DECACS, Inc. and all its Initiatives

Archive for the ‘capitalism’ Category

Christmas & White Supremacy/Capitalism/Consumerism

Is it just me? 
How is it that having a European looking man, with blonde hair and blue eyes, from the middle east elevated to the status of God, is NOT promoting white supremacy?
For the next 30 days folks will be peppering their house, lawns, schools and churches and every where else with the image of a “white” child in a manger purported to be GOD incarnate. A so-called Christmas celebration that really is a cloak for white supremacy. 
 jUSTICE OR ELSE

BOYCOTTING CHRISTMAS CRIPPLES WHITE SUPREMACY 

 NOVEMBER 19, 2015 NOI RESEARCH
Ida B. Wells
 Think about it, from now on it will be quite alright for Jesus to be depicted as White! All over the world from the deepest jungles to the highest skyscraper, Jesus will not represent every racial group or ethnicity, he, his parents and most of everyone around down to the angels will all be white. What a mind f***ck that must be for every body! They get to promote White Supremacy unabashed and take your money in the process. People keep saying folks are waking up, but this time of year makes me wonder on the real.
What do I suggest?
I suggest the truth, the real story… 
No trees in houses; 
No more tree farms for the purpose of chopping them down for folks to drag into their houses; 
No more high electric bills from burning lights all day and night. 
No more competitions about who’s house is burning the most Christmas lights in the most beautiful way; 
No more suicides because of feeling unloved during these times; 
No gifts given to folks when it ain’t their birthday; 
No jacking up commercialism and credit card debt; 
No more propaganda through movies; TV; radio; advertisements; etc. seducing people into buy, consume, buy, consume; 
No false promises; 
No so-called “Christmas Parties” where people only go to “see” what someone else is gonna give them; 
No more pretending that “Jesus” was born on Dec. 25; 
No more trashing the vibration of the Winter Solstice with greed and avarice. 
No more soup kitchens once a year to feed the homeless; feed them all year; 
No more Santa Claus lies; while chastising our children for lying; 
No more thousands upon thousands if Not millions of turkeys; chickens; sheep; pigs and cows being slaughtered; 
No more stuffing the gut with GMO laden food dishes; No more lies; 
No more betrayals; these are some of the things I suggest. 
If you really want to let the banksters know the real deal; don’t buy anything till January 30th that is Not necessary for sustenance. 
And finally; what would “Jesus” say if he came back and saw how much BS is going on in his name. Of course I confer that if he really exists than he sees it already. And judging with what they say about him; I am sure he is and would be appalled. And then they took his original image; if there ever really was one; and made him look like a European!! Come on; why did they do that? The original Jews did Not look like that. 
But I digress. 
Unless this “Jesus” is a megalomaniac; I would suggest; he is shaking his head pretty hard at this foolishness.
Megalomaniac:
 “1. A psycho-pathological condition characterized by delusional fantasies of wealth; power; or omnipotence.

2. An obsession with grandiose or extravagant things or actions.



Advertisements

The Africa they Never Show you!

This video (see below)prompted several thoughts as I watched it. In fact, it actually created a kind of paradoxical thinking bordering on conflict of interest. Having been to Africa myself, and having many African friends my thoughts today, in view of the recent Aggression against Africa, West Africa, in particularly due to the Ebola virus that has been around since 1970 and whom some feel has been weaponized…. my thoughts spiraled into this blog post.

Personally, I think it’s nice to have industry but I also am concerned about what industrialization means to the common people. Does it mean that everyone can reap the benefits? Does it mean that they have taken on the Western Mantle of Capitalism so despite the outward appearance of opulence, there is an insidious gap between the haves and the have-nots.
I also wonder how much devastation had to happen to the pristine lands to create the metropolis.
I wonder is there a middle ground. A way forward to a so called advanced civilization, a cooperation that respects the primitive (first) approach to nature and other human beings and the industrialization of indigenous lands. Can those tall buildings mean less pollution, less aggression, less poverty, and a more holistic lifestyle for all.
Are indigenous people displaced from their home so that huge highways, factories and buildings can be placed there? Are animals rounded up and placed on reserves and zoos so that the land they lived on can be transformed into territory that can be used by big corporations? Or more horrifically, are/were they slaughtered?
Did/does the leadership of these countries consider the original natural habitat of their country and the effect on the planet when they became part of the industrial revolution?
Did/does the Universities, and lower schools teach the youth about their culture, spirituality and ancient history or is their culture and history replace, distorted or demonized with the invasion of Western education, spirituality and religion?
Looking at the current tumbling of the Western economy, will the African economy collapse as well as it has become economically entrenched in the Western style of buying and selling, i.e. Capitalism?
 These and many other questions come to mind when I view this video.
 There are 53-55 countries that are part of the African continent. Each of these countries have their own way of life, traditional cultures and spirituality. Before colonization, they were thriving within their own borders. The imposition of arbitrary borders, religion, political and educational structures and languages of the colonizers have changed the face of Africa that I am sure would be quite unrecognizable to those who lived there 500 to 600 years ago.
The Western model of civilization has dwarfed the ancient model that these people held. It has caused a schism in beliefs, systems and mental structures among the African people. They are divided in their ability to gather their people under One Banner of Nationhood. Even this idea is antipathetic to the Original African Mindset. The concept of Global reach while admirable, in the Ancient African’s way of thinking it did not mean the destruction of entire civilizations and creating homogenous civilizations in its wake. The unfortunate wars of conquest, and empire building that took place among the Africans still allowed for the intermingling, dissemination and cooperation among different peoples even though there may have been regional Chiefs. This is particularly notable by the fact that Africans tend to be multi-lingual speaking several dialects fluently to communicate among their home tribes and peoples as well as being able to fluently communicate with others in surrounding areas.
The advent of the Western Model of dominance where everyone speaks the same language, has one religions and is politically yoked to the western idea of democracy, is foreign to the African/Indigenous mind. I can only imagine the amount of cultural shock it must/has caused the African who’s family values, appreciation for nature and others in the community is replaced with the competitive nature of the Western World View.
The Western World view is that if every one wears the same garment, they all look alike, while the African World view is that if every one wears the same garment, they create and individuation by the fact that each person brings their own individual essence to the garment. So the difference is what brings uniformity, not uniformity is suppressed by difference. The African World view sees a Higher Power that expresses itself through every blade of grass as a different expression of itself. To the Western Mind, “In My Image.” means an exact replica. There for a One World Government means that everything has to be the same, homogenous, exact replicas. While the African engages in the Creativity of the various streams of expression. No two things need sound alike or be exactly alike.
Looking at the African Industrial structures in this video, you see the modeling and patterning and replication of the concepts of duplication. Over and over, in this model, things are fabricated to “BE” the same. This leads me to see, these industrialized metropolises as replicas of the Western World View. It is as if industrializing Africa has created the Western “Franchise” results. Everything looks the same. Buildings, factories, highways are all build the same so when compared to the Western world they can be said to be comparable. And this is true around the world. Countries that move toward industrialization typically look like Western countries. Meanwhile, the rainforest and pristine lands that preceded the Western Ideology of what “civilization” meant is wiped away from the mental landscape.
Having been born in the Western World, I have my own inner conflicts about this. I appreciate the comforts of running water, sanitation, a flushing toilet, refrigeration and heating. However, I also appreciate the so-called back-to-nature aspect of Indigenous living, before industrialization. I am also aware of how addictive these creature comforts can be when compared to having to use an outhouse to relieve oneself.
I guess my biggest question is, how can industrialization take place without destroying the planet in its wake? Is there a way to make life a little easier to bear without destroying the very planet that gives us this life? Are there other options to building tall structures and creating metropolis that displace humans, animals and nature? Is there a middle ground where man and nature can live harmoniously together without destroying each other?
These and many other questions come to mind when I view this video.

War in Our Collective Imagination

By David Swanson
Remarks at Veterans For Peace Convention, Asheville, NC, July 27, 2014.

I started seeing graphics pop up on social media sites this past week that said about Gaza: “It’s not war. It’s murder.”  So I started asking people what exactly they think war is if it’s distinct from murder.  Well, war, some of them told me, takes place between armies.  So I asked for anyone to name a war during the past century (that is, after World War I) where all or even most or even a majority of the dying was done by members of armies.  There may have been such a war.  There are enough scholars here today that somebody probably knows of one.  But if so, it isn’t the norm, and these people I was chatting with through social media couldn’t think of any such war and yet insisted that that’s just what war is.  So, is war then over and nobody told us?

For whatever reasons, I then very soon began seeing a graphic sent around that said about Gaza: “It’s not war. It’s genocide.”  And the typical explanation I got when I questioned this one was that the wagers of war and the wagers of genocide have different attitudes.  Are we sure about that? I’ve spoken to advocates for recent U.S. wars who wanted all or part of a population wiped out.  Plenty of supporters of the latest attacks on Gaza see them as counter-terrorism.  In wars between advanced militaries and poor peoples most of the death and injury is on one side and most of it — by anyone’s definition — civilian.  This is as true in Afghanistan, where war rolls on largely unchallenged, as in Gaza, about which we are newly outraged.
Well, what’s wrong with outrage? Who cares what people call it? Why not criticize the war advocates rather than nitpicking the war opponents’ choice of words?  When people are outraged they will reach for whatever word their culture tells them is most powerful, be it murder or genocide or whatever.  Why not encourage that and worry a little more about the lunatics who are calling it defense or policing or terrorist removal?  (Eight-year-old terrorists!)

Yes, of course.  I’ve been going after CNN news readers for claiming Palestinians want to die and NBC for yanking its best reporter and ABC for claiming scenes of destruction in Gaza that just don’t exist in Israel are in fact in Israel — and the U.S. government for providing the weapons and the criminal immunity.  I’ve been promoting rallies and events aimed at swaying public opinion against what Israel has been doing, and against the sadistic bloodthirsty culture of those standing on hills cheering for the death and destruction below, quite regardless of what they call it.  But, as you’re probably aware, only the very most open-minded war advocates attend conventions of Veterans For Peace.  So, I’m speaking here backstage, as it were, at the peace movement.  Among those of us who want to stop the killing, are there better and worse ways to talk about it?  And is anything revealed by the ways in which we tend to talk about it when we aren’t hyper-focused on our language?

I think so.  I think it’s telling that the worst word anyone can think of isn’t war.  I think it’s even more telling that we condemn things by contrasting them with war, framing war as relatively acceptable.  I think this fact ought to be unsettling because a very good case can be made that war, in fact, is the worst thing we do, and that the distinctions between war and such evils as murder or genocide can require squinting very hard to discern.

We’ve all heard that guns don’t kill people, people kill people.  There is a parallel belief that wars don’t kill people, people who misuse wars, who fight bad wars, who fight wars improperly, kill people.  This is a big contrast with many other evil institutions.  We don’t oppose child abuse selectively, holding out the possibility of just and good incidents of child abuse while opposing the bad or dumb or non-strategic or excessive cases of child abuse. We don’t have Geneva Conventions for proper conduct while abusing children.  We don’t have human rights groups writing reports on atrocities and possible law violations committed in the course of abusing children.  We don’t distinguish UN-sanctioned child abuse.  The same goes for numerous behaviors generally understood as always evil: slavery or rape or blood feuds or duelling or dog fighting or sexual harassment or bullying or human experimentation or — I don’t know — producing piles of I’m-Ready-for-Hillary posters.  We don’t imagine there are good, just, and defensible cases of such actions.

And this is the core problem: not support for bombing Gaza or Afghanistan or Pakistan or Iraq or anywhere else that actually gets bombed, but support for an imaginary war in the near future between two armies with different colored jerseys and sponsors, competing on an isolated battlefield apart from any villages or towns, and suffering bravely and heroically for their non-murderous non-genocidal cause while complying with the whistles blown by the referees in the human rights organizations whenever any of the proper killing drifts into lawless imprisonment or torture or the use of improper weaponry.  Support for specific possible wars in the United States right now is generally under 10 percent.  More people believe in ghosts, angels, and the integrity of our electoral system than want a new U.S. war in Ukraine, Syria, Iran, or Iraq. The Washington Post found a little over 10 percent want a war in Ukraine but that the people who held that view were the people who placed Ukraine on the world map the furthest from its actual location, including people who placed it in the United States.  These are the idiots who favor specific wars.  Even Congress, speaking of idiots, on Friday told Obama no new war on Iraq.

The problem is the people, ranging across the population from morons right up to geniuses, who favor imaginary wars.  Millions of people will tell you we need to be prepared for more wars in case there’s another Adolf Hitler, failing to understand that the wars and militarism and weapons sales and weapons gifts — the whole U.S. role as the arsenal of democracies and dictatorships alike — increase rather than decrease dangers, that other wealthy countries spend less than 10 percent what the U.S. does on their militaries, and that 10 percent of what the U.S. spends on its military could end global starvation, provide the globe with clean water, and fund sustainable energy and agriculture programs that would go further toward preventing mass violence than any stockpiles of weaponry.  Millions will tell you that the world needs a global policeman, even though polls of the world find the widespread belief that the United States is currently the greatest threat to peace on earth.  In fact if you start asking people who have opposed every war in our lifetimes or in the past decade to work on opposing the entire institution of war, you’ll be surprised by many of the people who say no.

I’m a big fan of a book called Addicted to War.  I think it will probably be a powerful tool for war abolition right up until war is abolished.  But its author told me this week that he can’t work to oppose all wars because he favors some of them.  Specifically, he said, he doesn’t want to ask Palestinians to not defend themselves.  Now, there’s a really vicious cycle.  If we can’t shut down the institution of war because Palestinians need to use it, then it’s harder to go after U.S. military spending, which is of course what funds much of the weaponry being used against Palestinians.  I think we should get a little clarity about what a war abolition movement does and does not do.  It does not tell people what they must do when attacked.  It is not focused on advising, much less instructing, the victims of war, but on preventing their victimization.  It does not advise the individual victim of a mugging to turn the other cheek.  But it also does not accept the disproven notion that violence is a defensive strategy for a population.  Nonviolence has proven far more effective and its victories longer lasting.  If people in Gaza have done anything at all to assist in their own destruction, it is not the supposed offenses of staying in their homes or visiting hospitals or playing on beaches; it is the ridiculously counterproductive firing of rockets that only encourages and provides political cover for war/ genocide/ mass murder.

I’m a huge fan of Chris Hedges and find him one of the most useful and inspiring writers we have.  But he thought attacking Libya was a good idea up until it quite predictably and obviously turned out not to be.  He still thinks Bosnia was a just war.  I could go on through dozens of names of people who contribute mightily to an anti-war movement who oppose abolishing war.  The point is not that anyone who believes in 1 good war out of 100 is to blame for the trillion dollar U.S. military budget and all the destruction it brings.  The point is that they are wrong about that 1 war out of 100, and that even if they were right, the side-effects of maintaining a culture accepting of war preparations would outweigh the benefits of getting 1 war right.  The lives lost by not spending $1 trillion a year in the U.S. and another $1 trillion in the rest of the world on useful projects like environmental protection, sustainable agriculture, medicine and hygiene absolutely dwarf the number of lives that would be saved by halting our routine level of war making.

If you talk about abolishing war entirely, as many of us have begun focusing on through a new project called World Beyond War, you’ll also find people who want to abolish war but believe it’s impossible. War is natural, they say, inevitable, in our genes, decreed by our economy, the unavoidable result of racism or consumerism or capitalism or exceptionalism or carnivorism or nationalism.  And of course many cultural patterns interact with and facilitate war, but the idea that it’s in our genes is absurd, given how many cultures in our species have done and do without it.  I don’t know what — if anything — people usually mean when they call something “natural” but presumably it’s not the provocation of suicide, which is such a common result of participating in war, while the first case of PTSD due to war deprivation has yet to be discovered.  Most of our species’ existence, as hunter-gatherers, did not know war, and only the last century — a split-second in evolutionary terms — has known war that at all resembles war today.  War didn’t used to kill like this.  Soldiers weren’t conditioned to kill.  Most guns picked up at Gettysburg had been loaded more than once.  The big killers were diseases, even in the U.S. Civil War, the war that the U.S. media calls the most deadly because Filipinos and Koreans and Vietnamese and Iraqis don’t count.  Now the big killer is a disease in our thinking, a combination of what Dr. King called self-guided missiles and misguided men.
Another hurdle for abolishing war is that the idea rose to popularity in the West in the 1920s and 1930s and then sank into a category of thought that is vaguely treasonous.  War abolition was tried and failed, the thinking goes, like communism or labor unions and now we know better.  While abolishing war is popular in much of the world, that fact is easily ignored by the 1% who misrepresent the 10% or 15% who live in the places that constitute the so-called International Community.  Nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come or weaker than an idea whose time has come and gone.  Or so we think.  But the Renaissance was, as its name suggests, an idea whose time came again, new and improved and victorious.  The 1920s and 1930s are a resource for us.  We have stockpiles of wisdom to draw upon.  We have example of where things were headed and how they went of track.

Andrew Carnegie took war profits and set up an endowment with the mandate to eliminate war and then to hold a board meeting, determine the second worst thing in the world, and begin eliminating that.  This sounds unique or eccentric, but is I believe a basic understanding of ethics that ought to be understood and acted upon by all of us.  When someone asks me why I’m a peace activist I ask them why in the hell anyone isn’t.  So, reminding the Carnegie Endowment for Peace what it’s legally obligated to do, and dozens of other organizations along with it, may be part of the process of drawing inspiration from the past.  And of course insisting that the Nobel Committee not bestow another peace prize on a war-thirsty presidential candidate or any other advocate of war is part of that.
World Beyond War
The case against war that is laid out at WorldBeyondWar.org includes these topics:
War is immoral.
War endangers us.
War threatens our environment.
War erodes our liberties.
War impoverishes us.
We need $2 trillion/year for other things.

I find the case to be overwhelming and suspect many of you would agree.  In fact Veterans For Peace and numerous chapters and members of Veterans For Peace have been among the first to sign on and participate.  And we’ve begun finding that thousands of people and organizations from around the world agree as people and groups from 68 countries and rising have added their names on the website in support of ending all war.  And many of these people and organizations are not peace groups.  These are environmental and civic groups of all sorts and people never involved in a peace movement before.  Our hope is of course to greatly enlarge the peace movement by making war abolition as mainstream as cancer abolition.  But we think enlargement is not the only alteration that could benefit the peace movement.  We think a focus on each antiwar project as part of a broader campaign to end the whole institution of war will significantly change how specific wars and weapons and tactics are opposed.

How many of you have heard appeals to oppose Pentagon waste? I’m in favor of Pentagon waste and opposed to Pentagon efficiency.  How can we not be, when what the Pentagon does is evil?  How many of you have heard of opposition to unnecessary wars that leave the military ill-prepared?  I’m in favor of leaving the military ill-prepared, but not of distinguishing unnecessary from supposedly necessary wars. Which are the necessary ones?  When sending missiles into Syria is stopped, in large part by public pressure, war as last resort is replaced by all sorts of other options that were always available.  That would be the case anytime any war is stopped.  War is never a last resort any more than rape or child abuse is a last resort.  How many of you have seen opposition to U.S. wars that focuses almost exclusively on the financial cost and the suffering endured by Americans?  Did you know polls find Americans believing that Iraq benefited and the United States suffered from the war that destroyed Iraq?  What if the financial costs and the costs to the aggressor nation were in addition to moral objections to mass-slaughter rather than instead of?  How many of you have seen antiwar organizations trumpet their love for troops and veterans and war holidays, or groups like the AARP that advocate for benefits for the elderly by focusing on elderly veterans, as though veterans are the most deserving?  Is that good activism?

I want to celebrate those who resist and oppose war, not those who engage in it.  I love Veterans For Peace because it’s for peace.  It’s for peace in a certain powerful way, but it’s the being for peace that I value.  And being for peace in the straightforward meaning of being against war.  Most organizations are afraid of being for peace; it always has to be peace and justice or peace and something else.  Or it’s peace in our hearts and peace in our homes and the world will take care of itself.  Well, as Veterans For Peace know, the world doesn’t take care of itself.  The world is driving itself off a cliff.  As Woody Allen said, I don’t want to live on in the hearts of my countrymen, I want to live on in my apartment.  Well, I don’t want to find peace in my heart or my garden, I want to find peace in the elimination of war.  At WorldBeyondWar.org is a list of projects we think may help advance that, including, among others:

  • Creating an easily recognizable and joinable mainstream international movement to end all war.
  • Education about war, peace, and nonviolent action — including all that is to be gained by ending war.
  • Improving access to accurate information about wars. Exposing falsehoods.
  • Improving access to information about successful steps away from war in other parts of the world.
  • Increased understanding of partial steps as movement in the direction of eliminating, not reforming, war.
  • Partial and full disarmament.
  • Conversion or transition to peaceful industries.
  • Closing, converting or donating foreign military bases.
  • Democratizing militaries while they exist and making them truly volunteer.
  • Banning foreign weapons sales and gifts.
  • Outlawing profiteering from war.
  • Banning the use of mercenaries and private contractors.
  • Abolishing the CIA and other secret agencies.
  • Promoting diplomacy and international law, and consistent enforcement of laws against war, including prosecution of violators.
  • Reforming or replacing the U.N. and the ICC.
  • Expansion of peace teams and human shields.
  • Promotion of nonmilitary foreign aid and crisis prevention.
  • Placing restrictions on military recruitment and providing potential soldiers with alternatives.
  • Thanking resisters for their service.
  • Encouraging cultural exchange.
  • Discouraging racism and nationalism.
  • Developing less destructive and exploitative lifestyles.
  • Expanding the use of public demonstrations and nonviolent civil resistance to enact all of these changes.

I would add learning from and working with organizations that have been, like Veterans For Peace, working toward war abolition for years now and inspiring others to do the same.  And I would invite you all to work with WorldBeyondWartoward our common goal.

David Swanson is Director of World Beyond War, host of Talk Nation Radio, author of books including War No More: The Case for Abolition, War Is A Lie, and When the World Outlawed War.

Obama Plans African Wars

By Stephen Lendmen

Obama Plans African Wars

Obama’s warmaking appetite exceeds all his predecessors and then some. He’s already waging

multiple direct and proxy wars.

His rhetoric about winding them down rings hollow. He wants to make the most of the next four years.

No targeted country left behind reflects his agenda. He’s ravaging the world multiple countries at a time. He’s out-of-control. He governs like a serial killer.

He plans more war on Iran, perhaps Lebanon, and full-scale intervention against Syria. He has other targets in mind. He’s insatiable. Africa dreaming explains what’s on his mind.

On December 15, 2006, the United States Africa Command (AFRICOM) was authorized. On February 6, 2007, it was announced. On October 1, 2007, it was established, and on October 1, 2008, it became operational.

It’s based in Stuttgart, Germany, not Africa. It’s responsible for warmaking and military relations throughout the continent. It’s comprised of 53 countries. Many potential targets are represented.

Washington wants the entire continent colonized and controlled. It’s resource rich. It has large amounts of oil, gas, water, gold, silver, diamonds, iron, cobalt, uranium, copper, bauxite, manganese, other valued minerals, and rich agricultural land.

In early July 2009, Obama visited sub-Saharan Africa. He signaled his intentions. In Accra, Ghana, he said:

“We have a responsibility to support those who act responsibly and to isolate those who don’t, and that is exactly what America will do.” He said Ghana and other African governments must achieve “good governance.”

His message was clear. Open the continent to Western investment and development. Privatize, privatize, privatize. Forget about providing healthcare, education, and other vital services.

Give US and other Western corporate predators free reign. Play the game the way Washington demands or suffer the consequences. Ghana got the message. Why else would Obama show up.

Libya didn’t. Gaddafi paid with his life. The country became another NATO trophy. Africa’s most developed country became a charnel house.

Egypt’s on the boil. Morsi is Washington’s man in Cairo. Street protests strongly contest his dictatorial governance. As long as he maintains US support, he can rule any way he wishes.

On December 7, the Wall Street Journal headlined “Terror Fight Shifts to Africa,” saying:

Obama may ask Congress to wage America’s war on terror against Mali, Nigeria, Libya, “and possibly other countries where militants have loose or nonexistent ties to al Qaeda’s Pakistan headquarters.”

Washington’s war on Libya created out-of-control violence and instability. Tribes, rebel gangs, and green resistance fighters battle for dominance. Puppet leaders America installed have little or no authority. No end of conflict looms.

Mali’s late March military coup appears fallout from Libya. It may be replicated elsewhere in North Africa and other areas. Niger’s endangered.

There’s more involved than meets the eye, including controlling regional resources. Besides oil, Libya, Mali, and Niger have valuable uranium deposits. Washington seeks control.

In October, EU Foreign Affairs and Security Policy head, Catherine Ashton, was involved in developing a Mali mission within 30 days. According to EU diplomats, it involves deploying 150 European military experts to train Malian and other African forces over a four to six month period.

On October 12, the Security Council approved an international military mission to Mali. Ban Ki-moon was enlisted to help develop military intervention plans. Finalizing them was planned for end of November.

France drafted the UN resolution. It was Washington’s lead attack dog on Libya. It may have the same role on Mali. In late March, monsoon season starts. Expect something early next year in advance. African troops will be involved.

Germany agreed to participate. Britain likely also. Washington remains in charge. Whatever is coming will be another Obama war. Officially it’s because Islamists seized power in northern Mali. The area replicates France in size.

Before his ouster, Gaddafi was a stabilizing force. Investments and mediation efforts prevented conflict between governing authorities and Tuareg rebels.

Things change a year ago. Heavy armed rebels mobilized. In March 2012, Long-time Malian President Amadou Toumani Toure was deposed.

Local Islamists controlled northern areas with Tauregs. Islamists with Al Qaeda ties drove them out. According to the Wall Street Journal, Obama wants congressional approval to intervene. With or without it, he’ll do what he wants.

US special forces and drone attacks may be planned. Operations may be similar to Washington’s proxy wars on Somalia and Yemen.

Continue Reading Here…. http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/12/09/obama-plans-african-wars/

Tag Cloud