Sarkozy’s Middle East Push


This looks like a slow move to World War III, for control of the Middle East oil. The sides might shape up like this:


China/Russia/Iran/South America

Death toll: lots

Poverty toll: massive

Wealth toll: the elite do adore

Morality: not present

Suffering: yes

Single Biggest Cause: The Neoconservatives


12 Responses to “Sarkozy’s Middle East Push”

  1. mad dog Says:

    I do not think that Europe will ally with America. They have already rejected helping America further with Afghanistan. Japan does not like Israel.

  2. mad dog Says:

    But of course, Sarkozy might be an exception, due to the fact that he a bit of an Americanophile.

  3. briankoontz Says:

    Wow, that’s an interesting argument you make, that Japan would join a China/Russia/Iran/South America alliance against their decades-long ally the United States, it’s ally Israel, and Europe because it “does not like Israel”.

    Europe is shifting to the right as we speak, in anticipation of WWIII. France is going that way, Germany likewise. Britain is on board. It takes a lot of bravery to face the American war machine, and much of that bravery is in South America and in countries with large militaries of their own.

    China and Russia are beefing up their military capacity. Iran hopes to get nuclear weapons before they face possible annihilation.

    Clinton, Obama, and McCain all will undertake very large military expenditures, with McCain’s being a nightmare. The seemingly Eternal Winter called life in the United States will continue for a while longer, maybe much longer. I can no longer distinguish nightmares from reality because reality is a nightmare.

  4. mad dog Says:

    I never said that Japan would make an alliance with America’s enemies.

    China would also be unlikely to fight against America unless they felt that it is not going to pay back its gigantic outstanding debt towards it. However, as time goes on, that becomes more and more likely.

    “Europe is shifting to the right as we speak”

    I think you probably mean that they are becoming more militaristic. Militarism, by the way, has roots in both right wing AND left wing ideologies.

  5. briankoontz Says:

    Politically they are shifting to the right. The anti-Muslim stuff is just part of that. Sarkozy is one example. Poland shifted in 2005. Denmark in 2001. The Netherlands in 2007. Switzerland in 1999. Britain supports the US government. Just recently Germany is moving to the left.

    Europe is collectively moving to the Empire’s (US/Israel/Japan) side. That side is the politically right, with the politically left made up of the other side (China/Russia/Iran/South America). This side-taking always either results in war or a dissolution of the sides. Probably war, considering the central role of the Middle East. There will be a lot of political and military activity preceding the war, such as the US government interfering and trying to control South America.

    The only result when most of the powerful nations are clearly on one side or the other is a world war. It’s just a matter of time. The winner of the war will control the vast majority of the world’s oil supply.

  6. mad dog Says:

    Are you declaring those sides to be ‘left’ and ‘right’ based on your own conclusions, or by someone elses? I find such labellings to be usually misleading, misinformed and unscientific, as well as ignorant of historical context.

    As for me, I prefer to use such sites as GUIDELINES:

    Take note that I said guidelines. In other words, I may say that those charts are superior, but not necessarily perfect. I want you to take notice that even though both charts are different from each other, they seem to agree that socialism=left, fascism=right, lazziez-faire capitalism=center (but the triangle chart shows it as UPPER center).

    If Europe is moving closer to lazziez faire capitalism, they are really becoming more economically liberal, which is between left and right. If Europe is adopting more protectionism and corporatism, then it is genuinely moving more to the right. But this is only in terms of economics. If Europe is adopting less war, then it is moving center. If it is adopting MORE war, then it could either be moving left OR right, depending on the reasonings to do so.

  7. briankoontz Says:

    The primary left/right divide is economic. The right is pro-capital, the left is pro-people. Democracies are on the left, republics and fascist states are on the right. The center supports some compromise between capital and people. The New Deal is a typical centrist position.

    The case with WWIII is different. The Empire is right-wing, but that’s only one aspect of it. Mostly it’s defined by it’s desire to gain world domination, and the “left” is loosely associated with the actual left and mostly associated with a desire to prevent the Empire from gaining world domination (or at least more so than they have at the moment).

    However, the left and the right are useful political ideologies for these sides to graft onto – so as long as the Empire continues it will shift further to the right and as long as the Resistance continues it likewise will shift further to the left, in order to claim all benefits of these positions and to claim allies against the other side. That’s why South America is becoming democratic at the same time as it is opposing global domination by the US.

    In every war ultimately there are only two sides, and those sides always are polarized. So it will come down to the right Empire versus the left Resistance, with vast destruction and calamity.

  8. mad dog Says:

    “The right is pro-capital, the left is pro-people.”

    That is nothing but a self-righteous, self-gratifying label, not to mention overly simplistic. Besides, if the left was always ‘pro-people’, then the Soviet Union and red China would have been paradise on Earth.

  9. mad dog Says:

    Besides, this is how at least half of the country thinks of the left:

  10. briankoontz Says:

    “Besides, if the left was always ‘pro-people’, then the Soviet Union and red China would have been paradise on Earth.”

    Why’s that? The United States isn’t paradise on earth for capital. Neither the right nor the left understands how best to pursue the aims of pro-capital and pro-people. Recent history has been so heavily pro-capital that the pro-people side is inexperienced and particularly prone to error. The Right has Capitalism, and Republics, with the recent invention of Fascism. The Left has Communism, and Socialism, and Democracy, and Anarchism, with much more disparity between those than between aspects of the Right.

    If you’d like a less simplistic account, consider that the pro-capital position supports the people attached to capital, and the pro-people position supports the capital attached to people. When the Wall Street Journal celebrates a “booming stock market” and the profitability of Microsoft, they recognize that there are people attached to that capital who benefit. More accurately then, the pro-capital position supports people WITH capital (owners) and holds in no esteem or worth people without any or much capital. Likewise, the pro-people position wants people to have capital and celebrates that possession. So they support capital that is attached to people. The right supports people that are attached to capital.

  11. mad dog Says:

    I was being sarcastic. The truth is, is that even though the left CLAIMS that they are for people, they are really for totalitarianism, bureaucracy, jealously of those with talent, perpetual war between citizens, extinguishing of creativity and individuality and the other horrors that this ideology causes.

    The Soviets, Red Chinese, Cambodians and North Koreans said that they fought for the people, yet the murdered, imprisoned and tortured many millions of them. The fields of dead bodies and skulls spoke for themselves. You are going to have to do better than toss a million self-righteous ideological claims to convince me.

  12. briankoontz Says:

    Saying that is the same thing as saying the right is all about Fascism. The practice of Communist states is less about Communism than about what states do to maintain power, and what they do is similar regardless of the political ideology they claim to follow. Likewise, Bush claims to be following “freedom and democracy”, which is hardly any less ridiculous than the silliest things that came out of the Kremlin.

    The key understanding you seem not to have is to separate power from ideology. Hence you blame the left for the Soviet Union, when you need to blame state power for the Soviet Union.

    I don’t blame the right for Bush. Bush gives the right a bad name. The right is a lot more extensive than the Neocons and the left is a lot more extensive than the Communists.

    I do blame the right for not denouncing the Neocons. They don’t do so because the Neocons are “one of them”. All I can say is watch out who you bring into your tent, because some “allies” will burn the place down.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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

%d bloggers like this: