Zbigniew Brzezinski's ENTIRE strategy with Kenya/Sudan, Pakistan, & Georgia.

[Magicman]

These videos are MUST-SEE!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MouUJNG8f2k


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-KJCMWcoms




Here is the war-time strategy. Pay attention to Pakistan, the coming conflict with Sudan-Kenya and the Georgia crisis. There's a reason why Obama won't give out his birth certificate and it has to do with because they are planning a coup to rally Kenya and fight Sudan. They need to use Obama's identity influence in order to increase the morale of the Kenyans. This is extremely crucial for the advisor to maintain a stronghold sphere over the continent of Africa. They want to blockade the Chinese/Russian influence and more importantly resources out of Africa! This is why Obama is a pawn in the power struggle using his identity and collectivism as a rouse.


No one knew who Zbigniew Brzezinski before or simply paid no attention when the truth was revealed he is much more important as his policies will be ours. He is a strategist and caused Russia to get into a conflict with Afghanistan. If you honestly believe Obama is who he is you are sadly mistaken. This man's influence is so vast and crucial among the elite that ignoring his policies would be a mistake. Obama's role is being used for Africa so they can control Africa's resources and blockade the Chinese/Russian influence as well as strategizing against Pakistan and strengthening the Europe alliance. Pay close attention to world events there. His policies are worse then Karl Rove under Bush because their picking fights with highly industrialized nuclear capable countries along with resource and proximity wars heavily with Russia and china. So in essence, Obama's cabinet will be closer to bring us to WWIII then Bush did. It wasn't a coincidence that Obama was yelling out rhetoric against Pakistan it's because it was his advisor telling him what to do. All of the fascade and phony bullshit your seeing with Obama and his Kenyan status is really a coup to start using Africa and rallying them. That's why they won't give his birth certificate. This is all CIA strategy; just like in the days of the Shah.

Mr. Grand Chessboard player is striking the morale into the Kenyans, using their leadership as a power game so they will invade Sudan. This conflict or the Pakistan might be the final straw that draws that provokes the East into a conflict with us. He's going to use his puppet Obama's bullshit life story in order to provoke war between the two countries and further cause strife against the Russian/China alliance. This is nothing more then war-time strategy.

Please read about Sudan's influence with the Chinese in order to understand this coming conflict. So, you understand the game of these snakes. Zbigniew Brzezinski was also responsible for using Georgia to attack Russia so now there is a conflict between Russia and Georgia. Zbigniew Brzezinski is NOW provoking Pakistan and will use Kenya against Sudan soon in order to provoke the East.

Story on Chinese control over Sudan:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92282540

LOOK AT THIS WORLD MAP AND SEE THE PROXIMITY OF KENYA TO SUDAN.

http://www.mapsofworld.com/images/maps_of_world_africa.gif

[t0rnado]

Brzezinski was responsible for arming the Taliban against the Soviets. One could argue that he was responsible for the blowback that was 9/11.

[RSLudlum]

HMMMM...and AFRICOM just came online recently. We'll just have to see how this plays out.

[slacker921]

and in case you missed where this is coming from...

The men behind Barack Obama part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MouUJNG8f2k

part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-KJCMWcoms

[socialize_me]

Ahh mah gaaaad we gonna fuckin die!!!

[Danke]

Ahh mah gaaaad we gonna fuckin die!!!

Have anything relevant to contribute...nah, modus operandi, eh?

[socialize_me]

Have anything relevant to contribute...nah, modus operandi, eh?

What's sad is that my reply has more relevance than this thread. Who the fuck is this guy in the YouTube anyway?? Some conspiracy quack who has no clout. A dime a dozen, this guy seems to be just as loud and just as passionate as the rest.

[Danke]

What's sad is that my reply has more relevance than this thread. Who the fuck is this guy in the YouTube anyway?? Some conspiracy quack who has no clout. A dime a dozen, this guy seems to be just as loud and just as passionate as the rest.

Well, then debunk him.

[socialize_me]

"Is Obama HIV positive?"

Wow...nice vid!! Definitely a must see.

</sarcasm>

This is shit.

[socialize_me]

Well, then debunk him.

How can I debunk him when he's making something no one has proof of up?? If I told you I shat golden nuggets one day and sold them, there'd be no way for you to find out. Same difference here. How the hell can anyone "debunk" a fantasy?? Just as Richard Dawkins says he can't prove pink unicorns don't exist, I cannot prove the shit coming out of this guy's mouth to be truth or lies and neither can anyone else!

What's ironic is you're giving him the benefit of the doubt by telling me to debunk his ass, yet all you need is for him to say that he had sex with Pamela Anderson and you'd believe it. So the burden of proof is on my shoulders and not his?? Cute!!

I don't have to prove this guy wrong on anything. He has yet to quote a source. I still don't know who the hell this guy is. Has he worked inside the White House? How can you take his word as gospel?? Daaaamn!! I'd hope you guys would have some rationality requesting at least ONE fucking source from the guy before you go blasting off into Conspiracy Neverland.

[Liberty Rebellion]

Anyone ever check out the reviews of Brzezinski's book "The Grand Chessboard"?

http://www.amazon.com/review/product/0465027261/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1_cm_cr_acr_txt?%5Fencoding=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

[Danke]

How can I debunk him when he's making something no one has proof of up?? If I told you I shat golden nuggets one day and sold them, there'd be no way for you to find out. Same difference here. How the hell can anyone "debunk" a fantasy?? Just as Richard Dawkins says he can't prove pink unicorns don't exist, I cannot prove the shit coming out of this guy's mouth to be truth or lies and neither can anyone else!

What's ironic is you're giving him the benefit of the doubt by telling me to debunk his ass, yet all you need is for him to say that he had sex with Pamela Anderson and you'd believe it. So the burden of proof is on my shoulders and not his?? Cute!!

I don't have to prove this guy wrong on anything. He has yet to quote a source. I still don't know who the hell this guy is. Has he worked inside the White House? How can you take his word as gospel?? Daaaamn!! I'd hope you guys would have some rationality requesting at least ONE fucking source from the guy before you go blasting off into Conspiracy Neverland.

See, that wasn't so hard, you are now on the road to debunk it.


Vs:


Ahh mah gaaaad we gonna fuckin die!!!

[socialize_me]

Wow this guy has it all figured out doesn't he??

Anyone honestly believe this?

[socialize_me]

See, that wasn't so hard, you are now on the road to debunk it.


Vs:

I told you it's impossible. If I made shit up, there's no way for you to ever know the truth or not. What's sad is that for whatever reason it's upon me to prove this guy is a quack instead of the other way around. He's the one making accusations, not me. I'm questioning HIS statements so the ball is in his court.

Get off my ass, get off your ass, and get away from these forums. Go outside and do something.

[Danke]

I told you it's impossible. If I made shit up, there's no way for you to ever know the truth or not. What's sad is that for whatever reason it's upon me to prove this guy is a quack instead of the other way around. He's the one making accusations, not me. I'm questioning HIS statements so the ball is in his court.

Get off my ass, get off your ass, and get away from these forums. Go outside and do something.

Sure there is. If I make something up, just bring facts forward to disprove my statements. Your first reply didn't disprove anything.

Why should I get away from this forum, how about you?

[socialize_me]

This guy is confused. China subsidizes us. Napoleon had a quote saying "Let China sleep for when it wakes, she will shake the world."

China is waking up. If America ever tried to pull half the shit this guy is saying, China could literally destroy us economically. Sure we can nuke China or invade it, but then we'd have enemies in Europe, Asia, and everywhere else in the world. Our military would collapse before we could do this stuff because attacking China or have it go to war with countries where it is allies with would cripple our economy.

As Ron Paul said, all great empires fell economically not militarily. That's what would happen with us. China is an economic superpower and they own us. If we attacked them, not only would Americans probably revolt, but hyperinflation would run amuck. The working man would be starving and America would have to stop its militarism immediately.

Does this guy honestly not have a clue how dependent we are of China?? They're keeping us on life support by financing our debt and they provide everything from shoes to toys to drugs to TV's.

[socialize_me]

Sure there is. If I make something up, just bring facts forward to disprove my statements. Your first reply didn't disprove anything.

Why should I get away from this forum, how about you?

I have been away for most of the day. You seem to never get off this forum or website. You live here. I'm worried for your own personal well-being. Go outside and walk or play basketball.

[slacker921]

Wow this guy has it all figured out doesn't he??

Anyone honestly believe this?

Personally - I think Brzezinski is an evil fucker and you could tell me he plans to exterminate everyone in China and I wouldn't doubt it. But that's just me. We'll never know for certain whether this guy in the YouTubes is full of it or not (maybe the plans change, maybe they fall through, maybe it was total BS.. who knows)... unless it happens.

That said, this is all too neatly packaged, and I don't think the events mentioned are or will be the sole work of Brzezinski... there are many other people tugging on the strings of the leaders of the world. To say that one man is going to control it all is to ignore all the other plans out there for world domination (and profit).

And to totally ignore this as "conspiracy theory" and call this guy a nutjob would just be ignoring the fact that Obama has Brzezinski whispering in his ear... and Brzezinski has a history of stirring up conflict (with the intended target being Russia).

[eric_cartman]

here's a good documentary some of you might enjoy. it's about space weapons and planning for WWIII.

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-4835966027154828456&hl=en

[Danke]

I have been away for most of the day. You seem to never get off this forum or website. You live here. I'm worried for your own personal well-being. Go outside and walk or play basketball.

Thanks for your concern. I caught a cold two days ago. So I am here to stay for a while (and I never close my browser). Besides, a lot of people here have something interesting to read.

[slacker921]

here's a good documentary some of you might enjoy. it's about space weapons and planning for WWIII.

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-4835966027154828456&hl=en

from about 53:00 on it's pretty clear that he doesn't understand that Bush is NOT a conservative. It's also clear that he wouldn't give a Libertarian the time of day since they're the mean people who want to take away the nanny state.

[Magicman]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUF2rJ0OhN4


China must have access to African oil or else the Chinese economy will recess rapidly. Brzezinski figures this will force China to invade the oil rich fields of southeast Russia just above North Korea. If China were to militarily take these oil fields from Russia, the two would obviously war which is what Brzezinski seeks. That plan is perfect in his eyes as it will weaken those two super-powers thus enabling American imperialism to regain strength. The real problem with this plan is that the Russians and Chinese are well aware of it. They know what Brzezinski intends to do. Unfortunately, the end result will most likely back fire on the west and produce world war III. China, and Russia against the US, and Europe.


The ethnic cleansing in Georgia during the olympic opening ceremonies was a trademark Brzezinski move. It was designed to make the Russians look bad. The censored US media will lead you to believe that the Russians attacked Georgia when in fact the Georgian military attacked the Russian province of S. Ossetia which then, in turn, caused the Russian military to storm into Georgia to stop the civilian killing. 08/08/08 will be viewed as the first event of world war three in my opinion.

In his book Between Two Ages, Zbigniew Brzezinski proposed an alliance between North America, Western Europe, and Japan which became the basis of The Trilateral Commission. Soon after his rendezvous with Rockefeller, Brzezinski developed the idea of a Pax Americana vis-à-vis the international financiers:

— America is compelled to accommodate itself to the emerging international context. This means that the US government has a mission to guarantee and protect the various arrangements that have been contrived by private business — Here.

In other words, it was necessary for the international upper class to band together to ensure that political leaders were brought to power who would protect the Zionist bankers global financial interests.


ANY DOUBTS THAT OBAMA IS A PUPPETof Zbigniew Brzezinski and the Trilateral Commission ended when Brzezinski appeared on MSNBCs Morning Joe on March 21 2008 to campaign for Obama, wrote Rense.com political analyst Webster Tarpley Here.

In his book Obama A Postmodern Coup Tarpley says that Brzezinski is seeking a global showdown with Russia and China - a far more dangerous venture than the Neocon/Bush Iraq fiasco.

Tarpley observes that the Neocon/Bush era is over & is now replaced by the Brzezinski-Trilateral-Rockefeller phase of aggression. Tarpleys most recent remarks are quite revealing:

— Obamas first task as President will be to drive the Chinese out of Africa thus depriving them of oil and raw materials. Pakistan and other Chinese allies will be targeted for destruction. When Obama says bomb Pakistan and send more troops into Afghanistan he is expressing the Brzezinski strategy.

Brzezinski will advise Obama to break up both Russia and China reducing both to petty states which would give Washington another century of world domination — Here.

Of significant note is that thus far Obama has raised $340 million for his campaign compared to McCains $132 million. Would it be a surprise to anyone that a good portion of Obamas campaign money is coming from the Zionist bankers that Obama is now tied to?

http://www.realjewnews.com/?p=240

[Magicman]

US Policy Shift On Iran-Iraq
Again Shows Brzezinski
Rules In Washington
Looming Attack On Pakistan Spells Nuclear
Confrontations With China, Russia & Their Allies
By Webster G. Tarpley

Washington, DC, July 17, 2008 -- With the Bush regime sending a top State Department diplomat to sit down with Iranian officials, with signs that the US departure from Iraq may now be accelerated, and with Israel beginning to make deals with Hezbollah, some observers in this capital are beginning to celebrate Peace in Our Time in an outburst of midsummer euphoria. But this perspective is an illusion: the United States and NATO now escalating the hopeless and unwinnable Afghan war, and is preparing to send US and NATO forces on the ground to seize parts of Pakistan, a country which is almost 3 times more populous than Iran, and possesses a nuclear arsenal and the means to deliver it. The Bush-Cheney-neocon era in foreign policy is over, and the Brzezinski-Trilateral-Rockefeller-Soros phase of aggression has begun; the US hit list now features Chinese allies like Sudan, Zimbabwe, and Pakistan. Brzezinski is striving to put together some huge provocation for the Beijing Olympics, to make the Chinese government lose face and begin disintegrating. The ultimate targets of the new Obama-Brzezinski foreign policy are Russia, China, and the other members and friends of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, the main pole of resistance in the world to the designs of Washington and London. The stakes are now much higher than a mere conventional clash in the Persian Gulf. Brzezinski's adventurism goes far beyond that of the neocons, and objectively places the danger of a thermonuclear exchange on the world agenda. Watch for the Polish-Czech-Lithuanian missile crisis, a Balkan crisis, and a crisis between Georgia and Russia to point the world in this ominous new direction.

The US government is now being run by the Principals' Committee, an interagency cabal that includes Defense Secretary Gates, Secretary Of State Rice, Joint Chiefs Chairman Mullen, Secretary of the Treasury Paulson, and other operatives of the Trilateral Wall Street financier faction. It is clear that under the new policy, Iran will be able to continue to process uranium: 'The Bush administration's decision to send a senior American official to participate in international talks with "More news and information about Iran." Iran this weekend reflects a double policy shift in the struggle to resolve the impasse over the country's nuclear program. First, the Bush administration has decided to abandon its longstanding position that it would meet face to face with Iran only after that country suspended its uranium enrichment, as demanded by the "More articles about Security Council, U.N." United Nations Security Council. Second, an American partner at the table injects new importance to the negotiating track of the six global powers confronting Iran - France, Britain, Germany, Russia, China and the United States - even though their official stance is that no substantive talks can begin until uranium enrichment stops. The increased engagement raised questions of whether the Bush administration would alter its stance toward Iran as radically as it did with North Korea, risking a fresh schism with conservatives who have accused the White House of granting concessions to so-called rogue states without extracting enough in return.' (New York Times, July 17, 2008) This gambit of appeasing Iran is being done in the hopes of turning Iran against Russia and China * a project of incalculable folly. Brzezinski is glad to see the Iranians have nukes, because he thinks he can keep them, pointed at Moscow.

At the same time, US and NATO forces are getting ready for a large-scale invasionof Pakistan, with the excuse of catching the phantomatic Bin Laden. The real goal is to so humiliate and discredit the current US puppet regime in Pakistan that the country will descend intom civilwar and split apart, destroying a key Chinese ally in the proicess. The timetable is short: 'ISLAMABAD, July 13 (Reuters) - The Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, visited Pakistan on the weekend, fueling speculation that the United States was about to take action against militants in northwest Pakistan.' Even troops of other NATO states are getting ready to attack Pakistan: 'KABUL, July 16 (Reuters) - NATO forces in Afghanistan hit targets inside Pakistan with artillery and attack helicopters after coming under rocket fire from across the border, the alliance said on Wednesday. Tension is high along the border with a sharp rise in attacks in eastern Afghanistan coming from inside Pakistan that Afghan and NATO officials blame on de-facto ceasefires between the Pakistani military and militants in its lawless tribal belt. (Reuters North American News Service, July 16, 2008) All of which goes to show that Brzezinski is mad as a hatter.

THE BRZEZINSKI-OBAMA PLAN FOR RUSSIA

Groaning under the weight of two lost wars, the terminal crisis of the US dollar, banking panic, and hyperinflation, the US ruling elite is attempting to unify itself around Obama for a breathtaking reversal of their entire strategic and ideological field. The intent is to largely jettison the post-9/11 enemy image of Islamic terrorism and the focus on the Middle East, and to shift target to Russia, China, and their allies in a vast global showdown or planetary end game for which Trilateral asset Obama is supposed to be the figurehead. As outlined by the cold warrior and Russia-hater Brzezinski, the first phase is to eject the Chinese from Africa, cutting off their access to oil and raw materials, and thus sabotaging their current rapid industrial development. All of Africa is rapidly becoming a battlefield of the US against the Chinese, and Obama is the ideal front man for this. Chinese allies like Sudan and Zimbabwe, and also Pakistan and Burma, are all being targeted as part of this plan. With Iran and Syria, the effort will not to attack them, but to turn them against Russia and China. This Brzezinski design is why Obama says he wants to negotiate with Iran, but bomb Pakistan. China is being weakened and destabilized by the Tibetan insurrection and other operations, and Zbig would like to stage a large-scale incident under the cover of the summer Olympics. In the final stage, Zbig thinks he can drive the oil-starved Chinese in on Russia's provinces of eastern Siberia, where there is much oil and few Russians. Obama is thus the bearer of a plan for Sino-Russian World War III that far surpasses the insanity of the neocons. Since Russia and China are both well aware of the Brzezinski plan, this entire lunatic project is sure to blow up in our faces, with cataclysmic results. The Iraq war will seem a tea party by comparison. The main grounds for aggression in the new phase will be humanitarian and human rights claims, not terrorism, so as to maximize left cover. The Bin Laden pretext is now mainly for Afghanistan-Pakistan, where the existing war is being expanded and re-directed to fit the new policy.

OBAMA ESCALATES AFGHANISTAN, ATTACKS PAKISTAN

An example of the heightened aggressiveness that could be expected under the Brzezinski plan was the question of unilateral US bombing of Pakistan. Not a few observers spent the first half of 2008 worrying about an imminent attack on Iran. The reality was that the growing power of the Brzezinski faction in Washington made such an attack less and less likely, at least as far as the United States and the United Kingdom were concerned. But these same observers were largely blind to a program of systematic aggression being carried out by the United States and the British against Pakistan, a country that was almost 3 times larger than Iran, and became equipped with nuclear weapons and medium-range ballistic missiles to deliver them. Every gust of wind in the Persian Gulf was considered a harbinger of Armageddon, but the constant bombing raids in the northwest regions of Pakistan were considered a matter of scant importance.

The irony was that the bombing attacks on Pakistan had been demanded by none other than Obama. Speaking indeed the July 2008 Democratic candidates' debate held in Chicago, Obama had stated: ' what I said was that we have to refocus, get out of Iraq, make certain that we are helping Pakistan deal with the problem of al Qaeda in the hills between Afghanistan and Pakistan. But, if we have actionable intelligence on al Qaeda operatives, including bin Laden, and President Musharraf cannot act, then we should. Now, I think that's just common sense. I don't know about you, but for us to authorize -- (cheers, applause) -- (inaudible) --.' Senator Clinton had disagreed with this reckless and unilateral approach. Senator Dodd had joined Clinton in criticizing Obama. Senator McCain had scored Obama for making such a reckless and incendiary proposal. Even Bush himself stated that he intended to work closely with President Musharraf in regard to all operations conducted by the United States on Pakistani territory.

Since the tenant of the White House had ruled out the unilateral bombing of Pakistan which Obama had demanded, the matter appeared to be closed. Jake Tapper of ABC News found it striking that Obama, who was posing as the peace candidate for Iraq, should be so aggressive in regard to Pakistan. Tapper showed that Obama was raising the issue on the campaign trail, quoting him. '"I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges," Obama said, "but let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will." There it was again: unilateral US bombing of a sovereign state that had nuclear weapons. Tapper commented: 'In many ways, the speech is counterintuitive; Obama, one of the more liberal candidates in the race, is proposing a geopolitical posture that is more aggressive than that of President Bush.' (Jake Tapper, 'Presidential Candidate Pushes Aggressive Stance Toward Pakistan,' ABC News, August 1, 2007) In other words, when it came to Pakistan, Obama was a bigger warmonger and any Republican or Democrat in sight, including Bush and McCain, to say nothing of Clinton.

Astoundingly, the power of Brzezinski in Washington grew so rapidly that Obama was destined to prevail over Bush, the alleged president, imposing his policy instead of the announced intentions of the man who kept calling himself the president of the United States. Late in March 2008, a press account revealed that the US had indeed gone over to unilaterally bombing northwest Pakistan: 'The United States has escalated its unilateral strikes against al-Qaeda members and fighters operating in "Pakistan's tribal areas, partly because of anxieties that Pakistan's new leaders will insist on scaling back military operations in that country, according to U.S. officials. "We have always said that as for strikes, that is for Pakistani forces to do and for the Pakistani government to decide. . . . We do not envision a situation in which foreigners will enter Pakistan and chase targets," said Farhatullah Babar, a top spokesman for the "Pakistan People's Party, whose leader, Yousaf Raza Gillani, is the new prime minister. "This war on terror is our war." But Kamran Bokhari, a Pakistani who directs Middle East analysis for Strategic Forecasting, a private intelligence group in Washington, said the new government will almost certainly take a harder line against such strikes. "These . . . are very unpopular, not because people support al-Qaeda, but because they feel Pakistan has no sovereignty," he said. The latest Predator strike, on March 16, killed about 20 in Shahnawaz Kot; a Feb. 28 strike killed 12 foreign militants in the village of Kaloosha; and a Jan. 29 strike killed 13 people, including senior al-Qaeda commander Abu Laith al-Libi, in North Waziristan. (Robin Wright and Joby Warrick, :US Steps Up Unilateral Strikes in Pakistan," Washington Post, March 27, 2008)

Soon it became clear that this was a systematic US bombing campaign and represented a scandal as big in its own way as the Nixon-Kissinger secret bombing of Cambodia back in the early 1970s. This is no hyperbole; we must simply remember that a nuclear power, and not some banana republic, is being attacked! The US bombing campaign was being conducted with wild and reckless abandon, and members of Pakistani paramilitary formations were getting killed: 'Pakistan is condemning a "Pakistan: US airstrikes kill 11 border troops" U.S. air strike which allegedly killed 11 Pakistani paramilitaries as a "completely unprovoked and cowardly act." U.S.-led forces killed Pakistani troops in an air strike along the volatile Afghan border that Pakistan's army condemned on Wednesday as "completely unprovoked and cowardly." U.S. officials confirmed that three aircraft launched about a dozen bombs following a clash between Taliban militants and Afghan and U.S.-led coalition forces late Tuesday. Pakistan says the strikes killed 11 of its paramilitary troops. The Pakistani army said the air strike hit a post of the paramilitary Frontier Corps in the Mohmand tribal region and was a "completely unprovoked and cowardly act." It launched a strong protest and reserved "the right to protect our citizens and soldiers against aggression," the military said in a statement. The statement said the clash "had hit at the very basis of cooperation" between the allies in the war on terror.'

The Pakistani government was now the one elected in the elections conducted after the death of Benazir Bhutto in December 2007. This was supposedly the regime the US had wanted to install, but Brzezinski was doing everything possible to humiliate, mortified, and thoroughly antagonize the new government in Islamabad. 'The Frontier Post of Pakistan reported: 'On June 10, 2008 US - led coalition forces along the Afghan border launched an air strike on a Frontier Corps Sheikh Baba border post in the mountainous Gora Prai region in Mohmand Agency. 11 Pakistani paramilitary troops including one major, 10 civilian killed and several injured. The incident took place inside Pakistan, near the border with Afghanistan. Pentagon confirmed that coordinated artillery and air strikes was carried out. On Jun 11 2008, Prime Minister Gilani condemned the deaths, telling parliament: "We will take a stand for the sake of this country's sovereignty, for the sake of its dignity and self-respect". He further revealed that "We do not allow our territory to be used. We completely condemn this, and will take it up through the foreign office."("NATO's Senseless Aggressiveness in FATA," Frontier Post) By early July 2008, the US was making preparations to escalate: 'US commandos are reportedly poised to launch raids against al-Qa'ida and Taliban targets in Pakistan as Washington moves an aircraft carrier into the Arabian Sea. The redeployment of the Abraham Lincoln and its escort vessels from the Gulf yesterday came after US military intelligence officials recorded an increase in the number of foreign fighters travelling to Pakistan's tribal areas to join with militants.'

What is Brzezinski doing? He is obviously using the absurd pretext of bin Laden, Al Qaeda, and the Taliban in order to destroy the central government of Pakistan, and promote civil war, Balkanization, partitioning, and subdivision in that country. The goal is evidently the division of Pakistan into three or four or five petty states, including such areas as Sind, Pushtunistan, Baluchistan, Waziristan, and so forth. This operation has nothing whatsoever to do with bin Laden, Al Qaeda, the Taliban, or the "global war on terror," but had everything to do with the fact that Pakistan was a traditional Chinese ally and economic and trading partner. Pakistan had to be destroyed as part of the Brzezinski strategy to strip China of all of allies, and promote the isolation and encirclement of the Middle Kingdom. Northwest Pakistan is one of the very few parts of the world where the US continued to rely on the bin Laden-Al Qaeda myth to justify its policy. Elsewhere, pretexts and cover stories about humanitarian intervention and human rights, and nuclear non-proliferation, are on the front burner.

GOP LAMENTS: LAME DUCK BUSH REDUCED TO CHILD'S PLAY

In the late spring and early summer of 2008, it is clear that Bush, Cheney, and the neocons had indeed lost power to Brzezinski and company. Bush and Cheney appear to have about as much power as the White House janitor or the groundskeeper at the Naval Observatory. Bush and Cheney are variously described as finished, washed up, lame ducks, figureheads, and kaput. Some Republicans were becoming concerned that Bush had lapsed into a figurehead-lame-duck status, and impotence and passivity so extreme that they might become a negative factor for McCain in the upcoming election. One columnist noted: 'Some of President Bush's allies tell the Political Bulletin they are embarrassed and angry that the White House seems to be wasting Bush's time on frivolous events when much of the country is suffering through economic hard times. "Look at the schedule for Monday," says an outside Bush adviser. "A highlight of his day was witnessing a tee ball game. ... He is being reduced to child's play." The adviser says Bush also signed a supplemental appropriations bill for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan on Monday, but he adds that it didn't get much coverage and that the tee ball game set the wrong tone. There is growing concern among Bush allies that the Democrats will effectively portray the President and GOP candidate John McCain as out of touch. Some GOP insiders now predict that the Republicans will lose at least five seats in the Senate and 15 to 20 in the House, and it could get worse if gasoline prices continue to soar and the public remains in a disgruntled mood.'

RICE HUMILIATES CHENEY WITH NORTH KOREA DEAL

Another leading symptom of this loss of power by Bush and Cheney is the announcement by Secretary of State Rice, another member of the Principals' Committee, that a deal has been reached with North Korea concerning the termination of the North Korean nuclear weapons program, in exchange for which the United States had pledged to remove North Korea from the State Department list of terrorist states. The remaining neocons were apoplectic to the point of foaming at the mouth. The British press revealed that the diehard Cheney had fought tooth and nail to block this deal, but had been vanquished by Rice -- and thus by the superior power of the Principals' Committee, in our view: 'Vice President Dick Cheney fought furiously to block efforts by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to strike a controversial US compromise deal with North Korea over the communist state's nuclear program Mr Cheney was so angry about the decision to remove North Korea from the terrorism blacklist and lift some sanctions that he abruptly curtailed a meeting with visiting US foreign experts when asked about it in the White House last week, according to the New York Times "I'm not going to be the one to announce this decision. You need to address your interest in this to the State Department," he reportedly said before leaving the room. "The exchanges between Cheney's office and Rice's people at State got very testy. But ultimately Condi had the President's ear and persuaded him that his legacy would be stronger if they reached a deal with Pyongyang," said a Pentagon adviser who was briefed on the battle. Top neocon John Bolton was beside himself with rage, and saw this deal with the DPRK as a harbinger of the final neocon Götterdämmerung: '"It's shameful," said John Bolton, Bush's former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. "This represents the final collapse of Bush's foreign policy." (CBS-AP, June 26, 2008) The mood of his fellow neocon Richard Perle was equally apocalyptic: '"Usually the word 'meltdown' applies to a nuclear reactor. In this case it applies to Bush administration diplomacy which once aimed to halt the North Korean program and has now become an abject failure," Richard Perle, chairman of the Pentagon defense policy board in the run-up to the 2003 Iraq invasion, told the Telegraph.' (Daily Telegraph, June 28, 2008) Both Bolton and Perel, for once, have it right. Brzezinski and his tool Rice are running the show.

MULLEN WARNS ISRAELIS: DON'T ATTACK IRAN

At the same time, a pattern of intense diplomatic activity has emerged across the Middle East, even as the Israeli politician Shaul Mofaz was threatening Iran with an inevitable nuclear attack if it were to persevere in its alleged attempts to procure nuclear bombs. The Israelis are known to be negotiating with Syria in a series of talks mediated by the Turkish government. The Israelis were also making deals with Hamas and Hezbollah, something that was formally speaking a violation of the strict Bush doctrine in this regard. Remarkably, the top levels of the US government have issued some unusual warnings to the Israelis, telling them to back off from any plan to strike at Iran: President Bush and the top "U.S. Armed Forces" U.S. military commander warned "Israel" Israel... against bombing Iran, suggesting the " U.S. doesn't want to get involved in a third war. "This is a very unstable part of the world and I don't need it to be more unstable," "Michael G. Mullen" Adm. Mike Mullen, the Joint Chiefs chairman [and leading member of the ruling Principals' Committee], said at a briefing. Bush said, "I have made it clear to all parties [including Israel] that the first option is diplomacy," in getting Iran to stop enriching uranium that could be used for a nuclear weapon. The warnings came after the disclosure that Israel had conducted air operations over the Mediterranean that could simulate a strike on Iran.'

In addition to these public warnings, there are also reports of private messages telling the Israelis to back off. One was personally delivered by Admiral Mullen of the Principals' Committee, according to the Israeli press: 'The US did not give the green light for an Israeli attack on Iran, Prof. Anthony H. Cordesman, a former Pentagon official and currently the top defense analyst at the ABC TV network, said Monday. Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Michael Mullen. Cordesman was speaking during a meeting with Israeli defense analysts held by the Institute of National Security Studies. He said IDF Chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi was notified of the United States' stance regarding Iran by Admiral Michael Mullen, the top uniformed US military officer, during Mullen's visit here at the end of June. The US has opted at this point to stick to the diplomatic track in its efforts to keep Iran from going nuclear, and has made clear to Israel that it shouldn't attack Iran without White House approval, Cordesman said. He added that the current US policy is likely to remain unchanged at least until the next US president is sworn in. Israeli officials confirmed that Cordesman's statements indeed reflected the current tone of US policy.'

There are solid indications that Iran is being offered the possibility of continuing to enrich uranium at the level of its present capacity to do so, while opening a negotiation with Javier Solana of the European Union. This was welcomed by the Iran Foreign Minister Mottaki, and was widely regarded as the prelude to a deal or modus vivendi between the US under Brzezinski and the Iranians: ''Iran agreed to enter into talks with the European Union about its nuclear program before the end of the month, Iranian state-run media said. The EU, which recently placed sanctions on Iran, has offered a package of political, economic and security incentives to Iran if it halts uranium enrichment. Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili, called EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana to tell him the response to that offer was coming, according to Iran's Islamic Republic News Agency, and Solana's office characterized Jalili's tone as friendly and positive.

[Magicman]

The EU has proposed suspending further sanctions if http://topics.edition.cnn.com/topics/Iran" Iran takes a six-week break from installing or manufacturing any more centrifuges that enrich uranium. Iran would be allowed to continue to run the more than 3,000 centrifuges it already has but could not manufacture more ("Iran ready to discuss EU's nuclear offer," CNN, July 4, 2008) In the midst of these negotiations, Iran launched a number of medium and short range ballistic missiles. The neocons tried to beat the drum, but the response of Secretary Gates of the Principals' Committee was as low-key and placid as could be imagined: 'The United States is no closer to confrontation with Iran after Tehran test-fired missiles it says could reach Israel and U.S. assets in the Middle East, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Wednesday. Asked if the United States was any closer to confrontation, Gates told reporters: "No, I don't think so." Gates also said it was "highly unlikely" that Russian air defense missiles would be in Iranian hands soon. An improved air defense system would make a strike on Iran more difficult.' (Reuters: "Pentagon chief: US no closer to Iran confrontation," July 9, 2008) Gates also mentioned the terrible consequences which any hostilities with Iran would have. The following day, there were press reports that the US was allowing the Israelis to use Iraqi airspace to ready an attack on Iran. These reports were quickly denied by the Pentagon. An Israeli attack could not be ruled out, but there was no doubt that the US and the British were strongly opposed to the idea, which would undercut Brzezinski's entire plan to turning Iran against the Russians.

There was yet another example of a Principals' Committee member overriding Bush and making policy. On July 11, 2008, it was reported that Treasury Secretary Paulson had convinced Bush that the administration policy of hostility (based on Bush's hatred of FDR and the New Deal in any form) to Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac, the twin giant mortgage guarantors and lenders whose debts amounted to some $5.3 trillion, was risking a systemic crisis of the US banking system * a financial Armageddon. Paulson reportedly told Bush that if he insisted on driving Freddie and Fannie into bankruptcy liquidation, systemic crisis would quickly follow and Bush would be Hooverized in very short order, long before he left office. At this point, wheels were set into motion and the Federal Reserve signaled that Freddie and Fannie would get access to the discount window of the US central bank. This story is highly relevant here because it shows the degree to which the members of the Principals Committee are now running the government and telling Bush what to do on most the major issues. It is clear that Brzezinski and his fellow Trilateral oligarchs intend to maintain and consolidate the current preeminence of the Principals' Committee under a possible future Obama administration, and also if McCain becomes president, although that variant is much less promising for their hopes of giving US imperialism a hyper-demagogic facelift. In the case of McCain, the Trilateral inside operative would be Ian Brzezinski, the neocon son of the clan patriarch, who tells McCain what to say about world affairs.

NEOCONS DISPLACED BY TRILATERALS, 2006-2008

The erosion of neocon power had proceeded apace, starting around the time of the 2006 US congressional elections. Around that time, British intelligence began signaling the urgent necessity of shifting target towards Russia by staging to bombastic intelligence circuses in the form of the Politkovskaya murder and the Litvinenko radiation bomb affair, both of which were immediately blamed on Russian President Putin. The British also stepped up their subversion efforts inside the Russian Federation under the cover of cultural exchanges conduit through the Foreign Office front organization, the British Council. As a result of the new Democratic majority in the Congress, the discredited neocon factional leader Rumsfeld was forced out and replaced by Robert Gates, a Sovietologist who had served as the Russophobe Zbigniew Brzezinski's office boy at the National Security Council during 1977, 1978, and 1979. Gates had also been active in Brzezinski's mujaheddin operations against the Soviets, operations which had been given birth to the CIA Arab Legion, Al Qaeda. At the end of 2006, the report of the Iraq study group, also known as the Baker-Hamilton commission, signaled a change in oligarchical policy and with it the beginning of the end of the neocon dominance in Washington.

The Iraq study group recommended that there be no US attack on Iran, and that negotiations with Syria and Iran be begun immediately. James Baker, a former secretary of state under Bush the Elder, stated explicitly that he had procured Syria as an ally for the United States during the first Gulf War, and that he could do so again. Neocon press organs screamed that Baker and Hamilton were "surrender monkeys," but the handwriting was now on the wall. The middle of the year saw the fall of the crypto-neocon Tony Blair, a creature of Rupert Murdoch and the last of the major European leaders who had cooperated with Bush and the neocons to unleash the Iraq war in the first place. The last serious attempt of the neocon faction to launch war with Iran probably occurred at the end of August and the beginning of September 2007, when rogue forces allied with Cheney in effect hijacked a B-52 intercontinental strategic bomber carrying six nuclear armed cruise missiles, and flew it from North Dakota to Louisiana. One of more of these missiles was probably destined to join in the Israeli attack on Syria which occurred on September 6. The fact that this B-52 was not allowed to proceed, and that a consensus against letting it leaves the United States rapidly emerged in the higher levels of the oligarchy, probably represented the last gasp of the US - UK neocons as far as starting a wider war was concerned. Bush's outbursts in October and November about World War III were partly directed against Putin, and partly expressed his frustration that no strategic attacks on Iran were likely.


This overall impression was solidified in December 2007 with the issuance of the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran, which concluded that there was no longer any active Iranian program to build nuclear bombs. In 2008, attention was already shifting to such classic Brzezinski gambits as Kosovo independence and the emerging Polish missile crisis, along with the Tibet insurrection, threats to attack Sudan, and a clear desire to use a humanitarian emergency in Burma as a pretext for a humanitarian invasion and regime change because the Burmese junta was not an efficient distributor of relief supplies. In these same months, the US Supreme Court was handing down majority opinions striking down the Bush-Cheney military commissions plan for alleged terrorist captives, and then asserting the right of habeas corpus for the prisoners being held in the US exclave of Guantánamo Bay Cuba. Once again, the neocons howled in their impotence. Then came the deal to de-list North Korea as a terrorist state, followed by increasing indications of an imminent deal with Iran, even as the attacks on Pakistan escalated and that country teetered on the brink of civil war and partition.

The years had not been kind to the neocons: Scooter Libby had been convicted, and only escaped prison through bushes highly controversial pardon. Lord Conrad Black, arguably an even bigger neocon then Libby, was now actually serving a multi-year prison sentence in a US federal penitentiary for embezzling money from his companies. Lord Black had been one of the major funders of the American Enterprise Institute, where no less a personage than Lynn Cheney, as well as Richard Perle and Michael Ledeen had been employed. As for neocon Michael Ledeen, his problems might only be beginning: a report from the Senate Intelligence Committee alleged that Ledeen and his old Iran-Contra friend Ghorbanifar had conspired to manipulate US intelligence during the run-up to the Iraq war. This report had no doubt received much personal attention from the Committee Chairman, who was none other than Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, of the Trilateral-Rockefeller faction which also included Brzezinski. Other neocons like torture advocates and Geneva Convention deniers Addington (Cheney's Cheney) Yoo were hauled in front of the Nadler committee of the House to be grilled and lambasted. These were some of the steps by which the Trilaterals had ousted the neocons from their previous positions of power, had neutralized Bush and Cheney, and had generally introduced a demagogic left turn in the entire posture of Anglo American foreign policy, propaganda, and intelligence operations. Now, all they needed was a figurehead to become the spokesman for this deceptive and cynical left turn -- and this was obviously the role assigned to Obama.

If the American people could imagine no conflict worse than the Iraq war, or even the now-unlikely Iran war, they were obviously suffering from a severe poverty of imagination. Zbigniew Brzezinski's imagination was richer than that. He could and did imagine a drive to break up both Russia and China, reducing both to a congeries of warlords and petty states, all absolutely impotent to resist the Anglo-Americans. That would give London and Washington another century of world domination. Brzezinski would always claim that his intention was to accomplish all this using proxies, surrogates, and pawns, and without embroiling the US in direct war with Russia and China. His approach had all the defects of the old Astor family-Cliveden set of the 1930s, who were convinced that they could build up Hitler, turn him east, play him against Stalin, and then destroy both Germany and the USSR in the process, letting the British Empire survive for another hundred years. Unfortunately, they had been too clever by half, and their plan had blown up in their faces when Hitler turned west before going east. That had caused World War II. Now, it was clear that Brzezinski's fantastic strategy was also destined to blow up in his face, and in all our faces, except now there are ICBMs and H-bombs. The Russian leader Vladimir Putin and his faction clearly had read Brzezinski's intentions accurately: "Where did you get a public opinion that we should fully disarm and then, according to some theoreticians, such as Brzezinski, divide our territory into three or four states? If there is such a public opinion, I would disagree with it," Putin had stated on June 4, 2007.

OBAMA A ONE-WAY TICKET TO THERMONUCLEAR WAR

An Obama regime was therefore a probable one-way ticket to thermonuclear war, an outcome several orders of magnitude worse than anything the neocons had ever plotted. Brzezinski and his friends were more aggressive, more adventurous, more intelligent, and more insane than the neocons. The American people, if they succumbed to Obama, were about to leap out of the frying pan and into the fire.


http://www.cfr.org/publication/14004/democratic_debate_transcript_chicago.html
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=3434573&page=1
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2
008/03/27/AR2008032700007_2.html?sid=ST2008032700935
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2008/06/us_airstrikes_kill_pakistani_troops/
http://www.thefrontierpost.com/News.aspx?ncat=ar&nid=194&ad=16-06-2008
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24000236-2703,00.html
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_080703.htm
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2008/07/02/2008-0
7-02_dont_bomb_iran_bush_warns_israel-1.html
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1215330891157&pagename
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/07/04/iran.threat/index.html
http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=245597

[Magicman]

THIS GUY IS A FULL BLOODED SNAKE!


"This regionalization is in keeping with the Trilateral Plan which calls for a gradual convergence of East and West, ultimately leading toward the goal of one world government. National sovereignty is no longer a viable concept."

---Zbignew Brezinski, National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter


You know this is the truth when Youtube starts deleting videos pointing this out :) Look at this link below it's gone.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5idQm8YyJs4

[Truth Warrior]

It was generous of Zbig to share his detailed plans and counsel with you.<IMHO> :D

[Magicman]

Yes, you're right.


That said, this is all too neatly packaged, and I don't think the events mentioned are or will be the sole work of Brzezinski... there are many other people tugging on the strings of the leaders of the world. To say that one man is going to control it all is to ignore all the other plans out there for world domination (and profit).

And to totally ignore this as "conspiracy theory" and call this guy a nutjob would just be ignoring the fact that Obama has Brzezinski whispering in his ear... and Brzezinski has a history of stirring up conflict (with the intended target being Russia).

It wasn't just ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI he is a Knights of Malta. He served under the pope. The pope had relations with him and the vatican and jesuits played a significant role in destabilizing the U.S.S.R. along with the CIA. To dismiss this history and his role with Africa especially this person who brought 0% proof other then insults shows he has no ability to disprove anything other then his off-stated opinion and is a waste of time to debate here. These are all facts and the fact there deleting videos just proves the connections to the Jesuits even more. I'm still trying to figure out how the Jesuits and the Zionists are highly tied together as Obama's cabinet is full of these spies who are each doing their bid to cause instabilitity and power plays. Maybe, they all work on the same end result agenda while pretending to be on the opposing team.


Here is much more about all the connections between the Jesuits, Knights of Malta, Pope and so on with ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI. It's just he states the policies while he is obedient to the vatican and the CIA carries out the operations. Obama is just a CIA created operation to stage a coupe in Africa as Zbigniew is a strategist and most of his works are aimed at Russia or China.



Proof of ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI meddling in Africa's affairs many times including Nicaragua:

http://books.google.com/books?id=IbFXs7_LutMC&pg=PA240&lpg=PA240&dq=Zbigniew+Brzezinski,knights+of+malta&source=web&ots=6Hvya4-Tky&sig=HB1B_RyZ_KVLnF-6spD9QkXjdPg&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=10&ct=result#PPA7,M1






http://tomgpalmer.com/2005/04/11/a-narrow-and-uncharitable-view-of-the-popes-impact-on-the-communist-world/


John Paul II and Lech Walesa, January 15, 1981

Washington Post columnist Marc Fisher offers a corrective in Slate to some of the inflated claims of the role of Pope John Paul II in the collapse of communism in Europe. Although claiming to see the bigger picture, the piece is remarkably myopic. Fisher draws entirely on the experience of the people of Germany, who smashed down their wall. As he writes, “No one I spoke to in Leipzig that night mentioned the pope.”

I always asked: Why are you doing this? And the answers came in a torrent, as if decades of silence had been unplugged. Especially in East Germany, where almost everyone could watch West German TV (though they had to keep the volume way down because it was strictly verboten to watch, and if the neighbor heard, there could be trouble), people talked about their jealousy for the material goods that Westerners enjoyed–the clothes, the shoes, the cars, the food. They talked about their dreams of traveling outside the Soviet Bloc and about the hopes–mainly for a particular career or area of study–they’d had when they were young. And they talked about the freedom to say what they wanted or to teach their children about realities other than what the socialist state had ordained.

Many people showed remarkable courage, as well as an intuitive grasp of complex issues in game theory. After all, the most important chant in Leipzig and Dresden was not “Kommunisten ‘raus!” (”Communists Out!”) but “Auf die Strasse!” (”Onto the street!”). They knew that the more people who could be mobilized to join the protests, the lower the chance that any one of them would be punished, and the greater the chance (as well as the chants) that yet more would join.

But …. it was events in Poland that showed that one could stand up to the Communists, that there were a lot more of “us” than there were of “them.” No one can reasonably deny the impact of the Catholic Church in Poland in demonstrating the hollowness of the People’s State. The impact was systemic and was felt, indirectly to be sure, in virtually everything that followed. (And we shouldn’t forget the influence of the Hungarians, who pressured their government to allow the East Germans who had poured into their country to cross freely into Austria.)

Fisher acknowledges that influence, but then for some reason suggests that to acknowledge it is to imply that nothing else mattered:

This week, it’s been a given in most of the tributes to the pope that he was fully or at least largely responsible for the fall of communism and the collapse of the Soviet empire. And surely, this pope’s firm and insistently communicated stand for freedom inspired his fellow Poles to rise up against the regime that controlled their country.

But elsewhere in the old Eastern Bloc, the pope’s impact was at least a couple of steps removed from the courageous decisions that ordinary people made to head out onto the streets and march in protests that they fully expected would be met with absolute resistance from the Soviet forces and their local puppets.

In other words, many people demonstrated their courage. Perhaps in Germany, among those with whom Fisher met, “No one I spoke to in Leipzig that night mentioned the pope.” But that does not mean that he had no influence on them. Acknowledging that they also showed their own courage does not diminish the influence for good of John Paul II. No, he did not wrestle Communist tyranny to the ground single handedly. But he did put his considerable resources and energy into showing that it could be defeated. I will always remember him with fondness for his courage and effectiveness in staring down Communism and helping millions of people to escape from tyranny.



http://www.jknirp.com/zbig.htm


A Discussion of the Legacy of Pope John Paul II
featuring Zbigniew Brzezinski

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MARGARET WARNER: The tens of thousands of people crowding St. Peter's Square today seem to come from everywhere on earth. And Friday's funeral will be attended by more than 100 political leaders from around the world, who recognize that this pope's influence extended far beyond his Church. John Paul II, the first truly global pope, traveled to nearly 130 countries.

And he did more than rally the Catholic faithful. He also weighed in on secular and political issues. He confronted dictators and pressed for human rights in Latin America and Asia. Yet he quashed the so-called "Liberation Theology Movement," in which leftist priests challenged despotic Latin American regimes on behalf of the poor.

His most enduring political legacy was encouraging the nonviolent democratic revolution that ended communist rule in his native Poland, and beyond. The pope publicly opposed all the recent U.S.-led wars in the gulf, the Balkans, Afghanistan and Iraq. Yet Secretary of State Rice hailed John Paul this week, calling him "a world statesman."


Pope's impact in the political realm
MARGARET WARNER: And for more about the pope's impact in the world of geopolitics, I'm joined by Zbigniew Brzezinski. He was national security adviser to President Carter when John Paul became pope. A native of Poland himself, he knew John Paul personally, before he was elected pontiff and afterwards. Welcome back.

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: Nice to be with you, Margaret.

MARGARET WARNER: Does the pope deserve all the credit he's getting for the end of communism in Eastern Europe?

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: He certainly deserves an enormous amount of credit for it, but not in the way it's being expressed, particularly in the American mass media. He is only too often in my view presented as somehow or other having colluded with the U.S., Even with the CIA, to overthrow communism. It didn't work that way.

Now, he and President Carter had much in common in terms of their emphasis on human rights. We as the United States and then later Reagan promoted human rights very directly politically. The pope did something very different, which was not political but it had a political effect. He stripped communism of its myth of invincibility. He demonstrated that the appearance of unanimity in communism was a sham, that people were universally against it, and that is what had that effect.

MARGARET WARNER: So is that -- I was going to ask you why that one trip, that first trip to Poland in 1979 had such impact. Was that it? Suddenly, these masses turned out to see him.

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: That's right. The masses in a country which is intimidated, in which there are many informers, in which people were afraid to communicate freely. The country all of a sudden discovered that they all share the same aspiration and the same resentments, and the regime discovered that it was weak and isolated.

MARGARET WARNER: Where did this willingness -- more than willingness, determination -- to confront totalitarianism, at least the communist sort, come from? I mean, we hadn't seen that from other Church leaders, necessarily.

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: Probably from the combination of personal experience and profound conviction of a broader type which that experience generated. He grew up as a young adolescent under the Nazi occupation. Then he lived under Stalinism. I think that taught him what happens when violence is institutionalized and tramples the human being. And then that became deepened with a philosophy, a theology in which he really placed fundamental and central emphasis on the sanctity of the human being and on the mysterious divinity within each human being.

MARGARET WARNER: I read that he said once, "I learned the great lesson of my generation: Humiliation at the hands of evil."

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: That's very strong and very good. Humiliation at the hands of evil, but also -- and this always struck me about him -- total serenity and certainty that the evil ultimately will fail. That was even in the worst days. There was just no doubt when you spoke to him that he was confronting evil; that he was serenely confident that it will fail.


Reaction of Communist regime
MARGARET WARNER: Did the regime in Poland who knew him, of course, as priest Karol Wojtyla, did they know when he became pope that that was trouble?

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: They certainly knew. I can even tell you an anecdote which I think illustrates that, but I have to warn you it's slightly off-color, I hope that's permissible, but it's true. It's an authentic story. The communist writers in the city of Krakow - the communist writers -- were having a party cell meeting, and a secret police colonel was giving an oration on subversion. And he really referred to Karol Wojtyla, the name of the pope, as being the source of this subversion.

MARGARET WARNER: Before he was pope.

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: Before he was pope. He wasn't pope yet. When all of a sudden, the lady who presides over the buffet-- I assume probably an alcoholic buffet-- bursts into the courtroom and screams loudly "Wojtyla has just been elected pope." The colonel comes to a dead stop. Sitting next to him on the podium was the first party secretary and the second party for the region. The first party secretary was so stunned that he forgot that the microphone was on. He turns to the second party secretary where the colonel is silent and says to him loudly, "My God, my God, from now on we'll have to kiss his ass;" whereupon, the second secretary turns to him and equally loudly says, but in a whimper, "Only... only if he lets us." That tells you how the communist regime felt and immediately recognized that they were now dealing with a formidable force.

MARGARET WARNER: Now how do you explain his willingness to confront authoritarianism in Eastern Europe and his very different record in Latin America? I mean, at least people on the side of the so-called liberation theology school, in which the leftist priests really allied themselves with revolutionaries, were devastated when the pope came in and fired, retired and otherwise expunged many of these priests and made it very clear...

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: It's very easy to answer you. It's part of your own introduction to the show that contains the answer. You referred to him as having been so instrumental in the peaceful democratic revolutions in Eastern Europe. Christianity is not about violence. What liberation theology tried to do was to combine the sense of outrage at injustice with Marxist concept of the class struggle and violent revolution. This pope knew and he preached that violence begets violence. Yes, he was for the oppressed, but he wasn't for violent revolutions, either against a communist regime or in Latin America. He was being consistent. He was being a Christian. Christianity does not believe in violence.

MARGARET WARNER: And does that explain his opposition to many of these recent wars? And by the way, I misspoke in that tape and I thought we fixed it, he did not oppose the Afghanistan War. I thought they had fixed it. If you take the Bosnian, the Kosovo conflict, the first Gulf War, whatever, that he spoke out against them.

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: Because --

MARGARET WARNER: But yet, let me add this. He had a spokesman say that the pope is not a pacifist. Explain that.

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: That's right, because basically the doctrine which he was propounding -- which is not just his; it's the doctrine of Christianity and Catholicism -- is that the use of violence has to be a last resort, that you have a right to self-defense and therefore even to kill in self-defense. But it has to be self-defense. And some of these wars didn't qualify as such. In contrast, and you're quite right in drawing attention to the fact that he did support U.S. military action in Afghanistan -- that was an obvious, direct reaction to the World Trade assault, the World Trade Center assault, to the killing of thousands of Americans and the immediate need to defend ourselves against further attacks.


Extent of the pope's reach in global issues
MARGARET WARNER: Now, there were also things he wanted to accomplish on the world stage that he did not, are there not? I mean, other than he failed to stop these wars.

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: Well, I think his greatest mission was to revive the sense of spirituality in the increasingly materialistic, even somewhat decadent west. I think, to a great extent, what we see today is that he accomplished that to a degree with younger people. Secondly, he certainly contributed to the fall of communism, which he expected but as I said wasn't directly involved in fighting it but had the effect of defeating it. What he did not accomplish were two important wishes, one publicly known and one not known. The first was to close the gap between the Catholic Church and Greek orthodox and Russian Orthodox and particularly Russian Orthodox. And he was rebuffed on this by the Russians.

The second one was something that he used both in terms of verbal instructions but also in the transfer of some documents, namely to initiate negotiations with the Chinese government, with Deng Xiaoping, about an opening between the Roman Catholic Church and the People's Republic of China. He wanted that very fervently. I think he wanted to visit China at some point. He wanted to open the opportunity for Catholics to be Catholics in China in a true sense but the Chinese government was not receptive.

MARGARET WARNER: From all your conversations with him -- and I know you had many in meetings and correspondence -- did he see himself as a political actor on the world stage, and did he see himself as different from his predecessors in any way?

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: I don't know how he saw himself in relationship to his predecessors. I do know that he was interested in politics and liked to discuss politics. At least, that's where we related more. We didn't talk that much about theology. But again, I want to stress that this was a view of politics as a kind of arena on which events happened which he could influence from above, so to speak, like the Christian-Jewish dialogue, a very important thing, but it also helps peace in the Middle East, et cetera.

We just shouldn't instrumentalize him as a politician. He was not in the same sort of league as FDR or Churchill or Gorbachev or Reagan, which some people have been saying. He was apart, in my judgment, above that because he tried to deal with the totality of the human condition and he really saw as his mission the creation of a direct bond between humanity and divinity I think in a unique way, transdenominational. He achieved that in a significant degree on a global scale.

MARGARET WARNER: And why do you think he was able to achieve that as much as he was? I mean, was he the right man in the right time? Was it more the right time or was there something really special about him and his gifts?

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: Probably it was the right time, in a sense. That's hard to judge. But he had two gifts, one kind of fundamental and one instrumental. Fundamental was a faith and a charisma that was really infectious. It was very hard to understand it, but there was something about him that was serenely confident and yet strong. Secondly, he was a very good communicator. He was an actor at one point in his life, and he knew how to reach out. He had an enormous impact, particularly on young people, which I think tells you something about his magnetism. I think the combination of the two made him a man of the time but probably a pope for the ages.

MARGARET WARNER: Zbigniew Brzezinski, thank you.

[Truth Warrior]

I wasn't defending him nor claiming that he was a good guy. :rolleyes: CHILL! :D

[Magicman]

I wasn't defending him nor claiming that he was a good guy. :rolleyes: CHILL! :D

I wasn't referring to you, Truth Warrior.



Btw, this is also VERY telling. Look at who Obama put as an economic advisor and the damage he did to further destroy Brazil and Africa's economic structure during the 80s. Interesting he'd pick this guy to further drag them into debt as he destabilized Africa as a whole into debt slavery. We'll see I wish I knew more about Volcker and will continue to find more dirt.


Africa: Obama's Economic Advisors - Will Well-Tested Enemies of Africa Prevail?

Drawing on examples such as Thabo Mbeki's role in damaging HIV/AIDS policies in the early 2000s and a current case in a San Franciso court against Chevron for 1998 murders in the Niger Delta, Patrick Bond argues that a similar process of critical treatment is appropriate for Barack Obama's new leading economic advisor, Paul Volcker.

Citing the opinions of a number of prominent political commentators, Bond reviews Volcker's disastrous economic policy at the end of the 1970s, highlighting the deleterious effect of high US interest rates on developing countries' debt repayments and economic development. But with Obama set to 'accelerate Africa's integration into the global economy' under Volcker's influence, the author argues that it is crucial the new president-elect seek alternative economic viewpoints to dominant neoliberal policy less rooted in brutal US national self-interest.

One of Barack Obama's leading advisors has done more damage to Africa, its economies and its people than anyone I can think of in world history, including even Cecil John Rhodes. That charge may surprise readers, but hear me out.

His name is Paul Volcker, and although he is relatively unknown around the world, the 82 year-old banker was recommended as 'a legend!' to Obama by Austan Goolsbee, the president-elect's chief economic advisor (and a professor at the University of Chicago). Volcker was recently profiled by the Wall Street Journal: 'The cigar-chomping central banker from 1979 to 1987, he received blame for driving up interest rates and tipping the US into the deepest recession since the Great Depression.'

We'll consider the impact of Volcker's rule on Africa in a moment. But why dredge up crimes nearly thirty years old? This kind of reckoning is important, as three current examples suggest:

• Reparations lawsuits are now being heard in New York by victims of apartheid who are collectively requesting $400 billion in damages from three dozen US corporations who profited from South African operations during the same period. Supreme Court justices had so many investments in these companies that in May they had to bounce the case back to a lower New York court to decide, effectively throwing out an earlier judgment against the plaintiffs: the Jubilee anti-debt movement, the Khulumani Support Group for apartheid victims, and 17,000 other black South Africans.

• Last month a San Francisco court began considering a similar reparations lawsuit - under the Alien Tort Claims Act - filed by Larry Bowoto and the Ilaje people of the Niger Delta against Chevron for 1998 murders similar to those that took the life of Ken Saro-Wiwa on 10 November 1995.

• In Boston last month, Harvard University's Pride Chigwedere released a study into preventable deaths - at least 330,000 - caused by Thabo Mbeki's AIDS policies during the early 2000s. The ex-president has 'blood on his hands', according to Zackie Achmat of the Treatment Action Campaign, requesting a judicial inquiry.

The same critical treatment is appropriate for Volcker, because of the awesome financial destruction he imposed, within most Africans' living memory. His policies stunted the continent's growth when it most needed internal economic coherence.

Even the International Monetary Fund's (IMF) official history cannot avoid using the famous phrase most associated with the federal chair's name: 'The origins of the debt crisis of the 1980s may be traced back to and through the lurching efforts of the world's governments to cope with the economic instabilities of the 1970s... [including the] monetary contraction in the United States (the "Volcker Shock") that brought a sharp rise in world interest rates and a sustained appreciation of the dollar.'

Volcker's decision to raise rates so high to rid the US economy of inflation and strengthen the fast-falling dollar had special significance in Africa, write British academics Sarah Bracking and Graham Harrison: '1979 marked a radical change in global economic policy, inaugurated with the "Volcker Shock" (so called after Paul Volcker, then chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve) when the United States suddenly and dramatically raised interest rates, [which] increased the cost of African debt precipitously, since a majority of debt stock was held in dollars. The majority of the newly independent states had been effectively delivered into at least twenty years of indentured labor. From that point on access to finance became a key policing mechanism directed at African populations.'

Adds journalist Naomi Klein in her book The Shock Doctrine: 'In developing countries carrying heavy debt loads, the Volcker Shock was like a giant Taser gun fired from Washington, sending the developing world into convulsions. Soaring interest rates meant higher interest payments on foreign debts, and often the higher payments could only be met by taking on more loans... It was after the Volcker Shock that Brazil's debt exploded, doubling from $50 billion to $100 billion in six years. Many African countries, having borrowed heavily in the seventies, found themselves in similar straits: Nigeria's debt in the same short time period went from $9 billion to $29 billion.'

Relevant Links
Economy, Business and Finance
Capital Flows
Sustainable Development
Trade
United States, Canada and Africa
The numbers involved were daunting for low-income countries. According to University of California economic geographer Gillian Hart: 'Medium and long-term public debt shot up from $75.1 billion in 1970 to $634.4 billion in 1983. It was the so-called Volcker Shock...that ushered in the debt crisis, the neoliberal counterrevolution, and vastly changed roles of the World Bank and IMF in Latin America, Africa, and parts of Asia.'

[Truth Warrior]

I wasn't referring to you, Truth Warrior.



Btw, this is also VERY telling. Look at who Obama put as an economic advisor and the damage he did to further destroy Brazil and Africa's economic structure during the 80s. Interesting he'd pick this guy to further drag them into debt as he destabilized Africa as a whole into debt slavery. We'll see I wish I knew more about Volcker and will continue to find more dirt.


Africa: Obama's Economic Advisors - Will Well-Tested Enemies of Africa Prevail?

Drawing on examples such as Thabo Mbeki's role in damaging HIV/AIDS policies in the early 2000s and a current case in a San Franciso court against Chevron for 1998 murders in the Niger Delta, Patrick Bond argues that a similar process of critical treatment is appropriate for Barack Obama's new leading economic advisor, Paul Volcker.

Citing the opinions of a number of prominent political commentators, Bond reviews Volcker's disastrous economic policy at the end of the 1970s, highlighting the deleterious effect of high US interest rates on developing countries' debt repayments and economic development. But with Obama set to 'accelerate Africa's integration into the global economy' under Volcker's influence, the author argues that it is crucial the new president-elect seek alternative economic viewpoints to dominant neoliberal policy less rooted in brutal US national self-interest.

One of Barack Obama's leading advisors has done more damage to Africa, its economies and its people than anyone I can think of in world history, including even Cecil John Rhodes. That charge may surprise readers, but hear me out.

His name is Paul Volcker, and although he is relatively unknown around the world, the 82 year-old banker was recommended as 'a legend!' to Obama by Austan Goolsbee, the president-elect's chief economic advisor (and a professor at the University of Chicago). Volcker was recently profiled by the Wall Street Journal: 'The cigar-chomping central banker from 1979 to 1987, he received blame for driving up interest rates and tipping the US into the deepest recession since the Great Depression.'

We'll consider the impact of Volcker's rule on Africa in a moment. But why dredge up crimes nearly thirty years old? This kind of reckoning is important, as three current examples suggest:

• Reparations lawsuits are now being heard in New York by victims of apartheid who are collectively requesting $400 billion in damages from three dozen US corporations who profited from South African operations during the same period. Supreme Court justices had so many investments in these companies that in May they had to bounce the case back to a lower New York court to decide, effectively throwing out an earlier judgment against the plaintiffs: the Jubilee anti-debt movement, the Khulumani Support Group for apartheid victims, and 17,000 other black South Africans.

• Last month a San Francisco court began considering a similar reparations lawsuit - under the Alien Tort Claims Act - filed by Larry Bowoto and the Ilaje people of the Niger Delta against Chevron for 1998 murders similar to those that took the life of Ken Saro-Wiwa on 10 November 1995.

• In Boston last month, Harvard University's Pride Chigwedere released a study into preventable deaths - at least 330,000 - caused by Thabo Mbeki's AIDS policies during the early 2000s. The ex-president has 'blood on his hands', according to Zackie Achmat of the Treatment Action Campaign, requesting a judicial inquiry.

The same critical treatment is appropriate for Volcker, because of the awesome financial destruction he imposed, within most Africans' living memory. His policies stunted the continent's growth when it most needed internal economic coherence.

Even the International Monetary Fund's (IMF) official history cannot avoid using the famous phrase most associated with the federal chair's name: 'The origins of the debt crisis of the 1980s may be traced back to and through the lurching efforts of the world's governments to cope with the economic instabilities of the 1970s... [including the] monetary contraction in the United States (the "Volcker Shock") that brought a sharp rise in world interest rates and a sustained appreciation of the dollar.'

Volcker's decision to raise rates so high to rid the US economy of inflation and strengthen the fast-falling dollar had special significance in Africa, write British academics Sarah Bracking and Graham Harrison: '1979 marked a radical change in global economic policy, inaugurated with the "Volcker Shock" (so called after Paul Volcker, then chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve) when the United States suddenly and dramatically raised interest rates, [which] increased the cost of African debt precipitously, since a majority of debt stock was held in dollars. The majority of the newly independent states had been effectively delivered into at least twenty years of indentured labor. From that point on access to finance became a key policing mechanism directed at African populations.'

Adds journalist Naomi Klein in her book The Shock Doctrine: 'In developing countries carrying heavy debt loads, the Volcker Shock was like a giant Taser gun fired from Washington, sending the developing world into convulsions. Soaring interest rates meant higher interest payments on foreign debts, and often the higher payments could only be met by taking on more loans... It was after the Volcker Shock that Brazil's debt exploded, doubling from $50 billion to $100 billion in six years. Many African countries, having borrowed heavily in the seventies, found themselves in similar straits: Nigeria's debt in the same short time period went from $9 billion to $29 billion.'

Relevant Links
Economy, Business and Finance
Capital Flows
Sustainable Development
Trade
United States, Canada and Africa
The numbers involved were daunting for low-income countries. According to University of California economic geographer Gillian Hart: 'Medium and long-term public debt shot up from $75.1 billion in 1970 to $634.4 billion in 1983. It was the so-called Volcker Shock...that ushered in the debt crisis, the neoliberal counterrevolution, and vastly changed roles of the World Bank and IMF in Latin America, Africa, and parts of Asia.' Oops! :o Never mind then. Apologies. ;)

[BenIsForRon]

I always thought the goal was to convince china and russia to join NWO, except at lower levels than US/UK. At least that is what NWO spokesperson Fareed Zacharia says:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6137482095211553390

[Magicman]

I always thought the goal was to convince china and russia to join NWO, except at lower levels than US/UK. At least that is what NWO spokesperson Fareed Zacharia says:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6137482095211553390

...They might be already at the higher echelons of power, this maybe just one chess piece of the game aimed to really breaking apart all sovereignty. These men love war but the end-game result is still the same which is world power. In the end, who is doing their bidding? Regular people on the street like you and me whom they'll want to depopulate the world so they can have more sphere and influence and that's where the Rothschild foundation will come into play to use one currency.


"This regionalization is in keeping with the Trilateral Plan which calls for a gradual convergence of East and West, ultimately leading toward the goal of one world government. National sovereignty is no longer a viable concept."

---Zbignew Brezinski , National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter and Obama's Advisor

[Magicman]

Read more about the last Pope and Brzezinski that both supported the "Solidarity Movement"

http://books.google.com/books?id=QZgf13JvMOEC&pg=PA186&lpg=PA186&dq=Brzezinski+a+member+of+solidarity+movement&source=web&ots=XxdZpI4--u&sig=Y-iY4TUahQ_1yyk_WfN5AQxm8s0&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=8&ct=result

Russian attempt to kill the Pope

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8G3J3J00&show_article=1



The Pope and Brzezinski, both natives to Poland had supported the "Solidarity Movement."

Brzezinski was widely interviewed in 1989 with respect to the Solidarity movement which arose in Poland, as well as the imminent dissolution of the Soviet Union. He expressed guarded optimism for the success of the Solidarity movement in his native Poland, and he avowed emphatic support for the demise of Communism. He further advocated some degree of laissez-faire policy by the United States in dealing with Eastern Europe at such a fragile moment in history. He published his thoughts on these matters in a book, The Grand Failure: The Birth and Death of Communism in the Twentieth Century. Brzezinski then took a peek into the 21st century, based on a retrospective of the past 100 years, in his provocative publication, Out of Control: Global Turmoil on the Eve of the Twenty-first Century.


Yes, the Pope and Brzezinski were supporting the Solidarity Movement and have played a role into disassembling the USSR just like there strategizing Africa right now with Sudan and also going after Pakistan. Read more Here if you would like to find out more about what happened HERE


When the government enacted new food price increases in the summer of 1980, a wave of labor unrest swept the country. Partly moved by local grievances, the workers of the Lenin Shipyard in Gdansk went on strike in mid-August. Led by electrician and veteran strike leader Lech Walesa, the strikers occupied the shipyard and issued far-reaching demands for labor reform and greater civil rights. The workers' top priority was establishment of a trade union independent of communist party control and possessing the legal right to strike. Buoyed by a wave of popular support and formally acknowledged by other striking enterprises as their leader, the Gdansk workers held out until the government capitulated. The victorious strikers hailed the Gdansk Agreement of August 31 as a veritable social contract, authorizing citizens to introduce democratic change to the extent possible within the confines of the communist system.

Solidarity, the free national trade union that arose from the nucleus of the Lenin Shipyard strike was unlike anything in the previous experience of Comecon nations. Although primarily a labor movement led and supported by workers and represented by its charismatic chairman Walesa, Solidarity attracted a diverse membership that quickly swelled to 10 million people, or more than one of every four Poles. Because of its size and massive support, the organization assumed the stature of a national reform lobby. Although it disavowed overtly political ambitions, the movement became a de facto vehicle of opposition to the communists, who were demoralized but still in power. With the encouragement of Pope John Paul II, the church gave Solidarity vital material and moral support that further legitimized it in the eyes of the Polish population.

In the sixteen months following its initial strike, Solidarity waged a difficult campaign to realize the letter and spirit of the Gdansk Agreement. This struggle fostered an openness unprecedented in a communist East European society. Although the PZPR ousted Gierek as first secretary and proclaimed its willingness to cooperate with the fledgling union, the ruling party still sought to frustrate its rival and curtail its autonomy in every possible way. In 1980-81, repeated showdowns between Solidarity and the party-state usually were decided by Solidarity's effective strikes. The movement spread from industrial to agricultural enterprises with the founding of Rural Solidarity, which pressured the regime to recognize private farmers as the economic foundation of the country's agricultural sector.

Meanwhile, the persistence of Solidarity prompted furious objections from Moscow and other Comecon members, putting Poland under constant threat of invasion by its Warsaw Pact allies. This was the first time a ruling communist regime had accepted organizations completely beyond the regime's control. It was also the first time an overwhelming majority of the workers under such a regime were openly loyal to an organization fundamentally opposed to everything for which the party stood. In 1981 an estimated 30 percent of PZPR members also belonged to an independent union.

In late 1981, the tide began to turn against the union movement. In the midst of the virtual economic collapse of the country, many Poles lost the enthusiasm that had given Solidarity its initial impetus. The extremely heterogeneous movement developed internal splits over personality and policy. Walesa's moderate wing emphasized nonpolitical goals, assuming that Moscow would never permit Poland to be governed by a group not endorsed by the Warsaw Pact. Walesa sought cooperation with the PZPR to prod the regime into reforms and avoid open confrontation with the Soviet Union. By contrast, the militant wing of Solidarity sought to destabilize the regime and force drastic change through wildcat strikes and demonstrations.

In 1981 the government adopted a harder line against the union, and General Wojciech Jaruzelski, commander in chief of the Polish armed forces, replaced Stanislaw Kania as party leader in October. Jaruzelski's very profession symbolized a tougher approach to the increasingly turbulent political situation. At the end of 1981, the government broke off all negotiations with Solidarity, and tension between the antagonists rose sharply.

[Truth Warrior]

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i304/Truth_Warrior/GlobalElite.png


"And into the Valley of Death, rode the 600."


:D

[Magicman]

Mr. Truth Warrior, this is the game Obama's cabinet is doing and historically and factually proven by their past actions; it's the economic handlers behind the IMF or World Trade Organizations set the debt disaster and usury against the continent of Africa which they created years ago it was Paul Volker now under Obama's administration who helped put most of these countries forever indebted as slavers so these people had to fight for survival just to make ends meet. Africa contains some of the most abundant resources in the world and Europe/America IMF handlers have done a number to put them into debt slavery. The East also has their sphere of influence as well over Africa which is why their has been so many proxy wars there.

Now, the same people under the Obama administration who are using Africa as a key resource are going to use Obama as a crux to free up the debt and make it look like their going to help and unify Africa by fixing their debt. Many people will see this and remember how Obama is their 'savior' and further boost world influence. This plays into Obama helping relieve debt to the third world countries. When in reality, their just using these countries as a boon and morale to fight proxy wars against Russian/Chinese influence. There using countries like Kenya to fight proxy wars against Sudan. All they are doing is switching their roles from debt slaves to militant pawns. Then picking fights with Pakistan until they remove the Chinese/Russian control.

If you study history and see the relationship between Sudan and Pakistan with the East you'll understand more about this is all a war strategy.

Ask yourself this question: Why would the SAME people/organizations who put Africa into debt slavery back then and are now in Obama's cabinet now all of a sudden want to take Africa out of debt slavery?

The answer is because they were used as a resource for debt now that is being switched into being a proxy war resource. It's because by liberating them through debt they can use them militarily against their economic enemies.

Obama's bill to free up debt to third world countries

http://hillbuzz.wordpress.com/2008/04/30/obama-sponsors-bill-for-global-tax-on-us-citizens-to-aid-third-world-nations

http://righttruth.typepad.com/right_truth/2008/02/obamas-poverty.html


As you can see IMF has played a role in coups with Kenya and strategically they have put in a government pro-Europe/America IMF. They rewarded Kenya to free up the debt when they followed what THEY wanted as far as a pro puppet IMF government for THEIR interests. This is no different then the days of the CIA overthrow of the Shah or what their doing in Iraq to put in their puppet leaders. So, Obama's cabinet isn't ANY different then the neoconservatives like the Bush cabinet except by using this puppet named Obama they have a different strategy to implore the same means.

The IMF inserts their influence over Kenya in 2003.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2668601.stm

The Chinese influence over Pakistan

http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=10490

The Chinese Influence over Sudan

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/29/AR2007012901686.html

Why do you think their using an African American as a decoy for this coup? Kenya is a strategic target in order to fight a proxy war against Sudan and then the IMF can reap the rewards.


The IMF Puppets for Kenya

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38702000/jpg/_38702621_kibaki150ap.jpg

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38706000/jpg/_38706699_kenya_bio_tchane150ap.jpg


Kenya's new government could get financial help from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) as early as July.

IMF officials said the money could start flowing if the government fulfilled its promises to take action to stamp out corruption and promote good governance.


Kibaki was elected on an anti-corruption platform
Four years ago the IMF had suspended loans worth $200m, because of concerns over corruption in the administration of former president Daniel arap Moi.

Last December, the opposition parties triumphed in general elections, and Mwai Kibaki was elected Kenya's new president.

'Making the right moves'

The director of the IMF's Africa department, Abdoulaye Bio-Tchane, said initial discussions over the loans would be held next month, followed in April and May by detailed discussions over the government's economic programme.


IMF Africa director Abdoulaye Bio-Tchane praises Kenya's new government
Mr Bio-Tchane said Kenya's new government was making all the right moves and had already started to deliver on its promise to fight corruption:

"I'm happy to tell you that we have already started working with this government and I think all reactions, all the declarations, all the statements made by this government is going in the right direction", Mr Bio-Tchane said.

The failure of Kenya's former government to tackle corruption meant that the IMF never resumed funding once it was suspended.

President Kibaki's government has promised to fulfil the conditions set by the IMF, including the passing of two anti-corruption bills and the development of a strategy to fight poverty.

Mr Bio-Tchane said everyone understood that Kenya's financial situation was very difficult and that new policies introduced, such as free primary education, now had to be paid for.

But he said the government was already looking at how to finance this initiative and that free primary education was something the IMF supported.

[Truth Warrior]

Magicman, you're merely singing to the preacher here, Dude. ;) :D

[Real_CaGeD]

4
Our father's God to Thee,
Author of liberty,
To Thee we sing.
Long may our land be bright,
With freedom's holy light,
Protect us by Thy might,
Great God our King.

[tonesforjonesbones]

Socialize me...what's in a name comrade?

I am GLAD to see all the information on brezizinski...of course he is also a communist.

Clowns to the left of me jokers to the right,,, stuck in the middle with you.

I figured out about about 8 months ago Obama was selected to get us into Africa..it made perfect sense. Now it's playing out...I was remembering all the hoopla from hollyweird about the "humanitarian" efforts in Darfur...and Obama being kenyan...etc...Hollyweird demanding we send troops to Darfur...but now it's coming much clearer the agenda. i thought it would be to shore up the resources..and that is true. tones

[decatren]

here's a good documentary some of you might enjoy. it's about space weapons and planning for WWIII.

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-4835966027154828456&hl=en

wow. very interesting and disturbing. thanks for the link.

[Magicman]

More on the reality of what is happening

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q23b_SSWuCg

"Obama is using Clinton and Bush's rhetoric once again. He's just puppet. This is about what is worth fighting for what is right in this country. All of these people have incestuous ties with cabinet leadership with the war hawks and Council of Foreign Relations members. When the issue of Pakistan came up when Obama says he reserves the right to use unilateral force against Pakistan that should be a wake up call and that is his advisor's rhetoric. His role in AIPAC while Obama used threats against Iran to appease the zionist warhawks whom he put in members such as Rahm Emanuel you can't get a more symbolic sense as to where this is going.

They are recycling all the hawks from the Clinton era and putting these cabinet members again to fullfill this globalist/corporatocrasy plan. Look at Rahm Emanuel as chief of staff, Madeliene Albright, Larry Summers, Susan Rice, Richard Holbrooke, Tony Lake, Hillary Clinton all the hawks in Obama's cabient. He is making statements against Iran with AIPAC which is following Rahm Emanuel's rhetoric and bringing back the 'old guard'. What we're experiencing is a coup with the banks taking over which is why Goldman Sachs and the international banks have their greedy hands all over this election. "

Even most of Obama's staff took the payoff and as YOUR tax money is being stolen under a government loophole with the 700 billion dollar bailout so the bankers are getting away with highway robbery. This is the hard-earned money you, your family and your friends have put into as taxes that the elite are now stealing from you. The fraud you put into office is apart of this scheme and this is treason. If your supporting that you should be give yourself more respect as a human being then giving in to corruption.

The coup is happening under our noses ONCE again under Obama's administration. It's not about being democrat, liberal or conservative - It's about time to reveal the truth for justice and for our next generation.

[melissa22]

Socialize me...what's in a name comrade?

I am GLAD to see all the information on brezizinski...of course he is also a communist.

Clowns to the left of me jokers to the right,,, stuck in the middle with you.

I figured out about about 8 months ago Obama was selected to get us into Africa..it made perfect sense. Now it's playing out...I was remembering all the hoopla from hollyweird about the "humanitarian" efforts in Darfur...and Obama being kenyan...etc...Hollyweird demanding we send troops to Darfur...but now it's coming much clearer the agenda. i thought it would be to shore up the resources..and that is true. tones

I got a warning for swearing and socialize me gets a pat on the back for trolling the msm objectives.

[jabrownie]

Sorry....gotta call B.S. on this one.

No doubt there's stratigests behind the scenes pulling this lever or that one, and yea, we'll end up at war with China at some point...wouldn't be surprised if it was over resouces.

But Kenya being used to go after Sudan, nah. The Southern half of Sudan is controlled by rebels and is now fairly autonomous, they'll soon become their own country.

If there was a boarder country that could be egged on to go after Khartoum it'd be Chad, they're already having boarder skirmishes and Sudan tried to stage a coup there b/c they don't like each other.

The only way Kenya could get brought into something is if the south votes for independance, the north rejects the vote b/c the south has all the oil, invades, then kenya and the U.S. rise up to 'stop them', in which case China gets upset b/c of their oil contracts in the region. The problem with that scenario is the vote isn't until 2011.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/081027/world/sudan_south_politics_vote