Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: NATO Prepares Global War – Russian and Chinese Military on Highest Alert.

Posted 2 years ago on Oct. 24, 2011, 5:49 p.m. EST by EndTheFedNow (692)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

At the International Security Conference (ISC) in Munich, 2007, Vladimir Putin warned western leaders, that the unprecedented aggressive expansion of NATO has brought the world more close to a third world war than it has ever been before. This stern warning came years before NATO´s aggression against Libya and it´s undeclared war in Syria and Pakistan. Following the recent deployment of US troops to Uganda, and military threats directed against Pakistan, the armed forces of NATO, Russia and China have never been as close to open and all out conflict as today. A recent and sobering report of the Russian Intelligence Service FSB, details the fact that the USA and NATO are currently planning and actively preparing for all out war on all continents. After the recent meeting between Russian P.M. Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Huan Jintao, both Russian and Chinese military forces have been placed on highest alert. By Dr. Christof Lehmann

Article at link:

http://nsnbc.wordpress.com/2011/10/24/nato-prepares-global-war-russian-and-chinese-military-on-highest-alert/

Where the fuck is the anti war message with all of the Occupy groups?

48 Comments

48 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by ARod1993 (2420) 2 years ago

That's not particularly a priority right now; Iraq is winding down, soon to end, and I figure given the sheer stubbornness of the Taliban and the warlords Afghanistan will end soon as well. I have no problem with what went down in Libya, pretty much because of what Gaddhafi was and how he treated his people. At this point we don't have enough pull to begin setting policy and we have too many divergent messages on here to begin with. Besides, nobody remembers the anti-war protests of the 60s and the 70s too fondly and I'd rather not evoke those images in people's minds.

[-] -1 points by EndTheFedNow (692) 2 years ago

I'm sorry but you are profoundly misinformed and wrong. You need to read the article and begin your education about reality.

[-] 2 points by ARod1993 (2420) 2 years ago

I read the article, and it's definitely an interesting read. It's also scary as shit if it's true, but it reads to me like a conspiracy theory on the order of alien abductions. Forgive me my skepticism, but I want proof (not just assertions that proof exists) when somebody starts trying to sell me on the idea of a NATO-generated apocalypse.

[-] 0 points by larocks (414) from Lexington, KY 2 years ago

lol alien abuductions. you need to watch the movie we come in peace. the aliens keep saying they come in peace while they try and destroy everything. sounds real familiar to me. sounds like the USA and NATO.

[-] 0 points by EndTheFedNow (692) 2 years ago

ffs, man, do you follow global politics (and not via the MSM)? This is not some conspiracy "theory", this is fact. The US is building more drone bases, in Africa, and is now in fucking Uganda!

Go look up Zbigniew Brzezinski's, The Grand Chess Game. The empire (primarily the UK, France and the US) is going for total hegemony and NATO is the New World Order's military. Not only are their actions non stop war crimes, they are putting us all in danger. Obama is just another puppet, like Bush before him. This game was begun a long time ago.

[-] 1 points by ARod1993 (2420) 2 years ago

Here's the thing: buildup of the American military and expansion of its role in international affairs is no different than what's been going on over the past several decades, and I'd be loath to pull too much of it back now too quickly. I would advise that we be more careful in how we apply that power than we were under Bush II (i.e. the war in in Iraq was just plain stupid and we squandered the chance to do Afghanistan properly because of it), but I wouldn't advise pretending that power doesn't exist or attempting to destroy it.

I understand your fear that we're going to wind up in a Mexican standoff with Russia, China, and God knows who else, and that we're going to do something stupid in response, and I don't want to see that happening. That said, packing up our troops and our drones and leaving is not exactly a good idea either. I don't want us running around in Africa like we did in Latin America (there's still a lot of anger down there toward us and it's gonna take a long time to go away) and I don't want a war with Iran that may turn into World War III.

I believe in peace as a worthy goal for America and the world at large, but I also know that the most successful and long-lasting kind of peace comes through two things: superior firepower and a great deal of forbearance in its use. I believe that the US under Bush II threw the latter out the window and it's going to take Obama's first term to clean up those messes, and I believe the US needs to orient its foreign policy more toward humanitarian efforts. That said, I have zero problem with humanitarian efforts being performed by combat-ready troops and the installation of drone bases in strategic locations. We've been playing this game since 1945; I'd like to think we know what we're doing.

If anything, my complaint with the US defense system is that it's gotten lazy and sloppy, not that it's too powerful. We can't even build a damn fighter jet prototype on time because we have all kinds of abuses by contractors, and our military has proven largely incapable of rebuilding Afghanistan (although that was never supposed to be the military's job to begin with). The US shouldn't give up battle-readiness, but it should fight a hell of a lot smarter.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

: superior firepower

there's no such thing

anybody body can kill anybody, and nobody should have to die

fire spreads

[-] 1 points by ARod1993 (2420) 2 years ago

Anybody can kill anybody else, but what use is an AK-47 and leather padding against an MP5 and body armor that can stop NATO rounds? What use are antiaircraft guns if our fighter jets are impervious to small arms fire? What use are Stinger missiles if our copters can dodge them? I believe that war, and violence in general, should generally be used as a last resort when the only other option is seriously damaging to the American economy and the American people, but should we have to use force I want us to be the leanest, the smartest, the toughest, and the best in the arena.

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

it would serious damage the us economy if we stopped selling weapons

[-] 1 points by EndTheFedNow (692) 2 years ago

Well, you sound like a typical pro war Democrat, criticizing only Bush. Bush and Obama work for the same team. That's the New World Order team. Divisions between the parties are nothing but smoke and mirrors. Obama isn't going to be getting us out of anything. He's EXPANDED military conflicts. This bullshit about pulling out of Iraq is food for the sheep. We have over 100,000 contractors in Iraq and an embassy bigger than the Vatican. Bringing some troops home (who will, no doubt, be re-deployed elsewhere) is just a shell game. We are not leaving Iraq.

You are wrong that we can't withdraw from all of these wars. We can and by doing so we can dramatically reduce our hideous military budget, and better defend our own country. The USA is now part of an empire. It's just the British empire, re-branded. We are the pitt bull of the empire because we have the biggest tax base and the most cannon fodder (soldiers). ALL empires fall because of precisely what's going on now. You think we have hard times now, you ain't seen nothin' yet. We will be decimated and and vampirized and the global corporations who are the New World Order, will have secured their chess board at our expense.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

I love chess but computers ruined the game for me

[-] 1 points by ARod1993 (2420) 2 years ago

As far as expansion of conflicts, Obama may have made a mistake in staying in Iraq as long as he did because they don't even want us there anymore. I have no problem with Marshall Plan-ing Iraq and Afghanistan like we did for Europe after World War II ended; my complaint is that the current mix of soldiers, mercenaries, and subcontractors in there are doing neither the US nor Iraq much good and need to leave.

I'm not particularly fond of the size of our military budget either, and I feel like we could probably do far more with the military and money we have if we cleaned up the defense contracting process and brought most of the engineering, R&D, and actual infantry back in-house. That way we'd be buying actual commodities like guns and body armor for our troops and avoid pissing away billions in R&D contracts that go nowhere and mercenary services like Blackwater that are outright dangerous.

Hell, I never said we should allow multinationals to keep playing all sides against each other and running back to China with the profits. We need our industry back, and that means manufacturing comes home. Free trade agreements and ALL tax breaks to corporations working offshore need to end as soon as possible, and we need to get Blackwater, Lockheed Martin, etc. back under control. Blackwater never belonged supplying soldiers to us anyway; even Machiavelli had few kind words for nations fool enough to use mercenaries, and I'm with him on this. As far as the whole depopulation thing goes, just stop insulting our intelligence. If we really wanted to practice that kind of population control we have nukes, biological weapons, chemical weapons, etc (or at least the capacity to develop them). that would be far more efficient than the whole charade you're describing.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

wait ... Mercenaries ?

[-] 1 points by ARod1993 (2420) 2 years ago

Blackwater and similar "private security" firms are essentially providing soldiers for hire, also known as mercenaries.

[-] 0 points by EndTheFedNow (692) 2 years ago

You're just arguing strategy and it's still pro war, pro empire. You belong in Washington, working for either wing of the War Party. And, Marshall Plan? LMAO. With what money?

sheesh

[-] 1 points by ARod1993 (2420) 2 years ago

Of course I'm arguing strategy; the alternative is isolationism, which as far as I can tell would still leave us and our interests highly vulnerable to countries like China and Russia that either already have empires or are out building them right now. China's already all over Africa, busy propping up all kinds of screwed-up regimes to maintain access to oil, which (like it or not) we still need in large quantities.

I don't like US foreign policy that much, and I'd much prefer we moved toward energy independence and toward a progressive taxation model that allows the government to balance the budget without cutting spending or relying on selling debt to close the gap. Before you laugh at me, the latter is quite doable: Eisenhower (a Republican, mind you) signed legislation that expanded Social Security, increased the minimum wage, and created the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. He also supported government construction of low-income housing, and did so while keeping several of his budgets in the black.

Once we achieve those things, I have no problem beginning to cut back on our involvement in Middle Eastern affairs and on wars in general, simply because as a self-sufficient country we can afford to look at what needs to be done rather than what benefits us. If we can start being self-sufficient enough that we don't rely on other countries for basics like energy and manufactured goods, then I'd be far more inclined to tell Uncle Sam to take a break from the geopolitics game, and China wouldn't have half the hold over us she does now. Until then, though, a lot of countries that don't particularly like us or have much in common with us would have us by the balls should they choose to choke off exports (be it of oil or of manufactured goods), and the combination of smart, sensitive diplomacy with a strong military generally prevents that from happening.

[-] 0 points by gnomunny (6647) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

ARod, you sound like an intelligent guy, but you need to expand your thinking a bit. If you don't think there's a depopulation agenda you haven't been looking in the right places. It's been openly discussed by people from David Rockefeller to Bill Gates. It's no longer a secret.

[-] 1 points by ARod1993 (2420) 2 years ago

What do you mean by a depopulation agenda? Are you talking about birth control, or are you talking about manufactured calamities designed to take massive numbers of human lives? If you could link me to a couple of articles describing the phenomenon you fear so much I'll be more than happy to look through them.

[-] 0 points by gnomunny (6647) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

Manufactured calamities. Birth control would probably take too long and there are some cultures that would never go for it, as it go against their religious beliefs. Don't get me wrong, I don't necessarily believe everything I see on line, I'm a born skeptic, but when I get the same story from a fair number of diverse sources I start to think maybe there's something to it. I don't think it's a secret the elite think there are too many people on the planet and admittedly I tend to agree, systems are getting strained. I could find some links but with this slow (12 yrs. old, single core processor) machine I'm on it would take quite awhile. Not trying to be rude or make excuses. When you get some time start checking it out online, they're out there. One place you could go is YouTube and see if you can find that three part series from Jesse Ventura's TV show where he talks about the US government plan to revert large swaths of our country back to "wilderness areas" that will allow NO human developments each of which will be surrounded by large "buffer zones" where any human developments will be strictly regulated.

[-] 0 points by gnomunny (6647) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

They want it to happen. What quicker and more effective way do they have to begin their mass depopulation agenda?

[-] 0 points by EndTheFedNow (692) 2 years ago

They DO have that agenda. WWII killed 60 million. Russian communism killed 20 million. Chinese communism, another 60 million. Militaristic governments kill and do it very effectively.

[-] 1 points by EndTheFedNow (692) 2 years ago

test

[-] 1 points by exmachina (94) 2 years ago

Realistically the chess game started with the invasion of Iraq. The final piece to be placed is Syria. On the Mediterranean coast Tunisia, Libya, Egypt are all destabilized. Morocco is a major non-NATO ally of the United States and Algeria is a new-contact group ally to the US. In Lebanon American-backed alliance retained control of the Lebanese Parliament. Meaning that the as of the Libyan invasion NATO/US control Mediterranean waters except for Syria. Look out for the signs for invasion in the coming months. Syria is the final piece to be placed in position and the trigger for Armageddon. I'm just glad I have a New Zealand passport.

[-] 1 points by mgiddin1 (1057) from Linthicum, MD 2 years ago

Same, that's the drum I've been beating.

Why doesn't OWS demand a stop to these wars???

This is a huge humanitarian, social, political, and financial issue.

If we clean up our house here and are still allowing the bombing of civilians and drone killings over there, OWS is no better than our lying leadership.

[-] 1 points by justanothermum (8) 2 years ago

Hell no we won´t go – again.

It is a well known tactic for governments to wage war on other nations to detract attention from national problems. Couple that with oil and voila! Its almost a sure thing.The future doesn´t happen overnight it is built day by day.

Tactically I think the war is a few years away. They will need us to suffer more, and they will try to convince us that its china, russia, europe etc who are to blame for our dire straits. Our job is:

1) not to be brain washed with this propaganda even when we are suffering 2) to get rid of the media monopoly which will be deploying the propaganda. (Its already started). 3) To never never forget how the financial crisis started 4) To raise awareness over this issue 5) To make this issue a global solidarity issue with the message "we will never take arms against the 99% of other countries"

The best way to predict the future is to invent it (Alan Kay).

We need a pre-emptive global peace agreement by the 99%.I think it is a priority to start demonstrating NOW that "if thats your plan for the future then you can go and fight yourself", we´ll not fight.

[-] 1 points by libertarianincle (312) from Cleveland, OH 2 years ago

Nothing like a good World War to get our economy moving again.

Who will we be at war this time: Eastasia or Eurasia?

[-] 1 points by EndTheFedNow (692) 2 years ago

Orwell's 1984 should be required reading for everyone in OWS. It might help develop some critical thinking skills!

[-] 1 points by electrum22 (1) 2 years ago

Dear Profoundly Misinformed, The whole NATO genocide in Libya was completely illegal. According to the U.N. Charter no nation or nations has the right to invade a sovereign nation, no matter what they might think of that country's government. You have to sift thru the barrage of Anglo-American propaganda to get any sense of what happened to Libya. Then to say you aren't worried about a report concerning Russian and Chinese fears of NATO and a wider war is really beyond my comprehension.

[-] 0 points by EndTheFedNow (692) 2 years ago

Sadly, there are a fair number of the dumbed down and establishment Kool Aid drinkers in the 99%. The war on Libya and the murder of Gaddafi are quintessential 1%. This is how they roll and they require useful idiots who believe their tripe to keep getting away with their total war on humanity. It would be funny to see anyone within OWS supporting the NATO murder machine if it weren't horrifying.

[-] 1 points by yasminec001 (584) 2 years ago

Oh my god..Occupy protests around the world need to be aware of this and need to start spreading an anti-war message, if they have not already...

I had a dream the other night that it was raining fire all over the world. Shit shit shit

[-] 1 points by EndTheFedNow (692) 2 years ago

War is the major driver of international finance, too. It's where they make their biggest fortunes.

[-] 1 points by yasminec001 (584) 2 years ago

I wish I could say that I don't have a horrible feeling about this.

[-] 1 points by EndTheFedNow (692) 2 years ago

What has just happened in Libya should give us all a terrible feeling. What I'm most disturbed about is that I don't think there's a very high consciousness about it in OWS. A fair few have drunk the New World Order Kool Aid and believe the "peoples' revolution" narrative, which is a complete lie.

[-] 1 points by RantCasey (782) from Saginaw, MI 2 years ago

U can Start another protest??? You act like occupy has dubs on all protesting. Use your freedom of speech don't be lazy. That is what occupy is about. Get off your couch

[-] 1 points by mserfas (652) from Ashland, PA 2 years ago

This commentator you link to has something of a point, but he seems careless. He links to an article about Chinese troops in Indian-occupied Kashmir, but actually it's about them in Pakistan's part of Kashmir. He talks about NATO and Russian troops clashing in Georgia - but thankfully, due to the defeat of John McCain in 2008, Georgia was never admitted into NATO and we never had the nightmare scenario of NATO troops and Russians both claiming South Ossetia as their land.

[-] 1 points by Levels (73) 2 years ago

Yeah that 1 billion in Libya is money well spent. Teachers, cops, firefighters, the post office, etc don't need that. And plus this will give us something to do in 10 years or more when we have to invade Libya again and take out the extreme radicals that we put in power. That's sort of our move here in the USA. We will bomb your ass to freedom.

[-] 1 points by EndTheFedNow (692) 2 years ago

Please see this video on Gaddafi. It's short and it's accurate:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJURNC0e6Ek

[-] 1 points by Levels (73) 2 years ago

Thanks for the video, very informative.

[-] 0 points by EndTheFedNow (692) 2 years ago

You're welcome. In the video it quotes Sarkozy, in response to the African gold dinar issue, as saying it would threaten the entire global financial system. I just figured he was referring to the international bankster death grip. However, in the article that I posted in the OP, it reveals an even more immediate concern for France:

'The driving factors behind the aggression against Libya was the fact that Libya blocked for the development of the Mediterranean Alliance, lobbied for the establishment of a Pan-African, gold backed currency, and that it had supported the now ousted Laurent Gbagbo in Ivory Coast in his attempt to get Ivory Coast out of the CFA agreement. The CFA is a French Controlled currency used in eight African states, and France´s control over the CFA is one of the major supports of the French economy.'

Interesting, eh?

[-] 1 points by mleon (53) from New York, NY 2 years ago

I agree with the first post.

also, china and russia, and fucking more paranoid, militaristic, and imperialist as we are.

Everyone in American knows we don't have the funds for a new war, and no intrest as a nation for fighting it. If anything the booming chineese economy is giving THEM means to seek military expansion as they are doing now in SE asia.

Russia and China had business intrests in libya, if its not the sole glaring reason to continue to support gaddafi, I don't know what is. China is openly a dictatorship, and Russia is under the stewardship and manipulation of Ex-KGB head who's imperialist intentions are long known to the world.

More likely is that Russia and China are the ones preparing global war.

[-] 1 points by EndTheFedNow (692) 2 years ago

Sure the Russians and the Chinese are preparing. However, the Warsaw Pact (Soviet block military alliance) was dissolved long ago. The Chinese have gotten most of their military tech, most of it secret, from the US, sold to them by the Bushes and Clinton. They ARE dangerous, especially China. So, do you think that provoking them by the NWO going for it all is a good idea? It's NATO that's knocking down the dominoes all over the world. NATO is the aggressor. EUROPE had big business with Libya, mainly oil. Gaddafi is dead and you didn't see Russia or China make any moves to stop NATO, did you? Once again, NATO is the aggressor. When Russia and China make that case, they will be justified in their assertion. Calling Russia imperialist is laughable. Please tell me how many countries Russia is attacking? Where are their Predator drone bases? To call Russia and China more imperialistic than the NATO alliance is just plain wrong.

[-] 0 points by electrum22 (1) 2 years ago

Dear Profoundly Misinformed, The whole NATO genocide in Libya was completely illegal. According to the U.N. Charter no nation or nations has the right to invade a sovereign nation, no matter what they might think of that country's government. You have to sift thru the barrage of Anglo-American propaganda to get any sense of what happened to Libya. Then to say you aren't worried about a report concerning Russian and Chinese fears of NATO and a wider war is really beyong my comprehension.

[-] 0 points by TIOUAISE (2526) 2 years ago

Obama has become an insane warmongerer, Putin and Hu Jintao are just as mad.

All the more reason for us to THROW Obama out of the blood-spattered White House, either through an impeachment , a "national emergency referendum"or an election.

[-] 1 points by EndTheFedNow (692) 2 years ago

Well, this will be a hard pill to swallow for a fair half of OWS, but there is only one anti war/anti empire candidate running and that's Ron Paul. He's vowed to end the wars, close the overseas bases, and power the Fed and get rid of it (and they print the debt for the wars). I know that the hard core socialists don't like him because he's a constitutionalist, but they are going to think long and hard about whether a nanny state is more important to them than stopping these insane fucking wars that WILL destroy us. When the NWO gets finished with using us, there will be nothing left, including any money for social programs.

[-] 1 points by Faithntruth (997) 2 years ago

Really? Really??? Where the he'll were you from 2001 to 2009? In a cave? Quit blaming Obama for bush and cheneys debacles...

[-] 0 points by TIOUAISE (2526) 2 years ago

Whitewashing Obama, are ya? I wonder who's been in a cave for the last 3 years???

[-] 1 points by EndTheFedNow (692) 2 years ago

lol

[-] 0 points by jgriff (6) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Exactly....Blame ALL three of them