Watch videos with subtitles in your language, upload your videos, create your own subtitles! Click here to learn more on "how to Dotsub"

The Geopolitics of World War III

0 (0 Likes / 0 Dislikes)
We have as you say, ISIS, Islamic state in the heart of the Middle East, Iran going to nuclear, Russia on the move, China claiming territory that it doesn't really have a right to... ...reports by the day that show Russian troops are going further into South-Eastern Ukraine and helping turn the tide Can they be defeated without addressing that part of their organization which resides in Syria? The answer is NO. We are actively considering what is going to be necessary to deal with that threat and we are not going to be restricted by borders. Airstrikes! Bomb them! Bomb them, keep bombing them, bomb them again and again! We don't have this faiths as if you're born yesterday. If you're born yesterday, you'll believe whatever anybody not already tells you, you have no way of checking upon it. But a little history might become dubious. A little history doesn't prove that the government is lying to you today It just asks you to inquire if it is. Contrary to popular belief, conduct of nation's on the international stage is almost never driven by moral considerations. Rather but rather by a shadowy cocktail of money - geopolitics. As such when you see the mouthpieces of the ruling class begin to demonize a foreign country, the first question on your mind should always be - ''what is actually at stake here?'' For some time now Russia, China, Iran and Syria have been in the cross hairs. Once you understand why, events unfolding in the world right now will make MUCH more sense. The US dollar the is a truly unique currency. In fact its current design and its relationship to geopolitics is unlike any other in history. Though it has been the world reserve currency since 1944, this is not what makes it unique. Many currencies have held the reserve status off and on over the centuries. What makes the dollar unique is the fact that since the early 1970s it has been - with the few notable exceptions, the only currency used to buy and sell oil on the global market. Prior to 1971 the U.S. dollar was bound to the gold standard, at least officially. According to the IMF, by 1966, foreign central banks held $14 billion in U.S. dollars, however the United States only had $3.2 billion in gold allocated to cover foreign holdings. Translation: Federal Reserve is printing more money than it can actually back. The result was rampant inflation and a general flight from the dollar. In 1971 in what later came to be called the ''Nixon Shock", President Nixon removed the dollar from the gold standard completely. I have directed the Secretary of the Treasury to take the action necessary to defend the dollar against the speculators. I have directed Secretary Connally to suspend temporarily the convertibility of the dollar in the gold or other reserve assets, accept an amounts and conditions determined to be in the interest the monetary stability and in the best interest of the United States. At this point the dollar became appear debt based currency. With debt based currencies money is literally loaned into existence. Approximately 70% of the money in circulation is created by ordinary banks are allowed to loan out more money than they actually have in their accounts. The rest is created by the Federal Reserve which loans out money that they don't have, mostly to government. It's a kind of like writing hot checks, except it's legal, for banks. This practice which is referred to as fractional reserve banking is supposedly regulated by the Federal Reserve, an institution which just happens to be only controlled by a conglomerate of banks, and no agency or branch of government regulates the Federal Reserve. What is the proper relationship, what should be the proper relationship between the Chamber of and the President of the United States? Well, first of all the Federal Reserve is an independent agency and that means basically that uhm... there is no other agency of government which can overrule actions that we take. So long is that is in place and there is no evidence that the Administration or the Congress or anybody else is requesting that we do things other than what we think is an appropriate thing, then what relationships are don't frankly matter. Now to make things even more interesting, these fractional reserve loans have interest attached. But the money that pay that interest doesn't exist in the system. As a result there's always more total debt than there is money in circulation, and in order to stay afloat the economy must grow perpetually. This is obviously not sustainable. Now you might be wondering how the dollar has maintained such a dominant position on the world stage for over 40 years, if it's really little more than an elaborate ponzi scheme. Well, this is where the dollar meets geopolitics. In 1973, under the shadow of the the artificial OPEC oil crisis, the Nixon administration began secret negotiations with the government of Saudi Arabia to establish what later came to be referred to as the petrodollar recycling system. Under the arrangement, the Saudis would only sell their oil in U.S. dollars, and would invest the majority of their excess oil profits in the U.S. banks and Capital markets. The IMF would then use money to facilitate loans too oil importers, who were having difficulties covering the increase in oil prices. The interest and payments on these loans would of course be denominated in U.S. dollars. This agreement was formalized in ''The U.S.-Saudi Arabian Joint Commission on Economic Cooperation'' put together by Nixon's Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in 1974. The system was expanded to include the rest of OPEC by 1975. Though presented as buffer to the recessionary effects of rising oil prices, this arrangement had a hidden side effect. It removed the traditional restraints on U.S. Monetary Policy. The Federal Reserve was now free to increase the money supply at will. The ever increasing demand for oil would prevent a flight from the dollar, while distributing the inflationary consequences across the entire planet. The dollar went from being a gold backed currency to an oil backed currency. It also became America's primary export. Did you ever wonder how did U.S. economy has been able to stay afloat while running multibillion dollar trade deficits for decades? Did you ever wonder how it is that the U.S. holds such a disproportionate amount of the world's wealth when 70% of the U.S. economy is consumer based? In the modern era fossil fuels make the world go round. It had become integrated into every aspect of civilization: agriculture, transportation, plastics, heating, defense, medicine... and demand just keeps growing. As long as the world needs oil and as long as oil is only sold in U.S. dollars, there will be a demand for U.S. dollars, and that demand is what gives the dollar its value. For the United States this is a great deal. Dollars go out, either as paper or in digits in a computer system, and real tangible products and services come in. However for the rest of the world - a very sneaky form of exploitation. Having global trade predominantly in dollars also provides Washington with the powerful financial weapon through sanctions. This is due to the fact that most large scale dollar transactions are forced to pass trought the U.S. This petrodollar system stood unchallenged until September of 2000 when Saddam Hussein announced his decision to switch Iraq's oil sales off the dollar to Euros. This was a direct attack on the dollar, and easily the most important geopolitical event of the year, but only one article in the western media even mentioned it. In the same month that Saddam announced he was moving away from the dollar, an organization called ''The Project for a New American Century'' of which Dick Cheney just happened to be a member, released a document entitled ''Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century''. This document called for massive increases in U.S. military spending and a much more aggressive foreign policy in order to expand U.S. dominance worldwide. However the document lamented that achieving these goals will take many years ''absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event like a new Pearl Harbor''. One year later, they got it. Riding the emotional reaction to 9/11, the Bush administration was able to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, and pass the Patriot Act all without any significant resistance. ''About ten days after 9/11 and I went through it Pentagon and... ...I saw the Secretary [of Defense] Rumsfeld and... ??, so I went downstairs just to say hello to some of the people of the Joint Staff who used to work for me, and one the generals call me and he said: ''Sir, you got to come in and talk to me a second.'' I said: ''What you too busy?'' I said: ''No, no'' Lets he says: ''We've made the decision we're going to war with Iraq.'' This was on or about the 20th of September. I said: ''We're going to war with Iraq, why?'' He said: ''I don't know!'' He said ''I guess they don't know what else to do!'' So I said, well, that they find some information collect connecting Saddam to Al Qaeda and he said: ''No no, just there's nothing new that way, they just made the decision to go to war with Iraq.'' He said: ''I guess it's like... 'we don't know what to do about terrorists but we got a good military and we can take down the governments.' '' And he said: ''I guess it's... the only tool we have is a hammer - every problem has to look like a nail.'' So I came back to see him a few weeks later and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said: ''Are we still going to war with Iraq?'' And he said: ''Oh, it's worse than that,'' he said, he reached around his desk, he picked up a piece of paper, he said: ''I just...'' He said: ''I just got this down from upstairs and rechecked events in the office today,'' he said ''This is a memo that describes how we're gonna take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq and Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, finishing all off, Iran. There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. This wasn't a question of bad intelligence. This was a cold calculated lie, and the decision to invade was made in full knowledge of the disaster that would follow. Do you think that the U.S. or the U.N. forces should have moved into Baghdad? ''No.'' ''Why not?'' Because if we are going to Baghdad, we would have been all alone and there wouldn't be anybody else with us, it would have been a US occupation of Iraq, and none of the Air Forces that will willing to fight with us in two-way? will willing to invade Iraq. Once you've got to Iraq and took it over, took down Saddam Hussein's government, then when you're gonna put into its place? That's a very volatile part of the world and if you take down the central government of Iraq you can easily end up seeing pieces of Iraq fly off. Part of it the Syrians would like to have the West, part of Eastern Iraq the Iranians would like to claim for ?? and the North...you've got the Kurds and the Kurds been loose and joined with the Kurds in Turkey, then you threaten the territorial integrity of Turkey. It's a quagmire, if you go that far and trying to...'' They knew exactly what's going to happen, but in 2003, they did it anyway. Once Iraqi oil fields were under U.S. control, oil sales were immediately switched back to the dollar. Mission accomplished. Soon after the invasion of Iraq the Bush administration attempted to extend these wars to Iran. Supposedly the Iranian government was working to build a nuclear weapon. After the Iraq fiasco, Washington's credibility was severely damaged. As a result they were unable to muster international or domestic support for an intervention. Their efforts were further sabotaged by elements within the CIA and Mossad who came forward to state that Iran had not even made the decision to develop nuclear weapons. much less begin an attempt. However the demonization campaign against Iran continued, even into the Obama administration. Why? Well, might it have something to do with the fact that since 2004 Iran has been in the process of organizing an independent oil bourse? The Iranians were building their own oil market and it wasn't going to be tight to the dollar. The first shipments of oil were sold through this market in July 2011. Unable to get the war that they wanted, the US used the UN to impose sanctions against Iran. The goal of the sanctions was to topple the Iranian regime. While this did inflict damage on the Iranian economy, the measures failed to destabilize the country. This is due in large part to Russia's assistance in bypassing U.S. banking restrictions. In February of 2009, Muammar Gaddafi was named chairman of the African Union. He immediately proposed the formation of the unified state with the single currency. It was the nature of that proposed currency that got him killed. In March of 2009 the African Union released the document entitled ''Towards a single African currency''. The pages 106 and 107 of that document specifically discuss the benefits and technicalities of running the African Central bank under a gold standard. On page 94 it explicitly states that the key to success in the African Monetary Union would be, to quote: ''eventual linking of a single African currency to the most monetary of all commodities - gold.'' In 2011, the CIA moved into Libya and began backing militant groups in their campaign to topple Gaddafi and the U.S. and NATO pushed through and stretched the a U.N. no fly-zone resolution to tip the balance with airstrikes. The presence of Al-Qaeda extremists among these rebel fighters was swept under the rug. Libya, like Iran and Iraq, had committed the unforgivable crime of challenging the U.S. dollar. The NATO intervention in Libya segued into a covert war on Syria. The armories in the Libyan government were looted and the weapons were shipped via Turkey to Syrian rebels working to topple Assad. It was already clear at this point that a large percentage of these fighters had ties to terrorist organizations. However the U.S. national security apparatus viewed this as a necessary evil. In fact the Council on Foreign relations published an article in 2012 stating, to quote: the influx of jihadis brings discipline, religious fervor, battle experience from Iraq, funding from Sunni sympathizers in the Gulf, and most importantly, deadly results. In short, the FSA needs al-Qaeda now.'' In 2013, these same al-Qaeda linked Syrian rebels launched two sarin gas attacks. This with an attempt to frame Mussad and muster international support for military intervention. Fortunately, they were exposed by U.N. and Russian investigators and the push for airstrikes completely fell apart when Russia stepped in to broker a diplomatic solution. The campaign for regime change in Syria as in Libya has been presented in terms human rights. Obviously, this isn't the real motive. In 2009, Qatar put forth a proposal to run a natural gas pipeline through Syria and Turkey to Europe. Assad, however, rejected this and in 2011, he forged a pact with Iraq and Iran to build a pipeline eastward cutting Qatar and Saudi Arabia out of the loop completely. Not surprisingly, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey have been the most aggressive regional players in the push to topple the Syrian government. But why would this pipeline dispute put Syria and Washington's cross hairs? Three reasons. One: This pipeline arrangement would significantly strengthen Iran's position, allowing them to export to European markets without having to pass through any of the Washington's allies. This obviously reduces the U.S. Government's leverage. Two: Syria is Iran's closest ally. Its collapse would inherently weaken Iran. Three: Syria and Iran have a mutual defense agreement. US intervention in Syria could open the door to open conflict with Iran. In February of 2014, this global chess game heated up in a new venue: Ukraine. The real target, however, was Russia. You see, Russia just happens to be the world's second largest oil exporter, and not only they have been thorn in Washington's side diplomatically, but they also opened up an energy bourse in 2008, with sales nominated in Rubls and gold. Russia has also been in the process of organizing a Eurasian Economic Union which includes plans to adopt common currency unit, and which is slated to have its own independent energy market. Leading up to the crisis, Ukraine had been presented with a choice. Either join the E.U. under an association agreement or join the Eurasian Union. The E.U. insisted that it was an either-or proposition. Ukraine couldn't join both. Russia on the other hand, asserted that joining both posed no issue. President Yanukovych decided to go with Russia. In response the U.S. national security apparatus did what it does best. It toppled Yanukovych, and installed a puppet government. To see the full evidence of Washington's involvement in the coup, watch the ''Ukraine crisis what you're not being told''. Though this all seemed to be going well at first, the U.S. quickly lost control of the situation. Crimea held a referendum and the people voted overwhelmingly to secede from Ukraine and reunify with Russia. The transition was orderly and peaceful. No one was killed, yet the West immediately framed the entire event as an act of Russian aggression, and this became the go to mantra from that point on. Crimea is important geostrategically because of its position in the Black Sea which allows the projection of naval power into the Mediterranean. And the U.S. has been pushing for Ukraine's inclusion into NATO for years now. Such a move would place U.S. forces right on the Russia's border and could have potentially resulted in Russia losing their naval base in Crimea. This is why Russia immediately accepted the results of the Crimean referendum and quickly consolidated the territory. Meanwhile in Eastern Ukraine, two regions declared independence from Kiev and held referendums of their own, the results of which overwhelmingly favored self-rule. Kiev responded to this with what they referred to as anti-terrorist operations. In practice, this was a massive and indiscriminate shelling campaign which killed thousands of civilians. Apparently killing civilians didn't qualify as aggression to the West. In fact the IMF explicitly warned the provisional government with a 17 billion dollar loan package could be in danger if they were not able to put down the uprising in Eastern Ukraine. While the war against Eastern Ukraine was raging, elections were held and Petro Poroshenko was elected president. It turns out that Poroshenko was exposed by a leaked diplomatic cable released by WikiLeaks in 2008 as having worked as a mole for the U.S. State Department since 2006. They referred to him as ''Our Ukraine insider'' and much of the cable referred to information he was providing. Having a puppet in place, however, hasn't turned out to be enough to give Washington the upper hand in this crisis. What does Washington do when they have no other leverage? They impose sanctions, they demonize and they saber rattle. This isn't a very good strategy when dealing with Russia. In fact, it has already backfired. The sanctions have merely pushed Russia and China into closer cooperation and have accelerated Russia's de-dollarization agenda. And in spite of the rhetoric, this has not led to Russia being isolated. The U.S. and NATO have put a wedge between themselves and Russia, but not between Russia and the rest of the world. This new anti-dollar axis goes deeper than economics. These countries understand what's at stake here. This is why the wake of the Ukraine crisis China has proposed a new Eurasian security pact which would include Russia and Iran. Consider the implications here as the Obama administration begins bombing in Syria which also has a mutual defense agreement with Iran. This is not the cold war 2.0. This is World War 3.0. The masses may not have figured it out yet, but history will remember it that way. Alliances are solidifying and hot wars are on their way on multiple fronts. If the provocations and proxy wars continue, it's only a matter of time before the big players confront each other directly, and that is a recipe for disaster. Does all of this sound insane to you? Oh, you're right. The people running the world right now are insane. And the people of public is sleepwalking into a tragedy. Do you wanna alter the course that we are on? There's only one way to do it. We have to wake up that public. Even the most powerful weapons of war are neutralized if you reach the mind of the man behind the trigger. How do we wake the masses you ask? Don't wait for someone else to answer that for you. Get creative. Act like your children's and grand-children's futures is depend on it. Because they do. If this message resonates with you, then spread it. If you wanna see the big picture, trust me we've got some very interesting reports coming, subscribe the Stormclouds Gathering on YouTube and follow us on Facebook, Twitter and Google +. Also be sure to go to our website scgnews.com and sign up for email updates. I frankly think that crisis initiations really (tough?) And it's very hard for me to see how the United States' President can get us to (war?) which leads me to conclude that if ? compromise? is not (?) that the traditional way of America gets to war is what would be best for you as interest. Some people might think that Mr Roosevelt wanted to get us into the WW2, as David mentioned, you may recall we had to wait for Pearl Harbor. Some people might think that Mr Wilson wanted to get us into WW1, you may recall you have to wait for the Lusitania for certain.? Some some people might think that Mr Johnson send troops to Vietnam, you may recall he had to wait for the Gulf of Tonkin episode. We didn't go to war with Spain until the ''USS Maine'' exploded. And may I point out that Mr Lincoln did not feel that he could call out for the army until Fort Sumter was attacked? Which is why he ordered the Commander of Fort Sumter to do exactly that thing, which the South Caroline and the Southern States? would call as ''an attack''. So if in fact the Iranians are not going to con..?, it would be best if somebody else started a war. One can combine other means of pressure with sanctions. I mentioned that explosion on August 17th. We could step up the pressure. I mean, look people, Iranian submarines periodically go down, someday one of them might not come up, who would know why? We can do a variety of things if we wish to increase the pressure. I'm not advocating that. But I'm just suggesting that this is not a either-or proposition, you know, it's just sanction testing has to succeed to other things. We are in the game of using covert means against the Iranians. We could get mustered?..?

Video Details

Duration: 22 minutes
Country: Czech Republic
Language: English
Views: 387
Posted by: reformy.cz on Sep 12, 2014

The real reason Russia and Syria are being targeted right now
Follow us on Facebook: http://facebook.com/StormCloudsGathering
Follow us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/SCGupdates
Donate: http://StormCloudsGathering.com/donate

Caption and Translate

    Sign In/Register for Dotsub to translate this video.