Wednesday, 3 June 2015

Which bit of denuded of wealth don't these clowns get?

By the 4th century AD all the gold in the Roman empire had been sucked out and sent East by fake money changers. Sound familiar. Go on then smart asses go build anything other than what Rock/Roth will allow you.

Decrepit unfit for any purpose old failed magicians and fake swordswallowers that are way beyond their Soylent Green date.

The battle of Adrianople was the beginning of the end for the Roman empire. This battle was fought between Roman emperor Valens and the Goths on August 9, AD 378. It took place ten miles outside the city of Adrianople, which is now the city of Edirne, Turkey. This critical battle also established the dominance of cavalry over infantry for the next thousand years. (Eggenberger; 4)

Initially, the Roman Eastern emperor, Valens, allowed the Visigoths to settle south of the Danube near Thrace, for the Huns had invaded their land. The terms of the agreement stipulated that the Visigoths were to surrender their weapons and also their male children as hostages, but the Visigoths only gave up their children. Ostrogoths also migrated into Roman territory, and conflict with the Romans gave way to open fighting. (Bunson; 4)

Valens decided to march from Constantinople to attack the Goths. He was unwilling to wait for aid from Gratian, the Roman emperor of the West. Before the battle began, the 20,000 men of the Roman cavalry and the 40,000 men of the Roman infantry outnumbered the 50,000 Gothic foot soldiers. Valens attacked the Goths at an opportune time: while their cavalry was away on raids. (Bunson; 4) At the outset, the skilled Roman legions and cavalry seemed to have the battle well in hand, but suddenly the Gothic cavalry, numbering 50,000, returned. The Roman army was overpowered and their cavalry was quickly routed, which left the Roman foot soldiers defenseless to the attacks of the Gothic horsemen. The Roman army was crushed. Roman casualties numbered 40,000, including Valens. After the Goths crushed the Romans, they attempted to take the city of Adrianople, but could not penetrate its walls. (Dupoy; 157)

After the battle of Adrianople, the barbarians knew that they could be victorious in Roman territory. The new Eastern emperor, Theodosius I (the Great), was able to negotiate an unstable peace with the Goths, but it was not to last. The battle of Adrianople was the worst defeat the Romans had suffered since the German victory in AD 9 at Teutoburger Wald. St. Ambrose called the battle of Adrianople, "the end of all humanity, the end of the world." (Bunson; 4)

The Renaissance of the West (I)
(Own report) - German foreign policy experts are calling for a "renaissance" of the transatlantic alliance to defend Western global hegemony. According to the strategy paper written by two German authors, published recently by the think tank of the European People's Party (EPP), the EU must strengthen its cooperation with the United States in spite of certain controversies. The experts write that the "global liberal order," which had secured a global hegemony for Western countries since the end of the Cold War, can only be maintained if Europe and North America enhance their economic, political, and military cooperation. All efforts aimed at improving cooperation with Russia should be halted. To enhance influence, the focus should, instead, be shifted to engaging NGOs and East European religious communities in pro-western activities. A new consensus within the EU must be established and pro-Russian "disinformation" must be systematically "exposed." One of the authors even calls for the nuclear rearmament of Europe, claiming "we" must be "willing to go to war."

"Islamism, Russia, China"
In a strategy paper, published by the "Wilfried Martens Centre for European Studies," German authors are calling for a "renaissance of the West." They write that, the transatlantic alliance must be enhanced if the "global liberal order" is to be permanently maintained - meaning the practically uncontested global hegemony of the West throughout the two decades following the Cold War. This "liberal world order" allowed "Europeans to live more safely, more freely and in most cases more prosperously than in any time of their history," according to the paper.[1]. However, the "liberal world order" is now facing new "challenges." The authors explicitly point to Islamist tendencies, Russia and a China, growing in strength, against which the West must become more consolidated. The paper does not conceal controversies, which have arisen over the past few years between the EU and the United States, i.e. on issues of Middle East policy (Iraq War 2003) or disenchantment over the NSA's dragnet espionage.[2] However, confronted with external threats, these controversies must be placed on the back burner. The authors make a plea for enhancing cooperation in the political, economic (TTIP), and military (NATO) fields. The confrontation with "Putin's Russia" could help accelerate the EU's much-needed cohesion.

Against Moscow
Hence, the strategy paper particularly underlines proposals for concrete measures in confrontation with Russia. All attempts to enhance cooperation with Moscow must be halted, not least in view of Germany's efforts - particularly in the first decade of 2000 - to strengthen its own position in relation to the USA by a certain degree of cooperation with Russia. ( reported.[3]) To reduce dependence on Russian energy supplies, the authors call for increasing oil and natural gas deliveries from Western sources - particularly the USA - as well as comprehensive exploitation of shale gas within the EU. The EU should also enhance cooperation with Russia's immediate neighbors, particularly Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia, which are accessible to becoming an associate of the EU. The EU should not only provide economic assistance, but military aid as well, to reinforce their ties to the West.

NGOs and Churches
The authors also propose various measures aimed at Russia and its East European allies (for example Belarus). In the future, "Eastern Partnership" [4] should "focus much more on civil society." The EU must work more intensively "with NGOs, political organizations, independent media and other civil society actors" and "religious communities," in Eastern Europe.[5] New forces, "truly interested in [pro-western,] transformation," could be groomed "only through intensive ties to operatives among the elite, who are not directly involved in state activities." This would strengthen the German use of organizations, such as party-affiliated foundations, to obtain influence in certain circles of foreign populations and draw them into the service of German foreign policy.

Creating an EU Consensus
Inversely, the authors promote measures to weaken - and if possible obliterate - the opposition to the EU's anti-Russian aggression. For example, "think tanks, consultants and NGOs with financial ties to Russian institutions can be taken to task in analyses, and through public debates." At the same time, "disinformation by Russian media and their allies in EU member states" should be "exposed." Furthermore, "civil society in the EU itself has to become better organized" - for example with the support of "networks of political parties, think tanks, NGOs and individuals," which "will carry the main burden of responding" to the alleged "Russian disinformation."[6] Hence, the strategy paper explicitly proposes the creation of an EU consensus conforming to state interests and the isolation - and possibly even exclusion - of domestic opposition.

Ready to Go to War
The authors are also pleading for extensive war preparations. EU member countries' territorial defense capacities and NATO's ability to intervene beyond its borders should be enhanced. Besides creating new structures, such as the 'spearhead' rapid response force,[7] NATO should begin "permanent redeployments of units, including ground troops closer to the eastern border of the alliance."[8] This would be a complete breach of the NATO-Russia Founding Act and be considered by Moscow as a serious provocation. The risk of an uncontrolled escalation of the conflict would be significantly increased - an acceptable risk, according to co-author Roland Freudenstein. At a meeting of the European People's Party (EPP) a few days ago, Freudenstein declared, "we have to make clear that yes, we are willing to go to war, for what we consider existential principles of Europe’s future." However, the disadvantage is that "nuclear deterrence by NATO consists of 20 rusting free-fall bombs, of the B-61 type, that can be wiped out with one strike of the Russian forces," and Freudenstein added, "these are things we have to change."[9]

Strategic Decisions
Freudenstein has worked for the German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP), the CDU affiliated Konrad Adenauer Foundation and the foreign policy planning staff of the European Commission. His co-author Ulrich Speck regularly publishes in the DGAP journal "Internationale Politik." At present, Freudenstein is Deputy Director and Head of Research of the Martens Center for European Studies, which published the strategy paper "The Renaissance of the West." Currently, the Martens Center has 29 member foundations in 22 EU and non-EU countries, including the Konrad-Adenauer Foundation and the Hanns Seidel Foundation (CSU). Former President of the European Parliament, Hans-Gert Pöttering, represents the CDU on the Center's Executive Board. The Martens Centre, a think tank of the EPP, makes strategic decisions for the development of conservative parties throughout Europe.

The Renaissance of the West (II)
(Own report) - German military experts have initiated a debate on NATO's nuclear rearmament. The Western war alliance has "become more important" through the Ukraine crisis, wrote a high-ranking specialist of the Federal Academy for Security Policy (BAKS) in Berlin in a recently published discussion paper. In this context, "nuclear deterrence" must again become a topic of discussion. The "entire deterrence package" must put be on the agenda, not only nuclear arms in general, but also Europe-based US nuclear weapons - not least of all, those stored in Germany. Beyond the threat of nuclear war, the danger of a further barbarization of future wars is looming in the wake of the regeneration of the West. A former head of the Policy Planning Staff of the German Defense Ministry is proposing that Berlin consider procuring depleted uranium munitions for the Bundeswehr to combat Russian tanks. Depleted uranium is extremely destructive, even after their battlefield use. In Iraq for example, where NATO countries used these weapons, vast areas are contaminated still today.

Nuclear Rearmament
Karl-Heinz Kamp, former Research Director at the NATO Defense College in Rom (2009 -2013) and since 2013 academic director of the Federal Academy for Security Policy (BAKS) in Berlin has launched the debate on nuclear rearmament. He introduced his theses in the recent issue of "Internationale Politik," a journal published by the German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP) aimed at a broader public.

The Future of Deterrence
According to Kamp, Russia has "not only modernized its conventional armed forces, since the Georgia war in 2008, but it also upgraded its nuclear arsenal."[1] Russia considers its nuclear potential to be "compensation for the lack of conventional forces comparable to those of NATO, which has become more powerful through its acquisition of former Warsaw Pact members." In fact, Moscow sees its nuclear arsenal as deterrence against possible aggression by a NATO that has expanded and steadily upgraded its arsenals. Kamp explicitly reaffirms that Russian President Vladimir Putin had repeatedly warned that "the West should not forget that Russia is a nuclear power." This expert at the Federal Academy for Security Policy has now declared that due to the bloody escalation of the power struggle over Ukraine, "NATO's traditional self-defense role has become more important." In this context, the question of "how to insure the future credibility of nuclear deterrence must to be raised."

Steadfast Noon
Threatening a nuclear strike has always been an integral part of NATO's war scenarios - including dropping Europe-based nuclear bombs, some based also in Germany. NATO regularly holds "Steadfast Noon" maneuvers to train for nuclear attacks, the latest, in October 2014 - with German participation. Within the "Steadfast Noon" framework, NATO is "training for the use of Europe-based US nuclear arms, within the context of nuclear sharing," explained the German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP) late last year.[2] "Steadfast Noon" had not been the NATO countries' only nuclear war exercise last year. ( reported.[3]) Already several years ago, plans were made to modernize the Europe-based nuclear weapons and secure the fleet of combat aircraft capable of dropping them. The renovation of the B61 atomic bombs began already in 2012 - at a cost of US $25 million each.[4] The same year, a spokesperson for the German Defense Ministry announced that Tornado combat jets, which could deliver and drop these bombs would be operational at the Büchel nuclear base (in the German Eifel) beyond 2015 - the year the bombs had originally been scheduled to be decommissioned.[5] "Currently; the American Europe-based B61 bombs have been technically overhauled and some of their components have been updated to current technological standards," confirmed Kamp.[6]

Nuclear Frontlines
"In the long run, NATO will not be able to avoid" initiating a new debate on nuclear weapons, continues the expert at the Federal Academy for Security Policy, using the new Cold War as a pretext. "Much more than the Europe-based American nuclear bombs" will have to be discussed. "Since the conflict with Russia is not just a bad-weather front but a fundamental climate change, the whole deterrence package must be placed in a new context."[7] This includes "NATO's conventional capabilities" - for example, the creation of NATO's "spearhead" rapid response force, in which Germany has played a decisive role,[8] but also "the nuclear weapons (both in Europe and the USA)." The nuclear frontlines, which have significantly lost their importance since 1990, but have never been completely dismantled, would therefore be fully reestablished.

Uranium Munitions
Other than the threat of a nuclear war, the looming threat of further barbarization of future wars - even conventional - comes in the wake of this Western regeneration. In late April, the former Head of the German Defense Ministry's Policy Planning Staff, Hans Rühle, publically demanded that the Bundeswehr procure depleted uranium munitions. Rühle wrote that DM63, "tungsten-based anti-tank fléchette munitions," currently available to German leopard-2 tanks, to combat enemy tanks, are "ineffective for penetrating the armor of the newer versions of (Russian - T80 and T90 tanks."[9] This is "all the more the case for the Russian Armata battle tank due to be operational in 2020." The problem is well-known. It had been comprehensively discussed back in the 1980s, when Rühle was head of the Planning Staff at the German Defense Ministry. There is but one solution, which was rejected in the 80s, because of the strength of the peace movement: The Bundeswehr must be "equipped with depleted uranium-based fléchette munitions as soon as possible." Their penetrating power is sufficient to destroy any kind of Russian tank.

Contaminated Land
Using the example of Iraq, a recently televised documentary of the Bavarian Broadcasting Company (Bayerischen Rundfunk - BR) exposed the consequences of using uranium munitions. According to the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) estimations, up to 2,000 tons of depleted uranium munitions had been fired on Iraq during the 1991 and 2003 wars. Vast areas, particularly in the south of the country are today contaminated. The BR documentary film ("Leiser Tod im Garten Eden" or "Quiet Death in the Garden of Eden") describes the dramatic "increase in the number of cases of cancer, stillbirths and horrible congenital deformities" in those areas of Southern Iraq.[10] Scholarly studies trace the causes to radiation from debris caused by depleted uranium munitions, whose acquisition is now being demanded by German military policymakers.

The name of the Teutoburg Forest in Germany will forever be connected to one of the most famous battles from ancient history, the clades Variana, the defeat of the Roman general Varus. In September 9 CE, a coalition of Germanic tribes, led by a nobleman named Arminius, defeated the Seventeenth, Eighteenth, and Nineteenth legions and forced their commander Publius Quintilius Varus to commit suicide. The result of the battle was that Germania remained independent and was never included in the Roman empire. 
In the nineteenth century, the battle became a powerful national symbol. In 1806, the French army of Napoleon Bonaparte decisively beat the armies of the German states. The humiliation was too big for the Germans, who started to look to the battle in the Teutoburg Forest as their finest hour. As Napoleon spoke a romanic language and presented himself as a Roman emperor, it was easy for the Germans to remind each other that they had once before defeated the welschen Erbfeind - an untranslatable expression that refers to the Latin speaking archenemies of Germany. The Teutoburg Forest became the symbol of the eternal opposition between the overcivilised and decadent Latin and the creative and vital Germanic people, between old France and new Germany.