Thread: WORLD BRACES FOR WAR: Canada send Jetfighters to Poland to Bolster NATO Forces

Bankers are Behind the Wars

Submitted by George Washington on 04/19/2014 08:00 -0400

Image by Terry Robinson

Former managing director of Goldman Sachs – and head of the international analytics group at Bear Stearns in London (Nomi Prins) - notes:

Throughout the century that I examined, which began with the Panic of 1907 … what I found by accessing the archives of each president is that through many events and periods, particular bankers were in constant communication [with the White House] — not just about financial and economic policy, and by extension trade policy, but also about aspects of World War I, or World War II, or the Cold War, in terms of the expansion that America was undergoing as a superpower in the world, politically, buoyed by the financial expansion of the banking community.

***

In the beginning of World War I, Woodrow Wilson had adopted initially a policy of neutrality. But the Morgan Bank, which was the most powerful bank at the time, and which wound up funding over 75 percent of the financing for the allied forces during World War I … pushed Wilson out of neutrality sooner than he might have done,because of their desire to be involved on one side of the war.

Now, on the other side of that war, for example, was the National City Bank, which, though they worked with Morgan in financing the French and the British, they also didn’t have a problem working with financing some things on the German side, as did Chase …

When Eisenhower became president … the U.S. was undergoing this expansion by providing, under his doctrine, military aid and support to countries [under] the so-called threat of being taken over by communism … What bankers did was they opened up hubs, in areas such as Cuba, in areas such as Beirut and Lebanon, where the U.S. also wanted to gain a stronghold in their Cold War fight against the Soviet Union. And so the juxtaposition of finance and foreign policy were very much aligned.

So in the ‘70s, it became less aligned, because though America was pursuing foreign policy initiatives in terms of expansion, the bankers found oil, and they made an extreme effort to activate relationships in the Middle East, that then the U.S. government followed. For example, in Saudi Arabia and so forth, they get access to oil money, and then recycle it into Latin American debt and other forms of lending throughout the globe. So that situation led the U.S. government.

Indeed, JP Morgan also purchased control over America’s leading 25 newspapers in order to propagandize US public opinion in favor of US entry into World War 1.
And many big banks did, in fact, fund the Nazis.

The BBC reported in 1998:

Barclays Bank has agreed to pay $3.6m to Jews whose assets were seized from French branches of the British-based bank during World War II.

***

Chase Manhattan Bank, which has acknowledged seizing about 100 accounts held by Jews in its Paris branch during World War II ….”Recently unclassified reports from the US Treasury about the activities of Chase in Paris in the 1940s indicate that the local branch worked “in close collaboration with the German authorities” in freezing Jewish assets.

The New York Daily News noted the same year:

The relationship between Chase and the Nazis apparently was so cozy that Carlos Niedermann, the Chase branch chief in Paris, wrote his supervisor in Manhattan that the bank enjoyed “very special esteem” with top German officials and “a rapid expansion of deposits,” according to Newsweek.

Niedermann’s letter was written in May 1942 five months after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor and the U.S. also went to war with Germany.

The BBC reported in 1999:

A French government commission, investigating the seizure of Jewish bank accounts during the Second World War, says five American banks Chase Manhattan, J.P Morgan, Guaranty Trust Co. of New York, Bank of the City of New York and American Express had taken part.

It says their Paris branches handed over to the Nazi occupiers about one-hundred such accounts.

One of Britain’s main newspapers – the Guardian – reported in 2004:

George Bush’s grandfather [and George H.W. Bush's father], the late US senator Prescott Bush, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany.

The Guardian has obtained confirmation from newly discovered files in the US National Archives that a firm of whichPrescott Bush was a director was involved with the financial architects of Nazism.

His business dealings … continued until his company’s assets were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act

***

The documents reveal that the firm he worked for, Brown Brothers Harriman (BBH), acted as a US base for the German industrialist, Fritz Thyssen, who helped finance Hitler in the 1930s before falling out with him at the end of the decade. The Guardian has seen evidence that shows Bush was the director of the New York-based Union Banking Corporation (UBC) that represented Thyssen’s US interests and he continued to work for the bank after America entered the war.

***

Bush was a founding member of the bank [UBC] … The bank was set up by Harriman and Bush’s father-in-law to provide a US bank for the Thyssens, Germany’s most powerful industrial family.

***

By the late 1930s, Brown Brothers Harriman, which claimed to be the world’s largest private investment bank, and UBC had bought and shipped millions of dollars of gold, fuel, steel, coal and US treasury bonds to Germany, both feeding and financing Hitler’s build-up to war.

Between 1931 and 1933 UBC bought more than $8m worth of gold, of which $3m was shipped abroad. According to documents seen by the Guardian, after UBC was set up it transferred $2m to BBH accounts and between 1924 and 1940 the assets of UBC hovered around $3m, dropping to $1m only on a few occasions.

***

UBC was caught red-handed operating a American shell company for the Thyssen family eight months after America had entered the war and that this was the bank that had partly financed Hitler’s rise to power.

Indeed, banks often finance both sides of wars:



(The San Francisco Chronicle also documents that leading financiers Rockefeller, Carnegie and Harriman also funded Nazi eugenics programs … but that’s a story for another day.)
The Federal Reserve and other central banks also help to start wars by financing them. Thomas Jefferson and the father of free market capitalism, Adam Smith, both noted that the financing wars by banks led to more – and longer – wars.
Indeed, wars are the fastest way for banks to create more debt ... and therefore to make more profit.
And America apparently considers economic rivalry to be a basis for war, and is using the military to contain China’s growing economic influence.
Multi-billionaire investor Hugo Salinas Price says:

What happened to [Libya's] Mr. Gaddafi, many speculate the real reason he was ousted was that he was planning an all-African currency for conducting trade. The same thing happened to him that happened to Saddam because the US doesn’t want any solid competing currency out there vs the dollar. You know Gaddafi was talking about a gold dinar.

Senior CNBC editor John Carney noted:

Is this the first time a revolutionary group has created a central bank while it is still in the midst of fighting the entrenched political power? It certainly seems to indicate how extraordinarily powerful central bankers have become in our era.

Robert Wenzel of Economic Policy Journal thinks the central banking initiative reveals that foreign powers may have a strong influence over the rebels.

This suggests we have a bit more than a ragtag bunch of rebels running around and that there are some pretty sophisticated influences. “I have never before heard of a central bank being created in just a matter of weeks out of a popular uprising,” Wenzel writes.

Indeed, many claim that recent wars have really been about bringing all countries into the fold of Western central banking, and that the wars against Middle Eastern countries are really about forcing them into the dollar and private central banking.

The most decorated American military man in history said that war is a racket, and noted:

Let us not forget the bankers who financed the great war. If anyone had the cream of the profits it was the bankers.

The big banks have also been laundering money for terrorists. The big bank employee who blew the whistle on the banks’ money laundering for terrorists and drug cartels says that the giant bank is still aiding terrorists, saying:

The public needs to know that money is still being funneled through HSBC to directly buy guns and bullets to kill our soldiers …. Banks financing … terrorists affects every single American.

He also said:

It is disgusting that our banks are STILL financing terror on 9/11 2013.

And see this.

According to the BBC and other sources, Prescott Bush, JP Morgan and other leading financiers also funded a coup against President Franklin Roosevelt in an attempt – basically – to implement fascism in the U.S. See this, this, this and this.
Kevin Zeese writes:

Americans are recognizing the link between the military-industrial complex and the Wall Street oligarchs—a connection that goes back to the beginning of the modern U.S. empire. Banks have always profited from warbecause the debt created by banks results in ongoing war profit for big finance; and because wars have been used to open countries to U.S. corporate and banking interests. Secretary of State, William Jennings Bryan wrote: “the large banking interests were deeply interested in the world war because of the wide opportunities for large profits.”

Many historians now recognize that a hidden history for U.S. entry into World War I was to protect U.S. investors.U.S. commercial interests had invested heavily in European allies before the war: “By 1915, American neutrality was being criticized as bankers and merchants began to loan money and offer credits to the warring parties, although the Central Powers received far less. Between 1915 and April 1917, the Allies received 85 times the amount loaned to Germany.” The total dollars loaned to all Allied borrowers during this period was $2,581,300,000. The bankers saw that if Germany won, their loans to European allies would not be repaid. The leading U.S. banker of the era, J.P. Morgan and his associates did everything they could to push the United States into the war on the side of England and France. Morgan said: “We agreed that we should do all that was lawfully in our power to help the Allies win the war as soon as possible.” President Woodrow Wilson, who campaigned saying he would keep the United States out of war, seems to have entered the war to protect U.S. banks’ investments in Europe.

The most decorated Marine in history, Smedley Butler, described fighting for U.S. banks in many of the wars he fought in. He said: “I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high-class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.”

In Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, John Perkins describes how World Bank and IMF loans are used to generate profits for U.S. business and saddle countries with huge debts that allow the United States to control them. It is not surprising that former civilian military leaders like Robert McNamara and Paul Wolfowitz went on to head the World Bank. These nations’ debt to international banks ensures they are controlled by the United States, which pressures them into joining the “coalition of the willing” that helped invade Iraq or allowing U.S. military bases on their land. If countries refuse to “honor” their debts, the CIA or Department of Defense enforces U.S. political will through coups or military action.

***

More and more people are indeed seeing the connection between corporate banksterism and militarism ….

Indeed, all wars are bankers’ wars.

http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed...re-behind-wars

Guest Post: Why The West's Financial Warfare Against Russia May Lead To The Real Thing

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 04/18/2014 12:45 -0400

Authored by Harold James, originally posted at European Voice,

The revolution in Ukraine and Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea have generated a serious security crisis in Europe. But, with Western leaders testing a new kind of financial warfare, the situation could become even more dangerous.
A democratic, stable, and prosperous Ukraine would be a constant irritant – and rebuke – to President Vladimir Putin's autocratic and economically sclerotic Russian Federation. In order to prevent such an outcome, Putin is trying to destabilise Ukraine, by seizing Crimea and fomenting ethnic conflict in the eastern part of the country.
At the same time, Putin is attempting to boost Russia's appeal by doubling Crimeans' pensions, boosting the salaries of the region's 200,000 civil servants, and constructing large, Sochi-style infrastructure, including a $3 billion (€2.2bn) bridge across the Kerch Strait. This strategy's long-term sustainability is dubious, owing to the strain that it will put on Russia's public finances. But it will nonetheless serve Putin's goal of projecting Russia's influence.
For their part, the European Union and the United States have no desire for military intervention to defend Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity. But verbal protests alone would make the West look ridiculous and ineffective to the rest of the international community, ultimately giving rise to further – and increasingly far-ranging – security challenges. This leaves Western powers with one option: to launch a financial war against Russia.
As the former US Treasury official Juan Zarate revealed in his recent memoir “Treasury's war”, the US spent the decade after the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks developing a new set of financial weapons to use against the United States' enemies – first Al Qaeda, then North Korea and Iran, and now Russia. These weapons included asset freezes and blocking rogue banks' access to international finance.
When the Ukrainian revolution began, the Russian banking system was already over-extended and vulnerable. But the situation became much worse with the toppling of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych and the annexation of Crimea, which triggered a stock-market panic that weakened the Russian economy considerably and depleted the assets of Russia's powerful oligarchs.
In a crony capitalist system, threatening the governing elite's wealth rapidly erodes loyalty to the regime. For the corrupt elite, there is a tipping point beyond which the opposition provides better protection for their wealth and power – a point that was reached in Ukraine as the Maidan protests gathered momentum.
Putin's public speeches reveal his conviction that the EU and the US cannot possibly be serious about their financial war, which, in his view, would ultimately hurt their highly complex and interconnected financial markets more than Russia's relatively isolated financial system. After all, the link between financial integration and vulnerability was the main lesson of the crisis that followed the collapse of US investment bank Lehman Brothers in 2008.
In fact, Lehman was a small institution compared to the Austrian, French, and German banks that have become highly exposed to Russia's financial system through the practice of using deposits from Russian companies and individuals to lend to Russian borrowers. Given this, a Russian asset freeze could be catastrophic for European – indeed, global – financial markets.
Putin's plan for destabilising Ukraine is thus two-pronged: capitalise on linguistic or national animosities in Ukraine to foster social fragmentation, while taking advantage of Western – especially European – financial vulnerabilities. Indeed, Putin sometimes likes to frame it as a contest pitting him against the power of financial markets.
The arms race that preceded the First World War was accompanied by exactly the same mixture of military reluctance and eagerness to experiment with the power of markets. In 1911, the leading textbook on the German financial system, by the veteran banker Jacob Riesser, warned: “The enemy, however, may endeavour to aggravate a panic...by the sudden collection of outstanding claims, by an unlimited sale of our home securities, and by other attempts to deprive Germany of gold. Attempts may also be made to dislocate our capital, bill, and securities markets, and to menace the basis of our system of credit and payments”.
Politicians began to grasp the potential consequences of financial vulnerability only in 1907, when they faced a financial panic that originated in the US but that had serious consequences for continental Europe (and, in some ways, prefigured the Great Depression). That experience taught every country to make its own financial system more resilient to ward off potential attacks, and that attacks could be a devastating response to diplomatic pressure.
That is exactly what happened in 1911, when a dispute over control of Morocco spurred France to organise the withdrawal of 200 million Deutsche Marks invested in Germany. But Germany was prepared and managed to ward off the attack. Indeed, German bankers proudly noted that the crisis of confidence hit the Paris market much harder than markets in Berlin or Hamburg.
Countries' efforts to protect their financial systems often centred on increased banking supervision and, in many cases, enlarging the central bank's authority to include the provision of emergency liquidity to domestic institutions. Subsequent debates about financial reform in the US reflected this imperative, with some of the US Federal Reserve's founders pointing out the military and financial applications of the term “reserve”.
At that time, financial-reform efforts were driven by the notion that building up financial buffers would make the world safe. But this belief fuelled excessive confidence among those responsible for the reforms, preventing them from anticipating that military measures would soon be needed to protect the economy. Instead of being an alternative to war, the financial arms race made war more likely – as it may well be doing with Russia today.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-0...ead-real-thing

Putin's Top 10 Q&A Quotes: "The US Will Cut Off Their Nose To Spite Their Face"


Submitted by Tyler Durden on 04/17/2014 21:22 -0400

Originally posted at Russia Today,

Ukraine’s crisis was, predictably, at the center of Vladimir Putin’s annual televised interview. He said the situation can only be solved through a compromise between internal players. Below are the president’s ten most significant quotes.

“[Yanukovich] didn’t have the heart to sign an act that would see force used against his citizens”

Answering a question from an ex-Berkut - Ukrainian special forces - commander as to whether the ousted Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovich has always been such a “weakling and traitor,” Putin said that Yanukovich did his duty as he thought was right, proper and necessary.
“I spoke with him, certainly, many times, during the crisis, and after he arrived in the Russian Federation; we talked about using force… The gist of his answer was that he thought about using force many times, but he didn’t have the heart to sign an act that would see force used against his citizens,” Putin said.

“Faina Ivanovna, dear, what would you need Alaska for?”

Asked by a pensioner if Alaska could follow Crimea’s example, Putin said “We’re a northern country. 70 percent of our territory is in the North or Far North. Is Alaska in the southern hemisphere? It’s cold there as well. Let’s keep cool about it,” Putin said.
According to Putin, he is also aware of the fact that some Russians call Alaska “Ice-Krym” (“Krym” is the Russian for Crimea).
“Tanks, jets against own people?! Are they nuts?”

The Russian President said he thought that asking activists in the southeast of Ukraine to hand in their weapons was the right approach, but this measure should also be applied to armed Ukrainian nationalist groups.
Putin also said that the crisis in Ukraine can only be solved through a compromise in the interests of the Ukrainian people.
“The coup-appointed government in Kiev needs to come to its senses before we can negotiate,” said Putin.



“They don’t want to see us in PACE? Better lost than found!”

Russia won’t insist on staying in several international organizations, but isn’t planning to walk out in protest, Putin said.
“The world is developing intensively, and if there a player who wants to turn it unipolar and align all organizations according to their will, it won’t succeed,” the president added.

“It’s hard to speak with people who whisper at home, afraid of US surveillance.”

Putin noted that there are some problems in the dialogue between Moscow and its European partners.
“Many Western countries have voluntarily relinquished a large part of their sovereignty. That is, among other things, the result of bloc policy. It’s sometimes really difficult to negotiate with them on geopolitical issues,” he said.
“It’s difficult to talk to people who whisper even at home, afraid of Americans eavesdropping on them. It’s not a figure of speech, not a joke, I’m serious.”

“Obama is a decent, courageous man, he would save me from drowning”

To the question whether Obama would save the Russian President from drowning, Putin answered that the US president is “a decent, courageous man” and “would save” him.
However, Putin stressed that the relationship between them wasn’t a close one.
“In addition to intergovernmental relations, there are personal relations, but I don’t think I have a close personal relationship with Obama,” the president said.

“You’re an ex-intelligence agent, I have something to do with intelligence, let’s use professional terms” – Putin to Snowden

Russia’s president received a question from Edward Snowden who was granted political asylum last August. Snowden asked Putin if Russia is involved in “intercepting, storing and analyzing the data on communication carried out by millions of people”and whether Russia’s president thinks this kind of mass control is fair and justified.


Putin stressed Snowden was an ex-intelligence agent, while he himself used to be in intelligence, so Russia’s president said he would be speaking “using professional terms.”
“First of all, we have strict laws governing the usage of any special means – including ones to monitor telephone conversations or the internet - by intelligence. This regulation makes it necessary to get a court order to surveil an individual. That’s why we can’t carry out mass surveillance, and we don’t, in accordance with our law,” Putin said.

“No plans to remain President for life”

Putin, who served as president for two consecutive terms between 2000 and 2008 and was elected again in 2012, was asked if he wanted to remain Russia’s head of state for life.
“No,” was his answer.



“Russia didn’t annex Crimea by force, but created conditions for people’s self-determination”

“Russia did not annex Crimea by force. Russia created conditions – indeed, with the help of special formations and the armed forces, I’ll be honest – for the free expression of will by people living in Crimea and Sevastopol,” Putin said.
“The decision on joining [Russia] was made by the people themselves. Russia responded to that appeal and accepted Crimea and Sevastopol into its family. That’s natural, it couldn’t be any other way.”

“Punishing others, the US will cut off their nose to spite their face”

Putin was asked why the US can do whatever it wants and no one punishes them, while attempts are being made to punish Russia.
“The US is certainly one of the world’s leaders. At some point it seemed that it was the only leader and a uni-polar system was in place. Today it appears that is not the case. Everything in the world is interdependent and once you try to punish someone, in the end you will cut off your nose to spite your face,” he said.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-0...ite-their-face

Russia confirms troops deployed near Ukraine


An armed pro-Russian activist stands guard at a barricade outside the regional state building seized by the separatists, in the eastern Ukrainian city of Slavyansk, on April 18, 2014. AFP

By Staff writer | Al Arabiya News
Friday, 18 April 2014

A Kremlin spokesman confirmed Friday that Russia has built up its military presence on the Ukrainian border, Agence France Presse reported, as the United States warned that Moscow would face tougher sanctions if it failed to abide by a new international deal on Ukraine.

"We have troops in different regions, and there are troops close to the Ukrainian border. Some are based there, others have been sent as reinforcements due to the situation in Ukraine," spokesman Dmitry Peskov told Rossiya 1 television, AFP reported.

In Washington, Susan Rice, President Barack Obama's national security adviser, was quoted by Reuters as saying that Moscow would face tougher sanctions if it failed to abide by a deal arrived in Geneva a day earlier that held the hope of defusing the stand-off in Ukraine.

She warned Moscow would also face sanctions if it moved to send Russian forces into eastern Ukraine.

"Those costs and sanctions could include targeting very significant sectors of the Russian economy," Rice told reporters.

Rice said the U.S. was watching very closely to see whether Russia met its obligations to use its influence to get pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine to disarm and abandon public buildings they had seized.

In Geneva Thursday, the U.S., Russia, Ukraine and EU brokered a deal requiring all illegal armed groups to disarm and end occupations of public buildings, streets and squares.

The warning from Rice came as Russia reacted angrily to previous U.S. warnings, including from President Barack Obama, that it could face new sanctions if it did not live up to the Geneva deal.

Peskov said Russia would not be the only party held responsible for implementing the agreement on easing tensions in Ukraine, according to AFP.

He added that threats of further sanctions by Washington were "absolutely unacceptable.”

"Our Western colleagues are trying to push responsibility [for implementing the deal] toward our side. But it must be underlined: it is a collective responsibility," Peskov said.

Earlier Friday, armed pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine said they were not bound by the conditions of the international deal until the government in Kiev government quit.

Denis Pushilin, the head of the self-declared Donetsk People's Republic, was quoted by Reuters as telling journalists in the regional capital Donetsk that Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov "did not sign anything for us, he signed on behalf of the Russian Federation."

He said the prime minister and acting president who took power in February should first quit their offices, as they took them over "illegally.”

In a bid to defuse protests, Ukraine's acting president and prime minister offered some of their strongest pledges for constitutional change.

In a joint televised address, acting President Oleksander Turchinov and Prime Minister Arseny Yatseniuk called for national unity, urged people to refrain from violence and said they would support constitutional change, decentralizing more power to local councils, including over their official language - a key demand of Russian-speakers, Reuters reported.

Kiev also said the government was preparing a law that would give the separatists an amnesty if they backed down.

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News...r-Ukraine.html

Governor Mike Pence In Berlin: Diplomacy with Russia Has Failed

Says West must promote free trade, install missile defenses in Poland, Czech Republic



BY: Washington Free Beacon Staff
April 17, 2014 2:52 pm

Gov. Mike Pence (R., Ind.) on Wednesday declared the “reset” of U.S.-Russian relations a failure and called for the construction of a European missile defense shield to deter Russian aggression.

“With Russian aggression on the rise again, it is clear that our policy of conciliatory diplomacy has failed, Pence said at a Friends of Indiana reception in Berlin, Germany.

“While new sanctions are of some value, in the interest of our alliance, I believe the United States and the EU must respond with deeds more than words to strengthen our economic and strategic defenses,” Pence added.

Pence then called for the deployment of a “robust missile defense” for all of Europe.

“With continued instability in the Middle East, and Putin’s aggression in Ukraine, I believe we must take immediate steps to strengthen our mutual security by deploying a robust missile defense in all of Europe – including Poland and the Czech Republic – to protect the interests of our NATO allies and the United States in the region,” he said.



http://freebeacon.com/national-secur...ia-has-failed/

And why are we seeing Putin act so aggressively? Because he knows Obama is all bluster and no stick. He sees Obama unilaterally disarming the U.S. military -- eviscerating advanced fighter systems, dismantling nuclear weapons, killing the Tomahawk missile program, to name but a few -- and knows that the president's core belief is that America must be weak.

Reagan and Levin drop science on Rand Paul, Mike Shedlock, and the rest of the isolationist war-mongers

Irespect and often link to Mike Shedlock's Global Economic Analysis site for his take on macroeconomics. His opinions are usually sound and his reasoning and research solid.

On Thursday, April 17th, Mark Levin tore the isolationist-Code Pink-McGovern libertarians a new orifice using a Ronald Reagan speech as an exclamation point. You can listen to it here (MP3 - courtesy of The Mark Levin Show Podcast Downloader Widget).

But when he veers into national defense and international diplomacy, he makes a complete fool of himself. He advocates the Ron Paul/George McGovern strategy of appeasment and weakness, which history tells us is far more dangerous than the alternative.

I like Rand Paul, who appears to be an attractive candidate, except for his isolationist rhetoric that echoes his father's bizarre statements. Isolationism is not conservatism. Appeasement is not conservatism. Weakness is not conservatism.

Today we are witnessing a slow-motion replay of the 1930s with Russia's annexation activities. Putin's actions are bringing instability, fear and trepidation to all of Europe.

And why are we seeing Putin act so aggressively? Because he knows Obama is all bluster and no stick. He sees Obama unilaterally disarming the U.S. military -- eviscerating advanced fighter systems, dismantling nuclear weapons, killing the Tomahawk missile program, to name but a few -- and knows that the president's core belief is that America must be weak.

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/

After all, America is an imperialist war-monger in the view of Obama, Shedlock, Paul, and the other nuts.

I repeat: nuts. Can they not comprehend history? Those bases in other countries? They're there for us. They're there to project power when it's needed. They're there to reassure allies, to demonstrate resolve, and -- ultimately -- to prevent conflict.

A strong national defense? It's for us. It's to ensure that no one dare pick a fight with the United States or its allies. It there to prevent conflict.

That's how Reagan won the Cold War without firing a shot.

And today we are witnessing all of those gains vanish as the most destructive president in American history orchestrates the rise of a nuclear Iran, a Middle East afire, Red China laying claim to ever-increasing swaths of the Pacific, and Russia creeping ever westward into Europe.

It is the isolationist, Code Pink libertarians that are the war-mongers.

Obama, Shedlock, Paul, and the other isolationists seek war. They seek death and destruction. They ignore the lessons of history that teach us -- over and over again, century after century after century -- that weakness and appeasement beget conflict.

Obama, Shedlock, Paul and their ilk are the war-mongers. They must ignore all of human history to arrive at their bizarre ideology; it is certain that their ignorance will get a lot of people killed.

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/

RELATED

http://www.alipac.us/f9/u-s-army-eur...kraine-299280/

US, And Global, Military Spending Summed Up In One Chart

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 04/19/2014 17:36 -0400

• Gross Domestic Product
• President Obama

While we previously noted the relative stability (but absolute surge) in US military spending over the past few decades, the scale of what the world's peace-keeping, red-line enforcing, hypocrisy-packed nation spends in context to the rest of the world...


Source: AFP
We previously put the US military budget in context over time...



And unless we get some serious military conflict to blame a reflation on, and if U.S. military spending were to revert to its 2000 level over the next five years, as President Obama had proposed, and the rest of the world were to continue spending the same portion of its GDP on the military, U.S. military spending as a share of the global total would decline sharply, to just under 30 percent.




http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-0...mmed-one-chart

http://www.alipac.us/f9/military-dra...-video-298556/

U.S. ground troops going to Poland, defense minister says

• By Fred Hiatt
• April 18 at 3:53 pm

Polish Defense Minister Tomasz Siemoniak, right, at the Pentagon on Thursday. (Photo: EPA/Michael Reynolds)

Poland and the United States will announce next week the deployment of U.S. ground forces to Poland as part of an expansion of NATO presence in Central and Eastern Europe in response to events in Ukraine. That was the word from Poland’s defense minister, Tomasz Siemoniak, who visited The Post Friday after meeting with Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel at the Pentagon on Thursday.
Siemoniak said the decision has been made on a political level and that military planners are working out details. There will also be intensified cooperation in air defense, special forces, cyberdefense and other areas. Poland will play a leading regional role, “under U.S. patronage,” he said.

But the defense minister also said that any immediate NATO response to Russian aggression in Ukraine, while important, matter less than a long-term shift in the defense postures of Europe and America. The United States, having announced a “pivot” to Asia, needs to “re-pivot” to Europe, he said, and European countries that have cut back on defense spending need to reverse the trends.

“The idea until recently was that there were no more threats in Europe and no need for a U.S. presence in Europe any more,” Siemoniak said, speaking through an interpreter. “Events show that what is needed is a re-pivot, and that Europe was safe and secure because America was in Europe.”

How likely is such a reversal on defense spending? Siemoniak said there was widespread support at a recent meeting of European defense ministers. “Now they’ll go back to their presidents, prime ministers and ministers of finance, and this will stop being easy,” he admitted. “But the impetus is very strong.”

The strongest impetus, he said, is not even Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea, but President Vladimir Putin’s bald lies about Russian actions there and his exposition of a new doctrine allowing Russia to intervene in any country where Russian-speaking populations are, in Russia’s judgment, under threat. This poses a potential danger to the Baltic nations, which are members of NATO, and even more to Moldova, Belarus and central Asian nations that are not, he said.

Like President Obama, Siemoniak said it’s too soon to judge the agreement reached Thursday in Geneva to defuse tensions. He said he believes that Russia’s “special operation in eastern Ukraine didn’t go as planned” and that Putin may have decided to play a longer game.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...minister-says/