RUSSIA RESPONDS STRONGLY TO AMERICAN AGGRESSION
"Pre-emptive strike" sound familiar? With our victory in the Cold War came an arrogance that has undermined our "victory." Rather than be cool, we have moved political, military and economic assets right up to Russia's borders. Remember our response when Russia moved missiles to Cuba?
These unwise moves were practical if antagonizing Russian interests was not a concern, combined with our expectation Russia was to remain in a permanently weakened state. This was a stupid assumption. The rebuilding of Russia has taken on a character of hostility to America in response to our aggressions.
Russia has been moving to counter, if not eliminate, our intrusions into the Ukraine, Georgia, the "stans," and Belarus.
Russia has determined our militarism requires they rebuild their military forces, and counter our aggressive actions. Russia has interpreted our actions as an invitation to join an arms race. A race for global political influence is sure to follow.
Rebuilding their military forces, and developing a new strategic plan, signals that Russia has sufficiently consolidated its internal affairs to respond vigorously to our aggressions. Russia has consolidated sufficient internal stability to take advantage of the chaos we have plunged the world, and especially Arabic Islam, into.
This is our fault. Our middle eastern foreign policy is based on supporting Arabic dictators hated by their own people. Rather than seeing the writing on the wall, and moving to encourage these regimes to reflect the will of their people, we went in the opposite direction.
Hosni of Egypt is an excellent example. Egypt is where Bush should have started his "spread of democracy across the middle east." Instead, we are encouraging Hosni to move from an unofficial to a formal police state.
When the Egyptian people overthrow their western supported dictator, Hosni, they will be labeled enemies of "freedom," and we do our best to kidnap, torture, imprison and kill them. If they live quietly under our dictators, they are friends of "freedom,"
These hypocritical contradictions have created a huge maneuvering area for Russian and Chinese foreign policy, as well as offering a big, fat, juicy American enemy to draw the various Arabic independence groups together.
Putting our military in the middle east has been poison to our dictators. Bush's invasion has reduced the weight of our influence to the size of our guns and wallets. We better not run out of bucks and bullets, or we are in real trouble. We have nothing else to rely on in the Middle East.
All Russia needs to do is offer honest support to the Arabs and Persians who seek freedom from our dictators. If Russia befriends those countries who want to control their own affairs, we are in big trouble.
Arabic lands under Arab control is unacceptable to us. Our position will create increasing political and military chaos until the Arabs actually seize control of their governments, and force their colonial ruling elites to flee back to their source of power, the United States. Once here, they can join the refugees from the toppled dictatorships of Somoza, Batista, the Shah, Chiang Kai Schreck, to name just a few.
Soon, American Globalism will fall before a new, multi-lateral, shared balance of world power. Democracy will be victorious, not America. The right of locals to select their own governments will be established, and it will mark the end of American Globalism.
This will signal the end of our control of the world's oil markets, and those that gain control will hate us. Soon, we will live in a world where Russia, China, and India find it advantageous to block our military, political and economic adventures. Soon, the world will stop funding our gluttony, and demand we pay them back.
Soon.
Something scary:
From the john birch society, 10-18-07;
In August, (2007) Middle East expert Barnett Rubin claimed that Vice President Dick Cheney asked various neoconservative organs to call for the United States to attack Iran. Compliance quickly came from the American Enterprise Institute, Wall Street Journal, Weekly Standard, and others. Former U.S. Ambassador to the UN John Bolton promptly told Britain’s Conservative Party leaders that the United States should deliver a preemptive strike against Iran and remove Ahmadinejad. Neocon stalwart Norman Podhoretz seconded the idea, even suggesting the use of our nuclear weapons to get the job done. Podhoretz is a senior adviser to Republican Party candidate Rudy Giuliani and is likely the stimulus for the former mayor of New York City calling for such an attack. Top GOP candidates McCain and Romney agree that using the nuclear option against Iran should be considered.
London’s Sunday Times for September 2 reported that the Pentagon has "drawn up plans for massive air strikes against 1,200 targets in Iran." The object is to completely destroy any military capability in the country. But Iran hasn’t threatened the United States.
Mr. Bush claims to have agreement regarding his threats against Iran from Russian president Vladimir Putin. But Putin is on record stating that there’s no evidence that Iran is building a nuclear weapons capability. And Iran’s leaders claim that they are interested only in generating electricity with nuclear power.
Last month, recently retired General John Abizaid, the former top U.S. military official in the Middle East, urged a completely different policy. He said that "there are ways to live with a nuclear Iran." President Bush and his closest advisers obviously disagree. But they are willing to live with a nuclear Pakistan, widely believed to be the nation harboring Osama bin Laden and the top leaders of al-Qaeda. Their willingness to start another war with an Islamic dominated nation, even while bogged down in both Iraq and Afghanistan, is extremely frightening.
One consequence of fours years of war against Iraq has been a sharp increase in Islamic extremism. The same result has occurred because of the United States’ continued action in Afghanistan. Imagine what a preemptive strike against Iran will produce.
note: for those of you who are unfamiliar with the ultraconservative, radically right wing birch society, see this wikipedia listing.
Also See:
global threats
n. korea threatens first strike, guardian, 2-6-03
Israel threatens Iran with sneak attack, ap, 9-29-04
US planning for first strike, and tactical use of nukes, global research, 2-22-06
Is Israel Planning a Nuclear Strike on Iran? der spiegel, 1-8-07
Even the John Birch Society is freaked, jbs news feed, 10-18-07
russia evolves new global stance
Russia prepares to revise military doctrine in response to USA's missile defense plans, Corruption Updates 36, 1st article
Who's to Blame for Russia? Corruption Updates 39, 8th article
Russian Minister Says No ‘Rogue State’ Missile Threat to Europe, Corruption Updates 49, 4th article
Russia, Putin: US imperialists start new round of arms race, Corruption Updates 64, 8th article
Putin increases missile defence rhetoric: Bush Gives Russia every Reason to ReArm Corruption Updates 102, 3rd article
At Asian Security Meeting, Russian and Iranian Criticize the U.S., NYT, August 17, 2007
Stark Differences on Arms Threaten U.S.-Russia Talks: Bush, Fool of the Ages, Continues to Abuse Treaties, the Rule of Law, and Russia, NYT, October 10, 2007
PUTIN in IRAN: Putin Warns Against Attacks on Iran,Associated Press, October 16, 2007
Putin wants US date to quit Iraq, BBC NEWS, 18 October 2007
Iran-Russia Strategic talks, Iran Times, Dec 3, 2007
Russia begins arms treaty freeze, BBC, 12-12-07
more russian links
egypt links
Saudi Links
Committeefordemocracy.org