American hypocrisy in fighting terrorism

 After 911, how this happened still subject to many conspiracy theories and interpretation, the Americans launched a world war against terrorism. Their main targets were Al Qaeda and ISIS. They invaded Iraq, Syria, Pakistan and Afghanistan to hunt down their professed enemies, the Al Qaeda and ISIS terrorists.

People with a bit of historical knowledge knew that the Al Qaeda and ISIS were the creations of the Americans, the babies of the Americans with their favourite lieutenant in Osama. All recruited and trained by the Americans, financed and armed by the Americans. Oops, Saddam Hussein was also the Americans favourite lieutenant, recruited and trained by the Americans just like the present Aguido in Venezuela.

The Al Qaeda and ISIS were the storm troops of the Americans in their proxy war against the Russians in Afghanistan. Saddam Hussein was leading a charge against Iran for the Americans. The Al Aqaeda and ISIS terrorists or American bred terrorists defeated the Russians and drove them out of Afghanistan. Once their usefulness was over, the Americans turned against them, to terminate them for 911.

Really? Were the Americans in Afghanistan just to terminate the terrorists they groomed, trained and paid for, a war against terrorists and against terrorism or something else? The terrorists must be wiped out right? How can the Americans be the masters of the terrorists when they spent trillions to wipe them out in Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Middle East and all over the world?

Everyday the Americans are still blowing their horns, using the western media to denounce and condemn terrorism and terrorist.

The latest development in Ukraine. Ukraine and NATO have been recruiting Al Qaeda and ISIS members to join the Ukrainians to fight the Russians. What, what? Can't be true right? There is a video clip shown in the programmed Redacted, hosted by Natalie and Clayton Morris, of an interview of an Al Qaeda terrorist exposing how he was recruited and how much he was paid, by Ukraine, NATO and Spain for fighting the Russians. And he was not the lone terrorist recruited, many have joined.

Hey, terrorists are now in favour by the Americans and the West. They are welcomed to joint the NATO and Ukrainian sides to fight the Russians once again. When would the Americans be putting out an adverstisement to pardon all the Al Qaeda and ISIS terrorists, an amnesty, so that they can again be on the American side, to be paid, armed and fought for the Americans?

When would the Americans be announcing the war on terrorism is over? Terrorists are now friends of the Americans. Terrorists are welcomed!

This is American hypocrisy at its worst. The other of course is the support of Xinjiang Muslims while killing and massacring Muslims all over the world and invading Muslim countries.

What is a good government?

 A good government should lift people out of poverty and provide a better life for it's citizens. That is their most important job. Imran Khan, the former PM of Pakistan, an admirer of what China did in eradicating poverty, wanted to follow China's example and was removed.

It is no use talking about human rights and democracy when the people being ruled are slipping further and further into difficulties. When the Middle Class is slowly being cannibalised by the super rich, which is the preoccupation of the Ruling Elites to make this happen, and enabled the super rich to get even richer, at the expense of the Middle Class and the poor, you know that is not a good system to follow, democratic or not. And they want to spread that fake democratic value as the savior around the whole world, targeting communism as an evil. And who were they targeting? Russia, China, North Korea are their main target.

Human rights issue is just a tool to be used to demonise countries that do not subscribe to the rule of democracy. Wars, military or trade, are waged to keep down the rise of countries that dared to try to change the status quo of hegemony. All done with force and against the will of countries trying to go their own way, with legitimately elected leaders ousted by fakes, and all regime changes are orchestrated to put stooges into power, so that the country can be controlled and kept under control.

The world is waking up. The South Americans, the Arabs in the Middle East, the Blacks in Africa, the Muslims all around the world are all now well aware of the evil forces creating all the chaos and financial disasters around the world. They desire to change all that and to do that they needed a strong power to carry that out. Russia and China together provides that opportunity and they should support them to make it a success.

Ironically, the Europeans are finding out the pain of following the USA and still not waking up.

Anonymous 

The Dismentling of Liz Truss Has Begun

Senior MPs are now discussing the PM’s future. Some want her to resign within days and others want her to stand down after the implosion of her tax-cutting programme.

A few loyalists had warned MPs they would precipitate an election and ensure the Tories were “finished as a party” if they toppled a second leader in just a few months.

“It is a case now of whether she takes part in the process and goes to some extent on her own terms, or whether she tries to resist and is forced out.”

Another MP said it “would be grotesque” to allow Truss to endure another appearance at PM's questions in the Commons, after a series of humiliating U-turns, the sacking of ally Kwasi Kwarteng and the abandonment of her economic prospectus.

The battle over her future comes after an extraordinary round of interviews by Hunt, who said it had been wrong to “fly blind” by announcing a raft of tax cuts without explaining how they would be funded. On Saturday night, he said Truss’s mini-budget “went too far, too fast”.

To save his own skin, Hunt the Hunter, In a repudiation of Truss's economic plans that won Truss the Tory leadership, said:

1. That some taxes would rise while public spending would be held down.

2. There are going to be no easy choices – it’s going to be very difficult.

3. Lots of the things that people are hoping for won’t happen.

4. Further U-turns on the mini-budget are being examined.

Truss’s remaining allies are now battling to shore her up. Loyalists are urging the PM to force a no-confidence vote to go ahead rather than to agree to step down. Under party rules, Truss is protected from a no-confidence vote in her leadership for a year. Those rules could be changed.

“If we change leader again, we are finished as a party,” said a Cabinet minister. “When you’ve got both Philip Hammond and Nadine Dorries saying that if we change leader again there’s got to be a general election, that’s not light scare-mongering."

“If I were Liz, I’d certainly risk a first vote of no confidence. From the point of view of the Tory party, it is best that she survives. Whether that means she will is another matter.”

In an attempt to calm the markets yesterday, Bank of England governor Andrew Bailey said there had been an “immediate meeting of minds” between him and Hunt on Friday. However, he warned that “inflationary pressure” would probably need a “stronger response” in terms of increasing interest rates.

Despite Hunt’s installation as Chancellor, Tory morale remains low. In the mean time, there continues to be disagreement about the timing and mechanism for the removal of PM Truss.

My own solution to this extraordinary UK problem is this:

SINCE KING CHARLES III is now super-rich, after acquiring all the wealth, treasures and estates from his dear Mother Queen Elizabeth II, why don't he simply offer some of his wealth to help out?

Why still remain so quiet and act as though UK's problems are not his problems!

Just suspend the need to pay for him and his estates for just one year, would partially solve most of the problems!

Furthermore, as the King's personal wealth improves three to four folds, the country, especially the commoners are facing tremendous problems. So, it is only right that the Royal Establishment help out this time.

  A-Non-Yes-Mouse

BRICS will write and chart the rules of the New World Order

For the last few hundred years, the West have ruled the world and wrote the rules for international relations and trade. Obama set up the TTP just to do that, to write the new rules for international trade. The Americans would want to set the rules for the rest of the world. The Bretton Woods financial system, the IMF, World Bank, the UN, were all set up by the West with rules dictated by them in their own interests and favour.

The increasing aggressiveness of the Americans and the West to dominate and bully the rest of the world with their wars and abrasive sanctions and weaponising the dollar and financial system have in a way propelled the BRICS countries and the organisation into the limelight. The world cannot tolerate the bullying of the Americans and the West and wanted to be treated more fairly, to be treated as equals. BRICS, SCO are among the two new organisations that are seen as the New Hope for the rest of the world to co exist in a fairer and interdependent world, not a world dominated and dictated by the West. 

For the first time, BRICS countries are now sitting at the top table and starting to write a new set of rules for the New World. The first and most urgent task is to create a new world currency to replace the US dollar created by the Bretton Woods meeting by the white men. For the first time, the countries of the world would want to write their own rules, fairer rules for the developing countries of the world. The BRICS countries, some have GDPs in the top 10 countries of the world, but not invited to join the G7, seen as non participants or passengers in the current world order, would now be sitting in their own top table without the G7, to call the shot. Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, to be joined by several other major developing countries, would now be in the driving seat to write a new set of rules for themselves, for the rest of the world, in the interests of the rest of the world.

No longer would the fate and future of the rest of the world be dictated by the G7, by the Americans and the West. This new found power and confidence and new found roles of BRICS would determine what the world would be like going into the future. The developing countries would now have a say, the BRICS countries would now have a say, not only be seen but not heard like before. This is only proper and equitable. The BRICS countries have 40% of the world's population and 30% of the world's GDP against 12% of the world's population and 25% of the world's GDP of the developed world. With more developing countries joining BRICS,  the numbers could only go higher and its importance increases proportionally.

No longer would the few developed countries be deciding on the interests of the rest of the world anymore.The rest of the world would decide for themselves what is good for themselves. No longer would the coloured people play second fiddle to the white men, to be cast aside by the white men as insignificant, as non players, without a say in world affairs, in writing the rules of the world.

The more the countries of the world understand how they have been shortchanged by the white men, the more would be in a hurry to join the BRICS countries and the SCO. The world could only become fairer and better in a new world when every nation has an equal say in the common future of the world.

The rest of the world, the coloured people, no longer need to be kept waiting outside the white men's door hoping to be invited in, hoping for some compassion, generosity and charity from the white men, or to be dismissed, threatened, bullied and pushed around by them.

Flaws and Fantasies of the Biden Doctrine

 US President Joe Biden’s newly released National Security Strategy is an amalgam of his predecessors’ doctrines.

It claims the role of an indispensable global leader like Bush Sr and embraces a Manichaean view of the world — democracy vs autocracy, good vs evil — like Ronald Reagan and George W Bush. It promotes the gospel of free democracy and open markets like Bill Clinton, and suggests that like, Barack Obama, Biden is ready to cooperate and negotiate with “rogue regimes”. It even underlines an America First approach that prioritises domestic spending and investment — through massive borrowing.

No easy feat; no less after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which has complicated the NSS final draft and delayed its publication by several months.

To paraphrase Mike Tyson: “Everyone has a strategy until they are punched in the face.”

So, where this pompous exercise in grandeur falls short on coherence, it makes up with easy cliches about the indispensable nation’s role in the creation of a prosperous and inclusive world.

From the outset, Biden makes a number of fanciful — even delusional — assumptions about US world leadership.

"Around the world, the need for American leadership is as great as it has ever been, because no nation is better positioned to lead with strength and purpose than the United States of America.”

Such assumptions may have been true in the post-Cold War period but can no longer be justified — not after three decades of failures and fiascos, over-reaction and later over-reach; and not after the country’s recent retreat and retrenchment from the global stage.

Yet, the NSS pronounces that “we must proactively shape the international order in line with our interests and values”. There’s no escape from American righteousness, even when those liberal values are backsliding at home and abroad.

Every time the United States leads by the example of its power, it compromises the power of its example, alas.

At the heart of the newly unveiled strategy lies a clearly stated dual challenge to American national security: a geopolitical threat from China and Russia, and global threats — climate change, terrorism, new pandemics and food insecurity.

For the long term, the Biden administration is preoccupied mainly with a rising China. In the immediate, it is focused on the Russian threat to European security. It believes these autocracies are working overtime to undermine democracy and export a model of governance marked by repression at home and coercion abroad. All of this, of course, hinders the indispensable multilateral cooperation needed to tackle common transnational dangers that know no borders or geography.

To resolve this paradox, the NSS proposes to preserve and increase international cooperation in an age of competition … within the rules-based international order and while working to strengthen international institutions.

Hence, Biden claims not to seek “a new Cold War” with China, but rather reaffirms America’s One China policy, and makes clear that Washington does not support Taiwan’s independence.

But China and Russia view America’s rules-based international order as the incarnation of US imperialism. They pay attention mainly to what the US does — not to what Biden says.

They regard US strategic containment, military buildup, and alliance formation and expansion with alarm and hostility that will certainly undermine the cooperation and coordination needed to meet global challenges.

Another problem is the NSS’s choice of resources and methods to achieve its objectives. It speaks of a desire to build a free, open, prosperous, and secure international order where people can enjoy their basic, universal rights and freedoms.

However, to achieve such a worthy objective, the US plans to grow its power, amplify its influence through international coalitions, and modernise and strengthen its military. This comes even as the US already spends more on its military than the next nine biggest spenders, all of which are its allies.

The Biden administration speaks as a healer but acts like a hammer, believing the US could and should act as the world’s policeman, despite a long and bloody history.

There are the contradictions between US nuclear modernisation and non-proliferation. The NSS commits to modernise the country’s nuclear Triad and related infrastructure, while at the same time, speaking of verifiable arms control and the global non-proliferation regime.

The US persists in its violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty that requires nuclear powers to pursue disarmament aimed at the ultimate elimination of their nuclear arsenals.

The same goes for values and interests that do not usually align with foreign policy, especially in the Middle East, where the Biden administration has been shoring up autocracies and rallying them against Russia, all in the name of democracy.

The NSS also commits the United States to proactively integrate Israel into the region, albeit at the expense of Palestinians and Arab rights. It mentions the two-state solution as the better option, but in practice it panders to Israel.

Like Obama’s so-called “leading from behind” approach, Biden proposes cooperation and support to trusted partners, shifting from a strategy that is “US-led, partner-enabled” to one that is “partner-led, US-enabled”.

This is an overly ambitious strategy with major faults and fantasies. It will give comfort to America’s friends looking for protection and support from the benevolent superpower, but will also provide ammunition to America’s detractors regarding its aggressive imperialist agenda.

If the “political art of creating power”, than the balance of power would suggest, then this National Security Strategy is a masterpiece in theory.

In practice, it confirms what we’ve known for a millennium: When a rising power challenges a dominant power, it is time to put on the seat belts.

Anonymous