US, The Evil Empire creates and thrives on wars and instbilities

US. The Evil Empire creates and thrives on wars and instabilities

For the last seventy years there has been endless wars and instabilities throughout the world.. Why is it so? The fingers inevitably point to the Evil Empire , USA. America believes in permanent warfare and conquest and this is based on their evil Doctrine of Christian Discovery and Manifest Destiny.. Under this doctrine America claims it has the divine right to attack, conquer, subjugate and hold complete hegemony over all other countries.

America uses various ways and means in its evil mission of conquest and hegemony. It uses cheating, fraud, currency manipulation, unfair trade, commerce and industrial sabotage, espionage, political control, cyber attacks, direct and proxy warfare.

Between the 1920s and 1970s America had a monopoly of Middle East oil.It set the price of  oil at five US Dollars per barrel. It was able to sell in the market at between fifty to eighty dollars per barrel. The Arab oil producing countries were ripped while US enriched itself fabulously. Further the Arabs had to agree to trade the oil in US dollars only. This locked out the Arabs from trading direct with other countries other than through US oil giant corporations. Thus when Iraq under Saddam Hussein and later Gadaffi of Libya tried to trade oil direct with other countries in currencies other than the US dollars they were atacked and killed. Thus regime change is US evil policy against countries which do not toe the US line. Further when oil was depressed at five dollars per barrel US was able to ship billions of tons of Middle East oil to US to be kept as oil reserves .

Before the 1970s there was international agreement that every US dollar must be backed in gold. This means that a country has every right to demand from the US government to be paid in gold equivalent to the amount of US dollars it is holding and which it now wants to return it to US. The US government reneged on this agreement in 1972 and in the Bretton Woods Agreement it openly defied the world by refusing to peg the US dollar to the value of gold. Thus US is and has been able to cheat the world since the US dollar is still the world's standard currency for trading. When US is in trade deficit with other countries it is just able to print more paper money to pay the creditor countries. This is a dangerous trend because eventually the US dollar will become a banana currency with little or no value.

When US wants to control and hold hegemony over a region it will first sow seeds of dissension and discord among the countries in the region. It will then create a demand of dependency and protection from US. Behind the scene US will continuously foment distrust and hatred among the squabbling countries and quietly leading the unsuspecting countries to hostilities and open warfare. It is then how the US enrich itself by seliing weapons and all kinds of military hardware to the warring factions. In the meantime US pretends to play the peacemaker though for holding hegemony it never really will want the warring factions to have peace. This can be seen in the whole of the Middle East. Now US is trying to replicate the same scenario in the Far East and in the South China Sea . US is really a horrible evil empire .

US is also exerting world hegemony by manipulating the world's monetary, financial and banking business as well as manipulating the stock markets , trade, commerce and industries all over the world. American rogue leaders in private sectors are synonymous with rogue leaders in the government. They work as one banditry team and correlate their activities in supplanting and robbing each and every other country in this world. They are able to cheat and swindle the whole world because they hold full sway over the World Bank and the IMF.

To maintain its continuous world hegemony, America has build over one thousand military bases in all corners of the world. It is signing up unsuspecting countries as allies to help in its aggression. It will stir up trouble in peaceful regions and create tensions , instabilities and wars among the unsuspecting countries so that American war industries will keep on humming as they are able to sell weapons and military hardware to the warring factions .

It is time the world wake up and put a stop to the evil doings of America , a country born out from their evil Doctrine of Christian Discovery and American Manifest Destiny, a country which robbed and stole the lands from native American Indians.

Southernglory1

Friday, 20th November, 2015

Dispelling the myth of an expansionist China

By Chua Chin Leng (chinadaily.com.cn)Updated: 2015-11-13 17:48

The world has been misled into believing that China is an ambitious and expansionist country coveting the land of neighboring states. This myth has been hyped by the western media for several decades so that the undiscerning now accept this view uncritically without bothering to confirm if it is true.

The South China Sea territorial disputes have been used by superficial academics or those with an agenda as proof that China is indeed expansionist. Without understanding the facts, many have been gullible to accept the disputes in the South China Sea as the proof they needed that China is claiming the islands of the counter claiming parties. The truth is that these countries are claiming islands that China has claimed long before these countries were formerd and were recognized as countries.

There is historical evidence to show that modern China was and is never has been expansionist. There were 3 incidents or wars that China was involved in after 1949 where China could have seized the land of neighboring countries that it had occupied. Take the case of the Korean Peninsula. After the armistice China withdrew completely from what is now North Korea without leaving a single soldier on Korean soil.

It could have stayed on, on the same false pretenses the Americans used to continue to station troops in South Korea. More than 60 years after the Korean War, the American troops are still in South Korea and will not leave.

A similar situation existed in the Sino-Indian border conflict of 1962. Chinese troops were deep into India and could have stayed on the newly occupied land. However, China did not want any Indian territories.. They had all the excuses to stay and stake their claims. They withdrew completely out of the Indian lands it had conquered during the conflict. Why would an expansionist country with designs on its neighbor’s land voluntarily return the land it had fought for and won?

The third incident was the border war with Vietnam. The Chinese troops marched deep into Vietnam and could have sat on Vietnamese land with the Vietnamese looking lost and frustrated by the Chinese presence but unable to do anything. An expansionist country would have done just that. Again the Chinese troops withdrew back into China and allowed Vietnam to move back to the border with China.

In all three incidents, China could have taken advantage of the conflicts to seize the territories of its neighbors. Why not, since Chinese troops were occupying the disputed lands? So, is China expansionist when it could hold on to the territories the defeated neighboring states had lost? Since the end of the wars, China has not given trouble to its neighbors on their borders. Why then is China being accused of being expansionist?

Ask the North Koreans, the Indians and the Vietnamese for proof that China is coveting the land at their borders. Ask the rest of the 17 countries with borders with China if China has been attempting to seize their lands. Many of the 17 neighboring states of China were small and militarily weak and would not be able to resist a land grabbing China. No, they all live peacefully with China with no violation of their territories.

   

Whose problem is ISIS?

The West cries for the blood of ISIS following the Paris attack. The French launched more air strikes in Syria in vengeance. The rest of world condemns this uncivilized attack on civilians in the streets of Paris. I am not going to harp on the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Syrians killed by the smart bombs and drones of the Americans and their allies without any condemnation by anyone, without any leader saying he feels sad about it. The big question is, whose problem is ISIS?

A Sulaiman Daud posted in his facebook to acknowledge that it is a Muslim problem. His full article is posted in the TRE titled, ‘ISIS is an Islamic problem, we Muslims must confront this reality’. And I quote a couple of paragraph from his post,

‘ISIS is a Muslim organisation, and it is an Islamic problem. Let me say it again to be perfectly clear. ISIS is a Muslim organisation, and they are a cancer at the heart of Islam. And the problem will not go away until Muslims confront that….ISIS is not America’s problem, nor the British, nor the French. ISIS is not Syria or Iraq’s problem. ISIS is a problem for Muslims. And if you can’t admit that, you’re not really a good Muslim either.’

I would agree with Sulaiman that it is a Muslim problem but it is also not a Muslim problem. In the ST on 17 Nov 15, there was another article by a Mohan J Dutta titled, ‘Violence and terror…’, where he described the Western narrative as the conventional truth that the barbaric ISIS is the scourge of modern civilization. But Mohan also got into a bit of the history of how ISIS came about, who created them, trained them, armed them and financed them. No need to guess for the answer. For the sake of the ignoramus, the mother of ISIS is none other than the Americans and their allies. They created this Frankenstein to do their dirty work in removing Saddam Hussein and now in the process of removing Basher Assad.

ISIS is the work of the West. Period.  So, whose problem is ISIS? Is ISIS just a Muslim problem or is it an American or Western problem? I say again, those who lived by the sword will be killed by the sword. The sword is swinging back at the Americans and their allies.

Sulaiman Daud should not be too hasty and liberal to accept full responsibility. The responsibility lies squarely on the big devil that created ISIS. Islam is just a collateral in the Americans’ devious war on regime change in the Middle East. They let out this monster ISIS and could not put it back into the bottle.

The saddest part of it all

The unthinking are now feeling so remorseful, so guilty and responsible for the killings in the streets of Paris. Did they ever want to know who were the real devils behind the carnage in Paris? Iraq, Libya, Syria and many Middle Eastern and North African countries are in turmoil, a plan conceived and executed to perfection by the Americans, to destabilize these countries and agitate them to keep on fighting and killing each other, to be bombed to Stone Age. As long as these people are killing each other, their countries will be in ruins, their lives will be in ruins.

Now who are the greatest beneficiaries of the war in these countries? No need to think so hard. If you still cannot figure out, think Americans, their western allies, the Israelis and of course the arms merchants of war. And the devils are partying in Washington, seeping wine and whisky with caviar without any sense or remorse or responsibility, without any sense of guilt.

On the other hand the unthinking around the world are feeling so responsible and guilty and wanting to kill the ISIS. Yes, the ISIS is evil and must be destroyed. What about the devil that created them, trained them, armed them and financed them?

The devil is now in the South China Sea trying to destabilize the region and inciting the unthinking to start another war. And some of the unthinking would be joining the ranks of the devil. And when war starts, when their countries are bombed, when their people died, they will blame everyone else except the devil and themselves.

The lost sheep are the unthinking, being manipulated to hate, to kill, and the devil is smiling from afar, offering more arms, more aids, more training, and more bombs, for the unthinking to kill themselves, or feeling guilty and responsible if not doing so.

Kishore is serious about public public transport system

Our privatized public transport may be due for a change if Kishore Mahbubani has a say in it. Oops, he definitely has a say in it but not sure if he can decide on it. Yesterday at a symposium on Future Mobility he repeated his call for the nationalization of the public transport system to include the buses and taxis.

Kishore said, ‘Singapore’s public sector is world class. But its private sector is not. So if the country wants the best public transport system in the world, shouldn’t the public sector be in the driver’s seat?’  It is so logical and so simple. Now where has Kishore come from? Has he been away for too long that he forgot the original rationale touted by the govt that the public transport must be privatized in order to be efficient? That the public transport ran by the public sector in the past was just too inefficient, in other words the civil servants were not able to run the public transport system efficiently. Come to think of it, was the privatized public transport system ever been run by anyone from the private sector other than the period under Saw?

Actually Kishore knows and I quote why, ‘He said the country should not “remain a prisoner of old economic ideas”, such as the notion that public transport should be privatized.’ He is so polite. He blamed it on an old economic idea and not some wise ones who touted the idea that the public sector people are duds, cannot run a transport system efficiently. Anyway it is good to praise the public sector as world class and this may be very well received. With this as a starting point, the world class people may now be brave enough to challenge the old notion that they were inefficient, so it is time to take back the public transport system to prove that actually they can run the public transport efficiently.

Would anyone be objecting to this notion that public sector is unfit to run the public transport system? Khaw Boon Wan has rolled up his sleeves and wading deep into the MRT problems with his public sector chief and engineers. Luckily he did not go to the world to look for some experts to come here to solve our transport problems. Kishore can quote this as testimony to prove that the public sector can do it.

There is a little snag. It was reported in the media that nationalization of public transport was a clarion call by the Workers’ Party for years. Would this cheeky comment be a game changer not to nationalize the public transport system no matter how clever the arguments Kishore put up? If Kishore is successful in his say, the public transport system will come full circle, from public public transport system to privatized public transport system and back to public public transport system. I think the opposition party camp would be calling this flip flopping.

17 countries in Vienna to decide the fate of President Assad of Syria

What an irony with 17 countries attending a meeting in Vienna to determine the fate on who should be the leader of the Syrians. They are going to decide the fate of President Assad, not the Syrian people. The meeting was understandably led by the Americans and their allies in another of its plan for a regime change. The Russians too were there to make sure the Americans would not have their way to remove Assad, a Russian ally.

China was also represented by it Vice Foreign Minister Li Baodong while the Americans were represented by their Secretary of State John Kerry to take on his Russian counterpart Sergio Lavrov. China’s low key presence was like a watching brief as China’s policy is not to interfere in the domestic affairs of another country. In the meeting China’s position was for the Syrians to determine their own future and to help in the reconstruction of Syria after the war.

The interference of the domestic affairs of another country is fair game to the Americans. Any country watching this sad episode should be aware that their fate would be similar to the Syrians once the Americans take an interest in their affairs and decided for a regime change. Malaysia seems like a good candidate with Najib under siege now that Myanmar is out of the picture. Who else would be a potential candidate for regime change in the Asean region? Indonesia or perhaps the Philippines should there be a challenge to Aquino’s leadership or a big tussle in the next Presidential election, or should the Muslim rebels in the south provides a good opening for the good Americans to step in?

Would another 17 countries be meeting somewhere to decide the fate of an Asean country and their leaders?