Jump to content

Theme© by Fisana
 

Photo

US 'most dangerous threat in the world': Analyst

world threat

  • Please log in to reply
8 replies to this topic

#1 grog

grog

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6738 posts

Posted 23 September 2017 - 01:22 PM

US 'most dangerous threat in the world': Analyst
 
 
 
 
September 23, 2017
 
 
 
 
 
Adam Garrie, managing editor of theduran.com, says the US is the real threat to the world peace and tranquility, because American officials are pushing the world towards another world war.
 
"America is the biggest and therefore the most dangerous [threat] in the world" because "America could launch World War III," Garrie told Press TV.
 
The US administration is in serious denial of the realities of the world, which makes it "a dangerous state" for other nations, he said.
 
During his speech at the UN General Assembly on Tuesday, President Donald Trump said that if forced, the US "will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea."
 
US President Donald Trump addresses the United Nations General Assembly at UN headquarters, September 19, 2017 in New York City. (Photo by AFP)
 
Garrie criticized Trump for his harsh rhetoric against Pyongyang, saying the United Nations is an organization to resolve international differences through dialog and diplomacy.
 
"No one wants war in North Korea except the United States," and "North Korea has said many times it does not want war but it is acting from a defensive position," the analyst argued.
 
He further slammed Washington's hostile policies towards both Pyongyang and Tehran.
 
The only thing North Korea and Iran have in common is that "America wants to destroy their sovereignty," Garrie said.
 
However, he warned the American authorities that "China will not allow a war to transpire on its doorstep and nor will Russia."
 
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
 
 
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
 
 
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
 
 
 

  • 0

#2 grog

grog

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6738 posts

Posted 23 September 2017 - 01:29 PM

Polls: US Is 'the Greatest Threat to Peace in the World Today'
 
 
 
August 9, 2017
 
 
 
It has happened again: yet another international poll finds that the US is viewed by peoples around the world to be the biggest threat to world peace.
 
But, to start, let's summarize the first-ever poll that had been done on this, back in 2013, which was the only prior poll on this entire issue, and it was the best-performed such poll: «An end-of-the-year WIN/Gallup International survey found that people in 65 countries believe the United States is the greatest threat to world peace», as the N.Y. Post reported on 5 January 2014.
 
On 30 December 2013, the BBC had reported of that poll: «This year, first [meaning here, 'for'] the first time, Win/Gallup agreed to include three questions submitted by listeners to [BBC's] Radio 4's Today programme». And, one of those three listener-asked questions was phrased there by the BBC, as having been «Which country is the biggest threat to peace?» The way that WIN/Gallup International itself had actually asked this open-ended question, to 67,806 respondents from 65 countries, was: «Which country do you think is the greatest threat to peace in the world today?» #1, 24% of respondents, worldwide, volunteered that the US was «the greatest threat». #2 (the second-most-frequently volunteered 'greatest threat') was Pakistan, volunteered by 8%. #3 was China, with 6%. #s 4-7 were a four-way tie, at 5% each, for: Afghanistan, Iran, Israel, and North Korea. #s 8-10 were a three-way tie, at 4% each, for: India, Iraq, and Japan. #11 was Syria, with 3%. #12 was Russia, with 2%. #s 13-20 was a seven-way tie, at 1% each, for: Australia, Germany, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, South Korea, and the UK.
 
The way that W/G itself had phrased this matter, in their highly uninformative press release for their year-end survey (which included but barely mentioned this finding, in it - as though this particular finding in their annual year-end poll, hardly even deserved to be mentioned), was: «The US was the overwhelming choice (24% of respondents) for the country that represents the greatest threat to peace in the world today. This was followed by Pakistan (8%), China (6%), North Korea, Israel and Iran (5%). Respondents in Russia (54%), China (49%) and Bosnia (49%) were the most fearful of the US as a threat». That's all there was of it - W/G never devoted a press-release to the stunning subject of this particular finding, and they even buried this finding when mentioning it in their year-end press-release.
 
I had hoped that they would repeat this excellent global survey question every year (so that a trendline could be shown, in the global answers over time), but the question was unfortunately never repeated.
 
However, now, on August 1st of 2017, Pew Research Center has issued results of their polling of 30 nations in which they had surveyed, first in 2013, and then again in 2017, posing a less-clear but similar question (vague perhaps because they were fearing a similar type of finding - embarrassing to their own country, the US), in which respondents had been asked «Do you think that the United States' power and influence is a major threat, a minor threat, or not a threat to (survey country)?» and which also asked this same question but regarding «China,» and then again but regarding «Russia,» as a possible threat instead of «United States». (This wasn't an open-ended question; only those three nations were named as possible responses.)
 
On page 3 of their 32-page pdf is shown that the «major threat» category was selected by 35% of respondents worldwide for «US power and influence», 31% worldwide selected that for «Russia's power and influence,» and also 31% worldwide said it for «China's power and influence». However, on pages 23 and 24 of the pdf is shown the 30 countries that had been surveyed in this poll, in both 2013 and 2017, and most of these 30 nations were US allies; only Venezuela clearly was not. None of the 30 countries was an ally of either Russia or China (the other two countries offered as possibly being «a major threat»). And, yet, nonetheless, more respondents among the 30 sampled countries saw the US as «a major threat», than saw either Russia or China that way.
 
Furthermore, the trend, in those 30 countries, throughout that four-year period, was generally in the direction of an increase in fear of the US - increase in fear of the country that had been overwhelmingly cited in 2013 by people in 65 countries in WIN/Gallup's poll, as constituting, in 2013, «the greatest threat to peace in the world today».
 
Consequently: though WIN/Gallup never repeated its question, the evidence in this newly released poll, from Pew, clearly suggests that the percentage of people in the 65 nations that WIN/Gallup had polled in 2013 who saw the US as being «the greatest threat to peace in the world today» would be even higher today than it was in 2013, when 24% of respondents worldwide volunteered the US as being the world's most frightening country.
 
Perhaps people around the world are noticing that, at least since 2001, the US is wrecking one country after another: Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and Ukraine. Which is next? Maybe Iran? Maybe Russia? Maybe Venezuela? Who knows?
 
And this country has just increased its 'defense' spending, which already is three times China's, and nine times higher than Russia's. Do the owners of America's military-industrial complex own the US government, and own the US 'news'media, to permit this rabid military to control the government's budget, in a 'democracy'?
 
¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦

  • 0

#3 grog

grog

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6738 posts

Posted 23 September 2017 - 01:41 PM

The Reason Why America Is Desperate For War
 
U.S., PEAKS, HISTORY, VALUED, HIGHS, HIGH, DATA, VALUATIONS, MARKET, JONES, STREET, DOW, MARKETS, FUND, VALUE, STOCKS, RECORDS, CREDIT, MEDIAN, S&P, INFLATION, EQUITY, INDICATORS, CONSECUTIVE, BARCLAYS, INVESTORS, EXPERTS, STOCK, ANALYSIS, CALCULATED, HEDGE, CRASH, OVERVALUATION, CASH, SHUTDOWN, SUMMER, TREASURY, VOTE, STIMULUS, ARMY, UNREST, TRUMP, RIOTS, PROBLEM, BILLION, SERVICE, BOEHNER, MAGNITUDE, BANK, GOVERNMENT, FISCAL, CEILING, PRESIDENT, CRISES, SHOCK, JUNE, STOCKMAN, DEBT, RECESSION, OBAMA, CONGRESS, SOCIETY, 
 
Because the U.S. economy is on the verge of collapse.
 
____________________________________________________________
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
_____________________________________________________________
 
Do they hope to steal Russian gold?
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
_____________________________________________________________
 
The western “developed” world is in desperate need of a major large scale war. 
 
A large scale war is the one thing that can cover the crimes of the western banking cabal and allow the system to be "reset" (this means delete debt) while the criminals blame someone else. 
 
Iran, Russia, or China, are the obvious targets, with North Korea possibly being used to jump-start the whole thing. 
 
 
_____________________________________________________________

  • 0

#4 grog

grog

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6738 posts

Posted 23 September 2017 - 01:47 PM

Why America Needs War
 
 
 
 
28 September 2016.
 
 
 
 
 
GR Editor's Note: This incisive article was written on April 30, 2003, by historian and political scientist Jacques Pauwels. A timely question: Why Does Hillary Want War… ? And why do people support her? 
 
*     *     *
 
Wars are a terrible waste of lives and resources, and for that reason most people are in principle opposed to wars. The American President, on the other hand, seems to love war. Why? Many commentators have sought the answer in psychological factors. Some opined that George W. Bush considered it his duty to finish the job started, but for some obscure reason not completed, by his father at the time of the Gulf War; others believe that Bush Junior expected a short and triumphant war which would guarantee him a second term in the White House.
 
I believe that we must look elsewhere for an explanation for the attitude of the American President.
 
The fact that Bush is keen on war has little or nothing to do with his psyche, but a great deal with the American economic system. This system - America's brand of capitalism - functions first and foremost to make extremely rich Americans like the Bush "money dynasty" even richer. Without warm or cold wars, however, this system can no longer produce the expected result in the form of the ever-higher profits the moneyed and powerful of America consider as their birthright.
 
The great strength of American capitalism is also its great weakness, namely, its extremely high productivity. In the historical development of the international economic system that we call capitalism, a number of factors have produced enormous increases in productivity, for example, the mechanization of the production process that got under way in England as early as the 18th century. In the early 20th century, then, American industrialists made a crucial contribution in the form of the automatization of work by means of new techniques such as the assembly line. The latter was an innovation introduced by Henry Ford, and those techniques have therefore become collectively known as "Fordism." The productivity of the great American enterprises rose spectacularly.
 
For example, already in the 1920s, countless vehicles rolled off the assembly lines of the automobile factories of Michigan every single day. But who was supposed to buy all those cars? Most Americans at the time did not have sufficiently robust pocket books for such a purchase. Other industrial products similarly flooded the market, and the result was the emergence of a chronic disharmony between the ever-increasing economic supply and the lagging demand. Thus arose the economic crisis generally known as the Great Depression. It was essentially a crisis of overproduction. Warehouses were bursting with unsold commodities, factories laid off workers, unemployment exploded, and so the purchasing power of the American people shrunk even more, making the crisis even worse.
 
It cannot be denied that in America the Great Depression only ended during, and because of, the Second World War. (Even the greatest admirers of President Roosevelt admit that his much-publicized New Deal policies brought little or no relief.) Economic demand rose spectacularly when the war which had started in Europe, and in which the USA itself was not an active participant before 1942, allowed American industry to produce unlimited amounts of war equipment. Between 1940 and 1945, the American state would spend no less than 185 billion dollar on such equipment, and the military expenditures' share of the GNP thus rose between 1939 and 1945 from an insignificant 1,5 per cent to approximately 40 per cent. In addition, American industry also supplied gargantuan amounts of equipment to the British and even the Soviets via Lend-Lease. (In Germany, meanwhile, the subsidiaries of American corporations such as Ford, GM, and ITT produced all sorts of planes and tanks and other martial toys for the Nazi's, also after Pearl Harbor, but that is a different story.) The key problem of the Great Depression - the disequilibrium between supply and demand - was thus resolved because the state "primed the pump" of economic demand by means of huge orders of a military nature.
 
As far as ordinary Americans were concerned, Washington's military spending orgy brought not only virtually full employment but also much higher wages than ever before; it was during the Second World War that the widespread misery associated with the Great Depression came to an end and that a majority of the American people achieved an unprecedented degree of prosperity. However, the greatest beneficiaries by far of the wartime economic boom were the country's businesspeople and corporations, who realized extraordinary profits. Between 1942 and 1945, writes the historian Stuart D. Brandes, the net profits of America's 2,000 biggest firms were more than 40 per cent higher than during the period 1936-1939. Such a "profit boom" was possible, he explains, because the state ordered billions of dollars of military equipment, failed to institute price controls, and taxed profits little if at all. This largesse benefited the American business world in general, but in particular that relatively restricted elite of big corporations known as "big business" or "corporate America." During the war, a total of less than 60 firms obtained 75 per cent of all lucrative military and other state orders. The big corporations - Ford, IBM, etc. - revealed themselves to be the "war hogs," writes Brandes, that gormandized at the plentiful trough of the state's military expenditures. IBM, for example, increased its annual sales between 1940 and 1945 from 46 to 140 million dollar thanks to war-related orders, and its profits skyrocketed accordingly.
 
America's big corporations exploited their Fordist expertise to the fullest in order to boost production, but even that was not sufficient to meet the wartime needs of the American state. Much more equipment was needed, and in order to produce it, America needed new factories and even more efficient technology. These new assets were duly stamped out of the ground, and on account of this the total value of all productive facilities of the nation increased between 1939 and 1945 from 40 to 66 billion dollar. However, it was not the private sector that undertook all these new investments; on account of its disagreeable experiences with overproduction during the thirties, America's businesspeople found this task too risky. So the state did the job by investing 17 billion dollar in more than 2,000 defense-related projects. In return for a nominal fee, privately owned corporations were permitted to rent these brand-new factories in order to produce…and to make money by selling the output back to the state. Moreover, when the war was over and Washington decided to divest itself of these investments, the nation's big corporations purchased them for half, and in many cases only one third, of the real value.
 
How did America finance the war, how did Washington pay the lofty bills presented by GM, ITT, and the other corporate suppliers of war equipment? The answer is: partly by means of taxation - about 45 per cent -, but much more through loans - approximately 55 per cent. On account of this, the public debt increased dramatically, namely, from 3 billion dollar in 1939 to no less than 45 billion dollar in 1945. In theory, this debt should have been reduced, or wiped out altogether, by levying taxes on the huge profits pocketed during the war by America's big corporations, but the reality was different. As already noted, the American state failed to meaningfully tax corporate America's windfall profits, allowed the public debt to mushroom, and paid its bills, and the interest on its loans, with its general revenues, that is, by means of the income generated by direct and indirect taxes. Particularly on account of the regressive Revenue Act introduced in October 1942, these taxes were paid increasingly by workers and other low-income Americans, rather than by the super-rich and the corporations of which the latter were the owners, major shareholders, and/or top managers. "The burden of financing the war," observes the American historian Sean Dennis Cashman, "[was] sloughed firmly upon the shoulders of the poorer members of society."
 
However, the American public, preoccupied by the war and blinded by the bright sun of full employment and high wages, failed to notice this. Affluent Americans, on the other hand, were keenly aware of the wonderful way in which the war generated money for themselves and for their corporations. Incidentally, it was also from the rich businesspeople, bankers, insurers and other big investors that Washington borrowed the money needed to finance the war; corporate America thus also profited from the war by pocketing the lion's share of the interests generated by the purchase of the famous war bonds. In theory, at least, the rich and powerful of America are the great champions of so-called free enterprise, and they oppose any form of state intervention in the economy. During the war, however, they never raised any objections to the way in which the American state managed and financed the economy, because without this large-scale dirigist violation of the rules of free enterprise, their collective wealth could never have proliferated as it did during those years.
 
CONTINUED AT 
 
 

  • 0

#5 Zharkov

Zharkov

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 34964 posts

Posted 23 September 2017 - 04:56 PM

The US gov't has become so huge that it is like a lynch mob waiting for an enemy to hang from a tree.   It's media parrots deep state b.s. continually regardless of who is president.   There is something seriously wrong in America now, as many in Congress appear to be communists and socialists who are antagonistic toward traditional American values of liberty, free speech, economic freedom, and individual responsibility.   

 

We may become Soviet America, a mixture of communism and fascism, a bureaucratic dictatorship, ruled by committees and commisars rather than by representative elected officials.   It is something we have to reverse before it becomes too established to stop.


  • -1

#6 grog

grog

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6738 posts

Posted 23 September 2018 - 02:10 PM

links to JEWISH AMERICA 
 
 
 
oldest at top of list
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

  • 0

#7 Nemesis

Nemesis

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • 20207 posts

Posted 23 September 2018 - 03:19 PM

The US gov't has become so huge that it is like a lynch mob waiting for an enemy to hang from a tree.   It's media parrots deep state b.s. continually regardless of who is president.   There is something seriously wrong in America now, as many in Congress appear to be communists and socialists who are antagonistic toward traditional American values of liberty, free speech, economic freedom, and individual responsibility.   

 

We may become Soviet America, a mixture of communism and fascism, a bureaucratic dictatorship, ruled by committees and commisars rather than by representative elected officials.   It is something we have to reverse before it becomes too established to stop.

 

 

Get the hell out of here with your Congress "socialists and Communists."

 

Socialists and Communists do not work for war.

 

Communism and fascism are direct opposites and totally incompatible. I know ameriKKKan retards pretend otherwise.

 

Your shit is nothing less than fascist garbage.

 

There is no such thing as "traditional American values of liberty, free speech, economic freedom, and individual responsibility."

 

Your traditional values are genocide, war, slavery and bullshit lies.


  • 0

#8 Vanka Savolov

Vanka Savolov

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1216 posts

Posted 23 September 2018 - 05:59 PM

com·mune
ˈkämyo͞on

noun

 

1.a group of people living together and sharing possessions and responsibilities.
synonyms: collective, cooperative, communal settlement, kibbutz
"she lives in a commune"

 

so·cial
ˈsōSHəl

adjective

 

1.relating to society or its organization.
"alcoholism is recognized as a major social problem"
synonyms: communal, community, collective, group, general, popular, civil, public, societal
"a major social problem"

 

It is to my every sense that an 'ism' is simply "a state of mind". And as the above definitions of commune and social indicate, neither one of them are rooted in evil nor greed nor anything of the like. Communism could be stated as communal-ism and bare all the attributes of a natural way of life. We forever speak of our societies, which are social orders by the very definition of the word itself. These two ways/modes of societal structures have been torn down, time and again in an effort to replace them with an order that is unnatural insofar as it works for, and solely benefits a rather small minority, e.g. those that already have. It takes money to make money in a capital/fascist based society, and money is, in and of itself just a 'thing' invented. Money was intend to be a 'fluid' means with which to trade, or that's what we have all been led to believe. The true and actual value is found, not in money, but in substances that support life, which does not exclude the environment. A capitalist mindset will sacrifice that environment for the sake of profits... and you must abide by their mindset or else, which makes such a mindset fascism by its very definition.  By force and destruction they will profit, with no regard--whatsoever--for the well-being of others.

 

Why destroy the fundamental root-meaning of commune and social? Greed of course, as greed knows no bounds and will stop at nothing to get its way, even if it means the destruction of common sense and long establish social orders that were working well enough, but did/do not pander for the lust of that, which belongs to everyone.


  • 0

#9 Ivan88

Ivan88

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 14699 posts

Posted 24 September 2018 - 04:47 AM

Doctrines & traditions of the Pharisee control USA.  USA is enforcer for sinogog of satan.

These USA have wasted the vast wealth bestowed on them waging  constant wars of aggression.

These USA are under Divine Judgment.

See Isaiah 5 and Ezekial 19 for 2 of them.


  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Copyright © 2019 Pravda.Ru