Tension with Iran increases.
Sanctions against Iran, if agreed, will start WWIII. Sanctions will be seen as an act of war, and Iran have clearly said they will respond with force.
Unfortunately every country here has an agenda, and we will not truly know the truth for many years.
The scary thing is that 2012 has been predicted as the year of change. Is this just another step towards an inevitable pre-ordained outcome?
Watch the following clips, tension clearly mounting....
US Navy warning
US warns Iran against closing oil route
Threats from Iran
Build up to WWIII? Iran has threatened to block the Strait of Hormuz
Build Up to WW3 - Does the USA have a secret agenda?
The USA seem to have an agenda for war
And this is what we are trying to prevent!!!
What Will Happen In An Event Of Nuclear War?
The world has always been fragmented, but we are starting to see clear dividing lines, and is this a prelude to WWIII? Russia, Pakistan, China, Iran.... USA, Europe?
Perhaps it is time for a change in leadership, it would be refreshing to have Governments that actually care about its people, without political agenda. We are all expendable in the eyes of any Government, our lives are measured by statistical analysis, not on human needs. This is simply wrong, so why do so many of us accept this way of living? If we carry on accepting this form of rule, we help to allow these nutters to ruin OUR world, and destroy OUR lives!
Remember apparently Iran has nuclear weapons, mind you, Iraq had weapons of mass destruction? Are we being lied to AGAIN! I think before we believe what our Governments tell us, we should pause, and reflect the lies of the recent past.
Governments are here to serve its people,
not to rule over us!
China-Pakistan vs. U.S.A
The US has an uncanny knack of alienating country's around the world. With a very intolerant foreign policy, the perception fast becoming 'my way or no way' Now this may or may not be true, however if people believe it to be true, then the US needs to change the perception, if not it will lead to down a road to ruin on a global scale.
The actions and statements recently made by the US about the alleged Pakistani relationship to those considered as 'terrorists' has once again created a divide with an ally. With comments accusing an ally publicly as aiding 'terrorists' obviously will only cause anger, why not address the issue privately only. This is a delicate issue, and as such should be handled with care, because no country wants to be associated with 'terrorists' therefore will strongly defend itself when such comments are publicly aired.
This is partially because Pakistan has not been as active against militants as the US would like, however this goes to show that lack of understanding about the internal affairs of the Government in Pakistan. The Government there has become increasingly unpopular with its people, because of the support it has shown the US. The US just does not care, why should they it's not their problem, but it is, by losing Pakistan as an ally, cuts off a supply route to its troops in Afghanistan and strengthens Pakistani friendships with theos who oppose the US and the west.
This new divide has simply created the opportunity for China to strengthen its relationship with Pakistan. The policies of the US and the west in general have helped to strengthen the bond between China, Russia, Iran and now Pakistan. We think things are tough now, well with a close group like that the world has become an even more dangerous place, balancing on a razors edge.
So what is really going on here? It seems the world is itching for a war. Conflict is now global and there does not seem to be any sign that Governments want a peaceful solution. There seem to be too many egos and far too much politics getting in the way. I would guess that most 'normal' people want a life without conflict, to be able to get up in the morning and go about their business without fear that the sky will come crashing down! So, why are we now in a situation where power is in the hands of the few, who seem so far detached from the people they are meant to serve... well, power corrupts, promoting a blind ignorance and intolerance and of course they are always right!?!
The problems started some time ago 2008. The then Senator Barack Obama did not have any issue supporting air strikes in Pakistan, so why would he care about the relationship now? It is this way of thinking that has been a long standing influence of US foreign policy 'if you don't agree we will do it anyway'. Though the US does have a point, and something has to be done, however by acting in a way without consideration of the greater issues to itself and to its allies only helps to degrade its own image, and create bigger problems. The US is not the bully in the playground, however acts that way at times!
Published on Wednesday, September 17, 2008 by TomDispatch.com
The decision to make public a presidential order of last July authorizing American strikes inside Pakistan without seeking the approval of the Pakistani government ends a long debate within, and on the periphery of, the Bush administration. Senator Barack Obama, aware of this ongoing debate during his own long battle with Hillary Clinton, tried to outflank her by supporting a policy of U.S. strikes into Pakistan. Senator John McCain and Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin have now echoed this view and so it has become, by consensus, official U.S. policy.
Its effects on Pakistan could be catastrophic, creating a severe crisis within the army and in the country at large. The overwhelming majority of Pakistanis are opposed to the U.S. presence in the region, viewing it as the most serious threat to peace.
Why, then, has the U.S. decided to destabilize a crucial ally? Within Pakistan, some analysts argue that this is a carefully coordinated move to weaken the Pakistani state yet further by creating a crisis that extends way beyond the badlands on the frontier with Afghanistan. Its ultimate aim, they claim, would be the extraction of the Pakistani military's nuclear fangs. If this were the case, it would imply that Washington was indeed determined to break up the Pakistani state, since the country would very simply not survive a disaster on that scale.
Published on Wednesday, October 7, 2010
The United States has criticised Pakistan for avoiding direct conflict with militants in the tribal areas along the border with Afghanistan.
A White House report said this was as much a political choice as one based on resources.
The report follows a row between the US and Pakistan about a recent US incursion into Pakistani territory in which border guards were killed.
Pakistan says it works together with the US in the "war against terror."
The BBC's Jill McGivering says that it is clear that the crucial alliance between Pakistan and the US is increasingly strained.Frustration
The statement comes after a cross-border helicopter attack which led Pakistan to close one of the main border crossings used to supply Nato troops in Afghanistan.
"The Pakistani military continued to avoid military engagements that would put it in direct conflict with Afghan Taliban or al-Qaeda forces in North Waziristan," the report said.
"This is as much a political choice as it is a reflection of an under-resourced military prioritising its targets."
The US has long expressed frustration about Pakistan's reluctance to take on militants in the tribal areas.
Pakistani foreign ministry spokesman Abdul Basit expressed hope that two countries could work together to eradicate the threat posed by militants.
Our correspondent says that every Pakistani military offensive so far - including Swat and South Waziristan - has involved protracted negotiations and sustained pressure from the US.
The US believes that in order to weaken the Taliban in Afghanistan, places of refuge inside Pakistan must be eliminated.
But to many in Pakistan, any involvement in military assaults in the tribal areas risks upsetting a complex and delicate balance of loyalties - and alienating powerful clans who are also possible future allies.
The government, already deeply unpopular, also has to contend with rampant public hostility towards US policy in the region.
Many see the US as high-handed, pushing Pakistan into conflict without regard for its suffering
Pakistan feels it is paying an impossibly high price, our correspondent says, because it is rarely acknowledged that civilians are dying in their thousands and also not realised that more soldiers are being killed in Pakistan than Nato troops in Afghanistan.
Published on Wednesday, March 2, 2011 by Anna Mahjar-Barducci
China has been deploying thousands of soldiers in the strategic Gilgit-Baltistan, a mountainous area in northern Pakistan, and a region historically contested by Pakistan, India and its inhabitants.
Although cooperation between Pakistan and China is not new -- it was China in the 1970s that supported Pakistan's attempts to acquire its nuclear capability -- the deployment of Chinese troops in Pakistan, however, indicates a worrying alliance for the US. The US would do well to monitor these developments before a catastrophic scenario, especially for its troops, takes place.
The presence of the Chinese People's Liberation Army [PLA] in the contested Gilgit-Baltistan region, where a nascent revolt against the Pakistani rule is taking place, constitutes the direct involvement of Beijing in the dispute over Kashmir, making any future understanding between Pakistan and India more difficult, and can only arouse a new and serious rift between New Delhi and Beijing.
According to Mumtaz Khan, director for the International Centre of Peace and Democracy in Toronto, many Western analysts who view China's stance merely as a bargaining chip against India will unfortunately soon realize that China is redefining its priorities and interests in South Asia and beyond. "The current involvement of China in Gilgit-Baltistan and Pakistan administered Kashmir consists of more than just providing military and diplomatic support to Pakistan. Soon, Pakistan will swap its role to take the backseat as China exerts itself as a major player in the Kashmir issue" and maybe also in Afghani one.
The Gilgit-Baltistan region borders Afghanistan to the north; China to the northeast; the Pakistani administrated state of Azad, Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) to the south, and the Indian-administered state of Jammu and Kashmir to the southeast. Recently, the New York Times reported that two major developments are taking place there: a rebellion against the Pakistani rule, and the influx of an estimated 7,000 to 11,000 soldiers of the PLA.