Tag: war

And here I thought utilizing child soldiers was a sign of an uncivilized society:

The best way to fix the U.S. armed forces’ recruiting challenges may involve dipping further into the nation’s high schools.

As the Army, Navy and other services contend with a thriving economy and a directive to expand their ranks, there is a growing debate over whether the military should consider lowering the minimum enlistment age from 17 to 16. More than a dozen countries, including the United Kingdom, already have adopted the policy.

Critics say the idea is deeply flawed and presents a host of societal problems, but supporters argue that the Pentagon needs to think outside the box if it wants to continually overcome one of the toughest recruiting environments in decades.

One would have thought now that women are permitted to serve in combat roles, the doubling of the potential pool of recruits would prevent any personpower shortages. If, of course, one were a clueless equalitarian who doesn’t see sex or color.

Perhaps it would be more efficient to simply declare a warrior caste and require everyone born into those families to serve in the military.

I don’t see what Great Britain has to complain about, considering that they quite literally started it.

TWO British oil tankers with dozens of crew on board were seized by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards less than an hour apart today in the Gulf.

The Government’s Cobra committee is holding an emergency meeting in Whitehall tonight after the Stena Impero and Mesdar were halted by troops in speedboats and helicopters and diverted to Iran.

The raids came exactly two weeks after Royal Marines boarded a supertanker off Gibraltar suspected of carrying Iranian crude oil to Syria – prompting Tehran to threaten “retaliation”.

British-flagged Stena Impero was sailing to the Saudi port of Jubail today but ship tracking data shows it veered off course with a sharp turn north at around 4.17pm UK time. Iran’s state news agency IRNA said it had been “impounded” and claimed the tanker had turned off its tracker, ignored warnings from the Revolutionary Guards and was sailing in the wrong direction in a shipping lane.

The Impero was surrounded by four vessels and a helicopter. State-controlled TV claimed the ship was seized because it was “violating international maritime rules”. Less than an hour later at around 5pm the Mesdar – Liberian-flagged but operated by the UK firm Norbulk Shipping UK – also turned sharply north towards Iran’s coast having been surrounded by ten speedboats after passing westward through the Strait on its way to Ras Tanura.

It looks like the neoclowns couldn’t get President Trump to bite, so they’ve got Theresa May doing their bidding in the hopes of enmeshing the US military that way. I suspect they’re desperate to start a war in the Gulf in the hopes of creating a distraction from the coming Epstein-related arrests. And I very much doubt that either the President or the U.S. Navy is going to fall for the neoclown antics.

One article on the Daily Mail finally gets around to admitting that the Iranian response was both provoked and measured by the initial British action.

Fears were raised that the Iranian authorities were trying to seize a UK ship in retaliation for the detention of the Grace 1 tanker. The Iranian ship was detained off the coast of Gibraltar on July 4 after it was suspected of violating EU sanctions by carrying a cargo of crude oil destined for Syria. The ship’s captain, chief officer and two second officers were arrested and bailed and an investigation is ongoing.

Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei called the tanker’s seizure an act of ‘piracy’ on Tuesday and warned the UK to expect a response.

Of course they knew Iran would do something like this. However, I expect they were looking for a more violent escalation. It’s a little hard to bang the war drums when the other side is obviously just responding in kind to your own actions.

A major crack in the NATO wall:

President Donald Trump has said Washington will not sell Turkey its next-generation F-35 jet fighter, after Turkey took delivery of the Russian-made S-400 air defense system. Turkey has been a partner in the F-35 program.

“The situation with Turkey is very complex and tough. We are in contact with Turkish officials,” Trump said. US officials had long threatened to exclude Turkey from the F-35 program, claiming that operating the jet alongside the S-400 would allow Moscow to learn its secrets.

As Trump made the announcement to reporters on Tuesday, his nominee for Secretary of Defense, Mark Esper, reiterated the president’s position during his Senate confirmation hearing. Turkey “can either have the S-400 or…the F-35,” Esper said. “You cannot have both.”

At a speech in Ankara one day earlier, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan hailed the arrival of his newly acquired S-400 batteries from Russia. Erdogan promised to go “much further” and set up “joint production with Russia” in future.

China is beginning to wield its economic power:

The Chinese foreign ministry has warned that American firms would be banned from doing business in China if they are involved in any arms deals with Taiwan.

“In order to safeguard national interests, China will impose sanctions on US companies involved in arms sales to Taiwan,” foreign ministry spokesman Geng Shuang told reporters on Monday. “The Chinese government and Chinese companies will not cooperate and do business with these US firms,” he added.

Answering reporters’ questions, Geng said the details about such companies and the timeline of any penalties against them will not be disclosed at present.

As the world’s sole economic superpower, the USA has been throwing its weight around this way for decades. But now China has the ability to do so as well, and due to its much larger population and larger economy (in PPP terms), it will likely be able to wield this power more effectively than the USA in the future.

Are you beginning to understand how the neoclown gatekeeper strategy works yet?

There’s a new “anti-war” think tank coming to town. It will promote a new US foreign policy — one based on diplomacy instead of sanctions and war. Sounds great, until you hear it’s being funded by Soros and Koch.

The ‘Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft’ will oppose Washington’s “endless wars” and will “challenge the basis of American foreign policy in a way that has not been done in at least the last quarter-century,” according to co-founder Trita Parsi.

With financier George Soros coming from the left (though he’s hardly a real leftist) and industrialist Charles Koch coming from the right, everyone is supposed to applaud the bipartisan nature of the initiative. The Boston Globe called it “one of the most remarkable partnerships in modern American political history” as though the two billionaire businessmen come from alternate universes.

Named after John Quincy Adams, who declared in 1821 that the US “goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy” but is the “well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all” and the “champion and vindicator only of her own,” the think tank will offer a platform to both progressive voices and anti-interventionist conservatives.

The Globe writes that this will mean its writers will “likely” advocate for things like pulling US troops out of Afghanistan and Syria, putting an end to regime change wars and “less confrontational” policies toward China and Russia. The problem here is not the concept. It’s just a question of whether or not the venture can actually be taken seriously when Soros and Koch’s fingerprints are already all over the world’s current endless wars, conflicts and regime changes.

Take some well-known Soros-funded think tanks; the Center for American Progress and the Atlantic Council, for example. They haven’t exactly been the biggest peace-pushers in the think tank world. The AC also received funding from a slew of arms manufacturers, so you’d be hard-pressed to find any anti-war sentiment there. Soros has also been linked to the “pro-democracy” European group Avaaz, which has advocated for no-fly zones in Libya and agitated for regime change in Venezuela and Iran.

Koch too has been linked to havoc-wreaking policies everywhere from Iraq to Venezuela. Despite supposedly opposing the Iraq war, independent journalist Caitlin Johnstone notes that Koch has been a major donor to the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute, whose members are considered leading architects of the invasion.

This new think tank is as fake as the Edmund Burke Center for National Conservativism or whatever the neoclowns’ latest charade is called. It’s neoclowns from top to bottom and they’re attempting to subvert the opposition to neoclown warmongering by taking control of the opposition to imperialist warfare. National Review and the modern conservative movement are the model; the plutocrats provide lavish funding for a false front organization that is designed to vacuum up all the minds, money, and media that might otherwise go to the genuine opposition.

“The Quincy Institute opposes wars of no purpose that drag on endlessly.”

Wars of reasonable duration that aim at destroying any nation that the neoclowns don’t like, on the other hand, are just peachy.

The Saker has an important interview with an expert sinologist, which addresses the current stare-down between the US-led globohomo hegemony and the Sino-Russian leadership of the nationalist resistance to it.

A Sino-Russian alliance has long been seen in both the U.S. and in Europe as one of the greatest threats to the West’s global primacy and to Western-led world order. As early as 1951 U.S. negotiators meeting with Chinese delegations to end the Korean War were instructed to focus on the differences in the positions of Moscow and Beijing in an attempt to form a rift between the two. Close Sino-Soviet cooperation seriously stifled Western designs for the Korean Peninsula and the wider region during that period, and it was repeatedly emphasized that the key to a Western victory was to bring about a Sino-Soviet split. Achieving this goal by the early 1960s and bringing the two powers very near to a total conflict significantly increased prospects for a Western victory in the Cold War, with the end of the previously united front seriously undermining nationalist and leftist movements opposing Western designs from Africa and the Middle East to Vietnam and Korea. Both states learned the true consequences of this in the late 1980s and early 1990s when there was a real risk of total collapse under Western pressure. Attempts to bring an end to China’s national revolution through destabilization failed in 1989, although the USSR was less fortunate and the results for the Russian population in the following decade were grave indeed.

Today the Sino-Russian partnership has become truly comprehensive, and while Western experts from Henry Kissinger to the late Zbigniew Brzezinski among others have emphasized the importance of bringing about a new split in this partnership this strategy remains unlikely to work a second time. Both Beijing and Moscow learned from the dark period of the post-Cold War years that the closer they are together the safer they will be, and that any rift between them will only provide their adversaries with the key to bringing about their downfall. It is difficult to comprehend the importance of the Sino-Russian partnership for the security of both states without understanding the enormity of the Western threat – with maximum pressure being exerted on multiple fronts from finance and information to military and cyberspace. Where in the early 1950s it was only the Soviet nuclear deterrent which kept both states safe from very real Western plans for massive nuclear attacks, so too today is the synergy in the respective strengths of China and Russia key to protecting the sovereignty and security of the two nations from a very real and imminent threat. A few examples of the nature of this threat include growing investments in social engineering through social media – the results of have been seen in Hong Kong, Taiwan and Ukraine, a lowering threshold for nuclear weapons use by the United States – which it currently trains Western allies outside the NPT to deploy, and even reports from Russian and Korean sources of investments in biological warfare – reportedly being tested in Georgia, Eastern Europe and South Korea.

The partnership between Russia and China has become truly comprehensive, and is perhaps best exemplified by their military relations. From 2016 joint military exercises have involved the sharing of extremely sensitive information on missile and early warning systems – one of the most well kept defense secrets of any nuclear power which even NATO powers do not share with one another. Russia’s defense sector has played a key role in the modernization of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army, while Chinese investment has been essential to allowing Russia to continue research and development on next generation systems needed to retain parity with the United States. There is reportedly cooperation between the two in developing next generation weapons technologies for systems such as hypersonic cruise and anti aircraft missiles and new strategic bombers and fighter jets which both states plan to field by the mid-2020s. With the combined defense spending of both states a small fraction of that of the Western powers, which themselves cooperate closely in next generation defense projects, it is logical that the two should pool their resources and research and development efforts to most efficiently advance their own security.

Remember, the world is not binary. The fact that the globohomo hegemony is pure satanic evil does not mean that either the Chinese or the Russians are good guys. But at least they don’t eat people and molest children, and in the case of the Russians, hate Jesus Christ and persecute Christians.

Needless to say, Vladimir Putin’s remarks on the failure of liberalism and globalism are quite pertinent here:

 So, the liberal idea has become obsolete. It has come into conflict with the interests of the overwhelming majority of the population. 

The liberal idea failed the West because it proved to be directly contradictory to all three pillars of the West, Christianity, the European nations, and the Greco-Roman legal and philosophic legacies. It was, in the end, intrinsically anti-Western.

The Dalai Lama is not only a big hitter, he speaks more truth than all the politicians and corrupt churchmen of Europe combined:

The Dalai Lama has claimed ‘Europe is for Europeans’ and that the continent could become ‘Muslim or African’ if migrants are not sent back to their home countries. The Buddhist spiritual leader, who has been living as a refugee in India since fleeing Tibet in 1959, said only a ‘limited number’ of migrants should be allowed to remain.

During an interview with the BBC, the Dalai Lama added that refugees who have fled to Europe should be given skills before being returned. He said Europe was under an obligation to take in those who needed help, but ultimately they should be returned to their homelands. The 83-year-old said: ‘European countries should take these refugees and give them education and training, and the aim is return to their own land with certain skills.’

When asked what should happen to those who want to stay in their adopted countries, he replied: ‘A limited number is OK, but the whole of Europe [will] eventually become Muslim country, African country – impossible.’

He’s almost entirely correct. Because the only alternative is the continent-wide war between the European nations and the migrants, refugees, and quislings that appears to have already begun in Norway and in Germany.

The only point at which I disagree with His Holiness is the idea that Europe has any obligation to take in anyone for any reason. Neither the continent nor the people who live on it are obligated to do so under any moral standard.

So much for the “dehydration” story. Who do these idiots think they are fooling anyhow?

Angela Merkel has been seen shaking uncontrollably for the second time this month as fears grow for the 64-year-old German Chancellor’s health. Mrs Merkel’s arms and body could be seen noticeably trembling as she met Germany’s President Frank-Walter Steinmeier today.

She continually folded her arms in an apparent attempt to stop her hands and body from violently juddering. Close-up footage showed the difficulty she was having trying to keep the quivering under control as she gripped her arms together.

However, her spokesman claimed soon after that the German chancellor was ‘fine’.

It comes 10 days after she blamed dehydration for the shakes she suffered during a meeting with visiting Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy.

But it’s little wonder that the German government-media complex is attempting to keep Merkel’s physical deterioration under wraps, when the war for the country has already begun.

Suspect Stephan E. has admitted to the killing of conservative politician Walter Lübcke, Federal Prosecutor General Peter Frank told members of Germany’s parliament on Wednesday morning. Head of a regional government in the city of Kassel, Lübcke was found dead outside his home with a gunshot wound to the head on June 2. The 65-year-old was a member of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s conservative Christian Democratic Union (CDU).

News magazine Der Spiegel reported that Stephan E. told police the killing was triggered by remarks made by Lübcke during a townhall meeting in October 2015, on the creation of a new refugee reception center. Facing hecklers during the meeting, Lübcke said: “It is worth living in our country. Here you must stand up for values, and whoever doesn’t stand up for these values can leave this country any time if they don’t agree with them.”

But where are those Germans who don’t stand up for those self-destructive values supposed to go? Was it not always obvious that at least some of them were going to choose to stay and fight for their nation instead? As we have been repeatedly warned, there will be war.

President Trump confirms that John Bolton is a warmongering idiot:

Donald Trump has confirmed that his top foreign policy adviser wants to embroil the US in multiple international conflicts. But the US president insists he retains final say on whether American missiles are to fly into Iran.

In a sit-down Meet the Press interview broadcast Sunday, host Chuck Todd asked Trump if he was “being pushed into military action against Iran” by his advisers – presumably pointing to the aggressive pronouncements from National Security Advisor John Bolton.

“I have two groups of people. I have doves and I have hawks,” replied Trump. “John Bolton is absolutely a hawk. If it was up to him he’d take on the whole world at one time, okay?”

Americans had better pray the neoclowns don’t come to power again, as they did during the Bush years. Because they will start a war with the rest of the world and they will lose it.

President Trump never gave the green light:

President Trump says that he had not given the final go ahead for an Iranian attack when he called off a strike on Thursday night. He told NBC’s Chuck Todd in a Friday interview that airs in full on Sunday morning on ‘Meet the Press’ that the planes were still on the ground when he called the whole thing off.

‘Nothing is greenlighted until the very end, because things change,’ Trump said. ‘We had something ready to go, subject to my approval.’

He said he asked the critical question that caused him to hold back of a military general a half hour before the aircraft was due to take off.

‘No, were about ready to go. No, but they would have been pretty soon,’ he said. ‘And things would have happened to a point where we wouldn’t turn back, couldn’t turn back.’

He said he asked how many people would be killed. ‘Approximately 150,’ the unidentified general told him.

Trump said the number gave him pause, considering Iran shot down an unmanned drone.

‘And here we are sitting with 150 people dead people that would have taken place, probably within a half hour, after I said go ahead. And I didn’t like it. I didn’t think it was proportionate,’ he said.

It was just more neoclown propaganda trying to force his hand into starting a war somewhere, anywhere. And he was right. It wasn’t a proportionate response, especially considering the probability that Iran had the right to shoot down a spy drone that had entered their territory.