UP IS DOWN

Did we just fall further down the rabbit hole? I'm having a seriously hard time following the rational behind the headlines these days. Even though I consider most of the Lame Stream news as BS, still it has been pretty consistent and straightforward BS, fairly easy to follow. Now they're all over the page.

For me, I think it started with the 180 degree turn with Russia. A country that was deemed not to be a threat anymore after the fall of the old Soviet Union was suddenly our, you'll forgive the term, comrade. We worked together on the space station, we had significant exchanges of scientists in various fields. This was something that would have been unheard of in the previous decades, almost bordering on treason to share information with 'the enemy'.

Then our government decided to invade Syria and Putin said,”NO!” From then on it looked like a giant chess game with Putin several moves ahead of Obama and diplomatically slapping him down every time Obama reared his head. Next the Ukraine blew up and all we hear now is possible WWIII. We are attempting to install more NATO bases and Russia is ramping up their military and arms capability. More saber rattling? I wonder.

As I told someone recently, I'll believe that Putin is our enemy and a serious threat when I see Russian troops removed from training with our troops on American soil. Come on. If someone is truly an enemy, you just don't do that. That would be like our training Japanese troops over here just prior to WWII. Until I see those troops withdrawn permanently and the space station shut down due to increased tensions between our two countries, I will consider the drum beating to be designed to stir up the herd to accept another war as justification for more invasions.

Another shifting sand scenario is Iran. They have been perceived as our enemy since our hand-picked puppet, the Shah was kicked out by the religious clerics in the 70s. They have long been used as an Islamic bogey man to justify any arms build up, NATO bases we wanted to build or any other political ploy the government wanted to scare the sheeple with. Also, don't forget General Wesley Clark's hit list of seven countries we were going to invade and destroy in five years. Of those, only Syria and Iran remain. I also have not forgotten that Clark was a former NATO commander. So why is he feigning surprise? He knows how NATO operates.

Now I read that Obama wants to negotiate an 'agreement' with Iran so they can have nuclear capability. Say what? They already have it and unless I miss my guess, already have nuclear weapons with Chinese characters painted on the sides. So, what is up with that? Now, several of our Republican senators have sent a letter to Iran informing them that any agreement with Obama could be turned over by the next president. I'm not sure if that move was unconstitutional or not. My senator says it was just a lesson in the U.S. Constitution to let Iran know how flimsy any agreement with a president could be because the next president could overturn that agreement. I'm pretty sure the leaders of Iran already view any dialogue with us in similar fashion to the way the Native Americans would view a treaty. Not worth the air it's spoken with. But every administration in recent years has taken a hard line against Iran having nuclear capability because Iran has indicated that Israel should be wiped off of the map.

Which brings us to Israel itself. We have been in lockstep with them since the country was founded after WWII, in spite of their bombing of the USS Liberty and allegations of complicity in 9/11. As far as I can tell, we have seldom made a move without their permission. Now we have a US president snubbing their leader and helping to fund an opposition party in their national election. Our Republican members of Congress invite Netanyahu to give a speech on Capital Hill and thereby show their support to the Star of David, while the Democrats and the president continue to show contempt for that leader by ignoring his visit. I'm getting motion sick.

Another piece of a constantly changing puzzle is General David Petraeus. To all outward appearances, a military mover and shaker, following administration orders in Iraq until 2011. He was then appointed to head the CIA. Next, he is pulled over and arrested in Washington DC on his way to the White House. Only occasionally does he appear in public in any capacity after that. When he does, it appears he is the cheerleader of the Obama administration once more as he is helping beat the drum against Syria and Iran. He was recently interviewed by the Washington Post and used that platform to broad brush stroke Syria and Iran as huge threats to our national security. Really David? Would that be due to our continued meddling in Middle Eastern affairs?

Www.washingtonpost.com/worldviews/up/2015/03/20/petraeus-the-islamic-state-isnt-our-biggest-problem-in-iraq/

In other words, he doesn't consider ISIS as great a threat as Syria and Iran. (Sounds like Homeland Security) Of course they aren't. They were very likely trained and funded – at least initially – by the CIA. One of Petraeus comments stood out for me. “The most significant long term threat is that posed by the Iranian-backed Shiite militias. If Daesh (ISIS) is driven from Iraq and the consequence is that Iranian-backed militias emerge as the most powerful force in that country – eclipsing the Iraqi Security Forces, much as Hezbollah does in Lebanon – that would be a very harmful outcome for Iraqi stability and sovereignty, not to mention our own national interests in the region.”

Since when are we concerned about Iraqi stability and sovereignty since we destroyed that in 03 with our invasion of that country? The only thing we are worried about is maintaining control of the Middle East and its resources. How else does a country halfway around the world threaten our national security?

Petraeus last comment was even more interesting. “As long as we are talking about difficult problems, (get ready for the drumbeat) there is Syria. Any acceptable outcome in Syria (acceptable to whom?) requires the build-up of capable anti-Daesh opposition forces whom we support on the battlefield. Although it is encouraging to see this administration support this initiative, I think there are legitimate questions that can be raised about the sufficiency of the present scale, scope, speed and resourcing of this effort. It will be impossible to establish a headquarters inside Syria to provide command and control of the forces we help to train and equip as long as barrel bombs are dropped on it on a regular basis.”

And why do we need to have command and control of any bases on the sovereign soil of ANY country? Of course Assad's forces are going to resist any invasion or assistance to the rebels on the ground in Syria. Duh! So would we. Oh, yes, “He's killing his own people!” I believe that ploy was used in many previous US invasions of sovereign countries so we could put one of our own hand-picked puppets in charge. Are the sheeple really still buying that lame excuse? A crisis that is usually orchestrated by us, I might add.

I wonder what re-education center Petraeus was taken to following his very public arrest? He certainly seems to be shaping up admirably. So his solution for any Middle Eastern problem is for us to have a command and control center in that country pulling the strings? No wonder the rulers in Syria and Iran are a little leery of us. We don't have a very good history of loyal friendship in that area of the world if Saddam Hussein in Iraq and Muammar Gaddafi in Libya are any example. First they're our friends, then they are 'killing their own people' and are our enemy! How convenient for us.

I like George Washington's ideas better. “Don't meddle in the internal affairs of other countries.” Does anyone else remember what a disaster Viet Nam was when we forgot to follow Washington's advice?

Is there anyone that still believes we are meddling in the affairs of other countries to spread democracy? The only thing I see being spread is a steaming pile of barnyard manure conveyed to us by our Lame Stream Media as to why we are constantly inserting ourselves into the affairs of any other sovereign nations. Well, perhaps we are also spreading hatred and distrust for the United States. That is what I see. And for what reason? Petraeus answers that too.

“If there is one lesson that I hope we've learned from the past few years, it is that there is a linkage between the international conditions of countries in the Middle East and our own vital security interests.”

Now, why would that be General? Oh yes, our oil (and other resources) somehow slithered under their sand. Perhaps that is the key to understanding this psychedelic chessboard. Maybe that can help me to understand why a country like Iran – a country that hasn't invaded or gone to war with anyone since the 1700s – is our arch enemy.

I'm not saying the leader of Iran or their Revolutionary Guards walk on water. But how is the growing Iranian influence in Iraq any different from our hegemony fueled invasion of Iraq? Iran being in close proximity and sharing the Islamic religion has much more at stake than we do.

I think the American people need to keep a very close watch on what this administration, military and various agencies do in other countries. My slogan would be, “Not In My Name!” Don't be so quick to swallow the 'official story'. Let your Congress critters know what you think and ask some hard questions. The time for fear is long past. We the People need to be in charge in vast numbers.