Under the Influence of British Intentions, Nuclear War is getting closer

President Obama’s move to trigger war with Russia and/or China is getting closer, and the way to prevent it is to remove him. He has been making global war “step by step,” a “war by war” escalation since the 2011 turning point of the assassination of Qaddafi and unleashing of terrorist chaos from Libya.

During the weekend the White House escalated its announcement of a week ago, that Obama might order U.S. military forces to attack any force which bothered Syrian rebels who have been trained by the United States. Now it has expanded this to any U.S. military “asset,” anywhere in the world the United States is conducting military training, and that clearly would include Ukraine.

Obama takes each step, each escalation, each new war, without the slightest nod to the Congressional representatives of the American people. And now Congress is in recess for the next month, with the Guns of August threatening.

War is not a certainty, but it cannot be prevented if people deny the possibility of global war simply because they do not want to, or fear, having to do something themselves to stop it. Obama’s intentions are increasingly recognized by people in leading positions around the world. Large numbers should sign the petition being circulated by the Schiller Institute for the past 10 days, which calls for Obama’s removal from office — the one best shot for preventing nuclear war.

It is critical to realize what EIR Founding Editor Lyndon LaRouche reiterated Aug. 10 to the LaRouche PAC Policy Committee: With Obama, “We are under the influence of the British Empire’s leading, long-standing intention. That intention is to reduce the human population drastically.” The British royal family and its councils and advisors are prepared even to wipe out the majority of the world’s population, and they have said so. “The thermonuclear war threat is there,” LaRouche said, “because Obama is essentially an agent of that British imperial intention.”

Stopping this threatened global war requires optimism, the kind represented by the future-oriented science and development thrust of the BRICS-allied nations. One of the leading U.S. military opponents of Obama’s war policies — Gen. Michael Flynn, fired by Obama as head of the Defense Intelligence Agency in 2013 for that reason — has now exposed the British-White House-Saudi intention from 2012, to create an “Islamic Caliphate” like ISIS in Iraq and Syria. But in his internationally circulated interview, General Flynn does more — he insists that region-wide economic development centered around nuclear power is the one thing that gives any chance for the return of peace in the Mideast; everything else is “just tactics.”

This aspect of leading U.S. military officers’ opposition to Obama’s wars is a reason for optimism. But the President has to be removed from office, as we removed a President in 1974 to prevent disaster. We have to do it again.

SUPPORTING MATERIAL

Gen. Flynn: Strategic Vision, Nuclear Power, Required To Stop War

Former Defense Intelligence Agency head, retired Gen. Michael Flynn’s Aug. 4 “Head to Head” interview with Al Jazerra’s Medhi Hasan, is not only explosive for his charge that the Obama administration made a “willful decision” to support jihadist groups forming an Islamic Caliphate.

In the interview, available on YouTube and being picked up now by more media, RT included, the outspoken general gave voice to the demand of a broader grouping of thoughtful U.S. military leaders, that the United States end its policy of war and more war, and come to an agreement with the nations of the Middle East, as a region, on an economic development strategy which alone can underpin peace.

General Flynn spoke with most passion in the sometimes contentious interview, when insisting that peace in the Middle East is “doable,” but it requires vision, strategy, imagination!

History will not be kind about the United States’ decision to go into Iraq in 2003, he said; looking back over 50, 60, 70 years, we’ve made a number of strategic mistakes which put fire on already burning embers. Something is wrong with our policy and our strategy when the number of terrorist groups listed on the State Department’s designated terror list has doubled between 2004 and 2014.

We’ve invested in more conflict, instead of solutions. We’re sending in more drones, more bombs, more guys going out to kill more guys. Dropping drones, “training 60 guys,” are tactical measures, narrow things which lead only to greater conflict, when there are strategic solutions for this region, centered on a change in the economic system in the entire Middle East.

What General Flynn put on the table as key to that change, is a regional framework for nuclear energy development, to allow, in particular, nuclear desalination. The Saudis, Jordan, Egypt, now Tunisia are signing nuclear accords with Russia, which is a nuclear developer, he pointed out. Nuclear energy is the most cost-effective form of desalination, key for creating the water the region needs, he specified. And while he remains opposed to the current P5+1 accord with Iran, and distrusts the Iranian leadership, he argues that Iran should be part of an overall regional accord premised on nuclear energy development which the P5+1 should be involved in creating.

General Flynn would have us think about the future we are trying to achieve for the next 10 years, 50 years, the next century. That is strategy. For ISIL and the jihadis to be defeated, nations must give their youth, particularly the young men who are 15-25 years old, something to do, he insists.

The interview concluded with the question: did the General plan to run for President?

Obama Devises New Legal Rationale for Syria War and New Wars

The Obama Administration has crept another step closer to expanded warfare, using the same method evident a week ago when it announced that it had given the military the authority to attack Syrian government forces if they engage in combat against armed opposition groups trained by the U.S. military. A questionable policy change is hatched in the bowels of the White House and leaked to a reporter via some anonymous official, rather than engaging the U.S. Congress and the American people on war and peace.

This time, the step involves the new legal rationale the Obama White House gives to explain the legal authority it believes it has to support the above policy, announced via unnamed source last week: Article II of the Constitution. “If Syrian government forces attack the Syrian fighters we have trained and equipped while they were engaging ISIL, the President would have the authority under Article II of the Constitution to defend those fighters,” the unnamed senior administration official told The Hill. Nor does this just apply to the handful of vetted fighters that the U.S. military has trained; it covers the groups they come from and return to, which haven’t been vetted. In fact, a U.S. official (the same one?), said the U.S.-led coalition already is providing those groups with air support against ISIS even though they do not yet have U.S.-trained rebels embedded with them. A diplomatic official told The Hill that some of the groups may target Assad — which would bring the United States closer to war with the regime.

According to legal experts consulted by The Hill, Obama’s legal rationale is turning Article II on its head. Louis Fisher, scholar in residence at the Constitution Project and former Congressional Research Service researcher, and other legal experts say Article II has been interpreted to allow a President to “repel sudden attack” against U.S. troops, the U.S. mainland, and its interests. Using it to defend Syrian rebels would not fit under that previous interpretation, he said. Stephen Vladeck, law professor at American University, said, “by that logic any person or piece of military equipment used by anyone on a side of a conflict with which we agree, is all of a sudden covered by Article II. And that cannot be right.”

Though not mentioned by The Hill, such an interpretation could have dangerous implications for U.S. policy in Ukraine, where the U.S. has “assets,” not only U.S. troops, but also Ukrainian national guardsmen from such neo-Nazi groups as Right Sector and Azov battalion that they’ve trained, and humvees, radars and other equipment that the United States has supplied to the Kiev regime for war against its own Donbass region.

This entry was posted in Stopping WW III and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.