Is Obama Desperate to Precipitate a Nuclear War?

[Note:  This item comes from a reader who doesn’t wish attribution.  DLH]

Date: January 5, 2015 at 15:48:48 EST
From: 
To: Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne@warpspeed.com>
Subject: Is Obama Desperate to Precipitate a Nuclear War?

Is Obama Desperate to Precipitate a Nuclear War?
By Eric Zuesse
Jan 5 2015
<http://rinf.com/alt-news/featured/obama-desperate-precipitate-nuclear-war/>

Anyone who still believes Obama’s rhetoric and honesty would be wasting time to read the following analysis, which is only for people who have doubts about his honesty, and thus an open mind to the possibility of his lying about his intentions.

On Christmas Day, London’s Daily Mail bannered, “North Korea was NOT behind the Sony hack according to multiple security experts who discredit FBI findings and reveal that a studio insider named ‘Lena’ may be responsible.”

Two days earlier, on December 23rd, CBS News had headlined, “Was FBI Wrong on North Korea?” and they presented evidence that the FBI was, indeed, wrong.

On December 30th, the brilliant attorney who blogs as “George Washington” assembled all of the news-reports up till that time on this matter, and headlined, “FBI Busted Falsely Blaming North Korea for Sony Hack: I Hate North Korea’s Leaders … But They Didn’t Do It.”

The evidence that he presented is overwhelming. 

Nonetheless, on January 2nd, the BBC bannered, “Sony cyber-attack: North Korea faces new US sanctions,” and they reported: “The US has imposed new sanctions on North Korea in response to a cyber-attack against Sony Pictures Entertainment. President Barack Obama signed an executive order on Friday allowing sanctions on three North Korean organisations and 10 individuals.”

Then, on Sunday, January 4th, CNN headlined “North Korea pushes back against U.S. sanctions for Sony hack,” which push-back is, of course, reasonable for North Korea, given that the U.S. sanctions are based on lies, just as the invasion of Iraq by George W. Bush was based on lies, and just as Obama’s bombings in both Libya and Syria were based on lies. North Korea can recognize the threat: the American President’s lie against them displays his hostile intent.

A pattern of aggressive lying for secret objectives is by now clear under Barack Obama; and in both the North Korean and the Russian and Ukrainian cases, nuclear weapons are very much on the table. Previously, after he had failed to achieve from the European Union the stringent economic sanctions that he had wanted against Russia — a nation that’s, of course, a far larger nuclear power than is North Korea — Obama used the pretext of the downing of the MH17 Malaysian airliner in order to obtain from the EU a hiked set of sanctions that are now causing real damage to Russia’s economy. Subsequently, it was virtually proven that the Ukrainian Government had actually shot down this airliner; furthermore, the Ukrainian Government had itself been installed in a violent U.S.-financed coup on 22 February 2014 which had been misrepresented as being a democratic revolution. As I headlined on December 22nd, “Head of Stratfor, ‘Private CIA’, Says Overthrow of Yanukovych Was ‘The Most Blatant Coup in History’,” and this fact that it was a coup, which is now known to the entire world’s knowledgeable community, has caused the Czech President publicly to break with the U.S. and EU and to make clear that his own country’s 1968 “Velvet Revolution,” unlike the  overthrow of the Ukrainian Government in February 2014, was non-violent and expressed the public’s will, no coup at all.

President Obama seized control over Ukraine on 22 February 2014 in order for Ukraine to join NATO and become a staging-area for U.S. missiles aimed at Russia, next door. Of course, this wouldn’t be at all more acceptable to any Russian leader than was, to U.S. President John F. Kennedy in 1962, the attempt by Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev to do that sort of thing to the U.S., in our own neighbor Cuba. So: this is a real provocation to nuclear war, but Obama keeps describing Russia as the aggressor here.

The background of President Obama’s efforts to provoke a nuclear war has been presented in a succinct 14-minute video by the superb documentarian Aaron Hawkins, and also in an article that I wrote (which is to the same effect as that documentary, but cites different documentation). Basically, it has to do with something that is of intense concern to the U.S. aristocracy: continuation of their domination over all other nations’ aristocracies. It’s like the buildup to World War I was, which war likewise was aristocratically sponsored in order to achieve global aristocratic dominance. 

Unfortunately, this time, that war would have to be nuclear. Obama is doing everything he can to win it, but he is hoping to be able to achieve this win by something called “Prompt Global Strike,” which would eliminate Russia’s ability even to respond to a nuclear attack. Scientists are virtually unanimous that, with the current generation of vastly more-powerful nuclear bombs, even if only a few nuclear weapons are involved in an exchange, this planet will experience nuclear winter and massive starvation, so that if the nuclear exchange goes beyond that, then life as it has existed on this planet will essentially be ended. However, a doctrine of “U.S. Nuclear Primacy” was introduced by the U.S. aristocracy in 2006, which concludes that, “If Washington continues to believe such preeminence is necessary for its security, then the benefits of nuclear primacy might exceed the risks.” The authors ignored nuclear winter, because their article was addressed to America’s aristocrats, not to the public (whose concerns and especially their priorities are very different).

[snip]