[A-List] The Gathering Storm

[Tony B.]

That's why I wrote the article for the mass media....i.e. attempting to 
raise a little consciousness amongst Canadians....you know, part of the 
'duty' thing. The one catch - apart from whether they even publish it! 
..always highly in doubt - is that the big newspapers only like the written 
equivalent of the 30 second TV blurb...so you have to cram as much info as 
possible into the requisite space. An exercise in verbal contortionism.

As for being 'worse than Hitler'....you've got a point there. The sheer 
scale and scope of American / Nato power is historically unparalled. And the 
parochialism of the general American (and Canadian) public is frightening. 
Not a good mix.

Tony

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Nadja Tesich" <nadjatesich at hotmail.com>
To: <a-list at lists.econ.utah.edu>
Sent: Saturday, August 28, 2010 10:15 AM
Subject: Re: [A-List] The Gathering Storm



Tony,
I know everything and many people in Europe.The Third World knows 
everything.
Only Amercans are in deep deep sleep.
This is worse than Hitler because it was limited then ,and US sells the wars 
in the name of freedom an demacracy.
Confronted with a such huge machine of war--what we,the people can do?

----------------------------------------
> From: tal1 at cogeco.ca
> To: a-list at lists.econ.utah.edu
> Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2010 04:32:34 -0400
> Subject: [A-List] The Gathering Storm
>
> A piece I wrote for the local corporate media...thus accounting for its
> relative brevity.
>
> T.
>
> The Gathering Storm
> How NATO's ever expanding reach threatens global security
>
>
> Around the globe an ominous build-up of military might is taking place, 
> and
> it is doing so almost entirely beneath the radar of public attention.
>
> Since 2005 a large scale stockpiling and deployment of advanced weapons
> systems has been effected throughout the territories and seas surrounding
> Russia, China, and Iran. These include, as a bare outline: major US 
> weapons
> transfers to Israel, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States and India; US Patriot
> missiles in Poland; an early missile warning system in the Czech Republic;
> new US military bases and troop placements in Georgia, the Balkans, 
> Eastern
> Europe and Central Asia; for the first time, US naval deployments in the
> Black Sea; new US and NATO weapons systems situated in Japan, Taiwan, the
> Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia, and Australia; a formidable new naval
> armada, including nuclear-weapons-bearing Israeli submarines, in the 
> Persian
> Gulf; and, finally, a host of new US air and ship-based anti-ballistic
> missile systems located on US fleets throughout the Mediterranean, the Sea
> of Japan, the Taiwan St. and the South China Sea.
>
> In addition to these ordnance deployments, the United States and NATO have
> not only struck countless bilateral and multilateral military deals and
> alliances around the globe, but have, over the past two years, 
> dramatically
> stepped up their war games and drills in the Far East.
>
> Just as significant as these material and strategic manoeuvres, however, 
> are
> the, now, completely integrated and 'interoperable' command structures and
> weapons systems of the 28 NATO nations and their 47 NATO 'partners'. This,
> then, is the largest, the most sophisticated, the best organized 
> war-machine
> the world has ever seen. And, of course, it is all for your benefit. It is
> all about global security. You can sleep sounder tonight. The world is now 
> a
> safer place.
>
> Or is it?
>
> Target Iran
>
> Though the ultimate strategic objective of this massive build-up of 
> military
> might would seem, all rose-coloured lenses aside, to be the 'containment' 
> of
> the world's burgeoning new economic powerhouse, China, the more immediate
> tactical goal is clearly Iran.
>
> Still, the whys and wherefores for yet another 'pre-emptive' attack on yet
> another Muslim nation remain rather murky. Military experts, for instance,
> are in total agreement that any ground invasion of Iran is totally out of
> the question. They also largely agree that any expectations of an internal
> 'regime change' following a US/Israeli/NATO air assault on Iran's nuclear
> reactors is sheer fantasy.
>
> But then perhaps the fear of Iran developing a nuclear arsenal is the
> reason? Unfortunately, such a notion doesn't square with the facts, for
> according to the Pentagon's own National Intelligence Estimate of 2007,
> whatever weapons programs Iran may have been working on, these were all
> entirely abandoned by 2003. Nor does it square with the International 
> Atomic
> Energy Agency's repeated assertions that Iran has never been found in
> violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). [What Iran is apparently
> 'guilty' of is refusing to accede to Washington's demand that Iran stop 
> all
> peaceful nuclear development, period. Such a demand is, of course, illegal
> under the NPT]. Nor does the alleged fear of a nuclear Iran jive with the
> fact that Teheran accepted the May 27 proposal by Turkey and Brazil to 
> have
> Iran's fuel rods enriched and stored in a third party country (Russia), a
> proposal which the Obama Administration rejected out of hand.
>
> Given all this, what then could possibly be the raison d'etre of such an
> attack?
>
> The answer, if we repair to the history of both the 1991 Gulf War and the
> 2003 invasion of Iraq, is clear. In short, the hawks in Washington and Tel
> Aviv are likely planning to target not just Iran's nuclear power reactors 
> (a
> pretext, more or less) but, just as in Iraq, the entire civilian
> infrastructure of the country. The goal? Not to occupy, and not to promote
> 'regime change', but simply to destroy and cripple Iran as a regional 
> power.
> This, in conjunction with the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, would
> then assure Israel hegemony over the Mid-East and the United States 
> hegemony
> over the territories, resources and pipelines of Central Asia and the
> Caspian Sea Basin. The US would then largely control the energy spigot
> running west to Europe and east in to China. Badda-bing badda-boom.
>
> Shades of Dr. Strangelove
>
> There is, however, a tiny fly in this strategic ointment. Apart from the
> massive humanitarian catastrophe it would cause - and the heinous war 
> crime
> it would represent - such an attack would likely inflame the entire 
> region.
> Few seem to remember that the tensions arising from the 2001 US invasion 
> of
> Afghanistan almost precipitated a nuclear war between Pakistan and India. 
> As
> scientists assure us, even as small a nuclear exchange as between those 
> two
> nations, i.e. 100 or so missiles, would throw the world into a nuclear
> 'autumn' killing over a billion and destroying global civilization as we
> know it.
>
> Even were a mini (or maxi) Armageddon to be avoided, the Muslim world 
> would
> assuredly go completely ape. The Shiites in Iraq would turn the country 
> into
> a US graveyard. Israel would likely attack Iran, Syria and Lebanon
> simultaneously, and would be targeted in turn. The Iranians, if they 
> didn't
> return fire on Israel or sink a number of US warships in the Persian Gulf,
> thus prompting a nuclear reply from either or both, would, at the very
> least, sink some oil tankers and close off the Straight of Hormuz. That
> would cut off the supply of oil from the Mid-East and possibly lead to a
> world-wide economic catastrophe. Hopefully the Russians or the Chinese
> wouldn't get involved. And, here at home, we arm-chair warriors would be
> lucky to avoid terrorist attacks on the Toronto subway system.
>
> So perhaps, just perhaps, before we cheerlead ourselves into the next
> 'lovely little war', we should give pause and consider whether the global
> machinations of the 'incredibly expanding alliance' are really about 
> making
> the world a safer place, or about something rather different.
>
> Antony C. Black
> tal1 at cogeco.ca
>
>
>
>
>
>