U.S. Pushes NATO for Georgia, Ukraine, Croatia

The United States has opened one of its most strategic but quiet and almost secret "surge" in acquiring former Soviet-bloc republics as military satellites to defend NATO military prowess. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was founded in the late 1940s as a western alliance against the communist USSR.

According to CTK, the Czech News Service, Georgia and the United States have agreed on a "strategic partnership" which includes a military and economic umbrella alliance under U.S. leadership. The deal also stipulates on promoting "democratic development" in Georgia.

The United States installed Georgian President Mikhail Sakaashvili as a "democratic" dictatorial pawn in a 2005 CIA coup. His iron fisted oppression of freedom of speech and human rights has drawn harsh criticism from the international community. In addition, the "ethnic cleansing" the Georgian army engaged in during the August South Ossetian War in numerous villages were responsible for thousands of civilian deaths. The United States took a neutral stance while at the same time admonishing Russia for their contention of a western-built oil pipeline which runs through Georgia. The United States has long had interest in close ties with Georgia for the oil pipeline, as it sees the pathway as a chance to increase oil consumption while bypassing the OPEC and Russian oil cartels. Georgia also joined the "Coalition of the Willing" in Iraq in 2006 under the U.S.-led occupation forces.

The United States government claims that the agreement is fair reason to expand NATO due to "Russian agression" and bring struggling Slavic nations as Ukraine and Croatia under the U.S.-led western defense and economic umbrella. NATO membership seems likely to be extended to Kiev and Zagreb, but such extensions will require billions of dollars of U.S. aid at a time of very weak economic growth.

In addition, the Czech Senate has passed a SOFA (Strategic Operating Forces Agreement) with the United States to place an American radar with U.S. troops in their country. The radar is a central part of the plan for a Missile Defense Shield to defend Europe and the West from "rogue states like Iran". The radar will also be interfaced with ten nuclear anti-missile rockets based in Poland. The American base in Poland would be less than 100 miles from the Russian border. It is still unclear whether the lower houses of the Parliaments in Czech Republic and Poland will ratify the agreements. Russia has furiously protested the Missile Defense Shield effort and has called on the United States for cooperation, understanding and possible co-ownership of a world-wide radar system. Recent polls show that over 70% of people in each Czech Republic and Poland oppose the plans for a Missile Defense Shield in Central Europe.

Many Ukranians, Croatians and Georgians harbor similar feelings toward what they see as big nation aggressiveness and American imperialism. But with the Obama team also proposing the extension of NATO membership to these nations and fully supporting Secretary of Defense Robert Gates' almost obsessive Missile Defense Shield in Central Europe, little progress seems like it will be made in U.S.-European relations.

French President Nikolas Sarkozy in a meeting in November with Russian President Dimitri Medvedev downplayed the viability and importance of the radar system and urged for caution on the U.S. side.

According to CTK reports, Russian is now engaging in talks with Iran to develop their own missile defense shield for that region. Moscow has been working with Tehran since they announced a deal one year ago giving Russian aid, manpower and instruction for the construction of an Iranian nuclear reactor. In addition, the Russians have discussed setting up their own missile shield to counter the American radar in Czech Republic. A likely location would be on a small island off the coast of Finland that Russia acquired in 1940 when it invaded Finland during World War II.

The United States' imperialist game and fig-leaf agenda has put itself in a harrowing situation. Perhaps, an exit strategy would be more fitting.

Iraq: Catch Word for U.S. Imperialism

In an epic Presidential battle for the hearts and minds of all types of Americans, one place, one word sums up much of the nation's angst: Iraq. It has become a symbolic battle which some believe is necessary to expel the marauding Muslim, others see it as a death knell for civility and the values set forth in the U.S. Constitution. But, despite what many may think of the War in Iraq, besides a few peppered acknowledgments and shallow gests of grandstanding, both McCain and Obama refuse to deal with the heart of the issue, and instead use Iraq as a con-game on the American people.

While Obama consistently remarks on his long-time opposition to the War in Iraq, he believes a war and occupation in Afghanistan is a good thing, and that the bombing of civilians' homes and restricting their freedom is necessary. But, apparently, to Obama the freedom of Iraqis are now worth more than the freedom of Afghanis. Thus, is the shame of power politics and the ever-changing standpoints of our so-called "top dogs" to deal with the real issues. At best, Obama has come off as a hypocritical naysayer with peace not at the heart of his agenda.

Similarly, McCain has also railed against unnecessary government spending, but has repeatedly refused to cut excessive and wasteful defense spending. Rather, the wars abroad to him are a necessity for the People, and while he rants against abuse of the taxpayer in the ever stasi fields of education and healthcare, he fails to carry those same principles over to America's most damaging and damning policy, Foreign Policy.

Like the members of the CFR, Trilateral Commission, and Bilderberg Group, these globalists will stop at no costs for political gain with little adherence to values or Constitutional guidelines. Instead, they look forward to plunging the United States into more wars, so that the private military contractors will continue their lucrative adventurism in the Middle East.

Hardly have we mentioned the other countries so deeply tied up and help captive by American policy. These are names of great nations, who once themselves may have had imperial ambitions. These are nations who are major players on the political-financial stage and their names are hallmarks of our own history.

These nations are Germany, Japan, Czech Republic and Poland, South Korea, and Indonesia. Many more are within in their ranks. These are only a few of the 130+ nations in which American military is stationed at over 700 bases.

And while America mindlessly squabbles over "victory" in Iraq, our national wealth and good name are being polluted by the likes of Halliburton and KBR in the heart of Central Europe. The real question is when will the U.S. get out? Isn't time for a more sensible and realistic foreign policy?

My greatest fear is that the answers to these questions will come too late.