Thursday, August 11, 2016

Iran's Influence in Iraq

Iran is playing a major role in Iraq, but many people fear its influence, and question their intent. Iran is building its nuclear program, also, but the question remains whether Iran will use their nuclear capacity entirely for peaceful purposes, as they claim.

As the ripples of effects from the Grand Lie to justify the Iraq War go out, and the United States lost power as the result, some world leaders started to jockey for power to see who will be the next superpower. The battles started as they took their power games one step lower. Mankind has three choices, up, down or straight ahead. The battle over the plan for the international government has progressed.

The conflict in Iraq devolved as a genocide, and mankind is facing the worst case scenario of a global genocide, no one knows who to trust anyone. Genocides are based on weaving an illusion, and the truth does not overcome the lie. As the ripples of effects continue to go out, the illusion continues to degrade even the existing institutions. The plan for the international government must solve all the problems, including what to do about "rogue nations" like Iran.

The dialogue has been opened between the United States and Iran--and also Cuba, and potentially with Venezuela and North Korea. Their leaders are aware of the plan and like it because it allows them to become equal to the United States. The plan allows all the nations to be considered equal, which is not possible under the existing international structure.

But, the Battles of Armageddon are progressing, also, where when one person stands on the principles--just as when Saddam Hussein stood up to protest that the U.N. sanctions had killed 500,000 Iraqi children--and that choice affects another's security and support, who then goes down into the power games of revenge. No one knows who to trust. If someone offers to make a win-win agreement or a treaty or a trade agreement, does that individual or nation have the right to do so? Can he or she follow through on the deal?

Rather than to go into those nations to affect change to a more democratic system, the solution is to allow all the nations to stand back and to watch the United States make our own changes and to demonstrate our intent. Our Conflict Resolution brochures say that to end conflict, you can do a "1-2-3" by declaring you are going to go create the life you want, you do it, and then you invite the other person to come in. That allows the other nations to be drawn into the plan.

As we learned with the principles of the Exit Strategy for Iraq proposal, true power does not come from having a greater military, or from having a coalition of nations on your side, or from having a strong economy, but from assuming responsibility to undo the damage you and others have done.

As the proposals are introduced and opened to debate, the focus will continue to shift from one nation to the next, and mankind will address the principles of each proposal. The first principle is about power, and having a plan, and whether the plan is in everyone's best interest. It is about where true power comes from, and that there is always a backlash to the power games because they do against Universal Law.

Iran is a technological nation. It is possible to back them into the corner, but done in such a way that it offers them the opportunity to function on a higher level--to be part of a plan that benefits everyone. Our organization is introducing three innovative inventions that offer free power, but they can only be used for peaceful purposes.

Our plan for world peace spins off the technology segment, and our first focus is on technology review. Before new technology is introduced and produced, are there any objections to the plan?
There are no objections to a plan if everyone is involved with its creation, and if a nation or culture is not ready to accept the plan, it should be postponed until everyone is ready. Until all the cultural prohibitions and fears about it are resolved.

Taking one step back, rather than to consider technology to be innovative gadgets that make life more interesting and hopefully easier, let's consider technology to be a plan to overcome some problem, and so the first plan is for the proposed international government. What are the objections? Does it address the root cause of the problem or make it worse? Can it pass cultural review? Today there are people in 85 nations, including Muslim nations, that support the plan for the international government. Is that sufficient to prove that it functions on a higher level than the existing international structure?

If Iran is planning to use their nuclear power to destroy other nations, they will face the backlashes from Universal Law, and destroy their own opportunity to be equal to the United States. Are they willing to do that?

Under the plan for the international government, no nation or world leader will go into another nation and attempt to force an agenda. It will be the responsibility of the international government to handle disputes. The branches and departments, including the judicial system, will handle the issues. This will give each nation the opportunity to turn inside of themselves to encourage their people to prosper.