U.S.A. Foreign Policy & Defense

[mistyronin 1181]

(Defense One) China Warns of ‘Inevitable’ War with US Over South China Sea

After Chinese state media warned that war with the United States may be “inevitable,†Beijing has published a policy paper detailing how the military will shift its focus from land and coastlines to the open seas. China’s State Council released a white paper today that criticizes “external countries…busy meddling in South China Sea affairs†and sets out an “active defense†military strategy for the country.

[oxmox 73]

Secret Pentagon Papers: Did the US government create the terrorist organisation IS ? (FOCUS, May 26th - google transl.)

A secret Pentagon document from 2012 want to prove that the US government has taken the development and the rise of terrorist militia IS into account. An expert is certain: The formation of a caliphate have been strongly encouraged. Is the US government behind the IS?

Suddenly it was there: the Islamic state, the reign of terror of violent jihadists. They expanded rapidly and represented a threat to the Arab world, with their assaults also for the western world.

It looked as if the Caliphate came out of nowhere. Newly published documents of the US Agency DIA now show: Washington did predict years ago that an Islamic state could emerge.

Threat to the entire Middle East

In a paper in August 2012, the US authorities "Defense Intelligence Agency" (DIA) writes - the secret of the four branches of the armed forces Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps - that the unstable situation in the region could lead to an Islamic state.

A Union of terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria, which constitutes a serious threat to the entire region. This reports the british journalist Nafeez Ahmed.

Accordingly, the Assad opposition consists of Salafis, the Muslim-Brotherhood and AQI, the Iraqi Al-Qaeda branch.

This opposition supported the west, the Gulf states and Turkey , while Russia, Iran and China strengthened the Assad regime.

Syria 2011: a state on the brink

With great concern that the West had seen the Arab Spring in early 2011 spilled over from Egypt to Syria - and was bloodily suppressed by the Assad regime. The country had fallen into a state of civil war - torture, kidnapping, killings were commonplace.

Soon, the Free Syrian Army had established from deserting regime soldiers, other groups joined them. The country plunged into a bloody civil war finally. The West held back. There was no official direct influence or even military intervention, Obama repeatedly stressed, not trying to overthrow Assad.

Al Qaeda supported the Syrian rebels

In this volatile time the DIA analysts wrote the seven-page document, which has been published partly blackened recently. While the west was speaking of moderate forces, who opposed Assad, it had long been long clear for the agents: The rebels were heavily supported by the Iraqi branch of al-Qaeda (AQI).

Even more: The uprising took increasingly characteristics of sectarian traits, which in turn did lead to the support of Sunni tribes. The then leaders of AQI, Abu Muhammad Al Adnani, called Assad the spearhead of the Shiites, probably to fuel the conflict between them and the Sunni. The AQI was later absorbed into the IS and Al Adnani was one of their leaders. It was only on May 5, 2015, the US government put a bounty of five million dollars for information about the terrorist leader.

The interdependence of organizations which demonstrate the expert of the DIA in the document, eventually favored the establishment of the Islamic State, whose establishment in 2013 and its massive expansion in 2014.

The document is only the room for interpretation: There is no evidence of US interference in Syria, but rather about a strategy paper undoubtedly circulated in the highest political and military circles in Washington.

The West did approve the caliphate-establishment

Why did the US took no action against the construction of a large territorial terrorist organization?

In the partially blackened report is written, in an unstable situation it could be the possibility of establishing a Salafist State. And that is what the opposition-affiliated States wanted - more precisely, the west, the Gulf states and Turkey.

--> The Assad regime would be isolated and weakened in the long term.

In the last paragraph of the document the Author judge: Assad weakening did create the perfect atmosphere for AQI to return to their old territories Mosul and Ramadi. What was predicted three years ago is now a reality: In June 2014 Mosul was conquered by the IS, a few days ago Ramadi.

Geopolitical strategy is to blame for IS

Journalist Ahmed accuses the US of having favored by its geopolitical strategy, the cause of the rise of the terrorist state. With the support and disempowerment of regional rulers it should be ensured to have access to oil and gas resources.

The US government did recongize in which direction the involvement will lead to. But they had not then returned the interference in Syria or even entirely end it:

--> The US leadership accepted the threatening future of a Caliphate State and used it as a part of its strategy against Assad. At that time the ruler was from the US perspective more dangerous as a possible Islamic State. Today this is certainly different.

FOCUS Report

Edited May 27, 2015 by oxmox

[mistyronin 1181]

Secret Pentagon Papers: Did the US government create the terrorist organisation IS ? (FOCUS, May 26th - google transl.)

A secret Pentagon document from 2012 want to prove that the US government has taken the development and the rise of terrorist militia IS into account. An expert is certain: The formation of a caliphate have been strongly encouraged. Is the US government behind the IS?

We already commented on that matter in the Islamic State thread, even you commented it there.

The document doesn't say that BTW.

[oxmox 73]

We already commented on that matter in the Islamic State thread, even you commented it there.

The document doesn't say that BTW.

Yeah forum comments, but this is an article from one of the leading german main news magazine.

[gammadust 12]

We already commented on that matter in the Islamic State thread, even you commented it there.

Yeah we did, as it happens with most issues there are multiple facets from which we can analyse some event, the one above is particularly OnTopic.

Of course we could have created a sole thread years ago to discuss the theme in a sufficiently comprehensive way.

suggested titles:

- "[uSA] have to attack and destroy the governments of seven countries in five years. Let's start with Iraq, then we move to Syria, Lebanon, Somalia, Sudan and Iran" 2001 - Wesley Clark

- "Wars the USA entitles itself to be involved and drag other western countries' resources along"

- "USA leadership is gone rogue and its Military Industrial Complex threathens World Peace like no other country on earth"

...we would be garanteed to avoid so many threads like we do. Despite the limits we impose ourselves on the breath of the analysis currently, i actually think it is more effective to focus as we do.

The document doesn't say that BTW.

Maybe you could say the document is tainted with inuendo. ;)

[mistyronin 1181]

Yeah forum comments, but this is an article from one of the leading german main news magazine.

IMO it would make sense to keep all the comments of the same specific subject in the same place, not having them spread out over different threads (now it's already in 3), it's quite messy if not.

[oxmox 73]

IMO it would make sense to keep all the comments of the same specific subject in the same place, not having them spread out over different threads (now it's already in 3), it's quite messy if not.

The news report is about US Pentagon Papers and Foreign Policy, I dont see why it would not fit here.

This is an article and the first one I saw from a leading main media source and not just a link to a document or alternative news webpages where you dont know even if the reports and documents are complete and true.

We should not talk this to death and stay on the subject.

Edited May 27, 2015 by oxmox

[mistyronin 1181]

This is an article and the first one I saw from a leading main media source and not just a link to a document or alternative news webpages where you dont know even if the reports and documents are complete and true.

Fair enough.

[x3kj 1247]

it's quite messy

considering the topic at hand is this as well, how can everything be neatly categorized other then "global issues"?

[mistyronin 1181]

considering the topic at hand is this as well, how can everything be neatly categorized other then "global issues"?

My point was not that it doesn't fit, which does of course (after all it is related with the US defense policy), but that it's better IMO to keep a discussion about a specific subject like this document in the same thread so everyone can follow all what has been said about it.

At this moment there are at least three threads on this forum talking about it.

Tho oxmox is right when he says that is the first serious media that comments about it.

[gammadust 12]

I am partly to blame here, after having post it on the most obvious place ISIS thread, i figured it was quite relevant in the Syria one which is actually the oldest, and the point was linked to a previous post of mine there. I followed the discussion where ever it was active.

Regarding the main stream coverage, i eventually found these:

19 May - [The Washington Times] Obama-Clinton Benghazi narrative rebutted by Defense Department report

19 May - [uSA Today] New report claims al-Qaeda-Benghazi link known day after attack

24 May - [The Sunday Times] 2012 report warned about rise of Isis (behind paywall)

They all mention the document dated August 2012, but attribute more relevance to the Benghazi attack, and the weapons shipments from Lybia to Syria documents. In any case I recommend the Judicial Watch report which is the original source.

18 May - [Judicial Watch] Defense, State Department Documents Reveal Obama Administration Knew that al Qaeda Terrorists Had Planned Benghazi Attack 10 Days in Advance

[vilas 477]

i do not know where it shoudl apply this topic, EU or simply new

apart from theory that Hitler survived WW2,

there are a lot of words about how US bansters and industry supported Hitler, how stolen money build power of Germany, US, Argentine

hearing about banksters , corporations which have soooooooooooooooooooooo much of human blood on hands can make sick

[spooky lynx 73]

there are a lot of words about how US bansters and industry supported Hitler, how stolen money build power of Germany, US, Argentine

hearing about banksters , corporations which have soooooooooooooooooooooo much of human blood on hands can make sick

Weapon production during WW2 made US economy skyrocket and the whole WW2 mess became effective way of Great depression quitting. Europeans killed each other and ruined their economies, many US industry rivals were either in bad condition or even totally destroyed. The same scenario IMHO is being performed nowdays. Wet dream of US elites is war between EU and Russia.

[vilas 477]

http://wiadomosci.wp.pl/kat,1356,title,Raport-byli-nazisci-korzystali-ze-swiadczen-socjalnych-w-USA,wid,17588263,wiadomosc.html

associated press reports that US budget paid benefits to some nazis after WW2

WW2 history and post-nazi history is very politcially not correct if we dig deeper and deeper, a lot of fortunes were made of human blood in Europe

comparison between preWW2 and nowadays is not present, cause before WW2 US banksters (probably Jews, which makes it totally illogical knowing Hitler's ideology on Jews but also they had their racism : https://www.radioislam.org/islam/english/toread/jewras.htm ) supported Hitler (afair someone from Bush family was also bank owner in 20s-30s cooperating with Third Reich),

Hitler was annexing other countries, today US stands against someone who uses hybrid war and annexes other country territory, so it is not comparison but opposite situation,

comparison would be rather in middle east when they supported Islamists (which they fight since 2001 is also illogical because whole ideology was to destroy radical Islam in 2001 and in 2012 they supported Syrian opposition)

tensions between EU and Russia are not because of USA, but because of Putin imperialism and Putin behavior reminding 30s ,

but seems that nazis after WW2 played significant role in business not only in Argentine

Edited May 31, 2015 by vilas

[x3kj 1247]

today US stands against someone who uses hybrid war and annexes other country territory

They themself overthrow/bully regimes at their will if they dont do/ give them the things they want / Invade other countries based on lies. And that world wide, not just at their borders. So explain to me how that is in anyway better?

Edited June 1, 2015 by Fennek

[vilas 477]

So explain to me how that is in anyway better?

looking from my country point of view:

we were occupied by Germany and Russia from 1780s-1914 (over 120 years)

we were invaded by USSR twice , we were invaded and ruined by Germany,

we were than occupied by commies sent from USSR

i do not remember any USA actions like occupation or armed assault on my country

of course corporations and banks are active - i agree

but i rather connect USA with D-Day than annexing our soil

a lot of usual "rednecks" also suffer from corporations, banks , a lot of honest Americans lost property due to "crisis" baked by NWO, banksters, Bilderberg group members, a lot of US citizens gave life for world to be more secure (from Islamic terror for example)

invasion of Iraq was build on lies , but A-stan invasion was because Islamic terror attacked our civilisation in several countries in 2001,

a lot of Americans lost life because their corporations cheated them

how it is better ?

i can only repeat - over century of German and Russian occupation of my country , not a single year of occupation by USA ;) if USSR would left my country in 1945 after smashing Hitler letting people to choose way and system - i would praise Russia

USA is country that guarantees us safety somehow opposite to other European countries who see my country only as cheap labor and tax-free market zone, of course banksters come also from USA and i do not deny it, but even in USA you had occupation of Wallstreet by honest and brave people

[mistyronin 1181]

today US stands against someone who uses hybrid war and annexes other country territory, so it is not comparison but opposite situation

That's completely wrong.

1st. The US hasn't annexed any other country territory for dozens of years.

2nd. The US doesn't invade any country unilaterally, it always does as a part of a big coalition (being organized by NATO or the UN, etc.), trying to always find the maximum consensus.

3rd. You only have to see how strongly the US "manipulates" the countries that it has invaded as part of a coalition. Afghanistan is nowdays really close to Russia, it's one of the few countries that accept more or less the Crimea's invasion. And Iraq is allied virtually with Iran (there's even Iran soldiers fighting within Iraq).

I don't really agree with part of the US exterior philosophy, which is nothing but a new version of the Manifest Destiny, but compare it with Putin's authoritarian Russia is just a bad taste joke.

Russia is really close to the Third Reich in it's expansion policy. They mainly invaded countries unilaterally for selfish reasons and annexed the territory ad eternum.

Edited June 2, 2015 by MistyRonin

[vilas 477]

That's completely wrong.

referring to my words or supplementing them ?

cause i was saying that it is opposite situation to what Russians say about USA

[spooky lynx 73]

That's completely wrong.

1st. The US hasn't annexed any other country territory for dozens of years.

There's no need for annexion if the puppet regime is installed. Wise practice I think.

2nd. The US doesn't invade any country unilaterally, it always does as a part of a big coalition (being organized by NATO or the UN, etc.), trying to always find the maximum consensus.

People of Haiti and Panama won't agree with you (that's what happened in 80's-early 90's only, I hadn't brought the events happened earlier). And invasion via coalition is an invasion too. I'd remind that Reich came on our soil together with armies of Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Italy, not mentioning different volunteer SS formations filled with people from all over Europe - from Sweden to Spain. Coalition, yes. Consensus, yes. Between invaders.

3rd. You only have to see how strongly the US "manipulates" the countries that it has invaded as part of a coalition. Afghanistan is nowdays really close to Russia, it's one of the few countries that accept more or less the Crimea's invasion. And Iraq is allied virtually with Iran (there's even Iran soldiers fighting within Iraq).

The fact that both A-stan and Iraq are fleeing from US orbit only shows fail of DoS policy and efforts. From one side. From other side in case of A-stan the amount of opiates production and flow across the border with Tajikistan increased greatly after the fall of Taliban and is still high. No matter of any efforts of ISAF (done just for show). And Iraq has become a trashyard and a source of islamic radicals that infiltrate to other countries. So this cases are disputable. Tens of rebels from Caucasus trained in Taliban camps are nothing compared with tons of heroin flowing to Russia and thousands of ISIS thugs ready to drive north.

Russia is really close to the Third Reich in it's expansion policy. They mainly invaded countries unilaterally for selfish reasons and annexed the territory ad eternum.

I suppose another country is much closer. At least Putin does not say 'We do it just because we want' unlike that guy.

This raises two questions. First, when are states likely to use these extraterritorial powers? Here we do not know very much. Tonya Putnam shows in a study in International Organization that U.S. courts are most likely to use extraterritoriality when they see foreign activities as threatening fundamental values. That said, U.S. courts have repeatedly redefined the application and scope of extraterritoriality. Moreover, regulators and the Justice Department may have very different motivations stemming from bureaucratic or political interests.

Second, what are its limits? Extraterritoriality avoids the cumbersome realities of multilateral negotiations. But for many, including the Russian foreign minister, it smacks of U.S. hegemony. Used in excess, it could undermine the legitimacy to act globally. Given the size and importance of the U.S. and European economies, however, it might just be the privilege that such states enjoy.

So... Who is Reich?

[oxmox 73]

WikiLeaks releases documents related to controversial US trade pact

Document dump regarding Trade in Services Agreement comes day after organization

put $100,000 bounty on documents from series of US trade treaties

WikiLeaks on Wednesday released 17 different documents related to the Trade in Services Agreement (Tisa), a controversial pact currently being hashed out between the US and 23 other countries – most of them in Europe and South America.

“It is outrageous that our democratically elected governments will not tell us the laws they are making. What has our democracy come to when the community must rely on Wikileaks to find out what our governments are doing on our behalfâ€

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jun/03/wikileaks-documents-trade-in-services-agreement

WikiLeaks releases secret TISA docs: The more evil sibling of TTIP and TPP

WikiLeaks has released 17 secret documents from the negotiations of the global Trade in Services Agreement (TISA), which have been taking place behind closed doors, largely unnoticed, since 2013. The main participants are the United States, the European Union, and 23 other countries including Turkey, Mexico, Canada, Australia, Pakistan, Taiwan and Israel, which together comprise two-thirds of global GDP.

Significantly, all the BRICS countries—Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa—are absent, and are therefore unable to provide their perspective and input for what is essentially a deal designed by Western nations, for the benefit of Western corporations.

According to the European Commission's dedicated page: "TiSA aims at opening up markets and improving rules in areas such as licensing, financial services, telecoms, e-commerce, maritime transport, and professionals moving abroad temporarily to provide services."

TISA's focus on services complements the two other global trade agreements currently being negotiated in secret: the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), and the corresponding deal for the Pacific region, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which deal with goods and investments. Like both TTIP and TPP, one of the central aims of TISA is to remove "barriers" to trade in services, and to impose a regulatory ratchet on participating nations. In the case of TISA, the ratchet ensures that services are deregulated and opened up to private companies around the world, and that once privatised, they cannot be re-nationalised.

http://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/2015/06/wikileaks-releases-secret-tisa-docs-the-more-evil-sibling-of-ttip-and-tpp/

Edited June 3, 2015 by oxmox

[mistyronin 1181]

Big contradiction detected!

There's no need for annexion if the puppet regime is installed. Wise practice I think.

The fact that both A-stan and Iraq are fleeing from US orbit only shows fail of DoS policy and efforts.

If they are puppet regimes, how can it be that immediately they are acting against US interests and want to flee from US orbit? :j:

People of Haiti and Panama won't agree with you (that's what happened in 80's-early 90's only, I hadn't brought the events happened earlier).

On Haiti ask people from Argentina for example, that was part of the coalition of Operation Uphold Democracy (operation that BTW was authorized by the UN Security Council Resolution 940, even Russia supported it)

On Panama read again my first point:

1st. The US hasn't annexed any other country territory for dozens of years.

The Panama invasion was more than 2 dozen of years ago, 1989. Was a swift military operation to defeat Noriega's coup. I don't support that intervention, but clearly nothing compared to Putin illegal military annexations.

I'd remind that Reich came on our soil together with armies of Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Italy, not mentioning different volunteer SS formations filled with people from all over Europe - from Sweden to Spain. Coalition, yes. Consensus, yes. Between invaders.

Who is Reich?

I'm afraid you didn't read my last post, I stated it there clearly:

Russia is really close to the Third Reich in it's expansion policy. They mainly* invaded countries unilaterally for selfish reasons and annexed the territory ad eternum.

*mainly is important in the context.

Anyone with a little bit of knowledge in history can trace parallel lines between Putin's and Hitlers expansionist policies and government system. But not with the US.

[vilas 477]

hahah, US puppets, yea... Russian typical propaganda,

even not careful analysis shows that Germany, France rather play against US interests bur for their own (which is normal), Germany, Italy, France - care about their own business, they are not puppets of USA, understanding by Russians that Putin politics is not accptable for people with European, American meaning of freedom, liberty, tolerance etc. is impossible, they do not see their politics are wrong, they claim that this is conspiracy of USA against them ...

major EU countries play their own business, they competee with USA, many countries in Asia, Europe represent only their own interests, and if Russian politics harm them, it is normal that they are against it, but not because they are puppets of USA but because Russian politics is for them unacceptable,

[spooky lynx 73]

Sure, Mistral deal and sanctions that hurt their own companies clearly show that France and Germany play their own interests and against US ones.

If they are puppet regimes, how can it be that immediately they are acting against US interests and want to flee from US orbit?

There are not only A-stan and Iraq among US puppets. BTW their policy during recent couple of years does not change the fact they were clearly puppet regimes.

On Haiti ask people from Argentina for example, that was part of the coalition of Operation Uphold Democracy

Eh... How many Argentinian soldiers participated in active part? Three corvettes that were sailing nearby meanwhile US forces were occupying the island?

The Panama invasion was more than 2 dozen of years ago, 1989. Was a swift military operation to defeat Noriega's coup. I don't support that intervention, but clearly nothing compared to Putin illegal military annexations.

Swift military illegal operation resulted in 300-500 civilians died. Nothing compared to almost bloodless operation in Crimea with four deaths. So I agree with you.

[oxmox 73]

9/11: US Congress demands release of confidential papers alleging Saudi involvement (IBT - June 4th, 2015)

Politicians in the US Congress, including the Republican Senator Rand Paul, have urged President Obama to allow the release 28 pages of classified documents which they believe link Saudi officials with the September 11 terror attacks in 2001.

The documents were part of the 2002 joint House and Senate report "Inquiry into Intelligence Activities Before and After the [9/11] Terror Attacks", 28 pages of which have never been released.

15 of the 19 hijackers who took over four planes, crashing two into the World Trade Centre, on into the Pentagon and one into a field when passengers fought back, came from Saudi Arabia, as did Osama bin Laden. However there have long been suspicions that the Saudi regime itself was involved - which the Saudis deny.

In an interview with Al Jazeera, former Florida Senator Bob Graham, who co-chaired the first official enquiry into 9/11, said the US public would be shocked if they were to learn of the extent of Saudi involvement in the worst terrorist attack on US soil, in which almost 3,000 lost their lives and the so-called War on Terror began.

"If the American people knew the full truth, I believe there would be an outrage that a country which alleges to be such an ally of ours has engaged in so many actions that have been so extremely negative towards the United States," said Graham.

This is not the first time the Saudis have been accused of financing 9/11. However, the Saudis continue to insist they have nothing to hide and have urged the publication of the missing 28 pages to allow them to clear their name.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/9-11-us-congress-demands-release-confidential-papers-alleging-saudi-involvement-1504325

@MistyRonin

The US doesn't invade any country unilaterally

What time frame are you guys talking about in your debate ? Because in general unilaterally actions do exist in the history of the U.S. .

If they are puppet regimes, how can it be that immediately they are acting against US interests and want to flee from US orbit?

What was said about that the government of Afghanistan is acting against US interest ?

Well..., the CIA did actually bought Karzai and other politicians, Warlords in Afghanistan with tens of millions of $$ - with the aim to buy influence.

Edited June 4, 2015 by oxmox

[mistyronin 1181]

What time frame are you guys talking about in your debate ? Because in general unilaterally actions do exist in the history of the U.S.

Of course general unilateral actions and annexation of territories exist in the US history (heck most of US territory is annexed from the 13 colonies). But we were talking about the nowadays US exterior policies.

What was said about that the government of Afghanistan is acting against US interest ?

Well..., the CIA did actually bought Karzai and other politicians, Warlords in Afghanistan with tens of millions of $$ - with the aim to buy influence.

Check the Afghan official stance in a lot of matters, like their recognition of Crimea as part of Russia (one of the few countries), etc.

(RT) Afghanistan welcomes Russian business – Afghan president

Afghanistan considers Russia to be not only a close neighbor, but also an important political and economic partner, and is interested in attracting Russian business, Hamid Karzai said during his first official visit to Moscow.

(Sputnik News) Lavrov: Russia Ready to Work With Afghanistan on Curbing Drug Production