David Cameron - Romanticising WWI

First World War: Small nations cannot be 'snuffed out' by imperial powers, says David Cameron David Cameron urges families to remember Britain was fighting to defend 'important principle' of Belgian neutrality 9:39AM BST 04 Aug 2014 Britons should remember that soldiers in the First World War rallied behind the principle that small nations cannot be “snuffed out” by imperial powers, David Cameron has said. ... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/world-war-one/11009937/First-World-War-Small-nations-cannot-be-snuffed-out-by-imperial-powers-says-David-Cameron.html

Cameron's full of it.

Nobody went to war merely for Belgian neutrality.

WWI was an imperialist war. 

Meanwhile ... all of Europe is being snuffed out by today's corporate imperialists.

Found this cool site: 

Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism (with introduction by Doug Lorimer)

Looks like a good read.

Not sure how much I'll take in tho.  LOL.

RUSSIA - MORE SANCTIONS

RUSSIA HIT BY NEW WORLD SANCTIONS By Press Association Published: 10:35 AEST, 30 July 2014 The European Union and US are to impose new economic sanctions against Russia following the downing of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17, which has been blamed on Moscow-backed rebels in Ukraine. ... arms embargo, a ban on the sale of dual use and sensitive technologies, and a ban on the sale of bonds and equities by state-owned Russian banks in European capital markets. Eight more officials ... expected to be subjected to asset bans and travel freezes. David Cameron said the new sanctions should send a message to Mr Putin that his behaviour in Ukraine was unacceptable" and Russia could expect "tough action" from the international community until it changed course. [DAVID CAMERON TAKING NICK CLEGG'S POSITION ... RIGHT DOWN TO THE PUTIN'S 'BEHAVIOUR' BULL ...  THESE U.S. SOCK PUPPETS AREN'T EVEN ORIGINAL ... LOL] The measures were agreed as world aviation chiefs set up a "senior level" international task force to deal with the threat to passenger planes following the downing of flight MH17. [NOT JUST ANY 'CHIEFS' ... WORLD! AVIATION CHIEFS ... NOT JUST ANY LEVEL ... 'SENIOR LEVEL'! ... TO DEAL WITH THE NON-EXISTENT THREAT TO PASSENGER PLANES, AS AIRCRAFT ARE EXPECTED TO BE DIVERTED FROM A THE UKRAINE WAR ZONE. EXAMPLE OF BULLSHIT PROPAGANDA RIGHT THERE, FOLKS.] ... EU sanctions had been imposed after Russia ignored calls to seek a peaceful resolution to the crisis in Ukraine, with arms and fighters continuing to flow across the border in support of the pro-Moscow separatist rebels. [SAY THE ALLIES OF THE US, WHOSE PUPPET GOVERNMENT IS INSTALLED IN UKRAINE, WHILE U.S. MAKES A CORPORATE & MILITARY, IMPERIALIST GRAB IN EUROPE.] "It is meant as a strong warning: illegal annexation of territory and deliberate destabilisation of a neighbouring sovereign country cannot be accepted in 21st-century Europe," he said. [WHO HAS A LONG AND DELIBERATE RECORD OF DESTABILISING AND COLONISING THE WORLD? THE SAME PARTIES WHO ARE SELF-APPOINTED ARBITERS OF WHAT IS 'ILLEGAL'.  LOL.] Signs were emerging of concern in the City of London about the possible blowback sanctions on Russia could inflict on the UK economy. Energy giant BP - which owns a 20% stake in Russian oil firm Rosneft - warned that further international sanctions could have a "material adverse impact" on the company's business in Russia and its own financial position. [PERFECT THEN. KEEP 'EM COMING.  LOL.] The EU discussions on enhanced sanctions came as the US accused Moscow of increasing troop numbers on its border with Ukraine and shipping more heavy weaponry to the pro-Moscow rebels. [TROTTING OUT THE SAME-OLD SAME-OLD ACCUSATIONS ABOUT THE RUSSIAN 'BOGEYMAN' ... ON RUSSIAN SOIL.  MUCH THE SAME MOB WHO INVADED RUSSIA IN 1918.] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-2710280/RUSSIA-HIT-BY-NEW-WORLD-SANCTIONS.html

This is a wonderful lesson on 21st century imperialism and propaganda in action.

It's basically a how-to, if you observe the parties carefully.

That headline ought to read 'Hit by New World Order' sanctions.

An alternate take on the anti-Russian sanctions - here.

US - 'Partnerships' - NATO - Trade - US Imperialism - War - Death for Profit

"Monday, 28 July 2014 16:52 Another Way To Police the World Written by John F. McManus Another Way To Police the World On Sunday, July 27th, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright appeared on the CBS “Face the Nation” program and said something the American people wanted to hear. She then promptly contradicted her own pronouncement. After agreeing that “the world is a mess,” and that its current travails are less important to most Americans, she registered her opinion that the people in our nation don’t want the U.S. “to be the world’s policemen.” Amen to that! But Albright, who probably would never have come even close to expressing that conclusion when she was holding her high office (during the final years of the Clinton presidency, 1997-2001), followed her sound assessment of the thinking of most Americans by completely reversing it. She said, “What has to happen is we need to really work harder on partnerships.” Partnerships? Wouldn’t partnerships with other nations involve us in whatever squabble any one of them might find themselves? George Washington urged that our nation “steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world.” Thomas Jefferson cautioned against “entangling alliances.” John Quincy Adams stated that America’s policy should not have us roaming the earth “seeking monsters to destroy.” But Madeleine Albright wants our nation to tighten relationships with other countries via “partnerships” which are the very opposite of the wise counsel given by America’s early leaders. In 1949, Secretary of State Dean Acheson led the charge that persuaded Congress to approve the creation of NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization). Originally linking the United States and Canada with 14 European nations, the treaty has been expanded in recent years to include a total of 28 nations — with others clamoring to sign up. NATO’s 14 brief articles include this whopper: “The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all.” Not only that, the treaty makes note of the fact that the organization derives its authority to exist from the Charter of the United Nations that requires all of the alliance’s actions to be duly reported to the world body. The ongoing conflict in Afghanistan is a NATO project. Whatever happens or fails to happen there is NATO’s call, and the current leader of NATO is Denmark’s Anders Fogh Rasmussen. The alliance’s Military Commander is General Knud Bartles, also from Denmark. Talk about a “far cry” from the thinking of America’s early leaders. Albright pointed to the Ukraine crisis without noting that the United States is already involved through supplying weaponry to that nation’s government. And Ukraine’s officials have already expressed interest in joining NATO. They obviously want the United States committed to being their defender. What do treaties like NATO produce? It’s worth noting that the U.S. Constitution’s required congressional declaration of war before militarily entering a conflict got bypassed in the Vietnam struggle. The U.S. involvement there obtained its authorization from a NATO duplicate called SEATO (Southeast Asia Treaty Organization). What our forces did or were prevented from doing in that costly struggle was determined by SEATO. The favored policy of America should be “non-intervention.” It’s not isolationism; it’s good sense. A final curious note must be mentioned here. Albright’s choice of the word “partnership” likely was deliberate. U.S. leaders are promoting passage of economic partnerships with the European Union (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership; TTIP) and Asian/Pacific nations (Trans-Pacific Partnership; TPP). Just as NAFTA [North American Free Trade Agreement] unnecessarily involved our nation in many ways with Canada and Mexico, these new “partnerships” would entangle the United States with many more nations economically and politically while diluting sovereignty even further. Passage of both should be blocked. But be forewarned: The word “partnership” is the current coverup for treaty, alliance, or free trade agreement. And Madeleine Albright, who really favors more entanglements, surely knows why she chose it. John F. McManus is president of The John Birch Society and publisher of The New American. This column appeared originally at the insideJBS blog and is reprinted here with permission." Source - The New American - here. More like 'another way to pillage the world'. No chance of US foregoing any of the joys of 'partnership', or abandoning NATO or any of the tools that serve corporate American interests. So if corporate America goes to war; heed the call and die for global corporate profits.

US GRAB FOR UKRAINE - 1991-2014 - COST $5 BILLION

US Grab for Ukraine - 1991-2014 COST:  $5 BILLION DOLLARS Source:  Youtube   Published on 9 Feb 2014   "American Conquest by Subversion: Victoria Nuland's Admits Washington Has Spent $5 Billion "After three visits to Ukraine in five weeks, Victoria Nuland explains that in the past two decades, the United States has spent five Billion dollars ($5,000,000,000) to subvert Ukraine, and assures her listeners that there are prominent businessmen and government officials who support the US project to tear Ukraine away from its historic relationship with Russia and into the US sphere of interest (via "Europe")."

US & friends in no position to lecture

US and allies ‘in no position to lecture anyone on the sanctity of human life’ John Wight is a writer and commentator specializing in geopolitics, UK domestic politics, culture and sport. Published time: July 24, 2014 08:34 The destruction of a Malaysia Airlines passenger aircraft over eastern Ukraine nobody disputes is a terrible tragedy. Almost 300 people have been killed in the most awful circumstances and though it is self-evident that a full and thorough investigation must follow to find out what happened its conclusions will be scant comfort to the families and loved ones of those who perished. That said, the mind boggles that a civilian passenger aircraft should be flying anywhere near a war zone, especially one in which fighter jets, military aircraft, and military transport aircraft are playing such a key role in hostilities. The alacrity with which Washington and its allies have sought to exploit this tragedy to attack Russia has been as unedifying as it has been despicable. If it turns out that the aircraft was downed by a missile, and as yet no one knows for certain how this disaster occurred, it is highly likely to have been an accident and there is something to be said for understanding the conditions in which such a tragic event has taken place. What we do know for certain at this point is that the conflict which has been raging in eastern Ukraine over the past few months, and which has intensified since the election of Petro Poroshenko as President of western Ukraine in May, was sparked by the toppling of the last legitimate democratically elected Ukrainian government of Viktor Yanukovich by an armed mob in Kiev in February, in which avowed neo-Nazis played a key role. Some of those neo-Nazis currently occupy ministerial offices in the regime led by Mr. Poroshenko and are prevalent in the violence that has been visited on the people in the east of the country, who have risen up in resistance to Kiev and its sponsors in the West. [...] The recent signing of the Association Agreement between the EU and the regime in Kiev has brought the EU into disrepute. Just think about this for a moment: the EU has just entered a state into its ranks bathed in the blood of its own citizens. There is another very important aspect to the continuing fallout from the Malaysian airliner disaster that helps us understand the level of anti-Russian vitriol and propaganda it has sparked. Vladimir Putin has just enjoyed a successful trip to South America. There he played a key role in the establishment of a new development bank to rival the dominance of the US and European-led World Bank. With a capital base of $100bn this new institution will provide developing economies with alternative funding without the punishing conditions and exploitative strings attached to funding obtained from the World Bank and its affiliate the International Finance Corporation. This is a massive step forward for the developing world, turning a new page in the continuing struggle to forge a multipolar alternative to the status quo of Washington’s and the West’s unipolarity, which has retarded the development of the Global South since the Second World War. There is also the no small matter, as far as the West is concerned, of the Russian President’s visit to Cuba and the forging of closer relations with its former Cold War ally. Again, this will have undoubtedly resulted in the gnashing of teeth in Washington, further evidence of the challenge that is being mounted to its hegemony in what it considers its own backyard. Furthermore, the stridency when it comes to the tragic deaths of the 298 people on the Malaysian airliner has been significantly absent when it comes to the comparable number of civilians slaughtered in Gaza as a result of Israel’s ongoing brutal military assault. The hypocrisy here is striking, if not surprising. For many years Washington and its European allies have provided political cover for Israel’s war crimes vis-à-vis the Palestinians and its Arab neighbors. They are in no position to lecture anyone on the sanctity of human life. The pressure being brought to bear against Russia, exploiting this tragedy as a pretext, should not blind us to the role of the West in fomenting and prolonging military conflicts around the world for their own geopolitical interests. Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Ukraine, Palestine; their crimes would shame all the devils in hell. Only when Washington and its allies understand that their days of uncontested hegemony and unipolarity are over will there be a chance for a new global framework in which respect for national sovereignty and international law is returned to prominence and upheld as the non-negotiable arbiter of international affairs and foreign policy. The alternative is more conflict and more of the chaos we are witnessing today. Extract only...full @... Source - RT News - here.

Hopefully you cyber travellers like reading as much as I do.

It seems a lot to wade through but it's really worth a read to see the other side's viewpoint.

I think the article speaks a lot of truths about the way Russia is vilified, how MH17 victims are exploited for political point scoring and about hypocrisy.

UK - STEPPING UP MILITARY SPENDING - TO MEET US DEMAND FOR DOLLARS FROM ALLIANCE PARTNERS

Britain to detail 1.1 billion pounds investment in defence

LONDON Mon Jul 14, 2014 3:25am BST

(Reuters) - British Prime Minister David Cameron will announce 1.1 billion pounds of investment in defence on Monday, his office said, to bolster the country's ability to respond to threats such as global terrorism.

Britain has cut defence spending by around 8 percent over the last four years as part of a government plan to reduce a record budget deficit. Spending cuts included shrinking the size of the armed forces by around a sixth.

The investment, funded from savings made by the defence ministry, includes 800 million pounds for intelligence and surveillance, the government said, to extend the "range and flexibility" of British defence including the ability of special forces to respond to the threat of terrorism and hostage taking.
There will also be a 300 million pound investment in existing resources such as a new so-called E-Scan, or electronically scanning, radar for the Typhoon jet.

"Having modern, technologically advanced and flexible Armed Forces to protect us and our interests is vital," Cameron will say during a visit to the Farnborough air show, according to comments released by his office in advance.

"Because of the difficult decisions we have taken to tackle the deficit we are able to make these vital investments in our defence capabilities."

The government will also set out plans to boost Britain's defence industry, which employs more than 160,000 people and generated 9.8 billion pounds in exports in 2013.

This will include 4 million pounds for a maritime intelligence-focused centre in Portsmouth where scientists, engineers and naval specialists will work together to develop technology for use in autonomous unmanned boats and submarines.


SOURCE - UK Reuters - here.

----------------------------------------
COMMENT

Funny reading the 'Cameron will say...'.
Why the heck doesn't HE just say it?

Laugh is, it's not him doing the saying; it will be something his spin-doc (Cameron's 'Larynx') speech writer cooked up months in advance, so the show comes off just right.

If you think I'm kidding, Google 'The prime minister's larynx'.
Heck, I'll make it easy for you.  Here's a link to the 'raven haired poet' 'former ice-cream seller', Larynx article - here.

Gee, the UK commitment to spending wouldn't have anything to do with the US, would it:

----------------------------------------

Europe's Free Ride on the American-Defense Gravy Train

In a joint press conference in Warsaw with his Polish counterpart last month, President Obama declared that, while America's commitment to Europe was unwavering, "every NATO member has to do its fair share," committing "a proportional amount" of resources to the common security. Defending against future threats is "going to require some joint capabilities that right now we don't have," the president urged, and investing in them is "going to require every NATO member to step up."  He noted that "We have seen a decline steadily in European defense spending generally" and exhorted "that has to change."

[TAG TEAM!]
The next day, defense secretary Chuck Hagel continued where his boss left off, observing, "I am troubled that many nations appear content for their defense spending to continue declining." "Europe still lives in a dangerous world," Hagel said. "A world where peace must still be underwritten by the credible deterrent of military power." [LAUGHABLE]

[OBAMA'S CHEER-SQUAD]
A couple weeks later, national security advisor Susan Rice chimed in. While "The United States' commitment to the security of our allies is sacrosanct and always backed by the full weight of our military might," she assured, "we expect our partners to shoulder their share of the burden of our collective security." She added, "Collective action doesn't mean the United States puts skin in the game while others stand on the sidelines cheering. Alliances are a two-way street, especially in hard times when alliances matter most." Accordingly, "we expect every ally to pull its full weight through increased investment in defense and upgrading our Alliance for the future. Europe needs to take defense spending seriously and meet NATO's benchmark—at least two percent of GDP—to keep our alliance strong and dynamic." [CORPORATE PROFITS ARE TWO-WAY ALSO! LOL]  [Hilarious!]

Alas, none of those statements mentioned consequences if the Germans and others don't step up.  [Don't sweat it; UK dances to Obama's tune.]

Calls from America for European allies to pull their own weight, pay their fair share, be a security provider rather than a consumer, or at least meet their minimum commitment (once 3 percent of GDP, now 2 percent, and still unmet by the overwhelming number) have been predictably ignored since the 1970s, if not longer. With the end of the Cold War and the Alliance's original raison d'être, the argument has been even more difficult to make. The combination of the global recession, demographic challenges, and public weariness after a decade of fighting in Afghanistan made it impossible, with even stalwart allies like the United Kingdom making drastic cuts in defense spending. [But look how useful the Alliance has proved!  LOL]

[LIES - NO AGGRESSION FROM RUSSIA IN THE UKRAINE...US PUPPET GOVT IN UKRAINE IS AGGRESSOR AGAINST UKRAINIANS.  BULLSHIT ABOUT 'THREATS'.]
The recent Russian aggression in Ukraine was the latest wake-up call for NATO's oldest allies that they face real security threats. (The newer allies, who came under Moscow's dominance during the Soviet days, ostensibly didn't need the reminder but their spending patterns say otherwise.)  But the administration's actions belied their tough words, making clear that the United States would fill any shortfall from European underinvestment.  ['MERICA, FUCK YEAH!  OF COURSE THEY'RE GONNA PUMP THE $$$ INTO THEIR UKRAINE INVESTMENT...THEY'VE ALREADY COMMITTED BILLIONS!!!]

In the very same speech where he was exhorting the allies to do their "fair share," Obama was touting the European Reassurance Initiative, an unconditional American investment of "up to $1 billion" to "bolster the security of our NATO allies here in Europe." Presuming Congress approves (no small detail, that), "the United States will pre-position more equipment in Europe. We will be expanding our exercises and training with allies to increase the readiness of our forces." Additionally, the president promised, "We'll increase the number of American personnel—Army and Air Force units—continuously rotating through allied countries in Central and Eastern Europe. And we will be stepping up our partnerships with friends like Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia as they provide for their own defense." All of this was intended to "be a powerful demonstration of America's unshakable commitment to our NATO allies." [WHOEVER BELIEVES THIS IS ABOUT 'DEFENCE', 'THREATS', 'RUSSIAN VIOLENCE' etc IS A STOOGE...THIS IS ABOUT US IMPERIALISM IN EUROPE, ON BEHALF OF CORPORATE AMERICA...& THE U.K. -- DANCING TO US & TO CORPORATE TUNE - AIDS AND ABETS. SIMPLE.]

[PUPPET GENERAL BREEDLOVE]
Recently, General Philip Breedlove, who commands U.S. and NATO forces in Europe, issued a public plea to stop the drawdown of American troops on the continent and, in fact, "We may need to add additional rotational forces to cover the sustained and persistent presence that we are now envisioning." He added, "For the last 12 to 14 years, we've been looking at Russia as a partner . . . making decisions about force structure, basing investments, etcetera, etcetera, looking to Russia as a partner. Now what we see is a very different situation." [THE GENERAL DOES WHAT HE'S TOLD TO DO BY THE ADMINISTRATION...WHO ARE TOLD WHAT TO DO BY THEIR CORPORATE OWNERS.  OH, SURE.  FREE-FOR-ALL CORPORATE AMERICAN OWNED GOVERNMENT/MILITARY WAS EARNESTLY WORKING WITH THEIR COMMIE 'BROTHERS'.  LOL.]

Quite naturally, European politicians facing tough budgetary decisions will see this as an invitation to free ride on the American gravy train. With their publics reassured that United States troops will protect them from an increasingly belligerent Russia, why wouldn't they? [OMG!  THIS IS HILARIOUS.  PPL, YOU CAN'T DREAM THIS STUFF UP.  THE ONLY AGGRESSOR IS THE IMPERIALIST CARVING UP EUROPE & THE REST OF THE WORLD.]

In fairness to the administration, they're speaking to multiple audiences. They're simultaneously trying to signal resolve to Moscow, reassurance to our Eastern and Central European allies and partners while exhorting our richer allies in the West to do more. While they're not mutually exclusive, they're certainly not mutually supporting. [EVER THE 'DEFENDER' CLOAK, LOL]

Demands to do something the receiver doesn't want to do—in this case, spend money that could go to social welfare programs or job creation on defense—are useless without an "or else." [FUCK ME, THE GUY GIVES THE GAME AWAY RIGHT THERE!!  LOL!!  GOLD, PPL.  THIS IS GOLD!]  While senior American officials have been vaguely threatening for years that, if the Europeans didn't pony up for their own defense, the American taxpayer would stop doing it for them, it's long been obvious that the threat is hollow. To be sure, the United States has drawn down most of its huge pre-positioned force from the Cold War days. But there's simply no question that we'll respond rapidly in the event an ally is seriously threatened. So long as the Europeans know that's true, they're unlikely to change their behavior.  [TRUTH?  WHAT A LOAD OF GARBAGE.]

SOURCE - The National Interest - here.

----------------------------------------

'The National Interest' needs a name change to 'The Corporate Interest'.

This isn't about dangers or threats.  

This is about spin to get the dollars to fund a US imperialist take-over of Eastern Europe -- for corporate America and their co-investors.


It's the US that is preparing to wage war on European soil, by the sound of it.

We're fucked.  These war-monger are going to drive the next world war.

Back to Cameron.  He's going to play the ability to meet 'threats' card with the public, to justify spending on guns instead of welfare.

He's going to sweeten the blow with assurances that savings had been made on prior military spending cuts...so, folks, it's not that bad.

He's going to sell it by telling the public its about modernising catch-ups & about CREATING JOBS.

LOL.  This is brilliant.

It's been timed in advance of the pending conference, so it looks like this is Cameron's masterly decision, instead of his master's.

That's my take on it.

LOL ... MWWWAAAAAAAHHH!!!

----------------------------------------
P.S.  

GOVT SPIN RELATED:

Announcement at the 'air show' is perfect for Cameron, also.  It's a corporate event...promoting industry...it's a prestigious exhibition, most likely...it flexes (in a way) corporate and military muscles & they're up for admiration...and it's the perfect time to announce TECHNOLOGY SPENDING & NEW DEFENCE JOBS SPENDING.  LOL.

So this must have been planned for MONTHS...this 'sudden' billion dollar spending on military announcement.  LOL.


The Farnborough air show is being hosted at an airfield in rural England at present (it alternates with Paris annually). 

Exhibtion of war & passenger aircraft, I understand. 

----------------------------------------

Boeing and Airbus Dominate:

And with the headwinds of the global economic crisis mostly behind the industry, business is booming again.

Jetliner output at rivals Boeing Co. ... and Airbus Group EADSY  NV is at record highs. The two together are delivering 100 passenger planes of all sizes to the world's airlines each month. They are also expanding their manufacturing footprints, both in the industrialized and industrializing world, as Airbus adds plants in Tianjin, China, and Mobile, Ala., while Boeing expands in South Carolina.

For many, the highlight of the military side of the show was expected to be the Lockheed Martin F-35. The fighter's excursion here was intended to shore up overseas support. Lockheed Martin needs orders beyond the U.S. to meet cost-reduction targets. 

But the fighter is, for now, a no-show, grounded after an engine fire in Florida three weeks ago.  [OOPS]

SOURCE - Wall Street Journal -July 14, 2014 12:15 a.m. ET - here.

----------------------------------------

Boeing =  US
Airbus Group = multinational - R/O Netherlands but main office France.