KCTV (Traitor Jang Song Thaek Executed) "Killing Rumors"

Cumhurbaşkanı Gül, BM Genel Kurulu açılış oturumuna katılarak bir konuşm...

Выступление на заседании Совета глав государств -- членов ШОС

Die Woche der Kanzlerin - 13.09.2013

Die Woche der Kanzlerin - 07.09.2013

The Falsification of "UN Command" in Korea - Prof. Kiyul Chung

Meet the War Criminals Part V - "The Ukraine Factor"

Throughout our Meet the War Criminals series we have discussed the geographical pattern that exists within US led crimes against humanity in the form of sexual violence by way of the US West Coast's counterculture known as Gay Pride! This geographic pattern involves countries in N. America, S. America, S. Africa and parts of Europe. To view this geographic pattern more clearly we identified the high incidence rates of certain health concerns associated with active homosexual lifestyles (ie - melanoma and HPV). We also mentioned how the US government's Monroe Doctrine provides shelter for these crimes against humanity in that it: "held that European powers ought not to have involvement with States in the Western Hemisphere".

 As a little review, we will take a brief moment to discuss sexual violence and US led crimes against humanity to get a better picture of "The Ukraine Factor". Sexual violence is defined as any sexual act, attempt to obtain a sexual act, unwanted sexual comments or advances, or acts to traffic, or otherwise directed, against a person's sexuality using coercion, by any person regardless of their relationship to the victim, in any setting, including but not limited to home and work. Anal sex is the most common sexual act targeted against a person's sexuality using coercion. Anal sex thus is a form of sexual violence in particular because of the willful harm done to the body as a result. (In Meet the War Criminals Part II - "I'm Wool" we mentioned several other physical and mental problems attributed to anal sex.) The International Criminal Court (ICC) lists rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity as crimes against humanity. We have already mentioned how anal sex is comparable to rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution (etc.) as it generates the same or even greater mental, social, and physical disorders and disabilities.

Up to this point, there are two things that we must not forget:

1. US led crimes against humanity exists on a well defined geographic trail.
2. US led crimes against humanity are linked to the Cold War as a result of World War 2.

The Cold War shows us the various war fronts that were fought for the influence of Western Europe and the world at large by both military and civilians since World War 2. The Ukraine sits at the helm of today's ideological battles that take roots from the Cold War.

The ideas that formed the US-backed western Europe with NATO are seen very clear these days! They include same-sex marriages, US led New World Order and of course the very controversial EU Missile Defense Shield! We all must know the role the Ukraine plays in the overall scheme of US led crimes against humanity and its quest for a New World Order! To better understand how vital the Ukraine is we will discuss the following:

1. The Cold War, the Cassette Scandal, and Operation Iraqi Freedom Correlations
2. The Orange Revolution and 2011-2013 Russian protest
3. A close look into Yulia Tymoshenko's political imprisonment

For the record, on this forum we will reveal the political blackmail the US has imposed upon the Ukrainian government since the end of the Cold War which has led to Yulia Tymoshenko's political imprisonment. Before we start, let's read the following text of an oral message from President George W. Bush delivered by Ambassador Carlos Pascual to President Leonid D. Kuchma at a February 27, 2001 meeting in Kyiv.

Thank you for your letter of February 2. Please let me take this opportunity to assure you of the important place Ukraine holds in American foreign policy and express my conviction that Ukraine has an important role to play in building a stable and prosperous Europe.

You have often spoken of an independent, democratic and market-oriented Ukraine, committed to the rule of law and integrated with the *Euro-Atlantic community. I believe these goals are in the interests of both our countries. They will advance the prosperity of the Ukrainian people, while at the same time serving America's interest in a Europe whole, free and secure. (*Note: Euro-Atlantic community refers to NATO)

Our mutual success in pursuing these goals will depend in large part on the steps that Ukraine is willing to undertake in moving toward meaningful reform. Your decisions and actions on reform, will, in effect, define the very nature of the future Ukrainian state, and these decisions and actions can only be taken from within.

Ukraine did very well in 2000 in economic reform, especially in such areas as finance and energy. You know how critical continued progress is, and I urge you to continue the reforms now begun.

I know that the political atmosphere in Ukraine is strained at the moment. This is just one of many tests that Ukraine and its political leaders will face as to their commitment to the rule of law, democracy and human rights. I trust you will do your utmost to ensure that Ukraine passes this test.

I look forward to working with the people of Ukraine on the challenges our countries face together. If we proceed on the basis of common values and common goals, I am confident that our efforts will be successful.

~ George W. Bush

Let's take one more step back with US President George H.W. Bush's Chicken Kiev speech. This speech was given on August 1, 1991, months before a December referendum in which Ukrainians voted to withdraw from the Soviet Union, in which Bush cautioned against "suicidal nationalism". The speech was written by Condoleeza Rice - later Secretary of State under the aforementioned President George W. Bush - when she was in charge of Soviet and east European affairs for him. It outraged Ukrainian nationalists and American conservatives, that the columnist gave this speech the nickname of "the Chicken Kiev speech" citing it to be his colossal misjudgment.

The speech was delivered in the Verkhovna Rada, Ukraine's parliament, in Kiev. Bush endorsed an agreement reached the previous April between Gorbachev and nine of the republics, including Ukraine, that committed to a new Union Treaty establishing a more decentralised Soviet Union.

Bush set out his policy towards reform in the Soviet Union: "I come here to tell you: We support the struggle in this great country for democracy and economic reform. In Moscow, I outlined our approach. We will support those in the center and the republics who pursue freedom democracy and economic liberty." However, he warned against independence: "Americans will not support those who seek independence in order to replace a far-off tyranny (note here: the US) with a local despotism. They will not aid those who promote a suicidal nationalism based upon ethnic hatred (which is what US crimes against humanity will automatically produce)." It was later reported that Bush himself had added the phrase "suicidal nationalism" to the speech which his staff had drafted, seeking to warn the Ukrainians about the need to avoid what had happened in Yugoslavia.

This forum will help us to fully understand how the Ukraine is the centerpiece of the Cold War, the Dissolution of USSR, and the source of the current Global Financial Crisis through the political blackmail driven by the US. We can see now in history that the US has proposed capitalism throughout the world without admitting to the trail of crimes against humanity that has created a homosexual counterculture within the confines of US Freedom and is continuously being broadcasted by mass media. Let's take a closer look beginning with the Cold War.

The Cold War, often dated from 1947 to 1991, was a sustained state of political and military tension between powers in the Western Bloc, dominated by the US with NATO among its allies, and powers in the Eastern Bloc, dominated by the Soviet Union along with the Warsaw Pact. This began after the success of their temporary wartime alliance against Nazi Germany, leaving the USSR and the US as two superpowers with profound economic and political differences. These political and economic differences forms the foundations of the political blackmail that has led to Yulia Tymoshenko's political imprisonment. We will follow the trail of this blackmail starting with a Cold War overview.

There is disagreement among historians regarding the starting point of the Cold War. Most historians trace its origins to the period immediately following World War II, others argue that it began towards the end of World War I, although tensions between the Russian Empire, other European countries and the US date back to the middle of the 19th century.

As a result of the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution in Russia (followed by its withdrawal from World War I), Soviet Russia found itself isolated in international diplomacy. Leader Vladimir Lenin stated that the Soviet Union was surrounded by a "hostile capitalist encirclement", and he viewed diplomacy as a weapon to keep Soviet enemies divided, beginning with the establishment of the Soviet Comintern, which called for revolutionary upheavals abroad. Subsequent leader Joseph Stalin, who viewed the Soviet Union as a "socialist island", stated that the Soviet Union must see that "the present capitalist encirclement is replaced by a socialist encirclement." As early as 1925, Stalin stated that he viewed international politics as a bipolar world in which the Soviet Union would attract countries gravitating to socialism and capitalist countries would attract states gravitating toward capitalism, while the world was in a period of "temporary stabilization of capitalism" preceding its eventual collapse. (Note: the inevitable collapse of capitalism is right around the corner! For more information on this read "The US Dollar Devaluation Scheme" at www.soulfreeinvestments.blogspot.com.)

Various events before World War 2 demonstrated the mutual distrust and suspicion between the Western powers and the Soviet Union, apart from the general philosophical challenge the Bolsheviks made towards capitalism. The Soviet Union, therefore signed a non-aggression pact with Germany initially. However, after the German Army invaded the Soviet Union in June 1941 and the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor in December 1941, the Soviet Union and the Allied powers formed an alliance of convenience. Britain signed a formal alliance and the US made an informal agreement. In wartime, the US supplied both Britain and the Soviets through its Lend-Lease Program. However, Stalin remained highly suspicious and believed that the British and the Americans had conspired to ensure the Soviets bore the brunt of the fighting against Nazi Germany. According to Stalin, the Western Allies had deliberately delayed opening a second anti-German front in order to step in at the last moment and shape the peace settlement. Thus, Soviet perceptions of the West left a strong undercurrent of tension and hostility between the Allied powers.

The Cold War thus demonstrates how the US will soon see a collapse. It is clear that the US is involved solely with spreading homosexuality through the Western counterculture known as Gay Pride! We can see today the path the US has taken (in Europe - France has now legalized same-sex unions) since Germany's economic recovery after World War 2!

In early 1947, Britain, France and the US successfully attempted to reach an agreement with the Soviet Union for a plan envisioning an economically self-sufficient Germany, including a detailed  accounting of the industrial plants, goods and infrastructure already removed by the Soviets. In June 1947, in accordance with the Truman Doctrine, the United States enacted the Marshall Plan, a pledge of economic assistance for all European countries willing to participate, including the Soviet Union.

The plan's aim was to rebuild the democratic and economic systems of Europe and to counter perceived threats to Europe's balance of power, such as communist parties seizing control through revolutions or elections. The plan also stated that European prosperity was contingent upon German economic recovery. One month later, Truman signed the National Security Act of 1947, creating a unified Department of Defense, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and the National Security Council (NSC). These would become the main bureaucracies for US policy in the Cold War.

Britain, France, the US, Canada and eight other Western European countries signed the North Atlantic Treaty of April 1949, establishing the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). That August, the first Soviet atomic device was detonated in Semipalatinsk, Kazak SSR. Following Soviet refusals to participate in a German rebuilding effort set forth by Western European countries in 1948, the US, Britain and France spearheaded the establishment of West Germany from the three Western zones of occupation in April 1949. The Soviet Union proclaimed its zone of occupation in Germany the German Democratic Republic that October.

One hallmark of the 1950s was the beginning of European integration - a fundamental by-product of the Cold War that Truman and Eisenhower promoted politically, economically, and militarily. However, later administrations feared that an independent Europe would allow the Soviet Union to exacerbate the disunity found within the freedom of US capitalist thus making Europe forge with the Soviet Union! This fear was compounded by the Brezhnev Doctrine.

In September 1968, during a speech at the Fifth Congress of the Polish United Workers' Party one month after the invasion of Czechoslovakia by the Soviet Army, Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev outlined the Brezhnev Doctrine, in which he claimed the right to violate the sovereignty of any country attempting to replace Marxism-Leninism with capitalism. During the speech, Brezhnev stated:

When forces that are hostile to socialism try to turn the development of some socialist country towards capitalism, it becomes not only a problem of the country concerned, but a common problem and concern of all socialist countries.

The doctrine created the arms race! Thus, Moscow built up a military that consumed as much as 25 percent of the Soviet Union's gross national product at the expense of consumer goods and investment in civilian sectors (the primary target for capitalist)! Soviet investment in the defense sector was not driven by military necessity, but in large part by the interests of massive party and state bureaucracies dependent on the sector for their own power and privileges. The Soviet Armed Forces became the largest in the world in terms of the numbers and types of weapons they possessed, in the number of troops in their ranks, and in the sheer size of their military-industrial base. By the early 1980s, the USSR had built up a military arsenal and army surpassing that of the US. Meanwhile, the Vietnam War weakened America's economy, weakened its influence in the Third World, and cooled relations with Western Europe.

Tensions managed to continue intensifying in the early 1980s when US president Ronald Reagan revived the B-1 Lancer program that was cancelled by the Carter administration, produced LGM-118 Peacekeepers, installed US cruise missiles in Europe, and announced his experimental Strategic Defense Initiative, dubbed "Star Wars" by the media, a defense program to shoot down missiles in mid-flight.

With the background of a buildup in tensions between the Soviet Union and the US, and the deployment of Soviet RSD-10 Pioneer ballistic missiles targeting Western Europe, NATO decided, under the impetus of the Carter presidency, to deploy MGM-31 Pershing and cruise missiles in Europe, primarily West Germany. This deployment would have placed missiles just 10 minutes striking distance from Moscow.

There are three things that we must remember here:

1. The arms race created by the Cold War demands us to focus on today's political situation in the Ukraine concerning its fight for independence!
2. The disunity found within the freedom of US capitalist (ie - today the US supplies military aid to Al-Qaeda, the same terrorist organization they blame for 9/11.)
3. Ukraine is presently seeking to join the European Union as the US and NATO plans a European Missile Defense shield under diminishing US and European economies.

The Cold War was so named because the two major powers - each possessing nuclear weapons and thereby threatened with mutual assured destruction - never met in direct military combat. Instead, in their struggle for global influence they engaged in ongoing psychological warfare and in regular indirect confrontations through proxy wars. Cycles of relative calm would be followed by high tension, which could have led to world war. The tensest times were during the Berlin Blockade (1948-1949), the Korean War (1950-1953), the Suez Crisis (1956), the Berlin Crisis of 1961, the Cuban Missile Crisis (1962), the Vietnam War (1959-1975), the Yom Kippur War (1973), the Soviet war in Afghanistan (1979-1989), the Soviet downing of Korean Air Lines Flight 007 (1983), and the "Able Archer" NATO military exercises (1983). The conflict was expressed through military coalitions, strategic conventional force deployments, extensive aid to client states, espionage, massive propaganda campaigns, conventional and nuclear arms races, appeals to neutral nations, rivalry at sports events, and technological competitions such as the Space Race. The US and USSR became involved in political and military conflicts in Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia. To alleviate the risk of a potential nuclear war, both sides sought relief of political tensions through detente in the 1970s.

Today, however, the Cold War retains its dark cloud and reveals current US political blackmail in the Ukraine. This is due to the diminishing public image and reputation of the US. Political blackmail is a quick, low-cost form of political intervention and is evident in the Ukraine with the Cassette Scandal, the Orange

Revolution, the 2011-2013 Russian protests, and former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko's political imprisonment! Note: US political intervention in the form of political blackmail and counter-insurgency (ie - the Syrian Conflict) elevates the potential of a nuclear war or Cold War 2 especially with a deepening US budget deficit and widening European Sovereign Debt Crisis. Let's take a closer look at this political blackmail starting with the Cassette Scandal.

The Cassette Scandal (also known as Tapegate and Kuchmagate), erupting in 2000, was one of the main political events in Ukraine's post-independency history. It has dramatically affected the country's domestic and foreign policy, changing Ukraine's orientation at the time for the West to Russia and damaging the career of Leonid Kuchma.

The scandal started on 28 November 2000, in Kiev, when Ukrainian politician Oleksandr Moroz publicly accused President Leonid Kuchma of involvement in the abduction of journalist Georgiy Gongadze and numerous other crimes. Moroz named Kuchma's former bodyguard, Major Mykola Melnychenko, as the source. He also played selected recordings of the President's secret conversations for journalists, supposedly confirming Kuchma's order to kidnap Gongadze. Note: Voice recordings do not place a person at the scene which is why there is no criminal conviction. It's enough, however, to use as blackmail! Hundreds of other conversations were also later published worldwide by Melynchenko. Journalists nicknamed the case after the compact audio cassette used by Moroz. Melynchenko himself was supposedly using digital equipment, not cassettes, for recording in the President's office.

These events provoked a crisis, with mass protests in Kiev from 15 December 2000 to 9 March 2001. Opposition started a campaign of non-violent resistance called UBK (Ukraine without Kuchma), demanding Kuchma's resignation. Despite economic growth in the country, President Kuchma's public approval ratings fell below 9 percent. Meantime, the US chose to cover this use of blackmail by focusing their foreign policy towards war efforts involving weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in the Middle East and Central Asia. These attempts will prove futile as we examine the correlation between the Cassette Scandal and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF). We will highlight the enormous snowball that created an avalanche into Ukraine politics culminating in Yulia Tymoshenko's political imprisonment. Let's follow the trail.

On December 14, 2001, while the Cassette Scandal lingered in the background, US president George W. Bush withdrew the US from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, a bedrock of US-Soviet nuclear stability during the Cold War era. Bush stated, "I have concluded the ABM treaty hinders our government's ability to develop ways to protect our people from future terrorist or rogue state missile attacks. The National Missile Defense project Bush supported is being designed to detect intercontinental ballistic missiles and destroy them in flight. Critics doubted that the project could ever work and said that it would cost US $53 billion from 2004 to 2009, being the largest single line item in the Pentagon's funding. (Note: Subsequent US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq has forced NATO to carry the expense of US Missile Defense plans now known as the European Missile Defense Shield.) Given the political blackmail found in the Ukraine with the Cassette Scandal, we now have all the ingredients for nuclear blackmail... read on!

A year after president Bush withdrew the US from the ABM Treaty, his administration released its "National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction" in December 2002. The classified version of this strategy reportedly reserved the right to use overwhelming force, including potentially nuclear weapons, in response to a WMD attack against the US, its forces or allies. The Bush administration even called for full implementation of the act and removal of Iraqi president Saddam Hussein, with a focus on building a military coalition, tougher sanctions, UN inspections, and support for a new Iraqi National Congress.

In November 2001, Bush asked Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to begin developing a plan for war. By early 2002 Bush began publicly pressing for regime change, indicating that the US government had reason to believe that the Iraqi government had ties to terrorist groups, was developing weapons of mass destruction and did not cooperate sufficiently with United Nations weapons inspectors. In January 2003, Bush was convinced that diplomacy was not working and started notifying allies such as Saudi Arabia that war was imminent.

All of this was made possible by the political blackmail of Ukraine president Leonid Kuchma. President George W. Bush used the Ukraine to pre-emptively invade Iraq. Here are the details. In 2002, the governments of the US and other countries began to become more deeply involved with the Cassette Scandal after one of the recordings leaked the alleged transfer of a sophisticated Ukrainian defense system Kolchuha to Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Note: This was the so-called "smoking gun" for the US to go to war! President Leonid Kuchma was boycotted by Western governments for a time to pressure the Ukraine to conform to Bush's efforts to build a military coalition against Iraq. In particular, president Kuchma experienced an offensive diplomatic demarche when visiting the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) summit that took place on 21-22 November 2002 in Prague. Breaking the decades-lasting tradition, the list of participating countries was announced in French, not English. As a result Turkey was named after Ukraine, instead of the UK and US, thereby avoiding the appearance of Kuchma next to Tony Blair and George W. Bush.

Influenced by all above-mentioned, President Kuchma soon became disillusioned with European integration and started to loosen Ukraine's relations with the US and European Union. Instead, he boosted integration with Russia, considering the fact that its new leader, Vladimir Putin, was continuously supporting Kuchma and refusing to recognize the allegations. However, in September 2003, Ukrainian troops joined US-led stabilization forces in Iraq, which is widely perceived as Kuchma's effort to improve relations with the West. Since then, high-level (presidential) relations were partially restored.

Commenting on the scandal and Melnychenko's actions in particular, Leonid Kuchma persistently claims they were a result of foreign interference, but never accuses any specific country. However, some of his statements on the issue may be interpreted as cautious hints on the role of either the US or Russia. US president Bush's use of political blackmail pinpoints the US as the source of foreign interference. According to president Kuchma, his voice was indeed one of those on the tapes, but he claimed that the cassettes had been selectively edited to distort his meaning.

We must mention that even before the Iraq invasion it was clear to many that insufficient planning had been made for the stability of post-war Iraq. Criticism also came from the governments of many countries, notably from many on the UN Security Council, who argued that the war broke international law. The inability of the US to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq led to even greater domestic criticism of the administration's Iraq policy. Several of the statements that Bush and his administration made leading up to the war in Iraq, especially those involving claims of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, have been criticized as misleading or inaccurate. Particularly controversial was Bush's claim in the 2003 State of the Union Address that British Intelligence had discovered that Iraq was seeking to buy uranium from Africa. Of course, we now know the source of the Iraq War. It's found in the political blackmail of former Ukraine president Leonid Kuchma in order for the US to gain post-Cold War political ground.

The political blackmail involved with the Cassette Scandal in the Ukraine soon led to the Orange Revolution. It reflects attempts by the US to reform Ukraine's Constitution. Many figures of the scandal remained influential in Ukrainian politics. The case was directly connected with the political career of Viktor Yushchenko, Ukraine's Prime Minister at the time and also Ukraine's former president. If we take a moment, here we will recognize the familiar "divide and conquer" foreign policy of the US. A scandal involving kidnap and murder would very likely set president Kuchma and vice-president (and former president) Viktor Yushchenko at odds! It then becomes clear how Oleksander Moroz (the source of the accusations that created the political blackmail which led the US war in Iraq) concluded an alliance with Yushchenko, resulting in the reformation of Ukraine's constitution (in favor of the parliament).

Let's take a brief glance at Oleksandr Moroz's career to see the reasons the US had motives to cherry pick (or hand pick) him as their Ace! Oleksandr Moroz graduated from the Agricultural Academy of the Ukrainian SSR becoming a mechanical engineer. He joined the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) serving as:

• First Secretary of local Regional Committee of the CPSU
• Head of Kiev Oblast Committee
• He was a member of the CPSU from 1972-1991 during the end of the Vietnam War through the Soviet War in Afghanistan.
• He was the Speaker of Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine twice.
• Moroz is one of the founders and leader of the Socialist Party of Ukraine.

Moroz's time with the CPSU was during the peak of the Cold War. The US feared the Soviets could further spread with communism off America's mishaps in Vietnam especially with China's strength. The Soviets could do so by increasing food aid to Vietnam while strengthening economic ties with China. This would make Oleksandr Moroz a key player! Instead, US president Richard Nixon visited China and met with Soviet leaders in Moscow. This move is particularly referred to as "damage control". Between 1972 and 1974, the US and Soviet Union agreed to strengthen their economic ties, including agreements for increased trade, thus making Oleksandr Moroz's position an asset for the US.

At this point we need to remember that we have uncovered a trail of post-Cold War political blackmail led by the US. Oleksandr Moroz appears to be the key person in the Ukraine that took certain actions to lead the Ukraine away from it's own fight for independence and into a divided world of Western freedom.

The Cassette Scandal definitely sparked the public's desire to create a social reform movement. It not only undermined the people's respect for Kuchma as a president, but also for the elite ruling class in general. Because of Kuchma's behavior, he lost many of his supporters with high ranking government positions. Many of the government officials who were on his side went on to fully support the election campaign of Yushchenko and his ideas in general, thus undermining the 2004 presidential election. The state of Ukraine preceding the 2004 presidential election was considered an "ideal condition" for an outburst from the public. During this time Ukrainians were impatient while waiting for economic and political transformation. This is where we need to closely observe Oleksandr Moroz's moves as he served as "the Ace" for US political influence prior to the Orange Revolution. Furthermore, we must identify the correlation this US political influence has had on the 2011-1013 Russian protest. This will help us understand the motives that led to Yulia Tymoshenko's political imprisonment.

Late 2002, Victor Yushchenko (Our Ukraine), Oleksandr Moroz (Socialist Party of Ukraine), Petro Symonenko (Communist Party of Ukraine) and Yulia Tymoshenko (Yulia Tymoshenko Bloc) issued a joint statement concerning "the beginning of a state revolution in Ukraine". Petro Symonenko stepped out of the alliance. He was against a single candidate from the alliance in the 2004 Ukrainian presidential election, but the other three parties remained allies (until July 2006). In the Autumn of 2001 both Tymoshenko and Yushchenko had broached at creating such a coalition.

On 2 July 2004 Our Ukraine and the Yulia Tymoshenko Bloc established the Force of the People, a coalition which aimed to stop "the destructive process that has, as a result of the incumbent authorities, become a characteristic for Ukraine". At the time president Leonid Kuchma and prime minister Viktor Yanukovych were the incumbent authorities in Ukraine. The pact included a promise by Viktor Yushchenko to nominate Tymoshenko as prime minister if Yushchenko won the October 2004 presidential election.

This 2004 presidential election in Ukraine eventually featured two candidates. One was sitting Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych, largely supported by Leonid Kuchma (the outgoing president of Ukraine who already served two terms in the office and was precluded from running himself due to the constitutional term limits), and the opposition candidate Viktor Yushchenko, leader of the Our Ukraine faction in the Ukrainian parliament and the former Prime Minister (1999-2001).

The two candidates were neck and neck in the first-round vote held on 31 October 2004, collecting 39.32% (Yanukovych) and 39.87% (Yushchenko) of the vote cast. The candidates that came third and fourth collected much less! Oleksandr Moroz of the Socialist Party of Ukraine and Petro Symonenko of the Communist Party of Ukraine received 5.82% and 4.97%, respectively. Since no candidate carried more than 50% of the cast ballots, a run-off was announced Oleksandr Moroz (also longtime leader of anti-Kuchma forces), quickly announced his support for Viktor Yushchenko's presidential bid against Kuchma's prime minister, Viktor Yanukovych supposedly making Yushchenko the favorite to win in round two. The fact that Yushchenko did not win despite this endorsement was used to argue that there was election fraud in the run-off. Thus, Moroz supported the Orange Revolution, the mass protests that eventually led to the annulment of the vote results and to a revote won by Yushchenko.

Protests began on the eve of the second round of voting, as the official count differed markedly from exit poll results which gave Yushchenko up to an 11% lead, while official results gave the election win to Yanukovych by 3%. While Yanukovych supporters have claimed that Yushchenko's connections to the Ukrainian media explain this disparity, the Yushchenko team publicized evidence of many incidents of electoral fraud in favor of the government-backed Yanukovych, witnessed by many local and foreign observers. These accusations were reinforced by similar allegations, though at a lesser scale, during the first presidential run of 31 October.

The Yushchenko campaign publicly called for protest on the dawn of election day's 1st run-off on, 21 November 2004, when allegations of fraud began to spread. Beginning on 22 November 2004, massive protests started in cities across Ukraine: the largest, in Kiev's Maidan Nezalehnosti (Independence Square), attracted an estimated 500,000 participants, who on 23 November 2004, peacefully marched in front of the headquarters of the Verkhovna Rada, the Ukrainian parliament, many wearing orange or carrying orange flags, the color of Yushchenko's campaign coalition. One of the most prominent activists of that time was Paraska  Korolyuk, subsequently bestowed with the Order of Princess Olga.

At the same time, local officials in Eastern and Southern Ukraine, the stronghold of Viktor Yanukovych, started a series of actions alluding to the possibility of the breakup of Ukraine or an extra-constitutional federalization of the country, should their candidate's claimed victory not be recognized (in essence... a civil war). Demonstrations of public support for Yanukovych were held throughout Eastern Ukraine and some of his supporters arrived in Kiev. In Kiev the pro-Yanukovych demonstrators were far outnumbered by Yushchenko supporters, whose ranks were continuously swelled by new arrivals from many regions of Ukraine. The scale of the demonstrations in Kiev was unprecedented. By many estimates, on some days they drew up to one million people to the streets, in freezing weather.

Although Yushchenko entered into negotiations with outgoing President Leonid Kuchma in an effort to peacefully resolve the situation, the negotiations broke up on 24 November 2004. Yanukovych was officially certified as the victor by the Central Election Commission, which itself was allegedly involved in falsification of electoral results by witholding the information it was receiving from local districts and running a parallel illegal computer server to manipulate the results. The next morning after the certification took place, Yushchenko spoke to supporters in Kiev, urging them to begin a series of mass protest, general strikes and sit-ins with the intent of crippling the government and forcing it to concede defeat.

In view of the threat of illegitimate government acceding to power, Yushchenko's camp announced the creation of the Committee of National Salvation which declared a nationwide political strike. On 1 December 2004, the Verkhovna Rada passed a resolution that strongly condemned pro-separatist and federalization actions, and passed a non-confidence vote in the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, a decision Prime Minister Yanukovych refused to recognize. By the Constitution of Ukraine, the non-confidence vote mandated the government's resignation, but the parliament had no means to enforce a resignation without the co-operation of Prime Minister Yanukovych and outgoing President Kuchma.

On 3 December 2004, Ukraine's Supreme Court finally broke the political deadlock. The court decided that due to the scale of the electoral fraud it became impossible to establish the election results. Therefore, it invalidated the official results that would have given Yanukovych the presidency. As a resolution, the court ordered a revote of the run-off to be held on 26 December 2004. This decision was seen as a victory for the Yushchenko camp while Yanukovych and his supporters favored a rerun of the entire election rather than just the run-off, as a second-best option if Yanukovych was not awarded the presidency. On 8 December 2004 the parliament amended laws to provide a legal framework for the new round of elections. The parliament also approved the changes to the Constitution, implementing a political reform backed by outgoing President Kuchma as a part of a political compromise between the acting authorities and opposition. 

The 26 December revote was held under intense scrutiny of local and international observers. The preliminary results, announced by the Central Election Commission on 28 December, gave Yushchenko and Yanukovych 51.99% and 44.20% of the total vote which represented a change in the vote by +5.39% to Yushchenko and -5.27% from Yanukovych respectively when compared to the November poll. The Yanukovych team attempted to mount a fierce legal challenge to the election results using both the Ukrainian courts and the Election Commission complaint procedures. However, all their complaints were dismissed as without merit by both the Supreme Court of Ukraine and the Central Election Commission. On 10 January 2005 the Election Commission officially declared Yushchenko as the winner of the presidential election with the final results falling within 0.01% of the preliminary ones. This Election Commission announcement cleared the way for Yushchenko's inauguration as the President at Maiden Nezalezhnosti (Independence Square) in front of hundreds of thousands of his supporters. This event brought the Ukrainian Orange Revolution to its peaceful conclusion.

As part of the Orange Revolution, the Ukrainian constitution was changed to shift powers from the presidency to the parliament. This was Oleksandr Moroz's price for his decisive role in winning Yushchenko the presidency. Yanukovych's Party of Regions also supported Moroz's new constitutional measures. This is how Yanukovych moved forward to win the 2006 parliamentary election by forming a coalition government with Moroz's Socialist Party. As a result, president Viktor Yushchenko had to deal with a powerful prime minister - Viktor Yanukovych who had control of many important portfolios. This display of power shifting led by Oleksandr Moroz that created the Orange Revolution became infamous in Russia and other neighboring countries! Russian president, Vladimir Putin, claims that the organizers of the Russian protests in December 2011 were former (Russian) advisers to Yushchenko during his presidency and were transferring the Orange Revolution to Russia. Reason being... constitutional power can now be used to steal oil revenues from Russia! Keep reading along. 

Since 2011, Russia has experienced numerous political protest that take its roots from one main factor: US post-Cold War attempts to change Russia's constitution and steal control of its oil revenues through their observer status to the Energy Charter Treaty and the United Nations. The 2011-2013 Russian protests first began as a response to the 2011 Russian legislative election process, which many Russian and foreign journalists, political activists and members of the public considered to be flawed, and the protests continued despite the fact that the Central Election Commission later said that only 11.5% of official reports could be confirmed to be true. Similarly, the Russian Investigation Committee of the Office of the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation reported that most of the videos available on the internet purporting to show vote manipulation "appeared to be edited" as these same political activists could stage their own protests!

On 10 December 2011, after a week of small-scale demonstrations, Russia saw some of the biggest protests in Moscow since the 1990s. The focus of the protests have been the ruling party, United Russia, and its leader Vladimir Putin, the current president, previous prime minister, and previous two-term president, who announced his intention to run again for President in 2012. Another round of large protests took place on 24 December 2011. These protests were named "For Fair Elections" and their organizers set up the movement of the same name.

On 6 May 2012 protests involving about 20,000 people took place in Moscow the day before Putin's inauguration as President for his third term. Some called for the inauguration to be scrapped. The protests were marred by violence between the protesters and the police. About 400 protesters were arrested, including Alexei Navlny, Boris Nemtsov and Sergei Udaltsov and 80 were injured. On the day of the inauguration, 7 May 2012, at least 120 protesters were arrested in Moscow. Note: Boris Nemtsov latter reveals in a phone conversation the type of character the protesters have... it matches the description of people with social disorders who seek to further US led crimes against humanity through the well known gay counterculture known as Gay Pride! Keep reading!

In June 2012, laws were enacted which set strict boundaries on protests and imposed heavy penalties for out of bounds actions. As of January 2013 interviews by Ellen Barry of The New York Times which had supported the protests revealed an atmosphere of intimidation, discouragement, and alienation.

According to the New York Times, the leading element of these protest has consisted of young urban professionals, the well-educated and successful working or middle class people such as workers in social media. These groups had benefited from substantial growth in the Russian economy until the 2008 economic crisis and subsequent US bond market bubble! These groups claim to have been alienated by increasing political corruption as well as recent stagnation in their income. The number of such individuals is large and growing in urban centers and is thought to represent a challenge to continuation of authoritarian rule. According to Putin the legitimate grievances of this young and active element of Russian society are being exploited by opportunistic elements which seek to destabilize Russia. This is evident by the current 4-year US bond market bubble. Furthermore, there is evidence that some of the organizers of the protests such as Vladimir Ryzhkov and the GOLOS Association, the international election monitoring agency, have received funding or training from the US State Department funded National Endowment for Democracy.

The reason it's so important that we mention the 2011-2013 Russian protest now is because it also reveals how the US has attempted to integrate Western European and the world markets with Russian oil imports since the Cold War. In other words, Yulia Tymoshenko is serving prison time because the US is unable to exploit Russian oil imports on the US's service oriented economy since the Cold War ended!

On 19 December 2010, Lifenews.ru news portal published a recording of phone conversation ascribed to Boris Nemtsov, the leader of PARNAS People's Freedom Party, and one of the main organizers of the demonstration on Bolotnaya square on 10 December. According to one of the recordings, which were called by Nemtsov himself "partially authentic, partially montaged and partially fake", he considers protesters "lemmings", "timid penguins" from Facebook and Vkontakte social networks, and claims he is "forced to represent" these people. In other recordings, he used profanities and referenced to the sexual life of some other leaders of the demonstration. He also called another prominent leader of protests, Alexey Navalny "a specialist of manipulating the internet mob". Nemtsov later apologized to several leaders he characterized in these conversations, but not to protesters, and claimed that people that made recordings available to the public committed a crime. The crime they committed... self-incrimination! They reveal the truth about Yulia Tymoshenko's political imprisonment. Let's start with a look into the Energy Charter Treaty and the 2009 Russia-Ukraine gas dispute! This will continue to guide us in our Meet the War Criminals - "The Ukraine Factor" discussion.

The Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) is an international agreement which establishes a multilateral framework for international co-operations in the energy industry. The treaty covers all aspects of commercial energy activities including dispute resolution procedures.

Originally, the Energy Charter process was based on integrating the energy sectors of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe at the end of the Cold War into the broader European and world markets. Its role however extends beyond East-West cooperation and through legally binding instruments strives to promote principles of openness of global energy markets and non-discrimination to stimulate foreign direct investments and global cross-border trade.

The beginnings of the Energy Charter date back to a political initiative launched in Europe in the early 1990s. Russian president Mikhail Gorbachev had introduced glasnost, or openness of state institutions. This offered an unprecedented opportunity for the US to overcome previous economic divisions within the Eastern Bloc and make their attempt to seize control of Russian oil exports Yukos oil company and the legally binding Energy Charter's Energy Transit framework. This is the background of the 2009 Russia-Ukraine gas dispute and Yulia Tymoshenko's abuse of power charge! The clearest prospect for mutually co-dependent beneficial cooperation was the energy sector, given Europe's growing energy demand and vast resource availability in post-Soviet nations. Additionally there was a recognised need to ensure that a commonly accepted foundation was established for developing energy cooperation among the states of Eurasia. On the basis of these considerations, the Energy Charter process was born.

The Treaty's provisions focus on five broad areas: Energy Trade, Investment, Energy Efficiency, Dispute Settlement, and Energy Transit. Legal power within these provisions are the real focus of the 2011-2013 Russian protesters once they witnessed the Ukraine's Constitutional changes made during the Orange Revolution. Protesters in Russia had coalesced into five main points: freedom for political prisoners; annulment of the election results; the resignation of Vladimir Churov (head of the election commission) and the opening of an official investigation into vote fraud; registration of opposition parties and new democratic legislation on parties and elections, as well as new democratic and open elections. These points would provide protesters the headwind they needed to capitalize on the 2009 Russia-Ukraine gas dispute that they hoped would oust the ruling Russian party United Russia after they failed with the Yukos oil company lawsuit.

The Energy Charter Treaty is responsible for the resolution of disputes between participating countries, and in the case of investments between investors and host countries. Article 26 of the Energy Charter Treaty provides express provisions for resolving disputes arising under the Treaty between an investor of a Contracting State and another Contracting State. The largest claims against Russia involves the Yukos oil company.

While the Energy Charter is based on the idea that international flows of investments and technologies in the energy sector are mutually beneficial, national sovereignty over energy resources is a core principle of the treaty. The treaty does not deal with the ownership issues of the energy companies - there is no obligation to privatise state-owned energy companies, or to break up vertically integrated energy companies.

The remainder of this discussion will focus on the two largest events that actually led to Yulia Tymoshenko's political imprisonment. They are both found within the Energy Charter Treaty's provisions.

1. The forced sale of assets of Yukos oil company
2. The elimination of third-party access to Russia's pipelines (which weighs heavily on the current US bond market bubble)!

These are the two underlying factors that created the 2009 Russia-Ukraine gas dispute. These factors also form the background for the EU Sovereign Debt Crisis and the US's bond market bubble. Remember, the Energy Charter Treaty was established in hopes of integrating the energy sectors of the former Soviet Union into the broader European and world markets. The 2009 Russia-Ukraine gas dispute clearly indicates that this integration has failed to occur under the terms of the US/NATO alliance, thus creating the bond bubble crisis mainly because of Russia's unwillingness to ratify the treaty due to the Energy Transit Protocols involving 3rd party access to their pipelines! Yulia Tymoshenko political imprisonment is the tip of this iceberg... let's look closer.

Before 2009 Russian-Ukraine gas dispute, RosUkrEnergo, a Swiss registered venture company, was the sole importer of natural gas from Russia's Gazprom reselling it to Naftogaz Ukrainy (Ukraine's state-owned oil company). The removal of RosUkrEnergo as an intermediary destroyed all chances of US/UK access to Russian pipelines as an "integrated competitor". This means US/UK oil companies could not integrate from new price agreements with the Ukraine. This move by Ukraine's and Russia's prime ministers Yulia Tymoshenko and Vladimir Putin also set-up Naftogaz to benefit from Russia-Ukraine post-Soviet relations. In 2005 Naftogaz became embroiled in a dispute over the natural gas prices with Russian state company Gazprom, which was ended on 4 January 2006. In January 2009 the company again was the center of the 2009 Russia-Ukraine gas dispute. Here are the details!

On October 24, 2008, Ukranian prime minister Yulia Tymoshenko and Russian prime minister Vladimir Putin signed a deal that included provisions to raise import prices and transit tariffs to "market, economically based and mutually agreed levels" within three years, and that Naftogaz would buy gas directly from Gazprom and be the sole importer to Ukraine, removing intermediaries. In November, Gazprom and Naftogaz signed a long-term contract with similar provisions; however, this document differed in that it referred to transit fess remaining at their 2008 level and didn't specify an import price. This November agreement suppressed volatility in the energy markets from the news of Naftogaz becoming the sole importer of Russian gas for SE Europe. How would the US/UK markets respond to the removal of third party intermediaries while the Ukraine sought EU integration? This is the reason the price agreement was hindered and also why Yulia was subsequently charged with abuse of power. Without a price agreement, Gazprom was forced to collect all of its 2008 debts from Naftogaz.

In the third week of November, Gazprom CEO Miller announced that if no price agreement was reached by the end of the year, prices could rise significantly higher than what was currently being proposed. This gave Ukraine president Viktor Yushchenko no time to plan for the EU's (or rather Oleksandr Moroz's) response to a new deal. Note: By 2009, both Viktor Yushchenko and Viktor Yanukovych had strong ties to Ukraine's Constitution and now Ukraine's integration in the EU. This means that Moroz's influence has now overshadowed normal Russia-Ukraine relations. A few days after Gazprom warned that a deal must be reached, prime minister Putin warned that if there was any interference with transit gas, supplies to Ukraine would be cut off. These warnings were repeated throughout December, with additional warnings that disruptions to European Supplies could result. The European Commission did not attempt to intervene, but the Energy Charter Secretariat issued a statement on December 23 which recalled the principle of uninterrupted transit. This was seen as a reminder to Ukraine of its obligations under the Energy Charter Treaty, which it has signed and, unlike Russia, ratified.

Large amounts of debt remained outstanding by year's end. Naftogaz CEO Vladimir Trykolych said that Naftogaz owed $1.26 - $1.27 billion to RosUkrEnergo in total, but claimed that Naftogaz had no debt to Gazprom. However on December 2, Naftogaz acknowledged that it owed $1 billion to Gazprom, and said it was having trouble making payments on time due to unexpected losses in 2008. Later in mid-December, Gazprom stated that a debt of $2.195 billion had accumulated. It is vital that we mention that the original deal signed on October 24, 2008 by Yulia Tymoshenko and Vladimir Putin took precedence over the debt losses Naftogaz had accrued from 2008 considering the potential for market expansion. In response, Naftogaz made a payment of $800 million, and promised to pay another $200 million soon. Gazprom proposed to make an upfront transit payment at the 2008 rate in order to provide funds for the debt to be cleared, but Naftogaz rejected the offer.

On December 19, Gazprom released a statement saying that no supply contract could be signed for 2009 because Ukraine said it would not make any more payments in 2008. This was denied by a Naftogaz spokesman. On the same day, Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko's spokesman on international energy security stated that Ukraine had paid for its October and September supplies, and that although it still had to pay for November's supply before the end of 2008, no other payments would be due until the end of January. On December 23, President Yushchenko said that part of the debt was restructured for January-February 2009, but Gazprom denied that there was any such agreement and said that it remained committed to cut supplies to Ukraine on January 1 if Ukraine did not pay its remaining $1.67 billion debt for gas supplies and an additional $450 million in fines.

By December 30, Naftogaz made a payment of $1.522 billion to RosUkrEnergo for outstanding gas deliveries. RosUkrEnergo confirmed receiving this payment but said that Naftogaz still owed $614 million in fines, (although later on January 2, Naftogaz insisted that no further amounts of debt were outstanding, and said it was ready to go to international arbitration to resolve the issue). Along with the payment, the chief executive of Naftogaz, Oleh Dubyna, wrote a letter to Gazprom threatening that if it delivered gas for transit to Europe, Naftogaz would consider the gas to belong to an "unidentified owner" and could confiscate it under Ukrainian customs law. This was received as a threat to divert gas as Ukriane had done during the 2006 gas dispute.

On December 31, after which gas supplies to Ukraine would be cut off, the two parties failed to come to an agreement on import and transit prices, and obstacles remained. Naftogaz promised to transit gas to Europe even if supplies to Ukraine were cut, however, it added that without a contract in place it would not supply technical gas and would instead take gas from Russia's volumes to keep the system functioning. Gazprom refused, arguing that this would be theft.

On January 2, a day after Russia cut off gas supplies to Ukraine, Hungary, Romania and Poland were the first countries to report that pressure in their pipelines had fallen. Bulgaria reported that their supply was also falling and that transit to Turkey, Greece and Macedonia was affected. Two days later the Czech Republic and Turkey reported drops in pipeline pressure. Starting on January 7, several countries began to report a significant drop in gas supplies from Russia. Throughout the crisis many countries were unprepared and had been left without supplies for days, leading to significant economic and humanitarian consequences; Bulgaria was forced to stop production in some of its important industrial plants, while one country, Slovakia, declared a state of emergency. The most severely effected countries were in Southeastern Europe, most of which rely completely on Russia for gas and at the time didn't have sufficient alternative energy sources. However North-West Europe wasn't much effected by the cutoff and none of Europe's major markets came close to cutting off customers. Many European countries had made investments since the 2006 crisis which put them in a better position.

On January 18, after a day of talks, Putin and Tymoshenko reached a deal on restoring gas supplies to both Europe and Ukraine. The parties agreed, among other things, that Ukraine would get a 20% discount for 2009 gas supplies on condition that the tariff for transporting Russian gas to European consumers through Ukraine remained at 2008 prices for the duration of the year, and that starting on January 1, 2010, all prices and tariffs would move to European standards, without any exemptions or discounts. The two sides also agreed to stop using intermediaries, referring to RosUkrEnergo, a company joint owned by Gazprom and two Ukrainian businessmen. The next day, the head of Gazprom, Alexei Miller, along with the head of Naftogaz, Oleh Dubyna, signed the agreement, and Putin announced that he had ordered Gazprom to start deliveries in full volume and through all necessary routes. Additionally, the claim of a $600 million debt owed to RosUkrEnergo by Naftogaz was dropped.

According to the agreement, Ukraine would pay $360/mcm (thousand cubic meter) for the first quarter of 2009, and each following quarter will be stipulated depending on the price formula. Additionally, Ukraine must pay for supplies for any given month by the seventh day of the following month. If payment is late, Ukraine has to pay in advance, which could be grounds to nullify the agreement. The agreement was altered on November 20, 2009 after a meeting between Tymoshenko and Putin in Yalta; Ukraine would not be fined for buying less gas than what the original agreement stipulated, this was done in view of the 2008-2009 Ukrainian financial crisis.

This agreement, after such a crisis, destroyed all Russian integration dreams of US/UK oil companies. The familiar "American Dream" and "addicted to oil" cliches are caught in its final financial bubble known as the 2008-2013 US bond market and credit-default swap myth! In order to disguise this Oleksandr Moroz and President Yushchenko made allegations about Yulia Tymoshenko's political motives which led to her political imprisonment. However, all of their allegations (including those from current president Viktor Yanukovych) reveal a trial of aiding and abetting US crimes against humanity. Read on.

The New York Times published an article alleging that the key aim of the Kremlin was to stifle the continued expansion of the EU and NATO into Eastern Europe by exposing Ukraine's foreign policy which has aided and abetted US led crimes against humanity. Gazprom deputy CEO Alexander Medvedev suggested that Ukraine's actions were being orchestrated by the US.

Immediately, we can determine the following:

1. The US and EU's debt crisis is a direct result of their failures to integrate with Russia's energy sector since the end of the Cold War.
2. Yulia Tymoshenko's abuse of power charge reveals that president Viktor Yanukovych, Oleksandr Moroz, and Viktor Yushchenko have been aiding and abetting US US crimes against humanity.
3. Yulia Tymoshenko is serving 7 yrs in prison because the US's crimes against humanity scheme has come to a complete halt.

Let's take a look at why the US and EU have even considered IMF loans for the future. In other words, let's look into the details of Yulia Tymoshenko's political imprisonment that has put the US into a printing frenzy with no way out! The details are found with the International Criminal Court and the American Service Members Protection Act (ASPA). The important thing to remember here is that after the Cold War, US integration with Russia's energy sector was their highest priority.

Oleksandr Moroz played a tremendous role in assisting the US, through political blackmail, to not only invade Iraq; he also assisted the US with the political legroom to seek 3rd party access to Russia's pipelines. Both Viktor Yushchenko and Viktor Yanukovych, along with Oleksandr Moroz, have aided and abetted US crimes against humanity with Ukraine's role in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Let's take a look at the events happening within the International Criminal Court to see this clearly.

The US is not a participant in the International Criminal Court (ICC). The ICC is a permanent international criminal court, founded in 2002 by the Rome Statute to "bring to justice the perpetrators of the worst crimes known to humankind- war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide", especially when national courts are unable or unwilling to do so. We must look at how unwilling the US is, and how unable the Ukraine was, to bring perpetrators to justice both during and after Operation Iraqi Freedom! They argue that it's unconstitutional which coins the term "gay rights"!

The US conservative group the Heritage Foundation claims that "US participation in the ICC treaty regime would also be unconstitutional because it would allow the trial of American citizens for crimes committed on American soil, which are otherwise entirely within the judicial power of the US. The Supreme Court has long held that only the courts of the US, as established under the Constitution, can try such offenses."

Renew America claim that ratification by the US of the Rome Statute would require a constitutional amendment. According to RenewAmerica, "Because the ICC is inconsistent with fundamental constitutional protections, the federal government is without authority to ratify the treaty absent a constitutional amendment.

The US and many advocates for the International Criminal Court (ICC) have long been at odds over the court's statute, accountability, and jurisdiction. Today the Syrian Conflict, and the greater US led New World Order are extensions of the US Iraqi invasion and Afghanistan War. These events forces us to refocus international attention on the US policy toward the ICC. What does legalized same-sex marriage and an openly gay US military say about the pre-emptive invasion war policy under US president George W. Bush. He enacted two things to avoid international scrutiny:

1. American Service Members Protection Act
2. Article 98 Agreements

In 2002, the US Congress passed the American Servicemembers' Protection Act (ASPA), which contained a number of provisions, including prohibitions on the US providing military aid to countries which had ratified the treaty establishing the court; however, there were a number of exceptions to this, including NATO members, major non-NATO allies, and countries which entered into an agreement with the US not to hand over US nationals to the Court. ASPA also excluded any military aid the US President certified to be in the US national interest.

In addition, ASPA contained provisions prohibiting US co-operation with the Court, and permitting the President to authorize military force to free any US military personnel held by the court, leading opponents to dub it "The Hague Invasion Act". The act was later modified to permit US cooperation with the ICC when dealing with US enemies. It has been argued that the act was a measure created to protect Americans from ICC jurisdiction or prosecution.

Article 98 of the Rome Statute prohibits the Court from requesting assistance or the surrender of a person to the Court if to do so would require the state to "act inconsistently" with its obligations under international law or international agreements unless the state or the third-party state waives the immunity or grants cooperation. The US has interpreted this article to mean that its citizens cannot be transferred to the ICC by any state that has signed a bilateral agreement with the US prohibiting such a transfer, even if the state is a member of the Rome Statute. The US actively pressures states to conclude such so-called Article 98 or bilateral immunity agreements (BIAs). By Spring 2006, such agreements had been accepted by approximately one hundred governments and were under consideration by approximately eighteen more. The Bush Administration claimed that the BIAs were drafted out of concern that existing agreements - particularly the Status of Forces or Status of Mission Agreements (SOFAs or SOMAs) - did not sufficiently protect Americans from the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC). According to the Coalition for the International Criminal Court, 54 countries "rejected US efforts to sign BIAs despite unrelenting US pressure and the threat and actual loss of military assistance under the ASPA".

In October 2002, the Council of European Union adopted a common position, permitting member states to enter into Article 98 Agreements with the US, but only concerning US military personnel, US diplomatic or consular officials, and persons extradited, sent to their territories by the US with their permission; not the general protection of US nationals that the US sought; furthermore the common position provided that any person protected from ICC prosecution by such agreements would have to be prosecuted by the US. This was in agreement with the original position of the EU, that Article 98 Agreements were allowed to cover these restricted classes of persons but could not cover all the citizens of a state.

In 2002, the US passed a law cutting off military aid (ESF funding) for 35 countries (among them nine European countries), under the terms of an amendment to the American Servicemember's Protection Act. Economic Support Fund (ESF) funding entails a wide range of governance programs including international counter-terrorism efforts, peace process programs, anti-drug trafficking initiatives, truth and reconciliation commissions, wheelchair distribution and HIV/AIDS education, among others. ON May 2, 2005, Angola became the 100th country to sign a bilateral agreement with the US under Article 98. Since then, there have been no additional signing of these agreements. The US's aim since the Cold War is clear! The US aims to create enough uprisings throughout the M. East so that they could exploit Article 98 Immunity Agreements. These bilateral agreements would become havens for an openly gay US military seeking same-sex marriage laws, thus spreading crimes against humanity in the form of sexual violence!

The Ukraine has been a significant factor as the US (along with the UK) desperately seek to control Russia's oil revenues, using the Energy Charter Treaty, to continuously and relentlessly fund the spread of HIV/AIDS along with all forms of diseases and disorders that now claim over 50% of US newborns... all in the name of Imperialism and Zionism! It is now time to take action. Together, we can utilize this forum as ammo to bring these perpetrators to their end by demanding JUSTICE for Yulia Tymoshenko world-wide!

News conference following the Second Gas Summit

S-300's Repel "Air Attack" Near Astrakhan

Rs 24 nuclear missle Response to Missile defense system

Need To Know Bulletin!

• The global financial crisis has revealed a major fact here in San Francisco! The overall will (or aim) of the US "mirrors" that of the UK... this coins the American word "Mom"! Meaning, the financial stress the US has placed on the EU and worldwide reflects the will of the UK (aka - loan sharks)! Henceforth, as this will inevitably result in a war between superpowers, we must set our aim to change the United Kingdom's name to United Russia! This is done by punishing them with a "twin attack"! Use the exact same number of missiles for both countries! More details to follow with Meet the War Criminals Part V - "The Ukraine Factor" soon! Until then, be very aware of US Imperialism! "911 is not a joke" (once the US is in YOUR town)... it's where towns worldwide will not form - this hints at the civil war taking place in Syria!

GRRRRRR...

en

Meet the War Criminals Part IV - "Time For War"

Everything that we have discussed so far in our Meet the War Criminals series (i.e. US led crimes against humanity in the form of sexual violence and same-sex marriages) requires us to closely examine the role the US has played in Europe and world-wide. We begin with the Monroe Doctrine. The Monroe Doctrine is a US policy which, while limiting the United States' involvement with European colonies and European affairs, held that European powers ought not to have involvement with States in the Western Hemisphere. This policy forms the foundations of the European Sovereign Debt Crisis. It cuts Europe off from relevent communication inside America's well known Bubble Market that's fueled by the Federal Reserves. This policy also shows US-Soviet enmity in post World War II as Cuba's alliance with the USSR was regarded as unacceptable and sparked the Cold War.

Next, we know that Yulia Tymoshenko is in prison because of her efforts to deliver unto Europe a European and Independent Ukraine. The question now becomes... what happened when she was confronted with (through her political rival) US post-World War II foreign policy that led to the Cold War and now has the European Union facing a total collapse through the systematic debt known as the European Sovereign Debt Crisis? We discussed, in Part III of Meet the War Criminals, how this situation forms the foundations of Cold War 2. We will now reveal the truth about US foreign policy by discussing the following:

• The correlation between the Cuban Missile Crisis and the European Missile Defense Shield
• The current Syrian Conflict
• The correlation between George W. Bush's "Axis of Evil" and the Monroe Doctrine

Take a moment, before we begin, to reflect over all of the perceptions of reality, patterns of beliefs, and even split personalities that we discussed in Part III of Meet the War Criminals. We mentioned how these disorders spill into behavioral finance allowing us to see the inefficiences such as under- or over-reactions to information as the cause of bubbles and crashes. Interpersonal relationships, including communication skills, and the ability to form relationships and sustain them are all included as they collectively form the fabric of US foreign policy. Policies such as the Monroe Doctrine have led to the conflicts that we will discuss here in Part IV of Meet the War Criminals "Time for War"! On more mention, the US has adopted yet another traumatic policy... devaluation! Devaluation almost always results in cries of outrage and calls for the government to be replaced. We will discuss later the correlations between the current dollar devaluation and the current Syrian Conflict. First, we need to examine the relationship between the Cuban Missile Crisis and the European Missile Defense Shield.

The Cuban Missile Crisis - known as the October crisis in Cuba and the Caribbean crisis in the
USSR - was a 13-day confrontation between the Soviet Union and Cuba on one side, and the US on the other, in October 1962. It is one of the major confrontations of the Cold War, and is generally regarded as the moment in which the Cold War came closest to turning into a nuclear conflict. It is also the first documented instance of the threat of mutual assured destruction (MAD) being discussed as a determining factor in a major international arms agreement. Note: Meet the War Criminals has been created so that there is a zero chance of any mutual assured destruction (MAD) by known war criminals and thieves!

After provocative political moves and the failed US attempt to overthrow the Cuban regime (Bay of Pigs, Operation Mongoose), in May 1962 Nikita Khrushchev proposed the idea of placing Soviet nuclear missiles on Cuba to deter any future invasion attempt by the US. Cuba, a Latin American country, allying openly with the USSR was regarded as unacceptable. It was viewed as a direct defiance to the Monroe Doctrine. These views and the failed invasion attempt made the East Germans and Soviets to consider western control over a portion of Berlin a grave threat to East Germany. Like Fidel Castro, Khrushchev felt that a US invasion of Cuba was imminent, and that to lose Cuba would do great harm to the communist cause, especially in Latin America. He said he wanted to confront the Americans "with more than words... the logical answer was missiles".

The confrontation ended on October 28, 1962, when Kennedy and United Nations Secretary-General U Thant reached an agreement with Khrushchev. Publicly, the Soviets would dismantle their offensive weapons in Cuba and return them to the Soviet Union, subject to United Nations verification, in exchange for a US public declaration and agreement never to invade Cuba. Secretly, the US agreed that it would dismantle all US-built Jupiter IRBMs, armed with nuclear warheads, deployed in Turkey and Italy. The Cuban Missile Crisis is one of the gravest examples of provocative political moves by the United States afforded by the Monroe Doctrine. It correlates with the US/NATO European Missile Defense Shield.

The correlation between the Cuban Missile Crisis and US/NATO European Missile Defense Shield can be found starting with the invasive political moves by the US that's led to the European Sovereign Debt Crisis and the political imprisonment of Yulia Tymoshenko whereas Russia is needing to respond... with the use of force (again)! Let's take a closer look at US National Missile Defense plans.

U.S. invasive political moves were revealed on 23 March 1983, President Ronald Reagan announced a new national missile defense program formally called the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) but soon nicknamed "Star Wars" by detractors. President Reagan's stated goal was not just to protect the U.S. and its allies, but to also provide the completed system to the USSR, thus ending the threat of nuclear war for all parties. SDI was technically very ambitious and economically very expensive. It would have included many space-based laser battle stations and nuclear-pumped X-ray laser satellites designed to intercept hostile ICBMs in space, along with very sophisticated command and control systems. (I call this plan, "Washington DC gone Hollywood".)

A partisan debate ensued in Congress, with Democrats questioning the feasibility and strategic wisdom of such a program, while Republicans talked about its strategic necessity and provided a number of technical experts who argued that it was in fact feasible (including Manhattan Project physicist Edward Teller). Advocates of Reagan's initiative prevailed and funding was initiated in fiscal year 1984. The goal was to totally defend against a robust, all out nuclear attack by the USSR.

In the 1990s and early 20th century, the stated mission of the US National Missile Defense changed to the more modest goal of preventing the US from being subject to nuclear blackmail or nuclear terrorism by a so-called rogue state. The feasibility of this more limited goal remains somewhat controversial. Under President Bill Clinton some testing continued, but the project received little funding despite Clinton's supportive remarks, near the end of his term, that "such a system, if it worked properly, could give us an extra dimension of insurance in a world where proliferation has complicated the task of preserving peace."

On 16 December 2002 President George W. Bush signed National Security Presidential Directive 23 which outlined a plan to begin deployment of operational ballistic missile defense systems by 2004. The following day the US formally requested from the UK and Denmark use of facilities in Fylingdales, England, and Thule, Greenland, respectively, as part of the National Missile Defense program. The projected cost of the program for the years 2004 to 2009 was about $53 billion, making it the largest single line in the Pentagon's budget.

Since 2002, the US has been in talks with Poland and other European countries over the possibility of setting up a European base to intercept long-range missiles. A site similar to the US base in Alaska would help protect the US and Europe from missiles fired from the Middle East or North Africa. Poland's prime minister Kazimierz Marcinkiewicz said in November 2005 he wanted to open up the public debate on whether Poland should host such a base.

In February 2007, the US started formal negotiations with Poland and Czech Republic concerning placement of a site of Ground-Based Midcourse Defense System. The announced objective was to protect most of Europe from long-range missile strikes from Iran. Public opinion in both countries opposed. 57% of Poles disagreed, while 21% supported the plans; in Czech Republic it was 67% to 15% respectively. More than 130,000 Czechs signed a petition for a referendum against the base, which is by far the largest citizen initiative since the Velvet Revolution.

Russia threatened to place short-range nuclear missiles on Russia's border with NATO if the US refuses to abandon plans to deploy 10 interceptor missiles and a radar in Poland and the Czech Republic. In April 2007, Putin warned of a new Cold War if the Americans deployed the shield in Central Europe. Putin also said that Russia is prepared to abandon its obligations under a Nuclear Forces Treaty of 1987 with the US.

In September 2009, President Barack Obama announced that plans for missile defense sites in Central Europe would be scrapped in favor of systems located on US Navy warships. On 18 September 2009, Russian Prime Minister Putin decided to welcome Obama's plans for stationing American Aegis defense warships equipped with the Aegis RIM-161 SM-3 missile system, which complements the Patriot missile systems already deployed by American units.

However, once USS Monterey was actually deployed to the Black Sea the Russian Foreign Ministry issued a statement voicing concern about the deployment... who knew that it would lead to Yulia Tymoshenko's political imprisonment as opposed to seeking the end of nuclear war for all parties by providing access to the complete system to Russia. Remember, nuclear power equals political influence!

USS Monterey

 

On 4 February 2010, Romania agreed to host the SM-3 missiles starting in 2015.

 

In 2009, several US Navy ships were fitted with SM-3 missiles to serve this function, which complements the Patriot systems already deployed by American units. Also, warships of Japan and Australia have been given weapons and technology to enable them to participate ion the American defense plan as well.

 

On 12 November 2009, the Missile Defense Agency announced that six additional US Navy destroyers would be upgraded to participate in the program. In fiscal 2012, USS Carney (DDG-64), USS Ross (DDG-71), and USS Donald Cook (DDG-75) would be upgraded. USS Cole (DDG-67), USS McFaul (DDG-74) and USS Porter (DDG-78) will be upgraded in fiscal 2013. The goal of the program is to have 21 ships upgraded by the end of 2010; 24 in 2012; and 27 around 2013.

 

The US is now facing game changing circumstances daily. Be very mindful of the ever-increasing amount of Defense Department budget cuts made from American debt reaching its ceiling limits. US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta was forced to create a defense strategy within the confines of a dwindling budget. On 23 August 2012, the Wall Street Journal reported that the US is planning a major expansion of missile defenses in Asia. According to American officials this move is designed to contain threats from N. Korea, but one that could also be used to counter China's military. The planned buildup is part of a defensive array that could cover large swaths of Asia, with a new radar in southern Japan and possibly another in Southeast Asia tied to missile-defense ships and land-based interceptors.

US Defense officials told the Wall Street Journal that the core of the new anti-missile shield would be a early-warning radar, known as an X-Band, sited on a southern Japanese island. Discussions between Japan and the US are currently underway. The new X-Band would join an existing radar that was installed in northern Japan in 2006 and a third X-Band could be placed in S. East Asia. The resulting radars would cover N. Korea, China and possibly even Taiwan. According to US Navy officials and the Congressional Research Service the US Navy has drawn up plans to expand its fleet of ballistic missile-defense-capable warships from 26 ships today to 36 by 2018. Officials said as many as 60% of those are likely to be deployed to Asia and the Pacific.

Some US officials have noted that defenses built up against N. Korean missiles would also be positioned to track a Chinese ballistic missile. A land-based radar would also free the Navy to reposition its ship-based radar to other regional hot-spots, officials said. A US team landed in Japan in September 2012 to discuss where the second facility will be located, according to a US defense official. Officialshave said they want to locate the radar, formally known as AN/TPY2, in the southern part of Japan, but not on Okinawa, where the US military presence is deeply controversial. On 16 October 2012 two US service members were charged with rape of a 12-year old Okinawa girl.

One word we must remember when dealing with US National Defense is feasibility. The US has poured billions of dollars designing inferior systems. US missile capabilities reflect the scenes of a Hollywood movie! Let's consider the Ground-based Midcourse Defense system (GMD). As of 2006, this system is operational with limited capability. It is designed to intercept a small number of nuclear-armed ICBMs in the mid-course phase, using interceptor missiles launched from within the US in Alaska. The problem here is that these interceptor missiles are not designed to destroy ICBMs that can indicate as many as 40 targets in the mid-course phase. Furthermore, a sea-based attack within the Gulf of Mexico would prove that current defense plans are futile. So far, the only thing the Gulf of Mexico has yielded is a gigantic BP oil spill in terms of environmental disasters and an undetected Russian Submarine!



 

 

What's left of the correlation between the Cuban missile crisis and the US/NATO European Missile Defense Shield is awaiting Russia's final response! Let's now take a closer look into the current Syrian conflict.

 

America's reputation of persistent invasive provocative political moves is evident within the Syrian Conflict. The Syrian uprising, is an ongoing armed conflict in Syria between forces loyal to the Syrian Ba'ath Party government and those seeking to oust it. The conflict began on 15 March 2011 with nationwide demonstrations, as part of the wider Arab Spring movement. Protesters, have now formed the Syrian National Coalition and has demanded the resignation of President Bashar al-Assad and the end to nearly five decades of Ba'ath Party rule.

 

To review, the wider Arab Spring movement began in December 2010 with mass anti-government protests in Tunisia and has spreaded across the Arab world, particularly into Syria. By February 2011, revolutions occurred in Tunisia and Egypt, while Libya began to experience a civil war. Numerous other Arab countries also faced protests, with some attempting to calm the masses by making concessions and governmental changes.

 

As the uprising began, the Syrian government waged a compaign of arrest that had caught tens of thousands of people, according to lawyers and activists in Syria and human rights groups. In response to the uprising, Syrian law had been changed to allow the police and any of the nation's 18 security forces to detain a suspect for eight days without a warrant. Arrests focused on two groups: political activists, and men and boys from the towns that the Syrian Army would start to beseige in April.

 

Even before the uprising began, the Syrian government conducted numerous arrests of protestors, political activists and human rights campaigners, many of whom were labeled "terrorists" by Assad. In early February, authorities arrested several activists including political leaders Ghassan al-Najar, Abbas Abbas, and Adnan Mustafa.

 

As the protests and unrest continued, the Syrian government began launching major military operations to suppress resistance, signaling a new phase in the uprising. On 25 April 2011, Daraa, which had become a focal point of the uprising, was one of the first cities to be besieged by the Syrian Army. An estimated hundreds to 6,000 soldiers were deployed, firing live ammunition at demonstrators and searching house to house for protestors, arresting hundreds. Tanks were used for the first time against demonstrators, and snipers took positions on rooftops. Mosques used as headquarters for demonstrators and organizers were especially targeted. Security forces began shutting off water, power and phone lines, and confiscating flour and food. Clashes between the army and opposition forces, which included armed protestors and defected soldiers, led to the death of hundreds. By 5 May 2011, most of the protests had been suppressed, and the military began pulling out of Daraa, with some troops remaining to keep the situation under control.

 

During the crackdown in Daraa, the Syrian Army also besieged and blockade several towns around Damascus. Throughout May, situations similar to those that occurred in Daraa were reported in other besieged towns and cities, such as Baniyas, Homs, Talkalalch, Latakia, and several other towns. After the end of each siege, the violent suppression of sporadic protests in the area continued throughout the following months.

 

On 29 July 2011, a group of defected officers announced the formation of the Free Syrian Army (FSA), which would become the main opposition army. Composed of defected Syrian Armed Forces personnel and civilian volunteers, the rebel army seeks to remove Bashar al-Assad and his government from power. This began a new phase in the conflict, with more armed resistance against the government crackdown. The FSA would grow in size, to about 20,000 by December, and to an estimated 40,000 by June 2012.

 

On 23 August 2011, a "coalition of anti-government groups" formed the Syrian National Council. The group, based in Turkey, attempted to organize the opposition. However, the opposition, including the FSA, remained a fractious collection fo political groups, longtime exiles, grass-roots organizers and armed militants, divided along ideological, ethnic or sectarian lines.

 

The conflict in Syria has received significant international attention. The Arab League, European Union, the United Nations, and many Western governments condemned the Syrian government's violent response to the protests, and many expressed support  for the protesters' right to exercise free speech. Initially, many Middle Eastern governments expressed support for Assad, but they switched sides as the death toll mounted. Both the Arab League and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation suspended Syria's membership.

 

The US and its NATO allies have pressed for al-Assad's departure, but Russia and China have consistently blocked any United Nations resolution that would impose sanctions on Syria. Russian officials stated that plans for Syria's political future should not be forced on it from outside and claimed that "terrorists" are present within the opposition's ranks.

 

In 2012, the US, UK, and France provided opposition forces with non-lethal military aid, including communications equipment and medical supplies. The UK was also reported to have provided intelligence support from its Cyprus bases, revealing Syrian military movements to Turkish officials, who then pass on the information to the Free Syrian Army. The CIA was reported to be involved in covert operations along the Turkish-Syrian border, where agents investigated rebel groups, recommending arms providers which groups to give aid to. Agents also helped opposition forces develop supply routes, and provided them with communications training. The majority of the weapons provided to rebel forces by Saudi Arabia and Qatar have ended up in the hands of hardline Islamic jihadists, who it is feared will create problems elsewhere once the Syrian conflict comes to a close.

 

Turkey, once an ally of Syria, has condemned Assad over the violent crackdown and has requested his departure from office. In October 2011, Turkey began sheltering the Free Syrian Army, offering the group a safe zone and a base of operation. Together with Saudi Arabia and Qatar, Turkey has also provided the rebels with arms and other military equipment. Following border clashes between Turkey and Syria in late 2012, Turkey requested American Patriot missile batteries to help defend its borders against Syrian aggression; the missiles were delivered by NATO in January 2013.

 

Russia, whose Tartus naval base, electronic surveillance facility in Latakia, and airbase facilities at Tadmur (Palmyra) are its only military outposts outside the former Soviet Union, has supplied the Syrian government with arms as part of a business contract signed before the uprising began. Most Syrian military equipment such as tanks, missiles, and artillery was acquired from Russia which continues sales and support. Russian-built air defense systems and anti-aircraft missile batteries purchased by Syria have been upgraded by installation of new equipment and modification of existing systems by Russian suppliers during the civil war; sometimes these installations are manned by Russian military advisers. According to Russian Ground Forces Air Defense commander Major General Alexander Leonov Syria's Russian-supplied air defenses are sophisticated and effective. Overcoming them, as would be required in the event of threatened intervention should Syria use chemical weapons, would be a major challenge to US and NATO forces. Western diplomats have frequently criticized Russia's behavior, but Russia denied its actions have violated any international law.

 

Iran, which sees Syria as a key regional ally, has not only provided the Assad regime with arms and technical support, but has also sent combat troops, specifically the Revolutionary Guards, to support Syrian military operations. Technical support has reportedly included unmanned aerial vehicles to guide Syrian military planes and gunners in their bombarding of rebel positions. It has been reported that Iran also trained personnel from Hezbollah, a militant group based in Lebanon which has deployed pro-Assad fighters to Syria. In January 2013, during a prisoner swap between the Syrian rebels and the Assad regime, 48 Iranians were reportedly released by the rebels in exchange for nearly 2,130 prisoners held by the Syrian government. Rebels claimed the captives were linked to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.

 

We will now reveal how George W. Bush's "Axis of Evil" term and the Monroe Doctrine has led to the Arab Spring movement and the Syrian uprising. It's called the "New World Order". Keep in mind that the US/NATO European Missile Defense Shield is targeted at the governments that are referenced by this term.

Annuit Coeptis - "He approves (has approved) of the undertakings".

 

This leads us into Cold War 2. Arab Spring is a movement designed to overthrow governments started by the US decision to rage war against the so-called "Axis of Evil" (beginning with Afghanistan and the War on Terror). Jihadist, however, realize that the US is only trying to control a global opium market (through Afghanistan) as a result of the wars against the so called "Axis of Evil"! We will now look at the correlation between the "Axis of Evil" and the Monroe Doctrine. Remember, the Monroe Doctrine led to the started the Cold War.

 

Axis of Evil is a term initially used by the former US President George W. Bush in his State of the Union Address on 29 January 2002, and often repeated throughout his presidency, describing governments that he accused of helping terrorism and seeking weapons of mass destruction. Iran, Iraq, and North Korea were portrayed by George W. Bush during the State of the Union as building nuclear weapons. The Axis of Evil was used to pinpoint these common enemies of the US and ally the country in support of the War on Terror. The term has stirred controversy, as it turned out Iraq did not actually possess any weapons of mass destruction at the time of his speech or anytime afterwards.

 

The phrase was attributed to former Bush speechwriter David Frum, originally as the axis of hatred and then evil. Frum explained his rationale for creating the phrase axis of evil in his book The Right Man: The Surprise Presidency of George W. Bush. Essentially, the story begins in late December 2001 when head speechwriter Michael Gerson gave Frum the assignment of articulating the case for dislodging the government of Saddam Hussein in Iraq in only a few sentences for the upcoming State of the Union address. Frum says he began by rereading President Franklin D. Roosevelt's "date which will live in infamy" speech given on December 8, 1941, after the Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. In order for the Axis of Evil term to fit within the 2002 State of the Union script as infamous, it needs expansion. Today, the phrase has developed into another phrase called "The New World Order" - here's how!

 

On May 6, 2002, then-Undersecretary of State John R. Bolton gave a speech entitled "Beyond the Axis of Evil". In it he added three more nations to be grouped with the already mentioned rogue states: Cuba, Libya, and Syria. The criteria for inclusion in this grouping were: "State sponsors of terrorism that are pursuing or who have the potential to pursue weapons of mass destruction (WMD) or have the capability to do so in violation of their treaty obligations". The speech was widely reported as an expansion of the original axis of evil.

 

In January 2005, at the beginning of Bush's second term as President, the incoming Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, made a speech regarding the newly termed outposts of tyranny, a list of six countries deemed most repressive. This included the two remaining Axis members, as well as Cuba, Belarus, Burma, and Zimbabwe.

 

In January 2006, Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz implicated the axis of terror that operates between Iran and Syria following a suicide bomb in Tel Aviv. In April 2006 the phrase axis of terror earned more publicity. Israel's UN Ambassador, Dan Gillerman, cautioned of a new axis of terror - Iran, Syria and the Hamas-run Palestinian government; Gillerman repeated the term before the UN over the crisis in Lebanon. Some three months later Israeli senior foreign ministry official Gideon Meir branded the alleged alliance an axis of terror and hate.

 

The name or reference to the term axis has been critized as incorrect. One criticism is that the Axis Powers of World War II signed diplomatic treaties with one another, such as the Pact of Steel and the Tripartite Pact, that created a military alliance between them, none of the nations that make up the axis of evil have taken similar steps publicly, nor have they done so secretly according to present intelligence records.

 

Furthermore, Iran and Iraq fought the long, Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s under basically the same leadership as that which existed at the time of Bush's speech leading some to believe the linking between the nations under the same banner as misguided. Others argue that each of the three have some special characteristics which are obscured by grouping them together. Note: The President of the United States calling Arab Nations evil terms such as Axis of Evil could very much lead to Arab Spring which aims to overthrow these same governments. Let's take a closer look using the Monroe Doctrine as a guide!

 

The Monroe Doctrine was a policy of the US introduced on December 2, 1823. It states that further efforts by European nations to colonize land or interfere with states in North or South America would be viewed as acts of aggression, requiring US intervention. The Doctrine noted that the US would neither interfere with existing European colonies nor meddle in the internal concerns of European countries. The Doctrine was issued at a time when nearly all Latin American colonies of Spain and Portugal had achieved independence from the Spanish Empire (except Cuba and Puerto Rico) and the Portuguese Empire. The US, working in agreement with Britain, wanted to guarantee no European power would move in.

 

President James Monroe first stated the doctrine during his seventh annual State of the Union Address to Congress. It became a defining moment in the foreign policy of the US and one of its longest-standing tenets, and would be invoked by many US statesmen and several US presidents, including Theodore Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, Ronald Reagan and many others.

 

The intent and impact of the Monroe Doctrine persisted with only minor variations for almost two centuries. Its primary objective was to free the newly independent colonies of Latin America from European intervention and control that would make the New World a battleground for the Old. The doctrine put forward that the New World and the Old World were to remain distinctly separate spheres of influence, for they were composed of entirely separate and independent nations.

 

The full document of the Monroe Doctrine is long and couched in diplomatic language, but its essence is expressed in two key passages; the first is the introductory statement:

The occasion has been judged proper for asserting, as a principle in which the rights and interests of the US are involved, that the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers.
 

The second key passage, a fuller statement of the Doctrine, is addressed to the allied powers of Europe (that is, the Holy Alliance); it clarifies that the US remains neutral on existing European colonies in the Americas but is opposed to interpositions that would create new colonies among the newly independent Spanish American republics:

We owe it, therefore, to candor and to the amicable relations existing between the US and those powers to declare that we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety. With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power we have not interfered and shall not interfere. But with the Governments who have declared their independence and maintained it, and whose independence we have, on great consideration and on just principles, acknowledged, we could not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them, or controlling in any other manner their destiny, by any European power in any other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the US.
 

Because the US lacked both a credible navy and army at the time, the doctrine was largely disregarded internationally. The Doctrine, however, met with tacit British approval, and the Royal Navy mostly enforced it tacitly, as part of the wider Pax Britannica, which enforced the neutrality of the seas. This was in line with the developing British policy of laissez-faire free trade against mercantilism. Fast-growing British industry was ever seeking outlets for its manufactured goods, and were the newly independent Latin American states to become Spanish colonies once more, British access to these markets would be cut off by Spanish mercantilist policy. Therefore, the Monroe Doctrine was viewed as a precursor to the US/UK Special Relationship. Similar to the UK's proposal to the US of a League of Nations nearly 100 years later, Canning's proposal "defected ideas into the American decision-making process in such a manner that they imperceptibly seemed to be a part of Washington's own". No wonder the monument London Eye resembles a bicycle wheel: symbolizing the close of the US West Coast Exchange. In other words, "How special is the US/UK relationship once Gay Pride influences the UK's sight?"

 



 

Note: The US produced a film in 1986 entitled: Quicksilver that depicted a market maker that "blew out" his trading account and redeemed himself by becoming an infamous bicycle messenger that would lead to the close of the exchange!

 

 Note: Due to the amount of market manipulations evident between the US/UK special relationship... feel free to visit www.soulfreeinvestments.blogspot.com for The Truth - Online Financial Forum (OFF)

 

We now know the answer to the question of how Europe became entangled in the Sovereign Debt Crisis! It's all because of US led crimes against humanity. The proof lies within one more US political term: Big Brother!

 

The Big Brother policy was an extension of the Monroe Doctrine formulated by James G. Blaine in the 1880s that aimed to rally Latin American nations behind US leadership and to open their markets to US traders. Blaine served as Secretary of State in 1881 in the cabinet of President James A. Garfield and again from 1889 to 1892 in the cabinet of President Benjamin Harrison. As a part of the policy, Blaine arranged and led the First International Conference of American States in 1889.

 

The Special Relationship, Big Brother, and Monroe Doctrine policies form the political foundation and gives evidence to the well defined geographic trail between North America, South America, and Europe that the US chose to use for crimes against humanity and pursue same-sex marriages. Now, the US is attempting to expand to the Middle East and Asia with pursuit of control of the world's natural resources (or OPEC) and even the opium market. This becomes more evident when we review The Roosevelt Corollary and Yulia Tymoshenko's political imprisonment.

 

As the US began to emerge as a world power, the Monroe Doctrine came to define a recognized sphere of control that few dared to challenge. Before becoming president, Theodore Roosevelt had proclaimed the rationale of the Monroe Doctrine in supporting intervention in the Spanish colony of Cuba in 1898. After he became president, and following the Venezuala Crisis of 1902-1903, Roosevelt added the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine in 1904. This corollary asserted the right of the US to intervene in Latin America in cases of "flagrant and chronic wrongdoing by a Latin American Nation".

The Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine was invoked to intervene militarily in Latin America to stop the spread of European influence. (This again, is the foundations of today's New World Order being fought now in Syria!)

The Roosevelt Corollary was the most significant amendment to the original doctrine and was widely opposed by critics, who argued that the Monroe Doctrine was originally meant to stop European influence in the Americas. This amendment was designed to preclude violation of the doctrine by European powers that would ultimately argue that the independent nations were "mismanaged or unruly". Critics, however, argued that the Corollary simply asserted US domination in that area, essentially making them a "hemispheric policeman".

In other words, any independent nation formed by European Powers were considered "mismanaged or unruly"! What does this say about the European Union? This belief is what led to Yulia Tymoshenko's imprisonment. It all begins with the Cold War.

During the Cold War, the Monroe Doctrine was applied to Latin America by the framers of US foreign policy. When the Cuban Revolution (1953-1959) established a Communist government with ties to the Soviet Union, after trying to establish fruitful relations with the US, it was argued that the spirit of the Monroe Doctrine should be again invoked, this time to prevent the further spreading of Soviet-backed Communism in Latin America.

The US thus often provided intelligence and military aid to Latin and South American governments that claimed or appeared to be threatened by Communist subversion. This, in turn, led to some domestic controversy within the US, especially among some members of the left who argued that the Communist threat and Soviet influence in Latin America was greatly exaggerated.

The debate over this new spirit of the Monroe Doctrine came to a head in the 1980s, as part of the Iran-Contra affair. Among other things, it was revealed that the US Central Intelligence Agency had been covertly training "Contra" guerrilla soldiers in Honduras in an attempt to destabilize and overthrow the Sandinista revolutionary government of Nicaragua and its President, Daniel Ortega. CIA director Robert Gates vigorously defended the Contra operation, arguing that avoiding US intervention in Nicaragua would be "totally to abandon the Monroe Doctrine". Note: US covert training, as we've already mentioned, is what's fueling the Syrian Uprising! All of this is made possible by war in Afghanistan and the EU Missile Defense Shield talks.

The Monroe Doctrine is often related with the idea of American "isolationism" - the idea that America keeps to itself and does not get involved with other countries. However, according to historian Hilde Restad and other dissenters from the "old paradigm", America has never been isolationist. It was around the Presidency of James K. Polk that the idea of Manifest Destiny in relation to the Monroe Doctrine developed. Polk attached Manifest Destiny to the Monroe Doctrine used it to support expansion westward. People do not tend to commonly think of western expansion as taking foreign lands, however, the land was not America's and therefore by definition was foreign. Polk was able to keep the Europeans out of America under the Monroe Doctrine while he could grab lands westward with less competition. Westward expansion was interventionist not isolationist.

Today we face globalization, the Bio-Age, and a "New World" Order (which was set in place by George W. Bush's use of Axis of Evil)! We must now ask, "What does US dollar devaluation have in common with our Meet the War Criminals series? " Well, realize that US investors are selling gold to foster their New World Order hopes by targeting global inflation. Yet, at this moment in time, the US is depending on increased tax revenue from the wealthy as they invest in Asia's exporting rich nations like Japan! This is known as the Buffett Rule. Without it, the US would have went right over into a financial cliff! Now, how long do we allow the US to borrow?

 
Furthermore, it's becoming quite evidentas to what led to Yulia Tymoshenko's political imprisonment. She led a Russian-backed Ukraine into a Monroe Doctrine fed Europe! We will cover this issue even more! Stay tuned for Part V of Meet the War Criminals - "The Ukraine Factor"! We will discuss the hand the EU Missile Defense Sheild has played in Ukrainian Politics. As for now, we hope that everyone sees that Cold War 2 will be about the US's attempt to overthow governments behind the veil of the Monroe Doctrine! Be adviced, the Global Financial Crisis was the first step in this process. Arab Nations are calling this The New World Order! The Government of Russia is standing ready to meet the challenges facing globalization and the Bio-Age namely: The New World Order sparked by the US's use of the term Axis of Evil! So let's move forward starting with getting hold of more gold as the US takes the debt plunge.