An Imperial Strategy for a New World Order: The Origins of World War III

[Natural Elements]

In the face of total global economic collapse, the prospects of a massive international war are increasing. Historically, periods of imperial decline and economic crisis are marked by increased international violence and war. The decline of the great European empires was marked by World War I and World War II, with the Great Depression taking place in the intermediary period.

Currently, the world is witnessing the decline of the American empire, itself a product born out of World War II. As the post-war imperial hegemon, America ran the international monetary system and reigned as champion and arbitrator of the global political economy.

To manage the global political economy, the US has created the single largest and most powerful military force in world history. Constant control over the global economy requires constant military presence and action.

Now that both the American empire and global political economy are in decline and collapse, the prospect of a violent end to the American imperial age is drastically increasing.

This essay is broken into three separate parts. The first part covers US-NATO geopolitical strategy since the end of the Cold War, at the beginning of the New World Order, outlining the western imperial strategy that led to the war in Yugoslavia and the “War on Terror.” Part 2 analyzes the nature of “soft revolutions” or “colour revolutions” in US imperial strategy, focusing on establishing hegemony over Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Part 3 analyzes the nature of the imperial strategy to construct a New World Order, focusing on the increasing conflicts in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Latin America, Eastern Europe and Africa; and the potential these conflicts have for starting a new world war with China and Russia.

Part 1

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...t=va&aid=15686

[Zap]

Be careful who you step on, on the way up because when you fall, you're going to need all the friends you can get.

[Moore123]

i think the World War III will be last for the world. We have so much weapons and bombs that nothing will help really. The only way out right now is to realize that everyone should care only about peace and try to keep it.

[Natural Elements]

Originally Posted by Zap

Be careful who you step on, on the way up because when you fall, you're going to need all the friends you can get.

Do you understand why the French did not go into war in Iraq? Some elite will eventually drag us in a huge mess, the question is for what?

Everything is about oil.

[Zap]

Originally Posted by Natural Elements

Do you understand why the French did not go into war in Iraq? Some elite will eventually drag us in a huge mess, the question is for what?

Everything is about oil.

A lot of countries stayed out of that mess, including my own.

But I have to disagree that it was about oil.
I think it was really about the war machine gaining a stronger choke hold on the American public.
Keep feeding the military beast and it continues to grow.

[Natural Elements]

Originally Posted by Zap

A lot of countries stayed out of that mess, including my own.

But I have to disagree that it was about oil.
I think it was really about the war machine gaining a stronger choke hold on the American public.
Keep feeding the military beast and it continues to grow.

Well, Zap to be more precise I will say that is a combinaison of geopolitic, oil or other natural resources and military influence.

The war machines are on every continents, and the military industry is going pretty well on many countries.

If you take the last 10 years, you will discover that most countries have increased their military budget.

I don't like war and just accept the concept when defending my land, many members of my family lost their lifes in WW2, deported by the nazis or POW.

The war is the very last resort and so horrible, that we must prevent it as much as we can.

[robjones]

Originally Posted by Natural Elements

Do you understand why the French did not go into war in Iraq?

Well, for starters, notwithstanding the fact that they are technically one of our allies... the French were selling military supplies to Saddam that he was using to shoot at our jets in the UN declared "no-fly zone" we were patrolling. It's sorta hard to be on both sides and do it gracefully.

[Sometimes it's all about oil... sometimes it's just about the money.]

I'll accept the premise that we're on the decline though... part of the natural life-cycle of nations. In honor of that fact would somebody please come pick up the UN? As a second rate power we don't really need to have it housed here, and anyway we have our eye on that spot for a nice shopping mall.

[Natural Elements]

Originally Posted by robjones

Well, for starters, notwithstanding the fact that they are technically one of our allies... the French were selling military supplies to Saddam that he was using to shoot at our jets in the UN declared "no-fly zone" we were patrolling. It's sorta hard to be on both sides and do it gracefully.

[Sometimes it's all about oil... sometimes it's just about the money.]

I'll accept the premise that we're on the decline though... part of the natural life-cycle of nations. In honor of that fact would somebody please come pick up the UN? As a second rate power we don't really need to have it housed here, and anyway we have our eye on that spot for a nice shopping mall.

Robjones, countries are selling weapons to everybody:
How Did Iraq Get Its Weapons? We Sold Them
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0908-08.htm

Iran was armed by US during the Shah presidential, Islamic Shiite were armed by US to counter the Russians in Afganistan, etc...

The West (politicians) are responsible in some ways for many conflicts.

[robjones]

I'm aware of our habit of supplying whomever is engaged in fighting against some country we don't like... the technical term is "proxy war"... and it's bit us all in the butt a time or two. I just never figured out why France was technically engaged in fighting one against us. That was a dirty little fact that came out when it was discovered they were actively involved in providing replacement jet parts to Saddam even as US and Brit jets were being fired on while patrolling a UN sanctioned no-fly zone. That's pretty damned cold.

Fortunately our pilots and technology were vastly superior and they dusted pretty much every plane or gun emplacement that dared turn on a targeting mechanism in a moment of bravado... which explains why Saddam took to burying them intact in the sand or transferring them outside his borders at the start of the actual war instead of risking them. Still it frankly pissed the hell out of us that one of our allies was actively assisting people that were trying to kill our pilots who were enforcing UN sanctions.

Add to that, another reason the French stayed out of Iraq was the failure of the tenuous little coalition to agree to their imperialistic demands for a huge piece of pie once the dust inevitably cleared. WW2 was largely a product of silliness like that taking place at the treaty of Versailles that ended WW1, and repeating such an error up front to gain French cooperation wouldve been an error. Sometimes we're better at learning from history than at other times.

Everyone is always quick to point out improper actions and political faux pas the US makes... and I'll be first to admit they happen. That generosity doesnt extend to excusing allies from in effect shooting at us. The French government is traditionally warm & fuzzy when there are German tanks on Belgian soil rolling toward the French border (I had at least 4 uncles engaged on European soil at the last such event, 2 of whom I never met cause they didnt make it back)... but in absence of such threat the warmth gets a little patchy.

ALL governments screw up, and where Iraq is concerned I'd put mistakes made in Paris on the high end of the boner scale. You just don't fight proxy wars against your allies.

[Natural Elements]

Originally Posted by robjones

I'm aware of our habit of supplying whomever is engaged in fighting against some country we don't like... the technical term is "proxy war"... and it's bit us all in the butt a time or two. I just never figured out why France was technically engaged in fighting one against us. That was a dirty little fact that came out when it was discovered they were actively involved in providing replacement jet parts to Saddam even as US and Brit jets were being fired on while patrolling a UN sanctioned no-fly zone. That's pretty damned cold.

Fortunately our pilots and technology were vastly superior and they dusted pretty much every plane or gun emplacement that dared turn on a targeting mechanism in a moment of bravado... which explains why Saddam took to burying them intact in the sand or transferring them outside his borders at the start of the actual war instead of risking them. Still it frankly pissed the hell out of us that one of our allies was actively assisting people that were trying to kill our pilots who were enforcing UN sanctions.

Add to that, another reason the French stayed out of Iraq was the failure of the tenuous little coalition to agree to their imperialistic demands for a huge piece of pie once the dust inevitably cleared. WW2 was largely a product of silliness like that taking place at the treaty of Versailles that ended WW1, and repeating such an error up front to gain French cooperation wouldve been an error. Sometimes we're better at learning from history than at other times.

Everyone is always quick to point out improper actions and political faux pas the US makes... and I'll be first to admit they happen. That generosity doesnt extend to excusing allies from in effect shooting at us. The French government is traditionally warm & fuzzy when there are German tanks on Belgian soil rolling toward the French border (I had at least 4 uncles engaged on European soil at the last such event, 2 of whom I never met cause they didnt make it back)... but in absence of such threat the warmth gets a little patchy.

ALL governments screw up, and where Iraq is concerned I'd put mistakes made in Paris on the high end of the boner scale. You just don't fight proxy wars against your allies.

I can tell you much more about the French government before WW2, The socialists were always for disarmament, of course like always the French elite didn't want their citizen to bear arms. It tooks only a month for the French army and some courageous English regiments to fall or retreat. The german arrived in Paris 3 days later without resistance.

To go back more on the topic, The French are always devided by two, the pro-Americans and the others. The Vichy government and FFI were one example of what I said.

I don't know exactly all the French elements involved in patrolling a UN sanctioned no-fly zone.

All I can say is that Chirac was ex [FTP (Franc-tireurs et Partisans) and not a FFI (Force Francaise de l'Interieur)] which is a big difference and Devillepin weren't my tea cup.

It was oustrageous that these deux guys builded a coalition against our allies.

Many of my follow citizen did not support them, I can tell you that.

Tomorow a major conflict start and France would be the same as WW2.

I like my country but the foreign policies from some of our politicians are "geometric variable" unfortunately.

[robjones]

I like my country but the foreign policies from some of our politicians are "geometric variable" unfortunately.

Lotta that going around. Bear in mind that half of our country at any time is pretty sure whichever group is in power is the embodiment of evil. I hear folks that think of Americans as a like-minded bunch acting in concert... but in most cases if there are more than three in a room we cant decide on anything as important as where to go to lunch.

[Natural Elements]

Yep we aren't united like you, that's for sure.

[Natural Elements]

Colour-Coded Revolutions and the Origins of World War III

Part 2 Introduction

Following US geo-strategy in what Brzezinski termed the “global Balkans,” the US government has worked closely with major NGOs to “promote democracy” and “freedom” in former Soviet republics, playing a role behind the scenes in fomenting what are termed “colour revolutions,” which install US and Western-friendly puppet leaders to advance the interests of the West, both economically and strategically.

Part 2 of this essay on “The Origins of World War III” analyzes the colour revolutions as being a key stratagem in imposing the US-led New World Order. The “colour revolution” or “soft” revolution strategy is a covert political tactic of expanding NATO and US influence to the borders of Russia and even China; following in line with one of the primary aims of US strategy in the New World Order: to contain China and Russia and prevent the rise of any challenge to US power in the region.

These revolutions are portrayed in the western media as popular democratic revolutions, in which the people of these respective nations demand democratic accountability and governance from their despotic leaders and archaic political systems. However, the reality is far from what this utopian imagery suggests. Western NGOs and media heavily finance and organize opposition groups and protest movements, and in the midst of an election, create a public perception of vote fraud in order to mobilize the mass protest movements to demand “their” candidate be put into power. It just so happens that “their” candidate is always the Western US-favoured candidate, whose campaign is often heavily financed by Washington; and who proposes US-friendly policies and neoliberal economic conditions. In the end, it is the people who lose out, as their genuine hope for change and accountability is denied by the influence the US wields over their political leaders.

The soft revolutions also have the effect of antagonizing China and Russia, specifically, as it places US protectorates on their borders, and drives many of the former Warsaw Pact nations to seek closer political, economic and military cooperation. This then exacerbates tensions between the west and China and Russia; which ultimately leads the world closer to a potential conflict between the two blocs.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...t=va&aid=15767