A Time for Europeans to Choose

As my regular readers will observe I am not only taking a Russia-friendly approach on my blogs but I am posting articles which are actively calling for the European Union to build and strengthen a rapport with the Russian Federation as a friend and partner of the EU.

Ex-chancellor Gerhardt Schroeder is right to see Russia's destiny to be with the European Union. Moreover, I would like to see the Russian Federation join the EU but recognise that to be a pipe-dream, at least for now. Firstly, the EU would feel threatened by the prospect of its huge neighbour swamping the rest and secondly, the US would never allow such a threat to its global, imperial pretensions to materialise.

The present danger that we face in Europe is not from Russia but from the continued trouble-making instigated by self-serving neocons ensconced in the White House and their errand-boys in Downing Street and the east European EU. These fifth-columnists are on the payroll of US imperialism and have no wish to see a united Europe developing a foreign policy independently of the US. They would rather that the EU take on a 'Euro-Atlantic' role together with Washington's cat's paw, NATO, under US global military-economic hegemony.

Any sane person would see that such an arrangement, the present status quo, not only results in the destabilising of European security --as we have seen recently result in the Caucasus-- but that it puts Europe under the constant threat of regional war exacerbated and provoked by US interference. Saakashvili is not the only madman to have wheedled his way into power in eastern Europe. There are other narrow-minded fanatics and opportunists, for example in Poland, the Czech Republic and the Ukraine, who would be more than willing to do the bidding of neocon bosses in the USA to bring destruction upon the heads of Europeans.

Some of us remember how the US planned its nuclear strategy in the 'eighties to include a European Theatre of War, meaning a 'limited' nuclear exchange with the old Soviet Union to include Europe and not the north American continent. That threat led to the growth of a huge Peace Movement in Europe and an equal loss of US popularity. It is ironic that the US appears to be free now to develop its First Strike nuclear doctrine of 'Compellance' with the installation of the ABM missile shield (more of that anon) with no such resistance from Europeans.

The ABM shield is certainly not popular either amongst the people of Poland or the Czech Republic where public opinion is simply being ignored by opportunist, pro-US governments. While crowing about the need for representative democracy amongst others, the Atlanticists' own record in that concern is, to say the least, deplorable. While ruthless imperialism by war criminals is ok for the Good Guys of the West where Might is Right the slightest sign of the East's approaching western atrocities is noisily denounced. It's all rather yawningly tiresome.

At least one Russian strategist is warning us that the conflict in the Caucasus is by no means over and that the mischief-makers in Washington DC will now be looking to cause a bigger crisis in the Ukraine which could lead to civil war and a confrontation between Russia and the West. As well as that, the ongoing threat of a surprise attack by the US proxy, Israel, with or without support from the US military during the time prior to the November presidential election, puts us all on a Red Alert.

The need for a collective, friendly European initiative towards Russia is now needed urgently. As France's Foreign Minister, Bernard Kouchner, is reported to have said the other day in respect of our need to build a common alliance with Russia:

"We have to be together. The US have their own views, but we are living close to Russia. We need to develop our own policy, a neighbouring policy. We have to talk about our views of being close to Russia, a great country, a partner."

Kouchner, of course, is absolutely right. It's not surrender-monkey talk but that of the pragmatic, classic diplomacy for which while France is traditionally famed is anathema to the fanatics who still rule the dual-party, opposame dictatorship in the USA. Kouchner, all credit to him, speaks as a European, unlike the traitorous Brown and Miliband who will happily sell out the interests of their own people in order to ensure a continued political sodomy by their American minders.

It's time to cut the crap and deal with matters of survival. The hour is already very, very late. Homegrown Europhobes who continue to bleat about a 'fascist EU state' are their and our worst enemy. For all their talk about a loss of 'sovereign' powers the reality is that they would rather Britain forsake its European partners to continue as a vassal state of Washington DC, serving the warmongering interests of the notorious Anglo-American fraternities responsible for the deaths of 70 million Europeans in two world wars.

So which is it to be, fellow Britons? Will you, as Europeans, choose a common destiny where Europe and Russia coexist together in peace or are you prepared, through inaction, to allow your quisling leaders continue with a diabolical 'special relationship' which has caused so much bloodshed and misery on this war-torn Planet? The time to decide has come and the time for dithering is ended.

Which is it to be?

Rory Winter, Chimes of Freedom

USUK now in Perpetual World War

Get used to it. The USUK is now in perpetual World War.

If the MSM's endless chatter about whether or not or when troop withdrawals might take place in Iraq and Afghanistan is to be believed the idea is that troop withdrawals will take place sooner or later.

Reality Check: don't believe a word of it.

Why should you when they don't, pumping out interminable spin as they do, processed and fed them by the Bush and Blair governments?

The reality is that USUK troops are going to be occupying Iraq and Afghanistan for decades.

Permanently.

A recent MoD paper, reported in The Telegraph, in the UK talks about five years:

Britain's "overstretched" armed forces will fight in Iraq for at least another five years ... troops will be serving on operations in the Gulf until at least 2012.

The contents of the document, distributed last month, appear to be in marked contrast to a statement made by Tony Blair in February giving the impression that British troops would remain in Iraq for less than two years. He said: "The UK military presence will continue into 2008". Mr Blair told the Commons: "Increasingly our role will be support and training, and our numbers will be able to reduce accordingly."

Patrick Mercer, a former infantry colonel and former Tory homeland security spokesman, said: "The reality is that many troops will remain in Iraq for the foreseeable future and continue to take casualties."

Senior commanders also revealed the number of troops committed to Afghanistan is likely to increase over the next two years.

In a recent report, A Duty to Mislead: Politics and the Iraq War, on US National Public Radio, broadcaster Ted Koppel stated:

"Democrats are telling voters that if they are elected, all U.S. troops will be pulled out of Iraq. But as Sen. Hillary Clinton privately told a senior military adviser, she knows there will be some troops there for decades. It's an example of how in some cases, politics can force dishonesty."

"In a recent interview with the New York Times," Koppel continues, "Senator Clinton emphasized that there are remaining vital national security issues [clearly oil] in Iraq and that these would require a continuing deployment of American troops."

"She didn't, in that interview, give any sense of how long U.S. forces might remain in Iraq during a Clinton administration."

And to an old military friend of Koppel's Clinton revealed how, were she to be elected and then re-elected, "she would still expect U.S. forces to be in Iraq at the end of a second term."

"When, oh when," Koppel despairs, "is that deadly serious issue going to become the topic of an equally serious and candid discussion? When, in other words, will we get the brutal truth in place of vapid and misleading campaign applause lines?"

Well, the brutal truth is finally seeping out, proving that the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan was, all along, to capture and occupy areas of strategic and economic importance to the U.S. led multinational corporations: oil and gas.

Now we have a ruling class toff, Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles would you believe, the new UK Ambassador to Afghanistan, telling the ever servile Huw Edwards of BBC News 24 that the British will have to remain in Afghanistan for "a long time ... we should be thinking in terms of decades."

On being questioned why the British are building a huge new embassy in Kabul (as are the Americans in Baghdad) Sir Sherard admitted that "strategic interests" required it.

"Ministers realize we are here for the long haul."

All this fits in perfectly with the neocons' Blueprint for a New American Century which calls for geopolitical wars to seize and occupy areas of the world containing minerals and resources vital to the U.S. 'security (read corporate capitalist) interests.' It is also why U.S. generals have been telling their troops for some time now to get used to the idea of long, generational and endless wars.

And why our societies are being totalitarianized. No way out: this really is Armageddon.

Empire of Oil: the Hidden History of 911

This story now at Bellaciao and OpEdNews

Adm. Michael Mullen, Chief of Naval Operations.
Bush sacks top generals in preparation for an Iran attack

Before the end of his rogue presidency, Bush seems determined to attack Iran.

The evidence for that becomes clearer every day. Not only is there an ongoing military build-up in the Gulf area but, more ominously, he has now sacked the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Peter Pace, who is known not only to oppose an attack on Iran but to be an opponent of the neocons' plan for a Long or Generational War.

If the Senate approves his nomination, Pace's replacement will be Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Michael Mullen, who is much more in line with Bush and the PNAC neocons. At a recent address of US naval personnel in Pearl Harbour, Mullen stated that "The enemy now is basically evil and fundamentally hates everything we are -- the democratic principles for which we stand ... This war is going to go on for a long time. It's a generational war."

This is undiluted neocon talk: paranoia about hidden enemies justifying an endless war of imperialism, including the use of first-strike 'tactical' nuclear weapons, to subdue the rest of the world by military might and the doctrine of 'compellence,' the very same doctrine which is now forcing Russia to respond with the threat of deploying new nuclear weapons in a strategy of asymmetric warfare.

(Bush's Gift to the Military Industry: A New Cold War Arms Race with Russia)

By creating imaginary enemies, the will of the Military-Industrial Complex is served and a huge and increasing amount of US tax dollars channelled into the pockets of the arms producers.

When Pace goes, there may be a further shake-out of the Joint Chiefs to remove the other top brass who have reportedly opposed the Surge into Iran. I am afraid that may leave it all in the laps of Congress.

Either the Senate Democrats get their act together, block this appointment, AND get on with the overdue job of Impeachment, or we should be ready to start losing more American cities.

Blocking Mullen and Impeaching Bush may be the most important things we ever do.

(OpEd News)

Meanwhile, in what appears to be part of an orchestrated neocon campaign to press for an attack on Iran, arch-zionist Senator Joe Lieberman is again rattling his sabre by saying Bush must consider a military strike against Iran "because of Tehran's alleged involvement with Iraqi insurgents."

Lieberman said much of the action could probably be done by air, although he would leave the strategy to the generals in charge.

(The Age.com)

Pace says he refused to quit voluntarily

This Story now at Bellaciao