Friday, April 4, 2008


The above statement, "destruction of the nation state," is clearly articulated by Turkey's General Buyukanit in the following, and, note, as well, in the right hand sidebar, other articles related to Turkey's somewhat questionable future relationship with the IMF:

Meanwhile, in another major, un/underreported development, a herculean, militant, labor strike takes place at Russia's enormous, privately owned, bauxite company, Rusal, reported by the indomitable John Helmer.
One can only hope it will lead to even greater developments, like re-nationalization, which is what really should occur;

Following along lines of nationalization, Russia's Gazprom, the world's 18th, I believe, from memory, largest company, continues expanding its reach.
After a number of widely reported developments, raids on their offices, etc., Gazprom appears to be headed to acquire a controlling interest in another Russian-British energy company, TNK-BP:

NATO enlargement, I should say, encirclement, suffered a TEMPORARY politically expedient setback this past week regarding inclusion of both Georgia and Ukraine, but, has been rescheduled for December, coincidentally, after US Presidential elections:

Not equally publicized and well known, a US Congressional bill recently passed supporting NATO expansion UNANIMOUSLY.
Regarding NATO expansion's related brainchild, missile defense in Europe, see a nice chronology and time line at the following:

On developments surrounding Iran, Iraq and Sadr, so much happening. But, hopefully, you've been following my post from March 26, 2008, "Mopping Up Begins in Earnest in Iraq,"and an important link regarding a "deal" agreed to by Cheney and Maliki, a quid-pro-quo for support to Barzani around Kurdistan versus Turkey, passage of the oil and gas law and elimination of Sadr.
I'll provide this link once again:

For more background contextualization on this, see my March 26 blog, to which I referred:

As one can easily see, ALL of the above discussed with Cheney,, is coming to pass.
Only in dispute and subject to interpretation and second guessing, is the timing and tactics of the assault against Sadr's forces.
A few developments have clearly emerged from the PRESUMED ill-timed, ill-planned Sadr assault.
First, Iran's military role in Iraq has been completely and totally exposed for the world, and, particularly, dumb Americans, to see and those in "Iraq's" army who were considered or deemed unreliable were flushed out and replaced by other Iranian militias opposed to Sadr:

Also, Britain reversed itself and is maintaining current troops levels in Iraq and you can rest assured US forces won't leave prior to the new "Commander in Chief" taking office, who, I assume, will be McCain, and an entire policy review will come under consideration.
So, when deciding whether or not the recent military assault on Sadr should be classified a "success or failure" depends on what are/were the immediate and long range desired results and objectives in the first place. I view what happened simply as a "skirmish," the first round in a long, protracted struggle.
Future fighting guaranteed and is already occurring at this very moment. For an excellent example of compare and contrast on how the same event is reported, (if it is reported), perceived, interpreted, and spun by differing sources, consider the following:

ADDENDUM: I inadvertently omitted the following link and commentary which substantiates and adds to my previous links and analysis, above. It's source:

And placement in the Wall St. Journal is an important fact, "The Second Iran-Iraq War":