Abby Martin Confronts Sec. of State Blinken Over Israeli Murder of Shireen Abu Akleh

In LA for Biden’s ‘Summit of the Americas,’ Secretary of State Antony Blinken spoke about press freedom at a journalism forum. Abby Martin confronted him over US hypocrisy. Featuring commentary from Abby after the event.

How US Aircraft Carriers Defend Themselves When Surrounded


In the 1990s a naval exercise was held between friendly NATO sea powers. During the first exercise a US carrier was sunk by a Dutch submarine without the escorting destroyers and aircraft ever finding or catching it. They simply ignored the outcome and restarted the exercise pretending it never happened. The Dutch submarine captain was berated for going outside of the script. Just saying..
I am wondering how all of the impressive vessels and weapons can combat the new enemy, climate change. We barely even realize we are being attacked. Insidious, slow motion asphyxiation.
the Swedish were able to “sink” an US carrier during exercise 2003, the France 2009 and the Italian 2013, all Nations were able to pass rough the defensiv “Shield” of the carrier fleet!!! that’s why the US has in 2020 chosen to buy an Italian*French frigate as their new ship against submarine and other hazards!!! but i always love this US propaganda machine, never mentioning any failure
0:25 good job hiding that environment friendly smoke
Things like this make me sleep good!!! God bless🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
All good and well, the Germans thought the BISMARK was unsinkable with its heavy steel plating and huge guns, they all have an Achilles heel. Hopefully this will never be tested. I always said aircraft carriers were floating ducks in the water due too their size and slow speed. God bless and protect all those who sail on her.
May God keep America the strong 💪💠🇺🇸🙏💐
 @Anthony Casso  I’m only speculating.. Missiles can travel many times the speed of sound, many times faster than jets. Yes, satellites will pick up a barrage of incoming missiles, and missiles can have many times the explosive power than the largest of cannons on ships, meaning that when they talk about all the bulkheads that can seal off compartments to keep a ship from sinking, a direct hit from a large missile, my guess, would do BIG damage period. Also missiles have their own radar etc. guidance systems as well as pre planned flight maneuvers,, they don’t have to come straight down at a ship, they can spiral, zig zag, whatever. Hard to lock onto with a rapid fire cannon especially when there are another 99 missiles coming in at the same time. The cost of 100 missiles is a fraction of the cost of one of these carriers. Not to mention stealth submarine technology. As mentioned before, satellites can chart the exact location of each and every carrier 24/7. Would not surprise me that for each super carrier we have there is a sub following it.
Isn’t the current naval doctrine of the US and allies at risk given China and Russia’s advances in anti-ship missile warfare, against which the west has little in the way of countermeasures?
Thank god for Uncle Sam. Respect from 🇬🇧
Nothing can inspire you early in the morning like this video. GOD BLESS united States of American for ever…..
Nothing is unsinkable. Japanese thought yamato was invincible.
The best defense is not to send them to combat or don’t start one and waste tax payer’s money!
Thank God I’m an American and we got these things to protect us. 🇺🇸 🦅
+Wild Iron This video is at the level of its outstanding contents. The highhest of the highest. The US is at sea, number one in front of China and Russia and the whole of Europe. A century would not be enough to China to level the US at sea. WONDERFUL, ASTONISHING, IMPRESSIVE AND MARVELLOUS EVERYTHING I SAW IN THIS VIDEO. CONGRATS TO ALL OF YOU WHO TOOK PART ON THIS PROJECT!
People forget that it only takes one nuke to sink a whole fleet
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16 KJV, Jesus Christ is the only way……….
Pride of The Department of War!
These ships, ships, planes, missiles are beautiful from a distance, but these are ambassadors of death, who knows how many children and innocents have been killed by these beautiful weapons? I hate every war and every weapon of war in the whole world, I dream of a world without war and bloodshed and without any weapons of war for humanity

Why The Media Demonizes Leftists

Right-wing propaganda network Newsmax recently interviewed Hungary’s Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade, who spewed terrible anti-LGBTQIA+ rhetoric and defended Hungary’s ban on LGBTQIA+ content in schools. The rhetoric was received with welcome arms and did not face any pushback from the Newsmax host, which points towards a larger issue with U.S. media: sympathy for authoritarians, demonization for leftists.

“Newsmax just mainstreaming Hungary’s horrific anti-LGBTQ law into American TV screens with absolutely zero pushback”

Edward Snowden, Glenn Greenwald & Chris Hedges on NSA Leaks, Assange & Protecting a Free Internet

NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden and Pulitzer Prize-winning journalists Glenn Greenwald and Chris Hedges discuss mass surveillance, government secrecy, Internet freedom and U.S. attempts to extradite and prosecute Wikileaks founder Julian Assange. They spoke together on a panel moderated by Amy Goodman at the virtual War on Terror film festival after a screening of “Citizenfour” — the Oscar-winning documentary about Snowden by Laura Poitras.

Why the war in Iraq was fought for Big Oil

Editor’s Note:Ten years ago, the war in Iraq began. This week, we focus on the people involved in the war and the lives that changed forever. Antonia Juhasz, an oil industry analyst, is author of several books, including “The Bush Agenda” and “The Tyranny of Oil.”

CNN —  

Yes, the Iraq War was a war for oil, and it was a war with winners: Big Oil.

It has been 10 years since Operation Iraqi Freedom’s bombs first landed in Baghdad. And while most of the U.S.-led coalition forces have long since gone, Western oil companies are only getting started.

Before the 2003 invasion, Iraq’s domestic oil industry was fully nationalized and closed to Western oil companies. A decade of war later, it is largely privatized and utterly dominated by foreign firms.


From ExxonMobil and Chevron to BP and Shell, the West’s largest oil companies have set up shop in Iraq. So have a slew of American oil service companies, including Halliburton, the Texas-based firm Dick Cheney ran before becoming George W. Bush’s running mate in 2000.

The war is the one and only reason for this long sought and newly acquired access.

Full coverage: The Iraq War, 10 years on

Oil was not the only goal of the Iraq War, but it was certainly the central one, as top U.S. military and political figures have attested to in the years following the invasion.

“Of course it’s about oil; we can’t really deny that,” said Gen. John Abizaid, former head of U.S. Central Command and Military Operations in Iraq, in 2007. Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan agreed, writing in his memoir, “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.” Then-Sen. and now Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said the same in 2007: “People say we’re not fighting for oil. Of course we are.”

For the first time in about 30 years, Western oil companies are exploring for and producing oil in Iraq from some of the world’s largest oil fields and reaping enormous profit. And while the U.S. has also maintained a fairly consistent level of Iraq oil imports since the invasion, the benefits are not finding their way through Iraq’s economy or society.

These outcomes were by design, the result of a decade of U.S. government and oil company pressure. In 1998, Kenneth Derr, then CEO of Chevron, said, “Iraq possesses huge reserves of oil and gas-reserves I’d love Chevron to have access to.” Today it does.

Exclusive: Hans Blix on ‘terrible mistake’ in Iraq

In 2000, Big Oil, including Exxon, Chevron, BP and Shell, spent more money to get fellow oilmen Bush and Cheney into office than they had spent on any previous election. Just over a week into Bush’s first term, their efforts paid off when the National Energy Policy Development Group, chaired by Cheney, was formed, bringing the administration and the oil companies together to plot our collective energy future. In March, the task force reviewed lists and maps outlining Iraq’s entire oil productive capacity.

Planning for a military invasion was soon under way. Bush’s first Treasury secretary, Paul O’Neill, said in 2004, “Already by February (2001), the talk was mostly about logistics. Not the why (to invade Iraq), but the how and how quickly.”

In its final report in May 2001 (PDF), the task force argued that Middle Eastern countries should be urged “to open up areas of their energy sectors to foreign investment.” This is precisely what has been achieved in Iraq.

Here’s how they did it.

The State Department Future of Iraq Project’s Oil and Energy Working Group met from February 2002 to April 2003 and agreed that Iraq “should be opened to international oil companies as quickly as possible after the war.”

Arwa Damon: Iraq suffocates in cloak of sorrow

The list of the group’s members was not made public, but Ibrahim Bahr al-Uloum – who was appointed Iraq’s oil minister by the U.S. occupation government in September 2003 – was part of the group, according to Greg Muttitt, a journalist and author of “Fuel on the Fire: Oil and Politics in Occupied Iraq.” Bahr al-Uloum promptly set about trying to implement the group’s objectives.

At the same time, representatives from ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips and Halliburton, among others, met with Cheney’s staff in January 2003 to discuss plans for Iraq’s postwar industry. For the next decade, former and current executives of western oil companies acted first as administrators of Iraq’s oil ministry and then as “advisers” to the Iraqi government.

Before the invasion, there were just two things standing in the way of Western oil companies operating in Iraq: Saddam Hussein and the nation’s legal system. The invasion dealt handily with Hussein. To address the latter problem, some both inside and outside of the Bush administration argued that it should simply change Iraq’s oil laws through the U.S.-led coalition government of Iraq, which ran the country from April 2003 to June 2004. Instead the White House waited, choosing to pressure the newly elected Iraqi government to pass new oil legislation itself.

Did Iraq give birth to the Arab Spring?

This Iraq Hydrocarbons Law, partially drafted by the Western oil industry, would lock the nation into private foreign investment under the most corporate-friendly terms. The Bush administration pushed the Iraqi government both publicly and privately to pass the law. And in January 2007, as the ”surge” of 20,000 additional American troops was being finalized, the president set specific benchmarks for the Iraqi government, including the passage of new oil legislation to “promote investment, national unity, and reconciliation.”

But due to enormous public opposition and a recalcitrant parliament, the central Iraqi government has failed to pass the Hydrocarbons Law. Usama al-Nujeyfi, a member of the parliamentary energy committee, even quit in protest over the law, saying it would cede too much control to global companies and “ruin the country’s future.”

In 2008, with the likelihood of the law’s passage and the prospect of continued foreign military occupation dimming as elections loomed in the U.S. and Iraq, the oil companies settled on a different track.

Bypassing parliament, the firms started signing contracts that provide all of the access and most of the favorable treatment the Hydrocarbons Law would provide – and the Bush administration helped draft the model contracts.

Why women are less free after Iraq War

Upon leaving office, Bush and Obama administration officials have even worked for oil companies as advisers on their Iraq endeavors. For example, former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad’s companyCMX-Gryphon, “provides international oil companies and multinationals with unparalleled access, insight and knowledge on Iraq.”

The new contracts lack the security a new legal structure would grant, and Iraqi lawmakers have argued that they run contrary to existing law, which requires government control, operation and ownership of Iraq’s oil sector.

But the contracts do achieve the key goal of the Cheney energy task force: all but privatizing the Iraqi oil sector and opening it to private foreign companies.

They also provide exceptionally long contract terms and high ownership stakes and eliminate requirements that Iraq’s oil stay in Iraq, that companies invest earnings in the local economy or hire a majority of local workers.

Iraq’s oil production has increased by more than 40% in the past five years to 3 million barrels of oil a day (still below the 1979 high of 3.5 million set by Iraq’s state-owned companies), but a full 80% of this is being exported out of the country while Iraqis struggle to meet basic energy consumption needs. GDP per capita has increased significantly yet remains among the lowest in the world and well below some of Iraq’s other oil-rich neighbors. Basic services such as water and electricity remain luxuries, while 25% of the population lives in poverty.

Share your story of the Iraq War

The promise of new energy-related jobs across the country has yet to materialize. The oil and gas sectors today account directly for less than 2% of total employment, as foreign companies rely instead on imported labor.

In just the last few weeks, more than 1,000 people have protested at ExxonMobil and Russia Lukoil’s super-giant West Qurna oil field, demanding jobs and payment for private land that has been lost or damaged by oil operations. The Iraqi military was called in to respond.

Fed up with the firms, a leading coalition of Iraqi civil society groups and trade unions, including oil workers, declared on February 15 that international oil companies have “taken the place of foreign troops in compromising Iraqi sovereignty” and should “set a timetable for withdrawal.”

Closer to home, at a protest at Chevron’s Houston headquarters in 2010, former U.S. Army Military Intelligence officer Thomas Buonomo, member of Iraq Veterans Against the War, held up a sign that read, Dear Chevron: Thank you for dishonoring our service” (PDF).

Yes, the Iraq War was a war for oil, and it was a war with losers: the Iraqi people and all those who spilled and lost blood so that Big Oil could come out ahead.

US Military Empire divides the world into Zones

Let’s do some back of the envelop calculation.

China is 18 percent of humanity. It is responsible for 12 percent of global defense spending.

The United States is 4 percent of humanity. It is responsible for 40 percent of global defense spending.

Put another way, the average American spends 15x as much as the average Chinese on the military.

China pleads no contest. It is not playing in the same sandbox as America.

In fact, no one else has the bombastic capability to define national security as the known world.

In korea, one american died in exchange for 30 commie lives.

In Vietnam, one american died in exchange for 18 commie lives.

Napalm as a wmd saw widespread application in korea, while agent orange made its entrance in Vietnam, along with more napalm. MacArthur even threatened China with nuclear devastation.

Enemy commies (including civilians) were slaughtered and maimed in the most inhumane ways in both wars.

China says, never again.

Commies are human too. If we ever step into the ring again, we will not be the flyweight unable to land punches on the heavyweight because the reach is too short.

China considers arms a waste of economic resource. That is why it has a small nuclear arsenal. But it has spent decades patiently upgrading the range and accuracy of its conventional arms when it could afford to, and prevent a repeat of Korea.

American leaders must be convinced that if they choose to make the Chinese bleed on the battlefield, Americans will bleed like pigs too. The odds will not be skewed in their favor anymore, because the Chinese pack just as mean a punch.

Will America go to war or risk war at 1:1 or 1:2 casualty odds?

China’s “arms race” is nothing more than an exercise in deterring the enemy at the gates from thinking they are facing goat herders.

In other words, practicing Sun Tzu’s highest form of warfare.


The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.

Note: China is putting a stop to American hegemony in and around China, and not threatening American sovereignty across the pacific.