http://johnpilger.com/articles/silencing-america-as-it-prepares-for-war
1 Like
Ain’t nobody got no time to be reading all of that shit.
Cliff notes you cunt.
that will have to do bud
In 2009, Obama promised to help “rid the world of nuclear weapons” and was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. No American president has built more nuclear warheads than Obama. He is “modernising” America’s doomsday arsenal, including a new “mini” nuclear weapon, whose size and “smart” technology, says a leading general, ensure its use is “no longer unthinkable”.
James Bradley, the best-selling author of Flags of Our Fathers and son of one of the US marines who raised the flag on Iwo Jima, said, “[One] great myth we’re seeing play out is that of Obama as some kind of peaceful guy who’s trying to get rid of nuclear weapons. He’s the biggest nuclear warrior there is. He’s committed us to a ruinous course of spending a trillion dollars on more nuclear weapons. Somehow, people live in this fantasy that because he gives vague news conferences and speeches and feel-good photo-ops that somehow that’s attached to actual policy. It isn’t.”
On Obama’s watch, a second cold war is under way. The Russian president is a pantomime villain; the Chinese are not yet back to their sinister pig-tailed caricature - when all Chinese were banned from the United States - but the media warriors are working on it.
Neither Hillary Clinton nor Bernie Sanders has mentioned any of this. There is no risk and no danger for the United States and all of us; for them, the greatest military build-up on the borders of Russia since World War Two has not happened. On May 11, Romania went “live” with a Nato “missile defence” base that aims its first-strike American missiles at the heart of Russia, the world’s second nuclear power.
In Asia, the Pentagon is sending ships, planes and special forces to the Philippines to threaten China. The US already encircles China with hundreds of military bases that curve in an arc up from Australia, to Asia and across to Afghanistan. Obama calls this a “pivot”.
As a direct consequence, China reportedly has changed its nuclear weapons policy from no-first-use to high alert and put to sea submarines with nuclear weapons. The escalator is quickening.
It was Hillary Clinton who, as Secretary of State in 2010, elevated the competing territorial claims for rocks and reef in the South China Sea to an international issue; CNN and BBC hysteria followed; China was building airstrips on the disputed islands. In a mammoth war game in 2015, Operation Talisman Sabre, the US and Australia practiced “choking” the Straits of Malacca through which pass most of China’s oil and trade. This was not news.
Clinton declared that America had a “national interest” in these Asian waters. The Philippines and Vietnam were encouraged and bribed to pursue their claims and old enmities against China. In America, people are being primed to see any Chinese defensive position as offensive, and so the ground is laid for rapid escalation. A similar strategy of provocation and propaganda is applied to Russia.
Clinton, the “women’s candidate”, leaves a trail of bloody coups: in Honduras, in Libya (plus the murder of the Libyan president) and Ukraine. The latter is now a CIA theme park swarming with Nazis and the frontline of a beckoning war with Russia. It was through Ukraine - literally, borderland - that Hitler’s Nazis invaded the Soviet Union, which lost 27 million people. This epic catastrophe remains a presence in Russia. Clinton’s presidential campaign has received money from all but one of the world’s ten biggest arms companies. No other candidate comes close.
Sanders, the hope of many young Americans, is not very different from Clinton in his proprietorial view of the world beyond the United States. He backed Bill Clinton’s illegal bombing of Serbia. He supports Obama’s terrorism by drone, the provocation of Russia and the return of special forces (death squads) to Iraq. He has nothing to say on the drumbeat of threats to China and the accelerating risk of nuclear war. He agrees that Edward Snowden should stand trial and he calls Hugo Chavez - like him, a social democrat - “a dead communist dictator”. He promises to support Clinton if she is nominated.
The election of Trump or Clinton is the old illusion of choice that is no choice: two sides of the same coin. In scapegoating minorities and promising to “make America great again”, Trump is a far right-wing domestic populist; yet the danger of Clinton may be more lethal for the world.
Bullet Points
1 Like
Pilger has a great way about him. Is he for real though or umming? Also was Milosivich really exonerated ?
no and yes
That’s a fantastic article bud. The stuff of nightmares, only it’s real. Thanks for posting it.
1 Like
Well at least we now know where you get your nonsensical views from, you met an Irish American in a pub in Galway, and a few pints of Carlsburg later you were an expert on US politics.
The majority of Irish Americans have traditionally voted Democrat, this is the first presidential election where a majority of them will likely vote for the Republican candidate, and a deeply flawed one at that. If you had the intelligence to ponder that and question why that is, you would start to understand what is going on in the US politically and socially. Why do you think so many are willing to hold their nose and vote for Trump?
Have a think about that and get back to us. I fully expect you to say because they are white supremacists and racists, exposing yourself once again as an extremist ideological nutter.
John Pilger is all fine and dandy but even if the US disappeared there is still a lot of cunts out there.
A lot of honest-to-goodness American people are sickened at the prospect of having to vote for Trump, because they know the alternative is potentially much, much worse. For everybody.
1 Like
Sad Sid has been badly exposed 
That’s a powerful article pal, but sadly will never be read by the great majority of Americans. There is no question in my mind we are slowly sliding along a path to war. The anti-Russia rhetoric from the Clinton campaign is frightening, based in part on total paranoia over the escalating WikiLeaks revelations. It has echoes of Bush wanting to go to war with Iraq because “they planned to kill my Daddy”.
There is zero actual evidence of Russian involvement in the hacking of the DNC email servers. Far more likely is the leaks are coming from an internal US intelligence source, most likely someone extremely pissed off at Clinton getting off scot free after actions that would have resulted in any rank and file government employee being prosecuted and likely jailed.
4 Likes
It was on a train in Poland drinking cans of Tuborg*
Because they’re thick as shit?
He had a plastic bag with holes in it over his head (it was not one of the chaps from the Rubberbandits).
*bottles of Zywiec
I’ve been an avid reader and watcher of Pilger’s articles, books and documentaries over the years.
Unfortunately he has a serious blind spot when it comes to Putin and Milosevic, mainly because they are/were opposed to the US geopolitically. He completely glosses over Russia’s invasion of a sovereign nation and neglects to mention what they are currently doing in Syria quite obviously amounts to war crimes and is no different to numerous US interventions post-World War II - one is happening at the moment in Iraq.
He also has a serious blind spot for Donald Trump, his hawkish rhetoric and all his other grotesque shit which is, frankly, baffling.
There’s a tremendously simplistic narrative out there which says that the wars in Libya and Syria are the result of US involvement. This is utter nonsense. US involvement certainly hasn’t helped, and it’s difficult to think of any US foreign policy decisions since World War II that have helped anywhere, but these countries had already erupted in war before the US dipped their toes in these conflicts.
its daycant alright, I log onto his website once in a while and there’d be always a few great articles. imagine though what the Russians and Chinese would be thinking, with “nato” but mostly the yanks crossing them red lines?
its not about trump bud, he is not going to win if he did win he’d continue the middle east but would he continue the build up around russia and pissing the Chinese off?
The US foreign policy for WW2 was extremely snaky. they help build the nazi “war machine”
If the Americans hadn’t armed and supported the “rebels” I doubt the clusterfuck that is the Syrian civil war would still be going on. Interesting article here about western news reporting on the middle east. http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/iraq-syria-aleppo-mosul-patrick-cockburn-propaganda-we-consume-a7373951.html
1 Like
There is no realistic prospect of the US and Russia going to war regardless of who the President is, the US doesn’t pick on big boys. Nuclear weapons have been around since World War II, they’ve never been used since then and never will be again, although with Trump around, you never know…
I’m baffled as to why to why anybody would think a Trump foreign policy would be any less hawkish than a Clinton one, quite the opposite I would have thought. Nobody with his erratic temperament has any business being near the office of the most powerful person in the world - you cannot predict what he would do.
Clinton would merely be a continuation of the usual ham-fisted interventionist foreign policies of most US regimes since WWII.
In truth you could consider any US President since then to be a war criminal, some worse than others - the Republican ones generally, although not exclusively, worse. Bill Clinton, mentioned in the Pilger article, was at least less interventionist than most and widely criticised by many for not intervening more, such as in Bosnia or Rwanda.