Useful idiots bound by no borders: the front lines are everywhere.

I remember watching a youtube video some time ago when I first heard the term: “Useful Idiot” to describe the Marxist leftists both here and abroad. It was Yuri Bezmenov who spoke those words of truth, a former journalist and propagandist for the KGB who had direct knowledge of psychological warfare practiced by the USSR in the Cold War. Mr. Bezemenov defected to the West and wrote and lectured in a pro-West manner until his death in 1993.

In todays world, Bezemenov today would be rich. His speaking engagements would rival the Clintons in terms of monetary command (except for not being able to deliver State department approved favors for it). He predicted our societal cucking via the neoliberals and the hypersensitive liberal left that seems to not only permeate our culture but dominate it across so many various levels from government to media and everywhere in between. His accuracy and precision of society in a present day United States is in such a detailed manner he would make Nostradamus just another failed Myan forecaster. A Y2K truth-er.  He was that damn good. It was this video that came to my mind after watching what unfolded after the dust settled and the smoke cleared in Aleppo, Syria.

We have an overabundance of “useful idiots” here in the states. We have the media. We have the aforementioned neoliberal agenda. What you don't see at first glance is what has become the most useful idiot in the arsenal. Its there in plain sight; you just have to squint a bit to see it.

Don't turn on your TV to see the idiots in plain view. That revelation won't be televised. The reality is “terrorism” has become the most easily exploited geopolitical hot potato of modern times. Kick em when you're up; sick em them when you're down. Or flip it around; it all works the same.

It didn't have to be all the #FakeNews pouring out of eastern Aleppo BEFORE it was taken by Assad and Syrian army as the city celebrated Christmas for the first time in four years. Funny that wasn't on CNN. Must have missed it. It didn't take Syrian special forces to capture and officially name Western operatives last month facilitating the likes of ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra, for us to know who we were betting on. How we aided and funded Wahhabist and neo-Wahhabist extremists in their attempts to implement an Islamic theocracy at the expense of a democratically elected secular nation. Let that soak in. Let that hit your palate. Got a taste for it now? Do you taste the notes of hypocrisy, deception and a hint of callousness in it? A democratic republic, the self-described beacon of light on the hill in the darkness of the world.

A benevolent nation (thank you ScottL) government who traded its sensibilities and soul in for more geopolitical power and less freedom. At least DADDY gets it...

As CNN and the like reported the civilians running away from the encircling Assad armies aided by Russian airstrikes in Aleppo last month they flipped the script. It was the civilians fleeing from 4 years of control by Islamic extremists, running from “moderate rebels” held in east Aleppo. But just where were they running to? The report never had that destination outcome. Interestingly enough, that report did tell us how the media are unable to cross the front-line into northern/western Syria. Funny way to gather info and intel to build a story, no? Journalism through 2nd and 3rd channels isn't journalism anymore. Its at the mercy of whoever can control said sources. This often leads to propaganda. A simply connection of the dots can tell you where they were running and fleeing to. It was none other than the Syrian government, who held a peaceful western Aleppo just a few miles away. Consider this TV report on the fleeing civilians from CNN via Fred Pleitgen:

CIVILIANS FLEE AS SYRIAN ARMY POUNDS ALEPPO

That headline is totally misleading for a myriad of reasons. Strange it is, the narrative here at home is not reporting the truth. People are fleeing a place being bombed to the people responsible for the bombing? They want you to believe the east, where our “moderates” are aided and backed by the US and its allies are fighting for freedom in favor of the citizens of Aleppo; when it could not be further from the truth. East Aleppo, the place where a kid is surrounded and beheaded by “moderates”. Those “moderates” known as the Nour al-Din al-Zinki Movement were given arms and support by our State Department headed by the infamous and nefarious demon of death herself, one Hillary Clinton. This is in a place where:

hundreds of east Aleppo militiamen prevented at rifle-point thousands of civilians from fleeing their enclave over the past two weeks, how they shot dead six people, including a pregnant woman.

In a place, where cowards shouting "Allahu akbar" used civilians and their residences as shields from bombings. What a great God they have. And the Western media was along for the ride if you just exclude the fact they didn't have the balls to get in the car and be there in person. There might not a better recap and list of media lies and propaganda on east Aleppo, Syria than the piece written by Rania Khalek of Fair.org.

We have seen this play out in Libya as well. Defined by the West on its watch lists as “extremists” but used by the West openly as useful idiots in the pursuit of regime change against a secular middle eastern nation.

If we are to engage and our goal is to eradicate these extremist groups then lets do so. What we can't have is this posture where we allow ourselves to arm these extremists over democratically elected leaders. It sends a mixed message and is ineffective. 

All of this is lies at the feet and the blood on the hands of the prince of peace himself, the neoliberals anointed one, Mr. Barack Hussein Obama. Mr. Nobel Peace Prize. A President of the United States who won the Nobel Peace Prize before he even stepped into office. The same man who burst onto the scene under the guise of transparency. Who ran a campaign against nation building and regime changes. The same man who would come to execute more drone strikes than his predecessor. A man who would choose to arm radical Islam over nations with democratically elected governments. What happened? Did he do an 180 because he wanted to or was he just doing what he was told?

He was the man who once said back in ‘08;

"one important thing is that we not get mission creep"

There was no congressional authorization for launching air raids in Syria. There was no authorization in Libya either you know what started out as a “humanitarian effort” to only become another “Moderate” extremist-backed “resistance” that ended up with the Muslim brotherhood filling the vacuum. I think mission creep has all but been executed at 100% capacity, Mr. Obama.

This leads me to my questions:

How do we get to a point where we are supporting the elimination of democracy at the hands of extreme Muslim terror?

All of a sudden an extreme Sunni/Wahhabism hybrid decides to enter Aleppo as liberators? Despite every conquest by these actors has been extreme and violent to the natives they confront.

Why would Al-Assad enter Aleppo to butcher citizens (as some reported) while it was being held by these “terrorists” in a city of mixed ethnicities and religions who before the uprising lived side by side in peace under Assad?

Why do we support a nation like Saudi Arabia? A nation led by Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdul-Aziz ibn Abdullah Al ash-Sheikh whom has declared Sunni Islam as enemies and wants to purify the Sunni sect or you could also say 80% of Islam. All this despite the fact Wahhabism is the overwhelming majority of “terrorists”?

Why do all of our end results in the middle east we engage in result in destabilization?

There are plenty of options for answers but the conclusions to be drawn from these options are about as fuzzy as the reasoning for these actions I laid out in my questioning. I have written about the petrodollar many many times but that might be just part of the story. If there is one thing we do know, Mr. Obama your legacy is clear: we want our award back. See, I know YOU think you deserved the award without merit DESPITE the fact that you were the polar opposite of peace. And its this entitlement that makes you the poster boy for the infamous cultural suicide we embrace today; the participation trophy. Nevertheless, Nobel committee secretary Geir Lundestad finally sees it like I see it (sort of). As he wrote in his memoir: "Secretary of Peace. 25 years with the Nobel Prize" ...

"thought it would strengthen Obama and it didn't have this effect."
"In hindsight, we could say that the argument of giving Obama a helping hand was only partially correct,"
"Even many of Obama's supporters believed that the prize was a mistake,"
"In that sense, the committee didn't achieve what it had hoped for"

Better late than never , Geir. 

Build the Wall but know your Enemy

As Mr. Trump continues to double down on his campaign trail promises of building The Wall as we await his inauguration less than 48 hours from now, there remains an ominous symbolic result that will take place before the first shovel will have even broken ground. Consider the fundamental backdrop of this wall.

On one hand, it's obviously ideal to keep campaign promises. Especially if those promises are ones that will be challenging. This will not only build credibility from supporters and detractors alike but it would also show something in short supply of these days in The Swamp and that is - Character. For someone to actually campaign on something truly remarkable while on the trail and follow through with it once elected despite political and public pressure is nothing short of unicorn status anymore. The norm in modern political discourse is the ObamaCare debacle. For what was promised on the trail compared to what was passed once Obama gained office is like comparing Sammy Sosa circa 1998 to now. 

This wall would not only disrupt illegal immigration; it would also impact the drug trade. Despite my Libertarian stances and views on drugs, this would surely disrupt business as usual revolving drug and human trafficking. The DEA’s 2015 National Drug Assessment Summary illustrates just how dominate the Mexican cartels are in the illegal drug trade. As Joseph Borelli of the Hill opined exceptionally last week, drugs cost the U.S. economy $193 billion per year… and that was 2007 data, ie; before the current heroin epidemic.

On the other hand, its cost is completely unknown. There have been reports as low as 8 billion to others as high as 50 billion. By today's standards, that's a drop in the bucket but this along with everything else Mr. Trump wants to do will cost money. And in case anyone hasn't noticed the last two presidents to serve full terms have each doubled the national debt by the time they left. This irresponsible result isn't sustainable long term.  

A potentially troubling outcome could be another hammer blow into the divide of a public that seems to splinter by the day. In contrast with many of most in my Libertarian ilk, while I'm firmly in the “a nation is no nation without borders” camp I'm also a realist and think of myself as being pragmatic. And in what I'm about to suggest might have some Machiavellian undertones but it's paramount in my view for the survival of The West.

The Wall while functional and surely within its merits does not override the United States relationships with her neighbors from the south. And I say, neighbors because Mexico illegal immigration has slumped over the years instead of being replaced by immigrants further south. Some of you may be thinking: “Yeah but they still come via Mexico” and that would be correct but besides the point.

The point of this essay and the fundamental foundation for all my writing is the preservation of Western ideals and culture. So much so, I would rather deploy an armada of Disney like TRAM’s at the border with free baked apple pies, complimentary Budweiser and Mcdonalds cheeseburgers for all, while immigrants (legal, illegal and any otherwise) while they wait to board than I would the alternative.

I would assume we rename the state of Texas to “Little Mexico” before I accept the alternative

I would push for legislation to include the empanada as the official partner of Thanksgiving day on behalf of Americans everywhere; then I would be willing to entertain even the thought of the alternative.

That alternative? The creeping tidal wave of intolerance that is Islam.


Consider the birthrate


“THERE ARE SIGNS THAT ALLAH WILL GRANT ISLAM VICTORY IN EUROPE—WITHOUT SWORDS, WITHOUT GUNS, WITHOUT CONQUEST—WILL TURN IT (EUROPE) INTO A MUSLIM CONTINENT WITHIN A FEW DECADES." MUAMMAR GADDAFI


Gaddafi, of course, was speaking about the migrants and subsequent births from those migrants across the European continent. Anyone that follows Black Pigeon Speaks knows full well the situation with migrants and Europe's downward spiral via multiculturalism.  Why would they not only allow this but continue to do nothing continuously, DESPITE the egregious and blatant primitive actions seems dumbfounding? The reality is Europe is dying off. The birth rates in most of its nations are well below the replacement level of 2.1 with some like Spain at 1.4. It is irreversible unless you start convincing the natives (of Europe) to embark on a baby boom. Sadly, the world cup is only once every four years.

So with low birthrate and an aging population, SOMEONE has to come in to make the car, stock the shelves, sell the beer and fill out the ranks. Ah, yes… Europe evidently didn't learn from their predecessor. As it was the Romans embracing conquests that led to the pillaging and absorbing of other cultures that would one day make up the bulk of their armies. Instead of Romans it was immigrated or captured barbarians flooding the ranks. Not surprisingly, they did not share as high esteem of the Roman culture as did the legendary legion’s (predominantly native men) before them. How’d that turn out?

According to a Pew Research study, between 2010 and 2015 “In every region for which data were available, the Total Fertility Rate (TFR) for Muslims (3.1) is at or above the replacement level of 2.1 children per woman (the number needed to maintain a stable population, all else being equal).” In fact, Muslims have a larger fertility rate than the world’s population overall (2.5)

Islam will grow from 1.8 billion in 2010 to 2.8 billion in 2050. Thus making Islam growing twice as fast as the world population. And when this subject comes up there is always someone who points out that Islam will slow in terms of growth in the next fifty years but what they leave out is so will everyone else. All religions will. Care to guess what religion is still growing the fastest even then? Of course, Islam.

How does this relate to us? And how do I tie this into the wall? Consider these statistics from another Pew Research study from 2014 on religion in Latin America:


Latin America is home to more than 425 million Catholics – nearly 40% of the world’s total Catholic population

Overall, 84% of Latin American adults report that they were raised Catholic

Today, the Pew Research survey shows, 69% of adults across the region identify as Catholic


In this study, much of the premise is the loss of catholics to protestant churches. These are Christians now matter how you dice it. Regardless of your religious affiliation, if you're Pro West then you have to understand that the West was built upon, to a large extent, Judeo-Christian values. By all accounts, Latin America is the best ally we have in the culture war that is being waged on various fronts. From the PC-SJW-Left to the Islamic expansion; there is nobody better equipped to do battle against these grenades from a fundamental level than Latin America both domestic and abroad.

Does this mean the wall should not be built? Of course not. This just means we need to be cognitive in our discourse regarding the ideological battlefield. Mexicans and the rest of South America are not a threat to our culture. To our ideals. They want we want. They share the same god. Assimilation is not an issue for them. But can we say the same for the Left? Can we say the same for Islam? The answer is a resounding: NEGATIVE.  


“Know yourself, know your enemy, and you shall win a hundred battles without loss”

The Race that Apparently Wasn’t Won: the US is Taking the Cold War Off Ice

After a fifty-year arm-race that was filled with battles and insurgencies filled via proxy there inevitably could only be one winner. That was the country who held the world’s reserve currency. As the US continued to flex its muscles throughout the world and especially in the oil rich middle east after the Soviet collapse, something started to change.

Russia recovered sooner than we anticipated. They wanted their seat at the table back. It now appears the US has only a table for one. 

“WE COULD DO WITH HAVING A USIA ON STEROIDS TO FIGHT THIS INFORMATION WAR [WITH RUSSIA] A LOT MORE AGGRESSIVELY THAN WE’RE DOING RIGHT NOW,”

Those were the words from Director of National Intelligence James Clapper as he sat before the members of the Senate Armed Services Committee last week and had the courage that so many other have been lacking and finally tell the truth.

To finally place the blame on who’s responsible for our breach of security and confidence in elections. Someone finally nailed it and highlighted our lack of manpower and resources to fend off the evil Ruskies, led by Vladimir the Impaler (Putin).

The man, if you can call him such, who ghoulishly rubs his hands in a heated frenzy at the idea of our destruction, like the bloodthirsty- cannibal – commie he is, hell bent on the destabilization of the entire west.

That’s the script anyway, right? Weird how that works. It’s a strange time we live in. A time where the government decides what questions to ask and just who to ask them to. It’s not new of course but it doesn’t make it any easier to swallow.

The audacity of Mr. Clapper is astonishing. First of all, for us, as Americans to collectively point the finger at another country for meddling and sabotage is laughable if it wasn’t so reprehensible and unequivocally ironic. Sadly, so much of our geopolitical makeup and stances are just this.

• Ban other countries, sovereign states from nuclear programs; while we enhance or polish our own.
• Publicly demand other nations to stop escalating proxy wars of aggression or support hostile nations or terror groups while we conduct and support our own of our choosing
• Rail at other nations (and this is my favorite) to stop their currency manipulation while we fund the largest theft of wealth the world has ever seen 100 x’s over via the petrodollar fiat monopoly scheme
• Condemn the justice or lack thereof of other nations why we operate black sites across the globe without oversight or even public record or knowledge

I could go on. And on. And on. But for the sake of clarity, structure and respect for a sensible word count – let’s get to the point. We demand another country to pay the piper for infiltrating our election while we run the largest covert and clandestine operations of anyone in the world on friends and foes alike.

Disrupt elections. Support coups. Assassinate or help aide the assassination of democratically elected leaders. Let’s say for the sake of the argument that Russia did do what they are accused of. Then I say… so what?

Business as usual. Par for the course. When in Rome… you get the idea. Russia wouldn’t have done anything we haven’t done or will continue to do to our enemies and allies alike on a year – year, day to day & minute by minute basis.

EVEN if this was true what would have happened?  They would never have changed a vote. All they would have done was expose the dirty laundry of the DNC and its quarterback, one Hillary Clinton. And that would have been the point. She was itching for a war with Russia. And has been pushing so for years at her time as Secretary of State. She made it perfectly clear to the US populace during the debates:

“I’M GOING TO CONTINUE TO PUSH FOR A NO-FLY ZONE AND SAFE HAVENS WITHIN SYRIA, NOT ONLY TO HELP PROTECT THE SYRIANS AND PREVENT THE CONSTANT OUTFLOW OF REFUGEES BUT TO, FRANKLY, GAIN SOME LEVERAGE ON BOTH THE SYRIAN GOVERNMENT AND THE RUSSIANS.”

A no-fly zone initiated over another sovereign nation that you never declared war on? Where have we seen this before? Seems legitimate.

I have the direct opposite take from that of our intelligence community. One that is quite simply this, knowing what we know about Mrs Clinton if Russia didn’t intervene in some capacity to influence the election

I would assume they were either severely incompetent or awaiting a mutual destruction endgame. Why would they want a presidential candidate who is openly hostile to their standing in the world, in power of the most deadly armed forces the globe has ever seen? So, whether they hacked the emails is of insignificance to me.

Staying with this alternate reality (like the one our intelligence community and administration likes to play ie a reality without evidence) if there was any hacking shouldn’t the onus fall on the DNC? For being quite frankly, lazy, incompetent and just unappealable to the undecided voter? Seems plausible enough.

I mean it’s THEIR security that was hacked after all. If not the bumbling DNC, then who? You can’t blame another nation for doing what we (and every other nation mind you) do on a day to day basis and that is mine for data to use to said nation(s) advantage.

So then, I turn my attention to the real culprit here and that lies at the feet of our national security. Because no matter what; shouldn’t the role of national security involve ummm…. SECURITY? And if the security is breached shouldn’t we look at our security in place or lack thereof?

• As of last year, we had over 100k people working on our behalf in the US intelligence community.
• Just two years ago taxpayers funded and completed the NSA’s Data Center, the 1.5 billion dollar/1 million square foot facility in Utah whose sole purpose is spying and data collection.
• In 2003 we see the creation of Homeland Security whose budget often lies anywhere in the 40-80 billion dollar range annually.
• Let us not forget about the FBI and of course, where would we be without the CIA and its black budget. A virtual blank check from the Department of Defense for the Central Intelligence Agency and its brother and sister agencies working in the intelligence community. A budget which has been reported to be in the 50 billion dollar range

That seems like quite the defense. It would seem we have all we need to stop or thwart any mass scale, state-sponsored hacking program. Yet, James Clapper is asking for more? An INCREASE? That begs the question, could our national security really be incompetent? And this is where things go off the rails in opposite directions.

It would seem, a regional strategy to support the mujahideen in Afghanistan to defeat Russia was an end justify the means approach despite the blowback that occurred with Al Qaeda and subsequently 9-11. An unforeseen error I would surmise.

What about a strategy that has seen us embrace regime change in Iraq. A nation that was secular in an Islamic theocracy dominated middle east? To then promote nation building then abandon said nation while creating vacuums that foster groups like ISIS? Do those ends justify the means too? Was Iraq such a threat?

Or what about Libya? We participated in air support and a no-fly zone (ah there it is) in the overthrow and the removal of another secular leader in Gaddafi who grew Libya into the richest nation on the continent of Africa. To only see it fall into the hands of rebels and a climate of total deprivation and chaos.

How about secular Syria who has seen us wave the sword at for decades? Always right there to punish them by sanctions and or by proxy as the US backs the same terrorist ties that the US pinned 9-11 on. Does this seem like a sound strategy?

And then there is Iran.

If radicalization and theocracies don’t share our values then why are our intelligence community and the nation following a script that has us doing the exact opposite shaping our geopolitical landscape? That leads to only one logical answer because that is the objective. We want to destabilize the region.

We want to protect the petrodollar hegemony (as Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya have all left or tried to leave the US dollar as a reserve currency). We want to control the energy in the region via pipeline deals and the players who sit in an area where ⅔’s of the world’s oil supply is derived from. All of these are true. All of these are objectives.

If Russia infiltrated the election to merely expose the neocons and hawks of the left (Clinton) they do so at the behest of the entire free world. The world that would rather not end.

So the witch hunt that’s taking place regarding Russia via our intelligence community and our mainstream “media” is the US trying to reshape the narrative. A narrative where they are back trying to dupe the public into another hail mary from the cold war playbook. However, the cold war has ended and we have the internets. We won’t be fooled again.

Connecting the dots from Washington to Damascus takes a degree in circular logic.

With the cowardly bombing of the Boston Marathon still only being measured in hours removed from the attack, on Wednesday, April 17, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel informed Congress of a new deployment of US troops to Jordan. I don't know whats more curious, the timing of this new venture during a week where both the American press and public's attention was focused squarely in and around Boston or the official, on record justification for this move.

According to Jordan Information Minister Mohammad Momani:

"The deployment of the troops is part of US-Jordanian military cooperation to boost the Jordanian armed forces in light of the deteriorating situation in Syria,"

Mr Hagel on the other hand was a bit more in-depth with his comments to Congress on Wednesday in this report by ABC's Luis Martinez:

“We have an obligation and responsibility to think through the consequences of direct U.S. military action in Syria,” said Hagel.  He added that “military intervention at this point could hinder humanitarian relief operations.  It could embroil the United States in a significant, lengthy, and uncertain military commitment.”

More importantly he warned that it could have “the unintended  consequence of bringing the United States into a broader regional conflict or proxy war. ” He stressed that “the best outcome for Syria – and the region – is a negotiated, political transition to a post-Assad Syria.”

He later used blunter language in describing how all factors should be weighed in considering a U.S. military option in Syria. “You better be damn sure, as sure as you can be, before you get into something, because once you’re into it, there isn’t any backing out, whether it’s a no-fly zone, safe zone, protect these — whatever it is. Once you’re in, you can’t unwind it. You can’t just say, well, it’s not going as well as I thought it would go, so we’re going to get out."

Lets put Hagel's own words into action. Its obvious the Department of Defense is "damn sure" of what they are getting into or why go into details of it? Its also obvious the DOD is contemplating military intervention that will not only hinder humanitarian efforts but at the same time, could result in "significant, lengthy, and uncertain military commitment." The best alternative to negate this? A negotiated political transition with Syria? Does this photo-op on Syrians Independence day on April, 17th (how ironic) look like a regime that wants to hand over or "transition power"?

 

A picture released by SANA on April 17, 2013, shows members the Syrian Army parading on Syria's Independence Day (SANA/AFP)

So, when these boots hit the ground, what will be the mission? To hold the hand of Jordan to control humanitarian efforts? Isn't this a job that is earmarked for the international community as a whole? I would assume the UN or Red Cross would be more than capable of handling this. But alas, the US is taking this bull by the horns. 

Then there was this analysis by Washington think tank Foreign Policy in Focus's Conn Hallinan: 

 “since a major job for these troops will be logistical, it does appear as if they are preparing the groundwork like they did for the invasion of Iraq by going into Saudi Arabia and preparing there... It’s a serious escalation and a disturbing one."

We want the Syrian regime to concede control. If not we are setting the stages for some type of invasion. In the meantime we will continue to indirectly back the uprising which consists of a variety of players including militants from al Qaeda and the al-Nusra Front, both of whom are on the US terror list. Does this sound familiar? Didn't Hollywood of all places, recently make a movie about this type of thing starring Tom Hanks called 'Charlie Wilson's War'?  

Apparently this irony has not gone unnoticed by Syrain President Bashar Assad:

 "The West paid heavily for funding al-Qaida in its early stages in Afghanistan. Today it is supporting it in Syria, Libya and other places, and will pay a heavy price later in the heart of Europe and the United States"

And to make matters worse, this is no longer just a mixed bag, a hodgepodge if you will, of revolutionaries. These rebels, according to Assad (in the very same article in the Jerusalem Post) these are: "mainly" "extremist forces".

Last week Nusra Front released this audio statement pledging allegiance to al Qaeda:

"The sons of Nusra Front renew their pledge (of allegiance) to the Sheikh of Jihad Ayman al-Zawahri and declare obedience,"  

Now, there seems to be a coalition forming of Islamic extremists in Syria, with many of these extremists part of the group that was driven out of Al Anbar Province in 2007 by US forces and local tribes because of their alleged "extreme interpretation of Islam". Anbar, located on the borders of both Syria and Jordan provide an eerie backdrop to this story, and by story, I mean another movie that comes to mind; 'Groundhogs day'.   

And whats even more eerie about this connection is we are just five days removed from the affects of terrorism playing out in our very own streets. Yet here we are, putting boots on the ground on the border of a civil war, where we are backing terrorist outfits. THE SAME terrorist outfits we have sworn to defeat in our never ending 'War on Terror'.

I understand the pecking order here. I understand Syria is an easy target, isolated in the middle east outside of Iran. I understand its easier to overthrow a rag tag group of terrorists than it is a nation with armies and chemical weapons (unless your Iraq and you have none of either despite the world saying otherwise). What I dont understand is two fold. 

First, I don't understand, how surprised we are here in the states when terrorists decide to strike here. I mean if you sleep with a porcupine, can you really be surprised about getting pricked? This 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' approach needs to be better to the general public. Because the consequences of this philosophy puts them in harms way.

Lastly, if the Nobel Peace Prize was a prize awarded to promoting peace, would it not be out of the question for the committee who awards said prize to demand its prize back for some type of breach? Or does this make the Nobel, nothing more than a participation award, like a 1980s/90's book it pin, which promoted kids reading. Or, is this just a natural development? Someone receives a peace prize who has never done anything to promote peace in the first place, then all of sudden becomes a war hawk is not that surprising.

Either way, Mr Obama, your legacy might be healthcare "reform" to many but others it will be simply contradiction. Whether i agree with what you ran on or not is not my point, my point is you haven't made good on many of the important issues you yourself highlighted in '08. You've been a whore for big business and you have failed miserably on bringing peace and instead have expanded the previous administrations warring. Back in a debate in 2008 you said: "one important thing is that we not get mission creep". 

Apparently, when you are not running for office, "important things" go out the window. And oh yea, Liberal-peace loving "democrats" (as if there is a difference between parties) you can take off that peace sign bumper sticker, along with your "coexist" magnet and shove 'em up your asses. Hopefully, that will lead to  your heads being forced to come crawling out of it.

Iran, a nuclear threat? Or... Dollar threat?

(Graphic courtesy of Soahead.com)

Is Iran a threat? Are they a threat to the US? Are they are threat to her allies? Is Iran a threat to the region? The answer to these questions are all, yes, they are. However, they are a threat for different reasons to each entity. Israel has long had problems with Iran. It’s well documented and that will never cease; at least not in our lifetimes.

The Middle East region is very complicated and convoluted. With the Arab Spring now working its way into other totalitarian regimes, established dictators and theocracy’s, the region remains sensitive to any waves. Iran is the most powerful state left in the Middle East. They are predominately Shi’a Muslim’s (85%) while the rest of the region is overwhelmingly Sunni Muslim (90%). If we remember the problems with the US invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq, it was complications of various religious sects and the sectarian violence that ensued because of those divisions, was what caused the greatest problems.

Religion was also in part the basis for Iraq’s invasion of Iran in 1980 that lasted eight bloody years resulting in over 1 Million deaths. This was the same war that the US backed Saddam’s Sunni invasion supplying both weapons and intelligence to Iraq in proxy war against the Shi’a Iranians. It was during and after the Iraq invasion that Iran became more isolated the ever before and when you include they speak a different language (Persian) and have another belief system from their neighbors; it only compounded the isolation.

Recently, there was the wikileaks cable that quoted Saudi Ambassador to the US, Adel al-Jubeir recalling King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia urging the US to attack Iran’s nuclear program. To quote “cut the head off the snake (Iran)”. Last month, Saudi Oil Minister, Ali al-Naimi, said that the Kingdom will be able to make -up for any shortfall if Iran remains in a defensive posture; further indicating their approval for regime change. 

"It is because of our ongoing investment that Saudi Arabia is able to respond to shortages around the world - take issues with Libyan production last year for example. 'And it's because of our investment that any future shortages will be handled."

In fact, most Arab nations do not receive the Iranians well and do not want them to go nuclear. The Arab League has isolated Syria (Iran’s only ally) as it has halted both diplomatic and economic ties with the nation. If that wasnt enough of a statement they will lend political and material support to the Syrian opposition. It appears Syria will come to some type of regime change similar to what happened in Egypt and Libya. The Arab spring is said to be based on freedom of individuals and elections are a part of that; if and when the revolution takes power, it will not replace the leadership of Assad with a pro Iranian government.

What is happening is Iran is walking the proverbial plank. They have no allies. Everyone around them either wants their leadership removed or they simply don’t care either way. Both bordering nations of Iran have been vaporized by the United States. Its only logical that another member of the “Axis of evil” stuck smack dab in the middle of US occupations is next.

They know it and they also know they only have a few cards to play. First, they must go nuclear BEFORE an attack, being that a nuclear nation has yet to be attacked by the United States. Will this deter them from being attacked by the West? Nobody can say for sure, but it will at least give them pause and possibly buy the Iranians more time. Secondly, and the Ace of Spades, is that they will divorce themselves from the dollar.

With the drumbeat of war ratcheting up from the US to heights not seen since 2002, Iran, like its neighbor Iraq once did, is poised to play chicken with the US and its European allies engaging the US in economic war. The first strike was launched by the US in new sanctions signed by President Obama back in December and there was a response by Tehran with a threat to close the Strait of Hormuz. 

Now, we have Belgium-based SWIFT - who is a lifeline to international trade, as they oversee an average of 18 million payment messages per day between banks in 210 countries prepared to cut off Iran, virtually forcing international trade with Iran to a standstill. This is a remarkable revelation and a clear indication of the clout the US still carries as the reserve currency of international trade. Never, has SWIFT removed a nation since its inception in 1973.

"Kicking Iran out of SWIFT is both unprecedented and another dangerous step toward turning a financial war into a military conflict," said Reza Marashi, National Iranian American Council's research director.

Not only does this hurt all Iranians, but more importantly it hurts Iran’s military as well. Without fuel you cannot mobilize your military and logistics become impossible. Logistical failure has been the downfall of some of them most important conflicts of the last 300 years and with Iran being economically cut off it would inevitable. While Iran maybe the 3^rd largest supplier of crude in the world, it’s also relying on 40% of its petroleum and diesel consumption to come way of imports due to both refinery dysfunction /inefficiencies and just flat out a shortage of new refineries. That however is being addressed and eventually Iran will not be so dependable on importing gasoline but yet still vulnerable if those refineries were knocked offline.  

At one point, Iran was planning on getting out of the dollar as early as 2002 (if not long before) and then Iraq (who tried getting out of the dollar in 2000 after a decade of sanctions) got blitzed and Tehran went eerily silent. Then a few years later and coincidentally enough with the US bogged down in two stagnate/unpopular wars... Tehran began chatting aloud about dumping the dollar again. It was The Iranian Oil Bourse, created in 2008, that set the stage for this showdown that will officially end the petrol-dollar relationship with Iranian crude oil beginning on March 20, 2012. That is just a little over a month to go.

Now that we are facing our own debt problems, drawing down from Iraq and Afghanistan and have a President who may be perceived as weak, the Iranians threw down the gauntlet. What are we to do? All this adds up to one thing and that is why we are seeing a strong military presence in the Middle East, coupled with tough talk from talking heads here in the states. I see a major push to invoke war with the Iranians.

I've always felt and said that nuclear weapons and terrorism have always been more of a perceived threat then an actual threat concerning the Middle East. 9-11 was the exception and it wasn't state sponsored either. Are nuclear weapons that much of a threat to warrant all this attention? I have my reservations. Iran has plenty of nations around them that don't particularly care for them and are nuked up as well, and those that don’t posses nuclear capability's, I assume would be more then happy to have nukes from the US/West planted on their soil as a deterrent.

Iran maybe a nutty regime but mutual destruction is a deterrent to even the crazies, no matter how much “cooze” Allah can (sic) promise. It’s simply a self contained regional situation in spite of what the saber wavers might otherwise say, even if they did get nukes. The idea of supporting terrorist and getting nukes however is easier for people to grasp then how the Petrodollar recycling machine works and its more inline with the average person’s moral views: good vs evil is easier to understand vs then say what it really is and that is the Machiavellian battle of high vs low mach, or some might say survival of the fittest.

Hell, the majority of the country does not even believe in natural selection!? Can you really blame our government for running with the: 'scary dudes in turbans, armed with rocket launchers and hiding in caves reading Korans under camp fires - alongside a gaggle of virgins, who also want to nuke you…because they hate you, because you are free' story?  

That's where this web gets tangled. See, as Americans we like our standard of living. Is it inflated? Is it driven purely by consumption and debt? Is it made possible by a rigged game that allows us to trade pieces of paper for all types of goods and commodities that the rest of the world has to break their backs for? The answer to those questions is also - yes.  

If it was just about nuclear weapons we would have eliminated North Korea's capability's long ago. If it was about terrorism, we would have went after our own allies like Saudi Arabia or never would have clandestinely funded so many right-wing gorilla operations in Latin and South America the last 50 years. 

Anyone that threatened to flip the monopoly board over and not participate (and publicly denounce the petrodollar) in the petrodollar scheme and trade with other currencies, has already been or will be (Hugo Chavez) neutralized. From Libya - Iraq - former IMF chair Dominique Strauss-Kahn and now Iran. 

“The dispute over Iran’s nuclear programme is nothing more than a convenient excuse for the US to use threats to protect the 'reserve currency’ status of the dollar” from the Tehran Times - which calls itself the voice of the Islamic Revolution

With the Petrodollar recycling process being the single - most vital element to the United States hegemony, it is imperative and absolutely essential that nations (see OPEC) continue to exchange their oil for US dollars. Or, the world as we know it here in the States will be much different... and not for the better. You can rest assured, that we will be putting a boot up the Ayatollahs ass and carpet bombing the Caucasus before our leaders (see corporations) allow us to fall into that state.