July 29, 2015

US-Turkey No Fly Zone In Syria Is A Very Bad Idea

President Obama and President Erdogan are heads of the two biggest terrorist states on the planet. Their covert plan to back ISIS against Assad and the PKK has led to nothing but death and destruction for the peoples in the region. They can stop their terrorism now and bow out gracefully, or be defeated and humiliated.

Turkey is a terrorist state. The United States is a terrorist state. NATO is a terrorist organization. They created ISIS and continue to protect it. 

ISIS will be the chief beneficiary of the proposed US-Turkey plan to establish a no fly zone in northern Syria. 

But they will fail. They will not accomplish any of their aims. Their terrorism has no purpose but destruction. NATO, the U.S., Turkey, and ISIS will be defeated. Obama and Erdogan will go down in history as the two biggest terrorist leaders in modern memory. 

The American and Turkish peoples need to reflect on the violence and terrorism their governments are perpetrating in the name of national security, do some national soul searching, and elect more moral leaders to guide them in the future.
An excerpt from, "Balkanizing Syria, Buffer Zone In Northern Syria. Redrawing The Middle East Map." by Stephen Lendman, Global Research, July 29, 2015:
At Monday’s daily State Department press briefing, AP’s Matt Lee asked spokesman Admiral John Kirby “what’s going on with the Turks? (I)t seems like a really bizarre situation has unfolded over the course of the past week with them (claiming to join) the air strikes against ISIS, but at the same time bombing PKK positions” in Syria and Iraq.
“So what exactly is going on here, and doesn’t this just make an even bigger mess out of the situation than” earlier?
Kirby ducked the question saying “(w)e are grateful for Turkey’s cooperation against ISIL (America’s ally, not enemy) to include now use of some of their bases for coalition (US/Britain/Israel and now Turkey) aircraft to go against targets – ISIL targets, particularly in Syria.”
Fact: Washington provides air support for IS proxy foot soldiers. Syrian infrastructure is targeted. Easily visible columns of IS elements (via satellite imagery) move free of US attacks.
They could easily be destroyed if Washington wanted them eliminated. Just the opposite. Kirby and other US officials claiming America is at war with IS is polar opposite truth.
Matt Lee pressed Kirby on attacking PKK fighters in Iraq and YPG Kurds in Syria – “perhaps the most effective (ones) on the ground against ISIS/ISIL,” he said. “You don’t have a problem with that,” he asked?
Kirby disagreed on Kurdish effectiveness, called the PKK “a foreign terrorist organization” because Washington say so, and added “Turkey has a right to self-defense” – the same rationale as Israel’s phony claim about a Palestinian threat.
Lee pressed further asking “(i)s the US telling Turkey not to go after the PKK if the PKK in Syria are going after ISIL – yes or no?”
Kirby seemed nonplussed – interrupted by another reporter asking “(s)o you don’t know (about Kurdish elements) fighting inside Syria?”
Kirby lied saying “I have no specific information.”
Question: “Who is shooting at whom at this point?”
Kirby ducked the question – without explaining sophisticated US satellite imagery he understands well as a retired navy admiral, able to follow ground activity wherever the Pentagon wishes.

Obama Struck A Home Run With Iran Deal, But Ditching Kurdish Allies In The Middle of Anti-ISIS Fight Was The Wrong Play

Washington is a sad clown who is juggling too many balls. Somebody needs to cut the lights and tell this clown to leave the stage and go home.

None of Washington's allies can or should trust it. Only blind fools put faith in American promises and deals. Although the P+1-Iran deal is good for the region and the world, it is not a sure thing because Washington is not a trustworthy actor. Never has been. Never will be. Anyone who believes otherwise is either dishonest or has not read enough history.

The best thing for the U.S. to do would be to leave the Middle East completely, every inch of it, leave every ally and enemy behind, and concentrate on rebuilding home. China is building the future and the U.S. should do the same. Too much money has already been wasted elsewhere.

The Middle East will blossom without America. The worst thing to happen to the region in the last half century, worse than ISIS and other idiotic extremists, worse than religious tyranny, worse than a hundred dictators, has been constant US interference.

Saudi Arabia and Turkey will take a hit from losing their ally, for sure, but Israel will be fine because it can defend itself on its own, and Israel's security is all that seems to matter in Washington anyways.

The alternative is to piss off ally and enemy alike. And the sad clown isn't strong or smart enough to juggle a region in total chaos.

The only option for Washington is to leave the stage before it is burned down and let the bloody show go on without it.

July 28, 2015

U.S. And Turkey Seek To Bolster ISIS In Northern Syria By Bombing The PKK

“History doesn't repeat itself but it often rhymes." - Mark Twain.

Ever since the illegal U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in the fall of 2001 the role of Pakistan has come under constant scrutiny. Numerous American officials and Western diplomats have said on record that Pakistan is playing a double game in the war on the Taliban and other extremists in Afghanistan. And they're absolutely right on this point.

In fact, a former top Pakistani spy named General Durrani openly bragged not too long ago in an interview with Al Jazeera that his government secretly aids the Taliban against the Afghan pepole and the international-backed Afghan government.

The man gave his reasons, and naturally morality and the lives of innocent Afghan civilians were not factors in his military calculations. He sincerely believes that backing the Taliban and Jihadist terrorism in general is in his country's best geopolitical and security interests.

It's may be in the army's best interests, but the nation's? Not so much.

The air of arrogance around him was off-putting, but at least he had the guts to say on camera that his government supports terrorist groups to promote the national interest. He knew the game the other side was playing, so clearly Mr. Durrani isn't a stupid man. But the thing that was most memorable from the interview was his boldness and matter-of-factness speaking style.

No former or current official from the Turkish, American, Israeli and Saudi states have ever revealed as much, whether to domestic or foreign media.

Turkey, like Pakistan, has backed Jihadist terrorist groups in a neighbouring country with the full knowledge and backing of the scum in Washington. The only difference is the duration of their support to Jihadist terror groups and their stated national objectives. The tools, the narratives, and the tactics are the same.

Afghanistan and Syria have been the unfortunate victims of their neighbours' pro-terrorist proxy policies. It also doesn't help them that the US and NATO have chosen the side of the aggressor and oppressor.

Afghanistan is a playground where the troublemakers are protected by the teachers. And there is a reason for this. Pakistan and the U.S. have made numerous deals about who to hit and who not to hit in the fraudulent war on terror. This is why the Taliban is still kicking around in 2015. They are being protected.

As part of the deal, the U.S. uses Pakistan's territory as a key supply route. Occassionaly there are threats from Islamabad to interupt the flow but it hasn't acted on them in a serious way.

In return for Pakistan's collaboration in the fraudulent war on terror, it gets to strike the so-called "bad Taliban" in its neck of the woods, who are targeting Pakistani soldiers, and feed the so-called "good Taliban" who are terrorizing Afghans and fighting NATO troops in Afghanistan. It's a messed up and failed policy. And Washington has went along with this policy more or less quietly because it also benefits from having Jihadist terror groups around.

Washington is making a similar arrangement with Turkey. Under a new deal signed recently by the Osama adminstration, the US gets to use a key Turkish airbase to do God knows what and Turkey in return will get strong diplomatic backing from Washington in its decades-long war on the PKK/YPG.

Officially Turkish officials are selling their renewed war on the PKK as an air campaign against ISIS but that is clearly a lie in order to get international credibility. The truth is that Turkey, America, Saudi Arabia, Israel, France, England, and Qatar have covertly backed ISIS since the beginning of the war in Syria and they're not about to stop now. ISIS is the only horse they have in Syria.

Will the Talibanization of Syria, envisioned by the tyrants in Saudi Arabia, America, Turkey, and Israel be complete? Will the U.S. and Turkey create an ISIS-free zone in northern Syria wherein ISIS will be free to terrorize and slaughter the local populations even more aggressively than it has before, under NATO air cover? Will Washington, Riyadh, and Ankara help to create the new Caliphate?

The answer to these questions depend on what Assad and the PKK decide to do next. They are being backed into a corner where the only option is to fight. Syrians and Kurds are tough, liberal, secular-minded people and they will not allow the U.S., Turkey, Israel, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia to force feed them ISIS baloney.

Saudi Arabia and Turkey will find, like Pakistan has since the 1970s, that their own conservatively-inclined populations are more susceptible to the poison that ISIS is peddling than the populations they are currently terrorizing and brainwashing in other lands.

What darkness will the US, Saudi Arabia and Turkey ultimately bring over Syria? Will ISIS reign supreme in Damascus as the Taliban once did in Kabul?

One thing is clear: the countries that support Jihadist terrorism only suffer and lose in the end. History shows that. Supporting the Taliban has backfired for Pakistan. Turkey and Saudi Arabia will discover the same bitter fruits on their doorstep in the near future as a result of their current support for ISIS terrorists in Syria and Iraq.

July 27, 2015

Philip Taubman, Award-winning journalist and long-time NYT reporter on the 1986 Reykjavik Summit


Video Title: Philip Taubman, Award-winning journalist and long-time NYT reporter. Source: CTBTO. Date Published: January 28, 2013. Description:
Philip Taubman is a journalist, author and two-time winner of the George Polk Award. For more than 30 years, he worked for The New York Times, including as bureau chief for the Washington and Moscow offices. Taubman is now Consulting Professor at the Center of International Security and Cooperation of Stanford University. He has authored two books: "Secret Empire: Eisenhower, the CIA, and the Hidden Story of America's Space Espionage" and "The Partnership: Five Cold Warriors and Their Quest to Ban the Bomb".

This interview was conducted on 27 September 2012 at the 'Reykjavik' event organized by the CTBTO in New York, where Taubman moderated a panel discussion. Taubman recalls his experience as a reporter at the 1986 Reykjavik Summit, during which Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev came close to an historic agreement on abolishing all nuclear weapons. He remembers the two leaders' disappointment after that goal had eluded them, and explains why Reykjavik was nonetheless a milestone for nuclear arms control.

July 21, 2015

Another Excerpt From "The Partnership: Five Cold Warriors And Their Quest To Ban The Bomb"


Related: PONI Live Debate: Global Zero + An Excerpt From "The Partnership: Five Cold Warriors And Their Quest To Ban The Bomb."

An excerpt from, "The Partnership: Five Cold Warriors And Their Quest To Ban The Bomb" by Philip Taubman:
The new look of weapons modernization work at Los Alamos is just one example of the kind of fundamental change that will be required to move the world toward nuclear disarmament. As Shultz, Kissinger, Perry, Nunn, and Drell well know, an imposing array of political, diplomatic, and technological forces must be favorably aligned---perhaps perfectly aligned---to reach the goal of abolition. Even if one sets aside some related international problems---such as the need to resolve intractable regional conflicts between India and Pakistan or between Israel and its neighbors in the Middle East---the odds against global nuclear disarmament are formidable. President Obama acknowledged as much during his 2009 appearance in Prague when he said the goal might not be reached in his lifetime.

Considering the forty-one-year age difference between Barack Obama and George Shultz, it is easy to understand why Shultz and his partners have a more compressed time frame in mind. They are impatient to move ahead and are working with a sense of urgency on numerous fronts to advance their campaign. As Sam Nunn said, "You can repeat until you turn blue in the face that we want to move towards a world without nuclear weapons, but if you don't have some real accomplishments, and if you don't get some things done, you're not going to move very fast, if at all."

One of the issues they have studied is reconstitution, the notion that in a nuclear-free world the United States and other countries could maintain the expertise, equipment, and materials needed to build new nuclear weapons if faced with an unforeseen nuclear threat. At first blush, reconstitution seems a nuclear double cross to pure abolitionists. If weapons are to be eliminated, so too should the means to make them. But that outcome is unrealistic. The knowledge of how to make nuclear weapons cannot be eradicated. The next best outcome, many experts believe, is to let nations maintain the ability to produce new weapons so that they will not be left helpless if a rogue country goes nuclear at some point.

It is a provocative idea, but one with obvious appeal to realists like Shultz and his colleagues who want to eliminate nuclear weapons in a responsible way that does not leave the United States vulnerable to unpredictable future enemies.

The idea was championed by Jonathan Schell in The Abolition, published in 1984. He wrote: "As reductions continued, the capacity for retaliation would consist less and less of the possession of weapons and more and more of the capacity for rebuilding them, until, at the level of zero, that capacity would be all. Indeed, the more closely we look at the zero point the less of a watershed it seems to be. Examined in detail, it reveals a wide range of alternatives, in which the key issue is no longer the number of weapons in existence but the extent of the capacity and the level of readiness for building more."

The idea is back in vogue today, thanks in part to the work of Shultz, Kissinger, Perry, Nunn, and Drell. Indeed, they have gathered together some of the best minds in the field to study the issue in depth and organized a workshop on related technical issues in 2011.

Reconstitution could come in various forms. Schell initially proposed keeping a bank of bomb-grade materials available so that weapons could be quickly built. Michael O'Hanlon, director of foreign policy research at the Brookings Institution, favors pushing the startling line further back to a world where the production of highly enriched uranium and plutonium has stopped and stocks have eliminated. Drell and other scientists propose keeping weapons laboratories in operation and a highly skilled workforce in place that can restart the bomb-building process. Some scientists at Los Alamos said continual design work on new warheads is necessary to retain top-flight engineers, but others disagree.

Reconstitution is just one of many issues Shultz and his partners are working on as they try to advance their disarmament initiative. The array of topics provides a good guide to the multiple barriers impeding passage to zero. In the diplomatic arena, Russian resistance to further arms reductions has to be overcome before global negotiations about eliminating nuclear weapons can commence. That will require creative American diplomacy with the Kremlin on a broad array of security issues. In the area of defense policy, the greatest obstacle to abolition is overcoming an entrenched Cold War mind-set in Washington that sees nuclear weapons and nuclear deterrence as indispensable elements of national security. And in the technological realm, there are myriad challenges, such as coming up with ways to verify that nations that say they are going to give up their weapons actually do so and that a clandestine effort to rearm---known in the zero-nukes lexicon as a breakout---can be detected. As the work at Los Alamos suggests, the science of maintaining weapons is demanding and will only become more so during a drawdown of arms that may take decades to complete.

It is a daunting list, and covers only some of the matters that must be resolved if the world is to be free of nuclear arms. No wonder Nunn and his partners talk about creating a base camp partway to the summit they seek to conquer, a place where the world can regroup and prepare for the final ascent. As of early 2012, as this book is published, the summit is visible in the far distance, but barely.

Still, there is reason to be encouraged. When the five men take stock of what has happened since their first Wall Street Journal article in 2007, they see significant advances, far beyond their expectations. "I think the progress is astonishing," Shultz said in early 2011.

They have made surprising headway. Their greatest accomplishment is the wave of renewed interest in nuclear disarmament generated by their Journal op-ed and subsequent proselytizing. Government rhetoric so far has outdistanced government action, but garnering the support of President Obama and other world leaders, including the unanimous 2009 UN Security Council resolution endorsing the elimination of nuclear weapons, was no small achievement."[Source: Taubman, Philip. 2012. "The Partnership: Five Cold Warriors And Their Quest To Ban The Bomb," Pg. 361-64. HarperCollinsPublishers: New York].

July 16, 2015

PONI Live Debate: Global Zero + An Excerpt From "The Partnership: Five Cold Warriors And Their Quest To Ban The Bomb"


Description of "The Partnership" [Source: Harper Collins Publishers]:
Illuminating and thought-provoking, The Partnership tells the little-known story of their campaign to reduce the threat of a nuclear attack and, ultimately, eliminate nuclear weapons altogether. It is an intimate look at these men—Henry Kissinger, George Shultz, Sam Nunn, William Perry, and the renowned Stanford physicist Sidney Drell—the origins of their unlikely joint effort, and their dealings with President Obama and other world leaders. Award-winning journalist Philip Taubman explores the motivations, past conflicts, and current debates that drive, and sometimes strain, their bipartisan partnership. Through their stories, he examines the political and technological currents that shaped nuclear strategy during the Cold War—including the 1986 Reykjavik summit, at which Reagan and Gorbachev narrowly missed a landmark agreement to eliminate nuclear weapons—and illuminates how the end of that conflict gave rise to the dangerous realities of today. He reveals the heated discussions taking place in Washington and in nuclear-weapons laboratories, and spotlights current threats and the frantic efforts of America and its allies to prevent the spread of fissile materials.

Meticulously researched and compellingly told, The Partnership demands that we turn our attention to an issue that has the potential to alter our world order. Philip Taubman has provided an important and timely story of science, history, and friendship—of five men who have decided the time has come to dismantle the nuclear kingdom they worked to build.
An excerpt from, "The Partnership: Five Cold Warriors And Their Quest To Ban The Bomb" by Philip Taubman:
The thought of abolishing nuclear weapons was not much on the minds of policymakers in Washington or other capitals as the new millennium opened. With the Cold War receding into history, American and Russian nuclear weapons stockpiles were diminishing. Despite the nuclear ambitions of India, Pakistan, and North Korea, the threat of a global nuclear war seemed all but inconceivable.

As Shultz, Kissinger, Perry, Nunn, and Drell turned their calendars to 2000, the idea that the five men would band together to call for the elimination of nuclear weapons seemed far-fetched, to put it mildly. That the men could give new life to the dormant concept and galvanize world leaders would have sounded even more improbable.

"Going to Zero," cognoscenti shorthand for nuclear disarmament, was a red flag for nuclear weapons sophisticates. To them it bespoke of a flaky idealism and profound ignorance about the realities of the nuclear age and the centrality of nuclear weapons in American defense doctrine. Ronald Reagan and George Shultz had been pilloried for discussing the abolition with Mikhail Gorbachev in Reykjavik. Most Reagan aides thought their boss's repeated allusions over the years to a world free of nuclear weapons were daffy and not to be taken seriously.

The United States continued to rely on its nuclear forces as the ultimate guarantor of its security. While the nation might no longer need to keep Russia at bay by threatening to pulverize it if it ever attacked the United States, defense planners still relied heavily on nuclear weapons to deter aggression, especially aggression involving weapons of mass destruction---nuclear, chemical, or biological. America's allies in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East, the theory went, depended on Washington's "nuclear umbrella" to deter attack by erratic nations like North Korea and Iran and to be able to forgo the development of nuclear weapons themselves. The nuclear gospel held that nuclear arms had helped preserved the peace after two convulsive world wars. Speaking realistically, opponents of zero said, there was no way to erase the knowledge of how to make nuclear weapons, so it was futile to try. Even moving toward zero would be reckless because the balance of power would become much more unstable as nations gave up their weapons, giving any country with just a handful of warheads a potential advantage over its adversaries.

Beyond all those factors, skeptics of zero like Harold Brown, a former defense secretary, and Brent Scowcroft, who served two presidents as national security adviser, feared it would undermine more concrete steps that could be taken to reduce nuclear threats. They thought it would distract attention from measures that might actually make a difference and, worse, equate such steps with the agenda of radical antinuke campaigners.

Scowcroft put it well. "I would not absolutely rule out that the day would come when nuclear weapons would be outlawed. But to me the basic problem is that you cannot disinvent nuclear weapons. And a world without them is likely to be a much more tense and alarming world than we can imagine, because in that world a country that cheats and develops them immediately becomes a superpower, comparatively. And human nature being what it is, it's hard to imagine a world where that wouldn't happen."

For Scowcroft, the emphasis should be on preventing the use of nuclear weapons rather than banishing them. "The right question is, what steps can we take so that nuclear weapons are never used? And to me zero is not that. But it is numbers of weapons, it is the character of the different weapons."

Kissinger, Perry, Nunn, and Drell wrestled with similar doubts, and even Shultz, who threw his arms around zero at Reykjavik, knew that eliminating nuclear weapons would be a devilishly difficult matter. "I didn't know how to get to zero," Perry recalled. "I couldn't imagine quite how you would get there or how you would function once you were there."

Kissinger couldn't, either. Skeptical about the Clinton administration's nuclear weapons policy, he said in 1998, "The national security strategy of the United States is built around nuclear weapons. Yet the rhetoric of the administration stigmatizes them in such absolute terms as to come close to undermining that policy. The administration is right to resist nuclear proliferation but it must not, in the process, disarm the country psychologically. Nuclear weapons cannot be abolished; no inspections system could account for them all." [Source: Taubman, Philip. 2012. "The Partnership: Five Cold Warriors And Their Quest To Ban The Bomb," Part 4, Chapter 23: Going to Zero. Pg. 287-89. HarperCollinsPublishers: New York].
Video Title: PONI Live Debate: Global Zero. Source: Center for Strategic & International Studies. Date Published: October 24, 2013. Description:
"Resolved: Global Zero would make the world more secure."
featuring
Ambassador Richard Burt, U.S. Chair of Global Zero and Managing Director at McLarty Associates
and

Dr. Clark Murdock, Senior Adviser to the Defense and National Security Group and Director of the Project on Nuclear Issues, Center for Strategic and International Studies

The Project on Nuclear Issues (PONI) is pleased to invite you to a live debate over the goal of Global Zero.

In his 2009 Prague Speech, President Obama pledged "to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons." Although admitting this goal may not be reached within his lifetime, the President sparked a heated public debate over the desirability and feasibility of eliminating all nuclear weapons. Proponents argue that nuclear weapons are outdated tools of the Cold War, presenting an unacceptable risk of accidental or miscalculated use. On the other hand, opponents argue that nuclear weapons are secure and have prevented major power conflict for almost 70 years. Ambassador Richard Burt, U.S. Chair of Global Zero and Managing Director at McLarty Associates and Dr. Clark Murdock, CSIS Senior Adviser and Director of the Project on Nuclear Issues, will engage each other and the audience on a debate over Global Zero.

ISIS (Aka Israel-Saudi-Turkey Axis) Is The Big Loser of U.S.-Iran Detente

It's very interesting to see that the biggest critics of the P5 plus 1-Iran nuclear deal are also the biggest, though silent, supporters of ISIS and other Jihadist terrorist movements in the Middle East.

Newspapers like The Washington Post give a platform to an ISIS ideologue one day and bash the U.S-Iran deal the next. These moronic clowns are not even trying to hide their villainy anymore. They're making their beds with terrorists who kidnap Christian priests, rape captured women and slaughter children for sport. And they're ripping a deal that has the potential of boosting the prospects of peace, trade, cultural exchange, and friendship.

It's surprising and encouraging to see the leaderships of the U.S. and Iran move towards pragmatism and form a new relationship based on compromise. What's not surprising is seeing the leaders of Saudi Arabia and Israel literally lose their minds.

Hopefully they will sober up and join the league of rational and responsible states sooner rather than later. But, realistically speaking, they'll just continue to support ISIS, bomb Yemen to pieces, stage false flag attacks around the world, and make life hell for the countries and peoples around them.

They're expending so much energy and money to destroy the countries around them. And for what?

Israel and Saudi Arabia really think they're luxurious and secure islands on another planet, safe from the consequences of their vicious and evil policies. They're operating on the delusion that they can get away with supporting ISIS terrorism forever. But nothing lasts forever.