Five stans: Honk off Bush
Five Central Asian countries, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan, recently set up a groundbreaking treaty to be free of nuclear weapons. Under the treaty, they will not produce, purchase, or allow nuclear weapons on their soil.
Since the United States already has or is negotiating for military bases in all of these nations, the Bush administration is teed off by this unexpected treaty. These former Russian territories are either in the oil rich Caspian basin or border China and are an important part of the New World Order game plan.
How dare these third world countries try to prohibit nukes on their soil when the “richest most powerful” nation in the world needs their help. And isn’t it ironic that these same “stan” nations were once part of the Russian Empire, the original “evil empire,” and our age old arch enemy in the Cold War?
On Wednesday, September 13, 2006, OneWorld.net published an article titled “Five Former Soviet Republics Give Up Nukes” which quoted the American Embassy in Kazakhstan as saying; “other international treaties could take precedence over the provisions of this treaty, and thus obviate the central objective of creating a zone free of nuclear weapons.”
We beat the pants off the Russians by outspending them in the “nuclear deterrent” arms race during the Reagan era two decades ago. Americans never asked how a communist nation spread over twice our territory but half our population was able to compete with us in the arms race, the space race, the Olympic race, and so forth, for more than forty years. Instead, we celebrated the “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down that wall” spirit of another republican president.
Russia went bankrupt and refused to go deeply into debt in order to continue. They gave up, bit the bullet, and started the agonizing process of rebuilding their economy, even trying democracy for awhile.
Today, George W. Bush, the man who just borrowed more than a record $600 billion to keep us going in 2006, tells us that things are different. It’s a “new era.” We are engaged in a “war” that’s not like anything we’ve ever faced before. And Americans must sacrifice things they’ve never been asked to sacrifice before. Things like the personal liberties we once fought and died for. All while we spread our military bases and “contractors” across the world to do “whatever is necessary” to protect our oil and perch on the doorsteps of China, the new and future communist enemy, another potential Cold War enemy with another huge territory but almost five times our population and with a growing thirst for domestic and industrial oil.
Of course, it’s about more than oil and the need to keep our enormous weapons building industries going with another Mexican standoff Cold War. We are dealing with “terrorists” and “insurgents” who can’t afford nukes, our own economic problems, and a great many other things ranging from an incredibly negative balance of trade to the return of racial discrimination.
Cutting through the fog, the real difference this time is that the United States is already bankrupt and living on borrowed money. We are already so far in the hole that we can’t see what’s going on at the surface.
Refusing to bite the bullet and leaving fiscal responsibility to future generations, the richest most powerful nation in the world is rapidly falling to the level of a third-world dictatorship.
How else do you explain the Bush administration’s reaction to five small uninvited nations that are only doing what the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act was supposed to encourage?
Elected President of Brazil on his platform opposing U.S. foreign policy, Luiz Inacio Lula Da Silva said that the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act only makes sense if the big boys are going to lay down their weapons. Otherwise, it’s just a method to dominant smaller and weaker nations.
This hasn’t happen and, in fact, Bush is in the process of revamping all of the warheads on our Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (IBM’s) plus wanting to resume nuclear testing, develop mini-nukes for field forces, and open space for nukes.
We not only have to ask ourselves who the bad guys and “terrorists” really are, but consider the possibility that Bush wants to use Semipalatinsk in Kazakhstan the way the Russians did to test more than 500 nuclear bombs in that country. To the victor belongs the spoils, right?
“Published originally at EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact.”