Psalms Chapter 110 תְּהִלִּים
DR. JAMES D. MANNING - PUBLIC VIDEO
Don’t Mean A Thing If Aint Got Revolution Swing
Posted on 15. Jan, 2010 in Featured Videos
2010/2012 Don’t mean a thing if there’s no revolution. Recorded on Wednesday, 13 January 2010. Follow us on twitter http://www.twitter.com/atlahworldwide Connect with us on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/pages/ATLAHWorldwide/150345810898
January 16, 2010 | Permalink | Comments (0)
SO GOES RUSSIA, SO GOES THE WORLD
How Russia Is About to Dramatically Change the World
January 5, 2010 | From theTrumpet.com
Over the next few days, Russia will change the world. It has completed a new oil pipeline and port complex that sets Russia up to become a more powerful oil exporter than Saudi Arabia. The ramifications for Europe and Asia are profound: The shape of the global economy—and the global balance of power—will be altered forever. December 28 was a big day of ceremony in Russia. Prime Minister Vladimir Putin pushed a button that transformed global oil dynamics—especially for Asia and Europe. The button released thousands of barrels of Siberian crude into a waiting Russian supertanker and heralded the opening of Russia’s first modern Pacific-based oil export facilities. The multibillion-dollar, state-of-the-art oil terminal was a “great New Year present for Russia,” Putin said during the inauguration.
The strategic terminal, located in the city of Kozmino on the coast of the Sea of Japan, is one of the “biggest projects in contemporary Russia” he said, not only in “modern Russia,” but “the former Soviet Union too.” Putin has every right to be enthusiastic about his new port. Kozmino will unlock a two-way gate through which Russia’s vast Siberian oilfields will gush into Asia’s energy-hungry economies—and Chinese, Korean and Japanese currency will flow into Russia. If just the seven ships currently waiting to berth are all filled during January, the port of Kozmino will instantly become Russia’s third-most important oil outlet. According to Reuters, the first oil transport loads on January 15. In a symbolic move highlighting Russia’s warming relationship with China, Hong Kong will receive the first shipment.
After that, Kozmino’s importance will exponentially grow over the next year. Currently, all Siberian oil shipments into Kozmino are delivered by train—but that will soon change. Phase one of the East Siberian-Pacific Ocean Pipeline (espo) was also completed during December. Phase two will soon connect the Siberian fields directly to the new port. When phase two is finished in 2014, total exports could jump from the current rate of 250,000 barrels per day to over 1 million. Kozmino will transform into one of the largest oil centers in the world—capable of handling 14 percent of total Russian oil exports. It will be one of the most strategic geopolitical assets in Russia’s arsenal. Russia pumped more than 10 million barrels of oil per day during November. With Saudi Arabian production falling, Russia is now the world’s largest oil exporter.
Toss in Russia’s natural gas exports, and Russia is the biggest energy superpower in the world, by far. That does not even count Russia’s massive uranium resources and nuclear expertise. But here is why the new port in Kozmino could radically affect the future of both Asia and Europe. For over a century, Russia’s entire energy infrastructure has focused mainly on supplying Europe. That has now changed forever! The first and now-complete phase of the espo pipeline, which connects Russia’s Siberian oil fields to within just a few kilometers of China, is already destabilizing global oil dynamics and shifting them in Russia’s direction. “espo is what political strategists might call a ‘game-changer,’” writes the Telegraph.
“It means that Russia will be able to send its oil either east or west—so it can drive a harder bargain when selling crude to Europe” (emphasis mine throughout). Previously, when Russia has had pricing disputes with Europe, Moscow had to play the embargo card with an obvious bluff. It had no other alternative outlet for its oil. Without the Europeans, its oil would sit in Samotlor and Tyanskoye, costing money instead of making it. But now Moscow can turn off the tap to Europe and still pump in the profits by opening the pipe wide to its energy-hungry Asian partners. But Russia’s stranglehold on Europe is about to get even tighter—much tighter.
By 2012, the espo pipeline will be twinned with a pipeline for natural gas exports so Russian gas supplies can also flow east instead of west if necessary. This development is truly scary to Europeans. Moscow has already demonstrated that it isn’t afraid to turn off Europe’s energy supplies when it feels it needs to. In the middle of winter 2006, Russia shut off gas supplies to Germany, and several other countries, in order to punish Ukraine. Since then, it has repeatedly used the same method to strong-arm its former Eastern European satellites back into accepting Russian dominance.
The message is clear: Russian oil and gas supplies are a weapon to be used—or not used—to freeze opponents into submission. Europe, in a tenuous relationship with Russia to begin with, desperately needs to secure another source of energy. Only one other region in the world can supply the energy to warm and lubricate modern Europe’s homes and industries: the Middle East. Countries like Germany, which imports 90 percent of its oil, are now much more dependent on one of the most volatile regions of the world for power supplies. It is inevitable that Berlin will seek to expand its ties with oil-rich Gulf Cooperation Council members: the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain and especially Saudi Arabia, the world’s second-largest petroleum producer. Europe has no choice but to become much more intimately involved with the affairs of the Middle East—a region from which 40 percent of its oil is currently derived.
It is therefore no surprise that Germany, the most dominant nation in Europe, has made sure it has troops on the ground surrounding this Middle Eastern “golden triangle” of energy production (Gulf Cooperation Council members plus Iran and Iraq). On the seas, the European Union’s naval presence is growing too. The European anti-piracy task force operates in both the Gulf of Oman and the Gulf of Aden. Forty percent of the world’s ocean-borne oil is shipped through the Gulf of Oman. Europe is critically dependent on imported oil. And Germany knows it must have a strong presence in the world’s most oil-rich region if it is to secure its flow and the country’s future. The Bible predicts that a major military clash will soon occur in the Middle East—specifically between a European power, led by Germany, and radical Islam, led by Iran.
Daniel 11:40-45 indicate that Iran will continue to push at this European power until it finally responds in “whirlwind,” blitzkrieg-type fashion. As we have explained for almost 20 years—and has been borne out repeatedly in real-world events—the “king of the south” spoken of in these verses is radical Islam under the leadership of Iran. And as Trumpet editor in chief Gerald Flurry has written, a big part of Iran’s push against Europe will involve oil. The Middle East is a powder keg that could explode at any time. Syria dominates Lebanon and is stirring up trouble there. Iran is about to create a nuclear weapon and has said it wants to wipe Israel off the map.
It is test firing missiles that can strike European capitals. Israel knows that the window to prevent Iran from getting the bomb is closing. Hamas is preparing to violently take East Jerusalem as a Palestinian capital. Israel is about to release 1,000 terrorists back onto the streets in return for one captured Israeli soldier. And to top it off, the world is in the midst of its worst depression since the 1930s. Oil prices remain above $70 per barrel, and the International Energy Agency has indicated that world oil production will now peak in 2020—10 years sooner than prior estimates.
Some analysts think the world has already reached peak oil production. In this climate of global instability, Russia’s recent moves on the world’s oil stage will be amplified in dramatic fashion. By unlocking Siberia’s energy reserves, Russia is simultaneously binding Asia together and lighting a fire under Europe. Watch for the development of an Asian alliance between Russia, China and Japan. And watch for Europe’s next moves toward the Middle East. •
January 11, 2010 | Permalink | Comments (0)
DR. JAMES D. MANNING - FEAR IN WASHINGTON
Posted on 06. Jan, 2010 in Featured Videos
Hon. James David Manning speaks on the matter of the birth certificate. Recorded on Monday, 4 January 2010. Follow us on twitter http://www.twitter.com/atlahworldwide Connect with us on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/pages/ATLAHWorldwideJanuary 07, 2010 | Permalink | Comments (0)
"GERMANY" IS ON THE RISE
“Foreigners Out!”: The Rise of Right-Wing Violence in Germany
December 28, 2009 | From theTrumpet.com
Though the overpowering voice of Berlin’s leftist mainstream media often paints modern Germany as a land of pacifism and tolerance, the nation’s Federal Criminal Police Office (or bka) released a report last week that shows this portrayal to be increasingly inaccurate.
In 2008, racially and politically motivated far-right crimes reached a record high of more than 20,000 incidents, the report says. Figures for 2009 won’t be released until next year, but the bka expects them to exceed previous numbers by even more.
“On average, two to three far-right-motivated violent crimes are committed in Germany each day. And there are around three to four anti-Semitic violent crimes each month,” said bka president Jörg Ziercke.
“There’s a real danger to people’s lives because far-right attacks tend to be very spontaneous, brutal and violent,” he said.
Right-wing extremists are also becoming bolder in their outbursts. Increasingly, the crimes are carried out in public places such as bus stops, train stations and restaurants. Ironically, one of the year’s most gruesome murders was committed in a courtroom while court was in session.
The report points to formerly Communist Eastern Germany as the primary breeding ground for the growing right-wing extremism. Even 20 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, some eastern regions are grappling with soaring unemployment and other social woes. A growing number of citizens in these areas have turned to far-right political parties such as the National Democratic Party (npd) in search of a solution.
Eastern Germany is home to most of the violence. In 2007, a mob of 50 chased eight Indians through the streets of the eastern town of Mügeln. They yelled, “Foreigners out!” before attacking and injuring all eight of the Indians in a restaurant as townspeople looked on.
Although the npd officially rejects explicit Nazi references and violence, the federal government attempted to ban the party in 2003 because of its extremism. The attempt was overruled by the German high court.
Since Germany reunified in 1990, 47 racially motivated murders have been committed. Federal authorities say that, at present, around 30,000 Germans are involved in neo-Nazi activities, and approximately one third of those are ready for violence.
“It’s a shocking situation,” Ziercke says.
But for those acquainted with Germany’s bellicose path through the pages of history, these facts are not shocking. Germany has tried to live down its Nazi past, but the steady escalation of right-wing violence shows reactionary ideologies to be very much alive in Germany today. These outbreaks of far-right violence are symptomatic of a more universal sentiment in Germany. They provide insight into the Fatherland’s general sentiment and mood.
To understand the significance of this escalation of violence, and where it is ultimately leading, read the chapter titled “The Resurgence of Nazi Germany” from our book Germany and the Holy Roman Empire. •
December 28, 2009 | Permalink | Comments (0)
THE END OF AN EMPIRE
Heralding the End of an Empire
December 9, 2009 | From theTrumpet.com
For 20 years, the Trumpet has consistently forecast America’s fate.
December 9, 2009 | From theTrumpet.com
For 20 years, the Trumpet has consistently forecast America’s fate.
When the Cold War ended, the glittery idea of a “new world order” came into fashion. Many envisioned a more cooperative, unified globe on the horizon. “Tolerance is the alpha and omega of a new world order,” said Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in June of 1990. He advocated troop cuts, anti-weapons treaties, one world economy, increased global trade, a global communal security structure—a sunshiny, join-hands-around-the-world future. U.S. President George H.W. Bush evoked the theme when ordering troops to punish Saddam Hussein’s Iraq for attacking Kuwait. The Gulf War, he said, was a marvelous example of squashing offensive use of force, promoting collective security, and cooperating among the world’s great powers. He used the phrase “new world order” no fewer than 42 times between the summer of 1990 and the end of March 1991. Critics saw it as ominous code for something else: unchallenged American global dominance. After all, the Soviet Union’s collapse had left the U.S. the last remaining superpower, towering over all other nations.
It was in this political climate that the Trumpet magazine launched in 1990—20 years ago this coming February. What I find noteworthy about that is this: Among all the forecasts we have made in our analysis of world events over two decades, perhaps the one that has appeared more frequently than any other is that the United States would weaken to the point of being completely eclipsed as a world power. Demonstrating the Trumpet’s political neutrality, this forecast has remained constant through two Republican and now two Democratic presidencies. For most of these 20 years, it has been a stubbornly contrarian view. Nevertheless, we have held it because it is guided by biblical prophecy, consistent with the understanding elucidated by Herbert W. Armstrong in The United States and Britain in Prophecy. Year after year we have tracked evidence of this national decline in several areas, including the quality of leadership, foreign relations and diplomacy, the will to use military power effectively, political and corporate integrity, economic vitality, industrial capacity, character and morality, family stability, physical and mental health, race relations, education, and spiritual well-being. In all of these areas and more, poisonous seeds have been sown; poor choices have accumulated; sins have mounted—and the resulting prophesied curses have grown sterner.
In recent times—particularly the past 14 months, amid financial
crisis—the evidence has grown so overwhelming that this reality is now
becoming accepted more generally: America is the incredible shrinking
superpower.
But take a moment to consider the Trumpet’s
pronouncements over the years and view them as vindication of our
biblical model of predictive analysis. Here we’ll look at just a few,
on this single issue of America’s degeneration, relating to the biggest
issues facing the nation today.
In one of our earliest editions, August 1990, we pointed to
corruption in business that would portend far greater problems to come.
Referring to the prophecy in Micah 2:1-2, we wrote how some businessmen
are “continually devising evil,” including “legalized robbery.” “It is
happening to people all over the nation right now. Look at the
leveraged buyouts of businesses and junk bond takeovers which have
devastated the economic climate of the entire world. It is all based on
greed
and the ‘get’ way of life that Mr. Armstrong used to thunder about! …
It is considered ‘good business’ today to make money and not worry
about how you got it. … Sometimes we fail to see just how very bad the
economy of the United States is. Micah is telling us that the ruin is
going to be horrible in every way!” (emphasis mine throughout).
“People look at the surface of the economy and of their society. On
the surface everything looks good,” the November 1991 edition said.
“Society looks so good to most people, as if it could last for
thousands of years. But it is so badly eaten by the ‘moths,’ that a
little pressure will cause it to fall apart”—referring to the prophecy
of Hosea 5:12. “That is the condition of the U.S. and British economies
today—right now! They are almost ready to collapse—like a moth-eaten
coat! … This verse explains why people will believe the economy and
their society is strong until they actually see it collapse!”
“The U.S. economy has helped to fuel the whole world’s economy.
When it collapses, it will impact forcefully on the whole world,” we
wrote in June 1992. The Trumpet’s
economic warnings grew stronger over the years as America grew more
overleveraged and indebted. “Countries, just like individuals, can
become addicted to credit! In order to maintain a high standard of
living, America has become increasingly dependent upon foreign credit
to pay its bills, piling debt upon debt, until it has mortgaged itself
to the hilt!” we wrote in August 1997. “The primary danger is that
addiction to foreign credit finally gives foreigners complete control
over the debtor nation!” We warned about what would happen when foreign
investors eventually lost confidence in the U.S. dollar: “For Japan and
other foreign creditors to sell extensive amounts of U.S. treasury
bills would be similar to a bank cutting off the credit line of a
heavily indebted individual who relies on borrowed money to pay his
bills, and then demanding immediate repayment of the outstanding loans.
… Simply put, if early repayment of these loans are demanded through a
massive sell-off of foreign-owned bonds, the United States would be
unable to pay the face value of the bonds, let alone the interest!
There is a mortgage on America—and foreigners hold that mortgage ….” You can read more of the Trumpet’s economic forecasts, and how they have since proven accurate, in Robert Morley’s article “Right on the Money.” Another enormous concern for America today is the nation’s war efforts in the Middle East. In this light, our editor in chief’s analysis of the 1991 Gulf War is interesting to revisit. One of Herbert Armstrong’s strongest assertions after World War ii was that “America has won its last war.” Every military conflict the U.S. has been involved in since has backed up that statement. But then, shortly after beginning a ground invasion in Iraq in 1991, the Bush i administration claimed victory in the war. Gerald Flurry strongly challenged that assessment. “The truth is we won a battle in Kuwait. We did not win a war. The job was left unfinished,” he wrote in the Trumpet’s May 1991 issue. “Saddam Hussein is still in power—even stronger in some ways—and has turned Iraq into a killing field.
Isn’t [that] a sign we
didn’t win the war? That we lacked the will to win as it says in
Leviticus 26:19?” What the U.S. did was essentially kick a massive
problem down the road. “This will probably plague and haunt President Bush and America for the rest of our lives!” he wrote.
Mr. Flurry was most critical of how, after encouraging the Kurds
and Shiites to rise up against Saddam Hussein, the Bush administration
abandoned them. Hussein then restarted his murderous rampage against
them, creating a humanitarian disaster. Mr. Flurry called this “the
greatest betrayal in U.S. history.” “President Bush’s ‘new world order’
has brought some of the greatest shame on our nation’s history!” he
wrote. “American leaders say the U.S. has no UN mandate to interfere in
Iraq on the refugees’ behalf.
This statement alone shows that we lack the will to use our power for a just cause. And if the Iraqi refugee crisis isn’t a just cause, nothing is!” This judgment, written over 18½ years ago, has played out in America’s foreign policy to this day, with the president announcing his plan to exit Afghanistan before even sending troops into battle: “America still fears getting bogged down in a Vietnam-type civil war in Iraq. Even after we had them almost defenseless! That is because God has broken the pride of our power—our will to win!” (ibid.). The truth in this assessment became even plainer after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Rather than going after the world’s number-one state sponsor of terrorism—Iran—America struck elsewhere. “By striking Afghanistan, the U.S. angers virtually no one.
Go any further, however, and the issue is not nearly so tidy. Make Iran a target, for example, and you’re also picking a fight with its allies, most notably Russia,” we wrote in November 2001. “While the U.S. wants to eliminate terrorism and is becoming much more aggressive in trying to do so, its efforts will fall short. It frankly does not have the necessary will to tackle the enormity of the problem!” The accuracy of this assessment is evidenced by how, in the more than eight years since, Iran has only grown stronger, and Afghanistan continues to suck dry America’s military might. In January 2000, Mr. Flurry showed how the U.S. was suffering from a deficit in strong leadership. “For a nation to be great, it must have a great leader. Everything revolves around a strong leader who will lead the people to face the necessary sacrifices and hard truths,” he wrote. “Today our people want to hear ‘smooth things’ and ‘deceits.’ It’s the only way a leader can get elected.” The elections since—including three for president—have revealed a steep slide even further down that dangerous slope.
The American people “are too engrossed in self to ever have the will to remain a superpower,” Mr. Flurry continued. “It won’t be long before we have to face reality. We are a phony superpower waiting for disaster, if we don’t awaken.” Then, referring to specific issues like the Gulf War and the handover of the Panama Canal, Mr. Flurry made another prescient statement: “The American people are being bombarded with foreign-policy surrenders on the part of their leaders!” (ibid.).
December 09, 2009 | Permalink | Comments (0)
G-D'S PROPHECY
Joel HillikerColumnist
Spending America’s Strength in Vain
December 2, 2009 | From theTrumpet
“As commander in chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan. After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home,” President Obama announced last night. “These are the resources that we need to seize the initiative, while building the Afghan capacity that can allow for a responsible transition of our forces out of Afghanistan.”
The goal of this short-term surge is to stamp out the Taliban and al Qaeda insurgencies enough to allow a functional state to flourish, one that can police itself well enough that the U.S. can leave.
That’s a whole lot to achieve in 18 months. Chasing this objective, America will spend billions of dollars and perhaps hundreds of American lives.
Evidence is plenteous that all this strength, ultimately, will be spent in vain. Some of the most compelling can be found in Iraq.
The goal there has been largely the same, only under far more favorable conditions. And today, America’s considerable efforts in Iraq are unraveling.
In 2006, with a deteriorating security situation there, the Bush administration faced pressure to get out, or at least change strategy. For months the president deliberated, and finally, at the beginning of 2007, committed to a surge of 20,000 troops. The surge was principally intended to curb insurgency violence in order to create space for political progress. Unlike last night’s announcement, it had no timetable, thus bolstering allies in the region and forcing insurgents to accept the prospect of a long-term American commitment there.
Nearly three years later, we can measure certain effects of that surge. Violence did drop. Conditions for political gains did become more favorable. Many observers today applaud its success. But another reality is also becoming clear: The political gains it was meant to facilitate simply have not materialized. The government in Baghdad is fractured and splintering. Violence is beginning to rear its head again.
Nevertheless, the U.S. is already beginning to treat its project in Iraq as a done deal. “Today, after extraordinary costs,” President Obama said last night, “we are bringing the Iraq War to a responsible end.” His administration began pulling troops out this past June; combat forces will leave next summer and all troops by the end of 2011. “[W]e have given Iraqis a chance to shape their future, and we are successfully leaving Iraq to its people,” the president proclaimed.
As much as President Obama wants to put Iraq behind him, Iraq simply isn’t in any mood to accommodate him.
The withdrawal in June “left a power vacuum between feuding Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds that is escalating and threatens to pull in Iran, Turkey and the Sunni states of the Gulf,” wrote Ed Blanche in Middle East magazine. Reconstruction has all but stopped, and the crucial oil industry is withering for lack of foreign investment. And as U.S. forces pull out, sectarian violence is filling the void. Even amid strict security, two bombings killed over 155 people in Baghdad on October 25. “With the gradual disengagement of the U.S. military and all combat forces by August 2010, [al Qaeda in Iraq] and like-minded insurgents appear to have a growing level of confidence in their operations,” wrote the Jamestown Foundation’s Ramzy Mardini last week.
The fact is, Iran is neck-deep in a robust, long-term bid to control Iraq. It has financed and encouraged both political agents and militias on a massive scale in an effort to turn the country into a strong Shiite ally, if not puppet state. This has caused substantial consternation and angst among Iraq’s Sunnis and Kurds, many of whom patently fear a Shiite tyranny. Now, Iraq’s first national election since 2005—scheduled for January—is certain to be postponed until spring or later. The country’s vice president vetoed an election law put together by Iraq’s parliament because he felt it hurt Sunni interests.
With the future of Iraq still in play, sectarian and ethnic political coalitions are emerging that both reveal and heighten the country’s deep divisions. The prospect of a reasonably united, functional government is slipping over the horizon.
This failure is sure to encourage more violence. Sunni insurgents who wanted no fight with America’s beefed-up troops, or who laid low to see whether the political process would work out, are ready to start kicking up trouble again.
Thus, Iraq’s future is quite certain. President Obama’s rhetoric notwithstanding, as America’s presence shrinks, so will Iraq’s security—as will its independence from Iran. The notion that, after all America’s effort, Iraq will be a healthy American ally, yielding a net gain against the forces of terror, is a fantasy.
We can expect a similar scenario to play out in Afghanistan. The surge will likely put a lid on violence in the short term as terrorists hunker down until July of 2011. But the achievement won’t stick. The Afghan security forces meant to take over from U.S. troops will be ineffective, and riddled with deserters and Islamist infiltrators. The government will be corrupt and compromised. And once America starts pulling out, terrorists will pick up where they left off.
In reality, America’s military is designed to conquer enemies, not to create functional democracies. In its now-eight-year “war on terrorism,” America has sought not only to defeat terrorists, but also to then keep them down by transforming their host nations into stable, freedom-loving, Western-friendly governments. On this front, it has yet to score a single victory. That’s because it is a fundamentally impossible mission.
In the broad picture, as the U.S. has prosecuted this war at great cost, the most dangerous Islamist forces have only grown more dangerous. This remarkable fact was vividly clear last night: As a backdrop to America’s president committing 30,000 more soldiers to a doomed effort in Afghanistan, the king of Middle Eastern terror, Iran, has been bolder than ever. It is bloodying Britain’s nose over a run-in with its sailors; it is blasting the UN for threatening sanctions and ramping up its support for terrorism in response; it is blatantly defying America and the West by promising, come what may, to expand its nuclear program. This is the Middle Eastern nation identified in biblical prophecy as playing the key role in rallying the region’s radicals and provoking the West into a world war. Yet it hardly registers a blip on Washington’s radar screen. After Iran’s unswerving nuclear belligerence and repeated refusals to make a single concession to Western pressure, the toughest response the White House can muster is, “Time is running out for Iran” before the UN contemplates tougher sanctions. Doesn’t exactly strike fear in the heart.
God prophesied in Leviticus 26:19-20 what would happen to America, a modern descendant of ancient Israel, in this end time if it turned its back on Him: “And I will break the pride of your power … And your strength shall be spent in vain.” There could be no more precise description of the futility of U.S. power. Tossing multiple brigades into the Afghan wilderness on an unwinnable mission while standing aside as the king of the south builds a nuclear arsenal more than qualifies. •
December 03, 2009 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (0)
AMERICA AND BRITAIN HAVE WON THEIR LAST WAR
Another Defeat at the Door
From the Nov/Dec 2009 Trumpet Print Edition »And guess who’s knocking?
By Stephen Flurry
The Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan were America’s first targets after 9/11. Before 2001 was out, so was the Taliban. Hopes of building a solidly democratic, Western-friendly nation were high as Hamid Karzai was made interim leader.
Eight years on, those hopes are gone. Afghanistan has proven impossible to bring to heel.
In the last three years in particular, control has increasingly slipped back to these radical Muslim groups. The last two years of George W. Bush’s presidency saw a total of 282 American casualties there (compared to 197 the two years before, and 161 the four years before that). When President Bush left office, the International Council on Security and Development (icos) think tank showed that the Taliban had reestablished a “heavy” presence in over 72 percent of the country and “significant” presence (defined as one or more insurgent attacks per month) in 93 percent. On UN security maps, over half the country was considered “uncontrolled hostile environment”—which, only a few years prior, none of the country had been.
Not a good showing after seven years of war.
During the presidential campaign last year, Barack Obama and his left-wing supporters excoriated the Bush administration for getting “sidetracked” in Iraq, when Afghanistan, so said conventional wisdom on the left, was the real battlefront in the war against terrorism. “In 16 months we should be able to … bolster our efforts in Afghanistan so that we can capture and kill bin Laden and crush al Qaeda,” Mr. Obama said in the first presidential debate in October last year.
So—the first half of that 16 months has passed. Where are we? Despite the Defense Department committing an additional 21,000 troops to Afghanistan last spring, the war there has taken a deadly turn for the worse. New icos data shows that the Taliban’s presence has grown: It is now “heavy” in 80 percent of the country, “substantial” in at least 97 percent. In the first eight months of 2009 alone, the U.S. had suffered by far the most casualties of any year since the war began: 200 soldiers out of over 340 total coalition deaths.
Many are wondering if the U.S. should cut its losses and run. A 51 percent majority in America now views the Afghanistan conflict as a war that is not worth fighting.
Even some conservative commentators are now abandoning ship. On September 1, columnist George Will called on the Obama administration to scrap its Afghan policy, dramatically slash the number of troops and focus instead on “what can be done from offshore.”
Will has hardly been alone in pointing out the numerous flaws in the Afghan strategy. “U.S. rules of engagement restricting the use of air power and aggressive action against civilians have also opened new space for the insurgents,” Karen DeYoung wrote in the Washington Post (September 2). Rebuilding Afghanistan’s infrastructure has given the Taliban new targets to attack, she continued. And America’s inability to protect Afghan citizens is only fueling resentment against Western forces.
At present, DeYoung intoned, the Taliban is winning.
The Great Irony
President Obama’s handpicked commander, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, took charge of the Afghanistan war effort in June and submitted his confidential assessment of the overall war strategy to the Pentagon on August 30. According to a declassified version of the report produced by the Washington Post on September 20, McChrystal wrote, “Although considerable effort and sacrifice have resulted in some progress, many indicators suggest the overall effort is deteriorating.” Unless the insurgent momentum is reversed over the next 12 months, McChrystal warned, the United States is in danger of losing the Afghan war.
“Time matters; we must act now to reverse the negative trends and demonstrate progress,” General McChrystal wrote, indicating that a massive troop surge would be necessary to earn victory in Afghanistan.
Meanwhile, bound by his campaign rhetoric to concentrate on the “front lines” of the terror war, upon becoming president, Barack Obama—of all people—found himself in the uncomfortable position of trying to drum up homeland support for an increasingly unpopular war!
“This is a war of necessity,” Obama told a gathering of war veterans in August. “Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans.”
What an ironic twist: the undisputed antiwar candidate of the 2008 election urging a war-weary electorate to get behind the war effort. It’s as if the United States is going through a frame-by-frame replay of Iraq in 2007, before the surge. Only this time, we have the most radically liberal administration in American history occupying the White House.
While the new U.S. government may still opt for a surge-like strategy to save face in Afghanistan, it appears that President Obama may now be reconsidering whether or not the “war of necessity” is, in fact, necessary. In response to McChrystal’s war assessment, the Wall Street Journal reported on September 22, the Pentagon instructed McChrystal to refrain from making a formal request for additional troops until the Obama administration completed its “review of the U.S.-led war effort.”
According to the Journal, “General McChrystal’s call for quick action appears to be increasingly at odds with comments from President Barack Obama, who has insisted in recent days that he won’t be rushed into approving more U.S. troops for the war” (emphasis mine throughout). Even as America’s generals have now embraced the president’s new counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan, which he outlined earlier this year, Barack Obama is now seriously thinking about scrapping the new strategy.
The first question America should consider, President Obama told a reporter on September 20 when asked about the war effort in Afghanistan, is this: “Are we doing the right thing?”
The Inevitable Outcome
If you find it difficult to imagine any scenario in which this turns out to be good for coalition forces in Afghanistan, you are not alone. “We’ve got a general who’s been gagged,” columnist Ralph Peters lamented soon after McChrystal submitted his August review, “a president trapped by his campaign promises, a muddled mission, crippling restrictions on our troops, a resurgent enemy, a worthless Afghan government—and an awol establishment media that, after hammering the Bush administration, gives Obama a pass on American casualties” (September 3).
Meanwhile, Peters added, “Iraq—which genuinely matters—goes ignored.”
Yes, even as America squanders its hard-fought gains in Iraq, which the Trumpet has repeatedly forecasted would happen, it is simultaneously being backed into a corner—and by the very same enemy poised and ready to seize Iraq once U.S. forces retreat.
Earlier this year, Adm. Dennis C. Blair, the director of National Intelligence, was asked by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence to comment about the deteriorating security situation in Afghanistan. According to a transcript of the proceedings, which was declassified on July 30, Admiral Blair said, “Iran is covertly supplying arms to Afghan insurgents while publicly posing as supportive of the Afghan government. Shipments typically include small arms, mines, rocket propelled grenades (rpgs), rockets, mortars, and plastic explosives. Taliban commanders have publicly credited Iranian support for their successful operations against coalition forces.”
You can also add General McChrystal to the long list of government and military officials who lay blame for the Afghan mess on Iranian puppet masters. According to his August 30 report, the Iranian Quds Force is “training fighters for certain Taliban groups and providing other forms of military assistance to insurgents.”
Yes, of course—no matter the various battlefronts in this war against terrorism or the variety of names given to insurgent groups, it’s always the same old Iranian state sponsor warring against the United States and Britain—and one that will soon be armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons.
Blair’s testimony and the McChrystal report will come as no surprise to our regular readers who know what we’ve been saying for eight years now: that the United States will not win the war against terrorism.
We say this because the same God who long ago prophesied of America’s astonishing rise to superpower status also predicted our swift and precipitous fall from power, as a result of our rampant sins and stubborn rebellion against God.
“And I will break the pride of your power; and I will make your heaven as iron, and your earth as brass,” God warned in Leviticus 26:19, referring primarily to the American and British peoples of our day. The pride the United States and Britain once had in their awesome military power and might has been completely broken and smashed!
As the Bible prophesied and Herbert Armstrong said as far back as 1961, the United States and Britain have already won their last war. •
September 27, 2009 | Permalink | Comments (0)
ACTIONS BY "T" - VIDEOS
JANET JACOBSON
http://my.tupperware.com/JanetJacobson
.........................................................................................................................................................................
Here is an example of our Newly designed DVD Series. Ordering information below!
Teddy Jacobson will sign any "DVD" that is purchased by request at no charge.
Videos are $30.00 each, however when ordering more than 3 they are $25.00 each
Please add $2.00 shipping to total order
| 1. THE TRUTH ABOUT BUYING A HANDGUN |
| 2. HOW TO BUY USED HANDGUNS |
| 3. HOW TO CLEAN YOUR HANDGUNS |
| 4. DISASSEMBLY AND REASSEMBLY OF COLT 45 SERIES 80 – 1911 |
| 5. DISASSEMBLY AND REASSEMBLY OF S&W REVOLVERS |
| 6. DISASSEMBLY AND REASSEMBLY OF SIG SAUER FOR CLEANING |
| 7. DISASSEMBLY AND REASSEMBLY OF COLT 45 SERIES 70 – 1911 |
| 8. PREPARING A HANDGUN FOR STREET CARRY |
| 9. HOW TO IMPROVE YOUR PISTOL AND REVOLVER |
| 10. DISASSEMBLY AND REASSEMBLY OF GLOCK PISTOLS/CLEANING |
| 11. HANDGUNS FOR WOMEN |
| 12. TRUTH ABOUT STAINLESS STEEL, TITANIUM & PORTED GUNS |
| 13. HANDGUN SIGHTS – EVERYTHING YOU WANTED TO KNOW |
| 14. THE TRUTH ABOUT AFTER MARKET PARTS AND ACCESSORIES |
| 15. HANDGUNS AND ACCESSORIES THAT I WOULD NOT BUY |
| 16. HOW TO SELECT A GUNSMITH AND PLATTER |
| 17. HANDGUN SPRINGS – EVERYTHING YOU WANTED TO KNOW |
| 18. CARRYING A CONCEALED HANDGUN – TRUTH AND REALITY |
| 19. SMALL HANDGUNS, HOLSTERS & AMMO FOR STREET CARRY |
| 20. HANDGUN AMMUNITION – WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW |
| 21. SELECTING RELOADING EQUIPMENT |
| 22. SELECTING RELOADING COMPONENTS |
| 23. SELECTING THE BEST HAND TOOLS FOR THE GUNSMITH |
July 28, 2009 | Permalink | Comments (0)
TROUBLE BREWING EVERYWHERE
Attack on Iran: Rift in the Military and the Role of Commandos
Sam Vaknin, Ph.D. - 7/19/2009
The targets for Israel's attack on Iran have been chosen: one is close to the sea, the other is inland. Members of Sayeret Matka"l are now conducting joint (often nightly) exercises with Israel's Navy SEALS (the "Shayetet") off the coast of Ashkelon and on the beaches of Haifa. While the deployment of the commandos and other ground forces will be done mostly by air, their evacuation, 4-6 hours later, will be accomplished by sea.
The role of the commandoes was re-defined last week to exclude the kidnapping of Iranian scientists. This change in operational goals followed a row among the upper echelons of Israel's military and intelligence community. Now, Israel's elite warriors are merely to return with soil samples and equipment from the facilities in the wake of the aerial bombardment. They are also to mine the area and to detonate explosives in sensitive locations. They are to avoid Iranian losses of life and collateral damage. Two Mossad A-Teams are already in operation inside Iran, close to the coast, having been deployed there by a submarine last week.
Faced with what it regards as an existential threat, Israel is reviving old and dormant intelligence networks and assets worldwide. Erstwhile members of the Lishka le-Kishre Mada (Laka"m, headed in the 1980s by Rafi "The Stinker" Eitan), or the "Bureau for Scientific Contacts" of Pollard infamy, were recently called to duty. They are working closely with physicists from the Weitzman Institute, the Technion, and Tel-Aviv and Beer-Sheba Universities. These combined team of seasoned intelligence operatives and top-level scientists have spent the last two weeks briefing the commando units in their base of operations near Eilat and in the nuclear reactor in Dimona.
Prominent members of the Israeli government, the Headquarters of the Israeli Defense Forces, and the intelligence community are against any military operation in Iran. They believe any such a move would be tantamount to geopolitical and, in the long-term, physical suicide. But they are in the minority. The majority of decision-makers are siding with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu who is pressing for an early military resolution of the problem.
Yet, the very phrase "military solution" is an oxymoron, claim his critics. Iran's nuclear program is spread over 60 sites, some of them deep inland. Redundancy is high and there is no way to take Iran's nuclear capacity out as was done in Iraq in 1981 and in Syria, lately. Better to wait for political change and voluntary disarmament as happened in Libya, they insist.
Attack on Iran to Include Ground Forces
July 16, 2009
An eventual attack on Iran may include ground forces. Units of Sayeret Matka"l ("Headquarters Scouts", Israel's elite special forces) have been transferred to the mock in Biq'at Hayareach ("Moon Vale"), not far from Eilat. They have spent the last few weeks training there: parachuting, paragliding, urban warfare (laba"b in Hebrew), and hand to hand combat. Special emphasis is placed on explosives. The area is isolated (it got its name from its eerie similarity to the moonscape), but various civilian suppliers have reported massive explosions during the day.
In my previous article, titled "Preparations for Attack in Iran Almost Complete" (dated July 10), I revealed the existence of the training mock near Eilat and Aqaba by the Red Sea. A few days later, Israel made the presence of its Navy in the Red Sea public. Though it has not been a secret hitherto, it has hardly been trumpeted. The navy's role is support the mission with sea-launched precision cruise missiles (of Israeli manufacture). In general, Israel is trying to minimize the involvement of American materiel in its forthcoming foray into Iran.
One word about the "windows" mentioned in my earlier article. As any military planner and intelligence agent knows, these are not actual operational dates. "Windows" are possible operational dates and are dictated by the confluence of weather projections, known troop movements, political and geopolitical circumstances, and military preparedness. Additional windows exist in September and October this year (I have the dates). It is likely, therefore, that Israel will attack in July or August, but no later than October this year.
Preparations for Attack on Iran Almost Complete
By: Sam Vaknin
July 10, 2009
Late last year, Israel embarked on a coordinated campaign of leaks to the press regarding its determination to take out Iran's nuclear facilities if Obama's then-new administration fails to sway the Iranians diplomatically. Israel is unwilling to accept a nuclear Iran: "It is not an option", say its senior intelligence and military leadership.
On January 20, 2009, I appeared as a guest in the most popular political affairs program in Macedonia ("Glasot na Narodot", or The Voice of the People). I warned that Israel is willing to wait 6 to 8 months for Obama's "diplomacy" with regards to Iran's nuclear capability to show some progress. If Iran remains recalcitrant, Israel plans to bomb two facilities in Iran as it did in Iraq in 1981, I said. Refueling won't be a problem, I assured the program's host, Slobodan Tomic: both Egypt and Saudi-Arabia offered to help.
Israel has decided to go ahead. Taking into account political, geopolitical, military preparedness, and climatic conditions, there are two windows: between July 21 and 24 and between August 6 and 8. Advance teams comprised of Mossad agents and military personnel are already on the ground in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Iraq (including in the Kurdish lands, adjacent to Turkey).
A mock has been erected not far from Eilat (near the Red Sea, opposite Aqaba). A defunct airbase in Biq'at Ha'Yareach (Moon Vale) has been resurrected to accommodate Air Wing 10. In a country as small and intimate as Israel, it is amazing that this has been kept a secret: hundreds of recruits and reservists - from mechanics and pilots to cooks and administrators - have been re-stationed there in the last few months.
A mysterious facility also sprouted up not far from Dimona's nuclear reactor, next to a university town called Sde Boker. It is not known what is its role, though speculation is that it is intended to shield the sensitive facility from an Iranian counter-attack. Several batteries of aged Patriot missiles have been recently replaced with brand new anti-missile rockets developed by Israel.
Citizens are reporting dry runs in the skies of the Negev, Israel's traditional air force training grounds and a desert with some resemblance to Iranian conditions. Piecing these scant testimonies together, it seems that the Israelis are concentrating their effort on midair refueling and surgical strikes on multiple targets.
Finally, HAGA (Hagana Ezrakhit), the Civilian Defense Force, a part of the Israeli Defense Force (IDF), has been instructed to begin preparations for a possible Iranian counter-strike with long-range conventional missiles. At this stage, Israel is not contemplating chemical or biological warfare (though the distribution of gas masks does seem to be part of the drill).
No one knows for sure where will Israel strike. Wiping off all the widely distributed and impregnable components of Iran's capability to enrich uranium is close to impossible. The after-effects of even a limited air attack may be devastating and not necessarily short-term, as the Israelis are convinced. The price of oil is likely to spike and radicals and extremists throughout the benighted region are bound to leverage the attack to smear and taunt Israel and its allies but, then, what else is new. The Arab countries are likely to breathe a sigh of relief that the Iranian bully has been humbled.
The big question mark is how will the Obama administration react to such a fait accompli that flies in the face of the new President's stated policies. Will Obama try to make an example out of Israel and harshly punish it - or will he merely verbally lash it and proceed with business as usual? Time will tell. Soon.
July 22, 2009 | Permalink | Comments (0)
