UK’s international development minister: global order out of control as Russia 'swaggers'

In a frank assessment of the scale of global disorder rarely offered by a serving government minister, Stewart warned: “The world is getting out of control. You look at that whole arc of what is happening in northern Nigeria, in Mali, in Chad, what is continuing to happen in Libya, the problems that persist in Somalia, not to mention what is happening in Darfur, South Sudan, Yemen, Ukraine, in Iraq, in Syria, you are looking at a real collapse of the multilateral system at a time when the United States is increasingly doubtful about what it can do to solve it.”

...

“That leads to a situation in which things are happening that would have been unimaginable 15 years ago – the Saudis directly intervening in Yemen without the US directly behind them.”
LINK

Is anyone paying attention? This sounds like a red alert to me.

“The world is getting out of control."

"...you are looking at a real collapse of the multilateral system at a time when the United States is increasingly doubtful about what it can do to solve it..."

"...things are happening that would have been unimaginable 15 years ago..."

"You cannot motivate the [U.S.] public in the same way."

“Russia has succeeded within the past few years in completely transforming its global position at a time when you thought it would be at its weakest."

Is he trying to say that it's different this time? Does this sound like a speech warning of imminent collapse of the world order?

I posted the video below already, but I think it bears repeating. The video shows an open discussion in the U.S. Congress about the possibility of WW3. I can't recall that happening in my lifetime.

One of the most astounding things about the video to me is General Joseph Dunford (The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) saying that the decision to go to war with Russia is "a pretty fundamental decision that [he] is not going to make." Isn't that an interesting choice of words? Who would be making that decision? If it were the decision of Obama the supposed "commander in chief", wouldn't Dunford have said that outright?


www.youtube.com...

a reply to: Profusion

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs doesn't have the authority to declare (make the decision to) go to war. Neither does Obama technically, Congress would have to make that decision.

edit:
I believe that's what he was talking about.

and I said technically regarding Obama because the patriot Act provides a pretty large grey area on what constitutes war these days.

a reply to: Profusion

Don't forget India and Pakistan. They're at each others throats right now. Who knows what going to come of that. Nothing I hope.

humans have been at war as far back as written documents of history can go, its nothing new.


glad we inhabit this little island surrounded by near freezing waters.

good luck to anyone swimming it LOL.

my grandfather always told me , its pointless knowing how to swim in the north sea , 15 minutes and hypothermia is going to get you.

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: Profusion

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs doesn't have the authority to declare (make the decision to) go to war. Neither does Obama technically, Congress would have to make that decision.

edit:
I believe that's what he was talking about.

and I said technically regarding Obama because the patriot Act provides a pretty large grey area on what constitutes war these days.

You're trying to claim that declaring war is equal to "making the decision to go to war"?

The U.S. hasn't declared war since 1942. According to your logic, the U.S. hasn't made the decision to go to war since then.

“The world is getting out of control."
"...you are looking at a real collapse of the multilateral system at a time when the United States is increasingly doubtful about what it can do to solve it..."

Is that the reason the US just fronted Iran billions ? And just gave away 1.1 billion to the UN to "fight the Zika virus" . I smell major BS in the making from the UN.
Is it getting close to the time to "duck and cover under the bed" ?
Methinks so.

a reply to: Profusion

I know Gen. Dunford, He takes the constitution seriously.

And going to war with Russia isn't anywhere close to being comparable to the wars we've been in since WWII.

if usa declares war on russia, they will soon find out how much europe sides with russia LOL.

u.s foreign policy is the biggest threat to the world, i wouldnt be surprised if america is turned upon and wiped out.

a reply to: Profusion

You look at that whole arc of what is happening in northern Nigeria, in Mali, in Chad, what is continuing to happen in Libya, the problems that persist in Somalia, not to mention what is happening in Darfur, South Sudan, Yemen, Ukraine, in Iraq, in Syria, you are looking at a real collapse of the multilateral system at a time when the United States is increasingly doubtful about what it can do to solve it.”

...

See all the african countries listed? I think they know exactly what they are doing. It began with the murder of qaddafi and the destruction of libya. He was going to organize the continent into a union of states, make them independent of the world bank, have their own banks, industry and communication satellites.

Now that influence is gone the rest of the continent is wide open for exploitation, as usual. Wanna understand, do what you have to, but watch this one all the way through. Or stay ignorant...

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Profusion

You look at that whole arc of what is happening in northern Nigeria, in Mali, in Chad, what is continuing to happen in Libya, the problems that persist in Somalia, not to mention what is happening in Darfur, South Sudan, Yemen, Ukraine, in Iraq, in Syria, you are looking at a real collapse of the multilateral system at a time when the United States is increasingly doubtful about what it can do to solve it.”

...

See all the african countries listed? I think they know exactly what they are doing. It began with the murder of qaddafi and the destruction of libya. He was going to organize the continent into a union of states, make them independent of the world bank, have their own banks, industry and communication satellites.

Now that influence is gone the rest of the continent is wide open for exploitation, as usual. Wanna understand, do what you have to, but watch this one all the way through. Or stay ignorant...

the reason most of africa is poor is more to do with overbreeding and not enough food, they knowingly have as many kids as possible, usually around 10 per family, most of the children will die before they are teenagers, but thats ok the parents only need a few to go forage for them.

africa is poor because of its dumb population.

The problem with Alex Jones is, while he makes a good point, he likes to dramatize the hell out of it; "OMG We're All Gonna Die!"
He did that with the Y2k bug in 99 and again with Nibiru in 2012.
Luckily he was wrong on all counts, Planet Erf still cranking happily along.
Not all the refugees are fundamentalists, i suspect most of them are economic refugees fleeing to the West for a free handout. Economic warfare, as taught by the CIA, can topple countries just as well as force.
Yes there may be some nutters in there, so we need stringent controls but the EU cops are already stretched to the limit. Another side effect of economic war.

The trend is towards this type of warfare, as practised by the NWO wannabees, so we should be expecting less conventional warfare, not more.
Why can't we have Johnny Anonymous present the news on CNN? at least then it would be worth watching!

a reply to: bigtrousers

africa is poor because of its dumb population.

Africa is resource rich. They are kept poor by the elite power base that controls the worlds central banking system. Thats why they had to destroy Libya, to keep Africa from uniting and becoming independent from the world bank and dominion by colonial powers.

Qaddafi was going to change all that. Thanks for spouting off without watching the embedded video, or this one...

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: bigtrousers

africa is poor because of its dumb population.

Africa is resource rich. They are kept poor by the elite power base that controls the worlds central banking system. Thats why they had to destroy Libya, to keep Africa from uniting and becoming independent from the world bank and dominion by colonial powers.

Qaddafi was going to change all that. Thanks for spouting off without watching the embedded video, or this one...

im taalking more about sub saharan africa, not the north.

look at nigerias independence from britain, i rest my case.

i know qaddafi wanted to trade oil for gold, thats no secret.

this is a finite rock we live on, not everyone gets to win, sooner the left realises this the better we will all be.

a reply to: intrptr

Gadaffi allowed terrorists to train in his country, he even used some of the oil money to sponsor them, peeps like the IRA, Grey Wolves and Islamic terrorists were trained there. He sponsored the Lockerbie bomb.
OK he was Thatchers freind back then so it's obvious he was being set up as a patsy, but he was never a 'good ole boy' as you seem to infer in your post. Same happened to the Shah and Assad, if you watch closely you can see the strings when they move, it's like watching a Thunderbirds episode at times......

a reply to: intrptr

They killed Lawrence for trying to unite the Arabs, what do you expect?

originally posted by: playswithmachines
a reply to: intrptr

They killed Lawrence for trying to unite the Arabs, what do you expect?

Correction, Lawrence of Arabia wanted to unite the arabs under Britain.

I expect more of the same. Look at Syria, the intent to "Libya-ise" that country is well underway, too.

Anyway, the strategic progroms to maintain control over African resources and divide peoples there against each other is not as 'confusing' as we are led to believe it is. The powers that be know exactly what they are doing.

originally posted by: playswithmachines
a reply to: intrptr

Gadaffi allowed terrorists to train in his country, he even used some of the oil money to sponsor them, peeps like the IRA, Grey Wolves and Islamic terrorists were trained there. He sponsored the Lockerbie bomb.
OK he was Thatchers freind back then so it's obvious he was being set up as a patsy, but he was never a 'good ole boy' as you seem to infer in your post. Same happened to the Shah and Assad, if you watch closely you can see the strings when they move, it's like watching a Thunderbirds episode at times......

the shootout with uzi's against the police on uk soil, ahhh the thatcher years lol


the IRA are still selling on that c4 they got from qaddafi, 2 irish chaps caught in south america trying to sell it on.

a reply to: bigtrousers

im talking more about sub saharan africa, not the north.

The goal is to eventually subjugate the entire continent under the one world order banner.

Destroying Libya was a keystone accomplishment for the world banksters in this regard. Thats in the first minute of the first video I embedded.

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: playswithmachines
a reply to: intrptr

They killed Lawrence for trying to unite the Arabs, what do you expect?

Correction, Lawrence of Arabia wanted to unite the arabs under Britain.

I expect more of the same. Look at Syria, the intent to "Libya-ise" that country is well underway, too.

Anyway, the strategic progroms to maintain control over African resources and divide peoples there against each other is not as 'confusing' as we are led to believe it is. The powers that be know exactly what they are doing.

theres an unwritten rule amongst governments not to kill eachothers leaders, it would be too easy to drop special forces into any country and assassinate other countries leaders.

qaddafi didnt have putin on his side, assad does, i believe syria will manage to hold of the u.s/nato aggression with russian aid