Methinks we are experiencing the first stages of UFO disclosure from the US government. It’s coming out in drips rather than big press conferences. No need to scare the masses.
Methinks we are experiencing the first stages of UFO disclosure from the US government. It’s coming out in drips rather than big press conferences. No need to scare the masses.
This will prevent war, not sanctions, not threats, not foreign interference. If you are not Korean, this conflict has nothing to do with you. Go home and fix your own countries, and take all them hypocrites pontificating in Vancouver with you.
The Associated Press
Posted: Jan 17, 2018
The rival Koreas have agreed to form their first joint Olympic team and have their athletes march together during the opening ceremony of next month’s Winter Olympics in the South, according to Seoul’s Unification Ministry.
The ministry said the two sides reached the agreement during talks Wednesday in the border village of Panmunjom.
Athletes from the two Koreas will march together under a “unification flag” depicting their peninsula during the opening ceremony and will field a women’s ice hockey team, according to a joint statement released by the ministry.
The measures require approval by the International Olympic Committee (IOC). The South Korean ministry said the two Koreas will consult with the committee this weekend.
North Korea will send a delegation of about 550, including 230 cheerleaders, 140 artists and 30 taekwondo players for a demonstration, the statement said.
What a waste of time. How can you have this conference without China or Russia? This is simply an exercise in futility and a waste of money and effort.
Also, if these countries really cared about the world they would be focusing on the countries that already have a nuclear arsenal: China, France, Russia, India, Pakistan, and the only country that has ever used nuclear weapons to terrorize a whole nation, the USA. Who gave these countries permission to hold weapons of mass destruction?
So stop pontificating, go home and fix your own countries. And stop pretending that you have the moral high ground. You don’t. Hypocrites.
Perhaps few double standards in international relations could be so sharply exposed as the US-Canada hosted Conference in Vancouver today focused on the traded threats between the United States and North Korea.
The US possesses an estimated 9,600 nuclear missiles, enough to eliminate life on earth multiple times – were it not vapourised in a mere few nuclear strikes.
Donald Trump has threatened North Korea with “fire and fury”, suggesting that it may be necessary to “totally destroy” the small nation.
It has been widely reported that the US has a “decapitation programme” to eliminate the North Korean President and government and presumably with it the capitol city and more. Further, Trump apparently thinks the possible eradication of a nation and possibly near geographical neighbours can be encapsulated in his infantile taunt:
“ …I too have a Nuclear Button, but it is a much bigger & more powerful one than his, and my Button works!” (Twitter, 4.49 pm, 2nd January 2018.)
There are huge uncertainties as to the ability of North Korea to deliver a nuclear payload to the US or even a US appropriated island such as Guam. However there is no uncertainty that since the Trump Presidency the chilling threats of annihilation from Washington have spurred North Korea to accelerate what they regard as a defensive weapons system.
The Vancouver Conference could have been a perfect place, in a beautiful city to invite a delegation from North Korea and for dialogue, communication and walking in the shoes of others. “Hermit nation” sneers the West. No, ostracized, cut out, diplomatically dismissed and threatened with annihilation.
But North Korea, it’s largest trading partner, China and Russia who know more than a bit are not invited. And as usual the victim is excluded. No lessons from the horrors inflicted on Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and indeed the former Yugoslavia previously, to name just a few other slaughtering arrogances
The way to stop N Korea “threatening” is to stop near 60 years of real genocidal threatening and include the country in all discussions, instead of accusing it of being “isolated” because West is isolating it.
Vancouver is surely another devastatingly missed opportunity where those threatening the entire planet have posh, multi course dinners and fine wines pat them selves on the back, whilst others live daily with the searing terror a false nuclear alarm in the US State of Hawaii suffered two days ago.
Let us hope that this assessment is wrong and that there are those who can embrace the chance to turn things around and persuade the war hawks that theirs is the path to insanity and even the – literally – world’s end.
As Harriet Beecher Stowe wrote:
“The bitterest tears shed over graves are for words left unsaid and deeds left undone.”
Felicity Arbuthnot is a Veteran War Correspondent and Associate Editor of Global Research
As if the United Nations has any power whatsoever. What we need is an independent international court of justice free from the influence and meddling of the USA and Israel.
In deliberate contempt of the United Nations and the international community, the Netanyahu government in Israel has advanced plans to attack Iranian cities and nuclear power centres by colluding with Trump to use American naval and air forces to deploy submarine-launched cruise missiles (SLCM) operating from the Gulf of Oman, plus the use of F35-delivered, devastating nuclear bombs to destroy the government of the sovereign state of Iran and install a puppet administration under US-Israeli control.
They apparently intend to attack the key nuclear research sites of Teheran, Bushehr, Arak, Bonab, Ramsar, Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan amongst others (Iran of course, has only a civil, nuclear power program unlike Israel that has an estimated military arsenal of up to 400 nuclear warheads), in a criminal attempt to effect regime change intended to cripple Iran and its economy in order to install Israel as hegemon of the Middle East.
Such an attack would be in gross violation of the Charter of the United Nations and would automatically designate the Trump administration as a perpetrator of war against a sovereign member state. Israel, of course, has already achieved pariah status having, in recent years, under the Likud government of Binyamin Netanyahu, perpetrated the assassination of various political opponents in Dubai, Teheran and the Middle East as well as on board the Turkish registered humanitarian aid vessel, the Mavi Marmara, on the high seas in international waters. Furthermore, the state of Israel is the only secret nuclear weapon state in the world and it sits outside of the IAEA and the internationally agreed treaties and conventions that keep world peace.
Tragically, in addition to support from Trump, the Netanyahu administration is also propped-up by the Conservative government of Theresa May who naively issues export licences to supply Israel with military equipment notwithstanding that the current Israeli Prime Minister is under investigation regarding multiple allegations of serious corruption. This allegedly corrupt politician desperately wants one last throw of the dice before he is removed from office, by attacking his sworn enemy, Iran, with American troops and planes. That is his goal regardless of the potentially massive loss of life that would invariably ensue.
The pro-Israel triumvirate of Trump, Netanyahu and May is an unfortunate political phenomena of our times – hopefully however, one with a truncated future as Europe and the world reacts to the unbridled aggression of the current Jabotinsky-style, Zionist policies reminiscent of 1947.
Aggression against Iran, or any other UN member state, without specific sanction by the Security Council, is a patent violation of international law and a very real threat to global peace and security. The national electorates of both the United States and the United Kingdom are fully cognizant of this fact and its inherent threat to their own survival in this nuclear age. The Israeli government of Binyamin Netanyahu, of course, has no such concerns.
Late last year, China’s Xi Jinping said it was time for the nation to “take center stage in the world.” There are many ways for China to do this, including promoting globalization, boosting foreign aid, and developing advanced technologies. Another critical step in taking “center stage” is to be at the center of the global economy. To achieve this, China is, among other things, trying to internationalize its currency.
For the past 70 years, the US dollar has been the world’s dominant currency. Two-thirds of the world’s $6.9 trillion allocated foreign exchange reserves are held in US dollars. The yuan took a major step towards broader international adoption in 2016 when the IMF decided to include it in the basket of currencies that make up the Special Drawing Right, an alternative reserve asset to the dollar.
Still, as of the third quarter of 2017, just over 1% of foreign exchange reserves were held in yuan, according to the latest data from the IMF. Now, there are signs that this is about to increase.
The Chinese yuan hit a two-year high against the US dollar this week, after the German Bundesbank said that it would include the yuan in its reserves for the first time. “The notable development from the European point of view over the past few years has been the growing international role of the renminbi in global financial markets,” Andreas Dombret, a member of the central bank’s executive board, reportedly said at a conference in Hong Kong (paywall). The decision was made last year and no investments have been made yet, as preparations are still in process. The French central bank then revealed that it already held some reserves in yuan.
The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) inherited the mantle of covert action operations as a legacy from its OSS predecessor, which had had considerable success in conducting disinformation operations during World War 2. But there was from the start considerable opposition to continuing such programs as they were both expensive and subject to devastating blowback when they were identified and exposed. In Western Europe, powerful domestic communist parties were quick to publicize US intelligence missteps, but nevertheless the ability to manipulate the news and information media to place stories critical of the Soviets and their allies led to major programs that funded magazines and books while also seeking to acquire a cadre of journalists that would produce pieces on demand proved too tempting to ignore.
There has been considerable ex post facto examination of the CIA’s use of covert funding mechanisms including the Congress of Cultural Freedom to fund writers and magazines in Europe, the best known of which were The Paris Review and Encounter out of London. As there was a low intensity war going on against communism, a conflict which many patriotic writers supported, funding magazines and finding contributors to write appropriate material was relatively easy and hardly challenged. Some senior editors knew or strongly suspected where their funding was coming from while some did not, but most didn’t ask any questions because then as now patrons of literary magazines were in short supply. Many of the writers were in the dark about the funding, but wrote what they did because of their own personal political convictions. The CIA, seeking value for money, would urge certain editorial lines but was not always very aggressive in doing so as it sought to allow the process to play out without too much interference.
Opinion magazines were one thing, but penetrating the newspaper world was quite a different story. It was easy to find a low or mid-level journalist and pay him to write certain pieces, but the pathway to actual publication was and is more complicated than that, going as it does through several editorial levels before appearing in print. A recent book cites the belief that CIA had “an agent at a newspaper in every world capital at least since 1977” who could be directed to post or kill stories. While it is true that US Embassies and intelligence services had considerable ability to place stories in capitals in Latin America and parts of Asia, the record in Europe, where I worked, was somewhat mixed. I knew of only one senior editor of a major European newspaper who was considered to be an Agency resource, and even he could not place fake news as he was answerable both to his editorial board and the conglomerate that owned the paper. He also refused to take a salary from CIA, which meant that his cooperation was voluntary and he could not be directed.
CIA did indeed have a considerable number of journalist “assets” in Europe but they were generally stringers or mid-level and had only limited capability to actually shape the news. They frequently wrote for publications that had little or no impact. Indeed, one might reasonably ask whether the support of literary magazines in the fifties and sixties which morphed into more direct operations seeking journalist agents had any significant impact at all in geopolitical terms or on the Cold War itself.
More insidious was so-called Operation Mockingbird, which began in the early 1950s and which more-or-less openly obtained the cooperation of major American publications and news outlets to help fight communist “subversion.” The activity was exposed by Seymour Hersh in 1975 and was further described by the Church Commission in 1976, after which point CIA operations to influence opinion in the United States became illegal and the use of American journalists as agents was also generally prohibited. It was also learned that the Agency had been working outside its founding charter to infiltrate student groups and antiwar organizations under Operation Chaos, run by the CIA’s controversial if not completely crazy counterintelligence Czar James Jesus Angleton. As the wheel of government frequently ends up turning full circle, we appear to be back in the age of disinformation, where the national security agencies of the US government, including CIA, are now suspected of peddling stories that are intended to influence opinion in the United States and produce a political response. The Steele Dossier on Donald Trump is a perfect example, a report that surfaced through a deliberate series of actions by then CIA Director John Brennan, and which was filled with unverifiable innuendo intended to destroy the president-elect’s reputation before he took office. It is undeniably a positive development for all Americans who care about good governance that Congress is now intending to investigate the dossier to determine who ordered it, paid for it, and what it was intended to achieve.
Reprinted with permission from the American Herald Tribune.
“The official line pursued by the United States, Israel and Saudi Arabia, who are our allies in many ways, is almost one that would lead us to war,” Macron told reporters”
( Op-ed) — According to four-star General Wesley Clark, in a 1991 meeting with Paul Wolfowitz, then-under-secretary of defense for policy at the Department of Defense, Wolfowitz seemed a little dismayed because he believed the U.S. should have gotten rid of Saddam Hussein in Operation Desert Storm but failed to do so. Clark summarized what he says Wolfowitz said:
“‘But one thing we did learn. We learned that we can use our military in the region, in the Middle East, and the Soviets won’t stop us. We’ve got about five or ten years to clean up those old Soviet client regimes, Syria, Iran, Iraq, before the next great superpower comes on to challenge us.’” [emphasis added]
This was certainly the case in the years that followed, as the United States used the pretext of 9/11 to attack both Afghanistan and Iraq with little to no substantive resistance from the international community. This trend continued as the Obama administration heavily expanded its operations into Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, and even the Philippines, to name a few, right up until the U.S. led a cohort of NATO countries to impose regime change in Libya in 2011.
At the time, Russia withheld its veto power at the U.N. Security Council because it had received assurances that the coalition would not pursue regime change. After NATO forces began bombing Muammar Gaddafi’s palaces directly, a furious Vladimir Putin questioned: “Who gave NATO the right to kill Gaddafi?”
Following Gaddafi’s public execution on the streets of Sirte, Putin’s criticism of NATO’s betrayal went even further. He stated:
“The whole world saw him being killed; all bloodied. Is that democracy? And who did it? Drones, including American ones, delivered a strike on his motorcade. Then commandos – who were not supposed to be there – brought in so-called opposition and militants and killed him without trial. I’m not saying that Gaddafi didn’t have to quit, but that should have been left up to the people of Libya to decide through the democratic process.”
No one appreciated it at the time, but America’s unchallenged ability to intervene anywhere and everywhere it chooses ended on that day. Fast forward to Barack Obama’s plans to implement an extensive strike plan against the Syrian government in 2013, which never transpired due strong Russian opposition and widespread protests in the U.S. A few years later, Russia directly intervened in Syria at the request of the Syrian government and effectively implemented its own no-fly zone in significant portions of the country. Donald Trump’s April 2017 strike on the Syrian government was only conducted after his administration first notified the Russians through a deconfliction hotline set up to manage the Syrian conflict.
However, Russia isn’t the only country that is tired of America’s foreign policy, and the recent “emergency U.N. Security Council meeting” to discuss the current situation in Iran is a testament to that. Even Washington’s traditional allies cannot withhold their criticism of America’s desire to police the world.
“However worrying the events of the last few days in Iran may be they do not constitute per se a threat to international peace and security,” French Ambassador to the U.N. Francois Delattre said. “We must be wary of any attempts to exploit this crisis for personal ends, which would have the diametrically opposed outcome to that which is wished.”
Russia went even further, bringing up America’s own behavior and treatment of protesters as a counter-argument to the notion that Washington is motivated by human rights concerns in Iran.
“By your logic, we should have initiated a Security Council meeting after the well-known events in Ferguson,” said Russian U.N. Ambassador Vasily Nebenzya, addressing the U.S. delegation.
Iran also insisted the matter was an internal affair and not something for the U.N. to weigh in on, and China agreed, with their ambassador calling it a purely “domestic issue.”
French President Emmanuel Macron even went so far as to accuse the U.S., Israel, and Saudi Arabia of instigating a war with Iran.
“The official line pursued by the United States, Israel and Saudi Arabia, who are our allies in many ways, is almost one that would lead us to war,” Macron told reporters, according to Reuters. Instead, Macron called for dialogue with Tehran as he warned against the approach adopted by the aforementioned three countries.
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan also came to Iran’s aid during the protests with Turkey’s Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu, openly stating:
“Iran’s stability is important for us…We are against foreign interventions in Iran.”
At the end of last year, Erdogan stated that U.S. sanctions on Iran were not binding on Turkey as it sought to outmaneuver them. At the time, Hurriyet news quoted Erdogan as saying “[t]he world does not consist of the U.S. alone.”
America’s influential decline was most evident in Donald Trump’s recent Jerusalem debacle, which saw the Trump administration issue stern threats to the entire world, warning they needed to vote in favor of Washington’s interests at the U.N. Most of the world chose to ignore those threats and gave the United States a giant “middle finger,” so to speak, voting overwhelmingly against the Trump administration.
While Washington is more than capable of unilaterally attacking other countries both covertly and overtly with an ever depleting list of allies, what is becoming increasingly clear is that it may not be able to do so without active opposition from the rest of the world, including nuclear powers Russia and China, which refuse to stay silent as the U.S. tries to shape the world in accordance with its geopolitical desires.