- Barack Obama is again speaking out of both sides of his
mouth. On the one side he is rattling sabers in Iran and drones in Pakistan
and on the other he is pandering to the anti-nuclear, anti-war peace lobby.
This is the same disarmament god that all globalist puppet presidents pay
homage to, and it couldn't be more false or come at a worst time for American
security. The Russian Bear and the Chinese Dragon are on the rise, and
Obama, like Neville Chamberlain at the precipice of World War II, is crowing
about "Peace in Our Time." Meanwhile, the president continues
to follow all of the globalist intervention and suppression of liberty
policies of his despised predecessor--bombing civilian targets with Predator
drones in Afghanistan and Pakistan, threatening Iran, spying on the American
people, invoking State Secrets to keep citizens from suing the government
in court, and shielding US officials guilty of authorizing torture. Despite
his carefully crafted rhetoric, nothing has changed.
-
- Commentator Chris Floyd unleashed a flurry of criticism
at Obama's peace initiatives in Prague. "While the usual gaggle of
sycophants and media hive-minders tell us that Barack Obama literally changed
the course of human history by disgorging a great load of thrice-chewed
cud about nuclear disarmament in Prague this week, the high-tech drone
war the great hero of peace is waging inside the sovereign territory of
America's ally, Pakistan, is helping drive tens of thousands of people
from their homes and killing civilians almost daily.
-
- "But there was nothing in Obama's speech that had
not been said dozens if not hundreds of times before by American presidents
from both parties, going back decades: We pledge 'to seek the peace and
security of a world without nuclear weapons.' Nuclear proliferation must
be stopped. Rogue states can't have nuclear bombs. We will work with the
Russians to reduce our stockpiles. What president has ever said otherwise?"
-
- Floyd is right. History is littered with the debris and
dead of this Western fetish to disarm. The history of arms 'control' is
an abject and deadly failure, and yet they persist. Political Science Professor
David L. Schaefer of the College of the Holy Cross gave Wall Street Journal
readers a summary of past violations: "Mr. Obama apparently believes
that the chief lesson to be learned from Pyongyang's missile launch is
the need for more arms-control initiatives. Reducing our nuclear arsenal
only gives outlaw states (including China) the incentive to increase theirs,
to try to rival ours. And eliminating nuclear-weapons testing reduces the
reliability of our arms and hence their effectiveness as a deterrent. Here's
some of the history:
-
- - "Beginning in 1906, Britain cut back an ambitious
program of naval construction, begun under a previous administration, in
the hope of thereby avoiding an 'arms race' with Germany. But the change
in British policy actually encouraged Germany's Adm. Alfred von Tirpitz
to redouble his efforts to build a navy that would rival Britain's. This
perception of British weakness may well have buttressed the confidence
that led the Germans to launch World War I.
-
- - "The Washington Naval Conference of 1922 set limits
on battleship construction by the U.S., Japan, Britain, France and Italy.
But as a result, Japan instead focused on building other kinds of warships,
paving the way for Pearl Harbor [After multiple and purposeful provocations
by the Roosevelt administration].
-
- - "Britain's policy of restraint in military production
during the 1930s -- combined with the refusal of British and French governments
to send forces to turn back Hitler's then weak army when it violated the
Versailles Treaty by remilitarizing the Rhineland in 1936 -- did not placate
Hitler. It only whetted the dictator's appetite, generating what Winston
Churchill called the "unnecessary war," World War II, which might
never have occurred had the Western allies maintained their armaments and
a firm policy during the years that led up to it.
-
- - "The U.S. signed the Strategic Arms Limitation
Talks antiballistic missile treaties with the Soviet Union in 1972, expecting
they would produce a 'stable' balance and ultimately a reduction in nuclear
armaments. Instead the Soviets continued their race for nuclear superiority,
as summed up in congressional testimony by Jimmy Carter's Defense Secretary
Harold Brown in 1979: '[W]hen we build, they build. When we cut, they build.'
As President Ronald Reagan observed in a 1985 radio address on the Strategic
Defense Initiative missile defense program the Soviets never accepted the
'innocent' American notion 'that being mutually vulnerable to attack was
in our common interest' [rebutting the phony "mutual assured destruction
(MAD)" myth of deterrence].
-
- - "As soon as the Soviets signed the 1972 convention
banning the manufacture of biological weapons, they immediately (secretly)
ramped up their production of such weapons"
-
- To this I would add that the most recent violations of
disarmament agreements are even worse, both as to the act itself and the
insistence of the US in going through with their portion in spite of Russian
non-compliance:
-
- 1) After the deceptive "fall of the Soviet Union"
Eastern European defectors revealed that the Russians had NOT removed intermediate
range missiles from cave-based launching sites in Czechoslovakia and Bulgaria
as agreed in the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty.
-
- 2) 1991 Strategic Arms Reductions Treaty (START 1) went
into force requiring reductions in nuclear delivery missiles to under 1,000
nuclear weapons each (deployed and reserve) by the end of 2010; The US
complied by removing its most powerful missiles, the MX, and reducing the
Minuteman missiles to less than 500. The Russians allowed the US to dismantle
a few older SS-18 and SS-24 missiles and then decided to retain the most
modern ones.
-
- 3) In 2002, Bush pushed through a bilateral agreement
with the Russians, the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT) requiring
the reduction of warheads from 6,000 to 1,700 for the US and 2,200 for
the Russians, just to be "gracious". The US continued the taxpayer
funded program (Nunn-Lugar) to dismantle older missile warheads for the
Russians, and even built a state of the art nuclear facility for Russia
to rejuvenate those warheads. Russia placed all those warheads in reserve.
No destruction took place that we can verify. The program to supposedly
buy back recycled uranium from Russia has no way to ensure that the Russians
are actually providing fuel from warheads.
-
- 4) The Bush administration undermined the non-proliferation
regime by its arm twisting in support of the US-India nuclear deal, which
gave special nuclear preferences to India which never did join the NPT
and developed nuclear weapons (with Russian assistance).
-
- Schaefer continues, "The likelihood that reducing
America's strategic forces is going to elicit reciprocal behavior from
our antagonists is nil. Nor will anything short of forceful sanctions (such
as the George W. Bush administration applied, but then withdrew [there
never was any intention to make them stick], against North Korean financial
assets), have any effect in halting their march towards nuclear status
[But we always go through with our promised gifts of oil and food even
when they aren't complying]. In the words of the Joan Baez antiwar song
from the 1960s: When will they ever learn?"
-
- Globalists don't learn because they don't really want
a conflict-free world. Conflict gives them the rationale to force unwanted
change on people. Obama's Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel made a now-famous
quote regarding the current financial crisis, "Never let a serious
crisis go to waste...it's an opportunity to do things you couldn't do before."
This was a telltale admission that he and others inside government truly
believe in the Hegelian doctrine of managed conflict to enforce change.
-
- That is why each successive administration, be it Republican
or Democrat, seeks for more appeasement of real threats and attacks weaker
nations to further larger provocations. Are they really just stupid, or
is there another agenda driving this mania? They are not stupid and there
is another agenda--war. One-sided disarmament only encourages war and makes
it inevitable.
-
- Nathan Hodge outlines what Obama's disarmament fanatics
are proposing, for starters: "President Barack Obama announced his
vision of a 'world without nuclear weapons,' and said the United States
would lead by example on disarmament [code for unilateral disarmament].
But he gave few specifics on how, exactly, he plans to reduce the U.S.
nuclear arsenal. The Nuclear Weapons Complex Consolidation Policy Network,
wants to see a substantially smaller footprint for the U.S. nuclear weapons
complex. It will release a study tomorrow [embraced by Obama] that advocates
a nuclear weapons stockpile of 500 warheads -- and a complex downsized
from eight to three sites by 2025... the report, which supports a number
of steps that the administration has promised to take: extending the Strategic
Arms Reduction Treaty with Russia; ratifying the Comprehensive Nuclear
Test Ban treaty; and seeking an end to the production of fissile materials
for nuclear weapons. But the report also takes things further, recommending
a total de-alerting of nuclear forces over time and drastic reduction in
nuclear weapons design activity.
-
- "The study also proposes a roadmap for downsizing
the nuclear complex. The complex today was scaled back at the end of the
Cold War, and eight sites remain: Los Alamos National Laboratory; Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory; Sandia National Laboratories; the Nevada
Test Site; Kansas City Plant [manufacturing of non-nuclear components to
nuclear warheads, bombs]; Pantex Plant [Amarillo, Tx]; Y-12 Plant [Oak
Ridge, Tn]; and Savannah River/Tritium Operations [South Carolina]. The
National Nuclear Security Administration, the quasi-autonomous arm of the
Department of Energy that oversees the complex, has proposed consolidating
special nuclear materials at five sites by around 2012; this would be a
much more radical move."
-
- But there's another more subtle form of disarmament going
on in the name of budget cutting --but specifically targeting America's
weapons that will be essential in the next world war against Russia and
China. Noah Shactman writes that "Defense Secretary Gates just proposed
the most sweeping overhaul of America's arsenal -- and of the Pentagon
budget -- in decades. Major weapons programs, from aircraft carriers to
next-gen bombers to new school fighting vehicles, will be cut back [including
our best fighter, the F-22 Raptor], or eliminated. Billions more will be
put into growing the American [insurgency] fighting force, both human and
robotic. For a year and a half, Gates has been trying to force the American
military-industrial establishment to concentrate on the dirty, irregular
wars America is actually in -- instead of tomorrow's hypothetical showdowns
with China or Russia." In other words, don't prepare for the really
big war coming up--keep bleeding American resources in never-ending small
foreign wars and conflicts in the phony "war on terror."
-
- (End Excerpt)
-
- Commentary And Insights On A Troubled World.
-
- Copyright Joel Skousen. Partial quotations with attribution
permitted.
-
- Cite source as Joel Skousen's World Affairs Brief
-
- http://www.worldaffairsbrief.com
|