[Carlhole]

Foreign Policy In Focus

...The Role of NATO

For most Americans and Europeans, Afghanistan appeared on their radar screens shortly after the 9/11 assaults on the World Trade Towers and the Pentagon. But according to Escobar, three months before the 2001 attack U.S., Iranian, German, and Italian officials met in Geneva to discuss toppling the Taliban because it was "the proverbial fly in the ointment" in a scheme to run a $2 billion, 800-mile natural gas pipeline from Turkmenistan to Pakistan via southern Afghanistan.

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, NATO moved aggressively to fill the vacuum left by the demise of the Warsaw Pact, quickly recruiting former Soviet allies and provinces.

According to Escobar, one of NATO's first forays in the energy war was the Balkans, which NATO represented as a fight to liberate the Albanians in Kosovo. Moscow and Beijing, however, viewed it as an opportunity for the Albanian Macedonian Bulgarian Oil Corporation (AMBO) to build a $1.1 billion pipeline to bring Caspian Basin oil to the West, thus bypassing Iran and Russia. The AMBO pipeline — due to open in 2011 — will transport Caspian Basin oil via Georgia, Turkey, Bulgaria, Macedonia, and Albania.

"How could Russia, China, and Iran not interpret the war in Kosovo, then the invasion of Afghanistan (where Washington had previously tried to pair with the Taliban and encourage the building of another of those avoid-Iran, avoid-Russia pipelines), and finally Georgia (that critical energy transportation junction) as straightforward wars for Pipelineistan?" Escobar asks.

For every action, however, there is an opposite and equal reaction...

Michael Ruppert's explanation of the reasons for WHY 911 took place appears to be so much more credible now than it was when he was first writing about the links between Peak Oil and 911 at his site, FromTheWilderness.com in 2001 and, later, in his book Crossing The Rubicon.

Quite aside from all the scientific evidence (like high-tech explosive residue in the dust), it's always seemed obvious to me that the events of 911 kicked off the escalated developments in Central Asia and Iraq over oil and gas pipelines and over other resources, including military presence and territorial ambition/protection.

Articles like this one gloss over 911 by simply noting how utterly convenient it was for military and pipeline planners. It is always left up to the reader to decide whether or not 911 was a false flag operation. But the implication is always there, if not explicit.

[Fishman]

"war in Kosovo"
Damn that Clinton, I knew he was behind 9/11 all along.

[Carlhole]

"war in Kosovo"
Damn that Clinton, I knew he was behind 9/11 all along.

Your notion of politics is the one that is fallacious.

The US has had a consistent foreign policy ever since the end of WWII. Only the rhetoric and tactics change. The strategy has always remained the same.

It is convenient for politicians in America of all stripes to continue the Manichean Two-Party system in the US in order to more conveniently propagandize the (really consistent, and persistent) foreign policy.

One would expect politics to become much more heated, controversial and violent as population and consumption begins to tax available resources. Competition heats up. And, inevitably, the whole thing will be spun to death and totally propagandized.

If the United States had, say, 5 main parties all bitching for position, the coherence of policy from one administration to another would be much, much more difficult. So the game is set up so as to maximize the possibility of totally bullshitting the public at large. The complicit, compliant media is a necessary component of this style of national governance.

So, your one-sided republicanism makes no sense. It's convenient for the two-party system to employ the left to engineer some collective national effort in the face of expensive resources, massive debts incurred by both fake parties, and an aging population who will soon start drawing upon entitlements. The Republicans, with there support for limited government, low taxes and breaks for business and the rich, have had their turn. The public will be more easily sold by someone like Obama.

But Obama will maintain the core US agenda just as Bush did.

You seem really foolish to me for actually believing that the two parties are completely independent actors, claiming different agendas.

[Fishman]

Ch
Thank you, from you I consider that a complement

[evgeny]

"war in Kosovo"
Damn that Clinton, I knew he was behind 9/11 all along.

Your notion of politics is the one that is fallacious.

The US has had a consistent foreign policy ever since the end of WWII. Only the rhetoric and tactics change. The strategy has always remained the same.

It is convenient for politicians in America of all stripes to continue the Manichean Two-Party system in the US in order to more conveniently propagandize the (really consistent, and persistent) foreign policy.

One would expect politics to become much more heated, controversial and violent as population and consumption begins to tax available resources. Competition heats up. And, inevitably, the whole thing will be spun to death and totally propagandized.

If the United States had, say, 5 main parties all bitching for position, the coherence of policy from one administration to another would be much, much more difficult. So the game is set up so as to maximize the possibility of totally bullshitting the public at large. The complicit, compliant media is a necessary component of this style of national governance.

So, your one-sided republicanism makes no sense. It's convenient for the two-party system to employ the left to engineer some collective national effort in the face of expensive resources, massive debts incurred by both fake parties, and an aging population who will soon start drawing upon entitlements. The Republicans, with there support for limited government, low taxes and breaks for business and the rich, have had their turn. The public will be more easily sold by someone like Obama.

But Obama will maintain the core US agenda just as Bush did.

You seem really foolish to me for actually believing that the two parties are completely independent actors, claiming different agendas.

Oligarchy is the perfect word to use for America. America aren't truly democratic or capitalist. Oligarchy properly describes economics and politics and the way in which country has truly come to function. 9 out of 10 of those who control everything in America aren't elected by anyone and are usually never known to the average person.

All this started in 1913, when FED was created

big mistake is believing the FED is the government. The FED is a private bank. It's not the Treasury and is not the government. The FED is part of the oligarchy. It doesn't answer to the public in anyway. There is no accountability to America. It serves it's own interests.