WW III # Marching Towards 'Pre-emptive' Nuclear War? # (Ongoing videos/articles)

Just read a newspaper. Said the conflict is escalating each day. 2 Ships waiting outside the persian gulf.

World War III, The Movie (Part 1/10)
World War III is a thought provoking look at an alternate ending of the Cold War. Compiled largely from TV news pictures and military videos from the period, World War III cleverly combines this footage in a convincing manner to give the illussion that what is depicted actually took place.



This is a very worthwhile watching...

SURROUNDING IRAN: US stations 15,000 troops in Kuwait
January 14, 2012

The United States is not at war with Iran yet, but just in case, the Pentagon says they want to be prepared. To do so, the Department of Defense has dispatched 15,000 troops to the neighboring nation of Kuwait.

Gen. James Mattis, the Marine Corps head that rules over the US Central Command, won approval late last year from the White House to deploy the massive surge to the tiny West Asian country Kuwait, which is separated from Iran by only a narrow span of the Persian Gulf.

The latest deployment, which was ushered in without much presentation to the public, adds a huge number of troops aligned with America’s arsenal that are now surrounding Iran on literally every front. In late 2011, the US equipped neighboring United Arab Emirates with advanced weaponry created to disrupt underground nuclear operations. In adjacent Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq, American military presence has long been all but enormous.

CONTINUE: [link to globalresearch.ca]

brother your thread is an big eye opener for me this is inevitable thank you for have doing this amazing research
this will be the biggest event in mankind history sincerly Martin.

A bunch of criminals, that's what they are...

A Message From The USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72)

Just got an e mail from a family member aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln that reads -

"Make sure you are watching the news in a few days --- my ship will be all over it!"

US military operation against Iran would be a grave mistake
by Prof. Igor Panarin
January 14, 2012

Meanwhile, Iran held a naval exercise titled Velayat-90 (Supremacy-90) between 24 December 2011 and 2 January 2012. The war game covered a vast area from the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman to the Gulf of Aden and the Arabian Sea. The scale of the exercise served to display Iran’s readiness to engage in naval warfare outside the Persian Gulf. The Iranian Navy also used the war game to test-fire its new long-range cruise missiles, demonstrating its capability to hit US Gulf bases, Israel, and America’s Arab allies in the region.

Tehran declared the drill a huge success, announcing that Stage Two of the naval exercise will follow in February. The situation is obviously developing very fast.

The Iranian exercise was promptly followed by an exchange in media assaults and aggressive rhetoric between Washington and Tehran. The two latest developments – Roshan’s murder and Iran’s announcement regarding its 20 per cent uranium enrichment capabilities – have propelled their already heated stand-off to the point of highly flammable. Threats of new sanctions by the West merely contribute to aggravating the situation. As the European Union stated its intention to decide on banning crude-oil imports from Iran during its coming Foreign Affairs Committee meeting on 23 January this year, Tehran announced it would respond by shutting down marine traffic in the Strait of Hormuz, which accommodates almost 40 per cent of global seaborne oil shipments, putting through some 15-17 million barrels a day. This would effectively bar about 90 per cent of aggregate oil exports by all Gulf nations from the global market.

The Iranian naval forces, which consist of the regular navy and the Islamic Revolutionary Guards’ Navy, have always been a vital stakeholder for seaborne trade through the Strait of Hormuz. Iran has allowed international commercial traffic through its territorial waters voluntarily, based on the UN Law of the Sea Convention III, which stipulates the right of “innocent passage” through any territorial waters for vessels to ensure fast and unimpeded transit between open ports and the high sea. Although Iran has not ratified the convention and is therefore not bound to comply with it, it has nonetheless abided by its provisions in good faith for the most part.

CONTINUE: [link to globalresearch.ca]

23 January this year ???

I assume you all have seen this?

January 21 / 22 Colin Powell "Crisis" - FALSE FLAG WARNING ?!?



CLIP AT 7:35 VIDEO BELOW



THINK HE WAS TALKING ABOUT 2012?

Last Edited by ItsMaKa2 on 01/14/2012 04:25 PM

Iran's Military Capabilities: Iran Could Attack US Military Facilities, "Asymmetric Warfare": Russian Defense Analyst
January 15, 2012

Iran Wars Episode 1: The gulf menace
Iran plays a critical role in the Persian Gulf and, with its strategic geography, totally dominates the northern gulf and the Strait of Hormuz. But does it have enough resources to block and hold the strategic route in the event of military conflict?

Asymmetric war policy
­Iran is a relatively inferior military power in comparison with the US and other NATO countries, but it has the ability to deliver major blows which are difficult to counter at larger conventional forces.

The chief editor of National Defense magazine, Igor Korotchenko, believes that Iran’s military is not capable of achieving a victory against the US in a direct confrontation.

“In the case of a direct global military conflict [with Iran], the US will certainly secure a victory,” he said. “But the question is at what cost?”

Because of the asymmetric measures that Iran can bring up in a conflict, the price of victory could be unacceptable for the US, Korotchenko said.

“[Iran] can attack US bases and military facilities in the region,” Korotchenko said. “They can utilize Hamas and Hezbollah elements, as well as other radical movements that are ready to support Iran. They can destabilize the situation in Iraq. These would be asymmetric measures.”

Having limited assets on hand, Iran has to develop a strategy of conducting an asymmetric war. Thus Iran’s warfare is oriented at using its weaponry in unconventional ways and capitalizing on the country’s favorable geography.

CONTINUE: [link to globalresearch.ca]

BREAKING: Joint US-Israeli military drill cancelled due to 'budgetary reasons'
January 15, 2012
Israel Hayom |

A large joint U.S.-Israeli military drill, scheduled to take place in the coming months, has been cancelled due to budgetary constraints, Israel Radio reported on Sunday afternoon.

It was unclear from the Israel Radio report which side cancelled the drill. The radio report said that the drill would likely be held toward the end of the year. Set to take place in May, the drill called "Austere Challenge 12" was supposed to be the largest ever held between the two countries, and was designed to improve defense systems and cooperation between the U.S. and Israeli military forces. Just on January 6th the IDF spokesperson, commenting on the future joint drill with the U.S., said thousands of U.S. and Israeli soldiers from different units would take part. He said the drill would test multiple Israeli and U.S. air defense systems against incoming missiles and rockets. Israel has deployed the "Arrow" system, jointly developed with, and funded by the U.S., designed to intercept Iranian missiles in the stratosphere, far from Israeli airspace.

U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta previewed the exercise in a speech last month, saying it would be an example of unprecedented levels of defense cooperation that the Obama administration has achieved "to back up our unshakable commitment to Israel's security." Panetta said the drills will enhance the ability of the two military forces to operate together and test new ballistic missile and rocket defenses.

CONTINUE: [link to globalresearch.ca]

Countering the US-NATO Alliance: Moscow's Eurasian Union Project and Russia's Geostrategic Stability
by Yuri Andreev
January 19, 2012
Strategic Culture Foundation

US top foreign-policy strategist and a die-hard Russophobe Zbigniew Brzeziński had a point when he wrote in The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives that “Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire. Russia without Ukraine can still strive for imperial status, but it would then become a predominantly Asian imperial state”, moreover, a one under permanent pressure from Central Asian republics and China. He also stressed quite appropriately therein that “However, if Moscow regains control over Ukraine, with its 52 million people and major resources as well as its access to the Black Sea, Russia automatically again regains the wherewithal to become a powerful imperial state, spanning Europe and Asia”.

In other words, Russia can't realistically hope to achieve geostrategic stability unless it manages to entrain Ukraine. As a result, the task of precluding synergies between the two countries occupies a significant line on the US and EU foreign-policy agendas. Russian premier Vladimir Putin's opinion piece published in Izvestia in 2011 - "A new integration project for Eurasia: The future in the making" – where he puts forward a case for building a Eurasian union in the post-Soviet space, simply had to come under fire in the West, as what Putin suggests is an alliance between Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus, to which Kazakhstan and other republics of the former Soviet Union would also be welcome.

CONTINUE: [link to globalresearch.ca]

Obama's Secret Letter to Tehran: Is the War against Iran On Hold? "The Road to Tehran Goes through Damascus"
by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya
January 20, 2012

The New York Times announced that the Obama Administration had sent an important letter to the leadership of Iran on January 12, 2012. [1]

On January 15, 2012, the spokesperson of the Iranian Foreign Ministry acknowledged that the letter had been delivered to Tehran by way of three diplomatic channels:

(1) one copy of the letter was handed to the Iranian Ambassador to the United Nations, Mohammed Khazaee, by his U.S. counterpart, Susan Rice, in New York City;

(2) a second copy of the letter was delivered in Tehran by the Swiss Ambassador to Iran, Livia Leu Agosti; and

(3) a third copy went to Iran by way of Jalal Talabani of Iraq. [2] In the letter, the White House spelled out the position of the United States, while Iranian officials said it was a sign of things as they really are: the U.S. cannot afford to wage a war against Iran.

Within the letter written by President Barak Hussein Obama was a U.S. request for the start of negotiations between Washington and Tehran to end Iranian-U.S. hostilities.

CONTINUE: [link to globalresearch.ca]

America's High Tech Global War Machine: U.S. Military Strategy – Is It Really New?
by Andrei Akulov
January 20, 2012
Strategic Culture Foundation and Stop NATO

The idea of having an agile, high-technology, ready-to-move on short notice force is not new. It has been the same concept in force before the protracted land operations in Iraq and Afghanistan started. Correspondingly, the army’s strength grew by 65 thousand. So it’s mainly about going back to before the 9/11 numbers. The same thing applies to the Marine Corps. An increase in the size of special forces of all the services, the army in particular, is not new too. It’s a long-established tendency to boost first strike, intelligence and reconnaissance capabilities.

In fact, this reduction is quite moderate compared to prior defense drawdowns in US history. President Dwight Eisenhower, for example, cut the defense budget by 27 percent after the Korean War. President Nixon cut it by about 30% percent after Vietnam, and defense spending was reduced by a whopping 35 percent after the end of the Cold War, though still remaining a heavy burden on the shoulders of American taxpayers that was hard enough to justify. Then defense expenditure skyrocketed by nearly 70 percent under the Bush administration.

Even with $500 billion in reductions, the United States will continue to spend more on defense each year in the next decade than it did during the height of the Cold War and more than the next 10 countries combined.

The US military will be reshaped between now and 2020 with an emphasis on countering terrorism, maintaining a nuclear deterrent, protecting the U.S. homeland and "deterring and defeating aggression by any potential adversary." That’s what the Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense new military strategy review says.

CONTINUE: [link to globalresearch.ca]

HIGH TECH WARFARE: Drone Secrecy and the "Unmanned Combat Air Systems Concept of Use"
January 21, 2012
Drone Wars UK

A little over a year ago I discovered someone in the MoD had written a document called ‘An Unmanned Combat Air Systems Concept of Use’. It was mentioned in Defence Reporter, a useful bi-annual bulletin on research being carried out by the MoD’s science and technology labs. The summary said the document:

“aims to provide a broad outline of how it is envisioned that an Unmanned Combat Air System (UCAS) will be employed both in preparation for, and when operationally deployed from 2020 and beyond. It provides a vision of a potential UCAS, from which questions will naturally be generated, possibilities assessed and conclusions drawn. These questions, analysis and conclusions will help build the UK’s knowledge of a UCAS and therefore enhance our aptitude towards making future procurement decisions with regard to the utility of UCAS in any future force mix.”

Naturally as someone very interested in the development of British combat drones it is a document I would find extremely useful. As the bulletin is aimed at journalists and academics as well as the defence industry I duly applied to the MoD’s Knowledge and Information Services unit for a copy. After a couple of months back and forth about why I wanted the document, my request was refused.

I requested a copy of the document under the Freedom of Information Act (FoI) last summer and was again refused. I appealed this refusal (a process that is suppose to take no more than 40 days at the extreme) and now almost seven months later, have received a heavily redacted copy of the document (click image above) together with a long letter setting out all the reasons it has been so heavily redacted.

CONTINUE: [link to globalresearch.ca]

Iran War: US Eyes Covert Ops and Middle East Gendarme Role
by Dr. Ismail Salami
January 21, 2012

The temptation of attacking Iran long entertained by Washington and Israel is gradually crystallizing into a reality of fear and angst and has already become an alarmingly worrisome idea even for those who are wont to see the glass half full.

Amidst an escalating crisis following an exchange of threats between Washington and Tehran, US Army Gen. Martin Dempsey has visited Israel to discuss what is claimed to be an effort to stop a possible Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear sites. This is at least what Western media has been reporting with the manifest purpose of depicting the US government as Mr. Nice Guy who wishes to stop an Israeli attack without having any intention of its own to participate in another military expedition in the Middle East. Is this a sudden political volte face?

Indeed, Washington has been acting very strangely lately.

CONTINUE: [link to globalresearch.ca]

CONFRONTATION BETWEEN MILITARY BLOCS: The Eurasian "Triple Alliance." The Strategic Importance of Iran for Russia and China
by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya
January 23, 2012
Strategic Culture Foundation - 2012-01-21

Despite areas of difference and rivalries between Moscow and Tehran, ties between the two countries based on common interests have developed significantly.

Both Russia and Iran are both major energy exporters, they have deeply seated interests in the South Caucasus. They are both firmly opposed to NATO's missile shield, with a view to preventing the U.S. and E.U. from controlling the energy corridors around the Caspian Sea Basin.

Moscow and Tehran's bilateral ties are also part of a broader and overlapping alliance involving Armenia, Tajikistan, Belarus, Syria, and Venezuela. Yet, above all things, both republics are also two of Washington’s main geo-strategic targets.

The Eurasian Triple Alliance: The Strategic Importance of Iran for Russia and China
China, the Russian Federation and Iran are widely considered to be allies and partners. Together the Russian Federation, the People's Republic of China, and the Islamic Republic of Iran form a strategic barrier directed against U.S. expansionism. The three countries form a "triple alliance," which constitutes the core of a Eurasian coalition directed against U.S. encroachment into Eurasia and its quest for global hegemony.

While China confronts U.S. encroachment in East Asia and the Pacific, Iran and Russia respectively confront the U.S. led coalition in Southwest Asia and Eastern Europe. All three countries are threatened in Central Asia and are wary of the U.S. and NATO military presence in Afghanistan.

CONTINUE: [link to globalresearch.ca]

Drowning In Hypocrisy: War Abroad, Austerity at Home
by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts
January 25, 2012

The US government is so full of self-righteousness that it has become a caricature of hypocrisy. Leon Panetta, a former congressman who Obama appointed CIA director and now head of the Pentagon, just told the sailors on the USS Enterprise, an aircraft carrier, that the US is maintaining a fleet of 11 aircraft carriers in order to project sea power against Iran and to convince Iran that “it’s better for them to try to deal with us through diplomacy.”

If it requires 11 aircraft carriers to deal with Iran, how many will Panetta need to project power against Russia and China? But to get on with the main point, Iran has been trying “to deal with us through diplomacy.” The response from Washington has been belligerent threats of military attack, unfounded and irresponsible accusations that Iran is making a nuclear weapon, sanctions and an oil embargo. Washington’s accusations echo Israel’s and are contradicted by Washington’s own intelligence agencies and the International Atomic Energy Agency. Why doesn’t Washington respond to Iran in a civilized manner with diplomacy? Really, which of the two countries is the greatest threat to peace?

CONTINUE: [link to globalresearch.ca]

Selling War: "You Furnish the Pictures, and I'll Furnish the War."
by Stephen Lendman
January 27, 2012

Throughout its history, America glorified wars in the name of peace. From inception, they're perpetuated against one or more domestic or foreign adversaries.

They include mass killing, assaults and abuse. Pacifism's called sissy or unpatriotic. Propaganda insists America's peace-loving. In fact, more than ever today, it's addicted to permanent war and violence.

Nonetheless, initiating them requires public support. Famed US journalist Walter Lippmann coined the phrase "manufacture of consent." It's a euphemism for mind control.

In 1917, George Creel first used it successfully to turn pacifist Americans into raging German-haters. It works the same way now. In 1916, Woodrow Wilson was reelected on a pledge of: "He Kept Us Out of War." Straightaway, he began planning US involvement.

In April 1917, he established the Committee on Public Information (CPI or Creel Committee). It operated through August 1919. Its mission was enlisting public support for war and undermining opposition sentiment.

Corporate America was so impressed, it recruited Edward Bernays, a nephew of Sigmund Freud. He became a PR/propaganda pioneer. His 1928 book titled "Propaganda" said it's possible to "regiment the public mind every bit as much as an army regiments their bodies."

CONTINUE: [link to globalresearch.ca]

WORLDWIDE CONQUEST: The U.S. Prepares for "Global Unmanned Warfare"
by Boris Volkhonsky
January 27, 2012

First of all, a network of special operation bases and the use of drones signify that the U.S. would be able to attack any adversary anywhere, not bothering too much about whether they are attacking a sovereign state or not.

Sources say that the U.S. plans to use such bases in Australia and in the Philippines, which reflects a new emphasis Washington is laying on confronting China along its eastern borders. With drones and special bases being deployed all over the globe and especially in the vicinity of such a sensitive area as the South China Sea, it gives the U.S. new opportunities to further alienate an unlimited number of nations.

As the U.S. Defense Secretary has been getting ready to present a new Pentagon budget for 2012, some details of his plans became known to the media.

One of the striking new features in the plan is that while the Pentagon is preparing to cut its conventional forces, it lays more emphasis on unmanned drones and special operation bases. According to some sources, the plan is to increase the fleet of unmanned aircraft by 30 percent in the coming years. Also, new, small so-called “lily-pad” bases will be deployed in various points of the globe for launching special operations and engaging allies.

Definitely, such plans reflect a growing weariness felt by the American public after the two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq which have claimed thousands of American lives. The number of civilian casualties among Iraqis and Afghans exceeds it by scores, but who cares?

Definitely, the majority of American taxpayers are no longer ready to pay for the deaths of their children. Unmanned aircraft seem a much more preferable tool for conducting warcraft. Again, it should be said that the use of drones does not significantly diminish the number of civilian casualties in the countries they are deployed in, but that again hardly bothers the U.S. public as well as authorities.

Therefore, from the elections point of view, the new plan might serve President Obama’s interests. But what could be its long-term implications?

CONTINUE: [link to globalresearch.ca]

The Pentagon's "Killing Machine" US To Send More Hit Squads To Middle East
by Finian Cunningham / Global Research
January 29, 2012

The Obama administration is sending more killer squads to the Middle East region already beset with war tensions. According to several media outlets, Washington has announced that it intends deploying a floating commando base, probably in the Persian Gulf, that will serve as a platform to launch teams of US Navy Seals into surrounding countries. Iran and Yemen have been mentioned in particular.

CONTINUE: [link to globalresearch.ca]

State of Denial in Coming War Catastrophe
Greg Hunter
Monday, January 30, 2012
USA Watchdog

The world economy is in the tank, and the Federal Reserve’s decision to extend its zero interest rate policy to, at least, the end of 2014 proves it. What will happen if the fragile world economy also has to deal with a war with Iran?

That should have been the big headline coming out of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, but what was reported was concern over slow or no growth in the world.

All the signs are that the West is careening towards war with Iran, and there is not a peep about it from world leaders. Are they in a state of denial in a coming war catastrophe? I say yes.

One of the first shots fired by the EU was in the form of increased sanctions to boycott Iranian oil in about five months.

CONTINUE: [link to www.activistpost.com]

TARGETTING IRAN: The Dogs of War are off the Leash - Israel to the US: 'We'll Give You the War, You Give Us the Cannon Fodder"
by Tom Burghardt
February 5, 2012

In meeting rooms in London, Tel Aviv and Washington the dice have been thrown: snake eyes.

Flashback, 1963: When John F. Kennedy decided not to escalate the soon-to-be disastrous Vietnam war and issued National Security Action Memorandum 263 (NSAM 263), he signed his death warrant.

Scarcely six weeks after vowing to pull all American forces out of South Vietnam by 1965, Kennedy was dead, the target of an "executive action" orchestrated by the CIA, a coup d'état on behalf of America's corporatist masters - the military-industrial cabal of hardline cold warriors who stood to lose billions if Kennedy lived.

That sweet little deal to "win" the war in Southeast Asia cost some two million Vietnamese lives, 58,000 dead Americans and precipitated an economic crisis which dealt a death blow to post-World War II prosperity and launched the United States on its inexorable glide path towards becoming a failed state.

Flash forward to 2012: We have Barack Obama in the White House; a fraudster who promised "hope and change" and instead led his wilfully blind constituents into embracing the third term of a George W. Bush administration.

Comparing Obama with Kennedy one can only conclude: They don't make bourgeois politicians like they used to!

Following on from a decades-long drive to transform the Gulf into an "American lake" (under provisions of the so-called "Carter Doctrine," another "peace loving" Democrat), the coming war with Iran is a transparent scheme to ensure U.S. hegemony over the vast petroleum resources of Central Asia and the Middle East - to the detriment of their geopolitical rivals.

U.S. and NATO naval forces on high alert threaten the free flow of oil in the Persian Gulf, the life's blood of the global capitalist economy.

CONTINUE: [link to globalresearch.ca]

World War and the Russia-China Veto: Towards a Break Point at the UN Security Council?
by Carla Stea
February 8, 2012

Admonition to the Security Council: “First Do No Harm.” (The Russian Ambassador)

“They were careless people – they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness, or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made.”
- F. Scott Fitzgerald

“We came, we saw, he died.”
- Secretary of State Clinton, on the extrajudicial murder of Omar Khaddafy

“What need we fear who knows it when none can call our power to account? Yet who would have thought the old man to have had so much blood in him.”
- William Shakespeare, Macbeth

It is troubling, indeed, that although Mrs. Navi Pillay, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights had never set foot in Syria during the period about which she professed expertise, she was, nevertheless invited to address the United Nations Security Council on December 9, 2011, and much of the Western media quoted her as the authoritative source on human rights abuses by the Syrian government, citing her poorly substantiated remarks on numerous occasions. It is especially troubling because, at the January 31, 2012 Security Council meeting on Syria, addressed by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, UK Foreign Secretary William Hague, the French Foreign Minister, the Qatar Prime Minister and other diplomatic luminaries, Mr. Muhammad Ahmad Mustafa Al-Dabi, the Head of the League of Arab States Observer Mission to Syria, who had traveled throughout Syria from December 24, 2011 through January 18, 2012, who had interviewed a broad spectrum of Syrians, from members of the Syrian opposition, to Syrian government officials, and Syrian civilians, was not invited to that meeting to present facts about the reality on the ground in the Syrian Arab Republic. However, Mr. Al-Dabi’s Report, dated January 27, 2012 presents too many “inconvenient truths” which undermine and discredit the campaign to demonize the Syrian government. So transparency and accountability were sacrificed for the sake of propaganda.

CONTINUE: [link to globalresearch.ca]

UNDERSTANDING THE SYRIAN CRISIS: Selection of Key Articles and News Reports
by William Bowles
February 9, 2012
williambowles.info

CONTINUE: [link to globalresearch.ca]

Pentagon is Biggest Polluter on the Planet
David Swanson: 'The clean-up would take half of the Pentagon budget'