MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘Germany’

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. on 5G, Gov’t Control by Fear, Surveillance, and Totalitarianism at Berlin Rally – Activist Post

Posted by M. C. on September 2, 2020

The majority of scientists worldwide oppose 5G until there are studies that show it’s safe. Seems reasonable, doesn’t it?

Safe medically or freedom wise? Or both?

https://www.activistpost.com/2020/08/robert-f-kennedy-jr-on-5g-govt-control-by-fear-surveillance-and-totalitarianism-at-berlin-rally.html

By B.N. Frank

Cities worldwide AND entire countries have taken action to ban, delay, halt, and limit 5G installation AS WELL AS issue moratoriums. There IS research that HAS determined that exposure is NOT safe. There have also been reports of people and animals experiencing symptoms and illness after it was installed and turned on (see 1. 2, 3, 4) since 2018.

Of course, exposure to other sources of wireless radiation can cause health issues as well. In fact, last year The World Health Organization warned that high levels of Electromagnetic Radiation (aka “Electrosmog”) could lead to health issues in 30% of the population.

5G opposition is about A LOT more than health and environmental risks (see 1, 2, 3). Robert F. Kennedy Jr. spoke about this yesterday at a rally in Berlin.

From Children’s Health Defense:


Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Speaks at Berlin Rally for Freedom and Peace

By the Children’s Health Defense Team

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. spoke to hundreds of thousands in the streets of Berlin, Germany, August 29, 2020. With Großer Stern Square and the Siegesäule Monument as a backdrop, Mr. Kennedy talked about government control by fear and spoke out against totalitarianism. He said the government and those with the greatest wealth and control have done a terrible job on public health and will shift us all to 5G and a cashless society. He said that 5G is being pushed on us as a good thing but it will be used for surveillance and data harvesting. Mr. Kennedy added that the COVID 19 pandemic is a crisis of convenience that is destroying the middle class, impoverishing us all, and it is making the powerful elite even more powerful. He closed with the message that we must protect our fellow man, our vulnerable children and our freedoms and democracy!

Senta Depuydt, Officer of the New CHD-Europe Chapter, Berlin Rally Speech

Dear friends who came from all over Europe. Today we are here to give the world a powerful message.

Humanity can not and will not longer be ruled by a model based on threat and control.

Right here, right now, we can all refuse this. Right here, right now, we can change the ‘narrative’. We can create ‘OUR new normal’.

We keep hearing the words ‘Solidarity’, compassion and equal rights in the mouths of politicians who try to separate and divide us. People who order fines, isolation, experiment on our health and restrict all our freedoms. Those people are not philanthropists. They ask us to believe in a new religion called ‘the scientific consensus’, a fabricated dogma used by a corrupt cast called ‘experts’ who serve no other than their own interest.

Tracking and tracing are the tools of this inquisition. We know where this ultimately lead us to : Isolation, punishment and slavery.

We can choose to see things as they are, with the dangers and the opportunities they bear.

I believe history has given the German people this capacity and this responsibility.

So, I have some very good news to share, because today I am surrounded by brave people.

I am standing next to a man who is literally catching snakes with his bare hands. (Yes, watch it on Instagram). Rattlesnakes hiding in the bushes of the Californian valleys, and also more poisonous species who produce toxic drugs and pesticides and experiment them on humans and on nature.

This man acts with courage, passion, service and faith. That is true leadership, the capacity to inspire others by one’s actions. That is what the Kennedy’s have done, that is their legacy.

And today, today this man meets other men and women with the same values. All of you here who have come to show your true courage, your true solidarity, your true humanity. All of you who individually and collectively are peacefully manifesting your sovereignty.

I will call you all Berliners.

And as a European, as a mother, as an individual asking for the respect of my human rights I say that I am proud to ‘a Berliner’.

Children’s Health Defense Europe wants to become a Berliner alliance.

Thank you so much for joining us.

Grazie a tutti per la vostra presenza.

Hartelijk dank voor jullie aanwezigheid

Merci a tous de votre présence.

Gracias por su presencia.

Vielen Danke fur Ihren Anwesenheit


The majority of scientists worldwide oppose 5G until there are studies that show it’s safe. Seems reasonable, doesn’t it?

Activist Post reports regularly about 5G and other unsafe technology. For more information, visit our archives and the following websites:

Be seeing you

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Media Blackout: Massive Gathering In Germany As RFK Jr. Exposes Bill Gates & Big Pharma – Collective Evolution

Posted by M. C. on September 2, 2020

Why This Is Important: The number of activists from all walks of life, from all professions, including thousands of doctors and scientists who have been questioning actions that have been and are being taken by governments around the world for a long time is quite large and continues to grow.

I must have missed the Erie Times-News coverage.

https://www.collective-evolution.com/2020/08/31/media-blackout-massive-gathering-in-germany-as-rfk-jr-exposes-bill-gates-big-pharma/

In Brief

  • The Facts:Robert F. Kennedy Jr. recently spoke in Berlin, Germany, where a total of more than 1 million people, according to him, gathered at multiple venues over the duration of the event. He spoke about digital and medical government totalitarianism.
  • Reflect On:Do we really live in a democracy when so many people across the world are being censored and completely ignored by mainstream media for sharing legitimate concerns about what’s happening on our planet?

What Happened: Children’s Health Defense Director and renowned lawyer Robert F. Kennedy Jr. recently spoke to a very large crowd in Berlin, Germany in what was a gathering of of tens of thousands of people who came together to create awareness and protest against what Kennedy referred to as Bill Gates’ “bio-security agenda, the rise of the authoritarian surveillance state and the Big Pharma sponsored coup d’etat against liberal democracy.”  According to Kennedy, and many others around the globe, “the pandemic is a crisis of convenience for the elite who are dictating these policies…Fifty years ago, my uncle John F. Kennedy came to this city. He came to this land, because Berlin was the frontline against global totalitarianism. And today again, Berlin is the frontline against global totalitarianism.” We also published an article written by Kennedy a couple of years ago that also provides more about Gates’ relationship with big pharma.

It’s hard to really know how many people showed up, but judging by the pictures it seems like a lot were in attendance. Mainstream media completely ignored the gathering. According to Kennedy, “This was one of 40 sites scattered around Berlin where where some 1.5 million people gathered around separate stages to evade police harassment and peacefully protest the alarming global rise of Medical & Digital Totalitarianism.”

–> Help Support Collective Evolution: Become a member of CETV and get access to exclusive news and courses to help empower you to become an effective changemaker. Click here to join.

If mainstream media covered a gathering of one thousand, they could make it a big spectacle and make it seem as the “majority” feel a certain way. When they don’t cover something that threatens their and their partners interests, which in this case is big pharma, they can make it seem like it never happened, no matter how big the gathering is. Mainstream media can make it seem as if the majority is the minority, and the minority is the majority.

Bill Gates has also recently been dubbed the ‘journalism gatekeeper.’ Not only does he practically own the WHO and Big Pharma, the same goes for mainstream media.

Related CE Article: Ex CBS Investigative Journalist Explains How Mainstream Media Brainwashes The Masses

A recent Instagram post made by Kennedy expresses his feelings about the event, and the resistance the gatherings faced:

Beneath the Siegesäule Monument where I spoke. This was one of 40 sites scattered around Berlin where where some 1.5 million people gathered around separate stages to evade police harassment and peacefully protest the alarming global rise of Medical & Digital Totalitarianism. As I said in my speech, the government strategy is to portray the protestors as right wing extremists or “Covid Deniers”(a euphemism, in the official narrative for Holocaust deniers) none of which is true. The government issued three proclamations declaring the protest illegal. Our Rapid Response team of lawyers successfully appealed each of these declarations in court. The Pharma-controlled main stream media blacked out all coverage the main event altogether-ignoring what were perhaps the largest crowds in German history. No main stream media covered this momentous gathering. The only media reports claimed only 38,000 people & showed clips of a staged incident where 100 riot police colluded in a false flag show with some 50 agents provocateurs in Nazi regalia near the Reichtag miles from our protest. The obsequious Pharmedia dutifully conflated that phony fascist Kabuki play with our peaceful democratic event to claim we were allied with violent far right extremists 6)World Futbol champion (1990)Thomas Bartholdi and his wife Britta Protest 7)German National Team Basketball Star Joshiko Saibou and Olympic long jump champion Alexandra Westore. 8)Organizer Attorney Marcus Haintz and program moderator Nana from Ghana. KP

Below is a brief clip of him speaking I found on YouTube.

Why This Is Important: The number of activists from all walks of life, from all professions, including thousands of doctors and scientists who have been questioning actions that have been and are being taken by governments around the world for a long time is quite large and continues to grow. Speaking of Germany, for example, More than 500 German doctors & scientists have signed on as representatives of an organization called the “Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee” to investigate what’s happening on our planet with regards to COVID-19. They also believe that the measures and actions being taken by governments worldwide represent a draconian totalitarian agenda that’s continuing to play out under the guise of goodwill. These are actions that are completely unnecessary, unscientific and even harmful according to them and many others.

“The medical profession is being bought by the pharmaceutical industry, not only in terms of the practice of medicine, but also in terms of teaching and research. The academic institutions of this country are allowing themselves to be the paid agents of the pharmaceutical industry. I think it’s disgraceful.”

– Arnold Seymour Relman (1923-2014), Harvard professor of medicine and former Editor-in-Chief of The New England Medical Journal  (source)

A couple of years ago, Kennedy explained the power big pharma has in the United States, let alone the world:

Those of you who have been involved in the past in the battle to protect our children from poorly made vaccines or toxic chemicals in our food or in our water know the power of these industries and how they’ve undermined every institution in our democracy that is supposed to protect little children from powerful, greedy corporations. Even the pharmaceutical companies have been able to purchase congress. They’re the largest lobbying entity in Washington D.C.. They have more lobbyists in Washington D.C. than there are congressman and senators combined. They give twice to congress what the next largest lobbying entity is, which is oil and gas… Imagine the power they exercise over both republicans and democrats. They’ve captured them (our regulatory agencies) and turned them into sock puppets. They’ve compromised the press… and they destroy the publications that publish real science. (source)

The question is, why are so many people who share these opinions completely censored? Even when there are thousands of them, when it comes to covid the list of renowned doctors and scientists is quite long.

As authoritarianism spreads, as emergency laws proliferate, as we sacrifice our rights, we also sacrifice our capability to arrest the slide into a less liberal and less free world. Do you truly believe that when the first wave, this second wave, the 16th wave of the coronavirus is a long forgotten memory, that these capabilities will not be kept? – Edward Snowden (source)

I’ve written numerous articles expressing the feelings, opinions, research and data of many explaining why lockdown measures and more for covid seem quite ridiculous. Here’s one of many that goes into the infection fatality rate, for example, the article linked above with regards to the more than 500 German doctors and scientist is another example. To read more of our coverage throughout this pandemic, you can click here.

The Takeaway: Why is there a digital authoritarian Orwellian “fact-checker” going around the internet that is censoring information that’s clearly not false? Why are they censoring information that doesn’t fit the narrative of the World Health Organization (WHO). Why are the leaked documents from Wikileaks showing the influence that Big Pharma has within the WHO completely ignored? Why does mainstream media constantly use ridicule, character assassination and words like “conspiracy theory” instead of actually addressing and countering the points being made by so many doctors, scientists and activists? Why can’t we have these discussions openly and transparently? What is going on here?

Our world is going through a massive shift in consciousness, and the COVID-19 pandemic has and is serving as a catalyst for more and more people to start questioning exactly what is going on here instead of simply believing what they are hearing and seeing on their television screens. This questioning and critical inquiry results in a perception shift, and the world people once thought was becomes something completely different. Not everything is as we’ve been told and taught, and in order to change things for the better we have to be able to identify and see the problem. This is exactly the process we are going through, and the more we ‘wake up’ the more effort there is from those who are threatened by our ‘awakening’ to silence and control us.

We are living in exciting times! It’s great to see an event like covid spark such a massive gathering of people who desire a better and more transparent world for all. We saw similar things after 9/11.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Who will salute Trump’s man in Berlin? – UnHerd

Posted by M. C. on August 14, 2020

But in some respects, Macgregor has gone even further than the president and will doubtless spell out some hard truths to the German government if he becomes the next US Ambassador to Berlin. Just last year, he called NATO a “zombie”. Even more controversial during a period of bogus “Russiagate” fanaticism, Macgregor has inconveniently reminded us that “the promises given to President Mikhail Gorbachev by President George H. W. Bush, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, President Francois Mitterrand, Chancellor Helmut Kohl and their foreign ministers in 1990 — not to expand NATO eastward; not to extend membership in the NATO alliance to former member states of the Warsaw Pact—were ignored.”

https://unherd.com/2020/08/how-trumps-new-hire-subverts-the-status-quo/

BY and

Two centuries ago, the British statesman John Bright warned against “following visionary phantoms in all parts of the world while your own country is becoming rotten within”.

It is symptomatic of how diseased American strategic thinking has become over the past 30 years that so few Americans in a position to influence the direction of US foreign policy would have the guts or insight to issue a similar warning today.

That cannot be said of President Trump’s nominee to become ambassador to Germany, retired US Army Colonel Douglas Macgregor. It’s a selection that sends a clear message in the run-up to the 2020 election.

Colonel Douglas Macgregor’s selection sends a clear message in the run-up to the 2020 election

Macgregor, who has previously been on the shortlists to be either US national security advisor or Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, would be that rarest of creatures in Trumpworld: an appointee actually in line with the policies the President campaigned on in 2016.

In him, Trump would at long last have a high profile advocate for foreign policy positions that arguably won him the election four years ago. Macgregor has been a staunch supporter of the President’s efforts to finally bring a real and lasting peace to the Korean peninsula. He has also long been an outspoken proponent of a worldwide US military drawdown, in particular calling for a serious rethink of the benefits of NATO. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Germany’s populist revolt against the lockdown – spiked

Posted by M. C. on August 8, 2020

As early as 1966, the renowned humanist and anti-Nazi philosopher Karl Jaspers described German politics as being dominated by a party oligarchy, which upholds control and power. The postwar political system, he wrote, reflected a deep-seated fear of the people. Yes, citizens were allowed to vote every four years, but only for candidates that were hand-picked by members of the party-hierarchy.

Sound familiar?

https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/08/07/germanys-populist-revolt-against-the-lockdown/

The ‘Freedom Day’ protesters are challenging far more than the Covid restrictions.

Sabine Beppler-Spahl
Germany Correspondent

Tens of thousands gathered in Berlin last weekend to proclaim ‘Freedom Day and the end of the pandemic’. The event couldn’t have been more controversial.

One side (the vast majority of commentators and politicians) referred to the demo as a ‘dangerous development’. The protesters were labelled as reckless government-haters who posed a risk to other people’s health. The word Covidiots came up again and again (including in a tweet by the leader of the Social Democrats, Saskia Esken). Government minister Peter Altmeier demanded harsher penalties for those violating social-distancing rules.

The protesters, on the other hand, saw themselves as ‘freedom fighters’ against ‘dictatorship’ and ‘single-party rule’. Disagreement arose even with regard to the size of the demonstration. Were there 20,000 participants, as reported by the police? Or were there up to one million, as the alternative, left-liberal media platform Rubicon (the ‘magazine for the critical masses’, as it calls itself) claimed?

One year before the country heads to the polls to elect a new government, coronavirus has become the latest symbol in the battle over truth and public opinion. Those who, at the beginning of the crisis, believed the virus would help overcome political divisions couldn’t have been more wrong. Even the oft-repeated assertion that the pandemic has restored confidence in Angela Merkel and her grand-coalition government could still prove to be flawed.

The government has come under pressure from new protest organisations. Michael Ballweg, an IT specialist, is one of the founders of Querdenken. He proudly promised at the Berlin demo that he and his organisation were here to stay. He organised the demonstration together with the bus-drivers’ association, Honk for Hope, which helped to bring people from around the country to the capital.

 

In a clever move, Ballweg has also announced that he intends to stand as a candidate in the mayoral election in his home city of Stuttgart in November this year. The media reports portray his supporters as crackpots, anti-vaxxers and right-wing or left-wing extremists. This makes it unlikely that he will win. There is of course also still a widespread fear of the virus. But his candidacy will hopefully shake things up.

Before the Berlin demonstration, he gave an interview to Rubicon. His scepticism of the government’s Covid restrictions, he says, was roused during the early phases of lockdown as scientists and doctors who had taken a different, less restrictive line, had increasingly been ignored or even censored: ‘I began to ask myself what possibilities people have to protest against measures they might not agree with, if not through the right to assemble, and free speech.’ He also feels that whenever fact-checkers popped up on social media, we, as self-thinking citizens, should look especially closely at what is being dismissed. His concern now is that restrictions which were imposed temporarily are proving to be permanent. ‘The pandemic is over when the people say it is’, is his line of protest.

It is telling that an organisation like Querdenken, which has seemingly sprung out of nowhere, can mobilise so many people – despite all the ridicule in the media and the threats from politicians it has attracted. The claim that the government’s concern was only for people’s health would be more credible if its response to its critics hadn’t followed such a well-established pattern. Calls for more ‘fact-checking’ and appeals to abide by an officially accepted line have accompanied almost every social and cultural conflict in the past few years.

As early as 1966, the renowned humanist and anti-Nazi philosopher Karl Jaspers described German politics as being dominated by a party oligarchy, which upholds control and power. The postwar political system, he wrote, reflected a deep-seated fear of the people. Yes, citizens were allowed to vote every four years, but only for candidates that were hand-picked by members of the party-hierarchy.

In addition, a system of party financing, alongside a five per cent threshold for all parties at general elections, have made any challenge to the established oligarchy very difficult. ‘The active participation of the dangerous people was to be kept to a minimum’, Jaspers wrote in his best-selling Wohin treibt die Bundesrepublik?. In this system, citizens became subjects.

Jaspers’ book was published in the year of the first grand coalition after the war. Of course, much has changed, and several new parties have appeared since. Yet now that governing by grand coalition has almost become the norm, Jaspers’ theory about a political oligarchy seeking to dominate politics seem surprisingly prescient.

Perhaps the protests against the Covid restrictions could be the start of a new populist opposition movement to the whole establishment. In any case, all those who wish for more freedom, an end to the rule of the oligarchic parties, and more respect for free speech, should observe these developments in Germany with interest.

Sabine Beppler-Spahl’s Brexit – Demokratischer Aufbruch in Großbritannien is out now.

Be seeing you

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Is Trump Using Nordstream 2 to Exit NATO?

Posted by M. C. on July 17, 2020

The Davos Crowd is making their big move to consolidate
power in Europe. Trump is working with Boris Johnson in the U.K. to
oppose that. That’s the simplified version of the chess board.

And this is why I think Trump refuses to give up on stopping Nordstream 2. He’s seen the depths to which The Davos Crowd will go to implement this radical change and he’s forcing the moment to its crisis, as T.S. Eliot put it.

He’s making the choice very clear for Merkel and company. If you want
Nordstream 2, suffer the consequences of having to do business without
the U.S.

This isn’t about Russia anymore, at all. It’s about Germany and the
future of the U.S. If Trump loses in November all of the work done to
slow down this push for transnational technocratic oligarchy will end.

https://tomluongo.me/2020/07/15/is-trump-using-nordstream-2-to-exit-nato/

The one thing I never thought I’d say is that Donald Trump is consistent, and yet on the subject of the Nordstream 2 pipeline he has been.

No single project has caused more wailing and gnashing of teeth than Nordstream 2. And since Nordstream 2 is simply the substitute for South Stream, which was supposed to come across the Black Sea into Bulgaria and then feed eastern Europe, this U.S. opposition to another Russian pipeline spans multiple administrations.

So, this is policy that goes far beyond simple 2020 electoral politics, Trump trying to look tough on the Russians, or his misguided Energy Dominance policy.

With Trump rescinding the sanctions exemption for Nordstream 2 he now has declared open war against Europe, specifically Germany over this project.

But here’s the thing, I think Trump is doing this for updated reasons that fit a different agenda than why the U.S. opposed Nordstream 2 previously, because he knows he can’t stop the pipeline now. All he can do is further alienate Germany, who he has targeted as the main problem in Europe.

Before I go any further, though, I think a little history lesson is in order.

U.S. opposition to Nordstream 2 is deeply ingrained on all sides of the political aisle in D.C. From Republicans still fighting the cold war to Democrats having deep ties to Ukrainian gas transit there are a multitude of reasons why Nordstream 2 is verboten in D.C.

On the other hand, Europe’s relationship with Nordstream 2 is, in a word, complicated.

Russian President Vladimir Putin scuttled South Stream back in late 2014 because the EU changed its pipeline rules during its development after the contracts were in place.

Most of that was U.S. pressure, but some of that was Germany’s Angela Merkel working with then-President Barack Obama to create the worst possible scenario for Gazprom – a pipeline that wasn’t profitable.

Merkel backed Obama’s play in Ukraine in 2014 as a power move to control prices for Russian gas into Europe, putting Soviet-era pipelines under EU gas directive jurisdiction.

The EU was always going to use Ukrainian gas transit as leverage over Putin to drive gas prices below Gazprom’s cost thinking they had no other options.

Putin famously pivoted to China, singing the mega-deal for Power of Siberia in retaliation to that. Since Putin had already brought Crimea in from the cold war and tacitly backed the breakaway of the Donbass Merkel was now the one on her back foot.

At the same time, to salvage the work done on South Stream to that point, Putin cut a deal with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan to replace South Stream’s volumes to eastern Europe with Turkstream’s to Turkey.

The plans for Turkstream include multiple trains into eastern Europe with countries like Serbia, Hungary and the Czech Republic itching for that gas.

Russia’s options were manifest and Putin deftly outmaneuvered Merkel and Obama. These events forced Merkel’s hand after she stupidly caved to the Greens over ending Germany’s use of nuclear power and now she needed Nordstream 2.

And so Nordstream 2 became a big geopolitical football because Merkel saw, as well, the opportunity to bring the recalcitrant Poles and Baltics under her control as well, solidifying long-term EU plans to engulf all of Euope to Russia’s borders. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Congress Plays Hardball to Keep American Troops Overseas | The American Conservative

Posted by M. C. on July 10, 2020

Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) and Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-Tex.) have proposed barring the use of funds to remove any troops. That is, at a time of budget crisis they want to keep more U.S. money flowing into Germany, rewarding a government dedicated to focus on its economy and society while expecting Americans to do the military defending.

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/congress-should-serve-americans/

The U.S. should not prop up NATO allies who are unwilling to invest in their own defense.

The Europeans collectively have 11 times the GDP and three times the population of Russia. Germany has the world’s fourth largest economy, alone two and a half times the size of Russia’s.

Yet the Europeans affect to be helpless, vulnerable to attack by a revived Red Army. No European government spends much more than two percent of GDP on the military, not even the Baltic States and Poland, which squeal the most frequently and loudly about evil hordes massing just over the border. At least France and Great Britain have competent forces, though not directed at Moscow. Germany devotes just 1.38 percent of its GDP to a military far from battle-ready. Italy and Spain barely bother to maintain armed forces. And then there are nations like Luxembourg.

So why is it America’s responsibility to protect countries well able to defend themselves but not interested in doing so? Worse, why are U.S. policymakers constantly reassuring the Europeans that no matter how little they do Washington will always be there, ready to save them? Why have lawmakers, elected to represent the American people, turned NATO into a defense dole for what Ronald Reagan today might call foreign welfare queens?

To his credit, President Donald Trump has sharply criticized allies which prefer to leave the heavy lifting to Washington. Alas, his methods are dubious and have had little effect. Their small increases in military spending began before he was elected. His officials have thwarted his policies by increasing U.S. support for NATO, even expanding the alliance to such military behemoths as Montenegro and North Macedonia.

Most bizarre is Congress’s determination to always stand with European officials, who, in sharp contrast, put their own nations first. Legislators constantly ignore the plight of American taxpayers, who are expected to keep funding prosperous, populous allies which believe they have better things to do than enlarging and improving their militaries. Like preserving largescale social welfare programs at U.S. expense.

For instance, the president’s determination to pull 9500 U.S. personnel out of Germany caused congressmen, Republicans and Democrats alike, to go, well, completely nuts. In their view the president was inviting Vladimir Putin to invade Europe and conquer most of the known world. They imagined that a new Dark Ages was descending, the world was about to end, and the lion was poised to eat the lamb.

So, naturally, leading lawmakers are scheming to block the move, in order to ensure that the Europeans need never be bothered to take care of themselves. Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) and Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-Tex.) have proposed barring the use of funds to remove any troops. That is, at a time of budget crisis they want to keep more U.S. money flowing into Germany, rewarding a government dedicated to focus on its economy and society while expecting Americans to do the military defending.

Who do Romney and Thornberry believe they are representing? Why do they care more about German than American taxpayers?

Republicans also are taking the lead in the Democratic-controlled House to sacrifice American interests for foreign governments. For instance, Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyoming), daughter of “I had other priorities” Dick Cheney, who avoided serving in Vietnam before plotting numerous wars for today’s young, backed a Democratic proposal to limit further withdrawals from Afghanistan, where Americans have been engaged in a nearly 20-year nation-building mission. The measure passed by a 45 to 11 vote: members of both countries seem determined to keep Americans forever fighting in Central Asia. They care more for the corrupt, incompetent regime in Kabul than America service members and taxpayers. In contrast, the president, despite his halting, inconsistent policy, better represents this nation’s interests.

The opposition to the president’s plan for getting out of Afghanistan was modest compared to the hysteria that consumed Washington when he ordered U.S. forces home from Syria. Unsurprisingly, though unfortunately, legislators took the lead in opposing his plan to focus on the interests of Americans.

For instance, Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill) complained that Trump’s refusal to keep the U.S. forever entangled in another nation’s civil war, tragic but irrelevant to American security, was “weak.” Sen. Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-NY) pushed a resolution criticizing the president. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell issued the standard yet mindless response to every proposal to disengage from anywhere: the president should “exercise American leadership.” House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Eliot Engel, apparently (and thankfully) defeated in the recent primary by a young progressive, similarly complained that “At President Trump’s hands, American leadership has been laid low.” For all of them, “American leadership” apparently requires engaging in perpetual war on behalf of foreign governments and interests, irrespective of the human and financial cost to this nation.

It is hard to imagine a deployment more antithetical to U.S. security. In Syria Americans are occupying a foreign nation, expected to oust the incumbent government, fight jihadists created by Washington’s invasion of the country next door, force out personnel from Iran and Russia invited in by the legitimate government to battle insurgents supported by the U.S., and forever protect ethnic fighters considered to be an existential threat by the neighboring state, a NATO ally. All this is to be done through an illegal intervention, lacking both domestic and international legal authority. Yet the congressmen so determined to block the president are unwilling to commit themselves and vote to authorize the deployment. Apparently they fear having to justify their bizarre behavior to their constituents who are paying the price of their perverted priorities. A cynic might think U.S. legislators to be both policy morons and political cowards.

Congress has similarly sought to inhibit any effort by the president to withdraw troops from South Korea. Last year’s National Defense Authorization Act set a floor for U.S. troop deployments in the Republic of Korea. The 2020 NDAA raised the number, essentially prohibiting any reduction in current deployments. According to Congress, the Pentagon must forever provide a specific level of military welfare for one of the world’s most prosperous and industrialized states.

Americans should ask when legislators will be as solicitous of American military personnel and taxpayers as of the ROK government. The South enjoys roughly 53 times the economic strength and twice the population of North Korea. If Seoul needs more troops for its defense, why doesn’t it raise them? Why are Americans expected to pay for what South Koreans should be doing?

Of course, the president is not innocent of the temptation to do the bidding of foreign leaders instead of the American people. He appears to be in essentially full thrall of several foreign dictators and other master manipulators, including Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Egypt’s Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu, and Saudi Arabia’s Mohamed bin Salman.

In the last case Congress has taken the unusual stance of challenging the president for his unnatural obeisance to a foreign ruler. The U.S. continues to arm and assist the Saudi royals in their murderous campaign of aggression against their neighbor, Yemen, in order to reinstall a pliant regime prepared to carry out Saudi policy. The war has resulted in a humanitarian catastrophe in what already was one of the world’s poorest nations. The Saudi intervention also triggered a sectarian war, giving Iran an excellent opportunity to bleed the ineffective Saudi military, which has proved to be competent at little more than bombing weddings and funerals, destroying apartments and markets, and slaughtering civilians. It is difficult to imagine an intervention more antithetical to American interests. Here, unusually, Congress is on the right side.

Candidate George W. Bush advocated a “humble foreign policy,” a position he forgot after 9/11. Instead, he decided to try to reorder the world, determined to create a liberal, modern state in Central Asia and turn Iraq into the sort of de facto colony that Neoconservatives imagined a proper Arab nation should be. The result was little short of a catastrophe.

The next president should turn genuine humility into policy. And challenge Congress to abandon its pretensions of global social engineering, ignoring differences in history, interest, geography, religion, ethnicity, culture, and more. Instead of playacting as 535 secretaries of state, legislators should focus on protecting America, its territory, population, prosperity, and liberties.

A good starting point would be to stop treating the Defense Department as another welfare agency, only for foreign governments. America’s wealthy friends should do what serious nations have down throughout history: defend themselves.

Doug Bandow is a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute. A former Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan, he is author of Foreign Follies: America’s New Global Empire.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Trump Deserves Credit for Bringing the Troops Home | The American Conservative

Posted by M. C. on June 15, 2020

But today, give credit where credit is due. Trump, the disrupter, is right to bring the troops home. And I say don’t stop until we once again have a military whose primary job is to defend America.

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/trump-deserves-credit-for-bringing-the-troops-home/

Home/Articles/Politics/Trump Deserves Credit for Bringing the Troops Home

Initiating withdrawals from Afghanistan and Germany is a good step and one he should follow up on.

 

In 1988, a certain congressman from Texas ran for president on a platform of bringing home our troops from around the world. Even then, more than 30 years ago, U.S. troops were in over 100 countries, and tens of thousands were still in Europe.

That Texas congressman was my father, Ron Paul, who 20 years later ran again for the presidency and was still calling “to begin bringing American troops home from around the world—an absolute necessity if the budget is ever to be brought under control. We’re going broke and we still have 75,000 troops in Germany?”

In his best-selling book The Revolution, my father wrote: “We can either withdraw gracefully, as I propose, or we can stay in our fantasy world and wait until bankruptcy forces us to scale back our foreign commitments.”

This week, President Trump called for a modest reduction of American troops in Germany, reducing them from 34,500 to 25,000 (a great start that will hopefully lead to further reductions there). The Republican neocon caucus responded exactly as you would expect. You’d think the Berlin Wall was still in place and two million Russians were about to invade Germany. Utter nonsense.

With the Cold War now 30 years moribund, the hysteria over removing troops is ludicrous. Meanwhile the very real threat of bankruptcy and menacing debt grows each day. Just this year, the United States will add $4 trillion to the national debt. Can the Germans afford to defend themselves? Without question. Germany actually balances its annual budget every year.

Yet the U.S. still has about 170,000 troops in about 150 countries at great expense in both lives and treasure. Often that puts our soldiers on the front lines of civil wars whose origins we barely even comprehend. The U.S. also becomes allied with governments, such as Saudi Arabia, that are barbaric, despotic, and anti-American. And yet the cycle continues because the war caucus vows to never, ever let our troops come home.

President Trump is also advocating ending our nation’s longest war in Afghanistan. It couldn’t happen soon enough. The American taxpayer is paying $50 billion a year to build roads and bridges in that country, while our own nation’s infrastructure crumbles.

President Trump has also discussed having fewer troops in South Korea, and has actually forced Seoul to pay more for our presence. Possibly the best aspect of the Trump presidency, though, has been his willingness to challenge the bipartisan neoconservative consensus on forever war.

Yet critics, including myself, will admit the Trump presidency has not always practiced what it’s preached here. While Trump has consistently advocated for fewer troops in Europe, he has re-introduced U.S. troops into Saudi Arabia, a mistake that eventually will lead to more war or terrorism or both.

But today, give credit where credit is due. Trump, the disrupter, is right to bring the troops home. And I say don’t stop until we once again have a military whose primary job is to defend America.

Rand Paul is a Republican senator from Kentucky.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Time To Pull the Troops From NATO: What Good Is an Alliance Full of Cheap-Riders? – Antiwar.com Original

Posted by M. C. on June 8, 2020

In doing so the Pentagon has turned itself into a welfare agency, underwriting the defense of prosperous, populous states which could protect themselves. Some of these are military nonentities, such as Montenegro and North Macedonia, modern versions of the Duchy of Grand Fenwick, made famous by The Mouse That Roared. Worst of all, the US increasingly allies, sometimes formally, sometimes informally, with countries that bring more military liabilities than assets. Georgia, Ukraine, Taiwan, and Saudi Arabia are the most obvious cases today. All four could drag America into conflicts, the first three with nuclear-armed powers.

https://original.antiwar.com/doug-bandow/2020/06/07/time-to-pull-the-troops-from-nato-what-good-is-an-alliance-full-of-cheap-riders/

President Donald Trump has ordered the Pentagon to remove 9,500 U.S troops from Germany by September. He also set a firm cap of 25,000, instead of allowing the number to swell to 52,000 as units rotate through or deploy for training.

It is a good start. But why did it take him more than three years to act on his criticism of allied cheap-riding on America? And what about the other 25,000 American military personnel in Germany?

Even after the US economy shut down and federal finances cratered, Washington’s foreign policy elite were seeking to add new international duties for Uncle Sam. America and China are teetering on a new cold war, which could turn hot in the Taiwan Strait or elsewhere in the Asia-Pacific. Thus, it is said, Washington must bolster its military alliances, security guarantees, and naval deployments.

Members of the Blob, as Washington’s foreign policy establishment has been called, continue to ferociously oppose the slightest withdrawal from the Middle East. America must fix Syria by confronting the Assad government, ISIS, other Islamist radicals, Turkey, Russia, and Iran. The US certainly cannot leave Iraq, irrespective of the wish of Iraqis. And America’s 18-year war in Afghanistan, in the heart of Central Asia surrounded by Iran, India, Pakistan, Russia, and China, should be accepted as the start of a beautiful permanent commitment. As the Eagles declared in their famous song Hotel California, Washington can never leave-from anywhere.

Finally, the US must increase troop deployments, naval dispositions, and financial assistance not only to NATO members, but alliance wannabe joiners Georgia and Ukraine. Forget the supposedly frontline states of the Baltics and Poland. America must bolster the southern front lest Russia solidify its dominance in the Black Sea and add a base in Syria and another in Libya, analysts warned at a recent forum organized by the Center for European Policy Analysis. Just another step or two and the Mediterranean Sea could become Moscow’s Mare Nostrum, like for the old Roman Empire. Russia then might seek control the Atlantic and perhaps even invade Washington, D.C., following in Britain’s footsteps a couple centuries ago. Or something like that.

The attempt to constantly ensnare America in other nations’ conflicts is foolish, even reckless. First, the US has never been more secure. Its geographic position remains unassailable: large oceans east and west, pacific neighbors north and south. No power threatens to breach that perimeter. America’s navy deploys 11 carrier groups, compared to two carriers by China and one by Russia. The US air force easily secures American airspace, or at least would do so if much of it wasn’t deployed overseas. Only nuclear-tipped missiles pose a serious threat, but America’s arsenal vastly outranges that of every country other than Russia, and the latter would be annihilated in return if it struck the US

Terrorism remains an ugly threat, but mostly against Americans overseas. And it is largely self-inflicted, the consequence of Washington’s promiscuous foreign intervention: bombing, invading, and occupying other states, such as Iraq; taking sides in bitter conflicts of no concern to the US, such as Lebanon’s civil war; supporting brutal dictatorships as in Egypt, Iran, and Saudi Arabia; and backing nations which occupy and oppress minority populations, most notably Israel. Alas, Washington continues to unnecessarily create additional enemies every day.

Americans should not be surprised if some day angry Yemenis use terrorist methods to strike back against the US, which sold and serviced aircraft used by Saudi Arabia to wreck Yemeni cities, provided munitions dropped by Saudi warplanes on Yemeni weddings, funerals, apartments, and hospitals, refueled planes on their missions to slaughter Yemeni civilians, and offered intelligence to aid Riyadh’s air force in selecting targets. Put bluntly, the Obama and Trump administrations invited retaliation against the American people by aiding true terrorists against the Yemeni people.

Second, Washington has turned a means, alliances, into an end. Instead of using such relationships as a mechanism to improve US security, policymakers routinely sacrifice Americans’ safety and prosperity to continually expand security guarantees, leaving tripwires for war around the globe.

In doing so the Pentagon has turned itself into a welfare agency, underwriting the defense of prosperous, populous states which could protect themselves. Some of these are military nonentities, such as Montenegro and North Macedonia, modern versions of the Duchy of Grand Fenwick, made famous by The Mouse That Roared. Worst of all, the US increasingly allies, sometimes formally, sometimes informally, with countries that bring more military liabilities than assets. Georgia, Ukraine, Taiwan, and Saudi Arabia are the most obvious cases today. All four could drag America into conflicts, the first three with nuclear-armed powers.

Third, Washington engages in never-ending social engineering that rarely succeeds and would be of little value to Americans even if it did work. Three successive administration have spent almost 18 years trying to turn Afghanistan into a liberal Western-style democracy. Worse was blowing up Iraq in expectation that contending ethnic, religious, and political groups would join together singing Kumbaya as they helped America battle Iran. President Barack Obama, a paladin of modern liberalism, ensured Libya’s destruction in the belief that something good would happen. He also imagined that Washington’s ivory tower warriors could fix Syria-simultaneously oust Bashar al-Assad, vanquish the Islamic State, empower “moderate” insurgents, pacify Turkey, oust Iran and Russia, protect Syrian Kurds, and foster democracy. Trump added the theft of Syrian oil as an American objective. Rarely have international plans been more chimerical, complicated, and costly.

The US is constantly expanding its defense obligations even as its financial health worsens. The federal government currently is borrowing record amounts-likely more than $4 trillion this year and $2 trillion next year-yet continues to subsidize the defense of populous, prosperous industrialized nation, rebuild failed states, bind together fake countries, hunt down other nations’ enemies, and sacrifice American lives and wealth to play international social engineer. The waste and hubris are bipartisan. Despite marginal differences among liberals and conservatives and Democrats and Republicans, the vast majority of Blob members work assiduously to ensure that the US spends as much as possible, devotes as many resources as possible, deploys as many soldiers as possible, and fights as many wars as possible, all in the name of protecting America despite almost always having the opposite effect.

Washington needs to start scaling back its outlandish ambitions, rediscovering humility and prudence. A good starting point, as the president apparently believes, is Europe.

Foreign policy determines military requirements and force structure. All should change along with circumstances. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization made sense as a temporary shield behind which Europe could revive economically and reconstruct politically. While it doesn’t appear that the Soviet Union ever seriously contemplated launching the Red Army on a march to the Atlantic Ocean, it would have been foolish to take the risk.

However, Dwight D. Eisenhower, the alliance’s supreme commander before becoming president, warned against permanent US deployments lest the continent become dependent on America. And he was right. Europe soon rebuilt and sped past the Soviet Empire, as even East German cities still sported evidence of World War II decades after the bombs stopped falling. Nevertheless, at the height of the Cold War the rising West Europeans continued to pass the bill for their defense to Washington. Their governments routinely promised to spend more and then reneged on their commitments. But the US still paid. The lesson was well-learned by Europe…

And so on

Be seeing you

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

U.S. Warplane Profits Scramble Over Germany’s Anti-Nuclear Push — Strategic Culture

Posted by M. C. on June 1, 2020

This would explain why the recent German debate calling for removal of U.S. nuclear weapons has sparked such a fierce reaction from Washington. It’s not just about American dominance over Europe through its historic NATO nuclear pact. In addition, there are billions of dollars at stake for the makers of American warplanes. That’s why Washington is pressuring Berlin to keep its nuclear weapons. It’s part and parcel of selling more U.S. warplanes.

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2020/05/22/us-warplane-profits-scramble-over-germany-anti-nuclear-push/

Finian Cunningham

When Germany’s Social Democrats – the junior governing coalition partner – renewed long-standing calls for withdrawing U.S. nuclear bombs from the country, the backlash from Washington was fast and furious.

Richard Grenell, the U.S. ambassador to Berlin, wrote an oped for German media slamming the move as “undermining” NATO’s nuclear deterrence in Europe. Grenell, who is also the acting U.S. Director of National Intelligence, was scathing, reiterating President Trump’s vituperative claims that Germany was not pulling its weight in NATO commitments.

Grenell has been the bane of many German politicians of all stripes over what they view as his high-handed interference in the country’s internal affairs, with one former Social Democrat leader likening him to a “colonial officer”.

Then came the intervention from the American ambassador to Poland, Georgette Mosbacher, who mischievously proffered that if Germany didn’t want to station U.S. nuclear warheads, then Poland would provide an alternative site for the weapons. Given the history of bad blood between Germany and Poland, not to mention the incendiary provocation to Russia, Mosbacher’s suggestion is ludicrous. Nevertheless it illustrates the strenuous pushback by Washington to the renewed calls for removing U.S. nuclear weapons from German soil.

There are believed to be some 20 B-61-3/4 nuclear bombs stored at the Bucher airbase in western Germany under U.S. command. In the event of a nuclear war, the bombs would be fitted to German aircraft flown by Luftwaffe pilots and activated by American secret codes. The arrangement is part of a wider historical NATO nuclear-sharing agreement in Europe dating back to the Cold War, which sees U.S.-commanded bombs assigned also to Belgium, Netherlands and Italy.

German citizens have long called for the removal of the U.S. bombs from their territory, fearing that the weapons increase instability and the danger of war with Russia. In 2010, the German parliament (Bundestag) voted for the Berlin government to work towards Washington’s removal of the bombs.

However, successive German governments have ignored the parliamentary vote. Most recently, earlier this month, Berlin vowed it would continue to uphold the NATO nuclear-sharing agreement.

It must have come as considerable alarm to Washington when the Social Democrats – junior partner to Angel Merkel’s Christian Democrats – recently reinvigorated calls for the U.S. to withdraw its nuclear arsenal.

Rolf Mützenich, the parliamentary leader of the Social Democrats is quoted as saying: “It is time Germany ruled out them [U.S. nuclear weapons] being stationed here in future.

He added: “Nuclear arms on German soil do not strengthen our security, quite the contrary.”

Having its nuclear weapons on European territory is a crucial element of Washington’s control over NATO and European foreign policy. In particular, the bombs allow the U.S. to project power at Russia. But more importantly, the strategic value stems from Washington being able to impose a scaremongering agenda in order to divide Europe from conducting normal relations with Moscow. That has long been the real purpose of the U.S.-dominated NATO alliance. “To keep the Soviet Union out, the Americans in and the Germans down,” remarked one of its founders.

But there is also a more contemporary factor – multi-billion-dollar profits for the U.S. military industry.

There has been a long-running political fight in Berlin over the upgrade of Germany’s air force. The Luftwaffe’s aging fleet of Tornados dating from the early 1980s are due to be replaced by 2025. German officials have been mulling whether to replace the Tornados with European-made Eurofighter Typhoons or U.S.-made F-35s and F-18s. Sometimes Berlin seems to favor the Eurofighter, and then at other times the American option.

The Airbus consortium involved in manufacturing the Eurofighter is a joint venture between several European governments, including Germany’s. Apart from lucrative revenue from aircraft sales, there are also follow-on benefits from employment and service maintenance contracts.

Boeing, the maker of the F-18 fighter bomber, has been hit with devastating financial losses over the past year due to deadly crashes involving its civilian Max-8 airliner. There is thus a lot at stake for the company – a flagship of American manufacturing – depending on the decision by Germany on what aircraft it will purchase for upgrading its fleet of Tornados.

German Defense Minister Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer reportedly informed her American counterpart Mark Esper in April that Berlin had finally made the decision to buy at least 45 F-18s.

Kramp-Karrenbauer is also head of the Christian Democrat party, having taken over the leadership from Chancellor Angela Merkel in 2018. She is a keen advocate of Germany remaining part of the NATO nuclear-sharing agreement, which means retaining U.S. nuclear bombs on German territory. Kramp-Karrenbauer has emphasized that any German aircraft upgrade must “seamlessly” fill the dual role of the aging Tornadoes to operate in conventional and nuclear warfare.

If a future Berlin government were to achieve the removal of American nuclear weapons from Germany that would obviate the need for nuclear-capable warplanes. The F-18 and F-35 are easily certifiable by Washington to carry the U.S. B-61 bombs whereas the Eurofighter is not certified and it would face long-drawn-out delay to gain American authorization, if it eventually did, which is not certain. The Americans have openly said that the Eurofighter would be disadvantaged compared with the F-35 or F-18 in acquiring authorization to operate with U.S.-made nuclear bombs.

However, if Germany were no longer part of the U.S. nuclear arsenal and its aircraft no longer providing delivery capability, the Eurofighter option would become even more attractive especially given the advantage for European industries and jobs.

This would explain why the recent German debate calling for removal of U.S. nuclear weapons has sparked such a fierce reaction from Washington. It’s not just about American dominance over Europe through its historic NATO nuclear pact. In addition, there are billions of dollars at stake for the makers of American warplanes. That’s why Washington is pressuring Berlin to keep its nuclear weapons. It’s part and parcel of selling more U.S. warplanes.

 

Be seeing you

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

How Obama’s Mid-East Policy Led to Nazi Rebirth in Today’s Germany — Strategic Culture

Posted by M. C. on January 31, 2020

Europe (and especially Germany) has been compassionate toward the refugees, and are now experiencing the political blowback, at home, from their admission of refugees from America’s foreign policy

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2020/01/30/how-obama-mid-east-policy-led-nazi-rebirth-germany/

 Eric Zuesse

On January 12th, Deutsche Welle (Germany’s public broadcaster like BBC, PBS, NPR, and RT) headlined “Mayor’s resignation highlights threat to German leaders: Arnd Focke, the Social Democratic mayor of a town in Lower Saxony, was regularly threatened by nationalists. Now he has resigned. Regional officials have repeatedly faced threats across Germany.” He quit for his safety, because carrying out Germany’s compassionate policies toward the flood of mainly Middle-Eastern refugees has produced a backlash that is becoming increasingly organized and dangerous to Germany’s democracy.

U.S. President Barack Obama’s policies in support of overthrowing secular governments (such as in Libya and Syria) in the Middle East, and his attempts to install there new governments — which were planned to be allied with the fundamentalist-Sunni Saud family who own Saudi Arabia — caused the exodus, from those secularly-headed U.S.-attacked Middle-Eastern countries, of millions, some of whom live now in Germany and are not accepted there, for many of reasons, some valid and some invalid. The resulting influx of millions of culturally markedly different people has given rise to a rebirth of Germany’s Nazi movement.

Whereas Obama’s U.S., and especially now Trump’s U.S., has refused entry of refugees from these countries that America (by means of its tens of thousands of jihadist proxy-forces from around the world) invaded, Europe (and especially Germany) has been compassionate toward the refugees, and are now experiencing the political blowback, at home, from their admission of refugees from America’s foreign policy — a policy favoring dictatorial fundamentalist-Sunni Arab regimes, to overthrow secular governments in the Middle East.

How and why did this happen?

Muammar Gaddafi was a socialist who believed in spreading to the masses (instead of to foreign investors) the wealth from the nation’s oil and who consequently was rejected by the U.S.-and-allied aristocracies who control the private oil companies. Gaddafi was demonized by their governments and their media. After extensive planning by the CIA and associated coup-organizations, he was finally overthrown in an “Arab Spring” in 2011 and replaced by what they expected to be a re-privatization of Libya’s oil. Hillary Clinton proudly proclaimed, “We came, we saw, he died! Ha, ha, hah!” Europe gets the refugees.

Bashar al-Assad was similar, in those basics. During 2012, Obama was well-warned by U.S. intelligence — and even by the anti-Assad ‘rebels’ themselves — that if he tried to overthrow Assad, then the U.S. would need to be using proxy-fighters to do it, jihadists, under the direction of Al Qaeda’s Syrian branch al-Nusra, and he chose that option and left to the Saud family to choose whom to rule Syria in the aftermath. Consequently, the Saud family selected the individuals who were to ‘represent the rebels’ at the UN-sponsored ’peace’-talks to end the Syrian ‘civil’ war. It was all a set-up deal, by Obama and his foreign allies. Even the pro-Obama New York Times reported on 27 April 2013 that “Nowhere in rebel-controlled Syria is there a secular fighting force to speak of.” But still Obama insisted that “Assad must go.” (Though that was a common headline on news-reports about Obama’s position, he was too slick ever to utter that phrase: in his rhetoric he was the exact opposite of his successor, who continued Obama’s Syria-policy.) Conquering Syria for the Sauds to control was the aim. Europe has received the refugees from that U.S. decision, not only from the other ones, on Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and elsewhere. By Europe’s siding with the United States, it has opted to side with the Sauds, and with jihadists, and, now, also with Nazis, and other racist-fascists.

Now that Trump has gone so far as to terminate Obama’s only good foreign-policy action, the JCPOA or Iran nuclear agreement, and to opt for war against Iran, the dangers to democracy in Europe could escalate even farther. But for some people, the rebirth of Nazism in Germany might be enough of a reason for Europe to reverse its foreign policies in fundamental ways.

 

© 2010 – 2020 | Strategic Culture Foundation | Republishing is welcomed with reference to Strategic Culture online journal www.strategic-culture.org.

Be seeing you

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »