Democracy Subverted?

[Oxymoron]

We are supposed to be living in a democracy but many people would say it is a faux democracy in that both Democrats and Republicans are controlled by big business which works against the people's interests and only to maximise profits for multinational companies and the elite.

Good examples of this are the total disregard for the wishes of the American people as expressed in numerous polls on NSA spying and the intense lobbying for war against Syria on specious arguments.

i.e.
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/07/25-12

The majority of U.S. citizens do not trust the National Security Agency with their personal communication data and would like the NSA to stop its dragnet surveillance programs, according to a new McClatchy-Marist poll.
56 percent of the 1,204 adults surveyed said the government had gone too far in its collection of personal data—the extent of which was exposed by leaks provided by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden and published by the Guardian.

70 percent of those polled favored regulations that would limit what can be monitored.

Only one-quarter considered the NSA's practices reasonable.

Likewise, in a 2 to 1 margin, those polled said that the U.S. government has gone too far with its Insider Threat Program that was exposed in a recent report by McClatchy. The report showed that millions of federal employees and contractors are being told to spy on each other and to tell on potential whistleblowers and leakers.

“Privacy still counts, and federal employees snooping on each other, that’s out of bounds,” said Lee Miringoff, director of the Marist Institute for Public Opinion at Marist College in New York, which conducted the poll.

The poll comes just as the House of Representatives failed to pass an amendment that would have defunded the NSA's secret spying programs, showing vast disparities between the desires of the general public and those who represent them in Congress

Content from External Source

and
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/25/us-syria-crisis-usa-poll-idUSBRE97O00E20130825

About 60 percent of Americans surveyed said the United States should not intervene in Syria's civil war, while just 9 percent thought President Barack Obama should act.

Content from External Source

and on a lighter but very poignant note
http://www.theonion.com/articles/poll-majority-of-americans-approve-of-sending-cong,33752/

WASHINGTON—As President Obama continues to push for a plan of limited military intervention in Syria, a new poll of Americans has found that though the nation remains wary over the prospect of becoming involved in another Middle Eastern war, the vast majority of U.S. citizens strongly approve of sending Congress to Syria.

The New York Times/CBS News poll showed that though just 1 in 4 Americans believe that the United States has a responsibility to intervene in the Syrian conflict, more than 90 percent of the public is convinced that putting all 535 representatives of the United States Congress on the ground in Syria—including Senate pro tempore Patrick Leahy, House Speaker John Boehner, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, and, in fact, all current members of the House and Senate—is the best course of action at this time.

“I believe it is in the best interest of the United States, and the global community as a whole, to move forward with the deployment of all U.S. congressional leaders to Syria immediately,”
.

Content from External Source

So given such strong opposition to such important questions, why are the public ignored and why is there such a massive campaign to circumvent not only public opinion but International Law and International opinion, in the pursuit of an illegal war?

Is this blatantly undemocratic?

 

[Pete Tar]

Are you American? I thought you were in England.

Basically they will always plead special knowledge that the public does not, and cannot, know about, to justify doing something they want to do that the public doesn't.
Issues can be complex and still necessary to do in spite of their unpopularity, though I don't think this is one.

 

[Oxymoron]

Are you American? I thought you were in England.

Yep I am English.

Basically they will always plead special knowledge that the public does not, and cannot, know about, to justify doing something they want to do that the public doesn't.
Issues can be complex and still necessary to do in spite of their unpopularity, though I don't think this is one.

But is that justified on such important topics, especially when they are not disclosing any evidence to back up their claims and when you cannot vote for a political party, (that has any chance of winning and is not a focus party like the Greens), which will enact the publics wishes. Also when you take into account that they kept the unconstitutional spying secret until it was blown open by whistleblowers.

Sorry but that has all the hallmarks of a fascist state IMO... not to mention a complete disregard for what the people want. Especially when the U.S Govt is supposed to be "A govt of the people for the people by the people", etc.

 

[MikeC]

AFAIK there has never ben any state where everything was known by "the public" - even the Athenian leaders often kept info from the assembly in perhaps THE most participative democracy ever (at least if you were a citizen!)

Keeping secrets is not a hallmark of a fascist state - it is a hallmark of human power in any state.

The question is what is the line where information will be kept? I see no problem with the Govt of a modern a democracy keeping secrets in many cases - eg the identity of those who's lives might be endangered should it be revealed - f undercover cops and foreign agents are 2 obvious cases. And IMO this DOES extend not only to their identity but also to any information that COULD reasonably be expected to identify them.

There is also room for keeping commercial secrets - eg if you have a state owned corporation that is expected to "trade on the open market" then it would be unconscionable for the Govt to release its trade secrets to its competitors.

Sometimes your government "for the people" has to be "by the people" who can keep secrets.

 

[Oxymoron]

AFAIK there has never ben any state where everything was known by "the public" - even the Athenian leaders often kept info from the assembly in perhaps THE most participative democracy ever (at least if you were a citizen!)

Keeping secrets is not a hallmark of a fascist state - it is a hallmark of human power in any state.

The question is what is the line where information will be kept? I see no problem with the Govt of a modern a democracy keeping secrets in many cases - eg the identity of those who's lives might be endangered should it be revealed - f undercover cops and foreign agents are 2 obvious cases. And IMO this DOES extend not only to their identity but also to any information that COULD reasonably be expected to identify them.

There is also room for keeping commercial secrets - eg if you have a state owned corporation that is expected to "trade on the open market" then it would be unconscionable for the Govt to release its trade secrets to its competitors.

Sometimes your government "for the people" has to be "by the people" who can keep secrets.

I agree with all of that but there is a line where it is wrong to keep secrets or unjustified to keep secrets and I think both these instances are good examples.

The spying on the people is excessive in the extreme and can easily be used for blackmail, let alone a multitude of other nefarious and undemocratic actions. It is depriving people of their reasonable right to privacy and they tried to keep it secret because they knew people would not like it. It is well beyond the scope of any reasonable govt. The fascists and Lenin would have loved it and utilised it to the full. It is not what a democracy is about.

The warmongering is against the will of the people. The people all over the planet are against it. It is wrong to ignore the people on such an issue. There is no justification not to release the evidence which 'proves' Assad did it. They are known for falsifying evidence to get the people to war.

The people have had enough. To ignore them is wrong IMO. Would you agree?

 

[MikeC]

I agree that the extent of the NSA spying certainly looks dodgy - however I wonder how many people would agree with the statement that the NSA (or some other intelligence agency) should not be allowed to look through the 'net at all ever, thus providing a safe and secure means of communication to anyone wishing to pursue any illegal activities?

So no, I do not agree with your statement "the people have had enough" - which people, and enough of what? unless you define those you are merely asking a loaded question.

I do agree that "to ignore them (the people) is wrong" - however that is not the same thing as doing exactly and everything that "they" want. You can pay attention to what someone wants/demands (eg "the people") and still not actually do that thing.

 

[ColtCabana]

AFAIK there has never ben any state where everything was known by "the public"

As it should be. We live in a very arrogant world where some people feel that they're entitled to every bit of information. Would love to see these same people try to get through a simple tour of military duty where "need to know basis" is emphasized so much.

 

[Oxymoron]

Obviously it is about degree, that goes without saying as it is universally accepted. The point being that secrecy and surveillance, (breach of privacy), of ordinary people has overstepped the mark by a country mile and then some.

So why exactly do you apparently feel the need to justify this gross misuse of powers by falsely comparing it to 'acceptable security and monitoring practises commensurate with a free and open society'?

 

[Cairenn]

I discovered the hard way, that running a large alliance, even in a Game, means that one must keep secrets. Even in families, sometimes there is a need to keep secrets. If a spouse has a shopping or gaming addiction, the other spouse may have 'hide' a bank account. Very few parents tell their teenagers that there is still room on the credit cards.

There would still be segregation in parts of the US, if we had allowed the majority to rule. I doubt that women would be voting, if the majority had ruled.

One problem with allowing the 'majority' control, is that they tend to protect their own positions. They will look out for what serves them and their family or company best.

I will say this, again about the spying being done by the NSA, they are gathering far too much information to be able to easily use it. Even with looking for 'key words', like attack and bomb, they will still not be able to narrow down. I expect that that would find a lot of gamers and just ordinary folks. They have to be using other, still classified parameters to search.

I am saying this from the place of someone that might have or could easily have my meta data spied on. I have contacts on Skype and MSN and on IRC with folks in the mid east, and in Pakistan and India and multiple other countries. Some of those contacts will have contacts with other Americans and with folks in their countries and others. And there will be some of those key words in our convos. However, I happen to know enough about meta data to understand that it would not be hard to see the pattern is one of gamers, not terrorists. They don't want to know how big my 'hammer' was and that the attacks on it were fakes.

 

[moderateGOP]

We are supposed to be living in a democracy but many people would say it is a faux democracy in that both Democrats and Republicans are controlled by big business which works against the people's interests and only to maximise profits for multinational companies and the elite.

Good examples of this are the total disregard for the wishes of the American people as expressed in numerous polls on NSA spying and the intense lobbying for war against Syria on specious arguments.

i.e.
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/07/25-12

The majority of U.S. citizens do not trust the National Security Agency with their personal communication data and would like the NSA to stop its dragnet surveillance programs, according to a new McClatchy-Marist poll.
56 percent of the 1,204 adults surveyed said the government had gone too far in its collection of personal data—the extent of which was exposed by leaks provided by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden and published by the Guardian.

70 percent of those polled favored regulations that would limit what can be monitored.

Only one-quarter considered the NSA's practices reasonable.

Likewise, in a 2 to 1 margin, those polled said that the U.S. government has gone too far with its Insider Threat Program that was exposed in a recent report by McClatchy. The report showed that millions of federal employees and contractors are being told to spy on each other and to tell on potential whistleblowers and leakers.

“Privacy still counts, and federal employees snooping on each other, that’s out of bounds,” said Lee Miringoff, director of the Marist Institute for Public Opinion at Marist College in New York, which conducted the poll.

The poll comes just as the House of Representatives failed to pass an amendment that would have defunded the NSA's secret spying programs, showing vast disparities between the desires of the general public and those who represent them in Congress

Content from External Source

and
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/25/us-syria-crisis-usa-poll-idUSBRE97O00E20130825

About 60 percent of Americans surveyed said the United States should not intervene in Syria's civil war, while just 9 percent thought President Barack Obama should act.

Content from External Source

and on a lighter but very poignant note
http://www.theonion.com/articles/poll-majority-of-americans-approve-of-sending-cong,33752/

WASHINGTON—As President Obama continues to push for a plan of limited military intervention in Syria, a new poll of Americans has found that though the nation remains wary over the prospect of becoming involved in another Middle Eastern war, the vast majority of U.S. citizens strongly approve of sending Congress to Syria.

The New York Times/CBS News poll showed that though just 1 in 4 Americans believe that the United States has a responsibility to intervene in the Syrian conflict, more than 90 percent of the public is convinced that putting all 535 representatives of the United States Congress on the ground in Syria—including Senate pro tempore Patrick Leahy, House Speaker John Boehner, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, and, in fact, all current members of the House and Senate—is the best course of action at this time.

“I believe it is in the best interest of the United States, and the global community as a whole, to move forward with the deployment of all U.S. congressional leaders to Syria immediately,”
.

Content from External Source

So given such strong opposition to such important questions, why are the public ignored and why is there such a massive campaign to circumvent not only public opinion but International Law and International opinion, in the pursuit of an illegal war?

Is this blatantly undemocratic?

You do realize that posting your conspiracy theory and opinion is not what the "conspiracy theory" section is about? I believe it is about debunking conspiracy theories. Exactly like this one lolz. But I'll let Mick be the judge of that... This is the same crap I hear all the time from CTers.

 

[cloudspotter]

But is that justified on such important topics, especially when they are not disclosing any evidence to back up their claims and when you cannot vote for a political party, (that has any chance of winning and is not a focus party like the Greens), which will enact the publics wishes. Also when you take into account that they kept the unconstitutional spying secret until it was blown open by whistleblowers.

Sorry but that has all the hallmarks of a fascist state IMO... not to mention a complete disregard for what the people want. Especially when the U.S Govt is supposed to be "A govt of the people for the people by the people", etc.

If the public got what it wished for the country would soon be screwed.

 

[Oxymoron]

If the public got what it wished for the country would soon be screwed.

So democracy doesn't work?

Even democracy within the Senate is possibly being subverted as Obama refuses to abide by a 'no' vote and is applying massive pressures on Congress to vote yes and denying access to evidence even to the lawmakers.

 

[jvnk08]

So democracy doesn't work?

Even democracy within the Senate is possibly being subverted as Obama refuses to abide by a 'no' vote and is applying massive pressures on Congress to vote yes and denying access to evidence even to the lawmakers.

Actually, most lawmakers haven't even gone to the hearings where they can see the evidence(that is, the evidence that hasn't been made public).

 

[cloudspotter]

So democracy doesn't work?

No but it's the best we've got

 

[Oxymoron]

No but it's the best we've got

But how do you claim a democracy and state "If the public got what it wished for the country would soon be screwed.", isn't that an oxymoron?
Edit:
Surely a better rebuttal would be 'We are a Democratic Republic'?

The distinction between our Republic and a democracy is not an idle one. It has great legal significance.
The Constitution guarantees to every state a Republican form of government (Art. 4, Sec. 4). No state may join the United States unless it is a Republic. Our Republic is one dedicated to "liberty and justice for all." Minority individual rights are the priority. The people have natural rights instead of civil rights. The people are protected by the Bill of Rights from the majority. One vote in a jury can stop all of the majority from depriving any one of the people of his rights; this would not be so if the United States were a democracy. (see People's rights vs Citizens' rights)

Content from External Source

Ergo, the minority Rights of the elite warmongers are protected from subversion by the Rights of the majority?

 

[cloudspotter]

But how do you claim a democracy and state "If the public got what it wished for the country would soon be screwed.", isn't that an oxymoron?

The public would love to have income tax slashed and the best public services in the world. 'The public' is too short sighted, greedy and self centred to be trusted with decisions like that. I don't believe we have a proper democracy anyway since we aren't given the option not to vote for any of the choices on offer.

 

[Bill McDonald]

I think democracy being threatened by corporate money and chemical weapons in Syria are two separate issues. Conflating the two obscures both.

 

[Oxymoron]

I think democracy being threatened by corporate money and chemical weapons in Syria are two separate issues. Conflating the two obscures both.

Aren't they the same thing? I mean really, is it about chemical weapons in Syria or about corporate interests? If it was really about chemical weapons would that not have been an issue when Saddam used them on Iran? Fact is no governments condemned it at the time and the u.S aided him to use them and also engineered the lifting of the 'terrorist state' tag to enable and supply dual use chemicals which were the constituents of the chemical weapons.

 

[Bill McDonald]

I don't believe they are the same thing. Syria seems much more akin to Lybia than Iraq, where we had clear corporate interests.

 

[Oxymoron]

I don't believe they are the same thing. Syria seems much more akin to Lybia than Iraq, where we had clear corporate interests.

Some disagree with that.



http://www.dailypaul.com/183810/the-truth-behind-gaddafis-murder

You all know better by now than to believe The U.S. News Media, the U.S. State Department, The CIA, The Pentagon, and The President of the U.S.
Libya was not a "dictatorship" in the traditional sense, and Momar Gaddafi was not the evil rogue portrayed by Western propaganda.

If fact, he was a hero. Gaddafi’s Gold Dinar Plan and Libya’s Public Central Bank would have changed the monetary system and freed all of Africa from the Private Central Bank System. Ultimately, it might possibly have freed the NATO host nations from their own parasites – Vampire Private Central Banks.

Gaddafi’s courage and pioneering efforts in trying to restore national sovereignty and making the government responsible to the people instead of to the Global Banking Elites is the reason why he was targeted and killed.

NATO terrorist attacks will not get the Western nations out of debt – only an honest Public Central Bank – like the attempted Bank of Libya – would.

But guess what? With Gaddafi now out-of-the-way, the IMF and The World Bank have moved in to Libya, and have reestablished their control and dominance there. And (black man) Obama was the ringleader in the effort to reassert the impoverishment of Africa.

There will be no independence, and there will be no freedom.

The only way for a Country to be Sovereign is to have sovereign control of its money.

The Bankers (and their corruption) won again!

Content from External Source

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/07/27/us-africa-summit-gaddafi-idUSTRE66Q70620100727

Gaddafi has been pushing for an African unity government for years, saying it is the only way Africa can develop without Western interference, but many African states say the idea is impractical and would encroach on their sovereignty.

Like previous African summits, this week's gathering in the Ugandan capital Kampala discussed steps toward creating an African government, but the issue was overshadowed by chaos in Somalia and an international arrest warrant for Sudan's president.

"I am satisfied that Africa is going along its historic and right road," Gaddafi told a small group of reporters in Kampala at the end of the summit. "One day it will become similar to the United States of America."

"We are approaching the formation of the African Authority, and each time we solve African problems and also move in the direction of peace and unity. We deal with problems step by step. We are continuing to do that," Gaddafi said.

Gaddafi held the African Union's rotating chairmanship last year, and he used it to push for the organization's small executive body to be granted enhanced powers and remodeled as the African Authority.

Asked about that proposal on Tuesday, Gaddafi said: "Studies are still continuing and it is not finished yet. Experts and the people responsible are still studying the documents. They might be completed at the next summit or after."

Some African leaders say they cannot be expected to cede sovereignty to any African bloc just decades after they wrested it away from their colonial rulers.

But Gaddafi's idea has had a sympathetic response in some states, helped by his reputation in parts of the continent as a champion of the developed world and also by the millions of dollars in aid his oil-exporting country spends in Africa.

(Writing by Christian Lowe; Editing by Mark Trevelyan)

Content from External Source

 

[Bill McDonald]

The thought that the US and global banks were threatened by Gaddafi's gold is laughable. It would seem you are using one conspiracy to support another.

 

[xenon]

Francis A. Boyle seems to agree with at least some of what Oxy is saying

Destroying Libya and World Order: The Three-Decade U.S. Campaign to Terminate the Qaddafi Revolution
by Francis Anthony Boyle
http://www.amazon.com/Destroying-Libya-World-Order-Three-Decade/dp/0985335378

​

It took three decades for the United States government-spanning and working assiduously over five different presidential administrations (Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, and Obama)-to overthrow and reverse the 1969 Qaddafi Revolution in order to resubjugate Libya, seize control over its oil fields, and dismantle its Jamahiriya system.

This book tells the story of what happened, why it happened, and what was both wrong and illegal with what happened from the perspective of an international law professor and lawyer who tried for over three decades to stop it. Francis Boyle, who served as Qaddafi's lawyer at the World Court, provides a comprehensive history and critique of American foreign policy toward Libya from when the Reagan administration came to power in January of 1981 up to the NATO war on Libya that ultimately achieved the US goal of regime change. He deals with the repeated series of military conflicts and crises between the United States and Libya over the Gulf of Sidra and the fraudulent US claims of Libyan instigation of international terrorism during the eight years of the neoconservative Reagan administration.

He reveals the flimsy factual basis and legal machinations behind the Lockerbie bombing allegations against Libya initiated by the Bush administrations I and II. In 2011, under the guise of the UN R2P "responsibility to protect” doctrine newly-contrived to provide legal cover for Western intervention into third world countries, and override the UN Charter commitment to prevention of aggression and state sovereignty, the NATO assault led to 50,000 Libyan casualties and the complete breakdown of law and order. Boyle analyzes and debunks the doctrines of R2P and its immediate predecessor, "humanitarian intervention”, in accordance with the standard recognized criteria of international law. This book provides an excellent case study of the conduct of US foreign policy as it relations to international law.
​

Francis Anthony Boyle (born 1950) is a professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law. Boyle received a A.B. (1971) in Political Science from the University of Chicago, then a J.D. degree magna cum laude from Harvard Law School, and A.M. and Ph.D. degrees in Political Science from Harvard University. He also practiced tax and international tax with Bingham, Dana & Gould.

The Wiki page for Gaddafi is very interesting. Lots of things about him that people have never heard from the likes of CNN or MSNBC

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaddafi

Libyans should at least be happy that they can finally now buy Cinnabons.

Cinnabon in Tripoli as Libya Opens Up to Foreign Business

By Matthew Campbell and Christopher Stephen December 13, 2012
http://www.businessweek.com/article...tripoli-as-libya-opens-up-to-foreign-business

After 42 years, the country formerly known as the Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya is getting its first taste of consumer capitalism in an unlikely form: sweet, sticky cinnamon rolls. Cinnabon, the Atlanta-based bakery chain, is at the vanguard of a potential business boom in the North African country, which deposed dictator Muammar Qaddafi last year in a bloody civil war. In July the unit of Focus Brands became the first U.S. franchise to open since the revolution, with a two-level Tripoli outlet. It’s become a popular destination in a city with few diversions for residents.

Cinnabon’s bet on Libya—it plans to open at least 10 new locations over the next five years—shows the perils and potential of this wealthy new consumer market, which is being eyed by a growing number of foreign companies. Yes, Libya has a rickety electricity grid and few formal property rights. And due to ongoing sectarian violence, it remains a dangerous place. But the country sits atop Africa’s biggest oil reserves, which may generate as much as $55 billion for the state oil company this year. That means there are plenty of well-off locals and expats who can afford to pay for a Western-style sweet....more
​

Spreading Capitalism one drone at a time...and winning hearts and minds with sticky sweet cinnamon buns

​

 

[Oxymoron]

The thought that the US and global banks were threatened by Gaddafi's gold is laughable. It would seem you are using one conspiracy to support another.

Strange then that the first order of business was to destroy the Libyan Govt Bank and change it to the $ private banking system. Similar with Iraq.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-...s-corbat-scales-back-in-emerging-markets.html

Foreign banks were barred from the country until after the U.S.-led invasion that ousted the regime of Saddam Hussein. Today, 15 international banks operate there, competing with seven state banks, 23 private lenders and nine banks operating under Islamic rules, according to the central bank’s website.

Content from External Source

http://dinarexchange.com.au/iraqidi...d-banking-to-be-changed-by-new-iraqi-dinar-2/

The years of alliance between Goldman Sachs, the World Bank and the Central Bank of Iraq, has paved the way for the creation of a database to keep track of the ownership and location of every dinar note, making the supervision of transactions, simpler, more effective and easier.

Content from External Source

Western banks are under immense pressure as is evidenced by the massive bail outs, endless quantitative easing, never ending scandals and the rise of the Chinese Yuen and the BRICS challenge.

http://www.chinausfocus.com/finance-economy/yens-history-a-cautionary-tale-for-the-yuans-future/

For about seventy years, the U.S. dollar has been the currency of choice for central banks around the world when choosing how to allocate their foreign exchange reserves. Presently, the dollar makes up about 60 percent of global reserves. Its preeminent role as a store of value for foreign governments benefits America in a number of ways, not least of which is the ability for the U.S. government to borrow at lower rates than it would if the currency’s role were less prominent. Yet, pick up any article on the international monetary system written in the last five years and there is a good chance you will read the following refrain: The dollar's halcyon days perched unchallenged atop the global reserve currency hierarchy may be ending.

Partially an unavoidable result of America's relative economic decline and partially a consequence of American financial mismanagement as evidenced by the global financial crisis of 2008-2009, there is a growing chorus of experts saying that a multipolar international currency system will soon supplant the unipolar era of the dollar.

Content from External Source

https://agoracommodities.com/imf-banking-takeover-of-syria-facts-equal-setbacks/

What a strange turn of events when Americans must look to Russia as a source of truth.

Keep in mind that Syria is one of the last remaining countries that does not owe ANY debt to the IMF. Islam has a custom against riba or collecting interest similar to Christianity’s usury standards that have long been abandoned by Christians. Most Notable middle eastern countries that hat have lost the IMF free designation recently being Libya and soon to be Egypt with its technocratic takeover.

So what moves does the IMF still have up its sleeves as far as bringing Syria under its control? Unknown, but with President Obama willing to support rebels that would use chemical weapons to achieve its goal, it is clear that the US has not given up hope of bringing Syria to the feet of the IMF.

With a large natural gas depository being found off the coast of Syria and plans already in place for a large pipe line through Iran, Iraq, Syria and on to Europe it is clear that the IMF will not give up on toppling al-Assad’s government. Remember the economic hitman John Perkins. Whenever the IMF supported rebels fail to take over a country the US military is next in the cards. Seems that the IMF will stop at nothing short of world dominance, even if it means WW3 .

Content from External Source

But carry on thinking that the U.S carries out these costly regime changes for altruistic and humanitarian reasons, even whilst it's own cities file for bankruptcy like dominoes. I don't see anyone invading Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Oman, Kuwait etc. Or for that matter Zimbabwe.

Now I am deeply unhappy about all this because the people who will suffer most are the normal citizens, as is the case all over the U.S and Europe but in particular Greece, Spain, Portugal and Italy.

The Banksters have so many billions under their belts that it will not greatly affect them, apart from their ego's and lust for power.

 

[Oxymoron]

And even the poorest of the poor are are robbed even in their open prison. Any shekel or hope is snatched and hoarded by corporate CEO's as a hedge against a rainy day.

Israel has amended the path of its "apartheid" Separation Wall near the West Bank village of Rantis in order to include an area where it is believed oil may be discovered. The exploration is taking place on land on the Palestinian side of the so-called "Green" 1949 armistice line.

Of course, geology does not follow man-made borders, so international conventions leave some no-man's land between neighbouring countries. "Based on this rule, Israel is definitely stealing oil and gas which, by right, belongs to the Palestinians," local sources said.

The Israeli Meged-5 Oil Well is located on the edge of the Palestinian village of Rantis, which falls within the governorate of Ramallah. When the path of the Wall was amended by Israel to take in even more Palestinian land, it was supposedly done for "security reasons".

Later it was discovered that an Israeli oil company, in cooperation with an American company, is developing and exploring the potential of an oil field which was found in the 1980s. The well was abandoned in the belief that it was not going to be commercially viable.

Givot Olam, the only Israeli company licensed for oil drilling, discovered Meged-5 in 2004 and said that it was a "commercial discovery". In 2007 the company signed an agreement with US-owned Shire International to invest $50 million. Two years later the partnership announced that it had found signs of significant quantities of oil at the site.

Covering more than 200 square kilometres, the Meged Oil Field has its proven oil reserves of about 1.5 million barrels. Production started in 2010, when the first test was conducted. In June 2011, Givot Olam reported a steady production rate of 785 barrels a day. The Israeli firm said that there is also some natural gas in Meged-5.

Content from External Source

- See more at: http://www.middleeastmonitor.com/ne...-palestinian-oil-and-gas#sthash.Yo4Dzgt4.dpuf

Egyptian navy vessels have attacked Palestinian fishermen going about their work off the coast of Rafah. Five fishermen were arrested and two were shot when their boats were confiscated by the Egyptians.

Local sources say that Ibrahim Abdullah al-Najjar, 19, and his colleague Ismail Wael al-Bardawil, 21, were both shot in the hands during the attack. The men were taken to Abu Yousef al-Najjar Hospital in Rafah for treatment. Shooting fishermen in the hands is a tactic used by the Israeli Navy as it makes it difficult for them to get back to work.

Content from External Source

- See more at: http://www.middleeastmonitor.com/ne...ks-palestinian-fishermen#sthash.tMENpB17.dpuf