Connect with us

Analysis

News

Democrats cave in government shutdown fight

Trump and GOP refusal to back down exposes Democrat liberal lunacy as standing for the rights of illegal immigrants is an indefensible position.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

3,469 Views

The Senate Democrats relinquished their idiotic refusal to negotiate a stopgap spending bill on Monday, clearing the way for the full services of the Federal government to resume.  The vote on the Senate floor to end the filibuster was 81-18, clearing the way for the passage of this spending bill.  The House was expected to follow through in much the same fashion later Monday.

This appears to have been a major miscalculation by Senate Democrats, most notably the minority leader Charles “Chuck” Schumer, who caused the filibuster in an effort to secure non-deportation for  illegal immigrants who were brought into the United States as children.  The expiration deadline for former President Obama’s executive order for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) was set by President Trump to happen in early March of this year.

US Senator and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell

Schumer and other liberal Democrats tried to seize this opportunity to hold the federal government and a large number of its employees hostage so that people who are breaking the law can continue to break the law.  That is really about the scope of this.  Illegal immigrants are people who are in the United States illegally.  Further, the DACA program has been in place since 2014, and it is actually illegal itself.  Further still, in the last three-plus years, although 1.5 million people were enabled to receive DACA protection, only 780,000 did the paperwork to get the deferment.  The other 720,000, apparently, have done nothing. In almost four years, they have done nothing.

And this is the group of people, who are willful lawbreakers by remaining in an illegal status when a golden opportunity – indeed, practically an AMNESTY, was offered to them, if only they do a few simple steps?

Schumer and Pelosi and other liberals have definitely gotten this issue completely wrong.  The Washington Examiner reported that fewer than 30 percent of Americans, surveyed on this issue last December, supported shutting down the government for the sake of these DACA people, many of whom, as noted before, still remain completely illegal in terms of their status of living in the United States.

Even though the Senate moved to re-open the government pending a new round of negotiations on immigration, Mr. Schumer gave a speech in which he continued to blame President Trump for the shutdown, and this speech angered some of the very people he needs to have as allies if the Democrats were to get their victory on this.  His language was so corrosive that even Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine), who helped broker the deal to end the shutdown, muttered quietly to her colleagues, “please, stop” as Schumer was speaking.

Senator Mitch McConnell, Senate Majority Leader, gave a rather unusual but probably accurate remark:

If we learned anything during this process, it’s that a strategy to shut down the federal government over the issue of illegal immigration is something the American people did not understand.

This is certainly true, though the MSM hype on both sides of this debate pointed at the issue of the loss of services caused by the partial shutdown of the Federal government.  With all the hype and hullabaloo about the cessation of a relative few services, the media managed to make something that is relatively innocuous a major drumbeat headline over the last three days. In much of that hype there was precious little discussion of exactly what the immigration issue was, and why it was so important that many people got docked pay (temporarily, but inconveniently, for sure) for the sake of protecting people who are breaking the law by being here illegally and doing nothing about it.

Hopefully the facts get more press and perhaps the renewed immigration debate to come will be better served by intellectual honesty and a strong sense of sovereignty under the rule of law.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of

Latest

Neofascist Push for Europe’s Implosion Is Not in EU Members National Interest

The European Union must become for the people by the people.

Gilbert Mercier

Published

on

Via News Junkie Post


The European Union is under numerous existential threats. On one hand, there are the internal threats, with the rise to power of the so-called nationalist-populist eurosceptics — which are in reality racist neofascists — in Austria, Hungary, Poland, and to a lesser extent Italy, with the Interior Minister Matteo Salvini being an influential part of the country’s coalition government, as well as the recent gain in political clout of anti-EU far-right parties such as the Rassemblement National of Marine Le Pen, in France. On the other hand, there are the external threats, which used to be diffuse and secretive but are becoming more and more overt, from the Trump administration in the United States through the unofficial operative Steve Bannon, as well as, to a much lesser extent, Russia, perhaps China, and also, for some odd reason, even Iran’s Islamic Republic on monetary issues. Go figure. It seems that a downgrade, or even dismantlement, of the EU as a geopolitical major player suits the needs of other leading world powers. There is a cautionary tale here for all Europeans, especially those like the Gilets Jaunes who reject the Europe of bankers and technocrats. It is a geopolitical cautionary tale about reforming what you have and not jumping to conclusions and doing a tabula rasa of a European Union adventure that is 62 years in the making.

In an era of Cold War redux, the EU is a geopolitical imperative

The birth of the EU was in 1957. It was signed into existence in the Treaty of Rome by the six founding members: Belgium, France, The Netherlands, Italy, Luxembourg and West Germany. Naturally, this must be understood in the context of a post-Yalta world, which effectively started the split of world affairs and influences between the two empires born out of the ashes of World War II: the United States of America, of course, and the USSR, which have agreed to disagree on ideologies, but have come to a tacit understanding about their spheres of influence. The constant conflicts between the two blocks have manifested themselves through various proxy wars, always at the expense of third parties. From a military standpoint, the US came up with NATO in 1949, using the fear of the supposed Soviet threat to subjugate its European so-called allies, which became not much more than vassals. Behind the legendary Iron Curtain, Stalin’s USSR had the Warsaw Pact.

Since the Ukrainian crisis, five years ago, we have reentered a Cold War logic, and again Russia is painted by Western mainstream media as the biggest threat to the supposed free world — whatever this means in the propagandist lexicon — and Vladimir Putin as the ultimate bogeyman head of state. At the time of the treaty of Rome, it took some courage for the six founding members to take this initiative, considering that all of them had US troops de facto occupying their respective countries. This very timid start in the mid-1950s was followed by attempts to make the EU, not only an economic union but a political force.

Let us fast forward to the current legal framework of the EU: the Treaty of Lisbon, still in force today, which is an amendment of the Maastricht Treaty of 1993. The Treaty of Lisbon was signed in Portugal on December 13, 2007; however, it took two years to be ratified by all EU members, and it became a legally binding agreement for all members on December 1, 2009. It is the current cornerstone of the EU’s political framework. In this treaty, which of course, BREXIT has put to a serious test, Article 50 established the provision that “Any member state may decide to withdraw from the union in accordance with its own constitutional requirement.” In the case of BREXIT, this was after an exit of the EU was voted on by British citizens, and this narrowly won a referendum.

In the case of the BREXIT win, which could turn out to be disastrous for the welfare of British people, and even the influence of the former British Empire, it was not the immensely and famously nefarious hand of Vladimir Putin that was involved, as claimed by many in the UK, but actually the hand of Steve Bannon, through the shady firm, Cambridge Analytica, using the vast assets of the Mercer hedge fund. This hedge fund is the financial entity that powers Alt-Right sites such as Breitbart and many others. This being said, to be fair, Mercer’s nemesis George Soros, for his part, invested heavily in the No-BREXIT vote. Where there foreign influences in the BREXIT vote? Yes, but it was a Robert Mercer vs George Soros confrontation that involved two conflicting visions of globalization, each one as toxic as the other. But Bannon, Mercer and Co.’s instrument, who is now operating in Europe to trigger similar scenarios, such as FREXIT for France, is in reality working for the neocon US world domination program, which is the so-called Project for the New American Century.

In a better-known fight between financial puppet masters, it was Bob Mercer’s cash and Steve Bannon’s media savvy that arguably elected Donald Trump US president in 2016, against a Clinton campaign that was partially financed by the billionaire George Soros. In both cases, Soros lost. Regardless of the pseudo-ideological bickering, and Bob Mercer phony libertarian views, US imperialism is still the hallmark of US foreign policy, just as it has been since 1945. Allies are truly vassals, and States that attempt to be independent are not fair competitors but enemies. A politically strong European Union, with its own military, independently of NATO, would be a perceived threat to the American Empire.

The neocon United States of Trumpism: Main enemy of the EU

A recent event in Washington went almost unnoticed by European observers, although it was symbolically of great importance. The Trump administration decided to downgrade the status of the European Union’s official foreign representation from an embassy to mere delegation with an office. This is an important illustration of the current US administration’s view of the EU as being something cumbersome and redundant in its foreign policy lexicon and agenda. This stand of Trumpism, really controlled by the neocon John Bolton, is reminiscent of what another neocon, this time Donald Rumsfeld, called, in the build up to George W. Bush’s 2003 Iraq war, the Old Europe. A more compliant New Europe was wanted, as opposed to the not-so-subservient Old Europe, personified by then French President Jacques Chirac, who was unwilling to join the folly of Iraq’s invasion. France was not then part of NATO.

Let’s face it. The neocons are fully in charge of Trump’s foreign policy and are pursuing more than ever their agenda. Their goal is uncontested US world domination by any means necessary: political, economic through various sanctions on whatever countries they define as enemy states, and of course, in cases of last resort, through the armed fist of US imperialism, which is NATO. Those are the US policy imperatives defined almost a quarter century ago in the neocons’ bible and opus: The Project for the New American Century. Rain or shine, the neocons still control the US foreign policy agenda.

Instead of imploding the EU, Europeans should exit NATO

What the demagogues of the European far-Right in Italy, Hungary, Austria, and Poland, as well as neoliberal governments in Germany, Spain, and the UK are not telling their populations while they posture about nationalism, is the simple fact that their countries are actually occupied by US troops. In the case of Poland, they are even eager to host more American occupiers. The unapologetic ultra neocon deep-pocketed think tank, The Heritage Foundation, which is providing a lot of top-position appointees to the Trump administration, gloats about the US empire’s military strength in Europe, and of course frames the narrative in terms of deterrent against semi-fictional potential Russian aggressions.

Today, 74 years after the end of World War II, the number of US troops stationed in the European Union is absolutely staggering. About 65,000 active US troops are deployed in Europe, in around 17 main operating bases mainly in Germany, Italy (Mr. Salvini, how about Italian sovereignty?), the United Kingdom and Spain. Deployments are in the works in Poland as well, at the request of the far-Right government. The Gilets Jaunes and some European politicians are correct: the respective EU nations should break free from their servitude to giant multinational corporations, financial institutions like the IMF and the World Bank, as well as nefarious state players such as Saudi ArabiaQatar and the United Arab Emirates. But the real masters are not in Bruxelles, they are somewhere in the United States, around Washington DC, shuffling between the Pentagon, the White House, the CIA and of course Wall Street.

Despite the claims of the US administrations, either Democrat or Republican, and their allies/vassals in Europe and Canada, NATO’s wars in AfghanistanIraqLibya and Syriawere not necessarily meant to be won on the battlefield, but rather to become a semi-permanent occupation of various countries mainly for the exploitation of natural resources. This first-wreck-then-exploit strategy has been especially applied in the Middle East by toppling Saddam Hussein and Qaddafi. In both Iraq and Libya, two failed states were, either on purpose or by default, engineered by NATO. Because of Russia, Hezbollah, and Iran, the same plan, with the minute variation of using ISIS as a proxy, didn’t work at all against Bashar al-Assad in Syria.

Afghanistan has been called the graveyard of empires: rightly so in the cases of Alexander the Great, the British Empire and the Soviets. NATO, and especially Europeans should have known better than to venture into such a dangerous land as invaders. However, America Empire Inc. and its financial, economical and military might thought that they could break the will of the Pashtuns. They didn’t.

The European Union must become for the people by the people 

In December 2010, I was, to my knowledge, the first analyst to forecast the collapse of the current dominant global empire. The out-of-control madness of Trumpism might be providing a helping hand in that process. Perhaps a redefined European Union, for the people by people, following the impulse of the Gilets Jaunes movement leading the way, will help us to free ourselves from the shackles of a globalization that only serves to profit a minute portion of the population worldwide. The European Union can be built upon rather than destroyed, and perhaps, once it finally stops serving as the little helper of corporate imperialism, it could become an inspiration of real conviviality for other continents, a truly multi-ethnic and multi-cultural association of people, more than States, which departs from the dead end that is our global capitalist system.

Editor’s Notes: Gilbert Mercier is the author of The Orwellian Empire. Photographs one by Theophilos Papadopoulos, two by Looking for Poetry, five by Gage Skidmore; six by Ian Glover, seven by Jason, eight from the archives of Resolute Support Media, nine from the archives of NATO, eleven by Radiowoodand composites ten and twelve byJared Rodriguez.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

China’s Ambassador to Canada Exposes the White Supremacist Five Eyes Surveillance State

This is the deep state that has been dedicated to overthrowing American President Donald Trump since MI6 and their junior partners in America began organising Russia-gate in 2015.

Published

on

In a January 9, 2019 op-ed in Ottawa’s Hill Times, China’s Ambassador to Canada, Lu Shaye did what no other mainstream media outlet has been willing to do since the untimely arrest of Huawei’s CFO Meng Wanzhou occurred while she was boarding a plane in Vancouver on December 1st. Much dispute has arisen over the arrest and China’s response with its own arrest of two Canadians suspected of espionage in Beijing.

In an article entitled Why the double standard on justice for Canadians, Chinese? Ambassador Lu cut through the noise being created by the media and western political class by exposing the over bloated western surveillance state known as the Five Eyes which he properly identified as the outgrowth of the unconstitutional Patriot Act, the Prism surveillance system which has annihilated all semblance of privacy among trans-Atlantic nations.

After describing the double standard applied by Canadian elites who have constructed a narrative that always paints China as the villain of the world while portraying the west as “free and democratic” Ambassador Lu stated: 

“these same people have conveniently ignored the PRISM Program, Equation Group, and Echelon—global spying networks operated by some countries that have been engaging in large-scale and organized cyber stealing, and spying and surveillance activities on foreign governments, enterprises, and individuals. These people also took a laissez-faire attitude toward a country that infringes on its citizens’ privacy rights through the Patriot Act. They shouted for a ban by the Five Eyes alliance countries…. on the use of Huawei equipment by these countries’ own enterprises”

For those who may not be aware, the Five Eyes is the name given to the British GCHQ-controlled surveillance structure that involves the four primary Anglo-Saxon Commonwealth countries (Britain, Canada, Australian and New Zealand) along with the United States. This is the deep state that has been dedicated to overthrowing American President Donald Trump since MI6 and their junior partners in America began organising Russia-gate in 2015-when it became apparent that Trump had a serious chance of defeating the Deep State candidate Hillary Clinton.

As many patriotic whistle blowers such as Bill Binney, Ray McGovern, and Edward Snowden have exposed throughout recent years, the Five Eyes system that the Ambassador referenced was formed in the “post-911 world order” as a means of overriding each nations’ constitutional protection of its own citizens’ by capitalising on a major legal loop hole (viz: Since it is technically illegal for American intelligence agencies to spy on Americans without warrant, and for CSIS  to do the same to Canadians, it is claimed that it is okay for British/Canadian intelligence agencies to spy on Americas and visa versa).

The Chinese Ambassador didn’t stop there however, but went one step further, ending his op-ed with a controversial claim which has earned him much criticism in the days since its publication. It was in his closing paragraph that Ambassador Lu made the uncomfortable point that the double standards employed against China and the west’s willingness to ignore the Five Eyes “is due to Western egotism and white supremacy”. Is this the “belligerent and unfounded name calling” that his detractors are labelling it, or is there something more to it?

When we look to the origins of the Five Eyes, which goes back MUCH further than September 11, 2001, we can clearly see that Lu Shaye is touching a very deep and truthful nerve.

Cecil Rhodes and the Racist Roots of the Deep State

19th Century spokesman for the British Empire, Cecil Rhodes wrote his infamous “Seventh Will” in 1877 where, speaking on behalf of an empire dying in the midst of the global spread of republican institutions, called for the formation of a new plan to re-organise the Empire, and re-conquer all colonial possessions that had been contaminated by republican ideas of freedom, progress, equality and self-determination[1]. Rhodes stated:

“I contend that we are the finest race in the world and that the more of the world we inhabit the better it is for the human race. Just fancy those parts that are at present inhabited by the most despicable specimens of human beings what an alteration there would be if they were brought under Anglo-Saxon influence, look again at the extra employment a new country added to our dominions gives. I contend that every acre added to our territory means in the future birth to some more of the English race who otherwise would not be brought into existence…. Why should we not form a secret society with but one object the furtherance of the British Empire and the bringing of the whole uncivilised world under British rule for the recovery of the United States for the making the Anglo-Saxon race but one Empire…”[2]

Race Patriot” Cecil Rhodes from Punch Magazine lording over Africa

The Rhodes Trust was set up at his death in 1902 to administer the vast riches accrued during Rhodes’ exploitation of diamond mines in Africa. Steered by Lord Alfred Milner, it was this Trust which gave birth to the Round Table Movement and Rhodes Scholarship Fund which themselves have been behind the creation of a century’s worth of indoctrinated technocrats who have permeated all branches of government, finance, military, media, corporate and academia- both in America and internationally [3].

The Round Table Movement, (working in tandem with London’s Fabian Society) didn’t replace the old British Empire’s power structures, so much as re-define their behaviour based upon the re-absorption of America back into the Anglo-Saxon hive. This involved centralising control of the education of their “managerial elite” with special scholarship’s in Oxford  and the London School of Economics- then sending the indoctrinated victims in droves back into their respective nations in order to be absorbed into the British Empire’s governance structures in all domains of private and public influence. In Fabian Society terms, this concept is known as “permeation theory”[4].

Although it sometimes took the early removal of nationalist political leaders from power, via intrigue, coups or assassination, the 20th century was shaped in large measure by the cancerous growth of this British-directed network that sought to undo the republican concept that progress and cooperation were the basis for both sovereignty and international law as laid out in the Treaty of Westphalia of 1648 [5].

This is the deep state that President Roosevelt warned of when he said in 1936 “The economic royalists complain that we seek to overthrow the institutions of America. What they really complain about is that we seek to take away their power.” This is the deep state that outgoing President Eisenhower warned of when he spoke of the “acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex” in 1961 and that John Kennedy fought against when he fired Allen Dulles and threatened to “splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter into the winds”. It is what Ronald Reagan contended with when he attempted to break the world out of the Cold War by working with Russia and other nations on Beam defense in 1983. It is this structure that owned Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller’s entire career, from his 1980s railroading of Lyndon LaRouche into prison to his cover up of the Anglo-Saudi role in 911 as CIA director to his efforts to impeach President Donald Trump today [6].

It is this same complex which is the direct outgrowth of the racist British-run drug wars on China and suppression of India and Africa throughout the 19th and 20th centuries.

In Canada, this was the network that destroyed the plans of nationalist Prime Minister John Diefenbaker after he fired the Rhodes Scholar Governor of the Bank of Canada in 1959 during a desperate struggle to take control of the national bank in order to fund his Northern Vision [7]. Earlier, it was this group that Lincoln-admirer Prime Minister Wilfred Laurier warned of after his defeat in 1911 when he said “Canada is now governed by a junta sitting at London, known as “The Round Table”, with ramifications in Toronto, in Winnipeg, in Victoria, with Tories and Grits receiving their ideas from London and insidiously forcing them on their respective parties.”[8]

The lesson to be learned is that the Deep State is not “American” as many commentators have assumed. It is the same old British Empire from which America brilliantly broke free in 1776 and which Cecil Rhodes and Milner led in re-organising on behalf of the monarchy at the beginning of the 20th century. It was racist when Lords Palmerston and Russell ran it in the 19th century and it continues to be racist today.

So when Ambassador Lu says “the reason why some people are used to arrogantly adopting double standards is due to Western egotism and white supremacy – in such a context, the rule of law is nothing but a tool for their political ends and a fig leaf for their practising hegemony in the international arena” he is not being “belligerent or provocative”, but is rather hitting on a fact which must be better understood if the deep state will finally be defeated and nations liberated to work with the new spirit of progress and cooperation exemplified by China’s Belt and Road Initiative which is quickly spreading across the earth.

Footnotes

[1] By 1876, the American Centennial Exhibition in Philadelphia showcased to a world audience the success of the “American System of Political Economy” which asserted that the value and behaviour of money was contingent upon the physical productive growth of the nation rather than “British-system free markets”. Lincoln’s system was being adopted across South American nations, Japan, China, India and many European powers as well (including Russia) which had grown tired of being manipulated by British imperial intrigues.

[2] Cecil Rhodes, 1877 Confessions of Faith, University of Oregon

[3] See American System or British Dictatorship part 1 by the author, Canadian Patriot #7, June 2013

[4] For anyone in Canada wishing to learn about this in greater depth, they may wish to ask Canadian technocratic Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland how her experience as a Rhodes Scholar shaped her career.

[5] The Peace of Westphalia: France’s Defense of the Sovereign Nation by Pierre Beaudry, EIR Nov. 29, 2002

[6] Robert Mueller Is an Amoral Legal Assassin: He Will Do His Job If You Let Him by Barbara Boyd, October 1, 2017 larouchepac.com. A common denominator among all of the mentioned American leaders is not only that they waged war on the deep state structures but made constant attempts to work constructively with Russia, China, India and other nations for industrial and scientific development. This policy of “win-win cooperation” is antagonistic to all systems of empire and is the reason why the Empire hates China and the potential created with Trump’s intention to work with both China and Russia.

[7] See John Diefenbaker and the Sabotage of the Northern Vision by the author, Canadian Patriot #4, January 2013

[8] O.D. Skelton, The Life of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, p. 510

 


BIO: Matthew J.L. Ehret is a journalist, lecturer and founder of the Canadian Patriot Review. His works have been published in Executive Intelligence Review, Global Resesarch, Global Times, Nexus Magazine, Los Angeles Review of Books, Veterans Today and Sott.net. Matthew has also published the book “The Time has Come for Canada to Join the New Silk Road” and three volumes of the Untold History of Canada (available on untoldhistory.canadianpatriot.org). He has been associated with the Schiller Institute since 2006.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Reactions to the Proposed Syrian Withdrawal

If we learned anything from Vietnam, and disastrous wars that followed, that it’s long past time for conquering and exploiting poor countries.

Published

on

Trump dropped a bombshell with his surprise order for a withdrawal of US troops from Syria, the draw-down of troops in Afghanistan, and the resignation of his Secretary of Defense.

But surprisingly, Trump’s view of the Syrian conflict closely resembles Obama’s, i.e., that the US had no serious interest, either economic or strategic, in the conflict.

Recall that Obama was often criticized by our Middle East allies for refusing to commit ground troops to the battle, authorizing only limited numbers of technical advisors, along with air support.

Obama’s stance was often attacked by his critics as ‘arms-length combat.’ But that could also be said for EU allies France and UK, that made the least minimal commitments, with France and the UK providing no more than 500 troops, total, and Germany refusing to take any part in the conflict.

Even at that, Obama’s war focus wavered badly, from initially supporting the Saudi and UAE, while arming and training “moderate jihadists” as a proxy-warriors to overthrow Assad.

When many of these moderate rebels turned out to be not so moderate, with some breaking ranks to join ISIS, the US reversed focus to support the Kurdish militia, the most effective fighters against both the moderate jihadists and ISIS, fighting in support of the Assad regime.

Obama, like Trump, correctly saw that the main threat to stability in the middle east was the growth of the radical jihadist, ISIS, that occupied large areas in East Iraq and Syria, while, intent on building similar outposts in Africa.

US neo-cons and cold warriors were stunned at Trump’s withdrawal announcement, as their dream for regime change in the Middle East utterly collapsed.

Their long-held view that regime change could turn back the clock to a time when the West colonized the regions and stripped their natural resource assets was totally discredited and belied by the experiences in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and now Syria.

If we learned anything from Vietnam, and disastrous wars that followed, that it’s long past time for conquering and exploiting poor countries. Even without modern weapons, devoid of air force or navy, their people will fight on against, against impossible odds, eventually wearing down the would-be conquerors by forcing them to spend fortunes in lives and treasure until they are finally forced to declare victory and slink home. Mission Accomplished!

After seventeen years in Afghanistan, in a never-ending war, even our military has come to the conclusion that this war is unwinnable. Like Vietnam, the war always lacked the essential ingredients for victory in terms of an established, effective government that held the loyalty of its countrymen, and military force capable of protecting the country. In their absence, and without a negotiated settlement, the war will likely continue indefinitely. The same could be said of Iraq, Libya, and Syria.

In the movie, W, about the younger Bush Administration and it’s march to war in Iraq there is a revealing scene in which the character portrayed as VP Cheney goes to a map of the middle east, aims his pointer at all the region’s countries, saying, “If we took all the countries in the area and controlled their oil, who would f..k with us then?”

The character portrayed as Colin Powell responds, “Spoken like a true oil man.”

Although the movie is only a dramatic portrayal, we would lay odds that conversations like the one portrayed in the movie frequently took place amongst the real-life players. Recall McCain during his Presidential campaign, outrageously singing “Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran.” Or consider the long-time slogan of the neo-cons,

“Real men go to Tehran.”

What that long line of interventionist wars clearly showed were that these countries were more than willing to defend themselves against the occupying forces. And these guerrilla wars by much weaker countries against far more powerful imperialists invaders could go on for many years, in a war of attrition, draining the resources of their western rulers until, eventually, they were forced to retreat. Afghanistan is a prime example, with the US war ongoing for seventeen years.

Not surprisingly, Trump was attacked for failing to heed to warnings of his chief military advisor, Secretary of Defense, Mattis, who resigned, setting off a major controversy. And while the media continued to lambast the President and laud the General for his integrity.

Widely ignored by most of the media is that Mattis was also formerly fired from his post as head of Centcom by the Obama Administration for allegedly attempting to provoke a conflict with Iran, aimed at undermining the Administration’s efforts to negotiate the freeze on Iran’s nuclear development.

Also ignored is the fact that Trump followed the advise of Gen. Curtis Michael “Mike” Scaparrotti, the highly respected head of the U.S. European Command, who publicly stated that the US had little interest at risk in Syria, and that our support for the Kurds threatened our relations with NATO member Turkey, an alliance considered far more politically important than with the Kurds.

The media also failed to notice that prior to the President’s announced troop withdrawal from Syria, that Russia had successfully negotiated a 60 mile pull back of Iranian troop from Syria’s southern border, aimed at easing tensions and lowering the threats towards Israel.

Also ignored by the western press was at the recent meeting in Abu Dhabi between US special envoy, Khalizad, and the Taliban, where, for the first time, a high level US representative declared that the US was ready to withdraw its military forces if there was a meaningful and verifiable peace settlement, with a guarantee that Afghanistan would no longer be a staging grounds for terrorists attacks on its neighbors or the west.

In attendance at the meeting were representatives of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirate, in support of the US position, urging the reluctant Taliban towards direct negotiation with the current Afghan government.

Pakistan’s leadership also gave added support to the meeting. Few middle eastern analysts believe that the Taliban would be willing to reject the US terms, that answers their own demands for a US withdrawal, particularly when backed by the Taliban’s former benefactors.

Instead, the military establishment unloaded its biggest weapon to panic the public, as Senator Lindsey Graham reported to an unconvinced public ‘that the announced troop withdrawal could lead to another 9/11.’ Shades of Colin Powell’s pictures of an atomic mushroom cloud emanating from Iraq’s non-existent nuclear weapons.

Despite the news blitz by the military and its media friends of dire consequences for withdrawal, their remains few alternatives besides a permanent presence by US troops,  in the face growing US public opposition to the long and unending interventionists wars in the Middle East and Eurasia.

The military establishment’s opposition to the withdrawal was largely expected and taken for granted, but more surprising was the concerted attack by many left wing spokes people and their media associates. Senator Elizabeth Warren has been the left’s only representative to agree to the withdrawal, although she also condemned the President for not alerting our allies.  It left one wondering where the left’s peace movement has gone or if it still exists.

Against this there is a catastrophic history that cannot be denied. While jobs and industries were disappearing from our borders, our leaders engaged in decades long wars in the Middle East and Eurasia, where the discredited neo-con strategy of regime change, based on faked intelligence and false flags, has left in its wake the wreckage of fallen states, the blow-back of global terrorism, and an enormous refuges crisis, to say nothing of the waste of lives and treasure.

A final question: Does our fury against Trump blind it to our own long-term interests?

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending