Obama assembles non-coalition to fight not-war against ISIS

By: John Hayward
9/12/2014 09:00 AM

Can we agree that President Obama’s Wednesday night “war speech” against ISIS, far from being the foreign-policy grand slam his sycophants rushed to portray it as, was one of the greatest failures of his presidency?  What an astonishing embarrassment, not just for Obama but for the nation he’s led into ruin.  The weakness of American influence after six years of this man’s arrogance and incompetence is plain for all to see.  If the ISIS head-choppers have a sense of humor that responds to anything other than decapitation, they must be rolling on the floor with laughter.

First we had the United Kingdom and Turkey bail on Obama within hours of his speech.  Then it was Germany’s turn to say no dice, expressly because they haven’t heard anything that sounds like a real strategy yet from Obama.  International Business Times has the faceplant round-up:

Germany’s Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier questioned whether Obama’s plan of airstrikes and equipping moderate Syrian rebels was adequate. “We haven’t been asked, nor will we do it,” he said of the airstrikes. “We need to be honest with ourselves in the current situation, we don’t yet have a final, blanket strategy which guarantees that we’ll be successful against ISIS and similar groups.“

Turkey, a crucial U.S. ally in the Middle East that borders Syria, said it won’t allow the U.S.-led coalition to launch strikes in Syria from its air bases. It also won’t participate in any combat operations. “Turkey will not be involved in any armed operation but will entirely concentrate on humanitarian operations,” an unnamed Turkish government official told Agence France-Press.

There was initial confusion after British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond saidearlier on Thursday the U.K. “will not be taking part of any airstrikes in Syria,” according to AFP. A spokesman for British Prime Minister David Cameron said Hammond meant to say that the U.K. would not be bombing Syrian President Bashar Assad, the Guardian reported. Obama’s plan does not include any strikes against the Syrian leader.

I don’t think there was any “initial confusion” in London.  No one ever thought the American plan would involve bombing Bashar Assad.  They said no, then watched in horror as the rest of the world’s leaders gave Obama the backs of their hands, and realized they had to soften their stance to preserve a smidgen of American credibility.  The Brits were unwilling to stand by and watch Obama lead the civilized world to defeat inside of 48 hours.

Guess where the most robust support for Obama is coming from?  That’s right: the folks Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) is currently taking heat for describing as a strong ally of Christians and other persecuted minorities in the Middle East.  “All civilized countries should stand together in the fight against radical terrorism that sweeps across the Middle East, that sweeps across the world,” declared Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, endorsing action against ISIS in a speech to the International Institute for Counter-Terrorism that dealt primarily with the threat of nuclear Iran.  “And we are playing our part in this continued effort. Some of the things are known, some things are less known.”

If Obama can’t put a coalition together against a pack of slave-taking, woman-raping, prisoner-torturing lunatics with about 30,000 men under arms (which is about twice what the intelligence community previously estimated – whoops!) then he’s not going to be leading any global efforts to take out the Iranian nuclear weapons programs.  By the way, the same intelligence community that can’t get anything about ISIS right, and which Obama blames for all of his foreign policy failures, is the team he confidently assured us would know the microsecond Iran was close to deploying atomic weapons, during the same presidential campaign where he assured America that Iraq was secure and the Russians were our harmless comrades now.

Not only did Turkey tell Obama to pound sand, but as the New York Times notes, other Arab governments that “grumbled quietly in 2011 as the United States left Iraq, fearful it might fall deeper into chaos or Iranian influence” are giving Obama “tepid support” for his non-strategy to wage non-war with a non-coalition against the non-Islamic Islamic State, with the most enthusiastic support for an American bombing campaign coming from – gulp – the Assad regime in Syria:

While Arab nations allied with the United States vowed on Thursday to “do their share” to fight ISIS and issued a joint communiqué supporting a broad strategy, the underlying tone was one of reluctance. The government perhaps most eager to join a coalition against ISIS was that of Syria, which Mr. Obama had already ruled out as a partner for what he described as terrorizing its citizens.

Syria’s deputy foreign minister, Fayssal Mekdad, told NBC News that Syria and the United States were “fighting the same enemy,” terrorism, and that his government had “no reservations” about airstrikes as long as the United States coordinated with it. He added, “We are ready to talk.”

Others were less than forthcoming. The foreign minister of Egypt — already at odds with Mr. Obama over the American decision to withhold some aid after the Egyptian military’s ouster last year of the elected president — complained that Egypt’s hands were full with its own fight against “terrorism,” referring to the Islamist opposition.

In Jordan, the state news agency reported that in a meeting about the extremists on Wednesday, King Abdullah II had told Secretary of State John Kerry “that the Palestinian cause remains the core of the conflict in the region” and that Jordan was focusing on the reconstruction of the Gaza Strip.

Jordan could very well be the Islamic State’s next target, and not even they will give two cheers to Operation Degrade and Ultimately Destroy But War HUH What Is It Good For Absolutely Nothing Say It Again?  Wow.  Also notably short of excitement for Obama’s war plans: Iraq, the country ISIS actually invaded.

Even in Baghdad and across Syria, where the threat from ISIS is immediate, reactions were mixed. Members of Iraq’s Shiite majority cheered the prospect of American help. But many Sunni Muslims were cynical about battling an organization that evolved from jihadist groups fighting American occupation.

“This is all a play,” said Abu Amer, 38, a government employee, who withheld his family name for his safety. “It is applying American political plans.”

Mr. Amer is a more perceptive critic of Obama’s theatrics than much of the American mainstream media.  CNN should dump hapless former Obama spokesman Jay Carney – last seen getting destroyed during his big debut by Senator John McCain – and hire Abu Amer as a commentator.

It’s not that ISIS has any shortage of enemies in the region, including vigorous competition from marginally less evil terrorist groups.  It’s that nobody wants to waste their prestige and political capital signing on to a vague Obama plan that everyone knows was hastily cooked up over the brief span of days since the President blurted out that he doesn’t have a strategy, and he spent over half of that “planning” time golfing and holding fundraisers.  Obama’s only priority is salvaging his poll numbers, and there’s not much appetite among international leaders to help him do it.

What’s amazing about all this is how absolutely amateurish it is.  You don’t give a big speech announcing a broad international coalition unless you actually have the coalition lined up.  It’s increasingly clear Obama and his buffoonish Secretary of State, John Kerry, didn’t actually talk to anyone outside the Administration before throwing the Wednesday night speech together.  They just assumed everyone would give them immediate public support, and maybe get in touch behind the scenes to invoice them for whatever pot-sweeteners it would take to secure minimal practical cooperation, such as using Turkey’s air bases.  It would be tacitly understood that America did all the heavy lifting on the actual air campaign, which Obama sees as a politically cost-free way to drag the ISIS story out until the news cycle rolls along to something else.  Why wouldn’t all those interesting foreign leaders Obama loves to dine with step forward and give him just wee little bit of rhetorical support in his hour of crisis?

No doubt one of the reasons for this tepid global response is that it’s got all the makings of a classic Obama cut-and-run disaster.  The Administration is still spending a ridiculous amount of time arguing over the very semantics of what they’re doing.  When you can’t even bring yourself to use the word “war,” don’t be surprised when no one is eager to rally to your banner.  From The Hill:

The United States is not at war with the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS or ISIL), Secretary of State John Kerry said Thursday.

Kerry said the administration’s plan to combat ISIS includes “many different things that one doesn’t think of normally in context of war” during an interview with CNN.

“What we are doing is engaging in a very significant counterterrorism operation,” Kerry said. “It’s going to go on for some period of time. If somebody wants to think about it as being a war with ISIL, they can do so, but the fact is it’s a major counterterrorism operation that will have many different moving parts.”

In a separate interview with CBS News, Kerry also rejected the word “war” to describe the U.S. effort and encouraged the public not to “get into war fever” over the conflict.

“We’re engaged in a major counterterrorism operation, and it’s going to be a long-term counterterrorism operation. I think war is the wrong terminology and analogy but the fact is that we are engaged in a very significant global effort to curb terrorist activity,” Kerry told the network.

“I don’t think people need to get into war fever on this. I think they have to view it as a heightened level of counterterrorist activity … but it’s not dissimilar similar to what we’ve been doing the last few years with al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan and in Yemen and elsewhere,” he added.

This dolt is giving interviews where he describes the citizens of his own country as bloodthirsty knuckleheads quivering with war fever.  Meanwhile, State Department spokes-teenager Marie Harf explained why this is, like, totally not a war, no matter how many bombs we drop, and don’t you dare harsh the Administration’s mellow by bringing up that Bush doctrine of pre-emption, dudes: “When we talk about how you degrade and defeat terrorist organizations, it’s not exactly I think how you’re probably using the term. And it’s not one that I’m using. Our goal is to prevent terrorist organizations from being able to attack the United States or our interests, to degrade their capabilities to do so. Obviously those are the kinds of terms I would use when it comes to this current effort.”

She also whined “Why do you always focus on what people say they won’t do?” when asked about Germany backing out of the Coalition to Save Obama’s Poll Numbers.  And when Jay Carney’s successor as White House spokesman, Josh Earnest, was asked what “destroying” ISIS means or what “victory” would look like, he sneered that he doesn’t know the meaning of such words: “I didn’t bring my Webster’s dictionary.”

Normally when you’re trying to rally your allies to a serious effort, you say that you don’t know the meaning of the word defeat, not the meaning of victory.  Can you blame world leaders for being reluctant to climb aboard such an obvious train wreck?  Is it any surprise they find no inspirational leadership in a bumbling White House that’s obviously spending 99 percent of its efforts on political spin and rhetorical positioning?  The task at hand is defeating a savage enemy that’s been given enough time to establish itself and train with an impressive arsenal of captured weapons – an enemy that has already routed one of the main American proxies, the Iraqi military.  Opening up the second front involves finding the very precise combination of Syrian rebels that are willing to fight ISIS, inclined to serve as reliable and respectable American allies, and won’t hand victory in the Syrian civil war to Bashar Assad by turning their guns against the rest of his enemies..  Absolutely nothing about the history or current behavior of the Obama Administration should give anyone confidence that they’re up to the task, especially since they stubbornly refuse to define the parameters of the mission or establish victory conditions.

Maybe I can be of service by offering a suggestion for the branding effort, so this combination of wheezy political hacks and clueless mall rats can turn their attention to devising an actual strategy.  I suggest adding some seasonal flair by calling the battle against ISIS a “pumpkin spice containment and degradation.”  Or maybe they could brand the operation as “I Can’t Believe It’s Not War!” – great taste with a lighter emotional burden, available from fine grocery stores everywhere in 3-year tubs.

http://humanevents.com/2014/09/12/obama-assembles-non-coalition-to-fight-not-war-against-isis/

Did he just say this isn't a war?

Republidope and John Kerry.....the two biggest boobs since Pam Anderson.

Wow do you dopes keep falling for the same hook, line and sinker. ISIS is Al CIAda, the FSA and all the others scary boogie men terrorist. The us and isreal fund and trained these  guys then they sick them on countries they want to invade, then they say the countries leader is killing his own people and voila, they invade the country. Libya, syria(hasn't been working with syria partly because of putin, enter isis) and now Iraq again. It's all theater for your manipulation and you keep falling for it!

 

The Geopolitics of World War III

Contrary to popular belief, the conduct of nations on the international stage is almost never driven by moral considerations, but rather by a shadowy cocktail of money and geopolitics. As such, when you see the mouthpieces of the ruling class begin to demonize a foreign country, the first question in your mind should always be "what is actually at stake here?"

For some time now Russia, China, Iran, and Syria have been in the cross hairs. Once you understand why, the events unfolding in the world right now will make much more sense.

The U.S. dollar is a unique currency. In fact its current design and its relationship to geopolitics is unlike any other in history. Though it has been the world reserve currency since 194 this is not what makes it unique. Many currencies have held the reserve status off and on over the centuries, but what makes the dollar unique is the fact that since the early 1970s it has been, with a few notable exceptions, the only currency used to buy and sell oil on the global market.

Prior to 1971 the U.S. dollar was bound to the gold standard, at least officially. According to the IMF, by 1966, foreign central banks held $14 billion U.S. dollars, however the United States had only $3.2 billion in gold allocated to cover foreign holdings.

Translation: the Federal Reserve was printing more money than it could actually back.

The result was rampant inflation and a general flight from the dollar.

In 1971 in what later came to be called the "Nixon Shock" President Nixon removed the dollar from the gold standard completely.

At this point the dollar became a pure debt based currency. With debt based currencies money is literally loaned into existence.

Approximately 70% of the money in circulation is created by ordinary banks which are allowed to loan out more than they actually have in their accounts.
The rest is created by the Federal Reserve which loans money that they don't have, mostly to government.

Kind of like writing hot checks, except it's legal, for banks. This practice which is referred to as fractional reserve banking is supposedly regulated by the Federal Reserve, an institution which just happens to be owned and controlled by a conglomerate of banks, and no agency or branch of government regulates the Federal Reserve.

Now to make things even more interesting these fractional reserve loans have interest attached, but the money to pay that interest doesn't exist in the system. As a result there is always more total debt than there is money in circulation, and in order to stay afloat the economy must grow perpetually.

This is obviously not sustainable.

Now you might be wondering how the dollar has maintained such a dominant position on the world stage for over forty years if it's really little more than an elaborate ponzi scheme.

Well this is where the dollar meets geopolitics.

In 1973 under the shadow of the artificial OPEC oil crisis, the Nixon administration began secret negotiations with the government of Saudi Arabia to establish what came to be referred to as the petrodollar recycling system. Under the arrangement the Saudis would only sell their oil in U.S. dollars, and would invest the majority of their excess oil profits into U.S. banks and Capital markets. The IMF would then use this money to facilitate loans to oil importers who were having difficulties covering the increase in oil prices. The payments and interest on these loans would of course be denominated in U.S. dollars.

This agreement was formalized in the "The U.S.-Saudi Arabian Joint Commission on Economic Cooperation" put together by Nixon's Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in 1974.

Another document released by the Congressional Research Service reveals that these negotiations had an edge to them, as U.S. officials were openly discussing the feasibility of seizing oil fields in Saudi Arabia militarily.

In the United States, the oil shocks produced inflation, new concern about foreign investment from oil producing countries, and open speculation about the advisability and feasibility of militarily seizing oil fields in Saudi Arabia or other countries. In the wake of the embargo, both Saudi and U.S. officials worked to re-anchor the bilateral relationship on the basis of shared opposition to Communism, renewed military cooperation, and through economic initiatives that promoted the recycling of Saudi petrodollars to the United States via Saudi investment in infrastructure, industrial expansion, and U.S. securities.

The system was expanded to include the rest of OPEC by 1975.

Though presented as buffer to the recessionary effects of rising oil prices, this arrangement had a hidden side effect. It removed the traditional restraints on U.S. monetary policy.

The Federal Reserve was now free to increase the money supply at will. The ever increasing demand for oil would would prevent a flight from the dollar, while distributing the inflationary consequences across the entire planet.

The dollar went from being a gold back currency to a oil backed currency. It also became America's primary export.

Did you ever wonder how the U.S. economy has been able to stay afloat while running multibillion dollar trade deficits for decades?

Did you ever wonder how it is that the U.S. holds such a disproportionate amount of the worlds wealth when 70% of the U.S. economy is consumer based?

In the modern era, fossil fuels make the world go round. They have become integrated into every aspect of civilization: agriculture, transportation, plastics, heating, defense and medicine, and demand just keeps growing and growing.

As long as the world needs oil, and as long as oil is only sold in U.S. dollars, there will be a demand for dollars, and that demand is what gives the dollar its value.

For the United States this is a great deal. Dollars go out, either as paper or digits in a computer system, and real tangible products and services come in. However for the rest of the world, it's a very sneaky form of exploitation.

Having global trade predominately in dollars also provides the Washington with a powerful financial weapon through sanctions. This is due to the fact that most large scale dollar transactions are forced to pass through the U.S.

This petrodollar system stood unchallenged until September of 2000 when Saddam Hussein announced his decision to switch Iraq's oil sales off of the dollar to Euros. This was a direct attack on the dollar, and easily the most important geopolitical event of the year, but only one article in the western media even mentioned it.

In the same month that Saddam announced he was moving away from the dollar, an organization called the “The Project for a New American Century”, of which Dick Cheney just happened to be a member, released a document entitled “REBUILDING AMERICA’S DEFENSES Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century”. This document called for massive increases in U.S. military spending and a much more aggressive foreign policy in order to expand U.S. dominance world wide. However the document lamented that achieving these goals would take many years “absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor”.

 

One year later they got it.

Riding the emotional reaction to 9/11, the Bush administration was able to invade Afghanistan and Iraq and pass the patriot act all without any significant resistance.

There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and this wasn't a question of bad intelligence. This was a cold calculated lie, and the decision to invade was made in full knowledge of the disaster which would follow.

They knew exactly what was going to happen but in 2003, they did it anyway. Once Iraqi oil fields were under U.S. control, oil sales were immediately switched back to the dollar. Mission accomplished.

Soon after the invasion of Iraq the Bush administration attempted to extend these wars to Iran. Supposedly the Iranian government was working to build a nuclear weapon. After the Iraq fiasco Washington's credibility was severely damaged as a result they were unable to muster international or domestic support for an intervention. Their efforts were further sabotaged by elements within the CIA and Mossad who came forward to state that Iran had not even made the decision to develop nuclear weapons much less begin an attempt. However the demonization campaign against Iran continued even into the Obama administration.

Why?

Well, might it have something to do with the fact that since 2004 Iran has been in the process of organizing an independent oil bourse? They were building their own oil market, and it wasn't going to be tied to the dollar. The first shipments of oil were sold through this market in July of 2011.

Unable to get the war that they wanted, the U.S. used the U.N to impose sanctions against Iran. The goal of the sanctions was to topple the Iranian regime. While this did inflict damage on the Iranian economy, the measures failed to destabilize the country. This was due in large part to Russia's assistance in bypassing U.S. banking restrictions.

In February of 2009 Muammar Gaddafi, was named chairman of the African Union. He immediately proposed the formation of a unified state with a single currency. It was the nature of that proposed currency that got him killed.

In March of 2009 the African Union released a document entitled "Towards a Single African Currency". Pages 106 and 107 of that document specifically discuss the benefits and technicalities of running the African Central bank under a gold standard. On page 94 it explicitly states that the key to the success of the African Monetary Union would be the "eventual linking of a single African currency to the most monetary of all commodities - gold." (Note that the page number is different on other versions of the document that they released.)

In 2011 the CIA moved into Libya and began backing militant groups in their campaign to topple Gaddafi and the U.S. and NATO pushed through and stretched a U.N. nofly-zone resolution to tip the balance with airstrikes. The presence of Al-Qaeda extremists among these rebel fighters was swept under the rug.

Libya, like Iran and Iraq had committed the unforgivable crime of challenging the U.S. dollar.

The NATO intervention in Libya segued into a covert war on Syrian. The armories of the Libyan government were looted and the weapons were shipped via Turkey to Syrian rebels groups working to topple Assad. It was already clear at this point that many of these fighters had ties to terrorist organizations. However the U.S. national security apparatus viewed this as a necessary evil. In fact the Council on Foreign relations published an article in 2012 stating that "The influx of jihadis brings discipline, religious fervor, battle experience from Iraq, funding from Sunni sympathizers in the Gulf, and most importantly, deadly results. In short, the FSA needs al-Qaeda now."

(Hat tip to theantimedia.org for catching this.)

Let's be clear here, the U.S. put ISIS in power.

In 2013 these same Al-Qaeda linked Syrian rebels launched two sarin gas attacks. This was attempt to frame Assad and muster international support for military intervention. Fortunately they were exposed by U.N. and Russian investigators and the push for airstrikes completely fell apart when Russia stepped in to broker a diplomatic solution.

The campaign for regime change in Syria, as in Libya has been presented in terms of human rights. Obviously this isn't the real motive.

In 2009, Qatar put forth a proposal to run a natural gas pipeline through Syria and Turkey to Europe. Assad however rejected this, and in 2011 he forged a pact with Iraq and Iran to run a pipeline eastward cutting Qatar and Saudi Arabia out of the loop completely. Not surprisingly Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey have been the most aggressive regional players in the push to topple the Syrian government.

But why would this pipeline dispute put Syria in Washington's cross hairs? Three reasons:

1. This pipeline arrangement would significantly strengthen Iran's position, allowing them to export to European markets without having to pass through any of Washington's allies. This obviously reduces the U.S. government's leverage.
2. Syria is Iran's closest ally. It's collapse would inherently weaken Iran.
3. Syria and Iran have a mutual defense agreement, and a U.S. intervention in Syria could open the door to open conflict with Iran.

In February of 2014 this global chess game heated up in a new venue: Ukraine. The real target however was Russia.

You see Russia just happens to be the worlds second largest oil exporter, and not only have they been a thorn in Washington's side diplomatically, but they also opened an energy bourse in 2008, with sales denominated in Rubles and gold. This project had been in the works since 2006. They have also been working with China to pull off of the dollar in all of their bilateral trade.

Russia has also been in the process of organizing a Eurasian Economic Union which includes plans to adopt common currency unit, and which is slated to have its own independent energy market.

Leading up to the crisis in Ukraine had been presented with a choice: either join the E.U. under an association agreement or join the Eurasian Union. The E.U. insisted that this was an either or proposition. Ukraine couldn't join both. Russia on the other hand, asserted that joining both posed no issue. President Yanukovich decided to go with Russia.

In response the U.S. national security apparatus did what it does best: they toppled Yanukovich and installed a puppet government. To see the full evidence of Washington's involvement in the coup watch "The ukraine crisis what you're not being told"

This article from the Guardian is also worth reading.

Though this all seemed to be going well at first, the U.S. quickly lost control of the situation. Crimea held a referendum and the people voted overwhelmingly to secede from Ukraine and reunify with Russia. The transition was orderly and peaceful. No one was killed, yet the West immediately framed the entire event as an act of Russian aggression, and this became the go to mantra from that point on.

Crimea is important geostrategically because of its position in the Black Sea which allows for the projection of naval power into the Mediterranean. It has also been Russian territory for most of recent history.

The U.S. has been pushing for Ukraine's inclusion into NATO for years now. Such a move would place U.S. forces right on Russia's border and could have potentially resulted in Russia losing their naval base in Crimea. This is why Russia immediately accepted the results of the Crimean referendum and quickly consolidated the territory.

Meanwhile in Eastern Ukraine, two regions declared independence from Kiev and held referendums of their own. The results of which overwhelmingly favored self rule.

Kiev responded to this with what they referred to as anti-terrorist operations. In practice this was a massive and indiscriminate shelling campaign which killed thousands of civilians. Apparently killing civilians didn't qualify as aggression to the West. In fact the IMF explicitly warned the provisional government that their 17 billion dollar loan package could be in danger if they were not able to put down the uprising in eastern Ukraine.

While the war against eastern Ukraine was raging elections were held and Petro Poroshenko was elected president. It turns out that Poroshenko, was exposed by a leaked diplomatic cable released by wikileaks in 2008 as having worked as a mole for the U.S. State Department since 2006. They referred to him as "Our Ukraine insider" and much of the cable referred to information that he was providing. (A separate cable showed that the U.S. knew Poroshenko was corrupt even at that point.)

Having a puppet in place however hasn't turned out to be enough to give Washington the upper hand in this crisis. What does Washington do when they have no other leverage? They impose sanctions, they demonize and they saber rattle (or pull a false flag).

This isn't a very good strategy when dealing with Russia. In fact it has already backfired. The sanctions have merely pushed Russia and China into closer cooperation and accelerated Russia's de-dollarization agenda. And in spite of the rhetoric, this has not led to Russia being isolated. The U.S. and NATO have put a wedge between themselves and Russia, but not between Russia and the rest of the world (look up BRICS if you are unclear about this).

This new anti-dollar axis goes deeper than economics. These countries understand what's at stake here. This is why in the wake of the Ukrainian crisis China has proposed a new Eurasian security pact which would include Russia and Iran.

Consider the implications here as the Obama administration begins bombing in Syria which also has a mutual defense agreement with Iran.

This is not the cold war 2.0. This is World War 3.0. The masses may not have figured it out yet, but history will remember it that way.

Alliances are already solidifying and and a hot war is underway on multiple fronts. If the provocations and proxy wars continue, it's only a matter of time before the big players confront each other directly, and that is a recipe for disaster.

Does all of this sound insane to you? Well you're right. The people running the world right now are insane, and the public is sleep walking into a tragedy. If you want to alter the course that we are on, there's only one way to do it. We have to wake up that public. Even the most powerful weapons of war are neutralized if you reach the mind of the man behind the trigger.

How do we wake the masses you ask? Don't wait for someone else to answer that for you. Get creative. Act like you children's and grandchildren's futures depend on it, because they do.