Hillary Clinton's Extraordinary Humanitaran Achievements As Secretary of State, Feminist & Humanitarian

ministry of tokyo GARY LEUPP http://novorossia.today/i-urged-him-to-bomb-the-warmongering-record-of-hillary-clinton/ NOTE:  I have edited the two spellings of 'Gaddafi' that were in this article (ie. 'Gadhafi' and 'Gadhafy' to read the single Western spelling 'Gaddafi') - otherwise this reproduction is the same as that at novorossiya.today) “I urged him to bomb…” The Warmongering Record of Hillary Clinton on: April 14, 2015 If reason and justice prevailed in this country, you’d think that the recent series of articles in the Washington Times concerning the U.S.-NATO attack on Libya in 2011 would torpedo Hillary Clinton’s presidential prospects. Clinton as U.S. Secretary of State at that time knew that Libya was no threat to the U.S. She knew that Muammar Gaddafi had been closely cooperating with the U.S. in combating Islamist extremism. She probably realized that Gaddafi had a certain social base due in part to what by Middle Eastern standards was the relatively equitable distribution of oil income in Libya. [comment:  it was a very generous distribution of income - here] But she wanted to topple Gaddafi. Over the objections of Secretary of “Defense” Robert Gates but responding to the urgings of British Prime Minister David Cameron and French President Nicholas Sarkozy, she advocated war. Why? Not for the reason advertised at the time. (Does this sound familiar?) Not because Gaddafi was preparing a massacre of the innocents in Benghazi, as had occurred in Rwanda in 1994. (That episode, and the charge that the “international community” had failed to intervene, was repeatedly referenced by Clinton and other top officials, as a shameful precedent that must not be repeated. It had also been deployed by Bill Clinton in 1999, when he waged war on Serbia, grossly exaggerating the extent of carnage in Kosovo and positing the immanent prospect of “genocide” to whip up public support. Such uses of the Rwandan case reflect gross cynicism.) No, genocide was not the issue, in Libya any more than in Kosovo. According to the Washington Times, high-ranking U.S. officials indeed questioned whether there was evidence for such a scenario in Libya. The Defense Intelligence Agency estimated that a mere 2,000 Libyan troops armed with 12 tanks were heading to Benghazi, and had killed about 400 rebels by the time the U.S. and NATO attacked. It found evidence for troops firing on unarmed protestors but no evidence of mass killing. It did not have a good estimate on the number of civilians in Benghazi but had strong evidence that most had fled. It had intelligence that Gaddafi had ordered that troops not fire on civilians but only on armed rebels. The Pentagon doubted that Gaddafi would risk world outrage by ordering a massacre. One intelligence officer told the Washington Times that the decision to bomb was made on the basis of “light intelligence.” Which is to say, lies, cherry-picked information such as a single statement by Gaddafi (relentlessly repeated in the corporate press echoing State Department proclamations) that he would “sanitize Libya one inch at a time” to “clear [the country] of these rats.” (Similar language, it was said, had been used by Hutu leaders in Rwanda.) Now that the rats in their innumerable rival militias control practically every square inch of Libya, preventing the emergence of an effective pro-western government, many at the Pentagon must be thinking how stupid Hillary was. No, the attack was not about preventing a Rwanda-like genocide. Rather, it was launched because the Arab Spring, beginning with the overthrow of the two dictators, President Ben Ali of Tunisia and President Mubarak of Egypt, had taken the west by surprise and presented it with a dilemma: to retain longstanding friendships (including that with Gaddafi, who’d been a partner since 2003) in the face of mass protests, or throw in its lot with the opposition movements, who seemed to be riding an inevitable historical trend, hoping to co-opt them? Recall how Obama had declined up to the last minute to order Mubarak to step down, and how Vice President Joe Biden had pointedly declined to describe Mubarak as a dictator. Only when millions rallied against the regime did Obama shift gears, praise the youth of Egypt for their inspiring mass movement, and withdraw support for the dictatorship. After that Obama pontificated that Ali Saleh in Yemen (a key ally of the U.S. since 2001) had to step down in deference to protesters. Saleh complied, turning power to another U.S. lackey (who has since resigned). Obama also declared that Assad in Syria had “lost legitimacy,” commanded him to step down, and began funding the “moderate” armed opposition in Syria. (The latter have at this point mostly disappeared or joined al-Qaeda and its spin-offs. Some have turned coat and created the “Loyalists’ Army” backing Assad versus the Islamist crazies.) Hillary, that supposedly astute stateswoman, believed that the Arab Spring was going to topple all the current dictators of the Middle East and that, given that, the U.S. needed to position itself as the friend of the opposition movements. Gaddafi was a goner, she reasoned, so shouldn’t the U.S. help those working towards his overthrow? Of course the U.S. (or the combination of the U.S. and NATO) couldn’t just attack a sovereign state to impose regime change. It would, at any rate, have been politically damaging after the regime change in Iraq that had been justified on the basis of now well discredited lies. So the U.S. arm-twisted UNSC members to approve a mission to protect civilians in Libya against state violence. China and Russia declined to use their veto power (although as western duplicity and real motives became apparent, they came to regret this). The Libya campaign soon shifted from “peace-keeping” actions such as the imposition of a “no-fly” zone to overt acts of war against the Gaddafi regime, which for its part consistently insisted that the opposition was aligned with al-Qaeda. The results of “Operation Unified Protector” have of course been absolutely disastrous. Just as the U.S. and some of its allies wrecked Iraq, producing a situation far worse than that under Saddam Hussein, so they have inflicted horrors on Libya unknown during the Gaddafi years. These include the persecution of black Africans and Tuaregs, the collapse of any semblance of central government, the division of the country between hundreds of warring militias, the destabilization of neighboring Mali producing French imperialist intervention, the emergence of Benghazi as an al-Qaeda stronghold, and the proliferation of looted arms among rebel groups. The “humanitarian intervention” was in fact a grotesque farce and huge war crime. But the political class and punditry in this country do not attack Hillary for war crimes, or for promoting lies to validate a war of aggression. Rather, they charge her and the State Department with failure to protect U.S. ambassador to Libya John Christopher Stevens and other U.S. nationals from the attack that occurred in Benghazi on September 11, 2012. And they fault her for promoting the State Department’s initial “talking point” that the attack had been a spontaneous reaction to an anti-Muslim YouTube film rather than a calculated terrorist attack. They pan her for sniping at a senator during a hearing, “What difference does it make (whether the attack had been launched by protestors spontaneously, or was a terrorist action planned by forces unleashed by the fall of the Gaddafi regime)”? In other words: Hillary’s mainstream critics are less concerned with the bombing of Libya in 2011 that killed over 1100 civilians, and produced the power vacuum exploited by murderous jihadis, than by Hillary’s alleged concealment of evidence that might show the State Department inadequately protected U.S. diplomats from the consequences of the U.S.-orchestrated regime change itself. In their view, the former First Lady might have blood on her hands—but not that, mind you, of Libyan civilians, or Libyan military forces going about their normal business, or of Gaddafi who was sodomized with a knife while being murdered as Washington applauded. No, she’s held accountable for the blood of these glorified, decent upstanding Americans who’d been complicit in the ruin of Libya. This version of events is easy to challenge. It’s easy to show that Clinton skillfully—in full neocon mode, spewing disinformation to a clueless public—steered an attack on Libya that has produced enormous blowback and ongoing suffering for the Libyan people. If a right-wing paper like Washington Times can expose this, how much more the more “mainstream” press? Could they at least not raise for discussion whether what Rand Paul calls “Hillary’s war” was, like the Iraq War (and many others) based on lies? Shouldn’t Hillary be hammered with the facts of her history, and her vaunted “toughness” be exposed as callous indifference to human life? * * * While championing the rights of women and children, arguing that “it takes a village” to raise a child, Clinton has endorsed the bombing of villages throughout her public life. Here are some talking points for those appalled by the prospects of a Hillary Clinton presidency.     *She has always been a warmonger. As First Lady from January 1993, she encouraged her husband Bill and his secretary of state Madeleine Albright to attack Serbian forces in the disintegrating Yugoslavia—in Bosnia in 1994 and Serbia in 1999. She’s stated that in 1999 she phoned her husband from Africa. “I urged him to bomb,” she boasts. These Serbs were (as usual) forces that did not threaten the U.S. in any way. The complex conflicts and tussles over territory between ethnic groups in the Balkans, and the collapse of the Russian economy following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, gave Bill Clinton an excuse to posture as the world’s savior and to use NATO to impose order. Only the United States, he asserted, could restore order in Yugoslavia, which had been a proudly neutral country outside NATO and the Warsaw Pact throughout the Cold War. President Clinton and Albright also claimed that only NATO—designed in 1949 to counter a supposed Soviet threat to Western Europe, but never yet deployed in battle—should deal with the Balkan crises.     The Bosnian intervention resulted in the imposition of the “Dayton Accord” on the parties involved and the creation of the dysfunctional state of Bosnia-Herzegovina. The Kosovo intervention five years later (justified by the scaremongering, subsequently disproven reports of a Serbian genocidal campaign against Kosovars) involved the NATO bombing of Belgrade and resulted in the dismemberment of Serbia. Kosovo, now recognized by the U.S. and many of its allies as an independent state, is the center of Europe’s heroin trafficking and the host of the U.S.’s largest army base abroad. The Kosovo war, lacking UN support and following Albright’s outrageous demand for Serbian acquiescence—designed, as she gleefully conceded, “to set the bar too high” for Belgrade and Moscow’s acceptance—of NATO occupation of all of Serbia, was an extraordinary provocation to Serbia’s traditional ally Russia. “They need some bombing, and that’s what they are going to get,” Albright said at the time, as NATO prepared to bomb a European capital for the first time since 1945.     *Clinton has been a keen advocate for the expansion of an antiquated Cold War military alliance that persists in provoking Russia. In the same year that NATO bombed Belgrade (1999), the alliance expanded to include Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia. But Clinton’s predecessor George H. W. Bush had promised Russia in 1989 that NATO would not expand eastward. And since the Warsaw Pact had been dissolved in 1991, and since Russia under Boris Yeltsin hardly threatened any western countries, this expansion has understandably been viewed in Russia as a hostile move. George Kennan, a former U.S. ambassador to the USSR and a father of the “containment” doctrine, in 1998 pronounced the expansion a “tragic mistake” with “no reason whatsoever.” But the expansion continued under George W. Bush and has continued under Obama. Russia is now surrounded by an anti-Russian military alliance from its borders with the Baltic states to the north to Romania and Bulgaria. U.S.-backed “color revolutions” have been designed to draw more countries into the NATO camp. Hillary as secretary of state was a big proponent of such expansion, and under her watch, two more countries (Albania and Croatia) joined the U.S.-dominated alliance.     (To understand what this means to Russia, imagine how Washington would respond to a Russia-centered “defensive” military alliance requiring its members to spend 2% of their GDPs on military spending and coordinate military plans with Moscow incorporating Canada and all the Caribbean countries, surrounding the continental U.S., and now moving to include Mexico. Would this not be a big deal for U.S. leaders?)     *As New York senator Clinton endorsed the murderous ongoing sanctions against Iraq, imposed by the UN in 1990 and continued until 2003. Initially applied to force Iraqi forces out of Kuwait, the sanctions were sustained at U.S. insistence (and over the protests of other Security Council members) up to and even beyond the U.S. invasion in 2003. Bill Clinton demanded their continuance, insisting that Saddam Hussein’s (non-existent) secret WMD programs justified them. In 1996, three years into the Clinton presidency, Albright was asked whether the death of half a million Iraq children as a result of the sanctions was justified, and famously replied in a television interview, “We think it was worth it.” Surely Hillary agreed with her friend and predecessor as the first woman secretary of state. She also endorsed the 1998 “Operation Desert Fox” (based on lies, most notably the charge that Iraq had expelled UN inspectors) designed to further destroy Iraq’s military infrastructure and make future attacks even easier.     *She was a strident supporter of the Iraq War. As a New York senator from 2001 to 2009, Hillary aligned herself with the neoconservatives in the Bush administration, earning a reputation as a hawk. She was a fervent supportive of the attack on Iraq, based on lies, in 2003. On the floor of the Senate she echoed all the fictions about Saddam Hussein’s “chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.” She declared, “He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members.” She suggested that her decision to support war was “influenced by my eight years of experience on the other end of Pennsylvania Ave. in the White House watching my husband deal with serious challenges to our nation.” (Presumably by the latter she meant the threats posed by Serbs in Bosnia and Kosovo.) Her loss to Obama in the Democratic primary in 2008 was due largely to Obama’s (supposed) antiwar position contrasting with her consistently pro-war position. She has only vaguely conceded that her support for the invasion was something of a mistake. But she blames her vote on others, echoing Dick Cheney’s bland suggestion that the problem was “intelligence failures.” “If we knew know then what we know now,” she stated as she began her presidential campaign in late 2006, “I certainly wouldn’t have voted” for the war.     *She actively pursued anti-democratic regime change in Ukraine. As secretary of state from 2009 to 2013, Clinton as noted above endorsed NATO’s relentless expansion. She selected to serve as Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs the neocon Victoria Nuland, who had been the principal deputy foreign advisor to Cheney when he was vice president. The wife of neocon pundit Robert Kagan, Nuland is a war hawk whose current mission in life is the full encirclement of Russia with the integration of Ukraine into the EU and then into NATO. The ultimate goal was the expulsion of the Russian Black Sea Fleet from the Crimean Peninsula (where it has been stationed since 1783). She has boasted of the fact that the U.S. has invested five billion dollars in supporting what she depicts as the Ukrainian people’s “European aspirations.” What this really means is that the U.S. exploited political divisions in Ukraine to topple an elected leader and replace him with Nuland’s handpicked prime minister, Arseniy Yatsenyev, deploying neo-Nazi shock troops in the process and generating a civil war that has killed over 5000 people.     Clinton has increasingly vilified Vladimir Putin, the popular Russian president, absurdly comparing the Russian re-annexation of the Crimean Peninsula following a popular referendum with Hitler’s annexation of the Sudetenland. She is totally on board the program of producing a new Cold War, and forcing European allies to cooperate in isolating the former superpower.     *She wanted to provide military assistance to the “moderate” armed opposition in Syria, to effect regime change, and after leaving office criticized Obama for not supplying more than he did. In 2011 Clinton wanted the U.S. to arm rebels who quickly became aligned with the al-Nusra Front (an al-Qaeda affiliate) and other extreme Islamists, in order to bring down a secular regime that respects religious rights, rejects the implementation of Sharia law, and promotes the education of women. The U.S. indeed has supplied arms to anti-Assad forces from at least January 2014, But as it happens the bulk of U.S. aid to the “moderate rebels” has been appropriated by Islamists, and some of it is deployed against U.S. allies in Iraq. It is now widely understood that the bulk of “moderate” rebels are either in Turkish exile or directed by CIA agents, while the U.S. plans to train some 5000 new recruits in Jordan. Meanwhile Assad has won election (as fair as any held in a U.S. client state like Afghanistan or Iraq) and gained the upper hand in the civil war. U.S. meddling in Syria has empowered the Islamic State that now controls much of Syria and Iraq.     *She has been an unremitting supporter of Israeli aggression, whenever it occurs. The Israeli newspaper Haaretz described her last year as “Israel’s new lawyer” given her sympathetic view of Binyamin Netanyahu’s 2014 bombardment of Gaza and even his desire to maintain “security” throughout the occupied West Bank. She postured as an opponent of Israel’s unrelenting, illegal settlements of Palestinian territory in 2009, but backed down when Netanyahu simply refused to heed U.S. calls for a freeze. In her memoir she notes “our early, hard line on settlements didn’t work”—as though she’s apologizing for it.     In 1999 as First Lady, Hillary Clinton hugged and kissed Yassir Arafat’s wife Suha during a trip to the West Bank. She advocated the establishment of a Palestinian state. She changed her tune when she ran for the New York Senate seat. When it comes to the Middle East, she is a total, unprincipled opportunist.     *Hillary tacitly endorsed the military coup against elected Honduran president Manuel Zelaya in 2009, refusing to call it such (even though Obama did). She made common cause with those who feared his effort to poll the people about constitutional reform would weaken their positions, made nice with the ensuing regime and made sure Zelaya would not return to office.     *She provoked China by siding with Japan in the Senkaku/ Daioyutai dispute. Departing from the State Department’s traditional stance that “we take no position” on the Sino-Japanese dispute about sovereignty over the Senkaku/ Daioyutai islands in the East China Sea, seized by Japan in 1895, Clinton as secretary of state emphasized that the islands fall within the defense perimeters of the U.S.-Japanese alliance. The warmongering neocon National Review in a piece entitled “In Praise of Hillary Clinton” praised her for “driving the Chinese slightly up a wall.”     *She helped bring down a Japanese prime minister who heeded the feelings of the people of Okinawa, who opposed the Futenma Marine Corps Air Force Station on the island. The new prime minister Yukio Hatoyama, whose Democratic Party of Japan defeated the slavishly pro-U.S. Liberal Democratic Party in the general election of 2009, had promised to move the hated U.S. base in the heart of Ginowan city for the noise, air pollution and public safety hazards it causes. Clinton met with him, listened sympathetically, and said “no.” Hatoyama was obliged to apologize to the people of Okinawa, essentially conceding that Japan remains an occupied nation that doesn’t enjoy sovereignty. Nationwide his public support ratings fell from 70 to 17% and he was obliged to resign in shame after eight months in office.     *She made countless trips to India, signing bilateral economic and nuclear cooperation agreements with a country her husband had placed under sanctions for its nuclear tests in 1998. While castigating North Korea for its nuclear weapons program, and taking what a CIA analyst called a “more hard line, more conditional, more neoconservative [approach] than Bush during the last four years of his term,” she signaled that India’s nukes were no longer an issue for the U.S. India is, after all, a counterweight to China. What can those who revere her point to in this record that in any way betters the planet or this country? Clinton’s record of her tenure in the State Department is entitled Hard Choices, but it has never been hard for Hillary to choose brute force in the service of U.S. imperialism and its controlling 1%. This is a country of 323 million people. 88% of those over 25 have graduated high school. The world respects U.S. culture, science, and technology. Why is it that out of our well-educated, creative masses the best that the those who decide these things—the secretive cliques within the two official, indistinguishable political parties who answer to the 1% and who decide how to market electoral products—can come up with is the likely plate of candidates for the presidential election next year? Why is it that, while we all find it ridiculous that North Korea’s ruled by its third Kim, Syria by its second Assad, and Cuba by its second Castro, the U.S. electorate may well be offered a choice between another Clinton and another Bush? As though their predecessors of those surnames were anything other than long-discredited warmongering thugs? GARY LEUPP http://novorossia.today/i-urged-him-to-bomb-the-warmongering-record-of-hillary-clinton/ Gaddafi's 2011 Prophesy: "Europe Will Turn Black" (Video) Transcript of this Russian documentary video (towards end of the post) indicates that Gaddafi was extremely generous COMMENT It took me forever go get through this article. I don't know how much I'll remember. That's an 'impressive' record. Japan is occupied. I thought it was disgusting how nobody cares about the targets of capitalist aggression abroad and that it is just a focus on how the capitalist sponsored politicians haven't protected the State Department (foreign office) and CIA figures deployed abroad to bring about regime change.   I guess that's what happens when you have public deluged by 24/7 propaganda from media that is in the control of only six large corporations; and, therefore, a public that's dumbed down by capitalist propaganda, capitalist indoctrination and capitalist-owned media self-serving censorship. The distances also don't help. It's very hard to relate to things that are so far away and so alien. I'm not sure that I relate to this stuff in any enduring emotional way.  I think it's just an intellectual recognition of what I consider to be wrong: aggression and exploitation by capitalists committed against weaker nations, costing the exploited Western domestic masses, under the rule of capitalist oligarchy, generations of paying off tax debt and interest to bankers -- bankers, who are are among the benefiting capitalist profiteers who sucking up the profits of warmongering, while the costs of the aggression of Western private enterprise are 'socialised' by being assigned to the American (and allied) public. Even so, I did find myself getting angry reading this. Particularly at the deceit and the degree of capitalist exploitation and control. For example, attacking Gaddafi even though he was closely cooperating with the capitalists. It isn't just the Middle East that the US and allied capitalists are destroying ... with the eager help of Hillary Clinton and Samantha Power: they have destroyed Yugoslavia; Serbia; Ukraine and have set their sights on destroying Russia, which is why they have tried to rob Russia of a port Russia has held since 1783 (Sevastopol, Crimea) and why the capitalists are circling Russia, despite their deceitful assurances under Bush senior. Ukraine itself did not exist until the end of the Bolshevik revolution:  this is Russian Empire territory (and remains Russian and Slavic, in my firmly pro-Slavic opinion ... LOL) and Russian is a language spoken in the region for many centuries. I wish I had a better memory. It's very hard for me to keep everything in mind. The author, Gary Leupp, may be the American academic.  Although the article did not specify, I assume it is Gary P. Leupp, as it is an uncommon name: Gary P. Leupp Associate Professor of History at Tufts University holds secondary appointment in Dept. of Religion author: 'Servants, Shophands, and Laborers in the Cities of Tokugawa Japan' (1992) Listening AUDIO | #1.0 Like this mix ... nice.

Disciple of US-Anglo NATO Capitalist Mercenary - Propaganda for War on Russia

Newsweek http://www.newsweek.com/russia-nuclear-war-nato-richard-shirreff-485818   War With Russia Looms, Says Former NATO General in New Book By Alexander Nazaryan On 8/1/16 at 4:03 PM The first female president of the United States faces her first major international conflict: Seeking to consolidate the Slavic nations of Eastern Europe, Russia has seized the three Baltic states—Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia—all members of NATO. That requires a response beyond just a caustic tweet or sharply worded press release. For the first time since the Cuban missile crisis, there is serious talk of nuclear war.  [COMMENT:  Shameless US-Anglo capitalist establishment warmonger Russophobe propaganda. The laughable reference to the 'first female president' is reference to just another Wall Street puppet, irrespective of the sex organs of the puppet; much like the first black puppet neocon-exploited-PR-appointment Wall Street owned president, with the weekly CIA 'kill list' and the joke Nobel Public Opinion Manipulation 'Peace Prize' pretzel. Russia is not the aggressor in Eastern Europe.  The aggressor is, in fact, the US-Anglo capitalist empire and the Baltic states mentioned are vassals of the US-Anglo capitalist empire, thanks to their stupid neocon Washington puppet capitalist serving elites, who happen to be destroying their own countries: (1) subordinating the interests of their individual nations to the interests of US-Anglo capitalism;  (2) courting nuclear incident with Russia and (3) filling their indigenous European nations with third world hordes, either displaced by US-Anglo capitalist military interventions across the globe or just looking for a better standard of living than in third world sh*tholes, exploited by capitalist and by corrupt third world leaders, while the population growth in those regions has exploded over decades of redirecting Western taxpayer resources to third world aid and economic enslavement.    The fantasy propaganda piece by British ex-NATO capitalist mercenary commander refers to 'nuclear war'; but if there is a nuclear incident, it will be because of the US-Anglo capitalist mercenary aggressor's threat to Russian national security, planted on Russia's doorstep.  ] This is the basis of 2017 War with Russia, the unsettling new book by General Sir Richard Shirreff, who retired in 2014 as NATO’s deputy supreme commander of Europe, as well as its highest-ranking British officer. Although 2017 is technically a novel, this “future history” is really just a war game on the printed page, its preoccupations much closer to those of von Clausewitz and Churchill than those of Woolf or Wordsworth. Shirreff’s book is subtitled “An urgent warning from senior military command,” and he makes plain in his introduction that the novel’s primary intention is to convey the urgency of containing Russian President Vladimir Putin. He likens today’s Mother Russia to Germany in the late 1930s, when it seized the Sudetenland in brazen contravention of established borders. War-weary Europe let the matter slide, hoping that talk of a Thousand Year Reich was just bluster.  [COMMENT:  what a stupid c*cksucker this d*ckhead is.  Does he actually think anyone is dumb enough to fall for this 'contain Putin' US-Anglo capitalist serving shite?  The only 'Nazis' are the US-Anglo capitalist elites and their sponsored politicians and mouthpieces, the assh*les.  The same US-Anglo capitalists destroyed Europe in their WWII capitalist war on Europe.  Look what they have done to indigenous Europe since:  they are the enemies of all Europeans.  ] “I’m worried, very worried, that we’re sleepwalking into something absolutely catastrophic,” Shirreff tells me, speaking on a Friday evening from his home in Hampshire, in the bucolic country outside of London. A graduate of Oxford who served in the British army, with deployments in the Middle East and the Balkans, he is not a natural writer, so the judgment of the Financial Times—that this is a “literary disaster”—is not as stinging as it might otherwise be, since that same review praised Shirreff’s grim geopolitical vision as one of “profound importance.” 2017 is an unabashedly didactic work, a real-life warning with the bold-faced names changed. [COMMENT:  this US-Anglo capitalist filth had no right to interfere in the Balkans.  Russia is just another Balkans for the US-Anglo capitalist scum, and they're not 'sleepwalking' into anything:  they are deliberately provoking a military incident with Russia, so that they can drag Russia into war and destroy Russia, like they have destroyed the Balkans and the Middle East, while destroying indigenous Europe.  ] The novel opens with the Russians staging an attack on a school in Donetsk, the breakaway region of the Ukraine controlled by pro-Kremlin separatists since 2014. Close to 100 children are killed, and Ukrainian forces are blamed, thus giving the Russians the perfect pretext for further aggression. Russia used a similar ploy—the bombing of several apartment buildings in Moscow in 1999—to begin the first Chechen War. But let’s not give Putin too much credit: He likely learned the tactic from Hitler, who was probably behind the Reichstag fire of 1933, which allowed the Nazis to eliminate political opponents before moving on to more grandiose aims. [COMMENT:  this is so perverse.  The CIA puppet Ukraine is responsible for killing children and other civilians in east Ukraine, while NATO has a long history of war crimes and child murder.      INSERT http://www.infowars.com/there-is-a-special-place-in-hell-for-clinton-operative-albright/ There is a “Special Place in Hell” for Clinton Operative Albright  The 17th anniversary of Bill Clinton's illegal bombing of Yugoslavia Kurt Nimmo | Infowars.com - March 27, 2016 Back in February, the former Secretary of State under Bill Clinton said “there’s a special place in hell” for women who do not vote for Hillary Clinton. Madeleine Albright made the remark during a campaign stop in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. Last Thursday marked the 17th anniversary of NATO’s illegal bombing of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia during Bill Clinton’s reign. The attack—38,400 sorties, including 10,484 strike sorties—lasted 78 days and destroyed infrastructure, commercial buildings, schools, health institutions, media houses and cultural monuments. NATO “deeply” regretted killing at least seventeen people when a bomb hit a bus packed with women and children. It also supposedly regretted killing fifteen people after it targeted a hospital with a cluster bomb and killed three diplomats at China’s embassy in Belgrade. After Serbian television criticized Albright and Clinton, it was bombed as well, killing sixteen people. Democrat Bernie Sanders “begrudgingly” voted to attack Yugoslavia. “If anyone thinks there is a simple solution to this problem, then you know very little about this problem,” he said recently in defense of his decision. “The [1999] bombing war violates and shreds the basic provisions of the United Nations Charter and other conventions and treaties; the attack on Yugoslavia constitutes the most brazen international aggression since the Nazis attacked Poland to prevent ‘Polish atrocities’ against Germans,” writes William Rockler, former prosecutor of the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal. [Comment:  this was a kangaroo court. ] In 2013 Albright admitted the bombing was illegal. “When you ask if that is legal—honestly, to go back to Kosovo, system kind of said that what we did there was not legal, but was fair,” she said. Albright is known for her enthusiastic support of mass murder and war crimes. Asked about economic sanctions imposed on Iraq that led to the death of more than 500,000 Iraqi children, Albright said in 1996: “I think that is a very hard choice, but the price, we think, the price is worth it.” Clinton, like Albright, supports mass murder as a foreign policy tool. In October 2000, The New York Times reported Clinton “cited American involvement in Bosnia and Kosovo as examples of foreign engagements she favored on moral and strategic grounds.” Clinton urged her husband to bomb Yugoslavia without congressional approval and said what “do we have NATO for if not to defend our way of life?” In 2008 she defended her vote to invade Iraq and kill 1.5 million people. She accused the late Tim Russert of getting all “Jesuitical” when he pointed out her support for Bush’s “Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.” Now that she is running for president Clinton tells her supporters she “made a mistake, plain and simple” when she voted to kill. CONTINUED http://www.infowars.com/there-is-a-special-place-in-hell-for-clinton-operative-albright/ F*ck you, General Sir Richard Shirreff, you filthy propagandist dog.  F*cking US-Anglo capitalist filth is forever backing crazy religious extremist militia murderers across the globe, and backed the Chechen Islamic terrorists.  It is therefore the US-Anglo capitalist filth that is responsible for the spread of Medieval religious and political terrorism across the globe.   Fancy dragging Adolf Hitler into this in an attempt to smear the president of Russia, when the US-Anglo empire is responsible for more destruction, murder and war crimes across this planet during the imperialist exploitation of numerous foreign peoples, and during Chinese Opium Wars, the Boer War, during WWI, during WWII, and for decades since WWII, than the Third Reich German targets of global capitalism who were subject to US-Anglo capitalist brutal and criminal torture-confessions, disposed of in the multiples of thousands by starvation on the banks of the Rhine, and otherwise sent into slavery by the capitalists, who occupied and continue to occupy the defeated German state; US-Anglo capitalists who presided over the starvation, 'de-Nazification' and rape of Germans, and US-Anglo capitalists who have enslaved the German people whose heritage has since been assigned to invaders.  But it's Hitler that's the 'bad guy', say the capitalist war criminals.  Eyeroll.   ] BACK TO http://www.newsweek.com/russia-nuclear-war-nato-richard-shirreff-485818   War With Russia Looms, Says Former NATO General in New Book By Alexander Nazaryan On 8/1/16 at 4:03 PM  .... CONTINUED  The Ukrainian operation is only the start. Putin—his identity is very lightly disguised by Shirreff, as is that of Hillary Clinton, though he says she wasn’t necessarily his model for the American president—has his eyes on the Baltics, which Russia has long regarded as its birthright. The Kremlin is bolstered by a conviction that Western Europe and the United States will do anything to avoid the use of force. “The West may have great economic capability, but they think only of social welfare,” one Kremlin adviser says in 2017. “They have forgotten to stand up for themselves.”   [COMMENT:  what was the illegal Iraq War?  Oh, please, what a load of sh*t.  As if the US-Anglo and associated capitalists and their NATO mercenary force are shy of using lethal (and illegal force), and it's this same capitalist aggressor scum that has trained long-range missiles on Russia, from Russia's borderlands.    What kind of d*ckhead would put his name to this ludicrous propaganda?  ] When I spoke to Shirreff, he lamented the ease with which Russia invaded both Georgia (2008) and the Ukraine (2014). “That was a slick, very professionally executed operation,” he says of the conquest of Crimea, one that Putin may well try to replicate in the Baltics, given how little genuine resistance he encountered from the West two years ago. “Russia despises weakness and respects strength,” Shirreff tells me. It’s no accident that, every few months, the nation goes agog over images of Putin, stolid and shirtless, wrestling a bear or cuddling with a Siberian tiger.   [COMMENT:  Shirreff doesn't know what he's talking about, or he pretends not to know, for the sake of disseminating warmongering propaganda against the Russians.  Russia did not invade Ukraine.  The invasion of Ukraine is by US-Anglo capitalism that executed the CIA coup in Ukraine. Looks like Shirreff is taking a leaf out of the Israeli military doctrine, contending that "Russia despises weakness ..."; in an Israeli-styled ideological and propaganda move, laying the groundwork for 'justification' of the use of highly aggressive military force (be it pre-emptive or disproportionately aggressive, as a military doctrine). Yes, let's train missiles on Russia, because social media has taken a liking to splicing images of Putin on a bear ... what a d*ckhead, Shirreff is.  ] Until a few weeks ago, most American readers of 2017 would not have thought twice about the preface by James Stavridis, the now-retired American admiral who served as the NATO Supreme Commander of Europe. But in July, media outlets reported that Stavridis was being seriously considered by Clinton as her vice presidential candidate. If he is to serve as an advisory role in her presidency, his view of Russia would be useful. And as presented here, that view is utterly unambiguous: “Of all the challenges America faces on the geopolitical scene in the second decade of the 21st century, the most dangerous is the resurgence of Russia under President Putin.” When Mitt Romney said as much during his 2012 presidential bid, he was mocked for stoking anachronistic Cold War fears. “The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back,” President Obama said glibly of Romney’s warning. [Comment:  who gives a rat's what that Wall Street PR appointment is mouthing off, with a Wall Street hand up his capitalist-serving ass.  This Wall Street serving rat, and the interests he represents, is a danger to all Europeans.  The danger here is capitalist aggressors Washington, London and Brussels.  ] But the 1980s actually saw the rise of nuclear disarmament, as well as a broader thawing of Russo-American relations. This moment, the one we live in, feels closer to the 1960s, with American missile defense shields rising in the former Soviet bloc countries of Romania and Poland, as well as military exercises that seem like preparations for the real deal. Annoyed by such exercises in Eastern Europe conducted by NATO, a Kremlin senior official put the matter as bluntly as one of Shirreff’s characters: “If NATO initiates an encroachment—against a nuclear power like ourselves—it will be punished.” This kind of bluster could easily have come from the Kremlin of Khrushchev, as both sides prepared for mutual assured destruction. [COMMENT:  why is stating the obvious consequence of threatening Russia's national security 'bluster' or likened to the Shirreff novel propaganda, Newsweek? US-Anglo capitalist mercenary NATO is hardly preparing for 'mutual assured destruction', as Washington is probably quite safe, being situated well away, across the Atlantic. US-Anglo capitalist NATO is preparing for destruction of Russia and I hope the Russians nuke Europe off the f*cking face of the Earth if there is an incident, so that there is nothing capable of growing on European soil for the next 1000 years of radiation emanating from a nuclear wasted crater in what once was indigenous Europe.  That's how I would be handling any threat to Russia (and/or indigenous Europe).  ] I spoke to Shirreff just days after hackers universally believed to be associated with the Kremlin broke into the servers of the Democratic National Committee, a breach the director of national intelligence called “a version of war” (though he also tried to temper suggestions that Russia was at fault). Donald Trump openly encouraged further such incursions, as long they helped his quest for the White House. [COMMENT:  more propaganda.  The hackers are not 'universally believed to be associated with the Kremlin"; that is just the propaganda from the US-Anglo capitalist authorities and capitalist-controlled corporate media. ] When I first spoke with Shirreff, he declined to comment on Trump’s overtures to the Kremlin, but by the next morning, he’d changed his mind and sent me an email that said, in part: “What could suit Putin better than to embarrass the Democrats and so propel into the White House a candidate who has undermined NATO’s doctrine of collective defence by raising questions over America’s willingness to support an ally if attacked?” He was referring to Trump’s suggestion that the United States would not come to the aid of NATO allies who hadn’t made the requisite defense expenditures. [COMMENT:  LMAO.  Now Trump the capitalist and the poster-boy of American capitalism is in league with the Kremlin?  LOL, sure he is.  Face facts:  nobody white and sane wants the Democrats and their program of destruction of white America, which is at a critical point and on the verge of going under at a purported 62% white demographic (probably much less, in reality).  The bet is the American public also doesn't want the costs of endless neocon wars in the Middle East, the enormous costs of bearing US capitalist mercenary NATO forces stationed around the world, or being lumbered with paying the price for American capitalist serving 'free' trade agreements, that don't serve ordinary American interests.  Note also that Trump is merely referring to those nations that do not come up with the requisite military finances.  ] It is far more likely, according to most projections, that the next president will be Clinton, a longtime foe of Putin who has shown a willingness to use American force abroad. Shirreff believes that nuclear war with Russia is a possibility: Kaliningrad, a region of Russia that borders the Baltic States, now serves as a growing repository for both conventional and nuclear weapons, including Iskander missile systems that have nuclear capability and a range of 300 miles. These could be fired at the West—and will be, if Putin finds Russia’s borders with Europe threatened. Of course, if he invades the Baltics, such a counterattack would be required by the “collective defense” doctrine of the North Atlantic Treaty, known as Article 5. “If NATO goes to war with Russia,” Shirreff says, “that means nuclear war.”  [COMMENT:  once again, if there is a nuclear event, it will be because US-Anglo capitalist mercenaries, NATO, are encroaching on Russia's borders and threatening Russian national security.  Please nuke them, Russia.  ] His solution is paradoxical: a show of strength and unity by NATO that would discourage any offensive moves on Russia’s part, so that NATO’s strength would never be tested. In other words, frighten Russia into acceptable, rational-actor behavior. Shirreff adds that Trump is “absolutely right” about many European nations failing to meet their financial obligations to NATO, even if the failed casino magnate couched his criticism in undue threats about abandoning treaty commitments. “Europe needs to step up to the mark,” Shirreff says. He also says the West needs to commit once more to a dialogue with Russia. That’s made harder by the fact that Russia is always sensitive to lectures from the West, resentful about perceived condescension from Europe and the U.S. Still, stony silence is unlikely to bring a resolution. “Communication” is what Shirreff hopes for, not war. “But it’s gotta be backed up by strength.” [COMMENT:  If I were Russian, and if I had nukes, I'd simply send all these capitalist oppressor assh*les nukes in a surprise suicide attack.   Death would be worth winning.    ] http://www.newsweek.com/russia-nuclear-war-nato-richard-shirreff-485818 General Sir Richard Shirreff born in Kenya in 1955 raised Kenya education:  England Exeter College, Oxford (Modern History) commissioned from Sandhurst 1978 regimental service was spent in Germany Canada United Kingdom Northern Ireland Gulf Hong Kong Brunei attended miscellaneous 'defence studies' courses appointed to various staff posts Yugoslavia commanded 7th Armoured Brigade 1999-2000 incl., forming the core of a multinational brigade in Serbian Kosovo commanded 3rd (UK) Division from 2005-2007 Iraq divisional HQ deployed as HQ Multinational Division South East in Iraq between July 2006 and January 2007 commanded on operations at every level from platoon to division included combat in the Gulf War of 1991 as a tank squadron leader counter-insurgency infantry ops role in Northern Ireland (three tours) counter-insurgency infantry ops role in Iraq counter-insurgency infantry ops role in in Serbian Kosovo qualified as a military parachutist in 2005 command of the Allied Rapid Reaction Corps in December 2007 preparing the Corps for deployment in support of ISAF oversaw the relocation of the Corps from Germany to the UK served as the 27th DSACEUR from 3rd March 2011 until 1 April 2014 http://www.gcsp.ch/News-Knowledge/Experts/Fellows/Gen.-Sir-Alexander-Richard-David-Shirreff http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/18/philip-hammond-tried-to-have-general-court-martialled-for-speaki/ Philip Hammond tried to have General court martialled for speaking out, it is claimed Tom Whitehead, Security Editor 18 May 2016 • 6:09pm Philip Hammond tried to have a senior General court martialled for speaking out over defence cuts, it is claimed. General Sir Richard Shirreff said the then Defence Secretary was furious that he had criticised the Government for “hollowing out” the Royal Navy. Sir Richard claimed Mr Hammond asked the head of the army to take “formal action” against him but was told that was not possible because, at the time, Sir Richard reported to Nato. The row boiled over in 2014 following comments made by Sir Richard as he stepped down as Deputy Supreme Allied Commander of Nato, where he was the UK’s most senior officer. He said defence cuts meant the Royal Navy was being “cut to the bone” and it was a “hell of a gamble”. Mr Hammond, who moved to become Foreign Secretary later that year, went on television to dismiss the criticism as “nonsense”. But behind the public row, it is now claimed that Mr Hammond wanted further action taken against Sir Richard, which the General said would have amounted to a court martial. In his new book, which predicts war with Russia by next year, Sir Richard said he was summoned to the office of General Sir Peter Wall, then Chief of the General Staff (CGS), and told that the Defence Secretary had wanted “formal action!. “Formal action would have involved a court martial and, fortunately for the latter’s political reputation – it also seems he had not appreciated that I reported to Nato and not to him – wiser counsel had prevailed,” he wrote. At a press conference launching the book, Sir Richard added: “I was summoned to the  CGS office and told that he had headed off a potential discussion of formal action being taken against me. So that is fact.” Sources close to Mr Hammond dismissed the claim. A Whitehall source said: “No one recognises this claim, but this guy has made a series of outlandish claims over the years. “He's trying to sell a book, so we have to expect such outbursts. Previous comments were made as if the Ministry of Defence didn't have a financial black hole to tackle and as if he wasn't aware that the 2010 SDSR (Strategic Defence and Security Review) maintained the Army's ability to deploy a division size force." Sir Richard told the Telegraph on Tuesday that David Cameron and his Government had made the UK a “semi-pacifist” nation by its stance on not wanting to engage in foreign conflicts. On Wednesday, he said the situation had become so severe that he doubted Britain would not be able to engage in a war such as it did in Iraq in 2003.  “There is and has been a hollowing out of, a cutting away at muscle and damn well nearly at the bone, frankly, in UK defences which puts us now in a very, very different position from where we were even ten or 15 years ago,” he said. “I would question whether the UK could deploy a division for war. I think that’s highly unlikely. The notion of deploying a division for war as the UK did in Iraq in 2003 and in 1991 is frankly almost inconceivable.” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/18/philip-hammond-tried-to-have-general-court-martialled-for-speaki/ Russia Contends With NATO Threat to Russian National Security LINK | here COMMENT This is an outrage.  How is it possible for an unelected military official attached to the US-Anglo capitalist mercenary organisation, NATO, to act to publicly undermine the policy of the elected British government, and to be able to do so with impunity, in pursuit of US-NATO capitalist warmongering agenda goals? The system is clearly broken.  LOL

Yugoslavia

YUGOSLAVIA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLS6B4FVBmk&feature=youtu.be via | VK This Russian Cossack styled song ('My Caucasus') is unrelated, but I like this song:  AUDIO | Moi Kavkaz | Мой Кавказ