Humanity Controlled and Enslaved by Network of US Military and the American Global Empire

Can anyone argue with these maps, this data? This has the British Empire beat hands down. We have taken colonialism well beyond the capacities of the European settlers who just over 200 years ago fought for independence. This is what American looked like in 1776.



http://www.eduplace.com/ss/maps/pdf/us1776.pdf

Amplify’d from www.globalresearch.ca

The Worldwide Network of US Military Bases

The Global Deployment of US Military Personnel

by Prof. Jules Dufour

The Worldwide control of humanity's economic, social and political activities is under the helm of US corporate and military power. Underlying this process are various schemes of direct and indirect military intervention. These US sponsored strategies ultmately consist in a process of global subordination.

Where is the Threat? The 2000 Global Report published in 1980 had outlined "the State of the World" by focussing on so-called  "level of threats" which might negatively influence or undermine US interests. Twenty years later, US strategists, in an attempt to justify their military interventions in different parts of the World, have conceptualised the greatest fraud in US history, namely "the Global War on Terrorism" (GWOT). The latter, using a fabricated pretext  constitutes a global war against all those who oppose US hegemony. A modern form of slavery, instrumented through militarization and the "free market" has unfolded.    Major elements of the conquest and world domination strategy by the US refer to:  1) the control of the world economy and its financial markets, 2) the taking over of all natural resources (primary resources and nonrenewable sources of energy). The latter constitute the cornerstone of US power through the activities of its multinational corporations. Geopolitical Outreach: Network of Military Bases The US has established its control over 191 governments which are members of the United Nations. The conquest, occupation and/or otherwise supervision of these various regions of the World is supported by an integrated network of military bases and installations which covers the entire Planet (Continents, Oceans and Outer Space). All this pertains to the workings of  an extensive Empire, the exact dimensions of which are not always easy to ascertain.   Known and documented from information in the public domaine including Annual Reports of the US Congress, we have a fairly good understanding of the strucuture of US military expenditure, the network of US military bases and  the shape of this US military-strategic configuration in different regions of the World.   The objective of this article is to build a summary profile of the World network of military bases, which are under the jurisdiction and/or control  of the US. The spatial distribution of these military bases will be examined together with an analysis of the multibillion dollar annual cost of their activities. In a second section of this article, Worldwide popular resistance movements directed against US military bases and their various projects will be outlined. In a further article we plan to analyze the military networks of other major nuclear superpowers including  the United Kingdom, France and Russia.   I. The Military Bases Military bases are conceived for training purposes, preparation and stockage of military equipment, used by national armies throughout the World. They are not very well known in view of the fact that they are not open to the public at large. Even though they take on different shapes, according to the military function for which they were established; they can broadly be classified under four main categories : a) Air Force Bases (see photos 1 and 2); b) Army or Land Bases; c) Navy Bases and d) Communication and Spy Bases.     Photo 1. Air Base of Diego Garcia located in the Indian Ocean     Reference : http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Diego_Garcia_%28satellite%29.jpg       Photo 2. Diego Garcia. An Aerial View of two B-52 and six Kc-a135       Reference : http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/images/diego-garcia-ims7.jpg      II. More than 1000 US Bases and/or Military Installations   The main sources of information on these military installations (e.g. C. Johnson, the NATO Watch Committee, the International Network for the Abolition of Foreign Military Bases) reveal that the US operates and/or controls between 700 and 800 military bases Worldwide.   In this regard, Hugh d’Andrade and Bob Wing's 2002 Map 1 entitled "U.S. Military Troops and Bases around the World, The Cost of 'Permanent War'", confirms the presence of US military personnel in 156 countries.  The US Military has bases in 63 countries. Brand new military bases have been built since September 11, 2001 in seven countries.  In total, there are 255,065 US military personnel deployed Worldwide. These facilities include a total of 845,441 different buildings and equipments. The underlying land surface is of the order of 30 million acres. According to Gelman, who examined 2005 official Pentagon data, the US is thought to own a total of 737 bases in foreign lands. Adding to the bases inside U.S. territory, the total land area occupied by US military bases domestically within the US and internationally is of the order of 2,202,735 hectares, which makes the Pentagon one of the largest landowners worldwide (Gelman, J., 2007).   Map 1. U.S. Military Troops and Bases around the World. The Cost of «Permanent War» and Some Comparative Data     Source: http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=884     Map 2. The American Military Bases Around the World (2001-2003)   Source : http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/intervention/index.htm        Source : http://www.nobases.org   Map 3 US Military Bases Click here to see Map 3  The Map of the World Network "No Bases" (Map 3) reveals the following: Based on a selective examination of military bases in North America, Latin America, Western Europe, the Middle East, Central Asia, Indonesia, the Philippines and Japan, several of these military bases are being used for intelligence purposes. New selected sites are Spy Bases and Satellite-related Spy Bases. The Surface of the Earth is Structured as a Wide Battlefield These military bases and installations of various kinds are distributed according to a Command structure divided up into five spatial units and four unified Combatant Commands (Map 4). Each unit is under the Command of a General. The Earth surface  is being conceived as a wide battlefield which can be patrolled or steadfastly supervised from the Bases.   Map 4. The World and Territories Under the Responsibility of a Combatant Command or Under a Command Structure       Source : http://www.defenselink.mil/specials/unifiedcommand/   Territories under a Command are: the Northern Command (NORTHCOM) (Peterson Air Force Base, Colorado), the Pacific Command (Honolulu, Hawaii), the Southern Command (Miami, Florida – Map 5), The Central Command (CENTCOM) (MacDill Air Force Base, Florida), the European Command (Stuttgart-Vaihingen, Germany), the Joint Forces Command (Norfolk, Virginia), the Special Operations Command (MacDill Air Force Base, Florida), the Transportation Command (Scott Air Force Base, Illinois) and the Strategic Command (STRATCOM) (Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska).   Map 5. The Southern Command       Source : http://www.visionesalternativas.com/militarizacion/mapas/mapabases.htm   NATO Military Bases   The Atlantic Alliance (NATO) has its own Network of military bases, thirty in total. The latter are primarily located in Western Europe: Whiteman, U.S.A., Fairford, Lakenheath and Mildenhall in United Kingdom, Eindhoven in Netherlands, Brüggen, Geilenkirchen, Landsberg, Ramstein, Spangdahlem, Rhein-Main in Germany, Istres and Avord in France. Morón de la Frontera and Rota in Spain, Brescia, Vicenza, Piacenza, Aviano, Istrana, Trapani, Ancora, Pratica di Mare, Amendola, Sigonella, Gioia dell Colle, Grazzanise and Brindisi in Italy, Tirana in Albania, Incirlik in Turkey, Eskan Village in Soudi Arabia and Ali al Salem in Koweit (http://www.terra.es/actualidad/articulo/html/act52501.htm )     III. The Global Deployment of US Military Personnel   There are 6000  military bases and/ or military warehouses located in the U.S. (See Wikipedia, February 2007).  Total Military Personnel is of the order of  1,4 million of which 1,168,195 are in the U.S and US overseas territories. Taking figures from the same source, there are 325,000 US military personnel in foreign countries:  800 in Africa, 97,000 in Asia (excluding the Middle East and Central Asia), 40,258 in South Korea, 40,045 in Japan, 491 at the Diego Garcia Base in the Indian Ocean, 100 in the Philippines, 196 in Singapore, 113 in Thailand, 200 in Australia, and 16,601 Afloat.   In Europe, there are 116,000 US military personnel including 75,603 who are stationed in Germany. In Central Asia about 1,000 are stationed at the Ganci (Manas) Air Base in Kyrgyzstan and 38 are located at Kritsanisi, in Georgia, with a mission to train Georgian soldiers. In the Middle East (excludng the Iraq war theater) there are 6,000 US military personnel, 3,432 of whom are in Qatar and 1,496 in Bahrain. In the Western Hemisphere, excluding the U.S. and US territories, there are 700 military personnel in Guantanamo, 413 in Honduras and 147 in Canada.   Map 3 provides information regarding military personnel on duty, based on a regional categorization (broad regions of the world). The total number of military personnel at home in the U.S. and/or in US Territories is 1,139,034. There are 1,825 in Europe 114, 660, 682 in Subsaharian Africa, 4, 274 in the Middle East and Southern Asia, 143 in the Ex-USSR, and 89,846 in the Pacific.   IV. The Operational Cost of the Worldwide Military Network   US defense spending (excluding the costs of the Iraq war) have increased from 404 in 2001 to 626 billion dollars in 2007 according to data from the Washington based Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. US defense spending is expected to reach 640 billion dollars in 2008. (Figure 1 and http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/archives/002244.php ). These 2006 expenses correspond to 3.7% of the US GDP and $935.64 per capita   (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of-the_United_States).     Figure 1. U.S. Military Expenditures since 1998       Source : http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/Spending.asp   According to Fig 1, the 396 billion dollars military budget proposed in 2003 has in fact reached 417.4 billion dollars, a 73% increase compared to 2000 (289 billion dollars). This outlay for 2003 was more than half of the total of the US discretionary budget. Since 2003, these military expenditures have to be added to those of the Iraq war and occupation The latter reached in March 2007, according to the National Priorities Project, a cumulative total of 413 billion dollars. (http://www.janes.com/defence/news/jdi/jdi050504_1_n.shtml),    (http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182 ).   Estimates of the Defense Department budget needs, made public in 2006 in the DoD Green Book for FY 2007 are of the order of  440 billion dollars. (http://www.dod.mil/comptroller/defbudget/fy2007/index.html ) Military and other staff required numbered 1,332,300. But those figures do not include the money required for the "Global World on Terrorism" (GWOT). In other words, these figures largely pertain to the regular Defense budget.  A Goldstein of the Washington Post, within the framework of an article on the aspects of the National 2007 budget titled «2007 Budget Favors Defense», wrote about this topic: "Overall, the budget for the 2007 fiscal year would further reshape the government in the way the administration has been striving to during the past half-decade: building up military capacity and defenses against terrorist threats on U.S. soil, while restraining expenditures for many domestic areas, from education programs to train service"  (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/04/AR2006020401179.html ).     V. US Military Bases to Protect Strategic Energy Resources   In the wake of 9/11, Washington initiated its "Global War on Terrorism" (GWOT), first in Afghanistan and then in Iraq. Other countries, which were not faithfully obeying Washington's directives including Iran, North Korea, Syria and Venezuela have been earmarked for possible US military intervention. Washington keeps a close eye on countries opposed to US corporate control over their resources. Washington also targets countries where there are popular resistance movements directed against US interests, particularly in South America. In this context, President Bush made a quick tour to Brazil, Uruguay, Colombia, Guatemala and Mexico «to promote democracy and trade» but also with a view to ultimately curbing and restraining popular dissent to the US interests in the region. . (http://www.voanews.com/spanish/2007-03-08-voa1.cfm)   The same braod approach is being applied in Central Asia. According to Iraklis Tsavdaridis, Secretary of the World Peace Council (WPC): "The establishment of U.S. military bases should not of course be seen simply in terms of direct military ends. They are always used to promote the economic and political objectives of U.S. capitalism. For example, U.S. corporations and the U.S. government have been eager for some time to build a secure corridor for US.-controlled oil and natural gas pipelines from the Caspian Sea in Central Asia through Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Arabian Sea. This region -has more than 6 percent of the world's proven oil reserves and almost 40 percent of its gas reserves. The war in Afghanistan and the creation of U.S. military Bases in Central Asia are viewed as a key opportunity to make such pipelines a reality." (http://stopusa.be/campaigns/texte.php?section=FABN&langue=3&id=24157 ).   The US. are at War in Afghanistan and Iraq. They pursue these military operations until they reach their objective which they call "VICTORY". According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deployment_of-the_U.S.-Military), American troops fighting in these countries number 190,000.  The "Enduring Freedom" Operation in Iraq alone has almost 200,000 military personnel, including 26,000 from other countries participating to the US sponsored "Mission". About 20,000 more could join other contingents in the next few months. In Afghanistan, a total of 25,000 soldiers participate to the operation (Map 6 and Map 7).   Map  6.  Petroleum and International Theatre of War in the Middle East and Central Asia       Source : Eric Waddell, The Battle for Oil, Global Research, 2003      Map 7. American Bases Located in Central Asia       Source : http://www.heartland.it/map_centro_asia_ring.html     Map 8. Oil Fields in Latin America       Source : http://www.visionesalternativas.com/militarizacion/mapas/mapahegem.htm     VI. Military Bases Used for the Control of Strategic Renewable Resources   US Military Bases in foreign countries, are mainly located in Western Europe: 26 of them are in Germany, 8, in Great Britain, and 8 in Italy. There are nine military installations in Japan (Wikepedia).   In the last few years, in the context of the GWOT, the US haa built 14 new bases in and around the Persian Gulf. It is also involved in construction and/or or reinforcement of 20 bases (106 structured units as a whole) in Iraq, with costs  of the order of 1.1 billion dollars in that country alone (Varea, 2007) and the use of about ten bases in Central Asia. The US has also undertaken continued negotiations with several countries to install, buy, enlarge or rent an addional number of military bases. The latter pertain inter alia to installations in Morocco, Algeria, Mali, Ghana, Brazil and Australia (See Nicholson, B., 2007), Poland, Czech Republic (Traynor, I., 2007), Ouzbekistan, Tadjikistan, Kirghizstan, Italy (Jucca, L., 2007) and France. Washington has signed an agreement to build a military base in Djibouti (Manfredi, E., 2007). All these initiatives are a part of an overall plan to install a series of military bases geographically located in a West-East corridor extending from Colombia in South America, to North Africa, the Near East, Central Asia and as far as the Philippines (Johnson, C., 2004). The US bases in South American are related to the control and access to the extensive natural biological , mineral and water resources resources of the Amazon Basin. (Delgado Jara, D., 2006 and Maps 9 and 10).    Map 9. The Biological Wealth of Latin America     Source : http://www.visionesalternativas.com/militarizacion/mapas/mapahegem.htm       Map 10. Freshwater Resources in Latin America       Source : http://www.visionesalternativas.com/militarizacion/mapas/mapahegem.htm     VII. Resistance Movements The network of US military bases is strategic, located in prcximity of traditional strategic resources including nonrenewable sources of energy. This military presence has brought about political opposition and resistance from progressive movements and antiwar activists. Demonstrations directed against US military presence has developed in Spain, Ecuador, Italy, Paraguay, Uzbekistan, Bulgaria and in many other countries. Moreover, other long-termer resistance movements directed against US military presence have continued in South Korea, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Philippines, Cuba, Europe, Japan and other locations.   The Worldwide resistance to US foreign military bases has grown during the last few years. We are dealing with an International Network for the Abolition of US Military Bases.   Such networks' objective is to broadly pursue disarmament, demilitarization processes Worldwide as well as dismantle US military bases in foreign countries.  The NO BASES Network organizes educational campaigns to sensitize public opinion.  It also works to rehabilitate abandoned military sites, as in the case of Western Europe.    These campaigns, until 2004, had a local and national impact.   The network is now in a position to reach people Worldwide. The network itself underscores that "much can be gained from greater and deeper linkages among local and national campaigns and movements across the globe. Local groups around the world can learn and benefit from sharing information, experiences, and strategies with each other" (http://www.no-bases.org/index.php?mod=network&bloque=1&idioma=en )   "The realisation that one is not alone in the struggle against foreign bases is profoundly empowering and motivating. Globally coordinated actions and campaigns can highlight the reach and scale of the resistance to foreign military presence around the world. With the trend of rising miniaturization and resort to the use of force around the world, there is now an urgent and compelling need to establish and strengthen an international network of campaigners, organisations, and movements working with a special and strategic focus on foreign military presence and ultimately, working towards a lasting and just system of peace» (http://www.no-bases.org/index.php?mod=network&bloque=1&idioma=en )   The Afghanistan and Iraq wars have, in this regard, created a favourable momentum, which has contributed to the reinforcement of the movement to close down US military bases in foreign countries: "At the time of an International anti-war meeting held in Jakarta in May 2003, a few weeks after the start of the Iraq invasion, a global anti-military Bases campaign has been proposed as an action to priorize among global anti-war, justice and solidarity movements»  (http://www.no-bases.org/index.php?mod=network&bloque=1&idioma=en).   Since then, the campaign has acquired greater recognition. E-mail lists have been compiled (nousbases@lists.riseup.net  and nousbases-info@lists.riseup.net ) that permit the diffusion of the movement members experiences and information and discussion exchanges. That list now groups 300 people and organizations from 48 countries. A Web site permits also to adequately inform all Network members. Many rubrics provide highly valuable information on ongoing activities around the World. http://www.no-bases.org/index.php?mod=network&bloque=1&idioma=en   In addition, the Network is more and more active and participates in different activities. At the World Social Forums it organized various conferences and colloquia. It was present at the European Social Forum held in Paris in 2003 and in London in 2004 as well as at the the America’s Social Forum in Ecuador in 2004, and at the Mediterranean Social Forum in Spain in 2005. One of the major gatherings, which was held in Mumbai, India, in 2004, was within the framework of the World Social Forum. More than 125 participants from 34 countries defined the foundations of a coordinated global campaign. Action priorities were identified, such as the determination of a global day of action aiming at underscoring major issues stemming from the existence of US military bases. The Network also held four discussion sessions at the Porto Alegre Social Forum in 2005. One of those pertained to the financing of the Network's activities.   It is important to recall that the Network belongs to the Global Peace Movement. Justice and Peace organizations have  become more sensitized on what was at stake regarding US military bases.   .     Map 11. Social and Resistence Movements in Latin America       Source : http://www.visionesalternativas.com/militarizacion/mapas/mapahegem.htm     The Quito and Manta International Conference, Ecuador, March 2007   A Network World Conference for the Abolition of Foreign Military Bases was held at Quito and at Manta, Ecuador, from March 5 to 9 2007 (http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:SmEvQwFUeiAJ:www.abolishbases.org/pdf/CalltoEcuadorFlyer-Francais.pdf+R%C3%A9seau+mondial+des+bases+militaires&hl=fr&gl=ca&ct=clnk&cd=3&lr=lang_fr ).   The objective of the Conference was to underscore the political, social, environmental and economic impacts of US military bases, to make known the principles of the various Anti-Bases movements and to formally build the Network, its strategies, structure and Action Plans. The main objectives of the Conference were the following: -           Analyze the role of Foreign Military Bases and other features of military presence associated to the global dominance strategy and their impacts upon population and environment; -           Share experiences and reinforce the built solidarity resulting from the resistance battles against Foreign military Bases around the World; -           Reach a consensus on objectives mechanisms, on action plans, on coordination, on communication and on decision making of a Global Network for the abolition of all Foreign military Bases and of all other expressions of military presence; and -            Establish global action plans to fight and reinforce the resistance of local people and ensure that these actions are being coordinated at the international level.   Conclusion   This article has focussed on the Worldwide development of US military power.  The US tends to view the Earth surface as a vast territory to conquer, occupy and exploit. The fact that the US Military splits the World up into geographic command units vividly illustrates this underlying geopolitical reality. Humanity is being controlled  and enslaved by this Network of US military bases. .   The ongoing re-deployment of US troops and military bases has to be analyzed in a thorough manner if we wish to understand the nature of US interventionism  in different regions of the World. This militarisation process is charactersied by armed aggression and warfare, as well as interventions called "cooperation agreements". The latter reaffirmed America's economic design design in the areas of trade and investment practices. Economic development is ensured through the miniaturization or the control of governments and organizations. Vast resources are thereby expended and wasted in order to allow such control to be effective, particuarly  in regions which have a strategic potential in terms of wealth and resources and which are being used to consolidate the Empire's structures and functions.   The setting up of the International Network for the Abolition of Foreign Military Bases turns out to be an extraordinary means to oppose the miniaturization process of the Planet. Such Network is indispensable and its growth depends on a commitment of all the People of the World. It will be extremely difficult to mobilize them, but the ties built up by the Network among its constituant resistence movements are a positive element, which is ultmately conducive to more cohesive and coordinated battle at the World level. The Final Declaration of the Second International Conference against Foreign Military Bases which was held in Havana in November 2005 and was endorsed by delegates from 22 countries identifies most of the major issues, which confront mankind. This Declaration constitutes a major peace initative. It establishes  international solidarity in the process of  disarmament. .  (http://www.csotan.org/textes/texte.php?type=divers&art_id=267 ).   Read more at www.globalresearch.ca

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a1jzug

Do the 1% Have Their Own #ShadowGovt? Is #TechnocracyRising?

Obama's adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and David Rockefeller founded this group and it is most likely partly responsible for the economic collapse of the European Union and the coming war for energy in Eurasia.

The Trilateral Commission is a non-governmental, non-partisan discussion group founded by David Rockefeller in July 1973 to foster closer cooperation among the United States, Europe and Japan.

The Trilateral Commission Founder(s) David Rockefeller Type Annual conference Founded 1973 Location Washington, DC; Paris; Tokyo Key people Joseph S. Nye, Jr. (North American chairman) Mario Monti (European chairman) Yotaro Kobayashi (Pacific Asian chairman) Members More than 390 Website http://www.trilateral.org/

[edit] History

Sensing a profound discord between the nations of North America, Europe and Japan, the Trilateral Commission was founded to foster substantive political and economic dialogue across the world. To quote its founding declaration:

"Growing interdependence is a fact of life of the contemporary world. It transcends and influences national systems...While it is important to develop greater cooperation among all the countries of the world, Japan, Western Europe, and North America, in view of their great weight in the world economy and their massive relations with one another, bear a special responsibility for developing effective cooperation, both in their own interests and in those of the rest of the world."

"To be effective in meeting common problems, Japan, Western Europe, and North America will have to consult and cooperate more closely, on the basis of equality, to develop and carry out coordinated policies on matters affecting their common interests...refrain from unilateral actions incompatible with their interdependence and from actions detrimental to other regions... [and] take advantage of existing international and regional organizations and further enhance their role."

"The Commission hopes to play a creative role as a channel of free exchange of opinions with other countries and regions. Further progress of the developing countries and greater improvement of East-West relations will be a major concern."[1]

Zbigniew Brzezinski, a professor at Columbia University and a Rockefeller advisor who was a specialist on international affairs, left his post to organize the group along with:

Henry D. Owen (a Foreign Policy Studies Director with the Brookings Institution)

George S. Franklin

Robert R. Bowie (of the Foreign Policy Association and Director of the Harvard Center for International Affairs)

Gerard C. Smith (Salt I negotiator, Rockefeller in-law, and its first North American Chairman)

Marshall Hornblower (former partner at Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering)

William Scranton (former Governor of Pennsylvania)

Edwin Reischauer (a professor at Harvard)

Max Kohnstamm (European Policy Centre)

Other founding members included Alan Greenspan and Paul Volcker, both later heads of the Federal Reserve system.

The Trilateral Commission initiated its biannual meetings schedule in October 1973 in Tokyo. In May 1976, the first plenary meeting of all of the Commission's regional groups took place in Kyoto. It was through these early meetings that the group affected its most profound influence, the integration of Japan into the global political conversation. Before these exchanges, the country was much more isolated on the international stage.[1] Since its founding, the discussion group has produced an official journal called Trialogue.

[edit] Membership

Membership is divided into numbers proportionate to each of the think tank's three regional areas. The North American continent is represented by 120 members (20 Canadian, 13 Mexican and 87 U.S. citizens). The European group has reached its limit of 170 members from almost every country on the continent; the ceilings for individual countries are 20 for Germany, 18 for France, Italy and the United Kingdom, 12 for Spain and 1–6 for the rest. At first, Asia and Oceania were represented only by Japan. However, in 2000 the Japanese group of 85 members expanded itself, becoming the Pacific Asia group, composed of 117 members: 75 Japanese, 11 South Koreans, 7 Australian and New Zealand citizens, and 15 members from the ASEAN nations (Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore and Thailand). The Pacific Asia group also included 9 members from China, Hong Kong and Taiwan. Currently, the Trilateral Commission claims "more than 100" Pacific Asian members.[1]

While Trilateral Commission bylaws exclude persons holding public office from membership,[2] the think tank draws its participants from political, business, and academic worlds. The group is chaired by three individuals, one from each of the regions represented. The current chairmen are former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs Joseph S. Nye, Jr., President of Bocconi University, Milan, Mario Monti, and Chief Corporate Adviser, Fuji Xerox Company, Ltd. Yotaro Kobayashi.[3]

[edit] Criticisms

Not unlike reactions to the United Nations or other organizations created to foster international cooperation, a number of prominent thinkers and politicians have criticized the Trilateral Commission as encroaching on national sovereignty. On the right, in his book With No Apologies, former conservative Republican Senator Barry Goldwater lambasted the discussion group by suggesting it was "a skillful, coordinated effort to seize control and consolidate the four centers of power: political, monetary, intellectual, and ecclesiastical...[in] the creation of a worldwide economic power superior to the political governments of the nation-states involved."[4] On the left, linguist Noam Chomsky criticized a report issued by the Commission called The Crisis of Democracy for suggesting that there was an "excess of democracy" in the 1960s and defending "the ideology of the liberal wing of the state capitalist ruling elite". Chomsky also argues that the group had an undue influence in the administration of Jimmy Carter.[5]

[edit] Conspiracy theories

While the Trilateral Commission is only one of many similar think tanks on the right and left, many notable conspiracy theorists believe the organization to be a central plotter of a world government or synarchy. As documented by journalist Jonathan Kay, 9/11 conspiracy theorist Luke Rudkowski gained notoriety in April 2007 by interrupting a lecture by former Trilateral Commission director Zbigniew Brzezinski and accusing the organization and a few others of having orchestrated the attacks of September 11th to initiate a new world order.[6] Conservative and right-wing groups such as the John Birch Society and conspiracy theorists such as American paleoconservative Alex Jones also regularly tout this idea.[7][8] Read more at en.wikipedia.org

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a1jzhb

Obama's War for Energy in Eurasia - Planned for Decades by Brzezinski

This is starting to look like Jimmy Carter's presidency. 1976, 2 weeks after his election, Jimmy Carter addressed the nation about the energy crisis. His national security adviser was Zbigniew Brzezinski. This is the guy that helped Reagan CREATE the Mujahideen and the Taliban in Afghanistan in order to counter the Russian invasion.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Brzezinski



In 2008 both his sons were picked as national security advisers to McCain and Obama. Odd. That means that our foreign policy would have been the SAME regardless of who we picked for president.



http://www.dailypaul.com/70864/marxist-zbigniew-brzezinskis-sons-are-both-advisors-to-both-mccain-and-obama



Obama's top adviser is currently Zbigniew Brzezinski.

http://youtu.be/AeFnRAZapUY.



Brzezinski wrote The Gran Chessboard in 1997 to elaborate on the American super power strategy in Eurasia and forecasting the global energy war in the region. He called for a shocking event like Pearl Harbor in order to get the American popular support for such a war or series of wars.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0HjVMSBai0



Now read the article below.

Amplify’d from www.alternet.org

Has Obama Just Launched a Dangerous New Cold War in Asia Driven By Energy Concerns?

By Michael T. Klare, TomDispatch.com Posted on December 6, 2011, Printed on December 11, 2011 http://www.alternet.org/story/153340/has_obama_just_launched_a_dangerous_new_cold_war_in_asia_driven_by_energy_concerns

When it comes to China policy, is the Obama administration leaping from the frying pan directly into the fire? In an attempt to turn the page on two disastrous wars in the Greater Middle East, it may have just launched a new Cold War in Asia — once again, viewing oil as the key to global supremacy.

The new policy was signaled by President Obama himself on November 17th in an address to the Australian Parliament in which he laid out an audacious — and extremely dangerous — geopolitical vision.  Instead of focusing on the Greater Middle East, as has been the case for the last decade, the United States will now concentrate its power in Asia and the Pacific.  “My guidance is clear,” he declared in Canberra.  “As we plan and budget for the future, we will allocate the resources necessary to maintain our strong military presence in this region.” While administration officials insist that this new policy is not aimed specifically at China, the implication is clear enough: From now on, the primary focus of American military strategy will not be counterterrorism, but the containment of that economically booming land — at whatever risk or cost.

The Planet’s New Center of Gravity

The new emphasis on Asia and the containment of China is necessary, top officials insist, because the Asia-Pacific region now constitutes the “center of gravity” of world economic activity.  While the United States was bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan, the argument goes, China had the leeway to expand its influence in the region.  For the first time since the end of World War II, Washington is no longer the dominant economic actor there. If the United States is to retain its title as the world’s paramount power, it must, this thinking goes, restore its primacy in the region and roll back Chinese influence. In the coming decades, no foreign policy task will, it is claimed, be more important than this.

In line with its new strategy, the administration has undertaken a number of moves intended to bolster American power in Asia, and so put China on the defensive. These include a decision to deploy an initial 250 U.S. Marines — someday to be upped to 2,500 — to an Australian air base in Darwin on that country’s north coast, and the adoption on November 18th of “the Manila Declaration,” a pledge of closer U.S. military ties with the Philippines.

At the same time, the White House announced the sale of 24 F-16 fighter jets to Indonesia and a visit by Hillary Clinton to isolated Burma, long a Chinese ally — the first there by a secretary of state in 56 years. Clinton has also spoken of increased diplomatic and military ties with Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam — all countries surrounding China or overlooking key trade routes that China relies on for importing raw materials and exporting manufactured goods.

As portrayed by administration officials, such moves are intended to maximize America’s advantages in the diplomatic and military realm at a time when China dominates the economic realm regionally. In a recent article in Foreign Policy magazine, Clinton revealingly suggested that an economically weakened United States can no longer hope to prevail in multiple regions simultaneously. It must choose its battlefields carefully and deploy its limited assets — most of them of a military nature — to maximum advantage. Given Asia’s strategic centrality to global power, this means concentrating resources there.

“Over the last 10 years,” she writes, “we have allocated immense resources to [Iraq and Afghanistan].  In the next 10 years, we need to be smart and systematic about where we invest time and energy, so that we put ourselves in the best position to sustain our leadership [and] secure our interests… One of the most important tasks of American statecraft over the next decade will therefore be to lock in a substantially increased investment — diplomatic, economic, strategic, and otherwise — in the Asia-Pacific region.”

Such thinking, with its distinctly military focus, appears dangerously provocative.  The steps announced entail an increased military presence in waters bordering China and enhanced military ties with that country’s neighbors — moves certain to arouse alarm in Beijing and strengthen the hand of those in the ruling circle (especially in the Chinese military leadership) who favor a more activist, militarized response to U.S. incursions. Whatever forms that takes, one thing is certain: the leadership of the globe’s number two economic power is not going to let itself appear weak and indecisive in the face of an American buildup on the periphery of its country.  This, in turn, means that we may be sowing the seeds of a new Cold War in Asia in 2011.

The U.S. military buildup and the potential for a powerful Chinese counter-thrust have already been the subject of discussion in the American and Asian press.  But one crucial dimension of this incipient struggle has received no attention at all: the degree to which Washington’s sudden moves have been dictated by a fresh analysis of the global energy equation, revealing (as the Obama administration sees it) increased vulnerabilities for the Chinese side and new advantages for Washington.

The New Energy Equation

For decades, the United States has been heavily dependent on imported oil, much of it obtained from the Middle East and Africa, while China was largely self-sufficient in oil output.  In 2001, the United States consumed 19.6 million barrels of oil per day, while producing only nine million barrels itself.  The dependency on foreign suppliers for that 10.6 million-barrel shortfall proved a source of enormous concern for Washington policymakers.  They responded by forging ever closer, more militarized ties with Middle Eastern oil producers and going to war on occasion to ensure the safety of U.S. supply lines.

In 2001, China, on the other hand, consumed only five million barrels per day and so, with a domestic output of 3.3 million barrels, needed to import only 1.7 million barrels.  Those cold, hard numbers made its leadership far less concerned about the reliability of the country’s major overseas providers — and so it did not need to duplicate the same sort of foreign policy entanglements that Washington had long been involved in.

Now, so the Obama administration has concluded, the tables are beginning to turn.  As a result of China’s booming economy and the emergence of a sizeable and growing middle class (many of whom have already bought their first cars), the country’s oil consumption is exploding.  Running at about 7.8 million barrels per day in 2008, it will, according to recent projections by the U.S. Department of Energy, reach 13.6 million barrels in 2020, and 16.9 million in 2035.  Domestic oil production, on the other hand, is expected to grow from 4.0 million barrels per day in 2008 to 5.3 million in 2035.  Not surprisingly, then, Chinese imports are expected to skyrocket from 3.8 million barrels per day in 2008 to a projected 11.6 million in 2035 — at which time they will exceed those of the United States.

The U.S., meanwhile, can look forward to an improved energy situation.  Thanks to increased production in “tough oil” areas of the United States, including the Arctic seas off Alaska, the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico, and shale formations in Montana, North Dakota, and Texas, future imports are expected to decline, even as energy consumption rises.  In addition, more oil is likely to be available from the Western Hemisphere rather than the Middle East or Africa.  Again, this will be thanks to the exploitation of yet more “tough oil” areas, including the Athabasca tar sands of Canada, Brazilian oil fields in the deep Atlantic, and increasingly pacified energy-rich regions of previously war-torn Colombia.  According to the Department of Energy, combined production in the United States, Canada, and Brazil is expected to climb by 10.6 million barrels per day between 2009 and 2035 — an enormous jump, considering that most areas of the world are expecting declining output.

Whose Sea Lanes Are These Anyway?

From a geopolitical perspective, all this seems to confer a genuine advantage on the United States, even as China becomes ever more vulnerable to the vagaries of events in, or along, the sea lanes to distant lands.  It means Washington will be able to contemplate a gradual loosening of its military and political ties to the Middle Eastern oil states that have dominated its foreign policy for so long and have led to those costly, devastating wars.

Indeed, as President Obama said in Canberra, the U.S. is now in a position to begin to refocus its military capabilities elsewhere. “After a decade in which we fought two wars that cost us dearly,” he declared, “the United States is turning our attention to the vast potential of the Asia-Pacific region.”

For China, all this spells potential strategic impairment.  Although some of China’s imported oil will travel overland through pipelines from Kazakhstan and Russia, the great majority of it will still come by tanker from the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America over sea lanes policed by the U.S. Navy.  Indeed, almost every tanker bringing oil to China travels across the South China Sea, a body of water the Obama administration is now seeking to place under effective naval control.

By securing naval dominance of the South China Sea and adjacent waters, the Obama administration evidently aims to acquire the twenty-first century energy equivalent of twentieth-century nuclear blackmail. Push us too far, the policy implies, and we’ll bring your economy to its knees by blocking your flow of vital energy supplies.  Of course, nothing like this will ever be said in public, but it is inconceivable that senior administration officials are not thinking along just these lines, and there is ample evidence that the Chinese are deeply worried about the risk — as indicated, for example, by their frantic efforts to build staggeringly expensive pipelines across the entire expanse of Asia to the Caspian Sea basin.

As the underlying nature of the new Obama strategic blueprint becomes clearer, there can be no question that the Chinese leadership will, in response, take steps to ensure the safety of China’s energy lifelines.  Some of these moves will undoubtedly be economic and diplomatic, including, for example, efforts to court regional players like Vietnam and Indonesia as well as major oil suppliers like Angola, Nigeria, and Saudi Arabia.  Make no mistake, however: others will be of a military nature.  A significant buildup of the Chinese navy — still small and backward when compared to the fleets of the United States and its principal allies — would seem all but inevitable.  Likewise, closer military ties between China and Russia, as well as with the Central Asian member states of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan), are assured.

In addition, Washington could now be sparking the beginnings of a genuine Cold-War-style arms race in Asia, which neither country can, in the long run, afford.  All of this is likely to lead to greater tension and a heightened risk of inadvertent escalation arising out of future incidents involving U.S., Chinese, and allied vessels — like the one that occurred in March 2009 when a flotilla of Chinese naval vessels surrounded a U.S. anti-submarine warfare surveillance ship, the Impeccable, and almost precipitated a shooting incident.  As more warships circulate through these waters in an increasingly provocative fashion, the risk that such an incident will result in something far more explosive can only grow.

Nor will the potential risks and costs of such a military-first policy aimed at China be restricted to Asia.  In the drive to promote greater U.S. self-sufficiency in energy output, the Obama administration is giving its approval to production techniques — Arctic drilling, deep-offshore drilling, and hydraulic fracturing — that are guaranteed to lead to further Deepwater Horizon-style environmental catastrophe at home.  Greater reliance on Canadian tar sands, the “dirtiest” of energies, will result in increased greenhouse gas emissions and a multitude of other environmental hazards, while deep Atlantic oil production off the Brazilian coast and elsewhere has its own set of grim dangers.

All of this ensures that, environmentally, militarily, and economically, we will find ourselves in a more, not less, perilous world.  The desire to turn away from disastrous land wars in the Greater Middle East to deal with key issues now simmering in Asia is understandable, but choosing a strategy that puts such an emphasis on military dominance and provocation is bound to provoke a response in kind.  It is hardly a prudent path to head down, nor will it, in the long run, advance America’s interests at a time when global economic cooperation is crucial.  Sacrificing the environment to achieve greater energy independence makes no more sense.

A new Cold War in Asia and a hemispheric energy policy that could endanger the planet: It’s a fatal brew that should be reconsidered before the slide toward confrontation and environmental disaster becomes irreversible. You don’t have to be a seer to know that this is not the definition of good statesmanship, but of the march of folly.

Michael T. Klare is a professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College in Amherst, Mass., and the author of Blood and Oil: The Dangers and Consequences of America's Growing Petroleum Dependency. Read more at www.alternet.org

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a1jzg2

Al Qaeda and OBL Were Created by American Intelligence Services (CIA)

We armed them just like we did Saddam Hussein. We also armed Iran. Russia armed Iran and Syria after we did. Al Qaeda was blowback for our interference in Afghanistan, which was fought to take down the USSR. Remnants of the Cold War.

Amplify’d from www.alqaedadoesntexist.com

Below is a list of sources consulted in the making of this documentary. Viewers are encouraged to delve into the research directly via the hyperlinks provided and to come to their own conclusions about this material.

claim source link 1 9/11 news coverage For an excellent source of live television coverage from the day of 9/11, please visit the September 11 Television Archive, currently hosted at archive.org. [Link] 2 "Honey Trade Said to Provide Funds and Cover to Bin Laden" Judith Miller article from the New York Times on October 11, 2001 about how Bin Laden and his Al Qaeda network were using money from honey dealing to finance their terrorist operations. [Link] 3 ""U.S. SAYS HUSSEIN INTENSIFIES QUEST FOR A-BOMB PARTS"" Another New York Times article from Judith Miller (see above), this one claiming that Saddam Hussein was stepping up his activities to build a nuclear weapon for Iraq. This infamous article alleges Hussein's efforts to acquire aluminum tubes for his (imaginary, as it turns out) nuclear program. It was emblematic of Miller's reporting for the Times which relied heavily on leaks from the Administration itself. Ultimately, the Times would disown Miller and her questionable reporting, despite the fact that she had at one time been considered a star reporter. [Link] 4 Cheney says Osama not involved in 9/11 This comes from the March 26, 2006 interview conducted by Tony Snow. Although in the context of the discussion Cheney was likely referring to Saddam Hussein and misspoke, it is interesting to note that President Bush famously made the exact same mistake in the exact same context in the 2004 Presidential debate when he said "Of course we're after Saddam Hussein - I mean Bin Laden." The repeated "confusion" of Bin Laden and Hussein only serves to demonstrate the point that for the Bush Administration, these men are merely placeholders for whatever the Administration's agenda is at the moment, and as such they are interchangeable. The comment also reminds us of the FBI's official position that they do not list 9/11 on their Osama Bin Laden wanted page because there is no hard evidence connecting him to 9/11. In the light of all of the evidence presented in this documentary, this misstatement by Cheney amounts to an unintentional truth. [Link] Part One - Founding and Funding # claim source link 1 Brzezinski is Obama's foreign policy advisor Although Brzezinski's position within the Obama Administration remains largely undefined, the fact that he advises Obama, both directly and indirectly, is evident from mainstream articles such as this one from the New York Sun. The clip is of Obama praising Brzeznski after Zbigniew introduced Obama's first major foreign policy speech of his Presidential campaign. For more information on the relationship of Obama and Brzezinski, please see the work of Webster Tarpley, especially Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography. [Link] 2 Brzezinski addresses the mujahadeen Brzezinski addressing the Afghani freedom fighters (and future terrorists) during a trip to Pakistan. [Link] 3 Operation Cyclone Basic information about the US involvement in Afghanistan. [Link] 4 Brzezinski interview with French periodical An English translation of this important 1998 interview with Dr. Brzezninski. [Link] 5 The official story - The US funded the Afghans, the Saudis funded the Arabs A 2003 article by Richard Miniter espousing the official story that the Americans had nothing to do with the Arab Afghans. [Link] 6 Osama's group consisted of a dozen fighters in 1989 For this remarkable fact, see page 4 of Jason Burke's book, Al-Qaeda. [Link] 7 Bin Laden claims the name Al Qaeda comes from the Afghan training camps Transcript of interview with Bin Laden from October 2001. [Link] 8 Robin Cook article Article by former leader of the House in England, Robin Cook, asserting "Al Qaeda" refers to the database of mujahedeen handled by the CIA in Afghanistan. [Link] 9 Ana raicha Al Qaeda is colloquial for I'm going to the toilet. From a report by Kawther Salam under the headline "'Al Qaeda' is a Manufactured Intelligence Front." [Link] 10 Michael Springmann testimony Testimony to the 9-11 Citizens Commission in 2004. [Link] 11 11 of the 911 hijackers received their visas from the Jeddah consulate See page 6 of this GAO report for this fact. [Link] 12 Information about the Visa Express program. The program started just months before 9-11 was designed to fast track qualified applicants to get visas to visit the US. [Link] 13 Der Spiegel calls Osama one of the CIA's best customers during the Afghan war From a 2007 report on "The Checkered History of American Weapons Deals." [Link] 14 BBC on Osama-CIA links BBC reports that Bin Laden had CIA security training. [Link] 15 The New Jackals CIA source claims the CIA cut deals with Osama to arm him at rock bottom prices. From page 168 of Simon Reeve's book The new Jackals. [Link] 16 Osama and the MAK Contains information on Osama's position in the MAK and many other important pieces of information. [Link] 17 CIA and ISI involvement with heroin Contains information about the CIAs plan to get Soviet troops addicted to heroin. [Link] 18 CIA worked in tandem with Pakistan to create Taliban A leading South Asian expert from a prestigious American think tank outlines how the CIA and Pakistan created the Taliban. [Link] Read more at www.alqaedadoesntexist.com

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a1ju89

Zbigniew Brzezinski Wrote the Neocon Plans for WW3

Read The Grand Chessboard

Amplify’d from infowars.wikia.com

Zbigniew Brzezinski served as United States National Security Advisor to United States President Jimmy Carter. In his 1970s book, Between Two Ages, he made the case for the formation of what would later be known as the Trilateral Commission, which he co-founded along with David Rockefeller.

Zbigniew Brzezinski, son of Polish diplomat Tadeusz Brzezinski, is known to bear wide open resentment against Russia[1] and considers his hostile anti-Soviet foreign policy strategy during the Carter administration to be among his crowning achievements as National Security Advisor.

Family Edit

Mika Brzezinski, daughter of Zbigniew Brzezinski. She is the co-host of the regular morning program, Morning Joe, along with Joe Scarborough. Zbigniew Brzezinski makes regular guest appearances on this program to comment on actual events.

Mark Brzezinski, son of Zbigniew Brzezinski, lawyer and foreign policy expert. He currently serves as foreign policy expert to President Barack Obama.

Ian Brzezinski, son of Zbigniew Brzezinski. He was a foreign policy advisor of John McCain during the 2008 Presidential Elections. He is currently a Principal at Booz Allen Hamilton.

Title

Date

Between Two Ages

1970

The Grand Chessboard

1998 Read more at infowars.wikia.com

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a1jtin