Here we see the FOUNDER of US LIBERTARIANISM-----AKA ---GLOBAL OLD WORLD LAISSEZ FAIRE------KOCH BROTHERS. Below we see those CATO INSTITUTE LIBERTARIANS----KOCH BROTHERS as enriched by being corporate FASCISTS for HITLER/STALIN.
ZOROS was the same person as KOCH during WW2-----they were enriched by WW1 AND WW2 ------and ZOROS took the MARXIST side to compliment KOCH'S LIBERTARIAN side----neither cares about JUSTICE/CIVIL SOCIETY----they simply want POWER AND WEALTH.
REAGAN/CLINTON as KOCH BROTHER CATO INSTITUTE CONTINUOUS WARS-------NEO-LIBERALS WERE LIBERTARIANS PRETENDING TO BE DEMOCRATS/REPUBLICANS.
REAGAN as a CATO LIBERTARIAN was behind continuous wars in LATIN AMERICA----SOUTHEAST ASIA.
'Hidden History' Of Koch Brothers Traces Their Childhood And Political Rise
January 19, 20165:24 PM ET
Heard on Fresh Air
David Koch speaks at the Defending the American Dream summit in 2015. He and his brother Charles lead a conservative political network that plans to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on the 2016 elections.
In January 2015, at a private conference in Palm Springs, Calif., the political network led by conservative billionaires Charles and David Koch announced plans to spend $889 million in the 2016 elections. The organization consists almost entirely of groups that don't register under the campaign finance laws and therefore don't publicly identify their donors.
Journalist Jane Mayer traces the growing influence of the Koch brothers and other wealthy conservative donors in her new book, Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right. According to Mayer, the Kochs and other conservatives have created philanthropic entities that enable them to aggressively pursue a libertarian agenda of lower taxes, deregulation of business and the denial of climate change.
Because they are considered charities, the philanthropic groups "don't need to disclose the names of their donors," Mayer tells Fresh Air's Dave Davies. "These are the groups that are called 'dark money groups,' and they thus become kind of secret banks that affect American politics in a huge way without most people understanding who is behind them."
It's very worrisome to many Americans to think that the whole ideal of one man, one vote might be overwhelmed by 400 of the richest people of any political persuasion picking the next leader for them.
Mayer warns that such influence and secrecy undermines democracy: "It's very worrisome to many Americans to think that the whole ideal of one man, one vote might be overwhelmed by 400 of the richest people of any political persuasion picking the next leader for them. That's just not how democracy is supposed to work."
On the Kochs' secret, semi-annual seminars
They've been so careful about the secrecy at these meetings, which take place twice a year in resorts, that at one point they even went to the trouble to erect white noise machines that would create static facing the outside, so that nobody could eavesdrop on them. They routinely refuse to disclose the names of the donors who come to these events, but at one point a guest list got left behind, which has provided the one full guest list of one of these events. What you can see from it is that there are about somewhere between 400 and 450 of the wealthiest conservatives in America getting together to plan how to use their fortunes to influence American politics. ...
I think the genius of the Kochs is the magic trick that they've really figured out, which is that it's not just their money funding this; they've created a consortium. It's a club where you've got maybe 400 people who are cumulatively enormously wealthy. I tried to figure out at one point how many billionaires were involved just in the first term of Obama's presidency, because they were funding so much of the opposition to Obama, and I got to a count of 18 billionaires who are known and whose net worth put together was $214 billion. Now, obviously they're not spending all of it on politics, but it gives you a sense of the throw-weight of this tiny, concentrated group of people.
On how the Koch brothers' father built oil refineries for Hitler and Stalin
Fred Koch, the patriarch of the family, was an expert in building oil refineries, and he and a friend named William Rhodes Davis proposed building one in Germany during 1934, '35, that period in there. In 1933, Adolf Hitler became chancellor of the Third Reich in Germany, so this meant working under the Third Reich. And in order to get permission, they actually had to go to Hitler himself, and William Rhodes Davis did the "Heil Hitler" to greet Hitler, and finally they got Hitler to greenlight this proposal so that they could build an oil refinery in Hamburg.
And the Hamburg Oil Refinery, built by the Winkler-Koch Co., became key, according to several German historians I talked to, to Hitler's war efforts. By the time they built it, it was already clear that Hitler had very major military ambitions, but one of the things he was unable to do was to refine high-octane oil for warplanes. What this plant did was create that capacity, and it eventually supplied much of the fuel that was needed for Hitler's Luftwaffe.
He was not a Nazi, and I certainly don't suggest that in the book, but what he was was an American businessman looking for a good deal, and he was looking all over the world to see how he could make some money. Oddly, and what's been known before, is before working under Hitler's Third Reich, Fred Koch had worked for Stalin, where — under Stalin's first five-year plan — Fred Koch helped build up the Russian, the Soviet oil refineries and really gave huge muscle to the oil industry in the Soviet Union.
On the four Koch brothers' upbringing
I think their parents seem to have cared quite a bit about them, but they were the kinds of parents who were gone much of the time. The father was gone doing business, and the mother was a very active socialite and was gone much of the time, and so she and the father placed the child rearing in the hands of a hired nanny.
Here again, you get this strange recurrence of a kind of little touch of Nazi Germany, because ... Charles and Frederick, the oldest sons, were put in the hands of a German nanny who was described by other family members as just a fervid Nazi. She was so devout a supporter of Hitler that finally, after five years working for the family, she left of her own volition in 1940 when Hitler entered France because she wanted to celebrate with the Fuehrer.
On three of the brothers attempting to blackmail the eldest, Frederick, when they suspected he was gay
You have to remember this was a very long time ago, when the idea of being gay was considered scandalous in a family, particularly a family of rough, self-made oil men out in Wichita, Kan. It was considered a dark secret that first-born son Frederick might have been gay. At some point, when Frederick was in his 20s, all four of the sons by then had shares in the family company. And what the three other brothers did was they created a kind of kangaroo court ... so that [Frederick] walked into a room, found his three other brothers sitting there in chairs facing him, and they confronted him and conducted an inquisition to see if he was gay. And they then said that if he was, they were going to tell their father unless he handed over his share in the company. ...
It's been rumored about for years in other write-ups about the Kochs, and there have been various descriptions of people denying it, but I actually got a hold of a sealed deposition in which one of the brothers, Bill Koch, describes the whole thing as it unfolded. The brother who they were accusing — Frederick, who was the eldest — stood up, looked at them, said, "I never want to hear about this again," and walked out of the room. It didn't work. But as a ploy, I think it gives you an idea of a family that is not the usual cozy, all-American family.
On the family company, Koch Industries, being investigated for pocketing millions in oil from Indian reservations
It was in the 1990s. Koch Industries was dragged in front of the U.S. Senate. There was a committee investigating the company, looking into accusations that it had stolen oil from Indian reservations by purposefully mis-measuring it and had pocketed millions and millions of dollars of extra money by doing so. The company didn't deny it at the time. ... They said it had happened, but they said it was an accident. But if you take a look at the Senate report, what you see is that other companies that were operating around the same time in that same oil patch didn't have this problem. They've raised eyebrows in pushing the limits of what a company can get away with for decades during this period, and to some extent it was in harmony with Charles Koch's hard-lined libertarian views, that the government just should not interfere with private enterprise.
Here we have the US LIBERTARIAN PARTY releasing an ANTI-WAR book saying maybe 20 years of war in a tiny nation of 99% WE THE AFGHANS having absolutely NO part in any bombing of America needs to end. REMEMBER, MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE is morphing to far-right authoritarian, militaristic, extreme wealth extreme poverty---------global corporate MARXISM-----which is LIBERTARIAN MARXISM.
The US CATO INSTITUTION was the powerful think tank behind CONTINUOUS WARS last century---------it is a LIBERTARIAN THINK TANK-------CATO being that pre-Christian NERO/CATO/SENECA. Below we see the same LIBERTARIAN PARTY now being allowed to PRETEND it is ANTI-WAR and it is not FAR-RIGHT WING but FAKE RADICAL LEFTIST MARXISM.
When we allow the major works of LITERATURE and ACADEMICS be generated from the same source of INJUSTICE, BRUTALITY, CRIMINALITY tied to OLD WORLD KINGS----KNIGHTS OF MALTA TRIBE OF JUDAH-----we never have a REAL INFORMATION VOICE for our 99% WE THE PEOPLE whether black, white, or brown citizen---whether Jewish, Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, HINDI -BUDDHIST.
SCOTT HORTON is simply the next generation of global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS-----freemason LITERARY STAR-----selling propaganda ---being that the US LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF CATO INSTITUTE is now ANTI-WAR.
Scott Horton is director of The Libertarian Institute, editorial director of Antiwar.com, host of Antiwar Radio for Pacifica, 90.7 FM KPFK in Los Angeles, California and podcasts the Scott Horton Show from ScottHorton.org. He’s conducted more than 5,000 interviews since 2003. He lives in Austin, Texas with his wife, investigative reporter Larisa Alexandrovna Horton.
To listen to Antiwar Radio, tune in to KPFK 90.7 FM, Pacifica, in the Los Angeles area at 8:30 am Pacific time Sundays, subscribe to the podcast feed of the shows at Scott’s website, on iTunes or on Stitcher'.
Today, we are reading a NEW HISTORY of our US FOUNDING FATHERS------one that says these revolutionaries breaking free of a global occupying kingdom of OLD EUROPE fashioned themselves after a CATO who was simply from a rich family wanting to replace CAESAR. ONE TYRANT replacing what others think to be that TYRANT -----IS NOT REVOLUTIONARY
'Through two millennia, Cato was mimicked, studied, despised, feared, revered. In his own day, he was a soldier and an aristocrat, a senator and a Stoic. The last in a family line of prominent statesmen, Cato spent a lifetime in the public eye as the standard-bearer of Rome’s optimates, traditionalists who saw themselves as the defenders of Rome’s ancient constitution, the preservers of the centuries-old system of government that propelled Rome’s growth from muddy city to mighty empire'.
Book Review of Scott Horton’s Fool’s Errand: Time to End the War in Afghanistan
October 1, 2019
I must confess, the absurdity of me writing a review of Scott Horton’s book is akin to the absurdity of the war in Afghanistan, albeit without the hundreds of thousands of dead bodies and billions of government no-bid military contracts and after eighteen years, nothing to show for it.
Sticking with absurdity, I’ll start with a passage from a different book, Scoop, by Evelyn Waugh, a fictional account of a fledgling reporter sent to cover a “promising war” in a faraway land. Bear with me.
The passage involves the reporter receiving:
…a radiogram which had arrived that morning and was causing him grave bewilderment. It read:
OPPOSITION SPLASHING FRONTWARD
SPEEDIEST STOP ADEN REPORTED PREPARED
WARWISE FLASH FACTS BEAST.
“I can’t understand it,” said William.1
I feel the same as William after devouring this thoroughly researched and well documented book, including over 1100 footnotes from myriad sources from all sides of the political spectrum. I feel this way not on account of illegible or confusing writing, for the book is laid out is such a manner that any average person could follow along and track with the absurdity of it all, but on account of the mind-numbing fallacies, falsehoods and flat out ahistorical bungling of the reality of the facts on the ground in the Middle East for the last fifty years that have led to our current, ah, situation, in Afghanistan.
If you thought the first quote was nonsensical, try this passage from Fool’s Errand and think of the concept of entangling alliances,“the U.S. was bribing one ally to back another ally, forcing a third ally to back our own and our first ally’s enemies, which required the U.S. to turn to the first ally for help against the third, and then around again. This has continued for more than a dozen years. In fact, the reality is even more convoluted than this. Our other allies, the Saudi royals, have continued to finance the Taliban resistance against the U.S. all along as well, since the Taliban serves as a check on the power of Afghanistan’s ethnic Hazaras, who are Shi’ites aligned with Saudi Arabia’s nemesis, Iran.”2 Got it? That might be tough to follow out of context from the chapter within which it was written, but it certainly serves to illustrate the insanity of this whole Afghanistan affair. How could anyone sort all that out? How do you define victory? How do you ever not continue to create enemies in a scenario like that?
After reading this book, there is no rational human being who can justify further military action in Afghanistan, yet the war machine grinds on. A war that, by no conceivable metric can be said that the U.S. is winning, or ever can win, continues to be waged. Every strategy has been tried:
[Retired US Army] Col. Bacevich observed about the war in Afghanistan, and the broader War on Terrorism, “We’ve done counterinsurgency, we’ve done counter-terrorism, we’ve done advise-and-assist, we’ve done targeted assassination, we’ve done nation-building… We have run the gamut of approaches in terms of tactics and methods, and none of them have yielded the success that proponents have argued that we would achieve. So you come back to that basic question, maybe the entire enterprise is misguided.”3The military has tried to buy off every local warlord only to be double crossed in the end. Every last stolen tax dollar has been blown on an amount that far exceeds the ENTIRE Marshall Plan from WWII, which included aid to 16 West European countries. Rights for women? Schools for kids? Where is the progress on those fronts?
And if our barometer for success involves installing a tiny little baby government in a box that will grow and flourish and sprout a glorious “constitution, providing a bicameral legislature, proportional representation…an independent judicature, religious liberty, secular education, habeas corpus, free trade, joint stock banking, chartered corporations, and numerous other agreeable features,” 4 then we most certainly have failed.
Afghanistan is the farthest you can imagine from these lofty ideals, as Horton has succinctly summarized in the following passage:
If leaders of the Western nations are truly attempting to initiate a new Enlightenment era of democratic values in the Arab and Muslim worlds, as they claim, perhaps trying to live by our highest principles and leading by example — promoting natural, individual rights and self-government in the free market of ideas — might be a more effective strategy than the current policy of propping up some of the world’s most repressive governments, while launching invasions and carrying out regime change operations against others. So far, these methods have only led to massive casualties, sectarian civil war and a return to fundamentalism by people who very well might otherwise have been much more receptive to the more positive aspects of our ideas and traditions.5Throughout the book, Horton is banking on many having so easily forgotten, or never learned, the true history of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. To be sure, most of the soldiers who are over there fighting now, weren’t even born when the seeds of this disastrous war were planted. Hollywood is assuming the same thing too, with new movies like 12 Strong that only serve as a continuation in the conflating of the factions Al Qaeda and the Taliban in the minds of the average American. They are all the same over there, right? They all just want to get us and our freedoms forever and ever. Assuming a lack of learned history is a fair assumption. Grab any ole joker off the street and ask him: what was the Carter Doctrine? Follow up with: would you consider the 1990’s “peacetime”? For a bonus round ask: how long have the Iraqi people been living under wartime conditions? Right about now, I’m assuming you are thinking wait, wait, wait, why are we talking about Iraq and not Afghanistan? The talking heads on the nonstop news cycles like to get us to think in small bubbles: just believe us, we have experts on this show, we will tell you what’s really going on over there. We have no sense of historical continuity or understanding of societies beyond the bullshit lines that we draw on a map that define countries for us. Countries that we can’t even locate on a map, but still! We have been programmed to forget that, “to the population of Saudi Arabia, and especially the bin Ladenites, these state borders are meaningless; they view Arabia as one holy peninsula.”6 Further, the concept of a unified Afghanistan is most certainly unachievable, it becomes an eternal struggle pitting one faction against another; always has been and always will be, according to Nizamuddin Nashir, a district governor in Kunduz province:
Mark my words, the moment the Americans leave, the civil war will begin. This country will be divided into twenty-five or thirty fiefdoms, each with its own government. Mir Alam will take Kunduz. Atta will take Mazar-e-Sharif. Dostum will take Sheberghan. The Karzais will take Kandahar. The Haqqanis will take Paktika. If these things don’t happen, you can burn my bones when I die.7But enough with the niceties, there are some general concepts that stick out throughout the book that bear emphasizing. Admittedly, boiling this immense work down to a handful of general concepts is difficult and a little unfair given the all-encompassing nature of the book, but it’s a good framework. The fiasco that is the war in Afghanistan is tied up with the history of the U.S. meddling in the Middle East, the U.S. creating distortions of power leading to entangling alliances, the desire and futility of attempting to change entire societies by force, the perpetual simple answers to “why do they hate us?” (trademark, Team America), and always looking forward so we can forget the past.
Damn You, History:
Distortions of Power:
There is no way to sum up the tragedy that has befallen the people of Afghanistan in the ensuing years after bin Laden “slipped” across the border into Pakistan and the full weight of the U.S. military apparatus came crashing down on them. The only thing left holding the country together is the continued influx of foreign donor states flush with tax money and an endless foreign military presence, which unequivocally, the locals despise and that which is one of the most important reasons for continued insurgent attacks in Afghanistan and so-called “homegrown terrorism” back in the mainland U.S. We are always told the simplistic answer that its radical Islam. It’s never that we blew up someone’s family; it’s never the fact that the U.S. is the foreign invader.
What is left in Afghanistan is a plurality state with never ending instability due to continued American presence which only serves to induce continual proxy wars from local competing factions. There is an oft-repeated claim from the talking heads that once the U.S. leaves, civil war will break out. This is a true statement, but one that is guaranteed by the fact that the U.S. has propped up the National Unity Government with boatloads of cash and the might of its military; without it, that government could not exist on its own. Despite our lofty intentions, “whether the U.S. government throws in the towel now or years from now, the result will be the same: the Pashtun population will throw off whatever degree of rule the National Government attempts to maintain over them, and then, in all probability, they will be right back where they were in the 1990s, with a bloody civil war, possibly leading to Taliban dominance in all but the far north of the country.”17 Furthermore, since the puppet government exists solely because of the U.S. and other outside factions that are propping it up, the very people who are the alleged benefactors are completely left out of the process. There is zero accountability and no recourse for the people of Afghanistan. Adding insult to injury, once we do leave, all the “good work” of infrastructure projects, schools and roads (among other multifarious projects) that existed only with outside support will fall into disrepair and non-existence, leaving nothing but a wasteland ghost town.18 This should be an obvious question: how could anyone have faith in an illegitimate puppet government propped up by a foreign invader? Not only that, why would anyone trust the U.S., who will undoubtedly overthrow any “democratically elected” leader that isn’t to their liking? For reference, take a look at the recent history of Egypt, where “the loyal dictatorship of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt was overthrown in a popular revolution in 2011, which ended when the conservative Islamist Muslim Brotherhood won the presidency and a bare majority in Parliament. America and Saudi Arabia’s allies in the Egyptian military overthrew the new government in a violent coup and bloody massacre a little more than a year later.”19 Sadly, this is all to common practice in the realm of U.S. foreign policy.
In Afghanistan, there is such a patchwork plurality of factions after thirty years of war, there is no way to back one side without creating an enemy on the other side; there is no way to “win” this war. But, for some reason, leaving is never entertained as an option. In fact, it is roundly dismissed as crazy talk. As with most government programs, reducing the size is never the goal and there is a tremendous incentive to game the system in your favor. Simply provide faulty intelligence, collect your cash and watch your old enemy meet his doom.
Apparently, as Horton states, “the conclusion…is always that the government should do more. And when more does not work, it only proves to them that more should have been done sooner and more must be done now and in the future. It is acceptable to adjust strategies or excuses, sure, but never to give up.”20 Hell, I’ll do it. I give up. But, there is so much more to uncover and I encourage you to dig into this heroic and important book on your own. I’ll leave you with this one final passage from the book that really hammers it home. It ultimately comes down to one rampaging empire, drunk on hubris and power and we all just sit back here at home, ever sure to “support the troops,” keep quiet, watch Jeopardy and maybe march around with a pussy hat to “protest” a mean person (never a war), all the while half way across the world people die unimaginably horrible deaths for everyday that we continue this pointless war.
In short, America “fell for it.” U.S. political and military leaders exploited the September 11th attacks to get away with pursuing unrelated agendas, ultimately to the point of imperial over-extension and the detriment of American power, just as Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri were hoping and betting they would. By granting these leaders the writ to “keep us safe” at any cost in this new, fearful age, the people of this country have instead placed themselves in much greater danger. Our government helped create this international terrorist movement that they then provoked into turning against the American people. Then they exploited the blowback terrorist attacks, using them as an excuse to spread the war to countries that had nothing to do with al Qaeda or their war against America. In playing the role of the rampaging empire, America’s leaders have not only created the space for the spread of bin Ladenite fighters across the Middle East, but have allowed some of these most savage and formerly marginal groups of criminals and terrorists on earth to portray themselves as brave heroes who saw the danger first and would dare to stand up to such overwhelming military power. In doing so, America’s leaders have helped to add tens of thousands of combatants to the enemy’s ranks and guarantee blowback and backdraft against the U.S. and its allies into the indefinite future, all the while using terrorism as an excuse for further erosions of our freedoms. And they did it all in the name of keeping us safe.21
RARE EARTH MINERALS AND OIL/GAS says KOCH BROTHERS as LIBERTARIANS. They were behind these continuous wars creating FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES in LATIN AMERICA SOUTHEAST ASIA------then they were behind continuous wars in ARABIA and far-east. After 30 years of REAGAN/CLINTON wars courtesy LIBERTARIANS------they say ---time to make AFGHANISTAN a FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE with a few TALIBAN as billionaires---maybe having a global corporate campus here in GREATER BALTIMORE FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE.
Below we see the 'LEADER' of what is now a RADICAL LEFTIST LIBERTARIAN PARTY filled with JUSTICE, LIBERTY FOR ALL-------SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE------and all FAKE. Nothing says NO JUSTICE OR MONEY for you then a COLUMBIA LAWYER working for global corporations in emerging markets like AFGHANISTAN.
'Scott Horton | Columbia Law School
Scott Horton is a New York attorney known for his work in emerging markets and international law, especially human rights law and the law of armed conflict'.
SCOTT HORTON says WE ARE POPULIST LEFTIST LIBERTARIANS not like KOCH BROTHERS.
'Fidesz politician compares George Soros to Hitler, Stalin ...budapestbeacon.com/fidesz-politician-compares... Dec 05, 2017 ·
“Adolf Hitler, Stalin and Soros share a very strong trait: they all imposed, impose their own system on others without asking them.” One commenter responded that the comparison was too extreme and Hitler murdered many people, to which the Fidesz politician responded: “Stalin killed many more people. Doesn’t that count'?
SCOTT HORTON works as a journalist for the super-duper global banking 1% for UK------BBC. Below we see what the war in Afghanistan was about------
Ep. 5141 – Bill Law on America’s Support For Tyranny Around the World – 12/9/2019
•Dec 20, 2019
Scott Horton UK BBC
Bill Law talks about the need for Americans to support those in foreign countries peacefully demonstrating for political reform against oppressive regimes, and the hypocrisy surrounding America’s so-called support for democracy. Really, says Law, our government and its allies support the regimes they like and overthrow the ones they don’t, and call it “democracy” no matter what. Bill Law is an award-winning journalist formerly of the BBC.
We look at KOCH/ZOROS tied to selling far-right wing global banking 1% LIBERTARIAN MARXISM as leftist ------as they are the CATO INSTITUTE behind continuous wars. Below we see the other side of coin--------TRUMP selling himself as ALL-AMERICAN partners with PENCE known to be OPUS DEI-----OLD WORLD KINGS CATHOLIC freemasonry.
WHY DID TRUMP CHOOSE PENCE ------PENCE IS A GREAT BIG EXTREME WEALTH EXTREME POVERTY FAR-RIGHT WING AUTHORITARIAN, MILITARISTIC GLOBALIST----
'Why Trump Chose Pence
Submitted by Dave Hodges on Friday, November 11, 2016 -
"He's totally for the TPP" "He's totally for the TPP"[/caption] Why would Donald Trump choose someone, like Pence for Vice-President with such divergent and dangerous views? Did Donald Trump take his eye off of the ball? Or, was there a bigger agenda'?
TRUMP IS AYN RAND LAISSEZ FAIRE LIBERTARIAN---JUST LIKE KOCH. HERE IS WHY IT WAS SO IMPORTANT TO GET RID OF TRUMP--------control of Afghanistan mining.
TRUMP starts end of AFGHAN WAR-----AFGHAN MINING CZARS chosen in 2011 now ready to open AFGHAN TO MINING AND OIL/GAS.
'Trump's Afghanistan strategy may unlock 3 trillion in natural ...
Aug 19, 2017 ·
In a partial survey conducted by the Afghan Ministry of Mines and Petroleum, the country's mineral wealth is estimated at $3 trillion, more than enough to compensate for the war's cost. The U.S. president has previously expressed interest in Afghanistan's vast mineral deposits as a tool for stabilizing the country'.
Global banking 1% gave a few KURDS control of IRAQI oil to help win IRAQI WAR. Obama gave control to Afghanistani mining in 2011 to same setup---both made billionaires. TRUMP ready to end war because WORLD BANK/IMF is ready to distribute AFGHAN mineral wealth.
Like the KURDS ------now thrown under the bus------so too these few Afghan mining BEOWULFS. Trump brought in EXXON MOBILE-----KOCH BROTHERS have other interests.
Afghanistan to introduce natural resources to international merchants
By Ahmad Shah Ghanizada / in Uncategorized / on Sunday, 13 Nov 2011 04:14 PM Sunday, November 13, 2011 –
Officials in ministry of mines of Afghanistan on Sunday announced that the government is intending to introduce at least 5 Afghan natural mine resources to international investors in the city of London.
The officials further added, the Afghan natural mines including two Afghan gold mines, two copper mines and one lithium mine is going to be introduced to international investors following an exhibition on 6th of December this year.
According to officials in ministry of mines of Afghanistan, the Afghan natural mines will be processed to bidding process soon after the mines are introduced to international investors.
The officials in ministry of mines of Afghanistan also said, among the Afghan natural resources that would be go through the bidding process includes the Badakhshan gold mine, the Zarakshan gold mine in eastern Ghazni province, the Namaksar lithium mine in western Herat province, the Shaida copper mine in western Herat province and the Balkhab copper mine in Sarepul province.
According to the officials, the ministry of mines of Afghanistan is considering an urgent step to start the process of bidding on the mentioned natural resources once they have been introduced to international merchants in the city of London.
A spokesman for the ministry of mines of Afghanistan Jawad Omeri said, the mentioned natural resources of Afghanistan are going to be introduced to international merchants in London on 6th December in a bid to attract the international investors to start work on these natural resources.
According to the estimates by the ministry of mines of Afghanistan, the estimated quantity of gold mine in Zarakshan of eastern Ghazni province reaches up to 7,500 kgs while the copper mines in Shaidai of western Herat province reaches up to 5 million tones.
'The Washington Times likens the new think tank to "bringing another U.N. in America's gates."'
'Since peaceful foreign policy was a founding principle of the United States, it's appropriate that the name of the think tank harken back to history. It will be called the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, a homage to John Quincy Adams, who in a seminal speech on Independence Day in 1821 declared that the United States "goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own."'
the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft.
Think Tank Watch
The World's Top Source for Think Tank News & Information
Tuesday, July 2, 2019
Koch and Soros Join Forces in New Think Tank
An unlikely pair of billionaires are joining forces to start a new anti-war think tank called the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. Here is more from The Boston Globe, which broke the news:
In one of the most remarkable partnerships in modern American political history, [George] Soros and Charles Koch, the more active of the two [Koch] brothers, are joining to finance a new foreign policy think tank in Washington. It will promote an approach to the world based on diplomacy and restraint rather than threats, sanctions, and bombings. This is a radical notion in Washington, where every major think tank promotes some variant of neocon militarism or liberal interventionism.
Since peaceful foreign policy was a founding principle of the United States, it's appropriate that the name of the think tank harken back to history. It will be called the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, a homage to John Quincy Adams, who in a seminal speech on Independence Day in 1821 declared that the United States "goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own."
The institute plans to open its doors in September and hold an official inauguration later in the autumn. Its founding donors - Soros's Open Society Foundation and the Charles Koch Foundation - have each contributed half a million dollars to fund its takeoff. A handful of individual donors have joined to add another $800,000. By next year the institute hopes to have a $3.5 million budget and a staff of policy experts who will churn out material for use in Congress and in public debates. Hiring is underway.
It aims to issue four reports before the end of 2019: two offering alternative approaches to the Middle East and East Asia, one on "ending endless war," and one called "democratizing foreign policy."
The piece notes that Trita Parsi, former President of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), is a co-founder of the think tank, along with Suzanne DiMaggio (at Carnegie Endowment for International Peace), Stephen Wertheim (Columbia University), and Andrew Bacevich (Boston University). The National Interest also notes that journalist Eli Clifton is a co-founder.
Here is what Vox had to say about Washington, DC's newest think tank. Here is Reason's reaction. Bill Kristol does not seem to be a big fan. The Washington Times likens the new think tank to "bringing another U.N. in America's gates."
The think tank's new website can be found here. It is currently seeking a director of media relations.
Update I: "Can this new think tank clean up America's flabby foreign policy?"
Update II: Politico notes that donors now include Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Arca Foundation, and Ploughshares Found.
Update III: The Hill says that Quincy Institute (QI), which held its opening reception on Dec. 4, is now made up of 14 founding staff and 40 non-resident fellow. It adds that an online publishing forum named Responsible Statecraft will display US foreign policy news and opinions.