that they weren’t involved. Since we suspect they were Muslims, and since we doubt the Pakistanis can be categorical and convincing enough to thwart Indian demands, we suspect that we will be deep into a crisis within the next few days, very shortly after the situation on the ground clarifies itself.

from STRATFOR

11.23.2008

END THE FED

Filed under: General — citizen X @ 5.57 pm

You would think that a 39 city protest involving thousands of people might warrant a national wire story,
maybe a mention on cable news, but no. Reporters don’t understand the issue and therefore they ignore it.
(or more likely their paymasters understand only too well..)
Of course this can be said for most of the important issues that affect people’s lives.
Hence we get wall-to-wall coverage of the Obama daughter’s educational preferences.
Fiddling while Rome burns seems almost understated.

protet.jpg

didnt Jesus protest bankers?….history is ri¢h with examples!

There was some local coverage (1..2..3..4..5)and the Russians were all over it. Most of it misses the point, but what are you going to do?
A few months ago this wasn’t even an issue and many of us owe Ron Paul a considered debt of gratitude for raising it to prominence.
Maybe one day, some reporter might even realize she’s sitting on the biggest story of the last hundred years;
the looting of the American people to the tune of 95% of our money’s value.

Maybe that industrious reporter will open a history book and learn that the dangers of central banking were well understood by such radical fringe players as Thomas Jefferson and John F. Kennedy.
She might learn that Woodrow Wilson realized that he had enabled the eventual destruction of America with the signing of the Federal Reserve Act writing, “I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country.”

She might even figure out that this system impoverishes our most vulnerable citizen’s by destroying their purchasing power and enslaving them in unnecessary welfare systems that need naught ever to have existed.
She might learn that inflation is a means of paying for aggressive wars indirectly..
and therefore avoiding the direct cost of taxation which would raise opposition among the people.

She might also discover that the Constitution demands that our government control our nation’s money supply
and that the Federal Reserve is a private bank that not even members of congress are allowed to oversee.
(its bullshit Board of Governors a sham within a sham)

If she is really sharp, she might also figure out that fractional reserve banking and fiat money systems
must necessarily fail over time and we have reached the end of the line.
With a little evaluation, she may conclude that central banking has led us to the point of the complete collapse of the international economic order and the end of the dollar and our way of life with it.

and its about time.

new and improved way of life coming soon!

taken from prison planet and augmented.

11.19.2008

a n!ce another false start

Filed under: General — citizen X @ 9.34 am

verbatim_cheney.jpg

updated

11.5.2008

It’s an Obamanation!

Filed under: General — citizen X @ 1.02 am

Today for the first time..like Michelle Obama once said..’I am proud of America’.
Barack Hussein Obama..a man ‘of color’ is the forty-fourth President of the United States Elect..
confirmed on the anniversary of the Earths 44th circumnavigation of the Sun since my birth.

44-44/44-44/44-44/44-44/44-44/44-44/44-44/44-44/44-44/44-44/
obama.jpg
44-44/44-44/44-44/44-44/44-44/44-44/44-44/44-44/44-44/44-44/

This I have solemnly decided shall demarcate my “RE-Birthday”
In place of the standard..and lets face it..somewhat humdrum..birthday.
Birthdays are traditional and thats nice..but they don’t REALLY get us anywhere..
Do they?
Like MANY of our vestigial social and philosophic models…utterly useless..
Think about it.

WE..I..need something MORE..MORE Hopeful..
MORE infused with CHANGE!

Therefore..on this my RE-birthday I am NOT 44 years old..but O.

Bullshit?

Fuck it!..the Numerology is solid.

O..baby!
A clean slate..
A new start..
An ageless infinity from which to RE-compose the very fabric of perception
All of our collective sins..RE-washed away!

Its up to ME now to pay closer attention and make better decisions.
To sacrifice harder than ever to be a better Human.
To RE-inhabit that cherished innocence..that state of Wonder!
To RE-right all the wrongs that have have ever been done until finally
in the rarefied silence of faultless expression we..I..simply Wink..
Out of Existence.

O Baby!..Today I am O!

Adjust your calendars. Join me in Celebration!

Be RE-born into the Obamanation!

YES WE CAN!
¡SI SE PUEDE!
YES WE CAN!

11.4.2008

Election Day developing….

Filed under: General — citizen X @ 12.04 pm

8:15am PST

Arrive at Polling Place indicated on sample ballot received via USPS.
Polling Place is CLOSED with 500+ people outside..almost 90 minutes AFTER 7am scheduled opening.
Apparently since a heavy DEW stops traffic in Los Angeles the RAIN last night has caused a delay!
People who NEED to vote before going to work become VERY agitated..

8:25am PST

Police arrive and CLOSE THE STREET and DISPERSE crowd.
NO OFFICIAL ANNOUNCEMENT OF ANY KIND as to how and where people are now expected to vote.

10am PST

Return to Polling Place indicated on sample ballot received via USPS
NO CROWD but Polling Place OPEN
Informed that MY polling place has CHANGED (have voted in SAME LOCATION for 17 years)

10:10am PST

Arrive at NEW Polling Place..short lines..helpful workers and volunteers UNTIL..
Inka-Vote Verification machine CEASES TO FUNCTION..no backup exists..
Calls made by poll workers seeking guidance not answered.

ALL VOTES IN THIS POLLING PLACE ARE NOT VERIFIABLE!

voter

track and report problems in your city/town/district at:

http://www.blackboxvoting.org


DEMOCRACY ONLY WORKS IF YOU PAY ATTENTION.

updates to come……

Between Hope and Reality

Filed under: General — citizen X @ 8.54 am

By RALPH NADER

Dear Senator Obama:

In your nearly two-year presidential campaign, the words “hope and change,” “change and hope” have been your trademark declarations. Yet there is an asymmetry between those objectives and your political character that succumbs to contrary centers of power that want not “hope and change” but the continuation of the power-entrenched status quo.

Far more than Senator McCain, you have received enormous, unprecedented contributions from corporate interests, Wall Street interests and, most interestingly, big corporate law firm attorneys. Never before has a Democratic nominee for President achieved this supremacy over his Republican counterpart. Why, apart from your unconditional vote for the $700 billion Wall Street bailout, are these large corporate interests investing so much in Senator Obama? Could it be that in your state Senate record, your U.S. Senate record and your presidential campaign record (favoring nuclear power, coal plants, offshore oil drilling, corporate subsidies including the 1872 Mining Act and avoiding any comprehensive program to crack down on the corporate crime wave and the bloated, wasteful military budget, for example) you have shown that you are their man?

To advance change and hope, the presidential persona requires character, courage, integrity– not expediency, accommodation and short-range opportunism. Take, for example, your transformation from an articulate defender of Palestinian rights in Chicago before your run for the U.S. Senate to an acolyte, a dittoman for the hard-line AIPAC lobby, which bolsters the militaristic oppression, occupation, blockage, colonization and land-water seizures over the years of the Palestinian peoples and their shrunken territories in the West Bank and Gaza. Eric Alterman summarized numerous polls in a December 2007 issue of The Nation magazine showing that AIPAC policies are opposed by a majority of Jewish-Americans.

You know quite well that only when the U.S. Government supports the Israeli and Palestinian peace movements, that years ago worked out a detailed two-state solution (which is supported by a majority of Israelis and Palestinians), will there be a chance for a peaceful resolution of this 60-year plus conflict. Yet you align yourself with the hard-liners, so much so that in your infamous, demeaning speech to the AIPAC convention right after you gained the nomination of the Democratic Party, you supported an “undivided Jerusalem,” and opposed negotiations with Hamas– the elected government in Gaza. Once again, you ignored the will of the Israeli people who, in a March 1, 2008 poll by the respected newspaper Haaretz, showed that 64% of Israelis favored “direct negotiations with Hamas.” Siding with the AIPAC hard-liners is what one of the many leading Palestinians advocating dialogue and peace with the Israeli people was describing when he wrote “Anti-semitism today is the persecution of Palestinian society by the Israeli state.”

During your visit to Israel this summer, you scheduled a mere 45 minutes of your time for Palestinians with no news conference, and no visit to Palestinian refugee camps that would have focused the media on the brutalization of the Palestinians. Your trip supported the illegal, cruel blockade of Gaza in defiance of international law and the United Nations charter. You focused on southern Israeli casualties which during the past year have totaled one civilian casualty to every 400 Palestinian casualties on the Gaza side. Instead of a statesmanship that decried all violence and its replacement with acceptance of the Arab League’s 2002 proposal to permit a viable Palestinian state within the 1967 borders in return for full economic and diplomatic relations between Arab countries and Israel, you played the role of a cheap politician, leaving the area and Palestinians with the feeling of much shock and little awe.

David Levy, a former Israeli peace negotiator, described your trip succinctly: “There was almost a willful display of indifference to the fact that there are two narratives here. This could serve him well as a candidate, but not as a President.”

Palestinian American commentator, Ali Abunimah, noted that Obama did not utter a single criticism of Israel, “of its relentless settlement and wall construction, of the closures that make life unlivable for millions of Palestinians. …Even the Bush administration recently criticized Israeli’s use of cluster bombs against Lebanese civilians [see www.atfl.org for elaboration]. But Obama defended Israeli’s assault on Lebanon as an exercise of its ‘legitimate right to defend itself.’”

In numerous columns Gideon Levy, writing in Haaretz, strongly criticized the Israeli government’s assault on civilians in Gaza, including attacks on “the heart of a crowded refugee camp… with horrible bloodshed” in early 2008.

Israeli writer and peace advocate– Uri Avnery– described Obama’s appearance before AIPAC as one that “broke all records for obsequiousness and fawning, adding that Obama “is prepared to sacrifice the most basic American interests. After all, the US has a vital interest in achieving an Israeli-Palestinian peace that will allow it to find ways to the hearts of the Arab masses from Iraq to Morocco. Obama has harmed his image in the Muslim world and mortgaged his future– if and when he is elected president.,” he said, adding, “Of one thing I am certain: Obama’s declarations at the AIPAC conference are very, very bad for peace. And what is bad for peace is bad for Israel, bad for the world and bad for the Palestinian people.”

A further illustration of your deficiency of character is the way you turned your back on the Muslim-Americans in this country. You refused to send surrogates to speak to voters at their events. Having visited numerous churches and synagogues, you refused to visit a single Mosque in America. Even George W. Bush visited the Grand Mosque in Washington D.C. after 9/11 to express proper sentiments of tolerance before a frightened major religious group of innocents.

Although the New York Times published a major article on June 24, 2008 titled “Muslim Voters Detect a Snub from Obama” (by Andrea Elliott), citing examples of your aversion to these Americans who come from all walks of life, who serve in the armed forces and who work to live the American dream. Three days earlier the International Herald Tribune published an article by Roger Cohen titled “Why Obama Should Visit a Mosque.” None of these comments and reports change your political bigotry against Muslim-Americans– even though your father was a Muslim from Kenya.

Perhaps nothing illustrated your utter lack of political courage or even the mildest version of this trait than your surrendering to demands of the hard-liners to prohibit former president Jimmy Carter from speaking at the Democratic National Convention. This is a tradition for former presidents and one accorded in prime time to Bill Clinton this year.

Here was a President who negotiated peace between Israel and Egypt, but his recent book pressing the dominant Israeli superpower to avoid Apartheid of the Palestinians and make peace was all that it took to sideline him. Instead of an important address to the nation by Jimmy Carter on this critical international problem, he was relegated to a stroll across the stage to “tumultuous applause,” following a showing of a film about the Carter Center’s post-Katrina work. Shame on you, Barack Obama!

But then your shameful behavior has extended to many other areas of American life. (See the factual analysis by my running mate, Matt Gonzalez, on www.votenader.org). You have turned your back on the 100-million poor Americans composed of poor whites, African-Americans, and Latinos. You always mention helping the “middle class” but you omit, repeatedly, mention of the “poor” in America.

Should you be elected President, it must be more than an unprecedented upward career move following a brilliantly unprincipled campaign that spoke “change” yet demonstrated actual obeisance to the concentration power of the “corporate supremacists.” It must be about shifting the power from the few to the many. It must be a White House presided over by a black man who does not turn his back on the downtrodden here and abroad but challenges the forces of greed, dictatorial control of labor, consumers and taxpayers, and the militarization of foreign policy. It must be a White House that is transforming of American politics– opening it up to the public funding of elections (through voluntary approaches)– and allowing smaller candidates to have a chance to be heard on debates and in the fullness of their now restricted civil liberties. Call it a competitive democracy.

Your presidential campaign again and again has demonstrated cowardly stands. “Hope” some say springs eternal.” But not when “reality” consumes it daily.

Sincerely,
Ralph Nader

11.2.2008

Follow the Money

Filed under: General — citizen X @ 9.33 am

According to reports out of top Chinese mainstream news outlets, the RAND Corporation recently presented a shocking proposal to the Pentagon in which it lobbied for a war to be started with a major foreign power in an attempt to stimulate the American economy and prevent a recession.

A fierce debate has now ensued in China about who that foreign power may be, with China itself as well as Russia and even Japan suspected to be the targets of aggression.

china_war.jpg

The reports cite French media news sources as having uncovered the proposal, in which RAND suggested that the $700 billion dollars that has been earmarked to bailout Wall Street and failing banks instead be used to finance a new war which would in turn re-invigorate the flagging stock markets.

The RAND Corporation is a notoriously powerful NGO with deep ties to the U.S. military-industrial complex as well as interlocking connections with the Ford, Rockefeller, and Carnegie foundations.

Current directors of RAND include Frank Charles Carlucci III, former Defense Secretary and Deputy Director of the CIA, Ronald L. Olson, Council on Foreign Relations luminary and former Secretary of Labor, and Carl Bildt, top Bilderberg member and former Swedish Prime Minister.

Carlucci was chairman of the Carlyle Group from 1989-2005 and oversaw gargantuan profits the defense contractor made in the aftermath of 9/11 following the invasion of Afghanistan. The Carlyle Group has also received investment money from the Bin Laden family.

Reportedly, the RAND proposal brazenly urged that a new war could be launched to benefit the economy, but stressed that the target country would have to be a major influential power, and not a smaller country on the scale of Afghanistan or Iraq.

The reports have prompted a surge of public debate and tension in China about the possibility that a new global conflict is on the horizon.

China’s biggest media outlet, Sohu.com, speculated that the target of the new war would probably be China or Russia, but that it could also be Iran or another middle eastern country. Japan was also mentioned as a potential target for the reason that Japan holds the most U.S. debt.

North Korea was considered as a target but ruled out because the scale of such a war would not be large enough for RAND’s requirements.

The reported RAND proposal dovetails with recent comments made by Joe Biden, Colin Powell, Madeleine Albright and others, concerning the “guarantee” that Barack Obama will face a major “international crisis” soon after taking office.

It also arrives following a warning from Michael Bayer, chairman of a key Pentagon advisory panel, who echoed the statement that the next administration will face an international crisis within months of taking office.

One would hope that good people, or at least sane people who don’t wish to start a global nuclear war, will oppose the RAND proposal, such as top the military generals who threatened to quit if Bush ordered an attack on Iran. Admiral William Fallon, the head of US Central Command, quit in March last year as a result of his opposition to Bush administration policy on Iran.

Translations from Chinese provided by Yihan Dai.

SOURCES

Sohu.com – http://news.sohu.com/20081030/n260330741.shtml

Ifeng.com – http://news.ifeng.com/mil/4/200810/1029_342_851523.shtml

Powered by WordPress