Are We 7 Days From ‘World War III’? If So, How and Why Have We Come To This…?

Posted: February 23, 2016 in (All Things) CULTURE, (Politics) CURRENT AFFAIRS
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

turkey-militarybuildup

Russian officials have warned that a new ‘world war’ is in danger of being set off in Syria, partly in response to the actions and maneuvers of Turkey and Saudi Arabia in recent weeks. But if World War III is an imminent possibility, why? And why would it not be stopped?

As previously highlighted, a primarily Turkish and Saudi push to get into Syria has been accelerated by the gains made by Assad and Russia in recent weeks. Raqqa’s days as the Islamic State’s ‘capital’ are probably over – which might be why ISIS/Daesh members, including leaders, have been flooding instead into Libya, which is – thanks to NATO – no longer under the protection of Gaddafi or even a national government.

There will soon be a race to take control of ISIS’s territory, with a likely Saudi/Turkey-fronted push to take control of much of eastern Syria (along with major oil fields), including Raqqa, and possibly to establish a Sunni state, while President Assad and the Syrian Army will try to secure that same territory as part of a unified Syria. Whether a unified Syria can even be salvaged anymore from the utter mess that has been unleashed onto the country for five years is debatable; but Assad has made it clear he intends to recapture the entire country.

This suggests an inevitable clash between dual interests and forces once ISIS is obliterated in Raqqa – or perhaps even before that.

As Moon of Alabama puts it, ‘The race to Raqqa is on. Syria and its allies are competing with the U.S. and its allies to snatch east Syria from the Islamic State’.

This already-unfolding plan to Balkanise Iraq and Syria – with other countries possibly to follow – and create a number of smaller states in their place is a longstanding one, probably with some basis in the Zionist/Yinon Plan. The last time the Middle East was drastically carved up and reconfigured was in the First World War, a hundred years ago. Perhaps fittingly, there is now spiraling talk of a Third World War in various (even mainstream) publications and even from the mouths of various officials of various governments. It might take a Third World War scenario for this forced reconfiguration of borders and spheres of influence to be brought about, as the different powers involved – Iran, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the United States – all seek to remake the region according to their own interests, and many of those interests are of course incompatible.

This entire foreign-orchestrated enterprise to destroy Syria has already had an enormous cost in lives, created millions of refugees, destroyed entire towns and cities, utterly wrecked Syria, destabilised the Middle East and started to destabilise Europe. But the same foreign conspirators who’ve financed and backed the conflict all these years appear unwilling to allow the conflict to end without accomplishing their various objectives.

 
syria_A-toy-is-seen-at-a-damaged-street-in-Homs
 

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, writes, ‘Any person who relies on Western media has no accurate idea of what is happening in Syria… the insane neoconservatives who control Western foreign policy and their Turkish and Saudi Arabian vassals might be preparing the end of the world‘. Roberts continues, ‘If a US/Turkish/Saudi force were to arrive first in Raqqa and Deir Ezzor, Syria would be dismembered. The Russians can get there first by dropping in paratroopers. In other words, what the insane neoconservatives are doing is giving the Russian government a big incentive to introduce Russian ground troops into the conflict. Once those troops are there, you can safely bet that the insane neoconservatives will cause conflict between them and US/Turkish forces. A wider war will have begun from which neither side can back down’.

A number of analysts have said for some years already that the War in Syria was the gateway to a global conflict; I also made much the same point in regard to the 2011 intervention in Libya, recognising NATO’s war on Gaddafi as a major maneuver to pave the way for a global conflict. I wrote then; ‘To some this strategy might seem to not make sense; but to those who understand that the Global Powers are orchestrating both a ‘Clash of Civilisations’ and a Third World War for the purposes of forging a new global order, it makes perfect sense. Understand that we have been meticulously maneuvered towards an apocalyptic-style ‘Clash of Civilisations’ scenario in which every possible religious or cultural sectarianism is being amplified and played upon, first in the Middle East and Africa and then in Europe and America too’.

Most are in agreement that we are probably closer to that World War scenario now than at any prior point.

Hal Turner, who claims to have been a National Security Intelligence Asset with the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force, insisted – as of February 11th – that “We are 18 days away from World War 3”.

Though his statements are of course only a speculation, he elaborates – supposedly based on inside information – that ‘Russia now faces being over-run in Syria starting 18 days from now. The ONLY possible way they can stop 350,000 ground troops backed by 20,000 tanks, is to use tactical nukes. Their formal policy is to do exactly that. Hence, tactical (Battlefield) nuclear weapons will be used. There’s no way to avoid it because it is the only possible defense against 350,000 ground troops and 20,000 tanks coming across the border’. He continues to paint a horrifically bleak picture. ‘As the artillery-fired nuclear shells start detonating, they will spread radiation into Jordan or Iraq – whichever nation is the entry point for the mass of troops. Wind will carry that radiation deep into those countries’.

The point being that any such Russian counter-offensive against this prospective Syrian invasion would presumably give the United States and its allies the justification both for going into Syria and for retaliating against Russia and Iran. Hal Turner’s scenario might not be the one that plays out – and his insistence on 18 days might also not be necessary – but the idea of US retalliation against Russia should Russia attack either American ally Saudi Arabia or NATO-member Turkey may essentially be sound.

One wonders if all of this has been planned out far in advance. Consider all those NATO military drills all over Europe last year, as well as in Northern America, and consider all the deployment of NATO personnel and military hardware all around Europe and right onto Russia’s doorstep, all of which has been occurring for some time now. Consider all of the extraordinary propaganda warfare that’s been played out against Putin and Russia, right up to the BBC broadcasting a documentary-style programme just weeks ago that explored an entirely fictional Russian invasion of Latvia and how Britain would respond to a Russian nuclear strike on London.

The curiously overt threat of ground troops recently made by Saudi officials could be a maneuver to draw the United States into committing its own forces to Syria. This might be why the proposal was carefully phrased to suggest the framework of a US-led coalition. It is also possible this is all a pantomime being played out and that Saudi Arabia and Turkey are being used as a catalyst for allowing the United States and other Western powers to send troops into Syria, where they will come into conflict with Russian and Iranian troops. Again, a clash with Russia could also be why NATO spent much of last year moving troops into position around Europe and carrying out large-scale drills and mobilisations, mostly designed – one suspects – to either intimidate or provoke Russia (see here for a list of those exercises and deployments). Russia too had been conducting its own war games, including in partnership with China.

A Telegraph report meanwhile reveals that “more than 1,600 British troops will head to the Middle East to practise an Iraq invasion-scale operation for the first time in more than a decade”. But although a deployment to Jordan would suggest a focus on Syria, The Telegraph suggests an alternative motive. ‘Exercise Shamal Storm could be a dry run for one day having to send a large armoured force of British troops to Eastern Europe if there was ever a Russian confrontation with NATO‘, sources have said.

 
ukraine-mercenaries-usethis
 

The highly dubious conflict in Ukraine may in fact have been intended all along as a way not only to draw in Russia militarily but to establish a trigger for conflict in Europe.

Meanwhile open conflict between Iran and Saudi Arabia would give the United States and Israel the justification for taking military action against Iran – something Israel has been calling for for a very long time (and something that Israeli and Saudi officials are known to have discussed). Bear in mind too that President Obama doesn’t have long left in office and whoever it is that steps into the Oval Office might follow a much more drastic course of action than Obama would. For the record, the criminal Hilary Clinton has already stated her willingness to go to war with Iran.

And Russia’s direct involvement in Syria massively increases the potential for the conflict to extend far beyond Syria and the region should a Turkey or Saudi-led coalition violate Syrian sovereignty or should the United States or NATO be compelled to come to the aid of its Saudi or Turkish allies. An attack on NATO-member Turkey could, in theory, demand retalliation from the mutual defense organisation and its other members, potentially drawing most of the Western world into the conflict.

Saudi troops setting foot in Syria is a catastrophe waiting to happen, given the highly chaotic and volatile equation. Even if the Saudi troops *were* there primarily to fight ISIS/Daesh, there remains a substantial possibility of Saudi personnel coming into direct conflict with Hezbollah fighters or Iranian soldiers. And then, there in Syria, the sectarian conflict between the two powers could escalate to dangerous proportions. Although Iran and the Saudis have been engaged in highly destructive proxy warfare already, via their respective militias in Syria (as well as in the War in Yemen), this misadventure could lead to *direct confrontation*.

Perhaps that’s the point.

According to Oubai Shabandar, a former US Department of Defense official, ‘Shia foreign fighters that are being flown into Syria would view an Arab coalition in northern Syria as a direct threat because the Shia extremist forces that are fighting on the Aleppo front are direct clients of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, so essentially they are of the same strain as the Houthi forces in Yemen’.

 
saudigroundtroops
 

Perhaps there is an intention to finish this proxy warfare and set off an open sectarian war. Perhaps that is the only way to resolve this pathetic conflict. If we were to regard Syria, Iraq, Yemen and even the Iran/Iraq war of the 1980s as all being elements of the Saudi/Iran-Sunni/Shia proxy warfare, then the death-toll and the level of destruction wrought by this conflict has already been many times in excess of what might occur in a more traditional conflict directly between two powers.

If so, it would fulfill those old predictions that some conspiracy theorists are so fond of – that the Third World War would be triggered by a deliberately agitated sectarian conflict in the Middle East.

But the eruption of the so-called Sunni/Shia sectarian rift into open conflict would not only draw othernations into the conflict – it would also give the various powers carte blanche to pursue their own agendas militarily and try to accomplish longstanding goals that would be unattainable during peace-time.

This means Turkey pursuing a war on the Kurds in Turkey, Syria and Iraq, it means Iran trying to expand its own sphere of influence and control just as the Saudis will. It means the United States and NATO mobilising against Russia. It means Israel making its final, violent push to fully expel the Palestinians from their territory and also means Israel pursuing the elimination of Iran, Hezbollah, and the degradation of Syria and Lebanon. And that would just be the beginning, not even factoring in what might unfold in the Far East with China, Japan, North Korea, etc.

We should ask ourselves, for that matter, why last year Japan suddenly moved to allow for the possibility of Japanese military combat for the first time in 70 years (since the Second World War) – this was a massive, massive decision that was made against the wishes of the majority of the Japanese population.

____________________

Should something akin to a world war now be on the near-horizon, government officials and mainstream media might try to sell it to us as something that is ‘unavoidable’ or unfolding organically due to conflicting interests.

There seems to be very little that was ‘unavoidable’ about this conflict, however, given that the Iraq, Libya and Syria crises were quite deliberately brought about by well-planned international plots, and that the so-called ‘New Cold War’ paradigm between Russia and the West has seemed entirely manufactured, almost to the extent of being a simple foreign policy *desire* from Washington. All of these situations were entirely avoidable and exist only because certain powers and agencies have conspired to bring them about.

A new world war to shake-up the present global order and establish a new one, just as the first two world wars did.

 
hermann-goering-ppropaganda_for_war
 

Hal Turner’s view on why a war on this scale is inevitable is simply; ‘The reason this is going to take place is simple: The government in the US, and those in Europe, need a DIVERSION to shift the public’s attention away from the coming economic collapse’.

An economic collapse, combined with spiraling mistrust in government and widespread dissatisfaction, could trigger massive unrest across the board and threaten the positions of various governments or institutions. Therefore escalating the Middle East conflict to World War III proportions could be the current Establishment’s best way to divert that crisis. It would also spare the Neo-Con-centered Establishment, the Zionist machine, along with other elites like the Saudi and Qatari royal families, the danger of facing War Crimes tribunals over Gaza, Yemen, Syria, Libya, Iraq, etc.

A particularly interesting view of the First World War, which was raging a hundred years ago at this time, is that the war was in fact organised by the aristocracies and the ruling classes of the various European nations in order to wipe out an enormous amount of the young male population *to prevent them from domestic uprising or revolution*.

In other words, the ruling elites were so fearful of dissatisfaction and desire for change among their populations at this time that they conspired to stage the war to eliminate a large percentage of those who would potentially be revolting *on all sides*. Remember that, as far as Europe was concerned, most of these ruling establishments/families that were at war with each other’s countries were inter-related by blood (particularly Britain and Germany); once the war was over, after four years of horrendous, deeply traumatic fighting, no one was going to have an appetite anymore for revolution or for overthrowing their ‘masters’ (although Russia proved to be an exception).

But is the world maneuvering towards war? Well, if it is, it’s important to understand it would be a completely illegitimate war with no moral basis or foundation; but purely for the preservation of the existing elites and the crumbling criminal systems of national and global control.

It may also be the only way in the long-run to divert any possible domestic revolutions before they gather momentum. Most of these entities and key bodies pushing for the conflict are already exposed War Criminals, financial criminals and worse; NATO itself is already a War Criminal (Libya), while the Ango-American Empire lost all moral footing after Iraq, Israel is being investigated for War Crimes against Gaza in the ICC and the Saudis and the Gulf States stand guilty of funding mass murder in Syria. The march into war would also give nations the ability to suspend all pretense of civil liberties (a direction France appears to already be contemplating) and to act harshly to thwart their own populations.

But more than all of that, the current financial/criminal system might on the brink of collapse; a war may be the best way for the banksters, the politicians and the corporate elite to avoid being lynched by their own citizens.

‘War-Time’ powers would also give the American government and any other state the ability to do all kinds of things, even to their own citizens’ liberties and freedoms. A large-scale war in fact might be the *only* way to save the system in this hyper-information age where anti-Establishment activism and info-exchange is occurring so freely and on so vast a scale and where too many Establishment institutions have lost too much trust and credibility – a large-scale war to shut everything down for a few years or more.

I am reminded of a piece written a year or so ago by Kevin Barrett, who suggested, ‘The Neo-Conservatives are in a panic. Their only hope is to flee forward into ever-bigger wars,” he wrote. “That is why Netanyahu is so desperately lobbying for a war on Iran that would set the Middle East, and perhaps the whole world, on fire. And that is why such neo-conservatives as Victoria Nuland are pushing for a war with Russia that would in all likelihood go nuclear.’ He continued, ‘World War III is the last desperate hope for the Neo-Conservatives and their Likudnik allies. Such a war would usher in martial law, enable the suppression (or at least continued obfuscation) of the truth about 9/11, and save the Neo-Cons from treason trials and Israel from dismantlement.’

____________________

So is this the approach to World War III? It might not be. Let’s hope it isn’t. But we’re being brought as close as we’ve ever come to it in my lifetime. And World War I, which was being waged a hundred years ago at this time, was triggered by a lot less.

The suggestion of “18 days” was made over a week ago; if that estimation is accurate (and it probably isn’t), we’d now be 7 days or so away. But the specific date or timing is irrelevant anyway; the fact is that we have been deliberately, callously brought to a point where such a conflict seems inevitable, if not now then in a matter of weeks or months.

What would have, in an ideal world, perhaps prevented all of this from escalating to this point is if the United Nations had any power – if a truly democratic international body had the power to enforce international law, investigate or punish all of the underhanded, covert warfare we’ve seen in recent years, hold War Criminals to account for their actions, prevent illegal wars, and police the arms industry and the military-industrial complexes of this world. In order to do that, the UN would had to have been forced to undergo a reformation – just as Muammar Gaddafi had called for in 2009. “65 wars since 1945 have not been prevented by UN,” he told the assembly.

 
al-qadhafi-walks-through-the-chamber-at-the-general-assembly-at-united-nations-headquarters
 

“How can we be happy about global peace and security if the whole world is controlled only by five countries? The Superpowers have global interests and they used their vetoes to protect those interests,” Gaddafi had complained, as he tore up a piece of paper representing the UN Charter and startled the assembly in New York.

What Gaddafi had called for was a reformed UN that was truly democratic and ruled by its 192 member states and not just the five permanent members of the Security Council. Such a UN would’ve seen Bush, Blair, Haliburton and the Neo-Cons tried as War Criminals after the Iraq War. Such a UN might’ve prevented the Iraq War from even happening; and had the Iraq War not happened, there might not have been any subsequent instability in neighbouring Syria and there might not have been any ‘ISIS’. Such a UN would also have prevented NATO from violating its mandate in destroying Libya; which aside from destroying Libya also impacted massively and directly on the escalation of the Syrian Civil War in 2011/12.

The escalation now to a Third World War would ironically be the very thing the United Nations was created to prevent. But the UN has been allowed instead to be reduced to basically nothing; just “Speaker’s Corner in Hyde Park,” as Gaddafi called it in his bitter 2009 speech, “we makes speeches, we talk, and that’s all.”

__________________

Advertisements
Comments
  1. saine13 says:

    Reblogged this on Saine Corner and commented:
    When there are so many invested in creating wars and manipulating people… I do wonder if permanent peace or ‘Stop the War’ could ever happen.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. Heather Bea says:

    I do enjoy your posts.
    I just wish our so called “leaders” were as truthful as yourself.
    We are facing desolation in the face.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. […] Source: Are We 7 Days From ‘World War III’? If So, How and Why Have We Come To This…? […]

    Like

  4. hos1911 says:

    Dear Blogger of Bedlam,

    I would like to write this in the spirit of the Sixth Precept of Buddhism. You will see how successful I have been.

    Sixth precept: Not Discussing Faults of Others.
    Bodhidharma said: Self-nature is subtle and mysterious. In the realm of the flawless Dharma, not expounding on error is called the Precept of Not Speaking of Faults of Others.

    Your writings exhibit several valuable qualities. You are able to absorb a vast amount of material from a wide range of sources and put the many pieces together to make a very cogent big picture. These are just the abilities people need today in trying to understand world events. We outsiders, people who have no access to the thoughts and actions of the people who really decide what goes on in the world, can only make educated guesses based on clues we must search for.
    For example, in your discussions of the Paris Bombings you searched widely for evidence and gave a critical evaluation of what you found. In the case of this article, however, a central feature of this article is a claim by Hal Turner to the effect that “Saudis and others massing 350,000 troops, 20,000 tanks, 2,450 war planes, 460 Helicopters for “exercise” that is thinly veiled disguise for pending INVASION of Syria.” This claim was taken up by many and treated as if it was fact.
    While he might have worked for the FBI at some point, Mr Turner is a well know “shock-jock” in New York. His “information” comes from an “official announcement” by the Saudi government. However a bit of critical thinking and modest investigation indicates to me that there was no further evidence that this was taking place and that the claim taken at face value is absurd.
    From this article (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/vladimir-putin/11586021/How-Putins-military-firepower-compares-to-the-West.html) we can look at the number of weapons the US and Russia have.

    Tanks: Russia 15,389, US 8,848 Total 24,237
    Jets and Attack aircraft: Russia 2074, US 5004 Total 7078

    He was talking about almost as many tanks as the US and Russia have taken together. How credible is the claim by Turner or the Saudi’s that this many weapons can be assembled from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Jordan, Bahrain, Sudan, Kuwait, Morocco, Pakistan, Tunisia, Oman, Qatar, Malaysia and several other nations on such short notice? The US invasion of Iraq took months to organize, and the total number of tanks they possess is would have been less than 8.848. How many airfields in the Middle East, or the world, are needed to assemble 2,450 warplanes?
    The “announcement” was, I believe, so much HOT AIR from the Saudis, and repeated by a man known for his own HOT AIR. (Please let me know if you have any real evidence that anything like this number of tanks and planes were ever assembled in the Middle East by the Saudis. I didn’t find any myself.)

    At another point in this article you claim that the ruling class sends its younger citizens to war in order to kill them off and to quiet potential social unrest. (You notice correctly that this did not happen in the case of the Russian Revolution.)

    ‘A particularly interesting view of the First World War, which was raging a hundred years ago at this time, is that the war was in fact organised by the aristocracies and the ruling classes of the various European nations in order to wipe out an enormous amount of the young male population “to prevent them from domestic uprising or revolution”.
    (…) once the war was over, after four years of horrendous, deeply traumatic fighting, no one was going to have an appetite anymore for revolution or for overthrowing their ‘masters’ (although Russia proved to be an exception).’

    You appear to be quoting someone here. However neither you nor the person you quote are well informed about post WW I history in the US and Europe. There was a revolution in Germany which started in October 1918. Consider this discussion of events in Germany:

    “The first acts of revolution were triggered by the policies of the German Supreme Command and its lack of coordination with the Naval Command. In the face of defeat, the Naval Command insisted on trying to precipitate a climactic battle with the British Royal Navy by means of its naval order of 24 October 1918. The battle never took place. Instead of obeying their orders to begin preparations to fight the British, German sailors led a revolt in the naval ports of Wilhelmshaven on 29 October 1918, followed by the Kiel mutiny in the first days of November. These disturbances spread the spirit of civil unrest across Germany and ultimately led to the proclamation of a republic on 9 November 1918. Shortly thereafter, Emperor Wilhelm II abdicated his throne and fled the country.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Revolution_of_1918%E2%80%9319 http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/german-sailors-begin-to-mutiny)

    Thus a series of uprisings took place in Germany that were not that different from what happened in Russia. The only difference is that the German attempt to completely change the government failed. Subsequently in Germany there were large and powerful communist and socialist movements fuelled by the terrible inflation after the war. The role of the Nazis in Germany was not just to remove Jews, but to suppress with violence these large workers’ movements. Much the same is true in the rest of Europe.
    The same strong workers organization and socialist movements can be found in the US after WW I and during the Depression. As for returned soldiers, there was a march on Washington and a tent city in 1932 by soldiers of WW I demanding cash payments, called the Bonus March. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army) It was broken up by troops lead by General Douglas MacArthur, hero of the Pacific in WW II.
    From my understanding of history, whatever the thinking of the ruling class of the time, wars, particularly wars that are lost, are social dynamite. The people who start them are usually not around when they come to an end. Ruling classes start war to increase or protect their power. They care nothing for the lives of those who die, only for the rewards that will come to them when they win. Your claim that after wars “no one was going to have an appetite anymore for revolution” has little basis in recent European history. You may yourself experience first-hand what happens after such a war is lost, if the US and its NATO puppets decide to seriously engage either Russia, China or both in a war to destroy their economic and political power.

    Did you have a look at the article by The Saker? He is not a Marxist or even a socialist but he understands Russia, the US, NATO and all things military better than any writer I know. He is a former serving NATO officer with a Russian personal history and he absolutely hates the leaders of the West – which he calls the Anglo-Zionist Empire.
    It is possible that you find his writing “biased” because he supports Russia against the US. I believe that there is no such thing as an unbiased reporting of these events. When someone calls the conflict in Syria a “civil war”, to me this is a blatant falsehood. This is the way the invaders describe their invasion to make people think there is no invasion. “Those bloody Muslims are always fighting among themselves!”
    You may think that you are unbiased. Think about the picture at the top of your blog. It is a picture of Peter O’Toole dressed to play Laurence of Arabia. This seems to make sense to “Westerners” as you write a lot about the Middle East. However in this role Peter O’Toole plays the role of T.E. Laurence, a Colonel in the Army of the British Empire. As a result of his work, huge areas of the Middle East which had been part of the Ottoman (Turkish) Empire for 500 years were divided after the war between the British Empire and the French. So how do you think the people of Turkey, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, or Jordan see Lawrence? He was an agent of British imperialism, and they have been fighting to remove US and UK control ever since.

    (You can read my discussion of the last 100 years of Syrian history here:
    Part 1: Syria’s Struggle for Independence: 1916 to 1963
    http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/11238.html
    Part 2: Syria’s Struggle for Independence: 1963 to 2015
    http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/11883.html)

    In Part 1 you can see a picture of Sultan Pasha al-Atrash, an Arab Druze leader, Syrian nationalist and Commander General of the Syrian Revolution (1925–27). The man in the photo may look like Laurence and O’Toole but he should not be confused with an army intelligence officer for the British Empire or an actor playing him in a film.
    My point: Any person from the Middle East looking at you blog about the Middle East today will instantly spot the place of honour given to O’Toole/Laurence. They would remember full well that he was an agent of the British Empire. So are they biased and you are unbiased?

    One cannot understand politics without taking sides. Otherwise there is only confusion and well hidden bias. I don’t pretend to be “unbiased”. I am against the US Empire and its puppet governments, like the UK and Australia. I support anybody who opposes the US Empire in their opposition to the US Empire. This does not mean they are “good guys”. It means they can help destroy the first and largest obstacle to human survival and a better life for the 99% of the people on the planet. This does not mean there are not other obstacles, but these can be dealt with AFTER the power of the US over the world has been removed.
    So I support or supported Assad, Gaddafi, and Sadam Hussein, who have all tried to break the economic control of the US financial system. I also support China against the US, but I do not support the Chinese taking over Australia. Each country needs to work out for themselves how they are to be governed, and this is what those of us who opposed the Vietnam war were opposed to – the US installing a government the people obviously did not want.

    My understanding of the last 70 years of world history is explained in three parts here:

    “How Does the US Control the World? Petrodollars Rule, OK!”
    Part 1: http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/12523.html
    Part 2: http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/13483.html
    Part 3: http://australianvoice.livejournal.com/13786.html

    Best wishes from Australian Voice.

    Like

    • Thank you, hos1911 for taking the time to write such a substantial response. I value your input and welcome it.
      Firstly, in regard to using the image of O’Toole as Lawrence on the blog. I acknowledge that not everyone has a positive view of the historical T.E Lawrence. However, you’ve incorrectly assumed his image is here because I ‘write about the Middle East’ – which isn’t the case. His image was here long before I started posting about the Mid.East or geopolitics on this site. His image is there because (1) this blog was originally set up as a general cultural blog and not just a political or geopolitical one, and included a lot of material on films, culture, music, literature, etc. And (2) because Peter O’Toole is my favorite actor and ‘Lawrence of Arabia’ is one of my favorite films. It doesn’t represent any political statement at all. If it did, it would be the real T.E Lawrence and not the film depiction.
      However, I appreciate that maybe it could be construed the wrong way; though I doubt anyone who reads the content on this site would mistake me for an ‘Imperialist’.
      I also like to think I’m not ‘biased’; but I suppose that’s not for me to judge, and I am open to that criticism.
      In regard to Hal Turner – I didn’t say he was a reliable source, nor that his claims are true. I actually specifically wrote that he is probably incorrect; but I thought what he was saying was interesting enough to warrant a mention in the context of other publications – including mainstream newspapers – talking about a possible Third World War in recent weeks.
      In terms of the Establishment classes using war 100 years ago to quell revolution, I take your counter-point entirely; however, the observation was more to do with the *intention* rather than necessarily the results. However, I acknowledge the point may be contentious; and you’re entirely right to counter it as you have done.
      Thanks for contributing meaningfully to the subject; and for sharing the links.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s