Killuminati
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2010
- Messages
- 2,412
- Reaction score
- 1
- Country
- Location
Communism or capitalism whats the difference between those?
Yesterday there was a soviet threat and today a Iran threat? You telling me that NATO is a security organisation but what are they doing in Iraq and Afganistan? What are they trying to protect while they even cant protect the highest secured building pentagon by some mountain goats?? In my eyes NATO is a organisation for their imperialist practices.
Proof is that Americans using a micro chip system in the planes they sell to other countries. They can take it down whenever they want.
3 engineers of Aselsan decipher this micro chip system but later all the 3 engineers died. Also coincidental??
You can fallow the news on tv, news papers etc thats ok but dont think everything what u read or see on tv is the truth. Read your history again and try to understand what they are planning on our grounds.
---------- Post added at 02:46 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:45 AM ----------
The Big Middle East Project and NATO
17.07.2008 17:48
The Big Middle East Project (BMEP) is an essence of the Pax Americana idea. A key BMEP document is titled New National Security Strategy of the United States of America: Analysis Post 9/11. According to this Project state borders of 24 countries from Morocco and Mauritania to Afghanistan are to be changed. The Big Middle East and Northern Africa are determined by the Washington as a bridgehead to establish control over Central Asia, heartland of Eurasia and entire world. According to American strategists, to take the Heartland means to establish global control.
The USA National Security Strategy was developed as far back as the early 90s. That time the Pentagon was instructed to be proactive with respect to the countries capable of resisting to these plans. The essence of these plans is to prevent emergence or development of any states competitive with the USA right down to the use of military force against them.
Today we clearly see two sides of the BME Project: one side is directed first of all against the states of Eurasia, Middle East and North Africa, the second one - against potential competitors in European and Pacific regions. The countries, which state borders are to be changed, include first of all Turkey.
With respect to this state the Project has been implemented since 1999. The USA unleashed the first and second Iraqi Wars to divide Iraq in three parts. On May 29, 1998, the Bushs team including Ramsfeld, Wolfowitz, Woolsey and Perle, even before they came to power sent a message to President Clinton. The message expressed the need to use military force to provide for independence of South and North Iraq. In the course of the last Iraqi War an independent state has been actually created in the northern part of Iraq. Today the point is to legitimize it. In order to provide for survival of this state its borders should be expanded southwards to include Kirkuk oil fields, westwards to include fertile lands of Talafar, and northwards at the expense of Turkey. After Kirkuk the turn will be of Talafar and Dyarbakyr. It is not incidentally that former US Ambassador to Turkey Pearson claimed that the region from Ersrum to Baghdad is a united economic area. It is not incidentally that the American semi-official web sites display maps where Dyarbakyr is called a capital of Great Kurdistan.
The Great Kurdistan plan includes such components as the change of demographic situation in the Kirkuk area by means of Kurdish organizations, and compulsory emigration of Talafar Turkmens. They have to emigrate due to hostilities aggravated by regular bombings. Attacks of Kurdish combatants on Turkey compelled its army to conduct a military operation in Northern Iraq. Otherwise it would be impossible to maintain the territorial integrity of Turkey. At the same time Turkey does not contest the territorial integrity of Iraq.
The US control over Northern Iraq endangers not only Turkey but also many other countries from Western Europe to Eastern Asia. For North-Iraqi Kurdistan is not only an outpost of the USA to exercise control over energy resources of the region but also a bridgehead to conduct military operations in entire Eurasia. It follows that independent Kurdistan endangers stability of entire Eurasia. By the way, experts see a kind of similarity between todays Northern Iraq and Chechnya at the turn of the century.
A similar bridgehead is being built today in Cyprus. The United States and its European allies and Israel also exercise clout on Turkey from this island. It is noteworthy that the European Parliament calls the Turkish contingent in Cyprus an occupation army. Two military bases already existing in the southern part of the island Agrotur and Dikelia would also facilitate Americanization of unified Cyprus. In this case, unified Cyprus should play the same role as Kosovo in the Balkans, and probably Georgia in the Caucasus. Former US State Secretary Powell called Turkey an Islamic state not by mistake. Substitution of Islamism for Moderate Islam may justify the anti-Turkey pressing. The similar logic justified encirclement of the USSR with a green belt regardless the saturation of the .Islam color.
Simultaneously the BME Project is a form of American supervision over its allies. This aspect should be discussed separately. Under the MBE Project NATO becomes an instrument of its implementation. After WWII the Alliance was established to appose the Socialist block and supervise the European allies of the USA. After the collapse of the USSR, NATO also lost its sense. Positioning of certain Europeans as competitors rather than allies of the USA made Washington to set new collective tasks for the Alliance members. But there is no other threat today but the threat to the unipolar world.
As far back as 2003 former Permanent US Representative to NATO Burns expressed an idea on NATO responsibility for the Big Middle East. Actually it explains the efforts to strengthen the NATO military components in Eastern and Southern Europe. Actually a future NATO mission will consist in the conduct of operations against opponents of American plans rather than peacekeeping operations. In his speech containing threats to the European allies of the USA Burns urged to simultaneously enlarge both the EU and NATO. But this very process becomes one of the obstacles to obtaining own competitive ability by the American allies. Moreover, autonomism of Europe. i.e. aspiration of certain EU states to be competitive with the USA , according to Burns, leads to confusions. By the way, Brzezinski also believes that intentions of Europe and the USA to be leaders in the same geopolitical areas pose the greatest risk to Washington.
The competition between the USA and EU becomes more and more evident. The disagreements base on a different degree of dependence of the USA and Western Europe on the Middle-East hydrocarbons. The USA consumes not so much oil from this region while Western Europe and Japan depend on it ten times more. But the political influence of the United States on the Middle East is much stronger than that of Europe. Actually due to its sole control over strategic oil supplies under pretext of involvement in the BME Project the United States is going to maintain its position of a global leader.
---------- Post added at 02:46 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:46 AM ----------
The chaos in Iraq was planned in Washington (8.00 / 4)
and purposely created by Washington
In June 2006, Armed Forces Journal published this map from Ralph Peters, a prominent pro-war strategist. It shows the method to the madness -- creating ethnic tension and civil war in order to redraw the boundaries. Most of the existing borders were imposed by Britain and France after World War I - and conveniently (for the US and Europe) divide most of the Arabs from most of the oil. Note that their new "Arab Shia State" would contain much of the oil, separating governments in Riyadh, Baghdad and Tehran from what is currently the main source of their national wealth.
The term "New Middle East" was introduced to the world in June 2006 in Tel Aviv by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (who was credited by the Western media for coining the term) in replacement of the older and more imposing term, the "Greater Middle East."
This shift in foreign policy phraseology coincided with the inauguration of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) Oil Terminal in the Eastern Mediterranean. The term and conceptualization of the "New Middle East," was subsequently heralded by the U.S. Secretary of State and the Israeli Prime Minister at the height of the Anglo-American sponsored Israeli siege of Lebanon. Prime Minister Olmert and Secretary Rice had informed the international media that a project for a "New Middle East" was being launched from Lebanon.
This announcement was a confirmation of an Anglo-American-Israeli "military roadmap" in the Middle East. This project, which has been in the planning stages for several years, consists in creating an arc of instability, chaos, and violence extending from Lebanon, Palestine, and Syria to Iraq, the Persian Gulf, Iran, and the borders of NATO-garrisoned Afghanistan.
The "New Middle East" project was introduced publicly by Washington and Tel Aviv with the expectation that Lebanon would be the pressure point for realigning the whole Middle East and thereby unleashing the forces of "constructive chaos." This "constructive chaos" --which generates conditions of violence and warfare throughout the region-- would in turn be used so that the United States, Britain, and Israel could redraw the map of the Middle East in accordance with their geo-strategic needs and objectives.
