I Do Not Name My Chess Pieces

Lame Cherry

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 2008

I Do Not Name My Chess Pieces

I often reach a point each day when I observe some very intelligent people whom I find amusing, engaging and in most cases well informed, to eventually hear them state something which leaves me shaking my head in consternation in wondering how they missed "that".

While the American world is currently occupied with what to do with an unemployed messiah, the real world has been playing out a scenario sucking at least the Eurasians into a world war.
All I have heard have either missed this or have concluded this in terms of "American defeat", "Russian victory", "Georgian disaster" to making it more personal in terms of known leaders like Putin, Brzezinski, Bush or Cheney, I would like to ask the pressing of questions:
When have your ever known any world leader to just give up?



Perhaps it is because the majority of commentators have never been in places within themselves where they have never had to face there will not be a tomorrow. By this, I explain, unless one has been to death and had to fight for their life in quantities of time where it was months of the struggle where the weak simply died, perhaps one can only view situations in a one dimensional field of win or loss when the board is one of striking to strike and even in losses utilizing that against the enemy in their win as their defeat.

I have no information on people who comment if they actually play chess which they often quote in dealing with Brzezinski as he used the phrase in nation against nation struggle. I do conclude though from the majority of shortsighted comments though that they have no idea of chess, real world chess or how this game is continually played on the battlefield.

I do not name my chess pieces, and perhaps, that is the situation which clouds so many minds as they are looking at nations, people and events as nations, people and events when all they are are strategy, pieces and gambits.

Observe the field on the simplest of terms. Russia has moved it's pawns forward into Georgia, Syria, the Caspian Basin.
It's Black Sea Fleet now sits in Syria in inferior ports and it has been flushed to an exposed position from the Black Sea.

One has to view this in military terms, and the explanation will based in American terms as I prefer to live under a bad American system hoping for redemption of the Republic than under a good Bolshevik system hoping to become a Soviet.
Some might view the Russians moving into Syria as a loss for America and Brzezinski, but they will not accept it as a loss and keep moving pieces for a victory.

To explain this in American terms, would one consider it an American victory if Hawaiians kicked the US Navy out of Pearl Harbor with Russian and Chinese ships moving in the Hawaiian waters where America has to port it's ships in Taiwan contained by the Chinese Navy?

It is far worse for the Russians in the Mediterranean as the Russians are facing a now 3 year old Bush policy he enacted in a State of the Union address.
George Bush announced then he was moving away from Rockefeller oil for American money exchange policy. He announced America was getting out of the Middle East. I will repeat that again for those looking at Russian advances as losses for America. This was Bush policy he informed the world of years ago.

America initiated a policy hidden from the public discussion and except commented on here that no one comprehends as it is military policy to get America out of Islamocommunist nuclear warhead theaters which means the Persians of Iran.

Where has America gone?

It went to massive nuclear proof forward fire bases in the Middle East.

Unnoticed in this, America has heavily been moving in the Bush policy out of the Middle East and into North Africa where stable governments are the fire base from which America will operate from in a Eurasian war exactly as occurred in World War II.
If China and Russia want Robert Mugabe and the majority of Marxist black effort taxing their extended empires, then they can expel resources as the United States has been moving to fire base positions for an upcoming war.
The entire Mediterranean is now a contained pond Russian ships will die in like the Italian Navy did in WW II.

On the opposite end of the Middle East there are hints with the removal of President Musharraf that a policy I advocated here first.

I ask the question why would the United States abandon a leader who had been a positive ally in most cases?

I will answer with a question. If this entire Middle East situational mess is from Russian agents selling Persians nuclear warheads, which Clinton then armed Saudi Arabia and Pakistan with their own nuclear program, would it not make policy sense to lure Russia and China into a Middle East they were attempting to nuclear pollute which would collapse the world economy leaving them as the economic blackmailers and flip the switch as it was Islamocommunist Dr. Khan of Pakistan who has been building bombs for everyone with a banking account?

In military terms, when one draws in the enemy to your center and then on each flank like the horns of a cape buffalo smashes the exposed advancing enemy, this is a pincer movement.
View the entire Pan Arab world from Morocco to Pakistan as a giant boss of cape buffalo horns and the center is the Middle East.

The last key piece in this as the Russians and Chinese were listening to their FSB, GRU and leftists chattering in America and Europe about Iraq was the United States lining up Libyan support, so there is no place for the Russian fleet to run nor invade in Africa.
Gibraltar is the western door, the Suez the plug. In the east, the Pushtan is open season and why would the west want a new man in Pakistan?
Perhaps the answer is Musharraf helped create the terrorist cesspool which Obama and Clinton were talking about nuking and would do little to solve that problem.

Pakistan is positioning for a nuclear strike being held responsible for this Dr. Khan problem. This policy as Pakistan is under direct revolutionary threat from the Persians could equate a nuclear strike from Pakistan on Iran.
Zawahiri was fuming about Iran as of late dealing with the Americans which means the Bush White House in deals.
So what is more of interest in policy for the United States? America hitting Iran or Pakistan hitting Iran while America is holding the Persian's hands the same way Sarkozy of France is holding the Russian's hands?

When the object is to keep America from dealing with a nuclear attack on American cities from a retaliatory nuclear strike on the Persians, Pakistan as an option solving the problems it created appears someone has been formulating policy which is workable.

Never loose sight of the board. If there is one policy, there are 3 more behind it, 7 more contingency plans and a dozen other options and gambits working to back it up and move to a new policy if necessary.

Missiles in Poland, US frigates in the Black Sea, none of which alarms Europe or the world in the least.
Russian nuclear bombers in Cuba, Russian ships showing up in Norway, Syria ports and now playing tag with Hugo Chavez in Venezuela gets the attention of the entire world like a flare in the face.

There are always reams of propaganda around the world, but the populace knows America has never kept an inch of Eurasian land. Russia and China both have and are in South Ossetia and pointing missiles at Taiwan.

The board has the Russian, Chinese and Islamocommunits in jeopardy from everything from oil prices, economics, propaganda and the most vital of issues of staging positions where the Eurasians are over extended and the Americans are in position to absorb, contain and when the attack is thwarted to carry through a crushing counter attack.

The Americans in the White House have pulled this out Europe and the populated areas of Egypt and engaged this in the Middle East. It does not matter if Brzezinski was wrong on turning Iran and Syria or if it was one of the gambits drawing the Russians in as they willingly desire to expand.
All that matters is America has leveraged Libya with the French laying the groundwork last year.

The war will be fought in speed, movable airfields on land bases and defensive missile systems as the day of the ship and massive armoured columns is done.

The field has been prepared as was noted here that George Bush was fighting a war 10 years in America's future 7 years ago. The Russians are out of position and there is nothing they can do that they would not do in striking at Europe or American bases, so there is no assistance provided them.
People need to understand this battlefield though so as to provide informed commentary as events transpire and the discussion does not revert to the idiotic "neocon" slur and other antiquated terms.
Dick Cheney led this, George Bush implemented it and Condi Rice installed it while no one noticed.

It is historically sound policy and while Barack Obama is running ads slamming John McCain that he will implement Bush policy, this is one that definitely Senator McCain and Gov. Palin will adhere to and is so far over Obama's head and not even considered by Brzezinski.

It is why though I never name my chess pieces. Names cloud judgment and get in they way of seeing the field.
The two antagonists in Brzezinski and Putin have been outmaneuvered by the American protagonists.