NATO Baltic Buildup Threatens Belarus And Russia
by Rick Rozoff
Stop NATO
April 21, 2012
The defense ministers of Belarus and Russia, jointly the Union State, met in the Belarusian capital of Minsk on April 18 and underlined the need for the two countries to strengthen military cooperation in response to the qualitative intensification of North Atlantic Treaty Organization deployments and operations on and near their borders.
Russian Defense Minister Sergei Serdyukov stated, “We are troubled both by an increase in NATO’s activity near the borders of the Union and plans of the U.S. and other members of the alliance to deploy elements of a missile defense shield in Europe.”
The Belarusian defense minister, Major-General Yuri Zhadobin, issued a comparable and complementary warning; he was paraphrased by the state-run Belarusian Telegraph Agency as commenting: “Preparations of international troops near Belarusian borders have been stepped up in recent years: plans of neighboring countries, which are NATO members, to modernize their military forces are being implemented, including ten military airfields and four seaports meant to receive foreign troops. There are plans to station US air forces in Poland in Q4 2012, with a modern air defense system deployed in the immediate vicinity of the Union State borders. All these factors force one to seek effective military and technical solutions to these threats.”
To believe that NATO has shifted its focus entirely away from its Cold War-era target, the now former Soviet Union, in favor of waging neo-colonial wars in the Balkans, Asia, Africa and the Middle East is both inaccurate and dangerous. Sophisticated, next-generation interceptor missiles slated for deployment in Poland, which borders both Belarus and Russian territory, no later than six years from now are assuredly not directed toward Iran, much less North Korea, and have no conceivable role in such standard NATO casus belli ruses as combating terrorism and piracy, fending off computer hacking or enforcing the Responsibility to Protect.
As the Russian and Belarusian defense chiefs noted, the most menacing moves by NATO are in Europe, most particularly in the Baltic Sea region, where any military conflict would immediately, inevitably, escalate into a confrontation between the world’s two major nuclear powers and the only nations with a triad of strategic delivery systems: NATO mainstay the U.S. and Russia. In particular, military aggression against Belarus, linked to Russia both through the Union State and the Collective Treaty Security Organization, could not avoid triggering a clash between NATO and the Pentagon on the one hand and Russia on the other.
At the end of February the European Union, in conjunction with the United States – collectively NATO – enforced new sanctions and travel bans against Belarus and recalled all its member states’ ambassadors from Minsk in an escalation of “regime change” measures alarmingly evocative of similar ongoing actions against Syria and those against Libya in 2011.
That NATO, emboldened by what it has celebrated as an unprecedented victory in Libya last year and avidly seeking a new mission after (if there is an after) Afghanistan could take military action against Belarus – or in the South Caucasus or against nations like Zimbabwe or even Venezuela – is not an unimaginable possibility. The bloc certainly arrogates to itself the option of doing so.
As mentioned above, the Western alliance is preparing the military infrastructure for doing just that: Air and naval bases, training and command-and-control centers, missile and radar sites, cyber defense (read warfare) and airlift capabilities, and integration of the armed forces of regional and NATO-wide armed forces in the Baltic region.
In March of 2004, three months before the three countries were inducted into the alliance, NATO began air patrols over Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania based in the air base at the Šiauliai International Airport in Lithuania. Conducted under the deceptively innocuous name of Baltic Air Policing, three-month rotations of four warplanes supplied by the U.S., Germany, Britain, France, Turkey, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Spain, Portugal the Czech Republic and Romania have flown near the borders of Russia and Belarus for over eight years. Estonia and Latvia border the Russian mainland and Lithuania (as well as Poland) abut its non-contiguous Kaliningrad district. Latvia, Lithuania and Poland border Belarus.
Before the patrols were instituted, the Russian defense minister at the time, Sergei Ivanov, warned that they would entail the deployment of NATO, including American, warplanes “a three-minute flight away from St. Petersburg,” Russia’s second largest city.
This February NATO announced it was extending the air mission until 2018, fourteen years after it commenced. Early this month U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton cited the Baltic operation as an example of NATO capabilities to be discussed at the bloc’s summit in Chicago next month.
The current rotation consists of German F-4 Phantom II long-range supersonic jet interceptor fighter-bombers. Germany has been responsible for four of the past nine rotations. Only in a world without a sense of history – even a sense of irony – could the Luftwaffe deploy combat aircraft near Russian territory and the fact pass without notice.
On September 25, 2010 Lithuania’s near neighbor Estonia completed a three-year project to upgrade the Ämari Air Base to accommodate NATO warplanes. The government in Tallinn announced that the expanded, modernized Soviet-era base could accommodate 16 fighters, 20 transport planes and 2,000 personnel a day.
Estonia’s President Toomas Hendrik Ilves – born in Sweden and raised in the U.S. where he worked for Radio Free Europe during the Reagan years of the 1980s – at the time stated, “NATO will have one of the most modern air force bases in the region at its disposal.”
Three years ago a Polish news source disclosed that NATO had allotted over one billion euros to upgrade and expand military capabilities in Poland and had modernized seven military airports, two seaports and five large fuel bases (12 in total were planned) and that six strategic long-range aerial radars had already been completed. The Atlantic bloc also equipped military airfields in Powidz, Lask and Minsk Mazowiecki with new installations to increase their logistical and defense capabilities.
NATO projects also include the establishment of air defence headquarters in Poznan, Warsaw and Bydgoszcz and a radio communications center in Wladyslawowo on the Baltic coast.
In June of 2009 then-Polish Defense Minister Bogdan Klich disclosed that NATO would inaugurate a Joint Battle Command Centre in the northern city of Bydgoszcz where NATO had run a Joint Force Training Centre since 2004, stating that “NATO has decided to heavily invest in Poland by modernizing military infrastructure including air and sea bases.”
Between 2006-2008 the U.S. delivered 48 F-16 Fighting Falcon jet fighters at a cost of $3.5 billion, which represented the largest defense contract by a former Warsaw Pact member state (except for Russia) since the end of the Cold War, the most expensive arm deal in Poland’s history and the first deployment of F-16s to Eastern Europe.
In addition to those F-16s, based near Poznan, last May the Pentagon announced that the U.S. will transfer 16 of its own F-16s from the Aviano Air Base in Italy to Poland along with Hercules C-130 military transport aircraft and special forces transferred from Special Operations Command Europe in Stuttgart, Germany.
A year before, the U.S. deployed a Patriot Advanced Capability-3 interceptor missile battery with over 100 military personnel to the Polish city of Morag, only 35 miles from Russian territory, in the first long-term stationing of missile interceptors in Europe.
In the third stage of the U.S.-NATO Phased Adaptive Approach missile defense program, to be implemented no later than 2018, 24 third-generation Standard Missile-3 interceptors – SM-3 Block IIAs – will be based in Poland.
In August 2008 the U.S. signed an agreement with Poland which includes a “commitment for both states to come to each other’s assistance in case of military threats.” It was the honoring of an analogous treaty with Poland by Britain and France in September 1939 that, the initial phony war notwithstanding, marked the beginning of World War II.
As part of regular exercises conducted by the U.S. and its NATO allies in the Baltic Sea, the latest Baltic Region Training Event (BRTE XI) wrapped up this March 28 at Lithuania’s Šiauliai air base after German, Finnish and Swedish warplanes – Phantom, Hornet and Gripen fighter jets – participated in aerial exercises in support of the NATO air patrol operation. Finland and Sweden are being dragged into full NATO membership, first in Afghanistan and now in the Baltic, behind the backs of their populations.
Also last month, a planning conference for this summer’s Baltic Host 2012 exercises was held in Lithuania. The drills will be part of host nation support obligations in relation to NATO forces and conducted simultaneously in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.
The U.S. Marines Corps last month released details of its role in the upcoming BALTOPS 2012 war games in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, the latest in annual Baltic Operations exercises, by quoting an officer with the Naval Striking and Support Forces NATO:
“This year the exercise includes land, air, and at sea activities all coordinated under a maritime-based Combined Joint Task Force led by Naval Striking and Support Forces NATO (Strike Force NATO). Having performed the CJTF role in 2010 and leveraging recent Libyan crisis experience as part of Operation Unified Protector, Strike Force NATO is looking to achieve a much higher degree of interaction amongst subordinate air, land, and sea components spread across the 1,000 km wide training area.”
The U.S. Marine Corps website added that the exercises “will bring Marines and sailors from Black Sea Rotational Force 12, stationed in Romania, to conduct amphibious/land operations with Lithuania Army Forces, to include counter-insurgency and peace keeping training.”
A planning conference was held by U.S. European Command’s Naval and Marine Forces Europe and the Lithuanian armed forces at the General Adolfas Ramanauskas Warfare Training Center in Vilnius, Lithuania from February 27-March 2 for the purpose.
The U.S. and NATO have turned the Baltic Sea into a powder keg that can be set aflame by a single carelessly tossed match, and “leveraging recent Libyan crisis experience” will not permit the resultant conflagration to be contained.
———————————————————————-———————————–
Source – http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2012/04/21/nato-baltic-buildup-threatens-belarus-and-russia/
Obama’s ‘Martial Law’ Order Revealed: Hidden Executive Order
by Chris Kitze
The Intel Hub
March 19, 2012
The dismissals over President Obama’s latest Executive Order for National Defense Resources Preparedness as just “an update” miss the point.
We’ve hit a nerve on Before It’s News with this story with almost 60,000 views this morning. (Intel Hub Note: The two stories on our site reached another 45,000 people)
People are upset, angry and disappointed. Why? Because a normally arcane proclamation is seeing the light of day, exposing the tip of a vast “shadow government” of black budgets and rules that go beyond anything spelled out by the Constitution.
Ed Morrissey at Hot Air played down the significance of this order :
“In fact, that’s almost entirely what it is. The original EO dealing with national defense resources preparedness was issued in 1939 (EO 8248) according to the National Archives. It has been superseded a number of times, starting in 1951 by nearly every President through Bill Clinton, and amended twice by George W. Bush. Barack Obama may be arrogant, and the timing of this release might have looked a little strange, but this is really nothing to worry about at all.”
Nothing to see here, move along. Actually, Ed, this is a HUGE deal and it’s not going to go away that quickly.
As World Net Daily intoned “If someone wants to make the argument that this is an expansion of presidential powers, then do so based on actual language,” warns Jacobson.
Professor Jacobson is correct, this is really a minor expansion of these powers. The article goes on to point out that:
As it turns out, Obama’s executive order is nearly identical to EO 12919, issued by President Clinton on June 7, 1994, which itself was an amendment to EO 10789, issued in 1958 by President Eisenhower, and which in fact, was later amended by EO 13286, issued in 2003 by George W. Bush.
What’s the REAL story, as the WND email asks? The story is about the power of the internet as a media force.
People are hopping mad because this information is now openly available. In the past, none of this ever saw the light of day. They are waking up and they aren’t happy about what they are seeing.
It’s a similar reaction to when people find out that the Federal Reserve is a private business, not a part of the U.S. Government.
Let’s look at order #12919 mentioned in the WND story. When Bill Clinton was president in 1994, the internet barely existed and the government hadn’t yet set up web sites to publish this sort of proclamation.
People got their news from the NY Times, the Wall St. Journal and the major TV networks…let’s see what kind of coverage this got.
A search of the NY Times since 1851 turned up…ZERO…for a search of Clinton “executive order” 12919. The major TV networks? This wouldn’t even make it into Walter Cronkite’s “circular file”. These orders barely merit a mention, even today.
Yet they have teeth. Go ask any Japanese American who was interned during WWII and had their property stolen.
That was Executive Order 9066 issued by FDR.
The real problem is that a “shadow government” has been established by these executive orders and now you know about it. It’s being exposed. People now realize that they are basically property that can be disposed of at the whim of the president.
Don’t believe me, let’s have a look in the comments to the stories downplaying this order, the WND commenters got right to the point this morning:
dumbboy: BALONEY! Why does it have the word “peacetime” all over it. I can understand during war or “real” national emergencies, but not peacetime! Hey, Mr. Cornell Law (liberal) professor, good try, but some of us aren’t as dumb as you would like us to be! We know how to read and we can actually comprehend! Wonder who you voted for? Wonder where your campaign donations went? Nothing to worry about? Are you kiddin’ me? If it is nothing to worry about them why did Obama do it? You “know it all” guys really crack me up.
EdwinBuck: Calm yourselves, don’t worry, there’s nothing to fear. This is what these government types want to tell you. If you believe this government, shame on you. I have a question; WHAT IS THE FIRST DUTY OF ANY GOVERMENT? ANS: TO PROTECT ITSELF FROM THE PEOPLE. Look what’s happening in SYRIA? The Syrian Government is just protecting themselves from their own people. If you don’t think this government is doing the same thing, protecting itself from the very people they were sworn to protect. They will lie, cheat, steal and yes even commit murder to protect itself from their own people that they have stolen from.
[Potent News Editor’s note: Actually, the situation in Syria is not that simple. There are western-backed armed mercenaries that have been destabilizing Syria. Cross-hairs have been on Syria for a long time.]
People are starting to wake up.
In case you were wondering here’s a long list of some of the other “Executive Orders” you might not be aware of that were collected by Harry Martin:
A Presidential Executive Order, whether Constitutional or not, becomes law simply by its publication in the Federal Registry.
Congress is by-passed. Here are just a few Executive Orders that would suspend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. These Executive Orders have been on record for nearly 30 years and could be enacted by the stroke of a Presidential pen:
- EXECUTIVE ORDER 10990 allows the government to take over all modes of transportation and control of highways and seaports.
- EXECUTIVE ORDER 10995 allows the government to seize and control the communication media.
- EXECUTIVE ORDER 10997 allows the government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels and minerals.
- EXECUTIVE ORDER 10998 allows the government to take over all food resources and farms.
- EXECUTIVE ORDER 11000 allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision.
- EXECUTIVE ORDER 11001 allows the government to take over all health, education and welfare functions.
- EXECUTIVE ORDER 11002 designates the Postmaster General to operate a national registration of all persons.
- EXECUTIVE ORDER 11003 allows the government to take over all airports and aircraft, including commercial aircraft.
- EXECUTIVE ORDER 11004 allows the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate communities, build new housing with public funds, designate areas to be abandoned, and establish new locations for populations.
- EXECUTIVE ORDER 11005 allows the government to take over railroads, inland waterways and public storage facilities.
- EXECUTIVE ORDER 11051 specifies the responsibility of the Office of Emergency Planning and gives authorization to put all Executive Orders into effect in times of increased international tensions and economic or financial crisis.
- EXECUTIVE ORDER 11310 grants authority to the Department of Justice to enforce the plans set out in Executive Orders, to institute industrial support, to establish judicial and legislative liaison, to control all aliens, to operate penal and correctional institutions, and to advise and assist the President.
Without Congressional approval, the President now has the power to transfer whole populations to any part of the country, the power to suspend the Press and to force a national registration of all persons.
The President, in essence, has dictatorial powers never provided to him under the Constitution. The President has the power to suspend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in a real or perceived emergency.
Unlike Lincoln and Roosevelt, these powers are not derived from a wartime need, but from any crisis, domestic or foreign, hostile or economic. Roosevelt created extraordinary measures during the Great Depression, but any President faced with a similar, or lesser, economic crisis now has extraordinary powers to assume dictatorial status.
Many of the Executive Orders cited here have been on the books for over a quarter of a century and have not been applied. Therefore, what makes them more dangerous today than yesteryear?
There has been a steady, consistent series of new Executive Orders, originating from President Richard Nixon and added to by Presidents Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter and George Bush that provide an ominous Orwellian portrait, the portrait of George Orwell’s 1984.
THE EROSION OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS
A series of Executive Orders, internal governmental departmental laws, unpassed by Congress, the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 and the Violent Crime Control Act of 1991, has whittled down Constitutional law substantially.
These new Executive Orders and Congressional Acts allow for the construction of concentration camps, suspension of rights and the ability of the President to declare Martial Law in the event of a drug crisis. Congress will have no power to prevent the Martial Law declaration and can only review the process six months after Martial Law has been declared.
The most critical Executive Order was issued on August 1, 1971. Nixon signed both a proclamation and Executive Order 11615. Proclamation No. 4074 states, “I hereby declare a national emergency”, thus establishing an economic crisis. That national emergency order has not been rescinded.
The crisis that changed the direction of governmental thinking was the anti-Vietnam protests. Fear that such demonstrations might explode into civil unrest, Executive Orders began to be created to allow extreme measures to be implemented to curtail the demonstrations.
The recent Los Angeles riots after the Rodney King jury verdict only reinforced the government’s concern about potential civil unrest and the need to have an effective mechanism to curtail such demonstrations.
Here are the later Executive Orders:
- EXECUTIVE ORDER 11049 assigns emergency preparedness function to federal departments and agencies, consolidating 21 operative Executive Orders issued over a fifteen year period.
- EXECUTIVE ORDER 11921 allows the Federal Emergency Preparedness Agency to develop plans to establish control over the mechanisms of production and distribution, of energy sources, wages, salaries, credit and the flow of money in U.S. financial institution in any undefined national emergency. It also provides that when a state of emergency is declared by the President, Congress cannot review the action for six months.
- EXECUTIVE ORDER 12148 created the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) that is to interface with the Department of Defense for civil defense planning and funding. An “emergency czar” was appointed. FEMA has only spent about 6 percent of its budget on national emergencies, the bulk of their funding has been used for the construction of secret underground facilities to assure continuity of government in case of a major emergency, foreign or domestic.
- EXECUTIVE ORDER 12656 appointed the National Security Council as the principal body that should consider emergency powers. This allows the government to increase domestic intelligence and surveillance of U.S. citizens and would restrict the freedom of movement within the United States and granted the government the right to isolate large groups of civilians. The National Guard could be federalized to seal all borders and take control of U.S. air space and all ports of entry. Many of the figures in the Iran-Contra scandal were part of this emergency contingent, including Marine Colonel Oliver North.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency has broad powers in every aspect of the nation. General Frank Salzedo, chief of FEMA’s Civil Security Division stated in a 1983 conference that he saw FEMA’s role as a “new frontier in the protection of individual and governmental leaders from assassination, and of civil and military installations from sabotage and/or attack, as well as prevention of dissident groups from gaining access to U.S. opinion, or a global audience in times of crisis.”
The Violent Crime Control Act of 1991 provides additional powers to the President of the United States, allowing the suspension of the Constitution and Constitutional rights of Americans during a “drug crisis”.
It provides for the construction of detention camps, seizure of property, and military control of populated areas.
This, teamed with the Executive Orders of the President, enables Orwellian prophecies to rest on whoever occupies the White House.
The power provided by these “laws” allows suspension of the Constitution and the rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights during any civil disturbances, major demonstrations and strikes and allows the military to implement government ordered movements of civilian populations at state and regional levels, the arrest of certain unidentified segments of the population, and the imposition of Martial Law.
When the Constitution of the United States was framed it placed the exclusive legislative authority in the hands of Congress and with the President.
Article I, Section 1 of the United States Constitution is concise in its language, “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”
That is no longer true. The Bill of Rights protected Americans against loss of freedoms. That is no longer true. The Constitution provided for a balanced separation of powers. That is no longer applicable.
This article originally appeared on Before Its News
Tennessee Joins Texas in Fight Against UN’s Agenda 21
Dees Illustration
by Joe Wright
Activist Post
March 18, 2012
I wrote yesterday about encouraging news coming out of Irving, Texas, where Mayor Beth Van Duyne and city manager Tommy Gonzalez pushed back against the globalist takeover of local communities by withdrawing membership from ICLEI, the action division of Agenda 21.
Today, I’m happy to report that Tennessee lawmakers have passed Joint Resolution 587 by a vote of 72-23 to condemn Agenda 21 as “destructive and insidious.”
The language used by the Tennessee lawmakers is worth examination, because it is among the harshest and most truthful that has been used to spell out the true plan that Agenda 21 has in store for the United States.
Contrary to the flowery language that policy makers have used to set Agenda 21 — appealing to well-meaning people through the use of words like sustainability, biodiversity, quality of life, smart growth, and the ever-inclusive human rights — the language contained in Resolution 587 strongly refutes this, stating:
WHEREAS, the United Nations Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of extreme environmentalism, social engineering, and global political control that was initiated at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in 1992; and
WHEREAS, the United Nations Agenda 21 is being covertly pushed into local communities throughout the United States of America through the International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) through local “sustainable development” policies such as Smart Growth, Wildlands Project, Resilient Cities, Regional Visioning Projects, and other ‘Green’ or ‘Alternative’ projects; and
WHEREAS, the United Nations Agenda 21 plan of radical so-called ‘sustainable development’ views the American way of life of private property ownership, single-family homes, private car ownership and individual travel choices , and privately owned farms as destructive to the environment; and
WHEREAS, according to the United Nations Agenda 21 policy, social justice is described as the right and opportunity of all people to benefit equally from the resources afforded us by society and the environment which would be accomplished by socialist/communist redistribution of wealth; and
WHEREAS, according to the United Nations Agenda 21 policy, national sovereignty is deemed a social injustice; now, therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF TENNESSEE, THE SENATE CONCURRING, that the General Assembly recognizes the destructive and insidious nature of United Nations Agenda 21 and hereby exposes to the public and public policymakers the dangerous intent of the plan.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that neither the U.S. government nor any state or local government is legally bound by the United Nations Agenda 21 treaty in that it has never been endorsed by the U.S. Senate.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the federal government and state and local governments across the country be well informed of the underlying harmful implications of implementation of United Nations Agenda 21 destructive strategies for ‘sustainable development,’ and we hereby endorse rejection of its radical policies and rejection of any grant monies attached to it. (Source PDF)
Naturally such a statement of sovereignty, self-direction, and individual rights was criticized by The Southern Poverty Law Center’s Hatewatch as being indicative of “a new new sign of antigovernment extremism creeping into the political mainstream.” The SPLC went on to try to invoke a connection to the John Birch Society, maligning them and others who believe in the foundation of America as a place built by individuals and entrepreneurs, not central planners and authoritarians. (Source) I sincerely hope that the SPLC condemnation is received by Tennessee lawmakers as the highest form of flattery.
Grassroots activism is clearly having a real impact, as Agenda 21 is finally making its way into the open and educating fellow citizens, as well as those in power. House Democratic Caucus Chairman, Mike Turner, stated, “I didn’t know what Agenda 21 was, to be honest with you,” saying he wanted to learn about it. “I had never heard of it before.” Resolution sponsor, Kevin Brooks should be commended for listening to his constituents. He told the press that “It really is a problem that many Tennesseans do know about … the responses we’ve received — emails, letters, phone calls, petitions signed by hundreds of Tennesseans saying, ‘Please protect us’ — that’s what we were elected to do.” (Source)
Yes, that is what they are elected to do; to listen to the voices of concerned citizens, and to ignore the agenda-driven rhetoric from groups like The Southern Poverty Law Center and the elite overlords at the United Nations.
While this Resolution is non-binding, it is an indication that the tide is turning; people are awakening to the strings that are being pulled by the UN to control compromised puppet politicians and slither into local communities undetected until it is too late. Let’s continue to keep up the pressure and encourage other states to take action and resist the advancement of Agenda 21 and its many ancillary programs.
If you would like to learn more about the lexicon of Agenda 21 and what the real definitions are behind their deceptive language, please visit MorphCity’s definitions page here.
Sources for this article:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/11224-tennessee-lawmakers-pass-resolution-blasting-un-agenda-21
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/45312
http://www.tennessean.com/article/20120315/NEWS/303150098/TN-House-passes-resolution-condemning-Agenda-21
Read other articles by Joe Wright here.
You can help spread the word by voting on Reddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/r2bs4/tennessee_joins_texas_in_fight_against_uns_agenda/
The Real McCain: ‘Call to strike Syria ASAP exposes neo-con mindset’ [video]
Russia Today
March 6, 2012
Who needs diplomacy, or international law? Not former presidential candidate (R-AZ) John McCain, who became the first senator to publicly call for a US-led military strike on Syria in order to halt the nearly year-long conflict there. Taking the Senate floor, McCain said there will be no UN mandate for the air strikes he deems the only way to stop the violence — but that a mandate isn’t necessary.
Jacob Hornberger, founder and president of the Future of Freedom Foundation talks to RT. He claims McCain’s idea is a typical neo-con conservative mindset of foreign intervention which implies a regime-change operation aimed at ousting one dictator in order to install another, US-approved dictator.
RT on Twitter http://twitter.com/RT_com
RT on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/RTnews
[Potent News Editor’s note: Jacob Hornberger is definitely right about Maher Arar. For more information on Maher Arar, the innocent man that the US took to Syria to be tortured in 2002, see Arar’s official website, MaherArar.net
A brief look at what happened to him should serve to remind all of us that the US does not care about justice in Syria in any way, shape or form.]
Jacob Hornberger is right –
PN 