The West’s Dangerously Simple-Minded Narrative About Russia and China – Unz Review

The world is on the edge of nuclear catastrophe in no small part because of the failure of Western political leaders to be forthright about the causes of the escalating global conflicts. The relentless Western narrative that the West is noble while Russia and China are evil is simple-minded and extraordinarily dangerous. It is an attempt to manipulate public opinion, not to deal with very real and pressing diplomacy.

Europe should reflect on the fact that the non-enlargement of NATO and the implementation of the Minsk II agreements would have averted this awful war in Ukraine.

The essential narrative of the West is built into US national security strategy. The core US idea is that China and Russia are implacable foes that are “attempting to erode American security and prosperity.” These countries are, according to the US, “determined to make economies less free and less fair, to grow their militaries, and to control information and data to repress their societies and expand their influence.”

The irony is that since 1980 the US has been in at least 15 overseas wars of choice (Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Panama, Serbia, Syria, and Yemen just to name a few), while China has been in none, and Russia only in one (Syria) beyond the former Soviet Union. The US has military bases in 85 countries, China in 3, and Russia in 1 (Syria) beyond the former Soviet Union.

President Joe Biden has promoted this narrative, declaring that the greatest challenge of our time is the competition with the autocracies, which “seek to advance their own power, export and expand their influence around the world, and justify their repressive policies and practices as a more efficient way to address today’s challenges.” US security strategy is not the work of any single US president but of the US security establishment, which is largely autonomous, and operates behind a wall of secrecy.

The overwrought fear of China and Russia is sold to a Western public through manipulation of the facts. A generation earlier George W. Bush, Jr. sold the public on the idea that America’s greatest threat was Islamic fundamentalism, without mentioning that it was the CIA, with Saudi Arabia and other countries, that had created, funded, and deployed the jihadists in Afghanistan, Syria, and elsewhere to fight America’s wars.

Or consider the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan in 1980, which was painted in the Western media as an act of unprovoked perfidy. Years later, we learned that the Soviet invasion was actually preceded by a CIA operation designed to provoke the Soviet invasion! The same misinformation occurred vis-à-vis Syria. The Western press is filled with recriminations against Putin’s military assistance to Syria’s Bashar al-Assad beginning in 2015, without mentioning that the US supported the overthrow of al-Assad beginning in 2011, with the CIA funding a major operation (Timber Sycamore) to overthrow Assad years before Russia arrived.

Or more recently, when US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recklessly flew to Taiwan despite China’s warnings, no G7 foreign minister criticized Pelosi’s provocation, yet the G7 ministers together harshly criticized China’s “overreaction” to Pelosi’s trip.

The Western narrative about the Ukraine war is that it is an unprovoked attack by Putin in the quest to recreate the Russian empire. Yet the real history starts with the Western promise to Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO would not enlarge to the East, followed by four waves of NATO aggrandizement: in 1999, incorporating three Central European countries; in 2004, incorporating 7 more, including in the Black Sea and Baltic States; in 2008, committing to enlarge to Ukraine and Georgia; and in 2022, inviting four Asia-Pacific leaders to NATO to take aim at China.

Nor do the Western media mention the US role in the 2014 overthrow of Ukraine’s pro-Russian president Viktor Yanukovych; the failure of the Governments of France and Germany, guarantors of the Minsk II agreement, to press Ukraine to carry out its commitments; the vast US armaments sent to Ukraine during the Trump and Biden Administrations in the lead-up to war; nor the refusal of the US to negotiate with Putin over NATO enlargement to Ukraine.

Of course, NATO says that is purely defensive, so that Putin should have nothing to fear. In other words, Putin should take no notice of the CIA operations in Afghanistan and Syria; the NATO bombing of Serbia in 1999; the NATO overthrow of Moammar Qaddafi in 2011; the NATO occupation of Afghanistan for 15 years; nor Biden’s “gaffe” calling for Putin’s ouster (which of course was no gaffe at all); nor US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin stating that the US war aim in Ukraine is the weakening of Russia.

At the core of all of this is the US attempt to remain the world’s hegemonic power, by augmenting military alliances around the world to contain or defeat China and Russia. It’s a dangerous, delusional, and outmoded idea. The US has a mere 4.2% of the world population, and now a mere 16% of world GDP (measured at international prices). In fact, the combined GDP of the G7 is now less than that of the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa), while the G7 population is just 6 percent of the world compared with 41 percent in the BRICS.

There is only one country whose self-declared fantasy is to be the world’s dominant power: the US. It’s past time that the US recognized the true sources of security: internal social cohesion and responsible cooperation with the rest of the world, rather than the illusion of hegemony. With such a revised foreign policy, the US and its allies would avoid war with China and Russia, and enable the world to face its myriad environment, energy, food and social crises.

Above all, at this time of extreme danger, European leaders should pursue the true source of European security: not US hegemony, but European security arrangements that respect the legitimate security interests of all European nations, certainly including Ukraine, but also including Russia, which continues to resist NATO enlargements into the Black Sea. Europe should reflect on the fact that the non-enlargement of NATO and the implementation of the Minsk II agreements would have averted this awful war in Ukraine. At this stage, diplomacy, not military escalation, is the true path to European and global security.

Jeffrey D. Sachs is a University Professor and Director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University, where he directed The Earth Institute from 2002 until 2016. He is also President of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network and a commissioner of the UN Broadband Commission for Development. He has been advisor to three United Nations Secretaries-General, and currently serves as an SDG Advocate under Secretary-General Antonio Guterres. Sachs is the author, most recently, of “A New Foreign Policy: Beyond American Exceptionalism” (2020). Other books include: “Building the New American Economy: Smart, Fair, and Sustainable” (2017) and The Age of Sustainable Development,” (2015) with Ban Ki-moon.

Ballot Fraud Found in Two States

Wall Street Journal article reports fraud in two states, which they call “ballot mischief.”

 

Last week two Georgia election workers were fired for shredding voter registration forms, and this week three Michigan women were charged with fraud.

Continued at Source:

 

Source: Ballot Fraud Found in Two States

US Foreign Policy Adrift: Why Washington No Longer Calls the Shots – from Anti-War Blog

Original: Article Here

Jonah Goldberg and Michael Ledeen have much in common. They are both writers and also cheerleaders for military interventions and, often, for frivolous wars. Writing in the conservative rag, The National Review, months before the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, Goldberg paraphrased a statement which he attributed to Ledeen with reference to the interventionist US foreign policy.

“Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business,” Goldberg wrote, quoting Ledeen.

Those like Ledeen, the neoconservative intellectual henchman type, often get away with this kind of provocative rhetoric for various reasons. American intelligentsias, especially those who are close to the center of power in Washington DC, perceive war and military intervention as the foundation and baseline of their foreign policy analysis. The utterances of such statements are usually conveyed within friendly media and intellectual platforms, where equally hawkish, belligerent audiences cheer and laugh at the warmongering muses. In the case of Ledeen, the receptive audience was the hardline, neoconservative, pro-Israel American Enterprise Institute (AEI).

Predictably, AEI was one of the loudest voices urging for a war and invasion of Iraq prior to that calamitous decision by the George W. Bush Administration, which was enacted in March 2003.

Neoconservatism, unlike what the etymology of the name may suggest, was not necessarily confined to conservative political circles. Think tanks, newspapers and media networks that purport – or are perceived – to express liberal and even progressive thought today, like The New York Times, The Washington Post and CNN, have dedicated much time and space to promoting an American invasion of Iraq as the first step of a complete US geostrategic military hegemony in the Middle East.

Like the National Review, these media networks also provided unhindered space to so-called neoconservative intellectuals who molded American foreign policy based on some strange mix between their twisted take on ethics and morality and the need for the US to ensure its global dominance throughout the 21st century. Of course, the neocons’ love affair with Israel has served as the common denominator among all individuals affiliated with this intellectual cult.

The main – and inconsequential – difference between Ledeen, for example, and those like Thomas Friedman of The New York Times, is that the former is brazen and blunt, while the latter is delusional and manipulative. For his part, Friedman also supported the Iraq war, but only to bring “democracy” to the Middle East and to fight “terrorism.” The pretense “war on terror,” though misleading if not outright fabricated, was the overriding American motto in its invasion of Iraq and, earlier, Afghanistan. This mantra was readily utilized whenever Washington needed to “pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall.”

Even those who genuinely supported the war based on concocted intelligence – that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, possessed weapons of mass destruction, or the equally fallacious notion that Saddam and Al-Qaeda cooperated in any way – must, by now, realize that the entire American discourse prior to the war had no basis in reality. Unfortunately, war enthusiasts are not a rational bunch. Therefore, neither they, nor their “intellectuals,” should be expected to possess the moral integrity in shouldering the responsibility for the Iraq invasion and its horrific consequences.

If, indeed, the US wars in the Middle East and Afghanistan were meant to fight and uproot terror, how is it possible that, in June 2014, an erstwhile unknown group calling itself the “Islamic State” (IS), managed to flourish, occupy and usurp massive swathes of Iraqi and Syrian territories and resource under the watchful eye of the US military? If the other war objective was bringing stability and democracy to the Middle East, why did many years of US “state-building” efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, for example, leave behind nothing but weak, shattered armies and festering corruption?

Two important events have summoned up these thoughts: US President Joe Biden’s “historic” trip to Cornwall, UK, in June, to attend the 47th G7 summit and, two weeks later, the death of Donald Rumsfeld, who is widely depicted as “the architect of the Iraq war.” The tone struck by Biden throughout his G7 meetings is that “America is back,” another American coinage similar to the earlier phrase, the “great reset” – meaning that Washington is ready to reclaim its global role that had been betrayed by the chaotic policies of former President Donald Trump.

The newest phrase – “America is back” – appears to suggest that the decision to restore the US’ uncontested global leadership is, more or less, an exclusively American decision. Moreover, the term is not entirely new. In his first speech to a global audience at the Munich Security Conference on February 19, Biden repeated the phrase several times with obvious emphasis.

“America is back. I speak today as President of the United States, at the very start of my administration and I am sending a clear message to the world: America is back,” Biden said, adding that “the transatlantic alliance is back and we are not looking backward, we are looking forward together.”

Platitudes and wishful thinking aside, the US cannot possibly return to a previous geopolitical standing, simply because Biden has made an executive decision to “reset” his country’s traditional relationships with Europe – or anywhere else, either. Biden’s actual mission is to merely whitewash and restore his country’s tarnished reputation, marred not only by Trump, but also by years of fruitless wars, a crisis of democracy at home and abroad and an impending financial crisis resulting from the US’ mishandling of the Covid-19 pandemic. Unfortunately for Washington, while it hopes to “look forward” to the future, other countries have already staked claims to parts of the world where the US has been forced to retreat, following two decades of a rudderless strategy that is fueled by the belief that firepower alone is sufficient to keep America aloft forever.

Though Biden was received warmly by his European hosts, Europe is likely to proceed cautiously. The continent’s geostrategic interests do not fall entirely in the American camp, as was once the case. Other new factors and power players have emerged in recent years. China is now the European bloc’s largest trade partner and Biden’s scare tactics warning of Chinese global dominance have not, seemingly, impressed the Europeans as the Americans had hoped. Following Britain’s unceremonious exit from the EU bloc, the latter urgently needs to keep its share of the global economy as large as possible. The limping US economy will hardly make the substantial deficit felt in Europe. Namely, the China-EU relationship is here to stay – and grow.

There is something else that makes the Europeans wary of whatever murky political doctrine Biden is promoting: dangerous American military adventurism.

The US and Europe are the foundation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) which, since its inception in 1949, was almost exclusively used by the US to assert its global dominance, first in the Korean Peninsula in 1950, then everywhere else.

Following the September 11 attacks, Washington used its hegemony over NATO to invoke Article 5 of its Charter, that of collective defense. The consequences were dire, as NATO members, along with the US, were embroiled in their longest wars ever, military conflicts that had no consistent strategy, let alone measurable goals. Now, as the US licks its wounds as it leaves Afghanistan, NATO members, too, are leaving the devastated country without a single achievement worth celebrating. Similar scenarios are transpiring in Iraq and Syria, too.

Rumsfeld’s death on June 29, at the age of 88, should serve as a wake-up call to American allies if they truly wish to avoid the pitfalls and recklessness of the past. While much of the US corporate media commemorated the death of a brutish war criminal with amiable noncommittal language, some blamed him almost entirely for the Iraq fiasco. It is as if a single man had bent the will of the West-dominated international community to invade, pillage, torture and destroy entire countries. If so, then Rumsfeld’s death should usher in an exciting new dawn of collective peace, prosperity and security. This is not the case.

Rationalizing his decision to leave Afghanistan in a speech to the nation in April 2021, Biden did not accept, on behalf of his country, responsibility over that horrific war. Instead, he spoke of the need to fight the “terror threat” in “many places,” instead of keeping “thousands of troops grounded and concentrated in just one country.”

Indeed, a close reading of Biden’s decision to withdraw from Afghanistan – a process which began under Trump – suggests that the difference between US foreign policy under Biden is only tactically different from the policies of George W. Bush when he launched his “preemptive wars” under the command of Rumsfeld. Namely, though the geopolitical map may have shifted, the US appetite for war remains insatiable.

Shackled with a legacy of unnecessary, fruitless and immoral wars, yet with no actual “forward” strategy, the US, arguably for the first time since the inception of NATO in the aftermath of World War II, has no decipherable foreign policy doctrine. Even if such a doctrine exists, it can only be materialized through alliances whose relationships are constructed on trust and confidence. Despite the EU’s courteous reception of Biden in Cornwall, trust in Washington is at an all-time low.

Even if it is accepted, without any argument, that America is, indeed, back, considering the vastly changing geopolitical spheres in Europe, the Middle East and Asia, Biden’s assertion should, ultimately, make no difference.

Domestic Terror is a Government Without Constraints – from Bomb Thrower

“THE ULTIMATE GOAL OF THE STATE IS TO CULTIVATE ABSOLUTE DEPENDENCY ON IT BY ITS SUBJECTS. THIS IS BECAUSE UNTIL THIS HAPPENS THERE IS A REAL DANGER THAT THOSE GOVERNED WILL ONE DAY WAKE UP AND REALIZE THAT THE STATE IS NOT ONLY ENTIRELY UNNECESSARY BUT ACTUALLY MALIGNANT; A MALEVOLENT FORCE ACTIVELY IMPOVERISHING SOCIETY TO THE BENEFIT OF IT’S ELITES”

US Congressman Biggs & 31 Colleagues Send Letter to Biden Demanding Answers on His Door-to-Door Vaccine Checks

Originally posted on Mining Awareness + : Along with privacy concerns, the door-to-door could spread Covid-19 throughout the community like the flagellants helped spread the plague from town to town in the Middle Ages. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagellant#Spread_in_the_14th_century “Congressman Andy Biggs Sends Letter to Pres. Biden Demanding Answers on His Door-to-Door Vaccine Checks July 9, 2021 Press Release Today, Congressman…

US Congressman Biggs & 31 Colleagues Send Letter to Biden Demanding Answers on His Door-to-Door Vaccine Checks

There is More to BlackRock Than You Might Imagine — Desultory Heroics

By F. William Engdahl Source: New Eastern Outlook A virtually unregulated investment firm today exercises more political and financial influence than the Federal Reserve and most governments on this planet. The firm, BlackRock Inc., the world’s largest asset manager, invests a staggering $9 trillion in client funds worldwide, a sum more than double the annual […]

There is More to BlackRock Than You Might Imagine — Desultory Heroics

Biden Bombing of Syria is Sickening – WikiLeaks is Eternal – End the Forever Wars

By: Muunyayo

The conflict in Syria has been highly complex since it begun in 2011. It was presented at first as a genuine uprising of Syrians against Basher Al-Assad, however, it was soon learned that the so-called resistance/moderate rebels/freedom fighters/etc were infact being supported by a secretive pact. The onset of all out Civil War was not a Syrian-citizen driven revolution.

The organic, legit Syrian uprising (Syrian people protesting Assad’s government), it quickly hijacked and chaotic asymmetrical warfare was perpetrated by the outside forces that stood to benefit from a from a dismantling of Syria. Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Israel and the United States had a hand in financing the mercenary Jihadists, supplying weapons, training, supplies – all to fight a proxy war against Syria.

PAs revealed in the epic WikiLeaks publishing of secretive, confidential cables (electronic communications) involving Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Israel, the UK and the US – contemplating the destabilization of Syria as far back as 2006. This manifested into real, material participation via proxy as these nations sank vast financial resources into recruiting/training/funding/arming/supplying both Syrian and foreign mercenaries, to continue the asymmetrical warfare that tore Syria to shreds.

This tactic isn’t new; the CIA literally created Al-Qaeda (or what became Al-Qaeda) – inspiring fighters from the Mahgjrib region of Africa and the Middle East. The result was the holy-warriors; a sort of branding of “Jihadists” – the Mujahideen fought the Soviets that invaded Afghanistan in 1979. This was America’s proxy war versus the USSR – and from an ideological standpoint – a resistance to Communism. This is not a myth: it was broadcasted on nightly news in America:

The United States has been waging an illegal war against Syria since 2006. It’s important to know that Benghazi was a staging hub, set up by the United States Department of State, to smuggle weapons into Syria via Croatia.

The planning for this destabilization of Syria was set in motion as early as 2006, as was revealed by WikiLeaks (as it became a household name) when it dropped it’s cache of diplomatic channels of cables (classified/secret/top secret electronic communications). Julian Assange lead WikiLeaks and exposed these cables for the world to see in November of 2010.

The Syrian Civil War is very complicated. There are what first began with Syrian military forces crushing a movement of protestors that were motivated from the energy emanating from the Arab Spring, we first saw the emergence of the Free Syrian Army in the summer of 2011, as the main opposition to Assad’s forces. Soon came the Idlib Martyrs’ Brigade – with origins from within the Syrian government. A similar opposition element to Assad was the Shabiha – which was a state-sponsored militia of the Syrian government. Soon came the major involvement of al-Nusra Front. This rebel group soon became Syrian faction of Al-Qaeda. Multiple fronts had been opened up in this war with the cities of Damascus, Raqqa, Idlib, Aleppo and other cities.

The Kurds that live in the northern part of Syria also opened up multiple fronts in the war. Iran-backed militias entered the war on the side of Assad’s government.

Hezbollah and Iraqi Shiite fighters entered into the war on the side of the Syrian government forces. The al-Abbas Brigade was another militia of sorts to fight alongside government forces.

The Islamic State of Iraq and Levant aka ISIS/ISIL/Daesh was launched as a belligerent of different sorts – as it fought against the Syrian government forces and against the various rebel factions on varying fronts. It also launched a “by any means necessary” type of optics-driven terrorism in declaring it’s caliphate.

There were acts of terrorism carried out throughout Europe (Belgium, France, Germany, the UK)- come to mind.

The northern nations of Africa also felt the truly ruthless acts of bloodlust by ISIS soldiers.

ISIS even attacked Iran.

ISIS- and the propaganda machine that fueled it’s presence on social media networks – the production quality is so polished – it didn’t just come out of the blue. This was a militant group, fashioned with surplus US Marine microfiche camouflage, a fleet of Hummers and strangely Toyota pickup trucks. It had state of the art weaponry, 20,000+/- members and defected from Al-Qaeda to establish a caliphate and impose Shariah Law. It came out with the Black Flags of Khorasan: This video interests me:

It is absolutely certain that ISIS was a creation of CIA, Mossad and MI-6 intelligence. This ISIS faction was created to throw sand in the gears of the Syrian government forces efforts to sustain cease-fire agreements – diplomacy was not on the table. Only gritty warfare.

I have more faith in him than what any American politicians claim.

If you don’t think the leader of Sudan has any clout just see what the United States President had to say about ISIL:

Perhaps that was a verbal typo – however Obama did ask for funding of the Syrian Rebels:

ISIS never touched Israel. Never. And it’s interesting that Al-Qaeda has never attacked Israel as well. It’s pretty obvious if you have been paying attention to the emergence of the Greater Israel Project. It’s becoming a reality. Israel established peaceful relations with Egypt and Jordan decades ago. Israel has gotten close with Saudi Arabia. Recently they have entered into normalized relations with the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco and Sudan. There will be a Greater Israel or perhaps it will be a vessel state called the Greater Middle East and it’s a chip that very neatly fits into China’s Belt and Road Initiative. (This subject matter is critical to the geopolitical grand chessboard right now and I am writing a post about the innards of the Belt and Road Initiative.)

The descriptives that could be inserted here are pretty eternal to describe the conflict. Russia entered into the war at the call from it’s geopolitical ally Assad. Their expansive air bombing campaign really turned the momentum of the war in favor of the Syrian government.

And justification that Israel was materially involved ..Israel’s IDF publicly admitted to funding the “moderate rebels”:


WIKILEAKS – “We Open Governments”

WikiLeaks is a transnational advocacy network for radical accountability of governments and corporations. The focus is on the use of civic technologies to promote transparency from the following categories: Freedom and Privacy.

WikiLeaks unearthed confidential correspondence – aka “cables” – which shows that, in December 2006, the top US diplomat in Syria stated in a classified/secret communication that US policy in Syria should be to destabilize the Syrian government by any means available; that the US should work to increase Sunni-Shia sectarianism in Syria, including by aiding the dissemination of false fears about Shia proselytizing and stoking resentment about Iranian business activity and mosque construction; that the US should press Arab allies to give access in the media they control to a former Syrian official calling for the ouster of the Syrian government; that the US should try to strain relations between the Syrian government and other Arab governments, and then blame Syria for the strain; that the US should seek to stoke Syrian government fears of coup plots in order to provoke the Syrian government to overreact; that if the Syrian government reacted to external provocations, it proved that the regime was paranoid; that the US should work to undermine Syrian economic reforms and discourage foreign investment; that the US should seek to foster the belief that the Syrian government was not legitimate; that violent protests in Syria were praiseworthy and exemplary; that if Syria is the victim of terrorism and tries to do something about it, the US should exploit that to say that the Syrian government is weak and unstable, and is experiencing blowback for its foreign policy.

The full version of the cable is in this link here:

https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/06DAMASCUS5399_a.html

Current Conflict:

This illustrates a comprehensive overview of the events in Syria prior to Biiden’s bombing. I have been following the Carter Center’s “Syria for quite a few years now. (It’s amazing that Syria has sustained nearly 10 years of destruction and worse realities – and it’s fucking disgusting the United States just bombs at will. What is that?)

Members of the Carter Center

BIDEN EXTENDS PRESIDENTIAL TRADITION OF BOMBINGS

It’s doubtful Biden initiated these air strikes. He has dementia. It’s a sad fucking commentary. The Neo-Liberal, Plutocracy called the “Establishment” is back in business. Those orders did not come from Biden.

Why the Fuck is the United States in Syria?

The United States was there but what for? Why the fuck is America good at forever wars? Is it ZOG? The MIC? The Petrodollar? Is the destabilization of Syria necessary to build a rival natural gas pipeline (Qatar-Saudi Arabia-Iraq-Syria-Turkey)into Europe? What’s the true answer? The situation in Syria – there is something happening there.

Also, it is my belief that the notion any type of military conflict with Iran is purely a gaY-0p to neatly funnel right-leaning political zealots into concentrating on the terrorist, evil, anti-Cementic, blah blah – so that they never ask real questions about the real issues that our policy makers

So that leads us to the direct military involvement of the United States. War was never officially declared by the United States on Syria. The United States had absolutely no business entering into the war. Their involvement is unequivocally illegal by all standards. The interventionist tactics of the United States bring nothing but fuckery for the USA.

Of course, the military industrial complex and it’s consortium of beneficiaries such as Lockheed Martin, BAE Systems, General Dynamics Corporation, Raytheon, etc receive guaranteed revenue streams from surefire federal reimbursement for weapons manufacture. And from there, the shareholders of the publicly traded entities realize handsome dividends stemming from their investment. Aind from this, there is ABSOLUTELY ZERO BENEFIT TO ORDINARY AMERICAN PEOPLE to the forever wars in the Middle East.

Biden’s bullshit Build Back Better is taken right from the World Economic Forum/Great Reset/Agenda 2030/Gates Foundation/World Trade Organization/United Nations playbooks.

He’s really an older gentleman that unfortunately has dementia. When he was campaigning he even labeled himself as a transitional candidate. When it comes to the missile strikes and the forever wars – the entanglement is so complex as to geopolitical clout and power.

This is a struggle for resources. Whomever has the possession of the needed, natural and precious resources …has dominion over the Earth.

No Wars With Syria. No War With Iran. Stop the forever wars. Free Julian Assange.