For generations, the United States of America has played a unique role as an anchor of global security and as an advocate for human freedom. Mindful of the risks and costs of military action, we are naturally reluctant to use force to solve the world's many challenges.Obama's Orwellian use of language is becoming so extreme that the only rational response is to laugh at him. There is no use in getting angry at what amounts to absurdity. Who actually believes that the U.S. government is naturally reluctant to use force? Since when?
Obama's approach to history is completely shallow. His idea is that you can use or misuse facts, or totally ignore them altogether, if it serves your overall political goals, and he's hoping that the American people will remain ignorant of their own history and their government's treason. It is obvious to even naive and clueless people that Obama is a fraud, who is not inhabiting the same political universe as the people he was elected to represent as President. He is operating on a different level of political consciousness, along with several other U.S. and global leaders who desire to bring into the world a new world government.
Under its current barbaric and manipulative rulers the U.S. government is not even hesitant to use force against the American people. The false flag September 11 attacks proved that nobody is safe from the crazy tyrants who are in charge of the White House, especially not the American people.
Since 9/11 it has been a stated policy of the U.S. government to destabilize the Middle East and stoke the fires of chaos and ethnic tension in order to fulfill its long-standing goal of regime change in various countries in the Middle East that wish to take an independent and nationalist path in the region. General Wesley Clark revealed the Bush White House's policy of regime change to Amy Goodman in March of 2007 on the show Democracy Now. Gen. Clark told Goodman that shortly after the 9/11 attacks he visited the Pentagon, where a general informed him of America's grand strategic vision for the Middle East, in which several countries would be attacked by the U.S. military. The list included Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran. Iraq and Libya have been cleared off the board. Up next are Syria, Lebanon, and finally, Iran.
Last Sunday on Fox News, Sen. Joe Lieberman proposed the prospect of U.S. military action being used against Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad's regime. Lieberman said:
"If Assad does what Qadhafi was doing, which is to threaten to go house to house and kill anybody who's not on his side, there's a precedent now that the world community has set in Libya, and it's the right one," Lieberman said on "Fox News Sunday." "We're not going to stand by and allow this Assad to slaughter his people like his father did years ago."Lieberman is an extreme voice, but he speaks for the U.S. and Israeli ruling elite, so what he says should not be ignored. Maybe liberals will join Lieberman and call for a UN-backed war on Syria, and Iran after that. Read Stephen Walt's article about the neocon-liberal alliance in foreign policy, and its implications for America's long-term future. Walt writes:
"Finally, we are on the side of the mass of people yearning to be free within the Arab world," he added. (Courtesy of Politico)
One reason that the Bush administration could stampede the country to war in Iraq was the apparent ease with which the United States had toppled the Taliban back in 2001. After a string of seeming successes dating back to the 1991 Gulf War, U.S. leaders and the American public had become convinced that the Pentagon had a magic formula for remaking whole countries without breaking a sweat. It took the debacle in Iraq and the Taliban resurgence in Afghanistan to remind us of the limits of military power, and it seems to have taken Obama less than two years on the job to forget that lesson. We may get reminded again in Libya, but if we don't, the neocon/liberal alliance will be emboldened and we'll be more likely to stumble into a quagmire somewhere else.A successful war is the ultimate confidence booster. If Gaddafi is defeated fairly soon (by the end of the summer), the new world order faction and the neocon faction in the U.S. war establishment will probably feel so good about themselves that they will officially tie the knot before attacking the next country in the regime change line up: Syria. And Congress will most likely get shafted again because the new system doesn't require legislative approval or the people's informed consent.
When total global war finally comes, not only will the gates of hell be opened in the Middle East, but in America, Canada, and Europe as well. The U.S., Western, and Israeli ruling elites don't care what happens or where it happens because they are well positioned to profit from all the madness that they are helping to unleash on the world. Luckily for them, there are enough idiots in the world to defend their "humanitarian" wars, and even sacrifice their lives in the wars against the designated tyrants.
As long as there are gullible young men willing to join the military and mindlessly follow orders to fight criminal, and immoral wars then political and economic elites will exploit their naivety and ignorance of history to achieve their own political and economic goals. We have to reach the men in the military of every nation in NATO, educate them, and remind them to honor their oaths, as the organization Oath Keepers is heroically doing. Such a course of action may be our only hope for world peace, freedom, and global unity.